FUZZY ANALYSIS OF OLDER ADULT CONSUMER ATTITUDES AND

DECISION-MAKING STYLES: SOCIOECONOMIC DIFFERENCES IN FUZZINESS.

Laurel M. Fisher, Ph.D.
Postdoctoral Fellow
UCLA School of Medicine
Division of Head and Neck Surgery
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Sumiko Takayanagi, Ph.D.
Horizon Research Corporation
2801 S. Hoover St.
Los Angeles, CA 90007
James E. Birren, Ph.D.
Associate Director
UCLA Center on Aging
10833 Le Conte Ave.
LOS Angeles, CA -90024-1687
INTRODUCTION:

products and services or how to

invest one's finances is an
essential component of the
"everyday competence" required
for independent living [ 7 1 .
Maintenance
of
everyday
competence on consumer issues
becomes increasingly important
as one ages. It is well known
that
many
of
the
basic
cognitive
processes
which
support
consumer
decisionmaking proscses, such as
attention and memory, decline
with age 131 .
It has been
hypothesized that age-related
declines icision- making
abilities may place older
adults at risk of losing
independent functioning, such
as
inappropriate
use
of
finances
(e.g.,
swindles
targeted for older adults).

The purpose of the present

study
was
to
explore
applications of fuzzy set
theory to the measurement of
consumer purchasing attitudes
and consumer decision-making
style preferences in three
groups of older adults. The
question of interest was: What
information can the analysis of
fuzziness index provide that an
analysis of traditional Likerttype scale raw score does not
provide?
The original study
and results of the raw score
analysis will be described.
The raw score results will be
compared with analyses of
fuzziness index derived from
raw
scores.
Finally, a
comparison of analyses of mean
fuzziness index with analyses
of the standard deviation of
fuzziness index will be made.

One aspect of consumer

decision-making processes is an
individual's
attitudes
and
beliefs about companies and
purchases; another is personal
style in making decisisfis. F o r
example, if a consumer believes
that it is best to surchase
products with a particular
brand name, then he,'she may

The original study came

out of a large investigation
directed toward understanding
consumer
decision-making
ability in older adults [l] .
The ability to make sound
decisions about the purchase of
0-7803-2461-7/95/$4.00 0 1995 IEEE

805

spend more money than if he/she

made based on cost. Likewise,
if a consumer tends to make
impulsive decisions, he/she may
purchase expensive products
that a less impulsive
consumer may not.
However,
little is known about these
important
contributors
to
purchase
decisions,
for
example,
how
do
consumer
attitudes and styles vary with
age, education, and financial
circumstances?
One way of measuring
attitudes and decision styles
is to assess how strongly an
individual endorses a consumer
attitude or a decision style.
For example, one individual may
strongly agree that he/she is a
logical decision maker while
another may somewhat agree that
he/she is a logical decision
maker. These two individuals
appear to endorse the same
logical
decision
style.
However, they differ in the
strength
with
which
they
believe that style represents
them. One hypothesis derived
from this line of thinking is
that how fuzzy or crisp one is
when endorsing attitude or
decision style statements is an
important
aspect
of
the
decision-making processes. In
this
sense,
fuzziness
or
crispness may represent a
confidence factor which in turn
would impact how one makes
decisions. Research has shown
that older adults tend to be
more cautious than younger
adults [ 2 ] . A tendency toward
cautiousness may result in
greater fuzziness in decisionmaking.
Conversely, older
adults may know themselves
better and may be more crisp
when endorsing statemeilts about

806

life-long
attitudes
decision styles.

and

METHOD :
: Thirty wealthy, educated
university alumni, 54 middle
class older adults from a
mid-city senior center, and 50
low-income older adults from an
inner-city assisted-living
facility participated.
A1 1
subjects were able to ambulate
on their own to the testing
place and were in relatively
good health. Table 1 presents
the subject characteristics.
Apparatus and Procedure:
All subjects were given a
consumer attitude scale and a
decision style scale.
The
items were generated from the
literature on age changes in
cognitive
abilities
and
consumer behavior and from an
expert panel.
initial
An
sample of items was piloted on
a small sample of older adults
and
questions
which
were
difficult to understand and/or
resulted in highly
skewed
distributions of responses were
discarded.
The
final
instrument had 10 consumer
attitude items and 13 decision
style items.
Subjects were
instructed to mark whether they
strongly
agreed,
somewhat
agreed, neither agreed nor
disagreed, somewhat disagreed,
or strongly disagreed with the
statement.
Subjects also
filled out a
sheet with
demographic questions, such as
age, sex, marital status,
membership
in
and
IlARp,
education. The instrument took
about
15-20
minutes
to
complete.
Data Analysis:
The raw
scores
were
input
to
a
principal componerits factor

highly on the Active Consumer

and Utilize Resources Attitude
factors (the Cynical Consumer
factor was not related to
subject group).
The Alumni
tended to score highly on the
Logical
Thinker
and
Calm
Realist Decision Style factors.
Conversely, the Senior Housing
group tended to score at the
low end of the same Attitude
and Decision Style factors.

analysis
to
validate
the
hypothesized factor structure
of the items.
A 3 group
(Alumni, Senior Center, Senior
Housing) one-way ANOVA was
conducted on mean raw scores.
The raw scores were transformed
into fuzziness index using the
formula t 4 1 , [51 :

Fuzzv
Score
Analvsez.
Overall, older adults responded
in a less fuzzy illanner to
statements abouc how influenced
by advertisements they were
(average=.19), what constitutes
good medical care ( . 2 0 ) , and
whether they think decisions
over carefully (.21)
The
subjects tended to respond in a
more fuzzy manner to statements
about whether they get their
money's worth in purchases
(average=.42),
whether
businesses are concerned about
profit over product quality
(.46),
how
creative
and
intuitive a decision-maker they
are
(.39
and
.38,
respectively), and thinking out
decisions step-by-step ( . 37)
Pearson correlations of means
with demosraphic variables.
Mean fuzziness Attitude and
Decision
Style
indices
correlated significantly with
older adult group, membership
in AARe, possession of a credit
card,
race,
and
income.
University
alumni,
AARp
members, white, and higher
income individuals tended to be
more
fuzzy
in
their
endorsements of attitude and
style statenents. Conversely,
senior housing, nonwhite, A4W
nonmembers, and lower income
individuals tended E O be less
fuzzy in their endorsements.

Raw
Score
Analvses.
Average Attitude and Decision
Style
scores
did
not
significantly correlate with
group, age, membership in W ,
possession of a credit card,
and income.
Principal Components Factor
Analvsis. The Attitude Scale
resolved into three factors
(see Table 2 ) .
The factors
were
interpreted
as
representing
the
Active
Consumer
(does a
lot of
research,
not
swayed
by
advertisements), the Cynical
Consumer
(complain
about
products, businesses out for
profit), and the Consumer who
Utilizes Resources (uses ATMs,
discusses purchases) .
The
Decision Style Scale resolved
into three factors also (see
Table 3 ) .
The factors were
interpreted as representing the
Logical Thinker (methodical,
logical thinker), the Calm
Realist (at ease, not assume
the worst), and the Intuitive
Decis ion-Maker
( c r e at ive ,
intuitive).
ANOVA of Factor Scores. B o t h
the Attitude and Decision Style
factor
scores
differed
significantly by subject group.
The Alumni tended to score

807

that the fuzziness index is a

way of assessing raw score
variability.
How
these
significant correlations should
be interpreted requires further
research.

Age did not correlate with

average fuzziness index.
Principal Components Factor
Analvsic.
The Attitude and
Decision Style scales fuzziness
indices were also resolved into
three factors (see Table 2 , 3 ) .
The Attitude factors were
interpreted as representing
attitudes which were Fuzzy
about
Trust
(does
own
research), somewhat Fuzzy about
familiarity
(stick
with
familiar),
and more crisp
attitudes
about
External
Information (swayed by ads).
The Decision Style factors were
interpreted as representing a
Logical decision style (is
realistic), a Mix of Logical
and
Emotional
( creat ive,
logical), and an Emotional
decision
style
(follows
intuitions)
Correlations
of
fuzziness
indices' standard deviations
with demosraohic variables.
Current fuzzy systems theory
does not indicate that means
are the best data reduction
technique.
Mean fuzziness
indices indicate on which
variables individuals tend to
respond in a crisp or fuzzy
manner.
Standard deviations
( S D s ) indicate how great the
variability is in the fuzziness
index. Which measure (mean or
SD) gives the researcher more
information with which to
understand consumer attitudes
and styles?
The Pearson
correlations of fuzziness SD
and demographic variables were
not
different
from
the
fuzziness mean correlations.
Thus, little new information is
provided by the SD. However,
nearly
all
raw
SDs were
significantly
negatively
correlated
with
fuzziness
index.
This would indicate

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

A consumer attitude scale
and a decision style scale were
developed to assess older
adults
consumer decisionmaking processes.
The raw
attitude and decision style
scales indicated that higher
income, educated individuals
tended to endorse attitudes and
styles which were more helpful
in
making
good
purchase
decisions.
An analysis of
fuzziness attitude and decision
style indices indicated that
higher income, educated, white,
members of AARP tended to more
fuzzy in their endorsements of
scale
items.
These
individua I s ,
the
more
advantaged
individuals,
endorsed the attitudes and
styles
indicating
a
good
consumer and they were more
aware of the uncertainty in
their decision-making processes
than
less
advantaged
individuals.
It is important to note
that age did not correlate with
the
fuzziness index,
but
socioeconomic variables did.
Overall, older adults do not
appear to become more cautious
with age and thereby respond in
more fuzzy manner to attitude
and decision style statements.
The advantaged individual can
afford to incorporate more
information
into
his/her
decision-making processes than
can
the
disadvantaged
individual.
For whatever
reason, e.g., fewer resources,

808

means or fuzziness SDs is the

better
way
of
assessing
fuzziness endorsements of selfreferent statements needs to be
clarified.

or a lifetime of marginal
behavior, the disadvantaged
individual considers
fewer
alternatives and responds more
crisply when expressing an
opinion
about
consumer
attitudes and decision styles.
Thus, the analysis of
fuzziness index did, indeed,
add to understanding of older
adults consumer attitudes and
decision styles. The fuzziness
index enabled the discovery of
subtle and consistent ways of
responding to self-reflective
statements in older adults. In
fact,
the
increased
intercorrelations among the
attitude scale and decision
style scale fuzziness indices
indicated that the way in which
individuals responded to the
items tapped another mode of
responding.
This mode of
responding also appears to be
related
to
decision-making
skills acquired over a life
time .
Furthermore, stereotypes
of individuals who are high on
the
fuzziness
index
as
I i n d e c i s i v e
not
,
intelligent, and weak would
seem to be inaccurate. Other
research [6] has shown that
those with a high vocabulary
score
tend
to
endorse
psychosocial
attitude
statements in a highly fuzzy
manner. Thus, individuals with
a high fuzziness index may
actually be better decision
makers. They may consider more
possibilities with a greater
tolerance for ambiguity.
The
analysis
of
the
fxzziness index has raised more
qiestions as well.
More
rssearch is needec E D determine
?.sx fuzziness means and SDs
behave in statistizal analyses.
Exrtkermore, whether fuzziness

REFERENCES :
[ll
Birren, J., Fisher, L.,
Cohn,
J.,
Gentile,
K. ,
Diekmann, L., & Cutler, N.
(1994). Consumer knowledge in
relation to age, education, and
income. Submitted.
[23 Botwinick, J. (1983). The
psvcholoav of aainq, 3rd. ed.
New York: Springer.
[31
Salthouse, T. (1982).
Adult
cosnition:
An
experimenta1
Psvcholosv
of
human asinq.
New
York:
Springer-Verlag.
(1987).
[41
Smithson, M.
Fuzzv
set
analvsis
for
behavioral and social sciences.
New York:
Springer-Verlag,
Inc.
[5] Takayanagi, S. & Cliff, N.
(1993). The fuzziness index
for examining human statistical
decision-making. Second IEEE
International Conference on
Fuzzv Svstems, Vol. 11, 11501155.
[61
Takayanagi, S.
(1994).
The implementation of the
fuzziness index:
Examining
relationships
between
intellectual abilities, age,
gender,
and
fuzziness
on
several
psychological
dimensions.
Third
IEEE
International Conference on
Fuzzv Svstems, Vol. 11, 11591164.
[71
Willis, S .
(1991).
Cognition
and
everyday
competence.
In:
K. Schaie
(Ed.)
Annual
Review
of
Gerontoloqv
and
Geriatrics
(vol. 11). NY: Springer.

809

AARP Membership

Yes

57% Yes

No

Reads Consumer

Yes

57% Yes

No

Yes

63% Yes

No

Reports
Has credit card

810

Table 2:
Scale.

Principal Components Three Factor Solution for Attitude

ATTITUDE SCALE

Raw

Scores:

Active COnsumer

Per cent o f total variance:

Does own research

Not overwhelmed by information
Not stick with familiar products
Not need medications for good care

.79
.65
.57
.49

Per cent of total variance:

Complain about products
Receives purchase moneys worth
Not discuss purchases
Resource Utilization

10.8%

.74
.54
.48

Per cent of total variance:

Uses ATMs
Businesses interested in profits

21.3%

9.9%

-75
.63

Fuzziness Index:
More Fuzzy about Trust

Per cent of total variance:

Does own research

Complain about products
Not overwhelmed by information
Business interested in products
Discuss purchases

24.7%

.74
.70
.70
.51
.40

Moderate Fuzziness
in Familiaritt
Stick with familiar products
Utilize ATMs
More Crisp about
External Information

.81
.60

Per cent of total variance: 1 0 . 9 %

Easily swayed by advertising

Need medications for good care
Receives purchase moneys worth

811

.69
.65
.56

Table 3: Principal Components Three Factor Solution for Decision

Style Scale.
DECISION STYLE SCALE
R a w Scores:

Losical Thinker

Per cent of total variance:

Carefully think out decision

Logical approach
Step-by-step approach
Seeks information
Calm Realist

.71
.70
.63
.61

Per cent of total variance:

At ease with decisions

Not change mind
Not assume worst

25.6%

10.8%

.76
.71
.51

Intuitive Decision-maker Per cent of total variance:

Follows intuitions
Must make things happen
Finds creative solutions

9.9%

.78
.52

.43

Fuzziness Index:

Losical Stvle

Per cent of total variance:

31.3%

Energetically seeks information

.78
Is realistic in weighing decisions .72
Thinks things over carefully
.71
Mix of Logical
and Emotional Stvle

Per cent of total variance:

Not change mind

Find new/creative solutions
Assume worst will happen
Made decisions on whim
Very logical approach
At ease about decisions
Not think step-by-step
Emotional Stvle

.68
.61
.56
.54
.52
.52

.40

Per cent of total variance:

Follow intuitions
Must make things happen
Believe everything about salesman

812

10.0%

.77

.59
.53

8.9%