CHANGING ATTITUDE OF CONSUMERS:A STUDY AMONG URBAN WORKING WOMENAnilkumar.N* and Jelsey Joseph**(*Research Scholar & Chief manager,**Dean, Dept of commerce & Business management,Karpagam University, Coimbatore)AbstractConsumer attitude is a learnt predispositionto respond to an object or act consistently in afavorable or unfavorable manner and isshaped by one's values and beliefs which arelearnt. However Values are personally orsocially preferable modes of conduct orstates of existence that are enduring. Incontrast , beliefs are consumer's subjectiveperception of how well a product or brandperforms on different attributes. The variousapproaches to change the consumer attitudeare like Changing beliefs about the extent towhich a brand has certain attributes;Changing the perceived importance ofattributes; and adding new attributes to theproduct etc.. Only by changing theconsumer's attitude can they be influencedto enact a merchandise transaction in themodern marketing mileau. Hence theimportance of attitude change is ofparamount importance to marketers who areconsumer centric in the modern age oftencustomizing the products/services to matchthe tastes of the consumer by properpositioning and targeting strategies. In thisstudy the consumer attitude towards twodifferent class of products like the FMCG andWhite goods are contrasted among theworking women in an urban habitat ,theKochi metro in Kerala which is thecommercial hub and leading test marketingsite in India .Over the past decade, Kochi hasevidenced substantial growth insales/consumption of both FMCG andDurables with a noticeable change inconsumer attitude on spending/consumption of goods for family use(affinityfor modernity with higher buying power),which is explored herein. The various facets ofthe working/Career women as Consumerare brought out , with substantialcontribution towards their current consumerbehavior to enable facilitate appropriatePUSH-PULL marketing strategies on theFMCG - Durables, which are bundles ofattributes.Keywords: Consumer attitude, TPB, Katzfunctional theory,attitude change,attitude function, TAM, FMCG, White goods,Consumption motive,Salient Attributes,Benefits.IntroductionAttitude as a behavioral construct is a learntpredisposition to respond consistentlytowards an object(product or service) in afavorable or unfavorable manner.Directpersonal experience with a product/service isan important factor in the formation ofattitudes. Consequent attitudes developedtend to be strong, more enduring & resistantto change while those attitude formed as aresult of indirect experience like exposure toAds/brands. Apart from direct personalexperience ,reference groups like family,friends, close relatives, mediapersons/celebrities influence a consumer'sattitude formation. In high involvement32 <strong>Indira</strong> Management Review - July 2012
Changing Consumer Attitudes Among Womenscenario, the detailed information search &evaluation/processing fetches salientbeliefs resulting in formation of attitude.Consumer behavior is altered by changingthe attitudes or reinforcing the existingattitudes about the brand/product orservices through persuasion messages viaAds in mass media. Attitude is formed fromdirect experience, family and SRG influence,direct marketing, mass media persuasionand personality though attitude changethrough change in belief-evaluation,resolving conflicting attitudes, alteringattitude function, adding attributes, alteringbrand rating, change beliefs on other brands,persuasion as per ELM and association ofproduct with SRG. Motives lead to beliefs(cognitive)and feelings(affect) drivingattitude and in turn behavior(conation) iswell known. In the purchase of durables, thehigher involvement of the consumer causesattitude to drive behavior while for FMCG,behavior drives attitudes.Addressing the Attitude functions to alterattitude/motive of ConsumerAttitudes differ as per the function theyserve for the consumers(Katz 1960,Maio &Olson,2000).As per Katz(1960),attitudeexist to fulfill one or more goals of theconsumer like reward maximization,expressvalues of the self,defend against threat ideas& satisfy the thirst for knowledge. Althoughseveral attitude functions have beenaddressed vide earlier research of the1950's,the recent research have focused onunanimous distinction betweeninstrumental and symbolic functions ofattitude(Ennis and Zanna 2000,Abelson andPrentice 1989,Berger and Heath 2007,Joharand Sirgy 1991,Prentice 1987; Shavitt,Lowrey and Han 1992). While someproducts give rise to predominantlyutilitarian attitude ,.other products supportdominantly symbolic attitudes (Shavitt,Lowrey and Han 1992). Attitude functionmatching appeals are used to change theattitudes; a symbolic attitude is best changedby symbolic value related arguments(Katz1960).The advantages of functionmatching(versus mismatching)appeals arewell documented(Bazzini and Shaffer1995;Clary etal. 1994, Lavine and Snyder1996;Murray,Haddock and Zanna 1996;Pettyand Wegener 1998).Thus the productcentered approach to attitude functions hasbeen a boon to marketing(Shavitt, Lowreyand Han 1992).Attitudes can serve multiplefunctions towards some products with strongutilitarian and symbolic aspects-mixedfunction products9Shavitt,Lowrey and Hans1992).Persuasive appeals are moresuccessful when they match the function ofthe targeted attitude.Attitude functionchanges with the branding and may not matchat the product's category level attitudefunction. In the light of the intense retailenvironment, .identifying the attitudefunction of the consumer is very cardinal.Theidea that attitudes can serve differentfunctions is not new(Katz 1960; Smith,Bruner and white 1956). Katz (1960)described consumers as motivated to attain avariety of goals like maximizing concreterewards, expressing values and the self,defending the self against threats. In Katz'sframework, ,attitudes exist for a reason or tofulfill one or more of those goals. Thefunctional/instrumental function has beencontrasted with the symbolic function videthe studies of Prentice(1987),Ennis andZanna (2000), Abelson andPrentice(1989),Johar and Sirgy (1991),Shavitt, Lowey and Han(1992), Berger and<strong>Indira</strong> Management Review - Jan <strong>2013</strong> 33