Attitudinal Loyalty A Mixed Method Study of Apple Fandom PDF

ATTITUDINAL LOYALTY: A MIXED METHOD STUDY OF APPLE FANDOM
by
David P. Johnson
STEVEN JEDDELOH, PhD, Faculty Mentor and Chair
LEAH WICKERSHAM, PhD, Committee Member
LINDA DELLOSSO, PhD, Committee Member
Barbara Butts Williams, PhD, Dean, School of Business and Technology
A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Capella University
March 2013
UMI Number: 3557606
All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI 3557606
Published by ProQuest LLC (2013). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
David Johnson, 2013
Abstract
Consumer loyalty is a much-pursued relationship that businesses attempt to develop for
long-term sustainability and profitability (Jacoby, 1971; Oliver, 1997). This phenomenon
has psychological, technical, economic, or contractual elements but is primarily
composed of behavioral and attitudinal components. Although many companies attempt
to bridge this consumer/company relationship through loyalty programs, most such
programs fail (Divett, Crittenden, & Henderson, 2003). There is a distinction between
behavioral loyalty and attitudinal loyalty. Whereas the former refers to re-purchase
behaviors in response to marketing stimuli (e.g. loyalty programs), the latter refers to
deep-seated commitment and identification to the brand itself (Moore & Sekhon, 2005).
There is emotional bonding with attitudinal loyalty in which a consumer bonds with a
specific brand that separates it from other brands. This bonding not only fosters
competitive advantage but also elicits the consumer to be an evangelizer of the brand (i.e.
the organization). This attitudinal loyalty is observed in the six constructs described in
this study; organizational identification, approachability and responsiveness, trust, group
affiliation and socialization, identification and sense of belonging, and proselytizing.
Apple Inc. (Apple) is one of the few iconic companies that has fostered and nurtured its
consumer loyalty and is matched by very few companies. Apple consumers are fanatical
about their organizational attachment and espouse an attitudinal loyalty extending beyond
the products and extend into the brand itself. This attachment separates the brand
community from a brand cult, which is defined when an individuals perception of his
or her sense of identity to a group of individuals (Acosta & Devasagayam, 2010).
This study describes the phenomenon of Apple loyalty and the lived experiences and
meaning of Apple users and the essence of their fandom and organizational attachment to
Apple. By understanding these elements and experiences, other companies can set forth
strategies to foster similar fandom reactions, greater attitudinal loyalty, and ensure
long-term viability and profitability (Jacoby, 1971).
Dedication
Ki hoku hoa 'ofa'anga he'ene hoko koe huitu'a he lolotonga 'eku fononga he
fekumi ki he mala'e 'oe ako 'a e kataki 'a e katekina moe feilaulau 'oe mo'ui pea kanoni
'aki 'a e 'ofa.
iv
Acknowledgments
I would never have been able to finish my dissertation without the guidance of my
committee members. Dr. Leah Wickersham and Dr. Linda Dell'Osso were instrumental in
the development of my thesis giving excellent advice and helping me forge through the
dissertation process. My research would not have been possible without their help.
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my mentor and advisor, Dr. Steven
Jeddeloh, for his outstanding patience and understanding while providing me with
excellent adhortation and guidance while working on this paper. Dr. Jeddeloh seemed to
always know when I needed a confidence boost while aiding my navigation and my
progression in the dissertation process. His counsel helped open my eyes, expanding my
abstract to a new way of problem solving and a new way of critical thinking making me
better equipped by enlarging my understanding of the scope of possible solutions.
I would also like to thank my children - Debbie, Gloria, and Adam. They were
always supporting me and encouraging me with enheartening words of exhortation.
Finally, I would like to thank my wonderful wife, Betsy. She was always there
with encouraging words, cheering me up and standing by me through the good times and
the trying times strengthening my resolve throughout my doctoral journey.
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Introduction To The Problem
Background Of The Study
Statement Of The Problem
Purpose Of The Study
Rationale
Research Questions
10
Significance Of The Study
13
Definition Of Terms
14
Assumptions And Limitations
14
Theoretical/Conceptual Framework
16
Organization Of The Remainder Of The Study
18
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
20
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY
51
Research Design
51
Sample
52
Setting
55
Instrumentation/Measures
55
Data Collection
56
Data Analysis
58
Validity And Reliability
61
Ethical Considerations
64
vi
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS
65
CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS
122
REFERENCES
139
APPENDIX A. INDIVIDUAL QUESTION RESULTS
148
APPENDIX B. GENERATIONAL DIFFERENCES BY QUESTION
196
vii
List of Tables
Table 1 - Construct 1 Organizational identification One-way ANOVA
66
Table 2 - Construct 1 Organizational identification Tukeys Test
66
Table 3 - Construct 2 Approachability and responsiveness One-way ANOVA
68
Table 4 - Construct 2 Approachability and responsiveness Tukeys Test
68
Table 5 - Construct 3 Trust One-way ANOVA
70
Table 6 - Construct 3 Trust Tukeys Test
70
Table 7 - Construct 4 - Group affiliation and socialization One-way ANOVA
71
Table 8 - Construct 4 Group affiliation and socialization Tukeys Test
72
Table 9 - Construct 5 Identification and sense of belonging One-way ANOVA
73
Table 10 - Construct 5 Identification and sense of belonging Tukeys Test
74
Table 11 - Construct 6 Proselytizing One-way ANOVA
75
Table 12 - Construct 6 Proselytizing Tukeys Test
75
Table 13 - Construct 1 Organizational identification Two-way ANOVA

Generational Comparisons
78
Table 14 - Construct 1 Organizational identification Generational differences

Comparisons among groups (Factor 1 - Generation)
79
Table 15 - Construct 1 Organizational identification Generational differences

Comparisons among groups of Factor 2 (Company) within each Factor 1
(Generation) level
80
Table 16 - Construct 2 Approachability and responsiveness Two-way ANOVA

81
Table 17 - Construct 2 Approachability and responsiveness

Generational differences
82
Table 18 - Construct 2 Approachability and responsiveness

83
viii

(Generation) level
Table 19 - Construct 3 Trust Two-way ANOVA
84
Table 20 - Construct 3 Trust Generational differences

85
Table 21 - Construct 3 Trust Generational differences

(Generation) level
86
Table 22 - Construct 4 Group affiliation and socialization Two-way ANOVA

87
Table 23 - Construct 4 Group affiliation and socialization Generational differences 88

Table 24 - Construct 4 Group affiliation and socialization Generational differences 89
(Generation) level
Table 25 - Construct 5 Identification and sense of belonging Two-way ANOVA
90
Table 26 - Construct 5 Identification and sense of belonging

91
Table 27 - Construct 5 Identification and sense of belonging

(Generation) level
91
Table 28 - Construct 6 Proselytizing Two-way ANOVA

93
Table 29 - Construct 6 Proselytizing Generational differences

94
Table 30 - Construct 6 Proselytizing Generational differences

(Generation) level
94
ix
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Introduction To The Problem
Consumer loyalty is a much-pursued relationship between an organization and its
customers that businesses attempt to develop for long-term sustainability and profitability
(Jacoby, 1971; Oliver, 1997). This phenomenon may have psychological, technical,
economic, and contractual elements but is primarily composed of behavioral and
attitudinal components. Many companies attempt to align these elements as part of their
organizational designs in a Customer Relationship Management (CRM) strategy. Loyalty
programs are tools that companies use when aligning a CRM strategy to develop such
loyalty. Most loyalty programs attempt to personalize the shopping experience via a
variety of methods, but as Divett, Crittenden, and Henderson (2003) noted, most such
programs fail.
Hikkernova (2011) noted that most loyalty programs are simple marketing
programs designed to affect behavioral loyalty, which is manifested through re-purchase
behavior. With regard to this type of program effectiveness, Liu (2007) and Divett,
Crittenden, and Henderson (2003) posited several problems associated with these
programs noting that most loyalty programs are not cost-effective and are easily
duplicated by competitors. These behavioral programs may provide few unique attributes
in which consumers can develop organizational attachment and bond with a business, but
success has been inconsistent at best.
1
There is a distinction between behavioral loyalty and attitudinal loyalty. The

former refers to re-purchase behaviors in response to marketing stimuli (e.g. loyalty
programs) whereas the latter refers to deep-seated commitment and identification to the
brand itself (Moore & Sekhon, 2005). With attitudinal loyalty there is an emotional bond,
which a consumer forms with a specific brand that separates it from other brands. This
attitudinal loyalty may not only foster competitive advantage but also promotes a
prosthelytizing environment from the consumer.
Ragas and Bueno (2002) cited nine brands, which have achieved a certain level of
cult-like status from their followers. These brands include Apple, Harley-Davidson,
Jimmy Buffett, Linux, Oprah Winfrey, Star Trek, Vans Shoes, Volkswagen Beetle, and
World Wresting Entertainment (Formerly WWF) (Belk & Tumbat, 2005, p. 206). These
companies transcend typical loyalty paradigms and reach elements that approach
attitudinal attachment much greater than their competitors. These companies are iconic
in that their followers are defiantly loyal approaching a fanaticism unique in their
industries.
Apple Inc. (Apple) is one of the few iconic companies that has fostered and
nurtured a form of consumer loyalty matched by very few companies. Many Apple
consumers are fanatical about their organizational attachment and espouse an attitudinal
loyalty that extends beyond the products and extends into the brand itself. This
attachment separates the brand community, which is based on social relationships
(Arora, 2009), from a brand cult, which is defined when an individuals perception of
his or her sense of identity to a group of individuals (Acosta & Devasagayam, 2010).
These authors described the brand cult phenomenon when an identifiable brand
2
fosters a strong bond to the brand due to the strong group bond (Acosta &
Devasagayam, 2010, p. 165).
The purpose of this study was to describe the phenomenon of Apple loyalty.
Describing the lived experiences and meaning of Apple users and the essence of their
fandom and organizational attachment to the Apple organization and its products
provided insights into how this loyalty developed, what elements nurtured this
relationship, and how this relationship was manifested. By understanding these elements
and experiences, other companies can set forth strategies to foster similar fandom
reactions, greater attitudinal loyalty, and ensure long-term viability and profitability
(Jacoby, 1971).
Apple is one of the universally recognized brand cults or brand communities,
which Belk and Tumbat (2005) define as a specialized, non-geographically bound
community, based on a structured set of social relationships among admirers of a brand
(p. 205). Established in 1976 and incorporated in 1977, Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, and
Ronald Wayne founded Apple. Out of the three, Steve Jobs emerged as the companys
visionary and symbol for Apples independence and innovative culture (Pontiskoski &
Asakawa, 2010). After tremendous financial problems in the mid-1990s, which almost
led the company to bankruptcy, Apple turned around and briefly passed Exxon to become
the largest company in the world (i.e. based on market capital). Many attribute this
turnaround primarily to the companys loyal consumer-base (Belk & Tumbat, 2005;
Denning, 2011; Mascarenhas, Kesavan, & Bernacchi, 2006; Seybold, 1997; and Sorescu,
Frambach, Singh, Rangaswamy, & Bridges, 2011; Salegna & Goodwin, 2005).
This Apple Phenomenon is recognized worldwide and is the basis for this
mixed method study. Apple consumers are at the heart of this phenomenon and
understanding the construction of their lived experiences provided insights regarding how
this loyalty was created, cultivated, and enacted. Thus, the research problem was, What
does it mean to be an Apple fan?
Background Of The Study
The background of this study began as a study of loyalty programs. Although
these programs were viewed as the next paradigm in the way companies conducted
their business, examining the different programs revealed that many were more
successful than others. For those who initiated the technology first, there was competitive
advantage. However, as time passed other companies emulated and copied this
technology, which nullified the initial edge (Gwynne, 2002). Although this attempt to
personalize the shopping experience provided some insights into the buying habits of
customers, they failed to demonstrate how consumers construct their experiences and
sustain long-term loyalty. In short, they examined the actions of the individuals without
understanding why consumers behaved the way they did. Competitors emulated some
programs in a short amount of time, while in other industries competitors took years
before they saw the light and copied the industry leader. Grocery stores represent the
former while Harrahs Entertainment (currently Caesars Entertainment Corporation)
represents the latter.
With regard to the grocery stores, the preponderance of loyalty cards is such
that there are currently very few of the major chains that do not have such a program. For
the consumer, initially these cards carried the advantage of not requiring the customer to
4
remember their coupons. Stores would label their products with their regular retail prices,
then place adjacent Value Prices demonstrating the reduced price at the check stand if
the shopper brought forth their Loyalty Card. If one forgot his or her Loyalty Card, one
would need only to type in ones phone number to redeem the Value Price.
Initially, the stores that implemented these types of programs had competitive
advantage. For the consumer, signing up was free and one did not have to subscribe to a
newspaper and check out what were the Weekly Sales. Companies could develop
databases for shopping habits and patterns that would help with future marketing
decisions. These programs; however, were quickly emulated and in a short time the
competitive advantage vanished as the majority of companies in the industry copied these
programs. The Rewards Card concept spread to other industries and soon many were
bundling with other elements such as gasoline, food courts, and so forth. Currently,
hotel chains, hardware stores, banks, and many online companies all have many
companies in their industries that have loyalty programs. The airline industry represents
bundling at its most sophisticated. SkyMiles, Delta Airlines loyalty program, has four
tiers to its program and is connected to nine other airlines in its alliance partnership.
This program also offers discounts to other industries including rental cars (e.g. Hertz),
hotels, (e.g. Hilton, Hyatt Hotels, Marriott, Westin Hotels and Resorts), and other nontravel related industries such as cruises, dining, retail, beauty, health and wellness
(SkyMiles, 2012).
One of the more successful programs was launched by Harrahs Entertainment
(Harrahs). In 1984, Harrahs was fourth in the gaming industry behind MGM Grand, the
Mandalay Resort Group, and Park Place Entertainment (re-named Caesars) (Kale &
5
Klugsberger, 2007). It addition, Harrahs was shorter on capital than its competition. In
1984, Harrahs CEO, Phil Satre, decided to alter the companys strategy to become more
customer-centric and decided to use large databases to decipher customer habits. He
brought in a Harvard professor, Gary Loveman, who had no experience in the gaming
industry but was very familiar with database mining and use. The company developed a
rewards program using its Player Cards to track shopping habits. This helped Harrahs
propel itself to the top of the gaming industry (Kale & Klugsberger, 2007). Harrahs had
a long-term focus on the customer using the companys database to develop customer
incentives and provide better service (Loveman, 2003), and on June 13, 2005 after the
Harrahs acquired Caesars Entertainment it became the worlds largest gaming company
(Wade, 2006).
Unfortunately for Harrahs, competitors copied these technologies and the oncesubstantial lead it had has been minimized by other companies copying its strategy and
approach. The combination of competitors emulating much of Harrahs tactics and
strategies resulted in the minimizing of the companys technological lead. These factors
coupled with the large amount of debt the companys new owners (private equity firms
TPG Capital and Apollo Global Management) acquired positioned the company to a
disadvantageous position in the industry (Datamonitor, 2011). In 2011, according to the
companys annual report; the company lost $688 million (Caesars Entertainment
Corporation, 2012). The loyalty program helped build customer loyalty, but the loyalty
program could not sustain the loyalty relationships.
The loyalty programs of the aforementioned programs were marketing tools that
did little to instill the attitudinal attributes that maintain individual loyalty and fandom.
6
Although they initially offered uniqueness to the shopping experience, they failed to
capture the hearts and minds of the consumer and, as a result, the majority of these
programs are failures (Divett et al. 2003). Instead of studying the mechanics of how
individuals respond to marketing stimuli, this study sought to describe the individual
lived experiences of customers of a company whose customers demonstrate true fandom.
By understanding the reasons for this phenomenon, one can develop constructs that can
serve as principle tenets for attitudinal loyalty. However, rather than develop a specific
theory built upon these observations (e.g. in Grounded Theory), it was deemed more
appropriate to describe this subjective reality of the lived experiences of this
phenomenon. Thus a phenomenology using a mixed methodology seemed the wisest
approach providing quantitative statistical analyses of the surveys, which supported the
qualitative analyses of the one-on-one interviews. Companies within a similar industry
differ in numerous areas and applying templated approaches are often the reasons so
many initiatives fail. However, by understanding the phenomenon and the constructs
associated with the phenomenon, one can apply the principles without the fear of
duplication.
Statement Of The Problem
Deciphering customer needs is not a didactic exchange between an organization
to its customers but is one of exploration and understanding. Kanter (1992) described the
importance of the relationship in which the increase in the input of the consumer directly
affected producer functionality as well as profitability. Kanters (1992) study redefined
the producer/consumer relationship perspective and demonstrated the opportunity that
organizations have in seeking customers perspectives. Thus this research sought to
7
identify, describe, and evaluate the problem, How do companies understand and
decipher the individual customer experience to develop long-term true-loyalty to their
brand?
Purpose Of The Study
The purpose of this mixed method study was to describe the phenomenon of true
attitudinal loyalty of consumers toward a specific business (i.e. Apple). The intendment
was to examine the experiences to decipher the essence and meaning that draws a
consumer into attitudinal advocacy. At this stage, loyalty is generally defined as
attitudinal loyalty, which is composed of allegiance, faithfulness, trust, and commitment
while providing status, cohesion, and self-esteem.
The goal was to discover a theoretical foundation for future research in which
various models can be applied to different businesses and industries. By understanding
the meanings of these experiences, companies may benchmark how to elicit similar
emotional and psychological responses from their customers, which may result in similar
attitudinal organizational attachment and subsequent attitudinal behaviors. Attitudinal
loyalty has better long-term effects and is linked to future usage, enhanced word of
mouth recommendations, and ultimately to customer-oriented profitability (Wirtz,
Mattila, & Lwin, p. 328). Understanding the experiences helps avoid applying a
templated approach, which usually leads to failure (Divett et al. 2003).
Rationale
Consumer loyalty is essential for long-term sustainability and profitability
(Jacoby, 1971; Oliver, 1997). Behavioral and attitudinal elements are the two main
components, which define shopper loyalty. The majority of consumer studies focus on
8
the behavioral aspect, which study buying patterns and the identification of customers
and buying behavioral patterns. These studies identify the who buys, where, what, when,
and how (Applebaum, 1951, p. 172) of such behaviors and patterns and not the why of
consumer behavior. Some studies even suggest that these programs can have a negative
effect resulting from customer demotion (Wagner, Hennig-Thurau, & Rudolph, 2009).
Day (1969) hypothesized that attitudinal loyalty is a rational act of evaluation and
connotes a commitment made by a consumer to a brand.
Although loyalty has been traditionally defined by consumer re-purchase
behavior, it has not always included the emotional factor. Oliver (1999) set forth to
expand on the evolution of the loyalty process noting, although loyal customers are most
typically satisfied, satisfaction does not universally translate into loyalty (p. 33).
Personal determinism and social bonding at the institutional and personal levels are often
overlooked, as satisfaction is not enough to keep consumers loyal. Oliver (1999) noted
that this is especially important, as the costs of retention are substantially less than
procurement. Oliver (1997) defined loyalty as a deeply held commitment to re-buy or
re-patronize a preferred product or service consistently in the future, thereby causing
repetitive same-brand or same brand-set purchasing, despite situational influences and
marketing efforts having the potential to cause switch behavior (p. 34). In other words,
the customer will have no other. Psychological loyalty should be separate from behaviors
and should not be based solely on purchase behaviors. This study focused on the lived
experiences of the individual consumer toward a business that has demonstrated
attitudinal loyalty.
Amaratunga, Baldry, Sarshar, and Newton (2002) opined, Phenomenology uses

naturalistic approaches to inductively and holistically understand human experience in
context-specific settings (p. 17-18). The basic beliefs in phenomenology are that an
individuals world is socially constructed and subjective, and the observer is part of what
is observed. Phenomenology can explore the relationship of the consciousness of the
consumer and the object (Rehorick & Bentz, 2009). The role of the researcher in a
phenomenological study is to focus on the meaning of the experiences. Amaratunga et al.
(2002) denoted the differences between quantitative and qualitative studies and discuss
how mixed methodology, which enables cooperation and collaboration, can enhance both
paradigms for better understanding of the subject of the study.
Research Questions
The management dilemma is driven in the determination to drive repeat business.
Thus the management question can be phrased, Given that the purpose of obtaining
consumer loyalty is to drive repeat business, what consumer-centric elements are
involved in consumer attitudinal loyalty? This management question is the genesis of
the research questions, which sought understanding of the underlining elements that drive
consumer loyalty. Thus the study attempted to understand the phenomenon using a
triangulating approach with a quantitative instrument demonstrating Apple consumers
fandom over its competitors and a qualitative instrument (one-on-one interviews) to delve
into the deeper meaning of the lived experiences (Swanson & Holton, 2005). This aligned
the research question with the purpose of the study, which was describing the
phenomenon of true attitudinal loyalty of consumers toward a specific business.
10
The initial quantitative research question asked, Is there a significant difference

between consumer loyalty of Apple products and its competitors? The subsequent
triangulating qualitative research question was, How do Apple users describe their lived
experiences with Apple products? The qualitative portion of the phenomenological
study had procedural sub-questions and issue sub-questions. These sub-questions
extrapolated the responses to understand the deeper meaning in attitudinal loyalty.
Management Question
Given that the purpose of obtaining consumer loyalty is to drive repeat business,
what customer-centric elements are involved in consumer attitudinal loyalty?
Research Question
What does it mean to be an Apple fan?
Study Hypotheses
For the quantitative portion of this mixed method study, a survey was used with
the hypothesis is derived form the research question. Thus the overall hypothesis signifies
that Apple has a distinct relationship with its customers.
Hypothesis: There is significant difference between consumer loyalty of Apple products

and its competitors.
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference between consumer loyalty of Apple
products and its competitors.
11
Sub-questions:
1. HA1: There is significant difference between Organizational Identification
(Social Identity Theory) of Apple products and its competitors.
HO1: There is no significant difference between Organizational identification
2. HA2: There is significant difference between Approachability and

responsiveness of Apple products and its competitors.
HO2: There is no significant difference between Approachability and
3. HA3: There is significant difference between Trust of Apple products and its
competitors.
HO3: There is no significant difference between Trust of Apple products and its
competitors.
4. HA4: There is significant difference between Group affiliation and

socialization of Apple products and its competitors.
HO4: There is no significant difference between Group affiliation and
5. HA5: There is significant difference between Identification and sense of

belonging of Apple products and its competitors.
12
HO5: There is no significant difference between Identification and sense of

6. HA6: There is significant difference between Proselytizing (word of mouth)

of Apple products and its competitors.
HO6: There is no significant difference between Proselytizing (word of mouth)
Significance Of The Study

Most companies attempt to procure loyalty through various external elements
such as loyalty programs, which attempt to personalize the shopping experience. These
programs have shown to fail consistently (Divett et al. 2003). This is significant because
customer loyalty is crucial to a companys business success as customer retention is
much more cost-effective than establishing new customers (Gable, Fiorito, & Topol,
2008). Many studies have demonstrated that behavioral loyalty can elicit some repurchase behaviors, but few programs have shown long-term sustainability (Liu, 2007).
The significance of this study is that it takes on a consumer-centric approach,
which can serve as a model for other companies to emulate. Only when a firm explores
the needs of its customers can the company fulfill its customers needs, enhance the
shopping experience, and produce consumer loyalty. In contrast to behavioral loyalty,
attitudinal loyalty has deep psychological roots with positive links to future patronage,
increased word-of-mouth recommendations (proselytizing), and increased profitability
(Bagdonien, & Jaktait, 2007).
13
Definition Of Terms
Approachability and responsiveness - The degree in which consumers perceive support
for their purchases from the examinant organization (Divett, Crittenden, & Henderson,
2003).
Group affiliation and socialization The degree in which one defines his or her
commitment to others in the consumer-organization relationship (Leal & Moutinho,
2008).
Identification and sense of belonging The mutual attractions and relationships of the
consumers within the consumer-organization community (Ruble & Turner, 2000).
Organizational identification (Social Identity Theory) - The self-perception (identity) as
an individual in the consumer-organization relationship (Coget, 2011; Leal & Moutinho,
2008).
Proselytizing (word of mouth) The degree of advocacy in terms of saying positive
things about the examinant company to other people and recommending products from
the examinant company to those seeking advice. The degree of evangelism about the
examinant companys products (Tiwari & Abraham, 2010; Zeithaml, Berry, &
Parasuraman, 1996).
Trust - The likelihood of recommending an organizations products, demonstrating the
trust one has in the consumer-organization relationship (Hikkerova, 2011). This term
refers the consociation of a customer with an organization
Assumptions And Limitations
Consumer loyalty has two distinct constructs: behavioral loyalty and attitudinal
loyalty (Gentry & Kalliny, 2008; Moore & Sekhon, 2005). The primary difference in
14
studying these constructs lies in what is actionable compared to areas of emotion and
attachment. Attitudinal loyalty focuses on the individual consumer's emotions,
attachment, and personality, whereas behavioral loyalty is usually associated with
marketing initiatives focusing on market penetration, repurchase behaviors, and other
sales-related metrics (Moore & Sekhon, 2005). This study describes the attitudinal
construct in the lived experiences with regard to Apple fandom.
Phenomenology has its origins in constructionism epistemological assumptions in
which meaning to the individual comes through his or her own experiences (Rose, Beeby,
& Parker, 1995). In addition, phenomenology has ontological assumptions of multiple
realities, which are socially constructed by individuals and axiological assumptions in
which the researchers biases, intuition, and values are the lenses in which the study is
conducted.
1.
Theoretical assumptions The theoretical assumptions for this study

maintain that there are six primary constructs of attitudinal loyalty,
which are the genesis of subculture characteristics. These include an
identifiable structure based on status with unique jargon, rituals, and
modes of symbolic expression, which facilitates shared meanings in
consumer goods and activities (Schouten & McAlexander, 1995, p.
43). These constructs are organizational identification (Social Identity
Theory) (Coget, 2011; Leal & Moutinho, 2008), approachability and
responsiveness (Divett, Crittenden, & Henderson, 2003), trust
(Hikkerova, 2011), group affiliation and socialization (Leal &
Moutinho, 2008), identification and sense of belonging (Ruble &
15
Turner, 2000), and proselytizing (word of mouth) (Tiwari & Abraham,

2010).
2.
Topical Assumptions The primary topical assumption is that the

examinant company (i.e. Apple) does have greater attitudinal loyalty
than does its competitors (Shankar & Canniford, 2006). This is why a
mixed methodology was used in that by providing a quantitative
analysis using ANOVA, the six constructs could be measured
objectively to determine if each construct does have statistical
significance.
3.
Methodological Assumptions - Phenomenological research methodologies

tend to be descriptive, concentrating on the structure of the individual
experiences, how they are constructed, and an overall chronicle
providing form and lived meanings (Laverty, 2003). This study used
mixed methodology incorporating a survey instrument for an objective
approach for the quantitative portion, and one-on-one interviews to
decipher the lived experiences of the respondents.
Theoretical/Conceptual Framework
There have been few phenomenological studies that have sought to understand
consumer attitudinal loyalty attached with a specific company. By understanding the
customer experience of a company that has demonstrated consumer loyalty, one can
better understand the dynamics regarding the reason for this phenomenon. The meaning
making goes beyond marketing, but rather the psychological bonding between an entity
and an individual. This study demonstrated how managing the customer experience can
16
educe true attitudinal loyalty, which can produce long-term organizational attachment
and drive repeat business and provide competitive advantage.
One goal of this study was to demonstrate how a qualitative approach (i.e. in this
case, phenomenology) can provide insights for deciphering what factors individuals
consider important as part of the organizational attachment phenomenon. Many
companies try marketing approaches in an attempt to personalize the shopping experience
via a variety of methods (oftentimes referred to as loyalty programs). Unfortunately,
most programs fail (Divett et al. 2003). Loyalty programs attempt to drive specific
behaviors, but fall short in transforming attitudinal loyalty.
Companies have attempted to accomplish acquiring loyalty using various
mathematical models and quantitative methodologies but their results have been
inconsistent. By obtaining better insight and understanding of the customer experience,
companies can re-direct the organizational design, aligning company elements with
customer interests, which are strong drivers of consumer satisfaction and increased
loyalty behaviors (Omar, Wel, Musa, & Nazri, 2010).
The conceptual framework involved the recognition and understanding what
consumers bring with them into the marketplace, which includes their own demographic,
cultural dimensions, and generational differences. These insights also helped indentify
commonalities of importance in the construction of attitudinal loyalty. These elements
(independent variables) are important because they shape how consumers view their lived
reality and determine their buying behaviors and habits (dependent variables).
Examining consumer loyalty has two distinct constructs: behavioral loyalty and
attitudinal loyalty (Gentry & Kalliny, 2008; Moore & Sekhon, 2005). By examining the
17
actionable elements in the areas of emotion and attachment, one can ascribe specific
attributes of attitudinal loyalty that are separate from behavioral loyalty. These constructs
are specific to psychological and emotional elements fulfilling subconscious and
subliminal wants and needs, providing emotional connection with an organization or
brand. Reflecting organizational values, these constructs display some of the ingroup/out-group dynamics, which affect consumer self-identification (Ullrich, Wieseke,
Christ, Schulze, & van Dick, 2007). These organizational values impact both employee
and consumer attitudes, behaviors, and attachment (Johnson & Jackson, 2009). This
study described the attitudinal construct in the lived experiences with regard to Apple
fandom.
The specific constructs dealt with how company branding is perceived and
recognized. These constructs led to identifying the development of subcultures in which
attitudinal loyalty, or true fandom, has its genesis. These subculture characteristics
include an identifiable structure based on status with unique jargon, rituals, and modes
of symbolic expression, which facilitates shared meanings in consumer goods and
activities (Schouten & McAlexander, 1995, p. 43). The lived experiences in these
subcultures are constructed, and understanding these lived experiences and the constructs
with which they are made are the foundations for identifying the attitudinal loyalty tenets
for study.
Organization Of The Remainder Of The Study
The remainder of this study aligns the historical frameworks (i.e. literature
review) allineating the methodology with the results culminating in the denouement in
the discussion, application, and limitations of the study.
18
Chapter 2 is the literature review, which is divided into three segments. The first
segment discusses the historical and chronological literature in the study of human
behavior and loyalty. The second segment discusses the literature in the context of the six
loyalty constructs, and the third segment discusses analogues and parallels in the areas of
fandom.
Chapter 3 describes the methodology of the study. This is a mixed method study
and this section discusses sampling, measuring, and instrumentation. This is followed by
the explanation of how data were collected and analyzed and concludes with discussion
about validity and reliability, as well as ethical considerations.
Chapter 4 describes the results of both methods. The quantitative survey results
include the results of the hypotheses testing of the six loyalty constructs as well as
generational analyses of the three generations (i.e. Baby-boomers, Generation Xers, and
Generation Yers). Qualitative analyses of the one-on-one interviews are broke down by
the descriptions of the participants, analysis of the introductory questions, and analyses of
the responses congruent with the constructs. The chapter concludes with a discussion of
how the two methods support each others findings.
Chapter 5 concludes the study with the discussion of how Apple has fulfilled the
loyalty constructs and how Apples organizational design and focus on the consumer
experience facilitate strong loyalty bonds, which can serve as a model for other
companies to emulate. The chapter then concludes with observations about the
implications of the study, followed by recommendations for future research, then
consummates with noting the limitations of the study.
19
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

An examination of the literature covers three areas. The first area describes the
evolution of the study of consumer behavior. From Applebaum (1951) to Sorescu et al.
(2011) the dynamics and paradigms set by the early authors and their seminal works have
evolved into various sub-fields in the social sciences. Behavioral sciences have expanded
beyond traditional psychology, anthropology, and sociology, and social sciences now
include traditional hard sciences such as biology and the neurosciences. The second
area describes the constructs of attitudinal loyalty. These constructs are indicators of
emotional and psychological attachment of consumers with an organization. The third
area delves into the parallels of consumer loyalty and other areas of fandom. The purpose
of exploring the literature in this area is to demonstrate and describe the similarities with
consumer attitudinal loyalty as well as provide benchmarks for understanding loyalty
dynamics. Thus by encompassing these three areas, one can obtain a better understanding
and a larger abstract of the consumer/organization actuation.
Seminal Works And Evolving Literature
Consumer behavioral studies have grown and evolved, including an increasing
number of epistemologies and theoretical perspectives as well as an increase in abstract
and scope. As noted, what began as a simple marketing has evolved into a multidisciplined approach affecting organizational design. Thus from a literary perspective,
consumer studies and customer relationship management (CRM) is co-evolving as a
business paradigm.
One of the earlier studies in psychology dealt with individual motivation. Maslow
(1943) discussed the ascending hierarchy of needs from the physiological needs, the
20
safety needs, love and belonging, self-esteem, and self-actualization. These needs are
related and build upon each other with the most prepotent goal dominating ones
consciousness. However, these needs are not tiered but may overlap in varying degrees
with each individual. For example, Maslow (1943) expressed that, for some individuals,
self-esteem is more important that love. Maslow (1943) opined that there are degrees of
satisfaction rather than all-or-none motivating demands, but this also varies from
individual to individual.
Maslows (1943) hierarchy of needs gives insight to Apple fans need for
belonging and self-esteem. The need for group affiliation and socialization demonstrates
the hierarchal need for belonging and can be the reason for many Apple fans selfidentify with the Apple brand. Being part of the cool group may elevate ones selfesteem and sense of inclusion.
Seminal consumer relationship literature demonstrated how passive and broad
were the initial studies describing marketing effectiveness in an explanatory manner. This
contrasts more recent literature, which are analytical and predictive and can be
exploratory tools for competitive advantage. For example, Applebaums (1953) seminal
work contrasted behavioral studies in retail customers with regard to customer
identification and buying behavior patterns. The aim was to identify the who buys,
where, what, when, and how (Applebaum, 1953, p. 172) of such behaviors and patterns.
The article was an introduction of studying behavior rather than preferences and studied
customer demographics and origin (geographic).
Days (1969) seminal work dispelled the notion that loyalty was solely concerned
with behaviors opining that attitudes were a key component of loyalty. The usual
21
parameters of measurement defined which products were the most purchased, but this did
not necessarily follow that they were the most loyal brands. Day (1969) noted that
spuriously loyal buyers lacked brand attachment and could be easily swayed by
advertising and inducements, such as coupons, point-of-purchase visibility, and so forth.
He deduced that loyalty should be measured by both attitudinal and behavioral criteria
and devised a multiple regression model for deciphering brand loyalty.
Day (1969) hypothesized that loyalty is a rational act of evaluation and a
commitment made by a consumer to a brand. As time passes, this rationalization becomes
habitual, which leads to strong orientation toward a specific brand. Thus he concluded
that the difference in how loyalty is defined is based on the difference between
consumers brand loyal (behavioral) and those among the most loyal brand (attitudinal).
Jacobys (1971) seminal work revolved primarily around multi-brand loyalty.
However, his model was more of a preference model in which favored products still
retained dominant consumer loyalty, but when the preferred product was not available
secondary and tertiary preferences meted out the continuum from acceptance to neutrality
to rejection. Jacob (1971) described a sort of preference pecking order in which many
products could be of similar value or ranking with regard to consumer preference.
Consumers may have loyalty preferences, but this did not mean that other products were
unworthy of some degree of loyalty.
Jacoby (1971) followed Days (1969) reasoning that although behaviors or
outcome were measureable, there was a greater need to understand the reasons for
explanations for brand loyalty. He deciphered that loyalty was composed of behavioral
and attitudinal components noting it was important to separate simple re-purchase
22
behaviors as either intentional or spurious. Jacoby (1971) also noted that attitude does not
necessarily lead to behavior nor does behavior necessarily coincide with attitude. Brand
loyalty is a relationship phenomenon aligning both behavior and attitudes.
Apple operates in an industry in which there are many competitors. The
technology industry is weighted not by good versus bad, but rather a preference
continuum of similar products. This aligns with both Days (1969) and Jacobys (1971)
findings. Consequently, procuring attitudinal loyalty in this type of environment is
important for sustained viability and profitability.
Kanters (1992) study helped redefine the relationship between customer and
producer. Some of the tenets from his research were: (1) Producers think they are making
products; Customers think they are buying services, (2) Producers worry about making
visible mistakes; Customers are lost because of visible mistakes, (3) Producers think their
technologies create products; Customers think their desires create products, (4) Producers
organize for managerial convenience; Customers want their convenience to come first,
(5) Producers seek a standard of performance; Customers care about a high standard of
living (Kanter, 1992, pp. 9-10). These early parameters demonstrated the separation in
the customer-producer relationship, Kanters (1992) helped identify that the archetype of
this propinquity was changing.
Kanter (1992) described the importance of the relationship in which the increase
in the input of the consumer directly affected producer functionality as well as
profitability. This interaction has becoming increasingly important in the customerproducer dynamics. Kanters (1992) study redefined the producer/consumer relationship
perspective and demonstrated the opportunity that organizations have in seeking
23
customers perspectives. Those companies that have developed these relationships well
have demonstrated competitive advantage and an increased likelihood of long-term
sustainability. It is now a common practice for companies to use research polls to find out
what customers think to get feedback for future considerations (though few ask why).
Oliver (1999) posited that consumer loyalty and satisfaction are linked, but noted,
although loyal customers are most typically satisfied, satisfaction does not universally
translate into loyalty (p. 33). Personal determinism and social bonding at the
institutional and personal levels are often overlooked as satisfaction and are not enough
to keep consumers loyal. Oliver (1999) noted that this is especially important as the costs
of retention are substantially less than procurement. Although loyalty has been
traditionally defined by consumer re-purchase behavior, it has not always included the
emotional factor. Consequently, Oliver (1999) set forth to expand on the evolution of the
loyalty process.
Olivers (1999) idea is a continuance of an earlier book in which Oliver (1997)
defined loyalty as a deeply held commitment to re-buy or re-patronize a preferred
product or service consistently in the future, thereby causing repetitive same-brand or
same brand-set purchasing, despite situational influences and marketing efforts having
the potential to cause switch behavior (p. 34). I.e., the customer will have no other.
Oliver (1997) believed that psychological loyalty should be separate from behaviors and
should not be based solely on purchase behaviors. He suggested that psychological
loyalty is separated into four types:
1. Cognitive loyalty The first loyalty phase, a preference of one brand over
another.
24
2. Affective loyalty Liking or attitude toward a brand based on previous

transactions (still subject to defectors). A sort of, if it is not broken do not fix
it mindset.
3. Conative loyalty - Behavioral influenced by repeat episodes of positive effect
toward a brand. This is brand-specific, bringing out deeply held commitment
that is akin to motivation.
4. Action loyalty Intentions are converted to actions. If engagement is repeated,
action inertia develops.
Oliver (1999) stressed these differences noting that although loyal customers
expressed satisfaction, not all satisfied customers are loyal.
Divett, Crittenden, and Henderson (2003) continued with Olivers (1997)
reasoning describing some of the reasons behavioral programs fail and why attitudinal
loyalty has better long-term benefits. These authors detail how developing organizational
approachability and responsiveness are essential in developing attitudinal loyalty. When
customers had voice and the ability to communicate complaints and grievances to an
organization it fostered a stronger bond and greater organizational attachment. Divett et
al. (2003) work is discussed more in the Constructs section later in the literature
review.
Bagdonien and Jaktait (2007) demonstrated in their study that consumers who
participate in behavioral loyalty initiatives do so rationally, thus making the relationship
susceptible to long-range obstructions and barriers. Consumers become loyal to a
program and not necessarily the organization from which the program originated (similar
to Harrahs described earlier). Thus, loyalty is susceptible to duplication by competitors,
25
reduced interest because of lack of pertinence, and providing insufficient uniqueness and
value to the shopping experience. Bagdonien and Jaktait (2007) opined that most
loyalty programs do not reward loyalty behavior as they reward card ownership, thereby
reducing the initiatives to becoming mere marketing strategies. These authors built on
Wirtz, Mattila, and Lwin (2007) notions that the attitudinal component of loyalty is more
crucial because it is more directly linked to future usage, enhanced word-of-mouth
recommendations, and to long-term sustainability and profitability. Moreover, both
attitude and behaviour change over time (Dick & Basu, 1994) and are not static.
Consumer loyalty has emotional and rational components. Individual feelings,
expectations, staff relations, and other evincive subjective qualities determine emotional
loyalty, whereas objective thinking, information analysis, and understanding of the
organizational processes determine rational loyalty (Gamble, Stone, & Woodcock, 2006).
The next step in the evolution of loyalty studies was typified in Yavas and
Babakus (2009) article, which evaluated specific customer segments. The significance of
their study highlighted that different customer types reflected different attributes when it
came to customer loyalty, and suggested that many elements should be involved in
devising effective customer loyalty relationships. Yavas and Babakus (2009) also opined
that CRM should be part of the companys DNA noting that CRM practices are not
something a company does but rather should define the company itself. For example, a
company should not do customer service, but rather the company should be about
customer service.
In continuing the evaluation of how to study consumer loyalty, Arora and
Stoners (2009) in their study used mixed methodology for exploring product
26
personality, which recognizes the symbolic and emotional meaning that taps consumer
appeal and affects purchase decisions (p. 272). These authors chose this methodology
reasoning that traditional methods do not capture the nuanced and idiosyncratic nature of
this relationship. This modus can help mitigate purists concerns while providing
increased depth in understanding.
Arora and Stoner quoted Aakers (1997) definition of brand personality defining
it as the set of human characteristics that consumers associate with a brand (p. 273).
This anthropomorphism relates to Aakers (1997) adaptation to the Big Five
personality dimensions model, which includes: (1) sincerity, (2) excitement, (3)
competence, (4) sophistication, and (5) ruggedness (p. 273). Arora and Stoner (2009)
posited that self-congruity theory is how consumers rationalize their purchases. Selfcongruity theory is a theory based on the assumptions that consumers compare their selfimage with brands with similar image. When matching occurs, a sort of anthropomorphic
adaptation occurs. This theory contends that individuals prefer to purchase items whose
images are aligned with their own self-image and that these matching brand personalities
can offer a psychological and emotional fulfillment, bonding, and sense of identity.
In their article, Belk and Tumbats (2005) described how Apple developed its
brand and how it set forth to establish its brand community through the development of
its subcultures. The authors cited Boorstins (1973) description of subcultures as
consumption communities, which they believe was a more encompassing term. Belk
and Tumbats (2005) notion of brand cult is one of extreme brand-focused devotion
and they cite several companies and individuals who have attained this type of status
level.
27
These authors noted the genesis of this behavioral pattern with Guy Kawasaki
who attended Billy Grahams School of Evangelism to develop his evangelical skills.
Belk and Tumbats (2005) discerned a religious-like following and devotion to the
company. This was purposed because much of Apples branding is not just its products; it
is the notion of what Apple stands for. Belk and Tumbat (2005) noted that, The cult of
Macintosh revels in the outlaw, anti-corporate, and rebellious spirit that form the
romantic myth of Apple Computer (p. 214). These authors suggested that like other
mythologies, this religion followed the sequence beginning with the origin myth, valiant
exploits of its Messiah (co-founder Steve Jobs), the steadfast faith of its follower
congregation, follower beliefs in the righteousness of Mac, the existence and continual
warfare against its Satanic opposition, followers proselytizing and reforming nonbelievers, and the hope among followers that salvation can be obtained by transcending
their environment (i.e. corporate capitalism).
Building on the notions of brand cults, Acosta and Devasagayam (2010)
defined them as an individual's perceived sense of identity to a group of persons, with an
identifiable brand in common that fosters a strong bond to the brand due to the strong
group bond (p. 165). These authors developed an escalating brand cult scale from brand
following, to brand connectedness, and finally to consumer conformity. Acosta and
Devasagayam (2010) discussed how strong consumer brand ties are further strengthened
by group identification around a brand whose users are connected with one another. This
group identification is essential to the attitudinal loyalty experience as they meet the
emotional needs of the individual. These authors demonstrated that brand cults help
develop and market new products and can enhance the overall branding experience.
28
Brand cults also strengthen existing and established brands but are also more effective,
cost less, and have much reduced risk as compared to establishing new brands.
Enhancing the shopping experience and optimizing operational effectiveness may
also aid in the building of attitudinal loyalty. In their study, Sorescu, Frambach, Singh,
Rangaswamy, and Bridges (2011) described the differences between business models and
business strategies and how organizational activities demonstrate these differences.
Specifically, with regard to operational effectiveness these authors chose Apple as a
paragon example. Sorescu et al. (2011) described how the Apple stores provide unique
environments for their customers in a horizontally and vertically adaptive manner.
Customers can experience the products firsthand, get one-on-one tutorials, have their
computers repaired, and can participate in workshops. Apple provides its customers this
opportunity to learn environment, which increases consumer perception of the value
and capabilities of their Apple products and their ability to use them and increased
customer engagement. Sorescu et al. (2011) discussed customer engagement, which
evokes an emotional response beyond purchase and elicits deeper attitudinal loyalty.
These authors posited that customer engagement is the genesis from which the
company/consumer relationship begins as consumers attach to the company the
individual interactions of the contact representative.
Sorescu et al. (2011) demonstrated that Apple stores are designed for the express
purpose of obtaining loyalty by providing its customers a type of partnership from novice
to professional. However, these stores also provide additional acumen to the customer
experience. Through these exchanges and interactions, Apple provides complete vertical
services while gaining insights about customer wants and needs.
29
Attitudinal Loyalty Constructs

The attitudinal loyalty constructs comprise the conceptual framework involving
the recognition and understanding of consumers interaction with organizations. These
constructs are important because they demonstrate how consumer-constructed reality
determines purchase and non-purchase behaviors and actions. These constructs overlap to
a certain degree but the primary attributes of each construct are fundamentally distinct.
Behavioral loyalty and attitudinal loyalty are the two different constructs of
consumer loyalty (Gentry & Kalliny, 2008; Moore & Sekhon, 2005), but they differ in
actionable characteristics. Although the constructs of behavioral loyalty can be accurately
measured by metrics, attitudinal loyalty cannot be measured with a numerical cadent. The
constructs of attitudinal loyalty deal primarily with organizational attachment,
communication, faith, self-identification, social identity, connectedness with others, and
advocacy.
Construct 1 - Organizational Identification
This construct refers to the oneness of an individual with an organization. Identity
is indivisible with the organization. Social Identify Theory, which is defined as the
perception of oneness with or belongingness to an organization (Coget, 2011, p. 94)
defines this construct as the individuals identity becomes synonymous with the
organization.
Coget (2011) continued with these ideas noting that this identity originates with
the organization and is affected by how employees identify themselves with the
organization. With regard to Apple, Coget (2011) posited that employees at an Apple
store do not seem to be selling Apple products, but rather an Apple lifestyle. The
30
hypothesis is based on the degree in which a store manager identifies with his or her
organization will trickle down to the salespeople, which in turn trickles down to
customers. Thus the more employees identify with the organization, the greater the
likelihood customers will do the same. Ownership is transferred and belongingness to
an organization increases. Besides greater productivity, organizations with high employee
organizational attachment have demonstrated positive outcomes including increased
productivity, and identifying with ones organization has been shown to result in a variety
of positive outcomes. Customers reflect this attachment and self-identify. Coget (2011)
posited that Apple typifies this transfer of organizational attachment to its customers and
refers to this as the Apple Store Effect.
Continuing the theme of oneness with the organization, Leal and Moutinhos
(2008) study focused on examining the extent of the identification of fan commitment
and how it affects branding. These authors noted parallels with joining a cult in that a
group (organization) makes individuals feel at ease and that by attaching oneself to a
specific organization one establishes a specific difference in ones self-identity. In
addition, group participation fosters social benefits, and the greater the emotional
attachment and commitment, the greater the social identity. Building on Tajfel and
Turners (1979) theory, Coget (2011) suggested that group affiliation is driven by the
desire for positive uniqueness from other coteries, and that attachment and identification
brings social prestige and increased self-esteem.
Ashforth and Mael (1989) noted that individuals are multifaceted, identifying
themselves into various social categories such as religious groups, organizational
membership, and demographics, such as age, gender, and so forth. These authors posited
31
that there are two functions of social classification. The first function segments the social
environment allowing the individual to develop a system, which helps the individual
define others. The second function allows the individual to define him- or herself. The
authors defined social identification as the perception of belongingness to as group or
organization of some sort and help provide the answer to Who am I? In contrast,
internalization is more self-actualizing for the individual and incorporates the values,
beliefs, and attitudes as a guiding principle, and helps answer the question What do I
believe? This way, a person can identify him- or herself in terms of the organization
while disagreeing the groups values, strategies, and so forth.
These articles demonstrated the significance of individuals oneness with an
organization with regard to attitudinal loyalty. When ones self-concept and ego are
strongly associated and aligned with organizational apperception, loyalty and
commitment increases and organizational attachment becomes entrenched (Fourier,
1998). Thus strong organizational identification becomes a precursor for the other
attitudinal loyalty constructs.
Construct 2 - Approachability and Responsiveness
This construct refers to the voice and perceived responsiveness of an organization
to its customers. In their article, Divett et al. (2003) posited that approachability is a
commitment comprised of three components: (1) involvement, (2) identification, and (3)
loyalty. How well companies address these components constitute how well companies
responded to dissatisfied customers. These authors opined that responsiveness requires
two elements: (1) a willingness to provide a remedy should a consumer complain
(approachability), and (2) the extent to which an organization makes the complaint
32
handling mechanism available. This complaint handling is very important because of they
typify how an organization interacts with its customers and affects their perceived justice.
Perceived justice is comprised of three components: Distributive justice,
procedural justice, and interactional justice. Distributive justice (Equity theory) refers to
the view in which individuals weigh and balance the comparisons of his or her input to
the ratio relevant to others. Procedural justice refers to the perceived fairness of the due
process that determines the fairness of outcomes. Interactional justice refers to the
perceived respect, dignity, and fairness of the interactional medication in the decision
process. The better the organization delivers on these elements of perceived justice, the
greater the likelihood of stronger consumer-organizational bonding. Thus, Divett et al.
(2003) posited that increased approachability and responsiveness leads to greater loyalty
and increased purchase behaviors.
The theory in Fornell and Wernerfelts (1987) research built upon the initial ideals
of Hirschmans Exit-Voice Theory. The Exit Voice Theory states that dissatisfied
customers either exit, which means they no longer buy from the company, or voice
their concern directly with the company. Fornell and Wernerfelt (1987) refer to the
strategy of handling customer complaints as defensive marketing (or complaint
management), which is focused on reducing customer exit and brand switching. These
authors demonstrated that companies that do better with regard to complaint management
can reduce marketing costs, foster better attitudinal loyalty, and increase long-term
profitability.
These studies demonstrate the significance of the approachability and
responsiveness with regard to voice and maintaining attitudinal loyalty. Consumers
33
who believe that their concerns matter and that a company to which they are complaining
takes these concerns seriously are more likely to develop stronger long-term bonds. In
fact, overcoming and remedying a customers problem in a positive manner may develop
greater bonding than if the problem did not exist at all. This is because by fostering an
approachable environment, customers believe that the company genuinely cares about
them (Tantawy & Losekoot, 2001). This helps develop the emotional bonding necessary
for attitudinal loyalty.
Construct 3 Trust
This construct refers to the consociation of a customer with an organization. In
her article, Hikkerova (2011) proponed that loyalty programs were merely costineffective marketing programs. She believed that this was primarily because of
competitors imitating programs, which eroded effectiveness and any potential initial
advantage. This type of loyalty deals only with behavioral habits and re-purchase
behaviors. Hikkerova (2011) noted four factors, which are precursors of consumer
loyalty: (1) Loyalty depends on attitudes toward a brand or service provider, (2) For a
customer, the intention to re-purchase does not lead automatically to an actual decision,
(3) Loyalty is built and developed within the framework of an enduring relationship, or
trust, that a customer builds with a company following different consumption
experiences, and (4) Loyalty is influenced by switching costs in which a customer may
change service providers that are high compared to gains expected from the switch. The
genesis of Hikkerovas (2011) study was the questioning loyalty program effectiveness,
which is why her model was based on commitment and trust. Her article demonstrated
34
that trust in a company is positively linked to his commitment to the company,

commitment is associated with greater loyalty, and trust is associated with greater loyalty.
Sirdeshmukh, Singh, and Sabols (2002) proposed in their study that trust is a
central criterion for fostering long-term relationships because to obtain customer loyalty a
company must first gain the customers trust. These authors suggested that consumer
trust is composed of two components, or behavioral dimensions, frontline employee
behaviors and management policies and practices. Sirdeshmukh et al. (2002) provided a
behavioral framework to build consumer trust and mechanisms for converting trust into
value and loyalty. Their model included trustworthiness constructs that incorporated both
frontline associates and management policies and practices and specified value as an
intermediary in the trust/loyalty relationship.
Sirdeshmukh et al. (2002) defined trustworthy dimensions of both frontline
associates and management policies in terms of operational competence, operational
benevolence, and problem-solving orientation. These dimensions must be fully
operationalized to nurture the consumer/company bond. These authors recognized that
strong interpersonal ties influence loyalty greater than store policy (i.e. people are more
loyal to people than to buildings), but if the trustworthy behaviors from store personnel
are not congruent with trustworthy practices from store practices and policies, trust will
suffer and maximum consumer loyalty will not be obtained.
These studies demonstrate the significance of trust as a precursor for future
consumer bonding adding the element of faith as a dimension of expectation. Trust is
not displayed as a loyalty construct as buying habits, but is an emotional connection and
35
consociation of a consumer with an organization. Thus there is no attitudinal loyalty

without trust.
Construct 4 Group Affiliation and Socialization
This construct refers to identity construction through group membership. Tajfel
and Turner (1979) originated this concept in their study of intergroup conflict.
Individuals who identify with a particular group do so because they believe it will
enhance their status and self-esteem. Individuals will not act as individuals, but rather as
members of a group, and they will self-identify with that group. This enhances an ingroup/out-group worldview.
Leal and Moutinhos (2008) article addressed tribal behavior and examined the
extent of commitment of fans to a company (or sponsor). These authors noted social
recognition, socialization, and symbolism, and how these elements may demonstrate why
individuals join groups like cults or attach themselves to other affiliations (like brands).
This socialization is important because the group they join makes them feel at ease by
interacting among like others them. Companies that understand this attempt to separate
themselves to establish differences through group affiliations. Brand cults are especially
good establishing social benefits as feelings of camaraderie, community and solidarity,
as well as enhanced social prestige and self-esteem (Leal & Moutinho, 2008, p. 18).
Value and self-esteem are established through group membership
Fans relate similarly as described in Social Identity Theory, but attachment goes
beyond oneness with the organization. Rather, this refers to the oneness with other
members of the group or sub-group. Leal and Moutinho (2008) noted, What determines
a group affiliation? Group affiliation is motivated by a desire for positive distinctiveness
36
from other social groups (p. 20). Socialization is, in essence, learning and the process of
socialization can be seen as a deliberated act of identity construction.
Schouten and McAlexanders (1995) ethnography gave a clear example of the
actionability of these elements as they delved into the subcultures of consumption in a
distinct sub-group of society. The members of this sub-group shared a common bond
because of shared interests and commitment with a particular brand or activity. These
interpersonal relationships were strong and gave meaning to the individual. The authors
noted a parallel with religious aspects of sanctuary and self-transformation, and the
reverence toward the brand itself. This brotherhood connoted religious membership
with proselytizing, as members became more involved. These individuals became a
kind of secular missionaries complete with unique nomenclature, jargon, symbolism, and
shared meaning. In their study, Schouten and McAlexander (1995) demonstrated that
these subcultures had common core values of personal freedom, patriotism and common
heritage, and an almost machismo us-against-the-world mentality that championed the
underdog.
These subcultures paralleled the sub-cultures of Apple through the evolution of
the beginning user to the full-fledged hard-core Apple fan. There is organizational
identification, trust, group affiliation and socialization, a sense of belonging, and an
advocacy as a type of proselytizing, which are necessary for developing, growing, and
maintaining attitudinal loyalty. Group affiliation helped link these elements into the
individuals constructed reality.
These articles demonstrate that group affiliation and socialization are often the
glue that helps link other constructs together in a particular environment. Group
37
affiliation and socialization may act as a catalyst bonding individuals together enabling
organizational oneness, identity construction, and bonding, which may outwardly
manifest itself into a type of evangelism.
Construct 5 Identification and Sense Of Belonging
This construct refers to the mutual bonding of group members. This is
demonstrated in individuals who join street gangs. Ruble and Turner (2000) described
identification and a sense of belonging through street gangs. The authors concurred with
Broderick (1990) that street gangs function as ongoing, open social systems in relation
to their surrounding sociocultural context (Ruble & Turner, 2000, p. 120). Gangs have
varying degrees of cohesion and structure, and serve many functions, such as a source
for status, identity, cohesion, self-esteem, and a sense of belonging (Harris, 1994, p.
291). Ruble and Turner (2000) described one type of gang, the social gang, as possessing
unique identification features in that the strength in member bonding lay with the
underlying subtext of mutual attraction among the members. Thus there are strong
parallel elements with consumer fandom and organizational attachment.
There is a sense of companionship and belonging with loyalty to the group of
paramount importance (Ferguson, 2010). Devotion to the group and expressing loyalty is
important, and members typically disapprove of members having relationships outside
the group. Those having relationships outside the group are viewed as not being true to
the organization (Ruble & Turner, 2000). As opposed to a homeostatic group, a
morphogenic group is more receptive to change. They are very sensitive to environmental
stimuli and provide new information to enter the system. Unlike homeostatic groups,
which accept change but only within certain limits, morphogenic groups tend to gain
38
strength over time. Members demonstrate unique cohesion, connectedness, and loyalty
and are very protective of the organization. These attributes parallel those of Apple fans
who view themselves as a unique subset of technology users. Members feel special
because of their association with the group, which is why they self-identify as Apple fans.
Martin and Dowsons (2009) article continued with this line of reasoning
postulating that individuals have a deep need to belong, which motivates and drives them
to form and maintain lasting, positive, and significant interpersonal relationships. When
the need for belongingness is fulfilled, this fulfillment produces positive emotional
responses and attitudinal loyalty to that relationship. These emotional responses drive
actions and produce positive feelings of self-worth and self-esteem. This aligned with
Maslow (1954) who recognized the need for love and belongingness in the path to selfactualization.
Ashforth and Mael (1989) quote Turner (1984) using the term psychological
group as a collection of people who share the same social identification or define
themselves in terms of the same social category membership (p. 530). These authors
posit that social identification strengthens the bond of the individual to the organization
but this connection does not require being interpersonal or based on interaction. As
Turner (1984) noted, one may like people as group members at the same time as one
dislikes them as individual persons (p. 525). Ashforth and Mael (1989) noted one may
internalize an organizations culture without necessarily identifying with the
organization, and vice versa (p. 27). Individuals are an amalgamation of different groups
and social identity role conflict is rare. Only when individuals are forced to perform in
groups simultaneously is there a cognitive breakdown. Otherwise, individuals adapt to
39
the various environments rather seamlessly. Identification and the sense of belonging are
self-actualizing and is a primary driver for self-fulfillment (Maslow, 1943). Identification
and a sense of belonging fulfill primal needs. These elements are emotional precursors
propelling and facilitating attitudinal loyalty.
The parallels with Apple fans begin with how Apple users see themselves in the
context of self-identification and belonging. Apple fans feel special and different
from non-Apple fans believing they are part of something that extends beyond the
operational system differences. They view themselves as part of the Apple Gang,
believing that they have ennobled and sacralized the cause of Apple (Belk &
Tumbat, 2005, p. 216).
Construct 6 - Proselytizing (Word-Of-Mouth)
Proselytizing is a verb form and comes from root word, proselyte, from the Greek,
proslutos (or ) meaning one who has come to, a newcomer but
pertains to one who has arrived from a previous position (i.e. like a convert) (Vine, 1981,
P. 59). Thus to proselytize means to convert an individual to a particular way of thinking,
belief, outlook, or worldview. In business, these attributes pertain to winning people
over and are the outward manifestation of attitudinal loyalty.
In their study, Tiwari and Abraham (2010) deciphered three different elements of
procuring customer loyalty: Using role models, brand reputation, and word-of-mouth.
The authors wanted to evaluate how effective each was in increasing market share and
obtaining long-term customer loyalty. Their conclusion demonstrated that consumer
word-of-mouth was, by far, the most effective element in consumer perception and brand
loyalty. Proselytizing serves a two-fold purpose: it demonstrates the degree of consumer
40
loyalty to an organization, and it is the most effective marketing phenomenon companies

have in acquiring market share (Tiwari & Abraham, 2010).
Zeithaml, Berry, and Parasuramans (1996) article took a different path in
examining proselytizing. These authors described the importance of service quality with
regard to customer retention. They opined that this was especially important in lowering
defection rates, which is a better and more profitable strategy than either gaining market
share or lowering costs. This is because duration or longevity of the customer relationship
is highly profitable and a more durable phenomenon. In addition, dissatisfied customers
were more likely to complain leading to negative proselytizing.
These authors described the different levels of satisfaction from desired service,
which is the first level of service and the one that customers hopes to attain, to the second
level or adequate service, which is one of customer acceptability. It is in the difference
between these two levels that determine the degree of customer loyalty based on service
quality.
Zeithaml et al. (1996) demonstrated that superior service quality corresponded
with favorable behavioral intentions, which kept the customer relationship intact. In
contrast, inferior service quality corresponded with unfavorable behavioral intentions
leading to customer defection. The longer the status of this relationship, the stronger the
bond and the more the consumer became an open advocate of the company to other
potential customers. This was especially important when problems arose. When such
junctures occurred, the opportunity could go either way. Superior problem resolution
fostered bonds with customers even greater than if there had been no problem at all. In
41
contrast, poor problem resolution can lead to direct defection and negative word-ofmouth behaviors.
These studies demonstrated that word-of-mouth advocacy is a significant
component of the attitudinal loyalty construct demonstrating strong organizational
bonding to the company brand. Proselytizing is the outward manifestation of inward
feelings, emotions, and beliefs and is a powerful tool for marketing and for obtaining
long-term loyalty.
Attitudinal Loyalty Analogues
When conducting a study such as this, it is often pertinent and helpful to find
parallels with other environments so as to construct better understanding. These serve as
parables (parable - Greek parabol, or , which means to lay beside, to compare)
(Vines, 1981) and serves as narratives for comparison and better understanding.
Consequently, understanding context and behaviors in one area may typify similar
behaviors and actions in another. The literature helps in drawing parallels in these
situations, which may explain why the constructs in attitudinal loyalty are relevant and
actionable.
Analogy with Gangs
One may be confused when one first reads the relevance of street gangs to Apple
loyalty, but the similarities with regard to identity construction through group
membership, mutual bonding through group members, and oneness with the organization
draw relevant comparison. Organizational identification, group affiliation and
socialization, identification and sense of belonging, are all components of the gang
experience and are relevant parallels to consumer fandom.
42
Harriss (1994) study focused on the street gangs, and it has many accordant
parallels with Apple fans. Street gangs have strong subcultures in which membership
leads to a sense of power, esteem, and sense of identity. Mostly; however, gangs provide
a strong sense of belonging and loyalty to each other as a group entity. This perception of
common destiny gives the group support and cohesion. Harris (1994) opined that gang
affiliation could supersede individual identity as ipseity was replaced by oneness with the
group.
As noted earlier, Ruble and Turners (2000) article characterized street gangs
open social systems in relation to their surrounding sociocultural context. Although street
gangs have varying degrees of connection and constancy, gangs do serve social and selfidentity functions. These purposes include serving as sources for status, identity,
cohesion, self-esteem, and a sense of belonging. There is mutual attraction among the
members and identity that links oneness of the organization as paramount in importance.
Devotion to the group is absolute, fundamental, and unequivocal, and expressing loyalty
is an important component of demonstrating loyalty.
Ruble and Turners (2000) noted that outside relationships are viewed as
traitorous gangs bordering on treason violating the code of allegiance to the gang. Often
overlooked when referring to gangs is the cohesion, connectedness, loyalty, and
protective nature of gang organization. Gangs fulfill social needs with regard to identity
and socialization.
Interestingly, both street gangs and Apple fans often prefer to go by their
designated handles. For street gangs it is their nicknames, for Apple fans it is usually
43
their e-mail logons or other online identities. It is part of their self-definition and
individuals work diligently to maintain the aura their handles suggest.
Analogy with Cults
Martin (1977) began his tome by explaining that in his definition a cult is not
necessarily a derogatory term but signifies a group that differs significantly with regard to
beliefs or practices. Protestantism and even Christianity itself were considered cults
during their early years. However, as Martin (1977) continued, his explanation of cults
was primarily construed to mean that cults had distinct characteristics that differentiated
them from the mainstream.
To Martin (1977), each cult has distinct differentia that typifies what is a cult.
These characteristics include a belief system, which usually demonstrates closedmindedness, antagonism to outsiders, and the rejection of individuals (non-believers) and
not just their beliefs. Cults have the tendency to prefer isolation developing an us against
the world mentality while demonizing opposition.
Martin (1977) posited that in joining a cult, there is acceptance of the
organizations authority (or authority system) as individuals recognize the organization is
the entity that interprets and determines the facts. Cults often manifest institutional
dogma and intolerance of differences of opinion. This isolation is viewed as the outside
world versus the informed. Cults prefer their isolation and wear it as a proverbial
rebellious badge of honor. In addition, there is often authoritarianism in which the
primary founder exhibits greater-than-life attributes and traits, which border on the divine
(Martin, 1977).
44
Martin (1980) listed 10 characteristics of cults and, with regard to parallels of this
study, several characteristics apply to non-religious contexts. Cults usually have their
geneses with strong dynamic leaders, and followers ascribe these leaders with virtuous
characteristics and tend to overlook their faults. Other cult characteristics include rigid
membership standards, members tending to be very evangelical, and there is a designated
pure path in which only true followers ascribe (Martin, 1980).
Larson (1982) continued with this line of cult characteristics noting some of the
individual dispositions of those who join cults. These attributes included being lured by
propaganda and the unfulfillment of the norm. Individuals who join cults seek an
affirming community with which they can identify. As a reward for their zeal, members
receive approval, acceptance, belongingness, and authority fulfilling their basic needs of
self-identity, socialization, and group identification through oneness with the
organization (Larson, 1982).
Cults foster group affiliation, oneness with an organization, and establish ones
self-identity, which are all attractive attributes. In addition, cults fill a social void through
emotional attachment and commitment and social identity (Leal & Moutinho, 2008).
Many Apple fans display similar characteristics with regard to group affiliation, oneness
with an organization, group inspired self-identity, and outward evangelism of the Apple
name making the comparisons of Apple fandom and joining a cult valid.
Analogy with Fraternities
Joining a fraternity or sorority involves many factors. Glaeser, Sacerdote, and
Scheinkman (2003) described family factors, university factors, dormitory factors, and
other social factors as influencing the decision with regard to joining a fraternity. Glaeser
45
et al. (2003) built a framework studying aggregate coefficients in what they term is a
social multiplier. These elements are typified in the ratios of aggregate coefficients to
individual coefficients. These authors used the ratios of these coefficients to create a
social multiplier to examine social influences. For example, Glaeser et al. (2003)
concluded that drinking in high school resulted in a 10.4% increase in the likelihood of
joining a fraternity but also included other non-individual factors as antecedents.
McCabe, Schulenberg, Johnston, O'Malley, Bachman, and Kloska (2005) noted
that fraternity membership is often linked with specific behaviors in the selection and
socialization of the fraternity environment. Drinking was found to be the primary
individual activity that was a precursor for joining a fraternity, but much depended on
lineage. For example, if ones parents joined a particular fraternity, there was a greater
likelihood of that individual joining the same fraternity. Other factors included dormitory
floor participation, and overall dormitory participation.
Guardia and Evans (2008) studied another reason for fraternity participation. In
their study they linked joining a fraternity with ethnic identification and ethnic identity
development. This is common reason that individuals join Hispanic, Black, and Jewish
fraternities. These organizations foster an environment in which individuals can identify
themselves with their heritage and share in the socialization of that heritage.
For individuals who attend college and are seeking an environment or
organization with which to belong, a fraternity can provide the solution. Fraternities
provide social activities, group according to commonalities and preferences, foster pride
in their organizational attachment, allow the development of satisfy the need for group
46
interaction and socialization, and provide for tertiary elements such as networking,
philanthropic projects, and so forth (Pike, 2000).
Apple fandom parallels many of these factors in that both individual and external
factors often contribute to the level of fandom while providing organizational
identification, trust, group affiliation and socialization, and mutual bonding of the group.
As in fraternity membership, Apple fans are very comfortable with their attachment,
which often results in the evangelizing of the Apple brand.
Analogy with Sports Fandom
Pimentel and Kristys (2004) study centered on the consumer loyalty, and the
parallels of the experiences of consumer goods and sports fandom. These authors noted
that the experience could transcend behavior loyalty into attitudinal loyalty with a kind of
religious fervor. Pimentel and Kristy (2004) posited that such attitudinal loyalty has its
geneses in the different types of commitment. They defined and described these types of
commitment as calculative, normative, and affective. Calculative commitment occurs
when fans are loyal for extrinsic reasons (also called fair-weather fans). For the
calculative fan, products are purchased for specific features and benefits. Normative
commitment occurs when fans support their team because of a sense of obligation. Fans
of this commitment type usually procure products because of family tradition. These
items because almost sacred and go through a sacralization formation. This
sacralization process occurs when fans transition to a stronger form of commitment and
includes quintessence, inheritance, external sanction, collecting, gift giving, pilgrimage,
and ritual (Pimentel & Kristy, 2004, p. 2).
47
Affective commitment occurs when the commitment becomes internalized and is

attached to emotional factors. This is the deepest commitment as it affects the degree of
attachment and identification. Oftentimes a fans self-concept hinges on this. When
affective commitment develops, positive attributes are ascribed to a brand whereas
negative attributes are ascribed to its competition (Pimentel & Kristy, 2004).
Desarcralization occurs when brands lose their sacred status through public relations
failures. Examples include, product defects, recalls, scandals, and so forth.
Leal and Moutinho (2008) connected sports fandom with consumer loyalty noting
that fandom offers social benefits as feelings of camaraderie, community and solidarity,
as well as enhanced social prestige and self-esteem (p. 18). They referenced Hirt (1992)
adding that Fandom is affiliated with a great deal of emotional significance and
individual self-value are derived from group membership. The difference between a fan
and a spectator seems to be a matter of degree of passion (pp 18-19). Leal and Moutinho
(2008) referenced Social Identity Theory in this context, as individuals attach oneness
with the organization (i.e. team). This can escalate individuals fandom into what Leal
and Moutinho (2008) terms ultimate fans. These are individuals who are so effectively
committed that they become proactively engaged in validating loyalty behaviors.
Ultimate fans are the devoted fans who will support their team under any circumstances,
and follow them with unmitigated, myopic zeal.
Woo, Trail, Kwon, and Andersons (2009) study looked at sports fandom from a
different perspective. Their research focused on points of attachment and the
differences between spectators and fans. With regard to the points of attachment,
Woo et al. (2009) referred to them as social-psychological connection areas. These
48
connection points included team, coach, player, university, sport, and level of sport (p.
40). These points are further separated by organization identification (i.e. team, coach,
university, and players) and sport identification (i.e. sport and sport level). Woo et al.
(2009) points of attachment have direct parallels with Apple fandom with regard to
attachment to a particular Apple product or other external elements such as the Apple
Store, Apple employee or employees (e.g. customer service), the Apple organization,
Steve Jobs, or Apple applications.
In discussing spectators and fans, Woo et al. (2009) described the differences
as the degree of psychological attachment. Spectators are less committal and do not
display outward signs of allegiance as do fans. Spectators are observers and have
different motives than fans. Although these two have different points of attachment, both
seek fulfillment and are motivated through vicarious achievement and social interaction.
These differences are reflected in the different experiences of the Apple fans.
Conclusion
This review of the literature demonstrates how the study of attitudinal loyalty has
developed over the decades. Building on the seminal works in the behavioral sciences,
the study of attitudinal loyalty is evolving, including other areas in the social sciences
incorporating psychology, anthropology, and sociology. The literature review evinces
that concurrent with this behavioral sciences evolution are the development of different
theoretical perspectives, epistemologies, and methodologies. Thus the study of attitudinal
loyalty is an emerging paradigm built on constructs of attachment and identification.
The constructs of this study, which are indicators of emotional and psychological
attachment of consumers with an organization, also have their genesis in this literature.
49
These constructs are not evidenced in isolation or in any singular industry, but rather are
manifested in several different arenas and environments. The review of the literature
demonstrates that these environments include organizational and group domains, drawing
parallels of consumer fandom with other areas of fandom. In addition to providing
relevant benchmarks, these analogues add depth and validity and increase the abstract of
the consumer/organization dynamics.
50
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY
This mixed method phenomenological study used constructionist epistemology
and an interpretivist theoretical perspective to examine and describe how consumers
interpret their meaning and decipher what is important to them (Crotty, 1998). Fisher and
Stenner (2011) opine that this type of phenomenological method has the potential to
integrate qualitative and quantitative concerns in ways that orient research towards
uniform criteria of substantive meaningfulness and mathematical rigour (p. 89). A
quantitative survey was used in correlation with qualitative one-on-one interviews to
describe how individuals construe their experiences concerning this phenomenon. This
mixed method study triangulated this phenomenon by using an initial quantitative
instrument (a Likert-scale survey questionnaire), as well as a qualitative instrument (oneon-one interviews) exploring deeper into consumer insights of their lived experiences.
Research Design
For the quantitative segment of this study, the recruitment strategy was to obtain
participants (i.e. customers) from the Zoomerang.com (Zoomerang) database who
recently had purchased Apple products (i.e. with the last calendar year - 2012). The
reason for this timeframe was that recent purchasers would have a fresher recollection of
their shopping experience and have more divergent reasons for purchasing than those
who had purchased Apple products years ago. Zoomerang provided the data from the
initial instrument (a Likert-scale questionnaire) with quantitative analyses deciphering the
data.
For the subsequent qualitative methodology, participants for the one-on-one
interviews also had to recently have purchased an Apple product (i.e. within the last
51
calendar year). Analysis of the one-on-one interview manuscripts consisted of using a

modification of Creswells approach to phenomenological analysis. This included
developing a list of first-order constructs, grouping them into second-order constructs,
writing the textural description of each participants experience, and writing a
structural description reflecting on the setting and context of the phenomenon
(Creswell, 2007). Afterward a composite description of the essence of the phenomenon
was written incorporating both the textural and structural descriptions (Creswell, 2007).
Sample
The sample consisted of individuals who had purchased an Apple product within
the last calendar year. This timeframe is used because there is greater likelihood of a
fresher recollection for their purchases with regard to loyalty constructs. Because the
choices and experiences were fresher, the participants descriptions of their lived
experiences were more relevant and active.
With regard to the quantitative portion, Zoomerang administered the quantitative
survey to 330 participants who had purchased an Apple product during the last calendar
year. No other requirement was necessary except that they were volunteering adults (i.e.
over 18 years of age). Zoomerang provided the participants from its database, which
broke down participation generationally, with gender and demographic profiles built into
the parameters. Before commencing the survey, they were asked their gender, they
checked off their age group (i.e., 48 66, Baby-boomers; 36 47, Gen Xers; and 18 35,
Gen Yers).
With regard to the qualitative one-on-one interviews, the sample came from
several sources. The goal was to obtain a sample selection that represented several
52
generations and not a homogeneous sample. Recruiting was done through two primary
avenues. One avenue was through the website for the alumni association from a
university that primarily serves the older adult-learner (i.e. over 25 to 65 years of age).
The second avenue was through one of the largest and oldest business student
organizations in the world. These avenues provided the opportunity to reach a large
cross-section of potential volunteers of various demographics and backgrounds, through
either direct contact (i.e. being an actual member of the organization) or referral (i.e.
knowing and proponing individuals who would meet the criteria).
Participation was voluntary as those willing to participate contacted the researcher
via the website and e-mail. This alumni association from a university that primarily
serves the older adult-learner has a large student demographic cross-section and
represents adults who use technology both personally and professionally and represents
several generational demographics including Baby-boomers (born from 1946 through
1964), Generation Xers (born 1965 though 1976), and some Generation Yers (born 1977
though 1994) (Macon & Artley, 2009; Montana & Petit, 2008). Students at this adultlearner university come from a wide variety of cultures, economic backgrounds, work
experiences, technological experiences as well as other demographic profiles. This
diversity was important because describing the lived experiences of individuals from
different origins gave richer description than would have a monoculture. These
generational and gender demographics were noted before the interviews commenced
because individuals representing these characteristics have demonstrated differences in
how they experience technology.
53
Recruiting through the business club at a local undergraduate university that

primarily services the younger adult (18 24 years of age) predominantly represented the
younger subgroup of Generation Yers with influence from Generation Zers (born after
1994). Young adult learners from the undergraduate university were significant because
they are often thought to be the genesis of the introduction of innovative technologies
into the general populace.
This multi-generational criterion-based approach for both the quantitative and
qualitative sections allowed a larger cross-section of individuals with greater diversity in
values, lived experiences, product expertise, and represents distinct generational
differences (Miles & Huberman, 1994). It was assumed that generations use and apply
technology differently and it was important that these different experiences be noted.
This approach also increased the variation of the sampling adding to the studys validity
(Guba & Lincoln, 1989).
With regard to the qualitative sample:
1.
Demographics The overall demographics of the students ranged from 18

years old to 70 years old. The sample population has a wide crosssection of demographics (age, income levels [$0 - $100,000], multiracial, multicultural, and so forth).
2.
Inclusion criteria - The inclusion criteria were that the participants had
purchased a product from the examinant company (i.e. Apple) during
the last calendar year and lived near enough for a face-to-face
interview.
54
3.
Exclusion criteria The exclusion criteria were that the participants had
not purchased a product from the examinant company (i.e. Apple)
during the last calendar year.
With regard to sample size, for the one-on-one interviews, the guideline was to
obtain participants with whom to conduct interviews until the minimum number of 10
participants was reached. Creswell (2007) recommended this size and was supported by
Leech and Onwuegbuzie (2005) and Bock and Sergeant (2002). This served as an initial
baseline. As the interviews progressed if it became evident that more were need to fully
describe the lived experiences and expressed generational difference, then more would
have been conducted. However, after 10 interviews it became evident that additional
interviews would not significantly add to the breath or depth of the findings (Cooper &
Schindler, 2008).
Setting
The setting for the quantitative portion of the study was the participants computer
as the questionnaire was delivered and processed online. The setting for the qualitative
segment was more diverse. Most of the interviews were held in neutral sites such as
coffee houses though a few conducted at the participants homes.
Instrumentation/Measures
Instrumentation for the quantitative survey consisted of Likert-scale values for
each question with 1 defined as Strongly disagree and 5 defined as Strongly
agree. The accumulative scores for each company in the survey would measure the
constructs with ANOVA tests being run accordingly. Tukeys Range Tests determined if
Apple statistically had the highest scores.
55
Data Collection
For the quantitative instrument, Zoomerang was the source for data collection.
Zoomerang distributed and administered the online questionnaire using participants from
its database, individuals who had purchased Apple products within the last calendar year.
The data instrument and an interview protocol for the qualitative one-on-one
interviews was a digital recorder. The interviews were conducted face-to-face in the
environment of the participants choice. The interview protocol consisted of interviewing
the subjects at either a neutral site (i.e. a coffee house) or the subjects residence
(wherever the participant chose). These semi-structured interviews consisted of preselected questions followed by secondary and tertiary response questions, which enabled
further insights of customer desideration. These interviews were approximately 20 to 80
minutes long. However, before participating in the interview, disclosure and informed
consent including privacy concerns and confidentiality were addressed and obtained.
Field notes were taken both before and after the interview to collect initial researcher
impressions as well as summarize participant nuance. The dialog was then transcribed
verbatim.
The quantitative questionnaire was pertinent to the initial quantitative research
question, Is there a significant difference between consumer loyalty of Apple products
and its competitors? Using a tertiary source for the database and data collection
capabilities (i.e. from Zoomerang) aided in the validity by providing a very large
database of participants, which minimized regional bias and provided a greater degree of
randomness. This approach was important because the purpose of the quantitative
instrument was to decipher which of the six constructs of attitudinal loyalty were
56
pertinent to the examinant companys success. This finding was important because many
who were advocates of the examinant company did not necessarily hold negative views
of its competitors and also scored well for the competitors in various attributes. If the
examinant company did not demonstrate significant performance increases in a particular
construct, attributing attitudinal loyalty based on that construct would have been invalid.
This instrument was objective, which was necessary to support the qualitative interviews
and the interpretivist theoretical perspective. The quantitative instrument also
demonstrated certain subconscious characteristics that were accounted for during the oneon-one interviews. For example, individuals will not always self-identify themselves with
certain groups or activities even though their actions dictate otherwise. These areas are
better explored during the one-on-one interviews.
The qualitative instrument (one-on-one interviews) related directly to the
describing, defining, and interpreting the lived experiences of the individuals. This
instrument was the principal agent of the studys effort in deciphering the research
problem, What does it mean to be an Apple fan? The qualitative one-on-one interviews
allowed deeper prospecting into the phenomenon and fostered an avenue for acquiring
insight from the participant and perspective that could not be acquired quantitatively
(Vogt, 2007). Phenomenology is more than just a tertiary narrative of an event; it is a
study into the deeper meaning of the lived experience. The semi-structured one-on-one
interviews were designed to accomplish this goal of understanding and describing the
deeper meaning of the participants lived experiences.
The initial quantitative research question asked, Is there a significant difference
between consumer loyalty of Apple products and its competitors? This is an objective
57
question with several sub-questions directed at ascertaining how well Apple epitomizes
the various constructs of attitudinal loyalty. The quantitative survey instrument and data
collection schema were appropriate and provided a statistical method for analysis
appropriate for this hypothesis.
The subsequent triangulating qualitative research question was, How do Apple
users describe their lived experiences with Apple products? One-on-one interviews were
an efficient method for obtaining individual lived experiences of the phenomenon. The
qualitative one-on-one interviews allowed deeper prospecting into the phenomenon and
fostered an avenue for acquiring insight from the participant and perspective that could
be acquired quantitatively (Vogt, 2007). Data collection via digital recording and
verbatim transcription provided accuracy, dependable record keeping, analysis, as well as
durable long-term storage.
Data Analysis
For the quantitative portion of this study an ANOVA was used for each of the six
sub-questions (hypotheses), which represented the six constructs of attitudinal loyalty.
There were four questions for each construct. Each question had five organizations that
each of the 330 participants rated. Thus each construct had five average scores for each
organization. These were the averages that the ANOVA evaluated.
The ANOVA test procedure produces a F-statistic, which is used to calculate the
p-value. With ANOVA, if p < .01 the null hypothesis is rejected meaning that at least two
groups are statistically different from each other. This rejection occurs when the observed
value, or F, is greater than the critical value for Fcritical. If the null hypothesis was
rejected, a post-hoc test (Tukeys Range test) was applied to determine if the highest
58
numerical value was statistically significant (i.e. was Apple statistically significantly
higher).
The analysis instrument used with the quantitative survey was an ANOVA of the
mean differences between the organizations. Thus the steps continued as follows:
1. Sent Zoomerang the questions with the parameters for respondents.
2. Zoomerang ran the survey.
3. The respondents answered the online survey.
4. Zoomerang sent the results of the survey.
5. An ANOVA test was run from the results of the questionnaire.
6. The statistical significance of the results was reached and the hypotheses were
deciphered.
7. The areas in which there were statistical significances served as collaborating
data with the qualitative one-on-one interviews.
With regard to the qualitative instrument, after securing the interview locations
and survey times, the microphone was set up and tested to ensure voice clarity and
recording capability. Proper and complete information about the interview was given to
the respondents before the interview commenced to ensure that there were minimal
interruptions and that the needed time was allotted. Notes written during the interview
were kept to a minimum so as to keep the interview on pace and limiting as many
distractions as possible.
Contingencies included carrying extra batteries, cables, and extension cords for
both the primary recorder and a backup recorder. In addition, after recording the
59
interview, the material was downloaded, backed-up, and put on a portable device (i.e.
drive) for storage in a fire-protected safe.
After the interview was completed and the respondent had departed, field notes
were written as soon as possible to ensure that as much fresh information and
recollections could be dictated. The environment, the attire, body language, and any other
information about the interview environment were noted as well as all pertinent nonverbal communication. In addition, the interviewer asked himself three questions after
every interview:
1. What did I appreciate about the interview?
2. What questions do I still have?
3. What would I change during the interview?
These questions were important as they helped the interviewing process evolve
and become more efficient. The purpose was to describe the lived experiences and
explain Apple fandom and by bracketing the interviewers preconceptions and following
the pace and content of the interview, the interviewer could better describe these
experiences without prejudice.
Analysis of the one-on-one interviews consisted of using a modification of
Creswells (2007) approach to phenomenological analysis. Building on the data obtained
during the interviews through the lens of the research questions (i.e. Is there a significant
difference between consumer loyalty of Apple products and its competitors?
And, How do Apple users describe their lived experiences with Apple products?),
significant statements, which illuminated how the participants experienced the Apple
fandom phenomenon, were highlighted. Moustakas (1994) referred to this as
60
horizonalization. Clusters of meaning (Creswell, 2007, p. 61) were then organized

aligning with the statements with the fandom constructs (themes). These organized
statements were the precursors of the textural description used to describe the
participants experiences, and then further used in the context of the overarching Apple
phenomenon (structural description)(Creswell, 2007). Afterward, a composite description
of the essence of the phenomenon was written incorporating both the textural and
structural descriptions (Creswell, 2007).
Validity and Reliability
With regard to validity and reliability of the survey instrument, this instrument
progressed through several steps in its construction. With this instrument, respondents
generated interval scale data by choosing values that best represent their opinions about
each organizations attributes (i.e. the constructs of the hypothesis). The survey
instrument was similar to many customer satisfaction surveys that use Likert-scale
responses but differed in design, content, and purpose. The instrument did not have the
respondent rank the organizations nor did the questions lead to a summary. Instead, the
questions corresponded to the six constructs discussed in the hypothesis with the
respondents able to grade each organization equally. These findings were important
because unless there were significant differences in the scores, attributing the associated
construct as the reason for the examinant companys attitudinal loyalty would be invalid.
The instrument has six constructs based on the literature with each construct
comprised of four questions (with the actual survey the questions were mixed but for the
purposes of analysis and feedback they were grouped by construct). The quantitative data
61
were straightforward with the responses from the four survey questions for each construct
averaged for each organization.
The development of the survey had several stages. The initial instrument was
based on the literature. The next step was to procure a variety of consultants who would
give feedback about the questions. Twelve different people from various backgrounds
were procured. Most had some form of either academic and business research experience,
but some did not. This variety was important to ascertain how well respondents
understood the questions. The responses formed a continual feedback loop making the
changes fluid.
There were two primary areas of feedback. The first dealt with how well the
questions were aligned with the constructs. The second pertained to the interpretation of
the questions. With regard to the latter, each consultant was specifically asked what he or
she thought the purpose was of the question (i.e. "What does this question ask?"). This
was important as various interpretations of the questions would lessen both the validity
and the reliability and make the interpretation of the construct suspect.
In their evaluations, the selected individuals believed that the questions aligned
well with the constructs, but there were questions about the understandability of the
format. Consequently, to eradicate the confusion the questions were re-worked until the
ambiguity was eliminated. The format was also changed to make the questionnaire easier
to understand. All thought this made it easier to follow.
With regard to the interpretations of the questions, there were a few questions in
which the consultants were not congruent with their interpretation (i.e. three questions in
particular, and a few had incongruence on a fourth). Consequently, these were re-worded
62
and sent back to the 12 for re-examination. This was done until each had similar
interpretations of each question, which increased the reliability of the instrument.
Validity and reliability of the qualitative one-on-one interview questions were
based on Trochims (2006) findings of qualitative validity. Trochim (2006) followed
Lincoln and Gubas (1985) criteria, which paralleled traditional criteria for quantitative
research with an alternative approach for qualitative inquiry. These criteria included
credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. Credibility for this study
had its genesis with the feedback source of the interview question construction.
The content of the questions was edified through a series of checks. As Rubio,
Berg-Weger, Tebb, Lee, and Rauch (2003) noted, content validity can be established by
procuring a panel of experts. For this study, the questions were initially generated
through a review of the literature. This was followed by a feedback loop in which the
researchers dissertation committee (i.e. the panel of experts) reviewed the information
and sent back the one-on-one questions for re-evaluation. This continued until the
committee was satisfied.
The transferability was evidenced through the review of the literature as
analogues from different environments demonstrated that these questions applied to the
studys loyalty constructs. Dependability was obtained through the use of mixed
methods. The one-on-one interview questions aligned with the questions on the
quantitative survey. By using mixed methods the two edified each other increasing the
reliability.
In addition to the study design itself; to increase qualitative validity, member
checking was used to ensure accuracy of the findings and increase the confirmability of
63
the study (Creswell, 2009). Member checking involved sending the transcripts back to the
participants for verification. This helped ensure that the researcher accurately captured
the participants lived experiences and meanings.
Ethical Considerations
The ethical considerations for this study dealt primarily with maintaining the
confidentiality of the participants guided by the ethical principles of the Belmont Report
(1979). Participation was absolutely voluntary and held to the standards of the National
Institute of Healths ethical principles of respect for persons, beneficence, and justice.
Although there were no threats of repercussions for participant involvement, each
participant was provided with an Informed Consent form, which highlighted how the
information will be used (i.e. the studys purpose) as well as relevant contact information.
Data taken from the study was coded so as to protect the participants from further
intrusion.
All records are kept in the interviewer's place of residence (including back-ups
which are kept in a fire-proof safe). This information will be kept for seven years before
it is physically destroyed.
64
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS
Quantitative Survey Results
Zoomerang administered the quantitative surveys with 330 participants whose
only criteria for participation were that they were greater than 18-years old and they had
purchased an Apple product during the last calendar year. The questions were grouped by
construct with four questions per construct. Numerical values (scoring) were determined
by how the participants scored each company using the Likert-scale values for each
question with 1 defined as Strongly disagree and 5 defined as Strongly agree.
The accumulative scores for each company for each construct were the values used with
ANOVA tests being run accordingly (i.e. 330 participants x four questions per construct
= 1320 responses per construct). Tukeys Range Tests (also known as Tukeys HSD)
determined if Apple statistically had the highest scores. Data analysis was done using
StatPlus software from AnalystSoft Inc. Scores with the highest mode are bolded.
Although the accumulative scores for each construct were the bases for
determining if the null hypotheses would or not be rejected, ANOVA tests and Tukeys
Range Tests were also run for each individual question. These results (see Appendix A
Tables 1A through Table 24B) for all of the questions were important to support the
findings and increase validity. These results demonstrated that for each question the
ANOVA tests evinced that there were statistical differences between the means of the
five companies (i.e. 0 = Dell = IBM = Microsoft = HP = Apple is rejected). Tukeys Range
tests were then run for each question demonstrating that Apple had statistically
significant better scores than did its next competitor.
65
Because Apple scored statistically better with each question, hypotheses

concerning the constructs became ineludible.
Sub-question 1:
HA1: There is significant difference between Organizational Identification
HO1: There is no significant difference between Organizational identification
Table 1
Construct 1 Organizational identification
One-way ANOVA
Groups
Strongly Disagree Neutral
Disagree
8.0% (106)
9.9%
39.8%
Dell
(131)
12.2%
(161)
6.7% (89)
IBM
5.7% (75)
Microsoft
2.3% (31)
HP
5.3% (70)
Apple
2.0% (26)
10.8%
(143)
2.5% (33)
SS
df
ANOVA
Source of
variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Agree
Strongly
Agree
(526)
53.5%
(706)
32.0%
(423)
40.7%
(537)
17.3%
(229)
29.9%
(395)
22.7%
(300)
39.7%
(524)
31.8%
(420)
33.6%
(444)
12.3%
(162)
5.9% (78)
MS
F
245.0583
915.2721
228.8180
6,157.9424
6595
0.9337
7,073.2146
6599
Rating
Average
3.29
Response
Count
1320
3.11
1320
19.2%
(253)
11.4%
(150)
44.5%
(588)
3.67
1320
3.33
1320
4.16
1320
p-level
FCritical
0.E+0
4.6225
Table 2
Construct 1 Organizational identification
Analysis of Variance (One-Way) Apple Versus Microsoft and Tukeys Test
Descriptive Statistics
66
Groups
Sample
size
Sum
Mean
Variance
Apple
1320
5,495.
4.16288
24,023.
Microsoft
1320
4,839.
3.66591
18,903.
Total
2640
3.91439
0.93772
ANOVA
Source of
Variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
d.f.
Total
SS
MS
163.00606
163.00606
2638
2,311.64697
0.87629
2639
2,474.65303
F
186.01888
plevel
F crit
Omega
Sqr.
0.E+0
10.85188
0.06549
Comparisons among groups (Factor 1 - Factor #1)

Tukey HSD Test for Differences Between Means
Test
Groups
Difference Statistics
p-level Accepted?
Apple vs
Microsoft
0.49697
19.28828
0.74605 rejected
Construct Table 1A demonstrated the following values:
For the ANOVA testing at the 99.9% confidence interval, F = 245.0583 and Fcritical =
4.6225. Because F > Fcritical (i.e. 245.0583 > 4.6225), the null hypothesis can be rejected
and the alternative hypothesis can be accepted. The values for the five companies are not
statistically equal.
Construct Table 1B demonstrated the following values:
For the Tukeys Range test at the 99.9% confidence interval, the test statistic is greater
than Fcritical for the ANOVA than for the two values (i.e. 19.28828 > 10.85188). Thus, the
null hypothesis can be rejected and the alternative hypothesis can be accepted. Apples
scores are statistically significantly higher than the other companys scores.
Sub-question 2:
67
HA2: There is significant difference between Approachability and

HO2: There is no significant difference between Approachability and
Table 3
Construct 2 - Approachability and responsiveness
One-way ANOVA
Groups
Agree
Disagree
7.6% (106)
7.2%
44.4%
28.8%
Dell
IBM
4.1% (54)
Microsoft
2.8% (37
HP
4.0% (53)
Apple
2.6% (34)
(131)
8.0%
(106)
7.8%
(103)
8.3%
(110)
3.2% (42)
SS
df
ANOVA
Source of
variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
(526)
58.6%
(774)
43.7%
(577)
48.6%
(641)
25.9%
(342)
(395
22.7%
(300)
32.1%
(424)
28.2%
(372)
32.9%
(434)
MS
466.3288
116.582
5,819.1712
6595
0.8824
6,285.5
6599
132.1253
Strongly
Agree
12.0% 162
Rating
Average
3.31
Response
Count
1320
6.5 (86)
3.20
1320
13.6%
(179)
10.9%
(144)
35.5%
(468)
3.46
1320
3.34
1320
3.95
1320
p-level
FCritical
0.E+0
4.6225
Table 4
Construct 2 - Approachability and responsiveness
Sample
Groups
size
Sum
Mean
Variance
Apple
1320
5,220.
3.95455
21,924.
Microsoft
1320
4,565.
3.45833
16,901.
Total
2640
3.70644
0.96911
ANOVA
Source of
d.f.
SS
MS
F
pF crit
68
Omega
Variation
Between
Groups
1
162.50947 162.50947
178.99932
Within
Groups
2638 2,394.98106
0.90788
Total
2639 2,557.49053
Test
Groups
p-level Accepted?
Apple vs
Microsoft
0.49621
18.92085
0.74605 rejected
level
0.E+0
Sqr.
10.85188
0.06317

Sub-question 3:
HA3: There is significant difference between Trust of Apple products and its
competitors.
HO3: There is no significant difference between Trust of Apple products and its
competitors.
69
Table 5
Construct 3 Trust
One-way ANOVA
Groups
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
6.1% (80)
7.7%
Dell
IBM
3.7% (49)
Microsoft
2.4% (32)
(101)
8.2%
(108)
6.9% (91)
HP
3.8% (50)
7.1% (94)
Apple
2.6% (34)
3.5% (46)
SS
df
ANOVA
Source of
variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
41.8%
(552)
53.4%
(705)
39.8%
(525)
45.5%
(601)
25.6%
(338)
32.0%
(423)
27.4%
(362)
36.0%
(475)
32.7%
(432)
33.0%
(436)
12.4%
(164)
7.3% (96)
MS
379.0242
94.7561
5,752.8394
6595
0.8723
6,131.8637
6599
108.6274
Rating
Average
3.37
Response
Count
1320
3.26
1320
14.9%
(197)
10.8%
(143)
35.3%
(466)
3.54
1320
3.40
1320
3.95
1320
p-level
FCritical
0.E+0
4.6225
Table 6
Construct 3 Trust
Sample
size
Groups
Sum
Mean
Variance
Apple
1320
5,214.
3.95
21,886.
Microsoft
1320
4,674.
3.54091
17,646.
Total
2640
3.74545
0.94617
ANOVA
Source of
Omega
Variation
d.f.
SS
MS
F
p-level
F crit
Sqr.
Between
Groups
1
110.45455 110.45455
122.0952
0.E+0 10.85188 0.04386
Within
Groups
2638 2,386.49091
0.90466
Total
2639 2,496.94545
70
Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.40909
Test
Statistics
p-level
15.62659
Accepted?
0.74605
rejected

Sub-question 4:
HA4: There is significant difference between Group affiliation and socialization
HO4: There is no significant difference between Group affiliation and
Table 7
Construct 4 - Group affiliation and socialization
One-way ANOVA
Groups
Agree
Disagree
12.4%
16.5%
37.5%
23.2%
Dell
IBM
Microsoft
(164)
10.2%
(135)
7.3% (96)
(218)
17.6%
(232)
12.3%
(495)
46.8%
(618)
35.8%
(307)
19.5%
(257)
30.5%
71
Strongly
Agree
10.3%
(136)
5.9% (78)
14.2%
Rating
Average
3.03
Response
Count
1320
2.93
1320
3.32
1320
HP
Apple
ANOVA
Source of
variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
10.6%
(140)
7.0% (92)
(163)
15.0%
(198)
8.5%
(112)
(472)
39.5%
(521)
20.2%
(267)
(402)
25.0%
(330)
27.7%
(365)
(187)
9.9%
(131)
36.7%
(484)
SS
df
MS
p-level
124.2841
617.3976
154.3494
8,190.3818
6595
1.2419
8,807.7794
6599
0.E+0
3.09
1320
3.79
1320
FCritical
4.6225
Table 8
Construct 4 - Group affiliation and socialization
Sample
Groups
size
Sum
Mean
Variance
Apple
1320
4,997.
3.78561
20,883.
Microsoft
1320
4,381.
3.31894
16,103.
Total
2640
3.55227
1.39173
ANOVA
Source of
pOmega
Variation
level
Sqr.
d.f.
SS
MS
F
F crit
Between
Groups
1
143.73333 143.73333
107.44201 0.E+0 10.85188 0.03876
Within
Groups
2638 3,529.05303
1.33778
Total
2639 3,672.78636
Test
Groups
p-level Accepted?
Apple vs
Microsoft
0.46667
14.65892
0.74605 rejected
72
Sub-question 5:
HA5: There is significant difference between Identification and sense of
HO5: There is no significant difference between Identification and sense of
Table 9
Construct 5 - Identification and sense of belonging
One-way ANOVA
Group
Agree
Disagree
9.7% (128)
15.5%
47.0%
19.4%
Dell
IBM
8.3% (109)
Microsoft
4.8% (63)
HP
7.1% (94)
Apple
3.9% (52)
ANOVA
Source of
variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
SS
(204)
17.2%
(227)
11.3%
(149)
16.3%
(215)
8.2%
(108)
(620)
52.8%
(697)
42.0%
(554)
47.1%
(622)
29.5%
(389)
(256)
16.7%
(221)
30.0%
(396)
20.8%
(274)
27.3%
(360)
df
MS
F
136.2531
559.4809
139.8702
6,770.0803
6595
1.0266
73
Strongly
Agree
Rating
Average
3.02
Response
Count
1320
2.93
1320
12.0%
(158)
8.7%
(115)
31.1%
(411)
3.33
1320
3.08
1320
3.73
1320
p-level
FCritical
8.5%
(112)
5.0% (66)
0.E+0
4.6225
Total
7,329.5612
6599
Table 10
Construct 5 - Identification and sense of belonging
Sample
size
Groups
Sum
Mean
Variance
Apple
1320
4,930.
3.73485
20,020.
Microsoft
1320
4,397.
3.33106
15,931.
Total
2640
3.53295
1.13647
ANOVA
Source of
pOmega
Variation
d.f.
SS
MS
F
level
F crit
Sqr.
Between
Groups
1
107.60947 107.60947
98.17447 0.E+0 10.85188
0.0355
Within
Groups
2638 2,891.52348
1.0961
Total
2639 2,999.13295
Test
Groups
p-level Accepted?
Apple vs
Microsoft
0.40379
14.01246
0.74605 rejected
74
Sub-question 6:
HA6: There is significant difference between Proselytizing (word of mouth) of
Apple products and its competitors.
HO6: There is no significant difference between Proselytizing (word of mouth)
of Apple products and its competitors
Table 11
Construct 6 Proselytizing
One-way ANOVA
Groups
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
12.0%
18.9%
Dell
Microsoft
(159)
10.2%
(135)
6.1% (80)
HP
9.2% (121)
Apple
4.5% (60)
IBM
ANOVA
Source of
variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
SS
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
(250)
21.6%
(285)
15.1%
(199)
16.7%
(220)
8.8%
(116)
38.0%
(502)
48.3%
(637)
39.5%
(521)
41.8%
(552)
24.8%
(327)
22.1%
(292)
15.2%
(200)
27.0%
(357)
23.6%
(312)
29.4%
(388)
8.9%
(117)
4.8% (63)
df
MS
F
154.1796
700.2964
175.0741
7,488.7568
6595
1.1355
8,189.0532
6599
Rating
Average
2.97
Response
Count
1320
2.83
1320
12.3%
(163)
8.7 (115)
3.25
1320
3.06
1320
32.5%
(429)
3.77
1320
p-level
FCritical
0.E+0
4.6225
Table 12
Sample
size
Groups
Sum
Mean
Variance
Apple
1320
4,970.
3.76515
20,400.
75
Microsoft
1320
4,284.
3.24545
15,352.
Total
2640
3.5053
1.25575
ANOVA
Source of
Variation
d.f.
SS
MS
F
Between
Groups
1
178.25606 178.25606
149.96461
Within
Groups
2638
3,135.6697
1.18865
Total
2639 3,313.92576
Test
Groups
p-level Accepted?
Apple vs
Microsoft
0.5197
17.31846
0.74605 rejected
plevel
F crit
Omega
Sqr.
0.E+0
10.85188
0.05341

Because Apple scored statistically significantly higher than its competitors in
every construct (and in every question), the overarching hypothesis signified that Apple
has a distinct relationship with its customers.
Thus with regard to the study hypothesis:
76
Hypothesis: There is significant difference between consumer loyalty of Apple

products and its competitors.
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference between consumer loyalty of
Apple products and its competitors.
The survey demonstrated that the null hypothesis can be rejected and the hypothesis that
there is significant difference between consumer loyalty of Apple products and its
competitors can be accepted.
Generational Differences
The survey was also broken down by generations: with Baby-boomers (born
before 1965), Generation Xers (born between 1965 and 1976) and Generation Yers (born
between 1977 and 1994). In the tables they are refer to as BB, GX, and GY. The purpose
of this breakdown was to identify how the different generations related their experiences
to the different companies. Analyses were done by both construct and individual question
at the 99.9% confidence level. Two-way ANOVA tests were run. This was followed by
three different tests for comparing the generations as a whole and then three were run
specifically for Apple. These tests consisted of Scheffe contrasts among pairs of means,
Bonferroni Test for Differences Between Means, and Fisher LSD.
Construct 1. Although there was statistical difference F > Fcritical (i.e. 33.959 >
6.915) for the generational difference and for the companies (248.122 > 4.622), there was
no statistical difference when the two factors were combined (3.067 < 3.271). With
regard to the comparisons among the groups (Factor 1 - Generations), the only area of
statistical differentiation was between Baby-boomers and Generation Yers. However,
concerning comparisons among groups of Factor 2 (Company) within each Factor 1
77
(Generation) with regard to Apple there was statistical difference among all three
generations.
Generation Xers averaged the highest for Apple with a score of 4.234. The
modes and the medians for the Generations with regard to Apple were the same (Mode =
5, Median = 4). Although all three generations demonstrated that their attachment to
Apple was significantly greater than the other companies, these statistics evinced that
those from Generation X had a greater propensity for organizational identification that
did the other generations.
Table 13
Construct 1 - Organizational identification- Two-way ANOVA
Summary
Response
Factor #1
Factor #2
Score
Generation
Company
Fixed
Fixed
Factor
Generation x Company
Generation
Group
BB x Apple
BB x Dell
BB x HP
BB x IBM
BB x
Microsoft
GX x Apple
GX x Dell
GX x HP
GX x IBM
GX x
Microsoft
GY x Apple
GY x Dell
GY x HP
GY x IBM
GY x
Microsoft
BB
Sample
size
652
652
652
652
Mean
4.158
3.192
3.235
3.064
Variance
0.895
1.098
0.994
0.767
Standard
Deviation
0.946
1.048
0.997
0.876
655
304
304
304
304
3.54
4.234
3.556
3.49
3.322
0.903
0.793
1.013
0.825
0.675
0.95
0.891
1.007
0.908
0.821
304
364
364
364
364
3.813
4.113
3.225
3.371
3.014
0.694
0.888
1.211
1.066
0.923
0.833
0.942
1.1
1.032
0.961
361
3263
3.77
3.438
0.95
1.084
0.975
1.041
78
Generation
Generation
Company
Company
Company
Company
Company
GX
GY
Apple
Dell
HP
IBM
Microsoft
1520
1817
1320
1320
1320
1320
1320
3.683
3.498
4.163
3.285
3.331
3.11
3.666
0.899
1.161
0.87
1.13
0.984
0.801
0.882
0.948
1.077
0.933
1.063
0.992
0.895
0.939
ANOVA
Source of Variation
SS
d.f.
Factor #1 (Generation)
62.633
Factor #2 (Company)
Factor #1 + #2
(Generation x
Company)
Within Groups
Total
Omega squared for
combined effect
915.272
MS
31.31
7
228.8
18
22.63
6,072.68
7,073.215
8
6585
6599
2.829
0.922
1.072
33.959
2.109E-15
248.122
0.E+0
F
crit
6.91
5
4.62
2
3.067
0.002
3.27
1
p-level
Omega
Sqr.
0.14
Table 14
Construct 1 - Organizational identification Generational differences
Scheffe contrasts among pairs of means
Group vs Group (Contrast)
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.245
-0.06
0.185
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.356
-0.134
-0.165
0.044
0.061
0.309
Test
Statistics
33.735
2.288
15.328
p-level
2.665E-15
0.102
0.
Test
Statistics
8.214
2.139
5.537
p-level
6.661E-16
0.097
0.
Bonferroni Test for Differences Between Means

Alpha/N
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
0.
Difference
-0.245
-0.06
0.185
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.352
-0.138
-0.161
0.041
0.065
0.305
Fisher LSD
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.245
-0.06
0.185
Test
Statistics
8.214
2.139
5.537
79
p-level
2.22E-16
0.032
0.
Accepted?
accepted
rejected
accepted
0.009
0.129
0.002
Table 15
Construct 1 - Organizational identification - Generational differences
Comparisons among groups of Factor 2 (Company) within each Factor 1 (Generation)
level
Factor 2 (Company) group 'Apple' comparisons
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.076
0.045
0.121
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.324
0.172
-0.188
0.279
-0.157
0.398
Test Statistics
0.642
0.26
1.313
plevel
0.526
0.771
0.269
Test Statistics
1.133
0.722
1.621
plevel
0.772
1.
0.315

Alpha/N
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
0.
Difference
-0.076
0.045
0.121
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.315
0.164
-0.18
0.271
-0.147
0.389
Fisher LSD
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.076
0.045
0.121
Test Statistics
1.133
0.722
1.621
p-level
0.257
0.471
0.105
Average
3.511
4.163
4.113
4.234
4.158
Mode
Median
4
4
4
4
4
Accepted?
rejected
rejected
rejected
Total All Companies
Total Apple
GY
GX
BB
3
5
5
5
5
Construct 2. This construct demonstrated statistical significance, F > Fcritical, for

the overall generational differences (34.768 > 6.915), for the companies (248.122 >
4.622), and when the two factors were combined (3.857 > 3.271). However, because the
Omega-squared is only .086, the effect is medium. With regard to the comparisons
among the groups (Factor 1 - Generations), the only area of statistical differentiation was
between Baby-boomers and Generation Yers. However, concerning comparisons among
80
groups of Factor 2 (Company) within each Factor 1 (Generation) with regard to Apple
there was statistical difference among all three generations.
5, Median = 4). Although all three generations demonstrated that they believed that
Apple was more approachable and responsive than the other companies, these statistics
evinced that those from Generation X had a greater propensity to believe that Apple was
more approachability and responsive than did the other generations.
Table 16
Construct 2 Approachability and responsiveness- Two-way ANOVA
Summary
Response
Factor #1
Factor #2
Score
Generation
Company
Fixed
Fixed
Group
BB x Apple
BB x Dell
BB x HP
BB x IBM
BB x Microsoft
GX x Apple
GX x Dell
GX x HP
GX x IBM
GX x Microsoft
GY x Apple
GY x Dell
GY x HP
GY x IBM
GY x Microsoft
BB
GX
GY
Apple
Dell
Sampl
e size
652
652
652
652
652
304
304
304
304
304
364
364
364
364
364
3260
1520
1820
1320
1320
Factor
Generation
Generation
Generation
Company
Company
81
Mean
3.995
3.184
3.235
3.121
3.336
4.013
3.569
3.497
3.372
3.628
3.832
3.302
3.379
3.181
3.536
3.374
3.616
3.446
3.955
3.305
Variance
0.969
1.038
0.908
0.724
0.859
0.871
0.906
0.726
0.578
0.657
1.043
1.121
0.809
0.705
0.922
1.
0.792
0.969
0.971
1.052
Standard
Deviation
0.985
1.019
0.953
0.851
0.927
0.933
0.952
0.852
0.76
0.81
1.022
1.059
0.899
0.84
0.96
1.
0.89
0.984
0.986
1.026
Company
Company
Company
HP
IBM
Microsoft
1320
1320
1320
3.335
3.195
3.458
0.849
0.694
0.844
0.921
0.833
0.919
d.f.
F
34.768
p-level
9.992E-16
F crit
6.915
Omega
Sqr.
0.009
134.083
0.E+0
4.622
0.074
3.857
0.
3.271
0.003
ANOVA
Source of Variation
Factor #2 (Company)
Factor #1 + #2
(Generation x
Company)
Within Groups
Total
Omega squared for
combined effect
SS
60.52
466.786
MS
30.26
116.6
96
26.856
5,731.138
6,285.299
8
6585
6599
3.357
0.87
0.952
0.086
Table 17
Construct 2 Approachability and responsiveness Generational differences
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.242
-0.072
0.17
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.349
-0.173
0.049
0.134
0.03
0.29
Test Statistics
34.75
3.471
13.693
p-level
9.992E-16
0.031
0.

Alpha/N
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
0.
Difference
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.242
-0.072
0.17
-0.346
-0.17
0.053
0.138
0.026
0.286
Difference
-0.242
-0.072
0.17
Test
Statistics
8.337
2.635
5.233
plevel
0.E+0
0.008
0.
Test Statistics
8.337
2.635
5.233
Fisher LSD
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
82
Accepted?
accepted
rejected
accepted
p-level
0.E+0
0.025
0.
Table 18
Construct 2 Approachability and responsiveness Generational differences
level
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.018
0.163
0.181
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.259
0.223
-0.064
0.39
-0.089
0.45
Test Statistics
0.038
3.565
3.109
plevel
0.963
0.028
0.045
Test Statistics
0.274
2.67
2.494
plevel
1.
0.023
0.038

Alpha/N
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
0.
Difference
-0.018
0.163
0.181
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.25
0.215
-0.056
0.382
-0.079
0.441
Fisher LSD
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.018
0.163
0.181
Test Statistics
0.274
2.67
2.494
p-level
0.784
0.008
0.013
Average
3.450
3.955
3.832
4.013
3.995
Mode
Median
3
4
4
4
4
Accepted?
rejected
rejected
rejected
Total All Companies
Total Apple
GY
GX
BB
3
5
5
5
5

the generational differences (44.187 > 6.915), for the companies (110.746 > 4.622), and
when the two factors were combined (4.638 > 3.271). However, because the Omegasquared is only .077, the affect is medium. With regard to the comparisons among the
groups (Factor 1 - Generations), the only area of statistical differentiation was between
Baby-boomers and Generation Yers. However, concerning comparisons among groups
of Factor 2 (Company) within each Factor 1 (Generation) with regard to Apple, the only
83
area of statistical difference among the generations was between Baby-boomers and
Generation Xers.
Generation Xers averaged the highest for Apple with a score of 4.082. Although
the medians for the three generations were the same, there was great variability amongst
the modes. The modes for Generation X and the Baby-boomers was at 5, while the
mode for Generation Y was at 3. These distinctions highlighted the variability
demarcating the three generations sharply.
Although Generation Yers still trust Apple significantly more than they did other
companies, their overall level of trust was less than the other generations. All three
generations demonstrated that they believed that Apple was more trustworthy than the
other companies with Generation Xers having the greatest propensity for this belief.
Table 19
Construct 3 - Trust- Two-way ANOVA
Summary
Response
Factor #1
Factor #2
Score
Generation
Company
Fixed
Fixed
Factor
Group
BB x Apple
BB x Dell
BB x HP
BB x IBM
BB x
Microsoft
GX x Apple
GX x Dell
GX x HP
GX x IBM
GX x
Microsoft
GY x Apple
GY x Dell
GY x HP
Sample
size
652
652
652
652
Mean
3.989
3.256
3.294
3.193
Variance
0.963
0.974
0.85
0.743
Standard
Deviation
0.981
0.987
0.922
0.862
652
304
304
304
304
3.416
4.082
3.645
3.526
3.49
0.839
0.789
0.83
0.752
0.594
0.916
0.888
0.911
0.867
0.771
304
364
364
364
3.74
3.769
3.349
3.47
0.635
1.12
1.104
0.812
0.797
1.058
1.051
0.901
84
Generation
Generation
Generation
Company
Company
Company
Company
Company
GY x IBM
GY x
Microsoft
BB
GX
GY
Apple
Dell
HP
IBM
Microsoft
364
3.198
0.754
0.868
364
3260
1520
1820
1320
1320
1320
1320
1320
3.599
3.43
3.697
3.477
3.95
3.371
3.396
3.263
3.541
0.919
0.956
0.763
0.979
0.979
0.999
0.826
0.726
0.831
0.958
0.978
0.874
0.989
0.989
1.
0.909
0.852
0.911
2
4
MS
37.877
94.931
F
44.187
110.746
p-level
0.E+0
0.E+0
F crit
6.915
4.622
Omeg
a Sqr.
0.012
0.061
8
6585
6599
3.976
0.857
0.929
4.638
0.
3.271
0.004
ANOVA
Source of Variation
Factor #2 (Company)
Factor #1 + #2
(Generation x
Company)
Within Groups
Total
Omega squared for
combined effect
SS
75.753
379.722
31.809
5,644.597
6,131.881
d.f.
0.077
Table 20
Construct 3 Trust Generational differences
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.267
-0.047
0.22
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.374
-0.16
-0.148
0.054
0.1
0.339
Test
Statistics
43.093
1.516
23.338
p-level
0.E+0
0.22
7.944E-11
Test
Statistics
9.284
1.741
6.832
p-level
0.E+0
0.245
2.737E-11

Alpha/N
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
0.
Difference
-0.267
-0.047
0.22
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.37
-0.164
-0.144
0.05
0.104
0.335
Fisher LSD
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.267
-0.047
0.22
Test
Statistics
9.284
1.741
6.832
85
p-level
0.E+0
0.082
9.122E-12
Accepted?
accepted
rejected
accepted
Table 21
Construct 3 Trust Generational differences
level
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.093
0.22
0.313
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.332
0.146
-0.005
0.445
0.045
0.581
Test Statistics
1.045
6.597
9.467
plevel
0.352
0.001
0.
Test Statistics
1.446
3.632
4.351
plevel
0.445
0.001
0.

Alpha/N
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
0.
Difference
-0.093
0.22
0.313
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.324
0.138
0.003
0.437
0.055
0.571
Fisher LSD
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.093
0.22
0.313
Test Statistics
1.446
3.632
4.351
p-level
0.148
0.
0.
Average
3.504
3.950
3.769
4.082
3.989
Mode
Median
3
4
4
4
4
Accepted?
rejected
accepted
accepted
Total All Companies
Total Apple
GY
GX
BB
3
5
3
5
5
no statistical difference when the two factors were combines (1.901 < 3.271). However,
because the Omega-squared is only .081, the effect is medium. With regard to the
comparisons among the groups (Factor 1 - Generations), the only area of statistical
differentiation was between Baby-boomers and Generation Yers. However, concerning
86
comparisons among groups of Factor 2 (Company) within each Factor 1 (Generation)

with regard to Apple there was statistical difference among all three generations.
5, Median = 4). Although all three generations demonstrated that they had experienced a
greater degree of group affiliation and socialization with Apple than the other companies,
these statistics evinced that those from Generation X had a greater propensity to believe
that Apple provided a more group oriented and socialized environment than did the other
generations.
Table 22
Construct 4 Group affiliation and socialization Two-way ANOVA
Summary
Response
Factor #1
Factor #2
Score
Generation
Company
Fixed
Fixed
Factor
Generation
Group
BB x Apple
BB x Dell
BB x HP
BB x IBM
BB x
Microsoft
GX x Apple
GX x Dell
GX x HP
GX x IBM
GX x
Microsoft
GY x Apple
GY x Dell
GY x HP
GY x IBM
GY x
Microsoft
BB
Sampl
e size
652
652
652
652
Mean
3.75
2.926
2.969
2.844
Variance
1.619
1.285
1.24
1.045
Standard
Deviation
1.273
1.134
1.114
1.022
652
304
304
304
304
3.192
3.918
3.342
3.253
3.158
1.224
1.152
1.19
1.008
0.813
1.106
1.073
1.091
1.004
0.902
304
364
364
364
364
3.49
3.739
2.934
3.157
2.898
0.931
1.532
1.34
1.295
1.056
0.965
1.238
1.158
1.138
1.027
364
3260
3.409
3.136
1.251
1.389
1.118
1.178
87
Generation
Generation
Company
Company
Company
Company
Company
GX
GY
Apple
Dell
HP
IBM
Microsoft
1520
1820
1320
1320
1320
1320
1320
3.432
3.227
3.786
3.024
3.086
2.931
3.32
1.087
1.391
1.491
1.306
1.215
1.009
1.179
d.f.
1.043
1.179
1.221
1.143
1.102
1.004
1.086
ANOVA
Source of Variation
Factor #2 (Company)
Factor #1 + #2
(Generation x Company)
Within Groups
Total
Omega squared for
combined effect
SS
90.863
619.359
MS
45.43
2
154.8
4
18.637
8,068.379
8,797.239
8
6585
6599
2.33
1.225
1.333
p-level
F crit
Omega
Sqr.
37.079
1.11E-16
6.915
0.01
126.372
0.E+0
4.622
0.07
1.901
0.055
3.271
0.001
0.081
Table 23
Construct 4 Group affiliation and socialization Generational differences
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.296
-0.091
0.205
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.424 -0.168
-0.212 0.029
0.062 0.348
Test Statistics
37.074
3.971
14.172
p-level
1.11E-16
0.019
0.
Test Statistics
8.611
2.818
5.324
p-level
0.E+0
0.015
0.

Alpha/N
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
0.
Difference
-0.296
-0.091
0.205
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.419 -0.173
-0.208 0.025
0.067 0.343
Fisher LSD
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.296
-0.091
0.205
Test Statistics
8.611
2.818
5.324
88
plevel
0.E+0
0.005
0.
Accepted?
accepted
rejected
accepted
Table 24
Construct 4 Group affiliation and socialization Generational differences
level
Factor 2 (Company) group Apple comparisons
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.168
0.011
0.179
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.454
0.118
-0.258
0.28
-0.141
0.499
Test Statistics
2.381
0.012
2.16
plevel
0.093
0.989
0.115
Test Statistics
2.182
0.152
2.078
plevel
0.087
1.
0.113

Alpha/N
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
0.
Difference
-0.168
0.011
0.179
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.444
0.108
-0.249
0.271
-0.13
0.487
Fisher LSD
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.168
0.011
0.179
Test Statistics
2.182
0.152
2.078
p-level
0.029
0.879
0.038
Average
3.230
3.786
3.739
3.918
3.750
Mode
Median
3
4
4
4
4
Accepted?
rejected
rejected
rejected
Total All Companies
Total Apple
GY
GX
BB
3
5
5
5
5
no statistical difference when the two factors were combines (2.06 < 3.271). However,
because the Omega-squared is only .101, the effect is medium. With regard to the
comparisons among the groups (Factor 1 Generations), there was no statistical
difference with regard to the generational differences. However, concerning comparisons
among groups of Factor 2 (Company) within each Factor 1 (Generation) with regard to
Apple there was statistical difference among all three generations.
89
5, Median = 4). The three generations demonstrated that they had experienced a greater
degree identification and sense of belonging with Apple than with the other companies.
The statistics also evinced that those from Generation X had experienced a greater degree
of identification and sense of belonging than did the other generations.
Table 25
Construct 5 Identification and sense of belonging Two-way ANOVA
Summary
Response
Factor #1
Factor #2
Score
Generation
Company
Fixed
Fixed
Factor
Generation
Generation
Generation
Company
Company
Company
Company
Company
Group
BB x Apple
BB x Dell
BB x HP
BB x IBM
BB x
Microsoft
GX x Apple
GX x Dell
GX x HP
GX x IBM
GX x
Microsoft
GY x Apple
GY x Dell
GY x HP
GY x IBM
GY x
Microsoft
BB
GX
GY
Apple
Dell
HP
IBM
Microsoft
Sample
size
652
652
652
652
Mean
3.666
2.827
2.925
2.788
Variance
1.298
0.979
0.902
0.803
Standard
Deviation
1.139
0.99
0.95
0.896
652
304
304
304
304
3.146
3.905
3.391
3.303
3.207
0.923
1.011
0.912
0.872
0.759
0.961
1.005
0.955
0.934
0.871
304
364
364
364
364
3.612
3.717
3.038
3.159
2.953
0.733
1.223
1.211
1.192
0.97
0.856
1.106
1.1
1.092
0.985
364
3260
1520
1820
1320
1320
1320
1320
1320
3.429
3.07
3.484
3.259
3.735
3.015
3.077
2.93
3.331
1.133
1.084
0.917
1.221
1.218
1.076
0.999
0.865
0.974
1.064
1.041
0.958
1.105
1.104
1.037
0.999
0.93
0.987
ANOVA
90
Source of Variation
SS
d.f.
181.467
Factor #2 (Company)
Factor #1 + #2
Within Groups
Total
Omega squared for
combined effect
559.481
MS
90.73
4
139.8
7
16.446
6,572.167
7,329.561
8
6585
6599
2.056
0.998
1.111
p-level
F crit
Omega
Sqr.
90.911
0.E+0
6.915
0.024
140.143
0.E+0
4.622
0.076
2.06
0.036
3.271
0.001
0.101
Table 26
Construct 5 Identification and sense of belonging Generational differences
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.413
-0.189
0.224
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.529 -0.298
-0.298
-0.08
0.095
0.353
Test Statistics
88.715
20.922
20.859
plevel
0.E+0
0.
0.
Test Statistics
13.32
6.469
6.459
plevel
0.E+0
0.
0.

Alpha/N
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
0.
Difference
-0.413
-0.189
0.224
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.525 -0.302
-0.294 -0.084
0.1
0.349
Fisher LSD
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.413
-0.189
0.224
Test Statistics
13.32
6.469
6.459
plevel
0.E+0
0.
0.
Accepted?
accepted
accepted
accepted
Table 27
Construct 5 Identification and sense of belonging Generational differences
level
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.239
-0.051
0.188
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.497
0.019
-0.294
0.192
-0.101
0.476
91
Test Statistics
5.931
0.309
2.92
plevel
0.003
0.734
0.054

Alpha/N
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
0.
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.488
0.01
-0.286
0.183
-0.091
0.466
Difference
-0.239
-0.051
0.188
Test Statistics
3.444
0.786
2.417
plevel
0.002
1.
0.047
Fisher LSD
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.239
-0.051
0.188
Test Statistics
3.444
0.786
2.417
p-level
0.001
0.432
0.016
Average
3.218
3.735
3.717
3.905
3.666
Mode
Median
3
4
4
4
4
Accepted?
rejected
rejected
rejected
Total All Companies
Total Apple
GY
GX
BB
3
5
5
5
5

the generational differences (63.983 > 6.915), for the companies (157.198 > 4.622), and
when the two factors were combined (3.435 > 3.271). However, because the Omegasquared is only .105, the affect is medium. With regard to the comparisons among the
groups (Factor 1 - Generations), there was no statistical difference with regard to the
generational differences. However, concerning comparisons among groups of Factor 2
(Company) within each Factor 1 (Generation) with regard to Apple there was statistical
difference among all three generations.
Generation Xers averaged the highest for Apple with a score of 3.931. Although
the medians for the three generations were the same, there was great variability amongst
the modes. The modes for Generation X and the Baby-boomers was at 5, while the
mode for Generation Y was at 3. These distinctions highlighted the variability
demarcating the three generations sharply.
92
Although Generation Yers still proselytized Apple significantly more than they
did other companies, their overall level of word-of mouth evangelizing was less than the
other generations. All three generations demonstrated that they participated in the
promulgation of Apple products more than they did with the other companies with
Generation Xers having the greatest propensity for this action.
Table 28
Construct 6 Proselytizing - Two-way ANOVA
Summary
Response
Factor #1
Factor #2
Score
Generation
Company
Fixed
Fixed
Factor
Generation
Generation
Generation
Company
Company
Company
Company
Company
Group
BB x Apple
BB x Dell
BB x HP
BB x IBM
BB x
Microsoft
GX x Apple
GX x Dell
GX x HP
GX x IBM
GX x
Microsoft
GY x Apple
GY x Dell
GY x HP
GY x IBM
GY x
Microsoft
BB
GX
GY
Apple
Dell
HP
IBM
Microsoft
Sample
size
652
652
652
652
Mean
3.733
2.814
2.919
2.707
Variance
1.431
1.19
1.089
0.908
Standard
Deviation
1.196
1.091
1.043
0.953
652
304
304
304
304
3.031
3.931
3.286
3.22
3.069
1.127
1.008
1.109
0.978
0.824
1.061
1.004
1.053
0.989
0.908
304
364
364
364
364
3.516
3.684
2.984
3.184
2.838
0.864
1.208
1.361
1.214
1.018
0.93
1.099
1.166
1.102
1.009
364
3260
1520
1820
1320
1320
1320
1320
1320
3.404
3.041
3.405
3.219
3.765
2.97
3.061
2.827
3.245
1.079
1.279
1.044
1.264
1.279
1.252
1.116
0.938
1.098
1.039
1.131
1.022
1.124
1.131
1.119
1.056
0.969
1.048
MS
71.15
F
63.983
p-level
0.E+0
ANOVA
Source of Variation
SS
142.306
d.f.
2
93
F crit
6.915
Omega
Sqr.
0.017
Factor #2 (Company)
Factor #1 + #2
Within Groups
Total
Omega squared for
combined effect
699.254
3
174.8
13
30.559
7,322.894
8,195.013
8
6585
6599
3.82
1.112
1.242
157.198
0.E+0
4.622
0.085
3.435
0.001
3.271
0.003
0.105
Table 29
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.364
-0.178
0.186
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.486 -0.242
-0.293 -0.063
0.05
0.322
Test Statistics
61.691
16.617
12.873
plevel
0.E+0
0.
0.
Test Statistics
11.108
5.765
5.074
plevel
0.E+0
0.
0.

Alpha/N
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
0.
Difference
-0.364
-0.178
0.186
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.481 -0.246
-0.289 -0.067
0.054
0.317
Fisher LSD
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.364
-0.178
0.186
Test Statistics
11.108
5.765
5.074
p-level
0.E+0
0.
0.
Accepted?
accepted
accepted
accepted
Table 30
level
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.198
0.049
0.247
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.47
0.075
-0.208
0.306
-0.058
0.552
Test Statistics
3.647
0.253
4.539
plevel
0.026
0.777
0.011
Test Statistics
plevel

Alpha/N
0.
Difference
99.9% Confidence
Interval
94
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
-0.198
0.049
0.247
-0.461
-0.199
-0.047
0.065
0.297
0.541
Difference
-0.198
0.049
0.247
Test Statistics
2.701
0.711
3.013
p-level
0.007
0.477
0.003
Average
3.174
3.765
3.684
3.931
3.733
Mode
Median
3
4
4
4
4
2.701
0.711
3.013
0.021
1.
0.008
Fisher LSD
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Accepted?
rejected
rejected
rejected
Total All Companies
Total Apple
GY
GX
BB
3
5
3
5
5
Generational breakdown demonstrates that while the three generations exhibited

significantly higher scores for Apple than other tech companies, there were relative
differences between the generations that were contrary to established generational
dogma. For example, with regard to Construct 1, traditionally Baby-boomers are the most
organizationally loyal with the highest level of organizational commitment, and are the
least likely to jump to another company (Schoch, 2012; Simons, 2010; Petroulas,
Brown, & Sundin, 2010). Yet even though all three generations demonstrated that their
attachment level to Apple was significantly greater than the other companies, in this
study it was Generation Xers who exhibited the largest level of organizational
commitment and identification.
Construct 2 is concerned with approachability and responsiveness. Normally,
Generation Xers are considered the most independent and would be the least likely of the
three generations to voice their concerns (Schoch, 2012; Petroulas, Brown, & Sundin,
2010). However, even though all three generations demonstrated that they believed that
Apple was more approachable and responsive than the other companies, these statistics
95
evinced that those from Generation X had a greater propensity to believe that Apple was
more approachability and responsive than did the other generations.
Construct 3 is based on trust. One would believe that Generation Yers would have
scored highest because they are most trustful of organizations (Petroulas, Brown, &
Sundin, 2010). In fact, Generation Xers are usually associated with being the least trustful
(Schoch, 2012; Simons, 2010). However, in this study it was the Generation Xers who
had the highest average score for Apple. In fact, concerning this construct even though
the median for all three generations for Apple was a 4 Generation Yers scored a mode
that was lower than the median (3), while the other generations scored modes higher
than the median (5), which demonstrated that Generation Yers were less likely to
trust Apple compared to the other generations.
Construct 4 is concerned with group affiliation and socialization, which are areas
often associated with Baby-boomers and Generation Yers (Schoch, 2012; Petroulas,
Brown, & Sundin, 2010). In fact, Generation Xers are usually associated with the least
need for socialization and approval (Petroulas, Brown, & Sundin, 2010; Macon & Artley,
2009). However, in this study, even though all three generations demonstrated a greater
degree of group affiliation and socialization with Apple than the other companies, the
Generation Xers had a greater propensity to believe that Apple provided the most group
oriented and socialized environment.
Construct 5 is concerned with identification and sense of belonging. In general,
Baby-boomers are less affiliated although they like to exchange ideas and information,
and Generation Yers identify with and like being part of a group (Petroulas, Brown, &
Sundin, 2010). This contrasts generation Xers who are more fiercely independent.
96
However, even though the three generations demonstrated that they have experienced a
greater degree identification and sense of belonging with Apple than the other companies,
in this study it was the Generation Xers who believed that Apple provided the greatest
level of identification and sense of belonging.
Construct 6 deals with prosthelytizing. One would expect the Baby-boomers to
render high scores because of their innate idealism and for Generation Yers to render
high scores because their technological savvy and use of social networking (Schoch,
2012). However, even though all three generations demonstrated a greater degree of
prosthelytizing for Apple than the other companies, it was the Generation Xers who
scored the highest. In fact, although all three had the same median score for Apple (4),
the Generation Yers had a mode score lower then the mean (3), while the other two had
mode scores that were higher than the median (5), which demonstrated that Generation
Yers were less likely to evangelize for Apple compared to the other generations.
Repeating an earlier note, it is important to keep in mind that Apple scored
significantly higher in every category regarding the six constructs for all three
generations compared to the other four companies in this study. These generational
differences address issues, which are relative in this context. The fact that Generation
Xers scored higher than the other two generations in these areas demonstrates that Apple
has been more successful fulfilling the loyalty constructs for that generation. This could
be for many reasons. The purpose of this mixed method study was to describe the
phenomenon of true attitudinal loyalty of consumers toward a specific business (i.e.
Apple). Further generational studies would be best addressed by a separate study.
97
Qualitative Interview Analysis

The individuals interviewed for this study come from diverse backgrounds and
age brackets. Three participants were Generation Yers (born 1977 through 1994), three
participants were Generation Xers (born 1965 through 1976), three participants were
Baby-boomers (born 1946 through 1964), and one was from the Silent Generation (born
1925 through 1945). This was not done intentionally, but referrals recruited from the
aforementioned organizations allowed for a diverse cross-generational pool. The
participants backgrounds were also quite diverse.
The participant roster (by pseudonym):
Brock - a recent high school graduate who is of mixed ancestry (non-Caucasian).
Brian - an architect who is of Asian ancestry.
Amber - a Hispanic former designer graduate now working in customer service in
telecommunications.
Dean - a Caucasian retail general manager.
Carl - a Caucasian engineering supervisor.
Denyse - a Hispanic operations manager and MBA now working for a major
healthcare network.
Stanley - an African-American recent college graduate in sciences now returning
to school to obtain his masters degree in education.
Ashleigh - a Caucasian former art school major she is now working in the music
and art industries.
Karen - an accountant of Italian ancestry.
98
Graham - an 82-year-old retired engineer, and a member of two local Mac Users
Groups (MUG).
These volunteers have different connections with Apple in that they purchased
different products for different reasons. Procurement of their products ranged from
buying online (either directly from Apple or through a third party), buying from an Apple
Store, and buying through a third party retailer. This diversity was important because it
helped indentify product versus personal attributes of their Apple experiences.
In addition to identifying what products the volunteers recently purchased (as well
as their current cache of Apple products) and before deciphering how each participant
related to the six fandom constructs, the volunteers were asked about: (1) what they
believed made Apple products different from other products, (2) if they considered other
products, (3) in what manner they procured information to aid in their purchase decision
(and how pleased were they about their decision), (4) the frequency of use of their
products, and (5) their beliefs about the perceived technological advantage of Apple
products. These questions set the backdrop for the construct questions by deciphering the
framework in which the volunteer interacted with Apple and its products.
All of the participants had purchased an Apple product during the last calendar
year. All were also repeat customers with the exception of Stanley who had never
purchased an Apple product before that time. Stanley had no iPhone, iPad, or iPod, and
his first Apple purchase was a MacBook Air. The rest of the participants made their
purchases because of their previous experiences with their Apple products. It did not
matter that they bought a completely different product, as the Apple name carried with it
a kind of brand-cache that was transferable to other Apple products. Deans experience
99
typifies this as he said he would not consider any other MP3 player besides the iPod
because he was so pleased with his iMac. Dean added, I think if they (i.e. Apple) made a
refrigerator, I'd probably buy an Apple refrigerator because I would think that it would be
done right.
This perception had its geneses in many areas. When asked about what they
believed were Apples perceived technological advantages, answers included: (1) overall
quality, (2) design, (3) marketing, (4) cohesiveness and (5) standardization of the
hardware and software, (6) resistance to malware and viruses, (7) navigation, and (8) ease
of use. Many of these elements seemed to be derived from either generational differences
and experiences or from the background differences themselves.
With regard to quality, Denyse summarized the feelings of most saying, I think
it's the fact that you know you're going to get a good quality product. That's the first thing
that comes to mind. You know you're going to spend a good chunk of change, but what
you're going to get is going to meet your expectations. This element of quality reflects
an element of dependability. This aligns well with Denyses background in operations, as
she sees dependability as a primary construct of quality. In contrast, Stanley defined
quality differently. He noted that quality was a measure of design and functionality using
as an example, I think their keyboards are designed to be (better) ergonomically. Thus
the construct of quality expanded beyond mere durability and reliability but extended
to better design enhancing the user experience.
Design was mentioned by several participants but alluded to different attributes.
As previous noted, Stanley connoted design in terms of quality, but others attributed
design to other attributes. For example, Dean and Brian attributed design to ease-of-use
100
and system navigation, while Ashleigh equated design to the very high quality of the
way it looks and Amber added, I just think they're easier to use. In my opinion, the
design is very clean. Ashleigh and Ambers input was interesting in that both have
backgrounds in design and art and noting that the design-quality element was on the
forefront with regard to how they described Apples difference from its competitors was
significant. In their experiences, design equated with ease-of-use. In contrast, Stanley and
Brian have backgrounds in the hard science and they see the design-functionality
continuum through a different prism. Yet, despite these differences in backgrounds there
were no contradictions in evaluating quality and design. Nobody thought that another
company did better in these areas than Apple.
Marketing was mentioned by several participants but was specifically attested to
by those who dealt in this area. Karen was an accountant for an entertainment industry
company, and she saw the Apple difference from its competition through a different lens.
Karen noted, I don't know if its the demographics or the way they approach their
marketing but they seem to get (using air quotes) their listeners, their fans, their
followers attention, even new people, more (than their competitors). Karens description
represents the notion identified by all the participants that Apple has a deep
understanding of who are its customers, what do they want, and how will they use their
technology in the future. Several participants described this belief using different terms,
such as get, understand, and relate and would also account for why Apple designs
its products for intuitive usability. This is also expressed in how Apple markets its
products.
101
Apples marketing is very efficient at getting its message across. Concerning how
Apple see itself, Dean posited, We make the best and you're going to buy the best. So if
you want to buy the best, you're going to buy our product, and were not going to be
ashamed of it. Were not going to hide behind it, this is what it is. This braggadocio and
swagger is unique in the electronics industry, and Apples fans are drawn to this
confidence.
The older engineers in the group took a more forensic approach to the question of
Apple technological advantages. Carl, an engineering supervisor, spoke of Apples
standardizing on both its hardware and software noting, it standardized the hardware
platform in order to make the software perform at optimal conditions and focus on its
functionality rather than them being universal and able to support all hardware
platforms. Graham, a retired engineer from the aerospace industry, opined similarly
noting that Apples control of its closed system also helped minimize malware problems
as well. On the other end of the spectrum, Brock, the youngest volunteer and a recent
high school graduate, spoke of how well the hardware and software integrated with the
other Apple programs. He gave an example of how he had a problem with his iPod
Touch. He called Apples customer service and they walked him through the steps
necessary to fix his problem. In short, he had to re-format his device, but because
everything was already backed up on iTunes he did not lose any data, programs, music,
or videos. In post-interview conversations all of the other participants knew of this
iTunes/back-up connection, but because of the way Brock interacts with his Apple
products (i.e. primarily with movies, music, and iPod apps) only for him was this an
important aspect of the user experience.
102
With regard to resistance to malware and viruses, all believed that this was a
distinct advantage for Apple, but this attribute was at the forefront primarily for those
from the Baby-Boomer and the Silent Generation eras. Although most understood that
this was because those who wrote viruses would get more bang for the buck in writing
such programs for Windows instead of Macs, others attributed this characteristic to
Apples closed system. This was especially important for everyone who had dealt with
virus and spyware problems before. As Karen noted,
The one thing that I love more than anything is I've had the Dell and the
Microsoft and on my home computers I've ALWAYS gotten a virus. Never fails,
it doesn't matter what, I've always gotten a virus and the fact that all the years my
parents have had an Apple computer they've never gotten a virus. That feels good,
because you lose so much information and so much money wasting with those
viruses.
Of all the elements that these volunteers put forth, by far the most important
characteristic was ease-of-use of their products. Ashleigh noted, Apple is something
that's very easy to use and it is user-friendly; Brock continued, Macs are reliable. Macs
will get it done and will do it pretty easily; Dean opined, it's super easy to work with;
Karen, Apple has made it very easy for the user; Amber, I really liked it. I thought it
was very easy-to-useits handy; Carl, it is very intuitive; Denyse, it was just really
easy-to-use. I know exactly just from an end-user perspective it was very intuitive; and
Graham used easy-to-use eight times in his description attributing this adjective to the
operating system, the navigation, the software, the initial set-up, adding devices, the user
experience, and even turning it on. Brian; however, had the most interesting example of
103
how intuitive and progressive is the learning with the Apple products. He described how
his brother, who has a learning disability, figured out how to use the iPad all by himself.
This learning later translated to his iPhone as he learned the functions by simply using the
device. For many, this path to simplicity began in the Apple Store and the experiences
they had with the staff and the products. Participants said they were encouraged to play
with the products ensuring them that they would not break them and they were exhorted
to continue to ask questions. This enabled a learning environment without fear as user
confidence grew and the participants were emboldened to try their products. As Stanley
noted, it was a positive experience that resulted in Stanley buying a product he felt was
right for him. This environment helps reduce anxiety that often is the inhibiting factor in
switching from one product to another. Karen typifies this archetype, which is why her
experience was quite different. She said several times that she was an individual who did
not like change and was reluctant to try Apple products (primarily the Mac) noting, as a
matter fact I was a naysayer for many years because I do not like different, I do not like
change, and I grew up with Microsoft. It (Apple) was intimidating to me. The ease-ofuse of the Mac made it more comfortable resulting in, I'm not intimidated by it
anymore.
Although different generations experience Apple products differently, consumers
of Apple products define their interaction with their devices as experiential often
describing the platitudes with a sort of reverence that few other product or service
organizations develop with their customers. For these people, Apple is the current
zeitgeist. Other tech companies are not necessarily demeaned, but rather are somewhat
left in the wake of Apples connection with its customers. The participants had no
104
contradictory experiences (i.e. one did not have a good experience at an Apple Store
while another had a bad experience) but each had their own unique experience with
Apple, which was reflected in their background, education, and age.
The following describes the experiences with regard to the six constructs. These
questions mirrored those in the survey, aligning fandom with the isomorphic
characteristics expressed through the different constructs.
Organizational Identification
This question pertained to the self-identification of how each participant saw his
or herself in the fandom continuum. When asked, Do you consider yourself an Apple
fan? The answers had a wide response range from, Yes, absolutely, to outright, No.
At first this may seem surprising as their experiences with Apple would seem to indicate
that their Apple experiences were, by in large, very good. The follow-up question helped
decipher this apparent contradiction. Participants were then asked, What do you think of
when you hear the term, Apple fan? Participant definitions of this question clarified
what they meant when they said they were not fans. Denyse, who did not identify herself
as an Apple fan put it, I probably picture the cars that have the Apple logo on them.
Carl built upon this premise saying, To me, it would be an Apple fanatic and a person
that only believes in Apple products, and everything else is irrelevant, and more hardcore term. Graham called them Diehards. In contrast, Karen, who described herself as
a beginning Apple fan answered, Someone who likes their Apple products. Dean
aped this opinion noting, I just think it's someone that actually likes how user-friendly
the product is. These answers are very similar to sports fans in that some fans will go to
a football game in sub-zero weather painting their bodies the same color as their favorite
105
team, and screaming at everyone as loud as they can, while others will watch a game if it
is on TV and will read about their team in the local newspapers sports section, but will
not forsake the comforts of home just to demonstrate how they support their team. This
type of fandom is a continuum and aligns with Pimentel and Kristy (2004) description of
various types of commitment. For some, it is a sort of, I am a fan, but not like that
zealous nut who paints his body and shaves the teams initials into his scalp. Others in
the continuum simply have a different definition of fandom. Interestingly, every
participant said they knew personally individuals who were zealots, diehards,
cultists, Apple snobs, and wore Apple or Mac insignias on their clothing, or had
them on their cars.
This line of attachment and organizational identification was further clarified
when the participants were asked if they believed there was a coolness factor
associated with Apple products. Nine of the ten participants believed that there was
definitely a coolness factor. Definitely was used on six occasions and the rest were
unhesitating about their response. Interestingly, the only one who gave a benign answer
was Dean, who is an open Apple advocate. Dean watches TV very infrequently and he is
the least technologically savvy of the group. Although he used the term cool more than
anyone to describe Apple and his experience, he believed it was no more cool to own
an Apple product than any other product an individual may buy. However, when asked if
he believes that others believe it was cool to own an Apple product, he responded,
yes, whole heartedly.
Coolness had many definitions to the participants. Karen described the attribute
of exclusivity as the Hey, look at me factor while Brian ascribed coolness as an
106
exemplar with exclusivity. Stanley aligned coolness when he described the atmosphere
when the iPhone 5 came out and people were camping out in front of the Apple Store. He
compared the environment there as if people were there in line to get Rolling Stones
concert tickets. It was not just the anticipation of the product but also the cool
experience of being there. Graham similarly mentioned the atmosphere in Silicon Valley
when Apple releases its new products. Carl mentioned how cool the products were to
use. He saw coolness as being able to do things that no one else could do. Brock talked
about how when friends have other new products, like Android phones, his peers just do
not get that excited about them even though they are very good products. Brock noted,
Whenever my friends get a new, say, iPhone, everyone hears about it. I can have
multiple friends having an iPhone but even now even though the iPhone has been out for
a while when somebody gets an iPhone everyone hears about it. Denyse; however, sees
the coolness as a result of their advertising campaigns. She noted,
It was all their marketing campaigns and how they were able to come up even
with those(pause) I don't know if you remember those commercials where was
the silhouette and they did this whole campaign where the silhouette was a
celebrity and all you saw was the white headphones and the iPod or whatever
it was they were pushing at that point. It just became a cool factor. Like the fact
that they were able to get celebrities to support them and it was just like
everybody it felt like everywhere you turned somebodys talking about Apple so I
think it did become trendy.
Ashleigh described the dynamics of Apple and its customers in the context with
Microsoft. In the Im a Mac commercials with Justin Long, one sees the contrast of the
107
cool guy (i.e. Justin as the Mac) along side the kind-of-nerdy-but-always-a-couple-ofsteps-behind PC guy. In the commercials, Mac does not hate or insult PC and, in fact,
there are elements of pity and empathy for PC as messages are that Windows is slower,
gets viruses, breaks promises, is cumbersome (i.e. cancel or allow), does not connect
well with other hardware (i.e. language barriers), and so forth. In short, the
commercials portray that Mac is cool and Windows is not. Macs customers identify
with the cool Justin because he is likeable and just better than his friend, the PC. For
some, like Ashleigh they are uncomfortable with products that make them cool or not,
while others like Brock are very comfortable with aligning themselves with Apples
coolness.
Consequently, Apple has been more successful getting its customers to experience
a greater level of organizational attachment than its competitors. The participants in the
interviews self-identify themselves as Apple fans, though their identification varies along
a continuum or degree. There is a dimension of coolness that all identified, each
according to their personal interactions and experiences. Although some are weary of this
attachment, each is comfortable about their apperception.
Approachability and Responsiveness
Approachability and responsiveness has to do with how a company responds to
consumer problems and consumer voice. That is, do customers feel that if there is a
problem will they be taken care of and do customers feel that their complaints are taken
seriously? Three questions were asked concerning this construct: (1) Have you had
experience dealing directly with Apple (e.g. the Apple Store, Customer Service through
the telephone or online, and tech support)? If so, can you give me an example of what
108
happened? (2) How were you treated? What makes you think that? and (3) What are
your experiences with regard to sales and tech support from other tech companies? And
how would they compare with Apple?
Although none of the participants had any bad experiences with Apple, the
individuals who demonstrated the most passionate responses were the ones who dealt
with the Apple Stores. Carl, Brian, and Ashleigh procured their products either through
another outlet (e.g. Costco or Best Buy) and their experiences with Apples sales and tech
support were very limited. Interestingly, although these three have little formal
interaction with Apple sales and service, each mentioned that they had still gone to Apple
Stores and found their experiences cool, meaning that they got to play with all the
devices and have fun. For the rest; however, they held Apple in extremely high regard,
and had stories that illustrated their shopping experiences.
Stanley, for example, liked how the Apple salesman spoke his language. He felt
that the salesman was more interested in ensuring that Stanley got the right product that
fit his needs best rather than just making the sale. He also mentioned how he liked how
it was rung up (i.e. with the Apple handheld device). Dean, who has been in retail for two
decades, admired the approach that his salesman took. Dean described the excessively
busy atmosphere and environment when a salesman approached him while Dean was
looking at a particular computer. Dean continued,
When he saw us looking at the computer (he) came up and asked a great question,
What brings you in today? And when he asked that particular question, it
opened the door to, Hey, you know this is what I was looking for?
109
Dean said he appreciated the personable no-pressure atmosphere and how Apple
had free available training classes. Dean also noticed that this conduct was indigenous not
only to his sales associate but was also prevalent with all the other associates. Interaction
with the display devices was encouraged even for the toddlers who were there.
Denyse, Graham, and Karen and Brock all had problems with an Apple product
but they were very pleased with how Apple took take of their problems. Previous
experiences and a level of expectation were typified by Deans comment, Apple
products are the best, and if there is a problem, Apple WILL take care of it set this forth.
Simple as that. A few contrasted their experiences with those of their friends in that
problems were either immediately taken care of or in a matter of a couple of days. Brian
and Stanley mentioned other friends in which it took other tech companies over two
months to get their machine fixed. This was especially troublesome with Brians
classmate who took a graphics class and a laptop was required for his 10-week course
and the two-month wait for the repair of his laptop made the class practically useless.
Brock had a problem with his iPhone Touch and had to call tech support. Brock
appreciated how they spoke his language at his level and they helped him fix his problem
quickly. Brock then added that he also liked the way that if there is a problem Apple has
an auto-report that notifies the company of possible problems. Brock continued,
I even, like, had a back-and-forth communication between them directly but if
something ever does glitch you can immediately send a report so Ive sent a report
and it's just a click away. It sends the problem about the bug, and they get onto
fixing it. It's pretty convenient.
110
The best example on how these interactions can affect short-term and long-term
loyalty came from Amber. She had a girlfriend who had an iPhone and went from either
Verizon to AT&T or from AT&T to Verizon, she could not remember. Amber had
another friend (a young man) who worked at the Apple Store (Ambers two friends were
previously unacquainted). While dealing with the problem of compatibility her girlfriend
kept being bounced around between the two phone companies with each blaming the
other for her problem. Eventually she went to the Apple Store even though she knew it
was not Apples problem or fault. She asked the Apple Store employee (i.e. Ambers
male friend) if he could help. The Apple employee informed her that this was more a
phone company issue. The iPhone user then told him that they (i.e. the phone companies)
would not help resolve this, but if he could do ANYTHING she would be appreciative.
He asked if she had some time because it could take a while and she replied that she had
all day. The Apple employee came back a little over an hour later with her problem
solved. To say she was elated would be a gross understatement. Because of her
experience she will not buy anything but Apple products and she is an open advocate for
the company and its products. When asked about why he did this, the Apple Store
associate responded, Even though she knew that it was not Apples fault, we did not
want Apple to be associated with her negative experience. I got permission and we fixed
the problem. That is what we do.
With regard to the experience with other tech companies, none of the participants
had much to say either positive or negative. The most relevant comparisons were from
Graham and Karen who felt that the salesmen from other companies were more interested
in selling them products rather than ensuring that they got the right product for their
111
needs and usages. Brian commented about Wal-Mart saying that the store seemed to sell
older equipment and that finding a knowledgeable salesperson there would be an
oxymoron.
In general, other than the timeframes for equipment to get their devices fixed,
there were few comments about Apples competition. The participants held no animosity
toward any of Apples competitors, but seemed to relish their interaction with Apple.
During the interviews, the body language of each of the participants who dealt with the
Apple Store became more animated. Hand and arm gestures, open palms, greater
fluctuations in voice pace and pitch, and other physical enthusiastic manifestations were
more ebullient when the participants spoke of their Apple experiences. These individual
interactions meant a lot to them and enhanced their experience beyond the transactional
and into the transformational. It became clear that these participants had developed a
connection with Apple exhibiting attitudinal loyalty attributes both verbally and nonverbally. Historically, the direct to consumer computer stores like the Gateway Store and
the Dell Store have come and gone, as have numerous electronics dealers that sold
computers (e.g. Circuit City, Comp USA, Future Shop, Egghead, the Silo, and so forth).
Yet, none established any lasting or memorable experience with the participants. It is
interesting that Apple took this format and created competitive advantage by using the
Apple Stores to develop personal relationships with its customers. This is because
customers equate loyalty to the individual salesman with loyalty to the company
(Palmatier, Scheer, & Steenkamp, 2007). This helped develop the following construct of
trust.
112
Trust
Asking about how the participants felt about trust was purposely open-ended to
see what areas they would relate their answers. A couple of participants asked for
clarification but for the rest their responses were immediate and affirmative - they had a
great deal of trust in Apple products. What was different was that each had their own idea
or definition when the question was asked, What level of trust do you have with Apple
products? Despite the fact that Amber had some glitches with her current iPhone she
was quick saying, I completely trust them. I have a high level of trust. Karen, Brian,
and Ashleigh coupled their trust with how they had been treated in the past. They believe
Apple to be very reliable, but if there is a problem Apple will resolve it quickly and to
their satisfaction. Graham said he would give them an A mark. Carl, the engineer
who thoroughly researches every technology product he procures, has a lot of trust
because of past experiences, current designs and engineering, and the reputation of
outstanding quality.
Brock depicted Apple on a different level, indicating a level of faith beyond the
transactional aspect. It is a sort of blind trust normally associated with individuals with
whom we can count on. Brock responded, I'd say my full trust, if I didnt trust them I
would be reading every single word of the contracts they send but I usually just hit
agree because I know they're not trying to scam me or rip me off or anything.
When trust is developed in the consumer-organization relationship, it allows for
better communication and increased advocacy, which increases re-purchase behaviors
and behavioral habits (Hikkerova, 2011). Not all of the participants expressed an
emotional connection, but rather a commitment that they felt was reciprocated.
113
Group Affiliation and Socialization

The questions associated with this construct dealt primarily with how Apple
presents itself and if Apples following is loyal. For example, is there an individual
identity that is associated with Apple fans, and how do the participants relate to and
respond to that?
There were two main approaches to answering these questions. One approach saw
this through the lens of advertising. Some harkened this to the commercials and the
comparisons of Apple with PC. For the rest; however, there was more to it than just
Apples commercials but Apples comprehensive approach to how it wants to be seen.
Apples image is a mixed bag of being always on the cutting edge of technology; fun and
excitement; approachable, competency, and knowledge of the salespeople; a toy-like
atmosphere in its Apple Stores; and the inclusive conductivity of all their products
through the computers, the iPhones, FaceTime, iTunes, and other avenues, which
enhance users social capabilities. Dean opined that, I think they present themselves as,
We are the best at what we do, and if you're going to buy from us you're going to buy the
best.
Denyse believes that Apples approach to how they present themselves as
brilliant, describing them as geniuses. Although she is a self-described Steve Jobs
fan rather than an Apple fan, she described the impact when Apple held its new-release
conferences. Denyse recounted a conference call at her workplace with many of the
senior officials at her company. This was a business meeting at her job in the healthcare
industry, which was interrupted by the mere announcement of the iPhone5. Denyse
continued,
114
I was on a conference call when they announced that they were releasing the
new phone. There were people on my conference call that had nothing to do with
information technology there were like, Stop. You have to stop to hear what
iPhone is coming out to release dadada, and it was a serious business meeting
and we are being told to stop because we were going to talk about what iPhones
were going to do. So I think it is actually a pretty masterful way that they've done
it.
Apple presentations have become social phenomena that are covered more closely
than visits from foreign dignitaries. These align well with the cultivated image of the
casually dressed cool guy who always seems two steps ahead of everyone else. Apple
is the cool guy who knows that he is better and smarter than everyone else, but refrains
from insulting or putting down others efforts, which would only make him look small.
Like the New York Yankees, it does not matter if one loves them or hates them as
everything they do is watched and reported closely.
The group identification was further explored when the participants were asked if
they believed that Apple customers were more loyal than customers of other tech
companies. In answering this question, without hesitation, every participant answered
that they believed that Apple fans were more loyal. When asked about what makes them
believe that, Denyse posited out, I don't see a lot of Microsoft stickers on cars or on
like paraphernalia. In addition, Denyse pointed out that few people get excited about
other companies products like they do Apple products saying,
115
I don't see a lot of people talking like, Oh, the new Samsung galaxy phone, or
the new Android is coming out. Not talking about it in terms of you get all the
stuff on Facebook that's not your friends but your actual circle of people that are
talking about the new gadgets as much as you do with the new Apple products.
Stanley continued with this line noting that Apple fanaticism was unique with a
number of people who will buy a new Apple product just because it is new. There is a
segment of Apple fans who will buy the next iPhone even though the one they just
bought is highly functional and maybe only a year old.
This interview question was followed by a different question, which gave a
different twist in the participants self-identification. The purpose was to see if
nomenclature made a difference in their responses and to see how the participants saw
themselves in the loyalty continuum. Participants were asked, Would you consider
yourself Apple loyal?
The majority indicated that they were, indeed, Apple loyal and qualified their
answers with past experiences. They noted that they would consider another Apple
product because they trusted the overall experience. Ashleigh and Amber hedged their
answers noting that other companies also made very good products. They seemed to not
want to be boxed into a I would only buy an Apple product box but both said they
would definitely consider an Apple product first. Their concern seemed more due to
labels than to actions.
Carl gave the most interesting line in comparing loyalty with other aspects of
fandom saying, I mean, Im not an Apple fan, and I have had Nanos, two iPods, an iPad,
116
you know, and Im not really an Apple fan, so, you know, that kind of tells you when the
things work well, people go back. And I look forward to their products. In his answer
Carl separates loyalty from fandom. In observing his answer, one could tell how the
reality of his purchasing behaviors led him to one conclusion, that despite his declaration
that he was not an Apple fan (i.e. I am not a fanatic) after buying more than five Apple
products for either himself or his family he was becoming an Apple fan. This disjunction
seemed to be more centered on not being him being labeled a fan rather than referring to
his loyalty behaviors. It is the nomenclature differences that seemed to be the focal point,
and not whether or not he would continue to exhibit loyalty behaviors (i.e. repeat
purchases).
Identification and Sense Of Belonging
These questions dealt more with the description of the Apple community and
how the participants saw themselves in it. This allowed for an in tertiary observation
followed by application of the participants own experiences.
The participants described the Apple community in a number of ways. Amber
used words like, trendy, cool, relaxed, and open-minded saying that I think a lot
of hipsters have Apple products. Stanley added that they were a very tech-savvy group
and a bit nerdy who are passionate about Apples products. Brian contributed that the
community was cutting edge and green always looking for a more eco-friendly
approach.
Ashleigh described the Apple community as being of the same demographic of
the early or late 20s adding that they,
117
Probably have replaced a hobby with an Apple product and instead of having a
group of people they go out and fish with or do sports with or do stuff with, its a
group of people who collect Apple stuff and do or go or maybe go out and go to
places but it involves around the use of Apple products.
Interestingly, Denyse ascribed the demographics closer to her age group saying,
Most of the time it's probably the thirtysomething, like my generation, hipper, I'm
not hip, but the hipper group that like the people that actually use their actual
laptops. Theyre a little more artsier because the graphics and what those
products provide. Yeah, the thirtysomethings.
A very insightful observation came from the oldest participant, Graham, who has
been a member of two different Mac User Groups (MUGs). These groups have regular
meetings and are highly organized. They are local groups located all over the world and
are comprised of members ranging from neophytes, who just got their first Apple
products, to veteran users who have been Mac consumers for decades. They come form
every age group, background, and profession and the only common thread is their
preference for Apple products. Many MUGs have their own websites.
During these meetings new products are discussed as well as observations about
the products they already own. In both of the MUGs that Graham attends, there are
members who do tech work for Apple who answer questions, but also will go to
members residences if the problem needs formal service. Graham said of one of the
MUGs,
They are very knowledgeable and they, in fact, have their e-mail, their list, so if
you send an e-mail and address it to the MUG group, it goes out to everybody.
118
And if you have a problem, you know, I can't get something to open, does
anybody have suggestions? Before the day is out, they'll be a half-dozen
responses to that.
Guests often come to speak at these meetings informing them of new applications
or advice on how to get more out of their devices. Graham described these special interest
groups in one of the MUGs saying,
They had some Photoshop interest groups, and digital camera stuff, and they
would have field trips and all that kind of stuff, and they just get together and
discuss how theyd do things and whatnot, and how to use the software, and
almost all of those special interest groups therell be two or three professionals
who were in the group and share their expertise. So by and large they are very
knowledgeable group, and most of them will share their knowledge.
These MUGs have different foci, but their overarching support of Apple is similar
to Harley-Davidsons subgroup culture in which various motorcycle groups had common
bonds within the individual subgroup because of shared interests and commitment with a
particular activity, but also exhibited an overarching loyalty to the parent group. These
interpersonal relationships were strong and gave meaning to the individual as a group
member as well (Schouten & McAlexander, 1995).
With regard to how the participants related to the Apple community, most
believed their membership was tertiary, or as Graham put it, Well, I am more of an
observer and a user, as opposed to being a contributor. Put it that way. Many saw their
demographics aligning with the Apple community as well as sharing some of the
119
communitys tenets and values. Generally, though, even though they all knew individuals
who were active contributors, they did not see themselves as hardcore participators.
Prosthelytizing
This construct demonstrates the outward manifestation of the inward inclination.
Advocacy takes energy and willingness to bring forth a message of promotion and
promulgation, demonstrating to others that one is a true fan of the element one is
advocating. Liking a product or service is an initial dimension of fandom, but outward
advocacy is an open proclamation of recommendation, which has its genesis in
satisfaction and comfortableness in the company and its products.
Every participant in this study said they have either advocated or would advocate
Apple to other people. The participants shared their experiences with others and gave
their recommendations based on their own personal experiences. Whether it is the
features of a particular product, the interaction the participants had with Apple associates,
or the reliability of the products they already own they expressed these things to others
with a great amount of confidence.
What is unique is how recommendations are made outside of the users realm. For
example, one of the participants spoke of the time that her friend was considering a new
laptop. Her friends niece was advocating that she buy a Mac even though the only Apple
product the niece owned was an iPhone. This type of brand cache extending across
product lines is unique as none of the participants could think of an equivalency from
other companies. This proselytizing of Apple demonstrates the degree of consumer
loyalty to the organization, and provides word-of-mouth championing, persuasion, and
promotion (Tiwari & Abraham, 2010).
120
Merging The Two Methods

The purpose of this mixed method study was to describe the phenomenon of true
attitudinal loyalty of consumers toward a specific business (i.e. Apple). The initial
quantitative research question asked, Is there a significant difference between consumer
loyalty of Apple products and its competitors? The subsequent triangulating qualitative
research question was, How do Apple users describe their lived experiences with Apple
products? This aligned the research question with the purpose of the study, which was
describing the phenomenon of true attitudinal loyalty of consumers toward a specific
business.
This phenomenology used a mixed methodology so that quantitative statistical
analyses could support (or contradict) the analyses of the qualitative one-on-one
interviews analyses. This enabled cooperation and collaboration, enhancing both
exemplars for better understanding of the subject of the study. Six loyalty constructs were
the basis for the qualitative interviews and the quantitative survey questions. The
intendment was to examine the experiences to decipher the essence and meaning that
draws a consumer into attitudinal advocacy.
This concurrent triangulation demonstrated that the quantitative data not only
edified the findings of the qualitative analyses, but also evinced that there were no
contradictions in any area (i.e. constructs) in which the qualitative analyses had different
results from the quantitative survey. This adds to the validity and reliability substantially
by providing quantitative statistical confidence intervals (to 99.9%) to the qualitative
analysis findings.
121
CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS

The results of the qualitative interviews were substantiated by the quantitative
data demonstrating that Apple fandom is unique in its industry. The level of attitudinal
loyalty of Apples consumers to Apple is significantly higher than its competitors
resulting in greater long-term profitability. The remainder of this chapter discusses how
Apple has accomplished this loyalty level and its application to other environments
(specifically to the six constructs, the organizational design, the organizational strategy,
and the aforementioned analogies to other related areas of fandom). In addition, the
implications of this study (i.e. attitudinal commitment and identification, and the
principles of organizational alignment and user-experience focus), recommendations for
further study, and the studys limitations are also covered. Chapter Five then concludes
with a summary and overall reflections.
Discussion And Application
Apples consumer loyalty does not have its genesis from marketing campaigns or
loyalty programs, but is a by-product of its organizational design and continuous effort
to give customers a unique user experience. This extends beyond the sphere of having
better products and is a multi-dimensional approach to consumer management.
According to the majority of consumer advocate publicans, Apple is usually the highest
rated with regard to product quality AND customer service, and its retail outlet (i.e. The
Apple Stores) have not only exceeded where other tech companies have failed (e.g. the
Dell Stores and Gateway) but are the most profitable stores per square foot in the history
of retail (Morse, 2011).
122
Apples branding conjures a unique image in the tech industry, and its symbolic
Apple logo is familiar to consumers everywhere. Belk and Tumbat (2005) recount JeanLouis Gasses comments from Linzmayers (1999) book when he described the Apple
logo as the symbol of lust and knowledge, bitten into, all crossed with the colors of the
rainbow in the wrong order. You couldnt dream of a more appropriate logo: lust,
knowledge, hope, and anarchy (Linzmayer, 1999, p. 6). This goes beyond Gherasims
(2011) definition of branding in which identification and uniqueness are prerequisites,
and transcends the image into a lived experience or symbolism. Rossiter and Bellman
(2012) referred to this as emotional branding and the successful attachment of a specific
emotion to a brand (p. 291). These attachments are manifested by the six constructs;
organizational identification (Social Identity Theory), approachability and
responsiveness, trust, group affiliation and socialization, identification and sense of
belonging, and proselytizing (word-of-mouth); which are interrelated in that each
construct can have a synergistic or antagonistic affect on the other constructs.
Consequently, in order for consumer loyalty to be maximized, a companys best approach
is a holistic pursuit in its organizational design (Stanford, 2007).
In Apples example, Ron Johnson, Apples former Senior Vice President for
Retail believed that, despite the recent trending of Internet sales, the retail model was not
broken because physical stores are still the primary way customers acquire merchandise
and will be so many years from now (Morse, 2011). What was changing was that the
retail outlet must evolve to enrich peoples lives and go beyond the transactional
experience to the transformational experience. This is why Apple Stores personnel are
not on commission so as not to have a divided loyalty (i.e. the salesmens paycheck
123
versus what is best for the customer). As Johnson noted, They have one job: to help you
find the product thats right for you, even if its not an Apple product (Morse, 2011, p.
80). These tenets not only apply to personnel who work at the Apple Stores, but also to
those who work through the telephone sales as well as those who work in tech support.
Phone sales staff and tech support workers are not graded on their queuing times (i.e.
how many calls they take in a specified time) but rather how well they take care of the
customers.
Relating to the Constructs
These elements have their geneses in the ideals of how employees identify
themselves in their organization, and translate directly to how employees identify with
their customers (Coget, 2011). The greater the bonding that associates have with an
organization corresponds to greater bonding with its customers. This is why Johnson
personally interviewed every Apple Store Manager. He wanted to ensure that he found
like-minded people who would continue with these exemplars with regard to
organizational attachment and values. He wanted managers to find individuals who
would be a best fit, rather than trying to find somebody at the lowest costs whos
available on Saturdays from 8 to 12 (Morse, 2011, p. 82).
Organizational attachment. This organizational attachment transfers to its
customers who also self-identify as loyal consumers. This construct is not developed in
isolation but is interrelated with the other constructs and is manifested by this connection.
This concomitant quality, coupled with avenues for customers to express voice (either
through the Apple Stores or through telephone customer service), has enabled Apple to
establish a platform for customer approachability and responsiveness. Although, the
124
survey showed there was a degree of organizational attachment with Apples competitors,
the results of the quantitative survey demonstrated that Apple had statistically stronger
organizational identification than did its competitors.
Approachability and responsiveness. As the interviews demonstrated, this is an
area in which Apple excels well above its competitors. Every participant believed that if a
problem occurred, Apple would take care of the problem. Complaints and problems are
never sent to the round bin but are assessed accordingly. This environment established
precursors for trust and the development of certitude across an entire brand rather than
just a single product.
Trust. Trust is the primary precursor with which all strong relationships begin.
Whereas the participants noted that Apple took their concerns seriously and valued their
feedback (i.e. approachability and responsiveness), trust, in this context, was the sureness
that Apple would do the right thing. To Apple consumers, trust in Apple meant integrity,
surety, and the confident expectation that the participants interests and Apples interests
were the same. This difference in trust of Apple versus trust of its competitors delineates
the primary principle in which a relationship is founded.
Group affiliation and socialization. When individuals believe that they have a
special connection and positive experience with another group or organization, it is
expressed by the outwards manifestations of group affiliation and socialization. The ingroup/out group phenomenon has its genesis with this type of socialization, as selfesteem is correlated through identification and membership (Tajfel & Turner, 1979).
Although the participants in these interviews did not consider themselves fanatics all
know individuals with which this would apply. The MUGs typified this type of group
125
affiliation and socialization, as they have become a social sub-group demonstrating this
in-group/out-group worldview.
Identification and sense of belonging. Social identity theory describes the
perception of oneness with or belongingness to an organization (Coget, 2011) but is more
in line with organizational attachment and organizational identification. Identification and
sense of belonging refers to the self-identification and sense of belonging with other
members of the group. Individuals become more territorial with regard to the group
because it represents a self-image of who they are while satisfying the need to belong
(Martin and Dowson, 2009). Grahams description of the different MUGs typifies this
type of identification. The Sturgis Motorcycle Rally in Sturgis, South Dakota represents
the best parallel for construct of Apples fandom. Bike Clubs (i.e. Gangs) from all over
come to attend this event. Although other motorcycle manufacturers are present, Harley
Davidson is by far the most represented. These clubs cover an entire spectrum of
interests. Hells Angels, Beautiful Feet Ministries (a Christian Harley Bike club), Dykes
on Bikes are just a few of the varied groups that attend whose common bonds are to
Harley-Davidson and to each member of the sub-group, and serve as a parable of Apple
fandom with regard to identification and sense of belonging.
Proselytizing. The final revelation of this fandom is manifested by the advocacy
of the companys products to others. It is in this evangelizing (Evangelist, from the
Greek, Euangelistes or , which means messenger of good)(Vine,
1981, p. 44) that demonstrates true and complete fandom and is the outward
manifestation of an inward inclination. One-on-one evangelism of a brand attempts to
secure proselytes and is the most effective marketing phenomenon to acquire market
126
share being and it is both durable and personal (Tiwari & Abraham, 2010). This was
substantiated by both the qualitative interviews in which every participant described
occurrences in which they displayed word-of-mouth proselytizing of Apple products, and
in the quantitative survey.
Relating to Organizational Design and Strategy
Apple has fulfilled these six constructs well, coordinating all aspects in its
organizational design. This design goes beyond operational effectiveness and is part of
the companys business strategy, which gives it sustainable competitive advantage.
Operational efficiencies can be aped or emulated but what drives sustainable competitive
advantage is fit (Porter, 1996). Porters (1996) described three types of fit: (1) Firstorder fit, which is the consistency between each functional activity and the overall
strategy; (2) Second-order fit, which occurs when the activities are synergistic with each
other, and (3) Third-order fit, which Porter (1996) refers to as optimization of effort (p.
72).
Apple has made enhancing the user experience its primary objective and
concentrates all its functional efforts toward achieving this goal. Apple demonstrates first
order fit by aligning each of the companys activities to the user experience. These
activities are re-enforced (second order fit) through all the companys outlets from phone
and Internet sales, to Apple Store sales, to tech support, to product design with Apples
customers operating as the glue to the network by providing feedback about product use
and product problems. These functional activities are interconnected enhancing the user
experience. Apple demonstrates third order fit by integrating functions at the Apple
Stores (and its Genius Bar) with its telephone sales and tech support, which gives its
127
customers more options for sales and assistance. Unlike many other retailers and tech
companies, these branches are not run like separate isolated companies but are fluid. This
integration demonstrates the type of fit that goes beyond operational efficiency and
consigns the consumer as an integral part of the organizational design and is congruent in
trying to provide the best user experience possible.
Organizational design is about a best way to align the elements of an
organization toward a specific mission (Hinrichs, 2009; Bryan & Joyce, 2007). A
business must align its practices with its mission and strategy to be successful while
interacting with its environment (Hinrichs, 2009; Bryan & Joyce, 2007). Thus, the design
should align the mission with the strategy and operating context (environment). Adaption
and alignment of vision, values, and objectives with the environmental elements
determine how a company operates in its business environment and define success or
failure. These elements also include personnel, processes, systems, organizational
structure, and organizational culture and must be aligned with the overall organizational
design (Hinrichs, 2009; Bryan & Joyce, 2007).
Companies can achieve competitive advantage through varies generic strategies
(Porter, 1998). Porter (1998) lists cost leadership (e.g. Wal-Mart, Dell Computer, and
Toyota) differentiation (e.g. Honda, Nike, and McDonalds) and market segmentation (or
focus, e.g. Rolls Royce and Southwest Airlines) as primary avenues companies can
achieve and maintain competitive advantage. Using Porters (1998) generic strategy
application, Apple has implemented a differentiation strategy whereby it attempts to
simplify the user experience emphasizing innovation, design, and quality rather than
pricing.
128
Rainer and Cegielski (2012) view this type of strategy differently as they define
innovation strategy as antithetic from differentiation strategy. To these authors, with a
differentiation strategy companies seek to differentiate their products from competitors.
For example, McDonalds differentiation comes from its very fast service and marketing
to children by adding inexpensive toys to its Happy Meals. Innovation strategy involves
developing unique products and services for either sales or distribution (Rainer &
Cegielski, 2012). Apple products are unique with patents on its operating systems,
designs, formats, and a myriad of technological patents. The company distributes directly
either via the Internet or telephone or the Apple Stores (though customers can purchase
Apple products through a variety of third party providers). Tech support can also be
acquired through the same avenues with turnaround times, which are much faster than its
competitors.
Companies may not follow Apples differentiation or focus strategy, but can learn
from aligning their functions toward a specific strategy. Organizations that focus on
increasing consumer psychological commitment strengthen attitudinal loyalty (Lee &
Graefe, 2002). Apples organizational design is centered on the concept of innovation and
providing the best user experience provided.
Organizational identification. By continuing to represent itself as an industry
leader with products that are more innovative and user-friendly, Apple has enhanced the
consumer-organization relationship. Apple provides a bonding environment with its
products in the user experience. Emphasizing how the products can enrich a persons life
(i.e. benefits versus features) and being cool were referred to many times by the
participants and was backed statistically by the survey.
129
Approachability and responsiveness. According to most consumer magazines

and survey groups, Apple consistently provides the best customer service in the industry.
This is especially pronounced after a purchase is made. As noted, Apples sales force is
not on commission and its techs are not rated by queuing but on how well they satisfy
their customers. Apple outsources many functions but when dealing directly with
customers, all elements are Apple owned. That is, customer service, tech support,
phone sales, and so forth are all Apple associates and not third party employees.
Trust. Trust is the cornerstone with which the others blocks have their geneses.
The participants in the one-on-one interviews trust that Apple will do the right thing,
and will be open and honest about its communication with its customers. This is
substantiated by the quantitative surveys. Trust is not a program to be enacted or a policy
from management but is rooted in a companys culture. Apple has demonstrated to its
customers that being trust is about ensuring that its customers have an outstanding user
experience and fulfilling its mission.
Group affiliation and socialization. Apple builds group affiliation and
socialization by separating itself from the rest and identifying itself as the cool brand.
This representation is well demonstrated by its advertising. The 1984 commercial
(created by Ridley Scott) played during the halftime of Super Bowl XVIII, depicted
Apple as the rebel versus Big Brother (i.e. IBM at the time but later related to Microsoft).
The following year the Lemmings commercial espoused the notion that Apple provided
something other than the usual. These recurrent abstract images were emblematic of
some of the more recent ads. The Mac versus PC series ads (24 in the series, which
were enormously successful) typify how Apple presents itself as cutting edge and
130
cooler. The commercials are designed to align the consumers with the image of the
company eliciting socialization among the members (i.e. fellow Apple consumers).
Identification and sense of belonging. Companies can enhance a sense of
belonging by providing avenues with which customers can avail their commonalities.
Apples use of and MUGs demonstrate how a company can align its consumers interest
with those of the company by proving environments where consumers can meld their
personal interests and technology with social interaction. On the Apple website there is a
section for these MUGs and the opening page reads as follows:
People who use Apple technologies have joined together in user groups all around
the world. Hundreds of groups offer members the chance to become friends with
other Apple product users, get questions answered and have a lot of fun. Groups
are for everyone from first-time computer users to expertsfrom every
profession, background and age. Want technology to do more for you? Join the
club (Apple, 2013).
Proselytizing. Prosthelytizing is the outwards manifestation of an inwards
inclination. Prosthelytizing of a product brand occurs when the culture of a companys
customer is in line with the culture of the company and is the net-result of the other
constructs being fully implemented.
Relating to Other Fandom Experiences
This mixed method study showed how Apples fandom has its parallels in other
environments demonstrating universality of the human experience in other arenas.
Although there is an interdependence of the constructs, it is apparent that Apple shares
organizational identification, group affiliation and socialization, and identification and
131
sense of belonging in a manner similar to that of street gangs. There are also sub-cultures,
which are typified by the MUGs leading to self-esteem, a sense of identity, and
cohesiveness and connectedness with a strong sense of loyalty.
Apple fandom represented cults in that many of its followers (i.e. customers) are
consumed with all things Apple. None of the participants in this study saw themselves in
this light, but all knew people who represented this type of zealotry and devotion. This
degree of fandom is very rare but is especially distinctive in the consumer electronics
industry in because of the commonality of the products. That is, there are many
manufacturers of smart phones, smart pads, MP3 players, personal computers, and so
forth, but none have achieved the level of success or attitudinal loyalty as has Apple. This
was well represented by the one-on-one interviews and was shown statistically significant
in the quantitative survey with 99.9% confidence intervals.
Apples similarity with fraternities can be seen in the provided social activities
(e.g. the MUGs) in which members (i.e. consumers) identity themselves as being part of
something greater than they. By providing an environment in which individuals can
participate in group interaction and socialization, Apple created a bridge in the
consumer/seller paradigm in which consumers identify themselves with the brand. This
was manifested in the interviews my inclusive pronouns like my and our when
discussing interaction with Apple products and/or other Apple users.
Perhaps the strongest comparison to Apple fandom can be seen with sports
fandom. In this venue, not only do fans associate their participation with those of the
organization (e.g. My team), but it also provides a comparative continuum with which
to compare fan loyalty. For example, although all of the participants self-identified
132
themselves as either Apple loyal or Apple fans, none of them considered themselves
as rabid fans or diehards. However, each one said they knew people who had Apple
logos on them and bought everything Apple. These participants may not paint or tattoo
their bodies with the Apple logo, but they all knew people who did. On the other end of
the spectrum were people like Carl who did not like to identify or align himself as an
Apple fan, but recognized that, I mean, Im not an Apple fan, and I have had Nanos, two
iPods, an iPad, you know, and Im not really an Apple fan, so, you know, that kind of
tells you when the things work well, people go back. And I look forward to their
products. These fandom comparisons demonstrate that the six constructs of attitudinal
loyalty are seen in many different arenas and are congruent in their application. This is
important because it confirms that the emotional and psychological connections of
fandom are primal and universal and can be sought after in many environments.
Concluding statements
This mixed method research has demonstrated that Apple has succeeded in
sustaining competitive advantage by providing a unique user experience though
innovation and design. By centering the organizational design, structure, and strategy on
this mission, Apple evinces the constructs of attitudinal loyalty and sustained competitive
advantage. It also demonstrates that these six constructs are universal and can be applied
in many environments.
Implications
The results of this mixed method study demonstrates a number of implications for
business enterprises seeking long-term success, but two in particular stand out. First,
attitudinal loyalty represents deep-seated commitment and identification to the brand
133
itself (Moore & Sekhon, 2005). This commitment affects the consumer/business
relationship generating greater emotional bonding between the company and its
consumers. Attitudinal loyalty advances a psychology in which consumers differentiate
one brand from another fostering competitive advantage. This phenomenon is primal
extending beyond branding and affects the aforementioned loyalty constructs. Thus
attitudinal attachment leads to attitudinal behaviors as linked to future usage, enhanced
word of mouth recommendations, and ultimately to customer-oriented profitability
(Wirtz, Mattila, & Lwin, p. 328), which is essential for long-term sustainability and
profitability (Jacoby, 1971; Oliver, 1997).
The second implication is that businesses desiring to emulate Apples success
should adhere to the same principles of organizational alignment and the focus of the
user-experience. Apples operational functions, innovation ideals and goals, and outlets
for customer interfacing are dedicated to enhancing the consumer experience. This
coincides with Porters (1998) generic strategy of focus and differentiation by aligning
the organizational design with that chosen strategy. This is not something a company
does but rather defines what is the company. For example, although Apple does
outsource many of its manufacturing processes it does not outsource its telephone
Customer Service or its Tech Support, as does its competitors. This is one of the reasons
that Apple consistently ranks atop the consumer polls in these areas. These associates are
not graded on queue times or in sales per hour, but rather how well they satisfy their
customers. This consumer-centric focus typifies how the overarching design is well
aligned the goal of the company and represents the companys simple mission statement,
which states:
134
Apple is committed to bringing the best personal computing experience to

students, educators, creative professionals and consumers around the world through its
innovative hardware, software and Internet offerings (Goodson, 2011)
There were lesser implications that were discovered in this study. For example,
although the generations did score slightly different from one another, Baby-boomers,
Generation Xers, and Generation Yers still scored Apple significantly higher than the
other companies in every question (and consequently in every construct). This was
interesting because the qualitative one-on-one interviews revealed how the generations
use technology (and their Apple products) very differently from one another.
Companies fulfill the six constructs to varying degrees along a continuum of
completeness. This accounts for the various degrees that consumers have toward a
specific organization. Attitudinal loyalty is not only linked to long-term profitability, but
unlike operational processes, is also much more difficult for other companies to duplicate
or emulate.
Recommendations
There are three directions in which future study can evolve. The first area is in
repeating the study by addressing individuals who had purchased one of the other
companies products within the last calendar year. This could address commonalities of
the users with the constructs (i.e. aligning the constructs with loyalty factors) and address
how well the other companies fulfill the constructs (aligning the individual companies
with customer satisfaction).
The second direction would be a generational study delving further into the
generational differences than what was done with this study. Although quantitative
135
analyses demonstrated that Apple scored statistically substantially better than its
competitors for all constructs (and each individual question), there were still generational
differences that could be further examined. For example, notwithstanding all three
generations scoring Apple statistically higher than the other companies, areas such as
why Generation Xers scored Apple higher in every construct, even though this is contrary
to most data concerning this generation could be examined further. Generation Xers are
considered less loyal, less likely to voice their opinion, less trustful, less likely to
participate in a socialized environment), more independent, and less likely to evangelize
about anything than the other two generations, yet with regard to Apple, they scored
Apple higher than the other two generations.
The third direction would be to use these constructs and platform in another
business environment. The universal application of these constructs in other industries
could be tested and examined for congruency and applicability, which not only would
add validity to this study, but also can serve as a template for future evaluations for other
arenas.
Limitations
The primary limitations of this study deal with the sample size and selection. With
regard to the quantitative section, although the findings were at the 99.9% confidence
level, those who participated only needed to be above 18-years old and have purchased
an Apple product within the last calendar year. There were no criteria if they had
experience with the other companies. Although there is a large amount certainty that the
participants have used Microsoft products, and perhaps some HP products, whether or not
they identified with usage of Dell and IBM is in question. In addition, although the
136
sampling came form a well-respected survey company (i.e. Zoomerang), this does not
necessarily mean that they represent all Apple users, as online survey participants
represent their own niche.
Similar concerns can be attributed to the qualitative section. Even though the
participants represented a good cross section of demographics, it was, in fact, only a
representation and to draw definitive demographical conclusions based on those
participants would bare little validity. There were no participants who represented
individuals who were not pleased with their Apple experience even though the
quantitative section identified that there were some (albeit very few). The quantitative
section does substantiate many of the comments attributed to these participants, but to
definitively claim that these comments represent new are dogma would be not
corroborated.
Summary
This mixed method study has provided the opportunity to seek why one company
has procured demonstrated consumer loyalty at levels substantially greater than any of its
competitors. Using mixed methods transformed the role of the researcher into one of
coordinator, collaborator, conductor, administrator, and analyst. Qualitative research may
have been able to ask questions and gain insights and descriptions that quantitative data
could not provide, but the quantitative data provided a higher level of validity, reliability,
and transferability that could not have been obtained by qualitative analysis alone.
There were several surprises in this study that could not have been anticipated.
With regard to the qualitative one-on-one interviews it was surprising that there were not
any conflicting experiences found. For example, one did not experience bad customer
137
service at an Apple Store while another had good service. Their experiences were
different but were reflected more in how they use Apples technology rather than
incurring conflicts with Apple itself. With regard to the quantitative survey, it was
anticipated that Apple would score better than its competitors but not to the degree that it
did. Apple scored better in every question (and thus every construct) at the 99.9%
confidence interval. The other companies did not score badly, but those who participated
in the survey thought Apple exemplary in these areas.
This study opened the researchers mind by providing a much larger abstract in
which to examine a problem. Many areas of study are not as black and white as many
would like to believe, as there are nuances that need to be understood to actuate any
program or strategy ideally. This is especially important as, although much data is
objective and can be taken at face value, individuals construct their reality of what one
knows to be true. This type of evidence-based decision-making allows more questions
to be asked, while enlarging the scope of possible solutions.
138
REFERENCES
Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal Of Marketing Research
(JMR), 34(3), 347-356.
Acosta, P. M., & Devasagayam, R. (2010). Brand cult: Extending the notion of brand
communities. Marketing Management Journal, 20(1), 165-176.
Amaratunga, D., Baldry, D., Sarshar, M., & Newton, R. (2002). Quantitative and
qualitative research in the built environment: Application of "mixed" research
approach. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management,
51(1), 17-17-31.
Apple (2013). Apple users group. From November 21, 2012 from website:
http://www.apple.com/usergroups/
Applebaum, W. (1951). Studying customer behavior in retail stores. Journal of
Marketing, 16(2) 172-178.
Arora, H. (2009). A conceptual study of brand communities. ICFAI Journal of Brand
Management, 6(2), 7-21.
Arora, R., & Stoner, C. (2009). A mixed method approach to understanding brand
personality. The Journal of Product and Brand Management, 18(4), 272-272-283.
doi:10.1108/10610420910972792
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social Identity Theory and the organization. Academy
Of Management Review, 14(1), 20-39. doi:10.5465/AMR.1989.4278999
Bagdonien, L., & Jaktait, R. (2007). Estimation of loyalty programmes from
customers' point of view: Cases of three retail store chains. Engineering
Economics, 55(5), 51-58.
Belk, R. W. & Tumbat, G. (2005). The cult of Macintosh. Consumption, markets &
culture, 8(3), 205-217. doi:10.1080/10253860500160403
Belmont Report (1979). The Belmont Report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the
protection of human subjects of research. Retrieved April 13, 2012, from website:
hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.html
Bock, T. & Sergeant. J. (2002). Small sample market research. International Journal of
Market Research, 44(2), 235-244.
Boorstin, D. (1973). The Americans: The democratic experience. New York: Random
House.
139
Bryan, L., & Joyce, C. (2007). Better strategy through organizational design. McKinsey
Quarterly, (2), 20-29.
Broderick, C.B. (1990). Family process theory. In J. Sprey (Ed.) Fashioning family
theory: New approaches (pp. 171-206). Newbury Park CA: Sage
Caesars Entertainment Corporation (2012). Form 10K Annual Report. Retrieved July 13,
2012 from website: http://investor.caesars.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=119312512-115625&CIK=858339
Coget, J. (2011). The Apple Store effect: Does organizational identification trickle down
to customers?. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(1), 94-95.
doi:10.5465/AMP.2011.59198452
Cooper C. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2008). Business research methods [student DVD
included] (10th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five
approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the
research process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Datamonitor: Caesars Entertainment Corporation. (2011). Harrah's Entertainment, Inc.
SWOT Analysis, 1-9.
Day, G. S. (1969). A two-dimensional concept of brand loyalty. Journal of Advertising
Research, 9(3), 29-35.
Denning, S. (2011). The reinvention of management. Strategy & Leadership, 39(2), 9-917. doi:10.1108/10878571111114428
Dick, A. S., & Basu, K. (1994). Customer loyalty: Toward an integrated conceptual
framework. Journal Of The Academy Of Marketing Science, 22(2), 99-113.
Divett, M., Crittenden, N. & Henderson, R. (2003). Actively influencing consumer
loyalty. The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 20(2/3), 109
Ferguson, E. (2010). Adler's innovative contributions regarding the need to belong.
Journal of Individual Psychology, 66(1), 1-7.
140
Fisher, W. P., & Stenner, A. (2011). Integrating qualitative and quantitative research
approaches via the phenomenological method. International Journal of Multiple
Research Approaches, 5(1), 89-103. doi:10.5172/mra.2011.5.1.89
Fornell, C., & Wernerfelt, B. (1987). Defensive marketing strategy by customer
complaint management: A theoretical analysis. Journal Of Marketing Research
(JMR), 24(4), 337-346.
Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in
consumer research. Journal Of Consumer Research, 24(4), 343-373
Gable, M., Fiorito, S., & Topol, M. (2008). An empirical analysis of the components of
retailer customer loyalty programs. International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management, 36(1), 32-49.
Gamble, R., Stone, M., & Woodcock, N. (2006). Up close & Personal?: Customer
relationship marketing at work (3rd Ed.). London, England. Kogan page.
Gentry, L., & Kalliny, M. (2008). Consumer loyalty - A synthesis, conceptual
framework, and research propositions. Journal of American Academy of Business,
Cambridge, 14(1), 1-9.
Gherasim, T. (2011). An approach of the product view through the perspective of the
marketing - mix. Economy Transdisciplinarity Cognition, 14(1), 402-409.
Glaeser, E. L., Sacerdote, B. I., & Scheinkman, J. A. (2003). The social multiplier.
Journal Of The European Economic Association, 1(2-3), 345-353.
Goodson, S. (2011). Is brand loyalty the core to Apple's success? Retrieved November
21, 2012 from website: http://www.forbes.com/sites/marketshare/2011/11/27/isbrand-loyalty-the-core-to-apples-success-2/
Guardia, J, & Evans, N. (2008). Factors influencing the ethnic identity development of
Latino fraternity members at a Hispanic serving institution. Journal of College
Student Development. 49(3), 163-181
Gwynne, P. (2002). Surprise as a marketing tool. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(1),
15.
Harris, M. G. (1994). Cholas, Mexican-American girls, and gangs. Sex Roles, 30(3/4),
289-301.
Hikkerova, L. (2011). The effectiveness of loyalty programs: An application in the
hospitality industry. International Journal of Business, 16(2), 150-164.
141
Hinrichs, G. (2009). Organic organizational design. OD Practitioner, 41(4), 4-11.

Jacoby, J. (1971). A model of multi-brand loyalty. Journal Of Advertising Research,
11(3), 25-31.
Jacoby, J., & Kyner, D. B. (1973). Brand loyalty vs. Repeat purchasing behavior. Journal
Of Marketing Research (JMR), 10(1), 1-9
Johnson, R. E., & Jackson, E. M. (2009). Appeal of organizational values is in the eye of
the beholder: The moderating role of employee identity. Journal Of Occupational
& Organizational Psychology, 82(4), 915-933.
Kale, S. H., & Klugsberger, P. (2007). Reaping rewards. Marketing Management, 16(4),
14-18.
Kanter, R. (1992). Think like the customer: The global business logic. Harvard Business
Review, 70(4), 9,10.
Larson, B. (1982). Larsons book of cults. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale Publishing House.
Laverty, S. M. (2003). Hermeneutic phenomenology and phenomenology: A comparison
of historical and methodological considerations. International Journal Of
Qualitative Methods, 2(3), 1.
Leal, C., & Moutinho, L. (2008). Fandom affiliation and tribal behaviour: A sports
marketing application. Qualitative Market Research, 11(1), 17-17-39.
doi:10.1108/13522750810845531
Lee, J. & Graefe, A. (2002). Psychological commitment as a mediator of the
relationship between involvement and loyalty. Proceedings of the 2001
Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, 281-287. Northeastern Research Station. Newtown Square, PA.
Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2005, Fall). The role of sampling in qualitative
research. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 9(3), 280+.
Lincoln, Y. & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.
Linzmayer, O. (1999). Apple confidential: The real story of Apple Computer, Inc.. San
Francisco, CA: No Starch Press.
Liu, Y. (2007). The long-term impact of loyalty programs on consumer purchase
behavior and loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 71(4), 19-35.
142
Loveman, G. (2003). Diamonds in the data mine. Harvard Business Review, 81(5), 109113.
Macon, M., & Artley, J. B. (2009). Cant we all just get along? A review of the
challenges and opportunities in a multigenerational workforce. International
Journal Of Business Research, 9(6), 90-94.
Martin, W. (1977). Kingdom of the cults: An analysis of major cult systems in the present
Christian era. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers.
Martin, W. (1980). The new cults. Ventura, CA: Vision House.
Martin, A. J., & Dowson, M. (2009). Interpersonal relationships, motivation,
engagement, and achievement: Yields for theory, current issues, and educational
practice. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 327-327-365.
Mascarenhas, O. A., Kesavan, R., & Bernacchi, M. (2006). Lasting customer loyalty: A
total customer experience approach. The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23(7),
397-397-405. doi:10.1108/07363760610712939
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370396. doi:10.1037/h0054346
Maslow, A. H. (1954). The instinctoid nature of basic needs. Journal of Personality,
22(3), 326. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.ep8930323
McCabe, S., Schulenberg, J., Johnston, L., O'Malley, P., Bachman, J., & Kloska, D.
(2005). Selection and socialization effects of fraternities and sororities on US
college student substance use: a multi-cohort national longitudinal study.
Addiction, 100(4), 512-524.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Montana, P. J., & Petit, F. (2008). Motivating Generation X and Y on the job and
preparing Z. Global Journal Of Business Research, 2(2), 139-148.
Moustakas C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA Sage.
Moore, G., & Sekhon, H. (2005). Multi-brand loyalty cards: A good idea. Journal of
Marketing Management, 21(5/6), 625-640.
Morse, G. (2011). Retail isn't broken. Stores are. Harvard Business Review, 89(12), 7882.
143
OBrien, J. (2009). Introduction to information systems (15th Ed.). New York: McGrawHill High Education.
Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer. New York:
Irwin/McGraw Hill.
Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 63(00222429),
33-33-44.
Omar, N., Wel, C., Musa, R., & Nazri, M. (2010). Program benefits, satisfaction and
loyalty in retail loyalty program: Exploring the roles of program trust and
program commitment. IUP Journal of Marketing Management, 9(4), 6-28.
Palmatier, R., Scheer, L., & Steenkamp, J. (2007). Customer loyalty to whom? Managing
the benefits and risks of salesperson-owned loyalty. Journal of Marketing
Research (JMR), 44(2), 185-199.
Petroulas, E., Brown, D., & Sundin, H. (2010). Generational characteristics and their
impact on preference for management control systems. Australian Accounting
Review, 20(3), 221-240. doi:10.1111/j.1835-2561.2010.00099
Pike, G. R. (2003). Membership in a fraternity or sorority, student engagement, and
educational outcomes at AAU public research universities. Journal of College
Student Development, 44(3), 369-382.
Pimentel, R. & Kristy, E. (2004). A model for consumer devotion: Affective commitment
with proactive sustaining behaviors. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 2004,
1-1.
Pontiskoski, E., & Asakawa, K. (2010). Overcoming barriers to open innovation at
Apple, Nintendo and Nokia. International Journal of Social Sciences, 5(1), 26-31.
Porter, M. E. (1996). What is strategy? Harvard Business Review, 74(6), 61-78.
Porter, M.E. (1998). Competitive strategy: techniques for analyzing industries and
competitors. New York: Free Press.
Rainer, K & Cegielski, C. (2012). Introduction to information systems: Enabling and
transforming business (4th Ed.). Canada: John Wiley & Sons.
Ragas, M. & Bueno, R. (2002). The power of cult branding: How 9 magnetic brands
turned customers into loyal followers (and your can, too). New York: Crown
Business.
144
Rehorick, D. & Bentz, V. (2009). Transformative phenomenology: Changing ourselves,

lifeworlds, and professional practice. Lanham, Md. Lexington Books.
Rose, P., Beeby, J., & Parker, D. (1995). Academic rigour in the lived experience of
researchers using phenomenological methods in nursing. Journal Of Advanced
Nursing, 21(6), 1123-1129. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.1995.21061123.x
Rossiter, J., & Bellman, S. (2012). Emotional branding pays off. Journal Of Advertising
Research, 52(3), 291-296. doi:10.2501/JAR-52-3-291-296 S
Rubio, D., Berg-Weger, M., Tebb, S., Lee, E. & Rauch, S. (2003). Objectifying content
validity: Conducting a content validity study in social work research. Social Work
Research, 27(2), 94.
Ruble, N. M., & Turner, W. L. (2000). A systematic analysis of the dynamics and
organization of urban street gangs. American Journal of Family Therapy, 28(2),
117-132.
Salegna, G., & Goodwin, S. (2005). Consumer loyalty to service providers: An integrated
conceptual model. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and
Complaining Behavior, 18(08998620), 51-67.
Schoch, T. (2012). Turning the ship around with a four-generation crew. Information
Management Journal, 46(4), 25-29.
Schouten, J. W., & McAlexander, J. H. (1995). Subcultures of consumption: An
ethnography of the new bikers. Journal Of Consumer Research, 22(1), 43-61.
Seybold, P. B. (1997). Apple could make a comeback by leveraging loyalty.
Computerworld, 31(21), 33-33.
Shankar, A., & Canniford, R. (2006). Consumer empowerment: A foucauldian
interpretation. European Journal of Marketing, 40(9), 1013-1030.
doi:10.1108/03090560610680989
Simons, N. (2010). Leveraging generational work styles to meet business objectives.
Information Management Journal, 44(1), 28-33.
Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J., & Sabol, B. (2002). Consumer trust, value, and loyalty in
relational exchanges. Journal of Marketing, 66(1), 15-37.
SkyMiles (2012). Rewards network. Retrieved July 14, 2012 from website:
http://skymiles.rewardsnetwork.com/
145
Sorescu, A., Frambach, R. T., Singh, J., Rangaswamy, A., & Bridges, C. (2011).
Innovations in retail business models. Journal of Retailing, 87(00224359), S3-S3S16. doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2011.04.005
Stanford, N. (2007). Guide to organisation design: Creating high-performing and
adaptable enterprises. London: Profile Books Ltd.
Swanson, R. A., & Holton, E. F., III. (Eds.). (2005). Research in organizations:
Foundations and methods of inquiry. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W.G.
Austin and S. Worchel (Eds.) The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp
33-47) . Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole.
Tantawy, A., & Losekoot, E. (2001). An assessment of key hotel guest contact personnel
in handling guest complaints. Journal Of Quality Assurance In Hospitality &
Tourism, 1(4), 21.
Tiwari, R., & Abraham, A. (2010). Customer loyalty and perceptions-Underlying
constructs. Journal Of Marketing & Communication, 6(2), 14-19.
Trochim, W. (2006). Qualitative validity. Retrieved from August 20, 2012 from Web
site: http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/qualval.htm
Ullrich, J., Wieseke, J., Christ, O., Schulze, M., & van Dick, R. (2007). The IdentityMatching Principle: Corporate and organizational identification in a franchising
system. British Journal Of Management, 1829-44. doi:10.1111/j.14678551.2007.00524.x
Vine, W.E. (1981). Vines expository dictionary of Old and New Testament words.
Fleming H. Revell Company. Old Tappan, New Jersey.
Vogt, W. P. (2007). Quantitative research methods for professionals. Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Wade, J. (2006). Busting the dealer. Risk Management (00355593), 53(4), 56-64.
Wagner, T., Hennig-Thurau, T., & Rudolph, T. (2009). Does customer demotion
jeopardize loyalty?. Journal of Marketing, 73(3), 69-85.
doi:10.1509/jmkg.73.3.69
Wirtz, J, Mattila, A.S., & Lwin, M.O. (2007). How effective are loyalty reward
programmes in driving share of wallet? Journal of Service Research, No 4, p.
327-334. doi: 10.1177/1094670506295853
146
Woo, B., Trail, G. T., Kwon, H., & Anderson, D. (2009). Testing models of motives and
points of attachment among spectators in college football. Sport Marketing
Quarterly, 18(1), 38-53.
Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. A. (1996). The behavioral
consequences of service quality. Journal Of Marketing, 60(2), 31-46.
147
APPENDIX A - INDIVIDUAL QUESTION RESULTS

Table A1
Question 1: I identify myself as a fan of _____.
Group
Agree
Disagree
10.3% (34) 8.8% (29)
32.7%
34.5%
Dell
IBM
5.8% (19)
Microsoft
2.1% (7)
12.7%
(42)
6.1% (20)
HP
6.4% (21)
8.5% (28)
Apple
1.4% (5)
2.1% (7)
ANOVA
Source of
variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
SS
271.6752
df
(108)
54.5%
(180)
28.8%
(95)
35.2%
(120)
10.9%
(36)
(114)
22.4%
(74)
43.0%
(142)
36.4%
(120)
40.3%
(133)
MS
67.9188
1645
0.9379
1,542.8849
1,814.56
1649
148
Strongly
Agree
13.6%
(45)
4.5% (15)
20.0%
(66)
13.6%
(45)
45.2%
(149)
p-level
72.4140
0.E+0
Rating
Average
3.32
Response
Count
330
3.07
330
3.73
330
3.42
330
4.25
330
FCritical
4.6399
Table A2
Question 1: Analysis of Variance (One-Way) Apple Versus Microsoft
Groups
Apple
Microsoft
Total
Sample
size
330
330
660
Sum
1,404.
1,230.
Mean
4.25455
3.72727
3.99091
Variance
6,210.
4,864.
0.85272
ANOVA
Source of
Variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
d.f.
SS
MS
45.87273
45.87273
658
659
516.07273
561.94545
0.78431
58.48837
p-level
7.28306E14
F crit
Omega
Sqr.
10.9255
0.08012

Group vs
Group
(Contrast)
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.52727
99.9% Confidence
Interval
0.29938
Test
Statistics
0.75516
58.48837
p-level
7.28306E14

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.52727
Test
Statistics
p-level
10.81558
0.74609
Accepted?
rejected
Tukey B Test for Contrasts on Ordered Means

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.52727
Test
Statistics
Degrees
Of
Freedom
10.81558
Error DF
658.
Tukey-Kramer Test for Differences Between Means

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.52727
Test
Statistics
p-level
10.81558
0.74609
Accepted?
rejected
149
p-level
Accepted?
0.74609
rejected
Table A3
Question 2: _____ knows how to relate to its customers.
Group
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree
Agree
6.7%
(22)
8.2%
(27)
39.1%
31.5%
14,5%
Dell
IBM
5.5% (18)
8.5% (28)
Microsoft
2.7% (9)
7.6% (25)
HP
4.5% (15)
9.1% (30)
Apple
2.7% (9)
1.5% (5)
SS
df
ANOVA
Source of
variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Rating
Average
3.39
Response
Count
330
3.18
330
(129)
54.8%
(181)
32.7%
(108)
40.9%
(135)
18.2%
(60)
(104)
25.5%
(84)
40.6%
(134)
33.3%
(110)
32.7%
(108)
(48)
5.8% (19)
16.4%
(54)
12.1%
(40)
44.8%
(148)
3.60
330
3.39
330
4.15
330
MS
p-level
FCritical
184.0764
46.0191
1,511.2818
1645
0.9187
1,695.3582
1649
150
50.0909
0.E+0
4.6399
Table A4
Groups
Apple
Microsoft
Total
Sample
size
330
330
660
Sum
1,371.
1,189.
Mean
4.15455
3.60303
3.87879
Variance
5,997.
4,575.
0.97466
ANOVA
Source of
Variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
d.f.
SS
MS
50.18788
50.18788
658
659
592.11515
642.30303
0.89987
55.7723
p-level
2.59348E13
F crit
Omega
Sqr.
10.9255
0.07663

Group vs
Group
(Contrast)
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.55152
99.9% Confidence
Interval
0.30741
Test
Statistics
0.79562
55.7723
p-level
2.59348E13

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.55152
Test
Statistics
10.56147
p-level
Accepted?
0.74609
rejected

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.55152
Test
Statistics
Degrees
Of
Freedom
10.56147
Error DF
658.

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.55152
Test
Statistics
10.56147
p-level
Accepted?
0.74609
rejected
151
p-level
Accepted?
0.74609
rejected
Table A5
Question 3: I believe that fans of _____ are cooler than fans of other organizations, and
are more up to date with regard to current technological trends.
Group
Agree Strongly
Rating
Response
Disagree
Agree
Average
Count
7.9% (26)
12.7%
49.4%
21.8%
8.2% (27)
Dell
3.10
330
(42)
16.7%
(55)
9.7% (32)
IBM
6.7% (22)
Microsoft
3.0% (10)
HP
5.2% (17)
Apple
2.1% (7)
13.0%
(46)
5.8% (19)
SS
df
ANOVA
Source of
variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
(163)
55.5%
(183)
43.3%
(143)
51.5%
(170)
27.3%
(90)
(72)
16.7%
(55)
28.2%
(93)
21.2%
(70)
27.0%
(89)
MS
197.5249
49.3812
1,527.9788
1645
0.9289
1,725.5036
1649
152
53.1631
4.5% (15)
2.96
330
15.8%
(52)
8.2% (27)
3.44
330
3.13
330
37.9%
(125)
3.93
330
p-level
FCritical
0.E+0
4.6399
Table A6
Groups
Apple
Microsoft
Total
Sample
size
330
330
660
Sum
1,296.
1,135.
Mean
3.92727
3.43939
3.68333
Variance
5,442.
4,213.
1.06345
ANOVA
Source of
Variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
d.f.
SS
MS
39.27424
39.27424
658
659
661.54242
700.81667
1.00538
p-level
39.06394
0.
F crit
Omega
Sqr.
10.9255
0.05453

Group vs
Group
(Contrast)
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.48788
99.9% Confidence
Interval
0.22986
Test
Statistics
0.74589
39.06394
p-level
0.

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.48788
Test
Statistics
8.839
p-level
Accepted?
0.74609
rejected

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.48788
Test
Statistics
Degrees
Of
Freedom
8.839
Error DF
658.

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.48788
Test
Statistics
8.839
p-level
Accepted?
0.74609
rejected
153
p-level
Accepted?
0.74609
rejected
Table A7
Question 4: I believe _____ will continue to be a leader in their industry.
Group
Agree Strongly
Rating
Disagree
Agree
Average
7.3% (24)
10.0%
38.2%
31.8%
12.7%
Dell
3.33
(33)
10.9%
(36)
3.6% (12)
IBM
4.8% (16)
Microsoft
1.5% (5)
HP
5.2% (17)
Apple
1.5% (5)
11.8%
(39)
.6% (2)
SS
df
ANOVA
Source of
variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
(126)
49.1%
(162)
23.3%
(77)
35.2%
(116)
13.0%
(43)
(105)
26.4%
(87)
47.0%
(155)
36.4%
(120)
34.5%
(114)
(42)
8.8% (29)
MS
281.9067
70.4767
1,461.3555
1645
0.8884
1,743.2612
1649
154
79.3333
Response
Count
330
3.23
330
24.5%
(81)
11.5%
(38)
50.3%
(166)
3.89
330
3.37
330
4.32
330
p-level
FCritical
0.E+0
4.6399
Table A8
Groups
Apple
Microsoft
Total
Sample
size
330
330
660
Sum
1,424.
1,285.
Mean
4.31515
3.89394
4.10455
Variance
6,374.
5,251.
0.76751
ANOVA
Source of
Variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
d.f.
SS
MS
F
40.42384
29.27424
29.27424
658
659
476.51212
505.78636
0.72418
p-level
0.
F crit
Omega
Sqr.
10.9255
0.05637

Group vs
Group
(Contrast)
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.42121
99.9% Confidence
Interval
Test
Statistics
0.20223
40.42384
0.64019
p-level
0.

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.42121
Test
Statistics
8.99153
p-level
Accepted?
0.74609
rejected

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.42121
Test
Statistics
Degrees
Of
Freedom
8.99153
Error DF
658.

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.42121
Test
Statistics
8.99153
p-level
Accepted?
0.74609
rejected
155
p-level
Accepted?
0.74609
rejected
Table A9
Question 5: The customer service support of _____ is outstanding, which demonstrates
_____s commitment to its customers.
Group
Agree Strongly
Rating
Response
Disagree
Agree
Average
Count
10.0% (33) 6.7% (22)
47.0%
24.2%
12.1%
Dell
3.22
330
IBM
3.9% (13)
7.6% (25)
Microsoft
3.3% (11)
8.8% (29)
HP
4.5% (15)
9.4% (31)
Apple
2.7% (9)
3.6% (12)
SS
df
ANOVA
Source of
variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
(155)
65.2%
(215)
46.7%
(154)
51.8%
(171)
27.6%
(91)
(80)
17.0%
(56)
27.3%
(90)
22.7%
(75)
27.9%
(92)
(40)
6.4% (21)
MS
138.5055
34.6264
1,522.2727
1645
0.92540
1,660.7782
1649
156
37.4180
3.14
330
13.9%
(46)
11.5%
(38)
38.2%
(126)
3.40
330
3.27
330
3.95
330
p-level
FCritical
0.E+0
4.6399
Table A10
Groups
Apple
Microsoft
Total
Sample
size
330
330
660
Sum
1,304.
1,121.
Mean
3.95152
3.39697
3.67424
Variance
5,498.
4,103.
1.0485
ANOVA
Source of
Variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
d.f.
SS
MS
F
52.14997
50.74091
50.74091
658
659
640.22121
690.96212
0.97298
p-level
1.4253E12
F crit
Omega
Sqr.
10.9255
0.07193

Group vs
Group
(Contrast)
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.55455
99.9% Confidence
Interval
Test
Statistics
0.30072
52.14997
0.80837
p-level
1.4253E12

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.55455
Test
Statistics
10.21273
p-level
Accepted?
0.74609
rejected

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.55455
Test
Statistics
Degrees
Of
Freedom
10.21273
Error DF
658.

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.55455
Test
Statistics
10.21273
p-level
Accepted?
0.74609
rejected
157
p-level
Accepted?
0.74609
rejected
Table A11
Question 6: From sales to service, _____ treats customers well.
Group
Agree Strongly
Disagree
Agree
7.6%
(25)
5.8%
(19)
41.8%
32.4%
12.4%
Dell
IBM
3.6% (12)
8.2% (27)
Microsoft
1.8% (6)
7.0% (23)
HP
3.6% (12)
6.7% (22)
Apple
2.4% (8)
1.8% (6)
SS
df
ANOVA
Source of
variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Rating
Average
3.36
Response
Count
330
3.22
330
14.2%
(47)
9.1% (30)
3.53
330
3.35
330
330
(138)
57.3%
(189)
41.8%
(138)
50.0%
(165)
25.5%
(84)
(107)
24,2%
(80)
35.2%
(116)
30.6%
(101)
32.4%
(107)
(41)
6.7% (22)
37.9%
(125)
4.02
MS
p-level
FCritical
127.2097
31.80242
1,387.26061
1645
0.84332
1,514.4703
1649
158
37.711
0.E+0
4.6399
Table A12
Groups
Apple
Microsoft
Total
Sample
size
330
330
660
Sum
1,325.
1,165.
Mean
4.01515
3.5303
3.77273
Variance
5,625.
4,371.
0.91337
ANOVA
Source of
Variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
d.f.
SS
MS
F
45.32314
38.78788
38.78788
658
659
563.12121
601.90909
0.85581
p-level
3.64212E11
F crit
Omega
Sqr.
10.9255
0.06293

Group vs
Group
(Contrast)
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.48485
99.9% Confidence
Interval
0.2468
Test
Statistics
0.7229
45.32314
p-level
3.64212E11

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.48485
Test
Statistics
9.52083
p-level
Accepted?
0.74609
rejected

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.48485
Test
Statistics
Degrees
Of
Freedom
9.52083
Error DF
658.

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.48485
Test
Statistics
9.52083
p-level
Accepted?
0.74609
rejected
159
p-level
Accepted?
0.74609
rejected
Table A13
Question 7: _____ is approachable and responsive and makes itself available to
customers with regard to complaints and comments.
Group
Agree Strongly
Rating
Response
Disagree
Agree
Average
Count
7.0% (23)
9.1% (30)
42.7%
40.0%
11.2%
Dell
3.29
330
IBM
3.6% (12)
Microsoft
2.7% (9)
10.0%
(33)
9.4% (31)
HP
4.2% (14)
9.7% (32)
Apple
2.4% (8)
3.3% (11)
SS
df
ANOVA
Source of
variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
(141)
55.8%
(184)
43.3%
(143)
45.8%
(151)
25.2%
(83)
(99)
24.2%
(80)
31.8%
(105)
28.5%
(94)
34.8%
(115)
(37)
6.4% (21)
MS
116.2946
29.0736
1,464.5030
1645
0.8903
1,580.7976
1649
160
32.6569
3.20
330
12.7%
(42)
11.8%
(39)
34.2%
(113)
3.42
330
3.34
330
3.95
330
p-level
FCritical
0.E+0
4.6399
Table A14
Groups
Apple
Microsoft
Total
Sample
size
330
330
660
Sum
1,304.
1,130.
Mean
3.95152
3.42424
3.68788
Variance
5,464.
4,150.
0.96768
ANOVA
Source of
Variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
d.f.
SS
MS
F
51.00154
45.87273
45.87273
658
659
591.8303
637.70303
0.89944
p-level
2.45182E12
F crit
Omega
Sqr.
10.9255
0.07042

Group vs
Group
(Contrast)
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.52727
99.9% Confidence
Interval
0.28323
Test
Statistics
0.77131
51.00154
p-level
2.45182E12

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.52727
Test
Statistics
10.09966
p-level
Accepted?
0.74609
rejected

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.52727
Test
Statistics
Degrees
Of
Freedom
10.09966
Error DF
658.

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.52727
Test
Statistics
10.09966
p-level
Accepted?
0.74609
rejected
161
p-level
Accepted?
0.74609
rejected
Table A15
Question 8: _____ values me as a customer.
Group
Disagree
5.8% (19)
7.3% (24)
46.1%
Dell
IBM
5.2% (17)
6.4% (21)
Microsoft
3.3% (11)
6.1% (20)
HP
3.6% (12)
7.6% (25)
Apple
2.7% (9)
3.9% (13)
SS
df
ANOVA
Source of
variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Agree
Strongly
Agree
(152)
56.4%
(186)
43.0%
(142)
46.7%
(154)
25.5%
(84)
28.5%
(94)
25.5%
(84)
34.2%
(113)
30.9%
(102)
36.4%
(120)
12.4%
(41)
6.7% (22)
MS
88.9818
22.2455
1,431.6849
1645
0.8703
1,520.6667
1649
162
25.5599
Rating
Average
3.35
Response
Count
330
3.22
330
13.3%
(44)
11.2%
(37)
31.5%
(104)
3.48
330
3.38
330
3.90
330
p-level
FCritical
0.E+0
4.6399
Table A16
Groups
Apple
Microsoft
Total
Sample
size
330
330
660
Sum
1,287.
1,149.
Mean
3.9
3.48182
3.69091
Variance
5,337.
4,277.
0.94529
ANOVA
Source of
Variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
d.f.
SS
MS
F
31.95856
28.85455
28.85455
658
659
594.09091
622.94545
0.90287
p-level
0.
F crit
Omega
Sqr.
10.9255
0.04481

Group vs
Group
(Contrast)
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.41818
99.9% Confidence
Interval
Test
Statistics
0.17367
31.95856
0.66269
p-level
0.

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.41818
Test
Statistics
7.99482
p-level
Accepted?
0.74609
rejected

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.41818
Test
Statistics
Degrees
Of
Freedom
7.99482
Error DF
658.

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.41818
Test
Statistics
7.99482
p-level
Accepted?
0.74609
rejected
163
p-level
Accepted?
0.74609
rejected
Table A17
Question 9: I trust that _____ will do what is best for its consumers.
Group
Agree Strongly
Rating
Disagree
Agree
Average
6.7% (22) 6.1% (20)
43.9%
30.3%
13.0%
Dell
3.37
IBM
4.2% (14)
9.1% (30)
Microsoft
2.7% (9)
7.0% (23)
HP
3.6% (12)
7.3% (24)
Apple
3.0% (10)
4.5% (15)
SS
df
ANOVA
Source of
variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
(145)
54.5%
(180)
46.1%
(152)
49.1%
(162)
29.4%
(97)
(100)
25.2%
(83)
30.3%
(100)
29.1%
(96)
31.2%
(103)
(43)
7.0% (23)
MS
72.88848
18.2221
1,461.5364
1645
0.8885
1,534.4249
1649
164
20.5095
Response
Count
330
3.22
330
13.9%
(46)
10.9%
(36)
31.8%
(105)
3.46
330
3.36
330
3.84
330
p-level
FCritical
1.11022E16
4.6399
Table A18
Groups
Apple
Microsoft
Total
Sample size
330
330
660
Sum
1,267.
1,143.
Mean
3.83939
3.46364
3.65152
Variance
5,209.
4,227.
0.96487
ANOVA
Source of
Variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
d.f.
SS
MS
23.29697
23.29697
658
659
612.55152
635.84848
0.93093
p-level
25.0255
0.
F crit
Omega
Sqr.
10.9255
0.03512

Group vs
Group
(Contrast)
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.37576
99.9% Confidence
Interval
0.12748
Test
Statistics
0.62403
25.0255
p-level
0.

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.37576
Test
Statistics
7.07467
p-level
Accepted?
0.74609
rejected

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.37576
Test
Statistics
Degrees
Of
Freedom
7.07467
Error DF
658.

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.37576
Test
Statistics
7.07467
p-level
Accepted?
0.74609
rejected
165
p-level
Accepted?
0.74609
rejected
Table A19
Question 10: I believe _____ is open and honest about its communication with its
consumers about its products.
Group
Agree Strongly
Rating
Response
Disagree
Agree
Average
Count
6.1% (20) 9.7% (32)
41.5%
33.0%
9.7% (32)
Dell
3.31
330
IBM
4.2% (14)
9.1% (30)
Microsoft
3.3% (11)
9.1% (30)
HP
3.3% (11)
8.2% (27)
Apple
3.0% (10)
5.2% (17)
SS
df
ANOVA
Source of
variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
(137)
52.7%
(174)
40.3%
(133)
47.3%
(156)
30.9%
(102)
(109)
27.9%
(92)
36.4%
(120)
32.1%
(106)
35.2%
(116)
MS
55.1964
13.7991
1,418.7364
1645
0.8625
1,473.9327
1649
166
15.9998
6.1% (20)
3.22
330
10.9%
(36)
9.1% (30)
3.42
330
3.35
330
25.8%
(85)
3.75
330
p-level
FCritical
7.39075E13
4.6399
Table A20
Groups
Apple
Microsoft
Total
Sample size
330
330
660
Sum
1,239.
1,130.
Mean
3.75455
3.42424
3.58939
Variance
4,977.
4,148.
0.94344
ANOVA
Source of
Variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
d.f.
MS
p-level
F crit
Omega
Sqr.
19.61988
0.00001
10.9255
0.02744
99.9% Confidence
Interval
Test
Statistics
p-level
0.08382
19.61988
0.00001
SS
1
18.00152
18.00152
658
659
603.72424
621.72576
0.91751

Group vs
Group
(Contrast)
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.3303
0.57678

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.3303
Test
Statistics
6.26416
p-level
Accepted?
0.7461
rejected

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.3303
Test
Statistics
Degrees
Of
Freedom
6.26416
Error DF
658.

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.3303
Test
Statistics
6.26416
p-level
0.7461
167
Accepted?
rejected
p-level
Accepted?
0.7461
rejected
Table A21
Question 11: _____ has demonstrated that it is committed to its customers
Group
Agree Strongly
Rating
Disagree
Agree
Average
6.4% (21)
7.9% (26)
41.8%
30.6%
13.3%
Dell
3.37
IBM
3.9% (13)
7.3% (24)
Microsoft
1.8% (6)
6.1% (20)
HP
3.6% (12)
7.9% (26)
Apple
2.7% (9)
3.3% (11)
SS
df
ANOVA
Source of
variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
(138)
56.7%
(187)
42.1%
(139)
45.5%
(150)
27.0%
(89)
(101)
25.2%
(83)
35.8%
(118)
31.2%
(103)
31.8%
(105)
(44)
7.0% (23)
MS
94.4085
23.6021
1,436.070
1645
0.8730
1,530.4782
1649
168
27.0359
Response
Count
330
3.24
330
14.2%
(47)
11.8%
(39)
35.2%
(116)
3.55
330
3.40
330
3.93
330
p-level
FCritical
0.E+0
4.6399
Table A22
Groups
Apple
Microsoft
Total
Sample
size
330
330
660
Sum
1,298.
1,170.
Mean
3.93333
3.54545
3.73939
Variance
5,434.
4,400.
0.91832
ANOVA
Source of
Variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
d.f.
SS
MS
F
28.14562
24.82424
24.82424
658
659
580.35152
605.17576
0.88199
p-level
0.
F crit
10.9255

Group vs
Group
(Contrast)
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.38788
99.9% Confidence
Interval
Test
Statistics
0.14622
28.14562
0.62954
p-level
0.

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.38788
Test
Statistics
7.50275
p-level
Accepted?
0.74609
rejected

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.38788
Test
Statistics
Degrees
Of
Freedom
7.50275
Error DF
658.

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.38788
Test
Statistics
7.50275
p-level
Accepted?
0.74609
rejected
169
p-level
Accepted?
0.74609
rejected
Omega
Sqr.
0.0395
Table A23
Question 12: _____ is dedicated to quality and being the best.
Group
Agree Strongly
Disagree
Agree
5.2%
(17)
7.0%
(23)
40.0%
34.2%
13.6%
Dell
IBM
2.4% (8)
7.3% (24)
Microsoft
1.8% (6)
5.5% (18)
HP
4.5% (15)
5.2% (17)
Apple
1.5% (5)
.9% (3)
SS
df
ANOVA
Source of
variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Rating
Average
3.44
Response
Count
330
3.38
330
(132)
49.7%
(164)
30.6%
(101)
40.3%
(133)
15.2%
(50)
(113)
31.5%
(104)
41.5%
(137)
38.5%
(127)
33.9%
(112)
(45)
9.1% (30)
20.6%
(68)
11.5%
(38)
48.5%
(160)
3.74
330
3.47
330
4.27
330
MS
p-level
FCritical
178.4521
44.6130
1,350.1273
1645
0.8208
1,528.5794
1649
170
54.3567
0.E+0
4.6399
Table A24
Groups
Apple
Microsoft
Total
Sample
size
330
330
660
Sum
1,409.
1,233.
Mean
4.2697
3.73636
4.00303
Variance
6,259.
4,879.
0.8528
MS
F
59.95825
ANOVA
Source of
Variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
d.f.
SS
1
46.93333
46.93333
658
659
515.06061
561.99394
0.78277
p-level
3.66374E14
F crit
Omega
Sqr.
10.9255
0.08201

Group vs
Group
(Contrast)
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.53333
99.9% Confidence
Interval
0.30567
Test
Statistics
0.761
59.95825
p-level
3.66374E14

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.53333
Test
Statistics
10.95064
p-level
Accepted?
0.74609
rejected

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.53333
Test
Statistics
Degrees
Of
Freedom
10.95064
Error DF
658.

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.53333
Test
Statistics
10.95064
p-level
Accepted?
0.74609
rejected
171
p-level
Accepted?
0.74609
rejected
Table A25
Question 13: When possible I would buy _____ products over similar competitors
products.
Group
Agree Strongly
Rating
Response
Disagree
Agree
Average
Count
10.3% (34)
13.6%
35.8%
28.5%
11.8%
3.18
Dell
330
(45)
16.1%
(53)
5.8% (19)
IBM
7.3% (24)
Microsoft
3.6% (12)
HP
7.0% (23)
Apple
3.3% (11)
10.6%
(35)
2,4% (8)
SS
df
ANOVA
Source of
variation
Between
Groups
(118)
52.7%
(174)
36.1%
(119)
37.6%
(124)
19.4%
(64)
(94)
20.0%
(66)
37.9&
(125)
33.0%
(109)
31.5%
(104)
(39)
3.9% (13)
MS
245.4824
61.37061
Within
Groups
1,680.7212
1645
1.02172
Total
1,926.2036
1649
172
60.0663
2.97
330
16.7%
(55)
11.8%
(39)
43.3%
(143)
3.58
330
3.32
330
4.09
330
p-level
FCritical
0.E+0
4.6399
Table A26
Groups
Apple
Microsoft
Total
Sample size
330
330
660
Sum
1,350.
1,182.
Mean
4.09091
3.58182
3.83636
Variance
5,858.
4,534.
1.02933
ANOVA
Source of
Variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
d.f.
SS
MS
F
44.27326
42.76364
42.76364
658
659
635.56364
678.32727
0.9659
p-level
6.01676E11
F crit
Omega
Sqr.
10.9255
0.06153

Group vs
Group
(Contrast)
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.50909
99.9% Confidence
Interval
Test
Statistics
0.25619
44.27326
0.76199
p-level
6.01676E11

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.50909
Test
Statistics
9.40992
p-level
Accepted?
0.74609
rejected

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.50909
Test
Statistics
Degrees
Of
Freedom
9.40992
Error DF
658.

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.50909
Test
Statistics
9.40992
p-level
Accepted?
0.74609
rejected
173
p-level
Accepted?
0.74609
rejected
Table A27
Question 14: I would wear apparel displaying _____s icon proudly.
Group
Agree Strongly
Rating
Disagree
Agree
Average
22.4% (74)
25.5%
27.6%
15.2%
9.4% (31)
Dell
2.64
IBM
19.7% (65)
Microsoft
17.9% (59)
HP
20.6% (68)
Apple
16.4% (54)
ANOVA
Source of
variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
SS
(84)
27.6%
(91)
24,8% (82
25.2%
(83)
19.7%
(65)
(91)
33.9%
(112)
30.3%
(100)
30.3%
(100)
21.2%
(70)
(50)
13.3%
(44)
17.9%
(57)
17.9%
(59)
18.5%
(61)
df
MS
70.5370
17.6342
2,506.5879
1645
1.5238
2,577.1249
1649
174
11.5728
Response
Count
330
5.5% (18)
2.57
330
9.7% (32)
2.76
330
6.1% (20)
2.64
330
24.2%
(80)
3.15
330
p-level
FCritical
0.E+0
4.6399
Table A28
Groups
Apple
Microsoft
Total
Sample size
330
330
660
Sum
1,038.
911.
Mean
3.14545
2.76061
2.95303
Variance
3,920.
2,999.
1.76562
ANOVA
Source of
Variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
d.f.
SS
MS
p-level
F crit
Omega
Sqr.
14.11644
0.00019
10.9255
0.01949
Test
Statistics
p-level
14.11644
0.00019
24.43788
24.43788
658
659
1,139.10606
1,163.54394
1.73116

Group vs
Group
(Contrast)
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.38485
99.9% Confidence
Interval
0.04628
0.72342

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.38485
Test
Statistics
5.31346
p-level
Accepted?
0.74614
rejected

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.38485
Test
Statistics
Degrees
Of
Freedom
5.31346
Error DF
658.

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.38485
Test
Statistics
5.31346
p-level
Accepted?
0.74614
rejected
175
p-level
Accepted?
0.74614
rejected
Table A29
Question 15: People who use ______s products are loyal to the company.
Group
Agree Strongly
Rating
Disagree
Agree
Average
5.8% (19)
8.8$ (29)
46.7%
27.9%
10.9%
Dell
3.29
IBM
4.2% (14)
6.7% (22)
Microsoft
1.8% (6)
5.5% (18)
HP
4.8% (16)
8.8% (29)
Apple
1.8% (8)
1.8% (6)
SS
df
ANOVA
Source of
variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
(154)
55.2%
(182)
41,5%
(137)
48.5%
(160)
19.4%
(64)
(92)
25.5%
(84)
36.7%
(121)
26.7%
(88)
31.5%
(104)
(36)
8.5% (28)
MS
192.1539
48.0385
1,391.5606
1645
0.8459
1,583.7146
1649
176
56.7875
Response
Count
330
3.27
330
14.5%
(48)
11.2%
(37)
45.5%
(150)
3.57
330
3.31
330
4.17
330
p-level
FCritical
0.E+0
4.6399
Table A30
Groups
Apple
Microsoft
Total
Sample size
330
330
660
Sum
1,376.
1,177.
Mean
4.1697
3.56667
3.86818
Variance
6,020.
4,447.
0.89762
ANOVA
Source of
Variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
d.f.
SS
MS
F
74.27798
60.00152
60.00152
658
659
531.5303
591.53182
0.8078
p-level
0.E+0
F crit
Omega
Sqr.
10.9255
0.09993

Group vs
Group
(Contrast)
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.60303
99.9% Confidence
Interval
0.37175
Test
Statistics
0.83431
74.27798
p-level
0.E+0

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.60303
Test
Statistics
12.18835
p-level
Accepted?
0.74609
rejected

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.60303
Test
Statistics
Degrees
Of
Freedom
12.18835
Error DF
658.

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.60303
Test
Statistics
12.18835
p-level
Accepted?
0.74609
rejected
177
p-level
Accepted?
0.74609
rejected
Table A31
Question 16: I like to read articles about this _____s upcoming products.
Group
Agree Strongly
Rating
Disagree
Agree
Average
11.2% (37)
18.2%
40.0%
21.5%
9.1% (30)
Dell
2.99
IBM
9.7% (32)
Microsoft
5.8% (19)
HP
10.0% (33)
Apple
6.4% (21)
ANOVA
Source of
variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
SS
(60)
20.0%
(66)
13.3%
(44)
15.5%
(51)
10.0%
(33)
(132)
45.5%
(150)
35.2%
(116)
41.5%
(137)
20.9%
(69)
(71)
19.1%
(63)
30.0%
(99)
22.4%
(74)
29.1%
(96)
df
MS
149.9782
37.4946
1,984.9121
1645
1.2066
2,134.8903
1649
178
31.0737
Response
Count
330
5.8% (19)
2.91
330
15.8%
(52)
10.6%
(35)
33.6%
(111)
3.37
330
3.08
330
3.74
330
p-level
FCritical
0.E+0
4.6399
Table A32
Groups
Apple
Microsoft
Total
Sample size
330
330
660
Sum
1,233.
1,111.
Mean
3.73636
3.36667
3.55152
Variance
5,085.
4,123.
1.34029
ANOVA
Source of
Variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
d.f.
SS
MS
p-level
F crit
Omega
Sqr.
17.24056
0.00004
10.9255
0.02402
Test
Statistics
p-level
17.24056
0.00004
22.55152
22.55152
658
659
860.69697
883.24848
1.30805

Group vs
Group
(Contrast)
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.3697
99.9% Confidence
Interval
0.0754
0.664

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.3697
Test
Statistics
5.87206
p-level
Accepted?
0.7461
rejected

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.3697
Test
Statistics
Degrees
Of
Freedom
5.87206
Error DF
658.

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.3697
Test
Statistics
5.87206
p-level
0.7461
179
Accepted?
rejected
p-level
0.7461
Accepted?
rejected
Table A33
Question 17: _____ demonstrates an interconnected association of users and
community of fans.
Group
Agree Strongly
Rating
Disagree
Agree
Average
7.9% (26)
11.2%
51.8%
20.6%
8.5% (28)
Dell
3.11
(37)
10.6%
(35)
5.8% (19)
IBM
4.5% (15)
Microsoft
2.1% (7)
HP
4.5% (15)
Apple
3.0% (10)
11.8%
(39)
1.5% (5)
SS
df
ANOVA
Source of
variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
(171)
61.2%
(202)
47.0%
(155)
55.5%
(183)
27.6%
(91)
(68)
18.5%
(61)
33.3%
(110)
20.3%
(67)
32.4%
(107)
MS
181.2933
45.3233
1,358.5879
1645
0.8259
1,539.8812
1649
180
54.8782
Response
Count
330
5.2% (17)
3.09
330
11.8%
(39)
7.9% (26)
3.47
330
3.15
330
35.5%
(117)
3.96
330
p-level
FCritical
0.E+0
4.6399
Table A34
Groups
Apple
Microsoft
Total
Sample
size
330
330
660
Sum
1,306.
1,145.
Mean
3.95758
3.4697
3.71364
Variance
5,486.
4,213.
0.90573
ANOVA
Source of
Variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
d.f.
SS
MS
F
46.34561
39.27424
39.27424
658
659
557.60303
596.87727
0.84742
p-level
2.23589E11
F crit
Omega
Sqr.
10.9255
0.06429

Group vs
Group
(Contrast)
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.48788
99.9% Confidence
Interval
0.251
Test
Statistics
0.72476
46.34561
p-level
2.23589E11

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.48788
Test
Statistics
9.62763
p-level
Accepted?
0.74609
rejected

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.48788
Test
Statistics
Degrees
Of
Freedom
9.62763
Error DF
658.

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.48788
Test
Statistics
9.62763
p-level
Accepted?
0.74609
rejected
181
p-level
0.74609
Accepted?
rejected
Table A35
Question 18: Consumers of _____ products have a better idea of what is current and new.
Group
Agree Strongly
Rating
Response
Disagree
Agree
Average
Count
5.8%
(19)
7.6%(25)
51.2%
25.8%
9.7%
(32)
Dell
3.26
330
IBM
5.2% (17)
9.4% (31)
Microsoft
2.4% (8)
3.9% (13)
HP
3.3% (11)
9.4% (31)
Apple
1.5% (5)
3.3% (11)
SS
df
ANOVA
Source of
variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
(169)
56.1%
(185)
39.4%
(130)
48.8%
(161)
22.7%
(75)
(85)
23.3%
(77)
37.6%
(124)
28.8%
(95)
31.5%
(104
MS
179.7855
44.9464
1,362.3939
1645
0.8282
1,542.1794
1649
182
54.2697
6.1% (20)
3.16
330
16.7%
(55)
9.7% (32)
3.62
330
3.32
330
40.9%
(135)
4.07
330
p-level
FCritical
0.E+0
4.6399
Table A36
Groups
Apple
Microsoft
Total
Sample size
330
330
660
Sum
1,343.
1,195.
Mean
4.0697
3.62121
3.84545
Variance
5,763.
4,589.
0.89869
ANOVA
Source of
Variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
d.f.
SS
MS
F
39.06213
33.18788
33.18788
658
659
559.04848
592.23636
0.84962
p-level
0.
F crit
Omega
Sqr.
10.9255
0.05453

Group vs
Group
(Contrast)
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.44848
99.9% Confidence
Interval
0.2113
Test
Statistics
0.68567
39.06213
p-level
0.

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.44848
Test
Statistics
8.83879
p-level
Accepted?
0.74609
rejected

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.44848
Test
Statistics
Degrees
Of
Freedom
8.83879
Error DF
658.

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.44848
Test
Statistics
8.83879
p-level
Accepted?
0.74609
rejected
183
p-level
Accepted?
0.74609
rejected
Table A37
Question 19: I feel connected to _____s community.
Group
Agree Strongly
Disagree
Agree
13.0%
(43)
21.2%
43.9%
14.2%
7.6%
(25)
Dell
IBM
11.8% (39)
Microsoft
6.4% (21)
HP
9.7% (32)
Apple
5.5% (18)
ANOVA
Source of
variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
SS
(70)
24.8%
(82)
17.6%
(58)
21.5%
(71)
12.7%
(42)
(145)
47.6%
(157)
44.5%
(147)
45.2%
149
37.0%
(122)
(47)
11.8%
(39)
22.7%
(75)
15.8%
(52)
22.1%
(73)
df
MS
107.7915
26.9479
1,785.1788
1645
1.0852
1,892.9703
1649
184
24.8318
Rating
Average
2.82
Response
Count
330
3.9% (13)
2.71
330
8.8% (29)
3.10
330
7.9% (26)
2.91
330
22.7%
(75)
3.44
330
p-level
FCritical
0.E+0
4.6399
Table A38
Groups
Apple
Microsoft
Total
Sample
size
330
330
660
Sum
1,135.
1,023.
Mean
3.43939
3.1
3.2697
Variance
4,327.
3,501.
1.17146
ANOVA
Source of
Variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
d.f.
SS
MS
p-level
F crit
16.60848
0.00005
10.9255
19.00606
19.00606
658
659
752.98788
771.99394
1.14436

Group vs
Group
(Contrast)
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.33939
99.9% Confidence
Interval
Test
Statistics
p-level
0.06412
16.60848
0.00005
0.61466

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.33939
Test
Statistics
5.76342
p-level
Accepted?
0.74611
rejected

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.33939
Test
Statistics
Degrees
Of
Freedom
5.76342
Error DF
658.

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.33939
Test
Statistics
5.76342
p-level
0.74611
185
Accepted?
rejected
p-level
Accepted?
0.74611
rejected
Omega
Sqr.
0.0231
Table A39
Question 20: I connect with other consumers of _____ products.
Group
Agree Strongly
Disagree
Agree
12.1%
(40)
21.8%
40.9%
17.0%
8.2%
(27)
Dell
IBM
11.5% (38)
Microsoft
8.2% (27)
HP
10.9% (36)
Apple
5.8% (19)
ANOVA
Source of
variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
SS
(72)
23.9%
(79)
17.9%
(59)
22.4%
(74)
15.2%
(50)
(135)
46.4%
(153)
37.0%
(122)
39.1%
(129)
30.6%
(101)
(56)
13.3%
(44)
26.4%
(87)
18.2%
(60)
23.0%
(76)
df
MS
103.7818
25.9455
1,963.3849
1645
1.1936
2,067.1667
1649
186
21.7381
Rating
Average
2.87
Response
Count
330
4.8% (16)
2.76
330
10/6%
(35)
9.4% (31)
3.13
330
2.93
330
25.5%
(84)
3.47
330
p-level
FCritical
0.E+0
4.6399
Table A40
Groups
Apple
Microsoft
Total
Sample
size
330
330
660
Sum
1,146.
1,034.
Mean
3.47273
3.13333
3.30303
Variance
4,444.
3,628.
1.3223
ANOVA
Source of
Variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
d.f.
SS
MS
F
14.67171
19.00606
19.00606
658
659
852.38788
871.39394
1.29542
p-level
F crit
Omega
Sqr.
0.00014
10.9255
0.02029

Group vs
Group
(Contrast)
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.33939
99.9% Confidence
Interval
Test
Statistics
p-level
0.04652
14.67171
0.00014
0.63227

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.33939
Test
Statistics
5.41696
p-level
Accepted?
0.74613
rejected

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.33939
Test
Statistics
Degrees
Of
Freedom
5.41696
Error DF
658.

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.33939
Test
Statistics
5.41696
p-level
Accepted?
0.74613
rejected
187
p-level
Accepted?
0.74613
rejected
Table A41
Question 21: I consider myself an open advocate of _____ products.
Group
Agree Strongly
Rating
Disagree
Agree
Average
13.0% (43)
17.9%
38.5%
20.9%
9.7% (32)
Dell
2.96
IBM
10.9% (36)
Microsoft
6.1% (20)
HP
8.8% (29)
Apple
4.2% (14)
ANOVA
Source of
variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
SS
(59)
21.8%
(72)
11.5%
(38)
17.0%
(56)
17.0%
(23)
(127)
48.2%
(159)
40.6%
(134)
40.0%
(132)
31.2%
(103)
(69)
13.6%
(45)
28.8%
(95)
24.8%
(82)
31.2%
(103)
df
MS
153.2327
38.3082
1,851.8849
1645
1.1258
2,005.1176
1649
188
34.0286
Response
Count
330
5.5% (18)
2.81
330
13.0%
(43)
9.4% (31)
3.31
330
3.09
330
26.4%
(87)
3.68
330
p-level
FCritical
0.E+0
4.6399
Table A42
Groups
Apple
Microsoft
Total
Sample size
330
330
660
Sum
1,216.
1,093.
Mean
3.68485
3.31212
3.49848
Variance
4,856.
3,973.
1.1396
ANOVA
Source of
Variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
SS
MS
p-level
F crit
Omega
Sqr.
22.92273
22.92273
20.71646
0.00001
10.9255
0.02901
658
659
728.07576
750.99848
1.1065
d.f.

Group vs
Group
(Contrast)
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.37273
99.9% Confidence
Interval
Test
Statistics
p-level
0.10205
20.71646
0.00001
0.64341

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.37273
Test
Statistics
6.43684
p-level
Accepted?
0.7461
rejected

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.37273
Test
Statistics
Degrees
Of
Freedom
6.43684
Error DF
658.

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.37273
Test
Statistics
6.43684
p-level
0.7461
189
Accepted?
rejected
p-level
0.7461
Accepted?
rejected
Table A43
Question 22: Word of mouth is what convinced me to purchase _____ products.
Group
Agree Strongly
Rating
Response
Disagree
Agree
Average
Count
11.2%
(37)
23.0%
38.2%
20.6%
7.0%
(23)
Dell
2.89
330
IBM
Microsoft
10/6%
(35)
6.4% (21)
HP
8.5% (28)
Apple
4.8% (16)
ANOVA
Source of
variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
SS
(76)
24.2%
(80)
20.0%
(66)
19.1%
(63)
13.0%
(43)
(125)
46.7%
(154)
39.1%
(129)
41.8%
(138)
22.1%
(73)
(68)
14.8%
(49)
24.2%
(80)
23.3%
(77)
27.0%
(89)
df
MS
173.4546
43.3636
1,857.0455
1645
1.1289
2,030.5
1649
190
38.4122
3.6% (12)
2.77
330
10.3%
(34)
7.3% (24)
3.12
330
3.02
330
33.0%
(109)
3.70
330
p-level
FCritical
0.E+0
4.6399
Table A44
Groups
Apple
Microsoft
Total
Sample size
330
330
660
Sum
1,222.
1,030.
Mean
3.70303
3.12121
3.41212
Variance
4,994.
3,576.
1.34431
ANOVA
Source of
Variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
d.f.
SS
MS
55.85455
55.85455
44.27728
658
659
830.04848
885.90303
1.26147
p-level
6.00519E11
F crit
Omega
Sqr.
10.9255
0.06154

Group vs
Group
(Contrast)
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.58182
99.9% Confidence
Interval
Test
Statistics
0.29281
44.27728
0.87083
p-level
6.00519E11

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.58182
Test
Statistics
9.41034
p-level
Accepted?
0.74609
rejected

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.58182
Test
Statistics
Degrees
Of
Freedom
9.41034
Error DF
658.

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.58182
Test
Statistics
9.41034
p-level
Accepted?
0.74609
rejected
191
p-level
0.74609
Accepted?
rejected
Table A45
Question 23: I often tell others that I believe ____s products are the best.
Group
Agree Strongly
Rating
Disagree
Agree
Average
14.5% (48)
20.6%
35.8%
21.2%
7.9% (26)
Dell
2.87
IBM
11.8% (39)
Microsoft
8.5% (28)
HP
12.7% (42)
Apple
6.1% (20)
ANOVA
Source of
variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
SS
(68)
26.4%
(87)
17.9%
(59)
19.4%
(64)
11.2%
(37)
(118)
42.1%
(139)
37.3%
(123)
38.8%
(128)
23.3%
(77)
(70)
15.8%
(52)
24.8%
(82)
20.3%
(67)
27.6%
(91)
df
MS
179.5212
44.8803
2,041.4636
1645
1.2410
2,220.9849
1649
192
36.1643
Response
Count
330
3.9% (13)
2.74
330
11.5%
(38)
8.8% (29)
3.13
330
2.03
330
31.8%
(105)
3.68
330
p-level
FCritical
0.E+0
4.6399
Table A46
Groups
Apple
Microsoft
Total
Sample size
330
330
660
Sum
1,214.
1,033.
Mean
3.67879
3.1303
3.40455
Variance
4,942.
3,633.
1.40362
ANOVA
Source of
Variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
d.f.
SS
MS
F
37.31282
49.63788
49.63788
658
659
875.34848
924.98636
1.33032
p-level
0.
F crit
Omega
Sqr.
10.9255
0.05215

Group vs
Group
(Contrast)
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.54848
99.9% Confidence
Interval
0.25169
Test
Statistics
0.84528
37.31282
p-level
0.

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.54848
Test
Statistics
8.63861
p-level
Accepted?
0.74609
rejected

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.54848
Test
Statistics
Degrees
Of
Freedom
8.63861
Error DF
658.

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.54848
Test
Statistics
8.63861
p-level
Accepted?
0.74609
rejected
193
p-level
Accepted?
0.74609
rejected
Table A47
Question 24: I believe that _____ has the best products and service.
Group
Agree Strongly
Rating
Disagree
Agree
Average
9.4% (31)
14.2%
39.7%
25.8%
10.9%
Dell
3.15
IBM
7.6% (25)
Microsoft
3.3% (11)
HP
6.7% (22)
Apple
3.0% (10)
(47)
13.9&
(46)
10.9%
(36)
11.2%
(37)
3.9% (13)
SS
df
ANOVA
Source of
variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
(131)
56.1%
(185)
40.9%
(135)
46.7%
(154)
22,4%
(74)
(85)
16.4%
(54)
30.3%
(100)
26.1%
(86)
31.8%
(105)
(36)
6.1% (20)
MS
201.1418
50.2855
1,652.6818
1645
1.0047
1,853.8236
1649
194
50.0517
Response
Count
330
2.99
330
14.5%
(48)
9.4% (31)
3.42
330
3.20
330
38.8%
(128)
3.99
330
p-level
FCritical
0.E+0
4.6399
Table A48
Groups
Apple
Microsoft
Total
Sample size
330
330
660
Sum
1,318.
1,128.
Mean
3.99394
3.41818
3.70606
Variance
5,608.
4,170.
1.08191
ANOVA
Source of
Variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
d.f.
SS
MS
54.69697
54.69697
658
659
658.27879
712.97576
1.00042
54.6738
p-level
4.3443E13
F crit
Omega
Sqr.
10.9255
0.07521

Group vs
Group
(Contrast)
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.57576
99.9% Confidence
Interval
0.31838
Test
Statistics
0.83314
54.6738
p-level
4.3443E13

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.57576
Test
Statistics
10.45694
p-level
Accepted?
0.74609
rejected

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.57576
Test
Statistics
Degrees
Of
Freedom
10.45694
Error DF
658.

Groups
Apple vs
Microsoft
Difference
0.57576
Test
Statistics
10.45694
p-level
Accepted?
0.74609
rejected
195
p-level
Accepted?
0.74609
rejected
APPENDIX B GENERATIONAL DIFFERENCES

Table B1
Question 1: I identify myself as a fan of _____.
I was born____
Answer Options
1977 - 1994
1965 - 1976
Before 1965
19
13
32
26
12
3.23
5
17
35
12
3.53
11
59
53
21
3.28
10
18
44
19
3
2.92
12
35
22
5
3.21
12
101
33
7
3.09
6
16
38
28
3.90
4
24
31
17
3.80
10
55
73
21
3.60
12
9
32
28
15
3.38
7
27
28
12
3.54
12
57
64
18
3.39
1
10
38
41
4.29
1
8
32
34
4.28
5
18
63
74
4.23
Rating
Average
Response
Count
3.32
330
3.07
330
3.73
330
3.42
330
4.25
330
Dell
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
IBM
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
Microsoft
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
Hewlett Packard (HP)

Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
Apple
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
196
Table B2
Question 1 - Two-way ANOVA
Summary
Response
Factor #1
Factor #2
Score
Generation
Company
Fixed
Fixed
Factor
Generation
Generation
Generation
Company
Company
Company
Company
Company
Group
BB x
Apple
BB x Dell
BB x HP
BB x IBM
BB x
Microsoft
GX x
Apple
GX x Dell
GX x HP
GX x IBM
GX x
Microsoft
GY x
Apple
GY x Dell
GY x HP
GY x IBM
GY x
Microsoft
BB
GX
GY
Apple
Dell
HP
IBM
Microsoft
Sample
size
Mean
Variance
Standard
Deviation
163
163
163
163
4.227
3.282
3.393
3.092
0.806
1.303
1.055
0.689
0.898
1.141
1.027
0.83
166
3.62
0.794
0.891
76
76
76
76
4.276
3.526
3.539
3.211
0.656
1.266
0.918
0.782
0.81
1.125
0.958
0.884
76
3.803
0.721
0.849
91
91
91
91
4.286
3.231
3.385
2.923
0.629
1.268
1.239
0.85
0.793
1.126
1.113
0.922
88
818
380
452
330
330
330
330
330
3.864
3.523
3.671
3.535
4.255
3.324
3.424
3.073
3.727
1.039
1.077
0.986
1.229
0.719
1.29
1.072
0.761
0.849
1.019
1.038
0.993
1.109
0.848
1.136
1.035
0.872
0.922
ANOVA
Source of Variation
Factor #2 (Company)
Factor #1 + #2
(Generation x
Company)
Within Groups
Total
Omega squared for
combined effect
SS
6.066
271.2
7.187
1,529.987
1,814.439
d.f.
2
4
MS
3.033
67.8
F
3.241
72.454
p-level
0.039
0.E+0
F crit
6.937
4.64
Omega Sqr.
0.002
0.147
8
1635
1649
0.898
0.936
1.1
0.96
0.466
3.286
0.E+0
0.149
197
Table B3
Question 2: _____ knows how to relate to its customers
I was born____
Answer Options
1977 - 1994
1965 - 1976
Before 1965
13
8
35
24
17
3.40
2
31
25
16
3.67
17
63
55
15
3.26
12
11
48
20
7
3.14
3
42
25
5
3.39
14
91
39
7
3.09
6
24
39
20
3.76
2
24
32
17
3.82
17
60
63
17
3.42
8
35
30
14
3.46
5
33
26
10
3.49
17
67
54
16
3.31
1
21
26
40
4.09
3
17
15
40
4.18
1
22
67
68
4.18
Rating
Average
Response
Count
3.39
330
3.18
330
3.60
330
3.39
330
4.15
330
Dell
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
IBM
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
Microsoft
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score

Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
Apple
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
198
Table B4
Summary
Response
Factor #1
Factor #2
Score
Generation
Company
Fixed
Fixed
Factor
Generation
Generation
Generation
Company
Company
Company
Company
Company
Group
BB x
Apple
BB x Dell
BB x HP
BB x IBM
BB x
Microsoft
GX x
Apple
GX x Dell
GX x HP
GX x IBM
GX x
Microsoft
GY x
Apple
GY x Dell
GY x HP
GY x IBM
GY x
Microsoft
BB
GX
GY
Apple
Dell
HP
IBM
Microsoft
Sample
size
Standard
Deviation
Mean
Variance
163
163
163
163
4.178
3.258
3.313
3.092
0.826
1.069
0.957
0.788
0.909
1.034
0.978
0.888
163
3.417
0.887
0.942
76
76
76
76
4.184
3.671
3.487
3.395
1.006
0.864
0.813
0.535
1.003
0.929
0.902
0.732
76
3.816
0.739
0.86
91
91
91
91
4.088
3.396
3.462
3.143
1.014
1.264
1.007
0.857
1.007
1.124
1.003
0.926
91
815
380
455
330
330
330
330
330
3.758
3.452
3.711
3.569
4.155
3.391
3.394
3.176
3.603
0.896
1.044
0.861
1.105
0.915
1.096
0.939
0.759
0.884
0.947
1.022
0.928
1.051
0.957
1.047
0.969
0.871
0.94
2
4
MS
8.898
46.019
F
9.806
50.716
8
1635
1649
1.239
0.907
1.028
1.366
ANOVA
Source of Variation
Factor #2 (Company)
Factor #1 + #2
(Generation x
Company)
Within Groups
Total
Omega squared for
combined effect
SS
17.795
184.076
9.916
1,483.571
1,695.358
d.f.
0.117
199
0.
0.E+0
F crit
6.937
4.64
Omega
Sqr.
0.009
0.106
0.207
3.286
0.002
p-level
Table B5
Question 2: Comparisons among groups (Factor 1 - Generation)
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.259
-0.118
0.141
-0.479
-0.325
-0.105
0.039
0.09
0.388
Test Statistics
9.579
2.229
2.278
plevel
0.
0.108
0.103

Alpha/N
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
0.
Difference
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.259
-0.118
0.141
-0.472
-0.318
-0.097
0.046
0.083
0.379
Difference
-0.259
-0.118
0.141
Test Statistics
4.377
2.111
2.134
plevel
0.
0.035
0.033
Test Statistics
4.377
2.111
2.134
plevel
0.
0.105
0.099
Fisher LSD
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Accepted?
accepted
rejected
rejected
Table B6
Question 2: Comparisons among groups of Factor 2 (Company) within each Factor 1
(Generation) level
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.006
0.09
0.096
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.499 0.487
-0.374 0.554
-0.455 0.648
Test Statistics
0.001
0.261
0.212
plevel
0.999
0.771
0.809
Test Statistics
0.048
0.722
0.651
plevel
1.
1.
1.

Alpha/N
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
0.
Difference
-0.006
0.09
0.096
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.482 0.469
-0.358 0.538
-0.436 0.629
Fisher LSD
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.006
0.09
0.096
Test Statistics
0.048
0.722
0.651
200
plevel
0.962
0.47
0.515
Accepted?
rejected
rejected
rejected
Table B7
Question 3: I believe that fans of _____ are cooler than fans of other organizations,
and are more up to date with regard to current technological trends
I was born____
Answer Options
1977 - 1994
1965 - 1976
Before 1965
15
11
41
23
8
3.13
4
39
19
11
3.41
27
83
30
8
2.93
12
12
52
12
6
2.93
11
40
19
5
3.21
32
91
24
4
2.85
7
37
25
20
3.59
6
29
29
12
3.62
19
77
39
20
3.27
11
12
48
14
13
3.22
6
37
24
7
3.37
28
85
32
7
2.98
5
31
19
35
3.90
5
19
21
31
4.03
9
40
49
59
3.90
Rating
Average
Response
Count
3.10
330
2.96
330
3.44
330
3.13
330
3.93
330
Dell
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
IBM
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
Microsoft
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score

Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
Apple
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
201
Table B8
Summary
Response
Factor #1
Factor #2
Score
Generation
Company
Fixed
Fixed
Factor
Generation
Generation
Generation
Company
Company
Company
Company
Company
Group
BB x
Apple
BB x Dell
BB x HP
BB x IBM
BB x
Microsoft
GX x
Apple
GX x Dell
GX x HP
GX x IBM
GX x
Microsoft
GY x
Apple
GY x Dell
GY x HP
GY x IBM
GY x
Microsoft
BB
GX
GY
Apple
Dell
HP
IBM
Microsoft
Sample
size
Standard
Deviation
Mean
Variance
163
163
163
163
3.896
2.933
2.975
2.853
1.156
0.915
0.814
0.719
1.075
0.957
0.902
0.848
163
3.27
0.976
0.988
76
76
76
76
4.026
3.434
3.368
3.211
0.933
0.916
0.742
0.675
0.966
0.957
0.862
0.822
76
3.618
0.719
0.848
91
91
91
91
3.901
3.11
3.22
2.934
1.046
1.032
0.996
0.929
1.023
1.016
0.998
0.964
91
815
380
455
330
330
330
330
330
3.593
3.185
3.532
3.352
3.927
3.097
3.133
2.958
3.439
0.977
1.058
0.867
1.11
1.071
0.981
0.87
0.782
0.94
0.989
1.028
0.931
1.053
1.035
0.991
0.933
0.885
0.97
2
4
MS
16.062
49.381
F
17.636
54.222
8
1635
1649
0.855
0.911
1.046
0.938
ANOVA
Source of Variation
Factor #2 (Company)
Factor #1 + #2
(Generation x
Company)
Within Groups
Total
Omega squared for
combined effect
SS
32.123
197.525
6.836
1,489.02
1,725.504
d.f.
0.13
202
0.
0.E+0
F crit
6.937
4.64
Omega
Sqr.
0.018
0.112
0.483
3.286
0.E+0
p-level
Table B9
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.346
-0.166
0.18
-0.567
-0.374
-0.067
0.126
0.042
0.427
Test Statistics
17.064
4.437
3.68
plevel
0.
0.012
0.025

Alpha/N
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
0.
Difference
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.346
-0.166
0.18
-0.559
-0.367
-0.059
0.133
0.034
0.418
Difference
-0.346
-0.166
0.18
Test Statistics
5.842
2.979
2.713
plevel
0.
0.003
0.007
Test Statistics
5.842
2.979
2.713
plevel
0.
0.009
0.02
Fisher LSD
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Accepted?
accepted
rejected
rejected
Table B10
(Generation) level
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.131
-0.005
0.125
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.624 0.363
-0.471
0.46
-0.427 0.678
Test Statistics
0.485
0.001
0.356
plevel
0.616
0.999
0.7
Test Statistics
0.985
0.043
0.844
plevel
0.974
1.
1.

Alpha/N
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
0.
Difference
-0.131
-0.005
0.125
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.607 0.346
-0.454 0.444
-0.408 0.658
Fisher LSD
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.131
-0.005
0.125
Test Statistics
0.985
0.043
0.844
203
plevel
0.325
0.966
0.399
Accepted?
rejected
rejected
rejected
Table B11
Question 4: I believe _____ will continue to be a leader in their industry.
I was born____
Answer Options
1977 - 1994
1965 - 1976
Before 1965
10
10
10
37
23
11
3.16
3
27
28
14
3.59
20
62
54
17
3.29
10
47
17
8
3.05
6
32
30
7
3.47
20
83
40
14
3.22
6
22
37
25
3.87
2
14
41
19
4.01
4
41
77
37
3.85
12
11
37
25
15
3.42
6
25
33
10
3.57
22
54
62
13
3.26
1
15
34
39
4.18
0
10
22
44
4.45
1
18
58
83
4.33
Rating
Average
Response
Count
3.33
330
3.23
330
3.89
330
3.37
330
4.32
330
Dell
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
IBM
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
Microsoft
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score

Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
Apple
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
204
Table B12
Summary
Response
Factor #1
Factor #2
Score
Generation
Company
Fixed
Fixed
Factor
Generation
Generation
Generation
Company
Company
Company
Company
Company
Group
BB x
Apple
BB x Dell
BB x HP
BB x IBM
BB x
Microsoft
GX x
Apple
GX x Dell
GX x HP
GX x IBM
GX x
Microsoft
GY x
Apple
GY x Dell
GY x HP
GY x IBM
GY x
Microsoft
BB
GX
GY
Apple
Dell
HP
IBM
Microsoft
Sample
size
Standard
Deviation
Mean
Variance
163
163
163
163
4.331
3.294
3.258
3.221
0.704
1.036
1.069
0.815
0.839
1.018
1.034
0.903
163
3.853
0.781
0.884
76
76
76
76
4.447
3.592
3.566
3.474
0.517
1.018
0.836
0.679
0.719
1.009
0.914
0.824
76
4.013
0.546
0.739
91
91
91
91
4.176
3.165
3.418
3.055
0.813
1.273
1.024
1.053
0.902
1.128
1.012
1.026
91
815
380
455
330
330
330
330
330
3.868
3.591
3.818
3.536
4.315
3.327
3.373
3.233
3.894
0.871
1.067
0.846
1.179
0.697
1.114
1.013
0.866
0.752
0.933
1.033
0.92
1.086
0.835
1.056
1.006
0.931
0.867
2
4
MS
9.349
70.477
F
10.642
80.221
8
1635
1649
0.781
0.879
1.057
0.889
ANOVA
Source of Variation
Factor #2 (Company)
Factor #1 + #2
(Generation x
Company)
Within Groups
Total
Omega squared for
combined effect
SS
18.699
281.907
6.248
1,436.408
1,743.261
d.f.
0.169
205
0.
0.E+0
F crit
6.937
4.64
Omega
Sqr.
0.01
0.16
0.525
3.286
0.E+0
p-level
Table B13
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.227
0.055
0.282
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.444
-0.01
-0.149 0.259
0.04 0.525
Test Statistics
7.601
0.505
9.382
plevel
0.001
0.603
0.
Test Statistics
plevel

Alpha/N
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
0.
Difference
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.227
0.055
0.282
-0.436
-0.142
0.048
0.018
0.252
0.516
Difference
-0.227
0.055
0.282
Test Statistics
3.899
1.005
4.332
plevel
0.
0.315
0.
3.899
1.005
4.332
0.
0.945
0.
Fisher LSD
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Accepted?
accepted
rejected
accepted
Table B14
(Generation) level
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.116
0.155
0.272
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.601 0.369
-0.301 0.612
-0.271 0.814
Test Statistics
0.397
0.803
1.738
plevel
0.672
0.448
0.176
Test Statistics
0.892
1.267
1.864
plevel
1.
0.615
0.187

Alpha/N
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
0.
Difference
-0.116
0.155
0.272
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.584 0.352
-0.286 0.596
-0.252 0.795
Fisher LSD
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.116
0.155
0.272
Test Statistics
0.892
1.267
1.864
206
plevel
0.373
0.205
0.062
Accepted?
rejected
rejected
rejected
Table B15
Question 5: The customer service support of _____ is outstanding, which demonstrates
_____s commitment to its customers.
I was born____
Answer Options
1977 - 1994
1965 - 1976
Before 1965
13
17
1
44
24
9
3.16
4
36
19
14
3.49
17
75
37
17
3.12
4
63
13
6
3.12
4
52
15
5
3.28
17
100
28
10
3.09
8
44
17
18
3.41
3
37
24
12
3.59
18
73
49
16
3.30
5
53
16
13
3.32
3
37
26
8
3.46
23
81
33
17
3.16
4
32
21
31
3.80
1
24
18
32
4.04
7
35
53
63
3.99
Rating
Average
Response
Count
3.22
330
3.14
330
3.40
330
3.27
330
3.95
330
Dell
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
IBM
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
Microsoft
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score

Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
Apple
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
207
Table B16
Summary
Response
Factor #1
Factor #2
Score
Generation
Company
Fixed
Fixed
Factor
Generation
Generation
Generation
Company
Company
Company
Company
Company
Group
BB x Apple
BB x Dell
BB x HP
BB x IBM
BB x
Microsoft
GX x Apple
GX x Dell
GX x HP
GX x IBM
GX x
Microsoft
GY x Apple
GY x Dell
GY x HP
GY x IBM
GY x
Microsoft
BB
GX
GY
Apple
Dell
HP
IBM
Microsoft
Sample
size
163
163
163
163
Mean
3.994
3.123
3.147
3.092
Variance
1.056
1.158
0.953
0.714
Standard
Deviation
1.027
1.076
0.976
0.845
163
76
76
76
76
3.301
4.039
3.487
3.461
3.276
0.891
0.918
0.973
0.705
0.443
0.944
0.958
0.986
0.84
0.665
76
91
91
91
91
3.592
3.802
3.165
3.319
3.121
0.645
1.138
1.228
0.886
0.663
0.803
1.067
1.108
0.941
0.814
91
815
380
455
330
330
330
330
330
3.407
3.331
3.571
3.363
3.952
3.218
3.267
3.142
3.397
1.088
1.065
0.794
1.051
1.049
1.15
0.889
0.639
0.897
1.043
1.032
0.891
1.025
1.024
1.072
0.943
0.8
0.947
2
4
MS
7.781
34.752
F
8.484
37.892
8
1635
1649
0.78
0.917
1.007
0.85
ANOVA
Source of Variation
Factor #2 (Company)
Factor #1 + #2
(Generation x
Company)
Within Groups
Total
Omega squared for
combined effect
SS
15.563
139.01
6.239
1,499.55
1,660.361
d.f.
0.089
208
0.
0.E+0
F crit
6.937
4.64
Omega
Sqr.
0.008
0.081
0.558
3.286
0.E+0
p-level
Table B17
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.24
-0.031
0.208
-0.461
-0.24
-0.039
0.018
0.177
0.456
Test Statistics
8.122
0.156
4.903
plevel
0.
0.855
0.008

Alpha/N
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
0.
Difference
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.24
-0.031
0.208
-0.454
-0.233
-0.031
0.026
0.17
0.448
Difference
-0.24
-0.031
0.208
Test Statistics
4.03
0.559
3.132
plevel
0.
0.576
0.002
Test Statistics
4.03
0.559
3.132
plevel
0.
1.
0.005
Fisher LSD
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Accepted?
accepted
rejected
rejected
Table B18
(Generation) level
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.046
0.192
0.237
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.541
0.45
-0.275 0.658
-0.317 0.792
Test Statistics
0.059
1.17
1.271
plevel
0.943
0.311
0.281
Test Statistics
0.343
1.529
1.594
plevel
1.
0.379
0.333

Alpha/N
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
0.
Difference
-0.046
0.192
0.237
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.524 0.433
-0.259 0.642
-0.298 0.772
Fisher LSD
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.046
0.192
0.237
Test Statistics
0.343
1.529
1.594
209
plevel
0.732
0.126
0.111
Accepted?
rejected
rejected
rejected
Table B19
Question 6: From sales to service, _____ treats customers well.
I was born____
Answer Options
1977 - 1994
1965 - 1976
Before 1965
15
4
35
31
13
3.41
3
30
27
14
3.63
12
73
49
14
3.21
6
51
24
5
3.20
4
42
23
7
3.43
17
96
33
10
3.13
7
34
30
19
3.65
2
32
32
10
3.66
14
72
54
18
3.40
7
45
26
11
3.41
0
38
31
5
3.49
15
82
44
14
3.25
3
25
30
31
3.93
1
24
22
28
3.99
2
35
55
66
4.07
Rating
Average
Response
Count
3.36
330
3.22
330
3.53
330
3.35
330
4.02
330
Dell
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
IBM
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
Microsoft
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score

Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
Apple
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
210
Table B20
Summary
Response
Factor #1
Factor #2
Score
Generation
Company
Fixed
Fixed
Factor
Generation
Generation
Generation
Company
Company
Company
Company
Company
Group
BB x
Apple
BB x Dell
BB x HP
BB x IBM
BB x
Microsoft
GX x
Apple
GX x Dell
GX x HP
GX x IBM
GX x
Microsoft
GY x
Apple
GY x Dell
GY x HP
GY x IBM
GY x
Microsoft
BB
GX
GY
Apple
Dell
HP
IBM
Microsoft
Sample
size
Mean
Variance
Standard
Deviation
163
163
163
163
4.074
3.215
3.252
3.135
0.945
1.046
0.844
0.71
0.972
1.023
0.919
0.843
163
3.405
0.823
0.907
76
76
76
76
3.987
3.632
3.487
3.434
0.866
0.849
0.546
0.542
0.931
0.921
0.739
0.736
76
3.658
0.548
0.74
91
91
91
91
3.934
3.407
3.407
3.198
0.951
1.155
0.777
0.738
0.975
1.075
0.882
0.859
91
815
380
455
330
330
330
330
330
3.648
3.416
3.639
3.519
4.015
3.364
3.348
3.221
3.53
0.875
0.985
0.701
0.955
0.927
1.053
0.763
0.69
0.785
0.935
0.993
0.837
0.977
0.963
1.026
0.873
0.83
0.886
ANOVA
Source of Variation
Factor #2 (Company)
Factor #1 + #2
(Generation x
Company)
Within Groups
Total
Omega squared for
combined effect
SS
13.279
127.21
10.249
1,363.733
1,514.47
d.f.
2
4
MS
6.639
31.802
8
1635
1649
1.281
0.834
0.918
0.092
211
7.96
38.128
p-level
0.
0.E+0
F crit
6.937
4.64
Omega
Sqr.
0.008
0.082
1.536
0.14
3.286
0.002
Table B21
Difference
BB vs GX
-0.224
BB vs GY
-0.103
GX vs GY
0.121
Alpha/N
0.
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.224
-0.103
0.121
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.435
-0.012
-0.302
0.096
-0.116
0.357
Test Statistics
7.762
1.847
1.811
p-level
0.
0.158
0.164
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.427
-0.02
-0.295
0.089
-0.107
0.349
Test Statistics
3.94
1.922
1.903
p-level
0.
0.164
0.172
Table B22
(Generation) level
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
0.087
0.14
0.053
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.386 0.559
-0.306 0.585
-0.476 0.581
Test Statistics
0.234
0.682
0.069
plevel
0.791
0.506
0.933
Test Statistics
0.684
1.168
0.372
plevel
1.
0.729
1.

Alpha/N
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
0.
Difference
0.087
0.14
0.053
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.369 0.543
-0.29 0.569
-0.457 0.563
Fisher LSD
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
0.087
0.14
0.053
Test Statistics
0.684
1.168
0.372
212
plevel
0.494
0.243
0.71
Accepted?
rejected
rejected
rejected
Table B23
Question 7: _____ is approachable and responsive and makes itself available to
customers with regard to complaints and comments.
I was born____
Answer Options
1977 - 1994
1965 - 1976
Before 1965
14
7
43
23
12
3.31
6
28
25
14
3.54
17
70
51
11
3.17
8
52
22
7
3.26
7
36
26
5
3.33
18
96
32
9
3.10
6
46
20
18
3.53
5
28
31
11
3.61
20
69
54
13
3.28
6
50
19
14
3.41
7
26
30
10
3.49
19
75
45
15
3.23
5
29
27
29
3.86
2
17
27
28
4.01
4
37
61
56
3.98
Rating
Average
Response
Count
3.29
330
3.20
330
3.42
330
3.34
330
3.95
330
Dell
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
IBM
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
Microsoft
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score

Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
Apple
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
213
Table B24
Summary
Response
Factor #1
Factor #2
Score
Generation
Company
Fixed
Fixed
Factor
Generation
Generation
Generation
Company
Company
Company
Company
Company
Group
BB x Apple
BB x Dell
BB x HP
BB x IBM
BB x
Microsoft
GX x Apple
GX x Dell
GX x HP
GX x IBM
GX x
Microsoft
GY x Apple
GY x Dell
GY x HP
GY x IBM
GY x
Microsoft
BB
GX
GY
Apple
Dell
HP
IBM
Microsoft
Sample
size
163
163
163
163
Mean
3.975
3.172
3.233
3.098
Variance
0.95
1.007
0.933
0.719
Standard
Deviation
0.975
1.004
0.966
0.848
163
76
76
76
76
3.282
4.013
3.539
3.487
3.329
0.87
0.946
1.025
0.946
0.704
0.933
0.973
1.012
0.973
0.839
76
91
91
91
91
3.605
3.857
3.308
3.407
3.264
0.749
0.946
1.038
0.822
0.663
0.865
0.973
1.019
0.906
0.814
91
815
380
455
330
330
330
330
330
3.527
3.352
3.595
3.473
3.952
3.294
3.339
3.197
3.424
0.852
0.993
0.917
0.902
0.946
1.035
0.912
0.706
0.853
0.923
0.996
0.958
0.95
0.973
1.017
0.955
0.84
0.924
2
4
MS
7.934
29.074
F
8.994
32.958
8
1635
1649
0.791
0.882
0.959
0.897
ANOVA
Source of Variation
Factor #2 (Company)
Factor #1 + #2
(Generation x
Company)
Within Groups
Total
Omega squared for
combined effect
SS
15.868
116.295
6.33
1,442.306
1,580.798
d.f.
0.08
214
0.
0.E+0
F crit
6.937
4.64
Omega
Sqr.
0.009
0.071
0.518
3.286
0.E+0
p-level
Table B25
Difference
BB vs GX
-0.243
BB vs GY
-0.12
GX vs GY
0.122
Alpha/N
0.
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.243
-0.12
0.122
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.46
-0.025
-0.325
0.084
-0.121
0.365
Test Statistics
8.645
2.398
1.753
p-level
0.
0.091
0.174
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.452
-0.033
-0.318
0.077
-0.112
0.357
Test Statistics
4.158
2.19
1.872
p-level
0.
0.086
0.184
Table B26
(Generation) level
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.038
0.118
0.156
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.524 0.448
-0.339 0.576
-0.388
0.7
Test Statistics
0.042
0.463
0.571
plevel
0.959
0.629
0.565
Test Statistics
0.289
0.963
1.069
plevel
1.
1.
0.856

Alpha/N
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
0.
Difference
-0.038
0.118
0.156
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.507 0.431
-0.324
0.56
-0.369 0.681
Fisher LSD
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.038
0.118
0.156
Test Statistics
0.289
0.963
1.069
215
plevel
0.773
0.336
0.285
Accepted?
rejected
rejected
rejected
Table B27
Question 8: _____ values me as a customer.
I was born____
Answer Options
1977 - 1994
1965 - 1976
Before 1965
11
7
42
23
13
3.33
2
32
27
13
3.62
15
78
44
15
3.23
10
8
53
19
6
3.14
3
35
31
5
3.45
10
98
34
11
3.16
7
41
24
18
3.56
3
29
31
12
3.66
10
72
58
14
3.36
10
44
25
11
3.38
3
31
31
9
3.55
12
79
46
17
3.31
8
25
29
26
3.74
1
20
28
26
4.01
4
39
63
52
3.94
Rating
Average
Response
Count
3.35
330
3.22
330
3.48
330
3.38
330
3.90
330
Dell
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
IBM
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
Microsoft
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score

Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
Apple
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
216
Table B28
Summary
Response
Factor #1
Factor #2
Score
Generation
Company
Fixed
Fixed
Factor
Generation
Generation
Generation
Company
Company
Company
Company
Company
Group
BB x
Apple
BB x Dell
BB x HP
BB x IBM
BB x
Microsoft
GX x
Apple
GX x Dell
GX x HP
GX x IBM
GX x
Microsoft
GY x
Apple
GY x Dell
GY x HP
GY x IBM
GY x
Microsoft
BB
GX
GY
Apple
Dell
HP
IBM
Microsoft
Sample
size
Standard
Deviation
Mean
Variance
163
163
163
163
3.939
3.227
3.307
3.16
0.934
0.954
0.905
0.765
0.967
0.977
0.951
0.874
163
3.356
0.86
0.928
76
76
76
76
4.013
3.618
3.553
3.447
0.786
0.799
0.731
0.624
0.887
0.894
0.855
0.79
76
3.658
0.708
0.841
91
91
91
91
3.736
3.33
3.385
3.143
1.152
1.068
0.773
0.768
1.073
1.033
0.879
0.877
91
815
380
455
330
330
330
330
330
3.56
3.398
3.658
3.431
3.9
3.345
3.385
3.221
3.482
0.871
0.957
0.759
0.959
0.966
0.968
0.833
0.744
0.84
0.933
0.978
0.871
0.979
0.983
0.984
0.913
0.863
0.917
2
4
MS
9.188
22.245
F
10.682
25.862
8
1635
1649
0.87
0.86
0.922
1.011
ANOVA
Source of Variation
Factor #2 (Company)
Factor #1 + #2
(Generation x
Company)
Within Groups
Total
SS
18.376
88.982
6.959
1,406.349
1,520.667
d.f.
217
0.
0.E+0
F crit
6.937
4.64
Omega
Sqr.
0.011
0.056
0.425
3.286
0.
p-level
Table B29
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.26
-0.033
0.227
-0.475
-0.235
-0.013
0.046
0.169
0.467
Test Statistics
10.211
0.187
6.209
plevel
0.
0.829
0.002

Alpha/N
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
0.
Difference
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.26
-0.033
0.227
-0.467
-0.228
-0.005
0.053
0.162
0.459
Difference
-0.26
-0.033
0.227
Test Statistics
4.519
0.612
3.524
plevel
0.
0.541
0.
Test Statistics
4.519
0.612
3.524
plevel
0.
1.
0.001
Fisher LSD
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Accepted?
accepted
rejected
accepted
Table B30
(Generation) level
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.075
0.202
0.277
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.554 0.405
-0.25 0.654
-0.26 0.814
Test Statistics
0.167
1.39
1.846
plevel
0.846
0.249
0.158
Test Statistics
0.578
1.668
1.921
plevel
1.
0.287
0.165

Alpha/N
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
0.
Difference
-0.075
0.202
0.277
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.538 0.389
-0.234 0.639
-0.241 0.795
Fisher LSD
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.075
0.202
0.277
Test Statistics
0.578
1.668
1.921
218
plevel
0.563
0.096
0.055
Accepted?
rejected
rejected
rejected
Table B31
Question 9: I trust that _____ will do what is best for its consumers.
I was born____
Answer Options
1977 - 1994
1965 - 1976
Before 1965
12
7
38
25
13
3.31
1
32
28
13
3.64
12
75
47
17
3.28
11
49
21
5
3.11
5
40
25
6
3.42
14
91
37
12
3.18
7
41
22
18
3.49
3
34
27
12
3.63
13
77
51
16
3.36
6
46
23
13
3.41
2
36
27
9
3.51
16
80
46
14
3.27
7
32
22
25
3.60
1
25
24
25
3.93
7
40
57
55
3.93
Rating
Average
Response
Count
3.37
330
3.22
330
3.46
330
3.36
330
3.84
330
Dell
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
IBM
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
Microsoft
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score

Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
Apple
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
219
Table B32
Summary
Response
Factor #1
Factor #2
Score
Generation
Company
Fixed
Fixed
Factor
Generation
Generation
Generation
Company
Company
Company
Company
Company
Group
BB x Apple
BB x Dell
BB x HP
BB x IBM
BB x
Microsoft
GX x Apple
GX x Dell
GX x HP
GX x IBM
GX x
Microsoft
GY x Apple
GY x Dell
GY x HP
GY x IBM
GY x
Microsoft
BB
GX
GY
Apple
Dell
HP
IBM
Microsoft
Sample
size
163
163
163
163
Mean
3.933
3.276
3.27
3.178
Variance
0.977
1.004
0.828
0.801
Standard
Deviation
0.988
1.002
0.91
0.895
163
76
76
76
76
3.356
3.934
3.645
3.513
3.421
0.811
0.836
0.765
0.706
0.54
0.9
0.914
0.875
0.841
0.735
76
91
91
91
91
3.632
3.604
3.308
3.407
3.11
0.636
1.286
1.193
0.866
0.788
0.797
1.134
1.092
0.931
0.888
91
815
380
455
330
330
330
330
330
3.495
3.402
3.629
3.385
3.842
3.37
3.364
3.215
3.458
1.008
0.953
0.719
1.048
1.045
1.018
0.816
0.747
0.833
1.004
0.976
0.848
1.024
1.022
1.009
0.903
0.864
0.912
2
4
MS
7.978
18.407
F
9.057
20.897
8
1635
1649
1.32
0.881
0.934
1.498
ANOVA
Source of Variation
Factor #2 (Company)
Factor #1 + #2
(Generation x
Company)
Within Groups
Total
SS
15.956
73.628
10.558
1,440.183
1,540.325
d.f.
220
0.
1.11E-16
F crit
6.937
4.64
Omega
Sqr.
0.009
0.045
0.153
3.286
0.002
p-level
Table B33
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.226
0.018
0.244
-0.444
-0.187
0.001
0.009
0.222
0.487
Test Statistics
7.547
0.053
7.017
plevel
0.001
0.949
0.001

Alpha/N
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
0.
Difference
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.226
0.018
0.244
-0.436
-0.18
0.01
0.017
0.215
0.479
Difference
-0.226
0.018
0.244
Test Statistics
3.885
0.325
3.746
plevel
0.
0.745
0.
Test Statistics
3.885
0.325
3.746
plevel
0.
1.
0.001
Fisher LSD
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Accepted?
accepted
rejected
accepted
Table B34
(Generation) level
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.002
0.328
0.33
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.487 0.484
-0.129 0.786
-0.213 0.873
Test Statistics
0.
3.569
2.557
plevel
1.
0.028
0.078
Test Statistics
0.013
2.672
2.261
plevel
1.
0.023
0.072

Alpha/N
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
0.
Difference
-0.002
0.328
0.33
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.47 0.467
-0.113
0.77
-0.195 0.854
Fisher LSD
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.002
0.328
0.33
Test Statistics
0.013
2.672
2.261
221
plevel
0.99
0.008
0.024
Accepted?
rejected
rejected
rejected
Table B35
Question 10: I believe _____ is open and honest about its communication with its
consumers about its products.
I was born____
Answer Options
1977 - 1994
1965 - 1976
Before 1965
11
11
35
28
11
3.30
5
23
34
11
3.59
16
79
47
10
3.18
12
43
24
7
3.18
4
36
30
4
3.39
14
95
38
9
3.17
10
35
27
16
3.47
3
28
34
10
3.64
17
70
59
10
3.29
11
41
23
15
3.44
4
32
31
6
3.43
12
83
52
9
3.27
6
33
25
24
3.67
1
24
27
22
3.87
10
45
64
39
3.75
Rating
Average
Response
Count
3.31
330
3.22
330
3.42
330
3.35
330
3.75
330
Dell
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
IBM
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
Microsoft
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score

Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
Apple
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
222
Table B36
Summary
Response
Factor #1
Factor #2
Score
Generation
Company
Fixed
Fixed
Factor
Generation
Generation
Generation
Company
Company
Company
Company
Company
Group
BB x Apple
BB x Dell
BB x HP
BB x IBM
BB x
Microsoft
GX x
Apple
GX x Dell
GX x HP
GX x IBM
GX x
Microsoft
GY x
Apple
GY x Dell
GY x HP
GY x IBM
GY x
Microsoft
BB
GX
GY
Apple
Dell
HP
IBM
Microsoft
Sample
size
163
163
163
163
Mean
3.748
3.178
3.27
3.166
Variance
0.98
0.876
0.717
0.682
Standard
Deviation
0.99
0.936
0.847
0.826
163
3.294
0.802
0.895
76
76
76
76
3.868
3.592
3.434
3.395
0.889
0.911
0.756
0.615
0.943
0.955
0.869
0.784
76
3.645
0.659
0.812
91
91
91
91
3.67
3.297
3.44
3.176
1.09
1.1
0.894
0.902
1.044
1.049
0.945
0.95
91
815
380
455
330
330
330
330
330
3.473
3.331
3.587
3.411
3.755
3.306
3.355
3.221
3.424
1.03
0.853
0.787
1.022
0.988
0.967
0.777
0.732
0.847
1.015
0.924
0.887
1.011
0.994
0.983
0.881
0.856
0.92
2
4
MS
8.463
13.894
F
9.914
16.276
8
1635
1649
0.694
0.854
0.894
0.813
ANOVA
Source of Variation
Factor #2 (Company)
Factor #1 + #2
(Generation x
Company)
Within Groups
Total
Omega squared for
combined effect
SS
16.926
55.576
5.552
1,395.704
1,473.758
d.f.
0.045
223
0.
4.429E-13
F crit
6.937
4.64
Omega
Sqr.
0.01
0.035
0.591
3.286
0.E+0
p-level
Table B37
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.256
-0.08
0.176
-0.469
-0.281
-0.063
0.042
0.122
0.415
Test Statistics
9.914
1.086
3.751
plevel
0.
0.338
0.024

Alpha/N
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
0.
Difference
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.256
-0.08
0.176
-0.462
-0.274
-0.055
0.049
0.115
0.407
Difference
-0.256
-0.08
0.176
Test Statistics
4.453
1.474
2.739
plevel
0.
0.141
0.006
Test Statistics
4.453
1.474
2.739
plevel
0.
0.422
0.019
Fisher LSD
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Accepted?
accepted
rejected
rejected
Table B38
(Generation) level
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.12
0.078
0.198
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.598 0.358
-0.372 0.528
-0.337 0.733
Test Statistics
0.437
0.209
0.952
plevel
0.646
0.812
0.386
Test Statistics
0.935
0.646
1.38
plevel
1.
1.
0.504

Alpha/N
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
0.
Difference
-0.12
0.078
0.198
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.581 0.341
-0.357 0.513
-0.318 0.714
Fisher LSD
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.12
0.078
0.198
Test Statistics
0.935
0.646
1.38
224
plevel
0.35
0.518
0.168
Accepted?
rejected
rejected
rejected
Table B39
Question 11: _____ has demonstrated that it is committed to its customers.
I was born____
Answer Options
1977 - 1994
1965 - 1976
Before 1965
13
10
33
29
14
3.41
3
27
28
15
3.64
13
78
44
15
3.21
10
9
51
24
4
3.19
4
39
22
11
3.53
11
97
37
8
3.13
6
37
30
18
3.66
2
26
34
14
3.79
12
76
54
15
3.37
9
42
26
14
3.49
2
29
31
11
3.59
15
79
46
14
3.25
8
26
29
25
3.71
0
19
26
30
4.11
3
44
50
61
3.98
Rating
Average
Response
Count
3.37
330
3.24
330
3.55
330
3.40
330
3.93
330
Dell
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
IBM
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
Microsoft
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score

Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
Apple
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
225
Table B40
Summary
Response
Factor #1
Factor #2
Score
Generation
Company
Fixed
Fixed
Factor
Generation
Generation
Generation
Company
Company
Company
Company
Company
Group
BB x Apple
BB x Dell
BB x HP
BB x IBM
BB x
Microsoft
GX x
Apple
GX x Dell
GX x HP
GX x IBM
GX x
Microsoft
GY x
Apple
GY x Dell
GY x HP
GY x IBM
GY x
Microsoft
BB
GX
GY
Apple
Dell
HP
IBM
Microsoft
Sample
size
163
163
163
163
Mean
3.975
3.215
3.252
3.135
Variance
0.999
0.997
0.881
0.722
Standard
Deviation
1.
0.998
0.939
0.85
163
3.368
0.79
0.889
76
76
76
76
4.105
3.645
3.592
3.526
0.762
0.952
0.831
0.653
0.873
0.976
0.912
0.808
76
3.789
0.595
0.771
91
91
91
91
3.714
3.407
3.495
3.187
1.14
1.111
0.764
0.642
1.068
1.054
0.874
0.802
91
815
380
455
330
330
330
330
330
3.659
3.389
3.732
3.492
3.933
3.367
3.397
3.239
3.545
0.76
0.965
0.793
0.911
0.999
1.041
0.854
0.705
0.765
0.872
0.982
0.891
0.955
0.999
1.021
0.924
0.84
0.875
2
4
MS
15.217
23.602
F
17.86
27.701
8
1635
1649
1.572
0.852
0.928
1.846
ANOVA
Source of Variation
Factor #2 (Company)
Factor #1 + #2
(Generation x
Company)
Within Groups
Total
Omega squared for
combined effect
SS
30.433
94.408
12.579
1,393.057
1,530.478
d.f.
0.082
226
0.
0.E+0
F crit
6.937
4.64
Omega
Sqr.
0.019
0.059
0.065
3.286
0.004
p-level
Table B41
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.343
-0.103
0.239
-0.556
-0.305
0.
0.129
0.098
0.478
Test Statistics
17.853
1.83
6.957
plevel
0.
0.161
0.001

Alpha/N
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
0.
Difference
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.343
-0.103
0.239
-0.549
-0.298
0.009
0.136
0.091
0.47
Difference
-0.343
-0.103
0.239
Test Statistics
5.976
1.913
3.73
plevel
0.
0.056
0.
Test Statistics
5.976
1.913
3.73
plevel
0.
0.168
0.001
Fisher LSD
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Accepted?
accepted
rejected
accepted
Table B42
(Generation) level
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.13
0.261
0.391
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.607 0.348
-0.189 0.711
-0.143 0.925
Test Statistics
0.512
2.338
3.715
plevel
0.599
0.097
0.025
Test Statistics
1.012
2.162
2.726
plevel
0.934
0.092
0.019

Alpha/N
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
0.
Difference
-0.13
0.261
0.391
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.591 0.331
-0.173 0.695
-0.125 0.907
Fisher LSD
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.13
0.261
0.391
Test Statistics
1.012
2.162
2.726
227
plevel
0.311
0.031
0.006
Accepted?
rejected
rejected
rejected
Table B43
Question 12: _____ is dedicated to quality and being the best.
I was born____
Answer Options
1977 - 1994
1965 - 1976
Before 1965
11
10
38
25
14
3.38
1
27
34
12
3.70
12
67
54
19
3.36
10
47
25
8
3.32
3
32
32
9
3.62
11
85
47
13
3.29
6
27
36
21
3.77
2
22
34
18
3.89
10
52
67
29
3.64
11
6
40
31
13
3.54
1
30
34
8
3.57
10
63
62
17
3.39
3
20
30
37
4.09
0
10
24
42
4.42
0
20
58
81
4.30
Rating
Average
Response
Count
3.44
330
3.38
330
3.74
330
3.47
330
4.27
330
Dell
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
IBM
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
Microsoft
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score

Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
Apple
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
228
Table B44
Summary
Response
Factor #1
Factor #2
Score
Generation
Company
Fixed
Fixed
Factor
Generation
Generation
Generation
Company
Company
Company
Company
Company
Group
BB x Apple
BB x Dell
BB x HP
BB x IBM
BB x
Microsoft
GX x Apple
GX x Dell
GX x HP
GX x IBM
GX x
Microsoft
GY x Apple
GY x Dell
GY x HP
GY x IBM
GY x
Microsoft
BB
GX
GY
Apple
Dell
HP
IBM
Microsoft
Sample
size
163
163
163
163
Mean
4.301
3.356
3.387
3.294
Variance
0.755
1.021
0.979
0.765
Standard
Deviation
0.869
1.01
0.99
0.874
163
76
76
76
76
3.644
4.421
3.697
3.566
3.618
0.897
0.514
0.721
0.729
0.559
0.947
0.717
0.849
0.854
0.748
76
91
91
91
91
3.895
4.088
3.385
3.538
3.319
0.629
0.859
1.039
0.74
0.686
0.793
0.927
1.019
0.86
0.828
91
815
380
455
330
330
330
330
330
3.769
3.596
3.839
3.62
4.27
3.442
3.47
3.376
3.736
0.846
1.017
0.721
0.906
0.739
0.971
0.858
0.709
0.827
0.92
1.009
0.849
0.952
0.859
0.985
0.926
0.842
0.909
2
4
MS
8.139
44.707
F
10.027
55.075
8
1635
1649
0.824
0.812
0.927
1.015
ANOVA
Source of Variation
Factor #2 (Company)
Factor #1 + #2
(Generation x
Company)
Within Groups
Total
Omega squared for
combined effect
SS
16.279
178.828
6.59
1,327.201
1,528.898
d.f.
0.124
229
0.
0.E+0
F crit
6.937
4.64
Omega
Sqr.
0.01
0.115
0.422
3.286
0.
p-level
Table B45
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.243
-0.023
0.22
-0.452
-0.22
-0.014
0.035
0.173
0.453
Test Statistics
9.438
0.099
6.156
plevel
0.
0.906
0.002

Alpha/N
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
0.
Difference
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.243
-0.023
0.22
-0.444
-0.213
-0.005
0.042
0.166
0.445
Difference
-0.243
-0.023
0.22
Test Statistics
4.345
0.445
3.509
plevel
0.
0.656
0.
Test Statistics
4.345
0.445
3.509
plevel
0.
1.
0.001
Fisher LSD
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Accepted?
accepted
rejected
accepted
Table B46
(Generation) level
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.12
0.213
0.333
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.587 0.346
-0.226 0.652
-0.188 0.855
Test Statistics
0.463
1.627
2.831
plevel
0.629
0.197
0.059
Test Statistics
0.962
1.804
2.38
plevel
1.
0.214
0.052

Alpha/N
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
0.
Difference
-0.12
0.213
0.333
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.57
0.33
-0.211 0.637
-0.17 0.837
Fisher LSD
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.12
0.213
0.333
Test Statistics
0.962
1.804
2.38
230
plevel
0.336
0.071
0.017
Accepted?
rejected
rejected
rejected
Table B47
Question 13: When possible I would buy _____ products over similar competitors
products.
I was born____
Answer Options
1977 - 1994
1965 - 1976
Before 1965
13
17
18
31
21
8
2.92
7
30
22
13
3.43
20
57
51
18
3.20
14
16
44
15
7
2.95
10
44
18
3
3.16
27
86
33
3
2.90
7
29
32
20
3.65
2
30
30
14
3.74
10
60
63
21
3.47
13
11
33
22
19
3.41
6
29
31
6
3.38
18
62
56
14
3.25
3
14
37
33
4.01
2
17
23
33
4.12
3
33
44
77
4.12
Rating
Average
Response
Count
3.18
330
2.97
330
3.58
330
3.32
330
4.09
330
Dell
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
IBM
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
Microsoft
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score

Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
Apple
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
231
Table B48
Summary
Response
Factor #1
Factor #2
Score
Generation
Company
Fixed
Fixed
Factor
Generation
Generation
Generation
Company
Company
Company
Company
Company
Group
BB x Apple
BB x Dell
BB x HP
BB x IBM
BB x
Microsoft
GX x Apple
GX x Dell
GX x HP
GX x IBM
GX x
Microsoft
GY x Apple
GY x Dell
GY x HP
GY x IBM
GY x
Microsoft
BB
GX
GY
Apple
Dell
HP
IBM
Microsoft
Sample
size
163
163
163
163
Mean
4.123
3.202
3.245
2.902
Variance
1.071
1.261
1.063
0.78
Standard
Deviation
1.035
1.123
1.031
0.883
163
76
76
76
76
3.472
4.118
3.434
3.382
3.158
0.967
0.879
1.102
0.879
0.561
0.983
0.938
1.05
0.938
0.749
76
91
91
91
91
3.737
4.011
2.923
3.407
2.945
0.623
1.055
1.361
1.311
1.053
0.789
1.027
1.166
1.145
1.026
91
815
380
455
330
330
330
330
330
3.648
3.389
3.566
3.387
4.091
3.179
3.321
2.973
3.582
1.031
1.191
0.911
1.326
1.019
1.278
1.088
0.811
0.913
1.015
1.091
0.955
1.151
1.009
1.13
1.043
0.9
0.955
2
4
MS
4.613
61.371
F
4.546
60.469
p-level
0.011
0.E+0
F crit
6.937
4.64
Omega
Sqr.
0.004
0.125
8
1635
1649
1.516
1.015
1.168
1.494
0.154
3.286
0.002
ANOVA
Source of Variation
Factor #2 (Company)
Factor #1 + #2
(Generation x
Company)
Within Groups
Total
Omega squared for
combined effect
SS
9.227
245.482
12.129
1,659.365
1,926.204
d.f.
0.131
232
Table B49
Question 14: I would wear apparel displaying _____s icon proudly.
I was born____
Answer Options
1977 - 1994
1965 - 1976
Before 1965
18
48
23
25
16
9
2.73
20
19
18
11
3.05
41
47
16
11
2.39
15
44
25
32
13
6
2.67
25
24
15
6
2.87
41
56
16
6
2.38
13
41
20
27
17
14
2.99
22
22
18
9
3.05
40
51
22
9
2.50
16
45
22
26
17
10
2.81
21
23
21
4
2.92
40
51
21
6
2.40
13
37
16
18
17
27
3.32
17
14
17
24
3.53
32
38
27
29
2.87
Rating
Average
Response
Count
2.64
330
2.57
330
2.76
330
2.64
330
3.15
330
Dell
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
IBM
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
Microsoft
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score

Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
Apple
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
233
Table B50
Summary
Response
Factor #1
Factor #2
Score
Generation
Company
Fixed
Fixed
Factor
Generation
Generation
Generation
Company
Company
Company
Company
Company
Group
BB x Apple
BB x Dell
BB x HP
BB x IBM
BB x
Microsoft
GX x Apple
GX x Dell
GX x HP
GX x IBM
GX x
Microsoft
GY x Apple
GY x Dell
GY x HP
GY x IBM
GY x
Microsoft
BB
GX
GY
Apple
Dell
HP
IBM
Microsoft
Sample
size
163
163
163
163
Mean
2.871
2.387
2.405
2.38
Variance
1.977
1.424
1.279
1.2
Standard
Deviation
1.406
1.193
1.131
1.095
163
76
76
76
76
2.497
3.526
3.053
2.921
2.868
1.363
1.666
1.517
1.14
1.156
1.167
1.291
1.232
1.068
1.075
76
91
91
91
91
3.053
3.319
2.725
2.813
2.67
1.277
2.042
1.557
1.554
1.246
1.13
1.429
1.248
1.246
1.116
91
815
380
455
330
330
330
330
330
2.989
2.508
3.084
2.903
3.145
2.633
2.636
2.573
2.761
1.611
1.476
1.391
1.643
1.991
1.546
1.369
1.236
1.471
1.269
1.215
1.18
1.282
1.411
1.243
1.17
1.112
1.213
2
4
MS
50.438
17.692
F
34.348
12.048
p-level
2.442E-15
0.
F crit
6.937
4.64
Omega
Sqr.
0.038
0.025
8
1635
1649
0.381
1.468
1.562
0.259
0.979
3.286
0.E+0
ANOVA
Source of Variation
Factor #2 (Company)
Factor #1 + #2
(Generation x
Company)
Within Groups
Total
Omega squared for
combined effect
SS
100.876
70.767
3.045
2,400.937
2,575.625
d.f.
0.06
234
Table B51
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
99.9% Confidence
Interval
Difference
-0.576
-0.395
0.181
-0.857
-0.659
-0.133
Test
Statistics
-0.296
-0.131
0.495
29.301
15.537
2.308
p-level
3.133E13
0.
0.1

Alpha/N
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
0.
99.9% Confidence
Interval
Difference
-0.576
-0.395
0.181
-0.847
-0.65
-0.122
Test
Statistics
-0.306
-0.14
0.484
7.655
5.574
2.148
p-level
9.792E14
0.
0.096
Fisher LSD
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Test
Statistics
Difference
-0.576
-0.395
0.181
7.655
5.574
2.148
p-level
3.264E14
0.
0.032
Accepted?
accepted
accepted
rejected
Table B52
(Generation) level
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
99.9% Confidence
Interval
Test Statistics
plevel
0.028
0.143
0.909
7.575
3.982
0.608
0.001
0.019
0.545
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-1.26
-0.05
-1.018 0.123
-0.469 0.885
Test Statistics
3.892
2.822
1.103
plevel
0.
0.014
0.811
-0.655
-0.448
0.208
-1.282
-1.038
-0.494

Alpha/N
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
0.
Difference
-0.655
-0.448
0.208
Fisher LSD
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.655
-0.448
0.208
Test Statistics
3.892
2.822
1.103
235
plevel
0.
0.005
0.27
Accepted?
accepted
rejected
rejected
Table B53
Question 15: People who use ______s products are loyal to the company.
I was born____
Answer Options
1977 - 1994
1965 - 1976
Before 1965
8
43
22
10
3.20
4
34
23
13
3.54
17
77
47
13
3.23
7
55
17
7
3.15
2
43
23
8
3.49
13
84
44
13
3.24
6
39
25
19
3.58
2
34
30
10
3.63
10
64
66
19
3.53
10
11
45
20
13
3.34
3
40
20
9
3.36
15
75
48
15
3.26
2
20
28
37
4.01
0
16
30
30
4.18
4
28
46
83
4.25
Rating
Average
Response
Count
3.29
330
3.27
330
3.57
330
3.31
330
4.17
330
Dell
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
IBM
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
Microsoft
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score

Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
Apple
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
236
Table B54
Summary
Response
Factor #1
Factor #2
Score
Generation
Company
Fixed
Fixed
Factor
Generation
Generation
Generation
Company
Company
Company
Company
Company
Group
BB x Apple
BB x Dell
BB x HP
BB x IBM
BB x
Microsoft
GX x
Apple
GX x Dell
GX x HP
GX x IBM
GX x
Microsoft
GY x
Apple
GY x Dell
GY x HP
GY x IBM
GY x
Microsoft
BB
GX
GY
Apple
Dell
HP
IBM
Microsoft
Sample
size
163
163
163
163
Mean
4.252
3.233
3.264
3.239
Variance
0.831
0.884
0.936
0.837
Standard
Deviation
0.912
0.94
0.968
0.915
163
3.528
0.757
0.87
76
76
76
76
4.184
3.539
3.355
3.461
0.579
0.865
0.872
0.492
0.761
0.93
0.934
0.701
76
3.632
0.556
0.746
91
91
91
91
4.011
3.198
3.341
3.154
1.122
1.094
0.894
0.776
1.059
1.046
0.945
0.881
91
815
380
455
330
330
330
330
330
3.604
3.503
3.634
3.462
4.17
3.294
3.306
3.267
3.573
0.842
0.997
0.75
1.038
0.859
0.95
0.906
0.749
0.732
0.917
0.999
0.866
1.019
0.927
0.975
0.952
0.866
0.855
F
4.035
57.878
p-level
0.018
0.E+0
F crit
6.937
4.64
Omega
Sqr.
0.003
0.121
1.211
0.288
3.286
0.001
ANOVA
Source of Variation
Factor #2 (Company)
Factor #1 + #2
(Generation x
Company)
Within Groups
Total
Omega squared for
combined effect
SS
d.f.
6.74
193.354
2
4
MS
3.37
48.338
8.093
1,365.528
1,573.715
8
1635
1649
1.012
0.835
0.954
0.125
237
Table B55
Question 16: I like to read articles about this _____s upcoming products.
I was born____
Answer Options
1977 - 1994
1965 - 1976
Before 1965
12
21
18
38
14
9
2.89
12
26
22
12
3.34
30
68
35
9
2.88
10
18
20
44
10
7
2.82
12
34
21
5
3.14
34
72
32
7
2.85
12
12
36
18
20
3.40
9
25
26
14
3.54
23
55
55
18
3.27
10
19
11
45
13
12
3.07
9
28
26
9
3.36
31
64
35
14
2.96
11
9
22
23
29
3.62
7
21
17
29
3.84
17
26
56
53
3.75
Rating
Average
Response
Count
2.99
330
2.91
330
3.37
330
3.08
330
3.74
330
Dell
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
IBM
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
Microsoft
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score

Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
Apple
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
238
Table B56
Summary
Response
Factor #1
Factor #2
Score
Generation
Company
Fixed
Fixed
Factor
Generation
Generation
Generation
Company
Company
Company
Company
Company
Group
BB x
Apple
BB x Dell
BB x HP
BB x IBM
BB x
Microsoft
GX x
Apple
GX x Dell
GX x HP
GX x IBM
GX x
Microsoft
GY x
Apple
GY x Dell
GY x HP
GY x IBM
GY x
Microsoft
BB
GX
GY
Apple
Dell
HP
IBM
Microsoft
Sample
size
Mean
Variance
Standard
Deviation
163
163
163
163
3.755
2.883
2.963
2.853
1.458
1.128
1.221
1.003
1.207
1.062
1.105
1.001
163
3.27
1.149
1.072
76
76
76
76
3.842
3.342
3.355
3.145
1.255
1.188
1.032
0.899
1.12
1.09
1.016
0.948
76
3.539
1.025
1.012
91
91
91
91
3.615
2.89
3.066
2.824
1.617
1.277
1.24
1.058
1.272
1.13
1.114
1.028
91
815
380
455
330
330
330
330
330
3.396
3.145
3.445
3.158
3.736
2.991
3.082
2.912
3.367
1.286
1.301
1.124
1.376
1.453
1.213
1.2
1.004
1.163
1.134
1.141
1.06
1.173
1.205
1.101
1.095
1.002
1.078
2
4
MS
12.764
37.495
F
10.685
31.386
8
1635
1649
0.769
1.195
1.295
0.643
ANOVA
Source of Variation
Factor #2 (Company)
Factor #1 + #2
(Generation x
Company)
Within Groups
Total
Omega squared for
combined effect
SS
25.529
149.978
6.149
1,953.234
2,134.89
d.f.
0.077
239
0.
0.E+0
F crit
6.937
4.64
Omega
Sqr.
0.011
0.068
0.742
3.286
0.E+0
p-level
Table B57
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.3
-0.013
0.286
-0.553
-0.252
0.004
0.047
0.225
0.569
Test Statistics
9.759
0.022
7.113
plevel
0.
0.978
0.001

Alpha/N
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
0.
Difference
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.3
-0.013
0.286
-0.544
-0.243
0.013
0.056
0.217
0.56
Difference
-0.3
-0.013
0.286
Test Statistics
4.418
0.21
3.772
plevel
0.
0.833
0.
Test Statistics
4.418
0.21
3.772
plevel
0.
1.
0.001
Fisher LSD
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Accepted?
accepted
rejected
accepted
Table B58
(Generation) level
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.088
0.139
0.227
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.653 0.478
-0.394 0.672
-0.406 0.859
Test Statistics
0.166
0.474
0.891
plevel
0.847
0.623
0.41
Test Statistics
0.576
0.973
1.335
plevel
1.
0.992
0.546

Alpha/N
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
0.
Difference
-0.088
0.139
0.227
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.633 0.458
-0.375 0.653
-0.384 0.837
Fisher LSD
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.088
0.139
0.227
Test Statistics
0.576
0.973
1.335
240
plevel
0.564
0.331
0.182
Accepted?
rejected
rejected
rejected
Table B59
Question 17: _____ demonstrates an interconnected association of users and
community of fans.
I was born____
Answer Options
1977 - 1994
1965 - 1976
Before 1965
10
14
8
40
24
9
3.15
4
42
17
11
3.41
25
89
27
8
2.94
12
51
17
7
3.12
4
44
21
5
3.30
19
107
23
5
2.98
6
42
25
16
3.52
1
32
32
11
3.70
12
81
53
12
3.34
14
44
18
11
3.20
3
46
19
6
3.32
22
93
30
9
3.05
0
22
35
30
3.96
1
21
26
27
4.01
4
48
46
60
3.93
Rating
Average
Response
Count
3.11
330
3.09
330
3.47
330
3.15
330
3.96
330
Dell
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
IBM
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
Microsoft
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score

Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
Apple
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
241
Table B60
Summary
Response
Factor #1
Factor #2
Score
Generation
Company
Fixed
Fixed
Factor
Generation
Generation
Generation
Company
Company
Company
Company
Company
Group
BB x Apple
BB x Dell
BB x HP
BB x IBM
BB x
Microsoft
GX x Apple
GX x Dell
GX x HP
GX x IBM
GX x
Microsoft
GY x Apple
GY x Dell
GY x HP
GY x IBM
GY x
Microsoft
BB
GX
GY
Apple
Dell
HP
IBM
Microsoft
Sample
size
163
163
163
163
Mean
3.933
2.939
3.049
2.975
Variance
1.039
0.86
0.763
0.604
Standard
Deviation
1.019
0.928
0.874
0.777
163
76
76
76
76
3.337
4.013
3.408
3.316
3.303
0.706
0.813
0.805
0.619
0.614
0.84
0.902
0.897
0.787
0.783
76
91
91
91
91
3.697
3.956
3.154
3.198
3.121
0.534
0.976
1.176
0.983
0.796
0.731
0.988
1.084
0.991
0.892
91
815
380
455
330
330
330
330
330
3.516
3.247
3.547
3.389
3.958
3.106
3.152
3.091
3.47
0.875
0.928
0.744
1.053
0.965
0.964
0.798
0.673
0.73
0.935
0.963
0.863
1.026
0.982
0.982
0.893
0.82
0.854
2
4
MS
12.08
45.323
F
14.851
55.719
8
1635
1649
0.561
0.813
0.934
0.689
ANOVA
Source of Variation
Factor #2 (Company)
Factor #1 + #2
(Generation x
Company)
Within Groups
Total
Omega squared for
combined effect
SS
24.161
181.293
4.485
1,329.943
1,539.881
d.f.
0.129
242
0.
0.E+0
F crit
6.937
4.64
Omega
Sqr.
0.015
0.116
0.701
3.286
0.E+0
p-level
Table B61
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.301
-0.142
0.158
-0.509
-0.339
-0.075
0.092
0.054
0.392
Test Statistics
14.408
3.639
3.192
plevel
0.
0.026
0.041

Alpha/N
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
0.
Difference
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.301
-0.142
0.158
-0.502
-0.332
-0.067
0.099
0.047
0.384
Difference
-0.301
-0.142
0.158
Test Statistics
5.368
2.698
2.527
plevel
0.
0.007
0.012
Test Statistics
5.368
2.698
2.527
plevel
0.
0.021
0.035
Fisher LSD
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Accepted?
accepted
rejected
rejected
Table B62
(Generation) level
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.081
-0.024
0.057
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.547 0.386
-0.463 0.416
-0.465 0.579
Test Statistics
0.207
0.02
0.083
plevel
0.813
0.98
0.92
Test Statistics
0.644
0.199
0.408
plevel
1.
1.
1.

Alpha/N
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
0.
Difference
-0.081
-0.024
0.057
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.531
0.37
-0.448 0.401
-0.447 0.561
Fisher LSD
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.081
-0.024
0.057
Test Statistics
0.644
0.199
0.408
243
plevel
0.52
0.842
0.684
Accepted?
rejected
rejected
rejected
Table B63
Question 18: Consumers of _____ products have a better idea of what is current and
new.
I was born____
Answer Options
1977 - 1994
1965 - 1976
Before 1965
10
7
40
27
9
3.24
4
35
22
14
3.58
14
94
36
9
3.12
10
9
48
22
6
3.14
5
43
19
8
3.37
17
94
36
6
3.07
1
34
32
21
3.74
3
27
28
18
3.80
9
69
64
16
3.47
9
40
27
12
3.40
2
36
25
11
3.54
20
85
43
9
3.18
3
22
31
32
3.95
2
20
23
31
4.09
6
33
50
72
4.13
Rating
Average
Response
Count
3.26
330
3.16
330
3.62
330
3.32
330
4.07
330
Dell
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
IBM
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
Microsoft
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score

Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
Apple
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
244
Table B64
Summary
Response
Factor #1
Factor #2
Score
Generation
Company
Fixed
Fixed
Factor
Generation
Generation
Generation
Company
Company
Company
Company
Company
Group
BB x Apple
BB x Dell
BB x HP
BB x IBM
BB x
Microsoft
GX x Apple
GX x Dell
GX x HP
GX x IBM
GX x
Microsoft
GY x Apple
GY x Dell
GY x HP
GY x IBM
GY x
Microsoft
BB
GX
GY
Apple
Dell
HP
IBM
Microsoft
Sample
size
163
163
163
163
Mean
4.129
3.123
3.178
3.067
Variance
0.891
0.763
0.727
0.718
Standard
Deviation
0.944
0.873
0.853
0.847
163
76
76
76
76
3.472
4.092
3.579
3.539
3.368
0.745
0.778
0.807
0.758
0.662
0.863
0.882
0.898
0.871
0.814
76
91
91
91
91
3.803
3.945
3.242
3.396
3.143
0.721
1.03
1.074
0.908
0.857
0.849
1.015
1.036
0.953
0.926
91
815
380
455
330
330
330
330
330
3.736
3.394
3.676
3.492
4.07
3.261
3.321
3.158
3.621
0.885
0.92
0.8
1.035
0.904
0.886
0.802
0.753
0.795
0.941
0.959
0.894
1.017
0.951
0.941
0.896
0.868
0.892
F
12.723
55.252
1.792
ANOVA
Source of Variation
Factor #2 (Company)
Factor #1 + #2
(Generation x
Company)
Within Groups
Total
Omega squared for
combined effect
SS
d.f.
20.7
179.785
2
4
MS
10.35
44.946
11.665
1,330.029
1,542.179
8
1635
1649
1.458
0.813
0.935
0.13
245
0.
0.E+0
F crit
6.937
4.64
Omega
Sqr.
0.012
0.114
0.074
3.286
0.003
p-level
Table B65
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.282
-0.098
0.184
-0.491
-0.295
-0.049
0.074
0.098
0.417
Test Statistics
12.708
1.739
4.309
plevel
0.
0.176
0.014

Alpha/N
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
0.
Difference
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.282
-0.098
0.184
-0.484
-0.288
-0.041
0.081
0.091
0.409
Difference
-0.282
-0.098
0.184
Test Statistics
5.041
1.865
2.936
plevel
0.
0.062
0.003
Test Statistics
5.041
1.865
2.936
plevel
0.
0.187
0.01
Fisher LSD
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Accepted?
accepted
rejected
rejected
Table B66
(Generation) level
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
0.037
0.184
0.147
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.43 0.503
-0.256 0.623
-0.375 0.669
Test Statistics
0.043
1.212
0.55
plevel
0.958
0.298
0.577
Test Statistics
0.293
1.557
1.049
plevel
1.
0.359
0.883

Alpha/N
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
0.
Difference
0.037
0.184
0.147
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.414 0.487
-0.241 0.608
-0.357 0.651
Fisher LSD
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
0.037
0.184
0.147
Test Statistics
0.293
1.557
1.049
246
plevel
0.769
0.12
0.294
Accepted?
rejected
rejected
rejected
Table B67
Question 19: I feel connected to _____s community.
I was born____
Answer Options
1977 - 1994
1965 - 1976
Before 1965
13
28
19
39
13
7
2.80
11
37
16
10
3.28
40
69
18
8
2.62
11
24
24
42
10
4
2.69
12
41
12
7
3.08
46
74
17
2
2.55
15
17
38
17
13
3.15
9
33
22
12
3.49
32
76
36
4
2.89
10
19
20
33
18
10
2.98
12
39
14
8
3.16
39
77
20
8
2.75
11
12
35
19
20
3.41
6
26
17
25
3.75
24
61
37
30
3.31
Rating
Average
Response
Count
2.82
330
2.71
330
3.10
330
2.91
330
3.44
330
Dell
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
IBM
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
Microsoft
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score

Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
Apple
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
247
Table B68
Summary
Response
Factor #1
Factor #2
Score
Generation
Company
Fixed
Fixed
Factor
Generation
Generation
Generation
Company
Company
Company
Company
Company
Group
BB x Apple
BB x Dell
BB x HP
BB x IBM
BB x
Microsoft
GX x
Apple
GX x Dell
GX x HP
GX x IBM
GX x
Microsoft
GY x
Apple
GY x Dell
GY x HP
GY x IBM
GY x
Microsoft
BB
GX
GY
Apple
Dell
HP
IBM
Microsoft
Sample
size
163
163
163
163
Mean
3.313
2.62
2.748
2.552
Variance
1.29
1.101
0.967
0.829
Standard
Deviation
1.136
1.049
0.983
0.911
163
2.89
0.877
0.936
76
76
76
76
3.75
3.276
3.158
3.079
1.177
0.923
0.908
0.9
1.085
0.961
0.953
0.949
76
3.487
0.813
0.902
91
91
91
91
3.407
2.802
2.978
2.692
1.288
1.205
1.311
0.949
1.135
1.098
1.145
0.974
91
815
380
455
330
330
330
330
330
3.154
2.825
3.35
3.007
3.439
2.821
2.906
2.712
3.1
1.198
1.081
0.993
1.244
1.287
1.15
1.07
0.917
1.002
1.095
1.04
0.997
1.116
1.134
1.073
1.034
0.958
1.001
2
4
MS
35.815
26.948
F
34.242
25.764
p-level
2.665E-15
0.E+0
F crit
6.937
4.64
Omega
Sqr.
0.037
0.055
8
1635
1649
0.429
1.046
1.148
0.41
0.915
3.286
0.E+0
ANOVA
Source of Variation
Factor #2 (Company)
Factor #1 + #2
(Generation x
Company)
Within Groups
Total
Omega squared for
combined effect
SS
71.631
107.792
3.433
1,710.114
1,892.97
d.f.
0.089
248
Table B69
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.525
-0.182
0.343
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.762
-0.289
-0.405
0.041
0.079
0.608
Test
Statistics
34.207
4.626
11.673
p-level
2.776E-15
0.01
0.
p-level
6.661E-16
0.007
0.

Alpha/N
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
0.
Difference
-0.525
-0.182
0.343
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.754
-0.297
-0.397
0.033
0.088
0.599
Test
Statistics
8.271
3.042
4.832
Difference
Test
Statistics
Accepted?
Fisher LSD
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
-0.525
-0.182
0.343
8.271
3.042
4.832
p-level
2.22E16
0.002
0.
accepted
rejected
accepted
Table B70
Question 19: Comparisons among groups of Factor 2 (Company) within each
Factor 1 (Generation) level
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.437
-0.094
0.343
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.966 0.092
-0.592 0.405
-0.249 0.935
Test Statistics
4.734
0.245
2.335
plevel
0.009
0.783
0.097
Test Statistics
3.077
0.7
2.161
plevel
0.006
1.
0.093

Alpha/N
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
0.
Difference
-0.437
-0.094
0.343
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.948 0.074
-0.575 0.387
-0.228 0.915
Fisher LSD
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.437
-0.094
0.343
Test Statistics
3.077
0.7
2.161
249
plevel
0.002
0.484
0.031
Accepted?
rejected
rejected
rejected
Table B71
Question 20: I connect with other consumers of _____ products.
I was born____
Answer Options
1977 - 1994
1965 - 1976
Before 1965
12
24
16
36
18
9
2.96
9
35
16
12
3.30
47
64
22
6
2.63
11
23
19
41
12
8
2.86
11
41
15
5
3.08
49
71
17
3
2.56
18
12
33
20
18
3.31
8
32
25
10
3.46
39
57
42
7
2.88
11
20
17
33
15
15
3.07
12
32
17
10
3.20
45
64
28
6
2.72
13
14
26
21
26
3.56
7
24
17
26
3.76
29
51
38
32
3.29
Rating
Average
Response
Count
2.87
330
2.76
330
3.13
330
2.93
330
3.47
330
Dell
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
IBM
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
Microsoft
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score

Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
Apple
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
250
Table B72
Summary
Response
Factor #1
Factor #2
Score
Generation
Company
Fixed
Fixed
Factor
Generation
Generation
Generation
Company
Company
Company
Company
Company
Group
BB x Apple
BB x Dell
BB x HP
BB x IBM
BB x
Microsoft
GX x
Apple
GX x Dell
GX x HP
GX x IBM
GX x
Microsoft
GY x
Apple
GY x Dell
GY x HP
GY x IBM
GY x
Microsoft
BB
GX
GY
Apple
Dell
HP
IBM
Microsoft
Sample
size
163
163
163
163
Mean
3.288
2.626
2.724
2.558
Variance
1.441
1.026
1.016
0.853
Standard
Deviation
1.2
1.013
1.008
0.924
163
2.883
1.104
1.051
76
76
76
76
3.763
3.303
3.197
3.079
1.223
1.094
1.147
0.82
1.106
1.046
1.071
0.906
76
3.461
0.812
0.901
91
91
91
91
3.56
2.956
3.066
2.857
1.405
1.309
1.507
1.168
1.185
1.144
1.227
1.081
91
815
380
455
330
330
330
330
330
3.308
2.816
3.361
3.149
3.473
2.873
2.927
2.761
3.133
1.415
1.15
1.065
1.414
1.411
1.187
1.217
0.973
1.18
1.19
1.073
1.032
1.189
1.188
1.09
1.103
0.986
1.086
2
4
MS
42.664
25.945
F
37.188
22.615
p-level
1.11E-16
0.E+0
F crit
6.937
4.64
Omega
Sqr.
0.04
0.048
8
1635
1649
0.285
1.147
1.254
0.249
0.981
3.286
0.E+0
ANOVA
Source of Variation
Factor #2 (Company)
Factor #1 + #2
(Generation x
Company)
Within Groups
Total
Omega squared for
combined effect
SS
85.329
103.782
2.281
1,875.775
2,067.167
d.f.
0.085
251
Table B73
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
99.9% Confidence
Interval
Difference
-0.545
-0.333
0.211
-0.792
-0.567
-0.066
Test
Statistics
-0.297
-0.1
0.488
33.496
14.153
4.021
p-level
5.551E15
0.
0.018

Alpha/N
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
0.
99.9% Confidence
Interval
Difference
-0.545
-0.333
0.211
-0.784
-0.559
-0.057
Test
Statistics
-0.305
-0.108
0.479
8.185
5.32
2.836
p-level
1.332E15
0.
0.014
Fisher LSD
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Test
Statistics
Difference
-0.545
-0.333
0.211
8.185
5.32
2.836
p-level
4.441E16
0.
0.005
Accepted?
accepted
accepted
rejected
Table B74
(Generation) level
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.475
-0.272
0.203
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-1.029 0.079
-0.794
0.25
-0.417 0.823
Test Statistics
5.093
1.884
0.742
plevel
0.006
0.152
0.476
Test Statistics
3.191
1.941
1.218
plevel
0.004
0.157
0.67

Alpha/N
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
0.
Difference
-0.475
-0.272
0.203
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-1.01
0.06
-0.776 0.232
-0.396 0.801
Fisher LSD
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.475
-0.272
0.203
Test Statistics
3.191
1.941
1.218
252
plevel
0.001
0.052
0.223
Accepted?
rejected
rejected
rejected
Table B75
Question 21: I consider myself an open advocate of _____ products.
I was born____
Answer Options
1977 - 1994
1965 - 1976
Before 1965
15
24
12
33
20
11
3.00
11
30
20
11
3.30
36
64
29
10
2.79
13
20
17
45
10
6
2.77
14
36
17
6
3.12
41
78
18
6
2.69
16
5
40
24
18
3.52
6
31
26
13
3.61
27
63
45
12
3.06
17
9
43
15
15
3.20
11
30
25
7
3.29
36
59
42
9
2.94
7
36
23
21
3.55
4
21
23
27
3.93
12
46
57
39
3.64
Rating
Average
Response
Count
2.96
330
2.81
330
3.31
330
3.09
330
3.68
330
Dell
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
IBM
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
Microsoft
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score

Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
Apple
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
253
Table B76
Summary
Response
Factor #1
Factor #2
Score
Generation
Company
Fixed
Fixed
Factor
Generation
Generation
Generation
Company
Company
Company
Company
Company
Group
BB x Apple
BB x Dell
BB x HP
BB x IBM
BB x
Microsoft
GX x Apple
GX x Dell
GX x HP
GX x IBM
GX x
Microsoft
GY x Apple
GY x Dell
GY x HP
GY x IBM
GY x
Microsoft
BB
GX
GY
Apple
Dell
HP
IBM
Microsoft
Sample
size
163
163
163
163
Mean
3.644
2.785
2.939
2.687
Variance
1.194
1.194
1.12
0.908
Standard
Deviation
1.093
1.093
1.058
0.953
163
76
76
76
76
3.061
3.934
3.303
3.289
3.118
1.132
0.969
1.121
0.928
0.879
1.064
0.984
1.059
0.964
0.938
76
91
91
91
91
3.605
3.549
3.
3.198
2.769
0.749
1.139
1.511
1.294
1.091
0.865
1.067
1.229
1.137
1.044
91
815
380
455
330
330
330
330
330
3.516
3.023
3.45
3.207
3.685
2.964
3.091
2.809
3.312
1.03
1.217
1.003
1.292
1.14
1.3
1.141
0.976
1.072
1.015
1.103
1.001
1.137
1.068
1.14
1.068
0.988
1.036
2
4
MS
23.965
38.308
F
21.854
34.934
8
1635
1649
1.376
1.097
1.216
1.255
ANOVA
Source of Variation
Factor #2 (Company)
Factor #1 + #2
(Generation x
Company)
Within Groups
Total
Omega squared for
combined effect
SS
47.93
153.233
11.012
1,792.943
2,005.118
d.f.
0.098
254
0.
0.E+0
F crit
6.937
4.64
Omega
Sqr.
0.023
0.074
0.263
3.286
0.001
p-level
Table B77
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.427
-0.183
0.243
99.9% Confidence Interval

-0.669
-0.184
-0.412
0.045
-0.028
0.514
Test Statistics
21.514
4.472
5.594
plevel
0.
0.012
0.004
Test Statistics
6.56
2.991
3.345
plevel
0.
0.008
0.003

Alpha/N
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
0.
Difference
-0.427
-0.183
0.243
99.9% Confidence Interval

-0.661
-0.193
-0.404
0.037
-0.018
0.505
Difference
Test Statistics
-0.427
-0.183
0.243
6.56
2.991
3.345
Fisher LSD
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
p-level
7.205E11
0.003
0.001
Accepted?
accepted
rejected
rejected
Table B78
(Generation) level
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.29
0.095
0.385
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.832 0.252
-0.416 0.605
-0.221 0.991
Test Statistics
1.988
0.239
2.795
plevel
0.137
0.788
0.061
Test Statistics
1.994
0.691
2.364
plevel
0.139
1.
0.055

Alpha/N
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
0.
Difference
-0.29
0.095
0.385
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.813 0.233
-0.398 0.587
-0.2
0.97
Fisher LSD
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.29
0.095
0.385
Test Statistics
1.994
0.691
2.364
255
plevel
0.046
0.49
0.018
Accepted?
rejected
rejected
rejected
Table B79
Question 22: Word of mouth is what convinced me to purchase _____ products.
I was born____
Answer Options
1977 - 1994
1965 - 1976
Before 1965
11
20
18
38
18
6
2.89
15
27
17
11
3.16
43
61
33
6
2.77
11
18
17
45
13
5
2.82
15
33
18
4
2.99
48
76
18
3
2.63
13
12
37
24
12
3.26
11
25
24
14
3.49
43
67
32
8
2.87
13
11
41
23
7
3.09
10
29
22
9
3.24
42
68
32
8
2.88
12
9
26
29
24
3.68
6
17
25
27
3.93
28
30
35
58
3.61
Rating
Average
Response
Count
2.89
330
2.77
330
3.12
330
3.02
330
3.70
330
Dell
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
IBM
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
Microsoft
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score

Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
Apple
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
256
Table B80
Summary
Response
Factor #1
Factor #2
Score
Generation
Company
Fixed
Fixed
Factor
Generation
Generation
Generation
Company
Company
Company
Company
Company
Group
BB x Apple
BB x Dell
BB x HP
BB x IBM
BB x
Microsoft
GX x Apple
GX x Dell
GX x HP
GX x IBM
GX x
Microsoft
GY x Apple
GY x Dell
GY x HP
GY x IBM
GY x
Microsoft
BB
GX
GY
Apple
Dell
HP
IBM
Microsoft
Sample
size
163
163
163
163
Mean
3.607
2.767
2.877
2.632
Variance
1.746
1.056
0.96
0.79
Standard
Deviation
1.321
1.028
0.98
0.889
163
76
76
76
76
2.871
3.934
3.158
3.237
2.987
0.965
1.022
1.308
1.17
0.973
0.982
1.011
1.144
1.082
0.986
76
91
91
91
91
3.487
3.681
2.89
3.099
2.824
1.08
1.153
1.143
1.09
1.013
1.039
1.074
1.069
1.044
1.007
91
815
380
455
330
330
330
330
330
3.264
2.951
3.361
3.152
3.703
2.891
3.021
2.767
3.121
1.13
1.214
1.207
1.191
1.425
1.155
1.06
0.909
1.098
1.063
1.102
1.099
1.091
1.194
1.075
1.03
0.953
1.048
2
4
MS
22.559
43.323
F
20.402
39.181
8
1635
1649
0.626
1.106
1.232
0.566
ANOVA
Source of Variation
Factor #2 (Company)
Factor #1 + #2
(Generation x
Company)
Within Groups
Total
Omega squared for
combined effect
SS
45.118
173.293
5.008
1,807.88
2,031.299
d.f.
0.102
257
0.
0.E+0
F crit
6.937
4.64
Omega
Sqr.
0.021
0.083
0.806
3.286
0.E+0
p-level
Table B81
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.41
-0.201
0.209
-0.653
-0.43
-0.063
0.166
0.028
0.481
Test Statistics
19.662
5.32
4.085
plevel
0.
0.005
0.017

Alpha/N
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
0.
Difference
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.41
-0.201
0.209
-0.644
-0.422
-0.054
0.175
0.021
0.472
Difference
-0.41
-0.201
0.209
Test Statistics
6.271
3.262
2.858
plevel
0.
0.001
0.004
Test Statistics
6.271
3.262
2.858
plevel
0.
0.003
0.013
Fisher LSD
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Accepted?
accepted
rejected
rejected
Table B82
(Generation) level
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.327
-0.074
0.253
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.871 0.217
-0.586 0.439
-0.356 0.862
Test Statistics
2.504
0.144
1.198
plevel
0.082
0.866
0.302
Test Statistics
2.238
0.537
1.548
plevel
0.076
1.
0.366

Alpha/N
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
0.
Difference
-0.327
-0.074
0.253
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.852 0.198
-0.569 0.421
-0.335
0.84
Fisher LSD
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.327
-0.074
0.253
Test Statistics
2.238
0.537
1.548
258
plevel
0.025
0.591
0.122
Accepted?
rejected
rejected
rejected
Table B83
Question 23: I often tell others that I believe ____s products are the best.
I was born____
Answer Options
1977 - 1994
1965 - 1976
Before 1965
13
31
19
31
19
9
2.91
13
29
22
8
3.22
36
58
29
9
2.69
29
24
39
13
6
2.81
20
38
14
3
2.97
43
62
25
4
2.58
23
16
35
19
17
3.32
9
34
23
9
3.39
34
54
40
12
2.90
10
26
14
34
20
13
3.13
12
33
19
6
3.09
38
61
28
10
2.74
14
8
25
22
32
3.77
8
16
25
25
3.83
21
36
44
48
3.56
Rating
Average
Response
Count
2.87
330
2.74
330
3.13
330
2.93
330
3.68
330
Dell
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
IBM
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
Microsoft
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score

Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
Apple
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
259
Table B84
Summary
Response
Factor #1
Factor #2
Score
Generation
Company
Fixed
Fixed
Factor
Generation
Generation
Generation
Company
Company
Company
Company
Company
Group
BB x Apple
BB x Dell
BB x HP
BB x IBM
BB x
Microsoft
GX x Apple
GX x Dell
GX x HP
GX x IBM
GX x
Microsoft
GY x Apple
GY x Dell
GY x HP
GY x IBM
GY x
Microsoft
BB
GX
GY
Apple
Dell
HP
IBM
Microsoft
Sample
size
163
163
163
163
Mean
3.558
2.687
2.742
2.583
Variance
1.618
1.29
1.229
1.059
Standard
Deviation
1.272
1.136
1.109
1.029
163
76
76
76
76
2.902
3.829
3.224
3.092
2.974
1.311
1.184
1.056
1.045
0.666
1.145
1.088
1.028
1.022
0.816
76
91
91
91
91
3.395
3.769
2.912
3.132
2.813
0.802
1.335
1.392
1.382
1.042
0.896
1.155
1.18
1.176
1.021
91
815
380
455
330
330
330
330
330
3.319
2.894
3.303
3.189
3.679
2.873
2.93
2.736
3.13
1.22
1.416
1.03
1.378
1.447
1.303
1.257
0.985
1.214
1.104
1.19
1.015
1.174
1.203
1.141
1.121
0.992
1.102
2
4
MS
26.059
44.88
F
21.471
36.979
8
1635
1649
0.623
1.214
1.347
0.513
ANOVA
Source of Variation
Factor #2 (Company)
Factor #1 + #2
(Generation x
Company)
Within Groups
Total
Omega squared for
combined effect
SS
52.117
179.521
4.983
1,984.363
2,220.985
d.f.
0.099
260
0.
0.E+0
F crit
6.937
4.64
Omega
Sqr.
0.022
0.079
0.847
3.286
0.E+0
p-level
Table B85
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.408
-0.295
0.114
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.663
-0.153
-0.535
-0.054
-0.172
0.399
Test
Statistics
17.786
10.435
1.101
plevel
0.
0.
0.333
Test
Statistics
5.964
4.568
1.484
plevel
0.
0.
0.414

Alpha/N
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
0.
Difference
-0.408
-0.295
0.114
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.654
-0.162
-0.526
-0.063
-0.162
0.389
Fisher LSD
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.408
-0.295
0.114
Test Statistics
5.964
4.568
1.484
p-level
0.
0.
0.138
Accepted?
accepted
accepted
rejected
Table B86
(Generation) level
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.271
-0.211
0.06
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.841 0.299
-0.748 0.326
-0.578 0.697
Test Statistics
1.564
1.071
0.061
plevel
0.21
0.343
0.941
Test Statistics
1.769
1.463
0.349
plevel
0.231
0.431
1.

Alpha/N
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
0.
Difference
-0.271
-0.211
0.06
99.9% Confidence
Interval
-0.821
0.28
-0.729 0.307
-0.556 0.675
Fisher LSD
BB vs GX
BB vs GY
GX vs GY
Difference
-0.271
-0.211
0.06
Test Statistics
1.769
1.463
0.349
261
plevel
0.077
0.144
0.727
Accepted?
rejected
rejected
rejected
Table B87
Question 24: I believe that _____ has the best products and service.
I was born____
Answer Options
1977 - 1994
1965 - 1976
Before 1965
11
19
11
38
17
14
3.13
11
28
26
10
3.43
25
65
42
12
3.02
15
15
48
14
6
2.95
10
42
15
7
3.20
21
95
25
7
2.93
7
41
24
17
3.52
9
27
27
13
3.58
20
67
49
18
3.29
14
9
40
23
13
3.31
10
36
22
6
3.26
18
78
41
12
3.12
5
31
22
29
3.74
3
17
27
28
4.03
5
26
56
71
4.12
Rating
Average
Response
Count
3.15
330
2.99
330
3.42
330
3.20
330
3.99
330
Dell
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
IBM
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
Microsoft
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score

Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
Apple
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Score
262
Table B88
Summary
Response
Factor #1
Factor #2
Score
Generation
Company
Fixed
Fixed
Factor
Generation
Generation
Generation
Company
Company
Company
Company
Company
Group
BB x Apple
BB x Dell
BB x HP
BB x IBM
BB x
Microsoft
GX x Apple
GX x Dell
GX x HP
GX x IBM
GX x
Microsoft
GY x Apple
GY x Dell
GY x HP
GY x IBM
GY x
Microsoft
BB
GX
GY
Apple
Dell
HP
IBM
Microsoft
Sample
size
163
163
163
163
Mean
4.123
3.018
3.117
2.926
Variance
0.985
1.179
0.993
0.822
Standard
Deviation
0.992
1.086
0.996
0.906
163
76
76
76
76
3.288
4.026
3.461
3.263
3.197
1.009
0.879
0.945
0.783
0.774
1.004
0.938
0.972
0.885
0.88
76
91
91
91
91
3.579
3.736
3.132
3.308
2.945
0.834
1.219
1.405
1.104
0.941
0.913
1.104
1.185
1.051
0.97
91
815
380
455
330
330
330
330
330
3.516
3.294
3.505
3.327
3.994
3.152
3.203
2.994
3.418
0.919
1.179
0.921
1.185
1.046
1.211
0.977
0.851
0.955
0.959
1.086
0.96
1.089
1.023
1.1
0.988
0.923
0.977
2
4
MS
5.948
50.082
F
5.978
50.332
p-level
0.003
0.E+0
F crit
6.937
4.64
Omega
Sqr.
0.005
0.106
8
1635
1649
2.412
0.995
1.127
2.424
0.013
3.286
0.006
ANOVA
Source of Variation
Factor #2 (Company)
Factor #1 + #2
(Generation x
Company)
Within Groups
Total
Omega squared for
combined effect
SS
11.896
200.33
19.296
1,626.895
1,858.418
d.f.
0.117
263

Attitudinal Loyalty A Mixed Method Study of Apple Fandom PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Attitudinal Loyalty A Mixed Method Study of Apple Fandom PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

ATTITUDINAL LOYALTY: A MIXED METHOD STUDY OF APPLE FANDOM

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

UMI Number: 3557606

All rights reserved

David Johnson, 2013

Introduction To The Problem

Background Of The Study

Statement Of The Problem

Purpose Of The Study

Significance Of The Study

Assumptions And Limitations

Organization Of The Remainder Of The Study

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Validity And Reliability

CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS

APPENDIX A. INDIVIDUAL QUESTION RESULTS

APPENDIX B. GENERATIONAL DIFFERENCES BY QUESTION

Table 2 - Construct 1 Organizational identification Tukeys Test

Table 3 - Construct 2 Approachability and responsiveness One-way ANOVA

Table 4 - Construct 2 Approachability and responsiveness Tukeys Test

Table 5 - Construct 3 Trust One-way ANOVA

Table 6 - Construct 3 Trust Tukeys Test

Table 7 - Construct 4 - Group affiliation and socialization One-way ANOVA

Table 8 - Construct 4 Group affiliation and socialization Tukeys Test

Table 9 - Construct 5 Identification and sense of belonging One-way ANOVA

Table 10 - Construct 5 Identification and sense of belonging Tukeys Test

Table 11 - Construct 6 Proselytizing One-way ANOVA

Table 12 - Construct 6 Proselytizing Tukeys Test

Table 13 - Construct 1 Organizational identification Two-way ANOVA

Table 14 - Construct 1 Organizational identification Generational differences

Table 15 - Construct 1 Organizational identification Generational differences

Table 16 - Construct 2 Approachability and responsiveness Two-way ANOVA

Table 17 - Construct 2 Approachability and responsiveness

Table 18 - Construct 2 Approachability and responsiveness

Comparisons among groups of Factor 2 (Company) within each Factor 1

Table 20 - Construct 3 Trust Generational differences

Table 21 - Construct 3 Trust Generational differences

Table 22 - Construct 4 Group affiliation and socialization Two-way ANOVA

Table 23 - Construct 4 Group affiliation and socialization Generational differences 88

Table 26 - Construct 5 Identification and sense of belonging

Table 27 - Construct 5 Identification and sense of belonging

Table 28 - Construct 6 Proselytizing Two-way ANOVA

Table 29 - Construct 6 Proselytizing Generational differences

Table 30 - Construct 6 Proselytizing Generational differences

There is a distinction between behavioral loyalty and attitudinal loyalty. The

Amaratunga, Baldry, Sarshar, and Newton (2002) opined, Phenomenology uses

The initial quantitative research question asked, Is there a significant difference

Hypothesis: There is significant difference between consumer loyalty of Apple products

2. HA2: There is significant difference between Approachability and

4. HA4: There is significant difference between Group affiliation and

5. HA5: There is significant difference between Identification and sense of

HO5: There is no significant difference between Identification and sense of

6. HA6: There is significant difference between Proselytizing (word of mouth)

Significance Of The Study

Theoretical assumptions The theoretical assumptions for this study

Turner, 2000), and proselytizing (word of mouth) (Tiwari & Abraham,

Topical Assumptions The primary topical assumption is that the

Methodological Assumptions - Phenomenological research methodologies

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2. Affective loyalty Liking or attitude toward a brand based on previous

Attitudinal Loyalty Constructs

that trust in a company is positively linked to his commitment to the company,

consociation of a consumer with an organization. Thus there is no attitudinal loyalty