Attitude Towards Marketing Surveys: The Comparison of Student and Non-Student Samples

Öz

Using student samples in marketing research is a debated issue. This study aims to test the differences in attitude towards surveys and marketing surveys between student and non-student samples, the variation differences in attitude towards surveys and marketing surveys between student and non-student sample, the differences among sample groups by means of the impact of different types of promised incentive. The sample of the study consists of two convenient sample groups (student and non-student samples). The survey was applied online and face-to-face to randomly selected 94 college students and 90 non-student individuals. The results demonstrate that there is a difference in attitude towards surveys but not for marketing surveys. While results measuring survey value results are mixed, there is no difference in variation of attitude towards marketing surveys for student and non-student samples. Also, no significant differences exist for the incentives related to the attitude towards marketing surveys. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Student sample
• Generalizability
• Marketing research
• Marketing survey attitude

Kaynakça

1. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. google scholar
2. Ashraf, R., & Merunka, D. (2017). The use and misuse of student samples: An empirical investigation of European marketing research. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 16(4), 295-308. doi:https:// doi.org/10.1002/cb.1590 google scholar
3. Bello, D., Leung, K., Radebaugh, L., Tung, R. L., & van Witteloostuijn, A. (2009). From the Editors: Student samples in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(3), 361-364. doi:10.1057/jibs.2008.101 google scholar
4. Bosnjak, M., & Batinic, B. (2002). Understanding the Willingness to Participate in Online Surveys: the case of e-mail questionnaires. In U.-D. R. Bernad Batinic & M. B. A. Werner (Eds.), Online social sciences (Vol. 81, pp. 92). google scholar
5. Brown, M. B., & Forsythe, A. B. (1974). The Small Sample Behavior of Some Statistics Which Test the Equality of Several Means. Technometrics, 16(1), 129-132. doi:10.2307/1267501 google scholar
6. Burnett, J. J., & Dunne, P. M. (1986). An appraisal of the use of student subjects in marketing research. Journal of Business Research, 14(4), 329-343. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(86)90024-X google scholar
7. Calder, B. J., Phillips, L. W., & Tybout, A. M. (1981). Designing Research for Application. Journal of Consumer Research, 8(2), 197-207. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2488831 google scholar
8. Calder, B. J., Phillips, L. W., & Tybout, A. M. (1982). The Concept of External Validity. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(3), 240-244. doi:10.1086/208920 google scholar

9. Campbell, D. T. (1957). Factors relevant to the validity of experiments in social settings. Psychological Bulletin, 54(4), 297-312. doi:10.1037/h0040950 google scholar
10. Clevenger, T., Lazier, G. A., & Clark, M. L. (1965). Measurement of Corporate Images by the Semantic Differential. Journal of Marketing Research, 2(1), 80-82. doi:10.2307/3149342 google scholar
11. Compeau, D., Marcolin, B., Kelley, H., & Higgins, C. (2012). Research Commentary: Generalizability of Information Systems Research Using Student Subjects—A Reflection on Our Practices and Recommendations for Future Research. Information Systems Research, 23(4), 1093-1109. google scholar
12. Cunningham, W. H., Anderson, W. T., & Murphy, J. H. (1974). Are Students Real People? The Journal of Business, 47(3), 399-409. google scholar
13. de Leeuw, E., Hox, J., Silber, H., Struminskaya, B., & Vis, C. (2019). Development of an international survey attitude scale: measurement equivalence, reliability, and predictive validity. Measurement Instruments for the Social Sciences, 1(1), 9. doi:10.1186/s42409-019-0012-x google scholar
14. Enis, B. M., Cox, K. K., & Stafford, J. E. (1972). Students as Subjects in Consumer Behavior Experiments. Journal of Marketing Research, 9(1), 72-74. doi:10.2307/3149612 google scholar
15. Espinosa, J. A., & Ortinau, D. J. (2016). Debunking legendary beliefs about student samples in marketing research. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3149-3158. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jbusres.2015.12.003 google scholar
16. Ferber, R. (1977). Research By Convenience. Journal of Consumer Research, 4(1), 57-58. doi:10.1086/208679 google scholar
17. Ford, J. B. (2016). Cost vs credibility: the student sample trap in business research. European Business Review, 28(6), 652-656. doi:10.1108/EBR-08-2016-0100 google scholar
18. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. doi:10.2307/3151312 google scholar
19. Gamage, J., & Weerahandi, S. (1998). Size performance of some tests in one-way anova. Communications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation, 27(3), 625-640. doi:10.1080/03610919808813500 google scholar
20. Gordon, M. E., Slade, L. A., & Schmitt, N. (1986). The “Science of the Sophomore” Revisited: From Conjecture to Empiricism. The Academy of Management Review, 11(1), 191-207. doi:10.2307/258340 google scholar
21. Goyder, J. (1986). Surveys on Surveys: Limitations and Potentialities. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 50(1), 27-41. google scholar
22. Greenberg, J. (1987). The College Sophomore as Guinea Pig: Setting the Record Straight. The Academy of Management Review, 12(1), 157-159. doi:10.2307/258001 google scholar
23. Groves, R. M., Cialdini, R. B., & Couper, M. P. (1992). Understanding The Decision to Participate in a Survey. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 56(4), 475-495. google scholar
24. Henry, P. J. (2008). College Sophomores in the Laboratory Redux: Influences of a Narrow Data Base on Social Psychology’s View of the Nature of Prejudice. Psychological Inquiry, 19(2), 49-71. doi:10.1080/10478400802049936 google scholar
25. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations: Sage publications. google scholar
26. Kardes, F. R. (1996). In Defense of Experimental Consumer Psychology. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 5(3), 279-296. doi:https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp0503_04 google scholar
27. Le, A. N. H., Cheng, J. M. S., Lee, Y. H., & Jain, M. (2012). Brand extension: using parent brand personality as leverage. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 24(4), 599- 618. google scholar
28. Lindhjem, H., & Navrud, S. (2011). Using internet in stated preference surveys: a review and comparison of survey modes. International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, 5, 309-351. google scholar
29. Lucas, J. W. (2003). Theory-Testing, Generalization, and the Problem of External Validity. Sociological Theory, 21(3), 236-253. doi:10.1111/1467-9558.00187 google scholar
30. Malaviya, P., & John, D. R. (2001). Recruiting Experimental Participants. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 10(1/2), 115-117. google scholar
31. Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Oxford, England: Univer. Illinois Press. google scholar
32. Peterson, R. A. (2001). On the Use of College Students in Social Science Research: Insights from a Second-Order Meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(3), 450- 461. doi:10.1086/323732 google scholar
33. Peterson, R. A., & Merunka, D. R. (2014). Convenience samples of college students and research reproducibility. Journal of Business Research, 67(5), 1035-1041. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jbusres.2013.08.010 google scholar
34. Rogelberg, S. G., Fisher, G. G., Maynard, D. C., Hakel, M. D., & Horvath, M. (2001). Attitudes toward Surveys: Development of a Measure and Its Relationship to Respondent Behavior. Organizational Research Methods, 4(1), 3-25. doi:10.1177/109442810141001 google scholar
35. Roster, C. A., Rogers, R. D., Hozier, G. C., Baker, K. G., & Albaum, G. (2007). Management of Marketing Research Projects: Does Delivery Method Matter Anymore in Survey Research? Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 15(2), 127-144. doi:10.2753/MTP1069-6679150203 google scholar
36. Ryu, E., Couper, M. P., & Marans, R. W. (2005). Survey Incentives: Cash vs. In-Kind; Face-to-Face vs. Mail; Response Rate vs. Nonresponse Error. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 18(1), 89-106. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edh089 google scholar
37. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the Fit of Structural Equation Models: Tests of Significance and Descriptive Goodness-of-Fit Measures. Methods of Psychological Research, 8(2), 23-74. google scholar
38. Sears, D. O. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology’s view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(3), 515-530. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.3.515 google scholar
39. Singh, J., Howell, R. D., & Rhoads, G. K. (1990). Adaptive Designs for Likert-Type Data: An Approach for Implementing Marketing Surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 27(3), 304-321. doi:10.1177/002224379002700305 google scholar
40. Sjoberg, G. (1955). A Questionnaire on Questionnaires. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 18(4), 423-427. google scholar
41. Stinchcombe, A. L., Jones, C., & Sheatsley, P. (1981). Nonresponse bias for attitude questions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 45(3), 359-375. doi:10.1086/268670 google scholar
42. Tangpong, C., & Ro, Y. K. (2008). Student-manager surrogacy in supply chain decision making. Journal of Business and Management, 14(1), 77-91. google scholar