Demographic information
The study was done with146 respondents from the study's general population, and the demographic results are presented in Table 3. To begin with, six in ten of the respondents (69.2%) are male, and the rest (30.8%) are female students. In terms of their age, almost half of the respondents (47.3%) fall in the 21–25 years old age group, 21.2% are between the 26–30 years age group, 14.4% are 36 years old and older, 10.3% are 20 years old and younger, and the rest (6.8%) fall in the 31–35 years old age group. On the respondent's education level, half of the respondents (52.1%) are pursuing their bachelor's degree, while the rest were either doing their master's (36.3%) or Ph.D. (44.6%) program. In addition, there was a considerable number of international (61.6%) compared to Malaysian students (38.4%). Regarding their level of study, approximately one-third of the respondents were third-year students (38.4%), 28.8% were in their second year, while first- and fourth-year students made up 21.2% and 11.2% of the respondents, respectively.
Table 2
Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents
Demographic Characteristic | Category | Frequency | Percentage |
Gender | male | 101 | 69.2 |
| Female | 45 | 30.8 |
| Total | 146 | 100.0 |
| 21–25 | 69 | 47.3 |
| 26–30 | 31 | 21.2 |
Age (years old) | 36 and above | 21 | 14.4 |
| Less than 20 | 15 | 10.3 |
| 31–35 | 10 | 6.8 |
| Total | 146 | 100.0 |
Level of education | Bachelor Degree | 76 | 52.1 |
| Master's Degree | 53 | 36.3 |
| PhD | 17 | 11.6 |
| Total | 146 | 100.0 |
Nationality | Malaysian | 56 | 38.4 |
| International | 90 | 61.6 |
| Total | 146 | 100.0 |
| First | 31 | 21.2 |
| Second | 42 | 28.8 |
Year of study | Third | 56 | 38.4 |
| Fourth | 17 | 11.6 |
| Total | 146 | 100.0 |
Information on Shopping
Additionally, on student's shopping information, six in ten of the respondents (63.7%) noted to be engaging in shopping at least once a week, 24.0% twice a week, and the rest who made up thrice, four and five times a week in shopping made up 12.6% respectively. In addition, the majority (80.8%) of the students replied that their preferred shopping place is the university mini-marts simply because they are near them and accessible in the university physically. 17.8% also noted that online shopping is their preferred shopping platform, while two respondents prefer to shop in physical supermarkets. This study also revealed that more than half of the sampled respondents view the university mini-marts as important shopping points, 28.1% consider them very important, and 17.1 agree on their slight importance. Lastly, on the effectiveness of the mini-marts, 37.7% noted that the mini marts are effective, 36.6% very effective, 20.5% slightly effective, while 5.5% did not see them as effective shopping centers.
Table 3
Variable | Category | Frequency | Percentage |
| Once a week | 93 | 63.7 |
| Twice a week | 35 | 24.0 |
Frequency of shopping in a week | Thrice a week | 9 | 6.2 |
| Four-time a week | 7 | 4.8 |
| Five times and more | 2 | 1.4 |
| Total | 146 | 100.0 |
| University mini-marts | 118 | 80.8 |
Place of Shopping | online shopping | 26 | 17.8 |
| Supermarkets | 2 | 1.4 |
| Total | 146 | 100.0 |
| Slightly important | 25 | 17.1 |
Importance of mini-marts in a university | Important | 80 | 54.8 |
| Very important | 41 | 28.1 |
| Total | 146 | 100.0 |
| Not effective | 8 | 5.5 |
Effectiveness of the mini-marts in services | slightly effective | 30 | 20.5 |
| effective | 55 | 37.7 |
| very effective | 53 | 36.3 |
| Total | 146 | 100.0 |
Overall, the study results mean that most of the respondents are male international students below 25 years old in their third year of bachelor's degrees. The students also noted that they tend to shop at the university mini-marts at least once a week and regard the mini-marts as important and influential shopping centers for students who reside inside the university.
Level of Product Quality
One sample t-test for the quality of the products is presented in Table 5. As a whole, two-thirds of the respondents (65.4%) regarded product quality as high, with a mean of 3.272 (SD = 0.915) and a t-value of 3.597 (ρ = .000). Their reasons for regarding the product quality highly include; that the mini-marts provide students with products that are of unique features like halal labels (70.4%), have attractively packaged products (68.4%), have a variety of products for all categories of students (68.2%), mini-marts are well known for satisfying student needs all time (68.0%). Moreover, these stock products are genuine, have practical designs (66.1%), and have durable and high-quality products (66.1%). However, a section of students also noted that the mini marts are barely able to perform their designated functions in satisfying student needs (62.8%), the products they sell are barely charming, and they are the same old (61.2%) as well as hardly check on the product's expiry date before buying (57.3). These three items (7,8 and 9) also presented insignificant p-values. However, the results imply that even if the three items are not significant, the Majority of the items were rated positively and significantly, which translates that the students rate the products they see at the university mini-marts highly because of the reasons cited above. This finding answers research objective one, which states a high level of product quality among the products sold at the university mini-marts.
Table 4
One-sample t-test for the level of product quality sold in the university mini-marts
No. | Product Quality | M* | SD | % | t** | ρ |
1 | The marts provide students with products with unique features (halal labels etc.) | 3.520 | 1.169 | 70.4 | 5.377 | .000 |
2 | The mini marts have attractive packaging for products they sell to students. | 3.424 | 1.143 | 68.4 | 4.486 | .000 |
3 | University mini-marts have a variety of products meant for all categories of students. | 3.411 | 1.099 | 68.2 | 4.516 | .000 |
4 | The mini-marts are well known for satisfying student needs at all times | 3.404 | 1.148 | 68.0 | 4.253 | .000 |
5 | The university marts stock products that are genuine and have practical designs. | 3.308 | 1.305 | 66.1 | 2.853 | .005 |
6 | The products sold in the mini-marts are durable and of high quality | 3.308 | 1.305 | 66.1 | 2.853 | .005 |
7 | The mini-marts can perform their designated function to satisfy the students. | 3.143 | 1.253 | 62.8 | 1.386 | .168 |
8 | The products sold in the mini-marts are very charming and bring something new to the university. | 3.061 | 1.244 | 61.2 | .599 | .550 |
9 | I check the product's expiry date before buying them off from the mini-mart. | 2.869 | 1.350 | 57.3 | -1.164 | .246 |
| Overall Mean Product Quality (N = 146) | 3.272 | 0.915 | 65.4 | 3.597 | .000 |
* On a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 = never (1–20%), 2 = rarely (21–40%), 3 = sometimes (41–60%), 4 = often (61–80%), and 5 = always (81–100%). |
**Test value is 3. |
The findings here conform with scholars (Kotler & Armstrong, 2007) who contend that products and services have to satisfy the needs of the buyers who are the consumers and that there must be diversity in the market and options from which a customer can make a decision. These are some of the reasons in this study regarding the high product quality.
Level of Promotion
The levels of the products sold in the university mini-marts are presented in Table 6. The student’s views on the promotion of products are significantly positive (73.0%) with an overall mean of 3.654 (SD = 0.694) and t = 11.383, (ρ = .000). the item with the highest mean is 1 "The mini marts often give a discount to some of the products they sell" with 3.917 (SD = 1.020) with 78.3% in agreement, while that with the lowest mean is item 10 "The mini-mart employees are quick in answering the questions related to the products they sell" M = (3.335; SD = 1.187) and 66.7% barely agreeing that the employees are quick in answering the questions regarding the products. The students also believed that they sometimes buy their products from the mini-marts after seeing the promotions of the products in the marts (76.8%), social media accounts for the marts are informative (75.8%), the mart's involvement in student's charity events improve their brand image (74.5%), the mart's website summarized all the items they sell (74.3%), employees are helpful (72.6%), they can find the promotions of most of the items sold in the marts (71.6%), often get free samples of some products sold in the marts (70.6%), and also the low levels of interesting adverts for the products sold in the marts (69.1). The revelations in this study mean that since all the items in the construct are rated highly, it can be concluded that there are high levels of promotion of the products sold in the university mini-marts. Hence, research objective three is answered.
Table 6
One-sample t-test for the level of promotion
No. | Promotion | M* | SD | % | t** | ρ |
1 | The mini marts often discount some of the products they sell. | 3.917 | 1.020 | 78.3 | 10.867 | .000 |
2 | I sometimes buy my products from the mini-marts after seeing the promotions of the products at the marts. | 3.842 | 0.951 | 76.8 | 10.694 | .000 |
3 | The social media accounts for the mini-marts are informative. | 3.794 | 0.931 | 75.8 | 10.305 | .000 |
4 | The mini mart's involvement in students' charitable causes improves its brand image. | 3.726 | 1.013 | 74.5 | 8.653 | .000 |
5 | The mini mart's website cataloged and summarizes all the products they sell. | 3.719 | 1.106 | 74.3 | 7.854 | .000 |
6 | The mini-mart employees are accommodating in helping me choose the right products. | 3.630 | 1.089 | 72.6 | 6.990 | .000 |
7 | Almost all the time, I can find Promotions for most of the products sold in the university mini-marts. | 3.582 | 1.106 | 71.6 | 6.358 | .000 |
8 | I often get free samples of some products sold in the mini-marts. | 3.534 | 1.083 | 70.6 | 5.956 | .000 |
9 | The advertisements for the products in the mini-marts are attractive. | 3.458 | 1.360 | 69.1 | 4.077 | .000 |
10 | The mini-mart employees quickly answer the questions related to the products they sell. | 3.335 | 1.187 | 66.7 | 3.414 | .001 |
| Overall Mean Promotion (N = 146) | 3.654 | 0.694 | 73.0 | 11.383 | .000 |
* On a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 = never (1–20%), 2 = rarely (21–40%), 3 = sometimes (41–60%), 4 = often (61–80%), and 5 = always (81–100%). |
**Test value is 3. |
Level of Place
A one-sample t-test is done to test the level of attractiveness of the places where the products are sold. Table 7 indicates that, on average, six in ten (69.9%) respondents believed that they have high levels of the places where the products are sold (t = 6.952; ρ = .000) with a mean value of 3.496 (SD = 0.862). Respondents regard the places as having good designs for shopping (75.4%), locations are easy to access since they are located inside the university (74.5%), and the mart's atmosphere is comfortable. In comparison, shopping (73.9%) prefer to do their shopping because the marts are scattered around the university (70.4%), and marts are very many in the university (67.2%). They also noted that the mini marts are barely far from my place of living (64.7%), and the stores are also not flexible inside with enough space (63.0%). Therefore, this item also came out insignificant. The findings show that since almost all the items are significant and positively rated, they have a positive level of accessibility to places where the products are sold.
Table 7
One-sample t-test for the level of accessibility of the place where the mini-marts are located
No. | Accessibility of the Place | M* | SD | % | t** | ρ |
1 | The design of the university mini-marts is good for shopping. | 3.774 | 1.094 | 75.4 | 8.548 | .000 |
2 | The mini mart's locations are easy to access since they are inside the university. | 3.726 | 1.066 | 74.5 | 8.223 | .000 |
3 | The atmosphere of the mini-marts makes me feel comfortable while shopping. | 3.698 | 1.085 | 73.9 | 7.779 | .000 |
4 | I prefer to do my shopping at the mini-marts because they are scattered all over the university. | 3.520 | 1.227 | 70.4 | 5.125 | .000 |
5 | The mini-marts are very many in the extraordinary university. | 3.363 | 1.258 | 67.2 | 3.485 | .001 |
6 | The mini-marts are not far away from my place of living. | 3.239 | 1.272 | 64.7 | 2.277 | .024 |
7 | The mini mart's stores are flexible inside with enough space. | 3.150 | 1.228 | 63.0 | 1.483 | .140 |
| Overall Mean Place (N = 146) | 3.496 | 0.862 | 69.9 | 6.952 | .000 |
* On a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 = strongly disagree (1–20%), 2 = disagree (21–40%), 3 = slightly agree (41–60%), 4 = agree (61–80%), and 5 = strongly agree (81–100%). |
**Test value is 3. |
Level of Purchase Decision
The items under purchase decision demonstrated significant responses (Table 8). The results show that overall, six in ten (68.2%) had high and significant levels of purchase decision with t = 5.490 (ρ = .000) and that they usually do their shopping inside the university at the university mini-marts with a mean of 3.412 (SD = 0.907). Some reasons as to why they regard the purchase decision highly include; That they are interested in continuing to buy products sold in the marts (75.7%), always do their shopping at the mini-marts (75.2%), prefer to buy all their groceries at the mini-marts (74.2%), recommend their friends to buy from the marts (72.8%), follow Islamic principles before buying any product (70.5%), and also check on the quality of the products before buying (68.9%). The students also had low levels of a halal sign visible on the products they buy (64.2%), hardly prioritized products sold in the marts (62.7%), hardly found information on products before buying (60.2%), and also the products hardly help them to make choices for what they buy in the mart (57.6%). All these last four items exhibit insignificant p-values indicating low response levels on those particular items. However, the overall results of some insignificant items imply that the students have high levels of purchase decisions because most of the items are positively rated.
Table 8
One-sample t-test for the level of purchase decision
No. | Purchase Decision | M* | SD | % | t** | ρ |
1 | I am interested in buying products sold in the university mini-marts because they are durable. | 3.787 | 1.077 | 75.7 | 8.831 | .000 |
2 | Since I came to the university, I have been shopping in the mini-marts, and I do not think about going outside for other options. | 3.760 | 1.084 | 75.2 | 8.469 | .000 |
3 | I prefer to buy all my groceries from the mini-marts than any other place. | 3.712 | 1.043 | 74.2 | 8.248 | .000 |
4 | I recommend my friends to do their shopping from the university mini-marts. | 3.643 | 1.100 | 72.8 | 7.072 | .000 |
5 | I follow Islamic principles before buying any product from the mini-mart. | 3.527 | 1.260 | 70.5 | 5.056 | .000 |
6 | I check on the quality of the product sold in the mini-mart before buying them. | 3.445 | 1.243 | 68.9 | 4.328 | .000 |
7 | I buy products with visible halal signs in the mini-mart. | 3.212 | 1.260 | 64.2 | 2.035 | .044 |
8 | I prioritize buying products sold in the mini-marts | 3.137 | 1.246 | 62.7 | 1.328 | .186 |
9 | I find out information on the products before buying them from the mart. | 3.013 | 1.318 | 60.2 | .126 | .900 |
10 | Product advertisements have helped me to choose what to buy from the mini-mart | 2.883 | 1.372 | 57.6 | -1.025 | .307 |
| Overall Mean Purchase Decision (N = 146) | 3.412 | 0.907 | 68.2 | 5.490 | .000 |
* On a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 = never (1–20%), 2 = rarely (21–40%), 3 = sometimes (41–60%), 4 = often (61–80%), and 5 = always (81–100%). |
**Test value is 3. |
CORRELATION ANALYSIS
Bivariate correlation analysis measured the relationship between the study's variables. The test yielded two significant relationships between price, place, and purchase decision, while that between product and promotion was insignificant (Table 9).
Consequently, there was no relationship between product quality and purchase decision (r = − .041, ρ = .312); hence rejecting H1. This result means that product quality is not necessarily an important factor in the decision-making of student consumers. The findings contradict Kotler and Armstrong (2007), who contended that a customer's satisfaction with a product and its quality influences the buyers' decision and that there must be diversity in the products. The finding was not reflected in the relationships in the present study, where the respondents do not necessarily believe that product quality can define the consumer's decision to buy any product from the university mini-mart.
Furthermore, there is a weak but significant relationship between price and purchase decision (r = .241, ρ = .000), a finding that supports H2, which states a positive relationship between price and purchase decision among university students. The findings imply that the students regard price as one of the significant factors that persuade them to purchase. Thus, it is confirmed by a study by Riyadi and Rangkuti (2016). The researchers concluded that products with low prices always offer the customer great satisfaction and they always feel that they have gotten their value for money and that different markets may set their prices depending on the products they sell and the terms and conditions set out by the parent company that produces those particular products. Therefore, pricing the products on the market contributes significantly to the customer's decision-making before buying a product. In addition, Peter and Donnely (2008) also concluded that the success and failure of any business might be attached to the pricing of the products and the decisions made regarding the product after identifying them.
Also, there is no relationship between promotion and purchase decision (r = − .099, ρ = .116), hence rejecting H3, which states that there is a positive relationship between promotion and purchase decision, a finding that contradicts researchers (Satit, Tat, Rasli, Chin, & Sukati, 2012) who intimated that Promotional content is used through tools such as advertising, personal selling, word of mouth, direct marketing, public relations, sales promotion, and many other tools that aim at persuading and informing the customers of the possible advantages of the product for them to engage in the behavior of buying the product. This was rejected in the relationship that the respondents do not consider promotional items while deciding to buy the products they want.
Lastly, there is a moderate but statistically significant relationship between place and purchase decision (r = .425, ρ = .00), a finding that supports H4, which states that there is a positive relationship between place and purchase decision. A place's accessibility, convenience, and flexibility are crucial in a consumer's purchase decision. This finding is also supported by researchers (Putra, Tarigan, et al., 2020 and Widyastuti et al., 2020), who contend that the right places are aimed at making the right products available for the right customers and that the place is usually reliant on the product, prices, and promotion because, without them, the right place for the product might not be beneficial. After all, each marketing mix is vital for the other to be successful. Hence, the scholars conclude that a good environment, comfortable and clean place, good parking for the cars, and other aspects make a good fit in attracting customers to make a purchase decision. These conclusions from the scholars are confirmed by the results from the present study, where the place was found to be a reliant factor for a consumer's purchase decision after spotting their desired product. Hence, all hypotheses 1,2 and 3 are answered where two are accepted, and the remaining are not.
Table 9
Bivariate correlation between the product, price, promotion, and place with purchase decision
Variable (N = 146) | Purchase Decision | Product | Price | Promotion | Place |
Purchase Decision | 1 | | | | |
Product | r = − .041, ρ = .312 | 1 | | | |
Price | r = .241, ρ = .000 | r = − .094, ρ = .130 | 1 | | |
Promotion | r = − .099, ρ = .116 | r = − .108, ρ = .096 | r = − .084, ρ = .156 | 1 | |
Place | r = .425, ρ = .000 | r = − .111, ρ = .090 | r = .803, ρ = .000 | r = − .065, ρ = .219 | 1 |
r = 0.001 (1-tailed) |