PROJECT REPORT (MCOP-01)

On
A STUDY ON ATTITUDES OF CONSUMERS TOWARDS
CONSUMERISM, GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS AND
CONSUMER RESPONSIBILITIES WITH RESPECT TO
DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES

Under the supervision of

MR. ANTIL SETHI

PROJECT REPORT SUBMITTED TO

INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT
FOR THE AWARD OF THE

MASTERS OF COMMERCE

SUBMITTED BY : SEEMA RANI

ENROLMENT NO : 2351135357
REGIONAL CENTRE : 07-DELHI 1
STUDY CENTRE : (07191) ACHARYA NARENDRA
DEV
COLLEGE
 Annexure II

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY

This is to certify that the project titled “A STUDY ON ATTITUDES OF

CONSUMERS TOWARDS CONSUMERISM, GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS

AND CONSUMER RESPONSIBILITIES WITH RESPECT TO DEMOGRAPHIC

VARIABLES” is an original work of the student and is being submitted in partial

fulfillment for the award of the “MASTER OF COMMERCE” of Indira Gandhi

National Open University. This report has not been submitted earlier either to this

University or to any other University/Institution for the fulfillment of the requirement of

a course of study.

_________________________ _______________________
SIGNATURE OF SUPERVISOR SIGNATURE OF STUDENT
Date: Date:

Place: Place:
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I wish to express my gratitude to honorable project guide MR ANTIL SETHI for my

thesis on “A STUDY ON ATTITUDES OF CONSUMERS TOWARDS

CONSUMERISM, GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS AND CONSUMER

RESPONSIBILITIES WITH RESPECT TO DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES”.

Because of his guidance only, the project work has been meaningfully accomplished. He

has always extended Valuable advices and suggestions during the thesis and has always

proved to be a source of inspiration for me.

Also I would also acknowledge my heartfelt gratitude to my friends for their excellent

efforts and encouragements, which has been provided to me throughout the project work.

BY

SEEMA RANI

ENROLMENT: 2351135357
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

SYNOPSIS APPROVAL (Annexure I) ………………………………….i

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY (Annexure II)
……………………..ii
COPY OF EVALUATION FEE …………………………………………iii
BIO DATA OF GUIDE …………………………………………………. iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENT ……………………………………………… v
COPY OF SYNOPSIS ………………………………………………….vi

PROJECT REPORT 1-66

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION……………………………………. 1-7

Rationale of theStudy…………………………………………………5

Objectives of the Study………………………………………………..6

Hypotheses of the Study………………………………………………7

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………..8-17

Introduction…………………………………………………………. 8

Consumers Attitude Towards Consumerism…………………………14

Consumers Attitude Towards Government Regulations……………..15

Consumers Attitude Towards Consumer Responsibilities……………17

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY……………………18-20

Research Methodology……………………………………………...18

Sample size, Data collection tool and Method of statistical analysis..20

CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION…….21-51

Consumers Attitude Towards Consumerism Across Demographic

Variables (Table 4.1 to Table 4.8)
………………………………………………………….23-30

Consumers Attitude Towards Government Regulations Across

Demographic Variables (Table 4.9 to Table
4.16)...........................................................31-40

Consumers Attitude Towards Consumer Responsibilities Across

Demographic Variables (Table 4.17 to Table 4.24).........................................41-51

CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS…….52-

54

Major Findings………………………………………………………..52

Conclusions…………………………………………………………. 54
IMPLICATIONS………………………………………………………55-
56

BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………..57-62

QUESTIONNAIRE……………………………………………………63-65

ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………66
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

With availability of wide variety of products and ample choice of brands within each

product category, Indian market has emerged as a highly competitive and buyer‟s market

in the post-liberalization period. Over a period of time, Indian’s consumers have become

very demanding and discerning in their purchase decisions (Jain and Goel, 2008, 2011;

Jain, 2011; iMedia News Bureau, 2011). Due to increased market-place competition and

buyer sophistication within the past few decades, marketers have begun to embrace the

existing and upcoming marketing trends in place of old marketing practices.

In this changed scenario, firms are under pressure to embrace “marketing concept' - the

implementation of which is known as „market orientation‟, and to reorient accordingly

their business strategies (Kohli and Jaworski, 1990; Narver and Slater, 1990; Jain and

Bhatia, 1995; Pehlam and Wilson, 1996; Jain and Bhatia, 2004). However, adoption of

marketing concept requires business firms to find out consumer needs and wants in

advance and develop such policies and strategies which are capable of fulfilling the

identified.

needs and wants of consumers more effectively and efficiently than competitors, thus

providing greater satisfaction to customer (Kotler and Keller, 2009). Understanding of

consumer views about marketing system in which consumers participate and information

about consumers‟ satisfaction from the interaction of consumers with the marketers

during the consumption process is vital on the part of marketers for successful marketing

(Starver, 1977; Day, 1978, 1987; Lee et al., 2002; Gaski and Etzel, 2005; Ferdous and
Towfique, 2008; Sirgy et al., 2008; Jain and Goel, 2008, 2011; Jain, 2011).

McCarthy (1960) postulated that consumers attitudes towards marketing can be examined

through their views towards the four basic dimensions of marketing, i.e., the 4 P‟s

(product, price, promotion and place). In the past, several efforts have been made by

researchers to determine consumer attitudes towards marketing through four fundamental

dimensions of marketing management, i.e., product, price, promotion and place, and the

importance of these elements to consumers across the various demographic variables

(Barker, 1987; Wee and Chan, 1989; Chan, Yau and Chan, 1990; Chan and Cui, 2004;

Ferdous and Towfique, 2008; Jain, 2011).

In this modern era of societal marketing concept business ethics and social responsibility

is becoming one of the central issues of all the marketing practices. Over the last decade,

more and more people around the world, primarily in industrialized countries, have

become better informed and more aware of the origins of the goods they purchase on a

day-to-day basis, the buying policies and practices of the shops they visit and the policies

and principles of the services they buy. In a growing number of cases, this increased

awareness and knowledge is affecting consumer practices and may be the difference

between someone buying a particular product or service or not. Two key elements that

have contributed to this development are the significant and rapid progress in Information

and Communications Technologies, particularly internet-based, and the role of the media

in exposing bad practices in global supply chains of goods and services.

In the external environment of business, consumerism has emerged as an issue of

considerable importance affecting managerial decisions in the marketplace (Ede and

Calcich, 1999; Day and Aakar, 1997; Holden, 1993). Consumerism has been defined as
“an organized movement of consumers whose aim is to improve the rights and powers of

buyers in relation to sellers” (Kotler et al., 1998). Following Smelser’s (1963) work,

Kotler (1972) identified six factors responsible for the development of consumerism: -

(1) Structural Conduciveness: Basic development in the society resulting in potent

contradictions (growing consciousness of quality of life, increasing complexity of

marketing and technology and environmental pollution);

(2) Structural strain: Discontents with economic (inflation), society (poverty, racism),

ecological (pollution, population explosion), and market system (questionable

products, deceptive advertising);

(3) Growth of generalized belief: A growing consensus as to the cause of social

malaise. The major impetus came from critical writings, government initiatives

and consumer organizations;

(4) Precipitating factors: Acceleration of consumer discontent as a result of their

exposure to business practices detrimental to their interest;

(5) Mobilizing factors: The support of the media, labour union, consumer

organizations in mobilizing the movement; and

(6) Social control: Improper response from the agents in the social control in terms

of business resistance and inadequate support from the legislative bodies led to

direct actions from consumers.

The growth of consumerism has resulted in consumers being critical of many

questionable business practices and has supported the imposition of increasing regulation

on the corporate sector. Over the years, business response ranged from inaction to

adaptation to the growing trends of consumerism. However, the level and pattern of
business reactions have varied in different cultures and societies. In the western countries,

responding to consumerism has become a routine exercise for most businesses. But in the

developing countries, the level of corporate attitude and action has been relatively low, as

the pressure arising from the movement is generally low.

Due to the impact of globalization and increased market competition consumers all over

the globe have started exercising their diligence and skills while buying goods and

services, becoming aware of their rights, raising voice against exploitation and seeking

redressal of their grievances. To protect the interest of consumers, government has also

enacted various legislations. Even though protecting the rights and interests of consumers

has been the driving force of consumerism, but attention is also required to be given to

consumer responsibilities that go along with these rights (Barksdale and Darden, 1972

and Jain and Goel, 2011).

Several national and cross-national studies have focused on consumer attitudes towards

marketing, consumerism, government regulations and consumer responsibilities

(Barksdale and Darden, 1972; Varadarajan and Thirunarayana, 1990; Uray and Menguc,

1996; Bhuian et al., 2001; Lysonski and Durvasula, 2003; Jain, 2011) in relation to

developed and developing economies but not much work has been done in the Indian

context. Few studies available in the area have focused on limited aspects only. Thus, the

present study assumes importance as it focuses on consumer attitudes towards marketing

through four elements of marketing and related issues in reference to Indian consumers

like consumerism, government regulations and consumer responsibilities.

RATIONALE OF THE STUDY

Role of marketing in India is distinct from that in western countries because of the very

distinguished feature of mixed economy, i.e., presence of both planned and market

economies. Furthermore, lower incomes, lack of information with consumers and feebly

developed marketing facilities suggest that pertinent issues regarding marketing may be

prominently different from developed nations. Therefore, to save the consumers more

efficiently, more systematic information will be need to impart light on the extent to

which consumers feel that consumerism will be an important issue and can bring a

positive change in the performance of firms and consumer opinions about the sufficiency

and efficacy of the government regulations to protect consumer interests as well as

consumers own responsibilities. The present study was an attempt to collect all this

information.
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The following objectives are formulated for the proposed study:

● To examine the consumers attitudes towards consumerism, government

regulations and consumer responsibilities.

● To assess the influence of demographic variables like gender, age, educational

qualification, occupation, family income, marital status and residential area on

consumer attitudes towards consumerism, government regulations and

consumer responsibilities.

● To assess the level of awareness and practice of consumer responsibility among

different segments of the population.

● To explore the relationship between demographic factors and consumers’ trust in

government regulations and legal mechanisms for consumer protection.

● To make suggestions and recommendations for policy improvement and

awareness programs aimed at strengthening consumer rights and responsibilities.

HYPOTHESIS OF THE STUDY

The present study was conducted with the following hypothesis:

● The attitudes of consumers towards consumerism, government regulations and

consumer responsibilities was not differ significantly across various demographic

variables.

● There is significant relationship between consumers’ demographic variables (age

gender, education,income, occupation) and their attitudes toward consumerism.

● Consumers' attitudes toward government regulations vary significantly with

demographic factors.

● Consumers' sense of responsibility as consumers is significantly influenced by

their demographic characteristics.

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW
INTRODUCTION

“An essential aspect of a research project is review of related literature”

- J. Mouly (1979)

The review of related literature is as important as any other component of research

process. It involves the systematic identification, location and anal ysis of documents

containing information related to the research problem. The major purpose of

reviewing the literature is to determine the study already been done that relates to one‟s

problem. Another important function of review is how it helps in planning the present

work or the resources, and specific procedures and meaning instruments that have been

opted for this work. Being familiar with previous research also facilitates interpretation

of the results of the study. Finally, these reviews give information which can either

support or challenge the conclusions of the investigator’s research and therefore provide

clues to later research.

MEANING OF THE RELATED STUDY

Study of the related literature implies locating, reading and educating reports of

research as well as reports of causal observation and opinions that are

related to the individual’s planned research project.

NEED FOR THE REVIEW OF LITERATURE

A thorough survey of literature can be of great help to the investigator to understand the

problem from different dimensions. It enriches the study. It gives necessary insight to the

research study by which one can think creatively.

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

1. The review of related literature enables the researcher to define the limits of his field.

It helps the researcher to delimit and define his problem. The knowledge of related

literature, brings the researcher up-to-date on the work which others have done and thus

to state the objectives clearly and concisely.

2. By reviewing the related literature the researcher can avoid unfruitful and useless

problem areas. He can select those areas in which positive findings are very, likely to

result and his endeavors would be likely to add to the knowledge in a meaningful way.

3. Through the review of related literature, the researcher can avoid

unintentional duplication of well established findings. It is no use to replicate a study

when the stability and validity of its results have been clearly established.

4. The final and important specific reason for reviewing the related literature is to know

about the recommendations of previous researchers listed in their studies for further

research.

The consumer movement was given its spark in the USA with President Kennedy’s 1962

call for a “Bill of Consumer Rights” and with the appointment in 1964 of a special
assistant to the President for Consumer Affairs (Lampman, 1988). Shortly thereafter,

business practitioners and academicians began investigating the degree to which people

were satisfied or dissatisfied with marketing practices. Consumerism is a social force

within the environment designed to protect cultural values, physical environment and

quality of life and protects the consumers by exerting legal, moral and economic

pressures on business. It is a social movement initiated by the public and voluntary

consumers’ organizations, which pressurize the government to adopt necessary legal

measures to protect their interests. It aims to remove those injustices, and eliminate those

unfair marketing practices, e.g. misbranding, spurious products, unsafe products, planned

obsolescence, adulteration, fictitious pricing, price collusion, deceptive packaging, false

and misleading advertisements, deceptive warranties, hoarding, profiteering, black

marketing, short weights and measures etc. Consumerism is the public demand for

refinement in marketing practices to make them more informative, more responsive,

more sincere, more truthful and more efficient.

According to Duyck (1975) consumerism is the expression of a wider social movement

which is concentrated on the exchange mechanism in the market economy and its social

consequences and which aims to attain a lasting equilibrium between different parties in

the market. Virginia Knauer, a former US President Special Assistant for Consumers

Affairs, summarized consumerism as “.…a challenge to business to live up to its full

potential - to give consumers what is promised, to be honest, to give people a product that

will work and is reasonably safe, to respond effectively to legitimate complaints, to

provide information concerning relevant characteristics of a product....the basic principle

upon which so much of our nations' business was structured - "Satisfaction, guaranteed or
your money back”. McIlhenny (1990) saw it as “a citizens' movement which will make

broad-reaching social, ecological and political demands on suppliers of goods and

services”. Maynes (1990) defined it as “the voicing of consumer discontent and the

furtherance of corrective actions”. In a third-world perspective, it has been defined as

“the efforts made either by the consumer himself, the government, and/or independent

organizations to protect the consumer from the unscrupulous practices of businesses in

their quest for profit” (Onah, 1979). Cravens and Hills (1973) defined consumerism in

operational terms as “a multitude of group actions concerned with such issues as

consumer protection laws, the availability of product and price information, fraudulent

and deceptive business practices and product safety”. In essence, consumerism deals with

consumer issues about a range of marketing related issues. According to Kaynak (1985)

and Quazi (2002) the consumerism is concerned with both the micro and macro

consumerist issues. The micro consumerist issues include the issues product safety,

misbranding practice, misleading advertisement, deceptive packaging, unfair pricing, unit

pricing, labeling, product quality etc. While on the other hand, the macro consumerist

issues are mainly concerned with the broader contexts like environmental pollution,

health care system, welfare systems, poverty, antinuclear issues etc. Consumerism in

developing countries differs from consumerism in developed countries. Consumerism in

most developing countries is more a matter of government policy via legislation and

efficient enforcement than a matter of engaged public support (Kaynak, 1985). Most

researches in developing countries have examined consumer organizations (Clifford,

1988; Hinds, 1988; Hong, 1989), growth of consumer movements (Kim, 1985; Newman,

1980; Peterson, 1987) and consumer problems (Onah, 1979; Stanley, 1987). Few studies
have examined consumers’ attitudes toward consumerism in developing countries

(Thorelli and Sentell, 1982). There have been few studies on business attitudes towards

consumerism for developed countries (Johan et al., 1977; Barksdale and French, 1976;

Greyser and Diamond, 1974), more few studies for developing countries (Varadarajan et

al., 1991, 1994). Consumer attitudes are an important and integral part of the marketing

environment that managers need to scan to understand potential forces that could curtail

marketing activities. Failure to monitor the environment or misdiagnosis of

environmental trends can lead to serious problems for marketers (Kotler, 1972;

Nicouland, 1987). One way to gauge consumers’ attitudes toward marketing is to

examine their perceptions towards a wide range of marketing mix activities and issues

pertaining to consumerism. Over the past years, several studies have sought to quantify

the attitudes consumers hold toward marketing and consumerism issues. They showed a

high level of consumer discontent with various aspects related to marketing and

consumerism. Barksdale and Darden (1972) found that 70 percent of respondents in the

USA believed that most manufacturers were not satisfactorily handling consumer

complaints. Such complaints were associated with the quality of products, their reliability

and safety aspects and were felt to be endemic to the marketing system rather than being

just a failure of poorly designed corporate policy. Hence, it was believed that firms were

marketing products that could potentially cause harm to the users. Jones and Gardner

(1976) attributed the causes of consumer discontent to two reasons: first, higher

expectations of a better lifestyle resulting from increasing incomes and sociological

changes, and second negligence by business and government to protect consumers.

Andreasen and Best (1977) documented consumer discontent arising from marketers’
incompetence or reluctance to resolve complaints; the government was also blamed for

the rise of consumer discontent since it was viewed as being more pro-business and not

defending the interests of consumers effectively. Greyser and Diamond (1974) found that

consumers were not adequately protected since laws were founded on the principle of

caveat emptor. Moreover, Hustad and Pessmier (1973) found a range of marketing

practices that contributed to this discontent. Varadarajan and Thirunarayana (1990)

examined consumers’ attitudes towards marketing practices, consumerism and

government regulations in Indian. They found a high level of consumer skepticism

regarding the operating philosophy of business, discontent with marketing practices and

support for the consumer movement and greater government regulation. Roberts and

Manolis (2000) compared consumerism and advertising attitudes of those born from 1946

to 1964 to those born from 1965 to 1974 in the USA. They found that there were

generational differences in that the later cohort were more favorably disposed towards

marketing and advertising, considered marketing to be more beneficial and marketers to

be more socially responsible than did the earlier cohort. Lysonski et al. (2003) studied

the attitudes of marketing managers towards marketing and Consumerism in New

Zealand. The study clearly reveals that there has been significant change in consumer

perceptions over the last fifteen years from 1986 to 2001, and managers are exhibiting

more responsiveness to consumer issues. Nonetheless, marketers must continue to remain

vigilant in identifying and addressing any significant consumer complaints that may arise.

The study also shows that attitudes towards marketing and consumerism issues are ikely

to be less problematic when an economy is allowed to operate more freely and

government creates rules that encourage fair play and equal access to the market system

for all businesses.

Consumers Attitudes towards Consumerism

According to Mayens (1989), consumerism represents the voice of consumer

disgruntlement and consequent remedial measures. Respondents in the past studies have

indicated that affirmative change in the business performance is because of consumer

movement (Barksdale and Darden, 1972; Barksdale et al., 1982; Barker, 1987; Uray and

Menguc, 1996). But studies by French et al., (1982) and Vardarajan and Thirunarayana

(1990) report that respondents do not think that firms dealings have been affected by

organized consumer movements.

Consumers‟ problems are less serious now is disagreed by most of the consumers

(Barksdale and Darden, 1972; Barksdale et al., 1982; French et al., 1982; Barker, 1987;

Vardarajan and Thirunarayana, 1990; Lysonski and Durvasula, 2003). Bhuian et al.

(2001), however, in their study found that consumers felt that their problems are less

serious now. One of the possible reasons for this provided by them was that standard of

living of people in Saudi Arabia has improved.

Varadarajan et al. (1990) documented that consumer movement is yet to materialize as a

key force in Indian though in many developed countries it is a well recognized

phenomenon.
Jain (2011) found that consumers felt that abuse of consumers by the business firms is an

issue of concern and more attention should be paid to this. Furthermore, consumer

protection in Indian is expected to get more attention in future. In a similar vein, Orel and

Zeren (2011) reported respondents‟ positive attitudes towards consumerism.

Consumers Attitudes towards Government Regulations

Hustad and Pessiemier (1973), Greyser and Diamond (1974), Jones and Gardner (1976)

and Greyser, Bloom and Diamond (1982) blamed government in their study for the

increase in consumer dissatisfaction. Since law is made on the principle of caveat emptor

i.e., Let the buyer beware, therefore, government has been reported to have failed to

protect the consumers. Andreasen and Best (1977) held that government is not protecting

consumers interest and is responsible for the rise of consumer disgruntlement.

Barksdale et al. (1982) in their study reported that consumers felt that it is the duty of

government to protect their rights. Barker (1987) also reported that businesses have to

face additional government regulations; unless and until they improve their marketing

practices and give attention to consumerism issues. Most of the consumers prefer self-

regulation by business, but they are demanding government regulations because firms fail

to exercise self-regulation (Barksdale and Darden, 1972; Barksdale et al., 1982; French et

al., 1982; Barker, 1987; Vardarajan and Thirunarayana, 1990; Uray and Menguc, 1996;

Bhuian et al., 2001; Lysonski and Durvasula 2003).

Barksdale and Darden (1972), Barksdale et al. (1982), French et al. (1982), Barker

(1987), Vardarajan and Thirunarayana, (1990), Darley and Johnson (1993), Uray and

Menguc (1996), Lysonski and Durvasula (2003) and Orel and Zeren (2011) documented

in their studies that government should stipulate minimum standards for quality, carry out

sovereign tests of rival brands, publicize the results, control the advertising, sales and

marketing actions of manufacturers and there is also need of a central governmental

department for consumer protection.

Lysonski and Durvasula (2003) reported in their study that government has introduced

laws and regulations regarding consumer protection resulting in improved consumers‟

attitude towards marketing and consumerism over a period of 15 years.

Bhuian et al. (2001) reported in their study that young adults have positive attitudes

towards government regulations and price controls despite difference in educational

backgrounds. Jain (2011) documented that Indian consumers robustly believe that

government control is crucial for the safeguard of consumer interests.

It has been found by Kayank (1985) and Varadarajan et al. (1990) that consumers in

developed countries do not want further government regulations and satisfied with the

existing conditions, whereas in developing countries the scenario is opposite.

However, it was found that respondents in all countries want government regulations to

protect consumers‟ rights irrespective of their nationality and advancement in

consumerism issues (Barksdale and Darden, 1972; Barksdale et al., 1982; French et al.,

1982; Barker, 1987; Vardarajan and Thirunarayana, 1990; Uray and Menguc, 1996;

Bhuian et al., 2001; Lysonski and Durvasula 2003; Orel and Zeren, 2011 and Jain, 2011).
Consumers Attitudes towards Consumer Responsibilities

Barksdale and Darden (1972), Vardarajan and Thirunarayana (1990) and Lysonski and

Durvasula (2003) found in their studies that consumers are anxious about the

environment and are prepared to pay more prices for the environmental friendly products.

However, Barksdale et al. (1982), French et al. (1982), Barker (1987) and Orel and Zeren

(2011) found that consumers are not prepared to pay more prices for the environmental

friendly products although they do care about the environment. Also, Orel and Zeren

(2011) reported in a comparative study of Poland and Turkey that Polish respondents

product selection is not so much affected by environmental issues than it is for Turkish

respondents.

Most of the respondents blamed themselves for their carelessness, incompetence,

indifference or lack of knowledge while buying (Barksdale and Darden, 1972; Barksdale

and Perreault, 1980; Barksdale et al., 1982; Vardarajan and Thirunarayana, 1990;

Lysonski and Durvasula, 2003) while Barker (1987) found that New Zealanders‟

disagreed to believe that they are behaving irresponsibly while making a choice.
Most of the consumers denied that they are getting unjustified benefits from

manufacturers and dealers (Barksdale and Darden, 1972; Barksdale et al., 1982; French et

al., 1982) while the respondents in Lysonski and Durvasula (2003) study admitted that

they do formulate unfair claims.

In general, consumers did understand their responsibilities towards environment and they

admitted the wrong doing on their part by making unwarranted claims on the

manufacturers and dealers.

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research methodology is a way to systematically investigate the research problem. It

gives various steps in conducting the research in a systematic and a logical way. It is

essential to define the problem, state objectives and hypothesis clearly. The research

design provides the details regarding what, where, when, how much and by what means

enquiry is initiated. Every piece of research must be planned and designed carefully so

that the researcher precedes a head without getting confused at the subsequent steps of

research. The researcher must have an objective understanding of what is to be done,

what data is needed, what data collecting tools are to be employed and how the data is to

be statistically analyzed and interpreted. There are a number of approaches to the design

of studies and research projects all of which may be equally valid. Research is a

systematic attempt to obtain answers to meaningful questions about phenomenon or

events through the application of scientific procedures. It an objective, impartial,

empirical and logical analysis and recording of controlled observation that may led to the

development of generalizations, principles or theories, resulting to some extent in

prediction and control of events that may be consequences or causes of specific

phenomenon. Research is a systematic and refined technique of thinking, employing

specialized tools, instruments and procedures in order to obtain a more adequate solution

of a problem than would be possible under ordinary mean. Thus, research always starts

from question. There are three objectives of research factual, practical and theoretical,

which gives rise to three types of research: historical, experimental and descriptive.

Research design has been defined by different social scientists in a number of ways. All

these definitions emphasize systematic methodology in collecting accurate information

for interpretation. Selltize et al. (1962) expressed their views as, “Research designs are

closely linked to investigator’s objectives. They specify that research designs are either

descriptive or experimental in nature.” Research design tells us how to plan various

phases and procedures related to the formulation of research effort (Ackoff Russell,

1961). Miller (1989) has defined research design, “as the planned sequence of the entire

process involved in conducting a research study.”

Kothari (1990) observes, “Research design stands for advance planning of the method to

be adapted for collecting the relevant data and the techniques to be used in their research

and availability of staff, time and money.” In this way selecting a particular design is

based on the purpose of the piece of the research to be conducted. The design deals with

selection of subjects, selection of data gathering devices, the procedure of making

observations and the type of statistical analysis to be employed in interpreting data

relationship”.

Research design is a “framework or a blueprint for conducting the marketing research

project that specifies the procedures necessary to obtain the information needed to

structure and solve the research problem” (Malhotra & Peterson 2006 p. 71). Goh (2007)

defined research design as the basic structure of research, it is an adhesive that help to

hold all the elements in a research project together. It is the framework that helps to

identify and to coordinate the major parts of samples, measures and treatments to address

the research questions. This research is designed to be a deductive research because such

an approach is appropriate for testing the developed hypotheses (Saunders et al. 2003).

There are several important characteristics of the deductive approach. First, there is the

search to explain causal relationships between variables. Secondly, to test these

hypotheses we utilized another characteristic i.e. the collection of quantitative data

(Robson 1993; Saunders et al. 2000).

Data Collection

The study was make use of both secondary and primary data.

Secondary data

Secondary data was collected from various journals like, Journal of Marketing, European

Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing Research, Journal of Macro-marketing,

Journal of Personality Assessment, Journal of Consumer Marketing and The Journal of

Consumer Affairs etc.

Primary data

Primary data was collected with the help of survey of consumers/beneficiaries.

Sample & Sampling Technique

For the present study, using convenience sampling technique, a survey of 100 Indian

consumers in and around the Delhi was conducted. Due care was taken during the

sampling process to ensure sufficient representation of respondents from different gender,

socio-economic, age, education and occupation groups.

Statistical Analysis

The data collected from the survey was analyzed with the help of various statistical

tools such as mean, percent, standard deviation, independent samples t–test, and

one way analysis of variance.

CHAPTER 4

DATA ANALYSIS & INTERPRETATIONS

When data has been obtained, it is necessary to organize them for the interpretation.

Qualitative data may have to be summarized and treated statistically to make significant

clean.” Olive R.A.G.

According to Good, Barr and Scates, “Analysis is a process which enters into research in

one form or another, from the very beginning. It may be fair to say that research, in

general, consists of two large steps i.e. gathering of data and the analysis of research

data.”

In other words Data Analysis is the process of organising, cleaning, processing, and
examining collected data to extract meaningful patterns, trends and relationships. It helps

to test hypotheses, answer research questions, and draw conclusions.

Data Interpretation is the process of making sense of the analysed data. It involves

explaining what the result mean in the context of your research objectives and

hypotheses.

Data analysis answers: “What does the data shows?”

Data Interpretation answers: “What do these results mean, and how do they relate to this

research problem?”

Consumer Attitudes towards Consumerism

Consumers attitudes in respect of consumerism are measured with the help of the

following statements: “Safeguarding consumer rights is an important issue today‟,

“The exploitation of consumers by business firms deserves more attention than it

receives‟ and „In future, protecting consumer interest will be more important‟.

First aggregative results are discussed i.e., consumer attitudes towards consumerism is

examined by taking into consideration the entire sample, followed by disaggregative

results across gender, marital status, age, income, educational qualification, occupation

and residential area.

Aggregative Results

An item wise analysis for consumer attitudes towards consumerism is presented in Table

4.1. For all the items, mean score is above one meaning thereby that respondents are
enthusiastic about the consumerism issues.

Overall consumers have affirmative sentiments regarding issues relating to consumerism.

A mean score of 1.3 supports this. Consumers agree that protecting consumer interest is

an important issue and will gain importance in future also. But at the same time, they feel

that consumers exploitation deserve more attention. Thus, consumerism is viewed very

positively by respondents. The result of this study complements the earlier findings of

Barksdale and Darden (1972), Barksdale et al. (1982), Barker (1987), Uray and Menguc

(1996), Orel and Zeren (2011) and Jain (2011). They reported in their studies that

consumerism is viewed very positively by respondents.

4.1: Consumers Attitudes toward Consumerism

Aggregative

Scale/item Mean Score

Consumerism

1. Safeguarding consumer rights

is an important issue today.
1.13
2. The exploitation of
consumers by business
firms deserves more 1.34
attention than it receives.

3. In future, protecting consumer 1.27

interest will be more
important.
Mean Score 1.25

Notes:

1. Responses were obtained on a Likert scale of -2 to 2 where -2 = Strongly

 Disagree and 2 = Strongly Agree.

2. Mean score of consumerism lie in the range of -2 to 2.

Disaggregate Results

In this section consumers’ attitudes towards consumerism are discussed on a

disaggregative basis, i.e., across demographic variables. Overall mean values are used

for the disaggregative analysis because high reliability with cronbach alpha value

of .930 has been displayed by the consumerism scale in chapter three. To compare the

attitudes of consumers towards consumerism across demographic variables, the following

null hypothesis is put to test.

Hi: Consumer attitudes towards consumerism do not differ significantly across

demographic variables (gender, marital status, age, income, educational qualification,

occupation and residential area).

Gender: With respect to consumerism issue high mean scores of 1.3 by male and 1.1 by

female respondents indicate that respondents of both groups are quite optimistic about

consumerism issues. But men have significantly more positive views than women (see

Table 4.2).

4.2: Consumers Attitudes toward Consumerism across Gender

Consumerism N Mean Std. P Value

Deviation
Male 52 1.3408 0.9919
0.50*
Female 48 1.1436 1.0584
 NOTES:

1. Responses were obtained on a Likert scale of -2 to 2 where -2 = Strongly

Disagree and 2 = Strongly Agree.

2. Mean scores range from -2 to 2.

3. * signify that difference is significant at 5% since p ≤ .05.

Age: One–way ANOVA reveals significant differences among the four age groups for

consumerism in Table 4.3. Consumers of all age groups view consumerism positively

and are optimistic about the issue. However, the enthusiasm for consumer activities

decreases with increase in age. Under 25 age group respondents with the elevated

mean score of 1.6 have displayed the most favorable attitudes while above 65 age

group respondents with low mean score of .44 exhibited the least favorable attitude.

4.3: Consumers Attitudes toward Consumerism across Age

Consumerism N Mean Std. P Value

Deviation
Under 25 37 1.6452 0.5905

25-44 26 1.3780 1.0450

.000**
45-64 22 0.9326 1.1153

Above 65 15 0.4368 1.1651

NOTES:

1. Responses were obtained on a Likert scale of -2 to 2 where -2 = Strongly

Disagree and 2 = Strongly Agree.

2. Mean scores range from -2 to 2.

3. ** signify that difference is significant at 1% since p < .01.

Education: It can be gauged from Table 4.4 that respondents across all education groups

have displayed favorable attitudes towards consumerism. But post graduates have

exhibited significantly more favorable attitudes towards consumerism than under

graduates. Better educated consumers are supposed to be more receptive to the idea of

consumer movements and thus support them. A high mean score of 1.9 for post graduate

respondents in contrast to .81 under gradate respondents regarding consumerism validates

this.

4.4: Consumers Attitudes toward Consumerism across Educational

Qualifications

Consumerism N Mean Std. P Value

Deviation
Under Graduate 47 0.8122 1.1863

Graduate 28 1.4314 0.8030 .000**

Post Graduate 18 1.8590 0.3246

Others 7 1.8841 0.2380

 NOTES:

1. Responses were obtained on a Likert scale of -2 to 2 where -2 = Strongly

Disagree and 2 = Strongly Agree.

2. Mean scores range from -2 to 2.

3. ** signify that difference is significant at 1% since p < .01.

Occupation: Significant differences are revealed through ANOVA test for the six

categories of occupations. However, irrespective of occupational groups to which they

belong, respondents have demonstrated positive attitudes towards consumerism issues. It

can be easily figured out from Table 4.5 that respondents belonging to professional group

with very high mean score of 1.9 have the most favorable attitudes while housewives

have comparatively low mean score of .75 regarding consumerism. This suggests that

respondents employed in prominent occupations have the more flattering attitudes

towards consumerism.

4.5: Consumers Attitudes toward Consumerism across Occupations

Consumerism N Mean Std. P Value

Deviation
Students 26 1.5895 0.6707

Housewives 25 0.7508 1.1674

Service 12 1.3519 0.9235 .000**

Business 11 1.3061 1.0157

Professional 14 1.9000 0.3087

Others 12 0.4414 1.2399

NOTES:

1. Responses were obtained on a Likert scale of -2 to 2 where -2 = Strongly

Disagree and 2 = Strongly Agree.

2. Mean scores range from -2 to 2.

3. ** signify that difference is significant at 1% since p < .01.

Income: While comparing consumerism across the four income groups, significant

differences are found among the respondents falling in different income groups. It can be

established from the results of Table 4.6 that respondents of higher income groups have

more favorable attitudes towards consumerism. A high mean score of 1.8 for respondents

having family income of above Rs 60,000 per month against comparatively low mean

score of .65 for respondents belonging to below Rs 20,000 monthly family income group

provides testimony for this.

4.6: Consumers Attitudes toward Consumerism across Monthly Family

Income

Consumerism N Mean Std. P Value

Deviation
0.6502 1.1823

Below Rs 39
20,000

Rs 20,000 – 16 1.4976 0.7312 .000**

Rs 40,000

Rs 40,001 – 21 1.6111 0.7416

Rs 60,000
 Above Rs 24 1.7875 0.4728
60,000
NOTES:

1. Responses were obtained on a Likert scale of -2 to 2 where -2 = Strongly

Disagree and 2 = Strongly Agree.

2. Mean scores range from -2 to 2.

3. ** signify that difference is significant at 1% since p < .01.

Marital Status: Significant differences are found across marital status for consumerism.

Unmarried consumers have exhibited more favorable attitudes towards protection of

consumer rights than married respondents. High mean score of 1.7 for unmarried

respondents and relatively low score of .96 for married respondents concerning

consumerism provides support for this.

4.7: Consumers Attitudes toward Consumerism across Marital Status

Consumerism N Mean Std. P Value

Deviation
Married 60 0.9552 1.1504
.000**
Unmarried 40 1.6908 0.5727

NOTES:

1. Responses were obtained on a Likert scale of -2 to 2 where -2 = Strongly

Disagree and 2 = Strongly Agree.

2. Mean scores range from -2 to 2.

3. ** signify that difference is significant at 1% since p < .01.

Residential Area: Irrespective of residential areas, all respondents have shown positive

attitudes towards consumerism. But urban consumers have displayed significantly more

positive attitudes with a mean value of 1.4 against a comparatively low mean value of .85

for rural consumers. The reason for low mean score of rural consumers in comparison to

urban consumers regarding consumerism may be because rural consumers are passive by

nature and less educated.

4.8: Consumers Attitudes toward Consumerism across Residential Area

Consumerism N Mean Std. P Value

Deviation
Urban 66 1.4440 0.9210
.000**
Rural 34 0.8489 1.1173

NOTES:

1. Responses were obtained on a Likert scale of -2 to 2 where -2 = Strongly

Disagree and 2 = Strongly Agree.

2. Mean scores range from -2 to 2.

3. ** signify that difference is significant at 1% since p < .01.

On the basis of above discussion for demographic variables, it can be inferred from

Tables 4.2 to 4.8 that significant differences exist in respect of consumer attitudes

towards consumerism across gender, age, educational qualification, occupation, income

groups, marital status and residential area. Hence, null hypothesis is rejected and

alternative hypothesis that consumers attitudes towards consumerism differ across

demographic variables is accepted.

Consumer Attitudes towards Government Regulations

Consumer attitudes towards government regulations depict the extent to which

consumers want government to come forward to protect them. A positive score

emphasizes that government controls are important to the consumers and they want more

government regulation while a negative score means consumers do not want further

government control. To know how the consumers perceive government interventions, a

five item five point Likert scale is employed.

The scale of government regulations comprises five statements. The government should

exercise more responsibility for regulating the prices, advertising, sales and other

marketing activities. The government should set minimum standards of quality for all

products sold to consumers. The government should test competing brands of products

and make the results of these tests available to consumers. In general, self–regulation by

business itself is preferable to stricter control of business by the government and A

central agency of consumer protection at the national level is needed to protect and

promote the interests of consumers. To avoid agreement response tendencies on the part

of respondents negative statements were also included these statements were reverse

coded at the time of analysis.

First analysis is presented on aggregative basis, and in next section consumer views are

compared across demographic variables (gender, age, educational qualification,

occupation, family income, marital status and residential area).

Aggregative Results

A sky-scraping score of 1.4 in respect of government regulations signifies that consumers

are enthusiastic about government regulations. They want government to regulate the

marketing activities and to manage the various marketing tactics adopted by the firms,

implying that consumers do not consider themselves sophisticated enough to protect

themselves against unscrupulous activities of marketers and view marketing activities

with mistrust.

The result of this study is very much in agreement with earlier findings of Barksdale

and Darden (1972), Barksdale and Perreault (1980), Barksdale et al. (1982), French et al.

(1982), Barker (1987), Vardarajan and Thirunarayana (1990), Darley and Johnson

(1993), Uray and Menguc (1996), Bhuian et al. (2001), Lysonski and Durvasula (2003)

and Jain (2011). In their studies they found that respondents have positive views about

government regulations.

4.9 Consumer Attitudes towards Government Regulations

Aggregative
Scale/item Mean Score
Government Regulations
1. The government should exercise more responsibility for. 1.26
regulating the prices, 3. The government should test
advertising, sales and competing brands of
other marketing products and make the
activities. results of these tests
available to consumers.
2. The government should
set minimum standards of 4. In general, self–
quality for all products sold to regulation by
consumers. business itself is
preferable to stricter
 control of business by
the government.(R)

1.40

1.37
5. A central agency of consumer
protection at the national level is
needed to protect and promote
the interests of consumers.
1.43

1.37
Mean Score 1.37

Notes

1. Responses were obtained on a Likert scale of -2 to 2 where -2 = Strongly

Disagree and 2 = Strongly Agree.

2. Mean score of government regulations lie in the range of -2 to 2.

3. Items with (R) were reverse coded for computing the overall mean score.

Disaggregate Results

Consumers’ attitudes in respect of government regulations are here discussed on

disaggregative basis. It may, however, be pointed out that the discussion in this sub-

section is based on overall mean score rather than mean score for each item for the reason

that government regulation scale in chapter three was found to be having high
reliability, the cronbach alpha value being .938. To investigate differences in the attitudes

of consumers towards the government regulations across demographic variables, the

following null hypothesis is formulated and put to test.

H2: There is no significant differences in the attitudes of respondents regarding

government regulations across demographic variables (gender, age, educational

qualification, occupation, family income, marital status and residential area).

Gender:

Respondents of both genders are quite enthusiastic about government regulations.

Indian.

It indicates that Indian respondents want government to set minimum standards

which need to be followed by business firms.

4.10: Consumers Attitudes toward Government Regulations across Gender

Government N Mean Std. P Value

Regulations Deviation
Male 53 1.4387 0.8575
0.85
Female 47 1.2862 0.9457

NOTES:
1. Responses were obtained on a Likert scale of -2 to 2 where -2 = Strongly

Disagree and 2 = Strongly Agree.

2. Mean scores range from -2 to 2.

Age: One–way ANOVA has revealed significant differences across age groups for

government regulations (see Table 4.11). Respondents of age group under 25 with a

mean score of 1.6 have most favorable attitude towards government regulations

compared to above 65 who have displayed least favorable attitudes with a mean score

of .93, implying that older respondents do not trust that government would be able to

protect them and view even government activities with doubt.

4.11: Consumers Attitudes toward Government Regulations across Age

Government N Mean Std. P Value

Regulations Deviation
Under 25 36 1.6000 0.5555

25-44 26 1.4375 0.9371

.000**
45-64 22 1.1681 1.0195

Above 65 16 0.9276 1.1368

 NOTES:

1. Responses were obtained on a Likert scale of -2 to 2 where -2 = Strongly

Disagree and 2 = Strongly Agree.

2. Mean scores range from -2 to 2.

3. ** signify that difference is significant at 1% since p < .01.

Education: It can be gauged from Table 4.12 that respondents across all education

groups have exhibited positive attitudes towards government regulations. However, on a

close scrutiny it has been ascertained that post graduate group respondents have echoed

significantly more favorable attitudes towards government regulations than under

graduate and graduate category respondents; implying that better educated consumers

have greater trust on government and they want a central agency of government to

promote and protect their interests.

A high mean score of 1.9 for post graduates in contrast to .98 for under gradates

regarding government regulations substantiates this.

4.12: Consumers Attitudes toward Government Regulations across

Educational Qualifications

Government N Mean Std. P Value

Regulations Deviation
Under Graduate 47 0.9797 1.0652

Graduate 28 1.5681 0.6566

Post Graduate 18 1.8821 0.2378
.000**
Others 7 1.8435 0.1805

NOTES:

1. Responses were obtained on a Likert scale of -2 to 2 where -2 = Strongly

Disagree and 2 = Strongly Agree.

2. Mean scores range from -2 to 2.

3. ** signify that difference is significant at 1% since p < .01.

Occupation: Irrespective of the occupational groups to which respondents belong,

respondents across all occupations have demonstrated positive attitudes towards

government regulations (see Table 4.13). Significant differences are revealed among the

occupational groups with respect to their attitudes towards government regulations

through ANOVA test. It can be easily figured out that respondents belonging to

professional group with a high mean score of 1.9 have the most favorable attitudes while

housewives have comparatively low mean score of .98 with respect to government

regulations.

4.13: Consumers Attitudes toward Government Regulations across

Occupations

Government N Mean Std. P Value

Regulations Deviation
Students 26 1.5963 0.6126

Housewives 25 0.9776 1.0630

Service 12 1.4667 1.4667

 Business 11 1.3633 1.3633
.000**
Professional 14 1.8667 1.8667

Others 12 0.8757 0.8757

NOTES:

1. Responses were obtained on a Likert scale of -2 to 2 where -2 = Strongly

Disagree and 2 = Strongly Agree.

2. Mean scores range from -2 to 2.

3. ** signify that difference is significant at 1% since p < .01.

Income: Respondents of higher income group have significantly more favorable

attitudes towards government regulations than lower income group respondents (see

Table 4.14).

A high mean score of 1.8 for respondents having family income of above Rs 60,000 per

month against respondents belonging to below Rs 20,000 monthly family income group

with a relatively low mean score of .83 with respect to government regulations provides

evidence for this.

4.14: Consumers Attitudes toward Government Regulations across

Monthly Family Income

Government N Mean Std. P Value

Regulations Deviation
39 0.8259 1.1283

Below Rs
20,000

Rs 20,000 – 16 1.6000 0.6183

.000**
Rs 40,000
 Rs 40,001 – 21 1.7222 0.3929
Rs 60,000

Above Rs 24 1.8220 0.2449

60,000

NOTES:

1. Responses were obtained on a Likert scale of -2 to 2 where -2 = Strongly

Disagree and 2 = Strongly Agree.

2. Mean scores range from -2 to 2.

3. ** signify that difference is significant at 1% since p < .01

Marital Status: Significant differences are found across marital status for government

regulations. Unmarried consumers exhibit more favorable attitudes towards government

regulations than married respondents. A high mean score of 1.7 for unmarried

respondents and a comparatively low score of 1.1 for married respondents concerning

government regulations testimonies this.

4.15: Consumers Attitudes toward Government Regulations across Marital

Status

Government N Mean Std. P Value

Regulations Deviation
Married 60 1.1455 1.0098
.000**
Unmarried 40 1.7036 0.5561

NOTES:

1. Responses were obtained on a Likert scale of -2 to 2 where -2 = Strongly

Disagree and 2 = Strongly Agree.

2. Mean scores range from -2 to 2.

3. ** signify that difference is significant at 1% since p < .01.

Residential Area: Significant differences are found between urban and rural consumers

with respect to their attitudes towards government regulations. Urban consumers being

knowledgeable about their rights want government to play a proactive role in promoting

and protecting their interests. Urban consumers high mean score of 1.6 against rural

consumers comparatively low mean score of .91 regarding government regulations

corroborates this.

4.16: Consumers Attitudes toward Government Regulations across

Residential Area

Government N Mean Std. P Value

Regulations Deviation
Urban 66 1.5921 0.7389
.000**
Rural 34 0.9122 1.0213

NOTES:

1. Responses were obtained on a Likert scale of -2 to 2 where -2 = Strongly

Disagree and 2 = Strongly Agree.

2. Mean scores range from -2 to 2.

3. ** signify that difference is significant at 1% since p < .01.

On the basis of discussion made with respect to consumers attitudes towards government

regulations across demographic variables, it can be concluded from Tables 4.10 to 4.16

that consumer attitudes in respect of government regulations differ significantly across

age, educational qualification, occupation, income groups, marital status and residential

area. However, for gender, findings are statistically insignificant with respect to

government regulations therefore null hypothesis may be accepted partially.

Consumer Attitudes towards Consumer Responsibilities

An attempt has been made to determine consumer attitudes towards their own

responsibilities by using a five point Likert scale (-2 to 2) where -2 stands for Strongly

Disagree‟ and 2 stands for Strongly Agree. The attitudinal data in respect of consumer

responsibilities is collected through three statements Consumers are willing to pay

higher prices for environmental friendly products, Concern for the environment does

not influence the product choices made by most consumers and Many of the mistakes

that consumers make in buying products are the result of their own carelessness or

ignorance. Negative statements were coded reversely at the time of analysis. At first

aggregative items wise analysis is presented and later on disaggregative analysis is

discussed across demographic variables.

Aggregative Results

The mean value of various items measuring consumer responsibilities lie in the range of

1.04 to 1.20. An overall mean score of 1.1 with respect to consumer attitudes towards

consumer responsibilities substantiates that consumer want environmental friendly

products and even ready to pay premium price for this. They also opined that while

buying the products they do take into consideration the effect

of their purchases on environment. At the same time they also admitted that they

buy the products very warily; this shows that Indian’s consumers now understand the

significance of environment and are ready to fulfill their responsibilities through

choosing the products carefully.

4.17 Consumer Attitudes towards Consumer Responsibilities

Aggregative
Scale/item Mean Score
Consumer Responsibilities
1. Consumers are willing
1.04
to pay higher prices
for environmental
friendly products.
2. Concern for the
environment does not
1.20
influence the product
choices made by most
consumers.(R)
3. Many of the mistakes 1.04
that consumers make
in buying products are
the result of their own
carelessness or
ignorance.(R)
Mean Score 1.09

NOTES

1. Responses were obtained on a Likert scale of -2 to 2 where -2 = Strongly

Disagree and 2 = Strongly Agree.

2. Mean score of consumer responsibilities lie in the range of -2 to 2.

3. Items with (R) were reverse coded for computing the overall mean score.

The result of this study is in compliance with the studies of Barksdale and Darden

(1972), Vardarajan and Thirunarayana (1990) and Lysonski and Durvasula (2003) as

they also found that customers exhibit concern for environment and are even ready to

pay higher prices for environmentally safer products however, Barksdale et al. (1982),

French et al. (1982), Barker (1987) and Orel and Zeren (2011) found that consumers are

not prepared to pay more prices for the environmental friendly although they do care

about the environment.

Disaggregative Results

Consumers‟ attitudes in respect of consumer responsibilities are here discussed on

disaggregative basis across seven demographic variables viz., gender, marital status,

age, income, educational qualification, occupation and residential area. Here instead of

itemwise analysis, overall mean value has been used as scale is sufficiently representing

all the items used for measuring consumer responsibilities, with a high cronbach alpha

value of .912. In order to ascertain whether the attitudes of consumers towards the

consumer responsibilities differ significantly across demographic variables, the following

null hypothesis is put to test.

H3: Consumers do not differ significantly in their attitudes with respect to their

responsibilities across demographic variables (gender, marital status, age, income,

educational qualification, occupation and residential area).

Gender: Respondents of both sexes agree that they are ready to fulfill all the

responsibilities as a consumer. They will pay extra prices for the environmental friendly

products indicating awareness of the environment. However, men have significantly more

favorable attitudes than women. Mean scores of 1.3 and .90 for male and female

respondents respectively substantiates this.

4.18: Consumers Attitudes toward Consumer Responsibilities across

Gender

Consumer N Mean Std. P Value

Responsibiliti Deviation
es
Male 53 1.2658 1.0474
.001**

Female 47 0.9026 1.1195

NOTES:

1. Responses were obtained on a Likert scale of -2 to 2 where -2 = Strongly

Disagree and 2 = Strongly Agree.

2. Mean scores range from -2 to 2.

3. ** signify that difference is significant at 1% since p < .01.

Age: Respondents attitudes towards consumer responsibilities range from 1.6 to .12.

With respect to age, ANOVA test reveals significant differences among consumers’

attitudes with respect to consumer responsibilities. Under 25 age group respondents

exhibit most favorable attitude with a mean score of 1.6 and above 65 age group have the

least favorable attitude with a mean score of .12. It indicates that a little effort is

required to make above 65 age groups respondents more receptive towards their

responsibilities.

4.19: Consumers Attitudes toward Consumer Responsibilities across Age

Consumer N Mean Std. P Value

Responsibiliti Deviation
es
Under 25 36 1.6409 0.5603

25-44 26 1.3185 1.0019

.000**
45-64 22 0.5213 1.1768

Above 65 16 0.1207 1.1710

NOTES:

1. Responses were obtained on a Likert scale of -2 to 2 where -2 = Strongly

Disagree and 2 = Strongly Agree.

2. Mean scores range from -2 to 2.

3. ** signify that difference is significant at 1% since p < .01.

Education: Higher the education, more favorable is the attitudes towards consumer

responsibilities. Post graduates show significantly more favorable attitude towards

consumer responsibilities than under graduates and graduates (see Table 4.20). Better

educated consumers are supposed to be having a better awareness and understanding of

their responsibilities. Mean score of 1.8 for post graduate in contrast to .74 and 1.1 for

under gradate and graduate respondents‟ regarding consumer responsibilities supports

this.

4.20: Consumers Attitudes toward Consumer Responsibilities across

Educational Qualifications

Consumer N Mean Std. P

Responsibilities Deviation Valu
e
Under Graduate 47 0.7428 1.2001

Graduate 28 1.0840 1.0417 .000

**
Post Graduate 18 1.7607 0.4891

Others 7 1.8551 0.3307

NOTES:
1. Responses were obtained on a Likert scale of -2 to 2 where -2 = Strongly

Disagree and 2 = Strongly Agree.

2. Mean scores range from -2 to 2.

3. ** signify that difference is significant at 1% since p < .01.

Occupation: It can be seen from Table 4.21 that respondents across all occupational

groups have demonstrated positive attitudes towards consumer responsibilities. But

professionals with a mean score of 1.9 have the most favorable attitudes while

housewives have the lowest mean score of .43 regarding consumer responsibilities

implying that housewives are not ready to accept their environmental

responsibilities. Education and occupations are related in that those who are highly

educated are getting better jobs, so for occupation respondents belonging to prestigious

job categories have more favorable attitudes.

4.21: Consumers Attitudes toward Consumer Responsibilities across

Occupations

Consumer N Mean Std. p value

Responsibilities Deviation
Students 26 1.5926 0.6103

Housewives 25 0.4299 1.0941

.000**
Service 12 1.0926 1.1463

Business 11 0.9524 1.2583

Professional 14 1.8722 0.3253

 Others 12 0.4685 1.2801

NOTES:

1. Responses were obtained on a Likert scale of -2 to 2 where -2 = Strongly

Disagree and 2 = Strongly Agree.

2. Mean scores range from -2 to 2.

3. ** signify that difference is significant at 1% since p < .01.

Income: Respondents of higher income groups have displayed significantly more

favorable attitudes towards consumer responsibilities than lower income group

respondents (see Table 4.22). A high mean score of 1.7 for respondents having family

income of above Rs 60,000 per month against respondents belonging to below Rs

20,000 monthly family income group with comparatively low mean score of .46 for

consumer responsibilities provides authentication for this. This may be because

respondents in higher income groups are less price sensitive and are ready to shed some

extra money for the environmental cause and, therefore, choose those products which

causes the least environmental harm.

4.22: Consumers Attitudes toward Consumer Responsibilities across

Monthly Family Income

Consumer N Mean Std.

Responsibilities Deviati P
on value
39 0.4568 1.1665

Below Rs 20,000

Rs 20,000 – Rs 40,000 16 1.0773 1.0849 .000

**
 Rs 40,001 – Rs 60,000 21 1.6000 0.7744

Above Rs 60,000 24 1.7399 0.4494

NOTES:

1. Responses were obtained on a Likert scale of -2 to 2 where -2 = Strongly

Disagree and 2 = Strongly Agree.

2. Mean scores range from -2 to 2.

3. ** signify that difference is significant at 1% since p < .01.

Marital Status: Significant differences are found across marital status for consumer

responsibilities (see Table 4.23). Unmarried consumers exhibited more favorable

attitudes towards consumer responsibilities than married respondents. High mean score of

1.5 for unmarried respondents against the relatively low score of .79 for married

respondents concerning consumer responsibilities provides support for this.

4.23: Consumers Attitudes toward Consumer Responsibilities across

Marital Status

Consumer N Me Std. P
Responsibilities an Deviati va
on lu
e
60 0.7945 1.1900

Married .00
0**
 Unmarried 40 1.5482 0.7413

NOTES:

1. Responses were obtained on a Likert scale of -2 to 2 where -2 = Strongly

Disagree and 2 = Strongly Agree.

2. Mean scores range from -2 to 2.

3. ** signify that difference is significant at 1% since p < .01.

Residential Area: Irrespective of residential area, respondents have shown positive

attitudes towards consumer responsibilities. However, urban consumers have

exhibited significantly more favorable attitudes than rural consumers. Urban

customers mean score of 1.3 against rural consumers comparatively low mean score

of .76 regarding consumer responsibilities corroborates this. This may be because rural

consumers are less erudite and it’s quite a possibility they do not have knowledge about

the environmental issues or they may not have access to environmental friendly products,

or not ready to pay higher price for environmental friendly products as rural people

are price sensitive.

4.24: Consumers Attitudes toward Consumer Responsibilities across

Residential Area
 N Mean Std.
Consumer Deviation P value
Responsibilities

Urban 66 1.260 1.0284

7
Rural 34 0.755 1.1600
4 .000**

NOTES:

1. Responses were obtained on a Likert scale of -2 to 2 where -2 = Strongly

Disagree and 2 = Strongly Agree.

2. Mean scores range from -2 to 2.

3. ** signify that difference is significant at 1% since p < .01.

For the demographic variables, it can be concluded from Tables 4.18 to 4.24 that

significant differences exist in respect of consumer responsibilities across all the seven

variables viz., gender, age, educational qualification, occupation, income groups, marital

status and residential area. Hence, null hypothesis is rejected and alternative hypothesis

that consumers attitudes towards consumer responsibilities differ significantly across

demographic variables is accepted.

 CHAPTER 5

RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

MAJOR FINDINDS

Consumers’ attitudes for the various issues are compared across age, gender, marital

status, income, education, occupation and residential area, as well as composite results

have been obtained and analyzed in this study. The major findings of the present study

are presented here.

● Consumers have sanguine views about overall marketing, operating philosophy of

business firms, consumerism, government regulations and consumer

responsibilities.

● While comparing consumer attitudes across gender, it is found that men hold

more optimistic views about various elements of marketing than women. Also,

men have more positive views about overall marketing, operating philosophy of

business firms, consumerism, government regulations, consumer responsibilities.

● In terms of age, it has been found that younger respondents have more positive

views about consumerism, government regulations and consumer responsibilities.

● Education qualification also influences consumers attitudes. Post graduate

respondents are more optimistic for operating philosophy of business firms,

overall marketing, consumerism, government regulations and consumer

responsibilities.

● While comparing consumer attitudes across occupation, professionals have

exhibited more positive attitudes toward consumerism, government regulations

and consumer responsibilities than housewives.

● Consumers belonging to high income groups have very positive feelings about

consumerism, government regulations and consumer responsibilities than low

income groups.

● Family income, education and occupation are generally used to measure social

status and are always highly correlated. The results of this study reveal that

consumers belonging to high income groups, occupation and better education

have more positive views about consumerism, government regulations and

consumer responsibilities.

● It has been noted that unmarried respondents hold more positive views for

consumerism, government regulations, consumer responsibilities.

● Rural consumers have less favorable opinions about consumerism, government

regulations and consumer responsibilities than urban consumers. Government

regulations and facilities for consumer protection are almost non-existent in the
 rural areas and the lack of consumer knowledge enhances rural consumers’

vulnerability, implying greater responsibility for marketers in rural areas.

CONCLUSIONS

On an overall basis, respondents have exhibited positive perceptions regarding

consumerism, government regulations and consumer responsibilities.

While comparing consumer attitudes towards consumerism, government regulations and

consumer responsibilities across demographic variables significant differences are found

across all the seven demographic variables. But with respect to government regulations

gender fails to reveal any significant differences.

Men exhibit more favorable attitudes towards consumerism, government regulations and

consumer responsibilities than women. Younger respondents are more enthusiastic about

all the three issues than older respondents. Post graduates are more positive about

consumerism, government regulations and consumer responsibilities than graduates and

under graduates. Professionals are having more favorable opinions about consumerism,

government regulations and consumer responsibilities than housewives. Respondents

belonging to lower income groups have less favorable attitudes towards consumerism,

government regulations and consumer responsibilities than respondents belonging to

higher income groups. Unmarried respondents view consumerism, government

regulations and consumer responsibilities more favorably than married respondents. For

residential area, rural respondents have less favorable opinions than urban respondents

regarding consumerism, government regulations and consumer responsibilities.

IMPLICATIONS

The information provided by the present study can be used by the marketing practitioners

or marketing strategists as well as consumer welfare advocates and public policy makers

to generate more positive image of marketing in the eyes of Indian’s consumers. The

marketers need to devise strategies so as to be able to more receptive to consumer needs

and wants. The present section discusses the major policy implications from the survey

findings of consumer attitudes.

The study's findings could highlight gaps in consumer awareness regarding consumer

rights, government regulations and responsibilities. This can lead to targeted education

campaigns to empower consumers.

Consumers view consumerism issues with great enthusiasm and consider that the

business firms should give more attention to consumers‟ interests. Government

regulations of the business activities compel the business firms to introduce only those
products which are safe for the consumers use and force the producer to observe certain

requirements like truthful product labeling and publicize all the relevant information so as

to assess the injurious effects before buying. Furthermore, if after introducing the

products the firms come to know about some defects, then it is the responsibility of the

firms to protect the interest of the consumers both financially and physically by taking

immediate suitable actions.

Thus, business firms should exercise due care and diligence in their marketing actions

lest they face government controls. It is in the best interest of business firms that they

themselves should exercise self regulation. Although most of the respondents are fervent

in demanding further government regulations of marketing activities, but government

regulations themselves have some limitations and intervention of the government is not

the panacea for all the consumer problems. It is the responsibility of the business firms

that they should educate the consumers about the limitations of government intervention

and control and advantages of free enterprise.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

● Andreasen, A. and Best, A. (1977), “Consumers‟ Complaints: Does usiness

Respond?”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 55, No.4, pp. 93- 101.

● Arndt, J.; Barksdale, H. and Perreault, W. (1980), “Comparative Study of

Attitudes toward Marketing, Consumerism and Government Regulation: The

United States versus Norway and Venezuela”, in Day, R. and Hunt, H.K. (Eds),

New Findings in Consumer Satisfaction and Complaining, Indian University,

Bloomington, IN, pp. 66-72.

● Barksdale, H.C. and Darden, W.R. (1972), “Consumer Attitudes toward

Marketing and Consumerism”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36, October, pp. 28-35.

● Barksdale, H.C.; Darden, R.D. and Perreault, W.D., Jr. (1976), “Changes in

Consumer Attitudes toward Marketing, Consumerism and Government

Regulation: 1971-1975”, the Journal of Consumer Affairs, vol. 10, Winter, pp.

117-139.

● Barksdale, H.C. and Perreault, W.D. Jr. (1980), “Can Consumers be Satisfied?”

MSU business topics, Vol. 28, Spring, pp. 19-30.

● Barksdale, H.C.; Perreault , W.D. Jr.; Arndt, J. ; Barnhill, J.A.; French, W.A.;

Halliday , M. and Zif, J. (1982), “A Cross- National Survey of Consumer

Attitudes toward Marketing Practices, Consumerism and Government

Regulations”, Columbia Journal of World Business, Vol. 17, Summer, pp. 71-

85.
● Barker, T.A. (1987), “Consumerism in New Zealand”, International

Marketing Review, Vol. 4, No.3, pp. 63-74.

● Baudrillard, J. (1998), The Consumer Society, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

● Bhuian, S.N.; Abdul-Muhmin, A.G. and Kim, D. (2001), “Business Education

and Its Influence on Attitudes to Business, Consumerism and Government in

Saudi Arabia”, Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 76, No.4, pp. 226-230.

● Evans, M. D. R. and Kelley, J. (2004), “Effect of Family Structure on Life

Satisfaction: Australian Evidence?”, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 69, pp.

303-349.

● Ferdous, A.S. and Towfique, B. (2008), “Consumer Sentiment towards

Marketing in Bangladesh: The Relationship between Attitudes to Marketing,

Satisfaction and Regulation”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 26, No. 5,

pp. 481-495.

● Festinger, L. (1957), A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, CA: Stanford University

Press, Stanford.

● French, W.A.; Barksdale, H.C. and Perreault, W.D. (1982), “Consumer

Attitudes towards Marketing in England and the United States”, European

Journal of Marketing, Vol. 16, No.6, pp. 20-30.

● Gaski, John F. and Etzel, Michael J. (1986), “The Index of Consumer Sentiment

towards Marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 50, No. 3, pp. 71-81.

● Gaski, John F. and Etzel, Michael J. (2005), “National Aggregate Consumer

Sentiment toward Marketing: A Thirty–Year Retrospective and Analysis”,

Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 859- 866.

● Greyser, S.A. and Diamond, S.L. (1974), “Business is Adapting to

Consumerism”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 52, September/October, pp. 38-

40.

● Greyser, S.A.; Bloom, P.N. and Diamond, S.L. (1982), “ Assessing

Consumerism: the Public‟s and the Expert‟s View”, Consumerism and Beyond,

Proceedings of the Workshops Sponsored by the Marketing Science Institute and

the Center for Business and Public Policy, University of Maryland, pp. 4-10.

● Hawes, J. M. and Lumpkin, J. R. (1984), “Understanding the Outshopper”,

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 12, pp. 200-218.

● Hustad, T.P. and Pessemier, E.A. (1973), “Will the Real Consumer Activist

Please Stand Up: An Examination of Consumer‟s Opinions about Marketing

Practices”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 10, August, pp. 93-101.

● Media News Bureau (2011), “Changes in Indian Marketing and How to

Market to a New India”, April 18.

● Jain, S.K. and Bhatia, M. (1995), “Market Orientation among Small and

Medium Indian Enterprises: An Empirical Investigation”, Malaysian Journal of

Small and Medium Enterprises, Vol. 6, pp, 49- 59.

● Jain, S.K. and Bhatia, M. (2004), “Market Orientation and Its Linkage with Firm

Characteristics: A Study of Manufacturing Firms in India”, Business Analyst,

Vol. 25, No.1, pp 1-22.

● Jain, S. K. and Goel, P. (2008), “Consumers‟ Attitudes towards Marketing

in India: An Exploratory Analysis”, MAIMS Journal of Management, Vol. 3, No.

2, October, pp. 4-11.

● Jain, S. K. and Goel, P. (2011), “Consumerism and Consumer Attitudes

towards Marketing: Insights from Past Studies and Direction for Future

Research”, Journal of Business Thought, Vol. 1, April 2010-March 2011, pp. 112-

140.

● Jain, Sanjay K. (2011), “Sentiment towards Marketing in a Big Emerging

Market: An Empirical Investigation of Consumers in India”, an invited paper

presented at the 5th Indian Marketing Summit on Innovative Marketing

Strategies for Big Emerging Markets, Organized by Birla Institute of

Management Technology (BIMTECH), Delhi (UP), India on January 22-23,

2011.

● Jones, M.G. and Gardner, D.M. (1976), Consumerism: A New Force in Society,

D.C. Heath, Lexington, Massachusetts.

● Kayank, E. (1985), “Some Thoughts on Consumerism in Developed and Less

Developed Countries”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 2, pp. 15-30.

● Kayank, E. and Wilkstrom, S. (1985), “Methodological Framework for Cross-

National Comparisons of Consumerism Issues in Multiple Environments”,

European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51, pp. 31-47.

● Kohli, A.K. and Jaworski, B.J. (1990), “Market Orientation: The Construct,

Research Prepositions and Managerial Implications”, Journal of Marketing, Vol.

54, pp. 1-18.

● Kotler, Philip (1994), Marketing Management- Analysis, Planning and Control,

New Delhi: Prentice-Hall of India Pvt. Ltd.

● Kotler, P. and Keller, K. (2009), Framework for Marketing

Management, 4th Edition, Prentice Hall.

● Lysonski, S. and Zotos, G. (1989), “Consumer Sentiment: New Zealand

versus England, USA and Greece”, New Zealand Journal of Business, Vol. 27,

No. 4, pp. 8-14.

● Lysonski, S. and Durvasula, S. (2003), “Should Marketing Managers be

Concerned about Attitudes towards Marketing and Consumerism in New

Zealand? A longitudinal View”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37, No.3/4,

pp. 385-406.

● Maynes, S.E. (1989), The Future of Consumerism: Guardians of the Marketplace,

Twayne Publishers, Boston, MA.

● McCarthy, J. (1960), Basic Marketing: A Managerial Approach, Homewood, IL:

Richard D. Irwin.

● Morgan, Robert M. and Hunt, Shelby D. (1994), “The Commitment- Trust

Theory of Relationship Marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, pp. 20-38.

● Narver, J.C. and Slater, S.F. (1990), “The Effect of a Market Orientation

on Business Profitability”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, pp. 20-35.

● Orel, Fatma Demirci and Zeren, Deniz (2011), “Business Students‟ Attitudes

towards Consumerism, Marketing Practices and Government Regulations: A

Comparative Study of Poland and Turkey”, International Journal of Business

and Social Science, Vol. 2 No. 19, pp. 99-109.

● Pehlam, A.M. and Wilson, D.T. (1996), “ A Longitudinal Study of the Impact

of Market Structure, Firm Structure, Strategy and Market Orientation Culture on

 Dimensions of Small Firm Performance”, Journal of the Academy of

Marketing Science, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 27- 43.

● Peterson, M. and Ekici, A. (2007), “Consumer Attitude toward Marketing and

Subjective Quality of Life in the Context of a Developing Country”, Journal

of Macromarketing, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 350-359.

● Roberts, J.A. and Manolis, C. (2000), “Baby boomers and Busters: An

Exploratory Investigation of Attitudes toward Marketing, Advertising and

Consumerism”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 17, No. 6/7, pp. 481-499.

● Uray, N. and Menguc, B. (1996), “Testing the Cross-Cultural Generalizability of

the Scale of Consumer Attitudes toward Marketing and Consumerism”, Journal of

International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 9, No.2, pp. 65-92.

● Vardarajan, P.R. and Thirunarayana, P.N. (1990), “Consumers‟ Attitudes

towards Marketing Practices, Consumerism and Government Regulations:

Cross-National Perspectives”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 24, No. 6, pp.

6-23
 QUESTIONNAIRE

SECTION - 1

1. Your name: _________________________________________________________

2. Your age (in years).Tick ( √ ) the relevant alternative.

( ) Under 25

( ) 25-44

( ) 45-65

( ) Above 65

3. Sex:

( ) Male

( ) Female

4. Marital status:

( ) Married

( ) Unmarried

5. Monthly Family income (Rs.):

( ) Below 20,000

( ) 20,000-40,000

( ) 40,001-60,000

( ) Above 60,000

6. Educational qualification:
( ) Under- Graduate

( ) Graduate

( ) Post- Graduate

( ) Others (please specify): _____________

7. Occupation:

( ) Student

( ) Housewife

( ) Service

( ) Business

( ) Professionals

( ) Others (please specify):______________

SECTION - II

Indicate your level of importance on the scale of 1 to 5.

Consumers Attitudes toward Consumerism

1. Safeguarding consumer rights is an important issue today.

2. The exploitation of consumers by business firms deserves more attention than it

receives.\

3. In future, protecting consumer interest will be more important.

Consumer Attitudes towards Government Regulations

1. The government should exercise more responsibility for regulating the prices,

advertising, sales and other marketing activities.

2. The government should set minimum standards of quality for all products sold to

consumers.
3. The government should test competing brands of products and make the results of

these tests available to consumers.

4. In general, self–regulation by business itself is preferable to stricter control of

business by the government.(R)

5. A central agency of consumer protection at the national level is needed to protect

and promote the interests of consumers.

Consumer Attitudes towards Consumer Responsibilities

1. Consumers are willing to pay higher prices for environmental friendly products.

2. Concern for the environment does not influence the product choices made by most

consumers.(R)

3. Many of the mistakes that consumers make in buying products are the result of

their own carelessness or ignorance.(R)

 ABSTRACT

The present study explores the attitude of consumers towards consumerism, government

regulations, and consumer responsibilities, while analyzing the influence of various

demographic variables such as age, gender, education, income, and occupation.

Consumerism, as a socio-economic movement, empowers individuals to demand fair

treatment, quality goods, and ethical business practices. This research investigates how

consumers perceive their rights and responsibilities, their awareness of consumer

protection laws, and their trust in government interventions aimed at safeguarding

consumer interests. A structured questionnaire was administered to a diverse sample

population, and data were analyzed using statistical tools to identify patterns and

correlations. The findings reveal significant variations in consumer attitudes based on

demographic characteristics, highlighting the need for targeted awareness programs and

policy interventions. The study concludes with recommendations to enhance consumer

education and strengthen regulatory frameworks to promote responsible consumer

behavior and active participation in the consumer movement.

PROJEC
T
REPORT