Species Selection in Secondary Wood Products: Perspectives From Different Consumers
Keywords:
Wood, perception, species, college, student, consumer, proxyAbstract
This study investigated adult consumer perceptions of several wood species to determine if word-based and appearance-based evaluations differed. The research replicated a 2001 study by the authors, which used undergraduate college students as a proxy for older and more experienced adult furniture consumers. The literature is somewhat inconclusive concerning the extent to which student samples represent "real" consumers. Using the mall intercept survey procedure at several furniture stores and trade shows in two Midwestern cites, participants were split into two groups and asked to rate six commercially important wood species on several semantic-differential items, based either on word association (word-based perception) or physical wood specimens (appearance-based perception). Results from the replicated adult consumer study were very similar to the student study suggesting that college students provide a reasonable picture of adult consumers' perceptions of wood species. The study confirmed that the word-based and appearance-based methods of evaluation sometimes produce different results. In general, the appearance-based respondents had difficulty identifying the species they were observing; however, the adult consumers were better at species identification than were the college students. This study provides further evidence that preconceived species perceptions play an important role in influencing the consumer's ultimate evaluation of wood. The research results can help secondary wood manufacturers better understand the implications of species on design and communication decisions.References
Aaker D. A., V. Kumar, and G. S. Day. 1998. Marketing Research. 6th Ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, NY. Pp. 276, 287, 450.nAppalachian Hardwood Manufacturers, Inc. 2002. Furniture manufacturers offer fresh look at Spring '02 Market. http://www.appalachianwood.org'>http://www.appalachianwood.orgnBlomgren, G. W., Jr. 1965. The psychological image of wood. Forest Prod. J.15(4):149-151.nBrehmer, B. 1980. In one word: not from experience. Acta Psychologica45:223-241.nBuehlmann, U., and A. Schuler. 2002. Benchmarking the wood household furniture industry: A basis for identifying competitive business strategies for today's global economy. Pages 122-128 in Proceedings of the NHLA 30th Annual Hardwood Symposium May 30—June 1. Fall Creek Falls, TN.nBuehlmann, U., M. Bumgardner, A. Schuler, and R. Christianson. 2003. How can the U.S. wood products industry compete? Wood and Wood Products108(1):37-46.nBumgardner, M. S., and S. A. Bowe. 2002. Species selection in secondary wood products: Implications for product design and promotion. Wood Fiber Sci.34(3):408-418.nCombs, C. H., R. M. Dawes, and A. Tversky. 1970. Mathematical psychology: An elementary introduction. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. P. 18.nFrye, L. R. 1996. The most popular furniture woods: The historical perspective. Wood and Wood Products100(14):304-307.nHardwood Review Weekly. 2002. From preconceived perceptions to purchasing realities: species names carry powerful marketing images. Hardwood Review Weekly18(45):1, 21, 23.nHardwood Review Weekly. 2003. The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming … and everyone else with a floor to sell. Hardwood Review Weekly19(32):1, 21, 23.nHolland, J. H, K. J. Holyoak, R. E. Nisbett, and P. R. Thagard. 1986. Induction: Processes of inference, learning, and discovery. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. 385 pp.nJames, W. L., and B. S. Sonner. 2001. Just say no to traditional student samples. J. Advert. Res.41(5):63-71.nJohn, D. R. 2001. Recruiting experimental participants. In Human participants—respondents and researchers. J. Consumer Psychology10(1&2):115-121.nKardes, F. R. 1996. In defense of experimental consumer psychology. J. Consumer Psychology5(3):279-296.nKhera, I. P., and J. D. Benson. 1970. Are students really poor substitutes for businessmen in behavioral research? J. Marketing Res.7(4):529-532.nLawser, S. 2002. Home court advantages for North American component suppliers. National Hardwood Magazine76(4):20, 72-73.nMalaysian Timber Bulletin. 2003. Dialogue on raw material supply availability. Malaysian Timber Bull.9(1):12-13.nNicholls, D. L., G. Donovan, and J. A. Roos. 2003. Consumer preferences for cabinet doors: Red alder vs. other hardwoods. Presentation at the 57th Annual Meeting of the Forest Products Society, June 24, Seattle, WA.nNisbett, R. E., D. H. Krantz, C. Jepson, and Z. Kunda. 1983. The use of statistical heuristics in everyday inductive reasoning. Psychological Review90(4):339-363.nSheth, J. N. 1970. Are there differences in dissonance reduction behavior between students and housewives? J. Marketing Res.7(2):243-245.nSwearingen, K. A., E. N. Hansen, and J. E. Reeb. 1998. Customer preferences for Pacific Northwest hardwoods. Forest Prod. J.48(2):29-33.n
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
The copyright of an article published in Wood and Fiber Science is transferred to the Society of Wood Science and Technology (for U. S. Government employees: to the extent transferable), effective if and when the article is accepted for publication. This transfer grants the Society of Wood Science and Technology permission to republish all or any part of the article in any form, e.g., reprints for sale, microfiche, proceedings, etc. However, the authors reserve the following as set forth in the Copyright Law:
1. All proprietary rights other than copyright, such as patent rights.
2. The right to grant or refuse permission to third parties to republish all or part of the article or translations thereof. In the case of whole articles, such third parties must obtain Society of Wood Science and Technology written permission as well. However, the Society may grant rights with respect to Journal issues as a whole.
3. The right to use all or part of this article in future works of their own, such as lectures, press releases, reviews, text books, or reprint books.
