,-.--~------------·-----~-------·--·-·····-----------·------~---------------·------------·-------,
I
I
l
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE
THE ATTITUDES OF COLLEGE STUDENTS FROM
DIFFERIN~ SOCIAL STRATA TOWARD AUTOMOBILES:
AN
INVESTIGATION OF THE ANTICIPATORY SOCIALIZATION PROCESS
A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the
requirements for the degree_of Master of Science in
:~
Business Administration
by
Jerry Lee Hildebrand
June, 1974
I
i
t.,. ______ .................- ............ "· ... .... .............. ......... .....•. .....
...................................... - ................. - ............................... ,. .........
---,---------~--------------------
The thesis of Jerry Lee
Hild~rand
is approved:
Committee Chairman
California State University, Northridge
June, 1974
!
L .........--------..-- ----·- ... ·---- ---- ---·-- -------------- ............ -.... ·--- -----··- .. -----------------·---·--· --------------------.--------- ----------· --
ii
------···--------------.---1
"
!
I
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The writing of this thesis has been a long but valuable learning experience.
It exemplifies the frustration
of trying to anticipate human behavior.
I wish to express my appreciation to Drs. Charles
Bearchell and Max Lupul for serving on my thesis committee
and for their valuable criticism and suggestions.
Special
thanks goes to Dr. Donald Kirchner, my committee chairman,
for his time, patience, and guidance in the preparation
and writing of this thesis.
Additionally, I would like to thank Connie Sowders
for the typing of this thesis.
And last, special con-
sideration must be given to my wife, Peggy, for enduring
this long drawn-out project.
iii
------~----------------~--------------------·-------------------"1
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
l
j
ACKNOWLEDGMENT • •
• • iii
LIST OF TABLES • •
v
• vii
ABSTRACT • •.
CHAPTER 1
. .. . .. . . .
. . . . . . .
1
1
Statement of Research Problem .
Previous Studies
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
a
1
•
2
Social Class Variations
• . •
The Anticipatory. Socialization Process
(l3
Significance of Study .
CHAPTER 2
''-.-
. .. . .
"'_,
16
16
Hypotheses
. . . . ...
........ ......
Method of Research
CHAPTER 3
8
20
25
Data Sources
25
Data Presentation •
26
. .. . ..
Summary and Conclusion
52
Qualification of Results
Implications for Marketers
47
. . . . .. .
52
54
REFERENCED BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPENDIX 1 .
. .
......
57
APPENDIX 2 • •
........
66
l. ·-······ -····-·. .. ..····-·· ... ---.......... -- ................... -· .... ---·-···-··· ·-··· .....
iv
-----
-~--~
)
l
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE I
COMPARISON OF EDUCATIONAL LEVELS . •
6
TABLE II
ANGLO AND LATIN BRAND-SHARE
STUDIES FOR SELECTED PRODUCTS
7
TABLE III
INDEX WEIGHTING AND PREFERENCE
SYSTEM FOR QUESTIONS 2A AND 2B
22
TABLE IV
IMPORTANCE MEAN SCORE FOR AUTO TRAITS
28
TABLE V
ATTITUDE TOWARD NINE AUTO TRAITS • . • • . •
29
TABLE VI
CLASSIFICATION OF AUTOMOBILE PREFERENCES
2A.
Present Car Preferences . • • • • •
32
TABLE VII
CLASSIFICATION OF AUTOMOBILE PREFERENCES
2B. Future Anticipated Car Preferences
33
TABLE VIII
PREFERENCE SCORES FOR TEN AUTOMOBILE BRANDS
34
TABLE IX
ATTITUDE MEAN SCORES TOWARD
FOUR AUTOMOBILE BRANDS • • .
36
TABLE X
DOMESTIC VS. IMPORTED ECONOMY CAR
37
TABLE XI
MEAN PREFERENCE SCORE FOR
ONE AUTOMOBILE CATEGORY
40
II TABLE IMPORTANCE
XII
I
j
MEAN'SCORE FOR TWO AUTO TRAITS
TABLE XIII
PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT IN AUTOMOBILE OWNERSHIP
!
43
45
L-·-·-·------·--·~·--·-··--·-·······-·····-·---··-·-·· ·--··-··--·- . ···-·- ··--- ····-···· .................. -·····-··· .. -· ····-·· ----- ·----··-----··-·--------·--· ·-· -·· -- __:
v
·------,
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Page
TABLE XIV
IMPORTANCE OF THE EXTRINSIC
REWARDS OF THE JOB • • • • •
.........
Ii
1
I
48
i
I
I
I
IL---··-----·~---·-----------------------·------------------------------ ---------------------~-----------·-------------------------------'
vi
---l
I
I
!
ABSTRACT
THE ATTITUDES OF COLLEGE STUDENTS FROM
DIFFERING SOCIAL STRATA TOWARD AUTOMOBILES: AN
INVESTIGATION OF THE ANTICIPATORY SOCIALIZATION PROCESS
by
Jerry Lee Hildebrand
Master of Science in Business Administration
June, 1974
The design of this paper is to study male college
students from three different social strata or classes
consisting of 1.) Caucasians from middle-class families,
2.) Caucasians from the working class (blue-collar), and
3.) Chicano students from working-class families.
'I'he
intent is to determine if the strata of students differ
significantly in attitude indexes toward various automobile types and traits.
The hypotheses set forth--which are based on previous;
'
academic research--are that the middle-class white college.
students will exhibit the most favorable attitude toward
I1·~uto
imports in general and economy and compact type cars
l
!
l (both imports and domestic) , followed by the working-
I class
white students with the working-class Chicano
!
l
...
k..--~~~----~-~---· ~--·~ -··--·~--------------··· ~-~-------~-..- ----~
... ____..._. _____ ..,-~. ·~- --·-·-- -- ·--· -- --~----~---------·-- ------ ----------- --····-·- --- ---~---- ------ ___________ _._ --- -- ----~'
vii
··~··~---·-·
----·-·-·---·~·-~·-----~-~~~····-~---·----~~---~~-~~--~-~-----~- ·~~-j
students showing the least favorable attitude.
In addi-
tion, it is also hypothesized that working-class Chicano
students should exhibit the most favorable attitude toward luxury-status type cars and have the most personal
involvement in auto ownership, followed by working-class
white students with middle-class white students showing
the least favorable attitude and involvement.
To obtain attitude indexes or scores from the three
differing social strata, a questionnaire was administered
to various classes at California State University,
Northridge.
The data gathered in this study does not confirm the
hypotheses.
The working-class white and Chicano students
exhibit an uneven anticipatory socialization process when
moving into the middle-class college environment.
Increasing efficiency of communication channels
between social classes can be seen as a factor causing
over-socialization of middle-class subcultural values by
upwardly mobile working-class students.
This increased
efficiency of communication between social classes
scrambles the established patterns of expected social
class behavior.
viii
f
·------··-------------·~·-·-·-··---~------·-·-··-----·-··--------·--··-·--------.
I
i
I
CHAPTER 1
Statement of Research Problem:
The design of this paper is to study male college
students from three different social strata or classes.
The intent is to determine if the strata of students
differ significantly in attitude indexes toward various
automobile types and traits.
The three social strata will consist of 1.) Caucasians from middle-class families, 2.} Caucasians from the
working class (blue-collar), and 3.) Chicano students
from working-class families.
Previous Studies:
Cultural, psychological, and sociological variables
have been subjected to empirical research by marketing
analysts in an attempt to predict consumer-buying patterns
In reviewing the personality research studies to date,
Kassarjian (16, p. 415) characterizes them as being
equivocal.
Akers (1, p. 283) states that more research
is needed before the variables of culture, psychology,
and sociology can be used to segment the market and prediet consumer behavior.
The area of social class concerning automobile-
I buying behavior has
1
I
received limited attention.
Contri-
butions in this area have been made by Richard P. Coleman
j
.
. '
i!....__________
(8), William H. Peters (22) (23), and Fred C. Akers (1).
.. __ .... - ........................................................................... - .. ... ...................... --· ·--·-···-·--·· ·--- ··--· ·-··· ..............................
1
2
Social Class Variations:
Coleman (8, pp. 187-89) perceived varying segments
-------~·
"'-----···-··
within each class category based upon their amount of
discretionary income.
He defined the "overprivileged"
segments of the Upper-Middle, Lower-Middle, and UpperLower Classes as having a large amount of-discretionary
income left over after the basic expectations and standards of their respective classes had been met.
The "underprivileged" segments of each class were
identified by Coleman as barely meeting the basic requirements of their class, while members in the middle income
range of their respective classes were designated as
"average ...
Coleman stated that during the period of his study
which was 1959 and 1960, the "average" members of each
class constituted the heart of the Low-Priced Three (Ford,
Chevrolet, and Plymouth) buyers.
He explained that the
bulk of the medium-priced cars, e.g., Pontiacs, Buicks,
Oldsmobiles, and Mercurys, is located in the "overprivileged" segments of each class.
The core of the compact
car market, e.g., Falcons, Ramblers, and foreign economy
cars, is found in the "underprivileged" class segments.
Although like segments from the three classes dis1.
cussed tended to concentrate in certain auto price-line
. categories,
I categories,
1
l
e.g., overprivileged in the medium-priced
Coleman
di~
recognize class variations between
e
LJ.!~§___.§~ g:rtJ.~~:t:s .. ______:E'.<J.:r___ ~ ~ampl~_, .. ~()~ c e :rll.ii19.'__ I,~e_-::-.~.f>.~~ ar. ___ . ... . .
3
----~-~-------~·~·--·---~~~~--~-----------·---'"')
automobile-buying behavior, Coleman (8, pp. 185-89) statedi
that the working-class family is apt to have a bigger and
later model car than an equivalently paid middle-class
family.
He also concludes that the peak strength of the
big-car extravagance is found among the "overprivileged"
upper-lower class or among men that have achieved higher
status, but grew up in the upper-lower class.
Earlier evidence developed by Martineau supports
Coleman's view.
Martineau (20, p. 213) states that lower-·
class people have spending patterns that are primarily
artifact centered (material objects such as cars and
appliances) , whereas the middle class is additionally
experience centered in its spending.
Peters (23, pp. 360-63) utilized a dummy variable
multiple regression program called Multiple Classification Analysis (MCA) to segment new car markets.
His
results indicated that when the family head is black, the
frequency of owning a medium-priced full-size car increases from 57% to 72%.
For foreign economy cars, young
buyers (25-34) have a greater frequency of ownership in
that the frequency increases from 6% to 12%; and having a
Bachelor's degree increases the frequency of foreign
economy car ownership from 6% to 11%.
Peters concludes
that the data indicates that young drivers want smaller
I
cars and not the larger, mass-market, popular cars of the
I rnid-1960' s.
l
-~~--~~-~---·-
Academic research prior to Akers' study, tended to
·---· .. -.- - ·---· -- -·---·- .. . -- .. ---·--- .. ··- ---- -----·-·-·-'"
"'~---------- .~---·--
--·----- -·-------
-----------~----·-· -~--
:
·-----·" --- ~-· -·----~-------------------- ...... -~-· -~-------~-· ___ ,
4
·--------------------------·---·----~-----------------------------l
minimize Negro-white buying-behavior differences
(Z)
(4)
1
I
( 5) •
i
'
Akers' disse_rtation, however, did indicate definite
differences of buying patterns between blacks and whites.
His study (1, p. 284) of Negro and white automobilebuying behavior involved a sample size of 300 black
automobile-owning families and 300 white automobile-owning
families with comparable incomes in Chicago.
Akers (1, p. 285-87) found that Negroes in the sample
1.} owned autofuobil:es·-rn.· a""fiigher price class' 2.) owned
more expensive models regardless of make, and 3.) owned
autos with more cylinders tha_n comparable whites.
It
should be noted that the three differences just cited
were greater for the lower income levels and tended to
diminish as the income level increased.
The difference in number of cylinders in cars owned
was significant at all income levels in comparing blacks
to whites.
To illustrate, 28.0% of the black families
reported owning six-cylinder cars as compared to 44.7%
of the white families.
Akers reported that as education increases, the number of cylinders in automobiles owned decreases; this
pertains to both blacks and whites.
However, the race
variable was more closely related to ownership than education.
Akers demonstrated that blacks have more personal
i involvement with automobile ownership than whites by
l-~~:':lll1.~!lg ___t::11Cit_ ~EC:9Uenc:y. ()~___ c:a_:r.-~_\".a~[l~~ --~~---~ -~~~~~E~---?~----""--
5
this involvement and that greater involvement is related
to ownership of more expensive or larger cars.
Regarding
frequency of car washes, 66.4% of the blacks as compared
to 37.7% of the whites reported car washes averaging once
a week or more during the summer months.
The differences
for car washing frequency in all three income categories
between blacks and whites were significant (p
<. 001).
Further tests indicated that greater personal involvement
in auto ownership as measured by frequency of car washes
is associated with ownership of larger and more expensive
cars (p
<· 005).
Although studies of automobile-buying behavior of
racial-ethnic subcultures have primarily concentrated on
blacks, the findings can be considered pertinent to the
Chicanos.
Just as variations in culture and socialization
processes have been used to explain differences in black
and white consumption patterns (1, p. 283), the cultural.
and social variations between Chicanos and whites can also
create consumption pattern differences between these two
groups.
Table I illustrates that greater disparity exists
between white and Chicano educational levels than exist
between white and black educational levels (11, p. 143).
The greater differences in education can contribute to
6
---------------------- ----------- --- ----·------ ------------------------------------------i
market differs in product purchases from the general mar--~------------ -~-------~-,
ket.
They explain that differences in brand shares for
the grocery storJ market are common and cite the following ·
New York study.
TABLE I
COMPARISON OF EDUCATIONAL LEVELS
Median school years completed:
Anglo
Spanish-surname
Negro
12.0 years
8.1 years
(Not available)
Percent attaining 12 years of school:
Anglo
·spanish-surname
Negro
27.8%
12.8%
17.4%
Percent attaining some college or above:
Anglo
Spanish-surname
Negro
Source:
22.1%
5.6%
10.1%
Grebler, Leo, Joan W. Moore and Ralph C. Guzman,
The Mexican-American People: The Nations Second
Largest Minority (New York: The Free Press,
1970), p. 143.
Table II shows the results of the study (15, pp. 101 11) done in New York comparing Anglo and Latin brand
!
i
I
shares.
Note that Tide soap had an Anglo market share of
30.2% as compared to 15.3% for the Latin market.
Cheer
L-··--·-------·---------·-·--·---··--------------------··-·----------------- --------------- --------------·------···--------------------·-------------·-
7
----·----------·--------·--·--..
r··-·--------~------------------.--
I
-------------~
-
I
TABLE II
I
1
1
I
I
i
ANGLO AND LATIN BRAND-SHARE STUDIES
FOR SELECTED PRODUCTS
I
I
!
Anglo
Latin
30.2
15.0
15.3
42.3
Avon . .•...•.........•..•..•...
26.5
23.9
21.0
50.7
Indigestion remedies
Alka Seltzer ....••..••.••..•••
Pepto Bismol ..•.•••••..••.••.•
31.6
31.3
7.7
65.4
54.1
20.3
2.7
10.8
45.5
9.1
13.6
0.0
25.0
25.0
9.0
52.4
33.0
5.1
31.1
7.3
2.2
7.0
21.6
12.5
Product
Soaps (powdered or flakes)
Tide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cheer . . . • . • • . . . . . • . . . . . . . • • • . .
Lipstick
Revlon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cold remedies
Contac . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Coricidin .••..•...••••..•..•..
Co ldens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dristan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Soft drinks
Pepsi-Cola ....•.••••••..••.• ~.
Coca-Cola ........•••••.•...•••
Seven-Up.
~
..................•.
Cigarettes
Wins ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Marlboro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Viceroy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
l,l
, Source:
i
I
Jones, Richard P., "Spanish Ethnic Market Second
Largest in U.S.", Marketing Insights, Vol. 2,
No. 9, November 27, 1967, pp. 10-11.
l______ .. _______._.,,_______ ----· --·- ------·---· ......................_____ ·-----
8
-·--·~-~~~-·---···--···-~~----~~--·--·- ~·--:~-~~-----~~~--.-.--.."
..
-·~-. ~~~~·~-·-·-----·---~~--~·
·--..
~·- ----~---~~-~~----·--~--·~~ ~~-·--~---------~,
soap had only 15.0% of the Anglo market but accounted for
42.3% of the Latin market.
Winston cigarettes captured
31.1% of the Anglo market but only 7.0% of the Latin
market.
Marlboro, conversely, had only 7.3% of the Anglo
market as compared to 21.6% of the Latin market.
'
This paper will attempt to determine if significant
I differences
exist when comparing automobile preferences of,
I
the Chicano working-class student to those of the Cauca-
1
sian middle- and working-class students.
'I
The Anticipatory Socialization Process:
Arthur Shostak (26, pp. 142-43) examined the sons of
Caucasian blue-collar workers and distinguished three
types:
rebels, accommodators, and achievers.
He states
that the rebels include both nondelinquent and delinquent
school dropouts.
In school the rebel is commonly a low-
level achiever, while out of school he is attracted to an
impulsive, undisciplined, and rebellious style of life.
The rebels ·reject the "deferred-gratification" pattern of
those blue-collar boys intent on graduation and class
mobility.
The accommodators, according to Shostak, include
high school graduates both of vocational and of general
academic programs.
They are generally found in tradition-.
al blue-collar neighborhoods.
This group (26, pp. 149-
52) accepts school as an unavoidable evil.
An appreciable
9
r··--·---~.----·-·········---···--·-···---··-·--·.-----·-··-··········~----····-··-·-··-··-····-----·-······-·-~---------··------·--·--·--"
This blue-collar group characteristically endorses its
1
!
own special variant of "youth culture" which includes an
I
I
I
emphasis on fun and adventure, and a disdain for scholarly'
effort.
College attendance is downgraded by accommodators
Shostak explains that this group is likely to be aware
that skilled workers can earn more than many college
graduates.
Any college attendance will typically be in
the two-year community or junior college vocational programs.
Shostak describes the achievers as "generally
bound blue-collar youngsters".
college~
It is the characteristics
of the college-bound achievers that will be pertinent to
this study.
According to Shostak's definition of achievers, bluecollar students enrolled in a four-year college curriculum
that does not involve a vocational trade can be classified
as achievers.
By definition then, Caucasian students from
the working class in the population of this study will
tend to fit into the achiever classification.
Shostak (26, pp. 155-61) states that typically
achievers, while in high school, dissociate themselves
from their blue-collar peers and identify with the college'
oriented, middle-class reference model.
Thus they engage
in "anticipatory socialization"; however, Shostak explains
their middle-class socialization is incomplete.
For
example, many achievers are resistant to intellectual
1.0
1--;ee-;;oll.:;-ge~~ei;-~;-;~-;,::_-~h~:: j .;-b~;i~~g ;~--;;lace-~
l
that helps one insure a job advance.
I
The college-bound blue-collar son's partial sociali- .
zation of the middle-class orientation is due to what
I
I
I
the:
Shostak calls the "psychocultural dimension of stratification", which includes various motivation components.
A blue-collar background tends to reduce motivation in
I
i
college environment.
The incompleteness of the achiever's
internalization of middle-class values often dominates
the achiever's career plans.
For exmaple, like their
working-class fathers, many college-going achievers believe the hardest part of a job is in getting hired, and
therefore become fixated on low-level vocational aims.
The achiever is under pressure to convince the "old
crowd" that a college education leads quickly to practical
financial benefits.
Hence this pressure can lead to the
accumulation of economic status symbols, e.g., an expensive car, to a much greater degree than his middle-class
counterpart.
The achiever would be exhibiting the charac-
teristic of being strongly artifact centered which refleets his blue-collar background.
He would therefore
tend to favor the luxury-status type cars to a greater
degree than would the middle-class college student.
Kohn (17, p. 76) has found that essentially, men of
higher stratum positions judge jobs more by intrinsic
qualities, while men of lower stratum positions judge
I
LJobs~ more ~by~_extrinsic. characteristics.
That
is, the
- --··-·-----····-··--,._
1
11
~-------·-···--···--·-···--·
1
--------··-··-·-··-·---------------·--·-------.-------.-----------------------------
··~~her an individual's social stratum, the more importance
they will attach t.o 1.) how interesting the work is, 2.)
the amount of freedom it affords, 3.) the chance to help
people, and 4.) the chance to use your abilities.
The
lower their stratum position, the more importance they
attach to pay, fringe benefits, the supervisor, coworkers, the hours of work, how tiring the work is, job
security, and not being under too much pressure.
Ellis and Lane (9, pp. 280-89) conducted the Stanford
Mobility Study to investigate the anticipatory socialization of lower-class or blue-collar male college students
as a process for preparing them for entry into the middleclass world.
They found that the blue-collar male college
students differed significantly from middle-class male
students with regard to success ambitions and occupational
values.
Their findings are briefly surnmarized below:
1.)
The lower-class students set lower
limits on occupational goals they considered
acceptable.
2.)
The blue-collar students had not
yet acquired the middle-class attitude which
attaches high importance to the interpersonal
satisfactions of work (i.e., of "working with
people rather than things").
3.)
The blue-collar students considered
the extrinsic rewards of the job (i.e., money,
status and _prestige, ?~curit:y)____ !:~ __l.=>C: .... ___ ·-·--·---------~
1
12
~-··----~·f-··;~~h-·hl-~h~-;--··i;p;-;;t~~;-~·-th·~;;-·-did the middle1
class students.
i To sunl!i1ar iz e:
The work of Coleman, Martineau, Peters, and Akers
concerning automobile-buying behavior as it relates to
social class emphasizes that:
1.)
The working-class family will spend
more for a car than an equivalently paid middleclass family (8).
2.)
Lower-class people have primarily
artifact centered spending patterns, v-1hereas
the middle class is additionally experience
centered (20).
3.)
Blacks own more expensive and larger
automobiles than whites (1)
(22).
Shostak, Ellis, and Lane emphasize the varying degrees'
of the socialization process for college students from
different social strata:
1.)
The college student from a blue-
collar family exhibits an incomplete internalization of
middle~class
values
~1ich
causes his
spending patterns to differ from the college
student from a middle-class family, i.e.,
blue-collar student will purchase larger and
more expensive cars (26).
2.)
Blue-collar students place greater
13
~---- e-:-~~~-~~;:;e;~;;d-~-;;~~~j_-~~~-~h~n -d~--th~-~iddle-------~~1
i
!
I
class students (9).
·
The works discussed above provide an
~ priori basis
for positing that white-middle-class, white-working-class,
and Chicano-working-class college students will have
varying attitude indexes toward various automobile types
(e.g., economy, compact, full-size, luxury) and occupational values, i.e., extrinsic versus intrinsic.
Significance of Study:
A significant change is occurring in the mix of cars
purchased in the U.S.
In May 1972, for the first time,
sub-compacts, compacts, and intermediate-sized cars broke
the 50% market share barrier and accounted for 50.33% of
cars sold (27).
The traditionally dominant full-sized
cars took 40.05% of the market, while specialty cars such
as Mustang, Camaro, and Eldorado took the remainder.
In
the six-county Los Angeles area--which many U.S. auto executives consider a trendsetter--one out of every three
new cars sold is an import which is more than twice the
national average (10).
A new trend is also developing within the import mar- ·
ket itself.
Sales are increasing for the higher priced
imports while sales of the cheaper economy models have
stalled and dropped slightly.
During 1972, the volume
of the imported economy-car market fell 3%, as deliveries
of the imported higher-priced specialty auto market
14
---·
--~------··~-~~-----~---~-·•·~~-~~·~fi~--a~-----··-~•·--·-·x·-·-··~~---~----~-~-~w~•-·--~-~---·-~-,
'
increased 27% (7).
The power of the import thrust into
i
i
the U.S. auto market is spreading into the medium- and
high-priced auto markets.
The under 25 and 25-34 age brackets are increasing
in importance to the auto manufacturers.
In 1967, the
under 25 age group accounted for slightly- over 9% of all
new vehicles sold, but the proportion is projected to
reach 13.5% in 1975.
The 25-34 age group is expected to
account for an estimated 21% of total new car purchases
in 1975, as compared to 18% in 1967 (18, pp. 43-44).
Be-
cause the population of the 25-34 age bracket is expected
to grow sharply in the years ahead, it will also become a
more important segment of the second-auto market.
This
group now accounts for 18% of all two-car owners, but by
1980 their proportion will rise to an estimated 26% (19,
p. 54).
Nationally, approximately 8.5 million people of
Spanish heritage live in the U.S. today (28, p. 423).
·Tney comprise the second largest ethnic market (after the
Negro) and the largest group based on nationality.
Knowledge of Chicano or Mexican-American purchasing
behavior is important to marketers in Southern California. :
The "Spanish-culture" market in Los Angeles and Orange
County has a population of over 1.1 million and an annual
,,
gross income of $2.5 billion (3).
This Chicano gross in-
come translates into an aggregate buying power of more
IL.. :than____$2
billion after t:axes, of which
)]l()~e: __!:l1_~!1_§2_QQ _________________c
15
c-- --------·
ion is spent for automobiles, gasoline, and public
~·
.,...._~-~-~~~----~_.......~-·~---~~-..---------·---·-L-~-----1
i
I
transportation.
Between 1960 and 1970, there was a 113% increase
among Latins--most of them Chicanes--in the Los Angeles
region (13).
Latins showed the largest single 10-year
increase of any minority.
During the same 10-year period
blacks increased 65.3%.
This study is significant because it provides an update on social class and attitude as they relate to
automobile-buying behavior.
Coleman (8, pp. 193-94)
stated in his 1960 article on social stratification and
consumer behavior, "We won't be able to say exactly the
same things about either the classes themselves or their
relationships to specific markets by next year at this
time."
The American class structure is not static but
is in a constant process of change.
Whe.n the stratifica-
tion concept as it relates to marketing becomes dated,
its use as a sophisticated tool of analysis will cease.
Also of importance is the fact that this study furnishes a current analysis of the anticipatory-socialization process of the white- and Chicano-blue-collar sons
as they assimilate into the middle-class college environment.
~
w~s
The Ellis and Lane study of this social process
conducted in 1958 and did not specifically cover the
I consumer behavior aspects.
L_.________________... _________________________ --····-·······-·· --- --·····---· -- . - .. ···-------------·- -----··-·------·------··-----···-··-~
~--------------··-·------------------------------·--·--------------~~
l
!
I
!
I
I
!
CHAPTER 2
Hypotheses:
Based upon the discussion of previous studies in
Chapter 1, the·f6llowing are hypotheses that will be
tested:
I. Middle-class Caucasian college students will exhibit the most favorable attitude index toward auto
imports in general, followed by the working-class Caucasian students with the working-class Chicano students
showing the least favorable attitude score.
According to Peters
(23, pp. 360-63) having a
Bachelor's degree increases the frequency of foreign car
ownership.
Akers' study (1, p. 285) showed that as edu-
cation increases, the number of cylinders in automobiles
owned decreases.
Since imports are almost exclusively
six and four cylinder cars versus eight for most Detroit
autos, Akers' study tends to confirm the findings of
Peters.
In other words, as education increases frequency
of imported auto ownership increases.
Because the middle
class had attained a higher educational level than the
blue-collar class, they would be expected to favor imported' cars to a greater degree (21, p. 75).
'Mayer and Buckley stated that level of education
'attained correlates with level of income (21, p. 74).
I
Since blue-collar minorities typically earn less than blue~
I
collar Caucasians, their educational level would be lower
II
and therefore
would tend to.... --··
favor
auto imports
to lesser
.. . . ...... ...... ...
... ... .
... ·-- ··- ···-···· ................................. -·· ..• ,
L•.. ~ .••••..... ,.......
16
17
degrees
(21, p. 103).
Table I illustrates that Spanish-surname individuals
as an ethnic group attain a lower level of education than
Anglos or Negroes {11, p. 143).
IIA.
The middle-class Caucasian college students
will exhibit the most favorable attitude index toward the
economy and compact type cars (both imported and domes- '
tic), followed by the working-class Caucasian students
with the working-class Chicano students showing the least
favorable attitude score.
The ranking justification for Hypothesis IIA follows
number of cylinders in automobiles owned decreases.
It
was explained under Hypothesis I that the middle-class
Caucasian has a higher level of education than the working~
class Caucasian, which in turn has a higher educational
level over the working-class Chicano.
It follows then
that this would be the same class ranking for those having
the greatest favorability for cars with fewer cylinders,
with the middle-class Caucasian expected to exhibit the
greatest favorability.
IIB.
Working-class Chicano college students will
exhibit the most favorable attitude index toward luxurystatus type cars (both imported and domestic) , followed
by working-class Caucasian students with middle-class
Caucasian students showing the least favorable attitude
score.
Peters
(23, p. 363) and Akers (1, p. 285) demon-
strated that blacks own more expensive and larger auto\
l_!!!2PJ_J._~-~-!-_l1§ln __yy_h~_t~§-~.
____Ju?i:_ (:t_S __~_1ll tura~ ___Cll?:C!___ s_9_C:.~-~!!:~_C!:_~_~_()_!l _____ _
18
--,
differences are attributed to the differences between
I
black and white a'U:tomobile-spending patterns, the cultural'
and socialization differences between white and Chicano
can also be expected to result in differences in automobile-buying behavior.
As already discussed in Chapter 1, there is a greater
disparity of educational levels betv.Ieen whites and
Chicanos than there is between whites and blacks (11,
p. 143).
Evidence has also been cited showing drastic
differences between whites and Chicanos in brand-share
consumption patterns of soap and cigarettes {15, pp. 1011) .,
The working-class Chicano can therefore be expected
to exhibit the most favorable attitude toward the luxury
cars.
Coleman (8, p. 185) stated that working-class whites
are apt to have bigger and more expensive cars than
equivalently paid middle-class whites.
Hence working-
class Caucasian students will be expected to have a more
favorable attitude toward luxury cars than middle-class
Caucasian students.
III. Working-class Chicano college students will exhibit the most personal involvement in automobile ownership, followed by working-class Caucasian students with
middle-class Caucas~an students showing the least personal involvement in the automobile.
Akers (1, p. 287) demonstrated that blacks are more
personally involved with automobile ownership than whites
by showing that blacks have a greater frequency of car
I
.
L_~5l_§.~~s____ 9:_n~---~~~r1~-~-l:3!?:.~1?_.?~--l"_[l~~~---~~E~E:~-~'!!'!.__a.:~~--~~E<J_~~---··---~----~
19
-----·--,
automobiles.
In Akers' study, 66.4% of the blacks as
compared to 37.7% (p<.001) of the whites reported car
washes averaging once a week or more in the summer.
Akers'
also showed that greater personal involvement in automo-
I
biles as measured by frequency of car washes is associated'
with ownership of larger and more expensive cars
(p
<· 005)
The stratum ranking of Hypothesis III is justified
involvement in auto ownership with comparable magnitude
as was shown by the blacks in Akers' study.
Since Akers
showed that personal involvement was also a function of
owning more expensive cars, it can then be expected that
working-class white students will have greater personal
involvement than middle-class white students.
This is
because working-class whites tend to own more expensive
cars than middle-class whites, as was discussed under
Hypothesis IIB.
IV.
Concerning the extrinsic rewards of a job (i.e.,
money, social status and prestige, and security), the
wo~king-class Chicano students will place the most im. portance on the extrinsic job aspects followed-sy-the
working-class Caucasian students with the middle-class
Caucasian students placing the least importance on the
extrinsic aspects.
The Ellis and Lane study (9, p. 289) found that bluecollar students place greater importance on the extrinsic
rewards of a job than do the middle-class students.
Just as Peters
(23, p. 363) and Akers
(1, p. 285)
showed that blacks own more expensive and larger automo-
)
20
·-----------------------------·-----·--·-----------···----·-stress of prestige symbols on the part of the black min-
-----~-1
ority group over the whites establishes a basis that
similar expectations may be projected onto the Chicano
minority.
In this case, that blue-collar Chicano students
will favor the extrinsic rewards of a job to a greater
degree than the blue-collar white students.
Method of Research:
To obtain at·ti tude indexes or scores from the three
differing social strata, the questionnaire in Appendix 1
was developed.
Questions l(a) through l(i) are inference
questions tha·t scale attitude importance toward nine
automobile traits.
Grubb and Hupp (11, p. 60) demon-
strated that certain traits are associated with certain
types of cars.
·Hence, certain auto traits may be favored
differently to a significant degree by students from the
three differing social strata.
Questions 2A and 2B classify automobile preferences
into ten types.
The categories are similar to those used
in the "Youth Market Study" Questionnaire developed by
Gilbert Youth Research, Inc.
(29, p. 6).
category has been omitted because it is
The sports car
subject~to
great
disparity between models and price lines, e.g., Jensen
Interceptor $12,000, Corvette $7,000, Datsun 240Z $5,000,
MG Midget $2,900.
It would noB-be possible to allocate
one category for sports cars since the variety is so
diverse.
As far as domestic sports cars are concerned,
21
-----------------------------------------------~---------.-------~----------------------,
!
the Corvette would be in the category by itself.
Jhree separate weighting systems were devised to
give purchasing preference indexes towards 1.) imported
cars in general, 2.) economy and compact cars (both imported and domestic}, and 3.) luxury-status type cars
(both imported and domestic).
Table III illustrates the
mechanics of the weighting system for the three preference indexes utilizing the ten auto categories.
To derive
the purchasing preference index toward imported cars in
general, weights of +2 and +1 are assigned to first and
second choices respectively for the selection of the
imported car categories (imported economy, imported compact, and imported luxury-sedan).
Weights of -2 and -1
are assigned to first and second choices respectively for
the domestic car categories.
To illustrate, if a respon-
dent selected_ "imported compacts" and "imported economy"
as first and second choices, his purchase preference
index would be +3; an individual selecting "intermediates"
and "imported compacts" as first and second choices would
have an index of -1; a respondent selecting "imported
economy" and "domestic compacts" as first and second would·
have an index of +1; and so forth.
_,..
1
chasing preference indexes will fall onto a four point
I scale
I
The resulting pur-
of +3, +1, -1, and -3.
To obtain a purchasing preference index toward
I economy and compact cars
including both imports and domes-
' tics, Table
III shows
that
weights --of -+2
and +1 are
- -- -------.
- - - - - - - --------------------~
l_ _________ ---
---
22
TABLE III
Index Weighting and Preference System
for Questions 2A and 2B
Imported Car Index
Imported
first
choice
+2
Domestic
second
choice
second
choice
+1
-1
first
choice
-2
Imported Preference Scale
+3
+1
-1
-3
Economy and Compact Car Index
Economy and Compacts
first
second
bhoice
choice
+2
+1
Other Types
second
first
choice
choice
-1
-2
Economy and Compact Preference Scale
+3
I
I
+1
-1
L ____________ ---------· · ·----------------· -- -----------··------------.. . . -----··---
-3
23
,.--·-------·--------~------------------------
TABLE III (Continued)
Luxury Car Index
Luxury
first
choice
+2
second
choice
+1
Other Types
second
first
choice
choice
-1
-2
Luxury Preference Scale
' 1
I
I
I
~+~3~-------------+~l---------------~l---------------~3
assigned to first and second choices respectively for the
selection of "imported economy", "domestic economy",
"imported compacts", and "domestic compacts .. categories.
Weights of -2 and -1 are assigned to first and second
choices respectively for the remaining six auto categories.
In obtaining a purchasing preference index to-
ward luxury-type cars (both imported and domestic) ,
weights of +2 and +1 are assigned to first and second
24
r----·--------------·----··----·--·--------------·-----··--·------____.,
seven categories.
I
I remaining
Question 3 provides ten individual favorability
;
!
scores on five economy cars (2 domestic and 3 imports)
and five luxury cars (4 domestic and 1 import) and further·
tests Hypotheses I, IIA, and IIB.
Question 4 forces a
commi.tment from all three strata as to whether they prefe"r
an imported or domestic economy car.
Questions 5 through 7 are designed to indicate degree
1
of personal involvement in automobile ownership.
Questions 8
thro~gh
10 test Hypothesis IV, and are
derived from the Ellis and Lane study (9, p. 289) on
lower-class college students in relation to middle-class
college students.
\
I
!
l
L-·-------·-----------·--------·--·-----·. ···-···-----···-----··--····------·---····--------·---·---·-·-··-·-···-!
-------1
CHAPTER 3
Data Sources:
';.9--~--test
the hypotheses, the questionnaire was admin-
istered to classes in business,
sociology~
Chicano studies
and Pan African studiesl at California State University,
Northridge during the month of January, 1972.
A total of
235 questionnaires were admin·i'sn:ered of whicJL 138 v.1er:e
usable white and Chicano responses.
The 235 total also
included 8 black male responses and 2 Chicano middle-class
male responses which could not be used for this study.
The bulk of the 97 responses that were not usable v1ere
either female responses or questionnaires that had not
been completely filled out 2 •
Female responses were obtained because the questionnaires were administered to the entire class in all cases
lAfter administering the questionnaire to one Pan
African studies class and after surveying the class size
.
and proportion of males in attendance of the other classes
in Pan African studies at the Northridge campus and
·
California State University, L.A., it was decided that it
would not be feasible to test black male response due to
their lack of availability.
1
.
I
1
•
1
,
2The listing below details the unusable responses:
55 - Questionnaires not completely filled out
28 - Female responses
8 - Black male responses
2 - Chicano middle-class male responses
2
Oriental male responses
1 - White alien response
1 - White Puerto Rican male response
97 - Total unusable responses
~-----~--··~-~--~-~-·~---~~D••-~ ·-·~--··~ -~-'--~•••"-••-·----.-.~-----•>•
"•••-• """ •-• •• -···-• - · - -•
- - · · •·-
25
•-•-•·-· • ••
••••••••••~ ·-·-~•••··~--
m•o-<
--·~·•-•••••-~•~·--~-
0--·-·-•--· ~•""•• •-• ._,,)
26
..------------·------····-··--·----------·---------·-·····-------······-------·· -·-··-····-------··-----···-----·-------··---1
except for the sociology courses.
Because the sociology
i
l
!
courses had a female enrollment at or exceeding 50%, it
I
was considered uneconomical to gather female response thati
could not be used.
Usable questionnaires were obtained from 71 middleclass whites, 31 working-class whites, and 36 workingclass Chicanos.
Data Presentation:
The data gathered from this research effort is presented in Appendix 2.
To obtain sufficient expected cell frequencies, the
5x3 categories were merged resulting in 2x3 categories for
questions l(a) through l(i), 3(a) through 3(j), 6, 8, 9,
and 10.
In the case of questions 2A and 2B, the 4x3
categories were merged to 2x3, and question 7 was merged
from 8x3 to 4x3 categories3.
Hypothesis I: Middle~class Caucasian college
students will exhibit the most favorable atti-·
tude index toward auto imports in general,
followed by the working-class Caucasian students
with the working-class Chicano students showing
the least favorable attitude score.
, 3siegel (24, p. 178) states that for the results of
the x2 test to be meaningful, "fewer than 20% of the cells
should have an expected frequency of less than 5, and no
cell should have an expected frequency of less than 1".
i This rule applies when the degrees of freedom is larger
than 1. To meet these requirements, Siegel explains,
, adjacent categories must be combined so as to increase
~· the expected frequencies in the various cells.
I
1
L______________ ---~- ---· -···· .. ------ .. -----------·----------..... ·------·-··· ....... ... . . --...... -- ...... --· -----·--·--···------------· ------·--------- ----~ --------.
27
-------;rhe-;;~~it~·-;-f-th~---;;t;--~t~-;it---q~e;ti;~~~-1(~--th;;-ugh.j
1 {i) have implications for Hypothesis I.
Table V shmvs
the results of these questions which scale attitude importance toward nine auto traits.
The three auto trait questions that were significant
at the .05 level were Pick-up and passing ability
{p<.005), Low maintenance costs
drive (P<-025).
(p<.05), and Fun to
The auto trait question of Low operating
costs {p <.10) carne very close to the .05 level of significance.
The majority of the imported cars are smaller in
body size and engine than the domestic autos and are there...:
fore more economical to maintain and operate.
Based on
Hypothesis I, the middle-class white students would be
expected to put more importance on auto traits, "Low
operating costs" and "Low maintenance costs", than the
other strata of students.
This was not the case as the
working-class Chicano students had the most favorable
attitude score toward these two traits followed by the
working-class white student {see Table IV).
The observed
frequencies for the three social strata for questions
l{b) and l{d) do not support Hypothesis I.
One may speculate that these results occurred because the Chicano students may be on tighter budgets
'
while in college and this may be reflected in their
atti1
tude toward autos.
L___. ·-----~~?-~-~'::~~-~~.??.~. 2-~---~==~-~~'- . . .!?:·~~~-~-=~~-~--in~~~~-~---~~-~=:~----···--·
28
--·1
I
I
TABLE IV
IMPORTANCE MEAN SCORE FOR TWO AUTO TRAITS4
Social
Strata
WC-Ch
l(b) Operating Costs
4.33
4.06
3.89
wc-w
MC-W
l(d) Maintenance Costs
4.39
4.10
4.07
4 The attitude importance scores shown above are obtained by assigning weights of 1 through 5 to the importance scales of the auto trait questions. Hence, a weight
of 1 is assigned to "No Importance", through 5 which is
assigned to "Utmost Importance".
The weighted categories
are multiplied by the frequency of each category and a
mean score is derived.
WC-Ch
WC-W
.Me-w
=
=
=
Working-Class Chicano
Working-Class White
Middle-Class White
29
.
-----------~---------~
TABLE V
ATTITUDE TOWARD NINE AUTO TRAITS
l(a)
Exterior styling, good looks:
t'VC-W
MC-W
34
13
37
18
31
71
x2 = .79, d. f.
High Importance
Low Importance
Total
l(b)
l(d)
~V'C-Ch
32
4
36
= 2, p
Total
105
33
138
<. .100
WC-Ch
Total
MC-W
wc-w
25
67
9
33
11
71
22
38
36
138
31
71
x2 = 11.14, d. f. = 2' p<..OOS
Low maintenance costs:
High Importance
Low Importance
Total
l(e)
•
MC-W
wc-w
49
24
22
7
31
71
x2 = 5.23, d.f.
Pick-up and passing ability:
High Importance
Low Importance
Total
I
<.
Total
66
72
138
750
Low operating costs:
High Importance
Low Importance
Total
l(c)
WC-Ch
19
17
36
= 2, p
High Importance
Low Importance
Total
Total
WC-Ch
wc-w
MC-W
112
34
26
52
26
2
5
19
138
36
31
. 71
x2 = 7.22, d.f. = 2, p <. 050
Good workmanship:
MC-W
WC-W
WC-Ch
Total
61
28
34
123
10
3
2
15
71
31
36
138
x 2 = 1.83, d.f. = 2, p<.500
L--·----··----·~-----···---------------------~----·----------··--------------·-·--·-·--····-----------~-------·------------·--·----------·:
30
TABLE V (Continued)
l(f)
Distinctive appearance/not a look-alike:
MC-W
13
58
High Importance
Low Importance
Total
l(g)
x~l=
Total
WC-Ch
10
29
6
25
26
109
138
31
36
1.36, d. f. = 2, p<..750
Reflects your personality:
WC-Ch
MC-W
wc-w
3
8
13
28
28
58
31
36
71
x2 = 1. 90' d. f. = 2, p
High Importance
Low Importance
Total
High Importance
Low Importance
Total
Total
24
114
138
<. 500
Fun to drive:
l(h)
1 ( i)
wc-w
MC-W
37
34
x~l=
wc-w
Total
WC-Ch
72
24
11
12
20
66
138
31
36
6.47, d. f. = 2, p <.. 025
Indicates achievement of a certain social status:
High Importance
Low Importance
Total
MC-W
5
66
x~l=
wc-w
Total
WC-Ch
10
4
1
32
128
30
138
31
36
1.55, d. f. = 2, p <· 500
= Middle-Class White
= Working-Class White
WC-Ch = Working-Class Chicano
MC-W
wc-w
~---~-------
--------------------------------------------------------- ---
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -~- - - - - - ~- - - - - - - -
-----'
31
I derived
·----··-------.·--·--·-----·--·--·----·--·--·-.-------·--··-·---·
for 1.) imported cars, 2.) economy and compact
r----·-----·-----~---·--.
cars, and 3.) luxury-status cars.
Table III illustrates
the mechanics of obtaining the indexes while Tables VI
and VII show the results for these questions.
None of the six questions were statistically significant.
In fact, the 2A and 2B Imported Car Index had
the smallest x2 values of the three indexes and therefore
provides no support for Hypothesis I.
Questions 3(a) through 3(j) provide favorability
scores on five economy and five luxury cars.
Table VIII
shows the results of the analysis of these questions.
The Toyota Corona (p<.05) and Volkswagen-beetle
(p <. 001) were the only two auto scores that were significant.
Scoring near the . 05 level were Cadillac (p< .10)
and Riviera (p <.10).
The mean attitude scores toward
these four cars are shown in Table IX.
Based on Hypothesis I, the middle-class white student
would be expected to exhibit the most favorable attitude
score toward the Toyota Corona and Volkswagen-beetle.
The
middle-class white did not have the most favorable score
toward these two cars; in fact, this student strata had
frequencies.
Quest.ion 4, which was significant, forces a commitment from all three student strata as to whether they
-prefer
... ('
an imported or domestic economy car.
Table X
\,
32
I
I
i
I
!
TABLE VI
CLASSIFICATION OF AUTOMOBILE PREFERENCES
Present Car Preferences
2A.
I
I
Imported Car Index:
MC-W
42
29
Favorable
Unfavorable
Total
x~l=
wc-w
21
10
31
• 72, d. f .
Total
WC-Ch
23
86
52
13
138
36
= 2, p <.. 750
Economy and Compact Car Index:
MC-W
39
32
Favorable
Unfavorable
Total
x~l=
wc-w
Total
WC-Ch
88
26
23
50
10
8
138
36
31
4.97, d. f. = 2, p< .100
Luxury-Status Car Index:
Total
WC-Ch
wc-w
MC-W
21
4
4
13
117
32
27
58
138
36
31
71
x2 = 1.12' d. f. = 2, p<.750
Favorable
Unfavorable
Total
MC-W
WC-~v
I
WC-Ch
II
=
=
=
Middle-Class White
Working-Class White
Working-Class Chicano
_____ __________________ _____
..,.
,
,
,
i
~,-~--~----·--··-~·-·---··--------~---··---------------·----··----'
33
.,
l
TABLE VII
I!
CLASSIFICATION OF AUTOMOBILE PREFERENCES
2B. Future Anticipated Car Preferences
Imported Car Index:
Favorable
Unfavorable
Total
MC-W
35
36
wc-w
15
16
31
.18, d.f.
WC-Ch
19
17
36
=
Total
69
69
138
2, p<.950
Economy and Compact Car Index:
Favorable
Unfavorable
Total
WC-Ch
Total
MC-W
wc-w
18
20
47
9
22
18
91
51
138
71
31
36
x2 = 5.52, d. f. = 2, p <. .100
Luxury-Status Car Index:
Favorable
Unfavorable
Total
MC-W
33
38
x~l=
= Middle-Class White
= Working-Class White
WC-Ch = Working-Class Chicano
MC-W
wc-w
wc-w
10
21
31
4.16, d. f.
WC-Ch
10
26
36
= 2, p
Total
53
85
138
<. 250
34
---l
i
TABLE VIII
PREFERENCE SCORES FOR TEN AUTOMOBILE BRANDS
i
i
I
I
3 (a)
MC-W
28.5
42.5
71
Favorable
Unfavorable
Total
=
X
Total
58.5
79.5
138
<. 750
Total
69.5
68.5
138
'<. .100
Toyota Corona:
MC-W
40
31
X
~1
3(d)
=
wc-w
WC-Ch
Total
19
12
71
12
24
67
31
138
36
6.61, d. f. = 2, p -<..050
Riviera:
wc-w
WC-Ch
Total
MC-W
72.5
12
24
36.5
65.5
19
12
34.5
138
31
36
7~
X
= 5.30, d. f. = 2, p <...100
3(e)
I
WC-Ch
15
21
36
2, p
wc-w
WC-Ch
10.5
17
20.5
19
31
36
x31= 5.71, d. f. = 2, p
3(c)
Favorable
Unfavorable
Total
15
16
31
.61, d. f. =
MC-W
42
29
Favorable
Unfavorable
Total
Favorable
Unfavorable
Total
vlC-W
I
Cadillac:
3(b)
Favorable
Unfavorable
Total
Vega:
MC-W
20
51
Pinto:
wc-w
wc-ch
Total
12
12
44
94
19
24
138
31
36
1.15, d.f. = 2, p<_.750
L-~~-------------· ----·--------------------------~------·---·- ----------·-------- -----·------ .------------------------·--···---·------·---------------'
I
l
35
r--------------,----------·------·-·------~------------
TABLE VIII (Continued)
1
MC-W
65
6
Favorable
Unfavorable
Total
x~l=
3(g)
wc-w
WC-Ch
Total
28
119
26
19
8
5
36
138
31
4.01, d. f. = 2, p -<::..250
l
WC-Ch
Total
MC-W
wc-w
91.5
19
33
29.5
46.5
12
3
31.5
138
31
36
71
x2 = 14.35, d. f. = 2, P"'-·001
3 (h)
Thunderbird:
MC-W
25.5
45.5
Favorable
Unfavorable
Total
~1
9.5
21.5
31
= .30, d. f. =
MC-W
33
38
Favorable
Unfavorable
Total
x~l=
3(j)
wc-w
WC-Ch
13
23
36
2, p
~.
Total
48
90
138
900
Datsun 510:
3 (i)
I
1
Volkswagen-beetle:
Favorable
Unfavorable
Total
Favorable
Unfavorable
Total
I
I
Mercedes Benz:
3 (f)
I MC-W
I wc-w
I
WC-Ch
21
17
15
14
36
31
d.
f.
=
2, p
1. 53'
~\TC-W
Total
71
67
138
<... 500
Lincoln Continental:
MC-W
wc-w
11
37.5
20
33.5
31
71
x2 = 2.82, d. f.
WC-Ch
15.5
20.5
36
= 2, p
Total
64
74
138
<. 250
= Middle-Class White
= Working-Class White
l_:~~~~--~--::_~~-~~g-~~-a-~-~--~~-~::no___ ------------·-
_ _ _ _ _ _ _._!
36
·-1
!
ii
I
TABLE IX
ATTITUDE MEAN SCORES TOWARD FOUR AUTOMOBILE BRANDS
3(b)
Cadillac
MC-W
3.20
WC-Ch 2.81
wc-w 2.61
3(c)
Toyota Corona
wc-w 3.26
3.14
MC-W
WC-Ch 2.53
3(d)
Riviera
WC-Ch 3.36
MC-W
2.96
wc-w 2.74
3(g)
Volkswagen-beetle
WC-Ch 4.31
wc-w 3.19
MC-W
3.11
MC-W
= Middle-Class White
wc-w
WC-Ch
I
I
= ~\forking-Class
wni te
= Working-Class Chicano
L-------·------~----------------- ---------~--------------------------------------------------------------·
37
-----·----~----------------·------------------------
---
TABLE X
DOMESTIC VS. IMPORTED ECONOMY CAR
4.
Type of economy car most likely to purchase:
Imported
Domestic
Total
MC-W
46
25
x~l=
wc-w
WC-Ch
Total
102
25
31
5
6
36
31
36
138
6.57, d. f. = 2, p..C:::. 050
Preferences expressed in percent:
Imported
Domestic
Total
MC-W
%
freg.
46
64.8
25
35.2
71
100
wc-w
freq.
25
6
31
%
80.6
19.4
100
WC-Ch
%
freq.
86.1"
31
5
13.9
100
36
= Middle-Class White
= Working-Class vvhite
WC-Ch = Working-Class Chicano
MC-W
wc-w
I
I
L. --·-·---------~--------···----- ------ ----·--·---~---·-----·-- · · --·- ----------------------------·-------------··--·------------·---·----·--·-------------- -~
38
r----------------------------------·--·-·------..--.............
shows that the strata most likely to buy an imported
--~------------------~
I economy
car was the working-class Chicano students at
!
!
J
86.1%, followed by the working-class white strata at
80.6%.
The middle-class white students at 64.8% were a
distant third on favorability toward the imported economy
car.
Hypothesis I, which states that the middle-class
white student will exhibit the most favorable attitude
toward auto imports, is not supported by the results of
question 4.
As can be seen from the discussion of the obtained
data that is relevant to Hypothesis I, no support is
provided for this hypothesis.
With reference to the anticipatory socialization
process, it may be conjectured that the working-class
Chicano and white students tested in this study may be
"over-socializing" the middle-class college orientation
of favoring imported cars.
As explained in Chapter 2,
previous studies indicate that the middle class tends to
favor imported cars to a greater degree than the working
class.
A positive association between educational level
and frequency of foreign car ownership was shown.
The
working-class white and Chicano students may possibly be
over-socializing this middle-class pattern of auto ownership and consequently tend to display a greater favorability toward imports than do the middle-class students.
I
L______ ·----· .. _......................._ . - . --··--------..............................-.......................................................... ----· .........----------------·--·--·-------· "··----~-
i
39
~--~-------~;~othesis IIA:
The middl~=~i~~-~-- Caucasian college students will exhibit the most favorable
attitude index toward the economy and compact
type cars (both imported and domestic), followed
by the working-class Caucasian students with the
working-class Chicano students showing the least
favorable attitude score.
I
I.
I
i
The results of questions l(b) Low Operating Costs
Iland
l(d) Low Maintenance Costs have the same implications
lfor Hypothesis IIA as they did for Hypothesis l.
Since
J
ieconomy and compact cars are less expensive to maintain
l
:and operate, the middle-class whites would be expected to
I
l
rate traits l(b) and l(d) higher than the other strata.
As previously illustrated, this was not the case as the
working-class Chicano students had the most favorable
attitude index toward these two traits followed by the
working-class white student.
Hypothesis IIA is not sup-
ported by this data.
Although none of the responses to the six questions
from 2A and 2B were statistically significant, the responses to question 2B pertaining to economy and compact
cars was nearly so (see Table VII).
On a four point
scale the mean preference scores for the three student
strata tmvard this auto category are shov.;n in Table XI.
The results of 2B. Economy and Compact Car Index
do not support Hypothesis IIA but are consistent with
the previous results in which the Chicanos placed the
most emphasis on these traits as compared with the other
student strata.
/
/
40
--·---~-·---~~---~----·~·~-~-·~·--~-------------·-----------~-----·------,
TABLE XI
MEAN PREFERENCE SCORE FOR ONE AUTOMOBILE CATEGORY
Social
Strata
WC-Ch
2B.
Economy and Compact Car Index
2.31
1. 92
MC-~~
wc-w
MC-W
wc-w
WC-Ch
1.81
=
=
=
Middle-Class White
Working-Class vmite
Working-Class Chicano
According to Hypothesis IIA, the middle-class white
student should obtain the highest attitude score for the
Toyota Corona and the Volkswagen-beetle.
As illustrated
in the discussion of Hypothesis I, this was not the case
and the mean attitude. scores for these t\vO cars do not
support Hypothesis IIA.
No support for Hypothesis IIA is provided by any of
the questions.
Perhaps the more traditional
vie~l
of auto
preferences is prevailing here in that those students,
i.e., Chicano and white working-class, coming from a
family background that has experienced a small amount of
, discretionary income, favor the smaller and more economi1 cal cars.
i-----~--~~- ~----· .. ··-·-·------"-
-----· -··
·------~--··-·
--- ------.. -
-···~~---- ·--- ··---·
--- • - ·
41
This may help explain why the Chicano students had the
highest mean scores for low operating and maintenance
costs, the highest preference score for economy and com·pact cars, and the highest mean score for the VW-beetle.
Hypothesis IIB: Working-class Chicano college
students will exhibit the most favorable attitude index toward luxury-status type cars (both
imported and domestic) , followed by workingclass Caucasian students with middle-class
Caucasian students showing the least favorable
attitude score.
The
~esults
of the questions pertaining to low oper-
ating costs and low maintenance costs have the same implications for Hypothesis IIB as they did for I and IIA.
Because the working-class Chicano students rated these
\
auto traits the highest followed by the working-class
white students, support for Hypothesis IIB is not provided.
Question 2B pertaining to economy and compact cars
does not support Hypothesis IIB because the Chicano student had the highest mean preference score toward this
l
auto category.
Questions 2A and 2B Luxury-Status Car
Indexes (see Tables VI and VII) provided no support for
I Hypothesis
.:.l
1
1
i
III? because they were not statistically signi-
ficant (2A, p<:.::.75; 2B, p<..25).
The middle-class white student should obtain the
l._lowest attitude
_scor~
for the Cadillac ang __ RJy:i?_ra
42
~:::-----------------------"---~-------
I
-------·-----------
--------~------------- -----~-----------------·---------------~
~~cording to Hypothesis IIB.
As was shown in the dis-
cussion of Hypothesis I, this was not the case; in fact,
!
I
the middle-class white student had the highest mean attitude score for the Cadillac.
No support for Hypothesis IIB is obtained from the
related questions.
The more traditional view of auto
preferences can be perceived for luxury cars also.
Of the
three student strata, the middle-class white students exhibited the greatest preference for the Cadillac, Mercedes;
Benz, and Lincoln Continental (see Table VIII).
One may
conjecture that the middle-class students have experienced
greater amounts of discretionary income in their family
backgrounds and therefore are tending to favor the more
luxury cars.
The over-socialization alternative explanation may
also be conjectured here for the preference results of
the luxury-status type cars.
The middle-class white
students tended to score higher preferences for the
luxury cars than the working-class strata and this may be
due to the working-class strata over-socializing the
middle-class college orientation of anti-materialism.
Hypothesis III: Working-class Chicano college
students will exhibit the most personal involvement in automobile ownership, followed by
working-class Caucasian students with middleclass Caucasian students showing the least
personal involvement in the automobile.
The results of the auto trait questions for l(c)
I
Pick-up and passing ability and l(h) Fun to drive have
t---~- ' ""-'------ -~ -------~ --- · - -----------~ ----- - - -------------------- ------ . . ------------------ .- - -- - ·------ · - ----------------------------- ·---~------- -·--------------·
43
r-------------------·--·----------··-----·
implications for Hypothesis
III.
....
_.......... ~-;._..-~'<-..~·-'.<~··-·-.,"" ... ,-~ ...., ... _.~~~~.-.,,._.~~--··
·---~--'~·_.-->"--~·-·-
----·
Both of these traits
·
~~-~~----.....-~·----~.
tend to be indicators of enjoyment derived from automobile'
ownership.
Since the working-class Chicano students had
the highest importance rating on these traits over the
other student strata, they lend support to this hypothesis.
The working-class white strata, however, deviates
from the hypothesized class ranking and places less importance on these two traits than the middle-class white
strata (see Table XII).
TABLE XII
IMPORTANCE MEAN SCORE FOR TWO AUTO TRAITS
l(c) Pick-up
Social
Strata
WC-Ch
MC-W
& Passing ability
3.86
3.42
3.16
wc-w
MC-W
wc-w
WC-Ch
=
Middle-Class White
= Working-Class lVhi te
=
~vorking-Class
Chicano
l(h) Fun to drive
3.72
3.52
3.19
·' "
..
,·
44
of the working-class Chicano college student's anticipatory socialization process as explained by Ellis and Lane.
It is possible to speculate that the Chicano student oversocialized the anti-materialism aspect of the middleclass college orientation which led to their de-emphasizing gas-hungry, status-type cars and to their indicating
a preference for smaller more economical cars; however,
the Chicano student "under-socialized" the aspect of
minimizing personal involvement in automobile ownership.
This uneven anticipatory socialization may have
occurred because type and size of car owned has high
visibility and is easily discerned and copied by the
Chicano when moving into the middle-class college environment.
Little personal involvement in automobile
ownership by the middle class is difficult for mobile
Chicano students to recognize clearly because of its low
visibility and somewhat covert nature; consequently, it
is under-socialized.
The working-class white, on the other hand, being
in much closer contact with the middle class may have
more easily discerned the minimizing of personal involve-
! ment
J!l
~I
in auto ownership and over-socialized it.
Questions 5 through 7 were designed to indicate de-
gree of personal involvement in automobile ownership.
The results of which are presented in Table XIII.
l.3_~=~-ti~-~----?-~---!~~-q~-~~~y ___'?~---~~=--- ~c:_shing
(p
Only
< . 0 o_s__>______w____a___s___________ ,_______ ,
45
_________ __________
,
TABLE XIII
PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT IN AUTOMOBILE OWNERSHIP
5. Usually visit auto dealers
at new car announcement time:
MC-W
10
61
Yes
No
Total
6.
wc-w
WC-Ch
Total
25
6
25
27
113
31
36
138
1.96, d.f. = 2, p <. 500
9
Importance of annual new car announcements:
MC-W
Important or
Impartial
Not Important
Total
7.
1/week or more
2/month
1/month
every 2 months
or less
Total
wc-w
13
28
43
18
31
71
x2 = .59, d. f. =
Total
~JC-Ch
17
19
36
2, p
58
80
138
<. 750
Frequency of car washing:
MC-W
20
14
16
19
x~g=
wc-w
5
9
5
WC-Ch
19
8
5
11
0
30
32
21. 63' d. f. = 6, p
Total
44
31
26
30
132
<. 005
=
Middle-Class White
=
Working-Class
vfui te
wc-w
WC-Ch = Working-Class Chicano
MC-W
II
.
L_______________________________,________,_______,__,_____________________________________________j
46
r--;----------------·-·-----·----------"'-- ---1
s1gnificant.
Based
on
----------------~
I.
i
i
the results of questions 5 and 6, it appears.
that all three social strata have minimal interest in ne;v
car announcements.
This factor seems to be of little
value in measuring personal involvement in auto ownership.
Akers
(1, p. 287) assumed that frequency of car
washes was a measure of personal involvement in automobile ownership.
Making the same assumption for this
study, the working-class Chicanos exhibited the greatest
personal involvement in auto ownership since this group
reported the greatest frequency of car washing with 59.4%
washing their car at least once a week.
The middle-class
white students followed in frequency of auto washing with
29% washing their car at least once a week; the workingclass white students recorded the lowest frequency with
16.7% at this rate.
The results of question 7 partially support Hypothesis I I I in that the working-class white students
deviate from the hypothesis and exhibit the least personal involvement in auto ownership.
Question 7 response lends some credence to the uneven anticipatory socialization process proposed as the
alternative explanation for the obtained frequencies.
With regard to personal involvement in automobile ownerj
ship, the middle class would be expected to exhibit mini-
! mal
involvement.
One may speculate that the working-
L.~~c;t_s_~--~-1:-~-~~~.?____~!:::~-~-~! .~_n_c1:'::L_~~~~~~~~~~-~--~~is___~~-I?.e~j:___c::'~-!~~-·
47
--------------·--·-----.----·--···-·--------··-···------------.----·-------------------'
iddle-class normative system due to lack of familiarity
nd consequently exhibits a high degree of personal involvement in auto ownership.
The working-class white
student, on the other hand, being less of an outsider to
the middle class is more adept at detecting this aspect
of the middle-class system and over-socializes it resulting in lower personal involvement than that exhibited
by the middle class.
~ypothesis
IV: Concerning the extrinsic rewards
of a job (i.e., money, social status and prestige,
and security), the working-class Chicano students
will place the most importance on the extrinsic
job aspects followed by the working-class Caucasian students with.the middle-class Caucasian
students placing the least importance on the
extrinsic aspects.
Questions 8 through 10 are derived from the Ellis
and Lane mobility study and are designed to measure the
importance attached to extrinsic job values by the three
student strata.
As can be seen in Table XIV, none of the
results are significant.
The results of questions 8 through 10 do not support
Hypothesis IV.
All three student strata appear to place
high importance on money earned from the job (question 8)
and security of the job (question 10); while placing
medium importance on social status and prestige of the
job (question 9).
Summary and Conclusion:
As can be seen from the data presented herein, theI
,.
48
~~
I
TABLE XIV
IMPORTANCE OF THE EXTRINSIC REWARDS OF THE JOB
I
ii
I
i
8.
Importance of money earned from job:
High Importance
Low Importance
Total
9.
MC-W
51
20
x~l=
wc-w
WC-Ch
Total
21
21
93
10
15
45
31
36
138
1. 99, d. f. = 2, P< .50
Importance of social status and prestige of the job:
High Importance
Low Importance
Total
10.
MC-W
WC-Ch
Total
wc-w
26
10
43
7
45
24
95
26
71
31
36
138
x2 = 2.24, d. f. = 2, p <·50
Importance of security of the job:
High Importance
Low Importance
Total
MC-W
WC-Ch
Total
wc-w
22
51
18
91
20
14
47
13
31
36
138
71
x2 = 2.33, d.f. = 2, P<C·50
.-,
=
Middle-Class \\fhi te
= Working-Class White
WC-Ch = Working-Class' Chicano
MC-W
wc-w
l.' . . . . . . . . .---·-····-- ............-.............................. ---·- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ···--· ....... -------.. . . . . . . . . . ____ . . . . . . __._______ ·-------·-·--·--·----------................_
49
I
,~----'·-----------·--- -··-··-~---·· ··-~
····-·-······- ... ···--------------
····------··-- ----------------------·-----------·-···--·,1
It appears that· the working-class v7hite and Chicano
students tend to be less materialistic with regard to
automobiles than their middle-class white classmatesi
i.e., working-class white and Chicano students exhibited
a greater preference for economy type cars and a lesser
preference for luxury type cars.
The working-class white
students tend to exhibit less personal involvement in auto
ownership than the middle-class whitesi however, the
working-class Chicano students exhibited a high degree of
personal involvement, far exceeding the working-class
and middle-class white students.
This personal involve-
ment in auto ownership was measured by frequency of car
washing.
The working-class whites and Chicanos are moving into
a middle-class environment when they attend college and
consequently are involved in an anticipatory socialization·
process.
This process tends to be uneven and is based
upon how the potentially upwardly mobile individual perceives the middle-class subculture.
Based on the obtained research data, one may speculate that the working-class Chicano student is oversocializing the middle-class college orientation of antimaterialism.
Therefore, the Chicano student tends to
~
\
'
rate the status type cars lmv and economy type cars high.
This may have occurred because type and size of car owned
have high visibility and are easily observed by the
i
! Chicano when moving into the middle-class college
L ................................... ····- --·· .......
. ...... .. ...... .. ... ......... .......
.. ......... ··---·------------·····------··-·-····---·---··------·-·
50
environment.
The working-class white may tend to over-
socialize this aspect of the middle-class subculture along
with the Chicano student.
Concerning personal involvement in auto ownership,
' the Chicano student under-socializes this aspect of the
middle-class normative system because of its less discernible nature.
Consequently, the Chicano student ex-
hibits greater personal involvement in auto ownership
than the other student strata as measured by frequency of
car washing.
The working-class white deviates from the anticipatory socialization pattern of the Chicano with regard to
personal involvement.
Being less of an outsider to the
middle-class normative system, one may speculate that the
working-class white student is more able to detect the
minimizing,of personal involvement in auto ownership and
over-socializes it.
This results in his showing less
personal involvement than the middle-class student.
A concept that enters into the anticipatory socialization process is that of the negative reference group.
The upwardly mobile student uses his own subculture (as
he perceives it) as a negative reference group.
The
working-class student sees himself moving away from his
class of origin and consequently may tend to suppress
those elements of his subculture that remind him of his
working-class background.
Ellis and Lane (9, p. 282) ex-
i
I
i
plain that such a negative orientation can prevent
L.__ ~·-··-.. --~.. .... .
. ... - .......... .. ..
... ·--·· ···-···· ... -· ··-····· ·--····-········· .... ···················-·-···--------····-~· ··-··--··
51
r-·--··~----·····--------·--·--·--------··---------------··········---·················--····--·····---~----------------··
1
..----------.
recognition of those situations where certain lower-class
I::::si::: ::::::_:::::d~e:~:: ::::::::~io:~eb:h::::::::-of
negative reference group orientation contributes to a
rigid outlook that can result in over-socialization of
certain
middl~~cl~ss
values.
Colenan (8, pp. 193-94) stated that the American
class structure is not static but is in a constant process of change.
Blumer {6, p. 147) contends that in
modern societiesr deviations from the previously established patterns of social class behavior are to be expected.
The deviations and inconsistencies are products
of the multitude of communication channels and the ease
of participation in them.
Shibutani (25, p. 165) explains
that each communication channel gives rise to a separate
world and that a subculture's boundaries are set by the
limits of effective communication.
It is the efficiency
of this channel of communication flowing from the middleclass subculture that determines the working-class white
and Chicano students' middle-class perspective which in
1
turn determines the effectiveness of his anticipatory
I socialization
I
process.
Increasing efficiency of communication channels be-
j
i
I
I tween
J
social classes in American society can be seen as a
factor causing over-socialization of middle-class sub-
I cultural values by upwardly mobile working-class students.
I
L..~~-~~--~-I?:<::::r:~<ls_E!ct.
efficiency of communication between social
,
52
classes 'scrambles the established patterns of expected
social class behavior.
Qualification of Results:
There is a dearth of quantitative material available
on Chica:r1C) econoinic bel1ctvior.
Although there are studies
showing·that blacks generally prefer larger and more
expensive cars, there are no such studies confi1..-:ming this
auto preference for Chicanos.
In this study the
hypo~
thesized Chicano preference for larger and more expensive
cars is implied, based upon the results of studies done on
blacks.
The majority of the Chicano student response used in
this study was obtained from Chicano Studies program students.
The question that arises, is this student repre-
sentative of a typical college Chicano student on campus?
It rnay be that the Chicano enrolled in a Chicano Studies
program is more highly cognizant of the differences between working-class Chicano and middle-class white value
systems and hence :more apt to over-socialize certain
aspects of the middle-class normative system whereas the
more typical Chicano student may under-socialize this
system.
Implications for Marketers:
The results of this study are inconclusive for
,marketers as far as distinct differences are concerned in
, auto preferences between the three student strata.
53
However, there are cert:ain implications concerning college
students in general:
1.) College students prefer imported
economy cars over the domestic ones.
2.)
The Mercedes Benz received the
highest preference rating by the students as a
group which would indicate that they are willing to pay a high price for a car if they can
get a.) excellent quality and engineering,
b.) good performance, c.) high resale value,
d.) a simple distinctive body design without
annual style changes and e.) a moderately
sized car.
In this st.udy, the Chicano students prefer the performance and fun aspects of auto ownership over the white
students, and are also more interested in low operating
and maintenance costs.
Marketers can stress these four
auto traits when directing their marketing efforts toward the Chicano market segment.
I
I
I
l_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . , , , , , , , , , ---------··--·""'"' "'""""''""·"" - - - - - '- '""'' ""' ' '. . . . ,. . , '"''""''''"""'"''•·---~------------
--~---····
[
--..···-·-·····- ...................
··~- -----·-----~---
'"'
.......
···-
·-~---
-- •... .---r-
~-~-
-·~~~·-~~-
··---~-·~----~-~--r~~1-~~--,.,~-
l
.REFERENCED BIBLIOGRAPHY
1.
Akers, Fred C., "Negro and White Automobile-Buying
Behavior: New Evidence," Journal of Marketing Re-, ,
search, Vol.·V, August, 1968, pp. 283-90.
2.
Alexis, Marcus, "Racial Differences in Consumption
and Automobile Ownership," Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Minnesota, October,
1959 •.
3.
Auerbach, Alexander, "The Chicano Clout: Overlooked
Market Packs Heavy Wallet," Los Angeles Times,
September 3, 1972, Section E, pp. 1, 3.
4.
Bauer, Raymond A., "The Negro Market: Threat and/or
Opportunity for Management," Speech to Harvard
Business School Cl·ub of New York, January 23, 1964.
5.
Bennett, William B., "Cross-Section Studies of the
Consumption of Automobiles in the United States,"
American Economic Review, Vol. 52, September, 1967,
pp. 841-50.
6.
Blumer, Herbert, "Society as Symbolic Interaction,"
Symbolic Interaction: A Reader in Social Psychology, ed. Jerome G. Manis and Bernard N. Meltzer
(Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1968), pp. 17994.
7.
Camp, Charles B., "The Buick Market: More A.rnericans
Buy Luxury Foreign Cars, and Detroit is Worried,"
The Wall Street Journal, January 22, 1973, pp. 1
and 19.
8.
Coleman, Richard P., "The Significance of Social
Stratification in Selling," Marketing and the
Behavioral Sciences, ed. Perry Bliss (2d ed.;
Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1968), pp. 179-94.
9.
Ellis,·Robert A., and w. Clayton Lane, "Social
Mobility and Career Orientation," Sociology and
Social Research, Vol. 50, No. 3, April, 1966,
pp. 280-96.
10.
Fisher, Dan, "Detroit Finally Swats Swarming Little
Imports," Los Angeles Times, April 30, 1972, Section 1, pp. 1-2.
54
55
.. "..
ill.
I!12.
I
113.
-·····'-·~--- ·---.-~-~---~-- --·-·-~------·~------------·- ~-~·-···-i
Grebler, Leo, Joan w. Moore and Ralph C. Guzman, The
Mexican-American People: The Nations Second Lar=gest Minority (New York: The Free Press, 1970).
Grubb, Edward L., and Gregg Hupp, "Perception of Self,
Generalized Stereotypes, and Brand Selection,"
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. V, February,
1968, pp. 58-63.
Hays, Williqm L., and Robert L. Winkler, Statistics:
Probability, Inference, and Decision, Volume II
(New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.,
1970).
!
il4.
!
I
115.
I
116.
I
117.
I
i
I118.
I
119.
I
20.
I
I
121.
I
: 22.
23.
Herbert, Ray, "L.A. County's Minorities Could Become
Majority by 1980," Los Angeles Times, October 1,
1972, Section C, pp. 1-2.
Jones, Richard P., "Spanish Ethnic Market Second
Largest in U.S.," Marketing Insights, Vol. 2, No.
9, November 27, 1968, pp. 10-11.
Kassarjian, Harold H., "Personality and Consumer Behavior: A Review," Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. VIII, November, 1971, pp. 409-18.
Kohn, Melvin, Class and Conformity: A Study in
Values (Homewood, Ill.: The Dorsey Press, 1969).
Linden, Fabian, "Profiling the New Car Market," The
Conference Board Record, Vol. VI, .No. 2, February,
1969, pp. 41-44.
, "The Second-Car Market: Characteristics," The Conference Board Record, Vol. VIII,
No. 3, March, 1971, pp. 54-56.
--~--~--~~~
Martineau, Pierre, "Social Classes and Spending Behavior," Marketing Classics, ed. Ben M. Enis and
Keith K. Cox (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.,
19 6 9 ) 1 pp • 2 0 2 -15 .
Mayer, Kurt, and Walter Buckley, Class and Society
(New York:
Random House, Inc., 1969).
Peters, William H., "Relative Occupational Class
Income: A Significant Variable in the Marketing
of Automobiles," Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34,
April, 1970, pp. 74-77.
_, "Using MCA to Segment New Car Markets," Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. VII,
--~~--~~----
1
56
,~·--~-·-----·---··-----
l
I
j24.
1
1
··- ... ·····--------·--·-- - --
-- --- -- . ···-- -· ··-·-···-----·----·-··--·--···-····-------.---------·----·--------·-1
August, 1970, pp. 360-63.
Siegel, Sidney, Nonparametric Statistics: For the
Behavioral Sciences (New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company, 1956).
I
125.
I
126.
l!27.
I
i
Shibutani, Tamotsu, "Reference Groups as Perspectives," Symbolic Interaction: A Reader in Social
Psychology, ed. Jerome G. Manis and Bernard N.
Meltzer (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1967),
pp. 159-70.
Shostak, Arthur B., Blue-Collar Life (New York:
Random House, Inc., 1969).
"Smaller Cars Lead in Sales for First Time," Los
Angeles Times, June 13, 1972, Part III, p. 13.
i
28.
Walters, Glen C., and Gordon W. Paul, Consumer Behavior: An Integrated Framework (Homewood, Ill.:
Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1970).
29.
"Youth Market Study" (Questionnaire, Job #R-951,
July, 1971, Gilbert Youth Research, Inc., New York,
New York).
l
I
APPENDIX 1
Questionnaire
I
L----------------- ---------- --- --.. ------------ -------.. -- -- ------ .--------------- -------- -------------------------------------------------- ---- ___________,
57
-1-
This questionnaire concerns attitudes toward and preferences for automobiles.
Complete the questionnaire a page at
a time in succession without refering back or ahead. Upon
completion, please raise your hand and the questionnaire Will
be picked up.
1. If you were purchasing a new car, please indicate how much
importance you would attach to the following listed auto
features or traits (check only one response for each car
trait).
a. Exterior styling, good looks:
Utmost Importance
Great Importance
Some Importance
Little Importance
No lmportance
b. Low operating costs:
Utmost Importance
Great Importance
Some Importance
Little Importance
No Importance
c. Pick-up and passing ability:
______ Utmost Importance
______ Great Importance
Some Importance
Little Importance
No Importance
58
-2d. Low maintenance costs:
Utmost Importance
_____ Great Importance
Some Importance
Little Importance
No Importance
e. Good workmanship:
_____ Utmost Importance
_____ Great Importance
Some Importance
Little Importance
No Importance
f. Distinctive appearance/ not a look-alike:
_____ Utmost Importance
Great Importance
Some Importance
Little Importance
No Importance
g. Reflects your personality:
_____ Utmost Importance
_____ Great Importance
_____ Some Importance
_____ Little Importance
No Importance
h. Fun to drive:
Utmost Importance
Great Importance
Some Importance
Little Importance
No Importance
59
-J-
60
i. Indicates achievement of a certain social status:
--- Utmost
Importance
Great Importance
Some Importance
Little Importance
No Importance
2A. The following lists various types of automobiles available
for purchase. If you were presentl~ buying, or considering
buying, a new car for your J?.ersonal needs, please select
two of the auto types listed and designate them 1 and 2 in
order of preference, assigning 1 to first choice and 2 to
second choice.
Auto~
Imported economy (Volkswagen-beetle,
Toyota Corona, Datsun 510, etc.)
Domestic economy (sub-compacts such
as Vega, Pinto, Gremlin, etc.)
Imported compacts (Volvo, Audi 100 LS,
BMW 2002, etc.)
Domestic compacts (Nova, Duster,
Maverick, etc.)
Sporty compacts (Mustang, Camaro,
Barracuda, etc.)
Intermediates {Chevelle, Satellite,
Torino, etc.)
Full-size cars (Galaxie, Fury,
Impala, etc.)
Full-size domestic luxury cars (Cadillac,
Lincoln Continental, Imperial, etc.)
Imported luxury-sedans (Mercedes Benz,
Jaguar XJ6, BMW Bavaria, etc.)
Personal domestic luxury cars (Grand Prix,
Riviera, Thunderbird, etc.)
-4-
61
2B. If you were buying a ~ car for your personal needs six
years from ~· and based upon your anticipated in~om~ at
that time, please select two of the auto types listed below
and designate them 1 and 2 in order of preference.
~~
Imported economy (Volkswagen-beetle,
Toyota Corona, Datsun 510, etc.)
Domestic economy (sub-compacts such
as Vega, Pinto, Gremlin, etc.)
Imported compacts (Volvo, Audi 100 LS,
BNW 2002, etc.)
Domestic compacts (Nova, Duster,
Maverick, etc.)
Sporty compacts (Mustang, Camaro,
Barracuda, etc.)
Intermediates (Chevelle, Satellite,
Torino, etc.)
Full-size cars (Galaxie, Fury,
Impala, etc.)
Full-size domestic luxury cars (Cadillac,
Lincoln Continental, Imperial, etc.)
Imported luxury-sedans (Mercedes Benz,
Jaguar XJ6, BMW Bavaria, etc.)
Personal domestic luxury cars (Grand Prix,
Riviera, Thunderbird, etc.)
3. Using the favorability scale provided, please rate the
following cars now on the market. Rate these cars based on
your ~ opinion 2£ ~guess, regardless of whether you
happen to be aware of the factual information about them.
a. How would you rate the Vega? (circle one below)
Unfavorable
1
Favorable
2
3
4
5
b. How would you rate a Cadillac? (circle one below)
Unfavorable
1
Favorable
2
3
4
5
62
-5c. How would you rate the Toyota Corona? (circle one below)
Favorable
Unfavorable
1
4
2
5
d. How would you rate the Riviera? (circle one below)
Favorable
Unfavorable
1
4
2
5
e. How would you rate the Pinto? (circle one below)
Favorable
Unfavorable
1
4
2
5
f. How would you rate a Mercedes Benz sedan? (circle one below)
Favorable
Unfavorable
4
2
1
5
g. How would you rate the Volkswap;en-be.etle? (circle one below)
Favorable
Unfavorable
4
2
1
5
h. How would you rate the Thunderbird? (circle one below)
Favorable
Unfavorable
4
2
1
1. How would you rate the Datsun
ilQ? (circle one below)
Unfavorable
Favorable
4
2
1
5
5
j. How would you rate the Lincoln Continental? (circle one below)
Favorable
Unfavorable
2
1
3
4
5
4. Taking everything into consideration, if you were considering
buying an economy car, would you most likely buy an imported
or a domestic car? (Please indica~
Imported
Domestic
63
-6-
5.
Do you usually visit auto dealers at new car announcement
time (September/October)?
No
Yes
6. How important to you personally is the annual new car announcement event?
only one).
Please indicate degree of importance below (check
_____ Very Important
Important
Impartial (neutral)
Unimportant
Very Unimportant
7. If you do not own a car, please indicate as such belowa
If you do own a car, indicate below (check only one) the
frequency that approximates how often your car is washed
(yourself and/or by a car wash).
Do not own a car
Washed twice a week
Washed once a week
Washed twice a month
Washed onc'e a month
Washed every two months
Washed every six months
Washed once a year
Never washed
8. In your job after graduation from college, how much importance
will you attach to the money earned from the job? (check only
one)
Utmost Importance
Great Importance
Some Importance
Little Importance
_____ No Importance
-7-
64
9. In your job after graduation from college, how much importance
Will you attach to the social status and prestige associated
with the job? (check only one)
___ Utmost Importance
____ Great Importance
Some Importance
Little Importance
No Importance
10. In your job after graduation from college, how much importance
Will you attach to the security (freedom from layoff or
dismissal) of the job? (check only one)
____ Utmost Importance
Great Importance
Some Importance
Little Importance
No Importance
11. Indicate your age:
12. Sex:
Male
Female
Married
Single
Divorced
Widowed
13. Marital status:
14. Class standing:
Freshman ___ , Sophomore ___ , Junior ___ , Senior
Graduate
15. Major area of study_:
16. Educational objective (i.e., type of degree):
17. Grade point average (for all college work):
-8-
65
18. After completing your college work, what type of career or
occupation do you plan to pursue?
19. What is your father's (or legal guardian's) occupation?
(please be specific---include job title and brief description
of duties):
20. Indicate the highest level of education that your father
(or legal guardian) attained (check only one):
--- Grammar
school
_____ Attended high school
--- Graduated
from high school
----- Attended college
Graduated from college; indicate degree
Graduate school; indicate degree
21. Please designate race or ethnic origin:
Asian
--- ,
Black ___ , Chicano ___ , White
Other (specify)
22. Are you a
u.s.
citizen?
Yes
No
If not please state how long you have lived in the U.S.:
23. Political standing (check most applicable):
Liberal
Middle-of-the-Road
Conservative
·---"--·--·--------·-------
.,
I
I
\
I
I
APPENDIX 2
Data Tables
Il ____________,__________________________________________. _______ .,___ ..,.........--------------------------------..-----------------'.
66
67
l(a).
Exterior styling, good looks:
MC-W
wc-w
WC-Ch
Total
5
4
2
6
4
30
11
13
54
3
32
14
15
61
2
5
3
2
10
1
0
1
0
1
Total
71
31
36
138
l(b).
12
-
Low operating costs:
MC-W
wc-w
5
20
11
16
47
4
. 29
13
16
58
3
17
5
4
26
2
4
2
0
6
1
1
0
0
1
Total
71
31
36
138
l(c).
WC-Ch
Total
Pick-up and passing ability:
MC-W
wc-w
WC-Ch
Total
5
3
2
8
13
4
30
7
17
54
3
32
16
9
57
2
6
6
2
14
1
0
0
0
0
Total
71
31
36
138
68
r----~------------------------·------·--------------------------,
I
l(d).
I
Low maintenance costs:
MC-W
WC-W
5
29
9
16
54
4
23
17
18
58
3
15
4
2
21
2
3
1
0
4
1
1
0
0
1
Total
71
31
36
138
l(e).
WC-Ch
Total
Good workmanship:
MC-W
wc-w
5
26
13
18
57
4
35
15
16
66
3
9
3
2
14
2
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
Total
71
31
36
138
l(f).
WC-Ch
Total
Distinctive appearance/not a look-alike:
MC-W
vvc-w
WC-Ch
Total
5
5
0
3
8
4
8
6
7
21
3
33
14
15
62
2
20
9
8
37
1
5
2
3
10
Total
71
31
36
138
1
I
I
69
r-------·---~.------------------
l{g).
Reflects your personality:
MC-W
WC-Ch
Total
5
3
1
4
8
4
10
2
4
16
3
31
11
8
' 50
2
18
9
9
36
1
9
8
11
28
Total
71
31
36
138
WC-Ch
Total
l{h).
Fun to drive:
r-lC-W
wc-w
5
8
2
8
18
4
29
9
16
54
3
29
14
8
51
2
2
5
2
9
1
3
1
2
6
Total
71
31
36
138
l{i).
Indicates achievement of a certain social
status:
MC-W
i
wc-w
wc-w
WC-Ch
Total
5
1
0
0
1
4
4
1
4
9
3
24
4
8
36
2
25
17
7
49
1
17
9
17
43
Total
71
31
36
138
i
I
t~-----~----~------~-~----~-,-·---·---~--~---- ~-----~-~~------------·----·----------· ---
70
,-----·---------------1
2A.
Imported Car Index:
MC-W
wc-w
vlC-Ch
Total
+3
23
7
6
36
+1
19
14
17
50
-1
11
3
4
18
-3
18
7
9
34
71
31
36
138
Total
'
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
i
MC-W
wc-w
+3
28
15
12
55
+1
11
8
14
33
-1
17
2
4
23
-3
15
6
6
27
71
31
36
138
Total
WC-Ch
Total
Luxury-Status Car Index:
2A.
MC-W
wc-w
WC-Ch
Total
+3
4
2
2
8
+1
9
2
2
13
-1
7
2
7
16
-3
51
25
25
101
71
31
36
138
Total
i
!
Economy and Compact Car Index:
2A.
'
L----------·-----------------------------~-----------------------------~----------------------------------------·-------------------------------...1
71
2B.
Imported Car Index:
MC-W
wc-w
WC-Ch
Total
+3
20
6
7
33
+1
15
9
12
36
-1
15
4
4
23
-3
21
12
13
46
Total
71
31
36
138
2B.
Economy and Compact Car Index:
MC-W
wc-w
WC-Ch
Total
+3
9
3
6
18
+1
11
6
12
29
-1
16
4
5
25
-3
35
18
13
66
Total
71
31
36
138
2B.
Luxury-Status Car Index:
MC-W
wc-w
WC-Ch
Total
+3
19
3
4
26
+1
14
7
6
27
-1
10
9
5
24
-3
28
12
21
61
Total
71
31
36
138
;
i
i
I
i
l---------·--·--------------··-·--·--------···-·•··---------·--···--------------------~·--··-----------J
'
.
72
.----·-
-----~----------------------------·
/
3(a).
Vega rating:
MC-W
wc-ch
Total
5
2
3
1
6
4
16
3
8
27
3
21
18
12
51
2
24
3
9
36
1
8
4
6
18
Total
71
31
36
138
3(b).
I
Cadillac rating:
MC-W
wc-w
wc-ch
Total
5
10
2
3
15
4
23
5
10
38
3
18
7
8
33
2
11
13
7
31
1
9
4
8
21
Total
71
31
36
138
3(c).
Toyota Corona rating:
MC-W
I
wc-w
wc-w
wc-ch
Total
5
7
2
0
9
4
23
12
5
40
3
20
10
14
44
2
15
6
12
33
1
6
1
5
12
Total
71
31
36
138
IL____________,. ___________________________________________________
73
~---3-(-d)~--R-iv-ie_r_a_rat-1-.n_g_: _ _ _ _" -------------~
I
MC-W
Total
3
2
5
10
4
25
6
16
47
3
17
8
6
31
2
18
12
5
35
1
8
3
4
15
Total
71
31
36
138
Pinto rating:
MC-W
wc-w
wc-ch
Total
5
3
1
0
4
4
6
7
5
18
3
22
8
14
44
2
25
8
12
45
1
15
7
5
27
Total
71
31
36
138
3(f).
I
wc-ch
5
-3(e).
I
wc-w
Mercedes Benz rating:
MC-W
wc-w
wc-ch
5
39
15
16
70
4
23
10
9
42
3
6
2
6
14
2
1
4
3
8
1
2
0
2
4
Total
71
31
36
138
Total
'
L - ----·~,--.~~-~-~~-------~~--~-~-~---~·-~--~--~··-----~----·-------~~----------~---·-----·--·..J
74
r
3(g).
Volkswagen-beetle rating:
MC-W
wc-w
wc-ch
Total
5
6
5
17
28
4
25
9
14
48
3
17
10
4
. 31
2
17
1
1
19
1
6
6
0
12
Total
71
31
36
138
3(h).
Thunderbird rating:
MC-W
wc-w
wc-ch
Total
5
2
1
1
4
4
12
4
5
21
3
. 23
9
14
46
2
23
11
11
45
1
11
6
5
22
Total
71
31
36
138
3(i}.
Datsun 510 rating:
MC-W
wc-w
wc-ch
5
1
0
6
7
4
20
9
7
36
3
24
16
16
56
2
21
3
6
30
1
5
3
1
9
Total
71
31
36
138
Total
75
~----~-------------.-
3 ( j) •
Lincoln Continental rating:
MC-W
wc-w
WC-Ch
Total
I
I
5
9
1
4
14
I
4
20
8
8
36
I
3
17
4
7
28
14
13
10
37
1
11
5
7
23
Total
71
31
36
138
4.
Type of economy car most likely to purchase:
MC-W
wc-w
Imported (1)
46
25
31
102
Domestic (2)
25
6
5
36
Total
71
31
36
138
5.
WC-Ch
Total
I
Usually visit auto dealers at new car announce-\
ment time:
l
Total
MC-W
wc-w WC-Ch
I
Yes (1)
No
I
I
I
(2)
Total
I
10
6
9
25
61
. 25
27
113
71
31
36
138
I
I
.I
I
i
!
l
I
I
l_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~-------------------------------~---------~---------:
76
·-:------------·------
6.
Importance of annual new car announcements:
MC-W
wc-w
WC-Ch
Total
5
0
0
1
1
4
5
5
3
13
3
23
8
13
44
2
28
5
12
45
1
15
13
7
35
Total
71
31
36
138
7.
Frequency of car washing:
MC-W
wc-w
WC-Ch
Total
No car
( 9)
2
1
4
7
2/week
(8)
4
0
3
7
1/week
(7)
16
5
16
37
2/mo.
(6)
14
9
8
31
1/mo.
(5)
16
5
5
26
ev.2/mo.
(4)
9
7
0
16
ev.6/mo.
(3)
5
3
0
8
1/yr.
(2)
4
1
0
5
never
(1)
1
0
0
1
Total
71
31
36
138
l
I
77
·-------~
8.
Importance of money earned from job:
MC-W
wc-w
WC-Ch
Total
5
10
1
5
16
4
41
20
16
77
3
19
9
14
42
2
1
1
1
3
1
0
0
0
0
71
31
36
138
Total
9.
Importance of social status and prestige of
the job:
MC-W
WC-~'1
WC-Ch
Total
5
1
0
1
2
4
25
7
9
41
3
36
19
15
70
2
7
5
6
18
1
2
0
5
7
71
31
36
138
Total
10.
Importance of security of the job:
MC-W
wc-w
WC-Ch
Total
5
20
5
13
38
4
31
13
9
53
3
17
11
11
39
2
2
1
2
·5
1
1
1
1
3
71
31
36
138
Total