Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Master of Design
Aesthetics play a crucial role in a consumer’s purchase decision of a vehicle. While creating aesthetically
pleasing vehicle designs is already challenging for automakers, it is even more challenging to do so while
constantly being in the cutting edge of design, generating new and fresh aesthetics that allow them to
differentiate themselves from other companies and stand out. All those iterations seeking new
aesthetics make designers take risks, generating sophisticated and provocative designs that challenge
criteria can potentially disrupt the original design concept. This can result in a controversial design,
communicating negative semantic messages to the consumer. This thesis proposes the use of harmony
(where the visual unified whole, in which the sensation that every aesthetic feature belongs together is
A survey was conducted using vehicle images with different levels of harmony and complexity. These
images were rated in a positive-negative semantic scale based on concepts related to a design´s
communication of quality (price, build quality, and design execution), and performance (safety,
Results show the importance of creating and preserving harmonious car designs so that the transmission
Page | i
Page | ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The development of this thesis has required months of sleepless nights, and countless hours
that tested the limits of my exhaustion. However, it is of the utmost importance to mention that all that
effort would have come to no fruition without the priceless support and collaboration of a group of
people who fueled this process in order to obtain the results here presented.
In general, I would like to thank my professors and classmates of the Master of Design program
at the School of Design of the College of Design, Architecture, Art, and Planning of the University of
Cincinnati, whose advice was always available to my requests, which were probably too frequent.
Finally, I would like to thank my wife Fernanda, to whom this thesis is dedicated. You were there
in every sleepless night, always willing to help. This thesis would not have been completed without you.
Page | iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………..i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………….……………………………….……………….iii
LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………………………………….…………….………..v
LIST OF APPENDICES…………………………………………………………………………………………….....……..vii
1. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………………………………….…1
2. BACKGROUND……………………………………………………………………………………………………………6
2.1. The aesthetic experience……………………………………………………………………………….6
2.2. Aesthetic experience analysis: the I-SKE model…………………….………………………..7
2.2.1. Sensation and syntax…………………………………………………………………………….8
2.2.2. Knowledge and cognition……………………………………………………………………10
2.2.3. Affect and semantics…………………………………………………………………………..10
4. CONCLUSIONS………………………………………………………………………………………………………....44
4.1. Limitations…………………………………………………………………………………………………..45
4.2. Repercussions………………………………………………………………………………………………45
5. REFERENCES……..………………………………………………………………………………………………………47
6. APPENDICES……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..49
Page | iv
LIST OF FIGURES
x Figure 2. [Untitled photograph of a Jaguar E Type]. Retrieved February 14, 2013, from:
http://www.mendaily.com/jaguar-e-type-a-work-of-art-on-wheels-video/ ………………………………………………………………..3
x Figure 3. [Untitled photograph of the Acura NSX Concept for 2013] Retrieved February 14, 2013, from:
http://www.gtspirit.com/2013/01/16/detroit-2013-acura-nsx-concept/ …………………………………………………………………….3
x Figure 4.[Untitled photograph of an Infiniti Qx]. Retrieved February 14, 2013, from:
http://www.netcarshow.com/infiniti/2011-qx/800x600/wallpaper_06.htm ...................................................................4
x Figure 5. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…….5
R Top: [Untitled photograph of a 2012 Lexus LF-CC Concept]. Retrieved February 14, 2013, from:
http://www.netcarshow.com/lexus/2012-lf-cc_concept/800x600/wallpaper_02.htm and
http://www.netcarshow.com/lexus/2012-lf-cc_concept/800x600/wallpaper_08.htm
R Bottom right: [Untitled photograph of a 2013 Lexus IS]. Retrieved February 14, 2013, from:
http://www.designboom.com/technology/2014-lexus-is-at-naias
x Figure 9. Automotive design process indicating the areas where harmony can be applied and where it can be lost…14
x Figure 10. Three silhouettes generated by product designers by Lai, Chang, & Chang (2005)……………………………………16
x Figure 13. Lai, Chang, & Chang's silhouettes designed by traditional methods (top), and the optimized silhouettes
(bottom)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………19
x Figure 20. Graphic and muscles channel without outline, daylight opening, and explicit detail…………………………………25
x Figure 21. Compositions with aligned edges showed greater dynamism than compositions with disaligned edges.
Locher and Stappers (2002)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….26
Page | v
x Figure22. First exploration attempt for identifying independent variables…………………………………………………………………28
x Figure 25. 2D representation using axis representing knowledge and emotion. Opposite semantic concepts were
slected at the edges and intermediate words were found…………………………………………………………………………………….……32
x Figure 26. 3D representation of scales using axis for sensation, knowledge, and emotion. Opposite concepts were
selected at the edges and intermediate words were found………………………………………………………………………………………..33
x Figure 32. Sample of tables and chromatic scale used for the analysis and interpretation of results…………………………38
x Figure 33. Graph used taking the colors generated for each silhouette. Includes all semantic concepts……………………39
x Figure 34. SET A'S High-harmony/high-complexity (left) got better results than expected while the low-harmony/mid-
complexity silouwhette (right) performed worse than expected………………………………………………………………………………..40
x Figure 35. Low-harmony/low-complexity (bottom-right) scored better since it was actually more harmonious than
low-harmony/mid-complexity (top) and mid-harmony/low-complexity (bottom-left)………………………………………………..41
x Figure 36. Graph obtained after joining all linear scales. All silhouettes appear for all semantic concepts…………………42
x Figure 37. Harmony and complexity effect sizes in all tested semantic concepts………………………………………………………..43
Page | vi
LIST OF APPENDICES
Page | vii
1. INTRODUCTION
It is often said that cars reflect the personality of their owners. This might be truer than it
seems, since cars are usually the second most expensive possession people have after their home. It is
natural then, that a person would be highly involved in the process of purchasing a new vehicle.
Candidates are evaluated closely in terms of attributes such as brand, price, quality, safety, and
performance. However, an attribute that plays a major role in the purchase decision is the way the car
looks. Studies have shown that aesthetics play a major role in the decision making process, making
consumers reconsider the attributes mentioned above in order to justify their choice (Zajonc, 1980). A
vehicle’s aesthetics communicate a semantic message to the observer, and if aesthetics have such a big
influence on a person’s purchase decision, then it is important to make sure that they express whatever
was intended, in the most efficient way possible. If an automaker wants to sell a vehicle for the luxury
How then, can the transmission of positive semantics be enhanced? The answer suggested on
this thesis lies in one of the most basic aesthetic principles: harmony. The work here presented used
vehicle silhouettes in order to test the hypothesis that the aesthetics of a harmoniously designed vehicle
silhouette would communicate more positive semantics than those of a disharmonious one. The
hypothesis was proven true. Dennis Puhalla mentions that harmony is produced by the orderly
arrangement of designed parts that show mutual relations and differences consistently (2011). The New
Dictionary of the History of Ideas defines it as “…a combination of parts or related things to form a
consistent whole or an agreement.” (Horowitz, 2005, p.960-964). From both definitions the concepts of
an orderly arrangement of parts designed to show mutual relations, and a consistent whole or
agreement are key. Therefore, for this thesis, harmony is defined as a consistent, orderly arrangement
of parts which are related to each other, producing a unified whole where the effect that all parts
1|Page
belong together is produced. Harmony is a principle that affects any vehicle design, regardless of the
orientation of the intended semantic communication (e.g. aggressive, friendly, sober, luxurious, etc.) or
the particular way in which the design is executed (e.g. angular or soft surfacing).
Complexity, initially used as a secondary variable in the development of the thesis showed itself
as also having an important role in generating positive semantics, although harmony was stronger.
Berlyne stated “A pattern is considered more complex, the larger the number of independently selected
elements it contains. In two patterns that consist of the same number of elements, the one that will be
less complex is the one that has a greater degree of similarity among its elements or, more generally, a
greater degree of redundancy of interdependence.” (Berlyne, 1971, p.149) That degree of redundancy or
interdependence is parallel to the concept of harmony defined before. The concept of complexity
presented in this thesis deals with Berlyne’s number of elements, which in this case are the amount of
Figure 1. Example of high(top) and low complexity (bottom) silhouettes used in this thesis
2|Page
Figure 2. Jaguar E-Type
To better understand the role of harmony and complexity, some examples are reviewed here.
The Jaguar E-Type (figure 2) can be used as an example of a quintessentially harmonious design, which
in this case has low-complexity. Enzo Ferrari called it the most beautiful car made, on the day of its
release in 1961. Every design feature relates to one another. The roundness of the head lamps match
the shape of the grill, and relate with the overall softness of the vehicle, and so on. The 2013 Acura NSX
Concept (figure 3) presented at the 2013 Detroit Auto Show is an example of a harmonious car with high
complexity. Every element of the design is integrated with others through relationships of shape,
3|Page
The 2013 Infiniti QX (figure 4), raises questions since it uses a different approach, which appears
to conflict with the concept of harmony proposed in this thesis. There are floating shapes that are not
visually related to other elements. The majority of the body is made of soft, organic forms, contrasting
with the hard geometry of the wheel arches. The grill has pointy elements that go into the organic
Figure 4. Infiniti Qx
While creating aesthetically pleasing vehicles is already challenging enough for automakers, it is
even more difficult to do so while constantly being in the cutting edge of design, generating new and
fresh aesthetics that allow them to differentiate themselves from other companies and stand out. All
those iterations seeking new aesthetics make designers take risks, generating sophisticated,
unconventional, and provocative designs that can potentially lose the harmony that holds them
together while undergoing development for mass production. An example of this can be seen in the
Lexus LF-CC Concept from 2012 when compared to its production version: the 2013 Lexus IS (figure 5).
The concept car is a very provocative, controversial design. It is high in complexity and has many
contrasting design features which are related to one another with harmony, creating a unified whole to
a certain extent. The production version however has lost some of that harmony, resulting in a design
4|Page
that is even more controversial than the concept car. The elements are not working together in the
same way with the consequence of producing some broken lines under the front fascia that could
In order to better understand the thesis, it has been divided into sections. The first section is this
introduction. The background section describes how aesthetics are perceived, where in the automotive
design process the findings are relevant, and analyzes studies similar to the one performed in this work.
The third section is the study, which describes the methodology taken to generate the vehicle
silhouettes, the semantic scales used for the test, the approach for the performed analysis, and the
interpretation of the results. The last section covers the general conclusions, including the repercussions
5|Page
2. BACKGROUND
Before understanding the effect of harmony and complexity in automotive silhouettes and the
produced semantics, it is necessary to understand how they are perceived through the aesthetic
The field of aesthetics is a complex one. The study of the field has lead authors through the
worlds of speculation and empiricism. Discussions over the subject have been happening in philosophy,
and psychology (Fenner, 2003), as well as in art criticism. These disciplines explore, with greater or
lesser involvement, different topics of discussion from several angles: defining what aesthetics is,
differentiating aesthetic properties from non-aesthetic ones, finding out which one supervenes the
other, the possibility of making a valid aesthetic judgement (liking or disliking), exploring the causes for
aesthetic preference (which is more liked in relation to another), and the functioning of the aesthetic
experience. This last angle is what this thesis aims to explore in the particular field of automotive design.
views. Fenner states that the: “Aesthetic experience is a natural part of life that aesthetics seeks to
explore.” It’s about feeling something’s “… formal qualities, those qualities that one could access simply
through looking, hearing, touching….” (2003, p.41) Elisa Steenberg has referred to studies that suggest
that the aesthetic experience is linked to simultaneous processes of the brain happening in regions
where emotions are processed. (2007, p.89) Also, Levinson refers to the aesthetic experience as
distinctive states of mind, whether attitudes, perceptions, emotions, or acts of attention (2005). In this
thesis, the aesthetic experience is defined as what is perceived through the senses and triggers
attitudes, perceptions, emotions, or acts of attention. The focus of this thesis is the visual channel.
6|Page
2.2. Aesthetic experience analysis
What the aesthetic experience is has been explained but, how does it work? How does the raw
input from the senses become a reaction to formal qualities? Arthur P. Shimamura’s i-SKE model
(figure 6) gives an interesting point of view on this matter. The “i” stands for the individual, the “S”
stands for sensation, “K” for knowledge, and “E” for emotion (Shimamura & Palmer, 2012). Shimamura
states that the individual will perceive what he is observing (sensation), and then relate what is being
perceived to previous experiences. Associations will take place (knowledge), which depending on the
The sensation aspect of the model has to do with raw visual data we receive. It is about the way
visual elements are arranged. Dennis Puhalla calls this arrangement syntax, since the elements
encompass the visual language structure of the composition (2011, p.24). The knowledge element has
to do with the individual and situational aspects that influence and give meaning to the syntax,
producing an affective reaction, which can come in the form of positive or negative semantics. The
‘artist’ described on this model is parallel to the automotive designer, who seeks to create a positive
reaction with the ‘artwork’, which is parallel to the design. If the automotive designer intends to create
a design that communicates, for example, sophistication and refinement (semantics), a design using a
lot of detailing might be used (syntax). However, if harmony is not present, all that detailing could be
perceived as visual clutter, making the intended sophistication and refinement be perceived as the
7|Page
2.2.1.Sensation and syntax:
Colin Ware talks about color, shape, texture, motion, and stereoscopic depth being channels
that are processed by the brain when receiving visual input (2008, p. 25). He also mentions that when
receiving the universe of visual information, the observer can identify objects by forming patterns
through luminance changes, silhouette, color differences, texture boundaries, and motion boundaries
(2008, p.49). Ranscombe, Hicks, Mullineux, & Singh (2012) visually decomposed automotive designs
into outline, daylight opening (windshield, rear window, and side windows), muscles (character lines,
creases), graphics (headlamps, tail lamps, door cuts, gas tank cover, door handles, etc.), and explicit
detail (company logo, car name, badges). For this thesis, the visual channels considered are (figure 7):
x Silhouette: the area inside the overall contour of the vehicle [outline (Ranscombe,
x Graphics: visual lines and shapes generated by design features [color differences,
texture boundaries, abrupt luminance changes (Ware), muscles, graphics, explicit detail
The work presented here is focused on the silhouette channel, which is the first step to
understanding the whole effect that harmony has in the aesthetic experience. The other visual channels
8|Page
Figure 7. Visual decomposition channels proposed for this thesis.
It has been stated that the automotive designer manipulates all of the syntactic visual channels
explained above in order to get a positive semantic perception. Berlyne (1971) proposed some
mechanisms that, depending on how they are used, can shift the positivity or negativity of the aesthetic
experience:
All of the above are related to syntax and can be manipulated by the designer. Novelty and
surprisingness also have relation to the knowledge section of Shimamura’s i-SKE model.
9|Page
2.2.2.Knowledge/cognition
Aside from novelty and surprisingness, other factors of knowledge are taken into consideration
when the observer has an aesthetic experience. Fenner mentions factors that may influence the
aesthetic experience and that are added to the simple visual experience (2003, pp.45-51):
Shimamura mentions that if the knowledge associated with the sensation is positive, then the
produced emotion will be positive. The designer cannot control the observer’s knowledge, but can
predict it to some extent by research, increasing the possibilities of getting a positive affective reaction.
However, the study undertaken in this thesis seeks to avoid associations, contexts, and external factors
that are not inherent to a car silhouette. This is done so that attributes such as brand loyalty don’t skew
the results.
After syntax is perceived and is processed with knowledge, affects are felt and meanings are
gotten from objects. Don Norman talks about three different levels of brain processing: the visceral
level, the behavioral level, and the reflective level. When applied to design, he mentions that the
visceral level “makes rapid judgments of what is good or bad, safe or dangerous…” (Norman, 2005,
p.22). The behavioral level is about the use and experience of a product (function, performance, and
usability) (Norman, 2005, p.37). The reflective level is where “the consciousness and the highest levels
10 | P a g e
of feeling, emotions, and cognitions reside. It is only here that the full impact of both thought and
emotions are experienced… Interpretation, understanding, and reasoning come from the reflective
The visceral level “is where appearance matters and first impressions are formed. Visceral
design is about the initial impact of a product, about its appearance, touch, and feel.” (Norman, 2005,
p.37) Some examples of visceral semantics can be how expensive-cheap, weak-powerful or fragile-
strong a product looks, based solely on its appearance. The aesthetic experience at the visceral level is
The automotive designer generates syntax by using silhouette, graphics, form, and materiality
attributes in order to communicate a semantic idea produced by visceral affects. How can the designer
know that the vehicle is communicating positive semantics rather than negative ones? If the design has
to suffer modifications during development, how can the positive semantics communicated by its
happen? What can be done, from the moment of the the car’s early conception, to facilitate the
generation of good semantics once the car is designed? Before seeking to answer these questions, it is
important to understand what automotive design is, the forces that influence it, and the importance of
According to Lewin and Borroff, automotive design is “… the aesthetic cultivation of every
element of an automobile that is visible to a consumer.” (2010, p. 74) A vehicle’s exterior will certainly
be mostly about visual impact but its interior also has to do with textures, ergonomics, usability, and the
11 | P a g e
emotions that the interior produces. This thesis project, however, is only focused on the visual aspect of
automotive exteriors. Referring to this area, Lewin and Borrof, state that automotive design transcends
the word styling (2010, p.74). The rationale for justifying this claim relates to all the different constraints
that have to be complied with in order to generate a design. The discipline is not only about aesthetics,
since there are many factors that influence design (figure 8), decisions that have to be made when
conceiving a vehicle on the early specification stage, or when it seems necessary to modify the vehicle’s
aesthetics when refining the production design. This is a very delicate issue.
For this reason, designers have to struggle to keep their idea as pure as possible throughout the
process. Norman states that “Business has come to be ruled by logical, rational decision makers, by
business models and accountants, with no room for emotion. Pity!” (Norman, 2005, p.10) This shows
the difficulty designers have when defending the purity of their work, which directly relates to harmony
12 | P a g e
This thesis supports the idea that loss of harmony due to design modifications in order to
simplify engineering or save cost might change the semantic perception a consumer has when looking
at a car, which could impact sales. Although these modifications are likely to be unavoidable, they
shouldn’t be executed carelessly. The designer needs more rational arguments to justify why the
affective reaction produced by the design (and therefore, its semantics) is as important as engineering
or cost rationale. Macey and Wardle state that vehicles can be driven by either design (emotion) or logic
(package) (2009, p.10). That will give the car a utility orientation, or a visual impact orientation.
Nevertheless, no matter which, the importance of the vehicle’s aesthetics should not be undermined. A
Consumer Reports survey indicates that design and style is crucial for 24% of American people
(Consumer Reports, 2012). That report rates attributes such as safety, performance, quality, and
environmental friendliness higher than design and style. One might conclude then that though 24% is a
very high number, design and style would not be the priority for automakers to focus on the conception
and development of their vehicles. However, people have shown to change the ratings of the attributes
they consider more important in order to justify an affective decision. Zajonc states that “We sometimes
delude ourselves that we proceed in a rational manner and weigh all the pros and cons of the various
alternatives. But this is probably seldom the actual case. Quite often “I decided in favor of X” is no more
than “I liked X”… We buy the cars we “like”, choose the jobs and houses we find “attractive”, and then
justify these choices by various reasons…” (1980, p.155) Norman says that the emotional aspect of a
design might overpower other attributes when it comes to determining success or failure (2005, p.5).
Therefore, that 24% of people that use style and design as an important factor when purchasing a car
could actually be a lot higher. Audi says that a consumer’s decision to purchase a car is 60% caused by its
aesthetics rather than its technical performance (Kreuzbauer & Malter, 2005).
13 | P a g e
2.3.1.Automotive design process
According to Lewin and Barroff, all automakers undergo the process in a similar fashion (2010,
p.75). The combination of their process dissection, together with Macey and Wardle’s (2009, pp. 22, 23),
Figure 9. Automotive design process indicating the areas where harmony can be applied and where it can be lost.
14 | P a g e
Here, potential problems affecting the harmony of the design proposal have been identified
x The early specification and the packaging stage need to be handled carefully since
the initial technical layout with which designers will work on might affect the end
result.
x The concept stage is the sole responsibility of the design team, where according to
this thesis a design with harmony should be generated. If the design is deficient at
x The feasibility, prototyping, and product optimization sections are the stages
where changes in the design are made to fit engineering or cost criteria.
During the early specification and the feasibility, prototyping, and product optimization stages,
the designer has few tools to defend the work created against modifications that can potentially change
the semantics of the car. This is important since other departments have facts and figures to support
their arguments while the designer does not. Showing that diminishing a design’s harmony can shift
semantics negatively should help the designer in the discussion for conceiving or modifying a vehicle’s
design.
Three studies who have explored automotive aesthetics and the produced semantics were
analyzed for this project. This work involves that of Lai, Chang, &Chang (2005), Reid (2010), and
Ranscombe, Hicks, Mullineux, & Singh (2012). The first two were of particular interest since they used
vehicle silhouettes as stimuli for their testing, generating great commonalities with the work here
presented. The work of Ranscombe, Hicks, Mullineux, & Singh comes of interest since it validates the
decomposition of a vehicle’s visual elements into elements such as contour, line, form, etc.
15 | P a g e
Lai, Chang, &Chang felt there was a lack of criteria for testing the success or the failure of the
semantic accuracy of a finished design created by traditional methods. Because of this, they generated a
study that intended to use engineering criteria to determine optimal parameters that could assist
designers to ensure a more accurate transmission of a target semantic message for products
(automotive silhouettes were used as a case study). In order to achieve this, a Robust Design approach
x Identifying the variables that have the greatest influence in optimizing the performance
x Applying a survey where participants rate these variables. The results generate a list of
Figure 10. Three silhouettes generated by product designers by Lai, Chang, & Chang (2005)
The first step taken was to generate a target semantic message. The vehicle silhouette to be
designed had the objective of communicating “youth, outdoors, and family.” Then, three product
designers were asked to create silhouettes that transmitted this message by using traditional design
methods. The resulting silhouettes can be seen in figure 10. After this, 125 existing cars were selected
and presented to experts in car profiles (it is not specified if these experts are automotive designers,
engineers, or others). 13 variables (divided in three levels) related to proportion and location of design
features were identified as the most influential to affect consumer feelings (figure 11). 27 engineering
16 | P a g e
students rated three silhouettes created by the product designers plus 27 combinative silhouettes
generated by automated software (see figure 12). Results yielded optimal parameters for the rated
variables and the silhouettes created by the product designers were optimized accordingly (see figure
13). Another survey was created comparing the traditionally designed silhouettes and the ones
generated by Taguchi Quality Engineering. These last silhouettes yielded the greater semantic accuracy.
This would seem as if generating fixed parameters would ensure good semantics, but there are some
x First, Lai, et al. had product and not automotive designers generate the initial
silhouettes. The differences in aesthetic sensitivity in car design due to countless hours
of observing, drawing, and modeling vehicles can be sufficiently great to question the
17 | P a g e
evaluated silhouettes. While there are some product designers that successfully become
car designers, Lai, et al. do not mention if the selected collaborators fit in this category.
The presented silhouettes do not have the expected proportions and finesse that an
x Second, he seeks to generate concrete design parameters from the analysis of optimal
individual design features. This thesis seeks to show that the whole effect achieved by
the interaction of these features is greater than the one generated by individual ones,
meaning that the “perfect bumper height,” or “perfect overhang size” cannot be
modified, will affect the entirety of the design. In other words, if a proportion is
18 | P a g e
x Third, the redesigned silhouettes that yielded better results than the traditional ones
are also off proportion, appearing toy-like (which explains the semantic transmission of
“youthfulness”), and tall in relation to the ground (which explains “outdoors”). The
“cuteness” generated by their toy-like proportions might explain “family”, although that
Figure 13. Lai, Chang, & Chang's silhouettes designed by traditional methods (top), and the optimized silhouettes (bottom)
x Fourth: while he succeeded in effectively optimizing the silhouettes so that the target
feeling was better transmitted, automotive designers work off a technical drawing
called packaging (see figure 14), which fixes certain points that the designer has to
respect, such as wheelbase, angle of the a-pillar, bumper height, etc. These are changed
freely in Lai, et. al.’s optimized silhouettes, but cannot be changed during the design
process.
Tahira Reid (2010), in her doctoral dissertation, sought to quantify subjective attributes such as
aesthetics to inform design decisions. She focused on quantifying styling cues that enhance the
perceived environmental friendliness (PEF) of car silhouettes by using methods from psychology and
engineering. Her approach is similar to Lai, et. al.’s in the sense that she wants to supplement the
designer’s intuitive work by generating engineering criteria for the creation of optimization parameters.
19 | P a g e
Figure 14. Automotive packaging (Macey & Wardle, 2009, p.45)
Another commonality is the use of Taguchi Quality Engineering for exploring her hypotheses.
She expected higher PEF scores would come from softer, continuous, no-abrupt-changes silhouettes,
and from perceived-to-be-inspired-by-nature ones. In her case, she did not use traditionally designed
silhouettes for comparison but used a Toyota Prius, since it is a vehicle associated with environmental
friendliness. The visual stimuli she generated in the first step of the methodology consisted on 16
vehicle silhouettes using line work instead of a filled shape (figure 16). They were created based on 14
individual variables and a 15th that controlled the overall smoothness of the line (shape transitions vs
20 | P a g e
smoother transitions) (see figure 17). She applied a survey that was responded by 195 participants from
Her results showed that indeed respondents rated smoother and inspired-by-nature silhouettes
higher in PEF. She then used these results to generate parameters for designing new silhouettes (figure
21 | P a g e
18), which she tested to prove for improved performance. On a latter section of her dissertation, she
x Even though she generated a method for optimizing semantic accuracy for PEF,
x She also mentions that respondents might have picked silhouettes in the surveys based
on aesthetic preference rather than PEF, which could be explained by familiarity with
them (they looked similar to what they recognized as a vehicle), but might also have
been interpreted as subjects choosing silhouettes that appear more harmonious. This
perception.
Another potential problem with her methodology is the use of the word friendliness, since its
use in the survey might have made respondents seek friendly silhouettes, rather than environmentally
friendly ones.
22 | P a g e
Like Lai, et al., she intends to generate engineering optimization criteria for design based on
individual parameters, which for the reasons explained before, might be an incorrect approach since all
variables may depend upon each other. However, her work is an improvement over Lai, et al.’s, since
while they used proportions and locations of features only, she used points connected by Bezier curves,
which allow for modifying angles of the silhouette features, rather than just location. She also uses a
variable to affect the smoothness of the overall design, which is one step closer to modifying a
Both Lai, et al. and Reid use silhouettes for their analysis. Lai, et al. do not specify the reason
other than the ease to control variables and their importance in automaker’s marketing strategies. Reid
goes further mentioning that working with a silhouette will only be useful in the early stages of concept
design and that a more complex 3D analysis will eventually be required. That is a thought that this thesis
and her dissertation have in common, where silhouettes are used as a first step before moving into
One crucial difference between their work and the one presented here is that both Lai et al.’s
and Reid’s are oriented towards optimization of silhouettes. That is why their work includes a second
round of silhouette design and a second survey to validate optimization, while this work only requires
one. Another difference is that they used a target feeling for analysis. In this project, even though
semantic scales are used and silhouettes are evaluated to see how positively or negatively they score,
the objective is to record these scores depending on how harmonious the silhouettes are rather than
the semantic accuracy they produce. The semantic scales in this thesis are based on desirability and
are neutral so that no matter the difference in taste the respondents are likely to answer similarly. An
in-depth account of the generations of the semantic scales and silhouette is explained further in this
document.
23 | P a g e
Ranscombe, et al. (2012), referring to Bloch (1995) and Page and Herr (2002), emphasize the
importance of well executed aesthetics in the judgements of quality and overall desirability, mentioning
that technological advances are currently not as important as aesthetics in differentiating products in
the marketplace (Warell, Stridsman-Dahlstrom, & Fjellner, 2006). They conducted a study about
generating a procedure for visually decomposing automotive designs into aesthetic features and finding
out which of those aesthetic features were more effective at producing brand recognition in consumers.
He decomposed car designs into: outline, daylight opening (windshield, rear window, and side
windows), muscles (character lines, creases), graphics (headlamps, tail lamps, door cuts, gas tank cover,
door handles, etc.), and explicit detail (company logo, car name, badges) (figure 19). Using these
components individually and in combination, he created line drawings (front, rear, and side views) of
existing cars and generated a survey that was taken by 420 respondents who were told to identify the
brand of the portrayed vehicle. The results showed that the front view drawings which included the
graphics component yielded the greatest number of correct responses. He also recorded that the
different components had different potencies in brand recognition, since some components could be
24 | P a g e
Figure 20. Graphic and muscles channel without outline, daylight opening, and explicit detail.
There is parallelism to the visual decomposition proposed by Rascombe, et al. and the ones
presented in this thesis. The outline corresponds to the contour/silhouette channel of perception. The
daylight opening, graphics, and explicit detail fall into the graphics channel. The muscles are similar to
volume and form, although the creases and character lines are also close to graphics. Materiality is not
addressed in this study. It is possible that the differences in potencies in the Rascombe, et al. study are
also present in the contour/silhouette, volume/form, graphics, and materiality decomposition presented
Unlike Lai, et. al., and Reid, Rascombe, et al. does not use silhouettes for his analysis. He uses
line drawings, with the justification that edge features were more powerful for object recognition than
surface or volume features (Biederman, 1987). Since brand or object recognition are not of importance
for this thesis, silhouettes are a valid form of exploration for the effects on harmony in semantic
reponses.
Another study undertaken by Locher and Stappers (2002) is also relevant. It shows that people
perceive more dynamism in abstract images of triangles and quadrilaterals whose edges were aligned
than in images with a high level of entropy (chaos) (figure 21). This edge alignment generates order and
25 | P a g e
sense of belonging, which is parallel to generating harmony in a design. Berlyne (1971)indicated that too
much complexity can become confusing and generate low hedonic values, but also said that giving that
complexity a sense of “goodness of structure” and “order” made complex patterns more
understandable for the mind and therefore generated higher hedonic values. In vehicles, edge
alignment of compositional elements is one of the situations where harmony is broken due to
modifications during development. Since dynamism is a desirable quality in vehicle’s aesthetics and it is
achieved through harmony, this study becomes relevant for this thesis.
Figure 21. Compositions with aligned edges showed greater dynamism than compositions with disaligned edges. Locher and
Stappers (2002)
26 | P a g e
3. STUDY ON THE INFLUENCE OF HARMONY IN THE SEMANTIC
3.1. Description
This study seeks to record the shift in positivity or negativity of vehicle silhouettes as the level of
harmony and complexity increases or decreases. It is hypothesized that greater levels of harmony and
complexity will yield more positive results, and that harmony will have a greater influence than
complexity in generating the semantic shift. The semantics that will be explored are related to quality
(price, build quality, design execution), and performance (safety, driveability, and driving performance).
Finding out if harmony and complexity can shift positive semantic reads to negative ones if a
design is modified carelessly, can help the designer have more arguments against design changes
3.2. Methods
The test elements used are automotive silhouettes in side view. Silhouettes were chosen since
contour is one of the most basic channels with which we perceive objects. They are iconic, which implies
that if a person is asked to draw a car from memory, they are likely to use either a front or a side view.
As mentioned before, linework is better for object recognition and together with the front view, brand
recognition is easier (Ranscombe, Hicks, Mullineux, & Singh, 2012). Since neither is relevant for this
27 | P a g e
study, and indeed it is important for brand recognition to be avoided, this thesis uses silhouettes in side
view. Sedans were chosen since they are the most common car shape.
For generating the vehicle silhouettes to be tested, the right variables had to be identified.
Several iterations of silhouettes were generated parallel to the variable identification process. The
following paragraphs aim to describe the exploration journey that ended in the final silhouettes, varying
28 | P a g e
The process for choosing the right variables started with a comprehensive overview of different
authors listing attributes from the design and art fields. The first exploration attempt can be observed in
Figure 22. These groupings were done in order to simplify the understanding of the different fields.
Items within groups are interconnected and when one is modified, the others are affected as well. For
example, complexity is grouped within harmony. Modifying complexity could have an impact in
harmony, increasing or decreasing it depending on how well it is executed. On the other hand, making a
design more disharmonious may make it look more complex even though the number of elements is
low. The categories were not exclusive either. One example can be that contour character changes
might influence harmony, since a design with the same features might look more or less harmonious
In the end, after the exploration process, harmony was selected as the main independent
variable since it unifies the whole visual effect. Berlyne (1971) performed extensive studies that looked
into complexity as the driving variable for defining aesthetic preference. He recognized that higher levels
of complexity can be more easily processed by the brain if they have certain structure that allows for
visual grouping. This structure or sense of order is interpreted as harmony in this thesis topic.
Recognizing Berlyne’s emphasis on its importance, complexity was chosen as a secondary independent
variable.
Parallel to the exploration for finding variables, six iterations of car silhouettes were produced in
collaboration with automotive design expert Raphael Zammit before the final version was selected. This
x The first iteration included all perception channels (contour, graphics, volume, and
materiality), but was discarded because of the difficulty of controlling variables. Its
29 | P a g e
application could be used as a 3D validation of the findings from the 2D silhouettes in
x The second iteration used silhouettes of existing vehicles. This option was discarded
since identification of the vehicle was a possibility and brand recognition needed to be
x The third iteration consisted of arrays of 12 silhouettes. The variable chosen for the
creation of the elements was contour character, focusing on line continuity. This version
was discarded since graduate design student feedback indicated 12 items were difficult
to rate. Too much time had to be spent by participants when analyzing all possibilities.
Contour character was discarded as a main variable since people selected silhouettes
x The fourth iteration included six items per page, three being harmonious, and three
They varied also in level of complexity. Sedan silhouettes and SUV silhouettes were
featured. This iteration was discarded since the high amount of variables would
generate too many test elements making analysis difficult and generated a survey that
x The fifth iteration included eight elements per page. Variables were contour character,
balance and harmony. This was discarded since balance was not thought to be a
determining factor in creating harmony and was not as important to eliminating bias as
30 | P a g e
x The sixth iteration included nine elements. Variables were the same as the final version.
were too obvious and more refinement was required (appendix 1).
For the final iteration, two sets of nine elements were designed with varying levels of harmony
(high, mid, low) and complexity (low, mid, high). A type of contour character was selected for each set in
order to avoid bias to one type of shape. The two contour characters chosen are angular-dominant
which is hereby referred as SET A (figure 23), and round-dominant which is hereby referred as SET B
(figure 24).
6(7$ High-Harmony Mid-Harmony Low-Harmony
$QJXODUGRPLQDQW
Low-Complexity
Mid-complexity
High-Complexity
6(7% High-Harmony Mid-Harmony Low-Harmony
5RXQGGRPLQDQW
Low-Complexity
Mid-complexity
High-Complexity
31 | P a g e
3.2.1.2. Semantic differential scales: dependent variables
Several options to find which semantic concepts were important for testing were explored. The
first attempts consisted on semantic concepts obtained from the I-SKE model. Concepts found in
sensation, knowledge and emotions were generated in 2D (figure 25) and 3D arrangements (figure 26).
This direction was discarded since, although it was very interesting, the time restraints of the thesis did
Figure 25. 2D representation using axis representing knowledge and emotion. Opposite semantic concepts were slected at
the edges and intermediate words were found.
The final semantic concepts to test were selected from the most important attributes people
consider when buying a new car: safety, quality, value, environmental friendliness, performance,
design/style, and technology/innovation (Consumer Reports, 2011). From that list, quality and
performance were chosen for the semantic testing since they can be communicated in great part by a
eliminated since these depend on technical aspects of the vehicle that were not considered to be
32 | P a g e
directly communicated by aesthetics. Safety and value were excluded in their pure forms since they
depend on the vehicle’s construction and market and not on the design. However perceived safety and
value were included. A negative to positive scale was generated for each concept.
Figure 26. 3D representation of scales using axis for sensation, knowledge, and emotion. Opposite concepts were selected at
the edges and intermediate words were found.
The final semantic categories chosen were price, build quality, and design execution (which can
be grouped under quality), and safety, driveability, and driving performance (which can be grouped
under performance). Complementary words were carefully chosen so that the bias due to personal taste
was eliminated. For example, in driving performance, words such as “fast” or “slow” were not used since
respondents might have either positive or negative connotations towards one or the other. Instead,
words like “incapable” or “capable” were chosen to clearly generate a positive-negative scale that would
33 | P a g e
get the same responses regardless of personal taste. The explanation of the concept was added for
QUALITY
PERFORMANCE
People were asked to rate the two sets of silhouettes in relation to the semantic concepts
above. They were told not to overthink and answer from their gut feeling. This text was present in all of
Both SET A and SET B were evaluated for each one of the semantic concepts (price, build quality,
design execution, safety, driveability, and performance). Every question included the explanation to
enhance clarity. The rating mechanism consisted of six levels where only one choice could be selected.
The levels were very, clearly, and somewhat (for the negative side), and somewhat, clearly, and very (for
34 | P a g e
the positive side). There was no neutral option in order to encourage respondents to rate the
silhouettes either positively or negatively. All silhouettes were arranged randomly and differently for
The survey was applied electronically using Survey Monkey and using Facebook and e-mail as
diffusion tools. A computer wallpaper of an automotive illustration was offered as compensation. The
survey was anonymous and consisted of two parts: The first one was a screening section for obtaining
demographics of the respondents and the second one was the section for rating the silhouettes.
35 | P a g e
3.3. Results and Analysis
58 people responded to all the questions of the survey. All surveys where respondents stopped
before the survey was finished were discarded. The ones where there were a few isolated unanswered
questions were kept. The unanswered questions were considered to have a value of 0 since it was
interpreted that people considered the silhouette as neutral. 34 respondents were Mexican, 9 were
from the US, 5 were Colombian, 4 were Chinese, 2 were German, 2 were from Korea, 1 was from
Taiwan, and 1 was Iranian/Canadian. The age distribution was 18 to 74 years old, with 48 people in the
For the data collection, numeric values were given to the responses (figure 30), so that when the
means of the answers were obtained, positive scores for each silhouettes were over zero, and negative
ones below zero. In order to assure the reliability of the means, an ANOVA analysis was performed using
the SPSS software. Results showed that all of the findings for both SET A and SET B were significant since
all the sig. values for the Test of within-subject effects were 0.000 (see appendix 3). The means for all
semantic concepts for SET A and SET B can be seen in figure 31. All effect sizes were high (figure 37).
36 | P a g e
PRICE - SET A/SET B High-Harmony Mid-Harmony Low-Harmony
High-Complexity 0.9655 / 1.3705 -0.0172 / 0.9251 0.6034 / -0.7223
Mid-Complexity 0.6207 / 1.2232 0.069 / 0.5188 -1.1724 / -0.8696
Low-Complexity 0.4138 / 0.7235 -0.0862 / -0.8875 -0.7931 / -0.5746
BUILD QUALITY - SET A/SET B High-Harmony Mid-Harmony Low-Harmony
High-Complexity 1.1379 / 1.6379 0.3103 / 1.2414 0.6724 / 0.1897
Mid-Complexity 0.6897 / 1.2931 0.1897 / 0.8966 -1.3966 / -0.1724
Low-Complexity 0.2069 / 0.9310 -0.0172 / -0.4310 -0.3448 / -0.1034
DESIGN EXECUTION - SET A/SET B High-Harmony Mid-Harmony Low-Harmony
High-Complexity 0.7069 / 1.4828 -0.0345 / 1.2069 -0.0345 / 0.8966
Mid-Complexity 0.6552 / 0.9138 -0.7759 / 0.1379 -1.7241 / -0.7931
Low-Complexity -0.1897 / -0.3621 -0.7759 / -0.9483 -1.069 / -1.0172
SAFETY - SET A/SET B High-Harmony Mid-Harmony Low-Harmony
High-Complexity 1.1379 / 1.3276 0.431 / 1.0345 0.3966 / -0.2931
Mid-Complexity 0.6034 / 1.1724 -0.1552 / 0.6034 -1.2931 / -0.8621
Low-Complexity 0.5517 / 0.8621 -0.3276 / -0.7586 -0.4138 / -0.2759
DRIVEABILITY - SET A/SET B High-Harmony Mid-Harmony Low-Harmony
High-Complexity 1.1379 / 1.5690 0.3448 / 1.0345 0.1552 / -0.2241
Mid-Complexity 1.1724 / 1.1034 -0.0345 / 0.3793 -1.6552 / -0.4828
Low-Complexity 0.1897 / 0.7759 -0.5 / -0.7241 -0.3448 / -0.4483
DRIVING PERFORMANCE - SET A/SET B High-Harmony Mid-Harmony Low-Harmony
High-Complexity 0.431 / 1.6552 0.2069 / 0.7586 0.0517 / -0.4828
Mid-Complexity 0.3793 / 1.0000 -1.569 / 0.2759 -0.2586 / -0.6897
Low-Complexity -0.1034 / 0.5690 -0.8966 / -1.0517 -0.9655 / -0.9828
Figure 31. Means obtained for all semantic concepts.
Once the reliability of the results was proven, means for each concept and variable were
arranged in tables where the silhouettes were included (figure 32) (see appendix 4 for all the tables).
Also, the means were used to generate a chromatic scale where positive scores yielded green CMYK
values (C=100, M=0, Y=100, K=0, being the highest possible value), white when they were neutral (C=0,
M=0, Y=0, K=0), and red when they were negative (C=0, M=100, Y=100, K=0), being the worst possible
value). Since the highest mean obtained for any silhouette was 1.6652 (high-harmony/high-complexity,
SET B), and the lowest was -1.7241 (low-harmony/mid-complexity, SET A), a scale from -2 to 2 was
created, where -2 corresponded to a 100% red color, and 2 to a 100% green color. For example, high-
37 | P a g e
harmony/high-complexity in price scored 0.9655. It is positive so it goes in the green scale, and
represents a 48% of 2. Therefore, the color value obtained for that silhouette is C=48, M=0, Y=48, K=0.
Low-harmony/mid-complexity scored -1.1724, which is 59% of -2, which gives a value of C=0, M=59,
Y=59, K=0. As a result, each mean for each silhouette receives a different color that allows for
identification in the positive-negative scale. The generated colors for each silhouette were taken and
Figure 32. Sample of tables and chromatic scale used for the analysis and interpretation of results.
38 | P a g e
Harmony and complexity did not influence all semantic concepts in the same way. The effect of
both variables varied from concept to concept, but they were always high for both SET A and SET B
Icons for identifying each silhouette were generated and then applied to a linear scale in order
to visualize data in a different way (figure 32). When combining all linear scales, a graph showing the
3.4. Discussion
Figure 33. Graph used taking the colors generated for each silhouette. Includes all semantic concepts.
Figure 33 shows that there is a clear tendency for the higher the scores the higher the
harmony and complexity, and a clear tendency for the lower scores the lower the harmony and
complexity. This progression was expected for harmony but it was surprising for complexity. It was
believed that high complexity would make low-harmony silhouettes look even more disharmonious, but
they helped improve results. Also, it is clear that round-dominant silhouettes scored higher than
angular-dominant silhouettes in high levels of harmony and complexity, although they even out in low
levels.
39 | P a g e
Irregularities to the patterns can be seen in SET A. The silhouette representing low-
same set. This can also be seen in figure 36. This can be explained since the low-harmony/high-
complexity was less disharmonious than what was intended. It also resembles a tuned car, which might
affect some of the results. Another consistent irregularity is the low-harmony/mid-complexity (figure
34) for SET A as well, scoring worse results than low-harmony/low-complexity. The explanation for this
can be that the curvature generated by the rocker and overhangs of the car have great contrast with the
Figure 34. SET A'S High-harmony/high-complexity (left) got better results than expected while the low-harmony/mid-
complexity silouwhette (right) performed worse than expected.
40 | P a g e
l
Figure 35. Low-harmony/low-complexity (bottom-right) scored better since it was actually more harmonious than low-
harmony/mid-complexity (top) and mid-harmony/low-complexity (bottom-left)
Irregularities on SET B are a lot less drastic. The low-harmony/low-complexity silhouette (figure
35) did not score the worst results as was expected. After a second analysis, a possible explanation was
found. This silhouette is actually more harmonious than both low-harmony/mid-complexity (figure 35)
and mid-harmony/low-complexity (figure 35). The reasoning behind this is that the front and rear are
related, generating more harmony than the other silhouettes, which do not have the same relationship.
The graph generated by all chromatic scales (figure 36) shows that for both sets the first and
second best scores are high-harmonies with high and mid-complexity. Third place is disputed by less
harmonious but highly complex silhouettes. This suggests that high levels of complexity can disguise
disharmony improving the semantic perception. It is important to point out that this phenomenon
might be explained by the fact that 2D small silhouettes were evaluated and it may not transfer in the
41 | P a g e
same way to a full size 3D vehicle. In addition, harmonious silhouettes with high complexity were always
Figure 36. Graph obtained after joining all linear scales. All silhouettes appear for all semantic concepts.
42 | P a g e
The conclusions that can be drawn by the effect sizes (figure 37) are that the superiority of the
influence of harmony over that of complexity is confirmed. This means that differences in harmony
switched semantics concepts more than changes in complexity. Price in SET A is the only exception,
where harmony scored lower than complexity. This might be caused by the low-harmony/high-
complexity silhouette in SET A (figure 34) that has a similar look to a tuned car, which might give the
idea of high cost. Build quality shows that both variables have a similar degree of importance. Design
execution shows slightly greater effects from harmony than complexity. The difference is greater in
safety, where harmony was clearly more important than complexity. This is also seen in driveability,
which scored the highest effect for harmony. Driving performance shows harmony as slightly more
43 | P a g e
4. CONCLUSIONS
This thesis shows the importance of vehicle aesthetics, explaining that they play a major role in
defining a consumer´s purchase decision. For this reason, the topic of automakers needing to constantly
be at the cutting edge of automotive design – in search of newer and fresher aesthetic proposals so that
their products can stand out from among the competition – was addressed. It was mentioned that this
constant aesthetic innovation leads to the generation of provocative or even controversial aesthetics
that might communicate negative semantics to consumers, potentially jeopardizing the vehicle’s
commercial success. This thesis’ objective was to find out if the amount of harmony in automotive
designs (especially in potentially controversial ones) is an influential factor in defining if the produced
Two sets of nine silhouettes varying in levels of harmony (high, mid, low), and complexity (high,
mid, low) were created. One set consisted of angular-dominant and the other one of round-dominant
contour character silhouettes, which helped avoid bias due to the preference of one type of contour
character. They were rated against semantic concepts referring to automotive quality (price, build
quality, and design execution), and performance (safety, driveability, driving performance). They were
evaluated on a negative-to-positive scale consisting of three negative and three positive levels.
Results confirmed the hypothesis showing a clear tendency for higher scores when harmony
was high, and low scores when it was low. High complexity also showed itself as an important variable in
generating positive semantics, sometimes compensating for lack of harmony. Harmony consistently
showed greater influence than complexity and the highest scores were generated when both high-
44 | P a g e
Price and build quality were influenced similarly by harmony and complexity. Design execution,
driving performance, safety, and driveability, show dominance from harmony, in greater degree for
It can be safely stated that the unified whole, where the sensation that every part belongs
consumers.
4.1. Limitations
It is important to mention that the test presented in this work only covered silhouettes, which
belong to only one of the four channels of perception proposed in Section 2 of this thesis (silhouette,
graphics, form, and materiality). Although it is likely that the work presented here can be transferred to
all four perception channels, further research in the areas of graphics, form, and materiality need to be
As for the design of the test, the silhouettes were not generated by any automated tool, but
designed by hand. It is suggested that testing for evaluating the amount of harmony and complexity in
test elements is performed previously to the application of the survey instrument for semantic rating.
While some silhouettes had more or less harmony than they were actually designed for, this did not
affect the clarity of the results, but it certainly made the data analysis more difficult.
4.2. Repercussions
The eye of a designer that is highly sensitive to aesthetics (in this case, the eye of the
automotive designer) has undergone a long process of honing through countless hours of study and
experimentation. This allows for the appreciation of the effects produced by harmony in a design,
45 | P a g e
finding the UDLVRQG
rWUH of every feature and the relationships amongst them. Countless hours and
iterations are invested by design teams in order to create a highly refined design concept with new and
fresh aesthetics. It is for this reason that the work presented in this thesis can be an argument in favor of
the automotive designer’s work against decisions for styling modifications during development when
carefully considered in order to maintain the design’s harmony as intact as possible in order to
Nevertheless, a designer’s work might not be infallible, since the mentioned aesthetic sensitivity
may allow for the appreciation of higher levels of sophisticated aesthetics, harder to notice by the
untrained eye. This thesis also aims to emphasize the importance of harmony as a design tool, which
could be helpful in producing positive semantics when dealing with very challenging, sophisticated and
innovative aesthetics.
46 | P a g e
5. REFERENCES
References
Berlyne, D. E. (1974). Studies in the new experimental aesthetics. Toronto: Hemisphere Publishing
Corporation.
Bloch, P. H. (1995). Seeking the ideal form: Product design and consumer response. The Journal of
Marketing, 59, 16-29.
Consumer Reports. (2012). Consumers see fewer differences among car brands<br />In our new
survey, toyota, ford, honda, and chevrolet continue to lead in overall perception, but by a
slimmer margin . Retrieved October 15, 2012, from
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2012/01/consumers-see-fewer-differences-among-car-
brands/index.htm
Fenner, D. E. W. (2003). Aesthetic experience and aesthetic analysis. Journal of Aesthetic Education,
37(1), 40-53.
Horowitz, M. C. (2005). New dictionary of the history of ideas. Detroit: Charles Scribner´s Sons.
Kreuzbauer, R., & Malter, A. J. (2005). Embodied cognition and new product design: Changing product
form to influence brand categorization. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22, 175-176.
Levinson, J. (2005). The oxford handbook of aesthetics (New Edition ed.). USA: Oxford University Press.
Lewin, T., & Borroff, R. (2010). How to design cars like a pro (New Edition ed.). Minneapolis: Motorboks.
Locher, P., & Stappers, P. J. (2002). Factors contributing to the implicit dynamic quality of static abstract
designs. Perception, 31, 1093-1107.
Macey, S., & Wardle, G. (2009). H-point: The fundamentals of car design and packaging (First Edition
ed.). Pasadena: Design Studio Press.
Page, C., & Herr, P. M. (2002). An investigation of the processes by which product design and brand
sternght interact to determine initial affect and quality judgments. Journal of Consumer Psychology,
12, 133-147.
47 | P a g e
Puhalla, D. M. (2011). Design elements: Form and space. Masachussets: Rockport Publishers.
Ranscombe, C., Hicks, B., Mullineux, G., & Singh, B. (2012). Visually decomposing vehicle images:
Exploring the influence of different aesthetic features on consumer perception of brand.
[www.elsevier.com/locate/destud] Design Studies, 33(4), 319-341.
Steenberg, E. (2007). Visual aesthetic experience. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 41(2), 89-94.
Warell, A., Stridsman-Dahlstrom, J., & Fjellner, C. (2006). Visual product identity: Understnading identity
perceptions conveyed by visual product design. 5th International Conference on Design & Emotion,
Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychology, 35(2),
151-175.
Hannah, G. H. (2002). Elements of design: Rowena Reed Kostellow and the Structure of Visual
Relationships. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
Barret, T. (2000). Critizicing art: Understanding the contemporary. (2nd ed.). Mountain View: Mayfield
Publishing Company.
Ocvirk, O. (2005). Art fundamentals: Theory and practice. (10th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
48 | P a g e
6. APPENDICES
49 | P a g e
6.1 Appendix 1: Silhouette iterations
6.1.1 First iteration
The first iteration included all perception channels (contour, graphics, volume, and materiality),
but was discarded because of the difficulty of controlling variables. Its application could be used as a 3D
validation of the findings in the 2D silhouettes in the future.
6.1.2 Second iteration
The second iteration used silhouettes of existing vehicles. This option was discarded since
identification of the vehicle was a possibility and brand recognition needed to be avoided since it could
produce bias in the results.
The fourth iteration included six items per page, three being harmonious, and three
disharmonious. Pages portrayed vehicles with differences in canopy balance (forward heavy or rear
heavy), directional force (ascending or descending), contour character (rigid, faceted, tense, relaxed),
and volume definition (monovolume or volume-defined). They varied also in level of complexity. Sedan
silhouettes and SUV silhouettes were featured. This iteration was discarded since too many variables
would generate too many test elements making analysis difficult and generated a survey that was too
long for respondents .
6.1.5 Fifth iteration
The fifth iteration included eight elements per page. Variables were contour character, balance
and harmony. This was discarded since balance was not thought to be a determining factor in creating
harmony and was not as important to eliminating bias as contour character showed (appendix 1).
6.1.6 Sixth iteration
The sixth iteration included nine elements. Variables were the same as the final version.
However, the differences between harmonious vehicles and disharmonious vehicles were too obvious
and more refinement was required (appendix 1).
6.2. Appendix 2: Survey instrument
AUTOMOTIVE SILHOUETTE SEMANTICS
INTRODUCTION
I’m a Master of Design student at the College of Design, Architecture, Art, and Planning at the
University of Cincinnati.
By fully answering the survey, you can choose to be sent an automotive illustration wallpaper for your
computer after the survey is closed and all participant responses are collected.
25 to 34
35 to 44
45 to 54
55 to 64
65 to 74
75 or older
Male
You will be presented with two sets of vehicle silhouettes per question. Please rate them in scale.
There are no right or wrong answers. Don’t overthink! It is important for the research to get your gut reaction.
AUTOMOTIVE SILHOUETTE SEMANTICS
You will be presented with two sets of vehicle silhouettes per question. Please rate them in scale.
There are no right or wrong answers. Don’t overthink! It is important for the research to get your gut reaction.
AUTOMOTIVE SILHOUETTE SEMANTICS
You will be presented with two sets of vehicle silhouettes per question. Please rate them in scale.
There are no right or wrong answers. Don’t overthink! It is important for the research to get your gut reaction.
AUTOMOTIVE SILHOUETTE SEMANTICS
You will be presented with two sets of vehicle silhouettes per question. Please rate them in scale.
There are no right or wrong answers. Don’t overthink! It is important for the research to get your gut reaction.
AUTOMOTIVE SILHOUETTE SEMANTICS
You will be presented with two sets of vehicle silhouettes per question. Please rate them in scale.
There are no right or wrong answers. Don’t overthink! It is important for the research to get your gut reaction.
AUTOMOTIVE SILHOUETTE SEMANTICS
You will be presented with two sets of vehicle silhouettes per question. Please rate them in scale.
There are no right or wrong answers. Don’t overthink! It is important for the research to get your gut reaction.
AUTOMOTIVE SILHOUETTE SEMANTICS
You will be presented with two sets of vehicle silhouettes per question. Please rate them in scale.
There are no right or wrong answers. Don’t overthink! It is important for the research to get your gut reaction.
AUTOMOTIVE SILHOUETTE SEMANTICS
You will be presented with two sets of vehicle silhouettes per question. Please rate them in scale.
There are no right or wrong answers. Don’t overthink! It is important for the research to get your gut reaction.
AUTOMOTIVE SILHOUETTE SEMANTICS
You will be presented with two sets of vehicle silhouettes per question. Please rate them in scale.
There are no right or wrong answers. Don’t overthink! It is important for the research to get your gut reaction.
AUTOMOTIVE SILHOUETTE SEMANTICS
You will be presented with two sets of vehicle silhouettes per question. Please rate them in scale.
There are no right or wrong answers. Don’t overthink! It is important for the research to get your gut reaction.
AUTOMOTIVE SILHOUETTE SEMANTICS
You will be presented with two sets of vehicle silhouettes per question. Please rate them in scale.
There are no right or wrong answers. Don’t overthink! It is important for the research to get your gut reaction.
AUTOMOTIVE SILHOUETTE SEMANTICS
You will be presented with two sets of vehicle silhouettes per question. Please rate them in scale.
There are no right or wrong answers. Don’t overthink! It is important for the research to get your gut reaction.
AUTOMOTIVE SILHOUETTE SEMANTICS
SET A
SUBJECT PRICE_11 PRICE_12 PRICE_13 PRICE_21 PRICE_22 PRICE_23 PRICE_31 PRICE_32 PRICE_33
1 -1 1 1 1 1 -2 -3 -3 -1
2 1 -1 1 -1 -1 -2 -1 -2 -2
3 -2 -1 1 2 3 2 -3 1 1
4 3 1 -1 2 1 -3 1 2 3
5 1 3 2 -3 1 -2 -1 -3 2
6 2 -1 1 1 2 2 -2 1 3
7 2 -1 1 1 -2 -1 -2 -3 1
8 1 3 1 -3 -1 -1 -1 -2 -2
9 -2 1 2 -3 -1 1 -3 -2 -2
10 1 2 3 -1 1 1 -2 -2 2
11 1 -1 2 -1 1 1 -1 -2 -1
12 1 1 2 -1 1 -1 -1 1 1
13 1 1 2 -1 1 2 -1 -2 -1
14 1 1 -1 2 1 -1 -1 1 3
15 1 -1 -1 1 1 1 -1 2 2
16 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
17 -3 2 -2 -1 1 -3 -1 -2 2
18 2 1 1 1 -2 1 -1 -1 2
19 -2 1 2 -1 1 -1 -2 1 -1
20 -1 2 3 -3 -2 1 -2 -3 -2
21 1 -1 -1 1 0 1 -3 -3 3
22 2 1 1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 3
23 -2 -3 -1 2 1 -3 2 -2 3
24 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1
25 -1 3 2 2 -1 -1 2 -2 -1
26 1 -2 -1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 2
27 -1 1 -3 1 -1 2 3 2 3
28 2 1 2 2 2 3 1 -1 2
29 2 1 1 2 -2 -1 -1 -2 3
30 3 1 3 -3 1 3 0 1 3
31 -3 2 3 -3 1 1 -1 -2 -1
32 -3 -1 -1 -2 -2 -3 -3 -3 -2
33 1 1 1 -1 -1 2 -1 -2 -1
34 -1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 -2 -3 -1
35 1 -1 1 2 1 2 -2 -1 3
36 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -2 1
37 0 3 0 3 0 -3 0 -3 0
38 2 -1 1 3 -1 1 -1 -1 3
39 1 2 3 1 -2 -1 -2 -3 -2
40 -1 -1 2 1 -2 1 -2 -2 -1
41 1 3 3 -1 2 -1 -2 -3 2
42 -1 -2 -1 1 3 -1 1 1 -1
43 3 3 -3 1 -1 1 1 -1 1
44 3 1 3 1 1 -3 -1 -3 1
45 1 1 3 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1
46 1 -2 -1 -3 1 2 -1 1 2
47 1 2 3 -2 2 1 -1 -3 -1
48 1 -1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2
49 -1 1 2 -2 -2 1 -2 -3 -2
50 1 1 2 -3 -1 -1 -2 -3 -2
51 -1 1 -1 2 -1 -1 1 -2 -1
52 -2 3 2 0 0 1 0 -3 -1
53 2 -1 -2 -2 -2 -2 1 2 3
54 2 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 3
55 -2 1 1 1 -1 1 -1 -3 -1
56 -1 -1 2 -1 -1 -1 -2 -2 -1
57 -1 1 2 1 -1 -1 -2 -3 1
58 2 2 2 -2 -3 2 1 1 -2
SET A
SUBJE BUILD_QUALIT BUILD_QUALIT BUILD_QUALIT BUILD_QUALIT BUILD_QUALIT BUILD_QUALIT BUILD_QUALIT BUILD_QUALIT BUILD_QUALIT
CT Y_11 Y_12 Y_13 Y_21 Y_22 Y_23 Y_31 Y_32 Y_33
1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 -2 1
2 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -2 -3 1
3 -2 2 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1
4 3 1 1 1 3 1 -1 -3 2
5 1 -2 1 -3 1 1 -2 2 2
6 -1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2
7 2 1 2 2 -1 -2 -2 -1 2
8 -2 1 2 -2 1 -1 -3 -3 1
9 -2 2 1 -3 2 -2 -3 -3 -1
10 -1 1 2 -2 1 -1 -1 -2 2
11 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 -2 -1
12 1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -2 2 -1
13 1 2 1 -2 -1 1 -2 -3 -2
14 2 2 -1 1 -1 2 -1 2 1
15 2 -1 2 -1 2 1 1 -1 3
16 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
17 -2 -1 1 -3 -2 -2 -3 -2 1
18 -2 -2 1 2 1 1 1 -2 2
19 2 1 2 -1 2 -1 -1 -1 2
20 -3 1 1 -1 1 1 -2 -1 -3
21 1 1 -1 -2 2 2 -2 -3 3
22 1 2 2 -1 -1 2 -2 -3 2
23 -2 -1 3 -1 -3 1 3 -3 -1
24 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
25 1 2 1 3 2 1 3 -1 -1
26 2 1 1 2 -1 1 2 -3 1
27 1 -2 1 2 -1 -2 -3 2 -1
28 1 -2 2 2 1 1 -1 -2 2
29 -1 -1 2 1 2 -1 -1 -2 2
30 2 2 2 -1 -1 2 1 -3 3
31 3 1 1 3 1 1 3 3 3
32 -2 -2 -1 -1 -1 -1 -2 -3 -1
33 -2 -1 -1 -1 1 -2 1 -2 -2
34 -1 1 -1 -1 -2 1 -1 -2 1
35 -1 -1 2 1 2 1 -1 -3 3
36 1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 1
37 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 -3 -3
38 2 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 1
39 -2 2 3 1 -2 -1 1 -3 2
40 -2 -1 1 -2 -2 1 -2 -3 -1
41 1 -1 2 1 -1 -2 2 2 -2
42 -2 0 -2 1 -1 -3 2 -1 2
43 -1 3 1 2 3 1 1 -1 1
44 3 3 3 -1 -2 2 3 -3 3
45 1 1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 -3 -1
46 2 1 2 1 1 2 -1 -2 2
47 1 1 1 2 2 -1 -3 -3 3
48 -1 -1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2
49 -2 1 1 -3 -2 -2 -2 -3 -2
50 2 2 2 -3 1 1 -1 -3 -2
51 2 3 2 2 -1 -1 3 -1 -2
52 -2 3 2 0 0 1 -1 -3 0
53 2 1 -1 2 -2 1 -1 -2 2
54 1 2 2 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 3
55 -1 1 2 -1 -1 -1 -2 -3 -1
56 1 1 1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1
57 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 -3 1
58 1 1 -1 -1 1 2 1 -1 -2
SET A
SUBJ DESIGN_EXECU DESIGN_EXECU DESIGN_EXECU DESIGN_EXECU DESIGN_EXECU DESIGN_EXECU DESIGN_EXECU DESIGN_EXECU DESIGN_EXECU
ECT TION_11 TION_12 TION_13 TION_21 TION_22 TION_23 TION_31 TION_32 TION _33
1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 -2 -1
2 -1 1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 -3 2
3 1 -1 1 -2 -1 1 -2 -1 -1
4 1 1 3 2 -1 -2 1 2 2
5 2 1 -1 1 -2 2 2 -1 -3
6 -1 -1 2 -3 1 2 -3 -2 1
7 -1 1 1 -3 -2 2 -3 -3 1
8 -2 1 2 -3 1 -1 1 -3 -1
9 1 2 1 -2 1 2 -2 1 -1
10 -2 1 2 -3 -1 -1 -2 -2 1
11 -1 -1 -2 -2 -2 1 -2 -2 -2
12 1 1 -1 -2 -1 -1 -1 1 1
13 1 3 3 1 -2 -1 -2 1 -2
14 1 -1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 2
15 1 1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 1 2
16 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3
17 -1 1 1 -2 -1 -2 -2 -3 -2
18 -1 -2 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 1
19 -1 1 1 -2 1 -1 -2 -2 1
20 -1 2 -1 -3 -3 -2 -3 -3 -3
21 2 1 -1 -1 2 1 -2 -3 3
22 -1 1 1 -2 -1 1 -2 -3 1
23 -1 1 1 2 -2 -1 1 -3 3
24 -1 2 2 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
25 1 3 -1 2 1 -1 1 1 -1
26 1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 -2 -2 3
27 1 -3 -3 3 1 2 2 -2 2
28 2 1 2 2 -1 2 -2 -3 1
29 -1 -1 1 1 -2 -1 -1 -2 3
30 -3 1 2 -3 -3 -1 -3 -3 -2
31 -1 3 1 -2 -3 -3 -2 -2 -3
32 -3 -3 1 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3
33 -2 -1 1 -2 -1 -1 -1 -1 1
34 -1 -1 1 -1 -2 -1 -1 -2 -2
35 -1 2 -1 -3 1 1 -3 -3 1
36 1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 2
37 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 -3 -3
38 2 -1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2
39 -1 1 2 -1 -3 -2 -3 -3 -1
40 1 1 -1 1 -2 1 -3 -3 -2
41 1 2 3 -2 -1 -3 -2 -3 -2
42 2 3 2 3 -2 1 2 -2 1
43 -1 1 1 2 1 -1 2 -1 1
44 3 3 3 -3 -3 3 -3 -3 3
45 -2 2 1 -2 -1 -1 -1 -3 -2
46 2 -1 2 -2 1 2 -1 -1 1
47 1 1 1 -3 -1 3 -3 -2 -1
48 -1 -1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 1
49 -3 1 -2 -3 -1 -1 -3 -3 -2
50 -1 1 3 -3 1 -1 -3 -3 -2
51 3 3 1 -1 -2 1 3 -1 -2
52 -1 3 2 0 0 1 -1 -3 0
53 -1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 3
54 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 -1 3
55 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -2 -1
56 -1 1 2 -1 -1 2 -2 -2 -2
57 -2 2 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 -3 -1
58 -1 1 -1 2 -1 1 1 -2 1
SET A
SUBJECT SAFETY_11 SAFETY_12 SAFETY_13 SAFETY_21 SAFETY_22 SAFETY_23 SAFETY_31 SAFETY_32 SAFETY_33
1 -1 1 2 -1 -1 2 2 -1 -1
2 -1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -2 1
3 -1 1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 -2 1
4 2 -3 1 -1 -1 3 2 1 2
5 1 -2 1 1 2 -3 2 1 -2
6 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1
7 1 -1 2 -1 -2 2 -1 -2 1
8 -1 1 2 -3 -2 -1 -2 -3 -1
9 -1 -2 2 -3 -1 2 -3 -2 1
10 -2 1 2 -1 1 1 -2 -1 2
11 2 2 3 2 3 2 1 2 2
12 2 1 1 1 -1 -2 1 2 -1
13 2 3 2 -1 -2 1 1 -2 -1
14 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
15 1 -1 2 1 1 1 -2 -2 2
16 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
17 -1 -2 1 -3 -2 -1 -3 -3 -2
18 -1 -1 -3 -1 -1 -1 -3 -2 -1
19 -1 1 1 -1 1 1 -1 1 2
20 1 1 2 1 0 1 -2 -1 1
21 1 -1 -1 -3 1 2 -3 -3 2
22 -1 1 2 -2 -1 1 -2 -2 1
23 1 3 -1 3 2 1 2 -1 -2
24 -1 2 -1 -1 -1 2 -1 -1 1
25 -1 2 1 1 1 -1 1 2 -1
26 2 2 3 -1 1 1 1 -2 2
27 1 1 -3 2 -2 -1 -1 2 -3
28 2 1 2 3 -1 2 1 1 1
29 1 1 2 -1 1 1 -1 -3 2
30 1 -1 1 2 -2 3 -1 -3 -1
31 1 3 3 -3 3 1 1 1 1
32 -2 -2 2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2
33 2 1 1 2 2 -2 1 -1 -1
34 -1 1 1 -2 -1 -1 -2 -3 -2
35 1 -1 1 -1 1 2 1 -2 2
36 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1
37 3 0 -3 0 3 0 0 -3 .
38 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2
39 2 0 2 2 -1 1 -1 -3 2
40 -1 -2 1 -2 -2 1 -3 -3 -2
41 -1 2 3 -3 -2 -2 -2 -3 -1
42 1 1 2 -2 -1 1 3 -2 3
43 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1
44 3 3 3 -3 3 3 3 -3 3
45 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
46 2 -1 2 -1 1 2 -1 -1 2
47 2 1 1 1 -1 1 -2 -3 2
48 -1 -2 1 -1 -2 -1 -1 -1 1
49 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2
50 1 1 2 1 1 1 -2 -3 2
51 2 3 2 1 -3 -1 1 -3 -3
52 0 2 3 -1 1 0 -2 -3 0
53 3 2 -1 2 -2 -1 1 -3 1
54 -1 3 2 0 -1 1 -1 -3 -2
55 -1 1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 -2 -1
56 1 2 2 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1
57 1 1 2 -1 1 1 -2 -2 2
58 2 0 -1 2 1 -2 1 -1 2
SET A
SUBJEC DRIVEABILITY_ DRIVEABILITY_ DRIVEABILITY_ DRIVEABILITY_ DRIVEABILITY_ DRIVEABILITY_ DRIVEABILITY_ DRIVEABILITY_ DRIVEABILITY_
T 11 12 13 21 22 23 31 32 33
1 -1 2 2 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
2 -1 1 1 -2 -1 2 -1 -1 1
3 1 1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 -2 2
4 2 1 -1 1 -1 2 1 -3 1
5 2 1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 1 -2
6 -1 1 3 -1 -1 2 -1 -2 2
7 -1 -1 1 -2 1 1 -1 -3 1
8 -2 1 2 -2 -2 -1 -2 -3 -2
9 1 2 -1 -3 -1 -1 -3 -2 -2
10 -1 1 3 -1 1 2 -1 -3 1
11 1 2 2 -1 1 -1 -1 -2 -1
12 1 2 2 -1 1 1 -1 -2 2
13 -3 -1 1 -3 -1 1 -3 -3 -2
14 1 2 3 1 2 2 2 3 2
15 1 1 2 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 2
16 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
17 -1 2 -1 -2 2 2 -2 -1 -2
18 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2
19 1 1 1 1 2 2 -1 -2 -1
20 -2 1 2 1 1 -2 1 1 1
21 2 1 1 -2 2 3 -2 -3 3
22 -1 1 -1 -2 -1 1 -2 -3 1
23 3 -1 2 0 -1 3 -2 1 1
24 -1 2 2 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
25 -1 1 1 1 1 1 2 -1 1
26 1 1 1 -1 -1 1 1 -2 2
27 -2 1 1 2 3 -1 3 -1 -1
28 3 1 3 2 1 3 1 -2 1
29 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 -3 3
30 -1 1 2 -1 -2 2 -1 -3 1
31 -3 1 1 -2 -3 -3 -2 -2 -1
32 -2 -2 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3
33 -1 1 -1 1 2 2 1 -1 1
34 -1 1 1 -2 -1 -1 -2 -3 -1
35 2 2 2 1 -1 1 1 -2 3
36 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
37 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 -3 -3
38 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 -1 2
39 1 1 1 1 -3 1 -2 -3 1
40 -1 -1 -3 -2 -2 -1 -2 -2 -3
41 1 2 3 1 -2 -1 1 -3 -1
42 -1 3 3 1 -1 -1 1 -3 -3
43 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1
44 3 3 3 -3 -3 -3 3 -3 -3
45 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 -3 1
46 1 2 2 -2 1 1 -1 -2 1
47 1 3 2 -1 1 2 -3 -2 1
48 1 2 1 -1 1 1 1 1 2
49 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3
50 -1 2 2 -3 -1 1 -1 -3 1
51 1 2 2 2 -2 -2 3 -2 -2
52 0 3 2 -1 1 0 -2 -3 0
53 2 -1 -1 1 1 -2 3 -3 3
54 1 3 3 1 1 2 -1 -1 1
55 -1 2 2 -1 -1 1 -1 -2 -1
56 1 1 1 -1 1 1 -1 1 1
57 -1 1 2 -1 -2 1 1 -2 1
58 3 2 1 -1 1 1 2 2 2
SET A
SUB DRIVING_PERF DRIVING_PERF DRIVING_PERF DRIVING_PERF DRIVING_PERF DRIVING_PERF DRIVING_PERF DRIVING_PERF DRIVING_PERF
JECT ORMANCE_11 ORMANCE_12 ORMANCE_13 ORMANCE_21 ORMANCE_22 ORMANCE_23 ORMANCE_31 ORMANCE_32 ORMANCE_33
1 -1 2 2 -1 -1 2 -1 -1 -1
2 -2 1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 -2 1
3 -1 -1 -2 -1 1 -2 -1 -2 2
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 2 2 2 -2 2 2 -2 2 2
6 -1 -2 1 -1 1 1 -2 1 2
7 1 -1 1 -2 -2 1 -2 -3 1
8 1 -2 -3 -1 -2 -2 -1 -3 -1
9 1 -1 1 -3 -3 -1 -3 -3 -2
10 -2 -1 1 -3 1 -1 -3 -3 2
11 -1 -1 2 -2 -1 -1 -2 -1 2
12 1 1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 1 1
13 1 0 1 -2 -1 -1 -2 -3 -2
14 -1 1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1
15 1 1 -2 -1 1 1 -1 -2 2
16 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
17 -1 1 1 -2 -1 1 -2 -2 -2
18 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2
19 -1 2 2 -1 2 1 -1 -1 1
20 -3 1 1 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3
21 1 1 1 -1 3 1 -1 -3 3
22 1 -1 -1 -3 -2 1 -3 -3 -2
23 -1 1 -1 1 3 2 3 1 3
24 -1 2 2 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
25 -1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 -1
26 2 -2 -1 -2 -2 1 -1 -3 2
27 2 1 -3 2 2 -1 3 -2 2
28 2 1 1 2 1 1 -1 -2 3
29 1 -2 1 -1 1 -1 1 -3 2
30 -1 -1 2 -3 -2 1 -3 -3 1
31 -1 1 1 -2 -3 -1 -2 -1 -1
32 -2 2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2
33 2 -1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 -2 -1
34 -2 -1 1 -2 -2 -1 -2 -3 -2
35 -1 1 -2 -1 2 -1 -2 -1 3
36 -1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 -1 2
37 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 -3 -3
38 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2
39 1 2 2 1 -1 1 -2 -3 1
40 -1 -2 -1 -2 -2 -2 -2 -3 -3
41 -2 -2 3 -1 -1 2 2 -3 -1
42 -1 3 -1 -2 -2 2 1 -3 -3
43 1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 -1 1
44 3 3 3 -3 -3 3 -3 -3 3
45 -2 3 2 3 -2 -2 3 2 -3
46 2 -1 2 -2 -1 3 1 1 1
47 1 1 -1 -3 1 2 -3 -3 2
48 1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 1
49 -3 -2 -3 -3 -2 -3 -3 -3 -3
50 -3 -1 1 -3 1 -1 -3 -3 -1
51 3 3 2 2 -1 -2 3 -1 -1
52 -3 3 1 0 2 0 -2 -1 0
53 -2 -1 -2 2 -1 -2 -2 -3 2
54 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 2
55 -1 1 1 -1 -1 1 -2 -2 -1
56 1 1 1 -2 1 1 -2 -1 1
57 1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 -2 -1
58 1 -1 1 2 1 -1 1 -1 1
SET B
SUBJECT PRICE_11 PRICE_12 PRICE_13 PRICE_21 PRICE_22 PRICE_23 PRICE_31 PRICE_32 PRICE_33
1 2 1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -2 -1
2 2 3 3 -1 1 1 -2 -1 -2
3 1 2 1 -1 1 -1 -3 1 -2
4 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 1 2
5 1 3 3 -1 -1 2 2 3 1
6 -2 -2 -1 -2 -1 -1 -1 1 -1
7 -2 -1 2 1 1 2 -1 -1 -1
8 2 3 2 1 2 1 -2 -1 1
9 -2 2 1 -3 -1 -1 -3 -1 -2
10 2 2 3 -1 2 3 1 1 -1
11 1 2 2 -1 1 2 -2 -1 -1
12 2 1 1 -2 1 1 -1 -1 1
13 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 -2 1
14 3 2 1 1 1 1 2 -1 1
15 -1 1 -1 1 1 1 -1 1 1
16 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
17 2 1 1 -1 2 -2 -2 -2 -1
18 -2 -2 -1 -2 -2 2 1 -2 -2
19 -1 1 2 -3 -1 2 -2 -1 -2
20 1 1 2 -1 -2 1 1 -3 -1
21 1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 1
22 2 3 3 -1 3 3 -2 -1 -2
23 -2 -1 1 -1 -2 1 -1 -1 1
24 3 2 2 1 2 3 3 1 1
25 2 -1 -1 2 2 1 3 -1 -1
26 -2 -1 1 -2 -1 1 -1 -1 2
27 -1 1 2 -3 -3 3 -1 -2 1
28 1 3 3 -1 1 1 -2 -1 -1
29 -1 1 1 -1 1 1 -1 -2 -2
30 1 3 3 -2 1 3 -3 -3 1
31 -3 2 3 -2 1 1 -2 -1 -3
32 0 1 2 -3 -1 -2 -2 -3 -3
33 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 -2 -1 -1
34 1 2 2 -2 2 1 -1 1 -2
35 -1 1 1 -2 1 -1 1 2 -1
36 1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 1
37 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 -3 -3
38 3 2 2 2 3 3 -1 -1 -1
39 1 3 2 -3 2 -1 -1 -3 -3
40 -1 1 2 -2 1 2 -2 -1 -1
41 -1 -1 1 -1 2 2 -3 -2 1
42 3 2 -2 2 -2 -2 2 1 -2
43 3 1 1 -1 1 1 1 -1 -1
44 3 3 2 -1 3 3 1 -3 -3
45 1 2 3 -3 1 2 -1 1 -2
46 1 1 2 -2 -1 3 -1 1 2
47 3 1 2 -2 1 2 -2 -3 -3
48 2 -1 1 -1 -1 3 1 1 1
49 1 3 3 -2 3 1 -1 -2 -2
50 2 3 2 -1 2 1 1 -1 -2
51 2 -1 2 2 -1 -2 1 -3 1
52 1 3 2 0 0 0 -2 -1 -3
53 -1 1 2 -1 -1 -2 1 -2 -1
54 1 2 3 -1 2 3 -1 2 1
55 1 2 1 -1 -2 -2 -2 -2 -3
56 -1 2 -1 -2 1 -1 -1 -2 -2
57 2 1 1 -1 -1 2 -2 -1 -2
58 1 2 0 1 1 -1 -1 -1 1
0.793103448 1.275862069 1.379310345 -0.810344828 0.534482759 0.879310345 -0.603448276 -0.827586207 -0.724137931
SET B
SUBJE BUILD_QUALIT BUILD_QUALIT BUILD_QUALIT BUILD_QUALIT BUILD_QUALIT BUILD_QUALIT BUILD_QUALIT BUILD_QUALIT BUILD_QUALIT
CT Y_11 Y_12 Y_13 Y_21 Y_22 Y_23 Y_31 Y_32 Y_33
1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 -1 -1
2 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 -1 1
3 1 2 -2 -2 1 -2 -1 -1 1
4 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 2
5 1 1 1 -1 -2 1 -2 1 -2
6 -2 -2 -1 -3 1 -1 -1 3 -1
7 -1 -1 1 -2 -1 1 1 2 1
8 1 0 2 1 1 2 1 -1 2
9 -2 -1 2 -1 -2 1 -3 -3 -1
10 1 2 3 -1 1 2 -1 -1 -1
11 1 1 2 -1 1 2 -1 -1 -1
12 1 2 1 -2 -1 -1 2 1 -1
13 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 -2 -2
14 3 3 2 -1 3 2 2 2 3
15 -1 2 2 1 -1 1 -1 2 1
16 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
17 1 2 3 -2 1 1 -2 -1 -2
18 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2
19 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
20 1 2 1 -2 -2 1 1 -1 0
21 -2 1 1 -1 1 3 1 3 2
22 1 1 2 -2 1 1 -1 -1 -1
23 -2 -1 -1 -2 3 2 -1 -2 1
24 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2
25 2 -1 -1 1 2 1 2 0 1
26 -1 1 2 1 -1 2 -2 -1 -1
27 -3 -2 2 -3 1 3 -2 -1 -2
28 2 1 3 1 1 2 -1 2 1
29 1 1 2 -2 1 2 -1 -2 -1
30 2 2 3 -3 1 2 -3 -3 -2
31 3 3 3 -1 3 3 -1 3 3
32 1 -2 3 -2 -2 3 -2 -2 -2
33 -1 2 -1 -1 1 -2 2 2 1
34 1 1 2 -1 1 2 -1 -2 -1
35 1 1 1 2 1 2 -2 1 -1
36 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1
37 0 3 3 0 0 0 -3 -3 0
38 2 2 2 3 3 3 -1 2 2
39 3 2 2 -1 1 1 -1 -2 -1
40 -1 1 2 -1 1 2 -1 -1 2
41 1 2 3 -2 1 1 -2 -3 -2
42 2 2 2 2 3 -2 1 2 3
43 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1
44 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
45 3 2 2 -3 1 1 1 -2 1
46 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 2 2
47 2 1 2 -2 2 1 3 -1 1
48 -1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 -1 -1
49 2 1 2 -1 1 1 1 -2 -1
50 1 3 3 -3 2 2 -3 -3 -1
51 3 3 1 1 -3 -3 2 -3 -2
52 0 2 3 0 1 0 -1 -2 -3
53 2 2 -1 -1 -1 3 1 -1 2
54 2 3 3 -1 3 3 -1 2 -1
55 1 2 2 -2 -1 -2 -2 -2 -2
56 2 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 1
57 1 3 3 -1 3 2 -2 1 -1
58 -1 -1 -2 1 2 2 1 1 2
SET B
SUBJ DESIGN_EXECU DESIGN_EXECU DESIGN_EXECU DESIGN_EXECU DESIGN_EXECU DESIGN_EXECU DESIGN_EXECU DESIGN_EXECU DESIGN_EXECU
ECT TION_11 TION_12 TION_13 TION_21 TION_22 TION_23 TION_31 TION_32 TION _33
1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 -1 1
2 3 3 2 1 1 2 -1 -2 -1
3 2 1 1 1 -2 1 -1 -1 -2
4 -1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2
5 2 2 2 -3 2 2 -3 1 -2
6 -1 -2 1 -3 1 -1 -3 2 -2
7 1 2 3 -1 -1 2 -3 -2 -1
8 2 2 3 1 3 2 1 -1 1
9 -1 2 -1 1 -2 -2 -3 -3 -1
10 2 3 3 1 1 2 -2 1 -1
11 1 -1 2 -2 -1 -1 1 -2 -1
12 1 2 1 -2 -1 1 -1 -1 -1
13 3 2 2 1 0 1 2 -2 9
14 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 1
15 -2 -1 1 -2 -1 -1 1 2 -1
16 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3
17 3 1 1 -1 -1 1 -2 2 -1
18 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1
19 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3
20 3 1 3 -1 -1 1 -2 0 1
21 1 2 1 1 3 2 -2 2 3
22 1 2 2 -2 1 1 -2 -3 -2
23 3 2 -2 -2 -3 2 -1 -1 -1
24 2 2 2 1 -1 2 -1 -1 -1
25 2 1 -1 1 1 0 2 -1 1
26 -1 -1 1 -2 -1 1 -2 -3 1
27 1 2 3 -2 -2 2 2 -2 3
28 3 2 3 1 1 3 -2 -1 -3
29 1 -1 1 -2 -1 1 -2 -2 -1
30 -2 2 2 -3 1 1 -3 -3 1
31 -3 3 3 -3 3 3 1 -1 1
32 -2 -2 3 -2 -2 3 -2 -2 -2
33 -2 1 1 -2 2 -1 1 2 -1
34 2 1 1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 -1
35 -3 -3 -1 -3 -2 -2 -3 -3 -2
36 -1 1 1 -1 1 1 -1 1 -1
37 0 3 3 0 -3 0 -3 0 0
38 1 2 2 2 2 3 1 3 2
39 3 3 2 -1 1 1 -3 -3 -3
40 -1 -1 1 -2 1 2 -1 -1 1
41 1 1 2 -2 1 -1 -3 -3 -3
42 3 3 2 3 -1 1 3 1 -1
43 1 1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 1
44 3 3 3 3 -3 3 -3 -3 -3
45 3 2 2 -3 -2 2 -1 -1 -2
46 1 1 3 -1 2 3 -1 2 2
47 1 2 1 -1 2 3 -3 -3 1
48 1 1 1 -1 2 2 1 1 2
49 2 2 2 1 2 1 -2 -2 -1
50 1 2 2 -3 2 -1 -2 -3 -1
51 3 3 3 1 -3 -1 1 -3 -3
52 3 2 3 0 1 0 -2 -3 -1
53 -1 1 3 -2 -1 1 2 -1 -1
54 1 3 3 -1 3 3 -1 -1 -1
55 1 2 2 -2 -1 -1 -2 -2 -1
56 2 2 1 -2 1 -1 -2 -2 -1
57 3 2 2 -2 2 1 -2 -2 -1
58 2 -1 -1 1 1 2 -2 1 2
SET B
SUBJECT SAFETY_11 SAFETY_12 SAFETY_13 SAFETY_21 SAFETY_22 SAFETY_23 SAFETY_31 SAFETY_32 SAFETY_33
1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 2 2 -1 -1
2 2 2 3 -1 2 2 1 -2 -2
3 1 -1 2 -1 1 2 -1 -1 -1
4 1 3 2 2 2 2 1 3 2
5 1 1 1 -2 -2 -2 -3 -3 -2
6 -2 -3 -1 -3 -1 1 -1 2 -3
7 -2 2 -1 -3 -1 1 1 -1 -1
8 3 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 3
9 -2 -1 -1 -2 -2 1 -3 -3 -2
10 2 1 3 -1 2 3 -1 1 -1
11 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2
12 2 -1 1 -2 -1 1 1 -2 1
13 1 1 2 -2 -1 3 -2 -2 -1
14 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
15 -1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 -1
16 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
17 1 2 2 -2 2 1 1 -3 -2
18 -1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 -1 -1
19 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2
20 1 1 -1 0 1 -1 -1 -1 -1
21 -1 1 1 -1 1 2 -2 1 1
22 1 1 2 -3 -1 1 -1 -2 -1
23 -2 -1 1 0 1 -1 -1 -2 1
24 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 -1 2
25 2 1 1 2 1 -1 2 -1 1
26 1 1 1 1 1 2 -1 -1 1
27 -1 0 1 -2 -1 2 -2 -3 -1
28 3 3 3 1 2 2 1 1 1
29 1 1 1 -2 -1 1 -1 -2 -1
30 -2 3 -1 -3 2 3 2 -3 -1
31 -3 3 3 -3 3 3 1 1 3
32 3 3 3 -2 -2 3 -2 -2 -2
33 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 1 -1 -1
34 2 1 1 -2 -1 1 -2 -2 -1
35 -1 1 1 -1 1 2 -1 -1 -1
36 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 1
37 0 0 3 0 0 3 -3 0 -3
38 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2
39 3 3 2 -1 2 2 -3 -1 -3
40 -1 2 2 -2 1 2 -1 -2 1
41 1 1 3 -2 1 -1 -1 -3 -1
42 2 3 3 2 2 -1 2 1 -1
43 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
44 3 3 3 -3 3 -3 3 -3 3
45 3 3 3 -1 3 3 -1 -1 1
46 1 2 2 -1 2 2 -2 1 2
47 -1 1 1 -3 2 3 -2 -2 -1
48 1 1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 -1
49 2 2 2 -1 1 2 -1 -1 -1
50 2 -1 1 -3 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
51 3 3 2 1 -1 -2 1 -2 -2
52 2 0 3 0 1 0 -1 -3 -2
53 3 3 -1 1 2 -1 1 1 -1
54 2 3 3 -1 2 2 -1 -2 1
55 -1 2 2 -2 1 1 -1 -3 -1
56 2 1 2 -1 2 2 -2 -1 -1
57 2 1 1 -1 1 1 -1 -2 -1
58 2 1 1 1 -1 2 2 2 2
SET B
SUBJEC DRIVEABILITY_ DRIVEABILITY_ DRIVEABILITY_ DRIVEABILITY_ DRIVEABILITY_ DRIVEABILITY_ DRIVEABILITY_ DRIVEABILITY_ DRIVEABILITY_
T 11 12 13 21 22 23 31 32 33
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1
2 3 3 -1 -1 1 2 -1 -2 -1
3 -2 1 2 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 1
4 2 3 3 2 1 2 1 2 3
5 -1 2 2 -2 -1 -2 -1 -2 -2
6 -3 1 2 -2 2 -2 -2 3 -2
7 -1 -1 2 -1 1 1 -2 -1 -2
8 2 2 2 -1 1 1 1 -1 1
9 1 1 2 -1 -1 1 -2 -1 -2
10 1 1 2 1 1 2 -2 2 1
11 1 1 3 -1 1 3 -1 1 1
12 2 2 1 1 1 -1 1 -1 1
13 2 2 2 -2 1 1 1 -2 1
14 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3
15 -2 -2 1 -2 -1 1 -1 1 -2
16 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
17 3 2 2 2 2 2 -1 -2 2
18 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1
19 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2
20 -1 1 1 -2 -3 2 -2 -3 -1
21 -1 1 1 -1 2 2 -1 2 2
22 1 1 1 -3 -2 -1 -1 -3 -2
23 -1 1 1 1 -1 3 -1 2 3
24 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 -1
25 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 -1 -1
26 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
27 -2 -2 2 -3 -3 -2 -1 3 -2
28 2 3 3 1 2 2 1 2 1
29 1 -1 1 -3 -1 -1 -2 -1 -2
30 -1 -1 3 -3 1 2 -1 -2 -2
31 -2 3 2 -2 -2 3 -2 -2 -2
32 3 -1 3 -1 -1 3 -1 -1 3
33 2 2 2 2 2 2 -1 -1 1
34 1 2 2 -1 1 1 -1 -2 -1
35 1 1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 -1
36 1 -1 1 -1 1 1 1 -1 1
37 0 3 3 -3 0 0 0 0 -3
38 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2
39 3 3 3 1 3 2 -2 -2 -2
40 1 2 2 -1 2 2 -1 -1 -1
41 -1 1 3 -2 -1 2 -2 -3 -3
42 3 1 -2 3 3 1 2 -1 -1
43 1 1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1
44 3 -3 3 -3 -3 3 -3 -3 3
45 1 2 1 -3 1 1 2 2 1
46 1 2 2 -1 2 2 -1 2 1
47 2 2 1 -1 3 2 1 -2 2
48 -1 1 2 -1 1 2 1 1 1
49 1 1 2 -2 -1 1 -1 -2 -1
50 2 1 2 -3 1 1 -1 -1 -1
51 3 3 2 -1 -2 -1 2 -2 -1
52 1 2 3 0 0 0 -2 -3 -1
53 2 1 1 -2 -1 -1 3 3 -1
54 3 3 3 -1 2 2 -1 -1 1
55 -1 2 2 -2 -1 1 -2 -2 -2
56 1 1 1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 1
57 1 2 2 -1 1 1 -1 -1 -1
58 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 -1
SET B
SUB DRIVING_PERF DRIVING_PERF DRIVING_PERF DRIVING_PERF DRIVING_PERF DRIVING_PERF DRIVING_PERF DRIVING_PERF DRIVING_PERF
JECT ORMANCE_11 ORMANCE_12 ORMANCE_13 ORMANCE_21 ORMANCE_22 ORMANCE_23 ORMANCE_31 ORMANCE_32 ORMANCE_33
1 2 2 2 -1 1 2 1 1 1
2 3 3 3 3 2 1 1 -1 -1
3 1 2 2 -2 -1 1 -2 -2 -1
4 1 1 2 -1 1 2 1 1 2
5 2 3 3 -2 -2 -1 2 1 -2
6 -2 1 1 -2 1 -1 -2 1 -1
7 1 1 2 -2 2 -1 -3 -1 -1
8 1 3 2 -1 -1 1 -2 -1 -1
9 -1 1 1 -2 -2 -1 -3 -2 -3
10 -1 2 3 -3 1 1 -2 -1 -1
11 1 2 2 -1 2 1 -1 -1 -1
12 3 2 1 -2 1 -1 1 1 1
13 3 2 3 -1 1 2 -1 -1 -1
14 1 2 1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 2
15 -2 -2 2 -2 -2 1 -1 1 -2
16 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
17 1 2 3 1 2 2 -2 -2 1
18 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
19 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2
20 -1 2 1 1 -1 2 -2 -2 1
21 -1 2 2 -1 -1 2 -1 3 3
22 1 1 1 -3 -2 -1 -2 -2 -3
23 -3 -2 2 1 1 2 -2 -2 2
24 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1
25 2 1 -1 2 1 -1 1 -1 -1
26 -2 -2 1 -2 -2 1 -2 -2 -2
27 -2 -3 1 -3 2 0 -1 3 1
28 2 3 2 -2 1 2 -2 1 1
29 1 1 1 -2 -2 -1 -2 -1 -2
30 -1 2 3 -3 1 -1 -3 -3 -2
31 -2 1 2 -2 1 1 -3 -3 -2
32 -2 3 3 -2 -2 3 -2 -2 -2
33 -3 -1 -2 -2 -1 -1 -2 2 -1
34 2 2 2 -2 1 1 -2 -2 -1
35 -2 -1 -1 -3 -2 -1 -3 -2 -2
36 -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1
37 0 0 3 0 3 0 -3 0 -3
38 2 2 3 2 2 3 1 2 2
39 3 3 3 1 1 2 -1 -3 -1
40 -1 1 2 -2 1 2 -2 -1 -1
41 -1 1 2 -2 -2 3 -3 -2 -3
42 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 -1 2
43 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
44 3 -3 3 -3 3 3 -3 -3 3
45 2 -2 -3 -3 -2 2 -2 -3 -2
46 2 2 3 -1 2 3 -1 -1 3
47 -1 -1 2 -2 1 -2 1 -3 2
48 1 -1 1 -1 1 2 1 1 -1
49 2 2 2 2 1 1 -1 -2 -1
50 1 2 2 -3 -3 1 -3 -1 -3
51 3 3 2 -1 -2 -2 -1 -3 -2
52 1 0 3 -3 2 0 0 -2 1
53 3 -1 2 -2 -2 1 2 1 -2
54 2 3 3 -1 -1 2 -1 1 -1
55 -1 2 2 -2 1 1 -2 -2 -1
56 1 1 2 -1 1 1 -1 -1 1
57 2 2 3 -1 2 1 -1 -1 -1
58 1 -1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 -1
6.3.2. SPSS ANOVA analysis
SET A
SAVE OUTFILE='C:\Users\Ryan\Documents\12F\Islas Project\Data_Islas.sav'
/COMPRESSED.
GLM Price_11 Price_12 Price_13 Price_21 Price_22 Price_23 Price_31 Price_32 Price_33
/MEASURE=BQ
/METHOD=SSTYPE(3)
/PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE ETASQ
/CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05)
*HQHUDO/LQHDU0RGHO3ULFH
1RWHV
Comments
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
/WSFACTOR=Harmony 3 Polynomial
Complexity 3 Polynomial
/MEASURE=BQ
/METHOD=SSTYPE(3)
/PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE ETASQ
/CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05)
/WSDESIGN=Harmony Complexity
Harmony*Complexity.
Measure:Price
Dependent
Harmony Complexity Variable
1 1 Price_11
2 Price_12
3 Price_13
2 1 Price_21
2 Price_22
3 Price_23
3 1 Price_31
2 Price_32
3 Price_33
'HVFULSWLYH6WDWLVWLFV
E
0XOWLYDULDWH7HVWV
a
Harmony Pillai's Trace .294 11.669 2.000 56.000 .000 .294
a
Wilks' Lambda .706 11.669 2.000 56.000 .000 .294
a
Hotelling's Trace .417 11.669 2.000 56.000 .000 .294
a
Roy's Largest .417 11.669 2.000 56.000 .000 .294
Root
a
Complexity Pillai's Trace .326 13.572 2.000 56.000 .000 .326
a
Wilks' Lambda .674 13.572 2.000 56.000 .000 .326
a
Hotelling's Trace .485 13.572 2.000 56.000 .000 .326
a
Roy's Largest .485 13.572 2.000 56.000 .000 .326
Root
a
Harmony * Pillai's Trace .304 5.908 4.000 54.000 .001 .304
Complexity
a
Wilks' Lambda .696 5.908 4.000 54.000 .001 .304
a
Hotelling's Trace .438 5.908 4.000 54.000 .001 .304
a
Roy's Largest .438 5.908 4.000 54.000 .001 .304
Root
a. Exact statistic
b. Design: Intercept
E
0DXFKO\
V7HVWRI6SKHULFLW\
Measure:Price
a
Epsilon
Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is
proportional to an identity matrix.
E
0DXFKO\
V7HVWRI6SKHULFLW\
Measure:Price
a
Epsilon
Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is
proportional to an identity matrix.
a. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are
displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.
b. Design: Intercept
7HVWVRI:LWKLQ6XEMHFWV(IIHFWV
Measure:Price
ity)
Greenhouse-Geisser 504.617 202.371 2.494
7HVWVRI:LWKLQ6XEMHFWV&RQWUDVWV
Measure:Price
Measure:Price
Transformed Variable:Average
/MEASURE=BQ
/METHOD=SSTYPE(3)
/PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE ETASQ
/CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05)
*HQHUDO/LQHDU0RGHO
1RWHV
Comments
Input Data C:\Users\Ryan\Documents\12F\Islas
Project\Data_Islas.sav
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
/WSFACTOR=Harmony 3 Polynomial
Complexity 3 Polynomial
/MEASURE=BQ
/METHOD=SSTYPE(3)
/PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE ETASQ
/CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05)
/WSDESIGN=Harmony Complexity
Harmony*Complexity.
:LWKLQ6XEMHFWV)DFWRUV
Measure:Build_Quality
Dependent
Harmony Complexity Variable
1 1 Build_Quality_1
1
2 Build_Quality_1
2
3 Build_Quality_1
3
2 1 Build_Quality_2
1
2 Build_Quality_2
2
3 Build_Quality_2
3
3 1 Build_Quality_3
1
2 Build_Quality_3
2
3 Build_Quality_3
3
'HVFULSWLYH6WDWLVWLFV
E
0XOWLYDULDWH7HVWV
a
Harmony Pillai's Trace .394 18.191 2.000 56.000 .000 .394
a
Wilks' Lambda .606 18.191 2.000 56.000 .000 .394
a
Hotelling's Trace .650 18.191 2.000 56.000 .000 .394
a
Roy's Largest .650 18.191 2.000 56.000 .000 .394
Root
a
Complexity Pillai's Trace .358 15.644 2.000 56.000 .000 .358
a
Wilks' Lambda .642 15.644 2.000 56.000 .000 .358
a
Hotelling's Trace .559 15.644 2.000 56.000 .000 .358
a
Roy's Largest .559 15.644 2.000 56.000 .000 .358
Root
a
Harmony * Pillai's Trace .350 7.276 4.000 54.000 .000 .350
Complexity
a
Wilks' Lambda .650 7.276 4.000 54.000 .000 .350
a
Hotelling's Trace .539 7.276 4.000 54.000 .000 .350
a
Roy's Largest .539 7.276 4.000 54.000 .000 .350
Root
a. Exact statistic
b. Design: Intercept
E
0DXFKO\
V7HVWRI6SKHULFLW\
Measure:Build_Quality
a
Epsilon
Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is
proportional to an identity matrix.
E
0DXFKO\
V7HVWRI6SKHULFLW\
Measure:Build_Quality
a
Epsilon
Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is
proportional to an identity matrix.
a. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are
displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.
b. Design: Intercept
7HVWVRI:LWKLQ6XEMHFWV(IIHFWV
Measure:Build_Quality
ity)
Greenhouse-Geisser 475.031 214.137 2.218
Measure:Build Quality
xity)
Quadratic 136.967 57 2.403
Measure:Build Quality
Transformed Variable:Average
/METHOD=SSTYPE(3)
/PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE ETASQ
/CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05)
*HQHUDO/LQHDU0RGHO
1RWHV
Comments
Weight <none>
/WSFACTOR=Harmony 3 Polynomial
Complexity 3 Polynomial
/METHOD=SSTYPE(3)
/PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE ETASQ
/CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05)
/WSDESIGN=Harmony Complexity
Harmony*Complexity.
[DataSet0] C:\Users\Ryan\Documents\12F\Islas Project\Data_Islas.sav
:LWKLQ6XEMHFWV)DFWRUV
Measure:Design_Execution
Dependent
Harmony Complexity Variable
1 1 Design_Executi
on_11
2 Design_Executi
on_12
3 Design_Executi
on_13
2 1 Design_Executi
on_21
2 Design_Executi
on_22
3 Design_Executi
on_23
3 1 Design_Executi
on_31
2 Design_Executi
on_32
3 Design_Executi
on_33
'HVFULSWLYH6WDWLVWLFV
E
0XOWLYDULDWH7HVWV
a
Harmony Pillai's Trace .448 22.682 2.000 56.000 .000 .448
a
Wilks' Lambda .552 22.682 2.000 56.000 .000 .448
a
Hotelling's Trace .810 22.682 2.000 56.000 .000 .448
a
Roy's Largest .810 22.682 2.000 56.000 .000 .448
Root
a
Complexity Pillai's Trace .375 16.806 2.000 56.000 .000 .375
a
Wilks' Lambda .625 16.806 2.000 56.000 .000 .375
a
Hotelling's Trace .600 16.806 2.000 56.000 .000 .375
a
Roy's Largest .600 16.806 2.000 56.000 .000 .375
Root
a
Harmony * Pillai's Trace .345 7.117 4.000 54.000 .000 .345
Complexity
a
Wilks' Lambda .655 7.117 4.000 54.000 .000 .345
a
Hotelling's Trace .527 7.117 4.000 54.000 .000 .345
a
Roy's Largest .527 7.117 4.000 54.000 .000 .345
Root
a. Exact statistic
b. Design: Intercept
E
0DXFKO\
V7HVWRI6SKHULFLW\
Measure:Design_Execution
a
Epsilon
Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is
proportional to an identity matrix.
E
0DXFKO\
V7HVWRI6SKHULFLW\
Measure:Design_Execution
a
Epsilon
Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is
proportional to an identity matrix.
a. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are
displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.
b. Design: Intercept
7HVWVRI:LWKLQ6XEMHFWV(IIHFWV
Measure:Design_Execution
Measure:Design_Execution
xity)
Quadratic 91.741 57 1.609
Measure:Design_Execution
Transformed Variable:Average
GLM Safety_11 Safety_12 Safety_13 Safety_21 Safety_22 Safety_23 Safety_31 Safety_32 Safety_33
/METHOD=SSTYPE(3)
/PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE ETASQ
/CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05)
*HQHUDO/LQHDU0RGHO
RWHV
Comments
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
/WSFACTOR=Harmony 3 Polynomial
Complexity 3 Polynomial
/METHOD=SSTYPE(3)
/PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE ETASQ
/CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05)
/WSDESIGN=Harmony Complexity
Harmony*Complexity.
Measure:Safety
Dependent
Harmony Complexity Variable
1 1 Safety_11
2 Safety_12
3 Safety_13
2 1 Safety_21
2 Safety_22
3 Safety_23
3 1 Safety_31
2 Safety_32
3 Safety_33
'HVFULSWLYH6WDWLVWLFV
E
0XOWLYDULDWH7HVWV
a
Harmony Pillai's Trace .533 31.934 2.000 56.000 .000 .533
a
Wilks' Lambda .467 31.934 2.000 56.000 .000 .533
a
Hotelling's Trace 1.141 31.934 2.000 56.000 .000 .533
a
Roy's Largest 1.141 31.934 2.000 56.000 .000 .533
Root
a
Complexity Pillai's Trace .317 13.015 2.000 56.000 .000 .317
a
Wilks' Lambda .683 13.015 2.000 56.000 .000 .317
a
Hotelling's Trace .465 13.015 2.000 56.000 .000 .317
a
Roy's Largest .465 13.015 2.000 56.000 .000 .317
Root
a
Harmony * Pillai's Trace .234 4.114 4.000 54.000 .006 .234
Complexity
a
Wilks' Lambda .766 4.114 4.000 54.000 .006 .234
a
Hotelling's Trace .305 4.114 4.000 54.000 .006 .234
a
Roy's Largest .305 4.114 4.000 54.000 .006 .234
Root
a. Exact statistic
b. Design: Intercept
E
0DXFKO\
V7HVWRI6SKHULFLW\
Measure:Safety
a
Epsilon
Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is
proportional to an identity matrix.
E
0DXFKO\
V7HVWRI6SKHULFLW\
Measure:Safety
a
Epsilon
Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is
proportional to an identity matrix.
a. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are
displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.
b. Design: Intercept
7HVWVRI:LWKLQ6XEMHFWV(IIHFWV
Measure:Safety
Measure:Safety
xity)
Quadratic 86.047 57 1.510
7HVWVRI%HWZHHQ6XEMHFWV(IIHFWV
Measure:MEASURE_1
Transformed Variable:Average
/METHOD=SSTYPE(3)
/PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE ETASQ
/CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05)
*HQHUDO/LQHDU0RGHO
1RWHV
Comments
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
/WSFACTOR=Harmony 3 Polynomial
Complexity 3 Polynomial
/METHOD=SSTYPE(3)
/PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE ETASQ
/CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05)
/WSDESIGN=Harmony Complexity
Harmony*Complexity.
Measure:Driveability
Dependent
Harmony Complexity Variable
1 1 Driveability_11
2 Driveability_12
3 Driveability_13
2 1 Driveability_21
2 Driveability_22
3 Driveability_23
3 1 Driveability_31
2 Driveability_32
3 Driveability_33
'HVFULSWLYH6WDWLVWLFV
E
0XOWLYDULDWH7HVWV
a
Harmony Pillai's Trace .612 44.124 2.000 56.000 .000 .612
a
Wilks' Lambda .388 44.124 2.000 56.000 .000 .612
a
Hotelling's Trace 1.576 44.124 2.000 56.000 .000 .612
a
Roy's Largest 1.576 44.124 2.000 56.000 .000 .612
Root
a
Complexity Pillai's Trace .292 11.532 2.000 56.000 .000 .292
a
Wilks' Lambda .708 11.532 2.000 56.000 .000 .292
a
Hotelling's Trace .412 11.532 2.000 56.000 .000 .292
a
Roy's Largest .412 11.532 2.000 56.000 .000 .292
Root
a
Harmony * Pillai's Trace .571 18.001 4.000 54.000 .000 .571
Complexity
a
Wilks' Lambda .429 18.001 4.000 54.000 .000 .571
a
Hotelling's Trace 1.333 18.001 4.000 54.000 .000 .571
a
Roy's Largest 1.333 18.001 4.000 54.000 .000 .571
Root
a. Exact statistic
b. Design: Intercept
E
0DXFKO\
V7HVWRI6SKHULFLW\
Measure:Driveability
a
Epsilon
Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is
proportional to an identity matrix.
E
0DXFKO\
V7HVWRI6SKHULFLW\
Measure:Driveability
a
Epsilon
Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is
proportional to an identity matrix.
a. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are
displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.
b. Design: Intercept
7HVWVRI:LWKLQ6XEMHFWV(IIHFWV
Measure:Driveability
ity)
Greenhouse-Geisser 299.479 180.714 1.657
Measure:Driveability
xity)
Quadratic 63.908 57 1.121
Measure:Driveability
Transformed Variable:Average
/METHOD=SSTYPE(3)
/PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE ETASQ
/CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05)
*HQHUDO/LQHDU0RGHO
1RWHV
Comments
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
/WSFACTOR=Harmony 3 Polynomial
Complexity 3 Polynomial
/METHOD=SSTYPE(3)
/PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE ETASQ
/CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05)
/WSDESIGN=Harmony Complexity
Harmony*Complexity.
:LWKLQ6XEMHFWV)DFWRUV
Measure:Driving_Performance
Dependent
Harmony Complexity Variable
1 1 Driving_Perform
ance_11
2 Driving_Perform
ance_12
3 Driving_Perform
ance_13
2 1 Driving_Perform
ance_21
2 Driving_Perform
ance_22
3 Driving_Perform
ance_23
3 1 Driving_Perform
ance_31
2 Driving_Perform
ance_32
3 Driving_Perform
ance_33
'HVFULSWLYH6WDWLVWLFV
E
0XOWLYDULDWH7HVWV
a
Harmony Pillai's Trace .384 17.453 2.000 56.000 .000 .384
a
Wilks' Lambda .616 17.453 2.000 56.000 .000 .384
a
Hotelling's Trace .623 17.453 2.000 56.000 .000 .384
a
Roy's Largest .623 17.453 2.000 56.000 .000 .384
Root
a
Complexity Pillai's Trace .310 12.574 2.000 56.000 .000 .310
a
Wilks' Lambda .690 12.574 2.000 56.000 .000 .310
a
Hotelling's Trace .449 12.574 2.000 56.000 .000 .310
a
Roy's Largest .449 12.574 2.000 56.000 .000 .310
Root
a
Harmony * Pillai's Trace .431 10.217 4.000 54.000 .000 .431
Complexity
a
Wilks' Lambda .569 10.217 4.000 54.000 .000 .431
a
Hotelling's Trace .757 10.217 4.000 54.000 .000 .431
a
Roy's Largest .757 10.217 4.000 54.000 .000 .431
Root
a. Exact statistic
b. Design: Intercept
E
0DXFKO\
V7HVWRI6SKHULFLW\
Measure:Driving_Performance
a
Epsilon
Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is
proportional to an identity matrix.
E
0DXFKO\
V7HVWRI6SKHULFLW\
Measure:Driving_Performance
a
Epsilon
Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is
proportional to an identity matrix.
a. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are
displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.
b. Design: Intercept
7HVWVRI:LWKLQ6XEMHFWV(IIHFWV
Measure:MEASURE_1
Measure:Driving_Performance
xity)
Quadratic 73.346 57 1.287
Measure:Driving_Performance
Transformed Variable:Average
/COMPRESSED.
GLM Price_11 Price_12 Price_13 Price_21 Price_22 Price_23 Price_31 Price_32 Price_33
/MEASURE=Price
/METHOD=SSTYPE(3)
/PLOT=PROFILE(Harmony*Complexity)
/PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE ETASQ
/CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05)
*HQHUDO/LQHDU0RGHO
1RWHV
Comments
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
/WSFACTOR=Harmony 3 Polynomial
Complexity 3 Polynomial
/MEASURE=Price
/METHOD=SSTYPE(3)
/PLOT=PROFILE(Harmony*Complexit
y)
/PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE ETASQ
/CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05)
/WSDESIGN=Harmony Complexity
Harmony*Complexity.
[DataSet0] C:\Users\Ryan\Documents\12F\Islas Project\Data_IslasB.sav
:LWKLQ6XEMHFWV)DFWRUV
Measure:Price
Dependent
Harmony Complexity Variable
1 1 Price_11
2 Price_12
3 Price_13
2 1 Price_21
2 Price_22
3 Price_23
3 1 Price_31
2 Price_32
3 Price_33
'HVFULSWLYH6WDWLVWLFV
E
0XOWLYDULDWH7HVWV
a
Harmony Pillai's Trace .584 39.329 2.000 56.000 .000 .584
a
Wilks' Lambda .416 39.329 2.000 56.000 .000 .584
a
Hotelling's Trace 1.405 39.329 2.000 56.000 .000 .584
a
Roy's Largest 1.405 39.329 2.000 56.000 .000 .584
Root
a
Complexity Pillai's Trace .197 6.856 2.000 56.000 .002 .197
a
Wilks' Lambda .803 6.856 2.000 56.000 .002 .197
a
Hotelling's Trace .245 6.856 2.000 56.000 .002 .197
a
Roy's Largest .245 6.856 2.000 56.000 .002 .197
Root
a
Harmony * Pillai's Trace .406 9.214 4.000 54.000 .000 .406
Complexity
a
Wilks' Lambda .594 9.214 4.000 54.000 .000 .406
a
Hotelling's Trace .683 9.214 4.000 54.000 .000 .406
a
Roy's Largest .683 9.214 4.000 54.000 .000 .406
Root
a. Exact statistic
b. Design: Intercept
E
0DXFKO\
V7HVWRI6SKHULFLW\
Measure:Price
a
Epsilon
Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is
proportional to an identity matrix.
a. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are
displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.
b. Design: Intercept
Measure:Price
ity)
Greenhouse-Geisser 264.966 205.319 1.291
7HVWVRI:LWKLQ6XEMHFWV&RQWUDVWV
Measure:Price
7HVWVRI%HWZHHQ6XEMHFWV(IIHFWV
Measure:Price
Transformed Variable:Average
/MEASURE=Build_Quality
/METHOD=SSTYPE(3)
/PLOT=PROFILE(Harmony*Complexity)
/PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE ETASQ
/CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05)
1RWHV
Comments
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
/WSFACTOR=Harmony 3 Polynomial
Complexity 3 Polynomial
/MEASURE=Build_Quality
/METHOD=SSTYPE(3)
/PLOT=PROFILE(Harmony*Complexit
y)
/PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE ETASQ
/CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05)
/WSDESIGN=Harmony Complexity
Harmony*Complexity.
Measure:Build_Quality
Dependent
Harmony Complexity Variable
1 1 Build_Quality_1
1
2 Build_Quality_1
2
3 Build_Quality_1
3
2 1 Build_Quality_2
1
2 Build_Quality_2
2
3 Build_Quality_2
3
3 1 Build_Quality_3
1
2 Build_Quality_3
2
3 Build_Quality_3
3
'HVFULSWLYH6WDWLVWLFV
E
0XOWLYDULDWH7HVWV
a
Harmony Pillai's Trace .362 15.906 2.000 56.000 .000 .362
a
Wilks' Lambda .638 15.906 2.000 56.000 .000 .362
a
Hotelling's Trace .568 15.906 2.000 56.000 .000 .362
a
Roy's Largest .568 15.906 2.000 56.000 .000 .362
Root
a
Complexity Pillai's Trace .342 14.523 2.000 56.000 .000 .342
a
Wilks' Lambda .658 14.523 2.000 56.000 .000 .342
a
Hotelling's Trace .519 14.523 2.000 56.000 .000 .342
a
Roy's Largest .519 14.523 2.000 56.000 .000 .342
Root
a
Harmony * Pillai's Trace .301 5.823 4.000 54.000 .001 .301
Complexity
a
Wilks' Lambda .699 5.823 4.000 54.000 .001 .301
a
Hotelling's Trace .431 5.823 4.000 54.000 .001 .301
a
Roy's Largest .431 5.823 4.000 54.000 .001 .301
Root
a. Exact statistic
b. Design: Intercept
E
0DXFKO\
V7HVWRI6SKHULFLW\
Measure:Build_Quality
a
Epsilon
Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is
proportional to an identity matrix.
E
0DXFKO\
V7HVWRI6SKHULFLW\
Measure:Build_Quality
a
Epsilon
Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is
proportional to an identity matrix.
a. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are
displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.
b. Design: Intercept
7HVWVRI:LWKLQ6XEMHFWV(IIHFWV
Measure:Build_Quality
ity)
Greenhouse-Geisser 270.184 202.701 1.333
Measure:Build_Quality
xity)
Quadratic 69.362 57 1.217
Measure:Build_Quality
Transformed Variable:Average
/MEASURE=Design_Execution
/METHOD=SSTYPE(3)
/PLOT=PROFILE(Harmony*Complexity)
/PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE ETASQ
/CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05)
*HQHUDO/LQHDU0RGHO
1RWHV
Comments
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
/WSFACTOR=Harmony 3 Polynomial
Complexity 3 Polynomial
/MEASURE=Design_Execution
/METHOD=SSTYPE(3)
/PLOT=PROFILE(Harmony*Complexit
y)
/PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE ETASQ
/CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05)
/WSDESIGN=Harmony Complexity
Harmony*Complexity.
Measure:Design_Execution
Dependent
Harmony Complexity Variable
1 1 Design_Executi
on_11
2 Design_Executi
on_12
3 Design_Executi
on_13
2 1 Design_Executi
on_21
2 Design_Executi
on_22
3 Design_Executi
on_23
3 1 Design_Executi
on_31
2 Design_Executi
on_32
3 Design_Executi
on_33
'HVFULSWLYH6WDWLVWLFV
E
0XOWLYDULDWH7HVWV
a
Harmony Pillai's Trace .567 36.660 2.000 56.000 .000 .567
a
Wilks' Lambda .433 36.660 2.000 56.000 .000 .567
a
Hotelling's Trace 1.309 36.660 2.000 56.000 .000 .567
a
Roy's Largest 1.309 36.660 2.000 56.000 .000 .567
Root
a
Complexity Pillai's Trace .398 18.475 2.000 56.000 .000 .398
a
Wilks' Lambda .602 18.475 2.000 56.000 .000 .398
a
Hotelling's Trace .660 18.475 2.000 56.000 .000 .398
a
Roy's Largest .660 18.475 2.000 56.000 .000 .398
Root
a
Harmony * Pillai's Trace .295 5.638 4.000 54.000 .001 .295
Complexity
a
Wilks' Lambda .705 5.638 4.000 54.000 .001 .295
a
Hotelling's Trace .418 5.638 4.000 54.000 .001 .295
a
Roy's Largest .418 5.638 4.000 54.000 .001 .295
Root
a. Exact statistic
b. Design: Intercept
E
0DXFKO\
V7HVWRI6SKHULFLW\
Measure:Design_Execution
a
Epsilon
Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is
proportional to an identity matrix.
E
0DXFKO\
V7HVWRI6SKHULFLW\
Measure:Design_Execution
a
Epsilon
Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is
proportional to an identity matrix.
a. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are
displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.
b. Design: Intercept
7HVWVRI:LWKLQ6XEMHFWV(IIHFWV
Measure:Design_Execution
Measure:Design_Execution
xity)
Quadratic 101.529 57 1.781
Measure:Design_Execution
Transformed Variable:Average
GLM Safety_11 Safety_12 Safety_13 Safety_21 Safety_22 Safety_23 Safety_31 Safety_32 Safety_33
/MEASURE=Safety
/METHOD=SSTYPE(3)
/PLOT=PROFILE(Harmony*Complexity)
/PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE ETASQ
/CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05)
1RWHV
Comments
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
/WSFACTOR=Harmony 3 Polynomial
Complexity 3 Polynomial
/MEASURE=Safety
/METHOD=SSTYPE(3)
/PLOT=PROFILE(Harmony*Complexit
y)
/PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE ETASQ
/CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05)
/WSDESIGN=Harmony Complexity
Harmony*Complexity.
Measure:Safety
Dependent
Harmony Complexity Variable
1 1 Safety_11
2 Safety_12
3 Safety_13
2 1 Safety_21
2 Safety_22
3 Safety_23
3 1 Safety_31
2 Safety_32
3 Safety_33
'HVFULSWLYH6WDWLVWLFV
a
Harmony Pillai's Trace .535 32.213 2.000 56.000 .000 .535
a
Wilks' Lambda .465 32.213 2.000 56.000 .000 .535
a
Hotelling's Trace 1.150 32.213 2.000 56.000 .000 .535
a
Roy's Largest 1.150 32.213 2.000 56.000 .000 .535
Root
a
Complexity Pillai's Trace .254 9.554 2.000 56.000 .000 .254
a
Wilks' Lambda .746 9.554 2.000 56.000 .000 .254
a
Hotelling's Trace .341 9.554 2.000 56.000 .000 .254
a
Roy's Largest .341 9.554 2.000 56.000 .000 .254
Root
a
Harmony * Pillai's Trace .450 11.045 4.000 54.000 .000 .450
Complexity
a
Wilks' Lambda .550 11.045 4.000 54.000 .000 .450
a
Hotelling's Trace .818 11.045 4.000 54.000 .000 .450
a
Roy's Largest .818 11.045 4.000 54.000 .000 .450
Root
a. Exact statistic
b. Design: Intercept
Measure:Safety
a
Epsilon
Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is
proportional to an identity matrix.
a. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are
displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.
b. Design: Intercept
7HVWVRI:LWKLQ6XEMHFWV(IIHFWV
Measure:Safety
ity)
Greenhouse-Geisser 312.644 195.472 1.599
7HVWVRI:LWKLQ6XEMHFWV&RQWUDVWV
Measure:Safety
7HVWVRI%HWZHHQ6XEMHFWV(IIHFWV
Measure:Safety
Transformed Variable:Average
/MEASURE=Driveability
/METHOD=SSTYPE(3)
/PLOT=PROFILE(Harmony*Complexity)
/PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE ETASQ
/CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05)
*HQHUDO/LQHDU0RGHO
1RWHV
Comments
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
/WSFACTOR=Harmony 3 Polynomial
Complexity 3 Polynomial
/MEASURE=Driveability
/METHOD=SSTYPE(3)
/PLOT=PROFILE(Harmony*Complexit
y)
/PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE ETASQ
/CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05)
/WSDESIGN=Harmony Complexity
Harmony*Complexity.
Measure:Driveability
Dependent
Harmony Complexity Variable
1 1 Driveability_11
2 Driveability_12
3 Driveability_13
2 1 Driveability_21
2 Driveability_22
3 Driveability_23
3 1 Driveability_31
2 Driveability_32
3 Driveability_33
'HVFULSWLYH6WDWLVWLFV
E
0XOWLYDULDWH7HVWV
a
Harmony Pillai's Trace .574 37.680 2.000 56.000 .000 .574
a
Wilks' Lambda .426 37.680 2.000 56.000 .000 .574
a
Hotelling's Trace 1.346 37.680 2.000 56.000 .000 .574
a
Roy's Largest 1.346 37.680 2.000 56.000 .000 .574
Root
a
Complexity Pillai's Trace .345 14.754 2.000 56.000 .000 .345
a
Wilks' Lambda .655 14.754 2.000 56.000 .000 .345
a
Hotelling's Trace .527 14.754 2.000 56.000 .000 .345
a
Roy's Largest .527 14.754 2.000 56.000 .000 .345
Root
a
Harmony * Pillai's Trace .390 8.632 4.000 54.000 .000 .390
Complexity
a
Wilks' Lambda .610 8.632 4.000 54.000 .000 .390
a
Hotelling's Trace .639 8.632 4.000 54.000 .000 .390
a
Roy's Largest .639 8.632 4.000 54.000 .000 .390
Root
E
0XOWLYDULDWH7HVWV
a
Harmony Pillai's Trace .574 37.680 2.000 56.000 .000 .574
a
Wilks' Lambda .426 37.680 2.000 56.000 .000 .574
a
Hotelling's Trace 1.346 37.680 2.000 56.000 .000 .574
a
Roy's Largest 1.346 37.680 2.000 56.000 .000 .574
Root
a
Complexity Pillai's Trace .345 14.754 2.000 56.000 .000 .345
a
Wilks' Lambda .655 14.754 2.000 56.000 .000 .345
a
Hotelling's Trace .527 14.754 2.000 56.000 .000 .345
a
Roy's Largest .527 14.754 2.000 56.000 .000 .345
Root
a
Harmony * Pillai's Trace .390 8.632 4.000 54.000 .000 .390
Complexity
a
Wilks' Lambda .610 8.632 4.000 54.000 .000 .390
a
Hotelling's Trace .639 8.632 4.000 54.000 .000 .390
a
Roy's Largest .639 8.632 4.000 54.000 .000 .390
Root
a. Exact statistic
b. Design: Intercept
Measure:Driveability
a
Epsilon
Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is
proportional to an identity matrix.
a. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are
displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.
b. Design: Intercept
7HVWVRI:LWKLQ6XEMHFWV(IIHFWV
Measure:Driveability
Measure:Driveability
xity)
Quadratic 76.634 57 1.344
Measure:Driveability
Transformed Variable:Average
/MEASURE=Driving_Performance
/METHOD=SSTYPE(3)
/PLOT=PROFILE(Harmony*Complexity)
/PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE ETASQ
/CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05)
*HQHUDO/LQHDU0RGHO
1RWHV
Comments
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
/WSFACTOR=Harmony 3 Polynomial
Complexity 3 Polynomial
/MEASURE=Driving_Performance
/METHOD=SSTYPE(3)
/PLOT=PROFILE(Harmony*Complexit
y)
/PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE ETASQ
/CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05)
/WSDESIGN=Harmony Complexity
Harmony*Complexity.
Measure:Driving_Performance
Dependent
Harmony Complexity Variable
1 1 Driving_Perform
ance_11
2 Driving_Perform
ance_12
3 Driving_Perform
ance_13
2 1 Driving_Perform
ance_21
2 Driving_Perform
ance_22
3 Driving_Perform
ance_23
3 1 Driving_Perform
ance_31
2 Driving_Perform
ance_32
3 Driving_Perform
ance_33
'HVFULSWLYH6WDWLVWLFV
E
0XOWLYDULDWH7HVWV
a
Harmony Pillai's Trace .572 37.458 2.000 56.000 .000 .572
a
Wilks' Lambda .428 37.458 2.000 56.000 .000 .572
a
Hotelling's Trace 1.338 37.458 2.000 56.000 .000 .572
a
Roy's Largest 1.338 37.458 2.000 56.000 .000 .572
Root
a
Complexity Pillai's Trace .418 20.094 2.000 56.000 .000 .418
a
Wilks' Lambda .582 20.094 2.000 56.000 .000 .418
a
Hotelling's Trace .718 20.094 2.000 56.000 .000 .418
a
Roy's Largest .718 20.094 2.000 56.000 .000 .418
Root
a
Harmony * Pillai's Trace .371 7.951 4.000 54.000 .000 .371
Complexity
a
Wilks' Lambda .629 7.951 4.000 54.000 .000 .371
a
Hotelling's Trace .589 7.951 4.000 54.000 .000 .371
a
Roy's Largest .589 7.951 4.000 54.000 .000 .371
Root
a. Exact statistic
b. Design: Intercept
E
0DXFKO\
V7HVWRI6SKHULFLW\
Measure:Driving_Performance
a
Epsilon
Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is
proportional to an identity matrix.
E
0DXFKO\
V7HVWRI6SKHULFLW\
Measure:Driving_Performance
a
Epsilon
Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is
proportional to an identity matrix.
a. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are
displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.
b. Design: Intercept
7HVWVRI:LWKLQ6XEMHFWV(IIHFWV
Measure:Driving_Performance
Measure:Driving_Performance
xity)
Quadratic 68.368 57 1.199
Measure:Driving_Performance
Transformed Variable:Average
6.4.Appendix 4: Tables and scales used for
interpretation
6.4.1. General
1. Graph obtained after joining all linear scales. All silhouettes appear for all semantic concepts. SET A and SET B are
presented in a separate chart.
2. Scale comparison graph combining all results.
3. Graph used taking the colors generated for each silhouette. Includes all semantic concepts.
4. Another arrangement presenting all the scores and colors that allows to see each silhouette next to its scores.