4.1. Information search behaviour by education

Respondents who held a college degree or higher, in general, placed greater importance on all four sources of inter- nal search than did the other two groups (those with a professional degree and a high school degree or lower). Respondents with a college degree or higher also placed greater importance on all five human information sources than did the other two groups. Among the five human information sources, family or acquaintance and friend or colleague were the most important human information sources for all three groups, whereas salesperson or ser- vice provider was the least important human information source for all three groups. Furthermore, among the nine non-human information sources, window/store display was the most important non-human information source for all three groups.

When Chinese female consumers’ information search behaviour was examined comparing the use of inter- nal search, human information sources, and non-human information sources among three groups with differ- ent educational backgrounds, all three MANOVA tests revealed significance (Table 1). A Pillai’s Trace MANOVA test comparing the internal information search behaviour among three groups with different educational backgrounds revealed significance: F (8, 608) = 7.80, p < .001. The uni- variate F tests and multiple comparisons with Tukey’s HSD, as a post hoc test, indicated that the importance of using brand image, store image, and fashion information was significantly greater for those with a college degree or higher than for the other two groups. The importance of

Downloaded by [101.87.164.135] at 05:14 07 April 2015

International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education

99

Table 1. Information search behaviours by educational background.

Internal search

MANOVA-Pillai’s Trace test Univariate F tests:
Already known brand image Already known price of clothing Already known store image Already known fashion information

External search

Human information source MANOVA-Pillai’s Trace test Univariate F tests: Friend/colleague
Family/close acquaintance Salesperson/service provider Street/surrounding person’s clothes Entertainers’ clothes

Non-human information source MANOVA-Pillai’s Trace test Univariate F tests:
Internet advertisement

TV advertisement
Radio advertisement
Fashion magazine advertisement
Newspaper advertisement
Fashion show
Outdoor advertisement, bus advertisement, sign Window/store display
Fashion company’s catalogue

(N = 130)
3.95a 17.06∗∗∗

High school degree or lower

(N = 111) 3.28b

3.19a 2.96b 3.47b

(N = 113) 3.24b

3.34 2.86b 3.19 2.95
(N = 114)

2.68b 2.86b 2.65ab 2.98b 2.83a 3.02 2.85 3.33b 2.40b

Professional college degree

(N = 68) 3.43b

3.66b 3.19b 3.52b

College degree or higher

F

(N = 67) (N = 128) 3.24b 3.60a

3.36 3.58 2.85b 3.20a 3.13 3.38 3.00 3.22

(N = 65) (N = 126) 2.86ab 3.07a

3.23a 3.01ab 2.86a 2.41b 3.22a 3.41a 2.75ab 2.52b 3.15 2.88 2.92 2.77 3.45b 3.87a 2.66a 2.77a

2.02∗ 5.61∗∗

2.12 5.41∗∗ 1.88 1.98

4.37∗∗∗ 5.13∗∗

3.72∗ 6.14∗∗ 6.26∗∗ 3.40∗ 1.41 0.62 8.47∗∗∗ 4.51∗

7.80∗∗∗ 3.83b 15.21∗∗∗

3.75a 19.71∗∗∗ 3.97a 8.44∗∗∗

Notes: Response scale: 1 = not important at all to 5 = very important. Cell means that do not share a letter in their superscripts differ at p < .05 according to Tukey’s test.
∗Significant at p < .05.
∗∗Significant at p < .01.

∗∗∗Significant at p < .001.

price was significantly different between those with a high school degree or lower and the other two groups (those with a professional degree and a college degree or higher).

A MANOVA test comparing the use of human infor- mation sources among the three groups also showed sig- nificance: F (10, 604) = 2.02, p < .05. According to the univariate F tests and Tukey’s HSD for multiple compar- isons, among five human information sources, the impor- tance of using friend/colleague and salesperson/service provider was significantly greater for those who had a college degree or higher than for the other two groups. Also according to a MANOVA test, the use of non-human information sources among the three groups revealed signif- icance: F (18, 590) = 4.37, p < .001. The univariate F tests and Tukey’s HSD revealed that, in using non-human infor- mation sources, the importance of Internet advertisements was significantly different between the respondents with a college degree or higher and those with a high school degree or lower. Those with the most education placed signifi- cantly greater importance on Internet advertisements than did less highly educated respondents. The importance of TV advertisements was significantly different between those