Impact of deceptive practices on consumer behavior

IMPACT OF DECEPTIVE

PRACTICES ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR

PREPARED BY

UMAIR

ABSTRACTAlthough marketing researchers often find it necessary to deceive their research Contributors, little attention has been given within marketing to the ethical issues underlying the use of deception or to the potential consequences of deceptive research practices. We develop a new typology of truthful but misleading advertising and labeling claims. While a number of typologies of deceptive or misleading practices have appeared in the literature, our typology relies on legal cases as well as a diverse set of psychological theories to provide a richer and more comprehensive understanding of why consumers are likely to be misled by a particular type of deception. We conducted research on it. 100 questionnaires were distributed among students in different department of Punjab university. the data is feed in spss software for result and analysis.Key words: consumer behavior, deceptive practices, misleading practices,

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

consumer behavior

Product Quality

Product Brand

Packaging and Labeling of the Product

Advertising

LITERATURE REVIEW

• (Krohn and Milner, 1989, 773), (Smithand Quelch, 1993, 13) , (Alexander, 2002; Creyer and Ross, 1996; consumer behavior

• "( American Marketing Association, (Forbes magazine, October 2012), (Millward Brown)Product Quality

• Whalen et al., 1991), Cone, 2007, Creyer and Ross (1996), Product Brand

• (Cacioppe, et al., 2008), (Cropanzano, Byrne, Bobocel, & Rupp,

Packaging and Labeling of the Product

• Smith and Cooper-Martin, 1997; Folkes and Kamins, 1999; Advertising

HYPOTHESIS

H0: If we mend our deceptive tactics & practices with consumers then we can increase the progress & growth ratio of product.

H1: A significant relationship exists between product quality and consumer behavior.

H2: A significant relationship exists between product brand and consumer behavior.

H3: A significant relationship exists between Packaging and labelling of the product and consumer behavior.

H4: A significant relationship exists between advertisement and consumer behavior.

RELIABILITY

Reliability StatisticsCronbach's Alpha N of Items

.556 5

Alphas above .9 are great, above .8 are good, above .7 are ok, above .6 are borderline. In this case, Alpha=.56 which is acceptable. In smaller samples, smaller Alpha levels are acceptable to create composites.

GENDER

Gender

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

Percent

Valid

male 49 49.0 49.0 49.0

female 51 51.0 51.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

QUALIFICATIONQualification

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

PercentValid

Intermediate 8 8.0 8.0 8.0

bachelor 75 75.0 75.0 83.0

masters 16 16.0 16.0 99.0

M.Phill/PhD 1 1.0 1.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

It is interesting to note that 75 students belong to bachelor and is 75% of total population and take active part in research.

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

consumer behavior 100 1.9200 .66939 .06694

product quality 100 2.0000 .64354 .06435

product brand 100 2.7000 .85870 .08587

Packaging and labeling of the product

100 2.0688 .50075 .05007

advertising 100 1.7167 .53050 .05305

CORRELATIONCorrelations

consumer behavior

product quality

product brand

Packaging and labeling

of the product

advertising

consumer behavior

Pearson Correlation 1 .299** -.060 .476** .310**

Sig. (2-tailed) .003 .555 .000 .002N 100 100 100 100 100

product quality Pearson Correlation .299** 1 -.009 .427** .449**

Sig. (2-tailed) .003 .928 .000 .000N 100 100 100 100 100

product brand Pearson Correlation -.060 -.009 1 .084 .092Sig. (2-tailed) .555 .928 .408 .361N 100 100 100 100 100


Pearson Correlation .476** .427** .084 1 .473**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .408 .000N 100 100 100 100 100

advertising Pearson Correlation .310** .449** .092 .473** 1Sig. (2-tailed) .002 .000 .361 .000 N 100 100 100 100 100

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

correlation null hypothesis

consumer behavior and product quality

.299**

.003 + significant Rejected

consumer behaviorAnd product brand

-.060 .555 + insignificantaccepted

consumer behavior and Packaging and labeling of the product

.476** .000+

significant Rejected

consumer behaviorAnd advertising

.310**

.002 + significant Rejected

MULTIPLE REGRESSIONSModel Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R SquareStd. Error of the

Estimate

1 .502a .252 .221 .59083

a. Predictors: (Constant), advertising, product brand, product quality, packaging and labeling of the product

The Model shows the multiple correlation coefficient (R), using all predictors simultaneously, which is .50 and Adjusted R2 is .252. Regression analysis shows 25% of the variance in dependent variable can be predicted from the combination of independent variables while remaining is the unexplained variability. R value of .50 showing goodness of the model.

ANOVAANOVAa

ModelSum of Squares df

Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 11.197 4 2.799 8.019 .000b

Residual 33.163 95 .349

Total 44.360 99

a. Dependent Variable: consumer behavior

b. Predictors: (Constant), advertising, product brand, product quality, packaging and labeling of the product

The ANOVA in table shows that F is 8.019 which is statistically significant. Model is considered to be good fit as significance value falls between 0% to 5%. It also reflects significance of independent variables on the overall model having a strapping impact on dependent variable.

REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS I.E. BETA (Β) RESULTS & ANALYSIS

Coefficientsa

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig.B Std. Error Beta1 (Constant) .640 .321 1.994 .049

product quality .088 .108 .085 .817 .416product brand -.079 .070 -.101 -1.132 .260Packaging and labeling of the product .543 .140 .406 3.874 .000

advertising .113 .134 .089 .839 .403a. Dependent Variable: consumer behavior

Beta (β) Sig. (2-tailed) relationship

consumer behavior and product quality .088 .416

insignificant

consumer behaviorAnd product brand -.079 .260 insignificant


.543 .000 significant


.113 .403

insignificant

One Sample t-Test Results & Analysis

One-Sample Test

Test Value = 3

t dfSig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the

DifferenceLower Upper

consumer behavior-16.134 99 .000 -1.08000 -1.2128 -.9472

product quality-15.539 99 .000 -1.00000 -1.1277 -.8723

product brand-3.494 99 .001 -.30000 -.4704 -.1296


-18.597 99 .000 -.93125 -1.0306 -.8319

advertising-24.191 99 .000 -1.28333 -1.3886 -1.1781

tSig. (2-tailed)

Relationship

consumer behavior and product quality

-15.539

.000

+ significant

consumer behaviorAnd product brand -3.494 .000

+ significant


-18.597 .001

+ significant


-24.191 .000+ significant

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Businesses and government can educate consumers about deceptive practices. This is a wide procedure and will take lengthened time to develop the concern for deceptive practices. It was also found that groups and links had a strong influence on the choice of young buyers. Therefore marketers can use buzz marketing to encourage young people but do not deceive them. They have poise in the opinion of their friends. Social networks can be very effective in doing that. Government should also play its part in encouraging in development and production of steps against deceptive practices. Deceptive practices must be removed so that consumer shows positive attitude.

REFERENCES• http://www.vzhh.de/ernaehrung/119742/Luftpackungen%20Top9.pdf;• http://www.vzhh.de/docs/6148/themen.aspx• http://news.thomasnet.com/IMT/2008/12/09/matters-of-size-product-

shrinkage-and-packaging-overkill/• http://www.federacja-konsumentow.org.pl/story.php?story=409.• http://www.cnnasiapacific.com/factsheets//• Alexander, E.C. (2002) “Consumer Reactions to Unethical Service Recovery”

Journal of Business Ethics, • 36(3):223- 237. • Alexander C. S. and Becker H. J. (1978) “The Use of Vignettes in Survey

Research” Public Opinion Quarterly, 42:93- 104. • Auger, P., Burke, P., Devinney, T.M. and Louviere, J.J. (2003) “What Will

Consumers Pay for Social Product Features?” Journal of Business Ethics, 42(3):281- 304.• Michelle Ossa College Teacher (Level 3) Educator Emeritus Posted November

30, 2012 at 5:51 PM (Answer #1)