You must address all the sections that are in the sample Research Report
.
.
This research report is based on the questionnaire and SPSS analysis you conducted for Joe’s Southwestern Grill.
.
You must again refer back to the questionnaire to determine the research objectives and hypotheses.
.
Under the section FINDINGS you will include your SPSS analysis and outputs.
.
This research project utilized the survey method, not focus groups or secondary research. You should discuss the different types of survey methods and the advantages and disadvantages of each. This survey was completed as a mall intercept.
.
You need to address every section in the sample Research Report by reading carefully the questions in the survey.
.
The questions in the survey reveal what they were trying to understand.
.
Potentially unfamiliar or unclear terms would require Operational Definitions.
You should have serveral operational definitions even if they are familiar to you.
.
There is a small degree of creativity in writing the Background, but I provided you with a background you can use for your research report. However, you can write your own background.
.
Limitations of questionnaires are discussed in the textbook and should be included in your research report.
.
Recommendations in the sample are general, but yours should be specific to your analysis.
.
You analyzed the data so now based on what you discovered, what should the restaurant executives do?
Train employees to be friendly? Change the menu? Redesign the look of the restaurant?
Those are just a couple of things to think about.
Every survey question got a response and told us something.
So for each of the questions you answered for the SPSS project, what do you recommend?
Background
Joe’s Southwestern Cafe
Celebrating 20 years of business in 2019, Joe’s Southwestern Cafe owner Juan Morales is committed to quality foods and customer service and is conducting marketing research to better understand customers.
Morales was born and raised in the Mesilla Valley and knows what local residents want. After nurturing the former Joe’s Southwestern Cafe restaurant on Foster Road, which opened in 1989, Morales opened the first Joe’s Southwestern Cafe in 1999. One year later, Morales was running three grills. Today, the corporation operates 11 grills throughout southern New Mexico, including Las Cruces and Hatch, NM. When it comes to quality Southwestern cuisine that’s fresh, hot and fast, Joe’s Southwestern Cafe is the answer.
The menu choices are plenty and appeal to any diet. Joe’s Southwestern Cafe offers low-carb options, such as shrimp and steak items as well as salads. The grills also offer traditional Mexican shrimp cocktail, philly cheese steaks and hot ham and cheese sandwiches to curb your hunger.
Joe’s Southwestern Cafe creates a new contemporary interpretation of Southwest-style bar & grill cuisine, infusing indigenous foods such as squash, corn, pintos & chiles with fresh local spices and condiments The restaurant’s striking atmosphere and reasonable pricing have quickly established it as a popular spot with locals and visitors alike.
An open kitchen reveals a long bank of grills and open flame broilers, bustling our tradition-inspired creations of grilled steaks, meats & fresh seafood. A gas-fired rotisserie roasts seasoned whole chickens. Homemade red & green chile sauces spice traditional enchiladas while serrano, poblano, & jalapeno chilies, along with cilantro, garlic and onions bring to life fish & steak tacos, pastas, soups and sandwiches. The Prime-aged “baseball cut” sirloin comes served with poblano chile rajas and red chile onion rings.
Interior design incorporates the hand-tooled Bar and authentic furniture by Esteban Chapital of Puebla, Mexico. Antique copper and ceramic pots are displayed above vibrant still life paintings created byartist, Ricardo Montes Salcido of Guadalajara. Click here for a virtual tour.
The bar at Joe’s Southwestern Cafe seats fifteen, while bancos and small tables tuck guests into surrounding corners to meet with friends. The back bar, constructed from old mesquite doors and covered with a stamped tin ceiling, provides an authentic backdrop to enjoy a margarita. Eight draft beers are available on tap featuring local & regional microbrews. Sixteen wines are available by the glass. Our tequila and Margarita list offer the classic Mexican & Santa Fe cocktails, featuring a broad selection of Mexico.
Joe’s Southwestern Cafe
CCoolllleeggee SSttuuddeennttss && BBrreeaakkffaasstt
Research Report
prepared for
Rise & Shine Corp.
December 2012
By George Bush, President
Bush Consulting Group
Background
On February 14, 1998, David Michael Anthony set out on a quest that would
change not only his life, but also the lives of millions of hungry people around the world.
In an attempt to raise money for World Hunger Year, this thirty-three year old engineer
cycled on his bike over 26,560 miles across 44 states pulling a trailer weighing 1,200
pounds. Anthony raised a total of 2.5 million dollars for world hunger by agreeing to
attach a sponsor sign on his tailor for anyone who donates $50,000 to a hunger
organization. His contribution towards world hunger was phenomenal.
Have you ever wondered what motivates people to take action like Anthony to
help great causes such as world hunger? Even the most passionate individuals will
sometimes not initiate a potential resolution. This is because an individual’s attitude
does not necessarily coincide with his/her behavior. Factors such as accessibility or
ease of donating, awareness, and financial status all effect donation behaviors.
Similarly gender and class sometimes have differing donation behavior and
attitudes.
Studying these constituents, can be an important aid for changing the current trends on
donation.
Organizations such as the American Red Cross and World Vision preach, “Even
a small monetary donation from an individual could greatly impact the life of a starving
person.” Unfortunately, many people are simply unaware of the extent of world hunger.
Secondary data proves that world hunger is an issue that must sometime be seriously
addressed. For example, it has been proven that every 3.6 seconds someone dies of
hunger (think quest). In addition, the U.S. does not rank high when it comes to
providing assistance to the hungry people in other lands. We have a “stingy mixed
record on poverty-focused foreign aid” (Foreign aid and world hunger). In 1997, Jeff
Ambers of Yorkville Common Pantry quotes, “It used to be families coming (to pantries)
once or twice a month. Now over half of the families are coming four times a month”
(Ridgeway 40). The problem is by no means getting better and needs to be addressed.
However, how can an individual take action without jumping on a bicycle and peddling
cross country, and how can the next generation such as college students, take a more
active role at eliminating world hunger? In an attempt to answer some of these
questions a team of highly qualified experts at Lake Forest College conducted a
research project on donations for world hunger.
Problem Statement
In a research project “the problem must ask about the relationship between two
or more variables” (Wunsch 1). In addition it clearly identifies the purpose of the project.
The problem statement for this research project is stated below.
The problem of the study is to compare the donation attitudes and
behaviors between classes and gender with regard to world hunger
among college students at Lake Forest College.
Operational Definitions
Prior to the experiment two operational definitions were defined to make the
research more precise. The first definition was “donation.” Setting a monetary value on
the description of donation is necessary for classifying donors in the survey and focus
group. Therefore, the operational definition is given below
Donation – a gift given by the donator in the form of food or money with a
monetary value above $5.00.
The second word that required clarification is “awareness.” In this research project
awareness is used with regard to an individuals’ knowledge of contribution distribution.
As a result, awareness was defined as follows:
Awareness – knowledge of an individuals’ nationality, country, race, or condition,
which their donation will assist.
Research Objectives
Although the problem statement defines the purpose of the project, Wunsch also
admits “a single research project can be designed to answer more than one question”
(1). These questions are called objectives. The objectives for this research project are
stated below.
O1: Do people believe that their donation to world hunger will help the
problem?
O2: Do males or females tend to donate more to world
hunger?
O3: Do freshmen or seniors tend
to donate more to
world hunger?
O4: Does awareness affect an individual’s attitude or behavior toward world
hunger?
O5: Does financial status affect donation habits?
O6: What motivates people to donate?
O7: How can donating become easier for
college students?
O8: What messages and media should be used to encourage donating among
college students?
Hypotheses
A hypothesis is “a conjectural statement about a relationship between two or
more variables that can be tested with empirical data” (McDanials and Gates 28). This
research project is designed to answer the following hypotheses.
H1: No significant difference exists between males and females with regard to
donation
attitudes.
H2: No significant difference exists between freshmen and seniors with regard
to donation attitudes.
H3: No significant difference exists between males and females with regard to
donation habits.
H4: No significant difference exists between freshmen and seniors with regard
to donation habits.
Research Procedures
Secondary Data
One important advantage to secondary data is that it “may provide primary data
research method alternatives” (McDanials and Gates 84). For example, before the
study was conducted at Lake Forest College, the researchers were able to examine
other studies that might offer a better method for testing the variable. Examining a
study in which produces inconsistent or inadequate results is a warning sign for the
researchers telling them to possibly use an alternative testing method. Another major
advantage of secondary data is that it may help clarify the problem (McDanials and
Gates 84). A team of professors at Brown University conducted a study in 1996 to
address the long-term problems of world hunger. These professors compared the
number of hungry people counted between the years of 1992 and 1994 to the number
of hungry people counted between 1994 and 1996. Their results proved that in three of
the five countries there was an increase in the number of starving people and an overall
increase in hungry people worldwide. The results discovered by Brown University
supports Jeff Ambers’ analysis of hunger based on the increased number of hungry
families. When viewed together, this data redefines the problem and gives plausibility
to the project at hand.
Interviews
Interviews are can be a major factor in a research project for two main reasons.
Interviews permit open-ended questions, which allow the interviewee to give an in-depth
response. Interviews are also particularly useful at the beginning of a research project
when exploratory research is conducted to find out more information on the topic. The
research project conducted at Lake Forest College implemented a total of three
interviews. One interview was given by e-mail to Karen Ryerson, an employee of the
American Red Cross. (See Appendix) The research team hoped to gain specific facts
and trends about donating from the perspective of an expert. The second interview was
administered to Les Dlabay, a frequent donator to world hunger. (See Appendix) His
specific knowledge concerning the best method of donating to world hunger could help
the research team design valid survey questions.
Finally, the last interview was completed with Karen Hermann. (See Appendix)
Hermann is the advisor of Athletic Council, an organization, which promotes student
involvement in athletic events at Lake Forest College. As a community service project,
Athletic Council sponsors a food drive to benefit Libertyville Township Food Pantry. As
an organization on campus the research team was interested in finding the ways in
which the Lake Forest College community is involved in donating to world hunger.
When asked how Athletic Council gets students to participate, Hermann quotes, “We
hang signs in the cafeteria and around commons and we also hand out flyers at the
football game at the game prior to the collection.” However, the response to the drive
by the students is not always successful. Karen says, “Most of our donations come
from the parents at the games.” Responses such as these once again helped the
research group formulate survey and focus group questions in which the students
themselves could provide information on ways to increase involvement.
Focus Group
Besides interviews, another way to obtain qualitative information on a subject is
to conduct a focus group. According to McDanials and Gates, “A focus group consists
of 8 to 12 participants who are led by a moderator in an in-depth discussion on one
particular topic or concept” (111). The world hunger research team held a focus group
with the intent of discovering students’ attitudes and behaviors towards donating to
world hunger. Two members of the group acted as moderators while the other member
recorded the data.
The focus group was took place in a suite in Deerpath, in an informal
atmosphere. Verifying that each participant is comfortable can be an essential
component in order to obtain involuntary information. The ten members of the focus
group represented different ages, sex, and donation behaviors. For example, two of the
ten participants were senior males while one member was a freshman female. Since
the focus of the research project is to essentially study the donation attitudes and
behaviors between males and females and freshman and seniors, it is helpful that these
categories of people are included in the discussion. Similarly, at least three members of
our focus group identified themselves as contributors to world hunger by stating that
they have participated in or helped organize food drives.
Several bits of information were obtained from the focus group, which helped the
world hunger team create a conclusive survey in which to obtain quantitative data. (See
Appendix) Most importantly, of the ten people in the focus group only one could identify
an organization on campus where they knew they could go to donate for world hunger.
This proves the awareness at Lake Forest College is low.
The research group also obtained creative ideas from students concerning new
ways Lake Forest College could increase student involvement, which Hermann said
was lacking. When asked, “How can donating become easier for you?” a senior male
responded, have “One day where you donate your dinner money to the hungry. No
eating in the café one day.” Another great idea mentioned at the focus group was
donating extra flex dollars at the end of the semester to feed the hungry. In response to
these answers, the research team further investigated these ideas on their research
instrument.
Survey
By compiling different ideas and opinions from the interviews and focus group,
the research group was able to devise a survey, which focused on students’ attitudes
and behaviors about world hunger. (See Appendix) Kellerman and Thoms advise,
“Determine what information needs to be gathered: select the appropriate question type
to elicit the desired information; and choose a format that is easy to read” (38). The
world hunger group formatted the questions in order to meet the research objectives
established by the group. Also, prior to distribution, the survey was pre-tested. In order
to test the validity of the survey instrument, the instrument was read to a team of
experts in Professor Dlabay’s class. Validity “addresses the issue of whether what we
tried to measure was actually measured” (McDanials and Gates 258). Responses and
reactions were noted from the experts to aid the research team in improving its survey.
In order to obtain information about the entire population, a sample size must be
defined prior to the project. The population in the sample for world hunger consisted of
freshman and senior, male and female students at Lake Forest College since the
hypotheses aim to compare donation attitudes and behaviors among these groups.
McDanials and Gates point out that ideally, the population sample from which
information is obtained “should be a representative cross section of the total population”
(328).
The surveys were administered to a total of forty students. This included ten
male and ten female freshman and ten male and ten female seniors. These students
were randomly selected around campus through personal contacts and distribution in
highly populated areas such as the cafeteria and resident halls. Because participants of
the survey were selected randomly in a convenient fashion, a sample frame was not
necessary. Such a frame would include a full list of all senior and freshman students of
Lake Forest College. Instead, the research group chose to conduct a nonprobability
sample, or specifically, a convenient sample. This sampling technique is helpful
because it is “easy to collect” (McDanials and Gates 247). One hundred percent of the
surveys administered were returned, making for an efficient data collection method.
Findings and Conclusions
The results of this project are applicable to the Lake Forest College community.
Clubs and organizations interested in food drives or world hunger such as Athletic
Council, will obtain first class ideas, which have been presented by actual Lake Forest
College students. The conclusions will also be beneficial to larger nation wide hunger
organizations such as World Hunger and the American Red Cross, whose continual
mission is to increase donations. The findings can alert such organizations of current
trends in donation among college students and possibly assist in new campaigns.
Maybe these companies should allocate more expenditure on ad campaigns specifically
geared towards college students. This study could help settle debates on these issues.
Also, although all world hunger organizations have the same goal, it is important to
remember that they are still in competition with one another. The information obtained
during this research project, especially through focus group discussions, in-depth
interviews, as well as open-ended questions on the survey instrument, might provide a
new creative idea that will result in a boost of business above a competitor.
Volunteering is a service that can be compared to donating to world hunger.
Both activities are services provided by individuals wishing to improve the lives of other
less fortunate people. Michael Gerson reports “20 percent of volunteers say they have
cut back because they weren’t sure there work helped” (30). Such is the case with
donating because if people feel their donations are not making a difference, they will not
donate.
Objective 1 ~ Do people believe that
their donation to world hunger will help
the problem?
Hypothesis 1 ~ No significant
difference exists between males and
females with regard to donation
attitudes.
Hypothesis 2 ~ No significant
difference exists between freshman
and seniors with regard to donation
attitudes.
Objective one addresses the individuals’ attitudes towards donations for world
hunger. The first step to increasing the total donations received is to convince people
their donation will impact society. The research group surveyed the sample and
recorded response to the statement “one person can make a difference in our society.”
The opinion on this issue among males and females were as follows:
Survey item #7 N SA (5) A (4) N (3) D (2)
SD
(1) X
Males 20 4 12 4 0 0 4.0
Females 20 6 13 1 0 0 4.25
Among seniors and freshmen, the opinions were:
Survey item #7 N SA (5) A (4) N (3) D (2)
SD
(1) X
Seniors 20 7 12 1 0 0 4.3
Freshmen 20 3 13 4 0 0 3.95
A mean score of 4.0 indicates that people tend to agree with the statement. This was
the case in all four categories, but the senior and females ranked the highest in
approval. Therefore, this data does not indicate that the problem of world hunger is
linked with the attitude that a small donation will not make a difference.
A survey by the New York City Coalition Against Hunger reported that due to lack
of food, in one summer, “73,000 people were turned away from emergency food
programs” (Ridgeway 40). In order to improve the current donation trend, it is important
to grasp the donation behavior of the individuals of interest: male and female, freshman
and seniors at Lake Forest College. Objective two attempts to answer the research
groups’ third hypothesis.
Objective 2 ~ Do males or females tend
to donate more to world hunger?
Hypothesis 3 ~ No significant
difference exists between males and
females with regard to donation habits.
The donation behavior of males and females was measured by survey question three.
The number (n) is out of the twenty surveyed and represents the number who
responded “yes.”
Survey item #3 Females (n) Females (%) Males (n) Males (%)
Have you ever donated $5 or
more to an organization that 8 40% 6 30%
provides assistance for
World Hunger?
These data tend to indicate that females donate more than males. Only thirty percent of
the males surveyed have donated compared to forty percent of the females survey. In
fact, Ryerson of the American Red Cross says, “Females make up the majority of
donors to Red Cross, although the average gift is higher among males.” Since this
study did not measure the average gift by males and females, a comparison cannot be
made about the average size of the gift. However, the research results do agree with
Ryerson’s claim that more women than men are likely to donate.
This research project is also interested in discovering the donation behavior
between freshman and seniors as expressed in objective three.
Objective 3 ~ Do freshman or seniors
tend to donate more to world hunger?
Hypothesis 4 ~ No significant
difference exists between freshman
and seniors with regard to donation
habits.
Although Hermann says “it is hard to guess as to whether freshman or seniors donate
more” at Lake Forest College, the survey results for this study revealed that a larger
majority of seniors donate when compared to freshman. In fact, almost half of the total
seniors surveyed admitted they have donated to world hunger. These results are
shown below:
Survey item #3 Freshman (n) Freshman (%) Seniors (n) Seniors (%)
Have you ever donated $5 or
more to an organization that 5 25% 9 45%
provides assistance for
World Hunger?
Prior to the research project, awareness was defined to be “knowledge of an individuals’
nationality, country, race, or condition, which their donation will assist.” Many people
are skeptical of the size of the proportion of their donation that is going directly to feed
the hungry. As a result, objective four remained on the research teams list.
Objective 4 ~ Does awareness affect an individual’s attitude or behavior toward
world hunger?
Les Dlabay, a frequent donator to world hunger, has been donating $22 a month
to World Vision. He sponsors one child in El Salvador and another in Gana. Despite
some negative criticism by the Tribune, he believes that World Vision is a “good strong
organization and accountable.” However, Ryerson did not offer numbers when asked,
“Do people know when they are donating, where their money is going and if it will be
sent to the right person or place?” Instead, she claims that most of donated money is
“used for disasters that are getting less media attention, but just as critical for those
involved.”
A recent study found that the amount of money given to charity to feed the
hungry has dropped. Schwartzberg quotes, “While the poor get poorer not because
they’re unemployed but because they can’t survive on what their jobs pay them – fewer
American households are giving anything to charity, and those that do are wiring
smaller checks” (36). Objective five addresses this issue.
Objective 5 ~ Does financial status affect donation habits?
In the focus group conducted for this study, on person commented, “If a person feels it
is important enough to donate, then they will. There are many wealthy people who do
not donate at all.” However, Ryerson of the American Red Cross says, “People with
greater resources give larger gifts, and people with less wealth give a greater
percentage of their income.”
In an effort to eliminate financial stability as a factor in discussing donations to
world hunger “The Hunger Site” has agreed to donate a days worth of rice or maize to
the “United Nations World Food Programme” for every visitor to their website. This
enables those financially unstable individuals the ability to “give without giving” (36).
Objective 6 ~ What motivates people to donate?
In the focus group conducted for this study, several members of the group
expressed that the reason they donate to world hunger was for self-satisfaction. One
member said, “I got to help those people that were in need and less fortunate than me.”
However, this is not the only reason that causes people to donate. Survey results from
this study reveal that most people don’t feel that money raised for world hunger should
be used to assist only U.S. allies, as shown in the following tables:
Survey item #8 N SA (5) A (4) N (3) D (2) SD (1) X
Money raised for world
hunger should be used 40 5 3 16 10 6 2.775
only to assist US allies.
Because the mean score is below three, people tend to slightly disagree with the
statement. People sometimes are motivated to donate based on where and to whom
their donation is assisting. These results indicate that people will tend to donate less if
their money were to assist only U.S. allies.
Objective 7 ~ How can donating become easier for college students?
Survey results from this study also reveal that ease of donating is also an
important issue at Lake Forest College. Males especially believe that donating to world
hunger is not very convenient. The results are shown below:
Survey item #5 –
males N SA (5) A (4) N (3) D (2)
SD
(1) X
Making donations at
Lake
Forest College for
World 40 2 6 5 7 0 3.15
Hunger is
convenient.
Women on the other hand, tended to have more agreement with the statement, and
therefore don’t find donating at Lake Forest College as inconvenient as the men. The
results for the females are shown below:
Survey item #5 –
females N SA (5) A (4) N (3) D (2)
SD
(1) X
Making donations at
Lake
Forest College for
World 40 1 7 3 8 1 2.95
Hunger is
convenient.
It is important to note that the mean score for both men and women are very close to
neutral. This data indicates that there is definite room for improvement when it comes
to accommodating students.
In the focus group conducted for this study, a participant offered a creative idea,
which could possibly increase total donations given by Lake Forest College students.
This response also specifically addressed the teams objective seven. At the beginning
of each semester, students have a predetermined amount of “flex dollars” on their
student identification, which can be used to purchase food at one of the three coffee
houses located around campus. One member of the focus group quoted, “Extra flex
dollars can be donated towards world hunger.” This idea sparked an interest in the
group, which not only caused further discussion about the topic but also convinced the
research group to highlight this suggestion when developing their survey.
Survey item #4
Freshman
(n)
Freshman
(%) Seniors (n) Seniors (%)
Would you be willing to
donate
your extra flex dollars left
over at 20 100% 19 95%
the end of the semester
towards
World Hunger if under
$5.00?
Of the total sample surveyed, 97.5% stated that they would be willing to donate
their extra flex dollars to help eliminate world hunger. In addition, the research group
also discovered that 68 % (25 of 37) of students would rather donate to world hunger
via campus organizations. This data shows that students wish to donate at Lake Forest
College as opposed to a world hunger organization. One student said that she would
rather donate to a campus organization because, “It would promote community
involvement.” However, convenience is still an issue. Another student stated that she
would donate “on campus if it is convenient.”
Objective 8 ~ What messages and media should be used to encourage donating
among college students?
Athletic Council was not the only organization at Lake Forest College, which
sponsored food drives. During National Hunger and Homeless Awareness Week, the
Community Service Coalition and Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, Inc. presented an annual
food drive to help those who are less fortunate during the upcoming holiday season.”
Like Athletic Council this drive targeted participation by the students and used signs and
flyers in order to increase awareness. (See Appendix) However, evidence from the
focus group concludes that their technique to gain awareness is not effective.
By reviewing all the data collected during the project, the research team was able
to design some better promotional suggestions applicable to Lake Forest College
community, as well as to world hunger organizations. One major issue discovered
during the project was the inconvenience of donating. Organizations or clubs at Lake
Forest College looking to increase the total donations from the students should address
this issue first. The study revealed that not only do the female and senior students think
that donating on campus is more convenient in comparison to the male and freshman,
but also they tended to donate more. As a result, the research team believes that a
campaign aimed to accommodate the freshman and male students would be a great
idea. Populate the all male and all freshman dorms with signs about donating.
Including donation sites not only in the male and freshman dorms but also in every dorm
on campus, which would increase the convenience of donating and accommodate more
people. One student felt that “dorm competitions” would be a good way to promote
donating for world hunger. Another student suggested that an organization could “hold a
contest between dorms and give a prize to the winner.” A competition between
freshman and seniors or males and females could possibly increase the donations by
the freshman and males also. (See Appendix for a possible flyers)
Karen Ryerson of the American Red Cross comments that “several campaigns
over the last several years have specifically targeted this group (students). One was
called Generation X.” World hunger organizations such as the American Red Cross
might consider another campaign specifically targeting males, since only 30% of the
males surveyed had ever donated $5. This approach would attempt to increase
donations by convincing the males they should donate as often as the females.
Limitations
Several weaknesses of the research project should also be noted. First, as
Wunch points out in a survey “a representative sample has the same characteristics of
the population, and the data that the sample provides is the same data that the
population would have provided had the total population been surveyed” (31).
However, during this research project for world hunger, this was not the case. Every
participant in the study was a student at Lake Forest College. It is also hard to conclude
that Lake Forest is a good representative college, since the average tuition for the
school is higher and the average student body population for the school is lower than
other schools.
Another flaw in the project was that due to a time constraint the team chose to
use a small sample size. One way to validate a survey by increasing the confidence
level, decrease the allowable error, or create a diverse study, is to increase the total
number in the sample. The research group also used a convenient sample when
choosing their participants. A convenient sample is “a non-probability sample used
primarily because data are easy to collect.” Surveys were administered at random to
people that were willing to participate. This creates a weakness in the study because
the team is taking the chance that the sample randomly chosen will represent the
population.
Some flaws in research projects are hard to avoid and impossible to eliminate.
For example, one weakness is that respondents to the survey are limited by responses
based on the wording of the instrument. If one person has an opinion that is not offered
as a selection on the survey, he/she must compromise and select a different option.
For example, if one student preferred donating to a local food drive rather than online, a
world hunger organization, or a campus organization, he/she would have not choice but
to select one of the alternative choices. Therefore, the survey instrument is not truly
measuring this person’s opinion on donating. Another weakness that is hard to
eliminate is the validity of the respondents’ remarks. In the world hunger case, the team
must take for granted that Les Dlabay (a frequent donator to world hunger) is an expert
in this field. The information that he provides is considered the correct and valid
information, even though this might not be true.
One final flaw in this project is that although the team properly set up the
procedures that were needed for drawing conclusions, they did not statistically analyze
their data. Given more time and better resources the team would have also been able
to calculate the results and make better comparisons.
Recommendations
1. To increase the total donations given by students at Lake Forest College
students should be offered the option of donating their “flex dollars” to world
hunger at the end of the semester.
2. To encourage students to donate on the Lake Forest College campus action
should be taken to organize an inter-dorm, “battle of the sexes”, or “battle of the
classes” competition.
3. To increase the total donations world hunger organizations should receive they
should target males and freshmen in college.
4. In future studies, researchers should consider a survey to compare the average
gift among males and females to see if Karen Ryerson’s claim that the average
gift is higher among males.
5. Conduct a similar project but by using a stratified random sample instead of a
convenient sample in order to obtain more accurate results.
6. Conduct a similar project but by choosing a sample which could be generalized
to the whole population.
Conclusion
This research project was hopefully able to open the eyes of some members of
the Lake Forest community who are too busy to take time to help a worthy cause. The
project also aimed to provide world hunger organizations as well as campus
organizations with information regarding the opinions and donation trends of students,
which is useful when organizing a campaign to increase total donations. The longer
people wait to take action, the worse the world hunger problem will become. This
research project proved that donating to help such an important cause could be more
convenient, but it is by no means difficult. It only takes a fraction of David Anthony’s
ambition to make a difference in the life of a starving person.
REFERENCES
“Act of bike love.” Bicycling v41. June 2000: 30.
“Foreign aid and world hunger.” America 3 185, no. 4. August 2001: 3.
Gerson, Micheal J. “Do Do-Googers Do Much Good?” U.S. News & World Report.
April 1997: 26-37.
Kellerman, Debra K. and Karen J. Thoms. “But It’s Only a Questionnaire.” Business
Education Forum. (1996): 36-38.
McDanials, Carl and Rodger Gates. Marketing Research Essentials. University of
Texas
@ Arlington, 2001
Ridgeway, James. “Feeding Desperate People.” Source Village Choice v42n50.
December 1997: 40.
Schwartzberg, Jason. “Virtually Selfless.” Village Voice. December 1999: 36.
Think Quest. Home page. Retrieved October 6, 2001 from the World Wide Web
Wunsch, Daniel R. “How to evaluate research as a research consumer.” Instructional
Strategies – An applied Research Series. (1991): 1-5.
http://www.thinkquest.org/
ANALYSISOF MEANS
1. What is the mean for each (not combined)
A) X7,
For x7, the mean is 4.7, it means that subject moderately agrees that they are have self-confident.
B) X12,
For x12, the mean is 3.8, it means that subject somewhat disagrees that they are friendly employees in their work place.
C) X17,
For x17, the mean is 4.64, it means that subject is undecided whether they like houses whose interior is attractive.
D) X22.
For x22 the mean is 4.9 it means that subject is undecided whether they were satisfied with the services that they have received from the restaurants they attended.
2. Compare and contrast the means of two groups. Are males OR females less likely to buy a new product? Explain fully your conclusion. Don’t guess. Support your answer by providing the mean that was computed.
The males are likely to go for the new product compare to female counterpart. This true because the male has higher mean of 5.91 compared to the female mean of 5.41. This means that higher number of males are likely to buy a new product whenever a chance avails itself. It can also be seen also that the number of men (208) who participated during this study were also higher compared to that of women (117).
3. Correlation: Explain fully the concept of correlation between variables. Based on the questionnaire implemented and the SPSS outputs, does the Pearson Correlation reveal that there is a high or low correlation between the level of satisfaction and the likelihood to return to a favorite Mexican restaurant? What was the Pearson Correlation computed to be? For example .4, .6, .73, .85, or 1.0? Don’t guess. Explain fully.
The computed Pearson correlation was found to be 1. With such high level of satisfaction, the probability that a person would return was 0.584 for the 325 participants in the research. The significance of the two tailed analysis was 0.000.
4. What does the multiple regression reveal about the ability of fun, size, taste, and service to predict customer satisfaction? Don’t guess. What are the beta coefficients for each? Explain fully.
When the place is fun to eat, the probability of being satisfied is 0.082. When the amount of food served is 0.132 while the excellence taste of food contributes to only 0.191 portability of having the customers satisfied. The speed of the services however carries the day where the probability of having a customer satisfied because of the speed of service is 0.292.
SPSS Outputs
FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=x22
/ORDER=ANALYSIS.
Frequencies
Statistics
X22 — Satisfaction
N
Valid
325
Missing
1
X22 — Satisfaction
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
3
22
6.7
6.8
6.8
4
93
28.5
28.6
35.4
5
58
17.8
17.8
53.2
6
60
18.4
18.5
71.7
7 = Highly Satisfied
92
28.2
28.3
100.0
Total
325
99.7
100.0
Missing
System
1
.3
Total
326
100.0
FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=x22
/STATISTICS=MEAN MEDIAN MODE
/ORDER=ANALYSIS.
Frequencies
Statistics
X22 — Satisfaction
N
Valid
325
Missing
1
Mean
5.33
Median
5.00
Mode
4
X22 — Satisfaction
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
3
22
6.7
6.8
6.8
4
93
28.5
28.6
35.4
5
58
17.8
17.8
53.2
6
60
18.4
18.5
71.7
7 = Highly Satisfied
92
28.2
28.3
100.0
Total
325
99.7
100.0
Missing
System
1
.3
Total
326
100.0
FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=x22
/STATISTICS=MEAN MEDIAN MODE
/BARCHART FREQ
/ORDER=ANALYSIS.
Frequencies
Statistics
X22 — Satisfaction
N
Valid
325
Missing
1
Mean
5.33
Median
5.00
Mode
4
X22 — Satisfaction
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
3
22
6.7
6.8
6.8
4
93
28.5
28.6
35.4
5
58
17.8
17.8
53.2
6
60
18.4
18.5
71.7
7 = Highly Satisfied
92
28.2
28.3
100.0
Total
325
99.7
100.0
Missing
System
1
.3
Total
326
100.0
FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=x7
/STATISTICS=MEAN MEDIAN MODE
/BARCHART FREQ
/ORDER=ANALYSIS.
Frequencies
Statistics
X7 — Self-Confident
N
Valid
325
Missing
1
Mean
4.70
Median
5.00
Mode
5
X7 — Self-Confident
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
2
14
4.3
4.3
4.3
3
43
13.2
13.2
17.5
4
68
20.9
20.9
38.5
5
113
34.7
34.8
73.2
6
74
22.7
22.8
96.0
Strongly Agree
13
4.0
4.0
100.0
Total
325
99.7
100.0
Missing
System
1
.3
Total
326
100.0
FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=x12
/STATISTICS=MEAN MEDIAN MODE
/BARCHART FREQ
/ORDER=ANALYSIS.
Frequencies
Statistics
X12 — Friendly Employees
N
Valid
325
Missing
1
Mean
3.81
Median
4.00
Mode
5
X12 — Friendly Employees
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
Strongly Disagree
5
1.5
1.5
1.5
2
70
21.5
21.5
23.1
3
35
10.7
10.8
33.8
4
87
26.7
26.8
60.6
5
128
39.3
39.4
100.0
Total
325
99.7
100.0
Missing
System
1
.3
Total
326
100.0
FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=x17
/STATISTICS=MEAN MEDIAN MODE
/BARCHART FREQ
/ORDER=ANALYSIS.
Frequencies
Statistics
X17 — Attractive Interior
N
Valid
325
Missing
1
Mean
4.64
Median
5.00
Mode
5
X17 — Attractive Interior
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
2
6
1.8
1.8
1.8
3
45
13.8
13.8
15.7
4
77
23.6
23.7
39.4
5
134
41.1
41.2
80.6
6
59
18.1
18.2
98.8
Strongly Agree
4
1.2
1.2
100.0
Total
325
99.7
100.0
Missing
System
1
.3
Total
326
100.0
FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=x22
/STATISTICS=STDDEV VARIANCE RANGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM
/BARCHART FREQ
/ORDER=ANALYSIS.
Frequencies
Statistics
X22 — Satisfaction
N
Valid
325
Missing
1
Std. Deviation
1.331
Variance
1.771
Range
4
Minimum
3
Maximum
7
X22 — Satisfaction
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
3
22
6.7
6.8
6.8
4
93
28.5
28.6
35.4
5
58
17.8
17.8
53.2
6
60
18.4
18.5
71.7
7 = Highly Satisfied
92
28.2
28.3
100.0
Total
325
99.7
100.0
Missing
System
1
.3
Total
326
100.0
FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=x7
/STATISTICS=STDDEV VARIANCE RANGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM
/BARCHART FREQ
/ORDER=ANALYSIS.
Frequencies
Statistics
X7 — Self-Confident
N
Valid
325
Missing
1
Std. Deviation
1.196
Variance
1.431
Range
5
Minimum
2
Maximum
7
X7 — Self-Confident
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
2
14
4.3
4.3
4.3
3
43
13.2
13.2
17.5
4
68
20.9
20.9
38.5
5
113
34.7
34.8
73.2
6
74
22.7
22.8
96.0
Strongly Agree
13
4.0
4.0
100.0
Total
325
99.7
100.0
Missing
System
1
.3
Total
326
100.0
FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=x12
/STATISTICS=STDDEV VARIANCE RANGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM
/BARCHART FREQ
/ORDER=ANALYSIS.
Frequencies
Statistics
X12 — Friendly Employees
N
Valid
325
Missing
1
Std. Deviation
1.212
Variance
1.470
Range
4
Minimum
1
Maximum
5
X12 — Friendly Employees
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
Strongly Disagree
5
1.5
1.5
1.5
2
70
21.5
21.5
23.1
3
35
10.7
10.8
33.8
4
87
26.7
26.8
60.6
5
128
39.3
39.4
100.0
Total
325
99.7
100.0
Missing
System
1
.3
Total
326
100.0
FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=x17
/STATISTICS=STDDEV VARIANCE RANGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM
/BARCHART FREQ
/ORDER=ANALYSIS.
Frequencies
Statistics
X17 — Attractive Interior
N
Valid
325
Missing
1
Std. Deviation
1.029
Variance
1.059
Range
5
Minimum
2
Maximum
7
X17 — Attractive Interior
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
2
6
1.8
1.8
1.8
3
45
13.8
13.8
15.7
4
77
23.6
23.7
39.4
5
134
41.1
41.2
80.6
6
59
18.1
18.2
98.8
Strongly Agree
4
1.2
1.2
100.0
Total
325
99.7
100.0
Missing
System
1
.3
Total
326
100.0
CROSSTABS
/TABLES=x2 BY x32
/FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES
/CELLS=COUNT
/COUNT ROUND CELL.
Crosstabs
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid
Missing
Total
N
Percent
N
Percent
N
Percent
X2 — Party Person * X32 — Gender
325
99.7%
1
0.3%
326
100.0%
X2 — Party Person * X32 — Gender Crosstabulation
Count
X32 — Gender
Total
Male
Female
X2 — Party Person
2
6
3
9
3
34
18
52
4
87
41
128
5
64
33
97
6
11
16
27
Strongly Agree
6
6
12
Total
208
117
325
CROSSTABS
/TABLES=x2 BY x32
/FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES
/STATISTICS=CHISQ
/CELLS=COUNT EXPECTED COLUMN
/COUNT ROUND CELL.
Crosstabs
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid
Missing
Total
N
Percent
N
Percent
N
Percent
X2 — Party Person * X32 — Gender
325
99.7%
1
0.3%
326
100.0%
X2 — Party Person * X32 — Gender Crosstabulation
X32 — Gender
Total
Male
Female
X2 — Party Person
2
Count
6
3
9
Expected Count
5.8
3.2
9.0
% within X32 — Gender
2.9%
2.6%
2.8%
3
Count
34
18
52
Expected Count
33.3
18.7
52.0
% within X32 — Gender
16.3%
15.4%
16.0%
4
Count
87
41
128
Expected Count
81.9
46.1
128.0
% within X32 — Gender
41.8%
35.0%
39.4%
5
Count
64
33
97
Expected Count
62.1
34.9
97.0
% within X32 — Gender
30.8%
28.2%
29.8%
6
Count
11
16
27
Expected Count
17.3
9.7
27.0
% within X32 — Gender
5.3%
13.7%
8.3%
Strongly Agree
Count
6
6
12
Expected Count
7.7
4.3
12.0
% within X32 — Gender
2.9%
5.1%
3.7%
Total
Count
208
117
325
Expected Count
208.0
117.0
325.0
% within X32 — Gender
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value
df
Asymptotic Significance (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square
8.472a
5
.132
Likelihood Ratio
8.121
5
.150
Linear-by-Linear Association
3.435
1
.064
N of Valid Cases
325
a. 2 cells (16.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.24.
ONEWAY x9 BY x32
/STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES
/MISSING ANALYSIS
.
Oneway
Descriptives
X9 — Buy New Products
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval for Mean
Minimum
Maximum
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Male
208
5.91
1.495
.104
5.71
6.12
1
7
Female
117
5.49
1.627
.150
5.19
5.79
2
7
Total
325
5.76
1.555
.086
5.59
5.93
1
7
ANOVA
X9 — Buy New Products
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
Between Groups
13.607
1
13.607
5.710
.017
Within Groups
769.673
323
2.383
Total
783.280
324
ONEWAY x24 BY x33
/STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES
/MISSING ANALYSIS
/POSTHOC=SCHEFFE ALPHA(0.05).
Oneway
Descriptives
X24 — Likely to Recommend
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval for Mean
Minimum
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
No Children at Home
148
4.87
1.535
.126
4.62
5.12
1
1-2 Children at Home
95
4.72
1.478
.152
4.41
5.02
1
More Than 2 Children at Home
82
5.13
1.538
.170
4.80
5.47
1
Total
325
4.89
1.523
.084
4.73
5.06
1
Descriptives
X24 — Likely to Recommend
Maximum
No Children at Home
7
1-2 Children at Home
7
More Than 2 Children at Home
7
Total
7
ANOVA
X24 — Likely to Recommend
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
Between Groups
7.819
2
3.910
1.693
.186
Within Groups
743.412
322
2.309
Total
751.231
324
Post Hoc Tests
Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: X24 — Likely to Recommend
Scheffe
(I) X33 — Number of Children at Home
(J) X33 — Number of Children at Home
Mean Difference (I-J)
Std. Error
Sig.
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
No Children at Home
1-2 Children at Home
.156
.200
.738
-.34
.65
More Than 2 Children at Home
-.263
.209
.456
-.78
.25
1-2 Children at Home
No Children at Home
-.156
.200
.738
-.65
.34
More Than 2 Children at Home
-.418
.229
.190
-.98
.14
More Than 2 Children at Home
No Children at Home
.263
.209
.456
-.25
.78
1-2 Children at Home
.418
.229
.190
-.14
.98
Homogeneous Subsets
X24 — Likely to Recommend
Scheffea,b
X33 — Number of Children at Home
N
Subset for alpha = 0.05
1
1-2 Children at Home
95
4.72
No Children at Home
148
4.87
More Than 2 Children at Home
82
5.13
Sig.
.147
Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.
a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 101.770.
b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.
CORRELATIONS
/VARIABLES=x22 x23
/PRINT=TWOTAIL NOSIG
/STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES
/MISSING=PAIRWISE.
Correlations
Descriptive Statistics
Mean
Std. Deviation
N
X22 — Satisfaction
5.33
1.331
325
X23 — Likely to Return
4.53
1.148
325
Correlations
X22 — Satisfaction
X23 — Likely to Return
X22 — Satisfaction
Pearson Correlation
1
.584**
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
N
325
325
X23 — Likely to Return
Pearson Correlation
.584**
1
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
N
325
325
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
REGRESSION
/MISSING LISTWISE
/STATISTICS COEFF OUTS R ANOVA
/CRITERIA=PIN(.05) POUT(.10)
/NOORIGIN
/DEPENDENT x22
/METHOD=ENTER x13 x14 x18 x21.
Regression
Variables Entered/Removeda
Model
Variables Entered
Variables Removed
Method
1
X21 — Speed of Service, X14 — Large Size Portions, X18 — Excellent Food Taste, X13 — Fun Place to Eatb
.
Enter
a. Dependent Variable: X22 — Satisfaction
b. All requested variables entered.
Model Summary
Model
R
R Square
Adjusted R Square
Std. Error of the Estimate
1
.422a
.178
.168
1.214
a. Predictors: (Constant), X21 — Speed of Service, X14 — Large Size Portions, X18 — Excellent Food Taste, X13 — Fun Place to Eat
ANOVAa
Model
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
1
Regression
102.239
4
25.560
17.346
.000b
Residual
471.534
320
1.474
Total
573.772
324
a. Dependent Variable: X22 — Satisfaction
b. Predictors: (Constant), X21 — Speed of Service, X14 — Large Size Portions, X18 — Excellent Food Taste, X13 — Fun Place to Eat
Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized Coefficients
t
Sig.
B
Std. Error
Beta
1
(Constant)
1.898
.498
3.808
.000
X13 — Fun Place to Eat
.118
.079
.082
1.490
.137
X14 — Large Size Portions
.139
.057
.132
2.417
.016
X18 — Excellent Food Taste
.234
.064
.191
3.673
.000
X21 — Speed of Service
.188
.034
.292
5.604
.000
a. Dependent Variable: X22 — Satisfaction
- Marketing Research 1 of 3
- Marketing Research 2 of 3
- Marketing Research 3 of 3
Research Report
Table of Contents:
1. Executive Summary………………………………………….pages
2. Background……………………………………………………pages
3. Problem Statement……………………………………………pages
4. Operational Definitions……………………………………….pages
5. Research Objectives………………………………………….pages
6. Research Procedures……………………………….………..pages
7. Hypotheses……………………………………………………..pages
8. Research Procedure…………………………………………..pages
9. Limitations………………………………………………………pages
10. Recommendations……………………………………………..pages
11. Findings and Analysis………………………………………….pages
a. Questions 1 – 4 with responses.
b. SPSS Outputs
i. Mean
ii. One-Way Tabulation – Frequency Table
iii. Mean, Median and Mode – Measures of Central Tendency
iv. Range, Standard Deviation and Variance
v. Crosstabulation
vi. Crosstabulation – Testing for Differences with Chi-Square
vii. Compare Means of Two Groups
Joe’s Southwestern Café
viii. Compare Means of Three of More Groups
ix. Pearson Correlation
x. Multiple Regression