This essay outlines focus groups as a relatively new method of research for the communication and organizational researcher.

The needs for this type of research, essential ingredients of a quality focus group session, and the advantages and disadvantages ofthe method are discussed A theoretical framework is established and specific instances ofthe application offocus groups in recent organizational research are given. Finally, suggested methods for analyzing focus group data are presented.

Focus Groups: A Qualitative Opportunity for Researchers

James R. Wilcox
Bowling Green State University 'he following scenario is a daily occurrence in many large cities: ight to twelve people, usually a homogeneous grouping, are seated around a conference table engaging in discussion facilitated by a moderator they have never before met. The focus of discussion may be a new product concept or prototype, an advertisement (message or campaign) or perhaps a service. Discussion will proceed for one or two hours. Group members are probed and their responses seem to stimulate discussion as to their perceptions, attitudes, and purchase intentions. The proceedings are audio (sometimes video) recorded and usually observed from the other side of a one-way mirror by representatives ofthe organization which has produced the product, ad, or service. Later, the content of the discussion (often four to eight, or ten groups on a single stimulus) will be analyzed and interpreted in the form of recommendations designed ultimately to reduce the client organization's risk in decision-making. Focus groups have been heavily employed in marketing research for

several years as a method of gathering qualitative data. Articles elaborating descriptions, advantages and disadvantages can be found in a variety of marketing journals such as Marketing News, Marketing Times, Journal of Advertising Research, and Advances in Consumer Research. The focus group method of research has been virtually ignored by those wishing to study the process of communication in areas other than marketing. Communication, or communication-related methods texts, rarely mention focus groups and relatively few articles employing the method exist in published communications research (Lederman, 1983, 1989). This article will make the case for the focus group in communication and organizational research^briefly reviewing pertinent literature

63

64

The Journal of Business Communication

28:l:Winter 1991

about the method and its advantages and disadvantages. A theoretical framework will be discussed as well as appropriate inquiries for its use. Finally, methods of evaluating the resulting data will be suggested.
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The rationale for focus groups should be clear. One common criticism of much communication research is that it has been too far removed from the "process" of communication. Exhibiting a bias for scientific rigor in the last generation, scholars have only recently begun to reassert and advocate qualitative research possibilities to provide more solid "grounded theory." Focus groups have the potential of being an excellent source of qualitative data (Zeller, 1986). As Goldman (1962) suggests, the focus group offers researchers the opportunity to see "process" in action. The focus group affords researchers the chance to observe transactions between and among participants, how they respond and react to each other. Zeller (1986) states that "when the goals ofthe research are general, call for qualitative data, require data that is not in the respondent's top-of-mind, and when there is minimal prior knowledge about a particular problem and the range of responses likely to emerge, the focus group may be the appropriate research design" (p. 1). Focus groups have the ability to provide us with data not obtainable through paper and pencil self-report measures or observational measures. In areas of study in which little is known, focus groups may be an appropriate place to begin. Focus groups provide the opportunity to obtain data which is not necessarily germane to any particular group or setting (Morgan & Spanish, 1984). The focus group "has the potential of providing a methodology of exploration which allows participants to express their concerns within a context that is useful to the scientific community" (Zeller, 1986, p. 3). Such exploration may expose underlying attitudes, opinions, and behavior patterns (Pramualratana, Havanon, & Knodel, 1985). Ideally, a focus group closes the gap between the interviewees' initial perceptions of a topic and their final reports of what they have seen (Merton, Fiske, & Kendall, 1956). Morgan and Spanish (1984) suggest that focus groups are a "unique and independent" source of qualitative data and "can add to other qualitative or quantitative data collection strategies" (p. 253), thus making them useful in a variety of areas of exploration.

Focus Groups Byers/Wilcox

65

The Focus Group Method

Descriptions of focus groups can be found throughout the literature (e.g., Calder, 1977; Cox, Higgenbotham, & Burton, 1976; Fern, 1982; Goldman, 1962; Krueger, 1988; Lehman, 1987; Lydecker, 1986; Merton et al., 1956; Morgan, 1988; Yuhas, 1986; Zeller, 1986). The focus group grew out of what Merton, Fiske, and Kendall (1956) referred to as a focused interview," a discussion group that concentrates on a particular topic or topics, that is facilitated by a trained moderator, and that typically consists of eight to twelve participants. Lederman (1989) suggestsfivefundamental assumptions upon which the method rests: (1) that people are a valuable source of information; (2) that people can report on and about themselves, and that they are articulate enough to verbalize their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors; (3) that the facilitator who "focuses" the interview can help people retrieve forgotten information; (4) that the dynamics in the group can be used to generate genuine information, rather than the "group think" phenomenon; and (5) that interviewing a group is better than interviewing an individual. The focus group interview can be useful by itself as a "self-contained" method of research or it can be part of an on-going, multi-method study when used in conjunction with individual interviews, surveys, experiments, or participant observations (Morgan, 1988). The group is facilitated by a moderator who follows a relatively unstructured interview guide (see appendix). The moderator seeks to obtain significant experiences from the interviewees germane to the topic or topics of interest. Employing Axelrod's (1975) ten essential ingredients for a successful focus group, one would have: 1. A Clearly Understood Objective. Is the focus group part of an on-going research project or is it self-contained? Does the research team have a clearly defined subject of study? 2. Homogeneity Within the Group. The participants should be homogeneous in relation to the topic under discussion (i.e., all should either have or have not been exposed to the topic of study). 3. (jlood Recruiting. Recruiting should be done to insure homogeneity and a sufficient number of qualified participants. 4. A Relaxed Atmosphere. The moderator should insure confidentiality and promote openness. 5. A Moderator Who Listens. The moderator must insure that the discussion does not stray too far from the point of interest, yet must not rule out things that may seem unrelated.

66

The Journal of Business Communication

28:l:Winter 1991

6. A Well Prepared Moderator. The moderator typically follows an unstructured interview guide. 7. Free-Flowing Dialogue. The moderator should begin the discussion by inviting honest and open dialogue and guiding the discussion only when necessary. 8. Restrained Group Infiuence. The moderator should refrain from contributing to the discussion unless necessary. 9. Skilled Analysis. The data can be analyzed by either a qualitative, or ethnographic summary; or a quantitative systematic coding via content analysis (Morgan, 1988, p. 64). 10. Competent Researchers. The research team should be sure that all necessary details are controlled. A successful focus group is one in which a variety of responses are generated which are germane to the topic of study. All participants feel free to express opinions and thoughts regarding the topic(s) at hand.
Advantages of the Focus Group

Based on a review of the literature the method has advantages and disadvantages. The advantages will be highlighted first. 1. Release of inhibition by participants. A well moderated group encourages full and open expression of perceptions, experiences, attitudes, etc. 2. Flexibihty. A focus group is typically more flexible than an individual interview (Wells, 1974). The moderator "works from a list of topics^listening, thinking, probing, exploring, framing hunches and ideas" (p. 134). 3. Handling contingencies. A focus group is amenable to exploring linkages which go untouched in a statistical survey (Wells, 1974, p. 134). Moreover, it is possible to explore avenues of importance which may arise other than those listed on a questionnaire. 4. Time. Eliciting responses from eight to twelve respondents in a focus group lasting one to two hours is more "time effective" than interviewing the same number individually. 5. Interpretability of data. Though the data usually contain a wide range of responses (Kover, 1982), identification of issues and the reasons participants hold positions on issues is usually clear upon careful analysis. The group often stimulates recall and actuates important but forgotten personal detail. 6. Provision of basic exploratory information. When little is known in advance of investigation, the focus group may provide a basis for formulating research questions and hypothesis (Zeller, 1987).

Focus Groups Byers/Wilcox

67

Disadvantages of the Focus Group

The focus group method and data do, however, have some disadvantftges: 1. Cost. A series of four focus groups could easily cost more than $2,500, depending on moderator fee, facility rental, recording and transcribing, data analysis and interpretation, and participant incentives. 2. Subjects' conformity. Social desirability, or respondents' motivation to provide socially acceptable responses to conform to group norms is somewhat greater in a group than in the anonymous process of survey questionnaire completion (Crowne & Marlow, 1964). 3. Biased results. An analyst should not generalize from focus group results to the larger population from which the respondents were a sample, and it is well to remember that the respondents are volunteers who may be more extroverted, outgoing, and sociable than the "average" individual.
Estabiishing a Theoreticai Framework

Establishing a theoretical framework is necessary in order to support the usefulness of any data-gathering technique. To date, Calder (1977) provides the most comprehensive theoretical approach to the focus group technique encompassing its generalizability, objectivity, reliability, validity, the link between theory and method, and an evaluation ofthe method.
Theoreticai Approaches to Focus Group Research

Calder (1977) distinguishes between exploratory, clinical, and phenomenological approaches to focus group research. He claims that the exploratory approach to qualitative research seeks prescientific knowledge. This knowledge is not meant to have scientific status; it is meant to be a precursor. Calder (1977) states that when focus groups are conducted in anticipation of prompting quantitative scientific knowledge, their purpose is to stimulate researchers to use everyday thoughts and words to operationalize constructs and hypotheses. When focus groups are conducted in anticipation of gaining qualitative exploratory knowledge they facilitate the construct-generation process, the aim of which might be described as grounded theory. The exploratory approach may be used when scientific explanation is desired but researchers are uncertain about constructs, or when "a scientific explanation is at hand and researchers want to compare it with... Qay persons'] interpretations" (p. 361).

68

The Journal of Business Communication

28:l:Winter 1991

The clinical, or therapeutic approach, for Calder, cannot be correctly studied t h r o u ^ quantitative means. This approach should he used when researchers need to explore areas which are not amenable to self-report tests or direct observations. "Self-reports, the grist of many quantitative techniques, cannot be taken at face value" (1977, p. 357). He claims that self-reports are "filtered through a variety of defense mechanisms" and may not reflect underlying determinants. Calder suggests that focus groups are useful in a clinical approach to knowledge in that this method is good at obtaining useful information for clinical, or therapeutic judgments. Calder's third approach, phenomenological, is summed up succinctly by Axelrod's description of a focus group as "a chance to experience the flesh and blood of a consumer" (Calder, 1977, p. 358). The researcher is attempting to experience a set of actors and describe the experience. Tbis approach should be used, according to Calder, when the researchers are out of touch with their targeted subjects or the subject groupings are changing rapidly.
Generalizability

One of the most common questions about the usefulness of focus groups concerns generalizability. Wells (1974) notes that group interviews cannot be conducted with large portions of the population and that insuring randomness is difficult; he concludes that researchers must assume whatever is being investigated is so uniformly distributed that it does not matter much where one "dips" into the population and that crude attempts at stratification will pick up important variations. Calder suggests that for exploratory purposes, the issue of generalizability is not particularly important since the goal is to generate ideas for scientific constructs or compare scientific with everyday explanations. For the clinical approach, generalizability is more meaningful. According to Calder, scientific interpretation is being made and one would like to know whether it holds true beyond the focus group participants. Calder suggests that generalizations can be assessed t h r o u ^ subsequent research designed to test the clinical interpretation with a quantitative technique. (jreneraUzabilify for the phenomenological approach, according to Calder, is easily assessed through follow-up quantitative research. Calder warns, however, that "the phenomenological approach is predicated on experiencing the experience of [others]. Tliis is best done through personal contact. Quantitative surveys, though they permit estimates of generality, are a poor substitute for even vicarious ex-

Focus Groups Byers/Wilcox

69

perience" (1977, p. 361). Calder further suggests that additional focus groups may be a better way to establish generalizability. A rule of thumb is to conduct focus groups until the researchers can be reasonably sure that the same information will be repeated. This typically occurs after the fourth or fiflh session.
Objectivity, Reiiabiiity, and Vaiidity

Goldman (1962) suggests requirements of good group interviews such as objectivity, reliability, and validity. He suggests that to promote objectivity, or "avoidance of the bias of the interviewer and client [or research team]" (p. 66), the moderator should refrain from contributing to the discussion as much as possible and monitor his or her actions carefully. As the goal of focus group research is to ask "why" rather than "how many," to generate hypotheses rather than assert their representativeness, the question of reliability becomes less important. Goldman states that "a source of continual concern to the researcher is the validity problem" (italic his) (p. 67). Focus groups tend to suffer from inhibiting factors just as do other methods of qualitative research. Goldman, through his experiences with focus groups, concludes that discrepancies between attitude expression and actual behavior are relatively small in a well conducted focus group, implying reasonable validity ofthe method.
Lini< Between Theory and iUiethod

Poole and McPhee (1985) suggest the key links between theory and method are modes of inquiry, hypothetico-deductive, modeling and groimded; and modes of explanation, causal, conventional, and dialectical. Together, these modes form nine templates, or ranges of research options (p. 104). Each template contains different assumptions and standards of inference or proof The templates provide a general scheme "or research methods and "can be used to guide selection of techniques ind evaluation of previous technical choices," as well as "suggest how the results of applying techniques should be interpreted" (p. 110). The focus group method suggested here fits neatly into template 6: a grounded mode of inquiry and a conventional mode of explanation. The method-theory link suggests that the focus group method provides a basis from which researchers can then develop theory. It is a "bottom-up" approach with researchers "developing concepts, hypotheses, and theoretical propositions from direct experiences with the data" (Poole & McPhee, 1985, p. 108). Conventional explanations "presume the independence of researcher and the subjects of research" (Poole & McPhee,

70

The Joumai of Business Communication

28:l:Winter 1991

HypothetlcoDeductlvo
1 4

Modeling 2 5
8

Grounded
3 6 9

Causal Conventional Dialectical Mode of Explanation

Figure 1 Modes of Inquiry and Explanation 1985, p. 105) but a "template 6 approach" assumes the world is a "social product" where the subjects actively regulate their behavior and seeks to explain why subjects react in a particular manner. When this type of explanation is sought, the focus group method is useful. In template 6 research, the investigator uses qualitative techniques to uncover conventions and how they are used. Validity rests primarily on the strength ofthe researcher's insight and techniques of discovery. This cell brings the researcher "into the most intimate contact" witii the subject.
Evaluation of the Method

Focus groups have received little empirical scrutiny in both marketing literature and other disciphnes. Fern (1982) empirically examined four common assumptions of the focus group method: (1) ITiat group interviews produce more useful results than do individual interviews, (2) that the most productive size of a group is eight, (3) that moderators significantly improve group discussion, and (4) that group participants should not be acquaintances. The independent variables used were (1) group type (real group versus individual interviews); (2) moderator (moderated or unmoderated); (3) group size (one, four or eight members); and (4) acquaintanceship (participants knew or did not know each other). The dependent variables were (1) the number of different or unique ideas relevant to the discussion topic, and (2) the judged quality ofthe ideas based on originality, feasibility, effectiveness, importance, and uniqueness. Fern (1982) concluded that individual interviews have the potential to generate more ideas than focus groups, that eight-member groups

Focus Groups Byers/Wilcox

71

generated significantly more ideas than four-member groups, and that a minimal difference existed between moderated and unmoderated groups. The effect of acquaintanceship was not clearly determined. One must remember that these studies were done on a rather small sample and that the findings were not conclusive. The results may well be dependent on the skills ofthe interviewer or moderator. Further, the results do not challenge (but rather support) the assumption that something of value may be gained from listening to interactions and interpretative talk. Questions regarding the most effective method for such interpretation remain open. Lederman (in press) assessed the method as a technique for data collection. She suggests that the method may be easily misused and is not suitable to many types of data collection; however, its value lies in its ability to generate thick, qualitative data, and to generate h)T)otheses for future exploration.
APPROPRiATE iNQUiRiES FOR THE FOCUS GROUP METHOD

Focus groups may be valuable to those exploring new territory in which little is known beforehand, or to gain unique insight into existing beliefs, behaviors, and attitudes. Besides being a valuable tool for marketing, the focus group method has also been suggested and used for a variety of other purposes in the organizational setting. For example, the method may be appropriate for assessing employees' beliefs and attitudes toward policies and procedures in the work place. This section will describe avenues of inquiry using the focus group method in recent research efforts. Each application will show how a particular kind of question may be approached by the focus group method. The following six questions are particularly amenable to the method and provide researchers with a framework for assessing the appropriateness ofthe method-problem relationship. 1. How do people interpret and respond to messages or message campaigns? Lehman (1987) attempted an evaluation of the various anti-smoking campaigns ofthe prior generation, asking specifically the questions "how do people process and respond to anti-smoking messages?" He recruited volunteer groups of confirmed smokers, exsmokers, non-smokers, and non-smoking family members of smokers. Issues explored in these groups included enumeration and elaboration of anti-smoking messages and sources. Respondents discussed Hie distinction between those which have made or might make a difference in

72

The Journal of Business Communication

28:l:Winter 1991

smoking behavior, information avoidance or information seeking behavior about smoking consequences, described social pressure attempts (both intended and received) and their effects, strong and mild fear appeals and finally, for those who had stopped successfully, a detailed recall of significant communicative events which preceded and then followed the decision. What resulted was rich data regarding the phenomenon that would not have been possible from survey instruments and was likely richer because of the stimulation and recall opportunity provided by homogeneous participants. 2. How might people resist organizational change? Second, an ongoing organizational intervention (Wilcox, 1988) involves use of focus groups as a way of identifying both the core values that comprise the "corporate culture" and the structural barriers that exist which impede their acceptance at all levels of the organization. Additionally, focus groups are being used in this project to determine for each major division critical components of its intra-organizational image. To date, twentyfour "internal" focus groups have been conducted with corporate managers to determine perceptions of organizational goals relevant to "customer focus" and the barriers (both structural and functional) to this end. Data is interpreted and used in a diagnostic way to assist organizational change. Boden (1989) used the focus group method when investigating tbe possibility of adopting a new benefit package. He states that "initially, the focus groups were to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the current program; later in tbe process, they were used to test the proposed flexible approach" (p. 12). He suggests that focus groups be used when researchers desire to get input from employees about both existing programs and future possibilities. 3. How can service be improved? The previously mentioned organizational intervention also involved an effort by the manager of the organization's largest division to determine how well that division was meeting the needs and expectations of other divisions within the organization. Four focus groups were assembled, consisting in each case of respondents from other divisions. The interpreted results provided a basis for some procedural cbanges in adapting more effectively and responsibly to organizational needs. Another example of current research in the organizational setting includes conducting focus groups with residents in both apartments and houses (Barnett, 1989) to assess resident satisfaction. 4. How will people respond to new technologies? The second author was recently involved in a series of focus groups conducted for a client

Focus Groups Byers/Wilcox

73

interested in marketing a terminal. The terminal could be used to tap into a videotext data base and at the same time serve as the basis of a home computer system around which a line of peripherals could be added. A series of eight focus groups resulted in a recommendation not to market the product. Respondents seemed to fall into two groups^they either saw the terminal as too "computer-like" resulting in apprehension, or they were already reasonably sophisticated and saw the terminal as too "toy-like" and not an appropriate nucleus for a personal computer system. Feelings expressed in the group were seen as sufficiently intense to warrant the recommendation. 5. How effective are current company training/evaluation methods? The focus group method could also be used when evaluating company training and evaluation procedures. O'Donnell (1988) used the focus group method as a means of evaluating current training procedures. Statistical testing showed significant improvement in the intended direction upon completion of a training program. Using focus groups as a follow-up, "it was clear that the training did not improve job-related performance, nor were participants able to use much of the presented material in their day-to-day work" (p. 71). O'Donnell (1988) suggests that the focus group method is appropriate for "needs assessment, training evaluation, or as a technique for probing the intricacies of a problem" (p. 71). The author was not suggesting that the statistical tests were wrong, but that other information not obtainable in a paper/pencil survey was found to be highly relevant and useful. 6. What issues should serve as a basis for survey questionnaire development? The technique could also be used to re-validate surveys and questionnaires which may be outdated, and to develop new surveys and questionnaires. Another use for focus groups could be to assist in "triangulation" (Campbell & Fiske, 1959). Campbell and Fiske (1959) suggest that in order to fully understand a topic of interest, researchers should use more than one method of study. Focus groups may provide a more human perspective to a purely quantitative study thereby illuminating important variables that might otherwise be missed.
SUGGESTED ANALYSIS OF FOCUS GROUP DATA

Three authors provide useful methods of analyzing focus group data, Berelson (1956), Lederman (1989, in press), and Krueger (1988). For simplicity's sake, this section will be organized by author since each author suggests a type of content analysis that deals specifically with

74

The Journal of Business Communication

28:1: Winter 1991

qualitative research and may be particularly useful for analyzing focus group data. Berelson (1956) refers to a qualitative content analysis as a "pre-quantitative," or a "qualitative" content analysis. He states that this is a process for "discovering and/or formulating appropriate categories for subsequent quantification... [It] is the process of inducting hypotheses which yield generalized categories for systematic analysis" (p. 115). It looks for the frequency of certain types of statements and the incidence of "general categories." Berelson (1956) states that qualitative content analysis is "quasiquantitative." He states that this qualitative analysis contains quantitative statements in "rough form." "Instead of saying, for example, that 73% of the content fits a given category, they say that the category is 'strongly emphasized' or that the content'tends in this direction'" (p. 118). He suggests that content analysis may be useful (1) to describe the characteristics ofthe content itself; (2) to make valid inferences from the nature ofthe content to characteristics ofthe producers ofthe content; and (3) to interpret the content so as to reveal something about the nature of its audience or its effects. A quahtative content-analysis approach may be particularly useful when one's research is exploratory. In a qualitative content analysis the researcher is not forced to fit utterances into rigid categories; rather, categories are formed based on the utterances which should yield more germane conclusions. Also, as suggested by Kassarjian (1977), rigid quantitative categories may not be relevant when the "subjects' language and mode of expression is crucial to the investigation" (p. 11). Berelson states that when sample size is small and extreme precision is not essential, this type of analysis is most beneficial. Precision may or may not be necessary depending on the research problem. In those instances where extreme precision is essential, when specific categories must be examined, and the research is not necessarily exploratory, a quantitative content analysis may be in order. Lederman (1989) also provides some useful techniques for analyzing focus group data. She suggests that to make verbatim transcripts from the tape recordings is standard procedure but notes that verbatim transcripts are not always possible or necessary. In those instances, transcript summaries based on the recordings are useful. Lederman (1983) devised a coding scheme for interpreting focus group data. She suggests "I (individual/idiosyncratic), C (consensus), and A (areas of agreement/disagreement)" (p. 235). An "F statement would contain those that are only mentioned once or the thoughts of one individual, "C"

Focus Groups Byers/Wilcox

75

statements contain those that represent agreement amongthe members, and "A" statements contain those which either agree or disagree with the specific topic under discussion. Krueger (1988) suggests that the focus group researcher consider five factors: 1. Consider the words. The researcher should consider both the actual words used by participants and the meanings of those words. 2. Consider the context The researcher should examine the context by identifying the "triggering stimulus" for a comment and then interpreting the comment in l i ^ t ofthe context or stimulus. 3. Consider the internal consistency. Participants often change or reverse their positions. The researcher should note when there is a shift in opinion which is relevant to the purpose of study. 4. Consider the specificity of responses. Researchers should give more w e i ^ t to responses that are specific and concrete rather than those that are vague and ambiguous. 5. Find the big ideas. Big ideas emerge from "an accumulation of evidence^the words used, the body language, the intensity of commentsrather than from isolated comments" (Krueger, 1988, p. 116). In other words, the researcher should not get caught up in counting the number of times something is said; rather, look for patterns. Whichever type of analysis is employed, focus group data and resulting categories should be submitted to another researcher for validation (Kassarjian, 1977; Krueger, 1988). Cross-validation will enhance the objectivity and reliability ofthe research.
CONCLUSION

Two points will summarize our position. First, in these projects (and many worthwhile similar ones) the focus group appears te be the "best," if not the only, way of obtaining data te achieve the research objective. In many of the research examples presented, the findings are not regarded as definitive, only provocative and suggestive of further research inquiry. The main contention here is that focus groups may be a new and appropriate teol for certain research questions. The authors recommend this method as a way of gaining in-depth information when little is known and suggest that the communication scholar is an excellent choice te both moderate the focus group and interpret its data.

76

The Journal of Business Communication NOTE

28:l:Winter 1991

Parts of this manuscript were presented at the Speech Communication Association conference in November, 1988.

REFERENCES

Allport, G.W. (1965). In C. Sellitz, M., Jahoda, & S.W. Cook (Eds.), Research m^ethods in social relations. New York: Rineholt and Winston. Axelrod, M. (1975). 10 essentials for good qualitative research. Marketing News, 8,10-11. Barnett, J.A. (1989). Focusing on residents. Journal of Property Management, 54, 31-32. Berelson, B. (1956). Content analysis in communication research. Illinois: The Free Press. Boden, W.C. (1989). Flexible benefits: One compan3f's view. Compensation and Benefits Review, 21, 11-16. Calder, B.J. (1977). Focus groups and the nature of qualitative marketing research. Journal of Marketing Research, 14, 353-364. Campbell, D.T., & Fiske, D.W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, (2), 81105. Cox, K.K., Higgenbotham, J.B. & Burton, J. (1976). Applications of focus group interviews in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 40, 77-80. Crowne, D., & Marlow, D. (1964). The approval motive. New York: John Wiley and Son. Fern, E.F. (1982). The use of focus groups for idea generation: The effects of group size, acquaintanceship, and moderator on response quantity and qasitity. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 1-13. Goldman, A.E. (1962). The group depth interview. Journal of Marketing, 26, 61-68. Kassarjian, H.H. (1977). Content analysis in consumer researcb. Journal of Consumer Research, 4, 8-17. Kover, A.J. (1982). Point of view: The legitimacy of qualitative research. Journal of Advertising Research, 22, 49-50. Krueger, R.A. (1988). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, Inc. Lederman, L.C. (1983). High communication apprehensives talk about communication apprehension and its effects on their behavior. Communication Quarterly, 31, 233-237. Lederman, L.C. (1988). When you want to know what they think, ask them: Three studies using the focus group interview technique. Paper presented at the meeting of the Eastern Communication Association, Baltimore, MD.

Focus Groups Byers/Wilcox

77

Lederman, L.C. (1989). Assessing educational effectiveness: The focus group interview as a technique for data collection. Paper presented at the meeting ofthe Speech Communication Association, San Francisco, CA. Lederman, L.C. (in press). An assessment ofthe focus group interview method as a technique for data collection in applied communication research. Communication Education. Lehman, K.L. (1987). A study of the anti-smoking campaign. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Bowling Green State University, Ohio. Lydecker, T.H. (1986, March). Focus group dynamics. Association Management, 73-78. Merton, R.K., Fiske, M., & Kendall, P. (1956). The focused interview. Illinois: Free Press. Morgan, D.L. (1988). Focus groups as qualitative research. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, Inc. Morgan, D.L. & Spanish, M.T. (1984). Focus groups: Anew tool for qualitative research. Qualitative Sociology, 3, 253-270. O'Donnell, J.M. (1988). Focus groups: A habit-forming evaluation technique. Training and Development Journal, 42, 71-73. Poole, M.S., & McPhee, R.D. (1985). Methodology in interpersonal research. In M.L. Knapp & G.R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 100-170). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Pramualratana, A., Havanon, N., & Knodel, J. (1985). Exploring the normative basis for age of marriage in Thailand: An example from focus group research. Journal of Marriage and Family, 41, 203-210. Reynolds, F.D., & Johnson, D.K. (1978). Validity of focus group findings. Journal ofAdvertising Research, 21-24. Wells, W.D. (1974). Group interviewing. In R. Ferber (Ed.), Handbook of marketing research. New York: McGraw-Hill. Wilcox, J.R. (1988). Professional focus group moderator. Bowling Green State University, OH. Yuhas, P.L. (1986). Romantic marital jealousy: An exploratory analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Bowling Green State University, Ohio. Zeller, R.A. (1987). Focus groups. Unpublished manuscript. Bowling Green State University, Ohio. Zeller, R.A. (1986). The focus group: Sociological applications. Unpublished manuscript. Bowling Green State University, Ohio. Zeller, R.A. (1987). Focus groups. Unpublished manuscript. Bowling Green State University, Ohio.

78

The Joumai of Business Communication

28:l:Winter 1991

APPENDIX Sample Interviewer's Guide Orientation to focus group procedure, research observers, tape recorder, and topic of interest. 1. How important is sexual fidelity in marriage today? 2. How common is jealousy in marriage today? Compared with a generation ago? Compared with 10 years ago? 3. What might the absence of jealousy suggest? 4. How is jealousy expressed in marriage? By whom is it expressed? 5. Are husbands or wives or neither more likely to express it? 6. How would you describe the experience of marital jealousy? 7. How do spouses let their mates know when or where jealousy is experienced? Are there male/female differences? 8. Were you to tell your spouse of jealous feelings, how would you do it? What results would you expect? What results would you get? 9. How might your spouse express jealous feelings to you? What do you think would be expected? How would you respond? 10. Is communication about jealousy private and exclusive or are other parties drawn in? Who? How? 11. What is a constructive way to deal with jealousy in marriage? 12. What is not a constructive way to deal with jealousy in marriage? 13. Is jealousy in males restricted because it is not "manly" to be jealous? 14. Does jealousy express more ofa love for self (I am so wonderful how can siie even look at another) rather than a love for other? 15. At what point in a potentially jealous situation does a partner's talking with Joe/Suzie in the corner turn from a "friendly chat" into a potential threat? 16. Do partners ever "warn" each other of behaviors that they fmd jealousy provoking or threatening ("Now don't you talk to Joe/Suzie too long tonight!")? How? What reaction does that get? 17. Do partners ever intentionally provoke jealousy in each other? How? Why? Thank you for your participation. If there are no further questions or comments the session is over. Accepted by PVL, 10/2/89