Part A: Answer one out of two questions
Part A: Question 1
1.1 Using relevant examples and literature discuss and justify the importance of correctly
defining a target population rather than a total population for any survey. [25 Marks]
1.2 Using relevant examples and literature discuss and justify the importance of selecting
the right source from which to develop a sampling frame. Discuss specifically why a
telephone directory may or may not be a good source from which to develop a
sampling frame. [25 Marks]
Part A: Question 2
2.1 Using relevant examples and literature discuss, debate and illustrate the advantages
and disadvantages of Experiments as a marketing research tool. [25 Marks]
2.2 The marketing manager of a national chain of supermarkets thought customers might
stay in their stores longer if music were played over the supermarket’s intercom
system. After some thought, the manager considered whether she should hire a
marketing researcher to design an experiment to test the influence of music types on
consumers’ behaviours. Assuming you are the market researcher hired by the manager
answer the following questions:
2.2.1 How would you operationalize the
independent/input variable
[5 marks]
2.2.2 What dependent/output variables do you think
might be important in this experiment
[10 marks ]
2.2.3 Develop a hypothesis for each of your dependent
variables.
[10 marks ]
PART B – Answer one out of two questions
Part B: Question 1
1.1 A local charity is interested in finding out whom to target for their next campaign. To
gain more insights it was able to access a UK dataset on charitable giving which
collected data on people’s motivation to give/or not to give to charities. A large
number of possible motivations were measured. To make use of this information in
future analysis, a Factor analysis was undertaken. (All statements were measured on
a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree)
Please interpret the findings. Your interpretation should include:
(a) A critical assessment of the quality of the factor solution and an interpretation of
the factors. [20 marks]
(b) A description of how you would proceed to create variables from the factors in
order to use them as predictors in further analysis [5 marks]
Total [25 marks]
Communalities
Initial Extractio
n
I have too many other
things to pay for
1.000 .472
I am wary of giving
because of fundraising
scams
1.000 .431
I don’t see why should
I give when others
don’t
1.000 .610
To make a difference
in relation to issues that
I care about
1.000 .731
Helping troubled
people with their
problems is very
important to me
1.000 .704
My family and friends
give money to charity
to help others/support
worthy causes
1.000 .599
Extraction Method: Principal Component
Analysis.
Total Variance Explained
Compone
nt
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of
Squared Loadings
Rotation Sums of Squared
Loadings
Total % of
Variance
Cumulati
ve %
Total % of
Varian
ce
Cumulati
ve %
Total % of
Varianc
e
Cumulativ
e %
1 2.338 38.962 38.962 2.338 38.962 38.962 2.017 33.611 33.611
2 1.210 20.165 59.127 1.210 20.165 59.127 1.531 25.516 59.127
3 .827 13.790 72.917
4 .677 11.286 84.202
5 .578 9.626 93.828
6 .370 6.172 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
(Values below.4 were suppressed)
Component Matrixa
Component
1 2
I have too many other things to
pay for
-.435 .532
I am wary of giving because of
fundraising scams
-.478 .450
I don’t see why should I give
when others don’t
-.464 .628
To make a difference in relation
to issues that I care about
.802
Helping troubled people with
their problems is very important
to me
.778
My family and friends give
money to charity to help
others/support worthy causes
.677
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
a. 2 components extracted.
(Values below.4 were suppressed)
Rotated Component Matrixa
Component
1 2
I have too many other things to
pay for.
.682
I am w
ary of giving because of
fundraising scams.
.636
I don’t see why should I give
when others don’t.
.779
To make a difference in relation to
issues that I care about.
.837
Helping troubled people with their
problems is very important to me.
.826
My family and friends give money
to charity to help others/support
worthy causes.
.773
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 3 iterations.
1.2 The local charity also wanted to know more about who is concerned about fund
raising scams. In particular, it wanted to find out whether concerns about scams
varied across level of education.
The education level was measured as follow:
Group 1 = Secondary school (GCSE)
Group 2 = A-level
Group 3 = Undergraduate degree
Group 4 = Postgraduate degree
“I am wary of giving because of fundraising scams“ measured on a 7-point Likert
scale, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree.
You are asked to interpret the results, this should include:
(a) What has been tested (including Null & Alternative hypotheses) [5 marks]
(b) A statistical interpretation of the results. This should include interpretation of key
aspects of: Descriptives, Test of Homogeneity of Variance, ANOVA and Post
Hoc Tests. [15 marks]
(c) In bullet point format, provide a managerial interpretation to the local charity.
[5 marks]
[Total 25 marks]
Descriptives
I am wary of giving because of fundraising scams
N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std. Error 95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Minimu
m
Maximu
m
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Group 1 36 4.94 2.013 .336 4.26 5.63 1 7
Group 2 58 4.43 1.939 .255 3.92 4.94 1 7
Group 3 65 4.49 2.017 .250 3.99 4.99 1 7
Group 4 39 3.64 1.597 .256 3.12 4.16 1 7
Total 198 4.39 1.947 .138 4.12 4.66 1 7
Test of Homogeneity of Variances
I am wary of giving because of fundraising scams
Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
1.807 3 194 .147
ANOVA
I am wary of giving because of fundraising scams
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 33.722 3 11.241 3.057 .030
Within Groups 713.334 194 3.677
Total 747.056 197
Post Hoc Tests
Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: I am wary of giving because of fundraising scams
Scheffe
(I) Education (J) Education Mean
Differen
ce (I-J)
Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence
Interval
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Group 1
Group 2 .513 .407 .662 -.63 1.66
Group 3 .452 .398 .732 -.67 1.58
Group 4 1.303*
.443 .037 .05 2.55
Group 2
Group 1 -.513 .407 .662 -1.66 .63
Group 3 -.061 .346 .999 -1.04 .92
Group 4 .790 .397 .269 -.33 1.91
Group 3
Group 1 -.452 .398 .732 -1.58 .67
Group 2 .061 .346 .999 -.92 1.04
Group 4 .851 .388 .190 -.24 1.95
Group 4
Group 1 -1.303*
.443 .037 -2.55 -.05
Group 2 -.790 .397 .269 -1.91 .33
Group 3 -.851 .388 .190 -1.95 .24
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
Part B: Question 2
2.1 A local charity is interested in finding out whom to target for their next campaign. To
gain more insights it was able to access a UK dataset on charitable giving which collected
data on how much money people generally give (across all charities) in a typical month.
Initially, the local charity would like to find out whether the amount given in a typical
month varies across socio-economic status (low, medium or high) of the person donating
money.
“How much money do you give to charity in a typical month ”
1 = None
2 = ￡5 or less/per month
3 = ￡6 – ￡10
4 = ￡11 – ￡15
5 = ￡16 – ￡20
6 = ￡21 – ￡30
7 = ￡31 – ￡40
8 = ￡41 – ￡50
9 = More than ￡50
You are asked to interpret the results, this should include:
(a) What has been tested (including Null & Alternative hypotheses) [5 marks]
(b) A statistical interpretation of the results. This should include interpretation of key
aspects of: Descriptives, Test of Homogeneity of Variance, ANOVA and Post
Hoc Tests. [15 marks]
(c) In bullet point format, provide a managerial interpretation to the local charity.
[5 marks]