Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Ph.D candidate, Department of Wood and paper Science and Technology, Islamic Azad University, Karaj Branch, Alborz, Iran

2 Associate professor, Department of Wood and paper Science and Technology, Islamic Azad University, Karaj Branch, Alborz, Iran

3 Professor, Department of Wood and paper Science and Technology, Islamic Azad University, Karaj Branch, Alborz, Iran

Abstract

This study aims to identify the expectations and preferences of consumers of home and office furniture using nonparametric tests. The statistical population consists of customers of the home and office wood furniture industry in Tehran and a stratified sampling method was used in this study. Cochran formula was used to determine the sample size. To determine the effective indicators, the researcher studied the available resources and the Van et al.’s model as the basic model and conducted a factor analysis to design the conceptual model of the research. Using a field research, the student t-test and Friedman test, she examined the relationship between consumer preferences and 5 factors and 17 subindices. Results: The reliability of the questionnaire was confirmed by the data obtained from 100 questionnaires using Cronbach's alpha. The results of descriptive statistics indicated that the mean of all the indices was at an average level. The minimum and maximum values and the standard deviation showed that there were no outliers. The results of inferential statistics in SPSS software indicated that as the significance level for Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was greater than 5%, all variables are assumed to be normally distributed. The results indicated a significant relationship between all indicators and consumer preferences regarding home and office furniture. The results of the one-sample t-test indicated that consumers consider corporate responsibility factors, product and vendor’s characteristics and internal factors above average while they consider environmental and safety factors at the average level in the purchase of home and office furniture. The results of the Friedman test indicated the priorities as follows: vendor’s characteristics, internal factors, corporate responsibility factors, product characteristics and safety and environmental characteristics.
 

Keywords

-Adibi, N., Kazemi, A. and Mohammadi, M., 2014. Investigating the Relationship between Consumer Characteristics and Brand Personality (Case Study of Hyundai Owners and Buyers in Isfahan). Bi- quarterly Journal of Business Administration Research, Vol. 6, Issue 11, pp. 105-124.
-Asghari Jafarabadi, M., Mohammadi, S.M.,2013. Statistical Series: An Introduction to Inferential Statistics (Point Estimation, Confidence Interval and HypothesisTesting). Journal of Diabetes and Metabolic Disorders 2013, 12(3): 173-192 [In Persian].
-Azevado, A., Pessoa, F., 2005. Clothing Branding Strategies: Influence Of Brand Personality On Advertising Response. Journal Of Textile And Apparel,Technology And Management, Volume 4, Issue3, Spring 2005.
-Burns,H.D. Neisner,l., 2006. Customer satisfaction in a retail setting the contribution of emotion. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 34(1): pp. 49-66.
-Cai, Z., Aguilar., F.X., 2013. Consumer stated purchasing preferences and corporate social responsibility in the wood products industry: Aconjoint analysis in the U.S. and china. Ecological Economics, Volume 95, PP.118-127.
-Dasmohapatra, S., Smith., P.M., 2008. Customer Value in the Oriented Strandboard Industry. Wood and Fiber Science, 40(1): 42-54.
-Eskildsena, J., Kristensena., K., 2008. Customer satisfaction and customer loyalty as predictors of future business potential.Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 19, pp. 843-853.
-Gharecheh, M., Mirhashemi, A., 2013. Investigating the Role of Consumer Decision-making Styles on the Buying Process among Employed Women. Business Management Vision, Vol. 92, Issue 16, pp. 53-72.
-Heydarzadeh, K., Behboodi, M., Ghodsikhah, A., Monsefi, M., Monshi, A., 2011. Intangible Brand Advertising and Its Impact on Consumer Choice. Journal of Marketing Management, 6, Issue 13, pp. 19-40.
-Heydarzadeh, K.,Zandhesami, H. and Hassanloo, M., 2009. Evaluating Customers Preferences in the Process of Purchasing Foreign Goods. Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 4, Issue 7.
-Khorshidi, Gh., Arefi, A. and Fayazi Azad, A., 2010. Perceptions of Korean and Iranian Home Appliances. Journal of Business Management Vision, Shahid Beheshti University of Tehran, Issue 1, pp. 77-93.
-Kotler, F., Armstrong, GA., 2017. Principles of Marketing, Trans by Bahman Forouzandeh, Nashr-e Amoukhteh, Tehran, 856 p.
-Lassner, E., Schubert, W.D., 2007. Tungsten is still very much an element of lighting, 20th Annual General Meeting of Inernational Tungsten Industry Association.
-Manuel,  A., Leonhart,R. and Broman,o., 2015. Consumers’ perceptions and preference profiles for wood surfaces tested with pairwise comparison in Germany. Annals of forest science. 72(6): 741-745.
-Mowen, J.C. And Minor, M., 2017. Consumer Behavior, internal and external factors, translated by Abass Saleh Ardestani and Mohammad Reza Sadi. Aylar Publication, Tehran. 568pp.)Translated).
-Rahmati Ghofrani,Y.,Taleghani,M.,Cheprani,I.,2017.Consumer value trends and shopping behavior tendencies.Journal of Business Management Exploration,9(17): 1-24
-Saeed Ardakani,S.,Saneian,Z.,Manti,N.,2019.Effecting the Iranian consumers desire to buy and consume Iranian goods.Business Management Quarterly,11(2): 241-258.
-Shen, x., Tan, K.C. and Xie, M., 2000.Innovative product development using Kano's model and QFD. European journal of Innovation Management, 3(2): 91-99.
-Toppinen, A., Toivonen, R., Valkeapaa, A. and Ramo, A-K., 2015. Consumer perceptions of environmental and social sustainability of wood products in the finish market. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 28(8): 775-783.
-Wan, M.,Toppinen, A. and Chen, J.,2014. Consumers’ environmental awareness towards children’s furniture in Shanghai and Shenzhen, China.Uppsala, Sweden, Scandinavian Forest Economics: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Scandinavian Society of Forest Economics, May 22-24, 2014(45): 1-9.