Click here to load reader

The Relationship between the List of Values and Consumer ...bmdynamics.com/issue_pdf/bmd110570- 01-14.pdf · The Relationship between the List of Values and Consumer Decision Making

  • View
    212

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Text of The Relationship between the List of Values and Consumer ...bmdynamics.com/issue_pdf/bmd110570-...

  • Business Management Dynamics

    Vol.5, No.9, Mar 2016, pp.01-14

    Society for Business and Management Dynamics

    The Relationship between the List of Values and Consumer Decision Making Styles in the Context of Clothing Products

    Kadri Gokhan YILMAZ1, Aybegum GUNGORDU2 and Tuba YUMUSAK3 Abstract The purpose of this study is to measure the relationship between list of values and consumers decision making styles. We drew on Sproles and Kendall (1986)s CSI scale and Kahle, Liu and Watkins (1992)s LOV scale. We carried out surveys on 375 undergraduate students. We used reliability analysis, exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, Pearson correlation analysis and simple linear regression analysis. In conclusion, we found that there is a significant and positive relationship between some values and some consumer decision making styles.

    Key words: List of Values, Consumer Decision Making Styles, Consumer Style Inventory, CSI, LOV

    Available online

    www.bmdynamics.com ISSN: 2047-7031

    INTRODUCTION

    Schwartz and Bilsky (1987) state that values are concepts or beliefs, are about desirable end states or behaviors, transcend specific situations, guide selection or evaluation of behavior or events, and are ordered by relative importance. They affect the attitude and behavior of an individual (Odabasi & Baris, 2014). In many cases, values are universal (Solomon, 2015). Furthermore, values are more stable over time than attitudes because they are more central to an individuals system (Rokeach, 1973). Scholars use three scales such as Rokeach Values System, Values and Lifestyles (VALS) and List of Values in Values Research (Odabasi & Baris, 2014). Values are both an indicator and a consequence of behavior (Unal & Ercis, 2006). Values affect consumer decision making styles which explain the attitude of the consumer towards purchasing decision (Unal & Ercis, 2006). Furthermore, decision making styles can be interpreted as basic buying decision making attitudes that consumers adhere to, even when they are applied to different goods, services or purchasing situations, in a few words they do not change with time (Walsh et al., 2001). Consumer decision making styles are orientations which are effective both emotionally and ideationally before, after and during the consumer buying process (Unal & Ercis, 2006). Moreover, these are rules which consist of cognitive and emotional characteristics that involve the consumers personality and they guide the consumer for making a selection (Unal & Ercis, 2006). The purpose of this study is to measure the relationship between list of values and consumers decision making styles. Therefore, we seek answers for questions such as: 1) Which personal values do people have in Turkey? 2) Which consumer decision making styles do people have in Turkey? 3) Is there a relationship between personal values and consumer decision making styles in Turkey? LITERATURE REVIEW List of Values (LOV)

    List of values is a scale which is developed by Kahle (1983) for being directly applicable to marketing and consumer behavior (Odabasi & Baris, 2014). LOV is based on Maslows needs hierarchy (1954) and incorporates elements of social adaptation theory (Kahle, 1983). In the original scale (Kahle, 1983), there were 9 values (including the excitement value) but then Kahle, Liu and Watkins (1992) included 8 values

    * Gazi University, Faculty of Business and Administrative Sciences 1 [email protected] 2 [email protected] 3 [email protected]

    http://www.bmdynamics.com/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

  • Business Management Dynamics

    Vol.5, No.9, Mar 2016, pp.01-14

    Society for Business and Management Dynamics

    in LOV. This final version of LOV consists of values such as warm relationship with others, sense of belonging, self-respect, being well respected, self-fulfillment, sense of accomplishment, security, and fun and enjoyment in life (Beatty et al., 1985). As for Kahle, Beatty and Homer (1986), these values can be differentiated as external values (sense of belonging, being well respected, and security) and internal values (warm relationship with others, sense of accomplishment, fun and enjoyment in life, self-respect, self-fulfillment, and excitement) according to the locus of control. Daghfous, Petrof and Pons (1999) states that these values can be gathered in three groups such as hedonic values (fun and enjoyment in life, warm relationship with others), empathy values (self-respect, being well respected, security, sense of belonging), self-fulfillment values (self-fulfillment, sense of accomplishment). Kahle, Beatty and Homer (1986) notes these values can be fulfilled through interpersonal relationships (warm relationship with others, sense of belonging), personal factors (self-respect, being well respected, self-fulfillment), apersonal things (sense of accomplishment, security, excitement, fun and enjoyment in life). The rationale behind using LOV is that this scale is a better methodology than VALS when predicting consumer behavior (Kahle, Beatty & Homer, 1986). For instance, the reason is that with the LOV, the exact phrase from the survey can be returned to the consumer in an ad (Kahle, 1985). This scale can be used either scoring each value or circling the most important value (Kahle, 1983). On the other hand, one can sort the values according to their significance level for consumers, also want from consumers to indicate the most important to values for them, use a 9 or 10 point Likert scale or one can use a combination of scoring methods (Bearden & Netemeyer, 1999). Madrigal and Kahle (1994) indicate that LOV can be used in market segmentation. Moreover, Herche (1994) obtained the MILOV scale by extending the LOV scale. MILOV includes the 9 values in the original LOV scale (Kahle, 1983) and has 44 items in total. In this study, Herche (1994) measures social values and social oriented life goal values. Huefner et al. (2002) extend the MILOV scale by adding the religiosity dimension. Unal and Ercis (2006) used LOV scale and consumer decision making styles in consumer segmentation and they state that they are first in using these two scales together. Consumer Decision Making Styles

    Sproles and Kendall (1986) define consumer styles as a mental orientation characterizing a consumers approach to making consumers choices. There are three approaches which examine consumer decision making style (Unal & Ercis, 2006): 1. Psychographic/life style approach that examines the consumers in terms of psychological characteristics and lifestyle. 2. Consumer typology approach that discriminates consumers into general consumer types such as economic, uninterested, quality oriented etc. according to their shopping patterns. 3. Consumer characteristics approach which is also named as consumer decision making styles. In the classification of consumers, using consumer typologies does not reflect reality when considered hybrid consumers who have multiple decision making dimensions (Walsh et al., 2001). Therefore, using the CSI scale is more useful. These styles are a basis of market segmentation (Walsh et al., 2011). Marketers can segment heterogeneous consumer markets into homogenous segments according to demographic, behavioral, physiographic variables (Unal & Ercis, 2006). Consumer decision making styles can be used as a segmentation criteria before or after these variables which means multi stage segmentation (Walsh et al., 2001). Scholars drew from Sproles and Kendall (1986)s scale while measuring consumer decision making styles. Sproles and Kendall (1986) mentions 8 characteristics such as (1) perfectionist, high quality conscious consumer, (2) brand conscious, price equals quality consumer, (3) novelty and fashion conscious consumer, (4) recreational and shopping conscious consumer, (5) price conscious value for money consumer, (6) impulsive, careless consumer, (7) confused by over choice consumer, (8) habitual, brand loyal consumer. Perfectionist/High Quality Conscious means the degree to which a consumer searches carefully and systematically for the best quality in products. Brand Consciousness/Price Equals Quality is explained by a consumer's orientation toward buying the more expensive, well-known national brands. Novelty and Fashion Conscious is defined by consumers who appear to like new and

  • Business Management Dynamics

    Vol.5, No.9, Mar 2016, pp.01-14

    Society for Business and Management Dynamics

    innovative products and gain excitement from seeking out new things. Recreational and Shopping Conscious is the extent to which a consumer finds shopping a pleasant activity and shops just for the fun of it. Price Conscious/Value for the Money is a consumer with a particularly high consciousness of sale prices and lower prices in general. Impulsiveness/Careless is one who tends to buy on the spur of the moment and to appear unconcerned about how much he or she spends (or getting best buys). Confused by Overchoice is a person perceiving too many brands and stores from which to choose and who likely experiences information overload in the market. Habitual/Brand Loyal is a characteristic indicating a consumer who repetitively chooses the same favorite brands and stores (Bearden & Netemeyer, 1999). However, these may differ as a consequence of countriescultural identities. There have been studies on CSI in various countries such as USA (McDonald, 1994; Shim, 1996; Wesley, Lehew & Woodside, 2006), China (Hiu et al., 2001; Siu, et al., 2001), Germany (Walsh et al., 2001), South Africa (Potgieter, Wiese & Strasheim, 2013) and Turkey (Unal & Ercis, 2006; Yesilada & Kavas, 2008; Dursun, Alniacik, & Tumer Kabadayi, 2013; Ceylan, 2013). Decision making styles are important for marketers in terms of estimating consumer behavior, being applicable for market segmentation, being helpful for profiling consumer decision making characteristics (Potgieter, Wiese & Strasheim, 2013). Studies such as Unal and Ercis (2006) found a relationship between personal values and consumer decision making styles. Therefore, in the present study, we propose,

    H1: Personal values have a significant and positive relationship between consumer decision making styles. METHODOLOGY In this study we used face to face survey method. We used Sproles and Kendall (1986)s Consumer Style Inventory Scale (CSI) and Kahle, Liu and Watkins (1992)s List of Values (LOV) scale. Both of the questionnaires were in English and translated into Turkish, then back translated into English as McGorry (2000) suggested. We pretested the questionnaires on 100 students before conducting the surveys. Then we applied the surveys on students and 375 of the surveys were found usable. Scales were measured on a 5 point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree, 5= strongly agree). First, we carried out a reliabiliy analysis by using the Cronbachs Alpha Coefficient. Second, in an effort to see the definite factor constructs, we carried out exploratory factor analyses for LOV and CSI scales and after we used confirmatory factor analyses. Using CFA after an EFA can be seen in Dursun, Alniacik and Tumer Kabadayi (2013), Fan and Xiao (1998) and Walsh et al. (2001)s studies. In EFA analysis, our extraction method is Principal Component Analysis and our rotation method is Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. As for confirmatory factor analyses, we applied first order confirmatory factor analyses for each one of them. Last, we carried out simple linear regressions to measure the effect of LOV on consumer decision making styles with regards to clothing products. Carrying out the surveys on students and exploring the subject only in the context of clothing products are the restrictions of the study. Simple random sampling method is used for the sample size selection. Our sample consists of 375 undergraduate (primarily Business Administration majors) students from a faculty of a state university in Turkey. FINDINGS

    Reliability results of the pilot study with 100 students showed that the scales are extremely reliable (For the CSI scale, Cronbach Alpha Coefficient= 0,853; For the LOV scale, Cronbach Alpha Coefficient = 0,914). Hair et al. (1998) state that reliability coefficients above 0,60 are satisfactory for exploratory research; those above 0,70 are acceptable; and those above 0,80 are good. Descriptive statistics for our sample is shown in Table 1. We have to note that missing values in the dataset are replaced with mean values. All participants are between the age of 19 and 25. Furthermore, their average clothing expenditure for a month is 216 Turkish liras.

  • Business Management Dynamics

    Vol.5, No.9, Mar 2016, pp.01-14

    Society for Business and Management Dynamics

    Table 1. Descriptive statistics

    Gender % Frequency Marital Status % Frequency

    Male 37.9 142 Single 96 360

    Female 60.3 226 Married 1.9 7

    Income % Frequency Most Preffered Clothing Brands % Frequency

    0-500 Turkish Liras 42.9 161 KOTON 15.2 57

    501-1000 Turkish Liras 30.4 114 LCW 13.1 49

    1001-1500 Turkish Liras 7.5 28 ZARA 9.9 37

    1501 Turkish Liras and over 15.5 58 Reasons for choosing specific brands % Frequency

    Clothing shopping frequency % Frequency Comfort 38.9 146

    Once in a month 46.7 175 Price 16.5 62

    Once in a week 12.5 47 Quality 21.1 79

    Once in three months 21.6 81 Style 7.5 28

    According to the EFA results of CSI scale (Table 2), we found 7 factors. These 7 factors are (1) perfectionist/high quality conscious, (2) price conscious/value for the money, (3) brand consciousness/price equals quality, (4) confused by over choice, (5) novelty and fashion conscious, (6) impulsiveness/careless. (7) recreational and shopping conscious. Similar to Lyonski et al. (1996)s findings, we found a confusion in the factor loadings of some questions. Furthermore, some of the factors such as price conscious/value for the money, impulsiveness/careless, confused by over choice and habitual/brand loyal consumer are found problematic in Lyonski et al. (1996)s study. Factor loadings are in the range of 51 percent and 84 percent.

    Table 2. EFA Results of CSI Scale

    Question No

    Factor Factor Loadings

    Perfectionist/high quality conscious (5 items)

    Q3 In general, I try to get the best overall quality .849

    Q1 Getting very good quality is very important to me. .815

    Q2 When it comes to purchasing products, I try to get the very best or perfect choice .800

    Q4 I make a special effort to choose the very best quality products .724

    Q6 My standards and expectations for products I buy are very high. .629

    Price conscious/value for the Money (3 items)

    Q27 I look carefully to find the best value for the money .716

    Q28 I should plan my shopping more carefully than I do .613

    Q32 I carefully watch how much I spend. .613

    Brand consciousness/price equals quality (4 items)

    Q11 The higher the price of a product, the better its quality. .753

    Q12 Nice department and specialty stores offer me the best products. .694

    Q10 I usually buy the more expensive brands .639

    Q13 I prefer buying the best selling brands .588

    Confused by over choice (4 items)

    Q34 Sometimes it's hard to choose which stores to shop. .797

    Q36 All the information I get on different products confuses me. .731

    Q33 There are so many brands to choose from that often I feel confused. .722

    Q35 The more I learn about products, the harder it seems to choose the best. .719

    Novelty and fashion conscious (4 items)

    Q16 I keep my wardrobe up-to date with the changing fashions .821

    Q15 I usually have one or more outfits of the very newest style. .787

    Q17 Fashionable, attractive styling is very important to me .764

  • Business Management Dynamics

    Vol.5, No.9, Mar 2016, pp.01-14

    Society for Business and Management Dynamics

    Q18 To get variety, I shop different stores and choose different brands. .532

    Impulsiveness/careless (4 items)

    Q7 I shop quickly, buying the first product or brand I find that seems good enough. .604

    Q29 I am impulsive when purchasing.. .604

    Q30 Often I make careless purchases I later wish I had not. .571

    Q5 I really don't give my purchases much thought or care. .521

    Recreational and shopping conscious (5 items)

    Q21 Going shopping is one of the enjoyable activities of my life. .769

    Q20 Shopping is not a pleasant activity to me. .718

    Q23 I enjoy shopping, just for fun .690

    Q22 Shopping the stores wastes my time. .547

    Q19 It's fun to buy something new and exciting. .514

    Extraction metod: Principal Component Analysis Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization Only factor loadings of 0.50 or above are reported for the EFA. Explained variance: 52.533 %, KMO: 0.920, Bartletts test of Sphericity: X2: 5714.931; df:780; p

  • Business Management Dynamics

    Vol.5, No.9, Mar 2016, pp.01-14

    Society for Business and Management Dynamics

    Price conscious/value for the money 0.628

    Q27 .711 .050 16.380

    Q28 .657 .050 16.380

    Brand consciousness/price equals quality 0.76

    Q10 .569 .095 9.664

    Q11 .570

    Q12 .667 .115 8.795

    Q13 .747 .126 9.188

    Confused by overchoice 0.760

    Q33 .734 .085 11.294

    Q34 .784

    Q35 .602 .079 9.766

    Q36 .591 .076 9.599

    Novelty and fashion conscious 0.828

    Q15 .788 .061 14.869

    Q16 .829

    Q17 .743 .063 14.180

    Impulsiveness/careless 0.662

    Q29 .739

    Q30 .670 .137 6.515

    Recreational and shopping conscious 0.713

    Q21 .777

    Q23 .755 .088 10.032

    Q19 .517 .073 8.361

    Only factor loadings of 0.50 or above are reported for the EFA

    According to Table 5, factor loadings are in the range of 71 percent and 82 percent. Cronbach Alpha coefficient shows that the LOV scale is reliable.

    Table 5. First-order CFA Analysis of LOV Scale

    Construct/Indicator Standardized factor loadings

    SE t Reliability (Cronbach Alpha)

    Values 0.914

    Self-respect .829 .029 25.201

    Sense of accomplishment

    .779 .029 25.201

    Security .819 .029 25.201

    Sense of belonging .666 .029 25.201

    Warm relationship with others

    .719 .029 25.201

    Being well respected .746 .029 25.201

    Self of fulfillment .775 .029 25.201

    Fun and enjoyment in life

    .764 .029 25.201

    Only factor loadings of 0.50 or above are reported for the EFA

  • Business Management Dynamics

    Vol.5, No.9, Mar 2016, pp.01-14

    Society for Business and Management Dynamics

    As can be seen in Table 6, fit indexes for the CSI Scale and LOV scale are in the range of suggested standards.

    Table 6. Fit Indexes for CSI and LOV Scales

    Index Suggested standard Source CSI Scale LOV Scale

    CMIN/DF 2/sd 5 acceptable Marsh and Hocevar, 1985 2,31 3,8

    RMSEA RMSEA .08 acceptable .08 RMSEA .10 mediocre

    Maccallum et al., 2001; Byrne, 2010

    0,059 0,087

    GFI GFI .90 acceptable Engel et al., 2003 0,90 0,93

    CFI CFI .90 acceptable Bentler,1992 0,916 0,95

    IFI IFI .90 acceptable Bollen, 1989 0,918 0,957

    According to Table 7, multicollinearity does not exist between the variables.

    Table 7. Pearson Correlations

    Mean SD F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8

    F1 3.81 0.89 1

    F2 3.53 1.01 .391** 1

    F3 3.03 0.88 .298** .158** 1

    F4 3.10 0.91 .162** .089 .247** 1

    F5 2.85 1.06 .214** -.020 .444** .224** 1

    F6 2.68 1.095 -.044 -.101 .270** .189** .229** 1

    F7 3.29 1.007 .271** .153** .262** .203** .304** .161** 1

    V1 4.23 1.059 .201** .213** .120* .158** .096 .037 .168** 1

    V2 4.45 0.91 .345** .286** .092 .113* .066 -.048 .213** .536** 1

    V3 4.44 0.89 .272** .198** .063 .137** .018 -.021 .189** .497** .697** 1

    V4 4.29 0.98 .344** .247** .071 .103* .111* -.026 .253** .468** .677** .644** 1

    V5 4.21 1.003 .297** .199** .155** .130* .101 .033 .199** .512** .510** .579** .581** 1

    V6 4.32 1.004 .231** .183** .099 .114* .078 .018 .217** .536** .646** .573** .540** .599** 1

    V7 4.36 0.95 .289** .243** .112* .147** .059 -.048 .197** .503** .664** .621** .580** .516** .619** 1

    V8 4.43 0.94 .308** .202** .058 .065 .092 -.076 .166** .353** .654** .645** .614** .526** .555** .644** 1

    F1: perfectionist F2: price F3: brand F4: confused F5: novelty and fashion F6: careless F7: recreational and shopping V1: Sense of belonging V2: Self-respect V3: Security V4: Fun and enjoyment in life V5: Warm relationship with others V6: Being well respected V7: Sense of accomplishment V8: Self of fulfillment **p< 0.01 *p< 0.05

    Finally, we used the simple linear regression model to assume the relationship between each consumer style and each value. The simple linear regression model assumes the relationship between the dependent variable and independent variable can be approximated by a straight line (Bowerman et al., 2012). Among the variables, careless does not have a significant relationship with any of the values according to the simple linear regression results. Other results can be seen in Simple Linear Regression Tables.

  • Business Management Dynamics

    Vol.5, No.9, Mar 2016, pp.01-14

    Society for Business and Management Dynamics

    Table 8. The Simple Linear Regression Results I Unstandardized

    Coefficients Standardized Coefficients

    B

    Std. Error

    Beta t Sig.

    R R2 F Regression Residual p

    Constant 3.092 0.187 16.499 0.00 0.201 0.040 15.639 1 373 0.00

    Sense of belonging

    0.170 0.043 0.201 3.955 0.00

    Constant 2.301 0.217 10.589 0.00 0.345 0.119 50.246 1 373 0.00

    Self-respect 0.339 0.048 0.345 7.088 0.00

    Constant 2.594 0.227 11.405 0.00 0.272 0.074 29.731 1 373 0.00

    Security 0.273 0.050 0.272 5.453 0.00

    Constant 2.469 0.195 12.682 0.00 0.344 0.118 1 373 0.00

    Fun and enjoyment in life

    0.312 0.044 0.344 7.069 0.00

    Constant 2.691 0.192 14.045 0.00 0.297 0.088 36.118 1 373 0.00

    Warm relationship with others

    0.266 0.044 0.297 6.010 0.00

    Constant 2.916 0.200 14.592 0.00 0.231 0.054 21.101 1 373 0.00

    Being well respected

    0.207 0.045 0.231 4.594 0,00

    Constant 2.628 0.207 12.680 0,00 0.289 0.084 34.088 1 373 0.00

    Sense of accomplishment

    0.271 0.046 0.289 5.839 0,00

    Constant 2.508 0.213 11.771 0,00 0.308 0.095 39.059 1 373 0.00

    Self of fulfillment

    0.294 0.047 0.308 6.250 0,00

    Dependent variable: perfectionist

    There is a positive and significant relationship between perfectionist and each one of the values. Sense of belonging explains 4 percent of change in perfectionist. Self respect explains 11.9 percent of change in perfectionist. Security explains 7.4 percent of change in perfectionist. Fun and enjoyment in life explains 11.8 percent of change in perfectionist. Warm relationship with others explains 8.8 percent of change in perfectionist. Being well respected explains 5.4 percent of change in perfectionist. Sense of accomplishment explains 8.4 percent of change in perfectionist. Self of fulfilment explains 9.5 percent of change in perfectionist.

    Table 9. The Simple Linear Regression Results II Unstandardized

    Coefficients Standardized Coefficients

    B

    Std. Error

    Beta t Sig.

    R R2 F Regression (df)

    Residual (df)

    p

    Constant 2.675 0.211 12.667 0.00 0.213 0.045 17.769 1 373 0.00

    Sense of belonging

    0.204 0.048 0.213 4.215 0.00

    Constant 2.124 0.251 8.473 0.00 0.286 0.082 33.160 1 373 0.00

    Self-respect 0.317 0.055 0.286 5.758 0.00

    Constant 2.539 0.262 9.697 0.00 0.198 0.039 15.150 1 373 0.00

    Security 0.225 0.058 0.198 3.892 0.00

    Constant 2.450 0.227 10.791 0.00 0.247 0.061 24.208 1 373 0.00

    Fun and enjoyment in life

    0.253 0.052 0.247 4.920 0.00

    Constant 2.692 0.222 12.114 0.00 0.199 0.040 15.351 1 373 0.00

    Warm relationship with others

    0.201 0.051 0.199 3.918 0.00

  • Business Management Dynamics

    Vol.5, No.9, Mar 2016, pp.01-14

    Society for Business and Management Dynamics

    Constant 2.741 0.228 12.010 0.00 0.183 0.033 12.865 1 373 0.00

    Being well respected

    0.184 0.051 0.183 3.587 0.00

    Constant 2.416 0.237 10.178 0.00 0.243 0.059 23.442 1 373 0.00

    Sense of accomplishment

    0.257 0.053 0.243 4.842 0.00

    Constant 2.571 0.248 10.372 0.00 0.202 0.041 15.944 1 373 0.00

    Self of fulfillment 0.218 0.055 0.202 3.993 0.00

    Dependent variable: price conscious

    There is a positive and significant relationship between price and each one of the values. Sense of belonging explains 4.5 percent of change in price. Self respect explains 8.2 percent of change in price. Security explains 3.9 percent of change in price. Fun and enjoyment in life explains 6.1 percent of change in price. Warm relationship with others explains 4.0 percent of change in price. Being well respected explains 3.3 percent of change in price. Sense of accomplishment explains 5.9 percent of change in price. Self of fulfilment explains 4.1 percent of change in price.

    Table 10. The Simple Linear Regression Results III Unstandardized

    Coefficients Standardized Coefficients

    B

    Std. Error

    Beta t Sig.

    R R2 F Regression (df)

    Residual (df)

    p

    Constant 2.607 0.187 13.959 0.000 0.120 0.014 5.477 1 373 0.20

    Sense of belonging

    0.100 0.043 0.120 2.340 0.020

    Constant 2.636 0.227 11.624 0.00 0.092 0.008 3.166 1 373 0.076

    Self-respect 0.089 0.050 0.092 1.779 0.076

    Constant 2.753 0.232 11.865 0.00 0.063 0.004 1.493 1 373 0.222

    Security 0.063 0.051 0.063 1.222 0.222

    Constant 2.757 0.203 13.553 0.00 0.071 0.005 1.914 1 373 0.167

    Fun and enjoyment in life

    0.064 0.046 0.071 1.384 0.167

    Constant 2.455 0.195 12.594 0.00 0.155 0.024 9.222 1 373 0.003

    Warm relationship with others

    0.137 0.045 0.155 3.037 0.003

    Constant 2.654 0.201 13.199 0.00 0.099 0.010 3.708 1 373 0.055

    Being well respected

    0.087 0.045 0.099 1.926 0.055

    Constant 2.582 0.212 12.197 0.00 0.112 0.013 4.723 1 373 0.030

    Sense of accomplishment

    0.103 0.047 0.112 2.173 0.030

    Constant 2.791 0.220 12.692 0.00 0.058 0.003 1.245 1 373 0.265

    Self of fulfillment

    0.054 0.049 0.058 1.116 0.265

    Dependent variable: brand conscious

    There is a positive and significant relationship between brand and some of the values. Warm relationship with others explains 2.4 percent of change in brand. Sense of accomplishment explains 1.3 percent of change in brand.

  • Business Management Dynamics

    Vol.5, No.9, Mar 2016, pp.01-14

    Society for Business and Management Dynamics

    Table 11. The Simple Linear Regression Results IV Unstandardized

    Coefficients Standardized Coefficients

    B

    Std. Error

    Beta t Sig.

    R R2 F Regression (df)

    Residual (df)

    p

    Constant 2.531 0.193 13.098 0.00 0.158 0.025 9.535 1 373 0.002

    Sense of belonging

    0.137 0.044 0.158 3.088 0.002

    Constant 2.604 0.235 11.066 0.00 0.113 0.013 4.812 1 373 0.029

    Self-respect 0.114 0.052 0.113 2.194 0.029

    Constant 2.482 0.240 10.362 0.00 0.137 0.019 7.142 1 373 0.008

    Security 0.141 0.053 0.137 2.672 0.008

    Constant 2.700 0.211 12.798 0.00 0.103 0.011 3.968 1 373 0.047

    Fun and enjoyment in life

    0.095 0.048 0.103 1.992 0.047

    Constant 2.610 0.204 12.823 0.00 0.130 0.017 6.378 1 373 0.012

    Warm relationship with others

    0.119 0.047 0.130 2.526 0.012

    Constant 2.658 0.209 12.732 0.00 0.114 0.013 4.927 1 373 0.027

    Being well respected

    0.104 0.047 0.114 2.220 0.027

    Constant 2.495 0.219 11.387 0.00 0.147 0.022 8.238 1 373 0.004

    Sense of accomplishment

    0.141 0.049 0.147 2.870 0.004

    Constant 2.828 0.229 12.369 0.00 0.065 0.004 1.590 1 373 0.208

    Self of fulfillment

    0.064 0.050 0.065 1.261 0.208

    Dependent variable: confused by overchoice

    There is a positive and significant relationship between confused and some of the values. Sense of belonging explains 2.5 percent of change in confused. Self respect explains 1.3 percent of change in confused. Security explains 19 percent of change in confused. Fun and enjoyment in life explains 11 percent of change in confused. Warm relationship with others explains 17 percent of change in confused. Being well respected explains 13 percent of change in confused. Sense of accomplishment explains 2.2 percent of change in confused. Self of fulfilment explains 4 percent of change in confused.

    Table 12. The Simple Linear Regression Results V Unstandardized

    Coefficients Standardized Coefficients

    B

    Std. Error

    Beta t Sig.

    R R2 F Regression (df)

    Residual (df)

    p

    Constant 2.452 0.225 10.901 0.00 0.096 0.009 3.472 1 373 0.063

    Sense of belonging

    0.096 0.052 0.096 1.863 0.063

    Constant 2.515 0.273 9.214 0.00 0.066 0.004 1.655 1 373 0.199

    Self-respect 0.077 0.060 0.066 1.286 0.199

    Constant 2.764 0.279 9.897 0.00 0.018 0.00 0.121 1 373 0.728

    Security 0.021 0.062 0.018 0.348 0.728

    Constant 2.348 0.243 9.646 0.00 0.111 0.012 4.627 1 373 0.032

    Fun and enjoyment in life

    0.119 0.055 0.111 2.151 0.032

    Constant 2.409 0.236 10.213 0.00 0.101 0.010 3.851 1 373 0.050

    Warm relationship with others

    0.107 0.054 0.101 1.962 0.050

    Constant 2.501 0.242 10.336 0.00 0.078 0.006 2.303 1 373 0.130

  • Business Management Dynamics

    Vol.5, No.9, Mar 2016, pp.01-14

    Society for Business and Management Dynamics

    Being well respected

    0.083 0.054 0.078 1.518 0.130

    Constant 2.576 0.255 10.085 0.00 0.059 0.003 1.286 1 373 0.258

    Sense of accomplishment

    0.065 0.057 0.59 1.134 0.258

    Constant 2.398 0.263 9.100 0.00 0.092 0.009 3.202 1 373 0.074

    Self of fulfillment 0.104 0.058 0.092 1.789 0.074

    Dependent variable: novelty and fashion conscious

    There is a positive and significant relationship between novelty and fashion and some of the values. Fun and enjoyment in life explains 1.2 percent of change in novelty and fashion. Warm relationship with others explains 1 percent of change in novelty and fashion.

    Table 13. The Simple Linear Regression Results VI Unstandardized

    Coefficients Standardized Coefficients

    B

    Std. Error

    Beta T Sig.

    R R2 F Regression (df)

    Residual (df)

    p

    Constant 2.520 0.233 10.793 0.00 0.037 0.001 0.525 1 373 0.469

    Sense of belonging

    0.039 0.054 0.037 0.725 0.469

    Constant 2.938 0.282 10.403 0.00 0.048 0.002 0.845 1 373 0.358

    Self-respect -.057 0.62 -0.048 -.919 0.358

    Constant 2.797 0.289 9.689 0.00 0.021 0.00 0.159 1 373 0.690

    Security -0.025 0.064 -0.021 -0.399 0.690

    Constant 2.807 0.253 11.087 0.00 0.026 0.001 0.248 1 373 0.619

    Fun and enjoyment in life

    -0.029 0.057 -0.026 -0.498 0.619

    Constant 2.533 0.245 10.343 0.00 0.033 0.001 0.400 1 373 0.528

    Warm relationship with others

    0.036 0.057 0.033 0.632 0.528

    Constant 2.598 0.251 10.357 0.00 0.018 0.00 0.122 1 373 0.727

    Being well r espected

    0.020 0.056 0.018 0.350 0.727

    Constant 2.925 0.264 11.071 0.00 0.048 0.002 0.872 1 373 0.351

    Sense of accomplishment

    -0.055 0.059 -0.048 -0.934 0.351

    Constant 3.076 0.273 11.280 0.00 0.076 0.006 2.165 1 373 0.142

    Self of fulfillment -0.089 0.060 -0.076 -1.471 0.142

    Dependent variable: careless

    There is not a positive and significant relationship between careless and any one of the values.

    Table 14. The Simple Linear Regression Results VII

    Unstandardized Coefficients

    Standardized Coefficients

    B

    Std. Error

    Beta t Sig.

    R R2 F Regression (df)

    Residual (df)

    p

    Constant 2.616 0.212 12.353 0.000 0.168 0.028 10.782 1 373 0.001

    Sense of belonging

    0.160 0.049 0.168 3.284 0.001

    Constant 2.245 0.254 8.836 0.00 0.213 0.045 17.655 1 373 0.00

    Self-respect 0.235 0.056 0.213 4.202 0.00

    Constant 2.340 0.261 8.977 0.00 0.189 0.036 13.831 1 373 0.00

    Security 0.214 0.057 0.189 3.719 0.00

    Constant 2.183 0.225 9.690 0.00 0.253 0.064 25.446 1 373 0.00

    Fun and 0.258 0.051 0.253 5.044 0.00

  • Business Management Dynamics

    Vol.5, No.9, Mar 2016, pp.01-14

    Society for Business and Management Dynamics

    enjoyment in life

    Constant 2.447 0.221 11.083 0.00 0.199 0.040 15.421 1 373 0.00

    Warm relationship with others

    0.200 0.051 0.199 3.927 0.00

    Constant 2.351 0.225 10.435 0.00 0.217 0.047 18.362 1 373 0.00

    Being well respected

    0.217 0.051 0.217 4.285 0.00

    Constant 2.387 0.238 10.010 0.00 0.197 0.039 15.059 1 373 0.00

    Sense of accomplishment

    0.207 0.053 0.197 3.881 0.00

    Constant 2.502 0.248 10.086 0.00 0.166 0.028 10.575 1 373 0.001

    Self of fulfillment

    0.178 0.055 0.166 3.252 0.001

    Dependent variable: recreational and shopping conscious

    There is a positive and significant relationship between recreational and shopping and each one of the values. Sense of belonging explains 2.8 percent of change in recreational and shopping. Self respect explains 4.5 percent of change in recreational and shopping. Security explains 3.6 percent of change in recreational and shopping. Fun and enjoyment in life explains 6.4 percent of change in recreational and shopping. Warm relationship with others explains 4 percent of change in recreational and shopping. Being well respected explains 4.7 percent of change in recreational and shopping. Sense of accomplishment explains 3.9 percent of change in recreational and shopping. Self of fulfilment explains 2.8 percent of change in recreational and shopping. CONCLUSION The complex structure of human values is important for consumer decision making styles. The present study tried to understand the consumer decision making styles in the context of human values. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses reveal 7 dimensions for the CSI scale and 1 dimension for the LOV scale. Findings of the simple linear regression analyses show that there is a significant relationship between some of the values and consumer decision making styles except the careless consumer style. According to our findings, perfectionist consumers and price conscious consumers tend to have a positive and significant relationship with all of the values in LOV. Brand conscious consumers tend to have a positive and significant relationship between values such as warm relationship with others and sense of accomplishment. Confused by overchoice consumers tend to have a positive and significant relationship between all of the values in LOV except self of fulfillment value. Novelty and fashion conscious consumers tend to have a positive and significant relationship between values such as fun and enjoyment in life and warm relationship with others. Recreational and shopping conscious consumers tend to have a positive and significant relationship between all of the values. Succeding in international markets became more competitive in todays consumer markets. Thereby, international companies should take consumer decision making styles and consumers personal values into consideration while creating their marketing strategies to satisfy the target market profoundly. Furthermore, future researchers should explore the CSI for each consumption groups respectively. Consumption of electronic products can matter. Limitation of the study is that the sample consists undergraduate students. Thus, researchers can differentiate their sample in terms of income, age and education.

    REFERENCES Bearden, W. O., & Netemeyer, R. G. (1999). Handbook of Marketing Scales: Multi-Item Measures for

    Marketing and Consumer Behavior Research, SAGE Publications. Beatty, S. E., Kahle, L. R., Homer, P., & Misra, S. (1985). Alternative Measurement Approaches to

    Consumer Values: The List of Values and the Rokeach Survey, Psychology & Marketing, 2 (Fall), 181-200.

  • Business Management Dynamics

    Vol.5, No.9, Mar 2016, pp.01-14

    Society for Business and Management Dynamics

    Bentler, P. M. (1992). On the fit of models to covariances and methodology to the Bulletin, Psychological Bulletin, 112, 400-404. Bollen, K. A. (1989). A new incremental fit index for general structural equation models, Sociological

    Methods and Research, 17, 303-316. Bowerman, B. L., OConnell, R. T., Murphree, E. S., & Orris, J. B. (2012). Essentials of Business Statistics, 4th

    edition, McGraw-Hill. Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS Basic Concepts Application and Programming

    (Second Edition), Routledge Taylor and Francis Group. Ceylan, H. H. (2013). Tketici Tipleri Envanterinin Trk Kltrne Uyarlanmas (Adaptation of the

    Consumer Styles Inventory to Turkish Culture), ukurova niversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstits Dergisi, Vol.22, No 2, 41-58.

    Daghfous, N., Petrof, J. V., & Pons, F. (1999). Values and adoption of innovations: across-cultural study, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol 16, No 4, 314-331

    Dursun, I., Alniacik, U., & Tmer Kabaday, E. (2013). Tketici Karar Verme Tarzlar lei: Yaps ve Boyutlar (The Scale of Consumer Styles Inventory: Structure and Dimensions), Uluslararas Ynetim ktisat ve letme Dergisi, 9 (19), pp. 293-304.

    Fan, J. X., & Xiao, J. (1998). Consumer decision making styles of young adult Chinese, The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 32 (2), 275-294.

    Hair, JF., Anderson, Re., Tatham, Rl., & Black, Wc. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ. Prentice-Hall.

    Herche, J. (1994). Measuring Social Values: A Multi Item Adaptation to the Lst of Values (MILOV), Working Paper Report Number 94-101, Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.

    Hiu, A.S.Y., Siu, N.Y.M., Wang, C.C.L., & Chang, L.M.K. (2001). An investigation of decision-making styles of consumers in China. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35(2), 326-325.

    Huefner, J.C., Parry, B. L., Payne, C. R., Otto, S. D., Huff, S. C., Swenson, M. J., & Hunt, H. K. (2002). Consumer Retaliation: Confirmation and Extension, Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, pp.114-127.

    Kahle, L., Liu, R., & Watkins, H. (1992). Psychographic Variation Across United States Geographic Regions, in Advances in Consumer Research book, eds. John F. Sherry and Brian Sternthal, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 18, 346-352.

    Kahle, L. R. (1983), Social Values and Social Change: Adaptation to Life in America, NY: Praeger. Kahle, L. R. (1985). Social Values in the Eighties: A Special Issue, Psychology & Marketing, Vol.2, No.4,

    pp.231-237 Kahle, L., Beatty, S. E., & Homer, P. (1986). Alternative Measurement Approaches to Consumer Values:

    The List of Values (LOV) and Life Style (VALS), Journal of Consumer Research, 13, pp. 405-409. Lyonski, S., Durvasula, S., & Zotos, Y. (1996). Consumer decision making styles: a multi-country

    investigation. European Journal of Marketing, 30 (12), 10-21. MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Preacher, K. J., & Hong, S. (2001). Sample Size in Factor Analysis: The

    Role of Model Error, Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36:4, 611-637. Madrigal, R., & Kahle, L. R. (1994). Predicting Vacation Activity Preferences on the Basis of Value-System

    Segmentation, Journal of Travel Research, s.22-28. Marsh, H. W., & Hocevar, D. (1985). An application of confirmatory factor analyses to the study of self-

    concept: First and higher order factor models and their invariance across groups, Psychological Bulletin, 97, 562-582.

    Maslow, A. H. (1954), Motivation and Personality, New York, Harper. McDonald, W. J. (1994). Psychological associations with shopping: a moderator variable perspective.

    Psychology & Marketing, 11 (6), 549-568. Mcgorry, S. Y. (2000). Measurement in a Cross-Cultural Environment: Survey translation issues.

    Qualitative Market Research, 3 (2), 74-81. Odabasi, Y., Baris, G. (2014). Tketici Davran (Consumer Behaviour), Mediacat Kitaplar.

  • Business Management Dynamics

    Vol.5, No.9, Mar 2016, pp.01-14

    Society for Business and Management Dynamics

    Potgieter, D., Wiese, M., & Strasheim, A. (2013). Demographic differences in adult consumers decision making styles in Tshwane South Africa, Journal of Family Ecology and Consumer Sciences, 41, 11-27.

    Rokeach, M. (1973). The Nature of Human Values, New York: Free Press. Schwartz, S. H., & W. Bilsky (1987). Toward a Universal Psychological Structure of Human

    Values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53: 550-562. Shim, S. (1996). Adolescent consumer decision making styles: the consumer socialization perspective,

    Psychology & Marketing, 13 (6), 547-569. Siu, N. Y. M., Wang, C.C., Chang, L.M.K., & Hui, A.S.Y. (2001). Adapting Consumer Style Inventory to

    Chinese Consumers: A Confirmatory Factor Analyses Approach, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 13 (2), 29-48.

    Solomon, M. (2015). Consumer Behaviour: Buying, Having and Being, Prentice Hall. Sproles, G. B., & Kendall, E. L. (1986). A Methodology for Profiling Consumers' Decision-Making Styles,

    The Journal of Consumer Affairs, pp. 267-279. Sproles, George B., & Kendall, E. L. (1987). A Short Test of Consumer Decision Making Styles, The Journal

    of Consumer Affairs, Volume 5, pp.7-14 Unal, S., & Ercis, A. (2006). Pazarn Satn Alma Tarzlarna ve Kiisel Deerlere Gre Blmlendirilmesi

    (Segmenting the Market according to Consumer Decision Making Styles and Personal Values), Marmara niversitesi BF Dergisi, 21 (1), 359-382.

    Walsh, G., Hennig-Thurau, T., Wayne-Mitchell, V., & Wiedman, K.P. (2001). Consumers decision making style as a basis for market segmentation. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis of Marketing 10:117- 131.

    Wesley, S., Lehew, M., & Woodside, Ag. (2006). Consumer decision-making styles and mall shopping behaviour: building theory using exploratory data analysis and the comparative method. Journal of Business Research, 59 (2006): 535-548.

    Yesilada, F., & Kavas, A. (2008). Understanding the female consumers decision making styles, letme Fakltesi Dergisi, 9 (2):167-185.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Personality_and_Social_Psychology