The following study is designed to test the six hypotheses concerned with
negative income stereotype threat and its resulting effects, as well as the
possibility of income stereotype lift. These hypotheses address the impact the
perceived wealth of another shopper as well as treatment from the sales staff has
on an individual’s mental wellbeing, more specifically their levels of self-esteem, reactance, anger and pride. They are also designed to test what impact income
stereotype threat has on specific shopping behaviours such as purchasing
likelihood, store return likelihood and perceived store quality. In order to test
these hypotheses, an online experiment involving a fictional retail scenario was
utilised. These fictional scenarios were appropriate as they allow for the
manipulation of both independent variables to see if there is a cause and effect
relationship between them and the dependent variables.
4.2 Procedure
The experiment and subsequent survey questionnaire were created in
Qualtrics, an online survey program. The link to this survey was distributed via
social media platforms, email and displayed on posters. Due to time and cost
restraints, a snowball sampling technique was employed. Using the social media
site Facebook, potential participants were invited to complete the survey via links
61
technique required individuals to post the link on their personal Facebook feeds as
well as in private and public groups they are members of. These individuals were
not encouraged to complete the survey themselves. Larger Facebook groups run
by associations such as University of Waikato International Students were also
approached and the link was posted anonymously on their various Facebook
feeds. Thus, participant identities i.e. those who clicked on the link, were
confidential to the researcher. Along with posting the link, a small blurb
accompanied it, explaining the general purpose of the research, what the research
contributes towards and how they could go into the draw to win a $50 Prezzie
Card as an incentive to completing the study. They were also informed that the
link was confidential and could not be traced back to them.
A convenience sample was also collected via email invitations. Potential
participants were contacted via an existing email database. They were presented
with general information concerning the study, including the topic of the research,
confidentiality, how long it would take to complete and information regarding the
prize. They could then follow an anonymous link to the survey in Qualtrics. A
final method involving posters with tearaway links were pinned to notice boards
around the University of Waikato. These posters invited individuals to tearaway
anonymous links to the survey and complete it in their own time. The posters
advertised the prize of the $50 Prezzie card and outlined participant
confidentiality, as well as how long they should expect the survey to take (See
Appendix 8). This method allowed for potential participants to be reached without
having any personal contact, as well as for a range of individuals to be targeted.
Once individuals clicked on the survey link, they were redirected to the
62
study, including what their responses would be used for, how long the survey
would take, their rights as a participant and how to contact the researcher (see
Appendix 1). Once agreeing to these terms, participants were encouraged to read
their randomly assigned scenario in full and at their own pace. They were
assigned one of nine possible scenarios. A randomiser was employed via Qualtrics
to ensure participants were randomly assigned one of the nine conditions. Once
participants had completed reading their scenarios, they were all presented with
the same questionnaire. During the questionnaire, all participants were provided
with a second scenario regarding a donation to charity request. In this scenario,
participants were “approached” by a sales assistant and asked how much they would like to donate.
4.3 Ethics
All participant information was kept completely anonymous. No personal
details were recorded or requested during the questionnaire. Due to the incentive
offered, participants were given the opportunity to submit their email addresses in
order to be in the draw to win, however these email addresses were not connected
to their surveys, nor were they used to contact any of the participants regarding
anything but the prize details.
As the topic of this research is focussed on everyday consumer activities,
it can be considered low risk and none of the participants were harmed in the data
collection. Due to the nature of online research, no personal contact was had with
any of the participants, thus signed paper consent forms were not appropriate for
63
rather than traditional consent forms. All respondents had the opportunity to
withdraw from the study by exiting the questionnaire without submitting and this
right was outlined during the participant introduction as well as the end summary
of the survey (see Appendix 2). Full ethics approval for this research was applied
for on the 19th of January, 2016 and granted by the University of Waikato Ethics
Committee on the 25th January, 2016 (see Appendix 7).