-
7/30/2019 1593184
1/11
Functional and symbolicattributes of product selection
Lisa WoodUniversity of Kent, Canterbury, UK
Abstract
Purpose This paper seeks to identify the functional and symbolic
attributes of product and brandselection that are of importance to
18-24 consumers across food and toiletries products.
Design/methodology/approach The investigation used both
qualitative and quantitativeresearch methods. The initial
quantitative study (268 respondents) aimed to identify in order
ofimportance (using ANOVA) the variables that drive purchase
behaviour across the four productcategories of soap, coffee,
breakfast cereal and toothpaste.
Findings The study identified the key importance of sensory
(e.g. taste, scent) attributes in the
selection of the specific products studied. These sensory
attributes may define the brand positioning ofthe products.
Practical implications This paper has implications for new
product development.
Originality/value Identifies the functional and symbolic
attributes of product and brand selectionthat are of importance to
18-24 consumers across food and toiletries products.
Keywords Quality, Brands, Consumer behaviour
Paper type Research paper
IntroductionGiven the intense competition in most markets today,
companies that fail to innovate,are exposing themselves to great
risk. In grocery markets, distributor power and
competition from both home and international firms, has raised
the importance of newproduct development (Buijis, 1979). Yet
product innovation itself can be a risky activitywith failure rates
being found to be as high as 80 percent in some grocery
markets(Bolding et al., 1997). Freeman (1982) suggests that
dominant uncertainties in productdevelopment are those relating to
the market. The centrality of the customer in newproduct
development efforts is identified in many studies (Von Hippel,
1989; Johne,1994; Simonson, 1993; Voss, 1985; Wind and Mahajan,
1997; Workman, 1993). Studiesof new product development success and
failure support the view that anunderstanding of user needs is
fundamental to success (Cooper, 1979; Cooper andKleinschmidt, 1994)
Hart et al. (1999) focus on the importance of marketing
informationin product development success rates.
This article focuses on product positioning attributes both
functional and symbolic,
and their importance to a specific age group of consumers. Brand
as a positioningattribute is also considered. Wood (2000) suggested
that in mature consumer marketswhere little real innovation exists,
brands often provide the primary points ofdifferentiation between
competitive offerings, and as such they can be critical to
thesuccess of companies. Additionally, where companies wish to both
reduce their costsand increase their success rates for product
innovation, brands can provide a platformfrom which to launch new
products. Farquhar (1989, p. 24) suggests that in addition
tosuccessful extensions firms with high brand equity can have other
benefits such as:
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0007-070X.htm
BFJ109,2
108
British Food Journal
Vol. 109 No. 2, 2007
pp. 108-118
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0007-070X
DOI 10.1108/00070700710725482
-
7/30/2019 1593184
2/11
. . . resilience against competitors promotional pressures, and
creation of barriers tocompetitive entry.
Therefore an understanding of how brand equity is created is
important to success.Brand positioning can be based on a number of
attributes along the symbolic functional continuum. Although some
brands may be differentiated primarily bysymbolic attributes to
create for example a prestige position, others may
emphasisefunctional differences that focus on practical needs.
Customer selection of products,and loyalty to brands, depends on
how they value their positioning attributes. Thisarticle presents
further findings to those outlined in Wood (2004), where brand
loyaltyamongst the 18-24 age group across six product categories
was identified, and thedimensions that underpin brand selection
investigated. The aim of this work was toidentify the degree of
brand loyalty exhibited by 18-24 year olds, and whether or notthere
was a difference in loyalty by product type. The age group was
chosen as it hadbeen identified as low loyal (Day, 1969; East et
al., 1995; Wright and Sparks, 1999;Mcgoldrick and Andre, 1997) when
compared with other age groups. Wood (2004)
considered that to assume low loyalty among this age group,
would be to miss thecomplexities in their purchasing behaviour, and
that loyalty would in part bedetermined by product type. The
importance of product type has been explored by anumber of studies
(Rundle-Thiele and Bennett, 2001; Cunningham, 1956; Palumbo
andHerbig, 2000; Carmen, 1970). Products selected for this study
were toilet soap,toothpaste, coffee, breakfast cereal, trainers and
jeans. The products were selected tobroadly reflect those chosen by
other studies looking at product-specific loyalty, and ontheir
usage by the age group under study. The results showed that the
degree ofloyalty depends on product type and therefore any findings
of loyalty studies for thisage group should not extrapolate
findings beyond the products under study. Thisarticle focuses on
the attributes that influence product and brand selection within
thefood and toiletry products, with particular focus on the
importance of quality
attributes as selection criteria. The importance of quality as a
product selectionvariable was highlighted by Wood (2004).
Additionally an investigation into theaspects of quality that
underpin product selection is based on the synonymy betweenquality
and brand positioning since both can be identified along
thefunctional/symbolic continuum.
Quality positioning cannot be overlooked in investigating the
variables thatdetermine product and brand selection. It is, however
a complex construct that hasmany underlying attributes. Greenlees
(1984) defines quality as . . . conformance tostandards . . .
Conformance quality, otherwise termed fitness for use is also
considerby Blanchfield (1981) who defines quality as:
. . . a peculiar and essential character of the product. It has
distinctive properties or
characteristics, it is a degree of excellence, it is fitness for
use.
Fitness for use may be one extreme of the quality continuum,
i.e. the most basic level acustomer can expect. Excellence may be
the other extreme of the continuum, i.e. ahigher level of
expectation. Although a product may have fitness for use
withoutexcellence, it is unlikely to have excellence without
fitness for use. It might be expectedthat the higher the level of
excellence the higher the level of added value. The locationof
products on the quality continuum is important, as this in part
defines the brandidentity, and also the level of added value
available to the customer. The more distinct
Product selection
109
-
7/30/2019 1593184
3/11
a product is in terms of its quality, the more differentiated it
will be in brandpositioning. This is highlighted by Bauman and
Taubert (1984) when they definequality as:
Quality is that extra component that distinguishes a product in
its field.Increasingly, in mature markets the focus is shifting
from the core product to lesstangible factors such image, and
surround services to differentiate products so theseare important
to consider. Ultimately though, quality may be an overarching term
forproduct acceptability, a point acknowledged by Kragt (1981) who
defines quality as:
. . . a multicomponent measure of the extent to which the units
of a product, which a seller iswilling and able to offer at a
price, consistently meet the requirements and expectations of
thegroup of buyers willing and able to buy that product at that
price.
Here quality is defined by, and contingent upon the needs and
wants of customers.That is, quality is established as a relative
measure of acceptability. The followingoutlines the methodology and
findings of the study, showing which product and brand
characteristics along the functional/symbolic continuum
determine acceptability incoffee, breakfast cereals, toothpaste and
soap purchase. The inclusion of non-foodsprovides a useful
comparison to food selection, but also highlights some
interestingand perhaps unexpected similarities between the product
categories. In terms of thefood and toiletries industries there is
much synergy between the two, with many firmsbeing involved in both
sectors. There is also some relationship in ingredient usage
forfood and toiletries products, with colours and flavours (in the
case of toothpaste forexample) often common to both. Additionally,
whilst food choice may be highlyemotive due to the ingested nature
of the product, some toiletry purchases, e.g.perfumes, may be
equally so as they may be chosen as reflection of self.
Methodology and findingsThe investigation used both qualitative
and quantitative research methods. The initialquantitative study
(268 respondents) aimed to identify in order of importance
(usingANOVA) the variables that drive purchase behaviour across the
four productcategories of soap, coffee, breakfast cereal and
toothpaste. It had already beendetermined (Wood, 2004) that brand
loyalty was specific to product type.
A total of 11 statements regarding brand selection were rated by
respondentsaccording to an interval scale anchored at each end with
very strongly agree (valuedat 9), and very strongly disagree
(valued at 1),
Summarized, (with abbreviations for further discussion) the
statements were:
. I make my purchase according to my favourite brand, regardless
of price
(loyalty).. I have more than one preferred brand (multi).
. I like to change brands for the sake of novelty and variety
(novelty).
. My choice of brand is largely based on price (price).
. I buy the brand my parents buy (parents).
. My choice of brand says something about me as a person
(image).
. My choice of brand is influenced by promotions
(promotion).
BFJ109,2
110
-
7/30/2019 1593184
4/11
. I stick with my usual brand as this saves me time (time).
. Quality is my primary concern when buying a brand
(quality).
. My choice of brand is based on what my friends buy
(friends).
.
I choose my brand because it has a good reputation
(reputation).
The statements used for the quantitative study were identified
from exploratory workconducted using a series of focus groups made
up of 12 participants aged 18-24 years.Additionally, these
statements reflect the brand loyalty and risk literature
(specifically,Howard and Sheth, 1969; Miller, 1975; Moschis, 1985;
Moore-Shay and Lutz, 1989;Roselius, 1971). Aspects of the quality
construct (including both functional, e.g.flavour in the case of
coffee, and symbolic attributes, e.g. brand image) that
influencepurchase were investigated, and are detailed later.
ANOVA was conducted in order to assess whether or not there was
any statisticallysignificant difference (p , 0.05) between the
levels of agreement with thesestatements, which represent variables
that influence purchase. The F ratios
indicated that there was a significant statistical difference in
the responses to thestatements. The means generated by ANOVA
indicated the order of strongestagreement by statement for each
product category. Table I and appendix 1 summarisethe rank order of
agreement with these statements across all four products,
indicatingwhere there is a significant difference in agreement
between statements. Where thereare crosses () in a column that link
means, there is no significant statistical differencebetween them,
(p , 0.05) as identified in pairwise comparisons.
There is a distinct break between the agrees (above 5.00) and
the disagrees(below 5.00). This indicates a statistically
significant difference between the statementswith which respondents
agreed and those with which they disagreed. It can be seenthat
respondents most strongly disagreed with brand choice being a
reflection selfimage, and friends as an influence on purchase. The
strength of this disagreement
may be regarded as a lack of importance of these criteria as
basis for soap brandselection. The highest levels of agreement with
a statement was promotion as aninfluence on soap brand selection
and this was significantly stronger than any otherstatement except
quality. Importantly, it should be noted that all statements
withmeans on the agree half of the scale could be regarded as
having some influence on
Rank Variable Mean
1 Promotion 6.77 2 Quality 6.20 3 Multi 6.05 4 Reputation
5.63
5 Price 5.43 6 Loyalty 5.23 7 Time 4.66 8 Novelty 4.44 9 Parents
4.28
10 Image 3.26 11 Friends 2.25
Note: n 257Table I.
SOAP
Product selection
111
-
7/30/2019 1593184
5/11
soap purchase. It is clear from the ANOVA that no single
variable drives soap brand
selection. This is the case for all product categories.Appendix
1 shows the ANOVA results for coffee, breakfast cereal, and
toothpaste.
With the exception of soap, all products had quality as the
statement with which
respondents most strongly agreed in the ANOVA. In the case of
coffee, there was asignificant statistical difference in agreement
with quality when compared to other
influences. This does not suggest that this is the single most
important driver of brand
purchase as it is possible that other variables collectively, or
quality together with
other variables, provide the best explanation of purchase
behaviour. However, it does
establish that quality is a highly important variable in the
brand selection of theseproducts. This is why the attributes of the
quality construct were also investigated in
this study. A product acceptability approach to defining quality
was used in this
study. For each product the functional attributes as well as
symbolic attributes wereexplored. Respondents were asked to rate
variables in terms of their importance to
purchase of the product category. For example, soap included the
importance of scent,
colour, performance qualities (moisturising, hypoallergenic
etc), packagingperformance (such as no mess dispensers against bars
and size), symbolic factors
(such as the influence of brand), ethical issues such as not
tested on animals, and
environmental factors such as biodegradable packaging. The
interval scale outlined
earlier was used. The scale was anchored at each end with of the
utmost importance(valued at 9) and of no importance at all (valued
at 1).
ANOVA was conducted on the mean scores to identify the most
important
attribute(s) of the product. Tables II to V shows the results
for each product.
Rank Variable Mean
1 Scent 7.30 2 Performance 5.98 3 No mess 5.79 4 Packaging 5.43
5 Ethical 5.27 6 Environment 5.25 7 Brand image 5.13 8 Colour
4.50
Note: n 261Table II.SOAP
Rank Variable Mean
1 Flavour 7.50 2 Aroma 7.07 3 Brand 5.22 4 Environment 4.32 5
Ethical 4.29 6 Health 3.93
Note: n 224Table III.Coffee
BFJ109,2
112
-
7/30/2019 1593184
6/11
It can be seen that scent is the attribute that was
statistically more important thanany other. All attributes around
the 5.00 break point can be said to have someimportance in
selection but scent is at the upper end of the scale.
Table III shows the ANOVA for coffee with flavour being
statistically the most
important attribute in selection, with aroma being a close
second. Health, whichreferred to issues such as decaffeination and
organic production, can be considered asunimportant to the
majority. Environment and ethical, which referred toenvironmentally
friendly packaging and issues such as fair trade and
organicproduction, are just below the 5.00 break point. This
indicates that they do not have astrong influence on coffee
purchase.
Table IV shows flavour to be the most important influence on
breakfast cereal,followed by texture. Health which referred to
attributes such as nutritional value, isalso important in this
product category. The least important attributes wereenvironment
and ethical which considered such attributes as
biodegradablepackaging.
Like coffee, toothpaste (Table V) has flavour as the most
important influence on
product selection with, health (e.g. fluoride content) and scent
(i.e. freshness) beingsecond in importance. These, together with
brand image, dispenser packaging,appearance and ethical
considerations (animal testing) were all important to purchase.
Discussion and conclusionsThe following discussion is based the
statistical analyses and follow-up interviewswith respondents to
help interpret findings.
Rank Variable Mean
1 Flavour 7.80 2 Health 7.25
3 Scent 6.87 4 Brand image 5.72 5 No mess 5.72 6 Appearance 5.60
7 Ethical 5.39 8 Packaging 4.97 9 Environment 4.89
Note: n 261Table V.
Toothpaste
Rank Variable Mean
1 Flavour 8.17
2 Texture 7.46 3 Health 6.17 4 Brand 4.98 5 Environment 4.65 6
Ethical 4.21
Note: n 251Table IV.
Breakfast cereal
Product selection
113
-
7/30/2019 1593184
7/11
Interestingly, there were very clear statistical breaks for the
attribute that was mostimportant to each product, i.e. that the top
attribute was statistically more importantthan any other. This is
shown in Table VI.
It should also be noted that the mean scores for the top quality
attribute were near
the upper end of the scale (i.e. well above the mid point) and
should therefore beconsidered as very important to purchase.
Significantly, the most important attributesfor each product are
sensory aspects and in terms of brand positioning these can
beconsidered as functional characteristics. Whilst brand image is
important it is by nomeans the most important influence on
purchase.
If we consider Tables I and II together it can be seen that soap
purchase is based onseveral influences, but that respondents do not
buy the brand their parents buy.Choosing a scent in soap is not
dissimilar to perfume selection and can produce strongpersonal
preference. It is not surprising, therefore that respondents do not
wish to smelllike their parents. Additionally, needs in terms of
moisturising (or protection fromallergic reaction), for example,
can be highly individual.
Another characteristic of this product category was the notion
of multi-brandpurchase behaviour. This means that within the
product category there are a numberof acceptable brands and
respondents select the brand that provides the best deal tothem.
This market is highly susceptible to promotional activity that is
evident fromTable I.
Unlike soap, parental influence is evident in coffee purchase,
with flavour being themost importance quality attribute. Flavour
preference may well be developed in thehome. In sensory evaluation
terms flavour and aroma are closely linked. It is perhapsnot
unexpected, therefore, that these are the two most important
influences onpurchase. Brand reputation and image are more
important to this market than to soapand respondents show a higher
degree of loyalty to their coffee brand. The follow-upinterviews
indicated that respondents remain loyal to the brand that they
trust, and
that satisfies their functional needs in terms of flavour. There
is some multi-brandpurchasing evident in this market but it is not
as marked as in soap.
With breakfast cereal, flavour, texture and core product
considerations such asnutritional value were the most important.
Again, this was within the context ofmulti-brand purchase behaviour
amongst a number of acceptable brands. This producthad a profile
that was not dissimilar to soap in that although sensory aspects
ofquality determine purchase, it is a promotion-sensitive market
and muchbrand-switching and variety-seeking behaviour is
evident.
Toothpaste showed flavour as the most important selection
criterion followed byhealth and scent (freshness) considerations.
In the follow-up interviews, it was evidentthat although health
considerations were important, they were considered as a basic
Product Attribute Mean score
Soap Scent 7.30Coffee Flavour 7.50Breakfast cereal Flavour
8.17Toothpaste Flavour 7.80
Table VI.Most important attributefor each product
BFJ109,2
114
-
7/30/2019 1593184
8/11
requirement. That is, respondents expect their toothpaste to
contain fluoride andprotect their teeth as a basic requirement
beyond which sensory aspects are moreimportant. This product had
some similarities to coffee in that flavour wasfundamental to
purchase. Additionally, like coffee, there was a high degree of
loyalty in
this market and a degree of parental influence (i.e. buying the
product with which therespondent was familiar in the parental
home).
From a product management perspective (for the products
investigated here), theimportance of functional characteristics
should not be overlooked in favour of symbolicconsiderations, even
in mature markets where branding has become a means
ofdifferentiation. The highly competitive nature of these markets
allows the consumer topick and choose from a portfolio of
acceptable brands. Innovation and differentiationbased on sensory
attributes is also important to success. Additionally, the
multi-brandpurchase behaviour exhibited by this age group means
that sales promotion will behighly effective even when brand
reputation and brand image are important withinproduct
categories.
References
Bauman, H. and Taubert, C. (1984), Why quality assurance is
necessary and important to plantmanagement, Food Technology, Vol.
38 No. 4, p. 101.
Blanchfield, R. (1981), The philosophy of food control,Food
Technology, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp.49-51.
Bolding, W., Morgan, R. and Staelin, R. (1997), Pulling the plug
to stop the new product drain,Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.
24, February, pp. 164-76.
Buijis, J. (1979), Strategic planning and product innovation:
some systematic approaches, LongRange Planning, Vol. 12, pp.
23-34.
Carmen, J. (1970), Correlates of brand loyalty, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 7, pp. 67-76.
Carmichael, M. (2000), Degrees of spending, The Grocer, August
19, pp. 42-4.Cooper, R. (1979), The dimensions of industrial new
product success and failure, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 43, pp. 93-103.
Cooper, R. and Kleinschmidt, E. (1994), Determinants of
timeliness in product development,Journal of Product Innovation
Management, Vol. 11, pp. 381-96.
Cunningham, R. (1956), Brand loyalty: what, where, how much?,
Harvard Business Review,Vol. 34, January/February, pp. 116-28.
Day, G. (1969), A two-dimensional concept of brand loyalty,
Journal of Advertising Research,Vol. 9, pp. 29-35.
DfES (2004), available at: www.dfes.gov.uk/trends/index
(accessed June 2006).
East, R., Harris, P., Willson, G. and Hammond, K. (1995),
Correlates of first-brand loyalty,
Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 11, pp. 487-97.Farquhar,
P. (1989), Managing brand equity, Marketing Research, Vol. 1, pp.
24-33.
Freeman, C. (1982), The Economics of Industrial Innovation, 2nd
ed., Francis Pinter, London.
Greenlees, J. (1984), Quality is the biggest profit maker we
have, Hospitality, July-August,pp. 16-17.
Hart, S., Tzokas, N. and Saren, M. (1999), The effectiveness of
market information in enhancingnew product success rates, European
Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 2 No. 1,pp. 20-35.
Product selection
115
-
7/30/2019 1593184
9/11
HESA (2004), Table 0a all students by institution, mode of
study, level of study, gender anddomicile, available at:
www.hesa.ac.uk (accessed June 2006).
Howard, J. and Sheth, J. (1969), The Theory of Buying Behavior,
John Wiley & Sons, New York,NY.
Johne, A. (1994), Listening to the voice of the market,
International Marketing Review, Vol. 11No. 3, pp. 47-59.
Kragt, M. (1981), Quality control of raw materials and vendor
relations, Food Technology,Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 54-5.
Mcgoldrick, P. and Andre, E. (1997), Consumer misbehaviour,
Journal of Retailing andConsumer Services, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp.
73-81.
Miller, B. (1975), Intergenerational patterns of consumer
behavior, Proceedings, Associationsfor Consumer Research, pp.
93-101.
Moore-Shay, E. and Lutz, R. (1989), Intergenerational influences
in the formation of consumerattitudes and beliefs about the
marketplace: mothers and daughters, Advances inConsumer Research,
Vol. 15, pp. 461-7.
Moschis, G. (1985), The role of family communication in consumer
socialization of children andadolescents, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 898-913.
Palumbo, F. and Herbig, P. (2000), The multicultural context of
brand loyalty, EuropeanJournal of Innovation Management, Vol. 3 No.
3, pp. 116-24.
Roselius, T. (1971), Consumer rankings of risk deduction
methods, Journal of Marketing,Vol. 35, January, pp. 56-61.
Rundle-Thiele, S. and Bennett, R. (2001), A brand for all
seasons? A discussion of brand loyaltyapproaches and their
applicability for different markets, Journal of Product &
Brand
Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, p. 25.
Simonson, I. (1993), Get closer to your customers by
understanding how they make choices,California Management Review,
Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 68-84.
Von Hippel, E. (1989), New product ideas from lead users,
Research and Technology
Management, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 24-7.
Voss, C. (1985), Determinants of success in the development of
application software, Journal ofProduct Innovation Management, Vol.
2, pp. 122-9.
Wind, J. and Mahajan, V. (1997), Issues and opportunities in new
product development, Journalof Marketing Research, Vol. 34, pp.
1-12.
Wood, L. (2000), Brands and brand equity: definition and
management, Management Decision,Vol. 38 Nos 9/10, pp. 662-9.
Wood, L. (2004), Dimensions of brand purchasing behaviour:
consumers in the 18-24 agegroup, Journal of Consumer Behaviour,
Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 1-16.
Workman, J. (1993), Marketings limited role in NPD in one
computer systems firm, Journal ofMarketing Research, Vol. 30, pp.
405-21.
Wright, C. and Sparks, L. (1999), Loyalty saturation in
retailing: exploring the end of retailloyalty cards?, International
Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 27 No. 10,pp.
429-39.
BFJ109,2
116
-
7/30/2019 1593184
10/11
Appendix 1
Rank Variable Mean
1 Quality 6.45 2 Reputation 6.06 3 Loyalty 5.90 4 Multi 5.40 5
Promotion 5.10 6 Parents 5.07 7 Time 4.72 8 Price 4.46 9 Novelty
3.66
10 Image 3.66 11 Friends 2.70
Note: n 210Table AI.
Coffee
Rank Variable Mean
1 Quality 6.51 2 Multi 6.31 3 Loyalty 6.12 4 Promotion 5.94 5
Novelty 5.82 6 Reputation 5.34 7 Price 4.99 8 Time 4.63
9 Parents 4.36 10 Image 3.42 11 Friends 2.36
Note: n 244Table AII.
Breakfast cereal
Rank Variable Mean
1 Quality 6.81 2 Reputation 6.52 3 Loyalty 6.12 4 Promotion
6.05
5 Multi 5.72 6 Parents 5.44 7 Time 5.30 8 Price 5.26 9 Novelty
4.08
10 Image 3.13 11 Friends 2.37
Note: n 268Table AIII.
Toothpaste
Product selection
117
-
7/30/2019 1593184
11/11
Appendix 2. Sample selectionThe sample was selected from
students in higher education. Figures from the UK HigherEducation
Authority (HESA, 2004) state that there are around 2.3 million
students in the UK. Thetotal spend of this group is significant
enough (Carmichael, 2000) to make it a consumer group
worth investigating. Whilst this group may not be entirely
representative of all 18-24 year oldconsumers, they share many
common characteristics. The participation rate in HE is indicatedby
DfES (2004) at around 48 per cent for the higher social groups
(non-manual), with all groupsshowing an increase in participation.
So, increasingly students in higher education are becominga
reasonable surrogate for the population of 18-24 year olds. The
sample was selected from tencourses, including science, social
science and applied business and management students.Chi-square was
conducted to see if there were statistical differences by course,
gender, year ofstudy, etc. As no significant statistical
differences were found, subsequent statistical tests wereconducted
using all respondents, except where there were missing cases. A
total of 268undergraduate degree students within the 18-24 age band
completed the study (where removingmissing cases in the analyses
reduces the n figure this is noted in tables).
Corresponding author
Lisa Wood can be contacted at: [email protected]
BFJ109,2
118
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail:
[email protected] visit our web site for further
details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
