Page 1

1|Page


Index of content

Introduction

Jordan four pleasures

p. 3

p. 4

Car preference test

p. 7

Self image/personality vs. Product image/personality

p. 11

Kansei

p. 14

Van der Heijden and Marc Hassenzahl

p. 15

Conclusion 1

p. 16

Conclusion 2

p. 17

Reflection

p. 18

Appendix 1

p. 19

Appendix 2

p. 34

2|Page


Introduction Products have personality. They can make people happy, angry, proud, ashamed, secure or anxious. They can be seen as living objects with which people have relationships. Studies describe the interaction or relation as age, gender, education or profession. They are only concerned with the level of effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction with which people perform tasks. Not with their emotional responses to a product. Should products react on your emotions? Should products have emotions? Do people buy products that relate to their own personality? In this report several models and methods are described and executed for finding out what people mean by certain attributes when rating a product, why people like certain artifacts, on what kind of personal aspects people rate certain products, looking at the relationship of their own personality and the product personality. Several papers are used for gain information about different methods to evaluate data, learn more about different research methods, how to design products fit to your target group etc. Literature that is used: Patrick W.Jordan - Designing pleasurable products van der Heijden - Measuring Attitudes Towards Mobile Information Services: An Emprical Validation of the HED/UT Scale Marc Hassenzahl - Hedonic and Ergonomic Quality Aspects Determine a Software's Appeal Caprara - Brand personality: How to make the metaphor fit? Mugge - The development and testing of a product personality scale. In this report there will be referred to these literatures several times for underlying statements.

Hypothesis 1. “The hedonic quality is more important for the appeal to a product than the ergonomic quality.” 2. “People prefer products that match their self-image.”

3|Page


Jordan four pleasures Need pleasures Need pleasures can be seen as pleasures you need to survive. If you don’t have these pleasures you will feel miserable, or stress; you will be dissatisfied. It is a process from being dissatisfied to a satisfied feeling. Need pleasures are more negative emotions. A need pleasure for me is next to my study of hard working going out with friends. If I’m not able to do that I will feel depressed and too focused on my study what will drive me crazy. I need a balance between hard working and social activities next to that. Pleasures of appreciation No matter in what level of satisfaction a person is, a pleasure of appreciation is when a person finds something positively pleasurable. They don’t need it, but when it’s there they feel very pleasant about it. It is a kind of luxury you get in life which is appreciated. Pleasures of appreciation are more positive emotions. A pleasure of appreciation for me is taking a nice warm shower. When I’m able to do that I will feel appreciate but If it is not possible I won’t feel dissatisfied or miserable. How does Jordan’s pleasures relates to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs Within Maslow’s hierarchy of needs there are some Jordan’s pleasures of appreciation. For example within the story of Janet doing things next to her job and social live like playing guitar or cooking, are things that gives her a feeling of achievement which is a pleasure of appreciation. Within the framework of Maslow’s this belongs to the ‘esteem needs’. Maslow’s takes everything as a need but Jordan is making a difference between needs and appreciation. You can also see it as needs and wishes. The relation between the Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and Jordan’s pleasures are that the physio pleasures are representing the biological and physiological needs at the bottom of the model of Maslow. The Socio pleasures are representing belongingness and love needs that are one step up. The psycho pleasures are representing esteem and cognitive needs who are one step up. The ideo pleasures are representing aesthetic needs and self-actualization that is at the top of the model of Maslow. So you can say that the ideo pleasures are the important ones according to Maslow’s model. Also for Jordan this is the same, because the ideo pleasures are standing for the values of people. These include tastes, moral values, and personal aspiration. They show how people do and would like to see themselves. Also the ideo and psycho pleasures are need pleasures according to Jordan. Pleasures of appreciation are more about socio and physio pleasures.

4|Page


Relation between hedonic values and the four pleasures of Jordan and experiential properties Hedonic values are the emotions and feelings a person has when looking or experiencing a design/product, like enjoyment, fun, angry, happy etc. These aspects relate to the psycho pleasures of Jordan that also pertains to peoples cognitive and emotional reactions. Also ideopleasures relate to hedonic values. Ideo-pleasures pertains to peoples values. In the context of products it would relate, for example, to the aesthetics of a product and the values that a product embodies. Experiential properties are descriptions that represent more the feelings and emotions of a design, and formal properties describing more the functions of a product/design. In this case there is a relation between experiential properties and hedonic values/quality (HQ), and between formal properties and ergonomic quality (EQ). Analyzing object that you value in terms of Jordan’s four pleasures The object that is valued by myself is my car. It will be analyzed in the terms of the Jordan’s four pleasures. Physio: Physio-pleasures are to do with the body and derived from the sensory organs. My car is a small car which is handy for parking in a big crowded city as Eindhoven. You can drive easily through the city because you can easily slip between two cars. It is a pleasure of appreciation. Driving a car is not very positive for staying in shape. Staying in shape is important to me but the effort to do so isn’t there always. Every tour by car gives a negative feeling about myself. But every time the bicycle is taken, a positive feeling is there. Staying in shape is a need pleasure for me. Socio: Socio pleasures are the enjoyment derived from relationships with others. By car there can be driven big distances to my friends or family that aren’t seen every day. My car fulfills my social contacts; it makes it easier to stay in contact with persons that are far away from me. It is a need pleasure for me otherwise I will feel unhappy and lonely. Further, my car is a point of conversation; among my friends and family it is very outrageous to have a car on your own. So they price me as a lucky person or give me compliments about my car. I like the envy of my friends and the status that I get with that and my car, even when it is not a very expensive, modern car. This is a pleasure of appreciation for me. Furthermore, carpooling is something that I do with my brothers every Friday evening. Then I pick them up and driving us home. It is a social process where we talk about our happenings of the week. This kind of relationship is very important for me so a need pleasure. Psycho: Psycho pleasures pertain to people’s cognitive and emotional reactions. Most of the time it I’m in a hurry by car. My car doesn’t drive very fast, and it takes a really long time before he is on his top speed. Sometimes I get aggressive or angry in the traffic because my car doesn’t establish really fast. Also standing in a traffic jam brings stress and aggression to me. Driving short distances that also could have been driven by bicycle, are giving me a feeling of guilty. Many times there is something broke about my car. Most of the time my key can’t open my door of my car and then I have to get in through the passenger seat door. This brings emotional reactions like angry and annoying reactions. The gasoline of my car is very expensive for me. I try to minimize the times of taking the car. When I have to pay a lot I feel guilty and bad about myself and I concern my finances. Ideo: Ideo-pleasures pertain to people’s values. My car is a kind of status, because I won’t 5|Page


drive just any car. I can’t afford another car. If you look to the aesthetics of my car I think it is a nice old looking car. Because a lot of my friends don’t have a car, but I do, you get a kind of status and power. We all know that a car is bad for the environment. If I can take another means of transportation, I will do that. I try to do that because I have environmental values, and every time I drive my car I have a sort of bad feeling about myself because of the environment. I have a ford fiesta as a car. Every time I see a ford fiesta on the road, between the modern and fast cars, I get a good feeling; I also own that car and it affects the environment, between the modern cars, aesthetically.

6|Page


Image 1: six cars used for the self- image/personality vs. product imaga/personality

Table 1: Ranking of cars from most like to most dislike Person 1

Person 2

Person 3

Person 4

Person 5

Person 6

Volvo

2

1

1

3

2

1

Mini Cooper

1

3

3

1

1

4

Alfa Romeo

3

2

2

2

3

3

Hummer

5

6

5

4

4

2

Suzuki

4

4

4

6

5

5

Fiat

6

5

6

5

6

6

Table 2: Words that occur when describing the specific car Volvo

Mini

Alfa Romeo

Hummer

Suzuki

Fiat

7|Page


Cooper Subtle

Sporty

Sporty

Plump

Boring

Not complete

Stylish

Iconish

Nice lines

Unnecessary

Meaningless

Too ugly

Classy

Cool

Stylish

Flashy

No movement

Strange lines

Modest

Small

Aggressive

Over the top

Slow

No unity

Fluent

Ugly grill

Old fashioned

Impressive

Ugly

Practical

Outline

Air entry

Italian car

Not practical

Dangerous

Awful design

Business look

Retro

Business look

Too big

Elegant

Young look

Big

Family car

Compact

Practical

Chic

Nice rims

Sporty Big Expensive

Table 3: Four dimensions/categories Physio- pleasure Shape mirrors Simple design Round shapes Color details Shape of the rims Original design Businesslike design Tough looking Playful design Shape of the grill Shape of the lights Big design Old looking Compact design Overall shape Small lights Spacious Fast looking Sports look Aggressive look Young look Aerodynamic look Italian car (movie) Four doors

Socio- pleasure Simple design Original design Business look Tough look Playful design Big design Old looking Spacious Fast looking Sports look Aggressive look Young look Italian car (movie) Over the top

Psycho- pleasure Dangerous Impressive Aggressive look Boring look Slow

Ideo- pleasure Simple design Original design Though looking Playful design Big design Old looking Compact design Fast looking Dangerous Sports look Business look Aggressive look Modest Young look Aerodynamic Expensive (uses a lot of fuel) Over the top

8|Page


Over the top Impressive Boring design Car preference test First of all the question was asked to six participants to rate the cars from most liking to most disliking (Table 1). Liking is having more dimensions, and that’s why the participants had to explain why they like a particular car; they had to explain the variants of liking a car (Table 2). You would wonder: why cars? That’s because people have clear preferences for cars. But, at the end of the questionnaire you have a lot separate attributes on a piece of paper. You need to find a way to organize and cluster these attributes in different dimension or categories. First, all the attributes wrote down that were mentioned at each car. By doing this a better view on the different kind of attributes was created. It was clear that many of the attributes had to deal with the aesthetics or design of the car. Also some two different attributes meant more or less the same thing. In that case I combined these attributes to one attribute. The same method is applied as with the product personality scale of ‘Mugge’. Because chapter 2 of Jordan was about the four dimensions, we categorized the attributes into these dimensions (Table 3). Physio-pleasures have to deal with the sensory organs, like touch, taste, smell and feelings. But because the acquaintances can’t touch, feel, taste or smell the car, here it is only about the design or aesthetics of the car that they perceive on the picture. That’s why the attributes that deals with design or aesthetics are categorized in the physiopleasure dimension. Further you have the Socio, Psycho and Ideo pleasures of the car. Socio pleasures have to deal with the relationship with others and how the product makes us feel socially accepted. So in that dimension attributes are mentioned that brings us acceptance in certain situations. For example businesses look: when you are a business man you want to be associated with one. When you are less formal you can have a playful, sporty car. Products can help to have a status. Psycho pleasures have to deal with emotions of people. So what kind of emotion brings a car? A slow car can bring aggressive or annoying emotions in my experience. When you drive a car that is dangerous because it is very old you can be concerned about your safety. This are all certain emotions you get from a car. Ideo pleasures pertains to people’s values. These values are important in defining how people do and would like to see themselves. It’s about tastes, moral values and personal aspirations. If people want to have a certain car, it’s because they want to be like that car, they want to be socially associated with that charisma, or they see themselves in that car and have the same personality. During this test the participants were stimulate to think about all the aspects of a car. The question was asked what they felt and saw when looking at the picture. Saying that they had to judge the car, not the picture; the participants were prompt in order to encourage him or her to make helpful verbalizations. According to Jordan this is called the ‘Think aloud protocols’ method. In this way more useful data could be gathered. But because the participants have to explain their view to the investigator, they will feel less comfortable and will be more restrained in answering why they like or dislike a particular car. With this test it was asked why the participants choose a particular car as most liked. In this way the data that is gathered can directly lead to design solutions. The congruity between functional aspects and car preference a correlation was made out of the test. The correlation was -0.28. This correlation is bigger than 0.2 so the correlation is significant. This means that the liking of the car is not in consensus with the functional aspects 9|Page


of a car, the task-related (EQ). Out of the attributes why people preferred a certain car, you can see that people judge a car mostly on the physical part; how a car looks, and what kind of emotions the look arouse, non task-related (HQ). Research shows that physical appearance features of humans, (hair color, clothing etc.) have a strong impact on the of the perception of a person’s personality. This is the same with product personality (Mugge).

10 | P a g e


Self image/personality vs. Product image/personality Appendix 1: Questionnaire Appendix 2: Data excel sheet By letting six participants filling in a questionnaire about their self-image and the image of the car, it is tried to arrive a common approach for measuring people’s product image/personality and self-image/personality. The goal is to establish the congruity theory: people prefer products the image of which is consistent with their self-image. For measuring your self-image the product personality scale of ‘Mugge’ is used. Also for describing a product the 20 product personality descriptions of ‘Mugge’ is used. In the paper of ‘Caprara’, The big five model describes human personalities to only five dimensions, so called big five factors Extroversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional stability, and Openness. The question in this paper is whether it is possible to describe brand personalities with the samefactors used to describe human personality, with the five factors of the Big five model. The conclusion is that it is unlikely that the same factors used to describe human personality are suitable for the description of brands. Some may be mirrored in brands, others might not. Several scholars have used standardized human personality scales to assess the personality of products and brands. This approach have been criticized because these tests have been developed and validated for measuring the personality of humans. The scale of assessing product personality of ‘Mugge’ is reliable, valid, and generalizable. They started with a comprehensive set of 1142 personality descriptions, which was reduced to a collection of 78 descriptions. A series of cluster analyses were used to come to a more manageable number of items. The results of these cluster analyses indicated that people can comprehensively describe product personality with 20 product personality descriptions. Next, we showed that a 20-item product personality scale that is based on these descriptions is reliable and has face validity. The outcome of the questionnaire in my case is that the most liking car is in consensus with their self-image. If you look at the data excel sheet and you compare the people’s self-image/ personality, and the car personality, then it is in consensus. Several models are made to compare and show the outcomes: Self-image

Product personality

11 | P a g e


12 | P a g e


13 | P a g e


The congruity is reached. If you compare the self-image diagram with the product personality diagram, the scales compare to each other. There are some deviations, but roughly the diagrams of self-image and product personality correspond with each other. There is not such a big different that you can say that the self-image is not in consensus with the product personality. Nuisance in the questionnaire is caused by several aspects. For example one word can mean different things to different people. First of all there are people that know a lot about cars, and people who know less about it. So the first questions cannot be filled in reasonably by all acquaintances. Second, some people will fill in the frame of self-image modestly. They will fill in their answers neutral but hardly any on the very right or left. Maybe it is because they find it hard to fill in something that is about their actual self-image. Also I think because they find it hard to fill in their actual self-image, they will fill in their ideal self-image. Also the privacy plays a role when filling in the answers. When the investigator is present while filling in the scales the participant will be restrained in his/her answers. A method that will not be a good way to get 14 | P a g e


useful data in this case, is the method where the participant is having a kind of conversation with the investigator, or when the investigator is prompting the participant. In this way the participant will not feel comfortable especially when it is about their self-image. It’s best when the participant is all alone and has full privacy to think about their self-image. Kansei Kansei can work in two ways: two directions of ‘flow’. The first can be described as ‘from design to diagnose’. Kansei has a number of designs and words and people has to rate the designs according to how they fitted with the series of words. This is one way of working. They also can work the other way around. It can be described as ‘from context to design’. In that case they observe a product in its natural environment and what kind of benefits may want from a particular product. So it’s improving products that already there. The second direction of Kansei is somehow what I did with my project. We made a product with a user interface. Then we asked twenty participants to interact with the product. We observed the people and looked at what could be improved about the product. For example we paid attention to how long the participant had to think about the possibilities of the product? Did the product spoke for itself? We not only asked people from Industrial Design but also people from outside who don’t have any knowledge about design processes. It was a useful user test and we could improve our product and make decisions about the form and functions of the product. In the first direction of Kansei, they use descriptor adjectives to rate each of the designs. These descriptor adjectives represented potential experiential properties: showy, calm, masculine, feminine, soft, individual, high grade, sweet, milky etc. After that a cluster analysis was carried out in order to establish the links between formal and experiential properties of the designs. For example, one of the participants regarded one design as soft, milky and sweet. That was characterized in terms of formal properties as having a beige color. Formal properties are for example size of logos, type of font, color, types of graphic imagery etc. With the test of measuring people self-image and product image, also formal and experiential properties occur. The cars mostly were described with experiential properties, but in table 2 there is no clear relation between experiential and formal properties. Experiential properties are descriptions that represent more the feelings and emotions of a design, and formal properties describing more the functions of a product/design. In this case there is a relation between experiential properties and hedonic quality (HQ), and between formal properties and ergonomic quality (EQ).

15 | P a g e


Van der Heijden and Marc Hassenzahl Appreciation of artifacts not only dependent on EQ (Ease of use) also HQ (Enjoyment). The aspects effectiveness and efficiency of a product aren’t anymore the most important aspect for a product of usability. First it was the traditional functional objective that a made a product useful for people. But nowadays the appealing to a product has to be more than the functional. Results from several researches suggest that the emotional part of a product contributes to the preferences and appeal to a product. The perceived fun and enjoyment of a product contributes even stronger to the usefulness of a product than the functional usability. (Igbaria, Schiffman and Wieckowski) But according to Carroll and Thomas, in the paper of Hassenzahl, EQ implies simplicity, which is partly incompatible with fun (HQ). From this point it is impossible to have the two aspects maximized. Making something simple (increase EQ) may lead to a boring design (decreased HQ). You have now two different quality dimensions of a product: the ergonomic quality (EQ), that are related to the traditional usability like the effectiveness and efficiency, and focuses on the taskrelated functions, and the Hedonic quality (HQ) that has no obvious relation to the task the user wants to accomplish, such as originality, beauty, fun of use, the emotional reactions that arouse from a product, the artistic events. Hassenzahl focused on three research questions: 1) Are EQ and HQ subjectively different quality aspects that can independently perceived by user? 2) Is the judgement of appeal formed by combining and weighting EQ and HQ? Which weights are assigned to EQ and HQ? 3) The research concerning apparent usability? The research shows that the two aspects EQ and HQ can be perceived consistently and independently by users. For questions number two the analysis showed that both quality aspects play an almost equal role in forming the judgement of appeal. But the expected appeal seems to be more based on HQ, whereas the experienced appeal seems to be based on both HQ and EQ. This is because HQ is easier to perceive without using the software than EQ.

16 | P a g e


Conclusion 1: “The hedonic quality is more important for the appeal to a product than the ergonomic quality� As mentioned, the hedonic quality/values are in relation with the experiential properties, emotions, feelings, non task-related, looks, physical part of product/design. The ergonomic quality/values are in relation with formal properties, functional part of a product, task-related. The congruity between functional aspects and car preference a correlation was made out of the test. The correlation was -0.28. This correlation is bigger than 0.2 so the correlation is significant. This means that the liking of the car is not in consensus with the functional aspects of a car, the task-related (EQ). Out of the attributes why people preferred a certain car, you can see that people judge a car mostly on the physical part; how a car looks, and what kind of emotions the look arouse, non task-related (HQ). Research shows that physical appearance features of humans, (hair color, clothing etc.) have a strong impact on the perception of a person’s personality. This is the same with product personality (Mugge). With the test of measuring people self-image and product image, also formal and experiential properties occur. The cars mostly were described with experiential properties. But this test is not entirely reliable because many nuisances are occurred in the questionnaire. First it was the traditional functional objective that a made a product useful for people. But nowadays the appealing to a product has to be more than the functional. Results from several researches suggest that the emotional part of a product contributes to the preferences and appeal to a product. The perceived fun and enjoyment of a product contributes even stronger to the usefulness of a product than the functional usability. (Igbaria, Schiffman and Wieckowski) But this is never proved scientifically with good research and data. In the paper of Hassenzahl it is asked if the judgement of appeal formed by combining and weighting EQ and HQ? Which weights are assigned to EQ and HQ? The outcome is that the analysis showed that both quality aspects play an almost equal role in forming the judgement of appeal. The hypothesis is not true, but the hedonic quality is becoming more important for supporting the ergonomic quality. When the hedonic quality is very good and present, the ergonomic quality is less important. But both are important to have in a product.

17 | P a g e


Conclusion 2: “People prefer products that match their self- image�. The outcome of the questionnaire in my case is that the most liking car is in consensus with their self-image. If you look at the data excel sheet and you compare the people’s self-image/ personality, and the car personality, then it is in consensus. Several models are made to compare and show the outcomes. But also in this questionnaire many nuisances are occurred. So this test is not entirely reliable. The Big five is supporting this view, but because the five dimensions that describe product personality are criticized by several other case studies, the hypothesis is not true.

18 | P a g e


Reflection What I’ve learned is how people can react on products and what kind of aspects are important when designing a product. Since the hedonic value is perceived by users it is becoming more important to think about this value in your product. Your product isn’t a success when it is working and it has the right functions, the feelings, emotional reactions and experience with the product is becoming more important. When the two qualities (hedonic and ergonomic quality) are in balance in a product, it is nearly always a success. Further I’ve learned to set up a research test to gain data for measuring a certain aspect. I’ve learned that you have to take a lot in consideration because otherwise there is many nuisance in the data and not reliable. For example the attributes that you choose for describing a product, one word can mean different things to different people. I’ve learned more about the user attitude, and how they match with products. I’ve learned about basic models of human needs and appreciations (Jordan four pleasures). In this way you can understand better the user satisfaction with a product. When you analyze your target group in this way, you can make a better fitted product for your user. In the future I will use the Jordan four pleasures and the Maslow’s pyramid. Within my project this semester I also had to deal with a very specific target group: People from a disadvantage urban neighborhood in Brussels. To get understanding about these people we had to do a lot of research and investigation into the neighborhood and the people. We talked to the residents, experts, did formal research like reading papers about social cohesion, observe the neighborhood looking for evidence of people’s activities etc. When talking to the residents, the physio-pleasures were the first needs for these people. They first need food, a place to stay, no nuisance. If that was okay they could think about their sociopleasures, like social contacts, feeling at home, feeling the connection with other communities in the neighborhood etc. These values are hard to trigger of the people in this kind of neighborhood, and they are also higher in the pyramid of Maslow’s. I’ve implemented what I’ve learned in this assignment into my project. My project and the understanding of the people in the neighborhood became clearer because of this assignment.

19 | P a g e


Appendix 1: ZELF

A)

“Ik vind het belangrijk om verantwoord om te gaan met het milieu� Volledig mee oneens

B)

Volledig mee eens

In welke mate beschouw je jezelf als: In het geheel niet

Zeer

Klasse Modern Vriendelijk Verfijnd

C)

In welke mate wil je dat andere mensen je beschouwen als :

Maakt me niets uit

Zeer

Klasse Modern Vriendelijk Verfijnd

D)

Geef aan hoe je jezelf ziet:

In het geheel niet

Zeer

20 | P a g e


Vrolijk Open Relaxed Leuk Vlot Schattig Eigenzinnig Uitdagend Interessant Pittig Opdringerig Dominant Slordig Kinderachtig Dom Saai Afstandelijk Serieus Eerlijk Bescheiden

21 | P a g e


AUTO_1

A)

MERK:

Geef voor deze auto aan hoe je zijn “…” beoordeelt: :

Zeer

Zeer

Motorvermogen

Zwak

Krachtig

Betrouwbaarheid

Onbetrouwbaar

Betrouwbaar

Veiligheid

Onveilig

Veilig

Kwaliteit

Laag

Hoog

Verbruik

Laag

Hoog

Prijs

Goedkoop

Duur

Grootte

Klein

Groot

B)

“Deze auto is relatief milieu-vriendelijk ”

Volledig mee oneens

C)

Volledig mee eens

Geef voor deze auto aan of je hem … vindt:

In het geheel niet

Zeer

Klasse Modern Vriendelijk Verfijnd

22 | P a g e


D)

Geef voor deze auto aan of je hem ‌ vindt:

In het geheel niet

Zeer

Vrolijk Open Relaxed Leuk Vlot Schattig Eigenzinnig Uitdagend Interessant Pittig Opdringerig Dominant Slordig Kinderachtig Dom Saai Afstandelijk Serieus Eerlijk Bescheiden

23 | P a g e


AUTO_2

A)

MERK:

Geef voor deze auto aan hoe je zijn “…” beoordeelt: :

Zeer

Zeer

Motorvermogen

Zwak

Krachtig

Betrouwbaarheid

Onbetrouwbaar

Betrouwbaar

Veiligheid

Onveilig

Veilig

Kwaliteit

Laag

Hoog

Verbruik

Laag

Hoog

Prijs

Goedkoop

Duur

Grootte

Klein

Groot

B)

“Deze auto is relatief milieu-vriendelijk ”

Volledig mee oneens

C)

Volledig mee eens

Geef voor deze auto aan of je hem … vindt:

In het geheel niet

Zeer

Klasse Modern Vriendelijk Verfijnd

24 | P a g e


D)

Geef voor deze auto aan of je hem ‌ vindt:

In het geheel niet

Zeer

Vrolijk Open Relaxed Leuk Vlot Schattig Eigenzinnig Uitdagend Interessant Pittig Opdringerig Dominant Slordig Kinderachtig Dom Saai Afstandelijk Serieus Eerlijk Bescheiden

25 | P a g e


AUTO_3

A)

MERK:

Geef voor deze auto aan hoe je zijn “…” beoordeelt: :

Zeer

Zeer

Motorvermogen

Zwak

Krachtig

Betrouwbaarheid

Onbetrouwbaar

Betrouwbaar

Veiligheid

Onveilig

Veilig

Kwaliteit

Laag

Hoog

Verbruik

Laag

Hoog

Prijs

Goedkoop

Duur

Grootte

Klein

Groot

B)

“Deze auto is relatief milieu-vriendelijk ”

Volledig mee oneens

C)

Volledig mee eens

Geef voor deze auto aan of je hem … vindt:

In het geheel niet

Zeer

Klasse Modern Vriendelijk Verfijnd

26 | P a g e


D)

Geef voor deze auto aan of je hem ‌ vindt:

In het geheel niet

Zeer

Vrolijk Open Relaxed Leuk Vlot Schattig Eigenzinnig Uitdagend Interessant Pittig Opdringerig Dominant Slordig Kinderachtig Dom Saai Afstandelijk Serieus Eerlijk Bescheiden

AUTO_4

MERK: 27 | P a g e


A)

Geef voor deze auto aan hoe je zijn “…” beoordeelt: :

Zeer

Zeer

Motorvermogen

Zwak

Krachtig

Betrouwbaarheid

Onbetrouwbaar

Betrouwbaar

Veiligheid

Onveilig

Veilig

Kwaliteit

Laag

Hoog

Verbruik

Laag

Hoog

Prijs

Goedkoop

Duur

Grootte

Klein

Groot

B)

“Deze auto is relatief milieu-vriendelijk ”

Volledig mee oneens

C)

Volledig mee eens

Geef voor deze auto aan of je hem … vindt:

In het geheel niet

Zeer

Klasse Modern Vriendelijk Verfijnd

28 | P a g e


D)

Geef voor deze auto aan of je hem ‌ vindt:

In het geheel niet

Zeer

Vrolijk Open Relaxed Leuk Vlot Schattig Eigenzinnig Uitdagend Interessant Pittig Opdringerig Dominant Slordig Kinderachtig Dom Saai Afstandelijk Serieus Eerlijk Bescheiden

AUTO_5

MERK: 29 | P a g e


A)

Geef voor deze auto aan hoe je zijn “…” beoordeelt: :

Zeer

Zeer

Motorvermogen

Zwak

Krachtig

Betrouwbaarheid

Onbetrouwbaar

Betrouwbaar

Veiligheid

Onveilig

Veilig

Kwaliteit

Laag

Hoog

Verbruik

Laag

Hoog

Prijs

Goedkoop

Duur

Grootte

Klein

Groot

B)

“Deze auto is relatief milieu-vriendelijk ”

Volledig mee oneens

C)

Volledig mee eens

Geef voor deze auto aan of je hem … vindt:

In het geheel niet

Zeer

Klasse Modern Vriendelijk Verfijnd

30 | P a g e


D)

Geef voor deze auto aan of je hem ‌ vindt:

In het geheel niet

Zeer

Vrolijk Open Relaxed Leuk Vlot Schattig Eigenzinnig Uitdagend Interessant Pittig Opdringerig Dominant Slordig Kinderachtig Dom Saai Afstandelijk Serieus Eerlijk Bescheiden

AUTO_6

MERK:

31 | P a g e


A)

Geef voor deze auto aan hoe je zijn “…” beoordeelt: :

Zeer

Zeer

Motorvermogen

Zwak

Krachtig

Betrouwbaarheid

Onbetrouwbaar

Betrouwbaar

Veiligheid

Onveilig

Veilig

Kwaliteit

Laag

Hoog

Verbruik

Laag

Hoog

Prijs

Goedkoop

Duur

Grootte

Klein

Groot

B)

“Deze auto is relatief milieu-vriendelijk ”

Volledig mee oneens

C)

Volledig mee eens

Geef voor deze auto aan of je hem … vindt:

In het geheel niet

Zeer

Klasse Modern Vriendelijk Verfijnd

D)

Geef voor deze auto aan of je hem … vindt:

32 | P a g e


In het geheel niet

Zeer

Vrolijk Open Relaxed Leuk Vlot Schattig Eigenzinnig Uitdagend Interessant Pittig Opdringerig Dominant Slordig Kinderachtig Dom Saai Afstandelijk Serieus Eerlijk Bescheiden

33 | P a g e


Appendix 2: INITIALS SELF

SUSTAI N SELF

SOCIAL

PERS.

HUMME R FUNC

SUSTAI N IMAGE

PERS.

IH 18 v

S 21 v

R 20 m

BJ 19 m

J 20 m

R 25 m

Sustain Classy Modern Friendly Sophisticated Classy Modern Friendly Sophisticated Cheerful Open Relaxed Pretty Easy-going Cute Self-willed Provocative Interesting Spirited Obtrusive Dominant Sloppy Childish Silly Boring Reserved Serious Honest Modest

3 3 5 4 3 3 4 4 3 5 3 4 5 3 2 1 3 4 2 2 2 3 2 1 1 2 4 4 4

4 3 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 2 3 4 3 3 3 4 2 2 2 2 4 4 4

3 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 2 4 3 4 3 5 3 4 4 4 4 4 2 3 2 3 4 5 3

3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 2 4 3 4 4 2 4 4 3 2 2 3 3 4 3

3 4 4 5 3 4 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 3 4 3 4 2 2 2 4 2 1 2 1 3 4 3

5 3 4 5 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 3 2 3 2 1 1 2 1 5 5 3

RANK Engine power Reliability Safety Quality Gas consumption Cost Size

5 5 3 2 3

4 4 2 2 2

3 5 5 5 4

5 4 3 3 3

6 5 5 5 5

5 5 3 5 3

5 5 5

2 2 1

5 5 5

5 5 5

5 5 5

5 3 5

Sustain Classy Modern Friendly Sophisticated Cheerful

1 3 5 1 1 1

1 3 4 1 1 1

1 4 4 2 2 4

1 1 5 1 1 2

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 2 4 1 1 2

34 | P a g e


FIAT FUNC

SUSTAI N IMAGE

PERS.

Open Relaxed Pretty Easy-going Cute Self-willed Provocative Interesting Spirited Obtrusive Dominant Sloppy Childish Silly Boring Reserved Serious Honest Modest RANK Engine power Reliability Safety Quality Gas consumption Cost Size

1 1 1 1 1 1 5 3 5 5 5 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 3 3 4 4

1 3 2 2 1 2 4 3 5 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 6 2 2 1 1

2 2 2 2 2 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 3 2 2 1 6 2 4 4 3

1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 5 5 1 5 5 3 5 1 1 1 5 1 3 3 3

2 1 2 3 1 5 5 4 5 5 5 4 3 4 1 3 3 4 1 6 2 3 3 2

2 3 4

3 3 4

1 1 1

2 2 4

3 3 4

3 3 4

Sustain Classy Modern Friendly Sophisticated Cheerful Open Relaxed Pretty Easy-going Cute Self-willed Provocative Interesting Spirited Obtrusive Dominant Sloppy Childish Silly Boring Reserved

4 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 1

3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 2

3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

3 1 5 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4

3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 3 1 5 5 5 5 5

3 1 4 3 2 4 4 3 3 1 3 5 1 1 2 2 1 5 5 5 5 3

35 | P a g e


VOLVO FUNC

SUSTAI N IMAGE

PERS.

ALFA FUNC

SUSTAI N IMAGE

Serious Honest Modest RANK Engine power Reliability Safety Quality Gas consumption Cost Size

3 4 4 1 5 5 5 5

2 2 1 2 5 5 5 3

1 1 1 2 4 4 4 4

2 4 2 1 4 1 5 4

1 3 3 1 5 5 5 5

1 3 3 1 4 5 5 5

3 4 4

3 2 4

4 4 4

3 2 4

2 4 4

2 4 4

Sustain Classy Modern Friendly Sophisticated Cheerful Open Relaxed Pretty Easy-going Cute Self-willed Provocative Interesting Spirited Obtrusive Dominant Sloppy Childish Silly Boring Reserved Serious Honest Modest RANK Engine power Reliability Safety Quality Gas consumption Cost Size

2 5 5 4 5 3 4 3 3 3 2 1 3 4 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 5 4 4 3 3 3 3 1

3 5 5 3 5 3 3 4 3 4 1 1 3 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 3 4 2 2 2

2 3 3 3 3 2 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 2 4 5 4 2 4 4 4 4 3

3 4 4 2 4 1 1 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 4 1 2 2

4 5 5 5 5 3 4 5 5 3 2 3 3 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 2 5 2 2 3

2 5 4 4 4 2 3 4 3 2 1 3 3 5 4 2 3 1 1 1 3 3 5 4 4

3 3 3

2 3 3

3 3 1

4 4 3

5 5 4

4 4 3

Sustain Classy Modern

2 3 4

2 4 4

3 4 4

2 3 4

2 5 5

4 2 4

4 2 3 2

36 | P a g e


PERS.

SUZUKI FUNC

SUSTAI N IMAGE

PERS.

Friendly Sophisticated Cheerful Open Relaxed Pretty Easy-going Cute Self-willed Provocative Interesting Spirited Obtrusive Dominant Sloppy Childish Silly Boring Reserved Serious Honest Modest RANK Engine power Reliability Safety Quality Gas consumption Cost Size

3 3 3 3 4 4 3 1 4 3 3 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 4 2 2 2 2

2 2 3 3 4 4 3 2 4 4 4 4 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 5 2 2 2 2

3 2 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 5 2 2 2 3 3 2 5 2 2 2 2

2 2 2 4 2 3 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 1 2 2 2 1 4 2 3 3 2

3 4 4 5 3 5 5 1 5 5 4 5 3 5 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 4 1 5 1 2

2 3 2 3 2 2 4 2 3 4 3 4 5 3 4 3 3 2 2 3 2 1 4 2 3 2 2

2 2 2

4 1 1

2 2 2

2 2 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

Sustain Classy Modern Friendly Sophisticated Cheerful Open Relaxed Pretty Easy-going Cute Self-willed Provocative Interesting Spirited Obtrusive Dominant Sloppy Childish

3 1 1 4 1 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

3 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2

1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 5

3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

2 1 1 3 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3

5 1 1 5 3 4 4 3 2 1 5 3 1 2 2 1 1 3 4

37 | P a g e


MINI FUNC

SUSTAI N IMAGE

PERS.

Silly Boring Reserved Serious Honest Modest RANK Engine power Reliability Safety Quality Gas consumption Cost Size

1 1 1 2 1 5 2 4 4 3 4

1 5 1 1 2 4 1 5 4 3 4

5 5 2 2 2 3 1 3 3 3 3

3 4 2 2 2 2 3 4 4 3 4

4 5 3 3 3 5 3 4 5 5 5

4 5 3 3 5 5 2 4 4 3 3

3 4 3

4 4 3

3 3 3

4 4 1

4 5 3

4 4 2

Sustain Classy Modern Friendly Sophisticated Cheerful Open Relaxed Pretty Easy-going Cute Self-willed Provocative Interesting Spirited Obtrusive Dominant Sloppy Childish Silly Boring Reserved Serious Honest Modest

2 4 5 4 5 5 4 5 5 5 2 2 4 4 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 3 4

2 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 3 3 4 4 4 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 1

2 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

3 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 3

3 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 2

3 4 5 3 3 4 4 3 5 5 3 4 4 4 5 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 3 3 2

38 | P a g e

human processes  

human processes

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you