0115 966 7955 Today's Opening Times 10:00 - 20:00 (BST)

Comparing Hypermarket and Traditional Wet Market Consumers

Disclaimer: This dissertation has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional dissertation writers. You can view samples of our professional work here.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of UK Essays.

CHAPTER 4 - DATA ANALYSIS

4.0 Introduction

This study was conducted in two different store formats, which are hypermarket and traditional wet market respectively. Totally 200 questionnaires were distributed and collected, each market has 100 questionnaires respectively.

First of all, the general data such as respondents' profiles, trip patterns and transaction patterns were analyzed by using descriptive statistics. This approach generates frequency and percentage of the respondents' characteristics and presents the basic data and information.

Secondly, reliability of the respondents' perception on store image will be tested to examine whether if the data reliable or not. The level of reliability, which is so called Cronbach's alpha, the alpha value should not lower than 0.70 to obtain the consistent result.

After that, independent t-test will be used to examine the level of significant on store attributes between different store formats. Moreover, we will also test the correlation between store formats and the demographic characteristics, trip patterns and transaction patterns. The differences of mean will be calculated, and 95% of confidence intervals were taken in this study. Significant probability was ≤0.05. It means if the result lower or equal to 0.05, it indicates statistically significantly different.

4.1 Descriptive Analysis

4.1.1 Respondents' Profile

4.1.1.1 Gender

 

Sex

Hypermarket

Traditional Wet Market

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

 

Male

46

46.0

34

34.0

Female

54

54.0

66

66.0

Total

100

100.0

100

100.0

Table 4.1: Gender

Figure 4.1: Gender

At both different store formats, we can find that there is more female shop at markets than male does.

Gender distribution of respondents at hypermarket was much more balanced than gender distribution of respondents at traditional wet market, which are 46% for male and 54% for female at hypermarket, while traditional wet market was 1/3 of respondents are male and 2/3 of respondents are female.

4.1.1.2 Age

 

Age

Hypermarket

Traditional Wet Market

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

 

25 and below

35

35.0

28

28.0

26-35

34

34.0

19

19.0

36-45

16

16.0

14

14.0

46-55

12

12.0

23

23.0

56 and above

3

3.0

16

16.0

Total

100

100.0

100

100.0

Table 4.2: Age

Figure 4.2: Age

The data collection of this study showed that respondents at hypermarket and traditional wet market with the age of 25 years old and below are the highest, which are 35% and 28% respectively, compare with the ages which are between 26-35 years old (34% and 19%), 36-45 years old (16% and 14%), 46-55 years old (12% and 23%), and 56 years old and above (3% and 16%).

One phenomenon can be found in this data is the number of respondents of traditional wet market with the age which are between 46-55 years old and 56 years old and above, are much higher than the respondents of hypermarket with the same range of age. The total percentage for this range of age (46-55 years old and 56 years old and above), for traditional wet market is 39%, while for hypermarket is only 15%. We can conclude that the respondents of traditional wet market are older than the respondent of hypermarket.

4.1.1.3 Ethnic

 

Ethnic

Hypermarket

Traditional Wet Market

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

 

Malay

33

33.0

14

14.0

Chinese

55

55.0

74

74.0

Indian

9

9.0

11

11.0

Others

3

3.0

1

1.0

Total

100

100.0

100

100.0

Table 4.3: Ethnic

RUL 573- RESEARCH PROJECT IN PLANNING

CHAPTER 4: Store Image: Comparing Hypermarket and Traditional Wet Market Consumers' Perception.

Case Study: Bayan Baru, Penang.

Figure 4.3: Ethnic

In this study, Chinese has the highest number of people (55% from hypermarket, 74% from traditional wet market) following to Malay (33% from hypermarket, 14% from traditional wet market), Indian (9% from hypermarket, 11% from traditional wet market) and the others (3% from hypermarket, 1% from traditional wet market).

The biggest different of these store formats is Chinese respondent has higher portion at traditional wet market compare to hypermarket, which are ¾ of all respondents of traditional wet market compare to ½ of all respondents of hypermarket. While the figure of Malay showed that Malay tends to shop at hypermarket instead of going to traditional wet market, the number of Malay shops at hypermarket is twice compare to number of Malay shops at traditional wet market.

4.1.1.4 Marital Status

 

Marital Status

Hypermarket

Traditional Wet Market

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

 

Single

58

58.0

42

42.0

Married

42

42.0

58

58.0

Total

100

100.0

100

100.0

Table 4.4: Marital Status

RUL 573- RESEARCH PROJECT IN PLANNING

CHAPTER 4: Store Image: Comparing Hypermarket and Traditional Wet Market Consumers' Perception.

Case Study: Bayan Baru, Penang.

Figure 4.4: Marital Status

40

 

RUL 573- RESEARCH PROJECT IN PLANNING

CHAPTER 4: Store Image: Comparing Hypermarket and Traditional Wet Market Consumers' Perception.

Case Study: Bayan Baru, Penang.

Base on the data that obtained, the respondents of hypermarket who are married (42%) are fewer than those who are single (58%). While respondents from of traditional wet market have the different situation, the result was totally inversed of hypermarket, that is 58% of the respondents are married, and the others 42% are single.

This result indicates respondents of this study who are married tend to shop at traditional wet market and respondents who are single prefer to shop at hypermarket.

4.1.1.5 Education Level

 

Education Level

Hypermarket

Traditional Wet Market

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

 

College/ University

74

74.0

50

50.0

Secondary School

19

19.0

34

34.0

Primary School

2

2.0

13

13.0

No Formal Education

4

4.0

3

3.0

Others

1

1.0

1

1.0

Total

100

100.0

100

100.0

Table 4.5: Education Level

Figure 4.5: Education Level

The respondents from both store formats also have highest number of people (74% of hypermarket and 50% of wet market) who had at least tertiary education, which indicates college or university. This is because of more than 1/3 of respondents from hypermarket and 1/4 of respondents from traditional wet market who are younger generation, which is in the category of 25 years old and below as shown in Chapter 4.1.1.2.

The overall result showed that the respondents of traditional wet market have slightly lower education level compare to those respondents of hypermarket. Half of the respondents of traditional wet market have not ever pursued tertiary education, the number is twice compare to those respondents of hypermarket who had only secondary education, primary education, and no formal education.

4.1.1.6 Occupation

 

Occupation

Hypermarket

Traditional Wet Market

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

 

Waged Worker

25

25.0

32

32.0

Government Employee

18

18.0

5

5.0

Entrepreneur

7

7.0

5

5.0

Housewife

8

8.0

26

26.0

Student

39

39.0

23

23.0

Retired

Unemployed

3

0

3.0

0.0

7

2

7.0

2.0

Total

100

100.0

100

100.0

Table 4.6: Occupation

Figure 4.6: Occupation

In the previous data showed that the respondents who are younger generation (25 years old and below) and have at least tertiary education level had a large portion of entire respondents. In this section, it showed that most of the respondents of hypermarket are student (39%), following by waged worker (25%), government employee (18%), housewife (8%), entrepreneur (7%), retired (3%).

While at traditional wet market, most of the respondents are worked as waged worker (32%), following by housewife (26%), student (23%), retired (7%), government employee (5%), entrepreneur (5%) and unemployed (2%).

This data also showed that housewife prefers to shop at traditional wet market (25%) instead of shop at hypermarket (8%).

4.1.1.7 Household Size

Household Member

Hypermarket

Traditional Wet Market

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

15

Total

7

5

6

28

27

14

7

6

0

0

0

100

7.0

5.0

6.0

28.0

27.0

14.0

7.0

6.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

1

6

15

22

28

11

11

3

1

1

1

100

1.0

6.0

15.0

22.0

28.0

11.0

11.0

3.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

100.0

Table 4.7: Household Size

Figure 4.7: Household Size

The mode number of household size for respondents of hypermarket and traditional wet market are 4 and 5 respectively.

The data showed that 28% and 27% of respondents of hypermarket have household size of 4 and 5. On the other hand, 22% and 28% of respondents of traditional wet market have household size of 4 and 5. These indicate more than half of the respondents who have household size of 4 or 5.

From the figure above, we can see that the household size of traditional wet market respondent is slightly bigger than household size of hypermarket respondents. From the calculation, the mean household size of traditional wet market respondents are 4.87, and respondents of hypermarket are 4.63.

4.1.1.8Household Monthly Income

Household Monthly Income

Hypermarket

Traditional Wet Market

   

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

 

RM1500 and below

23

23.0

22

22.0

RM1501-2500

17

17.0

21

21.0

RM2501-3500

23

23.0

24

24.0

RM3501-4500

23

23.0

13

13.0

RM4501 and above

14

14.0

20

20.0

Total

100

100.0

100

100.0

Table 4.8: Household Monthly Income

Figure 4.8: Household Monthly Income

From these 200 respondents, there is no big difference of household monthly income between two different store formats.

For respondent of hypermarket, the categories of RM1500 and below, RM2501-3500, and RM3501-4500 also showed 23% respectively, followed by RM1501-2500 (17%), RM4501and above (14%).

On the other hand, the mode number of household monthly income for respondents of traditional wet market is RM2501-3500, followed by RM1500 and below (22%), RM1501-2500 (21%), RM4501 and above (20%), RM3501-4500 (13%).

Overall there is not a very significant different between the groups and the categories.

4.1.2 Trip Patterns

4.1.2.1 Travelling Time from Home to Markets

Travelling Time

Hypermarket

Traditional Wet Market

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

 

15 minutes and less

48

48.0

53

53.0

16-30 minutes

34

34.0

28

28.0

31-60 minutes

16

16.0

17

17.0

1 hour and more

2

2.0

2

2.0

Total

100

100.0

100

100.0

Table 4.9: Travelling Time

Figure 4.9: Travelling Time

Majority of the respondents travel from home to the markets were just within 15 minutes and this was showed by 48% respondents of hypermarket and 53% of traditional wet market. This indicates half of the respondents came from adjacent area. While 34% respondents of hypermarket and 28% respondents of traditional wet market have travelling time between 16-30 minutes. Travelling time between 31-60 minutes, 16% and 17% fell to respondents of hypermarket and respondents if traditional wet market respectively. The category of 1 hour and more is only chosen by 2% of respondents of hypermarket and traditional wet market respectively.

From the data we can conclude that people prefer to travel from home to market in shorter time.

4.1.2.2 Transportation Mode

Transportation Mode

Hypermarket

Traditional Wet Market

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

 

Walk

15

15.0

23

23.0

Bicycle

4

4.0

3

3.0

Bus

5

5.0

6

6.0

Motorcycle

8

8.0

23

23.0

Car

Taxi

Others

68

0

0

68.0

0.0

0.0

45

0

0

45.0

0.0

0.0

Total

100

100.0

100

100.0

Table 4.10: Transportation Mode

Figure 4.10: Transportation Mode

Majority of the respondents prefer going to the markets by car, the data showed that 68% of hypermarket respondents and 45% of traditional wet market respondents go to the markets by car. Another transportation mode that is chosen by respondents is walking (15% of hypermarket respondents and 23% of traditional wet market respondents), as well as motorcycle (8% of hypermarket respondents and 23% traditional wet market respondents).

A few people chose bus (5% of hypermarket respondents and 6% of traditional wet market respondents) and bicycle (4% of hypermarket respondents and 3% of traditional wet market respondents). Taxi and the others transportation mode have none of respondent chose such mode of transportation.

Although majority of the respondents have the shortest travelling time from home to market as showed at Chapter 4.1.2.1, but most of them still prefer to drive to the market.

4.1.3Transaction Patterns

4.1.3.1 Frequency of Visiting

Frequency of Visiting

Hypermarket

Traditional Wet Market

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

 

Less than once a week

27

27.0

21

21.0

Once a week

36

36.0

40

40.0

Twice weekly

21

21.0

11

11.0

Thrice weekly

12

12.0

10

10.0

4 times or more weekly

4

4.0

18

18.0

Total

100

100.0

100

100.0

Table 4.11: Frequency of Visiting

Figure 4.11: Frequency of Visiting

Majority of the respondents visiting markets once a week, 36% of hypermarket respondents and 40% traditional wet market respondents chose this category. While 27% of hypermarket respondents and 21% of traditional wet market respondents chose to visit the market less than once a week.

Less than half of the respondents visit the market twice or more than twice weekly. From the data obtained, 21% of hypermarket respondents and 11% of traditional wet market respondents visit the market twice weekly, 12% of hypermarket respondents and 10% of traditional wet market respondents visit the market thrice weekly, and 4% of hypermarket respondents and 18% of traditional wet market respondents visit 4 times and more weekly.

The respondents who visit the markets 4 times and above weekly are 4.5 times more than those hypermarket respondents do.

4.1.3.2 Visiting Markets with Whom

Visiting Markets with whom

Hypermarket

Traditional Wet Market

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

 

Alone

17

17.0

36

36.0

Family/ Relatives

47

47.0

52

52.0

Friends/ Neighbours/ Colleagues

Others

36

0

36.0

0.0

12

0

12.0

0.0

Total

100

100.0

100

100.0

Table 4.12: Visiting Markets with Whom

Figure 4.12: Visiting Markets with Whom

Almost half of the respondents prefer to visit the markets with their family member or relatives, this occupied 47% of hypermarket respondents and 52% of traditional wet market respondents.

While the respondents who chose to visit markets with friends/ neighbors/ colleagues or alone, there is a significant different between hypermarket and traditional wet market. 36% of respondents of hypermarket prefer to go to the markets with their friends/ neighbors/ colleagues instead of go by alone, which has only 17% of the respondents chose that. On the other hand, traditional wet market is different. 36% of the respondents chose to go alone instead of go with friends/ neighbors/ colleagues, which only has 12%.

None of them chose to visit the markets with the people who have other relationships.

4.1.3.Time Spent

 

Time Spent

Hypermarket

Wet Market

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

 

30 minutes and less

12

12.0

18

18.0

30-60 minutes

32

32.0

49

49.0

1-2 hours

41

41.0

28

28.0

2 hours and more

15

15.0

5

5.0

Total

100

100.0

100

100.0

Table 4.13: Time Spent

Figure 4.13: Time Spent

From the data that obtained, majority of the traditional wet market respondent spent 30-60 minutes in the market, which occupied 49% of the traditional wet market respondent, followed by 1-2 hours (28%), 30 minutes and less (18%), and 2 hours and more (5%).

While hypermarket respondents prefer to spent longer time in the market. 41% of hypermarket respondents spent 1-2 hours, followed by 30-60 minutes (32%), 2 hours and more (15%), 30 minutes and less (12%).

For overall, 2/3 of traditional wet market respondents tends to spend shorter time compare to only 44% of hypermarket respondents spent less than 1 hour.

4.2Reliability Analysis

Data of consumer perception have been collected in the approach of Likert scale, reliability of the data should be tested. Gatewood and Field (1990) said that reliability is the ability of the instrument in providing the consistent results when it is repeated used. Cronbach's alpha is the basic measurement for reliability and an alpha value of 0.7 is sufficient (Nunnally, 1978).

All the store attributes will be tested in terms of the store attributes those contribute as the reasons of consumers to choose a retail store and also the importance level that respondents have given to the store attributes.

4.2.1Store Attributes as the Reasons for Consumers to Shop

Following are the store attributes as the reasons for consumer to shop:

Attribute 1 : Appropriate opening hours

Attribute 2 : Near to place of residence

Attribute 3 : Product quality

Attribute 4 : Product variety

Attribute 5 : Reasonable price

Attribute 6 : Speed of purchase

Attribute 7 : Satisfactorily service

Attribute 8 : Spacious interior space

Attribute 9 : Not crowded

Attribute 10 : Clean and comfortable

Attribute 11 : Good public transport available

Attribute 12 : Car parking facilities

Attribute 13 : Easiness on finding the product

Attribute 14 : Habit

Attribute 15 : Trust in vendor

4.2.1.1 Hypermarket

Table 4.14: Reliability Statistics (Store Attributes as the Reasons for Consumers to Shop at Hypermarket)

Cronbach's Alpha

Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items

N of Items

.865

.867

15

Table 4.15: Item-Total Statistics(Store Attributes as the Reasons for Consumers to ShopAt Hypermarket)

 

Scale Mean if Item Deleted

Scale Variance if Item Deleted

Corrected Item-Total Correlation

Squared Multiple Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted

Attribute 1

51.6100

60.947

.400

.495

.862

Attribute 2

51.7100

59.481

.489

.516

.858

Attribute 3

51.8700

59.124

.559

.570

.854

Attribute 4

51.5800

58.367

.583

.569

.853

Attribute 5

51.7700

60.522

.492

.470

.858

Attribute 6

51.9300

58.773

.565

.497

.854

Attribute 7

52.0200

58.666

.626

.532

.852

Attribute 8

51.9000

60.131

.446

.423

.860

Attribute 9

52.0400

58.786

.550

.604

.855

Attribute 10

51.7500

56.997

.679

.611

.848

Attribute 11

52.6300

64.397

.136

.379

.875

Attribute 12

51.7900

56.895

.563

.492

.854

Attribute 13

51.7700

57.027

.688

.612

.848

Attribute 14

52.2500

60.048

.403

.352

.863

Attribute 15

52.3400

59.075

.496

.544

.857

According to Table 4.14, Cronbach's alpha (α = 0.865), this indicates the data was reliable. As shown in Table 4.15, all the items has a less Cronbach's alpha than the calculated scale alpha (α = 0.865), except Attribute 11 (good transportation available), which has a higher alpha (α = 0.875), this means the item in the scale suppresses the alpha level. But for overall, the reasons to shop at hypermarket scale seem to be reliable measure of consumer perception.

4.2.1.2Traditional Wet Market

Table 4.16: Reliability Statistics

(Store Attributes as the Reasons for Consumers to ShopAt Traditional Wet Market)

Cronbach's Alpha

Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items

N of Items

.769

.775

15

Table 4.17: Item-Total Statistics (Store Attributes as the Reasons for Consumers to Shop At Traditional Wet Market)

 

Scale Mean if Item Deleted

Scale Variance if Item Deleted

Corrected Item-Total Correlation

Squared Multiple Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted

Attribute 1

49.9300

46.914

.295

.358

.762

Attribute 2

49.7400

47.164

.210

.339

.771

Attribute 3

49.5700

46.712

.357

.467

.758

Attribute 4

49.6300

45.589

.386

.493

.755

Attribute 5

49.4900

45.343

.398

.483

.754

Attribute 6

50.0400

44.463

.475

.497

.748

Attribute 7

49.8800

45.117

.468

.468

.749

Attribute 8

50.7000

42.859

.537

.701

.741

Attribute 9

50.7200

42.709

.530

.743

.741

Attribute 10

50.7600

42.002

.521

.697

.741

Attribute 11

51.0700

45.197

.260

.500

.770

Attribute 12

50.7700

44.341

.353

.471

.759

Attribute 13

49.7400

46.720

.335

.441

.759

Attribute 14

49.7100

48.168

.149

.423

.775

Attribute 15

49.7700

45.553

.366

.508

.757

According to Table 4.16, Cronbach's alpha (α = 0.769), this indicates the reliability of the data is sufficient. As shown in Table 4.17, three of the items has a higher Cronbach's alpha than the calculated scale alpha (α = 0.769), which are Attribute 2 (near to place of residence), Attribute 11 (good transportation available) and Attribute 14 (habit), which have a higher alpha of (α = 0.771), (α = 0.770) and (α = 0.775) this means the items in the scale suppresses the alpha level, consumers may not take the attributes as their priority reasons to shop at traditional wet market. But for overall, the store attributes as the reason to shop at hypermarket scale seem to be reliable measure of consumer perception.

4.2.2Importance Level of Store Attributes

Importance levels were given by respondents to the following store attributes:

Attribute 1 : Appropriate opening hours

Attribute 2 : Near to place of residence

Attribute 3 : Product quality

Attribute 4 : Product variety

Attribute 5 : Reasonable price

Attribute 6 : Speed of purchase

Attribute 7 : Satisfactorily service

Attribute 8 : Spacious interior space

Attribute 9 : Not crowded

Attribute 10 : Clean and comfortable

Attribute 11 : Good public transport available

Attribute 12 : Car parking facilities

Attribute 13 : Easiness on finding the product

4.2.2.1Hypermarket

Table 4.18: Reliability Statistics

(Importance Level of Store Attributes at Hypermarket)

Cronbach's Alpha

Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items

N of Items

.906

.907

13

Table 4.19: Item-Total Statistics (Importance Level of Store Attributes at Hypermarket)

 

Scale Mean if Item Deleted

Scale Variance if Item Deleted

Corrected Item-Total Correlation

Squared Multiple Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted

Attribute 1

49.5200

46.151

.652

.548

.897

Attribute 2

49.2300

46.724

.704

.602

.895

Attribute 3

49.1700

48.365

.655

.729

.897

Attribute 4

49.1100

48.079

.646

.631

.898

Attribute 5

49.0300

50.009

.516

.536

.903

Attribute 6

49.5400

47.887

.639

.456

.898

Attribute 7

49.3100

47.044

.654

.463

.897

Attribute 8

49.6600

45.701

.666

.637

.897

Attribute 9

49.6500

46.290

.655

.606

.897

Attribute 10

49.2300

48.623

.631

.504

.898

Attribute 11

49.8900

49.250

.455

.392

.906

Attribute 12

49.3400

48.489

.532

.468

.902

Attribute 13

49.3200

47.048

.668

.535

.896

Table 4.18 showed that Cronbach's alpha (α = 0.906), this indicates the data have a high level of reliability. According to Table 4.19, all the items of importance level of store attributes at hypermarket scale have a less Cronbach's alpha than the calculated scale alpha (α = 0.906), which means that no single item had suppressed the alpha level. Thus, importance level of store attributes at hypermarket scale seems to be reliable measure of consumer perception.

4.2.2.2Traditional Wet Market

Table 4.20: Reliability Statistics

(Importance Level of Store Attributes at Traditional Wet Market)

Cronbach's Alpha

Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items

N of Items

.874

.880

13

Table 4.21: Item-Total Statistics

(Importance Level of Store Attributes at Traditional Wet Market)

 

Scale Mean if Item Deleted

Scale Variance if Item Deleted

Corrected Item-Total Correlation

Squared Multiple Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted

Attribute 1

49.9600

38.705

.626

.497

.861

Attribute 2

49.8400

39.307

.514

.505

.867

Attribute 3

49.6000

40.040

.587

.616

.864

Attribute 4

49.6300

39.488

.622

.702

.862

Attribute 5

49.5500

40.654

.599

.559

.864

Attribute 6

49.9500

37.987

.642

.534

.859

Attribute 7

49.8500

40.432

.509

.395

.867

Attribute 8

50.2700

37.876

.627

.669

.860

Attribute 9

50.3800

37.672

.622

.772

.860

Attribute 10

50.1900

38.196

.590

.580

.862

Attribute 11

50.8200

40.412

.347

.310

.878

Attribute 12

50.1500

39.947

.424

.313

.872

Attribute 13

49.7300

39.815

.548

.524

.865

Table 4.20 showed that Cronbach's alpha (α = 0.874), this indicates the data have a high level of reliability. According to Table 4.21, all the items of importance level of store attributes at traditional wet market scale have a less Cronbach's alpha than the calculated scale alpha (α = 0.874), except Attribute 11 (good public transport available) with alpha (α = 0.878), which means that is the single item had suppressed the alpha level. Consumers of traditional wet market may not feel this store attribute was important. But for overall, importance level of store attributes at traditional wet market to be reliable measure of consumer perception.

4.3Independent T-Test Analysis

T-tests conducted to examine differences of respondents' profile, trip patterns transaction patterns, store attributes as the reason for consumer to shop and importance level of store attributes of hypermarket and traditional wet market.

4.3.1Respondents' Profile, Trip Patterns and Transaction Patterns of Different Store Formats

Table 4.22: Group Statistics

(Respondents' profile, trip patterns and transaction patterns of different store formats)

 

Place

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

Gender

Hypermarket

100

1.54

.501

.050

Wet Market

100

1.66

.476

.048

Age

Hypermarket

100

2.14

1.119

.112

Wet Market

100

2.80

1.470

.147

Ethnic

Hypermarket

100

1.82

.716

.072

Wet Market

100

1.99

.541

.054

Marital Status

Hypermarket

100

1.42

.496

.050

Wet Market

100

1.58

.496

.050

Education Level

Hypermarket

100

1.39

.803

.080

Wet Market

100

1.69

.813

.081

Occupation

Hypermarket

100

3.27

1.746

.175

Wet Market

100

3.32

1.842

.184

Household Size

Hypermarket

100

4.63

1.715

.172

Wet Market

100

4.87

1.942

.194

Household Income

Hypermarket

100

2.88

1.373

.137

Wet Market

100

2.88

1.423

.142

Travelling Time

Hypermarket

100

1.72

.805

.081

Wet Market

100

1.68

.827

.083

Transportation Mode

Hypermarket

100

4.10

1.501

.150

Wet Market

100

3.64

1.611

.161

Frequency

Hypermarket

100

2.30

1.115

.111

Wet Market

100

2.64

1.396

.140

With Whom

Hypermarket

100

2.19

.706

.071

Wet Market

100

1.76

.653

.065

Time Spent

Hypermarket

100

2.59

.889

.089

Wet Market

100

2.20

.791

.079

Table 4.23: Independent Samples Test

(Respondents' profile, trip patterns and transaction patterns of different store formats)

   

Levene's Test for Equality of Variances

t-test for Equality of Means

       

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

   

F

Sig.

t

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference

Std. Error Difference

Lower

Upper

Gender

Equal variances assumed

9.284

.003

-1.736

198

.084

-.120

.069

-.256

.016

Equal variances not assumed

   

-1.736

197.491

.084

-.120

.069

-.256

.016

Age

Equal variances assumed

20.161

.000

-3.572

198

.000

-.660

.185

-1.024

-.296

Equal variances not assumed

   

-3.572

184.905

.000

-.660

.185

-1.025

-.295

Ethnic

Equal variances assumed

16.130

.000

-1.894

198

.060

-.170

.090

-.347

.007

Equal variances not assumed

   

-1.894

184.269

.060

-.170

.090

-.347

.007

Marital Status

Equal variances assumed

.000

1.000

-2.281

198

.024

-.160

.070

-.298

-.022

Equal variances not assumed

   

-2.281

198.000

.024

-.160

.070

-.298

-.022

Education Level

Equal variances assumed

2.610

.108

-2.626

198

.009

-.300

.114

-.525

-.075

Equal variances not assumed

   

-2.626

197.970

.009

-.300

.114

-.525

-.075

Occupation

Equal variances assumed

.035

.852

-.197

198

.844

-.050

.254

-.550

.450

Equal variances not assumed

   

-.197

197.437

.844

-.050

.254

-.550

.450

Household Size

Equal variances assumed

.069

.793

-.926

198

.355

-.240

.259

-.751

.271

Equal variances not assumed

   

-.926

195.031

.355

-.240

.259

-.751

.271

Household Income

Equal variances assumed

.098

.754

.000

198

1.000

.000

.198

-.390

.390

Equal variances not assumed

   

.000

197.741

1.000

.000

.198

-.390

.390

Travelling Time

Equal variances assumed

.269

.604

.347

198

.729

.040

.115

-.188

.268

Equal variances not assumed

   

.347

197.853

.729

.040

.115

-.188

.268

Transportation Mode

Equal variances assumed

1.980

.161

2.089

198

.038

.460

.220

.026

.894

Equal variances not assumed

   

2.089

197.009

.038

.460

.220

.026

.894

Frequency

Equal variances assumed

9.041

.003

-1.903

198

.058

-.340

.179

-.692

.012

Equal variances not assumed

   

-1.903

188.731

.059

-.340

.179

-.692

.012

With Whom

Equal variances assumed

.464

.497

4.470

198

.000

.430

.096

.240

.620

Equal variances not assumed

   

4.470

196.802

.000

.430

.096

.240

.620

Time Spent

Equal variances assumed

3.953

.048

3.277

198

.001

.390

.119

.155

.625

Equal variances not assumed

   

3.277

195.394

.001

.390

.119

.155

.625

Levene's test is the approach to test if the two condition “Means” have a statistically different. In this study, if the Sig (2-Tailed) value is less than or equal to 0.05, we can conclude that there is a statistically significant difference between two conditions (hypermarket and traditional wet market). The initial part we need to test is whether if the different store formats will affect the socio-demographic of the respondents and their trip patterns and transaction pattern as well.

From the result of the test, we get those 6 out of 13 items have the Sig. (2-Tailed) value less than or equal to 0.05, which are age, marital status, education level, transportation mode, visit the markets with whom and the time spent in market.

Respondents' age has significant different between hypermarket and traditional wet market, it has a record of t (df = 198) = -3.572, p<.05 and the Means for hypermarket and traditional wet market are respectively (M=2.14) and (M=2.80). It means that consumers at hypermarket have significant younger than consumers at traditional wet market. Another significant difference between the groups is the marital status of the respondents, it has a result of t (df = 198) = -2.281, p<.05 and the Means are (M=1.42) and (M=1.58). It means that respondents of traditional wet market who are married have a greater number compare to the respondents of hypermarket.

Education level of the respondents also showed significant different between the store formats, the result for Levene's test is t (df = 198) = -2.626, p<.05, the Means are respectively (M=1.39) and (M=1.69). We can conclude that respondents of hypermarket have a higher education level compare the respondent of traditional wet market. While the store formats will affect the transportation mode as well, the result for transportation mode is t (df = 198) = 2.089, p<.05, Means are (M=4.10) and (M=3.64). Refer to the primary analysis, we can judge that majority of hypermarket respondent choose car as their transportation mode, while traditional wet market respondents tend to choose car, walk and motorcycle.

On the other hand, the people who accompany respondents to shop also showed significant difference. The result is t (df = 198) = 4.470, p<.05, Means for hypermarket and traditional wet market are respectively (M=2.19) and (M=1.76). Refer to the primary analysis, we can conclude that hypermarket respondents tend to shop with their family/ relatives and friends/ neighbors/ colleagues, while traditional wet market respondents prefer to shop with the family/ relatives or alone. Last but not least, time spent in store also showed significant difference. The result is t (df = 198) = 3.277, p<.05, Means are (M=2.59) and (M=2.20). It showed that hypermarket respondents prefer to spent longer time compare to traditional wet market respondents.

The conclusion is the store formats have impact to some variables of socio-demographic of respondents, their trip patterns and transaction pattern. Each store may have a different target market.

4.3.2Store Attributes as the Reasons for Consumers to Shop at Different Store Formats

Following are the store attributes as the reasons for consumer to shop:

Attribute 1 : Appropriate opening hours

Attribute 2 : Near


To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Request Removal

If you are the original writer of this dissertation and no longer wish to have the dissertation published on the UK Essays website then please click on the link below to request removal:


More from UK Essays

Get help with your dissertation
Find out more