1

MARKET RESEARCH ON PHONATHON

And Potential Alumni Donations from Current Undergraduate Students at The College of New Jersey

MKT 310: MARKET RESEARCH Taylor Bjornsen Nick Malmi December 14th, 2012

Letter of Transmittal Serenity Research Group 1609 Prospect Street Ewing, NJ 08628 United States December 14th, 2012 Alexis Gettings Annual Fund: Phonathon Green Hall Room 14 The College of New Jersey P.O. Box 1776 Ewing, NJ, USA 08628-0718

RE: Phonathon Market Research Report

Dear Alexis Gettings,

We have the honor of presenting to you the survey results of our study on current undergraduate students at The College of New Jersey. The purpose of this report is to examine undergraduates sentiment towards The College and its corresponding effect on potential giving as alumni. This report outlines major predictors (and conversely, inhibitors) in the potential magnitude of alumni donations or lack thereof. We sincerely hope that this report serves to aid Phonathon and the Annual Fund as a whole in its endeavors to help financially uphold this institution.

Best Regards, Taylor Bjornsen and Nick Malmi Senior Analysts of Market Research Serenity Research Group

Letter of Authorization Alexis Gettings Annual Fund: Phonathon The College of New Jersey P.O. Box 1776 Ewing, NJ, USA 08628-0781 September 2nd, 2012 Serenity Research Group 1609 Prospect Street Ewing, NJ 08628 United States

To Whom It May Concern:

As Coordinator of the Annual Funds Phonathon program, I hereby authorize Serenity Research Group to conduct market research on Phonathon. This letter authorizes that you may survey students of The College of New Jersey strictly related to the topic of Phonathon. All information collected is the property of The College of New Jersey and therefore remains confidential.

Sincerely, Alexis Gettings

Coordinator of Phonathon The College of New Jersey

Table of Contents
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... 5 Major Findings .......................................................................................................................................... 5 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................... 5 Problem Definition ...................................................................................................................................... 6 Background To The Problem .................................................................................................................... 6 Statement of the Problem .......................................................................................................................... 7 Approach to the Problem .......................................................................................................................... 7 Research Design .......................................................................................................................................... 8 Type of Research Design .......................................................................................................................... 8 Information Needs..................................................................................................................................... 8 Data Collection from Secondary Sources ................................................................................................. 8 Data Collection from Primary Sources ..................................................................................................... 9 Scaling Techniques ................................................................................................................................... 9 Questionnaire Development and Pre-Testing ......................................................................................... 10 Sampling Techniques .............................................................................................................................. 11 Field Work .............................................................................................................................................. 11 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................................. 12 Methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 12 Plan of Data Analysis.............................................................................................................................. 12 Results ........................................................................................................................................................ 14 Limitations and Caveats ........................................................................................................................... 19 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................ 20 Exhibits ...................................................................................................................................................... 21 Questionnaire .......................................................................................................................................... 21 Statistical Output ..................................................................................................................................... 27

Executive Summary Major Findings According to the statistical analysis of all data through SPSS, we were able to identify significant correlations between likelihood to donate and the following variables: Overall Satisfaction with The College Time After Graduation Quality of Student Life Tuition Costs Alumni Event Attendance

Conclusions By using statistical tools and functions through SPSS, we can conclude that there are several connections between donor participation and sentiment toward the school that is statistically significant. Please be aware that the correlations and conclusions made in this section are referring to the sample of 81 students, and may not be representative of the whole population of College students. Donor participation is more likely to occur as time goes on, meaning that students are most likely to donate twenty years after graduation as opposed to ten years or one year. There is a correlation toward perceived approval of student life and donor participation, meaning that students that feel more sentiment toward the student atmosphere are more likely to donate to the College. Tuition costs and the satisfaction derived from them are also correlated with donor activity, meaning that the cost of going to the school can leave a lasting impression on an individual when they consider donating. We have also found a positive correlation between students who say they would agree to attend alumni events after graduating and donor participation.

Problem Definition Background to the Problem The College of New Jerseys Phonathon is a collection of about fifty students who collect donations for the Annual Fund through phone calls to alumni. In addition to its purpose for collecting funds, TCNJs Phonathon serves as a means for alumni to obtain information about the College news and events, RSVP to reunions with peers, ask questions, provide feedback and update their contact information in the alumni records. Though a high total donation rate is important, alumni participation improves the Colleges standing in national rankings and allows TCNJ to be more competitive when applying for grants and corporate aid. As a result, a high participation rate with small individual donations can be as effective in providing monetary support as a small participation with large individual donations. On a typical business day, managers enter the call center in Green Hall prior to the calling staff in order to prep the room and determine goals for the evening. With incentives such as games and prizes, the callers spend time five days week (Monday through Thursday, and Sunday) calling alumni to engage in conversations. Instead of skipping straight to asking for pledges, Phonathon Representatives conduct a series of conversations based off of customizable scripts. These scripts change with the various calling pools, sometimes reflecting information for an event or marking an alumnis reunion year. Each call is designed to feel special and upbeat in accordance with the Phonathon slogan of choice-smile when you dial. Often times Phonathon Representatives connect alumni with resources they desire, be it on an event happening in their area, specialized alumni campus tours or anything in between. While collecting donations is still a key part of the job description, Representative make sure each call is more multi-faceted.

Statement of the Problem Marketing managerial problem: How can Phonathon increase its number of pledges from future alumni by examining current students? Marketing research problem: What variables impact the probability that current students will donate to TCNJ as alumni? Approach to the Problem This research group has used data collected through surveys, primary and secondary data and statistical tools to find connections between various demographics and attitudes toward the College and their possible donor participation. The results were used to reach a conclusion on determining donor behavior.

Research Design Type of Research Design The research done on this topic was on students attitudes concerning their possible donor participation in the future and their overall satisfaction of the school, focusing on sentiment toward the College. The survey found in appendix comprised of 27 questions that measured students attitude toward the College and their possible donor behavior. The responses gathered from the survey helped determine the overall attitudes toward donor participation and students satisfaction with the school. The goal was to find some link between demographics, satisfaction on multiple levels of the College (satisfaction with the education, student life, etc.), involvement within the campus community and what schools students associate with. Information Needs Different types of information were required in order to complete the research needed to draw a conclusion. Student demographics, satisfaction with the College concerning education, student life, career services, employment, organizations, and networking opportunities were needed in order to complete the research report. Student attitudes toward donation, such as how soon after graduation they would see themselves donating, along with what they would perceive an ideal amount to donate would be. These were all done with the questionnaire. Data Collection from Secondary Sources In order to further our understanding of Phonathon and the Annual Fund at The College of New Jersey, additional research was pooled from a series of secondary sources. Amongst these sources were scholarly publications that discussed the nature of alumni giving and the reasons for or against participating in various Annual Funds. This psychological input was coupled alongside information about giving directly from The College of New Jerseys website,

as well as raw data graciously provided by Phonathon for the sake of this study. In the raw data provided by Alexis Gettings all of this past fiscal years donations were pooled in a series of three spreadsheets. The first documented all donations as a whole, the second organized them by affiliation with academic schools, and the third organized them by affiliation with Greek organizations. Together, this information was able to play a pivotal role in the construction and design of the questionnaire that was distributed to a portion of The Colleges student body. Data Collection from Primary Sources The questionnaire corresponding to this study was distributed on paper to a selection of eighty-one undergraduate students at The College of New Jersey. This survey sought to establish the degree of positive or negative sentiment that students harbor towards The College, the likelihood of which they would donate at various points in the future, as well as the amount they identify with as an ideal donation to The College. The selection of students who partook in the survey process spanned across both genders and all academic schools within The College fairly equally, providing for a diverse and accurate attempt at capturing the student body at large. Scaling Techniques The questionnaire corresponding to this study is comprised of a diverse span of scaling techniques, including: yes/no questions, multiple-choice questions, Likert scale questions, demographic questions and two open-ended questions. Many questions took into account that respondents would either feel indifferent or not have an applicable response. For example, if a student has never held on-campus employment, he or she may not feel comfortable rating their level of satisfaction with on-campus employment given their lack of firsthand experience. However, they were not instructed to skip possible non-applicable questions in the even that they still harbored an opinion. For instance, if they were denied from several on-campus positions and

10

struggled in vain to obtain some sort of employment, they could possess negative feelings towards the opportunities The College provides and rank it as such. Given that a substantial portion of our survey was centered around satisfaction, the majority of questions involved were either of the yes/no or Likert scale design. This allowed for a specific manner of addressing satisfaction whilst pinpointing any variation in general sentiment with The College when pitted against satisfaction with specific facets of The College. Questionnaire Development and Pretesting After a close analysis of both secondary and primary sources, and also taking into account what variables are most likely to affect student sentiment towards The College of New Jersey, ten hypotheses were drafted and formalized. These hypotheses were later used for statistical analysis as evidenced in later portions of this report. A series of diverse statistical tests were conducted on the following hypotheses to help provide clarity for the purpose of this study. 1. Is there any correlation between positive sentiment towards The College of New Jersey and the likelihood of donor participation? 2. Is there a variance in the likelihood of donor participation over a period of time after graduation? 3. Is there a correlation between the likelihood of donor participation and the academic school(s) undergraduates identify with? 4. Is there a correlation between on-campus organizational involvement and the likelihood of donor participation? 5. Is there a correlation between legacy status and the likelihood of donor participation? 6. Is there a correlation between perceived quality of education and the likelihood of donor participation? 7. Is there a correlation between satisfaction with student life and the likelihood of donor participation? 8. Is there a correlation between satisfaction with tuition costs and the likelihood of donor participation?

11

9. Is there a correlation between gender and the likelihood of donor participation? 10. Is there a correlation between potentially attending alumni events and the likelihood of donor participation? Sampling Techniques The target population we focused on consisted of college students, particularly juniors and seniors. We were able to get very close to a 50/50 ratio of males to females. This will ensure both genders are represented equally in the study. In order to make sure the study covers students from all of The Colleges seven schools, data was collected from members of the following schools: Arts and Communications, Business, Education, Engineering, Humanities and Social Sciences, School of Nursing and Exercise Science, and Science. No less than ten students from each school will be selected. Gender within schools do not apply, there is no need to get a 50/50 gender ratio for each school. The sampling discussed above provided the best data for this study, which focused on gender and school. We did judgmental sampling due to the participants being selected due to their gender and school. The study took into account gender and school. Though transfer students and students from Greek organizations are important, the odds of acquiring several members from these groups are very likely due to the large size of the sample, and we did not have the time or resources to actively survey individuals from certain clubs or organizations.

Field Work During the third and fourth weeks of November, associates from the Serenity Research group surveyed 81 students with a survey that gauged their sentiment toward the school and likelihood of donor participation after graduation.

12

Data Analysis Methodology After the sample size was reached and we finished fielding the study, we entered coded the data into Statistical Product and Service Solutions (SPSS) which handled all the statistical analysis we required in order to reach a conclusion. The most common tests we performed with the software were correlation matrices and independent sample tests.

Plan of Data Analysis

Hypothesis Ho: There is no correlation between positive sentiment towards TCNJ and the likelihood of donor participation. Ha: There is a correlation between positive sentiment towards TCNJ and the likelihood of donor participation. Ho: Donor participation will not vary over a period of time after graduation. Ha: Donor participation will vary over a period of time after graduation. Ho: There is no correlation between likelihood of donor participation and academic school(s) identified with. Ha: There is a correlation between likelihood of donor participation between students from the School of Business and other and academic school(s) identified with. Ho: There is no correlation between organizational involvement and likelihood of donor participation. Ha: There is a correlation between organizational involvement and likelihood of donor participation. Q 14 - Q16, Q24a Q24g Q14 - Q16 Paired Samples T-Test Variables Test

Q3, Q14 - Q16

Correlation Matrix

Independent Sample T-Test

Q2, Q14 - Q16

Independent Sample T-Test

13

Ho: There is no correlation between legacy status and likelihood of donor participation. Ha: There is a correlation between legacy status and likelihood of donor participation. Ho: There is no correlation between perceived "quality of education" and likelihood of donor participation. Ha: There is a correlation between perceived "quality of education" and likelihood of donor participation. Ho: There is no correlation between satisfaction with student life and likelihood of donor participation. Ha: There is a correlation between satisfaction with student life and likelihood of donor participation. Ho: There is no correlation between satisfaction with tuition costs and likelihood of donor participation. Ha: There is a correlation between satisfaction with tuition costs and likelihood of donor participation. Ho: There is no correlation between regretting attending TCNJ and likelihood of donor participation. Ha: There is a correlation between regretting attending TCNJ and likelihood of donor participation. Ho: There is no correlation between likelihood of attending alumni events and likelihood of donor participation. Ha: There is a correlation between likelihood of attending alumni events and likelihood of donor participation.

Q1, Q14 - Q16

Independent Sample T-Test

Q4, Q14 - Q16

Correlation Matrix

Q6, Q14 - Q16

Correlation Matrix

Q9, Q14 - Q16, Q18b, Q18i

Correlation Matrix

Q13 - Q16

Correlation Matrix

Q11, Q14 - Q16

Correlation Matrix

14

Results Hypothesis 1 Ho: There is no correlation between positive sentiment towards TCNJ and the likelihood of donor participation. (Two tailed Sig > .20) Ha: There is a correlation between positive sentiment towards TCNJ and the likelihood of donor participation. (Two tailed Sig < .20) We rejected the null hypothesis. As you can from Table 1, the sig level on each of the attributes concerning donation after one year, after ten years and after twenty years are .066,.000 and .002 respectively. Therefore, it is safe to say with 80% confidence level that overall satisfaction with TCNJ is correlated with donor participation. This inverse relationship is rather a direct relationship due to a mistake in the survey design where the scales were not consistent with each other. Please refer to the Limitations and Caveats section for details. After noting the inverted scales, we were able to conclude that the relationship between satisfaction and donor participation is positively correlated. The relationship was weak one year after graduation with a Pearson correlation of .212. The relationship grew stronger after ten years after graduation with a Pearson correlation of .410. The relationship grew weaker after twenty years after graduation with a Pearson correlation of .354, indicating that the correlation between satisfaction and donor participation after twenty years is weaker than the correlation between satisfaction and donor participation after ten years.

Hypothesis 2 Ho: Donor participation will not vary over a period of time after graduation. (Sig > .20) Ha: Donor participation will vary over a period of time after graduation. (Sig < .20) We rejected the null hypothesis due to the low two-tailed significance levels. According to Table 2, Donor participation does vary over a period of time after graduation. According to the

15

correlation column, donor participation does get stronger over time, indicating that donor participation will be strongest after twenty years as opposed to ten years after and one year after.

Hypothesis 3 Ho: There is no correlation between likelihood of donor participation whether or not a student is from the School of Business (Two tailed Sig < .20) Ha: There is a correlation between likelihood of donor participation whether or not a student is from the School of Business (Two tailed Sig > .20) According to Table 3, all the Sig values are far higher than .20, so we cannot reject the null hypothesis from this data. According to this data, business students do not donate more money to the College with statistical significance.

Hypothesis 4 Ho: There is no correlation between organizational involvement and likelihood of donor participation. (Two tailed Sig > .20) Ha: There is a correlation between organizational involvement and likelihood of donor participation. (Two tailed Sig < .20) According to Table 4, all the Sig values are far higher than .20, so we cannot reject the null hypothesis from this data. According to this data, organizational involvement and likelihood of donor participation are not correlated.

Hypothesis 5 Ho: There is no correlation between legacy status and likelihood of donor participation. (Two tailed Sig > .20) Ha: There is a correlation between legacy status and likelihood of donor participation. (Two tailed Sig < .20)

16

According to Table 5, all the Sig values are higher than .20, therefore we cannot reject the null hypothesis from this data. According to this data, organizational involvement does not correlate with donor participation.

Hypothesis 6 Ho: There is no correlation between perceived "quality of education" and likelihood of donor participation. (Two tailed Sig > .20) Ha: There is a correlation between perceived "quality of education" and likelihood of donor participation. (Two tailed Sig < .20) According to Table 6, we cannot reject the null hypothesis. According to the data, we cannot say that satisfaction with the quality of education is correlated with donor participation in any time period after graduation. They are all above the .20 two-tailed sig value.

Hypothesis 7 Ho: There is no correlation between satisfaction with student life and likelihood of donor participation. (Two tailed Sig > .20) Ha: There is a correlation between satisfaction with student life and likelihood of donor participation. (Two tailed Sig < .20) According to Table 7, we rejected the null hypothesis for 10 years after graduation and for 20 years, showing that there is a correlation between satisfaction with student life and the likelihood of donor participation. We cannot reject the null hypothesis concerning 1 year after graduation due to the high Sig value. 10 years after graduation has a Pearson correlation of .292, while graduation after 20 years had a Pearson correlation of .306. Since the Pearson correlation is not very close to 1, the relationship is positive, but not very strong. The Pearson values were negative on the Table due to the inverted scales within the survey questions, please refer to Limitations and Caveats for details. This was corrected in discussing these results.

17

Hypothesis 8 Ho: There is no correlation between satisfaction with tuition costs and likelihood of donor participation. (Two tailed Sig > .20) Ha: There is a correlation between satisfaction with tuition costs and likelihood of donor participation. (Two tailed Sig < .20) According to Table 8, we rejected the null hypothesis for donor participation 10 years after graduation and 20 years after graduation due to the low two tailed sig values of .069 and .018 respectively. We do not reject the null hypothesis 1 year after graduation due to the high sig value. The relationship with 10 years and 20 years is direct, as seen from the Pearson correlations of .215 and .279 respectively, indicating a stronger correlation 20 years after graduation. The Pearson values were negative on the Table due to the inverted scales within the survey questions, refer to Limitations and Caveats for details. This was corrected in discussing these results.

Hypothesis 9 Ho: There is no correlation between regretting attending TCNJ and likelihood of donor participation. (Two tailed Sig > .20) Ha: There is a correlation between regretting attending TCNJ and likelihood of donor participation. (Two tailed Sig < .20) According to Table 9, we can reject the null hypothesis for donating after 1 year, 10 years and 20 years due to the small sig values of .151, .008, and .001. According to the Pearson Correlation, there is a negative relationship between regretting attendance at the College and donor participation, meaning that if an individual regretted going to the College, they would be less likely to donate.

18

Hypothesis 10 Ho: There is no correlation between likelihood of attending alumni events and likelihood of donor participation. (Two tailed Sig > .20) Ha: There is a correlation between likelihood of attending alumni events and likelihood of donor participation. (Two tailed Sig < .20) According to Table 10, the small sig values under each time period indicate a correlation between attending alumni events and donor participation. The Pearson correlations indicate a positive relationship with each of the three time periods. The connection between attending alumni events and donating after one year after graduation is stronger than attending alumni events and donating ten and twenty years after graduation

19

Limitations and Caveats As stated in the results section, there were some potential areas that are easy to misinterpret due to the survey design. Misinterpretations occurred due to the survey design and the data entry that followed. For example, in the first hypothesis test, the Pearson Correlation is negative, which would normally indicate an inverse correlation between satisfaction and donor participation. This is misleading due to the survey design of Q3, which was entered into the statistics software where 1=very dissatisfied, 2=dissatisfied, etc. and Q14-Q16 listed 1=strongly agree, 2=agree, etc. This meant that the scales were inverted; showing a negative correlation when there was a positive correlation. This was corrected after being noted, as correcting the scales would have the same result, just with an opposite positive or negative sign. This problem was encountered in hypothesis tests 1, 7, 8 and 9. The sample size was very small compared to the total population of TCNJ students. Since we tried to sample an equal number of students from each school, we were unable to test the academic schools against each other with accuracy. Due to budget and time constraints, we were unable to do a completely randomized sample, focusing on convenient and judgmental sampling techniques. This may have affected the results slightly.

20

Conclusions

By using statistical tools and functions through SPSS, we can conclude that there are several connections between donor participation and sentiment toward the school that is statistically significant. Please be aware that the correlations and conclusions made in this section are referring to the sample of 81 students, and may not be representative of the whole population of College students. Donor participation is more likely to occur as time goes on, meaning that students are most likely to donate twenty years after graduation as opposed to ten years or one year. There is a correlation toward perceived approval of student life and donor participation, meaning that students that feel more sentiment toward the student atmosphere are more likely to donate to the College. Tuition costs and the satisfaction derived from them are also correlated with donor activity, meaning that the cost of going to the school can leave a lasting impression on an individual when they consider donating. We have also found a positive correlation between students who say they would agree to attend alumni events after graduating and donor participation. We sincerely hope these results and conclusions help in improving the future operational success of Phonathon.

21

Exhibits Questionnaire
We are a pair of TCNJ upperclassmen conducting a study on fellow upperclassmen in regards to their sentiment towards TCNJ, as well as their opinion towards donating to The College. Please read the directions in parenthesis for each question and correspond below.

1. Are you a legacy student? Meaning, did a parent or older sibling attend TCNJ? (Check one.) __ No __ Yes If so, who are you a legacy of? ____________

2. How many on-campus organizations are you currently affiliated with? (Check one.) __ 0 __ 1 2 __ 3 4 __ 5+

3. How would you rate your overall satisfaction with The College of New Jersey? (Check one.) __ Very Dissatisfied __ Dissatisfied __ Indifferent __ Satisfied __ Very Satisfied

22

For questions 4 - 10, please pick the number from the scale that corresponds to the level of satisfaction you feel towards the following aspects of The College of New Jersey: Scale 0 = Not Applicable/Dont Know 1 = Poor 2 = Fair 3 = Good 4 = Very Good 5 = Excellent

4. Quality of Education 5. Career Services 6. Student Life 7. On-Campus Organizations 8. On-Campus Employment 9. Tuition Costs 10. Networking Opportunities

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

11. I will attend future events with fellow alumni such as reunions. (Check one.) __ Strongly Agree __ Agree __ Indifferent __ Disagree __ Strongly Disagree __ Dont Know

12. I would encourage other family members or friends to attend TCNJ. (Check one.) __ Strongly Agree __ Agree __ Indifferent __ Disagree __ Strongly Disagree __ Dont Know

23

13. I regret selecting TCNJ over other higher education institutions. (Check one.) __ Strongly Agree __ Agree __ Indifferent __ Disagree __ Strongly Disagree __ Dont Know

14. I see myself donating to TCNJ one year after graduation. (Check one.) __ Strongly Agree __ Agree __ Indifferent __ Disagree __ Strongly Disagree __ Dont Know

15. I see myself donating to TCNJ ten years after graduation. (Check one.) __ Strongly Agree __ Agree __ Indifferent __ Disagree __ Strongly Disagree __ Dont Know

16. I see myself donating to TCNJ twenty years after graduation. __ Strongly Agree __ Agree __ Indifferent __ Disagree __ Strongly Disagree __ Dont Know

24

17. What do you consider an ideal amount to donate to TCNJ? (Check one.) __ $0 __ $1 25 __ $26 50 __ $51 75 __ $76 100 __ $100+

18. Check three phrases from the word bank below that you associate the most with __ Social Environment __ Affordable __ Pretentious __ Scenic __ Disorganized __ Stressful __ Helpful __ Closed-Off __ Good Bargain __ Convenient 19. What gender are you? (Check one.) __ Male __ Female

20. What is your residential status at The College of New Jersey? (Check one.) __ On-Campus Housing __ Off-Campus Commuter (Ewing Area) __ Off-Campus Commuter (Long Distance/10+ Miles)

21. What is your current employment status? (Check one.) __ TCNJ On-Campus Employee __ Off-Campus/NON-TCNJ Employee

25

__ Unemployed

22. Are you an in- or out-of-state student? (Check one.) __ In-State __ Out-of-State

23. What is your current academic year? (Check one.) __ Freshman __ Sophomore __ Junior __ Senior __ Graduate

24. What academic schools are you currently associated with? (Check all that apply.) __ Arts & Communication __ Business __ Education __ Engineering __ Humanities & Social Sciences __ Nursing, Health & Exercise Science __ Science

25. What year did you transfer into TCNJ as? (Check one.) __ I am not a transfer student __ Freshman __ Sophomore __ Junior __ Senior __ Graduate

26

26. List all of the on-campus organizations you affiliate yourself with. (One per line, please.) ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________

27. If you have any additional questions, comments or concerns please document them below: ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________

27

Statistical Output Table 1

Correlations I see myself Rate Overall satisfaction with TCNJ Rate Overall satisfaction with TCNJ Pearson Correlation Sig. (2tailed) N I see myself donating to TCNJ one year after graduation Pearson Correlation Sig. (2tailed) N I see myself donating to TCNJ ten years after graduation Pearson Correlation Sig. (2tailed) N I see myself donating to TCNJ twenty years after graduation Pearson Correlation Sig. (2tailed) N 75 73 74 75 .002 .002 .000 75 -.354
**

I see myself donating to TCNJ ten years after graduation I see myself donating to TCNJ twenty years after graduation
**

donating to TCNJ one year after graduation 1 -.212

-.410

-.354**

.066

.000

.002

81 -.212

76 1

75 .572
**

75 .355**

.066

.000

.002

76 -.410**

76 .572**

73 1

73 .825**

.000

.000

.000

73 .355
**

75 .825
**

74 1

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

28

Table 2
Paired Samples Correlations N Pair 1 I see myself donating to TCNJ one year after graduation & I see myself donating to TCNJ ten years after graduation Pair 2 I see myself donating to TCNJ ten years after graduation & I see myself donating to TCNJ twenty years after graduation Pair 3 I see myself donating to TCNJ one year after graduation & I see myself donating to TCNJ twenty years after graduation 73 .355 .002 74 .825 .000 73 Correlation .572 Sig. .000

Table 3
Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper -.69503 .33977

F I see myself donating to Equal TCNJ one year after graduation variances assumed Equal variances not assumed I see myself donating to Equal TCNJ ten years after graduation variances assumed Equal variances not assumed I see myself donating to Equal TCNJ twenty years after graduation variances assumed Equal variances not assumed .296 .315 .108

Sig. .744

t .684

df 74

Sig. (2tailed) .496

Mean Difference -.17763

Std. Error Difference .25967

- 55.295 .691

.493

-.17763

.25709

-.69279

.33753

.576 .073

73

.942

.02000

.27225

-.52260

.56260

.072 45.156

.943

.02000

.27890

-.54168

.58168

.588 .214

73

.831

.06000

.28081

-.49966

.61966

.206 43.847

.838

.06000

.29098

-.52648

.64648

29

Table 4
Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means 95% Confidence Interval of the Sig. (2F I see myself Equal 7.893 Sig. .007 t .319 df 53 tailed) .751 Mean Difference .11111 Std. Error Difference .34777 Difference Lower -.58642 Upper .80864

donating to TCNJ variances one year after graduation assumed Equal variances not assumed I see myself Equal 1.328 .254 .111 53 .912 .04444 .40152 -.76091 .84980 .509 32.680 .614 .11111 .21840 -.33340 .55562

donating to TCNJ variances ten years after graduation assumed Equal variances not assumed I see myself Equal .461 .500 1.054 53 .297 .44444 .42169 -.40136 1.29025 .141 18.918 .889 .04444 .31456 -.61412 .70301

donating to TCNJ variances twenty years after assumed graduation Equal variances not assumed 1.090 13.815 .294 .44444 .40770 -.43108 1.31997

30

Table 5
Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means 95% Confidence Interval of the Sig. (2F I see myself donating to TCNJ one year after graduation Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed I see myself donating to TCNJ ten years after graduation Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed I see myself donating to TCNJ twenty years after graduation Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed .893 25.998 .380 .27013 .30244 -.35155 .89181 .797 .375 .840 73 .404 .27013 .32169 -.37099 .91125 1.273 23.913 .215 .39301 .30868 -.24420 1.03022 .000 .997 1.268 73 .209 .39301 .30990 -.22462 1.01064 -.079 22.468 .938 -.02500 .31844 -.68460 .63460 .018 Sig. t df 74 tailed) .935 Mean Difference -.02500 Std. Error Difference .30578 Difference Lower -.63428 Upper .58428

.894 -.082

31

Table 6
Correlationsa I see myself donating to TCNJ one year after graduation I see myself donating Pearson 1 I see myself donating to TCNJ ten years after graduation .589
**

I see myself donating to TCNJ twenty years after graduation .364

**

Quality of Education -.140

to TCNJ one year after Correlation graduation Sig. (2tailed) I see myself donating Pearson .589** 1 .827** -.126 .000 .002 .242

to TCNJ ten years after Correlation graduation Sig. (2tailed) I see myself donating to TCNJ twenty years after graduation Pearson Correlation Sig. (2tailed) Quality of Education Pearson Correlation Sig. (2tailed) **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). a. Listwise N=72 .242 .291 .290 -.140 -.126 -.126 1 .002 .000 .290 .364** .827** 1 -.126 .000 .000 .291

Table 7
Correlationsa I see myself donating to TCNJ one year after graduation I see myself donating to Pearson TCNJ one year after graduation Correlation Sig. (2tailed) I see myself donating to Pearson TCNJ ten years after graduation Correlation Sig. (2tailed) .000 .000 .014 .624** 1 .827** -.292* .000 .001 .359 1 I see myself donating to TCNJ ten years after graduation .624** I see myself donating to TCNJ twenty years after graduation .383** Student Life -.111

32

I see myself donating to Pearson TCNJ twenty years after graduation Correlation Sig. (2tailed) Student Life Pearson Correlation Sig. (2tailed) **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). a. Listwise N=70

.383**

.827**

-.306**

.001

.000

.010

-.111

-.292*

-.306**

.359

.014

.010

Table 8
Correlationsa I see myself donating to TCNJ one year after graduation I see myself donating to Pearson TCNJ one year after graduation Correlation Sig. (2tailed) I see myself donating to Pearson TCNJ ten years after graduation Correlation Sig. (2tailed) I see myself donating to Pearson TCNJ twenty years after graduation Correlation Sig. (2tailed) Tuition Costs Pearson Correlation Sig. (2tailed) **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). a. Listwise N=72 .322 .069 .018 -.118 -.215 -.279* 1 .002 .000 .018 .364** .827** 1 -.279* .000 .000 .069 .589** 1 .827** -.215 .000 .002 .322 1 I see myself donating to TCNJ ten years after graduation .589
**

I see myself donating to TCNJ twenty years after graduation .364

**

Tuition Costs -.118

33

Table 9
Correlationsa I see myself donating to TCNJ one year after graduation I see myself donating Pearson to TCNJ one year after graduation Correlation Sig. (2tailed) I see myself donating Pearson to TCNJ ten years after graduation Correlation Sig. (2tailed) I see myself donating Pearson to TCNJ twenty Correlation .002 .000 .001 .364** .827** 1 -.376** .000 .000 .008 .589** 1 .827** -.309** .000 .002 .151 1 I see myself donating to TCNJ ten years after graduation .589** I see myself donating to TCNJ twenty years after graduation .364** I regret selecting TCNJ over other higher education institutions -.171

years after graduation Sig. (2tailed) I regret selecting TCNJ over other higher education institutions Pearson Correlation Sig. (2tailed)

-.171

-.309**

-.376**

.151

.008

.001

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). a. Listwise N=72

34

Table 10
Correlationsa I see myself donating to TCNJ one year after graduation I see myself donating Pearson to TCNJ one year after graduation Correlation Sig. (2tailed) I see myself donating Pearson to TCNJ ten years after graduation Correlation Sig. (2tailed) I see myself donating Pearson to TCNJ twenty years Correlation after graduation Sig. (2tailed) I will attend future events with fellow alumni such as reunions Pearson Correlation Sig. (2tailed) .001 .004 .002 .386** .341** .360** 1 .008 .000 .002 .316** .811** 1 .360** .000 .000 .004 .558** 1 .811** .341** .000 .008 .001 1 I see myself donating to TCNJ ten years after graduation .558** I see myself donating to TCNJ twenty years after graduation .316** I will attend future events with fellow alumni such as reunions .386**

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). a. Listwise N=70