Editorial Board

A Refereed Monthly International Journal of Management

Consumers’ Approach towards High Involvement Products and Low Involvement Products: A Study of Buying Behaviour in Vadodara

1. ASHUTOSH A. SANDHE

(Sr. Faculty in Management, TeamLease Skills University, Tarsali, Vadodara.)

3, ShreeramVatika, Near More Megastore, Vishvamitri Road, Vadodara 390011.

Cell No. 9898587826, email: ashutoshsandhe@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT

A research was conducted in Vadodara, Gujarat, India to study the psychology of people while purchasing cheap products as compared to costly products.  As a result, two representative products were selected and buying behavior of respondents was studied towards these two products.  It was found that the mental process for both the products is quite different.

Keywords : High involvement, Low involvement, Payment mode, Shopping mode, Affective link, Search & information processing, Social interaction, social relevance.

INTRODUCTION

The risk of purchasing a costly product in terms of monetary cost and mental cost is higher as compared to a cheaper product.  A person is more cautious when purchasing a costly and non-routine product.  This is because if the product does not perform on the expected lines; the consumer is dissatisfied in terms of monetary loss as well as the mental inconvenience. His risk taking appetite is less as compared to a product he purchases and uses on a daily basis and such product is less costly.  Thus, it is seen that a consumer’s approach towards purchasing a product having high involvement compared to a product with low involvement is different.

In this research, an attempt has been made to study how the buying behavior of a consumer is different for two different categories of products he uses.  For this purpose, product involvement for two categories of products was studied and analyzed. 

Involvement can be defined as perceived relevance of the object on the basis of needs, values and interests (Zaichkowsky, 1985).  It is to be understood that involvement is of the consumer and not the product even though, it may be called product involvement.  It is recognized as interaction between product and the individual.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Sherif and Cantril introduced the concept of involvement in the year 1947 in the area of psychology. If involvement can be defined based on stimulus, products can be categorized by marketers into different product involvement categories and markets can be segmented on the basis of product involvement (Grunig, 1989; Taylor & Joseph, 1984).  One of the ways of identifying whether product involvement is high or low is to find out the perceived risk and return from the purchase.  In case of high involvement products, consumer perceives high risk and also high levels of satisfactions are achieved if the purchase is as per his perceived benefits.  On the other hand if a wrong purchasing decision is made, it involves huge amount of risks in terms of costs, time and satisfaction.  Hence, for high involvement products, consumer spends lot of time gathering information about the product.  He inquires about its price and compares it with its features in detail.  He also asks for feedback and experiences of others who have used the same or a similar kind of product. 

Every researcher has tried to introduce their own definition of the term.  Accordingly, the term has evolved over time. 

Table 1: Summary of Research in the area of Involvement

Purchasing Intention

Purchasing intention is a psychological process of decision making. (Engel,1990).  Consumers are motivated by the fulfillment of demands to search relevant information according to personal experience and external environment.  A consumer, before purchasing a product, starts to collect information about the product.  This information is evaluated and comparisons are made.  Based on the comparisons, the final buying decision is arrived at.  This process is called the consumer decision process.  “Purchasing intention is the probability of customer’s willingness to purchase.” (Dodds.,1991).  Higher the perceived value more will be the purchasing intention.  Purchasing intention can be studied through the various shopping situations a consumer prefers for different products and also the payment mechanisms he likes for products with different involvement levels.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

• To study the buying behavior of consumers towards different categories of products by studying product involvement.
• To analyse the factors that affect product involvement of respondents in Vadodara.
• To study purchase intention in terms of shopping preference for high involvement and low involvement products.
• To study preferred payment method for high and low involvement products in Vadodara.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This study was conducted by collecting and analyzing primary data from 300 respondents in Vadodara, Gujarat.  Stratified sampling method was used to select respondents.  The population was divided into three strata; service persons, business persons and professionals.  A structured questionnaire was developed to collect data and test hypothesis.  Equal number of respondents was selected from each stratum.

A pilot study was conducted to identify products with high involvement and low involvement.  This was done through a small questionnaire with ten products.  60 Respondents were asked to show their product involvement for each product through ranking. They were asked to give 1 as the highest rank and 5 as lowest rank, with respect to the statements provided to them.  Based on the responses, car was selected as high involvement product (Mean=2.13) and noodles as low involvement product (Mean=4.34).

A descriptive research design was followed to study consumer behavior for high and low involvement products.  Data was collected in the form of structured questionnaire with 30 questions on Likert Scale from 300 respondents in Vadodara city.  Sample units comprised respondents belonging to service, businessmen and professionals in equal proportion.  The questions were framed to test various factors that affect product involvement. Respondents were asked to give their agreement on different statements regarding the respective product on a scale of 1 to 7.  “1” was taken as “very strongly disagree”, while “7” was taken as “very strongly agree”.  Based on the data obtained, mean values and significance was calculated to find out the reliability. The data was collected in April 2011 and later on analysed.

HYPOTHESIS

H1: Product involvement for all types of products is same.

H2: There is no preference for a specific shopping mode for high and low involvement products.

H3: There is no preference for a specific payment mode for high and low involvement products.

DATA ANALYSIS

The primary data collected for the purpose of this research revealed the following attributes of the respondents in terms of their demographic features as well as their purchasing intention for the two products selected.

Samples were selected on the basis of their occupation. 33% of the samples belonged to service class, while 33% samples were businessmen and remaining were professionals.  Similarly, 36% samples were of the age group between 20 years and 30 years while 3.5% samples were of the age above 60 years.  In terms of education, 37.5% samples were postgraduates, 28.5% samples were graduates, and 27.5% were professionals like doctors, and lawyers, etc. The samples selected belonged to different income classes.  Out of the respondents surveyed, 24% were in the income class of Rs.2 Lacs to Rs.3 Lacs, 19.5% were having annual income of Rs.5 Lacs or more, 19% respondents earned between Rs.4 Lacs and Rs.5 Lacs.  As far as the gender of the respondents is concerned, 56% were males and remaining 44% were females.

H1 : Product involvement for all types of products is same

The first step in this research was to establish that product involvement is not the same for every type of product in Vadodara.  This was done using a model tested in Spain and England by Carmen Garcia, Julio Olea, Vincente Ponsoda, y Derek Scott in their article titled “Measuring Involvement from its Consequences” in the year 1996.  In this research, Zaichkowsky’s PII (Personal Involvement Inventory) was modified from a simple 9 item Likert Scale which used only two factors, into a Spanish version having five factors.  The Spanish modification of Zaichkowsky’s RPII (Revised Personal Involvement Inventory) was named as CIQ (Consequences of Involvement).  As per the modified version, there are five factors which are-

• Affective Link (AL). High involvement with a product implies some identification with it; some sort of affective link. The product is considered to be important in the subject’s daily life and he/she shows a special interest in it (Krugman, 1965; Park and Mittal, 1985; Zaichkowsky, 1987).
• Search and Information Processing (SIP). High involvement also implies an active search of additional information on the product and a deeper processing of this information. As a result, a change in the quantity and the quality of the knowledge on the product would be expected (Howard and Jagdish, 1969; Macquarrie and Munson, 1992).
• Purchase Purpose (PP). High involvement is also related to purchase purpose, as people prefer to buy those products which they have high involvement with (Clarke and Belk, 1978; Zaichkowsky, 1985)
•  Social Interaction (SI). A high involvement also implies greater related social interaction, with the person trying to meet other people to talk about the product (Macquarrie and Munson, 1992).
• Social Relevance (SR). People having high involvement with a product try to extrapolate their own personal interest and view the product as also important for others.

To test consumer involvement, a series of statements were put to respondents and they were asked to convey their agreement on each statement.  To check the internal consistency of the data, Cronbach Alpha was found out.  In this, research, we got Cronbach Alpha of 0.87 for Car and 0.82 for Noodles.   

Table 2 : Table Showing Product Involvement for Car & Noodles in Vadodara

(S.D. = standard deviation, Sig. = Significance)

Based on the results of pilot study, a structured questionnaire was developed to use the model described earlier.  The results showed that mean values for car were found to be distinctly higher as compared to the ones for noodles for all the factors.  Highest involvement for car was found in the case of the factor “Social Interaction”.  Involvement for noodles was found to be lowest for the same factor “Social Interaction”.  Table No.2 suggests that product involvement for car was significantly higher than noodles.  The overall mean for all factors taken together was 2.24 for car and 5.21 for noodles once again hinted that product involvement was not same for car and noodles.  To further test the hypothesis, t-test was conducted and as can be seen from the results in Table No.2, the values were highly significant for all the factors.  Hence, based on the data collected and analysis, the hypothesis that product involvement for all types of product is same is rejected and alternate hypothesis is accepted.

H2 : There is no preference for a specific shopping mode for high and low involvement products.

Table 3. Table Showing Mean Rank for Shopping Mode for High Involvement & Low Involvement Products in Vadodara

(S.D. = standard deviation, significance at 5%)

Based on the findings of the research and hypothesis 1, it was established that car was high involvement and noodles was low involvement product.  It was further found out whether shopping modes for both the product categories was same or different.  It can be seen from Table No.3 that shopping mode for both the products were found to be similar.  For both products, physical outlet was found to be the most preferred.  In case of high involvement product (Car), 80.67% respondents preferred physical outlet, while in case of low involvement product (Noodles) 76.67% respondents preferred physical outlet.  However, there was a difference in terms of second choice; the opinion was different for both the products.  For high involvement product, internet was found to be second preferred shopping mode (14.67%), while for low involvement product, TV Shopping was the second preferred shopping mode (14%).  The reason for similarity in preference of shopping mode was found to be the absence of or lesser prominence of other shopping modes in India.  The data was found to be significant except for low involvement product in terms of TV shopping (t-value 0.813, p=0.532).  Thus, based on the data collected and results obtained, it can be said that physical outlet is the most preferred mode for purchasing both categories of products.  Hence, the hypothesis that there is no preference for a specific shopping mode for high and low involvement products is rejected and alternate hypothesis is accepted.

H3 : There is no preference for a specific payment mode for high and low involvement products.

Table 4.Table Showing Mean Rank for Payment Mechanisms for High Involvement & Low Involvement Products in Vadodara

(S.D. = standard deviation)

It is clear from Table No.4 that respondents had different preferences for payment modes when it came to purchase of a high involvement product like car and a low involvement product like noodles.  In case of car, 64.67% respondents preferred installment system while purchasing (Mean = 1.12) while only 17.33% respondents preferred credit card or debit for making payment for purchasing a car.  18% respondents preferred to pay for car by cash or cheque.  It is to be noted that those people who preferred to purchase car by installment system had to pay partly by cash/cheque as down payment.  Hence, 18% respondents who preferred to purchase car by cash/cheque said they made entire payment through this mode.  In case of a low involvement product like noodles, the preference was different with none of the respondents opting for installment which is understandable.  75.33% respondents preferred to pay cash for purchasing noodles while remaining 24.67% preferred credit/debit card.  The data was further tested and as can be seen from the above Table No.4, the results were highly significant.  Thus, it can be said that preference for payment mode does not remain same for all types of products.  Hence, the hypothesis was rejected and alternate hypothesis was accepted.

FINDINGS & CONCLUSION

It was found that car was a high involvement product and a noodle was low involvement product.  In case of all the five factors, product involvement for car was found to be high as compared to noodles.  Even though product involvement was found to be different for car and noodles, there was similarity in preference for shopping for both the products.  Physical outlet was found to be the most preferred shopping mode.  However, for high involvement product like car respondents found internet to be second most preferred mode.  In case of noodles, TV shopping was rated as second most preferred.  Thus, there was a difference in the opinion as far as the second most preferred shopping mode was concerned.  The reasons for preference of physical outlet was across the counter delivery in case of noodles and also the waiting time for the product which is more in other cases like internet or TV shopping.  In case of high involvement product like car also, the reason was the across the counter availability of the product and also live demo of the product like test drive.  One more factor for preference of physical outlet was the fact that bargaining for discounts and other non-cash rewards was possible in physical store.  When it came to payment mode, installment was the most preferred form for car because of its high price as also because of taxation benefit to businessmen and professionals.  Those respondents who preferred cash to purchase car preferred this mode because of excess cash available to businessmen.  In case of noodles, cash was the most preferred form because of low price as well as habit.  Credit/debit cards were preferred because of rewards and also convenience in carrying them. 

Thus, it can be concluded from the statistical results and the data analysis that buying behavior of consumers towards high involvement products is different from low involvement products.  The preference for shopping mode is same, however, the reasons were found to be different.  Whereas, the payment mode was found to be significantly different for both the categories of products.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Andrew A. Mitchell (1979), "Involvement: A Potentially Important Mediator Of Consumer Behavior", in Advances in Consumer Research Volume 06, eds. William L. Wilkie, Ann Abor : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 191-196.
• Andrew A. Mitchell (1981), "the dimensions of advertising involvement", In Advances in Consumer Research Volume 08, eds. Kent B. Monroe, Ann Abor : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 25-30.

·   Anna Jepson, University of Southern Denmark, Consumer Use of the Internet for Information Search, 84-93.

·   Antil, John H., (1984), “Conceptualisation and Operationalisation of Involvement”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. II, Thomas C. Kinnear (ed.), Provo UT: Association for Consumer Research, pp. 203-209.

• Arora, R. (1982). Validation of an S-O-R model for situation, enduring, and response components of involvement. Journal of Marketing Research, 19 (4), 505-516.
• Banwari Mittal (1989), "A Theoretical Analysis Of Two Recent Measures Of Involvement", in Advances in Consumer Research Volume 16, eds. Thomas K. Srull, Provo, UT : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 697-702.
• Baohong Sun, Vicki G. Morwitz, (2010), Stated intentions and purchase behavior: A unified model, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Volume 27, Issue 4, December 2010, Pages 356-366.
• Batra, R. and Ray, M. L. (1983). Operationalizing involvement as depth and quality of cognitive response. Advances in Consumer Research, 10 (1), 309-313.
• Birch, A., Gerbert, P. and Schneider, D. (2000). The age of e-tai:Conquering the new world of electronic. Oxford: Capstone.
• Bloch, P. H. and Richins, M. L. (1983). A theoretical model for the study of product importance perceptions. Journal of Marketing, 47 (2), 69-81.
• Carmen García, Julio Olea, Vicente Ponsoda y Derek Scott (1996), Measuring Involvement  From  Its Consequences, Psicothema, 1996. Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 337-349

·   Chaudhuri, A., (2000), A Macro Analysis of the Relationship of Product Involvement and Information Search: The Role of Risk, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 8, No. 1 (Winter, 2000), pp. 1-15

• Clarke, K. and Belk, R. (1978). The effects of product involvement and task definition on anticipated consumer effort. Hunt, H. K. (ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Ann Arbor: Association for Consumer Research, 5, 313-318.
• Cohen, J. B. (1983), "Involvement and You: 1,000 Great Ideas," in R. P. Bagozzi and A. M. Tybout (eds.), Advances in Consumer Research, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, X, 325-328 .
• Daniel Funk and Mark Pritchard. The Role Of Product Importance Type On Brand And Product Level Responses – ANZMAC 2005 Conference: Consumer Behaviour, Griffith University, Services Industry Research Centre– Arizona State University 85-91
• Delafrooz N, Paim LH, Khatibi A, (2011), A Research Modeling to Understand Online Shopping Intention, Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, Vol.5(5): pp 70-77.
• Dholakia, U. M. (1997), "An Investigation Of The Relationship Between Perceived Risk And Product Involvement", in Advances in Consumer Research Volume 24, eds. Merrie Brucks and Deborah J. MacInnis, Provo, UT : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 159-167.
• Dickson., P. R. and Sawyer, A. G. (1990). The price knowledge and search of supermarket shoppers. Journal of Marketing, 54 (3), 42-53.
• Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B. and Grewal, D. (1991). Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers’ product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 28 (3), 307-319.
• Dowling, G. R. and Staelin, R. (1994). A model of perceived risk and intended risk-handling activity. Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (1), 119-134.
• Edward F. McQuarrie, J. Michael Munson (1987), "The Zaichkowsky Personal Involvement Inventory: Modification And Extension", in Advances in Consumer Research Volume 14, eds. Melanie Wallendorf and Paul Anderson, Provo, UT : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 36-40
• Engel, J. F., Blackwell, R. D. and Miniard, P. W. (1990). Consumer Behavior. Sixth Edition, Dryden. ,
• Fei Xue, (2008) "The moderating effects of product involvement on situational brand choice", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 25(2), pp.85 – 94.
• Feinberg, R. A. (1986). Credit cards as spending facilitating stimuli: A conditioning interpretation. Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (3), 348-356.
• Finn, David W., (1983), “Low involvement Isn’t low involving”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol.10, Richard Bagozzi and Alice TYbout (ed.), , Association for Consumer Research, pp. 419-424.
• Freedman, J. L. (1964), “Involvement, Discrepency and Change”, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psyshology, 69, pp. 290-295
• Ganguly Boudhyan et al., (2010), The effects of website design on purchase intention in online shopping: the mediating role of trust and the moderating role of culture, International Journal of Electronic Business, Vol.8, pp.302-330
• George M. Zinkhan, Aydin Muderrisoglu (1985), "Involvement, Familiarity, Cognitive Differentiation, And Advertising Recall: A Test Of Convergent And Discriminant Validity", in Advances in Consumer Research Volume 12, eds. Elizabeth C. Hirschman and Moris B. Holbrook, Provo, UT : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 356-361.
• Gil McWilliam, (1997) "Low involvement brands: is the brand manager to blame?", Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 15(2), pp.60 – 70
• Gilles Laurent and Jean-Noel Kapferer,(1985), Measuring Consumer Involvement Profiles, Journal of Marketing Research Vol. XXII,41-53
• Gourville, J. T. (1995). Pennies-a-Day: Increasing Consumer Compliance Through Temporal Re-Framing, Chicago, Illinois: UMI Press.
• Gourville, J.T And Soman, D (1998), Payment Depreciation: The Behavioral Effects Of Temporally Separating Payments From Consumption, Journal Of Consumer Research, Vol 25, pp 160-174
• Grant, A. E, Guthrie, K. K. and Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (1991), Television Shopping : A Media System dependency perspective, Communication Research, 18 (6), pp. 773-798
• Harold H. Kassarjian (1981), "Low Involvement:  A Second Look", in Advances in Consumer Research Volume 08, eds. Kent B. Monroe, Ann Abor : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 31-34.
• Heijden, H Verhagen, T and Creemers, M (2003) “Understanding Online Purchase Intentions: Contributions from Technology and Trust Perspectives”, European Journal of Information SystemsEJIS, Vol. 12, No.1, pp 41-48.
• Hornik. J, Tali. T, (2010), Factors Influencing Product Involvement Among Young Consumers, in Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 26(7), pp. 499-506.
• Houston, M. J. and Rothschild, M. L. (1978). Conceptual and methodological perspectives in involvement. In: Jain, S. (ed.). (1978). Research frontiers in marketing: Dialogues and directions, Chicago, Illinois: American Marketing Association, 184-187.
• Hsin-Hui Lin, (2010), The Effect of TV and Online Shopping Value on Online Patronage Intention in a Multi-channel Retail Context, World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 67, pp 633-639.
• John L. Lastovicka (1979), "Questioning The Concept Of Involvement Defined Product Classes", in Advances in Consumer Research Volume 06, eds. William L. Wilkie, Ann Abor : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 174-179.
• Kassarjian, H. H. (1981), “Low Involvement – A Second Look”, Advances in Consumer Research, 8, K.B. Monroe, ed., Ann Arbor, MI: Associan for Consumer Research, 31-34

·   Kevin Celuch, Steven Taylor (1999), Involvement with Services : An Empirical Replication and Extension of Zaichkowsky’s Personal Involvement Inventory, Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behaviour, 12, 109-122

• Koppelman, F., Salomon, I. and Proussaloglou, K. (1991). Teleshopping or store shopping? A choice model for forecasting the use of new telecommunications-based services. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 18, 473-489.
• Kotler, Philip (1996), Marketing Management, Analysis, planning, implementation and control, Prentice Hall of India, New Delhi, Page 190-192.
• Krugman, Herbert E. (1965), "The Impact of Television Advertising: Learning Without Involvement," Public Opinion Quarterly, 29 (Fall), 349-356.
• Lydia L. Gan, Ramin C. Maysami, Hian Chye Koh, (2008) "Singapore credit cardholders: ownership, usage patterns, and perceptions", Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 22 Iss: 4, pp.267 – 279
• Mansoor Samadi, Ali Yaghoob-Nejadi, (2009), A survey of the effect of consumers’ perceived risk on purchasing intention in E-shopping, Business Intelligence Journal, Vol.2(2), pp.262-275.
• Mei-Hui Chen, Hung-hsuan Lee, Sheng-wei Lin, Kune-muh Tsai, (2008), Creating Values For Online Shoppers, International Conference on Business and Information, Korea, pp.1-14
• Michaelidou, Nina and Dibb, Sally (2008). Consumer involvement: a new perspective. Marketing Review, 8(1), pp. 83–99.
• Michel Laroche, Jasmin Bergeron, Christine Goutaland, (2003) "How intangibility affects perceived risk: the moderating role of knowledge and involvement", Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 17 Iss: 2, pp.122 – 140
• Ming-Chuan Pan, The Effects of Payment Mechanism and Shopping Situation on Purchasing Intention - the Moderating Effect of Product Involvement, Proceedings of the 13th Asia Pacific Management Conference, Melbourne, Australia, 2007, 1-10.
• Muncy, James A. and Shelby D. Hunt, (1984), “Consumer Involvement: Definitional Issues and Research Directions”.  Advances in Consumer Research, Thomas C. Kinnear (ed.), Provo UT: Association for Consumer Research, pp. 196-197.
• Naseri, M. and Elliot, G. (2007), Discriminating Interest Payer Credit Card Holders from Convenience Users, ANZMAC Conference, pp – 2566-2572
• Natalie Lennox and Nicholas McClaren (2003), Measuring Consumer Involvement: A Test Of The Automobile Involvement Scale, ANZMAC 2003 Conference Proceedings Adelaide, 364-370.
• Nysveen, H., and Pedersen, P.E. (2005): "Search Mode and Purchase Intention in Online Shopping Behavior", International Journal of Internet Marketing and Advertising, Vol 2, No. 4, pp. 288-306
• Oh, J., & Fiorito, S. S. (2002). Korean women‘s clothing brand loyalty. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 6(March), 206-222.
• Peter H Bloch (1982), "Involvement Beyond The Purchase Process: Conceptual Issues And Empirical Investigation", in Advances in Consumer Research Volume 09, eds. Andrew Mitchell, Ann Abor : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 413-417.
• Petty, R.E. and Cacioppo, J.T. (1981), Epilog: A general framework for understanding attitude change process, in Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches, Dubuque, IA: WIllian C. Brown, 255-268
• Pi-Chuan Sun, Chun-Ling Wei, The Effects Of Trivial Attributes, Product Involvement And Product Line Extensions Strategy On Product Evaluations, Department of Business Management, Tatung University, 01-11
• Prelec, D. and Loewenstein, G. (1998), The red and the black:mental accounting of savings and debt, Marketing Science, 17 (4), 4-28
• Punyatoya, P. (2011), How Brand Personality affects Products with different Involvement Levels?, European Journal of Business and Management, Volume 3(2), 104-107.
• Raed Algharabat (2007), Brunel University, The role of the Stimulus-Organism-Response (S-O-R) model in explaining effects of image interactivity technology (IIT) on consumer responses ©, 01-07
• Rajeev Batra, Michael L. Ray (1983), "Operationalizing Involvement As Depth And Quality Of Cognitive Response", in Advances in Consumer Research Volume 10, eds. Richard P. Bagozzi and Alice M. Tybout, Ann Abor : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 309-313.
• Ralf Speek, (2006) University of Twente The influence of camera angle on evaluating low and high involvement products, 01-23
• Richard L. Divine, Thomas J. Page, Jr (1994), "the effect of enduring involvement on evoked set size: a motivational orientation perspective", in Asia Pacific Advances in Consumer Research Volume 1, eds. Joseph A. Cote and Siew Meng Leong, Provo, UT : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 10-16.
• Rothschild, M. L. (1975). Involvement as a determinant of decision making styles. In: Mazze, E. M. (ed.), 1975 Combined Proceedings, Chicago, Illinois: American Marketing Association,  216-220.
• Rothschild, Michael L, (1984), "Perspectives On Involvement: Current Problems And Future Directions", in Advances in Consumer Research Volume 11, eds. Thomas C. Kinnear, Provo, UT : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 216-217
• Sandhe Ashutosh, Pandya Amit, (2012), An Empirical Study on the Effect of Payment Mechanism and Shopping Situation for Purchasing Intention – The Moderating Effect of Consumer Involvement in Selected Product Categories in Vadodara, I.J.E.M.S., Vol. 3(2), page 207-228
• Schneider, Kenneth C. and Rodgers, William C. (1996), "An "Importance" Subscale For The Consumer Involvement Profile", in Advances in Consumer Research Volume 23, eds. Kim P. Corfman and John G. Lynch Jr., Provo, UT : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 249-254.
• Sharma, Kavita, (2000), Impact of Consumer Involvement on Consumer Behaviour : A Case Study of India, New Delhi, New Century Publications, 10-13.
• Sherrell, D and Shimp, T.1982. Consumer involvement in a laboratory setting.  Educators’ Conference Proceedings. American Marketing Association, 48. 104-108.
• Shim S., Eastlick E. A., Lotz S. L. and Warrington P., (2001), An online prepurchase intentions model: The role of intention to search, Journal of Retailing, Vol 77(3), p. 397-416.
• Slama, M. E. and Tashchian, A. (1985). Selected socioeconomic and demographic characteristics Associated with purchasing involvement. Journal of Marketing, 49 (1), 72-82.
• Sohn, Y.-J. (1997). A distribution revolution. Business Korea 14 (2), 40-41.
• Soman, D. and Gourville, J. T. (2001), Transaction decoupling: How price bundling affects the decision to consume. Journal of Marketing Research, 38 (1), 30-44.
• Sridhar, G (2007), Consumer Involvement in Product Choice – A Demographic Analysis, Vitakshan, XIMB Journal of Management,  131-148.
• Stephens, D. L., Hill, R. P. and Bergman, K. (1996). Enhancing the consumer-product relationship: Lessons from the QVC home shopping channel. Journal of Business Research, 37 (3), 193-200.
• Stone, Robert. N., (1984), "The Marketing Characteristics Of Involvement", In Advances In Consumer Research Volume 11, Eds. Thomas C. Kinnear, Provo, UT : Association For Consumer Research, 210-215
• Te'eni-Harari, T.  Hornik, J. (2010), Factors Influencing Product Involvement Among Young Consumers, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Volume 27 (6), 499–506.
• Traylor, M. B.(1981). Product involvement and brand commitment. Journal of Advertising Research, 21 (6), 51-56.
• Traylor, Mark B. (1984) "EGO Involvement And Brand Commitment: Not Necessarily The Same", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 1 Iss: 2, pp.75–79
• Tsai Chen, (2008) National Taipei University, Online Impulse Buying and Product Involvement, Communications of the IBIMA, 5, 74-81
• V. G. Morwitz, J. H. Steckel, and A. Gupta, (2007), “When do purchase intentions predict sales?,” International Journal of Forecasting, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 347-364.
• Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (December), 341-352.
• Zaichkowsky, J. L., (1986),  Conceptualizing Involvement,  Journal of Advertising, Vol.15(2), pp- 4-14+34.
• Zaichkowsky, Z.L., (1994), The Personal Involvement Inventory: Reduction, Revision, and Application to Advertising, Journal of Advertising, Volume XXIII, Number 4, pp-59-69
• Zinkhan, George M. and Muderrisoglu, Aydin (1985), "Involvement, Familiarity, Cognitive Differentiation, And Advertising Recall: A Test Of Convergent And Discriminant Validity", in Advances in Consumer Research Volume 12, eds. Elizabeth C. Hirschman and Moris B. Holbrook, Provo, UT : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 356-361.

WEBSITES

• http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Gujarat-GSDP-per-capita-income-rises/755187
• http://www.medianama.com/2011/03/223-statewise-broadband-subscribers-in-india-31st November-2010/
• http://www.pluggd.in/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/broadband_penetration_india.jpg
• http://deshgujarat.com/2011/03/31/gujarats-population-is-60383628-with-19-17-growth-in-decade/
• http://www.gujaratindia.com/state-profile/socio-eco-review.htm
• http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:sNDfWX5sE7MJ:smib.vuw.ac.nz:8081/WWW/ANZMAC2001/anzmac/AUTHORS/pdfs/Quester1.pdf on 25-06-2011
• http://conferences.anzmac.org/ANZMAC2007/papers/M%20Naseri_1a.pdf on 15-04-2011
• http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Gujarat-GSDP-per-capita-income-rises/755187 on 22-01-2011

·      Involvement and consumer selectivity within and outside the consideration set, http://www.luiss.it/iarep2008/programme/papers/38.doc

·     http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/236543/online_shopping_pros_and_cons.html on 14-12-2010

·      http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Pros-and-Cons-of-Online-Shopping&id=1475581

·      http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/teleshopping-people-with-limited-mobility

·      http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:6DtikAWq_bwJ:www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/0055.pdf+pros+and+cons+of+teleshopping&hl=en&gl=in

·      http://gujaratonline.in/Profile/Economy/ on 9-10-2010

• smib.vuw.ac.nz:8081/www/ANZMAC1998/Cd_rom/O'Cass48.pdf on 10-02-2011.
• http://www.vibrantgujarat.com/ on 16-06-2011.
• http://www.scienceandnature.org/IJEMS-Vol3(2)-Apr2012/IJEMS_V3(2)18.pdf
• http://knowledge.sagepub.com/view/the-advertising-business/n16.xml
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situational_theory_of_publics