IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aif/journl/v12y2022i1p27-33.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Factors affecting choice of mobile phone among university students: A conjoint analysis approach

Author

Listed:
  • Mohammed Moniruzzaman Bhuiyan

    (Associate Professor, Department of Statistics, University of Chittagong, Bangladesh.)

  • Akramul Hoque

    (Department of Statistics, University of Chittagong, Bangladesh.)

Abstract

The use of mobile phones has been expanded among the university students during the COVID-19 pandemic for easy access to virtual classes conducted by the different faculties, for communication with fellow friends and for keeping touch with the virtual library in addition to storage facility for soft copies of their academic work. Moreover, students prefer mobile phone for their own recreation purposes and online businesses. This study reported on students’ preferences for different mobile phones based on conjoint analysis. The study was conducted based on RBCA (Ranking-based conjoint analysis). In this analysis the respondents were asked to rank the combination of attributes according to their preferences. In the study an orthogonal design with six attributes at different levels is constructed and 16 different combinations are generated. The attributes are brand, RAM, battery, price, display and camera. The relative importance of attributes was calculated using part-worth utility on a sample of 420 students under a fractional factorial design. In the study the most preferential attribute is observed to be RAM with relative importance score 31.51 and the least important attribute is found to be price having the relative importance score 4.87 among the university students.

Suggested Citation

  • Mohammed Moniruzzaman Bhuiyan & Akramul Hoque, 2022. "Factors affecting choice of mobile phone among university students: A conjoint analysis approach," International Journal of Science and Business, IJSAB International, vol. 12(1), pages 27-33.
    • Handle: RePEc:aif:journl:v:12:y:2022:i:1:p:27-33
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ijsab.com/wp-content/uploads/933.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://ijsab.com/volume-12-issue-1/4847
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Noopur Saxena & Navneet Gera & Kritika Nagdev & Davide Di Fatta, 2021. "A conjoint analysis of customers' preferences for e-banking channels," International Journal of Electronic Marketing and Retailing, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 12(1), pages 52-68.
    2. Swait, Joffre & Adamowicz, Wiktor, 2001. "The Influence of Task Complexity on Consumer Choice: A Latent Class Model of Decision Strategy Switching," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 28(1), pages 135-148, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Filiptseva, Anna & Filler, Günther & Odening, Martin, 2022. "Compensation Options for Quarantine Costs in Plant Production," 62nd Annual Conference, Stuttgart, Germany, September 7-9, 2022 329595, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    2. Doherty, Edel & Campbell, Danny, 2011. "Demand for improved food safety and quality: a cross-regional comparison," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108791, Agricultural Economics Society.
    3. Meißner, Martin & Oppewal, Harmen & Huber, Joel, 2020. "Surprising adaptivity to set size changes in multi-attribute repeated choice tasks," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 163-175.
    4. Chavez, Daniel & Palma, Marco, 2015. "Off the reservation: Pushing the bounds of rationality in experimental auctions," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 202164, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Erlend Dancke Sandorf & Danny Campbell, 2019. "Accommodating satisficing behaviour in stated choice experiments," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(1), pages 133-162.
    6. Ali Ardeshiri & Spring Sampson & Joffre Swait, 2019. "Seasonality Effects on Consumers Preferences Over Quality Attributes of Different Beef Products," Papers 1902.02419, arXiv.org.
    7. Gökçe Esenduran & James A. Hill & In Joon Noh, 2020. "Understanding the Choice of Online Resale Channel for Used Electronics," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 29(5), pages 1188-1211, May.
    8. Carlsson, Fredrik & Raun Mørkbak, Morten & Bøye Olsen, Søren, 2010. "The first time is the hardest: A test of ordering effects in choice experiments," Working Papers in Economics 470, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    9. Emmanouil Mentzakis & Mandy Ryan & Paul McNamee, 2011. "Using discrete choice experiments to value informal care tasks: exploring preference heterogeneity," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(8), pages 930-944, August.
    10. Shao, Wei & Lye, Ashley & Rundle-Thiele, Sharyn, 2009. "Different strokes for different folks: A method to accommodate decision -making heterogeneity," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(6), pages 495-501.
    11. Line Bjørnskov Pedersen & Astrid Kiil & Trine Kjær, 2011. "Soccer Attendees’ Preferences for Facilities at the Fionia Park Stadium: An Application of the Discrete Choice Experiment," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 12(2), pages 179-199, April.
    12. Naspetti, Simona & Zanoli, Raffaele, 2011. "Communicating Ethical Arguments to Organic Consumers: A Study Across Five European Countries," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 2(3), pages 1-21, December.
    13. Mamine, Fateh & Fares, M'hand & Minviel, Jean Joseph, 2020. "Contract Design for Adoption of Agrienvironmental Practices: A Meta-analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    14. Fengchun Tang, 2020. "The more interactivity the better? Investigating interactivity, task complexity, and product knowledge in online purchase decisions," Information Technology and Management, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 179-189, September.
    15. Fraser, Iain & Balcombe, Kelvin & Williams, Louis & McSorley, Eugene, 2021. "Preference stability in discrete choice experiments. Some evidence using eye-tracking," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    16. Pramono, Ari & Oppewal, Harmen, 2021. "Where to refuel: Modeling on-the-way choice of convenience outlet," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    17. Carlsson, Fredrik & Kataria, Mitesh & Lampi, Elina, 2022. "How much does it take? Willingness to switch to meat substitutes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    18. Peter Stüttgen & Peter Boatwright & Robert T. Monroe, 2012. "A Satisficing Choice Model," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(6), pages 878-899, November.
    19. Jang, Sunghoon & Rasouli, Soora & Timmermans, Harry, 2022. "The effect of task complexity on stated choice processes: The moderating role of cognitive ability," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    20. Bruno Lanz & Allan Provins, 2015. "Using discrete choice experiments to regulate the provision of water services: do status quo choices reflect preferences?," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 300-324, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aif:journl:v:12:y:2022:i:1:p:27-33. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Farjana Rahman (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.