IMPACT OF DECEPTIVE
PRACTICES ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR
PREPARED BY
UMAIR
ABSTRACTAlthough marketing researchers often find it necessary to deceive their research Contributors, little attention has been given within marketing to the ethical issues underlying the use of deception or to the potential consequences of deceptive research practices. We develop a new typology of truthful but misleading advertising and labeling claims. While a number of typologies of deceptive or misleading practices have appeared in the literature, our typology relies on legal cases as well as a diverse set of psychological theories to provide a richer and more comprehensive understanding of why consumers are likely to be misled by a particular type of deception. We conducted research on it. 100 questionnaires were distributed among students in different department of Punjab university. the data is feed in spss software for result and analysis.Key words: consumer behavior, deceptive practices, misleading practices,
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
consumer behavior
Product Quality
Product Brand
Packaging and Labeling
of the Product
Advertising
LITERATURE REVIEW
• (Krohn and Milner, 1989, 773), (Smithand Quelch, 1993, 13) , (Alexander, 2002; Creyer and Ross, 1996; consumer behavior
• "( American Marketing Association, (Forbes magazine, October 2012), (Millward Brown)Product Quality
• Whalen et al., 1991), Cone, 2007, Creyer and Ross (1996), Product Brand
• (Cacioppe, et al., 2008), (Cropanzano, Byrne, Bobocel, & Rupp,
Packaging and Labeling of the Product
• Smith and Cooper-Martin, 1997; Folkes and Kamins, 1999; Advertising
HYPOTHESIS
H0: If we mend our deceptive tactics & practices with consumers then we can increase the progress & growth ratio of product.
H1: A significant relationship exists between product quality and consumer behavior.
H2: A significant relationship exists between product brand and consumer behavior.
H3: A significant relationship exists between Packaging and labelling of the product and consumer behavior.
H4: A significant relationship exists between advertisement and consumer behavior.
RELIABILITY
Reliability StatisticsCronbach's Alpha N of Items
.556 5
Alphas above .9 are great, above .8 are good, above .7 are ok, above .6 are borderline. In this case, Alpha=.56 which is acceptable. In smaller samples, smaller Alpha levels are acceptable to create composites.
GENDER
Gender
Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative
Percent
Valid
male 49 49.0 49.0 49.0
female 51 51.0 51.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
QUALIFICATIONQualification
Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative
PercentValid
Intermediate 8 8.0 8.0 8.0
bachelor 75 75.0 75.0 83.0
masters 16 16.0 16.0 99.0
M.Phill/PhD 1 1.0 1.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
It is interesting to note that 75 students belong to bachelor and is 75% of total population and take active part in research.
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
consumer behavior 100 1.9200 .66939 .06694
product quality 100 2.0000 .64354 .06435
product brand 100 2.7000 .85870 .08587
Packaging and labeling of the product
100 2.0688 .50075 .05007
advertising 100 1.7167 .53050 .05305
CORRELATIONCorrelations
consumer behavior
product quality
product brand
Packaging and labeling
of the product
advertising
consumer behavior
Pearson Correlation 1 .299** -.060 .476** .310**
Sig. (2-tailed) .003 .555 .000 .002N 100 100 100 100 100
product quality Pearson Correlation .299** 1 -.009 .427** .449**
Sig. (2-tailed) .003 .928 .000 .000N 100 100 100 100 100
product brand Pearson Correlation -.060 -.009 1 .084 .092Sig. (2-tailed) .555 .928 .408 .361N 100 100 100 100 100
Packaging and labeling of the product
Pearson Correlation .476** .427** .084 1 .473**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .408 .000N 100 100 100 100 100
advertising Pearson Correlation .310** .449** .092 .473** 1Sig. (2-tailed) .002 .000 .361 .000 N 100 100 100 100 100
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
correlation null hypothesis
consumer behavior and product quality
.299**
.003 + significant Rejected
consumer behaviorAnd product brand
-.060 .555 + insignificantaccepted
consumer behavior and Packaging and labeling of the product
.476** .000+
significant Rejected
consumer behaviorAnd advertising
.310**
.002 + significant Rejected
MULTIPLE REGRESSIONSModel Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R SquareStd. Error of the
Estimate
1 .502a .252 .221 .59083
a. Predictors: (Constant), advertising, product brand, product quality, packaging and labeling of the product
The Model shows the multiple correlation coefficient (R), using all predictors simultaneously, which is .50 and Adjusted R2 is .252. Regression analysis shows 25% of the variance in dependent variable can be predicted from the combination of independent variables while remaining is the unexplained variability. R value of .50 showing goodness of the model.
ANOVAANOVAa
ModelSum of Squares df
Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 11.197 4 2.799 8.019 .000b
Residual 33.163 95 .349
Total 44.360 99
a. Dependent Variable: consumer behavior
b. Predictors: (Constant), advertising, product brand, product quality, packaging and labeling of the product
The ANOVA in table shows that F is 8.019 which is statistically significant. Model is considered to be good fit as significance value falls between 0% to 5%. It also reflects significance of independent variables on the overall model having a strapping impact on dependent variable.
REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS I.E. BETA (Β) RESULTS & ANALYSIS
Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.B Std. Error Beta1 (Constant) .640 .321 1.994 .049
product quality .088 .108 .085 .817 .416product brand -.079 .070 -.101 -1.132 .260Packaging and labeling of the product .543 .140 .406 3.874 .000
advertising .113 .134 .089 .839 .403a. Dependent Variable: consumer behavior
Beta (β) Sig. (2-tailed) relationship
consumer behavior and product quality .088 .416
insignificant
consumer behaviorAnd product brand -.079 .260 insignificant
consumer behavior and Packaging and labeling of the product
.543 .000 significant
consumer behaviorAnd advertising
.113 .403
insignificant
One Sample t-Test Results & Analysis
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 3
t dfSig. (2-tailed)
Mean Difference
95% Confidence Interval of the
DifferenceLower Upper
consumer behavior-16.134 99 .000 -1.08000 -1.2128 -.9472
product quality-15.539 99 .000 -1.00000 -1.1277 -.8723
product brand-3.494 99 .001 -.30000 -.4704 -.1296
Packaging and labeling of the product
-18.597 99 .000 -.93125 -1.0306 -.8319
advertising-24.191 99 .000 -1.28333 -1.3886 -1.1781
tSig. (2-tailed)
Relationship
consumer behavior and product quality
-15.539
.000
+ significant
consumer behaviorAnd product brand -3.494 .000
+ significant
consumer behavior and Packaging and labeling of the product
-18.597 .001
+ significant
consumer behaviorAnd advertising
-24.191 .000+ significant
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Businesses and government can educate consumers about deceptive practices. This is a wide procedure and will take lengthened time to develop the concern for deceptive practices. It was also found that groups and links had a strong influence on the choice of young buyers. Therefore marketers can use buzz marketing to encourage young people but do not deceive them. They have poise in the opinion of their friends. Social networks can be very effective in doing that. Government should also play its part in encouraging in development and production of steps against deceptive practices. Deceptive practices must be removed so that consumer shows positive attitude.
REFERENCES• http://www.vzhh.de/ernaehrung/119742/Luftpackungen%20Top9.pdf;• http://www.vzhh.de/docs/6148/themen.aspx• http://news.thomasnet.com/IMT/2008/12/09/matters-of-size-product-
shrinkage-and-packaging-overkill/• http://www.federacja-konsumentow.org.pl/story.php?story=409.• http://www.cnnasiapacific.com/factsheets//• Alexander, E.C. (2002) “Consumer Reactions to Unethical Service Recovery”
Journal of Business Ethics, • 36(3):223- 237. • Alexander C. S. and Becker H. J. (1978) “The Use of Vignettes in Survey
Research” Public Opinion Quarterly, 42:93- 104. • Auger, P., Burke, P., Devinney, T.M. and Louviere, J.J. (2003) “What Will
Consumers Pay for Social Product Features?” Journal of Business Ethics, 42(3):281- 304.• Michelle Ossa College Teacher (Level 3) Educator Emeritus Posted November 30,
2012 at 5:51 PM (Answer #1)