Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Journal of Business.
http://www.jstor.org
399
OBJECTIVES
The objective of the present study was to investigate the validity of using
student subjects to make judgments about the behavior of household
consumers in general, and specifically with respect to the selection of
commonly purchased products. Student and household subjects' re-
sponses were contrasted across a variety of dimensions to reveal degree
of congruence along (1) selected sociopsychological attributes, (2)
product information sources, (3) decision factors influencing product
selection, and (4) ideal store image perceptions for commonly purchased
product types. It was felt that an evaluation of student and household
consumer congruence along these factors and for the products tested
would reveal more conclusively whether, or under what conditions,
student samples might provide a basis for generalizing to other con-
sumers.
Given the above objectives, the following research hypotheses were
thought to be meaningful: (1) Student subjects differ significantly from
household subjects along selected sociopsychological attributes. (2) Stu-
dent subjects differ significantly from household subjects in sources
utilized in acquiring information about selected commonly purchased
products. (3) Student subjects differ significantly from household sub-
jects in decision factors influencing the purchase of selected commonly
purchased products. (4) Student subjects differ significantly from house-
hold subjects in ideal store image perceptions across selected commonly
purchased product classes.
PROCEDURE
Sampling Frame
Data were collected independently from subjects in the household and
the student samples. A self-administered questionnaire was mailed to a
sample of 1,200 Austin, Texas, residents randomly selected from the
4. Sheth, p. 245.
5. Khera and Benson, p. 532.
6. Enis et al., p. 74.
VARIABLES
Four sets of variables were examined in the research. The first set con-
sisted of the following seven sociopsychological variables: (1) aliena-
tion,7 (2) dogmatism,8 (3) status consciousness,!) (4) conservatism,'0
(5) personal competence," (6) social responsibility,'2 and (7) cosmo-
politanism.13The sociopsychological variables were selected because they
have traditionally been used in consumer research studies"1 and because
we felt that they were potentially sensitive discriminators of market
segments. All seven scales were of the Likert type.
The second set of variables consisted of sources utilized in acquiring
information concerning four commonly purchased product classes: major
appliances, grocery products, furniture, and television and/or stereo
equipment. Subjects were asked to indicate the most important sources
in acquiring information about each of the four product classes from the
following information categories: reading magazines, reading newspa-
pers, reading store circulars or leaflets, going shopping, talking with
7. Russell Middleton, "Alienation, Race, and Education," Anmerican Socio-
logical Review 28 (December 1963): 973-77.
8. Verling G. Trodahl and Frederic A. Powell, "A Short-Form Dogmatism
Scale for Use in Field Studies," Social Forces 44 (December 1965): 211-14.
9. Walter C. Kaufman, "Status, Authoritarianism, and Anti-Semitism,"
American Joutrnialof Sociology 42 (January 1957): 379-82.
10. Herbert McCloskey, "Conservatismand Personality," AmtnericanPoliti-
cal Scietnce Review 52 (March 1958): 27-45.
11. Angus Campbell et al., The Americani Vote, (New York: John Wiley &
Sons, 1960).
12. Leonard Berkowitz and Louise R. Daniels, "Affecting the Salience of
the Social Responsibility Norm," Journal of Abbnormal anid Social Psyclhology 68
(March 1964): 275-81.
13. Thomas R. Dye, "The Local-Cosmopolitan Dimension and the Study
of Urban Politics," Social Forces 41 (March 1963): 239-46.
14. See W. Thomas Anderson, Jr., and William H. Cunningham, "Gauging
Foreign Product Promotion," Jouirnaal of Advertisinig Researcha 12 (February
1972): 29-34; W. Thomas Anderson, Jr., and William H. Cunningham, "The
Socially Conscious Consumer," Journal of Marketing 36 (July 1972): 23-31,
100-102; Jacob Jacoby, "Personality and Innovation Proneness,"Journal of Mar-
keting Research 8 (May 1971): 244-47; Harold H. Kassarjian, "Personality and
Consumer Behavior: A Review," Journial of Marketing Researchi 8 (November
1971): 409-19; and Douglas S. Longman and Henry 0. Pruden,"Alienation from
the Market Place: A Study in Black, Brown, and White," in Relevanlce inzMarket-
ing/Marketing in Motion, ed. Fred C. Allvine (Chicago: American Marketing
Association, 1971), pp. 616-19.
Statistical Procedures
Analysis-of-variance F-tests were utilized to determine whether signifi-
cant differences existed between the household and student subjects on
the sociopsychological variables and on the store image factors. Chi
square analysis was used to test for differences that might exist between
the student and household subjects on the sources of information and the
decision factors influencing the purchase of selected products. The X2
values were corrected for continuity, thus yielding conservative measures
of statistical significance.
F INDINGS
Sociopsychological Variables
Five of the seven sociopsychological variables analyzed showed signifi-
cant differences between subjects in the student and household samples,
providing partial support for the first research hypothesis (see table 1).
15. Robert F. Kelly and Ronald Stephenson, "The Semantic Differential:
An Information Source for Designing Retail Patronage Appeals," Journal of
Marketing 31 (October 1967): 43-47.
Table 1
F-Tests for Sociopsychological Variables
Socio- Household Student
psychological Sample Sample
Variablel Mean a Mean a F-Ratio
The students were more alienated, less dogmatic, less conservative, more
cosmopolitan, and substantially more socially responsible than were the
household subjects. As table 1 indicates, dogmatism significantly differ-
entiated the student and household subjects below the .01 level, while
the remaining four variables significantly differentiated the samples
below the .001 level. Status consciousness and personal competence
failed to significantly differentiate the two groups.
The above findings seem to violate the frequent assertion that "con-
cerning fundamental psychological variables, students are not atypical of
the rest of the population."'16Thus, it appears that students are not good
surrogates for assessing household consumers' sociopsychological attri-
butes and, hence, inappropriate for gauging relationships between per-
sonality and household consumption behavior.
Information Sources
Table 2 presents a x2 test for each product on each information source
examined individually and an overall X2 test of differences in information
sources used between the two groups for each of the four product types.
While the same information sources were found to operate for both the
student and household subjects across the four product categories con-
sidered, the relative importance attached to alternative information
sources differed significantly, substantiating the second research hypoth-
esis.
In acquiring information concerning major appliances, both student
and household subjects relied principally on comparative shopping and
secondarily on conversations with friends, but students also placed sig-
nificantly more importance on observation and television viewing.
Household subjects tended to be significantly more reliant on compara-
tive shopping and newspaper reading, while student subjects relied more
on observation and television viewing as principal secondary information
sources.
16. Sheth, p. 244.
* *
* *
*
*
-~~~0
*
* '0~~~~~~~~~ C)
0 ~~ ~ ~ f 000
'00
O 0 ~o 0~
0
O
0 0 A 00
0
0u
00 CO
0: 0
C) V) cn -4~~~~~~~~~0C'
0 CO
000
r) 00 C/)* ~ CrC
t c 00*-
-*
00
0
Cl
)* C
0C
00* .*oC
C)CO
00 ~~~~~~~~~~~~00 t
0~~~~~~
I
02 00 00
oC)0
o
0
V-)
C; 0~~~-
-)* -
u~ 00 00
O 0 -4 0 0 00 5CO
Cl - 0~~~~~~~~ 0 -
C)
-
C
.0
C) - O f 2
to 1 6 6 c- 0
O 6 ~~~~~~~ C)
CrCr CZ
000O 0 I- r .
r
4-4 - e0.-
rC
6 V) C-
N
VCZ0CC ~ 0
00 rQC)CO0C) .CZ C)
O ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~C0
,fl ~C)~C)~0 '. C) Cl r) CC - -
z~~~~~~~~ - C COC)3
000 CC Ci C09
0 'q t '00m
4- o Cl C VI '0 -0 \ 0 cc 0C CO0
It C13>~~~*
- C
-o o o6 & * - -~~~n 4 -
.0
C)0C0
> -;J Cl C
v
0 0Cl 000
r Z rA .- -0 C~~~~~~~~~~~~'s )
UC C)0 *0 o .0.0OOC)r.C.
O 00 CO0 0.0u
oC) O .0.0 -.0. 4CO .0*
0 * '0 0 C> 0 -z
0
0 CI "~~~~~*
CO C
CO- C) ->C . O O C
Decision Factors
As in the case of information sources used, the same decision factors
were important for both student and household samples in the selection
of the four classes of products considered. However, the relative impor-
tance attached to alternative factors differed significantly, partially con-
firming the third research hypothesis. Table 3 presents both a X2 test
for each product on each decision factor considered individually and an
overall test of differences in decision factors utilized between the two
groups for each of the products studied.
Brand name was the most significant factor in the decision to pur-
chase major appliances among household subjects surveyed, whereas
student subjects placed nearly equal emphasis on brand name and service
and warranty. Household subjects placed significantly more importance
on availability of credit than did student subjects. Students, by contrast,
placed significantly greater emphasis on service and warranty than did
household subjects.
Price and store location and parking appeared to be the most im-
portant factors in grocery product decisions for both household and
?? 0 C1 N:ot:
cl
t oo N
:.W:
Ca oo
d > Nt o
(U Nt ot N
=~~~~~~~~~~C m t oNt^wo
o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0o
= N N _4 ^ t - , ^~~~~~~~~~~~e
^ Nt 0 c
CA 8
C? o o
00
Q~~~~~~~~~1 c0?
C- 06
^ Xb en
5~~~~~~~~~~~N
5 a.=5 8 t- m < ?. 0* *
Ou N t-bNN
N
C)
Uo Z* n cn a)cne *
4- -^ 4 C , D C q C *
cq 00
Nt
4..
CZ 0
Nt
CZ
0 CZ
7 c, >
00 v) Nt 0
1-4 It -q
o
0
CU
.1
u cl
0
cu
C
m
> 0 C,
= 0u CZ
(L) (U
0 0 0
(U(U
(u cl
C) Nt (u (u
Nt 7
>
C)0 (U
(U Nt 1.4 0
0
(L)
O 0 (u
.0
Nt Nt
0
Nt
C) Nt U
C; C;
(U
C) 0m7q4 0
C) "
0
.(U C)
M o
0
to (n
0
OC) (14 (U
4 4 (-i 06 06 4 10 C,3
Z 0
C) C) o (,U, C)
C) i. > tb
(U t., C) CU 4-4 (U (U
44 (n (
C)
4-4 >
O.-
0 OC) Nt " 4., (n
Nt C13
0
131) u
kr)
0V
(U 4-4
E0
4-4
4-4
0 0
cu "
0 cu
4 (U (U
CZ
u En En cn v) 4 0
00 tn O .
.CId 7 7
u
C's cu
(U
10 4-4 v
Ct
0 = =
toPq-u
0 0
cl CI
CIS x
O
Store Image
Table 4 presents the results of an F-test to determine student-household
subject differences in ideal store image perceptions for four major store
types: major appliance store, grocery store, furniture store, and television
and/or stereo store. The findings substantiate the fourth research hypoth-
esis, and are at odds with those reported by Clevenger, Lazier, and Clark.
In each case where significant differences exist, household subjects as-
sumed a more extreme position than did student subjects along a given
Table 4
F-Tests for Ideal Store Characteristics
F-Ratio
Television
Major Grocery and/or
Characteristics Appliances Products Furniture Stereo
CONCLUSIONS
The examination of student-household subject differences across the
four dimensions tested strongly supports the general conclusion that
student response patterns do not accurately reflect those of other con-
sumers. Student subjects seem to be sociopsychologically different from
household subjects; these differences are manifested in decision factors
and information preferences influencing product selection, and in store
image perceptions. Thus, it would appear that the use of student sur-
rogates for real people in behavioraf research should be undertaken
with the explicit recognition that the general validity of research findings
derived from student data sources is highly suspect.