anm-zs ABOUT GOLF; OPERATIONALIZING THE KERNAN AND § . : Thesis fd-r thefDegree of M. AT. - ‘MmHmAN STATEUNWERSHY. - DAN HENRY ZEMMERMAN' ' , 1974 - ‘ “‘9' ’ ‘* (”0%9‘94 amW“fi"** - .-... ' " WWW“WWW T L Jr, r 3129300 - ’i ur Accepted by the faculty of the Department of Advertising, College of Communication Arts, Michigan State University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Arts degree. @174 Director of Thesis SI a 800K BINDERY INC. LIBRARY BINDERS q iiiiiiiifijiéiil‘iii I i [E a. a a!“ g MSU RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to LJBRARJES remove this checkout from 13—! your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. qrp‘9'7l995. .ABSTRACT ATTITUDES ABOUT GOLF: OPERATIONALIZING THE KERNAN AND SOMMERS THEORY OF PROMOTION BY Dan Henry Zimmerman The current and well—documented outdoor recreation "boom" has presented marketers with both great opportunities and great risks; accurate demand—forecasting and long-range planning are more important than ever before. If the golf industry is to capitalize on oppor- tunities and avoid many potential pitfalls, a better under- standing of why people play golf is needed. This study attempted through the use of Q-technique to examine some of the reasons people have for playing the game. The study identified six factors or groups of persons who exhibited similar differences in ranking the statements of the Q-sort. They were: I. The Serious Scorekeeper. Factor I is exclusively concerned with playing and scoring. He believes a serious attitude is necessary to achieve golfing success, and has little patience with anyone who fails to share his earnest concern for performance. Dan Henry Zimmerman II. The Cheerful Companion. Factor II plays golf for fun and companionship. He likes to share his love for the outdoors with peOple who are not too serious about the game. The Cheerful Companion is sensitive to the impact golf can have on his interpersonal relationships with others. III. The Tough-Minded Traditionalist. Factor III cherishes the traditions of golf. He values the attributes --clothing and equipment--and a set of behaviors--golf etiquette and the rules of golf--which he associates with the role of "golfer." IV. The Nervous Novice. Factor IV is intimidated by crowds, better golfers, tough golf courses--in fact, by any competitive situation. He readily empathizes with the golfer who is having a bad round. The Nervous Novice is an emotional person who is delighted by each good shot, and yet dreads the next one. V. The Cool Competitor. Factor V believes the key to golfing success lies in the ability to control one's emotions. He consciously tries to maintain a calm, detached state of mind, whether he is playing well or not. The Cool Competitor identifies with winners. VI. The Gregarious Gambler. Factor VI loves to play for a friendly wager. He thrives on head-to-head competi- tion. The Gregarious Gambler likes people, and likes to Dan Henry Zimmerman talk about golf. He has a real temper, but feels the golf course is a good place to vent some of one's frustrations. While there were marked differences from one factor to another, all factors agreed on their rankings of four statements. All six factors: 1. Dislike slow play. 2. Like a golf course that has lots of trees and sand-- a course that is interesting. 3. Think it is perfectly natural to have favorite clubs. 4. Enjoy watching really good golfers. Throughout, the theoretical foundation for the study was provided by the Kernan and Sommers Theory of Promotion. The data include evidence to support the importance of that theory's major variables: the attribute, performance, and role benefits of golf as perceived by respondents. The data also support the author's contention that these vari- ables are interdependent; that is, the respondents' per- ceived the benefits of golf in terms of attribute- performance, role:performance, and performance-performance interactions. An even more complex attribute-role- pgrformance interaction was proposed, based upon data gathered for the study. é//7ffi9 ATTITUDES ABOUT GOLF: OPERATIONALIZING THE KERNAN AND SOMMERS THEORY OF PROMOTION BY Dan Henry Zimmerman A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Advertising 1974 DEDICATION To those golfers who participated in the study-- and for the millions more who play the game--this thesis is dedicated, with the hope that it may encourage greater application of behavioral research techniques to planning and management problems. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to thank Dr. Charles Mauldin, who not only patiently guided me through the complexities of Q- technique, but who also helped me to see beyond practical considerations to theoretical implications. My thanks also to Dr. John Simpkins, who in class and by example encourages all his students to ask tough ethical questions. Special thanks go to my wife Sally, who during the writing of the thesis was patient when I needed it most-- but who also knew when and how to administer a verbal "kick in the pants." iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . A Statement of the Problem. . . . Consumer Behavior. . . . . . . The Kernan and Sommers Theory of Promotion. . . . . . . . . Operationalizing the Model. . . . Prior Research. . . . . . . . II. METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . Selection of the Q-Sample . . . . Selection of Respondents . . . . Administration of the Q-Sample . . Analysis of the Data. . . . . . III. INTERPRETATION . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . Brief Sketches. . . . . . . . Factor I, The Serious Scorekeeper. Factor II, The Cheerful Companion. Factor III, The Tough-minded Traditionalist . . . . . . Factor IV, The Nervous Novice . . Factor V, The Cool Competitor . . Factor VI, The Gregarious Gambler. Consensus Items . . . . . . . Factor I: The Serious Scorekeeper . Demographic Data . . . . . . Attitudinal Data . . . . . . iv Page U10) ll 18 25 31 32 36 38 39 42 42 44 45 45 45 46 46 46 47 50 50 52 Chapter Factor II: The Cheerful Companion . . Demographic Data . . . . . . . Attitudinal Data . . . . . . . Factor III: The Tough-minded Traditionalist . . . . . . . . Demographic Data . . . . . . . Attitudinal Data . . . . . . . Factor IV: The Nervous Novice . . . Demographic Data . . . . . . . Attitudinal Data . . . . . . . Factor V: The Cool Competitor . . . Demographic Data . . . . . . . Attitudinal Data . . . . . . . Factor VI: The Gregarious Gambler . . Demographic Data . . . . . . . Attitudinal Data . . . . . . . IV. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . Theoretical Implications . . . . . Verification of Perceptual Organization . . . . . . . . Attribute and Performance Dimensions of Meaning. . . . . . . . . Role Type, Role Interaction, and Role Commitment . . . . . . . Meaning, Value, and Q-technique . . Implications for Promoting Golf . . Toward a Psychological Data-base For Developing Communication Themes Practical Implications . . . . . . Broad-appeal, Aggregating Communication Themes . . . . . Segmenting Strategies. . . . . . Increasing Participation. . . . . Page 59 59 6O 67 67 69 74 74 79 79 81 85 85 86 91 92 92 92 93 95 99 100 102 102 104 105 Chapter Page Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Suggestions for Further Study . . . . . 108 BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . lll APPENDICES Appendix A. Statements in the Q-Sample. . . . . . . 114 B. Sample Score Sheet and Respondent Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . 118 C. Sample Cover Letter . . . . . . . . . 120 D. Instructions for Sorting . . . . . . . 121 E. Demographic Data on Respondents . . . . . 123 F. Varimax Rotation . . . . . . . . . . 131 G. Standard Scores . . . . . . . . . . 134 vi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION "A golf course is an outdoor lunatic asylum, peopled by madmen suffering from the delusion that they will finally master the game,"1 according to one self-proclaimed golf addict. That opinion notwithstanding, golf is the most popular outdoor game in America. More than ten million golfers play on over 9,300 golf courses and Spend more than $150 million for golf equipment annually.2 The number of "serious" golfers in the United States, defined arbitrarily by the National Golf Foundation as those individuals who play fifteen or more rounds of golf a year, has more than doubled in the last twenty years. The number of golfers in this country continues to increase at a rate of 10 per cent or more per year.3 1Patrick Smartt, If You Must Play Golf (New York: David McKay Company Inc., 1963), P. 9. 2National Golf Foundation, Planning Information for Private Golf Clubs (Chicago: Merchandise Mart, 1968), p. l. 31bid. The National Golf Foundation has suggested five factors contributing to this "golf boom": (1) Television has exposed millions of people with little or no previous knowledge of golf; (2) increases in leisure time and wages have had a "dual effect" on the amount of golf played by "average income" blue and white collar individuals; (3) women, "possibly through a combination of television and higher incomes for families," have taken up golf in in- creasing numbers; (4) young people are learning sooner and playing more, through school golf programs and municipally- sponsored junior golf programs; and (5) retired people are learning to play golf and continuing to play golf for their entire lifetimes.4 The results of a three-year study conducted by the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission suggest great economic potential for the outdoor recreation industry in general and for participant Sports specifically.5 Four key factors are proposed by Smith to account for an ever- increasing demand for outdoor recreation: (l) the growing population--with an increasing per- centage living in cities and suburban metropolitan a areas, (2) more and more leisure time available to 4Ibid. 5Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, Outdoor Recreation for America (Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1962), pp. 30- 32. individuals and families, (3) more money available to spend for recreation . . . and (4) increasing mobility The Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission (ORRRC) stated that there appears to be "no saturation point in the near future for most outdoor recreation enterprises, assuming they are well run."7 A Statement of the Problem Many factors are assumed in the notion of a "well run" recreational enterprise. Marketing variables such as price (consumer cost) and place (location) influence the success or failure of any product or service offering. An understanding of basic promotional objectives is also necessary to a successful golf course Operation. A dictionary definition of the verb promote is "to further the growth, development, progress, etc."8-- presumably of some person, idea, or organization. The golf promoter must first understand both the game and the people who play it in order to further its growth. When Murdoch wrote that "an important part of any game is an understanding of it," he was referring to an 6Clodus R. Smith, Lloyd E. Partain, and James R. Champlin, Rural Recreation for Profit (Danville, 111.: The Interstate Printers and Publishers, Inc., 1966), pp. 9, 10. 71bid., p.17. 8The American College Dictionary (New York: Random House, 1966), p. 969. understanding of the mechanics of playing golf and a knowledge of the game's rules and traditions.9 From a marketing perspective a useful paraphrase of this remark would read: an important part of promoting golf is an understanding of why people play it. This study is concerned with how people experience golf. Ultimately and pragmatically, the golf promoter is interested in predicting and influencing aggregate consumer behavior. However, a prerequisite to the prediction of group behavior and/or the initiation of persuasive com- munications intended to influence such groups is an under- standing of the individual case.10 This study: (1) examines how individual people experience golf, and (2) seeks to identify pattern relation- ships: Attitude measurement techniques generate the data; the ratings of each respondent are related to those of every other respondent, and clusters of individuals with similar patterns are grouped. For a given product or service, several consumer segments can usually be identi- fied, each representing a potentially productive focal point for promotional efforts.11 9Joseph s. F. Murdoch, The Library of Golf, 1743— 1966 (Detroit: Gale Research Company, 1968), p. 2. 10Thomas S. Robertson, Consumer Behavior (Glenview, 111.: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1970). p. 14. 'llRussell I. Haley, "Benefit Segmentation: A Decision-Oriented Research Tool," Journal of Marketing, Vol. 22 (July, 1968), 30-35. Consumer Behavior The consumer is the focal point of the marketing effort. Such cliches as "the consumer is king," and "the product ig what the consumer thinks it is"12 emphasize a need for: (l) a consumer-orientation to marketing decision- making, and (2) a general theory of consumer behavior. An individual's behavior is, in the most basic sense, affected by the way he perceives his world; no two people have the same set of perceptions. Thus: The cognitive map of the individual is not, then, a photographic representation of the physical world; it is, rather, a partial, personal construction in which certain objects, selected out by the individual for a major role, are perceived in an individual manner. Every perceiver is, as it were, to some degree a non- representational artist, painting a picture of the world that expresses his individual view of reality.13 Robertson suggests four characteristics of per- ception:14 (l) "Perception is selective." It is physically impossible for the individual to perceive everything in his stimulus-environment, so he or she selects from the available stimuli. (2) "Perception is organized." Per- ceptions have meaning for the individual; the "rules" for selecting and assigning meaning to perceptions are 12W. T. Tucker, "Consumer Research: Status and Prospects," in Changing Marketing Systems, ed. by Reed Moyer (Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1967), pp. 267, 269. 13David Krech, Richard S. Crutchfield, and Egerton L. Ballachey, Individual In Sociegy (New York: 14Thomas S. Robertson, Consumer Behavior, p. 15. internalized within the individual. [The most basic assumption of the behavioral scientist is that behavior can be understood if it is viewed from the individual's own 15] (3) "Perception depends upon stimulus perspective. factors." Characteristics of the physical stimulus--its intensity (loudness; brightness), color, motion, etc.-- relative to competing stimuli are factors in the selecting process. (4) "Perception depends upon personal factors." The individual's needs, wants, values, attitudes, etc., all affect the selecting process. A stimulus' relevance or salience to the individual determines, in part, whether that stimulus will be perceived. This uniqueness of the individual is important to the marketer; consumers do not queue up in equal numbers representing geographic, age, sex, income, and education variables to buy any product or service. Consumers behave (purchase) differentially, and the marketer seeks to dis- cover identifiable, economically exploitable patterns in consuming behavior. The concept of a market segment and the development of many different market segmentation strategies demonstrate the marketer's faith that groups of consumers g9 purchase similarly. Producers (and marketers or sellers) have devised many ways to segment their markets. 15Harold J. Leavitt, Managerial Psychology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, I958), p. 296. Historically, markets were segmented geographically. The producer carved out a local market or "territory" for his product based upon his production and distribution capabilities relative to his costs and the competition. The concept of the mass market developed in the first half of the twentieth century when vast technical improvements in production, transportation and communication allowed producers to define markets in terms of national boundaries and beyond. Assemblyline economies-of-scale, the emergence in the United States of a large middle class, increasing urbanization, and the development of electronic mass communications media accelerated the trend toward greater market homogeneity. Marketing was production- oriented.l6 The past twenty years reflect the growth of a disaggregative trend. Further technological advances have made it economically possible for producers to cater to individual tastes. The original Model T Ford came in basic black; today it is possible to order a "custom built" car, through the selection of options and accessories, at no great extra cost. Consumers are demanding greater variety in product offerings. The growth of service industries, and the explosion of demand for leisure-time-oriented goods and 16Ronald E. Frank, William F. Massey, and Yoram Wind, Market Segmentation (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972), pp. 4-6. services, are especially significant since the service- concept implies a consumer-orientation. Behavioral researchers have for many years held that the mass media, and particularly television, have a direct effect in shaping public opinion. Viewed from this perspective, several dimensions of the media--advertising, news broadcasting and reporting, and the high incidence of violence in television--are condemned for their propa- gandistic characteristics. More recently, researchers have questioned this 17 In- "hypodermic-effect" model of mass communication. creasingly, SOphisticated research methods have shown that the communication effects of the mass media are highly complex. Mass media audiences are no longer perceived as passive and homogeneous; individual consumers choose to expose themselves to widely varying amounts and types of mass communications, with an equally wide range of observ- able effects. Stephenson states that the mass media, far from facilitating audience homogeneity, actually encourage diversity and individuality through the principle of 17Everett M. Rogers and F. Floyd Shoemaker, Com- munication of Innovations: A Cross-Cultural Approach (New York: The Free Press, 197I), p. 293. "convergent selectivity, in which the object is to let each person choose something different for himself."18 The modern marketer recognizes the infinite diver- sity of consumer wants and needs as a fabulous area-of- opportunity. Recognition of the desirability and even the inevitability of market segmentation is widespread; the major problem for marketers has been the selection and implementation of an appropriate segmentation strategy. Normative, or decision-oriented, segmentation research starts with the assumption that individual differ- ences in consumption do in fact exist. The goal of such research is to determine how heterogeneous individual consumers may be grouped into relatively homogeneous segments.19 Demographic variables, socioeconomic status, personality and attitude variables are examined, ex post facto, to see if significant pattern relationships exist which can then be tested for predictive value. These types of variables describe consumers but fail to explain behavior. Also, as Tucker states, there 20 are too many ways to distinguish among consumers. The problem becomes one of determining which variable or 18William Stephenson, The Plaerheory of Mass Com- munication (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, I967), p. 2. 19Frank, Massey, and Wind, Market Segmentation, p. 13. 20 p. 268. Tucker, "Consumer Research: Status and Prospects," 10 combination of variables, if any, has a useful explanatory or predictive value. Behaviorally oriented segmentation research, including contributions from role theory and personality theory, offer the possibility of explaining behavior: Behavioral science theories and accumulated empirical research findings from both inside and out- side the marketing field provide the guidelines and hypotheses for behaviorist segmentation research. If successful, such research feeds back incremental knowledge about the consumption process. This is "science" in the usual sense of the word. Indeed, the primary goal of this type of segmentation research is to increase our accumulated knowledge and theories about consumer behavior. The payoffs from this kind of work are great; not only do we determine what the relations between consumer characteristics and buying behavior might be, but in the long run we can also hOpe to understand ghy they are that way. The developing theory of consumer behavior--fed by empirical research in market segmentation and in other areas--will help us to understand, predict, and (where possible and appro- priate) control the market for products and services. The preceding discussion, leading to a greater awareness of the need for a comprehensive theory of con- sumer behavior, can be summarized as follows: (1) The consumer should be the focal point of all marketing efforts. (2) The individual's behavior is affected by his per- ceptions; no two people perceive a thing in exactly the same way. (3) Products and services are perceived differ- ently by individual consumers; also, a single product or service may have many meanings for the same individual. (4). If (1), (2), and (3) are valid statements, then a 21Frank, Massey, and Wind, Market Segmentation, p. 12. ll theory of consumer behavior is needed which will enable one to "determine what dimensions of product characteristics and appeals [or service benefits-to-consumers] are salient . . ."22 A theory is called for which suggests operations for weighing the relative importance of product character- istics or service benefits. Intially--prior to and as a starting point or foundation for research--a theory of behavior is needed which incorporates the concepts of meaning and salience and which accounts for the manner in which stimulus factors and personal factors interact to shape perceptions of products and services. In the next section, one such theory of consumer behavior is examined in detail. The Kernan and Sommers Theory of Promotion [Kernan and Sommers propose a theory of promotion for products; the theory, except for differences in the emphasis or importance attached to certain variables, serves equally well to model behavior relevant to a service such as golf.] Kernan and Sommers assert that people make choices —-behave--on the strength of what they know or what they think they know. In other words, information, irrespective of the specific processes which govern its acquisition, interpretation and disposition, is central to behavior. 221bid., p. 7. 12 They further state that information, in a behavioral sense, implies communication.23 Kernan and Sommers are concerned with the communi- cative dimension of consumer behavior; the purchase or transaction is always accompanied by [and frequently both preceded by and followed by] the activity, negotiation. Two levels or types of negotiation are posited: explicit negotiation--which is overt and behavioral, and implicit negotiation-—which is covert and cognitive in nature. Explicit negotiation is typified by a buyer and a seller discussing product [or service] specifications and agreeing on the terms of the sale. The negotiation mgy_be successfully concluded--in which case exchange takes place and the transaction is completed. Explicit negotiation is not a sufficient condition to exchange, however; any number of factors may intervene to temporarily or permanently forestall exchange or pur- chase. [The price may be "too high," or the seller may be "out of stock." A "significant-other"--the would-be purchaser's wife, for example--may not like the color or the fact that a round of golf takes five to six hours to complete on a Saturday morning.] Implicit negotiation is the prospective buyer's intrapersonal communication, or "conversations with 23Jerome B. Kernan and Montrose S. Sommers, "Meaning, Value, and the Theory of Promotion," Journal of Communi- cation, XVII (1967), 109-35. 13 himself." Implicit negotiation activity commences when prospective buyers first perceive and attend to advertising and other promotional efforts or observe or hear about products or services in use. [Both explicit and implicit negotiation mgy occur before and after as well as during the explicit activity of negotiating. The man who bought a new car today probably considered other makes and models. He may have started reading car ads and talking about buying a new car months ago (explicit negotiation), and he has been thinking about it (implicit negotiation) for an even longer period. The proud owner of a new Ford may continue to read Ford adver- tising (confirmation or reinforcement-~explicit negotiation), but he may mentally kick himself (implicit negotiation) the first time he stalls in heavy traffic.] The Kernan and Sommers theory is concerned with the effects of promotional information upon implicit negotiation. The collective intent of all promotional activities--product and package design, advertising, sales promotion, personal selling, publicity and public relations-~is to imbue the product [or service] with appropriate meanings about the product that will encourage favorable evaluations of it and increase the likelihood of explicit negotiation for its purchase.24 24Ibid., p. 113. l4 Kernan and Sommers offer an "interactionist" approach to behavior and characterize human activity in the context of role behavior. Shibutani, a leading advocate of the interactionist approach, defines roles as "models of appropriate conduct that emerge in communication and are continually reinforced as pe0ple jointly come to terms with life conditions."25 Kernan and Sommers state that an individual does what he does in reSponse to what he perceives his role(s) to be. They further maintain that, if seen in the appro- priate role context, all behavior is associated with some perceived role. Role behavior is manifested in two aspects: structure and process. Structure is the social configuration within which behavior occurs—-the pattern of interacting intrapersonal and interpersonal roles operating in a specific behavioral setting. Process is the playing of roles, or behavior per se. Role behavior is defined in terms of three concepts: role type, role interaction, and role commitment. Role type is a societally imposed cluster of activities or behavior expectations. For each role type, a combination of cultural and group influences sanction or prescribe both an activity pattern and a product cluster. [The business 25T. Shibutani, Society and Personality: An Inter- actionist Approach to Spcial Psychology (Englwood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1961), pp. 22-23. 15 executive whose company pays for his membership at an exclusive country club is expected not only to plgy_golf but also to dress "like a golfer" and to play EiEE new pro- line clubs.] Role interaction involves the intermingling or overlapping (supportive or dissonance-producing) of a basic role type with other roles; the business executive "wears many hats" as a father, avid golfer, church member, PTA president, etc. Role commitment (however weak or strong) is an individual's predisposition to perform those activi— ties and to use those products sanctioned or prescribed for a specific role type. [Activities and products might also be proscribed for a particular role-type.] Kernan and Sommers state that role behavior and negotiation are interrelated; promotional information seeks at least implicit negotiation, and consumers respond to promotional information in accord with their role behavior. Marketers may consider promotion as a problem of supplying consumers with "appropriate" information that should, theoretically, increase the probability of explicit negotiation. However, the prepriety of information varies with situation-specific circumstances. Kernan and Sommers see the product as not only an object of exchange but also as a symbol with action potential. The product's "shape, size, color, texture, price, brand name, label, etc., comprise a complex of 16 promotional information about it."26 [In this study the "product" is a service-concept. Physical properties and characteristics are identifiable for the various facili- tating equipment and paraphernalia associated with playing golf-—balls, clubs, tees, shoes, bag, etc., but the event or activity itself can only be subjectively experienced (implicit negotiation.)] Kernan and Sommers develop the concepts of meaning and value, which are central to their theory. "Meaning" is a receiver's aggregate perception of a communicated symbol and is derived from two dimensions of perception: attribute and performance. Attribute is the physical dimension of meaning and refers to a receiver's perception of the role propriety of a communicated symbol's physical characteristics. Per- formance is the functional dimension of meaning and refers to a receiver's perception of the role property of a com- municated symbol's action potential. [Golf, as an activity or service-concept, does not have direct, explicit attributes. Golf is not black or white, big or small, hard or soft. Golf cannot be ob- jectively defined as easy or difficult, fun or frustrating. Golf may be defined by the consumer or user in terms of the 26Kernan and Sommers, "Theory Of promotion," p. 116. l7 subjective benefits it provides, or in terms of the functions golf serves for the individual golfer.] Both attribute and performance are relatively defined. They have an arbitrary zero point and both positive and negative domains: positive when character- istics or action potential are appropriate to the potential buyer's role type; negative when they are inappropriate. The zero-point for either attribute or performance indi- cates insufficient information (or conflicting, effectively canceling information). Meaning, however--unlike its component dimensions—- exists only in the positive range. Negative meaning cannot exist; moreover, the zerojpoint for meaning is the point of ”no meaning." Value is the receiver's net reaction to meaning; it is a function of meaning (attribute and performance) and has both positive (attraction) and negative (repulsion) dimensions. A basic proposition of the Kernan and Sommers' theory is that information in a promotional context con- sists of clusters of symbols that are perceived as having meaning. The meaning of a symbol derives from its attri- bute and performance dimensions. Also, the relative importance of the attribute and performance dimensions of meaning may vary considerably among individuals or groups (or for certain products or services. For a service or 18 activity such as golf, performance may be of far greater importance than attributes.) The value of a symbol is the net degree of attraction or repulsion ascribed to its meaning. The greater the meaning of the symbol the greater the value, either positive or negative, associated with it. Positive evaluation of meaning leads to explicit negotiation, while negative evaluation of meaning leads to distortion of a seller's information. Once having assigned a negative value to a symbol, a receiver will avoid dissonance by categorizing all additional symbols for the same product as negative. Operationalizing the Model Kernan and Sommers confine their model to pro- motional situations. However, the model is applicable as well to other behavioral situations. As previously stated, information is viewed as central to behavior, and infor- mation implies communication. With respect to products or services, all promotional efforts attempt to persuade the consumer to purchase, use, or to like the product or ser— vice. (Attitude change may be the primary communication goal, as in the current advertising campaign waged to change the image of the ppgpe: "Think of them as vitamins with wrinkles.") There is a school of thought that maintains that all communication is persuasive in intent. Implicit 19 negotiation may be viewed in this light as intrapersonal communication; the Kernan and Sommers theory becomes a theory of intrapersonal communication. The meaning and value attached to symbols in an individual's intrapersonal world are posited as ppedictive of his explicit, overt behavior. Kernan and Sommers place the major elements of their model into three classes or categories: criterion variables, predictor variables, and classification variables. The criterion variables--dependent variables--consist of positive or negative value and the probability of a receiver either explicitly negotiating with the seller or distorting the seller's information. The predictor vari- ables--independent variables--are the dimensions of meaning, attribute and performance. The classification variables are typological; they locate an information receiver in the universe of all possible information receivers. These variables are role type, role commitment, and role inter- action. Kernan and Sommers state that their model cannot qualify as a predictive device unless it can "pass the difficult task of empirical validation."27 However, they despair of being able even to operationalize such variables as ”attraction" and "repulsion." They are even less optimistic about the problems of scaling and measuring the 271bid., p. 132. 20 model's major predictor variables, attribute and performance. Yet that is the business of this study-~to operationalize their model in dealing with consumer meanings for golf. Q-technique, as developed by Stephenson, provides an intrapersonal, operant measure of value. Subjects in Q research sort opinion statements (about a promotional object or symbol) along a like-dislike continuum. Value is measured for the individual (and py_the individual himself, operantly) by the relative position assigned to each statement, and for groups of respondents by the inter- correlations of their sorts. The factors that emerge provide evidence for the roles that consumers use in dealing with golf. Meaning, attribute and performance variables may be operantly scaled using Q-technique, as Stephenson noted in a report to A.A.A.A. on "Rationale for a Subjective Approach to Advertising." Stephenson explained how Q- technique can be utilized to operationalize the theory: First, . . . a Q-sort is an evaluation of the kind required for the value characteristics of the Kernan- Sommers theory. If it is assumed that a symbol is always complex, made up of many meanings, a Q-sort describing what it means to an individual is the very measurement called for by the theory. Next, it is always possible to ask the individual to represent his perception of product attributes and performance characteristics as Q-sorts. The scaling problem for such perceptions is already solved, in standard score terms. 80, most elegantly, is the problem of a zero point, for all Q-sorts. It is precisely at the point of "no meaning," as required by the Kernan-Sommers model. Finally, the break in aggregation of probabilities, requiring two expressions in the Kernan-Sommers model 21 can be given a single linear form, as a first approxi- mation, ranging from high positive value to zero, and from zero to high negative value, precisely as in Q- technique . . . 3 As Stephenson noted, attribute and performance are subjectively measured in the Kernan and Sommers model: "A receiver judging the attributes of a symbol asks 'Does this have physical characteristics appropriate to my role type 29 or not, and to what extent?'" In a similar manner, a receiver evaluates the performance of a symbol subjectively. Q-technique requires the respondent to model this subjectivity operantly by ranking opinion statements or stimulus objects; this operation provides the raw data for analysis. Both Kernan-Sommers and Stephenson are interested 30, 31 in intrapersonal communication; Stephenson, however, provides a set of Operations for making public a person's ideas, attitudes, beliefs, and opinions. The basic oper- ation of Q-technique involves the sorting of statements of opinion-~open to conjecture and not demonstrably factual-- about some subject. The entire completed sort--an "array"-- 28William Stephenson, "Rationale for a Subjective Approach to Adversiting," a report to A.A.A.A., pp. 152-53. 29Kernan and Sommers, "Theory of Promotion," p. 117. 3OIbid., p. 116. 31Stephenson, Play Theory, p. 12. 22 is said to represent that individual's attitude toward the subject. Thus, attitudes and opinions are the fundamental units of analysis for Q-technique. Behavioral researchers do not always agree upon the meanings of "attitude" and "opinion" and often neglect to adequately define their usage of the terms. This study accepts the definitions of attitude and opinion offered by Katz: Attitude is the predisposition of the individual to evaluate some symbol or object or aSpect of his world in a favorable or unfavorable manner. Opinion is the verbal expression of an attitude . . .32 In this study, the statements of opinion comprising the Q-sample were first of all verbal expressions, elicited in depth interviews, as described in Chapter II. Kernan and Sommers define the meaning ascribed to a product (or service) symbol as a combination of what the symbol ii in physical terms (attribute) and what it 9225 in functional terms (performance.)33 Their mathematical expression of this relationship assumes independence of attribute and performance; that is, either may equal zero (but not both) and still yield some amount of meaning. This study investigates attitudes about a service or activity rather than about a Specific product with specific 32Daniel Katz, "The Functional Approach to the Study of Attitudes," The Public Opinion Quarterly, XXIV (Summer, 1960), 168. 33Kernan and Sommers, "Theory of Promotion," p. 116. 23 attributes. If golf is viewed as a service, then the performance dimension of meaning may be more important than the attribute dimension. Yet even if this study dealt with a specific product rather than an activity-concept, it would be presumptuous to assume an independent relationship between attribute and performance dimensions of meaning, as Kernan and Sommers have done. Edgar Crane wrote that "Every object . . . has several attributes. The significant attributes are those which are relevant to the use one 34 wants to make of an object." This statement suggests an interdependent relationship between attribute and per- formance. As Kernan and Sommers themselves stated, attri- bute and performance--the physical and functional dimensions of meaning, respectively--refer to the "receiver's per- ception of the role propriety" of a symbol's physical characteristics and action potential, respectively.35 Thus, Kernan and Sommers recognize the interaction between ' attributes and role property, and between performance and role propriety, while ignoring the implications for per- formance inherent in the consumer's perceptions of a product's attributes. One might conjecture that all product 34Edgar Crane, Marketing Communications: A gehavioral Approach to Men, Messages, and Media (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1965), pp. 37-38. 35 p. 117. Kernan and Sommers, "Theory of Promotion," 24 attributes are ultimately perceived by the individual consumer in terms of performance-expectations about the product. It would be possible to classify or label, in a manner consistent with the Kernan and Sommers' model, opinion statements about golf as pply concerned with the attribute dimension Of meaning, or as pply_concerned with the performance dimension. Such a classification scheme assumes an independent rather than an interdependent relationship between attribute and performance. This study refrains from making such an assumption. Not only could Opinion statements be classified as "pure" types-~attribute, performance, or role--but statements could also be perceived as interactions between the posited dimensions Of meaning. Thus, such a classification scheme would have to include attribute-performance, role- performance, and role-attribute interactions. Furthermore if, as has been suggested, consumers ultimately relate all product or service characteristics to performance- expectations, the category performancefiperformance would be used to designate a "pure" performance statement, and attribute and role categories would be relabeled attribute- performance and rolejperformance interactions. Any classification scheme, whether like the inter- actionist approach proposed in the preceding paragraph, or like the independent types suggested by the Kernan and Sommers model, assumes the respOndents' perceptions of the 25 Opinion statements will correspond to those of the experi- menter. Categorization of the Opinion statements is best left to each individual, as he or she perceives them. Prior Research Ever since Yankelovich suggested in 1964 the use of buyer attitudes as bases for segmentation, "marketing researchers have subscribed explicitly and implicitly to the basic premise that a purchase reflects the individual's attitudinal set--an acquired system of positive and negative evaluations."36 The basic assumption, not only Of Q- technique and the Kernan and Sommers model, but also of all attempts to segment markets by consumer attitudes, is that attitudes influence overt behavior. Until fairly recently, the empirical evidence for this assumption was inconclusive; some studies supported the proposition while others found no significant relationship between attitudes toward a product category or brand and purchase behavior relevant to the product. Evans, in a study of automobile purchases and attitudes toward specific auto manufacturers, found no relationship between purchase behavior and attitudes as he 36Frank, Massey, and Wind, Market Segmentation, pp. 78-79, citing Daniel Yankelovich,—“New Criteria for Market Segmentation," Harvard Business Review, XLII (March-April, 1964), 83—90. 26 37 measured them. Fishbein and Hall found no empirical support for a relationship between purchase behavior and attitudes.38’ 39 Birdwell found no significant relation- ship between any specific personality trait and overt purchase behavior but did find a relationship between something like a total personality measure (complex com- binations of traits) and differences in behavior.40 Birdwell's findings related to automobile ownership and, on the surface, would seem to contradict Evan's study. The literature contains a growing number of studies which Offer empirical support for the prOposition that attitudes do affect consuming behavior. Achenbaum found a direct relationship between attitudes and product usage as follows: - l. The more favorable the attitude, the higher the incidence of product usage. 2. The less favorable the attitude, the lower the incidence Of usage. 37Franklin B. Evans, "Psychological and Objective Factors in the Prediction of Brand Choice," Journal of Business, XXXII (October, 1959), 340-69. 38Martin Fishbein, Readings in Attitude Theory and Measurement (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 39C. R. Hall, "Another Look at Instant Coffee Studies," Journal Of Advertising Research, I (1960), 18-21. 40A. E. Birdwell, "Influence Of Image Congruence on Consumer Choice," Proc. AMA (December, 1964), 290-303. 27 3. The more unfavorable the peOple are toward a product, the more likely they are to stop using it. 4. The attitudes of people who have never tried a product tend to be distributed around the mean in the shape Of a normal distribution.41 Assael and Day found attitudes were effective in explaining variance in market shares among brands, and changes in attitude were also related to subsequent changes in behavior.42 Using the Thurstone technique, designed to measure both qualitative (direction, favorable or un- favorable) and quantitative (intensity, weak to strong) dimensions Of attitudes, Udell found attitudes were predictive of stamp-saving behavior.43 The literature contains a number Of Q-studies; however, most were conducted for a specific consumer product or product category. Only a few bear more than a methodological similarity to the present study. Stephen- son's study of libraries,44 Mauldin's study Of a cattle 41Alvin A. Achenbau, "Knowledge is a Thing Called Measurement, in Attitude Research at Sea, ed. by Lee Adler and Irving Crespi (American Marketing Association, 1966), pp. 111-26. 42Henry Assael and George S. Day, "Attitudes and Awareness as Predictors of Market Share," Journal Of Advertising Research, VIII (December, 1968), 3-10. 43Jon G. Udell, "Can Attitude Measurement Predict Consumer Behavior?" Journal of Marketing, XXIX (Chicago: American Marketing Association, October, 1965), 46-50. 44William Stephenson, "An Image for Missouri's Public Libraries" (Columbia, MO.: University of Missouri, 1962). 28 breed association,45 and the present study all are concerned with providing services to very specific publics. McCarty's study Of packaging and advertising of men's toiletries is noteworthy because, as in the present study, the Kernan and Sommers model provided a theoretical framework for the application Of Q-technique.46 Unlike the present study, McCarty attempted to categorize or label the meaning-components of the Q-sample Opinion statements as attribute-oriented or performance-oriented, but not both. The dangers Of such a classification system were previously noted. Mauldin also categorized or typed opinion statements in his study but pointed out that his perceptions Of any specific statement were likely to be quite different from respondents' perceptions of the same statement.47 The methodology of Q-technique is particularly suited to marketing research. Frank, Massey, and Wind state that when markets are heterogeneous, it is necessary to develop operations for: 1. Determining what dimensions of product attributes and appeals are salient to consumers, and weighing their relative importance. 45Charles R. Mauldin, "The Image Study as a Basic Public Relations Study" (unpublished M.A. thesis, University Of Missouri, 1970). 46Ricky H. McCarty, "Packaging and Advertising of Men's Toiletries: An Intensive Study of a Pure Type" (unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Missouri, 1972), pp. 12, 30-35. 47Mauldin, "The Image Study," p. 39. 29 2. Determining the distribution of preferences in the population for each relevant dimension. 3. Finding the Optimal position for the product or appeal on each dimension.48 Q-technique provides pperations for determining salient product or service attributes and appeals. A broadly representative set of Opinion statements about the product or service is elicited in depth interviews. Sorting the statements allows each subject to indicate the salience of selected Opinions. Also, Q-technique provides gperations for determining the relative importance of product attri- butes and appeals; each sort reveals the relative impor- tance for that individual along a value continuum, and intercorrelations of sorts reveal patterns of relative importance for the salient attributes. Q-technique is a small-sample technique, and as such is not suitable for determining the distribution of preferences in the general population. However, analysis and interpretation of Q-data do suggest possible communi- cation themes having either consensus appeal, or appeal for specific factors or attitudinal segments identified in the Q-study. NO studies were found relating to the promotion of golf as a service. A state of Michigan county-by-county appraisal of potentials for outdoor recreational 48Frank, Massey, and Wind, Market Segmentation, 30 development,49 a feasibility study for a proposed municipal 50 golf course, and Moncrief's study of golf course Oper- ations in Genesee County51 all considered the desirability and feasibility Of developing land for use as a golf course--but from a marketer's perSpective. No study was found that dealt with golf as a service desired by the consumer or user. The focal point of this study of golf as a service-desired is the individual golfer and his or her attitudes about the game. 49U.S. Soil Conservation Service, "An Appraisal of Potentials for Outdoor Recreational Development," 1969. SOHoyden's Hill Golf Course Committee Of Fairfield, Connecticut, prden's Hill Golf Course and Feasibility Study, 1965. 51Lewis W. Moncrief, "An Analysis of Golf as a Recreational Business in Genesee County, Michigan" (un- published M.A. thesis, Michigan State University, 1967). CHAPTER II METHODOLOGY In Chapter I, the rationale for using Q-technique to identify attitude segments was given. Briefly restated, Q-technique was chosen because it Operationalizes the major variables Of the Kernan and Sommers theory of promotion, specifically including the variable "value" and the attribute and performance dimensions of meaning. Also, because the subjects themselves define the segments, first by generating the Opinion statements that make up the instrument and then by performing the sorting operations, Q-technique is suited to Operationalizing the complex performancejperformance, attribute:performance, and social- or rolejperformance interactions suggested in Chapter I. Q-technique is a useful marketing research tool because it provides Operations for determining the salient dimensions Of product attributes and appeals--and weighing their relative importance. Finally, Q-technique was chosen because it deals operantly with subjective data. This was 31 32 felt to be an important methodological strength since golf, viewed as a service or activity, is experienced subjectively and individually. Selection of the Q-Sample Subjects were chosen for in-depth interviews to reflect both a wide range of prior exposure to and experi- ence with the game of golf, and a wide range Of ability or performance levels. They were chosen to represent diver- sity with reSpect to certain demographic variables--namely sex, age, income, and occupation. Thus, both men and women were interviewed, both neophytes and experts. Subjects of in-depth interviews ranged in age from 22 to 72, in ability from a "scratch" or 0 handicapper to a 30+ handicapper, in income from less than $2,000 to more than $30,000. Subjects had played golf for times ranging from less than 6 months to more than 50 years. The interview schedule was designed to elicit a wide range of opinions about golf from the respondents. It began with general questions about the individual's first exposure to golf and reasons for playing--and ended with more specific questions dealing with media-exposure to golf and equipment brand preferences. All interviews were arranged in advance in person and were conducted in the respondent's home or Office. No interview request was refused; interviews ranged in length from one hour to almost four hours. Non—directive 33 interviewing techniques were used; the questions were asked neutrally, with minimal direction given. Notes were taken during the interviews and the interviews transcribed shortly after each was completed. From a theoretically infinite number of statements Of Opinion about golf, over 400 were taken from ten inter- views. These statements were self—referent and "synthetic" in the sense that they are not statements Of fact but are Open to conjecture. This number was reduced to 52 by eliminating duplications and idiosyncratic statements and by combining several clearly related statements. The Q-sample included statements dealing with social, competive, and aesthetic dimensions of playing or experiencing golf, as well as statements dealing with specific attributes such as course design. Many of the statements appear to exhibit an interaction between attribute and performance, between performance and role, between attribute and role, or among all three dimensions of meaning as defined by Kernan and Sommers. For example, the statement (35) "I like a course that's interesting--that isn't flat and that has lots Of trees and sand" deals, on the surface at least, pply_with an attribute Of golf-~course design. The statement (12) "Golf isn't really fun when I'm not playing well" would seem to be concerned only with the performance dimension of golf. The social or "role" dimension is typified in 34 the statement (51) "A real part of the fun Of golf is talking with other players about the game." However, the statement (29) "Good equipment can make a gregp deal Of difference in your game" clearly expresses the opinion that there is a direct relationship between the attribute-~"good" equipment--and one's own performance. In a like manner, the statement (1) "My self-respect is tied up with my golf scores a little bit" explicitly identifies a relationship between performance and rple. The statement (19) "If you miss a fairway by 15 yards, the course should make you pay for it--either by losing a stroke or by having to make a terrific recovery shot" implies a relationship between performance (the peg 2323! stated) and attribute (golf course design, implicit; i.e., the course should penalize poor shots). Finally, the statement (50) "If you gregg like a golfer and 222 like a golfer, you will play better" relates both attribute (dress--golf sweaters, golf slacks) and role (act like a golfer) to performance. This study, unlike McCarty's,52 does not attempt to categorize or label those meaning-components of the opinion statements. It was suggested in Chapter I that such labeling is presumptuous in that it assumes something about the respondents perceptions Of the Opinion statements. 52McCarty, "Packaging and Advertising of Men's Toiletries," pp. 12, 30-35. 35 Mauldin categorized "by type (realistic, fanciful, aes- thetic, altruistic, other)" in a study of the American 53 However, he noted that "a decision Angus Association. about the nature of a statement by the experimenter is almost certain to be contradicted by decisions about the same statement by [the respondents] . . ." This study proceeds from the expectation that all opinions about a given product or service may be related to the performance- expectations Of the individual consumer; however it is felt that categorization of the statements is best withheld until the data are in. The fifty-two statements comprising the Q-sample broadly represented the subjective opinions about golfing expressed in the depth interviews, and the sorting oper- ation permitted each subject to model his or her own attitudinal set toward golf. However, since all ten golfers interviewed were participants in a play or "for fun“ activity, the possibility existed that most Of the state- ments would be agreed with or positively rated by subjects. The Q-sample was pre-tested by five persons; in addition to sorting the statements, each person was asked to indicate his or her neutral statements in order to determine whether or not they differed from the column in the sort given neutral scores. The pre-test subjects had 53Mauldin, "The Image Study," p. 39. 36 sorted those statements about which they said they were neutral from 0 to -3, with most falling in the -2 column. Because the pre-test indicated subjects might, in fact, agree with more statements than with which they disagree, the wording of several statements was changed to reduce the gap between the instrument's 0-point and the perceived neutral point. The wording of several other statements was changed to eliminate ambiguities noted in pre-testing. Selection of Respondents Respondents were chosen by quota control sampling; that is, respondents were chosen using variables thought to be relevant to attitudes about golf. The "P-sample" vari- ables were age, sex, handicap or average score, number of years playing golf, and type of course played (private, municipal, or semi-private--i.e., with only a limited number of memberships available and a graduated rate structure). Performance level in golf is perhaps not as greatly affected by such physical factors as age, size, and strength as in many other Sports. Golf champions may play at or near peak levels for thirty years or more (Sam Snead, age 61, can compete on an equal basis with Johnny Miller, age 26). There are, however, practical upper and lower age liJnits. This study includes respondents ranging in age fIHDm 11 to 72, sampled more heavily in the age ranges 20-30 37 and 45-55. Those age groups are indicative of higher golfing activity. Women, who represent the fastest growing demographic segment of golfers in the United States, comprise one- fourth Of the P-sample. ResPondents' self—reported handicaps ranged from 0 to 31, with most men reporting scores from 85 to 95 for 18 holes, and most women naming scores from 50 to 60 for 9 holes. Subjects included members of several private country clubs in mid-Michigan, members of the Lansing Publinx Association, and members of the Michigan State University community who play the semi-private university course, Forest Akers. Variables which were not used in selecting subjects but which might affect attitudes about golf include geogrephic location and education of subjects. Perhaps individuals from warm climates where golf is played all year might have a different perspective on the game. The P-sample includes, by chance rather than by design, one individual from Hawaii and three from Texas, as well as three professional golfers who "migrate" south at the close of the Michigan golf season to play in Florida. The median educational level was four years Of college. Many of the Publinx Association members reported a high school education, all Of the country club members reported some college, and many of the Michigan State 38 University community respondents had advanced degrees. Several women also indicated no college. Subjects of the initial depth interviews were included in the P-sample because they typified the desired diversity for some of the selection variables. Administration of the Q-Sample The Q-sample was personally administered to 60 persons and mailed with an accompanying letter of intro- duction and instructions to 50 members of the Lansing Publinx Association. Eighteen Publinx members returned completed Q-sorts in time to be included in the study, for a total P-sample Of 78. Each respondent was instructed to rank the fifty- two statements on a continuum from "most agree" to "most disagree." (The statements had been randomly numbered, and shuffled prior to administration.) Initially, the subject was instructed to sort the statements into three piles: one pile containing those statements with which he or she agreed, another containing those statements with which he disagreed, and the third pile containing any statements about which he was neutral or could not decide. Subjects then sorted the statements into piles that satisfied the following forced frequency distribution: 39 Most Most N = 52 Disagree Agree Value: -6 -5 -4 —3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 Pile Number: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 Number of State- ments: 2 3 3 4 5 6 6 6 5 4 3 3 2 Respondents were asked to "explain why" they had placed statements at the extremes (-6 and +6). These comments, together with demographic data and information on golfing activity and media-exposure elicited on the questionnaire, aided the researcher in interpreting the data. Analysis of the Data Seventy-eight completed Q-sorts were processed by the University Of Missouri IBM 360/65 computer using the QUANAL program developed at the University of Iowa by N. Van Tubergen. Each sort was correlated with all sorts to provide a correlation matrix, which the computer than factored using the principle-axes method. The factors thus Obtained are groups of individuals who sorted the state- ments in a similar manner. The factors were then rotated orthogonally through a varimax solution to Obtain 40 mathematically a maximum number of "pure loadings"54 on one and only one factor. Several hand rotations were then performed in order to improve the solution. (Six persons did not load on any factor and are thus not included in the final solution.) The Spearman weighting formula55 was then applied to the factor loadings; individual sorts for each factor were weighted according to the factor loadings. The computer then added the weighted rankings across each statement, producing a representative sort for each factor. The computer converted the arrays to z-scores and then arranged the statements on a "most agree-most disagree" continuum for each factor. This array for each factor provided the basis for interpretation of the factor. The factor analysis yielded six "interpretable" factors. The QUANAL program allows a twenty-one-factor solution; however, two criteria are used to accept factors for interpretation. First, only factors with at least some minimum number of persons with significant "pure" loadings are interpreted. The number chosen for this study was four 54"Pure" or significant factor loadings are deter- mined by computing the standard error for a zero correlation coefficient; SE = 1 /EL where n = number of statements. In this study, SE = 1/52 = .138. Loadings greater than .345 (2 1/2 SE) are significant at p < .01. 55 r Spearman's formula: 2. Charles Spearman, l - r The Abilities of Man (New York: Macmillan Company, 1927), Appendix xix. 41 persons. Second, the QUANAL program computes eigenvalues (the amount of variance accounted for by each factor). It is customary in Q-studies to reject a factor when the amount of variance accounted for is less than a minimum amount of variance, as represented by a designated eigenvalue. Factors with eigenvalues of less than 1.000 are commonly rejected for interpretation, and that criterion was used in this study. The data have been gathered and computer-analyzed; one is now ready to interpret the data. That step is reported in the next chapter. CHAPTER III INTERPRETATION Introduction In a study utilizing Q-technique, subjects are asked to sort a group Of operant statements into a pre- scribed distribution56 representing their attitude toward the subject matter of the set of opinion statements. Each subject's sort is correlated with the sorts of all other subjects, and those which correlate beyond a selected level of significance are grouped. Each group of sorts, or factor, is then averaged to produce a Single sort repre- sentative of the factor. Each factor represents a pattern or way Of sorting the statements which is systematically different from the way in which the statements were sorted by other factors, and the "typal array" or typical sort for each factor best represents the way in which the state- ments were sorted by persons loaded on that factor. 56In this study, the individual opinion statements were all extracted from the original depth interviews. The distribution is prescribed in the sense that subjects were asked to sort the statements according to the frequency distribution given in the table on page 39 of this study. 42 43 The process of interpretation of the sort for each factor is subjective and creative, in that one seeks an "explanation" which accounts for the distribution of state- ments representative of the factor. Subjectivity is limited, however; the explanation must fit the operant evidence, the data. The data are not subjective, and the arrays of statements representing factors are mathematically arrived at and based on the operations of respondents. The reader who is not satisfied with the interpretations here Offered is encouraged to review the data provided in the appendices of this study and make his own interpretations. The interpretation involves both finding explana- tions and communicating these explanations. A full examination of each factor, together with detailed refer- ences to the supportive data, is of course included. However, a brief "thumbnail sketch" Of each factor is given first, without reference to the data. These brief sketches are provided in order that the reader might comprehend the interpretation in general, before a detailed interpretation and evidence are presented. A 12221 is also Offered for each factor (Factor I, The Serious Scorekeeper; . ... Factor IV, The Nervous Novice; . . . Factor VI, The Gregarious Gambler). These alliterative appellations are meant to offer the reader an easy “cognitive handle"--a readily recallable association Of the factor with its most significant or unique 44 characteristics. These labels are used instead of or in addition to numbers only because they are more easily remembered. Finally, the consensus items--those statements about which everyone essentially agrees-~are important in any Q-study; they may provide the basis for understanding what is broadly important to subjects, both in a positive and in a negative sense. There are very few items of general consensus in the golf study, and they are examined before the detailed interpretations of the factors. Brief Sketches The factor analysis identified six factors. A "thumbnail Sketch" of each is Offered before reviewing the consensus items and presenting a detailed interpretation of each factor. Because the sort for each factor repre- sents a "typical" attitude, and because the interpretation Of each factor is a description of a hypothetical person representing that attitude (The Cheerful Companion, The COOl Competitor, etc.), the factor is Often referred to in third person singular. While 12 Of 19 female respondents in the study loaded on two "non-competitive" factors, the reader is cautioned that the "he" used in the brief sketches and in the detailed interpretations will refer to both men and women who loaded on the factor. 45 Factor I, The Serious Scorekeeper The Serious Scorekeeper is a perfectionist striving for golfing excellence. He believes that one must take the game very seriously in order to achieve the kind of success he so earnestly pursues. The Serious Scorekeeper has no patience with anyone who does not share his concern for performance. Because he places such a premium on perfor- mance, he does not really enjoy playing golf unless he is playing well. Factor II, The Cheerful Compenion The Cheerful Companion plays golf for fun and for social reasons, and is not really worried about perfor- mance. He just likes to be outdoors and in the company of congenial people who share his casual, noncompetitive attitude toward the game. The Cheerful Companion sometimes begrudges the amount of time and money which golf requires because the game is of relatively minor importance in his life-style. Factor III, The Tough-minded Traditionalist The Tough-minded Traditionalist reveres the traditions of golf--its courtesies and etiquette, and strictly interprets and enforces the rules of golf. He has a very specific, idealized image of how a "real" golfer looks and acts on a golf course. The Tough-minded Tra- ditionalist places great importance upon the attributes-- clothing, equipment, and etiquette--which he associates with 46 this idealized image, and fully expects to improve his own golfing Skills by conforming to his role-perceptions of what a golfer is and ought to be. Factor IV, The Nervous Novice The Nervous Novice is intimidated by highly skilled, competitive golfers, strangers, and difficult golf courses. He may have been playing golf for many years, but has little confidence in his ability-~he still perceives him- self as a beginner, and empathizes with the golfer who is playing badly. The Nervous Novice is an emotional person exhilarated by each little success and dreading each failure. Factor V, The Cool Competitor Like the Serious Scorekeeper, the Cool Competitor is performance-oriented; unlike Factor I, he is able to enjoy the game as a challenge even when he is not playing well. The Cool Competitor consciously strives to attain a calm, detached--even unemotiona1--approach to the mental side of golf. He likes to win and identifies with winners, but believes that one can best achieve golfing success by avoiding emotional extremes. The Cool Competitor always wants to feel he is "in control." Factor VI,_The Gregarious Gambler Above all else, the Gregarious Gambler loves a friendly wager. He thrives on the physical, head-to-head 47 competition which usually results from betting on the game. Unlike Factors I and V, he feels that one's physical abilities may be Of equal Or even greater importance than is mental attitude. The Gregarious Gambler likes people, and likes to talk about golf. He admits to having a real temper, but views this as a healthy venting Of one's frustrations. Consensus Items Consensus items--those statements about which everyone agrees--can be used to develop communication strategies to appeal across factors. Items given high positive scores are most significant because they are not just agreed on, but highly valued. Negative consensus items can indicate themes to avoid in a communication program--or positive versions of these statements can be used as themes. Neutral consensus items are clearly of least value for developing communication strategies. Only 4 of the statements in the study were con- sensus items-~2 high positive statements and 2 moderately positive. These are: Average Statement F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 z-Score (47) One thing I dislike about golf is slow play. 1.0 0.7 1.5 1.0 0.9 1.6 +1.10 48 Average Statement F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 z-Score (45) I like a course that's interesting-~that isn't flat and that has lots of trees and sand. 1.6 0.9 1.3 0.7 0.8 0.8 +1.01 (44) It's natural to have favorite clubs. A good club is like a right arm; it's a part Of you. 0.5 1.2 0.7 0.6 0.4 1.1 +0.76 (42) I like watching golfers who play really well. 0.4 1.1 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.7 +0.76 Statements 45 and 42 suggest settings or situations which most golfers would view favorably. Statement 44 suggests the special feeling a golfer may have for his equipment. Finally, statement 47 is interesting because all factors agree that they dislike slow play; to be useful for developing communication themes, this statement must be transformed. Do all golfers like to play fast? Or do they simply want to avoid excessively slow play? The practical implications of these four consensus items are examined in Chapter IV. One possible explanation for the very few consensus items in this study may be found in the moralistic, con- servative attitude toward golf expressed by Factor III, the Tough-minded Traditionalist. His opinions are so different from the other factors that few consensus statements 49 remain. However, if that factor is ignored for the moment and only the other five factors are compared, six additional statements may be interpreted as consensus items. are: Statement F1 F2 (16) The pleasure in golf is greatly dependent on good manners on the golf course. 0.0 0.2 (17) Sometimes on golf courses, you run into people who just have no business playing golf. -0.0 -0.4 (29) Good equipment can make a great deal of difference in your game. -0.8 -0.2 (38) I prefer to play with someone who shoots about what I shoot. (46) In the late summer, you have the best golf. By then, the less dedicated, less knowledgeable golfers have sort Of dropped by the 57Factor III average z-score. F3 1.5 -1.2 1.5 F4 F5 F6 0.6 0.2 0.0 -0.5 -0.4 0.4 -1.3 0.4 -1.0 0.4 0.0 0.3 -0.8 -0.2 -1.0 These Average Z-Score'S +0.22 -0.20 -0.55 +0.16 -0.51 is not used here in figuring the 50 Average Statement F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 z-Score (50) If you dress like a golfer and act like a golfer, you-(Twill play better. -0.9 -2.2 0.8 -l.2 -l.9 -l.4 -1.52 ) Once again, the practical implications (for these six con- sensus items) for developing communication strategies are discussed in Chapter IV. Factor I: The Serious Scorekeeper Demographic Data Nineteen persons loaded on Factor I--seventeen men and two women. The golfers who loaded on this factor range in age from 16 to 60 years Old; their average age is 36. Fifteen of these 19 are married, and 13 persons on this factor indicate that at least one other member of their immediate family plays golf. This factor is represented by 1 high school student, 58 2 high school graduates, and 10 6 college students, persons with college degrees, including 1 masters and 3 doctorates. In addition to the students, Factor I includes 5 salesmen, 2 college professors, 2 golfprofessionals, e 58One individual reported his occupation as sales- man, but indicated that he was also enrolled in and attending part-time a college degree program. For a com- plete report of the demographic data for all six factors, see the appendices at the end of this study. 51 high school teacher-golf coach, an economist, a newspaper eportswriter, a data processing manager, and a retiree. Twelve of the 19 persons who loaded on Factor I have played golf for more than 10 years; 7 of these have played for more than 20 years, including 5 persons who have played golf for from 35 to 50 years. Although the average age Of the Serious Scorekeeper is 36, the 3 persons on the factor who have played golf for less than 5 years are 16, 25, and 30 years Old. On the average, the Serious Score- keeper has played golf for 20 years. The self-reported handicaps59 of Factor I golfers ranged from 0 to 18; the average of 9 was the lowest of any Of the six factors reported in this study. Sixteen of nineteen golfers reported they play either every day or several times a week. The two persons on Factor I who said they play only once a week were a golf equipment sales representative and a turfgrass student who indicated he plans to work as a golf course superintendent after graduation. Both indicated they simply do not have time to play more frequently. Six of the nineteen persons on this factor enter golf tournaments "frequently" and ten others play in 59Because many respondents did not have an Official handicap, and others reported their average score for 9 or 18 holes, all "handicaps" as reported in this study repre- sent this simple difference: reSpondent's self-estimated 18 hole score, less par 72. 52 tournaments "occasionally."6o Only one person loaded on Factor I had peyer entered a tournament. All but two Of the persons who loaded on Factor I indicated they watch golf on TV "whenever I can." Two persons indicated they watch only pejpr tournaments like the United States Open or the Masters; it is interesting to note that one is a member of the Michigan State University women's golf team, while the other is a golf professional and sales representative for a major manufacturer of golf equipment. Fifteen of nineteen persons on Factor I read at least 1 golf magazine; five read 2, three read 3, and one person reads 4 golf magazines. Six persons on Factor I read a weekly golf magazine. The demographic data summarized above clearly indi- cate that the Serious Scorekeeper is an involved golfer; he is a low-handicapper, he plays frequently, he enters golf tournaments, he watches golf on TV whenever he can, and he reads golf magazines. He has also sustained his interest in golf for an average Of twenty years. Attitudinal Data The Serious Scorekeeper is a serious, competitive person, predominantly concerned with his own performance or score (statements 30, 31). He has little time for people who fail to take the game to heart the way he does (49). 60These terms-~"frequently" and "occasionally"-- are respondent-defined. 53 He wants to be a good golfer, even a champion (31, 39), and he feels very strongly that one must be very serious in order to achieve this kind Of success (22, 30). The Serious Scorekeeper likes to play with competitive golfers (35) and hates to play with people who do not take the game seriously (49) because he feels this is most consistent with his performance-goals. Factor I Average of Difference Statement Z-Score Other Z's (z-z Average) 4! (30) ' I think you have to care enough to get angry. I think you have to be critical Of yourself--of your swing and your attitude. +1.52 -0.44 +1.96 (31) I like to win. One doesn't divorce the liking of a game from success. +1.33 0.34 +0.99 (49) I enjoy playing with the golfer who doesn't take the game too seriously. -2.10 +0.09 -2.19 (39) I guess I will never get over wanting to be a champion at anything I do. +0.93 -0.55 +1.48 (22) I think golf isn't a game you play just for fun. You have to get serious and try to play really well. +0.32 -0.54 +0.86 54 Factor I Average of Difference Statement Z-Score Other Z's (Z-Z Average) (35) I like to play with competitive players, people who are out to win. +1.23 -0.12 +1.35 Factor I derives feelings of self—worth and self- respect from his performance on the golf course(1). Because he places such a premium on performance, the Serious Scorekeeper does not really enjoy playing golf unless he is playing well (12, 8). Playing or scoring well and having fun are synonymous in his mind. It is in this sense that Factor I is a scorekeeper; while he may or may not actually record his scores, he continually "scores" or rates himself against past performances and present expec- tations. A had shot or a bad round of golf is perceived as a threat to his self-image. He sees nothing to laugh about in a bad Shot (18). Statement Factor I Other F's Difference (1) My self-respect is tied up with my golf scores a (12) Golf isn't really fun when I'm not playing well. +1.12 -0.48 +1.60 (8) I enjoy every time I play, no matter how I play. -2.12 -0.27 -l.85 \ 55 Statement Factor I Other F's Difference (18) I think a lot of golfers never feel the humor of hitting a little EaIl around a pasture. -l.12 —0.32 -0.80 The Serious Scorekeeper rates himself not only against his own past performances, but also in relationship to the specific situation. Factor I is always aware of his opponents and his surroundings. The greater the challenge --both from his playing partners and from the course itself--the greater the ego-rewards for success. He values competition (35) and a demanding golf course (45) because they increase the rewards and satisfactions of winning. Statement Factor I Other F's Difference (35) I like to play with com- petitive players, peOple who are out to win. +1.32 -0.12 +1.35 (45) I like a course that's interesting-~that isn't flat and that has lots Of trees and sand. +1.56 +0.91 +0.65 Even when hitting the shot, he is thinking "I want to hole this putt because I've never beaten Joe before," or "I'd sure like to par this hole-~it's the hardest hole on this golf course." The Serious Scorekeeper knows the importance Of the mental side of golf (13, 6), but his ego-involvement 56 will not allow him to be entirely dispassionate or detached (2).61 Victory is sweeter on a challenging golf course or against a highly competitive opponent. Statement Fector I Other F's Difference (13) In golf, mental attitude is the name of the game. +1.70 (6) I find it necessary to keep my emotions under control to play my best. +1.03 (2) When you're hitting a shot, it's just you, the club and the ball. The best players play the shot, not the other players. +0.51 1.38 -0.87 Factor I is so concerned with his own performance that he is somewhat less inclined to want to watch really good golfers than are other factors (42). It may be that the Serious Scorekeeper would rather play than watch, or he may be envious of the skills displayed by more accomplished players. More probably, Factor I views everything about golf in terms of its potential for self-fulfillment . . . and for the Serious Scorekeeper, the pleasure in golf is 61Statements 13 and 6 are not discriminating items. However, Factor I's high positive Z-scores for these state- ments help to explain statement 2. When non-discriminating items are deemed important to the interpretation, only the Z-score for the factor being interpreted is given. This practice will be followed throughout the remainder Of Chapter III. 57 directly and entirely dependent upon his performance (12, 8, 31, 39--as previously listed). Statement Factor I Other F's Difference (42) I like watching golfers who play really well. +0.41 +0.83 -0.42 The Serious Scorekeeper feels that the game of golf is largely mental (13). He disagrees with the statement (10) "I'd feel better about a great shot if I knew that I could do it more often," because he wants to believe that his good shots represent little successes in his efforts to achieve "mind-over-matter" perfection. He views these exceptionally good golf shots as physical evidence of his true potential. Statement Factor I Other F's Difference (13) In golf, mental attitude is the name of the game. 1.70 (10) I'd feel better about a great shot if I knew that I could do it more often. -0.50 +0.64 -l.l4 Factor I is a perfectionist (30) who earnestly, almost fanatically pursues his elusive goal . . . occasion- ally at the expense of other dimensions Of his life. He tends to disassociate golf from other interests and activi- ties, commitments, and constraints. He would like to play every day (7), and is less concerned than are other factors 58 that his passion for golf might interfere with his family life (9) or with his relationships with other people (16). To the Serious Scorekeeper, golf is neither too time con- suming (15) nor too expensive (23); golf is a very important part of his life. Statement Factor I Other F's Difference (30) I think you have to care enough to get angry. I think you have to be critical Of yourself-- of your swing and your attitude. +1.52 -0.44 +1.96 (7) If I didn't have other things to do, I'd like to play golf every day. +1.27 +0.47 +0.80 (9) A golfer has to take some care that he doesn't let the game interfere with his family life. -0.31 +0.48 -0.79 (15) Golf is just so blasted time-consuming. -l.87 -l.20 -0.67 (23) Golf is not an inexpensive game, not by any means. -0.86 -0.02 -0.84 The Serious Scorekeeper values performance above all else, winning for its own sake. While he may not agree that "nice guys finish last," he would agree that good manners--the almost ritualistic traditions of golf etiquette --are subordinate to other playing and scoring consider- ations (16). 59 Statement Factor I Other F's Difference (16) The pleasure in golf is greatly dependent on good manners on the golf course. 0.02 0.52 -0.50 The Serious Scorekeeper subscribes to the sports (as opposed to sporting) philosophy "Winning is everything. Losing is nothing." Factor II: The Cheerful Companion Demographic Data Ten persons loaded on Factor II--five men and five women. They range in age from 21 to 51, with an average age of 41. Although two 21-year-olds loaded on this factor, the next_youngest is 39. Eight of the 10 persons on Factor II are married and all 10 indicate at least one member of their immediate family plays golf. Six of the 10 have 2 years of college, 3 have a bachelor's degree, and 1 has his doctorate. Persons loaded on Factor II have played golf for from 5 to 40 years, for an average of over 18 years. Their handicaps range from 0 to 48; however only two persons on this factor have handicaps below 30. The average handicap is 23. Four persons on this factor play golf only once a week or less frequently, while 5 play several times a week and 1 plays every day. Only two of the ten persons on Factor II indicate they enter golf tournaments frequently. 60 Four enter tournaments occasionally and four have played in a tournament "only once or twice eyer." Six Of ten persons on this factor watch golf on TV frequently. The others watch only major tournaments. Three of the 10 do not read a golf magazine, 4 read one such magazine, and 3 persons read two golf magazines. The demographic data indicate that individuals loaded on Factor II are on the average Older, less Skilled, and less involved than are golfers who loaded on Factor I. The Cheerful Companion is far more likely to be a woman; although only 1 in 4 respondents in the total sample is a woman, 5 Of the 10 persons on Factor II are women, while only 2 of 19 persons on Factor I are women. The demographic differences between Factors I and II are not at all surprising, for the attitudinal portrait of the Cheerful Companion is unlike that of the Serious Scorekeeper in almost every way. They represent opposite extremes on a competitive continuum. Attitudinal Data The Cheerful Companion is not at all competitive; he plays for fun--and always has fun (statements 8, 12) because he does not take the game or his scores too seri- ously (22, 1). In fact, the Cheerful Companion finds humor in playing golf (18). 61 Factor II Average Of Difference Statement z-Score Other Z's (z-z Average) (8) I enjoy every time I play, no matter how I play. +1.34 -0.96 +2.30 (12) Golf isn't really fun when I'm not playing well. —l.67 +0.08 -l.75 (22) I think golf isn't a game you play just for fun. You have to get Serious and try to play really well. -l.94 -0.09 -l.85 (1) My self-respect is tied up with my golf scores a little bit. -l.59 -0.01 -1.58 (18) I think a lot Of golfers never feel the humor Of hitting a little BaIl around a pasture. 0.28 -0.60 +0.88 He delights in the company Of people who share his cheer- ful, fun-loving approach to golf (49, 20)--people who can join him in laughing over a particularly had shot (21, 18). Statement Factor II Other F's Difference (49) I enjoy playing with the golfer who doesn't take the game too seriously. +1.26 -0.58 +1.84 (20) One thing I like about golf is companionship with congenial pe0p1e. +2.28 +0.64 +1.64 62 Statement Factor II Other F's Difference (21) Sometimes you're kind of happy when the other guy hits a bad shot. It's just human nature, and it's part Of the game. -0.03 -0.61 +0.58 (18) I think a lot of golfers never feel the humor of hitting a little BaIl around a pasture. +0.28 -0.60 +0.88 Although the Cheerful Companion does not rejoice when the other guy hits a bad shot, he can see humor in the game . . . and he never takes himself or the game so seriously that he loses his ability to laugh at a ridiculous shot. The Cheerful Companion loves the outdoors--SO much so that he does not even need other reasons to play the game (34). However, he finds plenty of other reasons to enjoy golf--reasons which spring from his interest in people (20). The Cheerful Companion plays golf primarily for social reasons. Although all six factors in this study dislike slow play, Factor II is more tolerant of the problem than are the other factors (47); he can pleasantly fill any waiting time talking with his playing partners, watching other golfers, or just enjoying the outdoors (42, 34). Statement Factor II Other F's Difference (34) Just being outdoors is all the reason I need to play golf. +1.38 -0.89 +2.27 63 Statement Factor II Other F's Difference (20) One thing I.1ike about golf is companionship with congenial people. +2.28 +0.64 +1.64 (47) One thing I dislike - about golf is Slow play. +0.69 +1.18 -0.49 (42) I like watching golfers who play really well. +1.11 +0.69 +0.42 The Cheerful Companion has fun playing golf, but tries to put things in prOper perspective; the game plays a relatively minor role in his life. He is more sensitive than are other factors to the affect golf can have upon his other interests and obligations: He feels golfs is expen- sive (23) and is concerned that the game may adversely affect his relationship with his family (9). He is less certain than are other factors that golf is not too time- consuming (15). Statement Factor II Other F's Difference (23) Golf is not an inex- pensive sport, not by any means. +0.68 -0.33 +1.01 (9) A golfer has to take some care that he doesn't let the game interfere with his family life. +1.07 +0.21 +0.86 (15) Golf is just so blasted time-consuming. -0.68 -1.43 +0.75 64 Because he plays the game for fun, the Cheerful Companion does not like to have to analyze each shot (14) or be heavily penalized for every bad shot (19). Compared to other factors, he does not follow the professional golf tour very closely (25). Golf simply is not all-important in his life. Statement Factor II Other F's Difference (14) You can tell a course is good when it makes you think all of the time. -0.03 +0.72 -0.75 (19) If you miss a fairway by 15 yards, the course Should make you pay for it--either by losing a stroke or by having to make a terrific re- covery shot. -0.52 +0.11 -0.63 (25) I do not follow the pro- golf circuit. It doesn't matter to me who's playing and what kind of equipment they're using and the like. -0.44 -l.31 +0.87 The Cheerful Companion strongly disagrees with the statement that how you dress and act affects your perfor- mance (50) because he does not have a fixed image of what a golfer is or should be. His casual, relaxed approach to golf allows him to acknowledge the value Of expert in- struction (40)-—and at the same time admit that he has favorite or "pet" clubs (44). 65 Statement Factor II Other F's Difference (50) If you dress like a golfer and act like a golfer, you-Will play better golf. -2.18 -0.93 -1.25 (40) I think that taking lessons provides a definite asset in learning to play golf. +1.48 +0.95 +0.53 (44) It's natural to have favorite clubs. A good club is like a right arm; it's part of you. +1.22 +0.66 +0.56 The Cheerful Companion may play all his Shots from tee to green with his favorite club; he does not worry that he is not using all Of his clubs because he is not trying to live up to anyone's image of what a "real golfer" is or ought to be. For similar reasons, Factor II is not as thrilled about his good Shots as are other factors (3), since he does not use golf to define who he is (1). Statement Factor II Other F's Difference (3) I love the moment in golf, for exampIe, the quick feeling of power you get when you really hit a drive right. -0.07 +1.13 -l.20 (1) My self-respect is tied up with my golf scores a little bit. -l.59 -0.01 -l.58 66 Golf is just one of many activities used by the Cheerful Companion to define himself as a person--not just as a golfer. Golf is no microcosm of the real world. For example, Factor II does not perceive golf as a great socializing process; one learns "self-control, manners, and a knowledge of yourself" before--or perhaps in spite Of-- learning to play golf (11). Statement Factor II ggher F's Difference (11) You learn self-control, good manners and a knowledge of yourself through golf. -0.44 +0.55 -0.99 In almost every respect, the Cheerful Companion's attitudes toward golf present a striking contrast to those of the Serious Scorekeeper: Statement Factor I Factor II Difference62 (1) My self-respect is tied up with my golf scores a little bit. +1.10 -1.59 2.69 (8) I enjoy every time I play, no matter how I (12) Golf isn't really fun when I'm not playing well. +1.12 -l.68 2.80 62 The difference is given without a Si n in order to simply emphasize the magnitude of the attitudinal gulf separating Factors I and II. 67 Statement Factor I Factor II Difference (22) I think golf isn't a game you play just for fun. You have to get serious and try to play really well. +0.32 -l.94 2.26 (49) I enjoy playing with the golfer who doesn't take the game too seriously. -2.10 +1.26 3.36 The distinction between the Serious Scorekeeper and the Cheerful Companion is crystal-clear: Factor I is a serious and intensely competitive golfer; Factor II is fun- loving and not at all competitive. Factor III: The Tough-Minded raditionalist Demographic Data Six persons loaded on Factor III--all men. They range in age from 12 to 58, with an average age of 43. Four persons on this factor are 53, 58, 57, and 58 years old. Five of 6 persons are married, and all 6 indicate that someone in their immediate family plays golfs. While demographic data for only six persons are not significant, a possible relationship between the atti- tudes characteristic of this factor and their "occupations" is indicated. The Tough-minded Traditionalist is closely associated officially with the game Of golf: loading on Factor III were a golf course manager, a golf equipment sales representative, a turfgrass student employed on the 68 grounds crew of a local country club, and the lZ-year-Old son of a major-college golf coach. In addition, one other person who loaded on this factor has traveled in the British Isles and played several old, historic golf courses in the ”cradle of golf." Factor III has played golf for an average of almost 30 years. Four of the six persons who loaded on this factor have played golf for 30, 35, 45, and 50 years. Self- reported handicaps range from 2 to 24, with only two persons below an 18 handicap; the average is a 16 handicap. Two persons play golf several times a week, 3 play once a week, and 1 person plays less than once a week. Five of the six play in tournaments occasionally while one person has entered a golf tournament "only once or twice 2225:" Media exposure to golf is high for Factor III; five of the six watch golf on TV whenever possible. The golf equipment sales representative who only watches major tournaments reads 4 golf magazines. The other five persons on the factor each read one golf magazine. However, four of the six persons on Factor III read a weekly golf publi- cation. In summary, the Tough-minded Traditionalist is Older, has played golf for almost 30 years, plays only an average game of golf (l6 handicap), and is a heavy user of golf media. Although demographic data for only six persons are not very significant, the pattern of shared attitudes is quite distinctive for Factor III. 69 Attitudinal Data The Tough-minded Traditionalist considers himself a golf purist among heathens; he sees himself as a "defender of the faith," especially in matters concerning proper attire and equipment (statements 50, 29) . . . and correct golf etiquette (16). Factor III Average of Difference Statement Z-Score Other z's (z-z Average) (50) If you dress like a golfer and act like a golfer , you-(Fill play better. +0.79 -1.52 +2.31 (29) Good equipment can make a great deal of difference in your game. +1.51 -0.55 +2.06 (16) The pleasure in golf is greatly dependent on good manners on the golf course. +1.54 +0.22 +1.32 His is a very moral position; the Tough-minded Traditionalist strictly interprets, enforces, and supports the rules Of golf (32). He also believes there is virtue in playing well--or at least that bad Shots and poor con- centration are jgstlyypunished (27, 19, 14, 43). Statement Factor III Other F's Difference (32) Almost everybody occasionally improves his lie. It's just not that big a thing. -l.75 -0.86 -0.89 70 Statement Factor III Other F's Difference (27) It's very difficult to come back after a bad start in a round. +0.34 -0.85 +1.19 (19) If you miss a fairway by 15 yards, the course Should make you pay for it--either by losing a stroke or by having to make a terrific re- covery Shot. +0.95 -0.19 +1.14 (14) You can tell a course is good when it makes you think all of the time. +1.41 +0.44 +0.97 (43) I don't like a hole where one bad shot will ruin the entire round for you. -1.44 -0.71 -0.73 The Traditionalist believes in the importance of good manners and proper golf etiquette, but he perceives other people as less concerned with these values than he (33). He is ”Tough—minded" because he frowns on any relaxing Of the rules of golf, and also because he believes that some people have no business on a golf course (17). Statement Factor III Other F's Difference (33) I think that golf is a sport that retains some of the old chivalry, a sense of fair play. I think that's good. -0.15 +0.46 -0.61 71 Statement Factor III Other F's Difference (17) Sometimes on golf courses, you run into people who just have no business playing golf. +1.38 -0.20 +1.58 Factor III is concerned about performance; he wants to improve. He believes that he can become a better golfer by association--by playing only with better golfers (28, 38), and by dressing and acting "like a golfer" (50). The Tough-minded Traditionalist has a very specific, idealized image of a "real golfer." He places great importance upon certain attributes--clothing (50), equipment (29), and behavior (50, 16) associated with this image. Statement Factor III Other F's Difference (28) I like to play with people who are better golfers than I am. It improves my game. +2.04 +0.61 +1.43 (38) I prefer to play with someone who shoots about what I shoot. -1.16 +0.16 -l.32 (50) If you dress like a golfer and act IiEe a golfer, you will pIay better. +0.79 -l.52 +2.31 (29) Good equipment can make a reat deal of difference in your game. +1.51 -0.55 +2.06 72 Statement Factor III Other F's Difference (16) The pleasure in golf is greatly dependent on good manners on the golf course. +1.54 +0.22 +1.32 Although he believes that it is all right to want to play and score well in golf, the Traditionalist is much more concerned with living up to his image of a golfer as a ”good sport." This factor truly believes "it doesn't matter whether you win or lose, but how you play the game." He feels it would be unseemly to overemphasize winning (30, 31, 26). Statement Factor III Other F's Difference (30) I think you have to care enough to get angry. I think you have to be critical of yourself-- of your swing and your attitude. -1.43 +0.15 -l.58 (31) I like to win. One doesn't divorce the liking of a game from success. -0.66 +0.74 -l.40 (26) Winning a golf tournament has to be one of the greatest of thrills, something to really remember. -0.13 +0.60 -0.73 Clearly, the Traditionalist believes one should distinguish between enjoyment of the game of golf and winning. Factor III feels it is not right to feel too much exhilaration over 73 winning or to display anger at losing. Such emotional extremes must be avoided. Almost as unbecoming in the eyes Of this purist is excessive enjoyment of certain aspects of golfing which he feels are non-essential to the basic activity. It is not desirable to play golf every day (7), although a truly dedicated golfer will play regularly throughout the season (46). The guiding principle is moderation. Statement Factor III Other F's Difference (7) If I didn't have other things to do, I'd like to play golf every-day. -0.45 +0.82 -l.27 (46) In the late summer, you have the best golf. By then, the less dedicated, less knowledgeable golfers have sort of dropped by the wayside. +1.48 -0.52 +2.00 The Tough-minded Traditionalist is proud of his knowledge and dedication; he can and often will "talk shop" with other golfers. Yet, ever the purist, Factor III prefers a cer- tain on-course reticence. There is, after all, plenty of time for pleasant conversation and other socializing either before or after a round (20, 51). Statement_ Factor III Other F's Difference (20) One thing I like about golf is companionship with congenial people. +0.31 +1.03 -0.72 74 Statement Factor III Other F's Difference (51) A real part of the fun of golf is talking with other players about the game. +0.29 +0065 -0036 During the round, "the play's the thing." And one of the few truly acceptable pleasures when on the golf course-- according to the Tough-minded Traditionalist-~is the satis- faction one feels when thinking about a properly executed golf Shot (52). Statement Factor III Other F's Difference (52) I don't really reflect on a good shot. I'm already thinking about the next shot. -l.45 -0.87 -0.58 Factor IV: The Nervous Novice Demographic Data Thirteen persons loaded on Factor IV--seven women and six men. They range in age from 25 to 72 years Old, with an average age of 45. Twelve Of the thirteen persons on Factor IV are married and ten persons indicate that a member of their immediate family plays golf. Three of the men who loaded on this factor indicate that they are the only ones in their families who play. Persons who loaded on Factor IV have played golf for from less than one year to 42 years, for an average of 15 years. All three of the respondents included in the 75 study who have played golf for less than one year are loaded on this factor. Self-reported handicaps range from 6 to 90; the average handicap for Factor IV is over 36. One person on the factor plays golf every day, 6 play several times a week, 2 play once a week, and 4 persons play less than once a week. Only one person on Factor IV enters golf tournaments frequently. Six play in tournaments occasion- ally, 1 has played in a tournament "only once or twice eyer," and 5 of the 13 persons loaded on Factor IV have peyer entered a golf tournament. Eight persons on this factor watch TV golf fre- quently, three watch only major tournaments, and two persons never watch golf on TV. One person loaded on this factor reads two golf magazines and two others read one such publication. Ten of the thirteen persons on Factor IV do not read a golf magazine. The demographic data for Factor IV indicate that these individuals have less involvement with and partici- pation in golf than any of the other five factors. They have not played the game for as long a period of time, they play less frequently, they are less accomplished, and they have a much lower level Of golf publication readership. Relative to the other factors included in the study, the Nervous Novice ig_a novice. 76 Attitudinal Data The Nervous Novice is intimidated by competitive situations; he does not like to play with highly competitive golfers (statement 35) or better players (28). He does not care to bet since this introduces an additional competitive element to the game situation (48). Factor IV Average of Difference Statement z-Score Other Z's (z-z AverageL (35) I like to play with competitive players, people who are out to win. -2.05 +0.53 -2.58 (28) I like to play with peOple who are better golfers than I am. It improves my game. -0.40 + 1.10 -1.50 (48) When I'm playing golf, I like to be playing for something. A friendly wager makes the game more inter- esting. -l.72 -0.25 -l.47 Playing with strangers or in front of crowds squelches any competitive desires which Factor IV may have (24, 36); it only makes him anxious about his performance. The Nervous Novice does not have enough confidence in his golfing skills (10) to attempt to compete with other players. 77 Statement Factor IV Other F‘s Difference (24) Playing with strangers makes me more competi- tive. -l.86 -0.77 -1.09 (36) I'd rather play a good golf course that's crowded than a bad course that's not crowded. -0.61 +0.02 -0.63 (10) I'd feel better about a really great shot if I knew that I could do it more Often. +1.88 +0.17 +1.71 The Nervous Novice is most comfortable when in the company of golfers with similar abilities (38). In this Situation he feels free to relax and just tries to play better-~to compete with himself (41). Statement Factor IV Other F's Difference (38) I prefer to play with someone who shoots about what I Shoot. +0.37 -0.15 +0.52 (41) I compete when I play golf--but only against myself. +0.83 -0.80 +1.63 Factor IV rejects the notion that better equipment could have any great effect on his golf game (29). He accepts his physical limitations, and does not dream of being a golf champion (39). 78 Statement Factor IV Other F's Difference (29) Good equipment can make a rent deal of differ- ence In your game. -1.25 0.00 -1.25 (39) I guess I will never get over wanting to be a champion at anything I do. -l.48 -0.07 -1.41 The Nervous Novice is an emotional person-- exhilarated by each little success and dreading each failure. He loves the "feel" Of a good shot (3) but hates the kind of golf hole where one bad shot ends any chance he has of finishing the round with a good score (43). He likes an "interesting" golf course, but he is perhaps more aware of (and acquainted with) the punitive potential of some Of the attributes of good golf course design than are the other factors. The Nervous Novice views strategically placed trees and sand traps with the slightly jaundiced eye of one who has "been there" (45). Statement Factor IV Other F's Difference (3) I love the moment in golf, for exampIe, the quick feeling of power you get when you really hit a drive right. +2.05 +0.70 +1.35 (43) I don't like a hole where one had shot will ruin the entire round for you. +0.33 -l.06 +1.39 79 Statement Factor IV Other F's Difference (45) I like a course that's interesting-~that isn't flat and that has lots of trees and sand. +0.70 +1.08 -0.38 Because the Nervous Novice perceives himself as a beginner, or "duffer," he readily identifies with the golfer who is playing badly (37). He is more tolerant than other factors of beginners who do not have golfing skills or a knowledge of golf etiquette (17), perhaps suspecting "better" golfers feel pe_does not belong on a golf courSe. Statement Factor IV Other F's Difference (37) I don't like to see people play badly. I feel bad £25 them when it happens. +1.20 +0.19 +1.01 (17) Sometimes on golf courses, you run into people who just have no business playing golf. -0.52 0.18 -0.70 Factor V: The Cool Competitor Demographic Data Twenty-four persons loaded on Factor V--twenty men and four women. They range in age from 12 to 64, with an average age of 39. Eighteen persons on this factor are married and twenty-one of twenty-four indicate that a member of their immediate family plays golf. One member Of a high school golf team, one high school and three college 80 golf coaches, a golf professional, and a past president of the local Publinx Association all loaded on Factor V. The professional was a recent individual winner in the Big Ten Conference Tournament. Persons loaded on this factor have played golf for from less than 5 years to 43 years, for an average Of 21 years. Their handicaps range from 0 to 24; the average handicap for Factor V is 10, and 7 persons on the factor have handicaps of 5 or less. Six of the 24 persons on Factor V play golf every day, 12 play several times a week, and only 1 person on this factor plays golf less than once a week. While 3 individuals have never.entered a golf tournament, 11 play in tournaments occasionally, and 10 of 24 persons play in golf tournaments frequently. Eighteen Of twenty-four persons on Factor V watch TV golf frequently, and the other six watch the coverage of major tournaments. Twenty person on the factor read at least one golf magazine; all but seven of these read more than one, and seven persons on Factor V read a weekly golf publication. The demographic data for the Cool Competitor are similar to those for Factor I, The Serious Scorekeeper. Like Factor I, Factor V is a low handicapper, plays golf and enters tournaments frequently, watches golf on TV, and reads at least one golf magazine. The average age, handi- cap, and number of years playing golf are strikingly Similar for the two factors: ill! I illllllll'l l 81 Factor I Factor V Average Age: 36 39 Average Handicap: 9 10 Average Years Playing Golf: 20 21 Attitudinal Data Like Factor I, the Cool Competitor is performance- oriented. He feels that winning a golf tournament is a great thrill (statement 26). He tempers his pleasure at winning, however--with a conviction that he can play his best golf only when he is able to control his emotions (6). The Cool Competitor believes mental attitude is the key to golfing success (13). Factor V Average of Difference Statement z-Score Other Z's z-z Average) (26) Winning a golf tournament has to be one of the greatest of thrills, something to really remember. +1.46 +0.28 +1.18 (6) I find it necessary to keep my emotions under control to play my best. +1.42 +0.15 +1.27 (13) In golf, mental attitude is the name Of the game. +1.96 +1.00 +0.96 Unlike Factor I--and as will be explained, also unlike another "competitive" type, Factor VI--the Cool 82 Competitor feels that the expression of one's anger or frustration is inappropriate behavior on a golf course (5, 4). Statement Factor V Other F's Difference (5) After a bad shot, I sometimes feel like beating the club into the ground, or snapping it across my knee. -2.15 -0.60 -l.55 (4) The golf course is a good place to take out your frustrations some- To Factor V, "mental attitude" and "control" in- clude much more than not getting angry or upset. Any emotional extreme--even joy--may adversely affect one's performance, he feels. The Cool Competitor cultivates an aura Of detachment; although he derives great satisfaction from playing well, he tries to concentrate on each shot rather than reflect on his good shots (52). Many golfers have strong negative feelings about playing with strangers. In this situation, Factor V attempts to maintain his emotional cool through indifference (24). Statement Factor V Other F's Difference (52) I don't really reflect on a good shot. I'm already thinking about the next shot. -0.14 -l.l4 +1.00 83 Statement Factor V Other F's Difference (24) Playing with strangers makes me more competitive. -0.16 -1.11 +0.95 The Cool Competitor does not like to see a fellow golfer hit a bad shot (21). Because he so assiduously seeks to control his emotions, he may just not pay much attention to how his opponents are playing. Yet Factor V has a well-developed sense Of fair play (33); he has no desire to win a golf match as a result Of someone else's misfortune. Statement Factor V Other F's Difference (21) Sometimes you're kind of happy when the other guy hits a bad shot. It's just human nature, and it's part of the game. -l.l4 -0.39 -0.75 (33) I think that golf is a Sport that retains some Of the old chivalry, a sense of fair play. I think that's good. +0.88 +0.26 +0.62 The Cool Competitor is playing for high stakes; the self- control, courtesy, and a sense Of identity which he believes can be developed through golf (11) will serve him well in the game of life. Ill; .J“! 84 Statement Factor V Other F's Difference (11) You learn self-control, good manners and a knowledge of yourself through golf. +1.30 +0.21 +1.09 The Cool Competitor likes to follow or "keep up" with what's happening on the pro golf tour (25). A pro- fessional golfer must master the use of all fourteen clubs in order to win on tour. Factor V identifies with winners and winning (26), and is less inclined than are other factors to rely heavily on a favorite club (44). Also, there is an element of superstition in this statement. The Cool Competitor likes to always be "in control." Statement Factor V Other F's Difference (25) I do not follow the pro- golf circuit. It doesn't matter to me who's playing and what kind of equipment they're using and the like. -l.69 -1.06 -0.63 (26) Winning a golf tournament has to be one of the greatest of thrills, something to really remember. +1.46 +0.28 +1.18 (44) It's natural to have favorite clubs. A good club is like a right arm; it's part of you. +0.43 +0.83 -0.40 85 Factor VI: The Gregerious Gambler Demographic Data Six persons loaded on Factor VI--five men and one woman. They range in age from 26 to 60, with an average age of 47. All six persons are married. Three indicate that someone in their immediate family plays golf, and three said that no one else in their family plays the game. Persons who loaded on Factor VI have played golf for from 15 years to 47 years, for an average of 25 years. Self-reported handicaps range from 4 to 16; the average handicap for Factor VI is 11. One person on the factor plays golf less than once a week, 2 play once a week, 2 play several times a week, and 1 person plays every day. Four persons on Factor VI enter golf tournaments occasion- ally and two play in tournaments frequently. All six persons on the factor watch TV golf fre- quently. Three persons do not read a golf magazine, two read 2 such magazines, and one person on the factor reads 4 golf magazines. The three persons who do read golf publications all read a weekly magazine. In summary, Factor V1 is Older than the other factors, and has played golf for about 25 years--longer than any factor other than the Tough-minded Traditionalist. With only six persons loaded on the factor, however, no patterns are suggested by the demographic data. A distinctive pattern does emerge from the attitudinal data. :Illllll. ( IIi ill) I ll! 86 Attitudinal Data The Gregarious Gambler, like Factor I and Factor V, is highly competitive. However, his competitiveness is more other-directed; he is competing with other golfers, not just against himself (statement 41). For example, he loves the kind of head-to-head competition which usually results when two or more players agree to a friendly wager. Betting on himself adds spice to the contest, makes the game more interesting (48). Factor VI Average of Difference Statement z-Score Other Z's (z-z Average) (41) I compete when I play golf-~but only against myself. -2.24 -0.18 -2.06 (48) When I'm playing golf, I like tO be playing for something. A friendly wager makes the game more inter- esting. +1.76 -0.94 +2.70 Factor VI admits to having a real temper (5), but he views this as a healthy way of venting one's frustrations --or at least he feels that there is nothing wrong with expressing one's emotions (4). Statement Fector VI Other F's Difference (5) After a bad shot, I sometimes feel like beating the club into the ground, or snapping it across my knee. +1.28 -l.29 +2.57 87 Statement Factor VI Other F's Difference (4) The golf course is a good place to take out your frustrations sometimes. +0.16 -l.45 +1.61 Unlike other factors, the Gregarious Gambler does not feel that he must control his emotions to play well (6). He uses his emotions, he does not want them under excessive control. He may view emotions as just a part of his com- petitive arsenal. For example, Factor VI does not think that it is difficult to "come back" after a bad start (27); he may see himself as a late charger, a la Arnold Palmer. He uses his emotions; he gets angry, "gets the old adrenalin flowing" . . . and adds 10 yards to his drives. Statement Factor VI cher F's Difference (6) I find it necessary to keep my emotions under control to play my best. -0.51 +0.54 -l.05 (27) It's very difficult to come back after a bad start in a round. -l.53 -0.48 -l.05 Factor VI is not as certain as are other factors that golf is largely mental (13). He believes that one's physical ability is gg.important, if not more important; you do not will the ball onto the green and into the hole, you just hit the shot to the best of your ability (2). 88 Statement Factor VI Other F's Difference (13) In golf, mental attitude is the name of the game. +0.28 +1.34 -l.06 (2) When you're hitting a shot, it's just you, the club and the ball. The best players play the shot, not the other pIayers. +1.67 +1.15 +0.52 Because he believes in the importance of natural ability, the Gregarious Gambler does not feel that taking lessons will necessarily improve one's golf game appreciably, except possibly at the beginner level (40). And if a golfer is playing badly, it just may be because he lacks the necessary physical aptitude; there is no point in worrying about something you can't change (37). Also, remember that the Gambler has a personal interest in the outcome--he is "rooting" for himself. Statement Factor VI Other F's Difference (40) I think taking lessons provides a definite asset in learning to play golf. +0.29 +1.18 -0.89 (37) I don't like to see people play badly. I feel bad fpr_them.when it happens. -0.44 +0.51 -0.95 The Gregarious Gambler is not as concerned as are other factors about enforcing the rules of golf. If 89 natural ability is as important as he thinks it is, a golfer really will not affect his score much even if he does improve his lie in the rough (32). Statement Factor VI Other F's Difference (32) Almost everybody occasionally improves his lie. It's just not that big a thing. -0.30 -l.14 +0.84 "Just being outdoors" is insufficient reason for the Gregarious Gambler to play golf (34). He likes to be where the action is and he likes people. He really enjoys talking with other players about golf (51). Also, he likes the stimulation of playing in front of other people. What would be an unpleasant crowd to other factors may be a potential gallery for the Gregarious Gambler, who feels he has a flair for the dramatic (36). Statement Factor VI Other F's Difference (34) Just being outdoors is all the reason I need to play golf. -2.06 -O.21 -l.85 (51) . A real part of the fun of golf is talking with other players about the game. +1.34 +0.44 +0.90 (36) I'd rather play a good golf course that's crowded than a bad course that's not crowded. +1.19 -0.34 +1.53 90 Even though he does not mind playing a crowded golf course-- if it is a good layout--the Gregarious Gambler does not have much tolerance for Slow play (47). He plays golf for stimulation and finds slow play both frustrating and boring. His style is fast-moving, with lots of action. Statement Factor VI Other F's Difference (47) One thing I dislike about golf is slow play. +1.62 +0.99 +0.63 The Gregarious Gambler really likes the game of golf, but he likes it fast and furious, with lots of variety and friendly competition. CHAPTER IV CONCLUSIONS This study was undertaken in order to discover and egplain patterned attitudes toward the game of golf. The study was intended to both further the examination Of Q- technique in the study of consumer behavior, and also to generate ideas for developing communication strategies for the promotion Of golf. The conclusions have been divided into theoretical and practical implications. The former section includes a review and discussion of the evidence supporting the Kernan and Sommers Theory of Promotion. Also included in the section labeled theoretical impli- cations is a reexamination of the suitability Of Q- technique for Operationalizing the major variables of that theory, in light of the operant evidence. The section on practical implications includes findings of specific application to the promotion of golf. 91 92 Theoretical Implications yerification of Perceptual grganization A first implication of the study is a verification of the assertion made by Robertson, and reported in Chapter I, page 5, that "perception is organized." To reiterate, Robertson states that "perception depends upon personal factors,” such as an individual's values and attitudes, and that the rpieg for selecting and assigning meaning to perceptions are internalized within the indi- vidual (Chapter I, page 6). The identification of a limited number of attitude types exhibiting systematic similarities supports the proposition that respondents do have structured or organized perceptions of golf. The factor interpretations in Chapter III indicate that respondents' attitudes about golf not only have structure, but that those structures are coherent. Attribute and Performance Dimensions OfiMeaning The physical and functional dimensions of meaning are labeled by Kernan and Sommers attribute and performance, respectively (Chapter I, page 16), and there is evidence in the study to support the existence of these variables. For example, Factor III, The Tough-minded Traditionalist, clearly uses both attributes--clothing and equipment--and a set of behaviors--proper golf etiquette and strict adherence to the rules of golf--to give meaning to his 93 concept of "a golfer." Other factors associate different attributes and behaviors with their concept of a golfer; in fact, all other factors reject the belief that traditional dress and etiquette are necessary prerequisites to being or becoming a golfer. Role TypeE Role Interaction, an o e ommi en A key to understanding the factors is an awareness of their differing role-perceptions of what a golfer is or ought to be. The reader will recall the discussion of the Kernan and Sommers Theory of Promotion in Chapter I, page 14: "Role behavior is defined in terms of three concepts: role type, role interaction, and role commitment." The reader will further recall that Kernan and Sommers define role type as "a societally imposed cluster of activities or behavior expectations." There is support for this defi- nition in the study. Once again by way of example, the Tough-minded Traditionalist places great emphasis upon the importance of proper on-course dress and demeanor. Factor III might be expected to endorse the purchase and use of expensive name-brand clothing designed gpecifically for golfers. Other factors, because of their differing role- perceptions Of "a golfer," might sanction activity patterns or product clusters which are proscribed by the role-type of the Tough-minded Traditionalist. For example, the Cheerful Companion may love his discount-store golf clubs 94 as much for the satisfaction of being a thrifty person as for any design features of the clubs themselves; the Tough- minded Traditionalist would not even consider such a purchase because it circumvents the traditional relation- ship between the golf professional and a player seeking new equipment in order to play better. Role interaction, the intermingling or overlapping of a basic role type with other roles,63 is empirically validated in the study by persons who loaded on more than one factor. For example, subject 57 is a golf professional --a very low—handicap player who is seriously concerned with his performance. However, this respondent has also played golf for fifty years, and is a sales representative for a major manufacturer of golf equipment and for several small manufacturers of golf apparel. It is not inconsistent for this respondent to model himself as p223 a Serious Scorekeeper and a Tough-minded Traditionalist. Role commitment is defined by Kernan and Sommers as an individual's predisposition to perform those activities and to use those products sanctioned or prescribed for his 64 The proposition that the magnitude specific role type. of a respondent's loading on a factor is a measure of his role commitment is testable, by Observation of relevant 63Chapter I, p. 15. 64Ibid. 95 golf-related behaviors and statistical comparison with other individuals with both higher and lower factor- loadings. Meaning, Value, andQ-technigue The reader will recall in Chapter I, page 15, that promotion may be conceived of as a problem of supplying consumers with "appropriate" information that should theoretically increase the probability of explicit negoti- ation. Kernan and Sommers state that "appropriate" information must have both meaning and a high positive yelpe for the receiver in order to increase the probability of explicit negotiation. 1 "Meaning" is defined as a receiver's aggregate perception of a communicated symbol; as previously noted in Chapter I and again in Chapter IV, the meaning of a symbol derives from its attribute and performance dimensions. Kernan and Sommers posit an independent relationship between the attribute and performance dimensions of meaning; that is, either may equal zero (but not both) and still yield some amount of meaning. The author once again takes issue with their position, and instead suggests an interdependent relationship exists between attribute, per- formance, and role perceptions of communicated symbols.65 65The rationale for suggesting such an inter- dependency is given on pages 23-24 of Chapter I. 96 The data lend support to the notions of performance- performance, attributefperformance, and roleeperformance interactions as those concepts were developed by the author in Chapter I. For example, the Serious Scorekeeper is almost a pure performance-performance type. He values performance above all else; he highly values only those attribute and performance dimensions of golf which he perceives as being consistent with his desire to improve his golf scores. In stark contrast to the Serious Scorekeeper, the Cheerful Companion is almost a pure role-performance type. He derives most of his satisfaction from playing golf by relating his golfing experiences to his perceptions of himself as a "fun-loving person," a "cheerful person," and a ”good companion." The Cheerful Companion is unconcerned about his score; he defines the performance benefits of playing golf in terms of their compatibility with highly valued role types which interface, overlap, or even subsume his role perception of "a golfer." In addition to those interaction labels proposed by the author, the Tough-minded Traditionalist provides evidence of a still more complex interaction--an attribute- rple:performance interaction. The Tough-minded Tradition- alist explicitly agrees that there is a relationship between attribute (clothing and equipment), role (good manners and proper golf etiquette), and performance: ll '1‘ 1) III-11 (11‘ (ll 1". Ill-.11).] ‘lp Ill 1} Statement (29) Good equipment can make a great deal of difference in your game. (16) The pleasure in golf is greatly dependent on good manners on the golf course. (50) If you dress like a golfer and act like a golfer, you-Will play better. 97 Factor III Average of Difference z-Score Other Z's (Z-Z Average) +1.51 -O.55 +2.06 +1.54 +0.22 +1.32 +0.79 -l.52 +2.31 However, there are complex relationships not adequately dealt with by Kernan and Sommers or by Q- technique. meaning across factors. One such problem is that of differentiating A statement does not necessarily mean the same thing to any two factors, even if their rankings Of the statement are identical. For example, both the Serious Scorekeeper and the Cool Competitor gave highest ranking to statement 13: "In golf, mental attitude is the name of the game." For each factor, however, com- parison of that statement with other statements indicates that "mental attitude" means different things to each group. and the attitudes of others are important. For the Serious Scorekeeper, the physical setting He requires some outside sensory input in order to get "psyched up" to play well: 98 Factor I Average of Statement Z-Score Other Z's (49) I enjoy playing with the golfer who doesn't take the game too seriously. -2.09 +0.09 (35) I like to play with competitive players, people who are out to win. +1.23 -0.12 (45) I like a course that's interesting--that isn't flat and that has lots of trees and sand. +1.56 +0.91 Difference (z-z Average) -2.18 +1.35 +0.65 The Cool Competitor, on the other hand, accepts the responsibility for his mental state. He strives for control, emotional detachment, as evidenced by his neutral- to-negative rankings Of items which suggest outside stimuli affect his on-course mental state: Factor V Average of Statement Z-Score Other Z's (6) I find it necessary to keep my emotions under control to play my best. +1.42 +0.15 (5) After a bad shot, I sometimes feel like beating the club into the ground, or snapping it across my knee. -2.15 -0.60 Difference (Z-Z Averege) +1.27 -1.55 99 Factor V Average of Differnce Statement z-Score Other Z's (Zfz Average) (52) I don't really reflect on a good shot. I'm already thinking about the next shot. -0.l4 -l.14 +1.00 (24) Playing with strangers makes me more competitive. -0.16 -l.ll +0.95 (21) Sometimes you're kind of happy when the other guy hits a bad shot. It's just human nature, and it's part of the game. -l.l4 -0.39 -0.75 One way the problem (Of Operationalizing and comb paring specific meanings and value rankings) might be dealt with is to use a statement ranked identically by two or more factors as a projective device to elicit new depth interview responses. A new Q-sample constructed from such interviews would help to clarify meaning and value issues not explained by the original sorts. Igplications for Promoting Golf The results of this study indicate that it may be difficult to promote golf to mass audiences. The primary difficulty is that golfer's attitudes about golf are both cogplex and varied. There may be little or no overlap across attitudinal segments. For example, in this study there were only four items Of general consensus--and two of these could be interpreted as removing the respondent from the actual playing experience and placing him in a 100 spectator-onlooker situation, i.e., watching good golfers (42) and enjoying the aesthetic appeal of an interesting golf course (45). With a significant number and pattern of consensus items, as a foundation, the golf promoter might reasonably develop communication strategies with broad appeal for the greatest number of golfers. A dearth of consensus items may call for a very different approach. The Opposite of an aggregating, broad-appeal promotional strategy is a segmenting stratng; successful promotion of golf may require communication strategies designed to focus on some identifiable segment or segments of the golfing population. This study provides operant evidence for six attitudinal segments—~six "types" of golfers, playing the game for different reasons and expecting different benefits from their participation. The factor interpretations in Chapter III can be used to develop segmenting strategies; one example might be to Offer a collection of common gambling games played on a golf course, including strategy tips--a theme clearly of greatest potential appeal to Factor VI, the Gregarious Gambler. Specific communication themes will be examined more fully in the next section on practical implications of the study. Toward a Psychological Data-base FOE—Developing Communication Tfigmes Gerald Miller and Mark Steinberg, in a forthcoming textbook on interpersonal communication, make the .' 'l II III III {infill 101 following distinction between interpersonal and non- interpersonal communication: When predictions about communication outcomes are based primarily on a cultural or sociological level of analysis, the communicators are engaged in noninter- personal communication; when predictions are based primarily on a psychological level Of analysis, the communicators are engaged in interpersonal communi- cation.66 The reader should note that the data base posited by Miller and Steinberg as a necessary condition for communicating at the interpersonal level is gathered through Observation of individual differences. They than assert that advertising and other persuasive or compliance-seeking mass media communications must be of a noninterpersonal nature: "Geared as they are to large, heterogeneous audiences, such communication transactions must base predictions on cultural and sociological data."67 The author believes that at its best, promotional communication, including both advertising and public relations, approaches the Miller and Steinberg conceptuali- zation of interpersonal communication. Q-technique appears particularly well suited to developing interpersonal com- munication themes: Beginning with the individual case, Q allows the statistical comparison of a form of behavior, the sorting or making public of one's attitudes toward the 66Gerald Miller and Mark Steinberg, Interpersonal Communication (Palo Alto, Calif.: Science Research Associates,iIOrthcoming, 1974), p. 40. 67Ibid., p. 81. 102 subject matter of the Q-sample. As required by Miller and Steinberg's definition of interpersonal communication, 0- technique identifies relevant individual differences (the discriminating items). Practical Implications proad-appeal, A gregating Commufiication T emes The reader will recall that only general consensus were found in the golf Statement F1 F2 (47) One thing I dislike about golf is slow play. 1.0 0.7 (45) I like a course that's interesting-- that isn't flat and that has lots of trees and sand. 1.6 0.9 (44) It's natural to have favorite clubs. A good club is like a right arm; it's a part of you. 0.5 1.2 (42) I like watching golfers who play really well. 0.4 1.1 F3 0.8 F4 1.0 0.9 four items of study. F5 0.9 0.8 0.7 These are: F6 1.6 0.8 1.1 0.7 Average Z-Score ‘+l.10 +1.01 +0.76 +0.76 Statements 45 and 42 suggest settings or situations which most golfers would view favorably. The senses are called into play . . . the remembered or imagined sights and I, .‘l' ‘I. 103 sounds Of a golf tournament played over a beautiful and challenging golf course . . . the grace and rhythem, the finesse as well as the power of the professional golfer . . . large, colorful, noisily appreciative galleries . . . the eye-dazzling contrast of white-white beach sand surrounding an oasis of undulating, perfectly manicured green. Statement 44 glee evokes sensual responses . . . muscle memory . . . the gee; of a solidly-hit tee shot . . . the sweet sound of a golf ball plopping into the cup. These very broad, very general consensus items suggest that an appreciation for the aesthetic possibilities of golf may be a viable communication theme for reaching the greatest numbers of golfers. Statement 47 is especially provocative. While all factors agree that they dislike slow play, it does not necessarily follow that all golfers like to play fast. A total playing time which may be quite acceptable to one individual, or one foursome, may be perceived as excessively slow by some other individual or group. Clearly, none of the factors identified in the study perceives himself as a slow player; the factors are all talking about "someone else" when they identify slow play as a problem. It is not valid to isolate one item from a Q-sort as a basis for a communication strategy; in Q-technique, the "meaning" of any single item-ranking can only be explained in relationship to the other items on the Q-sort. For this reason primarily, the author feels that the staff 104 of Golf Digest may be mistaken in suggesting that "It's Time To Get Tough With Slow Play."68 Great care must be taken in communicating about what is an essentially coercive strategy for coping with the slow-play problem. The mutual benefits to all players must be emphasized. The Serious Scorekeeper must be convinced that he will score as well or better when he plays "fast." The Gregarious Gambler must believe that he still would have missed that six-foot putt for $10 last Saturday, even if he had taken more time. The Cheerful Companion will need reassurance that there will be plenty of time and Opportunity to socialize with other players, either before or after playing. §egmentingStrategies The strong discriminating items, together with the coherent attitude structures described in the interpreta- tions, provide bases for communication themes which are designed to appeal to specific target segments of the total golfing population. For example, a golf course manager who was attempting to attract more serious, competitive players to his course might Offer to every player a free, mimeo- graphed "chart," a hole-by-hole list of key natural yardage checkpoints, thus helping a player decide what club to hit in different situations and freeing him to concentrate 68"It's Time To Get Tough With Slow Play," Golf Digest (May, 1974), p. 57. 105 solely on hitting the Shots correctly. The Serious Score- keeper is a natural target for this approach. If one wanted to appeal to the Cheerful Companion, appropriate themes to develop include an emphasis upon the social benefits of playing golf--meeting and talking with good friends, out-of—doors. One might appeal primarily to the Tough-minded Traditionalist by offering/showing movies dealing with the rules and proper etiquette of golf--as a direct service to the beginning golfer, and an indirect service to all other golfers. The Tough-minded Tradition- alist might view such an approach as a much-needed indoctrination into the great traditions of the game. One might appeal to the Nervous Novice by attempting to remove or reduce the anxiety which he feels in most golfing situations. And, as was mentioned earlier in Chapter IV, oneemight Offer the Gregarious Gambler a collection Of gambling games played on the golf course, including both the rules and some strategy tips. For all of these examples, the key is to search for communication themes among the patterns of attitudes which differentiate between factors. Increasing Participation The reader will recall that in Chapter III it was noted that the Tough-minded Traditionalist's strict, con- servative attitudes about golf in part accounted for the dearth of consensus items. When only the other five 106 factors were compared, several additional consensus items were identified. These are: Average Statement F1 F2 F4 F5 F6 Z-Score (16) The pleasure in golf is greatly dependent on good manners on the golf course. 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.0 +0.22 (17) Sometimes on golf courses, you run into people who just have no business playing golf. 0.0 -0.4 -0.5 -0.4 0.4 -0.20 (29) Good equipment can make a reat deal of difference in your game. -0.8 -0.2 -1.3 -0.4 -l.0 -0.55 (38) I prefer to play with someone who shoots about what I shoot. -0.1 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.3 +0.16 (46) In the late summer, you have the best golf. By then, the less dedicated, less knowledgeable golfers have sort of dropped .by the wayside. 0.0 -0.6 -0.8 -0.2 -l.0 -0.51 (50) If you dress like a golfer and act like a golfer, you-Will play better. -0.9 -2.2 -l.2 -l.9 -l.4 -1.52 It should be noted that, with the exception of statement 50, these consensus items are ranked neutrally to slightly negatively. Thus, the other factors do not sharply disagree 107 with the conservative positions and values espoused by the Tough-minded Traditionalist; rather, they simply do not seem to care very much about his image of what a golfer ought to be. One would expect factors other than Factor III to be fairly tolerant Of beginning golfers. However, the Tough-minded Traditionalist may be inhibiting the growth of the game, by making the "rules for joining" too difficult for the novice. One individual who had a very high loading on Factor III declared: "Everyone should have to pass a stiff written exam on the rules and etiquette of golf before they are allowed on this golf course!" The Tough- minded Traditionalist's position appears to be very firm; if broadening the user-base and encouraging increased participation are included in one's long-range promotional goals, then the good-will and support and cooperation of Factor III may not be obtainable. Limitations A primary limitation of the study is that the small sample size and the quota control sampling technique preclude generalizations concerning relative proportions of the factors in the population. One does use Q-technique to generalize to individual cases--and to all cases like 3222! however few or many such cases might be found in an aggregate Of cases. Further, the study cannot be said to have identified all attitude types. If one were to continue to collect 108 sorts, other attitude types might be identified. However, one would expect to continue to find additional examples of the "original types." The implication is that perhaps the predominant attitude types have been identified in this study. There are a number Of other publics from which respondents might have been chosen. Only participants-- golfers--were included in the study. Publics of potential interest to the golf promoter but not included in the study include non-participants and spectators, golf equip- ment manufacturers and municipal governments. Suggestions for Further Study This study hopefully poses as many questions as it answers, for Q-technique differs from many other statistical measures principally because the data generate hypotheses rather than test them. These hypotheses, in the form of interpretations, are themselves testable, however. For example, one might develop a series Of advertisements for each of the Six attitude types identified in the study, employing the segmenting strategies suggested earlier in this chapter. One might then ask a carefully selected sample of golfers--say six of each of the six types, identified in a pretest by their ranking of discriminating items from the original Q-sort to sort this series of ads. The accuracy with which one could predict, based upon attitude type, which ads would be most favorably or most 109 unfavorably perceived by respondents, would test the utility of Q-technique for developing communication themes and strategies. Previously noted under Limitations of the Study is the inability to make generalizations about the relative proportions of the factors in the general population. A normative study could be used for some identifiable subset of all golfers--for example, all golfing members of private country clubs affiliated with the United States Golf Association--to make the findings of the present study generalizable in terms of numbers of each factor type, for that sub-population. Yet another limitation of the study suggests opportunities for further study: only active golfers were included as respondents. One might use consensus items as the subject of depth interviews, and expand these into a new Q-sort. This might be especially interesting if administered to "spectators" rather than active golfers. One intuitively suspects that there are non-golfers who are Arnold Palmer fans; they do not play the game, but they sure admire the determined and dramatic way he hitches up his trousers and charges into the lead. There may be Chicanos and Blacks who do not play golf themselves, but who nevertheless worship Lee Trevino and Lee Elder, respectively. 110 Are these celebrity-watchers--as Opposed to golf spectators--potentia1 golfers, themselves? Or is there a possibility that golf could be developed more fully as a spectator sport? A new Q-sort, developed from depth interviews with golf tournament spectators, could be used to evaluate golf's "spectatorship" potentia1--and to develop communication themes to tap interest in watching golf as an alternative to (or in addition to) playing. Another possibility for further study would involve having only leading tour professional golfers complete the Q-sort. A Q-sample made up of the top sixty money winners for the previous year might begin to answer the question: "Is there a characteristically professional attitude toward golf?" If there is evidence to support a direct relation- ship between skill-level and attitude toward the game, why not "teach" or at least encourage the development of such an attitude among junior golfers? BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Crane, Edgar. Marketing Communications: A Behavioral Approach to Men, Messages, and Media. New York: JOhn Wiley andSons, Inc., 1965. Fishbein, Martin. Readings in Attitude Theor and Measure- ment. New York: JOhn Wiley and Sons, Inc., I967. Frank, Ronald E., William F. Massey, and Yoram Wind. Market Se mentation. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-HaII, Inc., 1972. Krech, David, Richard S. Crutchfield, and Egerton L. Ballachey. Individual in Society. New York: Leavitt, Harold J. Mana erial PS cholo . Chicago: Uni- versity Of CHicago Press, I958. Miller, Gerald and Mark Steinberg. Interpersonal Communi- cation. Palo Alto, Calif.: Seience Research Associates, l974--forthcoming. Murdoch, Joseph S. F. The Library of Golf, 1743-1966. Detroit: Gale ResearEh Company, 1 . National Golf Foundation. Plannipg Information for Private Golf Clubs. Chicago: Merchandise Mart, 1968. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. Outdoor Recreation For America. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government—PrintingOffice, 1962. Robertson, Thomas S. Consumer Behavior. Glenview, 111.: Scott, Foresman and’Company, 1970. Rogers, Everett M. and F. Floyd Shoemaker. Communication of Innovations: A Cross-Cultural Approach. New York: TEe Free Press, 1971. 111 112 Shibutani, T. Societ and Personality: ea Interactionist ApproacH to SOOiaI Ps cholo . Englewood CIiffs, N.J.: Prentice-HaII, Inc., 1961. Smartt, Patrick. If You Must Pla Golf. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1969. Smith, Clodus R., Lloyd E. Partain, and James R. Champlin. Rural RecreatiopFor Profit. Danville, Ill.: The Interstate Printers and Publishers, Inc., 1966. Spearman, Charles. The Abilities of Man. New York: MacMillan Company, 1927. Stephenson, William. 223 Play Theor of Mass Communication. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, I967. The Americgn College Dictionary. New York: Random House, 1 66. Essays and Articles in Collections Achenbaum, Alvin A. "Knowledge is a Thing Called Measure- ment." In Lee Adler and Irving Crespi (ed.), Attitude Research At Sea. Chicago: American Marketing Associafion, 1966. Tucker, W. T. "Consumer Research: Status and Prospects." In Reed Moyer (ed.), Chan in Marketin S stems. Chicago: American MarEeting Association, I967. Periodicals Assael, Henry and George S. Day. "Attitudes and Awareness as Predictors of Market Share." Journal of Advertising Research, XIII (DecemBer, I968), 3-10. Evans, Franklin B. "Psychological and Objective Factors in the Prediction of Brand Choice." Journal of Business, XXXII (October, 1959), 346-369. Haley, Russel I. "Benefit Segmentation: A Decision- Oriented Research Tool." Journal of Marketing, Hall, C. R. "Another Look at Instant Coffee Studies.” Journal of Advertisipngesearch, I (1960), 18-21 113 Katz, Daniel. "The Functional Approach to the Study of Attitudes." The Public Opinionguarterly, XXIV (Summer, 1960), I68. Kernan, Jerome B. and Sommers, Montrose S. "Meaning, Value, and the Theory of Promotion." Journal of Communi- cation, XVII (1967), 109-135. Udell, Jon G. "Can Attitude Measurement Predict Consumer Behavior?" Journal of Marketing, XXIX (October, Yankelovich, Daniel. "New Criteria for Market Segmentation." Harvard Business Review, ICII (March-April, 1964), §§-§0 O Unpublished Materials Birdwell, A. E. "Influence Of Image Congruence on Consumer Choice." From the proceedings of the American Marketing Association, December, 1964, pp. 290-303. "Hoyden's Hill Golf Course and Feasibility Study." Hoyden's Hill Golf Course Committee of Fairchild, Connecti- cut, 1965. Mauldin, Charles R. "The Image Study as a Basic Public Relations Study." Unpublished M.A. thesis, Uni- versity of Missouri, 1970. McCarty, Ricky H. "Packaging and Advertising Of Men's Toiletries: An Intensive Study of a Pure Type." Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Missouri, 1972. ' Moncrief, Lewis W. "An Analysis Of Golf as a Recreational Business in Genesee County, Michigan." Unpublished M.A. thesis, Michigan State University, 1967. Stephenson, William. "An Image for Missouri's Public Libraries." Columbia, Missouri: University of Missouri, 1962. . "Rationale for a Subjective Approach to Adver- tising." A report to the Association of American Advertising Agencies, 1971, Pp. 152-153. "An Appraisal of Potentials for Outdoor Recreational Development for Jackson County, Michigan." U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 1969. APPENDICES APPENDIX A STATEMENTS IN THE Q-SAMPLE 10. 11. 12. APPENDIX A STATEMENTS IN THE Q-SAMPLE My self-respect is tied up with my golf scores a little bit. When you're hitting a shot, it's just you, the club and the ball. The best players play the Shot, not the other players. I love the moment in golf, for example, the quick feeling Of power you get when you really hit a drive right. The golf course is a good place to take out your frustrations sometimes. After a bad shot, I sometimes feel like beating the club into the ground, or snapping it across my knee. I find it necessary to keep my emotions under control to play my best. If I didn't have other things to do, I'd like to play golf every day. I enjoy every time I play, no matter how I play. A golfer has to take some care that he doesn't let the game interfere with his family life. I'd feel better about a really great shot if I knew that I could do it more Often. You learn self-control, good manners and a knowledge of yourself through golf. Golf isn't really fun when I'm not playing well. 114 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 115 In golf, mental attitude is the name of the game. You can tell a course is good when it makes you think all of the time. Golf is just so blasted time-consuming. The pleasure in golf is greatly dependent on good manners on the golf course. Sometimes on golf courses, you run into people who just have no business playing golf. I think a lot of golfers never feel the humor of hitting a little ball around a pasture. If you miss a fairway by 15 yards, the course should make you pay for it--either by losing a stroke or by having to make a terrific recovery shot. One thing I like about golf is companionship with congenial people. Sometimes you're kind of happy when the other guy hits a bad shot. It's just human nature, and it's part of the game. I think golf isn't a game you play just for fun. You have to get serious and try to play really well. Golf is not an inexpensive game, not by any means. Playing with strangers makes me more competitive. I do not follow the pro-golf circuit. It doesn't matter to me who's playing and what kind of equipment they're using and the like. Winning a golf tournament has to be one of the greatest of thrills, something to really remember. It's very difficult to come back after a bad start in a round. I like to play with people who are better golfers than I am. It improves my game. Good equipment can make a great deal of difference in your game. I think you have to care enough to get angry. I think you have to be critical of yourself--Of your swing and your attitude. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 116 I like to win. One doesn't divorce the liking of a game from success. Almost everybody occasionally improves his lie. It's just not that big a thing. I think that golf is a sport that retains some Of the old chivalry, a sense of fair play. I think that's good. Just being outdoors is all the reason I need to play golf. I like to play with competitive players, people who are out to win. I'd rather play a good golf course that's crowded than a bad course that's not crowded. I don't like to see people play badly. I feel bad for them when it happens. I prefer to play with someone who shoots about what I shoot. I guess I will never get over wanting to be a champion at anything I do. I think that taking lessons provides a definite asset in learning to play golf. I compete when I play golf--but only against myself. I like watching golfers who play really well. I don't like a hole where one bad shot will ruin the entire round for you. It's natural to have favorite clubs. A good club is like a right arm; it's part of you. I like a course that's interesting--that isn't flat and that has lots of trees and sand. In the 1ate~summer, you have the best golf. By then, the less dedicated, less knowledgeable golfers have sort of dropped by the wayside. One thing I dislike about golf is slow play. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 117 When I'm playing golf, I like to be playing for some- thing. A friendly wager makes the game more inter- esting. I enjoy playing with the golfer who doesn't take the game too seriously. If you dress like a golfer and act like a golfer, you will play Better. A real part of the fun of golf is talking with other players about the game. I don't really reflect on a good shot. I'm already thinking about the next shot. APPENDIX B SAMPLE SCORE SHEET AND RESPONDENT QUESTIONNAIRE APPENDIX B SAMPLE SCORE SHEET AND RESPONDENT QUESTIONNAIRE N=52 Most Most Disagree Agree -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 (2) (2) (3) (3) (3) (3) 1w (4) (4) (5) (5) (6) (6) (6) NAME SUBJECT NUMBER AGE SEX OCCUPATION EDUCATION HANDICAP (or Average Score) MARRIED? Check here if anyone in your immediate family plays golf 118 119 PARTICIPATION: (Check ONE ANSWER only for each question, 1 through 4) 1. I play golf . . . ( only once or twice a year) ( less than once a week) ( once a week) ( two or three times a week) ( every day) 2. I have played golf for . . . ( less than 1 year) ( l-5 years) ( 5-10 years) ( 10-20 years) ( more than 20, please specify ) 3. I play in golf tournaments . . . ( never) ( only once or twice ever) ( occasionally) ( frequently) 4. I watch golf on TV . . . ( never) ( only MAJOR tournaments--the Masters, U.S. Open) ( frequently, whenever I can) For questions 5 and 6, you may check more than one answer. 5. Do you subscribe to, or read regularly, any golf magazines? YES NO If yes, check which of the following you read: ___Golf Digest ____Golf Magazine ____Golf World __ Par Golf Other (specify) 6. I play golf . . . (check one, two, or pere) (___for exercise) (___for companionship) (__for competition) (____for social reasons) (____for business reasons) (____just to get outdoors) (____to relax and forget my troubles) ( other--specify) ON THE BACK OF THIS PAGE, PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY YOU AGREE WITH THE +6 STATEMENTS--AND WHY YOU DISAGREE WITH THE -6 STATEMENTS . . . APPENDIX C SAMPLE COVER LETTER APPENDI X C SAMPLE COVER LETTER October 11, 1973 Dear Publinx Member: The 1973 golf season is drawing to a close here in Michigan, but if you're like most of the golfers I know, your interest in the game is as keen as ever! My name is Dan Zimmerman. I'm a graduate student in advertising and public relations at Michigan State University, and right now I'm con- ducting a research project which might interest you. I'm vitally concerned with the game of golf, its future growth and development--just as you are. I have worked for five summers in the pro shop at Forest Akers Golf Course--part1y to pay for my education, but mostly because I'm a golf bug. I played high school golf for East Lansing in 1965-66, and worked summers at Indian Hills in Okemos. I have been a Lansing area resident Since 1964, and hope to remain in this area after graduation. I stress our common interests--in golf and in the Lansing area-- because I need your help. People play golf for different reasons. Some play to win; some play for fun. Some play just for exercise, or to spend some time outdoors with good friends. I'm investigating golfers' attitudes toward the game Of golf itself, and toward area golf courses, local tournaments and special golf programs. I'd like to know what your attitude is toward the game of golf. You can help me by Sorting and ranking the 52 opinion statements in the enclosed envelope. These statements are actual quotes from in-depth interviews with several local area golfers--including a golf pro, a course manager, both high and low handicap players, both men and women. DO you agree or disagree with each statement? Why? It's easy and rep} Just follow the Instructions for Sorting. Then fill out the questionnaire. Throw the set of statements and instructions away--or save them to compare notes with friends and family. Mail the completed questionnaire in the enclosed stamped addressed envelope. Take just a few minutes this evening to sort the statements--it's fun, and might even help you to better understand your own feelings about golf. Thank you SO much, 120 APPENDIX D INSTRUCTIONS FOR SORTING APPENDIX D INSTRUCTIONS FOR SORTING 1. Step 1: Read through the 52 statements and sort them into three piles: Pile A--Those statements with which you agree Pile B--Those statements with which you disagree Pile C--Those statements toward which you feel neutral or "don't know" Pile B Pile C Pile A Disagree Neutral Agree 2. Step 2: Using the distribution diagram as a guide, pick the two statements with which you most agree and write their numbers in the diagram under (+6) "Most agree." Then, continue filling in the diagram with statement numbers Of "agree" statements. For example: OHM-2%“, - Diagram . ’6 / . 7 l L 3. Step 3: When you run out Of agree statements, do the same thing with your "disagree" pile. Choose the two statements with which you most disagree and place their numbers under (-6) "Most disagree." Then continue filling in the distribution diagram with statement 121 122 numbers until you run out of "disagree" statements. For example: ’ 22;“: 0 Diagram Step 4: When you run out of disagree statements, choose the statements from the "neutral" pile with which you most agree and continue filling in the "agree" side of the distribution diagram. Then fill in the rest of the "disagree" side of the diagram with those "neutral" statements which you find most disagreeable. Remember that you can change the order and placement of these statements whenever you wish until you're satisfied with the result. When you're done, you Should have numbers in all the boxes of the distribution diagram, representing a range of statements from "most agree" to "most disagree." APPENDIX E DEMOGRAPHIC DATA ON RESPONDENTS H m N m muH o nemmomoua omoHHoO arm + + z om am m m m m om-OH a opossum 6mmHHoO AH + + 2 mm as H m m x mm 6 anammHam HH + + 2 we we m m m > ov a pmuHuom NH + + 2 mm ma H m H m oHnm 6H ppmpppm mmoHHoO «H u + 2 km on m m m > omuOH m nouHuz manomm mm + + 2 pm an H m H m oHnm 4H anamonm «H u u 2 am an m m m x mm a mocmusmeH NH + + z oo Hm I m m m am mH pommmmoum mmmHHoO amp . + 2 am am a m m z o~-0H m opossum omoHHoO «H n + 2 mm pH i z m m 0Hum mH opossum ommHHoO mH + u m mm «H m m m > m-H a opossum .m .m HH + - 2 6H NH H m o H maH NH cosmmHmm 4H + + 2 mm H as M as a u a m H mm a H a Na 6T. en a m u 0 n T. 1 x a W1 91. 9 51 b a P n O 1.1.. I I. Z O u n \l T. d p. 1 T. a“. I. T. m 8 .A D P 1. .A a 1 u 1.. u 1 p. 1. T. P T. 8 a 3 S .d T. O 8 S u .A . O u 3 z. u on: mwooz Homeo>Ho>cH mOHsmmumoeoa H uouumm 123 124 H m m > OHIm mH “masocoom omm I I m an on I m m m «N mH .mmoooum mama «m I + 2 mm on I m N x mm mH Homchcm monm am + + 2 as on m m m m ONIOH 0 Ohm MHOO 4m + + z mw mo N m m m ONIOH m comou MHOO .m.m m: + + z om mm H m N z om N mOHmm MHOO mm + + 2 mm em a I a I H O 3 a W S V N A Wm. M Hm a m. a m H. mm m H H ms 91. D .A b a P n 0 3t. 1 t. z o u n \I T. d e T. I. aw. I. T. m a .A o e 1 .A a 1 u I. u 1 e 3 r. p. .L a a .m s .d t. o e s u . O u 3 (I u on: capo: ucoeo>Ho>cH moasmmumoewo poscquOOIIH uououm 125 H m m m mIH em Numumuomm 4H + + m we as N m m m an o mocmusmaH 4m + + z «a me I 2 H m OHIm mH ucmpsum mmoHHoO 4H + I m HN HR H z N m NN NH Hommmmoum ommHHoO Ham + + x mm HN H m N m OHIm ow INHsmmsom mm + + a we no N 2 H z ONIOH o xooo vH + I z HN 6m N m N > ONIOH 6N «NHsomsom 4H + + m Hm AH I m N H ow Hm Homage: ucaHN 4H + + z Hm HH I 2 H H mN we INHsomsom 6H + + N om OH H m H z ONIOH NH uwdmmxmcoouo «H + + z ow 4 mm. m. mm m u. m m m m... m N. M um 61 en a m u o n Tm 1 x a m... 21. 9 £1 .0 a P n a 1.. 1 I. z 0 u n ) I. d p. T. I. SW. 1. I m a .A o e 2 A a 1 u I. u 1 e 3. T. P .l a a O S .d T. O 9 S u .A . O u .4 ( u OmD chOz ucmso>Ho>cH mownmmumosoo HH HouOMh 126 H m N z NHIN NN opossum .sNHm N + I 2 NH Nb 4 2 N z om N NNHNN «How «N + + z NN em H m H H mm «N Homage: amusoo NHOO as + + 2 am ow H m N m ma NH .m.O pmuHuom NN + + z NN NN H N N N oN ON Hommomoum mmoHHoO NNN + + 2 mm NH H N N z ONIoH N Hampsum mNmHHoO NH + + z NN N mm. M mm m u. m m H... mm m N. N um 51 en a m u 3 n I 1 x a m... e I. w .A 1 .b a o. n o 1.1. 1 r. 2 u n l. T. .d e T. T. 8 W. I. T. m a A 3 e 2 .A a x u I. u 1 e .4 I. P I a a O S d T. O a S u .A . O u 3 I. u om: capo: ucoEm>Ho>sH mownmmu60Eoo HHH Renown 127 I z N m mIH mm OMH3omsom mm + + m me we I 2 H 2 on mH .mum mOHmm mm + + z we mm N m N x Nv NH NOHNm .>o« NH I + 2 mm mm I m N m ONIOH HN ucoucsooud mm + + 2 mo mo I N o H NNINH NN “3396 mm I + z 3 S I m N N OHIN NN @8363 NH + + N S Nm I I o H ONIOH mm “wrongs mumuc05mHm Hm + I m mN mm H N N m NHIN NM 23362 .9933 «a + + N 2. am I m o z Hv om msuwuoem .moum 0mm + + m mm mm I m N > 0v mN msuwnoem .moum 0mm + + 2 Nb mN I z o H Hv om HOHONOB mumucosmHm <2 + + m NN ON H N N m NHIN N HNNNBN mmmHHoO NH I + 2 HM NH I I o H Hv mv HOHONOB humucoEOHm mm + + m mm n W m I d I a I H O a. m a w S v N A A T.o 1 T. e a o. m e a ,6 m.e 6 T. e n a m u o n T. 1 x a 1 e I. m .A 1 .b a p. n o 1.1. 1 T. 2 u n I. T. d e T. T. a a. T. T. m a A o e 1 .A a 1 u 1.. u 1 P 1. I. D. T. e a o s .O T. O a s u .A . O u 4 I. u on: memz ucoEm>Ho>cH OOHHQNHDOEOQ >H uouomm 128 H N N N oNIoH a cmemummuo NH + + N NN Na N N N > 04 N NNNHNNN NH + + N NN Na N N N > Na NH NNHzmmaoN NH + + N NN Ha H N N z NN NH .ENN NuHsoNN NNNHHoO NNN + + 2 ON NN H N o z oNINH NH NNNNNNN new: HHNHNN NN + + N NN NN I z o N oHIN NH unoppum NNNHHoO NH + I z HN vN N N N N NN N Homoo NHoO mNmHHoO NN + + N Na NN N z N N oN NH auHeNNooH 4H + + 2 SN NH 4 N N > NIH a umnHNz NN I I z NN NH H N N N NHIN N mumumm HNmN as + + z NN N N N N N oNINH N ocmNsuN NNNHHoO NH + + z NN N N N N > NHIN N ncmpnum HooNoN NNHN OH + I 2 NH N H z N N ONIOH NH Nocuouug mHH + + 2 3 N 3 d S v. N A NN N MN N N m N p NN N a 5 m. 6 T. P n a m D n T. 1 x a I e 1. m3 .A 1 b a P n 3 I. t. 1. I. I. I m e A O p. 1. .A a I u I. u 1 e 3 T. p. T. 8 8 o S d T. O a S u .A . O u 1 I. u own NHOOS uswEo>Ho>cH mOHnmmumoewo > uouomm 129 N N N N NN O wocNNONOH mm + + 2 NO NN I E N m om mH .mmmuoum mama mm I + 2 mm on H N N N OHIN NN ucmpsum .ENHN N + I 2 NH NN N N N > ONIOH N HONNNNOHN NNNHHOO ONN + + z NN NN N N N > ONIOH O ONN NHoO NH + I z NN ON N N N N NO OH Nomoo N ..NouN .Hou +Nz + + N NN NN I N O H NIH NN Homou ..NouN .HOO+.ONN + + N NN NN H N N z NN N NouomNHO HmccomnmN N2 + + z NN ON N N N N ONIOH N NONOO NHOO HooNom NNHN N: + + 2 ON NN N z N N NN OH umaomma N2 I I N NN NN I N N z NIH ON NNHNONNNO NH + + z NN ON NN N NN N N N N N NW. N N N N... 6T. en a m u 3 n I 1 x 9 m1 9...: mo A: b a P n O 1:... 1 I. z u n \l I. d p. T. I. am. I. T. w a A o e 3 .A e 1 u T: u 1 P 1. I. P T. 8 8 D S .d T. O 8 S U A . O u 3 II u OmD NHOOZ uswEO>HO>cH mOHHmmHmOEOQ UODCHHSOOII> Houomm 130 N N N z oNIOH 0H ummmcmz amusoo NHou NN + + z NN NN N N N > ONINH N NwNoHNEN NHNN NH I + z NN HN I N N N ONIOH NH NNNon>mo NNNN NN I + N we NN I N N N NN NH NNN3NNNON NH + + N 0N NN N N N z NN NH cmsmmHmN NH I + 2 ON HN I N N N 5v NH umNmoHoNonN N2 + + N NN N NN M NN N N. N N N NW N N N MN 5T. en a m u D n .l I x 8 MI 91. m K... b a D. n 0 1...: I T. 2 u n .1 I. d e NL t. a W I. T. m a .A o p. .4 .A a 1 u I. u 1 P 1. T. D. T. 8 8 o S .d T. O a S u .A . o u 1. ( u mms «New: ucmsm>ao>cH moanmmumoamo H> Nouomm APPENDIX F VARIMAX ROTATION HO vH No Oo OO OH NO no NH Oo Nn mo no NOI Oo mo Oo MH NH mo no mN nOI OH OH «H MHI NO OH HM ON Hv Oo OHI mo ON Oo ow vHI no OOI nH OHI vN NH Hn oo OH HO OH HH HM HO nH NN OH oo OOI Oo MH mo HH OH Oo nH MN vo oo Oo MO nOI OOI no no NO OH OH Oo Oo Oo Mo MOI MOI no nH Ho OHI NN OOI OOI OM MOI OOI OOI no OH Oo ON ON MH Oo nw NN OH HHI OH OHI OM OH HN voI MH nN ON OH oo NH HOI nH OOI mo co NH MHI No HO NH HO OO ONI ON ON OHI nN OHI Ho OO OM no OH HN OM NOI Hv MO OHI nv Oo MHI Oo mH vo OH OH vo HO NH no vOI no MH NH HO HH MH HO No No On OOI NOI ON NH OH OOI OH OH Ool oo No MO HN OH NHI oo no OH OM OM OH Oo OH OOI mN NM Hv Mo nH nN NH Oo NOI OOI NOI OM nN No Oo .;nM No OHI mo MN ON no mH NOI Ho nH OH MOI OH NN Oo HOI OHI No HHI No Nv OOI Ho NHI Oo mo OOI HOI Mv NOI ON OM mH MO OH Ho Mm mH NOI vo OH «M vN OO nH HOI NH oo ¢H OH OH mo mHI VH vH Mo «N vOI mH mo vH Oo OHI OH nH NOI oo MOI NOI HHI nm ON OH OH mo mM MH no mHI OoI HOI OH OOI nN no «OI Mo vo OH ONI ON OOI ON HO MOI nH OHI NM NH moI NoI OM OH OH HHI HHI Ho OM Ho OHI OOI «OI Oo OH Ho vNI OOI mo um nOI HH HN mH Oo MOI HOI OOI nHI No OOI No OOI Oo mo HHI vH HH OOI OOI OH on HNI OH NHI vo Oo HN OH HO nH HOI ON nN OH OHI Oo NHI MN MOI Oo OOI NO Oo eo O nOI No Oo HOI nH HN ONI «M «O mv «N OH vOI Oo NN Mv nOI Oo Oo O0 OO O noI OoI NHI ON MOI HN ON NO Ho Om OH Mo NoI OOI OH NN mH ON HH vo MN n No Hol OOI OO NOI HH OH OH MOI HH nOI OO «O vo OOI On ON OH No VH ON O vo no ON OH mN MH Oo HH nHI MH NH ON Ho OO NO Om OOI MH vOI OOI vN m HHI oo Mo moI MOI OO NH Oo NOI mH HN Ho OH HOI mo mo OO OH NO On Oo v HN OHI OO oo OHI NH OHI nH NH NO OH OHI OoI OoI NH MNI HOI ON 00 ON HHI M HN HN Ho HN vOI Mo nOI HOI OHI OO NOI MH OOI NO HOI OH No Oo NNI mHI ON N NHI Oo vM OH MO OHI Om HN NN mo OH HO vH Oo OOI HH OH nH HNI oo OM H HN ON OH OH nH OH OH «H MH NH HH OH O O n O m w M N H ucmwcommmm uouomm co mOchmoq AvmuuHEO mucHom HmEHqu HHOV ZOHB m xHszmm< 131 132 OoI nHI O0 O0 O0 NoI Oo OH MH Oo nOI vNI co On vOI OOI MH «O OO MH OH MO MN OOI NOI NH Ho nM HH OH no OH No Mv no ON Oo MN Mo Oo NH 00 nH NO vo MH NNI HoI Oo vo Ho Oo OH No HH On OOI nOI vo OOI Oo no OH NO «OI HO vol NH HoI HO nOI MO noI OO «N HO OOI No OH OH NN nH Oo no HN Oo OHI OO vo MH nHI VOI OO ON MOI Mo HH MH OH HN nN Ov NM co OH nH HO HM HH Ov OM ¢o MH HN Ho OH OH OH ON Mo ON vo nH NN HH OH OO Nv Oo NH Oo O¢ OoI OH HH MM HHI MH MN vH OOI oo OHI oo OHI OH OOI nH Ho MH nOI OHI Nn nv vo MH OoI OO HH OH MH MH vol «0 MO HOI Mo NN OH vN OOI Oo MH Oo vN Ov OOI OHI ON OMI OO vo HH MOI «H Oo Mo MO vo ON Ho OH OHI Hn HH no Oo Ov Oo OM OoI OM OoI Mo OHI OH Oo OH HH Oo Oo Ho MH OH ONI OM nM oo vo v¢ HH NH MoI Oo vM MN OH OO Ho nO OH Oo Oo Oo Mo Mo OHI no OH HM OO mv «H No No Oo vo OoI Oo ON oo HO OH HN OH MH HOI OH Oo nH OH OO MM Nv nH OH Oo HN OO MO NH No Ho HO voI OM OH O0 O0 OM NOI HOI NH nOI Oo Hv VHI Oo nH Oo OoI ON OH Oo Oo OM vH NOI OH NH OOI no OOI NN OO HM HOI ov OoI Oo MH NN O0 O0 HOI «M ON nH nOI N0 M0 HM OOI ON OHI MM oo vo MN OM no MoI vH ON no OO HoI HOI OOI Oo OM ON OH OOI OOI NH OH HO OH Oo no OM OoI vo OHI noI OH O0 O0 ¢o MOI Mo vH No 00 HN nOI MH MH Oo Ho No vn nM nM HM OHI Oo no MOI Oo ON ON NN OH OH nHI OM no OM vo MO OH OH NN OM noI Oo On OOI Oo HHI oo OoI Mo NOI oo OOI no Oo NOI OO Ho Oo OOI OH HOI OM vHI OH Oo NN Oo OHI No vH OHI nH ON VN OH Oo OH nH vo Hw OM OH NN NM oo OH HoI OoI NN NH ON NN NH MO MN OH Mo OH no OO oo MN «H OH ON MM NO no HHI Oo Mo MH On Oo No nH No no HH Ho OH no mo vH Oo oo Oo NM MN OH OOI OH OH HH OH NH OoI HH OH Ho MO Oo OH MN No NH OH MOI OO HM HOI OoI Ov NH NOI vol OH ON Oo OH OHI HOI nM MOI HH Oo HOI OH vN NMI OH OM HNI no OH no MN Oo No OO NM VM MH No ¢H Oo OH OH MOI no OO Oo HH ON nH HH MHI Now no Oo OoI NH Oo NH wo NN OH vOI vO No Mo no On 00 No ON OH nH OO OH OOI OH HH On No #0 OO nH oo Oo OH Oo Ho oo OO No ON nN MHI HH OH nHI Mo Ho OOI VHI nH ON nv MH Ho HNI HOI OO ONI OM OH NM MoI ON HN ON OH OH nH OH OH vH MH NH HH OH O O n O O v M N H usmwcommwm HomscHucoov Houomm co chHUmoq 133 ON MN OH vH ON no Oo OoI Oo Ho Ho ON HNI «O Mo VN NO ON Oo OHI HM On Oo VH NNI vo OHI ON MN ON vo no OH HOI Nv Mo ON NH NO VM vHI ON ONI nn OH OMI No OH HOI NM ON OOI ONI OM HOI OH nNI HN VOI MH NOI Mo nH HHI nv On vOI ON Oo OHI MH Mo vo OH OOI Ov ON nOI NH OH HHI O0 O0 No OH OM NH On No Oo HHI HOI Ho No vo OH Oo NH ON vo OOI ON «0 OO NNI NOI OOI MH He vn NOI OOI ON Oo no NH ON OHI Oo OH NH Oo MO MO HH MN OHI OH MN OM OOI Mn vol HM vo OO nOI oo OOI OM Ho . HH VH no «OI OH VN Ov Nol NN NM VOI NN Nn OOI OOI OO MOI NOI NH OH HH NM ON oo OOI Mo VN VN OHI Ho OM OH Ov ON Hn Oo voI «H OH Oo Oo oo HH nM OH Ho nN OM OH OH nN Oo MH Oo nH OO on Oo oo OOI OH No No Oo No Oo OH HO ON HN OH ON HoI vHI NHI HOI OH vN OO Oo ONI Ov Ho OHI OO oo Oo HOI OOI OM nOI VN MO «H ONI Nvl ON OH MH MOI OO OOI Oo vH Oo nNI HH NHI MOI HH nH nM OH nN OH Oo Oo vo OM OHI Ov vo nO noI NOI NOI VN no mo MNI OM MHI NN Oo HHI HMI No Ho OH Ho Oo Oo OHI OO OO MOI OH OoI Oo NH Nn vo OH NHI Oo OH Oo OH oo NH OH NOI HO nH Oo vN OO vo Mv HOI NH HOI vv no Oo HOI OM MN Oo NN NH OOI OM NOI HH Oo ON MH VO ONI NO OOI HN vo 00 OH OOI OHI ON Oo OM NH vo vo ON MHI MN OH nN MOI MO ONI Mo no Oo NOI «0 Mo HH OHI NM OH OO OH No NOI HM Oo VM Oo nH NH NO OHI HOI OOI VM Oo NOI Ho OH Oo NN MN Ho Oo nv HH MH HHI VOI OH NMI HN HO Nol vH Oo OOI OOI OM Oo nOI MMI ON ON OM NHI Oo Oo MH nM OH OHI nH VN OO 00 HOI OoI HOI O0 O0 oo OM NHI OM nH No OMI Oo ON OM VH vo OH VNI OM OO Oo Oo OM Oo OHI OH MOI OH OM HM NOI OOI NM NM NNI oo OoI vM Oo no OOI OO ONI MM NO OM OOI NH OH NH OH OOI NoI HN NOI OH NOI vOI OOI NH Nv OHI MN nO VOI Oo Oo oo No M0 M0 Oo vo NH OH Ho OO HOI No vOI OOI HH OH Oo OOI OO vo ON OOI no Oo HO vH Oo OOI OH oo no OO Oo OH no nOI Nn oo VH HH OO oo NOI oo ON Nn OH Ho No voI MN MH Oo HO OH OOI HH HH MN OH MOI Mv VO HN ON OH OH nH OH OH NH MH NH HH OH O O n O O O M N H ucmvcommmm AvmscHucooo uOuomm co mOcHomoq APPENDIX G STANDARD SCORES APPENDIX G (N=52) STANDARD SCORES Score and Rankings on Factor State- ment I II III IV v VI 1 1.10 9 “1.59 49 ‘0.18 29 '0.43 32 '0.38 36 ’0.16 33 2 0.51 18 1.49 2 0.69 17 1.43 3 1.62 2 1.67 3 1.30 5 ‘0.07 29 0.10 24 2.05 1 0.83 13 1.35 4 4 -1.48 48 -1.24 46 -1.71 50 -1.00 41 -1.80 50 0.17 25 5 0.12 26 “1.51 48 '1.73 51 ’1.15 44 '2.15 52 1.28 6 6 1.03 10 -0.38 32 -0.06 26 0.67 15 1.42 5 -0.51 40 7 1.27 6 1.24 7 '0.45 32 1.08 7 0.89 10 '0.39 38 8 -2.12 52 1.34 5 0.43 18 -1.50 49 0.33 22 -1.98 50 9 -0.31 34 1.07 10 0.19 23 0.47 21 0.02 29 0.66 15 10 '0.49 36 0.95 11 0.39 19 1.88 2 '0.49 38 0.47 16 11 -0.24 33 -O.44 34 0.95 10 1.02 10 1.30 6 -O.26 34 12 1.12 8 -1.68 50 -0.69 38 0.60 18 -0.76 40 0.11 26 13 1.70 0.89 13 0.94 12 1.21 5 1.96 1 0.28 22 14 0.76 14 “0.03 25 1.41 6 0.30 26 0.97 8 0.19 24 15 -1.87 50 -O.68 41 -0.82 41 -1.16 45 -1.56 48 -1.75 49 16 0.02 27 0.20 23 1.54 2 0.60 19 0.23 23 0.04 28 17 -0.04 29 -0.43 33 1.38 7 -0.52 36 —0.44 37 0.41 17 18 -1.12 45 0.28 21 -0.53 35 -0.47 35 -0.92 41 0.05 27 19 0.37 21 -0.52 36 0.95 11 -0.44 33 -0.25 33 -0.08 30 20 0.67 16 2.28 1 0.31 21 1.29 4 0.55 18 0.36 18 21 -0.49 37 -0.03 26 -0.38 31 -0.65 38 -1.14 44 -0.38 37 22 0.32 23 -1.94 51 -0.71 39 -0.12 27 0.09 26 -0.02 29 134 135 (N=52) Score and Rankings on Factor State- ment I II III IV v VI 23 -0.86 40 0.68 16 -0.51 33 -0.18 30 -0.36 35 0.26 23 24 -1.06 44 -0.88 43 -0.52 34 -1.86 51 —0.16 31 -1.25 45 25 -1.47 46 -0.44 35 -1.13 43 -1.09 43 -1.69 49 -1.17 44 26 0.39 20 -0.05 27 -o.13 27 0.41 23 1.46 4 0.80 12 27 -0.10 31 -0.81 42 0.34 20 —0.47 34 -1.34 46 -1.53 48 28 0.68 15 0.76 14 2.04 1 -0.41 31 0.73 15 1.27 7 29 -0.76 39 -0.16 30 1.51 3 -1.25 47 0.42 21 -1.01 43 30 1.52 3 -0.59 40 -1.43 46 -0.15 28 0.09 27 -0.12 31 31 1.33 4 -0.06 28 -0.66 37 0.45 22 0.99 7 0.97 10 32 -1.55 49 -0.37 31 -1.75 52 -1.02 42 -1.03 42 -0.31 35 33 0.25 25 0.21 22 -0.15 28 0.65 16 0.88 11 0.32 19 34 -0.87 41 1.38 4 -0.03 25 -0.18 29 -1.34 45 -2.06 51 35 1.23 7 0.30 20 -0.74 40 -2.04 52 0.89 9 0.97 11 36 -0.49 35 -0.55 38 -0.16 29 -0.61 37 0.12 25 1.19 8 37 -0.11 32 0.53 17 0.76 14 1.20 6 0.19 24 -0.44 39 38 -0.06 30 0.15 24 -1.16 45 0.37 24 0.05 28 0.29 21 39 0.93 12 -0.54 37 -0.95 42 -1.48 48 0.57 17 -0.38 36 40 0.83 13 1.48 3 1.12 9 1.02 9 1.48 3 0.29 20 41 -1.47 47 0.51 18 —0.19 30 0.83 13 -0.58 39 -2.24 52 42 0.41 19 1.11 9 0.75 15 0.85 12 0.72 16 0.71 14 43 -0.53 38 -1.16 45 -1.44 47 0.33 25 -1.43 47 -0.76 41 44 0.53 17 1.22 8 0.73 16 0.56 20 0.43 20 1.08 9 45 1.56 2 0.94 12 1.32 8 0.70 14 ,0.82 14 0.75 13 46 -0.00 28 -0.57 39 1.48 5 -0.83 40 -0.18 32 -0.98 42 47 0.95 11 0.69 15 1.50 4 0.97 11 0.86 12 1.62 3 48 0.32 24 -1.41 47 -1.63 49 -1.71 50 -0.27 34 1.76 1 49 -2.09 51 1.26 6 -0.62 36 1.03 8 -1.05 43 -0.14 32 50 -0.93 42 -2.18 52 0.79 13 -1.22 46 -1.92 51 -1.36 46 51 0.35 22 0.47 19 0.29 22 0.64 17 0.45 19 1.34 5 52 -1.05 43 -1.13 44 -1.45 48 -0.66 39 -0.13 30 -1.39 47 HICHIGRN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES IllllllllllIIHIIIIIIHINNIIIIlllllll |l||||1|!||||| llll "HI 31293008237715