A MARKET SEGMENTATION STUDY OF SINGLE (l-PERSON) HOUSEHOLDERS BY DEMOGRAPHIC AND LIFE STYLE CHARACTERISTICS BY José Valentim Sartarelli A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Marketing and Transportation Administration 1979 ABSTRACT A MARKET SEGMENTATION STUDY OF SINGLE (l-PERSON) HOUSEHOLDERS BY DEMOGRAPHIC AND LIFE STYLE CHARACTERISTICS BY José Valentim Sartarelli The 19705 have witnessed the emergence and growth of the living alone phenomenon. This phenomenon has resulted in a growing market segment of single (l-person) householders, which has increasingly attracted the attention of the business world. Despite this increase in business interest, and the market's growing numerical importance, there is very little information on this new segment, particularly concerning the level of life style homogeneity prevailing within it. The issue of market homogeneity, here defined as the lack of differences between any two demographic segments, is of extreme importance to marketing. The determination of whether or not a market is homogeneous is critical to the implementation of the marketing con- cept and also indispensable to the identification of target markets. José Valentim Sartarelli To determine whether life style homogeneity existed within the single (l-person) household market, a mail survey of singles living alone was conducted in the Greater Lansing Metropolitan Area. Questions were asked about sex, age, marital status, income, home tenure, education, and occupation. Also included were eighty-five statements about activities, interests and opinions (AIDS). The questionnaires were sent to 1,500 singles living alone who were systematically selected from a list of single (l-person) householders purchased from R. L. Polk & Co. The data thus gathered were submitted to a three-phase analysis. First, a demographic comparison was made between sample respondents and single (l-person) householders in the Lansing, Michigan, SMSA and in the United States. Second, the sample's responses to the eighty-five activities, interests and opinions state- ments were factor analyzed. Third, the life style factors identified in the second phase were used to compare subcategories or segments of sex, age and marital status, which best reflected the growth of the living alone phenomenon. The demographic comparison of segment pairings revealed that the sample's profile was atypical of single (l-person) householders in both the Lansing SMSA and the United States. Therefore, none of the results José Valentim Sartarelli and conclusions should be generalized beyond the sample respondents. The factor analysis identified the following life style factors among the sample's responses to AIDS: Self-Concept, Credit Use, Appreciation of the Arts, Fashion Consciousness, Religiosity, Price Consciousness, Vacation Style, Housekeeping Interest, Information Seeking, Appreciation of the Outdoors, and Sports Interest. The results of the life style comparisons revealed a high degree of life style homogeneity across segment pairings of singles living alone. Males were differentiated from females by Sports Interest, one life style factor out of the eleven studied. Those aged 18-34 were differentiated from those 35 years old and older by Religiosity and Appreciation of the Outdoors which also differentiated 25-34 year olds from those 35 years old and older. The 18-34 group was differentiated from those 65 years old and older by Religiosity, Appreciation of the Outdoors, and Credit Use. No significant life style differences were found between 18-24 year olds and 25-34 year olds; between single (never-married) and divorced, separated, or widowed respondents; and between divorced or separated and widowed respondents. José Valentim Sartarelli The aforementioned life style differences did not seem to be unique to the sample. A comparison with the literature revealed that the differences were simi- lar to those found in the population at large or among subsegments thereof. In addition, a strong parallelism was observed between demographic and life style homogeneity across some of the pairings of demographic segments used, suggesting some degree of dependence between demographic and life style characteristics across segment pairings. Finally, life style research was found to be a useful approach to market segmenta- tion. It helped both to identify life style factors or dimensions and to describe existing market segments. O Copyright by JOSE VALENTIM SARTARELLI 1979 To my parents Alzira R. S. Sartarelli and Joao Sartarelli ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Several people have been influential in the development and completion of this research effort. I welcome this opportunity to acknowledge their help and guidance throughout several years of graduate work at Michigan State University. To Dr. William Lazer, Professor, Department of Marketing and Transportation, and chairman of my dis- sertation committee, I express my gratitude for his insightful comments and inspiration, unselfishly given. To Dr. Donald A. Taylor, Chairman, Department of Marketing and Transportation, and advisor of my doctoral program and member of my committee, I extend sincerest thanks for his constant encouragement as a mentor and friend throughout my graduate program. To Dr. Stanley C. Hollander, Professor, Depart- ment of Marketing and Transportation, and member of my committee, I am most grateful for his incisive comments and inspiring scholarship. I owe a debt of gratitude to all the friends who have encouraged me in and contributed directly and indirectly to this final work. To Mrs. Deo do Prado Bento, Dr. Antonio Machado, Mr. and Mrs. Lonnie Bell, iii and Dr. Alberto de Oliveira Lima Filho, I am most grateful. To Mr. and Mrs. Charles Long, Sr., and Miss Katherine A. Strong, who shared my anxieties and helped me through the final stages of the program, my undying thanks. I would also like to thank Mrs. Elizabeth Johnston for her professionalism while editing the manuscript. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . vii LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . X Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . 1 Problem and Purpose of the Study . . 1 Major Hypotheses . . . . . . . . 8 Methodology . . . . . . 9 Limitations of the Study . . . . . 15 Contributions of the Study to Marketing . . . . . . . . . 17 Organization . . . . . . . . . 18 II. THE LIVING ALONE PHENOMENON . . . . . 20 Introduction . . . . . . . . . 20 General Trends . . . . . . . . 21 The Singles Phenomenon . . . . . 31 The Single (1- Person) Household Phenomenon . . . . . . . . . 44 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 53 III. LIFE STYLE RESEARCH AND SEGMENTATION . . 48 Introduction . . . . . . . . . 55 Major Proposition . . . . . . . 55 Definitions . . . . 56 Life Style and Market Behavior . . . 60 Approaches to Life Style Research: AIOs versus Product Usage . . . . 64 Measurement . . . . . . . . . 65 Reliability . . . . . . . . . 70 Validity . . . . . . . . 73 Life Style Segmentation . . 74 Life Style Versus Other Segmentation Approaches . . . . . 83 Problems, Criticisms and Benefits . . 86 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Chapter Page IV. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . 93 Introduction . . . . . . . . . 93 Research Design Framework . . . . . 93 Instrument and Pretesting . . . . . 100 Sample and Sampling Method . . . . 102 Data Collection . . . . . . . . 104 Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . 108 V. RESEARCH FINDINGS . . . . . . . . 123 Introduction . . . . . . . . . 123 Demographic Comparison of Sample Respondents and Single (l-Person) Householders in Lansing SMSA and the United States . . . 124 Identification of Life Style Factors Among Single (1- Person) Householders . . . . . 134 Life Style Differentiation of Selected Demographic Segments of Single (1-Person) Householders . . 141 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 214 VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . 220 Introduction . . . . . . . . 220 Summary of the Study . . . . . . 220 Summary of the Findings . . . . . 224 Conclusions . . . . . 238 Implications for Marketing Theory . . 242 Implications for Marketing Practice . 243 Suggested Areas for Further Research . 244 Appendix A. LETTER OF INTRODUCTION . . . . . . 249 B. FOLLOW-UP CARD . . . . . . . . . 251 C. QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . . . . . 253 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . 272 vi LIST OF TABLES Total Population and Number of Households, 1950-1978 (1,000) . . Divorced Persons Per 1,000 Married Persons With Spouse Present, by Sex, and Age: 1960-1978 . . . . . . Age of the Population of the U.S.: 1970-1978 . . . . . . . . Median Age at First Marriage by Sex: 1950-1978 . . . . . . . . Marital Status of U.S. Population (%, 14 Years and Older) . . . . Single (Never-Married) Persons, 18 Years Old and Over as % of Population . . Households and Family Units, by Type Households by Number of Persons . . Data Collection Results . . . . . A Simulated Example of an Application of Discrepancy Index . . . . . A Demographic Comparison of Sample Respondents, Lansing SMSA Single (l-Person) Householders and U.S. Single (1-Person) Householders . . Life Style Factors or Segments Generated from AIO Statements . . Life Style Factors or Segments and Most Representative AIO Statements . . Demographic Profiles of Selected Segments of Single (1-Person) Householders: Males vs. Females . vii Page 23 27 . 28 33 . 35 . 37 . 45 47 . 107 . 110 125 . 136 . 137 . 143 Demographic Profiles of Selected Segments of Single (1-Person) Householders: 18-24 Year Olds vs. 25-34 Year Olds . . . Demographic Profiles of Selected Segments of Single (1-Person) Householders: 18-34 Year Olds 35 Year Olds and Over . . . Demographic Profiles of Selected Segments of Single (l—Person) Householders: 18-34 Year Olds 65 Year Olds and Over . . . Demographic Profiles of Selected Segments of Single (1-Person) Householders: 25-34 Year Olds 35 Year Olds and Over . . . Demographic Profiles of Selected Segments of Single (l-Person) Householders: Single (Never-Married) vs. Divorced, Separated, or Widowed Householders . . . . . . Demographic Profiles of Selected Segments of Single (l-Person) Householders: Divorced or Separated vs. Widowed Householders . . VS. VS. VS. Test of Goodness of Fit of Selected Demographic Segments on 32 Life Style Variables . . . . . Life Style Comparison Between Selected Demographic Segments: Males vs. Females . . . . Life Style Comparison Between Selected Demographic Segments: 18-24 Year Olds vs. 25-34 Year Olds . . Life Style Comparison Between Selected Demographic Segments: 18-34 Year Olds vs. 35 Year Olds and Over viii Page 145 147 148 150 151 153 156 161 168 173 Table U1 I 15. 5-16. 5-23. 5-24. 5-25. Life Style Comparison Between Selected Demographic Segments: 18-34 Year Olds vs. 65 Year Olds and Over . Life Style Comparison Between Selected DemOgraphic Segments: 25-34 Year Olds vs. 35 Year Olds and Over . . Life Style Comparison Between Selected Demographic Segments: Single (Never- Married) vs. Divorced, Separated or Widowed Householders . . . . . Life Style Comparison Between Selected Demographic Segments: Divorced or Separated vs. Widowed Householders Results of Testing of Hypothesis H1 . Results of Testing of Hypothesis H2 . Results of Testing of Hypothesis H3 . Results of Testing of Hypothesis H4 . Results of Testing of Hypothesis H5 . Results of Testing of Hypothesis H6 . Results of Testing of Hypothesis H7 . ix Page 181 190 197 204 210 211 212 213 215 216 217 Figure LIST OF FIGURES Page A Life Style Hierarchy . . . . . . 61 The Plummer Model . . . . . . . . 62 A Continuum of Consumer Characteristics . 63 Life Style Comparison Between Selected Demographic Segments: Males vs. Females . . . . . . . . . . . 163 Life Style Comparison Between Selected Demographic Segments: 18-24 Year Olds vs. 25-34 Year Olds . . . . . 170 Life Style Comparison Between Selected Demographic Segments: 18-34 Year Olds vs. 35 Year Olds and Over . . . 175 Life Style Comparison Between Selected Demographic Segments: 18-34 Year Olds vs. 65 Year Olds and Over . . . 183 Life Style Comparison Between Selected Demographic Segments: 25-34 Year Olds vs. 35 Year Olds and Over . . . 192 Life Style Comparison Between Selected Demographic Segments: Single (Never- Married) vs. Divorced, Separated or Widowed Householders . . . . . . 199 Life Style Comparison Between Selected Demographic Segments: Divorced or Separated vs. Widowed Householders . . 206 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Problem and Purpose of the Study American society in the second half of the twentieth century has undergone dramatic changes in virtually every aspect of its social, economic and tech- nological life. Demographically, the past quarter of a century has witnessed a population growth moderated by declining fertility rates (1, 24), a continued decline of the average size of households and families (117, 118:18), growth of non family households, and major shifts in the importance of certain age cohorts, partic- ularly those aged 25 to 34 years (117, 118:15). Among these many changes, the increasing number of people who choose to remain single has attracted the attention of both demographers and marketers. Many reasons have been suggested for this socio- market phenomenon. Observers note the tendency to post- pone marriage, the career ambitions of women, declining discrimination against singles, rising divorce rates, growing independence from parents exhibited by young people, and acceptance of unconventional living arrange- ments and derived life styles (75). The low fertility 1 rate of recent years (118:6) and the ability of the young and the elderly to finance their own households (109) are two other possible reasons. More people are opting for a solitary life. In 1978, single (l—person) households numbered 16.7 million, accounting for 22% of the total (112:6). The growth in all households amounted to little more than 74% between 1950 and 1978, but the increase in single (1-person) households was 322.7% (see Chapter II, Table 2-7). The trend toward living alone could affect society in several positive ways. First, it may con- tribute to the revitalization of the inner cities (75). Single (l—person) householders seem more willing than other groups to patronize downtown establishments, particularly entertainment facilities not found in the suburbs. Second, as society's acceptance of this new living arrangement grows, any remaining discrimination against singles in general and single (l-person) house- holders in particular is likely to disappear (99). Third, living alone may contribute to healthier relation- ships, in the sense that it provides the chance to know oneself better before taking on a partner (75). Living alone could have adverse consequences for society. The continued growth of this phenomenon could weaken the family as the dominant living pattern (99). Moreover, it may well hamper the individual's ability to live and work in groups. Martin Bronfenbrenner views living alone as a sign of the unraveling of the fabric of American society. He argues, further, that psycho- logical growth and development are important aspects of young adulthood, and "with people who live alone, a lot of the skills people learn from living together do not get learned" (75). From a marketing standpoint, living alone is helping to legitimize a new life style and is opening new markets and revitalizing existing ones. The magni- tude and rapidity of growth of this phenomenon have greatly influenced the way people spend their time, energy and money. This effect has been felt in indus- tries ranging from housing, home appliances, and auto- motives to food and travel. In the housing industry, new units are increasingly being purchased (26) or rented (20) by people living alone. In the home appli- ance industry, single (1-person) householders represent a market opportunity characterized by the ownership of small appliances (60). The automotive industry has been particularly affected by this new trend, for increasing numbers of new car purchases are made by young single adults (26). The effect on food retailing has been marked, since large numbers of single (1-person) house- holders eat out frequently (75). Finally, single adults take three times as many trips as do their married counterparts (26, 136). In general, business firms have responded posi- tively to the challenge by developing products especially designed to serve this new market. Manufacturers such as Presto, Sunbeam, and Mirro Aluminum have developed small appliances aimed at the single (l-person) householder (26:77). General Motors' downsizing program not only seeks to respond to import competition, governmental pressure and the oil shortage, but also aims at single (l-person) householders who have become increasingly important as buyers of new cars (26). Food processors, realizing the importance of this new market segment, have introduced products in single serving sizes (26, 97). The trend toward living alone and its impact on peoples' life styles are of the utmost importance to the marketing discipline for two major reasons. First, despite its growing importance, there is little informa- tion about single (l-person) households. Second, the scanty data available do not address the issue of life style homogeneity, a subject of great importance to both marketing theory and practice. The literature on singles and single (1-person) householders says virtually nothing about the degree of life style homogeneity prevailing among them (see Chapter II for details). In the broader category of singles composed of those who have never married or who are divorced, separated, or widowed, a review of the literature reveals only sparse information. As might be expected, singles do differ demographically from their married counterparts (79:55). As for their life styles, published information deals almost exclusively with buy- ing behavior. The data indicate differences between male and female singles both in terms of their general buying styles and their psychographics (personality traits) (98:61). Singles seem to be quite diverse in home buying patterns (79:54). Some are highly impulsive, while others are more rational, buying as a hedge against inflation, to build equity, or to lower their taxes. Scantier information was available on the narrower category of single (l-person) householders. As would be expected this is a demographically heterogeneous group (see Chapter V, Table 5-1). The only study that dealt specifically with the life style of this group was one commissioned by the American Can Corporation in 1976 (41). It sought to identify the attitudes and opinions of single (l-person) and two-person householders with respect to food storage, preparation and serving. Con- siderable attitudinal homogeneity was found among single (l-person) male householders, both young and old. Some- what less homogeneity was detected among single (1- person) female householders, both young and old. None was found when males and females were analyzed as two independent groups. From a theoretical standpoint, the question of whether or not the single (l-person) household market is homogeneous with respect to life style is quite impor— tant. The application of the marketing concept philos- ophy requires that consumers' needs and wants be determined if their ultimate satisfaction is to be pursued and enhanced (45:17). This philosophy, when applied to strategic marketing planning, which basically involves determining a target market and formulating a marketing mix (45:165), requires gathering information on the desired market, particularly concerning the degree of homogeneity prevailing. If a market is heterogen- eous, then market segmentation, defined as "the sub- dividing of a market into homogeneous subsets of con- sumers, where any subset may conceivably be selected as a market target to be reached with a distinct marketing mix" (45:166), becomes the strategy to follow. Segmenta- tion allows the implementation of the consumer orienta- tion component of the marketing concept. By splitting the markets into subsegments, the identification of consumers' needs and wants is facilitated. From a practical standpoint, the issue of life style homogeneity in the single (l-person) household market is particularly important because many firms are directing their marketing efforts toward these buyers (26, 91, 97) without being properly informed. This lack of information makes it difficult to determine target markets. A firm's marketing efforts may become erratic and insensitive to consumers' needs and wants, thereby wasting resources. In view of the aforementioned factors, it is clear that empirical research is needed into the degree of life style homogeneity prevailing within the single (l-person) household market. The primary objective of this study is thus to determine whether life style homo- geneity exists within this market. In addition, the study seeks to gather up-to-date demographic information on single (1-person) householders and to verify the use- fulness of life style research as a segmentation approach for this market segment. In this study, life style homogeneity was defined as a lack of differences in life style between the groups studied. Groups of single (1-person) householders were paired according to sex (male and female) and various age and marital status groups. Data were gathered by means of a questionnaire. A sample of single (l-person) house— holders residing within the Greater Lansing Metropolitan Area was asked questions about general activities, interests and opinions--AIOs--and their demographic characteristics. Major Hypotheses Eleven groups of single (l-person) householders, which best portrayed the recent emergence and growth of the living alone phenomenon, were selected. These were then arranged into seven pairings relevant to the pri- mary objective of this study. Each pairing represents a major hypothesis. Each major hypothesis seeks to determine whether significant life style differences exist between two demographically defined segments or groups of single (l—person) householders. Each major hypothesis is broken down into sub- hypotheses (see Chapter V). These, in turn, represent a comparison between two demographic segments on the basis of life style factors generated from the factor analysis of the questionnaire statements concerning activities, interests and opinions (AIOs) of the sample householders. By testing each subhypothesis any significant life style differences between demographic segments can be identified. The lack of significant differences means that life style homogeneity prevails across demographic segments. The seven major hypotheses investigated in this study are: H1: There is no significant difference between male and female single (l-person) house- holders with respect to life style profiles. H2: There is no significant difference between single (1-person) householders aged 18 to 24 and 25 to 34 with respect to life style profiles. H3: There is no significant difference between single (l—person) householders aged 18 to 34 and those 35 years old and older with respect to life style profiles. H4: There is no significant difference between single (l-person) householders aged 18 to 34 and those 65 years old and older with respect to life style profiles. H5: There is no significant difference between single (1-person) householders aged 25 to 34 and those 35 years old and older with respect to life style profiles. H6: There is no significant difference between single (l-person) householders who never married and those who are divorced, sep- arated or widowed with respect to life style profiles. H7: There is no significant difference between single (l-person) householders who are divorced or separated and those who are widowed with respect to life style profiles. Methodology The study was divided into three phases. The first involved determining the representativeness of the sample selected from among single (l-person) householders in the Greater Lansing Metropolitan Area. Demographic characteristics of sample respondents were compared with those of their counterparts in the Lansing SMSA and in the United States. The second phase identified life style factors underlying the sample responses to eighty-five 10 statements about activities, interests, and opinions (AIOs). These factors were then used in the third phase of the study as variables for comparing the eleven demographically defined segments of single (1-person) householders. The third phase sought to determine any life style differentiation among the selected demographic segments. This was a three-step process. First, a demographic analysis of each of the eleven demographic segments was undertaken. Second, responses to AIO statements by each demographic segment were tested to determine whether they could be attributed to chance. Finally, a test for life style differences between selected demographic segments was made in accordance with the seven major hypotheses. The data used for these various operations were the demographic information and the A10 responses supplied by the sample participants. Sex, age, marital status, income, home tenure, education and occupation were the demographic variables selected. Of these seven, sex, age, and marital status best reflected the trend toward living alone. In fact, changes and shifts along these dimensions have paralleled the growth of this phenomenon (see Chapter II). In the case of sex, for example, the trend toward living alone has coincided with basic changes in 11 the role of women. In recent years, more women have sought careers and have suffered less than previously from salary and credit discrimination in the market- place (75). Because they are increasingly postponing marriage (median age at first marriage rose to 21.8 years in 1978, up from 20.3 years in 1960) (see Chapter II, Table 2-4), they are helping to create conditions conducive to living alone. With respect to age, in the 19705 there has been dramatic growth in the younger cohorts, those aged 18 to 24 and 25 to 34. In 1978, they held the two largest shares of the total adult population, 13.2% and 15.5%, respectively (118:15). There also have been a growing independence of the young from their parents and greater social acceptance of alternative living arrangements, experiments restricted mainly to younger groups (75). These factors have contributed to make living alone so acceptable that in 1978 more than one out of every five households in the United States was occupied by only one person (112:6). As for marital status, the recent past has wit— nessed a weakening in the married segment (see Chapter II, Table 2-5). While 69.3% of males and 65.9% of females were married in 1960, the figures were 62.8% and 58.4% in 1978. Conversely, the shares of the single (never-married), divorced, and separated segments have 12 all risen during the same period. The growing popular- ity of the single life vis-a-vis marriage has paralleled the trend toward marriage postponement (116:4), divorce (118:17), and cohabitation (118:19) observed in the 19703. In this study, the following subcategories of sex, age and marital status were selected: male; female; 18-24 years old; 18-34 years old; 25-34 years old; 35 years old and older; 65 years old and older; single (never-married); divorced, separated or widowed; divorced or separated; and widowed. These eleven segments were then arranged into seven pairings: males and females; 18-24 and 25-34 year olds; 18-34 and those 35 years old and older; 18-34 and those 65 years old and older; 25-34 and those 35 years old and older; single (never-married) and divorced, separated or widowed householders; and divorced or separated and widowed householders. Each respondent was asked to complete a question- naire containing eighty-five activities, interests and opinions (AIOs) statements and seven demographic ques- tions. The A10 statements were arranged on a Likert scale ranging from "strongly agree (SA)" to "agree (A)," "uncertain (U)," "disagree (D)" and "strongly disagree (SD)." The research instrument is shown in Appendix C. 13 The AIO statements have been used in other life style research studies (28, 34, 36, 68, 70, 71, 77, 76, 92, 104, 123, 130, 124, 126, 132, 140). Statements were chosen on the basis of how frequently each had appeared in past studies and their relevance to an investigation of the life style patterns of people living alone. The research instrument was pre tested to determine comprehensiveness, ambiguities and the coopera- tion which could be expected from respondents. A con— venience sample of forty single (1-person) householders, all residing in the Lansing area, was chosen for the pre testing. After the satisfactory completion of the pre- test the questionnaire, along with a letter of introduc- tion (see Appendix A) explaining the purpose of the study and requesting cooperation, was sent to 1,500 people. These were systematically selected from a random sample of 10,000 names of single householders residing in the Greater Lansing Metropolitan Area. The random list was purchased from R. L. Polk & Co. (73). Data collection took place between 18 November and 31 December, 1978. A first mailing of 1,000 ques- tionnaires was made on 18 November. In the following two weeks, the response rate was relatively low. There was a high incidence of nondeliverables, that is, ques- tionnaires returned by the U.S. Postal Service due to the nonexistence of listed addresses, incomplete 14 addresses and the fact that addressees had moved, leaving no forwarding address. A second mailing of 500 ques- tionnaires was made on 1 December, 1978. Each question- naire, in both mailings, was numbered sequentially to keep track of responses. Two weeks after each mailing, a follow-up postcard (see Appendix B) was sent to all those who had not responded. Eventually, a total of 259 usable ques- tionnaires was assembled. The response rate, obtained by dividing the total number of usable questionnaires returned by the number delivered, was 26.8% (see Chapter IV, Table 4-1). This figure is comparable to response rates obtained in mail surveys in general (44, 131). The responses to the ninety-two questions by 259 single (1-person) householders were then analyzed in three phases. First, to determine the representative- ness of the sample, a discrepancy index was applied. It compared respondents with their counterparts in the Lansing SMSA and the United States. These comparisons were made on the basis of sex, age, marital status, income, home tenure, education and occupation. Second, responses to the set of A10 statements were submitted to factor analysis (58), which resulted in identifying eleven life style factors underlying thirty-two AIOs. 15 Third, the selected demographic segments and resulting pairings described earlier in the chapter were analyzed. This was done in three stages. A demo- graphic profile of each of the eleven demographic seg- ments was drawn. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov one-sample, two-tailed test (90) was applied to each segment. This was done to determine whether the responses to the thirty-two AIOs, identified by means of factor analysis, exhibited significant differences other than differences caused by chance variation. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov, two-sample, two-tailed test (90) was applied to each pairing of demographic segments. The purpose of this step was to determine whether significant life style differences, as measured by the eleven factors earlier uncovered and their respective component variables, could be found. The research methodology is discussed in detail in Chapter IV with special emphasis on statistical approaches and techniques. Limitations of the Study This study contains several limitations. Some are inherent in the subject, and others are related to the methodology employed. First, the study is exploratory, descriptive, and analytical. No attempt was made at prediction. This 16 narrowed the scope of the study, preventing it from offering a more complete understanding of the living alone phenomenon. Second, data were gathered on single (1-person) householders at a particular time. Different results and conclusions might have emerged had the research been designed to evaluate activities, interests, and opinions over time. Third, there are several methodological limita- tions. The sample was selected from one urban area in one state. The sample's demographic profile does not reflect characteristics of single (l-person) house- holders in the Lansing, Michigan SMSA or the United States. Also, there was a serious nonresponse problem. The only provision made to minimize nonresponses was the reminder cards. They frequently have been recommended in the literature as an effective means of minimizing nonresponses (106:393, 131:88, 42:440). Nondeliverables did not affect a specific sub- group of respondents but rather the entire sample. Indeed, the frequency of nondeliverables was the same in both mailings. Moreover, inspection of nondeliverables did not indicate that the returned questionnaires came more from one geographic area or group than from others. No life style comparison of subcategories of sex, age and marital status, controlling for variables 17 such as income and education, was performed, because of small sample sizes. If performed, these comparisons would have made the study more meaningful. Finally, there is the problem of subjectivity in factor analysis. Despite the importance of this prob— lem, the results of the factor analytic process are acceptable as long as the arbitrary decisions made in analyzing the data are not overlooked, and the conclu- sions not generalized to every situation. In addition, factor analysis was not used in this study for hypothesis testing, nor was it used to identify dimensions which then served as a basis to predict market behavior. Factor analysis was used here primarily as a data reduc- tion technique, to generate dimensions on which demo- graphic segments could be compared. Contributions of the Study to Marketing The study is expected to contribute to the marketing discipline at the theoretical and the applied level. From the standpoint of theory, the major contri- bution should rest with Unadescription of a new market segment. In terms of demographics and life style factors, the findings should enhance knowledge and under- standing of a portion of the marketplace still largely unexplored. By using life style research, the study will 18 not only describe existing demographic segments identified a priori but also will identify new life style factors. These factors will flesh out the demo- graphic profile of singles living alone, thereby enrich- ing the overall analysis. From the standpoint of marketing practice, the study should give marketing practitioners insights into the nature of the single (l—person) household market. It will provide information on the demographics and degree of life style homogeneity prevalent within this new market. This type of information is always valuable to strategic marketing planning. In the specific case of single (l-person) householders, it can help practitioners decide whether to use a market segmentation or product differentiation approach in their marketing mix. The study is likely to generate information on the usefulness of life style research as a market segmentation tool. With such data marketers can devise the most appropriate posture for reaching the single (l-person) household market. Organization The remainder of the study is divided into five chapters. Chapter II discusses the living alone phenomenon from a societal and a marketing standpoint. 19 Chapter III discusses life style research and segmentation, compares it with other segmentation approaches, and indicates why the life style approach was chosen to describe the single (1-person) household market. Chapter IV explains the methodology employed in the study. It presents a detailed analysis of the vari- ables, research instrument, sample and sampling methods, data collection process, and analytical techniques used. Chapter V presents the major findings of the study, paying special attention to the results of the hypothesis testing. Chapter VI contains a summary and conclusions, notes the study's major contributions to marketing theory and practice, and discusses those areas in which further research is warranted. The appendices include copies of the letter of introduction, the follow-up card, and the questionnaire sent to the sample participants in the Greater Lansing Metropolitan Area. CHAPTER II THE LIVING ALONE PHENOMENON Introduction This chapter describes the single (1-person) household market. Such a market has become increasingly important in the 19705, reflecting not only general societal trends but also the growing appeal that single- hood, as an alternative life style, seems to have among diverse clusters of the U.S. population. To understand the importance of the single (l-person) household market, it is necessary that both singlehood and living alone be analyzed in an integrated manner. In this chapter, the possible causes of single- hood, its general characteristics, and its many implica- tions of both an economic and a marketing nature are explored. Next, the modern tendencies not only to remain single but also to maintain a single household are studied. Finally, special attention is devoted to the issue of homogeneity within this segment of the population, a major focus of this research. 20 21 General Trends American society is undergoing changes in popula— tion, living arrangements, and family structures. The total population grew from 152 million in 1950 to 205 million in 1970; it is expected to reach over 260 million by the year 2000 (24). The total estimated population of 217 million in 1978 is also "aging" rapidly, giving rise to the so-called graying of America phenomenon (118:5). In 1970 the median age was 27.9 years; it rose to 29.7 years in 1978 (118:15); it is expected to be over 30 by 1981, and over 35 by 1985 (1:64). The growth in population and the aging phenomenon are related to the fertility rate. This is defined as the number of children born to an average woman in her lifetime, and an examination of the fertility rate over the past half century shows dramatic changes. Throughout the depression years, the rate remained about 2.3 child- ren per woman (118:6). In the late 19505 and early 19605 there was a baby boom, with the rate averaging 3.7 for the period 1955 - 1959 and 3.5 for the years 1960 - 1964 (118:6). This trend did not continue in the late 19605 and 19705, however. In 1976, the fertility rate fell to an all-time low of 1.76 (1:65), rising somewhat in 1978, to 1.79 (118:6). The effects of this "baby bust" are likely to be felt well beyond the end of this century, 22 significantly influencing the way firms do business in the next 25 to 50 years. These changes have affected two major consuming institutions in society: the household and the family. A household, as defined by the Bureau of the Census, consists of "all the persons who occupy a housing unit . . . (including) the related family members and all the unrelated persons, if any, such as lodgers, foster children, wards or employees who share the housing unit" (113:52). As the total population has increased, so has the number of households. This grew from over 43 million in 1950 to more than 76 million in 1978, as shown in Table 2-1. A comparison of the growth in total pOpulation with the growth in the number of households between 1950 and 1978 shows that the former increased by 43%, while the latter rose by approximately 74%. Such a disparity is reflected in the declining average size of households, which dropped from 3.5 persons per unit in 1950 (119:43) to an estimated 2.81 persons per unit in 1978 (118:18). To gain historical perspective, it may be noted that the average household size in 1776 was 5.7 persons per unit for the white population (93:311). By 1890, the number had fallen to 4.8 persons per unit for the total population. By 1930, the figure was 4.11 (119:43). Today, more than half of all U.S. households include only one or two persons (109:1). 23 .blm .mm .Amhma .woflmmo osflpcflum ucmficum>oc .m.D ".U.Q .coumcHSmmzv =.Aunomwm mocm>6¢c whoa noun: "mama 5n mmflaflsmm can moaonmmsom= .>~m¢ .omum mmflumm .muuommm coflumasmom ucmuusu .msmcwu may no smmnsm .woumEEou wo .umma .m.Do .m .Q .Amhaa .moflmmo mcflucflum usmEaum>ow .m.a ".O.D .coumcflnmmzv zmhma ".m.D may mo mawmoum cowumHsmom= .mmm* .omlm mmaumm .muuommm coflumasmom ucmHHDO .msmcmu may mo dmwusm .wonmEEoo mo .umwn .m.Dn .m .m .Amhma .momwmo mcflpcflum ucmficum>ou .m.D u.O.Q .coumcflnmmzv mhma ".m.D on“ no uomupmnm Havaumflumum .mSmch may mo smousm .monEEoo mo .umma .m.Dm wh omo.wh How.mm mmh.mm www.mv omvaonmmzom mo Hmnfifiz mv nmm>.ham mnm.vom Hum.oma HSN.NmH MGOHuMHDmom HMUOB mpaonmmsom cam counumasmom Awe mmcmno ms.uom. mead onma omma omma .Aooo.Hv mhmalomma .mwaonmmsom MO HOQEDZ Dam GOHHMHSQOQ HmuOBII.HIN mqmflfi 24 The growth in the total number of households between 1970 and 1978 can be compared with the growth in primary individual households, that is, those composed of one person or of more than one person living with non relatives. The growth of total households was about 20% during 1970-1978, whereas the rate for individual households was 60% in the same period (112:6L Despite these changes, married couples (husband and wife) still account for approximately two-thirds of all households (109:1). A family, which is one type of household, is defined as "a group of two or more persons residing together who are related by blood, marriage or adoption" (113:53). In 1978, the total number of families in the United States was estimated at 56.9 million (118:18). Most lived in the cities, tended to be small (38% were comprised of only two persons), and were white (88%). Fifty-three percent of these families included at least one person under 18 in the home, and about one-third of all family members were under 18 years of age. Seventy- two percent of the families owned their own homes or were in the process of purchasing one, 17% of family heads had completed at least four years of college, and 34% of the providers held white-collar jobs (111:1-2). Another interesting development is that the "average" American family, that is, a husband who works, 25 a wife who is not in the labor force, and two children, has all but disappeared. Only 6% of U.S. families fit this description (59:31). The waning importance of the "typical" family is not occurring in a social vacuum. The modern family faces extreme pressures. One factor is the increasing tendency toward postponement of marriage. In 1960, the median age at first marriage was 22.8 years for males and 20.3 years for females. By 1978, the figures had risen to 24.2 years and 21.8 years (114:1). A more remarkable example of this trend toward later marriage is reflected by the large percentage of single (never- married) people in the population. The percentage of single (never-married) men between 20 and 24 years of age was 53.1% in 1960, and it rose to 65.8% in 1978 (119:42, 112:4). The percentages in these same years for women between 20 and 24 years of age were 28.4% and 47.6%. This trend does not necessarily indicate a sharp rise in lifelong singleness, although a slight increase in singlehood may be expected in the future (118:9). Another major factor affecting the instituion of marriage is the increasing frequency with which people of all ages divorce. As is shown in Table 2-2, there were 35 divorced pe0ple for every 1,000 persons in intact marriages in 1960. That figure rose to 47 in 1960 and 26 reached an all-time high of 90 in 1978. When the data are further broken down by sex and age, it is revealed that the divorce phenomenon affects women differently than it does men; larger numbers of females than males seem to remain single after divorcing. Analysis of Table 2-2, controlling for age and time, also indicates that, regardless of sex, until 1970 the number of divorced persons per 1,000 married people 45 years old and over was greater than among people under 45. By 1978, the reverse was true. Other phenomena also warrant attention. The most important is the shift in the population mix, which may result in drastic changes in the way people live and spend time, energy, and money. During the 19705, two groups grew in importance--those 18 to 24 and those 25 to 34 years old. Table 2-3 shows that as a percentage of the total population, the former group, which accounted for 12% in 1970, represented 13.2% of the population in 1978; the share of the latter changed from 12.3% to 15.5% during the same period. These two groups together accounted for more than 28.7% of the total population, by far the largest cluster among adults 18 years old and older. The under—l8 group decreased as a percentage of the total population (from 34.1% in 1970 to 29% in 1978), while the age groups 35 to 44 and 45 to 54 decreased only slightly. Those aged 55 to 64 and 65 27 .HH .d .HmhmH .moHHHo mcHucHHm unassum>oo .m.a pmufico may mo maflmonm coflumHsmom= IHSO .msmcmu may mo ammusm .monEEou mo ucmEpHmmmo .m.D co pmmmm “momoom ".U.o .coumGHSmmzv =mnma umwumum .mmm* omlm mmflumm .wuuommm coflumasmom pawn cm 54 mm OHH om m4 He mm mm mmmH HHH mm 54 mm em as 55 mm mm «m 56>0 6:6 mm Hm mm ms OOH mm mm mm ow mm «w 0» m4 mOH he mm omH Hm H4 Hm mm mm 44 on om Hm mm mm mm we mm mm mm SH om smog: msmH osmH ommH msmH osmH CSOH msmH onaH ommH mumm» mm< mwxm O 0 M 0 0 m U3” m 3H m H 5 m H z xmm .msmHuoomH ”6mm 6cm .xwm >9 .ucmmmum mmsomm Sufi: mCOmHom pmHHHmz ooo.H me mcomumm pmoH0>HQII.NIm mqmdfi 28 ".m.D map mo mawmonm coHumHsmom= .msmcmu on» wo smmusm .monEEoo mo ucmEuummmo .m.D Eoum pmummpé "momDOm .mH .d .Hman .onwmo mcHucHum ucmscum>oo .m.o ..o.a .coumaHsmmzv =msmH .omlm mwflumm .muuommm coHumHsmom ucwuusu o.HH m.m vmo.vm th.mH HO>O paw mummw mm m.m H.m mom.om mom.mH wwlmm m.oa v.HH qu.mm vmm.mm «mime N.HH v.HH mmm.vm vam.mm vvlmm m.mH m.NH mmm.mm oqa.mm ¢MImN N.ma o.NH vvm.mm mmv.vm vmlma o.mm H.vm mnm.mo mmw.mw ma HOGGD mhma onma mhma onma wm< Hwy mmmucwoumm Hooo.av HOQEDZ coflumazmom .mhmalonma ”.m.o may Ho coHumHsdom may no mmduu.mn~ mHm¢e 29 years and older both increased their share. In the case of the former, the percentage rose from 9.1% to 9.5%, and in the case of the latter, from 9.8% to 11.0%. In the future, it is expected that growth in the 20-24 years group will slow markedly, declining steadily throughout the 19805 (1:65). The 25-44 cohort will grow faster than any other group in the next 12 years. The greatest growth, at least initially, will occur among those aged 25 to 34. The 45-54 cohort is likely to continue to shrink until the second half of the 19805. The number of 55 to 64 year olds will expand rapidly by 1995 as the postwar baby boom matures. The slow growth in the 65 years old and older group is likely to con- tinue. By the year 2030, about 55 million people, one- fifth of the population, are expected to be 65 years old or older (83), creating a senior boom with unforeseeable implications. The phenomenal growth in recent years of those aged 25 to 34 has made them the largest individual group of adults in America (118:15). They constitute a driving force in the market today. On the whole, they are affluent, live in a world of floating values, seek self-fulfillment, and are less work oriented than ever before (135). Amitai Etzioni has characterized these "young adults" as having less stamina and less self- discipline than earlier generations (135:39). Some will 30 never mature sufficiently to meet their responsibilities, which is likely to influence the nature and character- istics of the future labor force. Some observers believe that in the next century there will be an even stronger societal drive toward individualism than exists today (47). Signs of this can now be observed among young adults (25—34 cohort). They tend to be strongly self-centered, self-indulgent, and largely unconcerned about societal welfare (135:40). This "me first" attitude seems to be an extreme version of the individualist strain in American culture. In one respect, society as a whole may benefit since self- knowledge may improve interaction with others (135:43). Another aspect of the growing importance of the age group 25-34 involves the dual career families, heavily represented in this age segment. These families are made up of men and women "who juggle careers and family duties so they can enjoy the good life that only money can buy" (135:46). They have considerable buying power and are in the market for boats, condominiums, winter cruises, expensive cars, and professional child rearing services. The lack of role models has made the lives of dual-career couples complex and difficult to define along lines acceptable to society (74). By pioneering new living arrangements, however, they are helping make alternative life styles more acceptable to 31 larger numbers of people, thereby contributing indirectly to higher levels of societal tolerance. The Singles Phenomenon Decreasing rates of population growth, declining fertility rates, a marked decline in the average size of households, growing pressures on the family as an insti- tution, and a noticeable shift in the population mix are some of the major changes American society has experienced in the past quarter of the twentieth century. This list is not exhaustive, nor does it include all the factors of interest to demographers and marketers. Some of the changes induce others. Sometimes, they are caused by a complex of factors that shape the dynamic character of modern society. Possible Causes A major change in contemporary society is the trend toward adults remaining single for long periods of their lives. This tendency was observed in the 19605 and became more pronounced in the 19705. As noted earlier, some of the causes are later marriage, the growing career ambitions of women, the mounting divorce rate, the growing independence of young people from parents, and a higher degree of social acceptance of unconventional life styles (75). All of these factors, coupled with the profound influence of the women's 32 liberation movement and growing sexual permissiveness, seem to have made singlehood an acceptable alternative living arrangement. One change in living patterns has been an increase in cohabitation. In 1970, unmarried couples numbered 523,000, but by 1978 the figure had jumped to 1,137,000, a net increase of 117% in only eight years (118:19). Cohabitation is popular among college stu- dents, and a recent survey reveals that many are seriously searching for alternatives to traditional marriage (100). Cohabitation seems to be an important element in the "singles" phenomenon. The trend toward later marriage is affecting both sexes, is more visible among the young and is becoming increasingly popular among those who were previously married. The impact upon the sexes can be observed from the data on median age at first marriage shown in Table 2-4. Between 1950 and 1978, the age increased from 22.8 to 24.2 years for men and from 20.3 to 21.8 years for women. Marriage postponement is more popular among the under 35 age group than among people over 35 (12:24). Many widows are remaining single (57). There are many reasons for this trend, varying from one individual to another, but economic independence seems to be the major force enabling both unmarried people and marriage survivors to remain single. A closer look also 33 TABLE 2-4.—-Median Age at First Marriage by Sex: 1950- 1978. \\\\Year \ 1950a 1960a 1970a 1978b S eX \,\ Male 22.8 22.8 23.2 24.2 Female 20.3 20.3 20.8 21.8 aBased on U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-23, #77, "Perspectives on American Husbands and Wives" (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1978), p. 4. bU.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Bureau of the Census, unpublished Current Population Survey data, 1979. 34 shows that the incidence of singlehood is greater in urban areas, where the acceptance of unconventional life styles is more likely. It must be emphasized that the postponement of marriage, so common among young peOple, does not imply a permanent commitment to a solitary life (118:9). In summary, the data presented thus far indicate that matrimony is still popular among Americans, although growing numbers are marrying somewhat later than in the past. This conclusion supports the contention that the institution of marriage is not dead, but alternative living arrangements are more viable than ever before. General Characteristics Singles can be classified into four groups: single people prOper (never-married), divorced, separated, and widowed. From Table 2-5 it can be seen that among those 14 years of age and over, the percentage of single people, male and female, increased dramatically between 1960 and 1978. Single males accounted for 25.3% of the population in 1960, and 30.6% in 1978; the corresponding figures for females were 19.0% and 23.9%. A similar trend can be observed in the divorced category. Divorced males accounted for 1.8% of the population in 1960, and 4.2% in 1978; the statistics for females were 35 .n .d .Hman .monuo ocHucHHm Hamecum>oo .m.s u.od .zouocHsmmzv =san noun: uucmawmcmuum mcfl>flq cam msumum Ampaumz: .mmm* .omlm mwfluwm .muuomwm GOHHMHsmom ucmnuso .msmcmu can mo smwusm .wouoeeou mo ucmauummoa .m.D .uuommn whoa wan sown mum whoa Home: :cmumummwm: so mmuswflm .mumo whoa mo uuflHHAMme>mcs ou can .kunmaanmfln SHHMHowmmm mcwwn mw £0w£3 .muomwumo :pmHHHmE= may mo whomwumUQSm m we :Uwuwummmm= mmsmomn wooa 56:» ouoe on as com mommucmoummc .mhma .mump mm>usm coHumHsmom pcwuuso Umnmflansmcd .msmcmo ms» mo ammusm .monEEou mo usmfiuummmo .m.Do .m .m .HosmH .monmo ocHucHum Hamecum>oo .m.: ".o.o .coumcHnmmzc =o>mH noun: ”msumum HHHsmm 6:6 msumum HmuHumz= .~H~* .omum mmflumm .muuomwm :oHumasmom ucmuuso .mSmch map mo smwusm .monEEou mo usmfiuummwn .m.DQ .6 .m .HO6mH .moHHHo ocHucHum pcmacum>oo .6.s ".o.o .coumaHnmmzc =O6mH scum: "maumam sHHamm 6:6 magnum HmuHumzz .moH¢ .omum mmfiumw .muuommm coaumasmom ucmuuso .msmcmu on» NO ammusm .moumEEoo mo ucwEunmwo .m.Dm v.66 6.m6 o.m6 6.66 6.66 m.m6 cmHuumz 6.HH m.m 6.~H o.m 6.NH 6.6 nmzoqu s.m s.H ~.m m.H o.m 6.H comumummwm o.6 ~.v m.m m.~ 6.m 6.H cmouo>Ha m.mm 6.0m H.mm «.mm o.mH 6.6m mHmch msumum HMUHHMZ mamEom 0H6: mHmEom was: mHMEmm was: omhma Ohoa momma .AHopHO mam mumm» va .wv coaumasmom .m.D mo magnum Hmufiumzll.mlm mummy 36 2.6% and 6.0%. Similar changes occurred in the sep- arated category, where there were percentage increases for both males and females. Widows and widowers declined as a percentage of the population. Widowers accounted for 3.5% of the population in 1960 and for 2.3% in 1978; the corresponding figures for widows were 12.5% and 11.6%. The increases in the share of single (never- married), divorced, and separated as a percentage of the 14 years old and over population are reflected in the decreases observed in the share of widowed people and, more important, in the declining percentage of married people. Married males constituted 69.3% of the popula- tion in 1960, and 62.8% in 1978. The figures for married females were 65.9% and 58.4%. Table 2—6 summarizes the demographic changes among never-married people from 1960 to 1978. For males 18-19 years of age, no dramatic changes took place. Significant increases were recorded, however, for the 20-24 and 25—29 age brackets. Among those aged 20-24 in 1960, 53.1% had never married; 65.8% were in this situa- tion in 1978. In 1960, 20.8% of 25-29 year olds had never married, while this was true of 27.8% in 1978. This strong tendency to remain single did not occur among older groups. In 1960, 11.9% of 30-34 year olds had never married, while 12.8% were in the same 37 .H6 moHSOmV hhma Eoum mum mwfiuommHMUASm wmmSu Mom sumac .v .m .Hmhma .moflmmo mcfluswum usmEdum>ow .m.o ..o.a .coumcHnmmzv =Huuommm mocm>6oo .m.D u.U.Q .cou05flnmmzv whoa ..m.D onu mo uomuumfld Havaumflumum .msmcmu on» NO smwusm .monEEoo mo ucmeuummmn .m.Dm N.© h.h m.m v.m m.h h.h Hm>0 0:6 mo m.v m.® o.m ¢.m m.h o.w vwlvm v.v m.v 0.5 m.© m.n ¢.> vmlmv ®.v m.v H.® m.h m.® m.b v¢lov 0.0 v.m H.® v.5 N.h m.m mMImm v.m N.w m.© m.mH v.0 m.HH vMIom o.mH m.OH m.oa m.bm H.ma m.om mNImN ®.b¢ m.mm v.wm w.m® h.vm H.mm vNION om.mb m.m© h.mm ON.om m.mm H.5m ma om.vm o.mm ©.mh om.hm H.mm ©.vm ma Amumwwv mmfl whoa momma moomH whoa worma momma Hmmw meEom mama .coflumasmom mo w mm Hm>o pom 0H0 mummy ma .msomumm ApmwuuszHm>mzv mHmGHmII.QIN wands 38 situation in 1978. Singlehood was less desirable among 35-64 year olds, as well as among those 65 years old and older. In the latter group, 7.7% had never married in 1960, and 5.4% in 1978. Among females, changes were more dramatic. Between 1960 and 1977 the percentages of never-marrieds, 18-19 years old increased. The 20-24 age bracket exhibited the greatest increase in never-married status, from 28.4% of the total in 1960 to 47.6% in 1978. An increase was also recorded among 25-29 year old females, but not among 30-34 year olds. The 35-64 cohort, as was true for males in the same age group, lacked an interest in remaining single. Likewise, senior females exhibited little interest in remaining single; 8.5% of those 65 years old and older had never married in 1960, while 6.2% were in the same situation in 1978. Between 1960 and 1978, singles as a group not only grew as a percentage of the total population, but also differed demographically from their married counter- parts (79:55). Nearly 60% of the singles were female. Almost one half of the singles were under 30. They were slightly better educated than married people, but tended to hold more low-paying jobs. While their income level was rising, it was behind that of married people. Within the singles group, some heterogeneity was found. Single 25-34 year olds were better educated and 39 more affluent than those 25-65 years old (89:8). Among 18-24 year old singles, differences were found on how males and females rated themselves on personality traits (98:61). Research indicated that females were more affectionate, broadminded, slightly more creative, efficient, frank and sociable, kinder, more refined, more stubborn, and more tense and trustworthy than were male singles. Men were more domineering, egocentric, self—assured, and slightly more intelligent than women. With respect to purchasing behavior, the litera- ture available indicates great diversity among singles. The search for independence and the growing acceptance of unconventional life styles parallels singles' highly impulsive buying behavior. Concomitantly, increasing numbers of singles seem to be in the market for very rational, economic reasons. An example of this is found in the housing industry, where singles are buying homes in record numbers (87). They regard these purchases as a hedge against inflation, a means of building equity, and as a way to reduce taxes (79:54). The Economics of Being Single Despite the many enticements to remain single-- freedom to travel and to pursue one's education, easy mobility in terms of promotions, freedom from child rearing, avoidance of complicated and costly divorce 40 proceedings, and opportunities to try new living arrangements--there are still very strong barriers to living alone. Most of these involve discrimination against singles in such areas as taxation, travel, insurance, food, and shelter. In terms of food purchases, it has been found that because of economies of scale, singles sometimes pay up to 35% more than married people (122:211). The size, volume, and weight of food products are usually oriented toward the consumption patterns of marrieds. When traveling, two unattached single people also encounter discrimination. A married head of a household benefits from discounts for the accompanying spouse not available to a single couple (122:213). With respect to taxes, the situation is not much better, despite recent publicity about the inequities of the tax burden (88:1). Under the 1969 tax law, singles pay up to 20% more than their married counter- parts on federal income tax (94:32). Even so, there has been a marked improvement since the 1948-1969 period, when singles often paid up to 40% more than marrieds in the same income category. Society is still far from enacting a one-tax schedule, although many taxpayers' groups have been formed in recent years to battle for more equitable treatment of singles (88). 41 Unfair treatment is also found in the area of insurance. Single men, aged 17 to 29, may pay from 1.5 to 3.5 times more for automobile insurance as do married men or single women (94:34). The same pattern of inequity is found in health coverage; two unattached people, living together, are likely to pay more than a married couple. Some retirement plans, such as Social Security, discriminate against singles. Upon retiring, a single man will receive much less than a married man whose wife has never worked, although both men have contributed the same amount to Social Security (94:33). Singles have benefited significantly from the passage of the 1975 Equal Credit Opportunity Act (94:33L The act banned discrimination based on sex and marital status and helped singles gain access to desired living quarters. It has reduced or possibly eliminated the practice common among landlords of refusing to rent to an unmarried individual, particularly single men, for fear that bachelors are not able to maintain the premises in livable condition. This discrimination tended to force single renters into somewhat higher priced develop- ments which were more likely to accept them as tenants (122:213). Finally, the single person may be discriminated against when he or she seeks employment or is being 42 considered for promotion. Singlehood is viewed as an asset up to about the age of 30 because the individual is considered more mobile, more willing to travel or to be relocated than married people (94:34). Moreover, many firms are finding bachelor executives more effec- tive than their married counterparts because they tend to have fewer demands on their time, be more aggressive, work longer hours, and be more dedicated to the job (5). Once a person reaches the mid-305, however, single status becomes a handicap. Prospective employers tend to ask why the person is still unmarried, and two of the most common reasons--homosexuality and lack of social graces-- do not contribute to a person's employability (94:34). Despite these inequities, the singles phenomenon has mushroomed and continues to grow. Market Effects Singles over 18 years old and older numbered more than 47 million in 1978 (119:40) and are directly affect- ing industries ranging from housing, apparel and mail order retailing to travel. Singles are buying homes as never before (87). In the area of fashion and apparel, the growing importance of singles has already induced department stores to revamp merchandising strategies to accommodate the demands of this new life style (16). The demand for fashionable and exclusive products, for 43 example, has induced stores to change product lines and advertising media. Singles are also affecting the mail order business (40). Affluent singles, whose active working and social lives leave little room for shopping, are new converts to catalogues. Of the more than 47 million singles, 22 million are in the so-called swinging singles group of 18-34 year olds that constitutes a potential market of more than $210 billion (98). Dr. H. Lawrence Light, BBDO marketing services director, has stated: "The 18-34 singles market is where the action is. It has the greatest discretionary power and is the hottest segment of the population for media and marketers to cater to" (98:60). With young singles' buying behavior strongly oriented toward such areas as recreation and entertain- ment and with their large expenditures on appearel, these singles have generated a new wave of prosperity among manufacturers of such products as luggage, sport- ing equipment, jewelry, fashions, cosmetics, and personal care products (98:96). In the travel industry, unmarried young adults are envigorating a relatively mature business. Singles take more than three times as many trips as marrieds, tend to travel farther, and spend more money on traveling (136:34). 44 The Single (1-Person) Household Phenomenon A household headed by a person living alone is defined as a housing unit occupied by one sole person or a single (1-person) household (107). It has become a consumption unit of major significance in American society. Possible Causes Several reasons were cited previously to explain the appeal of singlehood. The same reasons help to explain the growing popularity of living alone. The tendency to postpone marriage, the growing career ambi- tions of women, the easing of salary and credit discrim- ination against women, the mounting divorce rate, the general independence of young people from parents, and the wide acceptance of unconventional living arrange- ments have been mentioned. In addition, the low fertil- ity of women in the 19705 and the ability of young singles and the elderly to finance and maintain their own households have also contributed (109:1). General Characterisitcs Table 2-7 deals with the proliferation of pri- mary individual (non-family) households. These house- holds are either headed by a person living alone (l-person household) or by a head sharing the living 45 Huuommm mocm>6<0 =m>mH .SI6 .mm .Hmhma .moflwmo mcfiucfium usoacum>ow .m.D "@069 >3 mwflaflsmm 656 mpaonomsom= .hmmw .ONIm mmHHmm .munomwm :oHumHsmom ucwuusu .mSmcou on» 60 smousm .monEEoo mo ucosunmmmo .m.D so pmmmm Scum: u.O.o .soumcwnmmzv ”mumDOw mpaoswmsom mo Honesz Hmuoa .. I- I- .. woo.- wHH.sH 66o.mH 660.6 60 160 6 mm mvaonmmsom somuwmla Hpaoswmsom . . . . GOmemIHV h.mmm 0.66 v.h6 v.v> 6H6 6H H60 OH 600 6 «60 m osoam 05H>Hq . . . 6H656H>H65H m.v06 6.06 m.H6 6.56 HH0.0H 660 HH 606 h 6HS 6 xumEHHm . . . mmHHHsmm 6.66 n.0H 6.6H 6.6a 060.66 666 H6 600 vv 666 mm wumaaum 6.vn 0.0H 0.0m 0.Hm 060.65 Hov.m6 00>.m6 «66.66 mpaonwmsom 6H5: MO m>.106. mn.u0h. 05.106. 06.:06. whoa 060a 060a 060a mama 605630 160 manage Hooo.H0 mqus .deB 56 .muHca HHHemm 6cm mcHonmmsomnu.su~ mqm¢e 46 premises with unrelated individuals (no marriage, adoption, or birth ties) (110:158). Between 1950 and 1978, the growth in the number of primary individual households (304.3%) far surpassed that of primary family households (46.6%). The primary individual household headed by a person living alone grew even more rapidly than the primary individual category. In 1978, single (1-person) households numbered over 16 million units, or more than 7% of the total population of the United States. The same cate- gory, which represented only 9.08% of the total number of households in 1950, grew to 22% in 1978. More than one out of every five households is now headed by a person living alone. Single (1—person) households account for more than one-third of every single adult (18 years old and older) in America. Although the single (l-person) household is not the most popular living arrangement in the United States, it has shown impressive growth in the past twenty-five years, as Table 2-8 indicates. In 1950, there were almost three times as many two-person households as single (l-person) households. In 1978, for every three two-person households, there were two single (l-person) households. Most of these householders were female; 35 - years old or older (40.7% of them were 65 years old or older); single (never-married), divorced, or separated; 47 .mhmH .mump >o>usm coflumasmom ucmuuso pmcmflansmcs .mSmch on» 60 smousm .onwEEou mo ucmsuummma .m.Do 6.0.0 .coumcflcmmzv :Huuomwm mocm>6<0 whoa scum: .66 .6 .H666H .monmo mcHucHum pawscum>oo .m.o .6 .m .H666H .monmo 6cHucHum ucmscum>oo .6.: "60>B up mmwaflsmm 6:6 mpaosmmsom: .hmmw .0mlm mmHme .muuommm coflumHsmom ucwuusu .mSmch may no smousm .onwEEOO mo ucoEuHmme .m.D n “.0.0 .couocflnmmzv man ..m.0 ms» 60 uomuumn< HmoHumHumum .msmcwu mnp mo smmHDm .monEEou wo uswfiuummwo .m.om mpHonwmsom mo Hmnssz 66.06 6.66 6.66 6.66 comumdum Hmuoe mo . . . . ml Hwy 6 mm 0 mm 0 6H H MH 0 0H comum H 6Hocwmsom mo mmwa 66.66 H.6H 6.3 6.~H aomummum nu . . . HmcoHHHflzv N h 6 v 0 m mamamw muwco no In 6.6 m.m 6.H mama M69552 6 o 6.6H s.oH 6.6 6.6 comummuH H u 5 66969 paonmmsom 6:6 .mommucmouom aman moan 6066H H6060H mummy .mcomumm mo Honssz zn moaonwmsomll.mlm mqmfluomuwo >n mmufimssowumosg canon: mo Hones: Hmuou mo cowmfl>fic .wuwu mmsommmn o>wuooummo .mucmccommmu commoomo no men: may :H use vmaafim mwuwm::0wumwsv mmonu can mumnuo mo mam: onu :uws use codawm muwmsc0wummsq Hams» pm: 053 manomm woumuwommmocw adamowmhzm an pwcusumu mmonu nufl3 macaw :wanmm: uos: vmaman Oman oum3 mwumeGOAumosv uso poaaflm we: can onwameoocfi .sofluwvvm :H .uomsoH and coma Guam: mcwmsmq Housman any Cw msa>wa go: we .mcon ocw>fla uo: .cowuuws Hmnufio was on: unaccommwu an omcusumu wuwmcsofiummzan .mmwuopm mcflpum3u0m mafi>mma usonuws Uw>OE ommmmuccm uo szocx no: wwmmmuppm .mmmuoom ucmumwanco: .mmwuoom mumumsoo:w 0» map mow>uwm Haynes an cocusumou ouwmccoHumwsam am.m~ am.vm aa.- ms mmm mom mmm oom.H Haves am>u=m pm.o~ pm.mm wo.Hm mm mm Hmm mud oom wcaafimz ccoumm ao.o~ am.em am.- as and new mmm ooo.H ungaauz umuam mu< mu¢ a any Ros Amuaawo ca oumm mucommmm mama owcommmm ovum oncomwmm a uoz canon: o>wuommum uoz umnfisz mouwmccofiummso .muHSmmm cowuowaaou mumaln.alv manta 108 This rate is comparable to those ordinarily found in mail surveys; as Kerlinger (44:414) contends, "generally poor returns of less than 40 or 50% are common." Wentz (131:83) has found that response rates of 40% or better are exceptional, with returns of 5 to 10% being the most common. Thus, the rate for this survey falls within an acceptable range. Data Analysis After completing the data collection, the demo- graphic and life style (AIO) information gathered from 259 single (l-person) householders was keypunched onto IBM cards. In order to ensure accuracy, keypunching and coding of each questionnaire were double checked. The data were analyzed in three phases. First, a demographic comparison was made of the sample respon- dents and single (l-person) householders in the Lansing SMSA and the U.S. population at large through the use of a discrepancy index. Second, life style factors were identified from among the responses to the eighty-five AIOs by means of factor analysis. The third phase involved three stages. The profile of each demographic segment was drawn. Next, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov, one- sample, two-tailed test was applied to each segment to determine whether the differences in response to the AIOs could be attributed to chance. Finally, the 109 Kolmogorov-Smirnov, two-sample, two-tailed test was used to test each major hypothesis, H1 through H7. The test sought to identify whether or not there were significant life style differences among the previously defined demographic segments. Discrepancy Index A discrepancy index measures whether a certain category in the population is being under or over represented by a sample drawn from the same population (46:82). It therefore indicates the representativeness of the sample chosen in relation to the larger population from which it is drawn. An example of how a discrepancy index works is offered in Table 4-2 for clarification. The example deals with simulated and not actual data. The table shows that sample respondents over represent females in the Lansing area by 75%, whereas males are under represented by 50%. In this study, a discrepancy index was used to determine whether selected demographic features of single (l-person) householders in the Lansing SMSA and the U.S. population at large were over or under represented in the survey sample. 110 om- om om 3mg mh+ ov on mHmem Ame a mxmmv m mumpaonmmsom Awa m.mm + 5: ms; + m.mm imm 393.5 0 msumum Hmuwumz H.05 I 5.0g 5.55 I N.mm 0.0 Hm>o new 00 5.5a I v.0H m.mm I 0.5a m.ma v0lmm 0.0a I 0.0 H.vm I N.HH 0.0 va0v 5.NOH+ 0.5 0.50 + m.m v.0H vvlmm 0.00H+ N.0H 0.00H + H.va H.Nv VMImm m.0 0.0a vmlom 0.0m + 00.0 m.ma + 0.0a 0.H 0.NH 0.0 0HI0H 0.0 v.0 0H uwoso mam m.mm I 0.m0 0.5m I H.v0 m.0v mHMEmm m.Hv + £0.0m 0.0g + 0.0m 5.mm wwmm xwm o 80 m 2: A5 OOH X HUME OOH X flaw mmwaosmmsom mpaocmmsom Anemummlav >Hommumo ACOmHmmIHV wamswm mucmwsommwm HH xoch mamcwm .m.0 H xmwcH £020 mesmsmq mHmEmm >ocmmou0mH0 00 momucmouwm >osmmmuomwo 00 mmmucwouwm 00 mmmusmuumm .mumwaocomsom ACOmHmmIHO mamsflm .m.D 0am mumvaonwmsom AsomnomIHV waocflm «0:0 mcflmcmq .musopsommwm mamemm mo COmHummEoo ow£QMHGOEmo o 0:0 000.000 0.0~0+ 0.0 0.000.m+ 0.0 0.00 000.000I000.0~0 0.050+ 0.0a 0.000.H+ 0.0 0.00 000.000I000.000 0.05 + 0.00 0.000 + 0.0 0.50 000.000I000.000 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 I 0.50 0.00 000.00I000.50 0.5 0.0 000.00I000.00 0.50 I 00.00 0.05 I 0.05 0.5 0.00 0.0 000.00I000.00 0.00 0.0 000.00 can» 0000 mEoosH o 100 m 100 140 OOH vn HIUIHIIAIL OOH X Ray mUHonmmsom mwaosmmsom mfisomummIHv wuommumu AcomummIHv mamcflm musmvsommwm HH chcH wamswm .m.0 H xwch «020 0:00:00 mamemm 5osmmmuomfio mo mmmucmoumm 50cmmmuomHQ 00 mmmusmoumm mo mmmusmoumm .Umficwucooll.Hlm mnm<9 127 .mam>a0:0 00:Q0u00&00 0>0u0u0mfioo #:00000:0Hm 0:0 :00 30HH0 on mumcaonmmson A:OmummIH0 0H0:0m mo mamE0m 0 mo HH0Em 00» :0 00000 003 0H00H00>0 :0:3 :0 0H00HH0>0:: 5Humoe 003 .00000 0020 0 :0 .0u00 0:0:00 0:000u 0008 0000000 000: 0:03 0000 050a .:000:002 .0:Hm:0q 000m .Hmu:0u amusmsou >uwwu0>0:0 00000 :0005002 00 mmm0u 0:0:00 0:0000000 >0 00:00000 003 :oflu0asmom waosmmson A:omH0mIHO 0H0:flm 0020 0:00:04 050a :0 09000 II II II II H.m mnwnuo II II II II 5.0 00>0HQE0:0 II II II II ~.0 wmuflumm II II II II nH.m 9:005u0 0.00 I 0.0 II 0.0 .m.0 :0E0uom EH00 Ho umnon0q E000 0.00 I 0.0 5.00 I 0.0 0.0 000000: 500: no 00200: 0.05 I H.0H 0.N5 I m.NH m.m umxmoz wow>uom 0.0 + 0.m 0.omm+ 0.0 0.m Hmuon0q EH0mI:oz 0.H0 I m.HH 0.00 I 0.0 0.H 0>Hu0ummo 0.00 I 0.0 «.00 I 5.HH 0.m umxuoz 00H0:0M Ho :0Emum0uo 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 I 0.00 N.HH meuoz H000H0HU 0.5m I 0.0 0.00 I 0.0 m.m meuoz mma0m AmH000:0z EH00 .oxmv 0.H0 + 0.HH m.0ma+ 0.5 0.5H Hou0uumw:0800 H0 M000:0z H.00H+ H0.0m m.NOH+ 0.0m £0.00 H000::ome no H0:owmmmmoum . :000005000 0 A00 0 A00 A00 OOH X Hm“ OOH 0." film“ 0m©aonmmsom mcaonwmsom “:00H00IHV anommu0u A:Omummlav 0H0:00 00:00:00000 HH x00:H 0H0:00 .0.0 H x00:H 0020 0:00:0A 0HQE00 00:0mmnomfla mo 000u:0oumm 00:0mmuomfla mo 0000:00H00 mo 000u:0oumm .0msc0ucooII.HI0 00005 128 .mu:00:ommmu 000500 00 00085: 00000 :0 0000mm .00 .m .A050H .moflmmo 0:00:000 u:0E:um>ow .0.D 0.0.0 .:ou0:0:0030 =m00000 0000:: 0:0 :0 0000:0050: 00 5500 :0 0:00:0 50:02: .5000 .00I: 000000 .0000000 :0000H5mom 0:00050 .m5m:0o 0:0 00 500050 .00008500 00 0:0Euu0m00 .0.D 8000 00000500000 .muwnuo 0:0 00000m80:5 .00000000 .mu:005um ..0.0 .0000000000 0:0x003I:0: 0:00500x0 00:00:00000 mo H0uoun5m :0 00000: .00 .0 .A0500 .000000 0:00:000 0:0E:00>00 .0.0 0.0.0 .:ou0:0:0030 =m00000 0000:: 0:0 :0 0000:0050: 0o 5500 :0 0:oo:: 00:02: .5000 .00I: 000000 .000000: :005005000 0:00:50 .m5m:0o 0:0 00 500050 .0000EEOU mo 0:08000000 .0.0 2000 00000500000 .000 .0 .00500 .000000 0:00:00: 0:0::00>00 .m.5 n0.0 .:000:0:0030 =5500 00002 .mo00000000000:0 000:0: 0:0 000:0mso:= .0000 .00I: 000000 .0000000 :000005000 0:00:50 .m5m:00 0:0 00 500050 .00008500 00 0:05000000 .0.D 8000 00000500000 0 0 so 00 m 00:00 0 om ‘0 HH mm 0.3 0 .cflnHo .00 .0 .0050: .000000 0:00:00: 0:0::00>ow .0.0 ..o.: .:ou0:0:0030 =m00000 0000:: 0:0 :0 0000:0msom :0 5500 :0 0260:: 50:02: .5000 .00I: 000000 .000000: :0000H5mom 0:00050 .m5m:0o 0:0 00 500050 .moumsfioo mo 0:0Euh0mmo .0.D 5000 0000H5OH0UQ .005:00:ooII.0I0 0:009 129 householders in the Lansing area by 49.6% and under- represented females by 27.8%. Respondents overrepresented younger to middle aged Lansing single (l-person) house- holders (18 to 44 years old) and underrepresented other age categories. Overrepresentation was 198.6% for the 25-34 age group. The 65 years old and older group was the one most underrepresented by the respondents (77.7%). The sample overrepresented never-married and divorced house- holders in the Lansing area by 74.5% and 67.0%, respec- tively. Separated and widowed householders were under- represented by 71.4% and 78.7%, respectively. With respect to income, respondents under- represented lower income (up to $9,999) Lansing single (l-person) householders and overrepresented higher income clusters ($25,000 and over). In terms of home tenure, the proportion of respon- dents who owned their own home was smaller than the propor- tion of Lansing single homeowners. The proportion of respon- dents who rented was greater than the corresponding propor- tion in the Lansing single (l-person) household population. The sample underrepresented less educated Lansing SMSA single (l-person)householders (less than or only a high school educatflmfi and overrepresented college educated ones. Single (l—person) householders in the Lansing area who either had graduated from or had attended college were over- represented in the sample by 139.6% and 126.6%, respectively. 130 The findings concerning occupation were quite similar. The proportion of sample respondents holding professional (or technical) jobs was much greater than the proportion among Lansing SMSA single (l-person) householders. Differences in a similar direction and of even greater magnitude were found with respect to managerial (or administrative) occupations and in the nonfarm laborer subcategory. Regarding other sub- categories, underrepresentation ranged from 55.2% for clerical workers to 89.4% for operative jobs. In short, most sample respondents were male, under 35 years of age, had never married, earned $10,000 or more, rented their living quarters, were highly educated (51.9% held a college degree or had done post- graduate work), and were employed in a professional (or technical) or managerial (or administrative) capacity. This profile is far from typical of most 1970 Lansing SMSA single (l-person) householders. They were predominantly female, 35 years old or older, and were divorced, separated, or widowed. They earned less than $10,000, were as likely to rent as to own their own home, and were not college educated (66.4% had less than or only a high school education). Most held jobs other than professional (or technical) or managerial (or administrative) ones. 131 These discrepancies could be explained by the fact that data on Lansing SMSA single (1-person) householders were gathered in 1970, those for sample respondents in 1978. The dramatic demographic changes which occurred during the 19703 (see Chapter II) could explain some of the differences. In addition, the geographic areas compared did not exactly overlap. Lansing SMSA encompasses a wider geographic area and a larger population than does the Greater Lansing Metro- politan Area. Table 5-1 also demographically compares sample respondents and U.S. single (1—person) householders. Discrepancy Index II shows large demographic differences between the two groups. With respect to sex and age, sample respondents overrepresented single (l-person) male householders by 41.3% and underrepresented females by 25.3%. Respon- dents overrepresented younger householders (those less than 44 years of age) and underrepresented older groups. The largest differences were observed among 25-34 and 35-44 year olds; Discrepancy Index II shows 159.9% and 102.7%, respectively. With respect to marital status, the proportion of never-married sample respondents was greater than the proportion among U.S. single (1-person) householders. Similar results were observed in the divorced 132 subcategory. In contrast, separated and widowed were much more predominant in the single (1-person) household population than among sample respondents. Sample respondents underrepresented lower income (up to $9,999) U.S. single (l-person) householders and overrepresented the other categories. Of particular importance was the sample's overrepresentation of singles living alone, earning between $25,000 and $49,999 and those earning $50,000 and more; the figures were 428% and 280%, respectively. With respect to home tenure, some similarity was observed. Sample respondents underrepresented U.S. single (l-person) householders who owned their own home by 9.5% and overrepresented those who rented by only 4.2%. Large disparities were found in terms of educa- tional attainment and occupation. Sample respondents were more educated than U.S. single (l-person) house- holders. In the sample, 51.9% had either a college or postgraduate education, compared with 16.6% of the U.S. single (l-person) household population. Respondents also overrepresented U.S. single (l-person) householders who held professional (or technical) or managerial (or administrative) jobs by 149.1% and 61.8%, respectively. Overrepresentation also occurred in the nonfarm laborer subcategory. Underrepresentation occurred in the 133 remaining occupational subcategories. Proportionally fewer sample respondents were involved in such activities as sales, clerical and service jobs compared to single (l-person) householders in the U.S. population at large. As mentioned earlier, most sample respondents were male, aged 35 or younger, had never married, earned $10,000 or more, were highly educated, rented their own living quarters and held professional (or technical) or managerial (or administrative) jobs. This profile is quite different from that of single (l-person) householders in the U.S. population at large. The latter typically were female, older (47.1% were 55 years old or older), divorced, separated, or widowed and earned less than $10,000 a year (71.8% earned up to $9,999). They owned their own home, had little education (most never went beyond high school), and held jobs other than professional (or technical) or managerial (or administra- tive) ones. As a rule, sample respondents and U.S. single (l-person) householders rented rather than owned their own home. The atypical profile of sample respondents vis-a- vis U.S. single (l—person) householders could be explained by the fact that the living alone phenomenon affects dif- ferent areas of the country unevenly. For instance, singles living alone are quite common in large urban areas but not very prevalent in smaller areas, like the Lansing 134 SMSA. Moreover, the aggregate nature of the U.S. figures may account for the fact that they portray the traditional profile of singles living alone (old, divorced, separated or widowed, and so on), while the sample profiles the emerging single (l-person) house- holders (young, single, and so on). Identification of Life Style Factors Among Single (l—Person) Householders Introduction Life style factors were generated by means of the SPSS factor analysis program (58:468). An R-type factor analysis was performed on the basis of a common factoring technique, PA2. The final factor matrix was determined by means of an orthogonal rotation, VARIMAX. With respect to number of factors, an eigenvalue of 2.0 was stipulated. Factors rotated were those accounting for a total variance in the data set greater than the variance accounted for by at least two variables combined. The cut-off level for factor loadings was set at 0.50. Any variable loading below that level on any of the factors was not considered in the final factor set. In general a loading of 0.40 or above is considered quite good, one over 0.50, quite strong (28:51, 132:307). 135 Results of Factor Analysis Tables 5-2 and 5-3 summarize the results of the factor analysis performed on the data set. They list the life style factors identified as well as the most representative component variables or statements. The analysis performed meets all four criteria defined by Zaltman and Burger for establishing the significance of a factor analysis (137:509). First, each beginning eigenvalue should have a value greater than 1.0; 2.0 was the value used in this program. Second, the loadings of the post-VARIMAX rotation should be greater than 0.30; the cut-off adopted here was 0.50, strong by standards of other studies (28, 132). Third, the explained variance of all factors in the factor analysis should be greater than 40%. In this study, the percentage of total variance explained by the eleven factors was found to be 46.1%, comparable to percentages accepted in studies of a similar nature (11, 28). Finally, no variable should load significantly on more than one factor. The analysis of the factor loading matrix, which Table 5-3 summarizes, indicates that significant loadings on more than one factor, by a single variable, did not occur. Table 5-2 shows the life style factors under- lying the data set gathered on single (l-person) householders. These were Self-Concept, Credit Use, 136 TABLE 5—2.: Life Style Factors Generated From AIO Statements. £35152: Factor Name SEEEEEEZQEXSJEESI 1 Self Concept 11.4 2 Credit Use 5.2 3 Appreciation of the Arts 4.8 4 Fashion Consciousness 4.2 5 Religiosity 3.5 6 Price Consciousness 3.4 7 Vacation Style 3.2 8 Housekeeping Interest 2.8 9 Information Seeking 2.7 10 Appreciation of the20utdoors 2.5 11 Sports Interest 2.4 Total 46.1 137 .mmcflnu Hm.o HMHHmumE cusp ucmunomEH mHOE mum mmsHm> HmsuHHHmm mm mm.o .xmm3 m mmEHu Hmum>mm wmum H mv >UHmonHHmm m>.o .wHHMHommu nousso ou om H om m .mHHH vo.o >6 Ho pnmm ucmuuomaH cm mH >HnmcoH£mmm mchmmHo vH mmmcmDOHomcoo .COHSme COHSmmrm mo.o pom mmHmum CH mmmcmno mo ammounm mmmx Op an» H 5v v mm.o .onsE HMUHmmMHo ou mchmumHH >oncm H mm muufi may no mm.o .wunmocoo on @CHom moncm H mm coHDMHomHmm< Nh.o .xumHHmm who am nmsoucu mcHom momcm H mm m .mmH3cs mH .qumuo mo.0| so you w no mmso: m cmnu umnpo .mcHnumcm won 08 NH mh.on .>DQ H mcHnumum>m now ammo mom Op mxHH H mm mh.o .mucsooom omumno m>mc Cu @000 mH DH m om: qumuU 05.0 .pumo mmuwno no pump qumHo m nqu mmcHnu won H m N om.o .wuHHHbm HMCOmHmQ Ho uoH m m>wn H xchu H om mm.o .mmosmno mxmu ou mxHH H om mm.o .wmumcw Ho #0H m m>mn H H .wHQowm ammocoonHmm mm.o umOE swap mocmpHmcoo wme muoe m>wn H stnu H we H mEmz mchmoq umnEsz pom muouomm mucmEmumum :oHpmwsO Hmnfioz Houomm .mucmEmumum OH< 0>Humucwmmummm umoz pom muouomm meum mHHAII.MIm mqmQ cHnmo < av may mo wv.o .muoopuso map pom HHm smmuw m>oH H NV coHumHomumma Nh.o .mchEmo ow ou mxHH H we 0H .>:Q ou mpcmun £UHQ3 mm.o mchuwmmu mpcmHHH >8 mo moH>pm may #50 xmmm :muwo H Hm mcwamm .Emnp >Hu H muowmn mpcmun 30: mxHH cOHumEHoHcH No.0 mHmomm umnuo 30: mom can uHm3 on mxHH >HHmsms H mv m hm.on =.>Hu£mHH Hm>o 00:0: mH mchmmxmmso: Ho mmpH >2 mm .mmuono ammuoucH mn.o: mchwoxmmso: mxHH won 00 >HHmmu H uHEUm puss H on ochwwxmmsom m>.o .xuozmmson Ho mEuoH umOE >oflcm H mm m nm.o .memH pom ummu on unt umsm H .coHumom> m :0 v mH>um .mcHxMHmu coHumom> no.0 pom pmHoq pan oHuomn on yo: UHDonm coHumom> 4 mm n mm.o .monm H conz mooHuQ ummon may now xooH >HHm5m5 H mm .mchmonm pm DH Emmpmu mm.o pom uH QHHo H .uwomm on» :H compoo m UGHH H cwsz mu mmoom50Homcoo Hh.o .mHmHommm “0m uoH 0 @05m H HH GUHHm o>.o .monm mo mucmEoocsoccm wow wow How nupm3 >HHmsmo H mm m mEmz mCHUmoq Hmnfisz paw muouomm musmamumum COHummDO Honsoz Houomm .pmscHHCOUII.mIm mqmfie 139 .pmummoom on mmOluoo mv.0 m umnu poHHquH :oncwEHp on» mo COHuHchmU Hmuumn m Mow poms mnu mum£3 .0H nouomH uoH ummoxm .0m.0 um pom mm3 mcHUmoH Hmonuno 059m .moswm HHMQDOOH ammumucH 00.0 no HHmbmmmn on cmumHH on no noumz ou waH H mm manomm 05.0 .ummmm >HHMp may :H 00mm manomm on» Ummn >HHw5ms H Hm HH mEmz mchmOH uwnEoz cam Houomm mucmEoumum COHumeO HmQEdz m Houomm .pmscHucooll.mlm mamma 140 Appreciation of the Arts, Fashion Consciousness, Religiosity, Price Consciousness, Vacation Style, Housekeeping Interest, Information Seeking, Appreciation of the Outdoors, and Sports Interest. These labels best typify the common variance that seems to underlie the various statements in Table 5-3. Table 5-3 shows the life style factors to be unique and independent from one another. Factors were found to differ from one another in terms of both component variables and loadings. Some factors were represented by four variables, others by two or three. With respect to factor loadings, results of up to 0.76 were found, with several life style factors loading not less than 0.60 on any of their component variables. Such was the case with the factors Credit Use, Fashion Consciousness, and Sports Interest. The thirty-two most representative AIO state- ments and the eleven resulting life style factors were utilized in the third phase of the study as life style dimensions with which to compare selected demographic segments of single (l-person) householders. 141 Life Style Differentiation of Selected Demographic Segments of Single (l-Person) Householders Introduction Eleven demographic segments were selected (see Chapters I and IV): males; females; 18-24 year olds; 25-34 year olds; those 35 years old and older; those 65 years old and older; single (never-married) householders; divorced, separated or widowed householders; divorced or separated householders; and widowed householders. These eleven segments were arranged into seven pairings: males versus females; 18-24 year olds versus 25-34 year olds; 18-34 year olds versus those 35 years old and older; 18-34 year olds versus those 65 years old and older; 25-34 year olds versus those 35 years old and older; single (never-married) versus divorced, separated, or widowed householders; and divorced or separated versus widowed householders. The data gathered on these various segments were analyzed in three steps. First, a comparative analysis of the demographic profile of each paired segment of single (l-person) householders was undertaken. Second, each individual segment of single (1-person) householders was submitted to the Kolmogorov— Smirnov (K-S) one-sample, two-tailed test to determine whether differences in responses to the thirty-two AIOs could be attributed to chance. 142 Third, the major hypotheses, H1 through H7 (see Chapter I), were tested by means of the Kolmogorov- Smirnov (K-SL two-sample, two-tailed test. The demographic pairings defined above were compared on the basis of Self-Concept, Credit Use, Appreciation of the Arts, Fashion Consciousness, Religiosity, Price Con- sciousness, Vacation Style, Housekeeping Interest, Information Seeking, Appreciation of the Outdoors, and Sports Interest, and their respective component vari- ables, thirty-two in all. These factors were used to operationalize the major hypothesized expectation state- ments into testable relationships. Demographic Comparison of Selected Segments of Single (l-Person) Householders Introduction.--The seven selected demographic pairings of single (l-person) householders were compared on the basis of sex, age, marital status, income, home tenure, education, and occupation. This comparative analysis sought to identify differences within each pairing in the hope that such a differentiation would be helpful in interpreting the results of the hypothesis testing. No collapsing of any demographic category was performed prior to the actual profiling. Results of the Demographic Comparison.--Table 5-4 shows the demographic profiles of single (l—person) 143 TABLE 5-4.—-Demographic Profiles of Selected Segments of Single (l-Person) Householders: Males vs. Females. Males Females Category (3) (g) A e —gUnder 18 0.0 0.0 18-19 0.0 0.0 20-24 10.1 13.4 25-34 43.2 41.2 35-44 13.7 17.6 45-54 10.1 6.7 55-64 13.7 13.4 65 and Over 9.4 7.6 Marital Status Single 60.4 55.5 Divorced 28.8 34.5 Separated 1.4 0.8 Widowed 9.4 9.2 Income Less than $4,999 7.2 11.7 $5,000-$5,999 2.9 5.8 $6,000-$6,999 3.6 6.7 $7,000-S9,999 8.7 11.7 $10,000-$14,999 25.4 29.2 $15,000-$24,999 29.0 29.2 $25,000-$49,999 19.6 5.8 $50,000 and Over 3.6 0.0 Home Tenure Own 46.4 32.0 Rent 53.6 68.0 Education Less than 8th Grade 1 4 0.8 Eighth Grade 2.2 3.4 1-3 Years High School 7.2 2.5 High School 10.1 17.8 1-3 Years College 26.1 24.6 College Graduate 18.8 16.1 Some Graduate Training 11.6 16.9 Post Graduate Degree 22.5 17.8 Occu ation Profe551ona1 or Technical 41.3 43.2 Manager or Administrator 13.8 13.6 Sales Worker 2.2 3.4 Clerical Worker 1.4 16.9 Craftsman or Kindred Worker 5.1 0.0 Operative 1.4 0.0 Non-Farm Laborer 5.1 0.0 Service Worker 5.1 0.0 Farmer or Farm Manager 0.7 0.0 Farm Laborer or Farm Foreman 0.7 0.0 Student 6.5 3.4 Retired 8.0 8.5 Unemployed 3.6 5.9 Others 5.1 5.1 144 male and female householders. The profiles were some- what similar. Most male respondents were less than 35 years of age, had never married, earned $15,000 or more (23.1% earned over $25,000), had one to three years of college or more, rented their living quarters, and held professional (or technical) or managerial (or adminis- trative) jobs. Most female respondents were similar in all respects except income category. The majority earned less than $15,000 (only 5.8% earned more than $25,000, compared to 23.1% of males). In the age pairing 18-24 years and 25-34 years, profiles were very similar. This is not surprising in light of the slim age difference. As is shown in Table 5-5, most respondents in these two age groups had never married, earned between $10,000 and $24,999, rented their living quarters, and had one to three years of college or more. The younger group was predominantly female, the older group predominantly male. With respect to occupation, the majority of 25-34 year olds held professional (or technical) or managerial (or administrative) jobs, whereas the 18-24 year olds held nonprofessional, nonmanagerial jobs. A much greater proportion of the younger group than the older was made up of students (16.7% versus 5.6%). The occupational discrepancy was expected in view of the age difference between the two groups. 145 TABLE 5-5.--Demographic Profiles of Selected Segments of Single (l-Person) Householders: 18-24 Year Olds vs. 25-34 Year Olds. 18-24 Year Olds 25—34 Year Olds Category (g) ($) Sex Male 46.7 55.0 Female 53.3 45.0 Marital Status Single 9 Divorced Separated Widowed Nd OUWW I o I a cum“ com-h o o o o 00““ Income Less than $4,999 $5,000-$5,999 $6,000-$6,999 $7,000-$9,999 $10,000-$14,999 $15,000-$24,999 $25,000-$49,999 $50,000 and Over HAD-UH H C I O O O \owmbommb oommwoow ooqquoow HMO-JP ov—omwwwwq Home Tenure Own Rent p... O O N on (D \0 Oh \I UN Education Less than 8th Grade Eighth Grade 1-3 Years High School High School 1-3 Years College College Graduate Some Graduate Training Post Graduate Degree Occu ation Profe551onal or Technical Manager or Administrator Sales Worker Clerical Worker Craftsman or Kindred Worker Operative Non-Farm Laborer Service Worker Farmer or Farm Manager Farm Laborer or Farm Foreman Student Retired Unemployed Others bNH mmwmwwoo O O I O C O I O quuuwuoo H .5 Hub buomooowoaqwmm p..- H OWOO‘OOO‘O‘OOUC‘O‘O O O O O O Q 0 O O I OWOQOOQQOOUQQh mqomoomqombqu 146 Table 5-6 shows the profiles of 18-34 year olds and those 35 years old and older. In both segments, the majority of respondents was male, had one to three years of college education or more, and held professional (or technical) or managerial (or administrative) jobs. Note, however, that while 15.2% of the younger segment was composed of students, retirees, unemployed, and others, 32.2% of the older group was listed as such. Differences were observed in relation to marital status, income, and home tenure. Most 18-34 year olds had never married, earned less than $15,000, and rented their living quarters; most of those 35 years old and older were divorced, separated, or widowed, earned $15,000 or more, and owned their own home. Table 5-7 presents comparisons of 18-34 year olds and those 65 years old and older. In both seg- ments, most respondents were male. The age difference helps explain the discrepancies found with respect to other categories. The majority of those 65 years old and older were widowed, earned less than $10,000, owned their own living quarters, had less than or only a high school education, and were retired. The 18-34 year old respondents had never married, earned $10,000 or more, rented their living quarters, had one to three years of college or more, and held professional (or technical) or managerial (or administrative) jobs. 147 TABLE 5-6.--Demographic Profiles of Selected Segments of Single (l-Person) Householders: 18-34 Year Olds vs. 35 Year Olds and Over. Category 18-34 Year Olds (%) 35 Year Olds and Over (%) Sex Male Female Marital Status Single Divorced Separated Widowed Income Less than $4,999 $51000’$51999 $6,000-$6,999 $7,000-$9,999 $10,000-$14,999 $15,000-$24,999 $25,000-$49,999 $50,000 and Over Home Tenure Own Rent Education Less than 8th Grade Eighth Grade 1-3 Years High School High School 1-3 Years College College Graduate Some Graduate Training Post Graduate Degree Occu ation ProfeSSional or Technical Manager or Administrator Sales Worker Clerical Worker Craftsman or Kindred Worker Operative Non-Farm Laborer Service Worker Farmer or Farm Manager Farm Laborer or Farm Foreman Student Retired Unemployed Others Nx) COCO) <30on UWH CCDO‘U‘U-bNm U I O I O O I . \lQmU‘OWNQ \l U1 oh I O to UP ObNOO C O O O fiU‘INOO HHH mmxo NHm h-a wwowoombowmoba GGOOOOHWOChQU-IU‘IN HWH wont-'Hlasuwauo . I I C I bU'VWOsQOQN bU‘ Nd \DH N HHH mwmsomcomw maaqmmoq Hw H O‘UIQHOOOOHHQONO O I O O O O O QWQQQCDOCDQNIU‘QQCD 148 TABLE 5-7.--Demographic Profiles of Selected Segments of Single (l-Person) Householders: 18-34 Year Olds vs. 65 Year Olds and Over. 65 Year Olds 18-34 Year Olds and Over Category (%) (g) Sex Male 53.2 59.] Female 46.8 40.9 Marital Status Single Divorced Separated Widowed Nd 000G) OQVDh H w 0‘ Income Less than $4,999 $5,000-$5,999 $6,000-S6,999 $7,000-$9,999 $10,000-$14,999 $15,000-$24,999 $25,000-$49,999 $50,000 and Over 0 I I O C O \IQQWOWNQ NNH H aoaqmwom NWH OCDO‘WWfiNm O O C U‘OU‘IWQO‘HN Home Tenure Own 24.8 77.3 Rent 75.2 22.7 Education Less than 8th Grade 0 Eighth Grade 0. 2 4 1-3 Years High School High School 1 1-3 Years College 30.4 College Graduate 19.6 Some Graduate Training 18.1 Post Graduate Training 15.2 NHH H \DubWVONWCD-b C O O O O . I O HmNHflO‘NU‘ Occu ation ProfeSSional or Technical Manager or Administrator Sales Worker Clerical Worker Craftsman or Kindred Worker Operative Non-Farm Laborer Service Worker Farmer or Farm Manager Farm Laborer or Farm Foreman Student Retired Unemployed Others H h‘b wwocooom-nowmeSa \l bONOOOOOOOOO-bm O‘O‘OOOOHwOO‘QU-JU'N UTOQOOOOOCOOOU‘N 149 When 25—34 year olds were compared to those aged 35 years old and older, results were similar to those obtained from the comparison of 18-34 year olds and those aged 35 and older. Table 5-8 shows that the majority of respondents in the 25-34 and 35 years old and older segments were male, had one to three years of college or more and held professional (or technical) or managerial (or administrative) jobs. Differences were found, however, in relation to marital status, income, and home tenure. Most 25-34 year olds had never married, earned less than $15,000, and rented their living quarters, whereas most of those 35 years old and older were divorced, separated, or widowed, earned $15,000 or more, and owned their own living quarters. Table 5-9 shows the profiles of those respon- dents who had never married compared to divorced, separated, or widowed householders in the sample. Most never-married householders were male, under 35 years of age, earned between $10,000 and $24,999 (61.1% fell in this range), rented their living quarters, had one to three years of college or:more,and held professional (or technical) or managerial (or administrative) jobs. The divorced, separated, or widowed respondents were almost evenly divided between males and females and between those who rented and those who owned their living quarters. In this group, approximately half were 150 TABLE 5-8.—-Demographic Profiles of Selected Segments of Single (l-Person) Householders: 25-34 Year Olds vs. 35 Year Olds and Over. 35 Year Olds and Over (3) 25-34 Year Olds Category (g) Sex Male 55.0 54.6 Female 45.0 45.4 Marital Status Single Divorced Separated Widowed 34. 43. '0‘) OOU‘Ib OOQUJ y... N~J~JU1 Income Less than $4,999 $5,000-$5,999 $6.000-S6.999 $7.000-S9,999 $10,000-$14,999 $15,000-$24,999 $25,000-$49,999 $50,000 and Over 0 wwmnommn Hun-a wool-:qo‘wcuo O HNwH ov—ubrowwwq I O O O I O O bmxoa‘uxo-qro Home Tenure Own 28.7 Rent 71.3 ubU" Md 0 O p...» Education Less than 8th Grade 0 Eighth Grade 0. 1-3 Years High School 1. High School 14. 1-3 Years College 31.5 College Graduate 13.0 Some Graduate Training 21.3 Post Graduate Degree 17.6 HHH auouuoroooou-a C O I O I waaqmwoq N Occupation Professional or Technical Manager or Administrator Sales Worker Clerical Worker Craftsman or Kindred Worker Operative Non-Farm Laborer Service Worker Farmer or Farm Manager Farm Laborer or Farm Foreman Student Retired Unemployed Others Ha I raw 0 0 bUOU‘OOhWOh‘lQ-JO‘U‘ O O O O O O O H GWQHOOOOHHQONO UiNIOO‘OOO‘QOO‘bQNI-b mwmqmmomquwum 151 TABLE 5-9.--Demographic Profiles of Selected Segments of Single (l-Person) Householders: Single (Never-Married) vs. Divorced, Separated or Widowed Householders. Category Single (Never-Married) Householders (3) Divorced, Separated or Widowed Householders (8) Sex Male Female 592 Under 18 18-19 20-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55—64 65 and Over Income Less than $4,999 $5,000-S5,999 $6,000-$6,999 $7,000-$9,999 $10,000-$14,999 $15,000-$24,999 $25,000-$49,999 $50,000 and Over Home Tenure Own Rent Education Less than 8th Grade Eighth Grade 1-3 Years High School High School 1-3 Years College College Graduate Some Graduate Training Post Graduate Degree Occu ation Professional or Technical Manager or Administrator Sales Worker Clerical Worker Craftsman or Kindred Worker Operative Non-Farm Laborer Service Worker Farmer or Farm Manager Farm Laborer or Farm Foreman Student Retired Unemployed Others ab» 50% 0 UP wmmmbmoo O O I O O O O O WQQQOQOO #08)mean HNwH owmwwwwm bib 0 O NWWQOOWNONWWUIU‘ quwqowqquwww uh \00 H H HM NM WWQWUWHOO O I . O C I I . \JHWOQWOO UWOQQQUIN F‘wtd I O O I O . O C qxooxnnuasmca {11:5 00 \OH HNN \JmO-‘bb-‘WU'O I I O O O O I O Hmbooxomxlso Hw H I C O C O O H OGWHOOHNONQHHQ mmwsoososocosocounowq 152 employed in professional (or technical) or managerial (or administrative) jobs, and half held other kinds of jobs. Note that 15.1% had already retired. The majority of divorced, separated, or widowed respondents had one to three years of college education or more (38% had less than or only a high school education, compared with 11.4% for the never-married group). With respect to income, 50% earned between $10,000 and $24,999, while 61.1% of the never-marrieds earned in the same range. As was expected, a clear-cut age difference between the two groups was observed. Most never-marrieds were younger than 35 years but most divorced, separated or widowed householders were 35 years of age or older. Considerable discrepancies were observed when divorced, separated, and widowed householders were broken down into divorced or separated as compared to widowed householders. As Table 5-10 shows, the divorced or separated segment was evenly divided between males and females; most were 35 years old or older, earned $15,000 or more, rented their living quarters, had one to three years of college or more, and held professional (or technical) or managerial (or administra- tive) jobs. Most widowed householders, in comparison, were males aged 65 years or older. The majority earned less than $15,000, owned their own living quarters, and 153 TABLE 5-10.-—Demographic Profiles of Selected Segments of Single (l-Person) Householders: Divorced or Separated vs. Widowed Householders. Divorced or Separated Householders Widowed Householders (%) Category Sex Male 5 .0 54.2 Female 45.8 U‘ 00 O 1:912 Under 18 18-19 20-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 and Over WU) WHQHUNOO I I I I N ooxoaoaoooo I I I I I I I I UNWNOOOO mbwowboo (I‘M Income Less than $4,999 $5,000-$5,999 $6.000-S6.999 $7,000-S9'999 $10,000-$14,999 $15,000-$24,999 $25,000-$49,999 $50,000 and Over H HWH wamqmwbw announcement—t H NHN bwcomroocoao I I I I I I I I waomcoww Home Tenure Own 39.3 83.3 Rent 60.7 16.7 Education Less than 8th Grade Eighth Grade 1-3 Years High School High School 1-3 Years College College Graduate Some Graduate Training Post Graduate Degree Occu ation ProfeSSional or Technical Manager or Administrator Sales Worker Clerical Worker Craftsman or Kindred Worker Operative Non-Farm Laborer Service Worker Farmer or Farm Manager Farm Laborer or Farm Foreman Student Retired Unemployed Others WM mmmwwqwo I I UGO‘beNO o O H F‘b muonowwwwwmuwo UNOOOOOOOONONN U" ”DOOOOOOOObO-bo WUWfiONéQNQU‘b-fik’ 154 had less than or only a high school education. Exactly 50% of this group was retired, and only 33.4% held professional (or technical) or managerial (or administra- tive) jobs. The demographic differences found across some of the paired segments may or may not be paralleled by life style differences. If they are, then a certain degree of dependence between the two data sets may be suggested, pending further research. If they are not, the argument in favor of dependence loses much of its persuasive power. Test of Goodness of Fit of Selected Demographic Segments of Single (l-Person) Householders Introduction.--Each selected demographic segment of single (l-person) householders was submitted to the Kolmogorov—Smirnov, one-sample, two-tailed test prior to the application of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov, two-sample, two-tailed test. The purpose was to determine whether any observed differences among responses to "strongly agree (SA," "agree (A)," "uncertain (U)," “disagree (D)," and "strongly disagree (SD)" by each demographic segment on each of the thirty-two AIO statements could be attributed to chance. If the differences were due to chance, then the life style differences among the demographically defined segments would not make much 155 statistical sense. If the response differences were not owing to chance alone, then it would be statistically worthwhile to search for life style differences among segments. Results of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S), one- sample, two-tailed test.--Table 5-11 summarizes the results of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov, one-sample, two- tailed test. The null hypothesis states that there is no significant difference between the frequency of responses by each demographic segment to each of the five intervals used to scale the thirty-two AIOs identified and the frequency obtained from a uniform theoretical distribution, in which the percentages of responses to each interval are equal. Table 5-11 shows the largest and the smallest number of respondents from each demographic segment who answered any of the thirty-two AIDS. The small dif- ference between the largest and the smallest number of respondents means that all of the thirty-two AIOs were answered by virtually the same number of respondents. Based on these upper and lower bound sample sizes, the corresponding Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) calculated statistics were generated by the SPSS-6000 supplement computer program (90). The K-S critical statistics were determined by referring to the appropriate .1556 TABLE 5-11.--Test of Goodness of Fit of Selected Demographic Segments on 32 Life Style Variables. -.. . .. . . -9 _ ~—1——- _-_.. 1.- Largest . and . . . . Demographic K-S Statistic K-S Statistic . " ' Smallest .'. Sig Segments Number of (Critical) (Calculated) Respondents Males 139 0.1382 0.6924 S 138 0.1387 0.1709 120 0.1488 0.6833 . 31 . Fem..-cs 119 0.1494 0.2038 S 18-24 30 0.2400 0.7167 5 Year 0135 30 0.2400 0.1833 25—34 109 0.1561 0.6950 S Year Olds 108 0.1569 0.2130 18-34 139 0.1382 0.6996 S Year Olds 138 0.1387 0.2176 35 Year Olds 119 0.1494 0.6744 5 and Over 116 0.1513 0.1744 65 Year Olds 22 0.2356 0.6136 S and Over 22 0.2356 0.2045 Single 4 , 150 0.1331 0.6900 (Never-Married) S Householders 149 0.1336 0.2033 Divogfeggdgiigrated 108 0.1569 0.6852 s 107 0.1576 0.2037 Householders Dlv°r°ed 84 0.1779 0.6905 °r separated 83 o 1789 o 1898 S Householders ' ' Widowed 24 0.2448 0.6667 S Householders 24 0.2448 0.1667 NOTE: The range of K-S statistic (critical), for each demographic segment of single (l-person) householders, was established by computing the critical values for both the largest and the smallest number of respondents who answered any one of the 32 life style variables identified by factor analysis. The range of K-S statistic (calculated) was established by picking aStatistically bStatistically 11 and 76, significant CStatistically 61 and 78, both signifi dStatistically the largest significant significant at p < 0.15 significant cant at p < significant and smallest calculated values observed. at p < 0.01. at p < 0.05. The exceptions to this included questions and question 61, significant at p < 0.25. at p < 0.15. The exception to this included questions 0.35. at p < 0.10. The exceptions to this included questions 3, 26, 43, 47, 50 and 64, significant at p < 0.25 and question 78, not significant (p < 0.55). 157 statistical table, with p < 0.01 (86:251). Since the lower bound of the calculated K-S statistic range was greater than the upper bound of the critical range, for every segment of single (l-person) householders, the null hypothesis was rejected at p < 0.01 (see table notes for exceptions). The rejection implied that there were significant differences in the responses of each demographic segment of single (l-person) householders to each of the five intervals of the Likert scale and that these differences could not be attributed to chance. The existence of significant differences statistically justified the search for life style differences among selected demographic segments of single (l-person) householders. Life Style Comparison of Selected Demographic Segments of Single (l-Person) Householders Introduction.--The selected pairings of demographic segments of single (l-person) householders were tested for differences in life style profiles by means of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov, two-sample, two-tailed test (90). The profiles were measured operationally on the basis of the eleven life style factors identified by means of factor analysis. These factors helped to put in a testable form the seven major hypotheses listed in 158 Chapter 1. Each life style factor thus corresponded to a sub- or working hypothesis. The testing of the hypotheses was conducted in accordance with a two-step procedure. First, each demographic pairing was compared on the basis of each one of the thirty-two AIOs identified by factor analysis, and the significance of the differences was statis- tically established by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S), two-sample, two-tailed test. Second, the significance of the differences between the selected demographic segments on the basis of life style factors, composed of two or more AIDS, was established by means of the set of rules of factor significance presented in Chapter IV. These rules were as follows. First, if the majority of AIO variables or statements in a factor is found to be significant (a variable is said to be significant if, based on it, significant difference can be established between two demographic segments), then the resulting factor is also significant (a factor is thus significant if, based on its component variables, significant differences can be established between two demographic segments). Second, if the majority is not significant, then the resulting factor is not deemed to be significant. Third, in case of a tie, the signif- icance of the factor is classified as indeterminate. 159 In the discussion below, each major hypothesis and its subhypotheses are followed by a summary table. Each table lists the frequency of responses in per- centages to each one of the thirty-two AIO variables or statements by each pair of demographic segments, as well as the results of the K—S, two-sample, two-tailed test at the significance level of p < 0.10. Each table is followed by a figure depicting the graphed mean scores of each pair of demographic segments on each of the thirty—two AIOs. The analysis of the hypothesis testing focuses on the significant life style differences between each segment from the perspective of both life style factors and their component AIO statements. The interpretation of the findings if facilitated by collapsing the Likert scale categories "strongly agree (SAL" and "agree (A)," into "agree" and the categories "disagree (D)" and "strongly disagree (SD)," into "disagree." This is not done when the analysis would be robbed of clarity and completeness. Major Hypothesis H1 There is no significant difference between male and female single (1-person) householders with respect to life style profiles. 160 This hypothesis is broken down into Subhypothesis Hl-l through Hl-ll There is no significant difference between male and female single (l-person) house- holders with respect to: l. Self-Concept; Credit Use; Appreciation of the Arts; Fashion Consciousness; Religiosity; Price Consciousness; Vacation Style; Housekeeping Interest; Information Seeking; Appreciation of the Outdoors; and Sports Interest. F—‘OKOGDQGU‘IDWN I II I FJH Single (l-person) male and female householders differed very little in terms of demographic profiles, the exception being income. Most male respondents earned $15,000 or more, whereas most females surveyed earned less than $15,000 (see Table 5-4). This demOgraphic homogeneity was paralleled by the high degree of life style similarity observed in the responses given by males and females to the AIO vari- ables, as shown in Table 5-12. The patterns of responses of males and females resulted in the rejection of sub- hypothesis Hl-ll. A significant life style difference was found between males and females with respect to Sports Interest. The significance of subhypothesis Hl-4, Fashion Consciousness, was classified as indeter- minate. The remaining subhypotheses were all accepted at p < 0.10. 161 TABLE 5-12.--Life Style Comparison Between Selected Demographic Segments: Males vs. Females. Level of Agreement Factor No. K-S . and Name Statement SA A U D SD Stat. 519 (8) (%) (8) (%) (3) 48. I think I have more self confidence than most people. Males 19.4 36.0 27.3 16.5 0.7 Females 12.5 37.5 25.0 20.8 4.2 0'0773 ”3 l. I have a lot of energy. Males 21. 61.6 5.8 9.4 2.2 1 Females 17.6 54.6 11.8 12.6 3.4 0'1034 ”5 Self 20. I like to take chances. Concept Males 7.2 33.1 16.5 36.0 7.2 Females 7.6 37.8 19.4 27.7 7.6 0'0787 ”5 60. I think I have a lot of personal ability. Males 32.4 55.4 10.8 1.4 0.0 Females 25. 60.5 11.8 1.7 0.8 0'0716 ”5 8. I buy things with a credit card or a charge card. Males 10.1 51.4 2.9 20.3 15.2 Females 12.5 46.7 6.7 15.0 19.2 0'0395 “5 3. It is good to have charge accounts. Males 18.7 36.7 19.4 15.1 10.1 2 Females 15.0 42.5 13. 15.0 14.2 0'0409 ”5 . 32. I like to pay cash for Credit Use everything I buy. Males 16.5 35.3 10.1 32.4 5.8 Females 17.5 30.0 10.0 39.2 3.3 0'0437 “5 12. To buy anything, other than a house or a car on credit, is unwise. Males 12.3 18.8 8.7 44.9 15.2 Females 15.0 14.2 9.2 50.0 11.7 °°°355 “5 79. I enjoy going through an art gallery. Males 20.1 48.2 14.4 12.9 4.3 Females 25.0 54.2 9.2 10.8 0.8 0'1082 ”5 3 26. I enjoy going to concerts. A ci s. Males 21.7 40.6 12.3 18.8 6.5 0 1685 Sb sgpig 2 :0“ Females 25.0 54.2 9.2 8.3 3.3 ‘ e r s 55. I enjoy listening to classical music. Males 20.1 46.8 12.2 15.8 5.0 Females 24.2 37.5 15.0 17.5 5.8 0'0524 ”5 47. I try to keep abreast of changes in styles and fashion. Males 7.2 35.3 17.3 33.1 7.2 Fssgisn Females 20.8 46.7 12.5 17.5 2.5 °'2505 5 Consciousness l4. Dressing fashionably is an important part of my life. Males 7.9 33.1 18.0 30.9 10.1 Females 13.3 42.5 16.7 23.3 4.2 0'1‘83 "5 50. I go to church regularly. Males 10.8 18.7 5.8 36.0 28.8 Females 14.2 17.5 8.3 37.5 22.5 °°°528 "5 45. I pray several times a week. 5 Males 15.1 18.7 8.6 30.9 26.6 0 1619 S Religiosity Females 24.2 25.8 6.7 25.8 17.5 ’ 33. Spiritaul values are more important than material things. Males 21.6 33.8 30.2 12.2 2.2 Females 26.1 43.7 16.8 12.6 0.8 °'1435 “5 162 TABLE 5-12.--Cont1nued. __-’-- --~-._a_ Level of Agreement ‘ 1—1 -»:x -1 Factor No. K-S . and Name Statement SA A U D SD Stat. 519' (8) (8) (3) (5) (%) 68. I usually watch for ads for announcements of sales. Males 3.6 39.4 10.2 39.4 7.3 Females 13.4 41.2 10.1 29.4 5.9 0'1156 ”5 11. I shop a lot for specials. Males 14.5 29.7 12.3 37.0 6.5 6 Females 18.3 36.7 11.7 29.2 4.2 0'1080 "5 78. When I find a coupon in the Price C 55 paper, I clip 1t and redeem onSClousne it at shopping. Males 4.3 22.3 12.2 45.3 15.8 Females 11.7 44.2 10.0 28.3 5.8 0'2921 s 65. I usually look for the lowest prices when I shop. Males 10.9 43.5 14.5 29.0 2.2 Females 10.0 37.5 16.7 33.3 2.5 0'0685 ”5 36. A vacation should not be hectic but quiet and relaxing. Males 18.1 49.3 13.8 16.7 2.2 VacaZion Females 19.2 44.2 18.3 16.7 1.7 0'0406 ”5 St 1 4. On a vacation, I just want to y e rest and relax. Males 20.1 26.6 8.6 36.0 8.6 Females 19.3 33.6 9.2 33.6 4.2 °°°579 ”5 82. I enjoy most forms of housework. Males 1.4 20.1 17.3 43.9 17.3 Females 2.5 30.8 10.8 39.2 16.7 °°1175 “5 8 76. I must admit I really do not like Housekeeping housekeeping chores. Males 18.7 35.3 13.7 28.8 3.6 IntereSt Females 17.5 37.5 11.7 28.3 5.0 °°°140 "5 22. My idea of housekeeping is "once over lightly." Males 7.9 30.9 5.0 41.0 15.1 Females 7 5 25.0 9.2 40.8 17.5 0'0635 "5 43. I usually like to wait and see how other people like new brands before I try them. ‘ Males 1.4 23.0 25.2 39.6 10.8 Infsrfistisn Females 2.5 15.8 23.3 44.2 14.2 0'0797 "5 Se kin 61. I often seek out the advice of e 9 my friends regarding which brands I buy. Males 4.3 28.8 13.7 45.3 7.9 Females 2.5 18.3 16.7 46.7 15.8 °°1226 “5 64. I like to go camping. Males 18.0 39.6 9. 23.0 10.1 Females 18.3 32.5 11.7 24.2 13.3 °'°672 "5 10 42. I love fresh air and the outdoors. Appreciation Males 51.1 43.2 1.4 4.3 0.0 0 0108 NS of the Females 50.0 43.3 2.5 3.3 0.8 ' Outdoors 49. A cabin by a quiet lake is a great place to spend the summer. Males 20.1 46.8 11.5 17.3 4.3 Females 25.8 34.2 20. 15.3 3.3 0'0691 “5 81. I usually read the sports page in the daily paper. Males 18.0 34.5 5.0 28.8 13.7 Spgits Females 1.7 23.3 7.5 45.0 22.5 °'2752 5 Interest 73. I like to watch or to listen to baseball or football games. Males 20.1 46.8 4.3 15.1 13.7 0 1817 8 Females 12.6 36.1 10.1 22.7 18.5 ' aNot statistically significant at p < 0.10. b Statistically significant at p < 0.10. Factor No. 163 Graphed Mean Scores and Name Statement SA A U D SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 48. I think I have more self confidence than most people. Se1f l. I have a lot of energy. _ _ _ $2m21es Concept 20. I like to take chances. 60. I think I have a lot of personal ability. 8. I buy things with a credit card or a charge card. 3. It is good to have charge 2 accounts. Credit Use 32. I like to pay cash for everything I buy. 12. To buy anything, other than a house or a car on credit, is unwise. 79. I enjoy going through an 3 art gallery. Appreciation 26. I enjoy going to concerts. of the Arts 55. I enjoy listening to classical music. 4 47. I try to keep abreast of Fashion changes in styles and fashion. Consciousness 14. DreSSing fashionably is an important part of my life. 50. I go to church regularly. 5 45. I pray several times a week. Religiosity 33. Spiritual values are more important than material things. 68. I usually watch for ads for announcements of sales. 6 11. I shop a lot for specials. Price 78. When I find a coupon in the Consciousness paper, I clip it and redeem it at shopping. 65. I usually look for the lowest prices when I shop. 7 36. A vacation should not be hectic . but quiet and relaxing. Vgeaféon 4. On a vacation, I just want to y rest and relax. 82. I enjoy most forms of housework. 8 76. I must admit I really do not Housekeeping like housekeeping chores. Interest 22. My idea of housekeeping is "once over lightly." 43. I usually like to wait and see 9 how other people likesnew . brands before I try t em. Ingestifison 61. I often seek out the advice of my friends regarding which brands I buy. 10 2;. i iike :0 g: camping. h . . . ove res air an t e “Pg;e§;;t*°n outaosrs. Outdoors 49. A cabin by a quiet lake is a great place to spend the summer. 11 81. I usually read the sports page Sports in the daily paper. Interest 73. I like to watch or to listen to baseball or football games. Figure S-l.--Life Style Comparison Between Selected Demographic Segments: Males vs. Females. 164 With respect to Sports Interest, significant differences were found in relation to both of its component variables. In terms of the statement "I usually read the sports page in the daily paper," 62.5% of the males and 25% of the females agreed. In response to "I like to watch or to listen to baseball or football games," 66.9% of the males and 48.7% of the females agreed. This difference in attitude toward sports does not seem to be limited to single (l-person) householders, but apparently is true of males and females in general. Petrie (65) and Heinold (35) have found that males and females have different reasons for sports spectating. The former seek excitement and competition, and the latter are motivated by intrinsic, social, and aesthetic reasons. These differences can be reasonably expected to influence and even differentiate between males' and females' responses toward sports. This male interest in sports was also observed in a study of beer drinkers done by Plummer (71). Males responded quite strongly to a similar Sports Interest factor. Subhypothesis Hl—4 (Fashion Consciousness) was classified as indeterminate. A significant difference was found in responses to "I try to keep abreast of changes in style and fashion" (42.5% of males and 67.5% of females agreed), but none was detected in responses 165 to "Dressing fashionably is an important part of my life." The significant difference between the two seg- ments in relation to one of the two components of Fashion Consciousness is not unique to males and females living alone. Single 18-24 year old females have been found to be more style conscious than males in the same age range (98:61). Females in general have been found to be more fashion conscious, while males have been characterized as spectators in terms of fashion (43). A general survey of the U.S. population conducted by Wells (124) revealed that females were somewhat more aware of fashion than were males. Significant differences between single (l-person) male and female householders were also apparent with respect to three other AIOs. In response to "I enjoy going to concerts," 62.3% of males and 79.2% of females agreed. The greater interest in the arts of females living alone as opposed to males apparently corresponds to the attitudes of males and females in the population at large. This was revealed in a study of the general attitudes of the American people done by Wells (124:60). The commonly observed popularity of religion among women was reflected in the responses of single (l-person) female householders to "I pray several times 166 a week." Agreeing with this statement were 33.8% of the males and 50% of the females. A significant difference was also revealed in response to this statement: "When I find a coupon in the paper, I clip it and redeem it at shopping." This component variable of Price Consciousness was agreed with by 26.6% of the males and 55.9% of the females. The result could be explained by the fact that females' income has previously been found to be negatively cor- related with price consciousness (62:337). Female respondents in the sample, as noted earlier, earned relatively less than the males. Therefore, it is only . reasonable to expect that, having relatively lower incomes, females would be more likely to show greater concern for price. Major Hypothesis H2 There is no significant difference between single (l-person) householders aged 18 to 24 and 25 to 34 with respect to life style profiles. This major hypothesis is broken down into Subhypotheses H2-l through H2-11 There is no significant difference between single (l-person) householders aged 18 to 24 and 25 to 34 with respect to: 1. 2. 3. ooqmunla II Self-Concept; Credit Use; Appreciation of the Arts; Fashion Consciousness; Religiosity; Price Consciousness; Vacation Style; Housekeeping Interest; 167 9. Information Seeking; 10. Appreciation of the Outdoors; and 11. Sports Interest. Demographically, the age groups 18-24 years and 25-34 years were quite similar. Differences between the two were observed only in relation to sex and occupation. The majority of the younger segment was female, and the majority of the older group was male. Most of the younger segment held nonprofessional, nonmanagerial jobs, whereas most 25-34 year olds held professional (or technical) or managerial (or administrative) jobs (see Table 5-5). These demographically similar segments were very much alike from the standpoint of life style, as may be seen in Table 5—13. There is no evidence for rejecting any subhypothesis. No significant difference, therefore, was recorded on the basis of life style factors. A significant difference was recorded with respect to one of the component variables of Fashion Consciousness: "I try to keep abreast of changes in styles and fashion." Agreeing with this statement were 83.3% of the 18-24 year olds and 53.2% of the 25-34 year olds. No significant difference was revealed in rela- tion to the other component variable of Fashion Con- sciousness, "Dressing fashionably is an important part of my life." TABLE 5-13.—-Life Style Comparison Between Selected 25-34 Year Olds. £015-- 47 an: 2 1(58 Level of Agreement Demographic Segments: 18—24 Year Olds vs. -"'—‘1 r11 '2— w- Factor No. K-S - and Name Statement SA A U D SD Stat. 519' (5) (5) (3) (S) (%) 48. I think I have more self confidence than most people. - 18—24 Year Olds 10.0 33.3 33.0 26.7 0.0 0 1110 Nsa 25-34 Year Olds 21.1 33.0 22.9 21.1 1.8 ' l. I have a lot of energy. 18-24 Year Olds 13.3 66.7 10.0 10.0 0.0 0 0777 NS 1 25—34 Year Olds 21.1 62.4 8.3 7.3 0.9 ' self 20' I 111: 2: $ake c13nces' 6 7 60 o 13 3 13 3 6 7 - ear 0 s . . . . . concept 25-34 Year Olds 13.9 38.0 19.4 25.0 3.7 0'1431 "5 60. I think I have a lot of personal ability. 18-24 Year Olds 36.7 53.3 10.0 0.0 0.0 0 0481 NS 25-34 Year Olds 36.1 49.1 12.0 1.9 0.9 ' 8. I buy things with a credit card or charge card. 18-24 Year Olds 16.7 33.3 0.0 33.3 16.7 25-34 Year Olds 13.0 57.4 3.7 13.9 12.0 °°2407 ”5 3. It is good to have charge accounts. 18-24 Year Olds 13.3 36.7 20.0 26.7 3.3 0 1147 NS 2 25-34 Year Olds 21.1 40.4 15.6 12.8 10.1 ‘ Credit 32. I like to pay cash for Use everything I buy. 18-34 Year Olds 10.0 53.3 10.0 23.3 3.3 0 2113 NS 25-34 Year Olds 12.8 29.4 11.0 39.4 7.3 ‘ 12. To buy anything, other than a house or a car on credit, is unwise. 18-24 Year Olds 6.7 13.3 10.0 53.3 16.7 25-34 Year Olds 8.3 12.8 10.1 52.3 16.5 °°°159 "5 79. I enjoy going through an art gallery. 18-24 Year Olds 33.3 43.3 13.3 3.3 6.7 0 1498 NS 3 25-34 Year Olds 18.3 50.5 13.8 13.8 3.7 ' . - 26. I enjoy going to concerts. App::°:::1°" 18-24 Year Olds 36.7 53.3 6.7 3.3 0.0 o 2119 NS Arts 25-34 Year Olds 21.1 47.7 10.1 12.8 8.3 ' 55. I enjoy listening to classical music. 18-24 Year Olds 13.3 46.7 20.0 10.0 10.0 0 1119 NS 25-34 Year Olds 16.5 35.8 16.5 22.9 8.3 ' 47. I try to keep abreast of changes in styles and fashion. 4 18-24 Year Olds 23.3 60.0 3.3 10.0 3.3 0 3012 Sb Fashion 25-34 Year Olds . 15.6 37.6 18.3 22.0 6.4 ' Consciousness 14. DreSSing fashionably is an important part of my life. 18-24 Year Olds 30.0 40.0 20.0 6.7 3.3 0 2303 NS 25-34 Year Olds 8.3 44.0 14.7 25.7 7.3 ' 50. I go to church regularly. 18-24 Year Olds 3.3 10.0 13.3 56.7 16.7 0 1728 NS 25—34 Year Olds 10.1 11.0 4.6 40.4 33.9 ' 45. I pray several times a week. 5 18-24 Year Olds 20.0 16.7 6.7 36.7 20.0 0 1303 N Religiosity 25-34 Year Olds 11.9 13.8 9.2 32.1 33.0 ' S 33. Spiritual values are more important than material things. 18-24 Year Olds 24.1 31.0 34.5 10.3 0.0 0 0579 NS 25-34 Year Olds 18.3 40.4 25.7 14.7 0.9 ' 169 TABLE 5-13.--Contlnued. -=—..'.. .-_ -._ ..-_._-.-~... .Fg- Level of Agreement —g---!)Og ~ ht-.. Factor No. K-S - and Name Statement SA A U D SD Stat. 519' (8) (8) (8) (t) (S) 68. I usually watch for ads for announcements of sales. 18-24 Year Olds 6.7 33.3 10.0 43.3 6.7 25—34 Year Olds 8.3 40.4 10.1 33.0 8.3 0'0872 NS 11. I shop a lot for specials. 18-24 Year Olds 3.3 40.0 23.3 28.7 6.7 6 25-34 Year Olds 22.9 30.3 11.9 28.4 6.4 0°196° us Price 78. When I find a coupon in the Consolousness paper, I clip it and redeem it at shopping. 18-24 Year Olds 3.3 26.7 13.3 46.7 10.0 0 0853 NS 25-34 Year Olds 9.2 29.4 11.9 33.9 15.6 ' 65. I usually look for the lowest prices when I shop. 18-24 Year Olds 0.0 43.3 13.3 40.0 3.3 0 1560 NS 25-34 Year Olds 15.6 37.6 16.5 27.5 2.8 ’ 36. A vacation should not be hectic but quiet and relaxing. 18-24 Year Olds 10.0 50.0 10.0 23.3 6.7 Vasgtion 25-34 Year Olds 16.7 41.7 17.6 21.3 2.8 0’0667 ”5 St 1 4. On a vacation, I just want to y e rest and relax. 18-24 Year Olds 16. 43.3 10.0 23.3 6.7 0 1630 NS 25-34 Year Olds 18.5 26.9 8.3 38.9 7.4 ' 82. I enjoy most forms of housework. 18-24 Year Olds 0.0 36.7 10.0 36.7 16.7 0 1465 NS 25-34 Year Olds 1.8 20.2 17.4 40.4 20.2 ' 76. I must admit I really do not like 8 housekeeping chores. Housekeeping 18-24 Year Olds 10.0 36.7 10.0 33.3 10.0 0 1385 NS Interest 25-34 Year Olds 23.9 32.1 11 9 27.5 4.6 ' 22. My idea of housekeeping is "once over lightly." 18-24 Year Olds 0.0 26.7 10.0 43.3 20.0 0 1009 NS 25—34 Year Olds 10.1 22.9 4.6 40.4 22.0 ' 43. I usually like to wait and see how other people like new brands before I try them. 18-24 Year Olds 0.0 13.3 40.0 33.3 13.3 Inforfiatisn 25-34 Year Olds 0.9 15.6 24.8 44.0 14.7 0'1205 ”5 Seeking 61. I often seek out the adv1ce of my friends regarding which brands to buy. 18-24 Year Olds 13.3 26.7 20.0 33.3 6. 0 1963 NS 25-34 Year Olds 2.8 24.8 12.8 45.9 13.8 ' 64. I like to go camping. 18-24 Year Olds 23.3 43.3 10.0 23.3 0.0 0 0826 NS 25—34 Year Olds 23.9 40.4 10.1 17.4 8.3 ‘ 10 42. I love fresh air and the outdoors. Appreciation 18-24 Year Olds 56.7 40.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 o 0480 ms of the 25-34 Year Olds 61.5 33.0 1.8 2.8 0.9 ' Outdoors 49. A cabin by a quiet lake is a great place to spend the summer. 18-24 Year 16.7 40.0 23.3 16.7 3.3 0 1177 NS 25—34 Year Olds 28.4 34.9 22.9 10.1 3.7 ’ 81. I usually read the sports page in the daily paper. 6 7 43 3 1 18-24 Year Olds 3.3 33.3 . . 3.3 Spéits 25-34 Year Olds 14.7 24.8 5.5 32.1 22.9 °°1135 "5 Interest 73. I like to watch or to listen to baseball or football games. 18-24 Year Olds 16.7 50.0 6.7 16.7 10.0 0 0944 NS 25-34 Year Olds 20.4 38.9 5.6 15.7 19.4 ' aNot statistically significant at p < 0.10. bStatistically significant at p < 0.10. Factor No. .1170 Graphed Mean Scores SD (5) and Name Statement SA A u D (1) (2) (3) (4) 48. I think I have more self 1 confidence than most people. 8 1f 1. I have a lot of energy. C he t 20. I like to take chances. O cep 60. I think I have a lot of personal ability. 8. I buy things with a credit card or a charge card. 3. It is good to have charge 2 accounts. . 32. I like to pay cash for Credit Use everything I buy. 12. To buy anything, other than a house or a car on credit, is unwise. 79. I enjoy going through an art 3 gallery. Appreciation 26. I enjoy going to concerts. of the Arts 55. I enjoy listening to classical music. 4 47. I try to keep abreast of F shion changes in styles and fashion. Congclousness l4. Dressing fashionably is an important part of my life. 5 50. I go to church regularly. . . . 45. I pray several times a week. ReligiOSlty 33. Spiritual values are more important than material things. 68. I usually watch for ads for announcements of sales. 6 11. I shop a lot for specials. Price 78. When I find a coupon in the . paper, I clip it and redeem ConSCiousness it at shopping. 65. I usually look for the lowest prices when I shop. 7 36. A vacation should not be hectic . but quiet and relaxing. Vgeaison 4. On a vacation, I just want to y rest and relax. 8 82. I enjoy most forms of housework. . 76. I must admit I really do not H°¥:::::::ng like housekeeping chores. 22. My idea of housekeeping is "once over lightly.” 43. I usually like to wait and see 9 how other people like new . brands before I try them. Inf§:::§;on 61. I often seek out the advice of 9 my friends regarding which brands I buy. 10 64. I like to go camping. Appreciation 42. I love fresh air and the of the outdoors. Outdoors 49. A cabin by a quiet lake is a great place to spend the summer. 11 81. I usually read the sports page Sports in the daily paper. Interest 73. I like to watch or to listen to baseball or football games. Figure 5-2.--Life Style Comparison Between Selected Demographic Segments: 25-34 Year Olds. 18-24 Year Olds vs. 171 The greater concern for being fashionable exhibited by the younger segment does not seem to be unique to this sample. Another study found a similar discrepancy between the attitudes of younger and older women toward fashion in general (43). An important explanation for the greater concern for fashion of the younger group in this study may lie in the fact that most of the 18-24 year old respondents were female, and most of the 25-34 year olds were male (see Table 5-5). Females generally have been found to be more interested in fashion than males in studies involving both the total American population (124:30) and 18-24 year olds (98:61). Thus, it is not unreasonable to expect a similar pattern of female interest among single (l-person) householders. The lack of life style studies on single (l-person) householders (see Chapters II and III) precludes, however, a definitive conclusion about whether greater Fashion Consciousness is typical of single (l-person) female householders in general. Major Hypothesis H3 There is no significant difference between single (l-person) householders aged 18 to 34 and those 35 years old and older with respect to life style profiles. 172 This major hypothesis is broken down into Subhypotheses H3-l through H3-ll There is no significant difference between single (l-person) householders aged 18 to 34 and those 35 years old and older with respect to: Self-Concept; Credit Use; Appreciation of the Arts; Fashion Consciousness; Religiosity; Price Consciousness; Vacation Style; Housekeeping Interest; Information Seeking; Appreciation of the Outdoors; and Sports Interest. l-‘OKDCIJQONU‘IJ-‘ole-J I Hid As discussed earlier in the chapter, most 18—34 year old respondents had never married, earned under $15,000, and rented their living quarters. In compari- son, most of those 35 years old and older were either divorced, separated, or widowed, earned $15,000 or more, and owned their own home. No dramatic differences between the two segments were recorded in relation to sex, education, and occupation (see Table 5-6). The high degree of demographic heterogeneity found between these segments, greater than any observed thus far, was roughly paralleled by differences in life styles, as can be seen in Table 5-14. The table reveals that responses to eight AIO statements were found to be significantly different. Subhypotheses H3-5 and H3-10 were rejected at p < 0.10. There was significant dif- ference between the two demographic segments with 1773 TABLE 5-14.--Life Style Comparison Between Selected Demographic Segments: 18-34 Year Olds vs. 35 Year Olds and Over. -— —- z --_-- n- . .— Level of Agreement Factor No. K-S . and Name Statement SA A u 0 50 Stat. 519‘ (8) (8) (5) (Q) (S) 48. I think I have more self confidence than most people. 18-34 Year Olds 18.7 33.1 24.5 22.3 1.4 0 0693 NSa 35 Year Olds and Over 13.4 41.2 28.6 13.4 3.4 ’ l. I have a lot of energy. 18-34 Year Olds 19.4 63.3 8.6 7 9 0.7 O 1103 NS 1 35 Year Olds and Over 19.7 52.1 8.5 14 5 5.1 ' Self 20. I like to take chances. Concept 18—24 Year Olds 12.3 42.8 18.1 22.5 4.3 0 2697 Sb 35 Year Olds and Over 1.7 26.9 17.6 42.9 10.9 ’ 60. I think I have a lot of personal ability. 18—34 Year Olds 36.2 50.0 11.6 1.4 0.7 0 1522 NS 35 Year Olds and Over 21.0 66.4 10.9 1.7 0.0 ' 8. I buy things with a credit card or charge card. 18—34 Year Olds 13.8 52.2 2.9 18.1 13.0 0 1216 NS 35 Year Olds and Over 8.4 45.4 6.7 17.6 21.8 ' 3. It is good to have charge accounts. 18—34 Year Olds 19.4 39.6 16.5 15.8 8 6 0 0733 NS 2 34 Year Olds and Over 14.3 38.7 16.8 14.3 16 0 ‘ Credit Use 32. i 56;? to pay cash for everything 18—34 Year Olds 12.2 34.5 10.8 36.0 6.5 0 1046 NS 35 Year Olds and Over 22.7 31.1 9.2 34.5 2.5 ' 12. To buy anything, other than a house or a car on credit, is unwise. 18-34 Year Olds 7.9 12.9 10.1 52.5 16.5 0 2066 S 35 Year Olds and Over 20.3 21.2 7.6 40.7 10.2 ' 79. I enjoy going through an art gallery. 18-34 Year Olds 21.6 48.9 13.7 11.5 4.3 0 0597 NS 35 Year Olds and Over 23.5 52.9 10.1 12.6 0.8 ' 3 26. I enjoy going to concerts. Appreciation 18-34 Year Olds 24.5 48.9 9.4 10.8 6.5 0 0728 N5 of the Arts 35 Year Olds and Over 22.0 44.1 12.7 17.8 3.4 ' 55. I enjoy listening to classical music. 18-34 Year Olds 15.8 38.1 17.3 20.1 8 6 0 2251 S 35 Year Olds and Over 29.4 47.1 9.2 12.6 1 ' 47. I try to keep abreast of changes in styles and fashion. 4 18-34 Year Olds 17.3 42.4 15 1 19.4 5.8 0 1181 NS Fashion 14 D 35 Yegr glds :gd Over 9 2 38 7 15 1 32.8 4.2 ' . . reSSing as iona y is an ConSCiousness important part of my life. 18-34 Year Olds 12.9 43.2 15.8 21.6 6.5 0 1746 S 35 Year Olds and Over 7.6 31.1 19.3 33.6 8.4 ' 50. I go to church regularly. 18-34 Year Olds 8.6 10.8 6.5 43.9 30.2 0 2536 S 35 Year Olds and Over 16.8 26.9 7.6 27.7 21.0 ' 45. I pray several times a week. 5 18-34 Year Olds 13.7 14.4 8.6 33.1 30.2 0 2909 S Religiosity 35 Year Olds and Over 26.1 31.1 6.7 22.7 13.4 ' 33. Spiritual values are more important than material things. 18-34 Year Olds 19.6 38.4 27.5 13.8 0.7 0 0901 NS 35 Year Olds and Over 28.6 37.8 20.2 10.9 2.5 ' 1774 TABLE 5-11.--Continued. Level of Agreement Factor No. K—S . and Name Statement 5A A u D 50 Stat. 519' (8) (8) (8) (8) (8) 68. I usually watch for ads for announcements of sales. 18-34 Year Olds 7.9 38.8 10.1 35.3 7.9 0 0351 NS 35 Year Olds and Over 8.6 41.4 10.3 34.5 5.2 ‘ 11. I shop a lot for specials. 18-34 Year Olds 18.7 32.4 14.4 28.1 6.5 0 0954 NS 6 35 Year Olds and Over 13.6 33.1 9.3 39.8 4.2 ' Price 78. When I find a coupon in the Consciousness paper, I clip it and redeem it at shopping. 18-34 Year Olds 7.9 28.8 12.2 36.7 14.4 0 0701 NS 35 Year Olds and Over 7.6 36.1 10.1 38.7 7.6 ' 65. I usually look for the lowest prices when I shop. 18-34 Year Olds 12.2 38.8 15.8 30.2 2.9 0 0376 NS 35 Year Olds and Over 8.5 42.4 15.3 32.2 1.7 ‘ 36. A vacation should not be hectic but quiet and relaxing. 18-34 Year Olds 15.2 43.5 15.9 21.7 3.6 0 1444 NS 7 35 Year Olds and Over 22.7 50.4 16.0 10.9 0.0 ° Vacation 4. On a vacation, I just want to Style rest and relax. 18-34 Year Olds 18.1 30.4 8.7 35 5 7.2 0 0373 NS 35 Year Olds and Over 21.8 29.4 9.2 33 6 5.9 ' 82. I enjoy most forms of housework. 18-34 Year Olds 1.4 23.7 15.8 39.6 19.4 0 0514 NS 35 Year Olds and Over 2.5 26.9 12.6 43.7 14.3 ' 76. I must admit I really do not like housekeeping chores. 8 18-34 Year Olds 20.9 33.1 11.5 28.8 5.8 0 0574 NS Housekeeping 35 Year Olds and Over 15.1 39.5 14.3 28.6 2.5 ' Interest 22. My idea of housekeeping is "once over lightly." 18-34 Year Olds 7.9 23.7 5.8 41.0 21 6 0 1150 NS 35 Year Olds and Over 7.6 32.8 8.4 41.2 1 ‘ 43. I usually like to wait and see how other people like new brands before I try them. 9 18-34 Year Olds 0.7 15 1 28.1 41 7 14 4 0 1274 NS . 35 Year Olds and Over 3.4 25 2 20 2 41 2 10 1 ' Information . ' Seeking 61. I often seek out the adVice of my friends regarding which brands to buy. 18-34 Year Olds 5.0 25.2 14.4 43.2 12.2 0 0585 NS 35 Year Olds and Over 1 7 22 7 16.0 48.7 10 9 ' 64. I like to go camping. 18-34 Year Olds 23.7 41.0 10.1 18.7 6.5 0 2273 S 35 Year Olds and Over 11.8 30.3 10.9 29.4 17.6 ’ 10 42. I love fresh air and the Appreciation outdoors. of the 18-34 Year Olds 60.4 34.5 2.2 2.2 0.7 0.2178 S Outdoors 35 Year Olds and Over 38.7 53.8 1 7 5.9 0.0 49. A cabin by a quiet lake is a great place to spend the summer. 18-34 Year Olds 25.9 36.0 23.0 11.5 3.6 0 1178 NS 35 Year Olds and Over 19.3 46.2 7.6 22.7 4 2 ' 81. I usually read the sports page in the paper. 18-34 Year Olds 12.2 26.6 5.8 34.5 20.9 s66::. .35 Year Olds and Over 8.4 32.8 6.7 37.8 14 3 0'0658 "5 Interest 73. I like to watch or to listen to baseball or football games. 18-34 Year Olds 19.6 41.3 5.8 15.9 17.4 0 0612 NS 35 Year Olds and Over 13.4 42.9 8.4 21.0 14 3 ' ‘Not statistically significant at p < 0.10. bStatistically significant at p < 0.10. Factor No. 175 Graphed Mean Scores and Name Statement SA A U D SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 48. I think I have more self 1 confidence than most people. 18-34 Self l. I have a lot of energy. - - - 35 and Over Co ce t 20. I like to take chances. n p 60. I think I have a lot of personal ability. 8. I buy things with a credit card or a charge card. 3. It is good to have charge 2 accounts. . 32. I like to pay cash for Credit Use everything I buy. 12. To buy anything, other than a house or a car on credit, is unwise. 79. I enjoy going through an art 3 gallery. Appreciation 26. I enjoy going to concerts. of the Arts 55. I enjoy listening to classical music. 4 47. I try to keep abreast of Fashion changes in styles and fashion. C 9 io sn ss 14. Dressing fashionably is an on C u e important part of my life. 50. I go to church regularly. 5 45. I pray several times a week. Religiosity 33. Spiritual values are more important than material things. 68. I usually watch for ads for announcements of sales. 6 11. I shop a lot for specials. Price 78. When I find a coupon in the . paper, I clip it and redeem it ConsCiousness at shopping. 65. I usually look for the lowest prices when I shop. 36. A vacation should not be hectic Vathion but quiet and relaxing. St 1e 4. On a vacation, I just want to y rest and relax. 82. I enjoy most forms of housework. 8 76. I must admit I really do not like Housekeeping housekeeping chores. Interest 22. My idea of housekeeping is “once over lightly.” 43. I usually like to wait and see 9 how other people like new . brands before I try them. Inggztefiion 61. I often seek out the advice of 9 my friends regarding which brands I buy. 10 64. I like to go camping. Appreciation 42. I love fresh air and the of the outdoors. Outdoors 49. A cabin by a quiet lake is a great place to spend the summer. 11 81. I usually read the sports page Sports in the daily paper. > Interest 73. I like to watch or to listen to baseball or football games. Figure 5-3.—-Life Style Comparison Between Selected Demographic Segments: 35 Year Olds and Over. 18—34 Year Olds vs. 176 respect to Religiosity and Appreciation of the Outdoors, life style factors 5 and 10. Subhypothesis H3-4 (Fashion Consciousness) was classified as indeterminate. In terms of Religiosity, significant differences were found in relation to two of the three component variables. In response to "I go to church regularly," 19.4% of the 18-34 year olds and 43.7% of those 35 years old and older agreed. With respect to "I pray several times a week," 28.1% of the younger segment and 57.2% of the older segment agreed. No significant difference was recorded in the responses of the two groups to "Spiritual values are more important than material things." The high degree of Religiosity exhibited by the older segment (those 35 years old and older) could be explained by the literature relating religion to age. Roger (80) found that people become more religious as they age. The reasons included comfort as death becomes more likely, help in finding meaningfulness in life, and aid in accepting old age and in meeting secular social needs (80:406-411). Similar results were obtained in a somewhat more specific market study of movie goers; the older groups were found to be more religious than the younger (36:217-229). Thus, it would not be reasonable to expect a similar relationship between religiosity and age among single (l-person) householders. 177 With respect to Appreciation of the Outdoors, significant differences were found in relation to two of the three component variables. To the statement "I like to go camping," 64.7% of the younger segment, 42.1% of the older agreed. In terms of "I love fresh air and the outdoors," 94.9% of the 18-34 year olds and 92.5% of the older group agreed. The difference is even more marked when only "strongly agree" responses are considered. Of the younger segment, 60.4% strongly agreed compared to 38.7% of the older segment. No significant difference was observed in responses to "A cabin by a quiet lake is a great place to spend the summer." The greater Appreciation of the Outdoors exhi— bited by the younger householders could be explained by the inverse relationship that has been found to exist between age and outdoor recreation. Gum and Martin (31), in a study of the demand for outdoor recreation in Arizona, found that older groups were much less active in such activities. A similar result was obtained by Buse and Enosh (10) in their study of 6,440 adults from nine midwestern states, including Michigan. Sample participation in various outdoor activities was lower among older people. Pessemier, Teach and Tigert (62) found that outdoor orientation decreases with a female's age. These findings could explain the greater Apprecia- tion of the Outdoors exhibited by the younger segment in 178 the sample. In addition, they show that the relation- ship between age and outdoor orientation is not a phenomenon limited to the sample respondents. Subhypothesis H3-4 (Fashion Consciousness) was classified as indeterminate at p<<0.10. While a signif- icant difference between 18-34 year olds and those 35 years old and older was found with respect to "Dressing fashionably is an important part of my life" (56.1% of the younger group and 38.7% of the older agreed) none was observed with respect to "I try to keep abreast of changes in styles and fashion." The greater concern for fashion exhibited by the responses of the younger seg- ment to the first statement could be explained by the fact that interest in fashion has been found to be a function of a person's age (the older, the less the interest) (43). In addition, younger and better educa- ted women have also been found to be more fashion conscious than others in the population (130:28). Significant life style differences between l8—34 year olds and those aged 35 and older were also found in relation to three AIO variables not components of the life style factors analyzed thus far. With respect to "I like to take chances," 55.1% of the 18-34 year olds and 28.6% of those 35 years old and older agreed. The more cautious attitude of the older group could be related to the commonly observed 179 conservatism of older people in general (45:93) as well as to the great caution older people exercise toward matters involving personal finances (3:27). The statement "To buy anything, other than a house or a car on credit, is unwise," elicited agreement from 20.8% of 18-34 year olds and 41.5% of those 35 years old and older. A possible explanation is the obvious relationship to older people's apparent aversion to risk. With old age comes conservatism and caution, which may explain why those 35 years old and older view credit use somewhat more cautiously than do 18 to 34 year olds. Finally, the responses to "I enjoy listening to classical music" showed that 53.9% of 18-34 year olds and 76.5% of those 35 years old and older agreed. Major Hypothesis H4 There is no significant difference between single (l-person) householders aged 18 to 34 and those 65 years old and older with respect to life style profiles. This major hypothesis is broken down into Subhypotheses H4-l through H4-ll There is no significant difference between single (l-person) householders aged 18 to 34 and those 65 years old and older with respect to: . Self-Concept; . Credit Use; Appreciation of the Arts; Fashion Consciousness; Religiosity; Price Consciousness; O‘LflfiwNH 180 7. Vacation Style; 8. Housekeeping Interest; 9. Information Seeking; 10. Appreciation of the Outdoors; and 11. Sports Interest. Most respondents aged 18-34 had never married, earned $10,000 or more, rented their living quarters, had some college or post-graduate education, and held professional (or technical) or managerial (or administra- tive) jobs. Those 65 years old and older were mostly widowed, earned less than $10,000, owned their own home, had less than or only a high school education, and were retired (see Table 5-7). These discrepant demographic profiles were paralleled by relatively heterogeneous life style profiles, as can be seen in Table 5-15. Significant differences between 18-34 year olds and those aged 65 and older were found in relation to eleven of the thirty-two AIO variables. Subhypotheses H4-2 (Credit Use), H4-5 (Religiosity) and H4-10 (Appreciation of the Outdoors) were rejected at p < 0.10. The significance of the difference between both segments in relation to Self-Concept and Information Seeking, subhypotheses H4-l and H4-9, was classified as indeterminate. With respect to Credit Use, significant dif- ferences were observed in relation to all component variables. In response to "I buy things with a credit card or charge card," 66% of the 18-34 year olds and 1.8CL TABLE 5-15.--L1fe Style Comparison Between Selected Demographic Segments: 18-34 Year Olds vs. 65 Year Olds and Over. Level of Agreement Factor No. K~S . and Name Statement SA A u 0 so Stat. 519' (8) (8) (8) (8) (8) 48. I think I have more self confidence than most people. 18-34 Year Olds 18.7 33.1 24.5 22.3 1.4 0 1089 NSa 65 Year Olds and Over 9.1 31.8 40.9 13.6 4.5 ’ 1. I have a lot of energy. 18-34 Year Olds 19.4 63.3 8.6 7.9 0.7 0 3228 sb 1 65 Year Olds and Over 9.1 50.0 0.0 31.8 9.1 ' self 20‘ I 111: 33 iaxe 613nces. 12 3 42 8 18 1 22 3 - ear 5 . . . . . concept 65 Year Olds and Over 0.0 9.1 9.1 54.5 27.3 °°5501 s 60. I think I have a lot of personal ability. 18-34 Year Olds 36.2 50.0 11.6 1.4 0.7 0 2714 NS 65 Year Olds and Over 9.1 59.1 31.8 0.0 0.0 ' 8. I buy things with a credit card or a charge card. 18-34 Year Olds 13.8 52.2 2.9 18.1 13.0 0 2958 S 65 Year Olds and Over 0.0 36.4 4.5 18.2 40.9 ' 3. It is good to have charge accounts. 18-34 Year Olds 19.4 39.6 16.5 15.8 .6 0 3172 S 2 65 Year Olds an: Over 4.5 22.7 18.2 31.8 22.7 ' 32. I like to pay cash or Credit Use everything I buy. 18-34 Year Olds 12.2 34.5 10.8 36.0 6.5 0 3960 S 65 Year Olds and Over 50.0 36.4 0.0 13.6 0.0 ' 12. To buy anything, other than a house or a car on credit, is unwise. 18-34 Year Olds 7.9 12.9 10.1 52.5 16.5 0 5186 s 65 Year Olds and Over 36.4 36.4 9.1 18.2 0.0 ' 79. I enjoy going through an art gallery. 18-34 Year Olds 21.6 48.9 13.7 11.5 4.3 0 1145 NS 65 Year Olds and Over 13.6 54.5 4.5 22.7 4.5 ' 3 26. I enjoy going to concerts. . . 18-34 Year Olds 24.5 48.9 9.4 10.8 6.5 Qfipifiglzfiign 65 Year Olds and Over 9.1 45.5 4.5 31.8 9.1 °°2364 "5 55. I enjoy listening to classical music. 18-34 Year Olds 15.8 38.1 17.3 20.1 8.6 0 0863 NS 65 Year Olds and Over 13.6 45.5 9. 31.8 0.0 ' 47. I try to keep abreast of changes in styles and fashion. 4 18-34 Year Olds 17.3 42.4 15.1 19.4 5.8 0 2027 NS F . 65 Year Olds and Over 13.6 27.3 13.6 45.5 0.0 ' ashion 14 D . f h' b1 . Consciousness . .IESSlng as iona y is an important part of my life. 18-34 Year Olds 12.9 43.2 15.8 21.6 6.5 0 1521 NS 65 Year Olds and Over 0.0 40.9 22.7 31.8 4.5 ' 50. I go to church regularly. 18-34 Year Olds 8.6 10.8 6.5 43.9 30.2 0 3774 S 65 Year Olds and Over 18.2 36.4 9.1 18.2 18.2 ' 45. I pray several times a week. 5 18-34 Year Olds 13.7 14.4 8.6 33.1 30.2 0 4058 S Religiosity 65 Year Olds and Over 36.4 27.3 13.6 9.1 13.6 ' 33. Spiritual values are more important than material things. 18-34 Year Olds 19.6 38.4 27.5 13.8 0.7 0 1680 NS 65 Year Olds and Over 36.4 36.4 13.6 13.6 0.0 ' 1.822 TABLE S-lS.--Continued. Level of Agreement K-S . Eifitfifimzm Statement SA A U D so Stat. 519' (8) (8) (8) (8) (8) 68. I usually watch for ads for announcements of sales. 18-34 Year Olds 7.9 38.8 10.1 35.3 7.9 0 2142 NS 65 Year Olds and Over 13.6 54.5 4.5 22.7 4.5 ' 11. I shop a lot for specials. 18-34 Year Olds 18.7 32.4 14.4 28.1 6.5 0 0647 NS 6 65 Year Olds and Over 18.2 27.3 13.6 40.9 0.0 ' Price 78. When I find a coupon in the Consciousness paper, I clip it and redeem it at shopping. 18-34 Year Olds 7.9 28.8 12.2 36.7 14.4 0.1027 NS 65 Year Olds and Over 18.2 27.3 13.6 31.8 9.1 65. I usually look for the lowest prices when I shop. 18-34 Year Olds 12.2 38.8 15.8 30.2 2.9 0 0314 NS 65 Year Olds and Over 9.1 40.9 18.2 31.8 0.0 ’ 36. A vacation should not be hectic but quiet and relaxing. 7 18—34 Year Olds 15.2 43.5 15.9 21.7 3.6 0 1858 NS . 65 Year Olds and Over 27.3 50.0 13.6 9.1 0.0 ’ Vacation - - Style 4. On a vacation, I just want to rest and relax. 18-34 Year Olds 18.1 30.4 8.7 35.5 7.2 0 1548 NS 65 Year Olds and Over 18.2 36.4 18.2 27.3 0.0 ‘ 82. I enjoy most forms of housework. 18-34 Year Olds 1.4 23.7 15.8 39.6 19.4 0 1033 NS 65 Year Olds and Over 4.5 27.3 9.1 50.0 9.1 ' 8 76. I must admit I really do not Housekeeping like housekeeping chores. Interest 18-34 Year Olds 20.9 33.1 11.5 28.8 5.8 0 1177 NS 65 Year Olds and Over 9.1 50.0 13.6 22.7 4.5 ' 22. My idea of housekeeping is "once over lightly." 18-34 Year Olds 7.9 23.7 5.8 41.0 21.6 0 2168 NS 65 Year Olds and Over 0.0 40.9 18.2 31.8 9. ' 43. I usually like to wait and see how other people like new brands before I try them. 9 18-34 Year Olds 0.7 15.1 28.1 41.7 14.4 0.3417 S Information 65 Year Olds and Over 9.1 40.9 9.1 40.9 0.0 Seeking 61. I often seek out the advice of my friends regarding which brands I buy. 18-34 Year Olds 5.0 25.2 14.4 43.2 12.2 0 1069 NS 65 Year Olds and Over 4.5 36.4 13.6 40.9 4.5 ' 64. I like to go camping. 18-34 Year Olds 23.7 41.0 10.1 18.7 6. 0 2838 S 65 Year Olds and Over 9.1 27.3 13.6 27.3 22.7 ' 10 42. I love fresh air and the outdoors. Appreciation 18-34 Year Olds 60.4 34.5 2.2 2.2 0.7 0 3316 S of the 65 Year Olds and Over 27.3 59.1 0.0 13.6 0.0 ' Outdoors 49. A cabin by a quiet lake is a great place to spend the summer. 18-34 Year Olds 25.9 36.0 23.0 11.5 3.6 0 1671 NS 65 Year Olds and Over 18.2 45.5 4.5 27.3 4.5 ‘ 81. I usually read the sports page in the daily paper. 18-34 Year Olds 12.2 26.6 5.8 34.5 20.9 Spéits .65 Year Olds and Over 9.1 40.9 4.5 31.8 13.6 0'1115 "5 Interest 73. I like to watch or to listen to baseball or football games. 18—34 Year Olds 19.6 41.3 5.8 15.9 17.4 0 0632 NS 65 Year Olds and Over 13.6 40.9 13.6 13.6 18.2 ' aNot statistically significant at p < 0.10. bStatistically significant at p < 0.10. Factor No. 183 Statement Graphed Mean Scores and Name SA A U D SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 48. I think I have more self 18-34 1 confidence than most people. “ - - - 65 and Over Self 1. I have a lot of energy. Conce t 20. I like to take chances. P 60. 1 think 1 have a lot of personal ability. 8. I buy things with a credit card or a charge card. 3. It is good to have charge 2 accounts. . 32. I like to pay cash for Credit Use everything I buy. 12. To buy anything, other than a house or a car on credit, is unwise. 3 79. I enjoy going through an A . t' art gallery. sprec1: 1°” 26. I enjoy going to concerts. 0 t e rts 55. I enjoy listening to classical music. 4 47. I try to keep abreast of F h' changes in styles and fashion. C 35.10” 14. Dressing fashionably is an onsc1ousness important part of my life. 5 50. I go to church regularly. Rell iosit 45. I pray several times a week. g y 33. Spiritual values are more important than material things. 68. I usually watch for ads for announcements of sales. 6 11. I shop a lot for specials. Price 78. When I find a coupon in the C . paper, I clip it and redeem it onSCiousness at shopping. 65. I usually look for the lowest prices when I shop. 7 36. A vacation should not be hectic . but quiet and relaxing. vseaison 4. On a vacation, I just want to Y rest and relax. 82. I enjoy most forms of housework. 8 76. I must admit I really do not Housekeeping like housekeeping chores. Interest 22. My idea of housekeeping is ”once over lightly." 43. I usually like to wait and see 9 how other people like new Information brands before I try them. Seeking 61. I often seek out the advice of my friends regarding which brands I buy. 10 64. I like to go camping. Appreciation 42. guigggsgresh air and the 03:68:53 49. A cabin by a quiet lake is a great place to spend the summer. 11 81. I usually read the sports page \ Sports in the daily paper. ° Interest 73. I like to watch or to listen to ‘ baseball or football games. Figure 5-4.--Life Style Comparison Between Selected Demographic Segments: 65 Year Olds and Over. 18-34 Year Olds vs. 184 36.4% of those 65 years old and older agreed. In terms of "It is good to have charge accounts," 59% of the younger segment and 27.2% of the older agreed. With respect to "I like to pay cash for everything I buy," 46.7% of the 18-34 year olds and 86.4% of those 65 years old and older agreed. Finally, 20.8% of the younger segment and 72.8% of the older agreed with this statement: "To buy anything, other than a house or a car on credit, is unwise." The older segment was more cautious about credit than the younger group. This discrepancy probably is explained by the fact that older people in general, and senior citizens in particular (those 65 years old and older), tend to be more conservative and cautious than younger people (45:93; 3). This conservatism is especially evident in the area of personal finance (3:27). People aged 65 or older grew up during the Great Depression, and they fear debt (3:314). In con- trast, younger people, particularly those aged 18-34, have been reared in the era of post-World War II prosperity, and they tend to view debt less cautiously. In short, the attitude toward Credit Use exhibited by those 65 years old and older is neither unexpected nor unique to single (l-person) householders. In terms of Religiosity, significant differences were found in relation to two of the three component 185 variables. In reply to "I go to church regularly," 19.4% of the 18—34 year olds and 54.6% of those aged 65 and older agreed. Results were similar in response to "I pray several times a week"; 28.1% of the younger segment and 63.7% of the older agreed. No significant difference was found in relation to "Spiritual values are more important than material things." These differences indicate first that the older segment is somewhat more religious than the younger; second, as might be expected, the differences observed between 18-34 year olds and those 65 years old and older are greater (although in the same direction) than those found between 18-34 year olds and those aged 35 and older (see Table 5-14). The high degree of religiosity exhibited by those 65 years old and older could be explained by the tendency of people to become more religious as they age (80:411). The higher degree of religiosity exhibited by senior single (l-person) householders in comparison to 18-34 year olds could thus be part of a larger phenomenon involving people's aging and religion's ability to meet their needs. In relation to Appreciation of the Outdoors, significant differences were found with respect to two of the three component variables. "I like to go camp- ing" was agreed with by 64.7% of 18-34 year olds and 36.4% of those 65 years old and older. "I love fresh 186 air and the outdoors" was agreed with by 94.9% of the younger group and 86.4% of the older. This difference is even more remarkable when only strong agreement is considered--60.4% of the younger segment and 27.3% of the older. No significant difference was found in relation to "A cabin by a quiet lake is a good place to spend the summer." Evidently, senior single (l-person) householders are somewhat less attracted by the outdoors than are the younger singles living alone. This conclusion is sup- ported by the literature relating people's age to their outdoor orientation (31, 62:337). The greater Apprecia- tion of the Outdoors exhibited by the younger segment in this study is not unique to single (l-person) house- holders but seems to be part of a broader tendency among people in general. With respect to Self—Concept, significant differences were observed in relation to two of the four component variables. "I have a lot of energy" was agreed with by 82.7% of 18-34 year olds and 59.1% of those aged 65 and older. In terms of "I like to take chances," 55.1% of the younger segment and 9.1% of the older agreed. No significant differences were found in relation to "I think I have more self-confidence than most people" and "I think I have a lot of personal ability." 187 As might be expected, more of the younger seg- ment agreed with "I have a lot of energy." The older group is at a stage in life in which the natural process of aging and illnesses can be expected to be taking their toll. An explanation for the risk aversion evidenced by those aged 65 and older could be attributed to the fact that senior citizens in general tend to be more conservative (45:93) and that such conservatism manifests itself quite strongly in financial matters (3:27). In terms of Information Seeking, a significant difference was recorded in responses to "I usually like to wait and see how other people like new brands before I try them" (15.8% of 18-34 year olds and 50.0% of those 65 years old and older agreed). No significant difference was observed in relation to "I often seek out the advice of my friends regarding which brands I buy." Senior singles living alone responded in a somewhat cautious fashion. This attitude would be expected, giventfluadegree of conservatism among senior citizens in general (45:93). Older peOple's cautious attitude toward Information Seeking was also found in a study by Pessemier, Teach, and Tigert (62:337), which revealed that active information seeking was negatively correlated to a homemaker's age. In conclusion, single 188 (l-person), senior householders' caution toward new products and brands does not seem to be unique to this group, but perhaps typical of older people in general. Major Hypothesis H5 There is no significant difference between single (l-person) householders aged 25 to 34 and those 35 years old and older with respect to life style profiles. This major hypothesis is broken down into Subhypotheses H5-l through H5-ll There is no significant difference between single (l-person) householders aged 25 to 34 and those 35 years old and older with respect to: Self-Concept; Credit Use; Appreciation of the Arts; Fashion Consciousness; Religiosity; Price Consciousness; Vacation Style; Housekeeping Interest; Information Seeking; Appreciation of the Outdoors; and Sports Interest. l—‘OKOCDNONU'IQWNH I I I I I I I I FJH The demographic profiles of most respondents 25-34 years old and those 35 years old and older dif— fered in relation to marital status, income, and home tenure (see Table 5-8). Most of the younger segment had never married, earned less than $15,000, and rented their living quarters, whereas the older group was pre- dominantly divorced, separated, or widowed, earned $15,000 or more, and owned their own living quarters. These differences are very similar to those found earlier 189 in relation to 18-34 year olds and those 35 years old and older (see Table 5-6). They can be partially explained by the fact that 25-34 year olds are the largest subgroup among those aged 18-34 (see Table 5-1). The demographic similarities between these groups (18-34 year olds versus those 35 years old and older and 25-34 year olds versus those 35 years old and older) were paralleled in the life style comparisons. As in the case of 18-34 year olds versus those 35 years old and older, the comparison between 25-34 year olds and those 35 years old and older identified eight significant variables, as can be seen in Table 5-16. Significant differences were observed with respect to Religiosity and Appreciation of the Outdoors, sub- hypotheses H5-5 and H5-10. Credit Use was classified as indeterminate. With respect to Religiosity, significant dif- ferences were found between the responses of both segments to two of the three component variables. The responses of 21.1% of 25-34 year olds and 43.7% of those 35 years old and older agreed with the statement "I go to church regularly." A similar response pattern was observed for "I pray several times a week": 25.7% of the younger segment and 57.2% of the older agreed. No significant difference was recorded with respect to "Spiritual values are more important than material things. 1590 TABLE S-lb.--Life Style Comparison Between Selected Demographic Segments: 25-34 Year Olds vs. 35 Year Olds and Over. -; a g a“: .w Level of Agreement Factor No. K-S and Name Stateme“ SA A U 0 so Stat. 5“" (8) (8) (8) (8) (8) 48. I think I have more self confidence than most people. 25-34 Year Olds 21.1 33.0 22.9 21.1 1.8 0 0766 NSa 35 Year Olds and Over 13.4 41.2 28.6 13.4 3.4 ' l. I have a lot of energy. 25-34 Year Olds 21.1 62.4 8.3 7.3 0.9 0 1169 NS 1 35 Year Olds and Over 19.7 52.1 8.5 14.5 5.1 ' Self 20. I like to take chances. Concept 25-34 Year Olds 13.9 38.0 19.4 25.0 3. 0 2508 8b 35 Year Olds and Over 1.7 26.9 17.6 42.9 10. ' 60. I think I have a lot of personal ability. 25-34 Year Olds 36.1 49.1 12.0 1.9 0.9 0 1510 NS 35 Year Olds and Over 21.0 66.4 10.9 1.7 0.0 ' 8. I buy things with a credit card or charge card. 25—34 Year Olds 13.0 57.4 3.7 13.9 12.0 0 1659 s 35 Year Olds 8.4 45.4 6.7 17.6 21.8 ' 3. It is good to have charge accounts. 25-34 Year Olds 21.1 40.4 15.6 12.8 10.1 0 0853 NS 2 35 Year Olds 14.3 38.7 16. 14.3 16.0 ' Credit Use 32. I like to pay cash for everything I buy. 25-34 Year Olds 12.8 29.4 11.0 39.4 7.3 0 1158 NS 35 Year Olds 22.7 31.1 9.2 34.5 2.5 ' 12. To buy anything, other than a house or a car on credit, is unwise. 25-34 Year Olds 8.3 12.8 10.1 52.3 16.5 0 2042 S 35 Year Olds 20.3 21.2 7.6 40.7 10.2 ' 79. I enjoy going through an art gallery. 25-34 Year Olds 18.3 50.5 13.8 13.8 3.7 0 0766 NS 35 Year Olds and Over 23.5 52.9 10.1 12.6 0.8 ' 26. I enjoy going to concerts. 3 25-34 Year Olds 21.1 47.7 10.1 12.8 8.3 0 0487 NS Appreciation 35 Year Olds and Over 22.0 44.1 12.7 17.8 3.4 ' of the Arts 55. I enjoy listening to classical music. 25-34 Year Olds 16.5 35.8 16.5 22.9 8.3 0 2418 S 35 Year Olds and Over 29.4 47.1 9.2 12.6 1.7 ' 47. I try to keep abreast of changes in styles and fashion. 25-34 Year Olds 15.6 37.6 18.3 22.0 6.4 0 0853 NS 4 35 Year Olds 9.2 38.7 15.1 32.8 4.2 ° Fashion 14. Dressing fashionably is an Consciousness important part of my life. 25-34 Year Olds 8.3 44.0 14.7 25.7 7.3 0 1364 NS 35 Year Olds and Over 7.6 31.1 19.3 33.6 8.4 ' 50. I go to church regularly. 25-34 Year Olds 10.1 11.0 4.6 40.4 33.9 0 2557 S 35 Year Olds and Over 16.8 26.9 7.6 27.7 21.0 ' 45. I pray several times a week. 5 25-34 Year Olds 11.9 13.8 9.2 32.1 33.0 0 3145 S Religiosity 35 Year Olds and Over 26.1 31.1 6.7 22.7 13.4 ' 33. Spiritual values are more important than material things. 25-34 Year Olds 18.3 40.4 25.7 14.7 0.9 0 1022 NS 35 Year Olds and Over 28.6 37.8 20. 10.9 2.5 ' 15)]. TABLE 5-16.--Continued. _.__ . m_-.____.m_ —---.~---r Factor No. F- .- Level of Agreement and Name Statement SA A u D so Stat. 519' (%) (S) (%) (3) (%) 68. I usually watch for ads for announcements of sales. 25—34 Year Olds 8.3 40.4 10.1 33.0 8.3 0 0308 NS 35 Year Olds and Over 8.6 41.4 10.3 34.5 5.2 ' 11. I shop a lot for specials. 25-34 Year Olds 22.9 30.3 11.9 28.4 6.4 0 0938 NS 6 35 Year Olds and Over 13.6 33.1 9.3 39.8 4.2 ' p . 78. When I find a coupon in the rice . . Consciousness paper, I clip it and redeem it at shopping. 25—34 Year Olds 9.2 29.4 11.9 33.9 15.6 0 0803 NS 35 Year Olds and Over 7.6 36.1 10.1 38.7 7.6 ' 65. I usually look for the lowest prices when I shop. 25-34 Years Olds 15.6 37.6 16.5 27.5 2.8 0 0712 NS 35 Years Old and Over 8.5 42.4 15.3 32.2 1.7 ’ 36. A vacation should not be hectic but quiet and relaxing. 25-34 Year Olds 16.7 41.7 17. 21.3 2.8 Vacation 35 Year Olds and Over 22.7 50.4 16.0 10.9 0.0 0'1‘78 ”5 Style 4. On a vacation, I just want to rest and relax. 25-34 Year Olds 18.5 26.9 8.3 38.9 7.4 0 0680 NS 35 Year Olds and Over 21.8 29.4 9.2 33.6 5.9 ' 82. I enjoy most forms of housework. 25-34 Year Olds 1.8 20.2 17.4 40.4 20.2 0 0739 NS 35 Year Olds and Over 2.5 26.9 12.6 43.7 14.3 ' 8 76. I must admit I really do not like Housekeeping housekeeping chores. Interest 25-34 Year Olds 23.9 32.1 11. 27.5 4.6 0 0873 NS 35 Year Olds and Over 15.1 39.5 14.3 28.6 2.5 ' 23. My idea of housekeeping is "once over lightly.“ 25-34 Year Olds 10.1 22.9 4.6 40.4 22.0 0 1193 NS 35 Year Olds and Over 7.6 32.8 8.4 41.2 10.1 ' 43. I usually like to wait and see how other people like new brands before I try them. 25-34 Year Olds 0.9 15.6 24.8 44.0 14.7 I 9 . 35 Year Olds and Over 3.4 25.2 20.2 41.2 10.1 0'1206 NS nformation , Seeking 61. I often seek out the advice of my friends regarding which brands to buy. 25-34 Year Olds 2.8 24.8 12.8 45.9 13.8 0 0315 NS 35 Year Olds 1.7 22.7 16.0 48.7 10.9 ' 64. I like to go camping. 25-34 Year Olds 23.9 40.4 10.1 17.4 8.3 0 2220 S 35 Year Olds and Over 11.8 30.3 10.9 29.4 17.6 ' 10 42. I love fresh air and the Appreciation outdoors. of the 25-34 Year Olds 61.5 33.0 1.8 2.8 0.9 0 2281 S Outdoors 35 Year Olds and Over 38.7 53.8 1.7 5.9 0.0 ‘ 49. A cabin by a quiet lake is a great place to spend the summer. 25-34 Year Olds 28.4 34.9 22.9 10.1 3.7 0 1313 NS 35 Year Olds and Over 19.3 46. 7. 22.7 4.2 ' 81. I usually read the sports page in the daily paper. 25-34 Year Olds 14.7 24.8 5.5 32.1 22.9 Spiits 35 Year Olds and Over 8.4 32.8 6.7 37.8 14.3 °'°355 "5 Interest 73. I like to watch or to listen to baseball or football games. 25-34 Year Olds 20.4 38.9 5.6 15.7 19.4 0 0692 NS 35 Year Olds and Over 13.4 42.9 8.4 21.0 14.3 ' aNot statistically significant at p < 0.10. bStatistically significant at p < 0.10. Factor No. 1532 Graphed Mean Scores and Name Statement SA A u D SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (S) 48. I think I have more self 25_34 1 confidence than most people. _ _ _ 35 d Over 5 1f 1. I have a lot of energy. an C e t 20. I like to take chances. ”C9? 60. I think I have a lot of personal ability. 8. I buy things with a credit card or a charge card. 3. It is good to have charge 2 accounts. . 32. I like to pay cash for Credit Use everything I buy. 12. To buy anything, other than a house or a car on credit, is unwise. 79. I enjoy going through an art 3 gallery. Appreciation 26. I enjoy going to concerts. of the Arts 55. I enjoy listening to classical music. 4 47. I try to keep abreast of Fashion changes in styles and fashion. Consciousness l4. Dressing fashionably is an important part of my life. 50. I go to church regularly. 5 45. I pray several times a week. Religiosity 33. Spiritual values are more important than material things. 68. I usually watch for ads for announcements of sales. 6 11. I shop a lot for specials. Price 78. When I find a coupon in the Consciousness paper, I clip it and redeem it at shopping. 65. I usually look for the lowest prices when I shop. 7 36. A vacation should not be hectic . but quiet and relaxing. ngatéon 4. On a vacation, I just want to Y rest and relax. 8 82. I enjoy most forms of housework. . 76. I must admit I really do not Ho::::::§tng like housekeeping chores. 22. My idea of housekeeping is ”once over lightly.” 43. I usually like to wait and see 9 how other people like new . brands before I try them. Information 61. I often seek out the advice of Seeking . . . my friends regarding which brands I buy. 10 64. I like to go camping. Appreciation 42. I love fresh air and the outdoors. of the . . . 49. A cabin by a quiet lake is a Outdoors great place to spend the summer. 81. I usually read the sports page 11 . ; Sports 7 in the daily paper. Interest 3. I like to watch or to listen to baseball or football games. Figure 5-5.--Life Style Comparison Between Selected Demographic Segments: 35 Year Olds and Over. 25-34 Year Olds vs. 193 The higher degree of agreement with statements on Religiosity exhibited by those 35 years old and older in comparison with 25-34 year olds could be explained by the same reasons given earlier. People tend to become more religious as they age (80:411), seeking comfort as death approaches or out of secular social needs (80:406-411). Homan, Cecil and Wells (36) found age positively related to religiosity. The high degree of religiosity exhibited by older segments of single (l—person) householders is therefore not unique to this sample of respondents, but may be true of people's attitudes in general. Significant differences were observed with respect to two of the three component variables of Appreciation of the Outdoors. "I like to go camping was agreed with by 64.3% of 25-34 year olds and 42.1% of those 35 years old and older. "I love fresh air and the outdoors" elicited agreement from 94.5% of the 25-34 year olds and 92.5% of those aged 35 and older. A greater discrepancy was observed when only strong agree- ment was considered: 61.5% of the younger segment and 38.7% of the older strongly agreed with the statement. No significant difference was recorded with respect to "A cabin by a quiet lake is a great place to spend the summer." 194 These differences clearly show that the younger segment is more appreciative of the outdoors. As discussed earlier, this result does not seem to be unique to single (l-person) householders, but seems to be true of people in general. Studies have shown that people's outdoor orientation is not insensitive to age differences (10, 31). The participation of older groups in outdoor activities has been found to be less than that of younger people. This inverse relationship between age and outdoor orientation also finds support in the life style literature (62). With respect to Credit Use, significant dif- ferences were recorded in responses to "I buy things with a credit card or charge card" (70.4% of 25-34 year olds and 53.4% of those 35 years old and older agreed) and "To buy anything, other than a house or a car on credit, is unwise" (21.1% of the younger group and 41.5% of the older agreed). No significant dif- ferences were detected in relation to "It is good to have charge accounts" and "I like to pay cash for everything I buy." The older segment is less positive about Credit Use than is the younger one. This is not surprising given the age difference between the two and the fact that the older group includes senior citizens (those 65 years old and older), who generally are more conservative 195 (45:93). Moreover, older segments in general tend to be more conservative about personal finances, viewing indebtedness more negatively than do younger groups (3:27). Younger people seem to believe that future prosperity will eventually pay for today's indebtedness, and the use of credit tends to be somewhat more popular among the latter than the former group (3:314). Significant differences were also found in relation to two other AIO statements: "I like to take chances" and "I enjoy listening to classical music," component variables of the life style factors Self- Concept and Appreciation of the Arts. With respect to "I like to take chances," 51.9% of 25-34 year olds and 28.6% of those 35 years old and older agreed. The greater risk aversion exhibited by the older segment could be explained by the fact that older people tend to be more conservative (45:93), and that this conservatism is particularly true with respect to financial matters (3:27). In terms of "I enjoy listening to classical music," 52.3% of the younger respondents and 76.5% of the older agreed. The greater appreciation for classical music exhibited by the older segment could be explained by the amount of time required for an indi- vidual to develop such tastes and by the fact that younger people seem more interested in active recreation. 196 Their greater participation in outdoor activities is an example (10, 31). Major Hypothesis H6 There is no significant difference between single (l-person) householders who have never married and those who are divorced, separated, or widowed with respect to life style profiles. This major hypothesis is broken down into Subhypotheses H6-l through H6-ll There is no significant difference between single (l-person) householders who have never married and those who are divorced, separated, or widowed with respect to: Self-Concept; Credit Use; Appreciation of the Arts; Fashion Consciousness; Religiosity; Price Consciousness; Vacation Style; Housekeeping Interest; Information Seeking; Appreciation of the Outdoors; and Sports Interest. Hi—l Hommflmmb-OJNH s as s s Clear-cut demographic difference existed between never married respondents and those who were divorced, separated, or widowed only in relation to age (see Table 5-9). Most never—married respondents were less than 35 years old, but divorced, separated, or widowed householders were 35 years of age or older. Not surprisingly, few significant life style differences were observed between the two segments, as can be seen in Table 5-17. There were significant differences between the responses of the two groups 1537 TABLE 5-l7.--Life Style Comparison Between Selected Demographic Segments: Level of Agreement Married)vs. Divorced, Separated or Widowed Householders. Single (Never- Factor No. K-S . and Name Statement SA A u D so Stat. 519' (t) (t) (t) (\) (3) 48. I think I have more self confidence than most people. Single 14.0 37.3 24.7 21.3 2.7 0 0826 Nsa Divorced, Sep. or Widowed 19.4 36-1 23.7 13.9 1.9 ° 1. I have a lor of energy. Single 17.4 62.4 9.4 10.1 0.7 0 0702 NS 1 Divorced, Sep. or Widowed 22.4 52.3 7.5 12.1 5.6 ’ Self 20. I like to take chances. Concept Singles 9.3 42.7 15.3 27.3 5.3 0 2209 sb Divorced, Sep. or Widowed 4.7 25.2 21.5 38.3 10.3 ' 60. I think I have a lot of personal ability. Single 32.2 55.0 11.4 1.3 0.0 Divorced. Sep. or Widowed 25. 61.1 11.1 1.9 0.9 0'0721 “5 8. I buy things with a credit card or charge card. Single 14.8 50.3 4.7 18.1 12 1 0 1199 NS Divorced, Sep. or Widowed 6.5 47.2 4.6 17.6 24 l ' 3. It is good to have charge accounts. Single , 19.3 44.7 17.3 10.7 .0 0 2022 s 2 Divorced. Sep. or Widowed 13.9 31.5 15.7 21.3 17.6 ‘ 32. I like to pay cash for Credit Use everything I buy. Single 14.0 31.3 10.0 38.0 6.7 0 1133 NS Divorced, 599- or Widowed 21.3 35.2 10.2 31.5 1.9 ' 12. To buy anything, other than a house or a car on credit, is unwise. Single . 9.3 13.3 11.3 49.3 16.7 0 1845 S Divorced, Sep. or Widowed 19.6 21.5 5.6 43.9 9.3 ‘ 79. I enjoy going through an art gallery. Single 25.3 49.3 10.7 12.0 2.7 O 0681 NS Divorced, Sep. or Widowed 18.5 52.8 13.9 12.0 2.8 ‘ 3 26. I enjoy going to concerts. 2 5 . . Single 8.7 0.7 6.0 11.3 3.3 2gpifigliitgn Divorced, Sep. or Widowed 15.9 41.1 17.8 17.8 7.5 °'2232 5 55. I enjoy listening to classical music. Single 24.7 41.3 14.0 14.7 5.3 0 0615 NS Divorced. Sep. or Widowed 18.5 43.5 13.0 19.4 5.6 ' 47. I try to keep abreast of changes in styles and fashion. 4 Single _ 14.0 42.0 16.7 22.0 5.3 0 0785 NS r hion Divorced. Sep. or Widowed 13.0 38.9 13.0 30.6 4.6 ' Conziiousness l4. Dressing fashionably is an important part of my life. Sin le 8.7 40.7 18.7 22.7 9.3 Divgrced. Sep. or Widowed 13.0 33.3 15.7 33.3 4.6 0'0596 ”5 50. I go to church regularly. Single 14.0 15.3 7.3 36.7 26.7 0 0381 NS Divorced, Sep. or Widowed 10.2 22.2 6.5 36.1 25.0 ' 45. I pray several times a week. 5 Single 18.7 18.7 8.0 27.3 27.3 0 1159 NS Religiosity . Divorced, Sep. or Widowed 20.4 26.9 7.4 29.6 15.7 ' 33. Spiritual values are more important than material things. Single 21.5 41.6 25.5 10.1 1.3 O 0618 NS Divorced, Sep. or Widowed 26.9 33.3 22.2 15.7 1.9 ' $1918 TABLE 5-17.-—Continued. Factor No. Level of Agreement K-S and Name Statement SA A u D so Stat. 519' (8) (8) (8) (8) (8) 68. I usually watch for ads for announcements of sales. Single 6.0 38.3 12.8 34.9 8.1 0 0948 NS Divorced, Sep. or Widowed 11.3 42.5 6.6 34.9 4.7 ' 11. I shop a lot for specials. Single 14.7 30.7 15.3 34.7 4.7 O 0887 NS 6 Divorced, Sep. or Widowed 18.7 35.5 7.5 31.8 6.5 ' Price 78. When I find a coupon in the Consciousness Engi'shogéiggft and redeem Sin 1e 5.3 29.3 10.7 40.7 14.0 Divgrced, Sep. or Widowed 11_1 36.1 12_o 33,3 7,4 0'1393 NS 65. I usually look for the lowest prices when I shop. Singles 8.1 4l.6 14.8 31.5 4.0 0 0584 NS Divorced, Sep. or Widowed 13.9 38.9 16.7 30.6 0.0 ° 36. A vacation should not be hectic but quiet and relaxing. Single 16.8 42.3 18.1 20.1 2.7 Vacazion Divorced, Sep. or Widowed 21.3 52.8 13.0 12.0 0.9 °'15°1 "5 Style 4. On a vacation, I just want to rest and relax. Singles 17. 29.5 10.1 36.2 6.7 0 0672 NS Divorced, Sep. or Widowed 23.1 30.6 7.4 32.4 6.5 ' 82. I enjoy most forms of housework. Single 0.7 23.3 15.3 40.7 20.0 0 0748 NS Divorced, Sep. or Widowed 3.7 27.8 13.0 42.6 13.0 ' 8 76. I must admit I really do not Housekeeping like housekeeping chores. Interest Single . 21.3 36.0 12.0 24.7 6.0 O 0744 NS Divorced, Sep. or Widowed 13. 36.1 13.9 34.3 1.9 ' 22. My idea of housekeeping is "once over lightly." Single 10.7 31.3 4.7 40.0 13.3 0 1515 NS Divorced. Sep. or Widowed 3.7 23.1 10.2 42.6 20.4 ' 43. I usually like to wait and see how other people like new brands before I try them. Single 1.3 18.0 30.0 38.7 12.0 Inforiation Divorced. Sep. or Widowed 2.8 22.2 16.7 45.4 13.0 °°°767 ”3 Seeking 61. I often seek out the advice of my friends regarding which brands to buy. Single 4.0 26.7 17.3 40.0 12.0 0 1281 NS Divorced, Sep. or Widowed 2.8 20.4 12.0 53.7 11.1 ' 64. I like to go camping. Single 16.7 36.0 9.3 24.7 13. 0 0652 NS Divorced, Sep. or Widowed 20.4 36.1 12.0 22.2 9.3 ' 10 42. I love fresh air and the Appreciation outdoors. of the Single 58.0 36.0 2.0 3.3 0.7 O 1819 8 Outdoors Divorced, Sep. or Widowed 39.8 53.7 1.9 4.6 0.0 ' 49. A cabin by a quiet lake is a great place to spend the summer. Single 19.3 42.0 20.0 14.0 4.7 0 0844 NS Divorced, Sep. or Widowed 27.8 38.9 10. 20.4 2.8 ° 81. I usually read the sports page in the daily paper. Single 13.3 29.3 5.3 36.0 16.0 spgits .Divorced. Sep. or Widowed 6.5 29.6 7.4 36.1 20.4 0'0685 "5 Interest 73. I like to watch or to listen to baseball or football games. Single 19.5 ‘003 6.7 16.1 17.“ o 0650 NS Divorced, Sep. or Widowed 13.0 44.4 7.4 21.3 13.9 ' aNot statistically significant at p < 0.10. b Statistically significant at p < 0.10. Factor No. .1599 Graphed Mean Scores and Name Statement SA A u D so (1) (2) (3) (4) (S) 48. I think I have more self Sin le 1 confidence than most people. _ _ _ Divg Se or S 1f 1. I have a lot of energy. w.dé; d p. C e t 20. I like to take chances. _. 1 e oncep 60. I think I have a lot of personal ability. 8. I buy things with a credit card or a charge card. ; 3. It is good to have charge 2 accounts. Credit Use 32. I like to pay cash for everything I buy. 12. To buy anything, other than a house or a car on credit, is unwise. 3 79. I enjoy going through an A reciatio art gallery. :pth Art n 26. I enjoy going to concerts. 0 e s 55. I enjoy listening to classical music. ‘ 47. I try to keep abreast of Fashio changes in styles and fashion. C i n s 14. Dressing fashionably is an onsc ousne 5 important part of my life. 5 50. I go to church regularly. . . . 45. I pray several times a week. Religiosity 33. Spiritual values are more important than material things. 68. I usually watch for ads for announcements of sales. 6 11. I shop a lot for specials. Price 78. When I find a coupon in the Consciousness pipegépgigéip it and redeem it 65. I usually look for the lowest prices when I shop. 7 36. A vacation should not be hectic . but quiet and relaxing. ngaiéon 4. On a vacation, I just want to y rest and relax. 82. I enjoy most forms of housework. 8 76. I must admit I really do not Housekeeping like housekeeping chores. Interest 22. My idea of housekeeping is “once over lightly." 43. I usually like to wait and see : 9 how other people like new . brands before I try them. Inézzmzfiion 61. I often seek out the advice of 1 9 my friends regarding which a brands I buy. ,./ 10 64. I like to go camping. ’ Appreciation 42. gutgzgriresh air and the ‘ Ozidgggs 49. A cabin by a quiet lake is a great place to spend the summer. '~ 11 81. I usually read the sports page ‘VK;~_ Sports in the daily paper. ’3' Interest 73. I like to watch or to listen to a( baseball or football games. Pigure 5-6.--Life Style Comparison Between Selected Demographic Segments: Harried) vs. Divorced, Separated or Widowed Householders. Single (Never- 200 with respect to five AIOs, but no subhypotheses were rejected. Subhypothesis H6-2 (Credit Use) was classified as indeterminate. Significant differences were observed in rela- tion to "It is good to have charge accounts" (64.0% of never—marrieds and 45.4% of divorced, separated, or widowed householders agreed) and "To buy anything, other than a house or car on credit, is unwise" (22.6% of never-marrieds and 51.1% of the other group agreed). No significant differences were recorded in response to "I buy things with a credit card or charge card" and "I like to pay cash for everything I buy." Never-married respondents seemed to be more positive about credit than were divorced, separated, or widowed people. This finding makes sense in light of the fact that most of the former were less than 35 years of age, while the latter were 35 and older (see Table 5—9). Since older groups are normally more conservative about debt and credit compared to younger ones (3), it is not unreasonable that the never-married respondents, being younger, would be less cautious. These findings are not unique to singles living alone, as was discussed earlier. Significant differences between never-married and those divorced, separated, or widowed were found in the responses to "I like to take chances," "I enjoy going 201 to concerts," and "I love fresh air and the outdoors," component variables of the life style factors Self— Concept, Appreciation of the Arts, and Appreciation of the Outdoors, respectively. With respect to "I like to take chances," 52% of the never-marrieds and 29.9% of divorced, separated, or widowed respondents agreed. The latter group seemed to be less willing to take risks. This could be due to the fact that most of these respondents were 35 years of age or older, while most never—married were less than 35 (see Table 5-9). The older group would be more likely to be cautious and conservative and, therefore, less likely to agree to "I like to take chances." In terms of "I enjoy going to concerts," 79.4% of the never-marrieds and 57.0% of those divorced, separated, or widowed agreed. The age difference between the two groups could explain the responses. Of particular importance is the fact that not only were most divorced, separated, or widowed respondents 35 years old or older, but also a large segment (38.8%) was 55 years of age or older (see Table 5-9). This age profile does not match that of the typical concert goer, who is more likely to be younger. With respect to "I love fresh air and the out- doors," 58% of the never-marrieds and 39.8% of those divorced, separated, or widowed strongly agreed. The 202 greater outdoor orientation of never-marrieds could be related to the fact that they were considerably younger than the other group (see Table 5-9). This inverse relationship between age and outdoor orientation is supported in the literature. Older groups, in general, are less active in outdoor recreation (10, 31); older homemakers, in particular, are less outdoor oriented (62). Major Hypothesis H7 There is no significant difference between single (l-person) householders who are divorced or separated and those who are widowed with respect to life style profiles. This major hypothesis is broken down into Subhypotheses H7-l through H7-ll There is no significant difference between single (l-person) householders who are divorced or separated and those who are widowed with respect to: . Self-Concept; . Credit Use; . Appreciation of the Arts; Fashion Consciousness; . Religiosity; . Price Consciousness; . Vacation Style; .' Housekeeping Interest; . Information Seeking; 10. Appreciation of the Outdoors; and 11. Sports Interest. \DmflONU'l-bUJNI-J Most divorced or separated respondents were younger than 45 years, earned $15,000 or more, rented their living quarters, had some college or postgraduate education, and held professional (or technical) or 203 managerial (or administrative) jobs. Most widowed respondents were 65 years old or older, earned less than $15,000, owned their own living quarters, had less than or only a high school education, and were retired (50%) (see Table 5-10). The numerous demographic differences were not paralleled by a high degree of life style heterogeneity between these two groups. In fact, significant life style differences appeared in relation to only five of the thirty-two AIOs as is shown in Table 5-18. No subhypothesis was rejected at p < 0.10. Subhypothesis H7-l (Self-Concept) was classified as indeterminate. Significant differences were found in relation to two of the four component variables of Self-Concept. "I have a lot of energy" was strongly agreed with by 28.9% of divorced or separated respondents and none of the widowed group. In response to "I like to take chances," 34.9% of the former and 12.5% of the latter agreed. No significant differences were recorded in relation to "I think I have more self—confidence than most people" and "I think I have a lot of personal ability." The higher level of agreement with "I have a lot of energy" exhibited by those divorced or separated could be explained by the fact that the majority was younger than the majority of widowed respondents (see TABLE 5-18.--Life Style Comparison Between Selected 2()4 Separated vs. Widowed Householders. Demographic Segments: Divorced or Factor No. Level of Agreement and Name Statement SA A u D so Stat. 519' (1) (8) (8) (t) (8) 48. I think I have more self confidence than most people. Divorced or Separated 22.6 38.1 26.2 10.7 2.4 0 2321 NSa Widowed 8.3 29.2 37.5 25.0 0.0 ' l. I have a lot of energy. Divorced or Separated 28.9 47.0 8.4 10.8 4.8 0 2892 Sb 1 Widowed 0.0 70.8 4.2 16.7 8.3 ' Self 20. I like to take chances. Concept Divorced or Separated 6.0 28.9 22.9 34.9 7.2 0 2866 S Widowed 0.0 12.5 16.7 50.0 20.8 ' 60. I think I have a lot of personal ability. Divorced or Separated 28 6 61.9 6 0 2.4 1.2 Widowed 12 5 58.3 29 2 0.0 0.0 0'19“ us 8. I buy things with a credit card or charge card. Divorced or Separated 7.1 48.8 4.8 15.5 23 8 0 1071 NS Widowed 4.2 41.7 4 2 25.0 25 0 ' 3. It is good to have charge accounts. Divorced or Separated 15 5 22.1 15 5 17 9 l 0 2 Widowed 29 2 16 33 3 12.5 0'10” “5 Credit Use 32. i isse to pay cash for everything Divorced or Separated 19.0 35.7 13.1 29.8 2.4 O 1012 NS Widowed 29.2 33.3 0.0 37.5 0.0 ' 12. To buy anything, other than a house or a car on credit, is unwise. Divorced or Separated l9 3 l3 3 6.0 49.4 12.0 0 3830 S Widowed 20 8 50 0 4.2 25.0 0 O ‘ 79. I enjoy going through an art gallery. Divorced or Separated 20.2 54.8 13 l 9 5 2.4 0 1667 NS Widowed 12 5 45 8 16.7 20 8 4.2 ' 3 26. I enjoy going to concereg. . . Divorced or Separate 16 9 44.6 19.3 12 0 7 2 39:21:32“ Widowed 12 s 29 2 12.5 37 s e 3 °'2656 "5 55. I enjoy listening to classical music. Divorced or Separated l6 7 47.6 13.1 16.7 6 O 0 1071 NS Widowed 25 O 29.2 12.5 29 2 4 2 ' 47. I try to keep abreast of changes in styles and fashion. Divorced or Separated 13 l 41 7 13.1 29 8 Fashfion widowed _ _ 12 s 29 2 12.5 33 3 12 5 °'1369 "5 Consciousness 14. DreSSing fashionably is an important part of my life. Divorced or Separated 14.3 29.8 16.7 35 7 3.6 0 1012 NS Widowed 8 3 45.8 12 5 25 0 8.3 ' 50. I go to church regularly. Divorced or Separated 9.5 19.0 3.6 41.7 26.2 0 3036 S Widowed 12.5 33.3 16.7 16.7 20.8 ' 45. I pray several times a week. 5 Divorced or Separated 19.0 25.0 4.8 34.5 16.7 0 2619 NS Religiosity Widowed 25.0 33.3 16.7 12.5 12.5 ' 33. Spiritual values are more important than material things. Divorced or Separated 26.2 32.1 22.6 16 7 2.4 0 0833 NS Widowed 29 2 37 5 20.8 12 5 0.0 ' 2(35 TABLE 5- l 8.--Continued . Factor No. Level of Agreement and Name Statement SA A u D so Stat. 519' (8) (8) (8) (8) (8) 68. I usually watch for ads for announcements of sales. Divorced or Separated 12.2 40.2 7.3 34.1 6.1 widowed 8.3 50.0 4.2 37.5 0.0 0'0610 "5 11. I shop a lot for specials. Divorced or Separated 22.9 34.9 6.0 27.7 8.4 0 1872 NS 6 Widowed 4.2 37.5 12.5 45.8 0.0 ° Price 78. When I find a coupon in the Consciousness paper, I clip it and redeem it at shopping. Divorced or Separated 11.9 36.9 10.7 33.3 7.1 0 0714 NS Widowed 8.3 33.3 16.7 33.3 8.3 ’ 65. I usually look for the lowest prices when I shop. Divorced or Separated 15.5 39.3 15.5 29.8 0.0 widowed 8.3 37.5 20.8 33.3 0.0 ° °893 "5 36. A vacation should not be hectic but quiet and relaxing. Divorced or Separated 17.9 51.2 15.5 14.3 1.2 VacaZion widowed ' 33.3 53.3 4.2 4.2 0.0 °°2262 "5 Style 4. On a vacation, I just want to rest and relax. Divorced or Separated 23. 28.6 4.8 34.5 8.3 0 1786 NS Widowed 20.8 37.5 16.7 25.0 0.0 ' 82. I enjoy most forms of housework. Divorced or Separated 3.6 29.8 14.3 39.3 13.1 0 1429 NS Widowed 4.2 20.8 8.3 54.2 12.5 ' 8 76. I must admit I really do not like . housekeeping chores. “°§:::::::“9 Divorced or Separated 11.9 35.7 13.1 38.1 1.2 o 1429 N5 Widowed 20.8 37.5 16.7 20.8 4.2 ' 22. My idea of housekeeping is "once over lightly." Divorced or Separated 4.8 17.9 7.1 48.8 21.4 0 3274 S Widowed 0.0 41.7 20.8 20.8 16. ' 43. I usually like to wait and see how other people like new brands before I try them. Divorced or Separated 1.2 21.4 15.5 47.6 14.3 9 . widowed 8.3 25.0 20.8 37.5 8.3 0'1607 "5 Information 61. I often seek out the advice of see ’“9 my friends regarding which brands to buy. Divorced or Separated 2.4 19.0 11.9 56.0 10.7 0 0833 NS Widowed 4.2 25.0 12.5 45.8 12.5 ’ 64. I like to go camping. Divorced or Separated 25.0 36.9 10.7 19. 8.3 o 2440 NS Widowed 4. 33.3 16.7 33.3 12.5 ' 10 42. I love fresh air and the Appreciation outdoors. of the Divorced or Separated 44.0 50.0 2.4 3.6 0.0 0 1905 NS Outdoors Widowed 25.0 66.7 0.0 8.3 0.0 ' 49. A cabin by a quiet lake is a great place to spend the summer. Divorced or Separated 26.2 40.5 11.9 17.9 3.6 0 0774 NS Widowed 33.3 33.3 4. 29.2 0.0 ‘ 81. I usually read the sports page in the daily paper' 6 o 26 2 e 3 40 s 19 o Divorced or Separated . . . . . spéits widowed ' 8.3 41.7 4.2 20.8 25.0 0'1786 "5 Interest 73. I liPe to watch or to listen to baseball or football games. Divorced or Separated 14.3 45.2 7.1 21.4 11.9 0 0952 NS Widowed 8.3 41.7 8.3 20.8 20.8 ' aNot statistically significant at p < 0.10. bStatistically significant at p < 0.10. Factor No. 206 Graphed Mean Scores and Name Statement 8A A U D SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 48. I think I have more self Div. or Sep. 1 confidence than most people. - - - Widowed S 1f 1. I have a lot of energy. C e t 20. I like to take chances. ‘ —._:~ oncep 60. I think I have a lot of - ” personal ability. 8. I buy things with a credit card or a charge card. 9 2 3. It is good to have charge ' . accounts. Credit Use 32. I like to pay cash for everything I buy. 12. To buy anything, other than a house or a car on credit, is unwise. \ 79. I enjoy going through an \ 3 art gallery. \\ Appreciation 26. I enjoy going to concerts. \, of the Arts 55. I enjoy listening to ,r’ classical music. K 4 47. I try to keep abreast of Fashion changes in styles and fashion. Consciousness l4. Dressing fashionably is an important part of my life. 5 50. I go to church regularly. Reli iosit 45. I pray several times a week. 9 y 33. Spiritual values are more important than material things. 68. I usually watch for ads for announcements of sales. 6 11. I shop a lot for specials. Price 78. When I find a coupon in the Consciousness paper, I clip it and redeem it at shopping. 65. I usually look for the lowest prices when I shop. 7 36. A vacation should not be hectic . but quiet and relaxing. Vggatéon 4. On a vacation, I just want to 3 rest and relax. 8 82. I enjoy most forms of housework. . 76. I must admit I really do not Hogiiggzging like housekeeping chores. 22. My idea of housekeeping is "once over lightly.” 43. I usually like to wait and see 9 how other people like new . brands before I try them. Inéggmiiion 61. I often seek out the advice of 9 my friends regarding which brands I buy. 10 64. I like to go camping. Appreciation 42. I love fresh air and the of the outdoors. . . 49. A cabin by a quiet lake is a Outdoors great place to spend the summer. 11 81. I usually read the sports page Sports in the daily paper. Interest 73. I like to watch or to listen to baseball or football games. Figure 5-7.--Life Style Comparison Between Selected Demographic Segments: Separated vs. Widowed Householders. Divorced or 207 Table 5-10). In relation to "I like to take chances," those divorced or separated seemed to enjoy taking risks more than widowed respondents. The higher degree of risk aversion exhibited by the latter could be explained by their greater age. Older people, as discussed earlier, are generally more conservative (45:93), particularly in relation to financial matters (3). Significant differences were also recorded between the responses of both segments to this state- ment: "To buy anything, other than a house or car on credit, is unwise" (32.6% of divorced or separated and 70.8% of widowed respondents agreed). "I go to church regularly" elicited agreement from 28.5% of divorced or separated and 46.8% of widowed respondents. In response to "My idea of housekeeping is once over lightly" agreement was expressed by 22.7% of divorced or separated and 41.7% of widowed respondents. The more negative attitude toward credit exhibited by widowed vis—a-vis divorced or separated respondents could be explained by the fact that the former were somewhat older than the latter (see Table 5-10). Old age has been associated with conservative attitudes in general (45:93) and with caution and fear of indebtedness in financial matters (3). Widowed householders were also more religious than were divorced or separated respondents, as indicated 208 by their responses to "I go to church regularly." This religiosity could be explained by their age, since the literature empirically confirms the strong direct relationship between people's age and their attitudes toward relgion (80). A greater proportion of widowed as opposed to divorced or separated respondents agreed with "My idea of housekeeping is once over lightly," despite the fact that the former group was older than the latter. This result contradicts empirical findings that older people, particularly women, tolerate housekeeping chores, although they do not like them (130, 76). A possible explanation could lie in the fact that the sample of widowed respondents was predominantly male whereas the empirical findings mentioned above were based on studies of women. The male dislike for housekeeping chores has been documented (41). Summary of testing of hypotheses.--The hypotheses were stated in a null form. The rejection of a null hypothesis implies that its alternative formulation is supported by the data and, in this case, that a signif- icant difference has been found between the segments. The acceptance of a null hypothesis means that the data do not support the existence of differences between selected segments. 209 Tables 5-19 through 5-25 summarize the results of the life style comparisons between selected pairs of demographic segments of single (l-person) householders. The comparison of single (l-person) male and single (l-person) female householders, as shown in Table 5-19, resulted in the rejection of subhypothesis Hl-ll (Sports Interest) and in the indeterminacy of Hl-4 (Fashion Consciousness). All other subhypotheses were accepted at p < 0.10. TabLaS-ZO relates to single (l-person) house- holders 18-24 years old and those 25-34 years old. All subhypotheses were accepted but one. Subhypothesis H2-4 (Fashion Consciousness) was classified as indeterminate. Life style data on single (l-person) house- holders 18-34 years old and 35 years old and older led to the acceptance of nine subhypotheses, as is shown in Table 5-21. Subhypotheses H3—5 (Religiosity) and H3-lO (Appreciation of the Outdoors) were rejected; and H3-4 (Fashion Consciousness) was classified as indeterminate. Table 5-22 shows the results of life style comparisons between the responses given by singles living alone aged 18-34 and those 65 years old and older. The data led to the rejection of subhypotheses H4-2 (Credit Use), H4-5 (Religiosity), and H4-10 210 TABLE 5-l9.--Results of Testing of Hypothesis Hl. Hypothesis Result Hl: There is no significant difference between male and female single (l-person) householders with respect to life style profiles. More specifically, Hl There is no significant through difference between male and 11: female single (l-person) householders with respect to: l. Self-Concept; Accept 2. Credit Use; Accept 3. igpgeCiation of the Accept 4. Fashion Consciousness; Indeterminate 5. Religiosity; Accept 6. Price Consciousness; Accept 7. Vacation Style; Accept 8. Housekeeping Interest; Accept 9. Information Seeking; Accept lO. Apprec1ation of the Accept Outdoors; and 11. Sports Interest. Reject 211 TABLE 5-20.--Results of Testing of Hypothesis H2. Hypothesis Result H2: There is no significant difference between single (l-person) house— holders aged 18 to 24 and 25 to 34 with respect to life style profiles. More specifically, H2-l There is no significant through difference between single 11: (l-person) householders aged 18 to 24 and 25 to 34 with respect to: l. Self-Concept; Accept 2. Credit Use; Accept 3. ippgeCiation of the Accept 4. Fashion Consciousness; Indeterminate 5. Religiosity; Accept 6. Price Consciousness; Accept 7. Vacation Style; Accept 8. Housekeeping Interest; Accept 9. Information Seeking; Accept 10. Appreciation of the Outdoors; and Accept 11. Sports Interest. Accept 212 TABLE 5-21.--Results of Testing of Hypothesis H3. Hypothesis Result H3: There is no significant difference between single (l-person) house- holders aged 18 to 34 and those 35 years old and older with respect to life style profiles. More specifically, H3-l There is no significant through difference between single 11: (l-person) householders aged 18 to 34 and those 35 years old and older with respect to: l. Self-Concept; Accept 2. Credit Use; Accept 3. Appreciation of the Arts; Accept 4. Fashion Consciousness; Indeterminate 5. Religiosity; Reject 6. Price Consciousness; Accept 7. Vacation Style; Accept 8. Housekeeping Interest; Accept 9. Information Seeking; Accept lO. Ap reciation of the . OuEdoors; and Reject 11. Sports Interest. Accept 213 TABLE 5-22.--Results of Testing of Hypothesis H4. Hypothesis Result H4: There is no significant difference between single (l-person) house- holders aged 18 to 34 and those 65 years old and older with respect to life style profiles. More specifically, H4-l There is no significant through difference between single ll: (l-person) householders aged 18 to 34 and those 65 years old and older with respect to: l. Self-Concept; Indeterminate 2. Credit Use; Reject 3. ippgec1ation of the Accept 4. Fashion Consciousness; Accept 5. Religiosity; Reject 6. Price Consciousness; Accept 7. Vacation Style; Accept 8. Housekeeping Interest; Accept 9. Information Seeking; Indeterminate lO. Appreciation of the Re'ect Outdoors; and 3 11. Sports Interest. Accept 214 (Appreciation of the Outdoors), and to the indeterminacy of subhypotheses H4-l (Self-Concept) and H4-9 (Informa- tion Seeking). Results of the comparison between single (l-person) householders 25-34 years old and those 35 years old and older show the rejection of subhypotheses HS-S (Religiosity) and HS-lO (Appreciation of the Out- doors). Subhypothesis H5-2 (Credit Use) was classified as indeterminate at p < 0.10, as shown in Table 5-23. Table 5-24 summarizes the results for never- married householders and those divorced, separated, or widowed. All but one of the 11 subhypotheses were accepted. Subhypothesis H6-2 (Credit Use) was classified as indeterminate. Finally, life style differences were sought between these householders divorced or separated as compared to those widowed. As Table 5-25 shows, all but one of the eleven subhypotheses were accepted. Subhypothesis H7-l (Self-Concept) was classified as indeterminate. Summary The demographic characteristics of sample respondents did not reflect those of single (l-person) householders in the Lansing SMSA and the United States. 215 TABLE 2-23.--Results of Testing of Hypothesis H5. Hypothesis Result H5: There is no significant difference between single (l-person) house- holders aged 25 to 34 and those 35 years old and older with respect to life style profiles. More specifically, H5-1 There is no significant through difference between single 11: (l-person) householders aged 25 to 34 and those 35 years old and older with respect to: l. Self-Concept; Accept 2. Credit Use; Indeterminate 3. Appreciation of the Arts; Accept 4. Fashion Consciousness; Accept 5. Religiosity; Reject 6. Price Consciousness; Accept 7. Vacation Style; Accept 8. Housekeeping Interest; Accept 9. Information Seeking; Accept 10. A reciation of the . Ofigdoors; and Reject 11. Sports Interest. Accept 216 TABLE 5-24.--Results of Testing of Hypothesis H6. Hypothesis Result H6: There is no significant difference between single (l-person) house- holders who never married and those who are divorced, separated or widowed with respect to life style profiles. More specifically, H6-l There is no significant through difference between single 11: (l-person) householders who never married and those who are divorced, separated or widowed with respect to: 1. Self-Concept; Accept 2. Credit Use; Indeterminate 3. AppreCiation of the Accept Arts; 4. Fashion Consciousness; Accept 5. Religiosity; Accept 6. Price Consciousness; Accept 7. Vacation Style; Accept 8. Housekeeping Interest; Accept 9. Information Seeking; Accept lO. Appreciation of the Outdoors; and Accept 11. Sports Interest. Accept 217 TABLE 5-25.--Results of Testing of Hypothesis H7. Hypothesis Result H7: There is no significant difference between single (l-person) house- holders who are divorced or separated and those who are widowed with respect to life style profiles. More specifically, H7-l There is no significant through difference between single 11: (l-person) householders who are divorced or separated and those who are widowed with respect to: l. Self-Concept; Indeterminate 2. Credit Use; Accept 3. Appreciation of the Arts; Accept 4. Fashion Consciousness; Accept 5. Religiosity; Accept 6. Price Consciousness; Accept 7. Vacation Style; Accept 8. Housekeeping Interest; Accept 9. Information Seeking; Accept 10. A reciation of the Ofiidoors; and Accept 11. Sports Interest. Accept 218 Factor analysis identified eleven life style factors underlying the sample responses to the eighty- five AIO statements. These were: Self-Concept, Credit Use, Appreciation of the Arts, Fashion Consciousness; Religiosity, Price Consciousness, Vacation Style, Housekeeping Interest, Information Seeking, Appreciation of the Outdoors, and Sports Interest. These factors were comprised of a minimum of two component AIOs or variables, and a maximum of four. Thirty-two AIOs out of the eighty-five were identified. Despite the demographic differences observed across the selected pairings of segments of single (leperson) householders in the Greater Lansing Metro- politan Area, few significant differences were recorded with respect to life style factors. Males were dif- ferentiated from females by Sports Interest. Those aged l8-34 were differentiated from those 35 years old and older by Religiosity and Appreciation of the Out- doors, which also differentiated 25-34 year olds from those 35 years old and older. The 18-34 segment was differentiated from those 65 years old and older by Religiosity, Appreciation of the Outdoors and Credit Use. No significant factor differences were found between 18-24 year olds and 25-34 year olds; between single (never-married) and divorced, separated or 219 widowed householders; and between divorced or separated and widowed respondents. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Introduction This chapter summarizes the study, draws con- clusions from the major findings, and discusses the implications for both marketing theory and practice. It also investigates areas in the single (l-person) household market, life style research, and market segmentation that warrant further research. Summary of the Study The primary objective of this study was to determine whether life style homogeneity exists within the single (l-person) household market. That market was chosen for several reasons. First, single (l-person) households grew more than any other type between 1950 and 1978. During that time, the number of households in general increased by 74.5%, single (l-person) households by 322.7% (see Chapter II, Table 2-7). Second, the living alone phenomenon seems to be affecting society at large. Some of its effects may be positive; the trend may help in the revitalization of inner cities (75), and in the reduction of discrimination against 220 221 singles in general, and singles living alone in particular (99). Less desirable aspects of the living alone trend may include the weakening of the family as the dominant living arrangement (99) and reduction of opportunities for people to learn how to function as group members (75, 99). Third, living alone is affect- ing the life styles of people in general as well as the way single (l-person) householders buy and consume goods and services. Industries such as housing (20, 26), appliances (60), automotive (26), food (97), and travel (26, 136) are feeling the impact of this new market segment. Some are responding to the challenge and developing products especially designed for single (l-person) householders (20, 25, 91, 97). Homogeneity (the lack of differences) is important to both marketing theory and practice. Theoretically, the determination of whether or not a market is homogeneous is invaluable to the implementa- tion of the marketing concept. It is also indispensable to identifying target markets (45:165). Whether or not a market is homogeneous helps define the type of market- ing strategy to follow, market segmentation or product differentiation (45:165-166). From a practical stand- point, industries are developing new products to serve the singles market, yet little information is available on the degree of homogeneity prevailing among singles in 222 general, and among singles living alone, in particular. The studies of singles have been either demographic in nature (79:55) or oriented toward a specific life style dimension, such as buying style (98). Information about singles living alone is even more scarce. Other than census-based data (see Chapter V, Table 5-1), the literature reveals that only one other study of single (l-person) householders has been done. It was commis- sioned by the American Can Corporation and compared one-person and two-person households. It dealt only briefly with life style profiles (41). The rationale for selecting life style as the segmentation approach here rests, first, with the nature of the phenomenon being described. The litera- ture review (see Chapter II) indicates that living alone is directly affecting how American consumers spend their time, energy, and money, in short, their life styles. Second, life style research is effective in describing existing market segments (ll, 13, 28, 30, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 52, 55, 68, 77, 101, 120, 127), developing segmentation variables or criteria (15, 22, 63, 125), and identifying new market segments (9, 6, 18, 23, 61, 62, 78, 123, 132, 139). Moreover, it has proved both reliable and of predictive validity (103). Finally, life style research has been found superior to 223 demographic, personality, and socioeconomic variables in explaining and predicting market behavior (32, 63, 121, 120). To determine whether life style homogeneity exists within the single (l-person) household market, a study of such householders in the Greater Lansing, Michigan, Metropolitan Area was undertaken. Work was divided into three phases. First, a demographic comparison was made between sample respondents and single (l-person) householders in the Lansing SMSA and the United States to determine the representativeness of the sample. Second, life style factors were identified among the respondents. Third, selected demographic segments of single (l-person) householders were compared on the basis of the life style factors iden- tified in the second phase. The study used seven census-based demographic categories (sex, age, marital status, income, home tenure, education and occupation) and eighty-five statements on activities, interests, and opinions (AIOs). From among the subcategories of sex, age, and marital status, eleven segments were selected and arranged into seven pairings: males versus females; 18-24 year olds versus 25-34 year olds; 18-34 year olds versus those 35 years old and older; 18-34 year olds versus those 65 years old and older; 25-34 year olds 224 versus those 35 years old and older; single (never- married) versus divorced, separated, or widowed house- holders; and divorced or separated versus widowed householders (see Chapter IV). The AIO statements were used to generate the life style factors, which in turn served as the criteria for comparing the segments. A mail questionnaire containing seven demo- graphic questions and eighty-five AIOs was then sent to a sample of 1,500 people, systematically selected from a list of 10,000 names of singles living alone in the Greater Lansing Metropolitan Area. The list was purchased from R. L. Polk & Co. Data collection lasted from 18 November 1978 through 31 December 1978, and a response rate of 26.8% was obtained. Summary of the Findings The first and second phases of the study involved determination of the representativeness of the sample vis—a-vis the population at large and the generation of the life style factors. The third phase tested the seven major hypotheses concerning life style homogeneity within the market of singles living alone. 225 Demographic Comparison of Sample Respondents and Single (l-Person) House- holders in the Lansing SMSA and the United States The demographic characteristics of sample respondents did not reflect those of Lansing SMSA single (l-person) householders nor those of single (l-person) householders in the U.S. population at large. Most respondents in the study were male, under 35 years of age, single (had never married), earned $10,000 or more, rented their living quarters, were highly educated (51.9% had a college degree or postgraduate work), and held jobs either of a professional (or technical) or managerial (or administrative) nature. This profile was quite different from that of comparable Lansing SMSA single (l-person) householders in 1970. The majority of these were female, 35 years old or older, divorced, separated, or widowed (the widowed group alone accounted for 43.6% of the total), earned less than $10,000, were evenly distributed in terms of home tenure, were mostly noncollege educated (66.4% had either less than or only a high school education), and held jobs other than professional (or technical) or managerial (or administra- tive) ones. These differences should be interpreted with caution in light of the possible demographic changes that may have taken place among Lansing SMSA single (l-person) householders since 1970. 226 The demographic profile of sample respondents also differed from that of U.S. single (l-person) householders in 1978. These were mostly female, older than 35 (57.1% were 55 years old or older), divorced, separated, or widowed, and earned less than $10,000 a year (71.8% were in this income category). The majority rented the homes they lived in, had little education (most never went beyond high school), and held jobs other than professional (or technical) or managerial (or administrative) ones. As did most U.S. single (l-person) householders, most sample respondents rented their living quarters. Since the sample's demographic profile does not reflect characteristics of single (l-person) householders in the Lansing, Michigan SMSA or the United States, no finding of this study should be uncritically generalized to singles living alone other than those participants of the sample studied. Identification of Life Style Factors Among Single (l—Person) Householders Eleven life style factors were identified from the battery of eighty-five AIOs. They were labeled Self-Concept, Credit Use, Appreciation of the Arts, Fashion Consciousness, Religiosity, Price Consciousness, Vacation Style, Housekeeping Interest, Information 227 Seeking, Appreciation of the Outdoors, and Sports Interest. These factors combined explained 46.1% of the variance in the data set. Factors were comprised of a minimum of two component variables and a maximum of four. Thirty-two statements or variables,out of the total of eighty-five, were identified. Some of these life style factors have been identified and/or used in other marketing and life style studies (29, 36, 62, 68, 70, 71, 76, 98, 103, 104, 120, 118, 124, 140). Some have appeared in more than one study, particularly those of empirically tested reliability, such as Fashion Consciousness, Housekeeping Interest, Price Consciousness, Sports Interest, and Appreciation of the Arts (103, 132). Life Style Differentiation of Selected Demographic Segments of Single (l-Person) Householders After demographically profiling each pairing, they were differentiated according to life style. This was performed by means of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov, two- sample, two-tailed test. The results obtained for the seven major hypotheses of the study (see Chapters I and V) are reported below. Males versus females.--Most single (l-person) male householders were younger than 35 years, had 228 never married, earned $15,000 or more (23.1% earned $25,000 or more), had one to three years of college or more, rented their own living quarters, and held profes- sional (or technical) or managerial (or administrative) jobs. The female profile was similar except for income. The majority earned less than $15,000, and only 5.8% earned $25,000 or more. Given this demographic similarity, it was not surprising that life style comparison of single (l-person) male and female householders revealed few statistically significant differences. One such dif- ference was in relation to Sports Interest. Life style factor Fashion Consciousness was classified as indeter- minate (significant life style difference was recorded in relation to only one of the two component variables of this factor). Males exhibited a higher degree of Sports Interest than did females, but this does not seem to be unique to single (l-person) householders; research indicates that males in general respond strongly to sports (71). Thus, the differences between the sexes in the sample are to be expected (35, 65). Similarly, the higher level of agreement in the responses of females to "I try to keep abreast of changes in styles and fashion" did not seem to be unique to single (l-person) 229 householders. Females in general tend to be more fashion conscious than are males (98, 124). 18-24 year olds versus 25-34 year olds.-- Demographically, 18-24 year olds and 25-34 year olds were quite similar. In both segments, most respondents were single (had never married), earned between $10,000 and $24,999, rented their living quarters, and had one to three years of college or more. Differences were observed in relation to sex and occupation. While the younger segment was mostly female and held nonprofes- sional or nonmanagerial jobs, the older group was mostly male and held professional (or technical) or managerial (or administrative) jobs. Paralleling this demographic homogeneity, a high degree of life style similarity was recorded between the responses of 18-24 year olds and 25-34 year olds. No significant differences were found in relation to ten of the life style factors. Fashion Consciousness was clas- sified as indeterminate. A significant life style difference was recorded with respect to one of the two component variables of Fashion Consciousness: "I try to keep abreast of changes in styles and fashion." Agreeing with the statement were 83.3% of the 18-24 year olds and 53.2% of the 25-34 year olds. The concern for fashion observed among younger respondents could be 230 explained, first, by the fact that younger females have been found to have a greater interest in fashion compared to older ones (43). Second, in this study the 18-24 year old group was predominantly female, and most of the 25-34 year olds were male (see Table 5-5). Since females have previously been found to exhibit greater concern for fashion (98, 124), it is not unreasonable to expect the same type of attitude from single (l-person) female householders. 18-34 year olds versus those 35 years old and 91dg£.--In both segments, most respondents were male, had one to three years of college or more, and held professional (or technical) or managerial (or administra- tive) jobs. Differences between the two groups were recorded with respect to marital status, income, and home tenure. The majority of the 18-34 year olds were single (had never married), earned less than $15,000, and rented their living quarters. Most of those 35 years old and older were divorced, separated, or widowed, earned $15,000 or more, and owned their own living quarters. The high degree of demographic heterogeneity between these segments was roughly paralleled in the life style comparison. There were significant differ- ences between the two segments with respect to Religiosflar 231 (the older group was more positive toward religion than was the younger one) and Appreciation of the Outdoors (the older segment was more negative than the younger). No clear-cut difference was recorded in relation to Fashion Consciousness (a significant difference was recorded for only one of the two component variables of this factor). The high degree of Religiosity exhibited by those 35 years old and older could be explained by the fact that people in general tend to become more reli- gious as they age (36, 80). The low degree of Appreciation of the Outdoors exhibited by the older segment found support in the literature, which indicated that older people's interest and participation in outdoor activities are lower than among younger groups (31, 10). There was a higher level of agreement among 18-34 year olds than among those 35 years old and older with the statement that "Dressing fashionably is an important part of my life." This could be explained by the inverse relationship apparently prevailing between people's age and their concern for fashion (130, 43). 18-34 year olds versus those 65 years old and older.-—The majority of the 18-34 year olds had never married, earned $10,000 or more, rented their living 232 quarters, had one to three years of college or more, and held professional (or technical) or managerial (or administrative) jobs. In contrast, most of those aged 65 and older were widowed, earned less than $10,000, owned their own living quarters, had less than or only a high school education, and were retired. No marked difference was noted in relation to sex. These discrepant demographic profiles were paralleled by significant life style differences. Significant differences between the two segments were recorded in relation to Credit Use (the older group was more cautious), Religiosity (the older group was more positive about religion), and Appreciation of the Out- doors (the older group was more negative). Self-Concept and Information Seeking were classified as indeterminate. Significant differences were found between the responses of both segments to two of the four component variables of the former and to one of the two component variables of the latter. With respect to Credit Use, the more cautious attitude exhibited by those 65 years old and older was neither unexpected nor unique to single (l-person) householders; as people age, they seem to become more conservative (45:93) and more cautious about indebtedness and use of credit in general (3:314). 233 The inverse relationship between age and religion attested to in the literature (80:411, 36:217- 229) seems to explain the older segment's more positive attitudes toward Religiosity as compared to the younger group. The significant differences between the responses of both segments to the component variables of Apprecia- tion of the Outdoors, that is, the lack of interest of those 65 years old and older in the outdoors, seems to match the findings in the literature (62, 31). With respect to Self—Concept, those 65 years old and older indicated a lower level of agreement than did 18-34 year olds with "I have a lot of energy" and "I like to take chances." These response patterns were expected in light of the fact that people's level of energy tends to dwindle with age, and their aversion to risk also increases with their growing conservatism (3). With respect to Information Seeking, those 65 years old and older indicated a higher level of agree- ment than the 18-34 year olds with "I usually like to wait and see how other people like new brands before I try them." This cautious attitude may reflect the conservatism of older groups (45:93) and does not seem to be unique to senior singles living alone. 234 25-34 year olds versus those 35 years old and 91de£.--Similar to the results of the demographic comparison between 18-34 year olds and those 35 years old and older, no marked differences were found between the profiles of the 25-34 year olds and those 35 years old and older in relation to sex, education, and occupa- tion. In each segment, most respondents were male, had one to three years of college or more, and held profes- sional (or technical) or managerial (or administrative) jobs. Differences were found in relation to marital status, income, and home tenure. Most 25-34 year olds had never married, earned less than $15,000, and rented their living quarters, whereas most of those 35 years old and older either were divorced, separated, or widowed, earned $15,000 or more, and owned their own living quarters. Paralleling these differences in demographic profiles, significant life style differences were observed in relation to Religiosity and Appreciation of the Outdoors. Credit Use was classified as indeterminate. The fact that the older segment indicated a more positive attitude toward Religiosity than did the younger group could be explained by the fact that people in general tend to become more religious as they age (80:411). 235 The older group was less appreciative of the outdoors than was the younger one. Such a response difference did not seem unique to singles living alone. Other studies have found the same type of relationship between people's age and their attitudes toward the outdoors (62, 10, 31). Significant differences were also found in relation to two of the four component variables of Credit Use. The older segment exhibited a lower level of agreement with "I buy things with a credit card or charge card" and a higher level of agreement with "To buy anything, other than a house or car on credit, is unwise," than did the younger segment. The age dif- ference between the two groups, and the fact that older people tend to be more conservative and less positive about credit than are the young (3:27), could explain the more negative attitude toward credit exhibited by those 65 years old and older. Single (never-married) versus divorced, separated or widowed householders.--Only one clear-cut demographic difference emerged from the comparison of single (never-married) and divorced, separated, or widowed householders. In terms of age, most of the former were under 35, and most of the latter were 35 years old or older. With respect to the other categories, 236 most never marrieds were male, earned between $10,000 and $24,999, rented their living quarters, had one to three years of college or more, and held professional (or technical) or managerial (or administrative) jobs. The divorced, separated, or widowed segment was made up of an almost even number of males and females, with virtually equal percentages renting and owning their living quarters, and with equal percentages holding professional (or technical) or managerial (or administra- tive) and nonprofessional or nonmanagerial jobs. The majority in this group had one to three years of college or more (the percentage that had less than or only a high school education was 38% compared to 11.4% for the never-married segment). Fifty percent of the divorced, separated, or widowed and 61.1% of the never-married respondents earned between $10,000 and $24,999. These similar demographic profiles were paralleled by only a few life style differences. The only life style factor for which significant differences were recorded in response to more than one variable was Credit Use. Never-marrieds exhibited a higher level of agreement with "It is good to have charge accounts" than did divorced, separated, or widowed people, and a lower level of agreement with respect to "To buy any- thing, other than a house or a car on credit, is unwiseJ' This pattern was not unexpected in light of the fact that 237 never-married respondents were younger than the divorced, separated, or widowed ones. Positive atti- tudes toward credit seem to be more closely related to younger than to older groups (3). Divorced or separated versus widowed house- holders.--Large numbers of demographic differences existed between divorced or separated and widowed respondents. The former were evenly divided between males and females. Most were 35 years of age or older, earned $15,000 or more, rented their livng quarters, had one to three years of college or more, and held professional (or technical) or managerial (or administrative) jobs. In contrast, the widowed group was predominantly male, 65 years old or older, earned under $15,000, owned their living quarters, and had less than or only a high school education. Half were retired and only 33.4% had any kind of professional (or technical) or managerial (or administrative) job. The numerous demographic differences were not paralleled by numerous life style differences. Self- Concept was classified as indeterminate (significant differences were found in relation to two of the four component variables of the factor). Significant dif- ferences were found in relation to "I have a lot of energy" and "I like to take chances." Divorced or 238 separated householders exhibited a higher level of agreement with both of these statements than did widowed ones. The responses were not unexpected in light of the fact that most of the divorced or separated group was younger than the majority of the widowed respondents. Being younger, divorced or separated respondents would be expected to respond more positively to the statement about energy. They would also be expected to respond more positively to the statement about risk. Younger groups in general tend to be less conservative and less cautious than are older ones, particularly concerning financial matters (3). Conclusions Four major conclusions can be drawn from the findings of the study. First, a high degree of life style homogeneity exists within the single (l—person) household market. Few significant differences in life style factors were found across the selected pairings of demographic segments of single (l-person) householders living in the Greater Lansing Metropolitan Area. Males were dif- ferentiated from females by Sports Interest, one life style factor out of the eleven studied. Those aged 18-34 were differentiated from those 35 years old and older by Religiosity and Appreciation of the Outdoors, 239 which also differentiated 25-34 year olds from those 35 years old and older. The 18-34 group was differen- tiated from those 65 years old and older by Religiosity, Appreciation of the Outdoors, and Credit Use. No significant factor differences were found between 18-24 year olds and 25-34 year olds; between single (never- married) and divorced, separated, or widowed house- holders; and between divorced or separated and widowed respondents. In short, despite the demographic dif- ferences between the pairings selected, and the dif— ferent rates of growth experienced by each segment in the recent past (see Chapter II), a high degree of life style similarity seemed to characterize singles living alone. Second, any life style differences noted did not seem to be unique to the sample; they were either common to people in general or to different segments of the population at large. The findings support the results of other studies which indicate that males can be expected to respond more strongly to sports than do females (35, 65, 71), and that older as compared to younger groups are less positive about the use of credit and the outdoors and more positive about religion (36, 80, 10, 31, 3). In short, sample respondents seemed to exhibit attitudes similar to those of people in general and not to hold views unique to this segment. 240 Third, a strong parallelism was observed between demographic and life style homogeneity among some of the pairings of demographic segments used. The findings seem to indicate that the larger the number of demo- graphic differences between any two demographic segments, the larger the number of life style factors found significantly different between the same two segments. For example, a high degree of demographic similarity was recorded between 18—24 year olds and 25-34 year olds, and no significant differences in life style factors were found between the two segments. In contrast, a large number of demographic differences were found between l8-34 year olds and those 65 years old and older, and there was a relatively large number of significant life style factor differences between the two. This parallelism seems to indicate some degree of dependence between demographic and life style character- istics across some of the segment pairings analyzed. This dependence issue is far from resolved in the marketing literature (120, 128), but its resolution is of utmost importance to life style research. The dis- covery of a strong dependence relationship could result in a commitment to demographic segmentation to the detriment of life style research, for it could be argued that life style profiles can be "implied" from demo- graphic profiles. Since a dependence relationship has 241 been merely suggested in this study, and since the literature is not positive about the existence of such a relationship (see Chapter II), it is only reasonable to say that life style research is still a viable approach to market segmentation. Even if future research confirms the existence of such a dependent relationship, life style research is likely to remain an effective tool for market segmentation, given its unique ability to enrich existing segment profiles (4, 54, 66, 68, 69, 81, 101, 104, 127). Fourth, life style research proved useful in this study as a segmentation tool because it provided the factors or dimensions based on which the eleven demographic segments of single (l-person) householders were compared. They reflected unique life style characteristics not easily reproducible from any other type of data, let alone demographic ones. These factors had been previously identified and used in other studies (29, 36, 62, 68, 70, 71, 76, 98, 103, 104, 120, 123, 130, 124). Five had been found reliable (103, 132). These facts not only illustrate the ability of life style research to develop segmentation variables but also point to the possibility of developing a battery of all-purpose life style factors to be used in future life style segmentation studies. Such a development 242 could mark an important step in building the theoretical foundation that life style research still lacks (7, 61, 133). Implications for Marketing Theory The major contribution of this study to market- ing theory is descriptive in nature. The study gathered and generated information on one of the most fascinating market and demographic phenomena of the past quarter century, the emergence of living alone, about which little research has been done. The findings and conclusions about the level of life style homogeneity prevailing among sample respondents may encourage studies that will investigate other facets of this same market phenomenon, such as the relationship between single (l-person) householders' life style character- istics and their market behavior. This study has applied life style research to the analysis of singles living alone. It investigated the development of new market segmentation criteria using the selected AIO battery and factor analysis. The completion of this research effort adds to the evidence supporting life style research as a useful approach to market segmentation. Finally, this study has illustrated the use of life style research as an approach capable of describing 243 existing market segments. Despite the fact that few significant life style differences were observed between selected demographic segments of single (l-person) householders, there is no question that these differences, if confirmed in future research, may ultimately contribute to a better understanding of the workings of the marketplace. Implications for Marketing Practice Marketing practitioners may benefit from this study by using the data gathered to identify target markets and formulate appropriate marketing mixes. The data led to the conclusion that single (l—person) householders were homogeneous with respect to life style. The marketing practitioner could use this information on homogeneity as a preliminary step in formulating the final marketing strategy. The apparent life style homogeneity detected should prevent the pursuit of an all-out market segmentation effort. The second major implication concerns the useful— ness of life style research in market segmentation. Life style research was found to be effective in develop- ing new market segmentation criteria. The approach seems capable of determining the underlying factors or dimen- sions implicit in people's activities, interests, and opinions. These factors could be used for target 244 marketing, product and/or service positioning, and the development of promotional schemes specifically catering to almost any subsegment of singles living alone. Life style research was also used to describe existing demographic segments comprising different demographic subcategories of sex, age, and marital status. This application of life style research illustrated that this approach could help the marketing practitioner add meat to the bones of demographic analysis. Finally, a word of caution is due. The informa- tion gathered in this study on single (l-person) householders and on life style research and segmentation should be used as a complement to, not as a substitute for, other data. The information gathered was hardly exhaustive, and the limitations (see Chapter I) are such that no one should uncritically apply the conclusions to marketing decision making. Suggested Areas for Further Research Many questions were left unanswered by this study. Some did not receive much attention because they were tangential to the issues. Others were raised during the execution of the study. The first issue involves the descriptive and exploratory nature of the study. It did not focus on 245 any predictive measurement of the living alone pheno- menon. A study of single (l-person) householders that emphasized prediction would flesh out the descriptive analysis and could be of benefit to those involved in selecting marketing strategy. The study was limited to single (l-person) householders residing in the Greater Lansing Metropoli- tan Area. A study of singles living alone throughout the United States would help make the conclusions more generalizable to single (l-person) householders in the population at large. In addition, a study could be undertaken comparing single (l-person) householders and two-person householders. This could enrich a marketing analyst's understanding of the two most important living arrange- ments in existence today, with obvious implications for marketing planning, targeting, and product positioning. The demographic segments used in this study could be approached differently. First, other segments besides the subcategories of sex, age, and marital status such as segments based on income, education and occupation differences could be used. Second, special efforts could be devoted to determining the nature of the relationship prevailing among the various demo- graphic segments. Third, a stronger case could be made for the comparative analysis of the subcategories of 246 sex, age, and marital status with other variables such as income and education. These additions would undoubtedly make the study more meaningful. With respect to life style research as an approach to market segmentation, several issues of importance to marketing remain unresolved. First, a totally different approach to measuring life style, such as product usage, could be used. Along with or in lieu of AIDS, product usage measurements could be developed. They might possibly help close the gap between what is known empirically and theoretically about the actual market behavior of single (l-person) householders. With respect to the battery of A105 used in this study, an enlargement of the present research effort could yield the benefits associated with using a larger number of statements. Such a study would offer the advantage of a broader coverage of diverse life style dimensions of single (l-person) householders. In addition, it would have the potential of generating more reliable life style factors. A reliability test could be undertaken to determine whether identified life style factors would remain stable over time, space, and methodology. This was not done here. Such a study would definitely help marketing practitioners in devising strategies aimed at serving future market segments. 247 The implementation of all these research sugges- tions could enhance both academicians' and practitioners' knowledge about single (l-person) householders. They could also advance the application of life style research in market analysis. APPENDICES 248 APPENDIX A LETTER OF INTRODUCTION 249 2550 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY DRAIN. All 5( HOOI 0} Bl Sl\r55 Al)\II\ISIRAIIO\ PASI IA\5I\(.; ' .\I|( III(.A\ ° N20 l)ll'\Rl\ll\l 0} “AR!“ Il\(. A\l) IHA\\)’( )H I -\ | |(')\ AI)\II\IS l RA I |0\ November l8, l978 Dear Single Householder: My doctoral dissertation focuses on single (1-person) households. It seeks to develop a demographic and life style profile of this fast growing segment of our population, contributing thereby to a better understanding of the marketplace. As a single householder, residing within the boundaries of the Greater Lansing Metro Area, you have been selected to participate in this project. Your cooperation is most important to the completion of this study, and you may rest assured that all the information you may send in will remain strictly confidential. The aggregate nature of the study assures that no participating individual will ever be identified. Please, take a few minutes of your time to complete the enclosed questionnaire and send it back to me as soon as conveniently possible in the pre-stamped envelope. If you have any questions regarding the survey, please call me at the University: 353-6381. I shall be more than happy to answer them. Once again, your cooperation is highly appreciated. Sincerely yours, :1FIU‘19hI-Jfiunsilfiutiinl“£ Jose Valentim Sartarelli "Zito" Doctoral Candidate JVS/dcs Enclosure APPENDIX B FOLLOW-UP CARD 251 252 Dear Single Householder: A short time ago I mailed to you a questionnaire about life style and demographics. Since that time many of the question- naires have been returned. If you have already completed yours, I thank you for your help and consideration. But if you have not yet responded could you please do so at your earliest convenience? Your answers are vital to the con- tinuation and completion of my research. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to call me at the University: 353-6381. I greatly appreciate your cooperation. Sincerely, I . MM Jose Valentim Sartarelli Doctoral Candidate APPENDIX C QUESTIONNAIRE 253 2554 SurveyiQuestionnaire PART A: LIFE STYLE STATEMENTS The following pages contain a series of statements on subjects such as credit, price, snapping, vacationing, etc.. There are no right or wrong answers to any of the questions. Please try to answer them as honestly as possible making certain that all questions are answered. Mark with an (X) the response that best expresses your general feeling about each statement according to the following scales: l. Strongly Agree (SA) 4. Disagree (D) 2. Agree (A) 5. Strongly Disagree 3. Uncertain (U) SA A (I) (2) l. I have a lot of energy ................... B L] 2. I like to work on community projects ............ E] [:3 3. It is good Uihave charge accounts .............. [:1 [:2 4. On a vacation, I just want to rest and relax ........ [:1 [:3 5. Everything is changing too fast today ............ [:3 [:3 6. I am a homebody ....................... E I: 7. My greatest achievements are still ahead of me ....... [:3 [:2 8. I buy things with a credit card or charge card ....... Z [Z 9. There is too much emphasis on sex today ........... :Z: {Z} l0. I admire a successful businessman more than I admire a successful artist ...................... II] [:3 ll. I shop a lot for specials .................. :Z} 2:] l2. To buy anything, other than a house or a car on credit, is unwise ........................... l3. I exercise regularly .................... l4. Dressing fashionably is an important part of my life. . . . l5. I am an active member of more than one service organization. UKHHJULHJ UDDDUUW I6. I do more things socially than most of my friends ..... I7. I spend a lot of time talking with my friends about products. l8. I have a good deal of respect for tradition ........ 19. No matter how fast my income goes up I never seem to get ahead ........................... :1 C] 20. I like to take chances ................... [:1 [:3 2l. I am a good cook ...................... [3 [:1 22. My idea of housekeeping is "once over lightly." ...... [j I: 23. I would like to spend a year in London or Paris ...... [:1 [:3 (SD) u D so (3) (4) (5) HJMHHMJEWIHHHHUUDUD UDUDD (III FHIIIFNIIIFIEHII UHHHHHH IIIJIUIIIJ D g l-|I]I]LJI]I'JI] DU UDDUD UUUUUDD 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 4}. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. SI. 52. 53. 54. 255 I read a newspaper everyday ................ I go bowling often ..................... I enjoy going to concerts .................. Meal preparation should take as little time as possible. . . I often try new brands before my friends and neighbors do. . I am or have been the president of a society or club . . . I enjoy fixing up and repairing old things ......... You get what you pay for most of the time .......... I like to pay cash for everything I buy ........... Spiritual values are more important than material things . . I like to feel attractive to members of the Opposite sex . . I would feel lost if I were alone in a foreign country . . . A vacation should not be hectic but quiet and relaxing . . . I sometimes bet at the races ................ Good grooming is a sign of self-respect ........... I have gone on a strict diet to control my weight one or more times ......................... I do volunteer work for a hospital or service organization on a regular basis .................... I try to buy things that represent a good value for my money .......................... I love fresh air and the outdoors ............ I usually like to wait and see how other people like new brands before I try them .................. I try to wash dishes promptly after each meal ....... I pray several times a week ................ I wish I had a lot more money . . . .......... I try to keep abreast of changes in styles and fashion. . . I think I have more self-confidence than most people. . . . A cabin by a quiet lake is a great place to spend the summer ........................... I go to church regularly ................. Magazines are more interesting than TV ........... I could not get along without canned food ....... I would like to take a trip around the world. ....... A woman's place is in the home ..... . ...... SA (1) (2) (3) UHUDUUDDUDDDDDD rjrimnmnmuflmnmnumun HI? UV UDUUDUI HMHIYWWKWWIWH HUHD a.- A - - TWH U UHDHUUUUUUUUDUH [JD UDEJU HU UH HUUHUU THU ITIWIII D (4) UUULWMHMMJUULWHHJ HHHHHHHUUDDDUUD 3D UUHHHH "DI UHHHUHIWJ HI (5 V H H IUUHH 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. I keep away from unfamiliar brands ............. [Z] I dislike any changes or interference with established ways of doing things .................... [:1 TV is my primary source of entertainment .......... [Z] I seldom buy things on impulse ............... [Z] I think I have a lot of personal ability .......... [Z] I often seek out the advice of my friends regarding which brand to buy ....................... I get great satisfaction from experimenting with new spices. [Z1 I am in favor of very strict enforcement of laws ..... [Z] I like to go camping ................... C] I usually look for the lowest prices when I shop ...... L_1 I like to be considered a leader .............. [Z] I visit with friends in their homes a great deal ...... [Z] I usually watch for ads for announcements of sales ..... [Z] When I must choose between the two, I usually dress for fashion not comfort .................... I I I cians for repair around the house/apartment ....... :_J I I novelty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 I I I When I find a coupon in the paper, I clip it and redeem it __Z at shopping ......................... I HHHH I When in the store, I often buy an item on the spur of the moment ....................... . . . 2556 SA A U 0 SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) I enjoy listening to classical music ............ D [:l D D [:1 u_. think the women's liberation movement is a good thing . . [Z3 want to look a little different from others ....... [ZZ always use professional plumbers, carpenters or electri- like to watch or listen to baseball or football games . . i like to change brands often for the sake of variety and 00 000 00000000 0000 0 D ID DDD DLIIgIDLJDDD DDDD D E D DDDDDDLID DDDD D D DD DDD DDDDDDDD D D 1 DD D DDDD generally go out to dinner at least once a week ..... must admit I really do not like housekeeping chores . . . sometimes influence what my friends buy ......... enjoy going through an art gallery ............ always shop where it saves me time ............ enjoy most forms of housework .............. like to try new and different things ........... enjoy eating fine foods and frequently do ........ [Z3 I '_l 1:} usually read the sports page in the daily paper ..... [Z] 100 001: IIJLTIDDDD D DI: D D D Ll LJLJ L] Ll LIL D I . ~. DDDDE 0 I: D D DDC ID DDD DD 257 PART B: DEMOGRAPHIC DATA The next set of questions is of a demographic nature. Please answer them by marking with an (X) in the category representative of your demographic status. 86. Sex Male L: l Female [: 2 87. Age Under l8 1: 1 35-44 I: 5 l8-l9 : 2 45-54 E 6 20-24 g 3 55—64 I: 7 25-34 ;_| 4 65 and over [Z 8 88. Marital status Single [Z] l Separated {:1 Divorced [Z] 2 Widowed [Z] 89. Income Less than 54,999 E 1 $10,000-$14,999 E 5 Sacco-$5,999 I: 2 $15,000-$24,999 1: 6 $6,000-$6,999 I: 3 $25,000-$49,999 C 7 $7,000-$9,999 [Z] 4 $50,000 and over [Z: 8 90. Home tenure Own 1:] l Rent :| 2 9l. Educational attainment Less than eighth grade [Z] l l-3 years of college [Z: 5 Eighth grade [Z] 2 College graduate [Z] 6 l-3 years of high school [Z] 3 Some graduate training [Z] 7 High school ZZ] 4 Postgraduate degree [Z] 8 92. Occupation Professional or technical [Z] 1 Service worker [Z] 8 Manager or administrator (excluding farm managers) [Z] 2 Farmer or farm manager Z—I 9 Sales worker [Z] 3 Farm laborer or farm Clerical Worker [Z] 4 foreman D 10 Craftsman or kindred worker [Z] 5 Student [:3 1] Operative D 6 Retired [3 l2 Non-farm laborer E] 7 Unemployed g 13 Other L_] 14 Thank you for your patience and kind cooperation. Please use the enclosed envelope in returning the survey to me. REFERENCES 258 10. REFERENCES "Americans Change." Business Week, February 20, 1978, pp. 64-69. Andreasen, Alan R. "Leisure Mobility and Life Style Pattern." AMA Winter Conference Proceed- ings. Chicago, Ill.: AMA, 1967, pp. 55-62. Bartels, Robert. Credit Management. New York, N.Y.: The Ronald Press Co., 1967. Behavior Science Corporation, Developing the Family Travel Market. Des Moines, Iowa: Better Homes and Gardens, 1972. Berkwitt, George, "Bachelor Executives--the Bold New Minority." Duns 98 (December l97l):45. Bernstein, Peter W. "Psychographics is Still an Issue on Madison Avenue." Fortune 97 (January l978):78-84. Bettman, James R.; Kassarjian, Harold H.; and Lutz, Richard J. "Consumer Behavior." In Gerald Zaltman and Thomas V. Bonoma (eds.), Review of Marketing. 1978. Chicago, Ill.: AMA, 1978, pp. 197-198. Blair, William S. "Life Style: Key to Buying Behavior." Marketing Times 23 (May/June 1976): lO-13. Bryant, Barbara E. "Atlanta Life Style Study." Presentation made at the Graduate School of Business, Michigan State University, May, 1978. Buse, Reuben C., and Enosh, Nava. "Youth Experi- ence: Effect on Participation in Recreational Activities." Land Economics 53 (November 1977): 468-482. 259 11. 12. l3. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 260 Bushman, F. Anthony. "Market Segmentation via Attitudes and Life Styles." In Fred C. Allvine, ed., AMA Combined Proceedings. Chicago, Ill.: AMA, 1972, pp. 594-599. "Business Market for Singles on Increase in Under-35 Age Group." Commerce Today 2 (November 29, 1971): 24. Darden, W. R., and Perreault, William D., Jr. "A Multivariate Analysis of Media Exposure and Vacation Behavior with Life Style Covariates." Journal of Consumer Research 2 (September 1975): 93-103. Demby, E. "Demographic Study Reveals Differences in Buying Patterns." Marketing Insights 3 (1969): 6. . "Psychographics and From Whence it Came." In William D. Wells, ed., Life Style and Psycho- graphics. Chicago, Ill.: AMA, 1974, pp. 9-30. "Department Stores Redefine Their Place." Business Week, December 13, 1976, pp. 47-48. Dhalla, Nariman K., and Mahotoo, Winston H. "Expanding the Scope of Segmentation Research." Journal of Marketing 40 (April 1976):34-41. Douglas, Susan P., and Urban, Christine D. "Life Style Analysis to Profile Women in International Markets." Journal of Marketing 41 (July 1977): 46-54. Dubin, Robert. Theory Building. New York, N.Y.: The Free Press, 1969. Fisher, Robert Moore, and Graham, John W. "Housing Demand by One-Person Households." Land Economics 50 (May 1974):l63-168. Frank, Ronald E.; Massy, W. F.; and Wind, Yoran. Market SegmentaEicn. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972. Frank, Ronald E., and Strain, C. E. "A Segmenta- tion Research Design Using Consumer Products Data." Journal of MarketingZResearch 9 (November 197275385-390. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 261 Friedlander, Frank. "Emergent and Contemporary Styles--an Inter-Generational Issue." Human Relations 28 (May l975):329-347. "Future Size and Growth of the U.S. Population." Statement of Manuel D. Plotkin, Director, Bureau of the Census Before the U.S. House of Representatives, Select Committee on Population, May 23, 1978. "GM's Juggernaut-—Riding Over the Competition to Push Market Share Up and Up." Time, March 26, 1979, p. 64. "Going it Alone." Newsweek, September 4, 1978, pp. 76—-78. Gonzalez, Arturo F. "International Psychographics.‘ International Advertiser 10, No. 2 (1969):8-12. Good, Walter S. "Consumer Life Styles and Their Relationship to Market Behavior Regarding House— hold Furniture." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969. Green, Paul E., and Tull, Donald S. Research for Marketing Decision. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1978. Greeno, D. W., and Sommers, M. S. "Advertising Message Congruency and Life Style." Journal of Advertising 6 (Winter l977):29-32. Gum, Russel L., and Martin, William E. "Structure of Demand for Outdoor Recreation." Land Economics 53 (February 1977):44-55. Hasenjaeger, John T. "A Comparative Analysis of Selected Decision-Making Processes for Two Life Style Groups." In Fred C. Allvine, ed., AMA Combined Proceedings. Chicago, Ill.: AMA, 1972, p. 678. Hawes, D. K. "Uses of Attitudes Toward Consumers Credit as a Means of Financing Leisure Time Products and Pursuits." Research Paper #65, College of Commerce and Industry, University of Wyoming, 1975. 34. 35. /36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 262 ; Talarzyk, Wayne W.; and Blackwell, Roger D. "Female and Male Possession of Bank Credit Cards: A Psychographic-Demographic Profile." In Kenneth L. Berhardt, ed., AMA Educators' Conference Proceedings. Chicago, Ill.: AMA, 1977, pp. 87-93. Heinold, William D. "The Establishment of a Sports Spectator Typology Utilizing Q- Methodology." Master of Science thesis, The Pennsylvania State University, 1972. Homan, Glen; Cecil, Robert; and Wells, William D. "An Analysis of Movie-Goers by Life Style Segments." In Mary Jane Schlinger, ed., Advances in Consumer Research. Chicago, Ill.: Association for Consumer Research, 1975, pp. 217-229. "How Nestle Uses Psychographics." Media Decisions 8 (July 1973):68-7l. Hustad, T. P., and Pessemier, E. A. "Industry's Use of Life Style Analysis: Segmenting Consumer Market with Activity and Attitude Measures." In Fred C. Allvine, ed., AMA Combined Proceedings. Chicago, Ill.: AMA, 1972, pp. 296-301. , and . "The DevelOpment and Application of Psychographics, Life Style and Associated Activity and Attitude Measures." In William D. Wells, ed. Life Style and Psycho- graphics. Chicago, Ill.: AMA, 1974, pp. 33-70. "Is the Store Becoming Obsolete?" Time, November 27, 1978, p. 94. Kahn, Paul. "One and Two-Member Household Feeding Patterns." Food Product DevelOpment 10 (October 1976):24-30. Kanuk, Leslie, and Berenson, Conrad. "Mail Surveys and Response Rates: A Literature Review." Journal of Marketing Research 12 (November l975):440-453. Katz, E., and Lazarsfeld, P. F. Personal Influence. Glencoe: Free Press, 1955. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 263 Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York, N.Y.: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1973, p. 414. Kotler, Philip. MarketingyManagement: Analysis, Planning and Control. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972. LaBarbera, Priscilla Ann. "An Empirical Investiga- tion of Consumer Participants in Federal Trade Commission Consumer Protection Rule Making Procedures." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1976. Lawrence, Mary Wells. "Mary Wells Looks at Con- sumers in the Year 2000." Advertising Age 48 (August 1, 1977):39-42. Lazer, William. "Life Style Concepts and Marketingfl' In S. A. Greyser, ed., Toward Scientific Marketing. Chicago, Ill.: AMA, 1964, pp. 130- 139. . "The 1980's and Beyond: A Perspective." MSU Business Topics 25 (Spring l977):21-35. Levy, S. J. "Symbolism and Life Style." In S. Greyser, ed., Toward Scientific Marketing. Chicago, 111.: American Marketing Association, 1964, pp. 140-150. Linton, Anna, and Broadbent, Simon. "International Life Style Comparison--An Aid to Marketers." Advertising Quarterly (Summer 1975):15-18. McCullough, Charles D. "The Applicability of Consumer Life Style Variables in Identifying Department Store Markets." Ph.D. dissertation, Texas Tech University, 1974. Massey, Frank J., Jr. "The Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test for Goodness of Fit." Journal of the American Statistical Association 46 (March l951):68-78. May, Eleanor G. "Psychographics in Department Store Imagery." Working Paper P-65. Cambridge, Mass.: Marketing Science Institute, 1971. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 264 Michaels, Peter W. "Life Style and Magazine Exposure." In Boris W. Becker and Helmut Becker, eds., AMA Combined Proceedings. Chicago, Ill.: AMA, 1973, pp. 324-331. Myers, James H., and Gutman, Jonathan. "Life Style: The Essence of Social Class." In William D. Wells, ed., Life Style and Psycho- graphics. Chicago, Ill.: AMA, 1974, pp. 235- 256. Nemy, Enid. "Single Life Opens Doors for Widows." Chicago Tribune, 25 March 1979. Nie, Norman H., et a1. SPSS-—Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. New York, N.Y.: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1975. Norwood, Janet L. "New Approaches to Statistics on the Family." Monthly Labor Review 100 (July 1977):31-34. "One and Two Person Households." Special Report/ Trendex, 1977. Pernica, Joseph. "Psychographics: What Can be Wrong?" In R. Curhan, ed., AMA Combined Proceedings. Chicago: AMA, 1974, pp. 45-50. ; Teach, R.; and Tigert, D. J. The Consumer Behavior Research Project. West Lafayette, Indiana: Krannert Graduate School of Industrial Administration, Purdue University, 1965. Pessemier, E., and Tigert, D. J. "Personality, Activity, Attitude Predictors of Consumer Behavior." In J. Wright and J. Goldstucker, eds., New Ideas for Successful Marketing. Chicago, Ill.: AMA, 1966, pp. 332-347. Peterson, R. A., and Sharpe, L. K. "Market Segmentation, Usage Patterns and Psychographic Configuration." Journal of Business Research 1 (Summer l973):ll-20. Petrie, Brian Malcolm. "Physical Activity, Game Sports: A System of Classification and an Investigation of Social Influences Among Students of Michigan State University." Master of Science thesis, Michigan State University, 1970. 265 66. Plummer, Joseph T. "Learning About Consumers as Real People: The Application of Psychographic Data." Paper presented to the Montreal Chapter, AMA, November 1971. 67. . "Life Style and Advertising: Case Studies." In Fred C. Allvine, ed., AMA Combined Proceedings. Chicago, Ill.: AMA, 1972, pp. 290-295. 68. . "Life Style Patterns and Commercial Bank Credit Card Usage." Journal of Marketing 35 (April l971):35-41. 69. . "Life Style Patterns: New Constraint for Mass Communication Research." Journal of Broadcasting 16 (Winter 1971-1972):79-89. 70. . "Life Style, Social, and Economic Trends Influencing Consumer Satisfaction." In H. Keith Hunt, ed., MSI Conference Proceedings. Boston, Mass.: 1951, 1977, pp. 382-408. 71. . "Psychographics: What Can Go Right?" In Ronald C. Curham, ed., AMA Conference Proceedings. Chicago, Ill.: AMA, 1975, pp. 41- 44. 72. . "The Concept and Application of Life Style Segmentation." Journal of Marketing 38 (January 1974):33-37. 73. R. L. Polk & Co. Telephone and letter communica- tion, May 18, June 13 and November 20, 1978. 74. Pospisil, Vivian C. "Problems of Dual Career Marriages." Industry Week 191 (November 15, 1976). pp. 86-89. 75. Reinhold, Robert. "Trend to Living Alone Brings Economic and Social Changes." The New York Times, 20 March 1977. 76. Reynolds, F. D.; Crask, Melvin R.; and Wells, William D. "The Modern Feminine Life Style." Journal of Marketing 41 (July 1977):38-45. 77. , and Darden, W. R. "Intermarket Patronage: A Psychographic Study of Consumer Outshoppers." Journal of Marketing 36 (October 1972):SO-54. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 266 Richards, Elizabeth A., and Sturman, Stephen S. "Life Style Segmentation in Apparel Marketing." Journal of Marketing 41 (October 1977):81-91. "Rise of the Singles--4O Million Free Spenders." U.S. News and World Report 77 (October 7, 1974): 54-56. Rogers, Tommy. "Manifestations of Religiosity and the Aging Process." Religious Education 71 (July/August 1976):405-415. Roper, Elmo and Associates. Movers and Shakers. New York, N.Y.: Harper-Atlantic Sales, 1970. Rummel, R. J. Applied Factor Analysis. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press, 1970. Shabecoff, Philip. "A Fast-Aging Population." The New York Times, 30 July 1978, p. 17F. Sheth, Jadish N. "Demographics in Consumer Behavior." Journal of Business Research 5 (June l977):129-136. , and Tigert, Douglas J. "Factor Analysis in Marketing." In Jadish N. Sheth, ed., Multivariate Methods for Market and Survey Research. Chicago, Ill.: AMA, 1977, pp. 135- 157. Siegel, Sidney. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. New York, N.Y.: McGraw- Hill Book Co., Inc., 1956. "Singles are Settling Down." Detroit Free Press, 11 March 1978. "Singles Cry Tax Burden is Unfair." Detroit News, 11 March 1978. "Singles Trend Accelerates." Sales and Marketing Management 11 (March 8, 1978):8. SPSS--6000 Supplement. East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University Computer Laboratory, 1978. "Table for One, Please." Detroit Free Press, 19 April 1978. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 267 Target Group Index, Vol. D-3. New York, N.Y.: Axiom Market Research Bureau, Inc., 1976. Teuber, Conrad. "Changing Size of the American Family." In W. David Robbins, ed., AAA Proceedings. Chicago, Ill.: AMA, 1958, pp. 309-319. "The Economics of Being Single." Money 5 (July 1976):32-34. "The Future of the American Family." Statement of Paul E. Glick, Senior Demographer, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, before the Select Committee on Population, U.S. House of Representatives, May 23, 1978. "The Life Styles of English and French Canadian Women." Vickers & Benson Marketing Services Department, Toronto, Canada, 1972. "The Lower Birthrate Crimps the Baby-Food Market." Business Week, July 13, 1974, pp. 44-50. "The Swingin' Singles." Media Decisions 12 (June l977):59-103. "The Ways 'Singles' are Changing U.S." U.S. News and World Report 82 (January 31, l977):59-60. Thorman, George. "Cohabitation--A Report on the Married-Unmarried Life Style." Futurist 7 (December 1973):250-253. Tigert, D. J. "A Research Project in Creative Advertising Through Life Style Analysis." In C. King and D. J. Tigert, eds., Attitude Research Reaches New Heights. Chicago, Ill.: AMA, 1970, pp. 223-231. . "Life Style Analysis as a Basis for Media Selection." In William D. Wells, ed., Life Style and Psychographics. Chicago, Ill.: AMA, 1974, pp. 181-201. "Psychographics: A Test-Retest Reliability Analysis." In Philip R. McDonald, ed. AMA Fall Conference Proceedings. Chicago, Ill.: AMA, 1970, pp. 310-315. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 268 ; Lathrope, R.; and Bleeg, M. "The Fast Food Franchise: Psychographic and Demographic Segmentation Analysis." Journal of Retailigg 47 (Spring 1971):81-90. ; and Wells, William D. "Life Style Correlates of Age and Social Class." Paper presented at the First Annual Meeting of the Association for Consumer Research, Amherst, Mass., 1970. Tull, Donald S., and Hawkins, Del I. Marketing Research: Meaning, Measurement and Method. New York, N.Y.: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1976. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of Housing, 1970, "Block Statistics, Lansing, Michigan Urbanized Area." Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1971. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of Population, 1970, Lansing, Michigan SMSA, unpublished data, 1979. (Demographic data on Lansing SMSA single (l-person) house- holders were generated from Census tapes at Michigan State University Computer Center.) U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-ZO, #311. "Household and Family Characteristics: March 1976." Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, August 1977. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-ZO, #326. "Household and Family Characteristics: 1977." Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1978, pp. 157-160. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P—20, #313. "Households and Families by Type: March 1977 (Advance Report)." Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1977. ‘ 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 269 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-20, #327, "Households and Families by Type: March 1978" (Advance Report). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1978. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-20, #306. "Marital Status and Living Arrangements: March 1976." Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, January 1977. U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. Current Population Reports, Series P—ZO, #338, "Marital Status and Living Arrangements: March 1978" (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1978). U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-60, #117, "Money Income in 1977 of Households in the United States." Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1978, p. 45. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-23, #77, "Perspectives on American Husbands and Wives." Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1978. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-20, #324. "Population Profile of the United States: 1977." Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1978. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-ZO, #336, "Population Profile of the United States: 1978." Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the U.S.: 1978. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1978, p. 40. Villani, Kathryn E. A. "Personality/Life Style and Television Viewing Behavior." Journal of Marketing Research 7 (August 1975):432-439. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130. 131. 270 ; and Lehman, Donald R. "An Examination of the Stability of AIO Measures." In Edward M. Mazze, ed., AMA Combined Proceedings. Chicago, Ill.: AMA, 1975, pp. 484-488. Walter, C. K. "The Singles Pay More." The Journal of Consumer Affairs 8 (Winter 1974): 211-217. Weisenberger, Terry Matthew. "Generalized Market Segments: A Study Using Selected Convenience Goods in Vigo County, Indiana." Ph.D. disserta- tion, Michigan State University, 1977. Wells, William D. "It's a Wyeth, Not a Worhol World." Harvard Business Review 48 (January/ February 1970):26-32. "Life Style and Psychographics: Definitions, Uses and Problems." In William D. Wells, ed. Life Style and Psychographics. Chicago, 111.: American Marketing Association, 1974, pp. 317-363. . "Psychographics: A Critical Review." Journal of Marketing Research 12 (May 1975): 196-213. . "Segmentation by Attitude Type." In Robert L. King, ed., Marketingfiand the New Science of Planning. Chicago, Ill.: AMA, 1968, pp. 124-126. . "Seven Questions About Life Style and Psychographics." In Boris W. Becker and Helmut Becker, eds., AMA Combined Proceedings. Chicago, Ill.: AMA, 1973, pp. 462-465. , and Sheth, Jadish N. "Factor Analysis." In Robert Ferber, ed., Handbook of Marketing Research. New York, N.Y.: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1974, pp. 2-459 - 2-471. , and Tigert, D. J. "Activities, Interests and Opinions." Journal of Advertising Research 11 (August 1971):27-35. Wentz, Walter B. Marketing Research: Management and Methods. New York, N.Y.: Harper and Row Publishers, 1972. 132. 133. /134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 271 Wilson, Clark L. "Homemaker Living Patterns and Marketplace Behavior--a Psychometric Approach." In J. Wright and J. Goldstucker, eds., New Ideas for Successful Marketing. ChicagST—Ill.: AMA, 1966, pp. 305-331. Wind, Jerry. "Life Style Analysis: A New Approach." In Fred C. Allvine, ed. AMA Combined Proceedings. Chicago, Ill.: AMA, 1972, pp. 302-305. Yankelovich, E. "What New Life Styles Mean to Market Planners." Marketing Communication, June 1971, pp. 38-45. "Yesterday's Rebels Grow Up." U.S. News and World Report 84 (March 12, 19787338-46. "Young, Unmarried Adults Offer a Rich Travel Market." Public Relations Journal, August 1978, p. 34. Zaltman, Gerald, and Burger, Philip C. Marketing Research. Hinsdale, Ill.: The Dryden Press, 1975, p. 509. Ziff, Ruth. "Closing the Consumer-Advertising Gap Through Psychographics." In Boris W. Becker and Helmut Becker, eds., AMA Combined Proceedings. Chicago, Ill.: AMA, 1973, pp. 457-461. . "Psychographics for Market Segmenta- t10n.‘i Journal of Advertising Research 11 (April 1971):3-9. Zins, Michel A. "An Exploration of the Relation- ship Between General and Specific Psychographic Profiles." In Kenneth L. Berhardt, ed., AMA Educators' Conference Proceedings. Chicago, Ill.: AMA, I976, pp. 507-508. SELECTED B IBLIOGRAPHY 272 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 2| "America's New Elite." Time 12 (August 12, 1978):56-57. "Are Media Deciders Thinking Life Style." Media Decisions 9 (February 1974):62-65. Bellenger, Danny N., et a1. "Age and Education as Key Correlates of Store Selection for Female Shoppers." Journal of Retailing 52 (Winter 1976-1977):7l-78. Bruno, Albert V., and Pessemier, Edgar E. "An Empirical Investigation of the Validity of Selected Attitude and Activity Measures." In M. Venkatsen, ed., Conference Proceedings of the Association for Consumer Research. Chicago, Ill.: Association for Consumer Research, 1972, pp. 456-474. Bryant, Barbara E. "Respondent Selection in a Time of Changing Household Composition." Journal of Marketinijesearch 7 (May 1975):129-135. . "The Impact of Changing Life Styles on Survey Data Collection." In William Laconder, ed., 1976 AMA Business Conference Proceedings. Chicago, Ill.: AMA, 1977, pp. 50-55. Cochran, William G. "Some Methods for Strengthening the Common X2 Tests." Biometrics 10 (March 1954): 417-451. Conover, W. J. Practical Non-Parametric Statistics. New York, N.Y.: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1971. "Consumer Patterns Change with Sizable Shift to Single » Life Style." Commerce Today 4 (November 26, 1973):25. Darden, W. R., and D. Ashton. "Psychographic Profiles of Patronage Preference Groups." Journal of Retail- ing 50 (Winter l974-1975):99-112. 273 274 , and Perreault, Jr. "Identifying Interurban Shoppers--Multiproduce Purchase Patterns and Segmentation Profiles." Journal of Marketing Research 13 (February 1976):51-60. Fowles, Jib. "An Atomized Society in the 1980's." Futurist 11 (December 19-7):377-379. Frank, Ronald E. "Market Segmentation Research: Findings and Implications." In Frank Bass, C. King and E. Pessemier, eds., Applications of the Sciences in Marketing Management. New York, N.Y.: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1968, pp. 39-68. Good, Walter S., and Suchsland, Otto. "Consumer Life Styles and Their Relationship to Market Behavior Regarding Household Furniture." Research Bulletin #26, Michigan State Univer51ty, 1970. "Growing Number Shows Preference for Own Home." Commerce Today 3 (November 27, 1972):25. Haley, Russel I. "Benefit Segmentation: A Decision- Oriented Research Tool." Journal of Marketing 32 (July 1968):30-35. . "Beyond Benefit Segmentation." Journal of Advertising Research 11 (August l97l):3-8. Harman, Harry H. Modern Factor Analysis. Chicago, Ill.: The University of ChiEago Press, 1968. Harmelink, Phillip J., and Krause, Walter. "Reduction of Tax Discrimination Based on Filing Status--A Proposal." Taxes 55 (November l977):760-767. Hays, William L., and Wrinkler, Robert L. Statistics: Probability, Inference and Decisions. New York, N.Y.: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970. Heller, Harry E. "Defining Target Markets by Their Attitude Profiles." In Lee Adler and Irving Crespi, eds., Attitude Research on the Rocks. Chicago, Ill.: AMA 1968, pp. 45-47. Hollander, Mylas, and Wolfe, Douglas A. Non-Parametric Statistical Methods. New York, N.Y.: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1973. 275 Jacobs, Eva. "Changes in the Distribution of Consumer Spending." Monthly Labor Review 100 (September 1977):33-34. Jacobson, Dan. "Rejection of the Retiree Role--A Study of Female Industrial Workers in Their 50's." Human Relations 27 (May 1974):471-492. Karmin, Monroe W. "The Vanishing Tax Cut of 1979." Detroit Free Press, 23 October 1978, p. 1B. Kowal, Carroll. "Housing Needs of Single Persons--Will Federal Programs Meet Them." Journal of Housing, June 1976, p. 27. LaBarbera, Priscilla. Consumers and the Federal Trade Commission: An Empirical Investigation. East Lansing, Mich.: Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Michigan State University, 1977. Lazer, William, et a1. "Consumer Environments and Life Style of the 70's." MSU Business Topics 20 (Spring 1972):5-17. Linden, Fabian. "The Second Half of the Seventies." The Conference Board Record 2 (December 1975): 13-16. . "The Young Family." The Conference Board 12 (November l955):6l-64. . "Young Adults." The Conference Board 8 (April 1971):53-56. Lovell, M. R. C. "European Developments in Psycho- Graphics." In William D. Wells, ed., Life Style and Psychographics. Chicago, Ill.: AMA, 1974, pp. 267-276. Massey, Frank J., Jr. "The Distribution of the Maximum Deviation Between Two Sample Cumulative Step Functions." The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 22 (19513:125-128. "More Women Head U.S. Homes." U.S. News and World Report 57 (December 2, 1974). Ostrow, Joseph. "Marketing--Many Women Work, But Quite a Few of Them Have Very Short Hours." Media Decisions 12 (October l977):82-84. 276 Paul, Robert J. "Personality Analysis as a Predictor of Consumer Decision Patterns." Marquette Business Review 20 (Fall 1976):112—117. Plummer, Joseph T. "Consumer Focus on Cross-National Research." Journal of Advertising 6 (Spring l977):5-15. "Psychographics--is it Practical Now?" Media Decisions 10 (June 1975):70-71. Roberts, Steven V. "The Family Fascinates a Host of Students." The New York Times, 23 April 1978. Sanderson, George. "A New Work Style for the Life Style of the Seventies." Labour Gazette 73 (October 1973):651-658. Schulten, Friedhelm. "Amplified Life Style Approach- Concepts." European Research 4 (July 1976):143- 147. Sheth, Jadish N. "Multivariate Analysis in Marketing." Journal of Advertising Research 10 (February l970):29-39. "The New Life Style of the 70's Reorders Priorities." Business Management 41 (October 1971):27. Wallin, David E. "A Marketing Profile of the Senior Citizen Group." In L. Clewett, ed., AMA Proceedings. Chicago, Ill.: AMA, 1957, pp. 250- 261. Wind, Yoram, and Green, P. E. "Some Conceptual Measure- ment and Analytical Problems in Life Style Research." In William D. Wells, ed., Life Style and Psychographics. Chicago, Ill.: AMA, 1974, pp. 99-126. , et a1. "Higher Order Factor Analysis in the Classification of Psychographic Variables." Journal of the Market Research Society 15 TOctober 1973):225-231. Worcester, Robert M., ed. Consumer Market Research Handbook. Maidenhead, U.K.: McGraw-Hill Book Co., (UK), Limited, 1972.