The Omission of Even This Basic or Minimal Information Restricts The Research Consumers' Ability To Draw Proper Conclusions

You might also like

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2

a) There is variety of respondents from different backgrounds, ranging from social, linguistic, cultural

and economic enrolling into universities. Several individuals with previous education and employment
experiences have also made an addition to the list, leading to variation in age as well. As a result, the
existence of diversity in the university (Bolton and Tolhurst, 2018).

b) This is because demographic characteristics is an important factor in a consumer’s buying decision


process and deviations can occur from general patterns of a consumer’s decision making (Vilčeková &
Sabo, 2013). As seen in the statistics of brand image and price, there is a notable difference in the mean
scores between male and female students in their decision to buy a mobile phone. This shows that male
and female students may have their own respective thinking and mindset when it comes to buying a
mobile phone.

c) Based on the similar study of Mudondo (2014), it has significant differences if they are of a different
background of demographic profile, due to the different cultures, preference and lifestyle, and those
different perceptions would definitely influence their brand loyalty towards mobile brands. 

Why demographic information is important? How does these affecting brand loyalty? Relate to your
study. Find support from journals/articles/news and CITE

It is important to collect the specific characteristics of the participants as it increases the


diversity of the participants in the study (Hammer, 2011). The omission of demographic information will
restrict the research consumers' ability to draw proper conclusions (Sifers, 2002). Besides, it is
impossible for the researchers to assume at the begining that no differences exist between groups
(Hammer, 2011). By providing the detailed information, the researchers could find out that which
characteristics will be affecting the dependent variable in the study. It also helps the readers and
researcers to have a better comparisons between different studies. As a result, the researchers could
easily identify the issues and factors when the results found are not consistent with the past studies
(Sifers, 2002).

The omission of even this basic or minimal information restricts the research consumers' ability to
draw proper conclusions

a) Demograhpic information is important to increase the diversity of research participants.


Without the diversity, the r

Without the inclusion of such information, researchers risk assuming the stance of “absolutism,” which
assumes that the phenomena of interest are the same regardless of culture, race, ethnicity, and SES.
Provision of detailed information about participant characteristics allows researchers to move toward a
position of “universalism,” which recognizes that “there may be universal psychological processes I that I
manifest differently” depending on the culture, race/ethnicity, and or SES of participants (Beins, 2009, p.
356). This applies to the study of biological factors as well. In other words, researchers cannot assume
that no differences exist between groups until this underlying hypothesis has been proven.
How does these affecting brand loyalty?

c) Based on the similar study of Mudondo (2014), it has significant differences if they are of a different
background of demographic profile, due to the different cultures, preference and lifestyle, and those
different perceptions would definitely influence their brand loyalty towards mobile brands. 

Different demographic information of will have different degree of effect on the brand loyalty.
As mobile phone is durable goods, age and education level will affect significantly the brand
repurchase intention (Moisescu, 2009).

Moisescu, O. (2009). The influence of market type and demographics on brand loyalty: A study
among urban Romanian consumers. The Annals of the University of Oradea Economic Sciences.
18 (4). 737-741.

You might also like