iKER 2019

Hedonic and Utilitarian Rationale of Indian College Students for Shopping of

Apparels online

Aditya Bhanja(a)*, Amisha Kothari(b), Neil Sarkar(c), Shrey Shah(d).

(a)
Aditya Bhanja, Undergraduate Student, Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani Campus,
Department of Civil Engineering, Vidya Vihar Campus, Street Number 41, Pilani - 333031, Rajasthan.
(b)
Amisha Kothari, Undergraduate Student, Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani Campus,
Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Vidya Vihar Campus, Street Number 41, Pilani -
333031, Rajasthan.
(c)
Neil Sarkar, Undergraduate Student, Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani Campus,
Department of Chemistry, Vidya Vihar Campus, Street Number 41, Pilani - 333031, Rajasthan.
(d)
Shrey Shah, Undergraduate Student, Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani Campus,
Department of Chemistry, Vidya Vihar Campus, Street Number 41, Pilani - 333031, Rajasthan.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract:

Hedonic and Utilitarian values are significant in understanding shopping behaviour of consumers.
With the growing popularity of online shopping, these values have become even more important.
This paper assesses how prevalent these factors are, among college students currently studying in
India. The aim of our research is also to find if economic factor and flexibility are important factors
for the growth of online shopping on the basis of gender. A sample population for this study has
been restricted to those enrolled in undergraduate courses of Birla Institute of Technology and
Science, Pilani. A non-probability sampling method termed as purposive sampling is used for this
research and the data is analysed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences. The results shows us
a clear difference in econmic factors and flexibility between males and females. This can be linked
to more utilitarian values among males than in females. It also shows us a clear need for more
flexibility in order to continue the growth of online shopping. (164 words)
Keywords: Hedonic, Utilitarian, Economic Factors, Flexibility, Online Shopping.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Introduction:
With the increase in importance of Apparel Industry and desire of ease to shop, new ways of
distribution developed. In recent times the E-commerce Apparel industry has highly flourished due
to several reasons like the high digital penetration, using Innovating technologies to create
experiential ecommerce. This rapid growth is result of various features like personalization, strong
apparel brands engagement on social media, flashes and drops, Technological Innovations and so
on and these are the reasons that it is able to engage more and more Indian crowd as well,
especially the youth. As we can see the importance and growth of online shopping it made a
perfect topic of our research. When engaging in online shopping many a times the youth faces a
mental conflict between the utilitarian and the hedonic benefits of buying apparels online.
Everyone has their own reasons to shop online. It may be just to check trends or may be due of
functional benefits. In this paper, we will see what all are the key characteristics that influences
college students in their online shopping behaviour.
2. Literature Review
Consumers are now more acquainted with online shopping than before. They are content with the
current payment methods offered by various e-commerce websites, as well as the privacy policies
involved, (Chauhan et al., 2015). Nowadays, more and more consumers are buying online in order
 iKER 2019
to save time and also increase their convenience by not having to physically visit a shop (Dholakia
et al., 2002). Sarkar et al. (2011) has suggested that, normally, for most product or brands,
consumer attitude has at least two dimensions- utilitarian and hedonic. Utilitarian buying rationale
involves convenience, variety, quality, and reasonable price-rates. Whereas, hedonic buying
rationale involves emotional needs of consumers mainly focused on enjoyable shopping
experience (Bhatnagar and Ghose, 2004). Sarkar et al. (2011) has noted that consumers with “high
hedonic shopping values” seldom prefer online shopping as they prefer to interact directly with
the product itself or the salespeople, creating a “hedonic arousal”. On the other hand, people with
“high utilitarian shopping values” prefer online shopping more as they provide benefits in terms of
time and cost.
Chen, Yan, Fan and Gordon (2015) in their study found out that gender had moderating effect on
relationship between perceived benefit and repurchase intention. It showed how women often
surf sites before purchasing while men more direct shopping intention. Hansen and Jensen (2008)
has found out that women tend to shop online for fun while men prefer being more quick
shoppers. These orientations are more significant when they are buying clothing and accessories
for their partner. Thus, females can be associated with hedonic values while males can be
associated with utilitarian values.
In India, the future of online shopping looks bright with perception towards online shopping
getting better day by day (Rastogi et al., 2010). Prior research has been conducted in India
regarding utilitarian and hedonic behaviours of a consumer (Sarkar et al.,2011). Therefore, it is of
utmost importance to study the hedonic and utilitarian motives of online shopping with respect to
both genders.
2.1 Hypothesis
Based on our Literature Review, the following Hypothesis are formulated:
Hypothesis 1: Flexibility will vary significantly among respondents of different gender.
Hypothesis 2: There will be significant difference in shopping behaviour regarding economic
factors among respondents of different genders.
3. Method
This section describes about the method of sampling, sample used and analysis methods used to
study the relationship between different dimensions. Purposive sampling method has been used
for this research. The sample comprises of undergraduate college students of Birla Institute of
Technology and Science, Pilani. The respondents are sampled by chance with the help of mail
questionnaire. The total sample size (N) for this study is 196. Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences (SPSS) has been used to analyse the data collected via questionnaires. Various tests are
conducted to check the consistency of the data and study the relationship between the
dimensions. These results have been further discussed and analysed throughout the paper.
4. Analysis
This portion of the paper presents the findings of the research through various quantifiable tests.
The entire analysis has been divided into three parts:
4.1 Descriptive analysis
Through the Google forms we procured 196 reliable responses. Among the respondents, over
75.5% were males (n=148) and another 24.5% were females (n=48).
On analysing the inter-correlations between items, we can find that Q7 (Negative Outcome on not
touching Product) has a maximum value of .20 in its corresponding row which is not high enough
to be considered for factor analysis (minimum = 0.3). Thus, it has been taken out of consideration
 iKER 2019
for Factor Analysis. With the rest of the data, KMO and Bartlett’s test is conducted. The minimum
requirement for satisfying Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Test is 0.6 which is fulfilled by the by applying the
test on the data (0.667). Thus, the quality of is consistent. Furthermore, Bartlett’s Test of
Sphericity is confirmed with X2(36) =447.786 and p=0.000.
4.2 Factor Analysis
Factor Analysis is conducted using Maximum Likelihood Factor Analysis with Varimax Rotation.
Table 4.2.2 and its Scree Plot shows us the 3 Eigen values (>1.0) are extracted (2.775, 1.820,
1.093). From these values we determine the factors.
Table 4.2.1: Total Variance Explained
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Factor
Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 2.775 30.831 30.831 2.297 25.526 25.526
2 1.820 20.226 51.057 1.359 15.095 40.621
3 1.093 12.142 63.199 .587 6.525 47.146
4 .971 10.785 73.984
5 .658 7.316 81.300
6 .601 6.682 87.982
7 .401 4.455 92.437
8 .394 4.375 96.812
9 .287 3.188 100.000
By analysing the Factor Loadings from the Factor Matrix (Table 4.2.3), we are able to form 3
groups/dimensions namely:
1. Shopping Frequency  Q2. As compared to offline shopping, is
 Q1. How often do you shop online? online shopping more economical?
 Q8. How often do you go through online  Q3. Does shipping charge affect your
portal to look for new trends and decision to buy?
products in market?  Q5. Do you feel insecure about online
 Q9. What is the average percentage of transactions?
clothing purchases that you buy online?  Q6. Do social media advertisements
 Q10. Do you frequently shop online for attract you to shop online?
the sake of pleasure? 3. Flexibility
2. Economic Factor  Q4. Is return/exchange/refund policy
important to you?
Table 4.2.1: Factor Matrix
Figure 4.2.1: Scree Plot
Factor
Shopping Frequency Economic Factors Flexibility 3.0
Q1 .669
2.5
Q2 .294
Q3
Eigen Values

.736 2.0
Q4 .555
Q5 1.5
.481
Q6 .272 1.0
Q8 .726
Q9 .563 0.5
Q10 .738 0.0
Note: Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood. 3 factors extracted. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
5 iterations required.
Factor Number
 iKER 2019
The factor score of each dimension is calculated by adding the product of each factor loading with
its respective item. These factor scores are further used to validate the hypotheses.
4.3 Hypothesis testing
Table 4.3.1: Hypothesis testing of each dimension
Levine’s Test for
Dimensions Equality of t-test for Equality of Means
Variances
Std. 95% Confidence
Sig. Sig. (2- Mean Error Interval of the
F t Df
tailed) Difference Differen Difference
ce Lower Upper
Shopping EVA 7.620 .006 -.111 194 .912 -.035 .315 -.656 .586
Frequency EVNA -.097 65.98 .923 -.035 .359 -.753 .683
Economic EVA 16.79 .000 -4.97 194 .000 -.508 .102 -.710 -.307
Factors EVNA -4.38 66.38 .000 -.508 .116 -.740 -.276
EVA 6.367 .012 -3.47 194 .001 -.298 .086 -.467 -.129
Flexibility
EVNA -3.52 81.71 .001 -.298 .084 -.466 -.130
Note: EVA- Equal Variances Assumed, EVNA- Equal Variances not Assumed
Hypothesis 1 and 2 are tested using t-test for equality of means. The null hypothesis for each case
is that there is no difference between the two genders considering their opinions and is taken at p
< 0.05, i.e., if p < 0.05, its null hypothesis will be rejected. Levine’s Test shows us that equal
variances for both Economic Factors and Flexibility are to be rejected because of low significance
value (p = 0.000, p = 0.012). T-test for Economic Factors not assuming equal variances gives a
t(66.38) = -4.38. Since p = 0.000, its null hypothesis is rejected. T-test for Flexibility not assuming
equal variances give a t(81.71) = -3.52. Since p = 0.001, its null hypothesis is rejected.
5. Results and Discussion
In our papers, we identified relevant items and performed a factor analysis on the same. Three
Dimensions were obtained which namely were Shopping frequency, Economical factor and
Flexibility.
Table 5.1: Dimensions with respect to male and female
Shopping Economic
Gender Flexibility
Frequency Factors
Mean 6.7281 2.6861 4.48
Female (n=48)
Std. Deviation 2.28291 .73619 .505
Mean 6.7632 3.1950 4.78
Male (n=148)
Std. Deviation 1.75569 .57182 .519
Mean 6.7546 3.0704 4.70
Total (n=196)
Std. Deviation 1.89211 .65212 .530
In Hypothesis 1, that determines the flexibility among genders, we find the null hypothesis is
rejected as the p = 0.001 thereby showing the test has a significant result. Males were found to
have a higher preference for return and exchange policy (mean value= 4.78) as opposed to the
common notion that women being more frequent shoppers would value this policy more. Hence,
the hypothesis assumed is true and has wide scale industry applications.
In Hypothesis 2, the items taken into consideration were social media advertisements, online
transactions security, shipping charges and the cost incurred. For H-2, p = 0.00 which is really good
and assures us that the hypothesis is absolutely correct. Regarding economical shopping both
males and females show nearly the same mean implying both the genders display utilitarian
notions when shopping for apparels online. Females are less affected by shipping charges. This
inference is beneficial for online stores to plan their pricing strategies with less consideration to
 iKER 2019
shipping charges for women products. Regarding Online transaction security s males are more
concerned with a factor of 3.63. Thus, all market players need to ensure they have proper billing
platforms that are safe and reliable to retain their customers. Men also showed that they are
more likely to shop online based on social media advertisements. This hypothesis further
reinforces the findings of Sarkar (2011) that people with “high utilitarian shopping values” prefer
online shopping more as they provide benefits in terms of time and cost. The findings of Seock and
Bailey (2008) have been found to be inconsistent regarding latest trends and the time spent on the
same that they have a negative impact on online information search. Our findings indicate that
both the genders use online shopping to keep in touch with the latest trends and have no problem
spending time online. The difference in finding by this research paper and Seock and Bailey (2008)
could be due to the fact that their paper was based in United States and ours in India thus showing
how demographic factors affect shopping orientations.
6. Conclusion
The presented research provided deep insights into the shopping orientations of college students
and has highlighted important relationships in different factors affecting the same. These results
can be further used by online shopping platforms to determine and analyse their customer
segments and cater specifically to their needs. In general, males have shown more characteristics
of utilitarian shoppers, therefore the same needs to be considered while selling male products.
This study has some limitations which needs to be kept in mind while applying the results of it. The
findings obtained cannot be implied for all Indian college students due to sample population
limitations. Hence further research needs to be done to verify and transpose these findings to
populations not solely limited to Pilani. Furthermore, although superficial relationships have been
established in shopping orientations of college students, further research can be done to gain
deeper insights.
7. References
1. Bhatnagar, A., & Ghose, S. (2004). A latent class segmentation analysis of e-shoppers. Journal
of business research, 57(7), 758-767.
2. Chauhan, P. (2015). A Comparative study on consumer Preferences towards online retail
marketers-with special reference to Flipkart, Jabong, Amazon, Snapdeal Myntra and fashion
and you. IJAR, 1(10), 1021-1026.
3. Chen, Y., Yan, X., Fan, W., & Gordon, M. (2015). The joint moderating role of trust propensity
and gender on consumers’ online shopping behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 43, 272-
283.
4. Hansen, T., & Møller Jensen, J. (2009). Shopping orientation and online clothing purchases:
the role of gender and purchase situation. European Journal of Marketing, 43(9/10), 1154-
1170.
5. Rastogi, A. K. (2010). A Study of Indian Online Consumers & Their Buying
Behaviour. International Research Journal, 1(10), 80-82.
6. Roy Dholakia, R., & Uusitalo, O. (2002). Switching to electronic stores: consumer
characteristics and the perception of shopping benefits. International Journal of Retail &
Distribution Management, 30(10), 459-469.
7. Sarkar, A. (2011). Impact of utilitarian and hedonic shopping values on individual’s perceived
benefits and risks in online shopping. International management review, 7(1), 58-65.
8. Seock, Y. K., & Bailey, L. R. (2008). The influence of college students' shopping orientations
and gender differences on online information searches and purchase
behaviours. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 32(2), 113-121.