VISUAL MERCHANDISING ON IMPULSE BUYING BEHAVIOUR OF CONSUMER

CORRELATION AND REGRESSION ANALYSIS

Pearson correlation test was conducted to see the correlations between the dependent variable (impulse buying) and independent variables (Table 4). In addition, linear regression analysis was conducted for the hypothesis testing using impulse buying tendency as a dependent variable and each visual merchandising variable (Table 5).

Table 4: Pearson Correlation with Impulse Buying

Variables	Pearson Coefficient	Significance
Window Display	0.331	0.001
Store Interior	0.459	0.000
Mannequin Display	0.319	0.001
Signage	0.304	0.002

 

Table 5 : Hypothesis and R Square Coefficient From Regression Analysis

Hypothesis	R Squared value	Tolerance	p-Value	Conclusion
H1	0.109	1.000	0.001	Impulse buying behavior of customers and window display are directly related.
H2	0.211	1.000	0.000	Impulse buying behavior of customers and  Store Interior are directly related.
H3	0.102	1.000	0.001	Impulse buying behavior of customers and  Mannequin Display are directly related.
H4	0.093	1.000	0.002	Impulse buying behavior of customers and  Signage are directly related.

 

H1: Hypothesis 1 is aimed to discover whether there is a significant relationship, the correlation between customers’ impulse buying behavior and window display.

According to the Pearson correlation test (Table 4), a significant correlation (r = 0.331) was found between impulse buying and window display with a p-value of 0.001 (“Significance (p)” in Table 4), which is less than 0.05, i.e. the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis is accepted. Since the p-value is less than 0.05, it is evident that there is a direct relationship between them. Although window display and impulse buying behavior are directly related, the regression analysis showed that window display had comparatively weak significance on customers’ impulse buying behavior with an R squared value of 0.109.

H2: Hypothesis 2 is framed to determine whether there is a significant relationship, the correlation between customers’ impulse buying behavior and store interior and if this visual merchandising technique enhanced this behavior.

The Pearson correlation test (Table 4) showed a significant correlation (r = 0.459) between impulse buying and store interior with a p-value of 0.000 (“Significance (p)” in Table 4), which is less than 0.05, i.e. the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis is accepted. Since the p-value is less than 0.05, it is evident that there is a direct relationship between them.

From the regression analysis, it is found that the result of the R square coefficient test showed a much higher coefficient (0.211) for the relationship between customers impulse buying behavior and store interior than that of the relationship between customers impulse buying behavior and window display (0.109) or mannequin display (0.102) or signage (0.093). This result suggests that store interior has much higher significance and it strongly influences the customers’ impulse buying behavior (Highest among all).

H3: Hypothesis 2 is designed to discover whether there is a significant relationship, the correlation between customers’ impulse buying behavior and mannequin display.

From the Pearson correlation test (Table 4), a significant correlation (r = 0.319) was found between impulse buying and mannequin display with a p-value of 0.001 (“Significance (p)” in Table 4), which is less than 0.05, i.e. the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis is accepted. There is a direct relationship between the customers’ impulse buying behavior and mannequin display since the p-value is less than 0.05.

Even though there is a direct relationship between mannequin display and impulse buying behavior, the regression analysis proved that mannequin display also has weak significance on customers’ impulse buying behavior with an R squared value of 0.102.

H4: Hypothesis 1 is aimed to discover whether there is a significant relationship, correlation between customers’ impulse buying behavior and signage.

The Pearson correlation test (Table 4) showed a significant correlation (r = 0.459) between impulse buying and signage with a p-value of 0.002 (“Significance (p)” in Table 4), which is less than 0.05, i.e. the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis is accepted. Since the p-value is less than 0.05, it is evident that there is a direct relationship between them.

From the regression analysis, it is found that the result of the R square coefficient test has a much smaller coefficient (0.093) for the relationship between customers impulse buying behavior and signage than that of the relationship between customers impulse buying behavior and window display (0.109) or mannequin display (0.102). This result suggests that signage has much weaker significance on customers’ impulse buying behavior with an R squared value of 0.093 (Weakest among all)

CONCLUSION

Since impulse buying is an influencing aspect of consumers’ behavior, finding the variables that influence those behaviors is important for retailers in order to survive in the competitive marketplace.  It is corroborated from the study that all the four elements of visual merchandising i.e.

1) Window display

2) Store interior

3) Mannequin display and

4) Signage significantly

 

influence the consumer’s impulse buying behavior. From the factor analysis, it is inferred that signage and window display of the store has the highest impact on consumers’ buying behavior. From the Pearson correlation and regression analysis, it is found that all those elements taken for the study have a positive impact on the consumers’ impulse buying behavior.

Among all the four elements, the store interior has the highest significance. This indicates that this visual merchandising practice acts as an external motivator creating a desire to make unplanned purchases which significantly influences impulse buying behavior. The results suggest that the retailers must concentrate more on store interior to improve the impulse buying behavior of consumers and thereby increase the sales of the store. The factors such as store layout, store design, point of purchase displays, item display, assortment display, and signage contribute to the overall store interior. If these are applied successfully to a store, the retailers can meet the needs of the consumer and provide a positive impact on sales of the merchandise.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Kaur Amandeep, (2013), Effect of Visual Merchandising on Buying Behavior of Customers in Chandigarh. International Journal of Engineering Science and Innovative Technology (IJESIT) Volume 2, Issue 3.
2. Sahni Deepak, Jain Vipul, Jain Arvind, (2014), The Impact Of Visual Merchandising On Impulsive Buying Behavior Of Young Consumers. Asian Journal of Business and Economics Volume 4, No.4.4 Quarter IV.
3. Emory, C. W., & Cooper, R. D. (1991). Business Research Methods (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Irwin.
4. http://blog.minitab.com/blog/adventures-in-statistics/regression-analysis-how-do-i-interpret-r-squared-and-assess-the-goodness-of-fit [accessed on 21.12.2016]
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likert_scale [accessed on 21.12.2016]
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_correlation_coefficient [accessed on 22.12.2016]
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_(statistics) [accessed on 24.12.2016]
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_merchandising [accessed on 26.12.2016]
9. http://research-methodology.net/research-methodology/research-design/conclusive-research/causal-research/[accessed on 28.12.2016]
10. http://www.public.asu.edu/~kroel/www500/HYPOTHESIS%20Fri.pdf [accessed on 29.12.2016]
11. http://www.simplypsychology.org/likert-scale.html [accessed on 31.12.2016]
12. Hyunjoo Oh, JennyPetrie, (2012), How do storefront window displays influence entering decisions of clothing stores? Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 19, p 27–35.
13. Laurent Hubrechts & Beyhan kokturk, (2012), Effect of visual merchandising on young consumers’ impulse buying behavior, hh.se. [ accessed on 30.12.2016].
14. Marta Gigola, (2013), Impact of Visual Merchandising on Consumers’ Behaviour while Buying Apparels, Konsumpcja i Rozwój  2(7), p73-83.
15. Neha P. Mehta*, Pawan K. Chugan, (2013), The Impact of Visual Merchandising on Impulse Buying Behavior of Consumer: A Case from Central Mall of Ahmedabad India. Universal Journal of Management, 1(2), p 76-82.
16. Rao Rama, Mopidevi, Lolla Sree Rama, (2013), Visual merchandising an impulsive reinforcer of purchases leading to social imbalance: a case study on middle class families in Hyderabad. IOSR Journal of Business and Management 9, Issue 6, PP 111-122.
17. Gudonaviciene Rasa & Alijosiene Sonata, (2015), Visual Merchandising Impact on Impulse Buying Behaviour, 20th International Scientific Conference Economics and Management.
18. Madhavi S. and Leelavati T.S., (2013), Impact of Visual Merchandising on Consumer Behavior Towards Women Apparel. International Journal of Marketing Research and Business Strategy, 2, No. 4.
19. Soundariya S., Sathyan S, (2015), Visual Merchandising and its Impact on Customer Buying Decisions. Indian Journal Of Applied Research, 5.
20. Jain Vinamra, Sharma Ashok, Narwal Pradeep, (January 2012), Impact of Visual Merchandising on Consumer Behaviour towards Women’s Apparel, International Journal of Research in Marketing,
21. Goud G Virupaksha & Kumar P Pradeep, (2016), A Study On Impact Of Visual Merchandising On Customer Buying Intention At Fashion Retail Shops In Bangalore. Asia Pacific Journal of Research, I.
22. statstutor.ac.uk/resources/uploaded/pearsons.pd [accessed on 01.02.2017].
23. Yolande Hefer & Michael.C.Cant, (2013), Visual Merchandising Displays’ Effect On Consumers: A Valuable Asset Or An Unnecessary Burden For Apparel Retailers, International Business & Economics Research Journal, 12.
24. Zeynep Taskıran, (2012), The Elements of Visual Merchandising. IZMIR University Of Economics, Faculty Of Fine Arts And Design Department Of Visual Communication Design, Gd 494.