Consumer Decision-making Styles:

Comparison Between
Shanghai and Hong Kong
University Consumers
A Consumer Styles Inventory Approach
BY

Chan Hoi Yee, Bertha

02005174
China Business Studies Option

An Honours Degree Project Submitted to the

School of Business in Partial Fulfillment
of the Graduation Requirement for the Degree of
Bachelor of Business Administration (Honours)

Hong Kong Baptist University

Hong Kong
April 2005

Acknowledgements
I would like to give my heartiest thanks to my supervisor Dr. Shi Yi Zheng who has
sacrificed a lot of his valuable time for guiding me in doing this honor project,
suggesting precious advice, pointing out and correcting my mistakes. He is very
patient in answering and explaining my questions all the time. I really have learnt a lot
from him.

In addition, I would like to express my sincere thanks to my dearest friends, Mr. Peter
Wong and Miss Susanna Wong, for squeezing lots of time for helping me in
conducting survey.

Also, I would like to thank my family and friends who always gave me support and
encouraged me when I feel depressed in doing the project.

Last but not least, I would like to thank all the teachers in the Hong Kong Baptist
University who teach me a lot about marketing knowledge in the past three years.

_____________________

Chan Hoi Yee, Bertha

26th April, 2005

ii

Abstract
Consumers use a variety of decision-making styles. This study investigates
decision-making styles of consumers in Shanghai and Hong Kong by analyzing the
Consumer Style Inventory (CSI), which is administered to 150 Shanghai and Hong
Kong university consumers respectively. Factor analysis is adopted to develop the
CSI inventories.

Findings indicate that six types of decision-making styles and fifteen statements are
valid and reliable in Shanghai, whereas five types of decision-making styles and
twenty statements are valid and reliable in Hong Kong. Significant differences can be
found in the dimension of quality conscious, brand conscious, fashion conscious and
shopping carefulness. Business implications, which address the above findings, are
provided for marketers in the following section. Limitations of this paper are the final
chapter.

iii

Table of Contents
Content

Page

Acknowledgements

ii

Abstract

iii

Chapter 1. Introduction
1.1 Background Information
1.2 Research Problem Development
1.2.1 Why Shanghai vs. Hong Kong?
1.2.2 Why University Students?
1.3 Research Objectives

1
1
2
3

Chapter 2. Literature Review

2.1 Historical Researches on Decision-making Styles
2.2 The Consumer Style Inventory (CSI)
2.3 Application of CSI Across Cultures

4
4
6

Chapter 3. Research Methodology

3.1 The Sample
3.2 Instrument
3.3 Data Collection Method
3.4 Data Analysis Method

7
7
8
8

Chapter 4. Hypothesis Development

4.1 Differences in Brand Consciousness and Price Consciousness
4.2 Differences in Fashion Consciousness and Confusion by
Overchoice

10
11

Chapter 5. Research Findings and Analysis

5.1 Personal Information of the 300 Samples from Shanghai and
Hong Kong
5.1.1 Shanghai
5.1.2 Hong Kong
5.1.3 Comparison
5.2 Decision-making Styles of Shanghai University Consumers
5.3 Decision-making Styles of Hong Kong University Consumers
5.4 Comparison of Decision-making Styles Between Shanghai and
Hong Kong University Consumers
5.4.1 Number of Dimensions
5.4.1 Item Loadings
5.4.1 T-test: Test of Hypotheses

18
20
21

Chapter 6. Business Implications

6.1 For Shanghai
6.2 For Hong Kong
6.3 For both Shanghai and Hong Kong

26
27
27

iv

13
13
14
15
16

Chapter 7. Limitations
7.1 Generality of Consumer Characteristics
7.2 Limitation of the Sample
7.3 Limitation of Culture and Economic Background

28
28
29

Chapter 8. Conclusion

30

Chapter 9. References

31

Chapter 10. Appendix

10.1 Explanation of the eight factors loading by Sproles and Kendall
10.2 Tables
10.3 Questionnaires
10.4 SPSS Outputs

35
36
38
47
58

Chapter 1. Introduction

1.1 Background Information

Decision-making is more complex and even more important for consumers today than
in the past. Consumers are besieged by advertising, news articles, and direct mailings
that provide an abundance of information, much of it with mixed messages. In
addition, increases in the number and variety of goods, stores, and shopping malls,
and the availability of multi-component products and electronic purchasing
capabilities have broadened the sphere for the consumer choice and have complicated
decision making [Hafstrom, Chae, and Chung, 1992].

Profiling consumers decision-making styles focuses on studies of the majority of

consumer interest (eg, Bettman, 1979; Sproles, 1985; Thorelli, Becker, and Engeldow
1975; WestBrook and Black, 1985). Consumer affairs specialists use such profiles to
understand consumers shopping behaviour, while advertisers and marketing
researchers use them to segment the consumers into various niches for product
positioning [Srinivas and Andrews, 1993].

1.1 Research Problem Development

1.2.1 Why Shanghai vs. Hong Kong?

Shanghai is the most metropolitan province in China, and Hong Kong is also a very
prosperous city in the world. Hong Kong and Shanghai are relevant cities in China for
comparative studies. They have several similarities. Geographically, both cities are
located at the coast of China. Historically, both cities had experienced western
1

colonization for a long time. Culturally, both cities have shared modern and traditional
characterizations. They both are international metropolises that have much
international links. However, there are something different. For example, number of
brothers and sisters, source of income, source of information and culture.

Comparing between these two cities can help companies formulating marketing
strategies. For those companies who have only invested in Hong Kong and have
interest to enter into the Shanghai market, they can study the difference and
similarities between these two cities and then formulate an entering strategy for
Shanghai based on the existing marketing strategy for Hong Kong, and vice versa.

1.2.2 Why University Students?

The university students market is quite large. According to the statistics, there are
189,400 university students in Hong Kong in 2004, amounting about 11.5% of the
educational population [Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department, 2004]. And
there are 378,500 university students in Shanghai in 2004, amounting about 10.8% of
the educational population [Shanghai Statistical Yearbook, 2004]. It is a significant
market in both Shanghai and Hong Kong.

The role of the young especially in consumer decision making should be defined and
examined for several reasons. Young people are eager to consume, are conscious of
their experience [Sproles and Kendall, 1986]. Young consumers are recognized as a
specialized market segment for a variety of goods and services [Moschis and Moore,
1979]. The young within the family often influence family purchasing decisions [Turk
and Bell, 1972]. Consumer socialization is defined as process by which young
2

people acquire skills, knowledge, and attitudes relevant to their functioning as

consumers in the marketplace [Ward, 1972]. Socialization usually takes place within
the family and may shape consumer patterns. In this way, it may affect not only
present but also future consumer well-being.

1.2 Research Objectives

Although the CSI research is widely conducted in different nations, few of it is related
to Chinese society, related to the comparison between Hong Kong and Shanghai, and
focused on universities students.

There are three main objectives in this paper:

1.

To investigate the decision-making style of Shanghai universities consumers by

purifying the items of CSI.

2.

To investigate the decision-making style of Hong Kong universities consumers

by purifying the items of CSI.

3.

Comparison of decision-making styles between Shanghai and Hong Kong

universities consumers.

Chapter 2. Literature Review

2.1 Historical Researches on Decision-making Styles

Consumer-interest researchers have long been interested in identifying the underlying

decision styles of shoppers. For example, consumers are identified as economic
shoppers, personalizing shoppers, ethical shoppers, apathetic shoppers [Bellenger and
korgaonkar, 1980; Darden and Reynolds, 1971; Stone, 1954], store-loyal shoppers
[Moschis and Gorge, 1976; Stephenson and Willett, 1969], recreational shoppers
[Bellenger and Korgaonkar, 1980; Stephenson and Willett, 1969], convenience
shoppers [Korgaonkar, 1984; Stephenson and Willett, 1969; Williams et al., 1978],
price-oriented shoppers [Korgaonkar, 1984; Stephenson and Willett, 1969; Williams
et al. 1978], brand-loyal shoppers [Jocoby and Chestnut, 1978; Moschis and Gorge,
1976], name-conscious shoppers [Darden and Ashton, 1974-75], fashion shoppers
[Lumpkin, 1985], brand conscious shoppers [Korgaonkar, 1984] and impulse
shoppers [Gehrt and Cater, 1992]. These classifications have provided a number of
measuring methods for the marketers to segment the general public in the consumer
markets [Alice and Noel, 2001].

2.2 The Consumer Style Inventory (CSI)

To further consolidate the above various approaches, Sproles and Kendall [1986]
designed a new model to measure decision-making styles of consumers.

According to Sproles and Kendall [1986], a consumer decision-making style is

defined as a mental orientation characterizing a consumer's approach to make

consumer choices. Broadly speaking, there are three types of approaches in studying
consumer decision-making styles: the psychographic/lifestyle approach, which
identifies hundreds of characteristics related to consumer behavior; the consumer
typology approach, which classifies consumers into several types; and the consumer
characteristics approach, which focuses on different cognitive dimensions of
consumer decision-making. For a review of these different approaches, see Sproles
and Kendall [1986].

Building on the literature related to consumer decision-making in the field of

marketing and consumer studies [Maynes, 1976; Miller, 1981; Sproles, 1979; Thorelli,
Becker and Engledow, 1975], Sproles [1985] identified nine decision-making style
traits and developed a 50-item instrument using the consumer characteristics approach.
Using data collected from 111 undergraduate women in two classes at the University
of Arizona and employing a factor analysis technique, Sproles [1985] found that six
out of the nine traits were confirmed to be present.

In a later study, Sproles and Kendall [1986] used a similar approach with a slightly
revised model of consumer decision-making with eight dimensions. An instrument of
48 items was developed. Each dimension of consumer decision-making was
represented by six questions. The questionnaire was administered to 482 students in
29 home economics classes in five high schools in the Tucson, Arizona area. The
eight-factor model was confirmed by a factor analysis using the survey data, although
not all questions were deemed to be useful in representing intended dimensions of a
consumer styles inventory [CSI]. The eight dimensions included in the CSI were:

1.

Perfectionistic and high-quality conscious consumer,

2.

Brand conscious and price equals quality consumer,

3.

Novelty and fashion-conscious consumer,

4.

Recreational and hedonistic consumer,

5.

Price conscious and value for money consumer,

6.

Impulsive and careless consumer,

7.

Confused by over-choice consumer, and

8.

Habitual and brand-loyal consumer.

Appendix 10.1 (page 35) shows the explanations of the eight factors loading by
Sproles and Kendall. It is a pretty good benchmark for us to explain our data analysis
result.

2.3 Application of CSI Across Cultures

The applicability of the CSI has been investigated across several cultures [Alice and
Noel, 2001; Durvasula et al., 1993; Fan and Xiao, 1998; Hafstrom et al., 1992:
Lysonski et al., 1996; Shim and Gehrt, 1996]. These cross-cultural studies have
shown that four consumer styles are relatively more applicable to different countries
as suggested by the factor structure and reliability estimates of the factors. They are
namely quality conscious, brand conscious, fashion conscious and recreational
conscious [Alice and Noel, 2001].

Chapter 3. Research Methodology

3.1 The Sample

The sample size is 300, 150 of Shanghai undergraduate students and 150 for Hong
Kong undergraduate students.

3.2 Instrument

A questionnaire based on the exploratory studies of Sproles [1985] and Sproles and
Kendall [1986] was used to measure consumer decision-making styles in Hong Kong
and Shanghai. The questionnaire was translated into Chinese. Some mainland Chinese
and Hong Kong students and professors reviewed the translations. This ensured that
idiomatic or colloquialistic wording was minimized [Douglas and Craig, 1983;
Parameswaran and Yaprak, 1987].

The questionnaire is divided into two parts. The first part contains the forty
instruments. This instrument will have the following five-point Likert scale: strongly
disagree (1), somewhat disagree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat agree, strongly
agree (5). The second part is the personal information, which includes sex, number
of siblings, income source, monthly cost of living and information source, which are
used to verify the difference between Shanghai and Hong Kong university students
noted before.

3.3 Data Collection Method

A non-probability sampling survey method is conducted in the universities in Hong

Kong and Shanghai during March 2005. I did the survey in Hong Kong by myself.
The survey in Shanghai universities were done by my relatives who live in Shanghai,
as it is prohibited for the non-Chinese residents to conduct survey without
authorization by the local government and due to the huge transportation fee occurred.

3.4 Data Analysis Method

SPSS was used to analyze the data collected.

Firstly, frequency was used to display the distribution of consumers demographic

background and personal information.

Secondary, CSI for Hong Kong and Shanghai will be developed in two steps
following the method used by Sproles [1985] and Sproles and Kendell [1986].

In the first step, factor analysis, the principal components method with varimax
rotation of factors, was performed to identify characteristics of consumer decisionmaking. Factor analysis is designed to identify a set of variables in terms of a smaller
number of hypothetical variables or to explore underlying dimensions [Kim and
Mueller, 1978].

In the second step, Cronbach's alpha, a conservative technique for assessing

reliabilities for each factor [Carmines and Zeller, 1979] was used. For consistency, it
was decided that reliabilities should not be below 0.4, the same level used by Sproles

and Kendall [1986].

Thirdly, comparison between Shanghai and Hong Kong was done by comparing the
CSI and by calculating the T-Test (by taking the mean score for each of the factor of
CSI).

The negatively worded items had been reversed before the data analysis proceeded, in
order to analyze the data easily. The scores of question 5, 7, 20, 22, 24, 31, 32 and 40
had been reversed.

Chapter 4. Hypothesis Development

We expect that Shanghai and Hong Kong university consumers will differ in terms of
brand consciousness, fashion consciousness, price consciousness and confusion by
overchoice, based on the explanations as follows.

4.1 Differences in Brand Consciousness and Price Consciousness

Since the late 1970s, one-child-per-couple campaign was taken to curtail the
population explosion. As Chinese per capita income has risen and fertility declined,
Chinese parents' love and money have focused on a single child, resulting in unique
social and economic implications such as the perilous 4-2-1 indulgence: four
grandparents and two parents indulging one child. Many of these children are
self-centered and demand material luxuries from their parents [Baker 1987]. While in
Hong Kong, government did not practice One Child Policy. Many families had two
to four children in the 1980s [The International Encyclopedia of Sexuality: Hong
Kong].

On the other hand, many Shanghai universities students depend on their parents as
their only income source, parents must pay for what they want. While in Hong Kong,
students have multiple income sources, especially part time jobs, they treasure what
they earn [Francis, 2004].

Based on the above differences, we expect that university consumers in Shanghai are
more brand conscious and less price conscious than Hong Kong university consumers.

10

H1: Shanghai university consumers are more brand consciousness than Hong
Kong university consumers.

H2: Hong Kong university consumers are more price consciousness than
Shanghai university consumers.

4.2 Differences in Fashion Consciousness and Confusion by Overchoice

Hong Kong was a British colony for over 150 years (1842-1997). Citizens were
educated to apprehend Western values. Hong Kong people have long been exposed to,
and fast to learn from, Western culture [Alex, Guijun, Fuan, Nan, 2003]. Nowadays,
Hong Kong people are accustomed to, and want to continue, this lifestyle: Their
aversion to the return of sovereignty to China reflected a fear of lifestyle discontinuity
[Lau and Kuan, 1989]

China adopted an open door policy in 1979; however, the country is not fully open to
Western culture. Nowadays, the Chinese government viewed, and still views, the
inflow of the Western lifestyle as a double-edged sword. Western products improve
peoples material well-being, but at the same time they foster capitalistic consumption
values and Western political ideologies, which corrupt Chineses people spiritual life
and threaten communist rule. The Chinese government has launched a number of
movements to counteract the inflow of Western thoughts, including the 1983
Anti-Spiritual Pollution movement and the 1989 Anti-Liberalization of the
Bourgeoisie Class movement [Alex, Guijun, Fuan and Nan, 2003]. The government
also keeps a close eye on electronic media and filters sensitive Western materials
such as the websites of CNN, Washington Post, Playboy, and Penthouse [Edupage,
11

1996]. When the movie Titanic broke the box-office records across Chinese cities in
1997, Chinese officials expressed their concerned that Western movies could be a
Trojan horse aimed at speeding up the American cultural invasion of China [Platt,
1998].

As Hong Kong universities consumers always and easily come into contact with
information than Shanghai, and Hong Kong has a longer history involvement of
Western values, we expect that university consumers in Hong Kong are more fashion
conscious and more confused by overchoice than Shanghai university consumers.

H3: Hong Kong university consumers are more fashion consciousness than
Shanghai university consumers.

H4: Hong Kong university consumers are more confused by over choice than
Shanghai university consumers.

12

Chapter 5. Research Findings and Analysis

5.1 Personal Information of the 300 samples from Shanghai and Hong Kong

5.1.1 Shanghai

Among the 150 university student respondents in Shanghai, 44% (66) were male and
56% (84) were female. Most of the respondents have no sibling (125, 83.3%), few
respondents have two to three siblings (25, 16.7%), while no respondents have more
than three siblings. A majority of them viewed parents as their only income source
(111, 74%), while few of them had multiple income sources (39, 26%). Over one-third
of them paid 1001-1500 as their cost of living (52, 34.7%); then 501-
1000 (48, 32%); 500 (26, 17.3%); and 1501 (24, 16%). Finally,
overwhelming of them viewed television (125, 83.3%), Internet (119, 79.3%),
magazine (113, 75.3%) and family and friends (96, 64%) as their information source.

5.1.2 Hong Kong

Among the 150 university student respondents in Hong Kong, 37.3% (56) were male
and 62.7% (94) were female. Most of the respondents have two (52, 34.7%) or three
(52, 34.7%) siblings. A number of them have three siblings (30, 20%), while only few
respondents have no sibling (16, 10.7%). A majority of them had multiple income
sources (109, 72.7%), while few of them viewed parents as their only income source
(41, 27.3%). Most of them paid $1501-$2000 as their cost of living (45, 30%); then
$1500 (42, 28%); $2501 (32, 21.3%); and $2001-$2500 (31, 20.7%).
Finally, overwhelming of them viewed television (127, 84.7%), family and friends
13

(114, 76%), Internet (103, 68.7%), magazine (102, 68%) and newspaper (96, 64%) as
their information source.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Table 1: Personal Information of the 300 samples

from Shanghai and Hong Kong (Page 39)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5.1.3 Comparison

Comparing the characteristics of the two sets of respondents in Hong Kong and
Shanghai, there were some similarities and differences identified.

Similarities

1.

The cost of living in Hong Kong and Shanghai are very similar.

2.

The information source in Hong Kong and Shanghai are very similar.

Differences

1.

Most of the respondents in Hong Kong had siblings, while most of those in
Shanghai had not.

2.

Most of the respondents in Hong Kong had multiple income sources, while most
of them in Shanghai viewed parents as their only income source.

14

5.2 Decision-making styles of Shanghai university consumers

The 40 items of the consumer decision-making scales of Shanghai were subjected to

principal components analysis (PCA) using SPSS. Prior to performing PCA the
suitability of data for factor analysis was assessed. Inspection of the correlation matrix
revealed the presence of many coefficients of 0.3 and above. The Kaiser-Meyer-Oklin
value was 0.608 [Kaiser, 1970, 1974] and the Barletts Test of Sphericity [Bartlett,
1954] reached statistical significance, supporting the factorability of the correlation
matrix.

Principal components analysis revealed the presence of 12 components with

eigenvalues exceeding 1, explaining 15.113%, 12.663%, 8.073%, 6.216%, 5.901%,
5.401%, 4.747%, 3.783%, 3.310%, 3.055%, 2.853% and 2.686% of the variance
respectively. An inspection of the screeplot revealed a clear break after the six
components. Using Catells [1996] scree test, it was decided to retain six components,
Varimax rotation was performed. The cross-loading items and items that had a factor
loading value less than 0.4 were removed. The rotated solution (presented in
Appendix page 84) revealed the presence of simple structure [Thurstone, 1947], with
all components showing a number of strong loadings, and all variables loading
substantially on only one component. The eight factor solution explained a total of
68.887% of the variance, with the six components contributing 14.194%, 13.467%,
12.586%, 11.910%, 9.709% and 7.021% respectively (more details are presented in
Appendix 10.4.2, page 65).

15

The interpretation of the six components was consistent with previous research on the
CSI, with Novelty-fashion consciousness items loading strongly on Component 1,
Perfectionistic and high-quality consciousness items loading strongly on Component
2, Habitual and brand-loyal consumer orientation items loading strongly on
Component 3, Impulsive and careless consumer orientation items loading strongly
on Component 4, Price consciousness and value for money orientation items
loading strongly on Component 5 and Brand consciousness and price equals
quality items loading strongly on Component 6. The results of this analysis support
the use of CSI as separate scales.

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

Table 2: Factor Loadings and Construct Reliability of Shanghai CSI (Page 41)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5.3 Decision-marking styles of Hong Kong university consumers

The 40 items of the consumer decision-making scales of Hong Kong were subjected
to principal components analysis (PCA) using SPSS. Prior to performing PCA the
suitability of data for factor analysis was assessed. Inspection of the correlation matrix
revealed the presence of many coefficients of 0.3 and above. The Kaiser-Meyer-Oklin
value was 0.649 [Kaiser, 1970, 1974] and the Barletts Test of Sphericity [Bartlett,
1954] reached statistical significance, supporting the factorability of the correlation
matrix.

Principal components analysis revealed the presence of 14 components with

16

eigenvalues exceeding 1, explaining 4.902%, 3.565%, 2.931%, 2.367%, 1.967%,

1.568%, 1.491%, 1.332%, 1.281%, 1.241%, 1.141%, 1.130%, 1.064% and 1.015% of
the variance respectively. An inspection of the screeplot revealed a clear break after
the five components. Using Catells [1996] scree test, it was decided to retain five
components, Varimax rotation was performed. The cross-loading items and items that
had a factor loading value less than 0.4 were removed. The rotated solution (presented
in Appendix page 107) revealed the presence of simple structure [Thurstone, 1947],
with all components showing a number of strong loadings, and all variables loading
substantially on only one component. The five factor solution explained a total of
53.140% of the variance, with the five components contributing 13.82%, 10.98%,
10.22%, 10.10% and 7.99% respectively.

The interpretation of the five components was consistent with previous research on
the CSI, with Brand consciousness and price equals quality items loading strongly
on Component 1, Perfectionistic and high-quality consciousness items loading
strongly on Component 2, Novelty-fashion consciousness items loading strongly on
Component 3,

Habitual and brand-loyal consumer orientation items loading

strongly on Component 4 and Price consciousness and value for money

orientation items loading strongly on Component 5. The results of this analysis
support the use of CSI as separate scales (more details are presented in Appendix
10.4.4, page 90).

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

Table 3: Factor Loadings and Construct Reliability

of Hong Kong CSI about here (Page 42)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

17

5.4 Comparison of decision-making styles between Shanghai and Hong Kong

universities consumers

5.4.1 Number of Dimensions

The identified dimensions of CSI are very similar for university consumers in
Shanghai and Hong Kong. Shanghai has six and Hong Kong has five dimensions.
With the same dimensions: (1) fashion conscious, (2) high-quality conscious, (3)
brand-loyal, (4) price conscious, and (5) brand conscious. The dimension of
Impulsive and careless was found only in Shanghai CSI.

There is no cross-loading item between Shanghai and Hong Kong CSI. So, the results
support the use of CSI as separate scales.

Impulsiveness is not identified as a dimension of consumer decision-making styles

for the Hong Kong university consumers. The reasons are as follows.

Impulsive shopping is opposite to habitual shopping [Fan and Xiao, 1998], in order to
find out why Shanghai has the dimension of impulsiveness while Hong Kong does
not, we take a look into the habitual dimension.

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

Table 4: Comparison of Habitual and brand-loyal consumer

dimension of Shanghai and Hong Kong (Page 43)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question 37 and 39 loaded on both Shanghai and Hong Kong in the habitual
dimension. Question 33 There are so many brands to choose from that often I feel
confused loaded positively on the habitual dimension for the Shanghai sample, but
18

did not load significantly on any factor for the Hong Kong sample. This may be
caused by differences in the interpretation of the question asked in different languages.
However, it is also possible that Shanghai university consumers are loyal to some
brands but at the same time, they are still facing confusion because there are still
many new brands invading into their minds every day. As noted earlier, as more and
more consumer products are becoming available in Shanghai, Shanghai university
students may feel confused and have to try these new brands in a certain extent.
While in Hong Kong, many brands are already in the consumers minds, they do not
have to try, so Hong Kong university consumers are less impulsive.

There is still one reason of why Shanghai has the dimension of impulsiveness while
Hong Kong does not. Impulsive purchases may be interpreted as I have not
gathered enough information for this product before I purchase in Chinese [Fan and
Xiao, 1998]. China has many counterfeit products. How to differentiate and avoid
buying counterfeit products is one of the most salient consumer issues in China. Many
famous brands, both domestic and foreign, are being counterfeited and sold in the
market, and these counterfeit products are usually of poor quality yet have high prices.
Thus, the consequences of buying the wrong products for Chinese consumers may be
different from those for Hong Kong consumers when they make careless purchases.
The careless purchases by Hong Kong consumers may result in a waste of money. For
Chinese consumers, the products bought carelessly may not only be counterfeit and
expensive, but also unable to perform basic functions, and may sometimes be unsafe
and even fatal (examples are some food and electronic products) [Fan and Xiao, 1998].
So, customers in Shanghai may always find themselves impulsive in shopping.

19

5.4.2

Item Loadings

The items loading on each dimension are quite similar, although not exactly the same.
Now, lets take a look of the dimensions while includes more differentiation between
Shanghai and Hong Kong. They are brand conscious and fashion conscious.

Firstly, lets take a look in the brand conscious dimension.

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

Table 5: Comparison of Brand conscious and price equals quality consumer

dimension of Shanghai and Hong Kong (Page 44)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Only Question 14 loaded the same in both places, while Question 11, 12, 13 and 35
only loaded on Hong Kong but did not load significantly on any factor for the
Shanghai sample. As suggested by Fan and Xiao [1998], national brands may be
treated as a quality product, and the newly imported brands will be treated as
brand-named product by Chinese consumers. We did not consider this concept when
items were constructed. So, this may be a reason why the items loaded differed from
Shanghai to Hong Kong in the dimension of brand conscious.

Secondly, lets take a look in the fashion conscious dimension.

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

Table 6: Comparison of Novelty and fashion-conscious consumer

dimension of Shanghai and Hong Kong (Page 45)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

20

Only Question 15 loaded the same in both places, while Question 16 and 21 only
loaded on Shanghai but not on Hong Kong, and Question 18, 20 and 22 loaded on
Hong Kong but not in Shanghai. It seems very different, however, it is not. Items 20,
21 and 22 have loaded on the recreational and hedonistic conscious dimension in
Sproles and Kendalls research [1986]. Sproles and Kendall also found their
fashion-consciousness

factor

was

significantly

correlated

with

recreational

consciousness factor. This correlation is quite intuitive because for most consumers to
be fashion conscious, they have to spend time paying attention to changing fashions
[Fan and Xiao, 1998]. To conclude, although the items loaded in Shanghai are
different from Hong Kong, the nature of the items are similar.

5.4.3

T-test: Test of Hypotheses

Independent-sample t-test was conducted to compare the CSI scores for Shanghai and
Hong Kong university consumers, six t-tests instead of only four mentioned in the
Hypothesis Development were performed in order to discover a full picture of
difference. We first look at if there is any difference, then look at the effect size, it
provide an indication of the magnitude of the differences between groups. The
guidelines [Cohen, 1988] for interpreting these values are: 0.01 =small effect, 0.06
=moderate effect, 0.14 =large effect.

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

Table 7: Comparison of decision-making styles between

Shanghai and Hong Kong universities consumers (Page 46)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

21

T-Test 1: Brand conscious and price equals quality consumer

There was significant difference in scores for Shanghai (M =2.3933, SD =0.75881)

and Hong Kong (M =2.8813, SD =0.63799; t(289.46) =-6.029, p =0.00) university
consumers. The magnitude of the differences in the means was large (eta squared
=0.11).

Hong Kong university consumers are more brand conscious than Shanghai. It is
different from what we expected (H1: Shanghai university consumers are more
brand consciousness than Hong Kong university consumers). One possible reason is
the different exposure to brand names. As noted before, Hong Kong is more open to
foreign cultures and brands. The more brands they know the more chance they would
become brand conscious. Furthermore, although the Shanghai university consumers
are indulged by their parents, it is not necessary that they will become brand
conscious.

T-Test 2: Perfectionistic and high-quality conscious consumer

There was significant difference in scores for Shanghai (M =4.2222, SD =0.67739)

and Hong Kong (M =3.7973, SD =0.49480; t(272.76) =6.203, p =0.00) university
consumers. The magnitude of the differences in the means was large (eta squared
=0.11).

Shanghai university consumers are more quality conscious than Hong Kong. We did
not expect this. But this is consistent to the result that Shanghai university consumers
are not as brand conscious as Hong Kong. When you are quality conscious, you

22

would not consider too much about brands. In addition, according to Oliver [1994],
consumers in China always focus on durability when shopping, so Shanghai
university consumers focus on quality in their shopping.

T-Test 3: Novelty and fashion-conscious consumer

There was significant difference in scores for Shanghai (M =3.0156, SD =0.89521)

and Hong Kong (M =3.4333, SD =0.65517; t(273.03) =-4.612, p =0.00) university
consumers. The magnitude of the differences in the means was moderate (eta squared
=0.07).
Hong Kong university consumers are more fashion conscious than the Shanghai. This
result is the same as we expected (H3: Hong Kong university consumers are more
fashion consciousness than Shanghai university consumers).

T-Test 4: Habitual and brand-loyal consumer

There was no significant difference in scores for Shanghai (M =2.9222, SD =0.82143)

and Hong Kong (M =3.0422, SD =0.78890; t(298) =-1.290, p =0.198) university
consumers. The magnitude of the differences in the means was small (eta squared
=0.01).

This result is the same as we expected. According to the mean, we can see that both
places are not very focus on brand-loyalty.

23

T-Test 5: Price conscious and value for money consumer

There was no significant difference in scores for Shanghai (M =3.6000, SD =0.81306)

and Hong Kong (M =3.5689, SD =0.71476; t(298) =-1.290, p =0.725) university
consumers. The magnitude of the differences in the means was small (eta squared
=0.00).

We expect that Hong Kong university consumers are more price consciousness than
Shanghai university consumers (H2), but this is not the case, there are no differences
between them, and both of them are quite price conscious. According to Oliver [1994],
consumers in China are still encouraging frugality, many of them still have the mind
that To practice thrift is a virtue (). This may be one of the reasons that
Shanghai university consumers are as price conscious as the Hong Kong students.

T-Test 6: Impulsive and careless consumer

There was significant difference in scores for Shanghai (M =2.6778, SD =0.53431)

and Hong Kong (M =0, SD =0; t(149.00) =61.380, p =0.00) university consumers.
The magnitude of the differences in the means was very large (eta squared =0.93).

Shanghai university consumers are more impulsive than the Hong Kong. We did not
expect this. The same as the result of the above factor analysis, we have found that the
impulsive dimension appear in the Shanghai sample but not in Hong Kong. The
main reasons are noted above in the part of 5.4.1.

24

We also expect that Hong Kong university consumers are more confused by over
choice than Shanghai university consumers (H4), however, from the result of factor
analysis, the confused dimension is even not appear in both places. It shows that
university consumers in Shanghai and Hong Kong can take advantage of the available
information and make better choices [Fan and Xiao, 1998]. It may be because both of
them are highly educated and have certain judgment of the markets, so they can utilize
the information, regardless of the information received.

25

Chapter 6. Business Implications

6.1 For Shanghai

Shanghai university consumers are perfectionistic and impulsive. They always make
special effort to obtain the best quality and perfect choice; however, there are too
many counterfeit products that make them feel regretted after the purchase. Marketers
should stress on improving the overall attributes of the products so that the quality of
product could match the requirement of consumers. Overall quality of product can be
divided into two items: extrinsic and intrinsic [Olson and Jacoby, 1972; Jonansson,
1989; Gabbot, 1991]. Extrinsic attributes refer to the brand, country of origin,
advertising, independent consumer, price, after sell services, and distribution channel.
Intrinsic attributes refer to physical product attributes such as shape, type of surface,
color, weight, material used, taste and performance. Using good quality as an
outstanding and clear image would catch the attention of the consumers. Better
customer services should also be provided. As the consumers are still in the stage of
impulsive purchasing, they are still trying each product, offering them a good product
and service can keep them as long term customers.

26

6.2 For Hong Kong

Hong Kong university consumers are brand and fashion conscious. Therefore,
companies should try to do deep marketing researches to and build their brand once
they enter Hong Kong market. In addition, the content and style of marketing and
promotion programs should be fun, trendy and fashionable.

6.3 For both Shanghai and Hong Kong

Both Shanghai and Hong Kong university students are price conscious. Marketers
should promote their products by offering benefits to consumers, in order to make
them feel that their purchases are value for money.

27

Chapter 7. Limitations

There are several limitations that warrant future research.

7.1 Generality of Consumer Characteristics

Consumers have different perceptions on different types of products. For example,

their value for a luxury and durable product, which is totally different from an inferior
and non-durable product [Kaynak,E. & Cavusgil, S.T., 1983]. We cannot assume that
a consumer with high brand consciousness would consider name products on every
decision. Other characteristics may lack perfect generality as well [Sproles and
Kendall, 1986]. Indeed, a consumer may have different consumer styles for each
product category. Therefore, future research should look at consumer decision-making
in various product categories for details.

7.2 Limitation of the Sample

The sample may not represent the true population we want to obtain. Hong Kong
(Shanghai) university students may not be real Hong Kong (Shanghai) university
students, some of them maybe the exchange students who live here for only a short
period and may leave very soon. So, their answer may not represent the true
population.

Last but not least, due to time and coast constraints, the sample size was limited to
150 for each place. This small sample size may not completely representative of all

28

university consumers in Shanghai and Hong Kong.

7.3 Limitation of Culture and Economic Background

The Shanghai and Hong Kong student sample may not exhibit certain consumer
decision-making characteristics due to the cultural reasons, for example the Man-to
nature

orientation, Man-to-himself orientation,

Relational orientation,

Time

orientation and Personal-activity orientation [Oliver, 1994]. And the economic

reasons, for example, the income of the families, should also be take into account also.
However, the CSI used in this study provides a good starting point for further
development of the CSI inventory in Shanghai and Hog Kong consumer context.
More items and dimensions that are idiosyncratic to Shanghai and Hong Kong culture
need to be developed in future studies. It would be helpful to develop more items to
improve the psychometric properties of three dimensions; they are quality and price
conscious.

29

Chapter 8. Conclusion

The objectives of this study were fulfilled. Decision-making styles of university

consumers in Shanghai and Hong Kong are classified, and several similarities and
differences in decision-making styles were identified. The most important findings are
that Shanghai university consumers are perfectionistic and impulsive, whereas Hong
Kong university consumers are brand conscious and fashion conscious, and they both
have the characteristic of price conscious. This paper provides a good starting point
for marketers who want to enter Shanghai or Hong Kong market. Marketers should
pay more attention in these aspects as to win consumers hearts. They should also take
into account of the culture issues that do not cover in this paper.

30

Chapter 9. References

Journals

1. Alex S. L. Tsang, Guijun Zhuang, Fuan Li, Nan Zhou (2003), A Comparison of
Shopping Behavior in Xian and Hong Kong Malls: Utilitarian versus
Non-Utilitarian Shoppers, Journal of International Cousumer Marketing, Vol.
16(1) 2003
2. Alice S.Y.HIU, Noel Y.M. Siu and Charlie C. L. Wang, and Ludwig, M.K. Chang,
(2001) An Investigation of Decision-Making Styles of Consumers in China, The
Journal of Consumer Affairs: (Winter); 35,2; 326-345
3. Baker, Rod. (1987). "Little Emperors' born of a one-child policy." Far Eastern
Economic Review, 137 (July 16): 43-44
4. Bartlett M. S. (1954) A note on the multiplying Faciors for various chi square
approximations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 16(Series B), 296-298
5. Bellenger, Danny N. and Pradeep K. Korgaonkar.(1980). Profiling Recreational
Shopper. Journal of Retailing 56 (fall) 77-91
6. Bettman, Jams R. (1979), An Information Processing Theory of Consumer
Choice, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company
7. Carmins, Edward G. and Richard A. Zeller (1979), Realiablility and Validity
Assessment, Beverly Hills, CA:Stage Publications.
8. Catells, R.B. (1996) The scree test for number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 1245-276
9. Darden, William R. and Dub Ashton. (1974-75) Psychographic Profiles of
Patronage Preference Groups, Journal of Retailing, 50(Winter): 99-112
10. Douglas,Susan and C. Sammel craig.(1983). International Marketing Research,
Englewood Cliffs. NJ Prentice-Hall, Inc.
11. Durvasula. Sribivas. Steven Lysonski, and J. Craig Andrews. (1993). Corss culture
generlizability of a Scale for Profiling Consumers Decision making Styles. The
Journal pf Consumer Affairs, 27,1:55-65
12. Fan, Jessie X. and Jing J. Xiao. (1998). Consumer Decision-making Styles of
Young-adult Chinese. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 32:275-294
13. Francis Wing-lin Lee (2004), Life values of young people: a comparative study
between Hong Kong and Shanghai [Hong Kong], Dept. of Social Work and
31

Social Administration, University of Hong Kong.

14. Gabbot, Mark (1991), The Role of Product Cues in Assessing Zrisk in
Secondhand Markets, European Journal of Marketing, 25,9, 38-50
15. Gehrt, Kenneth C. and Kent Carter. (1992). An Explortory Assessment Catalog
Shopping Orientations. Journal of Direct Marketing, 6:29-39
16. Hafstrom, Jeanne L., Chae, Jung Sook, Chung, Young Sook. (1992), Consumer
Decision-Making Styles: Comparsion Between United States and Korean Young
Consumers, The Journal of Consumer Affairs. Madison: 26, Iss 1, (Summer);
P146-159
17. Hong Kong Trade Development Council (2001), The two cities: Shanghai, Hong
Kong / Research Department, Hong Kong: The Council.
18. Jacoby, Jacob and Robert W. Chestnut. (1978) Brand Loyalty: Measurement and
Management, New York: John Wiley and Sons.
19. Johansson, Johny K. (1989), Determinants andEfects of the Use of Made in
Labels, International Marketing Review, 6,1, pp 47-58
20. Kaiser (1970), A second generation Little Jiffy. Psychometrika, 35, 401-415
21. Kaynak,E. & Cavusgil, S.T. (1983).Consumer attitudes towards products of
foreign origin: do they vary across product classes? International Journal of
Advertising, 2, pp.147-157
22. Kim, Jae-On and Charles W.Mueller (1978), Introduction to Factor Analysis:
What it is and How to Do it, Bevely Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
23. Korgaonkar, Pradeep K. (1984). Consumer Shopping Orientations, Non-store
Retailers,

and

Consumers

Patronage

Intentions:

Multivariate

Investigation.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 12:11-22

24. Lau, A and Kuan, H. (1989) The Ethos of the Hong Kong Chinese. Hong Kong:
The Chinese University Press, P.19
25. Lumpkin, James R. (1985) Shopping Orientation Segmentation of the Elderly
Consumer, Journal of Academic of Marketing Science, 13:271-289
26. Lysonski, Steven, Srini Durvasula, and Yiorgos Zotos. (1996). Consumer
Decision-making Styles: A Multi-country Investigation. European Journal of
Marketing, 30,12:10-21
27. Maynes,E. Scott (1976), Decision-making for Consumers: An Introduction to
Consumer Economics, New York: Macmillan.
28. Miller, Roger LeRoy (1981) Economic Issuse for Consumers, Third Edition, and
32

New York: West Publishing Company.

29. Moschis, George P. (1976), Shopping orientations and Consumer Uses of
Information. Journal of Retailing, 52(Summer): 61-70,93
30. Moschis, George P. (1976), Shopping orientations and Consumer Uses of
Information. Journal of Retailing, 52(Summer): 61-70,93
31. Moschis, George P. and Roy L, Moore (1979), Decision making amoung the
Youth: A Socialization perspective, Journal of Consumer Research, 6(setember):
101-102
32. Oliver H. M. Yau (1994) Consumer Behaviour in China Customer satisfaction and
cultural valves Routledge Lodon and New York
33. Olson, Jerry C. and Jacob Jacoby: (1972), Cue Utilization in the Quality
Perception Processes, in M. Venkatesan (ed), The Journal of Consumer Affairs:
(Winter); 12,2; pp.167-179
34. Parameswaran, Ravi and Attila Yaprak (1987), A Cross-National Comparison of
Consumer Research Measures, Journal of International Business Studies, 18
(Spring): 35-49.
35. Shanghai Statistical Yearbook, (2004)
36. Shim, Soyeon and Kenneth C. Gehrt. (1996), Hispanic and American
Adolescents: An Exploratory Study of Their Approach to Shopping, Journal of
Retailing, 72,3:307-324
37. Sproles, George B (1985), From Perfectionism to Fadism: Measuring Consumers
Decision Making styles, Proceedings, American Council on Consumer interests:
79-85
38. Sproles, George B. (1979), Fasion: Consumer Behaviour Toward Dress,
Minneapolis: Burgess Publishing Company
39. Sproles, George B. and Elizabeth L. Kendall (1986), A Methodology for
Profiling Consumers Decision-Making Styles, The Journal of Consumer Affairs.
20(Winter): 267-279
40. Srinivas Durvasula, Steven Lysonski, and J. Craig Andrews (1993), CrossCultural Generalizability of a Scale for Profiling Counsumers Decision-Making
Styles, The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 27 (Summer): P.55-65
41. Stephenson, R.P. and R.P. Willett. (1969), Analysis of Consumers Retail
Patronage Strategies. In Marketing Involvement in Society and The Economy,
edited by P.R. Mcdonald, Chicage: American MarketingAssociation, 316-322
33

42. Stone, Gregory. P. (1954) City Shoppers and Urban Identification: Obervations
on the Social Psychology of City Life., American Jounral of Sociology, 60:36-45
43. Thorelli, Hans B., Helmut Becker, and Jack Engeldow (1975), The In formation
Seekers; An International Study of Consumer Information and Advertising Image,
Cambridgek,MA: Ballinger.
44. Thorelli, Hans B., Helmut Becker, and Jack Engeldow (1975), The In formation
Seekers; An International Study of Consumer Information and Advertising Image,
Cambridgek,MA: Ballinger.
45. Thurstone, L. L. (1947) Multiple factor analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
46. Turk James L. and Norman W. Bell, (1972) measuring Power in the Family,
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 34(May): 215-222
47. Ward, Scott (1974) Journal of Consumer Research, 1(September): 1-14
48. Westbrook, Robert A. and William C. Black (1985), A Motivation-Based
Shopper Typology, The Journal of Retailing, 61(Spring): 78-103
49. Williams, Robert H., Jon J. Painter, and Herbert R. Nicholas (1978), A
Policyoriented Typology of Grocery Shoppers, Jounral of Retailing, 54 (Spring):
27-34.

Websites
1. Platt, K (1998). Titanic Cultural Invasion Hits China. The Christian Science
Monitor.
http://www.csmnitor.com/durable/1998/04/20/pls3.htm (April20)
2. The

International

Encyclopedia

of

Sexuality:

Hong

Kong,

http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/IES/hongkong.html
3. Edupage. (1996). China Screens Out Spiritual Pollution on Net. WWW URT:
http://www.edupage.edu/pub/ edupage/archives/96/ edupage-0905.htm
(September 5)
4. Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department, 2004
http://www.info.gov.hk/censtatd/home.html

34

Chapter 10. Appendix

Appendix

Page

10.1
Explanation of the eight factors loading by Sproles and Kendall

36

10.2
Tables

38

10.3
Questionnaires

47

10.4
SPSS Outputs

58

35

10.1 Explanation of the eight factors loading by Sproles and Kendall

Factor 1: Perfectionistic and high-quality consciousness

Items loading on this factor measure a consumers search for the best quality in
products. Those consumers who have higher perfectionism could also be expected to
shop more carefully and systematically. They are not satisfied with the good enough
product.

Factor 2: Brand consciousness and price equals quality

It measures consumers orientations toward buying the more expensive, well-known

national brands. High scorers are likely to believe that a higher price means better
quality. They appear to have positive attitudes toward department and specialty stores,
where brand names and higher prices are prevalent. They also appear to prefer best
selling, advertised brands.

Factor 3: Novelty-fashion consciousness

High scorers on this characteristic are fashion conscious and apparently novelty
conscious as well. They are likely to gain excitement and pleasure from seeking out
new things. They keep up-to-date with styles, and being in trendy is important to them.
Variety-seeking also appears to be an important aspect of this characteristic.

Factor 4: Recreational and hedonistic shopping consciousness

Those scoring high on it find shopping pleasant. They shop just for fun of it. In
previous research, this was a shopping avoider or time-saver factor, and thus several
36

items load negatively on it. However, the loadings show that this factor measures
shopping for recreation and entertainment.

Factor 5: Price consciousness and value for money orientation

Those scoring high look for sale prices and appear conscious of lower prices in
general. Importantly, they are also concerned with getting the best value for their
money. They are likely to be comparison shoppers.

Factor 6: Impulsive and careless consumer orientation

High scorers on this characteristic do not plan their shopping. Furthermore, they
appear unconcerned about how much they spend or about the best buys.

Factor 7: Confused by over choice characteristic

High scorers on this characteristic perceive many brands and stores from which to
choose and have difficulty in making choices. Furthermore, they experience
information overload, as several items in this factor imply.

Factor 8: Habitual and brand-loyal consumer orientation

High scorers on this characteristic are likely to have favourite brands and stores and to
have formed habits in choosing these. Habitual behaviour is a well-known aspect of
consumer decision-making, and this factor reinforces its existence as a general
characteristic.

37

10.2 Tables
Table

Page

Table 1
Personal Information of the 300 samples from Shanghai and Hong Kong

39

Table 2
Factor Loadings and Construct Reliability of Shanghai CSI

41

Table 3
Factor Loadings and Construct Reliability of Hong Kong CSI

42

Table 4
Comparison of Habitual and brand-loyal consumer dimension
of Shanghai and Hong Kong

43

Table 5
Comparison of Brand conscious and price equals quality consumer dimension
of Shanghai and Hong Kong

44

Table 6
Comparison of Novelty and fashion-conscious consumer dimension
of Shanghai and Hong Kong

45

Table 7
Comparison of decision-making styles between Shanghai and Hong Kong
universities consumers

46

38

Table 1
Personal Information of the 300 samples from Shanghai and Hong Kong

Shanghai

Gender

Number
of
Blood
Siblings
Income
Source

Male
Female
Total
1
2
3
More than 3
Total
Parents
Scholarship/Grant/Loan
Part-time
Partly Parents, partly
Part-time
Partly Parents, partly
Scholarship/Grant/Loan
Partly
Scholarship/Grant/Loan
, partly Part-time
Partly Parents,
Scholarship/Grant/Loan
, and Part-time
Total

Hong Kong

Frequenc
y
66
84
150
125
13
12
0
150
111
8
3
15

Percentag
e
44.0
56.0
100.0
83.3
8.7
8.0
0
100.0
74.0
5.3
2.0
10.0

Frequenc
y
56
94
150
16
52
52
30
150
41
6
30
41

Percentag
e
37.3
62.7
100.0
10.7
34.7
34.7
20.0
100.0
27.3
4.0
20.0
27.3

4.7

6.0

2.0

13

8.7

2.0

10

6.7

150

100.0

150

100.0

39

Cost
of
Living

500

26

17.3

$1500
501-1000
$1501-$2000

48

32.0

1001-1500

52

$2001-$2500
1501
$2501
Information
Source

Total
Television
Radio
Newspaper
Magazine
Internet
Transportation
Advertisement
Exhibition
Family and friends
Others
Total

42

28.0

45

30.0

31

20.7

32

21.3

34.7

24

16.0

150
125
26
86
113
119
65

100.0
83.3
17.3
57.3
75.3
79.3
43.3

150
127
44
96
102
103
64

100.0
84.7
29.3
64
68
68.7
42.7

26
96
0
656

17.3
64
0
437.1

20
114
9
679

13.3
76
6
452.7

40

Table 2
Factor Loadings and Construct Reliability of Shanghai CSI

Shanghai CSI
Novelty and fashion-conscious consumer
shcsi15 I usually have one or more outfits of the very newest style.
shcsi16 I keep my wardrobe up-to-date with the changing fashions.
shcsi21 Going shopping is one of the enjoyable activities of my life.
Perfectionistic and high-quality conscious consumer
shcsi01 Getting very good quality is very important to me.
shcsi02 When it comes to purchasing products, I try to get the very best or
perfect choice.
shcsi04 I make special effort to choose the very best quality products.
Habitual and brand-loyal consumer
shcsi33 There are so many brands to choose from that often I feel confused.
shcsi37 I have favorite brands I buy over and over.
shcsi39 I go to the same stores each time I shop.
Impulsive and careless consumer
shcsi30 Often I make careless purchases I later wish I had not.
shcsi31 I take the time to shop carefully for best buys.
shcsi32 I carefully watch how much I spend.
Price conscious and value for money consumer
shcsi05 I really dont give my purchases much thought or care.
shcsi07 I shop quickly, buying the first product or brand I find that seems
good enough.
Brand conscious and price equals quality consumer
shcsi14 The most advertised brands are usually very good choices.
*Scores had been reversed

41

Construct Factor
Reliability Loading
0.7647
.848
.884
.702
0.7283
.893
.690
.799
0.6791
.774
.708
.831
0.6189
.640
.802*
.640*
0.4742
.803
.763*
.93

Table 3
Factor Loadings and Construct Reliability of Hong Kong CSI

Hong Kong CSI

Brand conscious and price equals quality consumer
hkcsi11 The higher the price of a product, the better its quality.
hkcsi12 Nice department and specialty stores offer me the best products.
hkcsi13 I prefer buying the best-selling brands.
hkcsi14 The most advertised brands are usually very good choices.
hkcsi35 The more I learn about products, the harder it seems to choose the
best.
Perfectionistic and high-quality conscious consumer
hkcsi01 Getting very good quality is very important to me.
hkcsi02 When it comes to purchasing products, I try to get the very best or
perfect choice.
hkcsi03 In general, I usually try to buy the best overall quality.
hkcsi04 I make special effort to choose the very best quality products.
hkcsi08 A product doesnt have to be perfect, or the best, to satisfy me.
Novelty and fashion-conscious consumer
hkcsi15 I usually have one or more outfits of the very newest style.
hkcsi18 To get variety, I shop different stores and choose different brands.
hkcsi20 Shopping is not a pleasant activity to me.
hkcsi22 Shopping other stores wastes my time.
Habitual and brand-loyal consumer
hkcsi37 I have favorite brands I buy over and over.
hkcsi38 Once I find a product or brand I like, I stick with it.
hkcsi39 I go to the same stores each time I shop.
Price conscious and value for money consumer
hkcsi05 I really dont give my purchases much thought or care.
hkcsi07 I shop quickly, buying the first product or brand I find that seems
good enough.
hkcsi25 I buy as much as possible at sale price.
* Scores had been reversed

42

Construct Factor
Reliability Loading
0.7501
.666
.734
.786
.764
.53
0.6006
.582
.692
.582
.573
.50
0.6491
.675
.553
.786*
.729*
0.7339
.797
.827
.752
0.5055
.706*
.770
.59

Table 4
Comparison of Habitual and brand-loyal consumer dimension of Shanghai
and Hong Kong

Habitual and brand-loyal consumer

Shanghai
Hong Kong
shcsi33
There are so many brands to choose from that
often I feel confused.
shcsi37 + hkcsi37
I have favorite brands I buy over and over.
shcsi39 + hkcsi39
I go to the same stores each time I shop.
hkcsi38
Once I find a product or brand I like, I stick with
it.

43

Table 5
Comparison of Brand conscious and price equals quality consumer dimension
of Shanghai and Hong Kong

Brand conscious and price equals quality consumer

Shanghai
Hong Kong
hkcsi11
The higher the price of a product, the better its
quality.
hkcsi12
Nice department and specialty stores offer me
the best products.
hkcsi13
I prefer buying the best-selling brands.
shcsi14 + hkcsi14
The most advertised brands are usually very good choices.
hkcsi35
The more I learn about products, the harder it
seems to choose the best.

44

Table 6
Comparison of Novelty and fashion-conscious consumer dimension of
Shanghai and Hong Kong

Novelty and fashion-conscious consumer

Shanghai
Hong Kong
shcsi15 + hkcsi15
I usually have one or more outfits of the very newest style.
shcsi16
I keep my wardrobe up-to-date with the
changing fashions.
hkcsi18
To get variety, I shop different stores and choose
different brands.
hkcsi20
Shopping is not a pleasant activity to me.
shcsi21
Going shopping is one of the enjoyable
activities of my life.
hkcsi22
Shopping other stores wastes my time.

45

Table 7
Comparison of decision-making styles between Shanghai and Hong Kong
universities consumers

Mean
T-Test 1:
SH
HK
T-Test 2:
SH
HK
T-Test 3:
SH
HK
T-Test 4:
SH
HK
T-Test 5:
SH
HK
T-Test 6:
SH
HK

Std.
Sig.
Significance eta
Deviation
(2-tailed) Difference? squared
Brand conscious and price equals quality consumer
2.3933
.75881

0.11
0.00
2.8813
.63799
Perfectionistic and high-quality conscious consumer

4.2222
.67739
0.00
0.11
3.7973
.49480
Novelty and fashion-conscious consumer

0.00
3.0156
.89521
0.07
3.4333
.65517
Habitual and brand-loyal consumer

2.9222
.82143
0.198
0.01
3.0422
.78890
Price conscious and value for money consumer

0.725
3.6000
.81306
0.00
3.5689
.71476
Impulsive and careless consumer

2.6778
.53431
0.00
0.93
.0000
.00000

46

Effect size

Large

Large

Moderate

Small

Small

Very large

10.3 Questionnaires
Questionnaires

Page

Shanghai Version

48

Hong Kong Version

53

47

________

<>
5
1

1.

2. /

3.

4.

5.

6.

48

7.

8. /

9.

10.

11.

12. /

13.

14.

15.

16.

17. /

49

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

50

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

51

40.

<>

1.
2.
() ()
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 3

1.
2. //
3.
4.
5. //
6. //
7. //
() ()
1. 500
2. 501 1000
3. 1001 1500
4. 1501
()
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

6.
7.
8.
9.

()
_____________________________

52

________

<>
5
1

1.

2. /

3.

4.

5.

6.

53

7.

8. /

9.

10.

11.

12. /

13.

14.

15.

16.

17. /

54

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

55

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

56

40.

<>

1.
2.
() ()
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 3

1.
2. //
3.
4.
5. //
6. //
7. //
() ()
1. 1500
2. 1501 2000
3. 2001 2500
4. 2501
()
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

6.
7.
8.
9.

()
____________________________

57

10.4 SPSS Outputs

SPSS Outputs

Page

10.4.1
Personal Information of the 300 samples from Shanghai and Hong Kong

59

10.4.2
Decision-making styles of Shanghai university consumers

65

10.4.3
Cronbachs alpha Reliability method: Shanghai CSI

85

10.4.4
Decision-making styles of Hong Kong university consumers

90

10.4.5
Cronbachs alpha Reliability method: Hong Kong CSI

108

10.4.6
Comparison of decision-making styles between Shanghai and Hong Kong 113
universities consumers

58

10.4.1 Personal Information of the 300 samples from Shanghai and Hong Kong

Shanghai

Sex (SH)

Valid
Missing
Total

Frequency
Male
66
Female
84
Total
150
System
150
300

Percent
Valid Percent
22.0
44.0
28.0
56.0
50.0
100.0
50.0
100.0

Cumulative
Percent
44.0
100.0

Number of Blood Siblings (SH)

Valid

Missing
Total

Frequency
1
125
2
13
3
12
Total
150
System
150
300

Percent
Valid Percent
41.7
83.3
4.3
8.7
4.0
8.0
50.0
100.0
50.0
100.0

Cumulative
Percent
83.3
92.0
100.0

Source of Income (SH)

Valid

Missing
Total

Frequency
Parents
111
Scholarship/Grant/Loan
8
Part-time
3
Partly Parents, partly
15
Part-time
Partly Parents, partly
7
Scholarship/Grant/Loan
Partly
Scholarship/Grant/Loan,
3
partly Part-time
Partly Parents,
Scholarship/Grant/Loan,
3
and Part-time
Total
150
System
150
300

59

Percent
Valid Percent
37.0
74.0
2.7
5.3
1.0
2.0

Cumulative
Percent
74.0
79.3
81.3

5.0

10.0

91.3

2.3

4.7

96.0

1.0

2.0

98.0

1.0

2.0

100.0

50.0
50.0
100.0

100.0

Cost of Living (SH)

Valid

Missing
Total

Frequency
</=$500
26
$501-$1000
48
$1001-$1500
52
>$1501
24
Total
150
System
150
300

Percent Valid Percent

8.7
17.3
16.0
32.0
17.3
34.7
8.0
16.0
50.0
100.0
50.0
100.0

Cumulative
Percent
17.3
49.3
84.0
100.0

Information Source (SH)

Frequency
Missing

System

300

Percent
100.0

Television (SH)

Valid
Missing
Total

Frequency
No
25
Yes
125
Total
150
System
150
300

Percent
Valid Percent
8.3
16.7
41.7
83.3
50.0
100.0
50.0
100.0

Cumulative
Percent
16.7
100.0

Radio (SH)

Valid
Missing
Total

Frequency
No
124
Yes
26
Total
150
System
150
300

Percent
Valid Percent
41.3
82.7
8.7
17.3
50.0
100.0
50.0
100.0

Cumulative
Percent
82.7
100.0

Newspaper (SH)

Valid
Missing
Total

Frequency
No
64
Yes
86
Total
150
System
150
300

Percent
Valid Percent
21.3
42.7
28.7
57.3
50.0
100.0
50.0
100.0

Cumulative
Percent
42.7
100.0

Magazine (SH)

Valid
Missing
Total

Frequency
No
37
Yes
113
Total
150
System
150
300

Percent
Valid Percent
12.3
24.7
37.7
75.3
50.0
100.0
50.0
100.0

60

Cumulative
Percent
24.7
100.0

Internet (SH)

Valid
Missing
Total

Frequency
No
31
Yes
119
Total
150
System
150
300

Percent
Valid Percent
10.3
20.7
39.7
79.3
50.0
100.0
50.0
100.0

Cumulative
Percent
20.7
100.0

Transportation Advertisment (SH)

Valid
Missing
Total

Frequency
No
85
Yes
65
Total
150
System
150
300

Percent
Valid Percent
28.3
56.7
21.7
43.3
50.0
100.0
50.0
100.0

Cumulative
Percent
56.7
100.0

Exhibition (SH)

Valid
Missing
Total

Frequency
No
124
Yes
26
Total
150
System
150
300

Percent
Valid Percent
41.3
82.7
8.7
17.3
50.0
100.0
50.0
100.0

Cumulative
Percent
82.7
100.0

Family and friends (SH)

Valid
Missing
Total

Frequency
No
54
Yes
96
Total
150
System
150
300

Percent
Valid Percent
18.0
36.0
32.0
64.0
50.0
100.0
50.0
100.0

Cumulative
Percent
36.0
100.0

Others (SH)
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Total

No
System

150
150
300

Percent

Valid Percent

50.0
50.0
100.0

100.0

61

Cumulative
Percent
100.0

Hong Kong

Sex (HK)

Valid
Missing
Total

Frequency
Male
56
Female
94
Total
150
System
150
300

Percent
Valid Percent
18.7
37.3
31.3
62.7
50.0
100.0
50.0
100.0

Cumulative
Percent
37.3
100.0

Number of Blood Siblings (HK)

Valid

Missing
Total

Frequency
1
16
2
52
3
52
>3
30
Total
150
System
150
300

Percent Valid Percent

5.3
10.7
17.3
34.7
17.3
34.7
10.0
20.0
50.0
100.0
50.0
100.0

Cumulative
Percent
10.7
45.3
80.0
100.0

Source of Income (HK)

Valid

Missing
Total

Frequency
Parents
41
Scholarship/Grant/Loan
6
Part-time
30
Partly Parents, partly
41
Part-time
Partly Parents, partly
9
Scholarship/Grant/Loan
Partly
Scholarship/Grant/Loan,
13
partly Part-time
Partly Parents,
Scholarship/Grant/Loan,
10
and Part-time
Total
150
System
150
300

Percent
Valid Percent
13.7
27.3
2.0
4.0
10.0
20.0

Cumulative
Percent
27.3
31.3
51.3

13.7

27.3

78.7

3.0

6.0

84.7

4.3

8.7

93.3

3.3

6.7

100.0

50.0
50.0
100.0

100.0

Cost of Living (HK)

Valid

Missing
Total

Frequency
</=$1500
42
$1501-$2000
45
$2001-$2500
31
>$2501
32
Total
150
System
150
300

Percent
Valid Percent
14.0
28.0
15.0
30.0
10.3
20.7
10.7
21.3
50.0
100.0
50.0
100.0

62

Cumulative
Percent
28.0
58.0
78.7
100.0

Information Source (HK)

Missing

System

Frequency
300

Percent
100.0

Television (HK)

Valid
Missing
Total

Frequency
No
23
Yes
127
Total
150
System
150
300

Percent
Valid Percent
7.7
15.3
42.3
84.7
50.0
100.0
50.0
100.0

Cumulative
Percent
15.3
100.0

Radio (HK)

Valid
Missing
Total

Frequency
No
106
Yes
44
Total
150
System
150
300

Percent
Valid Percent
35.3
70.7
14.7
29.3
50.0
100.0
50.0
100.0

Cumulative
Percent
70.7
100.0

Newspaper (HK)

Valid
Missing
Total

Frequency
No
54
Yes
96
Total
150
System
150
300

Percent
Valid Percent
18.0
36.0
32.0
64.0
50.0
100.0
50.0
100.0

Cumulative
Percent
36.0
100.0

Magazine (HK)

Valid
Missing
Total

Frequency
No
48
Yes
102
Total
150
System
150
300

Percent
Valid Percent
16.0
32.0
34.0
68.0
50.0
100.0
50.0
100.0

Cumulative
Percent
32.0
100.0

Internet (HK)

Valid
Missing
Total

Frequency
No
47
Yes
103
Total
150
System
150
300

Percent
Valid Percent
15.7
31.3
34.3
68.7
50.0
100.0
50.0
100.0

63

Cumulative
Percent
31.3
100.0

Transportation Advertisment (HK)

Valid
Missing
Total

Frequency
No
86
Yes
64
Total
150
System
150
300

Percent
Valid Percent
28.7
57.3
21.3
42.7
50.0
100.0
50.0
100.0

Cumulative
Percent
57.3
100.0

Exhibition (HK)

Valid
Missing
Total

Frequency
No
130
Yes
20
Total
150
System
150
300

Percent
Valid Percent
43.3
86.7
6.7
13.3
50.0
100.0
50.0
100.0

Cumulative
Percent
86.7
100.0

Family and friends (HK)

Valid
Missing
Total

Frequency
No
36
Yes
114
Total
150
System
150
300

Percent
Valid Percent
12.0
24.0
38.0
76.0
50.0
100.0
50.0
100.0

Cumulative
Percent
24.0
100.0

Others (HK)

Valid
Missing
Total

Frequency
No
141
Yes
9
Total
150
System
150
300

Percent
Valid Percent
47.0
94.0
3.0
6.0
50.0
100.0
50.0
100.0

64

Cumulative
Percent
94.0
100.0

10.4.2 Decision-making styles of Shanghai university consumers

Shanghai CSI Factor Analysis

65

Correlation Matrix
Correlation SH CSI 01

SH CSI 01

SH CSI 02
1

SH CSI 03

SH CSI 04

SH CSI 05

SH CSI 06

0.468476

0.566205

0.619297

-0.06757

0.415655

SH CSI 02

0.468476

0.468217

0.361046

0.116942

0.526069

SH CSI 03

0.566205

0.468217

0.603896

-0.20735

0.476839

SH CSI 04

0.619297

0.361046

0.603896

-0.03195

0.490067

SH CSI 05

-0.06757

0.116942

-0.20735

-0.03195

0.004879

SH CSI 06

0.415655

0.526069

0.476839

0.490067

0.004879

SH CSI 07

0.04714

0.021945

-0.22114

0.025578

0.311903

0.14484

SH CSI 08

0.336379

0.456334

0.297271

0.350266

0.063793

0.358551

SH CSI 09

0.296712

0.266531

0.321982

0.382919

-0.32896

0.368282

SH CSI 10

0.098645

0.311492

0.286536

0.170389

-0.22654

0.330286

SH CSI 11

0.107465

0.159822

0.34144

0.242674

-0.24135

0.235988

SH CSI 12

0.166504

0.130526

0.249611

0.254599

-0.12626

0.329876

SH CSI 13

0.115883

0.275283

0.227922

0.180403

0.010653

0.248206

SH CSI 14

-0.11262

-0.02891

-0.07222

-0.18696

-0.02553

-0.035

SH CSI 15

0.184559

0.240006

0.08335

0.202646

-0.04431

0.166949

SH CSI 16

0.052591

0.160901

0.03193

0.081044

-0.03375

0.034904

SH CSI 17

0.091405

0.278279

-0.00845

0.120837

-0.0954

0.062353

SH CSI 18

0.290323

0.428142

0.119435

0.36165

0.224544

0.234709

SH CSI 19

0.172789

0.236736

0.238647

0.365102

-0.06007

0.191606

SH CSI 20

0.114939

0.000614

-0.04404

0.183556

0.193714

0.043689

SH CSI 21

0.063491

0.084534

-0.03089

0.127326

0.179243

0.111281

SH CSI 22

0.031155

-0.16607

-0.18548

0.07138

0.275827

0.031092

SH CSI 23

-0.02519

0.168893

-0.13455

-0.03377

-0.00609

0.102139

SH CSI 24

-0.10137

-0.07199

-0.40816

-0.15303

0.384698

-0.34038

SH CSI 25

-0.07456

0.090315

-0.10635

-0.06155

0.168385

-0.08957

SH CSI 26

-0.17149

-0.05438

0.007934

-0.22402

0.070522

-0.05587

SH CSI 27

0.159842

0.111958

0.140431

0.05066

0.030338

0.159087

SH CSI 28

-0.12027

-0.15977

-0.19381

-0.13081

0.086874

-0.02127

SH CSI 29

-0.14442

-0.07272

0.012693

0.012588

0.014687

0.092807

SH CSI 30

-0.11565

-0.02445

-0.01161

0.022937

-0.04382

0.088939

SH CSI 31

-0.04734

-0.09935

-0.03373

0.029641

0.04515

0.061392

SH CSI 32

-0.01788

-0.06863

-0.00674

0.017185

0.198426

-0.03032

SH CSI 33

0.002357

0.047232

0.324585

0.080661

-0.08777

0.23385

SH CSI 34

-0.05893

-0.06103

0.137522

-0.03445

-0.02897

0.029917

SH CSI 35

0.186406

0.041669

0.101024

0.089405

-0.09579

0.224157

SH CSI 36

0.163018

-0.01553

0.211936

0.131073

0.062321

0.250116

SH CSI 37

0.100394

0.151943

0.330955

0.311958

-0.07669

0.232156

SH CSI 38

0.24923

0.1214

0.194888

0.251114

-0.12407

0.189153

SH CSI 39

0.102622

0.171759

0.376568

0.210017

-0.14946

0.397655

SH CSI 40

0.01186

0.087681

0.018698

0.080959

0.202147

-0.06718

66

Correlation Matrix
Correlation SH CSI 01

SH CSI 07

SH CSI 08

SH CSI 09

SH CSI 10

SH CSI 11

SH CSI 12

0.04714

0.336379

0.296712

0.098645

0.107465

0.166504

SH CSI 02

0.021945

0.456334

0.266531

0.311492

0.159822

0.130526

SH CSI 03

-0.22114

0.297271

0.321982

0.286536

0.34144

0.249611

SH CSI 04

0.025578

0.350266

0.382919

0.170389

0.242674

0.254599

SH CSI 05

0.311903

0.063793

-0.32896

-0.22654

-0.24135

-0.12626

SH CSI 06

0.14484

0.358551

0.368282

0.330286

0.235988

0.329876

SH CSI 07

-0.19982

0.217684

-0.01742

-0.04106

0.043123

SH CSI 08

-0.19982

0.34122

0.376158

0.315378

0.135987

SH CSI 09

0.217684

0.34122

0.618969

0.510331

0.592811

SH CSI 10

-0.01742

0.376158

0.618969

0.667219

0.469828

SH CSI 11

-0.04106

0.315378

0.510331

0.667219

0.495489

SH CSI 12

0.043123

0.135987

0.592811

0.469828

0.495489

SH CSI 13

-0.05652

0.311848

0.150963

0.089085

0.248123

0.223821

SH CSI 14

-0.08476

0.109365

0.106239

0.166047

0.213947

0.279788

SH CSI 15

-0.09763

0.144413

0.158689

0.112215

-0.00038

0.090177

SH CSI 16

-0.12978

0.096432

0.046423

0.090299

-0.07101

-0.00178

SH CSI 17

0.073631

0.081187

0.286752

0.181063

0.026743

0.266663

SH CSI 18

0.080854

0.273392

0.154152

0.213067

-0.02955

0.127527

SH CSI 19

-0.21438

0.086988

0.093844

0.21999

0.055726

-0.02365

SH CSI 20

0.130962

-0.08556

-0.04257

-0.20139

-0.18227

0.053875

SH CSI 21

0.117302

0.132127

-0.06244

-0.03551

-0.1154

-0.00979

SH CSI 22

0.227257

-0.10491

-0.16738

-0.25896

-0.22048

-0.0087

SH CSI 23

-0.07567

0.17075

-0.14382

0.052334

-0.08367

-0.18249

SH CSI 24

0.385143

-0.16932

-0.19552

-0.19291

-0.23399

-0.01622

SH CSI 25

0.214487

0.086416

0.022627

0.025939

0.080108

0.024743

SH CSI 26

0.019374

-0.15726

-0.29577

-0.25053

-0.23299

-0.33964

SH CSI 27

0.288911

0.021897

0.104228

0.048302

0.123542

0.07965

SH CSI 28

0.103636

-0.10145

-0.28281

-0.21699

-0.01937

-0.20937

SH CSI 29

-0.02228

0.077831

-0.14313

-0.08942

-0.08565

-0.0873

SH CSI 30

-0.03977

0.02501

-0.02684

-0.02764

-0.01302

-0.0009

SH CSI 31

0.050979

-0.11593

-0.08953

-0.15588

-0.12319

-0.03898

SH CSI 32

0.089642

-0.03119

-0.10897

-0.10186

-0.03409

-0.0622

SH CSI 33

-0.07506

0.098755

0.230508

0.276255

0.187547

-0.0077

SH CSI 34

0.005538

-0.11702

-0.04927

-0.05971

-0.06277

-0.16503

SH CSI 35

-0.11455

0.235598

0.193045

0.118792

0.086134

0.102519

SH CSI 36

-0.00709

0.241797

0.150678

0.056683

0.117848

-0.00274

SH CSI 37

0.018949

0.3238

0.363952

0.141651

0.200306

0.250098

SH CSI 38

0.25548

0.128561

0.527268

0.228221

0.281485

0.588595

SH CSI 39

-0.06936

0.295995

0.401304

0.23785

0.252226

0.244111

SH CSI 40

-0.13938

0.193496

-0.21592

-0.22883

-0.21056

-0.30351

67

Correlation Matrix
Correlation SH CSI 01

SH CSI 13

SH CSI 14

SH CSI 15

SH CSI 16

SH CSI 17

SH CSI 18

0.115883

-0.11262

0.184559

0.052591

0.091405

0.290323

SH CSI 02

0.275283

-0.02891

0.240006

0.160901

0.278279

0.428142

SH CSI 03

0.227922

-0.07222

0.08335

0.03193

-0.00845

0.119435

SH CSI 04

0.180403

-0.18696

0.202646

0.081044

0.120837

0.36165

SH CSI 05

0.010653

-0.02553

-0.04431

-0.03375

-0.0954

0.224544

SH CSI 06

0.248206

-0.035

0.166949

0.034904

0.062353

0.234709

SH CSI 07

-0.05652

-0.08476

-0.09763

-0.12978

0.073631

0.080854

SH CSI 08

0.311848

0.109365

0.144413

0.096432

0.081187

0.273392

SH CSI 09

0.150963

0.106239

0.158689

0.046423

0.286752

0.154152

SH CSI 10

0.089085

0.166047

0.112215

0.090299

0.181063

0.213067

SH CSI 11

0.248123

0.213947

-0.00038

-0.07101

0.026743

-0.02955

SH CSI 12

0.223821

0.279788

0.090177

-0.00178

0.266663

0.127527

SH CSI 13

0.418649

0.287159

0.309919

0.154354

0.049854

SH CSI 14

0.418649

0.129874

0.052354

0.211116

-0.19813

SH CSI 15

0.287159

0.129874

0.689501

0.425182

0.191463

SH CSI 16

0.309919

0.052354

0.689501

0.45665

0.312971

SH CSI 17

0.154354

0.211116

0.425182

0.45665

0.343528

SH CSI 18

0.049854

-0.19813

0.191463

0.312971

0.343528

SH CSI 19

-0.1313

-0.25004

0.204408

0.255884

0.276206

0.613846

SH CSI 20

0.218704

-0.04276

0.301506

0.3644

0.383572

0.309045

SH CSI 21

0.204634

0.217297

0.450454

0.44442

0.298588

0.302609

SH CSI 22

0.204973

0.053929

0.392409

0.492136

0.13009

0.16353

SH CSI 23

0.311207

0.153723

0.431493

0.429013

0.063272

0.152282

SH CSI 24

-0.04929

0.159589

0.15576

0.230321

0.325447

0.229426

SH CSI 25

-0.07488

0.016548

-0.20264

-0.33997

-0.1275

-0.11964

SH CSI 26

0.239134

0.069945

-0.06079

0.094308

-0.23782

-0.17081

SH CSI 27

-0.11432

-0.01428

-0.1761

-0.26357

0.006785

-0.14792

SH CSI 28

-0.09216

-0.1168

-0.15295

-0.10237

-0.20252

-0.09319

SH CSI 29

-0.03755

-0.11681

-0.12298

-0.04737

-0.09237

-0.00538

SH CSI 30

0.07942

0.051632

0.039347

0.075177

-0.00011

-0.1414

SH CSI 31

-0.0261

0.04364

0.028546

-0.04042

-0.18369

-0.14398

SH CSI 32

-0.00615

0.099563

-0.00657

-0.01308

-0.05435

-0.03285

SH CSI 33

-0.01435

-0.13793

-0.06545

0.008675

-0.20978

-0.0746

SH CSI 34

-0.13287

-0.32596

-0.237

-0.07618

-0.32963

-0.046

SH CSI 35

0.112613

0.007051

-0.03542

0.045735

-0.23392

-0.08214

SH CSI 36

0.068868

-0.00624

-0.12303

-0.05865

-0.25888

-0.20032

SH CSI 37

0.229355

-0.08177

0.146172

0.137662

0.034302

0.092869

SH CSI 38

0.074189

0.145494

0.078793

0.030218

0.297275

0.119205

SH CSI 39

0.184583

-0.12923

-0.06907

0.036125

-0.2465

-0.01003

SH CSI 40

0.28503

0.098963

0.093642

-0.03466

-0.02727

-0.02646

68

Correlation Matrix
Correlation SH CSI 01

SH CSI 19

SH CSI 20

SH CSI 21

SH CSI 22

SH CSI 23

SH CSI 24

0.172789

0.114939

0.063491

0.031155

-0.02519

-0.10137

SH CSI 02

0.236736

0.000614

0.084534

-0.16607

0.168893

-0.07199

SH CSI 03

0.238647

-0.04404

-0.03089

-0.18548

-0.13455

-0.40816

SH CSI 04

0.365102

0.183556

0.127326

0.07138

-0.03377

-0.15303

SH CSI 05

-0.06007

0.193714

0.179243

0.275827

-0.00609

0.384698

SH CSI 06

0.191606

0.043689

0.111281

0.031092

0.102139

-0.34038

SH CSI 07

-0.21438

0.130962

0.117302

0.227257

-0.07567

0.385143

SH CSI 08

0.086988

-0.08556

0.132127

-0.10491

0.17075

-0.16932

SH CSI 09

0.093844

-0.04257

-0.06244

-0.16738

-0.14382

-0.19552

SH CSI 10

0.21999

-0.20139

-0.03551

-0.25896

0.052334

-0.19291

SH CSI 11

0.055726

-0.18227

-0.1154

-0.22048

-0.08367

-0.23399

SH CSI 12

-0.02365

0.053875

-0.00979

-0.0087

-0.18249

-0.01622

SH CSI 13

-0.1313

0.218704

0.204634

0.204973

0.311207

-0.04929

SH CSI 14

-0.25004

-0.04276

0.217297

0.053929

0.153723

0.159589

SH CSI 15

0.204408

0.301506

0.450454

0.392409

0.431493

0.15576

SH CSI 16

0.255884

0.3644

0.44442

0.492136

0.429013

0.230321

SH CSI 17

0.276206

0.383572

0.298588

0.13009

0.063272

0.325447

SH CSI 18

0.613846

0.309045

0.302609

0.16353

0.152282

0.229426

SH CSI 19

0.163781

0.186896

0.063998

0.164519

-0.04705

SH CSI 20

0.163781

0.501429

0.636987

0.179964

0.463182

SH CSI 21

0.186896

0.501429

0.621332

0.502195

0.430473

SH CSI 22

0.063998

0.636987

0.621332

0.328238

0.492539

SH CSI 23

0.164519

0.179964

0.502195

0.328238

0.216493

SH CSI 24

-0.04705

0.463182

0.430473

0.492539

0.216493

SH CSI 25

-0.17609

-0.29965

-0.05585

-0.18114

-0.00083

0.082917

SH CSI 26

-0.26623

-0.00959

0.16801

-0.00217

0.202167

-0.01863

SH CSI 27

-0.17821

-0.1628

-0.1753

-0.27951

-0.18733

-0.02181

SH CSI 28

-0.06916

-0.04137

0.028492

0.054004

0.045738

0.02352

SH CSI 29

0.000745

0.017154

-0.00369

0.037179

0.004073

0.031297

SH CSI 30

-0.03889

-0.06869

0.109098

-0.02337

0.137421

-0.06713

SH CSI 31

-0.04057

-0.04742

0.074948

0.031018

0.102984

-0.09753

SH CSI 32

0.062217

0.045102

0.176629

0.100556

0.051896

0.069455

SH CSI 33

0.087074

-0.28358

-0.25043

-0.21302

-0.15777

-0.43729

SH CSI 34

-0.07105

-0.24256

-0.17726

-0.16898

-0.14364

-0.29116

SH CSI 35

-0.1949

-0.07053

-0.00184

0.055175

0.02842

-0.22625

SH CSI 36

-0.19169

-0.28134

-0.1111

-0.11607

-0.08442

-0.40713

SH CSI 37

0.085598

-0.09436

0.064906

-0.04794

0.005501

-0.21173

SH CSI 38

-0.01783

-0.04399

0.028196

-0.06865

-0.32063

0.072377

SH CSI 39

-0.02546

-0.14685

-0.12211

-0.19658

-0.07201

-0.49965

SH CSI 40

-0.06896

0.118116

0.135859

0.058149

0.026669

0.045132

69

Correlation Matrix
Correlation SH CSI 01

SH CSI 25

SH CSI 26

-0.07456

SH CSI 27

SH CSI 28

SH CSI 29

-0.17149

0.159842

-0.12027

SH CSI 30

-0.14442

-0.11565

SH CSI 02

0.090315

-0.05438

0.111958

-0.15977

-0.07272

-0.02445

SH CSI 03

-0.10635

0.007934

0.140431

-0.19381

0.012693

-0.01161

SH CSI 04

-0.06155

-0.22402

0.05066

-0.13081

0.012588

0.022937

SH CSI 05

0.168385

0.070522

0.030338

0.086874

0.014687

-0.04382

SH CSI 06

-0.08957

-0.05587

0.159087

-0.02127

0.092807

0.088939

SH CSI 07

0.214487

0.019374

0.288911

0.103636

-0.02228

-0.03977

SH CSI 08

0.086416

-0.15726

0.021897

-0.10145

0.077831

0.02501

SH CSI 09

0.022627

-0.29577

0.104228

-0.28281

-0.14313

-0.02684

SH CSI 10

0.025939

-0.25053

0.048302

-0.21699

-0.08942

-0.02764

SH CSI 11

0.080108

-0.23299

0.123542

-0.01937

-0.08565

-0.01302

SH CSI 12

0.024743

-0.33964

0.07965

-0.20937

-0.0873

-0.0009

SH CSI 13

-0.07488

0.239134

-0.11432

-0.09216

-0.03755

0.07942

SH CSI 14

0.016548

0.069945

-0.01428

-0.1168

-0.11681

0.051632

SH CSI 15

-0.20264

-0.06079

-0.1761

-0.15295

-0.12298

0.039347

SH CSI 16

-0.33997

0.094308

-0.26357

-0.10237

-0.04737

0.075177

SH CSI 17

-0.1275

-0.23782

0.006785

-0.20252

-0.09237

-0.00011

SH CSI 18

-0.11964

-0.17081

-0.14792

-0.09319

-0.00538

-0.1414

SH CSI 19

-0.17609

-0.26623

-0.17821

-0.06916

0.000745

-0.03889

SH CSI 20

-0.29965

-0.00959

-0.1628

-0.04137

0.017154

-0.06869

SH CSI 21

-0.05585

0.16801

-0.1753

0.028492

-0.00369

0.109098

SH CSI 22

-0.18114

-0.00217

-0.27951

0.054004

0.037179

-0.02337

SH CSI 23

-0.00083

0.202167

-0.18733

0.045738

0.004073

0.137421

SH CSI 24

0.082917

-0.01863

-0.02181

0.02352

0.031297

-0.06713

SH CSI 25

0.07485

0.312088

0.166662

0.023446

0.148611

SH CSI 26

0.07485

0.08148

0.134348

0.138943

0.161239

SH CSI 27

0.312088

0.08148

0.095973

0.047732

-0.00105

SH CSI 28

0.166662

0.134348

0.095973

0.409196

0.38436

SH CSI 29

0.023446

0.138943

0.047732

0.409196

0.269808

SH CSI 30

0.148611

0.161239

-0.00105

0.38436

0.269808

SH CSI 31

0.036258

0.158963

-0.06588

0.285262

0.094412

0.235161

SH CSI 32

0.058524

0.126821

0.04505

0.250734

0.129467

0.303691

SH CSI 33

-0.11585

0.229366

0.173602

-0.00775

0.036308

-0.08865

SH CSI 34

-0.03866

0.374066

-0.07267

0.19942

0.09705

0.02168

SH CSI 35

-0.13239

0.075263

-0.06784

0.036418

-0.02934

-0.0116

SH CSI 36

-0.10513

0.215792

0.257581

-0.02061

0.004677

-0.01873

SH CSI 37

0.069303

0.09702

0.135907

-0.23075

0.00028

-0.0063

SH CSI 38

0.107976

-0.19871

0.337204

-0.25368

-0.16082

-0.14699

SH CSI 39

-0.06913

0.174095

0.084299

0.05051

0.092559

0.118007

SH CSI 40

-0.09133

0.199637

-0.18495

-0.14726

0.066304

0.094883

70

Correlation Matrix
Correlation SH CSI 01

SH CSI 31

SH CSI 32

SH CSI 33

SH CSI 34

-0.04734

-0.01788

0.002357

SH CSI 02

-0.09935

-0.06863

SH CSI 03

-0.03373

-0.00674

SH CSI 04

0.029641

SH CSI 05
SH CSI 06
SH CSI 07

SH CSI 35

SH CSI 36

-0.05893

0.186406

0.047232

-0.06103

0.041669

-0.01553

0.324585

0.137522

0.101024

0.211936

0.017185

0.080661

-0.03445

0.089405

0.131073

0.04515

0.198426

-0.08777

-0.02897

-0.09579

0.062321

0.061392

-0.03032

0.23385

0.029917

0.224157

0.250116

0.050979

0.089642

-0.07506

0.005538

-0.11455

-0.00709

SH CSI 08

-0.11593

-0.03119

0.098755

-0.11702

0.235598

0.241797

SH CSI 09

-0.08953

-0.10897

0.230508

-0.04927

0.193045

0.150678

SH CSI 10

-0.15588

-0.10186

0.276255

-0.05971

0.118792

0.056683

SH CSI 11

-0.12319

-0.03409

0.187547

-0.06277

0.086134

0.117848

SH CSI 12

-0.03898

-0.0622

-0.0077

-0.16503

0.102519

-0.00274

SH CSI 13

-0.0261

-0.00615

-0.01435

-0.13287

0.112613

0.068868

SH CSI 14

0.04364

0.099563

-0.13793

-0.32596

0.007051

-0.00624

SH CSI 15

0.028546

-0.00657

-0.06545

-0.237

-0.03542

-0.12303

SH CSI 16

-0.04042

-0.01308

0.008675

-0.07618

0.045735

-0.05865

SH CSI 17

-0.18369

-0.05435

-0.20978

-0.32963

-0.23392

-0.25888

SH CSI 18

-0.14398

-0.03285

-0.0746

-0.046

-0.08214

-0.20032

SH CSI 19

-0.04057

0.062217

0.087074

-0.07105

-0.1949

-0.19169

SH CSI 20

-0.04742

0.045102

-0.28358

-0.24256

-0.07053

-0.28134

SH CSI 21

0.074948

0.176629

-0.25043

-0.17726

-0.00184

-0.1111

SH CSI 22

0.031018

0.100556

-0.21302

-0.16898

0.055175

-0.11607

SH CSI 23

0.102984

0.051896

-0.15777

-0.14364

0.02842

-0.08442

SH CSI 24

-0.09753

0.069455

-0.43729

-0.29116

-0.22625

-0.40713

SH CSI 25

0.036258

0.058524

-0.11585

-0.03866

-0.13239

-0.10513

SH CSI 26

0.158963

0.126821

0.229366

0.374066

0.075263

0.215792

SH CSI 27

-0.06588

0.04505

0.173602

-0.07267

-0.06784

0.257581

SH CSI 28

0.285262

0.250734

-0.00775

0.19942

0.036418

-0.02061

SH CSI 29

0.094412

0.129467

0.036308

0.09705

-0.02934

0.004677

SH CSI 30

0.235161

0.303691

-0.08865

0.02168

-0.0116

-0.01873

SH CSI 31

0.548857

0.043867

0.196687

0.0855

0.076242

SH CSI 32

0.548857

-0.00467

0.009107

-0.03115

0.04924

SH CSI 33

0.043867

-0.00467

0.575557

0.329761

0.40587

SH CSI 34

0.196687

0.009107

0.575557

0.390302

0.259667

SH CSI 35

0.0855

-0.03115

0.329761

0.390302

0.55982

SH CSI 36

0.076242

0.04924

0.40587

0.259667

0.55982

SH CSI 37

-0.04729

0.023355

0.266158

0.132354

0.201932

0.400369

SH CSI 38

-0.07182

-0.03519

0.10887

0.022072

0.101346

0.14102

SH CSI 39

0.107089

-0.00335

0.506363

0.470278

0.391008

0.367425

SH CSI 40

-0.02112

0.075195

-0.20179

-0.27563

-0.25619

-0.1356

71

0.163018

Correlation Matrix
Correlation SH CSI 01

SH CSI 37

SH CSI 38

0.100394

SH CSI 39

SH CSI 40

0.24923

0.102622

0.01186

SH CSI 02

0.151943

0.1214

0.171759

0.087681

SH CSI 03

0.330955

0.194888

0.376568

0.018698

SH CSI 04

0.311958

0.251114

0.210017

0.080959

SH CSI 05

-0.07669

-0.12407

-0.14946

0.202147

SH CSI 06

0.232156

0.189153

0.397655

-0.06718

SH CSI 07

0.018949

0.25548

-0.06936

-0.13938

SH CSI 08

0.3238

0.128561

0.295995

0.193496

SH CSI 09

0.363952

0.527268

0.401304

-0.21592

SH CSI 10

0.141651

0.228221

0.23785

-0.22883

SH CSI 11

0.200306

0.281485

0.252226

-0.21056

SH CSI 12

0.250098

0.588595

0.244111

-0.30351

SH CSI 13

0.229355

0.074189

0.184583

0.28503

SH CSI 14

-0.08177

0.145494

-0.12923

0.098963

SH CSI 15

0.146172

0.078793

-0.06907

0.093642

SH CSI 16

0.137662

0.030218

0.036125

-0.03466

SH CSI 17

0.034302

0.297275

-0.2465

-0.02727

SH CSI 18

0.092869

0.119205

-0.01003

-0.02646

SH CSI 19

0.085598

-0.01783

-0.02546

-0.06896

SH CSI 20

-0.09436

-0.04399

-0.14685

0.118116

SH CSI 21

0.064906

0.028196

-0.12211

0.135859

SH CSI 22

-0.04794

-0.06865

-0.19658

0.058149

SH CSI 23

0.005501

-0.32063

-0.07201

0.026669

SH CSI 24

-0.21173

0.072377

-0.49965

0.045132

SH CSI 25

0.069303

0.107976

-0.06913

-0.09133

SH CSI 26

0.09702

-0.19871

0.174095

0.199637

SH CSI 27

0.135907

0.337204

0.084299

-0.18495

SH CSI 28

-0.23075

-0.25368

0.05051

-0.14726

SH CSI 29

0.00028

-0.16082

0.092559

0.066304

SH CSI 30

-0.0063

-0.14699

0.118007

0.094883

SH CSI 31

-0.04729

-0.07182

0.107089

-0.02112

SH CSI 32

0.023355

-0.03519

-0.00335

0.075195

SH CSI 33

0.266158

0.10887

0.506363

-0.20179

SH CSI 34

0.132354

0.022072

0.470278

-0.27563

SH CSI 35

0.201932

0.101346

0.391008

-0.25619

SH CSI 36

0.400369

0.14102

0.367425

-0.1356

SH CSI 37

0.474271

0.474215

-0.13257

SH CSI 38

0.474271

0.2292

-0.35028

SH CSI 39

0.474215

0.2292

-0.25562

SH CSI 40

-0.13257

-0.35028

-0.25562

72

KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling
Adequacy.
Bartlett's Test of
Sphericity

.608

Approx. Chi-Square
df
Sig.

3602.776
780
.000

Scree Plot
7

Eigenvalue

1
0
1

9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39

Component Number

73

Communalities

SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH

CSI 01
CSI 02
CSI 03
CSI 04
CSI 05
CSI 06
CSI 07
CSI 08
CSI 09
CSI 10
CSI 11
CSI 12
CSI 13
CSI 14
CSI 15
CSI 16
CSI 17
CSI 18
CSI 19
CSI 20
CSI 21
CSI 22
CSI 23
CSI 24
CSI 25
CSI 26
CSI 27
CSI 28
CSI 29
CSI 30
CSI 31
CSI 32
CSI 33
CSI 34
CSI 35
CSI 36
CSI 37
CSI 38
CSI 39
CSI 40

Initial
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000

Extraction
.793
.752
.752
.751
.755
.682
.721
.794
.726
.801
.662
.761
.740
.703
.688
.784
.665
.780
.783
.747
.676
.803
.760
.775
.635
.801
.680
.720
.681
.600
.753
.768
.696
.758
.753
.706
.808
.810
.713
.782

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

74

Total Variance Explained

Component
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40

Total
6.045
5.065
3.229
2.486
2.360
2.160
1.899
1.513
1.324
1.222
1.141
1.074
.955
.879
.842
.717
.696
.639
.596
.526
.498
.447
.409
.395
.349
.331
.283
.259
.229
.204
.199
.188
.153
.148
.129
.111
9.277E-02
8.516E-02
6.649E-02
5.450E-02

Initial Eigenvalues
% of Variance Cumulative %
15.113
15.113
12.663
27.776
8.073
35.849
6.216
42.064
5.901
47.965
5.401
53.366
4.747
58.112
3.783
61.895
3.310
65.205
3.055
68.260
2.853
71.113
2.686
73.799
2.387
76.186
2.198
78.383
2.105
80.488
1.792
82.280
1.740
84.019
1.598
85.617
1.490
87.107
1.316
88.423
1.246
89.669
1.119
90.787
1.023
91.810
.987
92.797
.872
93.669
.828
94.497
.707
95.204
.647
95.851
.572
96.423
.510
96.934
.496
97.430
.471
97.901
.383
98.284
.369
98.653
.323
98.976
.277
99.253
.232
99.485
.213
99.698
.166
99.864
.136
100.000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

75

Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings

Total
% of Variance Cumulative %
6.045
15.113
15.113
5.065
12.663
27.776
3.229
8.073
35.849
2.486
6.216
42.064
2.360
5.901
47.965
2.160
5.401
53.366
1.899
4.747
58.112
1.513
3.783
61.895
1.324
3.310
65.205
1.222
3.055
68.260
1.141
2.853
71.113
1.074
2.686
73.799

1
0.525
0.530
0.692
0.606

Component Matrixa
Component
2
3
4

SH CSI 01
SH CSI 02
SH CSI 03
SH CSI 04
SH CSI 05
SH CSI 06
0.644
SH CSI 07
0.518
SH CSI 08
0.552
SH CSI 09
0.755
SH CSI 10
0.640
SH CSI 11
0.593
SH CSI 12
0.568
-0.374
0.363
SH CSI 13
0.334
SH CSI 14
0.483
SH CSI 15
0.655
SH CSI 16
0.636
0.333
SH CSI 17
0.632
-0.300
SH CSI 18
0.541
SH CSI 19
0.373
-0.529
SH CSI 20
0.680
SH CSI 21
0.689
0.334
SH CSI 22
0.631
SH CSI 23
0.465
0.413
SH CSI 24
-0.445
0.569
0.329
SH CSI 25
0.380
SH CSI 26
0.577
SH CSI 27
0.356
SH CSI 28
0.330
SH CSI 29
SH CSI 30
0.322
SH CSI 31
0.405
SH CSI 32
0.320
0.325
SH CSI 33
0.419
-0.445
0.320
SH CSI 34
-0.511
0.450
SH CSI 35
0.338
0.391
SH CSI 36
0.366
-0.399
0.368
SH CSI 37
0.548
SH CSI 38
0.534
-0.350
0.417
SH CSI 39
0.584
-0.347
0.393
SH CSI 40
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
12 components extracted.

76

5
0.346

6
0.351

0.368
0.445
0.529
0.391

-0.391
-0.535
-0.306
0.397

-0.328

0.368
0.364

0.372

-0.407
-0.325

-0.308
0.548

Component Matrixa
Component
8
9
10

SH CSI 01
SH CSI 02
0.302
SH CSI 03
SH CSI 04
-0.321
SH CSI 05
-0.334
SH CSI 06
SH CSI 07
SH CSI 08
SH CSI 09
SH CSI 10
0.309
0.302
SH CSI 11
SH CSI 12
SH CSI 13
SH CSI 14
SH CSI 15
SH CSI 16
SH CSI 17
0.318
SH CSI 18
SH CSI 19
0.406
SH CSI 20
SH CSI 21
SH CSI 22
SH CSI 23
0.364
SH CSI 24
SH CSI 25
0.378
SH CSI 26
0.371
SH CSI 27
0.315
SH CSI 28
0.456
SH CSI 29
0.307
0.568
SH CSI 30
0.451
SH CSI 31
0.343
-0.356
-0.452
SH CSI 32
0.310
-0.441
SH CSI 33
SH CSI 34
SH CSI 35
-0.449
SH CSI 36
-0.326
SH CSI 37
0.316
SH CSI 38
SH CSI 39
SH CSI 40
-0.398
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
a. 12 components extracted.

77

11
-0.380

12

0.365

-0.347

-0.315

-0.319

-0.465

0.311

Shanghai CSI - Factor Rotation (1st trail)

Rotated Component Matrixa

SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH

CSI 01
CSI 02
CSI 03
CSI 04
CSI 05
CSI 06
CSI 07
CSI 08
CSI 09
CSI 10
CSI 11
CSI 12
CSI 13
CSI 14
CSI 15
CSI 16
CSI 17
CSI 18
CSI 19
CSI 20
CSI 21
CSI 22
CSI 23
CSI 24
CSI 25
CSI 26
CSI 27
CSI 28
CSI 29
CSI 30
CSI 31
CSI 32
CSI 33
CSI 34
CSI 35
CSI 36
CSI 37
CSI 38
CSI 39
CSI 40

1
.682
.733
.697
.776

Component
4

.301
.434

.667
.722
.585
.407
.373

-.394
-.386
-.344
.347

.564
.519

.664
.784
.438
.377

-.322

.381
.390
.437
.532
.458
.601
.745

.404

.490

-.349
-.334

.694
.752
.794
.536
.501
-.360

-.304
.376
.334

-.518
.322

.337
.506

-.358

.490
.577
.419
.494
.496
.544
.717
.699
.676
.650
.479

-.354

-.301
.742
-.388

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 8 iterations.

78

.698
-.475

Shanghai CSI - Factor Rotation (2nd trail)

Rotated Component Matrix

Component
1
SH CSI
01
SH CSI
02
SH CSI
04
SH CSI
05
SH CSI
06
SH CSI
07
SH CSI
11
SH CSI
14
SH CSI
15
SH CSI
16
SH CSI
20
SH CSI
21
SH CSI
22
SH CSI
28
SH CSI
29
SH CSI
30
SH CSI
31
SH CSI
32
SH CSI
33
SH CSI
35
SH CSI
36
SH CSI
37
SH CSI
39

.755
.759
.778
.722
.728
.677
.351

-.328

.327
.735

.733
.811
.684
.757
.805

.356
.614

-.447

.395

-.615

.677
.700
.733
.691
.722
.795
.595
.692

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 11 iterations.

79

Shanghai CSI - Factor Rotation (3rd trail)

Rotated Component Matrix

1
SH CSI
01
SH CSI
02
SH CSI
04
SH CSI
05
SH CSI
06
SH CSI
07
SH CSI
14
SH CSI
15
SH CSI
16
SH CSI
20
SH CSI
21
SH CSI
30
SH CSI
31
SH CSI
32
SH CSI
33
SH CSI
35
SH CSI
36
SH CSI
37
SH CSI
39

Component
4

.822
.750
.757
.777
.312

.731
.725
.848
.796
.856
.631

.340

.732
.668
.788
.798
.703
.692
.786
.619
.715

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 6 iterations.

80

Shanghai CSI - Factor Rotation (4th trail)

Rotated Component Matrix

1
SH CSI
01
SH CSI
02
SH CSI
04
SH CSI
05
SH CSI
07
SH CSI
14
SH CSI
15
SH CSI
16
SH CSI
21
SH CSI
30
SH CSI
31
SH CSI
32
SH CSI
33
SH CSI
35
SH CSI
36
SH CSI
37
SH CSI
39

Component
4

.902
.668
.805
.807
.751
.729
.844
.872
.690
.649
.796
.809
.725
.656

.455

.758

.332

.644
.756

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 7 iterations.

81

Shanghai CSI - Factor Rotation (5th and the final trail)

Communalities
Initial
SH CSI
01
SH CSI
02
SH CSI
04
SH CSI
05
SH CSI
07
SH CSI
14
SH CSI
15
SH CSI
16
SH CSI
21
SH CSI
30
SH CSI
31
SH CSI
32
SH CSI
33
SH CSI
37
SH CSI
39

1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

82

Total Variance Explained

Initial Eigenvalues
% of
Cumulative
Variance
%
Total
2.584
17.224
17.224
2.209
14.727
31.952
1.823
12.155
44.106
1.608
10.721
54.828
1.192
7.945
62.773
.917
6.114
68.887
.861
5.740
74.627
.811
5.405
80.031
.656
4.376
84.408
.539
3.593
88.000
.485
3.234
91.234
.435
2.899
94.134
.360
2.399
96.533
.277
1.844
98.377
.243
1.623
100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Compone
nt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Component Matrix

a. 6 components extracted.

83

Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings

% of
Cumulative
Variance
%
Total
2.129
14.194
14.194
2.020
13.467
27.661
1.888
12.586
40.247
1.786
11.910
52.157
1.456
9.709
61.866
1.053
7.021
68.887

Rotated Component Matrix

1
SH CSI
01
SH CSI
02
SH CSI
04
SH CSI
05
SH CSI
07
SH CSI
14
SH CSI
15
SH CSI
16
SH CSI
21
SH CSI
30
SH CSI
31
SH CSI
32
SH CSI
33
SH CSI
37
SH CSI
39

Component
4

.893
.690
.799
.803
.763
.939
.848
.884
.702
.640
.802
.808
.774
.708
.831

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.
Component Transformation Matrix
Compone
nt
1

2
3
.592
.704
.387
2
.622
-.174
-.584
3
-.161
-.097
.403
4
-.352
.512
-.335
5
.261
-.423
.452
6
-.211
.157
.174
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

84

4
.016
.324
.882
.022
-.324
-.110

5
-.044
.218
.157
.692
.665
.068

6
-.052
.299
-.003
-.150
-.041
.940

10.4.3 Cronbachs alpha Reliability method: Shanghai CSI

Factor 1: Novelty and fashion-conscious consumer

R E LIAB I LI TY

ANALYS I S
Mean

1.
2.
3.

SHCSI15
SHCSI16
SHCSI21

S CALE

(A L P H A)

Std Dev

3.1267
2.6933
3.2267

1.0574
1.0294
1.1652

Cases
150.0
150.0
150.0

N of
Mean
Variance
Std Dev Variables
9.0467
7.2126
2.6856

Statistics for
SCALE

Item-total Statistics
Scale
Mean
if Item
Deleted
SHCSI15
SHCSI16
SHCSI21

5.9200
6.3533
5.8200

Scale
Variance
if Item
Deleted
3.4835
3.5857
3.6788

Corrected
ItemTotal
Correlation
.6615
.6585
.4869

Reliability Coefficients
N of Cases =
Alpha =

150.0

N of Items = 3

.7647

85

Alpha
if Item
Deleted
.6121
.6191
.8160

Factor 2: Perfectionistic and high-quality conscious consumer

R E LIAB I LI TY

ANALYS I S
Mean

1.
2.
3.

SHCSI01
SHCSI02
SHCSI04

S CALE

(A L P H A)

Std Dev

4.3400
3.9467
4.3800

.9471
.8731
.6822

Cases
150.0
150.0
150.0

N of
Mean
Variance
Std Dev Variables
12.6667
4.1298
2.0322

Statistics for
SCALE

Item-total Statistics
Scale
Mean
if Item
Deleted
SHCSI01
SHCSI02
SHCSI04

8.3267
8.7200
8.2867

Scale
Variance
if Item
Deleted
1.6577
2.1627
2.4340

Corrected
ItemTotal
Correlation
.6458
.4692
.5780

Reliability Coefficients
N of Cases =
Alpha =

150.0

N of Items = 3

.7283

86

Alpha
if Item
Deleted
.5189
.7401
.6366

Factor 3: Habitual and brand-loyal consumer

R E LIAB I LI TY

ANALYS I S
Mean

1.
2.
3.

SHCSI33
SHCSI37
SHCSI39

S CALE

(A L P H A)

Std Dev

2.6600
3.4600
2.6467

1.0221
1.0969
1.0371

Cases
150.0
150.0
150.0

N of
Mean
Variance
Std Dev Variables
8.7667
6.0727
2.4643

Statistics for
SCALE

Item-total Statistics
Scale
Mean
if Item
Deleted
SHCSI33
SHCSI37
SHCSI39

6.1067
5.3067
6.1200

Scale
Variance
if Item
Deleted
3.3577
3.1939
2.8446

Corrected
ItemTotal
Correlation
.4459
.4274
.6153

Reliability Coefficients
N of Cases =
Alpha =

150.0

N of Items = 3

.6791

87

Alpha
if Item
Deleted
.6427
.6723
.4196

Factor 4: Impulsive and careless consumer

R E LIAB I LI TY

ANALYS I S
Mean

1.
2.
3.

SHCSI30
SHCSI31
SHCSI32

S CALE

(A L P H A)

Std Dev

2.7067
2.7667
2.5600

.7377
.7634
.6183

Cases
150.0
150.0
150.0

N of
Mean
Variance
Std Dev Variables
8.0333
2.5694
1.6029

Statistics for
SCALE

Item-total Statistics
Scale
Mean
if Item
Deleted
SHCSI30
SHCSI31
SHCSI32

5.3267
5.2667
5.4733

Scale
Variance
if Item
Deleted
1.4832
1.2036
1.3919

Corrected
ItemTotal
Correlation
.3016
.4675
.5450

Reliability Coefficients
N of Cases =
Alpha =

150.0

N of Items = 3

.6189

88

Alpha
if Item
Deleted
.6987
.4604
.3806

Factor 5: Price conscious and value for money consumer

R E LIAB I LI TY

ANALYS I S
Mean

1.
2.

SHCSI05
SHCSI07

S CALE

(A L P H A)

Std Dev

3.8267
3.3733

.9606
1.0462

Cases
150.0
150.0

N of
Mean
Variance
Std Dev Variables
7.2000
2.6443
1.6261

Statistics for
SCALE

Item-total Statistics
Scale
Mean
if Item
Deleted
SHCSI05
SHCSI07

3.3733
3.8267

Scale
Variance
if Item
Deleted

Corrected
ItemTotal
Correlation

1.0946
.9228

.3119
.3119

Reliability Coefficients
N of Cases =
Alpha =

150.0

N of Items = 2

.4742

89

Alpha
if Item
Deleted
.
.

10.4.4 Decision-making styles of Hong Kong university consumers

HK CSI - Factor Analysis

90

Correlation Matrix
Correlation HK CSI 01

HK CSI 01

HK CSI 02

HK CSI 03

HK CSI 04

1.000

0.181

0.318

0.237

HK CSI 02

0.181

1.000

0.467

HK CSI 03

0.318

0.467

1.000

HK CSI 04

0.237

0.141

HK CSI 05

-0.040

HK CSI 06

0.260

HK CSI 07

HK CSI 05

HK CSI 06

-0.040

0.260

0.141

0.046

0.329

0.320

-0.041

0.398

0.320

1.000

-0.016

0.285

0.046

-0.041

-0.016

1.000

0.161

0.329

0.398

0.285

0.161

1.000

-0.027

-0.039

-0.049

-0.082

0.393

0.198

HK CSI 08

0.088

0.353

0.224

0.154

0.034

0.365

HK CSI 09

0.036

0.208

0.224

0.040

-0.289

0.139

HK CSI 10

0.026

0.077

0.096

-0.043

-0.329

0.022

HK CSI 11

0.005

0.014

0.036

0.008

-0.147

0.056

HK CSI 12

-0.039

0.132

0.119

-0.049

-0.147

0.148

HK CSI 13

-0.116

0.061

0.127

-0.058

-0.070

0.061

HK CSI 14

-0.099

-0.080

0.114

-0.063

-0.265

-0.028

HK CSI 15

0.050

0.044

-0.020

-0.091

-0.023

0.100

HK CSI 16

0.044

0.060

0.127

0.007

-0.157

-0.042

HK CSI 17

-0.016

0.129

0.127

0.041

-0.267

0.057

HK CSI 18

0.169

0.125

0.034

0.169

-0.045

0.146

HK CSI 19

0.160

0.045

0.117

0.198

-0.098

0.160

HK CSI 20

0.015

-0.057

-0.129

0.102

0.243

0.121

HK CSI 21

0.000

0.114

0.059

0.081

0.163

0.205

HK CSI 22

-0.087

-0.092

-0.113

-0.016

0.174

0.030

HK CSI 23

0.070

0.091

0.184

0.054

-0.088

0.168

HK CSI 24

-0.057

0.047

-0.090

0.058

0.259

0.013

HK CSI 25

0.088

0.076

0.039

0.159

0.107

0.150

HK CSI 26

-0.098

0.040

0.056

-0.010

0.058

0.116

HK CSI 27

0.087

0.096

0.075

0.054

0.182

0.119

HK CSI 28

0.010

-0.089

0.022

0.013

0.050

0.117

HK CSI 29

-0.011

0.014

-0.065

0.041

-0.016

0.005

HK CSI 30

-0.057

-0.020

-0.043

-0.134

0.122

0.026

HK CSI 31

-0.073

-0.051

-0.239

-0.034

0.182

-0.013

HK CSI 32

-0.013

0.026

0.021

-0.050

0.022

0.129

HK CSI 33

-0.094

-0.030

0.196

0.017

-0.105

0.009

HK CSI 34

0.011

0.045

0.128

0.066

-0.082

0.097

HK CSI 35

0.090

0.198

0.241

0.029

-0.121

0.230

HK CSI 36

0.022

0.027

0.111

-0.015

-0.048

0.156

HK CSI 37

-0.003

0.105

0.132

0.060

-0.089

0.245

HK CSI 38

0.063

0.053

0.032

0.001

-0.078

0.186

HK CSI 39

-0.043

-0.001

0.023

-0.020

-0.063

0.068

HK CSI 40

0.050

0.017

0.153

0.149

0.135

-0.013

91

Correlation Matrix
Correlation HK CSI 01

HK CSI 07

HK CSI 08

HK CSI 09

HK CSI 10

HK CSI 11

HK CSI 12

-0.027

0.088

0.036

0.026

0.005

-0.039

HK CSI 02

-0.039

0.353

0.208

0.077

0.014

0.132

HK CSI 03

-0.049

0.224

0.224

0.096

0.036

0.119

HK CSI 04

-0.082

0.154

0.040

-0.043

0.008

-0.049

HK CSI 05

0.393

0.034

-0.289

-0.329

-0.147

-0.147

HK CSI 06

0.198

0.365

0.139

0.022

0.056

0.148

HK CSI 07

1.000

-0.047

-0.086

-0.168

0.100

0.006

HK CSI 08

-0.047

1.000

0.209

0.160

0.161

0.216

HK CSI 09

-0.086

0.209

1.000

0.543

0.291

0.329

HK CSI 10

-0.168

0.160

0.543

1.000

0.463

0.355

HK CSI 11

0.100

0.161

0.291

0.463

1.000

0.381

HK CSI 12

0.006

0.216

0.329

0.355

0.381

1.000

HK CSI 13

0.115

0.049

0.222

0.307

0.469

0.527

HK CSI 14

-0.036

0.055

0.292

0.369

0.380

0.434

HK CSI 15

0.032

0.061

0.126

0.158

0.071

0.114

HK CSI 16

-0.126

0.020

0.273

0.287

0.176

0.116

HK CSI 17

-0.072

-0.014

0.462

0.411

0.277

0.271

HK CSI 18

0.132

0.120

0.192

0.119

0.053

0.132

HK CSI 19

-0.067

-0.008

0.010

-0.090

0.052

0.011

HK CSI 20

0.150

0.166

-0.055

-0.152

0.022

0.103

HK CSI 21

0.278

0.089

0.052

-0.071

0.107

0.113

HK CSI 22

0.032

-0.082

-0.200

-0.077

-0.052

-0.135

HK CSI 23

0.000

0.048

0.139

0.072

0.124

0.083

HK CSI 24

0.328

-0.046

-0.063

-0.044

-0.027

-0.117

HK CSI 25

0.236

0.116

-0.010

-0.114

0.047

0.105

HK CSI 26

0.108

-0.002

-0.095

-0.089

0.002

0.058

HK CSI 27

0.300

0.108

0.015

-0.121

-0.155

-0.090

HK CSI 28

0.097

0.090

0.021

-0.032

-0.054

-0.058

HK CSI 29

-0.050

0.011

0.019

-0.029

-0.014

-0.060

HK CSI 30

0.179

0.115

-0.011

0.023

0.192

0.150

HK CSI 31

0.118

-0.067

-0.049

-0.133

-0.163

-0.113

HK CSI 32

0.106

0.032

0.112

0.094

0.055

0.031

HK CSI 33

0.212

0.052

0.154

0.112

0.254

0.170

HK CSI 34

0.130

0.023

0.092

-0.024

0.141

0.119

HK CSI 35

-0.015

0.216

0.183

0.219

0.248

0.333

HK CSI 36

-0.075

0.244

0.103

0.060

0.073

0.203

HK CSI 37

0.027

0.236

0.196

0.051

0.125

0.173

HK CSI 38

0.029

0.075

0.259

0.109

0.202

0.226

HK CSI 39

-0.021

0.195

0.150

0.043

0.127

0.172

HK CSI 40

0.050

-0.027

-0.151

-0.266

-0.094

-0.219

92

Correlation Matrix
Correlation HK CSI 01

HK CSI 13

HK CSI 14

-0.116

-0.099

HK CSI 02

0.061

HK CSI 03

0.127

HK CSI 04

HK CSI 15

HK CSI 16

HK CSI 17

HK CSI 18

0.050

0.044

-0.016

0.169

-0.080

0.044

0.060

0.129

0.125

0.114

-0.020

0.127

0.127

0.034

-0.058

-0.063

-0.091

0.007

0.041

0.169

HK CSI 05

-0.070

-0.265

-0.023

-0.157

-0.267

-0.045

HK CSI 06

0.061

-0.028

0.100

-0.042

0.057

0.146

HK CSI 07

0.115

-0.036

0.032

-0.126

-0.072

0.132

HK CSI 08

0.049

0.055

0.061

0.020

-0.014

0.120

HK CSI 09

0.222

0.292

0.126

0.273

0.462

0.192

HK CSI 10

0.307

0.369

0.158

0.287

0.411

0.119

HK CSI 11

0.469

0.380

0.071

0.176

0.277

0.053

HK CSI 12

0.527

0.434

0.114

0.116

0.271

0.132

HK CSI 13

1.000

0.494

0.183

0.123

0.320

0.078

HK CSI 14

0.494

1.000

0.137

0.215

0.290

-0.053

HK CSI 15

0.183

0.137

1.000

0.652

0.399

0.301

HK CSI 16

0.123

0.215

0.652

1.000

0.514

0.208

HK CSI 17

0.320

0.290

0.399

0.514

1.000

0.300

HK CSI 18

0.078

-0.053

0.301

0.208

0.300

1.000

HK CSI 19

0.049

0.012

0.161

0.212

0.146

0.235

HK CSI 20

-0.010

-0.086

0.322

0.294

0.054

0.258

HK CSI 21

0.103

-0.071

0.317

0.222

0.174

0.279

HK CSI 22

0.011

-0.089

0.295

0.287

0.041

0.149

HK CSI 23

0.187

0.026

0.241

0.141

0.127

0.017

HK CSI 24

-0.099

-0.214

0.111

0.149

-0.022

0.071

HK CSI 25

0.225

0.043

-0.068

-0.062

-0.041

0.018

HK CSI 26

0.129

0.139

-0.163

-0.181

-0.088

-0.204

HK CSI 27

-0.100

-0.046

-0.002

-0.115

-0.186

0.017

HK CSI 28

0.010

-0.046

0.061

-0.038

0.031

0.052

HK CSI 29

-0.066

-0.140

0.055

0.061

-0.083

-0.014

HK CSI 30

0.182

0.102

0.002

-0.072

0.082

-0.059

HK CSI 31

-0.064

-0.019

0.001

-0.106

-0.065

-0.023

HK CSI 32

0.027

0.132

-0.033

-0.021

0.086

0.050

HK CSI 33

0.272

0.162

0.072

0.092

0.132

0.064

HK CSI 34

0.134

0.029

-0.181

-0.175

-0.004

0.020

HK CSI 35

0.255

0.350

0.071

0.035

0.291

-0.021

HK CSI 36

0.032

0.211

-0.102

-0.161

-0.050

-0.092

HK CSI 37

0.168

0.093

0.146

0.011

0.058

0.110

HK CSI 38

-0.116

-0.099

0.050

0.044

-0.016

0.169

HK CSI 39

0.061

-0.080

0.044

0.060

0.129

0.125

HK CSI 40

0.127

0.114

-0.020

0.127

0.127

0.034

93

Correlation Matrix
Correlation HK CSI 01

HK CSI 19

HK CSI 20

HK CSI 21

HK CSI 22

HK CSI 23

HK CSI 24

0.160

0.015

0.000

-0.087

0.070

-0.057

HK CSI 02

0.045

-0.057

0.114

-0.092

0.091

0.047

HK CSI 03

0.117

-0.129

0.059

-0.113

0.184

-0.090

HK CSI 04

0.198

0.102

0.081

-0.016

0.054

0.058

HK CSI 05

-0.098

0.243

0.163

0.174

-0.088

0.259

HK CSI 06

0.160

0.121

0.205

0.030

0.168

0.013

HK CSI 07

-0.067

0.150

0.278

0.032

0.000

0.328

HK CSI 08

-0.008

0.166

0.089

-0.082

0.048

-0.046

HK CSI 09

0.010

-0.055

0.052

-0.200

0.139

-0.063

HK CSI 10

-0.090

-0.152

-0.071

-0.077

0.072

-0.044

HK CSI 11

0.052

0.022

0.107

-0.052

0.124

-0.027

HK CSI 12

0.011

0.103

0.113

-0.135

0.083

-0.117

HK CSI 13

0.049

-0.010

0.103

0.011

0.187

-0.099

HK CSI 14

0.012

-0.086

-0.071

-0.089

0.026

-0.214

HK CSI 15

0.161

0.322

0.317

0.295

0.241

0.111

HK CSI 16

0.212

0.294

0.222

0.287

0.141

0.149

HK CSI 17

0.146

0.054

0.174

0.041

0.127

-0.022

HK CSI 18

0.235

0.258

0.279

0.149

0.017

0.071

HK CSI 19

1.000

0.239

0.158

0.119

0.253

0.033

HK CSI 20

0.239

1.000

0.526

0.541

0.173

0.327

HK CSI 21

0.158

0.526

1.000

0.454

0.359

0.322

HK CSI 22

0.119

0.541

0.454

1.000

0.184

0.406

HK CSI 23

0.253

0.173

0.359

0.184

1.000

0.008

HK CSI 24

0.033

0.327

0.322

0.406

0.008

1.000

HK CSI 25

0.110

0.030

0.055

-0.128

0.025

-0.014

HK CSI 26

-0.115

-0.136

0.122

-0.086

0.040

-0.030

HK CSI 27

0.032

0.104

0.039

-0.052

0.064

0.105

HK CSI 28

0.017

-0.043

-0.045

-0.003

0.091

0.045

HK CSI 29

-0.028

0.125

0.147

0.025

-0.056

0.120

HK CSI 30

-0.184

-0.072

0.022

-0.155

-0.058

-0.033

HK CSI 31

0.045

0.129

0.039

0.123

0.023

0.044

HK CSI 32

-0.112

-0.040

0.027

-0.010

-0.040

0.067

HK CSI 33

0.051

-0.178

-0.030

-0.145

0.072

-0.010

HK CSI 34

-0.013

-0.176

-0.060

-0.214

0.096

0.034

HK CSI 35

-0.034

-0.098

0.051

-0.094

0.076

-0.062

HK CSI 36

-0.118

-0.136

-0.109

-0.228

-0.011

-0.163

HK CSI 37

0.183

0.036

0.107

-0.030

0.174

-0.260

HK CSI 38

0.108

-0.030

0.056

-0.103

0.092

-0.198

HK CSI 39

-0.048

-0.061

0.010

-0.064

0.103

-0.245

HK CSI 40

-0.027

0.052

-0.073

0.051

-0.212

0.025

94

Correlation Matrix
Correlation HK CSI 01

HK CSI 25

HK CSI 26

HK CSI 27

HK CSI 28

0.088

-0.098

0.087

0.010

HK CSI 02

0.076

0.040

0.096

HK CSI 03

0.039

0.056

0.075

HK CSI 04

0.159

-0.010

HK CSI 05

0.107

HK CSI 06

0.150

HK CSI 07

HK CSI 29

HK CSI 30

-0.011

-0.057

-0.089

0.014

-0.020

0.022

-0.065

-0.043

0.054

0.013

0.041

-0.134

0.058

0.182

0.050

-0.016

0.122

0.116

0.119

0.117

0.005

0.026

0.236

0.108

0.300

0.097

-0.050

0.179

HK CSI 08

0.116

-0.002

0.108

0.090

0.011

0.115

HK CSI 09

-0.010

-0.095

0.015

0.021

0.019

-0.011

HK CSI 10

-0.114

-0.089

-0.121

-0.032

-0.029

0.023

HK CSI 11

0.047

0.002

-0.155

-0.054

-0.014

0.192

HK CSI 12

0.105

0.058

-0.090

-0.058

-0.060

0.150

HK CSI 13

0.225

0.129

-0.100

0.010

-0.066

0.182

HK CSI 14

0.043

0.139

-0.046

-0.046

-0.140

0.102

HK CSI 15

-0.068

-0.163

-0.002

0.061

0.055

0.002

HK CSI 16

-0.062

-0.181

-0.115

-0.038

0.061

-0.072

HK CSI 17

-0.041

-0.088

-0.186

0.031

-0.083

0.082

HK CSI 18

0.018

-0.204

0.017

0.052

-0.014

-0.059

HK CSI 19

0.110

-0.115

0.032

0.017

-0.028

-0.184

HK CSI 20

0.030

-0.136

0.104

-0.043

0.125

-0.072

HK CSI 21

0.055

0.122

0.039

-0.045

0.147

0.022

HK CSI 22

-0.128

-0.086

-0.052

-0.003

0.025

-0.155

HK CSI 23

0.025

0.040

0.064

0.091

-0.056

-0.058

HK CSI 24

-0.014

-0.030

0.105

0.045

0.120

-0.033

HK CSI 25

1.000

0.365

0.134

-0.017

-0.093

0.131

HK CSI 26

0.365

1.000

0.029

-0.056

-0.009

-0.018

HK CSI 27

0.134

0.029

1.000

-0.032

-0.043

0.005

HK CSI 28

-0.017

-0.056

-0.032

1.000

-0.085

-0.020

HK CSI 29

-0.093

-0.009

-0.043

-0.085

1.000

-0.051

HK CSI 30

0.131

-0.018

0.005

-0.020

-0.051

1.000

HK CSI 31

0.060

0.147

0.157

0.017

-0.029

-0.063

HK CSI 32

0.046

-0.017

0.022

0.153

-0.054

-0.015

HK CSI 33

0.097

0.090

0.022

0.014

-0.091

0.092

HK CSI 34

0.173

0.228

0.089

0.100

-0.070

0.028

HK CSI 35

0.036

0.173

0.066

-0.029

-0.031

0.122

HK CSI 36

0.045

0.170

-0.076

-0.024

0.066

0.127

HK CSI 37

0.072

0.123

0.082

0.126

-0.036

-0.015

HK CSI 38

0.014

0.064

0.040

0.140

-0.128

0.006

HK CSI 39

0.058

0.220

-0.009

0.119

0.001

-0.004

HK CSI 40

-0.009

-0.001

0.049

-0.179

0.111

-0.059

95

Correlation Matrix
Correlation HK CSI 01

HK CSI 31

HK CSI 32

HK CSI 33

HK CSI 34

HK CSI 35

HK CSI 36

-0.073

-0.013

-0.094

0.011

0.090

0.022

HK CSI 02

-0.051

0.026

-0.030

0.045

0.198

0.027

HK CSI 03

-0.239

0.021

0.196

0.128

0.241

0.111

HK CSI 04

-0.034

-0.050

0.017

0.066

0.029

-0.015

HK CSI 05

0.182

0.022

-0.105

-0.082

-0.121

-0.048

HK CSI 06

-0.013

0.129

0.009

0.097

0.230

0.156

HK CSI 07

0.118

0.106

0.212

0.130

-0.015

-0.075

HK CSI 08

-0.067

0.032

0.052

0.023

0.216

0.244

HK CSI 09

-0.049

0.112

0.154

0.092

0.183

0.103

HK CSI 10

-0.133

0.094

0.112

-0.024

0.219

0.060

HK CSI 11

-0.163

0.055

0.254

0.141

0.248

0.073

HK CSI 12

-0.113

0.031

0.170

0.119

0.333

0.203

HK CSI 13

-0.064

0.027

0.272

0.134

0.255

0.032

HK CSI 14

-0.019

0.132

0.162

0.029

0.350

0.211

HK CSI 15

0.001

-0.033

0.072

-0.181

0.071

-0.102

HK CSI 16

-0.106

-0.021

0.092

-0.175

0.035

-0.161

HK CSI 17

-0.065

0.086

0.132

-0.004

0.291

-0.050

HK CSI 18

-0.023

0.050

0.064

0.020

-0.021

-0.092

HK CSI 19

0.045

-0.112

0.051

-0.013

-0.034

-0.118

HK CSI 20

0.129

-0.040

-0.178

-0.176

-0.098

-0.136

HK CSI 21

0.039

0.027

-0.030

-0.060

0.051

-0.109

HK CSI 22

0.123

-0.010

-0.145

-0.214

-0.094

-0.228

HK CSI 23

0.023

-0.040

0.072

0.096

0.076

-0.011

HK CSI 24

0.044

0.067

-0.010

0.034

-0.062

-0.163

HK CSI 25

0.060

0.046

0.097

0.173

0.036

0.045

HK CSI 26

0.147

-0.017

0.090

0.228

0.173

0.170

HK CSI 27

0.157

0.022

0.022

0.089

0.066

-0.076

HK CSI 28

0.017

0.153

0.014

0.100

-0.029

-0.024

HK CSI 29

-0.029

-0.054

-0.091

-0.070

-0.031

0.066

HK CSI 30

-0.063

-0.015

0.092

0.028

0.122

0.127

HK CSI 31

1.000

0.095

-0.164

0.034

-0.052

-0.096

HK CSI 32

0.095

1.000

0.060

0.095

0.065

0.064

HK CSI 33

-0.164

0.060

1.000

0.354

0.156

0.173

HK CSI 34

0.034

0.095

0.354

1.000

0.180

0.320

HK CSI 35

-0.052

0.065

0.156

0.180

1.000

0.420

HK CSI 36

-0.096

0.064

0.173

0.320

0.420

1.000

HK CSI 37

0.138

-0.015

0.271

0.042

0.072

0.015

HK CSI 38

0.057

0.088

0.358

0.239

0.169

0.095

HK CSI 39

0.058

-0.009

0.152

0.113

0.186

0.107

HK CSI 40

-0.016

-0.025

-0.045

-0.100

-0.103

-0.025

96

Correlation Matrix
Correlation HK CSI 01

HK CSI 37

HK CSI 38

HK CSI 39

HK CSI 40

-0.003

0.063

-0.043

0.050

HK CSI 02

0.105

0.053

-0.001

0.017

HK CSI 03

0.132

0.032

0.023

0.153

HK CSI 04

0.060

0.001

-0.020

0.149

HK CSI 05

-0.089

-0.078

-0.063

0.135

HK CSI 06

0.245

0.186

0.068

-0.013

HK CSI 07

0.027

0.029

-0.021

0.050

HK CSI 08

0.236

0.075

0.195

-0.027

HK CSI 09

0.196

0.259

0.150

-0.151

HK CSI 10

0.051

0.109

0.043

-0.266

HK CSI 11

0.125

0.202

0.127

-0.094

HK CSI 12

0.173

0.226

0.172

-0.219

HK CSI 13

0.168

0.227

0.169

-0.060

HK CSI 14

0.093

0.137

0.209

-0.022

HK CSI 15

0.146

0.031

0.005

-0.294

HK CSI 16

0.011

0.029

0.062

-0.203

HK CSI 17

0.058

0.144

0.028

-0.153

HK CSI 18

0.110

0.170

-0.070

-0.100

HK CSI 19

0.183

0.108

-0.048

-0.027

HK CSI 20

0.036

-0.030

-0.061

0.052

HK CSI 21

0.107

0.056

0.010

-0.073

HK CSI 22

-0.030

-0.103

-0.064

0.051

HK CSI 23

0.174

0.092

0.103

-0.212

HK CSI 24

-0.260

-0.198

-0.245

0.025

HK CSI 25

0.072

0.014

0.058

-0.009

HK CSI 26

0.123

0.064

0.220

-0.001

HK CSI 27

0.082

0.040

-0.009

0.049

HK CSI 28

0.126

0.140

0.119

-0.179

HK CSI 29

-0.036

-0.128

0.001

0.111

HK CSI 30

-0.015

0.006

-0.004

-0.059

HK CSI 31

0.138

0.057

0.058

-0.016

HK CSI 32

-0.015

0.088

-0.009

-0.025

HK CSI 33

0.271

0.358

0.152

-0.045

HK CSI 34

0.042

0.239

0.113

-0.100

HK CSI 35

0.072

0.169

0.186

-0.103

HK CSI 36

0.015

0.095

0.107

-0.025

HK CSI 37

1.000

0.548

0.399

-0.141

HK CSI 38

0.548

1.000

0.493

-0.118

HK CSI 39

0.399

0.493

1.000

-0.023

HK CSI 40

-0.141

-0.118

-0.023

1.000

97

KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling
Adequacy.
Bartlett's Test of
Sphericity

.649

Approx. Chi-Square
df
Sig.

1868.653
780
.000

Scree Plot
6

Eigenvalue

0
1

9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39

Component Number

98

Communalities

HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK

CSI 01
CSI 02
CSI 03
CSI 04
CSI 05
CSI 06
CSI 07
CSI 08
CSI 09
CSI 10
CSI 11
CSI 12
CSI 13
CSI 14
CSI 15
CSI 16
CSI 17
CSI 18
CSI 19
CSI 20
CSI 21
CSI 22
CSI 23
CSI 24
CSI 25
CSI 26
CSI 27
CSI 28
CSI 29
CSI 30
CSI 31
CSI 32
CSI 33
CSI 34
CSI 35
CSI 36
CSI 37
CSI 38
CSI 39
CSI 40

Initial
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000

Extraction
.451
.641
.793
.548
.607
.621
.715
.611
.689
.710
.651
.602
.690
.739
.778
.767
.676
.626
.605
.766
.672
.714
.733
.673
.724
.758
.733
.643
.573
.571
.634
.591
.735
.688
.662
.773
.712
.714
.641
.765

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

99

Total Variance Explained

Component
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40

Total
4.902
3.565
2.931
2.367
1.967
1.568
1.491
1.332
1.281
1.241
1.141
1.130
1.064
1.015
.931
.894
.826
.805
.771
.739
.706
.651
.624
.616
.546
.514
.495
.463
.452
.399
.383
.316
.304
.278
.263
.255
.239
.212
.175
.147

Initial Eigenvalues
% of Variance Cumulative %
12.255
12.255
8.911
21.166
7.326
28.492
5.919
34.411
4.916
39.327
3.921
43.248
3.728
46.976
3.329
50.306
3.203
53.508
3.102
56.610
2.852
59.463
2.826
62.289
2.659
64.948
2.537
67.485
2.327
69.812
2.234
72.046
2.065
74.111
2.012
76.124
1.928
78.051
1.848
79.900
1.765
81.665
1.629
83.293
1.560
84.853
1.539
86.393
1.366
87.758
1.286
89.044
1.237
90.281
1.157
91.437
1.130
92.567
.999
93.566
.958
94.524
.791
95.315
.761
96.076
.694
96.770
.658
97.428
.637
98.065
.598
98.664
.529
99.193
.438
99.631
.369
100.000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

100

Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings

Total
% of Variance Cumulative %
4.902
12.255
12.255
3.565
8.911
21.166
2.931
7.326
28.492
2.367
5.919
34.411
1.967
4.916
39.327
1.568
3.921
43.248
1.491
3.728
46.976
1.332
3.329
50.306
1.281
3.203
53.508
1.241
3.102
56.610
1.141
2.852
59.463
1.130
2.826
62.289
1.064
2.659
64.948
1.015
2.537
67.485

Component Matrixa
Component
3
4
5
-0.510
0.335
-0.442
0.344
-0.540
0.333
-0.454
0.453
0.587
0.454
0.491
0.346

HK CSI 01
HK CSI 02
HK CSI 03
0.367
HK CSI 04
HK CSI 05
-0.334
HK CSI 06
0.320
HK CSI 07
HK CSI 08
0.353
HK CSI 09
0.627
HK CSI 10
0.584
-0.416
HK CSI 11
0.580
HK CSI 12
0.642
HK CSI 13
0.606
HK CSI 14
0.565
HK CSI 15
0.338
0.603
HK CSI 16
0.384
0.545
-0.391
HK CSI 17
0.588
-0.342
HK CSI 18
0.444
HK CSI 19
0.370
HK CSI 20
0.739
HK CSI 21
0.662
HK CSI 22
0.690
HK CSI 23
0.301
0.307
HK CSI 24
0.499
HK CSI 25
0.431
HK CSI 26
0.365
HK CSI 27
0.434
HK CSI 28
HK CSI 29
HK CSI 30
HK CSI 31
HK CSI 32
HK CSI 33
0.417
HK CSI 34
-0.314
0.334
HK CSI 35
0.519
HK CSI 36
-0.402
HK CSI 37
0.422
HK CSI 38
0.486
HK CSI 39
0.358
HK CSI 40
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

-0.357
0.467

0.350

-0.328
-0.310

-0.431

0.354
0.367
-0.335
0.302

0.359

0.302

-0.401
0.350

-0.316
-0.367
-0.327
0.429
0.358

-0.592
-0.535
-0.448
-0.317

101

Component Matrixa
Component
10
11
12

HK CSI 01
HK CSI 02
HK CSI 03
-0.422
HK CSI 04
HK CSI 05
HK CSI 06
HK CSI 07
HK CSI 08
HK CSI 09
HK CSI 10
HK CSI 11
HK CSI 12
HK CSI 13
HK CSI 14
HK CSI 15
HK CSI 16
HK CSI 17
HK CSI 18
0.361
HK CSI 19
HK CSI 20
HK CSI 21
HK CSI 22
HK CSI 23
HK CSI 24
HK CSI 25
-0.329
HK CSI 26
HK CSI 27
-0.426
HK CSI 28
0.481
HK CSI 29
0.420
-0.328
HK CSI 30
-0.422
HK CSI 31
-0.435
0.360
HK CSI 32
0.454
0.323
HK CSI 33
0.416
HK CSI 34
HK CSI 35
HK CSI 36
HK CSI 37
HK CSI 38
HK CSI 39
HK CSI 40
0.449
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
a. 14 components extracted.

102

13

14

-0.397
0.356
0.327
-0.386

0.380
0.370

HK CSI - Factor Rotation (1st trail)

Rotated Component Matrixa

1
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK
HK

CSI 01
CSI 02
CSI 03
CSI 04
CSI 05
CSI 06
CSI 07
CSI 08
CSI 09
CSI 10
CSI 11
CSI 12
CSI 13
CSI 14
CSI 15
CSI 16
CSI 17
CSI 18
CSI 19
CSI 20
CSI 21
CSI 22
CSI 23
CSI 24
CSI 25
CSI 26
CSI 27
CSI 28
CSI 29
CSI 30
CSI 31
CSI 32
CSI 33
CSI 34
CSI 35
CSI 36
CSI 37
CSI 38
CSI 39
CSI 40

Component
3
.554
.640
.735
.562

.608
.641
.702
.497
.519
.638
.665
.678
.678
.667
.308
.551

-.377

.671
.608
.357
.463
.382
.722
.670
.678
.357
.436

-.371
-.319

.334

.352
.450
.435
.360

-.387

.310
.338

.367
.529
.310

.337

-.384
.758
.751
.631

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 9 iterations.

103

HK CSI - Factor Rotation (2nd trail)

Rotated Component Matrix

1
HK CSI
01
HK CSI
02
HK CSI
03
HK CSI
04
HK CSI
05
HK CSI
06
HK CSI
07
HK CSI
08
HK CSI
09
HK CSI
11
HK CSI
12
HK CSI
13
HK CSI
14
HK CSI
15
HK CSI
18
HK CSI
20
HK CSI
22
HK CSI
25
HK CSI
26
HK CSI
35
HK CSI
37
HK CSI
38
HK CSI
39

Component
3

.560
.673
.726
.551
.645
.658

.301
.651

.508
.460

-.364

.665
.733
.773
.762
.641
.568
.772
.669
.595
-.416

.545

.519
.795
.817
.752

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.

104

HK CSI - Factor Rotation (3rd and the final trail)

Communalities
Initial
HK CSI
01
HK CSI
02
HK CSI
03
HK CSI
04
HK CSI
05
HK CSI
07
HK CSI
08
HK CSI
11
HK CSI
12
HK CSI
13
HK CSI
14
HK CSI
15
HK CSI
18
HK CSI
20
HK CSI
22
HK CSI
25
HK CSI
35
HK CSI
37
HK CSI
38
HK CSI
39

1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

105

Total Variance Explained

Initial Eigenvalues
% of
Cumulative
Variance
%
Total
3.316
16.578
16.578
2.142
10.711
27.289
2.089
10.443
37.731
1.581
7.905
45.636
1.501
7.505
53.140
1.126
5.630
58.770
.994
4.969
63.740
.909
4.546
68.285
.821
4.103
72.389
.795
3.973
76.362
.683
3.416
79.778
.649
3.243
83.020
.596
2.981
86.002
.541
2.706
88.707
.520
2.600
91.307
.439
2.194
93.502
.395
1.976
95.477
.329
1.645
97.123
.317
1.587
98.710
.258
1.290
100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Compone
nt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Component Matrix

a. 5 components extracted.

106

Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings

% of
Cumulative
Variance
%
Total
2.765
13.824
13.824
2.197
10.986
24.810
2.045
10.227
35.037
2.021
10.105
45.142
1.600
7.999
53.140

Rotated Component Matrix

1
HK CSI
01
HK CSI
02
HK CSI
03
HK CSI
04
HK CSI
05
HK CSI
07
HK CSI
08
HK CSI
11
HK CSI
12
HK CSI
13
HK CSI
14
HK CSI
15
HK CSI
18
HK CSI
20
HK CSI
22
HK CSI
25
HK CSI
35
HK CSI
37
HK CSI
38
HK CSI
39

Component
3

.582
.692
.733
.573
.706
.770
.502
.666
.734
.786
.764
.675
.553
.786
.729
.594
.538
.797
.827
.752

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.

107

10.4.5 Cronbachs alpha Reliability method: Hong Kong CSI

Factor 1: Brand conscious and price equals quality consumer

R E LIAB I LI TY

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

HKCSI11
HKCSI12
HKCSI13
HKCSI14
HKCSI35

ANALYS I S

S CALE

(A L P H A)

Mean

Std Dev

Cases

2.8467
3.1200
2.9933
2.3867
3.0600

.9675
.8507
.8553
.8009
1.0182

150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0

N of
Mean
Variance
Std Dev Variables
14.4067
10.1758
3.1900

Statistics for
SCALE

Item-total Statistics
Scale
Mean
if Item
Deleted
HKCSI11
HKCSI12
HKCSI13
HKCSI14
HKCSI35

11.5600
11.2867
11.4133
12.0200
11.3467

Scale
Variance
if Item
Deleted
6.7581
6.8904
6.7810
7.1070
7.0602

Corrected
ItemTotal
Correlation
.4933
.5735
.5979
.5684
.3842

Reliability Coefficients
N of Cases =
Alpha =

150.0

N of Items = 5

.7501

108

Alpha
if Item
Deleted
.7151
.6859
.6770
.6902
.7606

Factor 2: Perfectionistic and high-quality conscious consumer

R E LIAB I LI TY

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

HKCSI01
HKCSI02
HKCSI03
HKCSI04
HKCSI08

ANALYS I S

S CALE

Mean

Std Dev

4.1133
3.7600
3.7267
4.1200
3.2667

.8072
.7389
.7226
.6647
.9944

(A L P H A)
Cases
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0

N of
Mean
Variance
Std Dev Variables
18.9867
6.1206
2.4740

Statistics for
SCALE

Item-total Statistics
Scale
Mean
if Item
Deleted
HKCSI01
HKCSI02
HKCSI03
HKCSI04
HKCSI08

14.8733
15.2267
15.2600
14.8667
15.7200

Scale
Variance
if Item
Deleted
4.4872
4.2033
4.0997
4.7740
3.9479

Corrected
ItemTotal
Correlation
.2871
.4526
.5122
.3114
.2996

Reliability Coefficients
N of Cases =
Alpha =

150.0

N of Items = 5

.6066

109

Alpha
if Item
Deleted
.5908
.5072
.4786
.5769
.6033

Factor 3: Novelty and fashion-conscious consumer

R E LIAB I LI TY

1.
2.
3.
4.

HKCSI15
HKCSI18
HKCSI20
HKCSI22

ANALYS I S

S CALE

(A L P H A)

Mean

Std Dev

Cases

2.8267
3.8267
3.6600
3.4200

.9813
.7836
1.0022
.9712

150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0

N of
Mean
Variance
Std Dev Variables
13.7333
6.8680
2.6207

Statistics for
SCALE

Item-total Statistics
Scale
Mean
if Item
Deleted
HKCSI15
HKCSI18
HKCSI20
HKCSI22

10.9067
9.9067
10.0733
10.3133

Scale
Variance
if Item
Deleted
4.2463
5.1590
3.7731
4.0824

Corrected
ItemTotal
Correlation
.4101
.3076
.5369
.4695

Reliability Coefficients
N of Cases =
Alpha =

150.0

N of Items = 4

.6491

110

Alpha
if Item
Deleted
.5951
.6537
.4980
.5515

Factor 4: Habitual and brand-loyal consumer

R E LIAB I LI TY

1.
2.
3.

HKCSI37
HKCSI38
HKCSI39

ANALYS I S

S CALE

(A L P H A)

Mean

Std Dev

Cases

3.0800
3.3267
2.7200

.9378
.9796
1.0108

150.0
150.0
150.0

N of
Mean
Variance
Std Dev Variables
9.1267
5.6013
2.3667

Statistics for
SCALE

Item-total Statistics
Scale
Mean
if Item
Deleted
HKCSI37
HKCSI38
HKCSI39

6.0467
5.8000
6.4067

Scale
Variance
if Item
Deleted
2.9575
2.6577
2.8469

Corrected
ItemTotal
Correlation
.5470
.6211
.5079

Reliability Coefficients
N of Cases =
Alpha =

150.0

N of Items = 3

.7339

111

Alpha
if Item
Deleted
.6601
.5693
.7080

Factor 5: Price conscious and value for money consumer

R E LIAB I LI TY

1.
2.
3.

HKCSI05
HKCSI07
HKCSI25

ANALYS I S

S CALE

(A L P H A)

Mean

Std Dev

Cases

3.5933
3.3933
3.7200

1.0561
1.1167
.8284

150.0
150.0
150.0

N of
Mean
Variance
Std Dev Variables
10.7067
4.5979
2.1443

Statistics for
SCALE

Item-total Statistics
Scale
Mean
if Item
Deleted
HKCSI05
HKCSI07
HKCSI25

7.1133
7.3133
6.9867

Scale
Variance
if Item
Deleted
2.3696
1.9884
3.2884

Corrected
ItemTotal
Correlation
.3423
.4327
.2075

Reliability Coefficients
N of Cases =
Alpha =

150.0

N of Items = 3

.5055

112

Alpha
if Item
Deleted
.3684
.1879
.5632

10.4.6 Comparison of decision-making styles between Shanghai and Hong Kong

university consumer

T-Test 1: Brand conscious and price equals quality consumer

Group Statistics

Brand conscious
and price equals
quality consumer

Place
Shanghai
Hong Kong

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error
Mean

150

2.3933

.75881

.06196

150

2.8813

.63799

.05209

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for
Equality of Variances

F
Brand conscious
and price equals
quality consumer

Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed

12.970

Sig.
.000

t-test for Equality of Means

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean
Difference

Std. Error
Difference

95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
Upper

-6.029

298

.000

-.4880

.08095

-.64730

-.32870

-6.029

289.465

.000

-.4880

.08095

-.64732

-.32868

113

T-Test 2: Perfectionistic and high-quality conscious consumer

Group Statistics

Perfectionistic and
high-quality
conscious consumer

Place
Shanghai
Hong Kong

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error
Mean

150

4.2222

.67739

.05531

150

3.7973

.49480

.04040

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for
Equality of Variances

F
Perfectionistic and
high-quality
conscious consumer

Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed

15.225

Sig.
.000

t-test for Equality of Means

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean
Difference

Std. Error
Difference

95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
Upper

6.203

298

.000

.4249

.06849

.29010

.55968

6.203

272.765

.000

.4249

.06849

.29005

.55973

114

T-Test 3: Novelty and fashion-conscious consumer

Group Statistics

Novelty and
fashion-conscious
consumer

Place
Shanghai
Hong Kong

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error
Mean

150

3.0156

.89521

.07309

150

3.4333

.65517

.05349

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for
Equality of Variances

F
Novelty and
fashion-conscious
consumer

Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed

10.653

Sig.
.001

t-test for Equality of Means

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean
Difference

Std. Error
Difference

95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
Upper

-4.612

298

.000

-.4178

.09058

-.59603

-.23952

-4.612

273.033

.000

-.4178

.09058

-.59610

-.23946

115

T-Test 4: Habitual and brand-loyal consumer

Group Statistics

Habitual and
brand-loyal consumer

Place
Shanghai
Hong Kong

Mean
2.9222
3.0422

150
150

Std. Deviation
.82143
.78890

Std. Error
Mean
.06707
.06441

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for
Equality of Variances

F
Habitual and
brand-loyal consumer

Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed

.812

Sig.
.368

t-test for Equality of Means

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean
Difference

Std. Error
Difference

95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
Upper

-1.290

298

.198

-.1200

.09299

-.30300

.06300

-1.290

297.515

.198

-.1200

.09299

-.30300

.06300

116

T-Test 5: Price conscious and value for money consumer

Group Statistics

Price conscious
and value for
money consumer

Place
Shanghai
Hong Kong

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error
Mean

150

3.6000

.81306

.06639

150

3.5689

.71476

.05836

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for
Equality of Variances

F
Price conscious
and value for
money consumer

Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed

1.209

Sig.
.272

t-test for Equality of Means

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean
Difference

Std. Error
Difference

95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
Upper

.352

298

.725

.0311

.08839

-.14284

.20506

.352

293.185

.725

.0311

.08839

-.14285

.20507

117

T-Test 6: Impulsive and careless consumer

Group Statistics

Impulsive and
careless consumer

Place
Shanghai
Hong Kong

N
150
150

Mean
2.6778
.0000

Std. Deviation
.53431
.00000

Std. Error
Mean
.04363
.00000

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for
Equality of Variances

F
Impulsive and
careless consumer

Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed

282.813

Sig.
.000

t-test for Equality of Means

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean
Difference

Std. Error
Difference

95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
Upper

61.380

298

.000

2.6778

.04363

2.59192

2.76363

61.380

149.000

.000

2.6778

.04363

2.59157

2.76398

118