Impact of deceptive practices on consumer behavior about quality of a product

2. PREPARED BY
UMAIR

3. ABSTRACT
Although marketing researchers often find it necessary to
deceive their research Contributors, little attention has been
given within marketing to the ethical issues underlying the use
of deception or to the potential consequences of deceptive
research practices. We develop a new typology of truthful but
misleading advertising and labeling claims. While a number of
typologies of deceptive or misleading practices have appeared
in the literature, our typology relies on legal cases as well as a
diverse set of psychological theories to provide a richer and
more comprehensive understanding of why consumers are
likely to be misled by a particular type of deception. We
conducted research on it. 100 questionnaires were distributed
among students in different department of Punjab university.
the data is feed in spss software for result and analysis.
Key words: consumer behavior, deceptive practices,
misleading practices,

4. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
consumer
behavior
Product
Quality
Product
Brand
Packaging and
Labeling of
the Product
Advertising

5. LITERATURE REVIEW
• (Krohn and Milner, 1989, 773), (Smithand Quelch, 1993,
13) , (Alexander, 2002; Creyer and Ross, 1996;consumer behavior
• "( American Marketing Association, (Forbes magazine,
October 2012), (Millward Brown)Product Quality
• Whalen et al., 1991), Cone, 2007, Creyer and Ross
(1996),Product Brand
• (Cacioppe, et al., 2008), (Cropanzano, Byrne, Bobocel,
& Rupp,
Packaging and Labeling
of the Product
• Smith and Cooper-Martin, 1997; Folkes and Kamins,
1999;Advertising

6. HYPOTHESIS
H0: If we mend our deceptive tactics & practices with
consumers then we can increase the progress & growth ratio of
product.
H1: A significant relationship exists between product quality
and consumer behavior.
H2: A significant relationship exists between product brand and
consumer behavior.
H3: A significant relationship exists between Packaging and
labelling of the product and consumer behavior.
H4: A significant relationship exists between advertisement
and consumer behavior.

7. RELIABILITY
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.556 5
Alphas above .9 are great, above .8 are good, above .7 are ok,
above .6 are borderline. In this case, Alpha=.56 which is
acceptable. In smaller samples, smaller Alpha levels are
acceptable to create composites.

8. GENDER
Gender
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid
male 49 49.0 49.0 49.0
female 51 51.0 51.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0

9. QUALIFICATION
Qualification
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
V
a
l
i
d
Intermediate 8 8.0 8.0 8.0
bachelor 75 75.0 75.0 83.0
masters 16 16.0 16.0 99.0
M.Phill/PhD 1 1.0 1.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
It is interesting to note that 75 students belong to bachelor and is 75% of
total population and take active part in research.

10. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
consumer behavior 100 1.9200 .66939 .06694
product quality 100 2.0000 .64354 .06435
product brand 100 2.7000 .85870 .08587
Packaging and labeling of
the product
100 2.0688 .50075 .05007
advertising 100 1.7167 .53050 .05305

11. CORRELATION
Correlations
consumer
behavior
product
quality
product
brand
Packaging
and labeling
of the
product
advertisin
g
consumer
behavior
Pearson
Correlation 1 .299** -.060 .476** .310**
Sig. (2-tailed) .003 .555 .000 .002
N 100 100 100 100 100
product quality Pearson
Correlation .299** 1 -.009 .427** .449**
Sig. (2-tailed) .003 .928 .000 .000
N 100 100 100 100 100
product brand Pearson
Correlation -.060 -.009 1 .084 .092
Sig. (2-tailed) .555 .928 .408 .361
N 100 100 100 100 100
Packaging and
labeling of the
product
Pearson
Correlation .476** .427** .084 1 .473**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .408 .000
N 100 100 100 100 100
advertising Pearson
Correlation .310** .449** .092 .473** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .002 .000 .361 .000
N 100 100 100 100 100
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

12. Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
correlation null hypothesis
consumer
behavior
and product
quality
.299**
.003 + significant Rejected
consumer
behavior
And product
brand
-.060 .555 + insignificant
accepted
consumer
behavior
and Packaging
and labeling of
the product
.476** .000
+
significant Rejected
consumer
behavior
And advertising
.310**
.002 + significant Rejected

13. MULTIPLE REGRESSIONS
Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate
1 .502a .252 .221 .59083
a. Predictors: (Constant), advertising, product brand, product quality,
packaging and labeling of the product
The Model shows the multiple correlation coefficient (R), using all predictors
simultaneously, which is .50 and Adjusted R2 is .252. Regression analysis shows
25% of the variance in dependent variable can be predicted from the
combination of independent variables while remaining is the unexplained
variability. R value of .50 showing goodness of the model.

14. ANOVA
ANOVAa
Model
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square F Sig.
1 Regression 11.197 4 2.799 8.019 .000b
Residual 33.163 95 .349
Total 44.360 99
a. Dependent Variable: consumer behavior
b. Predictors: (Constant), advertising, product brand, product quality, packaging
and labeling of the product
The ANOVA in table shows that F is 8.019 which is statistically significant. Model
is considered to be good fit as significance value falls between 0% to 5%. It also
reflects significance of independent variables on the overall model having a
strapping impact on dependent variable.

15. REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS I.E. BETA (Β) RESULTS &
ANALYSIS
Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardiz
ed
Coefficient
s
t Sig.B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) .640 .321 1.994 .049
product quality .088 .108 .085 .817 .416
product brand -.079 .070 -.101 -1.132 .260
Packaging and
labeling of the
product .543 .140 .406 3.874 .000
advertising .113 .134 .089 .839 .403
a. Dependent Variable: consumer behavior

16. Beta (β) Sig. (2-tailed) relationship
consumer behavior
and product quality .088 .416
insignificant
consumer behavior
And product brand -.079 .260 insignificant
consumer behavior
and Packaging and labeling
of the product
.543 .000 significant
consumer behavior
And advertising
.113 .403 insignificant

17. One Sample t-Test Results & Analysis
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 3
t df
Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
consumer behavior
-16.134 99 .000 -1.08000 -1.2128 -.9472
product quality
-15.539 99 .000 -1.00000 -1.1277 -.8723
product brand
-3.494 99 .001 -.30000 -.4704 -.1296
Packaging and
labeling of the
product
-18.597 99 .000 -.93125 -1.0306 -.8319
advertising
-24.191 99 .000 -1.28333 -1.3886 -1.1781

18. t
Sig. (2-tailed) Relationship
consumer behavior
and product quality
-15.539
.000
+ significant
consumer behavior
And product brand -3.494 .000 + significant
consumer behavior
and Packaging and
labeling of the
product
-18.597 .001
+ significant
consumer behavior
And advertising
-24.191 .000 + significant

19. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Businesses and government can educate consumers about
deceptive practices. This is a wide procedure and will take
lengthened time to develop the concern for deceptive practices. It
was also found that groups and links had a strong influence on the
choice of young buyers. Therefore marketers can use buzz
marketing to encourage young people but do not deceive them.
They have poise in the opinion of their friends. Social networks
can be very effective in doing that. Government should also play
its part in encouraging in development and production of steps
against deceptive practices. Deceptive practices must be removed
so that consumer shows positive attitude.

20. REFERENCES
• http://www.vzhh.de/ernaehrung/119742/Luftpackungen%20Top9.pdf;
• http://www.vzhh.de/docs/6148/themen.aspx
• http://news.thomasnet.com/IMT/2008/12/09/matters-of-size-product-
shrinkage-and-packaging-overkill/
• http://www.federacja-konsumentow.org.pl/story.php?story=409.
• http://www.cnnasiapacific.com/factsheets//
• Alexander, E.C. (2002) “Consumer Reactions to Unethical Service Recovery”
Journal of Business Ethics,
• 36(3):223- 237.
• Alexander C. S. and Becker H. J. (1978) “The Use of Vignettes in Survey
Research” Public Opinion Quarterly, 42:93- 104.
• Auger, P., Burke, P., Devinney, T.M. and Louviere, J.J. (2003) “What Will
Consumers Pay for Social Product Features?” Journal of Business Ethics,
42(3):281- 304.
• Michelle Ossa College Teacher (Level 3) Educator Emeritus Posted November
30, 2012 at 5:51 PM (Answer #1)