The Effect of Taiwan-made Product “MIT” Smile Logo on the Perceived Quality, Perceived

Risk, and Purchase Intention of Consumers

YE4B 1101100062 Una Chen

Outline :

Introduction

Literature Review

Methodology

Result

Conclusion

Introduction

Sign the contract of ECFA

(Economic Cooperation Framework

Agreement)

Be a serious impact on the

traditional industry

Decide to promote the MIT (Made

in Taiwan) Smile Label

Literature Review

MIT Smile Label

By propelling MIT Smile Label, it tends to

build up an image of high quality Taiwan-

made products. Moreover, it also expects

to make consumers more favourable of

products that are made in Taiwan.

Literature Review Perceived Quality

Perceived quality was defined as the consumers’ judgment of overall excellence or superiority of products (Zeithaml, 1988; Petrick, 2002; Tsiotsou, 2006).

Perceived RiskCreditable official certificated labels would comparatively decrease consumers’ perceived risk towards products.

Hypothesis

Perceived Quality

Perceived Risk

PurchaseIntention

MIT Smile Label

ResearchResearch Question Question

(1) if the perceived quality of MIT Smile Logo would impact on consumers’ purchase intention

(2) if the perceived risk of MIT Smile Logo will impact on consumers’ purchase intention

MethodologyWeb-based questionnaire : 81

Paper-based questionnaire : 21

Likert scale: 1-5

Section1&2: background & basic knowledge

Section 3&4: perceived quality / risk

Section 5: purchase intention SPSS

P. Quality VS. Purchase Intention

Correlations

Quality_1 PearsonSig.(2-tailed)

N

.434**.000101

  Quality_7 PearsonSig.(2-tailed)

N

.496**.000101

Quality_2 PearsonSig.(2-tailed)

N

.486**.000101

  Quality_8 PearsonSig.(2-tailed)

N

.496**.000101

Quality_3 PearsonSig.(2-tailed)

N

.414**.000101

  Quality_9 PearsonSig.(2-tailed)

N

.636**.000101

Quality_4 PearsonSig.(2-tailed)

N

.191

.055101

  Quality_10 PearsonSig.(2-tailed)

N

.581**.000101

Quality_5 PearsonSig.(2-tailed)

N

.205*.040101

  Quality_11 PearsonSig.(2-tailed)

N

.592**.000101

Quality_6 PearsonSig.(2-tailed)

N

.537**.000101

  (Pr > F > 0.05)  ***(Pr > F < 0.001) 

 

P. Risk VS. Purchase Intention

Correlations

Risk_1 PearsonSig.(2-tailed)

N

-.231*.020101

  Risk_8 PearsonSig.(2-tailed)

N

-.265**.008101

Risk_2 PearsonSig.(2-tailed)

N

-.267**.007101

  Risk_9 PearsonSig.(2-tailed)

N

-.225*.023101

Risk_3 PearsonSig.(2-tailed)

N

-.290**.003101

  Risk_10 PearsonSig.(2-tailed)

N

-.292**.003101

Risk_4 PearsonSig.(2-tailed)

N

-.175.080101

  Risk_11 PearsonSig.(2-tailed)

N

-.321**.001101

Risk_5 PearsonSig.(2-tailed)

N

.200*.045101

  Risk_12 PearsonSig.(2-tailed)

N

-.297**.003101

Risk_6 PearsonSig.(2-tailed)

N

-.340**.001101

  Risk_13 PearsonSig.(2-tailed)

N

-.359**.000101

Risk_7 PearsonSig.(2-tailed)

N

-.226*.023101

  (Pr > F > 0.05) 

**(Pr > F < 0.05)  

ConclusionTsiotsou indicates consumers’ perceived product quality can be used as a predictor of purchase intention, and even has the direct impact on purchase intention (Tsiotsou, 2006).

Agarwal and Teas describes that the higher consumers’ perceived risk is, the lower their purchase intention is; similarly, the lower consumers’ perceived risk is, the higher their purchase intention is (Agarwal and Teas, 2001).

Thank you for your listening !!