Sample and Procedure
After a pretest (N = 196) to assess and purify the measures, we conducted a main survey to test the hypotheses, using data obtained from students enrolled at a major state university. Elimination of incomplete responses left 569 eligible responses for analysis. Average age of the respondents was 23.7 years; 47 percent were men and 53 percent were women; 34 percent worked full-time, 46 percent worked part-time, and 20 percent did not work; and 66 percent were Caucasian, 23 percent were African American, 2 percent were Hispanic, 6 percent were Asian, and 3 percent were of other ethnic origins.
Twelve versions of the questionnaire were prepared,
such that each version was customized for 1 of the 12
brands. The question items were identical across the versions, and only the brand name was different in the items.
The selected brands were assigned randomly to the
respondents, who were not given an opportunity to choose
a questionnaire to ensure validity of findings. The number
of responses ranged from 40 to 52 for the brands. There
was no significant statistical difference in the number of
responses among the different versions of the questionnaire (χ2 = 4.36, p = .96). (11)
Respondents completed the self-administered ques- tionnaire. Instructions emphasized that “there are no right or wrong answers; only your personal opinions matter” to minimize possible response bias (see Aronson, Ellsworth, Carlsmith, and Gonzales 1990). In the introduction section of the questionnaire, the purpose of the study was described and the importance of a respondent’s coopera- tion was stressed. The respondents were told that “the purpose of this study is to investigate how to manage brands successfully. To ensure valid and meaningful findings, we need your help.”
The validity and generalizability of student samples have been questioned because the student population does not represent the general population or “real people.” However, the use of student respondents was not a drawback for our study. First, surveys showed that the college students were primary consumers who had experienced (i.e., bought and/or consumed or owned) the three product categories used as stimuli in our study. The respondents’ product category purchasing experience, measured by a yes-no item of “Have you ever bought any brand of [product category X],” was 96 percent for athletic shoes, 91 percent for camera film, and 83 percent for television sets. Their current ownership and current usage rates were 93 percent, 72 percent, and 92 percent for athletic shoes, camera film, and television sets, respectively. Therefore, the respondents were a relevant segment for our study because they were a major consumer segment for the selected products. Second, for theorytesting research, a student sample has been deemed acceptable and even desirable. A maximally homogeneous sample (e.g., a student sample) has important advantages for theory validation research (Calder, Philips, and Tybout 1981). In the current study, students were as appropriate participants as nonstudents because they were highly involved in the buying processes of packaged brands as buyers, consumers, or influencers, as shown by their purchase and usage rates.
Sample and ProcedureAfter a pretest (N = 196) to assess and purify the measures, we conducted a main survey to test the hypotheses, using data obtained from students enrolled at a major state university. Elimination of incomplete responses left 569 eligible responses for analysis. Average age of the respondents was 23.7 years; 47 percent were men and 53 percent were women; 34 percent worked full-time, 46 percent worked part-time, and 20 percent did not work; and 66 percent were Caucasian, 23 percent were African American, 2 percent were Hispanic, 6 percent were Asian, and 3 percent were of other ethnic origins.Twelve versions of the questionnaire were prepared,such that each version was customized for 1 of the 12brands. The question items were identical across the versions, and only the brand name was different in the items.The selected brands were assigned randomly to therespondents, who were not given an opportunity to choosea questionnaire to ensure validity of findings. The numberof responses ranged from 40 to 52 for the brands. Therewas no significant statistical difference in the number ofresponses among the different versions of the questionnaire (χ2 = 4.36, p = .96). (11)Respondents completed the self-administered ques- tionnaire. Instructions emphasized that “there are no right or wrong answers; only your personal opinions matter” to minimize possible response bias (see Aronson, Ellsworth, Carlsmith, and Gonzales 1990). In the introduction section of the questionnaire, the purpose of the study was described and the importance of a respondent’s coopera- tion was stressed. The respondents were told that “the purpose of this study is to investigate how to manage brands successfully. To ensure valid and meaningful findings, we need your help.”The validity and generalizability of student samples have been questioned because the student population does not represent the general population or “real people.” However, the use of student respondents was not a drawback for our study. First, surveys showed that the college students were primary consumers who had experienced (i.e., bought and/or consumed or owned) the three product categories used as stimuli in our study. The respondents’ product category purchasing experience, measured by a yes-no item of “Have you ever bought any brand of [product category X],” was 96 percent for athletic shoes, 91 percent for camera film, and 83 percent for television sets. Their current ownership and current usage rates were 93 percent, 72 percent, and 92 percent for athletic shoes, camera film, and television sets, respectively. Therefore, the respondents were a relevant segment for our study because they were a major consumer segment for the selected products. Second, for theorytesting research, a student sample has been deemed acceptable and even desirable. A maximally homogeneous sample (e.g., a student sample) has important advantages for theory validation research (Calder, Philips, and Tybout 1981). In the current study, students were as appropriate participants as nonstudents because they were highly involved in the buying processes of packaged brands as buyers, consumers, or influencers, as shown by their purchase and usage rates.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..