American Marketing Association

Correlates of Automobile Shopping Behavior

Author(s): Franklin B. Evans
Source: Journal of Marketing, Vol. 26, No. 4 (Oct., 1962), pp. 74-77
Published by: American Marketing Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1248345
Accessed: 28-10-2015 19:24 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1248345?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents

You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Marketing Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Marketing.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 130.237.29.138 on Wed, 28 Oct 2015 19:24:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HE FORUM (continued)

Correlates of Automobile

Shopping Behavior

FRANKLIN B. EVANS

The kinds of shopping behavior exhibited by automobile purchasers

have implicationsfor both advertising and selling strategy. This article
illustrates a methodology for studying shopping deportment and sug-
gests possible hypotheses about the importance of this kind of analysis.

IN MOST American families the purchase of a
new automobile is a major event. Automobile
shopping behavior may take at least three forms:
1. Both the brand of car and the dealer are
selected in advance. Shopping. then consists
of going to only one dealer.
2. Only the brand is preselected. Two or more
dealers of this brand are visited in order to
secure the "best deal."
3. Neither the brand nor the dealer is chosen
in advance. The purchase is consummated
only after comparison shopping of both brands
and prices.
This article presents a discriminatory analysis
of the extremes of shopping behavior: (1) non-
shoppers-20 randomly selected individuals who
visited only one dealer before buying a new car;
and (2) shoppers-20 randomly selected individuals
who visited dealers of different makes before buy-
ing a new car.
These shoppers and nonshoppers were selected in
mid-1958 from a larger random sample of Ford
and Chevrolet owners in a middle-class Chicago
suburban area, Park Forest.' The shoppers and
nonshoppers each represented approximately one-
sixth of the larger random sample.
To control or limit the effects of other interven-
ing variables, this sample was further restricted.
Each group of 20 shoppers and nonshoppers con-
sisted only of white males who had owned a car
previously and who had purchased a new car in
either 1955, 1956, or 1957. Each group also con-
tained 10 Ford and 10 Chevrolet owners.
The cars actually purchased by the two con-
trasted groups indicate the similarities of the ex-
ternal factors involved in the purchase decision.
Each group was equally split between six-cylinder
1 Franklin B. Evans, "Psychological and Objective
Factors in the Prediction of Brand Choice,"Journal
of Business, Vol. 32 (October,1959), pp. 340-369.
74
and eight-cylinder models. Chevrolet accounted for
seven of the nonshoppers' six-cylinder models and
for six of the shoppers'. Body styles chosen were
also quite similar; two- and four-door sedans were
in the majority. The only noticeable difference was
that the shoppers purchased six station wagons,
compared with two for the nonshoppers. As a group,
the shoppers' cars had 18 radios, 15 automatic
transmissions, and 15 two-tone paint jobs; the
nonshoppers had 15 radios, 12 automatic trans-
missions, and 14 two-tone paint jobs. These simi-
larities suggest that shopping was not done simply
to find particular features or combinations of them.
Initial differences between the two groups were
indicated by their answers to the question, "What
make of car do you think you'll buy next?" Nine of
the shoppers answered "Don't know" to this ques-
tion, compared with only four of the nonshoppers.
Table 1 shows the range of answers.
It would appear that shoppers are conscious of
their behavior patterns and intend to maintain
them.
TABLE 1
FUTURE AUTOMOBILEPURCHASE PLANS
"Will buy next?" Shoppers Nonshoppers
(N = 20) (N = 20)
Don't know 9 4
5 15
Ford or Chevrolet
6 1
Other brand
* ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Franklin B.
Evans is an Assistant Professor of Mar-
keting in the Graduate School of Busi-
ness, University of Chicago. He received
his A.A., A.B., M.B.A. and Ph.D. degrees
from the University of Chicago. Dr.
Evans has published previous research
on automobile purchase motives, brand
imagery, and consumer research.

This content downloaded from 130.237.29.138 on Wed, 28 Oct 2015 19:24:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The
The Forum
Forum 75
75

Personality Correlates of Shoppers TABLE 2

and Nonshoppers AVERAGEPERSONALITYNEED SCORESOF SHOPPERS
AND NONSHOPPERS
Personality Needs
Shoppers Nonshoppers
The respondents in this study took a paper-and- (N = 20) (N = 20)
pencil psychological test which purports to measure Score Rank Score Rank
inner personality needs.2 The pattern of needs de- Achievement 13.05 2 12.75 1
fines the personality and allows something meaning- Deference 8.95 8 10.85 4
ful about the person to be communicated to others. Exhibition 9.20 7 10.80 5
The needs treated as psychological variables were:3 Autonomy 8.00 9 10.20 6
1. Achievement: To do one's best, to accomplish Affiliation 11.00 5 9.40 8
Intraception 11.20 4 10.90 3
something of great significance. Dominance 13.20 1 11.90 2
2. Deference: To find out what others think, to Abasement 7.45 10 8.00 10
accept the leadership of others. Change 11.35 3 10.00 7
3. Exhibition: To say witty and clever things, Aggression 9.95 6 9.20 9
to talk about personal achievements.
4. Autonomy: To be able to come and go as The greatest differences were for change-shop-
desired, to say what one thinks about things. pers ranked this need third most important and
5. Affiliation: To be loyal to friends, to make as
nonshoppers ranked it seventh-and for deference
many friends as possible. -shoppers ranked this eighth and nonshoppers
6. Intraception: To analyze one's motives and ranked it fourth. Also, shoppers ranked aggression
feelings, to analyze the behavior of others. and affiliation three ranks higher than nonshoppers,
7. Dominance: To be a leader in the groups to and they placed autonomy three ranks lower.
which one belongs, to tell others how to do
their jobs. Linear Discriminant Function
8. Abasement: To feel guilty when one does To test for discrimination between shoppers and
something wrong, to feel inferior to others nonshoppers, using all the personality need scores
in most respects. (ten independent variables) at one time, a linear
9. Change: To do new and different things, to discriminant function was computed.
participate in new fads and fashions. The purpose of the function was to weight the
10. Agression: To attack contrary points of view, personality need scores of the two groups, so as to
to get revenge for insults. provide maximum linear separation between them.
Test Scores That is, a model was used that computed predicted
scores by linear equations and found the "best"
The group means for each of the personality
coefficients for these equations in achieving dis-
needs for shoppers and nonshoppers are given in
crimination.4 The multivariate problem is thus re-
Table 2. Shoppers had higher scores than non-
duced to a univariate one.
shoppers for achievement, affiliation, intraception, The weights for the ten psychological need var-
dominance, change, and aggression. The shopping iables for this discriminant function are shown in
personality syndrome is supported by the high Table 3.
scores for the needs of achievement, dominance,
To test whether this function really discriminated
intraception, and change. By contrast, nonshoppers between shoppers and nonshoppers, an analysis of
scored higher than the shoppers on the needs for
variance was performed. The multiple correlation
deference, autonomy, abasement, and exhibition.
The first three of these fit the hypothesis for a coefficient (R) of this discriminant function is
.6558, and its square (R2) is .4301. The resulting
nonshopping personality. F ratio with 10 and 29 degrees of freedom is 2.189.
This is significant at the 5% level.
The personality profiles of the two groups show
This discriminant function misclassified nine of
considerable differences between shoppers and non-
the 40 cases from which it was developed. It cor-
shoppers. (The ranking of personality needs shows
rectly classified 77.3% of the sample. A completely
greater differences than one would expect from random basis of classification, such as flipping a
chance occurrence alone. Rank-order correlation
coefficient = .60. We accept the null hypothesis at coin, would misclassify approximately 50% of the
the .05 level of significance-2-tail test.) sample. Thus, the personality need scores improved
prediction by slightly better than 50%.
2 For details of the test, see same reference as footnote
1, pp. 344-346. 4 R. A. Fisher, "The Use of Multiple Measurements in
3 Allen L. Edwards, Personal Preference Schedule Taxonomic Problems," Ahnuals of Eugenics, Vol. 7
Manual (New York: Psychological Corporation, (1936-37), pp. 179-188. See also footnote 1, pp.
1957), p. 14. 368-369.

This content downloaded from 130.237.29.138 on Wed, 28 Oct 2015 19:24:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
76 1962
Journal of Marketing, October, 1962

TABLE 3 TABLE 5
LINEAR DISCRIMINANT FUNCTION OF PERSONALITY LINEAR DISCRIMINANTFUNCTION OF OBJECTIVE
NEEDS FORSHOPPERSAND NONSHOPPERSd VARIABLESFORSHOPPERSAND NONSHOPPERSa

Group Means Group Means

Variable Weight Shoppers Nonshoppers Variable Weight Shoppers Nonshoppers
(N = 20) (N = 20) (N = 20) (N = 20)
Achievement + 1.0000 X1 13.05 12.75 Own-rent - 1.0000 X1 .55 .40
Deference - 1.9928 X2 8.95 10.85 Three or more
children - 1.4493 X2 .20 .45
Exhibition - .6027 X3 9.20 10.80 Attend church
Autonomy - 2.8751 X4 8.00 10.20 oftener than
Affiliation + 2.4717 X5 11.00 9.40 once a month + .1143X3 .50 .40
Intraception + .7791 X6 11.20 10.90 Age - .1029 X4 5.45 4.75
Dominance + 1.6182 X7 13.20 11.90 Education + 1.9811 X5 .95 .75
Five or more
Abasement - 1.2875 Xs 7.45 8.00 years w/same
Change + 2.5882 Xe 11.35 10.00 firm - 1.0005 X6 .45 .80
Aggression + 2.6620 X1o 9.95 9.20 Income - .4403 X7 2.85 3.60
+ 70.2148 + 46.3481 - 1.1165 - 2.3950
ay1 =_ times group means.
dYi = 2 weights times group means. weights

ent aspects of the respondents' lives. Family size,

Objective Characteristics of Shoppers
and Nonshoppers home ownership, and frequency of church attend-
ance may reflect personality and family values. Age,
The Variables
education, job tenure, and income are not necessar-
The selection of Park Forest as the area of study
ily associated with any specific shopping behavior
restricted the ranges of the demographic variables.
patterns.
The ages and incomes of the survey respondents, Examination of the intercorrelations of these
for example, were of much narrower range than seven objective factors indicates that they are
would be found in sampling larger and less homoge-
"relatively independent" measures. The highest in-
nous areas. tercorrelations are between home ownership and
Seven objective variables were selected from the three or more children living at home (+.55) and age
interview data to represent factors which could and job tenure (+.50). The others range from -.42
be causally related to the behavior studied. The
(age and income) to +.35 (job tenure and income).
variables used were:
1. Home ownership-owners versus renters. Group Scores of the Objective Variables
2. Family size-zero to two children at home The average scores of shoppers and nonshoppers
versus three or more. are shown in Table 4.
3. Church attendance-less than versus more The shoppers were older than the nonshoppers,
than once a month. better educated, more likely to rent than own a
4. Age-age of owner. home, and more frequent churchgoers. The non-
5. Education-formal education of owner. shoppers were younger, had more children at home,
6. Job tenure-worked for present firm less than had worked longer for the same firm and had a
five years versus more than five years. higher income. The lower income of the shoppers'
7. Family yearly income-current year estimate. group suggests the importance of economic deter-
These objective variables describe several differ- minants of behavior.

TABLE 4
AVERAGESCORESOF OBJECTIVEVARIABLESFOR
SHOPPERSAND NONSHOPPERS

Variable Range Shoppers Nonshoppers

(N = 20) (N = 20)
Own-rent 1 (Rent)-0 (Own) .55 .40
Three or more
children at home 1 (Yes)-0 (No) .20 .45
Attend church more
than once a month 1 (No)-0 (Yes) .50 .40
Age 1 (19)-9 (54) 5.45 4.75
Education 1 (College)-
0 (Less than College) .95 .75
Five or more years
with same firm 1 (Yes)-0 (No) .45 .80
Income (mid-points) 1 ($3750)-6 ($16,250) 2.85 3.60

This content downloaded from 130.237.29.138 on Wed, 28 Oct 2015 19:24:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The Forum
The Forum 77
77

The greater home ownership and number of
children at home for the nonshopper suggests less
involvement with automobiles than with home cen-
tered activities.
Linear Discriminant Function
Similar to the personality need analysis, a linear
discriminant function was computed for these seven
objective variables. This is shown in Table 5.
This discriminant function misclassifies eight of
the 40 cases from which it was calculated. Thus, it
does a slightly better job of correctly placing the
owners than the function that used the personality
need scores for independent variables.
The multiple correlation coefficient (R) of this
function is .5741 and its square (R2) is .3296. Anal-
ysis of variance of this function shows it to be
statistically significant at almost the 5% level
(F 7,32 = 2.248).
Conclusions
Both the objective and psychological variables
used in this study show that shoppers and non-
shoppers differed in many important ways. How-
ever, it should be remembered that the two groups
in this study represented extremes of the shopping
distribution. Further studies of the other parts of
the market are needed before one can draw any
rigorous conclusions about segmenting the market
by shopping behavior.

MARKETING MEMO

Competition And New Products . . .

A primary economic conclusion, derived from analyzing the life
cycles of numerous products, is that "sooner or later every product
is preempted by another or else degenerates into profitless price
competition." This inevitable fact makes clear the necessity of
careful new product planning.
The sales volume-profit pattern and the timing of the product
life cycle varies by product and industry. As a generality, the
closer the company is to consumer goods and the market place,
the shorter the cycle of its product. Conversely, as the product
or the company is closer to basic industry or producers' goods,
the longer is the cycle. The position that a particular company
has in the spectrum from basic goods to consumer goods may well
dictate the amount of money, time, and management accorded the
new product activity. However, it is clear that the time scale
on almost all products is being more and more compressed now
by accelerating research and technology, by changing markets,
mass media and mass distribution.
Another key point is that business success tends to be governed
not only by what you do, but what others do. This means that as
a business strategy, a company must plan to run ahead of price
competition by differentiating its products and introducing new
products that can command better margins. Throughout history,
the underlying secret of business success has been to be in the
right business at the right time, and this strategy is expressed
by the selection and development of company products. Over-all
profits generally can be sustained in the long run only by a con-
tinuing flow of new products, not only to replace sales volume but
also to bolster today's shrinking profit margins.
-Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Inc., Man-
agement Consultants, "Management of
New Products," 3rd Edition (1960),
pp. 6-7.

This content downloaded from 130.237.29.138 on Wed, 28 Oct 2015 19:24:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions