The International Journal of Management Education 20 (2022) 100689

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The International Journal of Management Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijme

Using Marketing Mix Elasticities to Demonstrate Consumer and

Producer Perspectives in Marketing Management Class
Igor Makienko, Jessica Rixom *
310C Ansari Business Bldg, College of Business, University of Nevada Reno/0028, 1664 N. Virginia St., Reno, NV, 89557-0206, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Consumers’ psychological perceptions and reactions to marketing management strategies are
Marketing management strategies important factors for the success of any organization. Optimistic sales predictions based on
Consumer perceptions quantifiable production-side factors such as changes in promotion, product, price, and distribu­
Elasticity of demand
tion may fail miserably if consumers do not see value in such “objective” changes. Despite the
Learning activity
Student self assessment
inseparability of organizations’ marketing management activities and consumers’ perceptions of
these offerings, there is a lack of simple learning activities to cover this topic. Application of the
elasticity concept across marketing mix elements (4P’s: promotion, product, price, place/distri­
bution) was determined to be an effective way to demonstrate the inseparability between pro­
duction and consumer perspectives in marketing.

About a century ago, John Wanamaker defined the problem that is the focus of our learning activity: “Half the money I spend on
advertising is wasted: the trouble is, I don’t know which half” (Mayer, 1958, p. 259). Developing effective campaigns remains a
challenge (Chennamaneni et al., 2011), especially as increased resource competition leaves marketers needing to show return on
marketing investments (Gallo, 2017). To keep up with dynamic environments, business professionals constantly fine-tune strategies by
adjusting marketing mix elements (4Ps: promotion, product, price, and place). These changes – and importantly the resulting impact
on sales – can often be measured. However, marketers must understand what occurs between dollar spending in the form of increased
expenditures to improve marketing management strategies and dollar gain in the form of sales. To do so, they must consider how
consumers interpret changes, as it is their interpretation, not marketers’ intentions, that ultimately influence sales. Will lowering
prices, for instance, lead to greater sales or will it negatively influence consumers’ quality perceptions, leading to lower sales? Holding
advertising spending constant, how can marketers change the media mix to more effectively increase consumer awareness? What shelf
position will represent the product in the most beneficial way to customers?
Such questions do not have easy answers as they depend on a number of variables and answers may remain elusive even with
significant research expenditures. Regardless, students should be encouraged to view marketing as a complex phenomenon affected by
uncertainties inherent in consumer behavior (Page & Mukherjee, 2007). Marketing activities are very different from factory pro­
duction processes where the various elements can be predicted and measured perfectly (McGovern et al., 2004). The marketing
discipline, instead, has “fewer clearly right or wrong concrete answers relative to disciplines such as accounting or finance” (Swanson,
2019, p. 4) that provide students with clearly defined tasks and solutions (Camey & Williams, 2004; Vinuales et al., 2019).
Developing critical thinking skills alongside other 21st-century skills and the ability to apply theories and concepts learned in
various business classes to real business situations is the best way to prepare students for successful business careers (Finch et al., 2013;

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: imakienko@unr.edu (I. Makienko), jrixom@unr.edu (J. Rixom).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100689
Received 6 March 2022; Received in revised form 23 June 2022; Accepted 4 July 2022
Available online 30 July 2022
1472-8117/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
I. Makienko and J. Rixom The International Journal of Management Education 20 (2022) 100689

McCorkle et al., 2001; Rosenbaum et al., 2015; Trilling & Fadel, 2009; Wagner, 2008).
However, recent graduates often do not fully understand business practices or challenges (DiStaso et al., 2009; Neill & Schauster,
2015; Rohm et al., 2019) in a comprehensive manner. Students may find themselves thinking about marketing decisions through the
lens of either a consumer or a marketer, thus leading the two perspectives to be viewed separately rather than simultaneously. Indeed,
due to lack of real marketing experience, students seem to retain consumer behavior topics better than marketing strategy topics
(Vinuales et al., 2019).
The ability to see the two simultaneously, however, is critical for fully grasping the intricacies and uncertainties faced when making
marketing mix changes and can be improved through in-class Exercises designed to help students relate real business situations to their
own experiences (Ferrell & Gonzalez, 2004; Finch et al., 2013; Schaller, 2018). Students need to apply acquired marketing knowledge
and “embrace the ambiguity associated with creating marketing strategies” (Rohm et al., 2019, p. 51). Integrating students’ consumer
experiences and “business landscapes that are commonly described as volatile, uncertain’, complex and ambiguous” (Tan & Vicente,
2019, p. 1) into one framework to organize seemingly unrelated perspectives into a coherent whole helps students make sense of
complex situations (Yeganeh & Kolb, 2009).
To support instructors as they help students gain this understanding, we created, employed, and assessed an innovative learning
activity using concepts akin to price elasticity of demand to help students conceptualize how consumers’ perceptions of marketing mix
changes affect demand. We show students that mechanical application of predictive metrics such as elasticity across all marketing mix
elements may unintentionally “miss” the consumer perspective in exchange situations. Such active learning may be defined as “ex­
periences in which students engage with the information being presented and personalize it by linking it to what they already know”
(Diamond et al., 2008, p. 117). By pulling from students’ prior knowledge, whether derived from the classroom, work settings, or
personal experience as a consumer, the current learning activity helps students think critically about situations faced by businesses
considering changes to marketing mix elements. While the exact outcome of such changes may not be clear prior to launch, students
must realize that as business professionals, they must consider consumers’ perceptions of changes from the onset to predict more
accurately the sales impact of marketing strategies.

1. Learning activity

1.1. Setting the stage

Preparation for the activity can start early in the semester. Student familiarity with both the price elasticity concept and consumer
behavior are necessary for the activity’s success (Chad, 2012; Hernandez, 2002). We find that at the start of the semester, the elasticity
concept feels novel for some students and is long forgotten by others. Thus, to help students feel confident in solving these and other
pricing problems, we introduce the concepts early in the semester, giving students ample time to practice these skills throughout the
semester by providing students with a couple of quizzes where they can earn extra credit points. By introducing the price elasticity
concept early in the semester and following it with two quizzes, students are adequately prepared as we extend the measure’s use
during the in-class activity. We feel this tiered approach is beneficial as some may be overwhelmed if price elasticity was introduced
and immediately applied to other areas of the marketing mix during the same class period.
During standard lectures covering consumer behavior topics, we emphasize the importance of the consumer perspective; specif­
ically, that consumers ultimately determine the success of products in the marketplace and that consumers’ subjective perceptions
affect success for each of the 4Ps. However, mentioning the importance of consumer perspectives in marketing can be lost and
overwhelmed by the tone taken in most consumer behavior summary chapters, which focus on how companies develop successful
strategies based on knowledge of consumers’ characteristics, psychological preferences, etc., leaving consumers no choice but to buy.
The more important emphasis – that consumers ultimately decide the fate of all products in the market – is unintentionally hidden or
takes a back stage. Similarly, emphasis is often placed on how to establish an initial marketing mix, which overlooks the need to
consider how subsequent marketing mix changes affect consumers’ perceptions, judgments, decisions, and ultimately, product success.

2. Introducing the activity

The learning activity begins with a quick refresher on price elasticity of demand, which was covered earlier in the semester. In­
structors then remind students about the law of demand, which explains the inverse relationship between price and quantity demanded
such that when price falls (rises), demand increases (decreases) because consumers are willing to buy more (less) of the product. Then,
the formula for the estimation of the price elasticity coefficient is written on the board (elasticity coefficient = percentage change in
demand/percentage change in price). The price elasticity measure indicates whether demand is more or less sensitive to price changes.
The numeric value of the price elasticity coefficient is the percent change in demand that occurs with each 1% change in price. If
demand changes by more than 1% for each 1% change in price (i.e., coefficient greater than one), then demand in the market is elastic.
In contrast, if demand changes by less than 1% for each 1% change in price (i.e., coefficient less than 1), then demand in the market is
inelastic.
Instructors can tell students that a benefit of the elasticity measure is that it is a unit-free index and thus allows for assessing the
strength and valence of the relationship between factors measured in different units. Students are told that, as such, it is applicable in
many areas, including the other marketing mix elements and instructors can shift the discussion to address this idea. This is the point
when students realize the “hidden” potential of the elasticity measure and become more curious.
To begin, instructors may choose, for example, to move from price to promotion. They may introduce advertising elasticity of

2
I. Makienko and J. Rixom The International Journal of Management Education 20 (2022) 100689

demand by asking students if advertising affects demand. Having conducted this activity for several years, we find that students
generally agree that a relationship exists, but unlike price and demand, they acknowledge that we would expect a positive relationship
of advertising and demand. That is, when advertising expenditures increase, we expect demand to increase as well. Even if campaigns
have objectives other than sales like increasing brand awareness or promoting new product use, the final aim is ultimately to increase
sales. Indeed, such elasticity represents “a powerful measure to quantify the effect of advertising” (Henningsen et al., 2011, p. 194).
Students find it interesting that the advertising elasticity of demand is significantly less than 1, meaning that consumers are not very
sensitive to advertising. To surprise students even more and remind them that consumers do not always buy in response to com­
mercials, instructors can provide actual estimated coefficients of advertising elasticities, which are found to vary between 0.038 and
0.24 (Guitart et al., 2018; Henningsen et al., 2011; Sethuraman et al., 2011; Wright, 2009). Students often state that estimating
advertising elasticity of demand is easy if we know both the percentage change in advertising expenditures and consequent percentage
change in dollar or unit sales (Albers et al., 2010), which makes for a nice segue to other facets of marketing strategy.

3. Product discussion

Instructors can then move to another marketing mix element, such as product. Students will agree that, like advertising, product
modifications may also positively affect demand. They often decide it is possible and useful to estimate the product elasticity coef­
ficient. However, there is a problem. Some product changes may not be truly quantifiable. After all, what does it mean to change a
product by 1% if this change is in terms of style, shape, or color? How can one measure these changes? This line of questioning helps
students recognize that even if two factors are related, their relationship is not always quantifiable such as when only categorical
product attributes (e.g., color, shape) change. Instructors can then provide a solution: even if we cannot quantify some product
attribute changes, we can still relate research and development (R&D) expenditures to sales. Companies expect higher sales when they
invest more in developing better products. Students find this reasonable and are curious when asked if R&D expenditures ultimately
determine product success or if there are other, more powerful factors at play in the market. Specifically, students are asked, do higher
investments always mean higher sales? Students quickly realize that money spent by a company is not the only determinant of sales, as
consumers may dislike the new or modified products. Now students begin questioning the assumptions behind the positive relationship
between R&D and sales because each dollar spent on R&D does not increase sales at the same rate. Students realize the issue is not how
much is spent on R&D but rather how the R&D team designed or modified the product. Modifications that cost the same amount may
generate different sales depending on consumers’ perceptions of the attributes that were changed and the degree of change.
Shifting from an organizational to a consumer perspective engages students in the activity and provides a forum for sharing
personal experiences of liked or disliked product changes. While students may not have much business experience and hence may not
know a lot about the production side of marketing, they do have “substantial concrete experience as consumers” (Fowler & Bridges,
2012, p. 157). An effective educator thus “builds on an exploration of what students already know” (Kolb & Kolb, 2005, p. 207). After
several students share personal stories, instructors can summarize the discussion and emphasize that many “great” products fail
because consumers do not perceive sufficient value in the altered attributes.
Instructors, for instance, can share classic, well-known examples of major market failures resulting from product formulation
changes such as Coca-Cola’s introduction and withdrawal of New Coke in 1985. New Coke was aimed to replace the original, but
consumers actively rejected the new product, leading Coca-Cola to reintroduce the original within three months of New Coke’s debut.
This classic example may spark even more discussion given Coca-Cola’s limited time relaunch of New Coke in Spring 2019 aimed to
coincide with the start of the third season of Stranger Things, a popular Netflix program set in the 1980s (Meyer, 2019).
Students also appreciate recent examples such as Mondelez International’s change away from and back to the iconic shape of the
Toblerone chocolate bar (Fig. 1). In late 2016, Mondelez widened the gaps between the bar’s triangular peaks. The new bar still fit the
old package, but the lighter weight enabled the company to maintain same retail price while offsetting rising ingredient costs (Haynes,

Fig. 1. Toblerone example.

Source: Las Vegas Review Journal, November 8, 2016; accessed on September 29, 2021. (https://www.reviewjournal.com/entertainment/food/
toblerone-changes-shape-of-chocolate-bars-and-fans-are-outraged/)

3
I. Makienko and J. Rixom The International Journal of Management Education 20 (2022) 100689

2016). Consumer response to the change was largely negative with some likening the new shape to a bike rack and by mid-2018, the
company announced the change had not been “the perfect long-term answer” for its consumers (British Broadcasting Corporation
(BBC), 2018). Mondelez reverted the Toblerone bar back to its iconic triangular shape, albeit with a higher retail price. To facilitate
further discussion, instructors may ask which elements that changed were quantifiable (ingredient costs and weight) and which were
not (symbolic loss of the iconic shape). Students may suggest that Mondelez could have addressed costs early on by keeping the iconic
shape but adjusting to a smaller package size or raising the retail price. At this point, instructors can again explain that while these
changes may be quantifiable, they may still overlook how consumers will perceive and react to the recommended changes.
More recently, the Wall Street Journal produced a video on how companies try to save on production costs (Shrinkflation, 2022).
With the highest consumer prices in 40 years, shrinkflation reflects companies’ attempts to redesign price-pack architecture of their
products to hide increased production costs by keeping similar prices but offering products in smaller packages. The video provides
numerous examples including Oreo’s cookies, Doritos chips, General Mills Honey Nut Cheerios cereal, Chobani non-fat Greek yogurt
and others.
After showing this video in class, instructors can ask students if they have noticed any changes in the products that they regularly
buy. If students have noticed changes, instructors may ask them to bring the product packages to class to discuss whether consumers
would typically notice these changes or not. Doing so can further engage students in the learning process.
For classes where students are, have recently been, or soon will be actively engaged in a marketing simulation game, we find that
this is an appropriate time to remind students that the effect of product modifications on marketplace demand depends on how specific
attributes were modified, and consequently, on consumers’ perceptions of the altered product. Therefore, marketers should conduct
and consult research when developing or modifying products, in both simulations and the real business world.
Students sometimes mention that, although not a perfect metric, R&D elasticity of demand may be an indicator of creativity and/or
analytical skills of R&D team. When the elasticity coefficient exceeds 1, consumers are sensitive to changes in R&D expenditures and
one could argue that the R&D team is doing well at consumer research and product development (the higher the coefficient, the better
the R&D team). Conversely, a low elasticity coefficient could suggest a disconnect between the R&D team and consumers.

4. Promotion discussion

Next, depending on instructor interests, students can be encouraged to reflect on earlier discussions and elaborate on the role of
consumers’ perspectives. For instance, if focusing on advertising, instructors can ask for qualitative factors that affect advertising
perceptions and effectiveness. Can one expect consumers’ perceptions of two campaigns to be identical simply because of identical
budgets? Absolutely not! There are two qualitative factors here – communication channels and creative elements.
In the 1960s, mass media theorist Marshall McLuhan coined influential phrase, “The medium is the message.” This phrase reflects
the idea that content and medium are intertwined such that the unique nature of different media transforms a message in its own way
and affects message perceptions (McLuhan, 1964). Therefore, two campaigns with identical budgets using different communication
channels will have different effects on consumer attitudes, recall, call-to-action responses, and so forth.
On the other hand, even when holding the communications channel constant, campaigns developed by different creative pro­
fessionals using the same promotional brief will employ distinct creative elements, which can also lead to variable outcomes.
Advertising practice shows that qualitative factors, including execution style, advertising appeal, visuals, and voice, have profound
effects on advertising effectiveness.
Increased recognition of consumers’ influence on company performance is reflected across all promotional tools, not advertising
alone. For example, Koronios et al. (2021) developed a scale to assess sport sponsorship’s effectiveness based on 11 sponsorship-related
factors and found that fans’ level of sport involvement (in general), fans’ attachment to their favorite teams, and fans’ perceptions of
sincerity of sponsoring firms, among others, affected sport sponsorship effectiveness. Consumers’ responses to each promotional
element can affect company success. Hence, when allocating budgets, marketers should both consider the characteristics of qualitative
factors and conduct research with the target market to better predict the promotions’ effect on the company (Gable et al., 2000).

5. Pricing discussion

Circling back to pricing, instructors can inform students that identical prices or identical degrees of price change will not equally
affect consumer demand. When discussing pricing, we find students are particularly interested in brief organizational or research
examples such as differential perceptions of identical monetary discounts presented as one big versus two small discounts. Mental
accounting principles (Thaler, 2008) predict that providing two smaller discounts (segregating gains) creates more positive pricing
perceptions than providing one bigger discount that amounts to the sum of two smaller discounts (combining gains). Instructors can
also mention that how marketers frame price changes can differentially effect consumers’ price perceptions and, thus, market demand.
For example, consumers have higher purchase intentions for economically identical deals when presented with implausibly high
reference prices than with plausible reference prices (e.g., Was $400, Now $100 vs. Was $170, Now $100; Urbany et al., 1988).
Researchers also find that when sales prices are identical, consumers prefer sales promotions that provide the normal retail price as a
reference point (e.g., Regularly $120, Sale Price $40) compared to those without reference points (e.g., Sale Price $40) (Kan et al.,
2014). This occurs because sales price information is more diagnostic and informative when provided with reference prices. We find it
helpful to write the promotional options (i.e., $40 sale price with and without the $120 reference price) on the board and to ask
students which consumers will prefer and why. This engages students in the process and enables them to recognize that it is not just the
absolute amount of savings, but also how consumers interpret and perceive different framing options that influence an identical price

4
I. Makienko and J. Rixom The International Journal of Management Education 20 (2022) 100689

promotion’s success.
Knowledge of consumers’ perspectives is important in designing value-based pricing strategies. While cost-based pricing does not
consider consumers’ value perceptions and is based on a product cost, value-based pricing – a superior pricing strategy (Hinterhuber,
2008) starts with consumer research. Mills and Treen (2016, p. 79) have shown that active learning helps students to realize that
marketers are “the connection agent between the product and the consumer” and as a result, “the concepts of value and worth are
generated from the consumer’s perspective rather than the marketer’s.”
To round out the price discussion, instructors can remind students that price elasticity of demand reflects aggregate market demand
and may vary significantly across consumer groups. Consumer price perceptions are subjective and depend on both individual and
contextual factors such as income, brand loyalty, and price framing. Acknowledging extensive behavioral pricing research showing
factors affecting consumers’ pricing evaluations encourages students to remember the consumer side when developing pricing
strategies.

6. Place discussion

Discussing the inseparability of production and consumer perspectives in the place or distribution element of the marketing mix
completes the circle. The concept of servicescapes (Bitner, 1992; Lin, 2004) introduces retail atmospherics or qualitative factors in
service settings, such as music, scent, lighting, color, and merchandise density. Turley and Milliman (2000) identified 57 specific
retailing cues that affect customers’ cognitive, emotional, and behavioral responses. These atmospheric elements, while independent
of the products themselves, are found to shape consumers’ product-related judgments, decisions, and purchases (Baker et al., 2002;
Belk, 1975; Krishna, 2012; Turley & Milliman, 2000). Some influences are based on consumers’ affective reactions like perceived
pleasure, arousal and dominance (Chebat & Michon, 2003; Donovan et al., 1994; Donovan & Rossiter, 1982). For example, warm
temperatures increase product valuation by triggering positive emotional warmth associations (Zwebner et al., 2013). Zielke and
Schielke (2016) show that store lighting affects not only consumers’ perceptions of store atmospherics, but also their perceptions of
product quality, product price and shopping intentions. For example, illumination/lighting with saturated orange colors result in
consumers’ greater product quality perceptions, but this effect disappears with pastel colors (Zielke & Schielke, 2016). Another study
has shown that appealing environments increase consumers’ perceptions of salesperson credibility and leads to higher sales (Sharma &
Stafford, 2000).
When time permits, we find that students appreciate additional examples, such as how ambient music at lower (higher) volumes
makes consumers feel relaxed (excited), subsequently leading to greater sales of healthy (unhealthy) food options (Biswas et al., 2019).
Students are also interested to learn that consumers infer that the most expensive products in stores are on the highest shelves, even
when informed that this is not always the case (Valenzuela et al., 2013). A quantifiable example is shelf space elasticity, which is
defined as the percentage change in sales with each percentage change in space allocated to a product. A meta-analysis on shelf space
elasticity finds a positive but highly inelastic (0.17) relationship between the factors (Eisend, 2014).
Asking students for personal experiences also proves effective. Students typically share their exposure to extreme and therefore,
memorable, atmospheric cues such as overcrowded stores during Black Friday, ambient scents used by clothing retailers, and hearing
holiday music in early-autumn followed by the effects they believe these cues had on their behaviors.
To wrap up the place discussion, instructors can remind students that some distribution factors can be measured in percentage
terms, such as changes in territorial coverage; therefore, these elasticities can be estimated. This sometimes leads students to ask
questions such as whether elasticities can help retailers identify valuable marketing strategies. Marketers’ use of all available data
gives a richer, more accurate picture of performance, so knowledge of retail-related elasticities can be beneficial. As an example,
instructors can elaborate on territorial coverage elasticity of demand. When considering territorial expansion strategies, what can an
elastic (i.e., each 1% change in expenditures from expanding territorial coverage, leads to more than 1% change in demand) or in­
elastic coefficient tell retailers? Similar to the R&D elasticity of demand measure, organizations prefer elastic markets when expanding
territorial coverage, meaning consumers are sensitive to territorial expansion investments and sales will likely increase at a higher rate
compared to the increase in investments. With high inelasticity, the expansion strategy is inefficient and organizations should think of
alternative distribution improvements.

7. Wrapping up

Throughout the discussion, the conclusion becomes clear to students: one simply cannot separate producer and consumer sides of
marketing. We find students enjoy hearing examples from research or current business practices. Instructors should not feel limited to
the examples in this manuscript, but are encouraged to pull examples they believe will resonate with their students. Examples are
abundant from consumers’ differential perceptions of products with identical volumes but variable package length, width, and/or
height (Chandon & Ordabayeva, 2009) to consumers’ different performance levels after consuming identical energy drinks with versus
without price discounts (Shiv et al., 2005). Customization is key to ensuring a meaningful experience for both instructors and students.
After the learning activity, we suggest giving students time to share their experiences with the activity, thoughts, and ideas with
others (Black & Wingfield, 2008). This results in “conversational learning” (Kolb & Kolb, 2005) and helps solidify concepts in students’
minds. Baker, Jensen, and Kolb (2002) note that some students who prefer electronic communications lack synchronous conversa­
tional skills. Without experience with this more intimate, relational side to communication, these students may talk less during class.
Thus, conversational learning, which is purposeful conversation that aids in the construction of meaning, can be particularly important
for these students (Baker, Jensen, & Kolb, 2002).

5
I. Makienko and J. Rixom The International Journal of Management Education 20 (2022) 100689

The full activity takes one hour, but instructors can customize the length and shorten it by minimizing the number of personal
experiences shared or lengthen it by having students find recent examples of brands that failed or succeeded at simultaneously
considering the producer and consumer sides when adjusting marketing mix elements. When time permits, students enjoy finding
recent examples and instructors can often select and incorporate the examples into discussions in subsequent semesters. In addition,
the assignment may be completed in class or it can be given as a home assignment – depending on the length of the activity and
instructor goals.
A primary benefit of the activity is that it is not the end in itself. We typically expand on the activity-based discussion when covering
other aspects of the marketing mix throughout the semester. According to Bacon and Stewart (2006), frequent exposure to and
assessment of concepts leads to deeper learning and long-term retention. We continue to revisit the core ideas from the activity
throughout the semester as needed in order to support students as they develop into marketing professionals.
While real business examples are provided in this manuscript, we recommend that instructors continue to build a pool of examples
showing market failures. Product failures and success stories are not reported every day, so it can be helpful to carefully monitor
marketing news for more recent examples. When selecting cases, we focus on those that will relate to Generation Z and Millennials as
students are much more “equipped” to analyze marketing offerings that appeal (or should appeal) to their generation.1
In recent years, we have extended the discussion throughout the semester. For instance, we incorporate the framework when
engaging students in discussions about problems facing companies that we pull from the popular and marketing press. We ask students
to analyze the failures and discuss potential solutions that could have helped the products and companies, in other words, what was
overlooked and how can the company fix the problem? This “forensic” marketing approach is engaging for students because it enables
them to apply what they learned in class.

8. Assessment of actual and perceived learning

8.1. Hypotheses development

We developed two hypotheses to assess the results of our learning activity. We anticipate that the activity will increase student
engagement and comprehension due to novel applications of the elasticity measure. That is, after discovering the intrinsic relationship
between producer and consumer perspectives through the activity, students will be better equipped to critically analyze marketing
management strategies and “solve the complexities inherent in real life scenarios” (Page & Mukherjee, 2007).
Specifically, we anticipate that students who take a quiz after engaging in the learning activity will have a significantly better
understanding of the need to consider consumers’ perceptions, and therefore will have higher quiz scores, than those who take the quiz
before participating in the learning activity. Stated formally, we hypothesize the following:
H1: Quiz scores will be significantly higher for students who take the quiz after participating in the learning activity than for
students who take the quiz before participating in the learning activity.
We also expect that students will find the activity interesting and engaging and that the degree to which students perceive it as such
will be affected by whether the quiz preceded or followed the learning activity However, it is unclear in what way exposing students to
the learning activity before or after completing a topic-relevant quiz will affect activity evaluations. It is possible that taking a quiz
after exposure to the activity will help students realize the activity’s value as they apply their new knowledge to the quiz questions,
leading to more positive perceptions of the activity. On the other hand, it is possible that taking a quiz before exposure to the activity
will help students recognize a gap in their knowledge, thus leading to greater evaluations of the activity. For instance, Rosenbaum et al.
(2015) found that introducing ill-structured problems (reality-based TV episode related to business theme) before a lecture designed to
provide guidance, explanations, hints, and solutions to the problem presented in the video increased student engagement during the
lecture. While both outcomes are possible, we anticipate that, in alignment with the findings of Rosenbaum et al. (2015), students
taking a topic-related quiz before engaging in the activity will recognize a gap in their knowledge (based on the standard lecture) that
the activity subsequently fills, leading to more positive perceptions of the activity’s value. Stated formally, we hypothesize the
following:
H2: Students who take a topic-relevant quiz before participating in the learning activity will evaluate the activity as significantly
more valuable compared to students who complete the quiz after participating in the learning activity.

9. Perceived and actual learning

Research has shown that perceived and actual learning are independent constructs representing affective and cognitive learning
outcomes respectively (Dean et al., 2017; Bacon, 2011; Clarke & Nelson, 2012; Sitzmann et al., 2010). Perceived learning reflects
student feelings about a course rather than their actual acquired knowledge (Sitzmann et al., 2010). These perceptions are based “on
the level of stimulation received, effort required, and the connection to the real world that they provide” (AACSB. Accreditation, 2020,
p. 26). Actual learning reflects increase in student knowledge that can be tested independently. Research has also shown little or no
correlation between these two assessment methods (Clayson, 2009; Sitzmann et al., 2010) or even a negative correlation (Kitchener
et al., 2000).

1
According to Pew Research, in 2019, these two generational cohorts in were defined as 7–22 year olds (Generation Z) and 23–38 year olds
(Millennials) (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/17/where-millennials-end-and-generation-z-begins/).

6
I. Makienko and J. Rixom The International Journal of Management Education 20 (2022) 100689

Perceived learning is usually measured by student self-reports “based on some reflection and introspection” (Bacon, 2016, p. 1;
Elbeck & Bacon, 2015) and student feelings about their progress in understanding course material (Dahl et al., 2018). In contrast,
assessment of actual learning requires direct measures, such as tests, that are capable of showing a change in knowledge as a result of
achieving some learning goals (Bacon, 2016; Elbeck & Bacon, 2015).
Literature shows that self-assessment or perceived, indirect learning, may not be a good indicator of actual learning outcomes and
finds significant differences between self-reported assessment and actual, direct assessment measures (Bacon, 2011, 2016; Karns,
2005; Vinuales et al., 2019). Nevertheless, students’ perceptions of their own learning and enjoyment of the activity are important
indicators of their willingness to engage in the learning process and may enhance actual learning (Karns, 2005; Vander Schee, 2012).
Further, engaged students perform better (Krishen, 2013), while intrinsically motivated students switch from short-term learning
strategies to knowledge acquisition strategies (Young, 2005; Young et al., 2008).
Vinuales et al. (2019, p. 26) call for instructors to use both direct and indirect assessments of new pedagogical approaches as they
“generate a richer understanding of student learning.” We followed the authors’ call and measured students’ actual learning as well as
their perceived learning to assess learning outcomes engagement, and confidence in understanding covered topics.
To assess actual, direct learning, we developed a quiz with topic-relevant close-ended, dual-choice questions and open-ended
follow up questions (Table 1). The quiz was designed to assess the activity’s contribution to a deeper understanding of consumers’
roles in marketing exchanges. One class completed the quiz before engaging in the learning activity (control) and the other class
completed the quiz after engaging in the learning activity (treatment). The perceived, indirect measure of learning was a survey, which
both classes completed last, after both the activity and the quiz (Table 2). Another objective of the survey was to measure student
engagement and enjoyment.
The best way to assess direct learning would be to compare quiz results between treatment and control groups. Although it would
be possible to use one class as a control by giving them a standard lecture rather than a more dynamic, activity-based discussion, we felt
this would be counter to Belmont ethical principles (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and
Behavioral Research, 1979) of beneficence and justice. Based on our experience and students’ feedback, we felt all students should
have an opportunity to participate in the activity as it deepens their understanding of marketing exchanges. Therefore, in an attempt to
have a reference or control group, all students received the same activity and took the same quiz, but we fluctuated the order such that
those who took the quiz before engaging in the activity were the control group and those who took the quiz after the activity were the
treatment group (see Table 3). Regardless of the quiz/learning activity order, the survey to assess perceived learning, engagement, and
enjoyment always came last.
We also addressed the issue of “more teaching will lead to better results” as a potential confounding factor by adjusting the topic
schedule in both classes. Since students who are taught more can logically be expected to receive better grades, we wanted to keep the

Table 1
Direct measure of learning activity effectiveness: Quiz.
Questions % Answering Correctly

Control Class (n Treatment Class (n

= 32) = 31)

1 PRICE: Last year a firm decided to increase sales of its product A by offering 50% off. The product’s regular price 75% 93.5%
is $80. The firm started offering the following sale: “Buy two products for the price of one! Just $80 for two
items!” This promotional campaign was a great success and the firm’s sales increased by 60%. This year the firm
again decided to offer 50% off, but slightly changed the slogan: “Buy one item for $80, get one free!” Note that
both deals offer the same $80 discount – if a consumer decides to acquire two products. Can the firm expect a
60% increase in sales like it had last year? (Yes/No)
2 PROMOTION: An advertising agency is developing an IMC campaign for a local client that sells jewelry. The 29.0% 73.3%
agency plans to place commercials on all local TV stations and needs to choose one more communication
channel. The choice is between billboards and local newspaper. Both have high “visibility” and it costs the same
for the agency to place the ads. Due to these similarities, the agency should expect to have similar results
regardless of what second communication channel will be chosen. (True/False)
3 PRODUCT: Firm A is a leader in the market. It invests a lot of money in R&D (research and development) and 26.7% 46.7%
consumers like its products. Firm B entered the market a few months ago and has enough resources to beat Firm
A. Firm B uses the most recent technologies and equipment to develop and make its products. Although this year
Firm B has a lower R&D budget, next year it plans to allocate twice as much money as Firm A and Firm B will
continue investing more money than Firm A going forward. Based on this scenario, it is almost certain that Firm
B will become a market leader in the next couple of years. (True/False)
4 DISTRIBUTION: A firm that sells products nationally in its own stores decided to expand its geographical 29% 55.2%
coverage and signed contracts with 50 independent convenience stores in San Francisco. The firm does not have
any of its own stores in San Francisco. The firm plans to place 1% of its products that it usually sells in its own
stores into these 50 convenience stores. Therefore, this increase in territory will result in an approximately 1%
increase in sales. (True/False)
Average quiz score 40.9% 66%

After providing an objective answer (Yes/No or True/False), students were asked to briefly explain their answers. Student explanations then were
coded and recorded as correct or incorrect answers regardless of their objective answers on dual choice questions. When a student did not provide any
answer or their answers were not interpretable (e.g. “I feel rushed on time” or “Yes”) – in other words, when their open-ended answers were
impossible to mark as correct or incorrect, we did not count them in our percentage responses (but gave students grades based only on their dual-
choice answers).

7
I. Makienko and J. Rixom The International Journal of Management Education 20 (2022) 100689

Table 2
Indirect measure of learning activity effectiveness: Survey.
Control Class (n = Treatment Class (n =
23) 29)

Questions Mean (SD) Mean (SD)

I Self-Assessment of Learning factor 5.29 (1.10) 5.20 (1.02)

1 This discussion helped me understand the critical role that consumers’ perceptions play in the evaluation of 5.65 (1.46) 5.58 (1.08)
firms’ offerings.
2 I gained a greater understanding of how changes in the 4Ps may affect consumers’ perceptions. 5.39 (1.30) 5.65 (1.23)
3 This discussion taught me to take the consumers’ perspective when thinking about modification of 5.73 (1.21) 5.55 (1.21)
marketing management strategies.
4 Now I can more clearly see the difference between strong and weak management marketing management 5.39 (1.30) 4.72 (1.16)
strategies.
5 I feel I could explain what I have learned during the discussion to a friend. 4.26 (1.35) 4.28 (1.59)

Impact of Activity versus Textbook and Additional Readings on Learning

6 The following MOST helped you learn about the two perspectives in real business practices?
Activity/Textbook and Additional Readings 69.6%/30.4% 79.3%/20.7%

II Activity Self-Assessment factor 5.53 (1.17) 5.22 (1.34)

7 Overall, I thought the learning activity was:

Useless to Useful 5.78 (1.08) 5.68 (1.16)
Ineffective to Effective 5.34 (1.36) 4.96 (1.56)
Unsatisfactory to Satisfactory 5.47 (1.30) 4.96 (1.63)
Bad to Good 5.52 (1.34) 5.27 (1.38)

Note: Values in parentheses are standard deviations. Means are based on the level of agreement with Likert-type scale where 1 = strongly disagree and
7 = strongly agree for questions 1 through 5 and a 7-point semantic differentials with 1 on the negative end and 7 on the positive end for a series of
items in question 7.

Table 3
Learning activity, quiz and survey flow during “experiment”.
1 2 3

Control Class (standard lecture on consumer behavior topics with product failure examples – one class Quiz (n = 32)a, Learning Survey (n =
b
period prior) Activity 23)b
Treatment Class Learning Quiz (n = 31)b Survey (n =
Activity 29)b

Demographics were asked in the survey [Control: 34.8% female, 22.26 average age, 20 seniors and 3 juniors; Treatment: 34.5% female, 22.03 average
age, 22 seniors and 7 juniors].
a
Note: We confirmed that the 32 students in the control class who took the quiz were in attendance during the standard lecture on consumer
behavior topics with product failure examples one class prior to learning activity.
b
Note: Sample sizes differ between quiz and survey analyses because student willingness to take the survey varied. For example, 32 students in the
control class participated in the activity and took the quiz, but 9 of them did not take the survey.

amount of teaching the same but, vary only the order. To do so, students in the control class were given a standard lecture on consumer
behavior topics with product failure examples one class prior to our learning activity. Conversely, students in the treatment class were
scheduled for the same lecture one class period after our learning activity. Such schedule adjustments allowed us to assess the pure
effect of the learning activity on learning outcomes, based on the quiz results.
Without such adjustments, it would have been hard to differentiate between the two factors affecting student learning outcomes.
That is, if consumer behavior topics were introduced in both classes one period before the activity, then quiz results could have been
affected not only by the activity itself, but also by the treatment class receiving more teaching days before the quiz. Specifically, if both
classes received the consumer behavior lecture on the same day, then before taking the quiz, the students in the treatment class would

Table 4
Sample demographics (n = 52).
Categories Control Class Treatment Class

Gender Female 8 (34.8%) 10 (34.5%)

Male 15 (65.2%) 19 (65.5%)
Age Average 22.26 22.03
Range 20–27 19–26
Major Marketing 23 29
Others 0 0
Classification Senior 20 22
Junior 3 7

8
I. Makienko and J. Rixom The International Journal of Management Education 20 (2022) 100689

be exposed both to the standard lecture (one class period prior to learning activity) and the learning activity, while students in the
control class would be exposed only to the standard lecture (as they took quiz before learning activity). By altering the schedule, we
avoided this potential confound. We also checked and confirmed that all students in the control class who took the quiz were in
attendance during the standard lecture on consumer behavior topics with product failure examples one class prior to our learning
activity.
Data was collected in a large, public, research-intensive university located in the Western region of the United States. Our sample
consisted of students in two senior-level, capstone marketing classes (see sample’s demographics in Table 4). All students, regardless of
condition, were similarly prepared for the activity and had learned about price elasticity of demand earlier in the semester.

10. Quiz analysis

The quiz involved four dual-choice questions (Yes/No, True/False) with open-ended follow-up questions where students could
elaborate on why they chose a given answer. The open-ended portion enabled us to see whether students in the treatment and control
classes differed in their rationale for the chosen answers. This was particularly important because the four questions had dual-choice
formats, so students had a 50/50 chance of simply guessing the correct answer. Indeed, when we compared the dual-choice answers,
quiz results were not significantly different across both classes.
We analyzed the open-ended quiz responses using content analysis – an established qualitative research technique for analyzing
text data. While exploratory content analysis tries to identify thematic categories that “emerge from the data in systematic manner”
(Swanson, 2019, p. 5), it also allows one to classify unstructured text data into pre-determined categories (Alnawas & Khateeb, 2022;
Weber, 1990). Content analysis becomes a very powerful tool when a researcher starts looking at text from the respondents’
perspective to “understand the human meaning that comes out of it” (Köhler et al., 2022, p. 200).
In our analysis, we aimed to place all responses into two categories: responses that consider the consumer perspective and responses
that were based on company’s expectations of marketing strategy outcomes and were thus disconnected from potential consumer
reactions. A coder, blind to experimental condition, coded responses to the four open-ended questions. Content analysis revealed that
some students who incorrectly answered the dual-choice questions followed with correct, consumer-centric explanations whereas
some who correctly answered the dual-choice questions provided incorrect explanations. We realize that our questions, due to their
complex nature and the limitations of a dual-choice response mode in reflecting a rich reality could produce confusion. For example,
students were asked if a firm’s sales will increase by 60% as it had the previous year by offering the same discount but framed
differently (“$80 for two items” vs. “Buy one for $80, get one free”). The correct answer was “no” and the incorrect answer was “yes.”
However, following the coding, we realized some students interpreted a “yes” answer differently than we intended. They interpreted

Table 5
Sample answers to open-ended question.
Question 1 (price)

Correct answers
what consumers see is the word "free" which entices them to take an interest in the deal
the excitement the customer may have will be much greater with the new BOGO deal.
people like to believe they’re getting a "steal" on items they purchase.
Incorrect answers
the deals are essentially the same value for the customer, and the same cost for the company.
This is a very similar ad campaign to the first one they ran, and therefore should show similar outturn
Question 2 (promotion)
Correct answers
Communication channels are very important. They are qualitative factors that can determine the overall effectiveness of an ad campaign
There is a different engagement level between billboards and newspapers.
Incorrect answers
More people drive by billboards then read newspaper ads.
Due to them both having high visibility and costing the same I don’t think it’ll make a difference.
Each will reach different demographics of people.
Question 3 (product)
Correct answers
Simply throwing money into RnD won’t win consumers over alone
if Firm A has a loyal consumer base, then they will have a lot harder time.
The market will decide who is the market leader it doesn’t matter how much R&D you have.
Incorrect answers
the fact they invest more than Firm A currently, they will grow quickly.
Question 4 (distribution)
Correct answers
this doesn’t mean that their products that they place in these stores will sell well due to the fact that it is a different place that they have never been before.
since the store is not present in SF, there is no knowledge has to how the products would preform there.
They may see a crazy rise in revenue as people in San Francisco may find this product likable, or they may not bat an eye.
Incorrect answers
If they are putting 1% in each of the 50 stores they should be expecting closer to 50%.
your not creating more products to be sold, it’s still the same, so it should stay around the same
Since the products will be placed in convenience stores, part of the sales would be shared with the convenience stores.

9
I. Makienko and J. Rixom The International Journal of Management Education 20 (2022) 100689

“yes” to refer not to an exact 60% increase as we had intended, but instead to potential increases greater than 60% that could occur
from consumers reacting even more positively to the “free” element of the new price promotion. Thus, four control class students and
six treatment class students marked the incorrect choice (“yes”), but provided consumer-centric rationale. Hence, to these students, our
intended correct answer (“no”) was interpreted as “no increase,” which did not reflect their interpretation. Conversely, two control
class students and two treatment class students marked the correct choice (“no”), but provided non-consumer centric rationale (e.g.,
“The sales would be the same as the previous year with the first ad, and therefore sales would increase 0%, not 60%”).
Due to such issues, we believe that simply counting the number of correct and incorrect “objective” answers (Yes/No, True/False)
would not adequately capture nor reflect student rationale. Hence, we do not compare the number of correct and incorrect answers on
the dual-choice questions when comparing treatment and control conditions, but focus instead on the coded student explanations from
the open-ended questions.
When responses were too vague to categorize, we marked them as “no response” and did not include the responses in the analysis.
For example, the response, “the high visibility makes the agency more attractive” was marked as “no response” and was not included in
the base for calculating the percentage of correct answers. In rare circumstances, students provided responses unrelated to the question
(“I feel rushed of time”) or answered “yes” or “no” to the open-ended questions. These types of answers were also considered “no
response.” Subsequently, the bases for the percentages presented in Table 1 vary by one to three respondents.
Focusing on the content analysis, we find distinct differences between the classes with regard to students’ rationale. Students in the
treatment class were more likely to mention the role of consumers’ perceptions of the marketing mix changes and the role of external
factors, than were students in the control class, lending support for the learning activity’s value. We provide samples of answers for
each question in Table 5. Next, we provide more detail for each of the four quiz questions.
Question 1 (Price). This question was intended to assess students’ understanding that consumer perceptions of an identical deal
may be affected by how it is framed. For this question, students in the treatment class were more likely than those in the control class to
mention that companies must consider how consumers will respond to promotional wording changes.
This question may have felt intuitive for students in both classes as both had strong experience with price promotions and believed
offering a free product would be more attractive to consumers, catching their attention, and leading to higher sales. Therefore, most
students in both classes provided consumer-centered explanations (93.5% treatment vs. 75% control).
Incorrect explanations often emphasized the economically identical value of the deal (e.g., “just worded differently”). Some stu­
dents in both classes provided mathematical but incorrect rationale that the same 60% increase in sales seen the previous year should
not be expected due to the increased sales base (by 60%) for this year.
Question 2 (Promotion). This question was intended to assess students’ understanding that consumer perceptions of messages
coming through a communication channel may be affected by the channel’s unique nature. The treatment class was more likely to
mention that different psychological reactions were likely to occur for different communication channels (73.3% treatment vs. 29%
control). The majority of students in the control class (51.6%) acknowledged that sales may differ between communication channels
because billboards would produce a larger audience size, putting this communication channel in a better position. Their answers
focused primarily on reach rather than on consumer psychological reactions. In addition, about 16% of students in the control class
mentioned that the two channels have different target audiences. Although this statement is correct in general, in the question, we
clearly stated that both channels have high “visibility” among the target market.
Question 3 (Product). This question was intended to assess students’ understanding that consumers’ perceptions of modified
products may be affected by how products are changed. This question was challenging as less than 50% of students in each class (46.7%
treatment vs. 26.7% control) provided the correct rationale. Among the correct answers, the majority centered on the current position
of firm A as an established leader with consumer loyalty, which may prevent firm B’s success (26.7% treatment vs. 16.7% control). The
second theme in correct responses indicated uncertainty between R&D efforts and sales results (13.3% treatment vs. 6.7% control). A
few students indicated that market success depends on developing valuable consumer products. Incorrect answers included statements
linearly relating higher R&D investments with product success.
Question 4 (Distribution). This question was designed to assess students’ understanding that consumers’ perceptions of products
offered through a new distribution channel may be affected by the channel’s unique nature. Students in the treatment class were more
likely to mention challenges that could arise from new ways of distributing products. We separated correct rationale into three cat­
egories: (1) placing products in different stores in a new location brings uncertainty (13.8% treatment vs. 3.2% control), (2) over­
coming consumer loyalty to brands already established in the market (3.4% treatment vs. 3.2% control), and (3) lack of knowledge/
research of local shopping preferences (17.2% treatment vs. 13% control). Two students from the treatment class also acknowledged
that products may still be successful in a new region with a new distribution channel if “they are entering and teaching new markets
about their products” and if consumers “enjoy the products, there might be a larger increase in sales.”
Most students in the control class (71%) did not provide consumer-centric rationale. Instead, they believed there would be no
problems associated with changing the distribution channel and sales would be the same (i.e., “the product was going to get sold
anyways”).
Together, results indicate that student rationale across the classes differed in important ways. Specifically, students’ rationale was
more holistic and refined when the quiz came after (treatment) rather than before (control) the learning activity. This suggests that the
learning activity helped students think more clearly about and better articulate the importance of considering both the production and
consumer sides when assessing the potential (in)effectiveness of marketing mix changes. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was supported.

10
I. Makienko and J. Rixom The International Journal of Management Education 20 (2022) 100689

11. Survey analysis

The survey consisted of nine close-ended questions on perceived learning and activity assessment, one close-ended dual-choice
question comparing effectiveness of the learning activity versus the textbook and one open-ended question that enabled students to
share their thoughts of the activity. Perceived learning scale items were borrowed and topically modified from Pearson et al. (2006)
and Vander Schee (2012). Activity assessment scale items were adopted without any changes from Young et al. (2008). The authors
also created one close-ended dual-choice choice question. For this question, students indicated what most helped them to learn about
consumer and producer perspectives, the activity or the textbook and additional readings.
Twenty-three control class students (34.8% female, 22.3 average age, 20 seniors, all marketing majors) and 29 treatment class
students (34.5% female, 22.0 average age, 22 seniors, all marketing majors) completed the survey (Table 4).
First, we checked responses to the open-ended question. Overall, responses were positive. Students in both classes appreciated real
business examples of marketing failures and relating marketing strategy outcomes to consumers’ perceptions (Table 6). A one sample t-
test showed that students in both classses liked the learning activity and reported learning from the activity with means significantly
above the scale midpoint on all items (p < 0.001) except for students’ beliefs that they could explain the activity to a friend. The item
with the highest means across both classes was the usefulness of the activity (Mtreatment = 5.69, SD = 1.17; Mcontrol = 5.78, SD = 1.09).
The third highest mean item across both classes was students’ beliefs that they understand the critical role of consumers in evaluating
marketing offerings (Mtreatment = 5.59, SD = 1.09; Mcontrol = 5.65, SD = 1.47).
The second highest mean item in the treatment class was students’ beliefs that they understand the effect of changes in the 4Ps on
consumers’ perceptions (Mtreatment = 5.66, SD = 1.23), while the second highest mean item in the control class was students’ beliefs
that they learned to take into account consumer perspectives when thinking about modification of marketing management strategies
(Mcontrol = 5.74, SD = 1.21). The lowest means across both classes occurred for students’ beliefs that they could explain the activity to a
friend (Mtreatment = 4.48, SD = 1.60; Mcontrol = 4.26, SD = 1.36). These means were not significantly different from the scale’s mid-
point. It is logical to expect that explanation of concepts requires more effort than understanding of concepts.
We conducted a factor analysis for 9 out of 10 items using varimax rotation (Table 7). We left one item (dual-choice question 6) out
of the analysis as it was a two-item measure with the primary objective being to compare perceived effectiveness of two sources of
learning: the activity versus textbook and additional readings. The varimax factor analysis on the remaining 9 items identified two
dimensions: (1) perceptions of learning and (2) activity self-assessment. The two-factor solution explained 75.33% of variance. The
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was above 0.6 (0.865) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (χ2 (36) =
344.73, p < 0.001). Finally, the communalities for perceived learning fell between 0.663 and 0.888 and the communalities for the
activity self-assessment fell between 0.835 and 0.914. Items did not double-load.
For each scale, we averaged together the item responses, thus creating a single measure of perceived learning (α = 0.938) and a
single measure of activity self-assessment (α = 0.869). A t-test showed that students in both classes did not differ significantly in terms
of perceived learning (Mtreatment = 5.20, SD = 1.02; Mcontrol = 5.29, SD = 1.10) nor on activity self-assessment (Mtreatment = 5.22, SD =
1.34; Mcontrol = 5.53, SD = 1.17).
Next, we looked at student responses in each class to see which source they believe contributed most to their learning (dual-choice
question). The proportion of students selecting each option was similar between the two classes with the activity (textbook and
additional readings) being chosen by 79.3% (20.7%) of students in the treatment class and 69.6% (30.4%) students in the control class.
To further investigate students’ responses, we divided the entire sample into two groups based on whether students primarily
credited their learning to the activity or to the textbook and additional readings. A t-test showed that students who primarily credited
the activity with their learning had significantly higher scores on the measure of perceived learning (M = 5.47, SD = 0.95) relative to
those who primarily credited textbook and additional readings (M = 4.54, SD = 1.07; t(50) = 2.982, p < 0.002 with Bonferroni
adjustment). The same pattern also emerged for the activity assessment, with those crediting the activity for their learning rating the
activity significantly higher (M = 5.72, SD = 1.06) than those who primarily credited the textbook and additional readings (M = 4.26,
SD = 1.22; t(50) = 4.121, p < 0.001 with Bonferroni adjustment). However, due to an unequal split in the sample (39 students in the
“activity” group vs. 13 participants in the “textbook and additional readings” group), these results should be interpreted with care.
To assess potential confounds, we compared self-stated GPAs and length of time completing the survey between the two classes, but

Table 6
Student Survey Comments (“What aspects, if any, of the discussion did you really like?”).
How consumers can influence everything you do in the business
The way it related to real world business; it didn’t seem as much like only studying theory.
The engagement between the lecture material and students with examples.
I enjoyed the examples that were given. They helped me understand the concepts even more in-depth.
I liked parts of the discussion that compared what a good and what a bad marketing strategy looks like and how the changes in certain things effected the changes in
demand.
That investing a lot of money into an ad does not always pay out.
I enjoyed the discussion about R&D and the differing results it can have on sales.
I like that we always bring the real world into it.
I liked the product failure examples. I think it would be really interested to learn about more examples.
I found the concept of price framing to be interesting. How certain words are more appealing.
Learning how to make a strong marketing strategy and avoid weaker ones
The application to the real world.

11
I. Makienko and J. Rixom The International Journal of Management Education 20 (2022) 100689

Table 7
Factor analysis results: KMO, Bartlett’s test and rotated component matrix.
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy 0.865

Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 344.734

Df 36
Sig. 0.000
Rotated Component Matrix
Scale item Component 1 Component 2

Q1 0.419 0.663
Q2 0.215 0.816
Q3 0.129 0.888
Q4 0.365 0.709
Q5 0.281 0.735
Q7a 0.835 0.238
Q7b 0.914 0.238
Q7c 0.900 0.274
Q7d 0.845 0.385

we did not find significant differences. We also did not find any affect of gender on our dependent variables. We are also confident that
responses were not confounded due to demand characteristics as we incorporate a variety of activities into our classes and do not
inform students about the purpose in advance.
Overall, the survey did not reveal significant differences between the classes. Thus, Hypothesis 2 was not supported. Interestingly,
the majority of students in the control class (almost 70%) considered the activity the most helpful resource in learning about the two
perspectives in real business settings. Thus, these results do provide initial support in favor of the activity’s effectiveness in the learning
process. Further, the results provide support for the notion that perceived learning may not correctly reflect actual learning or per­
formance, especially for tests involving complex, real-life business issues.

12. Discussion

The traditional didactic model of education emphasizes the mindless accumulation of “objective” truths and does not value the
context and uncertainty of real life (Langer, 1997; Manzon, 2017; Rohm et al., 2019; Swanson, 2019). Dehydrated concepts and
theories serve as “a means to an end of maximizing accelerated – often mindless – production” (Adler, 2010, p. 92). In addition, highly
structured traditional “learning by listening” results in student fear of uncertainty when they are exposed to active learning formats
(Lange et al., 2018).
In contrast, recent Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB, 2020) standards call for active student-centered
learning formats “to ensure currency and relevancy of the curriculum” (AACSB, 2020, p9). One important goal for business education
is to connect theory to practice by providing solutions for real business situations (AACSB, 2020), so that work-ready graduates
“understand practical workplace realities” (Rosenbaum et al., 2015, p. 183). Active learning is student-centered, interactive, and
focused on deep, meaningful learning by engaging students in interesting activities that highlight the practical relevance of their
knowledge. Gold standards of active learning are “action as the source of learning; learning from reflection upon action and addressing
problems which resist simple solution.” (Brook & Pedler, 2020, p. 3).
Research has shown that active learning is more personal and interactive than traditional teaching formats (Labrecque et al., 2021).
Active learning results in higher-order critical thinking and problem-solving skills as well as enhanced communication skills (Johnson,
2011; Harsh & Young, 2015). During active learning, students become engaged partners in the co-creation of learning (Taylor et al.,
2011). Active learning promotes engagement by allowing students to apply their knowledge to real business situations (Hamer, 2000;
Manzon, 2017) “while fostering student understanding … of concepts” (VanMeter & Vander Schee, 2021, p. 111). Bowen (2005) points
out that “engaged learners are those who complement and interpret what they learn from others with direct knowledge based on
personal experience, who develop appropriately complex understandings situated in relevant contexts” (p.4). According to Manzon
(2017) active learning focuses on analysis, synthesis and evaluation – the highest levels of Bloom’s taxonomy of learning activities.
Accordingly, the presented learning activity shows the complex relationships between producers’ and consumers’ perspectives of
marketing while engaging students in higher-level discussions. Meta-analysis conducted by Abrami et al. (2015, p. 302) shows that
in-class discussion as well as problem-solving and role-playing activities are the best for developing and promoting critical thinking.
The authors also note that “the opportunity for dialogue (e.g., discussion) appears to improve the outcomes of CT skills acquisition,
especially where the teacher poses questions.”
In the presented activity, students face questions that challenge them to draw connections between consumer and producer per­
spectives. Instructor-led discussion is interspersed with examples from instructors and students as they draw from their experiences
and become more engaged. Student engagement in the learning process is important in preparing students for “dealing comfortably
with conceptual ambiguity” (Cavagnaro & Fasihuddin, 2016, p. 137) and in successfully developing skills required by employers
(Valdez & Cervantes, 2018).
Due to time and resource constraints in academia, high tuition costs and time to earn a degree (Clarke & Nelson, 2012), the AACSB
encourages educators to continue innovating their methods of instruction with the focus on engaged learning (Bartholomew et al.,

12
I. Makienko and J. Rixom The International Journal of Management Education 20 (2022) 100689

2021). The current learning activity is one such way in which instructors can implement engaged learning.
The elasticity measure offers an ideal instrument to show how identical monetary marketing investments may result in different
outcomes based on consumers’ evaluations of the strategy or changes. Unlike chemistry, where the same ingredients produce the same
results each time, in marketing, students must learn that sales are variable with results heavily dependent on consumers who may or
may not like a firm’s strategy, despite its cost. A firm with cautiously planned and perfectly executed quantitative changes in marketing
strategy may not reach its business objectives if consumers are not central to the planning process. Thus, reinforcing the need to
understand and recognize the inseparability of producer and consumers sides, consider multiple potential outcomes, and interpret
research findings from multiple angles will add true meaning to the decision context and value to the business. We believe this learning
activity is one way for students to learn and practice marketing analytical skills, incorporating consumer perspectives in the approach
to real business situations.

Authors’ statement

Igor Makienko and Jessica Rixom, the authors of the following manuscript - Using Marketing Mix Elasticities to Demonstrate
Consumer and Producer Perspectives in Marketing Management Class are confirming that our manuscript has never been published
elsewhere and is not under revision elsewhere.
We also did not get any funding for this manuscript and do not have any obligations to any parties.

References

Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Waddington, D. I., Wade, C. A., & Persson, T. (2015). Strategies for teaching students to think critically: A meta-
analysis. Review of Educational Research, 85(2), 275–314.
Adler, N. J. (2010). Going beyond the dehydrated language of management: Leadershi insight. Journal of Business Strategy, 31(4), 90–99.
Albers, S., Mantrala, M. K., & Sridhar, S. (2010). Personal selling elasticities: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(5), 840–853.
Alnawas, I., & Khateeb, A. A. (2022). Developing and validating a multidisciplinary scale of E retailing website elements. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 66,
1–11.
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB). (2020). Guiding principles and standards for business accreditation. Retrieved on October 12, 2021 from
https://www.aacsb.edu/-/media/aacsb/docs/accreditation/business/standards-and-tables/2020%20aacsb%20business%20accreditation%20standards%20july
%202021.ashx?la=en& hash=FFDE475EE45DE3610525117BAD72B9CAF10DDB25.
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) Accreditation. (2020). Interpretive guidance for AACSB business accreditation. 1-42. Retrieved on May
20, 2022 from https://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/business-accreditation-task-force/exposure-draft.
Bacon, D. R. (2011). Comparing direct versus indirect measures of the pedagogical Effectiveness of Team Testing. Journal of Marketing Education, 33(3), 348–358.
Bacon, D. R. (2016). Reporting actual and perceived student learning in education research. Journal of Marketing Education, 38, 3–6.
Bacon, D. R., & Stewart, K. A. (2006). How fast do students forget what they learn in consumer behavior? A longitudinal study. Journal of Marketing Education, 28(3),
181–192.
Baker, A. C., Jensen, P. J., & Kolb, D. A. (2002). Conversational learning: An Experiential Approach to knowledge creation. Quorum books.
Baker, J., Parasuraman, A., Grewal, D., & Voss, G. B. (2002). The influence of multiple store environment cues on perceived merchandise value and patronage
intentions. Journal of Marketing, 66(2), 120–141.
Bartholomew, D. E., Newman, C. M., & Newman, L. M. (2021). A snapshot of the marketing capstone course at U.S.-Based AACSB Schools. Marketing Education Review,
31(1), 26–40.
Belk, R. W. (1975). Situational variables and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 2, 157–164.
Biswas, D., Lund, K., & Szocs, C. (2019). Sounds like a healthy retail atmospheric strategy: Effects of ambient music and background noise on food sales. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 47(1), 37–55.
Bitner, M. J. (1992). Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees. Journal of Marketing, 56(2), 57–71.
Black, G. S., & Wingfield, S. S. (2008). Using the most effective teaching methods: A comparison of marketing and management classrooms. Journal for Advancement of
Marketing Education, 12(1), 1–9.
Bowen, S. (2005). Engaged learning: Are we all on the same page? Analysis of teaching and learning. Peer Review: Emerging Trends and Key Debates in Undergraduate
Education, 7(2), 4–12.
British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). (2018 July 21). Toblerone: Bar to revert to original shape. BBC News. Retrieved on September 29, 2021 from https://www.bbc.
com/news/uk-44910195.
Brook, C., & Pedler, M. (2020). Action learning in academic management education: A state of the field Review. International Journal of Management in Education, 18
(3), 2–11.
Camey, J. P., & Williams, J. K. (2004). Selling principles: Influencing principles of marketing students’ perceptions of and attitudes toward marketing as a discipline.
Journal of Marketing Education, 26(2), 154–160.
Cavagnaro, L. B., & Fasihuddin, H. (2016). A moonshot approach to change in higher education: Creativity, innovation, and the redesign of academia. Liberal
Education, 102(2), 8–16.
Chad, P. (2012). The use of team-based learning as an approach to increased engagement and learning for marketing students: A case study. Journal of Marketing
Education, 34(2), 128–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475312450388
Chandon, P., & Ordabayeva, N. (2009). Supersize in one dimension, downsize in three dimensions: Effects of spatial dimensionality on size perceptions and
preferences. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(6), 739–753.
Chebat, J. C., & Michon, R. (2003). Impact of ambient odors on mall shoppers’ emotions, cognition, and spending: A test of competitive causal theories. Journal of
Business Research, 56(7), 529–539.
Chennamaneni, P., Lala, V., Srivastava, P., & Chakraborty, G. (2011). Teaching consumer analytics in advertising and IMC courses: Opportunities and challenges.
Journal of Advertising Education, 15(1), 52–58.
Clarke, T. B., & Nelson, C. L. (2012). Classroom community, pedagogical effectiveness, and learning outcomes associated with twitter use in undergraduate marketing
courses. Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, 20(2), 29–38.
Clayson, D. E. (2009). Student evaluations of teaching: Are they related to what students learn? A meta-analysis and Review of the literature. Journal of Marketing
Education, 31, 16–30.
Dahl, A. J., Peltier, J. W., & Schibrowsky, J. A. (2018). Critical thinking and Reflective Learning in the marketing education literature: A historical perspective and
future research needs. Journal of Marketing Education, 40(2), 101–116.
Dean, T., Lee-Post, A., & Hapke, H. (2017). Universal design for learning in teaching large lecture classes. Journal of Marketing Education, 39(1), 5–16.
Diamond, N., Koernig, S. K., & Iqbal, Z. (2008). Uniting active and deep learning to teach problem-solving skills: Strategic tools and the learning spiral. Journal of
Marketing Education, 30(2), 116–129.

13
I. Makienko and J. Rixom The International Journal of Management Education 20 (2022) 100689

DiStaso, M. W., Stacks, D. W., & Botan, C. H. (2009). State of public relations education in the United States: 2006 report on a national survey of executives and
academics. Public Relations Review, 35(3), 254–269.
Donovan, R. J., & Rossiter, J. R. (1982). Store atmosphere: An experimental Psychology approach. Journal of Retailing, 58, 34–57.
Donovan, R. J., Rossiter, J. R., Marcoolyn, G., & Nesdale, A. (1994). Store atmosphere and purchasing behavior. Journal of Retailing, 70, 283–294.
Eisend, M. (2014). Shelf-space elasticity: A meta-analysis. Journal of Retailing, 90(2), 168–181.
Elbeck, M., & Bacon, D. (2015). Toward universal definitions for direct and Indirect Assessment. The Journal of Education for Business, 90, 278–283.
Exercises. The Journal of Education for Business, 82 (5), 251-257.
Ferrell, L., & Gonzalez, G. (2004). Beliefs and expectations of principles of marketing students. Journal of Marketing Education, 26(2), 116–122.
Finch, D., Nadeau, J., & O’Reilly, N. (2013). The future of marketing education: A practitioner’s perspective. Journal of Marketing Education, 35(1), 54–67.
Fowler, K., & Bridges, E. (2012). An experiential exercise in service environment design. Journal of Marketing Education, 34(2), 156–164.
Gable, M., Harris, L., Fairhurst, A., & Dickinson, R. (2000). Improving students’ understanding of the retail advertising budgeting process. Journal of Marketing
Education, 22(2), 120–128.
Gallo, A. (2017, July 25). A refresher on marketing ROI. Harvard business Review. Retrieved on November 1, 2021 from: https://hbr.org/2017/07/a-refresher-on-
marketing-roi.
Guitart, I. A., Gonzalez, J., & Stremersch, S. (2018). Advertising non-premium products as if they were premium. The Impact of Advertising up on Advertising Elasticity
and Brand Equity. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 35(3), 471–489.
Hamer, L. O. (2000). The additive effects of semistructured classroom Activities on Student Learning: An application of classroom-based experiential learning
techniques. Journal of Marketing Education, 22(1), 25–34.
Harsh, S., & Young, J. (2015). Using varied learning environments for deeper learning and student mastery of complex content (Vols. 7–16). The Delta Kappa Gamma
Bulletin, Spring.
Haynes, S. (2016, November 8). Toblerone is changing shape, and chocolate lovers are not happy. Time. Retrieved on September 29, 2021 from http://time.com/4562255/
toblerone-changing-shape-chocolate-brexit/.
Henningsen, S., Heuke, R., & Clement, M. (2011). Determinants of advertising effectiveness: The development of an international advertising elasticity database and a
meta-analysis. BuR – Business Research Official Open Access Journal of VHB German Academic Association for Business Research (VHB), 4(2), 193–239.
Hernandez, S. A. (2002). Team learning in a marketing principles course: Cooperative structures that facilitate active learning and higher level thinking. Journal of
Marketing Education, 24(1), 73–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475302241009
Hinterhuber, A. (2008). Customer value-based pricing strategies: Why companies resist. Journal of Business Strategy, 29(4), 41–50.
Johnson, P. A. (2011). Actively pursuing knowledge in the College classroom. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 8(6), 17–30.
Kan, C., Lichtenstein, D. R., Grant, S. J., & Janiszewski, C. (2014). Strengthening the influence of advertised reference prices through information priming. Journal of
Consumer Research, 40(6), 1078–1096.
Karns, G. L. (2005). An update of marketing student perceptions of learning activities: Structure, preferences, and effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Education, 27(2),
163–171.
Kitchener, K. S., Wood, P. K., & Jensen, L. (2000). The Development and Assessment of complex problem Solving in College age students (final report on award number
R309F700860). In Postsecondary education, libraries and lifelong learning, U.S. Department of education. Washington, D.C., United States: National Institute on.
Köhler, T., Smith, A., & Bhako, V. (2022). Templates in qualitative research methods: Origins, limitations, and new directions. Organizational Research Methods, 25(2),
183–210.
Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. The Academy of Management Learning and
Education, 4(2), 193–212.
Koronios, K., Vrontis, D., & Thrassou, A. (2021). Strategic sport sponsorship management – a scale development and validation. Journal of Business Research, 130,
295–307.
Krishen, A. S. (2013). Catch it if you can: How contagious motivation improves group projects and course satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Education, 35(3), 220–230.
Krishna, A. (2012). An integrative Review of sensory marketing: Engaging the senses to Affect Perception, judgment and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22,
332–351.
Labrecque, L. I., Markos, E., & Darmody, A. (2021). Addressing online behavioral advertising and privacy implications: A comparison of passive versus active learning
approaches. Journal of Marketing Education, 43(1), 43–58.
Langer, E. J. (1997). The power of mindful learning. Addison-Wesley.
Lange, F., Rosengren, S., Colliander, J., Hernant, M., Liljedal, K. T., Roggeveen, A. L., & Beitelspacher, L. (2018). Bridging theory and practice in an applied retail
track. Journal of Marketing Education, 40(1), 6–16.
Lin, I. Y. (2004). Evaluating a servicescape: The effect of cognition and emotion. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 23(2), 163–178.
Manzon, E. (2017). Creating student engagement. The Kickstarter Active Learning Project Marketing Education Review, 27(2), 115–118.
Mayer, M. (1958). Madison Avenue, U.S.A. Penguin Books.
McCorkle, D. E., Alexander, J. F., & Reardon, J. (2001). Integrating business technology and marketing education: Enhancing the diffusion process through technology
champions. Journal of Marketing Education, 23(1), 16–24.
McGovern, G. J., Court, D., Quelch, J. A., & Crawford, B. (2004). Bringing customers into the boardroom. Harvard Business Review, 82(11), 70–148.
McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. UK: London: Routledge.
Meyer, Z. (2019, May 21). New Coke is Back After 34 Years. Thank ‘Stranger Things’ Season 3. USA Today. Retrieved on September 28, 2021 from: https://www.
usatoday.com/story/money/2019/05/21/new-coke-back-after-34-years-thank-stranger-things/3751131002/.
Mills, A. J., & Treen, E. (2016). Operation valuation: Teaching pricing concepts in an experiential environment. Journal of Marketing Education, 38(2), 73–82.
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the
Protection of Human Subjects of Research. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-
the-belmont-report/index.html.
Neill, M. S., & Schauster, E. (2015). Gaps in advertising and public relations education: Perspective of agency leaders. Journal of Advertising Education, Fall, 5–17.
Page, D., & Mukherjee, A. (2007). Promoting Critical-Thinking Skills By Using Negotiation.
Pearson, M. M., Barnes, J. W., & Onken, M. H. (2006). Development of a computerized in-basket exercise for the classroom: A sales management example. Journal of
Marketing Education, 28(3), 227–236.
Rohm, A. J., Stefl, & Clair, J. S. (2019). Time for a marketing curriculum overhaul: Developing a digital-first approach. Journal of Marketing Education, 41(1), 47–59.
Rosenbaum, M. S., Otalora, M. L., & Ramírez, G. C. (2015). Promoting problem-based learning in retailing and services marketing course curricula with reality
television. The Journal of Education for Business, 90(4), 182–191.
Schaller, T. K. (2018). Field learning: Experiential learning through participant observation and self-reflection of consumer behavior at sporting events. Marketing
Education Review, 28(2), 98–103.
Sethuraman, R., Tellis, G. J., & Briesch, R. A. (2011). How well does advertising work? Generalizations from meta-analysis of brand advertising elasticities. Journal of
Marketing Research, 48, 457–471.
Sharma, A., & Stafford, T. F. (2000). The effect of retail atmospherics on customers’ perceptions of salespeople and customer persuasion: An empirical investigation.
Journal of Business Research, 49(2), 183–191.
Shiv, B., Carmon, Z., & Ariely, D. (2005). Placebo effects of marketing actions: Consumers may get what they pay for. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(4), 383–393.
Shrinkflation May Leave Fewer Chips in Your Bag | Price Index | Wall Street Journal. Retrieved On May 27, 2022. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q13_06F4_HI.
Sitzmann, T., Ely, K., Brown, K. G., & Bauer, K. N. (2010). Self-assessment of knowledge: A cognitive learning or affective measure? The Academy of Management
Learning and Education, 9(2), 169–191.
Swanson, S. R. (2019). The defining dozen: Undergraduate students preconceived views on marketing. Marketing Education Review, 29(1), 3–16.

14
I. Makienko and J. Rixom The International Journal of Management Education 20 (2022) 100689

Tan, T. A. G., & Vicente, A. J. (2019). an innovative experiential and collaborative learning approach to an undergraduate marketing management course: A case of
the Philippines. International Journal of Management in Education, 17, 1–18.
Taylor, S. A., Hunter, G. L., Melton, H., & Goodwin, S. A. (2011). Student engagement and marketing classes. Journal of Marketing Education, 33(1), 73–92.
Thaler, R. H. (2008). Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science, 27(1), 15–25.
Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st-century skills: Learning for life in our times. John Wiley & Sons.
Turley, L. W., & Milliman, R. E. (2000). Atmospheric effects on shopping behavior: A Review of the experimental evidence. Journal of Business Research, 49(2),
193–211.
Urbany, J. E., Bearden, W. O., & Weilbaker, D. C. (1988). The effect of plausible and exaggerated reference prices on consumer perceptions and price search. Journal of
Consumer Research, 15(1), 95–110.
Valdez, A. D. F., & Cervantes, A. V. (2018). Retailing laboratory: Delivering skills through experiential learning. Journal of Marketing Education, 40(1), 17–30.
Valenzuela, A., Raghubir, P., & Mitakakis, C. (2013). Shelf space schemas: Myth or reality? Journal of Business Research, 66(7), 881–888.
Vander Schee, B. A. (2012). The influence of new product characteristics on rate of adoption: Increasing student comprehension with the bidding for buyers game.
Journal of Marketing Education, 34(3), 251–264.
VanMeter, R. A., & Vander Schee, B. A. (2021). Merchmenot: Applying merchandising concepts with active learning. Marketing Education Review, 31(2), 111–118.
Vinuales, G., Magnotta, S. R., Steffes, E., & Kulkarni, G. (2019). Description and evaluation of an innovative segmentation, targeting, and positioning activity using
perceived learning and actual student learning. Marketing Education Review, 29(1), 24–36.
Wagner, T. (2008). Even our “best” schools are failing to prepare students for 21st-century careers and citizenship. Educational Leadership.
Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic Content Analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Wright, M. (2009). A new theorem for optimizing the advertising budget. Journal of Advertising Research, 49(2), 164–169.
Yeganeh, B., & Kolb, D. (2009). Mindfulness and experiential learning. OD Practitioner: Journal of the National Organization Development Network, 41(3), 13–18.
Young, M. R. (2005). Personal epistemological beliefs and their relationship to learning. Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, 6, 63–76.
Young, M. R., Caudill, E. M., & Murphy, W. (2008). Evaluating experiential learning activities. Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, 13(1), 28–40.
Zielke, S., & Schielke, T. (2016). Effects of illumination on store perception and shopping intention: Shedding light on conflicting theories. Journal of Research and
Management, 38, 163–176.
Zwebner, Y., Lee, L., & Goldenberg, J. (2013). The temperature premium: Warm temperatures increase product valuation. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(2),
251–259.

Dr. Igor Makienko received his masters’ degrees in mechanical engineering, journalism, economics and mass communications. He also received a Ph.D. degree in
business administration from the Louisiana State University. Dr. Makienko has extensive experience in advertising and marketing industry. His research has been
published in the Journal of Interactive Marketing, Journal of Business Research, Journal of Promotion Management, Journal of Marketing Education, Marketing Ed­
ucation Review and others. He has also presented his research at numerous US and international conferences.

Dr. Jessica Rixom received her Ph.D. in business administration from the University of Utah, a Master of Marketing Research degree from the University of Georgia, and
bachelor’s degrees in both organizational communication and advertising and promotion from Western Michigan University. Before joining academia, Dr. Rixom
worked for several years in marketing research. Her research has been published in Journal of Consumer Psychology, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes and she has presented her research at numerous conferences.

15