MKT 310: Market Research on Phonathon at The College of New Jersey

1

MARKET RESEARCH ON PHONATHON And Potential Alumni Donations from

Current Undergraduate Students at The College of New Jersey

MKT 310: MARKET RESEARCH

Taylor Bjornsen

Nick Malmi

December 14th

, 2012

2

Letter of Transmittal

Serenity Research Group

1609 Prospect Street

Ewing, NJ 08628

United States

December 14th

, 2012

Alexis Gettings

Annual Fund: Phonathon

Green Hall Room 14

The College of New Jersey

P.O. Box 1776

Ewing, NJ, USA 08628-0718

RE: Phonathon – Market Research Report

Dear Alexis Gettings,

We have the honor of presenting to you the survey results of our study on current undergraduate

students at The College of New Jersey. The purpose of this report is to examine undergraduates’

sentiment towards The College and its corresponding effect on potential giving as alumni. This

report outlines major predictors (and conversely, inhibitors) in the potential magnitude of alumni

donations or lack thereof. We sincerely hope that this report serves to aid Phonathon and the

Annual Fund as a whole in its endeavors to help financially uphold this institution.

Best Regards,

Taylor Bjornsen and Nick Malmi

Senior Analysts of Market Research


3

Letter of Authorization

Alexis Gettings

Annual Fund: Phonathon


P.O. Box 1776

Ewing, NJ, USA 08628-0781

September 2nd

, 2012


1609 Prospect Street

Ewing, NJ 08628

United States

To Whom It May Concern:

As Coordinator of the Annual Fund’s Phonathon program, I hereby authorize Serenity Research

Group to conduct market research on Phonathon. This letter authorizes that you may survey

students of The College of New Jersey strictly related to the topic of Phonathon. All information

collected is the property of The College of New Jersey and therefore remains confidential.

Sincerely,

Alexis Gettings

Coordinator of Phonathon


4

Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... 5

Major Findings .......................................................................................................................................... 5

Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................... 5

Problem Definition ...................................................................................................................................... 6

Background To The Problem .................................................................................................................... 6

Statement of the Problem .......................................................................................................................... 7

Approach to the Problem .......................................................................................................................... 7

Research Design .......................................................................................................................................... 8

Type of Research Design .......................................................................................................................... 8

Information Needs..................................................................................................................................... 8

Data Collection from Secondary Sources ................................................................................................. 8

Data Collection from Primary Sources ..................................................................................................... 9

Scaling Techniques ................................................................................................................................... 9

Questionnaire Development and Pre-Testing ......................................................................................... 10

Sampling Techniques .............................................................................................................................. 11

Field Work .............................................................................................................................................. 11

Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................................. 12

Methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 12

Plan of Data Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 12

Results ........................................................................................................................................................ 14

Limitations and Caveats ........................................................................................................................... 19

Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................ 20

Exhibits ...................................................................................................................................................... 21

Questionnaire .......................................................................................................................................... 21

Statistical Output ..................................................................................................................................... 27

5

Executive Summary

Major Findings

According to the statistical analysis of all data through SPSS, we were able to identify

significant correlations between likelihood to donate and the following variables:

Overall Satisfaction with The College

Time After Graduation

Quality of Student Life

Tuition Costs

Alumni Event Attendance

Conclusions

By using statistical tools and functions through SPSS, we can conclude that there are

several connections between donor participation and sentiment toward the school that is

statistically significant. Please be aware that the correlations and conclusions made in this section

are referring to the sample of 81 students, and may not be representative of the whole population

of College students. Donor participation is more likely to occur as time goes on, meaning that

students are most likely to donate twenty years after graduation as opposed to ten years or one

year. There is a correlation toward perceived approval of student life and donor participation,

meaning that students that feel more sentiment toward the student atmosphere are more likely to

donate to the College. Tuition costs and the satisfaction derived from them are also correlated

with donor activity, meaning that the cost of going to the school can leave a lasting impression

on an individual when they consider donating. We have also found a positive correlation

between students who say they would agree to attend alumni events after graduating and donor

participation.

6

Problem Definition

Background to the Problem

The College of New Jersey’s Phonathon is a collection of about fifty students who collect

donations for the Annual Fund through phone calls to alumni. In addition to its purpose for

collecting funds, TCNJ’s Phonathon serves as a means for alumni to obtain information about

the College news and events, RSVP to reunions with peers, ask questions, provide feedback and

update their contact information in the alumni records. Though a high total donation rate is

important, alumni participation improves the College’s standing in national rankings and allows

TCNJ to be more competitive when applying for grants and corporate aid. As a result, a high

participation rate with small individual donations can be as effective in providing monetary

support as a small participation with large individual donations.

On a typical business day, managers enter the call center in Green Hall prior to the

calling staff in order to prep the room and determine goals for the evening. With incentives such

as games and prizes, the callers spend time five days week (Monday through Thursday, and

Sunday) calling alumni to engage in conversations. Instead of skipping straight to asking for

pledges, Phonathon Representatives conduct a series of conversations based off of customizable

scripts. These scripts change with the various calling pools, sometimes reflecting information for

an event or marking an alumni’s reunion year. Each call is designed to feel special and upbeat in

accordance with the Phonathon slogan of choice-smile when you dial. Often times Phonathon

Representatives connect alumni with resources they desire, be it on an event happening in their

area, specialized alumni campus tours or anything in between. While collecting donations is still

a key part of the job description, Representative make sure each call is more multi-faceted.

7

Statement of the Problem

Marketing managerial problem: How can Phonathon increase its number of pledges from

future alumni by examining current students?

Marketing research problem: What variables impact the probability that current students

will donate to TCNJ as alumni?

Approach to the Problem

This research group has used data collected through surveys, primary and secondary data

and statistical tools to find connections between various demographics and attitudes toward the

College and their possible donor participation. The results were used to reach a conclusion on

determining donor behavior.

8

Research Design

Type of Research Design

The research done on this topic was on students’ attitudes concerning their possible donor

participation in the future and their overall satisfaction of the school, focusing on sentiment

toward the College. The survey found in appendix comprised of 27 questions that measured

students’ attitude toward the College and their possible donor behavior. The responses gathered

from the survey helped determine the overall attitudes toward donor participation and students’

satisfaction with the school. The goal was to find some link between demographics, satisfaction

on multiple levels of the College (satisfaction with the education, student life, etc.), involvement

within the campus community and what schools students associate with.

Information Needs

Different types of information were required in order to complete the research needed to

draw a conclusion. Student demographics, satisfaction with the College concerning education,

student life, career services, employment, organizations, and networking opportunities were

needed in order to complete the research report. Student attitudes toward donation, such as how

soon after graduation they would see themselves donating, along with what they would perceive

an ideal amount to donate would be. These were all done with the questionnaire.

Data Collection from Secondary Sources

In order to further our understanding of Phonathon and the Annual Fund at The College

of New Jersey, additional research was pooled from a series of secondary sources. Amongst

these sources were scholarly publications that discussed the nature of alumni giving and the

reasons for or against participating in various Annual Funds. This psychological input was

coupled alongside information about giving directly from The College of New Jersey’s website,

9

as well as raw data graciously provided by Phonathon for the sake of this study. In the raw data

provided by Alexis Gettings all of this past fiscal year’s donations were pooled in a series of

three spreadsheets. The first documented all donations as a whole, the second organized them by

affiliation with academic schools, and the third organized them by affiliation with Greek

organizations. Together, this information was able to play a pivotal role in the construction and

design of the questionnaire that was distributed to a portion of The College’s student body.

Data Collection from Primary Sources

The questionnaire corresponding to this study was distributed on paper to a selection of

eighty-one undergraduate students at The College of New Jersey. This survey sought to establish

the degree of positive or negative sentiment that students harbor towards The College, the

likelihood of which they would donate at various points in the future, as well as the amount they

identify with as an ideal donation to The College. The selection of students who partook in the

survey process spanned across both genders and all academic schools within The College fairly

equally, providing for a diverse and accurate attempt at capturing the student body at large.

Scaling Techniques

The questionnaire corresponding to this study is comprised of a diverse span of scaling

techniques, including: yes/no questions, multiple-choice questions, Likert scale questions,

demographic questions and two open-ended questions. Many questions took into account that

respondents would either feel indifferent or not have an applicable response. For example, if a

student has never held on-campus employment, he or she may not feel comfortable rating their

level of satisfaction with on-campus employment given their lack of firsthand experience.

However, they were not instructed to skip possible non-applicable questions in the even that they

still harbored an opinion. For instance, if they were denied from several on-campus positions and

10

struggled in vain to obtain some sort of employment, they could possess negative feelings

towards the opportunities The College provides and rank it as such. Given that a substantial

portion of our survey was centered around satisfaction, the majority of questions involved were

either of the yes/no or Likert scale design. This allowed for a specific manner of addressing

satisfaction whilst pinpointing any variation in general sentiment with The College when pitted

against satisfaction with specific facets of The College.

Questionnaire Development and Pretesting

After a close analysis of both secondary and primary sources, and also taking into

account what variables are most likely to affect student sentiment towards The College of New

Jersey, ten hypotheses were drafted and formalized. These hypotheses were later used for

statistical analysis as evidenced in later portions of this report. A series of diverse statistical tests

were conducted on the following hypotheses to help provide clarity for the purpose of this study.

1. Is there any correlation between positive sentiment towards The College of New Jersey and

the likelihood of donor participation?

2. Is there a variance in the likelihood of donor participation over a period of time after

graduation?

3. Is there a correlation between the likelihood of donor participation and the academic school(s)

undergraduates identify with?

4. Is there a correlation between on-campus organizational involvement and the likelihood of

donor participation?

5. Is there a correlation between legacy status and the likelihood of donor participation?

6. Is there a correlation between perceived “quality of education” and the likelihood of donor

participation?

7. Is there a correlation between satisfaction with student life and the likelihood of donor

participation?

8. Is there a correlation between satisfaction with tuition costs and the likelihood of donor

participation?

11

9. Is there a correlation between gender and the likelihood of donor participation?

10. Is there a correlation between potentially attending alumni events and the likelihood of donor

participation?

Sampling Techniques

The target population we focused on consisted of college students, particularly juniors

and seniors. We were able to get very close to a 50/50 ratio of males to females. This will ensure

both genders are represented equally in the study.

In order to make sure the study covers students from all of The College’s seven schools,

data was collected from members of the following schools: Arts and Communications, Business,

Education, Engineering, Humanities and Social Sciences, School of Nursing and Exercise

Science, and Science. No less than ten students from each school will be selected. Gender within

schools do not apply, there is no need to get a 50/50 gender ratio for each school.

The sampling discussed above provided the best data for this study, which focused on

gender and school. We did judgmental sampling due to the participants being selected due to

their gender and school.

The study took into account gender and school. Though transfer students and students

from Greek organizations are important, the odds of acquiring several members from these

groups are very likely due to the large size of the sample, and we did not have the time or

resources to actively survey individuals from certain clubs or organizations.

Field Work

During the third and fourth weeks of November, associates from the Serenity Research

group surveyed 81 students with a survey that gauged their sentiment toward the school and

likelihood of donor participation after graduation.

12

Data Analysis

Methodology

After the sample size was reached and we finished fielding the study, we entered coded

the data into Statistical Product and Service Solutions (SPSS) which handled all the statistical

analysis we required in order to reach a conclusion. The most common tests we performed with

the software were correlation matrices and independent sample tests.

Plan of Data Analysis

Hypothesis Variables Test

Ho: There is no correlation between positive sentiment

towards TCNJ and the likelihood of donor

participation. Q3, Q14 - Q16 Correlation Matrix

Ha: There is a correlation between positive sentiment

towards TCNJ and the likelihood of donor

participation.

Ho: Donor participation will not vary over a period of

time after graduation. Q14 - Q16 Paired Samples T-Test

Ha: Donor participation will vary over a period of time

after graduation.

Ho: There is no correlation between likelihood of donor

participation and academic school(s) identified with.

Q 14 - Q16, Q24a -

Q24g Independent Sample T-Test

Ha: There is a correlation between likelihood of donor

participation between students from the School of

Business and other and academic school(s) identified

with.

Ho: There is no correlation between organizational

involvement and likelihood of donor participation. Q2, Q14 - Q16 Independent Sample T-Test

Ha: There is a correlation between organizational

involvement and likelihood of donor participation.

13

Ho: There is no correlation between legacy status and

likelihood of donor participation.

Q1, Q14 - Q16

Independent Sample T-Test

Ha: There is a correlation between legacy status and

likelihood of donor participation.

Ho: There is no correlation between perceived "quality

of education" and likelihood of donor participation. Q4, Q14 - Q16 Correlation Matrix

Ha: There is a correlation between perceived "quality

of education" and likelihood of donor participation.

Ho: There is no correlation between satisfaction with

student life and likelihood of donor participation. Q6, Q14 - Q16 Correlation Matrix

Ha: There is a correlation between satisfaction with

student life and likelihood of donor participation.

Ho: There is no correlation between satisfaction with

tuition costs and likelihood of donor participation.

Q9, Q14 - Q16,

Q18b, Q18i Correlation Matrix

Ha: There is a correlation between satisfaction with

tuition costs and likelihood of donor participation.

Ho: There is no correlation between regretting

attending TCNJ and likelihood of donor participation. Q13 - Q16 Correlation Matrix

Ha: There is a correlation between regretting attending

TCNJ and likelihood of donor participation.

Ho: There is no correlation between likelihood of

attending alumni events and likelihood of donor

participation. Q11, Q14 - Q16 Correlation Matrix

Ha: There is a correlation between likelihood of

attending alumni events and likelihood of donor

participation.

14

Results

Hypothesis 1

Ho: There is no correlation between positive sentiment towards TCNJ and the likelihood of

donor participation. (Two tailed Sig > .20)

Ha: There is a correlation between positive sentiment towards TCNJ and the likelihood of donor

participation. (Two tailed Sig < .20)

We rejected the null hypothesis. As you can from Table 1, the sig level on each of the

attributes concerning donation after one year, after ten years and after twenty years are .066,.000

and .002 respectively. Therefore, it is safe to say with 80% confidence level that overall

satisfaction with TCNJ is correlated with donor participation. This inverse relationship is rather a

direct relationship due to a mistake in the survey design where the scales were not consistent

with each other. Please refer to the Limitations and Caveats section for details. After noting the

inverted scales, we were able to conclude that the relationship between satisfaction and donor

participation is positively correlated. The relationship was weak one year after graduation with a

Pearson correlation of .212. The relationship grew stronger after ten years after graduation with a

Pearson correlation of .410. The relationship grew weaker after twenty years after graduation

with a Pearson correlation of .354, indicating that the correlation between satisfaction and donor

participation after twenty years is weaker than the correlation between satisfaction and donor

participation after ten years.

Hypothesis 2

Ho: Donor participation will not vary over a period of time after graduation. (Sig > .20)

Ha: Donor participation will vary over a period of time after graduation. (Sig < .20)

We rejected the null hypothesis due to the low two-tailed significance levels. According

to Table 2, Donor participation does vary over a period of time after graduation. According to the

15

correlation column, donor participation does get stronger over time, indicating that donor

participation will be strongest after twenty years as opposed to ten years after and one year after.

Hypothesis 3

Ho: There is no correlation between likelihood of donor participation whether or not a student is

from the School of Business (Two tailed Sig < .20)

Ha: There is a correlation between likelihood of donor participation whether or not a student is

from the School of Business (Two tailed Sig > .20)

According to Table 3, all the Sig values are far higher than .20, so we cannot reject the

null hypothesis from this data. According to this data, business students do not donate more

money to the College with statistical significance.

Hypothesis 4

Ho: There is no correlation between organizational involvement and likelihood of donor

participation. (Two tailed Sig > .20)

Ha: There is a correlation between organizational involvement and likelihood of donor


According to Table 4, all the Sig values are far higher than .20, so we cannot reject the

null hypothesis from this data. According to this data, organizational involvement and likelihood

of donor participation are not correlated.

Hypothesis 5

Ho: There is no correlation between legacy status and likelihood of donor participation. (Two

tailed Sig > .20)

Ha: There is a correlation between legacy status and likelihood of donor participation. (Two

tailed Sig < .20)

16

According to Table 5, all the Sig values are higher than .20, therefore we cannot reject

the null hypothesis from this data. According to this data, organizational involvement does not

correlate with donor participation.

Hypothesis 6

Ho: There is no correlation between perceived "quality of education" and likelihood of donor


Ha: There is a correlation between perceived "quality of education" and likelihood of donor


According to Table 6, we cannot reject the null hypothesis. According to the data, we

cannot say that satisfaction with the quality of education is correlated with donor participation in

any time period after graduation. They are all above the .20 two-tailed sig value.

Hypothesis 7

Ho: There is no correlation between satisfaction with student life and likelihood of donor


Ha: There is a correlation between satisfaction with student life and likelihood of donor


According to Table 7, we rejected the null hypothesis for 10 years after graduation and

for 20 years, showing that there is a correlation between satisfaction with student life and the

likelihood of donor participation. We cannot reject the null hypothesis concerning 1 year after

graduation due to the high Sig value. 10 years after graduation has a Pearson correlation of .292,

while graduation after 20 years had a Pearson correlation of .306. Since the Pearson correlation

is not very close to 1, the relationship is positive, but not very strong. The Pearson values were

negative on the Table due to the inverted scales within the survey questions, please refer to

Limitations and Caveats for details. This was corrected in discussing these results.

17

Hypothesis 8

Ho: There is no correlation between satisfaction with tuition costs and likelihood of donor


Ha: There is a correlation between satisfaction with tuition costs and likelihood of donor


According to Table 8, we rejected the null hypothesis for donor participation 10 years

after graduation and 20 years after graduation due to the low two tailed sig values of .069 and

.018 respectively. We do not reject the null hypothesis 1 year after graduation due to the high sig

value. The relationship with 10 years and 20 years is direct, as seen from the Pearson correlations

of .215 and .279 respectively, indicating a stronger correlation 20 years after graduation. The

Pearson values were negative on the Table due to the inverted scales within the survey questions,

refer to Limitations and Caveats for details. This was corrected in discussing these results.

Hypothesis 9

Ho: There is no correlation between regretting attending TCNJ and likelihood of donor


Ha: There is a correlation between regretting attending TCNJ and likelihood of donor


According to Table 9, we can reject the null hypothesis for donating after 1 year, 10 years

and 20 years due to the small sig values of .151, .008, and .001. According to the Pearson

Correlation, there is a negative relationship between regretting attendance at the College and

donor participation, meaning that if an individual regretted going to the College, they would be

less likely to donate.

18

Hypothesis 10

Ho: There is no correlation between likelihood of attending alumni events and likelihood of

donor participation. (Two tailed Sig > .20)

Ha: There is a correlation between likelihood of attending alumni events and likelihood of donor


According to Table 10, the small sig values under each time period indicate a correlation

between attending alumni events and donor participation. The Pearson correlations indicate a

positive relationship with each of the three time periods. The connection between attending

alumni events and donating after one year after graduation is stronger than attending alumni

events and donating ten and twenty years after graduation

19

Limitations and Caveats

As stated in the results section, there were some potential areas that are easy to

misinterpret due to the survey design. Misinterpretations occurred due to the survey design and

the data entry that followed. For example, in the first hypothesis test, the Pearson Correlation is

negative, which would normally indicate an inverse correlation between satisfaction and donor

participation. This is misleading due to the survey design of Q3, which was entered into the

statistics software where 1=very dissatisfied, 2=dissatisfied, etc. and Q14-Q16 listed 1=strongly

agree, 2=agree, etc. This meant that the scales were inverted; showing a negative correlation

when there was a positive correlation. This was corrected after being noted, as correcting the

scales would have the same result, just with an opposite positive or negative sign. This problem

was encountered in hypothesis tests 1, 7, 8 and 9.

The sample size was very small compared to the total population of TCNJ students. Since

we tried to sample an equal number of students from each school, we were unable to test the

academic schools against each other with accuracy.

Due to budget and time constraints, we were unable to do a completely randomized

sample, focusing on convenient and judgmental sampling techniques. This may have affected the

results slightly.

20

Conclusions

By using statistical tools and functions through SPSS, we can conclude that there are

several connections between donor participation and sentiment toward the school that is

statistically significant. Please be aware that the correlations and conclusions made in this section

are referring to the sample of 81 students, and may not be representative of the whole population

of College students. Donor participation is more likely to occur as time goes on, meaning that

students are most likely to donate twenty years after graduation as opposed to ten years or one

year. There is a correlation toward perceived approval of student life and donor participation,

meaning that students that feel more sentiment toward the student atmosphere are more likely to

donate to the College. Tuition costs and the satisfaction derived from them are also correlated

with donor activity, meaning that the cost of going to the school can leave a lasting impression

on an individual when they consider donating. We have also found a positive correlation

between students who say they would agree to attend alumni events after graduating and donor

participation.

We sincerely hope these results and conclusions help in improving the future operational

success of Phonathon.

21

Exhibits

Questionnaire

We are a pair of TCNJ upperclassmen conducting a study on fellow upperclassmen in regards to their

sentiment towards TCNJ, as well as their opinion towards donating to The College. Please read the

directions in parenthesis for each question and correspond below.

1. Are you a legacy student? Meaning, did a parent or older sibling attend TCNJ? (Check one.)

__ No

__ Yes If so, who are you a legacy of? ____________

2. How many on-campus organizations are you currently affiliated with? (Check one.)

__ 0

__ 1 – 2

__ 3 – 4

__ 5+

3. How would you rate your overall satisfaction with The College of New Jersey? (Check one.)

__ Very Dissatisfied

__ Dissatisfied

__ Indifferent

__ Satisfied

__ Very Satisfied

22

For questions 4 - 10, please pick the number from the scale that corresponds to the level of

satisfaction you feel towards the following aspects of The College of New Jersey:

Scale

0 = Not Applicable/Don’t Know

1 = Poor

2 = Fair

3 = Good

4 = Very Good

5 = Excellent

4. Quality of Education ____

5. Career Services ____

6. Student Life ____

7. On-Campus Organizations ____

8. On-Campus Employment ____

9. Tuition Costs ____

10. Networking Opportunities ____

11. I will attend future events with fellow alumni such as reunions. (Check one.)

__ Strongly Agree

__ Agree

__ Indifferent

__ Disagree

__ Strongly Disagree

__ Don’t Know

12. I would encourage other family members or friends to attend TCNJ. (Check one.)

__ Strongly Agree

__ Agree

__ Indifferent

__ Disagree


__ Don’t Know

23

13. I regret selecting TCNJ over other higher education institutions. (Check one.)

__ Strongly Agree

__ Agree

__ Indifferent

__ Disagree


__ Don’t Know

14. I see myself donating to TCNJ one year after graduation. (Check one.)

__ Strongly Agree

__ Agree

__ Indifferent

__ Disagree


__ Don’t Know

15. I see myself donating to TCNJ ten years after graduation. (Check one.)

__ Strongly Agree

__ Agree

__ Indifferent

__ Disagree


__ Don’t Know

16. I see myself donating to TCNJ twenty years after graduation.

__ Strongly Agree

__ Agree

__ Indifferent

__ Disagree


__ Don’t Know

24

17. What do you consider an ideal amount to donate to TCNJ? (Check one.)

__ $0

__ $1 – 25

__ $26 – 50

__ $51 – 75

__ $76 – 100

__ $100+

18. Check three phrases from the word bank below that you associate the most with

__ Social Environment

__ Affordable

__ Pretentious

__ Scenic

__ Disorganized

__ Stressful

__ Helpful

__ Closed-Off

__ Good Bargain

__ Convenient

19. What gender are you? (Check one.)

__ Male

__ Female

20. What is your residential status at The College of New Jersey? (Check one.)

__ On-Campus Housing

__ Off-Campus Commuter (Ewing Area)

__ Off-Campus Commuter (Long Distance/10+ Miles)

21. What is your current employment status? (Check one.)

__ TCNJ On-Campus Employee

__ Off-Campus/NON-TCNJ Employee

25

__ Unemployed

22. Are you an in- or out-of-state student? (Check one.)

__ In-State

__ Out-of-State

23. What is your current academic year? (Check one.)

__ Freshman

__ Sophomore

__ Junior

__ Senior

__ Graduate

24. What academic schools are you currently associated with? (Check all that apply.)

__ Arts & Communication

__ Business

__ Education

__ Engineering

__ Humanities & Social Sciences

__ Nursing, Health & Exercise Science

__ Science

25. What year did you transfer into TCNJ as? (Check one.)

__ I am not a transfer student

__ Freshman

__ Sophomore

__ Junior

__ Senior

__ Graduate

26

26. List all of the on-campus organizations you affiliate yourself with. (One per line, please.)

______________________________

______________________________

______________________________

______________________________

______________________________

______________________________

______________________________

______________________________

______________________________

______________________________

______________________________

27. If you have any additional questions, comments or concerns please document them below:

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

27

Statistical Output

Table 1

Correlations

Rate Overall

satisfaction with

TCNJ

I see myself

donating to TCNJ

one year after

graduation

I see myself

donating to TCNJ

ten years after

graduation

I see myself donating

to TCNJ twenty years

after graduation

Rate Overall

satisfaction with

TCNJ

Pearson

Correlation

1 -.212 -.410** -.354**

Sig. (2-

tailed)

.066 .000 .002

N 81 76 75 75


to TCNJ one year

after graduation

Pearson

Correlation

-.212 1 .572** .355**

Sig. (2-

tailed)

.066

.000 .002

N 76 76 73 73


to TCNJ ten years

after graduation

Pearson

Correlation

-.410** .572** 1 .825**

Sig. (2-

tailed)

.000 .000

.000

N 75 73 75 74



after graduation

Pearson

Correlation

-.354** .355** .825** 1

Sig. (2-

tailed)

.002 .002 .000

N 75 73 74 75

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

28

Table 2

Paired Samples Correlations

N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 I see myself donating to TCNJ one year after

graduation & I see myself donating to TCNJ

ten years after graduation

73 .572 .000

Pair 2 I see myself donating to TCNJ ten years after


twenty years after graduation

74 .825 .000

Pair 3 I see myself donating to TCNJ one year after


twenty years after graduation

73 .355 .002

Table 3

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for

Equality of

Variances t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t df

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Difference

Std. Error

Difference

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

I see myself donating to

TCNJ one year after

graduation

Equal

variances

assumed

.108 .744 -

.684

74 .496 -.17763 .25967 -.69503 .33977

Equal

variances not

assumed

-

.691

55.295 .493 -.17763 .25709 -.69279 .33753


TCNJ ten years after

graduation

Equal

variances

assumed

.315 .576 .073 73 .942 .02000 .27225 -.52260 .56260

Equal

variances not

assumed

.072 45.156 .943 .02000 .27890 -.54168 .58168


TCNJ twenty years

after graduation

Equal

variances

assumed

.296 .588 .214 73 .831 .06000 .28081 -.49966 .61966

Equal

variances not

assumed

.206 43.847 .838 .06000 .29098 -.52648 .64648

29

Table 4


Levene's Test

for Equality of


F Sig. t df

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Difference

Std. Error

Difference

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

I see myself

donating to TCNJ

one year after

graduation

Equal

variances

assumed

7.893 .007 .319 53 .751 .11111 .34777 -.58642 .80864

Equal

variances

not assumed

.509 32.680 .614 .11111 .21840 -.33340 .55562

I see myself

donating to TCNJ

ten years after

graduation

Equal

variances

assumed

1.328 .254 .111 53 .912 .04444 .40152 -.76091 .84980

Equal

variances

not assumed

.141 18.918 .889 .04444 .31456 -.61412 .70301

I see myself

donating to TCNJ

twenty years after

graduation

Equal

variances

assumed

.461 .500 1.054 53 .297 .44444 .42169 -.40136 1.29025

Equal

variances

not assumed

1.090 13.815 .294 .44444 .40770 -.43108 1.31997

30

Table 5


Levene's Test

for Equality of


F Sig. t df

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Difference

Std. Error

Difference

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

I see myself

donating to TCNJ

one year after

graduation

Equal

variances

assumed

.018 .894 -.082 74 .935 -.02500 .30578 -.63428 .58428

Equal

variances

not assumed

-.079 22.468 .938 -.02500 .31844 -.68460 .63460

I see myself

donating to TCNJ

ten years after

graduation

Equal

variances

assumed

.000 .997 1.268 73 .209 .39301 .30990 -.22462 1.01064

Equal

variances

not assumed

1.273 23.913 .215 .39301 .30868 -.24420 1.03022

I see myself

donating to TCNJ

twenty years after

graduation

Equal

variances

assumed

.797 .375 .840 73 .404 .27013 .32169 -.37099 .91125

Equal

variances

not assumed

.893 25.998 .380 .27013 .30244 -.35155 .89181

31

Table 6

Correlationsa


to TCNJ one year

after graduation


to TCNJ ten years

after graduation



after graduation

Quality of

Education


to TCNJ one year after

graduation

Pearson

Correlation

1 .589** .364** -.140

Sig. (2-

tailed)

.000 .002 .242


to TCNJ ten years after

graduation

Pearson

Correlation

.589** 1 .827** -.126

Sig. (2-

tailed)

.000

.000 .291



after graduation

Pearson

Correlation

.364** .827** 1 -.126

Sig. (2-

tailed)

.002 .000

.290

Quality of Education Pearson

Correlation

-.140 -.126 -.126 1

Sig. (2-

tailed)

.242 .291 .290


a. Listwise N=72

Table 7

Correlationsa



graduation


to TCNJ ten years

after graduation


TCNJ twenty years

after graduation

Student

Life


TCNJ one year after

graduation

Pearson

Correlation

1 .624** .383** -.111

Sig. (2-

tailed)

.000 .001 .359



graduation

Pearson

Correlation

.624** 1 .827** -.292*

Sig. (2-

tailed)

.000

.000 .014

32


TCNJ twenty years

after graduation

Pearson

Correlation

.383** .827** 1 -.306**

Sig. (2-

tailed)

.001 .000

.010

Student Life Pearson

Correlation

-.111 -.292* -.306** 1

Sig. (2-

tailed)

.359 .014 .010


*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

a. Listwise N=70

Table 8

Correlationsa



graduation


to TCNJ ten years

after graduation


TCNJ twenty years

after graduation

Tuition

Costs


TCNJ one year after

graduation

Pearson

Correlation

1 .589** .364** -.118

Sig. (2-

tailed)

.000 .002 .322



graduation

Pearson

Correlation

.589** 1 .827** -.215

Sig. (2-

tailed)

.000

.000 .069


TCNJ twenty years

after graduation

Pearson

Correlation

.364** .827** 1 -.279*

Sig. (2-

tailed)

.002 .000

.018

Tuition Costs Pearson

Correlation

-.118 -.215 -.279* 1

Sig. (2-

tailed)

.322 .069 .018


*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

a. Listwise N=72

33

Table 9

Correlationsa

I see myself

donating to TCNJ

one year after

graduation

I see myself

donating to TCNJ

ten years after

graduation

I see myself

donating to TCNJ

twenty years after

graduation

I regret selecting

TCNJ over other

higher education

institutions


to TCNJ one year

after graduation

Pearson

Correlation

1 .589** .364** -.171

Sig. (2-

tailed)

.000 .002 .151


to TCNJ ten years

after graduation

Pearson

Correlation

.589** 1 .827** -.309**

Sig. (2-

tailed)

.000

.000 .008


to TCNJ twenty

years after graduation

Pearson

Correlation

.364** .827** 1 -.376**

Sig. (2-

tailed)

.002 .000

.001

I regret selecting

TCNJ over other

higher education

institutions

Pearson

Correlation

-.171 -.309** -.376** 1

Sig. (2-

tailed)

.151 .008 .001


a. Listwise N=72

34

Table 10

Correlationsa

I see myself

donating to TCNJ

one year after

graduation

I see myself

donating to TCNJ

ten years after

graduation

I see myself

donating to TCNJ

twenty years after

graduation

I will attend future

events with fellow

alumni such as

reunions


to TCNJ one year

after graduation

Pearson

Correlation

1 .558** .316** .386**

Sig. (2-

tailed)

.000 .008 .001


to TCNJ ten years

after graduation

Pearson

Correlation

.558** 1 .811** .341**

Sig. (2-

tailed)

.000

.000 .004



after graduation

Pearson

Correlation

.316** .811** 1 .360**

Sig. (2-

tailed)

.008 .000

.002

I will attend future

events with fellow

alumni such as

reunions

Pearson

Correlation

.386** .341** .360** 1

Sig. (2-

tailed)

.001 .004 .002


a. Listwise N=70

MKT 310: Market Research on Phonathon at The College of New Jersey

Documents

Transcript of MKT 310: Market Research on Phonathon at The College of New Jersey