customer satisfaction with regard to service quality...
TRANSCRIPT
- 111 -
CHAPTER - IV
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION WITH REGARD TO SERVICE QUALITY
RENDERED BY DEPARTMENTAL STORES
In retail business, the quality of service and customer
satisfaction are the deciding factors for any purchase. The
customers attach considerable value on the quality and
responsiveness of an organization’s service component, as well as
product quality and availability in making purchase decisions.
Customer satisfaction is the key to the success of any retail
business. Measuring customer satisfaction would su ggest the
strengths and weaknesses of a concern and it paves way for
improvement and sustains their business in the present competitive
scenario. Hence this study makes an attempt to measure customer
satisfaction on the basis of actual service experienced by the buyers
against the five service quality dimensions such as tangibles,
reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy.
In order to study the customer satisfaction it was imperative
to learn the general profile of the respondents and their sho pping
habits. Hence the questionnaire had been divided into three parts,
namely
i) General profile of the respondents.
ii) Shopping habits of the customers.
iii) Customer satisfaction towards the five dimensions of
service quality.
- 112 -
The profile of the respondents had been assimilated into
several variables such as age, gender , education, occupation,
monthly income and family size. The profile-details of the
respondents, from their response to the questionnaire were
tabulated and the resultant tables were consolidated and worked out
into a single master table as given below.
Table IV.a
General profile of the respondents
Sl. No. Particulars No. of Respondents Percentage
1. Age
Up to 20 years 28 4.7
21-30 years 223 37.2
31-40 years 286 47.7
Above 40 years 63 10.5
2. Gender
Male 236 39.3
Female 364 60.7
3 Education
Below 10th
standard 64 10.7
10th
– 12th
standard 166 27.7
Graduate 276 46.0
Post graduate 94 15.7
4. Occupation
Government official 92 15.3
Businessman 99 16.5
Professional 64 10.7
Private employee 113 18.8
House wife 190 31.7
Others 42 7.0
- 113 -
5. Income (Monthly)
Rs. 5000-10000 108 18.0
Rs.10001-20000 434 72.3
Rs. 20001-30000 56 9.3
Above Rs. 30000 2 0.3
6. Family Size
2-4 members 349 58.2
5-7 members 242 40.3
Above 7 members 9 1.5
Source: Primary data
From the above table it is clear that 47.7 percent of the
respondents were under the age group of 31-40 years, 37.2 percent
under the age group of 21- 30 years. It may be noticed that majority
(85 %) of the respondents were within the age group of 21-40 years.
Those with below 20 years and above 40 years were found to be
much less in number which accounts for just 15 percent of the total
respondents.
Regarding gender-wise classification of respondents it was
found that out of the 600 respondents, 236 (39.3 %) were male
members and the remaining 364 (60.7%) were female. Hence, in the
current study a majority of 60.7 percent (364) of the respondents
were female.
To mention the educational level of the respondents, 46
percent of the respondents were graduates and 15.7 percent were
post graduates. Only 10.7 percent had a qualification below 10th
standard. Thus a major portion of the respondents were
well-educated as 61.7 percent were graduates and post graduates.
- 114 -
The above table clearly pictured that out of 600 respondents,
31.7 percent were housewives, 18.8 percent were employed in
private organizations, 16.5 percent were businessmen, 15.3 percent
were government officials, 10.7 percent and 7 percent of the
respondents were professionals and persons employed in other
sectors respectively. Thus, the majority of the shoppers were
housewives who would personally undertake the task of shopping
for the family.
The monthly income of the respondents at various levels did
vary. It was obvious from the table that 72.3 percent (434) of the
respondents earned an income between Rs.10001-20000, whereas
Rs. 5,000-10,000 was earned by 18 percent of the respondents per
month, followed by 9.3 percent and 0.3 percent of the respondents
who had an income between Rs.20001-30,000 and above Rs.30,000
per month respectively. Thus the majority of the respondents
(72.3%) on an average earned an amount between Rs.10, 000 and
Rs.20, 000 monthly.
To mention about the family size of the respondents, it may
be seen from the table that out of 600 sample respondents, 58.2
percent (349) had a small family with 2-4 members and 40.3
percent (242) with 5-7 members. Only 1.5 percent (9) of them had
a large family with more than 7 members. Therefore the majority of
the respondents belonged to the nuclear family type.
- 115 -
Chart IV.a.1
Age of the respondents
4.7
37.2
47.7
10.5
Up to 20 years
21-30 years
31-40 years
Above 40 years
- 116 -
Chart IV.a.2
Gender of the respodnents
39.3
60.7
Male
Female
- 117 -
Chart IV.a.3
Educational Qualification of the respondents
10.7
27.7
46
15.7
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Below 10th
standard
10th – 12th
standard
Graduate Post Graduate
Educational Qualification
Perc
en
tag
e
- 118 -
Chart IV.a.4
Occupation of the respondents
15.316.5
10.7
18.8
31.7
7
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Gove
rnm
ent o
ffic
ial
Busi
nessm
an
Pro
fess
ional
Priv
ate
emplo
yee
House
wife
Oth
ers
Occupation
Perc
en
tag
e
- 119 -
18
72.3
9.3
0.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Perc
en
tag
e
Rs. 5000-
10000
Rs.10001-
20000
Rs. 20001-
30000
Above Rs.
30000
Income
Chart IV.a.5
Income of the respondents
- 120 -
Chart IV.a.6
Family size of the respondents
58.2
40.3
1.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2-4 members 5-7 members Above 7 members
Family Size
Perc
en
tag
e
- 121 -
Shopping habits of the respondents
The second part of the questionnaire was designed to learn the
shopping habits and preferences of the respondents such as persons
with whom they shop, their liking and reason for selecting a
particular shop, frequency of visit per month, amount spent on
purchase, mode of payment, source through which the store was
introduced to them and their willingness to continue shopping at the
same store and recommend the same to others as well have been
tabulated below.
- 122 -
Table IV.b
Shopping habits of the respondents
Sl.
No.
Variable No. of
Respondents
Percentage
1 I often go for shopping
Alone 209 34.8
With spouse 200 33.3
With family 157 26.2
With friends 34 5.7
2 The reason for purchasing from the
same shop
Large variety of products 80 13.3
The service provided is good 21 3.5
Reasonable price 264 44.0
Good store environment 188 31.3
Parking facility 36 6.0
Convenient location 9 1.5
Others 2 0.3
3 No. of visits per month
Once 143 23.8
Twice 378 63.0
Thrice 60 10.0
Frequently 19 3.2
4 Amount spent on purchase per visit
Below Rs.500 234 39.0
Rs.500 – 1000 321 53.5
Above Rs.1000 45 7.5
- 123 -
5 Source through which the store was
known
Relatives 133 22.2
Friends 76 12.7
Neighbours / Colleagues 323 53.8
Advertisements 68 11.3
6 Recommend the store to others
Strongly not recommended 2 0.3
Not recommended 2 0.3
Somewhat recommended 222 37.0
Recommended 371 61.8
Strongly recommended 3 0.5
7 Mode of payment on purchase
Cash 416 69.3
Credit cards 184 30.7
8 Plan to switch over to another shop
Yes 220 36.7
No 380 63.3
Source: Primary Data
In the above table the persons who had accompanied the
respondents for shopping is statistically estimated and shown. It
indicated that 34.8 percent (209) of the total respondents had gone
shopping alone and 33.3 percent (200) of them had gone with their
spouse and the rest with family and friends. Hence the majority ,
- 124 -
68.1 percent (409) of the respondents had gone shopping either
alone or with their spouse.
While listing down the reasons for choosing a particular shop,
the respondents had given priority to reasonable price (44%), good
store environment (31.3%) and more choices of product (13.3%)
with the rest prioritizing convenient parking , location and good
service provided. Hence a majority , 75 percent (452) of the
respondents had chosen a particular shop giving importance to
reasonable price and good store environment.
The table shows the number of times per month the
respondents visit the shop and it is evident from the table that 63
percent of the respondents had visited the shop twice i n a month,
followed by 23.8 percent and 10 percent of the respondents who had
visited the shop once and thrice respectively. Only 3.2 percent of
them had visited frequently . Hence, the majority of 63 percent
(378) of the respondents had visited the shop twice in a month.
The above table shows the amount spent on purchase in one
visit by the respondents. It is evident from the table that 53.5
percent of the respondents had spent Rs.500 - 1000, followed by 39
percent and 7.5 percent of the respondents who had spent below
Rs.500 and above Rs.1000 respectively. Thus, majority of the
respondents had spent Rs.500-1000 for purchase per shopping visit
in the retail shop.
- 125 -
While analyzing the sources say the persons/media through
which the respondents had come to know about the st ores, it is
shown that 53.8 percent of the sample respondents had got
introduced to the corresponding shop through their neighbours or
colleagues; the impact of advertisement was found to be much
meager. 22.2 percent and 12.7 percent had been introduced to the
shop by their relatives and friends respectively . Thus the majority
of 53.8 percent of the total respondents had got introduced to the
store through their neighbours/colleagues.
61.8 percent of the respondents had reflected their willingness
to recommend the shop to others as they were fully satisfied with
the services provided and 37 percent had agreed to some what
recommend. Also 63.3 percent had deliberately revealed that they
do not have any plan to switch over to another shop. Thus a
majority of the respondents were highly contented with their own
shopping store and had decided to continue shopping in the same
store and recommend the same to others as well.
With regard to the mode of payment, it is evident from the
table that 69.3 percent of the respondents paid by cash and the
remaining 30.7 percent had paid through credit cards. Thus majority
of the respondents made direct cash payment, as the payment by
means of credit cards had not yet become popular amongst our
shoppers, especially among the womenfolk.
- 126 -
The collected data were analyzed with the help of Statistical
Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) which involves weighted
average, correlation analysis, Chi -square test, one- way ANOVA,
t-test, factor analysis and logistic regression in order to find the
satisfaction level with regard to several variables in all the five
dimensions.
- 127 -
Chart IV.b.1
Persons accompanied for shopping
34.8
33.3
26.2
5.7
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Alone With spouse With family With friends
Persons accompanied
Perc
en
tag
e
- 128 -
Chart IV.b.2
Reason for purchase in the shop
13.3
3.5
44
31.3
6
1.5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Large variety
of products
The service
provided is
good
Reasonable
price
Good store
environment
Parking
facility
Convenient
location
Reason
Perc
en
tag
e
- 129 -
23.8
63
10
3.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Perc
en
tag
e
Once Twice Thrice Frequently
No. of visits
Chart IV.b.3
Number of visits per month
- 130 -
Chart IV.b.4
Amount spent on purchase per visit
39
53.5
7.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Below Rs.500 Rs.500 – 1000 Above Rs.1000
Amount (in Rs.)
Perc
en
tag
e
- 131 -
Chart IV.b.5
Source through which the store was known
22.2
12.7
53.8
11.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Rel
ativ
es
Frien
ds
Nei
ghbours /
Colle
agues
Adve
rtis
emen
ts
Source
Perc
en
tag
e
- 132 -
IV.1. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION WITH REGARD TO
TANGIBLES
The physical facilities termed as tangibles are highly
influential in deciding the satisfaction of the customers. Especially,
the new customers are easily drawn by the attractive physical
appearance of the store.
The overall customer satisfaction level in the dimension of
tangibles like, the availability of modern looking equipment and
fixtures, visually attractive physical facilities and appealing
materials etc. were ranked by finding the weighted average of each
aspect and are tabulated below.
- 133 -
Table IV.1.1
Ranks of tangibles of service quality based on
level of satisfaction of the respondents
Aspect Mean Rank
Store has modern looking equipment and fixtures 3.51 XV
Physical facilities are attractive 3.54 XIII
Materials associated are visually appealing 3.71 VIII
Store has clean, attractive and convenient physical
facilities
3.29 XVI
Layout is easier for customers to find out what they
need
3.66 XI
Layout is easier for customers to move around 3.69 IX
Decoration of this store is attractive 3.89 III
Cleanliness and tidiness are important priorities of
this store
3.82 VI
Details of the products are neatly and correctly
displayed
3.72 VII
The store atmosphere is good and welcoming 3.99 I
Overall, this departmental store environment
stimulates purchase intention
3.65 XII
It is convenient to do one -stop shopping at this store 3.95 II
After purchasing in the departmental store, there is no
feeling of regret for having shopped there
3.88 IV
The outlet is professional and competent 3.84 V
The store provides play area for children 1.99 XVII
The store provides uninterrupted power supply by
having power generators
3.52 XIV
The store provides hygienic toilets and protected
drinking water
3.68 X
- 134 -
Tangibility of the store is one of the prime areas to be treated
with utmost care to gain customers ’ satisfaction. Though many
aspects were essential the respondents had given the highest
priority to the store’s atmosphere which was expected to be good
and welcoming. Secondly they had considered one stop shopping to
be a vital need as it avoids unnecessary transport and anxiety. On
the other hand the respondents were least bothered about the
availability of play area for children, as the children could be very
well attracted and made engaged with the design, decoration and
available commodities at the shopping centre.
In order to understand the overall satisfaction level with
respect to tangibles, a score of 5 was given for the response of
strongly agree, 4 for agree, 3 for some what agree, 2 for disagree
and 1 for strongly disagree. All the scores were added and
converted into percentage score and further, these scores were rated
as follows. A score of less than 40 was rated as poor, 41-59 as
average, 60 and above as good. The following table projects the
overall satisfaction level with regard to tangibles of the
departmental stores.
- 135 -
Table IV.1.2
Overall customer satisfaction with respect to tangibles
Satisfaction Level Percentage
Average 1.2
Good 98.8
Total 100.0
It is evident from the table that out of 600 respondents, 98.8
percent were fully satisf ied with the physical facilities of the
stores, and only 1.2 percent of the respondents had average level of
satisfaction. Hence it is vivid that large majority of the respondents
were highly satisfied with the tangibles of the store.
Table IV.1.3
Satisfaction level of respondents with regard to education
In order to understand the satisfaction level based on
educational qualification of the respondents , the following cross
tabulation is given.
Education
Satisfaction Level
Average Good
N % N %
Below 10th
0 0.0 64 100.0 r = -0.042
Sig. Val.= 0.306
(P > 0.05)
Not Significant
10th
-12th
0 0.0 166 100.0
Graduate 7 2.5 269 97.5
Post graduate 0 0.0 94 100.0
- 136 -
From the table above it was observed that irrespective of their
education level nearly 100 percent satisfaction existed among the
respondents. Only 2.5 percent of the under graduate respondents
had average satisfaction. As the correlation co -efficient turned out
to be not significant, level of education and satisfaction o n account
of tangibles do not correlate, which means the two aspects do not
influence each other. All categories of respondents look for
physical facilities and that is one aspect every shop should take
care of.
Thus, irrespective of their level of education almost all kinds
of respondents were well satisfied with the location and the
physical facilities available at the departmental stores.
Table IV.1.4
Income and satisfaction level of the respondents
In order to understand the satisfaction level based on the
income of the respondents the following cross tabulation was
worked out.
Monthly Income Average Good
N % N %
Rs. 5000-10000 3 2.8 105 97.2 r = -0.072
Sig. Val.= 0.080
P > 0.05
Not significant
Rs.10,001-20,000 4 0.9 430 99.1
Rs.20,001-30,000 0 0.0 56 100.0
Above Rs. 30000 0 0.0 2 100.0
- 137 -
From the above table it is clear that income was not a factor
that could influence the satisfaction level. All levels of people were
satisfied to the same extent, except for slight variation with respect
to the lowest income level (Rs.5000-10,000), where 2.8 percent had
only average level of satisfaction. As the correlation co-efficient is
not significant (> 0.05), the income of the respondents has no
relation to the level of satisfaction.
Thus, every category of income group was satisfied with the
physical facilities.
Table IV.1.5
Satisfaction level with regard to the members accompanying for shopping
Go for shopping Average Good
N % N %
Alone 4 1.9 205 98.1 2 = 3.459
Sig. Val.= 0.082
P > 0.05
Not Significant
With spouse 3 1.5 197 98.5
With family 0 0.0 157 100.0
With friends 0 0.0 34 100.0
The table portrays the satisfaction level of the respondents
who go shopping alone or with spouse, family or friends.
Respondents who shopped with family and friends were fully
contented than those who shopped alone or with spouse, but as 2
is not significant no association can be defined between the
satisfaction level and the respondents who were accompanied by
others for shopping.
- 138 -
Table IV.1.6
Satisfaction level with respect to the gender of the respondents
Gender Average Good
N % N %
Male 3 1.3 233 98.7
2 = 0.037
Sig. Val. = 0.0848
P > 0.05
Not Significant Female 4 1.1 360 98.9
The table above depicts the satisfaction level with respect to
the gender. The satisfaction level was good irrespective of the
gender. As the 2 value was not significant, no association could
be cited to the satisfaction level with the gender of the respondents.
Thus both male and female respondents were highly satisfied with
respect to the tangibles of the store.
- 139 -
Table IV.1.7
Level of satisfaction with respect to occupation of the
respondents
Occupation of the respondents plays a vital role in deciding
their satisfaction. The following tabulation lists down the
satisfaction level of different cadre of respondents.
Occupation Average Good
N % N %
Govt. Official 0 0.0 92 100.0
2 = 17.393
Sig. Val.= 0.004
P < 0.05
Significant
Businessman 0 0.0 99 100.0
Professional 3 4.7 61 95.3
Private employee 4 3.5 109 96.5
Housewife 0 0.0 190 100.0
Others 0 0.0 42 100.0
The significant result in 2 , confirmed a strong association
between the occupation of the respondents and their level of
satisfaction. Very few respondents employed in private sectors
(3.5%) and those who had taken up professional jobs (4.7%) had
average satisfaction and the rest mainly government employees,
business men and housewives were fully sat isfied with the physical
facilities of the store.
- 140 -
Table IV.1.8
Satisfaction level with respect to reason for selecting a particular shop
Reason for selecting a shop Average Good
N % N %
Large variety of products 0 0.0 80 100.0
2 = 15.522
Sig. Val. = 0.017
P < 0.05
Significant
The service provided is good 0 0.0 21 100.0
Reasonable price 0 0.0 264 100.0
Good store environment 7 3.7 181 96.3
Parking facility 0 0.0 36 100.0
Convenient location 0 0.0 9 100.0
Others 0 0.0 2 100.0
There might be many reasons for selecting a particular
departmental store. The significant value returned by the 2
analysis, affirmed a strong association between the
expectation/satisfaction level and the various reasons for purchase.
The majority of the respondents (44%) ranked the fixing of
reasonable price to be the prime cause for selecting a particular
departmental store and 181 respondents (31%) had prioritized the
availability of good store environment to be the prime cause. Few
others preferred the availability of more choices of products (80),
convenient parking (36), convenient location (9) and good service
extended at the departmental stores (21). A few respondents (7) had
average satisfaction with regard to the store environment. On the
whole the respondents had given more weightage for reasonable
price and good store environment while selecting a particular shop.
All the respondents, whatever might be the reason stated had full
- 141 -
satisfaction towards tangibles, except for 3.7 percent of the
respondents who preferred the shop for good store environment had
only average satisfaction level.
Table IV.1.9
Frequency of purchase in a month and level of satisfaction
of the respondents
Frequency of purchase Average Good
N % N %
Once 7 4.9 136 95.1 r = 0.35
Sig. Val.= 0.000
P < 0.05
Significant
Twice 0 0.0 378 100.0
Thrice 0 0.0 60 100.0
Frequently 0 0.0 10 100.0
The table above projects the satisfaction level of the
respondents with respect to their frequency of visit. From the
above correlation studies it was vivid that the frequency of
purchase had strong relation to the satisfaction level. The
respondents who purchased twice or more in a month were fully
(100%) satisfied than those who purchased only once a month as
4.9 percent of them had only average level of satisfaction.
Conversely, this can also be stated that, higher the satisfaction,
higher will be the number of visi ts as well!
- 142 -
Table IV.1.10
Satisfaction level of the respondents with regard to the amount spent
in one visit
Amount Spent Average Good
N % N %
Below Rs.500 7 3.0 227 97.0 r = 0.37
Sig. Val.= 0.003
P < 0.05
Significant
Rs.500 – 1000 0 0.0 321 100.0
Above Rs.1000 0 0.0 45 100.0
The above correlation table reflects a significant relation
between the level of satisfaction and the amount spent. The
respondents who purchased for more than Rs.500 seemed to be more
satisfied. This was because only those respondents who were
satisfied would intend to purchase more. 3 percent of the
respondents who had spent less than Rs.500 had only average
satisfaction level. Thus the level of satisfaction turned out to be
100 percent when the amount spent was greater than Rs.500 per
visit.
- 143 -
Table IV.1.11
Satisfaction level with respect to persons/media through which the
respondents got introduced to the shop
Source of
knowledge about
the shop
Average Good
N % N %
Relatives 0 0.0 133 100.0
2 = 6.074
Sig. Val.= 0.108
P > 0.05
Not Significant
Neighbours/
colleagues
7 2.2 316 97.8
Advertisements 0 0.0 68 100.0
Friends 0 0.0 76 100.0
The above table reflects the satisfaction level and the
respective sources of their knowledge about the shop. As per the
logical reasoning no association can be attributed to the dependence
of the satisfaction level with the person who introduced the shop or
the media through which they got introduced to the shop. The
satisfaction level of the respondents who had got introduced
through various means seemed to be good. The table portrays that
majority of the respondents had got introduced through their
neighbours or colleagues. As 2 is not significant, no association
could be defined between the satisfaction level and the
persons/media through which the respondents had got introduced to
the shop.
- 144 -
Table IV.1.12
Satisfaction level of respondents with regard to mode of payment
Mode of
payment
Average Good
N % N %
Cash 7 1.7 409 98.37 2= 3.133
Sig. Val. = 0.076
P > 0.05
Not significant
Credit cards 0 0 184 100.0
The above table shows the mode of payment of the
respondents. On the basis of 2 analysis no association could be
made for the satisfaction level with regard to the mode of payment
as expected logically. This revealed that almost all the respondents
were aware and highly satisfied with the physical aspects whether
they had made their payment through cash or credit cards.
Table IV.1.13
Association between the gender and their opinion to recommend
the shop to others
Gender/
Recommend
to others
Yes No
N % N % 2= 0.007
Sig. Val. = 0.502
P > 0.05
Not Significant
Male 87 36.9 149 63.1
Female 133 36.5 231 63.5
The above table shows the association between both the
gender and their opinion to recommend the shop to others. The
table reflects that no association could be stated between gender
- 145 -
and the responsibility of recommending the shop to others , as the
2 value turned out to be not significant.
Table IV.1.14
Association between educational qualification and the opinion to
recommend the shop to others
Education/
Recommend
to others
Yes No
N % N %
Below 10th
11 17.2 53 82.8 2 = 15.198
Sig. Val. = 0.002
P < 0.05
Significant
10th
-12th
70 42.2 96 57.8
Graduate 110 39.9 166 60.1
Post graduate 29 30.9 65 69.1
There exists a significant association between the educational
qualification and the decision to recommend the shop to others. In
spite of their educational qualification the respondents didn’t want
to take up the responsibility of recommending the shop to others.
Comparatively respondents with the educational qualification below
10th
had no strong opinion to recommend the shop to others.
- 146 -
Table IV.1.15
Association between income and the opinion to recommend
the shop to others
Monthly Income/
Recommend
to others
Yes No
N % N %
Rs.5,000-10,000 26 24.1 82 75.9 2 = 42.248
Sig. Val. = 0.000
P < 0.05
Significant
Rs.10,001-20,000 191 44.0 243 56.0
Rs.20,001-30,000 3 5.4 53 94.6
Above Rs.30,000 0 0.0 2 100.0
There existed a significant association between income and
opinion to recommend. The respondents with monthly income of
Rs.10,001-20,000 (44%) had decided to recommend and majority
with the higher-income level did not wish to recommend. Thus
higher the income, the more they didn’t want to recommend .
Table IV.1.16
Association between gender and occupation of the respondents
Gen
der
/
Occ
up
ati
on
.
Govt.
Off
icia
l
Bu
sin
essm
an
Pro
fess
ion
al
Pri
va
te
emp
loy
ee
Ho
use
wif
e
Oth
ers
Male 66
(28.0%)
87
(36.9%)
27
(11.4%)
39
(16.5%)
0
(0.00%)
17
(7.2%)
2= 252.937
Sig. Val
= 0.000
P <0.05
Significant
Female 26
(7.1%)
12
(3.3%)
37
(10.2%)
74
(20.3%)
190
(52.2%)
25
(6.9)
- 147 -
From the 2 analysis the significant value obtained showed a
good association between gender and their occupation. The male
respondents mostly were businessmen (36.9%) or Government
officials (28%). On the other hand most of the female respondents
were housewives (52.2%) or employed in the private sector
(20.3%).
Table IV.1.17
Association between gender and income level of the respondents
Gender/Income
(per month)
Rs.5000-
10000
Rs.10001-
20000
Rs.20001-
30000
Above
Rs.30000
Male 29
(12.3)
192
(81.4)
15
(6.4)
0
(0.00)
2 = 16.421
Sig.Val.= 0.01
P < 0.05
Significant
Female 79
(21.7)
242
(66.5)
41
(11.3)
2
(0.5)
2 analysis shows a significant association between gender
and income range. 81.4 percent of the male respondents earned
Rs.10001-20000 and 12.3 percent earned Rs.5000-10000. On the
other hand 66.5 percent female respondents earned Rs.10001-20000,
21.7 percent earned Rs.5000-10000 and 11.3 percent earned
Rs.20001-30000. The average income of the male respondents was
more compared to that of the female respondents.
- 148 -
Table IV.1.18
Association between gender and the reason to choose the shop
Gender/
Reason
for
selecting
a shop
La
rge
va
riet
y o
f p
rod
uct
s
Ser
vic
e is
go
od
Rea
son
ab
le p
rice
Go
od
sto
re e
nv
iro
nm
ent
Pa
rkin
g f
aci
lity
Co
nv
enie
nt
lo
cati
on
Oth
ers
Male 25
(10.6%)
4
(1.7%)
123
(52.1%)
78
(33.1%)
4
(1.7%)
2
(0.8%)
0
(0.0%)
2= 26.423
Sig.Val
= 0.000
P < 0.05
Significant
Female 55
(15.1%)
17
(4.1%)
141
(38.7%)
110
(30.2%)
32
(8.8%)
7
(1.9%)
2
(0.5%)
The above 2 analysis pictures a good association between
gender and the reason stated to prefer a particular shop over that of
the others. The order or priority of the reasons remains almost the
same irrespective of the gender. Both male (52.1%) and female
(38.7%) had stated reasonable price to be their primary priority,
followed by good store environment and more choice of product s.
Compared to males, females gave more importance for convenient
parking and services extended by the shop. Thus retail shops that
sold at reasonable price and had good environment attracted more
customers.
- 149 -
Table IV.1.19
Association between gender and members who accompany for shopping
Gender/Persons
accompanying for
shopping
Alo
ne
Sp
ou
se
Fa
mil
y
Fri
end
s
Male 65
(27.5%)
82
(34.7%)
77
(32.6%)
12
(5.1%)
2=12.607
Sig.Val.
= 0.006
P < 0.05
Significant
Female 144
(39.6%)
118
(32.4%)
(80)
(22.0%)
22
(6.0%)
2 analysis shows a significant association between gend er
and the members who accompanied them for shopping. 34.7
percent of the male shopped with their spouse, 32.6 percent with
their family, 27.5 percent shopped alone and 5.1 percent with
friends. With respect to females 39.6 percent shopped alone, 32.4
percent with their spouse, 22 percent with family and 6 percent with
their friends. Thus a majority of males shopped with spouse or
family and the majority of females went alone.
- 150 -
Table IV.1.20
Association between gender and the means through which they got
introduced to the shop
Gender/
Source of
knowledge about
the shop
Rel
ati
ves
Nei
gh
bo
urs
/
Co
llea
gu
es
Ad
ver
tise
men
ts
Fri
end
s
Male 52
(22.0%)
141
(59.7%)
22
(9.3%)
21
(8.9%)
2= 8.279
Sig.Val.
= 0.041
P < 0.05
Significant
Female 81
(22.3%)
182
(50.0%)
46
(12.6%)
55
(15.1%)
The above table reflects the association between gender and
by whom the respondents came to know about the shop. Males have
got introduced to the shop through neighbours/ colleagues (59.7%),
relatives (22.0%), advertisements (9.3%) and friends (8.9%). 50
percent of the female respondents had got introduced through
neighbours or colleagues, 22.3 percent through relatives, 12.6
percent through advertisements and 15.1 percent through friends.
Thus the majority of the respondents had got introduced through
neighbours or colleagues as people believe on others experience.
- 151 -
Table IV.1.21
Association between gender and mode of payment
Gender/Mode of
payment Cash Credit Cards
Male 152
(64.4%)
84
(35.6%)
2= 4.441
Sig.Val.
= 0.022
P < 0.05
Significant
Female 264
(72.5%)
100
(27.5%)
The table clearly shows that significant association prevails
between gender and mode of payment. Out of 600 respondents 152
(64.4 percent) males paid by cash and 84 of them used credit cards.
Among the female respondents 264 (72.5%) paid by cash and 100
(27.5%) of them paid through credit cards. Thus a majority of both
male and female respondents paid only by cash.
Table IV.1.22
ANOVA for satisfaction level between respondents of various age groups
Variable Age N Mean Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F
Age G1
G2
G3
G4
28
223
286
63
73.69
70.51
72.54
75.35
Between
groups
With in
groups
1352.69
20659.52
3
596
450.90
34.664
13.008 Sig. Val =
.000
P < 0.05
Significant
G1 = Upto 20 years G2 = 21-30 years G3 = 31- 40 years
G4= Above 40 years
- 152 -
As per the above table there is significant difference in
satisfaction level based on the various age groups with regard to
tangibles. It was observed that people in the age group of 40 and
above had higher satisfaction level compared to those of the other
age groups.
Table IV.1.23
ANOVA for satisfaction level between educational qualifications of
the respondents
Variable Education N Mean Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F
Educational
Qualification
G1
G2
G3
G4
64
166
276
94
74.70
71.27
72.12
71.95
Between
Groups
With in
Groups
548.75
21463.47
3
596
182.917
36.013 5.079
Sig. Val.
= 0.002
P < 0.05
Significant
G1 = Below 10th
G2 =10th
-12th
G3 = Graduate G4 = Post graduate
The above table reflects a significan t difference in the
satisfaction level between the respondents with various educational
qualifications. It was observed that people with qualification below
10th
standard had higher satisfaction level compared to others who
had higher educational qualification.
- 153 -
Table IV.1.24
ANOVA for satisfaction level between respondents of different occupation
Variable Occupation N Mean Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F
Occupation G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6
92
99
64
113
190
42
70.65
69.25
73.58
73.55
72.71
73.59
Between
Groups
With in
Groups
1532.24
20479.98
5
594
306.44
36.478 8.88
Sig. Val.
= 0.000
P < 0.05
Significant
G1= Govt. official G2 = Businessman G3 = Professional
G4 = Private employee G5 = House wife G6 = Others
There is significant difference in the satisfaction level based
on the kind of occupation of the respondents. It was observed that
people who were professionals (mean = 73.58) and people working
in other sectors (mean = 73.59) had higher satisfaction level in the
dimension of tangibles.
- 154 -
Table IV.1.25
ANOVA for satisfaction level between various income
groups of the respondents
Variable Income N Mean Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F
Monthly
Income
G1
G2
G3
G4
108
434
56
2
74.21
71.22
74.97
78.82
Between
Groups
With in
Groups
1371.30
20640.92
3
596
457.101
34.63
13.19
Sig. Val
= 0.000
P < 0.05
Significant
G1 = Rs.5000-10000 G2 = Rs.10001-20000
G3 = Rs.20001-30000 G4 = Above Rs.30000
The table depicts a significant difference in satisfaction level
between various income groups. It was observed that people who
had a monthly income above Rs.30,000 had higher satisfaction level
with regard to the physical facilities compared to those of the other
income groups.
- 155 -
Table IV.1.26
ANOVA for satisfaction level between number of members in the family
Variabl
e
No. of
family
member
s
N Mea
n
Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Squar
e
F
No. of
member
s
G1
G2
G73
34
9
24
2
9
71.91
72.34
75.29
Betwee
n
Groups
With in
Groups
117.505
21894.72
1
2
59
7
58.752
36.675
1.60
2
Sig. Val.
= 0.202
P > 0.05
Not
significan
t
G1 = 2 - 4 members G2 = 5 - 7 members G3 = Above 7 members
It was observed from the people who were from a large family
with more than 7 members had higher level of satisfaction with
respect to the aspect of tangibles compared to members hailing
from a small family. But as the result of ANOVA was not
significant, there was no difference in satisfaction level based on
the number of members in the family.
Table IV.1.27
ANOVA for satisfaction level between the respondents who were
accompanied for shopping by different people
Variable Persons
accompanied
N Mean Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F
Often go
for
shopping
G1
G2
G3
G4
209
200
157
34
70.86
73.12
71.59
76.60
Between
Groups
With in
Groups
1260.892
20751.334
3
596
420.297
34.818 12.071
Sig. Val.
= 0.000
P < 0.05
Significant
- 156 -
G1= Alone G2 = With spouse G3 = With family G4 =With friends
- 157 -
From the above table there is significant difference in
satisfaction level based on the persons who accompanied the
respondents for shopping. It was observed that people who were
accompanied for shopping by their friends had higher satisfaction
level.
Table IV.1.28
ANOVA for satisfaction level between the respondents reason
for selecting a particular shop
Variabl
e
Reason
for
purchas
e
N Mea
n
Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F
Reason
for
purchas
e
G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6
G7
80
.21
26
4
18
8
36
9
2
73.66
72.26
73.57
69.21
71.96
77.64
72.94
Betwee
n
Groups
With in
Groups
2619.527
19392.69
9
6
59
3
436.58
8
32.703
13.35
0
Sig.Val.
= 0.000
P < 0.05
Significan
t
G1 = Large variety of products G2 = The service provided is good
G3 = Reasonable price G4 = Good store environment
G5 = Parking facility G6 = Convenient location
G7 = Others
The above table reflects a significant difference in the
satisfaction level between the reasons for selecting a particular
shop for purchase. The satisfaction level with regard to tangibles
- 158 -
was high for the respondents who had selected the shop for
convenient location than those with various other reasons.
- 159 -
Table IV.1.29
ANOVA for satisfaction level between the respondents
frequency of purchase
Variable Frequency
of
purchase
N Mean Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F
Frequency
of
purchase
G1
G2
G3
G4
143
378
60
19
70.64
72.32
74.82
71.086
Between
Groups
With in
Groups
785.901
21226.325
3
596
261.997
35.615
7.356
Sig. Val. =
0.000
P < 0.05
Significant
G1 = Once G2 = Twice G3 = Thrice G4 = Frequently
There exists a significant difference in the satisfaction l evel
based on the frequency of purchase. It was observed that people
who had gone for purchase thrice a month had higher level of
satisfaction in dimension of tangibles.
Table IV.1.30
ANOVA for satisfaction level between amounts spent on
purchase by the respondents
Variable
Amount
spent
N Mean Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F
Amount
spent on
purchase
G1
G2
G3
234
321
45
71.46
71.96
76.86
Between
Groups
With in
Groups
1119.437
20892.789
2
597
559.719
34.996
15.994
Sig. Val. =
0.000
P < 0.05
Significant
G1 = Below Rs.500 G2 = Rs.500 - 1000 G3 = Above Rs. 1000
- 160 -
It is clear from the above table that there is significant
difference in the satisfaction level based on the amount spent on
purchase. It was observed that people who had spent more than
Rs.1000 had higher satisfaction level with regard to tangibles.
Table IV.1.31
ANOVA for satisfaction level between persons/media through which the
respondents got introduced to the shop
Variable Introduced
by
N Mean Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F
Got
introduced
to the shop
G1
G2
G3
G4
133
323
68
76
73.92
70.91
73.49
72.97
Between
Groups
With in
Groups
1081.276
20930.95
3
596
360.425
35.119 10.263
Sig. Val
= 0.000
P < 0.05
Significant
G1 = Relatives G2 = Neighbours/Colleagues G3 = Advertisements
G4 = Friends
As per the above table there is a significant difference in the
satisfaction level between persons/media through which the
respondents got introduced to the shop. It is evident from the table
that the respondents who had got introduced through their relatives
had high level of satisfaction level. Also those who got introduced
through advertisements had the same footing of satisfaction level.
- 161 -
Table IV.1.32
t-test for comparing satisfaction level between gender
In order to compare the tangibles satisfaction score between
two groups, independent t-test was used. The results of the
independent t- test are given below.
Gender N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
Mean
t df Sig.
Male 236 71.4407 6.26072 0.40754 -2.24 598 0.023
Female 364 72.5889 5.89445 0.30895
From the above table the percentage score differs
significantly between genders. It reflects a h igher level of
satisfaction for the female respondents than that of the male
respondents.
Table IV.1.33
t- test for comparing satisfaction between mode of payment
Mode of
Payment
N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
t df
Cash 416 72.1295 6.05777 0.29701
-0.047 598 0.963 Credit
Cards
184 72.1547 6.08819 0.44883
From the above table it is clear that percentage score did not
differ significantly between modes of payment. Thus the
satisfaction level did not vary between respondents who paid by
cash or through credit cards.
- 162 -
Table IV.1.34
t- test comparing satisfaction level between
switching over to other shop
Opinion N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
t df
Yes 220 69.8449 4.73746 0.31940 -7.353 598 0.000
No 380 73.4644 6.34782 0.32564
The above t-test table clearly exhibits that the percentage
score differs significantly (P<0.05) between the opinion of
switching over to other shop and satisfaction level. The persons
with high satisfaction level did not have an opinion to switch over
to another shop.
Factor Analysis for the Dimension of Tangibles
In factor analysis the dimension of the var iables were reduced
to a few and are considered for the factor analysis. The results of
the factor analysis are given below.
Table IV.1.35
KMO and Bartlett’s test for Tangibles
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy 0.735
Bartlett’s Test of Approx. Chi-Square
Sphericity df
Sig.
1281.079
136
0.000
- 163 -
From the above KMO and Bartlett’s test the researcher
observed that the factor analysis is an appropriate one for the data
chosen, namely for the physical facilities .
Table IV.1.36
Rotated Component Matrix for Tangibles
Aspect f1 f2 f3 f4 f5 f6 f7
Store is looking modern 0.693 0.098 -0.049 -0.064 0.023 0.059 -0.022
Physical facilities are
attractive
0.718 -0.117 0.071 0.096 0.103 0.186 -0.119
Materials associated are
visually appealing
0.225 0.238 0.209 -0.253 0.492 -0.123 0.182
Store has clean, attractive and
convenient physical facilities
0.302 0.255 0.263 0.154 0.214 -0.023 -0.019
Layout is easier for customers
to find out what they need
0.264 0.582 0.017 0.324 0.021 0.208 0.065
Layout is easier for customers
to move around
0.308 0.576 0.145 0.077 -0.280 -0.372 -0.116
Decoration of this store
attracts to do shopping there.
-0.035 -0.243 0.393 0.545 0.091 0.034 -0.331
Cleanliness and tidiness are
important priorities of this
store
0.149 0.053 0.149 0.465 0.417 -0.071 0.127
Details of the products are
neatly and correctly displayed
0.277 -0.154 0.612 0.044 -0.070 -0.281 -0.039
Departmental store
atmosphere is good and
welcoming
0.015 -0.014 -0.108 0.075 0.839 0.015 -0.102
Overall the departmental store
environment can stimulate
purchase intention
-0.143 0.764 -0.045 -0.174 0.169 0.130 -0.063
It is convenient to do one stop
shopping at this store
-0.092 -0.099 -0.009 0.104 -0.001 0.041 0.898
After purchasing, there is no
feeling of regret for having
shopped there.
-0.053 0.078 -0.064 -0.762 -0.070 -0.040 0.092
The outlet is considered
professional and competent.
0.033 0.040 -0.618 0.394 0.172 -0.379 0.061
The store provides play area
for children.
0.254 0.137 -0.024 -0.031 -0.071 0.838 0.019
The store provides
uninterrupted power supply by
having power generators.
0.533 0.263 0.312 -0.140 0.044 -0.085 0.372
The store provides hygienic
toilets protected drinking
water.
-0.086 0.352 0.639 0.332 0.173 0.027 0.133
Eigen value 2.639 1.710 1.453 1.261 1.186 1.180 1.071
% of Variance 10.553 10.073 9.411 9.293 8.055 7.027 6.951
- 164 -
From the above rotated component matrix the primary factor
consisting of the variables such as modern looking store, physical
facilities and uninterrupted power supply which together accounts
for 10.55 percent of variance. Therefore this factor (f1 ), could be
labeled as attractive and convenient physical facilities. The second
factor consisting of variables such as easier layout, easier to move
around, and the overall store environment which together accounts
for 10.07 percent of variance. This factor (f2) can be labeled as
store environment factor. Factor three consisting of the variables
like proper display of products and the availability of hygienic
toilets and protected drinking water together accounts for 9.41
percent of the variance and could be labeled as professional
competency of the store. The fourth factor consisting o f the
variable, decoration of the store, accounts for 9.29 percent of
variance. The atmosphere being good and welcoming constitutes the
fifth factor and accounts for 8.05 percent of variance. The sixth
factor consisting of the variable availability of play area for
children, accounts for 7.02 percent of variance. One -stop shopping
is the seventh factor which accounts for 6.95 percent of variance.
Logistic Regression
Logistic Regression is used when the response variable is
binary. For example in a binary value 1 and 0, 1 may represent
success, 0 may represent failure. In this study 1 represents good
level of satisfaction and 0 represent s poor level of satisfaction.
Here in the dimension of tangibles, a percentage score of 80 and
- 165 -
above was taken as good level of satisfaction. (1), while a score of
below 80 was taken to be poor satisfaction level (0). The
independent variables considered in the analysis were age, sex,
occupation, income, family size, frequency of shopping and
preference for the shop. The results of the logistic regression are
given below.
Table IV.1.37
Classification Table
Observed
Predicted
Level of tangibles Percentage
Corrected
Low
level
High
Level
Level of
tangibles
Low Level 520 9 98.3
High
Level
63 8 11.3
Overall Percentage 88.0
From the above table it is observed that logistic r egression
classifies data corrected to the extent of 88 percent reflecting high
level of satisfaction with regard to the dimension of tangibles.
- 166 -
Table IV.1.38
Variables in the Equation for Tangibles
B S.E Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
Age 0.149 0.201 0.549 1 0.459 1.161
Gender -1.163 0.347 11.260 1 0.001 0.312
Education 0.025 0.163 0.023 1 0.880 1.025
Occupation 0.504 0.124 16.399 1 0.000 1.655
Income -0.828 0.290 8.148 1 0.004 0.437
Family Size 1.191 0.256 21.724 1 0.000 3.291
Persons accompanying
for shopping
0.300 0.146 4.244 1 0.039 1.350
Preference for the shop -0.427 0.117 13.347 1 0.000 0.652
Constant -2.193 1.074 4.174 1 0.041 0.112
From the above table the variables such as gender ,
occupation, income, family size , persons accompanying for
shopping and preference for the shop were found to be significant,
which shows that these variables are deciding the satisfaction level
with regard to the dimension of tangibles.
It is seen that the family size and occupation level increases
the good level of satisfaction. As the family size and occupation
level increases the good level of satisfaction increases more than 3
times and 1.5 times respectively .
While on the other hand, gender, income level and preference
for the shop reduce the good level of satisfaction to a greater extent
which means that these variables need to be carefully attended to by
the departmental stores to increase the satisfaction level of the
customers towards physical facilities of the store.
- 167 -
IV.2. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION REGARDING
RELIABILITY
The dimension of reliability includes fulfilling the promise
and performing the right service at the right time, which is another
important concern capable of greatly perturbing the customer
satisfaction.
The overall customer satisfaction level in the dimension of
reliability such as availability of merchandise, low price products,
quick service, error free sales transactions etc. were ranked by
evaluating the weighted average of each aspect and are tabulated
below.
- 168 -
Table IV.2.1
Ranks of reliability of service quality based on the level of
satisfaction of the respondents
Aspect Mean Rank
Whenever the store promises to do something (such as repairs,
alteration) within a certain time, it will do so
3.58 XIII
The store extends its services at the time it promises to do so 3.57 XIV
The store reforms the service right from the first time 3.78 VI
The store has merchandise available when the customers want it 3.93 II
The store insists on error-free sales transactions and records 3.88 IV
Store receives suggestions with due respect from the customers 3.69 IX
Store provides door delivery facility on request 3.38 XVI
Customer’s properties are taken care by the stores at free of cost. 3.61 XII
No hidden prices 3.55 XV
Prices of the product offered are less than the MRP to some extent 3.96 I
Updating the prices are done by the stores at the appropriate time 3.64 X
Bills for the products are given promptly 3.73 VIII
Store has more payment counters favoring speedy disposal of
customers
3.81 V
There is no need to wait for long time to get the service 3.90 III
The overall service at this store is good 3.78 VI
The service quality of this outlet is acceptable 3.63 XI
Reliability is to be monitored very frequently as it is one of
the important aspects required to maintain the customer strength or
to attract more number of customers. While prioritizing the various
aspects of reliability the respondents had ranked first, th e offering
of the prices less than the MRP. Secondly almost majority of the
respondents were satisfied with the merchandise available when the
customers wanted. At the same time the respondents were least
- 169 -
worried about the hidden prices or the availabilit y of door delivery
facility.
The overall satisfaction level with respect to the dimension of
reliability was worked out following a similar scoring scheme as
explained in the dimension of tangibles.
Table IV.2.2
Overall customer satisfaction in the dimension of reliability
Satisfaction Level Percentage
Average 0.3
Good 99.7
Total 100.0
The above table reflects the overall satisfaction level of the
respondents with respect to the dimension of reliability of
departmental stores. It is clearly exhibited from the table that out of
600 respondents, 99.7 percent of the respondents were fully
satisfied and only 0.3 percent of the respondents had average level
of satisfaction. Hence a large majority of the total respondents were
highly satisfied with the dimension of reliability.
- 170 -
Table IV.2.3
Satisfaction level of respondents with regard to education
The table below portrays the variation of satisfaction level
with regard to reliability between the respondents with various
levels of education.
Education Average Good
N % N %
Below 10th
std. 0 0.0 64 100.0
r = -0.022
Sig. Val.= 0.586
P > 0.05
Not significant
10th
-12th
std. 0 0.0 166 100.0
Graduate 2 0.7 274 99.3
Post graduate 0 0.0 94 100.00
It is evident from the above table that irrespective of the
education level, 100 percent satisfaction prevailed among the
respondents. Only 0.7 percent of the undergraduate respondents had
average satisfaction. As the correlation co -efficient turned out to be
not significant, no relation could be stated b etween the level of
education and satisfaction on account of reliability.
Thus irrespective of the education level many were satisfied
with regard to reliability and no explicit relation can be stated
between the satisfaction level and level of education of the
respondents.
- 171 -
Table IV.2.4
Satisfaction level of the respondents with regard to income
Monthly Income Average Good
N % N %
Rs.5,000-10,000 2 1.9 106 98.1 r = 0.101
Sig. Val.= 0.014
P < 0.05
Significant
Rs.10,001-20,000 0 0.0 434 100.0
Rs.20,001-30,000 0 0 56 100.0
Above Rs.30,000 0 0 2 100.0
The income is possibly a prime factor in deciding the
satisfaction level with regard to the dimension of reliability, as the
natural tendency of higher income group is to purchase higher
quality products which ultimately may be a more reliable one. From
the table it was observed that there was a significant relation
between income and the satisfaction level of the customers. There
existed a direct proportionality between the monthly income and the
satisfaction level. The lowest income groups had considerably
lesser satisfaction than those who had higher income. 1.9 per cent
of the respondents with monthly income between Rs . 5,000 and
Rs. 10,000 had average satisfaction level, whereas the responden ts
with monthly income greater than Rs.10,000 had 100 percent
satisfaction with regard to reliability. Thus except the lower income
group the other income groups were fully satisfied.
- 172 -
Table IV.2.5
Satisfaction level with regard to the members accompanyi ng for
shopping
Go for shopping Average Good
N % N %
Alone 0 0.0 209 100.0 2 = 33.405
Sig. Val.= 0.000
P < 0.05
Significant
With spouse 0 0.0 200 100.0
With family 0 0.0 157 100.0
With friends 2 5.9 32 94.1
The 2 analysis returning a significant value, reveals that the
satisfaction level is dependent on the members accompanying for
shopping, depending upon how the shop caters to the need of the
members accompanied too. Respondents who shopped alone or with
spouse or family were fully satisfied (100%), whereas only 94.1
percent of the members, who shopped with their friends, had high
level of satisfaction. Thus except a few respondents who shop ped
with their friends others who shopped alone, with spouse or with
family were highly contented with respect to the dimension of
reliability.
Table IV.2.6
Satisfaction level with respect to the gender of the respondents
Gender Average Good
N % N %
Male 2 0.8 234 99.2 2 = 3.095
Sig. Value = 0.079
P > 0.05
Not significant
Female 0 0.0 364 100.0
- 173 -
The above table is worked out to determine the association
between the satisfaction level and gender with regard to the
dimension of reliability. Out of 600 respondents , 99.2 percent (234)
of the male respondents and 100 percent (364) of the female
respondents, had higher satisfaction level. The 2 value turned out
to be not significant. Thus both the genders were satisfied and no
association could be defined to the satisfaction level with the
gender of the respondents.
Table IV.2.7
Satisfaction level with respect to occupation of the respondents
Occupation Average Good
N % N %
Govt. Official 0 0.0 92 100.0
2 = 16.806
Sig. value= 0.05
P < 0.05
Significant
Businessman 0 0.0 99 100.0
Professional 2 3.1 62 96.9
Private employee 0 0.0 113 100.0
Housewife 0 0.0 190 100.0
Others 0 0.0 42 100.0
The significant value returned by 2
analysis confirmed a
strong association between the occupation of the respondents and
their satisfaction level. With regard to reliability, except the
respondents who had taken professional jobs, all the others with
varied occupation listed in the table were fully satisfied. The table
data prompts that only 3.1 percent of the professional people had
average satisfaction.
- 174 -
Table IV.2.8
Satisfaction level with respect to reason for
selecting a particular shop
Reason for selecting
a shop
Average Good
N % N %
Large variety of products 0 0.0 80 100.0
2 = 4.398
Sig.Val = 0.623
P > 0.05
Not significant
The service provided is good 0 0.0 21 100.0
Reasonable price 0 0.0 264 100.0
Good store environment 2 1.1 186 98.9
Parking facility 0 0.0 36 100.0
Convenient location 0 0.0 8 100.0
Others 0 0.0 2 100.0
The above table reflects the satisfaction level with regard to
reliability among the respondents who had chosen the retail shop
for specific reasons. Almost all the respondents had a higher level
of satisfaction with respect to reliability. As the 2 value turned
out to be not significant, the satisfaction level of the respondents
was not dependent on the primary reason for selecting a particular
retail shop.
- 175 -
Table IV.2.9
Satisfaction level with respect to frequency of
purchase in a month
Frequency of purchase in a
month
Average Good
N % N %
Once 0 0.0 143 100.0 r = -0.006
Sig. Val.= 0.876
P > 0.05
Not significant
Twice 2 5.0 378 99.5
Thrice 0 0.0 60 100.0
Frequently 0 0.0 19 100.0
The table portrays the satisfaction level of respondents with
regard to the aspect of reliability between the respondents who shop
with different frequency. Out of the total respondents only a few
(5%) respondents who shopped twice had the average level of
satisfaction. As correlation co-efficient turned out to be not
significant no relation could be drawn between satisfaction level
and the frequency of purchase in a month by the respondents.
Table IV.2.10
Satisfaction level of the respondents with regard to the
amount spent in one visit
Amount Spent Average Good
N % N %
Below Rs.500 2 0.9 232 99.1 r = 0.666
Sig. Val.= 0.109
P > 0.05
Not significant
Rs.500 – 1000 0 0.0 321 100.0
Above Rs.1000 0 0.0 45 100.0
- 176 -
The above table reflects the satisfaction level of the
respondents with regard to the amount spent. Those respondents
who had spent more than Rs.500 had higher satisfaction level and
only 0.9 percent of the respondents who had spent less than Rs.500
had average level of satisfaction. The correlation analysis makes it
vivid that no relation can be traced between the satisfaction level
and the amount spent in a week with regard to the dimension of
reliability.
Table IV.2.11
Satisfaction level with respect to persons/media th rough which
the respondents got introduced to the shop
Source of knowledge
about the shop
Average Good
N % N %
Relatives 0 0.0 133 100.0
2 = 15.699
Sig.Val = 0.346
P > 0.05
Not significant
Neighbours/
Colleagues
0 0.0 323 100.0
Advertisements 2 2.9 66 97.1
Friends 0 0.0 76 100.0
The above table was worked out to study the satisfaction level
of respondents who got introduced to the shop through various
means with respect to reliability. Those who got introduced through
relatives, neighbours/colleagues and friends had 100 percent
satisfaction, whereas out of 68 respondents, who came to know
about the shop through advertisements 66 (97.1%) were fully
satisfied and only 2 respondents (2.9 %), had average satisfaction
- 177 -
with regard to the dimension of reliability. As the 2 value turned
out to be not significant, no explicit association could be defined
between the satisfaction level of the respondents and the source
through which they got introduced to the shop.
Table IV.2.12
Satisfaction level of the respondents with regard to
mode of payment
Mode of payment Average Good
N % N %
Cash 2 0.5 414 99.5 2= 0.888
Sig.Val = 0.346
P > 0.05
Not significant
Credit cards 0 0.0 184 100.0
The above table reflects the satisfaction level of the
respondents whose mode of payment is through cash or through
credit cards. Except 2 of the respondents who paid by cash , all the
respondents were fully satisfied with the aspect of reliability. From
the 2 analysis, as the significant value is greater than 0.05, no
association can be made for the satisfaction level with the mode of
payment. Thus mode of payment did not influence the satisfaction
level of the respondents.
- 178 -
Table IV.2.13
ANOVA for Satisfaction level between respondents of
various age groups
Variable Age N Mean Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F
Age G1
G2
G3
G4
28
223
286
63
71.91
72.33
75.66
75.47
Between
Groups
With in
Groups
1639.16
21185.941
3
596
546.387
35.547
15.371
Sig.
value=
0.000
P < 0.05
Significant
G1 = Upto 20 years G2 = 21-30 years G3 = 31- 40 years G4 = Above 40 years
The above ANOVA table reflects the satisfaction level
between various age groups of the respondents. Since the above
table shows that P is less than 0.05, there is a significant difference
with regard to the satisfaction level based on the age groups. The
respondents who were of 31 to 40 years and above 40 years by age
were highly satisfied with the dimension of reliability, thus put
together it can be quoted respondents of age above 30 years were
highly satisfied.
Table IV.2.14
ANOVA for satisfaction level between educational qualifications
of the respondents
Variable Education N Mean Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F
Educational
Qualification
G1
G2
G3
G4
64
166
276
94
74.29
73.83
74.66
73.60
Between
Groups
With in
Groups
116.624
22708.478
3
596
38.875
38.101
1.020
Sig. val=
0.383
P > 0.05
Not
significant
G1 = Below 10th
G2 = 10th
-12th
G3 = Graduate G4 = Post graduate
- 179 -
The above table was devised to work out the difference in
satisfaction level within respondents with varying educational
qualifications. As the ANOVA test reflects to be not significant no
difference in satisfaction level could be explained with the
variation in educational qualification of the respondents.
Table IV.2.15
ANOVA for satisfaction level between respondents
of different occupation
Variable Occupation N Mean Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F
Occupation G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6
92
99
64
113
190
42
72.14
71.54
77.10
76.61
74.69
72.00
Between
Groups
With in
Groups
2517.876
20307.225
5
594
503.575
34.187
14.73
Sig. val=
0.000
P < 0.05
Significant
G1 = Government Official G2 = Businessman G3 = Professional
G4 = Private employee G5 = House wife G6 = Others
The occupation undertaken by the respondents may put forth a
level of expectation with regard to the reliability, which each and
every shop may or may not satisfy. The above table shows that
there is significant difference in the satisfaction l evel of the
respondents based on their level of occupation that they undertake.
It also reveals that the respondents who were professionals (mean =
77.10) and private employees (mean = 76.61) were highly satisfied
with respect to the dimension of reliabili ty.
- 180 -
Table IV.2.16
ANOVA for satisfaction level between various income
groups of the respondents
Variable Income N Mean Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F
Monthly
Income
G1
G2
G3
G4
108
434
56
2
74.84
73.61
77.72
76.25
Between
Groups
With in
Groups
895.767
21929.334
3
596
298.589
36.794
8.115
Sig. val=
0.000
P < 0.05
Significant
G1= Rs.5,000-10,000 G2 = Rs.10,001-20,000
G3 = Rs.20,001-30,000 G4 = Above Rs.30,000
The above ANOVA table portrays a significant difference in
the satisfaction level between the various income groups. It reflects
that the higher level income groups say those with a monthly
income between Rs.20,001-30,000 (mean = 77.72) and above
Rs.30,000 (mean = 76.25) had higher satisfaction. Hence the higher
monthly income group (Above Rs.20,000) were highly satisfied
with the dimension of reliability.
Table IV.2.17
ANOVA for satisfaction level between number of members in the family
Variable No. of family
members
N Mean Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F
No of
family
members
G1
G2
G3
349
242
9
74.09
74.23
79.58
Between
Groups
With in
Groups
264.745
22560.356
2
597
132.373
37.790
3.503
Sig. valu=
0.031
P < 0.05
Significant
G1= 2 - 4 members G2 = 5 - 7 members G3 = Above 7 members
- 181 -
The above table shows a significant difference in satisfaction
level in the aspect of reliability based on the number of members in
the family. It was vivid that respondents from a large family with
more than 7 members had higher level of satisfaction with respect
to reliability than those from a small family.
Table IV.2.18
ANOVA for satisfaction level between the respondents who were
accompanied by different people for shopping
Variable Persons
Accompanied
N Mean Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F
Often go for
shopping
G1
G2
G3
G4
209
200
157
34
73.67
75.43
73.23
75.14
Between
Groups
With in
Groups
540.055
22825.102
3
596
180.018
37.391
4.814
Sig. Val=
0.003
P < 0.05
Significant
G1= Alone G2 = With spouse G3 = With family G4 =With friends
From the above table there is s ignificant difference in the
satisfaction level based on the persons accompanied for shopping
with respect to the dimension of reliability. The respondents those
who shopped with their spouse (mean = 75.43) and with their
friends (mean = 75.14) were highly satisfied compared to those who
shopped alone and with their family with regard to the dimension of
reliability.
- 182 -
Table IV.2.19
ANOVA for satisfaction level between the respondents reason
for selecting a particular shop
Variable Reason for
selecting a
shop
N Mean Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F
Reason for
selecting a
shop
G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6
G7
80
.21
264
188
36
9
2
75.14
75.11
75.30
72.00
74.20
78.75
76.25
Between
Groups
With in
Groups
1507.196
21317.906
6
593
251.199
35.949
6.988
Sig. Val=
0.000
P < 0.05
Significant
G1 = Large variety of products G2 = The service provided is good
G3 = Reasonable price G4 = Good store environment
G5 = Parking facility G6 = Convenient location
G7 = Others
The above ANOVA test was performed to learn the
satisfaction level of the respondents with different reasons for
selecting a particular shop with respect to the dimension of
reliability. The above table clearly shows a significant difference in
the satisfaction level and the respondents who had selected the shop
for convenient location were highly satisfied with the dimension of
reliability.
- 183 -
Table IV.2.20
ANOVA for satisfaction level between the respondents
frequency of purchase
Variable Frequency of
purchase
N Mean Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F
Frequency of
purchase
G1
G2
G3
G4
143
378
60
19
71.77
74.34
78.47
77.10
Between
Groups
With in
Groups
2107.368
20717.73
3
596
702.456
34.761
20.208
Sig. Val=
0.000
P < 0.05
Significant
G1 = Once G2 = Twice G3 = Thrice G4 = Frequently
The table clearly shows that there is significant difference in
the satisfaction level based on frequency of shopping with respect
to the dimension of reliability. It was observed that people those
who shopped thrice (mean = 78.47) and frequently
(mean = 77.10) had higher level of satisfaction. Conversely we can
also state that those respondents who were highly satisfied with
reliability do shop frequently in the same shop.
Table IV.2.21
ANOVA for satisfaction level between amount spent on pur chase
Variable Amount
spent
N Mean Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F
Amount spent
on purchase
G1
G2
G3
234
321
45
73.85
73.55
81.02
Between
Groups
With in
Groups
2259.84
20565.25
2
597
1129.92
34.44
32.80 Sig. Val=
0.000
P < 0.05
Significant
G1 = Below Rs.500 G2 = Rs.500-1000 G3 = Above Rs. 1000
The above table pictures that there is significant difference in
the satisfaction level of the respondents based on the amount spent
- 184 -
for purchase per visit in the dimension of reliability. It wa s
observed that people who purchased for more than Rs.1000 (mean =
81.02) per visit had higher level of satisfaction in the dimension of
reliability.
Table IV.2.22
ANOVA for satisfaction level between persons/media through
which the respondents got introduced to the shop
Variable Introduced
by
N Mean Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F
Got introduced
to the shop
G1
G2
G3
G4
133
323
68
76
75.23
73.53
74.90
74.83
Between
Groups
With in
Groups
350.245
22474.85
3
596
116.748
37.709
3.096
Sig. Val=
0.026
P < 0.05
Significant
G1 = Relatives G2 = Neighbours/Colleagues G3 = Advertisements G4 = Friends
From the above table there is significant difference in the
satisfaction level between the respondents who had known the shop
through various means in the dimension of reliability. It is observed
that the respondents who had come to know about the shop through
their relatives (mean = 75.23) and through advertisements (mean =
74.90) had high level of satisfaction. Also those who got
introduced through friends (mean = 74.80) had similar level of
satisfaction.
- 185 -
Table IV.2.23
t– test for comparing satisfaction level between gender
Gender N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
Mean
t df
Male 236 73.1250 6.54922 0.42632 -3.569 598 Sig.
Val=0.000
P < 0.05
Significant
Female 364 74.9485 5.81376 0.30472 -3.480 458.920
From the above table, percentage score differs significantly
between genders. It reflects a higher percentage level of
satisfaction for the female respondents than male, and the deviation
in opinion was less for the data responded by females.
Table IV.2.24
t - test for comparing satisfaction level between mode of
payment
Mode of
Payment
N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
t df
Cash 416 73.9934 6.01305 0.29481 -1.420 598 Sig.
Val=0.156
P > 0.05
Not significant
Credit
Cards
184 74.7690 6.50486 0.47954 -1.378 348.863
The above table clearly shows that the percentage score did
not differ significantly between the modes of payment with regard
to the dimension of reliability. Thus, mode of payment remained
immaterial to decide on the satisfaction level with regard to
reliability .
- 186 -
Factor analysis for the dimension of reliability
Few variables in the dimension of reliability are considered
for the factor analysis and the results are as fo llows.
Table IV.2.25
KMO and Bartlett’s Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy 0.569
Bartlett’s Test of Approx. Chi-Square
Sphericity df
Sig.
1593.208
120
0.000
From the above KMO and Bartlett’s Test it is observed that the
factor analysis is appropriate for the data chosen.
- 187 -
Table IV.2.26
Rotated Component Matrix
Aspect f1 F2 f3 f4 f5 f6
Whenever this store promises to do something
(such as repairs, alteration) within a certain
time, it will do so
-0.95 0.135 -0.086 0.817 -0.084 0.089
The store extends its new services at the
time it promises to do so
-0.010 0.036 0.690 0.244 0.185 -0.030
The store reforms the service right from
the first time
-0.060 0.064 0.81 -0.27 0.773 0.191
The store has merchandise available when the
customers want it
0.534 0.024 -0.264 -0.53 0.386 0.095
The store insists on error-free sale transactions
and records
0.747 -0.043 0.133 0.119 -0.294 -0.061
Store receives suggestions with due respect
from the customers
-0.072 0.486 0.101 0.136 0.470 0.010
Store provides door delivery facility on request -0.255 0.692 -0.051 0.200 0.213 -0.032
Customer’s properties are taken care by
the stores at free of cost.
-0.059 0.662 0.317 -0.075 -0.074 0.121
No hidden prices 0.158 0.654 0.008 -0.060 -0.019 -0.065
Prices of the product offered are less than the
MRP to some extent
0.691 -0.193 -0.287 0159 0.154 -0.038
Updating the prices are done by the stores at the
appropriate time
0.015 -0.111 0.365 0.413 0.553 -0422
Bills for the products are given promptly -0.293 -0.060 0.177 0.241 0.183 0.621
Store has more payment counters favoring
speedy disposal of customers
0.166 0.012 0.077 -0.022 0.041 0.829
Need not wait for long time to get the service
that is asked for
0.171 -0.052 0.104 0.600 0.035 0.012
The overall service at this store is good 0.546 0.340 0.382 -0.069 -0.109 0.137
The service quality of this outlet is acceptable
by the customers
-0.052 0.202 0.710 -0.166 0.018 0.302
Eigen value 2.584 1.852 1.649 1.374 1.361 1.038
% of Variance 11.730 11.377 10.028 9.972 9.518 8.599
- 188 -
In the rotated component matrix, the primary factor
consisting of the variables of error free transactions, prices of the
products being less than MRP together constitutes to the good
overall service with regard to rel iability and it accounts for a
variance of 11.73 percent. The second factor consisting of the
variables of door delivery, taking care of customer’s properties and
no hidden prices which can be termed as the ease or convenience
offered by the retailers for shopping accounts for a variance of
11.38 percent. The third factor consisting of the variables of
providing new services on time and acceptable service quality
together accounts for 10.03 percent of variance. The fourth factor
consisting of variables of rendering service as promised within the
time limits and quick service without wasting the time together
which can be termed as time management accounts for variance of
9.97 percent. The fifth factor consisting of the variable of
reforming the service periodically accounts for a variance of 9.52
percent. The sixth factor consisting of the variables of more number
of payment counters favouring speedy disposal and prompt delivery
of bills can be termed as prompt billing modes which accounts for a
variance of 8.6 percent.
Logistic Regression
Logistic Regression is used for binary variables and the scale
for high level and poor satisfaction level is similar to that in the
dimension of tangibles. A percentage score of 80 and above is taken
as good level of satisfaction, (coded as 1), while a score of below
- 189 -
80 is taken to be poor satisfaction level (coded as 0). The
independent variables considered in the analysis were age, gender,
occupation, income, family size, frequency of shopping and
preference for the shop. The results of the logistic regression are
given below.
Table IV.2.27
Classification Table
Observed
Predicted
Level of reliability Percentage Corrected
Low level High Level
Level of reliability
Low Level 494 0 100.0
High Level 106 0 0
Overall Percentage 82.3
From the above table it is observed that Logistic Regression
classifies data correctly to the extent of 82.3 percent reflecting high
level of satisfaction with regard to the dimension of reliability.
- 190 -
Table IV.2.28
Variables in the Equation for Reliability
B S.E Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
Age 0.117 0.172 0.465 1 0.495 1.124
Gender -0.508 0.279 3.299 1 0.069 0.602
Education 0.554 0.142 15.130 1 0.000 1.740
Occupation 0.293 0.093 9.8691 1 0.002 1.341
Income -0.019 0.240 0.006 1 0.936 0.981
Family Size 0.681 0.214 10.125 1 0.001 1.976
Persons accompanying
for shopping
0.186 0.123 2.281 1 0.131 1.205
Preference for the shop -0.393 0.101 15.065 1 0.000 0.675
Constant -3.084 0.876 18.859 1 0.000 0.022
From the above table the variables such as education,
occupation, family size and preference for the shop were found to
be significant, which shows that these variables are highly
influencing the satisfaction level with regard to the dimension of
reliability.
It is seen that the family size , education and occupation
increases the good level of satisfaction. As the family size
increases, the good level of satisfaction increases nearly 2 times.
Also as the education and occupation level of the respondents
increase, the good level of satisfaction increases slightly more and
slightly less than 1.5 times respectively.
It should be noted that the preference for shop reduces the
good level of satisfaction which demands further attention of the
departmental stores in order to increase the satisfact ion level of the
customers towards the reliability of the store.
- 191 -
IV.3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION WITH REGARD TO
RESPONSIVENESS
Although tangibles and reliability aspects of a store are well
cared for, responsiveness is yet another important key fact or which
is to be treated with utmost care to gain customers’ satisfaction, as
personal interaction has a direct influence on the satisfaction level
of the customers.
The over all customer satisfaction level in various aspects in
the dimension of responsiveness like the knowledge of the
employees to answer customers’ query, the behaviour of employees
instilling confidence in customers and customers feeling safe in
their transaction etc. were ranked by evaluating the weighted
average of each aspect and are tabulated below.
- 192 -
Table IV.3.1
Ranks of responsiveness of service quality based on the level of
satisfaction of the respondents
Aspect Mean Rank
Employees in the store have the knowledge to answer
customer’s questions
3.38 XI
The behaviour of employees in the store instils
confidence in customers
3.81 V
Customers feel safe in their transaction with the store 3.85 III
The employees in the store give prompt service to the
customers
3.87 II
Employees in the store tell the customers about the
service exactly rendered
3.80 VI
Employees in the store are never too busy to respond to
customers request
3.82 IV
The store pays individual attention to the customers 3.65 IX
Employees in the store are consistently courteous with
customers
3.60 X
Employees answer the customers courteously while
enquiring over the telephone
3.72 VIII
Employees are readily helpful to the customers enabling
to do good shopping
4.00 I
Employees of the store are co-operative and customer
friendly
3.80 VI
It is the responsibility of the store to attend to the needs of
the customers by interacting with them as and when required. From
the above table it is clear that the respondents had first appreciated
that the employees are readily helping to facilitate good shopping
and extend prompt service. On the other hand the respondents were
- 193 -
not much bothered about the knowledge of the employees to answer
the customers’ questions or whether the employees are consistently
courteous with the customers.
Table IV.3.2
Overall customer satisfaction with respect to responsiveness
Satisfaction Level Percentage
Average 0.3
Good 97.7
Total 100.0
The overall satisfaction level of the customers with regard to
responsiveness is 97.7 percent thus reflecting a majority.
Table IV.3.3
Satisfaction level of respondents with regard to education
The satisfaction level based on educational qualification of
the respondents is worked out in the following cross tabulation.
Education Average Good
N % N %
Below 10th
0 0.0 64 100.0 r = -0.022
Sig. Val.= 0.586
P > 0.05
Not significant
10th
-12th
0 0.0 166 100.0
Graduate 2 0.7 274 99.3
Post graduate 0 0.0 94 100.0
The above table reflects the level of satisfaction of the
respondents with regard to their educational qualification in the
dimension of responsiveness. It was observed that irrespective of
- 194 -
their education level nearly 100 percent satisfaction existed among
the respondents. Only a few (0.7%) of the undergraduate
respondents had average level of satisfaction. As the correlation co -
efficient turned out to be not significant, level of education and
satisfaction on account of responsiveness/personal interactions do
not correlate, that is the satisfaction level is not influenced by the
educational qualification of the respondents.
Table IV.3.4
Satisfaction level with regard to income of the respondents
Income Average Good
N % N %
Rs.5,000-10,000 2 1.9 106 98.1 r = 0.101
Sig. Val.= 0.014
P < 0.05
Significant
Rs.10,001-20,000 0 0.0 434 100.0
Rs.20,001-30,000 0 0 56 100.0
Above Rs.30,000 0 0 2 100.0
The expectations of the customers are highly influenced by
their standard of living. The responsiveness encountered may or
may not be satisfactory between various income groups and the
above correlation analysis was carried out to work out the same.
The outcome being significant confirmed a strong relation between
the satisfaction level on personal interaction and the monthly
income of the respondents. Respondents with an income greater
than Rs.10,000 were highly satisfied with the responsiv eness of the
shop.
- 195 -
Table IV.3.5
Satisfaction level with regard to the members
accompanying for shopping
Go for Shopping Average Good
N % N %
Alone 0 0.0 209 100.0 2 = 4.013
Sig. Val.= 0.260
P > 0.05
Not significant
With spouse 2 1.0 198 99.0
With family 0 0.0 157 100.0
With friends 0 0.0 34 100.0
Satisfaction level with regard to responsiveness is something
personal and it is an individual’s opinion which does not get altered
with the persons accompanying for shopping. However the above
table was worked out to verify the same and the non significant
value of the 2 analysis confirmed that no association could be
defined between the satisfaction level and the persons who
accompanied the respondents to do shopping.
Table IV.3.6
Satisfaction level with respect to the gender of the respondents
Gender Average Good
N % N %
Male 2 0.8 234 99.2 2 = 3.095
Sig. Val. = 0.079
P > 0.05
Not significant
Female 0 0.0 364 100.0
- 196 -
The above 2 analysis was carried out to determine the
variation of satisfaction level based on gender. Many female
respondents had reflected their opinions and there existed 100
percent satisfaction level. As the 2 analysis returned a non
significant value, no association can be made between the
satisfaction level and the gender of the respondents.
Table IV.3.7
Satisfaction level with respect to occupation of the respondents
Occupation Average Good
N % N %
Govt. Official 0 0.0 92 100.0
2 = 8.648
Sig. val.= 0.124
P > 0.05
Not significant
Businessman 0 0.0 99 100.0
Professional 0 0.0 64 100.0
Private employee 2 1.8 111 98.2
Housewife 0 0.0 190 100.0
Others 0 0.0 42 100.0
The responsiveness of the shop may be promising and
satisfactory to only a few respondents depending on their
occupation. The 2 analysis was done to verify the above statement
and the outcome being not significant confirmed that no association
can be defined between the satisfactory level and the occupation of
the respondents. Thus no comment can be made on the variation of
satisfaction level with occupation.
- 197 -
Table IV.3.8
Satisfaction level with respect to reason for
selecting a particular shop
Reason for selecting
A shop
Average Good
N % N %
Large variety of products 0 0.0 80 100.0
2 = 31.438
Sig. Val. = 0.000
P < 0.05
Significant
The service provided is good 0 0.0 21 100.0
Reasonable price 0 0.0 264 100.0
Good store environment 0 0.0 188 100.0
Parking facility 2 5.6 34 94.4
Convenient location 0 0.0 8 100.0
Others 0 0.0 2 100.0
The reason for selecting a particular shop may vary from
person to person. The above table was worked out to learn the
satisfaction level among the respondents who had selected the shop
for various reasons. The significant value of the 2 analysis shows a
strong association between the satisfaction level and the reason for
selecting a particular shop. Those who chose the shop due to
reasonable price, good store environment, more choices, good
service, convenient location etc. were fully satisfied with the
dimension of responsiveness. Only 5.6 percent of the respondent s
who selected the shop for convenient parking facility had average
satisfaction.
- 198 -
Table IV.3.9
Satisfaction level with regard to frequency
of purchase in a month
Frequency of purchase
in a month
Average Good
N % N %
Once 0 0.0 143 100.0 r = -0.092
Sig. Val.= -0.025
P < 0.05
Significant
Twice 0 0.0 378 100.0
Thrice 2 3.3 58 96.7
Frequently 0 0.0 10 100.0
The above correlation study was carried out to work out the
relation between satisfaction level with respect to personal
interaction and the respondent’s frequency of purchase in the shop.
As the P value was less than 0.05, the satisfaction level could be
related with the frequency of purchase. The respondents who visited
the shop once, twice and frequently were fully satisfied. On the
other hand 97 percent of those who visited thrice in a month were
fully satisfied and 3 percent of them had average satisfaction level.
Table IV.3.10
Satisfaction level with regard to the amount spent in one visit
Amount spent Average Good
N % N %
Below Rs.500 2 0.9 232 99.1 r = 0.066
Sig. Val.= 0.109
P > 0.05
Not significant
Rs.500 – 1000 0 0.0 321 100.0
Above Rs.1000 0 0.0 45 100.0
- 199 -
The table shows the satisfaction level of the respondents
based on the amount spent by them per visit. As the corr elation
coefficient is not significant no relation can be drawn between the
satisfaction level and the amount spent. Hence the satisfaction level
was high irrespective of the amount spent with regard to the
dimension of responsiveness.
Table IV.3.11
Satisfaction level with respect to persons/media through which
the respondents got introduced to the shop
Source of
knowledge
about the shop
Average Good
N % N %
Relatives 2 1.5 131 98.5
2 = 7.046
Sig. Val = 0.070
P > 0.05
Not significant
Neighbours/
Colleagues
0 0.0 323 100.0
Advertisements 0 0.0 68 100.0
Friends 0 0.0 76 100.0
The satisfaction level of the respondents who had got
introduced to the shop through various means may vary with regard
to the dimension of personal interaction. Except 1 .5 percent of
those who had got introduced to the shop through relatives, all the
rest had 100 percent satisfaction. As the 2 value is not significant,
no association can be stated as a final verdict between satisfaction
level and the persons/media who first introduced the shop to the
respondents.
- 200 -
Table IV.3.12
Satisfaction level of respondents with regard to
mode of payment
Mode of
payment
Average Good
N % N %
Cash 2 0.5 414 99.5 2= 0.888
Sig. Val. = 0.346
P > 0.05
Not significant
Credit cards 0 0.0 184 100.0
The table portrays the variation of satisfaction level with the
mode of payment. On the basis of 2 analysis no association can be
made between satisfaction level with regard to the mode of payment
by the respondents. Thus satisfaction level can’t be pictured to be
varying with the mode of payment.
Table IV.3.13
ANOVA for satisfaction level between respondents
of various age groups
Variable Age N Mean Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F
Age G1
G2
G3
G4
28
223
286
63
73.83
72.84
76.91
75.35
Between
groups
With in
groups
2122.424
21833.918
3
596
707.475
36.634
18.812
Sig. value =
0.000
P < 0.05
Significant
G1 = Upto 20 years G2 = 21-30 years G3 = 31-40 years G4 = Above 40 years
The ANOVA studies proved that there is significant
difference in the satisfaction level based on the various age groups.
It was observed that people in the age group of 30 and above had
higher satisfaction with regard to the aspect of responsiveness
- 201 -
Table IV.3.14
ANOVA for satisfaction level between educational qualifications
of the respondents
Variable Education N Mean Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F
Educational
Qualification
G1
G2
G3
G4
64
166
276
94
73.57
74.69
75.32
76.15
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
292.998
23663.344
3
596
97.666
39.704
2.460
Sig. Val =
0.062
P > 0.05
Not
significant
G1 = Below 10th
G2 = 10th
-12th
G3 = Graduate G4 = Post graduate
The table reflects the satisfaction level based on educational
qualification of the respondents. At the first si ght it appears as if
the satisfaction level increases with the educational qualification of
the respondents, but as the result of the ANOVA test turned out to
be not significant, no significant difference occurs in the
satisfaction level based on responsiveness with respect to the
educational qualification.
- 202 -
Table IV.3.15
ANOVA for satisfaction level between respondents
of different occupation
Variable Occupation N Mean Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F
Occupation G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6
92
99
64
113
190
42
73.71
74.11
77.50
75.88
74.71
76.36
Between
Groups
With in
Groups
784.292
23172.049
5
594
156.858
39.01
4.021
0.001
P < 0.05
Significant
G1 = Govt. Official G2 = Businessman G3 = Professional
G4 = Private employee G5 = Housewife G6 = Others
The satisfaction level of the respondents with regard to the
dimension of responsiveness can vary with the profession
undertaken. The above ANOVA result reflects a significant
difference in satisfaction level based on the profession. The
Professional persons were much satisfied with the personal
interaction at the shop than those who had undertaken other jobs.
- 203 -
Table IV.3.16
ANOVA for satisfaction level between various
income groups of the respondents
Variable Income N Mean Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F
Monthly
Income
G1
G2
G3
G4
108
434
56
2
75.69
74.59
77.95
72.72
Between
Groups
With in
Groups
617.395
23338.947
3
596
205.798
39.159
5.255
Sig. val=
0.001
P < 0.05
Significant
G1 = Rs.5,000-10,000 G2 = Rs.10,001-20,000 G3 = Rs. 20,001-30,000
G4 = Above Rs.30,000
The table shows a clear variation in the satisfaction level
between various income groups of the respondents with regard to
the dimension of responsiveness. The respondents whose income
ranges between Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 30,000/- were highly satisfied
with the responsiveness, whereas those with income greater than
Rs. 30,000/- had the least satisfaction as their expectation level was
still higher than the level currently catered by the shops.
- 204 -
Table IV.3.17
ANOVA for satisfaction level between the number of members
in the family
Dimension No. of
members
N Mean Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F
No. of
members
G1
G2
G3
349
242
9
75.24
74.92
73.93
Between
Groups
With in
Groups
26.417
23929.925
2
597
13.208
40.084
0.330
Sig. Val =
0.719
P > 0.05
Not
significant
G1= 2 - 4 members G2 = 5 - 7 members G3 = Above 7 members
The above table shows the variation in responsiveness
satisfaction level with respect to the respondent’s family size. As
clearly shown by the outcome of ANOVA test, no significant
difference exists in satisfaction level with regard to the family size
of the respondents.
Table IV.3.18
ANOVA for satisfaction level between the respondents who were
accompanied by different people for shopping
Variable Persons
Accompanied
N Mean Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F
Often go
for
shopping
G1
G2
G3
G4
209
200
157
34
74.80
76.80
73.36
74.86
Between
Groups
With in
Groups
1070.896
22855.146
3
596
356.965
38.398
9.296
Sig. val=
0.000
P < 0.05
Significant
G1 = Alone G2 = With spouse G3 = With family G4 = With friends
- 205 -
When people shop with the company of others, the
satisfaction level in the perspective of responsiveness is also
accountable to the interaction extended by the store workers to the
persons accompanied too. As the ANOVA test returned a significant
output, there exists a definite variation in the satisfaction level of
the respondents based on the persons who accompanied them for
shopping. Those who shopped with their spouse were highly
contented with the interactions at the store, when compared to those
who shopped alone or with family or friends.
Table IV.3.19
ANOVA for satisfaction level between the respondents reasons
for selecting a particular shop
Variable Reason for
selecting a
shop
N Mean Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F
Reason for
selecting a
shop
G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6
G7
80
.21
264
188
36
9
2
77.24
72.81
76.42
73.46
69.74
76.36
83.63
Between
Groups
With in
Groups
2623.729
21332.612
6
593
437.288
35.974
12.156
Sig. val=
0.000
P < 0.05
Significant
G1 = Large variety of products G2 = The service provided is good
G3 = Reasonable price G4 = Good store environment
G5 = Parking facility G6 = Convenient location
G7 = Others
While analyzing the satisfaction level based on the reasons
for selecting a particular shop it is evident as P value is less than
0.05, there is significant variation in the level of satisfaction, with
respect to the reasons for selecting a particular shop. The custo mers
- 206 -
who had selected the shop for the availability of more choices of
product were highly satisfied with the aspects of responsiveness at
the shop. Next in series, were those respondents who opted for
reasonable price and convenient location were also mor e satisfied
with the dimension of responsiveness.
Table IV.3.20
ANOVA for satisfaction level between the respondents
frequency of purchase
Variable Frequency of
purchase
N Mean Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F
Frequency
of purchase
G1
G2
G3
G4
143
378
60
19
72.04
76.06
75.93
76.17
Between
Groups
With in
Groups
1754.815
22201.527
3
596
584.938
37.251
15.703
0.000
P < 0.05
Significant
G1 = Once G2 = Twice G3 = Thrice G4 = Frequently
The frequency of visit to a shop is highly dependent on th e
dimension of responsiveness, as it is the governing factor which
attracts the customers and serves to be a cause to increase the
periodicity of visit to the shop.
The outcome of the ANOVA test is in favour of the above
statement showing a signif icant difference in satisfaction level with
the frequency of visit. All the customers who shop ped more than
once were highly satisfied.
- 207 -
Table IV.3.21
ANOVA for satisfaction level between amount spent on purchase
Variable Amount
spent on
purchase
N Mean Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F
Amount
spent on
purchase
G1
G2
G3
234
321
45
75.23
74.13
81.21
Between
Groups
With in
Groups
1982.788
21973.554
2
597
991.394
36.801
26.935
Sig. val=
0.000
P < 0.05
Significant
G1 = Below Rs.500 G2 = Rs.500-1000 G3 = Above Rs. 1000
The above table was worked out to measure the satisfaction
level based on the amount spent on purchase. The significant value
confirmed a strong relation between the satisfaction and the amount
spent per visit on purchase. The respondents who had spent more
than Rs. 1000 were much satisfied than those who had spent less.
Table IV.3.22
ANOVA for satisfaction level between persons/media through
which the respondents got introduced to the shop
Variable Persons who
introduced the
shop
N Mean Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F
Got
introduced to
the shop
G1
G2
G3
G4
133
323
68
76
76.30
74.56
73.66
76.53
Between
Groups
With in
Groups
583.805
23372.537
3
596
194.602
39.216
4.962
Sig. val=
0.002
P < 0.05
Significant
G1 = Relatives G2 = Neighbours/Colleagues G3 = Advertisements G4 = Friends
The above table portrays the satisfaction level among the
respondents based on the source through which they got introduced
to the shop. Persons do advocate a shop if and only if they were
- 208 -
highly satisfied with the dimension of responsiveness. Thus as per
the significant variation in the ANOVA test also, those who got
introduced to the shop by their relatives and friends were highly
satisfied with the aspect of responsiveness. As the relatives and
friends recommend a shop to a person knowing his likes and
dislikes, the customers who got introduced through relatives and
friends were highly contented than those who got introduced
through advertisements and neighbours.
Table IV.3.23
t - test for comparing satisfaction level between gender
As a means to compare the satisfaction score of responsiveness between two
groups independent t - test was used. The results of the tests are as follows:
Gender N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
t df Sig.
Male 236 73.1250 6.54922 0.42632 -3.569 0.598 Sig.Val.= 0.000
P < 0.05
Significant
Female 364 74.9455 5.38490 0.30472 -3.480 458.920
The above table shows that the percentage score differs
significantly between genders. The female respondents had higher
level of satisfaction with respect to the responsiveness than the
male respondents.
- 209 -
Table IV.3.24
t-test for comparing satisfaction level between the mode of payment
Mode of
Payment
N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
Mean
t df
Cash 416 74.5892 6.33856 0.31077 -2.977 598 Sig.Val.= 0.003
P < 0.05
Significant
Credit
Cards
184 76.2451 6.15508 0.45376 -3.011 360.015
It is evident from the above table that the percentage score
differs significantly between the mode of payment. The respondents
who made their payment through credit cards (mean = 76.24) were
highly satisfied with regard to responsiveness than those who paid
by cash .
Table IV.3.25
t-test for comparing satisfaction level between
switching over to other shop
Opinion N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
t df
Yes 220 75.1157 4.19416 0.28277 0.28277 598 Sig.Val.= 0.956
P > 0.05
Not significant No 380 75.0861 7.28315 0.37362 0.37362 597.989
The respondents whose level of satisfaction was less tend to
switch over to another shop. Thus to study the satisfaction level of
the respondents based on their opinion to switch over to anothe r
shop, the t-test was performed. As the result was not significant, no
definite dependence of satisfaction level on personal inter action can
be quoted with the respondent’s opinion to switch over.
- 210 -
Factor Analysis for the Dimension of Responsiveness
In factor analysis the dimension of the variables were reduced
to few and are considered for the factor analysis. The results of the
factor analysis are as follows.
Table IV.3.26
KMO and Bartlett’s Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy 0.544
Bartlett’s Test of Approx. Chi-Square
Sphericity df
Sig.
548.453
55
0.000
The above test was carried out to verify whethe r factor
analysis is appropriate for the data under the dimension of
responsiveness.
- 211 -
Table IV.3.27
Rotated Component Matrix
Aspect f1 f2 f3 f4
Employees in the store have the knowledge to
answer customer’s questions
0.050 .573 .463 .187
The behavior of employees in the store instills
confidence in customers
0.539 s-.011 .114 .029
Customers feel safe in their transaction with the
store
0.735 .054 -.412 -.038
The employees in the store give prompt service
to the customers
-0.006 .080 .718 -.055
Employees in the store tell the customers about
the service exactly rendered
0.001 -.177 .189 .787
Employees in the store are never too busy to
respond to customers request
-0.363 .098 .-253 .405
The store pays individual attention to the
customers
.585 .380 .281 -.092
Employees in the store are consistently
courteous with customers
.210 .683 -.068 .081
Employees in the store answer the customers
courteously while enquiring over the telephone
.421 -135 .542 .018
Employees are readily helpful to the customers
enabling to do good shopping
.256 -637 .021 .283
Employees of the store are co-operative and
customer friendly
.051 .381 -.346 .546
Eigen value 1.918 1.497 1.295 1.173
% of Variance 14.516 14.168 13.727 11.074
- 212 -
The first factor in the above matrix consisting of variables of
safe transaction with the store, providing individual attention and
receptive behavior of employees together can be termed as safe and
friendly transaction accounts for a variance of 14.52 percent. The
second factor consisting of variables of courteous nature of
employees and employees being knowledgeable to give satisfactory
response to the queries posed by the customers together can be
termed as patient and apt response to the customers which accounts
for the variance of 14.17 percent. The variables of rendering prompt
service to the customers and courteous response to phone calls of
the third factor accounts for a variance of 13.72 percent. The fourth
factor consisting of the variable of explaining the actual services
rendered accounts for a variance of 11.07 percent.
Logistic Regression
Logistic Regression used for binary variables and the scale
for high level and poor satisfaction level is similar to that in the
previous dimensions. A percentage score of 80 and above is taken
as good level of satisfaction. (coded as 1), while a score of below
80 is taken to be poor satisfaction level (coded as 0). The
independent variables considered in the analysis were age, gender,
occupation, income, family size, frequency of shopping and
preference for shop. The results of the logistic regression are given
below.
- 213 -
Table IV.3.28
Classification Table
Observed
Predicted
Level of responsiveness Percentage Corrected
Low level High Level
Level of
responsiveness
Low Level 460 0 100.0
High Level 140 0 0
Overall Percentage 76.7
Logistic Regression classifies data corrected to the extent of
76.7 percent reflecting low level of satisfaction with regard to the
dimension of responsiveness.
Table IV.3.29
Variables in the Equation for Responsiveness
B S.E Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
Age 0.261 0.151 2.970 1 0.085 1.298
Gender -0.629 0.247 6.475 1 0.011 0.533
Education 0.446 0.129 11.952 1 0.001 1.562
Occupation 0.110 0.080 1.915 1 0.166 1.117
Income -0.229 0.218 1.107 1 0.293 0.795
Family Size 0.461 0.192 5.773 1 0.016 1.585
Persons accompanying
for shopping
0.072 0.112 0.418 1 0.518 1.075
Preference for the shop -0.249 0.094 7.077 1 0.008 0.779
Constant -2.110 0.765 7.068 1 0.006 0.121
- 214 -
From the table above, it can be evinced that the vari ables
significant in influencing the satisfaction level regarding the
responsiveness of the shop are gender, education, family size and
preference for the shop.
As the education level and family size increase , the good
level of satisfaction increases slightly more than 1.5 times.
Gender and preference for the shop reduce the good level of
satisfaction. The gender decreases the satisfaction level to a larger
extent and keen interest should be taken by the departmental stores
to trace out the reasons for the decrease in satisfaction level.
- 215 -
IV.4. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION WITH REGARD TO
ASSURANCE
The satisfaction level of the customers is manifested to a
larger extent depending on how the store solves the problems
encountered by the customers. The store should take utmost care to
solve any inconvenience faced by the customers, take up their
suggestions and cater to their needs on time. Any improper handling
of a problem may lead to earn the dissatisfaction of the customers
and the store would loose its name and fame.
The overall customer satisfaction level in the dimension of
assurance like meeting the needs and taking keen interest in solving
the problems of the customers, the efficiency of cashier in billing,
entertaining return and exchange of commodities, capability of the
employees to handle customer’s complaints etc. were ranked by
finding the weighted average of each aspect and are tabulated
below.
- 216 -
Table IV.4.1
Ranks of assurance of service quality based on the level of
satisfaction of the respondents
Aspect Mean Rank
The store willingly entertains return and exchange of
commodities
3.35 VII
Whenever the customer has a problem, the store shows sincere
interest in solving it
3.67 V
Employees of the store are able to handle customer’s complaints
directly and immediately
3.52 VI
Goods/products are easily exchangeable if defects are found in
the quality
3.81 IV
The cashier is really efficient in dealing with the payment at the
counter
3.92 I
Billing and checking out is fast at this store 3.92 I
The service provided by the store meets with the needs 3.82 III
The satisfaction level of the customers mainly depends on
how the retail shop attends to the problems encountered by the
customers. Out of the various aspects the respondents were more
particular about the time management. and hence majority of them
had ranked, the efficiency of the cashier at the store in dealing with
the payment at the counter and consequently fast billing and
checking out in the first place. Next in priority they had pointed out
that the service provided met their needs and had expressed
satisfaction towards the easy exchange of defected goods at the
store. They had shown a smaller degree of dissatisfaction towards
- 217 -
willingness of the store to exchange and return defec t less
commodities and the ability of the employees to attend to the
problems encountered by the customers immediately. Thus the
respondents had given higher consideration to billing process,
service extended and easy exchange of defected commodities.
Table IV.4.2
Overall customer satisfaction on account of assurance
Satisfaction Level Percentage
Average 7.2
Good 92.8
Total 100.0
The above table represents the overall satisfaction level with
respect to the dimension of assurance. To find out the overa ll
satisfaction for this aspect all the 5 level scores were added and
converted into percentage score. Out of 600 respondents, about 93
percent of the respondents had good satisfaction level with regard
to the aspect of assurance and 7 percent had average level of
satisfaction.
- 218 -
Table IV.4.3
Satisfaction level of respondents with respect to
educational qualification
Education Average Good
N % N %
Below 10th
4 6.3 60 93.8 r = -0.070
Sig. Val.= 0.088
P > 0.05
Not significant
10th
-12th
2 1.2 164 98.8
Graduate 32 11.6 244 88.4
Post graduate 5 5.3 89 94.7
Assurance is a very important aspect which every store should
deal with care, so that it doesn’t earn the dissatisfaction of the
customers. The satisfaction level with regard to assurance may
vary with the educational qualification of the respondents and the
above correlation analysis was worked out to check the statement.
As per the table, there was a considerable increase in the number of
respondents with average satisfaction level in comparis on with
other dimensions, but no relation can be arrived between
satisfaction level in the dimension of assurance and the educational
qualification of the respondents as P is not significant.
- 219 -
Table IV.4.4
Satisfaction level of the respondents with respect to income
Income Average Good
N % N %
Rs. 5,000-10,000 6 5.6 102 94.4 r = 0.005
Sig. Val.= 0.896
P > 0.05
Not significant
Rs.10,001-20,000 34 7.8 400 92.2
Rs.20,001-30,000 3 5.4 53 94.6
Above Rs.30,000 0 0.0 2 100.0
The above correlation studies were made to know the
variation of satisfaction level based on the income of the
respondents. From the table it can be inferred that the respondents
with income greater than Rs.30,000/- had higher satisfaction level,
but as the correlation coeff icient turned out to be not significant no
relation can be stated between satisfaction level and income of the
respondents.
Table IV.4.5
Satisfaction level with respect to members
accompanying for shopping
Go for shopping Average Good
N % N %
Alone 21 10.0 188 90.0 2 = 17.278
Sig. Val.= 0.001
P < 0.05
Significant
With spouse 2 1.0 198 99.0
With family 16 10.2 141 89.8
With friends 4 11.8 30 88.2
- 220 -
The above table reflects the satisfaction level of the
respondents with regard to the members accompanying for
shopping. As the output of the analysis is significant, a definite
association can be made between the satisfaction level with regard
to the persons accompanied for shopping. I t is seen that 99 percent
of the respondents who shopped with their spouse had good
satisfaction level whereas only 88.2 percent of the respondents who
shopped with their friends had good satisfaction level. Thus
respondents who shopped with their spouse were highly satisfied
and those who shopped with friends had the least satisfaction.
Table IV.4.6
Satisfaction level of respondents with respect to gender
Gender Average Good
N % N %
Male 14 5.9 222 94.1 2 = 0.891
Sig. Val. = 0.345
P > 0.05
Not significant
Female 29 8.0 335 92.0
The above table gives the 2 analysis to learn the association
between the gender and the satisfaction level in assurance. T he
results being not significant, it has become evident that the
satisfaction level had no association with gender in the dimension
of assurance.
- 221 -
Table IV.4.7
Satisfaction level of the respondents
with respect to occupation
Occupation Average Good
N % N %
Govt. Official 16 17.4 76 82.6
2 = 26.514
Sig. Val.= 0.00
P < 0.05
Significant
Businessman 0 0.0 99 100.0
Professional 4 6.3 60 93.8
Private employee 11 9.7 102 90.3
Housewife 12 6.2 178 93.8
Others 0 0.0 42 100.0
Problems of the respondents with different occupation may be
solved to different levels and there exists a variation in the
satisfaction level with regard to the occupation of the respondents.
The 2 analysis shows a significant variation in the satisfacti on
level with respect to the occupation of the respondents. All the
businessmen were fully satisfied whereas only 82.6 percent of the
government officials were fully satisfied. 93.8 percent of the
housewives and professionals also had full satisfaction.
Thus the businessmen and government officials had the
highest and lowest satisfaction level respectively with regard to the
dimension of assurance.
- 222 -
Table IV.4.8
Satisfaction level of respondents with respect to reason
for selecting a particular shop
Reason for selecting a shop Average Good
N % N %
Large variety of products 0 0.0 80 100.0
2 = 29.931
Sig.Val = 0.000
P < 0.05
Significant
The service provided is good 0 0.0 21 100.0
Reasonable price 11 4.2 253 95.8
Good store environment 28 14.9 160 85.1
Parking facility 4 11.1 32 88.9
Convenient location 0 0.0 8 100.0
Others 0 0.0 2 100.0
The satisfaction level of the respondents based on the reason
for selecting a particular shop was worked out in the above 2
analysis. The P value being significant shows a definite association
between satisfaction level and the reason for selecting a particular
shop. The respondents who selected the shop for availability of
more choices of product, good service provided and convenient
location were highly satisfied with the aspects of assurance. Only
4.2 percent of the respondents who selected the shop for reasonable
price had average satisfaction level. Also 11.1 percent and 14.9
percent of the customers who selected the shop for parking facility
and good store environment respectively had average satisfaction
level in the dimension of assurance.
- 223 -
Thus except for those who selected the shop for convenient
parking and good store environment, others had a higher level of
satisfaction with regard to assurance.
Table IV.4.9
Satisfaction level of respondents with respect to frequency of
purchase in a month
Purchase
frequency
Average Good
N % N %
Once 11 7.7 132 92.3 r = 0.055
Sig. Val.= 0.178
P > 0.05
Not significant
Twice 30 7.9 348 92.1
Thrice 2 3.3 58 96.7
Frequently 0 0.0 19 100.0
The above correlation study was worked out to know the
relation between satisfaction level and the frequency of purchase by
the respondents. From the above table it was vivid that those who
frequently visit the shop had 100 percent satisfaction, but as P
value is not significant no relation can be derived between
satisfaction level in assurance and the frequency of purchase.
- 224 -
Table IV.4.10
Satisfaction level of respondents on account of amount spent in
one visit
Amount Spent Average Good
N % N %
Below Rs.500 18 7.7 216 92.3 r = 0.026
Sig. Val.= 0.642
P > 0.05
Not significant
Rs.500 – 1000 23 7.2 298 92.8
Above Rs.1000 2 4.4 43 95.6
To understand the satisfaction level with respect to the
variation in the amount spent on purchase the above correlation
study was carried out, but as P value being greater than 0.05 and
not significant no relation can be stated between the satisfaction
level and the amount spent by the respondents in their purchase.
Table IV.4.11
Satisfaction level with regard to persons/media through which
the respondents got introduced to the shop
Source of knowledge
about the shop
Average Good
N % N %
Relatives 5 3.8 128 96.2 2 = 13.127
Sig.Val. = 0.004
P > 0.05
Significant
Neighbours/Colleagues 25 7.7 298 92.3
Advertisements 11 16.2 57 83.8
Friends 2 2.6 74 97.4
The satisfaction level of the respondents who got introduced
to the shop through several persons or media with regard to the
- 225 -
aspect of assurance was worked out in the 2 analysis. The outcome
being significant confirms the strong association between the two.
Nearly 97 percent of the respondents who got introduced to the
shop through their friends, 96.2 percent of those who got introduced
through their relatives and 92.3 percent through neighbours /
colleagues were highly satisfied. 16.2 percent of those who came
to know about the shop through the advertisements had only
average level of satisfaction. Thus persons who had taken the word
from personal experience of their friends, relatives and
neighbours/colleagues had high satisfaction in comparison to those
who had got introduced through advertisements.
Table IV.4.12
Satisfaction level of the respondents with regard to mode of
payment
Mode of
payment
Average Good
N % N %
Cash 18 4.3 398 95.7 2= 16.442
Sig. Val = 0.000
P < 0.05
Significant
Credit cards 25 13.6 159 86.4
The above table reflects the satisfaction level of the
respondents with regard to the mode of payment in the dimension of
assurance. The above 2 analysis shows that 95.7 percent of the
respondents who paid by cash were highly satisfied and only 86.4
percent of those who had paid by credit cards were satisfied . Thus
- 226 -
the return of significant value in the 2 analysis confirms that the
respondents who paid by cash were more contented with regard to
assurance than those who paid by means of credit cards.
Table IV.4.13
ANOVA for satisfaction level between respondents of various
age groups
Variable Age N Mean Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F
Age G1
G2
G3
G4
28
223
286
63
69.79
72.95
75.57
75.41
Between
Groups
With in
Groups
1515.845
42597.951
3
596
505.282
71.473
7.070
Sig.Val.=
0.000
P < 0.05
Significant
G1= Upto 20 years G2 = 21-30 years G3 = 31-40 years
G4 = Above 40 years
The above ANOV test shows that there is significant
difference in the satisfaction level of assurance based on the
various age groups. It was observed that the respondents in the age
group 31years and more had higher satisfaction level whereas those
below 20 years had the least satisfaction level.
Thus the satisfaction level with respect to the aspect of
assurance varies significantly between the various age groups.
- 227 -
Table IV.4.14
ANOVA for satisfaction level between educational qualifications
of the respondents
Variable Educatio
n
N Mea
n
Group
s
Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Squar
e
F
Educational
Qualificatio
n
G1
G2
G3
G4
64
16
6
27
6
94
73.7
9
75.0
6
73.6
3
75.3
4
Betwee
n
Groups
With in
Groups
338.30
43775.49
6
3
59
6
112.66
7
73.449
1.54
5
Sig.Val.
=
0.204
P > 0.05
Not
significa
nt
G1= Below 10th
G2 =10-12th
G3 = Graduate G4 = Post graduate
As the ANOVA test returns a non – significant value, there is
no significant difference in satisfaction level with respect to
assurance based on the educational qualification of the respon dents.
Table IV.4.15
ANOVA for satisfaction level between respond ents
of different occupation
Variable Occupatio
n
N Mea
n
Group
s
Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Squar
e
F
Occupatio
n
G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6
92
99
64
11
3
19
71.6
4
74.8
6
75.5
8
Betwee
n
Groups
With in
Groups
835.712
43278.08
4
5
59
4
167.14
2
72.859
2.29
4
Sig.Val.=
0.044
P < 0.05
significa
nt
- 228 -
0
42
74.5
6
74.5
6
75.1
8
G1 = Govt. Official G2 = Businessman G3 = Professional
G4 = Private employee G5 = House wife G6 = Others
The above test shows that there is significant difference in
satisfaction levels among the respondents with different profession.
The satisfaction level of the professionals was high with regard to
the dimension of assurance.
Table IV.4.16
ANOVA for satisfaction level between various
income groups of the respondents
Variabl
e
Incom
e
N Mea
n
Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F
Monthly
Income
G1
G2
G3
G4
10
8
43
4
56
2
72.72
74.16
78.36
80.00
Betwee
n
Groups
With in
Groups
1267.665
42846.13
1
3
59
6
422.55
5
71.889
5.87
8
Sig.Val.=
0.001
P < 0.05
Significan
t
G1 = Rs. 5,000-10,000 G2 = Rs.10,001-20,000
G3 = Rs. 20,001-30,000 G4 = Above Rs.30,000
The above table shows a significant difference in satisfaction
level among the various income groups. It was observed that the
respondents with monthly income above Rs. 30,000/ - had higher
- 229 -
satisfaction compared to other income groups. It was clear that as
the income increases the satisfaction level also increases.
- 230 -
Table IV.4.17
ANOVA for satisfaction level between the number of members in the family
Variable No. of
family
members
N Mean Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F
No of
family
members
G1
G2
G3
349
242
9
73.89
75.02
71.42
Between
Groups
With in
Groups
260.755
43853.040
2
597
130.378
73.456
1.775
Sig.Val.=0.170
P > 0.05
Not significant
G1 = 2 - 4 members G2 = 5 - 7 members G3 = Above 7 members
The return of non-significant value in the ANOVA test shows
that there is no significant difference in satisfaction level based on
the number of members in the family. Thus the sa tisfaction with
regard to the aspect of assurance was not dependent on the family
size of the respondents.
Table IV.4.18
ANOVA for satisfaction level between respondents who were
accompanied by different people for shopping
Variab
le
Persons
accompani
ed
N Mea
n
Group
s
Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Squar
e
F
Often go
for
shoppin
g
G1
G2
G3
G4
20
9
20
0
15
7
34
73.0
1
77.1
5
72.4
4
74.2
0
Betwee
n
Groups
With in
Groups
2516.99
4
41596.8
02
3
59
6
838.99
8
69.793
12.02
1
Sig.Val.=
0.00
P < 0.05
Significa
nt
G1 = Alone G2 = With spouse G3 = With family G4 = With friends
- 231 -
The above ANOVA test shows that there is a significant
variation in satisfaction level between the respondents based on the
persons accompanying them for shopping. It was found that those
who went for shopping with their spouse were highly satisfied with
the aspect of assurance. Even those who shopped with their friends
were also satisfied, in comparison with those who shopped alone or
with their family.
Table IV.4.19
ANOVA for satisfaction level between respondents based on
reason for selecting a particular shop
Variable Reason
for
purchase
N Mean Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F
Reason
for
purchase
G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6
G7
80
21
264
188
36
9
2
76.60
77.41
74.56
72.79
71.58
79.36
85.71
Between
Groups
With in
Groups
1829.749
42284.047
6
593
304.958
71.305
4.277
Sig.Val.=0.000
P < 0.05
Significant
G1 = Large variety of products G2 = The service provided is good
G3 = Reasonable price G4 = Good store environment
G5 = Parking facility G6 = Convenient location
G7 = Others
There exists a significant difference in satisfaction level with
regard to assurance in categorizing the respondents on the basis of
- 232 -
the reason they consider for selecting a particular retail shop.
Primarily persons who prefer the shop for other reasons not listed
had the highest satisfaction level. It was found that those who had
selected the shop for convenient location and for the good service
provided at the shop had high level of satisfaction and those who
selected the shop for convenient parking facility and good store
environment had slightly lower level of satisfaction.
Table IV.4.20
ANOVA for satisfaction level between respondents based on
frequency of purchase
Variable Frequency
of
purchase
N Mean Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F
Frequency
of
purchase
G1
G2
G3
G4
143
378
60
19
73.88
73.67
77.90
78.94
Between
Groups
With in
Groups
1362.775
42751.021
3
596
454.258
71.730
6.333
Sig.Val.=0.000
P < 0.05
Significant
G1 = Once G2 = Twice G3 = Thrice G4 = Frequently
The ANOVA test reflects a significant variation in
satisfaction level based on the frequency of purchase by the
respondents. Those who had shopped monthly thrice or frequently
were highly satisfied with the aspect of assurance than those who
had shopped rarely say once or twice.
- 233 -
Table IV.4.21
ANOVA for satisfaction level between respondents based
on amount spent on purchase
Variable Amount
spent on
purchase
N Mean Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F
Amount
spent on
purchase
G1
G2
G3
234
321
45
73.16
74.22
80.95
Between
Groups
With in
Groups
2296.029
41817.767
2
597
1148.015
70.047
16.389
Sig.Val.=
0.000
P < 0.05
Significant
G1= Below Rs.500 G2= Rs.500 - 1000 G3 = Above Rs. 1000
The above ANOVA test shows that the satisfaction level
varies significantly between the respondents based on the amount
spent on shopping per visit. The respondents who had spent more
than Rs.1000/- per visit were highly satisfied.
Table IV.4.22
ANOVA for satisfaction level between persons/media
through which the respondents got introduced to the shop
Variable Got
Introduced
by
N Mean Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F
Got
introduced
to the
shop
G1
G2
G3
G4
133
323
68
76
76.58
73.83
70.80
75.56
Between
Groups
With in
Groups
1721.743
42392.052
3
596
573.914
71.128
8.069
Sig. Val.=
0.000
P < 0.05
Significant
G1= Relatives G2 = Neighbours/Colleagues
G3 = Advertisements G4 = Friends
- 234 -
The above test clearly defines a significant variation in the
satisfaction level between the groups who had got introduced to the
shop through various means. It was seen that the respondents who
had got introduced through their relatives and friends had high
level of satisfaction with respect to the assurance aspect. Next in
order, those who got introduced by their neighbours/colleagues
were contented and those who learnt through the advertisements had
the least satisfaction level. Thus who took the verdict from the
experience of others had higher level of satisfaction than those who
got moved by the advertisements.
Table IV.4.23
t-test for comparing satisfaction level between gender
Gender N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
Mean
t df
Male 236 74.3462 9.12478 0.59397 0.73 59.8 Sig.Val=0.942
P > 0.05
Not
significant
Female 364 74.2936 8.22328 0.43102 0.72 464.304
The t - test for comparing the satisfaction level between the
genders reflected an insignificant figure proving that the
satisfaction level with regard to assurance did not vary with gender.
- 235 -
Table IV.4.24
t-test for comparing satisfaction level between mode of payment
Mode of
Payment
N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
Mean
t df
Cash 416 75.1717 8.05806 0.39508 3.719 598 Sig
Val=0.000
P < 0.05
Significant Credit
cards
184 72.3758 9.39992 0.69297 3.505 306.996
The significant outcome from the above t-test confirms that
the satisfaction level vary depending on the mode of payment either
by cash or through credit cards. Thus the respondents who made
their payment through cash were highly satisfied with regard to the
aspect of assurance.
Table IV.4.25
t-test for comparing satisfaction level between switching over to
other shop
Opinion N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
Mean
t df
Yes 220 72.7662 7.52909 0.50761 -3.391 598 Sig.Val=0.001
P < 0.05
Significant
No 380 75.2105 9.02457 0.46295 -3.558 524.965
The above t - test for comparing the satisfaction level
between switching over to another shop returns a significant value.
- 236 -
Those who did not want to switch over to another shop were highly
satisfied with regard to assurance.
Factor Analysis for the Dimension of Assurance
The variables were reduced to a few and are considered for
the factor analysis. The results of which are given below.
Table IV.4.26
KMO and Bartlett’s Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy 0.509
Bartlett’s Test of Approx. Chi-Square Approx. Chi-Square
Sphericity df df
Sig. Sig.
435.706
21
0.000
The table confirms the appropriateness of factor analysis for
the data for the dimension of assurance.
- 237 -
Table IV.4.27
Rotated Component Matrix
Aspect f1 f2 f3
The store willingly entertains return and exchange
of commodities
0.185 0.767 -0.041
Whenever the customer has a problem, the store
shows sincere interest in solving
-0.222 0.200 0.707
Employees of the store are able to handle
customers complaints directly and immediately
-0.189 0.787 0.199
Goods/products are easily exchangeable if defects
are found in the quality
0.197 -0.057 0.826
The cashier is really efficient in dealing with the
payment at the counter
0.735 0.009 -0.033
Billing and checking out is fast at this store 0.778 -0.178 0.004
The service provided by the store meets with
customers needs
0.630 0.351 0.017
Eigen value 1.705 1.558 1.070
% of Variance 24.286 20.109 17.498
The first factor of the above rotated component matrix consisting
of the variable of efficiency of cashier and hence quick billing
accounts for 24.28 percent of variance. The variables related to
employee’s efficiency in handling complaints directly and
immediately along with easy return and exchange of commodities
constitute the second factor and accounts for a variance of 20.11
percent. The third factor consisting of the variable of accepting
- 238 -
exchange of the defect goods accounts for a variance of 17.50
percent.
Logistic Regression
The independent variables and the scale for fixing the good
level and poor level of satisfaction are considered similar to the
previous dimensions and the results are tabulated below.
Table IV.4.28
Classification Table
Observed
Predicted
Level of assurance Percentage
Corrected
Low
level
High
Level
Level of
assurance
Low
Level
142 0 100.0
High
Level
180 0 0
Overall Percentage 70.0
Logistic Regression classifies data corrected to the extent of
70 percent reflecting low level of satisfaction with regard to the
dimension of assurance.
- 239 -
Table IV.4.29
Variables in the Equation for Assurance
B S.E Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
Age 0.413 0.145 8.121 1 0.004 1.511
Gender -0.680 0.239 8.105 1 0.004 0.507
Education 0.233 0.121 3.702 1 0.054 1.263
Occupation 0.314 0.077 16.430 1 0.000 1.369
Income 0.507 0.211 5.799 1 0.016 1.661
Family Size 0.874 0.186 22.043 1 0.000 2.396
Persons accompanying
for shopping
-0.041 0.109 0.140 1 0.708 0.960
Preference for the shop -0.0147 0.090 2.673 1 0.102 0.863
Constant -4.364 0.763 32.683 1 0.000 0.013
It is clear from the table that the variables such as age,
gender, occupation, income and family size has turned out to be
significant, and hence would influence the satisfaction level of the
respondents in the dimension of assurance.
It is seen that the family size is highly influential in
increasing the good level of satisfaction to a large extent of about
2.4 times. Age, occupation and income also increase the good level
of satisfaction with a multiplicative factor of 1.5, 1.4 and 1.7
respectively. While the gender reduces the good level of
satisfaction and the departmental stores should take utmost care to
solve the problems and satisfy the respondents of both gender and
hence could increase the level of satisfaction pertaining to the
dimension of assurance.
- 240 -
IV. 5. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION WITH REGARD TO
EMPATHY
Empathy which refers to the policies of the stores is of very
important concern and decides the overall functioning of the retail
shops. Proper design and execution of policies in accordance with
the time and season would attract more number of customers and
distinguishes one shop from the other.
The overall customer satisfaction level towards empathy like
offering and accepting of credit cards, supply of free and
complementary goods, offering of high quality merchandise and
quality bags to carry the goods, convenient operation hours etc.
were ranked by evaluating the weighted average of each aspect and
are tabulated as follows.
- 241 -
Table IV.5.1
Ranks of empathy of service quality based on the level of
satisfaction of the respondents
Aspect Mean Rank
The store offers high quality merchandise 3.65 VIII
The store provides adequate space for vehicle
parking
3.66 VII
The store has operating hours convenient to the
customers
3.61 IX
The store accepts all major credit cards 3.82 V
The store offers its own credit card 3.89 I
The store ensures good quality bags and provides
utmost care to carry the goods home
3.88 II
The items stated in the promotion catalogue are the
same as offered by the departmental store
3.77 VI
The service quality of the outlet is satisfactory 3.83 IV
The store supplies free and complementary goods to
the customer without fail
3.88 II
Service quality is directly influenced by several aspects of the
policies undertaken by the store to attract the customers. While
ranking the various aspects, the respondents had given prior
importance for the shop offering its own credit cards. They had
considered the supply of good qual ity bags to carry the goods
purchased and the supply of free and complementary goods to the
customers without fail, to hold the second priority. Next in order
were the satisfactory service quality, acceptance of all major credit
cards, items stated in the promotion catalogue is the same as that
- 242 -
offered by the store, adequate parking space, offering of high
quality merchandise and convenient working hours.
Table IV.5.2
Over all customer satisfaction with regard to the
dimension of empathy
Satisfaction Level Percentage
Average 3.2
Good 96.8
Total 100.0
About 97 percent of the respondents had good level of
satisfaction and only 3 percent had average satisfaction level with
regard to the dimension of empathy.
Table IV.5.3
Satisfaction level of respondents with respect to education
Education Average Good
N % N %
Below 10th
0 0.0 64 100.0 r = -0.070
Sig. Val.= 0.088
P > 0.05
Not significant
10th
-12th
0 0.0 166 100.0
Graduate 19 6.9 257 93.1
Post graduate 0 0.0 94 100.0
The above correlation table shows the satisfaction level based
on the educational qualification of the respondents. At the first
sight except 19 (6.9%) of the graduates all others had good level of
satisfaction towards the current policies undertaken by the store,
- 243 -
but as the P value turned out to be not significant no relation can be
defined between satisfaction level and the educational qualification of the
respondents.
Table IV.5.4
Satisfaction level of respondents with respect to income
Income Average Good
N % N %
Rs.5,000-10,000 0 0.0 108 100.0 r = -0.027
Sig. Val.= 0.504
P > 0.05
Not significant
Rs.10,001-20,000 19 4.4 415 95.6
Rs.20,001-30,000 0 0.0 56 100.0
Above Rs.30,000 0 0.0 2 100.0
The above correlation analysis was carried out to learn the
satisfaction level in empathy based on the income of the
respondents. Only 19 (4%) of the respondents who had a monthly
income of Rs.10,001 – 20,000 had average satisfaction level and the
rest of the income groups were highly contented. The outcome of
the analysis being not significant prevents defining any relation
between the satisfaction level and the income of the respondents.
- 244 -
Table IV.5.5
Satisfaction level of respondents with regard to members
accompanying for shopping
Often go for
shopping
Average Good
N % N %
Alone 6 7.7 193 92.3 2 = 21.792
Sig. Val.= 0.000
P < 0.05
Significant
With spouse 3 1.5 197 98.5
With family 0 0.0 157 100.0
With friends 0 0.0 34 100.0
The dependence of the satisfaction level of the respondents
based on the persons accompanied for shopping was proved by the
above 2 analysis. It was seen that those who shopped with their
family and friends were totally satisfied with the policies. Nearly
99 percent of those who shopped with their spouse also had good
level of satisfaction and only around 8 percent of those who
shopped alone had average level of satisfaction.
Thus the satisfaction level varied with the respondents based
on the persons accompanied and it was found that those who
shopped with the family and friends were highly satisfied with the
policies undertaken by the shop.
- 245 -
Table IV.5.6
Satisfaction level of respondents with respect to gender
Gender Average Good
N % N %
Male 19 8.1 217 91.9 2 = 30.263
Sig. Val. = 0.000
P < 0.05
Significant
Female 0 0.0 364 100.0
The above table was worked out to find out the association
between the satisfaction level in the aspect of empathy and the
gender of the respondents. As P value turned out to be significant,
there exists a significant variation in satisfaction level with regard
to the gender of the respondents. All the female respondents were
fully satisfied with the empathy and 8 percent of the male
respondents had average satisfaction level. Thus females were
more contented and satisfied with the empathy of the retail shops
rather than the males.
- 246 -
Table IV.5.7
Satisfaction level of respondents with respect to occupation
Occupation plays a vital role in deciding the satisfaction level
with regard to the empathy aspects undertaken by the departmental
shops. The following tabulation lists down the satisfaction level of
different cadre of respondents with respect to occupation.
Occupation Average Good
N % N %
Govt. Official 12 13.0 80 87.0
2 = 36.710
Sig. Val= 0.000
P < 0.05
Significant
Businessman 0 0.0 99 100.0
Professional 0 0.0 64 100.0
Private employee 3 2.7 110 97.3
Housewife 4 2.1 186 97.9
Others 0 0.0 42 100.0
According to the above 2 analysis it is clear that the
businessmen and professionals were highly satisfied with the
dimension of empathy. About 97.9 percent and 97.3 percent of the
housewives and respondents employed in the private sectors
respectively had good level of satisfaction. On the other hand 13
percent of the government officials had only average level of
satisfaction.
Thus businessmen and professionals were fully satisfied and
the government officials had the least satisfaction with regard to
the empathy of the stores.
- 247 -
Table IV.5.8
Satisfaction level with respect to reason for
selecting a particular shop
Reason for selecting a shop Average Good
N % N %
Large variety of products 0 0.0 80 100.0
2 = 15.522
Sig. Val. = 0.017
P < 0.05
Significant
The service provided is good 0 0.0 21 100.0
Reasonable price 16 6.1 248 93.9
Good store environment 3 1.6 185 98.4
Parking facility 0 0.0 36 100.0
Convenient location 0 0.0 8 100.0
Others 0 0.0 2 100.0
The significant output of the 2 analysis showed a significant
association in the satisfaction level with regard to the respondent’s
reason for selecting a particular shop. All the respondents who had
opted for the shop due to more choices of products or good services
extended or for the parking facility/ convenient location were
highly satisfied. 98 percent of those who selected for good store
environment and 94 percent who opted the shop for reasonable
price were also highly contented. Thus except 6 per cent and 2
percent of those who selected the shop for reasonable price and
good store environment respectively all the other respondents had
good level of satisfaction with regard to the dimension of empathy.
- 248 -
Table IV.5.9
Satisfaction level of respondents with regard to
frequency of purchase in a month
Purchase frequency Average Good
N % N %
Once 3 2.1 140 97.9 r = 0.022
Sig. Val.= 0.589
P > 0.05
Not significant
Twice 16 4.2 362 95.8
Thrice 0 0.0 60 100.0
Frequently 0 0.0 19 100.0
The variation of satisfaction level on the basis of frequency
of visit was worked out in the above correlation analysis. It is clear
at the first sight that the respondents who shopped monthly thrice
or frequently were more satis fied than those who shopped once or
twice, but as the correlation analysis returned a non -significant
value, no relation could be arrived at between the satisfaction level
and the frequency of visit to the shop.
Table IV.5.10
Satisfaction level of respondents with regard to the
amount spent in one visit
Amount Spent Average Good
N % N %
Below Rs.500 3 1.3 231 98.7 r = -0.047
Sig. Val.= 0.251
P > 0.05
Not significant
Rs.500 – 1000 16 5.0 305 95.0
Above Rs.1000 0 0.0 45 100.0
- 249 -
The above correlation analysis shows the relation between the
satisfaction level and the amount spent by the respondents per visit
and it cannot be defined as the output of the analysis turned out to
be not significant. Thus, though the respondents who had spent
more than Rs.1000 had voted for 100 percent satisfaction, no
definite relation can be defined to explain the satisfaction level on
the basis of amount spent by the respondents.
Table IV.5.11
Satisfaction level with respect to persons/media through which
the respondents got introduced to the shop
Source of knowledge
about the shop
Average Good
N % N %
Relatives 15 11.3 118 88.7 2 = 43.222
Sig. Val.= 0.000
P < 0.05
Significant
Neighbours/Colleagues 0 0.0 323 100.0
Advertisements 4 5.9 64 94.1
Friends 0 0.0 76 100.0
The significant outcome from the above 2 analysis confirms
the association between the satisfaction level and persons/media
through which the respondents had got introduced to the shop. It
was found that those who got introduced to the shop through their
neighbours/colleagues or friends were totally satisfied with the
policies. Nearly 6 percent and 11 percent of the respondents who
had got introduced through the advertisements and relatives
respectively had average satisfaction level.
- 250 -
Table IV.5.12
Satisfaction level of respondents with regard to
mode of payment
Mode of
payment
Average Good
N % N %
Cash 10 2.4 406 97.6 2= 2.574
Sig. Val. = 0.109
P > 0.05
Not significant
Credit cards 9 4.9 175 95.1
The above 2 analysis shows the association between the
satisfaction level and the mode of payment. As the result is not
significant it is clear that the satisfaction level didn’t vary with
respect to the mode of payment. Thus the satisfaction level of the
respondents who paid by cash or credit cards didn’t vary with the
mode of payment.
- 251 -
Table IV.5.13
ANOVA for Satisfaction level between respondents of
various age groups
Variable Age N Mean Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F
Age G1
G2
G3
G4
28
223
286
63
76.74
74.46
75.92
76.61
Between
Groups
With in
Groups
409.094
35030.503
3
596
136.365
58.776
2.320
Sig. Val.=
0.074
P > 0.05
Not
significant
G1 = Upto 20 years G2 = 21- 30 years G3 = 31- 40 years
G4 = Above 40 years
The above ANOVA test was carried out to analyze the
variation in satisfaction level with regard to empathy between the
respondents of various age groups.
The mean value for the groups below 20 years and above 40
years was high, however the final outcome of the ANOVA test
being not significant clearly denied any variation in satisfaction
with regard to empathy between various age groups.
- 252 -
Table IV.5.14
ANOVA for satisfaction level between educational
qualifications of the respondents
Variable Education N Mean Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F
Educational
Qualification
G1
G2
G3
G4
64
166
276
94
76.14
74.91
75.26
76.73
Between
Groups
With in
Groups
242.987
35196.610
3
596
80.996
59.055
1.372
Sig. Val=
0.250
P > 0.05
Not
significant
G1= Below 10th
G2 = 10th
-12th
G3 = Graduate G4 = Post graduate
To understand the variation in satisfaction level between
respondents with varied educational qualification the above test was
done and the return of non-significant value confirmed that there is
no significant variation in satisfaction level with regard to empathy
between the respondents with different educational qualification.
- 253 -
Table IV.5.15
ANOVA for satisfaction level between respondents of different
occupation
Variable Occupation N Mean Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F
Occupation G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6
92
99
64
113
190
42
72.97
73.80
78.50
76.73
75.18
78.77
Between
Groups
With in
Groups
2049.635
33389.961
5
594
409.927
56.212
7.293
Sig. Val. =
0.000
P < 0.05
Significant
G1 = Govt. Official G2 = Businessman G3 = Professional
G4 = Private employee G5 = Housewife G6 = Others
The output from the ANOVA test shows that the satisfaction
level varies significantly between the respondents based on their
occupation. The professional persons had the highest level of
satisfaction followed by the respondents who were employed in the
private sector. Next in order the housewives had slightly more
satisfaction on the empathy of the retail shops compared to the
businessmen and government officials.
Thus the professionals had the highest level of satisfaction
and the government officials had the least level of satisfaction with
regard to empathy.
- 254 -
Table IV.5.16
ANOVA for satisfaction level between various income groups
Variable Income
N Mean Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F
Monthly
income
G1
G2
G3
G4
108
434
56
2
76.85
74.80
78.29
73.33
Between
Groups
With in
Groups
854.699
34584.898
3
596
284.900
58.028
4.910
Sig. Val. =
0.002
P < 0.05
Significant
G1 = Rs. 5,000 – 10,000 G2 = Rs. 10,001- 20,000
G3 = Rs. 20,001 - 30,000 G4 = Above Rs. 30,000
The satisfaction level based on the various income groups was
studied in the above ANOVA test. It was found that the satisfaction
level varies significantly with the income of the respondents.
Those with a monthly income of Rs.20,001–30,000 had the highest
level of satisfaction followed by the Rs. 5,000–10,000 income
group. Next in series were those who had an income of Rs.10,000 –
20,000 and the highest income group with the income greater than
Rs.30,000 had the least satisfaction of all.
- 255 -
Table IV.5.17
ANOVA for satisfaction level between the number of members
in the family
Variable No. of
family
members
N Mean Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F
No of
family
members
G1
G2
G3
349
242
9
74.93
75.98
83.95
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
812.886
34626.71
2
597
406.443
58.001
7.007 Sig. Val. =
0.001
P < 0.05
Significant
G1 = 2-4 members G2 = 5-7 members G3 = Above 7 members
The above table shows the ANOVA test for the satisfaction
level between the number of members in the family and it varies
significantly. As the number of members in the family increased,
so did the satisfaction level increase. Thus the respondents from a
large family with more than 7 members had the highest level of
satisfaction and those from a small family say 2 - 4 members had
the least satisfaction level with regard to the empathy of the retail
shops.
- 256 -
Table IV.5.18
ANOVA for satisfaction level between respondents who
were accompanied for shopping by different people
Variabl
e
Persons
accompanie
d
N Mea
n
Group
s
Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Squar
e
F
Often
go for
shoppin
g
G1
G2
G3
G4
20
9
20
0
15
7
34
73.8
7
76.0
0
76.3
7
78.3
6
Betwee
n
Groups
With in
Groups
1001.345
34438.25
1
3
59
6
333.78
2
57.782
5.77
7
Sig. Val.
= 0.001
P < 0.05
Significa
nt
G1= Alone G2 = With spouse G3 = With family G4 =With friends
The above ANOVA test shows a significant variation in the
satisfaction level between the respondents on the basis of the
persons who accompanied them for shopping. The te st revealed that
those who shopped with their friends had the highest satisfaction
level and those who shopped with their spouse and family had more
or less the same satisfaction level. The respondents who shopped
alone had the least satisfaction.
- 257 -
Table IV.5.19
ANOVA for satisfaction level between the respondents
reasons for selecting a particular shop
Variable Reason
for
purchase
N Mean Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F Significant
Reason
for
selecting
the shop
G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6
G7
80
.21
264
188
36
9
2
78.72
71.32
75.82
73.79
76.29
78.51
75.49
Between
Groups
With in
Groups
1887.052
33552.54
6
593
314.509
56.581
5.559
Sig.Val. =
0.000
P < 0.05
Significant
G1 = Large variety of products G2 = The service provided is good
G3 = Reasonable price G4 = Good store environment
G5 = Parking facility G6 = Convenient location
G7 = Others
The above table confirms the significant variation in
satisfaction level between the reasons for selecting a particular
shop. It was evident that the respondents who chose the shop for
the availability of more choices of product and convenient location
of the shop had the highest level of satisfaction. Those who opted
for the shop for convenient parking and reasonable price had almost
the same level of satisfaction and those who selected the shop for
the good service provided had the least level of satisfaction with
regard to the empathy of the retail shops.
- 258 -
Table IV.5.20
ANOVA for satisfaction level between respondents
frequency of purchase
Variable Frequency
of
purchase
N Mean Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F
Frequency
of
Purchase
G1
G2
G3
G4
143
378
60
19
73.25
75.63
78.85
78.94
Between
Groups
With in
Groups
1626.76
33812.83
3
596
542.25
56.73 9.558
Sig. Val. =
0.000
P < 0.05
Significant
G1 = Once G2 = Twice G3 = thrice G4 = Frequently
The above ANOVA test shows a significant variation in the
satisfaction level between the respondent’s frequencies of purchase.
It was clear that those who shopped thrice or more frequently had
higher level of satisfaction than those who shopped twice and once
monthly. Thus the satisfaction level proved to be in direct
proportion with the frequency of purchase and thus as the frequency
of visit increased, the satisfaction level also increased. Thu s those
who shopped monthly once had the least satisfaction level and those
who shopped more frequently had the highest level of satisfaction
with regard to the empathy of the retail shops.
- 259 -
Table IV.5.21
ANOVA for satisfaction level between amount spent on purchase
Variable Amount
spent on
purchase
N Mean Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F
Amount
spent on
purchase
G1
G2
G3
234
321
45
76.21
74.12
81.53
Between
Groups
With in
Groups
23.63
33075.616
2
597
1181.990
55.403
21.334
Sig. Val. =
0.000
P < 0.05
Significant
G1 = Below Rs.500 G2 = Rs.500 - 1000 G3 = Above Rs.1000
The ANOVA test shows that there is significant variation in
the satisfaction level between the respondents based on the amount
spent per visit. The satisfaction level inc reased with the amount
spent. Thus those who spent above Rs.1000 had the highest level of
satisfaction followed by those who spent between Rs.500 - 1000
and the least satisfaction level for those who spent below Rs.500. It
can also be stated conversely , that more the satisfaction level the
more it stimulates the respondents to purchase, thus ultimately
increasing the amount spent on purchase. Therefore more the
amount spent more is the satisfaction level with regard to the
empathy of the shop.
- 260 -
Table IV.5.22
ANOVA for satisfaction level between persons/media through
which the respondents got introduced to the shop
Variable Got
introduced
by
N Mean Groups Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F
Got
introduced
to the shop
G1
G2
G3
G4
133
323
68
76
76.15
74.48
76.27
77.87
Between
Groups
With in
Groups
864.058
34575.539
3
596
288.019
58.013
4.965
Sig. Val. =
0.002
P < 0.05
Significant
G1 = Relatives G2 = Neighbours / Colleagues
G3 = Advertisements G4 = Friends
There exists a significant variation in sat isfaction level
between the respondents based on the persons/media through which
they got introduced to the shop. It was found that those who got
introduced through their friends had the highest level of
satisfaction. The respondents who got introduced through the
advertisements and relatives had almost the same level of
satisfaction and those who got introduced through their
neighbours/colleagues had the least level of satisfaction with regard
to the policies of the shop.
- 261 -
Table IV.5.23
t-test for comparing satisfaction level between gender
Gender N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
Mean
t df
Male 236 74.7646 8.79155 0.57228 -1.871 0.598 Sig.
Val.=0.062
P > 0.05
Not
significant
Female 364 75.9646 6.85746 0.35943 -1.776 415.145
The t - test for comparing the satisfaction level between
genders showed that the satisfaction level with regard to empathy
didn’t vary significantly with the gender of the respondents.
Table IV.5.24
t-test for comparing satisfaction level between
mode of payment
Mode of
Payment
N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
Mean
t df
Cash 416 75.32 7.59008 0.37213 -0.824 598 Sig.Val=
0.410
P > 0.05
Not
Significant
Credit
Cards
184 75.88 7.92435 0.58419 -0.810 337.167
- 262 -
The non significant value of the above t -test confirmed that
the satisfaction level didn’t vary with regard to the mode of
payment. Thus the mode of payment didn’t have any influence on
the satisfaction level with regard to the empathy undertaken by the
corresponding retail shops.
Factor Analysis for the Dimension of Empathy
The results of the factor analysis, after reducing the
dimensions of the variables are given below.
Table IV.5.25
KMO and Bartlett’s Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy 0.523
Bartlett’s Test of Approx. Chi-Square
Sphericity df
Sig.
495.282
36
0.000
The appropriateness of the data chosen in the dimension of
empathy for factor analysis was checked in the table above.
- 263 -
Table IV.5.26
Rotated Component Matrix
Aspect f1 f2 f3 f4
The store offers high quality merchandise 0.361 -0.422 0.438 0.245
The store provides adequate space for
vehicle parking
0.807 0.065 -0.228 0.106
The store has operating hours convenient to
the customers
0.706 0.144 0.287 0.005
The store accepts all major credit cards 0.549 0.054 0.264 -0.557
The store offers its own credit card 0.202 0.532 0.054 -0.021
The store ensures good quality bags and
provides utmost care to carry the goods
home
0.140 0.740 -0.106 0.197
The items stated in the promotion catalogue
are the same as offered by the departmental
store
0.124 0.040 0.177 0.829
The service quality of the outlet is
satisfactory
0.025 0.122 0.832 0.063
The store supplies free and complementary
goods to the customer without fail
-0.191 658 0.324 0.169
Eigen value 1.910 1.445 1.156 1.049
% of Variance 18.819 16.513 13.769 12.668
- 264 -
The first factor in the above rotated component matrix of the
variables consisting of convenient operating hours, adequate
parking area and accepting major credit cards together can be
termed as ease for shopping accounts for a variance of 18.82
percent. The variables consisting of stores providing its own credit
cards and providing good packing materials together constitute the
second factor and accounts for 16.51 percent of the variance. The
third factor consisting of the variable of satisfactory service quality
accounts for a variance of 13.77 percent. Availability of upto date
promotion catalogue accounts for a variance of 12.67 percent and
constitutes the last factor.
Logistic Regression
Table IV.5.27
Classification Table
Observed
Predicted
Level of empathy Percentage
Corrected
Low
level
High
Level
Level of
empathy
Low Level 419 0 100.0
High
Level
181 0 0.0
Overall Percentage 69.8
The logistic regression classifies data corrected to the extent
of 69.8 per cent reflecting low level of satisfaction with regard to
the dimension of empathy.
- 265 -
Table IV.5.28
Variables in the Equation for Empathy
B S.E Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
Age -0.302 0.140 4.653 1 0.31 0.739
Gender -0.379 0.237 2.573 1 0.109 0.684
Education 0.468 0.121 14.892 1 0.000 1.596
Occupation 0.216 0.77 7.772 1 0.005 1.241
Income -0.007 0.203 0.001 1 0.972 0.993
Family Size 0.594 0.185 10.285 1 0.001 1.811
Persons accompanying
for shopping
0.210 0.105 4.008 1 0.055 1.234
Preference for the shop -0.358 0.088 16.533 1 0.000 0.699
Constant -1.646 0.699 5.536 1 0.019 0.193
From the table, the variables such as education, occupation,
family size and preference for the shop were found to be
significant, which shows that these variables decide the satisfaction
level with regard to the dimension of empathy.
It is seen that the family size and education level in creases
the good level of satisfaction nearly about 1.8 and 1.6 times
respectively. Occupation also increases the good level of
satisfaction with a multiplicative factor of 1.2.
On the other hand, the preference for the shop reduces the
good level of sat isfaction which should be paid attention to by the
departmental stores to increase the satisfaction level of the
customers towards the various policies of the store.