AN EVALUATION OF CONSUMER BUYING CRITERIA AND ITS IMPACT ON THE PURCHASE OF COMMODITIZED LAPTOPS
Rachel V. McClary
A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
© Rachel McClary, 2006
AN EVAULATION OF CONSUMER BUYING CRITERIA AND ITS IMPACT ON THE PURCHASE OF COMMODITIZED LAPTOPS
Rachel V. McClary
has been approved
JIM MIRABELLA, D.B.A, Faculty Mentor and Chair
RICHARD MURPHY, Ph.D., Committee Member
ELAINE GUERRAZZI, Ph.D., Committee Member
ACCEPTED AND SIGNED:
JIM MIRABELLA, D.B.A.
Kurt Linberg, Ph.D.
Executive Director, School of Business & Technology
Laptop vendors are constantly looking for new ways to differentiate themselves. The commodization of this market precipitates a deeper view into what drives a consumer purchase of one brand over another. Do certain demographic profiles exist that are more likely to purchase a particular brand? Do certain product or brand attributes serve as the final decision criteria in the purchase process? What is compelling between laptop brands to drive selection? Results support the premise that relationships exist and that consumers are more likely to purchase one brand over another based on age, education level, gender or technical competence. The likely selection of a laptop brand can also be associated with a particular product or brand attribute.
A better understanding of the laptop consumer enhances a vendor’s ability to properly segment and market the message to the right audience, increasing the likelihood of purchase. Implications for laptop vendors and recommendations for them as well as future research are presented.
To Stephen, whose commitment and dedication to this journey was equal if not sometimes greater than my own. To Olivia and Elle, may this serve in later years as evidence that anything can be achieved if you work hard.
To committee members, Dr. Dick Murphy and Dr. Elaine Guerazzi, thank you for your careful guidance and direction from the first proposal to the final submission. Your contributions were appreciated and made this final product what it is.
An unparalleled gratitude must be extended to my Mentor, Dr. Jim Mirabella, whose tireless commitment, support and confidence given to me throughout the process cannot go unrecognized. I only hope that I can demonstrate the passion and dedication to students he so easily does.
Table of Contents
List of Tables
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Introduction to the Problem
Background of the Study
Statement of the Problem
Purpose of the Study
Significance of the Study
Definition of Terms
Organization of the Remainder of the Study
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Decision Making Theory
Consumer Choice Through Decision Making
Attributes as Influencers to Purchase
Brand Equity Definitions
Application to High Tech
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY
Design of the Study
Study of the Population and Sample
Research Questions and Hypotheses
Data Analysis Procedures
Assumptions and Limitations
CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
CHAPTER 5. RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Research Questions
Recommendations for Laptop Vendors
Recommendations for Future Research
References: Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand name. New
York: Free Press.
Aaker, D. A. (1996, Spring). Measuring brand equity across products and markets. California
Management Review, 38, 102–120.
Abelson, R. P., & Levi, A. (1985). Decision making and decision theory (3rd ed.). In G. Lindzey
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organization Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
Ajzen, I., & Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal-oriented behavior from attitudinal and
normative variables, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22(8), 453–474.
Alba, J. W. (1983). The effects of product knowledge on the comprehension, retention and
evaluation of product information
Alba, J. W. & Hutchinson, J. W. (1987). Dimensions of consumer expertise. Journal of
Consumer Research, 13(3), 411–454.
Babbie, E. (2001). The practice of social research (9th ed). Stamford, CT: Wadsworth.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency, American Psychologist, 37(2),
Barwise, P. (1993, March). Brand equity: Snark or boojum? International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 10, 93–104.
Bettman, J. R. (1979). An information processing theory of consumer choice. Reading, MA:
Bettman, J. R., & Kakkar, P. (1977). Effects of information presentation format on consumer
information acquisition strategies
Bettman, J. R., Luce, M. F. & Payne, J. W. (1998). Constructive consumer processes. Journal of
Consumer Research, 25(12), 187–217.
Brucks, M. (1985). The effects of product class knowledge on information search behavior.
Capon, N. & Burke, M. (1977). Information seeking in consumer durable purchases.
Chernev, A. (1997, March). The effect of common features on brand choice: Moderating role of
Childers, T. L., Christopher, L. C., Peck, J. & Carson, S. (2001). Hedonic and utilitarian
motivations for online retail shopping behavior
Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2003). Business research method (8th ed). New York:
Dabholkar, P. A. & Bagozzi, R. (2002). An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service:
moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factors
Daoud, D., & Shim, R. (2005, July). IDC’s 2005 consumer PC survey, part 1. IDC # 33599.
Retrieved October 14, 2006, from http://www.idc.com
Davis, F., Bagozzi, R., & Warshaw, P. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A
comparison of two theoretical models
Dawes, R. M., & Corrigan, B. (1974). Linear models in decision making. Psychology Bulletin,
Dhar, R., Nowlis, S. M., & Sherman, S. J. (1999). Comparison effects on preference
Engel, J. F. (1983). Consumer behavior (4th ed). Chicago: Dreyden Press.
Erdem, T., & Swait, J. (2004). Brand credibility, brand consideration and choice. Journal of
Consumer Research, 31(6), 191–197.
Farquhar, P. H. (1989). Managing brand equity. Marketing Research, 1(9), 24–33.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, intention, attitude, intention and behavior: An
introduction to theory and research
Kolko, J. (2004). Why technographics still works. Retrieved September 30, 2006, from
Gentry, L., & Calantone, R. (2002). A comparison of three models to explain shop-bots use on
Greenbaum, M. (2006). Creating dynamic brand awareness. Franchising World, 2(1), 46–48.
Harrison, J., & Dwight, A. (2006). Assessing the power of acquired brands. Mergers and
Acquisitions: The Dealmaker’s Journal, 41(1), 25–29.
Hauser, J., & Wernerfelt, B. (1990). An evaluation cost model of consideration sets. Journal of
Consumer Research, 16(12), 393–408.
Hu, P., Chau, P., Sheng, O.U., & Tam, K.Y. (1999). Examining the technology acceptance
model using physician acceptance of telemedicine technology
Hung, K. (2004). Consumer decision-making, perceived product value and purchasing behavior
in the Taipei digital camera market
Hutchinson, J. W. (1983). Expertise and the structure of free recall In R. P. Bogozzi & A. M.
Johnson, E. J., & Payne, J. W. (1985). Effort and accuracy in choice. Management Science,
Johnson, E. J., & Russo, J. E. (1984, Summer). Product familiarity and learning new information.
Karahanna, E., Straub, D., & Chervany, A. (1999). Information technology adoption across time:
A cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring and managing customer-based brand equity.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document