205 Indian Youth: February 2022

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/359392720
205 Indian youth
Article · February 2022
CITATIONS READS
0 193
4 authors, including:
Leena James
Christ University, Bangalore
14 PUBLICATIONS 89 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
CSR and sustainability View project
CSR and Socio economic and environmental impact of it View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Leena James on 22 March 2022.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Int. J. Management Practice, Vol. 15, No. 2, 2022 205
Product specific determinants of electronic gadget

purchase intention – a case of the purchase
behaviour of Indian youth
Shrinivas Kulkarni*
School of Business and Management,
CHRIST (Deemed to be University),
Bannerghatta Road Campus,
Bangalore, 560076, Karnataka, India
Email: kulki.shree@gmail.com
*Corresponding author
Leena James
School of Business and Management,
CHRIST (Deemed to be University),
Central Campus,
Bangalore, 560029, Karnataka, India
Email: leena.james@christuniversity.in
Abstract: This study investigated the impact of product specific features of

electronic gadgets on the purchase intention on the Indian youth. The study was
quantitative in nature and data was collected from 650 young electronic gadget
consumers in Bengaluru, India using structured questionnaires. Descriptive
statistics and structural equation modelling (SEM) were used for data
analysis. Brand image, product design, and country of origin are referred as
product evaluation attributes; and corporate identity were identified as the
determinants of purchase intention. Respondents were neutral regarding the
role of product evaluation attributes and corporate identity in their purchases,
but acknowledged these factors’ importance. Findings implied a positive and
significant influence of product evaluation attributes on the corporate identity
of companies, and purchase intention of the youth. However, corporate identity
did not influence purchase intention, clearly indicating that only product
specific features, such as brand, design and country of origin are considered
when youngsters purchase gadgets.
Keywords: purchase intention; brand image; product design; country of origin;
COO; corporate identity; electronic gadgets; product evaluation; purchase
behaviour; youth; brands.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Kulkarni, S. and James, L.
(2022) ‘Product specific determinants of electronic gadget purchase intention –
a case of the purchase behaviour of Indian youth’, Int. J. Management Practice,
Vol. 15, No. 2, pp.205–234.
Biographical notes: Shrinivas Kulkarni has received his PhD in Management
science from the Pacific Academy of Higher Education and Research
(PAHER), Udaipur, India. He is an Assistant Professor in the School of
Business and Management at CHRIST (Deemed to be University), Bangalore,
Copyright © 2022 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

206 S. Kulkarni and L. James
India. His research interest includes consumer behaviour, supply

chain management, sales management and retail management. He has
authored/co-authored in peer reviewed reputed journals and international
conference proceedings.
Leena James has received her PhD from the Bharthidasan University, India.
She is a Professor in the School of Business and Management at CHRIST
(Deemed to be University), Bangalore, India. She has completed many major
and minor research projects in the area of management science. She is an orator
and vivid researcher. She has published about 70 research papers in various
reputed national and international journals with impact factors and authored
two books. She is an editorial board member for many reputed journals. She is
a life member of the Indian Accounting Association and active member of
Academy of HRD (Asia Chapter), AHRD and member of Institute of Directors,
Bangalore Chapter, India. She is an editorial board member of Asian Research
Consortium and International Journal of Research in Organizational
Behaviour and Human Resource Management.
1 Introduction
Consumer behaviour is one of the prominent aspects of marketing, which vendors try to
direct in their favour to sustain in competitive markets (De Mooij, 2019; Mandel et al.,
2017). Among the different aspects of consumer behaviour, purchase intention (PI) is that
elusive factor which contributes the most to whether or not a consumer purchases a
product or a service (Paul and Rana, 2012; Wang and Hazen, 2016). Simply put, PI refers
to a customer’s intention to purchase a product; however, on closer examination one
would see that it pertains to what customers feel about a product, which in turn directs
them to purchase the product repeatedly (Bag et al., 2019). PI is formed right before a
customer ‘actually’ buys a product (Martins et al., 2019; Howard and Sheth, 1969),
which is why it is considered the most crucial stage of marketing (Pan and Chen, 2019;
Lipman, 1988). Customers’ attitude towards particular products or services plays an
important role in forming their PIs, which is brought about by product evaluation (Bashir
et al., 2019; Keller, 2001; Lascu and Zinkhan, 1999). Product evaluation occurs when
consumers obtain product information from their peers, advertisements and their own
past experiences, compare it what they desire from the product, weigh the pros and cons
along with that of available alternatives and finally form an intention to purchase the
product (Hien et al., 2020; Simmonds et al., 2019; Tirtiroglu and Elbeck, 2008). While
customer attitudes indeed influence PI, it is also impacted by a number of external,
product and vendor related aspects (Ko and Jin, 2017; Lau et al., 2016). These include
brand image (BI), country of origin (COO), product design (PD) and corporate identity
(CI).
One of the foremost external factors that bring about PI is the BI, which influences
purchase decisions by forming favourable perceptions among the customers towards a
particular product (Schmidt et al., 2018). BI, also referred to as the personality of a
particular brand, is the outcome of the different images or impressions that a consumer
obtains regarding the brand from various sources, their own emotional response to the
brand and other aspects (Chinomona, 2016; Kim et al., 2018; Herzog, 1963; Runyon and
Stewart, 1987). BI represents the ‘symbolic value’ of a product or services, which is the
Product specific determinants of electronic gadget purchase intention 207
image of the product, built either by virtue of its quality/functionality or through public
impression regarding the same, or both (Saxena and Dhar, 2017; Taniyev and Gordon,
2019; Runyon and Stewart, 1987). The image is formed by the interaction of a customers’
personal experience with the product and the reputation of the brand (Cheung et al., 2019;
Gensch, 1978), and a positive image eventually results in customers’ intending to
purchase the product or service of that particular brand (Ansary and Hashim, 2018;
Lewalski, 1988; Yamamoto and Lambert, 1994; Bloch, 1995; Lee and Lee, 2018;
Hertenstein et al., 2005). PD is one of the tools that players in a highly competitive
market use to set their products apart to improve their visibility and appeal (Hsiao and
Chen, 2018; Chen et al., 2018; Bloch, 1995; Rassam, 1995). Consumers form positive
associations with products that are designed to suit market trends and customer
expectations, which exert a positive influence on their PIs (Shieh et al., 2018; Zahid et al.,
2018). PD also builds BI, which helps the consumers to identify the product (Išoraitė,
2018; Kotler and Keller, 2011), thereby forming the basis for a purchase (Valaskova
et al., 2018; Holbrook and Zirlin, 1985; Bauer et al., 2000; Creusen and Schoormans,
2005).
With the rapid globalisation of markets and advancement of media of market
communication, consumers across the world are exposed to a vast assortment of products
to choose from (Nellikunnel et al., 2017; Van den Berg, 2017). Owing to transnational
business alliances, international product sourcing and distribution, customers now have
an option of purchasing products developed in other countries (Kim et al., 2017). More
often than not, consumers tend to associate different countries or regions with different
attributes, which might affect how they perceive products from a particular country as
well (Yunus and Rashid, 2016; Nasution and Rossanty, 2018). This is where the country
from which the product originates gains significance in customer purchase decisions
(Williams et al., 2018; Baldauf et al., 2009). Consumers from a developed country, might
not consider purchasing a product manufactured in a developing country (Hien et al.,
2020; Ma et al., 2020; Li et al., 2011; Udegbe, 2017), while those from the developed
world might hold products from advanced economies in high regard (Rambocas and
Ramsubhag, 2018; Sharma, 2010; Costa et al., 2018; Batra and Wu, 2019). Often, the
consumers’ preference, or the lack of it, for products from a particular country are not
based on product related factors, such as quality, price or functionality. Instead, such
preferences arise from the consumers’ perceptions regarding the country of the products’
origin and how they associate such perceptions with the products (Rashid et al., 2016;
Moradi and Zarei, 2012) and such associations are often a result of the consumers’
preconceived notions, country stereotypes and perceived international reputation (Cakici
and Shukla, 2017; Usunier et al., 2005; Bertoli, 2013; Pucci et al., 2013).
Customers’ evaluation of a product or a service is also impacted by what the
corporate entity offering the product represents, or how it conducts itself, i.e., its identity
(Hernes and Schultz, 2017; Ravasi, 2016). Simply put, CI, which represents the character
of a business entity, plays an important role in how favourably consumers consider its
products or services for purchase (Dincer and Dincer, 2017; Deng and Xu, 2017; Steidl
and Emery, 1997; Balmer and Soenen, 1999; Stuart, 1999). While the exact dimensions
of CI, especially in terms of customer perceptions are yet to be ascertained, it is indeed
influenced by a multitude of factors, either pertaining to the products as such or the
corporate entity in general. Of the various aspects that build CI, expertise and social
responsibility are two dimensions that impact consumers the most (Balmer, 2017;
Rowden, 2017; Balmer and Chen, 2017). While the expertise pertains to how the
corporates perform with regard to understanding customer needs and developing products
to suit the same, corporate social responsibility (CSR), pertains to how the company
conducts itself with regard to its social obligations (Abratt and Mingione, 2017; Mohr
et al., 2001) and a corporate, which manages an intelligent mix of both these aspects
stands apart with a unique CI (Urde and Greyser, 2016; Balmer, 2017). Such an identity
helps the consumers form favourable perceptions regarding the products that the
corporate entity offers, which in turn has a positive bearing on their decision to purchase
such products (Dincer and Dincer, 2017; Abratt and Mingione, 2017).
Globalisation, increasing competition and product differentiation has made the market
of electronic gadgets highly heterogeneous, owing to which consumers have an
assortment of choices (Naik and Shukla, 2016). Electronic gadgets can be defined as
devices with enormous agility that is used for doing multiple activities at one time, which
simplifies the work into a productive one (Onyinye et al., 2014). Some of the examples
include smart phones, computers, television, medical instruments, etc. The consumer
behaviour as a result of the consumer market, especially that of young customers has
become increasingly complex and volatile (Sethi et al., 2018). Under such circumstances,
manufactures and vendors alike are under the pressure to stand out among in the market
to gain customer attention. Such a challenge is even more tough in technology-based
markets, such as the electronic gadget market considering that the youth are well aware
of their alternatives and are tech-savvy (Bansal and Mehta, 2016; Abd Aziz and Abd
Wahid, 2018). As a result, directing consumer behaviour and building intention to
purchase from a particular vendor has emerged as the most challenging aspects of
marketing. This calls for a deeper understanding of the various factors that influence the
younger generation’s PI with regard to the electronic gadgets, especially in the Indian
context (Singhal and Patra, 2018; Goyal, 2017). In context of the above, this study
intended to identify the factors that play a role in forming the Indian youth’s PIs, as well
as to quantify the extent to which these factors influence PI. Our study will assist the
foreign retailers in marketing the right products in the right countries and help in
understanding the preferences of youngsters when it comes to electronic gadgets. The
findings will also help the retailers of India in gaining competitive advantage and
devising successful marketing strategies for growth in sales. This study is valuable for
academicians as it gives an overview of the youngsters’ PIs of electronic gadgets, which
is rarely encountered in the journals of marketing. The results of the study will help the
manufacturers understand the requirements of younger consumers and therefore, will
assist them to grow in their competency and to revamp the product attributes to suit the
market needs.
2 Literature review
PI, is one of the most volatile, yet crucial aspects of consumer behaviour, influenced by
several factors. This section contains reviews of past literature that deal with the various
product level determinants of customer purchase decision, such as BI, CI, COO and PD.
BI is considered one of the important tools with which consumers’ purchase
behaviour, can be manipulated, as result of which business organisations strive to portray
a positive BI for themselves. To understand the nature of relationship between BI,
awareness and PI, Aberdeen and Syamsun (2016) evaluated purchase behaviour of soft-
drinks. The findings of the study indicated that better brand awareness among the
customers enhances their image of the brand, which enhances their PI. Further, the study
also indicated that BI exerts a direct and significant influence on the customers’ PI. In a
similar study, Hsieh (2016) sought to understand the relationship between BI and PI of
the consumers with regard to the Taiwanese tea industry. Contrary to what most studies
have found, the findings of this study indicated that BI did not exert a significant
influence on the PI of the consumers. Similarly, Mathur and Gangwani (2016) undertook
a study of the impact of BI on PI with regard to Indian private label brands. The findings
of this study indicated that the three important dimensions of BI, namely, sales staff,
promotion and merchandise exerted a significantly positive influence on the PI of the
consumers. Similar observations on the relationship of BI and customer loyalty were
made by Islam and Rahman (2016), who found brands with a favourable image bring
about ‘brand love’ among the consumers, which eventually translates into intention to
purchase the product. In a similar study, Erdil (2015) assessed the impact of BI on PI
along with the impact of price image and perceived risks. The findings of the study
indicated that BI indeed brought about a significant improvement in the customers’
intention to purchase from a particular vendor. Likewise, He et al. (2013), examined the
influence of perceived BI of travel agencies on PI, wherein BI was categorised as service
image, organisational image, brand personality and symbol. The findings of the study
implied that the service image of the company exerted a significant influence on the PI of
the consumers. Similarly, Thakur and Singh (2012) also found that BI has five
dimensions, namely, social, symbolic, functional, appearance and experiential and among
these functional appearance and social dimensions brought about consumer loyalty,
which in turn resulted in PI.
The significance of PD in directing the purchase behaviour of the consumers was
examined in a study by Kim et al. (2018) in their study on design innovation. The
findings implied that when vendors come up with innovative PDs, there is an automatic
improvement in the PI of the consumers. Ahmed et al. (2014) studied on the impact of
packaging elements on consumer buying behaviour. The findings of the study confirmed
that PD elements, such as colour, packaging material, wrapper design and so on impact
consumer behaviour positively, which in turn enhances their intention to purchase the
product. Similar observations were made by Mutsikiwa and Marumbwa (2013) in a study
that examined the impact of product aesthetics on consumer purchase behaviour. The
findings indicated that certain dimensions of product aesthetics, such as product colours
significantly enhance the purchase decisions of the consumers. The findings also
indicated that including brand name as a PD component also significantly improves the
PI. Similar observations were made by Ksenia (2013) according to whom, the design of
product packages exerted a significantly positive influence on the consumers’ purchase
behaviour, which eventually enhances their intention to buy the product. More often than
not, consumers tend to favour products with user friendly designs. This observation was
reiterated by Hwang et al. (2016) in study on smart cloth purchases. The findings of the
study implied that PIs are significantly enhanced when the PD came across as useful,
environmentally favourable and aesthetically appealing. Similarly, in a study by Yi et al.
(2012), it was found that products that are designed to provide a satisfactory experience
to consumers in terms of mobility, usability and usefulness exerted a significant and
positive influence on the PI of the consumers.
Country where a particular product is made is believed to direct consumer behaviour
as COO is often associated with the product quality attributes (Van den Berg, 2017). The
role of COO in the purchase decision of the consumers was examined by Dobrucalı
(2019), the findings confirmed that country image is an important determinant of PI as

customers tend to favour products that come from a developed country. In an attempt to
verify this assumption, Kala and Chaubey (2016) undertook a study of the effect of COO
on the buying behaviour of Indian youth. The findings confirmed that COO exerts a
significant influence on the purchasing behaviour of young consumers, especially in case
of telecom products and textiles, but the same did not hold good for cheaper products.
This observation is important in the context of the present study as it deals with electronic
gadgets, which are essentially high-end. In a similar study, Yunus and Rashid (2016)
attempted to understand the extent to which country image impacts the PI with regard to
mobile phone purchases. The findings implied that country image exerted a significant
influence on the PI of the consumers along with other factors related to product quality
and brand. Similar observations were made by Prendergast et al. (2010) who examined
the influence of the country of manufacture (COM) and COO of the brand (COB) on the
PI of the consumers. Contrary to what the other studies have found, the authors observed
that neither COM nor COB exerted any impact on the PI of the consumers.
CI has been regarded as the indicator of a company’s unique position in the market
(King and Whetten, 2008; Podnar and Golob, 2017) and research studies have established
that the reputation that a company earns in the market is nothing but a reflection of the
identity it has made for itself (Melewar and Skinner, 2018). In a study similar the present
one, Bae et al. (2019) examined the influence of CI, formed by CSR initiatives on the
purchase of game products. The findings of the study confirmed that intensive game
consumers do consider the vendors image in terms of CSR initiatives while making
purchases. The role of CI in influencing the customers’ intention to purchase was
investigated by Fatma and Rahman (2016), in a study that dissected CI into CSR and
business ability. The ability of the corporate house to deliver on its promises was found to
influence the PI of the customers more than CSR did, but found that both corporate
ability and CSR helped the company in gaining the trust of the customers, which in turn
resulted in a favourable PI. In study, which was similar in intent to the above, but took a
different approach, Jung and Seock (2016) examined changes in customers’ PIs owing to
negative CSR initiatives. The findings implied that since corporate reputation is directly
linked to brand awareness of the customers, any negative reputation, owing to negative
CSR diminishes the PIs of the customers. Likewise, a study by Li et al. (2013), where the
impact of a company’s image on the customers’ perceptions of product quality and PI
was measured, CI was found to impact customers’ PIs significantly. The study
categorised CI as staff image, social responsibility image and market performance image
and found that all the three categories enhanced the consumers’ trust on the vendor,
which in turn resulted in favourable PI. In a study that sought to understand the extent to
which CI formed using CSR initiatives impacted the consumers’ purchase behaviour,
Becker-Olsen et al. (2006), a socially-oriented image of corporate vendors was found to
enhance customer’s PI. The authors also found that when companies portray an image
that they care about the society they function in, their customers’ trust on them increases,
which improves their CI. Interestingly, a good number of studies have hinted that the CI
of an image might be influenced to a large extent by its BI (Jung and Seock, 2016; King
and Whetten, 2008; Walsh et al., 2012), which makes one wonder whether BI and other
product related attributes impact CI as well.
At the outset, a detailed review of studies on various determinants of PI implied that
BI, PD, COO and CI exerted a significant influence on the consumers’ intention to
purchase a particular product. BI, PD and COO, were found to be the most important
factors considered while customers consider a purchase, as a result of which they have
been referred to with an umbrella term – ‘product evaluation attributes’. However, with
regard to CI, it was found that most studies are unclear regarding what are the exact
dimensions of the same. Further, none of the studies undertaken so far has attempted to
study CI as a marketing tool. Further, certain studies have also hinted at the possibility
that the product evaluation attributes mentioned above might have a certain level of
influence on the CI of the vendor organisation (King and Whetten, 2008, Walsh et al.,
2012). Therefore, owing to the lack of clarity regarding the factors that determine CI and
in the context of some studies indicating the impact of product evaluation estimates on
the same, the first alternate hypothesis was framed as follows:
Hypothesis 1A Evaluation attributes, such as BI, COO and PD impact PI significantly.
Further, apart from the gaps identified above, the review indicated that PI studies in the
context of electronic gadget industry are limited. Further, most studies on the purchase
behaviour of the young working professionals; and studies on younger, college-going
individuals are limited. Considering the above, this study was conducted in the context of
the Indian electronic gadget industry and focused on the PI of below-25 years youth.
Hypothesis 2A Evaluation attributes, namely PD, BI and COO significantly influence
the CI of an electronic gadget.
Figure 1 Conceptual framework of the study
Most studies have clearly indicated that CI of a vendor organisation exerts a significantly
positive influence on the PI of the consumers. However, there is a limitation of studies
that explore the extent to which this influence holds good in a technologically dominated
and highly diversified market such as that of electronic gadgets. The insights obtained
from the above review of literature pertaining to the role of CI in forming PI lead to the
development of the following, second alternate hypothesis of the study:
Hypothesis 3A CI of the vendor exerts a significant impact on the electronic gadget PI

of the Indian youth.
Literature review revealed a strong association between evaluation attributes and PI.
However, studies on the impact of PD and COO on the PI of the consumers was found to
be highly limited. However, in a highly competitive market such as the electronic gadget
market, where there are a number of players, PD is expected to play a major role in
setting brands apart. With this backdrop, the third and the final alternate hypothesis of the
study are arrived at, which is as follows.
The hypotheses development process is summarised pictorially in Figure 1, which
forms the conceptual framework of the study.
3 Methodology
A positivistic research philosophy was adopted for the present study, i.e., the study was
undertaken purely using observable or quantifiable facts and observations. The study
adopted a mono-method strategy and used only quantitative method of research, which
enabled to include a large number of respondents. The researcher further adopted a
descriptive research design. Quantitative primary data was collected using structured
questionnaires, while literature was sourced from a variety of academic databases
available online. The questionnaire was prepared by the researcher and the items of the
questionnaire were framed based on the extensive review of literature. Four broad
sections were described in the questionnaire with Section 1: demographic details,
Section 2: buying of electronic gadgets, Section 3: factors affecting PI such as BI, COO,
PD and CI and finally, Section 5: PI of young consumers. Five-point Likert scale type of
responses were adopted for recording the data ranging from strongly disagree to strongly
agree for all the study variables. The questionnaires were distributed among 650 young
consumers of electronic gadgets within the age range of 18 to 30 years located in
Bengaluru, the capital city of Karnataka State, India. It is important to note that
Bengaluru can be considered as a mini representation of India as it is the IT Hub of India.
Moreover, it is also acts as the critical hub for education, encouraging people from all
over the India to migrate here.
Sampling was performed using stratified random sampling technique, whereas, the
size was estimated using Yamane (1967) formula for 95% confidence interval and 0.05
margin of error. According to Census of India (2011), the number of households in India
with PC/laptop is approximately 25 lakhs. According to a report by Deloitte Football
Money League (2016), the number of consumers in India for fitness bands, smart watches
and other wearable is 1 lakh. Therefore, the minimum estimated sample size, obtained
from the formula, was 400. Finally, a total 650 consumers across Bengaluru, which is
way above the minimum count, were selected for the study. Before going for the actual
data analysis, a pilot study was conducted using 55 respondents and the questionnaire
was fine-tuned based on the reliability and validity analysis of the pilot study to get rid of
redundant, sensitive and offensive questions. Further, the reliability of the final
questionnaire was confirmed using Cronbach’s alpha and validity was confirmed using
exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The study gathered the data during the period of
May 2019 to September 2019. The data so collected were statistically analysed using the
Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), version 24 for descriptive analysis and
frequencies. Structured equation modelling was undertaken to test the relationship

between the study variables, i.e., for hypotheses testing and this was undertaken using the
AMOS software, version 22.
4 Results and discussion
4.1 Demographic details and frequency of yearly gadget purchase of the

consumers
Table 1 presents the distribution of respondents in terms of their demographic profile.
Out of the total 650 consumers, the majority of the consumers were undergraduate
(88.30%) females (57.23%), belonging to the age group of 21 to 23 years of age
(48.46%). Most (42.00%) of them bought any electronic gadget only once a year. This
shows that the population was a planned buyer of electronic gadgets.
Table 1 Demographics and frequency of yearly gadget purchase of the consumers
Demographic feature Frequency Percent

1 Gender
Female 372 57.23
Male 650 42.77
2 Age (years)
18–20 225 38.15
21–23 315 48.46
24–26 13 9.23
27–29 10 4.15
3 Level of educational qualification
Diploma 5 1.69
Undergraduate 264 88.30
Postgraduate 19 10.00
4 Frequency of yearly gadget purchase
Nil 23 7.85
Once 124 42.00
Twice 94 31.84
Thrice 24 8.15
> Thrice 30 10.15
Total 650 100
4.2 Reliability statistics

Reliability of a research tool, such as the questionnaire, which was employed in the
present case, refers to the extent to which it can generate consistent results regardless of
how repeatedly it is used. Only values which are greater than 0.6 are considered as
acceptable. Moreover, the values between 0.7 to 0.8 are considered satisfactory and more
than 0.8 to less than 0.95 is considered to be good (Bland and Altman, 1997, Hinton
et al., 2014). The reliability analysis indicated that the scales for the dependent and
independent variables used in the study had a Cronbach’s alpha that ranged between 0.7
and 0.8, confirming the reliability of the questionnaire. The highest Cronbach’s alpha
value was recorded by PI, of α = 0.858 (eight items), followed by CI, with α = 0.831
(eight items). BI had a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.798 (ten items), followed by COO
(α = 0.779, six items) and PD (α = 0.715, six items). The questionnaire and the scales
used therein were therefore found to be reliable.
4.3 Validity testing

The EFA was conducted to measure the validity of the questionnaire with regard to
three sets of variables:
1 PD, BI and COO
2 CI
3 PI.
These factors were extracted from the survey responses using the principal component
extraction method along with varimax rotation and Kaiser normalisation. The variance
within the observed variables explained by the particular construct is indicated by the
eigenvalue. Factors with eigenvalue more than 1 describe greater variance than a single
scrutinised variable. Factors having an eigenvalue more than 1 were considered to be an
acceptable result for principal component analysis (PCA) in this study and only loadings
of at least 0.40 were taken into consideration (Straub et al., 2004).
The relevance of the data for factor analysis and the inter-correlations among
the variables was analysed using Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO), which examines the
sufficiency of samples (Kaiser, 1974) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity, which examines
whether the sub-scales of the scale are inter-dependent by evaluating the significance of
the correlation matrix (Williams et al., 2010). KMO values greater than 0.5 indicates
adequate sampling, values ranging from 0.6 to 0.8 indicate moderate sampling and values
above 0.9 are considered as excellent, while statistical significance in the Barlett’s test of
sphericity indicates the suitability of the data for performing factor analysis (Kaiser,
1974; Cerny and Kaiser, 1977).
4.3.1 PD, BI and COO

The KMO value for PD, BI and COO was found to be 0.890, which indicated that the
sample size was adequate to measure the study constructs. Further, the Bartlett’s test of
sphericity value was 1,728.67, which was significant (p < 0.01), which confirmed that the
aforementioned variables were capable of measuring the research constructs (Table 2).
Table 2 KMO and Bartlett’s test for BI, COO and PD
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy 0.890

Bartlett’s test of sphericity Approx. chi-square 1,728.67
df 91
Sig. 0.000
Table 3 illustrates the variations in the factor loadings pertaining to the constructs of the
study. Among the constructs of the study, BI accounted for most variation in evaluation
attributes (52.66%), followed by PD (18.179%) and COO explained (8.004%) and the
constructs collectively explained 78.844% of the variance in the evaluation attributes,
which confirmed their validity.
Table 3 Rotated component matrix for PD, BI and COO
Factor % Cumulative
Constructs
loadings variance %
Brand image 52.661 52.661
1 The brand of the product is very important as I 0.775
feel I am evaluated by the brand I use.
2 When purchasing electronic goods, I usually 0.739
choose from the brands I have purchased before.
3 Brand image influences my purchasing decision. 0.813
4 Brand image is always associated with a quality 0.773
product.
5 I would advocate/recommend a brand based 0.705
only on its brand image.
6 It is important for me to buy products with 0.772
well-known brand names.
Country of origin 18.179 70.839
1 Products from foreign countries look more 0.806
fashionable and appealing.
2 I believe foreign brands are always associated 0.782
with better quality of the product.
3 Buying foreign made products is a symbol of 0.776
social status.
4 I believe foreign brands are more expensive than 0.709
Indian products.
Product design 8.004 78.844
1 In my opinion, good product design is always 0.777
associated with foreign goods.
2 I believe that better product design is equivalent 0.730
to better product quality.
3 According to me, better product design is 0.645
associated with branded products.
4 I always look for product design that is superior 0.488
to others.
4.3.2 Corporate identity

With regard to CI of the electronic gadget vendors, a KMO value of 0.835 was recorded
which confirmed that the study sample was adequate for factorial analysis. Bartlett’s test
of sphericity value was 893.282, which was (p < 0.01), thereby confirming internal
association within the sub-constructs (Table 4).
Table 4 KMO Bartett’s test for CI

Bartlett’s test of sphericity Approx. chi-square 893.282
df 21
Sig. 0.000
The rotated component matrix factor loadings obtained for CI are presented in Table 5.
Among the determinants of CI, company explained 52.66% variation in CI, while social
responsibility explained 18.17%, collectively accounting for 70.84%, variation in CI. The
aforementioned values confirmed the validity of the CI and its sub-constructs.
Table 5 Rotated component matrix for CI
Factor % Cumulative
Constructs
loadings variance %
Reputation 52.661 52.661
1 When I buy a product, the reputation of the 0.843
company is very important for me.
2 I believe the reputation of the company is linked 0.862
to its quality.
3 The reputation of the company makes me feel 0.852
that I can trust the product.
4 In my opinion, the corporate identity of the 0.759
company helps me to decide to different brands
of electronic gadgets.
5 I generally feel comfortable in buying product if 0.713
the reputation of the company is good.
Social responsibility 18.179 70.839
6 The social responsibility of the company helps 0.866
me to decide whether I buy a product or not.
7 Some companies donate a part of the amount on 0.863
selling the product to charitable organisation.
This motivates me to buy their products.
With regard to PI, the KMO value of 0.867 was obtained, which suggested that the study
sample was adequate to measure the research construct. Likewise, a Bartlett’s test of
sphericity value of 1,175.496, which was statistically significant (p < 0.01) confirmed
that the sub-constructs of the variable were correlated (Table 6).
Table 6 KMO and Bartett’s test for PI

Bartlett’s test of sphericity Approx. chi-square 1,175.496
df 28
Sig. 0.000
EFA indicated that PI is uni-dimensionality of scale as just one component could be

generated using the rotated component matrix only one component was extracted, which
is presented in Table 7. According to the observations regarding factor loadings, PI could
explain 55.73% of the variance in the data, which in turn confirmed that the variable was
capable of measuring the research construct.
Table 7 Factor loadings of PI
Factor % Cumulative
Constructs
loadings variance %
Purchase intention 55.731 55.731
1 I intend to buy electronic goods soon. 0.589
2 If I have enough money, I would rather buy a 0.763
gadget than anything else.
3 Electronic gadgets are topmost in my priority 0.792
list for the shopping in the next 6 months.
4 I will be satisfied by buying an electronic gadget 0.815
as it can help me to show-off to my friends.
5 I intend to buy gadgets as they satisfy my inner 0.839
cravings.
6 I plan to buy electronic gadgets as they will 0.678
make my work easy.
7 I feel proud when using popular gadgets. 0.691
8 I buy gadgets as owning it makes other people 0.774
envious of me.
4.4 Respondents’ perceptions

4.4.1 Product design
The respondents stand regarding the various aspects of PD varied from neutral to
agreement as indicated in Table 8. The respondents’ emphasis on PD was confirmed by
the fact that their purchase decisions were influenced by PD and they always sought to
buy products with superior design. However, the respondents were neutral regarding the
rest of the statements regarding whether branded products have better PDs, if foreign
goods had good PD, PD meant better quality and whether the purchased products with
good PD even if they did not need it. Overall, the respondents did stress on better PD, but
did not believe, that better design guarantees quality or that foreign or branded products
essentially had better PD and design did not essentially force them to make unwanted
purchases.
4.4.2 Brand image

Varied responses were obtained with regard to BI of electronic gadgets as it can be seen
from Table 9. The respondents did attach value to BI as they did not favour buying
whatever brand is available at the store and disagreed that they did not notice the brand of
the products before purchasing them. However, they took a neutral stand with regard to
attaching importance to brand just because they feel evaluated by the brands they use.
They were also neutral regarding BI being associated with the country where the product
is developed. Similar neutral stance was taken regarding the value for money being
important than brand, advocating brands based on BI and buying products only from
well-known brands. However, the respondents did agree that BI influences their purchase
decision, that BI reflects the products’ quality and they agreed that they usually buy from
familiar brands while shopping for electronics.
Table 8 Respondent’s perception of PD
Statements Mean Std. deviation

Product design influences my buying decision. 3.892 0.956
According to me, better product design is associated with 3.4286 1.103
branded products.
In my opinion, good product design is always associated 2.821 1.055
with a foreign goods.
I believe that better product design is equivalent to better 3.071 0.979
product quality.
I always look for product design that is superior to others. 3.667 0.832
Table 9 Respondent’s perception of BI

The brand of the product is very important as I feel I am evaluated 3.393 1.066
by the brand I use.
When purchasing electronic goods, I usually choose from the brands 3.571 0.997
I have purchased before.
Brand image influences my purchasing decision. 3.667 1.143
Brand image is always associated with a quality product. 3.571 1.260
I would advocate/recommend a brand based only on its brand image. 3.000 1.058
It is important for me to buy products with well-known brand names. 3.481 1.252
Table 10 Respondent perception of the COO

I believe foreign brands are always associated with better quality of 2.667 1.109
the product.
Products from foreign countries look more fashionable and appealing. 2.963 0.979
Buying foreign made products is a symbol of social status. 2.667 1.177
I believe foreign brands are more expensive than Indian products. 2.926 1.141
4.4.3 Country of origin

The respondents took a neutral stand with regard to the role of COO in their purchasing
behaviour as presented in Table 10. They were neutral regarding checking the make of
the gadgets and took a similar stand regarding COM influencing their purchase decisions.
Further, they were also neutral regarding the belief that foreign brands are of high quality,
that foreign products look attractive and trendy and that such products imply social status.
Similar neutral stand was taken with regard to foreign brands being costlier than Indian
brands. Overall, the respondents did not seem to attach significant importance to the
country the products came from.
4.4.4 Corporate identity

Similar to COO, respondents took mostly neutral stand with regard to the CI of the
vendors of electronic gadgets as well, which is presented in Table 11. However, they
agreed that according to them, the reputation of a company makes them trust the products
of the company and that they were comfortable purchasing the products from a company
with good reputation. Apart from the above two, the respondents were neutral regarding
the importance of company reputation while purchasing and company reputation being
lined with product quality. Likewise, they took a neutral stand with regard to CI of a
company helping them finalising the brand of electronic gadgets, social responsibility of
a company helping in purchase, considering product trustworthy based on how it is
manufactured and getting motivated to buy products from companies that donate to
charity. Overall, while respondents did favour corporates with better reputation while
making purchases, CI did not entirely impact their purchase decisions.
Table 11 Respondent’s perception of CI
Std.
Statements Mean
deviation
When I buy a product, the reputation of the company is very important 3.308 1.192
for me.
I believe the reputation of the company is linked to its quality. 3.307 1.049
The reputation of the company makes me feel that I can trust the product. 3.615 0.983
In my opinion, the corporate identity of the company helps me to decide 3.231 1.107
to different brands of electronic gadgets.
The social responsibility of the company helps me to decide whether I 2.840 1.068
buy a product or not.
Some companies donate a part of the amount on selling the product to 3.038 0.999
charitable organisation. This motivates me to buy their products.
I generally feel comfortable in buying product if the reputation of the 3.500 0.9487
company is good.
4.4.5 Purchase intention

The respondents’ took a largely neutral standpoint with regard to their PI as well
(Table 12). Neutral responses were given with regard to purchasing electronic gadgets
shortly, buying electronic gadgets when there is surplus money and gadgets being in their
priority list for shopping in the coming six months. The respondents were also neutral
regarding the use of electronic goods to show-off among friends, buying gadgets to
satisfy inner cravings, buying electronics to make work easy. Further, they were also
neutral regarding the feeling proud about using electronic gadgets and buying electronic
gadgets to make others envious. The respondents’ electronic gadget PI was therefore
neutral.
Table 12 Respondent’s perception of PI
Std.
Statements Mean
deviation
I intend to buy electronic goods soon. 3.115 0.909
If I have enough money, I would rather buy a gadget than anything else. 3.000 1.080
Electronic gadgets are topmost in my priority list for the shopping in 2.800 1.080
the next 6 months.
I will be satisfied by buying an electronic gadget as it can help me to 2.640 1.150
show-off to my friends.
I intend to buy gadgets as they satisfy my inner cravings. 2.840 1.143
I plan to buy electronic gadgets as they will make my work easy. 3.360 1.036
I feel proud when using popular gadgets. 3.160 0.943
I buy gadgets as owning it makes other people envious of me. 2.833 1.168
4.5 Structural equation modelling

4.5.1 Constructs and manifest variables
Five variables, namely BI, COO, PD, CI and PI were identified, out of which PI was the
dependent variable, while the rest were independent.
4.5.2 Model specification

PI is the chief construct, which indicates how customers behave while making a
purchase. This construct is the only endogenous factor of the model. However, CI acts as
the endogenous construct for BI, COO and PD. Further, BI, COO and PD are the other
constructs, which influence PI, which serves as latent endogenous constructs (dependent
factors). The investigation of the relationship between the identified latent exogenous
constructs (BI, COO and PD) and latent endogenous constructs (CI and PI) form the basis
of the testing of the hypotheses formulated for the study. The SEM model is pictorially
illustrated in Figure 2.
4.5.3 Model evaluation

Structural equation modelling (SEM) was built to measure the nature of relationship
between BI, COO, PD, CI and PI. A chi-square value of 544.265 with df of 262 and p-
value less than 0.000 was obtained while determining the significant minimum fit, which
indicated that the model is not a good fit. However, according to Fan et al. (1999), as chi-
square value is sensitive to sample size and multivariate normality, it cannot be only
determinant of model fit. Bollen and Long (1993) and Kelloway (1995), who introduced
the ratio of chi-square and degrees of freedom (χ2/df) to determine model fit, stated that
value between 2 and 5 implies good fit. This model generated a value of 2.067, which
indicated that the model is a good fit.
Usually, five model fit indicators are required to be tested to measure the robustness
of a structural model. To accomplish the same, five indices, namely, incremental fix
index (IFI), normed fit index (NFI), relative fit index (RFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI),
and comparative fit index (CFI) were used to ascertain the fitness of the model. The
following values were obtained: IFI = 0.927 (Bollen, 1990), NFI = 0.869 (almost 0.9)
(Byrne, 1994), RFI = 0.850 (almost 0.9) (Bollen, 1990), TLI = 0.916 (Hu and Bentler,
1998) and CFI = 0.927 (Byrne, 1994). Further, with regard to the root mean square error
of approximation (RMSEA), a value of 0.061 was obtained, which according to
MacCallum et al. (1996), is a mediocre fit. The results indicate that the proposed model
measures the relationships between the proposed constructs with impressive predictive
accuracy. Therefore, the proposed model has high explanatory power with regard to the
relationship between endogenous, exogenous and latent factors.
Figure 2 Structured equation model (see online version for colours)
4.6 Model testing

This section explains the measurement model testing, i.e., the relationship between a
construct and its manifest variables are tested, and structural model testing, where the
relationship between the exogenous, latent and endogenous constructs are measured.
4.6.1 Measurement model testing

The proposed model consisted of five measurement models or constructs, which
constituted the ‘PI model’ of the study. Five constructs were identified, namely BI, COO,
PD, CI and PI. The measurement model testing details are presented in the ensuing
paragraphs.
4.6.1.1 Brand image

The regression weights pertaining to BI items are presented in Table 13. Only 7 out of the
10 items from the questionnaire used were found to measure BI and the rest were
discarded. These seven items were: The brand of the product is very important as I feel I
am evaluated by the brand I use (BI_1), When purchasing electronic goods, I usually
choose from the brands I have purchased before (BI_2), BI influences my purchasing
decision (BI_3), BI is always associated with a quality product (BI_4), BI is correlated to
the COB (BI_5), I usually do not notice the brand that I buy (BI_8), and It is important
for me to buy products with well-known brand names (BI_9). These manifest variables,
significantly measured BI as indicated by their p-value, which was lesser than 0.01 and
the details of the same are presented in Table 13.
Table 13 Regression weights for the items of BI
Estimate SE CR P Label
BI_1 <--- BI 0.824 0.081 14.084 *** Significant
BI_9 <--- BI 0.735
BI_8 <--- BI 0.615 .075 10.377 *** Significant
BI_3 <--- BI 0.851 .075 14.653 *** Significant
4.6.1.2 Country of origin

The regression weights of the items of COO are presented in Table 14. COO was
originally contained 6 items in the questionnaire, out of which only 4 actually measure
the construct. It was measured using the following items: I believe foreign brands are
always associated with better quality of the product (COO_3), Products from foreign
countries look more fashionable and appealing (COO_4), Buying foreign made products
is a symbol of social status (COO_5), and I believe foreign brands are more expensive
than Indian products (COO_6). The p-values indicated that all the items made significant
contributions to COO and the details of the same are provided in Table 14.
Table 14 Regression weights for the items of COO
COO_6 <--- COO 0.666 Significant
COO_5 <--- COO 0.704 0.100 9.962 *** Significant
4.6.1.3 Product design

The regression weights of the items of PD are presented in Table 15. PD was measured
using six items, of which only 3 measured the construct. It was measured using items that
stated PD influences my buying decision (PD_1), According to me, better PD is
associated with branded products (PD_2), and I always look for PD that is superior to
others (PD_6). The aforementioned items significantly (p < 0.01) measured the PD and
the details of the same are presented in table 15.
Table 15 Regression weights for the items of PD
PD_6 <--- PD 0.568 Significant
PD_1 <--- PD 0.718 0.148 8.177 *** Significant
PD_2 <--- PD 0.661 0.148 7.858 *** Significant
4.6.1.4 Corporate identity

The regression weights pertaining to the items of CI items are presented in Table 16.
Originally, there were eight items under CI in the questionnaire, out of which only
five items were found to measure the construct. CI was measured using statements like:
the items that measured CI were When I buy a product, the reputation of the company is
very important for me (CI_1), I believe the reputation of the company is linked to its
quality (CI_2), The reputation of the company makes me feel that I can trust the product
(CI_3), In my opinion, the CI of the company helps me to decide to different brands of
electronic gadgets (CI_4), and I generally feel comfortable in buying product if the
reputation of the company is good (CI_8). The aforementioned items significantly
measured CI as implied in Table 16.
Table 16 Regression weights for the items of CI
CI_1 <--- CI 0.791
CI_4 <--- CI 0.724 0.068 13.005 *** Significant
4.6.1.5 Purchase intention

Table 17 presents the regression weights of the different items that measured PI. Out of
the eight items used to measure PI, 6 were found to significantly measure the main
construct. PI was measured using items which stated: If I have enough money, I would
rather buy a gadget than anything else (PI_2), Electronic gadgets are topmost in my
priority list for the shopping in the next six months (PI_3), I will be satisfied by buying an
electronic gadget as it can help me to show-off to my friends (PI_4), I intend to buy
gadgets as they satisfy my inner cravings (PI_5), I plan to buy electronic gadgets as they
will make my work easy (PI_6), and I buy gadgets as owning it makes other people
envious of me (PI_8). These items significantly (p < 0.01) measured PI as indicated in

Table 17.
Table 17 Regression weights for the items of PI
PI_2 <--- PI 0.673 0.088 9.984 *** Significant
PI_8 <--- PI 0.673
4.6.2 Structural model testing

4.6.2.1 Evaluation attributes and PI
Once the measurement model was tested and found to be significantly measuring the
constructs therein, the structural model testing was undertaken. The SEM model, built
with AMOS version 22 was used to frame three hypotheses, which were subsequently
tested. While BI, PD and COO were identified as exogenous variables, CI and PI were
the endogenous variable. The exogenous variables impact on both endogenous variables
was tested and the relationship between the endogenous variable was tested as well.
Hypothesis 1A Evaluation attributes, such as BI, COO and PD impact PI significantly.
The regression weights pertaining to the impact of evaluation attributes on PI are
provided in Table 18. Once it was established that CI does not impact of PI significantly,
it was felt imperative to study the extent to which the product evaluation attributes
directly impact the PI of the youth. The standardised regression coefficient (B) for BI was
0.301 at 5% level of significance (p < 0.05), which clearly implies that BI does have a
significant influence on the PI of the youth, i.e., for every unit change in the BI of the
vendors, there was B = 0.301 variation in the PI of the Indian youth. BI, therefore, helps
consumers in framing intentions to purchase electronic gadgets. Similar findings obtained
in the past have reiterated the positive relationship between BI and PI. These findings are
in agreement with the observations made by Hien et al. (2020) who found that BI not
only impacts PI positively, but also accentuates the influence of COO of the products.
These findings also agree with Erdil (2015) according to whom among different aspects
of the product, BI makes consumers intend to buy a product. Similarly, Mathur and
Gangwani (2016) also found that PI is enhanced when the image of a particular brand is
positive. Likewise, the findings also corroborate with the observations of Islam and
Rahman (2016) that a positive BI results in ‘brand love’, which makes the purchase the
product.
Similarly with regard to the country of vendors’ origin, with every unit change in the
COO of the electronic gadget vendor, there was B = 0.370 variation in the PI of the
youngsters and this relationship was statistically significant at 1% level (p < 0.01), which
implied that COO wields influence on PI. The findings conform to what past research
studies, such as that by Dobrucalı (2019) who established that customers’ country-based
images played an important role in purchase decisions. Yunus and Rashid (2016) had
found that along with product quality and brand considerations, the customers’ image of
the country where the product is manufactured plays an important role in determining the
PI of the consumers. The findings are also in agreement with Kala and Chaubey (2016)
who found that in case of popular lifestyle choices, such as telecom products and
clothing, young people tend to attach great value to the country where the products come
from, which impacts whether or not they purchase the product.
Table 18 Regression weights for the impact of product evaluation attributes on PI
PI <--- BI 0.301 0.123 2.296 0.022 Significant
PI <--- COO 0.370 0.097 4.001 *** Significant
PI <--- PD –0.143 0.194 –1.017 0.031 Significant
Similar, yet interesting observations were made with regard to the relationship between
PD and PI of the young. The standardised regression coefficient (B) value for PD was
–0.143 at 5% level of significance, which implied that with every unit change in the PD,
there was a negative variation in the PI of the youth, which indicated that the youth are
extremely sensitive to PD changes in electronic gadgets, and vendors need to navigate
this aspect of their products with great caution. PD is one of the most sought after
attributes of technology-based products, such as electronic equipment, phones and
computers, thus it is bound to have an impact on the consumer behaviour, precisely their
PI. The results are in agreement with the findings of Kim et al. (2018) according to which
companies that make innovative PDs end up enhancing their customers’ PI. These
findings are in line with the observations made by Yi et al. (2012) according to whom,
products with useful and appealing designs, that are consumers find utilitarian are
preferred for a purchase. Similar findings were obtained by Ksenia (2013) who found that
products which have aesthetically appealing packaging designs are purchased more
readily that those without. Further, Hwang et al. (2016) also found a similar positive
influence of products that have useful and eco-friendly designs on the PI of the
consumers. Therefore, along with providing technologically advanced functionality,
electronic gadgets also need to perform well on the design front, to appeal to the young
consumers, as PD is established as a crucial determinant of PI.
As all three product attributes, i.e., BI, COO and PD exerted statistically significant
influence on the PI of the Indian youth, the hypothesis (H1A), which stated that these
product evaluation attributes, influence PI significantly, is accepted.
4.6.2.2 Evaluation attributes and CI

Hypothesis 2A The CI of an electronic gadget brand is significantly influenced by
evaluation attributes, namely PD, BI and COO.
The findings of first hypothesis testing are presented in Table 19. The standard regression
coefficient of BI was 0.430 at 1% level of significance, i.e., p < 0.01, which implies that
any change in BI brings about B = 0.430 changes in the CI of the electronic gadget
vendor, implying that it has a significant impact on CI. Likewise, the COO of the
electronic gadget vendor resulted in B = 0.197 change in their CI at five level of
significance (p < 0.05), thereby confirming COO impacts CI significantly. Similar
observation was made with regard to PD as it brought about B = 0.206 variation in CI per
unit change, at 5% level of significance (p < 0.05). In view of the above, evaluation
attributes of electronic products, namely PD, BI and COO indeed exerted a statistically
significant impact on the CI of electronic gadget vendors, as a result of which,
Hypothesis 2 (H2A) was is accepted. Not many research studies have attempted to
understand the nature of relationship between product evaluation attributes and CI and CI
has been so far seen as a product of the values that the founders espouse, and the product
level attributes’ impact on identity has not been given much importance. However, these
findings are in partial agreement with the observations of Jung and Seock (2016)
according to whom, BI of a particular corporate business house influences its CI. Similar
observations were made by Walsh et al. (2012) who found that product attributes that
appeal to the market, such as the brand identity might impact the identity of the corporate
house manufacturing them as well. This is a novel contribution that this study has made,
according to which CI is shaped by product level characteristics as well.
Table 19 Regression weights for the impact of product evaluation attributes on CI
CI <--- BI 0.430 0.096 4.177 *** Significant
CI <--- COO 0.197 0.071 2.891 0.004 Significant
CI <--- PD 0.206 0.153 2.850 0.044 Significant
4.6.2.3 CI and PI
Hypothesis 3A CI of the vendor exerts a significant impact on the electronic gadget PI
of the Indian youth.
The regression weights for the impact of CI on PI of the young customers are provided in
Table 20. Unlike the previous section, standardised regression coefficient of the CI of
electronic gadget vendors was found to cause B = –0.608 variation in the PI of the Indian
youth, but this impact was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). This CI clearly did not
have any say in the PI, as a result of which Hypothesis H3A, according to which CI of the
electronic gadget vendor exerted a significant impact on the youths’ PI, was rejected,
proving thereby, the youngsters’ intention to purchase electronic gadgets was
independent how strong the CI of the vendor company is. This is an important finding as
it implies that with regard to electronic gadget purchase, especially when the consumers
are the youth, CI that the vendor/manufacturer portrays is immaterial, i.e., customers do
not tend to consider CI of the vendor while forming an intention to purchase a gadget.
These findings contradict the long established notion of the research fraternity that having
a positive CI is important for directing consumer behaviour in the favour of the vendors.
Contradictory findings were reported by Bae et al. (2019) who found CSR supportive
corporate image improves PI. Likewise, Fatma and Rahman (2016) also stated that when
companies project an image that they will deliver on what they promise, the PI of the
consumer gets enhanced. However, the same study had also found that another aspect of
CI, i.e., CSR failed to impact PI, which is in partial agreement with the present study
findings. Similarly, Jung and Seock (2016) too had observed that CI does impact the
customers’ intention to purchase, which is in contrast with what the present study
observed. Li et al. (2013), Becker-Olsen et al. (2006), Burke et al. (2018) and good
number of other researchers too found a significant relationship between CI and PI;
however, the present study made different observations. Thus, the present study provides
a fresh perspective to the discourse of CI and customer behaviour and implies that in case
of extremely popular markets, and in case of younger consumers who are driven by
aesthetics and functionality, the identity of a corporate business house need not be a
major determinant of PI.
Table 20 Regression weights for the impact of CI on PI
PI <--- CI –0.068 0.100 –0.685 0.493 NS
5 Conclusions
This study explored different product-specific determinants of the electronic gadget PI of

the Indian youth, with a special focus on youngsters based in Bengaluru City, Karnataka.
A positivistic research philosophy and a quantitative research approach were employed.
Data was collected from 650 young customers of electronic gadgets in the study area and
was analysed using statistical techniques and SEM. Four determinants of PI were
identified, which were BI, PD, COO and CI, which were the primary independent
variables of the study, PI being the dependent variable. PI was considered the
endogenous variable, and BI, PD and COO, which were collectively named ‘product
evaluation attributes’ were considered the latent exogenous variables. However, as BI,
PD and COO were found to exert some level of influence on the CI of the electronic
gadget vendors, CI too was considered an endogenous variable. SEM revealed that the
product evaluation attributes (BI, PD and COO) exert a significant influence on the CI of
electronic gadget companies and impact the PI of the young consumers significantly.
However, CI failed to bring about any substantial changes in the electronic gadget PI of
the Indian youngsters. The findings prove that in case of electronic gadget purchase, only
the product or brand specific factors, such as the image of the brand, the features/design
of the gadgets and the country where they are manufactured matter to the customers and
corporate level features, such as the image, values, behaviour, i.e., the CI of the
manufacturer does not affect their intention to purchase. Since electronic gadgets are
essentially high-end products and their market is highly competitive, technologically
driven and diversified, and these products are quite popular among the youth, it might be
natural that they get attracted to product-level features and tend to ignore the values and
identity of the manufacturer. It would be interesting to study the PIs and impact of
various factors such as price, with respect to specific electronic gadgets, such as mobile
phones, televisions and laptops. Increased variety could be introduced into the
respondents, focusing on individuals having different economic capabilities and
attempting to include the perspectives of more employed youth. Finally, the study
population covering different age groups could be expanded to obtain a more
comprehensive perspective on PI.
References
Abd Aziz, N.N. and Abd Wahid, N. (2018) ‘Factors influencing online purchase intention among
university students’, International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social
Sciences, Vol. 8, No. 7, pp.703–717.
Aberdeen, N.I. and Syamsun, M. (2016) ‘The effect of brand awareness and image on consumer
perceived quality and purchase intension – a study case of carbonated drink brand at
Bogor city’, International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Vol. 6, No. 8,
pp.441–446.
Abratt, R. and Mingione, M. (2017) ‘Corporate identity, strategy and change’, Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp.129–139.
Ahmed, R.R., Parmar, V. and Amin, M.A. (2014) ‘Impact of product packaging on consumer’s
buying behavior’, European Journal of Scientific Research, Vol. 120, No. 2, pp.1450–1216.
Ansary, A. and Hashim, N.M.H.N. (2018) ‘Brand image and equity: the mediating role of brand
equity drivers and moderating effects of product type and word of mouth’, Review of
Managerial Science, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp.969–1002.
Bae, J., Park, H.H. and Koo, D.M. (2019) ‘Perceived CSR initiatives and intention to purchase
game items’, Internet Research, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp.329–348, https://doi.org/10.1108/INTR-11-
2017-0469.
Bag, S., Tiwari, M.K. and Chan, F.T. (2019) ‘Predicting the consumer’s purchase intention
of durable goods: an attribute-level analysis’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 94,
pp.408–419.
Baldauf, A., Cravens, K.S., Diamantopoulos, A. and Zeugner-Roth, K.P. (2009) ‘The impact of
product-country image and marketing efforts on retailer-perceived brand equity: an empirical
analysis’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 85, No. 4, pp.437–452.
Balmer, J.M. (2017) ‘Explicating corporate brands and their management: reflections and
directions from 1995’, in Advances in Corporate Branding, pp.22–46, Palgrave Macmillan,
London.
Balmer, J.M. and Chen, W. (2017) ‘China’s brands, China’s brand development strategies and
corporate brand communications in China’, in Advances in Chinese Brand Management,
pp.19–47, Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Balmer, J.M. and Soenen, G.B. (1999) ‘The acid test of corporate identity management™’, Journal
of Marketing Management, Vol. 15, Nos. 1–3, pp.69–92.
Bansal, S. and Mehta, S. (2016) ‘Does gender matter in buying choice: influence of social media on
purchase behaviour of the youth’, Public Affairs and Governance, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp.100–116.
Bashir, A.M., Bayat, A., Olutuase, S.O. and Abdul Latiff, Z.A. (2019) ‘Factors affecting
consumers’ intention towards purchasing halal food in South Africa: a structural equation
modelling’, Journal of Food Products Marketing, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp.26–48.
Batra, R. and Wu, Y. (2019) ‘Comment on “consumer cultural identity…”: global citizenship and
reactance’, International Marketing Review, Vol. 36, No. 5, pp.628–632.
Bauer, U.E., Johnson, T.M., Hopkins, R.S. and Brooks, R.G. (2000) ‘Changes in youth cigarette
use and intentions following implementation of a tobacco control program: findings from the
Florida Youth Tobacco Survey, 1998–2000’, JAMA, Vol. 284, No. 6, pp.723–728.
Becker-Olsen, K.L., Cudmore, B.A. and Hill, R.P. (2006) ‘The impact of perceived corporate
social responsibility on consumer behavior’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59, No. 1,
pp.46–53.
Bertoli, G. (2013) International Marketing and the Country of Origin Effect: The Global Impact of
‘Made in Italy’, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK.
Bland, J.M. and Altman, D.G. (1997) ‘Statistics notes: Cronbach’s alpha’, BMJ, Vol. 314,
No. 7080, p.572.
Bloch, P.H. (1995) ‘Seeking the ideal form: product design and consumer response’, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 59, No. 3, pp.16–29.
Bollen, K.A. (1990) ‘Outlier screening and a distribution-free test for vanishing tetrads’,
Sociological Methods and Research, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp.80–92.
Bollen, K.A. and Long, J.S. (1993) Testing Structural Equation Models, Vol. 154, Sage, Newbury
Park, CA.
Burke, P.F., Dowling, G. and Wei, E. (2018) ‘The relative impact of corporate reputation
on consumer choice: beyond a halo effect’, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 34,
Nos. 13–14, pp.1227–1257.
Byrne, B.M. (1994) Structural Equation Modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows: Basic Concepts,
Applications, and Programming, SAGE Publications Limited, Newbury Park, CA.
Cakici, N.M. and Shukla, P. (2017) ‘Country-of-origin misclassification awareness and consumers’
behavioral intentions’, International Marketing Review, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp.354–376.
Census of India (2011) Provisional Population Totals, Office of the Registrar General and Census
Commissioner, New Delhi.
Cerny, B.A. and Kaiser, H.F. (1977) ‘A study of a measure of sampling adequacy for factor
analytic correlation matrices’, Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp.43–47.
Chen, C.M., Liu, H.M. and Ann, B.Y. (2018) ‘Product attributes and purchase intention
for smartphones: a moderated mediation model’, International Journal of Mobile
Communications, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp.1–23.
Cheung, M.L., Pires, G.D. and Rosenberger III, P.J. (2019) ‘Developing a conceptual model for
examining social media marketing effects on brand awareness and brand image’, International
Journal of Economics and Business Research, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp.243–261.
Chinomona, R. (2016) ‘Brand communication, brand image and brand trust as antecedents of brand
loyalty in Gauteng Province of South Africa’, African Journal of Economic and Management
Studies, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp.124–134.
Costa, Y.D., Fernando, P.I.N. and Yapa, U.A. (2018) ‘The effect of ethnocentrism and patriotism
on consumer preference (special reference to Western Province Sri Lanka)’, Journal of
Management and Tourism Research (JMTR), Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.1–20.
Creusen, M.E. and Schoormans, J.P. (2005) ‘The different roles of product appearance in consumer
choice’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp.63–81.
De Mooij, M. (2019) Consumer Behavior and Culture: Consequences for Global Marketing and
Advertising, SAGE Publications Limited.
Deloitte Football Money League (2016) Deloitte Football Money League 2016.
Deng, X. and Xu, Y. (2017) ‘Consumers’ responses to corporate social responsibility initiatives:
The mediating role of consumer-company identification’, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 142, No. 3, pp.515–526.
Dincer, B. and Dincer, C. (2017) ‘Corporate past and attitude towards corporate social
responsibility: impact on brand identity’, International Journal of Academic Research in
Business and Social Sciences, Vol. 7, No. 11, pp.227–232.
Dobrucalı, B. (2019) ‘Country-of-origin effects on industrial purchase decision making:
a systematic review of research’, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 34, No. 2,
pp.401–411, https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-07-2017-0169.
Erdil, T.S. (2015) ‘Effects of customer brand perceptions on store image and purchase intention:
an application in apparel clothing’, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 207,
pp.196–205.
Fan, X., Thompson, B. and Wang, L. (1999) ‘Effects of sample size, estimation methods, and
model specification on structural equation modeling fit indexes’, Structural Equation
Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp.56–83.
Fatma, M. and Rahman, Z. (2016) ‘Consumer responses to CSR in Indian banking sector’,
International Review on Public and Non-profit Marketing, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp.203–222.
Gensch, D.H. (1978) ‘Image-measurement segmentation’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 15,
No. 3, pp.384–394.
Goyal, A. (2017) ‘A study of consumer perceptions and purchase behaviour trends towards digital
online buying behaviour of customers from different age-groups’, International Education and
Research Journal, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp.95–100.
He, M., Sha, Z. and Yang, Y. (2013) ‘An empirical study on impacts of brand image of
travel agencies on customer purchase intentions’, in Proceedings of the 2nd International
Conference on Systems Engineering and Modeling, April.
Hernes, T. and Schultz, M. (2017) ‘A temporal understanding of the connections between
organizational culture and identity’, The SAGE Handbook of Process Organization Studies,
pp.356–371, London.
Hertenstein, J.H., Platt, M.B. and Veryzer, R.W. (2005) ‘The impact of industrial design
effectiveness on corporate financial performance’, Journal of Product Innovation
Herzog, H. (1963) ‘Behavioral science concepts for analyzing the consumer’, Marketing and the
Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp.76–86.
Hien, N., Phuong, N., Tran, T. and Thang, L. (2020) ‘The effect of country-of-origin image on
purchase intention: the mediating role of brand image and brand evaluation’, Management
Science Letters, Vol. 10, No. 6, pp.1205–1212.
Hinton, P.R., McMurray, I. and Brownlow, C. (2014) SPSS Explained, Routledge, London.
Holbrook, M.B. and Zirlin, R.B. (1985) ‘Artistic creation, artworks, and aesthetic appreciation:
some philosophical contributions to nonprofit marketing’, Advances in Nonprofit Marketing,
Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.1–54.
Howard, J.A. and Sheth, J.N. (1969) The Theory of Buyer Behavior, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
New York.
Hsiao, K.L. and Chen, C.C. (2018) ‘What drives smartwatch purchase intention? Perspectives
from hardware, software, design, and value’, Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 35, No. 1,
pp.103–113.
Hsieh, H.Y. (2016) ‘The relationship among consumer value, brand image, perceived value and
purchase intention – a case of tea chain store in Tainan City’, in Proceedings of the Eighth
Asia-Pacific Conference on Global Business, Economics, Finance and Banking, pp.1–10.
Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1998) ‘Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: sensitivity to
underparameterized model misspecification’, Psychological Methods, Vol. 3, No. 4, p.424.
Hwang, C., Chung, T.L. and Sanders, E.A. (2016) ‘Attitudes and purchase intentions for
smart clothing: examining US consumers’ functional, expressive, and aesthetic needs for
solar-powered clothing’, Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp.207–222.
Islam, J.U. and Rahman, Z. (2016) ‘Examining the effects of brand love and brand image on
customer engagement: an empirical study of fashion apparel brands’, Journal of Global
Fashion Marketing, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp.45–59.
Išoraitė, M. (2018) ‘Brand image development’, Ecoforum Journal, Vol. 7, No. 1.
Jung, N.Y. and Seock, Y.K. (2016) ‘The impact of corporate reputation on brand attitude and
purchase intention’, Fashion and Textiles, Vol. 3, No. 1, p.20.
Kaiser, H.F. (1974) ‘An index of factorial simplicity’, Psychometrika, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp.31–36.
Kala, D. and Chaubey, D.S. (2016) ‘Country-of-origin effect and consumers’ buying behavior:
an evidence from Indian market’, Management Convergence, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp.47–59.
Keller, K.L. (2001) Building Customer-based Brand Equity: A Blueprint for Creating Strong
Brands, pp.3–27, Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA.
Kelloway, E.K. (1995) ‘Structural equation modelling in perspective’, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp.215–224.
Kim, N., Chun, E. and Ko, E. (2017) ‘Country of origin effects on brand image, brand evaluation,
and purchase intention’, International Marketing Review, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp.254–271.
Kim, S.S., Choe, J.Y.J. and Petrick, J.F. (2018) ‘The effect of celebrity on brand awareness,
perceived quality, brand image, brand loyalty, and destination attachment to a literary
festival’, Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, Vol. 9, pp.320–329.
King, B.G. and Whetten, D.A. (2008) ‘Rethinking the relationship between reputation and
legitimacy: a social actor conceptualization’, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 11, No. 3,
pp.192–207.
Ko, S.B. and Jin, B. (2017) ‘Predictors of purchase intention toward green apparel products’,
Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 21, No. 1,
pp.70–87.
Kotler, P. and Keller, K. (2011) Marketing Management, 14th ed., Prentice Hall, Saddle River.
Ksenia, P. (2013) Packaging Design as a Marketing Tool and Desire to Purchase, Master thesis,
Faculty of Business Administration, Saimaa University of Applied Science, Lappeenranta.
Lascu, D.N. and Zinkhan, G. (1999) ‘Consumer conformity: review and applications for marketing
theory and practice’, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp.1–12.
Lau, M.M., Lam, A.Y. and Cheung, R. (2016) ‘Examining the factors influencing purchase
intention of smartphones in Hong Kong’, Contemporary Management Research, Vol. 12,
No. 2, pp.213–224.
Lee, J. and Lee, Y. (2018) ‘Effects of multi-brand company’s CSR activities on purchase intention
through a mediating role of corporate image and brand image’, Journal of Fashion Marketing
and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp.387–403.
Lewalski, Z.M. (1988) Product Esthetics: An Interpretation for Designers, Design & Development
Engineering PR, Parklands.
Li, J., Li, J. and Zheng, Y. (2013) ‘Corporate image cognition influence perceived quality and
purchase intention empirical research’, iBusiness, Vol. 5, No. 3, p.162.
Li, Y., Wang, X. and Yang, Z. (2011) ‘The effects of corporate-brand credibility, perceived
corporate-brand origin, and self-image congruence on purchase intention: evidence from
China’s auto industry’, Journal of Global Marketing, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp.58–68.
Lipman, J. (1988) ‘Single-source ad research heralds detailed look of households habits’, The Wall
Street Journal, Tuesday, Vol. 39.
Ma, J., Yang, J. and Yoo, B. (2020) ‘The moderating role of personal cultural values on consumer
ethnocentrism in developing countries: the case of Brazil and Russia’, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 108, pp.375–389.
MacCallum, R.C., Browne, M.W. and Sugawara, H.M. (1996) ‘Power analysis and determination
of sample size for covariance structure modeling’, Psychological Methods, Vol. 1, No. 2,
p.130.
Mandel, N., Rucker, D.D., Levav, J. and Galinsky, A.D. (2017) ‘The compensatory consumer
behavior model: how self-discrepancies drive consumer behavior’, Journal of Consumer
Psychology, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp.133–146.
Martins, J., Costa, C., Oliveira, T., Gonçalves, R. and Branco, F. (2019) ‘How smartphone
advertising influences consumers’ purchase intention’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 94,
pp.378–387.
Mathur, M. and Gangwani, S. (2016) ‘The effect of retail store image dimensions on consumer’s
purchase intention of private label brands’, International Journal of Research in Finance and
Melewar, T.C. and Skinner, H. (2018) ‘Defining and delimiting the scope of the corporate identity
construct’, The Marketing Review, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp.115–129.
Mohr, L.A., Webb, D.J. and Harris, K.E. (2001) ‘Do consumers expect companies to be socially
responsible? The impact of corporate social responsibility on buying behavior’, Journal of
Consumer Affairs, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp.45–72.
Moradi, H. and Zarei, A. (2012) ‘Creating consumer‐based brand equity for young Iranian
consumers via country of origin sub‐components effects’, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing
and Logistics, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp.394–413.
Mutsikiwa, M. and Marumbwa, J. (2013) ‘The impact of aesthetics package design elements on
consumer purchase decisions: a case of locally produced dairy products in Southern
Zimbabwe’, Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 8, No. 5, pp.64–71.
Naik, P. and Shukla, A. (2016) ‘Analysis of online consumer behaviour of youth of Nasik city: with
respect to electronic gadgets’, MIJMR, ISSN: 2394-6423.
Nasution, M.D.T.P. and Rossanty, Y. (2018) ‘Country of origin as a moderator of halal label and
purchase behaviour’, Journal of Business and Retail Management Research, Vol. 12, No. 2,
pp.194–201.
Nellikunnel, S., Haldorai, K., Rahman, A. and Zangose, M. (2017) ‘The country of origin effect
on consumer purchase intention: PLS modelling’, International Journal of Business and
Globalisation, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp.378–395.
Onyinye, N.R., Evangeline, T.O., Okezie, C.A. and Young, C.A. (2014) ‘The revolutional use of
electronic gadgets in Nigeria: the public health implications’, International Journal of
Research, Vol. 1, No. 11, pp.136–156.
Pan, L.Y. and Chen, K.H. (2019) ‘A study on the effect of storytelling marketing on brand image,
perceived quality, and purchase intention in ecotourism’, Ekoloji Dergisi, Vol. 28, No. 107,
pp.705–712.
Paul, J. and Rana, J. (2012) ‘Consumer behavior and purchase intention for organic food’,
Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 29, No. 6, pp.412–422, https://doi.org/10.1108/
07363761211259223.
Podnar, K. and Golob, U. (2017) ‘The quest for the corporate reputation definition: lessons from
the interconnection model of identity, image, and reputation’, Corporate Reputation Review,
Vol. 20, Nos. 3–4, pp.186–192.
Prendergast, G.P., Tsang, A.S. and Chan, C.N. (2010) ‘The interactive influence of country of
origin of brand and product involvement on purchase intention’, Journal of Consumer
Pucci, T., Simoni, C. and Zanni, L. (2013) ‘Country of origin effect, brand image and retail
management for the exploitation of “Made in Italy”‘, International Marketing and the Country
of Origin Effect: The Global Impact of ‘Made in Italy, p.154, Edward Elgar Pub, Glos, UK.
Rambocas, M. and Ramsubhag, A.X. (2018) ‘The moderating role of country of origin on brand
equity, repeat purchase intentions, and word of mouth in Trinidad and Tobago’, Journal of
Global Marketing, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp.42–55.
Rashid, A., Barnes, L. and Warnaby, G. (2016) ‘Management perspectives on country of origin’,
Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 20, No. 2,
pp.230–244.
Rassam, C. (1995) Design and Corporate Success, Design Council, Gower.
Ravasi, D. (2016) ‘Organizational identity, culture, and image’, in Schultz, M., Ashforth, B.E. and
Ravasi, D. (Eds.): The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Identity, pp.65–78, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Rowden, M. (2017) Attitudes Toward Homosexual Imagery in Advertisements: An Examination of
Moderating Variables, PhD dissertation, Middle Tennessee State University.
Runyon, K.E. and Stewart, D.W. (1987) Consumer Behavior and the Practice of Marketing, Merrill
Pub. Co., Illinois.
Saxena, N.K. and Dhar, U. (2017) ‘Brand image: a seasoned review’, Asian Journal of
Schmidt, S.H., Shreffler, M.B., Hambrick, M.E. and Gordon, B.S. (2018) ‘An experimental
examination of activist type and effort on brand image and purchase intentions’, Sport
Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 27, pp.31–43.
Sethi, R.S., Kaur, J. and Wadera, D. (2018) ‘Purchase intention survey of millennials towards
online fashion stores’, Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp.1–16.
Sharma, P. (2010) ‘Cultural influences on consumer ethnocentrism: a multi-country investigation’,
Journal of Euromarketing, Vol. 19, Nos. 2–3, pp.175–196.
Shieh, M.D., Chen, C.N. and Lin, M.C. (2018) ‘Discussion of correlations between green
advertising design and purchase intention based on consumers’ environmental attitude’,
Ekoloji, Vol. 27, No. 106, pp.1153–1159.
Simmonds, G., Woods, A.T. and Spence, C. (2019) ‘“Shaping perceptions”: exploring how the
shape of transparent windows in packaging designs affects product evaluation’, Food Quality
and Preference, Vol. 75, pp.15–22.
Singhal, P. and Patra, S. (2018) ‘A study on consumer behaviour towards online shopping in
Kolkata’, in International Business Research Conference, IOSR Journal of Business and
Management, pp.91–102.
Steidl, P. and Emery, G. (1997) Corporate Image and Identity Strategies: Designing the Corporate
Future, Business & Professional Publishing, Warriewoood.
Straub, D., Boudreau, M.C. and Gefen, D. (2004) ‘Validation guidelines for IS positivist research’,
Communications of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 13, No. 1, p.24.
Stuart, H. (1999) ‘Towards a definitive model of the corporate identity management process’,
Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp.200–207.
Taniyev, O. and Gordon, B.S. (2019) ‘Crafting a legacy: investigating the retired athlete
brand image’, International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, Vol. 20, No. 3,
pp.390–405.
Thakur, S. and Singh, A.P. (2012) ‘Brand image, customer satisfaction and loyalty intention:
a study in the context of cosmetic product among the people of Central India’, EXCEL
International Journal of Multidisciplinary Management Studies, Vol. 2, No. 5, pp.37–50.
Tirtiroglu, E. and Elbeck, M. (2008) ‘Qualifying purchase intentions using queueing theory’,
Journal of Applied Quantitative Methods, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp.167–178.
Udegbe, S.E. (2017) ‘Nigerian shoppers/consumers preferences for foreign and domestic products:
case study of clothes and shoes’, J. Account. Mark., Vol. 6, No. 258, p.2.
Urde, M. and Greyser, S.A. (2016) ‘The corporate brand identity and reputation matrix – the case
of the Nobel prize’, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp.89–117.
Usunier, J.C., Lee, J.A. and Lee, J. (2005) Marketing Across Cultures, Pearson Education, London.
Valaskova, K., Kliestikova, J. and Krizanova, A. (2018) ‘Consumer perception of private label
products: an empirical research’, Journal of Competitiveness, Vol. 10, No. 3, p.149.
Van den Berg, A.A. (2017) Factors Influencing the Purchase Intention of the Black Middle-Class
in Emerging Markets for Global Brands: The Case of Fashion Brands in South Africa, PhD
dissertation, University of Witwatersrand.
Walsh, G., Shiu, E. and Hassan, L.M. (2012) ‘Investigating the drivers of consumer intention
to buy manufacturer brands’, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 21, No. 5,
pp.328–340.
Wang, D. and Yang, L. (2010) Customer Buying Behavior: – Online Shopping Towards Electronic
Product, Umeå School of Business, Masters thesis.
Wang, Y. and Hazen, B.T. (2016) ‘Consumer product knowledge and intention to purchase
remanufactured products’, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 181, Part B,
pp.460–469.
Williams, B., Onsman, A. and Brown, T. (2010) ‘Exploratory factor analysis: a five-step guide for
novices’, Australasian Journal of Paramedicine, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp.1–13.
Williams, K., Cho, E. and Smith, K.R. (2018) ‘The effects of country-of-origin and attitude
functions on luxury brand purchase’, in International Textile and Apparel Association (ITAA)
Annual Conference Proceedings, pp.1–2.
Yamamoto, M. and Lambert, D.R. (1994) ‘The impact of product aesthetics on the evaluation of
industrial products’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp.309–324.
Yamane, T. (1967) Statistics: An Introductory Analysis, 2nd ed., Harper and Row, New York.
Yi, W., Sung, J. and Cho, K. (2012) ‘The effect of user experience factors of tablet devices on
behavioral intention to purchase in the experience zone’, in Human Centric Technology and
Service in Smart Space, pp.25–36, Springer, Dordrecht.
Yunus, N.S.N.M. and Rashid, W.E.W. (2016) ‘The influence of country-of-origin on consumer
purchase intention: the mobile phones brand from China’, Procedia Economics and Finance,
Vol. 37, pp.343–349.
Zahid, M.M., Ali, B., Ahmad, M.S., Thurasamy, R. and Amin, N. (2018) ‘Factors affecting
purchase intention and social media publicity of green products: the mediating role of concern
for consequences’, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 25,
No. 3, pp.225–236.
View publication stats

205 Indian Youth: February 2022

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

205 Indian Youth: February 2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

205 Indian youth

Article · February 2022

CSR and sustainability View project

CSR and Socio economic and environmental impact of it View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Product specific determinants of electronic gadget

Abstract: This study investigated the impact of product specific features of

Copyright © 2022 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

India. His research interest includes consumer behaviour, supply

(2019), the findings confirmed that country image is an important determinant of PI as

Hypothesis 3A CI of the vendor exerts a significant impact on the electronic gadget PI

frequencies. Structured equation modelling was undertaken to test the relationship

4 Results and discussion

4.1 Demographic details and frequency of yearly gadget purchase of the

Demographic feature Frequency Percent

4.2 Reliability statistics

4.3 Validity testing

4.3.1 PD, BI and COO

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy 0.890

4.3.2 Corporate identity

Table 4 KMO Bartett’s test for CI

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy 0.835

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy 0.867

EFA indicated that PI is uni-dimensionality of scale as just one component could be

4.4 Respondents’ perceptions

4.4.2 Brand image

Statements Mean Std. deviation

Table 9 Respondent’s perception of BI

Statements Mean Std. deviation

Table 10 Respondent perception of the COO

Statements Mean Std. deviation

4.4.3 Country of origin

4.4.4 Corporate identity

4.4.5 Purchase intention

Table 12 Respondent’s perception of PI

4.5 Structural equation modelling

4.5.2 Model specification

4.5.3 Model evaluation

Figure 2 Structured equation model (see online version for colours)

4.6 Model testing

4.6.1 Measurement model testing

4.6.1.1 Brand image

4.6.1.2 Country of origin

4.6.1.3 Product design

4.6.1.4 Corporate identity

4.6.1.5 Purchase intention

envious of me (PI_8). These items significantly (p < 0.01) measured PI as indicated in

4.6.2 Structural model testing

4.6.2.2 Evaluation attributes and CI

This study explored different product-specific determinants of the electronic gadget PI of

View publication stats

You might also like