THE AUTOEéOBELE AM) THE CONSUMER: OPEEANT MARKET! SEGMENTATEGN Thesis for the Degree of M, A. M§CHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY £316 a. 2-13ch 1973 MSU LIBRARIES m RETURNING MATERIALS: PTace in book drop to remove this checkout from your record; flfl§§_w111 be charged if book is returned after the date stamped beTow. C~T0 51999:" A JUL 16:.9 gum ‘ 9 '1 ’ THE AUTOMOBILE AND THE CONSUMER: OPERANT MARKET A Thesis Presented to tue Faculty of the Graduate School Miehipan State University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts by Eric D. Fjsc or November 1977 Approved: SEGMENTATION 41/7793 it to ”he worth has given thank two ACKNOWLEDGMENTS of this thesis in terms of the new outlook me on the consumer, is inestimable. I'd like friends. First, Dr. John D. Simpkins, who introduced me to Q- h'c‘ 'tecinliqiua eyml para: me tile irupetnis ix) sten~t e tfliesi.u. 1nd Dr. CFurles R. Mauldin, wit out whom simply this thesis couldn't have been written. His unfailinn interest and patience are gratefully acknowledged. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. IPITIQODUCTIOI‘I ......OOOIOOOOOOO0.0.0.0....0.0.000... l Approaches to Segmentation ........................ \N Purpose 0..........OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO......OOOOOOOO 10 Prior Research .................................... 11 II. T'IErl‘TIODOLOGY .ooooooooooooooo ooooooo on... ..... 0.0... 18 CO Selection of Q-Sample ............................. 1 Selection of Respondents .......................... 20 Administration of Q-Sample ........................ 20 Analysis of Data .................................. 21 III. INTERPRETATION ............................ ..... ... '2u Introduction ........................ ...... ........ 2“ Brief Sketches .................. ..... ............. 2? Factor I, the Substantial Citizen ............... 27 Factor II, the Eager Truster .................... 28 Factor III, the Self Reliant Functionalist ...... 28 Factor IV, the Disillusioned Humanist ........... 29 Factor V, the Sensual Gourmet ................... 29 Consensus Items ............... ....... ............. 29 Factor I: The Substantial Citizen .. .......... .... 52 Evidence for the sketch .. ........ . ......... ..... 53 Factor II: The Eager Truster ....... ........... ... 38 E'JidenCC f0? the SLZGtCh coooooooooooooooooooooooo 59 Factor III: The Self Reliant Functionalist ....... A“ Evidence for the sketch ..... ......... . ..... ..... “5 Factor IV: The Disillusioned Humanist ............ S1 CHAPTER ’ PAGE Evidence for the sketch ......................... 55 Factor V: The Sensual Gourmet . ..... .............. 57 Evidence for the sketch ......................... 5w IV. CONCLUSIONS ..................... ..... ............. 64 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................. ...... .................... 75 APPENDIX A: Statements in the Q—Sample .................. 77 APPENDIX B: Sample Score Sheet .......................... 82 APPENDIX C: Demographic Data on Respondents ............. 84 APPENDIX D: Unrotated Factor Loadings ................... '87 CHAPTER I I. Introduction In today's marketplace there are an increasing num- ber of product choices for the consumer. And every pro- duct has a niche, planned or unplanned, perhaps chosen by the marketer but always finally determined through the workings of the marketplace. As Daniel Yankelovich noted in 1964: "In today's economy, each brand appears to sell effectively only to certain segments of any market and not 1 Because of the tremendous costs to the whole market." of product failure, it is essential in today's marketing to find a product's niche, that is, to isolate certain clus- ters of people as market segments. The problem of identifying markets as meaningful seg-2 ments represents a difficult task for marketers. Bass, Tigert, and Lonsdale (1968) stated: "In current marketing practice, there is probably no problem area of greater con- sequence than the question of how to define market segments."2 The idea that these markets can be profitably segmented, l Yankelovich, Daniel, "New Criteria for Market Segmentation," , Harvard Business Review, XLII No. 2 (March-April 1964), 89. Bass, Frank M., Tigert, Douglas J., and Lonsdale, Ronalt T., "Market Segmentation: Group Versus Individual Behavior," Journal 2; Marketing Research, Vol. V (August, 1968), 264. benefiting both the company and the ultimate consumer, has received widespread acceptance throughout marketing. 5,4,5.6.7,8,9 The automobile industry provides an excellent ex- ample of the necessity for understanding and implementing market segmentation. Henry Ford's classic "You can have any color you want as long as it's black" is as outdated as the Tin Lizzies he then produced. Even with today's mass production assembly line techniques, the number of options and features auto companies make available attests to the heterogeneous desires and needs of automobile con- sumers. Because automobile companies can not prepare a special product or communication for every consumer, find- ing significant, meaningful clusters of people (segments) is very much related to product success or failure. Ford's Mustang found such a segment; the Edsel did not. 5 Smith, Wendell, "Product Differentiation and Market Seg- mentation as Alternative Marketing Strategies," Journal 3; Marketing, 21 (July 1956) 5-8. a Roberts, Alan A., "Applying the Strategy of Market Segmen- tation," Business Horizons, Vol. 4 (Fall, 1961), 65-72. 5 Bowman, B., and McCormick, F., "Market Segmentation and Marketing Mixes," Journal pf Marketing, Vol. 25, 5 (Jan- uary 1961) 25-29. Bauer, Raymond A., "Negro Consumer Behavior" in Joseph Neuman, On Knowing the Consumer, John Wiley and Sons, New York , 19%,‘EI‘I8- 6—. 7 Brandt, Steven C., "Dissecting the Segmentation Syndrome," Journal 2; Marketing, Vol. 50 (October 1966), 22-27. Sheth, Jagdish N., "A Review of Buyer Behavior," Management Science, No. 12 (August 1967), 718-756. Franklin B. Evans, "Psychological and Objective Factors in the Prediction of Brand Choice: Ford vs. Chevrolet," The Journal 2; Business, XXXII (October 1959), 540-569. 5. In the extreme, a marketer can divide his market in as many ways as he can describe his prospects. The prob- lem in marketing to date has largely centered around which i of the many alternatives are likely to be the most produc- tive for purposes of segmentation. T II. Approaches‘pg Segmentation A number of approaches to market segmentation have been tried in the past, and many different units of analysis 'have been used. In marketing practice, segmentation has been limited largely to socioeconomic variables such as occupation, income, and education, and to demographic var- iables like age, life cycle, and marital status.lo’ll’12’15’ 4 . . . . ‘ . l_’15 However, studies uSIng demographic and seeioeconomic variables have not met with great success in differentiating 10 Munn, Henry L., "Brand PerCeption as Related to A e, In- come, and Education," Journal g§_Marketing, V01. 24 Jan- uary, 1960), 29-34. Harp, J., "Socioeconomic Correlates of Consumer Behavior," American Journal pf.Economics and Sociology, Vol. 20 (1961), 12 Ferber, Robert, "Research on Household Behavior," Amer- ican Economic Review, LII (March, 1962), 19-65. Frank, Ronald B., Massey, William F., and Boyd, Harper W., "Correlates of Grocery Product Consumption Rates," Journal of Marketing Research, IV, No. 2 (May 1967), 184-19 . TE Evans, Franklin B., "Ford Versus Chevrolet: Park Forest Revisited," The Journal gf'Business, XLI, No. 4 (October 1968), 445-459. 15 Rich, Stuart U., and Jain, Subhash 0., "Social Class and Life Cycle as Predictors of Shopping Behavior," Journal 2: Marketing Research, IV, No.2 (May 1967), 184-190. 4. among consumers with different buying behavior. 16’ 17 The problem with this approach is that consumers having the same personal characteristics often exhibit different buying behavior. Some scholars have concluded that in many cases socioeconomic/demographic variables, though showing some improvement over chance, were not useful pre- dictors. Frank (1967), for example, concluded: "Based on the research reported...for the most part socioecondmic/ demographic characteristics are not particularly effective bases for segmentation. 18 Marketing educators suggested another answer to the problem of meaningful segmentation: that of measuring per- sonality traits. In 1967, Sheth posited that variables such as those which measured the consumer's personality might be useful in distinguishing among buyers showing dif- ferent behavior. 19 The relationship of basic personality traits, as units of analysis, to buying behavior has been investigated a- cross a fairly wide range of products and services. Research 16 Twedt, Dik w., "How Important to Marketing Strategy is the Heavy User," Journal 2; Marketing, 28 (January 1964), 71-72 o 17 Lessig, V. Parker, Consumer Buying Behavior, Washington State University Press, 1971 18 Frank, Ronald B., "Market Segmentation Research: Impli- cations and Findings," in Frank M. Bass, Charles w. King, and Edgar A. Pessemier, Application of the Sciences in Marketing Management, New York, John-WiIEy & Sons, Inc. 1967. 19 Sheth, Hagdish N., "A Review of Buyer Behavior," Man- agement Science, No. 12 (August 1967). 718-756. by Tucker and Painter (1961) across a range of products using the Gordon Personal Preference Test found some re— lationships betweeen personality traits and use or nonuse of products. 20 he authors concluded that "the degree of association was quite modest." 21 To date, the use of personality traits as predictors of consumer behavior has met with the same lack of suc- cess as socioeconomic/demographic variables. In reviewing grocery product purchases, Frank (1967) stated: "...personality characteristics appear to have, at best, a relatively low degree of association with total household purchases of any particular grocery product." 22 Recently, Kassargian observed that, "...for a variety of reasons, variable-to-var- iable models have yielded highly equivocal re- sults --- for example, a given personality trait rarely explains any appreciable proportion of variation in product usage." 25 Thomas S. Robertson concluded: "Personality as a predictive variable for consumer actions would appear to be quite un- satisfactory. The available evidence, using a variety of standard personality instruments, is quite discouraging --- reporting a number of negative findings and some contradictory find- ings. his is not to say that personality is unrelated to consumer actions, but that the re— 20 Tucker and Pai-nter, "Personality and Product Use," Jour- nal of Applied Psychology, 45: 525- 529, 1961. Efllid. , Do 529' 2TB. Cit. Frank, Ronald E., "Market Segmentation Research: Imp cations and Findings," Bass, King, and Pessemier, £2? plication of the Sciences in Marketinnganagement. 25 Greene, Daniel, Sommers, Montrose S., and Kernan, Jerome B., "Personality and Implicit Behavior Patterns," Journal of Marketing Research (February, 1965) 63- 70. lationships are limited and tenuous, and not of much practical value." 24 What was needed, investigators felt, was the exam- ination of combinations of units of analysis. Koponen (1960) used the Edwards Personal Preference Test in a study relating personality traits and socioeconomic var- iables to cigaret smoking. 25 The highest coefficient of determination was 0.15. The author concluded that the relationship of personality traits and socioeconomic var- iables to the prediction of cigaret brand choice was lit- tle better than coincidence. 26 John Myers (1967) attempted to predict consumer at- 27 titudes toward private brands. Regression analysis, with personal characteristics and socioeconomic charac- teristics as independent variables, were used to predict private brand attitudes. The resulting coefficient of determination was quite low (on the order of 0.05). My- ers stated: "Whether treated as raw or factored scores, personality differences in respondents explained less than 24 Robertson, Thomas S., Consumer Behavior, Scott Fores- man and Co., Chicago, 1970. 25 Koponen, Arthur, "Personality Characteristics of Pur- chasers," Journal of Advertising Research I, No. 1 (Sept- ember , 1960—)_—_, 6-127“ 26 Ibid., p. 12 27 Myers, John G., "Determinants of Private Brand Attitudes," Journal 22 Marketing Research, I, No. 1 (February, 1967) five percent of the total variance in private brand at- titudes." 28 Massey, Frank, and Lodahl (1968) analyzed purchas- ing behavior for beer, coffee, and tea. The authors found no significant correlations: "At best, only seven percent of variation in total household purchasing for a product is/was accounted for by the net effect of household demo- graphic, socioeconomic, and personality characteristics." 29 The difficulties encountered by the above researchers, attempting to link socioeconomic/demographic variables, personality traits, or a combination of these units of an- alysis to buyer behavior variables, did not go unnoticed in marketing literature. Scholars have suggested measuring other units of analysis. Yankelovich emphasized the need for this kind of ex- ploration in 1964. He wrote that markets should be scrutin— ized for important differences in buyer attitudes and mo- tivations. He felt that segmenting markets on the basis of attitudes relevant to the product being studied "would avoid misleading information derived from attempting to di- vide people into types." 50 28 Ibid., p. 79 29 Massey, William F., Frank, Ronald B., and Lodahl, Thomas M., Purchasing Behavior and Personal Attributes, Philadel- phia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1968. 50 Yankelovich, Daniel, "New Criteria for Market Segmenta- tion," 92' Cit., p. 90. 8. Studying motivation often focuses on discovering the consumer's goals. Rather than an undefined matching or congruence of personal characteristics and product char- acteristics, the consumer can be seen to exhibit prefer- ences toward products that would aid him in attaining his goals. These preferences are expressed in an individual through his attitudes, positive or negative, toward pro- ducts, and it is likely that the consumer seeks to satisfy these preferences. These conclusions have theoretical underpinnings in attitude theory. Functional attitude theorists, like Smith, 51 Bruner, White, and Katz suggest a motivational base for attitudes; that attitudes are useful to a person in satis- fying his goals. Katz (1960) discussed some general kinds of functions that attitudes perform. Attitudes (a) help the individual adjust in a complex world --- derived from an individual's tendency to maximize rewards from the external environment, and (b) allow the individual to express his fundamental val- ues.52 Thus, one might expect attitudes to provide insights into consumer motivation. One might hypothesize that seg- 31 Triandis, Harry 0., Attitude and Attitude Change, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1971. p. 5. 52 Ibid., p. 5-6. 9. menting groups on the basis of attitudes is tantamount to providing motivational segmentation. A study by William Stephenson (1967) provides an ex- ample. Stephenson used Q-technique to segment audiences on the basis of attitudes. 'The example appeared in Stephen- son's description of a study of housewives' uses of tuna fish: "In a study on the promotion of tuna fish, one begins by interviewing housewives to elicit from them their opinions about it ~-- how they use it, what they prefer, what others say about it. From the protocol it is a simple matter to collect statements of opinion, as distinct from fact, about tuna fish. To say "I like white flesh only" is opinion, to say that "the last can I bought was 58 cents" is a matter of fact. Our concern systematically is always with o- pinion...From the Q-population (of statements of opinion) a Q-sample is drawn; Q—sorts performed by housewives bring two different factors into focus. One, when the factors are examined, in- dicates that the women of that "group" are in- terested in tuna fish largely as a "filler" for a staple meal ~-- to give flavor to a casserole of macaroni or rice; the others use it as a snack only, for a dainty, weight-watching lunch or the like. Obviously different social factors are involved --- women with low incomes and many mouths to feed are less likely to use it for a "snack." 55 Others have used Q-technique to develop such motiva- 54 55 tional segments for institutions, products, and even 53 William Stephenson, (Unpublished paper expounding meth- odological and theoretical foundations in application of Q-methodology in advertising, Columbia, Missouri: Univer- sity of Missouri) pp. 9-10. 54 Stephenson, William, "An Image for Missouri's Public Li- braries," Columbia, Missouri: University of Missouri, 1962. 55 Booth, Laurel, "An Image Study of McCall's Magazine," Master's Thesis, University of Missouri, 1968. 10. 76 ) to name a few. for matters of public opinion, A more recent example is provided by Haley (1968), who labeled such motivational segments "benefit segments," a term which has subsequently become popular in marketing and advertising journals.57’ 58 Haley's study concerned toothpaste users. Four segments were identified --- one concerned with decay prevention, which Haley labeled "The Worriers," one with brightness of teeth, "The Sociables," one with the flavor and appearance of the product, "The Sensory Segment," and one with price, "The Independents." Each consumer segment, Haley notes, "represents a poten- tially productive focal point for marketing efforts."39 This study will apply such segmentation techniques to automobile consumers, who have been the object of many non-motivational studies, which will be subsequently dis- cussed. III. Purpose It is the purpose of this study to divide automobile consumers into motivational or benefit segments and to continue the investigation of the use of Q-methodology 56 Stephenson, William, "Application of Q to the Assessment of Public Opinion," Psychological Record XIV (1964) 265-275. 57 Haley, Russell 1., "Benefit Segmentation: A Decision 0— riented Research Tool," Journal pf Marketing, Vol. 52 (July 1968) 50-55. 8 Haley, Russell 1., "Beyond Benefit Segmentation," Journal of Advertising Research, vol. II no. 4 (August 1971) 5-8. 9p. Cit., Haley, "Benefit Segmentation: A Decision Oriented Research Tool," p. 52. 11. as an instrument for identifying consumer types. A further purpose of the study will be to examine the usefulness of the methodology in suggesting communication strategy, themes, and specific copy ideas. It is suggested that the data can provide tools for improving communication with the groups of automobile owners and buyers designated as target markets. It is further suggested that the selec- tion of appropriate themes and appeals would improve the chances of capturing the attention of an automobile com- pany's prospects and of involving the consumer in the ad- vertising. IV. Prior Research Automobile consumer market segmentation has followed the lines of market segmentation in general, using demo— graphic and personality measures. In 1959, Franklin B. Evans undertook a study designed to test psychological and/or objective variables as pre- dictors of Ford and Chevrolet automobile ownership. 40 The researchers collected demographic and factual data re- lating to automobile ownership frOm a sample of residents of Park Forest, Illinois. Residents also responded to the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule designed to measure 9 "personality needs." Evans performed several discriminant “0 Evans, Franklin B., gp. Cit., p. 540-569. 12. analyses in which the dependent variables were the various psychological and demographic descriptions of the sample members. Based on an analysis of variance performed on each discriminant analysis, Evans concluded that personal characteristics, demographic variables, or a combination of both were doubtful predictors of automobile ownership: "Taken singly or in linear combination, neither personality needs nor demographic variables assigned brand ownership with any considerable degree of certainty."41 Replies to Evans' study were immediate. Motivation researchers disagreed. Pierre Martineau, a leading moti- vation researcher, for example, wrote to the editor of Ad- vertisinngge presenting a dissenting opinion.42 However, as Westfall (1962) summarized: "None of these (motivation researchers) brought forth any evidence to contradict Evans' findings."45 More thoughtful, empirically based attempts to chal- lenge Evans' study came from Steiner (1961) and Winick (1961). Both criticized Evans' sample, methods of analysis, and re- sults.L4 But their comments failed to explain consumer “1 Ibid., p. 568 42 Westfall, Ralph, "Psychological Factors in Predicting Product Choice," Journal pf Marketing, vol. 26 (April, 1962) 54-40. 45 Ibid., p. 55 44 Winick, Charles, "The Relationship of Personality Needs, Objectives, and Brand Choice: A Reexamination," Journal pf Business, vol. 54 (January 1961) 61-67, and Steiner, Cary, "Notes on Franklin E. Evans," Journal pi Business, vol. 54 (January 1961) 57-60. choice. Westfall notes: "These (Steiner and Winick) at- tempted to explain away Evans' findings rather than bring forth newdata."45 Evans (1961) restated his conclusions from the study summarizing that people select automobiles not because of personal or demographic characteristics, but on the basis of "rational motives and/or small things, peculiar to the ’- individual or the particular buying situation."ab Kuehn (1965) reinterpreted Evans' data and demonstrated what he thought was a strong association with brand choice based on the two personality variables of "affiliation" and "dominance."47 However, based on a "thorough reappraisal" of the data, prompted by Kuehn's analysis, Evans and Roberts (1965) reiterated that the conclusions of the original study were valid.48 Westfall (1962), selecting different models of auto- mobiles (compact, convertible, and standard) for analysis, attempted to replicate the Evans study using similar ob- jective criteria, but substituting the Thurstone Tempera- ment Schedule for the Edwards Schedule. The former is de- signed to assess seven traits thought to be relatively per- “5 9p. Cit., Westfall, p. 55 “6 Evans, Franklin B., "Reply: You Still Can't Tell A Ford from a Chevrolet," Journal pf Business, vol. 54 (January 1961) 54. 47 Kuehn, Alfred A., "Demonstration of the Relationship Be- tween Psychological Factors and Brand Choice," Journal pi Business, vol. 56 (April 1965), 257-241. Evans, Franklin B., and Roberts, Harry V., "Fords, Chev- rolets, and the Problem of Discrimination," Journal p£_Bus- iness, vol. 56 (April 1965) 242-244. l4. manent over time for each person. Westfall concluded: "The fact that in this study, as in Evans', no personality differences were found be- tween Ford and Chevrolet owners lends fur- ther weight to Evans' conclusions that per- sonality differences do not exist between these two groups." 49 In 1968 Evans published a study, "Park Forest Re- visited," that paralleled his previous research on Ford 50 and Chevrolet owners. The results of the second study closely matched the earlier findings. Birdwell (1968), using a different approach, attempted to relate a consumer's image to his product choice, i.e., that the consumer would project his image of himself into his product choice. Birdwell based this on his belief that an individual's behavior is in part a function of his self image. Birdwell used a semantic differential scale (as developed by Osgood). A list of twenty-two polar adjec- tives, or traits, was generated and used to describe an automobile or automobile owner (safe - dangerous; sophis- ticated - unsophisticated). A random sample of 100 auto mobile owners was drawn representing four groups --- lux- ury to compact auto owners. In addition, seven diverse automobiles were chosen (e.g., Renault, Cadillac) to which the subjects were also asked to respond. Each subject, “9 9p. Cit., Westfall, p. 59 50 Evans, Franklin B., "Ford Versus Chevrolet: Park Forest Revisited," Journal pf Business, XLI, No. 4 (October 1968), 445-459. 15. using the semantic differential, judged his own automo- . bile, the automobiles selected for the study, and himself.51 Birdwell found (1) a high degree of congruence between owners in all four groups and their automobiles, and (2) relatively less conceptual agreement between self image and automobile for the less expensive ownership classes.52 A motivational study having to do with automobiles was completed by the Warner-Gardner-Henry research group and reported by Pierre Martineau in 1954.55 The researchers used a variety of methods, including projective tests and symbolic analyses. The results of the study indicated five areas of meaning surrounding the automobile: (a) its practical value as a piece of machinery that provides transportation. (b) it is a major investment. Cost is often a screen that covers the buyer's personal and social ambi- tions. (0) It is an indicator of social status. (d) The car is a symbol of self-control and personal mastery. . (e) The car is a way of revealing personality charac- teristics, feelings, and motives that typify in- 51 Birdwell, Al B., "A Study of the Influence of Image Con- ruence on Consumer Choice," Journal of Business, XLI, No. 1 %January 1968), 76-88. 52 Ibid., p. 87-88 55 Martineau, Pierre, "Automobiles: What They Mean to Amer- icans," in H.w. Hepner, ed. Modern Advertising Practices and Principles, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, 1956. The (l) (2) (5) .(4) dividuals or groups of individuals. ifth category is made up of four subgroupings: Those who emphasize "brightness" by buying a big car having costliness and impressive display. Those who seek "conspicuous reserve." They want people to know their status, but they express modesty in purchasing automobiles, either by large, dark cars or purposely buying cars cheaper than they can afford. Those who show a wish for "sophisticated flair." They want smartness, but not gaudiness. They like foreign cars. Those who wish for "youthful impulsiveness." This subgroup is made up of hot rodders and youths with signs on their cars and older people who purchase 54 gadget-filled, brightly colored cars. Martineau concluded from his research that advertising should emphasize two basic sets of motivation: (l) (2) The basic wish for car ownership. What tle personality of the particular car expres- SCS- In summary, the demographic/socioeconomic and person- ality studies are of historical interest only. Using dif- ferent units of analysis and methodologies, the studies were l7. inconclusive and unsuccessful as predictors of automobile purchasing. The study by Martineau, although no: a segmentation study (the results were posited in general terms) is rel— evant to this thesis because it attempted to examine sim- ilar units of analysis, i.e., motivational segments. And, although the methodologies are different (the Martineau study relied on projective testing and symbolic analysis and the present study intends to deal with motivational segments operantly) we can make an interesting comparison after the interpretation of the data. CHAPTER II METHODOLOGY In Chapter I, the_rationale for using Q-technique to identify motivational segments was given. To repeat, Q- technique was chosen becauseof its successful use in mo- .tivational research and because it provides a basis for Operantly identifying market segments. By "Operant," it is meant that the subjects themselves define the segments, first by providing the opinion statements that comprise the instrument and then by performing the Operations. Fin- ally, factor analysis of the data provides groupings of like sorts which are independent of and unexpected by the re- searcher. I. Selection gf the Q-sample Subjects were chosen for in-depth interviews to reflect a wide range of opinions about automobiles. They were chosen on the basis of sex, age, income, and occupation, including persons who did and did not work in the automobile industry. In addition, number of cars owned and type of car owned (sports, compact, full—sized) was reflected in the interview- ees. The interview schedule was arranged to elicit the wi— dest range of opinions from the respondents. It began with general questions about automobiles and automobile usage, l9. ending with specific questions dealing with automobile companies, service, and advertising. Non-directive inter- viewing techniques were used. The questions were asked neutrally; the prompting minimal. It was the object of each interview to exhaust the respondent's opinions about automobiles. From a theoretically limitless number of statements of opinion about automobiles, some 400 opinion statements were gathered from thirteen interviews. No more than thir- teen interviews were conducted, because the interviewer ex- tracted no "new" opinions from the last two interviews, that is, with wording exceptions, the opinions duplicated those in the previous interviews. TheQOO statements were reduced to fifty—nine, eliminating duplications and idio- syncratic statements. The final fifty-nine statements were selected on the basis of self-reference, that is, they al- lowed respondents to project their own interpretations u- pon them. The Q-sample can be categorized into statements dealing with automobiles themselves (style, performance, the interior, economy), the automobile manufacturers (pro— duct quality, pollution, service), and with peripheral areas such as auto advertising and dealer organizations. It was thought that such a combination would reflect an in— dividual's attitudes toward the automobile's place in so- ciety, hence aiding in the interpretation of motivational segments. 20. The Q—sample was pre—tested by four persons owning different kinds of automobiles. After reviewing the Q- sample with the pre-testers, the wording of several state— ments was changed to clarify their meanings. II. Selection of Respondents Quota control sampling was used in selecting the re- spondents, the P-sample. The P-sample was classified into selected categories thought to be relevant to differences in attitudes held about automobiles. The P-sample comprised. the following variables: sex, race, age, income/occupation, number of automobiles owned, and type of automobile owned. Many of these variables were represented in the subjects of the depth interviews and all interviewees were included as respondents in the P-sample. III. Administration 2f the Q—sample The Q—sample was administered to fifty-nine persons. Each subject was asked to perform a Q-sort (a ranking of the statements) to describe what seemed to him to be im- portant or significant. The respondents place the state- ments on a value scale according to their projected inter- pretation of them. First, an individual in the P-sample was asked to sort the statements into three piles. One pile contained those statements with which he agreed (+), another pile those statements with which he disagreed (-), and a third those statements about which he was neutral or could not make up his mind (0). 21. The respondents then sorted the statements into piles that satisfied the following frequency distribution: N = 59 Most Disagree Host Agree Value: -6 -5 -H —5 -2 -1 O +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 Pile number: 1 2 5 4 5 6 7 U 9 IO ll 12 15 Number of statements: 2 5 H 5 6 6 7 B 6 5 W 3 2 22. Respondents were asked to comment on why they had placed statements at the -6 and +6 ends of the continuum. In addition, respondents were asked to indicate their neutral statements in order to discover whether they dif- fered from the column in the sort given neutral (O) scores. Most answers ranged from -1 to -2; that is, subjects gen- erally agreed with more statements than with which they disagreed. IV. Analysis 2: the Data The fifty-nine completed Q-sorts were processed by the University of Missouri IBM 560/65 computer using the QUANAL program developed at the University of Iowa by N. Van Tubergen. The respondents' sorts were intercorrelated to provide a correlation—matrix, which the computer then factored using the principle-axes method. Factors are thus obtained, made up of groups of individuals who have sorted the statements in a similar manner. The factors are then rotated orthogonally through a varimax solution, to Obtain mathematically a maximum number of "pure" load- ings (significant loadings54 on one and only one factor). The Spearman weighting formula55 was then applied 54 Significant factor loadings are determined by computing the standard error for a zero correlation coefficient; SE = l/ n , where n = number of statements. In this case SE é 1/ 59 = .15. Thus, loadings greater than .52 (2% SE) are significant at P .01. l 55 Weighting is by means of Spearman's formula: I-r2 . Charles Spearman, The Abilities gf Man, (New York: HacMillan Company, 1927), Appendix XIX. ' 25. to the factor loadings. Individual sorts for each factor were weighted according to the factor loadings. Then the computer added the weighted rankings across each statement, producing an "average" sort for each factor. After con- verting the arrays to z-scores, the computer arranged statements on a "most agree - most disagree" continuum for each factor. The array for each factor provided the basis for interpretation of the factor. The factor analysis yielded five factors judged "in- terpretable," based on two criteria. One interprets only those factors with at least a minimum number of persons with significant "pure" loadings. The number chosen for this study was five persons. Second, the QUANAL program computes eigenvalues, the amount of variance accounted for by each factor, and it is then possible to reject a fac- tor when the amount of variance accounted for is less than ‘ a minimum amount of variance, as represented by a designa- ted eigenvalue. It is common for factors with eigenvalues less than 1.000 to be judged as uninterpretable, and that criterion was used in this study. With the data analyzed, one is ready to interpret the data, and that step is re- ported in the following chapter. CHAPTER III INTERPRETATION I. Introduction In a study using Q-methodology, individual respon- dents sort a group of statements into a distribution wherein the placement of all statements constitutes an at- titude (the entire sort). Each sort is correlated with each other sort, and those sorts correlating beyond a given level of significance are grouped together, producing fac- tors. The sorts for each factor are then averaged, to pro- duce a "typical" sort representative of that factor. Each factor is different from every other factor and the "typical" sort represents the attitude for those persons loaded on the factor. Factors are models of how people see the sub- ject matter from their subjective viewpoints, and in re- presenting attitudes, it is stressed, the factors are op- erant, i.e., concepts determined by the respondents in per- forming his task, but not by the researcher before the re— search began. The process of interpretation of each factor involves seeking the explanation of statements in the sort. Stephen- son has defined interpretation as fitting "the meanings of 25. Q- statements, with their scores, into an overall explan- ation of the factor." 56 Interpretation of Q-factors con- sists of explaning what the relations of elements within each factor are, what makes them representative, and how factors are related to other factors. While seeking these answers is a subjective task for the researcher, the inter- pretation must be based on the operant evidence, the data, and the explanation offered must fit that data. Thus, it is common practice in Q to qualify the interpretation as follows: if the reader disagrees with the interpretation, he may seek his own solution from the data listed in the appendices. As previously noted, five interpretable factors were generated and examined individually. In interpreting the factors, and "if-then" approach is used, i.e., one examines combinations that emerge in the factors, and attempts to explain why these combinations occur. The comparisons in- volve individual statements, groups of statements, and combinations of comparisons, until conclusions are reached. Early attention is also given to consensus items, or those statements upon which all the factors essentially agree. 57 Inter-factor agreement upon opinion statements 56 Stephenson, William, "Immediate-Experience of Movies," Columbia, Missouri: University of Missouri, 1962. 57 A consensus item is defined as a statement where factor scores differ by less than 1.0 standard score across the five factors. [‘0 (p O can be of great importance in improving communication with automobile consumers. Special attention is also afforded to discriminating items, or those statements ranked sig- nificantly higher or lower by one factor than by other fac- tors. Finally, one arrives at a generalized explanation for the factor, an algorithm, that explains the schema represented by the factor array in question. The interpretation is offered in three parts: (1) a two word label which supplies a convenient "handle" or reference point for the factor, (2) a brief thumbnail sketch describing each factor, and (3) an expanded sketch, with evidence, providing a more detailed explanation and discussion of the factor. Finally, because the sort for each factor represents a "typical" attitude, and because the algorithm given for each factor represents a hypothe— tical person (The Disillusioned Humanist), the factor is .referred to in the third person. ("Hypothetical" is meant to refer only to the interpretation. Presumably, persons with significant loadings on a single factor are "real" holders of the typical attitude.) Taken in 3332, the interpretation, made up of consen- sus items and factor explanations, is used in various ways. Certain interesting theoretical implications are drawn, e.g., a comparison with Martineau's earlier motivation re- search, and many practical implications are suggested. 27. Practically, the interpretation is used in generating com- munication approaches to reach automobile consumers, and creative communication ideas are formulated. These are described in detail in the Conclusions chapter. As Haley (1971) notes, this kind of study can be used "as a tool for improving communications with the group or groups of consumers selected as the market target by selecting themes which improve the chances of capturing the attention of 58 your prospects." II. Brief Sketches As stated, the factor analysis yielded five inter- pretable factors. The following are brief descriptions designed to familiarize the reader with the factors be- fore proceeding with a more detailed presentation. Factor I, The Substantial Citizen Persons on Factor I see themselves as substantial citizens, established and enjoying the freedom of choice, the independence of being substantial. He expects to pay for what he gets, but then that entitles him to get what he pays for. The Substantial Citizen appreciates and re- spects bigness. He feels that you get better value and higher quality in an automobile, for example, if you're willing to pay more and buy a full—sized, expensive car. 58 923‘Q$E., Haley, Beyond Benefit Segmentation, pp. 5-4. 28. Factor IIi The Eager Truster The Eager Truster approaches decision-making a little bit impulsively. He's anxious to have the decision over with, the immediate gratification of the material posses- sion in hand.‘ But many times he just doesn't have as much information as he might really like. In such cases there is always the possibility of acting too quickly and making a bad buy, so the Eager Truster approaches a car-buying situation by trusting the at-hand advice of friends or the person selling him the automobile. The Eager Truster is aware that such reliance can be dangerous, and he reserves part of his commitment: if those whom he has trusted "be- tray" him (if their advice turns out to be false) he takes his revenge by taking his business elsewhere. Factor III, The Self—Reliant Functionalist The Self-Reliant Functionalist compares the world a- round him to a perSonal standard: fitness. He evaluates automobiles and many other things in terms of performance --- the ability to get the job done right. He has measured his own worth and accomplishments against such a yardstick, never paying much attention to social frivolities. Yet the Self-Reliant Functionalist doesn't totally rely on his clear cut assessment of the environment; he sees another level of value, and some amenities the automobile has to offer attract him. 29. Factor IV, The Disillusioned Humanist The Disillusioned Humanist is a person who continually contrasts the "what-should-be" with the "what-is." He is characterized by a feeling of discontent with the automo- bile industry --- the automobile manufacturers, the auto- mobiles, dealers, and service. Factor V, The Sensual Gourmet The Sensual Gourmet is acutely sensitive to the physi- cal and psychological impressions his automobile makes u- pon him, and those which he makes upon his automobile. He responds to his automobile physically, at the tactile level, and expresses a self image through his car, based on his knowledge of the impact his automobile has on others. III. Consensus Items In any Q-study, the consensus items, or those state- ments atout which the factors agree, are important. These statements can provide the basis for communication strategy. Of most importance are those statements scored highly pos- itive; these statements are not only agreed upon, but val- ued. Conversely, negitively scored consensus items are to be avoided in communication strategy. These items surround- ing the neutral point offer least in terms of communication. The study yielded six consensus items and this section ex- amines those items. \31 ,O 0 Items of General Consensus All factors could agree upon only six statements, one of which is high positive and the remainder slightly pos- itive or negative. The highly positive "agree" statement does not concern the auto industry; it reflects an outlook toward a personal attribute: (55) It takes skill to drive really well. It's some- thing to be proud of if you have it. FI FII FIII FIV FV 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.1 2.0 The most highly valued consensus item is that of hav- ing mastered the intricacies of driving; being competent at maneuvering the automobile through traffic or maximiz- ing the car's performance, for example, appeals to all the factors. One can look back to pre-automobile days and see the same pride reflected in horsemanship, that parti- cular skill still valued in rodeos. One is praised for being a "good defensive driver," or criticized as a "back seat driver," if too forward in his comments about another's driving. As one amateur racer interviewed commented: "Driving is one of the most demanding tasks that a per— son encounters in his daily life. It takes skill to drive among a sea of other drivers." The five remaining consensus items are of lesser im- portance, two being positive, three negative. Statement (56), whether because people appreciate self-reliance or because of an overall negative reaction toward the high 51. cost of servicing, emphasizes respect for that sort of me- chanical ability. Statement (7), barely positive, shows a somewhat negative view of auto advertising. Its neutral position suggests that people may find some ads interesting, some uninformative, but that in their entirety, auto ads are not of much salience. atcvcnl (:,-0), ra fllked most negatively by the factors, probably indi ates that people simply are aware that auto- mobiles differ from one another in styling, rather than criticizing the manufacturers. Statement (45) shows that giving up an older automobile is not a personally moving experience, nor is there much personification of the auto- mobile. Finally, item (14) occupies a similarly neutral position as statement (7), ranked only marginally negatively. It is reasonable to assume that people balance both the individual automobile to be purchased with its brand and company association before selection. (56) I think a person should be proud if he's able to work on his car himself, to help it run better and look better. FI FII FIII FIV FV 0.5 1.2 0.2 0.6 1.0 (7) It seems that auto ads always talk about little things, instead of stressing really important information. FI FII FIII FIV FV 0.1 0.5 0.1 -0.5 0.2 (50) Styling is based on a follow-the— leader approach, with the auto companies copying each other' 3 i— deas. As a result, new cars look too much alike. FI FII FIII FIV FV 0.1 -0.5 -0.2 0.0 -0.6 52. (45) There's something sad about trading in a car. It's like losing an old friend. FI FII FIII FIV FV 0.1 -005 -007 -007 0.]. (14) In buying an automobile, what's really impor— tant is the car itself. You're buying a car; not a brand and not a company. FI F11 F111 FIV FV —o.1 0.2 —o.5 -o.2 0.1 IV. Factor I he Substantial Citizen The Substantial Citizen is staunchly uncritical of the automobile industryi He identifies with big busi- ness and looks at the American auto industry as an excel- lent symbol of the good free enterprise, big business can do. His support of the American auto manufacturers ex- tends to his purchases: an American automobile, a product of our auto industry, is simply going to be a better made automobile. As indicated, the Substantial Citizen will probably own a full-sized automobile. He feels they're more com- fortable, give a better ride, more what the automobile should offer. The Substantial Citizen likes to relax in the privacy his car affords, much like his easy chair at home. He rolls up the windows to drown out unwanted noise, enjoys the comforts of climate control and power accessories, and settles into the luxuriousness of a well- appointed interior. The Substantial Citizen expects his automobile to 55. run right; he's paid for it and that's what he expects. If the automobile does need servicing, he takes it to his authorized dealer where, again, he expects proper service when he spends money forit; he expects the deal- er to do his job. Apt to be brand conscious as well, the Substantial Citizen will be a repeat customer at his deal- er. He has a favorable image toward dealers and servicing, even if he grumbles a bit about high prices, because he expects his dealer, just as he expects his power seat to function, to perform when the Substantial Citizen pays his dollars: "You get what you pay for." FACTOR I Evidence for Sketch Factor I, the Substantial Citizen, is made up of fourteen persons, ten males and four females. Nine per- sons on the factor are directly involved with the auto industry, previously mentioned as "insiders." This fac- tor had the highest average age, 56, and every person over 45 years of age, save for one, loaded on this factor. In add;tisn, this faster was comprised of the hinlest in— come respondents, with an average reported incone of 3 27,000 per gear. And if two students are deleted from this factor, two average climbs to 3 52,000 annual fam— .J ily income. Factor I is called "substantial" because h is established, at least in terms of income, and because he identifies with bigness; big cars and big business. Factor I is referred to as a "citizen" because of his faith in American products, specifically the automobile, and the American way of doing business, e.g., dealer net- works. In the preceding sketch of the Substantial Citizen, certain statements and conclusions about the factor are given. The following evidence is cited: Factor I thinks of himself as a good American; he supports the freedom of free enterprise (statement 42) and in so doing will "buy American," (statements 16, 9). Statement » Standard Score (42) Having a car means freedom. It means not having to depend on somebody else for transportation. 1.50 (9) When you buy a foreign car you have to worry about service. There may not be a dealer near- by, and you may not be able to get parts for it. . 0.52 (16) When I'm buying a car, I don't really care where it was made, whether it's American or foreign. -1.94 It is also stated that the Substantial Citizen "ap- preciates and respects bigness." Thus, he's a solid supporter of the American auto industry. Factor I dis- agrees with every statement critical of the industry (state- ments 41, 54, 4, 55, and 40). Statement Standard Score (41) The auto companies suffer from bigness. As producers they are clumsy, unwieldy --- and that fact shows up in the products they produce. -1.67 (54) When auto companies try to sat- isfy the consumer, it's because of pressure from the competition or the government. -l.54 (4) The auto companies are deliber- ately making cars that won't last so that we have to keep replacing them. -1059 (55) Auto companies are just part of a much larger problem --- the prob- lem of endangering the environment. -0.84 (40) The auto companies are far more profit-oriented than people or- iented. —O.45 The Substantial Citizen's concern for bigness is also reflected in his view towards automobiles themselves: he likes driving a big car (statements 47, 49). Statement Standard Score (47) I like the solid, substantial feeling of a big car on the hiC‘ll‘Uqujj'. 1.66 (”9) I don't like to drive a car that's too big. It makes me feel like I'm taking up too much of the road. -l.68 4 The Substantial Citizen expects to pay more for a . ‘ ,F. .. ‘,.‘ - ,.. . .1- 1 .' . 1.- ‘w_ ._ g ‘.‘ ,, .q. .1- bigger car, but as related in the s etc , he enpects to t! u - o o —. - "- A ‘ M r -r‘. — —. it 'v“: -. ,- ‘ . A f‘ r - - ~ '- . a', 0: ‘.‘- Q . - -: --. r . get tha' he pays 10L. t ile 3U hdt not CLJOg ape din, ’.‘ I money on his automobile (statements A}, 20) We recognizes .t.‘ .1. ..- , .A \ , ‘ , .,_ '1 __*‘ r: ' ._'-,. .'.', ,1 fi':.' I_ teat enpe so a hCCCSSQih CLC t.e Untstant it v tisei /‘/.r~,('i ' ‘ fir‘ ./ V (W (\-' r 1 \ ( '_‘ r 'r FL ‘I, '.J../,H_L U Cl C! .1 .L' Cub ) -21. oJC- C, 1' J‘ L l.’ t O u .11 .‘ ’Vr- rm f“ '3 "W N C“ ’~", 3 ) (state.elts 5», 5, 5, and ,7 . (V .1. .1. .- . .1- r“ ,1 F,‘ Statenen Standard Score (57) Buying a car nay be expensive, but don't til nk of it as Fv-‘H sacrificing other things. (27) A major problem is service and re- paLrs. You're lucky to find any- body who will do a good job ——- whatever the price. (20) When a dealership services or re- pairs your car and you go to pic; it up, you expect the bill to be too high. V (38) I hate to think of the amount of money you have to spend for a car —-- the financial obligation you're getting yourself into. ( ) When I think about how much I have to pay out to drive --- in payments, in gasoline, in insurance —-- it frustrates me. \J‘I (5) Taking care of a car --- getting the oil changed and all the other things --- is a nuisance. Necessary, but a nuisance. m Cs“ 1.01 0.61 O O \n \O —0.40 One reason for a positive approach to servicing is that he has paid his money and expects the service to be commensurately good. Hence, he can rely on his dealer- ship (statements 50, 44, 28) to treat him as a good cus- tomer (statement 22). Statement (50) One ought to be able to rely on the dealership for service and repairs. Who ought to know more about your make of car than the people who spe— cialize in that make? (28) It just does not make sense to trust an automobile dealer. He's in business to make money --- as much as he possibly can. (44) You should never rely completely upon a dealership for information about the car you're going to buy. Standard Score 2.07 -l.47 —0.05 57. (22) It's impossible to get a dealer interested in my individual prob- lems. To a dealer, I'm just one customer among many. -0.04 So Factor I approaches the dealership as a potential confident (statements 59, 25), but if he doesn't get what he paid for, he'll turn to another service outlet for sat- isfaction (statement 26), just as he would switch automo- biles (statement l5). Statement Standard Score (15) I don't know at all what my next car will be. I don't feel bound to any one make of car. -O.99 (59) It's important to realize that the auto salesman is really an adversary. You want the lowest price, he wants the highest. Someone has to give, and if you're not tough, it will be you. -O.99 (25) It doesn't pay to be a nice guy with dealers; the only solution ' for good service is to be tough. -O.58 (26) Auto dealers are not all alike. It makes a great deal of difference which one you buy your car from. 1.45 As previously noted, when Factor I thinks about auto- mobiles, he thinks about big ones; they feel better to him. And a bigger automobile has more to offer, which the Sub- stantial Citizen demands (statements 58, 21) Statement Standard Score (58) Most of us buy cars that we can afford, that do the job. But we'd really like to have more from a car than just getting the job done. 1.15 58. (21) A well designed car has nothing on it that isn't functional --- no useless chrome, no fake hood SCOOPS, nothing that doesn't contribute to the car's performance. -O.72 When Factor I rides in his car, he wants it to be comfortable, "his own easy chair." His attention to the interior (statement lO) is demonstrated by his responses to traffic noise and power accessories (statements 24, 54). Statement Standard Score (10) In an automobile, I appreciate a fine interior: an example of taste and care in design and engineering. . 0.99 (24) I like driving with the windows up. It shuts out the rest of the world --— the traffic noise th.e smells. 0.12 ("—) I like a car that you _c_____—___'ri'e. One tset prrfo*“s. All tr‘ t power steer ng and all those gad ets --- ‘he"re extras. They get be’ween yo u and the machine. -1.25 FACTOR II {11‘ 1" \ - {‘1 - 3- ‘- .L .0 -LJCL' C'I' -LI'Ufj-b L's" In choosing a car, the Eager Truster eschews making a big commitment in relation to price or size. He real- ‘zes the import such an investment has, eco:1omical " and physically, and the Eager Truster isn't likely to latch on to something too costly, gaudy, or foreign. He'll shop different makes, take a long look at used cars, and if he does decide on a new automobile, it won't be lush with options --- a car is for transportation, primarily, and the \H Eager Truster tries to avoid committing a lot of extra money to the purchase. One way the Eager Truster seeks to resolve his pre- purchase conflict is to find a helpful salesman and/or dealership that he can trust, be friends with. His is a positive view of service and dealerships, for the Eager Truster feels that if he takes the time to find a trust— worthy dealer, the dealer will reciprocate by treating the Eager Truster as hi§_friend. Thus, getting his automobile serviced doesn't force the Eager Truster into another com- mitment; he can rely on his friend the dealer to do a good job, because the dealer has taken the time to set up an amicable partnership with the Eager Truster. Evidence for he Sketch Factor II, named the Eager Truster, is comprised of seven persons, four men and three women. Two are students, one is a housewife, one a stewardess, one a truck driver, one a college professor, and one a veterinarian. The age range of the factor is from fifteen years to forty-four years, with the average age being thirty-one. The average annual income of the factor is t l5,000. Factor II is called "eager" because of his desire to own a car without waiting for the long process of ordering. The Factor II consumer is called "trusting" because of his expressed de- sire to be friendly with and trustful of the dealer. The following is offered as evidence for the previous sketch: 40. The Eager Truster is said to approach decision-mak- ing "a little bit impulsively." Factor II is the only factor to give a positive ranking to statement 18: Statement Standard Score (18) When I buy a car, I'm eager to own it. I prefer not to order it. You have to wait so IEHET 0.05 The Eager Truster approaches his automobile decisions with as much information as he can muster, positively rank- ing statements 44 and 8: Statement Standard Score (44) You should never rely complete- ly upon a dealership for infor- mation about the car you're go- ing to buy. 1.07 (8) Buying a car is not a simple proposition. You can't know too much about the car you're going to buy. 0.55 But his eagerness forestalls any really in-depth research and he tends to rely on the advice of others, specifically the peOple selling him the car. He thinks dealers are trustworthy (statement 28) and has quite a positive attitude toward automobile salesmen (statements 59 and 1). Statement Standard Score (28) It just does not make sense to trust an automobile dealer. He's in business to make money -—- as much as he possibly can. -2.05 (59) It's important to realize that the auto salesman is really an adver- sary. You want the lowest price, he wants the highest. Someone has to give, and if you're not tough, it w“ -L]-]- be 3.011. -0. (BIL (l) I enjoy talking to auto salesmen when I buy cars. I get a lot of werthwh ile informati on. 0.22 Eecause Factor II has a ne:ative attitude toward servicing his car (statement 5), relying on dealers for service is very important to the Eager Truster, state- ' N ment SO), and he CIT—.gnsit C) the same friendly attitude when ; ., .I- . . .1- -_ . 1- T" ‘_ ‘ A intenance (statements 2g an( 22). 530 it COLes to m _ I- (".‘- 1 ‘ c State a: t standard Score (50) One ought to be able to rely on the dealership for service and repairs. llho ought to know more about your make of car than the people who specialize in that 1“n‘.'n? 1.71; ‘Iks-~.v Q A \N V Tatin" care of a car --- getting the Oi I changed and all the other things --- is a nuisance. Kec- ess sary, but a nuisance. 0.62 (22) It's impossible to get a dealer interested in my individual prob- lems. To a dealer, I'm just one customer among manr. -l.81 (25) It doesn't pay to be a nice guy 'ith dealers; the only solution for good service is to be tough. -2.02 The Eager Truster, because of this feeling of com— araderie with the dealer, expects a fair shalze on price; Factor II '6 AS tLe only Factor to negatively rank statement 20. Statement Standard Score (20) When a dealership services or repairs your car and you go to pick it up, you expect the bill to be too high. -0.€0 42. Factor II realizes that "reliance can be dangerous" and stands ready to shop around for a dealer (statement 27). And, if his reliance is taken for granted, he "takes his business elsewhere" (statement 26). Yet, the Eager Truster's desire to trust his automobile to the dealer is expressed in an overall positive feeling toward dealers in general (statement 2). Statement Standard Score (2) The difficulty that consumers have with the auto industry is mostly because of dealers; not the auto manufacturers themselves. -l.46 Shying away from major commitments also is apparant in Factor II's choice of automobile. As noted in the sketch, The Eager Truster, avoiding a large commitment and hence a more difficult decision, tends toward smaller cars (statements 51, 47). Statement Standard Score (51) Buying a small car has a lot of advantages over a big car. It parks better than a big car, gets better gas milage, and has lower upkeep. 1.79 (47) I like the solid, substantial feeling of a big car on the high- Vlayo -0054 Factor II looks at his car as basic transportation (statements 55 and 58) and doesn't want to tie up a lot of money in it unnecessarily (statements 5, 57, 57). Statement Standard Score (55) I want a car I can trust, one that will behave itself and do what it's supposed to do. I don't think that's 1+5. asking too much 2.46 (5) When I think about how much I have to pay out to drive --- in payments, in gasoline, in insurance --- it frustrates me. 0.50 (58) Most of us buy cars that we can afford, that do the job. But we'd really like to have more from a car than just get- ting the job done. ~0.ll (57) Buying a car may be expensive, but I don't think of it as sacrifice. —0.58 (57) A thing about today's cars is that there is so much variety. By selecting a car and the options for it, you can have a virtually unique car. Nobody else would have one exactly like it, and I like the idea of that. -l.56 Brand switching and used cars offer attractive econ— omic alternatives to the Layer Truster (s atements l5, #5). a... 0) ~ ~ V. r J- ‘ . q ‘ ‘ . ‘4- :- .w -‘ -: I' qv“. ‘ '- w- 1* h P- ~, ‘.~ . And, w CbuCI .e distrusos ,is iniOiuation Lane, 01 hi v \ bility to communicate with them, Factor II avoids foreign r-.. " r n .-.—J- .- ...l— ,... r' Cal dealers statements 9 and lo). (15) I dod'c know at all what my next car will be. I don't feel bound to any one make of car. 1.5C (9) Eben you buy a foreign car you have to worry about service. There may not be a dealer nearby, and you may not be able to vet parts for it. 0.99 (13) When 'm buying a car, I don't really care where it was made, whether it's American or foreign. 0.65 (45) You can have a lot more confidence in a new car than a used car. ~0.07 13.1' 1'. FACTOR III The Self-Reliant Functionalist As a whole, the Self-Reliant Functionalist judges a q ctly by its performance. He wants it to move when ‘.Ja car str he touches the gas. He doesn't want it cluttered with tail fins and chrome —-- form must follow function. For the same reasons, he' less likely to buy a small car; economy U) isn't as functiona to the Self-Reliant Functionalist as the roominess and power of a bigger car. An automobile's function is utilitarian: to transport its occupants quick- ly, comfortably --— and powerfully --- to their destination. To Factor III, the world is a place where there is work to be done, where a man should be judged by what he produces, by the results of his efforts. There is a cer- tain austerity and seriousness to this viewpoint, but the Self-Reliant Functionalist is not without an appreciation for "the finer things," a well-appointed interior for ex- ample. It's just that they are less important than per- formance. They are, for him, a private matter. he Self-Reliant Functionalist is on more comfortable ground with his opinions and judgements about the automo- bile industry. He can appraise it using his familiar per- formance criteria. The Self-Reliant Functionalist's image of the industry is positive; auto companies neither pol- lute nor purposely make inferior products; that would be dysfunctional. The Self-Reliant Functionalist views deal- erships in a slightly negative way; he doesn't look for help from them or others. It's not that he doesn't think maintenance and service are important; on the contrary, they're mandatory to keep his automobile functioning properly. But he looks at them as his responsibility and as is his wont, he relies on his own capabilities. Evidence for the Sketch The Self-Reliant Functionalist type includes five -males, ranging in age from twenty-five to fifty-five years. One is a manufacturing vice president, one a writer, one a mechanic, one a student, and the other a newspaper adver- tising manager. All make in excess of $ 12,000 per year, the highest salary being $ 40,000 per year. (The Factor III type is called "self-reliant" because he depends on him- self for information, decisions, and maintenance regarding automobiles. The label "functionalist" is used because the Factor views his surroundings in terms of accomplishments, of utility. One of Factor III's most distinguishing characteristics is his dependence upon his own resources, his "self-re- liance." When he examines automobiles, he amasses infor- mation (statement 8), and a primary source is his own know- ledge; not the persons selling him the car (statements 44, 1). Statement . . Standard Score (8) Buying a car is not a simple proposition. You can't know too much about the car you're going to buy. 1.87 (44) You should never rely completely upon a dealership for information about the car you're going to buy. 1.50 (l) I enjoy talking to auto salesmen when I buy cars. I get a lot of worthwhile information. -0.90 His attitude of independence is emphasized by his :'-.f. - ._~,.:.-,. .'~ .1- .1- ,.. . - -/j positixe really, oi statement La. , ate F Ct“‘dfird Score (“2) haying a car mean freedom. It means not having to depend on somebody else for transportation. 0.25 The other Half of Factor Ill's label 38 "functionalist." As noted in the factor s;etc?, value for the Self-Reliant Functionalist is commehsurate with fitness. Factor lll sees automobiles as having a definite purpose: you step on the gas and the car moves (statement 12), with as few non-es— sential extras as possible (statements 2i, 94, 57). Statement _ Standard Score (l2) 1 like a car that moves when you toucn the gas --- instantly, quickly. [\2 .07 (21) A well-designed car has nothing on it that isn't functional --- no useless chrome, no fake hood scoops, netning that doesn't con- tribute to the car's performance. l.70 (5%) I like a car that you drive. one that performs. All that power steering and all these gadgets --— they're extras. They get between you and the machine. 0.4l 47. (57) A thing about today's cars is that there is so much variety. By se- leCting a car and the options for it, you can have a Virtually u- nique car. Nobody else would nave one exactly like it, and I like the idea of that. -O.62 Thus, Factor III was the only factor to negatively rank statement 55. He relies on himself; he doesn't "trust" a car and he doesn't view an automobile as "be- having;" it's silly to personify an inanimate object. Statement Standard Score (55) I want a car I can trust, one that will behave itself and do what it's supposed to do. I don‘t think that s asking too much. -O.25 His functionalist viewpoint accounts for a posi attitude tcward auto manufacturers. Ne d an recs with those statements oritical of auto manufacturers on the grounds that such actions would be defUHCCiOJal, e.g., "deliberately we inn cars that won't last.” '"1 \-‘- J- -. 4- c.2— -- 1 (J ”,3Ug oat etawdard score (4) The auto companies are deliber- ately maxing cars that won't las~ so that we have to keep re- placing them. -l.?l (59) Auto companies are just part of a much larger problem --— the proelem of endangering the en— vironment. -1.52 (al) The auto companies suffer from bigness. As producers they are clumsy, unwieldy -—- and that fact shows up in the proaucts they produce. -O.SO (be) When auto companies trv * at- (J to S isfy the consumer, it's because of 4'5. pressure from the competition or the 5overnment. -U.Ob milarly, the Self-Reliant Functionalist a5rees with statement 40; the whole idea 01 entering into bus- iness to make money. Statement Standard Score (40) The auto companies are far more proIit-oriented than people- or- iented. 0.59 when it comes to dealing with dealersnips and sales— men, Eactor lII disagrees Wlbfl items stating that those ones are the “enemy," to be opposed (statements 25, 59). His practical viewpoint is that that kind of behavior will only hinder what business needs to be done; hence, dys- functionality. Statement Standard Score (25) It doesn't pay to be a nice guy with dealers; the only solution for good service is to be tou5h. -O.25 (S9) It's important to realize that the auto salesman is really an adver- sar". You want the lowest price, he wants the hi5hest. Sonieone has to zinc, and if you're not tough, ii: '.'-I .II. J. J. 1.) C (I? 011 o "' O o 1 {-3 Factor III's o erall TiCW of servicing his flutUmO- bile is reflected in his ne5ative ranking of statements 5 and 99. To 1;.(,.r:-p the ear function}.ryr' properly, it is a.‘ necessary to sortice it. CO 0 g Q Statement Standard (5)' la WV care of a car --— pettinw v30 0Fl 0 azzed and all C10 other E”LU‘S --- is a nuisance. lHet is- sary, but a nuisance. —l.2u mg (99) Xou shouldn" have to worry about u: a car mechanically --— it shou run ri5ht --— and it will ii i built ri5ht. he Self-Reliant runCLionalist has 27, View OI dealer servicin5 (statement he feels he can rely on himself for Statement repa (27) A major proulem is service and repairs. You're lucky bU Iind ld t's "00 12 a somewhat negative 20), again oecause irs (statement >0). Standard score anvbodv who will do a good Job——- Whatever the price. (20) When a dealership se vices or repairs your car and you go to pick it up, you expect the bill to be too high. 0.70 One ou5ht to be able to rely on the dealership for service and repairs. Who ought to know more about your make of car than the people who specialize in that make? Any automobile is evaluated on its own tor III. .00 lo merits by Fac- He is not brand conscious (statement 15), prob- ably examinin5 individual advances and innovations for many automobile makes, including foreign cars (sta J- ,- .l- ., '- Stanumnent tements Standard Score (13) WLCH I'm buy my a cur, I don't reallf care where it was wade, me2ttcn“ it3's funerriceii or“ fcniefgfi;. ().$Ur (15) l doi't Phow at all what nett Cflr will LC. 1 don't feel bound to EMI” (ice r‘afze (Di e:?. ().lflfi K9) WW0“ you buy a forefrn car 30“ lave to worry ahout service. Tiere 1a" not be a dealer nearby, and you ta' \ ,‘U'. not be able to Let pa ts for it. -0.72 Sports cars are viewed positively by Factor lll; he can see a utilitarian performance i1 them rather than frivolity for the serious driver (statements :2, l9). Statement Standard Score (92) Sports cars are really Just ex— pensive toys. lou spend all your time fiddling with the engines or waning them. They're something to play with. -Z-Z9 (l3) Owning a sports car means you‘re carefree. A sports car's the car for good times, for driving throu5h the country with the top down. -2.29 in cnoosin5 his own vehicle, the Self-Reliant rune- tionalist tends toward big cars, (Statements 47 and 49), valuing performance and full—sized comfort as more func- tional than economy, (statement 51). ‘tatement Standard Score (e/) I like the solid, substantial feel- ing of a big car on the highway. 0.21 (49) I don't like to drive a car that's too big. It makes me feel like I'm taking up too much of the road. —l.2b (51) Buying a small car has a lot of ad- vantages over a big car. It parks better than a big car, 5ets better gas mileage, and has lower upkeep. —0.04 On the surface, stylin5 is not of major concern to Factor III, unless it is a cluttered, gaudy design serv- ing no purpose —-- where form wouldn't follow function (statements 25, El). rm- 1— . ,. - c a '.‘ Statement Standaid Score Ll. (£23) I twmi t :e taxi n 4:: can? if gtnz do '2 like the way it looks. v.90 (El) I like a car that stands out when it'fi period amour others. -U.0b Amidst this somewhat spartan view of automobiles, as noted in the sketch, the Self-Reliant Functiohalist sees some "amenitjes" as attractive (statement pa). ”schewing power steerinfl and "extra gadgets,” the Factor lll type does concern himself with an automobile's interior, either because leury may appeal to him at some level, or more probably because being seated in comfort mahes both driv- ing and ridin5 easier, less strainin5, and hence more func- tional (statements l0, b). Statement Standard Score (l0) In an automobile, l appreciate a fine interior: an example of taste . and care in design and engineerin5. 1.54 (b) When you're buying a car, you should pay a lot of attention to the in- Lerior. After all, you spend a lot more time $2 the car than outside 'the car. 0.7l FAUTUK iv The Disillusioned Humanist The Disillusioned humanist distrusts auto companies for nOt trying harder to build better cars, hence satis— fying the consumer, especially him. He expects the worst: he automobile companies overprice, build shoddy cars, and pollute. The Disillusioned Humanist would like to feel able to turn to the dealers for help, but he feels that dealerships are in business to make a buck, and a single custoner just doesn't carry much weight. The Disillusion- ed Humanist would like to be able to not a square deal from the dealer, but h, feels that t ev're really all alijté, llmearcinr. Frwrn tau;ing"the (iar {Mi seirxici3n~ it, auto companies and dealerships can't be trusted, from the DiSillur-Jioned humanist‘s point oi‘ View. No matter tow muc“; money 'le pumps into the car, the Disillusioned hu- .1 ganist ieels it's probably 301nm down the drain. y The Disillusioned humanist has similar notative Ieel— lnCS towards auto advertising. he doesn't tru8t the in- Iormation they contain, especially claims 01 helping the consumer; he sees through them, discrediting tne motiva- tion behind them. Finally, the UiSilluSioned humanist ends up being frustrated. lt doesn't mane any difference what kind of car he buys, or what no does to make it run right, or how carefully he tries to select it, an automobile is geins to let him down. lne autom0bile companies let him down, the dealers let him down, the serVice people let him down. The Disillusioned humanist basically GOUUbb their moti- vation; they're trying to help themselves, not the con- sumer. The UiSillusloned humanist wants the ideal auto- mobile --- free from breakdowns and maladies -—- a car he can trust. be far, he's lound the whole buSiness untrust- worthy, and lor him, that's the outlook for the Iorsee- able future. \f} \N 0 Evidence for the Sketch Six persons make up Factor IV, three males and three females. The youngest is twenty-three years of age, the oldest is forty-four, with the average age being thirty years. Three persons on the factor are students, one is a policeman, one an educational administrator, and one housewife. The Factor's average incoae is 3 15,000. 9-3 Factor IV is called "disillusioned" because of his ex- preSsed disencnantment with tne automobile industry as a whole and "humadlS"“ oecause of his concern for the rights of the consumer. The outstanding characteristic OI rector lv is a com- pletely negative View of automobile mannlacturers {state- ment c). Their prOduct is inadequate {statements Ml, a, 49), they are ”endangering the environment (statement 9?), and worst of all show little concern for the consumer (state— ments no, 94). Statement Standard Score (40) The auto companies are Iar more prolit-oriented than people-or- iented. Z.lj tel) Tne auto companies suffer from bigness. As prOducers they are clumsy, unWieldy —-- and that iact snows up in the prOducts they produce. l.49 {4) The auto companies are deliberately making cars that won‘t last so that we have to keep replacing them. 0.90 {54) When auto companies try to satlsiy the consumer, it's because of pres- sure lrom the competition or the government. (9;) Auto companies are just part 01 a much larger problem --- the proo— lem 01 endangering the environment. (a) The dilliculty that consumers have With the auto industry is mostly be- cause of dealers; not the auto man- ufacturers themselves. (43) You can have a lot more confidence in a new car than in a used car. .0. l6 -O-59 The Disillusioned Humanist harbors the same ill-feel- ing toward dealer networks. He'd like to be able to rely on dealers for service or auto information (statements 50, 44), but so far Factor IV has found them lacking (statements 20, 22, 59, 2a, 25, 1). (r. , ..J- (3. u atement u (20) When a dealership services or re- pairs yeur car and you no to pick ‘ I 1 it up, you expect tle bill to be (22) t's impossiole to yet a dealer interested in my individual proh— -l is. 1r;€auri, pp. 9-10. Booth, Laurel, "Au Imafie Study of McCall's Haraziue," Masters Thesis, University of Missouri, 19o? APPENDIX A 10. 11. APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS IN THE Q-SAMPLE I enjoy talking to auto salesmen when I buy cars. I get a lot of worthwhile information. The difficulty that consumers have with the auto in- dustry is mostly because of dealers; not the auto man— ufacturers themselves. Taking care of a car --- getting the oil changed and all the other things --- is a nuisance. Necessary, but a nuisance. The auto companies are deliberately making ears that won't last so that we have to keep replacing them. When I think about how much I have to pay out to drive -- in payments, in gasoline, in insurance -- it frustrates me. ' When you're buying a car, you should pay a lot of at- tention to the interior. After all, you spend a lot more time in the car than outside the car. It seems that auto ads always talk about little things, instead of stressing really important information. Buying a car is not a simple proposition. You can't know too much about the car you're going to buy. When you buy a foreign car you have to worry about ser- vice.. There may not be a dealer nearby, and you may .not be able to get parts for it. In an automobile, I appreciate a fine interior: an example of taste and care in design and in engineering. The owner is to blame for many of the things that go wrong with a car. If the owner takes good care of a car, it will generally take good care of him. I like a car that moves when you touch the gas --- in- stantly, quickly. ' I don't know at all what my next car will be. I don't feel bound to any one make of car. In buying an automobile, what's really important is the car itself. You're buying a car; not a brand and not a company. l6. 17. 22. 78 You can tell a lot about a person by the kind of car he buys. When I'm buying a car, I don't really care where it was made, whether it's American or foreign. You don't worry about looks when you're buying a small car; you buy a small car for basic transportation. When I buy a car, I'm eager to own it. I prefer not to order it. You have to wait so long. Owning a sports car means you're carefree. A sports car's the car for good times, for driving through the country with the top down. When a dealership services or repairs your car and you go to pick it up, you expect the bill to be too high. A well—designed car has nothing on it that isn't func- tional —-— no useless chrome, no fake hood scoops, no- thing that doesn't contribute to the car's performance. It's impossible to get a dealer interested in my in- dividual problems. To a dealer, I'm just one customer armnugxnany. I can't see buying a car if you don't like the way it looks. ' I like driving with the windows up. It shuts out the rest of the world --- the traffic noises, the smells. It doesn't pay to be a nice guy with dealers; the only solution for good service is to be tough. Auto dealers are not all alike. It makes a great deal of difference which one you buy your car from. A major problem is service and repairs. You're lucky to find anvbodz who will do a good job --- whatever the price. It just does not make sense to trust an automobile dealer. He's in business to make money --- as much as he possibly can. There really is no such thing as a "family car." Even for a married couple, a car always belongs more to one person than to both. Styling is based on a follow—the-leader approach, with 40. ill. ["2 0 1+4 . 45. the auto companies copying each other's ideas. As a result, new cars look too much alike. Buying a small car has a lot of advantages over a big car. It parks better than a big car, gets better gas mileage, and has lower upkeep. I like auto advertising. The ads are usually pleasant and informative. It takes skill to drive really well. 'It's something to be proud of if you have it. I like a car that you drive. One that performs. All that power steering and all those gadgets --- they're extras. They get between you and the machine. Auto companies are just part of a much larger problem -—— the problem of endangering the environment. I like a car that fits me physically --- in size, in style, in character. A thing about today's cars is that there is so much variety. By selecting a car and the Options for it, you can have a virtually unique car. Nobody else would have one exactly like it, and I like the idea of that. I hate to think of the amount of money you have to spend for a car -—— the financial obligation you're getting yourself into. You shouldn't have to worry about a car mechanically --- it should run right —-- and it will if it's built right. The auto companies are far more profit-oriented than people-oriented. The auto companies suffer from bigness. As producers they are clumsy, unwieldy ~-— and that fact shows up in the products they produce. Having a car means freedom. It means not having to depend on somebody else for transportation. You can have a lot more confidence in a new car than a used car. You should never rely completely upon a dealership for information about the car you're gOing to buy. There's something sad about trading in an old car. It's like losing a friend. 08 46 . 47. 49. 50. 51. 52. \J \71 \JT‘ C33 0 80 Many people only drive to get somewhere. I drive be- cause of that too, but I really enjoy driving itself. I like the solid, substantial feeling of a big car on the highway. Cars and sex are not unrelated. A pretty girl is more eye-catching in a good looking car. A guy in a sports car gets more attention than the same guy in a Volks- wagen. ' I don't like to drive a car that's too big. It makes me feel like I'm taking up too much of the road. One ought to be able to rely on the dealership for service and repairs. Who ought to know more about your make of car than the peOple who specialize in that make ? I like a car that stands out when it's parked among others. Sports cars are really just expensive toys. You spend all your time fiddling with the engines or waxing them. They're something to play with. I want a car I can trust, one that will behave itself and do what it's supposed to do. I don't think that's asking too much. When auto companies try to satisfy the consumer, it's because of pressure from the competition or the gov- ernment. I dislike the kind of auto advertising that tells you the auto company cares about you. I'll take action over words anytime. I think a person should be proud if he's able to work on his car himself, to help it run better and look better. Buying a car may be expensive, but I don't think of it as sacrificing other things. host of us buy cars that we can afford, that do the job. But we'd really like to have more from a car than just getting the job done. It's important to realize that the auto salesman is an adversary. You want the lowest price; he ants the highest price. Someone has to give, and you don't get tough, it will be you. Q APPENDIX B Q-sort No. APPENDIX B: -4 —5 -2 SAI‘EPLE SCO 233 SHEET -1 0 +1 +2 \N N +1}. 59 +5 +6 APPEH D IX C APPENDIX C: DEMOGRAPHIC DATA ON REEFONDENTS Family Number of Variable Age Sex Education Occupation Income Autos Owned 1 25 N 16 Student 3 5,000 l 2 25 F 15 Student fl H,000 1 5 25 F 16 Journalist $12,000 1 4 22 F 17 Student $ 5,000 l 5 26 M 12 Tire Store $14,000 2 lanager 6 22 F 12 Bank Teller$1N,000 2 7 44 H 12 Truck $15,000 2 Driver 8 44 F 12 Housewife 315,000 2 9 55 H 19 Teacher $35,000 2 10 21 M 15 Student $ 5,000 1 11 19 H 12 Auto As- 5 1,000 sembler 12 22 F 16 Student fl 5,000 2 15 25 H 15 Student $ 5,000 2 14 49 F 12 Iousewife $25,000 5 15 49 H 12 Auto Ner- £25,000 5 chandj ser 16 52 F 12 Housewife $H5,000 5 17 29 H 18 Teacher $24,000 2 18 30 F J? School Ad- 355,000 2 ministra- ' tor l9 2 F 14 Student h 5,000 1 20 21 F 14 Student 5 M,OOO 21 2~ F 15 Student $ 5,000 8 22 2 M 14 Student $ “,000 2 25 21 H 15 Student 3 5,000 5 24 57 F 17 Housewife $20,000 2 25 58 H 19 Veteran- $20,000 2 arian 26 52 H 16 Writer $12,000 1 27 50 H 16 Auto Sales $50,000 5 man 8 A? F 16 Housewife $50,000 5 29 25 h 12 Mechanic $15,000 2 50 26 F 12 Housewife $10,000 2 51 25 F 16 Retail 3 7,000 1 Sales 52 25 H 17 TV Camera- 6 9,000 1 man 55 52 H 19 Teacher $20,000 2 54 29 F 12 Secretary 310,000 2 55 50 m 12 Sales $30,000 2 I—lanager Fanily Number of Variable Age Sex Education Occupation Income Autos Owned 56 25 F 12 Secretary $10,000 2 57 25 H 14 Student $10,000 2 58 24 F 15 Airline $22,000 2 Reserva- tionist 59 25 H 15 Policeman $22,000 2 4O 28 M 12 Auto Les- $12,000 1 sor 41 26 F 17 Speech $20,000 2 Therapist 42 15 N 10 Student 45 55 H 17 Advertis— $55,000 1 ing Exec- utive 44 29 H 16 Newspaper $15,000 1 Advertis- ing Direc- tor 45 55 H 12 Real Estatefil5,000 2 Agent 46 21 F 15 Student t 5,000 1 47 25 H 18 Student t 5,000 2 48 29 H 16 CPA 125,000 1 49 55 H 16 CPA $50,000 5 5O 55 M 8 Manufac- $40,000 5 turer 51 25 M 17 Student 3 5,000 52 57 M 20 Doctor $40,000 2 55 24 H 16 Auto Sales-$15,000 l Inaii , 54 25 H 16 Public Re— $11,000 1 lations 55 25 F 16 Housewife $11,000 1 56 21 F 15 Student 5 5,000 57 28 M 16 Advertis- $16,000 1 ing Media Analyst 58 40 H 14 Truck Les- $20,000 2 sor 59 45 H 20 Dentist $50,000 5 APPENDIX D APPENDIX D: UNROTATED FACTOR LOADIUGS Loadings on Factor Respondent I II III IV 1 2O 7 6 O 2 5'7 5 14 -1 5 2 6 5 54 4- 47 26 —2 -25 5 44 8 -2 -19 6 59' 14 —ll 28 7’ +5' 42 -8 12 a 42 53 -5 45 9 2 14 15 4 1C -5 10 25 16 11 12 5O 55 6 12 15 6 7 72 15 7 6 7 42 14 25 14 -1 59 15 49 2 -2 28 16 54 29 16 -26 17 1] 65 19 - 5 1‘ -1 —22 25 59 19 l 25 -7 25 2O 2 -5 5 25 2 19 16 -6 l5 2 -11 5 15 58 23 19 2 10 15 24 16 51 —16 16 25 23 58 -5 23 26 16 25 54 15 27 71 9 19 18 8 54 -12 1 14 29 8 -4 51 -11 5O 18 4 —3 -5 5] -15 8 15 17 32 -5 S 15 2 5) 1 ~10 34 51 94 17 47 a —15 5) 51 21 - -ll 56 51 2 2 27 37 6 52 50 -24 38 e 7 -21 12 59 5 9 -/4- 1:8 , 4O 66 8 -4 —8 41 7 5 15 22 42 25 57 -' -lO 45 o 15 -9 59 44 22 -5 “7 22 U 5 23 BO -8 f.) 88 Loadings on Factor Respondent 'I—5 II III IV V 46 15 56 -11 -16 95 47 25 -16 5 O 75 4B 46 14 -10 2 O 4 51 14 -17 58 -l7 5 2 11 59 18 -5 51 7 -7 59 -2 5 52 64 16 25 6 -4 55 45 56 2 - O 26 54 E 5 58 -l 55 55 57 5 2 7 22 56 16 58 12 15 9 57 6O 29 59 10 -5 58 62 O 2 4 O 59 19 2 16 8 5 "17111141114111ITS