Consumer Motivations for Boycott
Dr. Satya Prakash Pandey
Associated with Faculty of Commerce University of Lucknow, Lucknow
Yusairah Ahmad
Research Scholar
Department of Business Administration Faculty of Commerce
University of Lucknow, Lucknow
Dr. Abhishek Gautam
Associated with Institute of Management Sciences, University of Lucknow, Lucknow
Boycotts are expected as quick-time period warning signs to commercial enterprise to enhance performance, proving step by step long term implications. Yet there is confined quantity of research in consumer boycotts and in particular at the outcomes of motivational factors leading to boycotts. Although the increase in consumer boycotts, advertising has paid very little interest to consumer boycott motivations. While boycotts are more and more applicable for control selection- making, there were little studies on consumer motivation to boycott. When something negative to consumer's ideas occurs, they generally tend to criticize the state of affairs and to take in movement, the usage of the Internet to virally unfold their reviews and adopting resistant conduct, therefore punishing the organisation and refusing to shop for its manufacturers. A technology of social media consumers can grow to be more and more vocal through boycotts and consumers dissatisfactions unfold nearly right now at the Internet. Such consumer-led boycotts can affect an organisation's long-term branding efforts. In this context, control poses a project for agencies that don't act or talk appropriately. Addressing this deficiency, this paper tries to provide a conceptualization of motivations for boycott participation, and it pursuits at imparting a few guidelines for dealing with consumer boycotts.
Keywords: Boycott, Motivation, Social Media
A consumer boycott is a critical trouble for each organization due to thefact it could affect its preferred development unfavourably with inside a long time. Since presently consumers can nearly swiftly unfold terrible records approximately an emblem or an organisation on social media, it's far critical to straight away react and clear up any trouble that may result in a disaster. Overlooking consumers' proceedings could have a fantastic effect on an organization's advertising efforts. When an organisation or an emblem deceives consumers, they mistrust the organisation and its manufacturers and their techniques extrude. Consumers are typically regarding themselves in boycotting sports as a signal of dissatisfaction and protest and they could refuse to shop for
positive manufacturers whilst something negative comes to their ideas. Although the processing of a boycott is represented with the aid of using the refusal of buying a positive emblem, the results of the boycott are a great deal broader. All those movements may also have critical consequences, sparking a disaster of brand image, brand consideration, the brand has an effect on brand loyalty or maybe brand fairness overall. The motives why consumers interact in boycotting movements are many and it's far critical to discover every driver. Boycotts are a method for consumers simplest to own entry on how businesses must operate, however, to have an impact on how their usage selections affect the advertising environment. Consumer boycotts are historically considered as occasion coordinated with the aid of using businesses asking consumers to abstain from acquiring the goods of a specific commercial enterprise (Friedman, 1999). Steady with this concept, consumers are seeking to differ the reprehensible conduct of the boycott goal by using refusing behaviour to commercial enterprise for a specific time frame. However, there are consumer boycotts of assorted kinds, for numerous purposes, and for differing durations of times. In a few instances, consumers chorus from ingesting positive merchandise or dissociate themselves from positive businesses for an indefinite time frame to reach positive dreams. Conversely, boycotts aren't an alternative phenomenon, motivations to take part in consumer boycotts are taken into consideration for moderate extrude over a decade. Motivations in the back of consumer behaviour are critical records for businesses whether or not or now no longer they're goals of boycotts or organizing them. However, consumer motivations are an item of look at as they're distinct; they range with the aid of using man or woman to man or woman and are prompted with the aid of using one's environment. Present studies on boycott motivations have centred on special boycott instances. While studies have studied the motivations of consumers to take part all through a boycott for instance in opposition to the unethical behaviour of a corporation (Klein, Smith, and John, 2002), ultimate of a manufacturing facility ( Hoffmann and Müller, 2009), or seal hunting (Braunsberger and Buckler, 2011), consumer motivations to take part all through a destiny boycott of a specific institution of merchandise haven't begun to be protected in
the boycott research. As a supply of consumer strength and a device for the social management of the commercial enterprise, boycotts have civic coverage implications. In a pretty planned manner, boycotters can use their "buy votes" to prefer companies with favoured societal influences, steady with the concept of consumer preference as a cause for capitalism (Dickinson and Hollander 1991; Smith 1990). Yet there were little studies into the motives that impact a man or woman's motivation to boycott, even though they want for higher know-how with the aid of using marketers, boycott organizers and policymakers. Boycotts are therefore an excellent case of a broader class of consumer conduct in which social, emotional and moral problems, including environmentalism, faith are based on buy selections. Hence, higher know-how of boycott involvement isn't simply beneficial, however, is in all likelihood to tell our know-how of moral effects on consumer's conduct.(Smith 1999). Consumer's boycott date returned at the least as a way because the 14th century contributed to a few stunning successes for exceedingly powerless groups. In the United States, boycotts had been the important thing to unionization (Wolman 1916). The 1955 Bernard Law says boycott marks the start of the contemporary-day Civil Rights Movement (Friedman 1999). Elsewhere, examples consist of Gandhi's boycotts of British salt and material previous to Indian independence and the British boycott of Barclays Bank previous to its withdrawal from apartheid South Africa (Smith 1990). In the 1990s, the commercial enterprise presses confirmed to agree that boycotts had been frequently a success and had been growing (e.g., The Economist 1990). Recently distinguished consumer boycotts consist of the European boycott of Shell over its plan to sell off the Brent Spar oil platform at sea and the multi-U.S.A boycott of Nike over alleged sweatshop situations at Asian suppliers. As these examples suggest, boycotts these days are greater usually targeting company practices as opposed to broader socio- political dreams including civil rights. It is with this context in thoughts that this paper develops and assesses a conceptualization of motivations for boycott participation.
The research focus of this paper changed into motivation to discover the motives that inspire the boycott of
merchandise with the aid of using the consumers and that inspire them now no longer to boycott the goods. To locate if people effect the boycott selection of consumers. Does socio-demographics impact the selection to boycott a product? With those studies questions said above, the paper pursuits to locate the reasons for motivations for consumers to boycott merchandise in addition to motivations for now no longer doing so.
The term boycott coined from Captain Charles C. Boycott, who changed into a distinguished land manager. In 1880, the Irish Land League started an attempt to lower rents with the aid of using insulating Captain Boycott from his commercial enterprise connections. This later has become known as a boycott. (Friedman, 1999) presently, a boycott is described as "A punitive ban on members of the family with different bodies, cooperation with coverage, or the coping with of merchandise." (Oxford University Press, 2014) Another regularly used running definition, in particular, applied with inside the look at of consumer boycotts, is with the aid of using Monroe Friedman: a consumer boycott is "a try with the aid of using one or greater events to recognise positive targets with the aid of insisting man or woman consumers to abstain from making decision on buys in the market" (1985, pp.97-98). From this definition of a consumer boycott, it is prominent that the boycotters are people as opposed to businesses, extrude is shaped in the market even as the intention won't be in the market and consumers are prompted to selectively withdraw their participation in the market (Friedman, 1999). Consumer boycotts are probabilities for consumers to recognise the impact and use institution movement over agencies additionally as public coverage (Klein, Smith, John 2004). Boycott members can use shopping for selections to protection agencies which have favourable social influences even as warding off agencies which have terrible influences (Klein, Smith, John 2004). Consumer boycotts range from private alternatives to reserve intake therein consumer boycotts are “an ordered, collective, however non-mandatory (i.e., no formal sanctions are frequently imposed on non-compliers) rejection. (Sen, Gürhan- Canli and Morwitz, 2001, pg.400). Although boycott members execute the selection to boycott and
taking private boycott movements individually, consumer boycotts are frequently prepared with the aid of using events trying to reinforce public cognizance and impact attitudes concerning the boycott reasons. These organizers of consumer boycotts enticing consumers to take part are typically non-governmental businesses which are protesting in opposition to unethical or unfair company practices (Klein, Smith, John 2004). Lately, as public interest to company social responsibility (CSR) has steadily grown and organisation reputations can without difficulty be affected, consumer boycotts have become large control attention (Klein, Smith and John, 2004). A commercial enterprise centred with the aid of using a personal boycott is frequently visible as having misplaced its interest at the market (Klein, Smith and John, 2004). Therefore know- how consumer exclusion isn't simply thrilling for researchers, however additionally critical for agencies. Hoffman and Müller (2009) classify modern literature on consumer boycott into 3 exclusion zones: (1) the frequency, reasons and goals of exclusion; (2) the effects of exclusion; and (3) the motivations of the collaborating people. Although another form of study to look at, motivations to take part all through a consumer survey, is crucial to managers, coverage makers additionally as boycott organizers, it's simplest these days that a few quantities of looking at periods the beyond decade (Klein, Smith and John, 2004).
In the book Consumer Boycotts: Effecting Change through the Marketplace and Media (1999), Friedman offers nomenclature of consumer boycotts. To begin with, the state of affairs of boycotts varies from global boycotts to neighbourhood boycotts. As per the ancient evaluation of boycotts by Friedman, countrywide boycotts are the most usual however global boycotts have grown in numbers of NGO's and consequently the problems are appearing to be global. It is likely to be more accurate these days as information is easily accessible, almost 15 years after Friedman's book. Although the finishing of a boycott aren't usually clear, the writer additionally makes differences among long term boycotts lasting over years, medium period boycotts lasting for few years, and quick-time period boycotts lasting approximately for one year. Consumers additionally take part withinside the boycott they're asking members in the case of commodity boycott, all manufacturers all through a particular product or service
class must be avoided, while one brand or organization is to be boycotted all through an brand or organization. A partial exclusion might be tokeep away from shopping particular merchandise of a product class, like the ones visible as too grand. A partial exclusion can also arise as an instance on particular days of the week.(Friedman, 1999)
As the maximum normal organizers of boycotts, Friedman names consumer groups, labour unions, environmental groups, non-secular groups, businesses representing ethnic and racial minorities, and women's proper groups. Hence boycott reasons are frequent violations of consumer rights, animal rights, women's rights, worker's rights than on. The boycott movements can be categorised into four kinds. Actions based boycotts move besides the aid of a boycott and inquiry for participation. In a movement prepared boycott, the organisation and arrangements for a boycott are knowledgeable to the overall public. Finally, a movement has taken boycott advances to require concrete movements, as an instance with the aid of using demonstrations. Actions taken into consideration boycotts ought to be entitled media orientated boycotts due to the fact that they gather media interest as the reason for their boycott. Often these boycott organizers have a scarcity of the sources to in reality arrange a boycott. Additionally, movement prepared boycotts and movement taken boycotts are concentrating on sports in the market and therefore are frequently referred to as market-orientated boycotts, even though they'll be media orientated additionally. Friedman additionally notes that from time to time those happenings don't simply specialise withinside the unfavourable and warding off the disapproved boycott goals, however, it can also take the form of a boycott in which organisations with positive influences are supported with purchases. (Friedman, 1999) Friedman categorizes consumer boycotts in two kinds with the aid of using their software. Instrumental boycotts have sensible targets while expressive boycotts are influenced by voicing the disappointment of the members on the boycott goal (Friedman, 1999). Sen, Gürhan Canli and Morwitz (2001) categorise consumer boycotts into two types as per the motive of the boycott. One is that the exclusion of a monetary or advertising coverage, which achieves the intention of fixing the advertising exercise of a boycott goal. An instance of the goal of one of these boycotts is the discount in expenses of sale merchandise. The second and
new form of exclusion can be a political, social, or ethical exclusion aimed closer to converting the behaviour of the exclusion intention to be accountable in those areas. An instance of this form of exclusion is exclusion for accountable employment practices. (Sen, Guron li Canley&Morwitz,2001)
Businesses are generally impacted by consumer boycotts and are disappearing with the use of their unfavourable outcomes, it's of a hobby for corporations to apprehend the motivations of consumers determining to boycott or to now no longer boycott. As research indicates, consumers have special reasons to join all through a boycott and they bend to own a couple of motivations for participation additionally (Klein, Smith and John, 2002). Correspondingly to the dreams of consumer boycotts (Friedman, 1999). Motivations for the boycott are frequently break up into instrumental motivations, individuals who aim to shape a particular extrude at the goal, and expressive motivations, individuals who goal to explicit the consumers' feelings like anger against the brand. Instrumental motivations which are narrated to developing an extrude in the movements of the boycott goal had been observed to be the most normal motivations for becoming a member of all through a boycott. (Klein, Smith and John (2002). An evaluation with the aid of using Hoffmann (2013) recommends that unique motivations justify special functions of a boycott selection. In his paper, Hoffmann additionally argues that consumers willing to rationalize their boycott participation with special motivations. Thus attitudes and ideals wouldn't be the only boycott motivations, besides as an instance the correlation of the consumer with the boycott goal must be taken into the interpretation.
The motivation of making a distinction is an instrumental boycott motivation to get societal change by collaborating all through a consumer boycott (Klein, Smith and John, 2004). It seems that developing a distinction in society can be the principal motivation for humans to join all through a consumer boycott. However, an individual need to see that she or he goes to be geared up to create the desired extrude, with the aid of using the method of a boycott.
Constructed on theories indicating the significance of shallowness in human conduct, Klein, Smith and John (2002) take into consideration the relationship among self- enhancement and becoming a member of boycott. The authors made an opinion concerning the enhancement of one's shallowness with the aid of using brazenly helping values which are perceived critical or enormous attitudes being a motivation to take part all through a consumer boycott. Thus people might have an egoistic motivation to join in boycotts. Conversely, any rapport among the cause of self-enhancement and boycott involvement wasn't observed at all (Klein, Smith and John, 2002). On the competition, boycott involvement ought to also be visible as an act of self-enhancement with the aid of warding off unwanted perceptions of oneself that non- participation ought to purpose (Klein, Smith and John, 2004). Thus people are probably becoming a member of consumer boycotts because of social strain and to keep away from guilt. For example we can consider on the festival of Deepawali major number of Indians boycotted Chinese lighting items replacing by “Diyas”.
A deliberate boycott motivation intently related to self- enhancement is lenient oneself from a boycott goal with the aid of collaborating in the boycott. In the study by Klein, Smith and John (2002) having "clean hands", concerning emotions suitable to oneself and warding off the feeling of guilt through disconnecting oneself from the boycott goal, changed into a normal motivation for collaborating in a boycott. Also, Sen, Gürhan-Canli and Morwitz (2001) discovered social pressure to be a large issuer to boycott participation, reputedly giving significance to the perspectives of different people on one's behaviour.
Through in-depth interviews and a study on consumers who've formerly participated in boycotts, Albrecht et al. (2013) found that involvement of the consumer with the boycott purpose is that the maximum crucial motivation for a consumer to take part in a boycott. The study of Hoffmann (2013) helps this cause by pointing out that proximity to the sports of the boycott goal has an impact on the boycott participation of a consumer. However, this can't be
witnessed instantly from the arguments of consumers as they strive to find a reason for their boycott participation with different views that favour the result (Hoffmann, 2013).
Expressing anger can be a non-instrumental motivation for being the part of a boycott. Around 50% of the respondents used expressing anger as a cause to take part in the boycott as per Klein, Smith and John (2002). In the netnography carried out by Braunsberger and Buckler (2011), over 50% of the boycott members expressed that they had been influenced to take part in the boycott so one can show anger on the boycott target.
In a research carried out on the exclusion of Canadian seafood, higher than 20% of the excluded boycott members expressed a choice to punish the boycott goals for their unacceptable behaviour, which reasonably was a motivation for their boycott participation. For numerous exclusion pledges all through this research, willingness to punish was associated with their motivation to show anger on the exclusion intention. All through this boycott case, many members resolved to increase the boycott with the aid of boycotting the entire Canadian economy, permitting the nation to seal hunt. (Braunsberger and Buckler, 2011).The need to punish as a reason to take part in consumer boycott can, therefore, be visible as a prolonged-expression of anger. The sturdy competition to mistreatment which may be a device to call for a change and the exclusion of a persons'.
Studies on stress of international disputes have found that tension negatively impacts overseas product buying in those international locations (Klein, Ettenson and Morris, 1998). Such stress usually come into existence because of territory disputes, monetary arguments, diplomatic disagreements, or non secular variations for instance (Riefler and Diamantopolous, 2007). Klein, Ettenson and Morris (1998, p.90) name this phenomenon as consumer animosity, which they define as "remnants of antipathy related to previous or ongoing military, political or economic events." Smith and Li (2010).It is revealed the animosity of Indian consumers towards Pakistan due to the long controversial history of the two countries as a
motivation for the Indians to boycott Pakistani products. The findings of the research indicated that a higher degree of animosity towards the related foreign country enhanced the boycotting of merchandise produced there. Animosity indicates how transnational corporations can undergo boycott because of a single event in the present or past in their domestic or international locations, getting a reference to publish Surgical & Airstrike on Pakistan with the aid of using India.
Hoffmann (2011) found out that political consumerism through which politics is voiced through buying behaviour motivates people to take part in boycotts. Boycott members may also discover that governments are not able to slight those agencies and therefore plan to apply their consumer strength to persuade the goal agencies.
Findings have emphasised on analyzing religious thoughts and values as a motivation for people to take part in consumer boycotts. By getting to know consumer boycotts prepared with the aid of using Christian groups, Swimberghe, Flurry, and Parker (2011) found that non- secular consumers make principled selections with their inner non-secular values, as contrasting to a non-secular institution's impact. In India ZOMATO (online food delivery business) non-Muslim deliveryman were denied to deliver beef and Muslim deliveryman refuses to deliver Pork in Kolkata. Another case of boycott were in news that Hindu youth denied to take food delivery by Muslim guy in Holy month of 'Shrawna' (Saavan month of lord Shiva worshiping). This famous case established that non-secular occasions could affect the belief of consumers for the merchandise, this could lead to boycott of organizations and international locations. An exclusion based on non- secular issues changed is observed to be longer lasting than a boycott with different reasons in the back of them (Al- Hyeri et al., 2012). Thus non-secular ideals may also inspire consumers to be the reasons for the boycott leading to social punishments with values that insult or insult the values of the boycott consumers.
Yuksel (2013) lays emphasis on the reasons why consumers favour to no longer participate in boycotts, arguing that
analyzing those motivations is uniformly critical as the motivations to take part in a consumer boycott. While Klein, Smith and John (2004) describe that the cause for now no longer becoming a part of a boycott is based on the lack of motivations to boycott. Yuksel points out that motivations no longer becoming a part or always the contraries of motivations to boycott, which makes giving attention to these motivations important. In the paper, while individuals ought to create excuses for now not becoming a part of the boycott in order to reduce dissatisfaction from others or their guilt, motivations of consumers who decide no longer to participate in a boycott could give reasonable comprehension both to boycott organizers and boycott objectives to require to ponder upon their strategies. (Yuksel, 2013)
Counterarguments for boycott involvement are close to the effects of boycott involvement, like inflicting employees to lose their jobs as an impact of consumer boycott on their employer (Klein, Smith and John, 2004). According to the study of Hoffmann (2013), members to a boycott have the ability to generate any motivations for not becoming a part of the boycott. Nevertheless, as Hoffmann concedes, research in which simplest consumers collaborating all through a boycott are explored (Hoffmann, 2011; Hoffmann 2013) won't be pertinent for finding out counterarguments for boycott participation.
Buyers can select to now no longer take part in a boycott by using questioning that their boycott movements won't have enough impact to shape an extrude or that the inclusive consumer participation in the boycott won't be big enough, and therefore their efforts and workable sacrifices made might go in vain (Hoffmann, 2011; Klein, Smith and John, 2004; Sen, Gürhan-Canli and Morwitz, 2001). Therefore, consumers can be unable to help with their participation or committed to the boycott for taking the required action.
A deterrence to boycott related to the inefficiency of a boycott is "free riding". Buyers can decide to no longer be the part of a boycott by transferring the rate of boycotting to different consumers. They'll consider that their boycott efforts won't be required due to the fact that participation of
different consumers is going to be sufficient for the boycott to reach its dreams. The truth of free riding can also adversely affect the motivation of consumers to join in boycotts in an opportunistic manner, as free riders are frequently expected to unethically take benefit of the sacrifices of different people becoming a member of the boycott (Sen, Gürhan-Canli, and Morwitz, 2001; Klein, Smith and John, 2004).
In a few consumer boycotts, members may also change their regular shopping patterns. Klein, Smith and John (2004) and Hoffman (2011) have studied that this form of forced intake can also be a motivation for not taking part in consumer exclusion. The reason to take part these boycott's decreases due to the cost of that person's participation (Klein, Smith, and John, 2004).
In the study of a consumer boycott aiming at a multinational organisation that wanted to setup a manufacturing facility overseas, Hoffmann and Müller (2009) found that the popularity, trust and reputation of the organisation of that country (local organization) had a very significant impact on the boycott involvement.
The study based on the primary information. The data is collected through the convenience sampling from the Post- Graduation scholars of the universities in Lucknow, throughout June to July 2019 and thanks to them value and time offered for conducting this analysis. However, this analysis depends on the Youngsters, as results of they are drivers of new society. The information was collected from MBA/M.Com categories. The scholars were either within the First or second year of study at the university. So, the sample during this analysis is well fitted for the analysis and will contribute fascinating results to the analysis community.
Demographic Profile of the Respondents: The total numbers of respondents were 208 in which 120 (57.69%) were male and 88 (42.30%) were female which shows that the sample was skewed towards male respondents. The majority of the respondents in the age group of 20-29 years 1523 (73.55%), 30-39 years 55(26.44). 173(83.17) out of
the 208 were unmarried and 35(16.82) were married (see table: 1)
Table:1
|
Variable name |
Categories |
Frequency |
Percentage (%) |
|
Gender |
Male |
120 |
57.69 |
|
Female |
88 |
42.30 |
|
|
Age Group |
20-29 |
153 |
73.55 |
|
30-39 |
55 |
26.44 |
|
|
Marital Status |
Married |
35 |
16.82 |
|
Unmarried |
173 |
83.17 |
Factor Analysis: The result analysis categorized 17 scale items into six factors. Found the value of KMO and Bartlett's Test .639 which shows the sample size is adequate
for analysing the data for factor analysis shown in table 2 below:
Table:2
|
KMO and Bartlett's Test |
||
|
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. |
.639 |
|
|
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity |
Approx. Chi-Square |
1432.857 |
|
Df |
136 |
|
|
Sig. |
.000 |
|
Table:3
|
Communalities |
||
|
|
Initial |
Extraction |
|
1. I boycott products because I want to make a difference. |
1.000 |
.583 |
|
2. I would feel guilty if I did not boycott products |
1.000 |
.360 |
|
3. I boycott products in order to maintain a clear conscience |
1.000 |
.606 |
|
4. Boycotting products makes a person better. |
1.000 |
.461 |
|
5. The opinions of other people affect my product choices. |
1.000 |
.630 |
|
6. Media reports have influence me to boycott products. |
1.000 |
.422 |
|
7. I do not boycott non-green products because there are no substitutes for these products |
1.000 |
.624 |
|
8. There are few options of products to choose from |
1.000 |
.606 |
|
9. Boycotts of products are a good way to express anger at the boycott targets. |
1.000 |
.540 |
|
10. I boycott products in order to express my anger at the boycott targets. |
1.000 |
.485 |
|
11. Specific issues are important to me while boycotting |
1.000 |
.684 |
|
12. I boycott products in order to punish the boycott targets |
1.000 |
.655 |
|
13. Other consumers do not boycott products enough for the boycott to have an effect. |
1.000 |
.579 |
|
14. Boycotts of products are a good way to express political views |
1.000 |
.528 |
|
15. I boycott products because I feel connected to the specific issues of boycott |
1.000 |
.499 |
|
16. I boycott products in order to express my political views |
1.000 |
.941 |
|
17. I do not boycott products because I see it does not have an effect |
1.000 |
.936 |
|
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. |
||
Table:4
|
Total Variance Explained |
|||||||||
|
Component |
Initial Eigenvalues |
Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings |
Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings |
||||||
|
Total |
% of Variance |
Cumulative % |
Total |
% of Variance |
Cumulative % |
Total |
% of Variance |
Cumulative % |
|
|
1 |
3.191 |
18.768 |
18.768 |
3.191 |
18.768 |
18.768 |
2.167 |
12.746 |
12.746 |
|
2 |
1.842 |
10.837 |
29.605 |
1.842 |
10.837 |
29.605 |
1.990 |
11.707 |
24.453 |
|
3 |
1.587 |
9.333 |
38.938 |
1.587 |
9.333 |
38.938 |
1.633 |
9.606 |
34.059 |
|
4 |
1.264 |
7.437 |
46.375 |
1.264 |
7.437 |
46.375 |
1.589 |
9.350 |
43.409 |
|
5 |
1.167 |
6.863 |
53.238 |
1.167 |
6.863 |
53.238 |
1.385 |
8.148 |
51.558 |
|
6 |
1.089 |
6.405 |
59.643 |
1.089 |
6.405 |
59.643 |
1.375 |
8.086 |
59.643 |
|
7 |
.925 |
5.443 |
65.087 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
.839 |
4.936 |
70.022 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
.813 |
4.780 |
74.802 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
.768 |
4.518 |
79.320 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11 |
.737 |
4.333 |
83.653 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
.699 |
4.111 |
87.765 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13 |
.621 |
3.650 |
91.415 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14 |
.556 |
3.269 |
94.684 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15 |
.475 |
2.795 |
97.478 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16 |
.426 |
2.504 |
99.982 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17 |
.003 |
.018 |
100.000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure : 1
Table: 5
|
Component Matrixa |
||||||
|
|
Component |
|||||
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
|
|
16. I boycott products in order to express my political views |
.771 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
17. I do not boycott products because I see it does not have an effect |
.768 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
10. I boycott products in order to express my anger at the boycott targets. |
.592 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
6. Media reports have influence me to boycott products. |
.541 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
8. There are few options of products to choose from |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. I would feel guilty if I did not boycott products |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11. Specific issues are important to me while boycotting |
|
.602 |
|
|
|
|
|
9. Boycotts of products are a good way to express anger at the boycott targets. |
|
.597 |
|
|
|
|
|
12. I boycott products in order to punish the boycott targets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. I boycott products in order to maintain a clear conscience |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15. I boycott products because I feel connected to the specific issues of boycott |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13. Other consumers do not boycott products enough for the boycott to have an effect. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4. Boycotting products makes a person better. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5. The opinions of other people affect my product choices. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7. I do not boycott non-green products because there are no substitutes for these products |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14. Boycotts of products are a good way to express political views |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. I boycott products because I want to make a difference. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. |
||||||
|
a. 6 components extracted. |
||||||
Table: 6
|
Rotated Component Matrixa |
||||||
|
|
Component |
|||||
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
|
|
16. I boycott products in order to express my political views |
.940 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
17. I do not boycott products because I see it does not have an effect |
.938 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
12. I boycott products in order to punish the boycott targets |
|
.734 |
|
|
|
|
|
8. There are few options of products to choose from |
|
.705 |
|
|
|
|
|
10. I boycott products in order to express my anger at the boycott targets. |
|
.591 |
|
|
|
|
|
6. Media reports have influence me to boycott products. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. I boycott products in order to maintain a clear conscience |
|
|
.654 |
|
|
|
|
4. Boycotting products makes a person better. |
|
|
.631 |
|
|
|
|
13. Other consumers do not boycott products enough for the boycott to have an effect. |
|
|
-.533 |
|
|
|
|
2. I would feel guilty if I did not boycott products |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7. I do not boycott non-green products because there are no substitutes for these products |
|
|
|
.716 |
|
|
|
9. Boycotts of products are a good way to express anger at the boycott targets. |
|
|
|
.647 |
|
|
|
15. I boycott products because I feel connected to the specific issues of boycott |
|
|
|
.583 |
|
|
|
5. The opinions of other people affect my product choices. |
|
|
|
|
.790 |
|
|
14. Boycotts of products are a good way to express political views |
|
|
|
|
.697 |
|
|
11. Specific issues are important to me while boycotting |
|
|
|
|
|
.757 |
|
1. I boycott products because I want to make a difference. |
|
|
|
|
|
.700 |
|
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. |
||||||
|
a. Rotation converged in 6 iterations. |
||||||
Table: 7
|
Factor |
Name of Variables |
Factor Loading |
|
Factor 1 |
16. I boycott products in order to express my political views |
.940 |
|
17. I do not boycott products because I see it does not have an effect |
.938 |
|
|
Factor 2 |
12. I boycott products in order to punish the boycott targets |
.734 |
|
8. There are few options of products to choose from |
.705 |
|
|
10. I boycott products in order to express my anger at the boycott targets. |
.591 |
|
|
Factor 3 |
3. I boycott products in order to maintain a clear conscience |
.654 |
|
4. Boycotting products makes a person better. |
.631 |
|
|
13. Other consumers do not boycott products enough for the boycott to have an effect. |
-.533 |
|
Factor |
Name of Variables |
Factor Loading |
|
Factor 4 |
7. I do not boycott non-green products because there are no substitutes for these products |
.716 |
|
|
9. Boycotts of products are a good way to express anger at the boycott targets. |
.647 |
|
|
15. I boycott products because I feel connected to the specific issues of boycott |
.583 |
|
Factor 5 |
5. The opinions of other people affect my product choices. |
.790 |
|
14. Boycotts of products are a good way to express political views |
.697 |
|
|
Factor 6 |
11. Specific issues are important to me while boycotting |
.757 |
|
1. I boycott products because I want to make a difference. |
.700 |
A study done among students of university to create new factors that affect the consumer buying decision using factor analysis. Testing of Bartlett's Test of Sphericity and the adequacy of the sample of the Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin are both tests that can be used to determine the causative factor as a whole. The results of the test of Bartlett's circularity are important (p <0.001, p = 0.000). In addition, the Kaiser- Meyer-Olkin remedy is 0.639 which is more than that.
It is suggested that if Bartlett's Test of Sphericity is significant, and if the measure of Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin is greater than 0.6, then the factor is assumed. Thus, depending on the results, it is advisable to proceed with factor analysis to examine the factors affecting consumers to boycott the product to buy.
After applying the Varimax rotation method with Kaiser Normalization,
Factor 1(Socio Political) included two items with factor loading, with a difference of 0.940, 0.938. Items in Factor 1 are serial no. 16 and 17.
Factor 2 (Willingness to Punish) included three items with factor loading for 0.734, 0.705 0.591. Items in Factor 12, 8
and 10.
Factor 3 (Boycott Effectiveness) included three items with factor loading 0.654, 0.631 and -.533 Items in Factor 3 are
3, 4 and 13.
Factor 4 (Personal Attributes) included three items with
factor loading 0.716, 0.647, 0.583. Items in Factor 4 are 7, 9
and 15.
Factor 5 (Boycott Perception) included two items with factor loading0.790, .697. Items in Factor 5 are 5 and 14.
Factor 6 (Attitude) included two items with factor loading 0.757, .700 Items in Factor 6 are 11 and 1.
The value of item no 2 and 6 have less than the 0.5 so I have not included it in any factor.
Post analysis it is revealed that six factors were successfully identified using factor analysis and assigned as factors for consumer motivation for boycott, which are namely Socio Political, Willingness to Punish, Boycott Effectiveness, Personal Attributes, Boycott Perception & Attitude Dickinson and Karski (2005) clarified the opinion that those who boycott express the belief that they hold sovereignty in the market. In a similar vein, the current study demonstrates that although participants act individually, they consider themselves part of a larger collective group of all consumers who support in the same way.
This paper has studied consumer motivations for boycotting products. The boycott of products was studied as a part of an ideology rather than a time system as consumer boycotts are traditionally viewed. In this paper, the research already done for exclusion participation in the context of boycott of products was studied. Different exclusion motivations were found to have different
significance. The first & main research problem posed in this paper presented a question on motivation for consumers to boycott products. The most important motivation for the boycott of products was the significant motivation to make a difference on a boycott issue. On the other hand, expressive motivations, such as willingness to Punish at the outcast target, were not considered as important. Another important finding on exclusion motivations was that the exclusion of products makes a person feel good about them.
Second research question inquired about motivations not to boycott products. Notable motivations for non-boycott were the lack of alternatives to the exclusion of products and the perceived high prices of the products. Consumers also expect an increase in these boycotts, but do not experience inefficiency as a demolition for the boycott. The research question looked at the role of the individual's environment in motivating the exclusion of consumers. Survey results stated that consumers on the one hand do not feel pressured to boycott by other individuals, and on the other hand they are not judged to boycott products due to lack of boycott from other consumers. The question was asked whether the exclusion of socio-demographic factors influenced the motivations for exclusion of frequency products. In the analysis any relationship between motivation and these factors cannot be verified with confidence.
This research contributes to knowledge about the consumer's motivation for exclusion of products. Understanding these motivations for boycott participation may be important information for parties who are interested in promoting consumerism; managers may note the observation that consumers are prepared to boycott products that are considered Want to punish producers with this means. It is also noteworthy that these consumers believe in the ability to make changes by boycotting them. However, respondents did not experience limited choice as a barrier to the involvement of exclusion. Findings on social pressures that do not affect consumers 'motivation to boycott products indicate that organizations may have difficulties influencing consumers' boycott decisions through coercion. Finally, businesses should consider the value received by these consumers by the boycott of products and the determination made for this practice.
Consumption: A Netnographic Exploration of the Meaning of Boycotting Behavior, Advances in Consumer Research, 25(1), pp.475- 480.
of Macromarketing, 33(3), pp.204-216.
