ºÝºÝߣ

ºÝºÝߣShare a Scribd company logo

Research on shopping group presentation

•Download as PPSX, PDF•
•
Jessica Collier
Jessica Collier

This study investigated how brand name status and indications of wealth interact to influence shopping preferences. The researchers hypothesized that favorability ratings would be more positively impacted by a wealthier-looking family in the higher-status brand name condition compared to the lower-status brand name condition. A 2x2 between-subjects experiment manipulated brand name (Macy's vs. Walmart) and family appearance (wealthy vs. average). Contrary to predictions, there were no significant main effects or interactions. The results did not support the hypothesis that perceptions of wealth or brand name status impact consumer choices.

1 of 14
Download to read offline
DO YOU THINK YOU ARE TOO GOOD TO SHOP AT WALMART? INVESTIGATING THE INTERACTION BETWEEN BRAND NAMES AND INDICATIONS OF WEALTH Michelle Herman, Grace Kim, Jessica Collier PSYC 3006, Section 206
INTRODUCTION ï‚¢ People make purchase decisions based upon perceptions of wealth and success (Mandel et al., 2006) ï‚¢ Sodas with national brand names are chosen more often than bargain brand names (Breneiser & Allen, 2011; Bushman, 1993) ï‚¢ Past research has not addressed the effect of both status of brand name and indication of wealth on shopping preferences
HYPOTHESES  The mean difference in favorability ratings between the condition with the wealthier- looking family and average-looking family will be greater in the higher-status brand name (Macy’s) condition than the mean difference in favorability ratings between wealthier-looking family and average-looking family in the lower- status brand name (Wal-Mart) condition  We also predicted that there would be main effects for both brand name status and indication of wealth
PREDICTED INTERACTION 7 6 5 Favorability 4 Wealthy Family 3 Average-Looking Family 2 1 0 Macy's Wal-Mart Store Brand
METHOD ï‚¢ Participants ï‚— 36 participants ï‚— 10 men, 25 women, and 1 non-response ï‚¢ Design/Materials ï‚— 2 x 2 between-participants design ï‚— Brand name and indication of wealth were manipulated ï‚— Four conditions: (1) higher-status brand / higher indication of wealth (2) higher-status brand / lesser indication of wealth (3) lower-status brand / higher indication of wealth (4) lower-status brand / lesser indication of wealth
METHOD ï‚— Interpretation of shopping preferences were measured using 3 items on a questionnaire ï‚¢ 7-point Likert Scale ï‚¢ 1 = Strongly Disagree and 7 = Strongly agree ï‚— Each of the items were averaged to make a composite score ï‚¢ Procedure ï‚— Randomly assigned conditions by receiving a packet with one of four conditions ï‚— Each participant was instructed to carefully look at the pictures and form an opinion ï‚— Then asked to complete the questionnaire on the next page
MATERIALS Lower-status brand Lower-status brand name/wealthier- name/average-looking looking family family
MATERIALS Higher-status brand Higher-status brand name/wealthier- name/average-looking looking family family
SAMPLE MATERIALS ï‚¢ Target Questions ï‚— (1) I would be willing to buy items at this store. ï‚— (2) I would enjoy shopping at this store. ï‚— (3) I would recommend this store to friends and relatives. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree Slightly Neutral Slightly Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
RESULTS  We conducted a 2 (Brand Name Status) x 2 (Indication of Wealth) between-participants ANOVA, alpha = .05  Correlations between each of the target questions on the questionnaire (r ≥ .50)  The scores were averaged to produce a composite DV score for each participant  No significant main effect of brand name, F (1, 32) = .02, p = .893  No significant main effect of indication of wealth, F(1, 32) = .10, p = .755  No significant interaction between brand name and indication of wealth, F(1, 32) = .59, p = .450
MEAN AND SDS IV 1: Brand IV 2: Indication Mean SD Status of Wealth Lower-brand Average-looking 4.59 .62 status family Lower-brand Wealthier- 4.78 1.63 status looking family Higher-brand Average-looking 4.96 1.21 status family Higher-brand Wealthier- 4.52 1.26 status looking family
DISCUSSION ï‚¢ Presence of wealth and store brand status had no effect on shopping preferences ï‚¢ Findings do not support that people make purchase decisions based upon perceptions of wealth and success (Mandel et al., 2006) ï‚¢ Findings do not support that status of brand name impacts consumer choices (Breneiser & Allen, 2011; Bushman, 1993)
DISCUSSION  Previous exposure to the brand name might have affected participant’s attitudes towards these name brands  Stimuli might not have accurately portrayed the conditions  Experiment might not have been structured well enough to give participants enough time to develop a strong opinion about the stimuli  Future research should investigate whether pre-existing attitudes towards brand names affect shopping preferences
REFERENCES Brenesier, J.E. & Allen, S. N. (2011). Taste preference for brand name versus store brand sodas. North American Journal of Psychology, 13(2), 281-290. Bushman, B. J. (1993). What’s in a name? The moderating role of public self-consciousness on the relation between brand label and brand preference. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(5), 857-861. Mandel, N., Petrova, P. & Cialdini (2006). Images of Success and the Preference for Luxury Brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(1), 57-69.

More Related Content

Research on shopping group presentation

  • 1. DO YOU THINK YOU ARE TOO GOOD TO SHOP AT WALMART? INVESTIGATING THE INTERACTION BETWEEN BRAND NAMES AND INDICATIONS OF WEALTH Michelle Herman, Grace Kim, Jessica Collier PSYC 3006, Section 206
  • 2. INTRODUCTION ï‚¢ People make purchase decisions based upon perceptions of wealth and success (Mandel et al., 2006) ï‚¢ Sodas with national brand names are chosen more often than bargain brand names (Breneiser & Allen, 2011; Bushman, 1993) ï‚¢ Past research has not addressed the effect of both status of brand name and indication of wealth on shopping preferences
  • 3. HYPOTHESES ï‚¢ The mean difference in favorability ratings between the condition with the wealthier- looking family and average-looking family will be greater in the higher-status brand name (Macy’s) condition than the mean difference in favorability ratings between wealthier-looking family and average-looking family in the lower- status brand name (Wal-Mart) condition ï‚¢ We also predicted that there would be main effects for both brand name status and indication of wealth
  • 4. PREDICTED INTERACTION 7 6 5 Favorability 4 Wealthy Family 3 Average-Looking Family 2 1 0 Macy's Wal-Mart Store Brand
  • 5. METHOD ï‚¢ Participants ï‚— 36 participants ï‚— 10 men, 25 women, and 1 non-response ï‚¢ Design/Materials ï‚— 2 x 2 between-participants design ï‚— Brand name and indication of wealth were manipulated ï‚— Four conditions: (1) higher-status brand / higher indication of wealth (2) higher-status brand / lesser indication of wealth (3) lower-status brand / higher indication of wealth (4) lower-status brand / lesser indication of wealth
  • 6. METHOD ï‚— Interpretation of shopping preferences were measured using 3 items on a questionnaire ï‚¢ 7-point Likert Scale ï‚¢ 1 = Strongly Disagree and 7 = Strongly agree ï‚— Each of the items were averaged to make a composite score ï‚¢ Procedure ï‚— Randomly assigned conditions by receiving a packet with one of four conditions ï‚— Each participant was instructed to carefully look at the pictures and form an opinion ï‚— Then asked to complete the questionnaire on the next page
  • 7. MATERIALS Lower-status brand Lower-status brand name/wealthier- name/average-looking looking family family
  • 8. MATERIALS Higher-status brand Higher-status brand name/wealthier- name/average-looking looking family family
  • 9. SAMPLE MATERIALS ï‚¢ Target Questions ï‚— (1) I would be willing to buy items at this store. ï‚— (2) I would enjoy shopping at this store. ï‚— (3) I would recommend this store to friends and relatives. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree Slightly Neutral Slightly Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
  • 10. RESULTS ï‚¢ We conducted a 2 (Brand Name Status) x 2 (Indication of Wealth) between-participants ANOVA, alpha = .05 ï‚¢ Correlations between each of the target questions on the questionnaire (r ≥ .50) ï‚¢ The scores were averaged to produce a composite DV score for each participant ï‚¢ No significant main effect of brand name, F (1, 32) = .02, p = .893 ï‚¢ No significant main effect of indication of wealth, F(1, 32) = .10, p = .755 ï‚¢ No significant interaction between brand name and indication of wealth, F(1, 32) = .59, p = .450
  • 11. MEAN AND SDS IV 1: Brand IV 2: Indication Mean SD Status of Wealth Lower-brand Average-looking 4.59 .62 status family Lower-brand Wealthier- 4.78 1.63 status looking family Higher-brand Average-looking 4.96 1.21 status family Higher-brand Wealthier- 4.52 1.26 status looking family
  • 12. DISCUSSION ï‚¢ Presence of wealth and store brand status had no effect on shopping preferences ï‚¢ Findings do not support that people make purchase decisions based upon perceptions of wealth and success (Mandel et al., 2006) ï‚¢ Findings do not support that status of brand name impacts consumer choices (Breneiser & Allen, 2011; Bushman, 1993)
  • 13. DISCUSSION ï‚¢ Previous exposure to the brand name might have affected participant’s attitudes towards these name brands ï‚¢ Stimuli might not have accurately portrayed the conditions ï‚¢ Experiment might not have been structured well enough to give participants enough time to develop a strong opinion about the stimuli ï‚¢ Future research should investigate whether pre-existing attitudes towards brand names affect shopping preferences
  • 14. REFERENCES Brenesier, J.E. & Allen, S. N. (2011). Taste preference for brand name versus store brand sodas. North American Journal of Psychology, 13(2), 281-290. Bushman, B. J. (1993). What’s in a name? The moderating role of public self-consciousness on the relation between brand label and brand preference. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(5), 857-861. Mandel, N., Petrova, P. & Cialdini (2006). Images of Success and the Preference for Luxury Brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(1), 57-69.

Editor's Notes

  1. Michelle
  2. Grace