A family business brand image: Associations affect-

ing consumers’ buying behavior

A study on family business Dafgård, frozen foods

Thesis within: MBA International Marketing

Authors: Priscilla Angela Ramdharie

Derk Jan Kees Brinxma

Tutor: Annika Hall

Jönköping May 2012

Master Thesis in Business Administration

Title: A Family Business Brand Image: Associations affecting consumers

buying behavior, a study on Family Business Dafgård frozen foods

Authors: Derk Jan Kees Brinxma & Priscilla Angela Ramdharie

Tutor: Annika Hall

Date: 2012-05-14

Subject terms: Family business, brand image, associations, low-involvement, prod-

uct knowledge, purchase intention, buying behavior

Abstract

Family business research is a rapidly growing topic of interest. Nevertheless there has been

little research explicitly dedicated to the connection between consumers’ and family busi-

nesses. This paper gives insight about the influence of the family business brand image and

consumers’ purchase intentions. Hereby it was taken into consideration that low-

involvement and product knowledge can influence this path. This was done by a combina-

tion of qualitative and quantitative approaches. The findings showed that consumers asso-

ciate family business with high quality, passion, heritage, traditions, small companies and

craftsmanship. In general these associations do not influence consumers buying behavior.

However, specific target groups showed different results. Implications focus on using the

family business as a secondary brand image and family businesses should deal with caution

when using their origin as a primary brand image.

Acknowledgements

It is for us a great pleasure to thank many people who helped us, by making this thesis pos-

sible.

As we are two students who started their educations at the vocational training level, we

want to thank all people who always believed in us and made it possible that we are now

completing our master ‘International Marketing’ here in Jönköping, Sweden.

First of all we want to thank all the participants of the focus group and all the respondents

who filled in our questionnaire, for their time and valuable thoughts. Here we also want to

show our appreciation to the manager of “Willy’s” and the Marketing Manager of the A6

shopping center, to let us conduct our questionnaire.

We want to thank the critical views of our fellow students during the thesis seminars. They

helped us tremendously by giving us new insights. We truly valued the personal teaching

style here at Jönköping University.

However, some deserve special thanks. We want to start with our tutor Annika Hall; she

helped us greatly by sharing her knowledge into the topic of family business and for always

helping us when we were knocking on her door. We also want to thank our Marketing Re-

search teacher Johan Larsson, who always was prepared to give critical reviews on our

work.

Last but not the least, we want to thank our families and friends back home, who support-

ed us every day from a distance.

Jönköping, 2012-05-14

Derk Jan Kees Brinxma Priscilla Angela Ramdharie

- 3 -

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ........................................................................... - 4 -

2 Background ........................................................................... - 7 -

3 Purpose .................................................................................. - 9 -

4 Literature Review ................................................................ - 10 -

4.1 Research Model .............................................................................. - 10 - 4.2 Brand Image .................................................................................... - 10 - 4.2.1 Brand Attitudes ................................................................................ - 12 - 4.2.2 Brand Associations .......................................................................... - 13 - 4.3 Product Knowledge ......................................................................... - 14 - 4.4 Product Involvement ........................................................................ - 15 - 4.5 Evaluating the Alternatives and Purchase Intention ........................ - 15 -

5 Methods ............................................................................... - 17 -

5.1 Research Design ............................................................................. - 17 - 5.2 Research Method ............................................................................ - 18 - 5.3 Process ........................................................................................... - 19 - 5.3.1 Focus Group Design ........................................................................ - 19 - 5.3.2 Focus Group Process ...................................................................... - 20 - 5.3.3 Focus Group Sample ....................................................................... - 20 - 5.3.4 Questionnaire Design ...................................................................... - 20 - 5.3.5 Questionnaire Process .................................................................... - 21 - 5.3.6 Questionnaire Sample ..................................................................... - 22 - 5.3.7 Questionnaire SPSS Analysis ......................................................... - 22 - 5.4 Validity and Reliability ...................................................................... - 23 - 5.4.1 Validity ............................................................................................. - 23 - 5.4.2 Reliability ......................................................................................... - 23 - 5.5 Limitations ....................................................................................... - 24 -

6 Data Results ........................................................................ - 25 -

6.1 Focus Group Results ....................................................................... - 25 - 6.2 Questionnaire Results ..................................................................... - 26 - 6.2.1 Open Question Result ..................................................................... - 27 - 6.2.2 Factor Analysis ................................................................................ - 28 - 6.2.3 Multiple Regression Analysis ........................................................... - 34 - 6.2.4 Extra Multiple Regressions .............................................................. - 36 -

7 Analysis ............................................................................... - 38 -

8 Conclusions ........................................................................ - 41 -

9 Contributions and Implications .......................................... - 43 -

9.1 Implications For Further Research .................................................. - 43 - 9.2 Practical Implications ....................................................................... - 44 - 9.3 Contribution ..................................................................................... - 45 -

10 References ......................................................................... - 47 -

1 Appendix ..................................................................................... i

- 4 -

1 Introduction

Family businesses are widely known to play an important role in economies all over the

world (Krappe, Goutas and Schlippe 2011). This can be seen in the following growth of ar-

ticles in the last years up to 2004: “33 articles up to 1989, 110 from 1990–1999 (an average of 11

articles per year), and 195 articles in the four-year period from 2000–2003 (almost 49 articles per year

indicating over four-fold increase)” (Sharma, 2004, p. 1). This area has therefore been established

as a unique area of research that also experienced rapid growth in recent years (Debicki,

Matherne, Kellermanns, and Chrisman, 2009; Sharma, Hoy, Astrachan and Koiranen,

2007).

In the academic world, despite the rapid growth of research on this topic there is no con-

sensus about a definition (Miller and Breton-Miller, 2005). This is clearly underlined by the

following quote. “No one really knows what the entire field is like or what its boundaries are or should

be” (Wortman, 1994, p. 4). As a result, there are different ways of defining a family business

according to different authors (Miller and Breton-Miller, 2005). Within this paper the fol-

lowing definition from Handler was used: “An organization whose major operating decisions and

plans for leadership succession are influenced by family members serving in management or on the board”

(Handler, 1989, p. 262). Research that already has been done in the field of family business;

focus mainly on two aspects of family business research. First researchers have tried to ex-

plain the differences between family business and non – family businesses. Secondly, dif-

ferent studies explored the differences in behaviors of the family and staff within a family

business. (Chrisman, Steier and Chua, 2008). The outcomes of these studies resemble

mostly the internal attributes of family businesses, including research that focuses on

‘familiness’ within a family business.

‘Familiness’ is defined as following: “The bundle of internal resources that exist due to the involve-

ment of the family in the firm” (Habbershon and Williams, 1999, s. 11). In their research they

mention that family involvement within the company leads to ‘familiness’ that can be seen

as unique attributes and capabilities arising from family involvement in a family business.

Within their study, Zellweger et. al, (2009) focused on building a family firm identity in or-

der to facilitate performance advantages seen from the organizations internal perspective of

a family business. They found that family ownership positively influence the development

of a family firms image. Thus, this is an important aspect for a family business. Due to the

fact that organizational identity may function as a form of competitive advantage for family

firms since their ‘‘family identity is unique and therefore impossible to completely copy’’

(Sundaramurthy & Kreiner, 2008, p. 416). This implies that much research that has been

done was on the internal side within family businesses itself (Handler, 1994; Eddleston,

Chrisman, Steier, and Chua, 2010; Miller and Breton-Miller, 2005). Most of this research

focused on the family business itself, its internal processes within the organization, con-

cerning staff and the family business owners. The amount of published articles showed that

the field of family businesses is a growing academic field. However, research on family

businesses seen from the consumers’ perspective is lacking within the academic field of

family business research. In order to maintain on the cutting edge of family businesses re-

- 5 -

search, the field of family business needs to be developed further (Blombäck, 2011).

Blombäck (2011) suggests the following example: Marketing and Brand orientation focus is

one of such topics, which is currently evolving. This implicates that branding within a fami-

ly business is gaining grounds in the field, yet it needs more attention in family business re-

search. According to Cooper et. Al, (2005) it appears that family businesses have an ad-

vantage in terms of competition over their competitors referring to customer acquisition

and service. However, it is unclear if consumers support this statement. There has been lit-

tle research, investigating the associations and impressions family businesses evoke with

customers. Therefore, this study focused on whether, the so called “family business brand”

influences consumers buying behavior.

Brand image has been defined as: “Perceptions about a brand as reflected by the brand associations

held in memory” (Keller 1993, p. 3). Brand image is based upon linkages, which a consumer

holds in his/her memory structure regarding the brand. These linkages, which are also

called ‘brand associations’, are developed from a variety of sources including brand and

product category experiences, product attributes, price, information, positioning in promo-

tional communications, packaging, user imagery and usage occasions (Keller, 1993). These

attributes, which define brand image, enable products and especially low-involvement

products to distinguish from its competitors.

Several studies indicate that a positive relationship exists between communication of family

business identity and firms performance (Craig, Dibrell and Davis, 2008; Kashmiri & Ma-

hajan, 2010). Also, it is widely assumed that family businesses have a positive effect on the

perceived value of a product. Craig, Dibrell and Davis (2008) found a relationship between

communicating the family business brand identity and positive effects in terms of financial

performance. Hence, establishing a company as a family business may be perceived as a

positive attribute in the minds of consumers, which will contribute to the companies

performance. Many family businesses nowadays realize that capitilizing on their family

business identity can influence and build a distrinct corporate brand, such as Dafgård

which is selling frozen food products. By promoting a business as a family business to

consumers can positively affect consumers perception of family business as being trustwor-

thy, customer-focused and quality-driven (Craig et al., 2008; Ward and Aronoff, 1995).

The focus of this research was on the frozen food market. The main reason for this was

the strong presence of the family business Dafgård in the frozen food branche. Their

products are low-involvement fast moving consumer goods. These are goods that have a

high inventory turnover. After examining the marketing efforts from Dafgård, we assume

that Dafgård is a family business, which is convinced that promoting themselves as a family

business has a positive effect on consumers buying behavior. Because, the connection

between Dafgård and their “roots” as a family business was so clear, it classifies them as an

outstanding research object for the purpose of this research. This research will contribute

to a deeper understanding on the current research of Orth and Green (2009) that already

started to investigate the effects of the family business brand image on store level.

Therefore, this research focused on the effects of the family business brand image on

- 6 -

product level. Family businesses like Dafgård can use the outcomes of this research to

develop their marketing strategy in the future.

- 7 -

2 Background

As mentioned in the introduction, it is widely known that current research, which has been

done within the field of family business, focus more on the specific internal attributes of a

family business (Miller and Breton-Miller 2005). Research (Orth and Green, 2009) suggests

that firms can strategically deploy their family identity to gain a competitive advantage over

non-family firms, given the positive attributes such as trust, commitment, and a customer-

oriented focus, that are typically associated with family-owned companies. However, a fam-

ily business can give the feeling to a consumer of being egoist and self-fulfillment (Krappe,

Goutas and Schlippe 2011). It is important to emphasize that there are as many commonal-

ities as contradictions in the publicized research (Miller and Breton-Miller 2005; Micelotta

and Raynard 2011; Carrigan and Buckley 2008; Eddleston, et al. 2010). Eddleston, et al.

(2010) suggests that this is due to the diversity of theories and different levels of analysis in

family business research. This led to different interpretations of research.

Research is starting to question what is the consumers perceived value of a family business

and if the so-called family business brand has an effect on the buying behavior of consum-

ers (Blombäck 2011; Krappe, Goutas and Schlippe 2011). Orth and Green (2009) came to

the conclusion that compared to non-family businesses; consumers evaluate family busi-

nesses better in terms of service, frontline employee benevolence and problem-solving ori-

entation and worse in terms of selection and price/value (less content for the same price).

Results further indicate higher consumer trust in family business management policies and

practices, frontline employee trust, and satisfaction but no differences in loyalty. As men-

tioned before, these research findings are seen from the store’s perspective. It would there-

fore be interesting to test how the findings of this research change when brand image on

the product level rather than store image is studied, and when brand communications stress

the family business origin (Orth and Green 2009). The main question here is: “Have family

businesses become a brand on their own” (Krappe, Goutas and Schlippe, 2011, P. 38).

To come to an empirical conclusion, the family business Dafgård was selected. We make

the assumption that the frozen food products of Dafgård are low-involvement products.

This is done because it is not an issue for a consumer to switch to similar frozen food

products. The reasoning behind this is, is due to the low prices and that frozen foods are

fast moving consumer goods. Within the low-involvement hierarchy the consumer does

not initially have a strong preference for one brand over another, but instead acts on the

basis of limited knowledge and then forms an evaluation after the product has been pur-

chased or used (Solomon, et al. 2010, p. 278). According to the elaboration likelihood

model of persuasion the consumer will follow the peripheral route to persuasion (Solomon,

et al. 2010, p. 304). The peripheral route to persuasion indicates packaging, attractiveness of

the source and the context in which the message is presented as cues that can influence the

buying behavior of a potential customer. Solomon, et al. (2010) stated that this is the mar-

keting paradox; the lower the involvement is, the more important the stimuli associated

with the product will be. It raises the question if mentioning being a family business on the

product package will give positive stimuli to the purchase intention of consumers. The rea-

- 8 -

soning that the product is a low-involvement product raises the question if the family busi-

ness “brand image” is still of added value for the product.

- 9 -

3 Purpose

Since academic research is currently focusing on the internal attributes of family businesses,

this research focused on the external effects of a family business seen from the consumer

perspective.

With this research a deeper understanding of the already started research (Blombäck, 2009;

Orth and Green, 2009; and Blombäck, 2011) on the impact of a family business brand im-

age on buying behavior was generated. This purpose led to the following research question:

What associations of the family business brand image of a low-involvement product affect

consumers buying behavior and if so, why?

- 10 -

4 Literature Review

To come to a thorough insight of the existing research which has been done regarding this

topic, different studies were reviewed. The focus of the literature review was based upon:

Brand image, Product involvement, Product knowledge and Purchase intention.

4.1 Research Model

To come to a contribution to the current field of interest, if the family business brand im-

age has a positive effect on attitudes and therefore directly on purchase intentions of con-

sumers, the model in figure 1 was used. This model was developed during a similar re-

search (Bian and Moutinho, 2011). The model shows that brand image such as a family

business brand image is not the only influencer of consumers purchase intention. This gave

us the insight that we should be aware of these influences during this research. Moreover,

the model enabled us to come to a more comprehensive research result.

During theoretical study and during a focus group a set of variables were developed, for

the factor brand image. This has been done in order to define what family business brand

image is and what it means for a consumer that the products origin is from a family busi-

ness. During this research we used the frozen food products from Dafgård. However, as

the model implies, we need to take into consideration that the family business brand image

is not the only influence on consumers purchase intentions. For example influences that

are related directly to an individual consumer, such as the influence of a consumer’s per-

sonality (Shank and Langmeyer, 1994) and attitudes (Faircloth, Capella and Alford, 2001).

Figure 1: Potential relationships between product involvement, product knowledge, brand image of a family busi-

ness and purchase intention of family business products. (Bian and Moutinho, 2011 p. 198).

4.2 Brand Image

Communicating the brand image of a product to a target segment is already for a long time

a field of interest (Gardner and Levy, 1955). Brand image can be defined as: “How a brand is

perceived by consumers” (Aaker, 1996, p. 150). The reasoning behind this is that people tend to

make certain associations with brands in their memories, which can be classified as a set of

associations. Consumers use these brand associations to make their purchasing decisions

easier. Hence, it can be emphasized that brand image is an important marketing activity in

order for the family business Dafgård to be successful. This is due to the fact that brand

- 11 -

image contributes to a consumers decision whether or not the family business Dafgård fits

to the wants and needs of the consumer. Therefore, a positive or negative brand image to-

wards the brand Dafgård from consumers can influence consumers buying behavior (Dol-

ich, 1969; Park, Jaworski and Maclnnis, 1986), whether or not they will purchase frozen

foods from the family business Dafgård.

When it comes to the brand image of the family business Dafgård, the customer will evalu-

ate this brand image based upon different attributes that revolve around either the compa-

ny itself and based upon the product in particular (Da Silva and Syed Alwi, 2006). Reflect-

ing back to the study of Keller (1993), product attributes can be classified as: Price, infor-

mation, positioning in promotional communications, packaging, user imagery and usage

occasions. Within this research the following product attributes were investigated: Price

value, packaging, quality, information and logo. Family business company attributes can be

classified as: trust, commitment and customer-orientated focus. (Miller and Breton-Miller

2005). The company attributes and associations of family business Dafgård and family

businesses in general were examined during this research. However, the emphasis was

placed upon the associations with the family business Dafgård frozen foods.

When the price of a product is too high compared to the benefits it delivers, this will affect

the value proposition of a product. Thus, when consumers perceive frozen food products

of family business Dafgård as overpriced and therefore expensive, they will not be satisfied

even though the frozen food product obtains meaningful benefits. On the contrary, con-

sumers can also perceive a higher price of family business Dafgård frozen foods as a higher

quality frozen food product. (Aaker, 1996) Another point of view regarding price value of a

product can be seen as following: when the frozen food products of family business Daf-

gård possess a reasonable price, consumers will consider these products as offering value

for money (Orth et al, 2004).

Furthermore, in a study (Tikkanen and Vääriskoski, 2010) which focused upon effects of

the brand on the perceived quality of branded bread, found that consumers valuing prod-

ucts not only based upon exclusivity of the product attributes. Also, they found that con-

sumers during their purchasing decision while evaluating alternatives, first focus upon the

brand itself. This implies that consumers will first perceive the brand as a “sign of quality”.

Once that has been established, consumers evaluate the brand based upon attributes like

physical appearance, price and packaging (Vranesevic and Strancec, 2003). Therefore, it can

be concluded that it is of great importance that consumers perceive the family business

brand image of Dafgård positively in order to eventually being chosen over competitors of-

ferings. According to Blombäck (2011) family businesses can benefit from communicating

the family business attributes towards their customers. The elaboration likelihood model

can acknowledge these findings. Consumers will first act on the basis of cues and limited

knowledge. However, they do not have a strong preference for one brand over another

(Solomon, Bamossy, Askegaard and Hogg, 2010). Within the low-involvement hierarchy

the consumer does not initially have a strong preference for one brand over another, but

instead acts on the basis of limited knowledge and then forms an evaluation after the prod-

uct has been purchased or used.

- 12 -

Blombäck (2011) started a discussion about how family businesses can use the characteris-

tics from a family business, as mentioned earlier to create a competitive edge. Blombäck

(2011) also stated that the family business identity can create a distinction. However, it

cannot be used alone as an independent element that generates demand. It should be seen

as an opportunity to create secondary branding. Hence, other brand values should be

communicated together with the family business identity. Therefore, within this research

we also examined specific product elements from the research example Dafgård. Blombäck

(2011) implies with this secondary branding as being a family business that the family busi-

ness identity will function as a Halo-effect. The Halo-effect means that consumers perceive

better-looking products also as better products. Using the family business brand as a sec-

ondary brand image, gives the family business the benefit to add this secondary brand im-

age on the already existing corporate brand image (Blombäck, 2009). However, Blombäck

(2009) also stated that this is not suitable for all family businesses. This means that a family

business should consider if this is suitable for them as an individual family business.

4.2.1 Brand Attitudes

In the world of acceptance of a brand image, consumer’s attitude towards this image is very

important. Therefore, we took a closer look into this subject. Attitude is defined as: “A

learned predisposition to respond in a consistently favorable or unfavorable manner with respect to a given

object” (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975, p.6). Basically, this means that an attitude evaluates some-

thing in a good or bad way. It also stated positive or negative feelings about a person, ob-

ject, or issue. However, the most important features of attitudes are learned. They affect

the action and they involve evaluation (favorable – unfavorable, positive – negative, good –

bad).

Attitudes and behavior are related, the following quote emphasize this: “When attitude is

based on direct experience with the attitude object and to the extent that the attitude is cognitively accessi-

ble”. (Pratkanis, Breckler, Greenwald, 1989 p. 2). According to Fazio and Williams (1986),

active attitude in our memory influences individual’s behavior. Thus, it is of great im-

portance for Dafgård as being a family business that consumers will gain positive attitudes

towards the products of Dafgård. When consumers experience favorable and positive feel-

ings towards frozen foods and Dafgård as being a family business, this will result in com-

petitive advantages. e.g., if people believe that frozen foods from a family business compa-

ny contain higher quality and if they trust a family business product more than a competi-

tor’s product offering, they will probably purchase frozen food products from a family

business. Moreover, when people have positive attitudes towards frozen foods of a family

business, they can easily affect other people (children, friends, colleagues) and encourage

them to have positive attitudes towards these products as well. This effect will lead to pur-

chase intentions by other people, this is called: “The persuasiveness of an evaluative component in

judgments of meaning”. (Pratkanis, Breckler, Greenwald, 1989, p.2).

Nevertheless, the persuasiveness of attitudes cannot be a reason for concluding that atti-

tudes are very important in explaining consumer’s behavior. According to Bem (1967) atti-

tudes might be as illusions, which are created after behavior. This means, that in order for

- 13 -

consumers to obtain positive attitudes towards the family business Dafgård, prior purchase

is required.

4.2.2 Brand Associations

That people make associations with certain attributes was already revealed in 1903, by biol-

ogist U. G. Yule (1903). However, it took until 1990 when this subject entered the business

world by the research of Dobni and Zinkhan (1990). It was revealed that brands carry cer-

tain associations, the following definition of brand associations was set up: “Brand associa-

tions are the other informational nodes linked to the brand node in memory and contain the meaning of the

brand for consumers” (Keller, 1993, p. 3). Faircloth, Capella, and Alford (2001) found proof

that brand associations will result in brand image. However, researchers also say that there

is a lack of knowledge about specific brand associations (Belén del Rio Vázques and Iglesi-

as, 2001; Low and Lamb, 2000; Lassar, Mittal and Sharma, 1995; Dobni and Zinkhan,

1990). Cooper, Upton and Seaman (2005) acknowledge this lack of research about family

business associations. Hence, there is no possibility to set up a straightforward approach to

differentiate the position and extend specific brands (Low and Lamb, 2000). Therefore,

Low and Lamb (2000) stated that measuring these associations is a desirable goal for firms.

They also stated that brand associations are multi-dimensional and include brand image and

perceived quality. Belén del Rio, Vázquez, and Iglesias (2001) stated that brand associations

have descriptive features that characterize the brand. They examined from the consumer

side, what is involved with its consumption. These brand associations of consumers will re-

solve into certain brand attitudes, which are the overall evaluation of a brand (Belén del

Rio, Vázquez, & Iglesias, 2001). Brand associations are therefore useable to monitor the

strength of positioning strategies (Low and Lamb, 2000). Belén del Rio Vázques and Igle-

sias (2001) revealed the three top advantages of identifying brand associations:

1. It produce advantages to current performance and profitability;

2. Advantages related to longevity of profits;

3. Advantages related to growth potential.

Lassar, Mittal and Sharma (1995) stated also that positive brand associations will create

confidence in a brand. This confidence will result in brand loyalty, which will eventually re-

sult in willingness to pay the premium price for a brand (Lassar, Mittal and Sharma, 1995).

These advantages imply that when consumers have positive brand associations towards the

family business brand image, this will lead to the advantages mentioned above. The chal-

lenge is not only to disclose these associations, but also to communicate these associations

to the consumers (Tikkanen & Vääriskoski, 2010).

Individual associations of family businesses are formed by all actions that can be reflected

or related to family businesses. Hence, it will be difficult for an individual firm to form a

preferred set of associations related to family business. (Blombäck, 2009)

Due to the focus group that was conducted during this research, the authors were able to

extract the brand association of the family business. However, we are aware that this only

can be seen as a preliminary indication, because only one focus group was conducted.

- 14 -

4.3 Product Knowledge

Brand knowledge can have a positive or negative influence on brand equity (Keller, 1993).

This influence can be seen in figure 1. Bian and Moutinho (2011) identified that product

knowledge has a direct influence on brand image and the purchase intention of the con-

sumer.

According to Alba and Hutchinson (1987) product knowledge should be divided into two

parts:

1. Familiarity with products

2. Expertise

What consumers learn from their experience of a product will not lead to an objective truth

(Hoch & Deighton, 1989). This truth comes from familiarity with the products and famili-

arity is achieved after a certain purchase. The more familiar a consumer is with a product,

the stronger the brand as a whole will be (Johnson and Russo, 1984). It is concluded in the

same research that the search for alternatives will decrease and the willingness to pay more

will increase. However, familiar consumers need more selective information about the

products and they will ignore unimportant information (Johnson and Russo, 1984).

Consumers’ expertise of a product will go beyond the expertise of a Marketing Manager.

The meaning of this sentence is clarified in the following quote: “The proof of the pudding is in

the eating” (Hoch and Deighton, 1989, P. 1). Hoch and Deighton tried to say with this, that

every marketing effort is useless when the product gives an unsatisfied feeling.

Expertise is defined as the level of what consumer’s believe they know from prior experi-

ences. This means that expertise that is formed by the familiarity of the product will be of

high influence of the purchase intention and the brand image of frozen food products. The

relationship between product knowledge and brand image should be considered when

studying the impact of external factors (Rao and Monroe, 1988). The implication is that the

higher product knowledge from consumers is, the more rational the purchase decision will

be. The frozen food products from Dafgård are low-involvement products, therefore the

family business logo on the package can be of great value during the purchase.

Blombäck (2011) assumes that the family business sign on the Dafgård package will have a

positive effect on the familiarity with the product. According to Blombäcks theory, family

business products have an advantage above other products to come into the evoked set. It

is then to the product itself to come into the consideration set (Lurie, 2004) of a consumer.

Finally this will have a positive influence on the purchase and it will lead towards expertise.

Based on the research from Hoch and Deighton (1989) we assume that a higher level of

expertise will lead to a lower level of influence from the family business brand identity.

- 15 -

4.4 Product Involvement

This research especially focused upon low-involvement frozen food products from the

family business Dafgård. The frozen food products from Dafgård are fast moving con-

sumer goods; these products have therefore a lower level of consumer involvement (Silayoi

and Speece, 2004). According to the elaboration likelihood model (Solomon, Bamossy,

Askegaard, and Hogg, 2010, p. 304) the persuasion of buying a low-involvement product

will go through the peripheral route to persuasion. Within the peripheral route to persua-

sion the product is explained by the graphics created on the package. When taking a closer

look at the package in a low-involvement setting, consumers look mainly towards the labels

on the product packaging (Silayoi and Speece, 2004). The consumer is not motivated to

think deeply about their purchase decision (Solomon et. al, 2010). It is not of significance

whether these images are purposely developed by the marketer, or unintended and unantic-

ipated. Graphics includes image layout, color combinations, typography, and product pho-

tography, and the total presentation communicates an image (Silayoi and Speece, 2007).

For consumers, the package is the product; particularly for low-involvement products

where initial impressions formed during initial contact can have lasting impact (Silayoi and

Speece, 2007). Dafgård is doing an effort to communicate the positive values of a being a

family business through their product packaging.

Ahmed, et al. (2004) conducted a study towards the question if the country of origin has an

influence when it concerns a low-involvement product. The results of their study indicate

that the country of origin does matter when consumers evaluate low-involvement products.

However, in the presence of other extrinsic cues like the price of the product, the impact of

the country of origin is weak. A study with the research object wine showed that consum-

ers who are low in purchase involvement place greater importance on price discounts in-

stead of other cues (Hollebeek, Jaeger, Roderick, and Balemi, 2007). The implication is that

the importance of brand image decreases when the involvement level decreases (Ahmed, et

al. 2004; Hollebeek, Jaeger, Roderick, and Balemi, 2007). Based upon the involvement the-

ory from Solomon, et al., (2010) this will be the same for family business with products in a

low-involvement context.

4.5 Evaluating the Alternatives and Purchase Intention

The purpose of this research is to investigate what associations of a low-involvement fami-

ly business brand image affects purchase intention of consumers. In order to answer this

question it is therefore relevant to understand how consumers of Dafgård frozen food

products actually evaluate the alternatives and make their purchase decisions. According to

Kotler and Armstrong (2005) the decision – making process model is mostly applied for

purchase decisions based on a high level of engagement from a customer However, the

model is also suitable for purchase decisions based on a low-involvement level of engage-

ment, such as in this case our research example Dafgård frozen food products. Kotler and

Armstrong (2005) identified the following steps in a purchase decision: Problem Recognition,

Information search, evaluation of alternatives, purchase, and post – purchase Evaluation. In figure 2, the

different steps within the decision – making process model are shown.

- 16 -

The starting point of the decision-making process model begins

with a need or problem recognition of a consumer. When con-

sumers are aware of this need or problem, the consumer will

start the information search in order to find a suitable product

or service to meet his needs. After the “Information Search”

stage, the consumer needs to compare several products against

each other in terms of product attributes, features and reputa-

tion. The next stage revolves around making a product choice

after evaluating all the product alternatives. In the final stage of

the decision-making process model, a customer evaluates his or

her purchase. (Solomon, 1999) Within this research the focus

was placed upon the stage Evaluation of Alternatives’. The main

reason for this was that this research examined the family busi-

ness associations of low-involvement products and if these asso-

ciations can influence the evaluation of alternatives stage. When

this is the case it will have a direct effect on consumers purchase

intentions as it is shown in figure 2.

After the “information search” stage, the consumer needs to compare several products

against each other in terms of product attributes, associations and reputation (Solomon,

1999). In the case of Dafgård frozen foods, the customer will evaluate products based on

the price, family business product packaging, quality, logo and taste with competitor offer-

ings within the frozen food product assortment. For example, a consumer is standing in

the supermarket and is considering three different frozen lasagnas based upon the attrac-

tiveness of the product packaging, the price, quality and previous experiences. How cus-

tomers actually evaluate different alternative products with one another varies between

product categories (Kotler and Armstrong, 2005). Hoyer (1984) stated that customers tend

to make decisions in an easy and effortless way when it involves low-involvement products.

Therefore product attributes shown on the package can just make the difference.

Figure 2: Decision-Making Process Model (Kotler and Armstong 2005, P. 279)

- 17 -

5 Methods

In this chapter information will be provided about how the research method, samples and

techniques were used. The methodology provides different stages that needed to be cov-

ered for conducting the necessary primary information search.

5.1 Research Design

To come to an empirical answer, referring to the stated research question: “What associa-

tions of the family business brand image of a low-involvement product affect consumers

buying behavior and if so, why?” It was needed to conduct primary research. We empha-

sized on the following factors: product involvement, product knowledge, brand image,

brand equity and purchase intentions. These factors were carefully chosen based upon the

model shown in figure 1 (chapter 4). This is done in order to examine if these factors had

any influence on consumers buying behavior when they purchase a family business prod-

uct.

In order to collect these necessary primary data, a combination of qualitative and quantita-

tive research was conducted which are by nature characterized as an exploratory and con-

clusive (descriptive) research design. Exploratory research can be defined as a flexible and

evolving approach to understand marketing phenomena that are difficult to measure (Mal-

hotra and Birks, 2007). This exploratory research was conducted by using the focus group

method. By performing exploratory qualitative research in the form of a focus group, a

small sample was selected to generate maximum insights. By having a small sample com-

munication buzz was minimized. This emphasized the procedure that was needed to obtain

‘quality’ during the focus group. This enhanced the willingness of participants to open up,

use their imagination and reveal their thoughts and behaviors (Malhotra and Birks, 2007).

Descriptive research, which is a type of conclusive research, can be defined as a research

design that revolves around measuring and describing clearly defined marketing phenome-

na. This type of research is characterized by the formulation of specific research questions

and hypotheses (Malhotra and Birks, 2007). Thus, descriptive research is pre – planned and

structured by nature. Which means that formulation of questions before hand is necessary

in order to conduct the research and gather these so called primary data. Furthermore, de-

scriptive research is characterized by a large sample in order to be representative (Malhotra

and Birks, 2007). The descriptive research conducted within this research, in the form of a

questionnaire is characterized as a single cross sectional design. In a single cross sectional

design one sample of respondents is drawn from the target population and information is

obtained from this sample only (Malhotra and Birks, 2007).

Within this research, both exploratory and conclusive research was conducted. For the ex-

ploratory part during this research, the product frozen lasagna from the family business

Dafgård was used. This is done to gain more insights in understanding consumers’ prefer-

ences, attitudes, thoughts and behavior towards this family business frozen food product.

- 18 -

The main reason for conducting both exploratory and conclusive research was to collect

primary data in order to answer the stated research question. Additional to the main ques-

tion, which was: What family business associations affected consumers buying behavior.

We also wanted to know why these certain family business associations affected consumers

buying behavior. Conducting exploratory research, allowed the authors to gain understand-

ing in the stated topic and to obtain the associations that consumers have with low-

involvement family business products. During the quantitative part of the research we ob-

tained deeper information about the level of influence from these associations on consum-

ers buying behavior. Furthermore, we obtained information why these family business as-

sociations were of influence on consumers buying behavior.

5.2 Research Method

The primary data collection has been set up in two stages, which were obtained by per-

forming a qualitative research in the form of a focus group. The outcomes from the focus

group generated input for the collection of primary data through quantitative research.

Previously, the combination of qualitative and quantitative methods has been used to an-

swer similar questions (Boruch, 1997; Tashakkori and Teddlie, 1998; Maxwell and Loomis,

2003; Creswell et. al, 2006) Therefore, we felt that this was the most optimal way of an-

swering the posed research questions.

Qualitative research can be defined as an unstructured exploratory design, which is based

upon small samples in order to provide insight and understanding of consumers’ thoughts,

motivations, feelings, experience and encapsulate behavior (Malhotra and Birks, 2007). Ac-

cording to Malhotra and Briks (2007) there are three different reasons why researchers

conduct qualitative research within their study: to discuss subconscious feelings of the con-

sumers towards a low-involvement family business frozen food product of Dafgård, to

gain a better understanding of this complex phenomena under investigation and finally to

better interpret and explain underlying reasons from the quantitative research findings

(Malhotra and Birks, 2007). Hence, the collection of qualitative data was conducted

through a focus group.

Quantitative research on the other hand, can be defined as a research method that seek to

qualify data and is typically applied to fulfill some form of statistical analysis (Malhotra and

Birks, 2007). Within this research primary data was collected in the form of a questionnaire.

Results out of the focus group, were grouped into several survey questions. After primary

data was received, the results which came out of the quantitative part of the research, were

afterwards analyzed with the statistical program SPSS.

- 19 -

5.3 Process

Due to the lack of knowledge in the field of family business as mentioned in the literature

review, there was a need to identify what consumers associations were with a family busi-

ness brand image. Here, we also tried to discover the opinion towards frozen food in gen-

eral. With the questionnaire the family business associations that were revealed during the

focus group were measured in the level of importance and the related reasoning’s why.

5.3.1 Focus Group Design

The focus group consisted of six students. This number was chosen because research (Sim,

1998; Hancock, Ockleford and Windridge, 2007) pointed out that this number of partici-

pants is within the ideal range to have a discussion. The focus group discussion was based

upon the model from shown in figure 1 (chapter 4) from the research conducted by Bian

and Moutinho (2011). They examined the level of influence of product involvement and

product knowledge on the brand image and the final purchase decision. Where they put

special focus on the participants’ attitudes towards family businesses.

By using the theory on how to conduct a focus group from Liamputtong (2011) the au-

thors were able to interpret data with insight and not only interpret findings in the light of

prejudice and preconceptions. During the focus group discussion, questions were asked re-

garding brand image, product involvement, product knowledge and purchase intentions of

a family business low-involvement fast moving consumer goods by using the family busi-

ness Dafgård as a research example. During the focus group it was highlighted that this

company is a family business company. In order to examine these attributes it was im-

portant to show participants the product packaging of the family business Dafgård frozen

food product, which was frozen lasagna. The lasagna product was chosen as a research ex-

ample, because this product was the most similar product compared with non-family busi-

ness competitors’ products. The family business Dafgård packaging of frozen lasagna was

compared with a non-family business frozen food lasagna product. This in order to investi-

gate whether or not it was of importance for the participants, if the company is a family

business. Furthermore, the frozen lasagna was tasted within the focus group in order to

understand participants taste preferences referring to the product. As well as analyzing con-

sumers’ expectations before and after the tasting.

Liamputtong (2011) gave the authors valuable insights in how to conduct a focus group.

During the focus group it was especially valuable for the research to give the participants

space to develop their own thoughts and answers. By doing this, the authors tried to reduce

the gap of what people say and what they actually think. This also reduced the social con-

formity of the participants towards the group and it motivated the participants to actively

participate. The outcomes of the focus group resulted in valuable input for the question-

naire, such as the associations consumers make with a family business. Therefore, the men-

tioned associations that were extracted from the focus group discussion were examined in

the quantitative part of the research by conducting a questionnaire.

- 20 -

The topics product knowledge, product involvement, purchase intentions, brand image

were addressed during the focus group discussion. At the end a tasting and evaluation ses-

sion of the Dafgård family business and the Findus non-family business lasagnas was con-

ducted. The exact questions for these topics can be found in appendix 1.1.1 ‘Focus group

Questions’.

5.3.2 Focus Group Process

The qualitative data extracted from the focus group was analyzed in three steps, data as-

sembly, data reduction and data display (Malhotra and Birks, 2007 P.237). First the data

was recorded with a recording device and transcribed as transcripts (see appendix 1.1.3

‘Focus Group Transcribed’). Coding the messages together with notes taken during the fo-

cus group discussion reduced the collected data. The data was coded by analyzing the con-

tent (Malhotra and Birks, 2007 P.251). By coding the content we were able to display the

obtained data as small conclusions for the topics that were mentioned above (see appendix

1.1.2 ‘Focus Group Data Collection Paper’). This resulted in a solid and useable overview.

5.3.3 Focus Group Sample

The focus group consisted of six students. The sample of students was made up of Interna-

tional and Swedish students who were pursuing to graduate their master degree at the Uni-

versity of JIBS for one or two years. Therefore, the sample of the focus group was set to-

gether by using the convenient sampling method which is a sampling technique that at-

tempts to obtain a sample of convenient elements where the selection of sampling units is

of free choice of the interviewer (Malhotra & Birks, 2007, p. 411). A certain degree of ho-

mogeneity in terms of demographics was important for a focus group in order to receive

highly valid and reliable results. Due to these reasons the focus group consisted of four In-

ternational students from respectively Bulgaria, The Netherlands, France, Greece and two

Swedish students. The participants were in the age group 20 to 26 years old.

5.3.4 Questionnaire Design

The outcomes from the focus group discussion were used as possible answers for the ques-

tionnaire. The questions were set up according to the Likert scale. The inventor of the Lik-

ert scale, Rensis Likert (1931) described the Likert scale as ideal for measuring attitudes.

Gliem and Gliem (2003) stated that the Likert scale is often used, because there is no suffi-

cient information available to estimate the measurements. This was also the case within this

research, because family business as a research topic just entered the academic world.

Therefore, there was a lack of information. Gliem and Gliem (2003) stated in their study

that it is imperative to use Cronbach’s Alpha to test the reliability when using the Likert

scale. If this will not be performed, the reliability will be low. Therefore, the quantitative

part of this research was tested for reliability with the Cronbach’s Alpha test.

After consolidating an expert at Jönköping University within the field of Marketing Re-

search, the decision was made to avoid the neutral point by using a six point Likert scale.

This was done because the questionnaire contained questions where participants would

- 21 -

most likely use social desirable answers. According to Garland (1991) the desire to please

the interviewer and social unacceptable answers can be minimized by eliminating the neu-

tral point. However, the discussion about using the neutral point is still ongoing (Garland,

1991; Sim J., 1998).

With the Likert scale it was determined to what extend a family business association was

important for a respondent. However, the question ‘why’ was not covered yet. Hence, we

placed an open question in the questionnaire, where the respondents were able to write

down why the most important family business associations were of importance for them.

5.3.5 Questionnaire Process

For conducting primary data within this research, a questionnaire in the format of a per-

sonal street interview was designed (see appendix 1.2 ‘Questionnaire’ for the complete

questionnaire). The questionnaire design was based upon the outcomes of the focus group

that has been held as well upon the secondary data that was conducted prior and after the

empirical data collection. In first instance the intention was to conduct the questionnaire

within the supermarket “Willy’s” located near to the A6 shopping center in Jönköping. The

manager of the supermarket gave us permission to retain the questionnaire. While standing

at the frozen food section in “Willy’s”, we discovered that participants were not willing to

help us, filling in the questionnaire. Inside the supermarket “Willy’s”, the possible respond-

ents felt disturbed during their shopping and therefore they were reluctant to participate.

As a result, the decision was made to collect questionnaires within the A6 shopping center

in order to gain more responses, since the desired amount of responses was set on 300

questionnaires in order to achieve reliable results out of the SPSS analysis.

To retrieve questionnaires within the A6 shopping center, permission was gained from the

marketing manager, Mr. Kristoffer Krantz. The questionnaire was held during three days,

from Tuesday 27th of March 2012 until Thursday 29th of March 2012. Moreover, the deci-

sion was made to collect the primary data from the questionnaire at different times during

the days in order to obtain a wide range of opinions from respondents with different shop-

ping behaviors. Therefore, for three days questionnaires were obtained from nine o’clock

in the morning until seven o’clock in the evening, what subsequently initiated 300 filled in

questionnaires within three full days of questioning people during their shopping’s. After

conducting the questionnaire, the results were manually put in the statistical program called

SPSS.

During the analysis in SPSS we used the following tools: Standard statistics, factor analysis

and multiple regression analysis. To deepen our multiple regress analysis, we divided the

participants in gender, nationality and two age groups, adults and youth. This was done ac-

cording to the Swedish public transport regulations (Svenska Järnvägar, 2011). They con-

sider people who are 25 years and younger as youth (ungdom) and above this age as adults

(vuxen).

- 22 -

5.3.6 Questionnaire Sample

The sample of the questionnaire was conducted by using the simple random sampling

method where each element in the population has an equal probability to be selected

(Malhotra & Birks, 2007, p. 416). The sample does not have the same characteristics as the

focus group sample. However, this did not cause any problems, because different types of

information were sought. After counseling an expert in the field of quantitative date han-

dling the quota for the questionnaire was set on 300 questionnaires, the missing values

were identified with the code 999 in SPSS. The 300 questionnaires and identifying the miss-

ing values ensured the reliability of the data when analyzing the data in the statistical pro-

gram SPSS. Due to the fact that we performed personal street interview questionnaires, all

the obtained questionnaires were useable. The sample consisted out of 132 (44%) males

and 168 females (56%), of which 83% were Swedish respondents. Moreover, the average

age of the sample was 29 years old.

5.3.7 Questionnaire SPSS Analysis

The results from the questionnaire were analyzed within the statistical program SPPS. The

following statistical analyses were performed: a factor analysis in order to reduce the col-

lected data and a multiple regression analysis in order to examine relationships between

multiple variables. Furthermore, from all the questions that were asked within the ques-

tionnaire, Std. Deviations and Means were conducted.

5.3.7.1 Factor Analysis

A factor analysis is a class of procedures, which are primarily used for data reduction and

for summarization (Malhotra & Birks, 2007). By performing a factor analysis in SPSS, these

correlated variables could have been reduced and put into clustered factors. Different ques-

tions (items) within a research survey could be asked, to evaluate one overall question. The

evaluation of these items within an overall question could have been analyzed to determine

the factors underlying the overall question. A factor analysis is thus searching for joint vari-

ations. In a factor analysis there are no distinctions made between one dependent variable

and independent or predicting variables because an entire set of interdependent relation-

ship is examined (Malhotra and Birks, 2007 p. 647). These factors were given names for the

enhancement of the interpretation.

5.3.7.2 Cronbach’s Alpha

Cronbach’s Alpha is a measurement to measure the reliability of the scale (Malhotra and

Birks, 2007 P. 358). In order to obtain knowledge about the reliability of the factors formed

by running a factor analysis and to see which factor can be used in further calculations. The

Cronbach’s Alpha was obtained by different ways of splitting the scale items within each

created factor separately. The resulting coefficient varies from 0 to 1, which means that a

value of 0.6 or less indicated unsatisfactory internal consistency reliability of that particular

factor. Within this research, each factor was interpreted separately (Malhotra and Birks,

2007 P. 358).

- 23 -

5.3.7.3 Multiple Regression Analysis

Multiple regression analysis is a technique that can be used to explore the relationship be-

tween one continuous dependent variable and a number of independent variables or pre-

dictors. Moreover, a multiple regression analysis is based upon correlations. Therefore, a

more refined exploration was possible of the interrelationships among a set of variables

(Pallant, 2005). In this case, the main objective of performing the multiple regression analy-

sis was to find an association with all factors together in order to predict consumers’ buying

behavior towards family business frozen foods. Therefore, it was used to investigate how

much of the variance in the dependent variable (e.g. consumers buying behavior) could be

explained by independent variables (family business associations, family business associa-

tions affecting buying behavior, attitudes towards frozen foods and frozen foods packaging

and price). In order to speak about a relationship between the dependent variable and the

independent variables, the correlation scores should preferably be higher than 0,3. On the

contrary, correlation scores should not be higher than 0,7 (Pallant, 2005).

5.4 Validity and Reliability

During the process of this research, the authors took into account that the standards con-

cerning reliability and validity were of professional level.

5.4.1 Validity

Validity revolves around the question: did you measure what you wanted to measure?

Therefore, the content of the questionnaire was examined by using two experts. Firstly, our

thesis tutor which was an expert in the field of family business. She examined the question-

naire and gave the authors valuable feedback. Secondly, an expert in marketing research ex-

amined the used scales for each question separately. By doing this content validity (Mal-

hotra and Birks, 2007 P. 358) was ensured. During the questionnaire it was ensured that

not only one opinion was received from a certain type of shopper. According to Davies

(1994) shoppers behave different during the morning, midday and evening. Therefore, the

authors made sure that they received answered questionnaires during these different parts

of the day. This was done in order to make sure that we measured what we wanted to

measure.

5.4.2 Reliability

To secure the reliability of the questionnaire, a pretest was performed before the actual

questionnaire was used. It was tested if Swedish respondents would understand the ques-

tions formulated in the English language. Therefore, we examined whether or not Swedish

respondents interpreted the stated questions in the way that the authors intended them.

This was done to reduce the likelihood of the occurrence of random errors. Controlling the

SPSS measurements with the Cronbach’s Alpha test tested the reliability. Outcomes that

scored negative on the Cronbach’s Alpha scale were not taken into considerations within

further research analysis.

- 24 -

5.5 Limitations

There were different limitations coherent to this research, which were necessary to take in-

to consideration when evaluating the obtained results within this study.

Since the qualitative research in the form of a focus group was conducted with mainly In-

ternational students and only two Swedish students, we cannot generalize the results in

main ideas and opinions concerning the whole focus group participants. After the focus

group was held, results showed that the opinions from International students and Swedish

students differ from each other. Swedish students in general obtain more positive attitudes

towards family businesses referring to frozen food products rather than International stu-

dents. Therefore, the limitation of the focus group discussion is that there was no equality

in the ideas and opinions from participants, as well as the small amount of Swedish stu-

dents participated within the focus group. The main reason for this limitation was due to

lack of time, which forced the authors to choose for this deviation of the focus group par-

ticipants. However, it did not cause major problems for the research, because different

types of information were needed in the focus group discussion and the questionnaire. Due

to the time pressure the authors needed to take the decision to conduct one focus group.

Nevertheless, useful information was gathered, although we were not able to control this

information in a second or even third focus group. This also limited the amount of differ-

ent collected opinions from the participants.

Furthermore, another limitation of this research refers to the questionnaire designed for

the quantitative part of the primary data collection. The questionnaire was designed in Eng-

lish and was not translated into Swedish to conduct the research. This was done, because

both authors were not familiar with the Swedish language. Nevertheless, the questionnaire

contained some English words that were translated into Swedish to help the respondents

fill in the questionnaire. Also, the researchers, personally helped respondents who could

not understand English properly, filling in every question in order to keep the reliability of

the research as high as possible. However, the fact that the questions were designed in

English instead of Swedish it was possible that this occasionally would have led to random

errors within the obtained results that could negatively affect the reliability of the conduct-

ed primary data. Random errors within this research can thus be seen as respondents who

did not understand the questions and interpreted them wrong. This could have led to in-

correct answers from the respondents.

In first instance the authors were planning to involve consumers in the sample who actually

were purchasing or intended to purchase a frozen food product. Therefore, this would re-

volve around people who were at the stage of ‘Evaluating Alternatives’ within the decision-

making process of purchasing frozen foods. Unfortunately, due to unwillingness of con-

sumers in the supermarkets to participate within this research by filling in the question-

naire, the decision was made to change the location. Therefore, we did not obtain the de-

sired environment for conducting the questionnaire. Nevertheless, the questionnaire was

held within a shopping environment, the A6 Shopping center.

- 25 -

6 Data Results

In this chapter the main results from the primary research that was conducted by perform-

ing a focus group discussion and a questionnaire will be publicized. The data from the

questionnaire were manually put in the statistical program SPSS were afterwards a factor

analysis and a multiple regression analysis were calculated. Moreover, the gathered data

from the focus group were transcribed.

6.1 Focus Group Results

During the literature reviews, the authors discovered that specific family business associa-

tions from a brand image were unknown. Therefore, we needed to identify the family busi-

ness associations during the focus group that was conducted. It was also revealed that to-

gether with these associations, product knowledge and the level of involvement were of in-

fluence on the purchase intention. Therefore, specific frozen food attributes were revealed

during the focus group. The main results from the focus group will be shown in this para-

graph. However, if you are interested in the full-transcribed focus group, we refer you to

appendix 1.1.3 ‘Focus Group Transcribed’.

In the following paragraphs the focus group discussion topics product knowledge and ex-

pertise, involvement and family business brand image are discussed.

Product knowledge: According to the literature review (Johnson and Russo, 1984) prod-

uct knowledge is mainly obtained by the actual usage of the products. In general the partic-

ipants answered that they were familiar with frozen food products, except for two partici-

pants. However, after it was made clear that topic of the focus group was the frozen ready

to go meals, all participants stated that they were familiar with frozen food products. The

participants, who were buying frozen food products, answered that their main reasons for

purchasing these products were, convenience, taste, quality, preparation time and the price

of frozen foods.

Involvement: As shown in the literature review (Silayoi and Speece, 2004; Solo-

mon, Bamossy, Askegaard, and Hogg, 2010) the product package was the most important

for the participants, when choosing one of the shown product packages. The participants

specifically mentioned, the general looks, the brand and the picture of the actual product.

The packages shown to the participants were frozen lasagna from the brands: Findus and

the family business Dafgård. Which one of the shown products the participants would

choose was evenly divided. Participants’ feelings referring to price/value of the frozen food

products were equally divided. After the product tasting, there was still an equal divided

opinion. This implies that no product had features that would overrule the other product,

for example the family business identity. This was clearly shown by the following quote: “I

only know that these ready meals are super quick and in terms of buying frozen foods, it is not just about

branding. I always recognize it and then I just take it” (participant Mike, 20th March, 2012).

- 26 -

Family business brand image: After mentioning that Dafgård is a family business,

the researchers asked the participants for their associations they made with a family busi-

ness. It should be noted that the Swedish participants knew that Dafgård was a family

business. The associations that were made by the participants were as follow: Tradition,

heritage, quality, more care taking, better taste, small business and craftsmanship. After the

question was asked, the Swedish participants decided that these family business associa-

tions would affect their buying behavior. However, it should be noted that this was said af-

ter mentioning that Dafgård was a family business.

6.2 Questionnaire Results

The results from the questionnaire were summarized by calculating Std. Deviations and

Means for every questions. This was done in order to obtain more insights in the variation

of answers from the respondents. The questionnaire contained one open question, which

was analyzed separately in order to gain more insights in the reasoning’s why respondents

believed that a particular family business association was important for them. Furthermore,

a factor analysis and multiple regression analysis were performed in order to reduce the

primary data and examine whether or not there were correlations between variables.

Table 4 ‘Means and Std. Deviations’ (see appendix 1.2.1) shows means and Std. Deviations

of all questions asked within the questionnaire. The Std. Deviations showed that the an-

swers were quite concentrated, which means that the respondents in general filled in the

questions equally. The majority of the respondents were females as well as the majority of

the respondents were of Swedish nationality. Furthermore, the year of birth of the re-

spondents differed from 1940 till 1998, which was a large variety. However, the average

year of birth of the respondents was 1983, which is related with an average age of 28. The

majority of respondents considered themselves as a health conscious consumer with a

mean of 3,59 out of a 6-point scale. On average, the respondents bought frozen food

products, less than once a week. Furthermore the average weekly budget on food was

576,62 Swedish Kronor.

Respondents share the opinion that frozen food products are not actually healthy products

and they believe that frozen foods contains preservatives, additives and residues and that

they contain more fat with an average mean of respectively 4,41 and 3,97. Although, they

did believe that frozen food products are convenient products. When it comes to the im-

portance of frozen food attributes, respondents believed that the price (mean 4,05) of a

frozen food product was more important for them. This was followed by the brand (mean

3,92) and lastly by the packaging apparel (mean 3,65). According to the respondents, they

based their purchase decision when it comes to frozen foods mainly upon the product

quality (mean 4,87), price/value (mean 4,54) and the product information in the packaging

(mean 4,29). The brand, package apparel and preparation time of the product were less im-

portant for them when making a purchase decision.

The most important associations the respondents made with a family business company

were tradition and heritage with an average mean of respectively 4,69 and 4,52. The other

four family business associations scored approximately the same. Whether or not these

- 27 -

family business associations positively affect the respondents buying behavior, it can be

said that the association referring to high quality of family businesses mostly affect con-

sumers buying behavior (mean 4,53) followed by craftsmanship (mean 3,78). However, The

other four family business associations scored approximately the same. Regarding the ques-

tion if family business associations in general can affect respondents buying behavior when

it comes specifically to frozen foods, the average answer for this question was a mean of

3,29. The majority of the respondents slightly agreed with the statement: ‘family business

associations can affect my purchase behavior, when it comes to frozen food products’ (see

appendix 1.2.3 ‘Family Business Associations Affecting Buying Behavior’ Figure 4).

6.2.1 Open Question Result

To come to a comprehensive answer on the research question, the researchers set up an

open question in the questionnaire. This question resulted in more insight in the reason-

ing’s why the specific family business associations are important for consumers.

High quality was mentioned as the most important association with a family business. The

reasons mentioned why high quality was such an important family business association,

were rather similar as can be seen in table 1. Besides high quality, passion was often men-

tioned as an important association. Also, the other associations were mentioned. However,

respectively less than high quality and passion. The least mentioned family business associa-

tion was Craftsmanship.

Associations

High quality Passion Heritage Tradition Small com-panies

Craftsmanship

When it comes to food partic-ipants wants high quality.

The food will have a higher level of quali-ty.

‘Friendlier’ businesses

It ensures the expected qual-ity

Want to sup-port small companies

It means better quality

It is healthier They feel more passion coming from family busi-nesses.

The products are local and they stand for authenticity

My mother al-so bought it

They work harder

It means originality and exclusivity

It is tastier

When you are passionate, you conduct good business.

You know where your food comes from, because you grow up with it.

Ethnocentric reasons

Better quality

It means tradition

It will not con-tain additives

Passionate people will perform better

It means quality

I only eat what I know

Do not like monopolies and big com-panies

It feels good when a craftsman put ef-fort in a product

Table 1 Results open-ended question, question eleven

- 28 -

6.2.2 Factor Analysis

A factor analysis was performed in SPSS in order to reduce the collected primary data from

the questionnaire. From the reduced data, factors were formed in order to examine the im-

portance of each question. The outcomes of the factor analysis were afterwards used to

calculate a multiple regression analysis.

6.2.2.1 Total Variance Explained

Table 5 ‘Total Variance Explained’ (see appendix 1.2.4), shows the eigenvalues of all the

components (1 till 29) within this research.. Eigenvalues represents the total variance,

which was explained by each factor. Not all 29 components were retained. This was due to

the fact that the eigenvalues should score higher than 1, in order to be obtained as a usable

factor. The first nine components possessed the highest scores above the minimum score

of 1 that was required.

Factor 1 (Family business associations) scored the highest on the eigenvalue score, which

means that this factor accounts for the most variance. According to the outcomes of this

research the most important factor was ‘Family business associations’, which include six

different variables (see appendix 1.2.4 Total Variance Explained’ Table 5) The first factor

(family business associations) conducted the highest scores and the next one, which is fac-

tor 2 (family business associations affecting buying behavior) will account for as much of

the left over variance as it can. Just like factor 3 till 7 who will account for the least vari-

ance. The cumulative percentage column in Table 5 ‘Total Variance Explained’ (see appen-

dix 1.2.4), contains the cumulative percentage of the variance accounted for all the current

and preceding factors. The seventh row shows a value of 58,799 (highlighted in green),

which means that the first seven factors together account for 58,799% of the total variance.

6.2.2.2 Screeplot

According to Table 5 ‘Total Variance Explained’ (see appendix 1.2.4), there are nine fac-

tors, which scored eigenvalues above 1. However, in order to make a better judgment and

choose the proper number of the factors, also the Screeplot should be used and taken into

account. Based on Figure 5 ‘Screeplot’ (see appendix 1.2.5) it can be seen that from factor

eight and onwards, the line is getting flat. This indicates that each successive factor, which

are factor 1-7 are accounting for smaller amounts of the total variance. Comparing sores in

Table 5 Total Variance Explained (all eigenvalues above 1) and results in Figure 5 ‘Scree-

plot’, it can be concluded that there are only seven factors, which should be taken into con-

sideration as usable factors.

- 29 -

6.2.2.3 Factors

The created factors have been given new labels, which can be seen below, as well as the ei-

genvalue scores for each factor respectively:

Factor 1 = 4,872 (Family business associations)

o FB Passion

o FB Craftsmanship

o FB Tradition

o FB Heritage

o FB Small companies

o FB High quality

Factor one contains all the family business associations, which were asked during the ques-

tionnaire. The six different variables were clustered together. Therefore, the new factor la-

bel is ‘Family Business Associations’.

Factor 2 = 3,558 (Family business associations affecting buying behavior)

o Passion

o Craftsmanship

o Tradition

o Heritage

o Small companies

o High quality

Factor two contains all the questions within the questionnaire that revolved around the

family business associations that could affect consumers buying behavior. The six variables

were clustered together and given the new label ‘Family business associations affecting buy-

ing behavior’.

Factor 3 = 2,271 (Attitudes towards frozen foods)

o I believe qualitative good products

o I believe healthy

o I believe fresh products

o I believe tasty

Factor three contains some of the questions that were asked during the questionnaire refer-

ring to consumer’s attitudes towards frozen foods. Within the questionnaire other ques-

tions about attitudes towards frozen foods were asked. However, the outcomes of the fac-

tor analysis made it clear that these four variables explain which attitudes the respondents

have towards frozen food products. Therefore, the factor was given a new label which is

‘Attitudes towards frozen foods).

- 30 -

Factor 4 = 1,861 (Frozen foods packaging and price)

o Price is important for me

o When evaluating, I base purchase decision on price/value

o Package apparel is important for me

o When evaluating, I base purchase decision on product package apparel

Within factor four, two questions that were asked during the questionnaire, which revolved

around evaluating alternatives when making a purchase decision, were clustered with two

questions revolving around attributes importance when it comes to a frozen food product.

It shows that the price and packaging of a frozen food product are of most importance. Al-

so, consumers base therefore their decision during the evaluation of alternatives upon the

price and the packaging of the product. Within the questionnaire other importance ques-

tions and evaluating alternatives questions were asked. However, the outcomes of the fac-

tor analysis show that these four were the most important for consumers. The factor was

given a new label, which is ‘Frozen foods packaging and price’.

Factor 5 = 1,701 (Content and brand of frozen foods)

o Purchase decision based upon the brand

o Brand is important for me

o Frozen food contains more fat

o Contains more preservatives

Factor five contains four questions, which were asked during the questionnaire. It can be

seen that the questions revolving around brand importance of the products and evaluating

alternatives based upon the brand of a frozen food product were clustered together. Brand

importance was therefore less important for the respondents when it comes to a frozen

food product. Otherwise, these two variables would be clustered within factor four. Also,

two questions revolving around the content of frozen foods were clustered. The factor was

based upon these variables given a new label which is ‘Content and brand of frozen foods).

Factor 6 = 1,646 (Purchase decision of frozen foods)

o I base purchase decision on product information

o I base purchase decision on product quality

o I base decision on preparation time

In factor six it can be seen that three questions revolving around evaluating alternatives

when making a purchase decision, were clustered together in a factor. Thus, respondents

based their purchase decision when it comes to frozen foods mainly upon the packaging

and price (factor 3) and less upon product information, quality and preparation times. The

factor was given a new label, which is ‘Purchase decision of frozen foods’.

Factor 7 = 1,143 (Attributes frozen foods)

o Frozen foods are inexpensive

o Frozen foods are convenient

- 31 -

Factor seven contains only two questions, which were asked within the questionnaire. The-

se questions revolve around the attributes of frozen foods. Respondents believed that fro-

zen foods are inexpensive and convenient foods. However, it can be said that this factor

did not show a tremendous impact on consumer’s buying behavior towards frozen foods.

The factor was given a new label, which is ‘Attributes frozen foods’.

6.2.2.4 Rotated Component Matrix

Table 6 ‘Rotated Component Matrix’ (see appendix 1.2.6) contains the rotated factor load-

ings, which are the correlations between the variable and the factor itself. Due to the fact

that different correlations are possible, the values therefore will range from -1 to +1. This

means that the correlations can possess either negative or positive correlations. In SPSS the

option ‘Blank (.30) was used. This gave SPSS the task to not take any of the correlations

that were .3 or less into account. Some of the variables were overlapping each other, which

means that they had scores in more than one factor. For example the question “I believe that

frozen food products are convenient products” represents scores in the factor 4 (,301) and factor 7

(,644). The highest score was obtained in factor 7. Thus, this variable belongs to factor 7.

The variable belongs to the factor with the highest scores regardless whether or not there

are minus scores.

6.2.2.5 KMO

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin values always scores between 0 and 1 (Pallant, 2005). KMO measures

the sampling adequacy tests whether the partial correlations among variables are small. For

a satisfactory factor analysis it should be scored 0,5 (Pallant, 2005). In this case, the KMO

equaled 0,726 (see appendix 1.2.7 ’KMO and Bartlett’s Test’ Table 7). Bartlett’s test of

Sphericity, tests whether the correlation matrix is an identity matrix, which would indicate

that the factor model was appropriate.

6.2.2.6 Cronbach’s Alpha

In order to test the reliability of each factor, seven different Cronbach’s Alpha’s were calcu-

lated obtaining reliability of the seven components. Measuring the Cronbach’s Alpha was

obtained by different ways of splitting the scale items, within each seven created factor sep-

arately. After performing the Cronbach’s Alpha test, factor five up to and including factor

seven, were not reliable and therefore not useable. Below, all Cronbach’s Alpha’s are ex-

plained separately per factor.

6.2.2.6.1 Factor 1 – Family business associations

The score of the Cronbach´s Alpha within factor 1 was 0,842 (see appendix 1.2.8

‘Cronbach’s Alpha, Reliability Statistics Factor 1’ Table 8). This means that the variables

within this factor formed a reliable scale. Since this score is close to 1, there was no need to

improve it. In this case, the score of the Cronbach´s Alpha means that when respondents

scored higher in the ‘family business associations’ factor, the higher these associations af-

fect their buying behavior. Reliability statistics showed 84,2 percent of the deviance in that

score by combining six items, which can be considered as a reliable variance. The standard

deviation was 5,670, which is the average distance of the items relative to the mean (see

appendix 1.2.9 ‘Cronbach’s Alpha, Scale Statistics Factor 1’ Table 9).

- 32 -

6.2.2.6.2 Factor 2 – Family business associations affecting buying behavior

The score of the Cronbach´s Alpha for factor 2 was 0,785 (see appendix 1.2.10 ‘Cronbach’s

Alpha, Reliability Statistics Factor 2’ Table 10). That means that the variables within this

factor formed a reliable scale. In this case, the score of the Cronbach´s Alpha means that

when respondents scored higher in the family business associations’ factor, the higher the

chances are that these family business associations would positively affect their consumers

buying behavior regarding family business frozen food products. Reliability statistics

showed 78,5 percent of the deviance in that score by combining six items, which can be

considered as a reliable variance. The standard deviation was 5,973, which is the average

distance of the items relative to the mean (see appendix 1.2.11 ‘Cronbach’s Alpha, Scale

Statistics Factor 2’ Table 11).

6.2.2.6.3 Factor 3 – Attitudes towards frozen foods

The score of the Cronbach´s Alpha for Factor 3 was 0,803 (see appendix 1.2.12

‘Cronbach’s Alpha, Reliability Statistics Factor 3’ Table 12). That means that the variables

within this factor formed a reliable scale. Since this score is close to 1, there was no need to

improve it. In this case, the score of the Cronbach’s Alpha means that when respondents

scored higher in the attitudes factor, the higher their attitudes towards frozen foods are.

Reliability statistics showed 80,3 percent of the deviance in that score by combining four

items, which can be considered as a reliable variance. The standard deviation was 4,037,

which is the average distance of the items relative to the mean (see appendix 1.2.13

‘Cronbach’s Alpha, Scale Statistics Factor 3’ Table 13).

6.2.2.6.4 Factor 4 – Frozen foods packaging and price

The score of the Cronbach´s Alpha for factor 4 was 0,740 (see appendix 1.2.14 ‘Cronbach’s

Alpha, Reliability Statistics Factor 4’ Table 14). That means that the variables within this

factor formed a reliable scale. Since this score is close to 1, there was no need to improve it.

In this case, the score of the Cronbach’s Alpha means that when respondents scored higher

in the packaging and price factor, the higher the chances were that the price and packaging

are of importance when it comes to making purchase decision revolving around frozen

foods. Therefore, reliability statistics showed 74,0 percent of the deviance in that score by

combining four items, which can be considered as a reliable variance. The standard devia-

tion was 4,231, which is the average distance of the items relative to the mean (see appen-

dix 1.2.15 ‘Cronbach’s Alpha, Scale Statistics Factor 4’ Table 15).

6.2.2.6.5 Factor 5 – Content and brand of frozen foods

The score of the Cronbach´s Alpha for factor 5 was 0,357 (see appendix 1.2.16 ‘Cronbach’s

Alpha, Reliability Statistics Factor 5’ Table 16). That means that the variables within this

factor formed an unreliable scale since this score was lower than 0,6. In this case the score

of the Cronbach’s Alpha means that factor five cannot be taken into further consideration.

Reliability statistics showed only 35,7 percent of the deviance in that score by combining

four items, which can be considered as an unreliable variance. The standard deviation was

3,474, which is the average distance of the items relative to the mean (see appendix 1.2.17

‘Cronbach’s Alpha, Scale Statistics Factor 5’ Table 17).

- 33 -

6.2.2.6.6 Factor 6 – Purchase decision of frozen foods

The score of the Cronbach´s Alpha for factor 6 was 0,575 (see appendix 1.2.18 ‘Cronbach’s

Alpha, Reliability Statistics Factor 6’ Table 18). That means that the variables within this

factor formed an unreliable scale. In this case, the score of the Cronbach’s Alpha means

that this factor cannot be taken into further consideration. Reliability statistics showed 57,5

percent of the deviance in that score by combining three items, which can be considered as

an unreliable variance. The standard deviation was 3,097, which is the average distance of

the items relative to the mean (see appendix 1.2.19 ‘Cronbach’s Alpha, Scale Statistics Fac-

tor 6’ Table 19).

6.2.2.6.7 Factor 7 – Attributes frozen foods

The score of the Cronbach´s Alpha for factor 7 was 0,550 (see appendix 1.2.20 ‘Cronbach’s

Alpha, Reliability Statistics Factor 7’ Table 20). That means that the variables within this

factor formed an unreliable scale. Since this score was close to the minimum acceptance

score of 0,5 there was no need to improve it, but it was on the other hand not a reliable

scale. In this case, the score of the Cronbach’s Alpha means that this factor cannot be tak-

en into further consideration. Reliability statistics showed 55,0 percent of the deviance in

that score by combining only two items, which can be considered as an unreliable variance.

The standard deviation was 2,298, which is the average distance of the items relative to the

mean (see appendix 1.2.21 ‘Cronbach’s Alpha, Scale Statistics Factor 7’ Table 21).

6.2.2.6.8 Factor Reliability

After running the factor analysis the conclusion can be made that there were four im-

portant factors, which was used during further analysis. Factor five – Content and brand of

frozen foods, Factor six – Purchase decision of frozen foods and Factor seven – Attributes

frozen foods were not taken into further consideration due to the low reliability scores of

respectively, 357, ,575 and ,550 in the Cronbach’s Alpha test. Therefore, these factors can

be classified as an unreliable scale.

Factor five contained four items, which were: brand importance, frozen foods contains

more fat, frozen foods contain preservatives, additives and residues. Factor six contained

three items which were: purchase decisions based upon product information, product qual-

ity and preparation time of the product. Factor seven contained two items, which were:

frozen foods are inexpensive and frozen foods are convenient products.

However, we cannot say that these items within these factors were not important for the

respondents. Purely based upon the fact that the factors were unreliable scales, we were not

able to work with factor five, six and seven. However, the four factors which were further

used within the analysis were: family business association (Cronbach’s Alpha ,843), ‘family

business associations affecting buying behavior’ (Cronbach’s Alpha ,787), ‘attitudes towards

frozen foods’ (Cronbach’s Alpha ,805) and ‘frozen foods packaging and price’ (Cronbach’s

Alpha ,745). All four factor reliabilities scored above 0,6, which stands for a reliable scale.

Since the respondents scored high within those items in the four factors these were the

most important aspects of family business and frozen foods according to the people within

the sample.

- 34 -

6.2.3 Multiple Regression Analysis

A multiple regression analysis was performed in order to find an association with all factors

together in order to predict consumers’ buying behavior towards family business frozen

foods.

The correlations between the variables are shown in Table 2 ‘Correlations’. In order to

speak about a relationship between the dependent variable and the independent variables,

the correlation scores should preferably be higher than 0,3. On the contrary, correlation

scores should not be higher than 0,7 (Pallant, 2005). It can be seen that only two independ-

ent variables showed a correlation with the dependent variable. In this case, ‘attitudes to-

wards frozen’ and ‘frozen foods packaging and price’ correlated with consumer buying be-

haviour with scores of 0.403 and 0.413 respectively.

Table 2 Source: SPSS outcome

Moreover, we should take into account if there was no possible multicollinearity between

variables. In order to check this, Table 3 ‘Coefficients’ should be taken into account (see

below). There are two values given: Tolerance and VIF (Variance inflation factor). Toler-

ance is an indicator of how much of the variability of the specified independent is not ex-

plained by the other independent variables in the model. If this value was less than 0.10, it

indicated that the multiple correlation with other variables was high and will lead to possi-

ble multicollinearity. In this case, both Tolerance scores were 0,9 and 0,8, which means that

there was no high correlation with other variables in this model. The other value given is

the VIF. VIF values above 10 would lead to possible multicollinearity. In this case, it could

be seen that all VIF scores were above 1. The conclusion can be made that there was no

multicollinearity between variables (Pallant, 2005). Therefore, these correlations can be in-

terpreted as independent correlations.

- 35 -

According to Pallant (2005), there are two ways to examine the multicollinearity by examin-

ing the ‘Normal Probability Plot’ (see Figure 6 ‘Normal Probability Plot’ appendix 1.2.22)

and the ‘Scatterplot’ (see Figure 7 ‘Scatterplot’ appendix 1.2.23). In the normal probability

plot it can be seen that the points lie in a reasonably straight diagonal line from the bottom

left to the top right. Some points are deviating from the line, however it can be suggested

that there were no major deviations from normality. In the scatterplot it can be seen that

the scores were mostly concentrated in the center near to the 0 point. Pallant (2005) men-

tions that deviations from the centralized square suggest some violations of assumptions.

In this case there were a few outlying residuals, however it was not necessary to take ac-

tions against it, due to the minor differences.

Table 3 Coefficients, source: SPSS outcome

Furthermore, it was interesting to take a closer look at the Beta values to compare the con-

tribution of each independent variables to the dependent variable with each other. As it can

be seen in Table 3 ‘Coefficients’, the highest Beta coefficient (0,046) belongs to ‘attitudes

towards frozen foods’. This means that this variable accounted for the most contribution

when it comes to explaining consumers buying behavior towards a family business product.

The other Beta coefficients were slightly lower, saying that ‘frozen foods packaging and

price’ accounted for less contribution towards the dependent variable (consumers buying

behavior).

By examining the significance value for each correlation variable, it can be explained

whether or not variables make a statistically significant unique contribution to the equation.

The variable is making significant unique contribution when the significance value is less

than 0,05. On the contrary, when the significance value is greater than 0,05, it can be con-

cluded that the variable is not making a significant unique contribution (Pallant, 2005).

Both independent variables (attitudes towards frozen foods and frozen foods packaging

and price) within this research showed high significance values, respectively 0,459 and

0,522. Therefore, the conclusion can be made that these variables did not make a statistical-

ly significant contribution to consumers buying behavior towards a family business prod-

uct.

Moreover, it was also important to look at the part correlation coefficients in Table 3 ‘Co-

efficients’. It was possible to ‘square’ this value. By doing this, it showed how much of the

total variance in the dependent variable was uniquely explained by that variable and how

much R squared would drop if it was not included in the research (Pallant, 2005). The vari-

able ‘attitudes towards frozen foods’ has a part correlation of 0,044. When we ‘square’ this

- 36 -

number the result is 0.001. This indicated that the variable ‘attitudes towards frozen foods’

explained not even 1 percent of consumers buying behavior towards a family business

product. The variable ‘frozen foods packaging and price’ had a part correlation of -0,038.

The squared value was 0,001, which also explained not even 1 percent of consumers buying

behavior towards a family business product.

Table 22 ‘R and R2‘ (see appendix 1.2.24) shows the results for the R2 (0,076) and the ad-

justed R2 (0,062). The value of the R2 explained how much of the variance in the dependent

variable, which is consumers, buying behavior was explained by the all the independent

variables (family business associations, family business associations affecting buying behav-

ior, attitudes towards frozen foods and frozen foods packaging and price). In this case it

means that this model explained only 7,6 percent of the variance in consumers buying be-

havior towards a family business product. On the contrary, according to Tabachnick & Fi-

dell (2001, p.147) the value of the adjusted R2 is a more reliable measure since it provides a

better estimation of the true population value. Therefore, the value of the adjusted R2

showed that the multiple regression model explained even less variance in consumers buy-

ing behavior towards a family business product with 6,2 percent.

Moreover, it was also useful to look at the ANOVA model (see appendix 1.2.25 ‘ANOVA’

Table 23), to evaluate how this model fits for the analysis, in other words, we wanted to

know if the results that were found during this research were reliable or not. In this case,

the model did fit, since the significance score was 0,000 which is below 0,05.

6.2.4 Extra Multiple Regressions

For achieving a deeper insight in the differences of buying behaviors when it comes to a

family business product, specific multiple regressions were run based upon: Gender, Age

and Nationality.

6.2.4.1 Male Consumers

In Table 24 ‘Correlation Matrix Male Consumers’ (see appendix 1.2.26) it shows that the

two correlations found earlier (‘attitudes towards frozen foods’ and ‘frozen foods packag-

ing and price’), were different for male consumers. In this case, there was no correlation

found between ‘buying behavior’ and ‘frozen foods packaging and price’ (correlation

0,259). Nevertheless, there was a correlation found between ‘family business associations

that affect consumers buying behavior’ and ‘frozen foods packaging and price’ (correlation

0,483).

6.2.4.2 Female Consumers

In Table 25 ‘Correlation matrix female consumers’ (see appendix 1.2.27) it shows that the

two correlations found earlier (‘attitudes towards frozen foods’ and ‘frozen foods packag-

ing and price’), were different for female consumers. In this case, there was no correlation

found between ‘buying behavior’ and ‘frozen foods packaging and price’ (correlation

0,230). There was a low correlation found for the dependent variable ‘attitudes towards

frozen foods’ (correlation 0,337). However, there was a weak correlations found between

‘buying behavior’ and ‘family business associations that affect consumers buying behavior’

- 37 -

6.2.4.3 Young Consumers Born Between 1986 and 1998

In Table 26 ‘Correlation Matrix, Young Consumers born between 1986 and 1998’ (see ap-

pendix 1.2.28) it shows that the two correlations found earlier (‘attitudes towards frozen

foods’ and ‘frozen foods packaging and price’), were different for young consumers. In this

case, there was no correlation found between the dependent variable ‘buying behavior’ and

both independent variables ‘attitudes towards frozen foods’ (correlation 0,003) and ‘frozen

foods packaging and price’ (correlation 0,088). However, there were three different weak

correlations found between ‘buying behavior’ and ‘family business associations that affect

consumers buying behavior’ (correlation 0,329). The correlation found between ‘family

business associations’ and ‘attitudes towards frozen foods’ (correlation 0,458). Similar to

the male consumers, young consumers showed the same results when it comes to the

product packaging of a frozen food product. There was a correlation found between ‘fami-

ly business associations that affect consumers buying behavior’ and ‘frozen foods packag-

ing and price’ (correlation 0,325).

6.2.4.4 Adult Consumers Born Between 1940 and 1985

In Table 27 ‘Correlation Matrix Adult Consumers born between 1940 and 1985’ (see ap-

pendix 1.1.2.29) it shows that the two correlations found earlier (‘attitudes towards frozen

foods’ and ‘frozen foods packaging and price’), were different for adult consumers. In this

case, there was no correlation found between the dependent variable ‘buying behavior’ and

both independent variables ‘attitudes towards frozen foods’ (correlation 0,003) and ‘frozen

foods packaging and price’ (correlation 1,133).

6.2.4.5 Swedish Consumers

In Table 28 ‘Correlation Matrix Swedish Consumers’ (see appendix 1.2.30) it shows that

the two correlations found earlier (‘attitudes towards frozen foods’ and ‘frozen foods pack-

aging and price’), were different for Swedish consumers only. In this case, there was no

correlation found between ‘buying behavior’ and ‘attitudes towards frozen foods’ (correla-

tion 0,96). There was a low correlation found for the dependent variable ‘buying behavior’

and ‘frozen foods packaging and price’ (correlation 0,375). However, there was a weak cor-

relation found between ‘family business associations’ and ‘attitudes towards frozen’ (corre-

lation 0,473).

6.2.4.6 International Consumers

In Table 29 ‘Correlation Matrix International Consumers’ (see appendix 1.2.31) it shows

that the two correlations found earlier (‘attitudes towards frozen foods’ and ‘frozen foods

packaging and price’), were different for International consumers. In this case, there was no

correlation found between ‘buying behavior’ and ‘frozen foods packaging and price’ (corre-

lation 0,297). There was a low correlation found for the independent variable ‘attitudes to-

wards frozen foods’ and the dependent variable ‘buying behavior’ (correlation 0,362). Fur-

thermore, there was a weak correlation found between ‘buying behavior’ and ‘family busi-

ness associations’ (correlation 0,329). Also, there was a correlation found between ‘family

business associations that affect consumers buying behavior’ and ‘attitudes towards frozen

foods’ (correlation 0,426) and ‘frozen foods packaging and price’ (correlation 0,331).

- 38 -

7 Analysis

According to the results of the primary research the authors were able to conduct a thor-

ough analysis of the results, combined with the secondary data. Overall it can be mentioned

that answers of the respondents were quite similar. This can be said after examining the

standard deviations of the questionnaire. The overall results of the questionnaire gave in-

sights in how the respondents perceive frozen food products and family businesses.

The respondents clearly said that they buy frozen foods for their convenience. When the

respondents will buy a frozen food product they look first at the quality and price of the

products, followed by the brand, the package apparel and preparation time as being less

important. Solomon, et. al, (2010) stated that in a low-involvement setting, such as the re-

search example Dafgård, consumers will follow the peripheral route within the Elaboration

Likelihood Model. Consumers will look firstly to graphs on the package and they are not

willing to think deeply about product information. The findings within this research are

questioning the Elaboration Likelihood model in the sense that the respondents stated that

they first act with a minimum of knowledge (convenience products) and think about the

price and secondly they will look at the package and brand.

According to Low and Lamb (2000) measuring associations is a desirable goal for firms,

because these associations are useable to measure strength and position strategies of the

brand. Within this research it can be stated that the most important associations the re-

spondents made with a family business company are tradition and heritage. However, the

other four family business associations scored approximately the same. The differences

were so minuscule that it was not possible to put a chronological order of importance of

the family business associations. However, in the open question the respondents were able

to choose which family business association was the most important for them. They

choose overwhelmingly ‘high quality’ as the most important and secondly the family busi-

ness association ‘passion’. These findings stand in contradiction with the research of Orth

and Green (2009). They found in their research on family business grocery stores and con-

sumers perception, that consumers do not connect the association high quality and family

business with grocery stores. This implies that the family business associations from the

consumer can be different on different levels, such as the store level and the product level.

During this research it was found that the respondents associate high quality with tastier

and healthier food. This could imply that consumers perceive family business products as

healthier and tastier. This acknowledge the conclusions from Vranesevic and Stancec

(2003). They stated that a strong brand could positively affect the perception of quality to-

wards the specific product. Because when a consumer is evaluating alternatives they first

focus upon the brand itself.

Within the family business association passion, the respondents connect passion also as

higher quality products. Furthermore, the family business association passion means that

family businesses conduct ‘good business’ and perform better in the eyes of a consumer.

Belén del Rio Vázques and Iglesias (2001) stated that it was important to reveal these spe-

cific brand associations. Strong brand associations create confidence in a brand, which will

- 39 -

result in brand loyalty (Lassar, Mittal, and Sharma, 1995). These associations are especially

important for low-involvement products, because consumers use brand associations to

make their purchasing behavior and decisions easier (Aaker, 1996). Therefore, it is im-

portant for family business to be aware of these associations, which consumers have in or-

der to create brand loyalty. However, Tikkanen and Vääriskoski (2010) stated that the chal-

lenge is not only to disclose these associations, but also to communicate these associations

to the consumers and that this is often underestimated.

When the question was asked if these family business associations could affect consumers

buying behavior, the respondents only slightly agreed. On the contrary, it was found that

there were no relationships between family business associations and consumers buying

behavior. Therefore, it can be said that family business associations do not have a direct in-

fluence on the buying behavior of a consumer when it comes to low-involvement products.

However, more specific product attributes, such as price/value and package apparel are

more important when making a purchase decision when it comes to low-involvement

products.

As it can be seen within this research, the family business identity has not a direct effect on

the buying behavior of a consumer. As mentioned before, Blombäck (2011) stated that

there is a secondary effect. This secondary effect is shown with the family business associa-

tion high quality. The family business association high quality shows no connection with

consumer’s attitudes towards frozen foods. This implies that consumers expect high quality

products from family businesses. However, attitudes towards a specific product can be dif-

ferent. According to the results within this research there was no direct link between the

family business associations and a consumer attitudes of a specific products. Different re-

searchers (Belén del Rio, Vázquez, and Iglesias, 2001; Low and Lamb, 2000; Lassar, Mittal

and Sharma, 1995; Dobni and Zinkhan, 1990) stated that this lack of knowledge about spe-

cific brand associations makes it harder to build a strong brand image strategy for specific

products. This can be the reason that there was no link between the family business associ-

ations and consumers attitudes towards specific family business products.

After reduction of the data only two variables, which were ‘attitudes towards frozen foods’

and ‘frozen foods packaging and price’ showed a weak relation with consumers buying be-

havior when it comes to low-involvement family business products. The strongest relation

belonged to the variable ‘attitudes towards frozen foods’. This means that this variable ac-

counts for the most contribution when it comes to explaining consumers buying behavior

towards a family business product. However, both variables explained not even one per-

cent of consumers buying behavior towards a family business product. Hence, it can be

stated that both variables have no influence on consumers purchase decisions, when evalu-

ating alternatives in the decision making process and when it comes to choose between a

family business product and a non-family business product. These findings acknowledge

the research from Bem (1967) were he stated that attitudes are illusions that are created af-

ter experiencing the products. Here, it did not matter if the product was a family business

or not. The following quote captured the essence of the previous sentence: “The proof of the

pudding is in the eating” (Hoch and Deighton, 1989, P. 1).

- 40 -

As mentioned in chapter six, the authors took a closer at the differences between gender,

age and nationality. In general there were no relationships found between family business

and their effect on purchase intentions in a low-involvement context of consumers. When

taking a closer look within segments, there were certainly some relations found. However,

it should be taken into consideration that these relations were weak.

It can be stated that family business associations will more positively influence males, fe-

males and young consumers, whenever family business associations are shown on the

product packaging. International consumers do not base their purchase decision for a fro-

zen food product upon family business associations. They also will not be influenced by

the packaging and price of these products. Therefore, they do not show effect on their buy-

ing behavior.

Young consumers’ attitudes towards frozen foods can positively be influenced, when it is

displayed as a family business product on the package. This, together with the price factor

can positively affect the buying behavior of young consumers. Were it could be seen that

young consumers were influenced; it was revealed that adult consumers were not influ-

enced by family business associations.

When it comes to Swedish consumers, they purely base their purchase decision for a frozen

food product on packaging and price. However, family business associations can change

their attitudes towards frozen food products. This also counts for International consumers.

The difference between International consumers and Swedish consumers was that Interna-

tional consumers slightly base their purchase decision on family business associations. This

stands in direct contrast with the finding from the focus group discussion. The focus group

showed that family business associations’ lead Swedish consumers and that these associa-

tions’ will affect their buying behavior. International students did not show these results

during the focus group.

- 41 -

8 Conclusions

Family businesses play an important role in the world economy; therefore it is not strange

that the interest from the academic world is rapidly growing. Despite the growing interest,

research is still lacking on the consumers perspective on family businesses. With this re-

search the authors tried to give a better insight on this perspective. This research focused

on the so called ‘family business brand’ and if this family business brand has an influence

on consumers buying behavior. This resulted in the following research question: What as-

sociations of the family business brand image of a low-involvement product affect con-

sumers buying behavior and if so, why?

Research was already starting to question if this so-called family business brand has an ef-

fect on the buying behavior of the consumer. Blombäck (2011) implies that the family

business identity can create a distinction; she is also stating that this should be done in co-

operation with other brand ques. However, researchers found that in the existing research

there are many contradictions. Therefore, Krappe, Goutas and Schlippe (2011) raised the

question: Is there something like a family brand? To be able to come to empirical findings,

Dafgård was used as a research example. This was done due to their clear correspondence

of being a family business towards the consumer. To come to a clear research path the

model from Bian and Moutinho (2011) was used. This model showed the connection be-

tween brand image and purchase intention. They added product knowledge and product

involvement as influencers on this path towards purchase intention. This was the starting

point to examine what brand image, product involvement, product knowledge and pur-

chase intention is.

Brand image is defined as: “How a consumer perceives a brand” (Aaker, 1996, p. 150). Consum-

ers make certain association with specific brands. These are used to make purchase deci-

sions easier. Hence, creating a brand image is an important marketing tool. This image can

be seen as a sign of quality, this means that a good brand image can enhance the perception

of price/value. However, within low-involvement products, the consumer has often no

preference for one brand over another. Therefore, it is of even more importance that con-

sumers accept a certain brand and that they have positive attitudes towards the brand.

There are claims that attitudes and behavior are related and therefore accessible for re-

search. Attitudes towards a product consist out of associations. The associations for specif-

ic the family business brands were revealed during this research. It was found that consum-

ers associate a family business with: high quality, passion, heritage, traditions, small compa-

nies and craftsmanship. The reasons behind these family business associations were that

consumers believe that family businesses have healthier and tastier products. This is a result

from the feeling that family business products are off higher quality. Moreover, consumers

believe that family businesses work with passion and that they therefore conduct ‘good

business’. However, when the question was asked if theses associations could influence

their buying behavior, the result was just slightly positive.

- 42 -

Consumer perceive product attributes such as, price/value and package apparel as more

important when it comes to their buying behavior. Moreover, there was no link found be-

tween family business associations and consumer’s attitudes towards a specific low-

involvement product. Therefore, it can be stated that it is not of extra added value of being

a family business when a consumer evaluates the alternatives, when it comes to low-

involvement products. However, as previously mentioned within this research, it could be

that these family business associations have an effect as a secondary brand image, such as

Blombäck (2011) implies. This can then be used as an addition to the corporate brand im-

age.

After segmenting between gender, age and nationality, there were weak relations found.

The family business sign on the package will slightly positively influence male and young

consumers. International and adult consumers will not be influenced by the family business

sign on the package. However, there is a paradox. International consumers showed a slight-

ly positive relation between family business associations and their purchase decision, which

makes the earlier findings that the family business sign on the package disputable will not

influence them. Swedish consumers will not change their buying behavior when it comes to

a family business product. Swedish- and female consumers have a more positive attitudes

towards family businesses, because of the associations they make with these businesses. In

the long run this could affect their buying behavior positively. This was not made clear

within this research.

Young- and Swedish consumers especially will be affected by the price factor of low-

involvement products. This was a dominant factor over their attitudes towards family busi-

ness. Therefore, it can be concluded that when there is a price difference, the family busi-

ness image has no extra added value. Different studies reveal that brand image dominates

over price. The authors questions if this is also the case with high-involvement products.

The relationships within these segmentations were interesting, yet they were weak. Hence,

it is needed to say due to the conclusions from the general findings, that the family business

associations that were revealed within this research showed no effect on consumers pur-

chase decisions, when it comes to low-involvement products.

- 43 -

9 Contributions and Implications

This research was started with the feeling that family business associations could have an

effect on the buying behavior of consumers; these thoughts were supported by previous re-

search that started to research this question. The authors had the opinion that it would be

of extra added value to focus on low-involvement products. After finishing this research it

can be mentioned that this was a good decision, because with this decision a new segment

of the current research was entered. Within this research the authors were able to use a

clear research example, this enhanced both the reliability and the validity of this research.

The main reason for this was that the participants and respondents had a clear understand-

ing of the topic. On the contrary, this gave the limitation to generalize the findings to other

product categories.

It was decided to conduct a focus group in order to obtain the family business associations.

However, because of time constraints, only one focus group was conducted. It was there-

fore not possible to control the data that was obtained, with other opinions. It was also

identified that the opinions between International students and Swedish students differ

greatly. Another focus group discussion with more Swedish participants would have been

necessary to come to a more valid answer on the stated research question. The family busi-

ness associations found in the focus group discussion were presented to the respondents of

the questionnaire. The discussion can be raised if the respondents of the questionnaire

would have given the same answers about which family business associations they found

important and the reasoning’s why, when this question was asked before we presented

them the associations within the questionnaire.

When looking at the conclusion were the authors of this research stated that the family

business do not have a direct influence on the purchase decision, it can be said that the

case cannot be closed. This because the participants within this research stated that they

have associations with family businesses. The findings from this research opens wide op-

portunities to expand and deepen this knowledge concerning this topic.

9.1 Implications For Further Research

During this research a set of family business associations were identified. However, as men-

tioned before, the authors were not able to control this data by conducting extra focus

group discussions. Before starting other empirical research, a critical eye towards these as-

sociations is needed.

In first instance no relations between the family business associations and consumers buy-

ing behavior were found. After dividing the sample in smaller specific groups, weak rela-

tionships were found. This implies that different target groups should be studied separately

within further research to come to more comprehensive knowledge within this field of re-

search.

- 44 -

This research was conducted on the level of end-consumers. However, in the supply chain

process before a product actually will be offered to the end-consumer there are more levels

that should be explored. For example, with this research example Dafgård, they are actually

not selling to end-consumers directly. Dafgård is selling their products through supermar-

kets, such as ICA and Willy’s. Dafgård and other similar family businesses do not rely on

supermarkets as their only source. They also sell their products to other businesses. For ex-

ample Dafgård is selling their products to Ikea, company cafeteria’s and other businesses.

This business-to-business market is not explored during this research. It can be questioned

if this is not of even more importance for these companies. The question can be raised if

professional buyers will be influenced by the fact that they purchase products that have a

family business origin and what associations they make with family business. With this

knowledge family businesses will be able to set up specific marketing campaigns for their

business-to-business relations.

Several studies indicate that a positive relationship exists between the communication of

the family business image and firms performance. However, this research did not found

enough indications that buying behavior will be affected by the family business brand im-

age. Therefore, the authors questions if the family business image and firms performance

are related with each other. The authors share the opinion that for this topic further re-

search is necessary. It could be the case that the findings within the field of low-

involvement products could differ from findings, when this research should have been

conducted in the field of high-involvement products.

A note to further researchers is that within this research, contradicting results were found

between Swedish- and international participants within the focus group discussion and

within the questionnaire results. When conducting further research this contradiction

should be taken into consideration.

9.2 Practical Implications

As it can be seen in the previous chapters, the authors did not found a direct result of the

communication that the company is a family business company. There are no direct effects

on consumer’s attitudes and behaviors towards low-involvement products. On the other

hand, consumers have positive associations with family businesses. This is a paradox what

cannot be neglected by the other researchers and family businesses. It can be seen that the

answer on this research question is not that straightforward. It cannot be said that the fami-

ly business sign on a low-involvement package is of added value, but also it cannot be said

that it is not of added value.

Here, speculations can be made that the findings of this research are indicating that

Blombäck (2011) is correct in her conclusion. She stated that family businesses have no di-

rect effect on the brand image; instead they have a secondary effect. The family business

sign will in this case function as a background ‘noise’. This ‘noise’ can have the strength to

persuade the consumer in unconscious matters. Within this research it was discovered that

this ‘noise’ among other associations, is the association high quality. This can lead to the

- 45 -

decision that consumers will choose for the family business product instead of the non-

family business product.

For a family business such as Dafgård this means that they can continue with communi-

cating their origin as being a family business. However, when a family business is consider-

ing adapting their marketing strategy, to the strategy that they will primarily communicate

their origin as a family business such as Dafgård. The authors advise that these family busi-

nesses first take a closer look at other strengths of their products. This will obtain a strong-

er effect on consumers buying behavior. As Orth and Green (2009) did in their research

conclusion, the authors also want to call for caution with only using the family business for

marketing goals. However, the authors share the opinion that a family business should use

it as a secondary brand image. This because it cannot be neglected that Craig, Dibrell and

Davis (2008) found a correlation between family businesses and positive financial results.

When a family business decide to communicate their origin as being a family business it

should be aware that it will be hard to create their own set of preferred family business as-

sociations. The firm will set foot on board of the already created associations that are de-

veloped by all occurrences that are related to family businesses. (Blombäck, 2009)

9.3 Contribution

This research contributed to the family business academic field by expanding the current

research, which mainly focuses upon the family business itself, its internal processes within

the organization, concerning staff and family owners. The topic family business academic

field of research is of growing importance. On the contrary, research on family business

was lacking from consumers perspectives and branding within family business research

needed more attention. Therefore, the external aspects concerning family businesses are

not examined thoroughly. Some researchers started already to expand the topic of branding

within the family business field. These papers gave the authors interesting thoughts to start

with this research. It was interesting to examine brand image on the product level rather

than store image what Orth and Green (2009) did with success. This research contributed

to the aspect of branding within the academic field of family businesses by putting the fo-

cus upon consumers perceived value of family business associations and impressions. Spe-

cifically it was examined if the so-called family business brand has an effect on the buying

behavior of consumers. This paper gives a deeper understanding from the impact of a

family business brand image on buying behaviors of consumers in a low-involvement con-

text.

By using the family business Dafgård as a research example, this research also contributed

to provide useful information to family businesses like Dafgård that sell low-involvement

fast moving consumers goods. Which they can use to adjust their current marketing and

branding efforts towards their customers, based upon the results found within this re-

search. By conducting this research the authors made buying behavior in relation with

family business associations from consumers in a low-involvement perspective more clear

for family businesses and their marketing communication managers. This was done by

gaining a deeper understanding of the topic. It is important for family businesses to know

- 46 -

how their customers perceive them and what their associations and attitudes towards their

products are, in order for family businesses to take these outcomes into considerations

when designing a marketing campaign to target new and current customers. It is for family

businesses then possible that they could potentially spend their marketing resources in a

more effective way. The gained knowledge within this paper is useful for both, family busi-

nesses and academics in the field of family businesses. The authors therefore feel that this

study will provide a good foundation for more research in the future within this area and as

a useful tool for family businesses.

- 47 -

10 References

Aaker, D. A. (1996). Building strong brands. The Free Press, p. 150.

Ahmed, Z. U., Johnson, J. P., Yang, X., Fatt, C. K., Teng, H. S., & Boon, L. C. (2004). Does country

of origin matter for low-involvement products. International Marketing Review, Vol.

21(No. 1), 102-120.

Alba, J., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1987). Dimensions of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer

Research, Vol. 13(No.4), 411-450.

Belén del Rio, A., Vázquez, R., & Iglesias, V. (2001). The effects of brand associations on

consumer response. Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18(Iss: 5), 410-425.

Bem, D. J. (1967). Self Perception: An Alternative Interpretation of cognitive dissonance

phenomena. Psychological Review, Vol. 74(No. 3), 183-200.

Bian, X., & Moutinho, L. (2011). The role of brand image, product involvement, and knowledge

in explaining consumer purchase behaviour of counterfeits. Direct and indirect effects.

European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 45(No. 1/2), 191-216.

Blombäck, A. (2009). Family business - a secondary brand in corporate brand management. (M.

Nordqvist, Ed.) Center for Family Enterprise and Ownership, 1, 1-18.

Blombäck, A. (2011). Realizing the Value of Family Business Identity as Corporate Brand

Element - A Research Model. JIBS working papers, 2011(17).

Boruch, R. F. (1997). Randomize eperiments for planning and evaluation: A practical guide. (D.

C. Laughton, Ed.) Thousand Oaks, California, United States of America: Sage

Publications, inc.

Carrigan, M., & Buckley, J. (2008). 'What's so special about family business?' An exploratory

study of UK and Irish consumer experiences of family businesses. International Journal

of Consumer Studies, 656-666.

Chrisman, J. J., Steier, L. P., & Chua, J. H. (2008). Toward a theoretical basis for understanding

the dynamics of strategis performance in family firms. Entrepeneurship Theory and

Practice, Vol. 32(No. 6), 935-947.

Cooper, M. J., Upton, N., & Seaman, S. (2005). Customer relationship management: a

comparative analysis of family and non-family business practices. Journal of Small

Business Management, 43, 242-256.

Craig, J. B., Dibrell, C., & Davis , P. S. (2008). Leveraging family-based brand identity to enhance

firm competitiveness and performance in family businesses. Journall of Small Business

Management, Vol. 46(No. 3), 351-371.

- 48 -

Creswell, J. W., Shope, R., Plano Clark, V. L., & Green, D. O. (2006). How interpretive qualitative

research extends mixed methods research. Research in the Schools, Vol. 13(No. 1), 1-

11.

Da Silva, R. V., & Syed Alwi, S. F. (2006). Cognitive, affective attributes and conative,

behavioural response in retail corporate branding. Journal of Product & Brand

Management, Vol. 15(No. 5), 293-305.

Davies, G. (1994). What Should Time be? European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 28(Iss: 8), ss.

100-113.

Dobni, D., & Zinkhan, G. (1990). In search of brand image: a foundation analysis. Advances in

consumer research, Vol. 17, 110-119.

Dolich, I. J. (February 1969). Congruence relationships between self images and product

brands. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 6(no. 1), ss. 80-84.

Eddleston, K. A., Chrisman, J. J., Steier, L. P., & Chua, H. J. (2010). Governance and Trust in

Family Firms: An introduction. Entrepeneurship Theory & Practice, 1042-2587.

Faircloth, J. B., Capella, L. M., & Alford, B. L. (2001). The effect of brand attitude and brand

image on brand equity. Journal of Marketing Theory, Vol. 9(No. 3), 61-75.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to

theory and research. Massachusetss: Addison-Wesley.

Gardner, B. B., & Levy, S. J. (1955, March-April). The Product and the Brand. Harvard Business

Review, 33, 33-39.

Garland, R. (1991). The Mid-Point on a Rating Scale: Is it Desirable? Marketing Bulletin,

2(Research Note 3), ss. 66-70.

Gliem, J. A., & Gliem, R. R. (2003). Calculating, Interpreting, and Reporting Cronbach's Alpha

Reliability Coefficient for Likert-Type Scales. Midwest Research to Practice Conference

in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education (pp. 82-88). Columbus: The Ohio State

University.

Habbershon, T. G., & Williams, M. L. (1999). A Resource-Based Framework for Assessing the

Strategic Advantages of Family Firms. Family business Review, Vol. 12(No. 1), 1-26.

Hancock, B., Ockleford, E., & Windridge, K. (2007). An Introduction to qualatative research.

East Midlands, Yorkshire: The NIHR RDS.

Handler, W. C. (1989). Methodological issues and considerations in studying family businesses.

Family Business Review, Vol. 2(no. 3), 257-276.

Handler, W. C. (1994). Succesion in Family Business: A review of the Research. Family Business

Review, Vol. 7(no. 2), 133-156.

- 49 -

Hoch, S. J., & Deighton, J. (1989). Managing What Consumers Learn from Experience. The

Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53(No. 2), 1-20.

Hollebeek, L. D., Jaeger, S. R., Roderick, J. B., & Balemi, A. (2007). The influence of involvement

on purchase intention for new world wine. Food Quality and Preference, 18, ss. 1033-

1049.

Hoyer, W. D. (1984). An Examination of Consumer Decision Making for a Common Repeat

Purchase Product. The Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 11(No. 3), 822-829.

Johnson, E. J., & Russo, E. J. (1984). Product familiarity and learning new information. Journal

of Consumer Research, Vol. 11(No. 1), 542-550.

Keller, K. L. (1993, January). Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand

Equity. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57(No. 1), 1-22.

Kotler, P., & Armstrong, G. (2005). Principles of Marketing. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Krappe, A., Goutas, L., & Schlippe, A. v. (2011). The "family business brand": an enquiry into

the construction of the image of family businesses. Journal of Family Business

Management, 37-46.

Lassar, W., Mittal, B., & Sharma, A. (1995). Measuring customer-based brand equity. The

Journal of Consumer Marketing, 12(4), 11-19.

Liamputtong, P. (2011). Focus Group Methodology. London, United Kingdom: Sage Publications

Ltd.

Likert, R. (1931). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Attitudes.

Low, G. S., & Lamb, C. W. (2000). The measurement and dimensionality of brand associations.

The Journal of Product and Brand Management, 9(6), 350-368.

Lurie, N. H. (2004, March). Decision making in information-rich environments: The role of

information structure. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 473-486.

Malhotra, N. K., & Birks, D. F. (2007). Marketing research an applied approach. Essex: Pearson

education limited.

Maxwell, J. A., & Loomis, D. M. (2003). Mixed methods design: An Alternative approach.

Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, inc.

Micelotta, E. R., & Raynard, M. (2011). Concealing or Revealing the Family?: Corporate Brand

Identity Strategies in Family Firms. Family Business Review, 197 - 216.

Miller, D., & Breton-Miller, I. L. (2005). Managing for the long run: lessons in competitive

advantage from great family businesses. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

- 50 -

Orth, U. R., & Green, M. T. (2009). Consumer loyalty to family versus non-family business: The

roles of store image, trust and satisfaction. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,

248-259.

Orth, U. R., McDaniel, M., Shellhammer, T., & Lopetcharat, K. (2004). Promoting brand

benefits: The role of consumer psychographics and lifestyle. Journal of Consumer

Behavior.

Pallant, J. F. (2005). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS (2nd

edition uppl.). Crow News, Australia: Allen&Unwins.

Park, W. C., Jaworski, B. J., & Maclnnis, D. J. (1986, October). Strategic brand concept-image

management. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 50(No. 4), 135-145.

Pratkanis, A. R., Breckler, S. J., & Greenwald, A. G. (1989). Attitude Structure and Function.

Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Publishers.

Rao, R. A., & Monroe, K. B. (1988). The Moderating Effect of Prior Knowledge on Cue

Utilization in Product Evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15(No. 2), 253-

264.

Shank, M. D., & Langmeyer, L. (1994). Does personality influence brand image? The Journal of

Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, Vol. 128(Issue 2), 157-164.

Sharma, P. (2004). Family business Review, Vol. XVII(no. 1), 1-36.

Silayoi, P., & Speece, M. (2004). Packaging and purchase decisions: An exploratory study on the

impact of involvement level and time pressure. British Food Journal, Vol. 106(No. 8),

607-628.

Silayoi, P., & Speece, M. (2007). The importance of packaging attributes : A conjoint analysis

approach. European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41(11/12), ss. 1495-1517.

Sim, J. (1998). Collecting and analysing qualitative data: Issues raised by the focus group.

Journal of Advanced Nursing, 28(2), 345-352.

Solomon, M. (1999). Consumer Behavior (4th ed. ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Solomon, M. R., Bamossy, G., Askegaard, S., & Hogg, M. K. (2010). Consumer Behavior a

European Perspective. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.

Sundaramurthy, C., & Kreiner, G. E. (2008). Governing by managing identity boundaries.

Entrepeneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 32(No. 3), 415-436.

Svenska Järnvägar. (2011). Youth Fares. Retrieved 03 March, 2012 from

http://www.sj.se/sj/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=242&a=7164&l=en.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th edition uppl.). New

York: Harper Collins.

- 51 -

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed Methodology: Combining qualitative and

quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Tikkanen, I., & Vääriskoski, M. (2010). Attributes and benefits of branded bread: case

Artesaani. British Food Journal, Vol. 112(No. 9), 1033-1043.

Williams, C., & Fazio, R. (1986). Attitude accessibility as a moderator of attitude-perception

and attitude behavior relation: An investigation of the 1984 presidential election.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 501-514.

Wortman, M. S. (1994). Theoretical foundations for family-owned businesses: A conceptual

and research based paradigm. Family Business Review, 7(1), 3-27.

Vranesevic, T., & Stancec, R. (2003). The effect of the brand on perceived quality of food

products. British Food Journal, Vol. 105(no. 11), ss. 811-825.

Yule, U. G. (1903, February). Notes on the theory of association of attributes in Statistics.

Biometrika, Vol. 2(No. 2), 121-132.

i

1 Appendix

1.1 Focus Group

1.1.1 Focus Group Questions

Product Knowledge

- What is your experience (current knowledge) about frozen food products?

- Did you ever purchase a frozen food product? Product Involvement

- Is the product packaging playing an important role in your purchase decision?

- Follow up question: if so, why? At this point the two different frozen lasagna products were shown to the participants Purchase Intensions

- What attributes of these two product packaging have the most influence on your purchase decision?

- Which one would you choose

- Follow up question: why?

- Which one of the two products do you think is more expensive? (Price/value) At this point participants were aware of the fact that Dafgård frozen food is a family busi-ness. Brand Image

- Knowing that Dafgård is a family business, does this positively or negatively af-fect your attitudes towards the product?

- What associations do you make with a family business?

- Can these associations affect your purchase decision?

After tasting the two different frozen lasagna products the following questions were asked

- What do you think about the taste from both products?

- After this tasting experience which one would you purchase?

- Does the tasting after seeing the product packaging change your buying behav-ior?

ii

1.1.2 Focus Group Data Collection Paper

Date: 20/03/2012

Start time: 16.00

Stop time: 16.30

Moderator: Derk Jan Kees Brinxma

Observer: Priscilla Angela Ramdharie

Products: Dafgård frozen Lasagna & Findus frozen Lasagna

Venue: Room C2027, Jönköping University

Participants: six (Two Swedish and four International)

Focus question Responses Key issues

Product knowledge

- What is your experience with frozen food products

No experience. Use it regularly, only pizza and frozen fruits

- Why not? Because it is unhealthy

- Regularly Convenient, tasty

Did you ever purchase a frozen food product?

Everybody, except for Tonya and Julien. Because he prefers to cook She buys frozen pizza’s

Fish, Chicken, Pizza, lasagna and whole dishes.

Product involvement

Is the product packaging play-ing an important role in your purchase decision?

Picture is very important, the general looks and the brand.

Purchase intention

What attributes of these two product packaging have the most influence on your pur-chase decision?

Price, the preparation time. The quality.

iii

Which one would you choose?

Findus 3 times, it looks tastier and original Italian. Also it looks homey.

Dafgård 3 times, very low pric-es, good referencing , they have better product knowledge, the yellow color is very appealing

Which one of the two products do you think is more expen-sive?

Dafgård has low prices

Tonya thinks Findus is cheaper

Kiki & Julien thinks that Daf-gård is more expensive

Brand image

Knowing that Dafgård is a family business, how does this affect your attitudes towards the product?

Family business or not I know that Dafgård is specialized in frozen food.

What associations do you make with a family business?

Tradition, heritage, quality, more care taking, better taste, small business, craftsmanship

Can these associations affect your purchase decisions

When I really would think about it, yes. For Swedish peo-ple it definitely can.

Summary and reflections

iv

1.1.3 Focus Group Transcribed

Date: March20, 2012. 16.00 hours Interviewer: Derk Brinxma Moderator: Priscilla Ramdharie Participants:

- Björn (Swedish)

- Kiki (Dutch)

- Tonya (Bulgarian)

- Julien (French)

- Stavros (Greek)

- Mike (Swedish)

Derk: We are here to talk about Frozen food products, DO you sometimes use frozen food products instead of cooking?

Björn: A frozen food

Tonya I never do that

Derk: You never do that. Why do you never use it?

Tonya: I don’t know. Unhealthy. I never have eaten such food. I never buy it.

Priscilla: So when you see frozen food you practically think it is not healthy?

Tonya: Yes

Derk: Ok and why do you use it a lot (Stavros)

Stavros: Easy convenient

Kiki: Convenient

Stavros: Don’t want to cook and actually it was tasty.

Björn: (agrees) and it also depends on what types of food, you have for instance frozen fruits, blueberries and strawberries. They are really nice when they are frozen. You just eat them as frozen candy. You mix them in Smoothies. You keep them in the fridge and it is really convenient. The taste is really good also.

Derk: So you all buy frozen food except for you (Tonya)

Julien: DO you mean frozen food or fruits?

Derk & Priscilla: Food in general. Food that is ready to go that you only need to warm up in the microwave.

Tonya: I eat frozen pizza.

Everybody: So you eat frozen food? (Laughing)

Priscilla: What kind of frozen food do you purchase when you are using it.

v

Julien: Fish , chicken Kiki: Pizza Björn: Pizza Stavros: Lasagna, Pizza

Tonya: You can get these whole dishes and I bought frozen chicken.

Priscilla: We mean the meals.

Julien: OO I don’t by these

Derk: Why you don’t by these?

Julien: Because I don’t think it is tasty. I prefer to cook it myself.

Derk: When it does not matter how the package does look like, what are for you the most important things?

Kiki: Picture of the product so you know what it looks like?

Björn: Like you mean the most important characteristics?

Derk: Yes exactly.

Björn: Yes it is definitely the looks also the brand I would say it is important.

Derk: Can you recall some kind of brands?

Björn: Yes there is actually this frozen pizza ehm Dr. Oetcker.

Everybody: Yes they are really good.

Björn: 15 min. in the oven and they are crispy and beautiful.

Derk: Mike and for you?

Mike: I don’t know these ready meals are super quick and in terms of buying it. It is not just about branding. I always recognize it and then I just take it

Derk: Do you look at the price?

Mike: No.

Derk: Somebody else thinks the price is important?

Björn: I do

Kiki: Yes that is my problem here in Sweden.

Stavros: I look at the picture and how many minutes.

Kiki: This Dr. Oetker you also have this in Holland.

Derk: And when you feel like the price is good, but the price is cheaper? Does that matter for you?

Priscilla: SO are you going for the one with more quality or for the cheapest one?

Kiki, Björn, Stavros: I go for quality

Mike: I go for price

vi

Derk: I have here two packages I will put them in the middle. When you see these one which would you choose?

Julien, Kiki, Stavros. Findus

Björn, Mike Tonya: Dafgård

Derk: Why are you going for Findus?

Kiki: I don’t know it looks tastier.

Derk: More reasons?

Derk: Which is the Dafgård?

Tonya: This brand is always selling everything for very low prices.

Björn: No I choose Dafgård because I know it has good references.

Tonya: I noticed these keep very low prices for all their products

Björn: I know that Dafgård is specialized in frozen food products that is their whole busi-ness model. But Findus they have. This is just a little part of their product line. They have a very wide product range. Therefore I go for Dafgård, because I belief that they know more.

Priscilla: Who do you think has a wider product range?

Tonya: This one. (Dafgård)

Derk: For the other people who choose Dafgård, why do you choose Dafgård?

Stavros: In my mind they have connected. The yellow color familiarizes the product. When I compare these packages I never noticed that Familjen Dafgård would mean family business. I did not know that and I did not know none of these brands. This yellow color gives me the feeling it is lighter healthier.

Kiki: I think the red looks more like homey.

Julien to Stavros: You don’t like this one? Stavros: no

Derk: Tonya you said Findus is cheaper?

Priscilla: When you see the packages do you already know which one is more expensive?

Tonya: ( about Findus) This part makes it more Italian. Because of the colors.

Kiki and Julien: We think this one is more expensive (Dafgård)

Tonya: If I don’t saw Findus I think this one is more expensive.

Derk: Our research is about that if it matters if it is a family businesses. Would this influ-ence your decision? For example when it comes down to quality?

Björn: Family business or not. I just know that Familjen Dafgård has a business model when it comes to frozen food. So it is basically knowledge about the brand. But it is not re-lated to the fact that it is a family business.

Derk: Does everybody agree with this?

vii

Tonya: Yes.

Stavros: For me it is not connected that when it is a family business it is connected to quality or something.

Derk: Besides these two packages when you think about family business what are the first things that come in your mind?

Tonya: For me it means tradition.

Björn: Heritage

Mike: Just characteristics that pop up in your head or?

Derk: Yes.

Mike: I would say they are more focused on the quality what they are doing. That is most likely their selling point. Therefore I will connect family business to quality. Eeehm what else?

Tonya: It is something that they take more care. Mike: Yes. Tonya: Because when it is a big manufacturer it is to many people, but with a family business it is more like, they take care about the product they manufacturing

Derk: But like when you go back to the shop you would not think about this attribute from a family business? (no answer) more on a general level when you think about family business? This specific or as you said before it does not matter for you?

Mike: I just recognize Findus. If I would sit down and debate on which one I actually would choose I must go for the family business.

Derk: And other kind of products? For example more expensive products?? Would it mat-ter when it is a family business?

Tonya: What kind?

Derk & Priscilla: No in general.

Stavros: It depends of taste if it is more expensive it should have more taste.

Julien: I don’t think about it when I go to the supermarket.

Tonya: I think it depends on the product.

Mike: When it comes down to camera stuff. I need them to help me out whenever it is needed. Then I don’t have problems with paying just a bit extra. There I think family busi-ness/ small business can come in handy.

Derk: So you see it as a small business?

Mike: Yes.

Derk: We want you to let you taste something. You will not see which one is which one. It will be a blind test.

Björn: I think I change a bit when it comes to quality and family business. I think actually I want to change my opinion. I think they do go hand in hand. For example you have these

viii

red wings, they are more the 100 years. This craftsmanship and stuff. Then it is definitely superior quality.

Derk: So like traditional quality?

Björn: Yes like heritage and it has gone through generations

Priscilla: Is this also the case with food?

Björn: No with food it is not really the case. I would say it is not to the same extend, but..

Tonya: It actually depends when I think about food it comes to my mind when I think about Bulgaria, they advertise some products like food regarding family like this comes from tradition and through generation and this actually work, so I think it is important. It depends on the level of communication. Because this brand (Dafgård) obviously does not communicate itself as a family business.

Priscilla: But it is written on the package?

Tonya: Yes but it is not really… (interrupted)

Björn: But I saw on some package that they have local ingredients like pasta they were from some local farmer.

Derk: So we now taste the red spickels. (Findus)

Tonya: It smells like food.

Derk: So what do you think of the taste?

Björn: I kind of like it.

Tonya: I like it. I taste this specific tomato taste

Björn: not too salty which it often is. Which frozen food often has. The consistency was nice.

Kiki: I think it is soft. Like you don’t even have to bite on it.

Priscilla: What about the smell?

Kiki & Björn: Well that was good.

Julien: I usually smell food

Mike: It does not look good.

Julien: I would give this to my dog, but it taste ok.

Mike: I would say it is not appealing, but it is ok.

Derk: Now we are going for the next taste.

Kiki: It is very oily and greasy.

Tonya: This smells more natural. Everybody agrees.

Julien & Stavros: It has more taste.

ix

Julien: It is actually just the cheese. It covers up everything. You don’t really taste the to-mato or anything. (Tonya agrees)

Kiki: But I like this one better, because the other one did not has much taste. (Julien agrees)

Björn: I think it was a bit too salty, but I agree the cheeses plays a big role in the taste.

Tonya: The cheese flavor covers everything.

Derk: Has somebody else something to say about this second round of tasting?

Björn & Julien: It has more consistency.

Mike: It looks slobby. Like it is going everywhere.

Derk when you now see these two packages can you identify which one is which one?

Julien: Thinks that Findus is the Dafgård. The rest had it wright.

Tonya: the first one (Findus) had more bigger peace’s.

Kiki: Findus was more consistent.

Derk: Would you now change your opinion on which you would buy after tasting?

Stavros & Björn: I would still buy the yellow box.

Kiki: I would change to Findus.

Derk tells the prices.

Everybody would change to the other one Dafgård, because of the fact that the prices are the same.

Derk: Could somebody imagine that the Familjen Dafgård sign would be of value.

Björn: For sure. Especially for Swedish people.

Stavros: If I would be Swedish definitely.

Kiki: Even that the Dutch word is almost the same. I don’t look at it because it is Swedish.

Mike: For me as Swedish person it would definitely matter.

Derk: Does somebody still have a comment ?.... Priscilla do you have still questions open?

Priscilla: No

Derk: Then I want to thank you all for your participation.

x

1.2 Questionnaire

Dear participant, We are currently finishing our studies at Jönköping University by writing our master thesis. We are researching the influence of family businesses on consumers purchase intention. The research example that we use for our research is frozen food products. To make sure that you as a participant understand what we include under the name frozen food product a short clarification will be given. With frozen food products we consider the ready to go meals that you can heat up in the microwave or in the oven. E.g. Lasagna or full-dishes. We do not mean frozen meat, fish or vegetables. Of course we will make sure that your privacy is guaranteed. Thank you for participating. Priscilla & Derk

Question 1. I think of myself as a health-conscious consumer

Strongly agree Strongly disagree Question 2. I consider myself as a person who is familiar with frozen foods

Strongly agree Strongly disagree Question 3. How often do you purchase frozen foods during the week?

o Never o Less than once a week o 1 to 3 times per week o 4 to 7 times per week

xi

Question 4. I believe that frozen foods are:

Strongly

Agree - - - -

Strongly

Disagree

Healthy

Tasty

Contains preservatives,

additives, and residues

Qualitative good products

Fresh products

Contains more fat

Relatively inexpensive

Convenient products

Question 5. The package (fürpackning) apparel of a frozen food product is important for me

Strongly agree Strongly disagree Question 6. The price of a frozen food product is important for me

Strongly agree Strongly disagree

Question 7. The brand (varumärke) of a frozen food product is important for me

Strongly agree Strongly disagree

Question 8. When evaluating different frozen food products, I base my purchase decision on:

Strongly

Agree - - - -

Strongly Disagree

The brand

Price/value

Packaging appeal

Product quality

Preparation time

Product information

xii

Question 9. I make the following associations with a family business:

Strongly

Agree - - - -

Strongly Disagree

Traditions

Heritage

Passion

Craftsmanship

High quality

Small companies

Question 10. To what extend does these associations positively affect your buying behav-ior: (Give a grade between 1 to 6, were 1 is the lowest grade and 6 is the highest grade)

1 2 3 4 5 6

Traditions

Heritage

Passion

Craftsmanship

High quality

Small companies

Question 11. Which two associations from the previous question are the most important for you and why? The first association is the most important for this reason The second association is the most important for this reason Question 12. Family business associations can affect my purchase behavior, when it comes to frozen food products

Strongly agree Strongly disagree

xiii

Question 13. Gender

o Male o Female

Question 14. Age Year of birth Question 15. Nationality

o Swedish o International

Question 16. My weekly budget for food consumption is o 0-500 SEK o 501-700 SEK o 701-900 SEK o 901-1100 SEK o More than 1100 SEK

Thank you for your time and participation

xiv

1.2.1 Means and Std. Deviations

Table 4 Means and Std. Deviations, Source: SPSS outcome

xv

1.2.2 Year of Birth

Figure 3 Year of Birth Source, SPSS outcome

1.2.3 Family Business Associations Affecting Buying Behavior

Figure 4 FB Associations affecting buying behavior (frozen foods), Source: SPSS outcome

xvi

1.2.4 Total Variance Explained

Total Variance Explained

Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings

Total % of

Variance Cumulative

% Total

% of Variance

Cumulative %

1 4,872 16,800 16,800 4,872 16,800 16,800

2 3,558 12,271 29,071 3,558 12,271 29,071

3 2,271 7,829 36,900 2,271 7,829 36,900

4 1,861 6,418 43,318 1,861 6,418 43,318

5 1,701 5,864 49,182 1,701 5,864 49,182

6 1,646 5,676 54,857 1,646 5,676 54,857

7 1,143 3,942 58,799 1,143 3,942 58,799

8 1,131 3,901 62,700 1,131 3,901 62,700

9 1,031 3,555 66,255 1,031 3,555 66,255

10 ,956 3,298 69,553

11 ,849 2,926 72,480

12 ,821 2,832 75,311

13 ,756 2,606 77,915

14 ,675 2,328 80,245

15 ,655 2,257 82,502

16 ,593 2,045 84,547

17 ,542 1,869 86,417

18 ,522 1,799 88,216

19 ,505 1,743 89,959

20 ,446 1,539 91,498

21 ,404 1,393 92,891

22 ,353 1,218 94,109

23 ,331 1,142 95,251

24 ,314 1,084 96,335

25 ,258 ,891 97,226

26 ,220 ,759 97,984

27 ,219 ,756 98,740

28 ,190 ,657 99,397

xvii

29 ,175 ,603 100,000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Table 5 Total Variance Explained, Source: SPSS outcome

1.2.5 Screeplot

Figure 5 Screeplot, Source: SPSS outcome

1.2.6 Rotated Component Matrix

Rotated Component Matrixa

Component

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

FB association: Passion ,813

FB association: Craftsmanship ,769

FB association: Heritage ,754

FB association: Traditions ,745

FB association: Small Companies ,706

FB association: High Quality ,622

FB associations, positively affecting buy-ing behavior: Passion

,761

FB associations, positively affecting buy-ing behavior: Craftsmanship

,744

xviii

FB associations, positively affecting buy-ing behavior: Heritage

,721

FB associations, positively affecting buy-ing behavior: Traditions

,742

FB associations, positively affecting buy-ing behavior: Small Companies

,451 -,333

FB associations, positively affecting buy-ing behavior: High Quality

,649

I believe frozen foods qualitative good products

,813

I believe frozen food fresh products ,739

I believe frozen foods are healthy ,725

I believe frozen foods are tasty ,686

Price of frozen food is important for me ,747

Evaluating frozen foods, I base purchase decision on price/value

,700

Package apparel of frozen food is im-portant for me

,642

Evaluating frozen foods, I base purchase decision on package appeal

,606 ,360

Evaluating frozen foods, I base purchase decision on the brand

,818

The brand of frozen food is important for me

,304 ,738

I believe frozen foods contain preserva-tives, additives and residues

,384 -,472

I believe frozen foods contains more fat -,347

Evaluating frozen foods, I base purchase decision on product information

,772

Evaluating frozen foods, I base purchase decision on product quality

,755

Evaluating frozen foods, I base purchase decision on preparation time

,522

I believe frozen foods are relatively inex-pensive

,734

I believe frozen foods are convenient ,301 ,644

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

a. Rotation converged in 11 iterations.

Table 6 Rotated Component Matrix, Source: SPSS outcome

xix

1.2.7 KMO and Bartlett’s Test

KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. ,726

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity

Approx. Chi-Square 2505,953

df 406

Sig. ,000

Table 7 KMO and Bartlett’s Test, Source: SPSS outcome

1.2.8 Cronbach’s Alpha, Reliability Statistics Factor 1

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items

,842 ,843 6

Table 8 Cronbach’s Alpha, Reliability Statistics Factor 1, Source: SPSS outcome

1.2.9 Cronbach’s Alpha, Scale Statistics Factor 1

Scale Statistics

Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items

26,62 32,151 5,670 6

Table 9 Cronbach’s Alpha, Scale Statistics Factor 1, Source: SPSS outcome

1.2.10 Cronbach’s Alpha, Reliability Statistics Factor 2

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items

,785 ,787 6

Table 10 Cronbach’s Alpha, Reliability Statistics Factor 2, Source: SPSS outcome

xx

1.2.11 Cronbach’s Alpha, Scale Statistics Factor 2

Scale Statistics

Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items

21,86 35,677 5,973 6

Table 11 Cronbach’s Alpha, Scale Statistics Factor 2, Source: SPSS outcome

1.2.12 Cronbach’s Alpha, Reliability Statistics Factor 3

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items

,803 ,805 4

Table 12 Cronbach’s Alpha, Reliability Statistics Factor 3, Source: SPSS outcome

1.2.13 Cronbach’s Alpha, Scale Statistics Factor 3

Scale Statistics

Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items

11,21 16,298 4,037 4

Table 13 Cronbach’s Alpha, Scale Statistics Factor 3, Source: SPSS outcome

1.2.14 Cronbach’s Alpha, Reliability Statistics Factor 4

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items

,740 ,745 4

Table 14 Cronbach’s Alpha, Reliability Statistics Factor 4, Source: SPSS outcome

1.2.15 Cronbach’s Alpha, Scale Statistics Factor 4

Scale Statistics

Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items

16,34 17,903 4,231 4

Table 15 Cronbach’s Alpha, Scale Statistics Factor 4, Source: SPSS outcome

xxi

1.2.16 Cronbach’s Alpha, Reliability Statistics Factor 5

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items

,374 ,357 4

Table 16 Cronbach’s Alpha, Reliability Statistics Factor 5, Source: SPSS outcome

1.2.17 Cronbach’s Alpha, Scale Statistics Factor 5

Scale Statistics

Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items

16,41 12,072 3,474 4

Table 17 Cronbach’s Alpha, Scale Statistics Factor 5, Source: SPSS outcome

1.2.18 Cronbach’s Alpha, Reliability Statistics Factor 6

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items

,560 ,575 3

Table 18 Cronbach’s Alpha, Reliability Statistics Factor 6, Source: SPSS outcome

1.2.19 Cronbach’s Alpha, Scale Statistics Factor 6

Scale Statistics

Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items

13,00 9,592 3,097 3

Table 19 Cronbach’s Alpha, Scale Statistics Factor 6, Source: SPSS outcome

1.2.20 Cronbach’s Alpha, Reliability Statistics Factor 7

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items

,550 ,550 2

Table 20 Cronbach’s Alpha, Reliability Statistics Factor 7, Source: SPSS outcome

xxii

1.2.21 Cronbach’s Alpha, Scale Statistics Factor 7

Scale Statistics

Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items

8,18 5,280 2,298 2

Table 21 Cronbach’s Alpha, Scale Statistics Factor 7, Source: SPSS outcome

1.2.22 Normal Probability Plot

Figure 6 Normal Probability Plot, Source: SPSS outcome

xxiii

1.2.23 Scatterplot

Figure 7 Scatterplot, SPSS outcome

1.2.24 R And R2

a. Predictors: (Constant), attitudes towards frozen, frozen foods packaging and price

b. Dependent Variable: Consumers buying behaviour

Table 22 R and R2, Source: SPSS outcome

xxiv

1.2.25 ANOVA

a. Predictors: (Constant), attitudes towards frozen, frozen foods packaging and price

b. Dependent Variable: Consumers buying behaviour

Table 23 ANOVA, Source: SPSS outcome

1.2.26 Correlation Matrix Male Consumers

Table 24 Correlation Matrix Male Consumers, Source: SPSS outcome

xxv

1.2.27 Correlation Matrix Female Consumers

Table 25 Correlation Matrix Female Consumers, Source: SPSS outcome

1.2.28 Correlation Matrix Young Consumers born between 1986 and 1998

Table 26 Correlation Matrix Young Consumers born between 1986 and 1998, Source: SPSS out-come

xxvi

1.2.29 Correlation Matrix Adult Consumers born between 1940 and 1985

Table 27 Correlation Matrix Adult Consumers born between 1940 and 1985, Source: SPSS outcome

1.2.30 Correlation Matrix Swedish Consumers

Table 28 Correlation Matrix Swedish Consumers, Source: SPSS outcome

xxvii

1.2.31 Correlation Matrix International Consumers

Table 29 Correlation Matrix International Consumers, Source: SPSS outcome