B - 12 - SST and Low Literate Consumers PDF

Market Research Project 2019 1
PROJECT REPORT ON
Marketing Research on Overall Satisfaction of Low Literate

Consumers towards Self Service Technology
Under the Guidance of

Dr Anubhav Anand Mishra
(Associate Professor, GIM)
Section: MR-B
Group-12
Rohan Naik 2018039

Devang Mehta 2018079
Vishal Kumar Bankar 2018125
Shravani Naik 2018178
Pranav Saxena 2018225
Vikrant Sharma 2018248
Acknowledgement
This project gave us the platform for hands on learning experience of entire
marketing research from designing of questionnaire to collection of data and
interpreting its analysis.
Market Research and Analysis for Overall Satisfaction of Low Literate
Consumers towards Self Service Technology was a challenge initially but now
it has enriched our knowledge
This could not have been possible without Dr.Anubhav Mishra (Associate
Professor, GIM) whose constant support helped us overcome the hurdles.
Group-12
MR-B
Contents
1.Executive Summary..................................................................................4
2.Introduction................................................................................................5
2.1.Abstract ...................................................................................................5
2.2. Self Service Technology.......................................................................6
3.Research Objective ....................................................................................7
4.Research Question…….............................................................................7
5.Conceptual Model……..............................................................................8
6.Methodology…...........................................................................................10
7.Analysis and Hypothesis………………………....................................11
7.1.Normality…………………........................................................11
7.2 Independent T-Test……...............................................................12
7.3 One Way Anova…........................................................................17
7.4 Two Way Anova….......................................................................29
7.5 One Way Manova….....................................................................36
7.6 Two Way Manova….....................................................................41
7.7 Chi-Square………………………………………………….44
7.8 Factor Analysis………………………….….……………….46
7.9 Relaibility Analysis……………..……….….……………….53
7.10 Correlation……….…..………..……….….……………….55
7.11 Cluster Analysis…………………………...……………….56
7.11 Structural Equation Modeling……………...……………….60
8.Conclusion…………….………………………....................................63
9. Annexure…………….………………………......................................64
10. Refrences…………….………………………....................................67
Executive Summary
This project reflects the overall satisfaction of low literate consumers on Self
Service Technologies
The project started with the formulation of questionnaire as a part of primary
research considering the parameters such as accebility to new technology,
awareness of SST.
Then each one of us conducted in-depth interviews with the low literate
consumers on the above questionnaire to come up with parameters for final
questionnaire.
To find the parameters for final parameters we did word clouding so that we can
criticallly analyse the parameters.
After this we did the data collection by getting the responses with the
respondants.
In all we collected 18 responses to conduct our research and applying statistical
tools to achieve our Research Objective.
Using SPSS as our tool we performed t-test,one-way anova , factor analysis ,
cluster analysis etc. and analyse the outputs that helped us in reaching to the
conclusion of our research objective.
Introduction
 Abstract
Self-service technology (SST) is very popular nowadays Automatic Teller
Machine (ATM) is one of the most popular SST, which provides bank
service along with NEFT, IMPS, Payments wallet etc. However, there is still
a certain unknown about SST and personal service usage on its consumer
satisfaction and consumer commitment.
The purpose of this report was to design a survey SST (i.e. ATM and
personal service usage like NEFT,) in order to determine the satisfaction of
Low Literate Consumers and multidimensional measure of these consumer
commitment.
First, literature review will be set up in this report to define the SST,
consumer satisfaction and commitment in bank service. Then the hypothesis
model and conceptual framework will be predicted. The research
methodology will then followed to indicate the data collection, sample
design and data analysis.
Furthermore, a survey questionnaire will be designed for Low Literate user

to obtain respondent data. Then the survey results in sample size of 18 and
data will be analysed in SPSS. (Service, 2016). Analysis of the outputs and
lastly conclusion.
Sr No. Tests Performed

1 Descriptives Statistics
for normality and outliers
2 Frequency Distribution
3 Dimesion Reduction factor analysis
4 Relaibility Analysis Cronbach alpha
5 Correlation Bivariate
6 Mean Comparison Test T-test, Annova,Manova,Chi-Square
7 Cluster Analysis
8 SEM
 Self Service Technology

SSTs are technological support or interfaces through which
customers can access the services without the help of the service providers or
service employees. One of the most familiar examples of SST is using ATM
(automated teller machine) for various bank transactions.
SST is an example of market space transactions in which no interpersonal

contact is required between buyer and seller (Matthew L. Meuter, Amy L.
Ostrom, Robert I. Roundtree, & Mary Jo Bitner ,2000). Previous studies
have demonstrated that consumer benefits of using SST include convenience
(Meuter et al., 2000; Reichheld and schefter, 2000; szymanski and hise,
2000), save time and money (Meuter et al 2000), avoiding interpersonal
interaction (Dabholkar, 1996; Meuter et al., 2000) and being in control
(Dabholkar, 1996; Zeithaml et al., 2000).
Self-service technologies have revolutionised the way of delivering services

to provide maximum benefits at marginal cost. Across globe, the
involvement of customers in the service process and adoption of SST in
services is showing a continuous upward trend. Automated teller machine,
self-service vending machines, e-commerce or m-commerce, interactive
kiosks and many other technology driven services provide more fulfilling,
easy and convenient services at an optimum cost. (Nandi, 2012)
o Characteristics of SST
 Technologies that allow patients to produce services

independent of front line employee assistance. They can be
deployed online or offered through dedicated kiosks.
 Technologies that allow patients to produce services

independent of front line employee assistance. They can be
deployed online or offered through dedicated kiosks.
 Technological artefact enabling individuals to produce a

service without direct interaction with service providers.
(Global, 2014)
Research Questions
 How the trust for a particular SST will affect in terms of usage for
daily adoption.
 What factors may affect the customer satisfaction and market share
realationship among low literate consumers for SST.
 How the SST meets the low literate consumers requirement?
 Is there any difference in the usage pattern of low literate consumers
with age and gross income.
Research Objectives
 To develop Question IDIs which will gauge the overall satisfaction for
SST among low literate consumers.
 To measure the trade-off among factors that are enabling consumer
satisfaction
 To develop a Structural Equation Model (SEM) for the research.

Conceptual Model
Customer Satisfaction Market Share
[1]
Customer Satisfaction Adoption of Service
will lead to increase in
market share
If we took care the factors governing to Customer Satisfaction among Low

Literate concern to SST, then there will be increase in market share that is
increase in adoption of SST and frequency of usage
Factors considered
(After In-depth Availability Convenience
Interviews)
Functionality Appeal
Trust
Increase in frequency of Customer

usage Satisfaction
 Research Paper Reexamining the Market Share—Customer Satisfaction

Relationship, By Lopo L. Rego, Neil A. Morgan and Claes Fornell,
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23487420, Sage Publication, Sept 2013 says
that if Customer Satisfaction is achieved then there will be an increase in
market share for particular service provider which will imply there is an
increase in adoption among low literate consumers in terms of usage and
frequency.
 If we took care the factors governing to Customer Satisfaction among

Low Literate concern to SST, then there will be increase in market share
that is increase in adoption of SST and frequency of usage.
 After an in-depth interview with target audience such as gardeners,

security guards we found above stated factors are governing and will lead
to recognition for a particular service provider.
Methodology
1) Formulation of initial questionnaire for exploratory interview.
2) Conducting in-depth interviews with the target audience.
3) After collecting the qualitative data of the in-depth interview

consolidating the data and criticallly analysing it with word cloud.
4) After word clouding we found the parameters on which we made the final
questionnaire.
5) Then we developed content cloud using Word generator.
6) Adoption of research concept model published by Lopo L. Rego
7) Then we did Statistical Analysis and interpreted the result. (Malhotra)

Analysis and Hypothesis
Normality Test
Independent Samples T-Test

1A. Research Question: Is there any difference in the overall trust level
between male and female consumers
Hypothesis H0: There is no significant difference in overall trust level between

male and female consumers
Independent Variable: GENDER (Gender of the low literate consumer)
Dependent Variable: T_MEAN (Overall trust Level of the SST)
Test Used: Independent Sample t-Test
Group Statistics
GENDER N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error
Mean
0 14 5.1758 1.39033 .37158
T_MEAN
1 4 5.3846 1.18837 .59419
Interpretation
 The p-value of Levene's test is 0.535, hence p > 0.05, so we cannot reject
the null of Levene's test and conclude that the variance in Overall trust
level of male consumers is not significantly different from that of female
consumers. This tells us that we should look at the "Equal variances
assumed" row for the t-test (and corresponding confidence interval)
results.
 Since p =0.789 i.e. > .05 is more than our chosen significance level α =
0.05, we cannot reject the null hypothesis, and conclude that the Overall
Trust Level of Male and Female consumers is not significantly different.
1B. Research Question: Is there any difference in the overall convenience level
Hypothesis H0: There is no significant difference in overall convenience level

Dependent Variable: C_MEAN (Overall convenience Level of the consumer)
Interpretation
the null of Levene's test and conclude that the variance in Overall
convenience level of male consumers is not significantly different than
that of female consumers. This tells us that we should look at the "Equal
variances assumed" row for the t-test (and corresponding confidence
interval) results.
Convenience Level of Male and Female consumers is not significantly
different.
1C. Research Question: Is there any difference in the overall Functionality

level between male and female consumers
Hypothesis H0: There is no Significant difference in overall Functionality level

Dependent Variable: R_MEAN (Overall Functionality Level of the consumer)
Interpretation
Functionality level of male consumers is not significantly different than
interval) results.
Functionality Level of Male and Female consumers is not significantly
different.
1D. Research Question: Is there any difference in the overall Availability of

SST between male and female consumers
Hypothesis H0: There is no significant difference in overall Availability of SST

Dependent Variable: BV_MEAN (Overall Availability of the SST)
Interpretation
Availability of SST of male consumers is not significantly different than
interval) results.
Availability of SST of Male and Female consumers is not significantly
different.
1E. Research Question: Does Appeal factors depend on gender?
Hypothesis: H0: Appeal factors depend on gender
Dependent Variable: Env_1 (Appeal factors of the SST)
Interpretation
the null of Levene's test and conclude that the variance in Appeal factors
of the SST of male consumers is not significantly different than that of
female consumers. This tells us that we should look at the "Equal
interval) results.
0.01, we cannot reject the null hypothesis, and conclude that the Appeal
factors of the SST of Male and Female consumers is not significantly
different.
One Way ANOVA

2A. Research Question: Does the Overall trust level depend on gender of the
low literate consumers?
Hypothesis: H0: The Overall trust level does not depend on age category of the
low literate consumers
Independent Variable: AGE (AGE category of the low literate consumer)
Dependent Variable: T_MEAN (Overall trust Level of the SST)
Test Used: One-way ANOVA
Output Screenshots:
0 corresponds to 18-24 age group

1 corresponds to 25-34 age group
2 corresponds to 35 and above
One Way ANOVA
Interpretation
Descriptive Table
For dependent variable (e.g. T_MEAN), the descriptive output gives the sample
size, mean, standard deviation, minimum, maximum, standard error, and
confidence interval for each level of the (quasi) independent variable AGE.
Test of Homogeneity of Variances Table:
The Test of Homogeneity of Variances output tests variances of each age group.
This is important assumption made by the analysis of variance. Here H0 is that
variance of each Age category is not different.
If the p value is greater than α level for this test, then we fail to reject H0 which
increases our confidence that the variances are equal and the homogeneity of
variance assumption has been met.
The p value is .860. Because the p value is greater than the α level, we fail to
reject H0 implying that there is little evidence that the variances are not equal
and the homogeneity of variance assumption may be reasonably satisfied.
ANOVA Table
This is the table that shows the output of the ANOVA analysis and whether
there is a statistically significant difference between our group means. We can
see that the significance value is 0.904 (i.e., p = .904), which is above 0.05. and,
therefore, there is no statistically significant difference in the mean of trust
levels of the age category.
Multiple Comparisons Table:

In this table, p value for each Age category is greater than a= 0.05, so we fail to
reject H0 for each age category. Hence, the mean of overall trust level of each
age category is significantly different.
2B. Research Question: Does the overall convenience level depend on the age
category of the low literate consumers?
Hypothesis: H0: The Overall convenience level does not depend on age
category of the low literate consumers
Dependent Variable: C_MEAN (Overall convenience Level of the SST)
Test Used: One way ANOVA

Interpretation
Descriptive Table:
For dependent variable (e.g. C_MEAN), the descriptive output gives the sample
If the p value is greater than α level for this test, then we fail to reject H0
ANOVA Table:
therefore, there is no statistically significant difference in the mean of
convenience levels of the age category.
reject H0 for each age category. Hence, the mean of overall convenience level
of each age category is significantly different.
2C. Research Question: Does overall Functionality level depends on age

category of low literate consumers with respect to SST
Hypothesis: H0: The Overall Functionality level does not depend on age
category of the low literate consumers
Dependent Variable: R_MEAN (Overall Functionality Level of the SST)

Interpretation
Descriptive Table
For dependent variable (e.g. R_MEAN), the descriptive output gives the sample
variance of each Age category is not different. If the p value is greater than α
level for this test, then we fail to reject H0 which increases our confidence that
the variances are equal and the homogeneity of variance assumption has been
met.
ANOVA Table:
therefore, there is no statistically significant difference in the mean of overall
functionality levels of the age category.

reject H0 for each age category. Hence, the mean of overall functionality level
2D. Research Question: Does Overall appeal of SST depends upon the age
category of low literate consumers
Hypothesis: H0: The Overall Appeal of SST does not depend on age category
of the low literate consumers
Dependent Variable: BV_MEAN (Overall Appeal of SST)


Interpretation
Descriptive Table:
For dependent variable (e.g. BV_MEAN), the descriptive output gives the
sample size, mean, standard deviation, minimum, maximum, standard error, and
confidence interval for each level of the (quasi) independent variable AGE.\s
If the p value is greater than α level for this test, then we fail to reject H0 which
increases our confidence that the variances are equal and the homogeneity of
variance assumption has been met.
ANOVA Table:
therefore, there is no statistically significant difference in the mean of overall
Availability of SST of the age category.
reject H0 for each age category. Hence, the mean of overall Availability of SST
Two-way ANOVA
3A. Is there a significant difference in the means of convenience level with

respect to Age & Gross monthly income level of Low literate SST user.
Hypothesis: H0: There is no significant difference in the means of

convenience level with respect to Age & Gross monthly income level of
Low literate SST user.
Independent Variable: AGE_N, G_NEW (AGE category of the low literate

consumer, Gross monthly income of low literate consumers),
Dependent Variable: C_MEAN (Overall Convenience level of low literate

consumers with respect of SST)
Test Used:
Two-way
ANOVA
 For age(AGE_N) p= 0.657 & gross monthly income (G_New)

p=0.414 both of which are greater than 0.05(alpha). We can see from
the table above that there was no significant difference in overall trust
mean level in between different age categories(p=0.657) & also there
is no significant difference in overall trust mean in Gross monthly
income levels of low literate SST users.
3B. Is there a significant difference in the means of convenience level with

respect to Age & Gross monthly income level of Low literate SST user.
Hypothesis: H0: There is no significant difference in the means of

convenience level with respect to Age & Gross monthly income level of
Low literate SST user.
Independent Variable: AGE_N, G_NEW(AGE category of the low literate

consumer, Gross monthly income of low literate consumers),
Dependent Variable: C_MEAN(Overall Convenience level of low literate

consumers with respect of SST)
Test Used: Two-way ANOVA

 For age (AGE_N) p= 0.035 & gross monthly income (G_New)

p=0.339.
 We can see from the table above that there is significant difference in
overall mean convenience level in between different age categories
(p=0.035, less than 0.05). From p=0.339 (Greater than 005), we can
see that there is no significant difference in overall trust mean in
Gross monthly income levels of low literate SST users.
ONE WAY MANOVA

Research Question: Is there dependency between overall trust level, overall
convenience level and age category with respect to low literate consumers of
SST.
Hypothesis: H0: There is no dependency between overall trust level, overall

convenience level and age category with respect to low literate consumers of
SST.
Independent Variable: AGE_N (AGE category of the low literate

consumer)
Dependent Variable: T_MEAN (Overall trust level of SST), C_MEAN

(Overall convenience level of SST)
Test Used: One way MANOVA

Interpretation
 Multivariate Tests Table:
The Multivariate Tests table is where we find the actual result of the one-
way MANOVA. To determine whether the one-way MANOVA was
statistically significant you need to look at the "Sig." column. We can see
from the table that we have a "Sig." value of .478 i.e. >.0005. Therefore, we
can conclude that age categories are not significantly dependent on trust and
convenience levels.
 Test of Between Subjects Effects Table:
To determine how the dependent variables, differ for the independent

variable, we need to look at the Tests of Between-Subjects Effects.
We can see from this table that age category has no significant effect on both
trust (p=0.904) and convenience levels (p=0.104) since p >0.005.
 Multiple Comparison Table:
The table above shows that mean of trust levels and mean of convenience
levels were not significant different between the age groups since p>0.0005.
Two-way MANOVA
Research Question: Overall trust level, overall convenience depends upon
age category as well as gender of low literate consumers of SST
Hypothesis: H0: Overall trust level, overall convenience does not depend
upon age category as well as gender of low literate consumers of SST
Independent Variable: G_NEW (Gross monthly income category of the

low literate consumer), GENDER (Gender of the low literate consumer)
Dependent Variable: T_MEAN (Overall trust level of SST), C_MEAN

(Overall convenience level of SST)
Test Used: Two way MANOVA

Interpretation
 Multivariate Tests Table:
The first result that needs to be interpreted in the two-way MANOVA

is the interaction term (i.e., Gender*G_new), which is found in the
Multivariate Tests table.
The different names given to each row (namely, Pillai's Trace, Wilks'
Lambda, Hoteling’s Trace and Roy's Largest Root) are the names of
the different multivariate test statistics that can be used to test the
statistical significance of the different effects of the independent
variables. Each test statistic will provide you with a statistical
significance value (i.e., p-value), but its value can be different for the
different test statistics.
The interaction effect determines whether the effect of gross monthly

income categories is similar for males and females.
You can see that p = .156 (i.e., the Wilks' Lambda row highlighted in
yellow), which means that there is a no significant interaction effect.
This means that the effect of the gross monthly salary categories on
the dependent variables (overall trust level and overall convenience
level) is the same for males and females. Overall trust level, overall
convenience does not depend upon age category as well as gender of
low literate consumers of SST
Chi Square
H0: There is no dependency between age and gross monthly income of
low literate consumers of SST.
Variables: AGE_N (Age category of consumers), G_NEW (Gross

monthly income of consumer)
Interpretation
 From the Chi square tests table we see that the significance value
of Pearson Chi square is 0.188 which is > 0.05. Hence we fail to
reject the null hypothesis. i.e Hence there is no dependency of Age
category on gross monthly income category.
Factor Aanlysis
Descriptive Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation Analysis N
V2 5.444 1.5801 18
V3 5.500 1.5811 18
V4 5.222 1.6290 18
V8 4.556 1.5424 18
V9 4.500 1.6179 18
V10 4.556 2.0926 18
V12 5.611 1.3346 18
V14 5.389 .9785 18
V17 6.667 .5941 18
V19 5.000 1.5339 18
V21 5.556 1.3815 18
V22 5.111 1.8114 18
V24 6.000 1.1882 18
V25 5.611 1.6139 18
V26 5.333 1.1882 18
V27 5.389 1.2897 18
V28 5.278 1.5265 18
V29 5.278 1.5645 18
V35 5.333 1.4552 18
V37 5.222 1.7339 18
V38 5.000 1.4951 18
V41 4.778 1.3956 18
Interpretation
 The first output after running factor analysis is the Descriptive Statistics
table. It defines the mean, standard deviation and the number of
respondents (N) who participated in the survey. Looking at the means, we
can conclude that V17 i.e. “it is easy and convenient to reach the above-
mentioned SST” is the most important factor, which influences the
overall satisfaction of customers while using SST.
Factor Aanlysis
Factor Aanlysis
Interpretation
 Since the determinant is zero hence we faced computational problems.
Due to the small sample size we did not get the output from the KMO and
Bartlett’s Test so we cannot comment on whether the null hypothesis i.e.
the correlation matrix is an identity matrix, was accepted or rejected.
 The next item from the output is a table of communalities which shows
how much of the variance (i.e. the communality value which should be
more than 0.5 to be considered for further analysis. Else these variables
are to be removed from further steps factor analysis) in the variables has
been accounted for by the extracted factors.
From the above table we can say that 91.4% of the variance in V1 is
accounted for, while 60.2% of the variance in V41 is accounted for.
Factor Aanlysis
Communalities
Initial Extraction
V2 1.000 .914
V3 1.000 .947
V4 1.000 .936
V8 1.000 .948
V9 1.000 .894
V10 1.000 .677
V12 1.000 .770
V14 1.000 .954
V17 1.000 .761
V19 1.000 .909
V21 1.000 .854
V22 1.000 .895
V24 1.000 .920
V25 1.000 .932
V26 1.000 .852
V27 1.000 .908
V28 1.000 .901
V29 1.000 .775
V35 1.000 .976
V37 1.000 .891
V38 1.000 .797
V41 1.000 .602
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Factor Aanlysis
Total Variance Explained
Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Rotation Sums of Squared
Loadings Loadings
Total % of Cumulative Total % of Cumulative Total % of Cumulative

Variance % Variance % Variance %
1 12.358 56.174 56.174 12.358 56.174 56.174 9.801 44.552 44.552

2 2.662 12.101 68.275 2.662 12.101 68.275 3.818 17.353 61.906
3 1.658 7.535 75.810 1.658 7.535 75.810 2.197 9.984 71.890
4 1.322 6.011 81.820 1.322 6.011 81.820 1.714 7.792 79.682
5 1.012 4.598 86.418 1.012 4.598 86.418 1.482 6.736 86.418
6 .869 3.952 90.371
7 .667 3.034 93.405
8 .390 1.771 95.175
9 .309 1.404 96.579
10 .292 1.326 97.905
11 .204 .927 98.832
12 .113 .515 99.347
13 .065 .293 99.640
14 .039 .178 99.818
15 .028 .127 99.945
16 .011 .048 99.993
17 .002 .007 100.000
1.003E- 1.016E- 100.000
18
013 013
1.001E- 1.005E- 100.000
19
013 013
-1.000E- -1.001E- 100.000
20
013 013
-1.005E- -1.022E- 100.000
21
013 013
-1.008E- -1.036E- 100.000
22
013 013

Factor Aanlysis
Interpretation
 Eigen value displays how all variables share its variance with each factor.
The Eigenvalue table has been divided into three sub-sections, i.e. Initial
Eigen Values, Extracted Sums of Squared Loadings and Rotation of
Sums of Squared Loadings. Here we note that the first factor accounts for
56.174% of the variance, the second 12.101%, the third 7.535%, the
fourth 6.011% and the fifth accounts for 4.598%. No remaining factors
are significant.
 The scree plot is a graph of the eigenvalues against all the factors. The
graph is useful for determining how many factors to retain. The point of
interest is where the curve starts to flatten. It can be seen that the curve
begins to flatten between factors 6 and 7. Note also that factor 6 onwards
have an eigenvalue of less than 1, so only five factors have been retained.
Factor Aanlysis
Rotated Component Matrix a

Component
1 2 3 4 5
V2 .884
V3 .948
V4 .901
V8 .912
V9 .471 .781
V10 .804
V12 .697
V14 .956
V17 .827
V19 .878
V21 .770
V22 .788 .402
V24 .778 .499
V25 .930
V26 .884
V27 .897
V28 .847
V29 .768
V35 .754 -.417
V37 .728 .427
V38 .868
V41 .634

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.a
a. Rotation converged in 6 iterations.
Interpretation
 The above table contains the rotated factor loadings, which represent both
how the variables are weighted for each factor but also the correlation
between the variables and the factor. Because these are correlations,
possible values range from -1 to +1. We kept the absolute value below
0.4 which tells SPSS not to print any of the correlations that are .4 or
less. This makes the output easier to read by removing the clutter of low
correlations that are probably not meaningful anyway.
Relaibility Analysis
 Convenience
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Cronbach's N of We can see that Cronbach's alpha is 0.947,
Alpha Alpha Items which indicates a high level of internal
Based on consistency for our scale.
Standardize
d Items
.947 .946 3
 Functionality
Cronbach's Cronbach's N of We can see that Cronbach's alpha is 0.931,
Alpha Alpha Items which indicates a high level of internal
Based on consistency for our scale.
Standardize
d Items
.931 .932 2
 Availability
Cronbach's Cronbach's N of We can see that Cronbach's alpha is
Alpha Alpha Items 0.476, which indicates a low level of
Based on internal consistency for our scale.
Standardize
d Items
.476 .592 2
Relaibility Analysis
 Trust
Cronbach's Cronbach's N of We can see that Cronbach's alpha is
Alpha Alpha Items 0.968, which indicates a high level of
Based on internal consistency for our scale.
Standardize
d Items
.968 .972 13
 Appeal
This factor has only one variable that is why we cannot perform internal
consistency test.
Correlation
Correlations
T_MEAN C_MEAN R_MEAN BV_MEAN Env_1
Pearson Correlation 1 .422 .604 .397 .017
T_MEAN Sig. (2-tailed) .081 .008 .103 .947
N 18 18 18 18 18
Pearson Correlation .422 1 .367 .480 .090
C_MEAN Sig. (2-tailed) .081 .134 .044 .722
N 18 18 18 18 18
Pearson Correlation .604 .367 1 .192 .110
R_MEAN Sig. (2-tailed) .008 .134 .445 .663
N 18 18 18 18 18
Pearson Correlation .397 .480 .192 1 .289
BV_MEAN Sig. (2-tailed) .103 .044 .445 .244
N 18 18 18 18 18
Pearson Correlation .017 .090 .110 .289 1
Env_1 Sig. (2-tailed) .947 .722 .663 .244
N 18 18 18 18 18
Interpretation
 Since we are testing for metric variables hence we run the Pearson
Correlation Test. According to the Pearson correlation test, two variables
should not be highly correlated i.e. having a value of 0.8 and above. So in
the above table we have run the Pearson test on the mean of all the factors
which we are considering for our model.
 The table above presents the Pearson correlation coefficient, its
significance value and the sample size that the calculation is based on.
We see that the Person correlation value is 1 along the diagonals. In the
above table we see that between ENV_1 and T_mean, the Person
Correlation coefficient value is 0.017, but it is not statistically significant
(p>0.005). The same can be noticed for the correlation between the
Env_1 and all other variables.
Cluster Aanlysis
 We used Hierarchical cluster analysis, as our sample size is less than 100.
The main part of the output from SPSS is the dendogram. The dendogram
for the diagnosis of data presented in output 1. As we know, cluster analysis
tries to place every case into a single cluster. Therefore, we end up having
a single cluster that subdivides at lower levels of similarity.
 Moreover, small sample size is leading to formation of one cluster, which

can be rectified by increasing the sample size.
In output 1, we used cluster method as nearest neighbour.
OUTPUT 1
Cluster Aanlysis
Agglomeration Schedule
Stage Cluster Combined Coefficient Stage Cluster First Next
s Appears Stage
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 1 Cluster 2
1 8 9 3.606 0 0 3
2 12 14 3.742 0 0 3
3 8 12 5.196 1 2 4
4 7 8 5.196 0 3 5
5 5 7 5.657 0 4 6
6 5 13 5.745 5 0 7
7 5 6 6.083 6 0 8
8 5 17 7.071 7 0 9
9 5 15 7.550 8 0 11
10 4 16 8.246 0 0 15
11 5 10 8.307 9 0 13
12 2 18 9.000 0 0 13
13 2 5 9.000 12 11 14
14 1 2 9.434 0 13 15
15 1 4 9.849 14 10 16
16 1 11 10.954 15 0 17
17 1 3 11.136 16 0 0
 The agglomeration schedule is a numerical summary of the cluster

solution. At the first stage, cases 8 and 9 are combined because they have
the smallest distance. The cluster created by their joining next appears in
stage 3. In stage 3, the clusters created in stages 1 and 2 are joined. The
resulting cluster next appears in stage 4.
 These are the same as the findings from the dendogram. This is somewhat
unsatisfactory as a solution, because there isn't a strong classification.
That’s why we tried a solution using complete linkage (Furthest neighbour)
as the cluster method
Cluster Aanlysis
In output 2, we used cluster method as farthest neighbour .
OUTPUT 2
Cluster Aanlysis
Agglomeration Schedule
Stage Cluster Combined Coefficients Stage Cluster First Appears Next Stage
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 1 Cluster 2
1 8 9 13.000 0 0 3
2 12 14 14.000 0 0 5
3 7 8 32.000 0 1 4
4 6 7 46.000 0 3 8
5 12 13 49.000 2 0 6
6 12 17 68.000 5 0 10
7 4 16 68.000 0 0 13
8 5 6 68.000 0 4 11
9 2 18 81.000 0 0 12
10 12 15 88.000 6 0 14
11 5 10 105.000 8 0 14
12 2 11 125.000 9 0 15
13 1 4 129.000 0 7 15
14 5 12 161.000 11 10 17
15 1 2 191.000 13 12 16
16 1 3 291.000 15 0 17
17 1 5 612.000 16 14 0
Structural Equation Modeling
There are three models which should be displayed out of which we are getting
only the default model which specifies the data given by us. As we can see from
the above output the default model is unidentified due to lack of constraints due
to the small sample size.
Structural Equation Modeling
The variable count specifies the number of variables in terms of observed,

unobserved, independent(exogenous) and dependent(endogenous) variables.
The model fit summary table should display the Baseline Comparison and
RMSEA table. Due to small sample size we couldn’t get the CFI(Goodness of
fit) and RMSEA(Badness of fit) values which would help us in analysing
whether the model is a good fit or not.
However, we can calculate the PCMIN which is CMIN/DOF
Therefore, PCMIN = 108.882/-4 = -27.2205 which is below the cut-off of 3.

 The above table represents the unstandardized regression weights. Here we

see the unstandardized estimates value of the different independent variables
i.e. functionality, availability, convenience and appeal on the dependent
variables i.e. Trust.
 The above table represents the standardized regression weights. Here we see
the standard estimates value of the different independent variables i.e.
functionality, availability, convenience and appeal on the dependent
variables i.e. Trust.
Conclusion
As we know that SST services are in high demand in today’s digital world and
it is becoming highly important to be aware of the use of these services since
our country is moving towards a cashless economy. So after analysing the
responses of our sample which we received from the In-depth interviews and
surveys we conducted various tests on the compiled data and came to the
conclusion that various factors such as Functionality, Appeal, Convenience and
Availability directly affect the level of trust that low literate consumers have
while using SST services.
The level of trust amongst the low-literate consumers in turn affects the overall
satisfaction level low-literate customers get while using SST services.
Annexure
NAME: TEL/EMAIL:
GENDER: HOMETOWN:
AGE:
HIGHEST EDUCATION:
GROSS MONTHLY INCOME: SST USED: Yes
Strongly Disagree Partly Neither Partly Agree Strongly

Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
Statements nor Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. I can get my service done with the

“above-mentioned” SST in a short time.
2. The service process of the “above-
mentioned” SST is clear.
3. Using the “above-mentioned” SST
requires little effort.
4. I can get my service done smoothly with
the “above-mentioned” SSTs.
5. Each service item/function of the SST is
error-free.
6. The operation of the “above-mentioned”
SST is interesting.
7. I feel good being able to use the SSTs.
8. The “above-mentioned” SST has
interesting additional functions.
9. The “above-mentioned” SST provides
me with all relevant information.
10. I feel safe in my transactions with the
“above-mentioned” SST.
11. A clear privacy policy is stated when I
use the “above-mentioned” SST.
12. The firm providing the SST is well-
known.
13. The firm providing the SST has a good
Reputation.
14. The layout of the “above-mentioned”
SST is aesthetically appealing.
15. The “above-mentioned” SST appears to
use up-to-date technology.
16. The SST has operating hours convenient
to Customers.
17. It is easy and convenient to reach the
18. The “above-mentioned” SST
understands my specific needs.
19. The “above-mentioned” SST has my best

interests at heart.
20. The “above-mentioned” SST has features
that are personalized for me.
21. Overall, I am satisfied with the SST
service offered by the bank.
22. The SST service offered by the bank
exceeds my expectations.
23. The SST service offered by the bank is
close to my ideal SSTs.
24. My choice to use this service was a wise
one.
25. The “above-mentioned” SST can be
trusted .
26. I can rely on the “above-mentioned” SST
to execute my transactions reliably.
27. I am able to trust the “above-mentioned”
SST completely.
28. The “above-mentioned” SST will be
sincere in promises.
29. The “above-mentioned” SST will treat
me fairly and honestly.
30. I feel a very high degree of association
with the “above-mentioned” SST.
31. I have a very long association with the
32. I feel a sense of belonging to the “above-
mentioned” SST.
33. I would like to talk to my friends and
acquaintance about the “above-mentioned”
SST.
34. I would like to continue using the
services of the “above-mentioned” SST
through the next six months.
35. The “above-mentioned” SST facility is
exactly what is needed for this service.
36. The likelihood that I would recommend
this “above-mentioned” SST to a friend is
high.
37. If I had to do it over again, I would make
the same choice.
38. I would do more business with this bank
in the future.
39. I would buy new products/services
offered by this “above-mentioned” org..
40. I would buy more products/services from
this “above-mentioned” org..
41. Due to the performance of “above- √

mentioned” SST, I will patronize the “above-
mentioned” org..
Thank you for your valuable concern and time!
References
Bibliography
Global, I. (2014, 03 2). IGI Global. Retrieved from Igi Clobal: https://www.igi-
global.com/dictionary/self-service-technology/26273
Malhotra, N. (n.d.). In Marketing Research An Applied Orientation.
Nandi, D. S. (2012, 12 1). isme. Retrieved from blog isme: https://www.isme.in/sst-self-
service-technology-in-service/
Service, E. W. (2016, December 05). Ukessays. Retrieved from Ukessays:
https://www.ukessays.com/essays/education/self-service-technology.php

B - 12 - SST and Low Literate Consumers PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

B - 12 - SST and Low Literate Consumers PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Market Research Project 2019 1

Marketing Research on Overall Satisfaction of Low Literate

Under the Guidance of

Rohan Naik 2018039

2.2. Self Service Technology.......................................................................6

3.Research Objective ....................................................................................7

7.Analysis and Hypothesis………………………....................................11

Furthermore, a survey questionnaire will be designed for Low Literate user

Sr No. Tests Performed

 Self Service Technology

SST is an example of market space transactions in which no interpersonal

Self-service technologies have revolutionised the way of delivering services

 Technologies that allow patients to produce services

 Technologies that allow patients to produce services

 Technological artefact enabling individuals to produce a

 To develop a Structural Equation Model (SEM) for the research.

Customer Satisfaction Market Share

If we took care the factors governing to Customer Satisfaction among Low

Increase in frequency of Customer

 Research Paper Reexamining the Market Share—Customer Satisfaction

 If we took care the factors governing to Customer Satisfaction among

 After an in-depth interview with target audience such as gardeners,

1) Formulation of initial questionnaire for exploratory interview.

2) Conducting in-depth interviews with the target audience.

3) After collecting the qualitative data of the in-depth interview

5) Then we developed content cloud using Word generator.

6) Adoption of research concept model published by Lopo L. Rego

7) Then we did Statistical Analysis and interpreted the result. (Malhotra)

Analysis and Hypothesis

Independent Samples T-Test

Hypothesis H0: There is no significant difference in overall trust level between

Independent Variable: GENDER (Gender of the low literate consumer)

Dependent Variable: T_MEAN (Overall trust Level of the SST)

Test Used: Independent Sample t-Test

Hypothesis H0: There is no significant difference in overall convenience level

Independent Variable: GENDER (Gender of the low literate consumer)

Dependent Variable: C_MEAN (Overall convenience Level of the consumer)

Test Used: Independent Sample t-Test

1C. Research Question: Is there any difference in the overall Functionality

Hypothesis H0: There is no Significant difference in overall Functionality level

Independent Variable: GENDER (Gender of the low literate consumer)

Dependent Variable: R_MEAN (Overall Functionality Level of the consumer)

Test Used: Independent Sample t-Test

1D. Research Question: Is there any difference in the overall Availability of

Hypothesis H0: There is no significant difference in overall Availability of SST

Independent Variable: GENDER (Gender of the low literate consumer)

Dependent Variable: BV_MEAN (Overall Availability of the SST)

Test Used: Independent Sample t-Test

1E. Research Question: Does Appeal factors depend on gender?

Hypothesis: H0: Appeal factors depend on gender

Independent Variable: GENDER (Gender of the low literate consumer)

Dependent Variable: Env_1 (Appeal factors of the SST)

Test Used: Independent Sample t-Test

One Way ANOVA

Independent Variable: AGE (AGE category of the low literate consumer)

Dependent Variable: T_MEAN (Overall trust Level of the SST)

Test Used: One-way ANOVA

0 corresponds to 18-24 age group

One Way ANOVA

Test of Homogeneity of Variances Table:

Multiple Comparisons Table:

Independent Variable: AGE (AGE category of the low literate consumer)

Dependent Variable: C_MEAN (Overall convenience Level of the SST)