Ohio Lottery

Post one thread of at least 800 – 1000 words

Then post two (2) replies of at least 450–600 words

For each thread, there are multiple questions based off the case study; each question response must be supported with at least 1 peer-reviewed source.Each thread must also include 1 biblical application/integration.

Each response must be supported with at least 2 peer-reviewed sources and include 1 biblical application/integration.

Note that the biblical application/integration cannot be more than 10% of the thread or replies.

From the Ohio Lottery case, answer the following questions:

1. Detail the overall research design in the Ohio Lottery case (See Exhibit OL1). What are the advantages and disadvantages of this design?
2. Evaluate the MET process (Exhibit OL-2). What are some of the strengths and weaknesses of the MET technique?
3. What measurement scales are used in the sample questions provided (Exhibit OL-3)? Why might the lottery attitude and lottery importance questions have presented the most challenge to the professional researchers?
4. Using text Exhibit 12-2, map out the likely quantitative instrument content.
5. The survey contained several questions that would alert the researchers that the participant was not taking the research process seriously (see case exhibit OL-3). Is this a good or a poor idea? Why?
6. Evaluate the MET discussion guide for the Ohio Lottery Research. 

PLACE YOUR ORDER NOW

Response #1

R. Guerra

 

Detail the overall research design in the Ohio Lottery case (See Exhibit OL1). What are the advantages and disadvantages of this design?

The Ohio lottery researchers began by determining the issue and subject matter-based management dilemma. The issue was that sales were declining for the lottery tickets and thus educational funds were decreasing as well relative to the sales. Based upon this they needed to figure out a way to increase the sales of tickets and opted to gather information on consumers opinion towards the lottery. They used both primary and secondary research techniques in order to gather the information, some of these include MET long form interviews, survey questionnaires, and experiments. The disadvantages to this kind of research is the amount of time it takes to host these research methods. According to the textbook one of the researchers even said, “MET interviews are long, often 90 minutes or more” (Schindler & Cooper, 2018). This can significantly decrease the population pool of individuals willing to participate in the study. The advantage of this kind of research is that the researchers are able to get very detailed information that can provide clear solutions to their issue.

 

Evaluate the MET process (Exhibit OL-2). What are some of the strengths and weaknesses of the MET technique?

The researchers for this study understood that a lot of communication is nonverbal. They opted to utilize the metaphor elicitation technique (MET) as a way to gain valuable information based upon the participants non-verbal insights toward the lottery. According to the article Advances in Consumer Research by Robin Coulture and Gerald Zaltman, “Zaltman Metaphor Elicitation Technique (ZMET) employs qualitative methods to elicit the metaphors, constructs and mental models that drive customers’ thinking and behavior, as well as quantitative analyses to provide data for marketing mix decisions and segmentation strategies” (Coulture & Zaltman, 1994). The strength to this type of research is that it focuses on determining the behavioral and psychological aspects of the participants which can reveal valuable information that could otherwise be easily overlooked from traditional research methods. As mentioned previously the weakness is the length of time it takes to conduct this study and participants may not be willing to complete it.

 

What measurement scales are used in the sample questions provided (Exhibit OL-3)? Why might the lottery attitude and lottery importance questions have presented the most challenge to the professional researchers?

For the sample questions the interviewers used interval scales to gain the information. The specific type of interval scale that they used was the Likert scale. “Likert scale was devised in order to measure ‘attitude’ in a scientifically accepted and validated manner in 1932. An attitude can be defined as preferential ways of behaving/reacting in a specific circumstance rooted in relatively enduring organization of belief and ideas (around an object, a subject or a concept) acquired through social interactions” (Joshi, A., Kale, S., Chandel, S., & Pal, D. K., 2015). Likert scale questions are a sufficient way to get direct answers from the participants which could be very valuable in contrast to the MET results. The lottery attitude and importance might have been a challenge for the researchers due to the number of questions that they had to examine in addition to all of the other methods they were looking at.

 

 

Using text Exhibit 12-2, map out the likely quantitative instrument content.

The questionnaire used to survey the question and answers given by the participants was utilized to gain understanding of the various component’s involved with the Ohio lottery. The measurements points for the scale were 1-7. “Using a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 means the attribute is “Not At All Important” and 7 means the attribute is “Extremely Important” in deciding if you participate in lottery games, how important are the following attributes to you?” (Schindler & Cooper, 2009). The questions were not based upon right or wrong answers they were all based upon opinion-based answers from the participants.

 

The survey contained several questions that would alert the researchers that the participant was not taking the research process seriously (see case exhibit OL-3). Is this a good or a poor idea? Why?

Overall, I think that it is a really good idea for the researchers to contain these types of questions within the survey. This is a good way for the researchers to be able to organize the surveys where participants likely gave legitimate answers from the ones where they did not fully participate on a serious level. According to an article on serious checks, “The main problem resulting from the participation of nonserious respondents, however, is that they increase noise and reduce experimental power” (Aust, F., Diedenhofen, B., Ullrich, S., 2013). This could be detrimental for data results because it can skew the results in an inaccurate way.

 

Evaluate the MET discussion guide for the Ohio Lottery Research.

The first phase of the MET analysis began with the researchers showing the participants pictures in order for them to express their feelings after they saw the pictures. The participants were given the option to “story tell” describing what their feelings were toward the lottery. “Photos have been claimed to make the interview situation more comfortable, since there is something to focus on—the images, which are familiar to the participant” (Clark-Ibanez, 2004). After that the second phase involved removing the pictures from the participants and they were asked to rank the pictures in order of importance to them. After that researchers were asked to create a collage that represented their feeling on the lottery.

 

 

Reference:

 

Aust, F., Diedenhofen, B., Ullrich, S. et al. Seriousness checks are useful to improve data validity in online research. Behav Res 45, 527–535 (2013). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0265-2

 

Clark-Iba´n˜ez, M. (2004). Framing the social world with photo-elicitation interviews. American Behavioral Scientist, 46, 1507–1527.

 

Coulter, R. H., & Zaltman, G. (1994). Using the Zaltman metaphor elicitation technique to understand brand images. ACR North American Advances.

 

Joshi, A., Kale, S., Chandel, S., & Pal, D. K. (2015). Likert scale: Explored and explained. British Journal of Applied Science & Technology, 7(4), 396.

 

Schindler, P.S. (2019). Business Research Methods (Thirteen ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin

 

Response #2

 

1. Nowinski

 

 

Case Study: Ohio Lottery

 

1. Detail the overall research design in the Ohio Lottery case (See Exhibit OL-1). What are the advantages and disadvantages of this design?

The research design used both qualitative and quantitative research methods. The advantages of qualitative method looked the emotions displayed from the participants through the photos they would take as they were buying a lottery ticket. Another aspect was understanding what winning meant to the person buying a ticket. They recognized that winning in general was more important than winning the jackpot amount when players played the lottery. A disadvantage of qualitative research is the smaller sample size they use to gain more detailed data. The advantages of quantitative method used a larger sample than the qualitative method which could help discover more accurate trends among the data that the participants display.

 

2. Evaluate the MET process (Exhibit OL-2). What are some of the strengths and weaknesses of the MET technique?

The advantages when using MET is it enables the behaviors that are present in consumers who play the lottery. MET interviews are long, about 90 ninety minutes, and these interviews have somebody watching the participant behind a special mirror. In the interviews they seek “to understand motivations for playing lottery games, to determine obstacles to playing or playing more often, and to provide guidance for the quantitative segmentation study to follow” (Schindler. 2019). By having such a long interview, researchers are able to gather more quality data based on the participants responses and reactions towards the questions asked. The moderator in the MET interviews is asking the participants to elaborate or in depth about their responses and they look encourage more detailed answers. Two weaknesses when using MET did stand out. One was that there is only a total of twenty-five interviews. This is such a small sample of the actual number of lottery players in Ohio, so the data gained may not be the same data they would gain if they used a larger sample. The second issue is that the participants consisted of heavy lottery players and then some players who occasionally, rarely, or never play. The reactions and responses will certainly vary in the participants depending on how often they play.

 

3. What measurement scales are used in the sample questions provided (Exhibit OL-3)? Why might the lottery attitude and lottery importance questions have presented the most challenge to the professional researchers?

The measurement scale present in exhibit OL-3 is interval because the participants are rating the level of importance of their answer to each question (Yusoff & Mohd. 2014). Each rating has a different meaning than the next. The ratings are based on numbers 1-7 and 7 means extremely important while 1 means not important at all. The lottery attitude and importance questions would vary greatly among the users because the users consist of heavy, moderate, and rare players of the lottery. Also, rating scales do not offer very precise data because the users can choose between two or three rating numbers that might not very much from one another and therefore not offer the most accurate insights.

 

4. Using text Exhibit 12-2, map out the likely quantitative instrument content.

Proper measurement instruments consist of three measurement question categories and multiple non-question sections. The administrative questions help answer basic information such as participant names, who the interviewer(s) is, the research locations, and research conditions (Schindler. 2019). Classification questions will be used next, and these helps identify patterns based on participant responses. Target questions follow classification questions. These kinds of questions also help identify patterns, but the patterns will help the researchers make decisions. The non-question elements of the study contain the introduction, conclusions, instructions, and transitions from each phase of the research.

 

5. The survey contained several questions that would alert the researchers that the participant was not taking the research process seriously (see case exhibit OL-3). Is this a good or a poor idea? Why?

When conducting research of any type, “Non serious answering behavior increases noise and reduces experimental power; it is therefore one of the most important threats to the validity of online research” (Aust. Diedenhofen. & Ullrich. 2013). Again, this goes for all research studies, not just online. I think it is a good idea to ensure the data you gather is accurate. Inaccurate answers due to carelessness of the participant can skew the data one is trying to process and organize.

 

6. Evaluate the MET discussion guide for the Ohio Lottery Research.

The discussion guide was very precise as to what types of questions would be asked, what topics the questions are centered around, and explain other aspects of the study. It was very informative as a reader to see this and know what exactly what objectives the researchers are after in this study. The discussion guide does show a direction of broad to specific as far as what the main points of study are in each of the four steps. The final step just said wrap-up, but I believe this doesn’t involve the participants anymore, so they don’t really need to know how the data is being configured.

 

References

Aust, F., Diedenhofen, B., Ullrich, S. (2013) Seriousness checks are useful to improve data validity in online research. Behavior Research Methods. 45, 527–535. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0265-2.

Schindler, P. S. (2019). Business research method. (14^th ed.) McGraw Hill.

Yusoff, R., & Mohd Janor, R. (2014). Generation of an Interval Metric Scale to Measure Attitude. SAGE Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244013516768