An Exploraratory Study of Consumer Decision-Making and Learning Styles

AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF CONSUMER DECISION-MAKING AND
LEARNING STYLES AMONG THE MILLENNIAL GENERATION IN TAIWAN
A Dissertation
by
WEI-CHAO HSU, B.S., M.A.
Presented to the School of Graduate Studies of the

University of the Incarnate Word
in partial fulfillment
of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
The University of the Incarnate Word

May, 2012
UMI Number; 350708?
All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted
In the unHtely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
"
JU**^
UMI 3507087
Published by proGuest LLC 2012. Copyright m the Dissertation held by the Author
Microform Edition ProOuest LLC
All rights reserved. This work is protected a p i m t
unauthorized copying under T i e 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC
789 Estst Eisenhower Parkway
RO. Box 1346
Arm Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Copyright 2012
By
Wei-Chao Hsu
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Of the many people who have been enormously supportive in this wonderful
journey at the University of the Incarnate Word (UIW), I am expressly grateful to my
dearest family, friends, colleagues, students, dissertation committee, and the UIW faculty
members.
My deepest appreciation goes to Dr. Dorothy Ettling, Dr. Noah Kasraie, Dr.
Kevin LaFrance, and Dr. Hsin-I Liu for their inspirational and considerate advice,
suggestions, assistance, and feedback on conducting this research as well as for their
generous dedication in every step toward completion. Also, I sincerely express my
thankfulness to Dr. David Fike and Dr. Judy Beauford for taking time to share their
insights, deliberations, clarifications, guidance, and recommendations in regards to data
analysis.
I would like to warmly acknowledge the following people who helped in various
stages throughout the study: my friends, Dr. Sophia Chang, Dr. Joseph Chu, and Ms.
Clare Liu, for back translation on the survey instruments; my colleagues, Ms. Chun-Yu
Lee, Mr. Tzuoh-Herng Sun, Ms. Lan-Fen Hsieh, Dr. Jui-Nan Tan, Ms Li-Mei Huang, Mr.
Yen-Hai Ding, et al., for data collection coordination; and my coworkers at Learning
Assistance Center (LAC), Dr. Amanda Johnston, Ms. Amanda Martin, and Mr. Matthew
Gonzalez, for their patience and kindness in proofreading this work.
In addition, I especially appreciate those UIW faculty members who helped
establish the knowledge base and build a solid foundation to conduct this research,
including Drs. Richard Henderson, Absael Antelo, Nancy Robbins, Norman St. Clair, and
Sharon Herbers. I am also thankful for Jason Fetty, the UIW librarian, who assisted me in
searching and locating literature. Furthermore, a special thanks to the Sisters of St.
Benedict Pierre, South Dakota; Charlotte Wang; Melanie Killber; His-Yen Huang; HuiPin Wang; Ms. Cynthia Escamilla, General Counsel at UIW; Ms. Cristina Ariza, Director
of the LAC; all LAC staff members; as well as the families of Don Carrington and Daniel
Shih for their greatest understanding, help, support, and company, especially after my car
accident.
Finally, my inmost gratefulness is owed to my parents, brothers, sister-in-law, and
nieces, and I would not have been able to complete this research without your endless
love, unconditional support, and constant belief in me. To my friends and colleagues in
the U.S. and Taiwan, thank you for your precious friendship, untiring encouragement,
and thoughtful contributions. At last, I would like to give my sincerest recognition to the
survey participants, teachers, and staff members in both Taiwan and the U.S. for your
time and effort. Without you, this dissertation would never been successful.
VI
DEDICATION
To my beloved parents and my siblings - Wei-Chen and Wei-Mien

Deepest appreciation from my heart for your infinite love, sacrifice, and support
throughout the entire period of my study
vii
ABSTRACT
AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF CONSUMER DECISION-MAKING AND
LEARNING STYLES AMONG THE MILLENNIAL GENERATION IN TAIWAN
Wei-chao Hsu
Dissertation Chair: Dorothy H. Ettling, Ph.D.
University of the Incarnate Word, 2012
This study investigated the possible relationships between consumer decisionmaking styles and individual learning styles among the Taiwanese Millennial Generation
through administering the Chinese version of the Consumer Style Inventory (CSI) and the
Index of Learning Styles Questionnaires (ILS) to 770 valid random samples at one
private university in Southern Taiwan.
This cross-sectional quantitative survey research used factor analyses, including
principal components analysis (PCA) and structural equation modeling (SEM), to analyze
the data as well as to endorse the validity and reliability of both instruments. Via
comparison analyses of Pearson correlation, Multiple Analysis of Variance (MANOVA),
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), and Canonical correlation, the findings confirmed
correlations and revealed differences in profiles of consumer styles and learning styles
among various demographic groups, including gender, age, and type of program and
college. Brand conscious, price-value conscious, and high-quality conscious were found
as the top three consumer shopping characteristics. Visual, reflective, sensing, and global
learning styles were more preferable than active, intuitive, verbal, and sequential ones.
The results prompted implications for guiding effective marketing strategies for
Millennial customers.
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
iv
DEDICATION
vi
ABSTRACT
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
viii
LIST OF TABLES
xiv
LIST OF FIGURES
xviii
Chapter One: Introduction
Context of the Study
Statement of the Problem
Purpose of the Study
Theoretical Framework
Research Methodology
11
Research Questions
13
Significance of the Study
13
Limitations and Delimitations of the Study
15
Definition of Terms
16
Millennial Generation
16
Consumer decision-making styles
16
Learning styles
17
Summary
17
Chapter Two: Literature Review
19
19
ix
Consumer Decision-Making Styles

Studies using the Consumer Styles Inventory (CSI)
26
28
Studies related to consumer decision-making styles and other different

variables
35
Learning Styles
38
Summary
43
Chapter Three: Methodology
44
Research Design
44
Population and Sample Selection
47
Protection of Human Subjects
48
Instrumentation
48
Consumer Styles Inventory (CSI)
49
Validity and reliability of the Consumer Styles Inventory (CSI)
49
Factor analysis of the Consumer Styles Inventory (CSI)
53
Confirmation of the consumer decision-making styles for the Consumer

Styles Inventory (CSI)
54
Index of Learning Styles (ILS) Questionnaires
55
Reliability and validity of the Index of Learning Styles (ILS)

Questionnaires
55
Confirmation of four dimensions in Index of Learning Styles (ILS)
57
Demographic Survey
58
Data Collection Procedures
58
Data Analysis Procedures
59
Data pre-analysis
60
Normality assessment
62
Proposed statistical test
63
Research Questions and Hypotheses
64
Summary
67
Chapter Four: Findings
68
Introduction
68
Description of the Sample
70
Gender
75
Geography
75
Age and family backgrounds
76
Consumer Styles Inventory (CSI) and Index of Learning Styles (ILS) Instruments .77
Validity and Reliability of the CSI and ILS Instruments
Validity of the Consumer Styles Inventory (CSI)
79
80
Criteria for principal components analysis (PCA)
81
Criteria for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
84
PCA for the 48 items of the CSI
90
CFA for the 48 items of the CSI
100
Reliability of the Consumer Styles Inventory (CSI)
102
Re-test of PCA for the 44 items of the CSI
108
Summary of the validity and reliability test of the CSI
109
Reliability of the Index of Learning Styles (ILS)
110
Validity of the Index of Learning Styles (ILS)
112
Inferential Statistics
121
xi
Research Question 1
121
Research Question 2
128
Hypothesis 2a
131
Hypothesis 2b
133
Hypothesis 2c
135
Hypothesis 2d
137
Hypothesis 2e
139
Hypothesis 2f
140
Summary of the results
143
Research Question 3
144
Research Question 4
149
Hypothesis 4a
150
Hypothesis 4b
152
Hypothesis 4c
154
Hypothesis 4d
158
Hypothesis 4e
159
Hypothesis 4f.
160
Summary of the results
163
Research Question 5
Hypothesis 5
Summary
Chapter Five: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations
Profile of the Study
164
165
171
177
177
xii
Discussion of the Research Findings
179
Consumer Style Inventory (CSI) Instrument
179
Profiles of Consumer Style (PCS)
184
PCS1, Brand-Conscious Shopper.
185
PCS2, Price-Value Conscious Shopper.
186
PCS3, High-Quality Conscious Shopper.
188
PCS4, Time-Energy Conserving and Recreational Shopper
189
PCS5, Novelty-Fashion Shopper.
191
PCS6, Habitual and Brand-Loyal Shopper.
192
PCS7, Confused-by-Overchoice Shopper
193
PCS8, Impulsive Shopper.
194
Index of Learning Styles Questionnaires (ILS) Instrument
195
Felder-Soloman Index of Learning Styles
199
Conclusions
203
Profiles of Consumer Styles
203
Felder-Soloman Index of Learning Styles
206
Millennial Generation in Taiwan
210
Marketing Implications
211
Recommendations to the CSI and ILS Instruments
215
Recommendations to Educators
215
Recommendations for Further Research
216
References
219
Appendix A Consumer Styles Inventory (CSI }%MW&fkMW?M%)
237
xiii
Appendix B Index of Learning Styles Questionnaires (ILS ^ H M f S ^ )
240
Appendix C Demographics Survey
245
Appendix D Application for Institutional Review Board Approval Form
247
Appendix E Survey Introductory Letter to Subject
248
Appendix F Survey Consent Form
250
Appendix G Permission Letters to Use the Consumer Styles Inventory (CSI)
252
Appendix H Permission Letters to Use the Index of Learning Styles (ILS)
254
Appendix I Confirmation Letters from Professional Experts
256
Appendix J Normality Assessment for Factors/Summated Scales
259
Appendix K Normality Assessment for Factors/Summated Scales
268
XIV
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1
Variation among Age Ranges by Authors
21
Table 2
Birth Rate in Taiwan from 1981 to 2010 (per thousand)
23
Table 3
Profile of Consumer Style (PCS) from Consumer Styles Inventory (CSI).... 27
Table 4
A Summarized List of Previous Studies Related to Consumer Styles Inventory

29
Table 5
Cross-Cultural Groups Using the Consumer Styles Inventory
Table 6
Summary of Previous Research Findings about Profiles of Consumer
30
Decision-Making Styles
33
Table 7
Felder-Silverman Model of Learning Styles
40
Table 8
Dimension of Learning and Teaching Styles
40
Table 9
Reliability Coefficients Comparison for Studies on Decision-Making Styles ..

51
Table 10 Factor Loadings of Factor Analysis for Studies Using the Consumer Styles
Inventory
54
Table 11 The Score Scale of Learning Dimensions in the Index of Learning Styles
Instrument
55
Table 12 Reliability Coefficients Comparison for Studies on Learning Styles
57
Table 13 Summary of Research Questions, Variables, and Analysis Types
66
Table 14 Demographic Variables of Student Characteristics
71
Table 15 Description of the Items in the CSI, ILS, and Demographics Instruments .... 78
Table 16 Description and Criteria of Model Fit Indices
86
XV
Table 17 Descriptive Statistics of the 48 Variables in the Consumer Styles Inventory

(CSI)
91
Table 18 Comparison of Eigenvalues from Principal Components Analysis and

Criterion Eigenvalues from Parallel Analysis for the 48-item CSI Instrument..
95
Table 19 Comparison between Varimax Rotated Solution and Direct Oblimin Rotated
Solution of the 48-item CSI instrument
96
Table 20 Summary of Revised Factor Loadings from PCA with Varimax Rotation and
CFA of Eight-Factor Solution of the Consumer Decision-making Styles
97
Table 21 Reliability of Profiles of Consumer Styles from the 48-item CSI Instrument....
105

Criterion Eigenvalues from Parallel Analysis for the 44-item CSI Instrument
109
Table 23 Validity and Reliability of the 44-item CSI Instrument
110
Table 24 Correlation among the ILS Items
112
Table 25 Descriptive Statistics of the 44-item ILS Instrument
113
Table 26 Distribution of High Factor Loading Items in an Unrotated PCA Solution 115
Criterion Eigenvalues from PA for the ILS Instrument
116
Table 28 Factor Loadings from PCA with Direct Oblimin Rotation of the ILS
Instrument
117
XVI
Table 29 Distribution of High Factor-Loading Items in PCA Orthogonal Rotated

Solution
119
Table 30 Component Correlation Matrix from PCA with Oblique Rotation
119
Table 31 Profiles of Consumer Styles: Eight-Factor Solution
123
Table 32 Descriptive Statistics of Eight Profiles of Consumer Decision-making Styles

126
Table 33 Statistical Analysis of Three-Category Subscale for Eight Profiles of
Consumer Styles
128
Table 34 Adjusted Means, Standard Deviations, and Standard Errors for Profiles of
Consumer Decision-Making Styles between Males and Females
132
Consumer Decision-Making Styles among Individuals from Dissimilar
Programs
135
Consumer Decision-Making Styles among Individuals from Different
Colleges
137
Table 37 Means, Standard Deviations, and Standard Errors for Profiles of Consumer
Decision-Making Styles between Individuals Going to the Day and Night
Schools
138
Table 38 Means and Standard Deviations for Profiles of Consumer Decision-Making

Styles among Individuals from Various Areas
140
Consumer Decision-Making Styles among Different Ages
143
xvii
Table 40 Summary of MANOVA Results of Research Question 2
144
Table 41 Frequency and Percentage for Individual Learning Styles in the FelderSoloman Model
145
Table 42 Descriptive Statistics for the Felder-Soloman Index of Learning Style Model
146
Table 43 Adjusted Means, Standard Deviations, and Standard Errors for Four
Dimensions of Learning Styles for Individuals Enrolled in the Day and Night
Schools
159
Table 44 Adjusted Means and Standard Deviations for Four Dimensions of Learning
Styles among Individuals from Various Areas
160
Table 45 Summary of MANOVA Results of Research Question 4
164
Table 46 Pearson Correlation Matrix between Profiles of Consumer Decision-Making

Styles and Learning-Styles Dimensions
167
Table 47 Canonical Correlation Results - Consumer Styles versus Learning Styles . 168
Table 48 Summary of the Statistical Test Results to the Research Questions
173
Table 49 Comparison of Factors and Items among Three CSI Studies
181
Table 50 Comparison of Cronbach's Alpha Values and Factor Loadings of Individual

Items in the Chinese ILS Instrument
197
xviii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. A simple model of Consumer Decision-Making
Figure 2. Quantitative Research Design
46
Figure 3. Taiwan Map
76
Figure 4. Scatterplots check for linearity among selective variables
93
Figure 5. Scree plot for PCA on 48-item CSI scores
95
Figure 6. The structure of confirmatory factor analysis for Consumer Decision-Making

Styles (46-item)
101
Figure 7. Scree plot for PCA on 44-item CSI scores
108
Figure 8. Scree plot for PCA on ILS scores
115
Figure 9. The Felder-Soloman Index of Learning Styles Model
120
Figure 10. Distributions of Learning Styles
146
Figure 11. Preference percentage differences in Learning Styles
148
Figure 12. Descriptive statistics and distributions of learning styles for four dimensions
between females and males
152
among individuals attending dissimilar programs
154
among individuals enrolled in different colleges
157
among individuals of different ages
163
Figure 16. Relationships among variables, canonical variates, and the first pair of
canonical variates
170
xix
Figure Jl. Histogram for item CSI01
259
Figure J2. Histogram for item CSI02
259
259
259
260
260
260
260
260
260
Figure Jl 1. Histogram for item CSI11
260
260
261
261
261
261
261
261
261
261
262
262
262
Figure J24. Histogram for item CSI24,

262
262
262
262
263
263
263
263
263
263
263
263
264
264
264
264
264
264
264
264
265
265
XXI
265
265
Figure J49. Histogram and Q-Q Plot for Brand-Conscious Shopper (PCS1)
265
Figure J50. Histogram and Q-Q Plot for Price-Value Conscious Shoppers (PCS2)
265
Figure J51. Histogram and Q-Q Plot for High-Quality Conscious Shoppers (PCS3).... 266
Figure J52. Histogram and Q-Q Plot for Time-Energy Conserving/Recreational Shoppers
(PCS4)
266
Figure J53. Histogram and Q-Q Plot for Novelty-Fashion Shoppers (PCS5)
266
Figure J54. Histogram and Q-Q Plot for Habitual/Brand-Loyal Shoppers (PCS6)
266
Figure J55. Histogram and Q-Q Plot for Confused-by-Overchoice Shoppers (PCS7)... 267
Figure J56. Histogram and Q-Q Plot for Impulsive Shoppers (PCS8)
267
Figure J57. Q-Q Plots for the ILS four dimensions of learning styles: active-refelctive
(AR), sensing-intuitive (SI), visual-verbal (VA), and sequential-global (SI).
267
Figure Kl. Binary scatterplots for assessing linearity and homoscedasticity of all PCS
variables used in MANOVA by gender
268
Figure K2. Binary scatterplots for assessing linearity and homoscedasticity of all PCS
variables used in MANOVA by type of school program
268
variables used in MANOVA by type of college
268
variables used in MANOVA by type of school
269
xxii
variables used in MANOVA by geographical area
269
variables used in MANOVA by age category
269
Figure K7. Binary scatterplots for assessing linearity and homoscedasticity of all ILS
scales used in MANOVA by gender
270
scales used in MANOVA by type of school program
270
scales used in MANOVA by type of college
270
Figure K10. Binary scatterplots for assessing linearity and homoscedasticity of all ELS
scales used in MANOVA by type of school
270
Figure Kl 1. Binary scatterplots for assessing linearity and homoscedasticity of all ILS
scales used in MANOVA by geographical area
271
scales used in MANOVA by age group
271
variables and ILS scales used in canonical analysis
272
1
Chapter One: Introduction
Context of the Study
Because of rapid technological advances, global organizations of all sizes today
have changed dramatically over the past decade. On one hand, the Internet, wi-fi, cell
phones, i-Pods, and other digital devices gave organizations more channels through
which they could communicate with their consumers. On the other hand, consumers were
also exposed to thousands of cues about various companies, competitors, brands,
products, and services through multi-channel communication, such as direct mail,
commercials, print advertisements or categories, e-mail, World Wide Web, television,
newspapers, and stores (Lihra & Graf, 2007; Sultan & Rohm, 2008; Wind, 2008). As in
the idea of the flat world proposed by Friedman (2007), the new age of connectivity not
only has called for new market strategies to reach the rise of developing countries
(Subrahmanyan & Gomez-Arias, 2008; Wind, 2008), but it also has led to a new breed of
consumers who "expect customerization (make it mine), communities (let me be a part of
it), multiple channels (let me call, click or visit), competitive value (give me more for my
money), and choicefs] (give me search and decision tools)" (Wind, 2008, p. 21).
In the meantime, these new channels and rapidly changing technologies not only
have empowered and increased consumer control, but also have dramatically transformed
the role of marketing (Wind, 2008). As the Global CMO at Procter & Gamble, Jim
Stengel once expressed at a media conference in Orlando that "Today's marketing world
is broken. ... We [The business] are still too dependent on marketing tactics that are not
in touch with today's consumer" (as cited in Neff & Sanders, 2004, p. 1). Moreover,
several challenging issues in the business world have been addressed many times without
2
being resolved, such as the failure to implement creative market tools in the face of
increasing consumer control of media, fragmentation, and clutter (Neff & Sanders, 2004),
as well as the absence of "rigor - scientifically valid methods to address marketing
problems, and relevance - a true focus on the evolving needs of mangers and their
organizations" (Wind, 2008, p. 22).
In order to respond to these challenges, Wind (2008) proposed seven strategies to
rethink the status of marketing in the organizations, including (a) create multidisciplinary association, (b) move long-established management toward "network
orchestration" (p. 23), (c) transform the spotlight from CRM (customer relationship
management) to CMR (customer managed relationship), (d) offer integrative customerbranded solutions instead of individual company-branded products, (e) rethink data
measurement and resource allocations, (f) implement the "adaptive experimentation"
philosophy to achieve "empirical generalization" (p. 26), as well as (g) confront old
pattern of thought with innovation. No matter how many different strategies business
organizations have taken, the basic essence of successful marketing is still anchored to
attracting and retaining increasingly satisfied customers.
According to Howe, Strauss, and Matson (2000), the American population was
comprised of five generations with the following birth dates: the G. I. Generation (19011924), the Silent Generation (1925-1942), the Boom Generation (1945-1960), Generation
X (1961-1981), and the Millennial Generation (1982-2002). Based on the calculation of
Lancaster and Stillman (2002), the American Millennial Generation, raised by the Baby
Boomers, was approximately more than 75 million in size and was likely heralded as a
generation with high purchasing power in comparison to previous generations (Henrie &
Taylor, 2009; Nowak, Thach, & Olsen., 2006). Similarly, in Marketing for Generation
X+Y+N, Z.-M. Lin (1998) identified Taiwanese consumers by their birth year as Baby
Boomers (1950-1964), Generation X (1965-1980), Generation Y (1981-2001), and
Generation N (1977-1997). Based on the Taiwan Census of 2000, Generation Y has
reached seven million people and comprises more than 25% of the current Taiwanese
population ([^li^nPîE^Bj&lJtlf $& [Department of Household Registration Affairs &
Department of Statistics, MOI.], 2010).
This youngest consumer cohort, identified by many names, such as Echo Boomers,
Nexters, Generation (Gen) M (or Me), or the Net Generation, was most frequently
referred to as the Millennial Generation or Generation Y with different age ranges in the
literature (Atkinson, 2004; Bakewell & Mitchell, 2003; Cohen, 2009; Downing, 2006;
Elam, Stratton, & Gibson, 2007; Fogarty, 2008; Glass, 2007; Henrie & Taylor, 2009;
Howe et al., 2000; Maples & Han, 2008; McAlister, 2009; Milliron, 2008; Neuborne &
Kerwin, 1999; Nowak et al., 2006; Taylor, 2008; Tucker, 2006; Xu, 2008). Although
both terms had been used interchangeably, marketing researchers often adopted the name
of Generation Y, born between 1977 and 1994 or till 2001, to profile those young technosavvy consumers for advertisement segmentation (Bakewell & Mitchell, 2003; Cheng,
2007; Downing, 2006; Gupta, Brantley, & Jackson, 2010; Holtzhausen & Strydom, 2006;
T.-H. Hsu, 2002; Morton, 2002; Neuborne & Kerwin, 1999; Szamosi, 2006; Taylor, 2008;
Xu, 2008). On the contrary, scholars classified the terminology of the Millennial
Generation more consistently with Howe et al.'s (2000) definition from 1982 to 2002,
especially in the educational research areas (Considine, Horton, & Moornan, 2009; Elam
et al., 2007; McAlister, 2009; Milliron, 2008). Yet, in terms of the consumer segment in
4
market research, the Millennial Generation was categorized with an early range from
1973 or 1977 to 1995 or 1999 (Glass, 2007; Henrie & Taylor, 2009; Nowak et al., 2006).
Comparing the age classifications of Generation Y and the Millennial Generation in
Taiwan and the United States, the researcher adapted the definition of Howe et al. (2000)
to classify this cohort as the Millennial Generation.
No matter what labels they were given (Generation Y, Millennial Generation, or
the Net Generation), this specific cohort, born after 1981, shared some distinguishing
characteristics: they were team-oriented, sheltered, confident, achievement-oriented,
pressured, multitask-oriented, and techno-savvy (Atkinson, 2004; Cohen, 2009;
Considine et al., 2009; Downing, 2006; Elam et al., 2007; Fogarty, 2008; Glass, 2007;
Henrie & Taylor, 2009; Howe et al., 2000; Lancaster & Stillman, 2002; C. Lin, Shih, &
Hsu, 2001; Z.-M. Lin, 1998; Maples & Han, 2008; McAlister, 2009; Milliron, 2008;
Neuborne & Kerwin, 1999; Nowak et al., 2006; Tucker, 2006). Research has
demonstrated that the Millennial Generation not only showed their market savvy in
purchases with their own money at early ages but also influenced family purchases with
their media-saturated and brand consciousness (Bakewell & Mitchell, 2003; Chase, 2004;
Neuborne & Kerwin, 1999; Nowak et al., 2006; Sultan & Rohm, 2008). Since this
generation was comprised of the Baby Boomers' children or Generation X offspring
growing up with access to computer technologies at a really early age, Bakewell and
Mitchell (2003) recognized that Millennial Generation has acculturated toward a more
materialistic and consumer orientation than previous generations as a result of
technological innovation. Yet, this phenomenon did not happen in one or two countries
but globally. For instance, in Taiwan, the Millennial Generation (or Generation Y) was
5
also characterized by materialistic, brand-savvy, and hedonistic consumers who enjoyed
pursuing and purchasing recreation and luxury items habitually (C. Lin et al., 2001).
Consequently, this Millennial Generation has developed a different shopping style
compared to previous generations. Particularly, Sultan and Rohm (2008) observed of this
inexorable struggle that "young consumers have been notoriously difficult for advertisers
to reach" (p. 35).
In addition, accompanying the economic development and innovation of high
technology, new products and services were also evolving rapidly in order to
accommodate the diversity of consumer trends and lifestyles. The advance of global
markets not only resulted in an overabundance of product/service choices and
multifarious promotional activities in retail channels (e.g. direct mails, catalogues,
Internet, social networks, television, newspapers, and stores), but also made consumers'
decision-making increasingly complicated. On one hand, current consumers were facing
more challenges and options to choose products or services. On the other hand,
entrepreneurs also encountered the complexity of reaching out to their target groups and
the difficulties of promoting sales using the right channels, especially through various
new media (Henrie & Taylor, 2009; Lihra & Graf, 2007; Wind, 2008).
In terms of consumer purchase behaviors, the process of decision-making was a
complex phenomenon, and a number of factors could affect each individual decision.
According to the Simon's Bounded Rationality Model (Nahavandi, 2006; Robbins &
Judge, 2007), decision-making involved several steps: (a) defining the problems; (b)
identifying and allocating the decision criteria; (c) developing, evaluating, and selecting
the best alternative; and (d) making decisions to implement alternatives. Notably,
6
learning was one of the ways to help both consumers and service/product providers to
make better decisions in purchasing products or services and promoting sales (Cassidy,
2004; Chase, 2004; E. K. Sproles & Sproles, 1990). In the context of today's high-tech
society, an understanding of how consumers gather, process, and choose information was
even more critical (Ramsey & Deeter-Schmelz, 2008). Since the Millennial Generation
had become the biggest and most diverse cohort in the United States (Bakewell &
Mitchell, 2003; Neuborne & Kerwin, 1999) as well as the target consumer group
worldwide, it was important for entrepreneurs to build a relationship with these potential
consumers to understand and respond to their needs and wishes.
Statement of the Problem
Over the past 20 years, the world has become more connected as a village because
new technologies started to close the gap between the wealthy and the poor, and have
brought demographic changes to workforces around the world (Friedman, 2007). These
demographic revolutions severely impacted all levels of various enterprises locally and
globally (Downing, 2006; Neuborne & Kerwin, 1999; Sultan & Rohm, 2008). The
Millennial Generation, the special age cohort that had "grown up in an even more mediasaturated and brand-conscious world than their parents" (Neuborne & Kerwin, 1999, p.
80), forced all marketers to abandon their old marketing techniques in order to
communicate more successfully with them by adapting possible effective medias and
embracing their fast-changing pace (Morton, 2002; Wind, 2008).
Gordon (2008) stated that "companies today can no longer rely on a small
percentage of early adopters to create a market and future success by opening the minds
of the next cohort of customers" (p. 80). Given the size of the cohort, the Millennial
Generation was expected to grow as a powerful and prime consumer group (Bakewell &
Mitchell, 2003; Gonen & Ozmete, 2006; Hanzaee, 2009; C. Lin et al., 2001; Morton,
2002; Nowak et al., 2006; Sultan & Rohm, 2008). In order to maintain organizational
competiveness in today's market, companies needed to give much consideration to their
existing and future consumers by facilitating the better development of effective
marketing strategies to maintain profitability and growth. Since the essence of marketing
was to recognize consumer purchasing behaviors, understanding how consumers
psychologically acquire, process, and make decisions was critical to alter or modify
marketing strategies (Mitchell & Bates, 1998; Walsh, Hennig-Thurau, Wayne-Mitchell,
&Wiedmann,2001).
According to Schiffman and Kanuk (2006), the definition of consumer behavior
was "the behavior that consumers display in searching for, purchasing, using, evaluating,
and disposing of products and services that they expect will satisfy their needs" (p. 3).
Theoretically, these behaviors were reflections of both the cognitive and emotional
aspects of consumer decision-making and could be influenced through cross-disciplines
of psychology, sociology, social psychology, anthropology, and economics (Gordon,
2008; Schiffman & Kanuk, 2006; G. B. Sproles & Kendall, 1986). Hence, a simplified
model representing the process of consumer decision-making was proposed in three
distinctive but interlocking stages - input, process, and output stages, based on different
levels of acquiring purchase and consumption knowledge and experience, shown in
Figure 1 (Schiffman & Kanuk, 2006).
External Influences
Input
Firm's Marketing Efforts

1. Product
2. Promotion
3. Price
4. Channels of Distribution
Sociocultural Environment
1. Family
2. Informal Sources
3. Other noncommercial
sources
4. Social Class
5. Culture and subculture
k
Consumer Decision Making
Psychological Field
1. Motivation
2. Perception
3. Learning
4. Personality
5. Attitudes
Need Recognition
Process
Prepurchase Search
Evaluation of Alternatives
Experience
I
i k
Postdecision Behavior
Output
Purchase
1. Trial
2. Repeat purchase
Postpurchase Evaluation
Figure 1. A simple model of Consumer Decision-Making.

Note. Adapted from "Introduction," by Schiffman, L., & Kanuk, L. L., 2006, Consumer Behavior (9th ed.),
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, p. 16.
Since the whole process of consumer decision-making focused on a process of

learning evolving information processing, little consumer research has focused on
exploring this correlation between decision-making and learning (Chase, 2004; C. Lin et
al., 2001; E. K. Sproles & Sproles, 1990). Meanwhile, multiplying choices of similar
9
products and services contributed to consumers' confusion and desperately increased the
need for consumer education. Particularly, facing challenges with the emergence of the
information age and evolving unpredictable consumer groups, it was essential for
marketers and retailers to comprehend consumer behaviors through how they obtained
knowledge about products or services in order to make purchasing choices. By exploring
the relationship between consumer decision-making styles and individual learning styles,
this study offered guidance to researchers and marketing practitioners for future research
in formulating effective marketing strategies and promoting influential messages toward
new market segmentations like the Millennial Generation.
Purpose of the Study
Based on the above descriptive observation, the purpose of this study was to
investigate the possible relationships between consumer decision-making styles and
individual learning styles among Taiwanese college students, frequently referred to as the
Millennial Generation.
Theoretical Framework
This study was grounded in theoretical research based on consumer decisionmaking styles and learning styles. Based on the empirical research of G. B. Sproles and
Kendall (1986), eight decision-making styles were categorized to influence consumer
purchase decisions while entering the marketplace: perfectionist, brand-conscious,
novelty-fashion conscious, recreational and shop-conscious, price-value conscious,
impulsive, confused-by-overchoice, and habitual brand-loyal. Since G. B. Sproles and
Kendall (1986) published their Consumer Styles Inventory (CSI) instrument, a number of
researchers has adapted and tested this instrument in different cultural settings with a
10
mixture of participants (Ariffin, Ahmad, Ahmad, & Ibrahim, 2008; Bauer, Sauer, &
Becker, 2006; Canabal, 2002; Chase, 2004; Durvasula, Lysonski, & Andrews, 1993; Fan
& Xiao, 1998; Gonen & Ozmete, 2006; Hafstrom, Chae, & Chung, 1992; Hiu, Siu, Wang,
& Chang, 2001; Hung, 2004; Kavas & Yesilada, 2007; C. Lin et al., 2001; Lysonski,
Durvasula, & Zotos, 1996; Mitchell & Bates, 1998; Mitchell & Walsh, 2004; Mokhlis,
2009; Shiao, 2002; Siu, Wang, Chang, & Hui, 2001; Walsh, Mitchell, & Hennig-Thurau,
2001; C.-L. Wang, Siu, & Hui, 2004; Zhou, Arnold, Pereira, & Yu, 2010). Because
decision-making has been a major interest in consumer research, and profiling consumers
to target different audiences has also been an important concern for enterprises, this
researcher believed that profiling consumer decision-making styles using the Consumer
Styles Inventory (CSI) was a good predictor for understanding consumer behaviors.
Further, Schiffman and Kanuk (2006) stated that "consumer learning can be
thought of as the process by which individuals acquire the purchase and consumption
knowledge and experience that they apply to future related behavior" from a marketing
perspective through behavioral and cognitive learning theories (p. 207). Since consumer
learning was a process to reflectively respond from simple abstract concepts to complex
problem solving (i.e. "the mental processing of the information") (Schiffman & Kanuk,
2006, p. 215), it was important to recognize different consumer learning patterns or styles
based on cognitive learning theory. According to Bettman (1979), "in cognitive
approaches, learning is generally viewed as being a process of active interaction with the
environment, not a passive stamping-in of stimulus-response connections" (p. 271).
Additionally, Litzinger, Lee, Wise, and Felder (2007) declared that "learning styles are
characteristic preference for alternative ways of taking in and processing information" (p.
11
309). Although cognitive theorists focused on how human minds store, retain, and
retrieve information (Chase, 2004), the ability and preferences of consumers processing
production information still could be measured by different attributes or a combination of
these factors (Schiffman & Kanuk, 2006). Therefore, the researcher adapted Felder and
Silverman's (1988) model of learning styles in this study to assess the preference of
consumer learning based on four dimensions: sensing-intuitive, visual-verbal, activereflective, and sequential-global. Discovering consumer learning stylessuch as
preferences of visual versus verbal processing, media usage, and ways of delivering
messagescould help marketers ascertain how to communicate and teach consumers
about their products and deliver information to them more effectively.
Research Methodology
Based on the purpose of this study, the researcher attempted to measure consumer
attitudes, distinguish their preferred learning styles, and test hypotheses about the aspects
of decision-making and learning of a specific consumer cohort in order to predict
consumer purchasing behavior in Taiwan. Since profiling consumer decision-making
styles with individual specific characteristics toward purchases was central to consumer
research, previous empirical researchers have adapted the quantitative method to measure
consumer traits, discover cause-effect relationships, and apply generality across cultures
and populations (Ariffin et al., 2008; Bauer et al., 2006; Canabal, 2002; Durvasula et al.,
1993; Fan & Xiao, 1998; Gonen & Ozmete, 2006; Hafstrom et al., 1992; Kavas &
Yesilada, 2007; C. Lin et al., 2001; Lysonski et al., 1996; Mitchell & Walsh, 2004; Siu et
al., 2001; G. B. Sproles & Kendall, 1986; Walsh, Mitchell, et al., 2001).
12
Meanwhile, exploring learning styles has been an active interest area of
researchers for more than four decades as well (Cassidy, 2004). Researchers constructed
several different models to measure different learning dimensions, hypothesize the
theoretical frameworks, and replicate the experiments for generalization by employing
various instruments (Cassidy, 2004; Felder & Silverman, 1988; Kolb, 2005). In addition,
according to Lodico, Spaulding, and Voegtle (2006), "correlation research is a
quantitative method designed to show the relationship between two or more variables" (p.
14). Because the researcher wished to explain the associations between consumer
decision-making styles and learning styles, an explanatory correlational research design
was used in this study (Creswell, 2005; Lodico et al., 2006).
Further, according to Creswell (2005), "survey research designs are procedures in
quantitative research in which investigators administer a survey to a sample or to the
entire population of people in order to describe the attitudes, opinions, behaviors or
characteristics of the population" (p. 354). Therefore, the researcher adapted the positivist
paradigm and employed a quantitative method by using three survey instruments to
collect statistical data for this study to analyze the possible relationship between
consumer decision-making styles and learning styles, including the Consumer Styles
Inventory (CSI) Chinese version (see Appendix A) with permission from the original
researchers (C. Lin et al., 2001) (see Appendix G); the Index of Learning Styles
Questionnaires (ILS) Chinese version (Felder & Soloman, 1997) (see Appendix B), with
authorization from Tamkang University (see Appendix H); and a Chinese Demographic
Survey (see Appendix C), which was developed by the researcher.
13
Research Questions
The primary research question guiding this study was whether a relationship
exists between Taiwanese Millennials' learning styles and their consumer decisionmaking styles. Based on the primary question, the following issues were investigated:
Research Question 1: What are the consumer decision-making styles among
Taiwanese Millennials?
Research Question 2: Are consumer decision-making styles significantly different
when comparing diverse groups by gender; age; geographical area; and type of program,
school, and college? If so, which categories differ?
Research Question 3: What are the distributions of learning styles among
Research Question 4: Are the learning styles significantly different when
comparing individuals by gender; age; geographical area; as well as type of program,
Research Question 5: Is there a relationship between the learning styles and
consumer decision-making styles of the Millennial Generation in Taiwan?
Significance of the Study
The study of individual consumer behavior while choosing between alternative
products or services has been a major research area in the field of consumer-interest to
identify basic characteristics of decision-making styles. G. B. Sproles and Kendall (1986)
declared that "this identification helps to profile an individual's consumer style, educate
consumers about their specific decision-making characteristics, and consult families on
financial management" (p. 267). Since G. B. Sproles and Kendall (1986) created the
14
Consumer Styles Inventory (CSI), a number of research projects followed this study and
profiled consumer decision-making styles in different cultures (Canabal, 2002; Fan &
Xiao, 1998; Gonen & Ozmete, 2006; Hafstrom et al., 1992; Lysonski et al., 1996;
Mitchell & Bates, 1998; Mokhlis & Salleh, 2009; Schiffman & Kanuk, 2006; Walsh,
Mitchell, et al., 2001; C.-L. Wang et al., 2004). Although most studies have used college
students as their samples, only a small amount of studies have focused on one specific
generation, like the Millennial Generation or Generation Y (Bakewell & Mitchell, 2003;
Canabal, 2002; Gonen & Ozmete, 2006; Hanzaee, 2009; Kavas & Yesilada, 2007;
Mokhlis, 2009). In Taiwan, very few studies have adapted the Consumer Styles Inventory
(CSI) to profile consumer decision-making styles, particularly in reference to specific
demographic cohorts (C. Lin et al., 2001; Shiao, 2002).
One assumed that learning and decision-making were related phenomena, but
little research has focused on exploring this correlation (Chase, 2004; C. Lin et al., 2001;
E. K. Sproles & Sproles, 1990). If an important relationship exists between consumer
decision-making styles and learning styles, educators and marketers could use learning
styles as an educational or advertisement tool to better comprehend how young adults as
students and consumers perform academically and emotionally, as well as to offer
programming that deals with the special needs of different learning styles and decisionmaking styles. Those tools could further be utilized in training to acknowledge consumer
decision-making styles and make recommendations on how to make appropriate market
choices or to avoid an impulsive purchase. Additionally, the marketers could use these
tools in planning effective marketing strategies, profiling specific market segmentations,
15
and investing in proper marketing channels and advertisements in order to influence
consumer behaviors.
Overall, this study contributed to the expansion of previous research on consumer
decision-making styles and learning styles and filled the gap of generalization among
different cultures in Taiwan. This study also benefited entrepreneurs in specific consumer
market segments based on demographic, geographic, and socio-economic background, as
well as provided additional data to explore myths about the Millennial phenomenon.
Limitations and Delimitations of the Study
Although the possible relationship between individual consumer decision-making
styles and their learning styles was investigated in this study, collected data was limited.
First, considering time constraints and the difficulty of reaching the entire Taiwanese
Millennial Generation, the data of this research were collected only from one specific
private university through a convenience sampling population, and the population sample
was limited to undergraduates enrolled in the day and evening programs and classes; data
from public and other universities or colleges and non-college students were excluded.
As a result, demographic characteristics of the subjects might not be similar to other
institutions, and any conclusion might not be generalized within Taiwan. Additional data
would provide important information explaining more about the possible relationship
between consumer decision-making and learning styles among the Millennial Generation.
Second, it was difficult to completely eliminate bias in reporting the participants'
perceptions. Since the data mainly depended on the respondents' self-reported surveys,
their answers simply had to be considered as reliable. Third, cultural and national
differences might limit the applicability of the results to Taiwan or other Asian countries.
16
Definition of Terms
Several key terms utilized in the study were clarified or defined as follows:
Millennial Generation. Adapting the definition of Howe et al. (2000) to the
context of Taiwan, Millennials are defined as people who were born between 1981 and
2000, and were around 10 to 29 years old in 2010.
Consumer decision-making styles. Consumer decision-making refers to each
individual consumer behavior toward choosing between alternative products (G. B.
Sproles & Kendall, 1986). Through empirical research, G. B. Sproles and Kendall (1986)
defined a consumer decision-making style as "a mental orientation characterizing a
consumer's approach to making choices" (p. 268) and categorized eight characteristics of
consumer decision-making styles as follows:
Perfectionistic and high-quality-conscious consumer, a characteristic measuring
the degree to which a consumer seeks carefully and systematically for the best
quality in products.
Brand-conscious and price-equal-quality consumer, a characteristic measuring a
consumer's orientation toward buying more expensive, well-known national
brands.
Novelty-and-fashion-conscious consumer, a characteristic identifying consumers
who appear to like new and innovative products and gain excitement from seeking
out new things.
Recreational and shop-conscious consumer, a characteristic measuring the extent
to which a consumer finds shopping a pleasant activity and shops just for the fun
of it.
Price-conscious, value-for-money consumer, a characteristic identifying a
consumer with particularly high consciousness of sale prices and lower prices in
general.
Impulsive, careless consumer, a trait identifying one who tends to buy at the spur
of the moment and to appear unconcerned about how much he or she spends (or
getting "best buys").
17
Confused by overchoice consumer, a person perceiving too many brands and
stores from which to choose and who likely experiences information overload in
the market.
Habitual, brand-loyal consumer, a characteristic indicating a consumer who
repetitively chooses the same favorite brands and stores. (E. K. Sproles & Sproles,
1990, p. 137)
Learning styles. Learning could be thought of as a two-step information
receiving and processing procedure. Learning styles can be defined most simply as the
individual learner's strengths and behavioral characteristics related to how that learner
processes information and integrates it into his or her own knowledge base because of
heredity, upbringing, and current environmental demands. Adapting Felder and
Silverman's (1988) learning style model, this study classified learning styles into four
dimensions: sensing-intuitive, visual-verbal, active-reflective, and sequential-global.
Felder and Spurlin (2005) summarized these four dimensions as follows:
sensing (concrete thinker, practical, oriented toward facts and procedures) or
intuitive (abstract thinker, innovative, oriented toward theories and underlying
meanings);
visual (prefer visual representations of presented materials such as pictures,
diagrams, and flow charts) or verbal (prefer written and spoken explanations);
active (learn by trying things out, enjoy working in groups) or reflective (learn by
thinking things through, prefer working alone or with a single familiar partner);
sequential (linear thinking process, learn in small incremental steps) or global
(holistic thinking process, learn in large leaps). (Felder & Spurlin, 2005, p. 103)
Summary
The foundation of this study was based on E. K. Sproles and Sproles's (1990)
research, which verified that learning styles of secondary vocational education students
were associated with their consumer decision-making styles. As evident in E. K. Sproles
and Sproles's (1990) study, consumer decision-making styles were related to the way a
18
person thinks or learns. Changing the setting to Taiwan, the purpose of the current study
was to investigate the possible relationships between consumer decision-making styles
and individual learning styles among the Taiwanese Millennial Generation, who were
born between 1981 and 2000, through identifying and exploring their consumer
decision-making styles and learning styles. Knowledge of this significant relationship
would enable future researchers and marketers to use the Index of Learning Styles (ILS)
Questionnaires as a means to better approach how consumers obtain and learn
information regarding new products or services, as well as to offer useful suggestions
and marketing promotions on how to make better consumer decisions.
19
Chapter Two: Literature Review
The purpose of this study was to investigate the possible relationships between
consumer decision-making styles and individual learning styles among Taiwanese
college students, frequently referred to as the Millennial Generation. The basis for this
study was the data collected by the Consumer style Inventory (CSI), the Index of
Learning Styles Questionnaires (ILS), and a Demographic Survey at one university in
Southern Taiwan. In order to have an understanding of the targeted participants and the
predetermined theoretical framework, this chapter reviewed the following issues in the
literature with a chapter summary: (a) the Millennial Generation, (b) consumer decisionmaking styles, and (c) learning styles.
According to Strauss and Howe, the term generation was defined as "a given
cohort group, in which all members are born in a limited span of consecutive years,
approximately 22 years" (as cited in Glass, 2007, p. 98). And the boundaries of a
generation were predetermined by "peer personality," which was described as "a
generational persona" distinguished and established by "common age, location, shared
beliefs, behaviors and perceived membership in a common generation" (Strauss & Howe,
as cited in Glass, 2007, p. 99). Derived from the previous definition, different generations
often have distinguished personalities and characteristics with specific cultures and
values systems, such as G. I. Generation, Silent Generation, Greatest Generation, Baby
Boomer, Yuppies, Generation X, Generation Y, Generation Z, etc. (Downing, 2006;
Howe et al., 2000; Nahavandi, 2006).
Currently, the youngest consumer cohort, recognized by many names, such as

Echo Boomers, Nexters, Generation (Gen) M (or Me), or the Net Generation, are most
frequently referred to as the Millennial Generation or Generation Y with different age
ranges (Atkinson, 2004; Bakewell & Mitchell, 2003; Cohen, 2009; Downing, 2006; Elam
et al., 2007; Fogarty, 2008; Glass, 2007; Henrie & Taylor, 2009; Howe et al., 2000; Kim
& Ammeter, 2008; Maples & Han, 2008; McAlister, 2009; Milliron, 2008; Moriarty,
2004; Neubome & Kerwin, 1999; Nowak et al., 2006; Sullivan & Heitmeyer, 2008;
Taylor, 2008; Tucker, 2006; Xu, 2008). Table 1 shows the wide variation of age ranges
and given labels of this specific cohort commonly used in recent years. Hence, adapting
the most commonly used definition by Howe et al. (2000), this cohort was classified as
the Millennial Generation born after 1982.
Milliron (2008) stated that the Millennial Generation is a group of people "better
educated and more focused on teamwork, achievement, and good conduct" (p. 405). Take
the Millennials in the United States for example. This cohort, a population of more than
70 million, represented a large and ethnically diverse cohort owning ubiquitous gadgets,
including iPods, iPads, iPhones, tablets, digital cameras, cell phones, and so on, as well
as having digital pastimes in web surfing, text messaging, and blogging (Atkinson, 2004;
Caruso & Westberg, 2008; Cohen, 2009; Downing, 2006; Fogarty, 2008; Glass, 2007;
Howe et al., 2000; Maples & Han, 2008; Milliron, 2008; Moriarty, 2004; Nowak et al.,
2006; Tucker, 2006; Wolburg & Pokrywczynski, 2001). Because they have grown up in a
time of uninterrupted economic wealth and a parentally protective environment with a
self-esteem-building school system, the Millennial Generation often has been
characterized as special, team-oriented, high achieving, pressured, confident, sheltered,
21
international, feedback-oriented, optimistic for the future, and concerned about the
environment and human rights (Atkinson, 2004; Cohen, 2009; Downing, 2006; "Gen Y
reports optimistic attitudes about work and value of education," 2009; Glass, 2007; Howe
et al., 2000; Tucker, 2006).
Table 1
Variation among Age Ranges by Authors
Label
Millennial generation
Net Generation
Net Generation
Generation Y
Generation Y
Generation Y
Generation Y
Generation Y
Generation Y
Generation Y
Generation Y
Generation Y
Generation Y
Generation Y
Generation Y
Generation Y
Age Range
19821980-1991
1982-2002
19821977-1992
1973-1995
1982-2002
19821982-2002
19821977-1999
19921977-1994
1977-1997
1977-1991
1977-1994
1980-1996
1984-1995
1978-2001
197719801978-1995
1981-2001
1977-1994
1977-1994
19811980-1989
1977-1994
Authors
Atkinson, 2004
Cohen, 2009
Elam et al., 2007
Fogarty, 2008
Glass, 2007
Henrie & Taylor, 2009
Howe et al., 2000
Maples & Hans, 2008
McAlister, 2009
Milliron, 2008
Nowaketal., 2006
Tucker, 2006
Xu, 2008
Kim & Ammeter, 2008
Z.-M. Lin, 1998
Bakewell & Mitchell, 2003
Caruso & Westberg, 2008
Cheng, 2007
Downing, 2006
T.-H., Hsu, 2002
C.-H., Hsu, 2005
Lai & Liang, 2009
Z.-M. Lin, 1998
Morton, 2002
Sullivan & Heitmeyer, 2008
Szamosi, 2006
Taylor, 2008
Wolburg & Pokrywczynski, 2001
Fields
Education
-
Education
Consumers
Consumers
Education
Education
Education
Consumers
Education
Consumers
Consumers
Consumers
Consumers
Consumers
Consumers
Workforce
Workforce
Education
Consumers
Consumers
Consumers
Workforce
Consumers
22
This phenomenon has not just happened in one or two countries, but has occurred
globally. In Taiwan, the population born after 1981 shared similar characteristics with
American Millennials and have been identified as M0M
M [7th Graders] and /W$8
[Strawberry Generation], -t;^
[8th Graders], or $#A J f [New New Generation] (T.-
H. Hsu, 2002, p. 20). The term Strawberry Generation, first formulated in 1993 by the
chairperson of Career Consulting - HffZE [Christina Ongg], was derived from the
perception that this cohort has grown up in a protected environment with economic
prosperity but is likely unable to withstand pressure and hard work (Chang & Chen, 2007;
T.-H. Hsu, 2002). The distinctiveness of this generation is similar to strawberries, which
are meticulously and carefully cultivated in greenhouses to produce a delicate surface and
bright red color. The term Seventh Graders referred to people who were born in the 70s
during the Republic of China (ROC) era, which dates everything from the birth of the
republic in 1911 (i.e. from 1981 to 1990); and the Eighth Graders were born in the 80s of
the ROC era (i.e. from 1991 to 2000). New New Generation was adapted to the idea of
the New Generation, coined in 1974 by the famous Japanese author Sakaiya Taichi, and
described a group born in 1980 or later and shared characteristics of confidence,
hedonism, cultural diversity, and novelty-orientation (T.-H. Hsu, 2002). The term of New
New Generation was made popular through commercials and advertisements in Taiwan
during the 1990s. Additionally, Z.-M. Lin (1998) adapted the popular terminology used
in the United States and categorized Taiwanese consumers who were born between 1981
and 2001 as Generation Y for the purpose of marketing segmentations. Regardless of
different names, most Taiwanese researchers have adapted the term of Generation Y
23
instead of Millennial Generation to define this cohort (Cheng, 2007; C.-H. Hsu, 2005; T.H. Hsu, 2002; Lai & Liang, 2009; C. Lin et al., 2001).
Although the Taiwanese birth rate dropped significantly from 22.97 to 13.76 per
thousand in the population from 1981 to 2000 (see Table 2), this generation currently still
comprises more than 25% of the Taiwanese population and has shown its purchasing
abilities at really early ages compared to previous generations (Fî&Dl^K RJ&tfcif lH
[Department of Household Registration Affairs & Department of Statistics, MOL], 2010).
Taylor (2008) stated that members of China's Generation Y have "a newfound affinity
for consumerism and fully accepting their historic role in helping to turn the world's
fastest-growing major economy into the new superpower" (p. 2). Compared to China's
Generation Y, Taiwanese Generation Y also shared a lot of characteristics, such as
materialism, brand-savviness, technology-orientation, and hedonistic consumerism.
These consumers enjoyed pursuing and purchasing recreational and luxury items
habitually, since they typically had few or no siblings and so had their parents' full
attention (Chang & Chen, 2007; Cheng, 2007; T.-H. Hsu, 2002; C. Lin et al., 2001).
Table 2
Birth Rate in Taiwan from 1981 to 2010 (per thousand)
Year
R O C era
Birth Rate
Year
R O C era
Birth Rate
1981
70
22.97
1986
75
15.93
1991
80
15.70
1994
84
15.31
1996
85
15.18
1998
87
12.43
1999
88
12.89
2000
89
13.76
2001
90
11.65
2002
91
11.02
2003
92
10.06
2004
93
9.56
2005
94
9.06
2006
95
8.96
2007
96
8.92
2008
97
8.64
2009
98
8.29
2010
99
7.21
Note. Adapted from "Btfc i j $ - 5EtTtfc - 5EtT$ [Number and Rates of Birth, Death, Marriage
and Divorce]," byf*3[pPpi8C nJ&^tat^S [Department of Household Registration Affairs & Department
of Statistics, MOL], 2011. Taipei, Taiwan: F^jSpRpiS: i [Department of Household Registration Affairs,
Ministry of the Interior (MOL)].
24
Furthermore, many studies indicated that because they grew up under their
helicopter parents' full dedication and indulgence, the Millennials have tended to exhibit
strong bonds and connections with their parents, and most of them consulted or shared in
family decisions and values (Atkinson, 2004; Cohen, 2009; Downing, 2006; Fogarty,
2008; Glass, 2007; Taylor, 2008; Tucker, 2006). Especially in Taiwan, due to the low
total fertility rate (TFR), falling from 2 in the 1980s to 1.15 in 2011 (CIA, 2011), this
cohort has benefited from major changes in the education system. On one hand, as
children they were taught in smaller classroom settings because of the declining birth rate
and as young adults they had an easier time getting into colleges because of new open
educational institutions. According to the Taiwan Ministry of Education (MOE), the
statistics about higher education institutions has dramatically increased from 105 to 164
junior colleges, colleges, and universities since 1986 and over one million students in
2010; the overall number of universities alone has expanded from 16 to 112 over 20 years
(ffcWSIMff E [Department of Statistics, MOE.], 201 la).
On the other hand, Taiwanese Millennials participated in many extracurricular
activities from childhood and anxiously tried to obtain professional licenses in college in
order to demonstrate their abilities and prepare themselves for the job market among
overwhelmingly competitive peers locally and globally (Chang & Chen, 2007). With the
recession of the global economy and the increasing unemployment rate, Millennials have
been encountering numerous financial challenges. Sadly, compared to other generations
in Taiwan, actual starting monthly salaries for this cohort are at the lowest end of this
spectrum2010 college graduates earned an average of 26,435 New Taiwan dollars
(NT$) per month, around 881 US dollars (US$), based on the exchange rate of 30 to 1.
25
This salary was NT$ 1,561 (US$66) lower than 10 years ago, according to the Council of
Labor Affairs (Huang, 2011).
Another characteristic of the Millennial has been their attachment to advanced
technology as digital natives (Atkinson, 2004; Downing, 2006; Fogarty, 2008; Glass,
2007; Nowak et al., 2006; Phillips, 2007; Taylor, 2008; Tucker, 2006). Taking advantage
of the economic miracle in Taiwan beginning in the 1970s, both seventh and eighth
graders had grown up in wealthier households with the acquisition of modern appliances
and electronics (Chang & Chen, 2007). Since many were given parent co-signed credit
cards or had larger spending allowances at a young age to shop through new
entertainingly experiential dimensions with advanced technology, they have totally
different shopping styles compared to other generations. By fueling the demand for the
latest in communication and information processing capacities through the Internet,
Millennial not only pride themselves on their tech-savvy nature but also demonstrate
their competency to be self-directed learners in real-life issues that matter to them as well
as to be conscientious consumers within their own social networks (Downing, 2006;
"Gen Y reports optimistic attitudes about work and value of education," 2009; Glass,
2007; Phillips, 2007; Tucker, 2006).
In addition, their self-esteem and positive attitudes about their own abilities to
make a difference in the world resulted in the belief that "all the children are above
average" (Fogarty, 2008, p. 370), based on Garrison Kellier's coda (Atkinson, 2004;
Downing, 2006; "Gen Y reports optimistic attitudes about work and value of education,"
2009; Glass, 2007; Nowak et al., 2006). According to Nowak et al. (2006), Millennial
are "reputed to be financially savvy [in the sense of searching for bargains], and don't
26
like owning money [in the sense of lacking savings and pursuing work/life balance]" (p.
317) but are not afraid of challenges and responsibilities. Although they believe
themselves to be special enough to influence the world, keeping life and work balanced is
a priority for Millennial (Cohen, 2009; "Gen Y reports optimistic attitudes about work
and value of education," 2009; Nowak et al., 2006; Taylor, 2008).
Consumer Decision-Making Styles
For skilled marketers, customers are viewed as the core of the business
organizational culture rooted in the marketing concepts, which referred to production,
product, and selling concepts by using major strategic tools of segmentation, targeting,
and positioning to build successful relationships emphasizing customer value,
scarification, and retention. In order to fully understand different consumer needs
reflecting on their decision-making related cognition and emotion, the research areas
about consumer behavior have expanded not only from economic theory but also to other
disciplines, including psychology, sociology, social psychology, and anthology
(Schiffman & Kanuk, 2006). Figure 1 depicts this complex decision-making development
of the input, process, and output stages through the following four views: an economic
view, which perceived consumers as rational decision makers; a passive view, which
portrayed consumers as "irrational and impulsive purchasers;" a cognitive view, which
characterized consumers as "thinking problem solvers;" and an emotional view, which
recognized consumers as possessive shoppers influenced by their feelings and moods
(Schiffman & Kanuk, 2006, p. 528). In short, both consumer behavior and decision
making were interdisciplinary.
27
According to G. B. Sproles and Kendall (1986), "a consumer decision-making
style is defined as a mental orientation [analogous to the concept of the consumer
personality in psychology] characterizing a consumer's approach to making choices [with
cognition and emotions]" (p. 268). Based on previous consumer literature, G. B. Sproles
and Kendall (1986) acknowledged and organized some fundamental consumer
characteristics specifically related to consumer decision-making in order to differentiate
consumer styles from the psycholographics or lifestyle approach, the consumer typology
approach, and the consumer characteristic approach in the consumer-interest field. As a
result, they identified eight basic mental characteristics of consumer decision-making,
and a Consumer Styles Inventory (CSI) with 40 Likert-scaled items was developed to
measure these cognitive and personality characteristics (Chase, 2004; G. B. Sproles &
Kendall, 1986). By conducting the CSI with over 500 high school students in the
southwest states of America using factor analysis, an eight-factor CSI model was
confirmed to be directly linked to consumer choices, and a Profile of Consumer Style
(PCS) is presented in Table 3 (G. B. Sproles & Kendall, 1986).
Table 3
Profile of Consumer Style (PCS) from Consumer Styles Inventory (CSI)
PCS
1
2
3
4
Consumer Style
Perfectionistic and HighQuality Consciousness
Brand Conscious and "PriceEqual-Quality" Shopping
Novelty and Fashion
Consciousness
Recreational and Hedonistic
Shopping Consciousness
Description of Consumer Style

Consumers seek the very best quality, function, and high
expectations for products.
Consumers are oriented toward buying more expensive,
well-known brands and believe price is an indicator of
quality.
Consumers gain excitement and pleasure from seeking
out new things and keeping up-to-date styles.
Consumers also can refer to "shopping avoider" or
"time-saver." These consumers shop just for the fun of
it. They avoid shopping behavior and make shopping
trips rapidly convenient.
continued
28
Table 3 (continued)
PCS
5
6
Consumer Style
Price and "Value for Money"
Shopping Consciousness
Impulsiveness and
Carelessness
Confusion-by-Overchoice
Habitual, Brand-loyal
Orientation toward
Description of Consumer Style

Consumers are low-price comparison shoppers
concerned about getting the best value for their money.
Consumers pay little attention to planning shopping or
appear unconcerned about the amount of money they
spend.
Consumers experience overwhelming information from
marketplaces/brands and have difficulty making choices.
Consumers have favorite brands and stores and formed
their habit in choosing these.
Consumption
Note. Adapted from "A Methodology for Profiling Consumers' Decision-Making Styles," by G. B. Sproles
and E. L. Kendall, 1986, The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 20(2), p. 211-21 A.
Studies using the Consumer Styles Inventory (CSI). Based on cultural

differences, other studies adapted from the Consumer Styles Inventory (CSI) have
challenged G. B. Sproles and Kendall's (1986) finding. To date, the research has shown
that consumer decision-making styles could not only vary across cultures but also share
some similarities. As summarized in the CSI-related previous literature in Table 4, the
original 40-item CSI instrument has been translated into several languages, such as
Korean (Hafstrom et al., 1992), Chinese (Fan & Xiao, 1998; Hiu et al., 2001; Hou & Lin,
2006; Hung, 2004; C. Lin et al., 2001; Siu et al., 2001; Tai, 2005, 2008; Zhou et al.,
2010), Greek (Lysonski et al., 1996), German (Bauer et al., 2006; Mitchell & Walsh,
2004; Walsh, Hennig-Thurau, et al., 2001; Walsh, Mitchell, et al., 2001), and Persian
(Hanzaee, 2009; Hanzaee & Aghasibeig, 2010). Moreover, the instrument was adapted
and modified according to cultural differences by deleting or adding statements, ranging
from 18 to 55 items (see Table 4); as well as administered to various groups crossculturally, including the U.S., U.K., Germany, New Zealand, Korea, India, China, Hong
Kong, Taiwan, Turkey, Iran, Malaysia, and Greece (see Table 5).
29
Table 4
A Summarized List of Previous Studies Related to the Consumer Styles Inventory
Year
1
Authors
Country
Subject
Total
Variance
Language
Items
No of
Factors
US
482
High School
46%
English
40
1986
G B Sproles
& Kendall
1992
Hafstrom et al
S Korea
310
Undergraduate
47%
Korean
38
3
4
1993
Durvasula et al
Lysonski et al
New Zealand
210
Undergraduate
56%
English
40
US
108
Undergraduate
57 5%
English
34
8
7
New Zealand
210
Undergraduate
54 6%
English
34
India
73
Undergraduate
52 2%
English
34
Greece
95
Undergraduate
53 7%
Greek
34
China
271
Undergraduate
35%
Chinese
29
China
China
Germany
357
387
Undergraduate
Adult
Adult
Chinese
Chinese
25
25
519%
German
38
8
8
7
Undergraduate
57 5%
Undergraduate
35%
Chinese
English
48
38
18
34
10
1996
1998
Fan & Xiao
2001
Siu et al
2001
Walsh,
Mitchell, et al
8
9
2001
2002
C Lin et al
Canabal
10
2004
Hung
11
2005
Tai
Taiwan
455
602
173
8
5
7
S India
Taiwan
446
Adult
Chinese
Hong Kong
274
Female
60 6%
Chinese
121
120
527
Age 18-28
Age 18-28
Adult
65 0%
64 8%
57%
German
English
English
21
21
4
4
39
123
Chinese
55
10
41%
English
30
China
Germany
UK
12
2006
Bauer et al
13
14
2006
Wesley et al
2006
Hou & Lin
15
2006
Gonen &
Ozmete
Turkey
202
Working
Female
Undergraduate
16
2007
Turkey
229
Undergraduate
54%
English
36
17
2008
Kavas &
Yesilada
Anffin et al
Malaysia
615%
English
23
2008
149
454
Undergraduate
18
Adult
63 1%
English
26
Tai
US
Taiwan
China
Taiwan
Chinese
Hong Kong
19
2008
Kwan et al
20
2009
Hanzaee
China
Taiwan
Hong Kong
Iran
264
Undergraduate
66 4%
Chinese
27
338
Male
Undergraduate
57 8%
Persian
40
10
354
Female
Undergraduate
Undergraduate
601%
Persian
40
11
21
2009
Mokhlis
Malaysia
419
44 4%
English
28
22
2009
Mokhhs &
Salleh
Malaysia
122
Male
Undergraduate
59 2%
English
40
264
Female
Undergraduate
55 3 %
English
40
440
Undergraduate
425
Postgraduate
66 7%
Chinese
English
39
38
8
10
23
24
2009
2010
Zhou et a l "
Mishra
China
India
Note a Mokhlis found the eight-factor solution through exploratory factor analysis, but the eighth factor was considered
unreliable due to low reliability of less than 0 4 b The CSI instrument was based on a seven-point Likert scale instead
of a five-point one
30
Table 5
Cross-Cultural Groups Using the Consumer Styles Inventory
Country
Literature
America
United States
G. B. Sproles & Kendall, 1986

Hafstrom et al., 1992
Cowart & Goldsmith, 2007
E. K. Sproles & Sproles, 1990

Wesley, LeHew, & Woodside, 2006
Gupta etal., 2010
Fan & Xiao, 1998

Siu et al., 2001
Tai, 2005
Tai, 2008
Zhou etal., 2010
Tai, 2005
Kwan, Yeung, & Au, 2008
Lysonski et al., 1996
Mishra, 2010
Hanzaee, 2009
Hafstrom etal., 1992
Kamaruddin & Mokhlis, 2003
Mokhlis, 2009
C. Lin et al., 2001
Hou & Lin, 2006
Hiu et al., 2001

C.-L. Wang et al., 2004
Kwan, Yeung, & Au, 2008
Zeng, 2008
Asia
China
Hong Kong
India
Iran
Korea
Malaysia
Taiwan
Tai, 2008
Canabal, 2002
Hanzaee & Aghasibeig, 2010
Ariffin et al., 2008
Mokhlis & Salleh, 2009
Hung, 2004
Tai, 2008
Europe
Greece
Germany
Turkey
United Kingdom

Walsh, Hennig-Thurau, et al., 2001
Mitchell & Walsh, 2004
Gonen & Ozmete, 2006
Mitchell & Bates, 1998
Walsh, Mitchell, et al., 2001

Bauer et al., 2006
Kavas & Yesilada, 2007
Bakewell & Mitchell, 2003
Durvasula et al., 1993
Australia
New Zealand
The most popular research subjects were college students, except in the following
studies: G. B. Sproles and Kendall (1986) used family and consumer sciences secondary
students as their sample; Mishra (2010) utilized business postgraduate students; and
Wesley, LeHew, and Woodside (2006); Walsh, Hennig-Thurau, et al. (2001); Siu et al.
(2001); Hung (2004); Hou & Lin (2006); and Tai (2005, 2008) chose adults for their
interests. Factor analyses (PCA and CFA) were utilized to determine the basic
31
characteristics of consumer decision-making styles, ranging from four to 11 factors. The

majority of researchers employed exploratory factor analysis using principal components
analysis (PCA) to identify the factors listed by G. B. Sproles and Kendall (1986), and the
results of the eight-factor solution were either verified or partially confirmed, explaining
35% to 66.7% of total variances; while Siu et al.(2001) and Zhou et al. (2009) adapted
the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) approach to validate an eight-factor model of G.
B. Sproles and Kendall (1986). Lastly, the sample sizes varied from 122 to 602, but the
results of the factor analyses from smaller samples might be poorly interpreted based on
Comery and Lee's recommendation (as cited in Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).
With the reliability coefficients using a cutoff value above 0.5 as reliable, some
consumer decision-making styles were removed (Canabal, 2002; Gonen & Ozmete, 2006;
Hafstrom et al., 1992; Hung, 2004; Kavas & Yesilada, 2007; Kwan, Yeung, & Au, 2008;
Lysonski et al., 1996; Mishra, 2010; Mokhlis, 2009; Wesley et al., 2006) or new ones
were created, such as time-energy conserving (Fan & Xiao, 1998; Hafstrom et al., 1992;
Hanzaee, 2009; Kavas & Yesilada, 2007; Mokhlis & Salleh, 2009), time conscious (Fan
& Xiao, 1998; Gonen & Ozmete, 2006), information-utilization (Fan & Xiao, 1998),
variety seeking (Bauer et al., 2006; Hanzaee, 2009; Mokhlis, 2009; Walsh, HennigThurau, et al., 2001; Walsh, Mitchell, et al., 2001), value seeking (Hanzaee, 2009;
Mokhlis & Salleh, 2009), novelty conscious (Wesley et al., 2006), personal style
conscious (Siu et al., 2001; Tai, 2005), fashion conscious (Hanzaee, 2009; Hou & Lin,
2006; Mishra, 2010; Mokhlis & Salleh, 2009; Tai, 2005; Wesley et al, 2006), brand and
fashion conscious (Kwan et al., 2008), spontaneity (Bauer et al., 2006), satisfying
(Mokhlis & Salleh, 2009), dissatisfied shopping conscious (Mishra, 2010), and so on.
32
Table 6 summarizes and lists in order the previous research findings about various
profiles of consumer decision-making styles according to the eigenvalues attained from
PCA results.
Several studies of consumer decision-making have focused on cultural
comparisons. Lysonski, Durvasula, and Zotos (1996) investigated the decision-making
profiles of consumers in Greece, India, New Zealand, and the United States and verified
the applicability of an eight-factor CSI model with undergraduate business students
across different cultures. The result of factor analysis confirmed seven of the eight G. B.
Sproles and Kendall (1986) decision-making styles, which excluded the price conscious,
value for money factor. Furthermore, with the analysis of varimax rotation of factors, the
original CSI was determined to be more applicable to developed countries, such as New
Zealand and the United States, rather than Greece and India. Although this finding
validated the study of Durvasula, Lysonski, and Andrews (1993) and gave general
support to the CSI in New Zealand, Canabal's (2002) study of young south Indian
consumers questioned the conclusion drawed by Lysonski et al. (1996) and suggested
that five identifiable consumer styles were consistent across cultures, adding a new
dissatisfied/careless category.
33
Table 6
Summary of Previous Research Findings about Profiles of Consumer Decision-Making Styles
Country
Decision-Making Styles
Perfectionistic (HighQuality)
Brand Conscious
Novelty-Fashion
Recreational/Hedonistic
Shopping
Price-Value Conscious
Impulsiveness/Careless
Confused-byOverchoice
Habitual/Brand-Loyal
Time-Energy
Conserving
Time Conscious
Novelty Conscious
Personal-Style/Fashion
Conscious
Brand/Fashion
Conscious
Information Utilization
Variety Seeking
Value Seeking
Spontaneity
Store Loyalty
Satisfying
Dissatisfied Shopping
Conscious
New
Zealand
U.S.
Greece
Germany
U.K.
India
Malaysia
Iran
1
1
4
1
13
2
3
1
4
1
4
1
7
2
12
-
12
-
4
1
9
2
24
1
21
2
22a
1
20a
2
3
4
2
3
4
1
3
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
1
6
3
2
3
4*
1
5*
6
8
1
4
2
-
5*
6*
7
5
6
5
4
5
6
7
5
6
5
6
5
4
3
-
3
-
5*
6
4
3
4
3
5
5
3
7*
8
6
South
Korea
Turkey
China
Taiwan
2
2
15
3
16
3
5
3
6
1
19
3
23
1
8
2
10
1
1
3
1*
-
1
2
1
-
2
3
4
2
3
4
1
8
3
2
3
4
8*
6
4
4*
5*
4
8*
5
4
-
5*
6
7
6
7
5
5
6
7
4
5
7
5
6
7
6
7*
5*
2*
-
2
-
.
-
V
-
V
1
2
-
2
-
10
2
6*
5*
-
5
-
_
-
Note. Refer to the corresponding number of literature in Table 4. *The reliability coefficients of the factor were less than a= 0.5. a Here only the common factors
are shown.
34
Derived from Halfstom, Chae, and Chung's (1992) study comparing young
consumers in the United States and Korea, Fan and Xiao (1998) modified the original G.
B. Sproles and Kendall's (1986) CSI from an eight-factor model to a seven-factor model,
including (a) brand concisousness, (b) fashion consciousness, (c) quality consciousness,
(d) price consciousness, (e) time consciousness, (f) impulsiveness, and (g) information
utilization (p. 278). After analyzing the data collected from college students, Fan and
Xiao's (1998) finding was similar to that of Halfstom et al. (1992), who identified
dimensions that young Korean and American consumers shared in ranking brand
consciousness and quality consciousness/perfectionistics as top characteristics. However,
Fan and Xiao (1998) found that the characteristics of fashion consciousness and
impulsiveness were not applicable for Chinese young-adult consumers. Later, Siu et al.
(2001) compared two samples of college students and adult consumers in southern China
and validated the applicability of the eight-factor CSI model in the Chinese culture, but
some items related to those factors, incuding price consciousness, impulsiveness,
confused-by-overchoice, and habitual/brand-loyal consumers needed to redevelop the
CSI accordingly rooted in cultural contexts.
More currently, Zhou et al. (2010) compared Chinese coastal and inland shoppers
to understand consumer decision-making styles and revealed that there were no
significant differences in quality consciousness, value and price consciousness, confusedby-overchoice, and careless or impulsive shopping between these two regions. Similarily,
researchers in Taiwan, such as C. Lin et al. (2001), Shiao (2002), and Hung (2004), also
validated the generalizability of the eight-factor CSI model with modifications in
purchasing different products and services based on samples of both college students and
35
adult consumers. Besides China and Taiwan, the CSI also has been recently tested in
several other Asian, Middle Eastern, and European countries, such as Malaysia (Ariffin et
al., 2008; Mokhlis, 2009; Mokhlis & Salleh, 2009), Iran (Hanzaee, 2009; Hanzaee &
Aghasibeig, 2010), United Kingdom (Bakewell & Mitchell, 2003; Bauer et al, 2006;
Mitchell & Bates, 1998), Germany (Bauer et al., 2006; Mitchell & Walsh, 2004; Walsh,
Mitchell, et al., 2001), and Turkey (G6nen & Ozmete, 2006; Kavas & Yesilada, 2007).
Thus, the critics of the original CSI usage were expected to make some adjustments to
generalize to diverse countries with further considerations, such as different shopping
environments, language translation and grammatical issues, dissimilar target sampling
populations, various social/financial statuses with life experiences, and previous factor
analysis.
Studies related to consumer decision-making styles and other different
variables. Adapting the original CSI, several researchers explored the possible
relationships between consumer decision-making styles and other variables, such as
demographics, learning styles, mind styles, and values. For instance, several previous
studies had reported gender differences in consumer decision-making styles. Bakewell
and Mitchell (2003) found that "shopping [was] a form of leisure and enjoyment for
[United Kingdom's] adult female Generation Y's recreational quality seekers and
recreational discount seekers" (p. 103). Mitchell and Walsh (2004) compared the
decision-making styles of 358 German males and females to confirm seven
characteristics from the CSI for female shoppers and only four factors for male shoppers.
The researchers also questioned whether the CSI was equally valid for both genders.
Moreover, GSnen and Ozmete (2006) conducted the CSI in a Turkish setting, and the
36
result showed differences between young female and male consumers. Later, Hanzaee
(2009) validated gender differences among Iranian Generation Y consumers, and
Mokhlis and Salleh (2009) did the same with young Malaysian consumers.
E. K. Sproles and Sproles (2001) investigated the correlations of learning and
decision-making styles using the Secondary Learning Styles Inventory (SLSI) and
Consumer Style Inventory (CSI). In order to apply the Kolb Learning Styles Inventory
(KLSI) to a broader population, the SLSI was developed and identified six characteristics
of learning styles: "(1) Serious, analytical learner; (2) Active, practical learner; (3)
Observation-centered learner; (4) Passive, accepting learner; (5) Concrete, detailed, factoriented learner; and (6) Non-adaptive, struggling learner" (Siu et al., 2001, p. 136).
Based on the data collected from the American youth, the substantial interrelationship
between consumers' learning and decision-making was found and some learning styles
were significantly related to predicting specific consumer styles (Siu et al., 2001).
Take perfectionistic, quality-conscious consumers for example. E. K. Sproles and
Sproles (2001) found that four of six learning stylesexcept both concrete, detailed, factoriented learners and non-adaptive, struggling learnerswere significantly associated
with perfectionist, quality-conscious consumer behavior. A serious, analytical learning
style had the strongest positive relationship, but passive accepting learners were
negatively correlated (Siu et al., 2001). They concluded that "these relationships
suggested that [perfectionistic, quality-conscious] consumers who ... have systematic and
involved learning characteristics [should be approached actively and seriously to]...
enhance their high-goal oriented behaviors" (Siu et al., 2001, p. 140).
37
In contrast, although novelty-and-fashion-conscious consumers had similar

learning styles as perfectionistic, quality-conscious consumers, they likely preferred to
learn passively rather than actively (Siu et al., 2001). By understanding detailed
characteristics of products and comparing prices among various stores, price-conscious,
value-for-money consumers were notably correlated with active, practical learning and
concrete, fact-oriented learning (Siu et al, 2001). Also, E. K. Sproles and Sproles (2001)
revealed that confused-by-overchoice consumers became mentally overwhelmed by
information overload as a result of being passive, not-adaptive, struggling, and overly
detail- and fact-oriented learners. Additionally, within the same study, they further
suggested that each individual's decision-making style might change depending on
different situations (Siu et al., 2001).
Chase (2004) explored whether a relationship existed between mind styles and
consumer decision-making styles among beginning college students in the United States.
By administering the Gregorc Style Delineator and the Consumer Styles Inventory (CSI)
to 416 first-year, first-semester college students who took University 100 courses at
Radford university, the researcher discovered that most students identified themselves as
recreation/hedonistic consumers regardless of gender and associated significantly positive
relationships with abstract random and concrete random mind styles (Chase, 2004).
Moreover, they revealed that females were more aware of themselves as
recreational/hedonistic shoppers than were males (Chase, 2004).
Analogically, C. Lin et al. (2001) attempted to determine the potential relations
between consumer decision-making styles and personal values by using the CSI and
Rockeach Value Survey (RVS) with undergraduate students in Taiwan in order to
38
identify groups with similarly cognitive decision-making processes while shopping. Eight
consumer style profiles were identified and categorized into five groups for marketing
segmentations, including "Bf Wi/MHÎ^M" [fashion-oriented decision-making
consumers], "MM-MW^f^M"
[anxiety-oriented decision-making consumers], "j$%i}%
f t SÎSM" [isolation-oriented decision-making consumers], " I I / W ^ f l i / ^ i t ^ f i t M "

[convenience-oriented decision-making consumers], and "HfJ|/$Jt/;!jtM"
[conservative-oriented decision-making consumers] (C. Lin et al., 2001). The
relationships between consumer decision-making styles and personal values were also
confirmed among different groups (C. Lin et al., 2001). Additionally, the researchers
compared the results with previous studies in the United States, New Zealand, Korea, and
China and further found that American and Taiwanese consumers leaned toward brand,
quality, and recreational/hedonistic consciousness (C. Lin et al., 2001). Under the
advertisement culture prompting the concept of the brand a person used representing
individual social status, they concluded that Taiwanese students with increasing
consuming power mostly made their purchasing decisions based firstly on well-known
brands and secondly on the quality of products because of continuous economic growth
(C. Lin etal., 2001).
Learning Styles
Illeris and Ormrod defined learning as "a process that brings together cognitive,
emotional and environmental influences and experiences for acquiring, enhancing, or
making changes in one's knowledge, skill, values, and worldviews" (as cited in Merriam,
Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2006, p. 277). Learning is not an "end product," but a
"process" by which changes take place in an individual, and "each person's learning style
39
is unique and involves how the mind takes in and holds on to information" (Dunn, as
cited in Chase, 2004, p. 16). Since learning is cognitive, learning style also represents "a
more holistic view of a person's skill acquisition of perception, thinking, learning,
adapting, solving problems, and applying these skills to new situations and experiences"
(Dunn, Denig, & Lovelace, as cited in Chase, 2004, p. 16). According to Kolb's (1984)
experiential learning theory (ELT), a learning cycle is categorized into four stages(a)
concrete experience (CE), learning by feeling; (b) active experimentation (AE), learning
by doing; (c) reflective observation (RO), learning by watching; and (d) abstract
conceptualization (AC), learning by thinking (Chapman, 2009; Kolb, 2005). These stages
form the central principle to identify four types of learning styles as diverging (CE/RO),
assimilating (AC/RO), converging (AC/AE), and accommodating (CE/AE) (Chapman,
2009; Kolb, 2005).
By employing Kolb's (1984) experiential learning theory (ELT), Jung's
psychological theory, and modality theory with visual-auditory-kinesthetic formulation,
Felder and Silverman (1988) proposed a learning style model with the following four
dimensions: sensing/intuitive (Sen/Int), visual/verbal (Vis/Vrb), active/reflective
(Act/Ref), and sequential/global (Seq/Glo) (Felder & Spurlin, 2005). The 44-item Index
of Learning Styles (ILS) questionnaire focusing on engineering students was designed
and revised by Felder and Soloman (1997) in order to assess preferences with 11
questions in each dimension of the Felder-Silverman model. Detailed descriptions of the
characteristics of these learning styles are given in Table 7. Meanwhile, by using the ILS
to classify one's learning behavioral tendencies, Felder and Silverman (1988) also
40
recommended some corresponding teaching styles with preferred learning styles, shown
in Table 8, to accommodate each individual learning style effectively.
Table 7
Felder-Silverman Model of Learning Styles
Learning Style
Characteristics of Learning Styles
Sen/Int
Sensing
(SI)
Think with concrete and practical orientation toward facts

and procedures
Think with abstract, conceptual, innovative orientation
toward theories and underlying meanings
Vis/Vrb
Visual
..
Intuitive
(VA)
Verbal
Learn with the preference for visual presentations of

presented materials, such as pictures, diagrams, and flow
charts
Learn with the preference for written and spoken
explanations
Act/Ref
(AR)
Active
Reflective
Learn by trying things out and enjoy working in groups

Learn by thinking things through and prefer working alone
Seq/Glo
Sequential
Use a linear thinking process and learn in small

incremental steps
Use a holistic thinking process and learn in large leaps
(SG)
Global
Note. Adapted from "Applications, Reliability and Validity of the Index of Learning Styles," by R. M.
Felder and J. Spurlin, 2005, International Journal of Engineering Education, 2/(1), p. 103.
Table 8
Dimension of Learning and Teaching Styles
Preferred Learning Style
Sensory/Intuitive
Visual/Auditory
Active/Reflective
Sequential/Global
Perception
Input
Processing
Understanding
Corresponding Teaching Style

Concrete/Abstract
Visual/Verbal
Active/Passive
Sequential/Global
Content
Presentation
Participation
Perspective
Note. Adapted from "Learning and Teaching Styles in Engineering Education," by R. M. Felder and L. K.
Silverman, 1988, International Journal of Engineering Education, 78(1), p.675.
According to Felder and Spurlin (2005), each of the ILS's stated dimensions
could be linked and compared to other learning style models. They claimed that the
active/reflective dimension is analogous to the active experimentation (AE) and reflective
41
observation (RO) dimension of the Kolb's learning style model focusing on how what is
perceived is acted upon (McChlery & Visser, 2009). Additionally, "the active learner and
reflective learner are respectively related to the extravert and introvert of the MyersBriggs Type Indicator (MBTI)" (Felder & Spurlin, 2005, p. 103). The sensing/intuitive
scale, which was directly taken from the MBTI, could be associated with the concrete
experience (CE) and abstract conceptualization (AC) of Kolb's model (Felder & Spurlin,
2005; McChlery & Visser, 2009). Similar to the visual/verbal distinction rooted in
cognitive studies about information processing, the sequential/global aspect had
numerous comparators in Das's established successive coding (sequential) and
simultaneous (global) coding (as cited in Felder & Spurlin, 2005; McChlery & Visser,
2009) as well as Riding and Ryner's cognitive holistic-analytic style and verbal-imagery
style dimension (as cited in McChlery & Visser, 2009). Additionally, Felder and Spurlin
(2005) clarified that "learning style dimensions are continua, not either/or categories [and]
learning styles profiles [only] suggest behavioral tendencies rather than being infallible
predictors of behavior" (p. 104). Moreover, the learning style preferences were neither
indicators of learning strength and weakness nor a measure of each specific dimensional
skill (Felder & Spurlin, 2005; McChlery & Visser, 2009).
Studies using the Index of Learning Styles (ILS). Since the Index of Learning
Styles (ILS) questionnaire is a self-scoring instrument and available at no cost, several
studies have translated into different languages and administered the ISL to
undergraduate students for classifying learning-style preferences in various countries,
including the United States, Brazil, Puerto Rico, Jamaica, China, United Kingdom,
Taiwan, and South Africa (Bacon, 2004; Cook & Smith, 2006; Dee, Nauman, Livesay, &
42
Rice, 2002; Felder & Spurlin, 2005; Graf, Viola, Leo, & Kinshuk, 2007; Ku & Shen,
2009; Litzinger, Lee, Wise, & Felder, 2005; Litzinger et al., 2007; Livesay & Dee, 2005;
Livesay et al., 2002; McChlery & Visser, 2009; Van Zwanenberg, Wilkinson, &
Anderson, 2000; L. Wang, 2007; Zhang & Lambert, 2008; Zywno, 2003). Among the
previous literature, most research emphasized the discussion about the soundness and
improvement of this instrumentation because of a short history after launching the ILS
questionnaires in 1997. Yet, only a few studies further investigated and compared the
differences among various groups.
Particularly, McChlery and Visser (2009) argued that the ILS was problematic in
both the active/reflective and sequential/global dimensions for the population of business
students, but their findings seemed consistent with Van Zwanenberg et al. (2000), Bacon
(2004), as well as Cook and Smith (2006) using medical profession samples. Although
Zywno (2003), Felder and Spurlin (2005), and Litzinger et al. (2005, 2007) suspected and
found some overlaps among learning-style dimensions, they still suggested that the ILS
would be a suitable instrument for assessing learning styles with acceptable levels of
internal consistency reliability based on strong valid evidence from both factor analysis
and student feekback. Further discussion about the existing issues regarding the validity
and reliability of the ELS instrument were presented in Chapter Three. In sum, by
understanding the different learning styles of each individual, the Index of Learning
Styles (ILS) could help provide guidance and improvement for designing instructions on
diversity of learning styles as well as giving individual insights into their possible
learning strengths and weaknesses.
43
Summary
To sum up, a review of the literature presented a clear picture of the current
background and phenomenal characteristics of the Millennial Generation as participants
and provided the influencing factors as references to revise the items on the existing
instrumentation. A consumer's development of a decision-making style involves a
cognitive process of learning from past experiences. E. K. Sproles and Sproles (2001)
discovered a relationship between secondary students' learning styles and their consumer
decision-making styles. Through profiling the Taiwanese Millennial Generation using the
Consumer Style Inventory (CSI) and the Index of Learning Styles (ILS) Questionnaires,
the researcher intended to use the review to identify the possible categories in order to
guide the revisions on instrumentation, to adapt the theoretical framework for analyzing
the collected data, to compare the findings with the literature, and to offer the
implications for future research.
44
Chapter Three: Methodology

This study was designated to explore the possible relationships between consumer
decision-making styles and individual learning styles among Taiwanese college students,
frequently referred to as the Millennial Generation. Through three survey instruments,
cross-sectional data related to consumer decision-making styles, learning styles, and
demographic information was collected for further analysis. Based on the primary
research question whether a relationship exists between consumer decision-making and
learning styles or not, the researcher first hypothesized that no relationship existed
between Taiwanese Millennial' learning styles and their consumer decision-making
styles and then intended to prove the relationship existence. According to Creswell
(2005), in order to describe trends and explain the relationship among variables, a
quantitative inquiry approach is conducted to answer specific narrow questions and
analyze statistical data gathered through instruments for prior predictions and further
interpretation (p. 597). As a result, a quantitative paradigm was considered an appropriate
approach to conduct this study.
This chapter covered the following major components of the research
methodology: (a) research design, (b) population and sample selection, (c) protection of
human subjects, (d) instrumentation including validity and reliability, (e) data collection
procedures, (f) data analysis procedures, and (g) a chapter summary.
Research Design
According to Orcher (2007), "a survey is a study in which data are collected to
describe [the attitudes, opinions, behaviors or] the characteristics of a population" (p. 1).
Creswell (2005) also explained that in the procedure, "survey researchers collect
45
quantitative, numbered data using questionnaires (e.g., mailed questionnaires) or
interviews (e.g., one-on-one interviews) and statistically analyze the data to describe
trends about responses to questions and to test research questions or hypotheses" (p. 354).
There are two approaches to collect data in survey designs, including cross-sectional
design and longitudinal design (Burns, 2000; Creswell, 2005). A cross-sectional survey
design is also known as a one-shot survey design, which means all data about their
perception toward a specific issue are collected from participants at one particular point
in time (Creswell, 2005; Lodico et al., 2006). Since the researcher attempted to classify
consumer decision-making styles and learning styles of one specific cohort, a crosssectional survey research design was selected for this study.
Lodico et al. (2006) described correlation research as "a quantitative method
designed to show the relationship between two or more variables [or determine if
variables are related]" (p. 14). Creswell (2005) further explained that a correlation design,
including the explanatory and prediction design, is a statistical analysis which allows the
researcher to predict an outcome and seek or relate "the tendency or pattern for two (or
more) variables or two sets of data to vary consistently [if they influence each other]" (p.
325). In order to examine whether a relationship existed between consumer decisionmaking styles and learning styles, the researcher employed the correlation statistical test
to deal with data collected from surveys in the data analysis procedure.
In sum, three instruments were used to survey students in this study. A Chinese
translation of the modified Consumer Styles Inventory (CSI) (Appendix A), with
permissions obtained from C. Lin, et al. (2001) (Appendix G), was used to identify
participants' particular decision-making styles. A Chinese translation of the Index of
Learning Styles (ILS) Questionnaires (Appendix B) with permission of Tamkang

University (Appendix H) was used to measure students' preferences of learning styles. A
Chinese Demographic Survey (Appendix C), developed by the researcher, was used to
gather descriptive background information about the sample population. Furthermore, a
review of instruments was conducted by experts to modify and validate the contents and
translation. Figure 2 shows the process of this quantitative research design.
1.
2.
Quantitative Instruments Preparation

Obtain agreements to use the Chinese version of the CSI and ILS
instruments.
Conduct content validity and reliability by experts to test and
modify the instruments to survey students.
Sample Section
Obtain permissions from volunteer teachers to conduct the student
survey in classes at universities.
1.
2.
Quantitative Data Collection

Present survey to students.
Collect survey data.
Quantitative Data Analysis

1. Develop descriptive statistics.
2. Develop inferential statistics.
1
Develop Interpretation, Discussion, Conclusion, and Recommendations
Figure 2. Quantitative Research Design.
47
Population and Sample Selection

According to the statistical data from the Ministry of Education in Taiwan, the
age group ranging from 16 to 29 years-old comprised 97% of current college student
population (tfcW nBiffitf*1& [Department of Statistics, MOE], 201 lb). Based on the
operational definitions of Millennials, who were born between 1981 and 2000, most
undergraduate students enrolled in current higher educational institutions are members of
the Millennial Generation (Elam et al., 2007; Fogarty, 2008; McAlister, 2009; Milliron,
2008). Therefore, considering time constraints and the difficulty of reaching all
Millennial Generation, the setting of the study used a convenience population at a private
university in Southern Taiwan.
According to the data of the chosen site in the 2009/2010 academic year, there
were around 12,270 full-time students in both day and evening programs. Creswell (2005)
noted that "a target population (sometimes called the sampling frame) is the list or record
of individuals in a population that a researcher can actually obtain" (p. 358). The
researcher focused on students who studied in either day or evening programs as the
target population. Tabachnick and Fidell (2007) introduced Comery and Lee's
proposition as a guidance for factor analysis choosing sample sizes of "50 as very poor,
100 as poor, 200 as fair, 300 as good, 500 as very good, and 1000 as excellent,"(2007, p.
613) and further recommended that "as a general rule of thumb, it is comforting to have
at least 300 cases for factor analysis" (p. 613). Following Tabachnick and Fidell's (2007)
suggestion of the sample size, the researcher used random sampling techniques to select
25 classes with approximately 1050 survey participants depending on willingness and
48
availability to be studied. Then, the researcher located interested instructors of those 25

classes and invited them and their classes to participate in the study.
Protection of Human Subjects
For the purpose of protecting human subjects, the research proposal was reviewed
by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the University of the Incarnate Word
(Appendix D) before conducting the study. All participants were protected by informing
them of the purpose and benefits of the study, how the data would be used, and all
procedures that would be followed to keep information confidential. Both the
introductory cover letter (Appendix E) and the consent form agreement (Appendix F) in
Chinese were administered to the subjects with an explanation of the study and gave them
an opportunity to terminate their participation at any time without any obligation. By
their signature, they indicated their agreement to participate in this study. The survey
questionnaires were coded by numbers rather than by names in order to ensure anonymity.
Regarding confidentiality, the participants were at no risk during the entire process of the
study, and no one had access to the data and coded surveys except the researcher.
Moreover, all data was kept in a safe place and would be destroyed at the conclusion of
the process.
Instrumentation
Three instrumentations were used for this study: the Consumer Styles Inventory
(CSI) (Appendix A), the Index of Learning Styles Questionnaires (ILS) (Appendix B),
and a Demographic Survey (Appendix C). The prior statistical analysis about the validity
and reliability of the Consumer Styles Inventory and the Index of Learning Styles
Questionnaires were shown in the following descriptions.
49
Consumer Styles Inventory (CSI). Instead of the 40-item original eight-factor
Consumer Styles Inventory (CSI), the modified Chinese version of the CSI contained 48
statements that required one chosen answer for each item to best represent the student's
responses to measure their consumer decision-making styles (C. Lin et al., 2001; G. B.
Sproles & Kendall, 1986). Each characteristic was measured using a five-point Likert
rating scale, with 5 representing strongly agree and 1 representing strongly disagree, in
order to express the degree of attitudinal favorableness of the items (Hittleman & Simon,
2005; Orcher, 2007; Ozoh, 2007; Tuckman, 1999).
Validity and reliability of the Consumer Styles Inventory (CSI). Although
there was no validity reported by either of G. B. Sproles and Kendall's (1986) or E. K.
Sproles and Sproles' (1990) studies on the original 40-item CSI, Cronbach's alpha was
used to test reliability of the consumer decision-making styles categories, as well as other
studies. According to Hittleman and Simon (2005), "validity refers to the extent to which
an instrument measures what it is intended to measure" (p. 123) and can be established by
various validation procedures, such as construct validity, content validity, face validity,
concurrent validity, and predictive validity; "reliability refers to the extent to which an
instrument measures a variable consistently" and can be established by test-retest
reliability, internal consistency reliability, equivalent forms reliability, and scorer or rater
reliability (Hittleman & Simon, 2005, p. 123). Creswell (2005) further explained that
reliability means that individual scores from an instrument, [usually expressed in
the form of a reliability coefficient ranging from .00 to 1.0 (Hittleman & Simon,
2005; Mertler & Vannatta, 2004; Orcher, 2007)] should be nearly the same or
stable on repeated administrations of the instruments (p. 597)
free from random errors of measurement.
50
Adapting the modified 48-item Chinese version of the CSI for this study, C. Lin et
al. (2001) also used the same method as G. B. Sproles and Kendall (1986) to test internal
consistency reliability. The Cronbach's alpha values of the consumer decision-making
categories were 0.88,0.85,0.870.70,0.84,0.81,0.71, and 0.85, all greater than 0.7
(shown in Table 9). According to Huck (2000), the value of Cronbach's alpha
coefficients can range between 0.0 and 1.0, and should be as close to 1.0 as possible. In
addition, Orcher (2007) suggested that the reliability of an instrument required a
Cronbach's alpha of 0.7 or higher. Based on the previous assumptions, this modified 48item CSI instrument is considered an adequately reliable scale. Moreover, C. Lin et al.
(2001) used the item-total correlation to validate the scale. The scores of item-total
correlation on all items were greater than Cronbach's alpha of 0.6, and this also
confirmed the reliability of this instrument. Additionally, a summary of Cronbach's alpha
coefficients established in previous studies is shown in Table 9.
51
Table 9
Reliability Coefficients Comparison for Studies on Decision-Making Styles
Year
Country
1986
U.S.
1992
S. Korea
1993
New Zealand
Authors
G. B. Sproles
& Kendall
Hafstrom et al.
Durvasula et al.
.74
.75
.74
.76
.48
.48
.55
.53
.77
.84
~
.70
.31
.54
.54
.34
.35
.75
.59
.70
.82
.50
.71
.66
.58
~
~
~
-
.80
.59
.75
.82
.71
.66
.54
.72
.63
.75
.85
.68
.69
.62
~
~
-
.61
.71
.72
.45
.41
.64
.51
.65
.68
.64
.61
.64
.55
.34
~
.59
.60
-.59
~
-~
.62
.55
~
482
40
8
46%
>1.3
High School
310
38
8
47%
1.28-6.19
Under-graduate
210
40
8
56%
3.2-14.7
Undergraduate
210
34
7
54.6%
>1
Undergraduate
108
34
7
57.5%
>1
Undergraduate
73
34
7
52.2%
>1
Undergraduate
95
34
7
53.7%
>1
Undergraduate
271
29
5
35%
~
Undergraduate
Profiles of Consumer Styles (PCS)

Perfectionistic (High-Quality)
Brand Conscious
Novelty-Fashion
Recreational Shopping
Impulsiveness
Confused-by-Overchoice
Habitual, Brand-Loyal
Time-energy Conserving
Time Conscious
Variety Seeking
Sample Size
No. of Items
No. of Factors
Total Variance
Eigenvalues
Subject
New Zealand
1996
U.S.
India
Greece
Lysonski istal.
1998
China
Fan & Xiao
continued
52
Table 9 (continued)
Year
Country
2001
China
2001
Germany
2001
Taiwan
2002
S. India
2004
Taiwan
2007
Turkey
2009
Malaysia
Authors
Siu et al.
Walsh, HennigThurau, et al.
C. Lin et al.
Canabal
Hung
Kavas &
Yesilada
Mokhlis

Perfectionistic (High-Quality)
Brand Conscious
Novelty-Fashion
Recreational shopping
Impulsiveness
Habitual, Brand-Loyal
Time-energy Conserving
Time Conscious
Variety Seeking
Sample size
No. of Items
No. of Factors
Total Variance
Eigenvalues
Subject
.73
.70
.77
.76
.44
.50
.59
.46
-
~
.71
.68
.69
.73
.30
.50
.54
.52
~
-
.75
.73
.71
.65
~
.70
.75
.53
.85
.88
.85
.87
.70
.83
.71
.82
-
.70
.77
.47
.59
.63
-
.78
.75
.84
.57
.77
.83
.77
~
-
.77
.80
.71
.57
.47
.58
.56
.50
.67
.83
~
.65
~
.65
.59
.52
.42
357
25
8
Undergraduate
387
25
8
Adult
455
38
7
51.9%
1.58
Adult
602
48
8
Undergraduate
173
38
5
35%
1.39-4.10
Undergraduate
446
18
7
~
>1
Adult
229
36
8
54%
1.22-5.74
Undergraduate
419
28
8
44.4%
1.2-6.54
Undergraduate
53
Factor analysis of the Consumer Styles Inventory (CSI). Tabachnick and Fidell
(2007) stated that principal components analysis (PCA) and factor analysis (FA) are
essentially statistical procedures applied to a set of variables in discovering which
variables can be reduced and "clustered]" together using existence of shared variance as defined by the intercorrelations among a set of measures; and factors are a coherent
subset of underlying hypothetical variables that measure some common entity or
construct (Mertler & Vannatta, 2004, p. 249). Factor loadings are the results obtained
from PCA and FA, and the value of a factor loading is interpreted as "the Pearson
correlation coefficient of an original variable with a factor," ranging from 0 to 1.00
(Mertler & Vannatta, 2004, p. 249). In order to determine how many components or
factors to retain, the most widely accepted criterion developed by Kaiser is that a
component's eigenvalue greater than 1 should be retained. Other criteria used for
determination of components include the scree test, total variance, and the assessment of
model fit (Mertler & Vannatta, 2004; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).
In G. B. Sproles and Kendall's (1986) study, principal components analysis (PCA)
with orthogonal varimax rotation methods was used to classify eight factors which
explained 46% of the variance by their eigenvalues all above 1.0. Each factor only
included items loading above 0.4 and Cronbach's alpha for each factor was above 0.48.
Table 9 displays Cronbach's a reliability of each subscale with total variance and
eigenvalues. Table 10 presents the number of components obtained from PCA and the
range of factor loadings of each study. Later, PCA with orthogonal varimax rotation
became the dominant method to assess the validity of G. B. Sproles and Kendall's (1986)
consumer decision-making styles in different cultural settings by administering
54
questionnaires to the samples of college students or adults. The description of primary
samples and values of variances for the CSI model in each study is demonstrated in both
Table 4 and Table 9.
Table 10
Factor Loadings of Factor Analysis for Studies Using the Consumer Style Inventory
Year
Authors
Country
Factor Loadings Range
No. of Factors
1986
G. B. Sproles & Kendall
U.S.
0.40 - 0.75
1992
1993
Hafstrom et al
0.31-0.84
Durvasula et al.
South Korea
New Zealand
0.20 - 0.83
8
8
1998
Fan & Xiao
China
0.55 - 0.60
2001
Siu et al.
China
0.18-0.87
2001
Walsh et al.
Germany
0.42 - 0.77
2001
C. Lin et al.
Taiwan
0.51-0.85
2002
Canabal
India
0.47 - 0.77
2006
Bauer et al.
U.K.
0.54-0.91
2007
Kavas & Yesilada
Turkey
0.42 - 0.76
2009
Mokhlis
Malaysia
0.51-0.75
Confirmation of the consumer decision-making styles for the Consumer Styles

Inventory (CSI). In the literature, principal components analysis (PCA) was the most
popular approach to confirm consumer decision-making styles using the Consumer Styles
Inventory (CSI) with different cultural samples. Table 9 compares the scale reliabilities
and the lists of confirmatory factors in the CSI developed for previous studies. However,
the initial eight factors, such as novelty-fashion, price-value, and brand-loyal
consciousness, are not consistent in other cultures (see Table 6). Table 10 further explains
the number of factors and the range of factor loadings obtained from different CSIs in
previous research focusing on various cultural settings. Although most existing research
assumed the applicability of the CSI across products, population groups, and cultures,
Bauer et al. (2006) suggested that "this approach needs some rethinking and further
55
research has to be facilitated into decision-making styles within product categories [i.e.
product-independent style-knowledge]" (p. 352).
Index of Learning Styles (ILS) Questionnaires. The original Index of Learning
Styles contained 44 statements, 11 forced-choice items with each option (a or b)
corresponding to one of four dimensions, to measure students' tendencies in learning
styles (Felder & Soloman, 1997). For statistical analysis, the ILS used a scoring method
ranging from 0 to 11 in each option by subtracting the "b" responses from "a" responses
representing in order to obtain a score between -11 to +11 (Felder & Spurlin, 2005). Then,
scores are tabulated for four learning styles: (a) sensing/intuitive (Sen/Int), (b)
visual/verbal (Vis/Vrb), (c) active/reflective (Act/Ref), and (d) sequential/global
(Seq/Glo). Table 11 illustrated the responding score calculation for learning preferences.
Table 11
The Score Scale of Learning Dimensions in the Index of Learning Styles Instrument
Sensing Learning
Visual Learning
Active Learning
Sequential Learning
0
Intuitive Learning
Verbal Learning
Reflective Learning
Global Learning
10
1
mild
mild
moderate
moderate
strong
11
strong
Note. Adapted from "Applications, Reliability, and Validity of the Index of Learning Styles," by R. M.
Felder and J. Spurlin, 2005, International Journal of Engineering Education, 21(1), p. 103.
Reliability and validity of the Index of Learning Styles (ILS) Questionnaires.

Felder and Spurlin (2005) compared studies of Livesay et al. (2002), Spurlin, Van
Zwanenberg et al. (2000), Zywno (2003), and other researchers, administering the
original Felder-Soloman ILS (1997) to their engineering undergraduates and faculty
56
members in different countries, including native and non-native English speaking settings,
to test the validity and reliability of the ILS. Their findings were summarized in the
following paragraph:
Test-retest correlation coefficients for all scales of the instrument varied between
0.7 and 0.9 for an interval of four weeks between test administrations and
between 0.5 and 0.8 for an interval of 7 months and 8 months ... [with all
coefficients being] significant at the 0.05 level or better. Cronbach['s] alpha
coefficients were all greater than the criterion value of 0.5 for attitude surveys in
three of four studies ... for all [dimensions] but the sequential-global dimension in
the fourth study [of Van Zwanenberg et al. (2000), shown in Table 12]....
Pearson [inter-scale] correlation coefficients relating preferences on the different
dimensions of the ILS ... were [also] consistently [with the values of] 0.2 or less
except for those relating the sensing-intuitive and the sequential-global
dimensions, which ranges from 0.32 to 0.48. Factor analyses ... supported the
conclusion that the active-reflective, sensing-intuitive, and visual-verbal scales are
orthogonal but the sequential-global and sensing-intuitive scales show some
association. That association is consistent with the theory that underlies the Index
of Learning Styles instrument for its principal intended purpose of designing
balanced instruction. (Felder & Spurlin, 2005, p. 110)
Further, Litzinger et al. (2007) compared the original dichotomous scale of the
ILS to the modified 5-option scale of the ILS with 448 students and found that the
reliability of both instruments was similar, ranging from 0.55 to 0.69, though the
Cronbach's alpha value of the modified ILS increased in all dimensions (shown in Table
12). According to Tuckman (1999), the acceptable reliability coefficients for attitude and
preference assessments should be greater than 0.5, and all Cronbach's alpha values
exceeded the suggested cutoff criterion. Table 12 demonstrated the results of both
internal consistency reliability and test-retest reliability from previous ILS-related
literature.
In addition, the construct validity was assessed by an exploratory factor analysis
and students' perception of their learning styles, and 90% or more of the students
indicated the match (Litzinger et al., 2007). Meanwhile, the test-retest reliability also
57
suggested a strong to moderate reliability of all scales (Cook & Smith, 2006; Felder &
Spurlin, 2005; Livesay & Dee, 2005; Zywno, 2003). Therefore, the result showed that the
ILS instrument had acceptable internal consistency reliability and strong evidence on
construct validity from students' feedback (Litzinger et al., 2007).
Table 12
Reliability Coefficients Comparison for Studies on Learning Styles
Authors
Act/Ref
Sen/Int
Vis/Vrb
Seq/Glo
Reliability
Van Zwanenberg et al.
Livesay et al.
Spurlin*
Zywno
Bacon
Litzinger et al.
Cook & Smith
Litzinger et al. (original)
Litzinger et al. (modified)
McChlery & Visser
McChlery & Visser
284
242
584
557
161
572
138
448
448
469
266
0.51
0.56
0.62
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.61
0.61
0.69
0.50
0.53
0.65
0.72
0.76
0.70
0.70
0.77
0.78
0.76
0.82
0.60
0.63
0.56
0.60
0.69
0.63
0.66
0.74
0.70
0.75
0.77
0.63
0.66
0.41
0.54
0.55
0.53
0.47
0.56
0.67
0.55
0.60
0.45
0.46
Test-retest Reliability
2003
Zywno (8 months)
2003
Seery et al.* (4 weeks)
2005
Livesay et al. (7 months)
2006
Cook & Smith (6 months)
124
46
24
47
0.683
0.804
0.73
0.75
0.678
0.787
0.75
0.81
0.511
0.87
0.68
0.6
0.507
0.725
0.60
0.81
Year
Internal Consistency
2000
2002
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2007
2009
2009
Note. All studies were administered to college students with the 44-item ILS. *Adapted from "Applications,
reliability and validity of the Index of Learning Styles," by R. M. Felder & J. Spurlin, 2005, International
Journal of Engineering Education, 27(1), p. 103-112. Samples in all studies were undergraduates.
Confirmation of four dimensions in Index of Learning Styles (ILS). According

to Felder and Spurlin (2005), a pattern of learning style preferences from Englishspeaking settings, shown in the means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of the
preferences61% of active (SD = 6%), 63% of sensing (SD = 8%), 82% of visual (SD =
8%), and 59% of sequential (SD = 7%), were consistent with their assumptions about
engineering students' learning styles, which were "more active than reflective and more
58
sensing than intuitive, much more visual than verbal, and more sequential than global" (p.
109). Further, this consistency within a single discipline at one university was even
greater while compared in three successive years (Felder & Spurlin, 2005).
By using rotated principal components analysis, the studies of Litzinger et al.
(2005), Livesay et al. (2002), Van Zwanenberg et al. (2000), and Zywno (2003)
concluded that sensing/intuitive (Sen/Int), visual/verbal (Vis/Vrb), and active/reflective
(Act/Ref) dimension can be considered as independent, but the sequential/global
(Seq/Glo) dimension was evidenced for correlation to the sensing/intuitive (Sen/Int)
dimension. Litzinger et al. (2005) further found that the sensing/intuitive scale
maintained consistent structure loaded on one factor with a high Cronbach's alpha value
(0.77); the visual/verbal scale contained two factors with a strong correlation; the
sequential/global scale also included two factors; and the active/reflective scale related to
three factors. Although all items and identified factors appeared to be appropriate for the
scales, the relatively low Cronbach's alpha values of the sequential/global (0.56) and
active/reflective (0.60) scales suggested that their factors were not as highly associated
compared to the previous two scales (Litzinger et al., 2005).
Demographic Survey. The information collected from the demographic survey
was used to describe the student samples, including age, gender, type of school, college,
and program, major, hometown, marital status, family background, personal habits, and
so on.
Data Collection Procedures
The researcher used the Chinese survey instrumentations of the Consumer Styles
Inventory (CSI) and the Index of Learning Styles (ILS) with a Demographic Survey to
59
collect the research data. Prior to administration, a translation review was conducted and
evaluated to modify and validate the contents of the questionnaires by experts in the field
(see Appendix I). The survey administration took place on campus in randomly-selected
classes with the permission of the participating teachers and students for their
convenience in order to ensure a higher response rate during May 2010. The researcher
administered the survey and collected the data in classes. Relevant information about the
purpose of the survey, how the results would be used, and the protection of anonymity
and confidentiality were provided in advance. Finally, a sample size of 934 participants
was included for further analyses.
Data Analysis Procedures
A cross-sectional database, collected by the Chinese version of the CSI and ILS
instruments, served as the basis of the study. Of the 934 respondents contained in the
collected database, only 770 were completed without duplication by the target population,
who were bora between 1981 and 2000. The responses to the questionnaires were
analyzed using two programs: the Statistical Packages for the Social Sciences software
(SPSS version 19.0) for Windows was used to analyze the data at the significant level of
0.05, and the AMOS 19 for structural equation modeling (SEM) was employed for
confirmatory factory analysis (CFA).
Both descriptive and inferential statistics were utilized to examine the research
questions. Descriptive statistics were used to report demographic information,
measurements of central tendency (mean [M] and median), variety (range and standard
deviation [SD]), percentages (%), and the frequency if) distribution of the survey items.
For inferential statistics, principal components analysis (PCA), confirmatory factor
60
analysis (CFA), and Cronbach's alpha coefficient were used to examine the validity and
reliability of the survey instruments. Further, in order to explore the interrelationships
between consumer decision-making styles and learning styles, Chi-Square, Pearson
correlation, multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), analysis of variance
(ANOVA), and canonical correlation were used to address the research questions
accordingly.
Data pre-analysis. Prior to analysis, variables were inspected for missing values
and fit between their distributions and the assumptions of multivariate analysis.
Additionally, data were examined for variables containing missing values on more than
5% of the cases. The patterns of missing data were scrutinized utilizing SPSS MVA
(Missing Values Analysis: SPSS Inc., 2010), which "is specifically designed to highlight
patterns of missing values as well as to replace them in the data set" (Tabachnick &
Fidell, 2007, p. 63). Tabachnick and Fidell (2007) cautioned that "the pattern of missing
data is more important than the amount missing" (p. 62). If variables were missing with
at least 5% of data, a Mest should be requested to check whether "missingness is related
to any of other variables" (p. 63).
There were three collected datasets from the CSI, ILS, and Demographic Survey
instruments. Since 44 dichotomous variables from the ILS were summed into four
dimensions in order to identify learning-style preferences, cases with missing data from
the ILS dataset were deleted, and 824 cases were left for MVA analysis. The distribution
of missing data was checked through Roderick J. A. Little's chi-square statistic. In order
to test whether values are missing completely at random (MCAR), the null hypothesis is
that the data are missing completely at random, and the p value is significant at the 0.05
61
level. The SPSS MVA results showed that the p value was greater than 0.05 (X =
5494.512, df = 5488, p - .473), indicating MCAR may be inferred. The MVA analysis
also pointed out that some demographic variables with more than 5% of missing data,
including education levels of fathers and mothers, monthly total family income, and
monthly personal disposable expense, were considered unimportant to this study, and the
researcher decided to omit them; cases with more than 5% of missing data in the overall
database were also eliminated. Finally, applying the criterion of birth year ranging from
1981 to 2000, a total of 770 cases were retained for further analysis.
The SPSS MVA was conducted again to investigate the distribution of missing
data from 770 cases. The MVA results showed that the p value was less than 0.05 (X =
2933.734, df = 2422, p < .001), indicating the data were not missing completely at
random (MCAR). Tabachnick and Fidell (2007) mentioned that missing at random (MAR)
"can be inferred if the MCAR test is statistically significant but missingness is
predictable from variables (other than the DV [dependent variable]) as indicated by the
Separate Variance t Tests" (p. 63). Since Mest was not produced because there were no
variables with 5% or more missing values, MAR might be inferred. Tabachnick and
Fidell (2007) further asserted that "if only a few data points, say, 5% or less, are missing
in a random pattern from a large data set, the problems are less serious and almost any
procedure for handling missing values yields similar results" (p. 63). Since the missing
values were less than 5% and scattered throughout cases and variables, exclusions of
cases could substantially lose subjects; therefore, cases with missing values were retained
and substituted by mean.
62
Normality assessment Since normal distribution of continuous variables is one
of the basic assumptions in multivariate analyses, screening the normality of variables is
an essential step by either statistical or graphical methods (Creswell, 2005; Field, 2005;
Kline, 2005; Mertler & Vannatta, 2004; Orcher, 2007; Pallant, 2007; Tabachnick &
Fidell, 2007). Individual variables as well as summed scores were both assessed for their
univariate normality using the criteria of skewness index of less than three or kurtosis
index of less than 10 due to the large sample size in this study (Kline, 2005). In addition,
Tabachnick and Fidell (2007) discussed the significance of skewness and kurtosis:
If the sample is large, it is a good idea to look at the shape of the distribution
instead of using formal inference tests [z score]. Because the standard errors for
both skewness and kurtosis decrease with larger N, the null hypothesis is likely to
be rejected with larger samples when there are only minor deviations from
normality.
In a larger sample, a variable with statistically significant skewness often does not
deviate enough from normality to make a substantive difference in the analysis. In
other words, with larger samples, the significance level of skewness is not as
important as its actual size (worse the farther from zero) and the visual
appearance of the distribution. In a larger sample, the impact of departure from
zero kurtosis also diminishes, (p. 80)
Based on the above criteria, no violation of univariate normality was found on all tested
items.
Further, potential outliers were evaluated by a cutoff value of 3.29 for z-scores (p
< .001, two-tailed test), but "with a very large N, a few standardized scores in excess of
3.29 are expected" (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007, p. 73). Although some univariate outliers
were found scattered throughout 48 variables with 0 to 12 cases per variable through the
box plots, no deletion was made on account of substantial reduction in sample sizes (125
cases, 166 outliers). For multivariate outliers, Mahalanobis distance using chi-square (X2)
statistics with degrees of freedom was adapted and identified as "the distance of a case
63
from the centroid of the remaining cases where the centroid is the point created at the
intersection of the means of all the variables" (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007, p. 74). The
conservative criterion for outliers, obtained from Mahalanobis distance, is significant at p
< .001 for the X2 value (Mertler & Vannatta, 2004; Pallant, 2007; Tabachnick & Fidell,
2007).
Proposed statistical test. Besides factor analyses, several statistical tests were
conducted to address the corresponding research questions, including Pearson correlation,
MANOVA, ANOVA, and canonical correlation.
Pearson correlation analysis was conducted to discover the association of linearity
between two continuous variables through Pearson correlation coefficients (r) ranging
from -1 to 1, negatively or positively. The size of the absolute r value indicated the
strength of the relationship, showing a perfect correlation with the value of 1 or -1, while
0 as no linear relationship. Further, the commonly used cutoff values were that the r
values of + 0.1 represented a small effect, between + 0.3 and 0.49 as a medium effect,
and greater than 0.5 as a large effect (Field, 2005; Pallant, 2007). Moreover, before
performing any correlational analysis, a scatterplot was essential to obtain for the purpose
of scrutinizing the general trends of the data, including linearity and outliers.
The one way MANOVA was employed to evaluate among centroids (composite
means) for a set of DVs, which were profiles of consumer decision-making styles and
learning styles in this study, based on two or more levels of an IVthe participants'
demographic information by gender; age; geographical area; as well as type of school,
program, and college. Supplementarily, the ANOVA with post-hoc tests was used as
64
follow-up tests to compare the mean scores among each diverse group and determine
whether any group differed from each other.
Finally, in order to explain the association of the two sets of variables, canonical
correlation was performed to predict the possible relationships between consumer
decision-making styles and learning styles. Based on Hair, Black, Babin, and Anderson
(2009), canonical correlation is the most appropriate and powerful multivariate technique
in situations with multiple dependent and independent variables, because it identifies the
optimum structure or dimensionality of each variable set that maximizes the relationship
between independent and dependent variable sets.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
Based on the major research questions, Table 13 provides the lists of independent
and dependent variables used in the study, as well as proposed statistical analysis
methods. In addition, the null hypotheses for research questions were listed and
developed as follows:
Research Question 1: What are the consumer decision-making styles among
Research Question 2: Are consumer decision-making styles significantly different
when comparing diverse groups by gender; age; geographical area; and type of program,
Hypothesis 2a: Consumer decision-making styles are significantly different
between males and females.
Hypothesis 2b: Consumer decision-making styles are significantly different for
individuals who attended different programs.
65
Hypothesis 2c: Consumer decision-making styles are significantly different for
individuals who studied in different colleges.
Hypothesis 2d: Consumer decision-making styles are significantly different for
individuals who went to the day and night schools.
Hypothesis 2e: Consumer decision-making styles are significantly different for
individuals who came from different areas.
Hypothesis 2f: Consumer decision-making styles are significantly different for
individuals of different ages.
Research Question 3: What are the distributions of learning styles among
Taiwanese Millennial?
Research Question 4: Are the learning styles significantly different when
Hypothesis 4a: Learning styles are significantly different between males and
females.
Hypothesis 4b: Learning styles are significantly different for individuals who
attended dissimilar programs.
Hypothesis 4c: Learning styles are significantly different for individuals who
studied in different colleges.
Hypothesis 4d: Learning styles are significantly different for individuals who
went to the day and night schools.
Hypothesis 4e: Learning styles are significantly different for individuals who
came from different areas.
66
Hypothesis 4f: Learning styles are significantly different for individuals of
different ages.
Research Question 5: Is there a relationship between the learning styles and
Hypothesis 5: There is no relationship between the learning styles and consumer
decision-making styles of the Millennial Generation in Taiwan.
Table 13
Summary of Research Questions, Variables, and Analysis Types
Numbers of
Research Questions
1 What are the consumer decisionmaking styles among Taiwanese
Millennial
rvs
48, five-point Likert
scale
Are consumer decision-making

styles significantly different when
comparing diverse groups by
gender; age; geographical area; as
well as type of program, school, and
college? If so, which categories
differ?
6: Gender,
School programs,
Colleges,
Geographical area,
Age,
Day or night
schools
What are the distributions of

learning styles among Taiwanese
Millennial?
44, Dichotomous
Are the learning styles significantly

different when comparing
individuals by gender; age;
geographical area; as well as type of
program, school, and college? If so,
which categories differ?
6: Gender,
School programs,
Colleges,
Geographical area,
Age,
Day or night
schools
Is there a relationship between the

learning styles and consumer
decision-making styles of the
Millennial Generation in Taiwan?
8PCSs
DVs
8PCSs
Analysis Types
Principal components
analysis
Structural equation modeling
One-way MANOVA
ANOVA
Pearson correlation
Principal components
analysis
Structural equation modeling
4 scales
AR, SI,
VA, SG
One-way MANOVA
ANOVA
4 scales
Canonical correlation
AR, SI,
VA, SG
Pearson correlation
Note. IV: Independent variable. DV: Dependent variable. MANOVA: Multivariate Analysis of Variance.
ANOVA: Analysis of Variance. PCS: Profiles of consumer decision-making styles; AR: Active-Reflective;
SI: Sensing-Intuitive; VA: Visual-Verbal; SG: Sequential-Global.
67
Summary
In conclusion, this study was conducted at a private university in Southern
Taiwan by administering three survey instrumentationsthe Consumer Style Inventory,
the Index of Learning Styles Questionnaires, and a Demographic Surveyto collect data
in May of 2010. Derived from the exploratory study of E. K. Sproles and Sproles (1990),
the purpose of the study was intended to investigate the relationship between learning
styles and consumer decision-making styles of the Taiwanese Millennial Generation via
similar statistical methods. First, principal components analysis using orthogonal varmix
rotation profiled and validated consumer decision-making styles and learning styles with
the support of the confirmatory factor analysis. Second, the calculation of Cronbach's
alpha coefficient was used to scrutinize the reliabilities of the survey instruments.
Through proposing MANOVA and ANOVA tests, the differences among various groups
were inspected. Finally, Pearson correlation assessed the basic relations between each
learning style and consumer style characteristics, while a canonical correlation analysis
was employed to investigate the association matrix of consumer style characteristics
versus learning style characteristics.
68
Chapter Four: Findings
This study was intended to investigate the possible relationships between
consumer decision-making styles and individual learning styles among traditional college
students in Taiwan, frequently referred to as the Millennial Generation. Data was
collected using the Chinese version of the Consumer Styles Inventory (CSI), the Index of
Learning Styles (ILS) Questionnaires, and a Demographic Survey administered at
randomly selected classes of the chosen site in Southern Taiwan in May of 2010. A total
of 934 subjects were included in the pre-compiled data. After excluding samples with
incomplete information and pre-screening criteria, a total of 770 targeted participants,
born between 1981 and 2000, were analyzed.
This chapter reports three main findings, including descriptive statistics of the
sample, validity and reliability of CSI and ILS instrumentations, and inferential statistics
corresponding to research questions with a chapter summary.
Introduction
This chapter presents the reliability and validity of the survey instruments and the
research results of both descriptive and inferential statistical analyses. Generally speaking,
descriptive statistics are used for data cleaning and monitoring to produce a snapshot of
the situation for further analysis. Inferential statistics are commonly used for hypothesis
testing and research questions. Based on the purpose of this study, both descriptive and
inferential statistics were reported in the following analyses: (a) descriptive statistics,
which included frequencies (/), means (M), modes, standard deviations (SD), skewness,
and kurtosis; and (b) inferential statistics, which used Chi-square, Pearson correlation,
principal components analysis (PCA), structural equation modeling (SEM), multiple
69
analysis of variance (MANOVA), analysis of variance (ANOVA), and canonical
correlation for testing proposed hypotheses. Further, according to the research questions,
appropriate statistical techniques were employed in order to examine and analyze all
collected data adequately using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS
version 19.0) and the AMOS (version 19) at the significant level of 0.05.
Quantitative data were collected from 934 students from 23 randomly selected
classes in various four-year day and evening programs, two-year day programs, and
seven-year day programs at the chosen site. A total of 1050 surveys were distributed, and
934 surveys were returned. Therefore, the response rate was 89%. Even though many
items contained missing data, all returned surveys were still valid. According to
Tabachnick & Fidell (2007), no matter what kind of methods are used to handle missing
data, similar results would be produced as long as 5% or less of the data falls into a
randomly missing pattern from the larger dataset. Using SPSS missing data analysis
(MVA), the researcher carefully scrutinized the distribution of missing data in each item
and eliminated cases whose missing values exceeded 5% for further multivariate analysis.
After omitting those cases from the whole dataset, the remaining missing items were
examined and found to be randomly distributed within less than 5% of the data. Mertler
and Vannatta (2004) discussed three main methods of handling missing data, including
using "prior knowledge " (a well-educated guess), using calculation of the means, and
using a regression approach (p. 26-27). Since statements in the CSI instrument were
evaluated in a five-point Likert scale, the researcher replaced the missing value with the
mean value of each individual item from the CSI for principal components analysis.
70
After validity and reliability tests, a total of 770 cases without missing data in
both CSI and ILS instruments remained for further analysis. Prior to the analysis, all
variables were assessed for normality and checked for univariate outliers. In addition, the
corresponding assumptions of each individual statistical procedure were also assessed
before conducting each test.
Description of the Sample
The sample demographics are shown in Table 14, including gender, age, school
types, academic colleges, academic majors, classification, hometown, parents' education
levels, monthly family income, and monthly personal disposable expense.
The data included a total of 770 undergraduates, who were born between 1982
and 1992, and studied in the 2009/2010 academic year of the chosen site. The majority
(96%) studied within four colleges and 14 related departments, taking classes during the
day, while only 4% of subjects, mostly in the Department of Applied Literature, attended
the extended program in the evening. Compared to most Taiwanese universities, which
only offer four-year college programs, there are two-year programs designed for those
who graduated with associates degrees to pursue advanced education, and seven-year
programs, only offered by the College of Art, developed for younger students with artrelated talents who have graduated from junior high schools. Further, more than threequarters of the students enrolled in the four-year college program (76.5%), 14% of them
studied in the seven-year program, and only 10% attended the two-year program.
71
Table 14
Demographic Variables of Student Characteristics
Al1
N = '770
Subgroup
Variable
Programi offered
2-year
n = 73
4-year
n = 589
%
7-year
n = 108
/
Male
Female
101
669
13.1
86.9
91
498
15.4
84.6
10
63
13.7
86.3
108
100
School
Types
Day
Evening
739
31
96.0
4.0
558
31
94.7
5.3
73
100
108
100
Program
4-year
2-year
7-year
589
73
108
76.5
9.5
14.0
Marital
Status
Single
Married
764
6
99.2
0.8
586
3
99.5
0.5
70
3
95.9
4.1
108
100
Age
(based on
2010)Born in
1992(18)
1991(19)
1990(20)
1989 (21)
1988(22)
1987 (23)
1986 and before (24 and up)
58
213
164
140
125
24
26
7.7
28.4
21.9
18.7
16.7
3.2
3.4
182
155
126
87
10
13
31.8
27.1
22.0
15.2
1.7
2.2
58
31
8
6
3
54.7
29.2
7.5
5.7
2.8
Gender
1
8
35
14
13
1.4
11.3
49.3
19.7
18.3
continued
72
Table 14 (continued)
All
# = 770
Variable
Academic
Colleges
Academic
Majors
Subgroup
Program offered
2-year
n = 73
4-year
= 589
/
Management
Design
Art
Living Technology
114
373
109
174
14.8
48.4
14.2
22.6
114
353
19.4
59.9
122
20.7
Animation Department
Applied Literature Department
Early Childhood EduCare Department
Fashion Design & Management Department
Finance Department
Food & Beverage Services Department
Fine Arts Department
Information Management Department
Interior Design Department
Living Science Department
Music Department
Product Design Department
Styling & Cosmetology Department
Visual Communication Design Department
31
32
29
66
46
6
78
36
90
1
31
51
72
201
4.0
4.2
3.8
8.6
6.0
0.8
10.1
4.7
11.7
0.1
4.0
6.6
9.4
26.1
31
32
8
41
46
5.3
5.4
1.4
7.0
7.8
7-year
n=108
20
1
52
27.4
1.4
71.2
108
100
21
25
28.8
34.2
78
72.2
30
27.8
8.2
36
70
1
51
72
201
6.1
11.9
0.2
20
27.4
1.4
8.7
12.2
34.1
continued
73
All
N =:770
Variable
Classification
in College
Subgroup
Income
39.6
13.0
36.9
9.4
0.8
0.4
303
100
166
20
51.4
17.0
28.2
3.4
5th year
6 year
305
100
284
72
6
3
Taipei County
TaoChuMiao
ChungChangTou
YunChiaNan
KaoKaoPing
Keel
HwaDong
KingMaPenghu Island
Other
79
81
126
254
168
13
7
3
13
10.6
10.9
16.9
34.1
22.6
1.7
0.9
0.4
1.7
66
73
98
191
111
11
6
2
9
11.6
12.9
17.3
33.7
19.6
1.9
1.1
0.4
1.6
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
cth
Hometown
4-:year
n = 589
%
Program offered
2-:/ear
n -= 73
Personal Monthly Disposable Income

(NT$)
7-:year
n =:108
%
1.9
24
49
32.9
67.1
94
3
6
3
87.0
2.8
5.8
2.8
12
2
10
18
26
1
1
1
16.9
2.8
14.1
25.4
36.6
1.4
1.4
1.4
1
6
18
45
31
1
0.9
5.7
17.0
42.5
29.2
0.9
3.8
720
6237
554
6303
69
7262
97
5136
continued
74
4-year
n = 589
Ul
N == 770
Variable
Subgroup
Program offered
2-year
n = 73
7-year
n=108
%
Father's
Education
Level
Did not finish high school

High school graduate
Attended college without completion
Associates degree (A.A., A.S., etc.)
College degree (B.A., B.S., etc.)
Graduate degree (M.A., M.S., etc.)
Doctoral degree (Ph.D., J.D., M.D., etc.)
211
272
26
137
54
13
7
29.3
37.8
3.6
19.0
7.5
1.8
1.0
181
210
18
102
30
9
4
32.7
37.9
3.2
18.4
5.4
1.6
0.7
20
28
2
11
4
1
1
29.9
41.8
3.0
16.4
6.0
1.5
1.5
10
34
6
24
20
3
2
10.1
34.3
6.1
24.2
20.2
3.0
2.0
Mother's
Education
Level

High school graduate
Attended college without completion
Associates degree (A.A., A.S., etc.)
224
329
23
108
33
14
2
30.6
44.9
3.1
14.7
4.5
1.9
0.3
192
260
15
67
22
7
1
34.0
46.1
2.7
11.9
3.9
1.2
0.2
27
25
2
7
5
3
39.1
36.2
2.9
10.1
7.2
4.3
5
44
6
34
6
4
1
5.0
44.0
6.0
34.0
6.0
4.0
1.0
Note. Percentage was based on the valid sample size of each variable./!- Frequency. Af: Mean. NT$: New Taiwan Dollar.
75
More than 45% of the respondents studied in the College of Design (48.4%),
which included the departments of Animation (4.0%), Interior Design (11.7%), Product
Design (6.6%), and Visual Communication Design (26.1%). The College of Living
Technology (22.6%) consisted of the Early Childhood EduCare Department (3.8%),
Fashion Design and Management Department (8.6%), Food and Beverage Services
Department (0.8%), Living Science Department (0.1%), and Styling and Cosmetology
Department (9.4 %). Furthermore, 15% of the students studied in the College of
Management (14.8%), which contained the Department of Applied Literature (4.2%),
Department of Finance (6.0%), Department of Information Management (4.7%),
Department of International Business Management, Department of Business
Administration, and Department of Accounting Information. The remaining students
came from the College of Art (14.2%), which was comprised of the Fine Arts (10.1%),
Music (4.0%), and Dance departments.
Gender. For gender distribution, there were more female students (86.9%) than
males (13.1%). Originally, the chosen site was a single-sex institution which recruited
only female students. After the 2007/2008 academic year, it gradually transformed into a
co-educational institution. The seven-year program still only accepts female students.
Since the survey was taken in May of 2010, very few male students were enrolled in the
university compared to female students.
Geography. Since the chosen site was located in the south of Taiwan, over half
of the subjects resided in the YunChiaNan (34.1%) and KaoKaoPing (22.6%) areas,
where the majority commuted to the school. More than 20% of the participants came
from Northern Taiwan, including Taipei County (10.6%) and the TaoChuMiao (10.9%)
76
area; nearly 17% of them lived in Central Taiwan, ChungChangTou (16.9 %) area; and
the rest (less than 5%) inhabited Eastern Taiwan, surrounding islands, or others. Figure 3
illustrates the map of Taiwan regions including all areas.
Geographical area legend:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
PeiKeel
TaoChuMiao
ChungChangTou
YunChiaNan
KaoKaoPing
HuaTunglsland
CHIMEI6*-
1f GREEN ISLAND
Figure 3. Taiwan Map.

Note. Adapted from "Taiwan map," by Taiwan Tourism Bureau, 2011. Retrieved from
http://www.go2taiwan.net/taiwan_map.php
Age and family backgrounds. If the age category was consolidated into
traditional and non-traditional age groups, 92.8% of the participants were traditional-age
students (younger than 23 years old, born after 1987). Compared to the statistical
analyses from the Department of Statistics, Ministry of Education (MOE) in Taiwan
(201 lb), the results of the present study validated the MOE's finding that most
Taiwanese students chose to attend colleges directly after completing their high-school
education. Further, the mean age of the whole group was 20.37 years old, and the mode
77
was 19 years old, born in 1991. Less than 1% of participants were married, while 99.2%
were unmarried. Cross-examined with the classification in college among the samples,
freshmen (39.4%) in the four-year program accounted for nearly three-quarters of
students, while 36.9% were juniors attending in the same program.
Moreover, regarding participants' family background, less than 10.3% of the
students' parents had obtained college degrees or above, while over 67.1 % of their
parents had never attended college. The mean of total monthly family income fell in the
range of NT$40,001 to $60,000 (NT$: New Taiwan Dollar, around US$1,333 ~ $2,000,
based on the exchange rate of 30 to 1), but the mode ranged from NT$20,001 to $40,000
(US$666 - $1,333). The majority (68%) of families earned less than NT$60,000
(US$2,000) per month in comparison to the national average of NT$74,083 (US$2,469)
( f f K ^ i l t J ^ [Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting, and Statistics, Executive
Yuan], 2011). The average monthly disposable income was NT$6,237 (US$208), ranging
from NT$5,100 to $7,300 (US$170 ~ $243).
Consumer Styles Inventory (CSI) and Index of Learning Styles (ILS) Instruments
The survey was comprised of three instrumentations as follows. First, the
modified 48-item Chinese version of the CSI (Appendix A), adapted from C. Lin et al.
(2001), was utilized for the first section of the survey. A five-point Likert rating scale,
with 5 representing strongly agree and 1 representing strongly disagree, was used for
statements measuring the degree of attitudinal favorableness (Hittleman & Simon, 2005;
Orcher, 2007; Ozoh, 2007; Tuckman, 1999). The 44-statement Chinese version of the
ILS questionnaires (Appendix B), translated by Tamkang University, was employed as
the second part of the survey. A dichotomous option (a or b), grouped in 11 forced-
78
choice items corresponding to four dimensions, was used to evaluate various learning
tendencies (Felder & Soloman, 1997). Finally, the third section of the survey consisted of
the following demographic information: birth year; gender; type of school, program,
major, and classification in college; hometown; marital status; parents' educational levels;
total family monthly income; monthly personal disposable expanse; and so on (Appendix
Q.
All variables, shown in Table 15, were based on categorical, ordinal, and interval
measurements. Before administering the survey in Taiwan, the researcher conducted a
pilot study from April to May of 2010 on 25 eligible subjects in the US in order to make
appropriate instrument revision.
Table 15
Description of the Items in the CSI, ILS, and Demographics Instruments
No.
Variable Category
Items
Data Type
Consumer shopping
preferences
Measured consumer decision-making

behaviors while making purchases
Interval
Likert scale
Learned by trying out or thinking

through
Preference for visual presentation or

oral communication
Nominal
Dichotomous
Nominal
Dichotomous
Nominal
Dichotomous
4,8,12,16,20,24,
28,32,36,40,44
Active-Reflective
(AR)
Sensing-Intuitive
(SI)
Visual-Verbal
(VA)
Sequential-Global
(SG)
Learned with either a linear or

holistic thinking process
Nominal
Dichotomous
Dl-Dll
Demographics
Gender; age; major;

type of school, school, program, and
classification;
hometown; marital status;
parents' education;
monthly total family income;
monthly disposable income
Nominal
Ordinal
CSI
CSI01-CSI48
ILS
1,5,9,13,17,21,
25,29,33,37,41
2,6,10,14,18,22,
26,30,34,38,42
3,7,11,15,19,23,
27,31,35,39,43
Learned by practical procedures or

abstract theoretical thinking
79
Validity and Reliability of the CSI and ILS Instruments
Choosing a reliable and valid instrument is essential for researchers. Without
stability and consistency for a high validity, the ability of the instrument to reflect the
measured concept may be questioned. Validity, seen as "a unitary concept", was
traditionally intended to be discussed in three forms: content, criterion-referenced, and
construct validity (Thorndike, as cited in Creswell, 2005, p. 164). In order to examine an
instrument's reliability, various procedures, including test-retest reliability, alternate
forms reliability, alternate forms and test-retest reliability, inter-rater reliability, and
internal consistency reliability were available (Creswell, 2005). Before distributing
questionnaires, the content was revised based on feedbacks from the participants of the
pilot study and reviewed to validate information by experts (see Appendix I).
This section presents the process of factor analyses, validity, and reliability tests
for both CSI and ILS, conducted prior to hypothesis testing. First, an exploratory factor
analysis (EFA), also known as principal components analysis (PCA), was performed to
reduce the total number of CSI variables and investigate the structures for the current
study. Second, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), also called factor analysis (FA),
was operated to cross-check the results from PCA of the CSI and testing theory for the
ILS. Construct validity was evaluated through both factor analyses to ensure the
summated scales meet the validity requirement. Finally, Cronbach's alpha was used to
measure internal reliability of both CSI and ILS. Results of these tests confirmed that
the summated scales of each factor or dimension were appropriate for follow-up
hypotheses testing.
80
Validity of the Consumer Styles Inventory (CSI). Factor analyses were used to
examine the construct validity of the survey. In order to underlie a set of variables into
the latent structure, principal components analysis (PCA), factor analysis (FA), and
structural equation modeling (SEM) are the choices either in empirical or theoretical
approaches (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Pallant (2007) stated that PCA often is used in
the early stages of research to summarize empirically the interrelationships among
observed variables. After finding the patterns of correlations, measured variables were
collapsed into abstract factors, which reflected underlying constructs by grouping
together correlated variables (Mertler & Vannatta, 2004; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).
According to Tabachnick and Fidell (2007),
The specific goals of PCA or FA are to summarize patterns of correlations among
observed variables, to reduce a large number of observed variables to a smaller
number of factors, to provide an operational definition (a regression equation) of
an underlying process by using observed variables, or test a theory about the
nature of underlying processes, (p. 608)
They further explained that PCA is "a [contributor] for a description of the relationship
rather than a theoretical analysis" (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007, p. 25). Therefore, the PCA
was employed to describe and summarize data by combining variables with the same
concept into components.
Structural equation modeling (SEM), also referred to as causal modeling, path
analysis, or confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), etc., is a collection of statistical
techniques that allow a set of relationships between one or more independent/dependent
variables to be examined through the diagrams with arrows showing causal flows among
variables (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). The major advantage to SEM is to test a theory
and provide an overall indication of the fit based on the prior knowledge of, or
hypotheses about, potential relationships among variables (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007),
81
though Kline (2005) argued that "many applications of SEM [still requiring a largesample technique] are a blend of exploratory and confirmatory analyses" (p. 9-10).
AMOS, a graphic statistical program designed to create models to test hypotheses and
confirm relationships among observed and latent variables, was used to perform SEM.
The following section presented both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses.
Criteria for principal components analysis (PCA). There are several
assumptions that need to be met prior to PCA, although Mertler and Vannatta (2004)
asserted that "it is not necessary to test the assumptions of multivariate normality and
linearity" (p. 258) because newer versions of SPSS have stopped using the chi-square test
of model fit. However, Mertler and Vannatta (2004), along with other scholars (Pallant,
2007; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007), still recommended both assumptions to be evaluated
as follows: one method is that "all variables, as well as all linear combination of variables,
must be normally distributed (assumption of multivariate normality)"; and the other is
that "the relationships among all pairs of variables must be linear" (Mertler & Vannatta,
2004, p. 258).
Steps involved in the PCA include assessment of the suitability of the data for
factor analysis, factor extraction from correlation matrix, factor rotation for
interpretability, and result interpretation. First, both sample sizes and the strength of the
relationships among the variables needed to be examined for suitability. Tabachnick and
Fidell (2007) mentioned Comery and Lee's proposition as a guidance for factor analysis
choosing sample sizes of "50 as very poor, 100 as poor, 200 as fair, 300 as good, 500 as
very good, and 1000 as excellent" and concluded, "as a general rule of thumb, it is
comforting to have at least 300 cases for factor analysis" (p. 613). However, they
82
acknowledged that a smaller sample size of 150 should be sufficient if solutions have
high-loading variables above 0.8 (Mertler & Vannatta, 2004; Pallant, 2007; Tabachnick
& Fidell, 2007).
Taking both sample size and factor loading into consideration, researchers often
considered a factor loading more than the absolute value 0.30 (+ 0.30) to be important
when the sample size is greater than 300 (Stevens, 2002). Steven further recommended
that:
For a sample size of 50, a loading of .722 can be considered significant, for 100,
the factor loading should be greater than .512, for 200 it should be greater
than .364, for 300 it should be greater than .298, for 600 it should be greater
than .21, and for 1,000 it should be greater than .162. (as cited in Field, 2005, p.
637)
Comrey and Lee also suggested that "the loadings in excess of .71 (50% overlapping
variance) are considered excellent, .63 (40% overlapping variance) very good, .55 (30%
overlapping variance) good, .45 (20% overlapping variance) fair, .32 (10% overlapping
variance) poor" (as cited in Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007, p. 649). Based on the sample size
of 770 and cutoff value suggestion, this study applied a critical factor loading of 0.30 for
both PCA and CFA.
Additionally, it is essential to screen for outliers among variables comparing their
squared multiple correlations {SMC). Tabachnick and Fidell (2007) identified that "a
variable with a low squared multiple correlation with all other variables and low
correlations with all important factors is an outlier among the variables" (p. 615). If one
outlying variable is found, it should be ignored or deleted in the current factor analysis
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).
Regarding another issue of the strength of the inter-correlations among items,
Tabachnick and Fidell (2007) suggested an inspection of the correlations in excess of 0.3,
83
and if none is found, factor analysis might not be appropriate. Another two statistical
measures, also used to determine the factorability, are Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
(Bartlett, 1954) in achieving statistical significance (p < .05) and Kaiser-Mayer-Oklin
(KMO) index value greater than the minimum recommended value of 0.6 (Kaiser, 1970,
1974) (Mertler & Vannatta, 2004; Pallant, 2007; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).
Second, factor extraction involved determining the number of factors for the best
presentation of interrelationships among variables by examination of Kaiser's criterion,
scree test (Field, 2005; Mertler & Vannatta, 2004; Stevens, 2002; Tabachnick & Fidell,
2007), and parallel analysis (PA) with Monte Carlo PCA (Pallant, 2007). Kaiser (1960)
proposed that only components exceeding an eigenvalue of 1.0 should be retained for
further investigation, and this eigenvalue rule has become the most widely used criterion.
The scree test, proposed by Catell (1966), is a graphical method used to inspect the plot
by retaining the magnitude of all eigenvalues against factors in the sharp descent before
the first one on the line to level off (Mertler & Vannatta, 2004; Stevens, 2002;
Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Stevens (2002) summarized these criteria in the following:
Since the Kaiser criterion has been shown to be quite accurate when the number
of variable is < 30 and the communalities are > .70, or when N > 250 and the
mean communality is ^ .60, we would use it under these circumstances. For
other situations use of the scree test with an N > 200 will probably not lead us too
far astray, provided that most of the communalities are reasonably large [i.e.
> .30]. (p. 390)
Additionally, parallel analysis (PA), gaining popularity particularly in social science
research, more accurately identified the correct numbers of components to retain by
comparing the size of the eigenvalues with those obtained from a randomly generated
data set of the same size, while both Kaiser's criterion and Catell's scree test tended to
overestimate the number of factors (Pallant, 2007).
84
Finally, once the number of factors has been decided, there were two main
appoaches, orthogonal (uncorrelated) rotations or oblique (correlated) rotations, in order
to improve interpretability and scientific utility of factors. According to Tabachnick and
Fidell (2007), orthogonal rotations, such as quartimax and varimax methods, resulted in
easier interpretive solutions with the assumption of independent underlying constructs,
and oblique approaches, such as oblimax, quartimim, direct oblimin, and promax
methods, allowed factors to be correlated, but produced more difficult solutions to
describe and interpret. However, in practice, both approaches often resulted in very
similar solutions if the pattern of correlations (factor loadings) is literally clear; in other
words, "a stable solution tend[ed] to appear regardless of the methods of rotation used"
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007, p. 637). Furthermore, they cautioned that "it is important to
look at the rotated loading matrix to determine the number of varibles that load on each
factor" because "interpretation of factors defined by only one or two varaibles is
hazardous" (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007, p. 646). In a summation, all criteria were applied
to evaluate the adequacy of the principal components analysis.
Criteria for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). A structural equation modeling
(SEM) was employed to verify the construct validity of both CSI and ILS instruments for
CFA. Although SEM is often thought of as a confirmatory technique for nonexperimental or correctional designs to estimate, evaluate, and modify models, there are
some advantages to using SEM because it is "the only analysis that allows complete and
simultaneous tests of all relationships when the phenomena of interest are complex and
multidimensional" (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007, p. 679). However, how to determine the
adequacy of a structural equation model matching the observed data was found difficult
85
for researchers to draw a conclusion based on different aspects of the results. Normally, a
good model fit is indicated by a non-significant X2, derived from different estimation
procedures affected by several factors, including (a) sample sizes, (b) nonnormality of the
distribution of errors/factors, and (c) violation of the assumption of independence of
factors and errors (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Besides X goodness-of-fit statistics,
numerous measures of model fit have been proposed to supplement the assessment of X
(Kline, 2005; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Table 16 presents various statistical indexes of
overall model fit and the recommended cutoff values of each type of fit index in the SEM
literature.
Some commonly applied model fit indexes are described in the following list:
1.
CMIN/DF, proposed by Wheaton, Muthen, Alwin, and Summers in 1977, is

the minimum discrepancy divided by its degree of freedom. Although there
was no clear-cut guideline about minimally accepted value, different
researchers had recommended using ratios as low as 2.0 or as high as 5.0 to
indicate a reasonable fit (Hooper, Coughlan, & Mullen, 2008; Kline, 2005;
Marsh & Hocevar, 1985; Stevens, 2002; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007)
2.
The root mean square error of approximation (RMESA), developed by

Browne and Cudeck in 1993, is considered a "badness-of-fit" index to
estimate "the amount of error of approximation per model degree of freedom
[compared to a perfect (saturated) model] and take sample size into account"
(Kline, 2005, p. 139). Hu and Bentler (1999) suggested an indication of a
value of 0.06 or less for a good-fitting model. A general rule of thumb of
RMSEA is: good fit (< .05), reasonable fit (.05 ~ .08), mediocre fit (.08
86
~ .10), and poor fit (> .10) (Hooper et al., 2008; Kline, 2005; Stevens, 2002;
Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).
Table 16
Descriptions and Criteria of Model Fit Indices
Fit index
PRATIO
Descriptions
Parsimony ratio (James, Mulaik & Brett, 1982;
Mulaik, et al, 1989)
Criteria
> 0.50, fair
Absolute fit indexes

CMIN/DF
RMR
The minimum discrepancy divided by its degree of

freedom (Wheaton, Muthen, Alwin, & Summers,
1977)
Goodness-of-Fit Index (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1981)
Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (Joreskog &
Sorbom, 1981)
Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (Mulaik et al.,
1989)
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
(Browne & Cudeck, 1993)
Root Mean Square Residual
SRMR
Standardized Root Mean Square Residual
GFI
AGFI
PGFI
RMSEA
2-5, fair*
> 0.90, good

> 0.90, good
> 0.50, fair
< 0.06, good**
< 0.08, fair*
Smaller value
suggests a good fit.
<0.10, desired*
Predictive fit indexes

ECVI
AIC
Expected Cross-Validation Index

Akaike Information Criterion (Akaike, 1987)
CAIC
Consistent Akaike Information Criterion (Bozdogan,

1987)
Value close to 0 is
ideal.**
Incremental (Comparative) fit indexes

NFI
NNFI
PNFT
PCFI
CFI
IFI
Normed Fit Index (Bentler & Bonett, 1980)

Non-Normed Fit Index (Bentler & Bonett, 1980)
Parsimony-Adjusted Normed Fit Index (James et al.,
1982)
Parsimony Comparative Fit Index (James et al.,
1982)
Comparative Fit Index (Bentler, 1988)
Incremental Fit Index
> 0.90, good

> 0.80, good
> 0.50, fair
> 0.50, fair
> 0.90, good*
> 0.90, good
Note. Adapted from "Structural equation modeling: Guidelines for determining modelfit,"by D. Hooper, J.
Coughlan, and M. R. Mullen, 2008, The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), p. 53-60.
* Adapted from Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2rd ed.), by R. B. Kline, 2005. **
Adapted from Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.), by B. G. Tabachnick and L. S. Fidell, 2007.
87
There are five indexes for baseline comparisons of model fit, such as: (a)
normed fit index (NFI), (b) relative fit index (RFI), (c) incremental fit index
(IFl), (d) Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), and (e) comparative fit index (CFI). The
criteria are explained in the following details:
The Bentler-Bonett normed fit index (NFI) yields a descriptive fit index
of the estimated model, ranging between 0.0 and 1.0, by comparing the
X2 value of two models (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). The recommended
cutoff value by Bentler and Bonett was 0.90 (Hooper et al., 2008), but
several scholars recently suggested that an indication of a good-fitting
model should be NFI ^ .95 (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Tabachnick & Fidell,
2007).
Bollen's (1986) relative fit index (RFI) is obtained from the NFI by
substituting F/d for F, and a value close to 1.0 indicates a very good fit.
Incremental fit index (IFl) (Bollen, 1989) ranges from 0.0 for the null/
uncorrected model to 1.0 for a perfect fit in order to address the
problem of the large variability in the NNFI. An IFl value greater than
0.9 is recommended.
The Tucker-Lewis coefficient (TLI), also known as the non-normed fit

index (NNFI), is used to adjust the NFI incorporating the degree of the
freedom of the model but sometimes can lie outside of the 0.0 - 1.0
range (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). TLI values close to 1.0 indicate a
very good fit.
88
The Bentler comparative fit index (CFT) is a revised form of the NFI
and employs the noncentral X2 distribution with the noncentrality
parameter estimate for the baseline model. The CFT is normed to the 0.0
- 1.0 range with values close to 1.0 indicating good fit (Tabachnick &
Fidell, 2007). A cutoff value of CFI > .90 was initially advanced
(Hooper et al., 2008; Kline, 2005), but recent studies have shown that a
value greater than 0.95 is needed in order to ensure that misspecified
models are not accepted (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Today, CFI, which is
least effected by sample size compared to other measures, has become
one of the most popular reported fit indexes (Hooper et al., 2008;
Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).
4.
Both the root mean square residual (RMR) and the standardized root mean
square residual (SRMR) are based on covariance residuals to calculate the
average differences between observed and predicted covariance models
(Hooper et al., 2008; Kline, 2005; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Since small
RMR values indicate good-fitting models, "increasingly higher values
represent worse fit (i.e., it is a badness-of-fit index)" (Kline, 2005, p. 141).
Similar to RMR, the SRMS values ranges from zero to 1.0 with well-fitting
models obtaining values less than 0.05 (Hooper et al., 2008). However,
cutoff values as high as 0.10 are generally considered favorable (Kline,
2005), while a desired value of 0.08 or less is recommended by Hu and
Bentler (1999).
89
5.
Parsimony ratio (PRATIO), PNFI, and PCF1, developed by Mulaik et al. in

1989, are parsimony-adjusted measures for degrees of freedom based on
previous fit indexes. The PRATIO is the ratio of the degree of freedom in
one's model being evaluated as a fraction of the degree of freedom in the
independence model. The PRATIO is used in the calculation of PNFI (based
on NFI) and PCFI (based on CFI) in the forms of PNFI = NFI * PRATIO
and PCFI = CFI * PRATO. Although no threshold levels have been
recommended for these indexes, Mulaik et al. did note that "it is possible to
obtain parsimony fit indices within the .50 region while other goodness of fit
indices achieve values over .90" (as cited in Hooper et al., 2008, p. 55).
6.
The Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and the Consistent Version ofAIC
(CAIC) are the second form of parsimony-adjusted fit index and used when
comparing non-nested or non-hierarchical models estimated with the same
data for cross-validation. Smaller values indicate a good-fitting,
parsimonious model with the limitation of sample size more than 200
(Hooper et al., 2008; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).
Generally speaking, good-fitting models produced consistent results on different

indexes, and the issue of which indexes to report truly depends on the preference of
researchers or journal editors. Tabachnick and Fidell (2007) said that the most frequently
reported fit indexes were the CFI and RMSEA, and the AIC and CAIC were helpful
while comparing non-nested models. Hu and Bentler (1999) recommended a two-index
presentation format, including SRMR with a comparative fit index. McDonald and Ho
reviewed the related literature and found that the most commonly reported fit indexes
90
were the CFI, GFI, NFI, and the NNFI (as cited in Hooper et al., 2008). Kline (2005)
suggested that a minimal set of fit indexes need to be reported and interpreted, including
(a) the model chi-square, (b) the RMSEA with its 90% confidence interval, (c) the
Bentler CFI, and (d) the SRMR. Therefore, both the X2 goodness-of-fit statistics and
various model fit indexes, including RMSEA, SRMR, CFI, NFI, PCFI, PNFI, and
PRATIO, were applied in this study to evaluate the adequacy of a structural equation
model.
PCA for the 48 items of the CS1. Participants were asked to evaluate 48
statements, shown in Appendix A, using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1
(Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). The descriptive statistics of these 48 variables
are presented in Table 17, and PCA was performed to combine and reduce the number of
variables into components. Assessment of univariate normality was obtained through
inspection of skewness and kurtosis. Kline (2005) suggested that:
the ratio of the value of an unstandardized skew index or kurtosis index over its
standard error is interpreted in large samples as a z test of the null hypothesis that
there is no population skew or kurtosis, respectively. ... Variables with absolute
values of the skew[ness] index greater than 3.0 seem to be described as
"extremely" skewed. ... There is less consensus about the kurtosis index,
howeverabsolute values from about 8.0 to over 20.0 of this index have been
described as indicating "extreme" kurtosis. A conservative rule of thumb, then,
seems to be that absolute values of the kurtosis index greater than 10.0 may
suggest a problem and values greater than 20.0 may indicate a more serious one.
(Kline, 2005, p. 50)
The univariate normality distributions of all items tested using PCA in this study were all
close to normal, and no transformations were performed (see Appendix J).
91
Table 17
Descriptive Statistics of the 48 Variables in the Consumer Style Inventory (CSI)
Item
CSI01
CSI02
CSI03
CSI04
CSI05
CSI06
CSI07
CSI08
CSI09
CSIIO
CSI11
CSI12
CSI13
CSI14
CSI15
CSI16
CSI17
CSI18
CSI19
CSI20
CSI21
CSI22
CSI23
CSI24
CSI25
CSI26
CSI27
CSI28
CSI29
CSI30
CSI31
CSI32
CSI33
CSI34
CSI35
CSI36
N
770
769
769
769
767
766
770
767
767
770
770
767
769
767
767
769
767
770
770
767
770
767
769
768
768
767
769
769
770
767
768
768
769
765
767
769
Range M in. Max. Mean Mode SD Skewness

.810
-.989
4
1[
5
4.23
5
.746
-.851
4
1I
5
4.27
5
.854
-.183
4
]
5
4
3.79
-.402
4
]L
3.68
4
.922
5
.968
.473
4
][
5
2.54
2
-.252
4
]
5
3.71
4
.849
.993
.168
4
]I
2.95
3
5
.997
-.234
4
1
5
3.46
3
.102
5
.892
4
1i
2.76
3
4
1
5
.912
.240
2.35
3
.913
5
3
.232
4
1
2.55
.867
3
-.016
4
]
5
2.78
.913
-.287
4
][
5
3.18
3
.097
4
]
5
.812
2.53
3
.914
4
11
5
2.72
3
.160
4
]i
.983
5
2.68
3
.150
4
]
5
3.12
3
1.004
-.136
4
.871
-.465
4
]
5
3.58
4
4
]
5
.928
-.819
4.01
2
.958
.767
4
1
5
2.08
4
]I
5
4
.943
-.441
3.80
4
1I
.534
5
2.11
2
.912
4
]I
5
.053
2.86
3
.932
4
]1
5
3
.947
2.85
.086
4
1
5
4
-.252
3.76
.835
4
]I
5
3
.855
.130
3.45
4
11
5
4.02
4
.831
-.485
4
][
5
3.21
.075
3
.878
4
][
4
1.037
-.414
5
3.46
4
11
5
3.32
3
1.024
-.253
4
1I
4
5
-.252
3.70
.870
4
]I
5
2.84
3
-.050
.911
4
1[
5
3.42
3
.998
-.235
4
11
5
2.98
3
.957
.168
4
11
5
4
3.30
1.050
-.138
4
]i
5
4
-.841
4.17
.805
Kurtosis
1.145
.843
-.389
.016
-.057
-.152
-.349
-.258
-.018
-.183
-.142
-.040
-.156
-.076
.088
-.201
-.308
.240
.394
.339
-.190
-.060
-.141
-.191
.026
-.075
-.219
.193
-.358
-.383
-.203
-.104
-.422
-.276
-.689
.737
continued
Item
CSI37
CSI38
CSI39
CSI40
CSI41
CSI42
CSI43
CSI44
CSI45
CSI46
CSI47
CSI48
N
767
769
770
766
768
770
770
769
766
767
767
769
Range Min. Max. Mean Mode

4
1
5
3.84
4
4
1
5
3.78
4
4
1
5
4
3.69
5
4
1
3.13
3
4
1
4
5
3.95
4
4
1
5
3.84
4
4
1
5
3.66
4
1
5
3
3.11
4
1
5
4
3.75
4
1
5
3.55
3
4
4
1
5
3.76
4
1
5
3
3.31
SD Skewness
.890
-.664
-.339
.809
-.485
.820
.169
.767
.731
-.368
.814
-.620
.758
-.398
.047
.937
-.435
.896
-.053
.860
-.214
.836
.892
.163
Kurtosis
.500
.154
.495
.412
.193
.834
.200
-.240
-.009
.057
-.289
-.087
Note. N =770.
Initial data were available from 770 samples with all missing values replaced with
mean values. Distribution of all 48 variables was examined for skewness and kurtosis.
Univariate outliers were identified through z-score inspection of each variable. Based on
Kline's (2005) recommendation, no univariate outliers were identified through absolute
kurtosis z-scores greater than 8.0. Although many variables were negatively skewed and a
few were positively skewed, no deletion or transformation of variables was performed
since the CSI was used and published already. The skewed distribution for variables
suggested the possibility of curvilinearity for some pairs of variables. With 48 items,
however, examination of all pairwise scatterplots was impractical. Figure 4 shows the
plot expected to be among the worst-between the strongest negative skewness
(CSI01/CSI02) and strongest positive skewness (CSI20/CSI22). Even though the plots
were far from pleasing and showed departure from linearity, there was no evidence of
true curvilinearity. Multivariate outliers were identified based on a = .001, df= 48, and
critical X = 86.661. With this criterion, 58 cases were identified as multivariate outliers,
93
leaving a sample size of 712 non-outlying cases. However, in comparison to the initial
PC A results with varimax rotation on a sample size of 712 and 770 cases, the researcher
found that both analyses revealed the same 12-factor solutions with the identical items
loading within each individual factor. Therefore, all 770 cases were kept for further
analysis.
1. Getting vary high or geotf quality products li von; important to m.
33. Shopping wwt*i my dm*
Figure 4. Scatterplots check for linearity among selective variables.

The 48 items of the CSI were subjected to PCA. Prior to conducting PCA, the
suitability of data set for factor analysis was examined by determining sample size and
the strength of the relationships among items. The rule of thumb about sample size
generally is: the larger, the better. Tabachnick and Fidell (2007) recommended that at
least 300 cases or a 5 to 1 ratio of subjects per variable were adequate for factor analysis.
Pallant (2007) also gave a reference to Nunnaly's suggestion for a 10 to 1 ratio.
Accordingly, the data set of 770 samples was considered eligible for factor analysis.
Another concern regarding the interrelationships among items was addressed
through an inspection of correlation matrix for evidence of coefficient greater than 0.3
(Pallant, 2007; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007) and many coefficients above this level were
found. Two additional statistical calculations generated in SPSS were used to assess the
factorability: Bartlett's Test of Sphericity (Bartlett, 1954) and Kaiser-Mayer-Oklin (KMO)
measure of sampling adequacy (Kaiser, 1970). The KMO index was 0.855, exceeding the
recommended value of 0.6, and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity, p < .001, reached statistical
significance at p < .05 to support the appropriateness of the correlation matrix (Mertler &
Vannatta, 2004; Pallant, 2007; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).
Furthermore, some techniques were implemented to assist in the decision
concerning the number of factors to retain, including Kaiser's criterion, scree test, and
parallel analysis (Mertler & Vannatta, 2004; Pallant, 2007; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).
Kaiser criterion used an eigenvalue of 1.0 and above as a cutoff point to retain factors for
further investigation, and the eigenvalue showed the amount of the total variance
explained by that factor. Twelve components were revealed with eigenvalues exceeding
one by PCA with both orthogonal and oblique rotation methods, explaining 15.32%,
8.91%, 6.33%, 4.68%, 4.16%, 3.54%, 3.23%, 2.84%, 2.51%, 2.41%, 2.35%, and 2.23%
of the variance, respectively. Using Catell's scree test, an inspection of the scree plot,
shown in Figure 5, found breaks between the seventh and ninth components at which the
shape of the curves changed directions and became horizontal. This further supported the
results of parallel analysis (PA) produced by the Monte Carlo PCA program. The results
(Table 18) illustrate only eight components with eigenvalues exceeding the
corresponding criterion eigenvalues obtained from a randomly generated data set of the
same size (48 variables x 770 subjects).
95
Figure 5. Scree plot for PCA on 48-item CSI scores.

Note. N = 770
Table 18
Comparison of Eigenvalues from Principal Components Analysis and Criterion
Eigenvalues from Parallel Analysis for the 48-item CSI Instrument
Component
1 (PCS1)
2 (PCS2)
3 (PCS3)
4 (PCS4)
5 (PCS5)
6 (PCS6)
7 (PCS7)
8 (PCS8)
9
10
11
12
Actual Eigenvalue
from PCA
7.351
4.278
3.039
2.246
1.998
1.698
1.549
1.363
1.204
1.157
1.125
1.070
Criterion Eigenvalue from

Parallel Analysis
1.516
1.465
1.427
1.395
1.369
1.339
1.315
1.291
1.267
1.244
1.223
1.201
Decision
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Reject
Reject
Reject
Reject
Note. N =770
To aid in the interpretation of these eight components, both varimax rotation and
direct oblimin rotation were performed. Table 19 compares the initial results from PCA
using orthogonal varimax rotation and oblique direct oblimin rotation methods with
proposed reliabilities. The rotated solution revealed the presence of simple structure with
96
all components showing a number of strong loadings while the loadings of some
variables fell substantially upon more than one component. Consequently, except for
items 8, 30, and 40, variables loaded in each individual component through both rotation
methods were very similar, indicating a strongly clear pattern of correlation within scales.
Table 19
Comparison between Varimax Rotated Solution and Direct Oblimin Rotated Solution of
the 48-item CSI instrument
PCS
1
3
4
Varimax Rotation
CSI
Eigen%of
variables
values variance
Reliability
7.351
15.315
0.809
4.278
8.913
0.779
3.039
2.246
6.332
4.680
0.796
0.752
7, 8, 9, 10,
11,12,13,
14,32
25, 26, 27,
31,45,46,
47,48
1,2,3,4,6
5, 19, 20,
21,22,24
Direct Oblimin Rotation

EigenReliCSI
%of
values variance ability
variables
7,9,10,11,
12,13, 14,
32
25, 26, 27,
31,45,46,
47,48
1,2,3,4,6
5, 19, 20,
21,22,24
7.351
15.315
0.800
4.278
8.913
0.779
1.998
3.039
4.163
6.332
0.796
0.752
15, 16,17,
18,28
1.998
4.163
0.800
8, 15, 16,
17, 18, 28
1.549
3.227
0.798
36, 37, 38,

39,40,41
1.698
3.537
0.674
36, 37, 38,

39,41
1.698
3.537
0.740
33, 34, 35,

42,43
1.549
3.227
0.690
30, 33, 34,

35,42, 43
2.246
4.680
0.678
23, 29, 44,

30
1.363
2.839
0.470
23, 29, 44,

40
1.363
2.839
0.320
Note. PCS, profiles of consumer decision-making styles. Different variables resulted in the same
component are bolded. Lower reliabilities of each component are italicized.
Supported by the above results and previous CSI literature, the researcher chose
the eight-factor solution with the varimax rotation method, which was the most
commonly utilized method for interpretation (Canabal, 2002; Durvasula et al., 1993; Fan
& Xiao, 1998; Hafstrom et al., 1992; Hiu et al., 2001; C. Lin et al., 2001; Lysonski et al.,
1996; Mitchell & Walsh, 2004; Mokhlis & Salleh, 2009; G. B. Sproles & Kendall, 1986).
97
Hence, the PCA revealed an eight-component solution with eigenvalues exceeding one,
explaining a total of 49.01% of the variance respectively, including the following:
Component 1 (PCS1), named Brand-Conscious Shopper, contributing 15.32% of the
variance; Component 2 (PCS2), named Price-Value Conscious Shopper, contributing
8.91% of the variance; Component 3 (PCS3), named High-Quality Conscious Shopper,
contributing 6.33% of the variance; Component 4 (PCS4), named Time-Energy
Conserving and Recreational Shopper, contributing 4.68% of the variance; Component 5
(PCS5), named Novelty-Fashion Shopper, contributing 4.16% of the variance;
Component 6 (PCS6), named Habitual/Brand-Loyal Shopper, contributing 3.54% of the
variance; Component 7 (PCS7), named Confused-by-Overchoice Shopper, contributing
3.23% of the variance; and Component 8 (PCS8), named Impulsive Shopper, contributing
2.84% of the variance. Table 20 presents a summary of the factor loadings for PCA with
varimax rotation and CFA for consumer decision-making styles (PCS) from CSI.
Table 20
Summary of Revised Factor Loadings from PCA with Varimax Rotation and CFA of
Eight-Factor Solution of the Consumer Decision-making Styles
Variables
PCS 1: Brand-Conscious Shopper (9)
"1
12. Nice department and specialty stores offer me

the best products.
11.1 think that the higher the price of a product,
the better its quality.
9. Well-known national brands are the best for
me.
10. The more expensive brands are usually my
choices.
14. The most advertised brands are usually very
good choices.
13.1 prefer buying the best-selling brands.
.707
Component
3 4 5 6
.149
.106
.697
Conun8~
y
una,it
CFA
.542
.638
.127.518
.590
.211
.111
.517
.682
.649-.277 .127
.218
.575
.718
.166.430
.490
.460
.521
.668
.622
.603
.150 .211
continued
98
Component
Variables
1 2
PCS 1: Brand-Conscious Shopper (9) (continued)
Comm6
s"""8'^
32.1 shop famous international or designer .556 -.118.146

.281
.172
brands.
8. It is necessary to know and understand .352
.316 -.246.312 .173
.428
famous brands.
7. I shop quickly, buying the first product J07 -.143.264 .261
.145
.227 .333
or brand I find that seems good
enough.
PCS 2: Price-Value Conscious Shopper (8)
25.1 buy as much as possible at sale prices.
.684
.108
CFA
.520
.379
.191 .533
.626
47.1 spend time on shopping to save

.678
-.144
.101 .153 -.277 .602
money.
26. The lower-priced products are usually
.657 -.135 .220
-.120.251 .588
my choices.
27.1 look carefully to find products which
.626 .118
.142 .154 .119
.476
are the best value for my money.
48.1 prefer lower-priced products to
-.130.601
.176
.422
expensive or fashionable products.
45.1 carefully evaluate the price of each
.584
-.165 .386
product.
31.1 take time to shop carefully for the
.564 .153 -.173 .188
.176
.443
best buys.
46. Not buying the first product you see is
.393 .152
.203 -.312.324
a good principle.
.677
PCS 3: High-Quality Conscious Shopper (5)

3. In general, I usually try to buy the best .151
.765
.122
overall quality.
2. When it comes to purchasing products,
.144 .731 -.109
.104
I try to make the very best or perfect
choice.
4. I make special effort to choose the very
.713
.139
best quality products.
1. Getting very high or good quality
.700 -.129
.133
products is very important to me.
6. My standards and expectations for
.180
.598
products I buy are very high.
.487
.619
.510
.521
.561
.399
.634
.762
.584
.702
.544
.652
.131 .552
.657
.417
.560
.643
.721
-.105 .617
.757
.111 .526
.535
21. Shopping is one of the enjoyable

.197 .126 .132 -.671.144 .111
.223 .606
activities in my life.
5. I don't give much thought or care to my
-.268.426 -.251
.137 .355
purchase.
19. It is fun to buy something new,
.166 .251 -.365.106 .200 .131 .334 .404
.719
PCS 4: Time-Energy Conserving/Recreational Shopper (6)

22. Shopping wastes my time.
.776
20. Shopping is not a pleasant activity to
me.
24,1 make my shopping trips fast.
.758
.697
-.142.125
-.125
.372
.414
99
Component
Variables
PCS 5: Novelty-Fashion Shopper (5)
16.1 keep my wardrobe up-to-date with the
changing fashions.
17. Fashionable and attractive styling is
very important to me.
15.1 usually own the newest/most
fashionable style of outfits or products.
18. To get variety, I shop in different stores
and choose different brands.
28.1 am a perfectionist about shopping.
1 2
Comm6
s" " 18 "'?
CFA
.718
.872
.124 .679
.751
.757
.727
.864
.247 -.215 .573
.148 .481
.479
.418
.340
.336
.179
.133 .774
.664
.719
.164
.142 .720
.589
.701
.134
.681
.510
.564
.206 .107 -.187
.494 .155 .161 .388
.503
.106 .175 -.306.168 .400 .205 .209 .410
.521
.115 .118
.077
.289
.780
.234
-.107.760 .105
.348
. 173 .182 .308
PCS 6: Habitual/Brand-loyal Shopper (6)

38. Once I find a product or brand I like, I .102
stick with it.
37.1 buy my favorite brands over and over. .109
39.1 go to the same stores each time I
. 128
shop.
41.1 like to shop in the stores that I am
familiar with.
36. Buying new stuff is like giving myself
a gift.
40.1 change brands I buy regularly.
.247
.126 -.355
.327 .338
PCS 7: Confused-by-Overchoke Shopper (5)

35. The more I learn about products, the
.755
harder it is to make the best choices.
34. Sometimes, it is hard for me to choose .120
.119
.735 .107
which stores to shop in.
33.1 often feel confused with so many
.146
.117 .694
brands to choose from.
42. My family or friends have the most
.221 .135 -.108-.154
.426 .200
influence on my choices of products.
43.1 try to purchase things based on my
.209
-.150 -.136 .159 .330 .249
friends' recommendations.
PCS 8: Impulsive Shopper (4)
29.1 am impulsive when purchasing/1
-.181
-.187.200 .147 .272 .555
purchase out of impulsiveness.
44. When seeing something I like, I buy it .161
.188
.163 .183
.530
immediately.
30. After making careless purchases, I
.145
.387 .398
often wish I had not.
23.1 enjoy shopping just for the fun of it.
.133
.234
.144 .252
.588
.656
.585
.724
.527
.640
.340
.390
.295
.335
.513
.782
.412
.420
.336
.546
.164
.015
Note. Major loadings for each item are bolded. Values in Community and CFA less than 0.3 are italicized.
100
CFAfor the 48 items of the CSI. In order to confirm the eight-factor solution
from PCA, the CFA results of the first attempt using 48 items showed that the factor
loadings of items 23 and 40 were both less than 0.3 (0.015, 0.017), indicating that those
items did not fit well with the other items in their components. Therefore, both items 23
and 40 were omitted. The remaining 46 items with a total of 770 cases were tested again.
Figure 6 displays the structure of the confirmatory factor analysis of consumer decisionmaking styles. The chi-square of the CFA was 3248.771, df= 961, andp-value was less
than 0.001 (< .05). The value of chi-square is easily influenced by the sample size.
Moreover, other criteria to evaluate the model fit were examined. CIMN/DF is the
minimum discrepancy divided by its degrees of freedom. According to Marsh and
Hocevar (1985), the general rule of thumb is to use ratios within the range of 2 to 5 as an
indicator of a reasonable fit. The CFI is one index for baseline comparisons of model fit,
ranging from 0.0 to 1.0. Hu and Bentler stated that "CFI values greater than .95 are often
indicative of good-fitting model" (as cited in Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007, p. 717).
Tabachnick and Fidell (2007) referred to Browne and Cudeck's RMSEA value as an
estimation of "the lack of fit in a model compared to a perfect (saturated) model" (p. 717).
Generally speaking, a RMSEA value of 0.06 or less suggested a good-fitting model
relative to the model degrees of freedom, while a value of 0.05 to 0.08 recommended a
reasonable error of approximation as opposed to a RMSEA value greater than 0.10 as a
poor fit (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). In sum, these criteria included CIMN/DF = 3.381
(2 ~ 5), RMR = 0.60, GFI = 0.826 (< .90), CFI = 0.789 (< .90), NFI = 0.727 (< .90),
PGFI = 0.734 (> .50), PCFI = 0.733 (> .50), PNFI = 0.675 (> .50), PRATIO = 0.929
(> .50), and RMSEA = 0.056 (< .06). Although the values of GFI, CFI and NFI were
slightly below the standards for good-fitting model, the overall results still indicated a
reasonably acceptable model fit of the consumer decision-making styles with further
modification.
Figure 6. The structure of confirmatory factor analysis for Consumer Decision-Making

Styles (46-item).
Reliability of the Consumer Styles Inventory (CSI). Reliability is used to

verify whether the results from an instrument of studies on repeated administrations are
nearly the same or stable, as well as how free it is from random errors and inconsistencies
(Creswell, 2005; Hittleman & Simon, 2005; Pallant, 2007; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).
Without a high reliability value, the results and conclusions drawn from a study should
not be generalized and might be questionable because of ambiguous and unclear
instruments used, unstandardized and different administration procedures, as well as
participants' conditions on tests (Rudner, as cited in Creswell, 2005).
Pallant (2007) stated that "two frequently used indicators of a scale's reliability
are test-retest reliability, and internal consistency reliability," but there are also other
forms of reliability used by researchers, such as interrater reliability, alternate-forms
reliability, equivalency reliability, and stability reliability (Creswell, 2005; Hittleman &
Simon, 2005; Kline, 2005; Orcher, 2007). Among them, the most commonly reported
estimate of reliability is Cronbach's coefficient alpha (a), which "measures internal
consistency reliability, the degree to which responses are consistent across the items
within a single measure" (Kline, 2005, p. 59). This statistic, ranging from 0.0 to 1.0,
provided "an indication of the average correlation among all of the items that make up
the scale" (Pallant, 2007, p. 6). Although there are no golden numbers for coefficients in
reliability scores to be considered as good, Kline (2005) provided some guidelines as
follows: "generally, reliability coefficients around .90 are considered excellent, values
around .80 are very good, and values around .70 are adequate" (p. 59).
According to Cronbach (1951), coefficient values greater than 0.5 were suggested
as reliable, 0.7 or above as highly reliable, and 0.3 or below as unreliable and subject to
103
rejection. Ideally, the most generally accepted Cronbach's alpha value of 0.7 is
considered as appropriate and suitable for instruments, and a value above 0.8 as
preferable (Field, 2005; Pallant, 2007; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). But within some
psychological constructs or short scales, low Cronbach's values (e.g. 0.5) could be more
appropriate to report with additional information providing the mean inter-item
correlation of the items ranging from 0.20 to 0.40 (Briggs & Cheek, as cited in Pallant,
2007).
Furthermore, checking any items with negative phrasing was another
consideration, and those items needed to be reversed before proceeding reliability (Field,
2005; Pallant, 2007). Because reliability is an assessment of the degree of consistency
between multiple measurements of a variable, a summed scale or construct is commonly
formed by combining several individual variables into a single composite measurement.
Field (2005) mentioned that "for factor analysis, the reversed phrasing doesn't matter, all
that happens is you get a negative factor loading for any reversed items. ... However, in
reliability analysis these reverse-scored items do make a difference" (p. 669).
In addition to Cronbach's alpha value, two other statistics provided in the SPSS
output to determine the reliability of the items within a scale are Corrected Item-Total
Correlation and Cronbach 's Alpha if Item Deleted values. The corrected item-total
correlation values suggest an indication of the degree to which each item associated with
the overall score from the scale; coefficients above 0.3 are encouraging (Field, 2005;
Pallant, 2007). The values labeled Cronbach's alpha if item deleted reflect "the impact of
removing each item from the scale" (Pallant, 2007, p. 98); that is, "any items that result in
104
substantially greater values of a than overall a may need to be deleted from the scale to
improve its reliability" (Field, 2005, p. 673).
Based on the results of the first attempt using PCA with varimax rotation, the 48
items of this study produced eight components labeled as different Profiles of Consumer
Styles (PCS), including brand-conscious shopper (PCSl), price-value conscious shopper
(PCS2), high-quality conscious shopper (PCS3), time-energy conserving and
recreational shopper (PCS4), novelty-fashion shopper (PCS5), habitual/brand-loyal
shopper (PCS6), confused-by-overchoice shopper (PCS7), and impulsive shopper
(PCS8). Compared to the previous research results (C. Lin et al., 2001), eight
components were identified as similar to those in the original findings with almost the
same items clustered into the same components, although Component Fourtimeenergy conserving and recreational shopper (PCS4)originally was recognized as
recreational/hedonistic shopper.
As shown in Table 21, the reliability of all individual items in the CSI instrument
reached 0.7, although some factor dimensions had low reliability, such as impulsive
shopper (PCS8, a = 0.470) and habitual/brand-loyal shopper (PCS6, a = 0.674). Within
component PCS8, the corrected item-total correlation for item 23I enjoy shopping just
for the fun of itwas 0.042, which indicated it was not highly related to the other three
items; and the Cronbach's alpha value showed that if this item were deleted, the
reliability of PCS8 would increase from 0.470 to 0.587. Even though the Cronbach's
alpha value only exceeded the level of 0.5 with the range of inter-item correlations from
0.292 to 0.405, the results were still reliable according to Briggs and Cheek's (1986)
105
recommendation and also validated that the low communality (0.164) and factor loading
(0.252) of item 23 did not fit well with other items in its component.
Table 21
Reliability of Profiles of Consumer Styles from the 48-item CSI Instrument
Variables
12. Nice department and specialty stores offer me the best
products.
11.1 think that the higher the price of a product, the better its
quality.
9. Well-known national brands are the best for me.
Cronbach's
Alpha
Corrected Cronbach's
Item-Total
Alpha if
Correlation Item Deleted
.809
.588
.780
.521
.788
.632
.774
10. The more expensive brands are usually my choices.
.627
.775
14. The most advertised brands are usually very good choices.
.441
.798
13.1 prefer buying the best-selling brands.
.471
.795
32.1 shop famous international or designer brands.
.541
.786
8. It is necessary to know and understand famous brands.
.426
.801
7.1 shop quickly, buying the first product or brand I find that
seems good enough.
.329
.814
25.1 buy as much as possible at sale prices.
.552
.744
47.1 spend time on shopping to save money.
.608
.735
26. The lower-priced products are usually my choices.

27.1 look carefully to find products which are the best value
for my money.
48.1 prefer lower-priced products to expensive or fashionable
products.
45.1 carefully evaluate the price of each product.
.437
.763
.521
.749
.309
.758
.463
.759
31.1 take time to shop carefully for the best buys.
.468
.758
46. Not buying the first product you see is a good principle.
.345
.778
.657
.730
.620
.746
.575
.759
.558
.763
.487
.785

3. In general, I usually try to buy the best overall quality.
2. When it comes to purchasing products, I try to make the
very best or perfect choice.
4.1 make special effort to choose the very best quality
products.
1. Getting very high or good quality products is very
important to me.
6. My standards and expectations for products I buy are very
high.
.779
.796
continued
106
Variables
PCS 4: Time-Energy Conserving/Recreational Shopper (6)
Cronbach's
Alpha
Corrected Cronbach's
Item-Total
Alpha if
Correlation Item Deleted
.752
22. Shopping wastes my time.
.611
.684
20. Shopping is not a pleasant activity to me.
.629
.677
24.1 make my shopping trips fast.
.466
.723
21. Shopping is one of the enjoyable activities in my life.
.410
.683
.329
.760
.331
.758
.717
.715
17. Fashionable and attractive styling is very important to me.
.686
.725
15.1 usually own the newest/most fashionable style of outfits

or products.
18. To get variety, I shop in different stores and choose
different brands.
28.1 am a perfectionist about shopping.
.714
.719
.477
.792
.334
.831
38. Once I find a product or brand I like, I stick with it.
.588
.565
37.1 buy my favorite brands over and over.
.547
.576
39.1 go to the same stores each time I shop.
.491
.600
41.1 like to shop in the stores that I am familiar with.
.407
.632
36. Buying new stuff is like giving myself a gift.
.386
.638
40.1 change brands I buy regularly.
.037
.742
.518
.605
.552
.590
.468
.629
.378
.666
.309
.689
.405
.253
.292
.379
30. After making careless purchases, I often wish I had not.
.365
.299
23.1 enjoy shopping just for the fun of it.
042
.587
5.1 don't give much thought or care to my purchase.

19. It is fun to buy something new, interesting, and exciting.
16.1 keep my wardrobe up-to-date with the changing fashions.
PCS 7: Confused-by-Overchoice Shopper (5)

35. The more I learn about products, the harder it is to make
the best choices.
34. Sometimes, it is hard for me to choose which stores to
shop in.
33.1 often feel confused with so many brands to choose from.
.800
.674
.690
42. My family or friends have the most influence on my

choices of products.
43.1 try to purchase things based on my friends'
recommendations.
29.1 am impulsive when purchasing/1 purchase out of
impulsiveness.
44. When seeing something I like, I buy it immediately.
.470
Note. Corrected item-total correlations below 0.2 are italicized. If item deleted greater than the overall
Cronbach's alpha value are bolded and italicized.
107
In addition to item 23, item 40I change brands I buy regularlywas
problematic, too. It was a negative statement and was reversely scored. The corrected
item-total correlation was 0.037, demonstrating a very low interrelationship with other
items, and by deleting it, the Cronbach's alpha value of PCS6 would be enhanced from
0.674 to 0.742. Comparing two solutions from varimax and oblimin rotation of this study
(see Table 19), item 40 was grouped into different components and also suggested
inconsistency in the instrument. In the original findings (C. Lin et al., 2001), item 40 was
found under the component of habitual, brand-loyal orientation toward consumption
similar to PCS6, but the dissimilarity could have resulted from different participants.
Other awkward items were statement 28I am a perfectionist about shopping
in component PCS5 and statement 7I shop quickly, buying the first product or brand I
find that seems good enoughin component PCS 1. Both items had low values of
communality (0.340,0.333) and corrected item-total correlations (0.334, 0.329)
indicating weak correlations among other items. Furthermore, Cronbach's alpha value
recommended an increase from 0.80 to 0.831 in component PCS5 and from 0.809 to
0.814 in component PCS1 if those items were omitted. Cross-examined with the
findings of C. Lin, et al. (2001), item 28 was not found in the original novelty and
fashion consciousness dimension, nor was item 7 found in the original brand conscious
and price-equal-quality shopping scale. Therefore, the researcher decided to eliminate
items 7, 23, 28, and 40 from further analyses, and the overall reliability of PCS1, PCS5,
PCS6, and PCS8 was improved to 0.814, 0.831, 0.742, and 0.587. Thus, the factor
analysis with 44 items was conducted again. After performing the PCA, all factors were
summed and averaged into constructs for subsequent analyses.
108
Re-test of PCA for the 44 items of the CSI. These 44 items of the CSI
instrument were tested again for consistency and subsequent analysis. The factorability
was confirmed (i.e. the KMO value was 0.853, and the Bartlett's Test of Sphericity was
significant atp < .001). The second PCA with orthogonal varimax rotation found the
presence of eleven components with eigenvalues exceeding one, explaining 16.10%,
9.57%, 6.58%, 4.92%, 4.40%, 3.76%, 3.44%, 2.91%, 2.68%, 2.60%, and 2.37% of the
variance, respectively. Using Catell's (1966) scree test, an inspection of the scree plot,
shown in Figure 7, found breaks between the seventh and ninth components at which the
shape of the curves changed directions and became horizontal. This further supported the
results of parallel analysis (PA), shown in Table 22, and illustrated only eight
components with eigenvalues exceeding the corresponding criterion eigenvalues obtained
from a randomly generated data set of the same size (44 variables x 770 subjects). In
general, both PCA and CFA confirmed the construct validity of the CSI scales, except for
the inconsistency of four variables (7, 23, 28, and 40) which were excluded for further
analyses.
1iiiiiif""nt
1
i"""iii""I " " i "
Compontnrt Number
Figure 7. Scree plot for PCA on 44-item CSI scores.

Note. N =770
iiiriir
11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 3? 39 1 43
109
Table 22
Eigenvalues from Parallel Analysis for the 44-item CS1 Instrument
Component
1 (PCSl)
2 (PCS3)
3 (PCS5)
4 (PCS4)
5 (PCS2)
6 (PCS6)
7 (PCS7)
8 (PCS8)
9
10
11
Actual Eigenvalue
from PCA
7.085
4.212
2.894
2.165
1.938
1.654
1.513
1.282
1.179
1.140
1.042

Parallel Analysis
1.486
1.433
1.396
1.366
1.340
1.312
1.286
1.262
1.240
1.215
1.194
Decision
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Reject
Reject
Reject
Summary of the validity and reliability test of the CSI. As shown in Table 23,
the results of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis indicated that the CSI
instrument was well-constructed with four exceptions. Items 23 and 40 were excluded
due to insufficient factor loadings of less than 0.3 at CFA and low communities of less
than 0.3 within the PCS8 and PCS6 dimensions. Items 28 and 7 were disqualified
because of the following reasons: first, poor communities and item-total correlations
illustrated a weak interrelationship with other items; second, Cronbach's alpha values
suggested if items were removed from the scales, the reliability of PCS5 and PCSl would
improve noticeably. Therefore, PCA revealed that an eight-component solution explained
a total of 51.69% of the variance respectively, and the overall reliabilities of each
individual dimension were highly reliable (> .7), except for component PCS8 (> .5).
Consequently, some of the following inferential analyses were based on the constructs or
summated scales derived from the above results.
110
Table 23
Validity and Reliability of the 44-item CSI Instrument
Extracted
Component/Factor
Brand-Conscious Shopper
(PCS1)
Shopper (PCS2)
High-Quality Conscious
Shopper (PCS3)
Time-Energy Conserving
and Recreational Shopper
(PCS4)
Novelty-Fashion Shopper
(PCS5)
Habitual and Brand-Loyal
Shopper (PCS6)
Shopper (PCS7)
Impulsive Shopper (PCS8)
Eigenvalues
%of
variance
Cumulative
%
Cronbach's
alpha
7.085
16.103
16.103
.814
4.212
9.572
25.675
.779
2.894
6.578
32.253
.796
6 5, 19, 20, 21,

22,24
2.165
4.921
37.174
.752
1.938
4.403
41.578
.831
1.654
3.758
45.336
.740
1.513
3.438
48.774
.690
1.282
2.914
51.689
.586
Variables
8 8,9,10,11,
12,13, 14,
32
8 25, 26, 27,
31,45,46,
47,48
5 1,2,3,4,6
15, 16, 17,

18
5 36, 37, 38,
39,41
5 33, 34, 35,
42,43
3 29, 30,44
Note. N =770
Reliability of the Index of Learning Styles (ILS). The ILS instrument consisted
of 44 dichotomous questions (a or b) corresponding to one of four dimensions for
measuring students' tendencies based on the Felder-Silverman learning style model
(1988). Four learning styles were identified as follows: (a) active/reflective (Act/Ref,
AR), (b) sensing/intuitive (Sen/Int, SI), (c) visual/verbal (Vis/Vrb, VA), and (d)
sequential/global (Seq/Glo, SG). Both test-retest reliability and internal consistency
reliability were two major methods used to investigate by previous researchers on
undergraduates for the English version of the ILS instrument. The results are compared
and reported in Table 12.
Ill
Since this study was cross-sectional, Cronbach's coefficient alpha was used to
evaluate the internal consistency reliability of the ILS scores in each dimension. As for
the adapted Chinese version of the ILS instrument, Ku and Shen (2009) investigated the
reliability and validity of the instrument based on the database of 2,748 undergraduates in
Tamkang University. The Cronbach's alpha values of each dimension in their study were:
0.48 for the active-reflective scale, 0.53 for the sensing-intuitive scale, 0.52 for the
visual-verbal scale, and 0.41 for the sequential-global scale. Then, the current study
showed the reliability coefficients of each dimension were: 0.476 for the active-reflective
scale, 0.528 for the sensing-intuitive scale, 0.448 for the visual-verbal scale, and 0.387
for the sequential-global scale (see Table 24).
Compared to previous studies, the Cronbach's alpha score of the current study
presents a similar pattern as Ku and Shen (2009), even though the a values were lower
especially for the visual-verbal dimension. Table 24 illustrates the correlation among the
ILS items and identified the problematic items, within the same scales. If the leastcorrelated items, shown in underline, were deleted, the Cronbach's alpha value would
increase. However, instead of eliminating the least-correlated items, the study retained
the original structure of the ILS by investigating the causes behind them in order to
provide a meaningful contribution to related research. Therefore, factor analysis and
SEM were employed to examine the degrees and correlations between factors and items.
112
Table 24
Correlations among the ILS Items
If item deleted
g
E.
2
ff
g
<
P W
Ssr
g
rt
-.52
-.27
-.20
-.17
-.06
-.69
-.06
-.80
-.58
-.61
-.42
16.211
15.153
16.344
15.804
16.552
15.564
15.013
16.192
15.888
15.008
16.132
ti Q
3
J? o
o g
E. a
.472
.426
.474
.451
.476
.441
.411
.463
.458
.419
.469
4.23
4.48
4.56
4.54
4.57
4.59
4.97
4.77
4.89
4.66
5.05
12.567
11.308
11.032
11.771
11.603
11.442
11.227
10.653
11.331
11.758
12.297
.416
.377
.369
.413
.406
.398
.412
.363
.415
.425
.474
3
=
8
B.
<
<
P W
5
a
D
> 3
ff o
ar
i
o
^
&
S
|
?
o
0
2
n
ff
a
.528
.120
.267
.112
.188
.100
.219
.321
.148
.165
.287
.129
Sen/Int
SI02
SI06
SI10
SI14
SI18
SI22
SI26
SI30
SI34
SI38
SI42
.150
.261
.277
.145
.164
.188
.153
.278
.144
.111
-.011
Seq/Glo1
SG04
-1.27
SG08
-1.51
SG12
-2.23
SG16
-2.19
SG20
-1.75
SG24
-1.48
SG28
-1.29
SG32
-1.87
SG36
-1.85
SG40
-1.53
SG44
-1.46
.448
Vis/Vrb
VA03
VA07
VA11
VA15
VA19
VA23
VA27
VA31
VA35
VA39
VA43
e
c .
.476
Act/Ref
AR01
AR05
AR09
AR13
AR17
AR21
AR25
AR29
AR33
AR37
AR41
0
> 3
? o
p c r
<
If item deleted
1.71
.870
1.09
1.05
.690
1.50
1.86
1.23
1.08
1.10
1.49
15.562
15.298
15.860
16.062
15.876
14.776
16.459
15.899
16.215
14.838
16.346
.491
.471
.506
.512
.480
.466
.516
.511
.518
.464
.528
.234
.314
.182
.159
.299
.318
.137
.164
.136
.324
.106
.387
13.528
13.262
13.573
13.739
12.411
12.765
13.130
12.971
11.974
13.711
12.335
.377
.381
.394
.405
.340
.350
.357
.374
.312
.405
.322
.111
.103
.065
.035
.208
.185
.172
.124
.273
.036
.258
Note. N -770. The overall Cronbach's alpha values of each individual dimension are bolded. The
Cronbach's alpha value of individual items greater than the value of overall scales are italicized.
Validity of the Index of Learning Styles (ILS). The descriptive statistics of the
44 dichotomous items in the ILS instrument are presented in Table 25 and principal
113
components analysis (PCA) was employed to combine and reduce the number of
variables into components. In order to spot univariate and multivariate outliers, Rummel
recommended a rule for dichotomous variables: "deleting dichotomous variables with 9010 splits between categories, or more, both because the correlation coefficents between
these variables and others are truncated and because the scores for the cases in the small
category are more influenctial than those in the category with numerous cases" (as cited
in Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007, p. 73). Although within a total of 770 cases, item VA03
had more than 90-10 splits (95-5), no deletion of variables was performed because the
ILS instrument was in use and validated by previous research.
Table 25
Descriptive Statistics of the 44-item ILS Instrument
Items
Frequency
a
b
AR01
AR05
AR09
AR13
AR17
AR21
AR25
AR29
AR33
AR37
AR41
417
319
294
282
241
482
239
525
439
451
377
SG04
SG08
SG12
SG16
SG20
SG24
SG28
SG32
SG36
SG40
SG44
163
258
535
517
349
245
172
394
389
265
238
353
451
476
488
529
288
531
245
331
319
393
607
512
235
253
421
525
598
376
381
505
532
Percent %
a
b
54.2
41.4
38.2
36.6
31.3
62.6
31.0
68.2
57.0
58.6
49.0
45.8
58.6
61.8
63.4
68.7
37.4
69.0
31.8
43.0
41.4
51.0
21.2
33.5
69.5
67.1
45.3
31.8
22.3
51.2
50.5
34.4
30.9
78.8
66.5
30.5
32.9
54.7
68.2
77.7
48.8
49.5
65.6
69.1
Mode
SD
Variance
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.997
0.986
0.972
0.964
0.928
0.968
0.926
0.932
0.991
0.986
1.000
0.818
0.945
0.922
0.940
0.996
0.932
0.834
1.000
1.001
0.951
0.925
0.994
0.972
0.945
0.930
0.861
0.938
0.857
0.869
0.982
0.972
1.001
0.668
0.892
0.849
0.884
0.993
0.869
0.695
1.001
1.001
0.904
0.855
continued
114
Frequency
a
b
Items
Percent %
a
b
Mode
SD
Variance
SI02
SI06
SI10
SI14
SI18
SI22
SI26
SI30
SI34
SI38
SI42
253
577
492
505
645
334
195
439
496
487
338
517
193
278
265
125
436
575
331
274
283
432
32.9
74.9
63.9
65.6
83.8
56.6
25.3
57.0
64.4
63.2
43.9
67.1
25.1
36.1
34.4
16.2
43.4
74.7
43.0
35.6
36.8
56.1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.940
0.867
0.961
0.951
0.738
0.992
0.870
0.991
0.958
0.965
0.993
0.884
0.752
0.924
0.904
0.545
0.984
0.757
0.982
0.918
0.931
0.986
VA03
VA07
VA11
VA15
VA19
VA23
VA27
VA31
VA35
VA39
VA43
732
636
605
614
601
594
445
525
476
565
417
38
134
165
156
169
176
325
245
294
205
353
95.1
82.6
78.6
79.7
78.1
77.1
57.8
68.2
61.8
73.4
54.2
4.9
17.4
21.4
20.3
21.9
22.9
42.2
31.8
38.2
26.6
45.8
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.433
0.759
0.821
0.804
0.828
0.84
0.988
0.932
0.972
0.885
0.997
0.188
0.576
0.674
0.647
0.686
0.706
0.977
0.869
0.945
0.782
0.994
Note. N = 770. AR: Active-Reflective; SI: Sensing-Intuitive; VA: Visual-Verbal (Auditory); SG:
Sequential-Global.
The PC A found the presence of 16 components with eigenvalues exceeding one,
explaining a total of 53.15% of the variance respectively. The factorability was confirmed
(i.e. the KMO value was 0.660, and the Bartlett's Test of Sphericity was significant at/?
< .001). An unrotated solution, which identified with highly loaded items (> .30), was
initially obtained and shown in Table 26, but the result with scattered patterns suggested
a suspicion of overlap among scales. Further, an inspection of the scree plot, shown in
Figure 8, found that based on Catell's scree test, the smooth decrease of eigenvalues
appeared to level off after the ninth component. The results of parallel analysis (PA),
115
shown in Table 27, supported the evidence in the scree plot and illustrated only eight
components with eigenvalues exceeding the corresponding criteria (44 variables x 770
subjects).
Table 26
Distribution of High Factor Loading Items in an Unrotated PCA Solution
Factors 1
AR
SI
3
VA
SG
4
2
2
4
2
3
2
1
4
2
10
2
11
12
13
1
14
1
1 1
2
1 2
15
16
1
1
1
1
1 1
2
2
Note. AR: Active-Reflective; SI: Sensing-Intuitive; VA: Visual-Verbal (Auditory); SG: Sequential-Global.
Tir~iiTiii
1
11
13
15
17
'f"""'i"'""i
1S 21
23
r "r"""r
25
27
29
iriiiir
31
33
35
37
3S
41
43
Figure 8. Scree plot for PCA on ELS scores.

Note. N =710
In order to distinguish the pattern better, an oblique rotation was used instead of
orthogonal varimax rotation because of possible interconnections among scales. The PCA
with direct oblimin rotation was employed again and found the presence of eight
components, explaining a total of 33.13% of the variance respectively. Table 28 shows
how the factor loading of each item corresponded to each of the eight factors. A clear
distribution of items could be seen with the visual-verbal (VA) scale predominantly
loading on a single Factor 5, although there were still some items falling outside. Items
116
from the sensing-intuitive (SI) scale were consistently located in Factors 2 and 3, but also
overlapping somewhat with the active-reflective (AR) scale. All 11 items of the AR
scales were spread evenly into three components: Factors 3,4, and 7. The pattern of the
sequential-global (SG) scale seemed a little scattered while the majority of items loaded
in Factors 1 and 6. Moreover, another solution using orthogonal varimax rotation is also
provided in Table 29, which indicated the same pattern among components as nonorthogonal solution: three factors composed the AR scale with one factor existing in both
AR and SI dimensions; one solo factor predominantly loaded in the VA scale; and two
different factors made up the SG and SI dimensions. Compared to Ku and Shen's (2009)
study, the current study showed similar distributions among items and scales.
Table 27
Eigenvalues from PA for the ILS Instrument
Component
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Actual Eigenvalue from

PCA
2.764
2.417
1.918
1.766
1.602
1.464
1.358
1.287
1.189
1.167
1.143
1.116
1.083
1.059
1.032
1.022

Parallel Analysis
1.486
1.433
1.396
1.366
1.340
1.312
1.286
1.262
1.240
1.215
1.194
1.171
1.152
1.133
1.115
1.096
Decision
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Reject
Reject
Reject
Reject
Reject
Reject
Reject
Reject
117
Table 28
Factor Loadings from PC A with Direct Oblimin Rotation of the ILS Instrument
Scale
Act/Ref
Sen/Int
Item
AROl
AR05
AR09
AR13
AR17
AR21
AR25
AR29
AR33
AR37
AR41
SI02
SI06
SIIO
SI14
SI18
SI22
SI26
SI30
SI34
SI38
SI42
-.282
.209
Pattern Matrix
4
5
3
6
.412
.501
.530
.511
.313
.387
.485
.283
.229
.275
-.209
-.248
-.468
-.308
-.227
-.256
-.310
.393
.217
.275
-.485
-.316
.238
.269
.221
-.218
-.350
.222
-.234
.518
.524
-.306
.206
.565
.466
3
.412
.491
.495
.206
-.328
.205
.202
-.213
Structure Matrix
4
5
6
-.567
-.200
-.218
-.234
.583
-.254
.476
.737
.531
.319
.721
.202
-.235
-.565
-.206
.709
.524
.350
.699
.479
-.212
.500
.405
-.256
-.208
-.200
.290
.200
.443
-.222
-.313
-.296
.662
.289
.226
.663
-.518
-.241
-.502
-.258
continued
118
Pattern Matrix
Scale
Vis/Vrb
Seq/Glo
Item
VA03
VA07
VA11
VA15
VA19
VA23
VA27
VA31
VA35
VA39
VA43
SG04
SG08
SG12
SG16
SG20
SG24
SG28
SG32
SG36
SG40
SG44
Structure Matrix
1
.342
.349
.581
.579
.448
.308
.268
.398
.259
.628
.239
.448
-.422
-.341
.258
.225
.581
.581
.441
.219
.400
.279
.611
.206
.266
-.570
-.241
-.412
-.684
.213
-.209
-.303
-.215
.556
.211
.226
.333
.257
.473
.341
.283
.424
.379
-.337
-.479
.515
.522
.452
.512
-.255
.451
.325
-.414
-.371
.270
.529
.374
.449
.466
.285
.258
.327
.339
-.353
-.466
.207
-.207
.416
-.682
.497
.541
-.222
-.310
.276
.460
.254
Note. A/ = 770. AR: Active-Reflective; SI: Sensing-Intuitive; VA: Visual-Verbal (Auditory); SG: Sequential-Global. Factor loadings < 0.2 are omitted. Major
factor loadings are bolded.
119
Table 29
Distribution of High Factor-Loading Items in PCA Orthogonal Rotated Solution
Factors
AR
SI
VA
SG
1
4
3
5
1
5
4
1
1
6
3
1
1
2
3
2
2
Note. Act/Ref (AR): Active-Reflective; Sen/Int (SI): Sensing-Intuitive; Vis/Vrb (VA): Visual-Verbal
(Auditory); Seq/Glo (SG): Sequential-Global.
Additionally, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using structural equation

modeling (SEM) with a total of 770 cases was performed to validate the construct
structure of the survey and to analyze and identify problematic items for further
investigation. Figure 9 represents the hypothesized model with the estimated standardized
regression weights. Although the researcher suspected some overlapping within scales,
the results revealed low correlations among scales from r = -0.32 to 0.41, indicating the
independence of the four dimensions. Meanwhile, the resulting component correlation
matrix from the previous PCA, shown in Table 30, also supported that all correlated
factors were negligible. A further examination is presented in Chapter Five.
Table 30
Component Correlation Matrix from PCA with Direct Oblimin Rotation
Components
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1.000
.125
-.021
-.071
-.022
-.021
-.066
-.033
.125
1.000
-.008
-.037
.078
.017
-.102
-.088
-.021
-.008
1.000
.033
.084
.001
-.002
.022
-.071
-.037
.033
1.000
.099
.068
-.024
-.014
-.022
.078
.084
.099
1.000
.109
-.035
.018
-.021
.017
.001
.068
.109
1.000
.019
-.016
-.066
-.102
-.002
-.024
-.035
.019
1.000
.025
-.033
-.088
.022
-.014
.018
-.016
.025
1.000
120
Figure 9. The Felder-Soloman Index of Learning Styles Model.

Note. Act/Ref (AR): Active-Reflective; Sen/Int (SI): Sensing-Intuitive; Vis/Vrb (VA): Visual-Verbal
(Auditory); Seq/Glo (SG): Sequential-Global.
Moreover, other criteria to evaluate the model fit were examined, including
CIMN/DF = 2.107 (2 ~ 5), RMR = 0.047, GH = 0.89 (< .90), CFI = 0.511 (< .90), PGFI
= 0.805 (> .50), PCH = 0.484 (> .50), PRATIO = 0.947 (> .50), and RMSEA = 0.038
(< .06). The chi-square of the CFA was 1888.158, df= 896, and/rvalue was smaller than
0.001 (< .05). According to Hu and Bentler (1999), theX2 value of chi-square is easily
influenced by the sample size. Comparing with all indexes from Ku and Shen's (2009)
SEM analysis (X2 = 4636.37, df= 896, N= 1034, CFI = .505, GFI = .912, and RMR
= .009), both studies showed similar results (p. 838). Despite the fact that in the current
study, the CFI value did not meet the standard (> .90) as well as that the PCFI and GFI
values were somewhat below the suggested values of 0.50 and 0.90, the overall results
still indicated a fair model fit of the learning styles. A modification is suggested to
improve the construct validity and adequacy of the model for further inspection. In sum,
both PCA and CFA confirmed the construct validity of the ILS. Items within four
dimensions were summed and averaged into constructs for subsequent analyses.
Inferential Statistics
This section presents the process of how to conduct each test and answer to each
corresponding research question. Each research question was first-screened and pretested based on its corresponding statistical assumptions, then officially tested through a
designated statistical procedure.
Research Question 1. What are the consumer decision-making styles among
After eliminating four low-correlation items, the Consumer Style Inventory (CSI),
which comprised of 44 variables with a five-point Likert scale ranging from (1) Strongly
disagree to (5) Strongly agree, was used to measure consumer decision-making styles.
With a total of 770 cases, Table 31 presents the factor analysis of the CSI with
Cronbach's coefficient alpha, which explained 52% of the variation with eigenvalues all
122
exceeding 1.0 (the lowest was 1.282). Through SEM analysis, the model fit indexes were
examined using those criteria: CIMN/DF = 3.398 (2 - 5), NFI = 0.740 (< .90), CFI =
0.800 (< .90), PNFI = 0.684 (> .50), PCFI = 0.739 (> .50), PRATIO = 0.924 (> .50), and
RMSEA = 0.056 (< .06). The chi-square of the CFA was 2969.531, df= 874, and/?-value
was less than 0.001 (< .05). Despite the values of CFI and NFT, which were still slightly
below the standard (0.90 or above), all index values improved compared to the SEM
results from the first attempt with 47 items. Overall, the results indicated a moderately
good model fit of consumer decision-making styles. Therefore, eight different profiles of
consumer decision-making styles were confirmed and the characteristics of each
individual component were defined as follows:
Component 1 (PCS1), named Brand-Conscious Shopper, measured consumers'
preferences for buying goods from the more well-promoted, expansive, famous designer
or international/national brands. Higher scorers on this characteristic believed that a
brand name product sold at a higher price meant better quality. They tended to purchase
the best-selling, advertised brands and shop in the department or specialty stores with
prevalent brand names for higher prices.
Component 2 (PCS2), named Price-Value Conscious Shopper, measured a price
conscious, value for money consumer characteristic. High scorers usually looked for
sales or lower-priced items and carefully spent their time in order to get the best value for
their money. Notably, they appeared to be comparison shoppers.
123
Table 31
Profiles of Consumer Styles: Eight-Factor Solution
Variables
8 It is necessary to know and understand
famous brands.
9 Well-known national brands are the best
for me.
10 The more expensive brands are usually my
choices.
11 I think that the higher the price of a
product, the better its quality.
12 Nice department and specialty stores offer
me the best products.
13 I prefer buying the best-selling brands.
14 The most advertised brands are usually
very good choices.
32 I shop famous international or designer
brands.
25 I buy as much as possible at sale prices.
26 The lower-priced products are usually my
choices.
27 I look carefully to find products which are
the best value for my money.
31 I take time to shop carefully for the best
buys.
45 I carefully evaluate the price of each
product.
46 Not buying the first product you see is a
good principle.
47 I spend time on shopping to save money.
48 I prefer lower-priced products to expensive
or fashionable products.
1 Getting very high or good quality products
is very important to me.
2 When it comes to purchasing products, I
try to make the very best or perfect choice.
3 In general, I usually try to buy the best
overall quality.
4 I make special effort to choose the very
best quality products.
6 My standards and expectations for
products I buy are very high.
Factor
Loadings
Communalities
Cronbach's
Alpha
Item-Total
Correlations
.814
.349
.425
.427
.678
.536
.623
.655
.574
.623
.705
.529
.534
.708
.541
.596
.601
.630
.459
.439
.487
.447
.556
.529
.538
.779
.710
.683
.554
.599
.552
.437
.629
.472
.521
.555
.431
.468
.563
.391
.463
366
.336
.345
.650
.630
.595
.452
.608
.471
.699
.544
.558
.736
.592
.620
.767
.637
.657
.724
.557
.575
.592
.414
.487
.796
continued
124
Variables
Factor
Loadings
PCS 4: Time-Energy Conserving/Recreational Shopper

5 I don't give much thought or care to my
-.426
purchase.
.371
19 It is fun to buy something new, interesting,
and exciting.
-.774
20 Shopping is not a pleasant activity to me.
.694
21 Shopping is one of the enjoyable activities
in my life.
-.775
22 Shopping wastes my time.
24 I make my shopping trips fast.
-.700
15 I usually own the newest/most fashionable
style of outfits or products.
16 I keep my wardrobe up-to-date with the
changing fashions.
17 Fashionable and attractive styling is very
important to me.
18 To get variety, I shop in different stores
and choose different brands.
36 Buying new stuff is like giving myself a
gift.
37 I buy my favorite brands over and over.
38 Once I find a product or brand I like, I
stick with it.
39 I go to the same stores each time I shop.
41 I like to shop in the stores that I am
familiar with.
PCS 7: Confused-by-Overchoice Shopper (5)
33 I often feel confused with so many brands
to choose from.
34 Sometimes, it is hard for me to choose
which stores to shop in.
35 The more I learn about products, the
harder it is to make the best choices.
42 My family or friends have the most
influence on my choices of products.
43 I try to purchase things based on my
friends' recommendations.
29 I am impulsive when purchasing/1
purchase out of impulsiveness.
30 After making careless purchases, I often
wish I had not.
44 When seeing something I like, I buy it
immediately.
Note. N= 770.
Communalities
Cronbach's
Alpha
Item-Total
Correlations
.752
.332
.329
.381
.331
.637
.618
.629
.608
.643
.528
.611
.466
.831
.767
.742
.727
.799
.745
.751
.778
.706
.708
.578
.482
.459
.465
.427
.426
.724
.755
.588
.629
.562
.578
.706
.590
.532
.443
.498
.452
.699
.529
.468
.745
.596
.552
.760
.599
.518
.441
.326
.378
.331
.288
.309
.677
.592
.495
.545
.425
.404
.549
.422
.295
.740
.690
.586
125
Component 3 (PCS3), named High-Quality Conscious Shopper, measured
consumers' orientation toward finding and buying the best overall quality in products.
Those scoring high seemed to be perfectionists, not satisfied with "good enough"
products; these individuals were expected to shop more cautiously by comparison (G. B.
Sproles & Kendall, 1986, p. 271).
Component 4 (PCS4), named Time-Energy Conserving and Recreational Shopper,
measured consumers' shopping styles for pleasure and time-saving. Although most items
loaded negatively on it, high scorers enjoyed shopping for fun but avoided wasting too
much time on it.
Component 5 (PCS5), named Novelty-Fashion Shopper, measured consumers'
preferences for appealing to novel, trendy, and stylish products. Those scoring high
seemed to be fashion-savvy and highly novelty conscious. Maintaining up-to-date styles
was also important to them. They likely enjoyed pleasure and excitement through the
variety-seeking experiences.
Component 6 (PCS6), named Habitual/Brand-Loyal Shopper, measured
consumers' orientation toward purchasing things from their favorite brands and stores.
High scorers on this characteristic usually have formed a habit of choosing products from
their trusted brands and shopping in the same stores.
Component 7 (PCS7), named Confused-by-Overchoice Shopper, measured
consumers' shopping styles of struggling with voluminous options to choose from. Those
scoring high might experience information overload from either people's
recommendations or product detailed overviews.
126
Component 8 (PCS8), named Impulsive Shopper, measured a thoughtless and
impetuous characteristic without planning in advance. High scorers on this characteristic
probably shopped on the spur of the moment and appeared unconcerned about the price
or "best buys" (G. B. Sproles & Kendall, 1986, p. 273).
Derived from the previous results, the summed and averaged scores from each
dimension were obtained, and Table 32 shows the ratings of eight consumers' shopping
characteristics. Because some items in PCS4 contained negative factor loadings, the
scores were reversed before the calculation was summed and averaged. Appendix J
provides the histograms with normal curves and Q-Q plots, shown in Figure J49 to Figure
J56, for the normality assessment of the summed scores. The mean score of brandconscious shopper was 2.8 (PCS1), which represented between (2) Disagree and (3)
Neutral. The mean scores of all other profiles of consumer styles were 3.7 (PCS2), 3.9
(PCS3), 3.1 (PCS4), 3.0 (PCS5), 3.9 (PCS6), 3.4 (PCS7), and 3.3 (PCS8), respectively,
which represented between (3) Neutral and (4) Agree. Except for brand consciousness
(PCS1), Taiwanese Millennials showed moderate to strong attitudes toward making
purchasing decisions based on various behavioral characteristics.
Table 32
Descriptive Statistics of Eight Profiles of Consumer Decision-making Styles
Component
Range
Min.
Max.
Mean
SD
Skew.
Kurtosis
Brand-Conscious Shopper (PCS1)

Price-Value Conscious Shopper (PCS2)
High-Quality Conscious Shopper (PCS3)
Time-Energy Conserving and Recreational
Shopper (PCS4)
Novelty-Fashion Shopper (PCS5)
Habitual and Brand-Loyal Shopper (PCS6)
Confused-by-Overchoice Shopper (PCS7)
8
8
5
6
4.00
3.00
4.00
2.67
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.67
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.33
2.807
3.663
3.937
3.100
.596
.534
.621
.399
-.053
-.090
-.505
-.234
.265
-.036
.964
.286
4
5
5
3
4.00
3.20
3.60
4.00
1.00
1.80
1.40
1.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
3.025
3.885
3.438
3.297
.768
.567
.615
.739
.067
-.110
-.009
.151
.271
.053
-.299
.274
Note. N = 770. SD, Standard Deviation. Skew., Skewness.
127
Among these eight consumer decision-making styles, the highest ranking of the
mean scores was high-quality conscious shopper (PCS3), followed by habitual/brandloyal shopper (PCS6) and price-value conscious Shopper (PCS2). In order to perceive the
consumer decision-making behaviors more clearly, the researcher transformed the
summed and averaged scores again into three categories: (a) Weak (1.00 ~ 2.33), (b)
Moderate (2.34 - 3.66), and (c) Strong (3.67 - 5.00). As shown in Table 33, over 60% of
the Millennials indicated strong tendencies as habitual shoppers and serious concern
about superior or high-quality products from their favorite brands or stores. Almost all
participants (99% and up) had their preferred brands and stores as well as took the quality
of products into consideration, while they also tended to shop around in order to find
good bargains. The majority (95.2%) shopped for pleasure and excitement but avoided
spending too much time on it. More than 85% of the subjects admitted their
impulsiveness to buy things on the spur of the moment and easily influenced their
purchasing decisions after researching product information and consulting others'
recommendations. On average, they were aware of internationally renowned or most
advertised brands or designers and kept track of up-to-date fashion, but only a few of
them desired those expensive stylish items. In general, Taiwaneses Millennials were not
only conscious of brand, price, quality, and fashion as loyal and enjoyable consumers, but
also occasionally impulsive and confused toward shopping.
128
Table 33
Statistical Analysis of Three-Category Subscale for Eight Profiles of Consumer Styles
Tendency
Weak (1.00 -2.33)
Moderate (2.34 ~ 3.66)
Strong (3.67 ~ 5.00)
PCSl
Freq.
%
163 21.2
561
72.9
46
6.0
PCS2
Freq.
%
5
0.6
399 51.8
366 47.5
PCS3
Freq.
%
6
0.8
261
33.9
503
65.3
PCS4
Freq.
%
37
4.8
657
85.3
76
9.9
Weak (1.00-2.33)
Moderate (2.34 ~ 3.66)
Strong (3.67 - 5.00)
PCS5
142
18.4
473 61.4
155 20.1
PCS6
4
0.5
271
35.2
495
64.3
PCS7
25
3.2
491
63.8
254
33.0
PCS8
109
14.2
350 45.5
311 40.4
Note. N = 770. PCSl, Brand-Conscious Shopper; PCS2, Price-Value Conscious Shopper; PCS3, HighQuality Conscious Shopper; PCS4, Time-Energy Conserving and Recreational Shopper; PCS5, NoveltyFashion Shopper; PCS6, Habitual and Brand-Loyal Shopper; PCS7, Confused-by-Overchoice Shopper; and
Research Question 2. Are consumer decision-making styles significantly

different when comparing diverse groups by gender; age; geographical area; and type of
program, school, and college? If so, which categories differ?
Several between-groups multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) tests were
employed to scrutinize mean differences among different categories, including gender;
age; geographical area; as well as type of school, program, and college. The eight
dependent variables (DVs) were brand-conscious shopper (PCSl), price-value conscious
shopper (PCS2), high-quality conscious shopper (PCS3), time-energy conserving and
recreational shopper (PCS4), novelty-fashion shopper (PCS5), habitual and brand-loyal
shopper (PCS6), confused-by-overchoice shopper (PCS7), and impulsive shopper (PCS8).
Prior to proceeding with the main MANOVA analysis, some assumptions needed to be
met, including (a) sample size, (b) normality, (c) outliers, (d) linearity, (e) homogeneity
of regression, (f) multicollinearity and singularity, and (g) homogeneity of variance-
covariance matrices (Mertler & Vannatta, 2004; Pallant, 2007; Tabachnick & Fidell,
2007).
According to Pallant (2007), the minimum required number of cases in each cell
is the number of dependent variables (DVs). Tabachnick and Fidell (2007) further
suggested "even with unequal n and only a few DVs, a sample size of at least 20 in the
smallest cell should ensure robustness'" (Mardia, as cited in p. 251). With 770 cases, the
sample size in this study was well beyond the minimum requirement for MANOVA
analysis. As shown in Appendix J from Figure J49 to Figure J56, there were no serious
violations noted. Although some univariate outliers were found scattered throughout 8
variables with 0 to 16 cases per variable through the box plots, no deletion was made on
account of substantial reduction in sample sizes (53 cases, 56 outliers). Examining
multivariate outliers with Mahalanobis distance, the critical value atp < .001 for chisquare (X2) is 26.13 with df = 8. Thus, 13 outliers were identified, leaving 757 cases for
MANOVA analysis.
Linearity was assessed roughly by inspection of the bivariate scatterplots and an
oval-shaped scatterplot illustrated the normal distributions and linear relationships
between variables (Mertler & Vannatta, 2004; Pallant, 2007; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).
For multicollinearity and singularity, Pearson correlation tests were used to examine if
variables were too highly correlated or redundant (Pallant, 2007; Tabachnick & Fidell,
2007). According to Tabachnick and Fidell (2007), "MANOVA works best with highly
negatively correlated DVs and acceptably well with moderately correlated DVs in either
direction (about 1.61)" (p. 268). A coefficient greater than 0.90 (r > .90) would be reason
130
for concern (p. 90). Furthermore, the Levene 's Test was utilized to assess the assumption
of equality of variance at the cutoff alpha value less than 0.05.
Finally, possible violation of the assumptionhomogeneity of variancecovariance matricesmay be investigated by interpreting the result of Box's M Test of
Equality ofCovariance Matrices (Mertler & Vannatta, 2004; Pallant, 2007; Tabachnick
& Fidell, 2007). If p value in Box's M test is greater than 0.001 (p > .001), the
assumption has not been violated. Yet, Tabachnick and Fidell (2007) even warned that "if
sample sizes are unequal and Box's M test is significant at p < .001, then robustness is
not guaranteed" (p. 252). In such a situation, Pillai's Trace criterion instead of Wilks'
Lambda, which is commonly recognized as a MONOVA test statistic if homogeneities of
variance-covariance are assumed, should be used to evaluate multivariate significance
(Mertler & Vannatta, 2004; Pallant, 2007; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).
In addition, in order to discover which of the DVs is being affected by the
independent variable(s) (IV), a series of univariate analyses of variance (ANOVA) are
conducted and a Bonferroni type adjustment to more stringent a levels is made for
inflated Type I error (Mertler & Vannatta, 2004; Pallant, 2007; Tabachnick & Fidell,
2007). Mertler and Vannatta (2004) suggested that the "critical value of testing each DV
is usually the overall a value for analysis (e.g., a = .05) divided by the number of DVs"
(p. 122). Consequently, there were eight DVs in the study using an overall a equal to 0.05,
so each univariate test was employed at a = .006, since 0.05/8 = .00625. Meanwhile,
effect size was assessed through Partial Eta Squared (r|2), a measure of strength of
association, at commonly suggested values by Cohen: partial r\ value less than 0.01 as
small, 0.06 as moderate, and 0.14 as large effect (as cited in Pallant, 2007, p. 255).
131
Hypothesis 2a. Consumer decision-making styles are significantly different
between males and females.
A SPSS one-way between-groups MANOVA test was performed to investigate
gender differences in consumer decision-making styles. The eight profiles of consumer
decision-making styles (PCS) as DVs were used, and the IV was gender. Preliminary
assumption testing was conducted to check for normality, univariate and multivariate
outliers, homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices, and multicollinearity, with no
serious violations noted. In spite of unequal sample sizes between males (n = 99) and
females (n = 658), group sample sizes were quite larger than the required number of cases
per cell (> 20).
Binary scatterplots (see Figure Kl in Appendix K) were created to examine
linearity, and no special pattern or differences were found in the spread of cases in each
scatterplot. Pearson correlation coefficients were also calculated; even though most
correlation coefficients were statically significant (p < .001), r values ranged from -0.125
to 0.488, indicating low to moderate relationships (Pallant, 2007; Tabachnick & Fidell,
2007). Based on the Levene's test, none of the variables recorded significant values.
Hence, linearity and equal variances were assumed.
With the use of Wilks' criterion, there was a statistically significant difference
between males and females on the combined DV of eight PCSs, F (8,748) = 4.487, p
< .001; Wilks' Lambda (A) = .954; partial eta squared Oi2) = .046. ANOVA was
conducted on each DV as a follow-up test to MANOVA. Using a Bonferroni adjusted a
level of 0.006, gender differences were statistically significant for high-quality conscious
shoppers (PCS3), F (1, 755) = 8.787, p = .003, partial n2 = .012; and time-energy
132
conserving and recreational shoppers (PCS4), F (1, 755) = 8.351, p = .004, partial r\
= .011. Differences in other profiles of consumer decision-making styles were not
significant, including PCS1, F (1,755) = 5.186,/? = .023, partial r\2 = .007; PCS2, F (1,
755) = .064, p = .800, partial T\2 = .000; PCS5, F (1, 755) = 0.642, p = .423, partial TI2
= .001; PCS6, F (1, 755) = 82.094, p = .148, partial ri2 = .003; PCS7, F (1, 755) = 3.360,
p = .067, partial r\2 = .004; and PCS8, F (1,755) = .121, p = .728, partial t]2 = .000.
An inspection of the mean scores indicated that females (M = 3.916, SD = 0.598,
SE = .023) reported slightly lower levels of high-quality consciousness toward shopping
(p = .003 < .05) than males (M = 4.105, SD = .548, SE = .059); and females (M = 3.113,
SD = .389, SE = .015) reported slightly higher levels of time-energy conserving and
recreational shopping (p = .004 < .05) than males (M = 2.992, SD = .402, SE = .039).
Table 34 presents adjusted means (Af), standard deviations (SD), and standard errors (SE)
for different consumer decision-making styles between males and females.
Table 34
Adjusted Means, Standard Deviations, and Standard Errors for Profiles of Consumer
Decision-Making Styles between Males and Females
Gender
Males
Females
M
2.926
2.785
PCS1
SD
.550
.579
SE
.058
.022
M
3.655
3.669
PCS2
SD
.484
.530
SE
.053
.020
M
4.105
3.916
PCS3
SD
.548
.598
SE
.059
.023
M
2.992
3.113
PCS4
SD
.402
.389
SE
.039
.015
Males
Females
M
3.083
3.018
PCS5
SD
.844
.743
SE
.076
.030
M
3.799
3.887
PCS6
SD
.595
.558
SE
.057
.022
M
3.342
3.461
PCS7
SD
.628
.598
SE
.060
.023
M
3.281
3.307
PCS8
SD
.678
.719
SE
.072
.028
Note. N=151. Males: n = 99. Females: n= 658. PCS1, Brand-Conscious Shopper; PCS2, Price-Value
Conscious Shopper; PCS3, High-Quality Conscious Shopper; PCS4, Time-Energy Conserving and
Recreational Shopper; PCS5, Novelty-Fashion Shopper; PCS6, Habitual and Brand-Loyal Shopper; PCS7,
Confused-by-Overchoice Shopper; and PCS8, Impulsive Shopper.
133
Hypothesis 2b. Consumer decision-making styles are significantly different for
individuals who attended dissimilar programs.
A SPSS one-way between-groups MANOVA test was employed to examine
means differences in consumer decision-making styles for individuals from different
programs. The eight PCSs as DVs were used, and the IV was school programs, including
four-year, two-year, and seven-year programs. Although there were unequal sample sizes
among programs offered over four years (n = 579), two years (n = 73) and seven years (n
= 105), group sample sizes were quite larger than the required number of cases per cell (>
20). Binary scatterplots (see Figure K2 in Appendix K) showed no special pattern or
differences in the spread of cases in each scatterplot. Pearson correlation r values were
calculated and ranged from -0.312 to 0.597, indicating low to moderate relationships.
None of the variables recorded significant values in the Levene's test. Therefore, results
of evaluation of preliminary assumptions of sample size, normality, linearity,
homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices, and multicollinearity, were satisfactory.
Using Wilks' criterion, the combined DV of eight different PCSs was
significantly affected by individuals enrolled in dissimilar school programs, F (16, 1494)
= 2.869, p < .001; Wilks' A = .941; partial r]2 = .030. Univariate ANOVA and Scheffe
post hoc tests were conducted as follow-up tests to MANOVA. Using a Bonferroni
adjustment of a = 0.006, ANOVA results indicated that individuals attending dissimilar
school programs significantly differed for price-value conscious shoppers (PCS2), F (2,
754) = 6.610, p = .001, partial T\ = .017; time-energy conserving and recreational
shoppers (PCS4), F (2, 754) = 5.1888, p = .006, partial r\2 = .014; and novelty-fashion
shoppers (PCS5), F (2, 754) = 7.007, p = .004, partial r\2 = .018. For other profiles of
134
consumer decision-making styles, differences were not statistically significant, as shown
in the following: PCSl, F (2,754) = 5.065,p = .007, partial r\2 = .013; PCS3, F (2, 754) =
0.495,/? = .610, partial rf = .001; PCS6, F (2, 754) = 1.087, p = .338, partial n2 = .003;
PCS7, F (2, 754) = 1.475, p = .230, partial n2 = .004; and PCS8, F (2, 754) = 1.252, p
= .287, partial n2 = .003.
Scheffe post hoc results for the eight PCSs revealed some further variations as
follows:
For price-value conscious shoppers (PCS2), individuals attending the four-year

program (M = 3.697, SD = .512, SE = .022) significantly differed and reported
slightly higher levels of price-value consciousness than those studying in the twoyear program (p = .002 < .05, M = 3.465, SD = .481, SE = .061).
For time-energy conserving and recreational shoppers (PCS4), individuals enrolled

in the seven-year program (M = 2.987, SD = .425, SE = .038) significantly differed
and showed slightly lower tendencies toward recreational shopping than those
attending two-year (p = .012 < .05, M = 3.151, SD = .401, SE = .046) and four-year
(p = .023 < .05, M = 3.111, SD = .382, SE = .016) programs.
For novelty-fashion shoppers (PCS5), individuals who studied in the seven-year

program (M = 2.776, SD = .799, SE = .073) significantly differed and presented
lower levels of novelty-fashion shopping orientation than those in two-year (p
= .011 < .05, M = 3.119, SD = .716, SE = .088) and four-year (p = .002 < .05, M =
3.060, SD = .746, SE = .031) programs.
In sum, individuals attending the seven-year program made significant differences
among various decision-making styles from other groups, and showed lower tendencies
135
especially toward novelty-fashion as well as time-energy conserving and recreational
shopping. Table 35 presents adjusted means (M), standard deviations (SD), and standard
errors (SE) for different consumer decision-making styles among individuals enrolled in
dissimilar programs.
Table 35
Decision-Making Styles among Individuals from Dissimilar Programs
Programs
Offered
PCS1
SD
SE
PCS2
SD
SE
PCS3
SD
SE
PCS4
SD
SE
4-year
2-year
7-year
2.832
2.809
2.639
.583
.468
.590
.024
.067
.056
3.697
3.465
3.642
.512
.481
.588
.022
.061
.051
3.953
3.901
3.902
.597
.550
.613
.025
.070
.058
3.111
3.151
2.987
.382
.401
.425
.016
.046
.038
4-year
2-year
7-year
M
3.060
3.119
2.776
PCS5
SD
.746
.716
.799
SE
.031
.088
.073
M
3.890
3.870
3.802
PCS6
SD
.567
.543
.554
SE
.023
.066
.055
M
3.461
3.334
3.433
PCS7
SD
.607
.588
.581
SE
.025
.070
.059
M
3.317
3.344
3.204
PCS8
SD
.711
.663
.758
SE
.030
.084
.070
Note. N= 757. 4-year: n = 579. 2-year: n= 73. 7-year: n= 105. PCS 1, Brand-Conscious Shopper; PCS2,
Price-Value Conscious Shopper; PCS3, High-Quality Conscious Shopper; PCS4, Time-Energy Conserving
and Recreational Shopper; PCS5, Novelty-Fashion Shopper; PCS6, Habitual and Brand-Loyal Shopper;
PCS7, Confused-by-Overchoice Shopper; and PCS8, Impulsive Shopper.
Hypothesis 2c. Consumer decision-making styles are significantly different for

individuals who studied in different colleges.
A SPSS one-way between-groups MANOVA test was conducted to examine
mean differences in consumer decision-making styles for individuals studying in different
colleges. The eight PCSs as DVs were used, and the IV was academic colleges, including
the College of Management, College of Design, College of Art, and College of Living
Technology. Regardless of unequal sample sizes among the College of Management (n =
111), College of Design (n = 368), College of Art (n = 106), and College of Living
Technology (n = 172), group sample sizes were fairly larger than the required number of
136
cases per cell (> 20). Binary scatterplots (see Figure K3 in Appendix K) showed no
special pattern or differences in the spread of cases in each scatterplot. Pearson
correlation r values were calculated and ranged from -0.306 to 0.596, indicating low to
moderate relationships. None of the variables recorded significant values in the Levene's
test. Therefore, results of evaluation of preliminary assumptions of sample size, normality,
linearity, homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices, and multicollinearity were
satisfactory.
By means of Wilks' criterion, the combined DV of eight different PCSs was
significantly affected by individuals studying in different colleges, F (24, 2164.228) =
2.177, p = .001 < .05; Wilks' A = .933; partial q2 = .023. Univariate ANOVA and Scheffe
post hoc tests were conducted as follow-up tests to MANOVA. When the ANOVA
results for DVs were considered separately, the only difference to reach statistical
significance, using a Bonferroni adjusted alpha level of 0.006, was novelty-fashion
shoppers (PCS5), F (3, 753) = 7.277, p < .001, partial q2 = .028. For other profiles of
consumer decision-making styles, differences were not statistically significant, as shown
in the following: PCS1, F (3, 753) = 3.865,/? = .009, partial q2 = .015; PCS2, F (3, 753) =
1.153, p = .327, partial q2 = .005; PCS3, F (3, 753) = .252, p = .860, partial q2 = .001;
PCS4, F (3, 753) = 3.811,/? = .010, partial q2 = .015; PCS6, F (3, 753) = 2.485, p = 0.060,
partial q2 = .010; PCS7, F (3, 753) = .308, p = .820, partial q2 = .001; and PCS8, F (3,
753) = 1.878, p = .132, partial q2 = .007.
Further, inspections of Scheffe post hoc results for eight PCSs explained details
about that: for novelty-fashion shoppers (PCS5), individuals studying in the College of
Living Technology (M = 3.209, SD =.750, SE =.057) significantly differed from those
137
from the Colleges of Art (p < .001, M = 2.787, SD =.804, SE =.073) and Design (p =.028
< .05, M = 3.000, SD =.739, SE =.039); and they presented higher levels of noveltyfashion shopping orientation than the other two groups. Table 36 presents adjusted means
(M), standard deviations (SD), and standard errors (SE) for different consumer decisionmaking styles among individuals studying in different colleges.
Table 36
Decision-Making Styles among Individuals from Different Colleges
SE
PCS3
SD
SE
PCS4
SD
SE
.050
.027
.051
.040
3.923
3.955
3.903
3.944
.577
.607
.610
.573
.057
.031
.058
.045
3.149
3.097
2.989
3.132
.418
.373
.423
.387
.037
.020
.038
.030
.515
.496
.588
.546
PCS6
SD
SE
PCS7
SD
SE
PCS8
SD
SE
3.787
3.886
3.809
3.951
.600
.555
.556
.552
.053
.029
.055
.043
3.480
3.452
3.439
3.413
.590
.607
.581
.614
.057
.031
.059
.046
3.234
3.304
3.220
3.400
.740
.706
.774
.667
.068
.037
.069
.054
College
PCS1
SD
SE
CM.
CD.
CA.
CL.T.
2.822
2.809
2.641
2.878
.561
.587
.588
.543
.054
.030
.056
.044
3.614
3.702
3.647
3.638
PCS5
SD
SE
3.061
3.000
2.787
3.209
.714
.739
.804
.750
.071
.039
.073
.057
CM.
CD.
CA.
CL.T.
PCS2
SD
Note. N = 757. CM.: College of Management, n = 111; CD.: College of Design, n = 365; C.A.: College of
Art, n = 106; CL.T.: College of Living Technology, n = 172. PCS1, Brand-Conscious Shopper; PCS2,
Price-Value Conscious Shopper; PCS3, High-Quality Conscious Shopper; PCS4, Time-Energy Conserving
and Recreational Shopper; PCS5, Novelty-Fashion Shopper; PCS6, Habitual and Brand-Loyal Shopper;
PCS7, Confused-by-Overchoice Shopper; and PCS8, Impulsive Shopper.
Hypothesis 2d. Consumer decision-making styles are significantly different for

individuals who went to the day and night schools.
A SPSS one-way between-groups MANOVA test was performed to inspect
means differences in consumer decision-making styles for individuals enrolled in the day
and night schools. The eight PCSs as DVs were used, and the IV was students going to
the day or night schools. In spite of unequal sample sizes between day-school students (n
= 728), and night-school students (n = 29), group sample sizes were still larger than the
138
required number of cases per cell (> 20). Binary scatterplots (see Figure K4 in Appendix
K) showed no special pattern or differences in the spread of cases in each scatterplot.
Pearson correlation r values were calculated and ranged from -0.397 to 0.576, indicating
low relationships. None of the variables recorded significant values in the Levene's test.
Therefore, results of evaluation of preliminary assumptions of sample size, normality,
linearity, homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices, and multicollinearity, were
satisfactory.
With the use of Wilks' criterion, the combined DV of eight different PCSs was
not significantly affected by individuals studying in the day or night schools, F (8, 748) =
1.181, p = .308 > .05; Wilks' A = .988; partial r\2 = .012. In other words, consumer
decision-making styles made no significant differences between students enrolled in the
day school and those in night school. Thus, Table 37 presents means (M), standard
deviations (SD), and standard errors (SE) for different consumer decision-making styles
between individuals going to the day and night schools.
Table 37
Means, Standard Deviations, and Standard Errors for Profiles of Consumer DecisionMaking Styles between Individuals Going to the Day and Night Schools
PCS1
Type
Day
Night
M
2.797
2.957
M
Day
Night
3.019
3.224
SD
.575
.630
PCS5
SD
.753
.835
PCS2
SE
.021
.107
M
3.673
3.528
SE
.028
.140
3.880
3.766
SD
.527
.434
PCS6
SD
.560
.635
PCS3
SE
.019
.097
M
3.939
3.993
SE
.021
.105
3.442
3.538
SD
.594
.618
PCS7
SD
.601
.617
PCS4
SE
.022
.110
M
3.097
3.103
SE
.022
.112
3.306
3.241
SD
.391
.444
PCS8
SD
.713
.745
SE
.015
.073
SE
.026
.133
Note. N = 757. Day: n = 728. Night: n= 29. PCS1, Brand-Conscious Shopper; PCS2, Price-Value
139
Hypothesis 2e. Consumer decision-making styles are significantly different for
individuals who came from various areas.
A SPSS one-way between-groups MANOVA test was conducted to discover
mean differences in consumer decision-making styles for individuals who came from
various areas. The eight PCSs as DVs were used, and the IV was hometown, which was
regrouped and recoded into a new variable named area, including six geographical
regions (see Figure 3): PeiKeel, combined Taipei County with Keel areas together;
TaoChuMiao; ChungChangTou; YunChiaNan; KaoKaoPing; and HwaDonglsland,
combined HwaDong, KingMaPenghu Island, and other areas. After eliminating 25
undefined hometown data in the database, a total of 732 cases were retained for further
analysis. Even though there were unequal sample sizes among PeiKeel ( = 91),
TaoChuMiao (n = 81), ChungChangTou (n = 124), YunChiaNan (n = 247), KaoKaoPing
(n = 168), and HwaDonglsland (n = 21), group sample sizes were still all larger than the
low to moderate relationships, except for a high interrelationship (r = .828) between
PCS5 and PCSl in HwaDonglsland. Although one cell indicated a strong correlation due
to a small sample size and still smaller than the critical value of 0.9, linearity was
assumed. None of the variables recorded significant values in the Levene's test.
Therefore, results of evaluation of preliminary assumptions of sample size, normality,
linearity, homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices, and multicollinearity, were
satisfactory.
140
By means of Wilks' criterion, the combined DV of eight different PCSs was not
significantly affected by individuals from different areas, F (40,3136.843) = 1.264, p
= .124 > .05; Wilks' A = .933; partial r\2 = .014. In other words, consumer decisionmaking styles of individuals from different geographical areas had no significant
differences. Then, Table 38 presents means (M) and standard deviations (SD) for
different consumer decision-making styles among individuals from various areas.
Table 38
Means and Standard Deviations for Profiles of Consumer Decision-Making Styles among
Individuals from Various Areas
PCS1
Areas
PCS2
PCS3
PCS4
PeiKeel
M
2.877
SD
0.608
M
3.616
SD
0.507
M
3.836
SD
0.615
M
3.101
SD
0.423
TaoChuMiao
ChungChangTou
2.856
2.741
0.478
0.536
3.600
3.642
0.534
0.565
0.623
3.076
3.138
0.349
0.547
3.869
3.884
YunChiaNan
2.772
0.574
3.702
0.524
4.013
0.574
3.086
0.406
KaoKaoPing
2.802
0.604
3.697
3.972
0.594
3.086
0.384
HwaDonglsland
2.744
0.753
3.714
0.511
0.514
3.771
0.676
3.079
0.443
PCS5
M
SD
3.132
0.706
PCS6
M
SD
3.892 0.525
TaoChuMiao
2.922
0.722
3.802
ChungChangTou
YunChiaNan
3.013
0.770
3.014
KaoKaoPing
HwaDonglsland
PeiKeel
0.361
PCS7
M
SD
3.464 0.594
PCS8
M
SD
3.436 0.664
0.512
3.451
0.658
3.380
0.616
3.820
0.498
3.437
0.564
3.227
0.661
0.760
3.891
0.585
3.477
0.597
3.263
0.729
3.094
0.744
3.945
0.569
3.426
0.602
3.264
0.798
2.714
0.923
3.724
0.691
3.514
0.535
3.556
0.581
Note. N = 732. PeiKeel: n = 91; TaoChuMiao: n = 81; ChungChangTou: n = 124; YunChiaNan: n = 247;
KaoKaoPing: n - 168; HwaDonglsland: n = 21. PCS1, Brand-Conscious Shopper; PCS2, Price-Value
Hypothesis 2f. Consumer decision-making styles are significantly different for

individuals of different ages.
141
A SPSS one-way between-groups MANOVA test was employed to investigate
means differences in consumer decision-making styles for different ages. The DVs were
eight PCSs, and the IV was age categories, which was based on their birth years, but
individuals who were born before 1986 were grouped into the same category. Although
there were unequal sample sizes among seven age categories (1992, n = 58; 1991, n =
217; 1990, n = 169; 1989, n = 137; 1988, n = 126; 1987, n = 25; 1986 and before, n = 25),
group sample sizes were still larger than the required number of cases per cell (> 20).
Binary scatterplots (see Figure K6 in Appendix K) showed no special pattern or
calculated and ranged from -0.465 to 0.598, indicating low to moderate relationships. In
order to assess the robustness of MANOVA analyses to violation of homogeneity of
variance, the Levene's test was performed, but one of the DVs recorded a significant
value at a = .010. According to Tabachnick and Fidell (2007), there are two options to
correct violations of homogeneity: one is "transformation of the DV scores," and another
is to "use untransformed variables with a more stringent a level (for nominal a = .05,
use .025 with moderate violation and .01 with severe violation)" (p. 86). Therefore, with
a more stringent a level (a = .01), results of evaluation of preliminary assumptions of
sample size, normality, linearity, and multicollinearity, were satisfactory.
With the use of Wilks' criterion, the combined DV of eight different PCSs was
significantly affected by age, F (48,3659.934) = 1.629, p = .004 < .05; Wilks' A = .901;
partial T|2 = .017. Univariate ANOVA and Scheffe post hoc tests were conducted as
follow-up tests to MANOVA. Using a Bonferroni adjustment of a = .006, ANOVA
results indicated that individuals in different age groups significantly differed for price-
142
value conscious shoppers (PCS2), F (6,750) = 3.931, p = .001, partial r|2 = .030; partial
TI2 = .014; and novelty-fashion shoppers (PCS5), F (6, 750) = 3.106, p = .005, partial r\2
= .024. For other profiles of consumer decision-making styles, differences were not
statistically significant, as shown in the following: PCS1, F (6,750) = 2.588, p = .017,
partial r\2 = .020; PCS3, F (6, 750) = .242, p = .963, partial if = .002; PCS4, F (6, 750) =
2.208, p = .040, partial r\2 = .017; PCS6, F (6, 750) = 1.169,/? = .321, partial r|2 = .009;
PCS7, F (6, 750) = 1.067, p = .718, partial r\2 = .005; and PCS8, F (6, 750) = 1.067, p
= .381, partial r|2 = .008.
Further, Scheffc post hoc results only indicated that individuals bom in 1987 (Af =
3.491, SD = 0.782, SE= .150) reported slightly higher levels of novelty-fashion
orientation (PCS5) than those bom in 1992 (p = .037 < .05, M = 2.831, SD = .833, SE
= .099). For price-value conscious shoppers (PCS2), there were no significant differences
among different age groups. However, Bonferroni post hoc results revealed dissimilar
outcomes. Individuals bom in 1987 expressed slightly higher levels of novelty-fashion
orientation than those bom in 1991 (p = .013 < .05, M = 2.948, SD = .778, SE = .051) and
1992 (p = .005 < .05). Individuals bom in 1988 (M = 3.555, SD = .527, SE = .046) were
inclined toward slightly lower levels of price-value consciousness (PCS2) than those bom
in 1990 (p = .025 < .05, M = 3.753, SD = .506, SE = .040) and 1991 (p = .040 < .05, M =
3.736, SD = .540, SE = .035). Table 39 presents adjusted means (Af), standard deviations
(SD), and standard errors (SE) for different consumer decision-making styles among
different ages.
143
Table 39
Decision-Making Styles among Different Ages
Birth
Year
PCS1
SD
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
<1986
2.711
2.705
2.845
2.879
2.851
3.008
2.729
.550
.563
.647
.554
.536
.578
.451
.075
.039
.044
.049
.051
.115
.115
PCS5
SD
SE
PCS6
SD
2.831
2.948
3.107
3.064
3.032
3.491
2.927
.833
.778
.729
.768
.688
.782
.617
.099
.051
.058
.064
.067
.150
.150
3.803
3.821
3.943
3.899
3.892
3.952
3.774
.512
.536
.565
.611
.596
.463
.523
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
<1986
SE
PCS2
SD
SE
3.591
3.736
3.753
3.663
3.555
3.480
3.442
.605
.540
.506
.450
.527
.561
.439
PCS4
SD
SE
.078
.040
.046
.051
.053
.119
.119
2.957
3.111
3.096
3.135
3.099
2.987
3.213
0.450
.375
.355
.383
.431
.469
.345
.051
.027
.030
.033
.035
.078
.078
PCS7
SD
SE
PCS8
SD
SE
.636
.595
.590
.618
.618
.544
.559
.079
.041
.046
.051
.054
.121
.121
3.271
3.228
3.354
3.355
3.271
3.453
3.440
.703
.730
.747
.680
.749
.584
.382
.094
.048
.055
.061
.064
.143
.143
PCS3
SD
SE
.068
.035
.040
.044
.046
.104
.104
3.951
3.926
3.976
3.912
3.949
3.984
3.880
0.581
.589
.608
.596
.619
.562
.529
SE
.074
.038
.043
.048
.050
.113
.113
3.474
3.467
3.494
3.419
3.389
3.368
3.368
Note. N = 757.1992: n = 58; 1991: n = 217; 1990: n = 169; 1989: n = 137; 1988: n = 126; 1987: n = 25; <
1986: n = 25. PCS1, Brand-Conscious Shopper; PCS2, Price-Value Conscious Shopper; PCS3, HighQuality Conscious Shopper; PCS4, Time-Energy Conserving and Recreational Shopper; PCS5, NoveltyFashion Shopper; PCS6, Habitual and Brand-Loyal Shopper; PCS7, Confused-by-Overchoice Shopper; and
Summary of the results. The MANOVA results showed that significant mean
differences among profiles of consumer decision-making styles were found in relation to
gender, age, and type of program and college, but not related to type of school and
geographical area. Table 40 presents the MANOVA results of Research Question 2.
Table 40
Summary ofMANOVA Results of Research Question 2
Findings
PCS
Brand-Conscious Shopper
(PCS1)
There were no significant differences among diverse groups.
Shopper (PCS2)
Individuals who attended the four-year program significantly

indicated higher levels of price-value consciousness than those in
the two-year program.
Individuals born in 1988 expressed significantly lower levels of

price-value consciousness than those born in 1990 and 1991.
High-Quality Conscious
Shopper (PCS3)
Males expressed significantly higher levels of high-quality

consciousness than females.
Time-Energy Conserving and

Recreational Shopper (PCS4)
Novelty-Fashion Shopper
(PCS5)
Females expressed significantly higher levels of time-energy

conservation than males.
Individuals who attended the seven-year program significantly
differed from those in four-year and two-year programs.
Individuals born in 1987 expressed significantly higher levels of
novelty-fashion orientation than those born in 1992 and 1991.
Individuals who attended the seven-year program significantly
differed from those in four-year and two-year programs.
Individuals who studied in the College of Living Technology
expressed significantly higher levels of novelty-fashion orientation
than those in the Colleges of Design and Art.
Habitual and Brand-Loyal

Shopper (PCS6)
Shopper (PCS7)
Research Question 3. What are the distributions of learning styles among

Taiwanese Millennial?
Learning styles of Taiwanese Millennial were assessed through the Chinese
version of the Index of Learning Style (ILS) Questionnaires translated by Tamkang
University. The ILS is comprised of 44 dichotomous forced-choice statements via
grouping 11 items together corresponding to four dimensions, including (a)
sensing/intuitive (Sen/Int), (b) visual/verbal (Vis/Vrb), (c) active/reflective (Act/Ref), and
145
(d) sequential/global (Seq/Glo) (Felder & Soloman, 1997). For statistical analysis, the
ILS used a scoring method ranging from 0 to 11 in each option by subtracting the answer
b (-1) responses from answer a (1) responses in order to obtain a score from -11 to +11 in
each dimension. Answer a corresponded to the individual preferences for active, sensing,
visual or sequential learning, while answer b to the personal tendencies toward reflective,
intuitive, verbal, or global learning (Felder & Spurlin, 2005).
After eliminating missing data, a total of 770 cases were analyzed, and Figure 10
shows that all distributions of learning styles were roughly normal with the exception of
the visual-verbal continuum, which was markedly skewed to the right. As shown in Table
41 and Table 42, the researcher discovered that overall learning styles in each scale for
Taiwanese Millennials were inclined toward more reflective (56.1%, M = -.44, see Figure
10a), sensing (64.2%, M = 1.37, see Figure 10b), visual (90.9%, M = 5.13, see Figure
10c), and global (70%, M = -1.84, see Figure lOd) than active, intuitive, verbal, and
sequential learning styles. Interestingly, the results revealed that more than 90% of the
participants learned better with visual graphic aids than only verbal communication.
Seventy percent of them not only preferred thinking holistically but also showed greater
interest in overview than in details. As global learners, they would suddenly get the
whole picture after gathering enough relative materials.
Table 41
Frequency and Percentage for Individual Learning Styles in the Felder-Soloman Model
Act-Ref
Active Reflective
338
43.9
432
56.1
Note. N=110.f: Frequency.
Sen-Int
Sensing Intuitive
494
64.2
276
35.8
Vis-Vrb
Visual Verbal
700
90.9
70
9.1
Seq-Glo
Sequential Global
321
30.0
539
70.0
146
UDt> -<H3
tt
II
ISSI
11111
llllil
III11111 IS
I'M
III1S
S i l l 111
i l l 11 111
(10a)
(10b)
Saq-Glo
9U O n -3*56
tot Oe - 3 K K
1
I ID
I 11
N.
i
ff
J
iiim
-B
-5
iiiiiii
i i I II i n
-3
(10c)
II IISIi.
111iiir i,
111Illl
(lOd)
Figure 10. Distributions of Learning Styles.

Note. N=770. (10a) Act/Ref (AR): Active-Reflective; (10b) Sen/Int (SI): Sensing-Intuitive; (10c) Vis/Vrb
(VA): Visual-Verbal (Auditory); (lOd) Seq/Glo (SG): Sequential-Global.
Table 4 2
Descriptive Statistics for the Felder-Soloman Index of Learning Style Model
95% of CI
Learning Styles
Mean
Mode
SD
Skewness
Kurtosis
Lower
Upper
Act/Ref
770
-.44
-1
4.263
.083
-.412
-.74
-.14
Sen/Int
770
1.37
4.264
-.271
-.254
1.06
1.67
Vis/Vrb
770
5.13
3.635
-.201
.568
4.87
5.39
Seq/Glo
770
-1.84
-3
3.856
.282
-.214
-2.12
-1.57
Note. SD: Standard Deviation. CI: Confidence interval. Act/Ref (AR): Active-Reflective; Sen/Int (SI):
Sensing-Intuitive; Vis/Vrb (VA): Visual-Verbal (Auditory); Seq/Glo (SG): Sequential-Global.
Moreover, based on the score scales of each individual learning dimension, the
researcher further categorized the summed scores ranging from 101 to 131 as having mild
preferences to learning styles, between 141 and 171 as moderate, and between 181 and IIII as
strong. Figure 11 illustrates the percentages of participants displaying preferences to the
four groups of dichotomous learning style dimensions. For subjects showing mild
preferences to active-reflective, sensing-intuitive, visual-verbal, and sequential-global,
the percentages of those four groups were 62.4%, 60.3%, 32%, and 61.7%, respectively
(see Figure 11a). For participants indicating moderate tendencies to active-reflective,
sensing-intuitive, visual-verbal, and sequential-global scales, the percentages of those
four groups were 32.1%, 32.7%, 45.3%, and 33.8%, respectively (see Figure 1 lb). For
cases demonstrating strong inclinations to active-reflective, sensing-intuitive, visualverbal, and sequential-global scales, the percentages of those four groups were 5.6%,
7.1%, 22.6%, and 4.6%, respectively (see Figure 1 lc).
As indicated in Figure 11, more than 60% of the participants were characterized
as somewhat mildly active (27.3%), reflective (35.1%), sensing (35.5%), intuitive
(24.8%), sequential (22.2%), and global (39.5%) learners, except for the visual-verbal
scale. The majority of participants represented themselves as moderately (43.5%) to
strongly (22.5%) visual learners, while only less than 10% claimed a preference for the
verbal learning styles.
148
MM
Moderate Pretence* to leamtnc Sytles
Preferences to Learning Stylet

i so*
45%
GIO
**
Mf
3s% >
mm
TOT
P'
~~~" ""
^ I *"
25% ;
_ _ _ -
_ _
10%
-VR8
A-R
J1
2/30*
bL
3510*
S(
*
iiiOX
24.80*
~~ ^ B
V-A
'
2490%
710%
40*
W*
| 10%
UOaW
i 2
^ H
2220
3D50*
0* '
a*
<sto
SEN
1 25*
a
SG
'
^ ^ ^
1440*
L
23 WK
9)C%
ML^
HUM
1
;40%
.0X
(Ha)
(lib)
(He)
Figure 11. Preference percentage differences in Learning Styles.
Note. N = 770 Act/Ref (AR): Active-Reflective; Sen/Int (SI) Sensing-Intuitive, Vis/Vrb (VA): VisualVerbal (Auditory); Seq/Glo (SG): Sequential-Global.
Felder and Spurlin (2005) advised that "learning style dimensionssuch as the
four dimensions of the FS [Felder-Soloman] modelare continua, not either/or
categories. ... Learning style profiles suggest behavioral tendencies rather than being
infallible predictors of behaviors" (p. 104). Since a large number of the students shared
mild preferences to reflective, sensing, and global learning styles, the results specified
that those participants cannot be strictly classified in favor of a single learning style;
instead, they demonstrated a great variety of learning preferences and considerately wellbalanced learning in the environment featuring both styles of a dimension. On the
contrary, only less than 5% of the subjects showed strong preferences to active (2.2%),
reflective (3.4%), intuitive (1.8%), verbal (0.1%), sequential (0.4%), and global (4.2%)
learning styles. The findings suggested that they would be comfortable with one learning
style pole of a dimension and achieve optimal learning outcomes if the adequate
environment were provided.
Besides, Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated in order to examine the
relationships among four scales. The results showed that there were statistically
significant correlations among three sets of IVs: VA and AR scales (r = .186, p < .001),
SG and SI scales (r = .262, p < .001), as well as SG and VA scales (r = -.079, p - .029
< .05). Although r values indicated low relationships among those scales, the findings
further supported that dimensions of learning styles were likely interconnected, and a
single learning style should not be applied or assumed as an indicator of strength or
weakness in learning environments. In contrast, learning styles reflected preferences and
tendencies and could help achieve better diverse learning.
Research Question 4. Are the learning styles significantly different when
Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) tests were conducted to investigate
mean differences among various groups, including gender; age; geographical area; as
well as type of school, program, and college. The four DVs were active-reflective (AR),
sensing-intuitive (SI), visual-verbal (VA), and sequential-global (SG) scales. Before
performing the main MANOVA analysis, several assumptions, including (a) sample size,
(b) normality, (c) outliers, (d) linearity, (e) homogeneity of regression, (f)
multicollinearity and singularity, and (g) homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices,
were assessed (Mertler & Vannatta, 2004; Pallant, 2007; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).
150
As shown in Figure 10 and Figure J57, there were no serious violations noted for
normality. Although some univariate outliers were found scattered throughout four
variables with 0 to 7 cases per variable through the box plots, no removal was made (12
cases, 12 outliers). Examining multivariate outliers with Mahalanobis distance, the
critical value atp < .001 for chi-square (X2) is 18.47 with df = 4. Thus, only one outlier
had a score of 20, exceeding the X2 value of 18.47, but was not far from that critical value;
the researcher decided to leave this case in the dataset. With a total of 770 cases, the
sample size in this study was well beyond the minimum requirement for further
MANOVA analysis. Additionally, a Bonferroni type adjustment was calculated, and a a
value of 0.0125 was adapted in follow-up ANOVA tests.
Hypothesis 4a. Learning styles are significantly different between males and
females.
gender differences in learning styles. The four learning dimensionsactive-reflective
(AR), sensing-intuitive (SI), visual-verbal (VA), and sequential-global (SG) were DVs,
and the IV was gender. Preliminary assumption testing was conducted to check for
normality, univariate and multivariate outliers, homogeneity of variance-covariance
matrices, and multicollinearity, with no serious violations noted. Although there were
unequal sample sizes between males (n = 101) and females (n = 669), group sample sizes
were quite larger than the required number of cases per cell (> 20).
Binary scatterplots (see Figure K7 in Appendix K) were created to examine
linearity, and no special patterns or differences were found in the spread of cases in each
scatterplot. Pearson correlation coefficients were also calculated; although some
151
correlation coefficients were statically significant (p < .001), r values ranged from -0.089
to 0.270, indicating low relationships (Pallant, 2007; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Based
on the Levene's test, none of the variables recorded significant values. Hence, linearity
and equal variances were assumed.
By means of Wilks' criterion, there was a statistically significant difference
between males and females on the combined DV of four scales, F (4, 765) = 4.487, p
< .001; Wilks' A = .967; partial n2 = .033. ANOVA was conducted on each DV as a
follow-up test to MANOVA. Using a Bonferroni adjusted alpha level of 0.0125, gender
differences were statistically significant in the SI scale, F (1,768) = 13.389, p < .001,
partial n2 = .017; and VA scale, F (1, 768) = 7.832, p = .005, partial n2 = .010.
Differences in the AR scale (F (1, 768) = 1.366, p = .243, partial n2 = .002) and SG scale
(F (1, 768) = .008, p = .928, partial n2 = .000) were not significant.
An inspection of the mean scores indicated that females (M = 1.583, SD = 4.224,
SE = 0.164) tended slightly toward more sensing than intuitive learning in comparison to
males (p < .001, M = -.069, SD = 4.267, SE = .421); and males (M = 6.069, SD = 3.737,
SE = .360) showed stronger preferences toward visual learning than did females (p = .005
< .05, M = 4.988, SD = 3.601, SE - .140). Figure 12 presents adjusted means (M),
standard errors (SE), standard deviation (SD), and the distributions of learning styles in
active-reflective, sensing-intuitive, visual-verbal, and sequential-global scales between
males and females.
152
AR
SI
iurn
rl
Jill.
11 111
s lit i i
PTilll1111
M = -0.369
S= 0.165, SD= 4.293
stimuli
VA
: ^zz^L;
i l l I,
Hill.
PS 1111 i i is
M = 4.988
S= 0.140, SD= 3.737
M = -1.849
S= 0.149, SD= 3.591
-I
i
S
l:zd|||
Hi
t-^ffffi -Jill life
M =1.583
SE= 0.164, SD= 4.267
'"
SG
'H^
iir
ill-mini
M = -0.901
SE= 0.424, SD= 4.257
___
i
i
M=-0.069
S= 0.421, SP= 4.224
mninti
A/=6.069
S= 0.360,5P= 3.601
Ii
*
T . ' **' "
M = -1.812
SE= 0.384,SD= 3.896
between females and males.
Note. N-11Q. Female: n - 669; Male: n = 101.AR: Active-Reflective; SI: Sensing-Intuitive; VA: VisualVerbal (Auditory); SG: Sequential-Global.
Hypothesis 4b. Learning styles are significantly different for individuals who
attended dissimilar programs.
individual differences in learning styles among dissimilar programs. The four DVs were
AR, SI, VA, and SG scales, and the IV was school programs. Preliminary assumption
testing was conducted to check for normality, univariate and multivariate outliers,
homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices, and multicollinearity, with no serious
violations noted. Even with unequal sample sizes among programs offered over four
years (n = 589), two years (n = 73) and seven years (n = 108), group sample sizes were
all larger than the required number of cases per cell (> 20). Binary scatterplots (see
Figure K8 in Appendix K) showed no special pattern or differences in the spread of cases

in each scatterplot. Pearson correlation r values were calculated and ranged from -0.132
to 0.307, indicating low relationships. None of the variables recorded significant values
in the Levene's test. Therefore, results of evaluation of preliminary assumptions of
sample size, normality, linearity, homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices, and
multicollinearity, were satisfactory.
Per Wilks' criterion, the combined DV of four scales was significantly affected by
individuals enrolled in dissimilar school programs, F (8, 1528) = 2.427, p = .013 < .05;
Wilks' A = .975; partial n2 = .013. Univariate ANOVA and Scheffe" post hoc tests were
conducted as follow-up tests to MANOVA. Using a Bonferroni adjustment of a = .0125,
ANOVA results indicated that individuals attending dissimilar school programs
significantly differed in the SI scale, F (2, 767) = 7.192, p = .001, partial n2 = .018, but
not in the AR scale, F (2, 767) = .092, p = .912, partial n2 = .000; VA scale, F (2, 767) =
1.083, p = .339, partial n2 = .003; and SG scale, F (2,767) = .515,/? = .598, partial n2
= .001.
Further, Scheffe post hoc results for mean differences among four scales revealed
that learning styles of individuals attending in the seven-year program (M = .204, SD =
4.501, SE = .407) preferred slightly more intuitive than sensing learning compared to
those attending four-year (p = .022 < .05, M = 1.428, SD = 4.192, SE = .174) and twoyear programs (p = .001 < .05, M = 2.589, SD - 4.123, SE = .495). Figure 13 presents
adjusted means (M), standard errors (SE), standard deviation (SD), and the distributions
of learning styles in active-reflective, sensing-intuitive, visual-verbal, and sequentialglobal scales among individuals enrolled in dissimilar programs.
154
SI
AR
i:
i
Iff.
imi
SG
VA
lii)
i-
Elill
illlllfi
lillli
minimi
A/ = -0.402
SE= 0.176, SD= 4.268
M= 1.428
S=0.174,SD= 4.192
M = 5.190
SE= 0.150, SD= 3.673
Af = -1.771
S= 0.159, SD= 3.934
A/=-0.562
S= 0.500, SD = 4.246
Af= 2.589
S= 0.495,SD= 4.123
M= 4.534
SE= 0.425,SD= 3.690
A/ = -2.205
SE= 0.452,5D= 3.395
O
i
"
?"-
II
'~ Mflttrr
\WTt ii ii n i l
m m MM
M = -0.556
SE= 0.411, 5Z)= 4.283
I.
M = 0.204
SE= 0.407,5D= 4.501
" | "
,. v wfl
Af= 5.204
5 = 0.350, SP= 3.382
M =-2.000
SE= 0.371, 5P= 3.724
among individuals attending dissimilar programs.
Note. N=770.4-year: n = 589; 2-year: n = 73; 7-year: n = 108. AR: Active-Reflective; SI: SensingIntuitive; VA: Visual-Verbal (Auditory); SG: Sequential-Global.
Hypothesis 4c. Learning styles are significantly different for individuals who
studied in different colleges.
A SPSS one-way between-groups MANOVA test was conducted to inspect
individual differences in learning styles among different colleges. The four DVs were AR,
SI, VA, and SG scales, and the IV was academic colleges. Preliminary assumption testing
155
was conducted to check for normality, univariate and multivariate outliers, homogeneity
of variance-covariance matrices, and multicollinearity, with no serious violations noted.
Despite of unequal sample sizes among the College of Management (n = 114), College of
Design (n = 374), College of Art (n = 109), and College of Living Technology (n = 174),
group sample sizes were quite larger than the required number of cases per cell (> 20).
Binary scatterplots (see Figure K9 in Appendix K) showed no special pattern or
calculated and ranged from -0.393 to 0.427, indicating low relationships. None of the
variables recorded significant values in the Levene's test. Therefore, results of evaluation
of preliminary assumptions of sample size, normality, linearity, homogeneity of variancecovariance matrices, and multicollinearity, were satisfactory.
With the use of Wilks' criterion, the combined DV of four scales was
significantly affected by individuals studying in different colleges, F (12, 2019) = 5.753,
p < .001; Wilks' A = .915, partial n 2 = .029. Univariate ANOVA and Scheffe post hoc
tests were conducted as follow-up tests to MANOVA. Using a Bonferroni adjustment of
a = .0125, ANOVA results indicated that individuals enrolled in dissimilar colleges
significantly differed in the SI scale, F (3, 766) = 13.411, p < .001, partial n 2 = .050, and
VA scale, F (3, 766) = 4.336, p = .005, partial n2 = .017; but not in the AR scale, F (3,
766) = 1.234, p = .296, partial n2 = .005, and SG scale, F (3, 766) = 3.473, p = .016,
partial r\2 = . 013.
Then, Scheffe post hoc results for mean differences among four scales revealed
some variations as follows:
156
For the SI scale, individual preferences significantly differed among four

different colleges. Particularly, individuals enrolled in the College of Living
Technology significantly showed slightly stronger tendencies toward sensing
learning styles than those in the Colleges of Design (p < .001) and Art (p
< .001).
Learning styles of individuals enrolled in the College of Management made

significant differences in the SI scale compared to learning styles of those from
the Colleges of Design (p < .001) and Art (p < .001). They expressed stronger
favor to sensing learning styles and slightly lower tendencies toward visual
learning styles.
Further, an inspection of the mean scores showed that individuals studying in

the College of Design indicated considerably stronger preferences to visual
learning styles in the VA scale (p = .005 < .05) compared to those studying in
the College of Management.
Conclusively, except for the AR and SG dimension of learning styles, significant
differences existed among different colleges. Figure 14 presents adjusted means (M),
standard errors (SE), standard deviation (SD), and the distributions of learning styles in
active-reflective, sensing-intuitive, visual-verbal, and sequential-global scales among
individual studying in different colleges.
157
AR
g
SB
tig
JIM!-.
SI
14-
;z
w
" i
i t
in mru
M = 0.228
S= 0.399, SD= 4.178
A/=2.684
S=0.390,5D= 4.005
M = -0.646
S= 0.221, SD = 4.298
-i
M = 4.035
SE= 0.338,5D= 3.993
iHr
prsillllifH
nr;
M = 0.780
SE= 0.216,S>= 4.187
A/ = 0.193
SE= 0399,SD= 4.481
A/= -0.789
S= 0.359, SD= 3.662
to
!ii;p
Til,
urn mmm
A/ = 5.424
S= 0.187, SD= 3.643
.i ...MjHfm
M= -0.486
SE= 0.408, SD = 4.324
,,
.,,0411 II
.2?
SG
VA
M = 5.202
S= 0.346, SD= 3.366
M =-1.965
5= 0.199, SD= 3.928
=A
HI
M=-2.028
S= 0.368, SD= 3.718
Cl^rCl^tllM^lw^Mtit ^
bo
c
o
<D
H
60
C
Ml I I
rmtim
M = -0.402
S= 0.323, SD= 4.263
.II11J
M= 2.494
S= 0.316, SD= 4.008
li 3
! I I I I n^^^wai | i I I l l r
niillli^Wfiii Ml
M = 5.172
S = 0.274, S>= 3.426
M =-2.161
S= 0.291, SD= 3.824
among individuals enrolled in different colleges.
Note. N = 770. College of Management: n = 114; College of Art: n = 373; College of Art: n = 109; College
of Living Technology: n = 174. AR: Active-Reflective; SI: Sensing-Intuitive; VA: Visual-Verbal
(Auditory); SG: Sequential-Global.
158
Hypothesis 4d. Learning styles are significantly different for individuals who
went to the day and night schools.
A SPSS one-way between-groups MANOVA test was conducted to inspect
individual differences in learning styles between students enrolled in the day and night
schools. The four DVs were AR, SI, VA, and SG scales, and the IV was students who
went to the day or night schools. Preliminary assumption testing was conducted to check
for normality, univariate and multivariate outliers, homogeneity of variance-covariance
matrices, and multicollinearity, with no serious violations noted. Regardless of unequal
sample sizes between day-school (n = 739) and night-school (n = 31), group sample sizes
were larger than the required number of cases per cell (> 20). In order to examine
linearity, binary scatterplots (see Figure K10 in Appendix K) were created and showed no
special pattern or differences in the spread of cases in each scatterplot. Pearson
correlation r values were calculated and ranged from -0.355 to 0.619, indicating low to
moderate relationships. Since the r value was still less than 0.9, Tabachnick and Fidell
(2007) suggested no reason for concern. None of the variables recorded significant values
in the Levene's test. Therefore, results of evaluation of preliminary assumptions of
sample size, normality, linearity, homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices, and
multicollinearity, were satisfactory.
By using Wilks' criterion, the combined DV of four dimensions of learning styles
was not significantly affected by individuals going to the day or night schools, F (4, 765)
= 1.665, p = .325 > .05; Wilks' A = .994; partial r\2 = .006. In other words, students who
went to the day or night schools made no significant differences among four different
scales of learning styles. Thus, Table 43 presents adjusted means (M), standard errors
159
(SE), and standard deviation (SD) in active-reflective, sensing-intuitive, visual-verbal,
and sequential-global scales for students attending day and night schools.
Table 43
Adjusted Means, Standard Deviations, and Standard Errors for Four Dimensions of
Learning Styles for Individuals Enrolled in the Day and Night Schools
AR
M
SE
SD
VA
SI
SG
Day
Night
Day
Night
Day
Night
Day
Night
-.445
.157
4.264
-.290
.766
4.307
1.371
.157
4.251
1.258
.766
4.460
5.179
.134
3.616
3.968
.652
3.962
-1.874
.142
3.855
-1.129
.692
3.862
Note. N=770. Day-school: n = 739; Nigh-school: n = 31. AR: Active-Reflective; SI: Sensing-Intuitive;
VA: Visual-Verbal (Auditory); SG: Sequential-Global.
Hypothesis 4e. Learning styles are significantly different for individuals who
came from different areas.
individual differences in learning styles for individuals who came from various areas.
The four DVs were AR, SI, VA, and SG scales, and the IV was area, including six
geographical regions (see Figure 3): PeiKeel, TaoChuMiao, ChungChangTou,
YunChiaNan, KaoKaoPing, and HwaDonglsland. Because 26 undefined hometown data
were omitted in the database, a total of 744 cases were retained for further analysis. In
spite of unequal sample sizes among PeiKeel (n = 92), TaoChuMiao (n = 81),
ChungChangTou (n = 126), YunChiaNan (n = 254), KaoKaoPing (n = 168), and
HwaDonglsland (n = 23), group sample sizes were still all larger than the required
number of cases per cell (> 20). Binary scatterplots (see Figure Kl 1 in Appendix K)
showed no special pattern or differences in the spread of cases in each scatterplot.
low to moderate relationships. None of the variables recorded significant values in the
160
Levene's test. Therefore, results of evaluation of preliminary assumptions of sample size,
normality, linearity, homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices, and multicollinearity,
were satisfactory.
By means of Wilks' criterion, the combined DV of four dimensions of learning
styles was not significantly affected by individuals from different areas, F (20, 2438.669)
= 1.198, p = .246 > .05; Wilks' A = .968; partial n2 = .008. In other words, individual
learning styles from different geographical areas had no significant differences. Then,
Table 44 presents means (A/) and standard deviations (SD) in active-reflective, sensingintuitive, visual-verbal, and sequential-global scales among individuals from various
areas.
Table 44
Adjusted Means and Standard Deviations for Four Dimensions of Learning Styles among
Individuals from Various Areas
AR
Areas
PeiKeel
TaoChuMiao
ChungChangTou
YunChiaNan
M
-.09
-.46
-1.03
-.39
KaoKaoPing
HwaDonglsland
SD
4.321
4.062
4.454
SI
VA
M
.76
.16
SD
4.254
4.526
M
4.91
5.77
5.17
4.166
1.51
1.65
-.12
4.287
1.87
4.202
4.413
3.864
4.99
5.24
-.57
4.347
1.09
4.327
3.87
SG
SD
3.977
3.108
M
-2.15
-2.31
SD
3.524
3.862
3.803
3.685
-1.94
-1.79
3.588
-1.52
3.775
3.933
3.904
3.659
-2.39
4.065
Note. N=1U. PeiKeel: n = 92; TaoChuMiao: n = 81; ChungChangTou: n = 126; YunChiaNan: n = 254;
KaoKaoPing: n = 168; HwaDonglsland: n = 23. AR: Active-Reflective; SI: Sensing-Intuitive; VA: VisualVerbal (Auditory); SG: Sequential-Global.
Hypothesis 4f. Learning styles are significantly different for individuals of

different ages.
individual differences in learning styles for different ages. The four DVs were AR, SI,
161
VA, and SG scales, and the IV was age categories, except that individuals born before
1986 were considered as one category. Even with unequal sample sizes among the seven
age categories (1992, n = 60; 1991, n = 221; 1990, n = 170; 1989, n = 140; 1988, n = 127;
1987, n = 26; 1986 and before, n = 26), group sample sizes were all larger than the
low to moderate relationships. None of the variables recorded significant values in the
Levene's test. Therefore, results of evaluation of preliminary assumptions of sample size,
normality, linearity, homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices, and multicollinearity,
were satisfactory.
With the use of Wilks' criterion, the combined DV of four scales was
significantly affected by different ages, F (24, 2652.533) = 1.685, p = .020 < .05; Wilks'
A = .949, partial t|2 = .013. Univariate ANOVA and Scheffe" post hoc tests were
conducted as follow-up tests to MANOVA. Using a Bonferroni adjustment of a = 0.0125,
ANOVA results indicated that individuals of different ages significantly differed in the SI
scale, F (6, 763) = 3.836, p = .001, partial r|2 = .029, but not in the AR scale, F (6, 763)
= .380, p = .892, partial t|2 = .003; VA scale, F (6, 763) = 2.261, p = .036, partial n2
= .017; and SG scale, F (6, 763) = .296, p = .939, partial r|2 = .002.
Further, an inspection of Scheffe post hoc results showed that for the four
dimensions of learning styles, there were no significant differences among the various
age groups. On the contrary, Bonferroni post hoc results revealed that in the SI scales,
individuals born in 1988 (M = 2.291, SD = 4.324, SE = .374) expressed considerably
162
stronger preferences to sensing learning in comparison to those born in 1991 (p = .010

< .05) and 1992 (p = .045 < .05). Particularly, participants who were born before 1986
not only favored sensing learning styles in the SI scale more than those born in 1992 (p
= .028 < .05), but also inclined considerably less toward the visual orientation of learning
styles than those born in 1991 (p = .022 < .05) and 1992 (p = .023 < .05). Figure 15
presents adjusted means (M), standard errors (SE), standard deviation (SD), and the
distributions of learning styles in active-reflective, sensing-intuitive, visual-verbal, and
sequential-global scales among individuals of different ages.
AR
SI
SG
VA
ON
ZM
M = -0.133
SE= 0.552, SD= 3.886
M=-0.033
S=0.544, SD= 4.125
M = 5.633
SE= 0.467, SD= 3.047
...
..i I 1.1.2
JIT. :n i:
I
ON
ON
I *I 8 i f
n if* I 1 i I
I I I I I I I
M=-0.457
SE= 0.287, SD = 4.225
^
i * i in
M III
K i l l I I II
fc
Af=-1.933
S= 0.499, SD= 3.364
<r<~"
r~~*-~:~~~w f~
=-^4---i
prsj;;i;;ij;i;i i t n
Fsm t
M = 0.846
S= 0.284,SD= 4.385
M = 5.317
SE= 0.243, SD= 3.911
-|ff
R | | H -
wmm*t1 1 1 1 1 1 1 >
M=-1.724
S= 0.260,5D= 3.966
l^^^^^pgmmgml
^llllillHIIIII
jup^^gmqgugmn
O
ON
ON
!:
iSEm ni&i
HW
ntsi
i ; i rJ n
IKTiillli!
1
M = -0.529
S= 0.328, SD= 4.607
M= 1.188
SE= 0.323, SD= 4.001
mm\t
11*.
i ii
fin
f inn
R i l l i l l I!
M = 5.082
5 = 0.277, SD= 3.302
M =-2.012
S= 0.297, SD= 4.054
163
. --
llil
ON
00
as
1111; ra
: 11 ii 11 i n
M = -0.214
SE= 0.361,5D= 4.215
oo
oo
M= 1.657
S= 0.356, SD= 4.200
i
J
11 i
n 11 <
IM
IIS
3*011!
M= 5.200
5 = 0.306, SD= 3.641
It
ON
II11 III
oittllii
.L-juwillJ IB
Af=-0.622
SE= 0.379, SD = 4.244
M = 2.291
S= 0.374, SD= 4.324
M = 4.89SE= 0.321, SD= 3.807
ON
.Jt
IIHJ
Wffllllll!
M = -1.743
S= 0.327, SD= 3.711
i:
It
oo
II!
Till?
_ 5UT*'_
Till
rrninn
Kiilill
M= -2.024
S= 0.343,SD= 4.023
=^ti
M = 0.077
5= 0.838,5Z)= 3.846
M = 2.308
5= 0.827, SD= 4.416
M = 5.169
5 = 0.709, SZ>= 2.776
M = -1.923
SE= 0.758, SD= 3.006
M=-1.231
SE= 0.838,5D= 4.092
M= 3.154
S= 0.827, SD= 3.663
M =2.846
5 = 0.709, SD= 3.833
M =-1.154
S= 0.758, SD= 3.574
NO
00
ON
among individuals of different ages.
Note. N = 770. 1992: n = 60; 1991: n = 221; 1990: n = 170; 1989: n = 140; 1988: n = 127; 1987: n = 26; <
1986: n = 26. AR: Active-Reflective; SI: Sensing-Intuitive; VA: Visual-Verbal (Auditory); SG: SequentialGlobal.
Summary of the results. The MANOVA results showed that significant mean
differences among learning styles for four dimensions were found in relation to gender,
164
age, as well as type of program and college, but not related to type of school and
geographical area. Table 45 summarizes the MANOVA results of Research Question 4.
Table 45
Summary of MANOVA Results of Research Question 4
Learning Styles
IV
Active-Reflective
Gender, Area,
Schools, Programs,
Colleges, Age
Gender
Programs
Age
(AR)
Sensing-Intuitive
(SI)
Findings
Visual-Verbal
(VA)
Sequential-Global
(SG)
Females inclined slightly more toward sensing learning

than intuitive learning compared to males.
Individuals who attended the seven-year program
slightly preferred intuitive learning to sensing learning
compared to those attending four-year and two-year
programs.
Individuals born in 1988 expressed considerably
stronger preferences to sensing learning compared to
those born in 1991 and 1992.
Individuals born in 1986 expressed significantly higher
tendencies toward sensing learning styles than those
born in 1992.
Individuals who studied in the Colleges of Management
and Living Technology showed significant differences
from those in the Colleges of Design and Art.
There were no significant differences among diverse
groups.
Colleges
Area, Schools
Gender
Age
Colleges
Area, Schools,
Programs
Gender, Area,
Schools, Programs,
Colleges, Age
Males showed stronger preferences toward visual

learning than did females.
Individuals bom in 1986 indicated significantly lower
preferences to visual learning styles than did those born
in 1991 and 1992.
Individuals who studied in the College of Design
showed stronger visual learning preferences than did
those in Colleges of Management.
There were no significant differences among diverse
groups.
Research Question 5. Is there a relationship between the learning styles and

165
Hypothesis 5. There is a significant relationship between the learning styles and
consumer decision-making styles of the Millennial Generation in Taiwan.
In order to analyze the possible relationships between consumer decision-making
styles and learning styles, canonical correlation was employed between a set of PCS
variables and a set of learning-style variables by using SPSS MANOVA and a
CANCORR marco. The eight variables of profiles of consumer decision-making styles
(PCS) included the brand-conscious shopper (PCS1), price-value conscious shopper
(PCS2), high-quality conscious shopper (PCS3), time-energy conserving and recreational
shopper (PCS4), novelty-fashion shopper (PCS5), habitual/brand-loyal shopper (PCS6),
confused-by-overchoice shopper (PCS7), and impulsive shopper (PCS8). The four
learning-style variables included the active-reflective (AR), sensing-intuitive (SI), visualverbal (VA), and sequential-global (SG) scales.
Similar to the MANOVA analysis, some practical issues needed to be considered
before proceeding with the canonical analysis, including (a) ratio of cases to IVs, (b)
normality, (c) linearity, (d) homoscedasticity, (e) outliers, and (f) multicollinearity and
singularity (Garson, 2008; Stevens, 2002; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). According to
Tabachnick and Fidell (2007), the sample size in the ratio of 10 to 1 per variable was
recommended with the reliability around 0.8 in the social sciences research. On the other
hand, Stevens (2002) explained that because two devices are available for interpreting the
canonical variates, including (a) standardized coefficients and (b) canonical variatevariable correlations, were unreliable "unless the n/total number of variables ratio is very
large: at least 42/1 if interpreting the largest two canonical correlations, and about 20/1 if
interpreting only the largest canonical correlation" (p. 486).
166
For eight PCSs, a review of descriptive statistics in Table 32, as well as
histograms and Q-Q plots as shown in Appendix J from Figure J49 to Figure J56, found
no serious violations recorded. As shown in Table 42, Figure 10, and Figure J57, there
were also no serious violations noted in the four learning-style dimensions. Therefore,
univariate normality for both sets of variables was assumed.
Examining multivariate outliers with Mahalanobis distance, the critical value at p
< .001 for chi-square (X2) is 32.909 with df= 12. Thus, 10 within-set multivariate outliers
were identified, leaving 760 cases for canonical analysis. Based on Stevens (2002)
suggestion of sample size, a total of 760 cases was greater than the required number (504,
42 x 12 variables) in order to interpret two canonical correlations. Linearity was assessed
by scatterplots and Pearson correlations. By inspection of the bivariate scatterplots (see
Figure K13 in Appendix K), the normal distributions and linear relationships between
variables were assessed; and there were no special patterns or differences in the spread of
cases in each scatterplot. Pearson correlation r values were also calculated to assess
multicollinearity and singularity. The results partially showed in Table 46, and
correlation coefficients, ranging from -0.177 to 0.487, were all less than 0.9, indicating
low to moderate relationships. Although not all r values between the variables of PCS
and learning-style dimensions were significant, scatterplots showed no signs of curvature
relationships. Based on previous analysis results, none of the variables recorded
significant values in the Levene's test. Hence, multivariate normality, linearity,
homoscedasticity, as well as multicollinearity and singularity were assumed.
167
Table 46
Pearson Correlation Matrix between Profiles of Consumer Decision-Making Styles and
Learning-Styles Dimensions
PCS1
PCS2
PCS3
PCS4
PCS5
PCS6
PCS7
PCS8
.099**
-.053
.038
.102**
.169**
.080*
-.024
.115**
.030
.062
-.061
.050
-.024
.037
.079*
-.062
.045
.020
.047
.057
.032
.009
.002
-.013
-.020
.008
-.073*
.018
-.013
-.021
.042
-.062
Note. N = 760. ** p < .01 (2-tailed), * p < .05 (2-tailed). AR: Active-Reflective; SI: Sensing-Intuitive; VA:
Visual-Verbal (Auditory); SG: Sequential-Global. PCS1, Brand-Conscious Shopper; PCS2, Price-Value
Four canonical functions were derived, and two showed significance (p < .05)
with the canonical correlation of 0.228 (9.5% overlapping variance) and 0.191 (18.9%
overlapping variance), explaining 5.2% and 36.7% of the variation. The remaining two
canonical correlations were effectively zero. With all four canonical correlations included,
F (32, 2760.08) = 2.412, p < .001; with the first canonical correlation removed, F (21,
2151.2) = 1.744, p = .019; and with the first and second canonical correlations removed,
F values were not statistically significant: F (12, 1500) = .697, p = .756. Therefore, only
the first two pairs of canonical variates accounted for the significant relationships
between the two sets of variables and were interpreted. Although highly significant,
neither of these two canonical correlations represented a substantial relationship between
pairs of canonical variates. Interpretation of the second canonical correlation and its
corresponding pair of canonical variates is marginal.
Table 47 details the multivariate test statistics, indicating that the canonical
functions, taken collectively, were statistically significant at the 0.05 level. Data on the
first two pairs of canonical variates appearing in Table 47 were correlations between the
168
variables and the canonical variates, standardized canonical variate coefficients, withinset variance accounted for by the canonical variates (proportion of variance),
redundancies, and canonical correlations.
Table 47
Canonical Correlation Results - Consumer Styles versus Learning Styles
Canonical Variates

Brand-Conscious Shopper (PCS1)
Price-Value Conscious Shopper (PCS2)
High-Quality Conscious Shopper
(PCS3)
Time-Energy Conserving and
Recreational Shopper (PCS4)
Novelty-Fashion Shopper (PCS5)
Habitual/Brand-Loyal Shopper (PCS6)
Confused-by-Overchoice Shopper
(PCS7)
% Variance
Redundancy
Learning-Styles Dimensions
Active-Reflective (AR)
Sensing-Intuitive (SI)
Visual-Verbal (VA)
Sequential-Global (SG)
% Variance
Redundancy
Degree of freedom (df)

Probability
h:2
Re
Re'
Re
Re2
.068
.215
-.092
.357
-.302
-.261
.127
.091
.068
.500
.234
-.641
.342
.180
-.233
.117
.032
.054
.244
.124
.122
-.256
-.317
.100
.628
.494
.244
.345
-.578
-.076
.367
-.717
-.285
.230
.514
.081
.053
.117
.337
.428
.239
.297
.349
.057
.088
.122
.571
.169
.175
-.562
-.593
.352
-.373
-.136
.018
.370
.173
.009
-.929
.304
.088
.138
Total==.265
Total==.012
.092
.003
-.929
.363
-.100
.257
.863
.132
.010
.066
.268
.014
Canonical R
F statistics
Function E1
Function I
.368
.823
.198
.242
.369
.870
.241
.413
.136
.757
.058
.171
Total==.549
Total==.024
.281
.010
.228
.052
.191
2.412
1.744
32
21
.000*
.019*
.999
.889
.068
.237
.367
Note. N=760. * p < .05 (2-tailed). r: Standardized canonical coefficients. R: Canonical correlation. R 2 :
Squared canonical correlation, h2: Canonical communality coefficients.
With the cutoff correlation of 0.3, the variables in the PCS set were all correlated
with the first canonical variate, except for the PCS3, PCS6, and PCS7. Among the
learning-style variables, the AR and SI scales correlated with the first canonical variates.
The first pair of canonical variates indicated that brand-conscious shoppers (-0.357),
price-value conscious shoppers (-0.302), time-energy conserving and recreational
shoppers (-0.317), novelty-fashion shoppers (-0.717), and impulsive shoppers (-0.593)
were associated mostly with the active-reflective (-0.929) and sensing-intuitive (0.363)
learning scales. Closely looking at each individual set, novelty-fashion shoppers and
impulsive shoppers were the two most influential variables of the consumer decisionmaking styles set on the first canonical correlation, while active-reflective learning was
the most influential one of the learning-style set. Particularly, novelty-fashion shoppers
made efforts either to think through the related information about products in advance or
try the items out before making purchases. Generally speaking, consumers with noveltyfashion and impulsive decision-making styles commonly obtained and understood
information in an active or reflective way.
The second canonical variate in the PCS set was composed of PCS 1 (0.342),
PCS4 (0.494), and PCS7 (0.349), with the corresponding canonical variate from all
learning-style scales, except for the VA scale. Taken as a pair, these variates suggested
that a combination of active-reflective, sensing-intuitive, and sequential-global learning
styles was more effective to influence a combination of shopping behaviors toward
brand-consciousness, time-energy conservation and recreation, as well as confused-by
overchoice. Within the second canonical function, time-energy conserving and
recreational shoppers were the most influential variable of the consumer decision-making
style set and sensing-intuitive learning was the most influential variable of the learningstyle set. Consequently, consumer characteristics inclined toward time-energy conserving
and recreational behaviors were mostly associated with the sensing or intuitive
170
recognition. In other words, time-energy conserving and recreational shoppers were more
practically oriented toward making purchases.
This first pair extracted 17.3% of variance from the PCS set and 26.8% of
variance from the learning-style dimension set, while the second canonical variate pair
extracted 9.2% of variance from the first set of variables and 28.1 % of variance from the
second set. Together, the two canonical variates accounted for 26.5% of variance in the
PCS set and 54.9% of variance in the learning-style dimension set. Also, the redundancy
indexes of all sets in two canonical functions were marginally zero, indicating a clear
linearity. Therefore, the total proportion of variance and total redundancy showed that
both pairs of canonical variates were minimally related (see Figure 16).
Figure 16. Relationships among variables, canonical variates, and the first pair of
canonical variates.
Note. AR: Active-Reflect've; SI: Sensing-Intuitive; VA: Visual-Verbal (Auditory); SG: Sequential-Global.
PCS: Profiles of consumer styles. PCSl, Brand-Conscious Shopper; PCS2, Price-Value Conscious Shopper;
PCS3, High-Quality Conscious Shopper; PCS4, Time-Energy Conserving and Recreational Shopper; PCS5,
Novelty-Fashion shopper; PCS6, Habitual and Brand-Loyal Shopper; PCS7, Confused-by-Overchoice
Shopper; and PCS8, Impulsive Shopper.
Additionally, as shown in Table 46, the results of the Pearson correlation

suggested substantial significant interrelationships between consumers' learning and
decision-making styles. Particularly, active-reflective learning appeared to be correlated
most strongly with five of eight decision-making characteristics, such as brandconsciousness, time-energy conserving and recreational behaviors, novelty-fashion
consciousness, habitual and brand-loyal behaviors, and impulsiveness. The results of
canonical correlation analysis were consistent with the findings of the Pearson correlation
test, besides which some variations existed between characteristics of price-value
consciousness, and habitualness and brand-loyalty.
In sum, two canonical functions were found significant with r = 0.228 and 0.191,
respectively, explaining 5.2% and 36.7% of the variances. Together, the two canonical
variates accounted for 26.5% of variance in the PCS set and 54.9% of variance in the
learning-style dimension set. Derived from the above results, consumers' characteristics
with decision-making tendencies for novelty-fashion consciousness, impulsiveness, as
well as time-energy conserving and recreational behaviors showed significantly positive
associations with active-reflective and sensing-intuitive learning styles. Then, the
proposed hypothesis was supported.
Summary
The results of the data analysis related to the research questions are presented in
this section. Through collecting data from the Chinese version of the Consumer Styles
Inventory (CSI), the Index of Learning Styles Questionnaires (ILS), and the
Demographic Survey, a total of 770 valid participants enrolled in one private university
in Southern Taiwan were analyzed. For the CSI instrument, item alignment in most
factors was generally consistent with the original survey, but four items were removed to
improve the soundness. Overall, the validity of the CSI instrument met the requirement
172
level after rearranging the structure based on the results of the principal components
analysis and confirmatory factor analysis, and so was the ILS instrument.
Statistical techniques, including Chi-Square test, Pearson correlation, MANOVA,
ANOVA, and canonical correlation, were employed to assess the data adequately and test
the hypotheses using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 19.0 and
AMOS 19.0 for Windows at the significant alpha level of 0.5. The descriptive statistics
were utilized for normality assessment in terms of mean, mode, standard deviation, range,
skewness, and kurtosis; and the participants' ranking in terms of mean and standard
deviation as well as demographic information in terms of frequency and percentage were
analyzed. The significant findings of the data analysis of the CSI and ILS were
summarized and presented in Table 48.
Using principal components analysis, eight profiles of consumer decision-making
styles, explaining 51.7% of the variances, were found in Taiwanese Millennials. Among
the eight consumer characteristics, more than 99% of Millennials paid extra attention to
the quality and brands of products they purchased while making efforts to compare prices
and get the best buy. Seeking advice from others on purchases, the majority enjoyed
shopping and occasionally made thoughtless purchases. Through convenient access to
advanced technology, they were aware of internationally renowned or the most advertised
brands or designers and normally tried to keep up with current fashion trends, but few of
them could actually afford to buy expensive fashionable items. In general, Taiwanese
Millennials were not only conscious of brand, price, quality, and fashion as loyal and
recreational consumers but also occasionally impulsive and confused about shopping.
173
Table 48
Summary of the Statistical Test Results to the Research Questions
Research Question
Results
1. What are the consumer decision-making styles among

Eight profiles of consumer styles:

Brand-conscious shopper
Price-value conscious shopper
High-quality conscious shopper
Time-energy conserving and recreational
shopper
Novelty-fashion shopper
Habitual and brand-loyal shopper
Confused-by-overchoice shopper
Impulsive shopper
2.
3.
Are consumer decision-making styles

significantly different when comparing
diverse groups by gender; age;
geographical area; and type of
program, school, and college? If so,
which categories differ?
a.
Gender
Yes, supported
b.
Program
Yes, supported
c.
College
Yes, partially supported
d.
School
No
e.
Area
No
f.
Age
What are the distributions of learning styles among

AR: Milder preferences toward reflective

than active learning.
SI: Milder preferences toward sensing than
intuitive learning.
VA: Moderate and strong preference toward
visual learning.
SG: Milder preferences toward global than
sequential learning styles
Are the learning styles significantly

different when comparing individuals
by gender; age; geographical area; as
well as type of program, school, and
college? If so, which categories differ?
5.
a.
Gender
b.
Program
c.
College
d.
School
e.
Area
f.
Age
Is there a relationship between the learning styles and

consumer decision-making styles of the Millennial
generation in Taiwan?
Yes, supported
Yes, supported
No
No
Yes, supported
For learning styles, Taiwanese Millennials learned more reflectively, sensingly,

visually, and globally than actively, intuitively, verbally, and sequentially. Among these
learning styles, more than 90% of Millennials relied strongly on their vision over hearing
to comprehend and communicate. Surprisingly, the majority not only preferred thinking
holistically in order to get the whole picture after gathering relevant materials but also
showed greater interest in overview than in details. They learned by thinking things
through in more practical perspectives as opposed to conceptual viewpoints and enjoyed
working both alone and in groups.
By means of one-way between-groups MANOVAs and ANOVAs, differences
among various groups were further investigated. Gender differences were found in the
sensing-intuitive and visual-verbal scales of learning styles, as well as high-quality
conscious shoppers and time-energy conserving and recreational shoppers. Females
showed stronger preferences toward sensing learning compared to intuitive learning than
did males, while males learned more visually than verbally in comparison to females.
Before making purchase decisions, males prioritized the significance of quality more than
did females, while females tended to be concerned more about how time and energy was
spent as well as how fun the shopping experiences were.
Significant differences among individuals studying in seven-year, four-year, and
two-year programs were confirmed in price-value conscious shoppers, time-energy
conserving and recreational shoppers, novelty-fashion shoppers, and sensing-intuitive
learning styles. Compared to those in four-year and two-year programs, individuals
attending the seven-year program slightly preferred intuitive learning to sensing learning
and showed especially low interests in novelty-fashion as well as time-energy conserving
175
and recreational shopping. Individuals enrolled in the four-year program shopped with
more of a price-value orientation than those in the two-year program.
Individuals studying in the College of Living Technology, which included the
Fashion Design and Management Department and the Styling and Cosmetology
Department, expressed significantly higher levels of novelty-fashion consciousness than
did those from the Colleges of Design and Art. Furthermore, various colleges
significantly differed in the combination of sensing-intuitive and visual-verbal learning
styles. Specifically, individuals attending the College of Design were more inclined to
learn by visual than verbal means compared to those from the College of Management. In
terms of different age groups, those who were born after 1991 indicated significant
differences to other age groups in various perspectives, including the sensing-intuitive
and visual-verbal learning styles, as well as price-value conscious and novelty-fashion
shopping.
The canonical correlation analysis showed two significant positive canonical
interrelationships between consumer decision-making and learning styles in r = 0.228 and
0.191 with 5.2% and 36.7% of the variation explained, respectively. For Taiwanese
Millennials, novelty-fashion, impulsive, and time-energy conserving and recreational
shoppers were significantly correlated with active-reflective and sensing-intuitive
learning styles. Although highly significant, neither of these two canonical correlations
represented a substantial relationship between pairs of canonical variates.
In conclusion, the findings confirmed the main concepts of the research interests
and validated the associations between consumer decision-making and learning styles.
For both decision-making styles and learning styles of Taiwanese Millennials, significant
176
differences were found in gender, age, and type of program and college, but not in type of
school and geographical area.
Chapter Five: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations

The purpose of this study was to explore the possible relationships between
consumer decision-making styles and individual learning styles among the Taiwanese
Millennial Generation through a cross-sectional survey research design. This study was
intended to categorize the profiles of consumer styles and recognize the preferences of
learning styles of various millennial groups within different demographic backgrounds.
By identifying the profiles of consumer styles and learning-style preferences, researchers,
educators, and practitioners can further understand and predict consumer decisionmaking and learning behaviors of the Millennial Generation in terms of improving
teaching or marketing strategies.
This chapter presents a discussion, conclusions, suggestions, implications, and
recommendations for future study based on the context of research and practice. In the
discussion section, comparisons are made between the major findings and related
literature as well as improvement of the instruments.
Profile of the Study
The Chinese version of the Consumer Styles Inventory (CSI, Appendix A), the
Index of Learning Styles Questionnaires (ILS, Appendix B), and a Demographic Survey
(Appendix C), including a total of 103 questions (48,44, and 11, respectively) related to
individual decision-making behaviors, learning preferences, and demographic
information, were used to collect data during May 2010. The validity of both CSI and
ILS instruments was confirmed by the factor analyses, later warranted by the reliability
tests. Based on the results of the factor analyses, the CSI variables that measured a
similar underlying concept were clustered into factors. The ILS variables were grouped
178
into pre-categorized scales. Depending on the nature of the research questions, other
variables were analyzed either individually or collectively.
Among the pre-compiled data of 934 subjects, only 770 targeted participants who
were born between 1981 and 1992 were analyzed. The majority of participants were
females (86.9%); single (99.2%); born between 1988 and 1991 (84.6%); enrolled in the
day-school (96%) four-year programs (76.5%); studied in the College of Design (48.4%);
and lived in Southern Taiwan (56.7%, YunChiNan and KaoKaoPing). In the five-point
Likert scale of the Consumer Styles Inventory (CSI) instrument, the mean scores ranged
from 2.08 (close to somewhat disagree) to 4.27 (near somewhat agree); and comparing
the modes of 48 variables about decision-making styles, the majority of participants
indicated that they strongly agreed with 4.1% of the statements; 41.7% somewhat agreed;
47.9% were neutral; while only 6.3% somewhat disagreed. The result of the factor
analyses, explaining 51.7% of variances, revealed eight profiles of consumer styles,
including (a) brand-conscious shopper, (b) price-value conscious shopper, (c) highquality conscious shopper, (d) time-energy conserving and recreational shopper, (e)
novelty-fashion shopper, (f) habitual and brand-loyal shopper, (g) confused-byoverchoice shopper, and (h) impulsive shopper. The higher responses related to those
decision-making preferences were inclined toward high-quality consciousness and brandloyalty.
In the four dimensions evaluated by the Index of Learning Styles (ILS)
Questionnaires, more Taiwanese Millennials reported themselves as reflective, sensing,
visual, and global learners than active, intuitive, verbal, and sequential learners.
Particularly, 66% of them expressed their moderate to strong preferences toward visual
179
learning. However, the majority represented mild preferences to active-reflective,
sensing-intuitive, and sequential-global learning. In other words, Taiwanese Millennials
showed a great variety of learning preferences and appreciated learning in the wellbalanced environment featuring both styles of a dimension in favor of a single learning
style. Additionally, Table 48 shows a summary of the significant research findings.
Discussion of the Research Findings
Consumer Style Inventory (CSI) Instrument. As shown in Table 4, the
original 40-item CSI instrument has been translated into several languages; adapted and
modified according to cultural differences by deleting or adding statements, ranging from
18 to 55 items; and administered to various cross-cultural groups of four continents,
including America, Asia, Europe, and Australia (see Table 5). College students were the
most popular research subjects, except G. B. Sproles and Kendall (1986) used family and
consumer sciences secondary students as their sample, Mishra (2010) utilized business
postgraduate students, and Wesley et al. (2006), Walsh, Hennig-Thurau, et al. (2001), Siu
et al. (2001), Hung (2004), Hou & Lin (2006), and Tai (2005, 2008) chose adults for their
interests. The sample sizes varied from 122 to 602, but the results of the factor analyses
from smaller samples might be poorly interpreted based on Comery and Lee's
recommendation (as cited in Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Compared to previous literature,
the current study utilized 770 undergraduates as its sample for statistical analysis.
Generally speaking, factor analyses (PCA and CFA) were the most popular
methods used to classify the basic characteristics of consumer decision-making styles,
ranging from four to 11 factors. The majority of researchers employed exploratory factor
analysis using the principal components analysis (PCA) to identify the factors listed by G.
180
B. Sproles and Kendall (1986), and the results of the eight-factor solution were either
verified or partially confirmed, explaining 35% to 66.7% of total variances; while Siu et
al.(2001) and Zhou et al. (2009) adapted the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) approach
to validate an eight-factor model of G. B. Sproles and Kendall (1986). In comparison to
previous research findings, the PCA result of the current study categorized eight factors,
explaining 51.7% of total variances.
Although based on a cutoff value above 0.5 as reliable coefficients, some
consumer decision-making styles, as summarized in Table 6, were removed (Canabal,
2002; Gonen & Ozmete, 2006; Hafstrom et al., 1992; Hung, 2004; Kavas & Yesilada,
2007; Kwan et al., 2008; Lysonski et al., 1996; Mishra, 2010; Mokhlis, 2009; Wesley et
al., 2006) or new ones were created (Bauer et al., 2006; Fan & Xiao, 1998; Gonen &
Ozmete, 2006; Hafstrom et al., 1992; Hanzaee, 2009; Hou & Lin, 2006; Kavas &
Yesilada, 2007; Kwan et al., 2008; Mokhlis & Salleh, 2009; Siu et al., 2001; Tai, 2005;
Walsh, Hennig-Thurau, et al., 2001; Walsh, Mitchell, et al., 2001; Wesley et al., 2006),
then the consistent factors found cross-culturally were perfectionistic/high-quality
consciousness, brand consciousness, and confused-by-overchoice. In contrast, the current
study confirmed seven original decision-making styles, but modified the recreational and
shop-conscious behavior into time-energy conserving and recreational characteristic.
Further, Table 49 compared the individual statement loading on various
components from factor analysis among three studies from G. B. Sproles and Kendall
(1986), C. Lin et al. (2001), and the current one. All three studies identified eight profiles
of consumer decision-making styles, and averaged three to eight statements per
component with the coefficient value greater than 0.5, indicating acceptable reliability
181
based on Cronbach's (1951) suggestion. However, too few statements might not
adequately represent these categories. Additionally, most Cronbach's alpha values of
different factors in two studies conducted in Taiwan were 0.7 or above, considered highly
reliable for instruments, except for impulsive decision-making styles in the current study.
Table 49
Comparison of Factors and Items among Three CSI Studies
Current Study
C. Lin et al. (2001)
G. B. Sproles& Kendall (1986)
PCS4a
PCS5
PCS6
N = 602, Undergraduates
48 variables
#
Variables
a
8 8,9,10,11,
.881
12,13,14,32
5 25, 26, 27,47, .696
48
.854
8 1,2,3,4,6,5,
7,28
5 20,21,22,23,
.872
24
6 15, 16, 17, 18,
.851
19,36
5 37, 38, 39,40,
.815
41
5 33, 34, 35,42,
.710
43
6 29,30,31,44,
.838
45,46
TV = 482, Secondary Students

40 variables
Variables
a
#
7 9,10,11,12,13,
.75
14, 51 c
.48
3 25, 26, 27
PCS3
N = 770, Undergraduates
44 variables
#
Variables"
a
8 8,9,10,11,
.814
12,13,14,32
8 25,26,27,31,
.779
45, 46,47,48
5 1,2,3,4,6
.796
Sample
CSI
Factors
PCS1
PCS2
PCS7
PCS8
5, 19,20,21,
22,24
15, 16,17,18
36, 37, 38, 39,

41
5 33, 34, 35,42,
43
3 29, 30,44
.752
.831
.740
.690
.586
.74
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,
51 c
20,21,22,23,
24
15, 16, 17, 18,
19
37, 38, 39, 40
33, 34, 35, 50
.55
29,30,31,45,
49
.48
8
5
5
.76
.74
.53
Note. CSI, Consumer Styles Inventory; PCS1, Brand-Conscious Shopper; PCS2, Price-Value Conscious
Shopper; PCS3, High-Quality Conscious Shopper; PCS4, Time-Energy Conserving and Recreational
Shopper; PCS5, Novelty-Fashion Shopper; PCS6, Habitual and Brand-Loyal Shopper; PCS7, Confused-byOverchoice Shopper; and PCS8, Impulsive Shopper. #: Numbers of item in each factor, a: Reliability. 49:1
should plan my shopping more carefully than I do; 50: All the information I get on different products
confuses me; 51: A product doesn't have to perfect, or the best, to satisfy me.
3
In the study of C. Lin et al. (2001), PCS4 called Recreational and Hedonistic consumer; in the study of G.
B. Sproles & Kendall (1986), PCS4 referred to the Recreational and Shop-conscious consumer.b Refer all
variable number and context according to the Consumer Style Inventory in Appendix A. c Factorial
complexity loaded on both factors.
While comparing variables loading on individual consumer profiles, most items

were consistent among three studies, but some items appeared in various characteristics.
More specifically, 77.3% of the items in the current study and 77% of the statements in C.
182
Lin et al.'s (2001) study clustered on G. B. Sproles and Kendall's (1986) specific factors.
The dissimilarities were as follows:
1.
For brand-conscious shoppers, items 8 and 32 were loaded in C. Lin et al.'s

(2001) and the current studies, while statement 51 (A product doesn 't have to
perfect or the best to satisfy me) was in G. B. Sproles and Kendall's (1986)
study.
2.
For price-value conscious shoppers, only three items existed in G. B. Sproles

and Kendall's (1986) study with a low a value of 0.48, but they all were
loaded in the other two studies as well. The difference between the current
study and C. Lin et al.'s (2001) study was the group of items 31,45, and 46.
Instead of loading on PCS2, these three items in C. Lin et al.'s (2001) study
were grouped into PCS8, impulsive shoppers.
3.
Five statements were comprised of the high-quality conscious shopping style

in the current study, and all of them fell into the same category in the other
two studies. However, both statements 5 and 7 appeared in other studies,
while statement 5 in the current study was loaded on PCS4, time-energy
conserving and recreational shoppers. Additionally, item 51 in G. B. Sproles
and Kendall's (1986) study was also loaded in this category.
4.
For time-energy conserving and recreational shoppers, four items identified

in the current study were the same as the other two studies, but not items 5
and 19. Instead, item 19 was grouped into the novelty-fashion conscious
behavior in C. Lin et al.'s (2001) and G. B. Sproles and Kendall's (1986)
studies.
183
5.
The slight variation for the novelty-fashion shopping characteristic was that
item 19 showed up in C. Lin et al.'s (2001) and G. B. Sproles and Kendall's
(1986) studies, but not in the current study. As opposed to C. Lin et al.'s
(2001) study, item 36 was categorized into habitual and brand-loyal shopper.
The statements within PCS6, PCS7, and PCS8 were similar, but the
reliabilities in G. B. Sproles and Kendall's (1986) study were barely reliable.
Regardless of languages, researchers adjusted the numbers of the statement of the

CSI and refined the statement through rewording and grammatical revisions in order to
better reflect the studies of their interest (Fan & Xiao, 1998; Hafstrom et al., 1992; Kavas
& Yesilada, 2007; Mishra, 2010; Mitchell & Bates, 1998; Walsh, Mitchell, et al., 2001;
Wickliffe, 2004). However, some doubted whether change might happen in the meaning
of the statement through translations or the statement was interpreted differently by
diverse respondents. Particularly, Mitchell and Bates (1998) questioned about the
reliability of re-phrasing items and suggested country-specific scale development. Take
the current study and C. Lin et al.'s (2001) study for examples. Even though the current
study adapted the CSI instrument from C. Lin et al.'s (2001) study and administered it to
similar participants, the researcher still customized the wording and meaning of the
statements for clarification. Besides several items loading on different factors, the results
did confirm identical consumer decision-making styles (see Table 49). Overall, the
reliability coefficients of both studies were greater than 0.7, and the consistency of the
majority of items clustered in the same factors indicated the Chinese Consumer Styles
Inventory as a reliable instrument.
184
Profiles of Consumer Style (PCS). In comparison to the studies of different
countries (see Table 4, Table 6, and Table 9), the majority of researchers identified seven
to eight analogues to the consumer decision-making styles proposed by G. B. Sproles and
Kendall (1986) to provide general support for the CSI instrument; so did this study, but
not all the results were equivalent across international populations.
First, perfectionism and high-quality consciousness, brand consciousness,
recreational/hedonistic and shop consciousness, as well as confused-by-overchoice (or
some identified as information utilization) were common cross-culturally, except for the
U.K. Wickliffe's (2004) investigation also supported these constructs being commonly
stable. Second, Asian consumers likely shared value-seeking and price-comparison
behaviors, such as in China (Fan & Xiao, 1998; Hiu et al., 2001; Kwan et al., 2008; Siu et
al., 2001; Tai, 2005, 2008; Zhou et al., 2010), India (Mishra, 2010), Iran (Hanzaee, 2009;
Hanzaee & Aghasibeig, 2010), Malaysia (Mokhlis, 2009; Mokhlis & Salleh, 2009), South
Korea (Hafstrom et al., 1992), and Taiwan (Hou & Lin, 2006; Hung, 2004; C. Lin et al.,
2001; Tai, 2008). This study is consistent with this assumption, identifying that
Taiwanese young generation shares a strong preference toward price-value consciousness.
Third, consumer characteristics of habitual and brand-loyal shopping as well as impulsive
or careless shopping varied across international populations. For instance, researchers in
Taiwan (Hou & Lin, 2006; Hung, 2004; C. Lin et al., 2001) and New Zealand (Durvasula
et al., 1993; Lysonski et al., 1996) consistently validated the consumer tendency toward
brand-loyal and habitual shopping, but not in other countries. In addition, consumers who
lived in developed countries or metropolitan areas seemed to pay closer attention to
fashion and novelty than those who lived in other areas (Hiu et al, 2001; Kwan et al.,
2008; Tai, 2008; Zhou et al., 2010).
Further comparing this study with studies after 2000 in each individual consumer
decision-making style, the following information emerges:
PCS1, Brand-Conscious Shopper. Walsh, Mitchell, et al. (2001) found that
German consumers were inclined to purchase more well-known, expensive brands
regardless of gender, and so did other researchers (Mitchell & Walsh, 2004; Walsh,
Hennig-Thurau, et al., 2001). Turkish consumers believed that highly advertised and
more expensive brands were superior to other brands with better quality (Gonen &
Ozmete, 2006; Kavas & Yesilada, 2007). Interestingly, Gonen and Ozmete (2006)
concluded that "brand is more important for male students compared to female students
in the decision-making process of purchasing a product" (p. 31). Hanzaee (2009) asserted
that both genders of Iranian Generation Y consumers tended to be brand conscious.
Young Indians preferred shopping in department or specialty stores which exhibited
famous brands with the trendiest styles (Canabal, 2002; Mishra, 2010). According to
Mokhlis and Salleh (2009) as well as Mokhlis (2009), Malaysian females and males
trusted that most advertised brands meant better quality sold at a higher price. Fan and
Xiao (1998) concluded that American consumers (85%) rated brand-consciousness
higher than Chinese consumers (48%). Kwan et al. (2008) found that consumers from
Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Hong Kong, and Taipei were not generally not very
conscious about brands of casual wear.
Likewise, the current study acknowledged that 35.3% of Taiwanese consumers
admitted themselves as brand-conscious shoppers but found no significant gender
differences. On one hand, because of consistent economic development in Taiwan,

expenditures for young adults have increased over time. On the other hand, under
commercial influences on the concept of cultural identities projecting what brands they
used, the majority (78.9%) are aware of well-known and most advertised brands, thanks
to easy access to advanced digital technology. The current finding is consistent with C.
Lin et al.'s (2001) conclusions. Overall, this characteristic is number one in the list of
factors for the Chinese (Fan & Xiao, 1998; Kwan et al., 2008), Indian (Canabal, 2002),
Turkish (Kavas & Yesilada, 2007), German (Mitchell & Walsh, 2004; Walsh, HennigThurau, et al., 2001; Walsh, Mitchell, et al., 2001), Malaysian (Mokhlis, 2009), and
Taiwanese (C. Lin et al., 2001) samples, and so is the current study. Moreover, E. K.
Sproles and Sproles (1990) stated that "choosing known brands [is] an expedient strategy
for making consumer choices requiring little thinking and learning" (p. 140), but Pearson
correlation in this study suggests that this characteristic is significantly associated with
active-reflective learning styles.
PCS2, Price-Value Conscious Shopper. Walsh, Mitchell, et al. (2001) concluded
that Germans were not sensitive towards the product price and were more interested in
product quality, as well as acted cautiously when high quality products were sold for low
prices. Lysonski et al. (1996) shared similar conclusions about consumers from New
Zealand, Greece, U.S., and India. Gonen and Ozmete (2006) expressed that "the
'Price/Value conscious' style is more important for U.S., Chinese, and Turkish students
than for Indian and Korean students" (p. 30). They even addressed that males watched
their expenses more carefully than females. However, Mokhlis and Salleh (2009)
disagreed and found that female Malaysians were highly conscious of sale price and
187
bought lower-price products. According to Bakewell and Mitchell (2003), British
Generation Y females were also price-sensitive and favored shopping at sale and
discounted prices. Cowart and Goldsmith (2007) also concluded that price-value
conscious consumers "may purchase apparel online less readily than shoppers with other
decision-making styles" (p. 645). Additionally, E. K. Sproles and Sproles (1990) asserted
that the price-value conscious individuals appeared to enjoy active, concrete, factoriented learning, as well as "well adapted to shopping the market in depth and doing
careful comparisons" (p. 141).
In this study, more than 99% of Millennials in Taiwan present moderate to strong
preferences for price-value consciousness without gender differences. Thus, both
Taiwanese young females and males always think of price as one influential concern
while shopping. The reason might be that their main financial support still comes from
their parents, and their monthly expenses are quite limited. Further, statistical differences
were significantly revealed among various programs and ages, indicating that individuals
who had higher disposable incomes demonstrated less awareness of price and value than
those with lower disposable incomes. In particular, individuals who attended the fouryear program show significantly greater consciousness about price and value than those
in the two-year program. Generally speaking, the situation might be interpreted that
because two-year college students already had associates degrees, the majority of them
would work part-time or full-time before or while attending the two-year program.
Compared to four-year undergraduates mostly financially supported by their parents,
two-year students usually have more control on how much and what they can purchase.
In other words, individuals attending the four-year program have less control over their
expenses and less disposable income, so they become more attentive to the price of
products and like to get good deals.
PCS3, High-Quality Conscious Shopper. This decision-making characteristic
was identified among the top three factors of several studies, shown in Table 6 (Canabal,
2002; Durvasula et al., 1993; Fan & Xiao, 1998; Gonen & Ozmete, 2006; Hafstrom et al.,
1992; Hiu et al., 2001; Hou & Lin, 2006; Kavas & Yesilada, 2007; Kwan et al., 2008; C.
Lin et al., 2001; Lysonski et al., 1996; Mishra, 2010; Mokhlis, 2009; Mokhlis & Salleh,
2009; Siu et al., 2001; G. B. Sproles & Kendall, 1986; Tai, 2005; Walsh, Mitchell, et al.,
2001; Wesley et al., 2006; Zhou et al., 2010). In this study, the factor was found to be
number three. Both genders of Iranian Generation Y were willing to pay higher prices for
the best-quality products (Hanzaee, 2009), so were Malaysian young adults (Mokhlis &
Salleh, 2009). Moreover, Walsh, Mitchell, et al. (2001) mentioned that quality was the
most important consideration for German consumers when purchasing goods.
According to Wickliffe (2004), Americans and Koreans preferred shopping in
boutiques or department stores that usually sold brand-name and higher-priced items,
because they equated price with quality, with higher prices suggesting better quality.
Wesley et al. (2006) further explained that American females with the perfectionist
shopping characteristic had high income with very high level of average expenditure (p.
546). E. K. Sproles and Sproles (1990) suggested that consumers with the perfectionistic
and high-quality conscious characteristic were associated with active and observationcentered learning to enhance their goal-oriented behaviors.
Similar to previous studies, the current study concludes that the majority of
Taiwanese Millennials (91.7%) are high-quality conscious shoppers, and in particular,
189
males express significantly higher levels of high-quality consciousness than females. In
other words, quality is the most important concern for Taiwanese Millennial purchasing
goods. C. Lin et al. (2001) also connected individuals' preferences toward high-quality
consciousness with self-perceptions and social values, such as self-respect, intelligence,
responsibility, prestige, and so on. It might imply that owning high-quality merchandise
represents individuals' tastes and social status, especially for males in a competitive
social environment. Additionally, Pearson correlation in this study recommends that this
characteristic might be related to sequential-global learning behaviors requiring a careful
thought process.
PCS4, Time-Energy Conserving and Recreational Shopper. This new factor
created in this study combined the recreational and hedonistic shopping consciousness,
proposed by G. B. Sproles and Kendall (1986), with time consciousness (Fan & Xiao,
1998) or time-energy conserving (HafStrom et al., 1992) to measure consumers' shopping
styles for pleasure and time-saving. Alternatively, Mitchell and Bates (1998) revealed
both recreational/hedonist and time-energy conserving shopping behaviors in the U.K.
samples, as did Hanzaee (2009) for Iranians. Fan and Xiao (1998) rated that American
consumers were more highly time-conscious than the Chinese. Although Germans
managed time productively and hated wasting time on shopping (Mitchell & Walsh, 2004;
Walsh, Mitchell, et al., 2001), German females gained more pleasure from shopping than
did men because males perceived shopping as a chore (Mitchell & Walsh, 2004).
Likewise, Mokhlis and Salleh (2009) found similar results about young Malaysians,
indicating that males gave less thought about purchases and believed shopping was a
190
waste of time, while females found "seeking out new things pleasurable" (p. 580).
Kamaruddin and Mokhlis (2003) also confirmed the previous findings.
By contrast, young Turkish consumers not only enjoyed window shopping as
common recreational activities (Kavas & Yesilada, 2007) but also took their time to
consider the best buys (Gonen & Ozmete, 2006). Canabal (2002) described young
fashion-conscious Indians as recreational shoppers since they perceived "buying
something new and exciting to be fun" (Mishra, 2010, p. 55). Tai (2005) compared
females working in Shanghai and Hong Kong, finding that females from Shanghai spent
"increasingly more of their time on shopping and research for potential purchases," while
Hong Kong working females saw shopping as an important activity at their leisure (p.
201). Additionally, E. K. Sproles and Sproles (1990) stated that young consumers with
the recreational and hedonistic shopping styles might favor involvement in and the
enjoyment of shopping as a social experience with their peers, and show association with
nonadaptive, struggling learning.
In comparison to previous studies, the current study found that more than 85% of
Taiwanese Millennial show moderate preferences to the time-energy conserving and
recreational consciousness. Unlike the findings from Germany, Malaysia, and China,
younger females in Taiwan show slightly higher levels of tendencies toward preserving
their time and energy on shopping compared to males. The interpretation might be that
the traditional impression about females' preference of shopping as entertainment or peer
social experiences over time consciousness and conservation has changed, since females
also need to share the financial responsibility of families, and young adults might work to
191
support their own expenses. Hence, Pearson correlation suggests that the active-reflective
learning style is significantly associated with this characteristic.
PCS5, Novelty-Fashion Shopper. This characteristic was the most controversial
factor across multiple studies, given names such as novelty consciousness, personal-style
consciousness, fashion consciousness, and variety seeking. Although researchers labeled
this specific trait with various names, the behaviors of consumers pursuing trends and
variety were validated cross-culturally, except in Turkey (Gonen & Ozmete, 2006; Kavas
& Yesilada, 2007). Further, Mitchell and Bates (1998) not only asserted this noveltyfashion consciousness as an importantly "powerful discriminating trait" across population,
but also advised that some "questionnaire items may prompt socially-desirable responses"
(P- 219).
Mitchell and Walsh (2004) stated that German males gained pleasure from
choosing various novel goods and purchasing on-sale stylish products, while females
simply enjoy shopping and fashion. According to Hanzaee (2009), the fashion-conscious
trait was found in the number one consumer decision-making styles for both Iranian
young females and males; Hanzaee and Aghasibeig (2010) even concluded that more
than 80% of Iranian females in Generation Y expressed high interest in fashion. However,
the findings about Malaysian youngsters were disputable (Mokhlis, 2009; Mokhlis &
Salleh, 2009), and so were findings about Indians (Canabal, 2002; Mishra, 2010).
On one hand, less than half of Taiwanese Millennials (44%) are attracted to the
most up-to-date stylish goods in the current study. On the other hand, Taipei consumers
seemed less concerned about fashion and brand in comparison to working females in
China and Hong Kong (Kwan et al., 2008). Individual educational background related to
192
fashion industry, such as merchandise and clothing manufacturing and design as well as
cosmetology, also seems to have more influences on innovative and trendy shopping
behaviors. E. K. Sproles and Sproles (1990) found that novelty-fashion conscious
consumers acted similarly to the perfectionistic shoppers and were correlated to serious,
observation-centered, passive, and accepting learning styles; while the current study
recognizes that this particular trait is significantly associated with the active-reflective
learning. They further cautioned that:
The novelty-conscious consumer may sometimes be passive in the sense of
willingly accepting new things with little concern for outcomes and may not
consider the implications of these actions.... Passive and accepting learning
always has the potential of leading to negative consequences, and this is a
negative aspect to being novelty- and fashion-conscious in consumer behaviors.
(E. K. Sproles & Sproles, 1990, p. 144)
Thus, the current finding implies that Taiwanese Millennials with novelty-fashion
consciousness would like to research new products and try things out before they make
purchases.
PCS6, Habitual and Brand-Loyal Shopper. Walsh, Mitchell, et al. (2001)
questioned whether the brand-loyal/habitual factor was unreliable because it was not
found in their studies, as well as others (Canabal, 2002; Fan & Xiao, 1998; Gonen &
Ozmete, 2006; Mishra, 2010; Mokhlis & Salleh, 2009; Walsh, Hennig-Thurau, et al.,
2001). The findings in regard to the absence of a brand-loyal trait should become the
marketers' concern in order to attract desirable loyal customers away from competitors.
According to Kwan et al. (2008), many Mainland Chinese consumers were likely
unable to manage overwhelming information and diverse choices compared to Hong
Kong consumers, so Chinese consumers preferred to stick with their familiar brands and
stores when buying casual attire in order to avoid risks. Similarly, Taiwanese consumers
were aware of specific brands and inclined more toward brand-loyalty than other
countries (Hou & Lin, 2006; Hung, 2004; C. Lin et al., 2001), and the current study
supports the above result by revealing the majority of Taiwanese Millennials (91.4%) as
habitual and brand-loyal shoppers. Further, E. K. Sproles and Sproles (1990) suggested
that consumers with the habitual and brand-loyal characteristic are serious learners, while
the current study connects these consumers with active-reflective learning.
PCS7, Confused-by-Overchoice Shopper. Cross-cultural generalizability of this
factor was validated in every country thus far investigated. For instance, Gonen and
Ozmete (2006) stated that this characteristic was "relatively common among the Indian
young consumers than it is for the Korean, Chinese, [Turkish], or U.S. consumers" (p.
30). Walsh, Mitchell, et al. (2001) explained that Germans' confusion regarding
purchases was exacerbated by their need for detailed information about products. Similar
to Germans, American consumers were more information-conscious in contrast to the
Chinese, based on Fan and Xiao's (1998) observation. According to Hanzaee (2009),
Iranian Generation Y consumers likely experienced information overload with too many
choices, and this confusion would eventually lead to impulsive purchases. Young
consumers in India (Canabal, 2002; Mishra, 2010), Malaysia (Mokhlis, 2009; Mokhlis &
Salleh, 2009), U.K. (Mitchell & Bates, 1998), Taiwan (Hung, 2004; C. Lin et al., 2001)
and China (Kwan et al., 2008) also showed similar patterns with Hanzaee's (2009)
findings, and so does this study.
Seventy percent of Taiwanese Millennials confess that their purchase decisions
are likely to be influenced by family members' or friends' recommendations; also,
overwhelming brand varieties and available detailed information affect their ability to
194
choose properly. Mishra (2010) also pointed out that peers were one of the most
influential factors for their behavior. Furthermore, E. K. Sproles and Sproles (1990)
found that young confused or information-overloaded consumers seemed possibly to be
passive, concrete, struggling, as well as overly detail- and fact-oriented learners (p. 142);
while the current study acknowledges the significant association between the confusedby-overchoice shopping traits and the sensing-intuitive learning styles. The finding
suggests that Taiwanese Millennial might obtain information related to products too
much either from their peers and family members or product vendors and salespersons
before their purchases.
PCS8, Impulsive Shopper. Walsh, Mitchell, et al. (2001) asserted that this factor
was not affected by cultural differences because of all five identical items loaded in G. B.
Sproles and Kendall's (1986) study, but other researchers found only two or three
identical items loaded in the same factor (Canabal, 2002; Hanzaee, 2009; Kavas &
Yesilada, 2007; Kwan et al., 2008; Mishra, 2010; Mitchell & Bates, 1998; Mokhlis, 2009;
Zhou et al., 2010). So did the current study, and furthermore, some studies did not even
identify this factor (Bakewell & Mitchell, 2003; Bauer et al., 2006; Fan & Xiao, 1998;
Gonen & Ozmete, 2006; Hung, 2004; Mokhlis & Salleh, 2009; Wesley et al., 2006).
In addition, Mitchell and Walsh (2004) explained that both genders in Germany
were equally prone to thoughtless buying, though in general, males seemed to be less
impulsive shoppers than females. Incentive offering and attractive, eye-catching store
displays might facilitate and trigger impulsive shopping. Cowart and Goldsmith (2007)
discovered that "impulsive shoppers spend more [money] for apparel online in a typical
month and spend more time online than other consumers" (p. 645), and further concluded
195
that online shoppers were typically associated with impulsiveness because most online
purchases were unplanned and precipitous. Tai (2008) compared Shanghai, Hong Kong,
and Taipei consumers and found that Shanghai consumers often were influenced
impulsively by point-of-purchase promotions.
More than half of Taiwanese Millennial (59.2%) are impulsive shoppers,
admitting that they shop on the spur of the moment without careful thinking, but no
gender difference is found. The finding is consistent with others (Kwan et al., 2008; Zhou
et al., 2010). Based on E. K. Sproles and Sproles (1990), young impulsive consumers
were strongly associated with nonadaptive and struggling learning, indicating that they
might have difficulties engaging in a serious approach with the learning process (p. 141).
The current study states that the impulsive shopping behaviors significantly relate to
active-reflective learning.
Index of Learning Styles Questionnaires (ILS) Instrument. Several analyses
on the reliability and validity of the Index of Learning Styles have been published and
translated into Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, German, Chinese, and other languages (L.
Wang, 2007), but the coefficients for all four scales of the instruments varied from 0.4 to
0.9 for test-retest and internal reliability (Table 12) (Cook, 2005; Cook & Smith, 2006;
Felder & Spurlin, 2005; Ku & Shen, 2009; Litzinger et al., 2005; Livesay & Dee, 2005;
Livesay et al., 2002; Zywno, 2003). Comparing coefficient values between internal and
test-retest reliability, test-retest correlation coefficients of all scales were generally higher
than Cronbach's alpha values in the same scale; and the coefficients of each dimension
were remarkably consistent with one another, even for the Chinese version of the ILS
instrument (Ku & Shen, 2009).
196
In order to increase the reliability and validity of the Chinese ILS, the current
study employed multiple methods to analyze the instrument, determine the correlation of
the scales, and identify the problematic items through factor analyses, SEM, and Pearson
correlation analysis. In contrast with Ku and Shen's (2009) study, the current study
revealed similar results from the SEM analysis, indicating a fair fit to the data, but
modification was required to improve the construct validity and adequacy of the model.
Meanwhile, the calculations of Pearson correlation coefficients unveiled significant
relationships among VA-AR, SG-SI, and SG-VA scales, supporting the previous findings
in regards to possible interconnections among four dimensions.
Table 50 compared the current study with Ku and Shen's (2009) study on
individual items of the ILS instrument through the internal reliability with the Cronbach's
alpha values and factor loadings from SEM analysis. Ku and Shen (2009) used the
criteria of factor loadings less than 0.15 to examine the individual items of four scales,
including items 17, 29, 33, and 41 in the active-reflective dimension; items 6, 10, and 14
in the sensing-intuitive scale; items 35 and 43 in the visual-verbal dimension; and items
12, 16, and 40 in the sequential-global scale. Complying with the same criteria in Ku and
Shen's (2009) study for the current study, the following items were worth discussion:
item 17 in the active-reflective dimension; items 26, 34, and 42 in the sensing-intuitive
scale; items 35 and 43 in the visual-verbal dimension; and items 4,8, 12, 16, and 40 in
the sequential-global scale. Moreover, Litzinger et al. (2005) also suggested that items 17,
32, 39, 40,42, and 43 needed further examination. As shown in Table 50, the reliability
of four scales except the visual-verbal dimension in both studies showed similar patterns
on problematic items 12, 16, 17, 35,40, and 43. Those issues needed further investigation.
197
In spite of the cultural and language barriers for the Taiwanese Millennials, the Chinese
ILS instrument needed to have problematic items revised in the original English
questionnaires and focus on the translation accuracy adapting to cultural differences.
Table 50
Comparison ofCronbach's Alpha Values and Factor Loadings of Individual Items in the
Chinese ILS Instrument
N
Current study
770
Cronbach
a if Item
Deleted
CFA
AR
0.475
AR01
AR05
AR09
AR13
AR17
AR21
AR25
AR29
AR33
AR37
AR41
.472
.426
.474
.451
.476
.441
.411
.463
.458
.419
.469
VA
0.430
VA03
VA07
VA11
VA15
VA19
VA23
VA27
VA31
VA35
VA39
VA43
.416
.377
.369
.413
.406
.398
.412
.363
.415
.425
.474
Ku & Shen (2009)

2748
Cronbach
a if Item
CFA
Deleted
0.48
.19
.36
.22
.35
.16
.29
.43
.17
.20
.50
.15
.400
.400
.430
.410
.430
.400
.390
.420
.420
.390
.440
.17
.18
.31
.37
.07
21
.22
.14
.13
.58
.03
0.52
.18
.44
.47
.29
.19
.28
.21
.48
.13
.24
.02
.510
.460
.460
.490
.510
.480
.500
.460
.520
.510
.540
.15
.54
.51
.36
.17
.40
.25
.52
.12
.16
.08
Current study
770
Cronbach
a if Item
Deleted
CFA
SI
0.521
SI02
SI06
SI10
SI14
SI18
SI22
SI26
SI30
SI34
SI38
SI42
.491
.471
.506
.512
.480
.466
.516
.511
.518
.464
.528
SG
0.389
SG04
SG08
SG12
SGI 6
SG20
SG24
SG28
SG32
SG36
SG40
SG44
.377
.381
.394
.405
.340
.350
.357
.374
.312
.405
.322
Ku & Shen (2009)

2748
Cronbach a
if Item
Deleted
CFA
0.53
.16
.57
.35
.23
.59
.22
.09
.18
.09
.58
.12
.470
.510
.520
.530
.490
.460
.500
.490
.510
.470
.530
.59
.10
.12
.14
.16
.65
.28
.37
.26
.24
.18
0.41
.10
.12
.17
.00
.42
.33
.15
.23
.43
.03
Al
.340
.350
.390
.380
.340
.380
.350
.360
.330
.370
.370
.37
.19
.06
.08
.37
.26
.30
.16
.38
.//
.17
Note. AR: Active-Reflective; SI: Sensing-Intuitive; VA: Visual-Verbal (Auditory); SG: Sequential-Global.
CFA: Confirmatory factor analysis. If individual Cronbach's alpha values were greater than the overall
internal reliability of each scale, the values are italicized.
198
From orthogonally rotated principal components analysis, items 8, 24, 30, 34, 39,
and 43 were acknowledged as falling outside of their scales. The SEM analysis revealed
low factor-loading of items 4, 8, 16, 26, 32, 34, 35,40, and 43. The Cronbach's alpha
value if item deleted further suggested close inspection of items 12,17,40,42, and 43.
Interestingly, items 8, 34,40, and 43 overlapped in factor analyses and the reliability test.
Those items will be discussed by dimensions.
Item 34 in the sensing-intuitive scale originally was intended to measure the way
a person thinks. However, because of cultural difference and avoidance from confusion
about the words sensible and imaginative, the better rewording might be that / would call
someone (A) sensible/intelligent, or (B) imaginative/creative to pay a great compliment to
him/her. Further, item 42 appeared somewhat weakly related to the abstract or concrete
nature of the items loading on the sensing-intuitive dimension. Likewise, item 17 seems
to have slightly poor correlation with other items loaded on the active-reflective factor.
Item 43 in the visual-verbal scale asked participants to picture places where they
have been. Yet, the wording of the item with paired statements was confused with the
original purpose of describing a location. The researcher suggests rewording the phrase
as in order to render an image of a place I have been, it would be easier to (A) draw it, or
(B) use words to describe it rather than to discuss how detailed a person can remember a
place.
Among all four scales, the sequential-global scale appeared as the lowest
dimension in the reliability measuring in the current study, and so did other research
(Cook & Smith, 2006; Felder & Spurlin, 2005; Ku & Shen, 2009; Litzinger et al., 2005;
Livesay & Dee, 2005; Livesay et al., 2002; Van Zwanenberg et al., 2000; Zywno, 2003).
199
Several problematic items, such as items 4, 8, 12, 16, and 40, were identified in the
sequential-global dimension. The main concern about items 4, 8, and 16 was translation,
since both paired statements were difficult to explain and deliver the original meanings in
Chinese. Specifically, the Taiwanese might have a hard time fully understanding the
context of question 16 because most of them did not train to reflect on such a thinking
technique.
Item 12 was intended to measure different thinking processes. Thus, most
Taiwanese Millennials were educated to progress in solving mathematics problems step
by step, and statement B did not construct equal paired statements for this item.
Additionally, the translation also needs to be reworded to adapt to cultural influences.
In item 40, both paired statements were hard for participants to distinguish the
degree of differences. The finding is also consistent with Litzinger et al.'s (2005)
observation that item 40 "may not offer a clear contrast between details and 'the big
picture,' as an outline may be viewed as provided both (or neither)" (p. 6). Conclusively,
in comparison to previous studies, the major difference mainly falls into the visual-verbal
scale because of the low reliability. Further, items 35 and 43 in the current study and Ku
and Shen's (2009) study showed weak associations with others in the same VA scale, and
item 43 is suggested to be omitted in the scale to improve the reliability.
Felder-Soloman Index of Learning Styles. Several studies utilized the Index of
Learning Styles to identify students' learning preferences in various languages, but only a
few researchers further compared learning differences among various groups.
Litzinger et al. (2005) found that their samples from three colleges of engineering,
liberal arts, and education preferred sequential, sensing, and visual learning. In
200
comparison to education and liberal arts students, "the only common preference for all
three colleges is for visual over verbal learning" (p. 8). Further, they concluded that the
engineering students significantly inclined toward sequential and sensing learning than
did the liberal arts and education students, as well as learned more visually than the
liberal arts students. Meanwhile, gender differences also existed among learning styles.
Litzinger et al. (2005) indicated that "female engineering students are, on average, more
sequential, more sensing, and less visual than male engineering students" (p. 10).
L. Wang (2007) used Chinese students, who were learning English as a second
language, as their samples and identified statistically significant differences in sensingintuitive and visual-verbal dimensions across majors. For example, participants majoring
in Architecture favored more intuitive learning styles, and the Environmental Art students
learned more verbally than those studying in other majors. In addition, learning styles did
not significantly differ between genders through an independent sample r-test. Thus, the
researcher "suspected that there might be gender difference within each major" (p. 415).
L. Wang (2007) concluded that learning styles did vary by subjects and distribute
unevenly, but a larger number of respondents "mildly" preferred global, visual, and
sensing learning styles (p. 415).
McChlery and Visser (2009) analyzed and compared university students in South
Africa and the United Kingdom. The majority of their participants were skewed toward
active, sensing, visual, and sequential learning. Participants in the U.K. samples, except
for third-year students, were balanced between visual and verbal learning styles, but first
and second year students in South Africa's samples preferred visual learning. They
concluded that only a small correlation existed "between indicated learning styles of the
201
[accounting] learners and either age and gender"; in other words, although there might be
"little change in the students' learning styles over time," no significant statistical
differences were found among gender and age (p. 311).
Ku and Shen (2009) discovered significant interaction effects for the activereflective and sensing-intuitive dimensions between college and gender. They indicated
that "Management students are significantly more intuitive than Science and Engineering
students [, while] Business students are also significantly more intuitive than Engineering
students" (p. 841). In the visual-verbal scale, the Liberal Arts students showed significant
inclination toward verbal learning than those from other disciplines, except for the
Foreign Language students; whereas those in the Business, Foreign Language, and
Management colleges learned less visually than the Engineering students and
significantly less globally than the Liberal Arts students. They also pointed out that "in
general, female students are significantly more intuitive and global, and less visual than
male students" (p. 842). Comparing genders in different colleges, the results revealed that:
(a) females learned significantly intuitively than did males in the College of Liberal Arts;
(b) most males were visual learners in comparison to females in the College of
Engineering; (c) in the Colleges of Business and Foreign Language, females inclined
significantly toward more intuitive and global learning than did males; and (d) females
tended to learn more actively and intuitively but less sequentially than did males in the
College of Management.
The results of this study revealed that the means of the sensing-intuitive, visualverbal, and sequential-global scales for the entire sample are significantly different than
zero, so on average, Taiwanese Millennial are sensing, visual, and global learners. In
202
particular, a high percentage of them (90.9%) show solid preferences toward visual
learning, which fitted the common overall impression of the younger generation in
Taiwan. The findings are consistent with other studies (Ku & Shen, 2009; Litzinger et al.,
2005; McChlery & Visser, 2009; L. Wang, 2007), indicating that the majority of young
adults learned better with visual assistance than with only verbal lectures.
Gender differences in preferences of learning styles are also confirmed, especially
in the sensing-intuitive and visual-verbal scales. Females tend to lean slightly toward fact
orientated learning as opposed to conceptual learning, while males incline strongly
toward visual over verbal learning. The outcome of gender differences in the visualverbal dimension asserts the conclusions derived from Ku and Shen (2009) as well as
Litzinger et al. (2005), but disagrees with the results of L. Wang (2007) and McChlery
and Visser (2009). Additionally, Litzinger et al. (2005) shared the same opinion as the
current study, which discovered that females learned more sensingly than intuitively.
Learning differences are also found in the sensing-intuitive and visual-verbal
scales among colleges. The findings are similar to the results of Litzinger et al. (2005), L.
Wang (2007), and Ku and Shen (2009). Further, Ku and Shen (2009) identified that there
were no significant differences in the active-reflective learning style among colleges; and
students from the college of Management showed significant differences in the sensingintuitive learning dimensions than those in the colleges of Science and Engineering. The
outcomes prove that people from diverse educational backgrounds would benefit from
various teaching methods adapted to their particular learning styles.
203
Conclusions
This research design incorporates the quantitative results of the Consumer Style
Inventory (CSI) and Felder-Soloman Index of Learning Styles (ILS) questionnaires
through adapting marketing perspectives in order to explore the relationship between
consumer decision-making behaviors and learning styles among the Millennial
Generation in Taiwan for future implications. Although the Chinese version of the CSI
and ILS were both approved as steady well-structured instruments, the reliability of the
ILS questionnaires in current study was ranging from 0.387 to 0.528 and barely met the
Cronbach's criterion (e.g. 0.5) for attitudinal or psychological constructs. Compared to
previous studies, the ILS instrument was still considered acceptable but the interpretation
of the ILS findings is restricted. Based on the limitation of collected data, the conclusions
derived from the quantitative analyses are presented in the following:
Profiles of Consumer Styles. Eight general consumer decision-making styles
among Taiwanese Millennial consumers have been classified in this study, while seven
characteristics proposed by G. B. Sproles and Kendall (1986) are confirmed with the
exception of the time-energy conserving and recreational behavior. Via factor analyses
using both PCA and SEM to scrutinize the data collected by the CSI instrument, the
construct is validated, though some similarities and differences regarding factors and
individual item loadings are revealed between Taiwanese consumers and other countries,
such as the U.S., New Zealand, Greece, Germany, the U.K., India, Malaysia, Iran, South
Korea, Turkey, and China. Besides, the reliability of each individual decision-making
dimension also supports the research findings with Cronbach's alpha values all above 0.7,
except the impulsiveness factor (0.586). Perhaps, language translation and cultural
204
differences as well as populations sampled might contribute to those differences in major

ways.
In particular, the three most consistent traits across-population, including
perfectionism and high-quality consciousness, brand consciousness, and confused-byoverchoice, are also confirmed with reliability coefficients of 0.796,0.814, and 0.690,
respectively. The statements and the number of items loaded onto those factors from
factor analyses are approximately similar to previous studies, and all Chinese translated
statements are identical with the findings of C. Lin et al. (2001). Additionally, the
translated items loaded onto the novelty-fashion consciousness and impulsiveness
characteristics remain steadily in the same factors, although the number of items is
different from C. Lin et al.'s (2001) study (see Table 49). Nevertheless, all evidence
authenticates the Consumer Styles Inventory as a well-constructed, reliable instrument.
Via MANOVA statistical analyses, there are no significant differences found in
brand-conscious, habitual and brand-loyal, confused-by-overchoice, and impulsive
shoppers among gender, age, geographical area, and type of program, school, and college.
However, gender differences are identified in the (a) high-quality conscious and (b) timeenergy conserving and recreational decision-making characteristics. Young Taiwanese
males are more concerned about the quality of the products than are females, while
female young adults seem to pay more attention to their time and energy spending as well
as shopping experiences in comparison to males. Wesley et al. (2006) also stressed that
for American consumers, "gender is a prime antecedent associating with CDM [consumer
decision-making] styles" (p. 546). Yet, individuals studying in the seven-year program
show significantly different shopping preferences for novelty-fashion and time-energy
205
conservation in contrast with those attending four-year and two-year programs. To further
clarify, younger individuals seem to hold significantly different views of shopping
regarding novelty-fashion and time-energy conservation in comparison to older
individuals. Meanwhile, older respondents express greater interests in novelty and
fashion stuff and are less conscious of price than younger participants. In other words,
age does influence consumer decision-making shopping behaviors among Taiwanese
Millennials. Expectedly, young adults who have been educated or have access to greater
cutting-edge fashion or trend information generally show higher levels of novelty-fashion
orientation.
In conclusion, Taiwanese Millennials answered the overall mean scores of each
decision-making dimension between neutral and agreed, except in the brand-conscious
characteristic. Although the majority does not favor brand-conscious shopping, more than
nine-tenths of participants appear not only to have their favorite brands and stores but
also to prioritize the product quality as their main consideration in order to discover good
bargains. Meanwhile, around 60% of them confess that they sometimes have shopped on
the spur of the moment and have felt confused with their purchasing decisions under the
influence of overwhelming information from their friends, families, advertisements, or
commercials. Because of marketing promotion through various mass-media or advanced
technology, they are attentive to internationally renowned or most advertised brands or
designers and up-to-date fashion, but only a few of them could afford to buy expensive
brand-name items or own the most current products. Though shopping is seen as a
socially pleasurable experience among peers, they are still concerned about how much
time and energy they spend on these activities. In short, Taiwanese Millennials are not
206
only aware of brand, price, quality, and fashion, but also are loyal consumers who enjoy
shopping, while occasionally acting impulsively and confused toward shopping.
Felder-Soloman Index of Learning Styles. In comparison to popular research
areas of learning styles, only a relatively modest body of literature has explored focusing
on cultural differences and influences on learning style. By administering the Chinese
version of the Felder-Soloman Index of Learning Styles (ILS) questionnaires to college
students, this study unveils Taiwanese Millennial as more active, sensing, visual, and
global than reflective, intuitive, verbal, and sequential learners; as well as provides
important references and suggestions for educators to improve their teaching styles in
order to accommodate various students. As expected, the majority (90.9%) incline more
strongly toward visual learning than verbal learning, while other researchers also asserted
similar findings (Ku & Shen, 2009; Litzinger et al., 2005; McChlery & Visser, 2009; L.
Wang, 2007).
Moreover, gender differences among learning styles are confirmed in the current
study, as well as dissimilarities among ages and individuals attending various colleges or
programs. First, females learn in favor of more practical, concrete materials than abstract,
theoretical information, and so did Litzinger et al. (2005). Secondly, males appear
strongly to be visual than verbal learners. The conclusions support Ku and Shen's (2009)
and Litzinger et al.'s (2005) findings, but disagree with L. Wang's (2007) and McChlery
and Visser's (2009) results. Thirdly, older individuals in the collected data seem to
express stronger fact-oriented and slightly verbal preferences in comparison to younger
participants. In other words, the younger generation will benefit more from visual aids
than oral descriptions, as well as be able to learn through processing both conceptually
207
theoretical and practically concrete information. Metaphorically, years of education and

age will not only expand one's knowledge but also influence his or her learning
preferences.
Fourthly, participants from different colleges show significant differences among
sensing-intuitive, visual-verbal, and sequential-global learning styles. For example,
individuals from the College of Design strongly favor learning by visual means such as
pictures, diagrams, and charts; and participants in the College of Management understand
materials better in a step-by-step, linear learning process rather than in a holistic thinking
process with overall contexts. The outcomes infer that people with diverse educational
backgrounds learn differently, and their learning will be enhanced by various teaching
methods adapted to their particular learning styles. Additionally, no evidence supports
significant differences in the active-reflective learning dimensions among gender, area,
age, and type of school, program, and college.
Finally, in terms of the Chinese ILS instrument, structures of learning dimensions
and correlations among ILS items are examined through factor analyses, SEM, and
Pearson correlation analysis. Not only eight factors associated with four learning
dimensions are identified, but also Pearson correlation coefficients reveal likely
significant interrelations among VA-AR, SG-SI, and SG-VA scales, though r values
indicate low relationships. Meanwhile, the estimation of internal consistency reliability
ranges from 0.389 to 0.521, but only the Cronbach's alpha value of the sensing-intuitive
scale satisfies the 0.5 criterion for the attitude and preference survey. However, the
reliability scoring patterns of all four dimensions are similar to the patterns attained from
208
previous studies and reflect the consistency of the ILS by reporting the same problematic
dimensionthe sequential-global scale, which needs further investigation.
Although all Cronbach's alpha values in four dimensions are comparable to Ku
and Shen's (2009) findings, the major difference falls in the reliability coefficients of the
visual-verbal scale: 0.43 (current study) versus 0.52 (Ku & Shen, 2009). By screening out
and discussing nine problematic items, two main concerns are worth mentioning. The
first issue is language barriers and translation problems. From the linguistic perspective,
it creates the giant challenge of using a restricted number of words in order to deliver the
precise meaning of these psychological statements in a different language. Therefore,
several revisions are compulsory, since cultural differences always play an essential role
in a validly proper translation for targeted audiences. For instance, the meanings of
Chinese translated terms of verbal and visual might be too narrow and will be interpreted
differently for Chinese speakers. Ku and Shen (2009) further explained that "the terms
'visual' and 'verbal' seem clear enough for native English speakers, whereas in Chinese
the direct translation of the English word 'verbal' emphasizes the idea of
listening/hearing than facility with written words" (p. 846). Instead, the Chinese terms of
graphical-visual and verbal-auditory were chosen to replace the visual-verbal learning
dimension for supplementary clarification.
For the purpose of keeping all ILS items as close to the original as possible, the
second concern is the precision and design of the questionable items. Although most
researchers concluded the ILS was an appropriate and statistically acceptable instrument
for characterizing learning preferences (Allert, 2004; Bacon, 2004; Cook & Smith, 2006;
Dee et al., 2002; Felder & Spurlin, 2005; Ku & Shen, 2009; Litzinger et al., 2005, 2007;
Livesay & Dee, 2005; Livesay et al., 2002; McChlery & Visser, 2009; Zywno, 2003),
correlation and factor analyses present separate model scales in contrast to the original
proposed ones. Further, some evidence shows overlaps among the VA-AR, SG-SI, and
SG-VA dimensions, and similar findings also were observed in other studies, especially
between sequential-global and sensing-intuitive domains (Ku & Shen, 2009; Livesay et
al., 2002; Van Zwanenberg et al., 2000; Zywno, 2003). For example, Litzinger et al.
(2005) argued that items 30, 39,40, and 42 did not load well on their original suggested
domains owing to disconnection from current lifestyles of younger generations since the
ELS was released 20 years ago. The current study also supports the conclusion. Yet,
despite weak associations of the ELS items within designated categories, unbalanced
corresponding statements and individual different interpretability might lead to biased
decisions as well.
In sum, since the ELS instrument constructed in this manner has been completed
and utilized as the basis of numerous studies, creating a new scoring system or
eliminating items from the underlying construct might confuse and compromise the
learning styles profiles. The Cronbach's alpha values of the internal consistency
reliability and test-retest reliability, shown in Table 12, have fulfilled the criterion of
acceptability. In order to increase the reliability, the recognized problems could be
addressed and adjusted with careful rephrasing and minor wording alterations without
changing the basic structure of the existing instrument. By using the ELS instrument, the
collected learning profiles will not only help students understand their learning
preferences, but also aid instructors in building balanced learning environments and
course instructions to improve education outcomes.
Millennial Generation in Taiwan. Based on the collected data, a profile of the

Millennial Generation was individuals ranging from 18 to 28 years old, born between
1982 and 1992; the mean age of this group was 20.37 years old, and more than 90% of
the respondents were born after 1987. In terms of geography, over half of the subjects
resided in Southern Taiwan; around 21% came from Northern Taiwan; nearly 17% lived
in Central Taiwan; and less than 5% inhabited Eastern Taiwan and other areas. Overall,
the majority of the participants with an average of NT $6,000 (US $200) as monthly
disposable income have lived in metropolitan areas in Taiwan.
Generally speaking, there is no doubt that the Taiwanese Millennial Generation
strongly desires visual over verbal communication in regards to perceiving and
interpreting information. If they show shopping tendencies toward novelty-fashion
consciousness, impulsiveness, as well as time-energy conserving and recreational
behaviors, they seem to be more practically oriented and will consult others' opinions
before making purchases. Derived from the findings, the researcher infers the profile of
the Taiwanese Millennial Generation as follows: For contents receiving, they tend to
believe facts illustrating statistical evidence or personal experiences shared by celebrities
or ordinary users rather than abstract ideas or academic theories. In terms of their
shopping preferences, the top three decision-making criteria are the product quality,
trusted brands, and price for value, respectively. Since these young consumers have
grown up in the richest era in Taiwan and have been offered the best of everything by
their helicopter parents, there is no surprise that while making purchases, they consider
the very best quality and high-standard function for products as their priority but at fair
prices, especially for males. Young male adults not only favor well-known brands as an
211
indicator of quality and purchase their favorite brands over and over again, but also pay
more attention to visual messages. By contrast, young females attach importance to their
shopping experiences and time usage on shopping, and prefer logical to emotional
appeals for processing information. Surrounded with easy Internet access while growing
up, their tech-savvy trait has had strong influences on their consumer behaviors,
particularly on product research and shopping. In addition, the older Millennial care
more about fashion and trends than the younger Millennial do, but they do not like to
waste their time on shopping. On the other hand, the younger Millennial group favors
comparative shopping for best-value bargains, and abstract descriptions with conceptual
advertisements presented by products might have more influence on them compared to
the older Millennial cohort.
Marketing Implications
According to Schiffman and Kanuk (2006), consumer behavior is defined as "the
behavior that consumers display in searching for, purchasing, using, evaluating, and
disposing of products and services that they expect will satisfy their needs" and focuses
on "how individuals make decisions to spend their available resources on consumptionrelated items" (p. 3). In general, experienced marketers considered customers as the core
of their business organizational culture which is anchored in the marketing concepts and
strategies by applying the tools of segmentation, targeting, and positioning to maintain
company growth and build successful relationships focusing on customer value,
satisfaction, and retention. Via profiling the Taiwanese Millennial Generation by the CSI
and ILS, the Millennial' common needs and characteristics could be acknowledged and
categorized through four lenses of the economic, passive, cognitive, and emotional views
212
for marketers to adapt effective marketing approaches for implementation (Schiffman &
Kanuk, 2006).
Schiffman and Kanuk (2006) further explained those four perspectives of
consumer decision-making as follows. First, through an economic lens, consumers were
perceived as rational decision makers, who are aware of available alternatives to identify
the best choice by correctly ranking and comparing their benefits and disadvantages.
Secondly, marketers characterized consumers as problem solvers from a cognitive aspect.
Thirdly, adapting a passive view, consumers were portrayed as irrational and impulsive
purchasers, or "basically submissive to the self-serving interests and promotional efforts
of marketers" (p. 528). Lastly, via an emotional point of view, marketers recognized
consumers as possessive shoppers influenced by their feelings and moods.
On one hand, based on economic and cognitive viewpoints, through searching and
evaluating information to make reasonable purchase choices, consumers processed
sufficient information about alternatives in order to arrive at a "satisfactory" decision
(Schiffman & Kanuk, 2006, p. 529). Since studies showed that this particular cohort has
grown up in a media-saturated environment with intensive Internet usage (Chang & Chen,
2007; Howe et al., 2000; Liang, 2009; Moriarty, 2004; Neuborne & Kerwin, 1999;
Nowak et al., 2006; Thach & Olsen, 2006), how to choose an appropriate media channel
is essential for marketers to make effective communication. By means of new media
channels, marketers should acclimatize to non-traditional marketing strategies and
advertising campaigns using websites, blogs, forums, texting, social networks, and other
Internet-related applications in order to attract the Millennial Generation. Comparatively
speaking, the Millennials desire to balance their work and personal life with more fun, so
213
the suggestion for advertising is to present fact-oriented information integrated with

statistical numbers in colorful and attention-grabbing graphics to keep their interest.
Further, it is important to include elements of pleasure, uniqueness, diversity,
high-quality, affordability, and social responsibility to create a positive brand or business
image, because they are brand-savvy in projecting their own images and value quality
products sold at a fair price. In terms of quality, the key is not only to focus on the
product quality but also to stress service quality to increase customer satisfaction and lead
to repeated business. Although they are price-value conscious shoppers, cheap pricing is
not a necessity, but value offered at a reasonable price is perceived as a must (Liang,
2009; Nowak et al., 2006; Thach & Olsen, 2006). Once the Millennial Generation builds
such an emotional connection and trusting relationship with brands or corporations, they
will easily become brand-loyal customers and influence their peers' and family's
purchases.
On the other hand, derived from the passive and emotional perspectives,
consumers might not play the dominant roles in many buying situations, and perhaps
sometimes unexpectedly select "a product that satisfies the mood or emotion of the
moment" (Schiffman & Kanuk, 2006, p. 528). The mood, "defined as a 'feeling state' or
state of mind" (p. 530), not only impacts when, where, and whether consumers shop
alone or with companies but also affects how they interact and respond to the retail
atmospheres. It is suggested to create a mood through either a virtual or a physical store's
ambiance, such as point-of-purchase displays, time-limit sale promotion, publicity events,
and so on, to influence the time consumers spend and encourage their shopping behaviors.
Yet, word-of-mouth recommendations from friends and families exert more substantial
214
effects on Millennial' purchase choices than celebrity endorsements or salespersons'
suggestions (Liang, 2009).
Additionally, previous empirical research indicated that since this cohort is
technology-savvy and comfortable shopping online in a fast-paced working society, ecommerce providing online purchases would be a potential marketing tool to target the
Millennial consumers and expand market growth (Liang, 2009; Moriarty, 2004;
Neuborne & Kerwin, 1999; Nowak et al., 2006; Patsioura, Malama, & Vlachopoulou,
2011; Thach & Olsen, 2006). The Internet not only has revolutionized the traditional
ways of business practices because of its uniqueness, flexibility, accessibility, and
interaction, but also has gradually become the most popular and dominant resource for
information searching and communication among Millennial peers. Patsioura et al. (2011)
even mentioned that web sites "have become the key medium of an organization to
inform consumers, provide services, interact with various stakeholders, and increase
purchase intention" for brand corporate advising to build images and relationships with
their potential customers (p. 73). For young adults, the products or brands they purchased
resemble their own personalities or the idol they aspire to be, so the projections of the
product or brand images are crucial to marketers' attention. Hopefully, companies can
maintain high-quality products and customer service, improve the interactive engaging
environments by featuring easy navigation and search engines, and incorporate graphics
and information, whether virtually or physically. In doing so, retailers can keep
marketing strategies diverse, interesting, innovative, and fun with the notion of
environmental and societal concerns in mind in order to facilitate effective
communication between corporations and consumers.
215
Recommendations to the CSI and ILS Instruments
For both instruments, pilot studies administered to targeted audiences are
suggested in order to determine whether refinement is needed for questionnaire
statements to incorporate more appropriate wording and grammar. Based on previous
research, though different numbers of the CSI items have been administered to numerous
populations, some identical items clustered consistently into the same categories.
Therefore, it is recommended to keep those items which regularly grouped into the same
factors in order to improve the reliability of the CSI instrument for future research. In
addition, since all previous ILS literature accentuated the importance of keeping originaldesigned learning-style structures, the researcher suggests that substituting new or
different terms and keeping balanced phrases for the original statements will enhance the
accuracy of the ILS instrument.
Recommendations to Educators
Consumer International (2011) elaborated United Nations Guidelines for
Consumer Protections as that consumers are entitled to the rights to (a) the satisfaction of
basic needs, (b) safety, (c) be informed, (d) choose, (e) be heard, (f) redress, (g) consumer
education, and (h) a healthy environment ("United Nations Guidelines for Consumer
Protection," 2003). In order to promote applicable consumer education services for
consumer rights awareness, the current findings of the CSI might benefit educators and
financial counselors from understanding general shopping characteristics of the
Taiwanese Millennial Generation to enlightening them on making proper purchasing and
financial decisions. Also, this Chinese CSI could be adapted as an evaluation tool of the
decision-making model to assist individuals in understanding their own decision-making
216
patterns and relative shopping habits to avoid unnecessary purchases and make better
judgments on expenses and finances. Furthermore, the information gathered from the
Felder-Soloman Index of Learning Style Questionnaires not only can help students reflect
and assess their own learning styles to adjust their behaviors in the classroom as
appropriate, but also would provide teachers with valuable instructive references for
accommodating teaching environments. Particularly, since the majority of this generation
is strongly attracted to visual stimulation, how to wisely utilize appealing graphics with
appropriate information is essential to communicate effectively.
Recommendations for Further Research
This study employed a cross-sectional quantitative survey research approach to
examine the relationship between consumer decision-making styles and individual
learning styles among Taiwanese Millennials. Since the reported information is restricted
to one university in Southern Taiwan, and the sample population might not accurately
reflect all population in Taiwan or other countries, the possibility of generalizing the
results of this study is somewhat limited. Based on the research findings,
recommendations for further research are presented as follows:
1. The present study only examined general consumer shopping orientations, so
a wider variety of purchasing decisions in regards to numerous products from
different categories might be valuable to identify product-specific shopping
variations.
2. The reliability score of the impulsive shopper factor in this study was
relatively low compared to other factors, and only three items were grouped
into this factor. Because the limited number of items could be attributed to the
low reliability, the inclusion of more information regarding impetuous

behaviors toward shopping might increase the identification of some specific
effects of this characteristic. Therefore, it is suggested to include such
statements in the questionnaire for future research.
3. The internal reliability scores among four proposed learning domains of the
Index of the Learning Styles Questionnaires (ILS) barely met the minimum
0.5 criterion for the attitude and preference survey. In order to increase the
soundness of the ILS instrument, test-retest reliability is recommended for
future research, as well as revision and reevaluation about the ambiguity of
the statements.
4. For consumer segmentations, the current study merely focused on the
Taiwanese Millennial Generation. The understanding of overall consumer
decision-making styles and learning styles will be enhanced if a future study
replicates similar processes to include other populations, such as adults, the
elderly, or specific cohorts, as well as to expand cross-culturally to other
countries.
5. Given the constriction of budget and time, this research was limited to a crosssectional study. Therefore, a longitudinal study in this research area is
suggested to enrich and expand the literature.
6. Although this study has revealed the differences in consumer decision-making
styles and learning styles within several demographic variables, future
research will benefit from additional investigation into specific differences
and possible effects to better identify various consumer preferences.
218
Particularly, gender, age, program, and college differences are significant in
this study, and more thorough investigation such as follow-up qualitative
interviews is recommended.
219
References
Allert, J. (2004). Learning styles and factors contributing to success in an introductory
computer science course. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on
Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT2004), 385-389.
doi: 10.1109/ICALT.2004.1357442
Ariffin, A. A. M., Ahmad, A. H., Ahmad, M. S., & Ibrahim, M. A. (2008). Determining
decision-making styles and demographic differences in selecting higher education
services among Malayian. International Journal of Business and Society, 9(1), 118.
Atkinson, M. (2004). Advice for (and from) the young at heart: Understanding the
millennial generation. Guidance & Counseling, 19(4), 153-157.
Bacon, D. R. (2004). An examination of two learning style measures and their association
with business learning. Journal of Education for Business, 79(4), 205-208.
Bakewell, C , & Mitchell, V.-W. (2003). Generation Y female consumer decision-making
styles. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 31(2), 95-106.
doi: 10.1108/09590550310461994
Bauer, H. H., Sauer, N. E., & Becker, C. (2006). Investigating the relationship between
product involvement and consumer decision-making styles. Journal of Consumer
Behaviour, 5(4), 342-354. doi:10.1002/cb.l85
Bettman, J. R. (1979). Information processing theory of consumer choice. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers.
Bollen, K. A. (1986). Sample size and Bentler and Bonett's nonnormed fit index.
Psychometrika, 51(3), 375-377. doi:10.1007/BF02294061
Bollen, K. A. (1989). A new incremental fit index for general structural equation models.
Sociological Methods & Research February, 17(3), 303-316.
doi:10.1177/0049124189017003004
Burns, R. B. (2000). Introduction to research methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Canabal, M. E. (2002). Decision making styles of young south Indian consumers: An
exploratory study. College Student Journal, 36(1), 12-19.
Caruso, S., & Westberg, K. (2008, December 1-3). Factors related to Generation Y's
perception of value and purchase intention for online music. Paper presented at
the Australia and New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference 2008, Olympic
Park, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Cassidy, S. (2004). Learning Styles: An overview of theories, models, and measures.
Educational Psychology, 24(4), 419-444. doi: 10.1080/0144341042000228861
Chang, Y., & Chen, J. (2007). Strawberries the Frame. Taiwan Review, 57. Retrived from
http://taiwanreview.nat. gov.tw/ct.asp?xitem=24696&ctnode= 1354&mp= 1
Chapman, A. (2009). Kolb learning styles Retrieved from Businessballs website:
http://www.businessballs.com/kolblearningstyles.htm
Chase, M. W. (2004). The relationship between mind styles, consumer decision-making
styles, and shopping habits of beginning college students (Doctoral Dissertation).
Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database. (UMI No. 3191732)
cheng, W.-J. (2007). mitm fw&mnSBL zm^mmmmmmffMmm

[A study of the motives and behaviors of media-use for watching SBL within
Taipei Generation Y students] (Master Thesis, National Taiwan Normal
221
University, Taipei, Taiwan). Available from National Digital Library of Theses
and Dissertations in Taiwan database. (096NTNU5567022)
CIA. (2011). CIA World Factbook: Total fertility rate. (ISSN 1553-8133). Washington,
DC: U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. Retrieved from
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2127.html.
Cohen, A. M. (2009, Jan/Feb). The emergence of a global generation. The Futurist, 43,
57-58.
Considine, D., Horton, J., & Moornan, G. (2009). Teaching and reading the Millennial
Generation through media literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(6),
471-481. doi:10.1598/JAAL.52.6.2
Cook, D. A. (2005). Reliability and validity of scores from the Index of Learning Styles.
Academic Medicine, 80(10), 97-101.
Cook, D. A., & Smith, A. J. (2006). Validity of index of learning styles scores: Multitraitmultimethod comparison with three cognitive/learning style instruments. Medical
Education, 40(9), 900-907. doi:10.1111/j.l365-2929.2006.02542.x
Cowart, K. O., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2007). The influence of consumer decision-making
styles on online apparel consumption by college students. International Journal of
Consumer Studies, 31(6), 639-647. doi: 10.1111/j. 1470-6431.2007.00615.x
Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Prentice Hall.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.
Psychometrika 16(3), 297-334. doi: 10.1007/BF02310555
222
Dee, K. C , Nauman, E. A., Livesay, G. A., & Rice, J. (2002). Research Report: Learning
Styles of Biomedical Engineering Students. Annals of Biomedical Engineering,
50(8), 1100-1106. doi: 10.1114/1.1512677
Downing, K. (2006). Next generation: What leaders need to know about the millennials.
Leadership in Action, 26(3), 3-6.
Durvasula, S., Lysonski, S., & Andrews, J. C. (1993). Cross-cultural generalizabihty of a
scale for profiling consumers' decision-making styles. The Journal of Consumer
Affairs, 27(1), 55-65.
Elam, C , Stratton, T., & Gibson, D. D. (2007). Welcoming a new generation to college:
The millennial students. Journal of College Admission, 7(195), 20-25.
Fan, J. X., & Xiao, J. J. (1998). Consumer decision-making styles of young-adult Chinese.
The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 32(2), 275-294. doi:0022-0078/0002-l
Felder, R. M., & Silverman, L. K. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering
education. International Journal of Engineering Education, 78(1), 674-681.
Felder, R. M., & Soloman, B. A. (1997). Index of Learning Styles. Retrieved from
http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/ILSpage.html
Felder, R. M., & Spurlin, J. (2005). Applications, reliability and validity of the Index of
Learning Styles. International Journal of Engineering Education, 21(1), 103-112.
doi:0949-149X/91
Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). London, England: Sage.
Fogarty, T. J. (2008). The millennial lie. Issues in Accounting Education, 23(3), 369-371.
doi: 1548941941
223
Friedman, T. L. (2007). The world isflat:A brief history of the twenty-first century (3rd
ed.). New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
Garson, D. G. (2008). Canonical Correlation. Statnotes: Topics in Multivariate Analysis.
Retrieved from http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/PA765/statnote.htm
Gen Y reports optimistic attitudes about work and value of education. (2009, March 9).
Business Wire, pp. n/a. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/444209030?accountid=7139
Glass, A. (2007). Understanding generational differences for competitive success.
Industrial and Commercial Training, 39(2), 98-103.
doi: 10.1108/00197850710732424
Gonen, E., & Ozmete, E. (2006). Decision-making styles of young Turkish consumers.
Journal of the Home Economics Institute of Australia, I3(\), 26-33.
Gordon, I. (2008). The marketer's challenge: How to teach customers new behaviours.
Ivey Business Journal Online, 72(5), 80.
Graf, S., Viola, S. R., Leo, T., & Kinshuk. (2007). In-depth analysis of the FelderSilverman learning style dimensions. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 40(1), 79-93
Gupta, M., Brantley, A., & Jackson, V. P. (2010). Product involvement as a predictor of
Generation Y consumer decision making styles. The Business Review, Cambridge,
14(2), 28-33.
Hafstrom, J. L., Chae, J. S., & Chung, Y. S. (1992). Consumer decision-making styles:
Comparison between United States and Korean young consumers. The Journal of
Consumer Affairs, 26(1), 146-158.
224
Hair, J. R, Black, W. C , Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2009). Canonical Correlation.

Multivariate Data Analysis (7th ed., pp. 1-44). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Perason
Prentice Hall.
Hanzaee, K. H. (2009). Iranian Generation Y female & male decision-making styles: Are
they different? Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, 14(2), 5763.
Hanzaee, K. H., & Aghasibeig, S. (2010). Iranian generation Y female market
segmentation. Journal of Islamic Marketing, 7(2), 165-176.
doi: 10.1108/17590831011055897
Henrie, K. M., & Taylor, D. C. (2009). Use of persuasion knowledge by the millennial
generation. Young Consumers, 10(1), 71-81. doi: 10.1108/17473610910940800
Hittleman, D. R., & Simon, A. J. (2005). Interpreting educational research (4th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hiu, A. S. Y., Siu, N. Y. M , Wang, C. C. L., & Chang, L. M. K. (2001). An investigation
of decision-making styles of consumers in China. The Journal of Consumer
Affairs, 35(2), 326-345.
Holtzhausen, T., & Strydom, J. (2006). Generation Y consumers: Behavioural patterns of
selected South African students. The Business Review, Cambridge, 5(1), 314-318.
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modeling:
Guidelines for determining model fit. The Electronic Journal of Business
Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60.
225
Hou, S.-C, & Lin, Z.-H. (2006, July 12-14). Shopping styles of working Taiwanese
female. Paper presented at the International Conference on Business and
Information (BAI2006), Singapore.
Howe, N., Strauss, W., & Matson, R. J. (2000). Millennial rising: The next great
generation. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
Hsu, C.-H. (2005). YWf'X
HtftftlgMMi!tftmWJmft#f2ffi0E[A Study on
Learning Style Preferences of the Cohorts: Generation Y, Generation X, and

Baby Boomers] (Master Thesis, Tamkang University, Taipei, Taiwan). Available
from National Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations in Taiwan database.
(093TKU01620002-001)
Hsu, T.-H. (2002). ^mutftzxfpmmm xftmm&MMimzmfi-usmm

f4?MM*tMXM0
[The antecedents and consequences of work values on
work attitude for the different generationsA study of high technology industries
in Taiwan] (Master Thesis, Chung Yuan Christian University, Chung-Li, Taiwan).
Available from National Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations in Taiwan
database. (091CYCU5121084)
Hu, L.-t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling, 6(1), 1-55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118
Huang, H.-M. (2011, November 15). ^ f l t A f r l r A W H # r g g [Taiwanese
university graduates salary paid poorly], Focus Taiwan News Channel. Retrieved
from http://www2.cna.com.tw/
Huck, S. W. (2000). Reading statistics and research. New York, NY: Longman.
Hung, K.-M. (2004). Consumer decision-making, perceived product value, and

purchasing behavior in the Taipei digital camera market (Doctoral Dissertation).
Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database. (UMI No. 3139640)
Kamaruddin, A. R., & Mokhlis, S. (2003). Consumer socialization, social structural
factors and decision-making styles: A case study of adolescents in Malaysia.
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 27(2), 145-156. doi: 10.1046/j. 14706431.2003.00297.x
Kavas, A., & Yesilada, F. (2007). Decision making styles of young Turkish consumers.
European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences(9), 73-81.
Kim, D., & Ammeter, A. P. (2008, April 2-5). Examings shifts in online purchasing
behavior: Decoding the " Net Generation". Paper presented at the Allied
Academies Spring 2008 International Conference, Tunica, Mississippi.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2rd ed.).
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Kolb, A. Y. (2005). The Kolb Learning Style Inventory Version 3.1. Boston, MA: Hay
Group.
Ku, D. T., & Shen, C.-Y. (2009). Reliability, validity, and investigation of the index of
learning styles in a Chinese language version for late adolescents of Taiwanese.
Adolescence, 44(176), 827-850.
Kwan, C. Y., Yeung, K. W., & Au, K. F. (2008). Relationships between consumer
decision-making styles and lifestyle characteristics: Young fashion consumers in
China. Journal of the Textile Institute, 99(3), 193-209.
doi: 10.1080/00405000701462351
Lai, I. K. W., & Liang, D. (2009). The socio-demographic profile of Generation Y online
shoppers in Taiwan. International Journal of Electronic Customer Relationship
Management, 3(2), 132-148. doi:10.1504/UECRM.2009.025284
Lancaster, L. C , & Stillman, D. (2002). When generations collide: Who they are. Why
they clash. How to solve the generational puzzle at work. (1st ed.). New York,
NY: Harper Business.
Liang, D. (2009). Critical factors influencing Taiwanese young adults' willingness to
shop online. Web Journal of Chinese Management Review, 12(4), 1-17.
Lihra, T., & Graf, R. (2007). Multi-channel communication and consumer choice in the
household furniture buying process. Direct Marketing, 7(3), 146-160.
doi:10.1108/17505930710779324
Lin, c., swh, K.-S., & Hsu, c.-M. (2001). mm^^w.MmnmiMM2.m%-^Mi^

E i ^ l l ^ ^ l t t l W % [The study on consumers' decision styles and personal
values - Empirical study on the students of univeristy in Taiwan].
itffi^MflJ
" AJCRtiitf^
B$$[f4^^M
[Proceedings of the National Science Council,
Republic of China, Part C: Humanities and Social Sciences], 11(1), 16-29.

Lin, Z.-M. (1998). X+Y+N HfffrMlMarketing
for Generation X+Y+N]. Taipei,
Taiwan: Ollin Publishing.

Litzinger, T. A., Lee, S. H., Wise, J. C , & Felder, R. M. (2005). A study of the reliability
and validity of the Felder-Soloman Index of Learning Styles. Proceedings of the
2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference &
Exposition, Portland, Oregon.
Litzinger, T. A., Lee, S. H., Wise, J. C, & Felder, R. M. (2007). A Psychometric study of
the Index of Learning Styles. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(4), 309-319.
Livesay, G. A., & Dee, K. C. (2005). Test-retest reliability of the Index of Learning
Styles for first-year engineering students. Proceedings of the 2005 American
Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Portland,
Oregon.
Livesay, G. A., Dee, K. C., Felder, R. M., Hites, J. L., Nauman, E. A., & O'Neal, E.
(2002). Statisical evaluation of the Index of Learning Styles. Proceedings of the
2002 American Society of Engineering Education Annual Conference &
Exposition, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Lodico, M. G., Spaulding, D. T., & Voegtle, K. H. (2006). Methods in educational
research: From theory to practice (1st ed.). San Franciso, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lysonski, S., Durvasula, S., & Zotos, Y. (1996). Consumer decision-making styles: A
multi-country investigation. European Journal of Marketing, J0(12), 10-21.
Maples, M., & Han, S. (2008). Cybercounseling in the United States and South Korea:
Implications for counseling college students of the millennial generation and the
networked generation. Journal of Counseling & Development, 86(2), 178-183.
Marsh, H. W., & Hocevar, D. (1985). Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the
study of self-concept: First- and higher-order factor models and their invariance
across groups. Psychological Bulletin, 97(3), 562-582. doi: 10.1037/00332909.97.3.562
McAlister, A. (2009). Teaching the Millennial Generation. American Music Teacher,
59(1), 13-15.
McChlery, S., & Visser, S. (2009). A comparative analysis of the learning styles of
accounting students in the United Kingdom and South Africa. Research in PostCompulsory Education, 14(3), 299-315. doi: 10.1080/13596740903139404
Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R. S., & Baumgartner, L. M. (2006). Learning in adulthood:
A comprehensive guide (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mertler, C. A., & Vannatta, R. A. (2004). Advanced and multivariate statistical methods.
Glendale, CA. Pyrczak Publishing.
Milliron, V. C. (2008). Exploring millennial student values and societal trends:
Accounting course selection preferences. Issues in Accounting Education, 23(3),
405-419. doi: 1548941961
Mishra, A. A. (2010). Consumer decision-making styles and young-adult consumers: An
Indian exploration. Jounral of Business Research, 2(3), 45-62.
Mitchell, V.-W., & Bates, L. (1998). UK consumer decision-making styles. Journal of
Marketing Management, 74(1-3), 199-225. doi: 10.1362/026725798784959345
Mitchell, V.-W., & Walsh, G. (2004). Gender differences in German consumer decisionmaking styles. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 5(4), 331-346.
doi:10.1002/cb.l46
Mokhlis, S. (2009). An investigation of consumer decision-making styles of young adults
in Malaysia. International Journal of Business and Management, 4(4), 140-148.
Mokhlis, S., & Salleh, H. S. (2009). Consumer decision-making styles in Malaysia: An
exploratory study of gender differences. European Journal of Social Sciences,
10(4), 574-584.
Moriarty, R. (2004, February 8). Marketers target savvy Y spenders: Hip imagery,
sophisticated sales pitches, websites are designed to appeal to youth, The PostStandard. Retrieved from
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA 113081060&v=2.1 &u=txshracd
2623&it=r&p=STND&sw=w
Morton, L. P. (2002). Targeting generation Y. Public Relations Quarterly, 47(2), 46-48.
Nahavandi, A. (2006). The art and science of leadership (4 ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Prentice Hall.
Neff, J., & Sanders, L. (2004). It's broken'. Advertising Age, 75(7), 1, 30.
Neuborne, E., & Kerwin, K. (1999, Feburary 15). Generation Y: Today's teens~the
biggest bulge since the boomers-may force marketers to toss their old tricks.
Business Week, New York, (3616), 80.
Nowak, L., Thach, L., & Olsen., J. E. (2006). Wowing the millennials: Creating brand
equity in the wine industry. The Journal of Product and Brand Management,
15(5), 316-323. doi:10.1108/10610420610685712
Orcher, L. T. (2007). Conducting a survey: Techniques for a term project. Glendale, CA:
Pyrczak Publishing.
Ozoh, R. N. (2007). Patron attitudes toward automated checkout: A study of customer
satisfaction at a private university library (Doctoral dissertation). Available from
ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database. (UMI No. 3283384)
Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis (3rd ed.).
Berkshire, England: McGraw-Hill Companies.
231
Patsioura, F., Malama, E.-L, & Vlachopoulou, M. (2011). A relationship marketing
model for brand advertising websites: An analysis of consumers' perceptions.
International Journal of Management, 28(4), 72-92.
Phillips, C. (2007, November 19). Millennial: Clued in or clueless? Advertising Age, 78,
12-13.
Ramsey, R., & Deeter-Schmelz, D. (2008). An assessment of the psychometric properties
of the style-of-processing (SOP) scale: How do we measure individuals'
verbal/visual information-processing preferences? Journal of Marketing Theory
and Practice, 76(1), 41-55.
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2007). Organizational behavior (12th ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Schiffman, L., & Kanuk, L. L. (2006). Consumer Behavior (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Shiao, Y.-H. (2002). mAmn&mmm &m&mmmm%mg!!m2ffilSBm%

[The study of self- efficacy, attitute, and consumer decision making style about
adult education] (Master thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University,
Kaohsuing, Taiwan). Available from National Digital Library of Theses and
Dissertations in Taiwan database. (091NKNU0142003)
Siu, N., Wang, C , Chang, L., & Hui, A. (2001). Adapting Consumer Style Inventory to
Chinese consumers: A confirmatory factor analysis approach. Journal of
International Consumer Marketing, 13(2), 29-47.
Sproles, E. K., & Sproles, G. B. (1990). Consumer decision-making styles as a function

of individual learning styles. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 24(\), 134-147.
doi:0022-0078/0001-134
Sproles, G. B., & Kendall, E. L. (1986). A methodology for profiling consumers'
decision-making styles. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 20(2), 267-279.
doi:0022-0078/86/0002-267
Stevens, J. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (4th ed.).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
Subrahmanyan, S., & Gomez-Arias, J. T. (2008). Integrated approach to understanding
consumer behavior at bottom of pyramid. The Journal of Consumer Marketing,
25(7), 402-412. doi:l 0.1108/07363760810915617
Sullivan, P., & Heitmeyer, J. (2008). Looking at Gen Y shopping preferences and
intentions: Exploring the role of experience and apparel involvement.
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 32(3), 285-295. doi:10.111 l/j.14706431.2008.00680.x
Sultan, E, & Rohm, A. (2008). How to market to Generation M(obile). MIT Sloan
Management Review, 49(4), 35-41.
Szamosi, L. T. (2006). Just what are tomorrow's SME employees looking for? Education
& Training. London, 48(8/9), 654-665. doi:l0.1108/00400910610710074
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston,
MA: Pearson Education.
Tai, S. H. C. (2005). Shopping styles of working Chinese females. Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services, 12(3), 191-203. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2004.06.003
Tai, S. H. C. (2008). Relationship between the personal values and shopping orientation
of Chinese consumers. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 20(4),
381-395. doi: 10.1108/13555850810909713
Taiwan Tourism Bureau. (2011). Taiwan map. Retrieved from
http://www.go2taiwan.net/taiwan_map.php
Taylor, M. (2008). Generation Y with Chinese characteristics. [Newsletter]. China Staff.
Hong Kong, 14(9), 2-5.
Thach, E. C , & Olsen, J. E. (2006). Market segment analysis to target young adult wine
drinkers. Agribusiness, 22(3), 307-322. doi:10.1002/agr.20088
Tucker, P. (2006, May/June). Teaching the millennial generation. The Futurist, 40,1.
Tuckman, B. W. (1999). Conducting Educational Research (5th ed.). Fort Worth, TX:
Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
United Nations Guidelines for Consumer Protection. (2003). Retrieved from
http://www.un.Org/esa/sustdev/sdissues/consumption/cppl4.htm#report
Van Zwanenberg, N., Wilkinson, L. J., & Anderson, A. (2000). Felder and Silverman's
Index of Learning Styles and Honey and Mumford's Learning Styles
Questionnaire: How do they compare and do they predict academic performance?
Educational Psychology, 20(3), 365-380. doi:10.1080/014434100750018057
Walsh, G., Hennig-Thurau, T., Wayne-Mitchell, V., & Wiedmann, K.-P. (2001).
Consumers' decision-making style as a basis for market segmentation. Journal of
Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 10(2), 117-131.
Walsh, G., Mitchell, V.-W., & Hennig-Thurau, T. (2001). German consumer decisionmaking styles. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35(1), 73-95.
Wang, C.-L., Siu, N. Y. M., & Hui, A. S. Y. (2004). Consumer decision-making styles on
domestic and imported brand clothing. European Journal of Marketing, 38(1/2),
239-252. doi: 10.1108/03090560410511212
Wang, L. (2007). Variation in learning styles in a group of Chinese English as a foreign
language learners. International Education Journal, 8(2), 408-417.
Wesley, S., LeHew, M., & Woodside, A. G. (2006). Consumer decision-making styles
and mall shopping behavior: Building theory using exploratory data analysis and
the comparative method. Journal of Business Research, 59(5), 535-548.
doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.01.005
Wickliffe, V. P. (2004). Refinement and re-assessment of the consumer decision-making
style instrument Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 11(1), 9-17.
doi:10.1016/S0969-6989(02)00057-7
Wind, Y. (2008). A plan to invent the marketing we need today. MIT Sloan Management
Review, 49(4), 21-28.
Wolburg, J. M., & Pokrywczynski, J. (2001). A psychographic Analysis of Generation Y
college students. Journal of Advertising Research, 41(5), 33-52.
Xu, Y. (2008). The influence of public self-consciousness and materialism on young
consumers' compulsive buying. Young Consumers, 9(1), 37-48.
doi:10.1108/17473610810857309
Zhang, H., & Lambert, V. (2008). Critical thinking dispositions and learning styles of
baccalaureate nursing students from China. Nursing & Health Sciences, 10(3),
175-181. doi:10.1111/j.l442-2018.2008.00393.x
235
Zhou, J. X., Arnold, M. J., Pereira, A., & Yu, J. (2010). Chinese consumer decisionmaking styles: A comparison between the coastal and inland regions. Journal of
Business Research, 63(1), 45-51. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.01.010
Zywno, M. S. (2003). A contribution to validation of score meaning for Felder-solomon's
index of learning styles. Proceedings of the 2003 American Society for
Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Nashville, Tennessee.
W i ^ ^ i ^ [Department of Household Registration Affairs, MOI], & f*3[glMff)ll
[Department of Statistics, MOI]. (2010).
WAnM0tf&W0?3
[Resident Population by Single Year of Age]. Taipei, Taiwan: Department of

Household Registration Affairs, Ministry of the Interior (MOI.). Retrieved from
http://sowf.moi.gov.tw/stat/month/ml-06.xls.
\HJ&a$^]gm [Department of Household Registration Affairs, MOI], & F*3i@Cg|S&titM
[Department of Statistics, MOI]. (2011). ttiM
&&&
?ECt * ?C&
[Number and Rates of Birth, Death, Marriage and Divorce]. Taipei, Taiwan:
Department of Household Registration Affairs, Ministry of the Interior (MOI).
Retrieved from http://sowf.moi.gov.tw/stat/month/ml-02.xls.
%mmmm
[Department of Statistics, MOE]. (2011a). $$%&
M0M/{M
' t0A&&0t
' M&& *
[Overview of numbers of school, class,
student, gradaute, teacher, and students per teacher at all levels]. Taipei, Taiwan:
Ministry of Education (MOE). Retrieved from
http://www.edu.tw/files/site_content/BOO 13/b.xls.
236
%LM^Mf$L
[Department of Statistics, MOE]. (2011b). #&
[Student Age].
Taipei, Taiwan: Ministry of Education (MOE.). Retrieved from

http://www.edu.tw/files/site_content/b0013/student_age.xls.
ffl$&M>3Ltf lH [Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting, and Statistics, Executive
Yuan]. (2011). 99 #g<Ml/jMMgM^tf#7'[The
Survey of Family Income
and Expenditure, 2010]. Taipei, Taiwan: Directorate-General of Budget,

Accounting, and Statistics, Executive Yuan. Retrieved from
http://win.dgbas.gov.tw/fies/al 1 .asp?year=99.
237
Appendix A
Consumer Styles Inventory (CSI > # W # # $ ^ M f S l # )
7G
KJSffB Questions
ft
1. Getting very high or good quality products is very important to me.

2. When it comes to purchasing products, I try to make the very best or perfect choice.
3. In general, I usually try to buy the best overall quality.
4. I make special effort to choose the very best quality products.
5. I don't give much thought or care to my purchase..
6. My standards and expectations for products I buy are very high.
7. I shop quickly, buying the first product or brand I find thai seems good enough.
8. It is necessary to know and understand famous brands.
9.
mm - imto%i%im>mm
Well-known national brands are the best for me.
10 The more expensive brands are usually my choices.

11
mm
m&nwm&fmsjfc >
I think that the higher the price of a product, the better its quality.
12 Nice department and specialty stores offer me the best products.

13 I prefer buying the best-selling brands.
14
mm'
mmwrnmrnmrnsm
The most advertised brands are usually very good choices.
15 I usually own the newest/most fashionable style of outfits or products.

16 I keep my wardrobe up-to-date with the changing fashions.
i
ft
s I I
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
238
17 Fashionable and attractive styling is very important to me.
18
mm
* m&wmm&mwmm
To get variety, I shop in different stores and choose different brands.
19 It is fun to buy something new, interesting, and exciting.

20 Shopping is not a pleasant activity to me.
21 Shopping is one of the enjoyable activities in my life.
22 Shopping wastes my time.
23
mmmttmnmm
I enjoy shopping just for the fun of it.
24 I make my shopping trips fast.

25
26
27
mmmmmmmwmm
I buy as much as possible at sale prices.
mm' mmmmmftmsh
The lower-priced products are usually my choices.
mm
mmnmw{mm&
I look carefully to find products which are the best value for my money.
28 I am a perfectionist about shopping.

29 I am impulsive when purchasing/1 purchase out of impulsiveness.
30 After making careless purchases, I often wish I had not.
31 I take time to shop carefully for the best buys.
32 I shop famous international or designer brands.
33
mm
mtmrnzi mm&m&m&tim&m I often feel confused with so many brands to choose from.
34 Sometimes, it is hard for me to choose which stores to shop in.

35 The more I learn about products, the harder it is to make the best choices.
36 Buying new stuff is like giving myself a gift.
37 I buy my favorite brands over and over.
38 Once I find a product or brand I like, I stick with it.
39 I go to the same stores each time I shop.
40 I change brands I buy regularly.
41 I like to shop in the stores that I am familiar with.
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
239
42 My family or friends have the most influence on my choices of products.
43 I try to purchase things based on my friends' recommendations.
44 When seeing something I like, I buy it immediately.
45 I carefully evaluate the price of each product.
46 Not buying the first product you see is a good principle.
47 I spend time on shopping to save money.
48 I prefer lower-priced products to expensive or fashionable products.
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
4*
MI6>SS Questions
ft
You have now completed the Consumer Styles Inventory.

Thank you for your participation in this study.
it
ft
Im
240
Appendix B
Index of Learning Styles Questionnaires (ILS
M.Felder^t Barbara A. Salomm &&mfflm&tt
^MMMimM.)
' W1ffl&Mft&*WZM
IFafol (try it out)
fUtt (realistic.)
MM (a picture.)
' S&FSW&IS
fit (I understand something better after

D
2..
mmmm-wJ*V*
*i%\
3. i$mmmm3zW7<fm < $m
?*#&>!&
(When I
think about what I did yesterday, I am
most likely to get)
4
$ji)fjf3&;
J ^ j T
_?<*!**)
* j
^ . / - ^ ,-*'T
'-^
HSfefl (understand details nt a subject but mas

be tu//v about us overall structure >
B
5.
dettils.)
t&ife'S (talk about it.)
Si&ffi&f
JtffeW
0fMS& (When I am learning
something new, it helps me to)
5g*ftftXff& e ftBMft8 (that deals with

facts and real life situations.)
7-
A fflM * ^J& * iftl! (pictures, diagrams,

graphs, or maps.)
SatttMKfeL
sR (I prefer to get new information in)
tt'
8. '-"iBBWPIHfe AimZ.^ *
,
'.1
- -distil
W"if* i> ' " , V.. j * ,
"" t
(In a study group working on

difficult material, I am more likely to)
HftrfflJJ'JWWfr ^ K f t M ( 1 l t f t & (all

the parts, I understand the whole thing)
WM0Mmm^MM
ideas.)
(jump in and contribute
241
10
fSm^^^mm&'amit
castor/
11. &mm-Mffi'&&mtf
*Sfl?
B$ > #.<Jfel
(While reading a
book with lots of pictures and charts, I
am likely
W/*#J (to learn facts/practical examples)
. - : ' . '
A s^ffiiftlfSSffl^f*^ (look over the pictures
and charts carefully.)
ÎBIL ^
to)
| 1 | ^^S^f^M^^^&MmW
'\:
M$$&%5 A &mw&mwm-##mimm a usually
work my way to the solutions one step at a
lime.)
A
_h '
(In classes I have taken)
g $ $ # 3 f l g a t H l $ f f l * a have usually
gotten to know many of the students.)
14
isomtthitik.' that t aches me new tat is oi tells
me him to do something )
HnlnbdkrIJp(Kk>
is.
m&n-
that
ffitUflaW*BW
of diagrams on the board.)
(I like teachers)
(who put a lot

Ulotof
16
A
wiiiMpiWOTft * y f* "awn
17.
m&m^ntpmm* > MMMMmmm

w^ciÔj-4-ig f\ think of the incidents and trv
ID put them together to figure- out the themes )
A
(When I start a homework
problem, I am more likely to)
tLtM^^M^
(start working on the
solution immediately.)
r ' #*jdân4^wot*to.fi)*t;) A
MWs&^M (certainty.)
an
#ffW&##*
mmtfr.
"Sp- (I remember best)
A ^ j g (what I see.)
Iggglwhatrheai'.)
242
20. iAMBM*?^mmtu
mm
A wmtimmmmMmmi
"JrtJ^:^^feiy^^fW^#'f^^'*^
days out the
material in clear sequential steps.)
v:-.^. '&* *
'^..WJPA&V..
3 .-* " " ' - :
21.
JWS a prefer to
fttfclJWlL
H/MEIUP)6 On a study group.)
'h'L/iltK > }Hifflti5 (careful about the details

ot my work.)
study)
22.
23
#mi5]fflaHa,3*ftJfc-tf$
(When I
WRWJKI:*i_
get directions to a new place, I prefer)
24.
'(Ilsw*)
55%(amap.)
Flt. n , ^ f I -Sit i
'g?fv$.'<l '
-^fc! <|t# ifWBf
taiafjirlv leeuloi
pate It I siud\ h ird I II' get it ")
ita
h
'
25.
(I
Jtf&lfH (try things out.)
ft^B
fi^fflfNr*ft
what they mean.)
would rather first)

26*
27.
ntm-% t i d B * * f t B * 'v.*
#t5#&%_
(When I s.v a
diagram or sketch in class, I am most
likely to remember)
2*- -fMg
(clearly say
A
I- I k'+ulu. picture itselti
S-_ ^ ^ i $ . 4 $ * ^ v ^ * f r i w t n ^
-"* 6wJ"AMi|fitj' ;' ,'" V -,'
* * --* * ** *-**** U > * V -
jeftttft&m&*
mmmmmm
focus on details and miss the big picture )

w
29.
ft9 aftbHSSftffi
asi&
$ (I more easily remember)
W8H
(When someone is
showing me data, I prefer)
jaMW^^Y
# M ^ i i (something I have done.)
^mWlfe
of doing it.)
' %$&%$(& (master one way
WShM$M& (charts or graphs )
*>,.
243
32. ,
iwork on 'think about or write) the beginning ol
the paper and progress lorw ard )
i&StatvditiiVA paper, I am
'*',
33. vmffi'MM&m' ife#
(When I have to work on a
group project, I first want to)
fJWKfr 4BfilJeft4(^*tftW:btof
ihespinoBtJer.)
> (have "group brainstorming" where
everyone contributes ideas.)
**!
34. ^ ^ g ^ A ^ ^ a ^ a ^
&&.tf3fMtj (sensible)
35. $ & # ( # ) tttSftBMSA

Bf - ffcb$#fft
(When I
meet people at a party, I am more likely
to remember)
^* -
ffemWftffl (what they looked like.)
.. ..,
*J?&X _
T ' <^>l*. .--SJlS.. < * , " . ,
',l..
37. i & M g g & S H B
-'**.< j *
A-d
'*!**&
8&^ffijU: &&#%$ (stay

focused on that subject, learning as much about
it as I can.)
fcyto
*7
*"*
JiS^hlfel (outgoing.)
C4ffilS-:- ' # i r * RS8 ' tumuete material
am more likely to be considered)
38. msmmm
- um&ma ,JL
ilaUs, data) )
i:-i-
39.
mmmmtmmk.
iHir enlertaininent, 1 would rather)
40-
&mmm&m8m-&m
(wmeep^tjieiajuijfc^
f l f l l i (watch television.)
ft : fflaHftfrtadabook.)
A
* j i ' Sfl"1 * Vsomewhit lielpful to me )
7 - Kjt
41
ftW\
K*I Vft.H" ;l\
"
,'
* *
3 '.*-*
\ilppeals to me i
* ! * ' " , f ' t *'-*._ _ _ (The

idea of doing homework ii groups with
one grade lor the enure group )
..
*W&*tWdtftttaiig
..,
"
"
".*>",
ti.nd to repeal al! m\ steps and eheik mv work

.arelull\
IS' T 1
ftsw"aiyetf do ft.)
43. tt$@& * g s t t & t f & & ' $
44
Sft&HBU^g^M^niB^ ' t
tHHwn irfduluH, ptaUans 111 a
mm%mniEmmm&
'
* -J ******* '
(vxaymdfwiy
S ""ink <>t the NU.|1N
m the solution pnx.css i
Copyright 1991 North Carolina State University (Authored by Richard M. Felder and Barbara A. Soloman).
Reprinted by permission of North Carolina State University
~*fammmm
< ^Mmmimmm^m
mm \ ~
You have now completed the Index of Learning Styles Questionnaires.

Thank you for your participation in this study.
Appendix C
Demographics Survey (Chinese)
i.
tfi^B7ti9
2. mv-
^__&
3.
ikm
5.
mmt mwrFmmmw-mm
a. jtnm 2. ^ M 3. +#&4. mum 5. n ^ p 6.
S!6 7.?hJH 8. f I S 9.ffe)
7.
# 8!^s8i&*ffi*ii (ww-m)
srasB mm
5csn
sn
ras
r.s_s
mmmm
nwjcf
m*m
xm&m
mnmm
m
m
w
s. ms mmmmAmm^m
(1) 20,000 kCf
(5)80,001-100,000
(9) 200,001-300,000
9.
(2)20,001-40,000
(6)80,001-100,000
(10) &%k 300,001
(3)40,001-60,000
(7)100,001-150,000
mm m~5rttMmmmmi3m
TTJR
io. w-B-kîMU.nmmmmmsmm
(M^MHJD
_*&_
_
mmm __ mmmm _ mm _
gffe (SHKfc)
(4)60,001-80,000
(8)150,001-20,000
mfmA^wmmmjumm
uimmgmimi
246
Appendix C (continued)
Demographics Survey (English)
Year of birth:
Gender:
Major:
19
Female
Male
Type of student:
Day
Night
Program attended:
4 - year
2 - year
5 - year
Current classification in college:

Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
Fifth year
Hometown: (select one from the following)
1. Taipei county area.
2. TaoChuMiao area. 3. ChungChangTou area. 4. YunChiaNan area. 5. KaoKaoPing area.

6. Keel area. 7. HwaDong area. 8. KingMaPenghu Island. 9. Other
Marital status:
Single
Educational level of parents:
Father
Mother
Married
Divorced
Educational levels
High school Graduate
Attended college but did not complete degree
Associated degree (A.A., A.S., etc.)
Total family income per month (NTS):

(1) below 20,000
(5)80,001-100,000
(9)200,001-300,000
(2)20,001-40,000
(6)80,001-100,000
(10) above 300,001
(3)40,001-60,000
(7)100,001-150,000
(4)60,001-80,000
(8)150,001-200,000
How much is your approximate monthly disposable income? NTS

per month.
(including your allowance from your family and your monthly earnings.)
What sources do you usually get product information from? (mark 3 choices at the most)
TV
Newspaper or magazines
Internet/Website resources
word of mouth or recommendation from acquaintances

Do you use your cellular phone to surf the Internet?
Yes
Radio
others
No
247
Appendix D
APPLICATION FOR INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL FORM
University of the Incarnate Word
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Title of Study:
An Exploratory Study of Consumer Decision-Making and Learning Styles among the Millennial Generation in
Taiwan
Principal Investigator (type name, telephone number, e-mail address and mailing address):
Wei-chao Hsu, 210-832-0652, whsu@student.uivvtx.edu, 123 Brackenridge Ave. #323, San Antonio, TX 78209
Co-Investigator; Faculty Supervisor; Thesis or Dissertation Chair:
Dr. Dorothy Ettling
Division/Discipline:
Education
Research Category:
a. _x_ Exempt b.
Expedited Review
c.
Full Board Review
Purpose of Study:
The purpose of this study is to investigate the possible relationships between consumers' decision-making styles and
individuals' learning styles among Taiwanese Millennial generation.
Number of Subjects:
500 participants Controls:_0_
Does this research involve any of the following:
YES
NO
YES
NO
Fetus in utero
X
Inmates of penal institutions
Institutionalized mentally retarded
X
Viable fetus
Institutionalized mentally disabled
X
Nonviable fetus
Committed patients
X
Dead fetus
Mentally retarded outpatient
X
In vitro fertilization
Minors (under 18)
Mentally disabled outpatient
X
Pregnant women
X
For each "Yes", state what precautions you will use to obtain informed consent.
Duration of study:
One year
How is information obtained? (Include instruments used)
Three survey instruments will be used to collect statistical data for this study, including the Consumer Styles
Inventory (CSI) Chinese version (Appendix A) with permission from the original researchers (C. Lin et al 2001)
(Appendix G); the Index of Learning Styles (ILS) Chinese version (Felder & Soloman, 1997) (Appendix B) with
authorization from Tamkang University (Appendix H); and a Chinese demographic survey (Appendix C), which will
be developed by the researcher
Confidentiality - Are identifiers used for subjects'?:
_x_ Yes
No
If #11 is answered "No", how will the study subjects' confidentiality be maintained?
Benefit of research:
This study will expand on previous research on consumer decision-making styles and learning styles and fill the gap
of generalization among different cultures in Taiwan. This study also can benefit entrepreneurs in specific consumer
market segments and provide additional data to explore myths about the Millennial phenomenon.
Possible risk to subjects: None
***IF CHANGE IN RESEARCH OCCURS THE BOARD MUST BE NOTIFIED BEFORE RESEARCH IS
CONTINUED.***
Principal Investigator signature
Date
Responsible Faculty signature
Date
IRB Approval signature
Date
Application #
248
Appendix E
Survey Introductory Letter to Subject - Students (Chinese)
mm
fftgflEtg:
H^fiH:
tb0027@mail.tut.edu.tw
1-210-832-0652 (Hffl), 0928-720178 (&))
249
Appendix E (continued)
Survey Introductory Letter to Subject - Students (English)
To Whom It May Concern:
My name is Wei-chao Hsu. I am a doctoral student in Organizational Leadership at the University

of the Incarnate Word (UIW) in San Antonio, Texas, the United States. My dissertation research will
investigate the possible relationships between consumers' decision-making styles and individuals' learning
styles among Taiwanese traditional college students, frequently referred to as the Millennial Generation.
I would like to invite you to participate as a subject in this research. You will receive two survey
instruments - the Customer Style Inventory (CSI) and the Index of Learning Styles Questionnaires (ILS) with an introductory letter and an informed consent form in class. It will take approximately 15-20 minutes
for you to complete the survey questionnaires. Your time and effort for participating in this study are highly
appreciated.
Although aggregated results will be reported in the dissertation, individual identity and data will
remain confidential, and only the principal researcher will have access to all the information gathered.
Anonymity in this research is guaranteed. The data will be destroyed upon completion of this study. You
are free to withdraw from the research at any time without any penalty. If you have any concerns or would
like to have more information about the research, please feel free to contact the researcher. I would
appreciate the opportunity to discuss my study further with you.
Thank you very much for participation in this matter.

Sincerely yours,
Wei-chao Hsu
Email:
Telephone:
1-210-832- 0652 (USA), 0928-720178 (Taiwan)
250
Appendix F
Survey Consent Form (Chinese)
W&%i :
lg^pf|${ :
Organizational Leadership in Dreeben School of Education

University of the Incarnate Word, San Antonio, TX 78209
1-210-832-0652 (USA), 0928-720178 (Taiwan)
tbO027@mail.tut.edu.tw
tt-
xmrnmrnm
4.
jam&ft ^{mm&
mmmmm. ' ISm University of the Incarnate Word H : f c M ^ J | # l
Dr. Michael Risku W$& (H^plfSft : risku@uiwtx.edu ^ H g g 1-210-805-3560)
*x^m.mmmm0m&twmn
&& %m&
smmz
sm
mm
251
Appendix F (continued)
Survey Consent Form (English)
Project Title :
Purpose of Study :
Principal
Investigator :
Phone :
Email :
An Exploratory Study of Consumer Decision-Making and Learning Styles among

the Millennial generation in Taiwan
To investigate the possible relationships between consumers' decision-making
styles and individuals' learning styles among Taiwanese college students,
frequently referred to as the Millennial generation.
Wei-chao Hsu (Portia)
Organizational Leadership in Dreeben School of Education, University of the
Incarnate Word, San Antonio, TX 78209
1-210-832-0652 (USA), 0928-720178 (Taiwan)
Thank you for voluntarily taking part in this survey. Your time and assistance are highly
appreciated. The study will be divided into three sections and will take you approximately 15-20 minutes to
complete. Your signature below indicates that you understand the conditions and agree to participate in this
research.
1. Participation is voluntary. You can withdraw from the study at any time for any reason without penalty.
2. Participants are not expected to encounter any risk and confidentiality of participation in this research
is guaranteed by using a coded number for anonymity.
3. Please contact the researcher by telephone or email, listed above , if there are any questions concerning
your participation in this study.
4. The Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of the Incarnate Word has reviewed this study
and permitted its developments. For further questions about the rights of any research subject, please
contact the IRB chairman, Dr. Michael Risku. (Email: risku@uiwtx.edu or telephone: 1-210-805-3560.
Thank you very much for your help.
I have read the information provided and agree to participate in the study.
Signature
Researcher's Signature
Date
252
Appendix G
Permission Letters to Use the Consumer Styles Inventory (CSI)
S8J:Tue, 19 Jan 2010 20:17:44+0800
* # # : " t W B ^ e f l " tb0027@mail.tut.edu.tw
l & # # : shihks@mail.stut.edu.tw
mm'
&& nm&mmxmtfimffi mmms
Jifcfciiffltew&g&AcSKuniveisityof
the Incarnate Word, San Antonio, TX 78209)#tf 1 f t $ f l
g>im3S PROPOSAL mm&' mmfti]fammtwiLM*&mmmm&gmmmMm

&
S l t i Z f l l l W - J I X * ' > W # & m # I M ^ ^ < 2 0 0 0 ) f l f c & # ^ H l ^ f f l Consumer Styles
inventory (csi) mmmm^mmm^mmm
^siffms-Bj^ftgtj^^^wisissûffli3^
If &Jg Wei-chao Hsu (Portia)

TEL:886-6-2549118, 886-6-2532106 X 336 Fax: 886-6-2421292
Email: tb0027@mail.tut.edu.tw
&mm7%mîEm529w.
Tainan University of Technology, Department of Visual Communication Design
Address: 529 Chung Cheng Rd Yung Kang.Tainan, Taiwan, ROC. 710
Re:
mmm%mmmmmmftgf.
From: shihks (shihks mail.stut.edu.tw)

Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 10:02:46 PM
To: tbO027 (tb0027@mail.tut.edu.tw)
ok.
m
mLRmfrmz-
Re:
>m&%&M!mmitemm
From: Chinho (linn@mail.ncku.edu.tw)

Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 2:45:59 PM
To: "If H J S ^ g ? " (tb0027@mail.tut.edu.tw)
mm me
253
Re: mm^mmmmmmm.m%mkm
From: Chinho (linn@mail.ncku.edu.tw)
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 9:57:23 AM
To: "g^tUS^Sfi" (tb0027@mail.tut.edu.tw)
mm\
mtm
Original Message
From: " g ^ J g ^ g f i " <tb0027@mail.tut.edu.tw>
To: <linn@mail.ncku.edu.tw>; <shihks@mail.stut.edu.tw>
Sent: Friday, April 09,2010 9:44 AM
imm^m&t
mm
immmMtfimmmmttnmak3t*mmm
consumer styles inventory (csi) ^^cmm'
mm?
g^liJB Wei-chao Hsu (Portia)
TEL:886-6-2549118, 886-6-2532106 X 336 Fax: 886-6-2421292
Email: tb0027@mail.tut.edu.tw
^mn7xmtiEgS529^
Address: 529 Chung Cheng Rd., Yung Kang.Tainan, Taiwan, ROC, 710
Re: mmwmmmmmmm%&&&k.w
From: shihks (shihks@mail.stut.edu.tw)
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 12:10:41 PM
To: tb0027 (tb0027@mail.tut.edu.tw)
ok
mum%
254
Appendix H
Permission Letters to Use the Index of Learning Styles (ILS)
Subject: &JiS$3l*8OT8Lt&**SK
From: ÛHfeP4 , 'ij> (ai@oa.tku.edu.tw)
Sent: Monday, Febraary 22, 2010 1:34:51 PM
To: tb0027@mail.tut.edu.tw
mfir l-*SSWS...pdf (90.4 KB), R#f- 2-M*&...pdf (167.5 KB), Mft 3 - * J S
te...pdf (77.6 KB),IWft 4-*StS...pdf (199.1 KB)
- -H
1 E 19 0 ^ ( * M i | > C l g 0990000366 &)$0|<fl3*B!*SJSte*&* '
M B H ^ 9 9 ^
i.Mt&**#S!ifiB7>
3.MJ&te*fc*$ft
- ^H*I^Ji>IiJISm*@IS^*4(96 * 9 7 * ^ a t S M # # ' i j * J B S H H
http://sls..tku.edu.twAVEB/CHT/index.html
eg - m ^ i S A = m&8mtB. s*fe(353i>
ffi
&
&T
it
From: 99J3&9 t f , 'fr (ai@oa.tku.edu.tw)

Sent: Wednesday, Januaiy 20, 2010 12:41:41 PM
To: WI0B%ki (tb0027@mail.tut.edu.tw)
w^wim
-"lîUS^SU" <tb0027@mail.tut.edu.tw> p ^ : -
lft#A : ai@oa.tku.edu.tw
W # A : "I^fi|jg^gfi"tb0027@mail.tut.edu.tw
Bffl 01/19/201005:28AM
m^^mn^m^mm
' f^HgWS Ilftttâtf.ffi6^S5lAP(UniversityoftheIncamate
Word, San Antonio, TX ni09WW.MBU >
B mmtEM PROPOSAL mmz - nmw^mmmmmmw,mmmmmimmmmm
n
5ffiffl INDEX OF LEARNING STYLE(lI)JHitera##fJ&*WSMI - *8fe&Jtg'6jj2tfSI
255
tfW$& Wei-chao Hsu (Portia)
mm Re:
msm^m^mummmm
From: $ 9 J 3 & 9 t f I ' b (ai@oa.tku.edu.tw)

Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 12:09:40 PM
To: g^PiUg (tb0027@mail.tut.edu.tw)
m-
" W S " <tb0027@mail.tut.edu.tw> MM :

LfefÂ : ai@oa.tku.edu.tw
^FftA : "ff&US" <tb0027@mail.tut.edu.tw>
Bffl 04/09/2010 09:55AM
i g : Re: r a $ * S S M 6 * & *
ItfSff !
S^tUS Wei-chao Hsu (Portia)

TEL:886-6-2549118, 886-6-2532106 X 336
Fax: 886-6-2421292
Email: tb0027@mail.tut.edu.lw
P*4&AS
mtmmmtzm

Address: 529 Chung Cheng Rd., Yung Kang.Tainan, Taiwan, ROC. 710
Appendix I
Confirmation Letters from Professional Experts
, > tit;? '*!*>
TAINAN U N I V t d S I T V
OF
!. Jt
TICHNOtOCr
Shu-tcn C hang
529 Jhongihertg Rd Ytmgkang
Tatnsi 71002 Taiwan
August I I , 20! I
To Whom It May ConcernThis letter is to confirm the accuracy ol the Ironslatcd mvlraments, the Comumer Style
Inventory (CS1) and Intkx ofUarmng Styles Questionnaire* (IIS), constructed by Ms
Wei-chao Hsu. Aftei a careful review of the Chinese version with the original English
questionnaires, I found no problems in the Chinese translations of both CS1 and 1LS
instni nents, and the Chinese version truiv reflects the ongmal meaning of its Kngltvh
version
If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me
Sincerely yours.
J&r%^
Shu-ten Chang. Ph D
Associate Professor, Chair
Department of Applied Engtrsh
Tainan University of Technology, Taiwan
Email- tOO 136@m&il,tw.edu.tw
Ptiotie*86-6-242729S
Appendix I (continued)
Filling Liu
Bloetncnlaan 47,
1950 Kraainem,
Belgium
September 7,2011
Dear Sir/Madam:
My name is Fuling Liu, and i am writing to endorse the accuracy of the translated
instruments, the Consumer Style Inventory (CSI) and index of teaming Styles
Questionnaires (II.S), constructed by Wei-chao Hsu.
I started to work as afreelancetranslator more than ten years ago. and translated 52
nonfictions from English to Chinese ever since, including business, investment and art
books. Particularly, 1 have worked with the McOraw Hill publisher to translate more than
25 books on several subjects, such as economics, management and leadership, career and
employment, marketing and sales, business biography, etc. In addition. I also authored
two English learning books - How to Understand China Post & China News and Ditctm
Taiwan in English.
After a careful review of the Chinese version with the original English questionnaires. I
found no problems in the Chinese translations of both CSI and ll.S instruments, and the
Chinese version truly reflects the original meaning of its English version.
If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. I will be delighted
for any help.
Sincerely,
r>2._>
F'uling l.iu
ciareliu@hotmgil.com
258
Appendix I (continued)
* * * * ft
Were* llrwdne College of Ungual
Yao-tmgChu
IlOZhiChangSt Nantzu
Kaohiung, Taiwan SI I
September B . 2011
To Whom It May Concern:
The letter is to confirm the accuracy of the translated instruments, the Consumer Style
Inventory (CSI) and Index of Learning Styles Questionnaires (ILS), constructed by Weichao Hsu After a cartful review of the Chinese version with the original English
questionnaires, 1 found no problems in the Chinese translations of both CSI arid ILS
instruments, and the Chinese version truly reflects the original meaning of its English
version.
If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. I will be delighted
for any help
Sincerely,
Yao-ting dru
Assistant Professor
Department of Translation end Interpreting
Wenzao Ursuline Colleges of Languages
E-mail vaoting_c@iotmail com
MobitePhrme. 886-927903006
'
"' |%^#**<t)Met j"S|^j|^j>i|^ hnpjMv/.iuc.u*
259
Appendix J
Normality Assessment for Factors/Summated Scales
The normality of factors/summated scales was based on the mean, range, standard
deviation, skewnessm, kurtosis, z-score, histograms, and Q-Q plot of each fact/scale. The
rules of thumb include: (a) standard deviation is within normal range (u 3a); (b)
skewness is lee than 3; (c) kurtosis is less than 10; (d) z-score is less than 4; (e) histogram
is similar to a bell shape; and (f) Q-Q plot is close to a striaght line. Considering above
criteria, the distrubution of all factors/summated scales was close to nomal, fulfilling the
normality assumation. Figure J1-J48 show the histograms of all CSI factors. Figure J49J56 illustrate the histograms and Q-Q plots of all PCS summated scales. Figure J57
demosatrates the Q-Q plots of all summate scales for learning styles.
t high or good quality proriuctt it y*ry

1 Swing very
import*'*
Figure Jl. Histogram for item CSI01.
Figure J2. Histogram for item CSI02.
S latent |lytuch
t my purchase
F/gwre J5. Histogram for item CSI05.
My staridarcfe and aipactatloM far prefects I buv

are very high
p quitUf, buytaff the flrtt prudwct or brand 1

find that M M goad natigh
Figure JIO. Histogram for item CSIIO.
11 I tNna that the Mghar the prtcaf a prefect *

bwStrltsquafty
Figure Jl 1. Histogram for item CSI11.
12 Nice department and specialty ttere* offkr me the

bast products
261
1
3
13 I prvfar buying th*bt*t-t*llin|bran4J
14 Tho mott avrtlarf branris ira usually wry good
1S I utuatty m itw n w t w w w t fhtonabl ttyuj *

outfits or products
17 Pathimibla and attraotlva styling I* vort Important
11 It li tun to buy something M . inttrastlng, an*

setting
18 To got varkty, t shop In dVToront Morn and

hot** dMTtrtnt brands
30 Shopping it neta plaesant actfvtty to mo
21 Stopping I* ana aftha anfayaMa acttvMaa in my
21 lanjoythopsinajuatfertharunortt
2S I buy a* muet as pass fbla at ula priest
27 llaskaaraftittataflntfpvakiafarmyn
22 ShappfcigwastatmytlNn
24 I maka my ahappint trips fiat.
2C Tha lawar-prisatf praduats art usuaJay my vhafcat
which art tha bast
Figure J2 7. Histogram for item CSI27.
28 I am a parfactlanitt abaut shapping
2t I am imauHtva wt*m purchaslngr I purchase out of

Impuftlvtnati
31 ItaUdmoataiflfMpeaNftiHyfarthtbMtbuyi
2
J
s
s
32 I ihep faiaoui International or daiiffwr brand*
3f Buying nam ituff ii Ik* living mvavff gtft
264
XOiwalfMapnuhiclar kratf I Ilka I Kick M>.
ft. t #a m tfc* W M N M M Mti A M t t n t
43 My family or frtandt hava tha matt tnfluanu an my

cholcai of products
I Whan stalng tamattlna. I Ilk* I buy It ktHMtflataly
**H
41 Nat buying thoflrat product you too it flood

prinetpio
48 t prtfor iowtr-prtetd product* ts xponstvt or

f hloniblo product*

Normal 0-0 Plot of Brand eonaclouanaaa
Mtarva* VMM
Figure J49. Histogram and Q-Q Plot for Brand-Conscious Shopper (PCSl).
Mormal Q-Q Plot of Prlea-valua conactouortaaa
100-
80-
11
IL.
20-
3 00
SJ
fflftfi
AGO
HHTItVaM
Prte*-vahM consdoun*u
Figure J50. Histogram and Q-Q Plot for Price-Value Conscious Shoppers (PCS2).
266
Noniw<MPMofHlflh-qmlllywctouM
High-quality conseloutn* w
Figure J51. Histogram and Q-Q Plot for High-Quality Conscious Shoppers (PCS3).
H o f w I O Q Plot of Tlm^-EnwBy CootTrtnflWtfttakiwI
SO
200
290
300
M0
*OD
*50
Ttm-En*rgyCortMrvingJRertlalonai
Figure J52. Histogram and Q-Q Plot for Time-Energy Conserving/Recreational Shoppers
(PCS4).
NortnH Q-Q Ptotof NwWy-fmhton
120-
100-
t
v
ao*
to-
K!
40-
BBI
100
200
3.00
400
3.00
6X
M**rra4 Vak
Novelty-fuMon
Figure J53. Histogram and Q-Q Plot for Novelty-Fashion Shoppers (PCS5).
N<HTMlO-QPMofHMudfcrin<Moyd
Figure J54. Histogram and Q-Q Plot for Habitual/Brand-Loyal Shoppers (PCS6).
NwmH Q-Q Plot of C*Uid-toy-ovtftiwk
100
100
300
ConfUMd-byovtrcholct
Figure J55. Histogram and Q-Q Plot for Confused-by-Overchoice Shoppers (PCS7).
Normal Q-0 Plot of ImpuioM
MMfV*4 vim
Figure J56. Histogram and Q-Q Plot for Impulsive Shoppers (PCS8).
Norm* Q-Q Hot of AR
Normal Q-Q P M of SI
OfeMtVWYlfcM
OfcMrvttVatoa
Noma) 0-J Plot of VA
Normal O Q mot r so
OtoorvMVaiuo
Figure J57. Q-Q Plots for the ILS four dimensions of learning styles: active-refelctive
(AR), sensing-intuitive (SI), visual-verbal (VA), and sequential-global (SI).
Appendix K
Linearity Assessments for Factors/Summated Scales
rrxr:
aCDGGDO
k A.-r.î JE.J
* >r r r -f ]
,F
r,
r" ir Br,',"*"r<r"
"
tkJliiuillk>ulk^li>jilL*aiiJlai
"".LB"'
>r
ipr r r" IT j " v " " -
.ill, - . . i r l . i 1 **>-. '-. I
Figure Kl. Binary scatterplots for assessing linearity and homoscedasticity of all PCS
variables used in MANOVA by gender.
BcrniSLrn
j, g |
.
j..,,,
r r*r*r*i*r#*T
i--T^|p^';p^f->p-)r-T(rI
LiL^BLJLrflLLiiiJ
i!
ri ii mi i J
rxux
>ON K M K W PC*
/BP|jP*ffBKlBtr
J P^WW%^W
UULiyijBULi
nnqociqpo
variables used in MANOVA by type of school program.
I^LJLiLJiLjLikJ
lL.^%t,^.^J\..^L^M^î
mSSMmkM
Ik^kjLu
imumm k ^ WJ L*# *.-; w.-4 k*i

P"*1^ ST**1 |HH| J"**** jf* -ft^m jfwp
Pfeaîsl i W &-i v^ mut U K '
lk># M u r i XMMS >**f^ jfcti WMll i
si
I B KM KM KM KM PCST KM
, UtJ L*^ *fc*J WKJEfeJlhw> H i llM

n ' l r ~~\w"~r"'ii";>^" r~"!Mi
' L M k; UJK- I w lfcuSJJ tt-tJ M i
Figure JO. Binary scatterplots for assessing linearity and homoscedasticity of all PCS
variables used in MANOVA by type of college.
ufaiffiiBgB
LlBLULX.Ci
ULMJJUJJ
ft
,*m ?? WM
* * **.**
f
! i
w u h*,* mm W-*i m^ k*. ^ !*. J
UiuLiJLiBLiiMit
WWW
3P
"*"
i\
BO
O3E3Q0K3E]
mm.
mm
u
1 %
Kl< K M PCM KM K M K M KfT K M
variables used in MANOVA by type of school.
TBJfiHiliiRS
*""--*
w mm+\F\m+m
LjL-w.Jt-Jk.^LjiLi
L J t i H L *i w. JiL.iiL. it. -JL^jj
DoqBQcqp.
Ldf MMJI Lutf wJBB fc^ LJ* L*w
UyBiuLLiLilJ
rxiLBnccq
Law ^ Ife-^ L * NH &*J LdW

L M UfcJ l*iJLja sLJl E~J m l LMM
MMJ** LrfM 8L*rf 1KJ* tvS*i MHR IILMI fcja*
L JL. i L J t j S U J i L J M i
IÎ^Jll^.lk^^^k^lLviflB
ii#F6wi
MM f 5f a1
iil-*
ECECCi
L J'.L*!lt. * l J
s$
.?
I ily
4'4-*ifi
^ p *
KM KM KM KM I
I K M KIT K t t
KB1 K M K M K M K M K M PCM
EHGaaEH
variables used in MANOVA by geographical area.
BKEJffiyGU
IJumxsJLLjlLA
GOr-OBOCf]
Bnmncm
\m \
r** B B p'" p"^ ^** i r ^ f~* r*1'
UULlJUBULi
w"HW *wr ^W' tj '*|w ^)mmw %
MtoJ k * J S M J MM-* I M M I MMJ S B
K*1 K M K M K M POM K M KM KM
PC* I KM K M K M KM PbM K M K l
mno^nrno
K M K M KM PCM K M
I PCM KM PCM
nm^nnzm
iif
kjJfcafii&*J*j3iL
r w
niiBii,
IMMI
mW
5 1
?***
if
ii
12
4 3 * * * * J*
EJGCLJGLGB
Kf.1 PCM PCM KM K M K M KM K M
variables used in MANOVA by age category.
270
1*
l#t
4p t
*
tf
*
t
jj"?
*^r
M ir
41
H#
P
P m
scales used in MANOVA by gender.
mM m
mm
pm w
%
m
^P
""S^"
-P
4S*
*
*
*
*
"W
scales used in MANOVA by type of school program.
*
* !
**
*t
*
#
frrr,,.,
Pm
*
^(1
^nr
^Mft
*
*
P
P
P
scales used in MANOVA by type of college.
Mm
m * p
P P P
#
't*
1%
i
if'!
0*"
* 1
'?*
ft
-.*
I'J.
Figure KIO. Binary scatterplots for assessing linearity and homoscedasticity of all ILS
scales used in MANOVA by type of school.
"1
V
It 0
M
T*
.i
*t
r
m
fl
P&
M
9
'Hi
"*$*
.-st
nr
**
W
*.
M ^
+5

i-
wt
41# 4
J IP
t W^ #
VA
- *
18
* .
*
*
1
3W
*
IM
Vn.
Mwtt|
10
Figure Kll. Binary scatterplots for assessing linearity and homoscedasticity of all ILS
scales used in MANOVA by geographical area.
>
!m0
**
""J^P"
";
y-
* f^ *
%
' *
4
^
' *
|K
t
*
#
. *
^WW"
, jljj
#,.
"""
S :
?*
.f
*it
Ji
A*
- >
**#
>
*
#
e"
K * *
A.
*
'!*
"Pr ' *
11 m f
pp
*
<
A* n*
'^
f}C.
* '
?f; ^ P /
Figure Kll. Binary scatterplots for assessing linearity and homoscedasticity of all ELS
scales used in MANOVA by age group.
272
MSifflMWM
mm.m
k_Jt.Jk-JLil-^k.jLJ
QLBQ
mm**
yyyyyayy
rxxEKEu
LJLJLJLiLji>-Jw[i i
PCS1 PC1J P C PCS4 PCM P C * PCS7 PCJ
PCS1 PCS! PCS) PCM PCffi PCft
Gcnncon
PCS7 PCSI
*\4*\&\4mW
eZW
(W
^ P ' ^ ^ '
__p,^._,___JI-,_r.^_.-,.-,
yyyyypyy
Vx^V K ^ ^ M M ^ W * * * tft.^^Jf I M H Pb~ ijfB ft^/dn M ^ - ^ J M
yyyyyHyy
UCEJOQ
PCS1 PCS2 PCM PCM PCS PCM PCS7 PCSB
PCS1 PCS2 PCfJ PCM
variables and ILS scales used in canonical analysis.

An Exploraratory Study of Consumer Decision-Making and Learning Styles

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

An Exploraratory Study of Consumer Decision-Making and Learning Styles

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF CONSUMER DECISION-MAKING AND

LEARNING STYLES AMONG THE MILLENNIAL GENERATION IN TAIWAN

Presented to the School of Graduate Studies of the

The University of the Incarnate Word

UMI Number; 350708?

All rights reserved

To my beloved parents and my siblings - Wei-Chen and Wei-Mien

Chapter One: Introduction

Context of the Study

Statement of the Problem

Purpose of the Study

Significance of the Study

Limitations and Delimitations of the Study

Consumer decision-making styles

Chapter Two: Literature Review

Consumer Decision-Making Styles

Studies related to consumer decision-making styles and other different

Chapter Three: Methodology

Population and Sample Selection

Protection of Human Subjects

Consumer Styles Inventory (CSI)

Validity and reliability of the Consumer Styles Inventory (CSI)

Factor analysis of the Consumer Styles Inventory (CSI)

Confirmation of the consumer decision-making styles for the Consumer

Reliability and validity of the Index of Learning Styles (ILS)

Confirmation of four dimensions in Index of Learning Styles (ILS)

Data Collection Procedures

Data Analysis Procedures

Proposed statistical test

Research Questions and Hypotheses

Chapter Four: Findings

Description of the Sample

Age and family backgrounds

Criteria for principal components analysis (PCA)

Criteria for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)

PCA for the 48 items of the CSI

CFA for the 48 items of the CSI

Reliability of the Consumer Styles Inventory (CSI)

Re-test of PCA for the 44 items of the CSI

Summary of the validity and reliability test of the CSI

Reliability of the Index of Learning Styles (ILS)

Validity of the Index of Learning Styles (ILS)

Summary of the results

Summary of the results

Consumer Style Inventory (CSI) Instrument

Profiles of Consumer Style (PCS)

PCS1, Brand-Conscious Shopper.

PCS2, Price-Value Conscious Shopper.

PCS3, High-Quality Conscious Shopper.

PCS4, Time-Energy Conserving and Recreational Shopper

PCS5, Novelty-Fashion Shopper.

PCS6, Habitual and Brand-Loyal Shopper.

PCS7, Confused-by-Overchoice Shopper

PCS8, Impulsive Shopper.

Index of Learning Styles Questionnaires (ILS) Instrument

Felder-Soloman Index of Learning Styles

Profiles of Consumer Styles

Felder-Soloman Index of Learning Styles

Millennial Generation in Taiwan

Recommendations to the CSI and ILS Instruments

Recommendations for Further Research

Appendix A Consumer Styles Inventory (CSI }%MW&fkMW?M%)

Appendix C Demographics Survey

Appendix D Application for Institutional Review Board Approval Form