Influence of External on Consumer Decision-Making Process - Literature review Example

Influence of External on Consumer Decision Making Process Name Student Number Name of the Unit Name of the Unit Coordinator Executive Summary The aim of the paper was to assess the role of external factors in consumer decision making process. The paper examines four salient factors. The first tenet reviewed in this paper is the reference group & family and their influence on consumer decision making. The second one is the relevance of the public policy, legislation, advertising, pricing and consumer ethics on consumer decision making. The last one is the influence of diffusion of innovation on consumer decision making. Within the theme of group reference & family reference, the paper utilises the case example of publicly consumed luxury goods and how purchase decision are influenced by the same factor. The paper argues that group reference induces someone to conform to certain expectation or aspire through purchasing behaviour to behave as their reference group dictates thus influencing their decision making process. For influence of public policy, legislation, advertising, pricing and consumer ethics on consumer decision making, the paper utilises case examples of Nestle Inc. In regard to diffusion of innovation, the paper argues that it influences how people adopt new technologies and drop obsolete ones thus influencing purchase decision. Finally, the paper found out that culture has a bearing on decision making owing to the fact that it has a bearing on how indivuals perceive different decision making styles. Table of Contents Executive Summary i Table of Contents ii 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Consumer Behaviour & Decision Making 1 3.0 Influence of ‘External Factors’ on Consumer’s Decision-Making Process 4 3.1 Reference Group & Family 4 3.1.1 Case example of publicly consumed luxurious goods 6 3.2 Importance of Public Policy and Consumer Protection Aspects 7 3.3 Diffusion of Innovation 12 3.4 Culture 13 4.0 Conclusion 14 References 16 1.0 Introduction Understanding how consumers make decision is an integral encounter for markers for sustained successful marketing. There is the realisation that decision making process by consumers on when, why, how and where to purchase or not purchase is a complex undertaking. Different theoretical constructs have been advanced on the consumer decision making model such as passive, economic, emotional and cognitive. Despite of these propositions, there is wide acceptance that the decision to purchase does not occur in lacuna, but within a given context. Hence, it is appreciated purchase decision is influenced by a myriad on internal and external factors. The purpose of this discourse is to investigate the position of external factors in consumer decision making process. 2.0 Consumer Behaviour & Decision Making Businesses rely on consumers for their survival. In order to effectively cater address the needs of consumers and deliver the required value, it is integral to comprehend consumer behaviour and particularly the purchase decision. According to Haghshenas et al. (2013, p.17), understanding of consumer behaviour is a significant concept owing to the fact that this important in highlighting the how and why consumers purchase or do not purchase a give product or service and the associated mental, physical & emotional process engaged in purchase of products or services. In an in-depth view, Yakup & Jablonsk (2012, p.61) indicates that consumer behaviour is the comprehension of “ when, why, how and where” of buying and not buying a product or the understanding of the processes involved by individuals or group of people in selecting, securing, use & disposal of a product/ services. The instrumental realisation within this domain is the consumer decision process (Haghshenas et al., 2013, p.18). There are numerous models that conceptualises a consumer in terms of how they make decisions. According to Richarme (2001, p.55-56) these include utility theory that take presumption that all buyers are rational in their approach; satisficing model and prospect theory that constitute a combination of the earlier two versions. On the other hand, Kwan (2006, p.12-16); Arambewela (2003, p.54) observes that consumer decision making styles can be contextualised within the domains of economic/ rational model, passive, cognitive and emotional model. Kwan (2006, p.12); Arambewela (2003, p.54) stipulates that under economic model, human beings are presumed as goal oriented individuals during the purchasing process. In this regard, they are likely to pursue products that offer maximum utility to their needs. For cognitive proponents, human beings are conceptualised “irrational, impulsive and prone to external influences” (Kwan, 2006, p.13). Thus, they are likely to deploy cognitive shortcuts or cognitive heuristic instead of the complex decision making process which then translates to a given rule of thumb owing to the diverse information to be processed to arrive at their decisions (Kwan, 2006, p.14). On the other hand, emotional model postulates that consumers are likely to employ their emotions, feelings and impulses as opposed pre-purchase information (Kwan, 2006, p.14; Arambewela, 2003, p.54). Finally, passive model perceive consumers as malleable individuals who can be conditioned easily to adopt certain styles (Kwan, 2006, p.16). In a normative expectation, Yakup & Jablonsk (2012, p.62) notes that consumer decision making processes entails a five step procedure. They establish that in the first instance, a consumer engages in problem recognition. This is normally in regard to the needs and wants that one or a group of people deem suitable to be addressed. The second stage entails search for information so as to establish the appropriate products or services that can address the need by delivering the required value. The third step is to evaluate these alternatives in terms of associated benefits and other relevant factors such as costs. The fourth encounter is the purchase decision where one acquires the product or service found to be the most appropriate in delivering the required value. Finally, there is the post purchase behaviour that is dictated by the realised value. However, despite of all these propositions, there is the overall appreciation that consumer decision making process is not limited to these models, but also a function of very many factors that can either be internal or external (Haghshenas et al., 2013, p.19; Kwan, 2006, p.16). Haghshenas et al. (2013, p.19) identifies external factors that impacts on consumer behaviour and purchase decision such as social class, family, culture, subculture and environment marketing. On the other hand, Kwan (2006, p.16) identifies variabilities such perfectionism consciousness, price & value consciousness, brand consciousness, habitual & brand loyal habitation, recreational & hedonistic consciousness, impulsive & carelessness and novelty & fashion consciousness. Indeed, the work by Stávková, Stejskal & Toufarová (2008) gives a more detailed description of factors that influence the consumer decision making process. According to Stávková, Stejskal & Toufarová (2008, p.277) the internal factors can be categorised as personal factors and psychological factors. The psychological factors include issues such as skills, personality, and knowledge, style of life, perception and motivation. For personal factors, these are variables distinct to each individual and include issues such as self-consciousness, occupational & economic conditions, sex, age, & personality. On the other hand, situational factors are substituted for external issues and they include social environment and physical environment. Nevertheless, the concern of this paper is on the external factors which are subsequently discussed below. 3.0 Influence of ‘External Factors’ on Consumer’s Decision-Making Process 3.1 Reference Group & Family Bearden & Etzel (1982, p.183) in discussing reference group note that they can be conceptualised either as a benchmarking reference point where individuals or groups employ them as points of reference within the society such as socio-economic status or they can be viewed as social entities that are a source or attitudes, personal norms, conduct and normative values. The rationale and importance of choosing references group and family factors is premised on their socialisation and meaning giving role towards an individual. Reference groups and family to a greater extent predetermines how individuals behave. Reza & Valeecha (2013, p.197) identifies the reference group as including friends, celebrities, family and opinion leaders. Particularly, family can be considered as a source of values, attitudes and norms while individuals such as sport heroes and celebrities are considered a comparative reference group. This above is rooted in the realisation that they play an integral role of imparting various social meaning to an individual or those who ascribe to their ideals. In meaning giving, reference group are able to orient the mind of those within their group of the norms, values, morality, attitudes and virtues. Within the family context, this is reffered to us as an intergenerational influence (Reza & Valeecha, 2013, p.197). The greatest contribution of reference group to consumer decision making is the value it ascribes to individuals and the expectation that they conform to these requirements (Bearden & Etzel, 1982, p.183). The same are likely to be translated to the purchase decision that one or a group of people has to conduct, especially for products consumed publicly (Reza & Valeecha, 2013, p.197). The impact on purchase and decision lies in the salient recognition that individuals are likely to take cues from these reference groups so as to align their values and standards with the hope of attaining a sense of belonging. This therefore highlights the reality that formal or informal reference groups have massive influence on consumer decision making, especially in regard to attitudes and association (Reza & Valeecha, 2013, p.198). The significance of the above realisation is particularly important in discussing the role of reference group in imparting attitudes and values that people hold towards publicly consumed goods and services. For instance, a given socio-economic reference group can impart a consumption behaviour anchored on the attitude and value of lavishness. Take a case example of reference group that calls for opulence or one that calls for servitude. Others might incline a group of people to desist from a certain calibre of products and so on. Yang, He & Lee (2007, p.324) indicates that the reference group can influence an individual in three perspectives. The first is the informational influence whereby the premise is anchored on the urge to engage in an informed process. This emerges out of the belief one has that the reference group has certain constructive pieces of information that are integral to the purchasing process. The second is the utilitarian influence where an individual who subscribes to a given influence is likely to relegate other concerns so long as that consumer satisfy the reference group expectation so as to attain social approval and sense of belonging. The final one is value-expressive influence that obliges consumers to make decisions that expresses the aspirations of groups that they wish to belong to. This is common among youthful generations and ability to try and own luxurious products owned by celebrities. 3.1.1 Case example of publicly consumed luxurious goods To create a vivid picture on publicly consumed luxurious goods, it is integral to juxtapose the same with publicly consumed necessities, privately consumed luxuries and privately consumed necessities (Bearden & Etzel, 1982; Childers & Rao, 1992). Publicly consumed goods are those products consumed within public view. While privately consumed products are those products utilised out of public view. On the other hand, luxuries are products that are not commonly owned while necessities are commonly owned and thus are not exclusive. In their findings, they established that reference group has strong utilitarian influence in publicly consumed luxuries. The rationale for their finding is hinged on the premise that luxury goods are associated with well to do and the society expects them to flaunt flashy goods that ascribes to the societal expectation and socio-economic group they belong in, such as Golf Clubs (Bearden & Etzel, 1982, p.185; Childers & Rao, 1992, 201). Most individuals are inclined to display their social status within the society so as to derive honour and social prestige. One way of distinguishing each other within the society is to own publicly consumed products that can be flaunted to the rest of the public. This has given birth to the concept of conspicuous consumption of goods. Heffetz (2004, p.3) refers to this experience as consumption visibility whereby it can be used to symbolise social prestige. A good case example on how reference groups highly influence consumer decision making process is in the purchase of publicly consumed luxury. According to Class (1899, p.51 cited in Han, Nunes & Drèze, 2010, p.15), “the basis on which good repute in any highly organized industrial community ultimately rests is pecuniary strength; and the means of showing pecuniary strength, and so of gaining or retaining a good name, are leisure and a conspicuous consumption of goods.” Nelissen & Meijers (2011, p.343) contextualises the need to belong or be associated with given social class trough consumption of luxurious in terms of financial expenses. For instance, they observe that by 2012 it was projected that global spending on luxury would hit $450 billion. This kind of approach to spending is not limited to developed nations, but also on developing nations. The reality is that, the present Y generation prefers products deemed expensive owing to the associated social status yet the functional benefits are the same. The reasoning behind such approach to consumption is premised on the fact that most of these products are endorsed by celebrities and sporting heroes. Thus, the Y generation imitates the same so to have that feeling of belonging. The same pressure to conform to social pressure dictated by a reference group is exhibited with how people buy counterfeit luxury brands so that they (consumers) can fit in or express themselves (Keith, Hyeong & Sankar, S, 2009). 3.2 Importance of Public Policy and Consumer Protection Aspects In any organisation, there are vested interests. In a purely profit driven business approach with the shareholder as the ultimate concern, the existence of business is make profit and not to engage in issues such as corporate social responsibility (ASX Corporate Governance Council, 2007, p.21; Caroll, 1991, p.40). However, this might not auger well with the vested interest of other stakeholders such as consumers and the rest of the public. For instance, Boulstridge & Carrigan (2000, p.355) note that consumers are interested in the behaviour of business organisations. Additionally, it has been realised that traditional approaches to conducting business that does not value the integral role of natural capital have contributed to continuous over exploitation of natural environment with total disregard to services offered by natural which cannot be substituted by artificial processes. It is within this platform where government as the ultimate guarantor of human rights and with role of offering regulatory environment that creates a level playing field that the entry of government is justified. The rationale is rooted on the underpinning that there is no absolute right without responsibility (Iamandi, 2007, p.5). Businesses have the legal and ethical responsibility to act ethically by not involving in business practices that do not adhere to societal expectations. This anchored on the fact that as creation of society and as moral agents, with written or unwritten tortuous duty ought to engage in the duty of care by ensuring their products are safe for use (Lodhia and Jacobs, 2013, p.596; Donaldson & Dunfee, 1994, p.254). Consumer protection aspects arise out of legal requirements for safe products and ethical marketing. This is enshrined in the rule of law that calls on entities to legal restrictions (Manuel, 2011). Additionally, law of tort enshrines duty of care where involved parties are obliged to act in good faith by avoiding ill motives (Witt, 2007, p.5). As such, any businesses in while engaging in commercial interest has to conform to public policy and legal requirements (Bowie, 2012, p.6). The connection between public policy and consumer protection aspect falls and consumer decision making processes falls within the fact that public policy dictates issues such as safety, packaging requirements, product labelling, pricing, product composition & ingredients and ethical marketing. Consumer sovereignty places the consumer ahead as the survival of the business is dependent on consumers. One way that consumer protection influences consumer decision making is mostly exhibited under ethical and political consumerism. Boulstridge & Carrigan (2000, p.355) observe that ‘consumers are interested in how companies behave and this has an influence upon their consumption behaviour’. Under ethical consumerism, consumers are likely to boycott products or services that do not meet public expectation. Additionally, in given circumstances that product does not meet expectations of public policy, under criminal justice system consumers are allowed to sue the manufacturer. The other way that public policy can that inability to adhere to public policy and consumer protection aspects is greatly connected to the reduction in positive reputation of the brand and the associated negative attitude that it can build as a result of engaging in actions such as deceptive marketing, wrong labelling and injurious or unsafe components (Post, 1985). A company that suffers from negative reputation as a result of inability to guarantee public issues outlined in the public policy can experience decline in brand awareness, tighter control/regulation by government, fines and boycott, which are likely to have a bearing on the purchasing patterns of consumers (Groucutt, Leadley & Forsyth, 2004, p.64). On the other hand, a company which enjoys a strong reputation as result of the positive brand image they have as result of adhering to public policy and consumer protection issues created can leverage on the same to influence on purchasing patterns of the consumer. A good example of how and why a consumer would not buy a product as a result of not meeting public policy and consumer protection aspect is the Nestle Inc. boycott experience. Boycott of Nestlé’s infant formula has a long history and it is traceable to 1974 when ‘the baby killer’ report was published and accusations levelled against the firm for promoting products that do not address the welfare of children as it contributed to infant mortality. Despite of these negative accusations by pressure groups, a Switzerland court exonerated the company against these allegations. Nevertheless, that did not stop the pressure groups and in 1977 Infant Formula Action Council (INFACT) lobbied for global boycott of Nestlé’s products as they argued that the firm contravened the ethical marketing requirements for milk substitutes. These claims fronted by INFACT caught the attention of WHO and UNICEF who gave support for the claim by urging Nestle to abolish promotion of artificial infant formulas. In the same year of 1977, International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) was formed to protect consumer interest. As a sign of commitment, in 1984, Nestle ratified the 1981 code for the industry developed by WHO. However, this did not last since in 1988 IBFAN found out that Nestle had violated the code and thus, the boycott continued (Lapland, 2010). The grounds for the accusations levelled against Nestle are premised on four rationales. The first premise is rooted on the fact that Nestle fronted the infant formula as the best option for children and lactating mothers yet the scientific observation is that mother’s breast milk is the best since it offers necessary requisite hormones and antibodies, delaying of fertilities in lactating mothers, optimising neurological development and strengthening of mother-child bond. Equally, it has been established in developing countries where literacy is low, mothers are not highly aware on how to handle the artificial infant formula and thus, might under look issues such hygiene requisite for bottle feeding. Moreover, there is the concern that in most developing nations in given circumstances access to clean water is not easy and thus, the artificial infant formula would not be the best option as it is being promoted, but the natural breast milk. Finally the accusation fronted against the firm relates to the substantial cost involved in acquiring the formula yet majority of those targeted are poor. This implies that for them to maximise on the utility, they will have to dilute or use lower ratio so that the product can last and thus losing the intended value (Lapland, 2010). The hallmark of this argument and thus, the influencing on consumer decision making so as to boycott the product is premised on unethical marketing that does not obey known scientific facts and social environment of their targeted market segment. According to Groucutt, Leadley & Forsyth (2004, p.64) the impact on consumer decision making processes is likely to occur owing to the fact that consumers have interest on how industries behave in relation to responsible/ irresponsible marketing, public health and misinforming advertisement. Social acceptability is integral in influencing consumer’s decision making process as this will dictate whether to buy a product or not to buy. According to Smith (1987, p.7) if public has the feeling that manufacture’s product is tainted, under consumer sovereignty they are likely to avoid such products. For instance, it was established that as result of the boycotts, Nescafe sales in UK reduced by 3% (Boycott Book, nd, p.47 & 50; Baby Milk Action, 2005). Equally, Clarkson (1984) notes that “In 1978, Fortune Magazine reported that Nestle, which at the time was selling almost $2 billion worth of food products a year in the U.S., hoped to double that figure and increase the U.S. share of its global sales from 18 to 30 percent by 1982. To reach this goal, the company launched a multimillion dollar advertising campaign. In 1981, Business Week reported that Nestlé’s U.S. sales and earnings were down slightly, adding that the company had revised its timetable for the 30 percent market share to 1985. And a recent article in the Wall Street Journal suggests that it may have been the boycott that thwarted Nestlé’s strategy of trying to expand its North American market. ‘Weak’ U.S. sales of $2.4 billion last year, says the Journal, account for only 19 percent of world sales”. 3.3 Diffusion of Innovation It is a common occurrence to find that products manufactured/ service or technological advancement initiated in a given social system being utilised and replicated in another social system or economy. Innovative ideas can spread from one point to another. This has been hastened by the growth of in transport and communication technology that has enhanced interaction between two different communities that might be located in different geographical zones. According to Robinson (2009, p.1), “diffusion of innovations seeks to explain how innovations are taken up in a population”. The chief concern in diffusion of innovation and technology is how people who ascribe to a given social system adopt new ideas or practices (Sahin, 2006, p.14). Adoption of innovation-decision rate is a function of various factors. The same argument can be fronted in consumer-decision making in respect to how a diffused ideas are adopted. Rogers (2010, p.207) notes that diffusion of the idea is a function of factors such as perceived attributes of innovation. This is in regard to relative advantage the innovation presents, compatibility, complexity, observability and triability. The second function is the type of innovation-decision such as optional, collective and authority. The third is the communication channels utilised it conveying information about innovation such as mass media platforms and interpersonal platforms. The fourth is the nature of the social system such as norms and interconnectedness within the social network. The final one is the extent of change agents’ promotion effort. One example that exhibits how diffusion impacts on decision making in terms of adoption of new technology/ innovation is internet. The concept of internet emerged in 1960s as result of the works associated by Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) in 1962 later renamed Defence Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) in 1971, the positive effect of internet has been phenomenal (Leiner, et al., 2009, p.24). Presently, the use of such technology has been embraced all over the world and it is now being utilised in commerce, entertainment and human connectivity owing to its ubiquity/ universal, speed in relation to real time transaction and multimedia capability where people can send and receive files as stand still photos, video, text & audio (Pepper et al, 2009, p.37). 3.4 Culture Culture is a shared system of belief, values and customs. The role of culture in consumer decision making behaviour lies within its ability to influence the perception, belief, values and attitude of an individual which are critical ingredients in decision making. For instance, what a customer can purchase or consume is highly informed by the culture one acribe to. Culture influences how individuals perceive, recieve and internalise ideas (Durmaz, Celik & Oruc, 2003, p.110). The influence of culture on consumer decision making has been contextualised in regard to Hofstede’s study of national cultures. The four critical parameters within Hofsetede’s discourse are invodualism-collectivism, uncertainity avoidance, masculinity-femininity and power distance (Kau & Jung, 2004, p.3). various studies have found out that cultural background is likely to influence the decision making stsyle in relation to parameters such quality conscious decion making style; brand conscious decision making style; recreation decision making style and so on (Leo, Bennett & Härtel, 2005, p.37-39). For instance, Leo, Bennett & Härtel (2005, p.45) found out that “Australians with culture dominated by western culture heritage were are more brand conscious, confused by overchoice and more brand loyal”. Using Hofstede’s framework applied to consumer decision making styleso (1) perfectionist, high-quality conscious (quality); (2) brand conscious (brand); (3) innovative and fashion conscious (innovative); (4) recreational or hedonistic shopping conscious (recreation); (5) price-value conscious (price); (6) impulsive/careless (impulse); (7) confused by overchoice (confused); and 8) habitual and brand loyal (loyal). Leng & Botelho (2010) found out that people from cultures that highly depict higher intensity of individuality as compared to collectiveness are more quality and brand conscious. Equally they established that those from masculine societies are more innovative than those from feminine cultures. Additionally, individualistic cultures places hedonistic styles ahead in their decisions as compared collectivist culture. Equally, cultures that are masculine & individualistic are more price conscious that the feminine and collectivist cultures. They equally established that individualistic cultures produce impulsive consumers as compared to collectivist cultures and fcinlly those from culture with large power distance display higher levels of brand loyalty as compared to individualistic ones. 4.0 Conclusion The aim of the paper was to examine the influence of different external factors on a consumer’s decision-making process for that product or service. The paper reviewed three critical external factors. These are reference group & family; the importance of public policy and consumer protection aspects and role of diffusion of innovation. In regard to reference group & family the paper established that individuals who ascribe to a given formal or informal group are limited to adhere to their norms which will influence their decision patterns. For instance, consumers who own luxurious goods that are consumed publicly tend to adhere to reference group expectations and not on their rational needs. Secondly, the paper realised that public policy and consumer protection aspects is integral in influencing decision of consumers anchored on the social expectation where consumers can develop a liking or detest the same if it is not meeting their expectations. additionally, the paper found out that diffusion of innovation is integral in changing mental orientation that inclines people to adopt new trends. Finally the paper using the Hofstede’s framework applied on consumer decision making styles established that different cultures depicts different decision making styles. References Arambewela, R. A. (2003). Post-choice satisfaction of international postgraduate students from Asia studying in Victorian universities (Doctoral dissertation, Victoria University). ASX Corporate Governance Council (2007). Corporate governance principles and recommendations, 2nd edn. Retrieved on 22 May 2014 from: http://asx.ice4.interactiveinvestor.com.au/ASX0701/Corporate%20Governance%20Princi ples/EN/body.aspx?z=1&p=-1&v=1&uid=#. Baby Milk Action (2005). Nestle’s public relations machine exposed. Available at: http://www.babymilkaction.org/boycott/prmachine.html. Bearden, W. O., & Etzel, M. J. (1982). Reference group influence on product and brand purchase decisions. Journal of Consumer research, 183-194. Boulstridge, E. & Carrigan, M. (2000). Do consumers really care about corporate responsibility? Highlighting the attitude—behaviour gap. Journal of Communication Management, 4(4), 355-368. Bowie, N. E. (2012). Corporate Social Responsibility in Business'. Creating Public Value in a Multi-sector, Shared Power World Foundation Paper. Boycott Book (nd). The build up to the Nestle boycott. Available at: http://www.theboycottbook.com/thebuildup.pdf. Carroll, A. B. (1991). The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39-69. Childers, T. L. Rao, A. R. (1992). The influence of familial and peer-based reference groups on consumer decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(1), 198-211. Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. (1994). Toward a unified conception of business ethics: Integrative social contracts theory. Academy of management review, 19(2), 252-284. Durmaz, Y., Celik, M., & Oruc, R. (2003). The Impact of Cultural Factors on the Consumer Buying Behaviors Examined through An Impirical Study. International Journal of Advertising, 184. Groucutt, J., Leadley, P. & Forsyth, P. (2004). Marketing: essential principles, new realities. London, Pentonville Road: Kogan Page. Haghshenas, L., Abedi, A., Ghorbani, E., Kamali, A., & Harooni, M. (2013). Review consumer behaviour and factors affecting on purchasing decisions. Singaporean Journal of Business Economics, and Management Studies, 1(10), 17-24. Han, Y. J., Nunes, J. C., & Drèze, X. (2010). Signaling status with luxury goods: the role of brand prominence. Journal of Marketing, 74(4), 15-30. Heffetz, O. (2004). Conspicuous consumption and the visibility of consumer expenditures. Department of Economics, Princeton University. Iamandi, I. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and social responsiveness in a global business environment: a comparative theoretical approach. Romanian Economic Journal, 23(1),1- 16. Kau, A. K., & Jung, K. (2004). Culture's consequences on consumer behavior. KDI School of Public Policy and Management, Korea. Keith W, Hyeong, M. K., Sankar, S. (2009) Why Do Consumers Buy Counterfeit Luxury Brands?. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(2), 247-259 Kwan, C. Y. (2006). An investigation on the factors affecting young Chinese consumers' decision-making behaviour towards casual wear purchase. Lapland (5 August, 2010). The Nestle boycott: what’s that all about then? Available at: http://www.notefromlapland.com/2010/08/the-nestle-boycott-whats-that-all-about- then.html. Leiner, B. M., Kahn, R. E., Postel, J., Cerf, V. G., Kleinrock, L., Roberts, L. G., Clark, D. D., Lynch, D. C. & Wolf, S. 2009. A brief History of the Internet. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, Vol. 39, No. 5, pp. 22-31. Leo, C., Bennett, R., & Härtel, C. E. (2005). Cross-cultural differences in consumer decision- making styles. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 12(3), 32-62. Leng, C. Y., & Botelho, D. (2010). How does national culture impact on consumers decision- making styles? a cross cultural study in Brazil, the United States and Japan. BAR- Brazilian Administration Review, 7(3), 260-275. Manuel, K. M. (2011). Responsibility Determinations Under the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR): Legal Standards and Procedures. DIANE Publishing. Nelissen, R., & Meijers, M. H. (2011). Social benefits of luxury brands as costly signals of wealth and status. Evolution and Human Behavior, 32(5), 343-355. Pepper, R., Rueda-Sabater, E. J., Boeggeman, B. C. & Garrity, J. 2009. From mobility to ubiquity: ensuring the power and promise of internet connectivity… for anyone anywhere, anytime in the Global Technology Report 2008-2009. World Economic Forum. Post, J. E. (1985). Assessing the Nestlé Boycott: Corporate Accountability and Human Rights. California Management Review, 27(2), 21-56. Reza, S. A., & Valeecha, S. (2013). Influence of Social Reference Groups on Automobile Buying Decision–Research on Young Executives. World Review of Business Research, 3(4), 197-210. Richarme, M. (2001). Consumer Decision Making Models, Strategies and Theories, Oh My. Decision Analyst, 16(2), 55-76. Robinson, L. (2009). A summary of diffusion of innovations. Enabling Change. Rogers, E. M. (2010). Diffusion of innovations. Simon and Schuster. Sahin, I. (2006). Detailed Review of Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations Theory and Educational Technology-Related Studies Based on Rogers' Theory. Online Submission, 5. Stávková, J., Stejskal, L., & Toufarová, Z. (2008). Factors influencing consumer behaviour. ZEMEDELSKA EKONOMIKA-PRAHA-, 54(6), 275-284. Witt, J. F. (2007). Contingency, Immanence, and Inevitability in the Law of Accidents. Journal of Tort Law, 1(2). Yakup, D., & Jablonsk, S. (2012). Integrated Approach to Factors Affecting Consumers Purchase Behaviour in Poland and an Empirical Study. Global Journal of Business & Management Research, 12(15), 61-87. Yang, J., He, X., & Lee, H. (2007). Social reference group influence on mobile phone purchasing behaviour: a cross-nation comparative study. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 5(3), 319-338. Read More