FACTORS INFLUENCING CONSUMER BEHAVIOR

IN SELECTING MOBILE PHONE HANDSETS: A

CASE STUDY OF USIU

BY
EHTESHAM MOHAMMAD

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY

SPRING 2012

FACTORS INFLUENCING CONSUMER BEHAVIOR

IN SELECTING MOBILE PHONE HANDSETS: A
CASE STUDY OF USIU

BY
EHTESHAM MOHAMMAD

A Project Report Submitted to the School of Business in

Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of
Master in Business Administration (MBA)

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY

SPRING 2012

STUDENTS DECLARATION
I, the undersigned, declare that this is my original work and has not been submitted to any
other college, institution or university other than the United States International
University in Nairobi for academic credit.

Signed: ________________________

Date: _____________________

Ehtesham Mohammad, 608092

This project has been presented for examination with my approval as the appointed
supervisor.

Signed: ________________________

Date: _____________________

Dr. Kefah Njenga

Signed: _______________________

Date: ____________________

Dean, School of Business

Signed: _______________________

Date: ____________________

Deputy Vice Chancellor, Academic Affairs

ii

COPYRIGHT
All rights reserved. No part of this report may be photocopied, recorded, or otherwise
reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any electronic or
mechanical means without prior written permission of the copywriter owner.

iii

ABSTRACT

The objective of this study was to examine consumer buying behavior of mobile phone
handsets and to investigate the reasons underlying mobile phone change with respect to
the following research questions: The effect of demographics on the evaluations of
different attributes related to mobile phone handsets choice; The effect of psychographics
on the evaluations of different attributes related to mobile phone handsets choice; The
effect of behavior on the evaluations of different attributes related to mobile phone
handsets choice.

This study is to help the mobile phone industry as a whole by assisting in filling the
knowledge gap on the understanding of consumers choice criteria in mobile phone
markets by studying factors that influence intention to acquire new mobile phones.

Convenience sampling technique was utilized in selection of the sample. Primary data
collection method was used in this study. This study used quantitative method of data
analysis. The quantitative analysis is applied using descriptive statistics. The information
was collected using questionnaire based on the three research questions. Four hundred
twenty one questionnaires were handed out, of which three hundred ninety two were
received and analyzed using SPSS. This was presented using tables and pie charts to give
a clear picture of the research findings.

From the analysis, it was concluded that technology and design seemed to be more
important than price and that technological and design factors should be give more
importance by mobile phone manufacturers and/or retailers. Specifically, mobile phone
manufacturers should consider improving on phone weight and size amongst other
factors. They should also concentrate on handset colors, changeability of skin/cover, color
screen, touch screen, iconic menu styles and minimal keystrokes in terms of design
factors.

Further research should be done to the topic in order to understand more about each brand
as technology, design and price vary on brands as well. Also, a more diverse target
population would be more beneficial in this field of study.
iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to thank the following people for their support in carrying out this research.

I would like to thank my Supervisor Dr. Kefah Njenga who gave me guidance and
motivation from the beginning to the end of this report. I appreciate all the efforts and
patience during the consultations.

Special thanks also go out to the USIU students for the effort and cooperation extended in
the course of the study.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECOND TITLE PAGE...... i
STUDENTS DECLARATION ii
COPYRIGHT PAGE iii
ABSTRACT.. iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT v
CHAPTER I ....................................................................................................................... 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background of the Problem ........................................................................................... 1
1.2 Statement of Problem ..................................................................................................... 5
1.3 General Objective .......................................................................................................... 5
1.4 Research Objectives ....................................................................................................... 6
1.5 Importance of the Study ................................................................................................. 6
1.6 Scope of the Study ......................................................................................................... 6
1.7 Definition of Terms........................................................................................................ 7
1.8 Chapter Summary .......................................................................................................... 7
CHAPTER II ...................................................................................................................... 9
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................... 9
2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 9
2.2 The Effect of Demographics on the Evaluations of Different Attributes Related to
Mobile Phone Handsets Choice. ........................................................................................ 10
2.3 The Effect of Behavior on the Evaluations of Different Attributes Related to Mobile
Phone Handsets Choice...................................................................................................... 17
2.4 The Effect of Psychographics on the Evaluations of Different Attributes Related to
Mobile Phone Handsets Choice. ........................................................................................ 22
2.5 Chapter Summary ........................................................................................................ 28
CHAPTER III .................................................................................................................. 30
3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................................................. 30
3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 30
3.2 Research Design........................................................................................................... 30
vi

3.3 Population and Sampling Design ................................................................................. 30

3.4 Data Collection Methods ............................................................................................. 31
3.5 Research Procedures .................................................................................................... 31
3.6 Data Analysis Methods ................................................................................................ 31
3.7 Chapter Summary ........................................................................................................ 31
CHAPTER IV................................................................................................................... 33
4.0 RESULTS AND FINDINGS ..................................................................................... 33
4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 33
4.2 Demographic Factors ................................................................................................... 33
4.3 Behavioral Factors ....................................................................................................... 53
4.4. Psychological Factors ................................................................................................. 54
CHAPTER V .................................................................................................................... 56
5.0 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................ 56
5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 56
5.2 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 56
5.3 Discussions .................................................................................................................. 57
5.4 Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 64
5.5 Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 67
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 69
APPENDICES .................................................................................................................. 78
APPENDIX I: COVER LETTER ...................................................................................... 78
APPENDIX II: QUESTIONNAIRE .................................................................................. 79

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Gender of Respondents. 35

Table 2: Aspects of Current Mobile Phone Set38
Table 3: General Factors Considered on Purchasing a New Mobile Phone Set.. 40
Table 4: Design Factors Considered on Purchasing a New Mobile Phone Set.. 41
Table 5: Technological Factors Considered on Purchasing a New Mobile Phone Set 42
Table 6: Purchase of New Mobile Phone Sets Based on Someones Views on it.. 42

viii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Kotlers Consumer Behavioral Model.. 2
Figure 2: Dependent and Independent Variables taken into Consideration.10
Figure 3: Age of Respondents......34
Figure 4: Ethnic Group of Respondents.......35
Figure 5: Brand of Current Mobile Phone Handset... 36
Figure 6: Recency of Purchase of Current Mobile Phone Set... 37
Figure 7: Major use of Current Mobile Phone Handset. 38
Figure 8: Frequency of Purchase of New Mobile Phone Set. 39
Figure 9: Peoples Views Considered Due to Expertise 43
Figure 10: Accompaniment of Colleague/Friend during Purchase of New Set. 44

ix

CHAPTER I
1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Problem

Mobile communication has been viewed as one of the fastest growing industries for the
future of world economy. As such, mobile phone industry has been one of those bright
spots in Asian economy during the last decade, and just in China, the mobile phone
market has been increasing at a rate of 80 percent since 1990 and became a market of 130
million users in 2001 exceeding US for the first time (Robertson, 2001), and over 335
million by 2004 about 25 percent of the total Chinese population (CMII, 2005). Along
the increase of mobile communication and mobile phone usage worldwide, the
competition for global mobile phone market has been extremely intensified. For instance,
in current Chinas mobile phone market, there are more than 600 mobile phone models on
sale by over 110 mobile phone manufacturers (Motsay, 2004), including both domestic
and international mobile phone producers competing with a variety of different marketing
strategies and competitive advantages. For example, some companies are competing by
promoting its high tech features while others competing through so-called star power
with celebrity endorsement to their products. Not unusual, there are also companies
competing with unique aesthetical features such as: attractive appearance, dialing speed,
color, shape and the possibility of customization. Those marketing strategies have been
widely used in many different industries based on the related market analysis about
consumers purchasing behavior, especially, the influence of these so-called social
influence groups.

Historically, a mobile phone has been pricy with the market dominated by business users
(Kendall, 1997). It was considered a status symbol for the rich and famous during the
early 1990s all over the world. In China, people could remember a common scenario
where mobile phone owners talked anywhere and everywhere with pride sending a
message that the ownership of a mobile phone represented power, prestige, and success.
In contrast, American mobile phone consumers used to believe that when they sign up
with a mobile phone service, a free phone was included. At that time, it was the
ownership of a mobile phone, not its technology or its appearance, that distinguished the
owner from others. It was predicted in 1994 that the demand for mobile communication
1

would make a continuing growth of US mobile phone market and reaching a penetration
of 50 percent in 2005 (Scouras, 1995). The real market growth was in fact better than the
expected with 74 percent of Americans who used mobile phones in 2003 (Palenchar,
2004). More recently, mobile phones have become common not only in all urban areas
but also in smaller towns and remote rural farms. Following these changes in trends, one
can easily find many advanced emerging generations of mobile phones, smaller, lighter,
better designed, multi-functional, and with a much affordable price. (Robertson, 2001)

There are numerous models trying to explain consumer behavior. These models generally
deal with various stimuli, influential factors, the decision-making process and outcomes.
Some models are very basic and categorize all variables such as the one proposed by
(Kotler, 2000), which is illustrated below.

Marketing Other
stimuli

stimuli

Product

Economic

Price

Technological

Place

Political

Promotion

Cultural

Buyer's Decision
Product Choice
Brand Choice
Dealer Choice
Purchase Timing
Purchase
Amount

Buyer's

Buyers

Decision

Characteristics Process
Cultural

Problem recognition

Social

Information search

Personal

Evaluation of
alternatives

Psychological

Purchase decision
Post purchase behavior

Source: Kotler, P., 2000, Marketing management, Millennium edition, U.S.A.: PrenticeHall, p. 161.
Figure 1: Kotlers Consumer Behavior Model
2

The above figure shows how the marketing mix and other stimuli enter a consumers
thoughts. The consumer then has to make certain decisions, which are directly influenced
by their personal characteristics. For a marketer, the ideal end result would see the
consumer making a purchase.

Consumer choice behavior can be studied through the classical five-step problem solving
paradigm or through the progression of consumer choice from a product class to brand
choice (Dorsch, Grove, and Darden, 2000). The five-step model is usually suitable for
decision making that assumes rational problem solving behavior and, in most cases,
complex decision making.

The five step model:

1. Define Problem
2. Generate Solutions
3. Evaluate Alternatives
4. Act
5. Evaluate

The acquisition of a new mobile phone follows this traditional view of buying process,
but is in many situations also affected by symbolic values related to brands.

Consumer choice behavior has some important prevailing conditions that must be taken
into account while studying choice. In the light of the classical problem solving buying
behavior, consumers engage in information search before making the actual choice.
Consumer decision making process is usually guided by already formed preferences for a
particular alternative. This means that consumers are likely to make the choice between
alternatives based on limited information search activity (Beatty and Smith, 1987;
Moorthy, Ratchford and Talukdar, 1997) and without detailed evaluation of the other
alternatives (Alba and Hutchinson, 2000; Chernev, 2003; Coupey, Irwin and Payne, 1998;
Slovic, 1995). In close relation to information search, evaluation of alternatives has also
gained a momentum in recent research (Laroche, Kim and Matsui, 2003). Their study on
consumers use of five heuristics (conjunctive, disjunctive, lexicographic, linear additive,
3

and geometric compensatory) in the consideration set formation found that conjunctive
heuristics is the most often used decision model. Conjunctive heuristics means that a
consumer selects a brand only if it meets acceptable standards, the so-called cutoff point
on each key attribute consumer regards as important (Assael, 1995, p. 249; Solomon,
2001, p. 280). In this non-compensatory method of evaluation, a consumer would
eliminate a brand that does not fulfill the standards on one or two of the most important
attributes, even it is positive on all other attributes.

Consumer choice behavior can either be approached by utilizing different choice models
(Chintagunta, 1999; Bockenholt and Dillon, 2000; Swait and Adamowicz, 2001) or neural
networks to model selection decisions (Papatla, Zahedi and Zekic-Susac, 2002). Papatla
et al. (2002) examined empirically brand choice and store choice in regard to margarine,
detergent and tissue. The research found that while neural networks have higher
probability of resulting in a better performance, hybrid models guaranteed equal or better
results than stand-alone models. It has also been pointed that many decision strategies
used by consumers can change due to person-specific, context-specific, and task-specific
factors (Dhar, Nowlis and Sherman, 2000; Swait and Adamowicz, 2001). Therefore,
mathematical modeling has its limitations in regard to the fact that consumers tend to
utilize different approaches to make choices. Thereby, researchers should pay more
attention to factors like task complexity and context in modeling choice behavior (Swait
et al, 2001). Moreover, Coupey, Irwin and Payne (1998) found that the influence of task
and context factors might be greater in situations in which consumer has little prior
knowledge and experience.

It is widely accepted that the traditional problem solving approach involving rational
decision making to the study of consumer choice may not be suitable for all situations, or
is at least incomplete to understand choice behavior. Limited information search and
evaluation of alternatives led to a situation in which consumer choice is also driven by
hedonic considerations (Dhar and Wertenbroch, 2000). In general, a common distinction
to be made is that while the utilitarian goods usually are primary instrumental and
functional, hedonic goods provide fun, pleasure and excitement. It has been noted that
many choices have both utilitarian and hedonic features (Batra and Ahtola, 1990), and
thus it can also be proposed that the choice between mobile phones has both utilitarian
4

(for example, communication, time planning) and hedonic (for example, games, camera)
features. The younger the consumer the more hedonistic features consumers tend to value
in mobile phones (Wilska, 2003).

Quite similarly, consumer choice can also be approached from the perspective of
conscious and nonconscious choice (Fitzsimons et al., 2002). Quite many choice
situations occur outside of conscious awareness and with limited information search
(Kivetz and Simonson, 2000) and it can be stated that many choices have both conscious
and nonconscious motives. Fitzsimons et al. (2002) found that in many cases
nonconscious influences affect choice much more than is traditionally believed by
researchers.

1.2 Statement of Problem

Mobile phone markets are one of the most turbulent market environments today due to
increased competition and change. Thus, it is of growing concern to look at consumer
buying decision process and cast light on the factors that finally determine consumer
choices between different mobile phone brands (Karjaluot, 2005). Mobile phone
manufacturers, distributors and retails need to know who buys their product, how they
buy, when and where they buy, why they buy and how they respond to marketing stimuli.
(Solomon, 2001). Consumer behavior is defined as the processes involved when
individuals or groups select, purchase, use, or dispose of products, services, ideas, or
experiences to satisfy needs and desires (Solomon, 2001). On this basis, this article deals
with consumers' choice criteria in mobile phone markets by studying factors that
influence intention to acquire new mobile phones. The study aims to determine whether
key factors such as handset price, design and technology impact on the buying behavior if
mobile phone handsets.

1.3 General Objective

The objective of this study was to examine consumer buying behavior of mobile phones
and to investigate the reasons underlying mobile phone handsets change.

1.4 Research Objectives

This study was guided by the following research hypothesis:
1.4.1 The effect of demographics on the evaluations of different attributes related to
mobile phone handsets choice.
1.4.2 The effect of psychographics on the evaluations of different attributes related to
mobile phone handsets choice.
1.4.3 The effect of behavior on the evaluations of different attributes related to mobile
phone handsets choice

1.5 Importance of the Study

1.5.1. Knowledge Gap
This study is to help the mobile phone industry as a whole by assisting in filling the
knowledge gap on the understanding consumers choice criteria in mobile phone markets
by studying factors that influence intention to acquire new mobile phone handsets.

1.5.2 Building of Knowledge

This study builds the knowledge pool in the area of consumer behavior in selection of
mobile phone handsets.

1.5.3 Appreciation of Consumer Behaviour

The study will also assist in ensuring that consumer behavior is appreciated when
determining factors that influence selection of mobile phone handsets.

1.6 Scope of the Study

The main target location and audience include the students of USIU. Primary data
collection method will be used in this study. The information was collected using
questionnaire based on the research questions. The questionnaire was based on the three
research questionnaires: The effect of demographics on the evaluations of different
attributes related to mobile phone handsets choice; The effect of psychographics on the
evaluations of different attributes related to mobile phone handsets choice; The effect of
behavior on the evaluations of different attributes related to mobile phone handsets
choice. During the process of data collection, although majority of the respondents took

their time to fill in the questionnaires, it was noted that some students filled in the
questionnaire in a hurry which could result in misleading results.

1.7 Definition of Terms

1.7.1 Hedonic
Hedonic, or experiential perspective, as it is also called (Hirschman, 1982), does not limit
its scope of interest only to attitudes, but many other aspects of consumer behavior are
included. Also, much attention is focused on consumer and environmental 'input'
variables.

1.7.2 Demographics
Demographics is the study of populations. Demographics make use of a wide range of
data, including the size of a given population and its birth rates. Demographics are about
everyone: who you are, where youve been and where you are going. Demographics
explain about two-thirds of everything: which products will be in demand, where job
opportunities will occur, what school enrollments will be, when house values will raise or
drop, what kinds of food people will buy and what kinds of cars they will drive. The
further ahead in the future you are looking, the more relevant demographics will be to
you. (Foot, 1996)

1.7.3 Psychographics
Psychographics and demographics are similar in that they both refer to the characteristics
of groups and individuals. Where they differ is in what types of characteristics they
describe. Demographics uses traits of people such as age, gender, occupation, home size,
income, number of children, etc. Psychographics instead focuses on peoples actions,
including preferences and lifestyle choices (Holladay, 2004).

1.8 Chapter Summary

To summarize, consumer choice behavior can be studied through various frameworks
such as the problem solving paradigm and through consumer choice from product class
through brand choice. The next chapter presents a review of the literature related to
consumer buying behavior of mobile phones and the reasons underlying mobile phone
change. The literature review is organized or categorized according to the following
7

research questions: The effect of demographics on the evaluations of different attributes

related to mobile phone handsets choice; the effect of psychographics on the evaluations
of different attributes related to mobile phone handsets choice; the effect of behavior on
the evaluations of different attributes related to mobile phone handsets choice. Chapter
three elaborates on the research design and population. This study utilized descriptive
research design and the population is the case organization students. Chapter four
presents the data which was analyzed using SPSS and Ms Excel and presented in form of
chart and tables. Finally, chapter five presents discussions based on the findings followed
with conclusions on the research and recommendations for further research.

CHAPTER II
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction
All marketing decisions are based on assumptions about consumer behavior (Hawkins,
2007). In order to create value for consumers and profits for organizations, marketers
need to understand why consumers behave in certain ways to a variety of product and
services offered. In order to determine the factors that influence the preferences of the
todays consumers, an understanding of how consumers generally think and behave in
buying situations is vital.
Understanding consumer behavior and knowing customers, have and never will be
simple. Consumers may say one thing but do another. They may not be in touch with their
deeper motivations. They may respond to influences that change their mind at the last
minute. These issues have lead to theories like that of the black box approach taken on by
(Futrell, 2000). It refers to how marketers are not able to tap into consumer minds, thus
keeping them in the dark. In other words, marketers can apply various stimuli and
observe the conduct of consumers, but they cannot observe the consumers' actual thought
processes. This hidden information is considered to be the black box. In an attempt to
obtain some understanding, marketers study consumer behavior. Researchers (Hawkins,
2007) describe consumer behavior as the study of individuals or groups and the mental,
emotional and physical processes they use to select, obtain, consume and dispose of
products or services, to satisfy needs and wants, and the impact that these processes have
on the consumer and society.

This study focuses on independent variables which ensure that above recommendations
and/or conclusions are taken into consideration. Recommendations such as taking into
account hedonic considerations, conscious and non-conscious choices will be covered by
varying demographic, psychographic and behavioral factors and studying the effect on the
choice.

Culture

Dependent Variable

Demographic

Age
Gender

Handset
Performance and Image

Price
Handset

Psychographic

Design

Technology Adoption

Handset
Technology

Dimension

Informational Influence

Behavioral
Utilitarian Influence
Value-Expressed Influence

Source: Author (2011)

Figure 2: Dependent and Independent Variables taken into Consideration

This study will focus on identifying the effects on price, design and weight when the
independent variables above change.

2.2 The Effect of Demographics on the Evaluations of Different Attributes Related

to Mobile Phone Handsets Choice.
Demography is the study of populations. Demography makes use of a wide range of data,
including the size of a given population and its birth rates. Demographics are about
everyone: who you are, where youve been and where you are going. Demographics
explain about two-thirds of everything: which products will be in demand, where job
opportunities will occur, what school enrollments will be, when house values will rise or
drop, what kinds of food people will buy and what kinds of cars they will drive. The
further ahead in the future you are looking, the more relevant demographics will be to
you. (Foot, 1996)
Demographics is one of the forces affecting acquisition of mobile phone handsets and but
this research will focus on three main demographically-related factors namely culture, age
and gender.

10

2.2.1 Culture
The mobile device market has widened to a global scale and consequently mobile devices
are distributed throughout the world (Kim and Lee 2005). As the use of mobile phones
pervades the world, the globalization of mobile device user interface design is becoming
more crucial to business success and building a loyal customer base. Communications
technologies are entirely dependent on a social network for adoption and use, and
therefore the diffusion of these technologies within a culture should be studied
(Urbaczewski, Wells et al. 2002). The context of the mobile user includes user culture
and the influence of culture on mobile phone use (Urbaczewski, Wells et al. 2002; Teo
and Pok 2003a; Jones and Marsden 2005). This necessitates a review of culture as an
essential part of understanding users and the factors that influence mobile phone usage.
The word culture originally stems from an agricultural root: culture as cultivation of
the soil and plants (Hartley 2002). Applying this to people offers a metaphor for the
cultivation of products, minds and social relations. There are various definitions of the
term culture. Culture can be seen as the social production of sense, meaning and
awareness (O'Sullivan, Hartley et al. 1994). Culture can also be seen as learned behavior
consisting of thoughts, feelings and actions (Del Gado 1996), while Hall (1990) describes
culture as communication through words, material things and behavior.

Honold (2000) argues that it is more meaningful to find a definition of culture that suits
the specific area of research than to produce a general definition. Ford (2005) defines
culture in the context of HCI as the patterns of thinking, feeling, and acting that
influence the way in which people communicate among themselves and with computers.
This definition is also applicable to mobile interaction and we consequently adapted it for
the purpose of this study to consider culture as the patterns of thinking, feeling, and
acting that influence the way in which people communicate among themselves and use
mobile devices.
According to Palen et al. (2000), deployment of mobile telephony varies noticeably
internationally and even among western countries. In general, usability studies aim to
make technology more useful. Cultural usability goes further and aims to make
technology fit in with the users lifestyle (Sun 2004). In order to be effective, designers
11

therefore have to understand and be aware of the cultural priorities and the value system
of users, for instance, they must identify factors that are relevant and sensitive to cultural
differences. Fitzgerald (2004) presents four models used for managing cross-cultural
software: Cultural dimensions, measuring different cultures according to a number of
cultural variables or factors (Marcus and Gould, 2000); Cultural markers, using cultural
dimensions in measuring interface design elements that are prevalent and possibly
preferred within a particular cultural group (Badre, 2002); Cultural behaviors, measuring
on-line behavior of web site users in terms of a four-factor model (Fitzgerald, 2004);
Activity theory, viewing peoples activities as an object-oriented and tool mediated
process in which actions are mediated through the use of artefacts (including tools and
languages) to achieve a transformative objective (Sun 2004).
Closer to the field of research, Baumgartner (2003) researched the importance of cultural
dimensions in the field of user-interface design. The following five dimensions were
ranked most important: Context, as described by Hall (1959; 1976); Technological
development, referring to the rate of technological development, and scaling from
advanced to backward; Uncertainty avoidance as described by Hofstede (1995); Time
perception as described by Hall (1959; 1976); Authority conception or power distance
according to Hofstede (1995); race, income, disabilities, mobility (in terms of travel time
to work or number of vehicles available), educational attainment, home ownership,
employment status, and even location

In the context of mobile phone design and usage existing research into the effects of
culture has been aimed at the culture-based preferences for specific design attributes
(Choi, Lee et al. 2005; Kim and Lee 2005) and the distinction between universal and tobe-localised components (Lee, Ryu et al. 2005b). The following studies represent the
general trends, all using Hofstedes premises: Choi et al. (2005a) looked at cultural
influences on functionality design of mobile data services by comparing 24 Korean,
Japanese and Finnish users. They found 52 attributes considered important by mobile data
service users and identified 11 critical attributes related to the user interfaces of mobile
data services devices. The critical attributes such as minimal keystrokes, iconic menu
style, logical ordering of menu items, variety of fonts and font colours, etc., all showed a
clear correlation with characteristics of the culture of the users country (as identified by
12

Hofstede); Kim & Lee (2005) investigated cultural influence and mobile interface design
to clarify the relationship between cultural traits and mobile phone interfaces. Their
subjects came from the USA and Korea. The results suggest van Biljon J., Kotze P.:
Cultural Factors in a Mobile Phone Adoption ... 2655 a possibility of cultural impact on
icon recognition. They found that Korean subjects performed better using concrete
representations, while American users preferred the abstract icon representations; Lee et
al. (2005b) studied multi-cultural usability in mobile phone navigation in a laboratorybased usability experiment with participants from the USA, West Africa, Eastern Europe
and South America. They collected cross-cultural usability information in the product
development process to determine universal and to-be-localized components, detect
mistakes that lead to critical miscommunication, and assess the usability of cross-cultural
user interfaces. Their study was again based on Hofstedes premise, but combined with
the work of Jordan (1998) on pleasurable products. They found no real differences
between the various cultures for the issue of supportiveness, but found evidence that the
perception of the same icons differs across cultures.

Based on the findings of these studies it can be argued that culture and mobile phones
have been researched to some extent, but what we found lacking is a model to integrate
the findings on culture with the other factors that influence mobile phone adoption and
usage.

In order to propose such a model it is necessary to clarify the relationship between the
social and the cultural aspects of mobile phone usage. Socially the emphasis seems to be
on finding new ways to use mobile phones in enhancing socialisation (Jones and Marsden
2005; Schiphorst 2006) and the use of mobile phones to eliminate physical location as a
determinant of communication (Geser 2004). For the purpose of this study, culture is seen
as a specific manifestation of social behavior. Social influence will therefore encompass
cultural influence.

2.2.2 Age in the Context of Mobile Phones

Sabnavis (2002) identified three different consumer types of three generations in India.
Traditional consumers of pre-liberalization phase (1960-70s) were, stable, inward looking
and had limited choices. They kept their family needs on the top and their own personal
13

needs were subordinate to their family needs. They avoided risk. In the transient phase
(1980-90s), the consumers were more risk taking than their predecessors. They had
experienced multi-choices and had a tendency to be better off than their parents.
Economically, they had no fears or concerns. The new millennium consumer tends to
enjoy life. He has greater self-control, and looks for personal style and pleasure.
Exposures to variety of products and enhancement of economic status have changed the
attitudes of the upper middle class consumers towards brands. Indian society being
hierarchical in nature is therefore, status conscious (Sahay and Walsham, 1997).

Indians give very high value to brands. In India, a brand is a cue to quality because the
quality of the unbranded products varies widely (Johansson, 1997). According to study
conducted by Maxwell (2001) on testing of homogeneity versus heterogeneity of global
consumption in a cross-cultural price/brand effect model; Indian consumers in
comparison to Americans are tougher for the marketers to sell their products. However he
found Indian consumers more price and less brand conscious.

Technological innovations such as cellular phones and digital televisions have attracted
the attention of marketing researchers as regards to their adoption process (Saaksjarvi,
2003). Rogers (1976) has provided a classification of adopters in terms of innovators,
early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards. But now consumers are also
looking into the compatibility of the new products to their self-image and life style
(Saaksjarvi, 2003). Funk and Ndubisi (2006) observed a considerable association between
color and the choice of an automobile. The study further identifies the gender moderation
on the relationship between different color dimensions and the product choice.

According to Barak and Gould (1985), younger consumers are greater fond of
fashionable/stylish products than older ones. Young consumers are normally more willing
to try new products and they are interested in asking more information than older ones. It
makes them self-confident and that is why they are more likely to be opinion leaders and
less hesitant in brand switching. But one should not ignore the older consumers also. The
studies have revealed that the older consumers are wealthy, innovative and they also have
a tendency to be the part of a typical consumption system (Szmigin and Carrigan, 2001).
They can be a prime market for the luxury products. However they give more preference
14

to comfort or convenience than any other feature of the product. It also needs to be
recognized that most older people accept and enjoy their life stage, and are as willing to
spend their money as any other generation, but only if the product and the message are
relevant (Carrigan and Szimigin, 1999). On the other hand, the youth, which is more
informed, pragmatic, opportunistic, demanding and restless, will always seek excitement
in products and services (Sharma, 2004).

It is normally perceived that young buyers try new products, seek greater information and
are more self-confident in decision-making. Elderly consumers are selectively innovative
and they accept only those innovations that provide exclusive benefits (Nam et al, 2007).
Therefore, age and life cycle can be the delicate variables (Kotler and Keller, 2006) in the
consumer behavior process.

About 20 years ago, Gilly and Zeithmal (1987) studied how elderly people adopt new
technologies of that time, namely, Automatic Teller Machines, scanner-equipped grocery
stores, electronic fund transfers, and custom telephone call services. The central
conclusion of the study was that any new technology must also meet the needs of the
elderly. They found out, that elderly people, who are traditionally considered to be
resisting to change, do adopt new technologies, when they are suitable and easy enough to
use for them. Role of targeted marketing was found to be of critical importance (Gilly &
Zeithmal 1987). Another study in early 1990s on elderly peoples adoption of Automatic
Teller Machines (Smither & Braun 1994) revealed that mechanical-reasoning skills and
positive attitude toward ATMs increased the willingness to adopt the new technology.
Smither and Braun (1994) highlighted the importance of usefulness, convenience, safety
and complexity of innovations. Mathur (1999) developed a model to interpret adoption of
technology within socialization framework, which means that the influence of
socialization agents or change agents is taken into account. Pertaining to elderly people
these agents can be family members, like children or grand-children, who may trigger
cognitive steps (awareness and interest about technology) and behavioral steps (trial and
adoption of technology) as defined in socialization framework. The older the person is,
the more difficult the adoption of technology is likely to be, which in turn increases the
role of help from family members. An important implication for marketers and policy

15

makers was that younger family members also make often the decision of acquiring new
technology for their elderly relatives.

2.2.3 Gender in the Context of Mobile Phones

Mobile phone choice and use has also been found to be related to prior consumption
styles. According to a fresh survey of Finnish young people aged 16-20, it was found that
mobile phone choice and especially usage is consistent with respondents general
consumption styles (Wilska, 2003). The research showed that addictive use was common
among females and was related to trendy and impulsive consumption styles. Instead,
males were found to have more technology enthusiasm and trend-consciousness. These
attributes were then linked to impulsive consumption. The study concluded that genders
are becoming more alike in mobile phone choice. Because individual differences in
consumption patterns are obviously identifiable, we assume that background variables
especially have an influence on mobile phone choice.

Men and women purchase and relate products for different reasons (Dittmar et al, 1996).
They are subjected to different social pressures (Darley and Smith, 1995). Male and
female have a propensity to be right and left hemisphere reliant respectively (MeyersLevy, 1994). Males are generally self-focused while females are responsive to the needs
of both self and others (Meyers-Levy, 1988). Coley and Burgess (2003), in their empirical
study on wide range of products such as clothing, consumer electronics and books etc.
had found significant differences between men and women with respect to both affective
and cognitive process components. Rocha et al (2005) had also experienced different
requirements for clothing and fashion products based upon age and gender. Laroche et al
(2000) had found gender differences in relation to acquisition of in-store information for
buying Christmas clothing gifts. Vankatesh and Morris (2000) studied the moderating
role of gender in the adoption of a new software system. They revealed that the
determinants of adoption vary between genders; perceived usefulness of the technology
was the major factor considered by men for the acceptance of new software. In contrast,
the perceived ease of use of the software and the normative influence (for instance,
influence of peers and superior perception) were found key determinants for women. Ease
of use and normative influence had not been found significant for men. Men consider the
most prominent sign; they are more likely to focus on task effectiveness of a technology
16

without considering risk. In contrast, women are detailed processors and consider all
information available including the ones that are understated and potentially
disconfirming.

Women are then more likely to incorporate risk and other secondary information in their
decisions and behavior (Graham et al, 2002). Williams (2002) investigated the effect of
social class, income and gender effects on the buying perceptions, attitudes and behavior.
The products like dress clothing, garden tools, automobiles, wedding gifts, living room
furniture, childrens play clothing, kitchen appliances, casual clothing and stereos were
selected that varied in durability, necessity, expressiveness and gender orientation. The
study emphasized on understanding the evaluation criteria, which correspond to product
attributes and the benefits expected by the consumers. Both men and women rated
utilitarian criterion high over the subjective criterion. Women attached importance to all
criteria across all products, while men gave importance to only price. However Goldsmith
(2002) found consistency for both men and women while examining personal
characteristics of frequent clothing buyers.

2.3 The Effect of Behavior on the Evaluations of Different Attributes Related to

Mobile Phone Handsets Choice.
The purchase decision of products such as mobile phone, which are used publicly, is
strongly influenced by the consumers reference groups (Bearden and Etzel, 1982;
Bourne, 1957). Studying the customer preference groups give a good indicator of the
behavior of the consumer.

2.3.1 Influence of Social Reference Groups

The purchase decision of products such as mobile phone, which have been used publicly,
were found to strongly influenced by the consumers reference groups (Bearden and
Etzel, 1982; Bourne, 1957). Mobile phone manufacturers have been applying such
interpersonal influence in their advertising and marketing practice. For example, an
advertisement focused on personalization through color faceplates was used when
Siemens launched its series of GSM phones in USA during 2002, while a mobile phone
looking like a compact case complete with a mirror inside was promoted by Samsung
(Luna, 2002).
17

As the increased demand of mobile communication, there has been an increasing research
stream in the current literature addressing various issues related to mobile communication
(m-communication) and mobile commerce (m-commerce) (Barnes and Corbitt, 2003;
Siau and Shen, 2003; Scornavacca and Barnes, 2004; Laukkanen and Lauronen, 2005).
Some recent examples include: an overview of the mobile communication industry for its
global trend in the 21st Century by addressing all related hot topics such as mobile
market, mobile applications and m-commerce (Kumar, 2004). Specifically, Kumar (2004)
explored the competitive landscape of the mobile phone market based on competing
protocols or standards, airtime carriers and handset providers, and compared the key
characteristics of US mobile market with both European and Asian markets. Massoud and
Gupta (2003) investigate the consumer perception and attitude toward mobile
communication through a consumer survey.

Following the trend, Wen and Mahatanankoon (2004) describe a study on m-commerce
operation modes and applications for both consumers and industries; while Chan and
Chen (2003) focus on the usage pattern of web-based support system for mobile phone
purchasing and reveal five important factors for mobile phone purchasing decision: the
quality of signal transmission, product shape and color choice, the size and weight, price
along with associated service fees, and ease of use. They conclude that a good we-based
support system can enhance the quality of phone service to customers and thus become an
attractive lure in mobile phone purchasing selection.

Regarding the consumer purchasing behavior of a mobile phone, in addition to traditional

marketing claim that a consumers purchasing motivation will be influenced directly by
the phone and service related factors including: new technology, phone design and
appearance, the relative price, and the associated calling plan, consumer behavior
research on consumers social and interpersonal environment has indicated that the
mobile phone consumers final purchasing decision will also be influenced by reference
groups (such as friends, family, work associates and etc.) on whether to buy a specific
product and which brand or model to choose among competing alternatives (Moschis,
1976).

18

Social and interpersonal influence research can be traced back to Hyman (1942), who first
elaborated the term reference group when he asked respondents with which individuals
or groups they compare themselves. The term has been redefined thereafter with
additional research and now with a broader definition the reference group refers to the
groups used by an individual to direct ones purchasing behavior in a particular situation.
More specifically, the reference groups in this research consist of not only the groups that
an individual has a frequent contact with (such as family members, work associates,
friends, classmates and etc.) but also include the groups that an individual does not have a
membership in or a direct contact with, such as certain expected group or people in a
certain social level (Hawkins et al., 1998). Bourne (1957) studied group influence in
marketing and behavioral research, and concluded the concept of the reference group has
a pervasive influence on marketing studies. The research on reference groups has been
used thereafter as a basis for a variety of applications in several different fields. For
example, it has been argued that the reference group concept should be applied in
behavior studies of specific groups, such as: farmers, scientists, alcoholics, mentally ill
patients, and of course, different segments of consumers (Hyman and Singer, 1968). In
some follow-up research, the reference group theory was applied to more social groups
including: physicians (Coleman et al., 1966), auto owners (Grubb and Stern, 1971),
cosmetic users (Chao and Schor, 1998), religious change and alcohol use (Beeghley et al.,
1990), and students and housewives (Park and Lessig, 1977; Bearden and Etzel, 1982). In
the business practice, marketers have applied these concepts widely by portraying
products being consumed in social situations and inviting prominent/attractive
spokespersons to endorse products.

There are many published reports in the current literature on the consumer behavior from
the perspective of reference group influence with the broad defined concept. Witt and
Bruce (1972) suggested seven influence determinants including perceived risk, expertise
of the referent, and the individuals need for social approval. One study found that
consumers used both reflective and comparative appraisal to choose their products
(Morchis, 1976). Another revealed that consumers would not only apply direct and verbal
interaction to obtain the evaluations from reference group, but also observe reference
group members behavior to make a decision and suggested that the individuals choice

19

of different brands might also be influenced by ones reference groups (Bearden and
Etzel, 1982). Comparing young students with generally more conservative housewives,
Park and Lessig (1977) concluded that American students were more likely to be
influenced by reference groups than general American housewives were when making
their purchasing decisions and that the advertisements and promotions utilizing reference
group had more direct and significant influence over consumers final purchases. In their
research, Park and Lessig (1977) developed the first set of scales for measuring reference
group influence functions, concluding that reference group influence varied across
products. Bearden et al. (1989) believed that consumer susceptibility to interpersonal
influence is a general trait that varies across individuals and developed a scale to measure
it. Becker (1991) found that demand by a typical consumer is positively related to
quantities demanded by other consumers by exploring restaurant pricing. Wooten and
Reed (2004) suggested that consumers with high susceptibility to normative influence
tend to use protective self-presentation to avoid undesirable disapproval.

In summary, the existing literature has demonstrated that reference groups have
significant influence on consumers purchasing behaviors. While a consumer may
consider whether to follow the group consciously, in most cases, one will agree with the
group subconsciously.
An individual who is more susceptible to interpersonal influence will try to satisfy
reference groups expectation by complying with groups norms here refer to those
compliance expectations for every group member within a particular social background,
or acting in an expected role displayed by the group.

Previous research has identified three major types of reference group influences:
informational influence, utilitarian influence and value-expressive influence (Park and
Lessig, 1977; Bearden and Etzel, 1982), which are briefly described below.

2.3.2 Informational Influence

The informational influence is based on the desire to make informed decisions and
optimize the choice. Kelman (1961) suggested that an individual would accept an
influence that improves ones knowledge and ability to cope with the environment.

20

The informational influence only functions when the individual regards the behavior and
value of reference group members as potentially useful information and takes them into
consideration. Especially when a consumer lacks the knowledge of a certain product and
the experience of purchasing this item, one may perceive the information and
recommendation from his/her reference group as credible and thus accept them with
certain confidence. Marketing practical applications can be seen from the use of expert
power and internalization in advertising with the ads that feature doctors impersonating as
spokespersons for over-the-counter medicines.

2.3.3 Utilitarian Influence

This influence can be explained by the so-called compliance process in which an
individual is willing to satisfy a certain groups expectation in order to obtain the praise
or to avoid the punishment from the group (Kelman, 1961). A best demonstration for the
utilitarian influence may be the famous Asch Experiment in which participants were
found to willingly conform to the group answers, even changing their original right
answers (Rock, 1990). From a marketing research view of point, that is, by suggesting in
the advertisements that one could obtain social approval and acceptance by just using a
certain commodity, or in an opposite direction, by suggesting that one might be reject by
a certain group by not using a specific product, will have an influence on certain groups
of consumers. A good example is an advertisement for personal care products in which
consumers are punished by co-workers or friends for not using anti-dandruff shampoo,
deodorant or mouthwash in fact take advantage of the reference groups utilitarian
influence.

2.3.4 Value-Expressive Influence

This influence may be best explained by the identification process in which people are
willing to better express themselves to the society by making themselves similar to the
group that they want to belong to (Kelman, 1961). Under this influence, one may actively
follow the groups beliefs and rules while neglecting the praises or punishments, and
decide to completely accept and internalize the value of that reference group. One good
example of using this influence in marketing practice was used by soft drink giant Pepsi,
the company has aired its Young Generation brand image extensively so that its targeted
consumers had accepted the value of this specific group. Electronic products giant Sony
21

has a famous celebrity playing a successful managers role in its Sony mobile phone
advertisement and implying that people who use the same mobile phone will have the
same characteristics with that expected group

2.4 The Effect of Psychographics on the Evaluations of Different Attributes Related

to Mobile Phone Handsets Choice.
Psychographics and demographics are similar in that they both refer to the characteristics
of groups and individuals. Where they differ is in what types of characteristics they
describe. Demographics uses traits of people such as age, gender, occupation, home size,
income, number of children, etc. Psychographics instead focuses on peoples actions,
including preferences and lifestyle choices (Holladay, 2004). This study addresses
performance, image/impression and technological dimensions that relate to peoples
actions.

2.4.1 Performance and Image/Impression Dimensions

Emotional aspects of human perception are important in problem solving, decision
making and overall cognitive process (Ortony et al. 1988, Feist 1994). Perceived
image/impression, and related emotions are key factors in the design of the physical
product. Yet they are rarely referred to. Although subjective satisfaction was mentioned
by the International Standards Organization (ISO 1998) as they define usability as: the
effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction with which specified users can achieve
specified goals in particular environments few studies have investigated user satisfaction
as a part of usability (Nielsen and Levy 1994).

Important concepts of usability have concentrated on the functional and utility- oriented
aspects (Shackel 1986). Recently, however, an increased interest in attitudinal aspect of
usability has been noticed (Kwahk et al. 1997, Jordan 1998, Kanis 1998). Although
subjective impression can be influenced by the performance of a product, the emotional
aspects, or the image of product plays an important role in forming customer perception
(Han et al. 2000). The terms, emotionalusability or behavioral usability have been
used to describe the image/impression aspects of product design (Logan et al. 1994,
1995). Although slightly different in concept and wording, many researches have studied
satisfaction (Shneiderman 1998), sensuality in user interface design (Hofmeester et al.
22

1996), pleasure of use (Jordan 1998) and aesthetics in usability (Tractinsky et al. 2000).
Moreover, it is now widely accepted that image/impression plays an important role in
peoples perception of product quality. In these aspects, topics such as hedonic quality
(Helander and Zhang 2001), image/impression quality (Yun et al. 2001) and total
ambience quality (Jindo and Hirasago 1997) are being increasingly recognized.

There

have been several attempts to define the relationship between image and impression and
design of a product. The most noticeable research has been performed by Nagamachi
(2002). His term, Kansei Engineering, is an attempt to translate the customers feeling
(Kansei in Japanese) of a product to design elements (Nagamachi 1995). Inspired by
Nagamachi

substantial

research

has

been

conducted

to

study

customer

feeling/impression/image and their effect on various types of product design, including:

car interiors (Tanoue et al. 1997), automobile speedometer design (Jindo and Hirasago
1997), construction machinery (Nakada 1997), shoe design (Ishihara et al. 1997), cybershopping mall design (Kim and Moon 1998), and mobile phone design (Chuang et al.
2001). In all of these studies the semantic differential method was used to elicit the
components of user preference (Faulkner et al. 1983). The studies examined important
interactions between Kansei words and design elements. Since the procedure and
analysis largely depends on the selected Kansei words, it is however difficult to interpret
or generalize the results of individual studies.

Because of the inherent ambiguity in expressing design with image/impression words

such as emphasizing elegance or soft and smart design, it is not clear how these can be
translated into actual design elements. Since little attention has been given to the actual
process of defining the relationship between various image/impression factors and actual
design variables, it is also difficult to use the Kansei engineering process in a systematic
way.

Based on these arguments, Han et al. (2000) proposed an alternative method of explaining
the relationship between usability and design elements of a product. In their study,
usability elements were selected from a pre-determined hierarchy of human feelings and
impressions. The usability dimension included both the objective performance and
subjective image/impression. In their study, they viewed usability as the integration of
two different dimensions, (a) performance dimensions and (b) image/impression
23

dimensions. The performance dimensions, which measure user performance, were broken
down

into

three

categories:

perception/cognition,

learning/memorization,

and

control/action. The perception/cognition dimensions are used to examine how easy it is

for the users to perceive and interpret the interface of a product. The
learning/memorization dimensions explain how fast the users can learn the product and
how well they can remember its functions. The control/action dimensions explain the
users control activity and its results. All together, a total of 23 performance dimensions
were defined.

Similarly, the image/impression dimensions were broken down into three categories:
basic sense, description of image, and evaluative feeling/attitude. The basic sense
dimensions are related to the primitive image and impression of the product. The
description dimensions explain the image and impression of the product that the users
would describe based on their experience with the product. The evaluative feeling/attitude
category dimensions explain the attitude or judgmental feeling about the product.
Twenty-five image/impression dimensions were defined in their study. The details of the
selection and screening process related to usability dimensions are described in Kwahk et
al. (1997).

Second, the product in the study was decomposed into specific human interface elements,
the collection of objects that users see, hear, touch or operate. Finally, models were built
in a systematic way to describe the functional relationship between the usability
dimension and the human interface elements (Han et al. 2000, 2001).

Mobile phones are becoming increasingly popular. Due to the competition in this new
market, many companies are gearing towards a consumer-orientated approach in their
product design. In specifying design elements of mobile phones as well as other consumer
products, conjoint analysis technique has been used to collect consumer preference data.
Conjoint analysis in product design is usually conducted based on the assumption that
consumers evaluate the value/utility of a product/service by combining separate aspects
of utility provided by each product attribute (Hair et al. 1995).

24

The design of mobile phones is slightly different from general consumer electronic
products such as audio/video, home appliances and computers. Consumers seem
toperceive the hardware/software/service of a mobile phone as a single entity while the
design and planning of each element are typically managed by different companies.

This trend will be amplified as the design of products considers more individual customer
needs as the part of mass customization (Yun et al. 2000). The motivation of the study
was based on the idea of describing the image/impression of a product as a consumer
need to be transferred to each hardware/software/service design team for specific product
realization. Specifically, the image/impression evaluation gathered from the consumer
survey can be treated as the utility score, the most important input of conjoint analysis.

Mobile phones in South Korea differ from each other in almost all design features,
including shape, colour, size, and material. Due to the integration of functions such as
address books, calendars, and multi-media contents, a significant number of software
usability issues are introduced in menu design, icon interface, message management,
animation, and so forth. A possible way to approach this design problem would be a
model-based evaluation; that is, identifying the functional relationships between user
satisfaction and the specific design features of a product.

Researchers have investigated simple motives for mobile phone use, such as convenience,
personal efficiency, and security, as well as complex reasons such as information
immediacy, contactability, social interaction, and social control (Madel, 2004, Ree, 2007,
Haste 2005). Most research has focused on the influence of mobile phones on society
rather than on personal lif e(Campbell, 2003 and Kats, 2007). As mobile phones become
more prevalent and influence peoples everyday life from more dimensions, previous
research is insufficient in explaining the general populations new attitudes toward mobile
phones. On one hand, people begin to consider their mobile phone as a highly
personalized object. Its appearance and the way it is used, particularly in public, reflect
peoples personal preferences and identity. On the other hand, the phones multifunction
makes it possible or even inevitable for people to take a phone call anytime, anywhere.
Especially for the old and weak, the mobile phone is viewed as a necessity in case of
emergency. Thus, some groups of people may depend on mobile phones. As previous
25

research does not involve the newly emerging aspects of the influence of mobile phone on
personal life, such as self-character extension and dependence, the present study
hypothesizes three dimensions of attitudes towards mobile phones in general population:
sense of security, sense of self-character extension, and sense of dependence. Sense of
security refers to the mobile phones ability to reduce uncertainty and bring safety to
people. (Katz, 2007) first identified this dimension. Studies show that security concerns
are a major reason many people acquire mobile devices. This dimension has been
confirmed by different studies, (Campbell, 2003 and Kats, 2007) suggesting that it is a
consistent construct. Sense of self-character extension emphasizes that the mobile phone
is not only a communication tool but also the extension of the persons physical self.
(Ling 1999) People can build and show their identity and character by using the mobile
phone in a personalized way. Decorating mobile phones with personalized background
images as well as utilizing the special ring tones is especially popular among
youth.(Green, 2003 & Ling, 2001) Therefore, we define the perception of personal
physical self when using mobile phones as the dimension sense of self character
extension.
Sense of dependence reflects that as mobile phones have become more involved in
peoples lives, a strong propensity for continuous access to the phone and for using them
in public has resulted in people becoming dependent on mobile phones. For example,
some users always have their mobile phones with them and always leave their phones on.
Some of them feel lost when they leave their mobile phone at home and believe they
cannot be successful without a mobile phone. These feelings are different from
problematic mobile phone use,(Bianchi, 2006) which is probably due to preexisting
factors that lead the users to engage in problematic and excessive use of mobile phones.
Moderate dependence, such as longer time spent using a mobile phone during the week
and more monthly mobile phone expenditure in a general population, does not constitute
a mental disorder and does not impair mental and social functioning. This attitude has not
been mentioned in previous studies. We define it as a sense of dependence, wherein
one perceives dependence on a mobile phone, viewing it as a necessity and being
unwilling to part from it.

26

2.4.2 Technology Adoption

Another important aspect that has risen from different studies is that consumers purchase
new phones due to the fact that their existing ones capacity is not appropriate referring to
the idea that new technology features such as built-in cameras, better memory, radio,
more developed messaging services, and color displays are influencing consumer
decisions to acquire new models (In-Stat/MDR, 2002; Liu, 2002; OKeefe, 2004). Thus it
can be expected that new features will influence the intention to acquire new mobile
phones, and therefore the following hypothesis was developed

There has been little research regarding adoption of wireless (mobile) devices, but there is
a solid foundation of theories and previous studies on technology adoption (Kleijnen, M.
and K. de Ruyter, 2003, Van Akkeren, J. and D. Harker, 2003). The decision by a
company to utilize cell phones in the business, is in essence a technology adoption issue.
A number of theories have been developed to help explain the concept of technology
adoption (Mennecke, B. and Strader, 2003 and Kleijnen, M. and K. de Ruyter, 2003).

One widely accepted model is the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis, F.D,
1989, 1993). Davis (1989), in an innovation adoption and diffusion model, emphasized
the theoretical constructs of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use as a means of
predicting user acceptance of information technology. Adams et al. (Adams, D.A.,
Nelson, R.R., and Todd, P.A, 1992) replicated Davis research for fixed voice and e-mail.
They refined the measurement scales and utilized structured equation modeling to explain
interactions. In later research using the TAM model, Davis results indicated that while
ease of use is clearly significant, usefulness is even more important in determining user
acceptance (Davis, 1989). Lederer, Maupin, Sena, and Zhuang (2000) investigated TAM
for workrelated tasks involving the web. Their findings provided support for TAM and
also corroborated that usefulness has a stronger effect than ease of use.

Rogers (1995) identifies five attributes of an innovation that help to explain the rate of
technology adoption: Relative Advantage (degree to which innovation is perceived as
being better than the idea it supersedes); Compatibility (degree to which innovation is
perceived as consistent with existing values, past experiences, and needs of potential
adopters); Complexity (degree to which innovation is perceived as relatively difficult to
27

understand and use); trialability (degree to which innovation may be experimented with
on limited basis); observability (degree to which results of innovation are visible to
others). In his discussion of the attributes of innovation, Rogers states Cellular phones
have an almost ideal set of perceived attributes, and this is undoubtedly one reason for the
innovations very rapid rate of adoption in the U.S. (Rogers, E, 1995). Rogers then
describes how cell phones meet all of his attributes.

The Davis and Rogers models are both widely supported and followed, and are also
complementary. Daviss two main constructs can fit quite nicely within the Rogers
model.
Specifically, usefulness is similar to Rogers factor of relative advantage and ease of use
is similar to Rogers factor of complexity (Agarwal, R. and Prasad, J, 1997).
The Rogers factors were enlarged to include perceived risk (Eastlick, M.A. and S. Lotz,
1999). We include this since cell phones are vulnerable to security and privacy violations.
Another specific factor for cellular devices is payment and cost (Kleijnen, M. and K. de
Ruyter, 2003) and we likewise include it. Since studies of mobile adoption (Van Akkeren,
J. and D. Harker, 2003) point to present applications dominated by voice communications
and simple Internet, but a future of complex web, Internet, and e-commerce enhanced
uses, we have added web connectivity as a factor.

This study will emphasize concern for reliability of mobile devices, the importance of
technology product suitability, digital standards and web-connectivity. In sum, the two
major models and recent studies seek to explain user adoption and acceptance of
technology. The theoretical framework combines the Rogers and Davis models, and the
present study adds the factors of cost, security, reliability, digital standards, technology
product suitability, and future web-connectivity

2.5 Chapter Summary

This chapter presents a review of the literature related to consumer buying behavior of
mobile phones and the reasons underlying mobile phone change. The literature review is
organized or categorized according to the following research questions: The effect of
28

demographics on the evaluations of different attributes related to mobile phone handsets

choice; The effect of psychographics on the evaluations of different attributes related to
mobile phone handsets choice; The effect of behavior on the evaluations of different
attributes related to mobile phone handsets choice. The next chapter introduces the
research design, population, data collection methods and data analysis methods which
were used in thus study.

29

CHAPTER III
3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction
This chapter contains the research methodology which is planned for this particular study.
The type of research design, population, sample, sampling techniques and data collection
methods will be addressed. The data analysis and data presentation methods will also be
addressed in this chapter.

3.2 Research Design

The researcher used descriptive design in the study. Descriptive research is conducted to
describe phenomena as they exist. It is used to identify and obtain information on the
characteristics of a particular problem or issue. Descriptive research goes further in
examining a problem than exploratory research, as it is undertaken to ascertain and
describe the characteristics of the pertinent issues (Hussey, 2009)

3.3 Population and Sampling Design

3.3.1 Population
A population is a collection of individuals who have one or more personal or
environmental characteristics in common (Williams, 1978). The research was focused on
the students of United States International University (USIU). This is because of the ease
of accessibility and the regular interaction with the students. USIU had a total population
of 4,207 students at the time the research was being carried out.

3.3.2 Sampling Design

A sample is a group of people that was representative of the population (Cooper and
Schindler, 2001). It is a way of selecting a portion of the population so that the selected
portion is representative of the entire population. (Chandran Emil, 2004).

3.3.2.1 Sample Frame

This is a comprehensive list of individuals or unit in the population from which selection
of the sample is made. (Chandran Emil, 2004). A list of students was obtained from the
registrars office at the university for this purpose.
30

3.3.2.2 Sampling Technique

Random sampling technique was utilized in selection of the sample where any student
who came was handed the questionnaire. (Yates et al, 2008).

3.3.2.3 Sample Size

The case organization, United States International University had a total of 4,207 students
when the research was being carried out. Mugenda & Mugenda, 1999, state that a sample
population of 10 percent to 50 percent is required. A sample size of 10 percent was
picked to represent this population as all of the students could not be approached. The
sample size was therefore 421 students of which 392 questionnaires were returned.

3.4 Data Collection Methods

The information was collected using a questionnaire which is based on the research
questions: The effect of demographics on the evaluations of different attributes related to
mobile phone handsets choice; The effect of psychographics on the evaluations of
different attributes related to mobile phone handsets choice; The effect of behavior on the
evaluations of different attributes related to mobile phone handsets choice.

3.5 Research Procedures

A pre-test was carried out with 5 students to ensure that the expected types of data needed
are being acquired from the respondents. The questionnaire was given out to a minimum
of 421 students using the random sampling technique.
3.6 Data Analysis Methods
The researcher utilized quantitative method of data analysis. The quantitative analysis is
applied using descriptive statistics. Descriptive statistics was used to summarize a
collection of data in a clear and understandable way. Data was analyzed using SPSS and
Ms Excel and presented using tables and pie charts to give a clear picture of the research
findings.

3.7 Chapter Summary

The chapter describes the methodology that was used in carrying out the study. The
research design is descriptive and the population is the case organization students. The
31

data was analyzed using SPSS and Ms Excel and presented in inform of chart and tables.
The next chapter presents all the results of this study arranged as per the research
questions.

32

CHAPTER IV

4.0 RESULTS AND FINDINGS

4.1 Introduction
This chapter analyzes the data collected from the respondents. It will explore at the
following factors that affect mobile phone handset purchase. Interpretation will be drawn
from the same to determine how each factor influences the acquisition of mobile phone
handsets.

Data was collected using a questionnaire that was laid out in the Likert scale format. This
gives the respondents a selection of variable options to choose from. The information is
presented using frequency and percentages. Charts and also bar graphs are used to
supplement the former tools so as to enrich understanding.

4.2 Demographic Factors

This section presents data on age and gender of the respondents who participated in filling
out the questionnaires.

4.2.1 Age of Respondents

The questionnaires sought to get the age of the respondents. Since age is an issue for
many people the questionnaires plotted age in brackets as a measure of sensitivity to all
standing.

33

SOURCE: Survey data on USIU Students

Figure 3: Age of Respondents

From the results we can see that 43 percent of the respondents were in the 20 to 25 age
group followed by 21 percent in the 36 to 30 age group.

4.2.2 Ethnic Group of Respondents

The ethnic group was obtained for the purpose of the study to determine whether or not
the culture of respondents affects the purchasing behavior.

34

SOURCE: Survey data on USIU Students

Figure 4: Ethnic Group of Respondents

The results above show that most of the respondents were non-national ethnic with 25
percent, followed by Kikuyu with 22 percent, other national ethnic group with 13 percent
and Luo with 15 percent. The remaining were below 10 percent

4.2.3 Gender of Respondents

The survey received a good response in terms of gender balance with 51 percent being
female. Factors influencing mobile phone purchase in past studies have shown differences
in choices made between male and female consumers, therefore this question aims to help
determine such factors.

Table 1: Gender of Respondents

Gender

Respondents

Female

199

Male

193

Total

392

SOURCE: Survey data on USIU Students

35

4.2.4 Respondent who own a Mobile Phone Set

Before asked about factors that influence mobile phone purchase, respondents were first
questioned on whether or not they did own one. All 392 respondents owned a mobile
phone handset.

4.2.5 Brand of Current Mobile Phone Handset

The questionnaire sought to obtain the mobile phone handset brand and this, based on
previous studies has shown be one the factors that determine purchase.

SOURCE: Survey data on USIU Students

Figure 5: Brand of Current Mobile Phone Handset

Nokia is the highest use mobile phone amongst the respondents used by over 50 percent
of respondents, followed by Samsung which is used by over 15 percent of the
respondents, follows by Sony Ericsson, Apple and Blackberry which are used by over 7
percent of the respondents. The remaining brands were used by less than 5 percent of the
respondents.

4.2.6 Recency of Purchase of Current Mobile Phone Handset

The recency of purchase of the respondents current mobile phone was used to determine
how new the mobile phone handset is. From the chart below, it shows that more than 34
percent of the respondents purchased their mobile phone handset within the last one year
but more than six months ago and 17 percent purchased their mobile phone handset
36

within the last three months and last six months respectively. This goes to show that 70
percent of the respondents bought their mobile phone handset within one year.

SOURCE: Survey data on USIU Students

Figure 6: Recency of Purchase of Current Mobile Phone set

4.2.7 Major Use of Current Mobile Phone Set

The questionnaire sought to determine the greatest use of the mobile phone handsets. It
shows that 60 percent of the respondents used the phone mainly to communicate with
friends and family, while 17 percent used it mainly for work and business, followed by 14
percent who used it mainly as a fashion statement. A minimal amount of respondents
used it because of the technology it presented.

37

SOURCE: Survey data on USIU Students

Figure 7: Major Use of Current Mobile Phone Handset

4.2.8 Aspects of Current Mobile Phone Handset

The questionnaire sought to determine the views of the respondents towards their current
mobile phone handset so as to determine which factors of the current handset was
satisfying the respondent the most. The questionnaire also sought to determine the overall
satisfaction of the respondents mobile phone handset.
Table 2: Aspects of Current Mobile Phone Handset
Rating
1

Total

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

41.8%

164

16.4%

64

16.4%

64

11.9%

47

13.4%

53

100%

392

34.3%

135

19.4%

76

23.9%

94

16.4%

64

6.0%

23

100%

392

Accomplish
tasks required

44.8%

176

14.9%

59

17.9%

70

14.9%

59

7.5%

29

100%

392

Looks good and

presentable

29.9%

117

14.9%

59

26.9%

105

17.9%

70

10.4%

41

100%

392

25.4%

99

22.4%

88

20.9%

82

22.4%

88

9.0%

35

100%

392

35.8%

140

14.9%

59

17.9%

70

19.4%

76

11.9%

47

100%

392

Understand
phone
menu/options
and keypad
Learnt all
features needed

Relevant design
with respect to
features
Satisfied with the
handset

SOURCE: Survey data on USIU Students

38

The above table shows that respondents were mostly happy with their current handsets
and were able to utilize them as expected. The least satisfying aspect was the design of
presentable look of the handset while the most satisfying aspect was that the phone
accomplished the tasks the expected from it with least number of respondent feeling that
their mobile phone handset did not accomplish the tasks they expected it to carry out and
that they did not learn all the features they needed from the mobile phone handset.

4.2.9 Frequency of Purchase of New Mobile Phone Handset

The frequency of purchase of a new mobile phone is also an important factor. More than
70 percent of the respondents only purchased a new handset after they felt that the current
handset is no longer useful.

SOURCE: Survey data on USIU Students

Figure 8: Frequency of Purchase of New Mobile Phone Handset

4.2.10 General Factors Considered on Purchasing a New Mobile Phone Handset

The questionnaire also attempted to determine what general factors respondents take into
consideration when purchasing new mobile phone handsets. The table below summarizes
various aspects:

39

Table 3: General Factors Considered on Purchasing New Mobile Phone Handset

Rating
1

Total

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

Price of
handset/discount
offers

37.5%

147

9.4%

37

35.9%

141

12.5%

49

4.7%

18

100%

392

Latest cuttingedge technology

37.5%

147

7.8%

31

17.2%

67

28.1%

110

9.4%

37

100%

392

Experimental
phone features

28.1%

110

10.9%

43

20.3%

80

23.4%

92

17.2%

67

100%

392

Usability of the
phone in future

42.2%

165

12.5%

49

25.0%

98

17.2%

67

3.1%

12

100%

392

Age of technology
in the handset

29.7%

116

15.6%

61

26.6%

104

18.8%

74

9.4%

37

100%

392

Feeling of power
and control

23.4%

92

17.2%

67

26.6%

104

14.1%

55

18.8%

74

100%

392

35.9%

141

18.8%

74

20.3%

80

18.8%

74

6.3%

25

100%

392

9.4%

37

20.3%

80

37.5%

147

25.0%

98

7.8%

31

100%

392

40.6%

159

18.8%

74

12.5%

49

17.2%

67

10.9%

43

100%

392

29.7%

116

15.6%

61

25.0%

98

25.0%

98

4.7%

18

100%

392

Make/brand of the
mobile phone
handset
Location/Context
of use of the
handset
Convenience
provided by the
handset
Security provided
by the handset

SOURCE: Survey data on USIU Students

The table above shows that most of the respondents took into account all the factors
mentioned except for location/context of use where only about 9 percent of the
respondent felt it is a very important factor. The most important factors people took into
account during purchase of a new handset were the usability of the phone in future and
the convenience provided by the handset, followed by the price and the latest cutting-edge
technology provided by the handset.

4.2.11 Design Factors Considered on Purchasing a New Mobile Phone Handset

The questionnaire attempted to determine design factors separately as the mobile phones
have various aspects that make up the design.

40

Table 4: Design Factors Considered on Purchasing a New Mobile Phone Handset

Rating
1

Total

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

39.1%

153

20.3%

80

25.0%

98

9.4%

37

6.3%

25

100%

392

29.7%

116

18.8%

74

23.4%

92

21.9%

86

6.3%

25

100%

392

32.8%

129

18.8%

74

23.4%

92

18.8%

74

6.3%

25

100%

392

23.4%

92

18.8%

74

25.0%

98

20.3%

80

12.5%

49

100%

392

23.4%

92

17.2%

67

26.6%

104

15.6%

61

17.2%

67

100%

392

Color of handset

25.0%

98

14.1%

55

29.7%

116

15.6%

61

15.6%

61

100%

392

Touch screen

20.3%

80

7.8%

31

29.7%

116

21.9%

86

20.3%

80

100%

392

Changeability of
skin/color

17.2%

67

14.1%

55

26.6%

104

21.9%

86

20.3%

80

100%

392

Color screen

26.6%

104

12.5%

49

28.1%

110

25.0%

98

7.8%

31

100%

392

Minimal
keystrokes
Iconic Menu
Style
Logical ordering
of Menu
Variety of
fonts/colors/
themes
Slide/Flip-flap
or basic design

SOURCE: Survey data on USIU Students

From the table above it shows that many of the respondents felt that minimal keystokes,
iconic menu style and logical ordering of menu were more important than the
changeability of skin/color, touch screen, slide/flip-flap design and color of handset.
4.2.12 Technological Factors Considered on Purchasing a New Mobile Phone
Handset
The questionnaire attempted to determine technological factors separately as the mobile
phones have various aspects that make up technology.

41

Table 5: Technological Factors Considered on Purchasing a New Mobile Phone Set

Rating

Phone weight
and size
Bluetooth
WIFI/Radio
Dual Sim/Tri
Sim
GPS
Camera/Flash
Phone
memory/card
slots
Utility
software
Internet/3G

Total

5
%

No.

No.

53.1%

208

12.5%

49

20.3%

80

12.5%

49

1.6%

100%

392

40.6%

159

15.6%

61

12.5%

49

23.4%

92

7.8%

31

100%

392

21.9%

86

15.6%

61

28.1%

110

18.8%

74

15.6%

61

100%

392

28.1%

110

10.9%

43

31.3%

123

21.9%

86

7.8%

31

100%

392

35.9%

141

9.4%

37

21.9%

86

20.3%

80

12.5%

49

100%

392

46.9%

184

6.3%

25

21.9%

86

15.6%

61

9.4%

37

100%

392

45.3%

178

7.8%

31

26.6%

104

14.1%

55

6.3%

25

100%

392

46.9%

184

10.9%

43

18.8%

74

17.2%

67

6.3%

25

100%

392

SOURCE: Survey data on USIU Students

Phone weight and size was well above all other technological factors that respondents
take into account when purchasing an new handset. However, phone memory/card slot,
internet/3G, utility software and Bluetooth/Wifi/Radio followed closely. The least
important technological factors were Dual Sim/Tri Sim, GPS and camera.

4.2.13 Purchase of Mobile Phone Set Considered Risky

The questionnaire sought to determine whether or not respondents felt that the purchase
of that new mobile phone handset is risky in terms of investment and 51 percent of the
respondent felt that it is risky.

4.2.14 Purchase of New Mobile Phone Handset Based on Someones Views on it

With respect to social reference groups, the questionnaire attempted to determine if a
friend/colleague/family member influenced the purchase of a new mobile phone handset.
57 percent of the respondents felt that the social reference groups do influence their
purchase.

42

Table 6: Purchase of New Mobile Phone Handset Based on Someones Views on it

Based on social reference group
Respondents
Yes
222
No
170
Total
392
SOURCE: Survey data on USIU Students

4.2.15 People Views Considered Due to Expertise

From the 57 percent of respondents who felt that social reference groups influence their
purchase of the new mobile phone handsets, about 50 percent felt that it was due to the
expertise and knowledge of their friend/colleague/family. However, 41 percent felt that
this was not the case.

SOURCE: Survey data on USIU Students

Figure 9: People Views Considered Due to Expertise

4.2.16 Accompaniment of Colleague/Friend during Purchase of New Set

The questionnaire sought to determine whether or not the respondent purchased new
mobile phone in company of their friend/colleague/family and also attempted to
determine he major reason for this. 63 percent of the respondents had company of their
friends/colleagues/family while 73 percent of them needed Advice/Recommendations,
followed by 44 percent who just wanted the company. Only 29 percent sought approval
of their friend/colleague/family member.
43

SOURCE: Survey data on USIU Students

Figure 10: Accompaniment of Colleague/Friend during Purchase of New Set

4.2.17 Approval of Mobile Phone Handset by People Close to Respondent

The questionnaire determined that 76 percent of the respondents would still go ahead with
a mobile phone purchase irrespective of whether or not family, friends or colleagues
disapproved the purchase of the mobile phone handset.

4.2.19 Association of New Handset to a Social Reference Group

With respect to social reference groups, the questionnaire attempted to determine if the
purchase of a mobile phone handset was due to an associate of the respondent to a
organization/fan club/social group or class. 62 percent of the respondents associated their
mobile phone handset purchase to a social reference group.

4.2.20 Analysis of Demographic Factors

4.2.20.1 Age
Within the last month, 20 percent of those aged more than 40 years purchased their
current mobile handsets. Within The last six months, 100 percent of those above 40 years
purchased their mobile handsets, followed by 57 percent of those aged less than 20 years.
85.7 percent of those aged less than 20 purchased their handsets within the last one year.

44

Ninety three percent of respondents in the age group 20 to 25 years used their mobile
handset preliminarily for communication with friends followed by 85.7 percent of age
group 31 to 35 years, 80 percent of age group 36 to 40 years and 80 percent of age group
40 and above. Only 57.1 percent of the respondents of age groups 26 to 30 and 20 and
below used the mobile phone handset preliminarily for communication with friends and
family.

Eighty percent of respondents in the age group 36 to 40 years used their mobile handset
preliminarily for work or business followed by 71.4 percent of age group 26 to 30 years,
60 percent of age group greater than 40 years and 57.1 percent of age group 31 to 25
years. Only 28.6 percent of the respondents of age groups below 20 and 13.8 percent of
age group 20 to 25 years used the mobile phone handset preliminarily for work or
business.

Seventy one percent of respondents in the age group 20 and less years used their mobile
handset preliminarily as a fashion statement followed by 60 percent of age group 40 and
above. Only 40 percent of the respondents of age groups 36 to 40 years used their mobile
phone preliminarily as a fashion statement. Other age groups were less than 30 percent.
No respondent felt that they had a mobile phone but were unwilling to keep it.

Eighty percent of respondents in the age group 40 and above years used their mobile
handset preliminarily to make use of complimentary technology. All other age groups had
respondents less than 30 percent who used their mobile phone preliminarily to make use
of complimentary technology.

Fifty six percent of respondents within age group 20 to 25 considered price as a major
factor when considering the next mobile phone purchase followed by 38.5 percent of
respondents within age group 26 30 years. 50 percent of the respondents in each of the
age groups ages 36 years and above considered price as a weak factor when purchasing
the next mobile phone handset.

Fifty eight percent of the respondents within age group 20 to 25 years consider latest
cutting technology edge as the most important factor when purchasing the next mobile
45

phone handset followed by 42.9 percent of the respondents in age group 26 to 30 years.
Only 14.3 percent, 20 percent and 0 percent of respondents within the age group 31 to 35
years, 36 to 40 years and above 40 years felt that latest cutting edge technology is the
most important factor.

Forty four percent of the respondents within age group 20 to 25 years consider new and
experimental phone features as the most important factor when purchasing the next
mobile phone handset followed by 28.6 percent of the respondents in age group 26 to 30
years and those less than 20. Only 20 percent of respondents within the age group 36 to
40 years consider new and experimental phone features as the most important factor when
purchasing the next mobile phone handset. Age groups 31 to 35 years and 40 and above
did not consider it at all.

Sixty two and a half percent of the respondents within age group 20 to 25 years usability
of the phone in the future as the most important factor when purchasing the next mobile
phone handset followed by 57.1 percent of the respondents in age group 26 to 30 years
and 28.6 percent of the respondents in the age group 31 to 35 years. Remaining age
groups had less than 20 percent of respondents who felt this factor was important.

Forty six percent of respondents in the age group 20 to 25 years felt that the make/brand
of the mobile phone hand is one of the most important factor when purchasing a new
mobile phone handset, followed by age groups 20 to 25 years, below 20 years and 36 to
40 years who had 41.7 percent, 42.9 percent and 40 percent of their respondents
respectively.

Fifty six percent of respondents in the age group 20 to 25 years felt that the convenience
provided by handset as a whole is one of the most important factor when purchasing a
new mobile phone handset, followed by age groups 31 to 35 years, 36 to 40 years, 26 to
30 years and below 20 year who had 42.9 percent, 40 percent, 38.5 and 28.6 percent of
their respondents respectively.

Sixty two and a half percent of the respondents within age group 20 to 25 years usability
of the phone in the future as the most important factor when purchasing the next mobile
46

phone handset followed by 57.1 percent of the respondents in age group 26 to 30 years
and 28.6 percent of the respondents in the age group 31 to 35 years. Remaining age
groups had less than 20 percent of respondents who felt this factor was important.

Forty six percent of respondents within the age group 20 to 25 years felt that security
provided by handset is an important factor to consider when purchasing a new mobile
phone handset, followed by 42.9 percent and 45.8 percent of respondents from age groups
31 to 25 years and 20 to 25 years respectively. Other age groups did not show significant
interest.

Forty six percent of respondents within age group 20 to 25 years considered the iconic
menu style as opposed to text menus very important, followed by 33.3 percent of
respondents within age groups 20 and less. 46.2 percent of respondents within age group
26 to 30 years considered Logical ordering of menu items very important, followed by
41.7 percent of respondents within age groups 20 to 25 years. With respect to variety of
font and font colours and themes, age group 31-35 years dominated with over 42.9
percent of respondents considering this factor to be important followed by 32 percent of
respondents within the age group of 20 to 25 years. The Slide/Flip-flap or basic design
seemed to appeal age groups 26 to 30 years and 20 to 25 years with over 46.2 percent
and 32 percent of respondents who felt that this factor is important. Age groups 20 to 25
years and 26 to 30 years found color of the handset very important with over 36 percent
and 30.8 percent of respondents who considered the color important respectively. Varying
from the above design factors, age groups 20 to 25 years, 26 to 30 years and ages 40 and
above considered touch screen to be quite important when purchasing new handsets.
Changeability of skin/cover of the mobile phone handset got the least response with 29.2
percent of the respondents within age group 20 to 25 percent, and 28.6 percent of
respondents within age groups 20 and less finding the factor important. Colour screen was
considered important only by ages 30 and below with 64.7 percent of respondents within
20 to 25 years, followed by 45.8 percent of respondents within age group 20 to 25 years.

Over 71.4 percent of respondents within age group 26 to 30 years considered phone
weight and size as the most important factor when purchasing mobile phone handsets,
followed by 64 percent of respondents from the age group 20 to 25 years and 42.9 percent
47

form the age groups 30 to 25 years and less than 20 years. Presence of Bluetooth, WIFI
and/or Radio in the mobile phone handset was considered important by 57.1 percent of
age group 26 to 30 years, followed by 52 percent of age group 20 to 25 years, and 42.9
percent of age group less than 20 years. Other age groups were below 30 percent.
Availability of Dual/Tri SIM got a low response as 42.9 percent of age group 31 to 25
years considered it important when purchasing a new mobile handset followed by 28.6
percent of respondents within age groups 26 to 30 years and less than 20 years. 46.2
percent of respondents within age group 26 to 30 years, followed 42.9 percent of
respondents within age group 20 and below considered Global Positioning System (GPS)
as an important factor when purchasing new mobile phone handsets. Camera/Flash was
popular amongst age group 20 to 25 years with of 56 percent of the respondents
considering this factor to be important when purchasing a new mobile phone handset,
followed by 42.9 percent of respondents from the age group 20 and below and 38.5
percent of respondents from age group 26 to 30 years. Phone memory/card slots was also
important amongst age group 20 to 25 years, followed by age group 26 to 30 years which
had 60 percent of respondents and 42.9 percent of respondents who felt that phone
memory/card slots is an important factor. Utility software was much embraced by age
groups 20 to 50 years and 26 to 30 years which had over 64 percent of respondents who
felt that it is key when purchasing new handsets. They were followed by age group 20
and below who had 42.9 percent of respondents who felt that this factor is important. 62.5
percent of respondents within age group 20 to 25 years felt that availability of internet
and/or 3G is key when purchasing new mobile phone handsets. They were followed by
57.1 percent of respondents within age group 20 to 30 years followed by 42.9 percent of
age groups 31 to 25 years and 20 years and below.
Hundred percent of respondents within age group 36 to 40 years felt that purchasing a
handset is a risky investment followed by age group 31 to 35 years which had over 71.4
percent of respondents who felt the same.

4.2.20.2 Ethnic Group

Nokia was the most popular brand owned across all ethnic groups. 100 percent of the
respondents belonging to the Kisii group owned Nokia, followed by 75 percent, 70
percent, 66.7 percent and 60 percent of respondents belonging to Kalenjin, Luo, Luhya
and Kikuyu ethnic groups respectively. 25 percent of the Kalenjin ethnic group owned a
48

Samsung and 50 percent of the Meru ethnic group owned LG Electronics whereas the
remaining 50 percent owned Nokia. Other nationals and non-nationals have greater
dispersion where 55.6 percent of respondents belonging to other national ethnic groups
owned Nokia followed by 22.2 percent who owned Samsung. 30.3 percent of Nonnational ethnic groups owned Nokia, followed by 23.5 percent of Samsung and 17.6
percent Blackberry.

Hundred percent of respondents belonging to the Luhya, Kamba and Kisii ethnic groups
used the mobile phone preliminarily for communication with friends, followed by Other
national ethnics, Kikuyu and Kalenjin ethnic groups which had over 88.9 percent, 86.7
percent and 75 percent of respondents using their mobile phone handsets preliminarily for
the same purpose. 66.7 percent, 60 percent, 50 percent and 46.7 percent of the
respondents belonging to Kamba, Luo, Meru and Kikuyu ethnic groups respectively, used
the mobile phone handset preliminarily for work/business. The Luo and Kamba ethnic
groups lead in using the mobile phone preliminarily as a fashion statement containing 40
percent and 33.3 percent of the respondents. None of the ethnic groups respondents were
found to be unwilling to keep the mobile phone handset. Kamba and Luo ethnic groups
were found to make the most of complimentary technology however a low percentage of
the respondents of 33.3 percent and 20 percent respectively did so.

Hundred percent of the Kisii, Meru, Kalenjin and Luhya ethnic group change their mobile
phone handsets depending on how long the phone handset lasted, followed by Kamba,
Kikuyu, other national ethnic and non-national ethnic who had 80 percent, 76.9 percent,
71.4 percent and 60 percent of respondents who change their handsets depending on how
long the handset lasts. 37 percent of the Luo ethnic group changed their mobile phone at
least once a year. Latest cutting edge technology was a very important factor for Luhya
ethnic group with 100 percent considering it to be most important when purchasing a new
handset. They were followed by 50 percent of Meru, 43.8 percent of non-national ethnic
and 42.9 percent of Kikuyu. 100 percent of the Kisii ethnic groups felt it is not at all a
consideration. 100 percent of the Kisii ethnic group considered new and experimental
phone features important followed by 50 percent of Meru ethnic group and 37.5 percent
of

Luo ethnic group. 66.7 percent of Luhya ethnic group considered age of the

technology present in the mobile phone as very important, followed by 50 percent of

49

respondents from the Kikuyu, Kamba and Meru respectively. 50 percent of Meru ethnic
group felt very strongly that the feeling of power and control that the handset is most
important when considering purchase of a new mobile phone handset, followed by 40
percent of the respondents belonging to the Kamba ethnic group. A very low percentage
of respondents across all ethnic groups felt that location/context or use of the mobile
phone handset is important when purchasing a new mobile phone handset however a
higher percentage was found with the Luhya, Kikuyu and non-national ethnic groups
where over 33.3 percent of respondents felt is it an important factor. 66.7 percent of
respondents belonging to the Luhya ethnic group felt strongly that security provided by
the handset is important, followed by 50 percent of respondents belonging to the Meru
ethnic group.

Iconic menu style was most appealing to the Luhya ethnic group with over 66.7 percent
of the respondents considering it as an important factor when purchasing a new mobile
phone handset, followed by 50 percent of respondents belonging to the Kalenjin, Meru
and other national ethnic groups.

Phone weight and size seemed to be the most popular factor with 100 percent of
respondent belonging to the Luhya, Kisii and Meru ethnic groups strongly considering it
as an important factor when purchasing a new mobile phone handset. 100 percent of the
respondents belonging to the Luhya ethnic group, followed by 75 percent of the Kalenjin
ethnic group and 50 percent of the Meru ethnic group considered

the presence of

Bluetooth, WIFI and/or Radio to be a strong factor when purchasing a new mobile phone
handset. Availability of Dual/Tri was considered strongly important by all of the Kisii
respondent, followed by 33.3 percent of the Luhya ethnic group and 33.3 percent of the
non-national ethnics. 100 percent of the Luhya ethnic group, followed by 60 percent of
the Kamba ethnic group and 50 percent of the Luo ethnic group considered Global
Positioning System (GPS) an important factor when purchasing a new mobile phone
handset.100 percent of the Kisii ethnic group, followed by 66.7 percent of the Luhya
ethnic group, 50 percent of the Kalenjin ethnic group, 50 percent of the Meru ethnic
group considered Camera/Flash to be the most important factor when purchasing a new
handset. 100 percent of the Luhya ethnic group and the Kisii ethnic group followed by 75
percent of the Kalenjin ethnic group and 50 percent of the Kikuyu and Meru ethnic
50

groups considered phone memory/card slots to be an important factor when purchasing a

new mobile phone handset. Utility software was popular with the Kisii and Meru ethnic
groups with all of the respondents considering it as an important factor followed by 66.7
percent of the Luhya ethnic group and 57.1 percent of the Kikuyu and other national
ethnic group. Availability of Internet and/or 3G was quite popular with 6 ethnic groups
where 100 percent of the Kisii and Luhya ethnic groups considered it to be very important
followed by the Kalenjin, Kamba, Kikuyu and Meru ethnic groups where 75 percent, 60
percent, 50 percent and 50 percent of the respondents respectively felt that is was an
important factor when purchasing a new handset. 77.8 percent of the other national ethnic
groups felt that purchasing a mobile phone handset was a risky investment, followed by
75 percent of the Luo ethnic group, 66 percent of the Kamba ethnic group and 50 percent
of the Kikuyu and Meru ethnic groups.

4.2.20.3 Gender
The difference in number of Male and Female respondents was close with respect to
when they purchased their current phone with the maximum of 33.3 percent and 35.3
percent of the male and female respondents respectively purchasing their mobile phone
handsets within the last one year. 15.2 percent and 20.6 percent purchased with the last
three months respectively and 18.2 percent and 17.6 percent purchased within the last six
months respectively.

Seventeen percent of the male respondents bought a mobile phone handset at least once a
year as compared to just 7.1 percent of female respondents who did so at least one a year.
75 percent of female respondents purchased one depending on how long it lasts as
compared to 65.5 percent of male respondents who did so depending on how long it lasts.
Latest cutting edge technology was slightly more important to female respondents as
compared to male respondents where the difference was just 1.3 percent between the 38.7
percent of males and 40 percent of females. The same was with new and experimental
phone features where 28.1 percent of male considered it a strong factor as compared to 30
percent of female respondents. 36.7 percent of the female respondents felt that security
provided by the phone is important whereas 26.7 percent male respondents felt the same.

51

Minimal keystrokes was more popular with male respondents of which 43.8 percent
found it to be an important factor as compared to 36.7 percent of female respondents. 37.9
percent of the female respondent felt that iconic menu style is a strong important factor as
compared to 26.7 percent of male respondent who felt the same. Female respondents
considered logical ordering or menu items and variety of font and font colours more
important as compared to male respondents with 41.4 percent and 33.3 percent
respectively as compared to male respondent percentages of 28.1 percent and 16.7 percent
respectively. Male respondents on the other hand, felt that slide/flip-flap or basic design
was more of an important factor as compared to female respondents with 40 percent of
male respondent feeling that this factor is very important as compared to 30 percent of
female respondents. A significant difference in importance of the colour of the handset
was seen with 33.3 percent of the female respondents feeling that it is important as
compared to just 18.8 percent of male respondents. Touch screen was considered more
important amongst the male with 33.3 percent of them considering it very important as
compared to 10 percent of the female respondents. There was not much difference
between male and female respondents with respect to changeability of skin/cover as 20
percent of male respondents felt that it is important as compared to 17.2 percent of female
respondents. Colour screen played a big role with male respondents where 32.1 percent of
them felt it is very important as compared to 27.6 percent of female respondents.

Phone weight and size was equally important for both male and female respondents as
male respondents who strongly felt that it was an important factor were 54.5 percent and
female respondents were 53.3 percent. Presence of Bluetooth, WIFI and/or Radio was
more important for female respondents as compared to male respondents. 46.7 percent of
female respondents considered this factor key as opposed to 37.5 percent of male
respondents. Availability of Dual/Tri SIM was not much different between male and
female respondents with 22.6 percent and 23.3 percent respectively however Global
Positioning System (GPS) varied more with 39.3 percent of female respondents
considering it to be an important factor whereas 22.6 percent of the male respondents felt
it was important. Camera/Flash was more famous with female respondents with 43.3
percent of them considering it more important as compare with male respondent with
33.3. 55.2 percent of female respondents found utility software to be very important as
compared to 40.6 percent of male respondents. Phone memory/card slots seemed to be
52

more popular with female respondents as 53.3 percent of them strongly considered it as
opposed to 41.9 of male who strongly considered it during the purchase of a new mobile
phone handset. 40.6 percent and 42.5 percent of male respondents who felt that utility
software and availability of internet/3G is highly important respectively.

Amongst the target respondents, male respondents seem to be more risk averse as
opposed to female respondents with respect to mobile phone investment however the
difference was not too much. 50 percent of the female respondents considered it as an
important factor where as 54.5 percent of male respondent felt it as an important factor.

Fifty seven percent of the male respondents purchased the mobile phone handset based on
someones views as opposed to 56.7 percent of the female respondents. The margin is
greater with respect to whether these people are considered highly knowledgeable/experts
with 50 percent of the male respondents thinking so and only 36.4 percent of the female
respondents thinking so. On the contrary, 66.7 percent of the female respondents would
request the company of their friend/relative/colleague as opposed to 60.6 percent of the
male respondents. From this, 24.2 percent of the male respondents took their
friends/relative/collages

as

company,

42.4

percent

took

them

to

provide

advice/recommendations and 18.2 percent took them for the purpose of seeking approval.
From the female respondents, 20.6 percent of took their friends/relative/collages as
company, 47.1 percent took them to provide advice/recommendations and 11.8 percent
took them for the purpose of seeking approval.

Seventy seven percent of the female respondents purchased the mobile phone handset
irrespective of the views of friends/family/colleagues as opposed 75 percent of male
respondents. 50 percent of female respondents purchased their handsets as the handsets
associates them to a group as opposed to only 28.1 percent of male respondents.

4.3 Behavioral Factors

4.3.1 Informational Influence
Out of the 65.7 percent of the respondents who would consider someones view when
purchasing a new handset, 43.2 percent would consider the views of experts and highly

53

knowledgeable people. 20.3 percent were not sure and said they may or may not consider
someones views.
Only 23.9 percent of the total respondents took with them a friend, relative or colleague
with them during a purchase of a new mobile phone handset just as company. 44 percent
of the total respondents took with them a friend, relative or colleague during a purchase of
a new mobile phone handset to seek advice and taking into consideration their
recommendations.

4.3.2 Utilitarian Influence

Only 14 percent of the total respondents took their friend, relative or colleague with them
a part of an approval process in purchasing the mobile phone handset.

From the 92.5 percent of the total respondents who answered this question, 77.4 percent
would still go ahead and buy a handset even if their friend/family or relative would go
against it.

4.3.3 Value-Expressive Influence

From the 92.5 percent of the total respondents who answered the question, only 38.7
percent of them felt that the purchase of their mobile phone handset would be as a result
of its association with a social reference group.

4.4. Psychological Factors

4.4.1 Current Handset Factors
Thirty six percent of the total respondents were happy with their current handsets with
respect to the expectations of them when they purchased them. Only 11.9 percent of the
total respondents were totally unhappy with their current mobile phone handsets.

Forty five percent of the total respondents felt that the handset is easily operated and
accomplished the tasks required from it. 41.8 percent easily understood the phone
menu/options and keypad usage. 34.3 percent easily learnt all the features needed from
the handset, followed by 29.9 percent who felt that is looks good and presentable. The

54

least favors factor of current mobile phone handsets was the relevance of design with
respect to the feature where only 25.4 percent felt it to be the best factor.

Thirteen percent of the total respondents felt that phone menu/options and keypad usage
was the worst factor of their current mobile phone handsets. From the remaining factors,
less than 10 percent felt they were the worst factors of their current phone handset.

4.4.2 Next Purchase

Forty percent of the total respondents would consider the usability of the phone in future
as the most important factor when purchasing a new mobile phone hand, followed by
price/discount offers of the handset where 35.8 percent considered this as the most
important factor. The age of technology present in the handset and the security provided
by the handset were considered most important by 28.4 percent of the respondents. The
least important factor was new and experimental phone features with just 26.9 percent
thinking that it is the most important factor.

In design factors, minimal keystrokes used to accomplish a task attracted the most votes
with 37.3 percent considering it as the most important design factor to consider when
purchasing a new phone handset. This was followed by 31.3 percent who felt that logical
ordering of menu items is the most important design factor followed by 28.4 percent for
iconic menu style as opposed to text menus, 25.4 percent for color screen. Touch screen,
changeability of skin/cover, color of handset, slide/flip-flap design, variety of fonts, font
colors and themes were the least preferred factors when purchasing new handsets.

Phone weight and size attracted 50 percent of the respondents with respect to
technological factors, followed by 44.8 percent of respondents who felt that availability of
internet and/or 3G was the most important factor. Phone memory/card slots and utility
software were the next best as 43.3 percent of the total respondents felt is the most
important factor. Camera/flash, GPS, dual/tri sim, presence of Bluetooth, Wifi and/or
radio received less than 40 percent of the total votes with availability of dual sim/tri sim
being the least popular.

55

CHAPTER V
5.0 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Introduction
The chapter will look at the major finding from chapter four and will draw conclusions
based on those results and make purposeful recommendation on the same.

5.2 Summary
The objective of this study was to examine consumer buying behavior of mobile phone
handsets and to investigate the reasons underlying mobile phone change with respect to
the following research questions; The effect of demographics on the evaluations of
different attributes related to mobile phone handsets choice, the effect of psychographics
on the evaluations of different attributes related to mobile phone handsets choice and the
effect of behavior on the evaluations of different attributes related to mobile phone
handsets choice.

The research design in use in this study is descriptive. Descriptive research is conducted
to describe phenomena as they exist. It is used to identify and obtain information on the
characteristics of a particular problem or issue. Descriptive research goes further in
examining a problem than exploratory research, as it is undertaken to ascertain and
describe the characteristics of the pertinent issues (Hussey, 2009)

This study utilized the quantitative method of data analysis. The quantitative analysis is
applied using descriptive statistics. Descriptive statistics is used to summarize a collection
of data in a clear and understandable way. Data will be analyzed using SPSS and
presented using tables and pie charts to give a clear picture of the research findings.

The case organization, United States International University has a total of 4,207
students. A sample size of 10 percent was picked to represent this population as all of the
students can not be approached. Mugenda & Mugenda, 1999, state that a sample
population of 10 percent to 50 percent is required. The sample size will therefore be 421
students of which 392 questionnaires were returned.

56

5.3 Discussions

5.3.1 The Effect of Demographics on the Evaluations of Different Attributes Related

to Mobile Phone Handsets Choice.

From the study it was evident that age group 20 and below preliminarily used them for
communication with friends and family. They bought mobile phone handsets based on
fashion/trends and considered cutting-edge technology as the most important factor. They
are also particular about the make of the mobile and whether the handset skin/cover is
changeable.

Age groups 20 to 25 used the mobile phone preliminarily for communication with friends
and family. They opted for new and experimental phone features and also considered the
usability of the mobile phone handset in future. With respect to design they were
particular about iconic menu style, whether the phone is flap-flap or slide design, color
screen and touch screen.

Age groups 26 to 30 used the mobile phone preliminarily for communication for work or
business. They opted for convenience provided by the handset. The make of the handset
was also an important factor for this age group. With respect to design they were
particular about logical ordering of menu items, iconic menu style, whether the phone is
flap-flap or slide, color screen and touch screens.

Age group 31 to 35 used the mobile phone preliminarily for communication for work or
business and also friends and family. All of them felt that investment in a mobile phone
handset is risky. They seem to be more particular about the color, font and themes
provided by the handset as well as the new and experimental phone features provided by
the handset. They did consider the brand of the handset.

Age group 40 and above used the mobile phone preliminarily for communication for
work or business. They also considered the mobile phone handset fashion and trends as
an important factor. Unlike other age groups they considered complimentary phone

57

features that the handset offered and also preferred touch screens. They seem to change
their handset more often than other age groups.

The above analysis is consistent with the literature review presented in this study where
Subnavis (2002) divided the consumer types in three separate groups. Ages 30 and below
which belong to the 1980-90s period demonstrated greater personal style and higher risk
taking. This age group showed no fears and concerns economically, with the exception of
age group 40 and above with was in contradiction with the literature review as this age
group seemed to be changing mobile phone handsets more often the age groups 30 to 40
years. Younger age group being more stylish, and willing to try new products was also
consistent with Barak and Gould (1985). Age groups 26 to 30 years showed greater need
for comfort and convenience in their mobile phone handsets than age groups 31 and
above which was not consistent with Barak and Gould (1985) who mentioned that older
age groups inclined more towards comfort and convenience. This could be attributed to
the target group having relatively few respondents in the age group 40 and above.

Looking at ethnic groups, the Kikuyu ethnic group preferred Nokia and Sony Ericsson
handsets. They used the mobile phone handset preliminarily for friends/family and
work/business. They preferred latest cutting edge technology and considered the age of
the

technology

present

in

the

handset.

Phone

weight/size,

presence

of

Bluetooth/WIFI/Radio, Phone cards, utility software and Internet/3G software were the
major factors they considered. They were also particular about the context of use of the
handset and considered the handset purchase as a risky investment.

The Kalenjin ethnic group preferred mainly the Nokia and Samsung brand. They used the
handset

preliminarily

for

work/business.

They

preferred

presence

of

Bluetooth/WIFI/Radio, Phone cards, iconic menu style and Internet/3G.

Luo ethnic group preferred Nokia and Sony Ericsson handsets. They used the mobile
phone handset preliminarily for friends/family. For them, the trends and fashion in the
mobile market appealed to them the most. Also, complimentary features provided by the
handset was an important consideration. Changeability of the phone cover/skin, new and

58

experimental phone features, GPS and camera were also important consideration when
purchasing new mobile phone handsets.

Kamba ethnic group preferred Nokia, Samsung and Apple handsets. They used the
mobile phone handset preliminarily for friends/family and also work/business. For them,
the trends and fashion in the mobile market appealed to them the most. Also,
complimentary features provided by the handset were an important consideration. Age of
the technology in the handset was consideration together with GPS and Internet/3G.

Luhya ethnic group preferred Nokia handsets. They used the mobile phone handset
preliminarily for friends/family. They preferred latest cutting edge technology and
considered the age of the technology present in the handset. Iconic menu style, phone
weight/size, presence of Bluetooth/WIFI/Radio, Phone cards, GPS and Internet/3G
software was the major factors they considered. They were also particular about the
context of use of the handset.

Kisii ethnic group preferred Nokia. They used the mobile phone handset preliminarily for
friends/family. New and experimental phone features, phone weight and size, camera,
phone memory/card, utility software and 3G were the main consideration when
purchasing new handsets.

Meru ethnic group preferred Nokia and LG electronics handsets. They used the mobile
phone handset preliminarily for work/business. They preferred latest cutting edge
technology, new and experimental phone features and considered the age of the
technology present in the handset. Phone weight/size, presence of Bluetooth/WIFI/Radio,
Phone cards, utility software and Internet/3G software were the major factors they
considered. Iconic menu style and security provided by the handset were also important
considerations.

Other national ethnic groups preferred Nokia, Motorola, Samsung and Apple. They used
the mobile phone handset preliminarily for work/business. Phone weight and size, phone
memory/card, utility software, iconic menu style were the main consideration when

59

purchasing new handsets. They also considered the handset purchase as a risky
investment.

Non-national ethnic groups preferred Nokia, Samsung and Apple. They used the mobile
phone handset preliminarily for work/business. Phone weight and size, phone
memory/card, utility software, iconic menu style, Internet/3G and Bluetooth/WIFI/Radio
were the main consideration when purchasing new handsets.

All cultures mentioned above except for part of the non-national ethnic groups are
cultures that had higher power distances, had low uncertainty avoidance, lower rate of
technology adoption as compared to western cultures which was highlighted by Hall,
(1959, 1976) and Hofstede (1995). Based on the research above, there didnt seem to be
large differences between all the cultures mentioned and non-national ethnic groups.
Further breakdown of the non-national ethnic groups perhaps would have resulted in
closer associations with the literature review. However, all the national cultures did show
stronger traits of cultures with large power distance, lower technology adoption, and
higher uncertainty avoidance.

Male respondents preferred handsets with minimal keystrokes. They preferred having a
choice between flip/flap, slide or basic design. Touch screen and colour screen seemed to
be the most appealing. Male respondents were more risk averse with respect to purchase
of mobile phone handsets. They were found to also take expert advice and advice from
knowledgeable personalities with purchasing new handsets.

Female respondents kept their handsets longer and preferred changing them only once
their use was exhausted. They felt that the handset provides security as opposed to male
respondents. They preferred iconic menu styles, ability to change font, font colours and
themes. The considered the color of the handset, availability of Bluetooth/WIFI/Radio,
Camera, GPS, utility software, phone memory/card when purchasing new handsets as
opposed to male respondents. They showed a greater association with social reference
groups as they would buy phone handsets that would associate them to the groups.

60

Both male and female respondents considered latest cutting edge technology, new and
experimental phone features, phone weight and size.

As highlighted by Graham et al (2002), women are less risk averse than men which is
what was also determined by the study. Men take latest cutting edge more important than
female respondents and this was also mentioned by Wilska (2003) where he mentioned
that males were found to have more technology enthusiasm. According to Meyers-Levy
(1998), males are generally self-focused while females are responsive to the needs of both
self and others. In this study, female respondents were found to request the company of
their friend/relative/colleague more than the male respondents.

Although this study showed few differences in male and female behavior towards
selection of a mobile phone handset, the few varying factors seems to be strongly related
to the literature review.

5.3.2 The Effect of Psychographics on the Evaluations of Different Attributes

Related to Mobile Phone Handsets Choice.

With respect to psychological behavior, 35.8 percent of the total respondents were happy
with their current handsets with respect to the expectations of them when they purchased
them.

Forty five percent of the total respondents felt that the handset is easily operated and
accomplished the tasks required from it. 41.8 percent easily understood the phone
menu/options and keypad usage. 34.3 percent easily learnt all the features needed from
the handset, followed by 29.9 percent who felt that is looks good and presentable. The
least favoured factor of current mobile phone handsets was the relevance of design with
respect to the feature where only 25.4 percent felt it to be the best factor. 13 percent of the
total respondents felt that phone menu/options and keypad usage was the worst factor of
their current mobile phone handsets. From the remaining factors, less than 10 percent felt
they were the worst factors of their current phone handset. 40 percent of the total
respondents would consider the usability of the phone in future as the most important
factor when purchasing a new mobile phone hand, followed by price/discount offers of
61

the handset where 35.8 percent considered this as the most important factor. The age of
technology present in the handset and the security provided by the handset were
considered most important by 28.4 percent of the respondents. The least important factor
was new and experimental phone features with just 26.9 percent thinking that it is the
most important factor.

In design factors, minimal keystrokes used to accomplish a task attracted the most votes
with 37.3 percent considering it as the most important design factor to consider when
purchasing a new phone handset. This was followed by 31.3 percent who felt that logical
ordering of menu items is the most important design factor followed by 28.4 percent for
iconic menu style as opposed to text menus, 25.4 percent for color screen. Touch screen,
changeability of skin/cover, color of handset, slide/flip-flap design, variety of fonts, font
colors and themes were the least preferred factors when purchasing new handsets.

Phone weight and size attracted 50 percent of the respondents with respect to
technological factors, followed by 44.8 percent of respondents who felt that availability of
internet and/or 3G was the most important factor. Phone memory/card slots and utility
software were the next best as 43.3 percent of the total respondents felt is the most
important factor. Camera/flash, GPS, dual/tri sim, presence of Bluetooth, Wifi and/or
radio received less than 40 percent of the total votes with availability of dual sim/tri sim
being the least popular.

Technology adoption was seen to be high with the target population with all respondents
having a preference of one or more design factors and phone weight and size. The study
showed that a high percentage of respondents purchased their handset recently, and
demonstrated high frequency of purchase. Only about 35 percentage were satisfied with
their current handset. Usability of the phone in future, latest cutting edge technology,
price and convenience were the main factors considered by people purchasing new
handsets. This is consistent with Rogers (1995) and Davis (1989) models as highlighted
in previous literatures.

Based on the findings above, we can note some consistencies and some inconsistencies
with the literature review. According to Kats (2007) security concerns are a major reason
62

many people acquire new handsets, however as highlighted above, our study showed that
28.4 percent of the respondents considered very important. Security was one of the three
dimensions attitudes towards mobile phones which Kats (2007) brought out. Although the
sense of security was inconsistence with his findings, the other dimension, the sense of
self-character extension was quite consistent with the findings in this study where we
noted that the design and technology were highly considered in acquisition of a new
mobile phone handset.

5.3.3 The Effect of Behaviour on the Evaluations of Different Attributes Related to

Mobile Phone Handsets Choice
With respect to behavior, more people would consider someones view when purchasing
a new handset and about half of them would consider the views of experts and highly
knowledgeable people. Only 23.9 percent of the total respondents took with them a
friend, relative or colleague with them during a purchase of a new mobile phone handset
just as company. About 44 percent of the respondents who took with them a friend,
relative or colleague during a purchase of a new mobile phone handset seek some advice
and took into consideration their recommendations. Very few took their friend, relative or
colleague with them a part of an approval process in purchasing the mobile phone
handset. A big portion of the respondents, would still go ahead and buy a handset even if
their friend/family or relative would go against it. However, only 38.7 percent of them
felt that the purchase of their mobile phone handset would be as a result of its association
with a social reference group.

According Kelman (1961), individuals regards the behavior and value of reference group
members as potentially useful information and takes them into consideration. Especially
when a consumer lacks the knowledge of a certain product and the experience of
purchasing this item, one may perceive the information and recommendation from his/her
reference group as credible and thus accept them with certain confidence. This is seen to
be consistent with the study where we observe that more people would consider
someones view when purchasing a new handset and about half of them would consider
the views of experts and highly knowledgeable people.

63

With respect to utilitarian influence, the study was opposing findings by Kelman (1961)
and Rock (1990) as a large portion of the respondents, would still go ahead and buy a
handset even if their friend/family or relative would go against it. With respect to Valueexpressive influence, the target group digressed from previous literate where a fewer
percentage of the respondents felt that the purchase of their mobile phone handset would
be as a result of its association with a social reference group, although about 37 percent of
the respondent was consistent with the findings of Kelman (1961).

5.4 Conclusions

5.4.1 The Effect of Demographics on the Evaluations of Different Attributes Related

to Mobile Phone Handsets Choice.

From the analysis we noted that the factors that determine mobile phone handset purchase
vary from one age to another, between male and female, one ethnic group to another and
from various psychographical and behavioral patterns. We also noted that the all factors
whether technological, design, brands, purposes and social reference groups played a role
in influencing consumer behavior in selection of mobile phone handsets.

As a whole, the usability of the phone handset, convenience provided by the handset and
price of the handset were popular amongst all the respondents. Amongst all the
technological factors, phone weight and size was most popular followed by availability of
internet/3G, utility software, phone memory and Bluetooth/WIFI/Radio. Design factors
were not as popular however minimal key strokes seemed to appeal followed by logical
ordering of menu items and iconic menu styles as opposed to textual representation.

More than half of the respondents took into consideration the view of friends, family and
colleagues and more than 60 percent took their friends, family and/or colleagues with
them when shopping of which most of them were there just to provide recommendations.

A majority of the respondents would go ahead with a purchase even if friends, family or
colleagues would advice otherwise.

64

With respect to specific cultural factors, Luhya, Kikuyu, Kamba and Meru ethnic groups
considered the age of technology quote important when purchasing their next handset as
opposed to other ethnic groups. From the sample population, this means that they were
more responsive to changes in technology and did change quicker as compared to other
ethnic groups. The Luo, Kamba, Meru and other national ethnic groups took purchasing
of a mobile phone handset as a risky investment as compare to other ethnic groups. This
showed that they had greater uncertainty avoidance as compared to other ethnic groups.
Young handset purchasers showed interest in handsets that contained latest cutting edge
technology and that were fashionable and trendy and were particular about the
changeability of the skin/cover and the make of the mobile. They used it mainly for
communication with friends and family. Older consumers looked at usability of the
mobile phone handset and convenience provided by it. Older age groups considered
purchasing a handset more riskier than the younger age groups. It seems that all age
groups were particular about the design and technology present in the handset such as
colour screens, iconic menu styles, logical ordering of menu, new and experimental
phone features, touch screen and flip-flap/slide or basic designs.

Factors were more distinct when compared between genders. Female respondents kept
their handsets longer and preferred changing them only once their use was exhausted.
They felt that the handset provides security as opposed to male respondents. They
preferred ability change font, font colors and themes and considered the color of the
handset. They also showed a greater association with social reference groups as they
would buy phone handsets that would associate them to the groups. Male respondents
were risk averse, considered expert advice rather than just taking views of others on
which handsets to purchase.

5.4.2 The Effect of Psychographics on the Evaluations of Different Attributes

Related to Mobile Phone Handsets Choice.

Considering performance of current handsets, only 35.8 percent of the total respondents
were very happy with their current handsets and 11.9 percent of the total respondents
were totally unhappy with their current mobile phone handsets. The major drawbacks
were phone menu/options and keypad usage. Majority of the respondents felt that they
65

easily learnt all the features they required. Majority of the respondents derived
power/control in using their handsets.

With respect to image/impression, phone weight and size was the biggest factor that
impacted on the consumers followed by technological factors such as availability of
Internet/3G, phone memory/card slots, utility software, Bluetooth/WIFI/Radio, followed
by design factors such as minimal key strokes to perform a function and iconic menu
styles as opposed to textual.

With respect to technology adoption, respondents considered technology more than

design factors with phone weight and size being the greatest factor, followed by
availability

of

Internet/3G,

phone

memory/card

slots,

utility

software,

Bluetooth/WIFI/Radio as mentioned earlier. Also, half of the respondents felt hat the
mobile phone provided security therefore they trusted it to some extent. This showed that
the respondents were more positive in adopting technology.

Technology and design seemed to be more important than price so technological factors
and design factors should be give more importance by mobile phone manufacturers
and/or retailers, however the rate of adoption of technology is average so mobile phones
with relatively new technology is good enough looking at the target population

Within the technological factors, mobile phone manufacturers and retails should consider
improving on phone weight and size amongst other factors such as Internet/3G, phone
memory/card slots, utility software and Bluetooth/WIFI/Radio.

Manufacturers and retailers should concentrate on handset colors, changeability of

skin/cover, color screen, touch screen, iconic menu styles and minimal keystrokes in
terms of design factors. Nokia was more popular so it is a good idea to ensure that Nokia
products as highly available. Other brands need to improve on marketing and providing
features like that of Nokia such as changeability of skin/cover since this was a prominent
factor.

66

5.4.3 The Effect of Behaviour on the Evaluations of Different Attributes Related to

Mobile Phone Handsets Choice

With respect to informational influence, majority of the respondents who would consider
someones view when purchasing a new handset, about half of them would consider the
views of experts and highly knowledgeable people. Few of them took with them a friend,
relative or colleague with them during a purchase of a new mobile phone handset just as
company.

As for utilitarian influence, only 14 percent of the total respondents took their friend,
relative or colleague with them a part of an approval process in purchasing the mobile
phone handset. Also, from the 92.5 percent of the total respondents who answered this
question, 77.4 percent would still go ahead and buy a handset even if their friend/family
or relative would go against it.

From a value-expressive influence point of view, only 38.7 percent of the respondents felt
that the purchase of their mobile phone handset would be as a result of its association
with a social reference group with friends being the biggest social reference group.
Manufacturers and retailers should invest in marketing efforts and focus on highlighting
technological features and benefits of handsets as majority consumers take into
consideration views of experts and knowledgeable people.

5.5 Recommendations
5.5.1 Recommendations for Improvement
5.5.1.1 The Effect of Demographics on the Evaluations of Different Attributes
Related to Mobile Phone Handsets Choice
All age groups especially below 20 years and above 40 years were not well represented
by the target group. Very few respondents were there below 20 years and above 40 years.

Non-national ethnic group were about a quarter of the respondents. They should have
been broken down further for better analysis with major nationalities represented instead
of lumping all of them under one group.
67

5.5.1.2 The effect of Psychographics on the Evaluations of Different Attributes

Related to Mobile Phone Handsets Choice

Certain psychographic factors such as technology adoption had a few characteristics

lumped up together yet they may have differing effects on mobile phone purchase.
Characteristics such as Bluetooth, WIFI and Radio were lumped up together however
Bluetooth may have had different effects on purchase of the mobile phone handset from
WIFI or Radio. Similarly, Phone Memory and card slots were lumped up together as with
utility software (Calendar, Tasks, Reminders, Alarms etc).
5.5.1.3 The Effect of Behavior on the Evaluations of Different Attributes Related to
Mobile Phone Handsets Choice
The target group being students may largely share the same social reference groups thus
having the research on a larger population may have shown greater disparity in the results
for social reference groups.

5.5.2 Recommendations for Further Studies

The study shows USIU students were not too particular about price so it is recommended
that the study be done with a different target group to capture the general trend towards
mobile phone purchase in Nairobi since less than half of the target population considered
price as the most important factor.

Further research should be done on the topic in order to understand more about each
brand as technology, design and price vary on brands as well. Also, a more diverse target
population would be more beneficial in this field of study.

68

REFERENCES
Adams, D.A., Nelson, R.R., and Todd, P.A. 1992. Perceived Usefulness, Ease of use,
and Usage of Information Technology: A Replication. MIS Quarterly (16:2),
1992, pp. 227-247.
Agarwal, R. and Prasad, J. The Role of Innovation Characteristics and Perceived
Voluntariness in the Acceptance of Information Technologies. Decision
Sciences (28:3), 1997, pp. 557-582.
Alba, J.W., and Hutchinson, J.W. (2000). Knowledge calibration: What consumers know
and what they think they know. Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (September),
123-156.
Assael, H. (1995). Consumer Behavior and Marketing Action. 5th ed. Cincinnati, Ohio:
ITP, South-Western College Publishing.
Barnes, S.J. and Corbitt, B. (2003) Mobile banking: concept and potential, International
Journal of Mobile Communications, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp.273288.
Bearden, W.O. and Etzel, M.J. (1982) Reference group influence on product and brand
purchase decisions, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9, pp.83194.
Beatty, S.E. and Smith, S.M. (1987). External search effort: An investigation across
several product categories. Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (1), 83-95.
Becker, G.S. (1991) A note on restaurant pricing and other examples of social influence
on price, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 99, No. 3, pp.11091116.
Beeghley, L., Bock, E.W. and Cochran, J.K. (1990) Religious change and alcohol use: an
application of reference group and socialization theory, Sociological Forum,
Vol. 5, No. 2, pp.261278.
Benady, D. (2002). As simple as one-two-3G. Marketing Week, 26-29.
Bockenholt, U. and Dillon, W.R. (2000). Inferring latent brand dependencies. Journal of
Marketing Research, 37 (1), 72-87.
Bourne, F.S. (1957) Group influence in marketing and public relations, in Likert, R. and
Hayes, S.P. (Eds.): Some Applications of Behavioral Research, Basil, UNESCO,
Switzerland.
Bristol, T., and Edward, F. (1996). Exploring the atmosphere created by focus group
interviews: Comparing consumers feelings across qualitative techniques. Journal
of the Market Research Society, 38 (2), 185-195.
69

Chao, A. and Schor, J.B. (1998) Empirical tests of status consumption: evidence from
womens cosmetics, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp.107
131.
Chernev, A. (2003). When more is less and less is more: The role of ideal point
availability and assortment in consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research,
30 (2), 170-183.
Chintagunta, P.K. (1999). Variety seeking, purchase timing, and the lightning bolt
brand choice model. Management Science, 45 (4), 486-498.
Chuang, M. C., Chang, C. C. and Hsu, S. H. 2001, Perceptual Factors Underlying User
Preferences Toward Product Form of Mobile Phones, International Journal of
Industrial
CMII (2005) Statistics from the website of Chinese Ministry of Information Industry,
http://www.mii.gov.cn/mii/hyzw/tongji percent5Ctongjifenxi1-12.htm.
Coleman, J.S., Katz, E. and Menzel, H. (1966) Medical Innovation: A Diffusion Study,
Bobbs Merrill, Indianapolis.
Coupey, E., Irwin, J.R. and Payne, J.W. (1998). Product category familiarity and
preference construction. Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (4), 459-468.
Davis, F.D. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of
Information Technology. MIS Quarterly (13:3), 1989, pp. 319-340..
Davis, F.D. User Acceptance of Information Technology: System Characteristics, User
Perceptions, and Behavioral Impacts. International Journal of Man- Machine
Studies (38), 1993, pp. 318-339.
Dhar, R. and Wertenbroch, K. (2000). Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian
goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 37 (1), 60-71.
Dhar, R., Nowlis, S.M. and Sherman, S.J. (2000). Trying hard or hardly trying: An
analysis of context effects in choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9 (4),
189-200.
Dorsch, M.J., Grove, S.J. and Darden, W.R. (2000). Consumer intentions to use a service
category. Journal of Services Marketing, 14 (2), 92-117.
Drucker, E. (2004). Perceived speed key to 3G success. 3Gs commercial success
depends on carriers ability to deliver coverage and account for channel loading.

70

Eastlick, M.A. and S. Lotz. Profiling Potential Adopters and Non-adopters of an

Interactive Electronic Shopping Medium. International Journal of Retail and
Distribution Management 26(6), 1999, pp. 209-223.
Enpocket (2004). Enpocket mobile media monitor (UK). Research Report, (February).
Faulkner, T., Rice, T. and Heron, W. 1983, the Influence of Camera Configuration on
Preference, Human Factors, 25, 127 141.
Feist, G. 1994, the Affective Consequences of Artistic and Scientific Problem Solving.
Cognition and Emotion, 8, 489 502.
Fitzsimons, G.J., Hutchinson, J.W., Williams, P., Alba, J.W., Chartrand, T.L., Huber, J.,
Kardes, F.R., Menon, G., Raghubir, P., Russo, J.E., Shiv, B. and Tavassoli, N.T.
(2002). Non-conscious influences on consumer choice. Marketing Letters, 13 (3),
269-279.
Foot, D. K. (1996). Boom, Bust & Echo: How to Profit from the Coming Demographic
Shift, Macfarlane Walter & Ross.
Gilly M. and Zeithmal V.: The Elderly Consumer and Adoption of Technologies, Journal
of Consumer Research, 12, 1987, pp. 353-357
Green N. (2003) Outwardly mobile: young people and mobile technologies. In: Katz J,
ed. Machines that became us: the social context of communication technology.
New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, pp. 2018.
Hair, J. F., Andersson, F. E., Tatham, R. L. and Black, W. C. 1995, Multivariate Data
Analysis with Readings (Englewood Cliffs, Nj: Prentice Hall).
Han, S. H., Yun, M. H., Kim, K. and Kwahk, J. 2000, Evaluation of Product Usability:
Development and Validation of Usability Dimensions and Design Elements
Based on Empirical Models, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 26,
477 488.
Han, S. H., Yun, M. H., Kwak, J. and Hong, S. W. 2001, Usability of Consumer
Electronic Product, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 28, 143
151.
Haste H. Joined-up texting: mobile phones and young people. Young Consumers 2005;
2:5667.
Hawkins, D.I., Coney, K.A. and Best, R.J. (1997) Consumer Behavior Building
Marketing Strategy, 7th edition, McGraw-Hill, Irwin.

71

Helander, M. G. and Zhang, L. 2001, Forget About Ergonomics in Chair Design? Focus
on Esthetics and Comfort! in M. G. Helander, H. M. Khalid and M. P. Tham
(Eds), Proceedings of the International Conference on Affective Human Factors
Design (London: Asean Academic Press), 256 261.
Hirschman, Elizabeth C. and Morris B. Holbrook (1982) "Hedonic consumption:
Emerging concepts, methods and propositions," Journal of Marketing, 46
(Summer), 92-101.
Hofmeester, K., Kemp, J. A. M. and Blankendaal, A. C. M. 1996, Sensuality in Product
Design, in Proceedings of the Acm Chi96 Conference (New York: ACM), 428
435.
Holladay, J. (2004). Using Behavioral Descriptors for More Effective Marketing. Daniels
Graphics.
Hussey, R & Collis, J (2009). Business Research: A Practical Guide for Undergraduate
and Postgraduate Students, Macmillan Publishers Ltd.
Hyman, H.H. (1942) The psychology of status, Archives of Psychology, Vol. 269,
pp.94102. Hyman, H.H. and Singer, E. (1968) Readings in Reference Group
Theory and Research, The Free
Hyman, H.H. and Singer, E. (1968) Readings in Reference Group Theory and Research,
The Free Press, New York.
In-Stat/MDR (2002). The worldwide PDA market: The next generation of mobile
computing. Research Report, (September).
Ishihara, S., Ishihara, K., Nagamachi, M. and Matsubara, S. 1997, An Analysis of Kansei
Structure on Shoes Using Self-Organizing Neural Networks, International
Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 19, 93 104.
Iso 9241-11 1998, Ergonomic Requirements for Office Work with Visual Display
Terminals (Vdts) Part 11: Guidance on Usability. (Geneva, International
Standard Organization).
Jindo, T. and Hirasago, K. 1997, Application Studies To Car Interior of Kansei
Engineering, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 19, 105 114.
Jordan, P. W. 1998, Human Factors for Pleasure in Product Use, Applied Ergonomics, 29,
25 33
Kanis, H. 1998, Usage Centered Research for Everyday Product Design, Applied
Ergonomics, 29, 75 82.
72

Kelman, H.C. (1961) Processes of opinion change, Public Opinions Quarterly, Vol. 25,
pp.5778.
Kendall, P. (1997) Japans consumers sign for cellular at high rate, Responsible
Conduct of Research (RCR), Vol. 16, No. 39, p.25.
Kim, J. and Moon, J. Y. 1998, Designing Towards Emotional Usability in Customer
Interfaces- Trustworthiness of Cyber Banking System Interfaces, Interacting with
Computers, 10, 1 29
Kivetz, R. and Simonson, I. (2000). The effects of incomplete information on consumer
choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 37 (4), 427-448.
Kleijnen, M. and K. de Ruyter. Factors Influencing the Adoption of Mobile Gaming
Services, in Mennecke, B.J. and T.J Strader (eds.), Mobile Commerce:
Technology, Theory, and Applications, Hershey, Pennsylvania, Idea Group
Publishing, 2003, pp. 202-217.
Kumar, S. (2004) Mobile communication: global trends in the 21st century,
International Journal of Mobile Communications, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp.6786.
Kwahk, J., Han, S. H., Yun, M. H., Hong, S. W., Chung, M. K. and Lee, K. S. 1997,
Selection and Classification of the Usability Attributes for Evaluating Consumer
Electronic Products, Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
41st Annual Meeting (Santamonica, Ca: Human Factors and Ergonomics
Society), 432 436.
Laroche, M., Kim, C. and Matsui, T. (2003). Which decision heuristics are used in
consideration set formation. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 20 (3), 192-209.
Laukkanen, T. and Lauronen, J. (2005) Consumer value creation in mobile banking
services, International Journal of Mobile Communications, Vol. 3, No. 4,
pp.325338.
Ling R, Yttri B. (1999) Nobody sits at home and waits for the telephone to ring: micro
and hypercoordination through the use of the mobile telephone. Fornebu,
Norway: Telenor Research & Development.
Ling R. (2001) We will be reached: the use of mobile telephony among Norwegian youth.
Information Technology & People 2001; 13:1025.
Liu, C.M. (2002). The effects of promotional activities on brand decision in the cellular
telephone industry. The Journal of Product & Brand Management, 11 (1), 42-51.
Luna, L. (2002) The latest in fast fashion, Wireless Review, Vol. 19, No. 12, p.10.
73

Massoud, S. and Gupta, O. K. (2003) Consumer perception and attitude toward mobile
communication, International Journal of Mobile Communications, Vol. l, No. 4,
pp.390408.
Mathur, (1999). Adoption of technological innovations by the elderly: A consumer
socialization perspective. Journal of Marketing Management. v9 i3. 21-35.
Mennecke, B. and Strader, T. Mobile Commerce Technology, Theory and Applications.
Hershey, Pennsylvania: Idea Group, 2003.
Moorthy, S., Ratchford, B. and Talukdar, D. (1997). Consumer information search
revisited. Journal of Consumer Research, 23 (4), 263-277.
Moschis, G.P. (1976) Social comparison and informal group influence, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 13, pp.237244.
Nagamachi, M. 1995, Kansei Engineering: A New Ergonomic Consumer-Oriented
Technology for Product Development, International Journal of Industrial
Ergonomics, 15(1), 311 346
Nagamachi, M. 2002, Kansei Engineering in Consumer Product Design, Ergonomics in
Design, 10(2), 5 9.
Nakada, K. 1997, Kansei Engineering Research on the Design of Construction
Machinery, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 19, 129 146.
Nielsen, J. and Levy, J. 1994, Measuring Usability: Preference Vs. Perfomance,
Communications of Acm, 37(4), 66 75.
OKeefe, M. (2004). 2004 worldwide camera phone and photo messaging forecast.
InfoTrends Research Group, Inc. Research Report.
Ortony, A., Clore, G. and Collins, A. 1988, the Cognitive Structure of Emotions
(Cambridge, Uk: Cambridge University Press).
Palen, L. Mobile Telephone in a Connected Life. Communications of the ACM 45(3),
2002, pp. 78-82.
Palenchar, J. (2004) Multipurpose cellphones keep replacement cycle spinning, TWICE:
This Week in Consumer Electronics, Vol. 19, No. 26, p.90.
Papatla, P., Zahedi, F.M. and Zekic-Susac, M. (2002). Leveraging the strengths of choice
models and neural networks:Amultiproduct comparative analysis. Decision
Sciences, 33 (3), 433-468.

74

Park, C.W. and Lessig, V.P. (1977) Students and housewives: differences in
susceptibility to reference group influence, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.
4, pp.102110.
Ree H, Noyes JM. Mobile telephones, computers, and the Internet: sex differences in
adolescents use and attitudes. CyberPsychology & Behavior 2007; 10:4824.
Robertson, J. (2001) China to exceed US in cell phone ownership this year, Electronic
Buyer News, June 18, pp.3, 80.
Rock, I. (1990) The Legacy of Solomon Asch: Essays in Cognition and Social
Psychology, Lawrence Librium Associates Inc., Hillsdale NJ.
Rogers, E. Diffusion of Innovations, 4th edition. New York, New York: Free Press, 1995.
Scornavacca, E. and Barnes, S.J. (2004) M-banking services in Japan: a strategic
perspective, International Journal of Mobile Communications, Vol. 2, No. 1,
pp.5166.
Scouras, I. (1995) Tough 96 for cellular, Electronic Buyers News, Vol. 983, p.3. Siau,
K. and Shen, Z. (2003) Mobile communications and mobile services,
International Journal
Shackel, B. 1986, Ergonomics in Design for Usability, in M. D. Harrison and A. Monk
(Eds), People and Computers (Cambridge, Uk: Cambridge University Press).
Shneiderman, B. 1998, Designing the User Interfaces, 3rd Edn. (Boston, Ma: AddisonWesley).
Siau, K. and Shen, Z. (2003) Mobile communications and mobile services, International
Journal of Mobile Communications, Vol. 1, Nos. 12, pp.314.
Slovic, P. (1995). The construction of preference. American Psychologist, 50 (August),
364-371.
Smither, J. and Braun, C.: Technology and older adults: factors affecting the adoption of
automatic teller machines, The Journal of General Psychology, 121(4), 1994, pp.
381-389
Solomon, M.R. (2001). Consumer Behavior. Buying, Having, and Being. 5th ed. NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Spier, D. (1996). Direct marketers say yes to focus groups. Marketing News, 30 (6), 6.
Strategy Analytics (2003). Global handset market: Enabling technologies
forecasts, 2003-2008. Research Report, (June).

75

Swait, J. and Adamowicz, W. (2001). The influence of task complexity on consumer

choice: A latent class model of decision strategy switching. Journal of Consumer
Research, 28 (1), 135-148.
Tanoue, C., Ishizaka, K. and Nagamachi, M. 1997, Kansei Engineering: A Study on
Perception of Vehicle Interior Image, International Journal of Industrial
Ergonomics, 19(2), 115 128.
Tractinsky, N., Katz, A. S. and Ikar, D. 2000, What Is Beautiful Is Usable, Interacting
with Computers, 13, 127 145.
Van Akkeren, J. and D. Harker. Mobile Data Technologies and Small Business
Adoption and Diffusion: An Empirical Study of Barriers and Facilitators, in
Mennecke, B.J. and T.J Strader (eds.), Mobile Commerce: Technology, Theory,
and Applications, Hershey, Pennsylvania, Idea Group Publishing, 2003, pp. 218244.
Wen, H.J. and Mahatanankoon, P. (2004) M-commerce operation modes and
applications, International Journal of Electronic Business, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp.301
315.
Wilska, T-A. (2003). Mobile phone use as part of young peoples consumption styles.
Journal of Consumer Policy, 26 (4), 441-463.[12Manage 2006] 12Manage:
"Rigor and Relevance"; (2006), Retrieved 2006/08/25, from, Wireless Week,
(February), available at: http://www.wirelessweek.com/article/CA381643
Witt, R.E. and Bruce, G.D. (1972) Group influence and brand choice congruence,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp.440443.
Wong, N.Y. and Ahuvia, A.C. (1998) Personal taste and family face: luxury
consumption in confucian and western societies, Psychology and Marketing,
Vol. 15, No. 5, pp.423441.
Wooten, D.B. and Reed II., A. (2004) Playing it safe: susceptibility to normative
influence and protective self-presentation, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.
31, No. 3, pp.551556.
Yates, D. S., David, S. M. and Daren, S. S. (2008). The Practice of Statistics, 3rd Edition.
Yun, M. H., Han, S. H. and Kim, K. J. 2000, Consumer Preference Survey for Telecom
Products (in Korean). (Research Report for Kamsung Engineering, Ministry of
Science and Technology, Rok Government).

76

Yun, M. H., Han, S. H., Ryu, T. and Yoo, K. 2001, Determination of Critical Design
Variables Based on the Characteristics of Product Image/Impression: Case Study
of Office Chair Design, Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics
Society 45th Annual Meeting (Santa Monica, Ca: Human Factors and
Ergonomics Society), 712 716.

77

APPENDICES
APPENDIX I: COVER LETTER

EHTESHAM MOHAMMAD
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY-AFRICA (USIU-A)
P.O. BOX 14634, 00800.
NAIROBI

Dear Respondent,

I am carrying out research on the consumer behavior in selecting mobile phones. This is
in partial fulfillment of the requirement of the Master of Science in Business
Administration degree program at the United States International University.

This study uses university student which you have been selected as one of the lucky
respondents. The result of this study will help the mobile phone industry as a whole by
assisting in filling the knowledge gap on the understanding consumers choice criteria in
mobile phone markets by studying factors that influence intention to acquire new mobile
phones.

This is an academic research and confidentiality is strictly emphasized, your name will
not appear anywhere in the report. Kindly spare some time to complete the questionnaire
attached.

Thank you in advance,

Yours sincerely,

Ehtesham Mohammad.

78

APPENDIX II: QUESTIONNAIRE

Please complete the questionnaire in the manner and format given. If there is any need for
clarification on the questions, please do not hesitate to inquire. Ensure that all questions
are answered appropriately as prescribed.

PART I: GENERAL INFORMATION

Kindly all the questions either by ticking in the boxes or writing in the spaces provided.
1. Age group:
Less than 20 years
Between 20 and 25 years
Between 26 and 30 years
Between 31 and 35 years
Between 36 and 40 years
40 and above

2. Gender:
Male
Female

3. Ethnic Group:
Kikuyu
Luhya
Luo
Kalenjin
Kamba
Kisii
Meru
Other National Ethnic
Non-National Ethnic (Asian, European, Arabs)

PART II
1. Do you own a mobile phone handset?
79

Yes
No
If no, jump to Part III
2. Which brand do you own?
Nokia
Sony Ericsson
Samsung
Motorola
Apple
LG Electronics
Blackberry (Research in Motion)
Other, Please specify ________________________________

3. When did you purchase it?

Within this month
Within the last three months
Within the last six months
Within the last one year
Within the last three years
More than three years ago

4. What has been your major use of your current mobile phone handset
Improve communication with family/friends
Improve communication for work/business
Fashion statement/trends
Unwillingly keeping a phone
To make use of complimentary technology (use of internet, alarm, calendar)

5. On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being the best, grade the following aspect of your current mobile
phone handset:
1
a

Easily understood the phone menu/options and keypad usage

80

b Easily learnt all the features I needed from the handset

c

Easily operated and accomplished the tasks I required on the handset

d Handset generally looks good and presentable

e

It has a relevant design with respect to the features it offers

I am satisfied with the handset (for what it was purchased for).

PART III
If you intend to purchase a new mobile phone handset in the near future, please complete
this section otherwise hand in the questionnaire as is.

1. How often do you buy a new mobile phone handset

More than one a year
At least once a very
Depends on how long my handset works
My current handset is the first one I purchased
This is the first time I will be purchasing a handset

2. Rate the following factors from 1 to 5, where 1 is the most important factor you
consider when purchasing the next mobile phone handset and 5 is the least important
factor (tick the box that applies):
1
a

Price of the handset/discount offers

Latest cutting-edge technology available in the handset

New and experimental phone features

Usability of the phone in the future

Age of the technology present in the mobile phone

Feeling of power and control that the handset gives you

Make/brand of the mobile phone handset

Location of use/context of use of the mobile phone handset

Convenience provided by handset as a whole

Security provided by handset

Additional features available in the handset

81

3. When purchasing a new mobile phone handset rate the following design factors, 1
being the most important factor with respect to the influence it has on your decision to
buy the handset
1 2
a

Minimal keystrokes used to accomplish a task

Iconic menu style as opposed to text menus

Logical ordering of menu items

Variety of font and font colors, themes

Slide/Flip-flap or basic design

Color of the handset

Touch screen

Changeability of skin/cover

Color screen

Name any other design feature you consider important: __________________________

4. When purchasing a new mobile phone handset, rate the following technological
factors, 1 being the greatest with respect to the influence the factor has on your decision
to buy the handset:
1
a

Phone weight and size

Presence of Bluetooth, WIFI and/or Radio

Availability of Dual/Tri SIM

Global Position System (GPS)

Camera/Flash

Phone memory/Card Slots

Utility Software (Calendar, Tasks, Reminder, Alarms)

Availability of Internet and/or 3G

5. Would you consider purchasing a mobile phone handset risky in terms of the
investment in the right type of handset?
Yes
No
82

6. a. Would you purchase a new handset based on someones (family, friends, colleague
etc) views on that handset?'
Yes
No
6. b. If you answered yes above, do you consider these people experts or highly
knowledgeable about mobile phone handsets?
Yes
No

7. When you go for purchase a new handset, will you take a friend/relative or colleague
with you?
Yes
No
If yes, this friend/relative of colleagues provides (tick all that apply):
Company
Advice/Recommendations
Other reason: ___________________________________

8. When purchasing a new mobile phone handset, if you knew that the mobile phone you
choose to buy would not be approved by people close to you (family/friends/colleagues)
would you still go ahead and purchase it?
Yes
No

9. When purchasing a new mobile phone handset, would you purchase it because it
associates you with an organization/fan club/social group/class?
Yes
No

83