Quality, value, satisfaction, trust, a

3.3. Pretests and Data Collection
We pretested each version of the questionnaire with a small group of students, following which we
made some minor modifications to the wording of the questions. During the pretests, we also verified
participants’ level of familiarity with the chosen brands. The data collection took place at a major North
American university where we randomly distributed a total of eight hundred questionnaires (i.e., fifty
copies for each of the sixteen versions).
4. Analysis and Results
4.1. Sample
We collected a total of 783 usable questionnaires (i.e., a 97.9% response rate), which were by-
and-large evenly distributed among the sixteen versions, the online/offline offerings, and the
brand/generic contexts (Table 2). Reflecting the student body, over half (59.1%) of the respondents were
concentrated in the 21 to 25 age group and about a quarter were in the under 20 category. With only a
small percentage of graduate students, the vast majority of respondents were undergraduates (93.7%).
Approached during daytime classes, 84.3% of respondents were full-time students while the rest were
part-time students. Males and females were evenly represented in our sample.
4.2. Factor Analysis
Before testing the hypotheses, we ran an exploratory factor analysis using principal component
extraction and oblimin rotation, to verify the existence of the dimensions proposed in the literature review
and to examine the reliability of the measures used. After deleting two items which cross-loaded on other
factors, we reran the factor analysis and found the eleven distinct constructs originally posited (Table 3).
Among them, time risk explained most of the variance (25.5%), followed by knowledge (16.4%), and
involvement (9.1%). With Cronbach’s alphas exceeding 0.82, our measures are highly reliable.
4.3. Test of Hypotheses
4.3.1. T-tests: H1 to H3
To conduct the following analyses across the brand and generic categories, the data file was rearranged
such that each single good and service studied became a unit. This enlarged the sample size to 2,349 (783
respondents*3 goods/services) responses for the twelve products and services studied. To test hypotheses 1 to 3, we
then conducted t-tests and found H1a, H2a, and H3a to be supported (for a summary of all results, see Table 4).
Whereas the branded goods exhibit higher levels of generality, and physical and mental intangibility, than the
generic counterparts, the reverse holds true for services. We then compared the branded and generic versions of
each good/service to determine differences in physical and mental intangibility, and generality. All the branded
91