" ‘Afifomoau OWNERS m TERMS 0? max. smmmes AND mmmces Thesis for “In chru 0* M. A. MECHEGH STRTE WHE’ERSETY Robert Lincoln Sterling 1957 1m» 59$ LIBRAR Y Michigan State University MSU LIBRARIES m RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped beIow. Subm Mich Ape AN INVESTIGATION OF CERTAIN PREFERENCES OF AUTOMOBILE OWNERS IN TERMS OF THEIR SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES By Robert Lincoln Sterling A THESIS Submitted to the College of Science and Arts Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER or ARTS Department of Psychology 1957 -1- Robert Lincoln Sterling The purpose of this study was to investigate, by way of a mail questionnaire, automobile owner preferences in terms of their similarities and differences. There were two forms of the questionnaire, A and B, of which MOO of each form were sent to each of the two samples selected at random from the Motor Vehicle Registrations for 1956 of Ingham County, Michigan. Form B was utilized in this study. This questionnaire consisted of six sections which were as follows: (1) Present Car, (2) Next Car, (3) Trends, (u) Safety, (5) Features, and (6) Statements. Each of these sections contained what was considered to be a representa- tive sampling of items relevant to automotive design and construction. The respondents were to designate on the scales pro- vided, their satisfaction with their present car; what they would like to find in their next car; their approval of cur- rent trends in the automobile; the degree to which they felt various features contributed to safety; the importance of one of a pair of items, for each pair listed; and their a- greement with each of a number of statements. Upon com- pletion, the questionnaire was to be returned in a self- addressed, stamped envelope which was enclosed with each —2- Robert Lincoln Sterling questionnaire. One hundred two Form B questionnaires were returned which were complete in every detail; thirteen others which were returned could not be used because of omissions, or a failure to follow the directions in answering. Appropriate scoring procedures were devised for each section of the questionnaire. Nonparametric statistics were utilized throughout the analysis of the data, as no assump- tions of normality could be made. The owner variables investigated were as follows: (1) age, (2) height, (3) weight, (A) distance driven, (S) intent to purchase, and (6) make, model, and year of last car, present car, and probable next car. The findings of this study indicated that there were statistically significant relationships between the various respondent characteristics and their responses to the fea- tures in each of the six sections of the questionnaire. Preferences for certain features were related to owner characteristics, and differences as well as similarities in these preferences were found to exist. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This writer wishes to express his sincere apprecia- ation to Dr. James S. Karslake for his assistance in the completion of this thesis, and to his wife, Sue, for her many contributions. INTRODUCTION ... BACKGROUND The Sample TABLE OF CONTENTS Scoring Methods .................................. Procedure for Testing Hypotheses ................. RESULTS ... APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D 13 16 17 19 22 33 37 b2 MI 52 6h 97 Table I _ VIII - XXI — XXVII- 5 VII XIV XXVI XXXII XXXIII-XXXVIII XXXIX - XLIV XLV - LXI LIST OF TABLES Sample Data Including Owner Char- acteristics Ranking by Total Sample for Each of the Six Sections of the Ques- tionnaire The Relationships Among the Three Respondent Age Groups and Their Rankings for Each of the Six Sec— tions of the Questionnaire The Relationships Among the Three Respondent Height Groups and Their Rankings for Each of the Six Sec- tions of the Questionnaire The Relationships Among the Three Respondent Distance Groups and Their Rankings for Each of the Six Sections of the Questionnaire The Relationships Among the Four Respondent Present Car Age Groups and Their Rankings for Each of the Six Sections of the Questionnaire Rank Order Correlations Between Car Owners Changing Makes and Not Changing Makes for Each of the Six Sections of the Questionnaire The Relationships Between Owner Responses and Height with Weight Held Constant and Between Owner Responses and Weight with Height Held Constant for a Number of Selected Features Page 52 57 6h 71 78 85 92 97 Tables LXII-LXXVIII LXXIX XCV CXVI- - XCIV - CXV CXXXVI The Relationships Between Owner Responses and Company with Model Held Constant and Between Owner Responses and Model with Company Held Constant for a Number of Selected Features The Relationships Between Owner Responses and Make of Car with Model Held Constant and Between Owner Responses and Model with Make of Car Held Constant for a Number of Selected Features The Relationships Between Owner Responses and Distance Driven with Age of Respondents Held Constant and Between Owner Re- sponses and Age of Respondents with Distance Driven Held Con- stant for a Number of Selected Features Rank Order Correlations Between the Rankings of Car Owners Who Plan to Buy versus Those Who Do Not Plan to Buy Matched on the Age of the car Now Owned for a Number of Selected Features Page 115 131 ma I NTRODUC TI ON INTRODUCTION The purpose of this investigation was to determine what owner preferences were for specific features of the automobile in terms of owner similarities and differences. For the purposes of this investigation, the owners could be classified in terms of the following: (1) age, (2) sex, (3) height, (h) weight, (5) marital status, (6) av- erage distance driven per year, (7) make, model, and year of last, present, and next car, and (8) intent to purchase. The features investigated were divided into six sections in the questionnaire. These were: (1) Present Car, (2) Next Car, (3) Trends, (h) Safety, (5) Features, and (6) State- ments. These various breakdowns were considered sufficient to provide a large enough range in differences for the re- spondents in terms of the analysis, and to provide a satis- factory coverage of automotive design and construction. Today, automobiles are no longer produced in small quantities; the goal set by the industry for 1957 was six million automobiles (16). It is self evident that with production at such a high level, individual differences in preference cannot be catered to; the car produced must be some sort of a compromise in terms of these potential owner differences. The result of this is the seeming variety of -2- automobiles available today. That is, the manufacturers have, to compensate for individual differences attempted to produce what could be termed cheap cars, expensive cars, fast cars, slow cars, long cars, short cars, and etc., in the hopes that any individual could purchase a car that would satisfy his needs. This plan has, it seems, convinced the average driver that he is somewhat different from any other driver and requires a particular model or make to pro- vide for these differences. However, these differences which are reputed to exist by the manufacturers may be more the result of autistic thinking on the part of the owner, than any genuine engineering and/or design differences. If this is the situation, then there would be little reason to anticipate any differences in response for any one specific feature or group of features, but if the responses given for any one specific feature or group of features varied from owner to owner and from make to make, there would be reason to believe that the differences found were related to owner and/or automobile characteristics. Information of this type could prove to be of value to the manufacturer. Some of the implications for the manufacturer might be a more realistic view of consumer demands, which could be of value with reference to advertising and remotely to the various aspects of production and design. -3- The mania for change which has encompassed the manu- facturers in their never ending battle for sales supremacy is an expensive proposition, both for the manufacturers and the consumer. Perhaps this constant change is not, in re- ality, the most important factor in the determination of whether or not the public decides to purchase. Other rea- sons of a more practical nature may be the deciding factor and it is possible that these reasons may be unknown to the manufacturers. Further, changes of any type may be directed, in terms of what group or segment of the population actually purchases the majority of the new cars, away from that seg- ment of the population which seldom, if ever, purchases one. There are many other ramifications and implications for the manufacturer which will be considered in the latter chapters. BACKGROUND BACKGROUND A survey of the literature was made in an effort to secure information pertinent to the subject of automobile surveys. To the best of this writer's knowledge there was a very real paucity of information available on this subject. An article by Weaver (17) was about the extent of the findings, and the information in this article was vague with respect to the results obtained, and the methodology employed. One factor was mentioned, however, in this article which may to some ex- tent provide the rationale as to why survey information of this type has been seldom published. Weaver suggested that very little, if any, of the obtained data were used for prac- tical purposes because of certain technical problems and their related cost factors. This would suggest then, that surveys of this type are for public relations purposes or as a check on changes that have already been introduced, rather than as a source of data to assist in the determination of future changes or modifications. A review of the literature was also conducted to secure information relative to the development and structuring of the mail questionnaire. Also of interest were the various statis- tical methods and scaling procedures applicable to an investi- gation of this kind. Information concerning the composition -5- of respondents to mail questionnaires was reviewed in an ef- fort to determine what could be anticipated with reference to the representativeness of the population studied. Mail surveys have not always been viewed as the best possible method for obtaining data. However, the choice of this type of survey for this investigation was presumed to be the most adequate in terms of the data sought, the population considered, the time aspect, and the financial limitations. Another facet of the mail questionnaire which seemed appro- priate was its impersonal nature and the fact that responses are usually given more freely (2, 8). The risk of inter— viewer bias was also eliminated, and while the subject matter was not extremely controversial, there existed the possibil- ity or personal involvement. Despite these advantages there are, on the other hand, certain disadvantages connected with a survey of this type. Several authors (2, IS, 8, 12) have indicated that by uti- lizing a mail questionnaire to obtain data, you do not know who the people are who answer; the returns could be a biased selection of the original addressees; it is difficult to de- termine the representativeness of the respondents in terms of the non-respondents; and personal data information are occasionally omitted. These authors also pointed out that, in general, the respondents to mail questionnaires have more education, are -6- articulate or at least more so than the average, and are joiners. This point was qualified, however, with respect to the subject matter of the questionnaire. Individuals who might not normally take the time to fill out the questionnaire often will, if the subject matter is of interest to them. Bauer (1) suggested that the greatest bias was introduced by differences of interest in the subject matter of the question- naire. This bias would evidence itself to a greater degree if the returns are small, especially on_a subject of interest to only a part of the sample. The subject matter used in this study was felt to be of interest to all, as it was sent only to automobile owners and in this way, while it was evident that not all would respond, the possibility of receiving a fairly representative sample was increased. Frazen and Lazarsfeld (8) while indicating that there are consistent and statistically significant biases in a mail questionnaire sample, state that for most practical purposes the biases are not (with reference to their study) large and can be corrected to eliminate distortion of the data. Reid and others (13, 5, lb) suggest that there is a difference between respondents and non-respondents; a bias. To compensate for this, a follow-up questionnaire should be utilized to correct for any bias in the responses of the original sample. Some estimate of the probable answers of the non-respondents can then be inferred from these two groups. -7- As it was impractical to use a follow-up questionnaire in this study, a second questionnaire fairly similar to this form was sent out and some of the limitations of a single questionnaire compensated for. A cut-off date,two weeks after the date of mailing, was decided upon due to certain time limitations, and for the most part the major portion of the replies were received by that date. According to Manfield (10) there is a pattern of re- sponse to mail questionnaires, about nine-tenths of the questionnaires to be ultimately returned will be received by the end of the tenth day. The four additional days used here were thought sufficient time beyond the ten day period to in- sure a fairly complete return. Stanton (15) found in a study he conducted that the late returns are not significantly different from the early returns. Thus, there is no real need to wait for the remainder of re- plies before analyzing the returned data. To wait for the later returns could delay the completion of the survey for an overlong period of time. The format of the questionnaire and its contents are dis- cussed at length by several authors (12, 7, 3) and in summary, they have indicated or outlined what should or should not be done in the production of a mail questionnaire. Such things as concern for overall length, placement of the questions, -8- phrasing of the questions, and the relationship of the re- sponses to one proposition as influenced by another, are a few of the precautions mentioned. Other factors to be cog— nizant of are: the intellegibility of the questions; elim- ination of any bias or emotional content in the questions; general appearance; enclosure of a letter of transmittal; and even such a seemingly insignificant thing as the color of the postage stamp (11). Within the limitations of the question- naire utilized in this study, an effort was made to comply with the information obtained. In terms of length, there seemed to be no way, at least at the time, to reduce the length of the questionnaire. The questionnaire was to be anonymous and it was thought that by keeping it this way, the number of respondents might be increased. The virtues of anonymity have been debated, and Corey (b) has found that this factor had little influence over the responses of his subjects. However, to be on the safe side, the requirement that the respondents identify them- selves was not employed. The statistics utilized to analyze the responses were chosen because no assumptions could be made with respect to the normality of the distribution and in a situation such as this, nonparametric or distribution-free methods are advis- able (7). Also the inability to do anything other than assign ranks to the data had to be considered. The coefficient of -9- concordance and the rank order correlation as described by Edwards (6) were the principal statistics used in this study. HYPOTHE SES HYPOTHESES l. The relationship between the three owner age groups and their rankings of the items on Present Car, Next Car, Trends, Safety, Features, and Statements will not be signifi- cantly other than zero. 2. The relationship between the three height groups and their rankings of the items on Present Car, Next Car, Trends, Safety, Features, and Statements will not be signifi- cantly other than zero. 3. The relationship between the three distance-driven groups and their rankings of the items on Present Car, Next Car, Trends, Safety, Features, and Statements will not be significantly other than zero. A. The relationship between the four present car-age groups and their rankings of the items on Present Car, Next Car, Trends, Safety, Features, and Statements will not be significantly other than zero. 5. The relationship between whether or not there was a change of make from the last car to the present one, and owner rankings of the items on Present Car, Next Car, Trends, Safety, Features, and Statements will not be significantly other than ZBI‘O o -11- 6a. The relationship between responses and height, with weight held constant will not be significantly other than zero for the following items: A, 27, 28, 38, N3, 52, 80, and for each of the five features for Sets A and B of the Features Section of the questionnaire. See Appendix D for an interpretation of these, and the other symbols. b. The relationship between responses and weight, with height held constant will not be significantly other than zero for the above listed items. 7a. The relationship between responses and company, with model held constant will not be significantly other than zero for the following items: A, 27, 38, 51, 52, 80, 8b, and for each of the five features for Sets A and B of the Features Section of the questionnaire. b. The relationship between responses and model, with company held constant will not be significantly other than zero for the above listed items. 8a. The relationship between responses and make of car, with model held constant will not be significantly other than zero for the following items: 1, IS, 19, 3k, 57, 70, and for each of the five features for Sets A and B of the Features Section of the questionnaire. b. The relationship between responses and model, with make of car held constant will not be significantly other than zero for the above listed items. -12.. 9a. The relationship between responses and distance driven, with age of respondents held constant will not be significantly other than zero for the following items: I, u, 10, 19, 23, 27, 3h, 38, S2, S7, 80, and for each of the five features for Sets A and B of the Features Section of the questionnaire. b. The relationship between responses and age of respondents, with distance driven held constant will not be significantly other than zero for the above listed items. 10. The relationship between the rankings of car owners who plan to buy versus those who do not plan to buy, matched on the age of the car now owned will not be significantly other than zero for the following items: 1, u, 19, 27, 3k, 38, M6, 52, S7, 60, 80, and for each of the five features for Sets A and B of the Features Section of the questionnaire. METHOD AND PROCEDURE METHOD AND PROCEDURE The Questionnaire The questionnaire used in this study was designed by the investigators to give a maximum amount of information about car owners' opinions on various features and trends in the development of cars, with a minimum of effort on the part of the respondent. The features inquired about were drawn from a list obtained by surveying advertisements, articles, and other sources of information on recent and proposed trends in automotive construction and design. From this list twenty- four features were drawn which were considered most relevant to cars manufactured between l9h6 and 1956. These features were listed on the Present Car Section, and the respondent asked to check how satisfied he was with this feature as it appeared on his present car, and how important this feature was to him. It was felt that the opinion of a car owner about a feature would be a function of the importance of that feature to him. That is, satisfaction or dissatisfaction with a feature thought to be important would indicate a stronger opinion than with a feature thought to be unimportant. On the Next Car Section, twelve of the features in the Present Car Section were listed in terms of changes in that feature, along with twelve features or trends mentioned in -lh- the sources as current or proposed changes in cars. The re— spondent was asked to check whether he wanted each feature on his next car, and how important it was that he have each feature on his next car. The attempt was made to use features on this and the next two sections which would represent changes from the features found on the respondent's present car. On the Trends Section, the same twelve features were again listed in terms of possible changes in that feature, along with twelve new features mentioned in the sources as currently popular trends in automotive construction and design. The respondent was asked to check whether he liked or disliked each trend, and hOW'important the trend was to him. On the Safety Section, the twelve present-car features were again listed in terms of changes from the present, along with twelve additional features or trends from the sources mentioned as contributing to the safety aspect of driving. The respondent was asked to check whether he felt each feature increased or decreased safety, and how important he felt each feature was in terms of safety. The features were then divided into two forms A and B, each form containing in each section eight of the twelve fea- tures carried through all of these sections and eight of the twelve features unique to each section.~ This allowed an overlap of four of the features in each of the groups on each I i.‘ 1. -15- section on both forms, so that a comparison of the respondents to each form could be made. Thus each form contained in each of these sections four features common to both forms and car- ried through all four sections; four features common to both forms, but unique to each section; four features unique to each form, but carried through all four sections; and four features unique to each form and each section. This made it possible to trace the consistency of responses to the fea- tures appearing on all four sections, and the consistency with which the respondents on the two different forms re- sponded to the common items. To provide additional checks on the consistency of re- sponse, both by groups and by individuals, two additional sections were prepared. The Features, or paired-comparison section was composed of two sets of five features each taken from the Present Car Section. Each feature was paired with every other feature in its set, and the respondent was asked to check the member of each pair which he liked the best (Form A) or which he thought was most important (Form B). 'The same pairs appeared on both forms, so that the order of the features in terms of liking and in terms of importance could be compared between the groups responding to the two forms. The Statements Section was composed of features drawn from the first four sections, and put into statements with -15- which the respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they agreed or disagreed. Twelve of these statements were common to both forms, the remainder unique to each form. The Questions Section was included to provide additional information on the features which were most important to the respondents, and as a source of additional features for re— vising the questionnaire. This section was the same on both forms. The first page of the questionnaire was composed of questions concerning those characteristics of the respondent and his present car which were desired for the analysis. Although much more information would have been desirable, it was felt that a minimum of personal questions should be asked, to avoid unduly antagonizing any of the respondents. These questions were the same on both forms. The questionnaire used in this study was Form B. The Sample The population chosen for this investigation consisted of the registered car owners of Ingham County, Michigan. The 1956 Motor Vehicle Registrations list was obtained and a random sample of 800 private passenger car owners was drawn from this list, using a table of random numbers. Two lists of MOO owners each were compiled from this master list. One -17- form of the questionnaire (either Form A or Form B) was sent to each one of the hOO owners on each list. While it was not considered that the population sampled was necessarily re- presentative of car owners in general, it was considered to be reasonably heterogeneous in respect to the characteristics studied. Also, as it was not presumed that the returns would be of sufficient quantity to allow the claim of random sam- pling in terms of the respondent group, it did not matter too much what differences existed between this population and the total population of car owners. It was felt that getting sufficient heterogeneity for a meaningful analysis would pro- vide enough information to indicate whether or not a more adequate technique of sampling would be worthwhile. Scoring Methods The questionnaire consisted of six sections which were as follows: (1) Present Car, (2) Next Car, (3) Trends, (b) Safety, (5) Features, and (6) Statements. Rankings for the first four sections of the questionnaire were based upon a scoring system which consisted of the following scheme, using the items on Present Car as an example. For each of the possible combinations of responses for the satisfaction and importance of any single item, a compos- ite score taking both of these factors into consideration could be achieved. Numbers nine through one were used to -18- indicate this composite satisfaction and importance score. A score of nine symbolized the responses of Satisfied and important for any one particular item under Present Car, whereas a score of one symbolized the responses of Dissatis- fied and important. The entire scale was as follows: Satisfied and important Satisfied ang Questionable 9 Satisfied and Unimportant Questionable and Important 7 6 Questionable and Questionable Questionable and Unimportant S 1+ Dissatisfied and Unimportant Dissatisfied and Questionable 3 2 Dissatisfied and important For each of the sixteen items under Present Car, the individual item scores for the total sample were tabulated and a mean score derived from this total. Each mean score was then ranked with respect to all of the items in the sec- tion. The highest or greatest mean ranked as one (indicating in this example the greatest satisfaction) and so on until all sixteen items were ranked. The Features Section was scored by obtaining the number of first choices for each item in each of the two sets (A and B). The features were then ranked from one to five for each set. A rank of one indicated that the feature was selected over every other feature with which it was paired a greater -19- number of times than was any other feature in that set. The section on Statements was scored by the mean score method, assigning to responses for each statement values from one to five; one for Strongly Disagree or most unfavorable response, to five for Strongly Agree or most favorable reply. Each statement was ranked with reference to all other state— ments in terms of the mean score for each statement. Procedure for Testing Hypotheses The relationships between rankings of the features on each of the six sections of the questionnaire and the respon- dent's age, height, distance driven, and the age of his car (Hypotheses l, 2, 3, and u)‘were tested by finding the coef- ficients of concordance (corrected for continuity). The mean value of the possible rank correlation coefficients and the reliability of the mean ranks were also computed(6). The relationship between owners who did or did not change makes from the last car to the present one and their rankings of the six sections of the questionnaire (Hypothe— sis 5) was tested by finding the rank order correlation coef- ficient (corrected for ties) (6) Hypotheses 6a and b, the relationships between owner responses and height, with weight held constant as well as those between owner responses and weight, height held constant, -20_ for items A, 27, 28, 38, M3, 52, 80, and for each of the five features for Sets A and B of the Features Section was tested by finding the coefficients of concordance (corrected for continuity) (6). Hypotheses 7a and b, the relationships between owner responses and company, with model held constant as well as those between owner responses and model, company held con- stant, for items A, 27, 38, 51, 52, 80, 8k, and for each of the five features for Sets A and B of the Features Section was tested by finding the coefficients of concordance (corrected for continuity). Hypotheses 8a and b, the relationships between owner responses and make of car, with model held constant as well as those between owner responses and model, make of car held constant, for items 1, 15, 19, 3h, 57, 70, and for each of the five features for Sets A and B of the Features Section was tested by finding the coefficients of concordance (corrected for continuity). Hypotheses 9a and b, the relationships between owner responses and distance driven, with age of respondents held constant as well as those between owner responses and age of respondents, distance driven held constant, for items 1, u, 10, I9, 23, 27, 3h, 38, 52, 57, 80, and for each of the five features for Sets A and B of the Features Section was tested -21- by finding the coefficients of concordance (corrected for continuity). The relationship between the rankings of car owners who plan to buy versus those who do not plan to buy, matched on the age of car now owned, for items 1, h, 19, 27, 3h, 38, M6, 52, 57, 60, 80, and for each of the five features for Sets A and B of the Features Section (Hypothesis 10) was tested by finding the rank order correlation coefficient (corrected for ties). Composition of the Sample For this form of the questionnaire (B) 115 question- naires were returned. Of these 115, thirteen of them were in- complete in some respect and, as a result, could not be in- cluded in the final sample. Essentially then, 102 of the re- turned questionnaires were satisfactorily completed in every respect and these were included in the study. For a complete description of the sample in terms of the five general in- formation questions, review Tables ifVll in Appendix B, RESULTS RESULTS The results given in this section follow from analyses of the data that are summarized in Tables X! to CXXXVI in Appendices grand Q. 1. The hypothesis that the relationship between the three respondent age groups and their rankings of the items on Present Car, Next Car, Trends, Safety, Features, and Statements would not be significantly other than zero was untenable. The way in which owners ranked the items Car, Trends, Safety, Features, and Statements varied age of the owner; a relationship significantly other at the one per cent level of confidence. The way in owners ranked the items on their present cars varied age of the owner; a relationship significantly other at the five per cent level of confidence. on Next with the than zero which with the than zero 2. The hypothesis that the relationship between the three height groups and their rankings of the items in each of the six sections of the questionnaire would not be signifi- cantly other than zero was untenable. The way in which owners ranked the items on Next Car, Trends, Safety, and Statements varied with the height of the owner; Features, a re- lationship significantly other than zero at the one per cent level of confidence. The way in which owners ranked the items on their present cars varied with the height of the owner; a relationship significantly other than zero at the two per cent level of confidence. 3. The hypothesis that the relationship between the three distance-driven groups and their rankings of the items in each of the six sections of the questionnaire would not be significantly other than zero was untenable. The way in which owners ranked the items on Next Car, Trends, Features, and Statements varied with the distance driven by the owner; a relationship significantly other than zero at the one per cent level of confidence. The way in which owners ranked the items on their present cars and Safety varied with the distance driven by the owner; a relationship significantly other than zero at the five per cent level of confidence. )4. The hypothesis that the relationship between the four present, car-age groups and their rankings of the items in each of the six sections of the questionnaire would not be signif1<:antly other than zero was untenable. The way in which owners ranked the items on Next Car, Trends, Safety, Features, and Statements varied with the present car-age of the owner; a relationship significantly other than zero at the one per Cent level of confidence. The way in which owners ranked the it ems On their present car varied with the present car-age of -2u- the owner; a relationship significantly other than zero at the two per cent level of confidence. 5. The hypothesis that the relationship between the changed-unchanged make groups and their rankings of the items in each of the six sections of the questionnaire would not be significantly other than zero was untenable. All rank order coefficients of correlation were significant at the one per cent level of confidence. 6a. The hypothesis that the relationship between re- sponses and height, with weight held constant would not be significantly other than zero for items 11,, 27, 28, 38, N3, 52, 80, and for each of the five features for Sets A and B of the Features Section was untenable for Features E (Luggage Space), and F (Acceleration). in every other instance the hypothesis was tenable. The way in which owners ranked Features E, and F varied with the height of the owners when weight was held COHStant; a relationship for E significantly other than zero at the ten per cent level of confidence; for F, a relationship Significantly other than zero at the five per cent level of confidence . ' The responses to Feature E (Luggage Space), with refer- e flee to the other four features in Set A of the Features Se ction, were given the rankings of 3 for the short group; 3-5 fo r the medium group; and it by the tall group. in terms of -25- importance to these three height groups, luggage space was most important to the short group and least important to the ta 1 1 group. The responses to Feature F (Acceleration), with refer- ence to the other four features in Set B of the Features Section, were given the rankings of 5 by the short group; 17.5 by the medium group; and I; by the tall group. In terms of importance to these three height groups, acceleration was most important to the tall group and least important to the short group. b. For these same items with height held constant and Weight varying, the hypothesis was untenable for Features F (Acceleration), and G (Low Purchase Price). Both of these had relationships with weight significantly other than zero at the ten per cent level of confidence. For all others, the hypoth- 331 8 was tenable. The responses to Feature F (Acceleration), with refer- ence to the other four features in Set B of the Features SeCtiOn, were given the rankings of It by the light group; Ii.5 by the medium group; and 5 by the heavy group. in terms of importance to these three weight groups, acceleration was most important to the light group and least important to the heavy QFOUD. -26- Feature G (Low Purchase Price) was, in terms of impor- tance to the three weight groups, most important to the heavy group and of least importance to the light group. 7a. The hypothesis that the relationship between re— sponses and company, with model held constant would not be $1 gnificantly other than zero for items ll, 27, 38, 51, 52, 80, BLL, and for each of the five features for Sets A and B of the Features Section was untenable for items I; (Horsepower, Present Car), and 80 (Ease of Ride, Statements); Features B (Head Room), and 1 (Power Steering). in every other instance the hypothesis was tenable. The way in which owners ranked items 11,, and 80; Features B, and i varied with the company When model was held constant; a relationship for item I; Significantly other than zero at the ten per cent level of Confidence; a relationship for item 80 significantly other thfiln zero at the five per cent level of confidence. For Features B, and I, both had relationships with company sig- nificantly other than zero at the ten per cent level of con- The owners of Chrysler automobiles were most satisfied and the Ford owners the least satisfied with item Ll (Ease 0f Ride, Present Car). For item 80 (Ease of Ride, Statements) agree"lent with the statement was highest for the owners of Ch rysler automobiles, next for General Motors owners, and -27- least for Ford owners. The responses to Feature B (Head Room), with reference to the other four features in Set A of the Features Section, were given the ranking of 1.33 by the General Motors owners; 1.16 by the Chrysler owners; and l by the Ford owners. in terms of importance to these three groups, head room was most important to the Ford owners and least im— portant to the General Motors owners. In Set B, Feature 1 (Power Steering) was given the ranking of 3.66 by the General Motors owners; 3.83 by the Chrysler owners; and It by the Ford Omers. In terms of importance to these three groups, power steering was most important to the General Motors owners and least important to the Ford owners. b. For these same items, with company held constant and model varying the hypothesis was untenable for item 52 (Smoother Ride, Safety), and Feature I (Power Steering). Both of these had relationships with model significantly other than zero at the ten and five per cent levels of confidence reslDectively. For all others, the hypothesis was tenable. The owners of other than two door or four door sedans felt that item 52 (Smoother Ride, Safety) contributed to safety to a greater degree than did owners of the two and four at the ten per cent level of confidence. item 19 ( MOre HC’Iosepower, Next Car) had a relationship with age of r espondefllts significantly other than zero at the five per cent -31.. level of confidence. For all others, the hypothesis was tenab 1 e . Satisfaction with ease of ride with reference to items 1;, and 80 indicated that the oldest age group was the most satisfied, while the young age group was the least satisfied. This relationship was also true for item 52 (Smoother Ride, Safety). The old group indicated the most satisfaction with 11199898 space (item 10) in their present car, while the medium group expressed the least. For item 19 (More Horsepower, Next Car), the young group expressed the greatest desire for this; the 01d group expressed the least. The trend toward higher horsepower (item 3b) was viewed in a favorable light by the young group, while the medium age group expressed themselves as being against this trend. Feature H (Power Brakes), in terms of importance to the three age groups was most important to the young group and least important to the medium age group. Feature 1 (Trouble Free Operation), was most important to the young group and least important to the old group. 10- The hypothesis that the relationship between the rankings of car owners who plan to buy versus those who do not plan to buy, matched on the age of the car now owned would not be Significant” other than zero for items 1, Li: 19: 27’ 3L“ 38 ’ 146: 52, S7, 60, 80, and each of the five features for -32- Sets fix and B of the Features Section was untenable for item N6. 1 teniht>(Sports-car Handling, Trends), was negatively signiifiicant at the eight pre cent level of confidence. The hypotruzsis was tenable in every other instance. Chdners who indicated an intention to buy viewed the trend txyward sports-car handling in a positive manner, while those vdio did not plan to buy were negative in their views. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION The determination of owner preferences in terms of their similarities and differences was the major purpose of this study and it is believed that the evidence as presented, has indicated a considerable number of these. Such owner charac- teristics as age, height, weight, and other such variables as distance driven, the intent to purchase a new car, and the make, year, and model of the presently owned car have been shown to have a significant relationship with the rankings of the various features and items considered. A number of the findings are not new, but they do tend to SubStantiate some of the "common-sense" beliefs about auto- m°b11€ owners and automobiles in general. However, some of the findings are of considerable interest and could lead to much spemllation in terms of why the relationships were as indi- Gated - One such finding was that acceleration was more im- Portant to the light-weight owner group, than to either of the two other weight groups. Several theories could be logically espouSQd as to why this relationship existed, but without additiOnal personal data information to work with, any such theories would of necessity have to be speculative. Another relationship of this type was the finding that owners of two Or f our door sedans felt that a smoother ride contributed to _3u- safety to a lesser degree than did the owners of other model cars. Along with these "interesting" relationships, there were many relationships which could have considerable meaning for the manufacturers, and possibly the sales personnel at the local dealership level. It would be presumptuous to assume, at this time, that the findings of this study are irreproachable, but nonetheless some cues could be advanced which might, upon further study, prove of value. With respect to owner characteristics, for example, low PUTChase price was most important to the heavy owner group; the medium-age owner group expressed the least satisfaction With luggage space, while the old owner group seemed satis- fied With this feature; the medium-age owner group was not in favor of higher horsepower, whereas, the young owner group was. Another finding was that trouble-free operation was im- portant to the young owner group and of little importance to the 01d owner group. Information of this type could be utilized by the sales perSOnIlel in evaluating the potential customer in terms of Wh at, features to stress and/or play down. For the manufacturer, there are a number of implications C011 tRained within this study. Ford owners, for example, were lea St Satisfied with the ease of ride of their present car. The y We re also more concerned about head room than were the _35_ owners of Chrysler, and General Motors Products. For the Ford Motor Company, these findings could mean that ease of ride and head room should be investigated and something concrete done about them. Rather than devote time and money to the development of larger and lower cars, their time might be better spent in the development of an easier ride and ad- ditiona 1 head room. Low purchase price was found to be more important to Ford Owners than to any other group of owners studied. Here again, it might be that Ford has overlooked certain attitudes 0f the consumer. In other words, the marketing techniques of the F0rd Motor Company may be entirely distorted with respect to the potential Ford buyer. Instead of developing a medium- priced automobile, the Edsel, Ford might find they would be better able to advance, sales wise, if the addition to their line had been a low priced automobile. Pontiac owners were also concerned with low purchase Price, more so than were the Chevrolet owners. This could be indicative of' a trend which could be of some importance to General Motors in terms of advertISIHQ their respective prod— ucts in a different, way. That is, if this trend is true then stressing the economies of the Chevrolet, and the "big-car" Val ue Of the Pontiac would be incorrect; the converse correct. -36.. Chevrolet owners expressed the greatest satisfaction with the horsepower of their present car, followed by Buick owners, Oldsmobile owners, and Pontiac owners, with Ford owners expressing the least satisfaction. Again this in- formation could provide some valuable cues for the manufac- turers in their sales campaigns and possibly in the future development of their respective automobiles. These then, are some of the major implications for the manufacturer. Evidence has been presented that automobile owners do have certain preferences and that a relationship does exist between owner characteristics and attitude with reference to these preferences. A more comprehensive study of this type could be conducted by the automobile manufacturers to evalu- ate what the various owners desire in their future cars, as well as what they do not want. Further, it might be that the determination of who comprises the active purchasing group could prove valuable in terms of the features to which they are most receptive. These features could be more fully ex- ploited in advertising techniques and in actual production to the benefit of both the manufacturer and the consumer. COMMENTS COMMENTS Essentially, this present investigation was a form of pilot study in that no pre-testing of the questionnaire had been accomplished prior to its distribution. Despite this fact, the questionnaire did accomplish the purposes for which it was designed and at the same time has provided much in- formation which could prove of value if further studies of this type were to be conducted. There were, however, a number of inadequacies found in the questionnaire at the completion of this study. In several sections of the questionnaire, the selection of features were not as discriminating as thought to be. The paired-comparisons, or Features Section, contained features which were too dis- similar, i.e., there were two features of major importance to all owners in each of the two sets. In Set A these were head room and leg room, while in Set B they were trouble free ’ Operation and low purchase price. The result of this was that invariably, the two features were ranked numbers one and two by almost all of the respondents. Features in this section, if revised, should be as nearly equal in importance as pos- sible. This would eliminate the top-heavy ranking and provide a greater spread in the responses. -38- Negatively worded statements should be replaced with neutral statements in the Statement Section and, if possible, the number of statements included should be reduced. Again, the comment of greater equality could apply in this section. For the other sections, those items which failed to elicit a satisfactory range of responses could be eliminated. A reduction in the number of features might prove beneficial in terms of reducing the length of the total questionnaire. Perhaps the inclusion in the first four sections of the response of importance could have been eliminated. A signif- icant relationship was found between the responses given by the respondents to the importance scale and the satisfied, like, want, and contributes to, scales. A relationship sig- nificant at the one per cent level of confidence was found between the responses to the importance scale and the other possible response scales for the sections on Next Car, Trends, and Safety. The section on Present Car had a negatively sig- nificant relationship at.the five per cent level of confidence. These relationships with minor variation, were also found by Hemingway (9). The general information page of the questionnaire could have been more comprehensive in coverage. Several important items were omitted which might have contributed to the analysis and the conclusions drawn, e.g., occupation, income, purchase -39- of used cars exclusively, and perhaps some information on education. A relationship is known to exist between educa- tion, occupation, and income level, and as such, the in- clusion of the three items might be thought of as super- fluous. However, the relationships of these variables with reference to automobile owner preferences may not function in a similar manner and so, are worthy of consideration. Thus far nothing has been mentioned about the last page of the questionnaire, the Questions page. A word or two should be mentioned to at least acknowledge its presence. This page was included to provide the respondents with the opportunity of making comments, adding to or explaining the reasons why they had responded as they had, and also to provide the in- vestigators with a list of items which may have use in a future study. An inspection of this list indicated that there were a number of aspects or features of the automobile which had been overlooked in this investigation. In the main, these features were restricted to owner complaints. Four of the most frequently mentioned were: (1) the poor quality of the paint, (2) the poor quality of the chrome, (3) body rust, and (h) the lack of durability of the exhaust system. More miles per gallon was included by almost all of the respondents, as was better craftsmanship. The other responses were varied, some being of a rather technical nature. This may suggest that items and/or questions of a slightly more technical -h0- nature may not be inconsistent with the purposes of a questionnaire of this type. Follow-up methods might have been utilized, but at the time were not considered to be worthwhile. A larger sample could have been used, but the sample was probably large enough for this type of investigation. There are several possible alternatives that could be used in terms of the sample in future studies. Obviously larger samples could be utilized, but there is the possibil- ity that as much data could be obtained by using a selected sample. This would insure an adequate distribution of the sample in terms of the various owner and automobile charac— teristics under investigation. As the total n in such a survey would be fairly small, personal interviews could be conducted in this instance if desired. Mention should be made about the consistency of the findings between the two studies. While the possibilities in this area were not explored exhaustively, some comparisons were made wherever possible. A check on the number of sig- nificant and similar findings for the common items found on both forms A and B of the questionnaire was made. This re— vealed five significant and similar items for both forms of the questionnaire. These items were as follows: low purchase price (weight varying — height constant); head room (company -hl- varying - make constant); easier ride (distance driven varying - age of respondent constant); power brakes and smoother ride (age of respondent varying - distance driven constant). In terms of the large number of common items tested this finding in itself was not significant, but it does suggest that if the sample had been such that a greater num- ber of classifications had been possible, a higher degree of consistency between the two forms might have been found. Further, the fact that no more than five significant findings were found for the common items may have been related to the analysis used, rather than to a lack of relationships. In- spection of the raw data (after scoring and classifying) re- vealed that there were a proportionate number of similar re— sponses for each of the common items. The samples of both forms were also very similar as to the distribution of age, makes of cars, sex, height, weight, and distances driven. The findings of this investigation have indicated a number of areas which have as yet to be fully explored. One of primary interest to this writer has already been mentioned; personal characteristics in terms of sales. To further in- vestigate this area and to obtain additional information which may be related, a form of personality inventory could be in- cluded with the questionnaire. The combination of results could then be explored for significant relationships perti— nent to the sales area. BIBLIOGRAPHY lO. BIBLIOGRAPHY Baur, Jackson E. Response bias in a mail survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, Winter, 19u7-l9u8, 11, pp. 59u-600. Benson, Lawrence E. Mail surveys can be valuable. Public Opinion Quarterly, l9u6, 10, pp. 23u-2hl. Blankenship, A. Psychological difficulties in measuring consumer preference. Journal of Marketing, 19u2, 6 pp. 66-75. Corey, Stephen M. Signed versus unsigned attitude questionnaires. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1937. 28, pp- Ink-1&5- Edgerton, Harold A., Britt, Steuart H., and Norman, R. D. Objective differences among various types of respondents to a mailed questionnaire. American Sociological Review, 19u7, 12, pp. ASS-huh. Edwards, Allen L. Statistical Methods for the Behavioral Sciences. NewOVork: Rinehart and Company, Inc., 195h. Chapters 10, 19. Festinger, Leon and Katz, Daniel. Research Methods in the Behavioral Sciences. New York: The Dryden Press, Inc., 1953. Chapters 1, 5, 7, l2. Franzen, R. B. and Lazarsfeld. Mail questionnaires as a research problem. Journal of Psychology, lQhS, 20, pp. 239-320. Hemingway, Peter w. "The Relation of Car Owners' Opinions to Certain Characteristics of the Owner and His Car." Unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1957. Manfield, Manuel N. A pattern of response to mail surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 19u8, 12, PP. h92-h93- ll. 12. 13. 1h. 15. 16. 17. -ug- Mayer, Edward N. Postage stamps do affect results of your mailing. Printers Ink, October A, l9h6, P. 91. Parten, Mildred. Surveys, Polls, and Samples. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950. Reid, 5. Respondents and non-respondents to mail questionnaires. Educational Research Bulletin, l9u2, 21, pp. 87496. Reuss, C. F. Differences persons responding and not responding to a mailed questionnaire. American Sociological Review, 19b3, 8, pp. u33-u38. Stanton, Frank. Notes on the validity of mail questionnaire returns. Journal of Applied Psychology: 1939, 23, pp. 170—187. Time Magazine. "Autos," Time Magazine, LXX, No. 2 (July, 1957). pp. 60-61. Weaver, Henry G. Proving ground on public opinion, Journal of Consulting Psychology, l9ul, 5, pp. Th9-153. APPENDIX A MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND APPLIED SCIENCE 0 EAST LANSING DDARTMENT OP PSYCHOLOGY April la 195?. Dear Sir: The Industrial Section of the Psychology Department at Michigan State University is conducting a survey of the Opinions of automdbile owners. ‘we think.you will enjoy'this Opportunity to indicate how you feel about some of the features of your automobile. Please fill out the enclosed questionnaire in accordance with the directions at the tap of each page. When completed, please mail it back to us in the enclosed return enve10pe. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely yours , James S. Karslalce Associate Professor JSIMB Ens. CONSUMER ATTITUDE SURVEY Department of Psychology Michigan State University General Information Please answer the following questions to the best of your ability. Thank you. 1. Age__ Sex Married? Height Weight 2. Approximately. how far do you drive your car in a year? 3. Present car: Make , Model , Year 4. Last car: Make , Model , Year (e.g., 2-door sedan, etc.) 5a. Do you plan to purchase a new car within the next 2 or 3 years? Yes_ No . (If yes, answer 5b) 5b. Probable Make , Model (If you own more than one automobile , consider the one with which you are most familiar when answering this questionnaire.) , Year -15.. PRESENT CAR .5. sted below are 16 features of your present car. These are to be rated by you ccording to the indicated scales. Rate all of the features on one scale first. hen rate them on the other scale. On this scale indicate the On this scale indicate the degree degree to which m1 are sat- of importance to u of each one isfied with each one of the of the features 1 sted below. features listed below. Check Check the column which best ind- the column which best ind- icates how important 19;: consider icates how satisfied you are each of these features of your with each of these features present car. of your present car. Satisfied ? Dissatisfied Important 7 Unimportant horsepower fl windshield design all shifting Q ease of ride “9 brakes 5 _ steering é headlights 1 leg room fl seat comfort 3p __ ..__. ..__. luggage space ..__ ..__ ..m» __ __ __ ease of parking __ __ _w __ __ __ location of spare tire __ __ 43 __ __ __ upholstery __ __ J __ __ __ ease of getting in or out __ __ J)“ miles per gallon l5 __ trouble free Operation [5 eltene, features. or statements common to both Form A and B of the questionnaire. 45. NEXT CAR Listed below are 16 possible features of your next car. These are to be rated by Efren. according to the indicated scales. Rate all of the features on one scale first, then rate them on the other scale. On this scale indicate On this scale indicate whether or not a; want how important it is to each feature on your 3&1 that m have each next car. feature on your next car. Want 1’ Den ' t Want Important ? Unimportant fuel injection fiberglass body more horsepower larger gas tank push-button shifting easier to read dials power brakes more miles per gallon manual gear shift wrap-around windshield easier ride more leg room automatic windows power steering four headlights l I Bttttttttbtttttt power seats -u7- TRENDS We are interested in your Opinions about current trends in automotive design. Listed below are 16 trends which are to be rated by you. according to the indicated scales. Rate all of the features on one scale first, then rate them on the other scale. On this scale indicate the importance of each On this scale indicate how m feel about each trend. trend to 122. .Like ? Dislike Important ? Unimportant __ __ __ more safety features __ __ iii ..__ ._ __ higher horsepower __ __ in __ __ __ longer cars __ __ £2 ..__. __ __ more headlights __ __ __I_5_§_ ..__. __ __ more accessories __ __ fl __.... __ __ smoother ride __ __ __C_i_8_§ __ __ __ push-button shifting __ __ 3 9-11- larger rear fenders 4-door hardtOps power steering lower cars wrap-around'windshields power brakes sports-car handling rear engines thttttlfittl less leg room ..ua- SAFETY Safety in the automobile is important to all of us and the manufacturers claim many advances in this area. However. we are interested in obtaining zog gpinigns as to the gogtribgtigg and the W to safety. for each of the features lie ted below. Rate all of the features on one scale first. then rate them on the other scale. On this scale iniiOate On this scale indicate the contribution to the igpgrtance of each safety of each feature. feature in terms of safety. Increases 'i Decreases Important 1 Unimportant Safety Safety ______automatic headlight dimmers“ _____, seat belts multiple headlights smoother ride power brakes ______ _______ smaller wheels __ tinted windshields wrap—around windshi elds higher horsepower _____ recessed door handles ...... ..__... power steering push-button shifting _____ __ padded dashboards ..__... __,___ do or locks outside ream-view mirrors w -——. w w M O“ M 0*: “M“. W “i M h h M. M I ( fiftttttittttttt adjustable steering columns «m9- FEATURES For each of the following pairs of features check the one which is most im— p_o_rtant to E. Do this for every pair. ______‘ leg room or head room __ _______, acceleration or low purchase price ______ ________ exterior design or push—button shifting _____ ________ power brakes or power steering __ ______ luggage space or leg room ____ __ trouble-free Operation or acceleration ______ ________ head room or exterior design _______ _______ low purchase price or power brakes _____ __ pushwbutton shifting or leg room __ __ power steering or acceleration __ _ luggage space or exterior design ______ __ troublewfree Operation or power brakes ____ ______ head room or push—button shifting _____ __ low purchase price or POW? steering ..__... __ leg room or exterior design __ _____ acceleration or power brakes __ ______, push—button shifting or luggage sPace .— _____ power steering or troublenfree operation _______ ____,_ luggage space or head room _____ ___,___, trouble—free operation or low purchase price ..__... m A ........ SET 3 ....... Leg rem .55.....3 A Acceleration ....... 1! Head real ......3. B Low purchase price~ '. 0 Exterior design .. c Power brakes "3.... Push-button shift. D Power steering ..... 1 Luggage Cm esee E malhfr” 0”“t‘mla' 4. “I I!‘ ll. kW» 15 ments by encircling the appropriate symbol in front of each statement. -50- simmimnis Indicate how strongly you agree or disggee with each of the following state- indicate degrees of agreement as listed below: SA SA SA SA SA. SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA. SA. SA SA SA I>z>a>z>a>z>a>z>a>n>z>t>> a»:>:>:>:>:>:>> Uuuuuuuuuuuuu UUUUU UUU .51) SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD 81') SD SD SD SA - Strongly Agree A -- Ages 7 .. Neither Agree nor Disagree D - Disagree SD - Strongly Disagree Adding safety features has not reduced accident injuries. The advantages of smaller cars outweigh their disadvantages The interior of my present car is very well designed. ‘the symbols 65* 66-» 67* A car with the engine in the rear would be a great improvement.68s Automatic turn signals do not make driving any safer. The newer the car. the more any needed repairs will cost. I would like a larger gas tank in my next car. Experienced drivers would welcome Sportsw handling. I will demand better craftsmanship in my next car. The spare tire in my present car is easy to get at. It's a manual gearshift for me. in my next car. The seat comfort of my present ear is Just right. Night driving is difficult with the headlights on my present care I want more miles per gallon in my next car. Lower cars are OK for some people. but not for me. When it comes to ease of ride. I will take my present car. The design of the windshield in my present car is good. I hape fuel injection is available on w next car. My present car has very inefficient brakes. My next car should make my present car look obsolete. I will insist on a complete demonstration before choosing a new cars The dashboard controls and dials on m next car should be less complex. 69* 70* 71* 72* 73! 7’4- 75 76 77 78 79 so 81 82 53 81w 85* 86» -51.. a QUESTI one. In answering the following questions. do not limit yourself to the features mentioned in the questionnaire. Include anything that 17.9.! feel is relevant to the ques ti on. Be as specific as possible. (Use the back of this page if you need addi ti onal space. ) 1. 2. 3. 1+. 5. Ignoring the cost. what features would you like in your next car? What features of today’s cars do you think need the most improvement? What features do you like most in your present car? What features do you like least in your present car? How did you like this questionnaire? Make any comments you wish. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION 0M1 questionsmtobethrmaudaotthe quNO APPENDIX B -52- H mqm CH mm< mhdzH mgmHpoeamoa popwHH uoc mHepoE paw..mcomm3 coprhm .moHanao>coo .moamoo doom 03p .mQOpuuamz doom 03H .mGMUmm doom 03¢ .mQOauuamc doom used .mcmpow doom used umcHBOHHom oz» oNHHonszm wuH modsmHms . - -5u_ H H csxmhmeshm m H H omHthd H agnosaHa m m H m mHHhoamuHo hmmz hummus: H H cHoocHa H m m H H H whoa H H mason H H chow so H H H amHmzanU : h m . H H H H ceHoa>ohu H H m omHHHemu m m w H a m m a H onsm v--{ (\1 [\mmm (\l __:r.-—. "'00 HHMHV) comm—«mm Sm om mm :m mm mm Hm om a: m: was: IN \0 UN .3 or) (\J E Hope: cmo> HMQOZ QZ< .m .mx mqmfiH .sz>Hpuoawma nepmHH Hos mHmpoE cam .mcomm3 coHumuw .mmHnHHdm>coo .moasou doom 03p .maouupamc doom ozu .mcmvmm aoov 03p .maounpawn coco awed .mcwpmw doom csom umcHSOHHom can ouHHonszm muH mmadem* .mamo depHo paw oon HHm modeocH= m H m m H . H nsxmhoeahm H J H m m m omecom H m m H H H H H m assosSHa H H H H unmxomm H m q S q H H m H m m sHHhoemeHo H m m m m H hmwz H H hasoaoz H H cHoocHH H H ammme m# H mH m H H m m m H H m . whoa _ H m m m m H empoo H H chow on m H H H H H H csHmacho H m mH m H m 2 H z m m m cmHoc>sao H m h H H m H H H H onsm m a o m J m m *H hm mm :m mm mm Hm cm a: w: a: :0: exaz Hope: awm> . Ammo: QZ< .m .mx mqm6no .666 onsm math amo Ho oxmz mx<2 >m moszz666 .666 qusm math emu Ho oxmz mx<2 >m wOZsz666 mxm woszz666 .666 AoHsm meshH 660 go owa mxdz >m mOZHxZHmmHX mqmXXX MHQxx 6A6<6 -8u— 6.6A 6 6.6A 6.H6 6.HA 6.6H 6.66 6.Am 6 6.66 6.6H w 6H m 6H Hm 6H A 6 oH H om 6 6M . AH 6H m 6H Hm HH 6 oH 6 6 H OH 6 oH 6.6H m 6.oH 6.6H 6.6H 6.6 6.6H 6 H 6.6H 6.A m mm Hm om 6H 6H 6H 6H 6H AH 6H 6H mmHHz mngEmpmpm Humschcoov HHxxx 6Am<6 .6306 660606 “mama . H 60v 666660 06 . thmacoH6mmsv m x 6 666 6Hnm6 6:6 o 6 :6 CH umpmHH 66 660 pc06mga :0 mampwomnwnwcmeWM65mH6 6:6 66 6HIH 6pwnEdz* 0H0. ”MHOZ N603. H 03 A6 mm 6A 6.6: 6.66 6.6A 6.66 mm 06 mm m.mH mm m.Nm 6.AA Aw -85- 0H 0H 0H 6H AH 6H AH OH 6.6 0H 6.mH m 666H 6.6H 6 666H HH 666H A66H 6 666H 6 amuHO AH 6 666H 6H AH NH 6 6.6 6.6 6 6 6H 6.6 H 6.6 6. 6 6 Sofia 660 6266666 20 WEMHH mzh QZ< w mDOmo mo<.m<0 hZMmmmm OZOZ<.EZMEMM¢O<.&O mmm HHHXXX mqmXXX mqm 6H 6H AH 6H 6H HH 6H 6 6 6 6 6 -A 6 m *H 666: 566H 6<066xmz 20 6:66H 666 606 666<2 ozHoz<60 6oz oz< 6666£ 666006 C668 66xcwm@ pcwmm6a 0:6 06 660 p66H 8066 6x68 6866 6:6 66660HUCH oz: . .ucm666a 6:6 06 660 666H 5066 6x68 60 00:650 6 6666UHUcH 66>. 6666ccoH66030 6:6 :H uwp6HH 66 660 pammmga co 68666 056 pcwwwuamu QHIH muwnEdZ$ Ho.aa Ho. u .6 A 6H 6.6 HH AH 6H 6H 6.6 6 6 6 H 6 m 6 6H :02 6 6H 6 6H 6H 6H HH 6 H 6.A m 6.A 6H 6 AH @6 .66> 6H 6H AH 6H 6H HH 6H 6 6 6 6 6 A 6 m *H 666: 566H m666<6 20 6266H 666 606 666 6H 6H AH 6H 6H HH 0H 6 6 6 6 6 A 6 6 *H 666: 506H .66666H 606 xHxxx 666<6 .66066006 666 .6602 .66H6ccofipmmsv map a“ umpwHH mm 66656666 :0 66666 6gp 6c6666a66 6a< 66mppmq* -9u- A0.6 66. n .6 600.OH 06.H u .6 H A 6 6 6 A 6 6 6 H :02 H 6 A 6 6 A 6 6 6 @H .66» 6 H m o 6 6 6 6 6 *< 666: 6 666 < 666 mmm3H HH 0H 6 6 6 6 6 A 6 6 *H 666: mquEmumuw wHZMEMHHAX mqm<8 -96- -6." 6H 6 6.6H H6 AH 6 6 HH H 6H 6 02 6H 6 6.0H H6 6.6H 6 6.0H 6 H 6H 6 66> 66 H6 06 6H 6H 6H 6H 6H AH 6H 6H 666: 6666866666 Avwscgcouv 63.? @492. APPENDIX D ‘M -97- THE FOLLOWING TABLES, XLV-LXI ARE NONPARAMETRIC P$UUJYSES OF VARIANCE, UTILIZING A.TWO-WAY CHAASSIFICATION FOR THE VARIABLES, HEIGHT, AND WEIGHT-2:- TABLE XLV ITEM h, EASE OF RIDE, PRESENT CAR Height in Inches Weight 00—07 08—71 72-+ Z 1 3 l 5 100-159 8.38 2 6.06 3 9.00 1 2 2 3 7 WC = .Ou8 100-179 7.20 l 7.1u 2 0.03 3 3 I 2 6 180-+ 5.00 3 7.95 2 8.06 1 E; 6 7 5 WC = .OMB C *Tables where C appears in lower right corner cover items common to forms A and B of the questionnaire. NOTE: The ranks above each mean score are the column ranks, while those to the right of each mean.score are the row ranks. -98- TABLE XLVI ITTmfl 27, EASIER RIDE, NEXT CAR Height in Inches Weight 00-07 08-71 72-+ 2 3 1 0 100-159 7.9L1 2 7.81 1 9.00 1 3 2 1 100-179 0.00 3 7.02 2 7.03 3 1 3 2 180-+ 9.00 1 0.57 3 8.011 2 Y. 0 0 0 TABLE XLVIl ITEM 28, MORE LEG ROOM, NEXT CAR Height in Inches Weight 00-07 08-71 72-+ 2 2 1 100-159 5.50 2 5.1111 3 9.00 1 1 3 3 100-179 5.00 1 11.02 2 11.38 3 3 1 2 180-+ 3.00 3 5.52 2 7.30 1 5L 0 7 S Wc = .OhB -09- TABLE XLVIII ITEM 38, SMOOTHER RIDE, TRENDS Height in Inches Weight 00-07 08-71 72-+ i; 2 3 I 0 100-159 8.03 2 7.81 3 9.00 1 3 l 3 7 100-179 8.20 1 8.10 2 7.88 3 1 2 2 5 180-+ 9.00 1 8.00 3 8.00 2 7. L1 8 0 WC = .350 C TABLE XLIX ITEM u3, LOWER CARS, TRENDS —_‘ Height in Inches Weight 00-07 08-71 72-+ 5; 2 l 1 11 100-159 0.00 2 5.38 3 0.50 I 1 3 3 7 100-179 0.20 1 0.81 2 3.75 3 3 2 2 7 180-+ 3.00 3 5.19 1 5.18 2 i 0 0 0 NC NC .0118 .251 -100- TABLE L ITEM 52, SMOOTHER RIDE, SAFETY Height in Inches Weight 00-07 08-71 72-+ i; 3 3 I 7 100-159 0.50 1 0.25 3 0.50 2 1 2 2 S I00-179 8.00 1 7.1M 2 0.38 3 2 I 3 0 180-+ 7.50 2 7.57 I 8.10 3 Z 11 6 8 w: = .350 C TABLE LI ITEM 80, EASE OF RIDE, STATEMENTS Height in Inches Weight 00-07 08-71 72-+ Z 1 3 1 5 100-159 3.09 l 2.50 3 3.00 2 2 2 2 0 100-179 ‘ 3.20 l 3.19 2 2.88 3 3 1 3 7 180-+ 3.00 2 3.211 1 2.73 3 Y. 11 6 8 Wc = .350 WC .0118 '73 -101- TABLE LII ITEM A, LEG ROOM, FEATURES Height in inches Weight 00-07 68-71 72'* 2L 1 1 3 S 100-159 3.19 2 3.6a 1 3.00 3 2.5 2 2 0.5 100-179 2.00 3 3.26 2 3.50 1 2.5 3 1 0.5 180-+ 2.00 3 2.81 2 3.73 1 Y. 8 5 5 W0 = .251 C TABLE LIII ITEM B, HEAD ROOM, FEATURES Height in Inches Weight 00-07 08-71 72-+ 5; 2 3 1 0 100-159 2.25 3 2.31 2 3.50 1 1 2 3 0 100-179 3.00 1 2.80 3 2.88 2 3 1 2 0 180-+ 2.00 3 3.00 1.5 3.00 1.5 i; 7 0.5 u.5 NC = .135 C We ' .0211 -102- TABLE LIV ITTEM C, EXTERIOR DESIGN, FEATURES Height in Inches [eight 00-07 08-71 72-+ Z 2 2 1 S TOO—159 2.00 2 1.09 :3 2.50 l 1 3 2 0 100-179 2.20 1 1.38 3 2.00 2 3 1 3 7 180-+ 1.50 2 2.05 1 1.30 3 E S 7 0 Wc = .0u8 C TABLE LV ITEM D, PUSH BUTTON SHIFT, FEATURES Height in Inches Weight 00-07 08-71 72-+ 2; 2 1 2 S 100-159 1.00 l .88 2 .50 3 3 2 l 0 100-179 .00 3 .00 1 .03 2 1 3 3 7 180-+ 2.00 1 .57 E? .85 3 2. S 5 8 Wc==.251 C ‘70: ' :r‘é- . - -103- TABLE LVI ITXUW E, LUGGAGE SPACE, FEATURES Height in Inches Weight 00-07 08—71 72-+ 3 2 3 100-159 1.50 2 1.09 I .50 2 1 2 100-179 1.80 2 1.80 1 1.00 l 3 1 180-+ 2.50 l 1.02 2 1.85 <; s u Wc = .05 p.10 TABLE LVII ITEM F, ACCELERATION, FEATURES Height in Inches Weight 00-07 08-71 72-+ 1 1 1 100-159 1.13 2.5 1.13 2.5 2.00 2 3 2 100-179 .00 3 U70 2 1.13 3 2 3 180-+ 0 3 .86) 2 1.00 i 8.5 0.5 We = .788 p.05 Wc = .251 Wc = .703 p.10 ITEM G, PURCHASE PRICE, FEATURES -10u_ TABLE LVIII Height in Inches Weight 00-07 08-71 72-+ Z 3 3 3 9 100-159 2.00 2 2.31 1 2.00 2 2 1 5 100-179 2.00 2 2.88 3 2.75 1 1 2 8 180-+ 3.00 1.5 3.00 1.5 2.30 3 :- S'S SOS 7 Wc = .028 TABLE LIX ITEM H, POWER BRAKES, FEATURES Height in Inches Weight 00-07 08-71 72-+ 2 1 3 100-159 1.50 1 1.81 1 1 50 2 3 l 2 100-179 1.00 3 1.38 2 1.13 3 2 3 - 1 180-+ 1.50 2 1.33 3 1.82 1 i 0 0 0 —105- TABLE LX ITEM 1, POWER STEERING, FEATURES Height in Inches Weight 00-07 68'71 72‘+ T: 2 3 3 8 100-159 1.81 1 1.13 2 1.00 3 1 1 2 8 100-179 2.20 1 1 57 2 1.25 3 3 2 1 0 180-+ 1.50 2 1.19 3 1.55 1 Z. 11 7 7 Wc = .251 C TABLE LXI ITEM J, TROUBLE FREE OPERATION, FEATURES Height in Inches weight 00-07 08-71 72-+ 5;_ 3 3 2 8 100-159 3.88 3 3.03 1 3.50 2 2 1 1 8 100-179 3.00 3 3.81 1. .3.75 2 1 2 3 0 180-+ 8.00 1 3.71 2 3.30 3 3; 7 u 7 WC = .251 C We “ Wc .350 .350 -100- THE FOLLOWING TABLES, LXII-LXXIII ARE NONPARAMETRIC .ANALYSES OF VARIANCE, UTILIZING A TWO-WAY CLASSIFICATION FOR THE VARIABLES, COMPANY, AND MODEL% TABLE LXII ITEM 8, EASE OF RIDE, PRESENT CAR Company Model G.M. Ford Chrysler 2; 1 2 3 0 8 drs. 8.08 1 0.00 3 8.00 2 3 1 1.5 5.5 2 drs. 7.33 2 7.00 3 9.0 1 2 3 1.5 0.5 Others 7.57 2 5.50 3 9.0 1 Z. S 9 11 We = .050 p.10 C *Tables where C appears in lower right corner cover items common to forms A and B of the questionnaire. NOTE: The ranks above each mean score are the column ranks, while those to the right of each mean score are the row ranks. -107- TABLE LXIII ITEM 27, EASIER RIDE, NEXT CAR Company Model G.M. Ford Chrysler 2; 2 2 2 0 8 drs. 7.50 7.83 3 7.88 1 3 3 l 7 Wc = .088 2 drs. 7.38 0.80 3 9.00 1 1 1 3 5 Others 8.28 8.00 2 5.00 3 2'. 8 5 WC = .251 C TABLE LXIV ITEM 38, SMOOTHER RIDE, TRENDS Company Model G.M Ford Chrysler 2; 3 2 2 8 drs. 8.08 8.83 1 8.38 2 l 3 1 5 Wc = .088 2 drs. 8.29 7.00 3 9.00 1 2 1 3 0 Others 8.07 9.00 1 5.00 3 '1'. 5 0 Wc = .088 C -108- TABLE LXV ITEM 51, MULTIPLE HEADLIGHTS, SAFETY Company Model G.M. Ford Chrysler 7; 1 2 1.5 8.5 8 drs. 5.28 2 5.57 1 5.00 3 2 3 3 8 Wc = .297 2 drs. 8.00 1 8.20 3 8.33 2 ' . 3 1 1.5 5.5 1 , Others 8.50 3 5.75 1 5.00 2 1 w E Z 0 5 7 ‘j NC = .088 TABLE LXVI ITEM 52, SMOOTHER RIDE, SAFETY Company Model G.M. Ford Chrysler 2; 2 1 2 S 8 drs. 7.30 1 0.80 2 0.38 3 3 3 3 9 WC = .050 2 drs. 7.29 1 8.80 3 0.00 2 p.10 1 2 1 8 Others 7.71 2 0.25 3 9.00 1 Z 8 8 0 NC = .350 C -109- TABLE LXVII ITEM 80, EASE OF RIDE, STATEMENTS Company Model G.M. Ford Chrysler 2; 2 1 2 S 8 drs. 3.80 2 2.71 3 3.02 1 3 2 3 8 Wc = .251 2 drs. 2.79 2 2.20 3 3.00 1 1 3 1 5 Others 3.50 2 2.00 3 8.00 1 z 0 9 3 Wc = .852 p(.05 TABLE LXVI II ITEM 88, OBSOLETE APPEARANCE, STATEMENTS Company Model G.M. Ford Chrysler I: 3 2 2 7 8 drs. 2.08 2 2.71 l 2.38 3 1 1 3 5 Wc = .088 2 drs. 3.12 2 3.20 1 2.33 3 2 3 1 0 Others 2.78 1 2.00 3 2.50 2 Z 5 5 8 Wc .251 C TABLE LXIX ITEM A, LEG ROOM, FEATURES Company Model G.M. Ford Chrysler 2: 3 2.5 3 8.5 8 drs. 3.08 l 3.00 2.88 3 1 1 2 8 Wc = .515 2 drs. 3.33 2.5 3.80 3.33 2.5 2 2.5 1 5.5 Others 3.18 2 3.00 8.00 1 2 5'5 605 C TABLE LXX ITEM B, HEAD ROOM, FEATURES Company Model G.M. Ford Chrysler 2: 2 1 2.5 5.5 8 drs. 3.08. l 2.28 3 3.00 2 1 3 1 5 Wc = .127 2 drs. 3.33 1.5 1.20 3 3.33 1.5 3 2 2.5 7.5 Others 2.08 2 2.25 3 3.00 1 2 14-5 9 LL05 Wc = .077 P ~10 C -111- TABLE LXXI ITEM C, EXTERIOR DESIGN, FEATURES Company Model G.M. Ford Chrysler i; 3 3 2 8 8 drs. 1.88 2 1.71 1 1.00 3 2 1 1 8 Wc = .350 2 drs. 1 88 3 2.80 1 2.00 2 1 2 ‘ 3 0 Others 2.83 1 2.25 2 .50 3 Y. 0 8 a We = .350 C TABLE LXXII ITEM D, PUSH BUTTON SHIFT, FEATURES Company Model G.M. Ford Chrysler 2 1 3 1.5 5.5 8 drs. 1.00 1.5 .57 3 1.00 1.5 2 . 2 3 7 WC = .028 2 drs. .71 2 .80 1 0 3 3 1 1.5 5.5 Others .21 3 1.25 1 1.00 2 z 0.5 5 0.5 -II2- TABLE LXXIII ITEM E, LUGGAGE SPACE, FEATURES Company Model G.NL Ford Chrysler 7; 2 1 I 8 drs. 1.88 3 2.83 1 2.12 2 3 2 3 8 WC = .350 2 drs. 1.21 3 1.80 1 1.33 2 1 3 2 0 Others 1.57 1 1.25 3 1.50 2 Y. 7 5 0 Wc .088 C TABLE LXXIV ITEM F, ACCELERATION, FEATURES Company Model G.M. Ford Chrysler 2. 2.5 2 3 7.5 8 drs. 1.00 2 1.28 1 .50 3 2.5 1 1 8.5 We = .188 2 drs. 1.0 3 1.80 1 1.33 2 1 3 2 0 Others 1.07 1 .50 3 1.00 2 s; 0 5 7 Wc = .088 C “. -113- TABLE LXXV ITEM G, LOW PURCHASE PRICE, FEATURES Company Model G.M. Ford Chrysler 2; 3 3 2 8 8 drs. 2.32 2.83 2 2.75 1 l 2 l 8 Wc 2 drs. 2.58 3.00 1.5 3.00 1.5 2 1 3 0 Others 2.30 3.25 1 1.00 3 2 )4'5 505 Wc = .297 C TABLE LXXVI ITEM H, POWER BRAKES, FEATURES Company Model G.M. Ford Chrysler 2; 3 l 3 8 drs. 1.28 1.71 1 1.38 2 2 3 2 7 Wc 2 drs. 1.80 1.20 3 1.00 1 1 2 1 Others 1.71 1.25 3 3.50 1 Z 7 8 WC = .251 C .350 .251 -118- TABLE LXXVII ITEM 1, POWER STEERING, FEATURES Company Model G.M. Ford Chrysler Z I 1 1 3 8 drs. 1.70 I 1.28 3 1.38 2 3 3 3 9 2 drs. 1.29 1 .80 2 .33 3 2 2 2 0 Others 1.50 1 1.25 2 1.00 3 E. 3 7 8 Wc = .703 p.10 C TABLE LXXVIII ITEM J, TROUBLE FREE OPERATION, FEATURES Company Model G.M. Ford Chrysler 5: 2 3 1.5 0.5 8 drs. 3.08 2 .83 3 8.00 1 1 2 1.5 8.5 2 drs. 3.79 2 3.00 3 8.00 1 3 1 3 7 Others 3.30 3 3.75 1 3.50 2 i; 7 7 8 WC = .251 C Wc = .852 p<.OS NC .135 I -J . i h‘-‘ -115- now. .66666 306 066 066 06006 6605 £060 60 6:666 056 06 06060 0HHn3 .6xc66 CEdHoo 0:6 066 06006 660E £060 0>0n6 6x666 0:9 "MHOZ .0666660666030 060 60 m 066 < 65606 06 608800 65066 60>o0 606600 66666 6030H CH 6660QQ6 0 06063 60HO6H* U mO.AQ 0W0. N 03 6.2 6.6 AH 6.A 6.6 N . 6.6 06.6 6.6 06.6 6 66.6 H 00.6 A 00.6 666060 6 6 H H 6 H 6.H 6 66.6 H 66.6 A 00.6 6.6 00. .6 00. .060 6 u 03 6.6 6 6 H 66 6 6.H6 6 00.6 A AA.6 6 0A.6 H 66.6 6 66.6 .660 A 6H 6 6 6 6 6 Aw 06H6606 .60H0 0606 .>660 AoHsm H6002 0x6: m<§103H <.OZHNHAHHD .m02 LO mmm>4HUX1XHXXq 6mmqm660 AoHsm H600: 0x62 m<0 Hzmwmmm .ZOAH¢O mmm mmgHZ «mH ZMHH UXX mdm660 60606 H600: 0x62 m<0 6x62 .6630666606 6602 .6H 266H HUXX mqm660 onsm H600: 6x62 602660 .663066660: mmonz .A6 266H HHUXX mqm660 onsm H600: 6x62 >Hmmw£0 xofism 6600: 6x62 6626266666 .0600 6H<666 .06 260H >HUXX m4m660 onnm H600: 6x62 mmmDHUXX MAm®£U xUHSm .HNUOZ 6x62 mmmDHUXX mqmUXX mqm660 onam H600: 6x62 66606666 .66H66 206606 6606 .0 :66H HHH>0xx 666<6 o3 HNJ. H 03 6 6.6H 6.A 6 0H ”w H 00.6 A 06.H 6.6 66.H m 06. 6.6 66.H 666660 6 H H 6 6 H 6 66.H 6.A 00.H H 06.6 6 66.H 6.A 00.H .660 6 6H 6 6 6 6 6 m 00.H A 66.H H 00.6 6 66.H 6 66.H .660 A 6 6 6 H H 6 ”w 66H6606 .60H0 0606 .>660 666:6 H6002 6x62 666066.66 .6056 60.6003 .6 26.: xHoxx 646<6 U OOH. H 03 6 6 6 6.6 6.HH ..w 6 00.H 6 06.H m 66. H 00.6 A 66. 666660 . 0H 6 H 6 H 6 ,0 m 66. 6 6H.H H . . . . . . MM 6H0. u 63 6 6 6 0AHH m 6 006H 6 6 00HH 660 6 H 66.H 6 HH.H 6 06. m H6. A 66. .660 A HH H 6 6 6 6 aw 66H6co6 .60H0 0606 .>660 onsm H600: 6x62 66606<66 .on66666600< .6 :66H 0x mqm<6 o m0.AQ Nmo. u 03 6 AH m 6 0H dw . 6 00.6 m 00.6 H 66.6 A 06.6 6 .6 666 . m 6 6 6 H 6 me 660 m. m 66.H A 66.6 H 00.6 6 66.6 6 66.6 .660 6 4 0H 6 H 6.6 6 6.H . H 66.6 m AA.H 6 00.6 6 6A.6 . .66 m 0H H 6 6.6 H A 666H 0 A Aw 66H6606 .60H0 0606 .>660 onsm H600: 6x62 wmmbh660 onsm H600: 6x62 mmmbh660 onsm H600: 6x62 6660.66.66 02366.66 66306 .H 26.: HHHox 66666 H60. 03 ‘- 0’ .‘Efl '. 91' 0 6AH. u 6: 6.0H 6 6.6 6.0H 6.6 w m. 6.A 00.6 6 06.6 6.H 66.6 6.A 00.6 6.H 66.6 666660 HH 6 6 H 6 6.6 H 00.A 6 66.6 m 06.6 6 66.6 A .6 .66 6 H 6 6.6 H N66 0 6 m 66.6 6 66.6 6 0 .6 . . . m.o m H mwN A mem H mmHm 660 A dw 66H6606 .60H0 0606 .>660 onsm H600: 6662 66606<66 .on6<6660 6666 6660066 .6 266H >H0x 666<6 THE FOLLOWING TABLES, XCV-CXV ARE NONPARAMETRIC ANALYSES OF VARIANCE, UTILIZING A TWO-WAY CHAASSIFICATION FOR THE VARIABLES, AGE, AND DISTANCE% TABLE XCV ITEM 1, HORSEPOWER, PRESENT CAR Miles in Thousands Age 0-9 10-1u 15‘+ E; 3 2 1 6 15-29 h-SO 3 6.9M 2 7.80 1 2 1 3 6 30-h9 5.90 3 7 11 l 6.70 2 1 3 2 6 SO-+ 8.25 1 6.23 3 7.50 2 2; 7 6 5 WC = .OuB C *Tables where C appears in lower right corner cover ' items common to forms A and B of the questionnaire. NOTE: The ranks above each mean score are the column ranks, while those to the right of each mean score are the row ranks. I .....l. I l14..basab.=.43\irol.1hf‘h ». _- i‘l -132- TABLE XCVI ITEM U4 EASE OF RIDE, PRESENT CAR Miles in Thousands Age 0-9 lO-lh 15‘+ E; 3 3 2 8 6., 15-29 5.00 3 5.00 2 8.50 1 ' 2 2 3 7 Wc = .703 30-69 5.80 3 8.00 1 7.30 2 p.10 1 1 1 3 50—+ 7.50 3 8.38 2 9.00 1 i" Z 9 5 u 6" NC = .650 p.10 C TABLE xcv11 ITEM 10, LUGGAGE SPACE, PRESENT CAR Miles in Thousands Age 0-9 lO-lu 15-+ E; ‘2 3 2 7 15-29 8.00 1. 6.50 3 '7.uo 2 3 2 3 8 WC = .703 30-69 5.60 3 7.32 1 6.10 2 p.10 1 1 1 3 50-+ 8.38 1 8.08 3 8.10 2 EL 5 7 6 . 3 alpsddiawul $11... ’1': i. .l ‘9] ‘INII‘3 . ‘l. l 0 1144.314... .4— . ... TABLE XCVIII ITEM 19, MORE HORSEPOWER, NEXT CAR Miles in Thousands Age 0-9 10-1L1 lS-+ Z 1 l l 3 15-29 8.00 1 5.06 .2 8400 3 2 2 2 6 WC = .852 30-u9 u.20 1 3.u6 2 2.80 3 p(.05 3 3 3 9 50-+ 3.25 1 3.00 2 2.66 3 E; 3 6 9 WC = .852 p<.05 C TABLE XCIX ITEM 23, POWER BRAKES, NEXT CAR Miles ln Thousands Age 0-9 10-lh lS-+ 1 1 2 15-29 9.00 1 6.9M 2 6.80 3 3 2 ,3 WC = .350 30-h9 5.00 2.5 6.68 1 5.00 2.5 2 3 1 50-+ 6.00 3 6.31 2 8.00 1 i. 6.5 s 6.5 We = .028 -13h- TABLE C ITEM 27, EASIER RIDE, NEXT CAR Miles in Thousands Age 0—9 10-lu lS-+ 1 3 2 15-29 9.00 1 6.9M 3 7.00 2 2 1 3 30-h9 8.60 1 7.93 2 6.30 3 3 2 1 50—+ 7.88 1 7.38 2 7.16 3 Z 3 7 8 WC = .703 p.10 TABLE C1 ITEM 3h, HIGHER HORSEPOWER, TRENDS Miles in Thousands Age 0-9 lO-lu 15-+ 1 1 1* 15—29 7.00 1 8.56 2 h.SO 3 3 2 2 30-u9 3.30 3 3.61 l 3.u0 2 2 3 3 50-+ u.13 1 3.38 2 3.00 3 i. 5 s 8 WC = .251 A . it, '1 I yr, Ill ITEM 38, SMOOTHER RIDE, TRENDS TABLE CII -135- Miles in Thousands Age 0-9 10-111 15"" z 1 3 1 5 15—29 9.00 1 7.88 2 7.60 3 2 3 8 30-M9 8.60 1 8.25 2 7.00 2 1 2 S 50-+ 8.88 1 8.69 2 7.50 1;, 3 6 WC = .852 p<.0§ C TABLE C111 ITEM 52, SMOOTHER RIDE, SAFETY Miles in Thousands Age 0-9 10-18 15—+ 3 3 3 15-29 6.50 1 6.13 2 5.80 2 1 2 S 30-u9 7.20 2 7.50 1 6.20 1 2 1 u 50-+ 7.38 3 7.86 2 8.33 E; 6 5 WC = .088 0 WC = .251 .650 -136- TABLE CIV ITEM 57, HIGHER HORSEPOWER, SAFETY Miles in Thousands Age 0-9 lO-lu lS-+ i: 1 1 2 A 15-29 8.00 l 5.38 3.u0 2 3 1 6 WC = .350 30—89 3.50 3 3.75 u.00 3 2 3 8 50-+ 2.25 3 3.92 3.33 2’. 7 WC = .088 C TABLE CV ITEM 80, EASE OF RIDE, STATEMENTS Miles in Thousands Age 0-9 10-111 15-+ i 3 3 2 8 15-29 1.50 3 2.31 2 3.80 1 2 2 3 7 WC = .703 30-89 2.70 2 3.29 1 2.60 3 p.10 1 1 1 3 SO-+ 3.25 3 3.58 2 u.00 1 5'. 8 s s -137- TABLE CV1 ITEM A, LEG ROOM, FEATURES Miles in Thousands Age 0-9 10-18 IS-+ 2; 2.5 1 2 5.5 15-29 2.50 3 3.88 1 3.30 2 2.5 2 3 7.5 30-89 2.50 3 3.32 1 3.00 2 1 3 1 S 50—+ 3.00 2 2.92 3 3.33 1 g: 8 S 5 WC = .251- C TABLE CVII ITEM B, HEAD ROOM, FEATURES Miles in Thousands Age 0-9 10—1u 15-+ 5; 1 3 2 6 15-29 8.00 1 2.13 3 2.90 2 2.5 2 3 7.5 30-89 3.0 1 2.82 2 2.00 3 2.5 1 1 8.5 SO-+ 3.0 1.5 2.92 3 3.00 1.5 E; 3.5 8 6.5 WC = .515 C WC = .127 WC = .188 -l38- TABLE CVIII ITEM C, EXTERIOR DESIGN, FEATURES Miles in Thousands Age 0-9 10-18 15-+ 5: 1 2 3 6 15-29 2.00 1 1.88 2 1.30 3 3 1 1 5 WC = -0u8 30-h9 1.50 3 2.00 2 2.30 1 2 3 2 7 50—+ 1.63 2 1.31 3 1.66 1 Z 6 7 5 WC = .0u8 C TABLE C1x ITEM D, PUSH BUTTON SHIFT, FEATURES Miles in Thousands Age 0-9 10-18 15-+ 5; 3 1 1.5 5.5 15-29 .50 2.5 1.00 1 .50 2.5 2 3 3 8 WC = .297 30-89 .90 1 .68 2 .20 3 1 2 1.5 11.5 50-+ 1.00 1 .85 2 .50 3 '2'; 11.5 5 8.5 We = .u59 C firTm--.q"- . 1. 1...... 1..jsfl..1lds.l313.... “Illlu .111... _ ., I .Eldlli .. ... -139- TABLE CX ITEM E, LUGGAGE SPACE, FEATURES Miles in Thousands A98 0-9 IO-IU 15-+ S: 3 2 1 6 ’ 15-29 1.00 3 1.56 2 2.00 1 1 3 2.5 6.5 30-A9 2.10 1 1.21 3 1.50 2 : 2 1 V 2.5 5.5 I 50-+ 1.38 3 2.00 1 1.50 2 E I 2 7 6 5 " WC = .0h8 C TABLE CXI ITEM F, ACCELERATION, FEATURES Miles in Thousands Age 0-9 10-18 15-+ i; 3 1 l 5 15—29 1.00 2 .98 3 1.30 1 1 2 2 5 WC = .251 30-U9 1.50 1 .71 3 1.20 2 2 3 3 8 50—+ 1.13 1 .62 2 .50 3 5;_ u 8 6 -lh0- TABLE CXII ITEM G, LOW PURCHASE PRICE, FEATURES Miles in Thousands Age 0-9 lO-lu 1§-+ E: 3 1 3 7 15-29 1.50 3 2.81 1 1.90 2 . 2 2 1 5 WC = .088 ‘ 30-89 2.80 2.5 2.75 1 2.80 2.5 1 3 2 6 5 ‘ 50—+ 2.63 1 2.62 2 2.00 3 1 1 - 2 6.5 L1 7.5 J ‘ WC = .297 C TABLE CXIII ITEM H, POWER BRAKES, FEATURES Miles in Thousands Age 0-9 lO-lh lS-+ i: 1 2 2 5 15-29 2.00 l 1.50 3 1.60 2 3 3 3 9 WC = .650 SO-U9 1.00 2 1.39 1 .80 3 p.10 2 1 1 u SO-+ 1.25 3 1.69 2 3.00 1 2; 6 6 6 -1u1- TABLE CXIV ITEM I, POWER STEERING, FEATURES Miles in Thousands Age 0'9 10-1h 1§_+ 2: 2.5 3 1 60575162.. 15-29 1.50 1.5 1.00 3 1.50 1.5 .L- “E 2.5 1 2 5.5 ‘ ' 30-89 1.50 2 1.68 1 1.80 3 , 1 2 3 6 ~ I 50-+ 1.63 1 1.58 2 .83 3 . 2 L105 6 705 WC = .188 I C TABLE CXV ITEM J, TROUBLE FREE OPERATION, FEATURES Miles in Thousands Age 0-9 lO-lu lS-+ E: 1 l 1 3 15-29 n.00 1 3.75 2 3.70 3 2 2 3 7 WC = .703 30-A9 3.60 2 3.68 1 3.20 3 p.10 3 3 2 8 50-+ 3.38 3 3.5L 2 3.66 1 5; 6 5 7 -1u2_ CORRELATION BETWEEN THE RANKINGS FOR EACH OF A SELF OF FEATURES BY CAR OWNERS WHO PLAN TO BUY VERSUS THOSE WHO DO NOT PLAN TO BUY, MATCHED ON THE.AGE OF THE CAR NOW OWNED% TABLE CXVI ITEM I, HORSEPOWER, PRESENT CAR Year 1952 8 1953 8 1955 1956 8 Purchase Older 195h 1957 No 8.33 l 6.70 h 7.00 3 7.33 2 :yf Yes 5.06 1 7.7L 2 8.00 1 7.19 3 ii r' = -.80 C TABLE CXVII ITEM 8, EASE OF RIDE, PRESENT CAR Year 1952 8 1953 8 1955 1956 8 Purchase Older 195A 1957 No 8.86 2 7.00 M 9:00 1 7.66 3 Yes 6.28 A 7.37 3 7.55 2 8.33 1 r' =.0 C *Tables where C appears in lower right corner cover items common to forms A and B of the questionnaire. The figure to the right of each mean score NOTE: is its rank. I s: - .1. .. [Elan-1.3.0.1671: «.v NI.II...~.?”_ m . W i . f.:-. n V 15.1.1834 _ n ~183- TABLE CXVIII ITEM 19, MORE HORSEPOWER, NEXT CAR Year 1952 6 1953 6 1955 1956 6 Purchase Older 195“ 1957 No 3.16 3 8.30 1 3.00 8 3.33 Yes 8.82 1 3.85 2 3.27 8 3.29 r' = .80 TABLE CXIX ITEM 27, EASIER RIDE, NEXT CAR Year 1952 6 1953 8 1955 1956 Purchase Older 195“ 1957 No 5.66 8 8.80 l 7.13 2 6.66 Yes 7.35 3 6.93 8 8.68 1 8.05 r' = —.20 TABLE CXX ITEM 38, HIGHER HORSEPOWER, TRENDS Year 1952 6 1953 6 - 1955 1956 Purchase Older 1958 1957 No 8.83 1 3.80 2 3.00 8 3.66 Yes 8.87 1 3.77 2 3.68 3 3.62 -WJWMr -1814- TABLE CXXI ITEM 38, SMOOTHER RIDE, TRENDS XL!” Year 66:: 13%? 6238* No 6.00 8 9.00 l 8.75 2 8.00 Yes 8.11 2 8.08 3 8.91 l 8.00 r' = 0 C TABLE CXXII ITEM 86, SPORTS-CAR HANDLING, TRENDS Year Purchase O73§ra I358 8 1955 13%? & No 5.16 3 6.80 1 5.50 2 8.83 Yes 5.58 2 5.33 8 5.85 3 6.18 r' = -1.00 p.082 TABLE CXXIII ITEM 52, SMOOTHER RIDE, SAFETY Year 1952 6 1953 6 1955 1956 6 PurChase Older 19514 1957 NO 6.16 8 6.80 2 6.75 3 7.00 Yes 6.12 8 7.37 2 8.85 1 7.10 1 .s 1‘.- . ‘adf.ow..10ufl11d$3mwd.t.”b “W. .« . - n 119‘. 4481.." “I. .. . ‘Vt. -185- TABLE CXXIV ITEM 57, HIGHER HORSEPOWER, SAFETY Year Purchase O?g§r& 1358 & 1955 I357 No 8.50 2 8.70 l 3.50 3 3.33 Yes 8.87 l 3.66 11 3.82 3 3.86 r‘ = -.80 TABLE CXXV ITEM 60, PUSH BUTTON SHIFT, SAFETY Year Purchase O?gir& I358 & 1955 13%? No 8.66 3 5.60 1 5.50 2 8.00 Yes 5.18 2 8.77 3 8.85 8 5.19 r' = -.80 TABLE CXXVI ITEM 80, EASE OF RIDE, STATEMENTS Year p.666... g9g§ra gggg . 1955 13;; No 3.83 1 2.90 8 3.50 3 3.66 Yes 2.92 3 2.81 8 3.27 l 3.19 -186- TABLE CXXVII ITEM A, LEG ROOM, FEATURES Year Purchase O?g§r& I358 8 1955 I357 & No 3.50 1 3.20 2 3.00 3 2.66 8 Yes 3.12 .3 3.88 1 3.36 .2 2.76 11 r‘ = .80 C TABLE CXXVIII ITEM B, HEAD ROOM, FEATURES Year Purchase O?g§r& I358 & 1955 i??? 8 No 2.66 8 3.00 2.5 3.25 l 3.00 2.5 Yes 2.82 1 2.71 2.5 2.27 8 2.71 2.5 r' = -.80 C TABLE CXXIX ITEM C, EXTERIOR DESIGN, FEATURES Year 1952 6 1953 6 1955 1956 6 Purchase Older 1958 1957 No 1.83 2 1.80 3 1.00 8 2.00 1 Yes 1.53 8 1.77 3 2.09 1 1.86 2 r' -.80 C -187- TABLE CXXX ITEM D, PUSH BUTTON SHIFT, FEATURES Year 1952 8 1953 8 1955 1956 8 Purchase Older 195” 1957 No .50 3.5 .70 2 1.50 1 .50 3.5 Yes .98 l .52 8 .82 2 .76 3 r' = -.15 C TABLE CXXXI ITEM E, LUGGAGE SPACE, FEATURES Year 1952 6 1953 6 1955 1956 6 Purchase Older 195“ 1957 No 1.50 2 1.30 3 1.25 8 1.83 1 Yes 1.53 2 1.88 8 1.85 3 1.90 1 r' = .80 C TABLE CXXXII ITEM F, ACCELERATION, FEATURES Year 1952 6 1953 6 1955 1956 6 Purchase Older 195” 1957 No 1.50 1 .50 8 1.00 2 .83 3 Yes 1.00 2 1.15 1 .68 8 .90 3 r' = -.80 C -188- TABLE CXXXIII ITEM G, LOW PURCHASE PRICE, FEATURES (”-‘flflz 2121—1 4‘. __.__ _ . h _ 4 Year 1952 6 1953 6 1955 1956 6 Purchase Older 1958 1957 No 2.83 2 2.50 3.5 3.25 1 2.50 Yes 2.35 3 2.55 1 2.27 8 2.88 r' = -.85 TABLE CXXXIV ITEM H, POWER BRAKES, FEATURES Year 1952 6 1953 6 1955 1956 6 PurChase Older 195).]. 1957 No 1.16 3 1.10 8 1.25 2 1.33 Yes 1.81 8 1.55 3 1.82 1 1.62 r' = .60 TABLE CXXXV ITEM 1, POWER STEERING, FEATURES Year 1952 6 1953 6 1955 1956 6 Purchase Older 1958 1957 No .83 3 2.30 1 .75 8 2.00 Yes 1.13 3 1.08 8 1.55 1 1.89 r' = -.80 -1149... TABLE CXXXVI ITEM J, TROUBLE FREE OPERATION, FEATURES Year 1952 6 1953 8 1955 1956 6 Purchase Older 1958 1957 No 3.66 2 3.60 3 3.75 1 3.33 Yes 3.53 3 3.77 2 3.82 1 3.52 r' = .80 613.4311 :1 1113115.: U31:- CCU Date Due ‘ 1¢4q~1‘1‘ Demco-293 . ‘ ‘ ‘ n - I- — a. _ -._vv