The Phase 1 Questionnaire Results

The general outcome of this study in relation to McClelland’s (1961; 1987) and Snyder and Fromkin’s motives (1980) was similar to Zinkhan et al.’s study (1999). 74% of Zinkhan et al.’s statements were connected to these motives. This study’s outcome was higher with 85%. The remaining 15% of statements of this study were connected to the experiential and utilitarian need.

Comparison to Zinkhan et al.’s study (1999)

	Uniqueness (%)	Affiliation (%)	Power (%)	Achieve-ment (%)	Utilitarian (%)	Experi-ential (%)	Post-modernism (%)
Current study	38	3	21	23	10	5	/
Zinkhan et.al. (1999)	17	24	23	10	13.5	/	12.5

The more detailed comparison of the findings from this study with Zinkhan et al.’s results (1999) showed that the outcome of the individual motives was quite different. This needed to be investigated further in the interviews. Particularly the results for the need for uniqueness, the affiliation motive and the achievement motive were quite countrary. Another difference was that the experiential need was found to be of interest in this study and the category of Postmodernism was not adopted from Zinkhan et al.'s study.  
In the discussion of the questionnaire findings it became obvious that Zinkhan et al. had categorised certain responses of participants differently. Some responses that were classified under the achievement motive according to Schreier (2006) in my study were categorised under the affiliation motive by Zinkhan et al., which could be one reason why their outcome of the affiliation motive was so high and the achievement motive was much lower. However, this study had a high need for uniqueness outcome, which justified a low affiliation result as the need for uniqueness implies a need to seek differentiation from others and affiliation is the need to be with others. Furthermore, the need for power was relatively high in this study as well as in Zinkhan et al.’s study. However, this also serves as an explanation as to why the affiliation motive ranked so low in this study, since people try to stand out through risk-taking in the power motive and people try to avoid risk in the affiliation motive. There were also further responses that were categorised under the achievement motive in this study according to Schreier (2006) and under the need for uniqueness by Zinkhan et al. (1999), this could also explain the relatively high outcome of the achievement motive in this study.


Below is an illustration of the importance of the motives depending on the demographic cluster. The percentage is based on the number of statements in each group (n = number of statements).[1]

	Uniqueness Motive (%)	Power Motive (%)	Achievement Motive (%)	Affiliation Motive (%)	Utilitarian Need (%)	Experiential Need (%)
IF (n=18)	39	22	11	6	11	11
NIF (n=23)	39	17	35	/	9	/
IM (n=15)	13	47	27	/	13	/
NIM (n=21)	52	5	19	5	9.5	9.5

The categorisation of the motives into the demographic groups (Irish females, non-Irish females, Irish males and non-Irish males) showed that the uniqueness motive was most significant in the IF,NIF and NIM groups, whereas only the male group had a majority outcome for the power motive. Overall there were some visible differences between the groups.

To follow up on these findings interviews were deemed important in order to gather more in-depth information. Furthermore, the interviews were also necessary to explore the participants' understanding of Mass Customisation. More details will follow shortly.

---

[1] In order to compare the findings of this study with Zinkhan et al.’s findings (1999) it was decided to calculate the total for each motive based on the number of statements (n=77). It was not based on the number of participants as it was possible for them to give more than one answer, which was then classified under more than one motive. Similarly, for the comparison of the motives between the demographic groups it was also decided to base the percentage on the number of statements, which varied between groups.

Consumer Motivations in relation to Mass Customisation - part 2

In addition to my last blog entry it should be said that Zinkhan et al.'s use of motives was based on the work of McClelland (1961; 1987) and Snyder and Fromkin (1980). However, the utilitarian need was added by Zinkhan et al. as it was deemed relevant by them.

During my research I discovered that there was a gap in the Mass Customisation literature as there was a lack of exploratory studies on customers’ motivations and attitudes towards mass customised products. This was what motivated me to research this topic further. Zinkhan et al.’s study was a very good foundation for my study as they used a projective technique in order to research hidden motives of people to create a website. In the first part of my research I attempted a similar study as Zinkhan et al. in order to find out what hidden motives existed in a Mass Customisation setting. I used a cartoon test to picture a person wearing a mass customised T-shirt and asked people to fill in the blank space of a speech bubble. The person wearing the customised T-shirt is thinking that she is very happy with this T-shirt. A second person says that she is wondering why the person in the customised T-shirt is so happy about wearing it. The third person's sentence starts with 'I guess it is because...'. At this stage people are asked to fill in their own thoughts on this. This was to give me an insight into the motives that played a role here. 

Other questions were also present on the questionnaire, i.e. such to determine the demographic information and questions on the internet usage of participants. More details on the results of the first part of this study will follow.