Megawati
Simanjuntak
Department
of Family and Consumer Sciences,
Faculty
of Human Ecology, IPB University, Indonesia
E-mail: mega_juntak@apps.ipb.ac.id
Ulfah
Mubarokah
Department
of Family and Consumer Sciences,
Faculty
of Human Ecology, IPB University, Indonesia
E-mail:
ulfahmubarokah@gmail.com
Submission: 7/23/2020
Revision: 9/1/2020
Accept: 9/14/2020
ABSTRACT
This
study aimed to analyze the difference of
consumer education, lifestyle, and consumer empowerment in rural and urban
areas, and to analyze the effect of consumer education and lifestyle on the
consumer empowerment. This research used a cross-sectional design study with 120
housewives as the sample selected purposively. Data were analyzed using independent sample t-test, Mann-Whitney, and multiple linear regressions. There
were significant differences (p<0.01)
in consumer education, fulfilled lifestyle, believer lifestyle, and consumer empowerment index between the two
regions, where the urban area scores were higher compared to the rural area. Consumer education and length of education affected
positively and significantly (p<0.01)
on the consumer empowerment index, while
the lifestyle did not significantly
affect the consumer empowerment index. The higher intensity of consumer
education and higher education levels will increase the consumer empowerment index.
Keywords:
consumer education; consumer empowerment; lifestyle
1.
INTRODUCTION
Consumers are currently in an increasingly complex
market, information, and diverse selection regarding the goods and services
(Simanjuntak et al., 2014). The development of accessing information provides
convenience for consumers to obtain goods/services desired. However, access to
information is used by sellers for unfair trade practices so that consumers
become victims of dishonest promotions. This is evident in many cases of
consumer loss. Nurhayati and Elisabeth (2011) mentioned 30 cases of consumer losses
in goods trade and 31 cases of loss in property and services trade. The most prominent loss cases are in
property business (36%), vehicle buying (20%), food (16%), and some household
appliances (8%). Various incidents that violate consumer
rights still often occur in many sectors; sometimes, even consumers are not
aware that their rights are being violated. The incidents that have occurred
have been varied, from simple to complex cases (Safari & Simanjuntak,
2020). This condition proves that access to consumer
education is crucial to be done so that consumers do not experience losses.
The main
problem of consumers today is the low level of consumer awareness of their
rights. This potentially reduces the ability of consumers to protect themselves
from fraudulent business actors (Isaac & Zabil, 2012; Kurniawan, 2012). Based on research data
from the Australian Government (2011), 87% of respondents do not know about
their rights as consumers. According to PAIM et al. (2012), awareness about
consumer rights will increase along with the amount of information obtained
from consumer education.
Consumer education is one of the means to form skilled
and conscious consumers toward their rights (Nardo et al., 2011). Simanjuntak
et al. (2014) indicate that access to consumer education obtained by consumers
living in the city and urban areas is still low, and there is a marked
difference between the two regions. Factors that hinder information seeking are
self, ignorance, and laziness (Juaini, Sinaga & Rainathami, 2012). This
condition shows that the socialization of consumer education is essential,
considering the low level of consumer education access. Weak consumer education
can be measured by looking at the consumer empowerment index. Low access to consumer
education can also be seen from the broad openness of consumers to new things.
Consumer lifestyle may indicate their openness to new ideas.
The fulfilled lifestyle shows the lifestyles of a
responsible, professional, educated, high-income consumer, always aware of the
development of the outside world, and very open to new information and social
change (Thogersen, 2005). Therefore, the fulfilled lifestyle may reflect the
power of consumers because of the many opportunities to gain access to such education.
Based on the above problems, it is necessary to
empower consumers to become consumers who can submit their complaints at the
time of disadvantage and can assert their rights (Nardo et al., 2011). Consumer
empowerment is a positive subjective state generated by consumers through
increased control (Wathieu, Benner & Carmon, 2002). According to Wright,
Newman, and Dennis (2006), consumers are considered to be empowered if they can
defend their rights. Consumer empowerment can be promoted through government
regulation and consumer education (Hunter & Garnefeld, 2008). Factors affecting empowerment are
the level of education (Suja, 2012, Pratama, 2013, Simanjuntak et al., 2014),
geographic location (Chandrasekhar, 2012), income (Tayde & Chole, 2010), and age (Nardo et al., 2011).
The research
results of Simanjuntak et al. (2014) show that consumers who live in rural and
urban areas are yet less empowered, and there is a significant difference
between the two regions. The lowest dimensions of consumer empowerment are
consumer firmness, the experience of unfair business practices, and the
fulfillment of consumer rights. In contrast, the best aspect that reflects
consumer empowerment is consumer
skills. This illustrates that consumers who live in urban and rural areas have
not been empowered.
Several studies have also been
carried out to determine the empowerment of Indonesian consumers. Specifically,
the consumer empowerment index in generation Y reaches 53.84 of the index
(Simanjuntak, 2015). Thematic measurement of consumer empowerment indexes is
carried out in several sectors. The research results show that the average
index of consumer empowerment in the food sector 38.63 (Simanjuntak, 2018),
formal education 54.34 (Simanjuntak & Umiyati, 2021), telecommunications
51.6 (Simanjuntak & Putri, 2020), online shopping 49.7 (Simanjuntak, 2019;
Simanjuntak & Musyifah, 2016), electronic products 41.78 (Simanjuntak &
Putri, 2018), services in the health sector 48.85 (Simanjuntak & Yuja,
2021). Of all the studies conducted, the lowest dimension is in the behavior of
complaints. This is supported by other research that focuses on complaint
behavior which concludes that consumer complaint behavior is still lacking when
experiencing disappointment with business actors (Simanjuntak, 2019; Wandani
& Simanjuntak, 2019). Thus, the complaints behavior which is still very low
as part of the indicator of consumer empowerment, needs more attention
(Simanjuntak & Hamimi, 2019).
Based on the empirical studies above, consumer empowerment is an attractive research topic
concerning previous research (e.g., Simanjuntak et
al., 2014). The difference between this research and the previous research lies
in the determination of samples and sampling techniques. This research focused
on the housewives who work full-time in the domestic sector as the research
sample. In contrast, previous studies included housewives who both work in the
public and domestic sectors. Another difference is the addition of lifestyle
construct to increase the diversity of predictors that might affect consumer
empowerment as suggested in prior research.
This
study aims to analyze the difference in consumer education, lifestyle, and
consumer empowerment between urban and
rural areas, and to analyze the effect of consumer education and lifestyle on
consumer empowerment. Based on these objectives, the following questions can be
formulated: (1) How does the consumer education, lifestyle, and consumer
empowerment differ between consumers living in urban and rural areas?; and (2)
How does the consumer education and lifestyle affect consumer empowerment?
Based on the previous researches, the research
framework is presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1: The research framework
The research
hypotheses are as follows.
· H1: There is a significant
difference in the consumer education,
lifestyle, and consumer
empowerment in urban and
rural areas.
· H2: There is a significant
influence of the consumer education
and lifestyle on consumer empowerment.
2.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This
research was a cross-sectional study with a survey method. The study was
conducted in urban and rural areas of the Bogor region, West Java, Indonesia,
which was selected purposively. The
population and sample in this study were housewives who worked full-time in the
domestic sector, organized, and managed finances, and made decisions on
household spending.
Housewives were chosen as the research sample due to
their most significant share of responsibility in determining the purchase
decision of a household. Using the
purposive sampling techniques, the total number of samples of 120 housewives
was recruited in this study. Data were obtained through interviews using
questionnaires and a showcard. Interviews were conducted directly by visiting
respondents in their homes. Before the interview, respondents were first asked
to participate in the research and signed the informed consent provided. The
interview lasted between 15 and 30 minutes.
Primary data of the study included (1)
sample characteristics (age, family income, length of education, and geographic
location); (2) access to consumer education; (3) lifestyle; and (4) consumer
empowerment (selection and preference of goods/services, purchasing behavior,
information seeking, knowledge of the consumer-related law and consumer
protection agencies, tendency to talk, and complaint
behavior).
Data on age were obtained through an
open-ended question, then grouped into the early adult (18-40 years),
middle-aged adult (41-59 years), and older adult (≥60 years) (Hurlock,
2013). The length of education included not completing school, not completing
primary school (<6 years), completed primary school (6 years), junior high
school (9 years), senior high school (12 years), diploma (15 years), and undergraduate (16 years). Geographical locations were divided
into urban and rural areas.
The consumer education refers to how
often consumers receive consumer education. Data on this measure were obtained
using an adapted and modified instrument (Simanjuntak et al., 2014). This
instrument contains seven valid items (α = 0.75): seven items of consumer
education information access (α = 0.778), seven items of consumer
education, and eight items of sources to obtain consumer education. The Likert
scale was used to measure the access of consumer education (0 = never, 1 =
sometimes, 2 = often, 3 = always). The composite scores were categorized into
four categories: deficient (score ≤25), low (score 26-50), good (score
51-75), and excellent (score >75).
Lifestyle is an illustration of
utilizing resources and developing a life orientation through appearance,
hobbies, careers, education, social relationships, and consumption behavior.
The consumer lifestyle measurement used the adopted instrument of VALS2 (Willbanks,
2005). It consists of six questions describing the dominant life orientation of
the research participant. Participants chose the column that best describes
their lifestyle: achievers, strivers, fulfilled, believers, makers, and
experiencers. It aims to look at the most dominant lifestyle types in a
population to give a general overview of the lifestyle characteristics that may
affect purchasing behavior (Willbanks, 2005). Lifestyle was rated on a dummy
score as follows: achievers (1) and non-achievers (0), strivers (1) and
non-strivers (0), fulfilled (1) and non-fulfilled (0), believers (1) and
non-believers (0), makers (1) and non-makers (0), experiencers (1) and
non-experiencers (0).
Consumer empowerment refers to one’s
active search for information before buying, knowledge of the laws and consumer
protection agencies, the ability to choose goods and services preferences when
making a purchase, and the tendency to talk and complain if they are harmed or
disappointed after purchase. The consumer empowerment instrument was adapted
from the research instrument by Simanjuntak et al. (2014). The instrument is
composed of seven valid items of goods/services selection (α = 0.611),
five items of domestic product preference (α = 0.160), eight items of purchasing
behavior (α = 0.558), nine valid questions of information search (α =
0.832), five valid questions of knowledge of the law and consumer protection
agency (α = 0.916), two valid questions talking tendencies (α =
0.149), and ten valid questions of complaint behavior (α = 0.852).
The consumer empowerment index is classified into three purchasing phases, namely pre-purchase, purchase, and post-purchase. The dimensions and items in the instrument explained above can be mapped into buying stages as follows: (1) Questions in the pre-purchase phase include seeking information (nine questions) and knowledge of the law and consumer protection agencies (five questions); (2) Question in the purchase phase include selection and preference of goods/services (12 questions) and buying behavior (eight questions); and (3) Questions in post-purchase phase include the tendency to talk or to hear opinions and complaints (two questions) and complaint behavior (10 questions).
The scale used to measure consumer
empowerment is as follows: “correct” coded as (1) and “incorrect” coded as (0),
“know” coded as (1) and “do not know” coded as (0), "yes" coded as
(1) and "no" coded as (0), "local products" coded as (1)
and "non-local products" coded as (0). A three-point Likert scale was
used to measure dimensions of frequency with the following scoring:
"never" rated on (0), "sometimes" rated on (1),
"often" rated on (2), and "always" rated on (3). The total
score of each dimension was then indexed to a scale of 0-100.
The weighting classification of each
dimension of the consumer empowerment index is as follows: 40% of complaint
behavior, 20% of information search, 15% of purchasing behavior, 10% of
knowledge of the law and consumer protection agencies, 10% of selection and
preference of goods/services, and 5% of the tendency to talk. The complaint
behavior is categorized into five categories: deficient (score ≤25), low
(score 26-50), good (score 51-75), and excellent (score >75). The consumer
empowerment index in this study was categorized as follows: very unempowered
(score 0.0-20.0), unempowered (score 20.1-40.0), fairly empowered (score
40.1-60.0), empowered (score 60.1-80.0) and very empowered (score 80.1-100.0).
Data analysis was carried out using
Microsoft Office Excel and Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) 22 for
Windows. Next, descriptive analyses were used to obtain frequency, range, mean,
and standard deviation. To compare the two regions, the independent sample
T-test was performed to differentiate the age, length of education, total
income, consumer education, and consumer empowerment index. The Mann-Whitney
test was employed to examine the differences in lifestyle construct. In
contrast, the multiple linear regression test was to examine the effect of
consumer education and lifestyle on the consumer empowerment index.
3.
RESULT
3.1.
Characteristics of Housewives
3.1.1. Age
Housewives, both in urban and rural
areas, were in the early adult category (18-40 years). Two-fifths (40%) of the
housewives in the rural area were in the middle adult category (41-59 years).
The average age of housewives in urban areas (M = 37.1) was younger than those
in rural households (M = 38.2). There was no significant difference between the
two regions in terms of respondents’ age (p
= 0.502).
3.1.2. Length of Education
The length of education
of most housewives in the urban area was at senior high school (12 years). The
duration of the education of housewives in rural areas was equal to primary
school (6 years). The highest education of housewives in urban areas was 16
years, while in rural areas, it was 12 years. The difference in the length of
education between the two regions was significant (p = 0.000).
3.1.3. Family Income
The average family
income in urban areas was Rp2,481,666.7 per month. This number was higher than
in rural areas, which was Rp2,085,833.3 per month. The minimum income of
families in both areas was Rp1,000,000 per month. The maximum family income in
urban areas was Rp7,000,000 per month and Rp6,000,000 per month in rural areas.
Based on the test result, there was a significant difference in family income
between the two regions (p = 0.048).
3.2.
Consumer Education
3.2.1. Consumer Educations Content
The three content of consumer education
that many housewives who live in urban and rural areas had access to was how to
buy the right products services (urban = 73.3%, rural = 28.3%), tips to be
smart consumers (urban = 31.7%, rural = 20%) and complaints (urban = 30%, rural
= 13.3%). The apparent difference between housewives in urban and rural areas
was found in information to buy the right product/service, information to
complain, information about consumer protection laws and consumer protection
agencies, and information to read labels.
3.2.2. Source of Consumer Education Access
The most widely used
source of consumer education access by housewives in urban and rural areas was
television (urban = 63.3%, rural = 25%), reference group including friends,
neighbors, and family (urban = 48.3%, rural = 31.7%), and internet (urban =
43.3%, rural = 10%). Radio was a source of consumer education that was less
desirable to housewives to gain access to consumer education (urban = 0%, rural
= 1.7%). Based on the test results, there was a significant difference in
consumer education sources in urban and rural areas, as follows: print media
(brochures, leaflets, and booklets) (p
= 0.000), print media (magazine and newspaper) (p = 0.008), banners (p =
0.002), internet (p = 0.000), and
television (p = 0.000).
3.2.3. The Intensity of Consumer Education
The consumer education access
obtained by housewives in urban (78.3%) and rural areas (98.3%) was considered
very poor. The average score of the consumer education access in urban and
rural areas was very low (urban = 13.5 ± 13.8, rural = 4.4 ± 7.7). The low
access to consumer education in housewives living in rural areas is arguably
due to difficulties in accessing consumer education and the lack of initiatives
to seek consumer education information. In a prior study, factors that hamper
information retrieval include lack of initiative, laziness, and ignorance (Juaini, Sinaga
& Rainathami, 2012). Based on the
test results, the consumer education access in rural and urban areas proved to
have a significant difference (p =
0.000).
The consumer education
materials with the most frequent accessed were how to buy the correct
products/services (urban = 38.3%, rural = 11.7%), complaints (urban = 17.5%,
rural = 3.3%), the introduction of consumer protection agencies (urban = 13.3%,
rural = 1.7%), the introduction of the Consumer Protection Act (urban = 11.7%,
rural = 3.3%), and the introduction of consumer rights and obligations (urban =
10.8%, rural = 3.3%). The most rarely accessed information was how to read
product labels (urban = 3.3%, rural = 2.5%) and tips to be a smart consumers
(urban = 4.2%, rural = 2.5%).
3.3.
Lifestyle
Willbanks (2005) divides the consumer lifestyle orientation into six groups, namely achievers, strivers, fulfilled, experiencers, believers, and makers. Achievers are consumers who have high incomes and love popular products. Strivers are low-income and status-oriented consumers. Fulfilled are adult consumers, responsible, educated, and always know the development of the outside world. Experiencers are high-income consumers who are active in social and sports activities and love new products. Believers are consumers who love local products and are active in social activities. Makers are consumers who have low incomes and love practical things.
Believers are the most
common lifestyle among housewives in urban (46.7%) and rural areas (73.3%).
Strivers are the lifestyle category with the fewest housewives in urban (1.7%)
and rural areas (0%). Based on the test results, the significant difference was
evident in the fulfilled lifestyle (p
= 0.001) and believers (p = 0.003)
between housewives in rural and urban areas.
3.4.
Consumer Empowerment Index
The average empowerment index of urban
housewives (41.9 ± 17.01) was higher than that in rural areas (28.6 ± 12.6),
and there was a significant difference between the two regions. More than
two-fifths of housewives living in urban areas (45%) were categorized as less
powerful. As many as 55% of housewives in rural areas were included in the
category of helplessness. As many as 13.3% of urban housewives were included in
the powerless category, while rural housewives were only 1.7%. This condition
reflects that housewives in urban areas were more empowered than those living
in rural areas.
On average, each dimension of the
consumer empowerment index in urban areas had a higher tendency than in rural
areas. The average of the highest dimension of the consumer empowerment index
is the dimension of urban buying behavior, which is 89.1, whereas the lowest in
the knowledge dimension of law and the consumer protection institution in the
rural area which is 4.0 (Table 1).
Table 1: Average
score, standard deviation, and significance value of consumer empowerment index
Dimension |
Urban |
Rural |
p |
1. Search
information |
51.8±30.3 |
45.7±20.1 |
0.263 |
2. Knowledge
of consumer protection laws and institutions |
24.3±33.4 |
4.0±15.5 |
0.000** |
3. Choice
and preference of goods/services |
64.7±20.6 |
51.7±16.9 |
0.000** |
4. Purchase
behavior |
89.1±28.7 |
51.5±19.9 |
0.000** |
5. Tendencies to talk |
56.4±20.8 |
48.9±26.9 |
0.090 |
6. Complaint
behaviour |
16.08±16.8 |
9.4±10.6 |
0.010* |
Note: *significant on p<0.05; **significant on p<0.01
3.5.
Factors Affecting the Consumer
Empowerment Index
The classical assumption test was
performed to meet the predetermined requirements before performing the
regression test, including normality, multicollinearity, heteroscedasticity,
and autocorrelation tests. The data in this research spread around the diagram
and followed the regression model. Thus, the normality assumption was
fulfilled. Also, there was no multicollinearity between variables. The best
model for the regression test was chosen based on the enter method. The
variables studied were also free from heteroscedasticity, marked with points on
the scatterplot spread above and below the Y-axis. The variables were also free
from autocorrelation as the value of Durbin Watson approached the value of +2.
The result of
multiple regression analysis showed that there was a significant influence of
the independent variables (age, income, duration of education, geographical
location, fulfilled lifestyle, and consumer education access) on the consumer
empowerment index, as many as 74.7% (adjusted R2 = 0.747). The rest of the
25.3% were influenced by other variables that were not examined in this study.
Partially, education had a significant and positive effect on consumer
empowerment by 3.866 times (β = 0.255; p
= 0.002). That is, any increase in one-year-long education of the housewives
will increase the consumer empowerment index by 3.866 points.
The result of the
regression analysis showed that there was a significant and positive effect of
consumer education on the consumer empowerment index by 0.659 times (β =
0.486; p = 0.000). Thus, every
increase of one point of consumer education access will increase the consumer
empowerment index by 0.659 points (Table 2). The results of this study are in
line with Simanjuntak et al. (2014), where the education and the consumer
education show a significant and positive impact on consumer empowerment. The
regression equation of this model is as follows:
Y= 21.373 - 0.136 X1 +1.101 X2 +
3.866X3 – 3.452 D1 + 1.884 D2 + 0.659 X4 + ε
Table 2: Results of the multiple regression analysis of
factors that affect the consumer empowerment index
Variables |
Consumer empowerment |
p |
|
B |
Βeta |
||
Constants |
21.373 |
|
|
Age (X1) (years) |
-0.136 |
-0.072 |
0.282 |
Income (X2) (IDR/month) |
1.101 |
0.077 |
0.267 |
Length of education (X3)
(years) |
3.866 |
0.255 |
0.002** |
Geographical location (D1) (0
= rural, 1 = urban) |
-3.452 |
0.106 |
0.140 |
Lifestyle (D2) (0 = non fulfilleds, 1 = fulfilleds) |
1.884 |
0.036 |
0.589 |
Consumer education Access (X4)
(time/month) |
0.659 |
0.486 |
0.000** |
F |
23.791 |
||
Adj. R2 |
0.747 |
||
Sig |
0.000** |
note: **significant on p<0.01
4.
DISCUSSION
This study found that
there was a significant difference in the consumer education and consumer
empowerment between housewives in urban and rural areas. However, there was no
significant difference in lifestyle between the two regions. This finding is in
line with the study by Simanjuntak et al. (2014), where there was a significant
difference in the frequency of consumer education between districts and
municipalities. Housewives who live in urban and rural areas rarely access
consumer education. This can be seen from the consumer education access in the
deficient category in the urban area (78.35%) and rural (98.3%). The situation
is suspected because of the socialization of consumer education has no yet
optimally implemented in rural areas of Indonesia.
Consumer education can
be obtained through printed media sources, reference groups, and electronic
media (Benn, 2004). Three sources of information that many housewives in urban
and rural areas had access to consumer education were television, reference
groups, and the internet. This finding is in line with the results of research
by Mishra and Kumar (2012), suggesting that access information that most
consumers were interested in was television. Radio was a source of access to
consumer education rarely used by housewives in urban (0%) and rural areas
(1.7%).
Reference groups
(friends, neighbors, and families) are the second most accessible source for
housewives to obtain consumer education. Only 1.7% of housewives in rural areas
used the internet as a source to access consumer education. This is in line
with the general picture of housewives in rural areas who are less likely to
use or get access to the internet. The ease of internet usage is determined by
networks in a region and the ability of housewives to operate it (Pitt et al.,
2002).
The socialization of
consumer education is one of the efforts to increase consumer awareness of
their rights (Isaac &
Zabil, 2012). The percentage of
consumer education materials about the introduction of the rights and
obligations of consumers in rural areas was still low (1.7%). According to Mcgregor
(2005), access to consumer education may increase consumer knowledge about
their rights. Among factors that influence the high-intensity level of
information access is self (Lyon et al., 2002). Further, this factor can be
seen from the lifestyles of consumers who like or dislike new information; this
characteristic is portrayed among groups with fulfilled lifestyles (Willbanks,
2005).
There was a
significant difference between housewives with fulfilled (p = 0.001) and believer lifestyles (p = 0.003). Consumers with believer lifestyles tend to be obedient
and orderly to the values determined (Willbanks, 2005). Also, consumers with
believer lifestyles reflect value-conserved consumers but are slightly
concealed against new information (KIM et al.,
2003). The lifestyle orientation of believers is less reflective of consumer
empowerment. This trait can be seen from the characteristics of the consumers
who are obedient and responsible to a value but do not have extensive knowledge
and tend to be passive.
On the other hand, the
lifestyle that reflects the hallmark of consumer empowerment is fulfilled. The
fulfilled lifestyle is represented by the mature, responsible, firm,
professional, educated, active, high-income consumers, knowing the development
of the outside and the open with new information and social change (Thogersen,
2005). The fulfilled lifestyle can reflect a powerless consumer, which means a
compelling consumer has much knowledge and ability to manage his knowledge with
firmness in response to change. Sun and Wu (2007) found a significant
difference between Chinese urban and rural consumers in the use of products
that reflect the orientation of life. Urban consumers prefer products that
reflect the ability of the resources they possess. Also, there is a marked
difference in the lifestyle of Indian consumers in deciding product purchases (Sehrawet
& Kundu, 2004).
Consumer empowerment is the
consumer skill in defending his rights and in making decisions (Boje & Rosile, 2001). The average consumer empowerment index for
housewives who live in urban areas is higher than that in rural areas. The
condition is reflected by the number of housewives in urban areas who were
categorized as empowered (13.3%), whereas only 1.7% were identified in rural
areas. The average difference in the consumer empowerment index is shown in its
dimensions in which urban housewives show higher scores than rural housewives.
The highest average score of the dimension of the consumer empowerment index is
buying behavior. In contrast, the lowest average score is the knowledge of
consumer protection laws and institutions.
Knowledge of law and consumer
protection institutions for housewives in urban and rural areas was still low.
In terms of the difference between the two regions, a higher percentage score
was found among urban housewives. Only 3.3% of housewives in rural areas knew
about rights as consumers; this finding in line with the results of research by
Simanjuntak et al. (2015), which found that more than half of housewives in
urban areas (52.5%) and a small proportion of those in rural areas (7.5%) are
aware of laws governing consumer protection.
The proportion
of housewives who tell their bad experiences after unsatisfying product
purchases was still low. The finding indicated by the low percentage score of
housewives who reported "always" in response to the question “telling
my bad purchase experiences to others.” This situation will undoubtedly affect
the behavior of complaints. According to Velázquez et al. (2006), complaining
influences the intention of complaints.
The behavior of
complaints in Indonesia is still low, indicated by the number of cases of loss,
but only a few who complain (Nurhayati & Elisabeth,
2011). According to Kim, Wang, and Mattila (2010), housewives who live in urban
and rural areas choose to withdraw from such adverse conditions by discontinuing
products or switching to other products rather than making a complaint to the
business actors. A similar finding is also shown from the in-depth interviews
in which influences which had felt disadvantaged when buying food products
chose not to file a complaint nor ask for compensation. As suggested by Wojciszke
et al. (2009) and Kauffeld (2009), there are still many respondents who do not
complain at the time of disappointment after purchase.
The access of education had a
significant positive effect on consumer empowerment. In contrast, the lifestyle
did not have a significant and positive impact on consumer empowerment. The
results of this study are in line with the research of Simanjuntak et al.
(2013) as well as Hunter and Garnefeld (2008), suggesting that the length of
education and the access of consumer education had a significant and positive
impact on consumer empowerment. Also, this finding supports the results of
other studies, including Nardo et al. (2011); Rahman and Naoroze (2007); and Primary
(2013), where the level of education affects the consumer empowerment.
Age had no significant
effect on consumer empowerment, which is not in line with the study of Nardo et
al. (2014) and Shibly (2009), who found that age was negatively associated with
consumer empowerment. Also, this finding is in contrast with Tyde and Chole (2010),
who stated that empowerment was influenced by income. According to Ratnawati (2011),
geographic location affected women empowerment; this is not in line with the results
of this study, which found no significant effect of the geographic location on
consumer empowerment. Lifestyle had no significant effect on consumer
empowerment; this is arguably due to lifestyle depicts only the orientation of
life and does not show the skills and assertiveness that fit the picture of the
powerless consumer.
The contribution of
this research to the development of science may provide a reference for
scientists or researchers, especially in consumer science, that focuses on the
efforts of consumer empowerment through consumer education. The government,
especially the Consumer Dispute Settlement Agency (BPSK), the Directorate of
Standardization and Consumer Protection, the Ministry, and the Indonesian
Consumer Protection Foundation (YLKI), are expected to contribute to providing
information on the government efforts in disseminating education and consumer
protection. Also, the results of this study may serve information and insight
to promote smart, critical, educated, and wise consumers in Indonesia.
In
conclusion, the results of this research partially answer the first research
question. The access of consumer education among urban and rural
housewives in this study areas is still low, and there is a significant difference
between the two regions. Consumer education on knowledge of the Consumer
Protection Act and consumer protection institution is also low. The primary
sources to obtain information regarding consumer education for housewives are
television and reference groups (friends, family, and neighbors). The fulfilled lifestyle describes consumers who
are very concerned about new information. Therefore, this lifestyle approaches
the characteristics of consumer empowerment. There is a significant difference
in the lifestyle of the fulfilled and the believer between the two regions. The
lifestyle that most held by housewives in rural and urban areas is believers..
The level of customer empowerment in urban and rural areas
is still low, and there is a significant difference between the two regions.
The average empowerment of housewives in urban areas is better than in rural
areas. Some facts indicating that housewives living in urban and rural areas
have low empowerment level are: (1) The low access of consumer education, especially
regarding consumer rights, the introduction of consumer protection law and
agencies; (2) poor understanding of goods selection according to exchange rate;
(3) poor understanding of consumer financial literacy; (4) poor understanding
of the standard clause; and (5) very lack of assertiveness in defending their
rights and lack of willingness to file a complaint and compensation.
The results of this research also partially answer the
second research question. Factors that affect consumer empowerment among
housewives in urban and rural areas are the length of education and the access
of consumer education whereas lifestyle and characteristics of the sample (age,
income, geographic location) do not affect consumer empowerment. Therefore,
consumer empowerment is strongly influenced by consumer knowledge either
through formal or informal education.
Based on the findings
of this study, increasing the access of consumer education is required to
improve consumer empowerment. Content of consumer education that needs to be
promoted includes the introduction of the law and consumer protection agencies,
and the introduction of consumer rights and obligations. The socialization of
consumer education in the form of direct counseling may serve as an appropriate
empowerment effort for housewives in urban and rural areas.
This is because
housewives have a high interest in getting consumer education provided directly
by educators than through print media. Also, efforts to empower consumers
should be made by establishing cooperation between the government and related
institutions that are influential for a group of housewives in each region.
This effort is expected to realize the socialization of consumer education in
every region.
REFERENCES
Australian
Government. (2011). Australia Consumer Survey 2011. Australia: Australian Government, ISBN:
978-0-642-74680-1.
Benn, J. (2004). Consumer education between ‘consumership’ and citizenship experiences from studies of young people. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 28(2), 108-116. DOI: 10.1111/j.1470-6431.2003.00364.x.
Boje, D. M., & Rosile, G. A. (2001). Where is the power in empowerment? Answer from flollent
and clegg. Journal of Applied Behavioral
Sciences, 37(1), 9-117. DOI: 10.1177/0021886301371006.
Chandrasekhar. (2012).
Consumer buying behavior and brand loyalty in rural markets. Journal
of Business and Management(42), 50-67. DOI: 10.9790/487X-0325067.
Hunter, G. L., & Garnefeld, I. (2008). When does consumer empowerment lead to satisfied
customers? Some Mediating and Moderating Effects of the
Empowerment-Satisfaction Link. Journal of Research for Consumers, 15(1), 1-4.
Ishak, S., & Zabil, N. F. (2012). Impact of consumer awareness and knowledge on effective consumer
behavior. Journal of Asian Social
Science, 8(13), 263-296. DOI: 10.5539/ass.v8n13p108.
Juaini, A., Sinaga, D., & Rainathami, H. (2012). Information seeking behavior
by users in the Cistral UNPAD library circulation service. E-journal Mahasiswa Universitas Padjadjaran, 1(1), 1-15.
Kauffeld, S. (2009). Complaint, and solution-oriented circles:
interaction patterns in workgroup discussions. European Journal
of Work and Organizational Psychology, 18(3), 267-294. DOI: 10.1080/13594320701693209.
Kim, M .G., Wang, C., & Mattila, D. A. (2010). The relationship between
consumer complaining behavior and service recovery. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
22(7), 975-991. DOI: 10.1108/09596111011066635.
Kim, Y., Sullivan, P., Trotter, C., & Forney, J. (2003). Lifestyle shopping center: A retail evolution of the 21 St century. Journal of Shopping Center Research, 10(2), 61-88.
Kurniawan.
(2012). Problems
and constraints of consumer dispute resolution through BPSK (consumer dispute
resolution agency).. Jurnal Dinamika
Hukum, 12(1), 1-45. DOI: 10.20884/1.jdh.2012.12.1.113.
Lyon P.,
Kinney D., & Colquhoun A. (2002). Experience, change, and vulnerability:
consumer education for older people revisited. International Journal of
Consumer Studies, 26(2), 178–187. DOI:
10.1046/j.1470-6431.2002.00240.x.
Mcgregor, S. L. T. (2005). Sustainable consumer empowerment
through critical consumer education: a typology of consumer education
approaches. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 2(95), 437–447. DOI:
10.1111/j.1470-6431.2005.00467.x.
Mishra S. K., & Kumar M. (2011). How mutual fund investors’objective and subjective knowledge impacts their information search and processing behaviour. Journal of Financial Services Marketing, 16(1), 27-41. DOI: 10.1057/fsm.2011.1.
Nardo, M., Loi, M., Rosati, R., & Manca, A. (2011). The consumer empowerment
index: a measure of skills, awareness, and engagement of European consumers. JRC Scientific and Technical Reports. Luxembourg: Publications
Office of the European Union, ISBN: 978-92-79-19926-4, P. 211–229. DOI:
10.2788. 9102.
Nurhayati, I., & Elisabeth, Y. M. (2011). Consumer protection through formal and informal social
control. Jurnal Ekonomi dan Bisnis,
10(1), 71-76.
Paim, L., Masud, J., & Haron, S. A. (2012). Research on consumer Well-Being in
Malaysia. Journal Family and Economic, 3(35), 227–230.
Pitt, L., Berthonb, P., Watson, R., & Zinkhan, G. (2002). The internet and the birth of real consumer power. Business Horizons, 45(2), 7-14.
Pratama, C. (2013). Factors influencing the empowerment of Joho village women
on the slope of Mount Wilis. Jurnal
Kebijakan dan Manajemen Publik, 1(1), 12-19.
Rahman, M.
H., & Naoroze K. (2007). Women empowerment through participation in an
aquaculture: experience of a large scale technology demonstration project in
Bangladesh. Journal of Social Science, 3(4), 164-171. DOI: 10.3844/jssp.2007.164.171.
Ratnawati, S. (2011).
Empowerment model of rural poor women through entrepreneurship development. Jurnal Kewirausahaan, ISSN. 1978-4724, 5(2), 1-10.
Safari, A., & Simanjuntak, M. (2020). Consumer Protection: An Introduction. Safari, A,. Dalimunthe, A.R.L,. Anggraini, A.T,. Parman, A,. Muslim, E,. Simanjuntak, M. Unboxing Consumer Protection. Bogor: IPB Press. pp. 1-24
Sehrawet, M., & Kundu, S. C.
(2004).
Consumption patterns of India. International Journal of Consumers Studies,
3(3), 630-638.
Shibly, H. A. (2009). A
characterization of consumer empowerment drawn from three views of power. ABAC
Journal, 29(3), 65-74.
Simanjuntak, M. (2015). Consumer empowerment index among undergraduate students of Bogor Agricultural University, Indonesia. Asian Journal of Business and Management, 3(3), 183–191.
Simanjuntak, M. (2019). Generation Y's complaint behavior toward online shopping. Independent Journal of Management & Production, 10(1), 101-116. http://dx.doi.org/10.14807/ijmp.v10i1.839
Simanjuntak, M., & Musyifah, I. (2016). Online shopping behavior on Generation Y in Indonesia. Global Business Finance Review, 21(1), 33-45.
Simanjuntak, M., & Putri, R.R.E. (2020). How empowered is the consumer in telecommunications sector: the role of socio-demographic and lifestyle? Indonesian Management Journal, forthcoming.
Simanjuntak, M., & Putri, S.A. (2018). Consumer empowerment index of electronic product buying. Independent Journal of Management & Production, 9(4), 1165-1183. http://www.ijmp.jor.br/index.php/ijmp/article/view/814
Simanjuntak, M., & Umiyati, S. (2021). The effect of demographic, social, and economic characteristics on consumer empowerment in education institutions. Independent Journal of Management & Production. forthcoming.
Simanjuntak, M., & Yuja, S. (2021). Understanding The Consumer Empowerment In Health Service. Independent Journal of Management & Production. forthcoming.
Simanjuntak, M., Amanah, S., Puspitawati, H., & Asngari, P. S. (2013). Modelling consumer
empowerment level. Economic Journal of
Emerging Markets, 5(2), 109.119. DOI: 10.20885/ejem.vol5.iss2.art4.
Simanjuntak, M., Amanah, S., Puspitawati, H., & Asngari, P. S. (2014). Consumer empowerment profile in rural and urban
area. Asean Marketing Journal, 15(1), 38-49. DOI:
10.21002/amj.v6i1.3611.
Simanjuntak, M., Amanah, S., Puspitawati, H., & Asngari, P. S. (2014). Study of
consumer education in Bogor, Indonesia. Asian
Journal of Business and Management, 2(5), 481-490.
Simanjuntak, M., Hamimi, U.K. (2019). Complaint handling and Word-of-Mouth (WOM) communication. Journal of Family & Consumer Science, 12(1), 75-86. https://doi.org/10.24156/jikk.2019.12.1.75
Simanjuntak, M., Utami, F.
S., & Johan I. R. (2015). Vulnerability of consumers and purchasing
behavior of packaging food products. Jurnal Ilmu Keluarga & Konsumen,
8(3), 193-273. DOI: 10.24156/jCEI.2015.8.3.193.
Suja, S. (2012). Women empowerment through
self-help group an evaluative study. Sona Global Management Review, 6(3), 35-84.
Sun, T., & Wu, G. (2007). Consumption patterns of
Chines urban and rural consumers. Journal
of Marketing, 21(3), 245-253. DOI: 10.1108/07363760410542156.
Tayde, V. V., & Chole, R. R. (2010). Empowerment appraisal of rural
women in marathwada region of Maharashtra state. Journal of Consumer,
10(1), 1-45.
Thogersen, J. (2005). How may consumer policy empower consumers for sustainable lifestyles?. Journal of Consumer Policy, 28(3), 143–178.
Velázquez,
B. M., Contri, G. B., Saura, I. G., & Blasco,
M. F. (2006).
Antecedents to complaint behavior in the context of restaurant goers. International Review of Retail,
Distribution and Consumer Research, 16(5), 493-517. DOI:
10.1080/09593960600980030.
Wandani,
D., & Simanjuntak, M. (2019). Personality, motivation, and behavior of
complaints based on ethnicity. Journal
of Family & Consumer Science, 12(3), 236-247.
https://doi.org/10.24156/jikk.2019.12.3.236
Wathieu, L., Benner, L., & Carmon, Z. (2002). Consumer control and empowerment. Marketing Letters, 13(3), 297-305.
Willbanks, J. K. (2005). Exploring
lifestyle orientation, attitude toward lifestyle merchandising, and attitude
toward lifestyle advertising as predictor of behavioral intention to purchase
lifestyle home furnishing products.
Thesis. Texas: University of North Texas.
Wojciszke., Baryła,
B., & Sudziarska, A. S. (2009). Saying is experiencing: Affective
consequences of complaining and affirmation. Journal of Polish Psychological Bulletin, 40(2), 4-84. DOI:
10.2478/s10059-009-0008-0.
Wright, L. T., Newman, A., & Dennis, C. (2006). Enhancing consumer empowerment. European Journal of Marketing, 40(10),
925-935. DOI: 10.1108/03090560610680934.