INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM SCHOOL OF BUSINESS Independence - Freedom - Happiness

ASSURANCE QUALIFIED THESIS

Student’s Name: Nguyen Thanh Trung Hieu

Student ID: MBA05010

Title of Thesis: EXPLORING THE FACTORS AFFECTING PURCHASE

INTENTION OF SMARTPHONE: A STUDY OF OFFICE

WORKERS IN HOCHIMINH CITY, VIETNAM

Advisor:

I assure that the content of this thesis has been qualified all requirements for a research paper and able to participate in the final thesis defense.

Approved by

Dr. Pham Hong Hoa

EXPLORING THE FACTORS AFFECTING PURCHASE INTENTION OF

SMARTPHONE: A STUDY OF OFFICE WORKERS IN HOCHIMINH

CITY, VIETNAM

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree of

MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

In International Business

By

Mr. Nguyen Thanh Trung Hieu

ID: MBA05010

International University - Vietnam National University HCMC

September 2014

EXPLORING THE FACTORS AFFECTING PURCHASE INTENTION OF SMARTPHONE: A STUDY OF OFFICE WORKERS IN HOCHIMINH CITY,

VIETNAM

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree of

MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

In International Business

by

Mr. Nguyen Thanh Trung Hieu

ID: MBA05010

International University - Vietnam National University HCMC

September 2014

Under the guidance and approval of the committee, and approved by all its members,

this thesis has been accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree.

Approved:

---------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- Chairperson

Advisor: Dr. Pham Hong Hoa

---------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------

Committee member

Committee member

---------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------

Committee member Committee member

AcknowledgeThis study would not have been completed without the kind guidance and the support

of my supervisor, my family and friends.

First of all, I would like to express my profound gratitude and appreciation to my

supervisor Dr. Pham Hong Hoa for her valuable guidance, advices and

recommendations throughout this research. Thank you for your kind support every

time I am in need for consultation.

I would like to express my great appreciation to all the teachers of the Master’s

program in the International University, who imparted their knowledge and

experience to me during the past two years.

I would like to give special thanks to my beloved family which has been my

inspiration throughout the past time and always been the endless source of joy in my

life.

It is also my pleasure to have the opportunity to study with classmates from

MBAIU05 who have shared with me their impressive knowledge and skills during the

challenging courses of the MBA program.

Finally, I would like to thank the members of the Examination Committee for taking

time and giving valuable comments so that I could improve this thesis.

Plagiarism Statements I would like to declare that, apart from the acknowledged references, this

thesis either does not use language, ideas, or other original material from anyone; or

has not been previously submitted to any other educational and research programs or

institutions. I fully understand that any writings in this thesis contradicted to the

above statement will automatically lead to the rejection from the MBA program at the

International University – Vietnam National University Ho Chi Minh City.

Copyright Statement This copy of the thesis has been supplied on condition that anyone who consults it is

understood to recognize that its copyright rests with its author and that no quotation

from the thesis and no information derived from it may be published without the

author’s prior consent.

© Nguyen Thanh Trung Hieu/MBA05010/2011-2014

Table of Contents

Chapter 1. Introduction..............................................................................................................

1.1 Research Background......................................................................................................

1.2 Research Problems.........................................................................................................

1.3 Research Questions........................................................................................................

1.4 Research Objectives........................................................................................................

1.5 Research scope and limitation........................................................................................

1.6 Significant of the Research..............................................................................................

1.7 Research Methodology...................................................................................................

1.8 Structure of Research.....................................................................................................

1.8.1 Chapter One: Introduction........................................................................................

1.8.2 Chapter Two: Literature review................................................................................

1.8.3 Chapter Three: Research Methodology....................................................................

1.8.4 Chapter Four: Data Analysis and Findings.................................................................

1.8.5 Chapter Five: Conclusion...........................................................................................

Chapter 2. Literature Review......................................................................................................

2.1 Dependent Variable........................................................................................................

2.1.1 Purchase intention....................................................................................................

2.2 Independent variable......................................................................................................

2.2.1 Price..........................................................................................................................

2.2.2 Brand.........................................................................................................................

2.2.3 Compatibility.............................................................................................................

2.2.4 Product Feature......................................................................................................

2.2.5 Relative Advantage.................................................................................................

2.2.6 Social Influences......................................................................................................

2.3 Review of relevant theory.............................................................................................

2.3.1 Diffusion of innovations..........................................................................................

2.3.2 Social Identity Theory..............................................................................................

2.3.3 Theory of Materialism.............................................................................................

2.4 Proposed Theoretical Framework.................................................................................

2.5 Hypothesis Development..............................................................................................

Chapter 3. Methodology...........................................................................................................

3.1 Research design............................................................................................................

3.2 Data collection methods...............................................................................................

3.2.1 Primary data............................................................................................................

3.2.2 Secondary data........................................................................................................

3.2.3 Sampling design......................................................................................................

3.2.4 Sampling Technique................................................................................................

3.2.5 Research instrument...............................................................................................

3.3 Data analysis.................................................................................................................

3.3.1 Descriptive statistics................................................................................................

3.3.2 Reliability test..........................................................................................................

3.3.3 Exploratory factor analysis (EFA).............................................................................

3.3.4 Pearson Correlation Coefficient Test.......................................................................

3.3.5 Multiple regression analysis....................................................................................

Chapter 4. DATA ANALYISIS AND Findings................................................................................

4.1 Sample description.......................................................................................................

4.1.1 Sample....................................................................................................................

4.1.2 Demographic profile................................................................................................

4.2 Descriptive statistics.....................................................................................................

4.3 Cronbach’s alpha reliability test....................................................................................

4.4 Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA).................................................................................

4.5 Pearson Correlation Coefficient....................................................................................

4.6 Multiple Regression Analysis........................................................................................

4.7 Test of Hypothesis........................................................................................................

Chapter 5. CONCLUSION...........................................................................................................

5.1 Conclusion....................................................................................................................

5.2 Practical implication......................................................................................................

5.3 Limitation and further recommendation......................................................................

Table 1 - Coded items of measurement scale....................................................................

Table 2 - Rules of Thumb about Correlation Coefficient..................................................

Table 3 - Demographic of Respondents............................................................................

Table 4 - Crosstab between age and average income of respondents................................

Table 5 – Descriptive statistics of respondents..................................................................

Table 6 - Cronbach's Alpha rule based on George and Mallery........................................

Table 7 - Reliability test for consumer’s purchase intention on smartphone....................

Table 8 – Reliability test of Brand (1st run).......................................................................

Table 9 - Reliability test of Brand (2nd run).......................................................................

Table 10 - Reliability test of Brand (3rd run).....................................................................

Table 11 - The final table of Cronbach’s alpha reliability test..........................................

Table 12 – Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) for independent variables.......................

Table 13 – Group of EFA..................................................................................................

Table 14 – Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) for independent variables.......................

Table 15 - Pearson Correlation Testing.............................................................................

Table 16 - Multiple regression testing...............................................................................

Table 17 - Reliability Test of Respondents.......................................................................

Figure 1 - Diffusion of innovations model. Rogers, E.M. (1995).....................................

Figure 2 - Conceptual model: Factors affect purchase intention of smartphone...............

Figure 3 - Sex of Respondents...........................................................................................

Figure 4 - Age of Respondents..........................................................................................

Figure 5 - Average income of respondents........................................................................

AbstractIn a world of digital devices, people require more convenient and powerful gadgets on

hand to support for their daily works as well as their need for entertainment.

Smartphone is invented to fulfill those demands, furthermore, provided a most

compact assistant in the pocket. While replace some simple task of work from the

traditional computers, smartphone also play a vital role in people’s lifestyle. This

leads to a booming in the smartphone industry while more and more people want to

own one smartphone. Nevertheless, it is a fact that there are too many brand of

smartphone found at the current, making the process of choosing a smartphone

become more complicated.

The study aim to explore the factors affecting purchase intention of smartphone

among the office workers in Hochiminh City. The initial factors include: Price, Brand,

Relative Advantage, Compatibility, Product Features, Social Influence and Purchase

Intention. 218 respondents have provided data for the study. The process of collecting

is online surveys via the Qualtrics electronic form using likert scale. The data was

analyzed through SPSS 20. The results of this research were unhide base on

answering the research questions.

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Research Background

Since the introduction of 1st IPhone generation, the consumer has inherited a rapid

innovation by smartphone manufacturers. Nowadays, smartphone is considered as a

must-have stuff by most urban persons. Thanks to its fabulous features, smartphone

users may experience things out of communicating: browsing webs, enjoying medias,

playing games, checking emails, using as a navigator, participating in social sites and

so on (Qiang Xu, 2011). In the other hands, smartphone is also named as an "indicator

of status, prestige and lifestyle" (Mohd Azam Osman, 2012). That leads to a trend of

switching from feature phone to smartphone.

It is a normal sense to see one working at office using a smartphone checking their

emails, reading feeds on their Facebook. From a C.E.O to an apprentice, they all

maintain a regularly online status throughout a day with office Wifi or broadband cell

signal. A recent survey conducted by Google an Ipsos Media CT in Vietnam (2013)

indicated that: 70 percent of interviewees using their smartphone daily in past seven

days, while 91 percent of them use their smartphone at works, meanwhile, 58 percent

spent more time online with their smartphone in the last 6 months (Google – Our

mobile planet: Vietnam, quarter 3, 2013). Hence, smartphone is transforming the

consumer behaviors.

Nevertheless, a huge number of manufacturers in the smartphone industry, creates

plenty of models, lead to an embarrassment of consumer while choosing a

smartphone. This generates a hard task for one manufacturer to persuade their

potential customers distinguishing between its products and others. Therefore, it is

essential to know what factors influencing the purchase intention of smartphone.

1

1.2 Research Problems

Recent market research by Google has indicated that there are about 17 million

Vietnamese had been using smartphone (GlobalWebIndex, 2013). The figure is

counted as approximately 20% of Vietnam population. In this emerging market, there

is still lot of potential for mega smartphone manufacturers as Samsung, LG, and

Apple as well as Chinese or Vietnamese ones. Especially, in the group of office

workers, who are in the raising of income and spend on hi-tech products frequently.

According to Gartner (2013), trend of using smartphone and tablet to improve

productivity as well as to provide more entertainments might be required by half of

office workers in 2017.

Despite the dramatic increasing of smartphone sales in Vietnam, there are not many

researches on the consumer's perception of purchasing smartphone, and there are no

static evidences to provide a better understanding between the enterprises and the end-

users purchase intention. Thus, it is an essential for the the

manufacturer/distributor/retailer to know what factors affecting to the consumer's

purchase intention of smartphone, particularly, to the office workers. Since then, they

might be benefited by understanding their potential perceptions.

As the above reasons, I have chosen the topic:

EXPLORING THE FACTORS AFFECTING PURCHASE INTENTION OF

SMARTPHONE: A STUDY OF OFFICE WORKERS IN HOCHIMINH CITY,

VIETNAM

The study is to clarify the factors affecting the office workers purchase intention, and

then choose the right strategy for the real enterprises to approach the consumer in

2

terms of boosting their sales volume. Furthermore, the hi-tech topics are also my

favorite.

1.3 Research Questions

Regarding to the research problems above, question has been raised for the research

as below:

Which factors will affect the consumer's purchase intention of smartphone?

Which factor will most influence the consumer’s purchase intention of

smartphone?

1.4 Research Objectives

At first, the research is aimed to identify the factors affecting to the office worker's

purchase intention of smartphone in Hochiminh City. To be more detailed, the

research is to manage these tasks:

To build a conceptual model for the research base on the previous researches

and literatures

To explore the factors affect the purchase intention of smartphone

To gather information and analyze the results, as well as, to give

recommendation to rate consumer's intention

1.5 Research scope and limitation

This research only apply to office workers to find out their purchase intention of

smartphone. Furthermore, the research only aims to ones who live in Hochiminh City,

as this is one of the two biggest city in Vietnam with high rate of smartphone users.

Moreover, there are plenty of enterprises operating in the city at the current.

3

However, this means that the data does not present the whole pictures of Vietnamese

consumers. In the other hand, the small size of sample might not be large enough due

to lack of resources.

1.6 Significant of the Research

One of the most important purpose of this study is to provide a deeper insight of

consumers in terms of factor affecting on purchase intention of smartphone. Since

then, smartphone manufacturer as Samsung, Nokia and Sony might obtain proper

information about their consumer’s requirement for a smartphone’s design, feature,

price settings and so on. Taking advantages of those knowledge, firms might have

better strategies planning to adjust their products in order to fulfill what an office

worker might want from their smartphone.

Firms also might concern on social influence on the consumers, which can be solved

at the end of this research. From the results, more appropriate marketing tactics might

be used as to persuade the consumers in terms of their social relation’s affection.

Finally, results of this thesis might be a reference for further research on the same

topic, especially to researchers who might want to explore those issues in a larger

scope or with different samples.

1.7 Research Methodology

Literature reviews are performed at first, based on these precious theories, conceptual

model would be made. Quantitative research method would be applied to design

questionnaire implementing in convenient sampling method. Data would be gathered

and analyzed with SPSS for further static findings. Since then, conclusions and

recommendations would be conducted.

4

5

1.8 Structure of Research

The research consist of five following chapters:

1.8.1 Chapter One: Introduction

Providing the introduction of the research with background, problem statements,

research questions and objectives, scope, limitation and research methodology

1.8.2 Chapter Two: Literature review

By providing the concepts and theories concerning the research problem, the whole

chapter concentrates in the purchase intention, perceived customer value, perceived

product quality, valance of experience, customer service, trust, brand etc.

1.8.3 Chapter Three: Research Methodology

The Chapter clarify the way to conduct the research and statistical method to be used

in the thesis, as well as providing the research process, questionnaire designing,

sampling method, survey implementation as a foundation for statistical analyzing

1.8.4 Chapter Four: Data Analysis and Findings

This chapter goes on details with figures and numbers recorded by previous steps,

which offers interviewees profile, analyzing the raw materials inputted throughout

Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS), since then, further discuss of the

research might be given

1.8.5 Chapter Five: Conclusion

Base on the above steps, the author provide conclusion according to his personal side

for the final results, furthermore, present the recommendations for future researches.

6

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Critical points of current knowledge will be presented in this chapter. The purpose is

to provide substantive findings as well as theoretical and methodological which to

contribute to the topic research process. Meanwhile, the literature reviews are also

considered as prestige secondary sources, which do not present any new research

information

2.1 Dependent Variable

2.1.1 Purchase intention

Defining as a plan to purchase certain good or service in the future, purchase intention

does not always confirm should the plan implement as it is also affected by ability to

perform (Warshaw & Davis, 1985). We could also consider the purchase intention as

what the consumers think and will buy (Blackwell, Miniard, & Engel, 2001).

Furthermore, purchase intention could be useful by understand the possibility of a

customer on that lead to a purchasing action, which can be understand that the

stronger the purchase intention is, the higher possibility to purchase particular product

or service occur (Schiffman & Kanuk, 2000). Through a process of consumer

behavior toward buying a product or a service, the consumer’s purchasing intention

might formed by recognition, information seeking, alternative products evaluating,

purchasing behavior and post-purchase step of mind (Schiffman & Kanuk, 2000)

The purchase intention should also be considered as consumers’ tendency on an

object, often measures the intention to buy of consumers (Kim & Kim, 2004). Final

cognitive step in decision making process is also the intention to purchase towards

particular products or services, according to Han (1990), Pecotich, Pressley and Roth

(1996). Furthermore, it is also a favorable topic in the marketers’ side as its ability to

7

dig more consumers’ insight, since then, they can find appropriate segmentation

before deciding to launch a new product into any markets (Silk & Urban, 1978).

Kumar (2000) also indicated that, purchase intention can be used to predict future

demand. Finally, there are evidence about an relationship between the relative

advantage, price, social influence and product compatibility with purchase intention

(Juha, 2008;Yue & Suart J, 2011; Ima Ilyani Ibrahim, 2013). There are also positive

relations between brand name and Product Features and purchase intention (Mei Min

and Chow, 2012)

2.2 Independent variable

2.2.1 Price

It has been researched that price were always the most concerned issue from the

consumer whenever they were to make a buying decision (Smith and Carsky, 1996).

Meanwhile, Nagle and Holden (2002) indicated the role of price as a monetary value,

using by the consumers in order to trade with the sellers for products or services

Aaker (1991) stated that the image of a brand is mainly established by the price, in

the consumer’s side, the behavioral intentions are affected from the price positively.

In other words, a high (or low) price presents a high (or low) quality or image.

Likewise, two type of products by price has been provided: high-priced brands and

low-priced brands (Kunal et al., 2010). Image are indicated as the key factor of high-

priced brands. Similarly, people tend to consume high-priced brand products due to

their image and adapt for a premium price in order to perceive their value and status,

which make the consumers price-inelastic (Bolton, 1989). Meanwhile, low-priced

brands are chosen to utilize their value, often by consumers who tend to choose

8

products in terms of price par value. Thus, consumers would chose a low-priced

brand product or looking for and subtitled one for the best value (Kunal et al., 2010).

As a result, Rao and Monroe (1988) indicated that consumers have a tension to

separate the higher price with higher quality and the lower price with inferior quality.

Etgar and Malhotra’s (1981) found consensus to claim that high price goods and

services are equals to high quality in most of consumers’ perception. Therefore, if the

quality or features are comply to the consumers’ expectation, they should accept a

price level at peak to fulfill their demand; the consumers might consider the price at a

fair deal and willing to pay at a higher price if they could be deserved by what quality

and service they expect (Monroe, 2003)

More than dozen of mobile brands could be found in today’s market, with plenty of

series, which offer different price levels. On the website of thegioididong.com, the

largest mobile phones retailer in Vietnam, consumer may find 14 various brands of

smartphone, this leads to wide range of price for each segment of products. The strong

brand may be an advantage to encourage the consumer choosing one product.

Nowadays, people sometimes does not consider price at the most important element.

There is a trend of consumers who might be willing to pay high price for their

smartphone and receive a higher quality or services. There is about 38.81%

Vietnamese consumers who ever own a smartphone believe that Iphone, a luxury

product, is the best smartphone they ever wanted (Jana, 2014 – Smartphone

preference and spending). According to the research, Vietnamese consumers also

acquire more on quality and higher level of services.

9

2.2.2 Brand

In a world of massive production, brand presents as a special characteristic for a

product or service. It could be considered as a valuable asset to stand for quality and

suggest precise information about the brand (Srinivasan, 2002). It was also

distinguished as to improve product’s value (Dodds, Monroe and Grewal, 1991).

Brand was also stated to indicate a product by its name (Rotfled, 2009). The

American Marketing Association define brand as “name, term, symbol, or design, or

a combination of them intended to identify the goods and services of one seller or

group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of competition”.

The main function of a brand name is to confirm a product’s quality (Rao and

Ruekert, 1994). Farquhar (1989) define the value of a brand was brand equity. And it

was proven that an important phase of building brand is developing brand equity

(Keller, 1998). Lastly, the consumer’s evaluation was influenced by the product’s

brand, which might lead to the buying decision (Khasawneh and Hasouneh, 2010)

After the survey in United States, England and Australian, The Wall Street Journal

announced that the smartphone owners show the power of brand loyalty. It was also

found the positive influence of consumer satisfaction on building positive brand,

which lead to purchase intention respectively (Zahra Seyed Ghorban, 2012). Chia and

Hao (2013) found that the myth impression of the specific brand existed prior to the

decision to buy the product. As a result, the amount of sales of smartphone mostly

depends on the brand itself.

2.2.3 Compatibility

When consumer perceives a product or service in their personal lifestyle choices, we

call that the compatibility. Consumer’s wants, beliefs, values, consumption patterns

10

might match with a product and service, we approve that they are highly compatible

(Joep W, Ruud T and Tammo H, 2011). It is believed that demand and purchase

intention of consumers is significantly affected by the compatibility (Gatignon and

Robertson, 1991). While product compatible is put at a high priority, consumers’ ideal

and expectation is getting closer to a product. Since then, more profit could be

generated due to a raise in demand, which has been affected by satisfying the

consumers before.

2.2.4 Product Features

When buying or consuming a product, the consumers may be satisfy with a product’s

attribute, which might be a connection with their needs or demand, this attribute is

called a feature (Kotler, 2007). There is no doubt that various features might offer

different perception towards smartphone. Nowadays, Smartphone is considered to be

stand for a sustainable connection with internet, surfing the web, useful software,

ability to manage files, recording photos and videos, entertainment tools, bulky

memory of storage, GPS, navigation and large screen with high density of display

(Oulasvirta, 2011). Gowind (2010) also stated that operation system and camera were

two of the most favorite features consumers required from a smartphone. Meanwhile,

iOS, Android, Windows Phone and Blackberry OS are the most concerned operating

systems. Nevertheless, it is hoped to recognize that each of them has its own

characteristics and foundation (Chang and Chen, 2005).

It is also stated that products are chosen by their specific benefits created from

attributes, which might be usable to personal value (Wickliffe and Psyarchik, 2011).

At the current, mobile applications are introduced everyday, help the consumers to

maximize the usable time from smartphone. This leads to a fact that smartphone

buyers put functionality over the other factors when choosing smartphone (Kantar

11

Media, 2014 - The smartphone purchase experience, p.5). On the other hand,

marketers trend to use the attributes that the consumers tend to compare between

brands to advertisement, this aim to influence the consumers in choosing the

appropriate product by enhancing the attribute’s message. (Puth, 1999)

2.2.5 Relative Advantage

The degree for an innovation to be perceived as a higher level than other products in

the market is considered as relative advantage (Tidd, 2010). Moreover, product with

innovation placed in a long distance with the behind ones might gain a higher relative

advantage degree, this might be resulted in a lower price but higher eases of use,

enhanced Product Features and increased the product’s adoption are (L.Kurtz,

H.F.MacKenzie, & Snow, 2009). The relative advantage’s component can be reflect

in economic issues including: social status, convenience, economic gains and low

cost. Relative advantage from an innovation can achieve better acceptability and

diffusion speed (Ho and Wu, 2011). Roach (2009) stated that relative advantage was

one of the most consistent predictors of innovation adoption.

It also has been considered that relative advantage was in connection with the benefits

has been made by using new technology comparing to the cost. This means that the

consumers will experience low economic advantage in term of choosing a very

expensive product comparing to the competitors (Sypher, 1997). In the smartphone

market’s perspective, relative advantage might be seen as the perception of the

consumers to be favor with one advertising message in comparison with the others

(Roach, 2009)

12

2.2.6 Social Influences

There are researches to confirm the relationship between virtual communities, an

important sources of social influences, with purchase intention (Bickart & Schindler,

2001). It is noted that persons’ choice, behaviors and belief may affect to others, this

theory can be found in most social sciences. People try to understand, relate to others

and be themselves; hence, influence motives appear with one person might change

their perception of an issue, product or brand. Up to date, the most important motive

has been researched is the expectation of one person to keep their value reference

aligned with his or her groups, as well as to be differentiated from devalued ones

(Asch, 1951)

Raising in trend of using SNS (Social network sites) as Facebook, Instagram has been

found in smartphone recently. GlobalWebIndex (2014) announced that up to 20

percent of Vietnamese use their social accounts on smartphone, especially, Facebook

gained the largest population of 95% of smartphone users. It is a nature that

smartphone users find more convenient in keeping relation with their friends,

colleagues and families in social network sites. Since then, user is probably affected

by their friends, colleagues and families somehow in their decision of buying a

product or service. A person can be gratefully influenced by the social, particularly

when they are in a community with same thought, attitude, feeling or behavior

(Rashotte, 2007)

2.3 Review of relevant theory

2.3.1 Diffusion of innovations

A new product might be adopted by consumer in particular culture structure, this

lively illustrate the theory of diffusion of innovations. Consumer is to adopt or not

13

adopt to a new product affected by four different stages: knowledge, persuasion,

decision and confirmation (Rogers E., 1995; Fliegel, Frederick, & Joseph, 1966).

There are factors might affect the consumer adoption of new product in the stage of

persuasion. They could be defined as perceived characteristics of innovations or

product characteristics including: relative advantage, trial ability, compatibility,

complexity, and so on. Communication sources also might influence them (Rogers E.,

1995; Assael, 1992; Gatignon & Robertson, A propositional inventory for new

diffusion research, 1985). Lastly, those factors will affect purchase intention, which is

considered as the willingness to purchase one product, alongside with ability to

purchase this product form a demand (Rogers E., 1995; Fliegel, Frederick, & Joseph,

1966)

Figure 1 - Diffusion of innovations model. Rogers, E.M. (1995)

14

2.3.2 Social Identity Theory

Social identity express the idea that persons from a particular social group need to

match with the conditions of those group in order to avoid of discrimination.

Furthermore, those persons in group self-categorize themselves in the ways conform

to their group norms or do things to gain the group’s favor (Tajfel and Turner, 1979).

Individual think, feel and action to his personal, family and so on might be affected by

different social contexts, according to the social identity theory (Turner, 1982; Jane

and Peter, 2000).

In the context of smartphone, if most persons in a particular group adopted the

smartphone, the rest who not yet adopt might be considering of an adaptation. Those

thoughts comes from an intention to be categorized into this group and being a part of

them (Jane & Peter, 2008)

2.3.3 Theory of Materialism

People are affected by materialism in their lives, they gain happiness in the possession

of particular luxury product, and hence they trend to persuade them different ways.

Materialistic persons are matched with desires and goals to achieve wealth, so that

they could own certain luxury products in order to take the senses of social

recognition (Tim, 2002; Yusuf & Abdullah, 2003)

According to Vitzthum (1995) and Lange (1925), consumers might experience high

value on luxury product, this include new technology as well as innovative product, as

those products are always at a higher price, and those situations define the theory of

materialism. To be detail, high price product like smartphone might influence the

consumer’s purchase intention, however, it is a normal sense if the purchasing power

in general increases, opening chances for more people to own ones, then the social

15

status of using smartphone might no longer be available (Jee Han, Joseph, & Xavier,

2010)

16

2.4 Proposed Theoretical Framework

Ima Ilyani Ibrahim (2013) state on his study of purchase intention of smartphone in

Malaysia once again stated that the mentioned issued significantly affected by social

influence, even though the strength differ. It is also the factor hast most impact beside

the others are: Relative Advantage, Price and Compatibility. In connection with the

literature review above, it is proposed to the conceptual framework in which display

the independent and dependent variables and connection between them as below:

(Independent variables) (Dependent variable)

Figure 2 - Conceptual model: Factors affect purchase intention of smartphone

2.5 Hypothesis Development

This paper studies the association between the six independent variables, such as

Price, Brand, Compatibility, Product Features, Relative Advantage and Social

17

Price

Brand

Compatibility

Product Features

Relative Advantage

Social Influence

Purchase intention

H1

H2

H3

H4

H5

H6

Influence, and purchase intention of Smartphone among office workers in Hochiminh

City. With this goal, we propose to test the following hypotheses:

H1: There is an impact from price towards purchase intention of Smartphone among

office workers in Hochiminh City

H2: There is an impact from brand name towards purchase intention of Smartphone

among office workers in Hochiminh City

H3: There is an impact from compatibility towards purchase intention of Smartphone

among office workers in Hochiminh City

H4: There is an impact from Product Features towards purchase intention of

Smartphone among office workers in Hochiminh City

H5: There is an impact from relative advantage towards purchase intention of

Smartphone among office workers in Hochiminh City

H6: There is an impact from social influences towards purchase intention of

Smartphone among office workers in Hochiminh City

H7: At least one factor (Price, Brand, Compatibility, Product Features, Relative

Advantage and Social Influence) have the most significant influence on the purchase

intention of smartphone among office workers in Hochiminh City

18

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research design

As a descriptive research, this thesis may present the researchers’ intention to use

quantitative data to illustrate the characteristics of the population, as well as to study

the phenomenon. Advantage of this type of research is to collect unique data from

case studies. Data was collected to provide an insight from consumers in various

aspects of their lives, which other methods can not apply better (Swindells, 2004).

Moreover, the method could provide an ability to finalize the result and approve or

disapprove hypothesises

At last, questionnaire was considered as an instrumental to imply in the research.

Group of categorized questions would be provided to collect primary data. It is fast,

inexpensive, efficient, and effective method compared to others (Key & P., 1997).

3.2 Data collection methods

In general, the two types of data could be defined as primary data and secondary data.

While the primary data is usually collected throughout research and surveys to solve

specific purposes, the secondary data is considered as existing information. Both of

the two mentioned types are used in researches frequently to offer more reliability as

well as validaty.

3.2.1 Primary data

Quantitative research was applied in the research to determine the hypothesis. In

particular, questionnaire was used to gather information by their wide range of

questions from individuals. In the other hands, questionnaire could be used with

different type of sampling techniques, which can be easily administered via email,

telephone, face to face interview, internet electrical form and so on. The questionnaire

19

was provided into different sections, which covered all the required information for

the hypothesis, as well as the demographics from the interviewees for further

exploration.

3.2.2 Secondary data

Literally, information analysis gathered from other sources (e.g., researcher and

institutions) is considered as secondary data (Cnossen & Christen, 1977). Two type of

secondary data could be known as electronic based sources and paper based sources.

Secondary data is also known as an efficient yet economic sources. In the limitation

of the research, electronic based sources are more preferable due to its ease of

searching and convenience. Throughout internet, the researchers acquire more

knowledge on the thesis topic, as well as understanding relevant theories, which

helping in further step of researching.

3.2.3 Sampling design

A process of selecting a smaller group of people with similar characteristics and

preferences as the total group where it is chosen is call sampling (Wrenn, Stevens, &

Loudon, 2006). To collect data effectively and efficiently, designing a sampling

framework is important to any researcher. Furthermore, selecting most appropriate

samples means to provide more accurate answer while collecting the questionnaire.

3.2.3.1 Sampling frame and sampling location

The data was gathered by an electronic survey provided by Qualtrics®, a leading

quantitative research solutions has been used in the industry as well as cited in

academic journals Brunson, K. W (2008) and books (Modern marketing research

concepts, 2012). Qualtrics® is known as other online survey tools as Google or

Surveymonkey, otherwise, it provide tons of features more

20

After the questionnaire has been formed, it was sent to respondent by two ways:

Emails: An email with provided link to the questionnaire was attached to

invite the receiver finished answering the questions. An disadvantage of this

method is the mistaken of email providers to categorize this email as junk

mails sometimes, in the other hands, receivers might have negative perception

on this type of email which might let them biased on the answers . However, it

is the cheapest and most convenient way. In this survey, 200 email invitations

have been sent to collect data

Social sites seeding: Facebook was used as a gentle invitation to conduct the

survey. In connection with a post of Facebook, which content is to introduce

the research, it was appeared to all new feeds of the target population as a

recommend topic. A reach of approximately 3,000 viewers has been taken to

collect data.

3.2.4 Sampling Technique

Convenience sampling was applied in the research. As a non-probability sampling

technique, convenience sampling is to obtain a sample of convenient elements. Its

advantage include relatively easy sample collection and data collection (Anderson,

Sweeney, & Williams, 2008). In the other hands, the technique requires least

expensive and time consuming. In the limitation of the research, the researcher

distributed the questionnaire to ones who were working in an office in the area of

Hochiminh City.

3.2.4.1 Sampling size

According to Malhotra (1996) sample size refers to the number of elements to be

included. A quantity of 257 questionnaires have been finished during six days from

21

August 7th to August 14th. However, 39 results has been rejected due to unfinished

questionnaire and duplicated results (like all answers are 4 are 5 only). At last, a

number of 218 samples has been used to the data analyzing.

3.2.5 Research instrument

Used instrument would be explained in this part of the research. While a survey has

been chosen, it would be included the distributing of questionnaire to collect primary

data

3.2.5.1 Questionnaire

Questionnaire is defined as a set of questioned that prepared by the researchers to

collect answers from the respondents (Sekaran & Bougie, 2010). On this research,

questionnaires has been used to gather the information from the respondent to

discover the factors that influence the purchase intention of smartphone among the

office workers in Hochiminh City. Since then, the research analyze if there are any

significant relationship between the dependent and independent variables.

Questionnaire has been collected in one week as 257 respondents feedback their

answers.

3.2.5.2 Questionnaire design

To obtain information effectively, the process of designing questionnaires play an

important role. In this research, the researcher has used fixed-alternative questions,

which responses are given and answers are chosen as one closet to the respondent’s

point of view. The whole questionnaire is divided into the three section to easily

categorize the data as below:

22

Section A

Three questions are provided to discover the respondents’ demographic. These

questions are designed to ask for age, income and sex typically.

Section B

As to learn the independent variables in the research from this section, 30 questions

are made to survey the respondent. Furthermore, those questions are categorized into

six different groups which are: Price, Brand, Compatibility, Product Features,

Relative Advantage and Social Influence. Likert scale is used as the measurement for

the answer. Five scale including strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), neutral (3), agree

(4), and strongly agree (5) are inserted in each question to gather the most consistent

answers.

Section C

The five questions of this section are provided to survey for the dependent variable:

the purchase intention. Once again, likert scale questions with five scales of strongly

disagree (1), disagree (2), neutral (3), agree (4), and strongly agree (5) are used.

Variables Item Description References

Price P1 Price is my main consideration

when deciding whether to buy a

smartphone.

Cheong and Park

(2005), Grewal,

Krishanan, Baker, &

Borin, (1998), Sinhaa &

Batrab (1999), Steiner

(2004)

P2 I will only buy smartphone on price

reduction or promotion.

P3 I compare prices of other

Smartphone‘s brands and store

brands before I choose one.

P4 I buy Smartphone because they are

worth to used regarding between

with their price & usage quality.

23

P5 The cheapness of some

Smartphone‘s brand suggests to me

that they may have some risks, such

as low quality.

Brand

BR1 Brand name is a major factor that

will influence my decision towards

buying a smartphone.

Rio,Vazquez and

Iglesias (2001)

BR2 I prefer to choose globally brand

while buying smartphone.

BR3 I prefer to choose a trustworthy

smartphone brand.

BR4 I only choose smartphone brand of

my favourite

BR5 I am willing to choose a less well-

known brand if its products could

fulfill my needs.

Compatibility

C1 Smarphone is compatible and fit my

needs

Yang (2005), Brown L.,

Cajee, Davies and

Stroebel (2003), Monk,

Hassenzahl, Blythe and

Reed (2002), He, Duan,

Fu and Li (2006)

C2 Smartphone is compatible and fit

my lifestyle and working style

C3 Smartphone fit with my habits of

using cell phones

C4 Smartphone is a good complement

to the traditional mobile phones to

me

C5 Smartphone can fulfill my wants

and needs in current life

Product

Features

FE1 I like the smartphone ability of

taking photos and videos

Mei Min, et al. (2012),

Market

Analysis and

Consumer

Research

FE2 Smartphone provide high quality of

games

FE3 Smartphone has lots of useful

24

applications Organization

(MACRO)FE4 Smartphone can connect to internet

easily (with wifi, 3G)

FE5 I choose smartphone due to its

operating system (iOS, Android,

Blackberry OS, Windows Phone…)

Relative

Advantage

RA1 Smartphone are more convenient,

reliable, and useful than normal

mobile phones.

(Brown I. , Cajee,

Davies, & Stroebel,

(2003), Holak &

Lehmann (1990), Yang

(2005), Mei Min, et al.

(2012), Gourville

(2006), Park, Y., &

Chen. J. V (2007), Ji-

won Moon, Young-Gul

Kim (2001)

RA2 Smartphone are more fashionable,

stylish, and trendy.

RA3 Smartphone can be synchronized

with other gadgets

RA4 Smartphone bigger screen and full

keyboard make different functions

easier to use.

RA5 Smartphone sometimes help me to

solve my work instantly.

Social

Influence

SI1 Friends and family are very helpful

to me in making decision of buying

smartphone.

Isen (2011), Denise E.

(2005), Pederson, n.d,

Mei Min et al. (2012)

SI2 I will ask the opinions from my

friends and family when buying a

smartphone.

SI3 Most of my friends and family

members are using smartphone

SI4 Friends and family members believe

that smartphone are useful to them

SI5 I will seek for information from

social network and forums before

buying a smartphone

Purchase

intention

PI1 I will continue using smartphone. Dalsang Chung, Sun

Gi Chun (2011); PI2 I intend to buy a smartphone.

25

Kiwon Lee, Euiho

Suh, Jihye Park

(2012), Ling (2011),

Hyuk Jun & Margaret A

(2008), Ching-Fu &

Yu-Ying (2008)

PI3 I intend to replace my smartphone

with a better one.

PI4 I will share about my smartphone

with my friend and family member

PI5 I am willing recommend my

friend/family member to buy a

smartphone.

Table 1 - Coded items of measurement scale

3.3 Data analysis

Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) 20.0 will be used to analyze collected

data. The section will present an overall view of various techniques to be used in the

research for data analysis

3.3.1 Descriptive statistics

As a tool to describe a set of factors’ characteristics in a particular context, descriptive

statistics might be presented as a form that provide information about the factors after

a transformation process from raw data. The techniques include of the popular

following information: frequencies, measures of central tendency and dispersion.

3.3.2 Reliability test

Cronbach’s alpha is a reliability coefficient to indicate if items are positivily

correlated to one another in a set Cavana et al. (2001), while it is computed by the

average of inter-correlations among the items, its value can be vary from 0 to 1.

According to Nunnally (1978), Cronbach’s alpha value of item at 0.6 and above is

acceptable, especially for investigations.

3.3.3 Exploratory factor analysis (EFA)

It is necessary to examines if provided items are completed by respondent are

included in particular factors or clusters, the technique of this process is called

26

exploratory factor analysis (Cavana et al, 2001). While EFA allows us to eliminate

invalid items from the scale, it also group the items into relevant group in accordance

with the respondent’s data. Low factor loading item (< 0.5) were deleted.

3.3.4 Pearson Correlation Coefficient Test

Pearson correlation coefficient is to measures the strength of the linear relationship of

two variables. In the other hand, it also confirm the significant and the strength of

those relationships. The strength of the relationship could be demonstrate as the table

below:

Coefficient Range Strength of Association

± 0.91 to ± 1.00 Very Strong

± 0.71 to ± 0.90 High

± 0.41 to ± 0.70 Moderate

± 0.21 to ±0.40 Small but definite relationship

± 0.00 to ±0.20 Slight, almost negligible

Table 2 - Rules of Thumb about Correlation Coefficient

3.3.5 Multiple regression analysis

The techniques of multiple regression is to analyse the impact of the factors that

influence the purchase intention of smartphone among office workers in Hochiminh

City. Multiple regression analysis also form the independent variables into equation

and forecast the dependent variable. At last, multiple regression analysis will

determine how the independent variables (Price, Brand, Compatibility, Product

Features, Relative Advantage and Social Influence) are significant to explain the

variance in confidence level.

27

CHAPTER 4. DATA ANALYISIS AND FINDINGS

4.1 Sample description

4.1.1 Sample

A total of 257 questionnaires has been finished from the respondents who are office

workers in Hochiminh City. However, as the unexpected quality of 39 surveys has

been recorded, they were dropped from the final data collection. Those surveys were

found to be unfinished or rated as under expectation while supplying the same

answers in all fields (like all 4 or all 5 answers in the likert scale). After excluding

those results, the valid answer was 218 at a rate of 84% in total. The collected data

was coded to be analysed with the SPSS for further conclusions.

4.1.2 Demographic profile

Descriptive statistic was used to summary the profile of 218 surveys. Results could be

found in detail as the below table and figures:

28

Demographic Characteristics Frequency

(n) Percentage

(%) Gender 218 100%Male 109 50%Female 109 50%Age 218 100%Under 22 20 9.2From 22 to 29 140 64.2From 30 to 39 49 22.5From 40 to 49 7 3.250 or older 2 0.9Income 218 100%Less than 8,000,000 Vnd 92 42.2From 8,000,000 to Less than 12,000,000 Vnd 72 33From 12,000,000 to Less than 18,000,000 Vnd 29 13.3From 18,000,000 to Less than 25,000,000 Vnd 13 6Above 25,000,000 Vnd 12 5.5

Table 3 - Demographic of Respondents

50%50%MaleFemale

Figure 3 - Sex of Respondents

The gender distribution in the research accidentally fall into an absolute balance

between male and female respondent. While 109 male respondents were recorded

with a percentage of 50, the same number has also been found in female respondents.

This could be surprisingly consider that male and female both paid their intention to

the smartphone topic.

29

9%

64%

22%

3% 1%

Under 22From 22 to 29From 30 to 39From 40 to 4950 or older

Figure 4 - Age of Respondents

In terms of age, the group of respondents capture the largest portion was found from

22 to 29 years old. This age group gain a percentage of 64%. The group from 30 to 39

showed a percentage of 23% ranked in second. Meanwhile, the group of age from 50

and above have the least percentage of 1%. It is considered that most of office

workers are in range from 22 to 39 years old and they have a more high-tech

consuming direction comparing to other groups.

42%

33%

13%

6%6%

Less than 8,000,000 VndFrom 8,000,000 to Less than 12,000,000 VndFrom 12,000,000 to Less than 18,000,000 VndFrom 18,000,000 to Less than 25,000,000 VndAbove 25,000,000 Vnd

Figure 5 - Average income of respondents

30

Less than

8,000,000 Vnd

From 8,000,000 to Less

than 12,000,000 Vnd

From 12,000,0

00 to Less than

18,000,000 Vnd

From 18,000,0

00 to Less than

25,000,000 Vnd

Above 25,000,000 Vnd

Total

Under 22 16 2 0 0 0 18From 22 to 29 70 52 14 4 2 142From 30 to 39 6 16 10 7 10 49From 40 to 49 0 0 5 2 0 7

50 or older 0 2 0 0 0 2Total 92 72 29 13 12 218

Table 4 - Crosstab between age and average income of respondents

There might be a connection between the age and the average income of the

respondents. Most of them fall in the average income of under 12,000,000 Vnd. While

42% of them have the income under 8,000,000 Vnd, a percentage of 33% has been

recorded from the group of income from 8,000,000 Vnd to less than 12,000,000 Vnd.

The rest respondents with average income from 12,000,000 and above gain a

percentage of 25%, this could also be a recognizable results. At last, it has been seen

that while youngster show more favor to smartphone, they are still in a lower average

income in comparison with the older ones. In cross-tabulation calculation, the

respondents in the age from 22 to 29 show the largest portion in average income of

under 8,000,000 Vnd (32% of total respondents) and from 8,000,000 Vnd to

12,000,000 Vnd (24% of total respondents)

31

4.2 Descriptive statistics

Variable Label Mean Std. DeviationPrice is my main consideration when deciding whether to buy a smartphone.

PR1 3.56 .736

I will only buy smartphone on price reduction or promotion.

PR2 3.37 .746

I compare prices of other Smartphone‘s brands and store brands before I choose one.

PR3 3.99 .709

I buy Smartphone because they are worth to used regarding between with their price & usage quality.

PR4 4.10 .664

The cheapness of some Smartphone‘s brand suggests to me that they may have some risks, such as low quality.

PR5 3.74 .859

Brand name is a major factor that will influence my decision towards buying a smartphone.

BR1 3.90 .711

I prefer to choose globally brand while buying smartphone.

BR2 3.92 .720

I prefer to choose a trustworthy smartphone brand.

BR3 4.13 .673

I only choose smartphone brand of my favourite

BR4 3.92 .767

I am willing to choose a less well-known brand if its products could fulfill my needs.

BR5 3.94 .703

Smartphone is compatible and fit with my needs.

CO1 4.05 .670

Smartphone is compatible and fit with my lifestyle / working style.

C02 4.14 .583

Smartphone fit with my habits of using cell phones.

CO3 3.94 .732

Smartphone is a good complement to the traditional mobile phones for me.

CO4 4.04 .779

Smartphone can fulfill my want and needs in current life.

CO5 4.02 .692

I like the smartphone ability of taking photos and videos

FE1 4.04 .646

Smartphone provide high quality of games FE2 3.75 .739Smartphone has lots of useful applications FE3 4.11 .552Smartphone can connect to internet easily (with wifi, 3G)

FE4 4.27 .639

I choose smartphone due to its operating system (iOS, Android, Blackberry OS, Windows Phone,…)

FE5 3.98 .750

32

Smartphone are more convenient, reliable, and useful than normal mobile phones.

RA1 3.85 .803

Smartphone are more fashionable, stylish, and trendy.

RA2 3.80 .929

Smartphone can be synchronized with other gadgets

RA3 4.07 .699

Smartphone bigger screen and full keyboard make different functions easier to use.

RA4 3.99 .859

Smartphone sometimes help me to solve my work instantly.

RA5 4.04 .743

Friends and family are very helpful to me in making decision of buying smartphone.

SI1 2.63 .999

I will ask the opinions from my friends and family when buying a smartphone.

SI2 3.31 1.027

Most of my friends and family members are using smartphone

SI3 3.69 .700

Friends and family members believe that smartphone are useful to them

SI4 3.73 .722

I will seek for information from social network and forums before buying a smartphone

SI5 3.81 .784

I will continue using smartphone. PI1 3.94 .818I intend to buy a smartphone. PI2 4.29 .655I intend to replace my smartphone with a better one.

PI3 4.06 .862

I will share about my smartphone with my friend and family member

PI4 3.68 .836

I am willing recommend my friend/family member to buy a smartphone.

PI5 3.64 .815

Table 5 – Descriptive statistics of respondents

Mean value of the variables have been display in the above table. Mean of Price vary

from 3.37 to 4.10, with the lowest value found in PR2 (I will only buy smartphone on

price reduction or promotion) at 3.37, which mean the marketing tactics base on price

may not preferred much from the office workers. In contrast, they have more

consensus in PR4 (I buy Smartphone because they are worth to used regarding

between with their price & usage quality) at value of 4.10. Which means that product

in the balancing between price and quality would attract more attention.

33

Brand’s items have rather high mean value ranging from 3.90 to 4.13. In particular,

the most high rated item is BR3 (I prefer to choose a trustworthy smartphone brand)

with mean value of 4.13, which means that unknown brand might not easy to capture

the intention of office workers. Meanwhile, BR1 (Brand name is a major factor that

will influence my decision towards buying a smartphone) get the lowest rate at mean

of 3.90.

The mean of Compatibility’s items are extremely high in a narrow range from 3.94 to

4.14. This means that office workers have ideas in this factor consistently. The lowest

value is CO3 (Smartphone fit with my habits of using cell phones), while the highest

one is CO2 (Smartphone is compatible and fit with my lifestyle / working style).

Highest mean value of dependent variable found in Product Features item of FE4

(Smartphone can connect to internet easily (with wifi, 3G)) at 4.27. This raise a

potential of using smartphone as an ideal surfing gadget. Meanwhile, FE3

(Smartphone provide high quality of games) with mean value of 3.75 is the lowest.

We can consider that office workers prefer need more connection ability than gaming.

The mean value of Relative advantage factor items found from 3.80 to 4.07. The most

important concern of consumers in the factor is the RA3 (Smartphone can be

synchronized with other gadgets) with mean value of 4.07, which provided function to

sync between users’ hi-tech stuffs with smartphone (E.g.: tablet of laptop). In the

other hand, respondents rate “Smartphone are more fashionable, stylish, and trendy”

(RA2) at a lower mean value of 3.80

In term of Social Influence, means of variables have high difference from 2.63 to

3.81, in which, the lowest value of dependent variables found. At the value of 2.63,

SI1 (Friends and family are very helpful to me in making decision of buying

34

smartphone.) have least rated among the office workers, this somehow proves that the

consumers tend to look for other sources rather than friends or families while

choosing their smartphone. In contrast, it is supposed that the office workers might

find more references on social network or forums as the “I will seek for information

from social network and forums before buying a smartphone” (SI5) item was

recognized at the highest mean value of 3.81.

For the independent variable, the mean of Purchasing Intention is valued from 3.64 to

4.29. While the PI5 (I am willing recommend my friend/family member to buy a

smartphone) has the lowest value of 3.64, the highest mean value is recorded in PI2 (I

intend to buy a smartphone) at 4.29.

4.3 Cronbach’s alpha reliability test

According to Geogre and Mallery (2003), a Cronbach’s Alpha calculation can be

categorized into various status which is shown as below table:

Cronbach's alpha Internal consistency

α ≥ 0.9 Excellent

α ≥ 0.8 Good

α ≥ 0.7 Acceptable

α ≥ 0.6 Questionable

α ≥ 0.5 Poor

α < 0.5 Unacceptable

Table 6 - Cronbach's Alpha rule based on George and Mallery

Factor Number of Item Cronbach's AlphaPrice 5 0.713Brand 5 0.702Compatibility 5 0.742Product Features 5 0.732

35

Relative Advantage 5 0.745Social Influence 5 0.741Purchase Intention 5 0.765

Table 7 - Reliability test for consumer’s purchase intention on smartphone

From the data analysed in the research, we can see that all the factors have the

Cronbach’s Alpha as range between 0.70 and 0.77, which are considered to be

acceptable for the research. Or in the order words, those items were well designed and

data is reliable.

However, when analyzing into particular items, the researcher found that not all the

value of each item in the factor Brand are valid. According to Field (2005) and Pallant

(2007), values less than 0.3 indicate that the item is measuring something different

from the whole scale. Meanwhile, to determine the effect of removing items from

each sub-scale, “Cronbach’s alpha if deleted” is used (Lemmens, 2010). Since then,

the item whose Cronbach’s alpha if item deleted is larger than the overall Cronbach’s

alpha and corrected item total correlation is less than 0.3 will be discarded from the

variable list. From the below table of the Cronbach’s alpha from the factor Brand, the

item BR5 was removed at first (Corrected Item-Total Correlation of 0.286 and

Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted of 0.720).

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items

.702 5

Item-Total Statistics

 Scale Mean if Item Deleted

Scale Variance if Item Deleted

Corrected Item-Total Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha if Item

DeletedBR1 15.91 4.108 .425 .666BR2 15.89 3.588 .636 .574BR3 15.68 3.839 .586 .601

36

BR4 15.89 4.052 .388 .684BR5 15.87 4.494 .286 .720

Table 8 – Reliability test of Brand (1st run)

After re-run the SPSS reliability test for the items BR1, BR2, BR3, BR4, we

continued to remove the item of BR4 as its Corrected Item-Total Correlation is 0.297

and the Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted is 0.786. In the last run including of BR1,

BR2 and BR3, all the value were well construct and will be used in the next step of

calculating the Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items

.720 4

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if Item Deleted

Scale Variance if Item Deleted

Corrected Item-Total Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted

BR1 11.97 2.759 .520 .652

BR2 11.95 2.454 .675 .554

BR3 11.74 2.738 .584 .616

BR4 11.94 3.103 .297 .786

Table 9 - Reliability test of Brand (2nd run)

37

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items

.786 3

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if Item Deleted

Scale Variance if Item Deleted

Corrected Item-Total Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted

BR1 8.05 1.574 .573 .765

BR2 8.03 1.419 .680 .647

BR3 7.82 1.588 .625 .710

Table 10 - Reliability test of Brand (3rd run)

To sum up, all the items of the research will have a valid reliability shown in the

below table. More details of other items could be found in the Appendix.

Factor Number of Item Cronbach's AlphaPrice 5 0.713Brand 5 0.786Compatibility 5 0.742Product Features 5 0.732Relative Advantage 5 0.745Social Influence 5 0.741Purchase Intention 5 0.765Table 11 - The final table of Cronbach’s alpha reliability test

4.4 Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

In this section, the researcher present the results of the Exploratory factor analysis

(EFA), which might explain the number of underlying factors or dimensions of each

construct. By using the technique, we will drop some invalid items and group all

items into relevant groups. Varimax rotation would be used to minimize the number

38

of variables that have high loading in each factor. In the EFA calculation, there are

several criteria to be follow with:

The KMO value must be equal or greater than 0.5

Factor maximum absolute value loading must be greater than 0.5

The difference between the maximum absolute value and minimum absolute

value of loading factors must be greater than or equal to 0.3 for any item

(Jabnoun and Al-Tamimi, 2003)

Total variance explained must be greater than or equal to 50%

The KMO test of the research found a value of 0.669, which is above of the minimum

requirements. The Barlett’s test of schericity was recorded of 0.000, which is

significant at the level of 0.01, this means that factor analysis could be used in this

study and the scale is usable

KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.

.669

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity

Approx. Chi-Square 2405.214

df 378

Sig. .000

Rotated component matrix would show the items under each factor to be grouped in

relevant items. The minimal value of each item on the table should be 0.5. Regarding

to the research, all items were loaded in the range of 0.557 and 0.849 under new nine

dimension describe as below table:

39

Rotated Component Matrixa

Component

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

RA4 .782RA1 .671RA5 .642RA2 .624RA3 .603FE1 .775FE2 .695FE5 .679FE4 .677PR2 .797PR1 .731PR5 .589PR3 .586BR2 .843BR3 .833BR1 .771CO1 .837CO2 .799CO3 .732SI1 .829SI2 .793SI5 .557SI3 .849SI4 .738FE3 .635PR4 .629CO4 .760CO5 .611

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.a. Rotation converged in 13 iterations.

Table 12 – Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) for independent variables

The new factor after the EFA test shall be categorized with new items as below:

40

Factor Variables included Name Label

Factor 1 RA1, RA2, RA3,

RA4, RA5

Relative advantage RA

Factor 2 FE1, FE2, FE4, FE5 Product Features FE

Factor 3 PR1, PR2, PR3, PR5 Price PR

Factor 4 BR1, BR2, BR3 Brand BR

Factor 5 CO1, CO2, CO3 Compatibility CO

Factor 6 SI1, SI2, SI5 Social influence SI

Factor 7 SI3, SI4 Social interaction SIN

Factor 8 FE3, PR4 Performance PE

Factor 9 CO4, CO5 Preference PN

Table 13 – Group of EFA

A similar test has been applied to the dependent variables of purchase intention in order to examine if all the items are grouped into one or not:

KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .739

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity

Approx. Chi-Square297.187

df10

Sig..000

Component Matrixa

Component

1

PI2 .774PI4 .731PI1 .721PI5 .700

41

PI3 .686

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.a. 1 components extracted.

Table 14 – Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) for independent variables

As the above table, we could discover that the KMO is 0.739, meanwhile, the

Bartlett’s test of sphericity is 0.000. The both values show that the variable PI was

retained and was expectedly group into one group as proposed.

4.5 Pearson Correlation Coefficient

Pearson Correlation Coefficient is to indicate the direction, strength as well as the

significant of the bivariate relationships between the variables measured on interval

scale (Hair et al., 2007)

42

Correlations

  RA FE PR BR CO SI SIN PE PN PIRA Pearson

Correlation1 .207** .137* .183** .180** .007 .237** .111 .393** .459**

Sig. (2-tailed)   .002 .043 .007 .008 .912 .000 .104 .000 .000

N 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 218

FE Pearson Correlation

.207** 1 .028 .177** .319** -.047 .178** .353** .272** .447**

Sig. (2-tailed) .002   .679 .009 .000 .487 .008 .000 .000 .000

N 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 218

PR Pearson Correlation

.137* .028 1 .195** -.062 .042 -.021 .369** -.035 .061

Sig. (2-tailed) .043 .679   .004 .359 .540 .757 .000 .611 .371

N 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 218

BR Pearson Correlation

.183** .177** .195** 1 .225** -.012 .086 .193** .156* .170*

Sig. (2-tailed) .007 .009 .004   .001 .865 .208 .004 .021 .012

N 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 218

CO Pearson Correlation

.180** .319** -.062 .225** 1 -.117 .060 .232** .417** .205**

Sig. (2-tailed) .008 .000 .359 .001   .085 .381 .001 .000 .002

N 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 218

SI Pearson Correlation

.007 -.047 .042 -.012 -.117 1 .412** .022 .057 .008

Sig. (2-tailed) .912 .487 .540 .865 .085   .000 .752 .401 .911

N 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 218

SIN Pearson Correlation

.237** .178** -.021 .086 .060 .412** 1 .141* .108 .179**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .008 .757 .208 .381 .000   .038 .111 .008

N 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 218

PE Pearson Correlation

.111 .353** .369** .193** .232** .022 .141* 1 .233** .285**

Sig. (2-tailed) .104 .000 .000 .004 .001 .752 .038   .001 .000

N 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 218

PN Pearson Correlation

.393** .272** -.035 .156* .417** .057 .108 .233** 1 .537**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .611 .021 .000 .401 .111 .001   .000

N 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 218

PI Pearson Correlation

.459** .447** .061 .170* .205** .008 .179** .285** .537** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .371 .012 .002 .911 .008 .000 .000  

N 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 218

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

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Table 15 - Pearson Correlation Testing

The above table shows the correlations between independent variables and dependent

variable. There are two factors found to be insignificant with the dependent variables

Purchase intention: Price (PR) and Social Influence (SI) have the P value of 0.371 and

43

0.911 which are considerably higher than 0.05. The other factors with P value under

0.05 are acceptable.

The relation between Relative advantage (RA) and Purchase intention (PI) is

considered at a medium rate as the correlation value is 0.459. This value fall in a

range of ± 0.41 to ± 0.70, which is said to be a moderate strength.

A similar relation also has been found between the Product Features (FE) and

Purchase intention. While the correlation value falls between ± 0.41 to ± 0.70, at the

number of 0.447. It is concluded that there is a moderate correlation between Product

Features and Purchase intention.

There is a relationship between Brand (BR) and Purchase intention. However, as the

correlation value is just 0.170, in the range of ± 0.00 to ±0.20, this relationship is just

considered as a slightly rate.

Meanwhile, there are stronger relationship between Compatibility (CO) and Purchase

intention. While falling in the range of ± 0.21 to ±0.40, the correlation value is 0.205.

In conclusion, there is definite a relationship between Compatibility and Purchase

intention, however, at a small strength.

There is evidence to consider a relation between Preference (PN) and Purchase

intention. As the correlation value is 0.537, it falls between ± 0.41 to ± 0.70. This

indicates there is a moderate relationship between Preference and Purchase intention.

Social interaction (SIN) and Purchase intention are at a negligible relationship. The

correlation value appears to be 0.179, hence, there is just a slight relationship between

the two variables

44

There is surely a relationship between Performance (PE) and Purchase intention. As

the correlation value is 0.285, we can conclude that there is definite a relationship

between the two variables, nevertheless, this relationship is in a small strength.

4.6 Multiple Regression Analysis

Weiers (2008) stated that multiple regression analysis is an analysis with one

dependent variable and two or more dependent variables participate in. In the other

hand, Zikmund et al., (2010) demonstrate it to be an association in which the effects

of two or more independent variables on a single, interval-scaled dependent variable

which are investigated continuously.

Model Summaryb

Model R R Square Adjusted R SquareStd. Error of the

Estimate1 .677a .458 .440 .43019a. Predictors: (Constant), PN, SIN, BR, PE, FE, RA, COb. Dependent Variable: PI

According to the Model Summary table, the R Square value, which is determined for

the explained variation (variance) in Purchase intention from the seven factors

including Relative advantage, Product Features, Brand, Compatibility, Social

interaction, Performance and Preference is approximately 45.8%. This means that

there is also 55.2% unexplained still left in the study. Meanwhile, the multiple

correlation coefficient (R) provides the strength of the relationship between the

dependent variable and independent variables is 0.677

45

ANOVAa

ModelSum of Squares df

Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 32.883 7 4.698 25.384 .000b

Residual 38.863 210 .185    Total 71.745 217      

a. Dependent Variable: PIb. Predictors: (Constant), PN, SIN, BR, PE, FE, RA, CO

The p-value (Significant of 0.000) in the ANOVA table is less than 0.05. Its means

that the alternative hypothesis as the independent variables are significantly explains

the variance in consumers' level is supported by the data and will be accepted.

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients

t Sig.BStd.

Error Beta1 (Constant) .094 .369   .254 .800

RA .254 .058 .252 4.411 .000FE .329 .065 .291 5.070 .000BR .020 .052 .021 .387 .699

CO -.123 .061 -.119 -2.033 .043

SIN .017 .047 .019 .355 .723PE .100 .064 .086 1.553 .122PN .360 .057 .382 6.315 .000

Table 16 - Multiple regression testing

At last, the Coefficients table provides that the following independent variables are

not significant to predict the dependent variable including: Brand (p-value of 0.699),

Social interaction (p-value of 0.723) and Performance (p-value of 0.122). Those

values are excluded while they are higher than the alpha level of 0.05. In contrast,

Relative advantage (RA), Product Features (FE), Compatibility (CO) and Preference

46

(PN) are significant to predict the Purchase intention. Those independent variables

have p-value less than alpha of 0.05. Hence, the relationship between these variables

can be formed by the following equation, which is supported by the above table:

Purchase intention = 0.094 + 0.254(Relative Advantage) + 0.329(Product

Features) - 0.123(Compatibility) + 0.360(Preference)

4.7 Test of Hypothesis

After several stages of testing, the initial hypothesis has been seen to change as the

dependent variables transformed into various groups. The test of hypothesis would be

modified to match with the data collected and previous analyzing. In particular, they

were examined as follow:

Hypothesis 1

H0: There is no impact from compatibility towards purchase intention of Smartphone

among office workers in Hochiminh City

H1: There is an impact from compatibility towards purchase intention of Smartphone

among office workers in Hochiminh City

Reject H0, if p<0.05

As the multiple regression table shows that the p-value of compatibility is 0.043,

which is less than the significant level of 0.05. Hence, H0 was rejected, it means that

compatibility has an impact towards purchase intention.

Hypothesis 2

H0: There is no impact from Product Features towards purchase intention of

Smartphone among office workers in Hochiminh City

47

H1: There is an impact from Product Features towards purchase intention of

Smartphone among office workers in Hochiminh City

Reject H0, if p<0.05

As the multiple regression table shows that the p-value of Product Features is 0.000,

which is less than the significant level of 0.05. Hence, H0 was rejected, it means that

Product Features has an impact towards purchase intention.

Hypothesis 3

H0: There is no impact from brand towards purchase intention of Smartphone among

office workers in Hochiminh City

H1: There is an impact from brand towards purchase intention of Smartphone among

office workers in Hochiminh City

Reject H0, if p<0.05

As the multiple regression table shows that the p-value of brand is 0.699, which is

higher than the significant level of 0.05. Hence, H0 was accepted, it means that brand

has no impact towards purchase intention.

Hypothesis 4

H0: There is an impact from social interaction towards purchase intention of

Smartphone among office workers in Hochiminh City

H1: There is an impact from social interaction towards purchase intention of

Smartphone among office workers in Hochiminh City

Reject H0, if p<0.05

48

As the multiple regression table shows that the p-value of social interaction is 0.723,

which is higher than the significant level of 0.05. Hence, H0 was accepted, it means

that social interaction has no impact towards purchase intention.

Hypothesis 5

H0: There is an impact from performance towards purchase intention of Smartphone

among office workers in Hochiminh City

H1: There is an impact from performance towards purchase intention of Smartphone

among office workers in Hochiminh City

Reject H0, if p<0.05

As the multiple regression table shows that the p-value of performance is 0.723,

which is higher than the significant level of 0.05. Hence, H0 was accepted, it means

that performance has no impact towards purchase intention.

Hypothesis 6

H0: There is an impact from preference towards purchase intention of Smartphone

among office workers in Hochiminh City

H1: There is an impact from preference towards purchase intention of Smartphone

among office workers in Hochiminh City

Reject H0, if p<0.05

As the multiple regression table shows that the p-value of preference is 0.000, which

is less than the significant level of 0.05. Hence, H0 was rejected, it means that

preference has an impact towards purchase intention.

49

Hypothesis 7

H0: There is an impact from relative advantage towards purchase intention of

Smartphone among office workers in Hochiminh City

H1: There is an impact from relative advantage towards purchase intention of

Smartphone among office workers in Hochiminh City

Reject H0, if p<0.05

As the multiple regression table shows that the p-value of relative advantage is 0.000,

which is less than the significant level of 0.05. Hence, H0 was rejected, it means that

relative advantage has an impact towards purchase intention.

Hypothesis 8

H0: No factors (Brand, Relative Advantage, Compatibility, Performance, Preference,

Social Interaction and Product Features) have the most significant influence on the

purchase intention of smartphone among office workers in Hochiminh City

H1: At least one factor (Brand, Relative Advantage, Compatibility, Performance,

Preference, Social Interaction and Product Features) has the most significant influence

on the purchase intention of smartphone among office workers in Hochiminh City

Reject H0, if p < 0.05

There are four factors influence on the purchase intention of smartphone among the

office workers in Hochiminh City: Relative advantage, Product Features,

Compatibility and Preference. Those three factors have p-value of under the

significant level of 0.05. Step back to the table of Regression above, preference will

50

be the factor most significant influence on purchase intention of smartphone among

office workers in Hochiminh City as its highest Beta value of 0.382

51

CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSION

5.1 Conclusion

This study explores the factors influence on the purchase intention of smartphone. 218

respondents have been selected to measure the purchase intention of smartphone.

Questionnaires were provided, which will collect data into 5 groups of independent

variables.

The respondents of this study including of 50% males and 50% females

unintentionally. Meanwhile, most of respondents are at the age of 22 to 29 with 64%.

Most of them have an average income less than 8,000,000 VND (32% in detail). The

Product Features of connect to internet was founded to be an important items as its

mean of 4.29. In contrast, the least mean of item value was 2.63 of “Friends and

family are very helpful to me in making decision of buying smartphone” in Social

influence.

The data analyze also presented some irrelevant points in the study. Two items were

excluded from the factor Brand after three times of Cronbach’s alpha test. This stage

has also demonstrated that all factors had the reliability value in range of 0.7 to 0.8,

which is considered as a good rate.

Several factors have been examined if they have impact on the purchasing intention of

smartphone in this study. From the very beginning, the researchers spend efforts

analyzing this relationship between the dependent variables and the independent

variables including: Price, Brand, Compatibility, Relative Advantage, Product

Features and Social Influence. Nevertheless, collected data present that office workers

in Hochiminh City has been affected by Relative Advantage, Product Features,

52

Compatibility and Preference. While the first three variables as listed are proposed at

first, the last variables was surprisingly discovered after the validity test. The variable

was a part of the previous items found in Product Features and Price. Furthermore,

Preference is also known as the variable which most influence the purchase intention

with the highest Beta in Multiple Regression Calculation. However, Compatibility

was also found to have negative relationship with purchase intention. Meanwhile, the

rest three factors were known to play a vital role in affecting the dependent variable.

Since then, adjustments of those three factors will lead to changes of purchasing

intention in reality.

Evidences from the study demonstrated that, smartphone firms might be inherited

from the buying decision if they could enhance the effect of Relative Advantage,

Product Features, Compatibility and Preference into real product, as well as into their

marketing strategy.

5.2 Practical implication

From the academic findings, practical implication is also recommended, which might

support the managerial decisions of smartphone manufacturers in term of product

development, marketing and communication.

While Relative Advantage has been proven to have impact on purchase intention, it is

suggested to enhance the advantages of smartphone towards the old feature phones.

Instead of perceiving a just-enough-to-use phone, consumers nowadays require more

hi-tech complements, more fashion and style and higher integration. Invest on product

development with leading value continuously might raise an advantage for

smartphone, especially, in the segment of office workers, who are at intensive use of

smartphone.

53

Product Features is yet another field to consider in product development. For office

workers, who are examined to prefer function of gaming, taking photos and

connecting to internet, those phone with ready feature to fulfill their requirements

might take a easily step to approach those group of consumers. As well as focus on

these features for firm’s marcom campaign. Especially, when the manufacturer has

their ability on offering high-quality of those features, take them as their unique

selling points to promote as a key road to conquer the consumers.

Last but not least, Preference has been analyzed to be the most significant impact on

the purchase intention, which means their items regarding the use of applications and

price per quality would be considered as most important things to smartphone

producers. It is essential to understand that office workers, who tend to have higher

education comparing to other group of society, may spend time and efforts in

searching information and review for a smartphone. Since then, those people logically

require a competitive price in connection with the quality they will perceive.

Furthermore, as employees work in environment of computing machines, applications

with productivity would be an useful tool into their smartphone. Firms might pay

attention to provide such appropriate price with meaningful software to satisfy their

consumers.

In addition to the above implications, it is necessary for firm to collaborate with their

consumers. Review and feedback from consumers for a smartphone function, design,

price and build quality is required to build a strong relation between manufacturer and

consumers, as well as to deeply understand the consumers continuously.

54

5.3 Limitation and further recommendation

The data analyze has concerned about the precision of factors and items included.

There are items and factors removed from the initial proposal, which have let to

changes of analyzing factors and items. However, as the purpose to understand the

relationship between factors influencing the purchase intention of smartphone, later

analyze has significant discover to unhide the researcher’s questions. Alongside the

usefulness findings, this research has several limitation to be discussed.

Firstly, with a narrow scope of office workers in Hochiminh City with small samples,

this research does not have ability to generalize the results in term of the whole

country. It is recommended to have further studies in different cities and province

with larger samples. Since then, more accurate insights of smartphone consumers

would be draw out to represent for the Vietnamese smartphone market.

Secondly, the study sample has not include the other groups as teenager or students,

who are very fond of smartphone and have highly intention to use smartphone.

Further explanation for more segment insight should give a wider picture for firms to

consider while planning to launch new products.

Thirdly, various stages of the consumers’ buying decision have not included in this

research. Those stages also have important impact on the purchase intention of

consumers, it is suggested that researchers should also consider and fulfill other

determinants.

55

ReferencesAaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity. Capitalizing on the Value of Brand

Name, Free Press, New York, NY.

Anderson, D. R., Sweeney, D. J., & Williams, T. A. (2008). Statistics for Business

and Economics. Cengage Learning.

Armstrong, J. S., Morwitz, V. G., & Kumar, V. (2000). Sales forecasts for existing

consumer products and services: Do purchase intentions contribute to accuracy.

International Journal of Forecasting, 16(3), 383-397.

Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of

judgment. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership and men. Pittsburgh: PA:

Carnegie Press.

Bickart, B., & Schindler, R. (2001). Internet forums as influential sources of

consumer. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 15(3), 31-40.

Blackwell, R. D., Miniard, P. W., & Engel, J. F. (2001). Consumer behavior 9th.

Mason, Ohio: South-Western.

Bolton, R.N. (1989). The relationship between market characteristics and promotional

price elasticities. Marketing Science, 8(2), 153-69.

Brown, I., Cajee, Z., Davies, D., & Stroebel, S. (2003). Cell phone banking:

Predictors of adoption in South Africa - An exploratory study. International Journal

of Information Management, 23, 381-394.

56

Cavana, RY, Delahaye, BL & Sekaran, U (2001), Applied Business Research:

Qualitative and Quantitative Methods, John Wiley & Sons, Qld, Aust.

Chang, Y. F. and Chen, C. S. (2005). Smart phone – the choice of client platform for

mobile commerce. Computer Standards & Interfaces, 27, 329-336.

Cheong, J.H. and Park, M.C. (2005). Mobile internet acceptance in Korea. Internet

Research, 15(2), 125-140.

Ching-Fu, C., & Yu-Ying, C. (2008). Airline brand equity, brand preference, and

purchase intentions. Journal of Air Transport Management, 14, 40–42.

Ching-Han, K., Chun-Ming, Y., Yi-Chung, W., & Ming-Chuen, C (2010). User's

Preference Factors in the Development of Fashion Technology Products for Design

Background Using Smartphones as an Example.

Cnossen, & Christine. (1997). School of Public Administration and Law, the Robert

Gordon University. Retrieved June 14, 2012, from Secondary Research: Learning

Paper 7: jura2.eee.rgu.ac.uk/dsk5/research/mater

Dalsang Chung, Sun Gi Chun (2011), An exploratory study on determining factors for

the smartphone selection decision, Issues in Information Systems, Volume XII, No. 1,

pp. 291-300.

Denise E., A. (2005). People, places, and questions: An investigation of the everyday

life information-seeking behaviors of urban young adults. 27(2), 141-163.

Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B. and Gerwal, D. (1991). Effects of price, brand and store

information on buyers’ product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 307-

19.

57

Etgar, M. and Malhotra, N.K. (1981). Determinants of price dependency: Personal

and perceptual factors. Journal of Consumer Research, 8 (2), 217-222.

Farquhar, P. H. (1989). Managing Brand Equity. Marketing Research, 1, September,

24-33.

Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

Gatignon, H., & Robertson, T. S. (1985). A propositional inventory for new diffusion

research. Journal of Consumer Research. 11, 849-866.

George D & Mallery P (2003) SPSS for windows step by step: A sample

Guide & reference, Boston; Allyn & Bacon.

Gourville, J. T. (2006). Eager Sellers and Stony Buyers: Understanding the

Psychology of New-Product Adoption. Harvard Business Review, 84 (6).

Grewal, D., Krishanan, R., Baker, J., & Borin, N. (1998). The Effect of Store Name,

Brand Name and Price Discounts on Consumers' Evaluations and Purchase Intentions.

Journal of Retailing, 74 (3), 331-352.

He, Q., Duan, Y., Fu, Z., & Li, D. (2006). An Innovation Adoption Study of Online

E-Payment in Chinese Companies. Journal of Electronic Commerce in Organizations,

4, 48-64.

Ho, C. H., & Wu, W. (2011). Role of Innovativeness of Consumer in Relationship

between Perceived Attributes of New Products and Intention to Adopt. International

journal of electronic business management, 9, 258-266.

Holak, S. L., & Lehmann, D. R. (1990). Purchase Intentions and the Dimensions of

Innovation: An Exploratory Model. Product innovation management, 5973

58

Hyuk Jun, C., & Margaret A, M. (2008). Consumers' Reliance on Product Information

and Recommendations Found in UGC. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 8, 2.

Ima Ilyani Ibrahim, et al., (2013). Antecedent Stirring Purchase Intention of

Smartphone among Adolescents in Perlis. International Journal of Academic

Research in Business and Social Sciences, Vol. 3, No. 12

Fliegel, Frederick, C., & Joseph, E. K. (1966). Attributes of Innovations as Factors in

Diffusion. American Journal of Sociology, 72, 235 - 248.

Isen, A. M. (2011). An Influence of Positive Affect on Decision Making in Complex

Situations: Theoretical Issues with Practical Implications. Journal of Consumer

Psychology, 11(2), 75-85.

Jane, E. S., & Peter, J. B. (2000). Identity Theory and Social Identity Theory. Social

Psychology Quarterly, 63 (3), 224-237.

Jee Han, Y., Joseph, C. N., & Xavier, D. (2010). Signaling Status with Luxury Goods:

The Role of Brand Prominence. Journal of Marketing, 74, 4.

Joep W, C. A., Ruud T, F., & Tammo H, A. B. (2011). Generalizations on consumer

innovation adoption: A meta-analysis on drivers of intention and behavior.

International Journal of Research in Marketing, 28(2), 134-144.

Juha, M. (2008). Customers' purchase intentions as a reflection of price perception.

Journal of Product & Brand Management, 17 (3), 188 – 196.

Key, & P., J. (1997). Questionnaire and interview as data-gathering tools. Retrieved

June 14, 2012, from Research Design in Occupational Education.

59

Khasawneh K and Hasouneh A. B. I. (2010). The effect of familiar brand names on

consumer behavior: A Jordanian Perspective. International Research Journal of

Finance Economics, 43.

Kim, E. Y., & Kim, Y. K. (2004). Predicting online purchase intentions for clothing

products. European Journal of Marketing, 38(7), 883-897.

Kiwon Lee, Euiho Suh, Jihye Park (2012), Pohang University of Science and

Technology, “A study on determinant factors to purchase for tablet PC and

smartphone by a comparative analysis”

Kotler, P., and Armstrong, G. (2007). Principles of Marketing (12th ed.). Boston:

Pearson Education.

Kunal, S. and Yoo, B.H (2010). Interaction between price and price deal. Journal of

Product & Brand Management, 19(2), 143-152.

L.Kurtz, D., H.F.MacKenzie, & Snow, K. (2009). Rate of Adoption Determinants,

Relative Advantage. In Contemporary Marketing. Cengage Learning.

Lange, F. A. (1925). The History of Materialism. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & Co.

Ling Chang (2011). Factors Influencing Changsha Teenagers‘ Purchase Intention

towards Celebrities. Assumption University Press (p. 37)

Malhotra, N. K. (1996). Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation. Prentice Hall.

Mei Min, et al., (2012). Factors Affecting the Demand of Smartphone among Young

Adult. International Journal on Social Science Economics & Art, Vol.02, No.02

Mohd Azam Osman (2012). A Study of the Trend of Smartphone and its Usage

Behavior in Malaysia

60

Monk, A., Hassenzahl, M., Blythe, M., & Reed, D. (2002). Funology: designing

enjoyment proceedings of Conference on Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in

Computer Systems, 924.

Monroe, K.B. (2003). Pricing: Making Profitable Decisions. Satisfaction: A

Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer (3rd ed). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Nagle, T.T., and Holden, R.K. (2002). The Strategy and Tactics of Pricing: A Guide

to Profitable Decision Making, 3rd ed., New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Nebenzahl I.D., and McLeod L.E. (2005). Adolescent brand consciousness and

product placements: awareness, liking and perceived effects on self and others.

International Journal of Consumer Studies, 29(6),515-528.

Osman, A., Sabudin, M., Osman, A., & Shiang-Yen. (2011). Consumer Behaviors

toward Usage of Smartphone in Malaysia. International Conference on Software and

Computer Applications, 9, 158-164.

Oulasvirta, A., Wahlstrom, M. and Ericsson K. A. (2011). What does it mean to be

good at using mobile device?

Park, Y. and Chen, J. V. (2007). Acceptance and adoption of the innovative use of

Smartphone. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 107(9), 1349-1365.

Pecotich, A., Pressley, M., & Roth, D. (1996). The impact of ethnocentrism on the

origin effect in the service sector. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 12(4),

213-224.

61

Pederson, P.E. (n.d). Adoption of mobile internet services: an exploratory study of

mobile commerce early adopters. Retrieved July 17, 2011 from

http://ikt.hia.no/perep/earlyadopt_paper2.pdf

Peter, C. (1969). The Begrudging Index and the Subjective Value of Money in Pricing.

London: London, Staples Press, Ltd.

Puth, G., Mostert, P. and Ewing, M. (1999). Consumer perceptions of mentioned

product and brand attributes in magazine advertising. Journal of product and brand

management, 8(1), 38-49.

Qiang Xu et al. (2011). Identifying Diverse Usage Behaviors of Smartphone App

Rao, A. and Monroe, K.B. (1988), “The moderating effect of prior knowledge on cue

utilizations in product evaluations”, Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (2), 253-64.

Rao, A. R. and Ruekert, R. W. (1994). Brand alliances as signals of product quality.

Sloan Management Review, 4, Fall, 87-97.

Rashotte L. (2007). Social Influences. Retrieved July 17, 2011 from Blackwell

Publishing

Rio, A.B., Vazquez, R. and Iglesias, V. (2001). The role of the brand name in

obtaining differential advantages. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 10(7),

452-465.

Roach, G. (2009). Consumer Perceptions of Mobile Phone Marketing: A Direct

Marketing Innovation. Direct marketing: an international journal, 3 (2), 124 - 138.

Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th edition). New York: The Free Press.

62

Rogers, E. M. (1976). New Product Adoption and Diffusion. Journal of Consumer

research, 2, 192-208.

Schiffman, L. G., & Kanuk, L. L. (2000). Consumer Behavior (7th ed.). Wisconsin:

Prentice Hall.

Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2010). Research methods for business: A skill building

approach (5 ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Silk, A. J., & Urban, G. L. (1978). Pre-test-market evaluation of new packaged goods:

A model and measurement methodology. Journal of Marketing Research, 15(2), 171-

191.

Sinhaa, I., & Batrab, R. (1999). The Effect of Consumer Price Consciousness on

Private Label Purchase. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 16 (3), 237–

251.

Smith, M.F., and Carsky, M.L. (1996). Grocery Shopping Behavior: A Comparison of

Involved and Uninvolved Consumers. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,

39 (2), 73-80

Srinivasan, S. S. and Till B. D. (2002). Evaluation of search, experience and credence

attributes: role of brand name and product trial. Journal of Product & Management,

11(7), 417-431.

Steiner, R. L. (2004). The Nature and Benefits of National Brand/Private Label

Competition. Review of Industrial Organization, 24, 105.

63

Swindells, J. (2004). Blurtit. Retrieved July 10, 2012, from What Are Some

Advantages And Disadvantages Of Descriptive Research?:

http://www.blurtit.com/q950778.html

Sypher, B. D. (1997). Interorganizational Diffusion. In Case Studies in

Organizational Communication 2: Perspectives on Contemporary Work Life (p. 403).

Guilford Press.

Tidd, J. (2010). Factor Influencing Adoption, Relative Advantages in Gaining

Momentum. World Scientific.

Tim, K. (2002). The High Price of Materialism. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Tseng, F. M., & Lo, H. Y. (2011). Antecedents of consumers‘ intentions to upgrade

their mobile phones. Telecommunications Policy, 35, 74-86.

Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Vitzthum, R. C. (1995). Materialism: An Affirmative History and Definition. New

York: Prometheus Books.

Warshaw, P. R., & Davis, F. D. (1985). Disentangling behavioral intentions and

behavioral expectations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 213–228.

Weiers, R. M. (2008). Introduction to business statistics (6 ed.). Mason, USA:

Thomson South-Western.

Wickliffe, V. P. and Pysarchik, D. T. (2001). A look at product attributes as enhances

of group integration among US and Korean consumers. International Journal of

Retail & Distribution Management, 29(2), 99-108.

64

Wrenn, B., Stevens, R. E., & Loudon, D. L. (2006). Marketing Research: Text And

Cases. Rutledge

Yang, K. C. (2005). Exploring factors affecting the adoption of mobile commerce in

Singapore. Telematics and Informatics, 22 (3), 257–277.

Yang, K. C. (2005). Exploring factors affecting the adoption of mobile commerce in

Singapore. Telematics and Informatics, 22 (3), 257–277.

Yue, G., & Stuart J, B. (2011). Explaining purchasing behavior within World of

Warcraft. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 52 (3), 18-30.

Yusuf, Z. Ö., & Abdullah, K. (2003). Research Note: A Need or a Status Symbol?:

Use of Cellular Telephones in Turkey. European Journal of Communication, 18 (2),

241-254.

Zahra Seyed Ghorban 2012. Brand Attitude, Its Antecedents and Consequences.

Investigation into Smartphone Brands in Malaysia. IOSR Journal of Business and

Management (IOSRJBM), PP 31-35

Chia-Ju Liu, Hao-Yun Liang (2014). The Deep Impression of Smartphone Brand on

the Customers’ Decision Making.

65

Appendix BẢNG KHẢO SÁT

NHỮNG YẾU TỐ TÁC ĐỘNG ĐẾN Ý ĐỊNH MUA ĐIỆN THOẠI THÔNG

MINH (SMARTPHONE)

Xin chào các Anh/Chị,

Hiện tại, tôi đang thực hiện luận văn cao học tại trường Đại học Quốc tế - Đại học

Quốc gia thành phố Hồ Chí Minh với đề tài "Nghiên cứu các yếu tố tác động đến ý

định mua Điện thoại thông minh (Smartphone) của Nhân viên văn phòng tại khu vực

Tp.HCM". Kính mong các anh/chị dành chút thời gian để trả lời giúp tôi một số câu

hỏi sau đây.

Thông tin cá nhân

Vui lòng đánh dấu khoanh tròn ô số anh/chị lựa chọn. Các thông tin bên dưới được

sử dụng cho mục đích thống kê và đảm bảo tính an toàn thông tin cho anh/chị

Vui lòng cho biết giới tính của anh (chị)?

1. Nam

2. Nữ

Vui lòng cho biết thu nhập hàng tháng của anh (chị)?

1. Dưới 8,000,000 đồng

2. Từ 8,000,000 đồng đến ít hơn 12,000,000 đồng

3. Từ 12,000,000 đồng đến ít hơn 18,000,000 đồng

4. Từ 18,000,000 đồng đến ít hơn 25,000,000 đồng

5. Nhiều hơn 25,000,000 đồng

66

67

Vui lòng cho biết tuổi của anh (chị)?

1. Dưới 22 tuổi

2. Từ 22 đến 29 tuổi

3. Từ 30 đến 39 tuổi

4. Từ 40 đến 49 tuổi

5. Hơn 50 tuổi

Các yếu tố ảnh hưởng đến quyết định lựa chọn mua smartphone

Các câu hỏi của phần này đề cập đến các yếu tố gây ảnh hưởng đến quyết định chọn

mua smartphone của anh/chị. Xin anh chị vui lòng cho biết ý kiến của mình dựa trên

đánh giá theo thang điểm từ 1 đến 5 mà chúng tôi đưa ra dưới đây [(1) = Hoàn toàn

phản đối, (2) = Phản đối, (3) = Trung lập (Không có ý kiến), (4) = Đồng ý, (5) =

Hoàn toàn đồng ý]. Vui lòng chỉ khoanh tròn một sự lựa chọn đúng nhất theo ý kiến

của anh/chị.

Mã GIÁ CẢ

Hoàn toàn phản đối

Phản đối

Trung lập

Đồng ý

Hoàn toàn

đồng ý

PR1 Giá cả là yếu tố quan trọng nhất khi chọn mua smartphone

1 2 3 4 5

PR2 Tôi chỉ mua smartphone trong các chương trình giảm giá

1 2 3 4 5

PR3 Tôi sẽ so sánh giá cả giữa các nhãn hiệu và giữa các cửa hàng trước khi mua

1 2 3 4 5

PR4 Tôi mua smartphone vì nó thực sự đáng giá dựa trên giá thành và chất lượng nó mang lại

1 2 3 4 5

PR5 Các smartphone giá rẻ tạo cho tôi cảm giác không an toàn và chất lượng thấp

1 2 3 4 5

68

Mã THƯƠNG HIỆU

Hoàn toàn phản đối

Phản đối

Trung lập

Đồng ý

Hoàn toàn

đồng ý

BR1 Thương hiệu là yếu tố quan trọng nhất khi chọn mua smartphone

1 2 3 4 5

BR2 Tôi thích chọn thương hiệu smartphone được biết đến toàn cầu

1 2 3 4 5

BR3 Tôi thích chọn một thương hiệu smartphone được tin cậy

1 2 3 4 5

BR4 Tôi chỉ thích chọn thương hiệu smartphone theo sở thích của mình

1 2 3 4 5

BR5 Tôi sẵn sàng chọn một thương hiệu smartphone mới nếu nó đáp ứng được các tiêu chí của tôi

1 2 3 4 5

Mã SỰ PHÙ HỢP

Hoàn toàn phản đối

Phản đối

Trung lập

Đồng ý

Hoàn toàn

đồng ý

CM1 Smartphone phù hợp cho mọi nhu cầu tôi cần về một chiếc điện thoại

1 2 3 4 5

CM2 Smartphone phù hợp với cuộc sống hàng ngày và công việc của tôi

1 2 3 4 5

CM3 Smartphone phù hợp với thói quen sử dụng điện thoại của tôi 1 2 3 4 5

CM4 Smartphone là một sự thay đổi xứng đáng cho điện thoại truyền thống

1 2 3 4 5

CM5 Smartphone đảm bảo cho các nhu cầu cần sử dụng của tôi hiện tại

1 2 3 4 5

Mã TÍNH NĂNG

Hoàn toàn phản đối

Phản đối

Trung lập

Đồng ý

Hoàn toàn

đồng ý

PF1 Tôi thích khả năng chụp ảnh/quay phim của smartphone

1 2 3 4 5

PF2 Smartphone có nhiều games chất lượng cao

1 2 3 4 5

PF3 Smartphone có nhiều ứng dụng hữu ích 1 2 3 4 5PF4 Smartphone dễ dàng kết nối internet

(wifi, 3G) 1 2 3 4 5

PF5 Tôi dùng smartphone bởi tôi thích hệ điều hành của nó (iOS, Blackberry OS, Android, Windows Phone, …)

1 2 3 4 5

Mã LỢI THẾ SO SÁNH Hoàn toàn

Phản đối

Trung lập

Đồng ý

Hoàn toàn

69

phản đối

đồng ý

RA1 Smartphone tiện lợi, đáng tin cậy và hữu ích hơn điện thoại thông thường

1 2 3 4 5

RA2 Smartphone thời trang, phong cách và thời thượng hơn

1 2 3 4 5

RA3 Smartphone có thể tương thích với nhiều thiết bị kỹ thuật số khác 1 2 3 4 5

RA4 Màn hình và bán phím lớn hơn của smartphone giúp cho việc sử dụng các tính năng của nó dễ dàng hơn

1 2 3 4 5

RA5 Smartphone có thể giúp tôi giải quyết công việc trong nhiều tình huống

1 2 3 4 5

Mã TÁC ĐỘNG XÃ HỘI

Hoàn toàn phản đối

Phản đối

Trung lập

Đồng ý

Hoàn toàn

đồng ý

SI1 Gia đình và bạn bè chọn mua smartphone giúp tôi

1 2 3 4 5

SI2 Tôi hỏi ý kiến bạn bè và người thân khi mua smartphone

1 2 3 4 5

SI3 Bạn bè, người thân tôi phần lớn sử dụng smartphone

1 2 3 4 5

SI4 Bạn bè, người thân tôi tin rằng smartphone rất hữu ích cho họ

1 2 3 4 5

SI5 Tôi tham khảo thông tin trên các diễn đàn và mạng xã hội mà tôi tham gia khi mua smartphone

1 2 3 4 5

70

Dự định mua smartphone

Các câu hỏi của phần này đề cập đến ý định mua smartphone của anh/chị. Xin anh

chị vui lòng cho biết ý kiến của mình dựa trên đánh giá theo thang điểm từ 1 đến 5

mà chúng tôi đưa ra dưới đây [(1) = Hoàn toàn phản đối, (2) = Phản đối, (3) =

Trung lập (Không có ý kiến), (4) = Đồng ý, (5) = Hoàn toàn đồng ý]. Vui lòng chỉ

khoanh tròn một sự lựa chọn đúng nhất theo ý kiến của anh/chị

Mã câu hỏi

Ý ĐỊNH MUA

Hoàn toàn phản đối

Phản đối

Trung lập

Đồng ý

Hoàn toàn

đồng ý

PI1 Tôi sẽ tiếp tục sử dụng smartphone 1 2 3 4 5

PI2 Tôi có ý định sẽ mua smartphone 1 2 3 4 5PI3 Tôi có ý định sẽ mua smartphone tốt

hơn chiếc đang sử dụng 1 2 3 4 5

PI4 Tôi sẽ kể với bạn bè, người thân về chiếc smartphone tôi đang sử dụng

1 2 3 4 5

PI5 Tôi sẽ khuyên bạn bè và đồng nghiệp mua smartphone

1 2 3 4 5

XIN CHÂN THÀNH CẢM ƠN SỰ HỖ TRỢ CỦA QUÝ ANH/CHỊ

71

Table 17 - Reliability Test of Respondents

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items

.713 5

Item-Total Statistics

 Scale Mean if Item Deleted

Scale Variance if Item Deleted

Corrected Item-Total

Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha if Item

DeletedPR1 15.20 4.583 .429 .682PR2 15.39 4.202 .561 .628PR3 14.78 4.470 .502 .654PR4 14.66 4.714 .458 .672PR5 15.02 4.244 .423 .692

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items

.702 5

Item-Total Statistics

 Scale Mean if Item Deleted

Scale Variance if Item Deleted

Corrected Item-Total

Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha if Item

DeletedBR1 15.91 4.108 .425 .666BR2 15.89 3.588 .636 .574BR3 15.68 3.839 .586 .601BR4 15.89 4.052 .388 .684BR5 15.87 4.494 .286 .720

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items

.742 5

Item-Total Statistics

 Scale Mean if Item Deleted

Scale Variance if Item Deleted

Corrected Item-Total

Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha if Item

DeletedCO1 16.13 4.125 .500 .699

72

CO2 16.04 4.104 .631 .661CO3 16.24 3.703 .602 .658CO4 16.14 3.957 .443 .725CO5 16.16 4.329 .392 .738

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items

.732 5

Item-Total Statistics

 Scale Mean if Item Deleted

Scale Variance if Item Deleted

Corrected Item-Total

Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha if Item

DeletedFE1 16.11 3.549 .590 .649FE2 16.40 3.560 .465 .699FE3 16.04 4.141 .426 .711FE4 15.89 3.545 .603 .645FE5 16.17 3.656 .414 .722

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items

.745 5

Item-Total Statistics

 Scale Mean if Item Deleted

Scale Variance if Item Deleted

Corrected Item-Total

Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha if Item

DeletedRA1 15.89 5.385 .565 .680RA2 15.94 5.075 .526 .697RA3 15.67 6.018 .476 .714RA4 15.75 5.229 .553 .684RA5 15.71 5.987 .440 .725

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items

.741 5

Item-Total Statistics

73

 Scale Mean if Item Deleted

Scale Variance if Item Deleted

Corrected Item-Total

Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha if Item

DeletedSI1 14.55 5.742 .481 .711SI2 13.87 5.167 .604 .656SI3 13.49 6.970 .428 .724SI4 13.45 6.442 .567 .680SI5 13.37 6.482 .487 .703

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items

.765 5

Item-Total Statistics

 Scale Mean if Item Deleted

Scale Variance if Item Deleted

Corrected Item-Total

Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha if Item

DeletedPI1 15.67 5.549 .531 .724PI2 15.32 5.906 .606 .707PI3 15.56 5.547 .486 .742PI4 15.94 5.406 .556 .715PI5 15.97 5.594 .521 .728

74