Frequency Table

Name of Brand

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Mama 217 68.9 68.9 68.9
Wai-Wai 61 19.4 19.4 88.3
Yum Yum 15 4.8 4.8 93.0
4-Me 2 .6 .6 93.7
Gung Ging 12 3.8 3.8 97.5
Other
8 2.5 2.5 100.0
Brands
Total 315 100.0 100.0

The most popular instant noodles is Mama Brand (68.9%), followed by Wai-Wai (19.4%)

Purchasing Frequency

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 1Time per month 117 37.1 37.3 37.3
2 Times per
78 24.8 24.8 62.1
month
3 Times per
41 13.0 13.1 75.2
month
More than 3 times 78 24.8 24.8 100.0
Total 314 99.7 100.0
Missing 9 1 .3
Total 315 100.0

They usually purchasing instant noodles about 1 time per month (37.1%), followed by
about 2 times per month and 3 times per month (24.8%)
 Factors that influence you to purchase instant noodles

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Brand 66 21.0 21.0 21.0
Price 49 15.6 15.6 36.5
Advertisement 15 4.8 4.8 41.3
Sales Promotion 3 1.0 1.0 42.2
Package 11 3.5 3.5 45.7
Quality 107 34.0 34.0 79.7
Design 2 .6 .6 80.3
Premium 14 4.4 4.4 84.8
Other Factors 48 15.2 15.2 100.0
Total 315 100.0 100.0

The most influence factor to purchase instant noodles is the quality (34.0%), followed by
brand (21.0%)

Purchasing Location

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Department
15 4.8 9.4 9.4
Store
Supermarket 66 21.0 41.3 50.6
Convenient Shop 40 12.7 25.0 75.6
Hypermarket 28 8.9 17.5 93.1
Other places 11 3.5 6.9 100.0
Total 160 50.8 100.0
Missing 6 38 12.1
7 71 22.5
8 29 9.2
9 17 5.4
Total 155 49.2
Total 315 100.0

The most of them purchasing instant noodles at supermarket (41.3%), followed by

convenient shop (25.0%)
 Media Preference

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Television 76 24.1 24.1 24.1
Magazine 62 19.7 19.7 43.8
Radio 81 25.7 25.7 69.5
Internet 66 21.0 21.0 90.5
Advertisement
20 6.3 6.3 96.8
Board
Words of mouth 6 1.9 1.9 98.7
Other media 4 1.3 1.3 100.0
Total 315 100.0 100.0

The most preferable media is radio (25.7%), followed by television (24.1%)

Number of units purchased each time

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 1 unit 197 62.5 62.5 62.5
2 units 16 5.1 5.1 67.6
3 units 3 1.0 1.0 68.6
4 units 9 2.9 2.9 71.4
5 units 17 5.4 5.4 76.8
6 units 1 .3 .3 77.1
1 dozen 45 14.3 14.3 91.4
2 dozen 27 8.6 8.6 100.0
Total 315 100.0 100.0

Most of them purchased instant noodles each time about 1 unit (62.5%), followed by 1
dozen (14.3%)
 Type of sales promotion

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Discount 45 14.3 14.3 14.3
Sweepstake 75 23.8 23.8 38.1
Coupon 3 1.0 1.0 39.0
Buy 1 get 1 109 34.6 34.6 73.7
Premium 32 10.2 10.2 83.8
Other sale
51 16.2 16.2 100.0
promotion
Total 315 100.0 100.0

The most effective sales promotion is buy 1 get 1 (34.6%), followed by sweepstake
(23.8%)

History of purchasing Mama

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Yes 315 100.0 100.0 100.0

All of them have been purchasd Mama (100.0 %)

TV channel watched

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid CH 3 133 42.2 42.2 42.2
CH 9 20 6.3 6.3 48.6
Other
7 2.2 2.2 50.8
Channel
CH 5 4 1.3 1.3 52.1
TITV 20 6.3 6.3 58.4
CH 7 57 18.1 18.1 76.5
UBC 74 23.5 23.5 100.0
Total 315 100.0 100.0

Most of them watched channel 3 (42.2%), followed by UBC (23.5%)

 What time do you usually watch TV

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 6.01 - 12.00AM 31 9.8 9.8 9.8
18.01 -
254 80.6 80.6 90.5
24.00PM
12.01 -
20 6.3 6.3 96.8
18.00PM
24.01 -
10 3.2 3.2 100.0
05.59AM
Total 315 100.0 100.0

They usually watch TV between 18.01 to 24.00 PM (80.6%), followed by between 6.01
to 12.00 AM (9.8%)

Radio Station listened

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid FM89.0 48 15.2 15.2 15.2
FM94.00 34 10.8 10.8 26.0
FM103.5 25 7.9 7.9 34.0
FM106.5 11 3.5 3.5 37.5
FM91.5 13 4.1 4.1 41.6
FM97.5 53 16.8 16.8 58.4
FM104.5 10 3.2 3.2 61.6
FM107.00 30 9.5 9.5 71.1
FM93.5 16 5.1 5.1 76.2
FM102.5 23 7.3 7.3 83.5
FM105.5 14 4.4 4.4 87.9
Other
38 12.1 12.1 100.0
Station
Total 315 100.0 100.0

They usually listening FM 97.5 (16.8%), followed by FM 89.0 (15.2%)

 What time do you usually listen Radio Station

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 6.01 - 12.00AM 87 27.6 27.6 27.6
18.01 -
105 33.3 33.3 61.0
24.00PM
12.01 -
102 32.4 32.4 93.3
18.00PM
24.01 -
21 6.7 6.7 100.0
05.59AM
Total 315 100.0 100.0

They usually listening radio station between 18.1 to 24.00 PM (33.3%), followed by
between 12.01 to 18.00 PM (32.4%)

Magazines Read

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid CLEO 65 20.6 20.8 20.8
ELLE 40 12.7 12.8 33.5
Other
83 26.3 26.5 60.1
Magazines
Seventeen 42 13.3 13.4 73.5
FHM 47 14.9 15.0 88.5
COSMO 17 5.4 5.4 93.9
MAXIM 19 6.0 6.1 100.0
Total 313 99.4 100.0
Missing 21 1 .3
65 1 .3
Total 2 .6
Total 315 100.0

Most of them usually read other magazine (26.5%), followed by CLEO (20.8%)
 Hobbies

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Watch Movie 117 37.1 37.1 37.1
Shopping 66 21.0 21.0 58.1
Other
24 7.6 7.6 65.7
activities
Sports 52 16.5 16.5 82.2
Surf Internet 56 17.8 17.8 100.0
Total 315 100.0 100.0

Their hobbies are watch movie (37.1%), followed by shopping (21.0%)

Gender of Respondents

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Male 153 48.6 49.0 49.0
Female 159 50.5 51.0 100.0
Total 312 99.0 100.0
Missing 4 1 .3
21 1 .3
22 1 .3
Total 3 1.0
Total 315 100.0

They have female (51.0 %), followed by male (49.0 %)

Age of Respondents

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Less than 18 15 4.8 4.8 4.8
18 - 22 149 47.3 47.5 52.2
23 - 25 65 20.6 20.7 72.9
More than
85 27.0 27.1 100.0
25
Total 314 99.7 100.0
Missing 5 1 .3
Total 315 100.0

They have average age between 18 to 22 years old (47.5 %), followed by more than 25
years old (27.1 %)

Occupation of Respondents

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Students 137 43.5 43.8 43.8
Housewife 18 5.7 5.8 49.5
Clerks 114 36.2 36.4 85.9
Specialist 21 6.7 6.7 92.7
Other
23 7.3 7.3 100.0
Occupation
Total 313 99.4 100.0
Missing 11 2 .6
Total 315 100.0

They are Student (43.8 %), followed by Clerks (36.4 %)

Salary of Respondents

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Less than 5,000 36 11.4 11.4 11.4
10,001 - 15,000 91 28.9 28.9 40.3
More than
53 16.8 16.8 57.1
20,000
5,001 - 10,000 107 34.0 34.0 91.1
15,001 - 20,000 28 8.9 8.9 100.0
Total 315 100.0 100.0

They have salary between 5,001 to 10,000 baht (34.0 %), followed by between 10,001 to
15,000 baht (28.9 %)

Education level of Respondents

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
 Valid Undergraduate 119 37.8 37.8 37.8
Master Degree 25 7.9 7.9 45.7
Bachelor
161 51.1 51.1 96.8
Degree
Ph.D. 10 3.2 3.2 100.0
Total 315 100.0 100.0

They have education at Bachelor’s degree (51.1 %), followed by Undergraduate (37.8 %)

Descriptive
Descriptive Statistics

N Mean Meaning
Level of Satisfaction 315 4.16 Satisfied

From the above table, showed us that the level of satisfaction is satisfied by mean is equal
4.16.

Descriptive: Product
Descriptive Statistics

Std.
N Mean Deviation Rank
Variety of tastes 315 3.59 .841 1
The quality of Noodle is good 315 3.53 .897 2
The taste of Mama is good 315 3.48 .908 3
Quantity of noodles in a package is
315 3.44 .957 4
a lot
The packaging is good 315 3.39 .911 5
Short Preparation time 315 3.36 .904 6

From the above table, we can conclude that the most important factor of Product is
“Variety of tastes” by mean is equal 3.59; which close to “5=strongly agree”; while the
least important factor of Product is “Short Preparation time” by mean is equal 3.36.

Descriptive: Price
Descriptive Statistics
 N Mean Std. Deviation Rank
The price influences the buying decision 315 3.51 .925 1
The price of Mama is suitable to its
315 3.47 .879 2
quality
The price of Mama should be discounted 315 3.44 .954 3
Price has an affect on mama's image 315 3.28 .970 4

From the above table, we can conclude that the most important factor of Price is “The
price influences the buying decision” by mean is equal 3.51; which close to “5=strongly
agree”; while the least important factor of Price is “Price has an affect on mama's image”
by mean is equal 3.28.
Descriptive: Place
Descriptive Statistics

Std.
N Mean Deviation Rank
You usually buy Mama from Hypermarket(Tesco,
315 3.49 .962 1
Big C)
You usually buy Mama from convienient shop(7-
315 3.47 .968 2
11)
You usually buy Mama from department store 315 3.43 1.021 3
You usually buy Mama from supermarket 315 3.42 .962 4
You usually buy Mama from grocery store 315 3.38 .971 5
You usually buy Mama from Warehouse
315 3.29 1.033 6
Club(Makro)

From the above table, we can conclude that the most important factor of Promotion is
“You usually buy Mama from Hypermarket(Tesco, Big C)” by mean is equal 3.49; which
close to “5=strongly agree”; while the least important factor of Promotion is “You usually
buy Mama from Warehouse Club(Makro)” by mean is equal 3.29.

Descriptive: Promotion
Descriptive Statistics

Std.
N Mean Deviation Rank
Sampling has an influence on purchase intention 315 3.49 .935 1
Brand ambassador has an influence on purchase
315 3.46 .978 2
intention
Premium has an effect towards purchase intention 315 3.39 .999 3
Buy 1 get 1 promotion is interesting 314 3.31 1.040 4

From the above table, we can conclude that the most important factor of Place is
“Sampling has an influence on purchase intention” by mean is equal 3.49; which close to
“5=strongly agree”; while the least important factor of Place is “Buy 1 get 1 promotion is
interesting” by mean is equal 3.31.

Descriptive: Behavior Intention

Descriptive Statistics

N Mean Meaning
Behavior Intension 315 3.3968 Neutral

From the above table, showed us that the behavior intention is neutral by mean is equal
3.3968.
Research Result

Multiple Linear Regressions (Interval & Interval Scale)

H1: Behavior intention of Mama's consumers can predict by Product, Price, Promotion
and Place

ANOVA(b)

Sum of Mean
Model Squares df Square F Sig.
1 Regression 63.002 4 15.751 134.310 .000(a)
Residual 36.236 309 .117
Total 99.239 313
a Predictors: (Constant), Place, Price, Promotion, Product
b Dependent Variable: Behavior Intension

Ho: β 1; β 2; β 3; β 4 = 0

According to sig 0.00 < 0.05. So, Reject Ho.

Behavior intention of Mama's consumers can predict by Product, Price, Promotion and
Place

Model Summary
 Adjusted Std. Error of
Model R R Square R Square the Estimate
1 .797(a) .635 .630 .34245
a Predictors: (Constant), Place, Price, Promotion, Product

According to R = 0.797, There is a strong relationship between Behavior Intention of

Mama's consumers and the four independent variables (Product, Price, Promotion and
Place)

According to R Square = 0.635, 63.5 % of the total variation in Behavior Intention of

Mama's consumers can explained by the four independent variables (Product, Price,
Promotion and Place)

Coefficients(a)

Unstandardized Standardized
Model Coefficients Coefficients t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant) -.589 .173 -3.397 .001
Product .307 .038 .306 8.084 .000
Price .274 .034 .299 7.945 .000
Promotion .317 .033 .348 9.481 .000
Place .262 .041 .249 6.438 .000
a Dependent Variable: Behavior Intension

Equation: Y = a + b1X1+ b2X2+ b3X3+ b4X4

Where Y = Behavior Intention (Dependent Variable)

X1 = Product (Independent Variable)

X2 = Price (Independent Variable)

X3 = Promotion (Independent Variable)

X4 = Place (Independent Variable)

Y = -0.589 + 0.307X1+ 0.274X2+ 0.317X3+ 0.262X4

According to Sig 0.000< 0.05. So, Reject HO.
There are four independents (Product, Price, Promotion and Place) that can be used as
significant constant variables in predicating Behavior Intention of Mama's consumers.

According to Standardized Coefficients from maximum to minimum 0.348, 0.306,

0.299, 0.249.
The most influenced factors for positive relationship are Promotion, followed by
Product, Price and Place, respectively.

One Sample T-test (Interval Scale)

H2: The level of Behavior intention and it’s related factors (Product, Price, Promotion
and Place) are high. (Mean >3)

One-Sample Statistics

Std. Std. Error

N Mean Deviation Mean
Product 315 3.4640 .56349 .03175
Price 315 3.4529 .61431 .03461
Promotion 314 3.4140 .61738 .03484
Place 315 3.4132 .53393 .03008
Behavior
315 3.3968 .56263 .03170
Intention

One-Sample Test

Test Value = 3
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Sig. (2- Mean Difference
t df tailed) Difference
Lower Upper
Product 14.615 314 .000 .46402 .4016 .5265
Price 13.085 314 .000 .45291 .3848 .5210
Promotion 11.883 313 .000 .41401 .3455 .4826
Place 13.736 314 .000 .41323 .3540 .4724
Behavior
12.518 314 .000 .39683 .3345 .4592
Intention
Ho: μ1 ≤ 3
Ha: μ1 > 3

According to Sig 0.000 < 0.05. So, Reject Ho.

The level of Behavior intention and it’s related factors (Product, Price, Promotion and
Place) are high. (Mean >3)

Independent Sample T-test (Interval & Nominal Scale)

H3: The level of Behavior Intention on Mama's consumers is different between Male and
Female

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for

Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Mean Std. Error Difference
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
Behavior Intension Equal variances
4.040 .045 1.346 310 .179 .08571 .06365 -.03954 .21096
assumed
Equal variances
1.345 306.111 .180 .08571 .06375 -.03973 .21114
not assumed

Ho: There is no difference behavior intention of Mama's consumers between Male and
Female (µ1 = µ2)
Ha: There is a difference behavior intention of Mama's consumers between Male and
Female (µ1 ≠ µ2)

According to “Levene's Test” Sig. 0.045 < 0.05. So, Reject Ho. Equal Variance is not
assumed in behavior intention of Mama's consumers.
According to “t-test for Equality of Means” Sig. 0.180 > 0.05. So, Fail to Reject Ho
and Accept Ho. The level of Behavior Intention on Mama's consumers is no significant
different between Male and Female.

Group Statistics

Std. Error
Gender of Respondents N Mean Std. Deviation Mean
Behavior Intension Male 153 3.4379 .58298 .04713
Female 159 3.3522 .54119 .04292

Independent Sample T-test (Interval & Nominal Scale)

H4: The level of Behavior Intention on Mama's consumers is different between those
who buy Non – Mama Brand and those who buy Mama Brand
Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for

Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Mean Std. Error Difference
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
Behavior Intension Equal variances
.852 .357 .192 313 .848 .01317 .06858 -.12177 .14810
assumed
Equal variances
.198 202.780 .843 .01317 .06638 -.11773 .14406
not assumed

Ho: There is no difference behavior intention of Mama's consumers between those who
buy Non – Mama Brand and those who buy Mama Brand (µ1 = µ2)
Ha: There is a difference behavior intention of Mama's consumers between those who
buy Non – Mama Brand and those who buy Mama Brand (µ1 ≠ µ2)

According to “Levene's Test” Sig. 0.357 > 0.05 So, Fail to Reject Ho and Accept Ho.
Equal Variance is assumed in behavior intention of Mama's consumers.
According to “t-test for Equality of Means” Sig. 0.848 > 0.05. So, Fail to Reject Ho
and Accept Ho. The level of behavior intention on Mama's consumers is no significant
different between those who buy Non – Mama Brand and those who buy Mama Brand.

Group Statistics

Std. Error
Brands N Mean Std. Deviation Mean
Behavior Intension MaMa 217 3.4009 .57783 .03923
Non - MaMa 98 3.3878 .53018 .05356

Independent Sample T-test (Interval & Nominal Scale)

H5: The level of Behavior Intention on Mama's consumers is different between Low
purchase frequency and High purchase frequency

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for

Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Mean Std. Error Difference
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
Behavior Intension Equal variances
.820 .366 -.129 312 .897 -.00849 .06560 -.13757 .12059
assumed
Equal variances
-.127 236.842 .899 -.00849 .06666 -.13980 .12282
not assumed

Ho: There is no difference behavior intention of Mama's consumers between Low

purchase frequency and High purchase frequency (µ1 = µ2)

Ha: There is a difference behavior intention of Mama's consumers between Low purchase
frequency and High purchase frequency (µ1 ≠ µ2)

According to “Levene's Test” Sig. 0.366 > 0.05 So, Fail to Reject Ho and Accept Ho.
Equal Variance is assumed in behavior intention of Mama's consumers.

According to “t-test for Equality of Means” Sig. 0.897 > 0.05. So, Fail to Reject Ho
and Accept Ho. The level of behavior intention on Mama's consumers is no significant
different between Low purchase frequencies and High purchase frequency.

Group Statistics

Std. Error
Purchase frequency N Mean Std. Deviation Mean
Behavior Intension Low purchase frequency 195 3.3949 .54958 .03936
High purchase frequency 119 3.4034 .58685 .05380

One Way ANOVA (Interval & Nominal Scale)

H6: There is a difference in level of Behavior Intention among Instant noodle brands.

ANOVA

Behavior Intention
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between
3.349 5 .670 2.155 .059
Groups
Within Groups 96.048 309 .311
Total 99.397 314

Ho: There is no difference in the behavior intention among 6 Instant noodle brand groups
→μ1 = μ2 = μ3 = μ4 = μ5 = μ6
Ha: At least one Instant noodle brand group has a difference the behavior intention from
others →Not all μ1 = μ2 = μ3 = μ4 = μ5 = μ6 are equal
(Different Instant noodle brand groups have different level of behavior intention)

According to Sig. 0.059 > 0.05. So, Fail to Reject Ho and Accept Ho.
Among Instant noodle brands, there is on significant difference in level of behavior
intention.

Post Hoc Tests

 Multiple Comparisons

Dependent Variable: Behavior Intension

Scheffe

Mean
Difference 95% Confidence Interval
(I) Name of Brand (J) Name of Brand (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound
Mama Wai-Wai .02387 .08080 1.000 -.2467 .2945
Yum Yum .33425 .14884 .413 -.1642 .8327
4-Me -.59908 .39604 .808 -1.9254 .7273
Gung Ging -.26575 .16533 .764 -.8195 .2880
Other Brands -.09908 .20072 .999 -.7713 .5731
Wai-Wai Mama -.02387 .08080 1.000 -.2945 .2467
Yum Yum .31038 .16068 .589 -.2277 .8485
4-Me -.62295 .40064 .789 -1.9647 .7188
Gung Ging -.28962 .17606 .745 -.8793 .3000
Other Brands -.12295 .20964 .997 -.8251 .5791
Yum Yum Mama -.33425 .14884 .413 -.8327 .1642
Wai-Wai -.31038 .16068 .589 -.8485 .2277
4-Me -.93333 .41969 .424 -2.3389 .4722
Gung Ging -.60000 .21593 .176 -1.3232 .1232
Other Brands -.43333 .24408 .677 -1.2508 .3841
4-Me Mama .59908 .39604 .808 -.7273 1.9254
Wai-Wai .62295 .40064 .789 -.7188 1.9647
Yum Yum .93333 .41969 .424 -.4722 2.3389
Gung Ging .33333 .42582 .987 -1.0927 1.7594
Other Brands .50000 .44076 .936 -.9761 1.9761
Gung Ging Mama .26575 .16533 .764 -.2880 .8195
Wai-Wai .28962 .17606 .745 -.3000 .8793
Yum Yum .60000 .21593 .176 -.1232 1.3232
4-Me -.33333 .42582 .987 -1.7594 1.0927
Other Brands .16667 .25447 .994 -.6856 1.0189
Other Brands Mama .09908 .20072 .999 -.5731 .7713
Wai-Wai .12295 .20964 .997 -.5791 .8251
Yum Yum .43333 .24408 .677 -.3841 1.2508
4-Me -.50000 .44076 .936 -1.9761 .9761
Gung Ging -.16667 .25447 .994 -1.0189 .6856

Homogeneous Subsets
 Behavior Intension
a,b
Scheffe
Subset
for alpha
= .05
Name of Brand N 1
Yum Yum 15 3.0667
Wai-Wai 61 3.3770
Mama 217 3.4009
Other Brands 8 3.5000
Gung Ging 12 3.6667
4-Me 2 4.0000
Sig. .064
Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.
a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 7.538.
b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean
of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are
not guaranteed.

One Way ANOVA (Interval & Nominal Scale)

H7: There is a difference in level of Behavior Intention among Income level.

ANOVA

Behavior Intension
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 1.330 4 .333 1.051 .381
Within Groups 98.067 310 .316
Total 99.397 314

Ho: There is no difference in the behavior intention among 5 Income

groups →μ1 = μ2 = μ3 = μ4 = μ5
Ha: At least one Income group has a difference the behavior intention from
others →Not all μ1 = μ2 = μ3 = μ4 = μ5 are equal
(Different Income groups have different level of behavior intention)

According to Sig. 0.381 > 0.05. So, Fail to Reject Ho. Accepted Ho.
Among Income groups, there is no significant difference in level of behavior intention.

Post Hoc Tests

 Multiple Comparisons

Dependent Variable: Behavior Intension

Scheffe

Mean
Difference 95% Confidence Interval
(I) Salary of Respondents(J) Salary of Respondents (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound
Less than 5,000 10,001 - 15,000 .17033 .11074 .669 -.1728 .5135
More than 20,000 .02830 .12147 1.000 -.3481 .4047
5,001 - 10,000 .13551 .10837 .815 -.2003 .4713
15,001 - 20,000 .03571 .14172 1.000 -.4035 .4749
10,001 - 15,000 Less than 5,000 -.17033 .11074 .669 -.5135 .1728
More than 20,000 -.14203 .09719 .711 -.4432 .1591
5,001 - 10,000 -.03482 .08020 .996 -.2834 .2137
15,001 - 20,000 -.13462 .12155 .873 -.5113 .2421
More than 20,000 Less than 5,000 -.02830 .12147 1.000 -.4047 .3481
10,001 - 15,000 .14203 .09719 .711 -.1591 .4432
5,001 - 10,000 .10721 .09447 .863 -.1856 .4000
15,001 - 20,000 .00741 .13140 1.000 -.3998 .4146
5,001 - 10,000 Less than 5,000 -.13551 .10837 .815 -.4713 .2003
10,001 - 15,000 .03482 .08020 .996 -.2137 .2834
More than 20,000 -.10721 .09447 .863 -.4000 .1856
15,001 - 20,000 -.09980 .11939 .951 -.4698 .2702
15,001 - 20,000 Less than 5,000 -.03571 .14172 1.000 -.4749 .4035
10,001 - 15,000 .13462 .12155 .873 -.2421 .5113
More than 20,000 -.00741 .13140 1.000 -.4146 .3998
5,001 - 10,000 .09980 .11939 .951 -.2702 .4698

Homogeneous Subsets

Behavior Intension
a,b
Scheffe
Subset
for alpha
= .05
Salary of Respondents N 1
10,001 - 15,000 91 3.3297
5,001 - 10,000 107 3.3645
15,001 - 20,000 28 3.4643
More than 20,000 53 3.4717
Less than 5,000 36 3.5000
Sig. .693
Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.
a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 48.688.
b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean
of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are
not guaranteed.

Chi-Square Test of Independent (Nominal & Nominal Scale)

H8: There is a different in levels of income between different brands

Chi-Square Tests

Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. Exact Sig.

Value df (2-sided) (2-sided) (1-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square .141b 1 .708
a
Continuity Correction .063 1 .802
Likelihood Ratio .141 1 .707
Fisher's Exact Test .804 .402
Linear-by-Linear
.140 1 .708
Association
N of Valid Cases 315
a. Computed only for a 2x2 table
b. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 39.
51.

Ho: There is no different in levels of income between different brand

Ha: There is a different in levels of income between different brand

According to Sig. 0.708 > 0.05 So, Fail to reject Ho. Accept Ho.
There is no different in levels of income between different brand

Income * Brands Crosstabulation

Brands
MaMa Non - MaMa Total
Income Low income Count 89 38 127
Expected Count 87.5 39.5 127.0
% of Total 28.3% 12.1% 40.3%
High income Count 128 60 188
Expected Count 129.5 58.5 188.0
% of Total 40.6% 19.0% 59.7%
Total Count 217 98 315
Expected Count 217.0 98.0 315.0
% of Total 68.9% 31.1% 100.0%

Chi-Square Test of Independent (Nominal & Nominal Scale)

H9: There is a different in levels of income between different purchase frequencies

Chi-Square Tests

Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. Exact Sig.

Value df (2-sided) (2-sided) (1-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square .088b 1 .767
a
Continuity Correction .032 1 .859
Likelihood Ratio .088 1 .767
Fisher's Exact Test .813 .429
Linear-by-Linear
.087 1 .767
Association
N of Valid Cases 314
a. Computed only for a 2x2 table
b. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 47.
75.

Ho: There is no different in levels of income between different purchase frequencies

Ha: There is a different in levels of income between different purchase frequencies

According to Sig. 0.767 > 0.05 So, Fail to reject Ho. Accept Ho.
There is no different in levels of income between different purchase frequencies

Income * Purchase frequency Crosstabulation

Purchase frequency
High
Low purchase purchase
frequency frequency Total
Income Low income Count 77 49 126
Expected Count 78.2 47.8 126.0
% of Total 24.5% 15.6% 40.1%
High income Count 118 70 188
Expected Count 116.8 71.2 188.0
% of Total 37.6% 22.3% 59.9%
Total Count 195 119 314
Expected Count 195.0 119.0 314.0
% of Total 62.1% 37.9% 100.0%

Chi-Square Test of Independent (Nominal & Nominal Scale)

H10: There is a different on instant noodle brands between different purchase
frequencies

Chi-Square Tests

Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. Exact Sig.

Value df (2-sided) (2-sided) (1-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 1.437b 1 .231
a
Continuity Correction 1.151 1 .283
Likelihood Ratio 1.453 1 .228
Fisher's Exact Test .258 .142
Linear-by-Linear
1.432 1 .231
Association
N of Valid Cases 314
a. Computed only for a 2x2 table
b. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 36.
76.

Ho: There is no different on instant noodle brands between different purchase frequencies
Ha: There is a different on instant noodle brands between different purchase frequencies

According to Sig. 0.231 > 0.05 So, Fail to reject Ho. Accept Ho.
There is no different on instant noodle brands between different purchase frequencies

Brands * Purchase frequency Crosstabulation

Purchase frequency
High
Low purchase purchase
frequency frequency Total
Brands MaMa Count 130 87 217
Expected Count 134.8 82.2 217.0
% of Total 41.4% 27.7% 69.1%
Non - MaMa Count 65 32 97
Expected Count 60.2 36.8 97.0
% of Total 20.7% 10.2% 30.9%
Total Count 195 119 314
Expected Count 195.0 119.0 314.0
% of Total 62.1% 37.9% 100.0%

Chi-Square Goodness of fit (Equal) (Nominal Scale)

H11: There is a different in the type of sales promotion

Test Statistics

Type of sales
promotion
Chi-Squarea 126.238
df 5
Asymp. Sig. .000
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected frequencies less than
5. The minimum expected cell frequency is 52.5.

Ho: There is no different in the type of sales promotion

(ρ1; ρ2; ρ3; ρ4; ρ5; ρ6 = 1/6 = 0.167)

Ha: There is different in the type of sales promotion

According to sing 0.000 < 0.05. So, Reject Ho.

There is a significant difference in the type of sales promotion.

Type of sales promotion

Observed N Expected N Residual

Discount 45 52.5 -7.5
Sweeptake 75 52.5 22.5
Coupon 3 52.5 -49.5
Buy 1 get 1 109 52.5 56.5
Premium 32 52.5 -20.5
Other sale promotion 51 52.5 -1.5
Total 315

The respondents are most preferable on Buy 1 get 1 free (109); following with
Sweepstake (75) and Discount (45).

Chi-Square Goodness of fit (Equal) (Nominal Scale)

H12: There is a different in the instant noodle brands

Test Statistics

Name of
Brand
Chi-Squarea 661.133
df 5
Asymp. Sig. .000
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected frequencies less than
5. The minimum expected cell frequency is 52.5.

Ho: There is no different in the instant noodle brands

(ρ1; ρ2; ρ3; ρ4; ρ5; ρ6 = 1/6 = 0.167)

Ha: There is different in the instant noodle brands

According to Sig 0.000 < 0.05. So, Reject Ho.

There is a significant difference in the instant noodle brands.

Name of Brand

Observed N Expected N Residual

Mama 217 52.5 164.5
Wai-Wai 61 52.5 8.5
Yum Yum 15 52.5 -37.5
4-Me 2 52.5 -50.5
Gung Ging 12 52.5 -40.5
Other Brands 8 52.5 -44.5
Total 315

The respondents are most prefer Mama Brand (217); following with Wai-Wai (61) and
Yum Yum (15).

One Way ANOVA (Interval & Nominal Scale)

H13: There is a difference in level of Behavior Intention among Purchasing Location.

ANOVA

Behavior Intension
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups .962 4 .240 .757 .555
Within Groups 49.232 155 .318
Total 50.194 159

Ho: There is no difference in the behavior intention among 5 Purchasing Location

groups →μ1 = μ2 = μ3 = μ4 = μ5
Ha: At least one Purchasing Location group has a difference the behavior intention from
others →Not all μ1 = μ2 = μ3 = μ4 = μ5 are equal
(Different Purchasing Location groups have different level of behavior intention)

According to Sig. 0.555 > 0.05. So, Fail to Reject Ho. Accepted Ho.
Among Purchasing Location groups, there is no significant difference in level of behavior
intention.

Post Hoc Tests

 Multiple Comparisons

Dependent Variable: Behavior Intension

Scheffe

Mean
Difference 95% Confidence Interval
(I) Purchasing Location (J) Purchasing Location (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound
Department Store Supermarket .23636 .16121 .708 -.2662 .7390
Convenient Shop .27500 .17063 .628 -.2570 .8070
Hypermarket .17143 .18033 .924 -.3908 .7336
Other places .14545 .22372 .980 -.5520 .8429
Supermarket Department Store -.23636 .16121 .708 -.7390 .2662
Convenient Shop .03864 .11293 .998 -.3134 .3907
Hypermarket -.06494 .12711 .992 -.4612 .3313
Other places -.09091 .18354 .993 -.6631 .4813
Convenient Shop Department Store -.27500 .17063 .628 -.8070 .2570
Supermarket -.03864 .11293 .998 -.3907 .3134
Hypermarket -.10357 .13887 .968 -.5365 .3294
Other places -.12955 .19187 .977 -.7278 .4687
Hypermarket Department Store -.17143 .18033 .924 -.7336 .3908
Supermarket .06494 .12711 .992 -.3313 .4612
Convenient Shop .10357 .13887 .968 -.3294 .5365
Other places -.02597 .20055 1.000 -.6512 .5993
Other places Department Store -.14545 .22372 .980 -.8429 .5520
Supermarket .09091 .18354 .993 -.4813 .6631
Convenient Shop .12955 .19187 .977 -.4687 .7278
Hypermarket .02597 .20055 1.000 -.5993 .6512

Homogeneous Subsets

Behavior Intension
a,b
Scheffe
Subset
for alpha
= .05
Purchasing Location N 1
Convenient Shop 40 3.3250
Supermarket 66 3.3636
Hypermarket 28 3.4286
Other places 11 3.4545
Department Store 15 3.6000
Sig. .637
Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.
a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 21.419.
b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean
of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are
not guaranteed.

One Way ANOVA (Interval & Nominal Scale)

H14: There is a difference in level of Behavior Intention among Age of Respondents.

ANOVA

Behavior Intension
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 2.173 3 .724 2.313 .076
Within Groups 97.066 310 .313
Total 99.239 313

Ho: There is no difference in the behavior intention among 4 Age of Respondents

groups →μ1 = μ2 = μ3 = μ4
Ha: At least one Age of Respondents group has a difference the behavior intention from
others →Not all μ1 = μ2 = μ3 = μ4 are equal
(Different Age of Respondents groups have different level of behavior intention)

According to Sig. 0.076 > 0.05. So, Fail to Reject Ho. Accepted Ho.
Among Age of Respondents groups, there is no significant difference in level of behavior
intention.

Post Hoc Tests

 Multiple Comparisons

Dependent Variable: Behavior Intension

Scheffe

Mean
Difference 95% Confidence Interval
(I) Age of Respondents(J) Age of Respondents (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound
Less than 18 18 - 22 .19060 .15158 .664 -.2355 .6167
23 - 25 .12308 .16029 .899 -.3275 .5736
More than 25 .31765 .15671 .252 -.1229 .7581
18 - 22 Less than 18 -.19060 .15158 .664 -.6167 .2355
23 - 25 -.06753 .08318 .883 -.3013 .1663
More than 25 .12704 .07606 .426 -.0868 .3408
23 - 25 Less than 18 -.12308 .16029 .899 -.5736 .3275
18 - 22 .06753 .08318 .883 -.1663 .3013
More than 25 .19457 .09220 .219 -.0646 .4537
More than 25 Less than 18 -.31765 .15671 .252 -.7581 .1229
18 - 22 -.12704 .07606 .426 -.3408 .0868
23 - 25 -.19457 .09220 .219 -.4537 .0646

Homogeneous Subsets

Behavior Intension
a,b
Scheffe
Subset
for alpha
= .05
Age of Respondents N 1
More than 25 85 3.2824
18 - 22 149 3.4094
23 - 25 65 3.4769
Less than 18 15 3.6000
Sig. .096
Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.
a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 39.790.
b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean
of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are
not guaranteed.

One Way ANOVA (Interval & Nominal Scale)

H15: There is a difference in level of Behavior Intention among Occupation of
Respondents.

ANOVA

Behavior Intension
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 1.745 4 .436 1.383 .240
Within Groups 97.130 308 .315
Total 98.875 312

Ho: There is no difference in the behavior intention among 5 Occupation of Respondents

groups →μ1 = μ2 = μ3 = μ4 = μ5
Ha: At least one Occupation of Respondents group has a difference the behavior intention
from others →Not all μ1 = μ2 = μ3 = μ4 = μ5 are equal
(Different Occupation of Respondents groups have different level of behavior intention)

According to Sig. 0.240 > 0.05. So, Fail to Reject Ho. Accepted Ho.
Among Occupation of Respondents groups, there is no significant difference in level of
behavior intention.

Post Hoc Tests

 Multiple Comparisons

Dependent Variable: Behavior Intension

Scheffe

Mean
(I) Occupation of (J) Occupation of Difference 95% Confidence Interval
Respondents Respondents (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound
Students Housewife -.18329 .14079 .791 -.6196 .2530
Clerks .00384 .07119 1.000 -.2168 .2245
Specialist .03893 .13160 .999 -.3689 .4468
Other Occupation -.23643 .12654 .481 -.6286 .1557
Housewife Students .18329 .14079 .791 -.2530 .6196
Clerks .18713 .14243 .786 -.2543 .6285
Specialist .22222 .18038 .823 -.3368 .7812
Other Occupation -.05314 .17672 .999 -.6008 .4945
Clerks Students -.00384 .07119 1.000 -.2245 .2168
Housewife -.18713 .14243 .786 -.6285 .2543
Specialist .03509 .13335 .999 -.3782 .4484
Other Occupation -.24027 .12836 .479 -.6381 .1575
Specialist Students -.03893 .13160 .999 -.4468 .3689
Housewife -.22222 .18038 .823 -.7812 .3368
Clerks -.03509 .13335 .999 -.4484 .3782
Other Occupation -.27536 .16949 .620 -.8006 .2499
Other Occupation Students .23643 .12654 .481 -.1557 .6286
Housewife .05314 .17672 .999 -.4945 .6008
Clerks .24027 .12836 .479 -.1575 .6381
Specialist .27536 .16949 .620 -.2499 .8006

Homogeneous Subsets
Behavior Intension
a,b
Scheffe
Subset
for alpha
Occupation of = .05
Respondents N 1
Specialist 21 3.3333
Clerks 114 3.3684
Students 137 3.3723
Housewife 18 3.5556
Other Occupation 23 3.6087
Sig. .450
Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.
a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 30.727.
b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean
of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are
not guaranteed.

One Way ANOVA (Interval & Nominal Scale)

H16: There is a difference in level of Behavior Intention among Education level of
Respondents.

ANOVA

Behavior Intension
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 1.238 3 .413 1.308 .272
Within Groups 98.159 311 .316
Total 99.397 314

Ho: There is no difference in the behavior intention among 4 Education level of

Respondents groups →μ1 = μ2 = μ3 = μ4
Ha: At least one Education level of Respondents group has a difference the behavior
intention from others →Not all μ1 = μ2 = μ3 = μ4 are equal
(Different Education level of Respondents groups have different level of behavior
intention)

According to Sig. 0.272 > 0.05. So, Fail to Reject Ho. Accepted Ho.
Among Education level of Respondents groups, there is no significant difference in level
of behavior intention.
Post Hoc Tests

Multiple Comparisons

Dependent Variable: Behavior Intension

Scheffe

Mean
(I) Education level (J) Education level Difference 95% Confidence Interval
of Respondents of Respondents (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound
Undergraduate Master Degree -.22387 .12360 .352 -.5713 .1236
Bachelor Degree -.07380 .06792 .758 -.2647 .1171
Ph.D. -.16387 .18497 .853 -.6838 .3561
Master Degree Undergraduate .22387 .12360 .352 -.1236 .5713
Bachelor Degree .15006 .12077 .672 -.1894 .4895
Ph.D. .06000 .21021 .994 -.5309 .6509
Bachelor Degree Undergraduate .07380 .06792 .758 -.1171 .2647
Master Degree -.15006 .12077 .672 -.4895 .1894
Ph.D. -.09006 .18309 .970 -.6047 .4246
Ph.D. Undergraduate .16387 .18497 .853 -.3561 .6838
Master Degree -.06000 .21021 .994 -.6509 .5309
Bachelor Degree .09006 .18309 .970 -.4246 .6047

Homogeneous Subsets

Behavior Intension
a,b
Scheffe
Subset
for alpha
Education level = .05
of Respondents N 1
Undergraduate 119 3.3361
Bachelor Degree 161 3.4099
Ph.D. 10 3.5000
Master Degree 25 3.5600
Sig. .562
Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.
a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 25.871.
b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean
of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are
not guaranteed.