513-Vanisha PDF

Proceedings of 26th International Business Research Conference
7 - 8 April 2014, Imperial College, London, UK, ISBN: 978-1-922069-46-7
A Study of How Perception of Risk Impact on the Intention to

Purchase Energy Drinks in Mauritius
Naaila Banu Korimbocus and Vanisha Oogarah-Hanuman
The purpose of this study was mainly to consider the impact of risk perception and
the purchase intent for energy drinks in Mauritius. The paper reviews literature
about risks perception by emphasizing on the factors that increase or curb this
complex phenomenon. The study focused on a causal research to determine the
cause and effect relationship between perceived risks and intention to buy. Thus, a
survey of 200 questionnaires was distributed throughout Mauritius for this purpose.
It has been found that (i) there is a high level of risk perception pertaining to
purchase of energy drinks (ii) sales promotion, word of mouth and advertising were
not effective risk reduction strategies for Mauritians as they were not successful in
changing the purchase decisions of the respondents. Significant regression and
correlation analysis have been carried out to test hypotheses to reveal impact of
risk perception on purchases which was found to be both negative and positive on
behavior.
Keyword: Energy drinks, risk perception

Field of Study: Marketing
1.0 Introduction
Risks are omnipresent throughout our daily life. An understanding of perception of risks
concerning beverages has become prominent for marketing managers. There are several
empirical evidences that factors like family, price and cultural difference affect the purchase
decision. The theory of planned behavior (TPB) by Ajzen, 1991 has helped many studies to
predict purchase intention and this study provides a modified TBP to include additional
determinants of purchase intention. Consumption of energy drinks in Mauritius and around
the world has become famous. The main suppliers of energy drinks in Mauritius are the
Phoenix Beverages group, Compagnie Industrielles de Pailles Ltee, Eau Val Ltee and
Redbull energy drink (RPM Enterprice Ltd). Zenith's market intelligence director, Esther
Renfrew said, Energy drinks remain the most dynamic segment in the soft drinks market,
with strong growth in most countries. The energy drinks consumption around the world has
increased and this is shown below:
_______________________________________________________________________
Naaila Banu Korimbocus, Faculty of Law and Management, University Of Mauritius, Mauritius,
n.korimbocus@uom.ac.mu

Vanisha Oogarah-Hanuman, Faculty of Law and Management, University Of Mauritius, Mauritius,
v.hanuman@uom.ac.mu
2007
2011
4%
6.8%
Middle East
East Europe
4.9%
7.5%
5.2%
8%
West Europe
Asia Pacific
North America
15.4%
25%
39.4%
16.9%
21.9%
35.9%
Africa
Australia
1.3%
2.5%
1.2%
4.2%
Latin America
Source: Consultancy Zenith International report on energy drinks consumption, 2011
Table 1: World Energy Drink Consumption

Obviously, the issues of consumers perception of risk helping to improve the relationship
between customers and the energy drink industry must be addressed. In fact, perceived
risks are present in all the stages of the buying process. Customer satisfaction and
engagement are affected by various moderators, but the most dynamic ones are the risk
perception. As a matter of fact, marketers have always triggered to eliminate risk
perception, but have failed in the process as the concept of risk perception is the most
difficult issue to tackle. However, the question still arises, Is it a must or an option?
Nowadays, people think that consuming energy drinks will make them fit and in good
health, but this is not the case as it has ill effects (Lal, 2007). Based on these, this research
attempts to examine the following research objectives and hypothesis.
Research Objective:
1) Measure the level of awareness amongst Mauritians for energy drinks
2) Analyze the level of perceived risks for energy drinks amongst Mauritians and how
this affect purchase intention for the product.
Research Hypothesis:
H1: There is a significant correlation between awareness and consumption of energy
drinks.
H2: There is no significant correlation between risk perception and frequency of use for
energy drinks.

2.0 Literature Review
Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)
The TPB (Ajzen, 1991) is a model which encompasses three main factors namely attitudes,
social norms and perceived behavioral control. Several factors affect intention to purchase
a product. The proposed model is as shown below:
Attitude
Intention to
purchase
Perceived
Risk reduction
risk
strategies
Source: Based on Ajzen, 1991
Figure 1: Theory of Planned Behavior
Chen and Lin (2009) claims that purchase intention represents what we think we will buy.
Purchase intention is one way to denote how a person is likely to buy a particular brand
and the intention to do so is not only determined by the customers attitudes towards one
brand, but also towards others (Teng et al, 2007).
Attitude is concerned with the positive and negative feeling of performing a behavior (Jin &
Kan, 2011). Attitude is the most powerful factor that influence purchase intent according to
the TPB (Hernan et al, 2012). It is also seen to be having a positive relationship with the
intention to purchase a product (Alam & Sayuti, 2011). That is, a negative attitude would
lead to rejection of a purchase while a positive attitude a purchase behavior. This is also
supported by other authors. They stated that there is a strong relationship between
attitudes and intention to purchase (Thompson et al, 1994).
Perceived Benefits
3

Perceived benefits are the benefits and confidence that consumers have when purchasing
a product. A perceived benefit is a belief that a product will play a unique role in influencing
customers attitudes (Liu et al, 2012). Consumers usually evaluate the quality of a product
based on the perceived benefits and that of the perceived risks (Akturan & Tezcan, 2012).
Definition of Perceived Risks
In a research by Bauer (1960 cited by Kesharwani & Bisht 2012, p. 307) denoted that
perception of risk was firstly defined as unexpected and uncertain consequences of an
unpleasant nature resulting from the product purchase. Perceived risks concerned the
uncertainty of a proposed purchase and the outcomes that will result from a decision to
purchase a product (Jill, 2009). The study of Sweeny et al (1999 cited by Snoj et al 2004 p.
159) showed that perceived risk is associated with some degree of loss. Perceived risk
occurs as the result of a choice decision which can only be known in the future, the
consumer is obliged to deal with uncertainty and to the extent that they realize they may not
attain all buying goals (Mitchell, 1998). Perceived risk is concerned with the purchase of
different products having different levels of risks (Bayon & Wangenheim, 2004).
Research made by Grewal et al (2007 cited by Tuu & Olsen 2012 p.82) also stated that
perceived risks have negative consequences on (re)purchase intention. It also affects the
behavior of strategies to reduce risk perception (Xu et al, 2010).
Concept of Perceived Risks

There are usually five components of perception of risks and they are physical,
performance, financial, time and psychological (Mitchell, 1998). However other researchers
found other components of risks. One prominent risk also is the social risk which might be
present although the other types of risks absent (Mitchell, 1999). These are discussed in
details below:
1. Financial Risk
Financial risk is concerned with the potential monetary expenditure related to the purchase
price and the cost of maintaining the product (Akturan & Tezcan, 2012). It has also been
held that financial risk can be explained as the probability of losing money from buying
unfamiliar brand (Beneke et al, 2012). This type of risk implies that the price of the product
is not worth the products quality (Schiffman and Kanuk, 2004).
2. Performance Risk
Performance risk is the consequences related with a product that does not meet the
expectations of customers (Hornibrook et al, 2005). It also shows that consumers are afraid
that a product will not perform well based on its benefits promised. (Beneke et al, 2012).
Performance risk can also be the case due the taste and the dangerous contents of the
product (Yeung & Morris, 2001).

3. Time Risk
Time risk is the perception that it will take too much time to adopt and get used to a product
(Hirunyawipada & Paswan, 2006). In short, time risk refers to the time taken in terms of
travelling and waiting to buy a product (Mitchell, 1998). Time risk also refers to the time
wasted to return a damage product or service (Beneke et al, 2012).
4. Social Risk
Social risk is concerned about the possibility that a product or service in use will affect the
way others think about a person (Tan, 2002). It occurs due to fear of being out of fashion
when using or wearing a particular product (Burgess, 2003). Social risk results in losing
social status from using a product (Dean, 2011).
5. Psychological Risk.
Psychological risk is defined as the experience of worry or mental discomfort arising from
the purchase of a product (Perugini & Bagozzi, 1999). Yi Lin and Wen Chen (2009) define
psychological risk as the chances of the specific purchase being inconsistent with the
personal or self-image of the traveler. Psychological risk is linked to social risk and it
suggests the consequences of making a wrong purchase which can impact on the feeling
and psychology of the consumer (Beneke et al, 2012).
6. Physical/Health Risk.
Physical risk refers to the hazards to health which can be caused by dangerous products
(Mitchell & Harris, 2005). It is concerned with the adverse health consequences that
consumers believe can encounter in the purchase of a product and the impact of this is
absenteeism from work which is thought by customers (Yeung & Morris, 2001).
Factors contributing to Risk Perception
1. Product involvement
Quester and Lim (2003) denoted, product involvement reflects the perceived relevance of
the product category to the individual on an ongoing process. Perception of risk is a type of
product involvement and has been determined as a consequence of product involvement
(Dholakia, 2001).
2. Trust
There is a negative relationship between trust and perceived risk (DAlessandro et al,
2012). That is, the lower the trust in a product, the higher the perceived risks (Yen, 2010).
There are four types of relationship between trust and perceived risk; the first is that
perceived risk reduce the relationship between consumers trust and intent to purchase;
secondly, perceived risk go before consumers trust; thirdly, trust go before perceived risk
and finally the relationship between these two are reciprocal ( Chang & Wen, 2008).

3. Personal factors
In the study of Armas (2006 cited by Becker 2011 p. 424)spells out that one cause is
gender, whereby women are more likely to be constraints to risks compared to men who
are more risk takers . This author also suggested in his study that there are also other
important factors like income level (Johnson, 2004 pp 3); education (Sjoberg, 2000 pp 3),
age (Sjoberg, 1998 pp 3) and personality traits (Chauvin et al, 2007 pp 3) which affect
perception to risk. Among these various factors are found others like household size and
social status (Baltas & Argouslidis, 2007).
4. Brand familiarity
When consumers are not familiar with a brand, their perceived risks rise (Park & Stoel,
2005). It has been held that consumers who are not familiar and have little knowledge
about a brand are expected to have high level of uncertainty concerning the outcome of the
performance of a product (Tam, 2008). Consumers are reluctant to try new brands which
are unknown to them to prevent various losses from occurring by consuming these brands
(Matzler et al, 2008).
5. Knowledge
Low knowledge increase perceived risk of consumers and vice versa (Tuu & Olsen, 2012).
6. Store brands and national brands
Store brands are perceived as inferior when making a purchasing leading to rise in risk
perception (Mieres et al, 2006).
7. Packaging
When perceived risk is high, the consumer always focuses on packaging (Celhay &
Passbois, 2011).
8. Price
The research of Lim (2003 quoted by Xu & Shao 2010 p. 515) stated that price is one
element that affects perception of risk.
9. Perceived quality
Quality is an indicator to assess risks (Teas & Agarwal, 2004). The study of Shimp and
Bearden (1982 quoted by Teas & Agarwal 2004 p. 244) explained that high perceived
quality is used to curb perceived risks to determine the level at which a product will perform
its necessary functions.
Risk reducing strategies
When there are high levels of perceived risks, consumers are likely to reduce these risks
(Yeung & Yee, 2003). The research of Kim and Lenon (2000 Stoel & Ha 2004 p. 383)
denoted that there is an inverse relationship between information available and perceived
risks. In order to ensure their purchase, consumers should try to eliminate the risks that are
likely to occur (Zhang & Lu, 2001). Evidence in the paper of Gurnan et al (2004 quoted by
6

Bao et al 2011 p. 449) stated that when consumers face high risk situation, they will look for
various forms of information. The past study of Roselius (1971 cited by Chu & Li 2008
p.216) mentioned that there are eleven risk reducing strategies and they are endorsement,
brand loyalty, brand image, private testing, store image, free sample, money back
guarantees, government testing, shopping, expensive model and word of mouth.
To conclude this literature section, several theoretical debates have been noticed to
proceed with the research. While there are opportunities to divert or alleviate risk
perception, there are also risks of failures. This part of the study has elaborated on the
details of perceived risks.
3.0 Methodology
This study consisted of a causal research as the main focus was mainly to determine the
cause and effect relationship between perceived risks and intention to buy. Both primary
and secondary data have been used. A questionnaire was used as instrument to collect
data. Prior to data collection, a pilot test was conducted to ensure reliability of the
questionnaire. In November 2012, a pilot testing was conducted where six questionnaires
were used for this purpose. A sample of 200 respondents was taken out of the target
population which consisted mainly secondary and tertiary students, housewives, working
population and the retired people. A non probability quota sampling was used as shown in
the table below using the following formula:
No of population in a district * Sample size
Total population

Table 2- Sample Size
4.0 Findings and Analysis

4.1 Demographic Analysis
The population size of Mauritius is 1,171,594 (Ministry Of Finance and Economic
Development Statistics Mauritius 2011). The demographic profile of the respondents for the
survey is shown in the table below:
Factor
Percentage (%)
Gender:
Male
Female
Age group:
Below 20
21-30
31-40
41-50
51-60
Above 60
District:
Riviere Du Rempart
Pamplemousses
Flacq
Black River
Port Louis
Savanne
Moka
PlaineWilhems
Grand Port
Marital Status:
Single
Married
Divorced
Separated
Educational level:
Primary
Secondary
Tertiary
Occupation:
Self employed
Student
Public sector
51
49
18.5
31
18.5
17
8.5
6.5
10.5
10.5
11.5
10.5
13
5.5
6
22
10.5
46
51
2
2
7
56
36
9.5
26
20.5
31
8

Private sector
Housewives
Retired
Income group:
6
7
Below Rs5000
Rs5001-15000
Rs15001-25000
Rs25001-35000
Above Rs35000
11.5
46
24.5
9.5
8.5
Ethnic group:
38
32
15
11
4
Muslim
Hindu
Christian
Tamil
Others
Table 3- Profile of the respondents

4.2 Study the level of awareness for energy drinks among Mauritians
What is energy drink?
From the survey, it was found that 92% of Mauritians know what energy drink is all about
while only 8% of them do not know what energy drinks is all about.
Brands of Energy drinks
Among all the brands, Redbull is seen be the most popular energy drinks.
Communication tools in creating awareness for energy drinks
Valid
How did you come to know about the existence of energy drinks
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
N/A
16
8.0
8.0
8.0
Television
55
27.5
27.5
35.5
on shelf
58
29.0
29.0
64.5
Newspaper
18
9.0
9.0
73.5
Friends/relatives
37
18.5
18.5
92.0
Radio
3
1.5
1.5
93.5
Don't remember
8
4.0
4.0
97.5
Billboards
2
1.0
1.0
98.5
Internet
3
1.5
1.5
100.0
Total
200
100.0
100.0
The findings show that the most effective medium to create awareness for energy drinks
were television, friends and on shelf. The other communication tools like radio (1.5%),
billboards (1%), and newspaper (9%) were not as much effective in delivering the
message.

4.3 Consumption pattern of Mauritians for Energy drinks
There is a high level of Mauritians (69%) of the total population who purchase energy
drinks for their own or for others, while a minority of 23% does not buy it at all.
Why do Mauritians take energy drinks?
Reasons for consumption

40.50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
28%
10.50%
N/A
Boost up Curiosity
energy
7%
Fun
5.50%
Taste
5.50%
Refresh
morale
Figure 2: Reasons for consuming energy drinks

40.5% drink it to boost up energy, 10.5% consumer have it because of curiosity, 7% for fun,
5.5% for its taste and 5.5% consume to refresh their low morale. It can be seen that the
purchase benefits of energy drink is mainly due to its stimulation element.
How often do Mauritians consume energy drinks?
Frequency
Valid
N/A
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Yearly
Anytime
Every three months
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
56
2
53
71
13
3
2
28.0
1.0
26.5
35.5
6.5
1.5
1.0
28.0
1.0
26.5
35.5
6.5
1.5
1.0
200
100.0
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
28.0
29.0
55.5
91.0
97.5
99.0
100.0
35.5% of the total population consume it on a monthly basis, only 1% on a daily basis,
26.5% drink it weekly, 6.5% yearly, 1.5% consume it anytime, and 1 every three months.
The frequency of use is low mainly on monthly basis which is not a good indicator in terms
of the profitability of energy drink firms in Mauritius.
10

4.4 Analyze the level of perceived risks for energy drinks among Mauritians
Health risks
N/A
Hypertension
Death
Nausea
Cancer
Diabetes
No health problem
Percentage (%)
8
42
8
5
3
2
33
Table 4: Health risk

It can be seen from table that 60% of the population perceived health hazards associated
with energy drinks. Indeed, there is a high health risks among Mauritians pertaining to
energy drinks as many diseases have been associated with the product. The health
concern has been proved from this data as the majority of respondents feel insecure
pertaining to the purchase of energy drinks. It is just a matter of not trusting the product and
lack of knowledge.
4.5 Financial Risk
How far do you agree that the price of energy drinks reflect its quality
Table 5: Financial Risks

The table illustrates whether people agree or not that the price of energy drinks reflect its
quality. From the table, it can be clearly seen that there is quite a low financial risk among
Mauritians because the majority of 23.5% and 33% have strongly agreed and agreed on
this statement, while a minimum of 9% totally disagreed to this issue. That is, for the
majority of Mauritians, the price set for energy drink is acceptable.
11

4.6 Performance Risk
Energy drinks:
Act as booster
Have good
flavors
Contain vitamins
Refresh Morale
Yes
83.5 %
65%
No
8.5%
27%
N/A
8%
8%
63.5%
49%
28.5%
43%
8%
8%
Table 6: Performance risks

There is no doubt that the performance of energy drinks in terms of providing vitamins,
good flavors and as the real product to provide physical boost up is agreed by most of the
respondents. There is a positive response that energy drinks are performing well on these
three attributes. Thus, it can be deduced that the majority of Mauritians are confident that
their purchase of energy drinks will definitely reflect the qualities that energy drinks are
supposed to demonstrate.
4.7 Time Risk
Is travelling a problem to access energy drinks?
Time risk
8%
41%
N/A
51%
Yes
No
Figure 3: Time risk

From the data, it can be noted that there is a low time risk as the majority of respondents,
feel that they do not need to travel to long distances to have access to energy drinks as
they believe that energy drinks are highly distributed in various outlets.
12

4.8 Social Risk
Energy drinks are considered
as:
1) Old fashion
2) Low value product by
people
3) Bad product by family
4) None of them
5) Not applicable
Percentage (%)
3
6.5
17
65.5
8
Table 7: Social risk

As per table above, 65.5% respondents do not feel that they will feel uncomfortable by
society due to the purchase of energy drinks. However, to a smaller extent some
conservative people do feel that they will be disregarded by society due to the purchase of
energy drinks as 17% feel that it will be seen as a bad product by their relatives.
4.9 Psychological Risk
What do you think will be your feeling if you have to consume energy drinks * Do you think that
purchasing energy drinks is a wrong decision Cross tabulation
Count
N/A
What do you think will be Delighted
your feeling if you have to Satisfied
consume energy drinks
Disappointed
Regret
Total
Do you think that purchasing energy drinks is a

wrong decision
N/A
Yes
No
16
0
0
0
1
29
0
11
108
0
10
9
0
14
2
16
36
148
Total
16
30
119
19
16
200
Table 8: Cross tabulation of psychological risks between feelings of purchase and decision
taking
Those 108 respondents who feel that purchasing energy drink is not a wrong decision are
those who also feel satisfied and delighted, meaning that there is a positive relationship
between these two. That is, people who are delighted and satisfied will perceive the
purchase of energy drink as a good decision.
13

Hypothesis Testing
H1: There is a significant correlation between awareness and consumption of energy
drinks.
Correlations
Do you know
what energy
drinks is?
Pearson Correlation
Do you know what energy
Sig. (2-tailed)
drinks is?
N
Pearson Correlation
Do you consume energy
Sig. (2-tailed)
drinks?
N
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Do you consume
energy drinks?
1
.632
**
.000
200
**
.632
200
1
.000
200
200
Table 9: Pearson Bivariate Correlation between awareness and

consumption of energy drinks
It can be concluded that awareness of energy drinks and its consumption are positively
correlated. That is, knowing about the existence of energy drink is an important factor for
consuming the product. As P=1, it demonstrates a strong correlation between the two
variables. It can thus be noted that as the level of awareness rises for energy drinks, level
of consumption also increases. The sig value is less than 0.5 (0.000), meaning that there is
a statistically significant correlation between awareness and consumption of energy drinks.
H2: There is a significant correlation between risk perception and frequency of use
for energy drinks
consumption
Pearson
bivariate Frequency of use
correlation
Health risk
-0.766**
Financial risk
0.506**
Performance riskBoost up
0.276**
Good flavors
0.578**
Provide vitamins
0.244**
Refresh morale
0.219**
Time risk
0.376**
Social risk
0.202**
Psychological risk
Wrong decision
0.486**
Feelings
0.378**
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Table 10: Pearson Bivariate Correlation between perceived risks and frequency of energy
drinks
14

Table above summarizes the relationship between the different type of risk perception and
frequency of use. It can be seen that there is a strong negative relationship between health
risk and frequency of use (r= -0.766**), which means that as health risk rises, frequency of
use diminishes. However, there is a positive relationship on the other risk perception and
that of frequency of use as p value is a positive, but the relationship is not a strong one, but
at a moderate one or weak one as the figures are close to zero.
5.0
Discussion and Recommendation
Energy drinks are popular among Mauritians as the majority of them know what that
product is about and aware about the various energy drinks available on the market. The
most famous brands of energy drinks appear to be Redbull and Lucozade. People in
Mauritius do purchase and consume energy drinks, but most of them drink it on a monthly
or weekly basis, which implies that its use is not so frequent among Mauritians. Producers
and marketers of energy drinks have to act upon if they want sales to grow. Among all the
risks that exist, health risk seems to be the highest among Mauritians. The
recommendations proposed to the producers and marketers of energy drinks are as
follows:
Product improvement - Producers of energy drinks are advised to invest in R&D that may
allow them to improve the harmful ingredients, taste and reduction of caffeine and taurine
to reduce health risk. They can also try to introduce new flavors and remove or curb the
toxic ingredients by replacing it by herbal ones.
Quality assurance -The organization should be ISO certified to reassure customers that
energy drinks are reliable and healthy product. The focus on continuous improvement will
make customers trust energy drinks. As seen in the literature, trust and perceived risks are
inversely related. So being ISO certified will help to increase trust in energy drink and as
such alleviating risk perception.
Communication tools - There is a need to invest and design persuasive and informative
advertising. More information about the health concern should be provided and educate
them about the non-hazardous effect of consuming energy drinks as many Mauritians do
not know the other characteristics of energy drinks.
Targeting - After having segmented the market, it is essential to target the right one as the
targeting the whole may be a waste. The targeted population can be illustrated as follows:
15

Heavy drinkers
Gender
Female
Age group
Below 20 and 21-30
District
Plaine Wilhems, Flacq, Port

Louis & Pamplemousses
Income group
Rs5001-Rs15000
Source: COMPUTED
Table 11: Targeted Population

Repositioning - To position energy drinks as a boost up drink is not enough as there is a
high health risk associated with boost up drinks and after considering all the factors like
product, price and promotion strategies, it is necessary to reposition the product to change
the misunderstanding of people. Repositioning energy drinks helps the resistors to get a
better impression on the product. Some proposed repositioning statements are as follows:
The healthiest energy drink you have ever thought of.
The non-hazardous drink.
Greatest taste and vitamins ever experienced.
Zero side effect.
The best drink for the best price.
Marketers can choose any of the repositioning statement, but it all depends on its
objectives.
6.0 Conclusion
The study of consumer risk perception is a complex issue since human beings are
unpredictable creatures. Many strategies have failed to determine how to curb perceived
risks in the past. Changing drinking behavior of consumers is a must, but amending the
mindset of people is difficult. Perception of risk on the intention to purchase a product is a
difficult matter to assess as peoples thought change over time. The theory of planned
behavior has been used in several studies, but not only do attitudes and social norms
influence intention to purchase, other factor like health issues was of most concerned to
Mauritians. This study has enlightened us on perception of risk and intention to purchase
which is a rare study. Indeed, drinking habit may be a culture, but buying decision is a
torture because everything is in the mind.
16

References:
AGARWAL,S AND TEAS, R. K; 2004. Cross-national applicability of a perceived risk-value
model.
AJZEN, I; 1991. The theory of planned behavior. University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
(Online PDF) Available from http://people.umass.edu/psyc661/pdf/tpb.obhdp.pdf.
[Accessed on 20th October, 2012].
AKTURAN, U AND TEZCAN, N; 2012. Mobile banking adoption of the youth market:
perceptions and intentions. Marketing intelligence and planning, Vol 30, Iss 4, pp 448449.
ALAM, S. S AND SAYUTI, N. M; 2011. Applying the theory of planned behavior (TPB) in
<IT> halal food purchasing. International journal of commerce and management, Vol 21
Iss 1 pp 12.
AMOR, I. B AND GUILBERT, F; 2009. Influences on free samples usage within the luxury
cosmetic approaches and their applicability for different markets. Journal of Product &
Brand Management, Vol. 10 Iss: 1 pp. 25 30
AQUEVEQUE, C; 2006. Extrinsic cues and perceived risk: the influence of consumption
situation.
BALTAS, G AND ARGOUSLIDIS, P. C; 2007. Consumer characteristics and demand for
store brands.
BENEKE, J; GREENE, A; LOK, I AND MALLETT, K; 2012. The influence of perceived risk
on purchase intent- the case of premium grocery private label brands in South Africa.
Journal of product and brand management, Vol 21, Iss 1, pp 5-13.
BRENNAN, R; BAINES, P; GARNEAN, P AND VOS, L; 2008. Contemporary strategic
marketing. 2nd ed. Palgrave Macmillan, New York; NY.
BUI, M; KRISHEN, S. A; BATES, K; 2011. Modeling regret effects on consumer post
purchase decisions. European journal of marketing, Vol 45, Iss 7, pp 1070.
BURGESS, B; 2003. A comparison of TV home shoppers based on risk perception. Journal
of fashion marketing and management, Vol 7, Iss 3, pp 251.
CELHAY, F AND PASSBOIS, J; 2011. Wine labeling: is it time to break with tradition? A
study of the moderating role of perceived risk. International Journal of Wine Business
Research, Vol. 23 Iss: 4 pp. 323
CHANG, H AND CHEN, S; 2008. The impact of online store environment cues on purchase
intention: Trust and perceived risk as a mediator. Online information review, Vol 32, Iss
6, pp 825.
CHU, K. K AND LI, C. H; 2008. A study of risk- reduction strategies on purchase intentions
in online shopping. (Online pdf) .International Journal of Electronic Business
Management,
Vol.
6,
No.
4,
pp.
216.
Available
from:http://140.114.53.122/IJEBM_Web/IJEBM_static/Paper-V6_N4/A04A%20Study%20of%20the%20Effect.pdf [Accessed 15 October 2012]
CUNNINGHAM, L .F; GERLACH, H; HARPER, M. D AND YOUNG, E. E; 2005. Perceived
risk and the consumer buying process: internet airline reservations. International journal
of service industry management, Vol 16, Iss 4, pp 360.
17

DALESSANDRO, S; GIRARDI, A AND TIANGSOONGNERN, L; 2012. Perceived risk and
trust as antecedents of online purchasing behavior in the US gemstone industry. Asia
pacific journal of marketing and logistics, Vol 24, Iss 3 pp 433-460.
BAO, Y; SHENG, S; BAO, Y AND STEWART, D; 2011. Assessing quality perception of
private labels: intransient cues and customer characteristics. Journal of consumer
marketing, Vol 28 Iss 8 pp 448-458.
BECKER, P; 2011.Whose risks? Gender and the ranking of hazards. Disaster prevention
and management, Vol 20, Iss 4 pp 423- 433.
DEAN, H. D; 2010. Rental experience and likelihood to purchase rental car insurance among young
adults. Young Consumers: Insight and Ideas for Responsible Marketers, Vol. 11 Iss: 3 pp. 215
DEAN, H. D; 2011. A path model of perceived financial risk in Casino blackjack. Young
consumers and ideas for responsible marketers, Vol 12, Iss 1, pp 16
DELVECCHIO, D AND SMITH, D. C; 2005. Brand-extension price premium: the effects of
perceived fit and extension product category risk, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 184-96.
DHOLAKIA, M. V; 2001. A motivational process model of product involvement and
consumer risk perception. European journal of marketing, Vol 35, Iss 11, pp 1344.
DUBE, L AND MENON, K; 2000. Multiple roles of consumption emotions in post purchase
satisfaction with extended service transaction. International journal of service industry
management, Vol 11, Iss 3, pp 287- 304.
ESPERANZA, L. V; 2001. Risk perception interactions in stress and coping facing extreme
risks. Environmental management and Health, Vol 12 Iss 2 pp123.
FILL, C; 2002. Marketing communications. 4th ed. Prentice Hall.
GAMLIEL, E AND HERSTEIN, R; 2012. Effects of message framing and involvement on
price deal effectiveness. European journal of marketing, Vol 46 Iss 9 pp 1215-1232.
GILBERT, D; 2003. Retail marketing management. 2nd ed. Pearson Education Limites,
Prentice Hall.
GREWAL, D; IYER, G. R; GOTLIEB, J AND LEVY, M; 2007. Developing a deeper
understanding of post purchase perceived risk and behavioral intentions in a service
setting. Journal of the academy of marketing science, Vol 35, No 2, pp 250-258.
HA, Y AND STOEL, L; 2004. Internet apparel shopping behaviors: the influence of general
innovativeness. International journal of retail and distribution management, Vol 32 Iss 8 pp
377-385.
HARMANCIOGLU, N; FINNEY, R. Z AND JOSEPH, M; 2009.Impulse purchases of new
products: an empirical analysis. Journal of product and brand management, Vol 18 Iss 1 pp
28.
HAUSMAN, A; 2000. A multi-method investigation of consumer motivations in impulse buying
behavior. Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 17 Iss: 5 pp 403.
HERNAN, E. R; EMAN, M. S. A; ROSA, E. R; 2012. Intention to purchase fake products in
an Islamic country. Education, business and society: contemporary Middle Eastern
issues, Vol 5 Iss 1 pp 12.
HIRUNYAWIPADA, T AND PASWAN, A. K; 2006. Consumers innovativeness and
perceived risk: implications for high technology product adoption. Journal of consumer
marketing, Vol 23, Iss 4, pp 187.
18

HORNIBROOK, A. S; MC CARTHY, M AND FEARNE, A; 2005. Consumers purchases in
Irish supermarkets. International journal of retail and distribution management, Vol 33,
Iss 10, pp 704.
HUI, K.M AND ZHOU, L; 2003. Country of manufacture effects for known brands.
European journal of marketing, Vol 37 No 112, pp 135
HULTEN, P AND VANYUSHYN, N; 2011. Impulse purchases of groceries in France and
Sweden", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 28 Iss: 5 pp 376 377.
influence, and subjective wellbeing. Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 25 Iss: 1 pp 24.
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 35 Iss: 5 pp. 328 341
JILL, C; 2009. Marketing Communications. 5th ed. Prentice Hall.
JIN, B AND KAN, J. H; 2011. Purchase intention of Chinese consumers towards a US
apparel brand: a test of a composite behavior intention model. Journal of consumer
marketing, Vol 28 Iss 3 pp 188.
JOBBER, D AND LANCASTER, G; 2000. Selling and sales management. 5th ed. Pearson
education, UK.
JOHNSON, T AND ATTMANN, J; 2009. Compulsive buying in a product specific context:
clothing. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 13 Iss: 3 pp. 394.
KAPOOR, A AND KULSHRESHTA, C; 2009. Consumer perception: an analytical study of
influence of consumer emotions and response. Direct marketing: an international
Journal, Vol 3 Iss 3 pp 186.
KAVADAS, C; KATSANIS, L. P AND LEBEL, J; 2007. The effects of risk disclosure and ad
involvement on consumers in DTC advertising. Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 24
Iss: 3 pp 173.
KELLER, K. L; 1998. Strategic Brand Management, Building, Measuring and Managing
Brand Equity, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
KELLER, K.L; 2008. Strategic brand management: building, measuring and managing
brand equity. 3rd ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River: NJ.
KESHARWANI, A AND BISHT, S. S; 2012. The impact of trust and perceived risk on
internet banking adoption in India: an extention of technology acceptance model.
International journal of bank marketing, Vol 30 Iss 4 pp 303- 322.
KOTLER, P AND KELLER, K. L; 2008. Marketing management. 13th ed. Pearson
international edition, prentice hall.
KOTLER, P; 2003. Principle of marketing. 11th ed. Pearson Education Inc, New York.
KOTLER, P; 2004. Positive thinking principles. 10th ed. Prentice Hall.
KOUBA, Y; 2008. Country of origin, brand image perception and brand image structure.
Journal of marketing and logistics, Vol 20, Iss 2, pp 142.
KRONDL, M AND LAU, D (1982), Social determinants in human food selection, Ellis
Horwood Ltd, Chichester, pp 139- 151.
LAL, G. G; 2007. Getting specific with functional beverages. Food technol (online pdf),
61(12). Available from: http://www.aseanfood.info/Articles/11023374.pdf [Accessed on
13 February 2013]
LAMBIN, J; 2007. Market driven management strategic and operational marketing. 2nd ed.
Palgrave MacMillan, New York.
LIN, L AND STERNQUIST, B; 1994. Taiwanese Consumers Perceptions of Product
Information Cues: Country of Origin and Store Prestige. European journal of marketing,
Vol 28, Iss 1.
19

LIN, LAND LU, C; 2010. The influence of corporate image, relationship marketing, and trust
on purchase intention: the moderating effects of word-of-mouth. Tourism Review, Vol. 65
Iss: 3 pp. 16 34
LIN, M. Y AND CHANG, L. H; 2003. Determinants of habitual behavior for national and
leading brands in China. Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 12 Iss: 2 pp. 94 96.
LIU, M. T; CHU, R; WONG, I. A; ZUNIGA, M. A; MENG, Y AND PANG, C; 2012. Exploring
the relationship among affective loyalty, perceived benefits, attitude, and intention to use
co-branded Products. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 24 Iss: 4 pp.
561 582.
LIU, S. C AND CHOI, T. M; 2009. Consumer attitudes towards brand extensions of
designer-labels and mass-market labels in Hong Kong. Journal of Fashion Marketing
and Management, Vol. 13 Iss: 4 pp. 529.
LOCKSHIN, L AND KNOTT, D; 2009. Boozing or branding? Measuring the effects of free
wine tastings at wine shops. International Journal of Wine Business Research, Vol. 21
Iss: 4 pp 313.
LUSK, J.L; BROWN, J; MARK, T; PROSEKU, I; THOMPSON, R AND WELSH, J; 2006.
Consumer behavior, public policy and country of origin labeling. Review of agricultural
economics, Vol 28, No 2, pp 284-292.
Market. Direct Marketing: An International Journal, Vol. 3 Iss: 1 pp. 67 82.
MATZLER, K; KRAUER, S AND BIDMON, S; 2008. Risk aversion and brand loyalty: the
mediating
role of brand trust and brand affect. Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 17 Iss: 3
pp. 154 162.
MIERES, G. C; MARTIN, A. M. D AND GUTIERREZ, J. A. T; 2006. Antecedents of the
difference in perceived risk between store brands and national brands. European journal
of marketing, Vol 40, Iss 1, pp 63.
MITCHELL, V. W; 1999. Consumer perceived risk: conceptualization and models.
European journal of marketing, Vol 33, Iss 1, pp 182- 183.
MITCHELL, V.M; 1998. A role for consumer risk perceptions in grocery retailing. British
food journal, Vol 100, No 4, pp 171-174.
MULLINS, J. W AND WALKER, C. O; 2012. Marketing Management- A strategic decision
making approach. 8th ed. McGraw Hill International edition, New York.
NDUBISI, N. O AND MOI, C. T; 2005. Customers behaviourial responses to sales
promotion: the role of fear of losing face. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics,
Vol. 17 Iss: 1 pp. 32 49
OLIVER, R; 1993. Cognitive, affective and attribute bases of the satisfaction response.
Journal of consumer research, Vol 20, pp 418-430.
PANTANO, E; 2011. Cultural factors affecting consumer behaviour: a new perception
model. EuroMed Journal of Business, Vol. 6 Iss: 1 pp. 119.
PARK, J AND STOEL, L; 2005. Effect of brand familiarity, experience and information on
online apparel purchase. International journal of retail and distribution management, Vol
33, Iss 2, pp 150.
PARK, J. E; YU, J AND ZHOU, J. X; 2010. Consumer innovativeness and shopping styles.
Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 27 Iss: 5 pp. 437 440.
20

PARSONS, A. B AND THOMPSON, A; 2003. Wine recommendations: who do I believe?
British food journal, Vol 111 Iss 9 pp 1005.
PERUGINI, M AND BAGOZZI, R. P; 1999. The role of desires and anticipated emotions in
goal directed behaviors: expanding and deepening the theory of planned behavior.
Working paper, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, ML.
PHAU, I AND WOO, C; 2008. Understanding compulsive buying tendencies among young
Australians: The roles of money attitude and credit card usage. Marketing Intelligence &
Planning, Vol. 26 Iss: 5 pp. 443.
ROBERTS, J. A AND ROBERTS, C; 2012. Stress, gender and compulsive buying among
early adolescents.Young Consumers: Insight and Ideas for Responsible Marketers, Vol.
13 Iss: 2 pp. 115.
SANYAL, S. N AND DATTA, S. K; 2011. The effect of country of origin on brand equity: an
empirical study on generic drugs. Journal of product and brand management, Vol 20 Iss
2 pp 130-140.
SCHIFFMAN, G.L AND KANUK, L.L; 2000. Consumer Behavior.7th ed. Prentice Hall,
Upper Saddle: NJ.
SCHIFFMAN, L. G AND KANUK, L. L; 2004. Consumer Behavior. 9th ed. Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
SHOHAM, A AND BRENCIC, M. M; 2003. Compulsive buying behavior. Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 20 Iss: 2 pp 127 138
SILAYO, P AND SPEECE, M; 2004. Packaging and purchase decisions: An exploratory
study on the impact of involvement level and time pressure. British Food Journal, Vol.
106 Iss: 8 pp 607 628.
SILAYOI, P AND SPEECE, M; 2007. The importance of packaging attributes: a conjoint
analysis approach. European journal of marketing, Vol 41 Iss 11 pp 1497-1499.
SILVERAH, H. D; LAVACK, A. M AND KROPP, F; 2008. Impulse buying: the role of affect,
social
influence, and subjective wellbeing. Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 25 Iss: 1 pp 24.
SNOJ, B; KORDA, A. P AND MUMEL, D; 2004. The relationships among perceived quality,
perceived risk and perceived product value. Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Vol. 13 Iss: 3 pp. 156 167
SOLOMON, M. R AND RABOLT, N. J; 2004.Consumer behavior in fashion. 5th ed.
Pearson education, Upper saddle River, NJ.
TAM, J. L. M; 2008. Brand familiarity: its effects on satisfaction evaluations. Journal of
Services Marketing, Vol. 22 Iss: 1 pp. 5.
TAN, B; 2002. Understanding consumer ethical decision making with respect to purchase
pirated software. Journal of consumer marketing, Vol 19, Iss 2, pp 100.
TENG, L; LAROCHE, M AND ZHU, H; 2007. The effects of multiple-ads and multiplebrands on the moderating role of perceived risk. International Journal of Wine Business
Research, Vol. 23 Iss: 4 pp. 323.
THIELE, S. R AND BENNETTE, R; 2001. A brand for all seasons? A discussion of brand
loyalty
approaches and their applicability for different markets. Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 10 Iss: 1 pp. 25 30
THOMPSON, K. E; HAZIRIS, N AND ALEKOS, P. J; 1994. Attitude and food choice
behavior. British food journal, Vol 96, Iss 11 pp 9-13.
21

TUU, H AND OLSEN, S. O; 2012. Certainty, risk and knowledge in the satisfactionpurchase intention relationship in a new product experiment. Asia pacific journal of
marketing and logistics, Vol 24, Iss1, pp 83-84.
TUU, H. H; OLSEN, S. V AND LINH, P. T. T; 2011. The moderator effects of perceived
risk,objective knowledge and certainty in the satisfaction-loyalty relationship. Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 28 Iss: 5 pp366 367.
WANG, Y; SUN, S; LEI, W AND TONCAR, M; 2009. Examining beliefs and attitudes
toward online advertising among Chinese consumers. Direct Marketing: An International
Journal, Vol. 3 Iss: 1 pp 55.
WANGENHEIM, V. F AND BAYON, T; 2004. The effect of word of mouth on services
switching: Measurement and moderating variables. European journal of marketing, Vol
38, Iss 9, pp 1176.
WASHBURN, J. H; TILL, B. D AND PRILUCK, R; 2000. Co-branding: brand equity and trial
effects.
WEE, C; TA, S AND CHEOK, K; 1995. Non-price determinants of intention to purchase
counterfeit goods: an exploratory study", International Marketing Review, Vol. 12 Iss: 6
pp. 21- 25.
XIA, L; KENT, B; MONROE; 2009. The influence of pre purchase goals on consumers
perception of price promotions. International journal of retail and distribution
management, Vol 37, Iss 8, pp 682.
XU, B; LIN, Z AND SHAO, B; 2010. Factors affecting consumer behavior in online buy it
now. Internet research, Vol 20 Iss 5 pp 513- 526.
YEN, Y; 2010. Can perceived risks affect the relationship of switching costs and customer
loyalty in e-commerce? Internet research, Vol 20, Iss 2, pp 211.
YEUNG, R. M. W AND MORRIS, J; 2001a. Consumer perception of food risk in chicken
meat. Nutrition and food science, Vol 31, No 6, pp 270- 278.
YEUNG, R. M. W AND MORRIS, J; 2001b. Food safety risk: Consumer perception and
purchase behavior. British food journal, Vol 103, No 3, pp 170- 187.
YEUNG, R. M. W AND YEE, W. M. S; 2003. Risk reduction: an insight from the UK poultry
industry. Nutrition and food science, Vol 33 Iss 5 pp 220.
YILIN, L AND WEN CHEN, Y; 2009. A study on the influence of purchase intentions on
repurchases decisions: the moderating effects of reference group and perceived risk.
Tourism review, Vol 64, Iss 3, pp 30-34.
ZHANG, G AND LIU, Z; 2011. Effects of influential factors on consumer perceptions of
uncertainty for online shopping. Nankai Business Review International, Vol. 2 Iss: 2 pp
159- 162.
ZHUANG, G; ALEX, S. L; ZHOU, N; LI, F AND NICHOLLS, J. A. F; 2006. Impacts of
situational factors on buying decisions in shopping malls: An empirical study with
multinational data. European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40 Iss: 1
22

513-Vanisha PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

513-Vanisha PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Proceedings of 26th International Business Research Conference

7 - 8 April 2014, Imperial College, London, UK, ISBN: 978-1-922069-46-7

A Study of How Perception of Risk Impact on the Intention to

Keyword: Energy drinks, risk perception

Proceedings of 26th International Business Research Conference

Source: Consultancy Zenith International report on energy drinks consumption, 2011

Table 1: World Energy Drink Consumption

Proceedings of 26th International Business Research Conference

Source: Based on Ajzen, 1991

Figure 1: Theory of Planned Behavior

Proceedings of 26th International Business Research Conference

Concept of Perceived Risks

Proceedings of 26th International Business Research Conference

Proceedings of 26th International Business Research Conference

Proceedings of 26th International Business Research Conference

Proceedings of 26th International Business Research Conference

4.0 Findings and Analysis

Proceedings of 26th International Business Research Conference

Table 3- Profile of the respondents

Proceedings of 26th International Business Research Conference

Why do Mauritians take energy drinks?

Reasons for consumption

Figure 2: Reasons for consuming energy drinks

Proceedings of 26th International Business Research Conference

Table 4: Health risk

Table 5: Financial Risks

Proceedings of 26th International Business Research Conference

Table 6: Performance risks

Figure 3: Time risk

Proceedings of 26th International Business Research Conference

Table 7: Social risk

Do you think that purchasing energy drinks is a

Proceedings of 26th International Business Research Conference

Table 9: Pearson Bivariate Correlation between awareness and

Proceedings of 26th International Business Research Conference

Discussion and Recommendation

Proceedings of 26th International Business Research Conference

Below 20 and 21-30

Plaine Wilhems, Flacq, Port

Table 11: Targeted Population

Proceedings of 26th International Business Research Conference

Proceedings of 26th International Business Research Conference

Proceedings of 26th International Business Research Conference

Proceedings of 26th International Business Research Conference

Proceedings of 26th International Business Research Conference

Proceedings of 26th International Business Research Conference

You might also like