MKT 310: Market Research on Phonathon at The College of New Jersey
-
Upload
taylor-nikoele -
Category
Documents
-
view
25 -
download
1
description
Transcript of MKT 310: Market Research on Phonathon at The College of New Jersey
1
MARKET RESEARCH ON PHONATHON And Potential Alumni Donations from
Current Undergraduate Students at The College of New Jersey
MKT 310: MARKET RESEARCH
Taylor Bjornsen
Nick Malmi
December 14th
, 2012
2
Letter of Transmittal
Serenity Research Group
1609 Prospect Street
Ewing, NJ 08628
United States
December 14th
, 2012
Alexis Gettings
Annual Fund: Phonathon
Green Hall Room 14
The College of New Jersey
P.O. Box 1776
Ewing, NJ, USA 08628-0718
RE: Phonathon – Market Research Report
Dear Alexis Gettings,
We have the honor of presenting to you the survey results of our study on current undergraduate
students at The College of New Jersey. The purpose of this report is to examine undergraduates’
sentiment towards The College and its corresponding effect on potential giving as alumni. This
report outlines major predictors (and conversely, inhibitors) in the potential magnitude of alumni
donations or lack thereof. We sincerely hope that this report serves to aid Phonathon and the
Annual Fund as a whole in its endeavors to help financially uphold this institution.
Best Regards,
Taylor Bjornsen and Nick Malmi
Senior Analysts of Market Research
Serenity Research Group
3
Letter of Authorization
Alexis Gettings
Annual Fund: Phonathon
The College of New Jersey
P.O. Box 1776
Ewing, NJ, USA 08628-0781
September 2nd
, 2012
Serenity Research Group
1609 Prospect Street
Ewing, NJ 08628
United States
To Whom It May Concern:
As Coordinator of the Annual Fund’s Phonathon program, I hereby authorize Serenity Research
Group to conduct market research on Phonathon. This letter authorizes that you may survey
students of The College of New Jersey strictly related to the topic of Phonathon. All information
collected is the property of The College of New Jersey and therefore remains confidential.
Sincerely,
Alexis Gettings
Coordinator of Phonathon
The College of New Jersey
4
Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... 5
Major Findings .......................................................................................................................................... 5
Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................... 5
Problem Definition ...................................................................................................................................... 6
Background To The Problem .................................................................................................................... 6
Statement of the Problem .......................................................................................................................... 7
Approach to the Problem .......................................................................................................................... 7
Research Design .......................................................................................................................................... 8
Type of Research Design .......................................................................................................................... 8
Information Needs..................................................................................................................................... 8
Data Collection from Secondary Sources ................................................................................................. 8
Data Collection from Primary Sources ..................................................................................................... 9
Scaling Techniques ................................................................................................................................... 9
Questionnaire Development and Pre-Testing ......................................................................................... 10
Sampling Techniques .............................................................................................................................. 11
Field Work .............................................................................................................................................. 11
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................................. 12
Methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 12
Plan of Data Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 12
Results ........................................................................................................................................................ 14
Limitations and Caveats ........................................................................................................................... 19
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................ 20
Exhibits ...................................................................................................................................................... 21
Questionnaire .......................................................................................................................................... 21
Statistical Output ..................................................................................................................................... 27
5
Executive Summary
Major Findings
According to the statistical analysis of all data through SPSS, we were able to identify
significant correlations between likelihood to donate and the following variables:
Overall Satisfaction with The College
Time After Graduation
Quality of Student Life
Tuition Costs
Alumni Event Attendance
Conclusions
By using statistical tools and functions through SPSS, we can conclude that there are
several connections between donor participation and sentiment toward the school that is
statistically significant. Please be aware that the correlations and conclusions made in this section
are referring to the sample of 81 students, and may not be representative of the whole population
of College students. Donor participation is more likely to occur as time goes on, meaning that
students are most likely to donate twenty years after graduation as opposed to ten years or one
year. There is a correlation toward perceived approval of student life and donor participation,
meaning that students that feel more sentiment toward the student atmosphere are more likely to
donate to the College. Tuition costs and the satisfaction derived from them are also correlated
with donor activity, meaning that the cost of going to the school can leave a lasting impression
on an individual when they consider donating. We have also found a positive correlation
between students who say they would agree to attend alumni events after graduating and donor
participation.
6
Problem Definition
Background to the Problem
The College of New Jersey’s Phonathon is a collection of about fifty students who collect
donations for the Annual Fund through phone calls to alumni. In addition to its purpose for
collecting funds, TCNJ’s Phonathon serves as a means for alumni to obtain information about
the College news and events, RSVP to reunions with peers, ask questions, provide feedback and
update their contact information in the alumni records. Though a high total donation rate is
important, alumni participation improves the College’s standing in national rankings and allows
TCNJ to be more competitive when applying for grants and corporate aid. As a result, a high
participation rate with small individual donations can be as effective in providing monetary
support as a small participation with large individual donations.
On a typical business day, managers enter the call center in Green Hall prior to the
calling staff in order to prep the room and determine goals for the evening. With incentives such
as games and prizes, the callers spend time five days week (Monday through Thursday, and
Sunday) calling alumni to engage in conversations. Instead of skipping straight to asking for
pledges, Phonathon Representatives conduct a series of conversations based off of customizable
scripts. These scripts change with the various calling pools, sometimes reflecting information for
an event or marking an alumni’s reunion year. Each call is designed to feel special and upbeat in
accordance with the Phonathon slogan of choice-smile when you dial. Often times Phonathon
Representatives connect alumni with resources they desire, be it on an event happening in their
area, specialized alumni campus tours or anything in between. While collecting donations is still
a key part of the job description, Representative make sure each call is more multi-faceted.
7
Statement of the Problem
Marketing managerial problem: How can Phonathon increase its number of pledges from
future alumni by examining current students?
Marketing research problem: What variables impact the probability that current students
will donate to TCNJ as alumni?
Approach to the Problem
This research group has used data collected through surveys, primary and secondary data
and statistical tools to find connections between various demographics and attitudes toward the
College and their possible donor participation. The results were used to reach a conclusion on
determining donor behavior.
8
Research Design
Type of Research Design
The research done on this topic was on students’ attitudes concerning their possible donor
participation in the future and their overall satisfaction of the school, focusing on sentiment
toward the College. The survey found in appendix comprised of 27 questions that measured
students’ attitude toward the College and their possible donor behavior. The responses gathered
from the survey helped determine the overall attitudes toward donor participation and students’
satisfaction with the school. The goal was to find some link between demographics, satisfaction
on multiple levels of the College (satisfaction with the education, student life, etc.), involvement
within the campus community and what schools students associate with.
Information Needs
Different types of information were required in order to complete the research needed to
draw a conclusion. Student demographics, satisfaction with the College concerning education,
student life, career services, employment, organizations, and networking opportunities were
needed in order to complete the research report. Student attitudes toward donation, such as how
soon after graduation they would see themselves donating, along with what they would perceive
an ideal amount to donate would be. These were all done with the questionnaire.
Data Collection from Secondary Sources
In order to further our understanding of Phonathon and the Annual Fund at The College
of New Jersey, additional research was pooled from a series of secondary sources. Amongst
these sources were scholarly publications that discussed the nature of alumni giving and the
reasons for or against participating in various Annual Funds. This psychological input was
coupled alongside information about giving directly from The College of New Jersey’s website,
9
as well as raw data graciously provided by Phonathon for the sake of this study. In the raw data
provided by Alexis Gettings all of this past fiscal year’s donations were pooled in a series of
three spreadsheets. The first documented all donations as a whole, the second organized them by
affiliation with academic schools, and the third organized them by affiliation with Greek
organizations. Together, this information was able to play a pivotal role in the construction and
design of the questionnaire that was distributed to a portion of The College’s student body.
Data Collection from Primary Sources
The questionnaire corresponding to this study was distributed on paper to a selection of
eighty-one undergraduate students at The College of New Jersey. This survey sought to establish
the degree of positive or negative sentiment that students harbor towards The College, the
likelihood of which they would donate at various points in the future, as well as the amount they
identify with as an ideal donation to The College. The selection of students who partook in the
survey process spanned across both genders and all academic schools within The College fairly
equally, providing for a diverse and accurate attempt at capturing the student body at large.
Scaling Techniques
The questionnaire corresponding to this study is comprised of a diverse span of scaling
techniques, including: yes/no questions, multiple-choice questions, Likert scale questions,
demographic questions and two open-ended questions. Many questions took into account that
respondents would either feel indifferent or not have an applicable response. For example, if a
student has never held on-campus employment, he or she may not feel comfortable rating their
level of satisfaction with on-campus employment given their lack of firsthand experience.
However, they were not instructed to skip possible non-applicable questions in the even that they
still harbored an opinion. For instance, if they were denied from several on-campus positions and
10
struggled in vain to obtain some sort of employment, they could possess negative feelings
towards the opportunities The College provides and rank it as such. Given that a substantial
portion of our survey was centered around satisfaction, the majority of questions involved were
either of the yes/no or Likert scale design. This allowed for a specific manner of addressing
satisfaction whilst pinpointing any variation in general sentiment with The College when pitted
against satisfaction with specific facets of The College.
Questionnaire Development and Pretesting
After a close analysis of both secondary and primary sources, and also taking into
account what variables are most likely to affect student sentiment towards The College of New
Jersey, ten hypotheses were drafted and formalized. These hypotheses were later used for
statistical analysis as evidenced in later portions of this report. A series of diverse statistical tests
were conducted on the following hypotheses to help provide clarity for the purpose of this study.
1. Is there any correlation between positive sentiment towards The College of New Jersey and
the likelihood of donor participation?
2. Is there a variance in the likelihood of donor participation over a period of time after
graduation?
3. Is there a correlation between the likelihood of donor participation and the academic school(s)
undergraduates identify with?
4. Is there a correlation between on-campus organizational involvement and the likelihood of
donor participation?
5. Is there a correlation between legacy status and the likelihood of donor participation?
6. Is there a correlation between perceived “quality of education” and the likelihood of donor
participation?
7. Is there a correlation between satisfaction with student life and the likelihood of donor
participation?
8. Is there a correlation between satisfaction with tuition costs and the likelihood of donor
participation?
11
9. Is there a correlation between gender and the likelihood of donor participation?
10. Is there a correlation between potentially attending alumni events and the likelihood of donor
participation?
Sampling Techniques
The target population we focused on consisted of college students, particularly juniors
and seniors. We were able to get very close to a 50/50 ratio of males to females. This will ensure
both genders are represented equally in the study.
In order to make sure the study covers students from all of The College’s seven schools,
data was collected from members of the following schools: Arts and Communications, Business,
Education, Engineering, Humanities and Social Sciences, School of Nursing and Exercise
Science, and Science. No less than ten students from each school will be selected. Gender within
schools do not apply, there is no need to get a 50/50 gender ratio for each school.
The sampling discussed above provided the best data for this study, which focused on
gender and school. We did judgmental sampling due to the participants being selected due to
their gender and school.
The study took into account gender and school. Though transfer students and students
from Greek organizations are important, the odds of acquiring several members from these
groups are very likely due to the large size of the sample, and we did not have the time or
resources to actively survey individuals from certain clubs or organizations.
Field Work
During the third and fourth weeks of November, associates from the Serenity Research
group surveyed 81 students with a survey that gauged their sentiment toward the school and
likelihood of donor participation after graduation.
12
Data Analysis
Methodology
After the sample size was reached and we finished fielding the study, we entered coded
the data into Statistical Product and Service Solutions (SPSS) which handled all the statistical
analysis we required in order to reach a conclusion. The most common tests we performed with
the software were correlation matrices and independent sample tests.
Plan of Data Analysis
Hypothesis Variables Test
Ho: There is no correlation between positive sentiment
towards TCNJ and the likelihood of donor
participation. Q3, Q14 - Q16 Correlation Matrix
Ha: There is a correlation between positive sentiment
towards TCNJ and the likelihood of donor
participation.
Ho: Donor participation will not vary over a period of
time after graduation. Q14 - Q16 Paired Samples T-Test
Ha: Donor participation will vary over a period of time
after graduation.
Ho: There is no correlation between likelihood of donor
participation and academic school(s) identified with.
Q 14 - Q16, Q24a -
Q24g Independent Sample T-Test
Ha: There is a correlation between likelihood of donor
participation between students from the School of
Business and other and academic school(s) identified
with.
Ho: There is no correlation between organizational
involvement and likelihood of donor participation. Q2, Q14 - Q16 Independent Sample T-Test
Ha: There is a correlation between organizational
involvement and likelihood of donor participation.
13
Ho: There is no correlation between legacy status and
likelihood of donor participation.
Q1, Q14 - Q16
Independent Sample T-Test
Ha: There is a correlation between legacy status and
likelihood of donor participation.
Ho: There is no correlation between perceived "quality
of education" and likelihood of donor participation. Q4, Q14 - Q16 Correlation Matrix
Ha: There is a correlation between perceived "quality
of education" and likelihood of donor participation.
Ho: There is no correlation between satisfaction with
student life and likelihood of donor participation. Q6, Q14 - Q16 Correlation Matrix
Ha: There is a correlation between satisfaction with
student life and likelihood of donor participation.
Ho: There is no correlation between satisfaction with
tuition costs and likelihood of donor participation.
Q9, Q14 - Q16,
Q18b, Q18i Correlation Matrix
Ha: There is a correlation between satisfaction with
tuition costs and likelihood of donor participation.
Ho: There is no correlation between regretting
attending TCNJ and likelihood of donor participation. Q13 - Q16 Correlation Matrix
Ha: There is a correlation between regretting attending
TCNJ and likelihood of donor participation.
Ho: There is no correlation between likelihood of
attending alumni events and likelihood of donor
participation. Q11, Q14 - Q16 Correlation Matrix
Ha: There is a correlation between likelihood of
attending alumni events and likelihood of donor
participation.
14
Results
Hypothesis 1
Ho: There is no correlation between positive sentiment towards TCNJ and the likelihood of
donor participation. (Two tailed Sig > .20)
Ha: There is a correlation between positive sentiment towards TCNJ and the likelihood of donor
participation. (Two tailed Sig < .20)
We rejected the null hypothesis. As you can from Table 1, the sig level on each of the
attributes concerning donation after one year, after ten years and after twenty years are .066,.000
and .002 respectively. Therefore, it is safe to say with 80% confidence level that overall
satisfaction with TCNJ is correlated with donor participation. This inverse relationship is rather a
direct relationship due to a mistake in the survey design where the scales were not consistent
with each other. Please refer to the Limitations and Caveats section for details. After noting the
inverted scales, we were able to conclude that the relationship between satisfaction and donor
participation is positively correlated. The relationship was weak one year after graduation with a
Pearson correlation of .212. The relationship grew stronger after ten years after graduation with a
Pearson correlation of .410. The relationship grew weaker after twenty years after graduation
with a Pearson correlation of .354, indicating that the correlation between satisfaction and donor
participation after twenty years is weaker than the correlation between satisfaction and donor
participation after ten years.
Hypothesis 2
Ho: Donor participation will not vary over a period of time after graduation. (Sig > .20)
Ha: Donor participation will vary over a period of time after graduation. (Sig < .20)
We rejected the null hypothesis due to the low two-tailed significance levels. According
to Table 2, Donor participation does vary over a period of time after graduation. According to the
15
correlation column, donor participation does get stronger over time, indicating that donor
participation will be strongest after twenty years as opposed to ten years after and one year after.
Hypothesis 3
Ho: There is no correlation between likelihood of donor participation whether or not a student is
from the School of Business (Two tailed Sig < .20)
Ha: There is a correlation between likelihood of donor participation whether or not a student is
from the School of Business (Two tailed Sig > .20)
According to Table 3, all the Sig values are far higher than .20, so we cannot reject the
null hypothesis from this data. According to this data, business students do not donate more
money to the College with statistical significance.
Hypothesis 4
Ho: There is no correlation between organizational involvement and likelihood of donor
participation. (Two tailed Sig > .20)
Ha: There is a correlation between organizational involvement and likelihood of donor
participation. (Two tailed Sig < .20)
According to Table 4, all the Sig values are far higher than .20, so we cannot reject the
null hypothesis from this data. According to this data, organizational involvement and likelihood
of donor participation are not correlated.
Hypothesis 5
Ho: There is no correlation between legacy status and likelihood of donor participation. (Two
tailed Sig > .20)
Ha: There is a correlation between legacy status and likelihood of donor participation. (Two
tailed Sig < .20)
16
According to Table 5, all the Sig values are higher than .20, therefore we cannot reject
the null hypothesis from this data. According to this data, organizational involvement does not
correlate with donor participation.
Hypothesis 6
Ho: There is no correlation between perceived "quality of education" and likelihood of donor
participation. (Two tailed Sig > .20)
Ha: There is a correlation between perceived "quality of education" and likelihood of donor
participation. (Two tailed Sig < .20)
According to Table 6, we cannot reject the null hypothesis. According to the data, we
cannot say that satisfaction with the quality of education is correlated with donor participation in
any time period after graduation. They are all above the .20 two-tailed sig value.
Hypothesis 7
Ho: There is no correlation between satisfaction with student life and likelihood of donor
participation. (Two tailed Sig > .20)
Ha: There is a correlation between satisfaction with student life and likelihood of donor
participation. (Two tailed Sig < .20)
According to Table 7, we rejected the null hypothesis for 10 years after graduation and
for 20 years, showing that there is a correlation between satisfaction with student life and the
likelihood of donor participation. We cannot reject the null hypothesis concerning 1 year after
graduation due to the high Sig value. 10 years after graduation has a Pearson correlation of .292,
while graduation after 20 years had a Pearson correlation of .306. Since the Pearson correlation
is not very close to 1, the relationship is positive, but not very strong. The Pearson values were
negative on the Table due to the inverted scales within the survey questions, please refer to
Limitations and Caveats for details. This was corrected in discussing these results.
17
Hypothesis 8
Ho: There is no correlation between satisfaction with tuition costs and likelihood of donor
participation. (Two tailed Sig > .20)
Ha: There is a correlation between satisfaction with tuition costs and likelihood of donor
participation. (Two tailed Sig < .20)
According to Table 8, we rejected the null hypothesis for donor participation 10 years
after graduation and 20 years after graduation due to the low two tailed sig values of .069 and
.018 respectively. We do not reject the null hypothesis 1 year after graduation due to the high sig
value. The relationship with 10 years and 20 years is direct, as seen from the Pearson correlations
of .215 and .279 respectively, indicating a stronger correlation 20 years after graduation. The
Pearson values were negative on the Table due to the inverted scales within the survey questions,
refer to Limitations and Caveats for details. This was corrected in discussing these results.
Hypothesis 9
Ho: There is no correlation between regretting attending TCNJ and likelihood of donor
participation. (Two tailed Sig > .20)
Ha: There is a correlation between regretting attending TCNJ and likelihood of donor
participation. (Two tailed Sig < .20)
According to Table 9, we can reject the null hypothesis for donating after 1 year, 10 years
and 20 years due to the small sig values of .151, .008, and .001. According to the Pearson
Correlation, there is a negative relationship between regretting attendance at the College and
donor participation, meaning that if an individual regretted going to the College, they would be
less likely to donate.
18
Hypothesis 10
Ho: There is no correlation between likelihood of attending alumni events and likelihood of
donor participation. (Two tailed Sig > .20)
Ha: There is a correlation between likelihood of attending alumni events and likelihood of donor
participation. (Two tailed Sig < .20)
According to Table 10, the small sig values under each time period indicate a correlation
between attending alumni events and donor participation. The Pearson correlations indicate a
positive relationship with each of the three time periods. The connection between attending
alumni events and donating after one year after graduation is stronger than attending alumni
events and donating ten and twenty years after graduation
19
Limitations and Caveats
As stated in the results section, there were some potential areas that are easy to
misinterpret due to the survey design. Misinterpretations occurred due to the survey design and
the data entry that followed. For example, in the first hypothesis test, the Pearson Correlation is
negative, which would normally indicate an inverse correlation between satisfaction and donor
participation. This is misleading due to the survey design of Q3, which was entered into the
statistics software where 1=very dissatisfied, 2=dissatisfied, etc. and Q14-Q16 listed 1=strongly
agree, 2=agree, etc. This meant that the scales were inverted; showing a negative correlation
when there was a positive correlation. This was corrected after being noted, as correcting the
scales would have the same result, just with an opposite positive or negative sign. This problem
was encountered in hypothesis tests 1, 7, 8 and 9.
The sample size was very small compared to the total population of TCNJ students. Since
we tried to sample an equal number of students from each school, we were unable to test the
academic schools against each other with accuracy.
Due to budget and time constraints, we were unable to do a completely randomized
sample, focusing on convenient and judgmental sampling techniques. This may have affected the
results slightly.
20
Conclusions
By using statistical tools and functions through SPSS, we can conclude that there are
several connections between donor participation and sentiment toward the school that is
statistically significant. Please be aware that the correlations and conclusions made in this section
are referring to the sample of 81 students, and may not be representative of the whole population
of College students. Donor participation is more likely to occur as time goes on, meaning that
students are most likely to donate twenty years after graduation as opposed to ten years or one
year. There is a correlation toward perceived approval of student life and donor participation,
meaning that students that feel more sentiment toward the student atmosphere are more likely to
donate to the College. Tuition costs and the satisfaction derived from them are also correlated
with donor activity, meaning that the cost of going to the school can leave a lasting impression
on an individual when they consider donating. We have also found a positive correlation
between students who say they would agree to attend alumni events after graduating and donor
participation.
We sincerely hope these results and conclusions help in improving the future operational
success of Phonathon.
21
Exhibits
Questionnaire
We are a pair of TCNJ upperclassmen conducting a study on fellow upperclassmen in regards to their
sentiment towards TCNJ, as well as their opinion towards donating to The College. Please read the
directions in parenthesis for each question and correspond below.
1. Are you a legacy student? Meaning, did a parent or older sibling attend TCNJ? (Check one.)
__ No
__ Yes If so, who are you a legacy of? ____________
2. How many on-campus organizations are you currently affiliated with? (Check one.)
__ 0
__ 1 – 2
__ 3 – 4
__ 5+
3. How would you rate your overall satisfaction with The College of New Jersey? (Check one.)
__ Very Dissatisfied
__ Dissatisfied
__ Indifferent
__ Satisfied
__ Very Satisfied
22
For questions 4 - 10, please pick the number from the scale that corresponds to the level of
satisfaction you feel towards the following aspects of The College of New Jersey:
Scale
0 = Not Applicable/Don’t Know
1 = Poor
2 = Fair
3 = Good
4 = Very Good
5 = Excellent
4. Quality of Education ____
5. Career Services ____
6. Student Life ____
7. On-Campus Organizations ____
8. On-Campus Employment ____
9. Tuition Costs ____
10. Networking Opportunities ____
11. I will attend future events with fellow alumni such as reunions. (Check one.)
__ Strongly Agree
__ Agree
__ Indifferent
__ Disagree
__ Strongly Disagree
__ Don’t Know
12. I would encourage other family members or friends to attend TCNJ. (Check one.)
__ Strongly Agree
__ Agree
__ Indifferent
__ Disagree
__ Strongly Disagree
__ Don’t Know
23
13. I regret selecting TCNJ over other higher education institutions. (Check one.)
__ Strongly Agree
__ Agree
__ Indifferent
__ Disagree
__ Strongly Disagree
__ Don’t Know
14. I see myself donating to TCNJ one year after graduation. (Check one.)
__ Strongly Agree
__ Agree
__ Indifferent
__ Disagree
__ Strongly Disagree
__ Don’t Know
15. I see myself donating to TCNJ ten years after graduation. (Check one.)
__ Strongly Agree
__ Agree
__ Indifferent
__ Disagree
__ Strongly Disagree
__ Don’t Know
16. I see myself donating to TCNJ twenty years after graduation.
__ Strongly Agree
__ Agree
__ Indifferent
__ Disagree
__ Strongly Disagree
__ Don’t Know
24
17. What do you consider an ideal amount to donate to TCNJ? (Check one.)
__ $0
__ $1 – 25
__ $26 – 50
__ $51 – 75
__ $76 – 100
__ $100+
18. Check three phrases from the word bank below that you associate the most with
__ Social Environment
__ Affordable
__ Pretentious
__ Scenic
__ Disorganized
__ Stressful
__ Helpful
__ Closed-Off
__ Good Bargain
__ Convenient
19. What gender are you? (Check one.)
__ Male
__ Female
20. What is your residential status at The College of New Jersey? (Check one.)
__ On-Campus Housing
__ Off-Campus Commuter (Ewing Area)
__ Off-Campus Commuter (Long Distance/10+ Miles)
21. What is your current employment status? (Check one.)
__ TCNJ On-Campus Employee
__ Off-Campus/NON-TCNJ Employee
25
__ Unemployed
22. Are you an in- or out-of-state student? (Check one.)
__ In-State
__ Out-of-State
23. What is your current academic year? (Check one.)
__ Freshman
__ Sophomore
__ Junior
__ Senior
__ Graduate
24. What academic schools are you currently associated with? (Check all that apply.)
__ Arts & Communication
__ Business
__ Education
__ Engineering
__ Humanities & Social Sciences
__ Nursing, Health & Exercise Science
__ Science
25. What year did you transfer into TCNJ as? (Check one.)
__ I am not a transfer student
__ Freshman
__ Sophomore
__ Junior
__ Senior
__ Graduate
26
26. List all of the on-campus organizations you affiliate yourself with. (One per line, please.)
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
27. If you have any additional questions, comments or concerns please document them below:
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
27
Statistical Output
Table 1
Correlations
Rate Overall
satisfaction with
TCNJ
I see myself
donating to TCNJ
one year after
graduation
I see myself
donating to TCNJ
ten years after
graduation
I see myself donating
to TCNJ twenty years
after graduation
Rate Overall
satisfaction with
TCNJ
Pearson
Correlation
1 -.212 -.410** -.354**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.066 .000 .002
N 81 76 75 75
I see myself donating
to TCNJ one year
after graduation
Pearson
Correlation
-.212 1 .572** .355**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.066
.000 .002
N 76 76 73 73
I see myself donating
to TCNJ ten years
after graduation
Pearson
Correlation
-.410** .572** 1 .825**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.000 .000
.000
N 75 73 75 74
I see myself donating
to TCNJ twenty years
after graduation
Pearson
Correlation
-.354** .355** .825** 1
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.002 .002 .000
N 75 73 74 75
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
28
Table 2
Paired Samples Correlations
N Correlation Sig.
Pair 1 I see myself donating to TCNJ one year after
graduation & I see myself donating to TCNJ
ten years after graduation
73 .572 .000
Pair 2 I see myself donating to TCNJ ten years after
graduation & I see myself donating to TCNJ
twenty years after graduation
74 .825 .000
Pair 3 I see myself donating to TCNJ one year after
graduation & I see myself donating to TCNJ
twenty years after graduation
73 .355 .002
Table 3
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for
Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df
Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
I see myself donating to
TCNJ one year after
graduation
Equal
variances
assumed
.108 .744 -
.684
74 .496 -.17763 .25967 -.69503 .33977
Equal
variances not
assumed
-
.691
55.295 .493 -.17763 .25709 -.69279 .33753
I see myself donating to
TCNJ ten years after
graduation
Equal
variances
assumed
.315 .576 .073 73 .942 .02000 .27225 -.52260 .56260
Equal
variances not
assumed
.072 45.156 .943 .02000 .27890 -.54168 .58168
I see myself donating to
TCNJ twenty years
after graduation
Equal
variances
assumed
.296 .588 .214 73 .831 .06000 .28081 -.49966 .61966
Equal
variances not
assumed
.206 43.847 .838 .06000 .29098 -.52648 .64648
29
Table 4
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test
for Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df
Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
I see myself
donating to TCNJ
one year after
graduation
Equal
variances
assumed
7.893 .007 .319 53 .751 .11111 .34777 -.58642 .80864
Equal
variances
not assumed
.509 32.680 .614 .11111 .21840 -.33340 .55562
I see myself
donating to TCNJ
ten years after
graduation
Equal
variances
assumed
1.328 .254 .111 53 .912 .04444 .40152 -.76091 .84980
Equal
variances
not assumed
.141 18.918 .889 .04444 .31456 -.61412 .70301
I see myself
donating to TCNJ
twenty years after
graduation
Equal
variances
assumed
.461 .500 1.054 53 .297 .44444 .42169 -.40136 1.29025
Equal
variances
not assumed
1.090 13.815 .294 .44444 .40770 -.43108 1.31997
30
Table 5
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test
for Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df
Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
I see myself
donating to TCNJ
one year after
graduation
Equal
variances
assumed
.018 .894 -.082 74 .935 -.02500 .30578 -.63428 .58428
Equal
variances
not assumed
-.079 22.468 .938 -.02500 .31844 -.68460 .63460
I see myself
donating to TCNJ
ten years after
graduation
Equal
variances
assumed
.000 .997 1.268 73 .209 .39301 .30990 -.22462 1.01064
Equal
variances
not assumed
1.273 23.913 .215 .39301 .30868 -.24420 1.03022
I see myself
donating to TCNJ
twenty years after
graduation
Equal
variances
assumed
.797 .375 .840 73 .404 .27013 .32169 -.37099 .91125
Equal
variances
not assumed
.893 25.998 .380 .27013 .30244 -.35155 .89181
31
Table 6
Correlationsa
I see myself donating
to TCNJ one year
after graduation
I see myself donating
to TCNJ ten years
after graduation
I see myself donating
to TCNJ twenty years
after graduation
Quality of
Education
I see myself donating
to TCNJ one year after
graduation
Pearson
Correlation
1 .589** .364** -.140
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.000 .002 .242
I see myself donating
to TCNJ ten years after
graduation
Pearson
Correlation
.589** 1 .827** -.126
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.000
.000 .291
I see myself donating
to TCNJ twenty years
after graduation
Pearson
Correlation
.364** .827** 1 -.126
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.002 .000
.290
Quality of Education Pearson
Correlation
-.140 -.126 -.126 1
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.242 .291 .290
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
a. Listwise N=72
Table 7
Correlationsa
I see myself donating
to TCNJ one year after
graduation
I see myself donating
to TCNJ ten years
after graduation
I see myself donating to
TCNJ twenty years
after graduation
Student
Life
I see myself donating to
TCNJ one year after
graduation
Pearson
Correlation
1 .624** .383** -.111
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.000 .001 .359
I see myself donating to
TCNJ ten years after
graduation
Pearson
Correlation
.624** 1 .827** -.292*
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.000
.000 .014
32
I see myself donating to
TCNJ twenty years
after graduation
Pearson
Correlation
.383** .827** 1 -.306**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.001 .000
.010
Student Life Pearson
Correlation
-.111 -.292* -.306** 1
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.359 .014 .010
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
a. Listwise N=70
Table 8
Correlationsa
I see myself donating
to TCNJ one year after
graduation
I see myself donating
to TCNJ ten years
after graduation
I see myself donating to
TCNJ twenty years
after graduation
Tuition
Costs
I see myself donating to
TCNJ one year after
graduation
Pearson
Correlation
1 .589** .364** -.118
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.000 .002 .322
I see myself donating to
TCNJ ten years after
graduation
Pearson
Correlation
.589** 1 .827** -.215
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.000
.000 .069
I see myself donating to
TCNJ twenty years
after graduation
Pearson
Correlation
.364** .827** 1 -.279*
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.002 .000
.018
Tuition Costs Pearson
Correlation
-.118 -.215 -.279* 1
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.322 .069 .018
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
a. Listwise N=72
33
Table 9
Correlationsa
I see myself
donating to TCNJ
one year after
graduation
I see myself
donating to TCNJ
ten years after
graduation
I see myself
donating to TCNJ
twenty years after
graduation
I regret selecting
TCNJ over other
higher education
institutions
I see myself donating
to TCNJ one year
after graduation
Pearson
Correlation
1 .589** .364** -.171
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.000 .002 .151
I see myself donating
to TCNJ ten years
after graduation
Pearson
Correlation
.589** 1 .827** -.309**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.000
.000 .008
I see myself donating
to TCNJ twenty
years after graduation
Pearson
Correlation
.364** .827** 1 -.376**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.002 .000
.001
I regret selecting
TCNJ over other
higher education
institutions
Pearson
Correlation
-.171 -.309** -.376** 1
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.151 .008 .001
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
a. Listwise N=72
34
Table 10
Correlationsa
I see myself
donating to TCNJ
one year after
graduation
I see myself
donating to TCNJ
ten years after
graduation
I see myself
donating to TCNJ
twenty years after
graduation
I will attend future
events with fellow
alumni such as
reunions
I see myself donating
to TCNJ one year
after graduation
Pearson
Correlation
1 .558** .316** .386**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.000 .008 .001
I see myself donating
to TCNJ ten years
after graduation
Pearson
Correlation
.558** 1 .811** .341**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.000
.000 .004
I see myself donating
to TCNJ twenty years
after graduation
Pearson
Correlation
.316** .811** 1 .360**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.008 .000
.002
I will attend future
events with fellow
alumni such as
reunions
Pearson
Correlation
.386** .341** .360** 1
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.001 .004 .002
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
a. Listwise N=70