Antecedents of Smart Phone Buying Behavior: An Empirical Study

7/30/2019 Antecedents of Smart Phone Buying Behavior: An Empirical Study

1/26

Paper Presented at UNISBANK International Conference On Social Welfare-Based

Investment Policy in Anticipation of ASEAN Economic Community: a Study of

Economy, Law and Information Technology, Semarang, 29-30 August 2013

Antecedents of Smart Phone Buying Behavior:An Empirical Study

Cynthia [email protected]

Sabrina O. [email protected]

Universitas Pelita Harapan

AbstractMobile communication has made such an impact on the ways people interactand conduct business. In the specific, many people use smart phones rather thanregular mobile phones to interact and conduct business. This is because smart

phones offer more advanced computing power and connectivity than a regularmobile phone. There have been many developments from the regular mobilephone into a smart phone. The developments of the original phone functions justto call, and then switch to messaging, then go into entertainment trends, and hasnow started to come with access to the data. All these developments confirmedthe smart phone as a mobile form of interest. One of the favorite smart phonebrands is BlackBerry. On the other hand, despite BlackBerry has been widelyused by consumers, most of them claim they want to switch to another smartphone. The main reason why they want to switch to another smart phone isbecause the BlackBerry OS platform assessed unable to compete with Apple'sIOS operating system or Android from Google. Therefore the consumerpurchasing behavior of BlackBerry is still remains as a question mark. Thus, the

object of this study is to identify antecedent factors that influence consumerpurchasing behavior on BlackBerry smart phone.

This research extended a model which was developed by Wu et al. (2008) toexamine purchase behavior on BlackBerry smart phone. Samples were chosenbased on judgmental sampling. Questionnaires were distributed to respondentsby the drop-off/pick-up method and a total of 259 completed questionnaires wereused in the analysis. The data was then analyzed using structural equationmodeling. Results show brand loyalty, product familiarity, attitude and purchaseintention are factors that affect purchase behavior. However, this research foundthat consumers personal reciprocity did not mediate the relationship betweenbrand loyalty and purchase intention. This research provides discussion and

insights for future research.

Keywords: purchase behaviour, purchase intention, brand trust, brand loyalty,product familiarity, and attitude.

INTRODUCTION
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/26




Mobile communication has made such an impact on the ways people interact andconduct business (Das, 2012). Nowadays, smart phones becoming a must-have item

for business people since smart phones offer more advanced computing power andconnectivity than a regular mobile phone (Utomo, 2012). There have been manydevelopments from the regular mobile phone into a smart phone. The developments ofthe original phone functions just to call, and then switch to messaging, then go intoentertainment trends, and has now started to come with access to the data (Purwanti,2011). One of the favorite smart phone brands available in the market is BlackBerry.

BlackBerry has become one of the favorite smart phone brands because of easy-to-use messaging service (Hitipeuw, 2011). BlackBerry was first introduced by theCanadian company, Research In Motion (RIM) in 1999. In late January 2013,manufacturer of the smart phone BlackBerry rename its company, from Research InMotion (RIM) to Blackberry (Panji, 2013). Blackberry is not the only one manufacturer

these days. However, there are a lot of smart phone manufacturers (e.g., Apple,Samsung, Nokia, etc) which also competing in smart phone industry. Thus, thecompetition in the smart phone market becoming intense (Wahono, 2011).

There are several factors that might attract loyal customers to switch to competitorbrands (Wu, Chan & Lau, 2008). Those factors included such as product quality,product style and design, and product support services (Kotler & Amstrong, 2010). Inrelating with BlackBerry, BlackBerry has experienced shrinking market share since 2010to a variety of causes. However, the most difficult for RIM to maintain the market shareof BlackBerry is lack of innovation, especially in the product support services (Purwanto,2012).

Despite BlackBerry has been widely used by consumers, most of them claim they

want to switch to another smart phone (http://tekno.kompas.com). The reason why theywant to switch to another smart phone is because the BlackBerry OS platform assessedunable to compete with Apple's IOS operating system or Android from Google(Purwanto, 2012). Therefore, the consumer purchasing behavior of BlackBerry is stillremaining as a question mark. In order to remain competitiveness in smart phoneindustry, BlackBerry should know their consumers behavior in purchasing smart phone(Yee, San & Khoon, 2011). Thus, the objective of this study is to identify antecedentfactors that influence consumer purchasing behavior of Blackberry smart phone.

This study replicate model of consumers future purchase intention (Wu et al.,2008), by adding the new variables, attitude toward brand and purchase behavior.There are three reasons why the attitude toward brand and purchase behavior included

in this study. First, attitude is viewed as one of the major determinant of the personsintention to perform the behavior (http://people.umass.edu). Second, purchase behavioris influenced by intention, and this intention leads to performance or nonperformancebehavior (http://people.umass.edu). Third, attitude, intention and behavior were relatedto one another. If there are changes in attitude toward brand, it can lead to changes inintentions and that changes in intentions can produce behavioral change(http://people.umass.edu).
http://tekno.kompas.com/http://tekno.kompas.com/http://tekno.kompas.com/http://people.umass.edu/http://people.umass.edu/http://people.umass.edu/http://tekno.kompas.com/http://tekno.kompas.com/http://people.umass.edu/http://people.umass.edu/http://people.umass.edu/


3/26




The next section describes the constructs involved in the research model. Theresearch hypotheses are then detailed. Research methodology is discussed, followedby results and analysis. Finally, conclusions conclusion and limitation of the research

are provided.

THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH HYPOTHESES

Personal reciprocity

Personal reciprocity is defined as a consumers conscious tendency to engage inreciprocal and mutually beneficial relationships with the firms (Wu et al., 2008). Thesimple way to understand reciprocity is when someone does you a favor; you feel thatyou should return it in kind (Kardes, Cronley & Cline, 2011). Individuals decide to

cooperate or not just dependent on whether they have been helped or not, irrespectiveof who has helped and who is there to be helped (Doorn & Taborsky, 2011). In otherwords people who feel an obligation to repay favors can be simply called reciprocity.

There are two types of reciprocity: direct and indirect (Hall, 2001 cited by Pi, Liao,Liu & Lee, 2011). Direct reciprocity is when two individuals associate long enough foreach to play the roles of receiver and giver of favors. On the other hand, indirectreciprocity refers to third parties donate favors without the expectation of a return fromthe receiver (Hall, 2001 cited by Pi et al., 2011). Therefore, it can be concludedreciprocity as the dimension of a relationship (Ammi, 2013). This relationship causeseither party to provide a favor or make allowances for the other in return for similar afavor or allowances to be received at a later date (Ammi, 2013).

Customer and the company is an example of reciprocal relationship. In thiscustomer-company relationship, reciprocity can make consumers feel more beneficial tobe a loyal customer to the same brand (Wu et al., 2008). Moreover, Wu et al. (2008)pointed out that consumers want to be loyal with the brand since their favors given tothe company are rewarded with benefits such as club memberships, new productinformation, and personalized services and products. Not only that, when consumersfeel the brand will not give benefits to them in return, then, there is little chance for themto buy the products of the brand in the future.

Companies should pay attention to consumers' personal reciprocity. This is becausethe personal reciprocity is developed when consumers perceive that they get somethingbeneficial in return (Wu et al., 2008). Furthermore, personal reciprocity also affects

consumers future purchase intention (Wu et al., 2008).

Brand loyalty


4/26




Brand loyalty is defined as a constructive mind set toward brand that leading to constantpurchasing of the brand over time (Aaker, 1991 cited by Severi & Ling, 2013). Brandloyalty is a result from highly favorable attitudes toward a specific brand (OGuinn, et al.,

2012; Pride, et al., 2012). In the specific, brand loyal consumers are more willing to paymore for a specific brand because they perceive some unique value in the brand thatother brand cannot provide (Aniza et al., 2011).

Consumers are likely to continue buy a specific brand because of the advantages ofpurchasing the brand and the product (Keller, 2008, p.8). A loyal customer or acommitted customer to a brand has an emotional attachment to the brand (Hawkins &Mothersbaugh, 2010). According to Wu et al. (2008), customers who already committedto the brand are willing to cooperate with the brand. These customers will be more opento their personal information to the company of their committed brand (Wu et al., 2008).In return, the customer expects the company will provide a reciprocal relationship, bygiving them some benefits (Wu et al., 2008). Therefore, loyal customers will expect

more from the brand company than those who are not loyal. Thus, we propose thefollowing hypothesis:

H1. Brand loyalty is positively related to a consumers personal reciprocity.

Brand trust

Brand trust is one important factor that influence consumers personal reciprocity. Trustis considered as one of the important variables to maintain long-term relationships(Anwaret al., 2011). According to Kaveh (2012),many definitions of trust involve a belief

that the exchange partner will act in the best interest of the other partner. In otherwords, when one partner has confidence on the other partys reliability and honestythen trust exists in between them (Khokharet al., 2011).

Brand trust is defined as an average consumers confidence in and reliance on abrand to perform its stated function (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001 cited by Wu et al.2008). Brand trust also refers to how the consumers see the brand as something thatcan be dependable and keeping customer interests in mind (Keller, 2008, p.68).Brand trust includes brand reliability and brand intention (Lin & Lee, 2012). Brandreliability represents consumers belief that the brand will deliver the value it promises.Brand intention refers to the disposition of the brand to put consumers interests as theprimary consideration (Lin & Lee, 2012).

Consumers who have trust in the brand are ready to engage in a reciprocalrelationship with the brand (Wu et al., 2008). According to Wu et al. (2008), consumerswill disclose their personal information because they believe the company will notmisuse their personal information. In other words, consumers that have a trust towardsa brand will expect to have a reciprocal relationship to get the benefits from the brand.The reciprocal relationship may include the quality, the individual service, and manymore (Wu et al., 2008). Based on these arguments we propose the followinghypothesis:


5/26




H2. Brand trust is positively related to a consumers personal reciprocity.

Product familiarity

Product familiarity is also one of the factors alongside with brand loyalty and brand trustthat influence consumers personal reciprocity. Product familiarity is defined as aconsumers familiarity with a particular product category (Wu et al., 2008). Brandfamiliarity does not only represent the level of consumer exposure to a particularproduct, but also reflects the level of consumer knowledge about the brand (Kim &Chung, 2012). The application of the idea of familiarity to empirical work is thatfamiliarity is based on prior knowledge (Lawry et al., 2011). If consumers recognize abrand and have some knowledge about it, then they do not have to engage in a lot of

additional though or processing information to make a product decision (Keller, 2008,p.6). Simply says, if consumers go to the market they would prefer to get the productsthat they already know, it is rare for the customers to look for other products (Tariq etal., 2013).

Consumers with higher levels of product knowledge are more diagnostic andinformed than those who have lower levels of product knowledge (Hanzaee &Farzaneh, 2012). In other words, consumers who are brand experts will know moreabout the brand and its associations (Siirci & Yalin, 2010). Familiarity or prior use ofbrands relates to differing effects for memory and persuasion (Shrum, 2012). Forexample, familiar brands are processes quicker and evaluated better (Shrum, 2012).

Also, Alba and Hutchinson (1987) cited by Swan and Zou (2012), stated that brand

familiarity effect relates to the impact of consumers direct and indirect experiences witha product on consumer decision making. From the explanation, it can be concluded thatconsumers who are familiar with the product have a high chance to purchase the brand.

Familiar products will be on top of the consumers mind during the process ofdefining future purchase (Wu et al., 2008). Therefore, it may develop a greater tendencyto be engaged in the reciprocal relationship (Wu et al., 2008). Thus, the more familiarthe consumer to the product category of the brand, the more likely they perceive havinga reciprocal and mutually beneficial relationship with the firm. This leads to our thirdhypothesis:

H3. Product familiarity is positively related to a consumers personal reciprocity.

Attitude

Attitude is defined as learned predisposition to behave in a consistently favorable orunfavorable way with respect to a given object (Schiffman et al., 2010, p. 246). In this


6/26




study, attitude toward behavior is used instead of attitude toward object. According toHawkins and Mothersbaugh (2010, p.397), the behavior component of an attitude isones tendency to respond in a certain manner toward an object or activity. A decision to

purchase or not to purchase something would reflect the behavioral component(Hawkins & Mothersbaugh, 2010, p.397). Thus, the attitude toward behavior model isdesigned to capture the individuals attitude toward behaving with respect to an objectrather than the attitude toward the object itself (Keller, 2008, p.239).

There are three major components of attitude: cognitive, affective, and conative(Schiffman et al., 2010, p. 249). First, cognitive refers to the knowledge and perceptionsthat are acquired by a combination of direct experience with the attitude object.Furthermore, this knowledge and resulting perceptions commonly take the form ofbeliefs (Schiffman et al., 2010, p. 249). Second, affective refers to consumers emotionsor feelings about a particular product or brand. This component is described by theindividual rates the attitude object as favorable or unfavorable, good or bad (Schiffman

et al., 2010, p.250). Third, conative is concerned with the likelihood or tendency that anindividual will undertake a specific action or behave in a particular way with regard tothe attitude object. The conative component is frequently treated as an expression ofthe consumers intention to buy (Schiffman et al., 2010, p.251).

When consumers form beliefs about the brand, they automatically acquire anattitude toward that brand (Fisbein & Ajzen, 1975). Furthermore, if the brand proves tobe to the consumers liking, then it is likely that they will form a positive attitude(Schiffmann et al., 2010, p.258). Consumers who have a positive attitude toward abrand likely to seek a reciprocal relationship with the brand company from whom theypurchase products and services (Wu et al., 2008). Therefore, consumers who have apositive attitude toward the brand will likely to have a reciprocal relationship with the

company. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:

H4. Attitude toward brand is positively related to a consumers personalreciprocity

Purchase intention

Purchase intention is widely used to analyze consumer purchasing behavior in relatedstudies (Sadeghi, 2011). Purchase intention refers to the possibility that a consumer willplan to purchase a product of a brand in the future (Wu et al., 2008). Based on the

most well-known attitude theory, that is the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA), Aizen(1980, cited by Budiman, 2012) stated that the intention to do something was influencedby two factors: attitude towards behavior and subjective norms. Attitude is a result fromthe beliefs towards behavior. In can be stated that the more positive of an individualbelief caused by an object attitude, the more positive of individual attitude towards theobject. Thus, consumers who have a good attitude toward brand will likely to haveintention to purchase the brand in the future. Based on these arguments we propose thefollowing hypothesis:


7/26




H5. Consumers personal reciprocity is positively related to future purchaseintention.

H6. Attitude toward brand is positively related to future purchase intention.

Purchase behavior

Consumer behavior is defined as the behavior that consumers display in searching for,purchasing, using, evaluating, and disposing of products and services (Schiffman et al.,2010, p.23). Consumers expect these behaviors will satisfy their needs (Schiffman etal., 2010, p.23). The study of consumer behavior focuses on how individuals make theirdecisions to spend their available resources on consumption related items or aspects

(Tripathi & Singh, 2012). These resources on consumption related aspects such aswhat they buy, when they buy, where they buy and how they buy (Tripathi and Singh,2012). Therefore, consumer decision-making processes where the central of consumerbehavior is.

Consumer decision-making process is where consumers make decisions from twoor more than two choices when they buy a product or service (Chen et al., 2012). Thereare five stages of consumer decision process, such as need recognition, informationsearch, and evaluation of alternatives, purchase decision and post-purchase behavior(Kotler & Amstrong, 2010, p.177). Relating with purchasing behavior, consumersusually have unlimited demand to meet their needs and satisfaction to get somethingnew or better (Osman et al., 2011). This is because each individual has their own

behavior, attitude and thought when choosing products, services and making purchasedecision (Osman et al., 2011).Generally, the consumers purchase decision will be to buy the most preferred

brand. Purchase intention is one factor that can explain purchase decision (Kotler &Amstrong, 2010). Specifically, consumers may form a purchase intention based onfactors such as expected income, price and product benefits (Kotler & Amstrong, 2010,p.179). From the explanation, it can be concluded that intention to purchase may berecognized as a reflection of real purchase behavior (Nasermoadeli, 2013). The greaterthe purchase intention is, the greater a consumers desire is to buy a product(Nasermoadeli, 2013). In short, the researchers hypothesize that:

H7. Purchase intention is positively related to purchase behavior.

According aforementioned discussion, the research model for this research is shownin Figure 1 to explain rhe relationship among research variables.

Figure 1. The research model

BrandLoyalty

Attitude towardBuying

Behavior


8/26




H1

H6 H4H5 H7

H2

H3

Source: an extended model based on Wu, Chan and Lau (2008)

METHODS

Sampling and data collection

The survey sample for this study was obtained from students in a XYZ privateuniversity located in Tangerang, Indonesia. This research applied non-probability

judgmental sampling with two main criteria: (1) a student in XYZ private university and(2) has a BlackBerry smart phone in the last one year. Furthermore, this study applied aself-report questionnaire to collect data. In the specific, self-report questionnaire methodhas main advantage, that is, no interviewer is involved. Therefore, the absence of aninterviewer eliminates the interviewer bias (Aaker, Kumar & Day, 2004).

Measures

Following Sekaran and Bougie (2013), where possible, the measures used in thisquestionnaire were adapted from existing scales drawn from previous literature. Thisresearch measured six constructs: brand loyalty, brand trust, product familiarity,personal reciprocity, attitude, purchase intention, and purchase behavior. All items weremeasured using a five-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 =strongly agree). The questionnaire contains 28 items and Appendix A provides all itemsused in this research.

Reliability analysis is the measure to test when the scale measures associated

variables is consistent across time and across the various items in the instrument(Sekaran & Bougie, 2013). This research applied Cronbach and average varianceextracted (AVE). Following Hair et al. (2006), the cut-off point 0.7 was applied as thecut-off point for coefficient alpha and 0.5 for average variance extracted (AVE).

Reliability is a necessary condition for validity (Iacobucci & Churchill, 2010). Validityrefers to the accuracy of measure to which a score truthfully measures a concept(Zikmund, Babin, Carr & Griffin, 2010, p.307). This research applied construct validationthat mainly consists of convergent validity and distinction validity. Convergent validity

Brand Trust

ProductFamiliarity

PersonalReciprocity

PurchaseIntention

PurchaseBehavior


9/26




was tested by using exploratory factor analysis. In the specific, every item loadedsignificantly on its underlying latent factor providing evidence of convergent validity(Podsakoff and Organ, 1986; Sengupta, Krapfel, & Pusateri, 2000). Furthermore,

discriminant validity was assessed through correlational analysis (Sekaran & Bougie,2013). Specifically, discriminant validity is established when two different constructs arenot correlated with each other. In other words, the correlation between constructsshould less than 1. The discriminant validity was also tested by the value of averagevariance extracted that should more than 0.5 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

Data Analysis

This research applied structural equation modeling (SEM) with maximum likelihoodestimation to test research hypotheses. This method was used because SEM has ability

to assess the relationships comprehensively (Hair et al., 2006). As suggested byAnderson and Gerbing (1988), the structural equation analysis in this research wasconducted in two main stages: the estimation of the measuring model and theestimation of the structural model. In the particular, the former was conducted to confirmthe suitability of the proposed scales using the criteria of reliability and validity. Then,the latter was conducted to test the relationships between the constructs. For the overallfit of the model, this research several indices such as GFI, AGFI, CMIN/DF, andRMSEA as suggested by Giles (2002).

RESULTS

Response rateA total of 300 questionnaires was distributed and collected from students in a private

university. Out of 300 questionnaires, 18 invalid questionnaires were excluded, giving259 valid questionnaires. A total 18 questionnaires cannot be used because of tworeasons. First, the respondents did not use the study object, that is, BlackBerry smartphone. Second, not all questionnaires filled completely by the respondents. A total 259questionnaires can be used in this study with the total usable response rate of 86.33%.Table 1 summarized the demographic information involved in this study. Among therespondents, 57.9% were female and 84.6% were between the ages of 18 and 21.

Table 1. Descriptive of the Respondents DemographicVariable Frequency Percentage

GenderMan 109 42.1Woman 150 57.9

Age


10/26




22 33 12.7Source: analysis of field data

Reliability and validity assessments

Issues of reliability and validity have been considered in assessing thepsychometric properties of the instrument. Reliability was first conducted since reliabilityis a requirement to assess construct validity (Iacobucci & Churchill, 2010). Reliabilitytesting was conducted first by using the inter-item consistency measure of Cronbachs

Alpha. Reliability of the measurement was examined by using Cronbachs Alpha valuewith 0.70 as the minimum and 0.3 for the corrected item-total correlation (Sekaran &Bougie, 2009) as shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Reliability Analysis

VariableConstruct

sCorrected item-total

correlationCronbachs

Alpha AVE

Brand Loyalty

Loyal1 .671

.871 0.763

Loyal2 .801

Loyal3 .704

Loyal4 .762

Brand Trust

Trust1 .772

.818 0.711Trust2 .821Trust4 .462

ProductFamiliarity

Fam1 .739

.852 0.726

Fam2 .727Fam3 .690Fam4 .636

PersonalReciprocity

Reci1 .634

.887 0.787

Reci2 .789Reci3 .807Reci4 .803

AttitudeTowardBuying

Behavior

Att1 .783

.898 0.801

Att2 .797Att3 .744

Att4 .770

PurchaseIntention

Int1 .766

.821 0.867

Int2 .734Int3 .343Int4 .792

PurchaseBehavior

Behav1 .667 .816 0.875

Behav2 .682


11/26




Behav3 .575

Behav4 .628 Source: analysis of field data

Having done the reliability tests, a factor analysis was run using Varimax rotation.Each scale was subjected to exploratory factor analysis loading on the dominant factor(at least 0.50) with a sum of the items in the factor explaining more that 50 per cent ofthe factors variance (Table 3). Table 3 shows that all items significantly load on theircorresponding constructs, demonstrating adequate convergent validity.

Table 3. Exploratory Factor AnalysisRotated Component Matrixa

Component

1 2 3 4 5 6 7loyal1 .795loyal2 .771loyal3 .758loyal4 .737trust1 .938trust2 .953trust4 .674fam1 .848fam2 .862fam3 .772

fam4 .669reci1 .720reci2 .770reci3 .825reci4 .812int1 .882int2 .916int4 .906att1 .817att2 .825att3 .785

att4 .794behav1 .922behav2 .910Source: Analysis of field data

In order to provide support for discriminant validity, Pearson product-momentcorrelations among the study variables were computed. For this purpose, compositescores for each dimension were calculated by averaging scores representing that


12/26




dimension. Table 4 provides the full set of correlations among the constructs of interestin this research. The highest correlation occurred between brand loyal and productfamiliarity (0.610) and reversely, the lowest correlation was found between brand trust

and product familiarity (-0.0017). The results provide support for the discriminant validityof the scale (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988).Table 4 shows correlation among all constructs in this study. Correlations with other

constructs less than 0.70 are accepted as evidence of discriminant validity.Furthermore, the results also shows that the average variance extracted (AVE)estimates (e.g., 0.763 and 0.711 for brand loyalty and brand trust, respectively) aregreater than the square of the correlation between the two construct (e.g., 0.058 2 =0.003364), discriminant validity was evidenced.

Table 4. Correlation Analysis

Loyal Trust Fam Reci Att Int Behav

Loyal 0.763Trust 0.058 0.711Fam 0.470 -

0.0170.726

Reci 0.610 0.077 0.470 0.787Att 0.552 0.029 0.419 0.558 0.801Int 0.089 0.093 0.030 0.057 0.186 0.867Behav 0.082 0.083 0.011 0.040 0.084 0.380 0.875

Source: analysis of field dataNote:__the result of AVE

Structural Equation Model

This research applied the two-step approach in structural equation modeling whichbeginning wit a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Table 5 shows the results from CFAthat indicated excellence fit between the covariances from the data and the CFA model(GFI = 0.908, AGFI = 0.880, CMIN/DF = 1.334, RMSEA = 0.037).

Table 5. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Path StandardizedRegression Coefficient CriticalRatio

loyal4


13/26




trust1


14/26




reciprocity. The result of the hypothesis (p-value = 0.402) is not supported. The thirdhypothesis, predicted the positive relationship between product familiarity and personalreciprocity. This hypothesis has supported because of the result (p-value = 0.001).

The sixth hypothesis proposed that the positive relationship between attitude towardbuying behavior and purchase intention. It is supported with the p-value less than 0.05.Finally, the seventh hypothesis proposed the positive relationship between purchaseintention and purchase behavior. The result of the hypothesis is substantiated (p-valueless than 0.05). Table 6 summarizes the hypothesis analysis.

Table 6. Structural equation model

HypothesizedRelationship

Estimate p-value Conclusion

H1 Personal Reciprocity


15/26




personal reciprocity (H2) and the relationship between personal reciprocity andpurchase intention (H5).

The relationship between brand loyalty and consumers personal reciprocity was

supported in this research (H1). It can be stated that consumers who are loyal in usingBlackBerry smart phones ensure that they have developed the reciprocal relationshipwith the brand. In other words, consumers who are loyal are more likely to reciprocatethe benefits offered by the brand company by giving their personal information as aninput. Another reason for the significant relationship between brand loyalty andconsumers personal reciprocity is regarding with gender. Mittal and Kamakura (2001)pointed out that the probability of repurchasing a specific brand is uniformly higheramong women than among men, with the same level of satisfaction. Thus, because of57.9% of this study respondents are women, the result hypothesis one is confirmed.

The hypothesized relationship between brand trust and consumers personalreciprocity turned out to be non significant in this research (H 2). Brand trust refers to

consumers confidence that the brand can perform well. Trust also refers to rationalchoice (Riegelsberger et al., 2005; Johnson and Grayson, 2003, cited by Matzler,Grabner-Krauter and Bidmon, 2006). When consumer has trust toward specific brand,then it is likely that consumer will develop some form of positive purchase intentiontowards that brand. According to Matzler et al. (2006), brand loyalty is a consequence ofbrand trust because brand loyalty involves purchase intention towards the brand andactual pattern of purchase behavior. In short, brand trust leads to brand loyalty.Therefore, it can be stated for the insignificance relationship between brand trust andconsumer personal reciprocity as a result that brand trust is an antecedent for brandloyalty and not for personal reciprocity.

This study found that product familiarity has positive effect on consumers personal

reciprocity (H3). Many Indonesian people familiar with BlackBerry brand and productssince Indonesia is the largest Blackberry market outside Canada (Rao, 2012).Furthermore, BlackBerry is one smart phone that many Indonesian including youngpeople love so much (Safitri, 2011).

The positive relationship between attitude toward buying behavior and consumerspersonal reciprocity was found significant in this research (H 4). Attitude is one mainpredictor of consumer behavior. In the specific, a consumer with positive attitude towarda brand will have tendency to buy that brand. Thus, it can be stated that a consumerwith positive attitude toward buying will have tendency to have relationship with a brandprovider, including reciprocal relationship (such as consumer gives personal data andhave new product information as reciprocity).

On the other hand, the positive relationship between consumers personalreciprocity and purchase intention was found not significant in this study (H 5). Onepossible reason for this insignificant result is regarding with culture. In the specific, theconcept of reciprocity is mainly based on Chinese culture which reflected in a Chineseword, Renqin (Wu et al., 2008). Wu et al. further pointed out that Renqin is the heart ofChinese people in order to maintain harmony and relationship. In other words, it is amust for Chinese people to pay back debt of gratitude to specific person when theyhave given something from that specific person. However, although reciprocity is a


16/26




universal principle (Morales, 2005 cited by Wu et al., 2008), it is not deeply rooted inIndonesian culture.

The results also show that attitude toward buying behavior has positive effect on

purchase intention (H6). Furthermore, the results also support the relationship betweenpurchase intention and purchase behavior (H7). Based on the well-known attitude theory(i.e., the Theory of Reasoned Action), one main predictor of behavioral intention isattitude. Furthermore, intention is one main factor that leads to behavior (Ajzen andFishbein, 1975). Thus, consumers who have a good attitude toward brand will likely tohave intention to purchase the brand in the future. Moreover, consumers who haveintention to buy a product will have a positive behavior of purchasing the brand.

CONCLUSION, LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

The purpose of this research is to investigate antecedent variables of purchasebehavior of BlackBerry smart phone. Figure 1 shows a summary of the proposedrelationship among research variables. The results indicate that brand loyalty, consumerattitude, and product familiarity are significant predictors of consumer personalreciprocity. The results also support the attitude-intention-behavior hierarchy. However,the findings in this research are subject to at least three limitations. First, this study useduniversity students that represent non-probability sampling of judgmental sampling thatlimits the generalisability of the results. However, students represent an important oftargeted customers for many business including smart phones (Burns & Bowling, 2010,p.105). Future research should include other respondents that could represent thewhole BlackBerry users in Indonesia.

Second, these findings are limited by the use of a cross sectional design research.In other words, the directions of causality implied in the model cannot be drawn.Specifically, the examination of the research model by using structural equationmodeling (SEM) is also not proof of causality. However, SEM was applied to examineall of the proposed relationships simultaneously. In other words, how research variableswork together can be assessed as a representative of the real world ( Burns & Bowling,2010, p.105). Finally, this current study has only examined one product that isBlackBerry smart phone. Thus, future research may replicate the research model anduse other products or brands in order to enhance the generalizability of the researchmodel.

REFERENCES

Ammi, C. (2013). Global Consumer Behavior. California: John Wiley & Sons.


17/26




Aniza, C., Alam, S.S. and Nor, S. M. (2011). Factors affecting brand loyalty: Anempirical study in Malaysia. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences,5(12), 777-783.

Anwar, A., Gulzar, A., Sohail, F. and Akram,S.N.. (2011). Impact of Brand Image, Trustand Affect on Consumer Brand Extension Attitude: The Mediating Role of BrandLoyalty. International Journal of Economics and Management Sciences. Vol. 1 No.5, 73-79.

Baker, R. (2009). Brands need social values to win trust of teenagers . Retrieved from:http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/brands-need-social-values-to-win-trust-of-teenagers/3005779.article

Budiman, S. (2012). Analysis of consumer attitudes to purchase intentions of

counterfeiting bag product in Indonesia. International Journal of Management,Economics and Social Sciences, 1(1), 1-12.

Burns, G.N. and Bowling, N,A, (2010). Dispositional approach to customers satisfactionand behavior. Journal of Business Psychology, 25, 99-107.

Chang, H.H. and Chen, S. W. (2009). Consumer perception of interface quality,security, and loyalty in electronic commerce. Information and Management, 46,411-417.

Chen, C., Chao, C., Lee, Y. and Tsai, P. (2012). Exploration of the differences in

Taiwanese womens purchasing decisions towards luxury goods and generalproducts.African Journal of Business Management, 6(2), 548-561.

Das, D. (2012). An investigation of functional analysis of consumers buying behaviourtowards mobile handsets with a special reference to the usability of mobilehandsets: A study in Coastal Belt of Orissa. International Journal of Business andManagement Tomorrow, 2(3), 1-9.

Ferdousi, B. and Levy, Y. (2010). Development and validation of a model to investigatethe impact of individual factors on instructors intention to use e-learning systems.Interdiciplinary Journal of E-learning and Learning Objects, 6, 1-21.

Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: AnIntroduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models withunobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18,39-50.


18/26




Furaji, F., atuszyska, M. and Wawrzyniak, A. (2012). An empirical study of the factorsinfluencing consumer behaviour in the electric appliances market. ContemporaryEconomics, 6(3), 76-86.

Ha, Hong-Youl and Park, Kang-Hee. (2012). Effects of perceived quality andsatisfaction on brand loyalty in China: The moderating effect of customerorientation.African Journal of Business Management, 6(22), 6745-6753.

Hair, J. F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010). Multivariate DataAnalysis: A Global Perspective, 7th ed. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Hanzaee, K. H. and Farzaneh, S. (2012). The role of product involvement, productknowledge and image of counterfeits in explaining consumer purchase behavior.Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, 2(1), 821-831.

Hanzaee, K. H. and Taghipourian, M.J. (2012). The effects of brand credibility andprestige on consumers purchase intention in low and high product involvement.Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, 2(2), 1281-1291.

Hawkins, D. I. and Mothersbaugh, D. L. (2010). Consumer Behavior: Building MarketingStrategy, 11th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hitipeuw, J. (2011). BlackBerry: From executive to thug tool of choice. Retrieved from:http://english.kompas.com/read/2011/08/11/11122657/BlackBerry.from.Executive.to.Thug.Tool.of.Choice

Hoyer, W. D. and Maclnnis, D. J. (2010). Consumer Behavior, 5th ed. United States:South-Western Cengage Learning.

Iacobucci, D. and Churchill, G.A. (2010). Marketing Research: MethodologicalFoundations. Canada: South-Western.

Javadi, Mohammad Hossein Moshref, Dloatabadi, Hossein Rezaei, Nourbakhsh,Mojtaba, Poursaeedi, Amir and Asadollahi, Ahmad Reza. (2012). An analysis offactors affecting on online shopping behavior of consumers. International Journal ofMarketing Studies, 4(5), 81-98.

Kardes, F. R., Cronley, M. L. and Cline, T. W. (2011). Consumer Behavior. UnitedStates: South-Western Cengage Learning.

Kaveh, M. (2012). Role of trust in explaining repurchase intention. African Journal ofBusiness Management, 6(14), 5014-5025.
http://english.kompas.com/read/2011/08/11/11122657/BlackBerry.from.Executive.to.Thug.Tool.of.Choicehttp://english.kompas.com/read/2011/08/11/11122657/BlackBerry.from.Executive.to.Thug.Tool.of.Choicehttp://english.kompas.com/read/2011/08/11/11122657/BlackBerry.from.Executive.to.Thug.Tool.of.Choicehttp://english.kompas.com/read/2011/08/11/11122657/BlackBerry.from.Executive.to.Thug.Tool.of.Choice


19/26




Keller, K.L. (2008). Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and ManagingBrand Equity, 3rd ed. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Khokhar, S., Husain, F. , Qureshi, T.M., Anjum, I., Samran, A. and Arshad, R. (2011).Only customer satisfaction and customer loyalty is not enough: A study ofPakistans telecom sector.African Journal of Business Management, 5(24), 10176-10181.

Kim, S. and Chung, H. (2012). The impacts of perceived fit, brand familiarity, and statusconsciousness on fashion brand extension evaluation. International Journal ofFashion Design, Technology and Education, 5(3), 203-211.

Kotler, P. and Amstrong, G. (2010). Principles of Marketing, 13th ed. New Jersey:Pearson Prentice Hall.

Lawry, S., Popovic, V. and Blackler, A. L. (2011). Diversity in product familiarity acrossyounger and older adults. In Diversity & Unity, 4 th World Conference on DesignResearch, IASDR2011, Delft, The Netherlands.

Lim, Y. M., Yap, C. S. and Lee, T. H. (2011). Intention to shop online: A study ofMalaysian baby boomers. African Journal of Business Management, 5(5), 1711-1717.

Lin, Miao-Que and Lee, Bruce C. Y. (2012). The influence of website environment onbrand loyalty: Brand trust and brand affect as mediators. International Journal of

Electronic Business Management, 10(4), 308-321.

Lin, Szu-ju, Li, Chao-Hua and You, Ching-Sing (2012). Consumer behavior andperception of marketing strategy for amusement parks: A case study of Taiwan.

Africal Journal of Business Management, 6(14), 4795-4803.

Marsh, E. C. (2009). Revealed: The brands loved by teens online. Retrieved from:http://www.brandrepublic.com/news/910811/habbo-survey-reveals-teens-favourite-brands/

Matzler, K., Grabner-Krauter, S. and Bidmon, S. (2006). The value-brand trust-brand

loyalty chain: an analysis of some moderating variables. Innovative Marketing, 2(2),76-88.

Mittal, Vikas and Wagner, Kamakura (2001). Satisfaction, repurchase intent, andrepurchase behavior: Investigating the moderating effects of customercharacteristics. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 131-142.
http://www.brandrepublic.com/news/910811/habbo-survey-reveals-teens-favourite-brands/http://www.brandrepublic.com/news/910811/habbo-survey-reveals-teens-favourite-brands/http://www.brandrepublic.com/news/910811/habbo-survey-reveals-teens-favourite-brands/http://www.brandrepublic.com/news/910811/habbo-survey-reveals-teens-favourite-brands/


20/26




Nadi, Mohammad Ali and Ghahremani, Nasrin (2011). Brand value and relationshipperformance in business markets: A cross cultural glance of business services.

African Journal of Business Management, 5(22), 9322-9333.

Nasermoadeli, Amir, Ling, Kwek Choon, & Maghnati, Farshad (2013). Evaluating theimpacts of customer experience on purchase intention. International Journal ofBusiness and Management, 8(6), 128-138.

OGuinn, Thomas C., Allen, Chris T. and Semenik, Richard J. (2012). Advertising andIntegrated Brand Promotion, 6th ed. United States: South-Western CengageLearning.

Osman, M. A., Talib, A.Z., Sanusi, Z.A., Tan, S. and Alwi, A.S. (2011). A study of thetrend of smartphone and its usage behavior in Malaysia. International Journal on

New Computer Architectures and Their Applications, 2(1), 274-285.

Osman, Syuhaily, Fah, Benjamin Chan Yin and Foon, Yeoh Sok (2011). Simulation ofsales promotions toward buying behavior among university students. InternationalJournal of Marketing Studies, 3(3), 78-88.

zer, Gkhan and Yilmaz, Emine (2011). Comparison of the theory of reasoned actionand the theory of planned behavior: An application on accountants informationtechnology usage.African Journal of Business Management, 5(1), 50-58.

Panji, Aditya (2012). Mayoritas pengguna BlackBerry ingin beralih ke iPhone. Retrieved

from:http://tekno.kompas.com/read/2012/07/04/08272678/Mayoritas.Pengguna.BlackBerry.Ingin.Beralih.ke.iPhone

Panji, Aditya (2013). Perjalanan sejarah RIM ke BlackBerry. Retrieved from:http://tekno.kompas.com/read/2013/02/04/11183966/perjalanan.sejarah.rim.ke.blackberry

Pi, Shih-Ming, Liao, Liao, Hsiu-Li, Liu, Su-Houn and Lee, I-Shan(2011). Factorsinfluencing the behavior of online group-buying in Taiwan. African Journal ofBusiness Management, 5(16), 7120-7129.

Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research:problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12 (4), 531-544.

Pride, William M., Hughes, Robert J., and Kapoor Jack R. (2012). Business, 11th ed.United States: South-Western Cengage Learning.
http://tekno.kompas.com/read/2012/07/04/08272678/Mayoritas.Pengguna.BlackBerry.Ingin.Beralih.ke.iPhonehttp://tekno.kompas.com/read/2012/07/04/08272678/Mayoritas.Pengguna.BlackBerry.Ingin.Beralih.ke.iPhonehttp://tekno.kompas.com/read/2013/02/04/11183966/perjalanan.sejarah.rim.ke.blackberryhttp://tekno.kompas.com/read/2013/02/04/11183966/perjalanan.sejarah.rim.ke.blackberryhttp://tekno.kompas.com/read/2012/07/04/08272678/Mayoritas.Pengguna.BlackBerry.Ingin.Beralih.ke.iPhonehttp://tekno.kompas.com/read/2012/07/04/08272678/Mayoritas.Pengguna.BlackBerry.Ingin.Beralih.ke.iPhonehttp://tekno.kompas.com/read/2013/02/04/11183966/perjalanan.sejarah.rim.ke.blackberryhttp://tekno.kompas.com/read/2013/02/04/11183966/perjalanan.sejarah.rim.ke.blackberry


21/26




Prihtiyani, Eny (2012). Konsumen lebih suka diskon dibandingkan dengan hadiah.Retrieved from:http://bisniskeuangan.kompas.com/read/2012/07/26/16575799/Konsumen.Lebih.Su

ka.Diskon.Dibandingkan.dengan.Hadiah

Purwanti, Tenni (2011). Smarphone mengejar kemampuan PC. Retrieved from:http://tekno.kompas.com/read/2011/06/03/15455040/Smartphone.Mengejar.Kemampuan.PC

Purwanto, Didik (2012). Lima tantangan bos baru BlackBerry. Retrieved from:http://tekno.kompas.com/read/2012/01/23/21134149/lima.tantangan.bos.baru.blackberry

Rao, M. (2012). Mobile Southeast Asia Report 2012: Crossroads to Innovation.

Retrieved from: www.mobilemonday.net/reports/SEA_Reports_2012.pdf.

Sadeghi, Tooraj, Tabrizi, Khadijeh Ghaemmaghami and Noroozi, Asieh.(2011). Theeffective factors related with feelings, brand perception and purchase decisionunder a model.African Journal of Business Management, 5(30), 12025-12030.

Safitri, D. (2011). Why is Indonesia so in love with the Blackberry? Retrieved from:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/direct/indonesia/9508138.stm.

Sanlier, Nevin, Dadeviren, Ayhan, elik, Blent, Bilici, Saniye and Abubakirova,Aktolkin (2011). Determining the knowledge of food safety and purchasing behavior

of the consumers living in Turkey and Kazakhstan. African Journal of MicrobiologyResearch, 5(18), 2724-2732.

Schiffman, Leon G., Kanuk, Leslie Lazar and Wisenblit, Joseph (2010). ConsumerBehavior, 10th ed. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Schultz, D.E., Barnes, B.E. and Schultz, H.F. (2009). Building Customer-BrandRelationships. United States of America: M.E. Sharpe.

Sekaran, Uma and Bougie, Roger (2009). Research Methods for Business A SkillBulding Approach, 5th ed.United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons.

Sengupta, S., Krapfel, R.E. and Pusateri, M.A. (2000). An Empirical Investigation of KeyAccount Salesperson Effectiveness. Journal of Personal Selling & SalesManagement, 20 (Fall), 253-261.

Severi, E. and Ling, K.C. (2013). The Mediating Effects of Brand Association, BrandLoyalty, Brand Image and Perceived Quality on Brand Equity. Asian Social Science,9, 3, 125-136.
http://tekno.kompas.com/read/2011/06/03/15455040/Smartphone.Mengejar.Kemampuan.PChttp://tekno.kompas.com/read/2011/06/03/15455040/Smartphone.Mengejar.Kemampuan.PChttp://tekno.kompas.com/read/2012/01/23/21134149/lima.tantangan.bos.baru.blackberryhttp://tekno.kompas.com/read/2012/01/23/21134149/lima.tantangan.bos.baru.blackberryhttp://www.mobilemonday.net/reports/SEA_Reports_2012.pdfhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/direct/indonesia/9508138.stmhttp://tekno.kompas.com/read/2011/06/03/15455040/Smartphone.Mengejar.Kemampuan.PChttp://tekno.kompas.com/read/2011/06/03/15455040/Smartphone.Mengejar.Kemampuan.PChttp://tekno.kompas.com/read/2012/01/23/21134149/lima.tantangan.bos.baru.blackberryhttp://tekno.kompas.com/read/2012/01/23/21134149/lima.tantangan.bos.baru.blackberryhttp://www.mobilemonday.net/reports/SEA_Reports_2012.pdfhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/direct/indonesia/9508138.stm


22/26




Shrum, L. J. (2012). The Psychology of Entertainment Media: Blurring the LinesBetween Entertainment and Persuasion, 2nd ed. United States of America: Taylor &

Francis Group.

Siirci, zge and Yalin, A. Mge (2010). Factors affecting consumer evaluations ofbrand extentions. Boazii Journal, 24(1-2), 67-90.

Swan, K. Scott and Zou, Shaoming (2012). Interdisciplinary Approaches to ProductDesign, Innovation, & Branding in International Marketing. United Kingdom:Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Tariq, M. I., Nawaz, M.R., Nawaz, M.M. and But, H.A. (2013). Customer perceptionsabout branding and purchase intention: A study of FMCG in an emerging market.

Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, 3(2), 340-347.

Tripathi, Pratyush and Singh, Satish Kr. (2012). An empirical study of consumerbehavior towards the preference and usage of mobile phone services in Bhopal.Current Trends in Technology and Sciences, 1(2), 62-70.

Tsao, Wen-Chin and Chang, Hung-Ru (2010). Exploring the impact of personality traitson online shopping behavior.African Journal of Business and Management, 4(9), p.1800-1812.

Utomo, Eko Priyo (2012). Tip dan Trik Seputar Android dan BlackBerry. Yogyakarta:

C.V. ANDI OFFSET.

Van Doorn, Gerrit Sander and Taborsky, Michael (2011). The evaluation of generalizedreciprocity on social interaction networks. The Society for the Study of Evaluation,66(3), 651-664.

Wahono, Tri (2010). Penjualan smartphone melonjak 80 persen. Retrieved from:http://tekno.kompas.com/read/2010/10/28/14173984/Penjualan.Smartphone.Melonjak.80.Persen.

Wen, Chao, Prybutok, Victor R. and Xu, Chenyan (2011). An integrated model for

customer online repurchase intention. Journal of Computer Information Systems,14-23.

Wu, Wann-Yih, Lai, Meng-Kuan, Wu, Shin-Jen and Fu, Chen-Su (2012). Exploring theinfluential factors to the perceived value and purchase intention of online luckybags. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business , 4(1), 515-531.
http://tekno.kompas.com/read/2010/10/28/14173984/Penjualan.Smartphone.Melonjak.80.Persenhttp://tekno.kompas.com/read/2010/10/28/14173984/Penjualan.Smartphone.Melonjak.80.Persenhttp://tekno.kompas.com/read/2010/10/28/14173984/Penjualan.Smartphone.Melonjak.80.Persenhttp://tekno.kompas.com/read/2010/10/28/14173984/Penjualan.Smartphone.Melonjak.80.Persen


23/26




Wu, Wei-ping, Chan, T. S. and Lau, Heng Hwa (2008). Does consumers personalreciprocity affect future purchase intentions? Journal of Marketing Management,24(3-4), 345-360.

Yakup, Durmaz, Mcahit, Celik and Reyhan, Oruc (2011). The impact of cultural factorson the consumer buying behaviors examined through an impirical study.International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(5), 109-114.

Yee, Choy Johnn, San, Cheng Ng and Khoon, Chng Huck (2011). Consumersperceived quality, perceived value and perceived risk towards purchase decision onautomobile.American Journal of Economics and Business Administration, 3(1), 47-57.

Yen, Yung-Shen (2011). How does perceived risks complement switching costs in e-

commerce?.African Journal of Business Management, 5(7), p. 2919-2929.

Zarrad, Houda and Debabi, Mohsen (2012). Online purchasing intention: Factors andeffects. International Business and Management, 4(1), p. 37-47.

Zikmund, W.G., Babin, B.J., Carr, J.C. and Griffin, M. (2010). Business ResearchMethods. Canada: South-Western.

Appendix A.

Tabel Variabel dan Indikator

Variabel Indikator Sumber

Brand Loyalty 4 item:1. Saya menyukai

smartphone BlackBerry.2. Smartphone BlackBerry

adalah merek favoritsaya.

3. Smartphone BlackBerrymenjadi pilihan pertamasaya.

4. Saya akanmerekomendasikansmartphone BlackBerryke orang lain.

Chang dan Chen (2009); Ha danPark (2012); Wu et al. (2008);Yen (2011).

Brand Trust 4 item:1. Smartphone BlackBerry

dapat dipercaya.2. Kualitas smartphone

Nadi dan Ghahremani (2011);Wen et al. (2010); Wu et al.(2008).


24/26




BlackBerry baik.3. Perusahaan BlackBerry

tidak dapat diandalkan

dalam melakukantugasnya.4. Saya merasa aman

bertransaksi denganperusahaan BlackBerry.

Product Familiarity 4 item:1. Saya memiliki

pengetahuan mengenaismartphone BlackBerry.

2. Saya merasa familiardengan smartphone

BlackBerry.3. Saya dapat dengan

mudah mengenalismartphone BlackBerrydari merek smartphonelainnya.

4. Ketika saya berpikirtentang produksmartphone, sayateringat dengan merekBlackBerry.

Siirci dan Yalin (2010); Wu etal. (2008).

Personal Reciprocity 4 item:1. Saya berharap

perusahaan BlackBerrydapat menawarkanbeberapa layanan secaraindividual.

2. Saya bersedia untukmemberikan informasipribadi saya kepadaperusahaan BlackBerry.

3. Saya tertarik untuk

bergabung dalamkomunitas smartphoneBlackBerry.

4. Saya bersedia untukberkontribusi denganperusahaan BlackBerry.

Pi et al. (2011); Wu et al. (2008).

Attitude Toward Buying

Behavior

4 item:1. Saya suka untuk

Ferdousi dan Levy (2010); Javadiet al. (2012); Lim et al. (2011).


25/26




menggunakansmartphone BlackBerrydibandingkan

smartphone mereklainnya.2. Saya merasa percaya

diri pada saatmenggunakansmartphone BlackBerry.

3. Menggunakansmartphone BlackBerrymembuat saya merasanyaman.

4. Saya memiliki sikap yangpositif terhadap

smartphone BlackBerry.

Purchase Intention 4 item:1. Saya memiliki keinginan

untuk membelismartphone BlackBerry.

2. Saya akan membelismartphone BlackBerrydi masa yang akandatang.

3. Saya serius untukmempertimbangkanmembeli smartphoneBlackBerry.

4. Smartphone BlackBerrymenjadi pertimbanganpertama saya untukpembelian di masa yangakan datang.

Hanzaee dan Taghipourian(2012); Wu et al. (2008); Wu etal. (2012).

Purchase Behavior 4 item:1. Saya perlu

menghabiskan banyak

waktu untukmemutuskan membelismartphone BlackBerry.

2. Sayamempertimbangkanberapa banyak uangyang saya keluarkanuntuk membeli

Osman et al. (2011); Sanlieretal. (2011).


26/26




smartphone BlackBerry.3. Promosi yang ditawarkan

oleh smartphone

BlackBerrymempengaruhikeputusan pembeliansaya.

4. Begitu saya menemukantipe yang menarik darismartphone BlackBerry,saya akan membelismartphone tersebut.

Documents

Antecedents of Smart Phone Buying Behavior: An Empirical Study