Impact of Product Quality and Perceived Risk on Loyalty through Purchase Decisions on Hygiene Products in Surabaya: COVID-19 Perspective
محورهای موضوعی :
1 - Widya Mandala Surabaya Catholic University, Surabaya, East Java – Indonesia
کلید واژه: Product Quality, Perceived Risk, Buying Decision, Loyalty ,
چکیده مقاله :
The reason of this research about is to get it the affect of the COVID-19 widespread on quality and hazard in cleanliness item obtaining choices. The populace of this think about alludes to the populace of Surabaya, East Java territory, so the test of this consider was 200 individuals. A examining strategy utilizing straightforward arbitrary examining is additionally called straightforward arbitrary testing. The information investigation procedure utilized in this consider is SEM (Basic Condition Demonstrate). The comes about of the speculation testing appear that the impact of item quality on buy choices is positive and vital in making buy choices. The impact of seen chance on obtaining choices is demonstrated to be positive and critical. The impact of obtaining choices on dependability demonstrated positive and significant. Item quality incorporates a positive and critical impact on dependability through acquiring choices. Seen chance features a positive and critical impact on devotion through acquiring choices. The conclusion of this study is that all hypotheses proposed in this study are significant, so all proposed hypotheses are accepted. Suggestions for future research are to be tested on different objects to test the robustness of these theories. While the practical advice put forward is that manufacturers of hygiene products must be able to innovate continuously on the hygiene products offered and must continue to educate the market about the benefits of the product and about the risks faced if during the COVID-19 period, individuals do not use hygiene products.
The reason of this research about is to get it the affect of the COVID-19 widespread on quality and hazard in cleanliness item obtaining choices. The populace of this think about alludes to the populace of Surabaya, East Java territory, so the test of this consider was 200 individuals. A examining strategy utilizing straightforward arbitrary examining is additionally called straightforward arbitrary testing. The information investigation procedure utilized in this consider is SEM (Basic Condition Demonstrate). The comes about of the speculation testing appear that the impact of item quality on buy choices is positive and vital in making buy choices. The impact of seen chance on obtaining choices is demonstrated to be positive and critical. The impact of obtaining choices on dependability demonstrated positive and significant. Item quality incorporates a positive and critical impact on dependability through acquiring choices. Seen chance features a positive and critical impact on devotion through acquiring choices. The conclusion of this study is that all hypotheses proposed in this study are significant, so all proposed hypotheses are accepted. Suggestions for future research are to be tested on different objects to test the robustness of these theories. While the practical advice put forward is that manufacturers of hygiene products must be able to innovate continuously on the hygiene products offered and must continue to educate the market about the benefits of the product and about the risks faced if during the COVID-19 period, individuals do not use hygiene products.
1. Nicomedes C., Avila R., 2020. An analysis on the panic of Filipinos during COVID-19 pandemic in the Philippines. Unpublished manuscript. https://doi. org/10.13140/RG, 2 (17355.54565)
2. Zikienė K., Pilelienė L., 2011. Testing of methods for customer loyalty measurement in pharmacy ‘Camelia ‘. Organizacijų vadyba: sisteminiai tyrimai. 59, 149-166.
3. Puelles M., Diaz-Bustamante M., Carcelén S., 2016. Are consumers more rational and informed purchasers during recession periods? The role of Private Labels and retailing strategies. The international review of retail, Distribution and Consumer Research. 26(4), 396-417.
4. Nielsen I., 2020. Key consumer behaviour thresholds identified as the coronavirus outbreak evolves. Aralık, 4, 2020, 1-16.
5. George A., Sunny P., 2023. Why do people continue using mobile wallets? An empirical analysis amid COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Financial Services Marketing. 28(4), 807-821.
6. Gázquez-Abad J.C., Martínez-López F.J., Esteban-Millat I., 2017. The role of consumers' attitude towards economic climate in their reaction to ‘PL-only’assortments: Evidence from the United States and Spain. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. 34, 340-348.
7. Wibowo J., Riyanto D.Y., Erstiawan M.S., Martono S., 2024. The Influence of Product Branding on Purchase Decisions through Brand Image (Study on Ecocreative Products of MSMEs in East Java). International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation. 3(1), 11-23.
8. Anselmsson J., Johansson U., Persson N., 2007. Understanding price premium for grocery products: a conceptual model of customer based brand equity. Journal of Product & Brand Management. 16(6), 401-414.
9. Kaswengi J., Diallo M.F., 2015. Consumer choice of store brands across store formats: A panel data analysis under crisis periods. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. 23, 70-76.
10. Dreibelbis R., Winch P.J., Leontsini E., Hulland K.R., Ram P.K., Unicomb L., Luby S.P., 2013. The integrated behavioural model for water, sanitation, and hygiene: a systematic review of behavioural models and a framework for designing and evaluating behaviour change interventions in infrastructure-restricted settings. BMC Public Health. 13, 1-13.
11. Bradford J.W., 1991. Competing in World-Class Manufacturing: America's 21s7 Century Challenge. National Productivity Review. 10(3), 403-409.
12. Oke A.E., Ogunsami D.R., Ogunlana S., 2012. Establishing a common ground for the use of structural equation modelling for construction related research studies. Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building. 12(3), 89-94.
13. Basias N., Pollalis Y., 2018. Quantitative and qualitative research in business & technology: Justifying a suitable research methodology. Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research. 7, 91-105.
14. Bauer A.S., Leppik K., Galić K., Anestopoulos I., Panayiotidis M.I., Agriopoulou S., Milousi M., Uysal-Unalan I., Varzakas T., Krauter V., 2022. Cereal and Confectionary Packaging: Background, Application and Shelf-Life Extension. Foods. 11(5), 697-707.
15. Sjøberg S., 2010. Constructivism and learning. International Encyclopedia of Education. 5, 485-490.
16. Stone R.N., Winter F.W., 1987Risk: Is it still uncertainty times consequences. 1-12.
17. Greatorex M., Mitchell V., Developing the perceived risk concept: emerging issues in marketing, 1993.
18. Dowling G.R., Staelin R., 1994. A model of perceived risk and intended risk-handling activity. Journal of Consumer Research. 21(1), 119-134.
19. Bettman J.R., 1973. Perceived risk and its components: A model and empirical test. Journal of Marketing Research.10(2), 184-190.
20. Guseman D.S., 1981. Risk perception and risk reduction in consumer services. Marketing of Services. 20044
21. George W.R., Weinberger M.G., Kelly J.P., 1985. Consumer risk perceptions: managerial tool for the service encounter. The service encounter: managing employee/customer interaction in service businesses. 83-100.
22. Garner S.J., 1986. Perceived risk and information sources in services purchasing. The Mid-Atlantic Journal of Business. 24(2), 49-58.
23. Murray K.B., Schlacter J.L., 1990. The impact of services versus goods on consumers’ assessment of perceived risk and variability. Journal of the Academy of Marketing science.18, 51-65.
24. Mitra K., Reiss M.C., Capella L.M., 1999. An examination of perceived risk, information search and behavioral intentions in search, experience and credence services. Journal of Services Marketing. 13(3), 208-228.
25. Zeithaml V.A., 1981. How consumer evaluation processes differ between goods and services. Marketing of Services. 9(1), 25-32.
26. Bateson J.E., Hoffman K.D., 1999. Managing services marketing: Text and readings. Dryden Press, Fort Worth, Tex.
27. Hugstad P., Taylor J.W., Bruce G.D., 1987. The effects of social class and perceived risk on consumer. The Journal of Services Marketing. 1(1), 47-52.
28. Zinkhan G.M., Karande K.W., 1991. Cultural and gender differences in risk-taking behavior among American and Spanish decision makers. The Journal of Social Psychology. 131(5), 741-742.
29. Mitchell V.W., Greatorex M., 1993. Risk perception and reduction in the purchase of consumer services. Service Industries Journal. 13(4), 179-200.
30. Verhage B.J., Yavas U., Green R.T., Borak E., 1990. The perceived risk-brand loyalty relationship: An international perspective. Journal of Global Marketing. 3(3), 7-22.
31. Verhage B.J., Yavas U., Green R.T., 1990. Perceived risk: a cross-cultural phenomenon? International Journal of research in Marketing. 7(4), 297-303.
32. Zhang X., Liu S., 2022. Understanding relationship commitment and continuous knowledge sharing in online health communities: a social exchange perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management. 26(3), 592-614.
33. Kotler P., Keller K.L., 2016. Marketing management (15th global ed.). England: Pearson, 803-829.
34. Nguyen M.A.T., Yu M.M., 2020. Decomposing the operational efficiency of major cruise lines: A network data envelopment analysis approach in the presence of shared input and quasi fixed input. Managerial and Decision Economics, 41(8), 1501-1516.
35. Lovelock C.H., 1983. Classifying services to gain strategic marketing insights. Journal of Marketing. 47(3), 9-20.
36. Gremler D.D., Brown S.W., 1999. The loyalty ripple effect: appreciating the full value of customers. International Journal of Service Industry Management. 10(3), 271-293.
37. Cronin Jr J.J., Taylor S.A., 1992. Measuring service quality: a reexamination and extension. Journal of Marketing. 56(3), 55-68.
38. Bowen J.T., Chen S.L., 2001. The relationship between customer loyalty and customer satisfaction. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. 13(5), 213-217.
39. Oliver R.L., 1993. Cognitive, affective, and attribute bases of the satisfaction response. Journal of Consumer Research. 20(3), 418-430.
40. McMullan R., Gilmore A., 2003. The conceptual development of customer loyalty measurement: A proposed scale. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing. 11, 230-243.
41. Yang Z., Peterson R.T., 2004. Customer perceived value, satisfaction, and loyalty: The role of switching costs. Psychology & Marketing. 21(10), 799-822.
42. Anderson E.W., Mittal V., 2000. Strengthening the satisfaction-profit chain. Journal of Service Research. 3(2), 107-120.
43. Rundle‐Thiele S., 2005. Exploring loyal qualities: assessing survey based loyalty measures. Journal of Services Marketing. 19(7), 492-500.
44. Pileliene L., Zikiene K., 2019. Research of factors influencing different generation customer switching behavior in farmers market in Lithuania, Economic Science for rural Development. 323-350.
45. Oke A.O., Kamolshotiros P., Popoola O.Y., Ajagbe M.A., Olujobi O.J., 2016. Consumer behavior towards decision making and loyalty to particular brands. International Review of Management and Marketing. 6(4), 43-52.
46. Perera C.H., Nayak R., Long N.V.T., 2019. The Impact of electronic-word-of mouth on e-loyalty and consumers’e-purchase decision making process: A Social media perspective. International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance. 10(4), 85-91.
