Choosing

Gum: A Measurement Model for Orbit

Pamela Prieto
May 1, 2012

Introduction The Wrigley Company would like to increase its market share among college students, especially as it pertains to sales of its line of Orbit gum. The following question will drive this research: What are the factors that influence college students to buy chewing gum? Of specific interest are the reasons why college students will choose a particular gum when the market seems to be replenished with many comparable options. Through a review of past literature as well as an analysis on students' gum purchasing habits, the present study will report on valid and reliable measures that will effectively answer the research question.

Background The Client The Wrigley Company has been a staple of American entrepreneurship since the

early 1890s. It was founded by William Wrigley Jr. who began selling soap and baking powder and first introduced chewing gum as an incentive for selling these products ("Heritage Timeline," 2012) The oldest brands of gum introduced by the Wrigley Company are Juicy Fruit and Wrigley's Spearmint, both of which were launched in 1893 ("Heritage Timeline," 2012). Operations of the Wrigley Company were headquartered in Chicagos Wrigley

Building since the company's inception, and the building is a staple of the city's skyline ("Heritage Timeline," 2012). In 1910, however, the company began to expand manufacturing to other countries, beginning with Canada in the early 1900s. Today, the company's reach extends all over the world, with production facilities located across Europe, Asia and Australia, and their Global Innovation Center serves as the global headquarters ("Heritage Timeline," 2012). The advertising efforts of William Wrigley since the company's early history are

considered to be some of the most impactful of the mass media industry ("Better Oral Health," n.d.; Robinson, 2004). Wrigley ads appeared prominently in subway cars, billboards and newspapers and by the late '20s, the company was the nation's fifth largest advertiser, placing behind companies like Coca-Cola and General Motors (Robinson, 2004). Wrigley advertising in the early century focused on two themes, bodily and psychological benefits, such as healthy gums, fresh breath and a sense of calm and relaxation through chewing gum (Robinson, 2004).

Many popular brands, such as Life Savers, Altoids and Creme Savers became part of

Wrigley in the early 21st century, and in 2008, the company was acquired by Mars, Incorporated in a $23 billion deal that transferred responsibility for Mars non-chocolate confections, including the Skittles and Starburst brands ("Heritage Timeline," 2012; Leggett-Flynn, Perille & Hart, 2008). Wrigley also gained control of three production facilities in Mexico, Australia and the Czech Republic (Leggett-Flynn, Perille & Hart, 2008). Today, Wrigley is the number one maker of chewing gum in the world ("Profile," 2012). The Product Although it was released in the United States until 2001, Orbit gum has a long

history in the making. During World War II, Wrigley shipped all production of their Juicy Fruit, Spearmint and Doublemint gums to the troops overseas. Because they had no chewing gum available to civilians back home, the company began plans for a new product called Orbit gum. After the war ended in 1946, however, the three established brands were returned to home market and plans for Orbit gum were discontinued ("Orbit," 2012). It wasnt until 1976 that Wrigley began production and introduced Orbit into the

European market, particularly in Germany, Switzerland and Holland ("Orbit," 2012). This was the first time that the company marketed a sugar-free brand. Later, in 2001, Orbit was introduced to the American market with a slogan promising a just brushed clean feeling, which helped the brand become the fastest growing in the gum category ("Orbit," 2012). The following year, Wrigley introduced Orbit White as a teeth-whitening alternative. In 2007, Orbit received American Dental Associations Seal of Acceptance for its

capability to help fight and prevent cavities ("Orbit," 2012). Finally, in 2009, Wrigley

launched Orbit Mist, the latest innovation in the Orbit family containing micro-pellets that provide a hydrating feeling when chewed. Today, there are 24 different varieties of Orbit gum, available in the brands classic

form, in Mist or White, and in different presentations, including slims packs and the 60- piece Big-E Pack. The Competition Wrigleys major competitor is Cadbury, whose most popular chewing gums include

Trident, Dentyne and Bubblicious. Cadbury is an established company specializing in the manufacture of confections, chocolate in particular. The company was established Birmingham, England, in the early 1800s and has a long history of confection manufacturing all over the world. In 2003, Cadbury entered the chewing gum business by acquiring Adams, an

established manufacturer of brands such as Trident and Stride ("Our Story," 2009). This purchase propelled Cadbury into the top chewing gum market. In 2010, the American firm Kraft Foods successfully acquired Cadbury after an aggressive bid totaling more than $18 billion (BBC, 2010). The Trident brand is Orbits main competitor, ranging second in sales last year in

the sugarless gum category, with dollar sales amounting to $36,700 ("United States top," 2012). Kraft Foods reports that the brand grew 4.8 percent globally in 2011 and that its global market share is 29 percent ("Trident," 2012). Trident was launched in the 1960s and was one of the worlds first sugar-free

chewing gums ("Trident," 2012). The brand was the first gum in space, chewed by

astronauts aboard the 1964 Gemini space flights ("Trident," 2012). Today, five categories of Trident gum are available, including their XtraCare and White varieties. The Industry The history of chewing gum dates back many generations and across many cultures,

including the Greeks and Mayans ("Story of gum," 2004). However, the story of modern chewing gum begins in the 1860s during the Battle of the Alamo, when Mexican General Antonio Lopez de Santa Ana hired Thomas Adams (a New York inventor) to develop a substitute for rubber ("Story of gum," 2004; "Story," n.d.). Though Adams failed in producing a new form of rubber, he inadvertently developed the first modern chewing gum, which he marketed as Adams New York Number 1 ("Story," n.d.). Since then, new forms of chewing gum have been developed and the modern chewing gum industry continues to push the envelope on such innovations. Additionally, chewing gum is a popular product despite economic downfalls because of its low price points and interest from consumers (Mintel, 2010). Despite the recession of recent years, chewing gum and other breath fresheners have seen a growth in sales (Mintel, 2010).

Literature Review Gum as an Impulsive Purchase Gum is a confection that has generally been regarded as an impulse purchase by both industry and academic sources (Mintel, 2010; Robinson, 2004; Cassell, 2010; "Category," n.d.). The placement of gum near the checkout aisles at grocery and convenience stores further conveys the idea that people generally don't go to stores specifically to buy gum, but make the decision at the point of purchase (Robinson, 2004). Additionally, availability of a candy product has also been found as a key driver for impulse purchases (Patwardhan, Flora & Gupta, 2010; "Category," n.d.) Impulsive buying behavior occurs when a consumer experiences a sudden urge to buy something immediately (Rook, 1987). Important distinctions have been made between impulsive purchases and contemplative ones. Rook (1987) outlined some of the characteristics of impulsive buying as being spontaneous and emotional, rather than cautious and rational. Contemplative buying is likely to be part of a regular routine, while impulsive buying tends to be disruptive to the consumer's stream of behavior (Rook, 1987). In general, impulsive shopping serves a hedonic purpose, associated more with the pleasurable feelings involved in the purchase than with the utilitarian qualities of the product (Rook, 1987; Kacen & Lee, 2002). In a review of literature about impulsive shopping by Virvilaite, Saladiene and Bagdonaite (2009), the authors determined that candy is among the products that can trigger an impulsive response in consumers. They state that candy can act as a stimulus for impulsive purchases (Virvilaite, Saladiene & Bagdonaite, 2009). Rook (1987) also proposed that impulsive purchases are not only

common for small-ticket items, such as snacks and candy, but that the impulse extends across product categories. The factors that motivate people to buy impulsively have also been widely studied by researchers. In academic study by Mowen and Spears (1999), the authors explored the personality traits that influence college students and their propensity to shop compulsively. The authors studied the relationships between the Five-Factor Model of Personality, as well as the added traits of materialism and need for arousal, and the behavior of compulsive shopping. Compulsive shopping is an extreme form of impulsive shopping (Mowen & Spears, 1999). The authors found that certain personality traits such as low emotional stability and materialism were positively correlated with compulsive consumption among college students. In turn, materialism was driven by a high need for arousal, which was influenced by an openness to new experiences. Researchers have also explored the link between cultural influences and impulsive behavior. A study by Kacen and Lee (2002) investigated how impulsive purchases by college students varied across collectivist and individualist cultures. In a study of Asian and Caucasian university students, the authors found that the link between the impulsiveness trait and impulsive buying behavior was more strongly associated within college students in individualist groups than those in collectivist groups (Kacen & Lee, 2002). The authors also measured self-concept ranging from independent to interdependent and found that for Caucasian college students, the more they perceived themselves as independent, the more they were likely to engage in impulsive buying behavior (Kacen & Lee, 2002).

Loyalty to Brands of Gum Industry publications and market research has found that gum enjoys a high level of

brand loyalty, especially among young consumers (Mintel, 2010; "Category," n.d.). In a survey conducted by Mintel (2010), it was found that more than half of the respondents ages 18-24 reported that they usually bought the same brand of gum. However, compared to other age groups, they were also the most likely to be willing to try new brands for the variety (Mintel, 2010). This brand loyalty is also true for confections in general. Industry research found that 68 percent of consumers are generally loyal to one or more brands of candy (Blischok, 2010). Researchers have vastly studied the topic of brand loyalty in an effort to better

define and measure it. Jacoby and Kyner (1973) argued that repeat purchasing behavior is not sufficient to measure brand loyalty unless it satisfies six conditions. Their conceptual definition of brand loyalty is: (1) the biased (i.e., nonrandom), (2) behavioral response (i.e., purchase), (3) expressed over time, (4) by some decision-making unit, (5) with respect to one or more alternative brands out of a set of such brands, and (6) is a function of psychological (decision-making, evaluative) processes. (p. 2) Jacoby and Kyner (1973) believed that marketers should be more concerned about the reasons behind repeat behaviors rather than the frequency in which they occur. A study by Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) attempted to understand these reasons by examining the chain of effects starting from brand trust and brand affect and resulting in brand performance in a variety of product categories, including candy. They found that trust and affection for a brand are two separate constructs that combine to influence two

10

different kinds of brand loyalty: purchase loyalty (a behavior; i.e., repurchasing the same brand) and attitudinal loyalty (a degree of dispositional commitment to the brand itself). This loyalty, in turn, influences market share and the relative price of a candy product in the marketplace. Appeals of Gum In the early days of the gum industry, manufacturers of gum struggled with the public's idea of gum as socially distasteful (Robinson, 2004). As chewing gum became a more acceptable social practice, however, advertising started to reflect the possible benefits to consumers, such as oral health, stress relief, thirst quenching, aiding in digestion and even weight loss (Robinson, 2004; Newman, 2009; Mintel, 2010). Advertising is an important tool to help consumers differentiate across brands of similar products and has been used extensively by the chewing gum industry to showcase the advantages of chewing gum (Kottman, 1977; Robinson, 2004). Kottman (1977) suggests that certain techniques are recurrent in advertising of parity products, such as dramatization of a benefit resulting from using the product as can be seen in commercials for Wrigley's 5 Gum, and associating the brand with a character, such as the Doublemint Twins and the Orbit Gum Girl. Advertising was also found to be an important factor when buying other confectionary items, such as chocolates. In an analysis of Cadbury Dairy Milk's Indian market, Kazemi (2010) found that TV ads were the most effective medium for advertising in the Indian market where Cadbury Dairy Milk was the industry leader. The study also found, through a random sample of 600 urban respondents, that quality was the second major factor influencing preference for a particular brand of chocolates.

11

The following items are characteristics that are commonly used in advertising across brands of chewing gum. Dental appearance. Teeth whitening is an important selling point as marketers try to capitalize on the social importance of a healthy dental appearance. Of the 10 best-selling sugarless gums in 2009, two were teeth whitening gums (Newman, 2009). Researchers have found that dental appearance conveys important social characteristics among people. A study by Eli, Bar-Tal and Kostovetzki (2001) found that dentition plays a major role in daily life, as it helps shape people's perceptions of each other. In their study, they found that a healthy dental appearance was associated with higher levels of perceived social and professional success. Chewing gum marketers are capitalizing on the importance of white teeth and industry research points to teeth whitening as one type of functionality that may be helping increase the sales of sugarless chewing gum (Mintel, 2010). Health benefits. Other than benefits to dental appearance, the contribution of gum to the overall health of the chewer is a characteristic that sets it apart from other types of confections. Sugar-free gums have been especially successful at incorporating health claims into their branding efforts. Currently, five brands of gum have received approval from the American Dental Association to carry the Seal of Acceptance for their contribution to oral health in the reduction of cavities (ADA, 2012). Other chewing gums also promise to kill germs that cause bad breath (Newman, 2009; Beirne, 2008). The parent company of the Wm Wrigley Company, MARS Inc., has focused its efforts of finding the benefits of chewing gum by establishing the Wrigley Science Institute. With

12

funding from the WSI, Hetherington and Boyland (2007) conducted a study that found that chewing gum reduces the desire for sweet snacks and the amount consumed during snacking. This message has been a part of chewing gum advertising since the onset of the industry (Robinson, 2004). Other benefits touted by advertisers of gum include stress and tension relief and increased awareness and concentration (Robinson, 2004). A study by Chang (2007) explored the role of message framing in dental-health care advertising. The author found that for products that were familiar to consumers, positively framed health care messages were more effective in the persuasion to purchase those health care products, and that negative messages were better for the promotion of health detection products. For new products, positive messages were more effective for both prevention and detection products (Chang, 2007). This study exemplifies the important role of advertising efforts in the sale of products that include health claims. Another study by McIntyre and Baid (2009) analyzed consumers' attitudes toward indulgent snacks and their healthier alternatives. The authors conducted various focus groups and found that many adults (including groups of students) showed at least some concern for health-related attributes when choosing snack products. McIntyre and Baid (2009) also found that consumers are open to purchasing healthier snacks as long as they don't have to sacrifice the affective and indulgent experience associated with the treat. Innovative flavors. Another factor believed to influence sales of gum is product innovation. Mintel (2010) reports that innovations in flavor are a strong predictor for increased sales through 2014. The gum industry has seen a particularly large growth in fruit flavors as manufacturers have opened up to the idea of moving away from intense mint flavors and

13

toward sweeter offerings (Cassell, 2010). New gums have also incorporated flavors that are regarded to provide additional benefits to the consumer, such as Trident's Vitality with citrus and vitamin C and Stride Spark containing vitamins B6 and B12 (Newman, 2011; Blankenship & Batchilder, 2011; "Trident Gum," 2012). Duration of a gum's flavor is also important, and was emphasized by consumers as an area that gum manufacturers should work on (Mintel, 2010). Thus, flavor is a central attribute across brands as consumers have generally been open to quickly adopt new flavor profiles (Mintel, 2010). The topic of early adoption has research implications that have been previously

explored by scholars. In a broad review of the concept, Midgley and Dowling (1978) argued that while much of the early research on innovation focused on the susceptibility to interpersonal influences, a truer measure of innovativeness would be the degree to which individuals make innovative decisions independently of the influence of others. They argued that innate innovativeness exists in a continuum within individuals, as an inverse function of the threshold amount of information required from interpersonal communication (Midgley & Dowling, 1978). Clark and Goldsmith (2006) found results that were consistent with Midgley and

Dowling's theoretical framework. Their study found a negative relationship between innovativeness and college students' tendency to conform (normative influence, or susceptibility to interpersonal influence). However, Clark and Goldsmith (2006) also found that innovativeness also correlates positively with susceptibility to informational interpersonal influence, signaling that factual and relevant information would be a more efficient message than would persuasion-laden messaging when trying to reach college students exhibiting traits of innovativeness.

14

 Finally, research by Aroean (2011) examined the relationship between innovativeness, playful consumption (a state of fun and excitement that enhances creativity and imagination) and brand switching. The author found that innovativeness is a predictor of both experiences of playful rewards and a tendency to brand switch (Aroean, 2011). The author also found, however, that playful consumption was not a predictor of brand switching, indicating that for innovative consumers to experience playful rewards they require some level of familiarity with a brand (Aroean, 2011). Finally, and most importantly for the present study, the author found that age was a significant predictor in brand-switching, indicating that younger consumers are more likely to explore new brands as a path to innovativeness than are older ones (Aroean, 2011). Packaging. Like for many other products, innovation in packaging is also an important appeal for consumers of gum. Research has found that packaging characteristics, such as color, typography, shapes and images, can affect consumers' perceptions of a product strategy (Ampuero & Vila, 2006). The role of color on product choice has also been found to be more influential in younger generations (Akcay, Sable & Dalgin, 2012). More specifically, in a study by Patwardhan et al. (2010) the authors explored the drivers for purchasing chocolate. They found that package design and shape were important considerations for consumers when making the decision to buy discretionary items. This was also true for soap, another commonly bought item (Patwardhan et al., 2010). Mintel (2010) reported that as consumers' lifestyles change, so will the need for gum packaging to be more durable and portable. Their research indicates that packaging

15

that reseals better is something consumers would like manufacturers to focus on with regards to gum packaging. Other areas for improvement are packs of gum that are easier to open and that are better for the environment (Mintel, 2010). Finally, Mintel (2010) also reported that although levels of selfishness with gum are high, a sizable portion of gum chewers regularly give gum away to friends and family. Though young adults 18-24 are the age group most likely to keep their gum for themselves, there might be opportunities for package innovation based on people's general willingness to share gum (Mintel, 2010). Low price points. It has been noted in the literature that the low price of gum is one reason for the

confection's sustainability across time and consumers' likelihood to want to seek variety in gum consumption (Robinson, 2004; Cassell, 2010; Mintel, 2010). Research by Patwardhan et al. (2010) also suggests that price is a major consideration for discretionary items similar to gum. Further research by Narasimhan, Neslin and Sen (1996) found that gum and mints were more responsive to price promotions than other items that are strongly impulse oriented. Thus, this research will explore among the predictors found in the preceding literature the construct of price consciousness as it relates to gum purchases. Theoretical Framework. While the review of literature presented in this report has indicated a number of

intrinsic and extrinsic predictors that might influence the purchase of gum, a theoretical framework is important for guiding the research and for organizing the previous findings. The theory employed for the present study will be Ajzen's (1991) theory of planned behavior.

16

The theory of planned behavior is an extension of the theory of reasoned action

formulated in 1980 by Ajzen and Fishbein (Ajzen, 1991). The theory posits that a person's behavior is guided by three kinds of salient beliefs: behavioral, normative and control beliefs. Behavioral beliefs have to do with consequences resulting from a particular behavior; normative beliefs are related to the likelihood of approval or disapproval of a behavior from important individuals; and control beliefs, which deal with sources and opportunities to perform a certain behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Ajzen (1991) argued that these beliefs drive positive or negative attitudes about the

behavior, the subjective norms related to the behavior, and the perceived control over the behavior. These attitudes drive an individual's intention to perform the behavior, which in turn lead to the actualized behavior. Ajzen's (1991) model also accounts for influences outside of the three behavioral nodes as drivers to actualize a behavior, including actual behavioral control. This differs from perceived behavioral control because it is a measure of whether a person can actually perform the behavior, and not of their perception of their ability to do so (Ajzen, 1991). Figure 1. Conceptual model of the theory of planned behavior.

17

The theory of planned behavior is applicable to this study of likelihood to purchase

Orbit gum because of its value in predicting consumer behavior. The decision to choose one brand of gum over another is a conscious result of the interplay between these beliefs and attitudes, which drive the intention and lead to the actual behavior of gum purchase. Thus, the theory of planned behavior is an effective model to follow for this study.

18

Proposed Predictors Based on the preceding review of literature which ecompasses scholarly, industry and media sources, several proposed predictors were established. These predictors have been grouped into several categories: consumer-related variables, brand-related variables, product-related variables, and consumer demographics. These factors will offer valuable insight into understanding the factors that influence college students choice to purchase a particular chewing gum. Consumer-Related Variables Impulsive Shopping Scholarly sources: Robinson, 2004; Patwardhan, Flora & Gupta, 2010 Industry sources: Mintel, 2010; Cassell, 2010; "Category," n.d. Materialism Scholarly source: Mowen & Spears, 1999 Need for arousal Scholarly source: Mowen & Spears, 1999 Openness to experience Scholarly source: Mowen & Spears, 1999 Level of independence Scholarly source: Kacen & Lee, 2002 Innovativeness Scholarly sources: Midgley & Dowling, 1978; Clark & Goldsmith, 2006 Brand-Related Variables Brand loyalty Industry sources: Mintel, 2010; "Category," n.d.; Blischok, 2010 Brand trust Scholarly source: Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001 Brand affect Scholarly source: Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001 Attitude toward advertising Scholarly source: Kottman, 1977; Robinson, 2004; Kazemi, 2010 Product-Related Variables Product quality Scholarly source: Kazemi, 2010 Innovativeness of flavor Industry sources: Cassell, 2010; Mintel, 2010; Media source: Newman, 2011 Scholarly source: Aroean, 2011 19

Package attributes Attractiveness Practicality Scholarly sources: Patwardhan et al., 2010; Akcay, Sable & Dalgin, 2012 Industry source: Mintel, 2010 Price Scholarly sources: Robinson, 2004; Patwardhan et al., 2010; Narasimhan, Neslin and Sen, 1996 Industry sources: Cassell, 2010; Mintel, 2010 Customer Demographics Age Scholarly source: Aroean, 2011 Gender Industry source: Mintel, 2011 Race Scholarly source: Kacen & Lee, 2002 Education Target audience Because the theoretical framework for this report is the Theory of Planned

Behavior, it is important to see how each variable fits within the theory. The following contrasts the previous categories because the variables are organized within the dimensions of the theory, as opposed to topically. The section also includes any variables that fall outside of the TPB model. Behavioral Beliefs Product quality Package attributes Attractiveness Practicality Brand loyalty Brand trust Brand affect Attitude toward the Behavior Attitude toward advertising Normative Beliefs Level of independence 20

 Subjective Norms Control Beliefs Perceived Behavioral Control Price Consciousness Additional Variables Proposed by the Researcher Impulsive Shopping Materialism Need for arousal Openness to experience Innovativeness Age Gender Race Education

21

Development of Measures In order to help identify the drivers behind college students choice of chewing gum, the first goal of this project was to create a set of constructs that would accurately measure each of the predictors listed above. To do this, multiple-item measures were created for and pre-tested for 15 of the proposed predictors identified in the previous section. Additionally, single-item measures were created for other predictors, the dependent variable related to the research question, and for demographic variables. Multiple-item measures were developed to assess the validity and reliability of the constructs used to measure 15 of the selected predictors. The multiple-item measures were developed from a combination of sources, including academic sources from the review of literature as well as from various volumes of the Marketing Scales Handbook. Other items were developed by the researcher and most, especially those relating to product and brand variables, were adapted to fit the context of chewing gum choice and purchase. These multiple-item measures were designed following the principles of measurement to ensure simplicity and clarity of understanding, and to minimize any additional burden placed on survey respondents, which might lead to faulty measurement of the constructs. The principles of measurement include paying extra attention to: Form Language measures were presented in straightforward statements in a language style appropriate for the audience Length measures were short to avoid confusion and emphasize meaning Focus measures contained a single theme to avoid explicit and implicit double- barreled questions

22

Content Meaning measures provide a frame of reference to measure the research concept Assumed Knowledge measures did not function on the assumption that respondents knew the meaning of abstract or concrete concepts Word Choice measures were phrased in clear, appropriate language Structure though some measures were not stated in the affirmative, no double negatives were used Order special attention was paid to item placement to avoid biasing respondents; additionally, items were arranged from general to specific concepts Strategies Neutral Stance a neutral or neither agree nor disagree answer choice was included for every measure to avoid forced choices Hypothetical several hypothetical statements were included, both as part of the dependent variable (If you were to purchase a pack of gum tomorrow, what brand would you choose?) and to measure habits of students who dont currently have a favorite brand of gum (If you do not have a favorite brand of gum, please answer the questions in relation to the brand of chewing gum you buy most often) Open-Ended open-ended questions were reserved only for items whose answers fell in a numerical category, such as age and number of packs of gum purchased Recall to reduce burden resulting from asking respondents to recall past information, the research provided a particular time reference point; respondents were also primed before each question by introducing them to the content within each section

23

Multiple-Item Measures Of the complete list of proposed predictors, 15 multiple-item measures were used in

the pre-test for this study. The measures selected fall both within and outside the Theory of Planned Behavior as indicated in the previous section. The following tables depict the first steps in developing the survey instrument by delineating the constructs that measure the proposed predictors as well as the items that were used to measure each construct. Items with an (R) indicate the need for reverse coding. Construct: Impulsive shopping Definition: A consumer's tendency to buy spontaneously, unreflectively, immediately and kinetically. Source: Definition and all items adapted from Rook and Fisher (1995). Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Disagree Agree I often buy things spontaneously "Just do it" describes the way I buy things. "I see it, I buy it" describes me. I carefully plan most of my purchases. (R) Construct: Materialism Definition: The degree to which a person is oriented toward possessing material goods as a means of personal happiness. Source: Definition and items adapted from Bruner II and Hensel (1992). Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Disagree Agree One of my dreams in life is to be able to own expensive things. People judge others by the things they own. Money cant buy happiness. (R) I think others judge me as a person by the kinds of products I own. Construct: Need for Arousal Definition: The level of stimulation and arousal a person prefers. 24

Source: All items adapted from Mowen and Spears (1999). Strongly Disagree Disagree I really like surprises. I am drawn to experiences that have an element of danger. People view me as an unpredictable person. I actively seek out new experiences. I get bored when I am continually around the same people and places. I like the tried and true, rather than the new and different. (R)

Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

Construct: Innovativeness Definition: A person's perceived tendency to try new things. Source: Definition and measures adapted from Bruner II and Hensel (1992) and Bruner II and Hensel (1996). Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Disagree Agree When I see a new product on the shelf, I often buy it just to see what it's like. I often try new products before my friends do. I like to try new things. I am usually among the first to try new products. I prefer to buy familiar products. (R) Construct: Openness to Experience Definition: The degree to which people are inquisitive about the world around them. Source: Definition adapted from Kibeom and Ashton (2012). Measures adapted from Kibeom and Ashton (2012) and Mowen and Spears (1999). Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Disagree Agree I enjoy admiring nature. I am a creative person. I enjoy finding new solutions for common problems. I like to get to know unusual people. I enjoy pastimes that require me to 25

use my imagination. Construct: Level of Independence Definition: The degree to which people perceive their self-identity as independent, rather than as connected to others. Source: Definition and measures adopted from Bruner II (2009). Measures 4, 6 and 7 created by the researcher for this study. Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Disagree Agree I should be judged by my own merit. I prefer to be self-reliant rather than dependent on others. My personal identity, independent from others, is very important for me. I would change things about myself in order to fit in. (R) It is important to me to act as an independent person. Being part of a group is very important to me. (R) I dont usually change my opinions to satisfy others. Construct: Brand Loyalty Definition: The degree to which a consumer expresses devotion to a specific brand. Source: Definition adopted from Bruner II (2009). Measures adapted from Mintel (2010). Item 4 developed by the researcher for this study. Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Disagree Agree I almost always buy the same brand of gum. Once I find a brand of gum I like, I usually stick with it. I try new brands of gum because I like the variety. (R) Even if I try different flavors of gum, I generally stick to the same brand. Construct: Brand Trust Definition: The degree to which a consumer believes a brand of gum is trustworthy.

26

Source: Definition and measures adopted from Bruner II (2009). Item 3 developed by the researcher. Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Disagree Agree This brand of gum delivers what it promises. This brand of gum doesnt pretend to be something it isnt. This brand of gum never disappoints. This brand makes true claims about its gum. Construct: Brand Affect Definition: A brands potential to elicit a positive emotional response in the consumer as a result of its use. Source: Definition and measures adopted from Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001). Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Disagree Agree I feel good when I use this brand of gum. This brand of gum makes me feel happy. Using this brand of gum gives me pleasure. Construct: Attitude toward Advertising Definition: A consumers evaluation of advertising for a specific brand of gum. Source: Definition and measures adopted from Bruner II (2009). The ads for this brand of gum Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly are: Disagree Agree Enjoyable Humorous Fun to watch Entertaining Original Construct: Product Quality Definition: A consumers perceived quality of a product. Source: Definition and measures adopted from Bruner II (2009). This brand of gum is: Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Long lasting 27

Of good quality Consistently good

Construct: Innovativeness of Flavor Definition: A person's tendency to try innovative flavors of gum. Source: Definition and measures adapted from Bruner II and Hensel (1992) and Bruner II and Hensel (1996). Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Disagree Agree I often try new flavors of gum. I like to try gum with new combinations of flavors. I usually stick to my favorite flavor of gum. (R) I dont like to buy exotic flavors of gum. (R) Construct: Importance of Package Attributes (Attractiveness) Definition: The degree of importance a products packaging characteristics have to a consumer. Source: Definition and measures adapted from Bruner II (2009) and Mintel (2010). When choosing gum, I look for Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly packages Disagree Agree That have attractive colors With designs that catch my eye That have an unusual shape Construct: Importance of Package Attributes (Practicality) Definition: The degree of importance a products practical packaging characteristics have to a consumer. Source: Definition and measures adapted from Bruner II (2009) and Mintel (2010). When choosing gum, I look for Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly packages Disagree Agree That reseal better That are easy to open That are better for the environment That make it easy to share Construct: Price Consciousness Definition: The degree of importance that price plays when purchasing gum. Source: Definition and measures adopted from Bruner II (2009). 28

I usually check the price of gum before I buy it. I usually buy the most inexpensive package of gum available. I usually purchase gum when I see it is on sale. I never check the prices of different types of gum. (R)

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Disagree Agree

29

Single-Item Measures In addition to the aforementioned multiple-item measures, the survey instrument

also includes several single-item measures. These items measure demographic variables, as well as variables relating to use of chewing gum to gain a better understanding of the target consumers. Although these measures cannot be tested for validity or reliability, they were deemed an important inclusion in the study. They are listed as follows. Variable: History of gum purchase Definition: The amount of gum an individual purchased in a recent amount of time. Measures: In the past 3 months, about how many packs of gum did you purchase? ___________ If you did not buy chewing gum in the past 3 months, please tell us when the last time you bought a pack of gum was. 6 months ago 1 year ago 2 years ago More than 2 years ago

Variable: Favorite gum flavor Definition: Whether the individual has a preferred flavor of gum. Measures: Do you have a favorite flavor of gum? Yes If yes, what is your favorite flavor of gum? __________________________ Variable: Important gum attributes Definition: Attributes that an individual values in their purchase of chewing gum. No If no, what is the flavor that you buy most often? _____________________

30

Measures (each of the following is a single-item measure on a 5-point Likert- type scale): Please tell us how important the following items are when you purchase gum. It's important that the gum I buy

Whitens teeth Is sugar free Strengthens teeth Helps reduce cavities Helps me reduce stress Has added vitamins Helps increase my energy Does not contain artificial sweeteners Freshens breath well Uses only natural sweeteners Kills germs Helps suppress my appetite Satisfies my cravings Is low on calories

Variable: Favorite brand of gum Definition: Whether the individual has a preferred brand of chewing gum. Measures: Do you have a favorite brand of gum?

Yes If yes, what is the name of your favorite brand? ______________________ No If no, what is the name of the brand you buy most often? _____________

31

 Variable: Exposure to advertising Definition: Whether the individual remembers having recently been exposed to their favorite (or most common) brand of gum Measure: In the past 3 months, do you remember seeing any advertising for this brand of gum?

Yes If yes, please tell us where you saw these ads most often (TV, magazines, etc.). ____________________________________________________ No Variable: Likelihood to purchase a particular brand of gum (dependent variable) Definition: To what extent the individual is likely to buy a particular brand of gum. Measures (each of the following is a single-item measure on a 5-point Likert- type scale): If you were to buy a pack of gum tomorrow, please tell us you how likely you'd be to choose each of the following brands. (Check one per brand.) If I were to buy gum tomorrow, I'd buy . Orbit Trident 5 Gum Eclipse Extra Other: ______________________ Variable: Age Definition: A person's age. Measure: How old are you? ____________ Strongly Disagree Feel Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

32

 Variable: Gender Definition: A person's gender. Measure: Are you male or female? Variable: Academic status Definition: A person's academic level Measure: Which of the following describes your current academic level? Freshman Variable: Race/Ethnicity Definition: The race/ethnicity that a person identifies with. Measure: Which of the following best describes you? White African-American Hispanic/Latino Asian Other________ Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate Male Female

33

Development of Survey The measures presented in the previous section were used to launch a pre-test survey questionnaire. A preliminary survey was qualitatively analyzed by the primary researcher as well as by a senior supervising researcher. The following sections contain an overview of the different sections that comprise the final instrument used in the pre-test. For all interval questions, a five-point Likert-type scale of agreement was used. Respondents were asked to indicate only once if they strongly disagreed, disagreed, felt neutral, agreed or strongly agreed with each item. Introduction Section The pre-test questionnaire was presented as a Student Opinion Survey. A small

introductory paragraph informed students that this survey was seeking students' opinions on a variety of topics. Students were thanked in advance for taking the time to take the questionnaire and were assured that their responses would be kept anonymous. Parts One to Three The first two sections of the questionnaire measure the consumer-related variables.

They are placed at the beginning of the survey because they are the most general, limiting the amount of bias they can create within the respondent. Part One contains measures for the constructs Need for Arousal, Materialism and

Openness to Experience. A priming statement asked respondents to indicate how much each item described them on a five-point Likert-type scale of agreement. Part Two asked respondents to make evaluations on their perceptions of themselves. It contained only the items for the multiple-item construct Level of Independence. Students were primed with the sentence, "The following questions are about how you see yourself.

34

Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each statement." Again, answer choices ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree on a five-point Likert-type scale. Part Three narrowed the topic down to shopping. This section included the measures for Innovativeness and Impulsiveness also on a five-point Likert-type scale of agreement. The first three sections of the survey did not yet introduce the topic of chewing gum so that the consumer-related variables could be measured without the influence of the product. This technique follows the principles of measurement dealing with the importance of question order to avoid biasing the respondents. Parts Four through Eight The following sections asked respondents to think about how they purchase chewing gum. In Part Four, respondents were asked to recall how many packs of gum they had purchased in the last three months, or the last time they purchased gum if they had not done so in the past three months. Part Five asked respondents to relate the role of flavor in their purchases of gum. This section included the variables Innovativeness of Gum and Favorite Flavor of Gum and asked respondents to name their favorite flavor of gum. The researcher anticipated the fact that some respondents might not have a favorite flavor of gum and adapted the measure by asking respondents to include the flavor of gum they buy most often if they do not have a favorite flavor. Part Six is comprised of several single-item measures. These measures aim to determine individual characteristics that consumers value when shopping for chewing gum. Initially, these measures were organized as multiple items within topically related constructs. However, upon a qualitative analysis and after a consultation with the supervising

35

researcher, it was deemed that these items did not share enough overlap in meaning to be considered multiple-item constructs. Part Seven asks respondents to evaluate the Price Consciousness construct. The items were organized in a table preceded by the following instructions: "Thinking about the way you purchase gum, please answer the following questions about price." Part Eight was presented in a similar manner, with a priming statement asking respondents to answer questions in relation to how they purchase gum. Part Eight included the multiple-item measures for Package Attributes, both Attractiveness and Practicality. Parts Nine to Eleven These sections asked respondents about a particular brand of gum either their favorite brand or the brand they buy more often. Again, the researcher anticipated that some respondents might not have a favorite brand of gum and gave them the option to state the brand they buy most often instead. Parts Nine and Ten measured several dimensions of the brand-consumer relationship. First, respondents were asked the multiple items to the construct Brand Loyalty before being asked if they had a favorite brand of gum and what that brand was. Next, respondents answered questions relating to the constructs Brand Affect and Brand Trust on the same five-point Likert-type scale of agreement mentioned earlier in this section. Finally, Part Eleven addressed advertising. First, respondents were asked to recall if they had seen advertisements for the particular brand they had indicated in Part Nine (their favorite or most-bought brand). A recent period of time of three months was chosen to decrease the burden placed on the respondent associated with information recall. An open- ended question then asked respondents where they had seen these advertisements. Finally,

36

respondents were asked to evaluate the ads they remembered on five dimensions, as: enjoyable, humorous, fun, entertaining and original. Part Twelve This section contained the dependent variable for this project: Likelihood to

Purchase a Particular Brand of Gum. The instructions posited a hypothetic statement to the respondents asking them to evaluate which brand of gum they would choose if they were to buy a pack of chewing gum tomorrow. The respondents were asked about "tomorrow" to help ground the decision and avoid responses that reflected too much of an abstraction in their decision. The top five brands of chewing gum were presented: Orbit, Trident, 5 Gum, Eclipse and Extra. A final space was left blank to allow respondents to fill in any other brand that they would be likely to purchase. Respondents were asked to respond once for each brand presented. The prompting

statement was phrased as "If I were to buy gum tomorrow, I'd buy." Respondents were then asked to indicate how much they'd agree to buy each of the brands presented on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Part Thirteen Demographics The final section of the pre-test survey included questions related to demographics.

It was in this section that students indicated their age, gender, academic status and race/ethnicity. The measure for age was left as an open-ended ratio-level variable to allow for the maximum level of variation at the time of analysis. The others were nominal variables, except for academic status, which was an ordinal measure ranging from "freshman" to "graduate student."

37

These single-item measures were strategically and purposefully placed at the end of

the questionnaire to help ease the burden placed on the respondent. By the time they arrived at this section, most of the items measuring the predictors had already been presented, thus anticipating the trouble of any unfinished questionnaires. At the completion of this section, respondents were once again thanked for their time.

38

Analysis of Measures After completing the survey instrument, the measures were analyzed through a

two-part process. The first evaluation was a qualitative assessment with other researchers. The second was a quantitative pre-test consisting of data collection from a convenience sample of 62 college students. Qualitative Assessment Various researchers at Boston University performed a preliminary analysis of the

survey. The instrument was first evaluated by several research colleagues taking a course in survey design. Minor changes were made to several items following their suggestions. This helped ensure clarity and understanding within the survey and allowed the researcher to gain another perspective. Next, the supervising researcher, a professional with more than 20 years of experience in research methods and survey design, served as the main consultant for this project. An initial assessment of the literature review yielded recommendations to narrow the scope of topics covered. Additionally, the difficulty to merge the Theory of Planned Behavior with the numerous predictors proposed posed a particular problem. However, after revisions were made to the scope of the literature review, the Theory of Planned Behavior was deemed an appropriate framework on which to base this pre-test. Subsequently, the supervising researcher revised the proposed constructs and their

items. As mentioned before, the single items relating to the characteristics that consumers consider when purchasing chewing gum were proposed as multiple-item measures of topically related constructs. However, after a discussion with the supervising researcher it

39

was determined that there was not enough overlap in meaning among these items to be considered measures of the proposed constructs. Quantitative Pre-Test The data collection for the pre-test was conducted on April 18 and 19, 2012, in the

George Sherman Union at Boston University. A convenience sample of 62 students was collected from undergraduates and graduate students who were offered a cookie as a token of appreciation for their time. Following the collection, each questionnaire was assigned an identification number

and a codebook was created for each of the measures. Five-point Likert-type scales were assigned scores, with 1 being the lowest score of agreement and 5 being the highest. Reverse-coded items as identified earlier in this report were entered into SPSS as stated on the surveys, but were recoded by the researcher before any analyses were conducted. The rest of the data was entered into the software as it was coded in the survey. Assessment of Content Validity and Reliability Two main goals guided the process of analyzing the multiple-item measures. First,

an assessment of content validity was necessary to ensure that all the items measured those concepts they were supposed to measure fully and accurately. Additionally, content validity was important to determine that what each item was capturing was a unique meaning. The second goal of the analysis was to determine if the measures were reliable. These reliability assessments indicate whether the items within each construct will measure the same concept the same way over time. The analysis began with frequency distributions to determine if any outliers or

coding errors were present. It was found that the questions related to Attitude toward

40

Advertising were only answered by 20 of the respondents. These items were thus excluded from further analysis. Then, an inter-item correlation matrix was created to determine the overlap in meaning between the individual items. Following this, a principal components rotated factor analysis was conducted to evaluate the proposed multiple-item measures. Finally, reliability of the items was determined by finding the Cronbach's alpha for each construct and its measures. Inter-Item Correlation Matrix An inter-item correlation matrix was developed to evaluate the overlap in meaning

of all the items in the multi-item measures. Various problems presented themselves at this stage of the analysis. First, many of the items had a high Pearson's correlation with items that did not belong to the same construct. However, after consulting with the supervising researcher, it was determined that these high correlations were not a problem as long as they didn't reach a .7 score on Pearson's scale. Additionally, two items immediately stood out as problematic. The items "I enjoy

admiring nature" and "I prefer to buy familiar products" yielded very low and even negative scores for Pearson's correlation coefficient. The researcher used the hard copies of the surveys to verify that these items had been entered and reversed coded appropriately. Since there was no error in the coding or data entry, it was decided that those two measures would be excluded altogether from the factor analysis. Table 1 depicts the inter-item correlation matrix of the construct Innovativeness as an example of the low correlations that were found at this stage. The highlighted row depicts the problematic measure.

41

Other items also raised red flags because of their low correlations. Particularly, the

following items were red-flagged at this stage in the process: "Money cant buy happiness," "I prefer to be self-reliant rather than dependent on others," and "I dont usually change my opinions to satisfy others." These items (one from the Materialism construct and the two latter ones from Level of Independence) were kept for verification with the factor analysis. Other problematic items that were also kept for the factor analysis were: I really like surprises," I actively seek out new experiences and I get bored when I am continually around the same people," all from the Need for Arousal construct. Table 1. Inter-item Correlation for Innovativeness
INN I am usually among the first to try new products. INN When I see a new product on the shelf, I often buy it just to see what it's like. INN When I see a new product on the shelf, I often buy it just to see what it's like. INN I prefer to buy familiar products.
Listwise N = 62

INN I often try INN When I see a new INN I like new products INN I am usually among before my the first to try new product on the shelf, I often to try new friends do. products. buy it just to see what it's like. things. .764 .369 .296 .389 .238 .132 .369 .296 -.023

.152 -.144

.152

-.030

Additionally, the variables related to brand (Loyalty, Trust, Affect) showed a high Pearson's correlation among them. It was obvious that these constructs were highly related, so the decision was made to run them separately in the factor analysis to avoid any problems with the factor loadings.

42

 Principal Components Factor Analysis After thorough analysis of the inter-item correlation matrix and after making the

decision to omit and red flag various items, the data was ready to be analyzed through a principal components factor analysis with Varimax rotation. The factor analysis consisted of several steps. First, an analysis was conducted with all the variables to get an overall sense of how strongly the items loaded with their own construct. This was only a preliminary factor analysis and although most of the loadings looked okay, it was obvious that some unrelated factors were loading together. Through a qualitative assessment, the researcher determined that the first factor analysis would be run with five of the constructs: Level of Independence, Materialism, Impulsiveness, Package Attributes of Attractiveness and Brand Loyalty. The researcher ran the factor analysis with the extraction of five factors and found that most factor loadings were very high and that items were loading in the appropriate factor. However, three items within Level of Independence and one within Package Attributes of Attractiveness had very low factor loadings. The analysis was conducted again without the problematic items and the factor loadings proved satisfactory. The two versions of these analyses are presented in Tables 2 and 3. Factor Analysis #1 Factor Analysis #2 LOI It is important to me to act as an independent person. .859 .878 LOI I prefer to be self-reliant rather than dependent on others. .754 .812 LOI My personal identity, independent from others, is very important for me. .780 .793 LOI I would change things about myself in order to fit in. .415 LOI Being part of a group is very important to me. .398 LOI I dont usually change my opinions to satisfy others. .380
Table 3. Factor Analyses for Package AttributesAttractiveness Table 2. Factor Analyses for Level of Independence

Factor Analysis #1

Factor Analysis #2

43

 The next group of constructs to go through factor analysis was comprised of Need for Arousal, Innovativeness, Package Attributes of Practicality, Brand Trust and Product Quality. A principal components factor analysis was conducted with a six-factor extraction. At this point, it was found that items from Need for Arousal and Innovativeness were loading together. An assessment of the measures concluded that a person's need for arousal might drive their innovation-seeking behavior. Thus, it was decided that the two constructs would be analyzed separately. It was also found that the constructs for Brand Trust and Product Quality were also loading together in the analysis. The researcher consulted with a colleague, and upon further examination determined that the two constructs were in fact measuring the same thing. Because Product Quality focused only on brand and not on a particular chewing gum product, the two constructs were merged into a new variable called Brand Quality. Based on the individual items, this new variable was closer in definition to the Brand Trust the degree to which a consumer believes a brand of gum is trustworthy. The factor analysis was run again without the innovativeness variable with more

PckATT That have attractive colors PckATT With designs that catch my eye PckATT That have an unusual shape

.827 .441 .838

.890 .871

favorable results. However, several items within each grouping were still problematic, as exemplified in Table 4. After rerunning the analysis without the problematic measures, new items appeared as low in their factor loading. The factor analysis was then run a third time with these groupings until the desired factor loadings were reached. These are visible in Table 5, along with the total variance explained with each factor analysis.
Table 4. Factor Analysis Second Group NFA I really like surprises. NFA I am drawn to experiences that have an element of danger.

.580 .593

.222 .319 -.074 -.116 -.307 -.026

44

NFA I actively seek out new experiences. NFA I like the tried and true, rather than the new and different. NFA People view me as an unpredictable person. NFA I get bored when I am continually around the same people. PRI I usually check the price of gum before I buy it. PRI I usually buy the most inexpensive package of gum available. PRI I usually purchase gum when I see it is on sale. PRI I never check the prices of different types of gum. PckPR That are easy to open PckPR That are easy to reseal PckPR That are better for the environment PckPR That make it easy to share BrTr This brand of gum delivers what it promises. BrTr This brand of gum never disappoints. BrTr This brand of gum doesnt pretend to be something it isnt. BrTr This brand makes true claims about its gum. PQ I buy this brand because it is of good quality. PQ This brand of gum is consistently good. PQ This brand of gum is long lasting.

Total Variance Explained: 57.84%

.021 -.120 -.341 .001 -.060 -.125 -.104 -.247 .038 .098 -.136 -.035 .631 .463 .659 .655 .788 .843 .749

.094 -.526 .202 -.011 .406 .305 .548 .007 .713 .728 .803 .766 .121 -.353 .160 -.097 .184 .053 -.220

-.537 -.196 -.320 .155 .766 .703 .416 .768 .143 .303 -.096 .071 -.061 -.065 -.120 .043 -.153 -.061 -.176

.412 .331 .620 .485 .002 -.088 .169 .241 .261 .287 -.123 -.229 -.412 -.130 -.426 -.098 .085 .213 .109

Table 5. Factor Analysis Second Group NFA I really like surprises. NFA I am drawn to experiences that have an element of danger. NFA People view me as an unpredictable person. PRI I usually check the price of gum before I buy it. PRI I usually buy the most inexpensive package of gum available. PRI I never check the prices of different types of gum. PckPR That are easy to open PckPR That are easy to reseal PckPR That are better for the environment PckPR That make it easy to share BrTr This brand of gum doesnt pretend to be something it isnt. BrTr This brand makes true claims about its gum. PQ This brand of gum is long lasting. PQ I buy this brand because it is of good quality. PQ This brand of gum is consistently good.

Total Variance Explained: 67.17%

.298 -.081 -.281 -.055 -.135 -.193 .080 .141 -.127 -.055 .613 .660 .748 .799 .874

.335 -.350 .222 .310 .244 -.075 .666 .704 .835 .824 .194 -.092 -.201 .186 .003

.039 .011 -.239 .813 .749 .821 .237 .386 -.014 .128 -.173 .001 -.183 -.157 -.023

.610 .700 .696 -.091 -.128 .108 .309 .281 -.079 -.198 -.470 -.155 .098 -.060 .120

The last set of factor analyses were run with the remaining multiple-item measures:

Openness to Experience, Innovativeness, Innovativeness of Flavor and Brand Affect. This process took only two analyses and was the least problematic, despite the similarity between the innovativeness constructs. A total of four items were removed to obtain strong factor loadings from each construct. The process is illustrated in Tables 6 and 7.
Table 6. Factor Analysis Third Group OTE I enjoy finding new solutions for common problems. OTE I enjoy pastimes that require me to use my imagination.

.254 .065 -.120 .547 -.103 -.039 .065 .604

45

OTE I am a creative person. OTE I like to get to know unusual people. INN I am usually among the first to try new products. INN I often try new products before my friends do. INN When I see a new product on the shelf, I often buy it just to see what it's like. INN I like to try new things. INoF I often try new flavors of gum. INoFI like to try gum with new combinations of flavors. INofF I usually stick to my favorite flavor of gum. INoF I dont like to buy exotic flavors of gum. BrAff This brand of gum makes me feel happy. BrAff I feel good when I use this brand of gum. BrAff Using this brand of gum gives me pleasure.

Total Variance Explained: 65.5%

.041 .077 .154 .795 .064 -.004 -.259 .562 .010 .105 .883 .017 -.125 .194 .906 .043 .296 .044 .579 -.359 .343 -.152 .393 .419 .890 .144 -.066 .058 .868 .251 -.106 .092 .726 -.341 .206 .111 .740 -.240 .095 -.012 -.081 .866 .119 -.011 -.074 .842 .232 .117 .083 .889 -.031 -.046

Table 7. Factor Analysis Third Group OTE I enjoy pastimes that require me to use my imagination. OTE I am a creative person. OTE I like to get to know unusual people. INN I am usually among the first to try new products. INN I often try new products before my friends do. INN When I see a new product on the shelf, I often buy it just to see what it's like. INoF I often try new flavors of gum. INoFI like to try gum with new combinations of flavors. INofF I usually stick to my favorite flavor of gum. INoF I dont like to buy exotic flavors of gum. BrAff This brand of gum makes me feel happy. BrAff Using this brand of gum gives me pleasure. BrAff I feel good when I use this brand of gum.

Total Variance Explained: 71.18%

-.041 -.057 .106 .718 .071 .100 .117 .709 .110 .006 -.265 .614 .033 .095 .887 .088 -.109 .182 .917 .069 .269 .022 .606 -.438 .876 .142 -.066 -.048 .885 .250 -.102 .093 .754 -.350 .215 .153 .747 -.228 .066 -.017 -.089 .862 .133 -.044 .091 .896 -.036 -.013 -.066 .842 .236 .127

Upon completing these factor analyses, the final list of constructs and their items were ready to go through a test of their reliability. The measures that passed the factor anaysis to the next step were: Need for Arousal I really like surprises I am drawn to experiences that have an element of danger. People view me as an unpredictable person. Openness to Experience I enjoy pastimes that require me to use my imagination. I am a creative person. I like to get to know unusual people. Materialism One of my dreams in life is to be able to own expensive things. I think others judge me as a person by the products I own. Money cant buy happiness.

46

Level of Independence It is important to me to act as an independent person. I prefer to be self-reliant rather than dependent on others. My personal identity, independent from others, is very important for me. Impulsiveness I often buy things spontaneously. "I see it, I buy it" describes me. I carefully plan most of my purchases. "Just do it" describes the way I buy things. Innovativeness I am usually among the first to try new products. I often try new products before my friends do. When I see a new product on the shelf, I often buy it just to see what its like. Innovativeness of Flavor of gum I often try new flavors of gum I like to try gum with new combinations of flavors. I usually stick to my favorite flavor of gum. I dont like to buy exotic flavors of gum. Price Consciousness I usually check the price of gum before I buy it. I usually buy the most inexpensive package of gum available. I never check the prices of different types of gum. Package Attractiveness That have attractive colors. With designs that catch my eye. Package Practicality That are easy to open. That are easy to reseal. That are better for the environment. That make it easy to share. Brand Loyalty I almost always buy the same brand of gum. Once I find a brand of gum I like, I usually stick with it. I try new brands of gum because I like the variety. Even if I try different flavors of gum, I generally stick to the same brand. Brand Affect This brand of gum makes me feel happy. I feel good when I use this brand of gum. Using this brand of gum gives me pleasure. Brand Quality (new variable) 47

This brand of gum doesnt pretend to be something it isnt. This brand makes true claims about its gum. I buy this brand because it is of good quality. This brand of gum is consistently good. This brand of gum is long lasting.

A Cronbach's alpha was computed for each of these constructs. Only one construct's measures resulted in an unacceptable Cronbach's alpha. No items provided an alpha with a difference higher than .1 if they were deleted. The findings are summarized in Table 8. Most of the alphas presented here had a strong level of reliability, with many containing alphas of .7 and .8; only Openness to Experience resulted in non-reliable measures. Additionally, the construct for Package Attributes Atrractiveness only resulted in two measures, limiting the reliability analysis for a lack of comparative properties. Table 8. Reliability Analysis of Constructs Item Need for Arousal (Cronbach's Alpha = .554) NFA I really like surprises.
Alpha if item deleted

.474 .527 .356

NFA I am drawn to experiences that have an element of danger. NFA People view me as an unpredictable person.

Openness to Experience (Cronbach's Alpha = .487) OTE I enjoy pastimes that require me to use my imagination. OTE I am a creative person. OTE I like to get to know unusual people. Materialism (Cronbach's Alpha = .573)
MAT One of my dreams in life is to be able to own expensive things. MAT I think others judge me as a person by the products I own. MAT Money cant buy happiness.

.438 .268 .450

.332 .499 .570

Level of Independence (Cronbach's Alpha = .786) LOI It is important to me to act as an independent person. LOI I prefer to be self-reliant rather than dependent on others.

.630 .753 .753

LOI My personal identity, independent from others, is very important for me.

Impulsiveness (Cronbach's Alpha = .834) IMP I often buy things spontaneously IMP "I see it, I buy it" describes me. IMP I carefully plan most of my purchases. IMP "Just do it" describes the way I buy things. Innovativeness of Flavor (Cronbach's Alpha = .853) INoF I often try new flavors of gum.

.790 .794 .791 .786

.789

48

INoFI like to try gum with new combinations of flavors. INofF I usually stick to my favorite flavor of gum. INoF I dont like to buy exotic flavors of gum.

.780 .830 .845

Price Consciousness (Cronbach's Alpha = .794) PRI I usually check the price of gum before I buy it.

.642 .737 .769

PRI I usually buy the most inexpensive package of gum available. PRI I never check the prices of different types of gum.

Package Attractiveness (Cronbach's Alpha = .807) PckATT That have attractive colors PckATT With designs that catch my eye Package Practicality (Cronbach's Alpha = .810) PckPR That are easy to open PckPR That are easy to reseal PckPR That are better for the environment PckPR That make it easy to share Brand Loyalty (Cronbach's Alpha = .850) BrLoy I almost always buy the same brand of gum. BrLoy Once I find a brand of gum I like, I usually stick with it. BrLoy I try new brands of gum because I like the variety. Brand Affect (Cronbach's Alpha = .855) BrAff Using this brand of gum gives me pleasure. BrAff This brand of gum makes me feel happy. BrAff I feel good when I use this brand of gum. Brand Quality (Cronbach's Alpha = .807)
BrTr This brand of gum doesnt pretend to be something it isnt. BrTr This brand makes true claims about its gum. PQ I buy this brand because it is of good quality. PQ This brand of gum is consistently good. PQ This brand of gum is long lasting.

N/A N/A
.782 .720 .773 .764

.751 .738 .889 .831

BrLoy Even if I try different flavors of gum, I generally stick to the same brand.

.800 .797 .794

.784 .787 .747 .735 .793

49

Revisions to the Survey Based on the preceding qualitative and quantitative testing of the survey

instrument, specific revisions could be made to achieve more satisfactory results. Obstacles to survey design were present at every stage of its implementation, but suggestions to overcome these obstacles were presented in this report as well. Through a systematic and analytic revision of the measures, the following recommendations for future implementation of this study are presented:

Measures that were red-flagged at all stages of the analysis should be thoroughly revised to increase overlap in meaning while still measuring a unique concept.

The constructs for Attitude toward Advertising need further analysis, as the sample that was collected for these items was much too small. An appropriate sample size would be necessary to evaluate these measures.

Special attention should be paid to the construct Product Quality, which in this instrument resulted as another manifestation of Brand Trust.

Measures for Package Attributes Attractiveness yielded only two items. More related measures are needed for evaluating the reliability of this construct.

The single-item measures asking respondents about the important attributes of gum could easily be condensed into categories to save space and reduce the burden on the respondent.

50

Conclusions This project gave important insight as to the appropriate measurement techniques and developments needed to successfully capture the variation within a particular population. A thorough review of literature led to the proposed and potentially significant predictors. These predictors were then translated into constructs and broken down into overlapping but unique items with which to measure the constructs created. Through various statistical tools, including an inter-item correlation matrix and the principal components factor analysis, the researcher was able to discern which items were effective in accurately and reliably measuring the proposed predictors. In order to effectively answer the research question posed in the introduction to this

report, the Wrigley Company would benefit from administering a revised version of this survey to a random sample of their target population.

51

References Akcay, O., Sable, P., & Dalgin, M. H. (2012). The importance of color in product choice among young Hispanic, Caucasian, and African-American groups in the U.S.A. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(6), 2-6. American Dental Association. (2012). ADA Seal Product Category. Retrieved from http://www.ada.org/5266.aspx?category=Sugar+Free+Chewing+Gum+for+Reducin g+Cavities Ampuero, O., & Vila, N. (2006). Consumer perceptions of product packaging. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23(2), 102-114. Aroean, L. (2012). Friend or foe: In enjoying playfulness, do innovative consumers tend to switch brand? Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 11, 67-80. BBC News. (2010). Cadbury agrees Kraft takeover bid. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8467007.stm

Beirne, M. (2008). Gum category embraces germ warfare. Adweek. Retrieved from http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/gum-category-embraces- germ-warfare-104655 Betteroralhealth.info. (n.d.) About Wrigley. Retrieved from http://betteroralhealth.info/ orbit_us/about-wrigley/about/index.htm

Blankenship, K., & Batchilder, M. (2011). Stride, the ridiculously long lasting gum, introduces Stride Spark - a new gum with B vitamins. [Press Release]. Retrieved from http://www.kraftfoodscompany.com/mediacenter/country-press- releases/us/2011/us_pr_02102011b.aspx Blischok, T. (2010, August). Continued growth projected for confections. Candy Industry.

52

Bruner II, G.C. (2009). Marketing Scales Handbook: A Compilation of Multi-Item Measures for Consumer Behavior & Advertising (V5), Carbondale, IL: GCBII Productions. Bruner II, G. C., & Hensel, P.J. (1992), Marketing Scales Handbook: A Compilation of Multi-Item Measures (V1), Chicago: AMA. Bruner II, G. C., & Hensel, P.J. (1996), Marketing Scales Handbook: A Compilation of Multi-Item Measures (V2), Chicago: AMA. Cadbury. (2009). [Graph illustrating the history of Cadbury]. Our Story. Retrieved from http://cadbury.co.uk/cadburyandchocolate/ourstory/Pages/ourstoryFlash.aspx#/

Cassell, D. (2010, March). Fresh and exciting. Retail Confectioner. Retrieved from <http://www.cs-retailing.com/Articles/Feature_Article/BNP_GUID_9-5- 2006_A_10000000000000786657>

Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance: The role of brand loyalty. The Journal of Marketing, 65(2), 81-93. Chang, T. (2007). Health-care product advertising: The influences of message framing and perceived product characteristics. Psychology & Marketing, 24(2), 143169. Clark, R. A., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2006). Global innovativeness and consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 14(4), 275. Eli, I., Bar-Tal, Y., & Kostovetziki, I. (2001). At first glance: Social meanings of dental appearance. Journal of Public Health Dentistry, 61(3), 150-154. Ford Gum. (2004). The Story of Chewing Gum. Retrieved from http://www.fordgum.com/story.html

53

Hetherington, M.M., & Boyland, E. (2007). Short-term effects of chewing gum on snack intake and appetite. Appetite, 48, 397-401.

International Chewing Gum Association. (n.d.). The Story of Gum. Retrieved from http://www.gumassociation.org/default.aspx?Cat=1 Jacoby, J. & Kyner, D. B. (1973). Brand loyalty vs. repeat purchasing behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 10(1), 1-9. Kacen, J.J., & Lee, J.A. (2002). The influence of culture on consumer impulsive behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12(2), 163-176. Kazemi, F. (2010). The role of media on consumer brand choice: A case study of chocolate industry. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(9), 147-154. Kibeom, L., & Ashton, M. (2012). Getting mad and getting even: Agreeableness and honesty- humility as predictors of revenge intentions. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(5), 596-600.

Kottman, E. J. (1977). The parity product: Advertising's Achilles heel. Journal of Advertising, 6 (1), 34-39. Kraft. (2012). Trident Gum. Retrieved from http://www.kraftfoodscompany.com/brands/featured-brands/trident.aspx Leggett-Flynn, C., Perille, C., & Hart, G. (2008). Mars, Incorporated completes acquisition of Wm Wrigley Jr. Company. [Press Release]. Retrieved from http://www.wrigley.com/global/press/news-details.aspx?id=1164

McIntyre, C., & Baid, A. (2009). Indulgent snack experience attributes and healthy choice alternatives. British Food Journal, 111(5), 486-497. Midgley, D. F., & Dowling, G. R. (1978). Innovativeness: The concept and its measurement.

54

Journal of Consumer Research, 4(4), 229-242. Mintel. (2010, February). Gum, mints and breath fresheners U.S. Retrieved from http://academic.mintel.com.ezproxy.bu.edu/sinatra/oxygen_academic/search_resu lts/show&/display/id=482467 Mowen, J. C., & Spears, N. (1999). Understanding compulsive buying among college students: A hierarchical approach. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 8(4), 407-430. Narasimhan, C., Neslin, S. A., & Sen, S. K. (1996). Promotional elasticities and category characteristics. Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 17. Newman, A. A. (2009). Selling gum with health claims. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/28/business/media/28adco.html (2011). New gums with vitamins, herbs and varied claims. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/09/business/media/ 09adco.html Palmer Harvey. (n.d.). Category Health Check: Chewing Gum. Retrieved from http://www.palmerharvey.co.uk/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=%2FAJ6tDywY2g%3D&t abid=86&mid=611 Patwardhan, M., Flora, P., & Gupta, A. (2010). Identification of secondary factors that influence consumers buying behavior for soaps and chocolates. IUP Journal of Marketing Management, 9(1), 55-72. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/500821291?accountid=9676 Robinson, D. J. (2004). Marketing gum, making meanings: Wrigley in North America, 1890-1930. Enterprise & Society, 5(1), 4-44. Rook, D. W. (1987). The buying impulse. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(2), 189-199.

55

Rook, D. W., & Fisher, R. J. (1995). Normative influences on impulsive buying behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(3), 305-313. Sharma, P., Sivakumaran, B., & Marshall, R. (2010). Exploring impulse buying and variety seeking by retail shoppers: Towards a common conceptual framework. Journal of Marketing Management, 26(5-6), 473-494. United States top 10 sugarless chewing gum brands ranked by dollar sales, unit sales, market share percentages, and percent change for year ending March 20, 2011. (2012). Chain Drug Review, 33(9): 55, May 23, 2011. Virvilaite, R., Saladiene, V., & Bagdonaite, R. (2009). Peculiarities of impulsive purchasing in the market of consumer goods. Engineering Economics, 2, 101-108. Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company Company Profile. (2012). Yahoo News Network. Retrieved from http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/11/11648.html

Wrigley. (2012). [Graph illustrating the history of the Wrigley Company]. Heritage Timeline. Retrieved from http://www.wrigley.com/global/about-us/heritage-timeline.aspx. (2012). [Graph illustrating the history of Orbit gum]. Orbit. Retrieved from http://www.wrigley.com/global/brands/orbit.aspx

56