Sunteți pe pagina 1din 210

Automotive Design Aesthetics:

Harmony and its influence on semantic perception

A thesis submitted to the


Graduate School
of the University of Cincinnati
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of

Master of Design

in the School of Design of the


College of Design, Architecture, Art and Planning
by

Juan Antonio Islas Munoz

I.D. Universidad Autonoma de San Luis Potosí


January 2007
Committee Chair: I.D. Peter Chamberlain
ABSTRACT

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

conventional aesthetic features. In addition, design modifications to accommodate manufacturing

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

created) as a crucial variable for generating positive semantic messages.

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,

driveability, driving performance).

Results show the importance of creating and preserving harmonious car designs so that the transmission

of positive semantics is achieved, which can contribute to a vehicle´s commercial success.

Page | i
Page | ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

To my loving wife Fernanda and my always devoted parents,

whose invaluable support has carried me to become who I am today.

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.

In particular, I want to acknowledge and deeply show my appreciation to the collaboration of


my thesis advisors. Peter Chamberlain: thank you for taking my project with such enthusiasm and for
keeping the big picture of the thesis always present. Your advice always came fresh and full of insight.
Dr. Dennis Puhalla: I would like to thank you for your time and trips to meet me whenever any guidance
was required. Your work and insights have been crucial for the development of this thesis and are a
great part of the inspiration of the whole work. Ryan Wohleber: thank you for the great support that
you showed from the beginning and for always being willing to collaborate. Your input and patience
were indispensable for the design of the survey instrument, analysis, and interpretation of the results.
Raphael Zammit, your involvement and dedication to this project have been absolute. Your leadership
on this project, professional experience, and ongoing research in automotive aesthetics have been
instrumental. Your mentoring has helped me become the designer I am today and has given me new
and powerful tools for the one I will become tomorrow. I thank you especially.

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

2.3. Automotive design………………………………………………………………………………….…...11


2.3.1. The automotive design process…………………………………………………….…….14

2.4. Previous studies on automotive aesthetics and their semantics……………………15

3. STUDY ON THE INFLUENCE OF HARMONY IN THE SEMANTIC PERCEPTION


OF VEHICLE SILHOUETTES.………………………………………………………………………………………27
3.1. Description…………………………………………………………………………………………………..27
3.2. Methods………………………………………………………………………………………………………27
3.2.1. Generation of test elements and semantic differential scales…………….27
3.2.1.1. Test elements: independent variables……………………………………27
3.2.1.2. Semantic differential scales: dependent variables……………….…31
3.2.2. Survey instrument……………………………………………………………………………….34
3.3. Results and Analysis…………………………………………………………………………..…………36
3.4. Discussion…………………………………………………………………………………………………….39

4. CONCLUSIONS………………………………………………………………………………………………………....44
4.1. Limitations…………………………………………………………………………………………………..45
4.2. Repercussions………………………………………………………………………………………………45

5. REFERENCES……..………………………………………………………………………………………………………47

6. APPENDICES……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..49

Page | iv
LIST OF FIGURES

x Figure 1. Example of high and low complexity silhouettes……………………………………………………………………………………………2

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

R Bottom left: Juan Antonio ,Islas Munoz (photographer).(2013). Untitled[photograph]

x Figure 6. Arthur P. Shimamura's I-SKE model……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….7

x Figure 7. Visual decomposition channels proposed for this thesis………………………………………………………………………………..9

x Figure 8. Diagram describing stakeholders and influences inautomotive design…………………………………………………………12

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 11. Lai, Chang, & Chang's variables…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………17

x Figure 12. Lai, Chang, & Chang's combinative designs………………………………………………………………………………………………..18

x Figure 13. Lai, Chang, & Chang's silhouettes designed by traditional methods (top), and the optimized silhouettes
(bottom)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………19

x Figure 14. Automotive packaging (Macey & Wardle, 2009, p.45)……………………………………………………………………………….20

x Figure 15. Tahira Reid's methodology………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..20

x Figure 16. Sample of one of Reid's silhouettes……………………………………………………………………………………………………………21

x Figure 17. Reid's set of silhouettes for evaluation………………………………………………………………………………………………………21

x Figure 18. Reid's optimized silhouette………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..22

x Figure 19. Ranscombe, et al.'s visual decomposition………………………………………………………………………………………………….24

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 Figure23. Selected angular-dominant silhouettes for survey………………………………………………………………………………………31

x Figure 24. Round-dominant silhouettes for survey……………………………………………………………………………………………………..31

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 27. Final semantic concepts for quality…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….34

x Figure 28. Final semantic concepts for performance…………………………………………………………………………………………………..34

x Figure 29. Sample page from survey…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..35

x Figure 30. Numeric values given to responses…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….36

x Figure 31. Means obtained for all semantic concepts…………………………………………………………………………………………………37

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

6.1. Appendix 1: Silhouette iterations


6.1.1. First iteration
6.1.2. Second iteration
6.1.3. Third iteration
6.1.4. Fourth iteration
6.1.5. Fifth iteration
6.1.6. Sixth iteration

6.2. Appendix 2: Survey instrument

6.3. Appendix 3: Results data


6.3.1. Participant responses
6.3.2. SPSS ANOVA analysis

6.4. Appendix 4: Tables and scales used for interpretation


6.4.1. General
6.4.2. Price
6.4.3. Build quality
6.4.4. Design execution
6.4.5. Safety
6.4.6. Driveability
6.4.7. Driving performance

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

market for example, the vehicle’s aesthetics should reflect that.

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

intrusions and protrusions of the vehicle silhouette.

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,

alignment, color, etc.

Figure 3. 2013 Acura NSX Concept

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

shapes but there is no other design feature that relates to them.

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

potentially communicate negative semantics.

Figure 5. Top: 2012 Lexus LF-CC Concept, Bottom: 2013 Lexus IS

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

and limitations of this work.

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

experience. The following pages describe this.

2.1. The Aesthetic experience

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.

We can grasp an understanding of what aesthetic experience is by looking at some authors’

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

nature of those previous experiences, will trigger an emotion or affective reaction.

Figure 6. Arthur P. Shimamura's I-SKE model.

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

opposite of refinement, which is a negative semantic.

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,

Hicks, Mullineux, & Singh), silhouette (Ware)]

x Graphics: visual lines and shapes generated by design features [color differences,

texture boundaries, abrupt luminance changes (Ware), muscles, graphics, explicit detail

(Ranscombe, Hicks, Mullineux, & Singh)

x Form: luminance changes (Ware) generated by volume

x Materiality: color and texture (Ware), reflectivity

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

are opportunities for further research in the field.

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:

x Novelty and surprisingness

x Complexity/ambiguity/variability and uncertainty

x “Goodness,” degree of “structure”, “unity”, and “order” in terms of redundancy

(harmony in this thesis)

x “Tension” and “variety” in terms of uncertainty (1974, pp. 18,19)

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):

x Associations: recollective (brings back a memory), emotional, cognitive (makes

connection with another object with the same property)

x Contexts: social, moral, and taste

x External factors: informational factors, subjective, physical, maintenance of distance

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.

2.2.3.Affective reaction and semantics

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

level.” (Norman, 2005, p. 37, 38).

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 field of study of this thesis.

2.3. Automotive design

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

aesthetics be preserved? Where in the automotive development process do these modifications

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

getting a positive aesthetic experience when creating and developing a vehicle.

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.

Figure 8. Diagram describing stakeholders and influences inautomotive design.

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

and its produced semantics.

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),

and this work’s own interpretation can be seen in figure 9.

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

which are directly related to the goals of the thesis:

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

this stage, it is possible that it communicates negative semantics.

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.

2.4. Previous studies on automotive aesthetics and their semantics

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

(also known as Taguchi Quality Engineering), was applied. It consisted of:

x Identifying the variables that have the greatest influence in optimizing the performance

of what is being tested (in this case, semantic accuracy).

x Applying a survey where participants rate these variables. The results generate a list of

parameters for creating new designs.

x Validating the new designs for performance improvements.

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

issues that make these conclusions questionable:

Figure 11. Lai, Chang, & Chang's variables

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

automotive designer would know and apply.

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

parameterized, since it depends on other elements of the composition that, when

modified, will affect the entirety of the design. In other words, if a proportion is

modified, the others have to be adjusted to fit this new change.

Figure 12. Lai, Chang, & Chang's combinative designs.

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

is less clear (figure 13).

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)

Figure 15. Tahira Reid's methodology

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

outside of the university.

Figure 16. Sample of one of Reid's silhouettes.

Figure 17. Reid's set of silhouettes for evaluation.

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

lists some limitations to her work:

x Even though she generated a method for optimizing semantic accuracy for PEF,

perceptions on what “environmentally friendly” is might change over time, so the

variables may not always be the same.

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

thesis theorizes that harmony is related to aesthetic preference, which is then

translated as partiality when rating vehicle attributes, producing better semantic

perception.

Figure 18. Reid's optimized silhouette.

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

silhouette thinking about the overall effect produced by harmony.

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

more complex levels where graphics, form or materiality have an influence.

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

removed and the brand could still be identified (figure 20).

Figure 19. Ranscombe, et al.'s visual decomposition.

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

in this paper, but that is not explored here.

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

PERCEPTION OF VEHICLE SILHOUETTES

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).

These are concepts important to automakers.

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

produced by engineering or cost criteria.

3.2. Methods

3.2.1. Generation of test elements and semantic differential scales

3.2.1.1. Test elements: independent variables

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

in harmony, complexity, and contour character.

Figure22. First exploration attempt for identifying independent variables.

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

with different contour characters.

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

is an account of such attempts:

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

the future (appendix 1).

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

avoided since it could produce bias in the results (appendix 1).

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

depending on their personal preference of round or angular contour characters, and

usually overlooked line continuity (appendix 1).

x 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 the high amount of variables would

generate too many test elements making analysis difficult and generated a survey that

was too long for respondents (appendix 1).

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

contour character was (appendix 1).

30 | P a g e
x 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).

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

Figure23. SET A: Selected angular-dominant silhouettes for survey.


6(7% High-Harmony Mid-Harmony Low-Harmony
5RXQGGRPLQDQW

Low-Complexity

Mid-complexity

High-Complexity

Figure 24. SET B: Round-dominant silhouettes for survey.

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

not allow for the proper in-depth analysis.

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

design’s expression and refinement. Environmental friendliness and technology/innovation were

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

greater clarification. The chosen concepts are the following:

QUALITY

Explanation Negative Positive


Price Perception of monetary Cheap looking, low cost, low value Expensive looking, fine, high cost
value
Build Structural integrity of Flimsy, fragile Sturdy, durable, reliable
Quality body
Design Overall impression of Unsophisticated, crude, Sophisticated/refined
Execution design quality raw (carelessly handled) (thoughtfully resolved, created
with skillful expertise)
Figure 27. Final semantic concepts for quality.

PERFORMANCE

Explanation Negative Positive


Safety Physical safety Unsafe, dangerous Safe, protective
“If you crash, you get hurt.” “If you crash, you don´t get hurt.”
Driveability Control while driving Unresponsive (appears to be hard Responsive (appears to be easy to
to control) control)
Driving Satisfaction gotten Incapable, uninteresting, dull Capable, interesting, enjoyable
Performance from capability
Figure 28. Final semantic concepts for performance.

3.2.2. Survey instrument

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

the survey’s pages as a reminder.

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

each question. For the full survey, see appendix 2.

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.

Figure 29. Sample page from survey.

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

18-34 year-old range. 34 respondents were male and 24 were female.

Figure 30. Numeric values given to responses.

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

combined into one graph (figure 33).

Figure 32. Sample of tables and chromatic scale used for the analysis and interpretation of results.

For all tables and chromatic scales, see appendix 4.

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

(figure 37), well above 0.1379.

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

behavior of each silhouette in all semantic concepts is obtained (figure 36).

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-

harmony/high-complexity (figure 34), was sometimes higher than mid-harmony/high-complexity in the

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

straightness of the roof, making it look broken.

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

superior than mid or disharmonious silhouettes with any level of complexity.

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

important than complexity.

PRICE BUILD QUALITY DESIGN EXECUTION SAFETY DRIVEABILITY DRIVING PERFORMANCE


Harmony 0.294 0.394 0.448 0.533 0.612 0.384
Complexity 0.326 0.358 0.357 0.317 0.292 0.310
Harmony 0.584 0.362 0.567 0.535 0.574 0.572
Complexity 0.197 0.342 0.398 0.254 0.345 0.418
Figure 37. Harmony and complexity effect sizes in all tested semantic concepts.

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

semantics are to be positive or negative.

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-

harmony and high-complexity were combined.

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

these last two.

It can be safely stated that the unified whole, where the sensation that every part belongs

together created by harmony, is of major importance in the communication of positive semantics to

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

done to complement this work.

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

only evaluated by engineering or cost criteria. Modifications to a vehicle’s aesthetics need to be

carefully considered in order to maintain the design’s harmony as intact as possible in order to

communicate positive semantics.

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. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. Toronto: Appleton Century Crofts.

Berlyne, D. E. (1974). Studies in the new experimental aesthetics. Toronto: Hemisphere Publishing
Corporation.

Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding.


Psychological Review, 1000, 22.

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.

Norman, D. A. (2005). Emotional design. New York: Basic Books.

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.

The psychology of aesthetics. Shimamura, A. P. and Palmer, S. (Directors). (2012, March).[Video/DVD]


University of California Berkley:

Steenberg, E. (2007). Visual aesthetic experience. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 41(2), 89-94.

Ware, C. (2008). Visual thinking for design. Toronto: Morgan Kauffman.

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.

6.1.3 Third iteration


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 analyzing all possibilities. Contour character was discarded as a main variable since people
selected silhouettes depending on their personal preference of round or rigid contour characters, and
usually overlooked line continuity.

6.1.4 Fourth iteration

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.

I am doing research on the meaning of automotive aesthetics by studying people’s understanding of


car silhouettes.

The survey is anonymous and takes around 15 minutes.

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.

Your contribution will be highly appreciated!

Juan Antonio Islas


AUTOMOTIVE SILHOUETTE SEMANTICS

1. What is your age?


 18 to 24





 25 to 34





 35 to 44





 45 to 54





 55 to 64





 65 to 74





 75 or older





2. What is your gender?


 Female





 Male





3. What country are you from?


Country:
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

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

Thank you for your participation!


6.3. Appendix 3: Results data
6.3.1. Participant responses

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

/WSFACTOR=Harmony 3 Polynomial Complexity 3 Polynomial

/MEASURE=BQ

/METHOD=SSTYPE(3)

/PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE ETASQ

/CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05)

/WSDESIGN=Harmony Complexity Harmony*Complexity.

*HQHUDO/LQHDU0RGHO3ULFH

1RWHV

Output Created 18-Jan-2013 15:40:47

Comments

Input Data C:\Users\Ryan\Documents\12F\Islas


Project\Data_Islas.sav

Active Dataset DataSet0

Filter <none>

Weight <none>

Split File <none>

N of Rows in Working Data 522


File
Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing User-defined missing values are
treated as missing.

Cases Used Statistics are based on all cases with


valid data for all variables in the model.

Syntax GLM Price_11 Price_12 Price_13


Price_21 Price_22 Price_23 Price_31
Price_32 Price_33

/WSFACTOR=Harmony 3 Polynomial
Complexity 3 Polynomial

/MEASURE=BQ

/METHOD=SSTYPE(3)

/PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE ETASQ

/CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05)

/WSDESIGN=Harmony Complexity
Harmony*Complexity.

Resources Processor Time 00 00:00:00.047

Elapsed Time 00 00:00:00.092

[DataSet0] C:\Users\Ryan\Documents\12F\Islas Project\Data_Islas.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

Mean Std. Deviation N

Price_11 .4138 1.64407 58

Price_12 .6207 1.54270 58

Price_13 .9655 1.61099 58

Price_21 -.0862 1.79946 58

Price_22 .0690 1.47330 58

Price_23 -.0172 1.68055 58

Price_31 -.7931 1.43586 58

Price_32 -1.1724 1.77841 58


'HVFULSWLYH6WDWLVWLFV

Mean Std. Deviation N

Price_11 .4138 1.64407 58

Price_12 .6207 1.54270 58

Price_13 .9655 1.61099 58

Price_21 -.0862 1.79946 58

Price_22 .0690 1.47330 58

Price_23 -.0172 1.68055 58

Price_31 -.7931 1.43586 58

Price_32 -1.1724 1.77841 58

Price_33 .6034 1.87261 58

E
0XOWLYDULDWH7HVWV

Hypothesis Partial Eta


Effect Value F df Error df Sig. Squared

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

Within Subjects Design: Harmony + Complexity + Harmony * Complexity

E
0DXFKO\
V7HVWRI6SKHULFLW\

Measure:Price

a
Epsilon

Within Subjects Mauchly's Approx. Chi- Greenhouse- Huynh- Lower-


Effect W Square df Sig. Geisser Feldt bound

Harmony .841 9.702 2 .008 .863 .887 .500

Complexity .944 3.244 2 .197 .947 .978 .500

Harmony * .765 14.877 9 .095 .888 .954 .250


Complexity

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

Within Subjects Mauchly's Approx. Chi- Greenhouse- Huynh- Lower-


Effect W Square df Sig. Geisser Feldt bound

Harmony .841 9.702 2 .008 .863 .887 .500

Complexity .944 3.244 2 .197 .947 .978 .500

Harmony * .765 14.877 9 .095 .888 .954 .250


Complexity

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

Within Subjects Design: Harmony + Complexity + Harmony * Complexity

7HVWVRI:LWKLQ6XEMHFWV(IIHFWV

Measure:Price

Type III Sum Partial Eta

Source of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Squared

Harmony Sphericity Assumed 110.877 2 55.439 16.592 .000 .225

Greenhouse-Geisser 110.877 1.726 64.257 16.592 .000 .225

Huynh-Feldt 110.877 1.774 62.486 16.592 .000 .225

Lower-bound 110.877 1.000 110.877 16.592 .000 .225


Error(Harmony) Sphericity Assumed 380.900 114 3.341

Greenhouse-Geisser 380.900 98.355 3.873

Huynh-Feldt 380.900 101.142 3.766

Lower-bound 380.900 57.000 6.682

Complexity Sphericity Assumed 52.900 2 26.450 12.948 .000 .185

Greenhouse-Geisser 52.900 1.893 27.939 12.948 .000 .185

Huynh-Feldt 52.900 1.957 27.038 12.948 .000 .185

Lower-bound 52.900 1.000 52.900 12.948 .001 .185

Error(Complexity) Sphericity Assumed 232.877 114 2.043

Greenhouse-Geisser 232.877 107.925 2.158

Huynh-Feldt 232.877 111.523 2.088

Lower-bound 232.877 57.000 4.086

Harmony * Complexity Sphericity Assumed 58.272 4 14.568 6.582 .000 .104

Greenhouse-Geisser 58.272 3.550 16.413 6.582 .000 .104

Huynh-Feldt 58.272 3.815 15.274 6.582 .000 .104

Lower-bound 58.272 1.000 58.272 6.582 .013 .104

Error(Harmony*Complex Sphericity Assumed 504.617 228 2.213

ity)
Greenhouse-Geisser 504.617 202.371 2.494

Huynh-Feldt 504.617 217.466 2.320

Lower-bound 504.617 57.000 8.853

7HVWVRI:LWKLQ6XEMHFWV&RQWUDVWV
Measure:Price

Complexit Type III Sum Mean Partial Eta

Source y of Squares df Square F Sig. Squared

Harmony Linear 109.267 1 109.267 23.691 .000 .294

Quadratic 1.610 1 1.610 .778 .382 .013

Error(Harmony) Linear 262.899 57 4.612

Quadratic 118.001 57 2.070

Complexity Linear 39.336 1 39.336 15.997 .000 .219

Quadratic 13.564 1 13.564 8.339 .005 .128

Error(Complexity) Linear 140.164 57 2.459

Quadratic 92.714 57 1.627

Harmony * Complexity Linear Linear 10.349 1 10.349 3.545 .065 .059

Quadratic 19.668 1 19.668 10.389 .002 .154

Quadratic Linear 15.841 1 15.841 6.668 .012 .105

Quadratic 12.414 1 12.414 7.457 .008 .116

Error(Harmony*Comple Linear Linear 166.401 57 2.919


xity)
Quadratic 107.915 57 1.893

Quadratic Linear 135.409 57 2.376

Quadratic 94.891 57 1.665


7HVWVRI%HWZHHQ6XEMHFWV(IIHFWV

Measure:Price

Transformed Variable:Average

Type III Sum of Partial Eta


Source Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Squared

Intercept 2.347 1 2.347 .467 .497 .008

Error 286.209 57 5.021

GLM Build_Quality_11 Build_Quality_12 Build_Quality_13 Build_Quality_21 Build_Quality_22


Build_Quality_23 Build_Quality_31 Build_Quality_32 Build_Quality_33

/WSFACTOR=Harmony 3 Polynomial Complexity 3 Polynomial

/MEASURE=BQ

/METHOD=SSTYPE(3)

/PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE ETASQ

/CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05)

/WSDESIGN=Harmony Complexity Harmony*Complexity.

*HQHUDO/LQHDU0RGHO

1RWHV

Output Created 18-Jan-2013 15:41:55

Comments
Input Data C:\Users\Ryan\Documents\12F\Islas
Project\Data_Islas.sav

Active Dataset DataSet0

Filter <none>

Weight <none>

Split File <none>

N of Rows in Working Data 522


File

Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing User-defined missing values are


treated as missing.

Cases Used Statistics are based on all cases with


valid data for all variables in the model.

Syntax GLM Build_Quality_11


Build_Quality_12 Build_Quality_13
Build_Quality_21 Build_Quality_22
Build_Quality_23 Build_Quality_31
Build_Quality_32 Build_Quality_33

/WSFACTOR=Harmony 3 Polynomial
Complexity 3 Polynomial

/MEASURE=BQ

/METHOD=SSTYPE(3)

/PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE ETASQ

/CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05)

/WSDESIGN=Harmony Complexity
Harmony*Complexity.

Resources Processor Time 00 00:00:00.031

Elapsed Time 00 00:00:00.032




[DataSet0] C:\Users\Ryan\Documents\12F\Islas Project\Data_Islas.sav

: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

Mean Std. Deviation N

Build_Quality_11 .2069 1.72453 58

Build_Quality_12 .6897 1.54700 58

Build_Quality_13 1.1379 1.16149 58

Build_Quality_21 -.0172 1.74206 58

Build_Quality_22 .1897 1.62715 58

Build_Quality_23 .3103 1.44133 58

Build_Quality_31 -.3448 1.83104 58

Build_Quality_32 -1.3966 1.89125 58

Build_Quality_33 .6724 1.80047 58

E
0XOWLYDULDWH7HVWV

Hypothesis Partial Eta


Effect Value F df Error df Sig. Squared

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

Within Subjects Design: Harmony + Complexity + Harmony * Complexity

E
0DXFKO\
V7HVWRI6SKHULFLW\

Measure:Build_Quality

a
Epsilon

Within Subjects Mauchly's Approx. Chi- Greenhouse- Huynh- Lower-


Effect W Square df Sig. Geisser Feldt bound

Harmony .949 2.908 2 .234 .952 .984 .500

Complexity .992 .443 2 .801 .992 1.000 .500

Harmony * .867 7.888 9 .546 .939 1.000 .250


Complexity

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

Within Subjects Mauchly's Approx. Chi- Greenhouse- Huynh- Lower-


Effect W Square df Sig. Geisser Feldt bound

Harmony .949 2.908 2 .234 .952 .984 .500

Complexity .992 .443 2 .801 .992 1.000 .500

Harmony * .867 7.888 9 .546 .939 1.000 .250


Complexity

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

Within Subjects Design: Harmony + Complexity + Harmony * Complexity

7HVWVRI:LWKLQ6XEMHFWV(IIHFWV

Measure:Build_Quality

Type III Sum Partial Eta

Source of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Squared

Harmony Sphericity Assumed 93.103 2 46.552 22.571 .000 .284

Greenhouse-Geisser 93.103 1.904 48.907 22.571 .000 .284

Huynh-Feldt 93.103 1.968 47.316 22.571 .000 .284

Lower-bound 93.103 1.000 93.103 22.571 .000 .284


Error(Harmony) Sphericity Assumed 235.119 114 2.062

Greenhouse-Geisser 235.119 108.509 2.167

Huynh-Feldt 235.119 112.159 2.096

Lower-bound 235.119 57.000 4.125

Complexity Sphericity Assumed 79.069 2 39.534 17.040 .000 .230

Greenhouse-Geisser 79.069 1.984 39.846 17.040 .000 .230

Huynh-Feldt 79.069 2.000 39.534 17.040 .000 .230

Lower-bound 79.069 1.000 79.069 17.040 .000 .230

Error(Complexity) Sphericity Assumed 264.487 114 2.320

Greenhouse-Geisser 264.487 113.109 2.338

Huynh-Feldt 264.487 114.000 2.320

Lower-bound 264.487 57.000 4.640

Harmony * Complexity Sphericity Assumed 73.414 4 18.353 8.809 .000 .134

Greenhouse-Geisser 73.414 3.757 19.542 8.809 .000 .134

Huynh-Feldt 73.414 4.000 18.353 8.809 .000 .134

Lower-bound 73.414 1.000 73.414 8.809 .004 .134

Error(Harmony*Complex Sphericity Assumed 475.031 228 2.083

ity)
Greenhouse-Geisser 475.031 214.137 2.218

Huynh-Feldt 475.031 228.000 2.083

Lower-bound 475.031 57.000 8.334


7HVWVRI:LWKLQ6XEMHFWV&RQWUDVWV

Measure:Build Quality

Complexit Type III Sum Mean Partial Eta


Source y of Squares df Square F Sig. Squared

Harmony Linear 93.103 1 93.103 36.966 .000 .393

Quadratic .000 1 .000 .000 1.000 .000

Error(Harmony) Linear 143.563 57 2.519

Quadratic 91.556 57 1.606

Complexity Linear 50.069 1 50.069 20.203 .000 .262

Quadratic 29.000 1 29.000 13.415 .001 .191

Error(Complexity) Linear 141.264 57 2.478

Quadratic 123.222 57 2.162

Harmony * Complexity Linear Linear .108 1 .108 .046 .831 .001

Quadratic 48.116 1 48.116 20.024 .000 .260

Quadratic Linear 8.082 1 8.082 4.175 .046 .068

Quadratic 17.108 1 17.108 10.310 .002 .153

Error(Harmony*Comple Linear Linear 133.142 57 2.336

xity)
Quadratic 136.967 57 2.403

Quadratic Linear 110.335 57 1.936

Quadratic 94.587 57 1.659


7HVWVRI%HWZHHQ6XEMHFWV(IIHFWV

Measure:Build Quality

Transformed Variable:Average

Type III Sum of Partial Eta


Source Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Squared

Intercept 13.517 1 13.517 1.791 .186 .030

Error 430.261 57 7.548

GLM Design_Execution_11 Design_Execution_12 Design_Execution_13 Design_Execution_21


Design_Execution_22 Design_Execution_23 Design_Execution_31 Design_Execution_32
Design_Execution_33

/WSFACTOR=Harmony 3 Polynomial Complexity 3 Polynomial

/METHOD=SSTYPE(3)

/PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE ETASQ

/CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05)

/WSDESIGN=Harmony Complexity Harmony*Complexity.

*HQHUDO/LQHDU0RGHO

1RWHV

Output Created 18-Jan-2013 15:42:17

Comments

Input Data C:\Users\Ryan\Documents\12F\Islas


Project\Data_Islas.sav

Active Dataset DataSet0


Filter <none>

Weight <none>

Split File <none>

N of Rows in Working Data 522


File

Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing User-defined missing values are


treated as missing.

Cases Used Statistics are based on all cases with


valid data for all variables in the model.

Syntax GLM Design_Execution_11


Design_Execution_12
Design_Execution_13
Design_Execution_21
Design_Execution_22
Design_Execution_23
Design_Execution_31
Design_Execution_32
Design_Execution_33

/WSFACTOR=Harmony 3 Polynomial
Complexity 3 Polynomial

/METHOD=SSTYPE(3)

/PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE ETASQ

/CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05)

/WSDESIGN=Harmony Complexity
Harmony*Complexity.

Resources Processor Time 00 00:00:00.062

Elapsed Time 00 00:00:00.193


[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

Mean Std. Deviation N

Design_Execution_11 -.1897 1.59447 58

Design_Execution_12 .6552 1.59552 58

Design_Execution_13 .7069 1.48689 58

Design_Execution_21 -.7759 1.86419 58

Design_Execution_22 -.7759 1.38973 58

Design_Execution_23 -.0345 1.58906 58

Design_Execution_31 -1.0690 1.67397 58

Design_Execution_32 -1.7241 1.43629 58

Design_Execution_33 -.0345 1.95534 58

E
0XOWLYDULDWH7HVWV

Hypothesis Partial Eta


Effect Value F df Error df Sig. Squared

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

Within Subjects Design: Harmony + Complexity + Harmony * Complexity

E
0DXFKO\
V7HVWRI6SKHULFLW\

Measure:Design_Execution

a
Epsilon

Within Subjects Mauchly's Approx. Chi- Greenhouse- Huynh- Lower-


Effect W Square df Sig. Geisser Feldt bound

Harmony .774 14.314 2 .001 .816 .837 .500

Complexity .935 3.780 2 .151 .939 .970 .500

Harmony * .922 4.492 9 .876 .962 1.000 .250


Complexity

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

Within Subjects Mauchly's Approx. Chi- Greenhouse- Huynh- Lower-


Effect W Square df Sig. Geisser Feldt bound

Harmony .774 14.314 2 .001 .816 .837 .500

Complexity .935 3.780 2 .151 .939 .970 .500

Harmony * .922 4.492 9 .876 .962 1.000 .250


Complexity

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

Within Subjects Design: Harmony + Complexity + Harmony * Complexity

7HVWVRI:LWKLQ6XEMHFWV(IIHFWV

Measure:Design_Execution

Type III Sum Partial Eta

Source of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Squared

Harmony Sphericity Assumed 162.084 2 81.042 32.797 .000 .365

Greenhouse-Geisser 162.084 1.632 99.322 32.797 .000 .365

Huynh-Feldt 162.084 1.673 96.862 32.797 .000 .365


Lower-bound 162.084 1.000 162.084 32.797 .000 .365

Error(Harmony) Sphericity Assumed 281.693 114 2.471

Greenhouse-Geisser 281.693 93.019 3.028

Huynh-Feldt 281.693 95.381 2.953

Lower-bound 281.693 57.000 4.942

Complexity Sphericity Assumed 85.981 2 42.990 17.188 .000 .232

Greenhouse-Geisser 85.981 1.877 45.796 17.188 .000 .232

Huynh-Feldt 85.981 1.939 44.338 17.188 .000 .232

Lower-bound 85.981 1.000 85.981 17.188 .000 .232

Error(Complexity) Sphericity Assumed 285.130 114 2.501

Greenhouse-Geisser 285.130 107.016 2.664

Huynh-Feldt 285.130 110.534 2.580

Lower-bound 285.130 57.000 5.002

Harmony * Complexity Sphericity Assumed 48.847 4 12.212 6.823 .000 .107

Greenhouse-Geisser 48.847 3.849 12.692 6.823 .000 .107

Huynh-Feldt 48.847 4.000 12.212 6.823 .000 .107

Lower-bound 48.847 1.000 48.847 6.823 .011 .107

Error(Harmony*Complex Sphericity Assumed 408.042 228 1.790


ity)
Greenhouse-Geisser 408.042 219.374 1.860

Huynh-Feldt 408.042 228.000 1.790

Lower-bound 408.042 57.000 7.159


7HVWVRI:LWKLQ6XEMHFWV&RQWUDVWV

Measure:Design_Execution

Complexit Type III Sum Mean Partial Eta


Source y of Squares df Square F Sig. Squared

Harmony Linear 154.667 1 154.667 46.157 .000 .447

Quadratic 7.418 1 7.418 4.662 .035 .076

Error(Harmony) Linear 191.000 57 3.351

Quadratic 90.693 57 1.591

Complexity Linear 69.037 1 69.037 22.300 .000 .281

Quadratic 16.943 1 16.943 8.887 .004 .135

Error(Complexity) Linear 176.463 57 3.096

Quadratic 108.668 57 1.906

Harmony * Complexity Linear Linear .276 1 .276 .142 .708 .002

Quadratic 47.592 1 47.592 29.569 .000 .342

Quadratic Linear .971 1 .971 .477 .493 .008

Quadratic .008 1 .008 .005 .945 .000

Error(Harmony*Comple Linear Linear 110.724 57 1.943

xity)
Quadratic 91.741 57 1.609

Quadratic Linear 116.029 57 2.036

Quadratic 89.548 57 1.571


7HVWVRI%HWZHHQ6XEMHFWV(IIHFWV

Measure:Design_Execution

Transformed Variable:Average

Type III Sum of Partial Eta


Source Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Squared

Intercept 67.709 1 67.709 9.934 .003 .148

Error 388.513 57 6.816

GLM Safety_11 Safety_12 Safety_13 Safety_21 Safety_22 Safety_23 Safety_31 Safety_32 Safety_33

/WSFACTOR=Harmony 3 Polynomial Complexity 3 Polynomial

/METHOD=SSTYPE(3)

/PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE ETASQ

/CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05)

/WSDESIGN=Harmony Complexity Harmony*Complexity.

*HQHUDO/LQHDU0RGHO

RWHV

Output Created 18-Jan-2013 15:42:36

Comments

Input Data C:\Users\Ryan\Documents\12F\Islas


Project\Data_Islas.sav

Active Dataset DataSet0

Filter <none>
Weight <none>

Split File <none>

N of Rows in Working Data 522


File

Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing User-defined missing values are


treated as missing.

Cases Used Statistics are based on all cases with


valid data for all variables in the model.

Syntax GLM Safety_11 Safety_12 Safety_13


Safety_21 Safety_22 Safety_23
Safety_31 Safety_32 Safety_33

/WSFACTOR=Harmony 3 Polynomial
Complexity 3 Polynomial

/METHOD=SSTYPE(3)

/PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE ETASQ

/CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05)

/WSDESIGN=Harmony Complexity
Harmony*Complexity.

Resources Processor Time 00 00:00:00.062

Elapsed Time 00 00:00:00.063

[DataSet0] C:\Users\Ryan\Documents\12F\Islas Project\Data_Islas.sav


:LWKLQ6XEMHFWV)DFWRUV

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

Mean Std. Deviation N

Safety_11 .5517 1.41635 58

Safety_12 .6034 1.55529 58

Safety_13 1.1379 1.49206 58

Safety_21 -.3276 1.71052 58

Safety_22 -.1552 1.58725 58

Safety_23 .4310 1.49985 58

Safety_31 -.4138 1.67578 58

Safety_32 -1.2931 1.67551 58


'HVFULSWLYH6WDWLVWLFV

Mean Std. Deviation N

Safety_11 .5517 1.41635 58

Safety_12 .6034 1.55529 58

Safety_13 1.1379 1.49206 58

Safety_21 -.3276 1.71052 58

Safety_22 -.1552 1.58725 58

Safety_23 .4310 1.49985 58

Safety_31 -.4138 1.67578 58

Safety_32 -1.2931 1.67551 58

Safety_33 .3966 1.64306 58

E
0XOWLYDULDWH7HVWV

Hypothesis Partial Eta


Effect Value F df Error df Sig. Squared

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

Within Subjects Design: Harmony + Complexity + Harmony * Complexity

E
0DXFKO\
V7HVWRI6SKHULFLW\

Measure:Safety

a
Epsilon

Within Subjects Mauchly's Approx. Chi- Greenhouse- Huynh- Lower-


Effect W Square df Sig. Geisser Feldt bound

Harmony .953 2.692 2 .260 .955 .987 .500

Complexity .841 9.725 2 .008 .863 .887 .500

Harmony * .835 10.018 9 .349 .914 .985 .250


Complexity

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

Within Subjects Mauchly's Approx. Chi- Greenhouse- Huynh- Lower-


Effect W Square df Sig. Geisser Feldt bound

Harmony .953 2.692 2 .260 .955 .987 .500

Complexity .841 9.725 2 .008 .863 .887 .500

Harmony * .835 10.018 9 .349 .914 .985 .250


Complexity

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

Within Subjects Design: Harmony + Complexity + Harmony * Complexity

7HVWVRI:LWKLQ6XEMHFWV(IIHFWV

Measure:Safety

Type III Sum Partial Eta

Source of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Squared

Harmony Sphericity Assumed 129.322 2 64.661 39.022 .000 .406

Greenhouse-Geisser 129.322 1.910 67.696 39.022 .000 .406

Huynh-Feldt 129.322 1.975 65.481 39.022 .000 .406


Lower-bound 129.322 1.000 129.322 39.022 .000 .406

Error(Harmony) Sphericity Assumed 188.900 114 1.657

Greenhouse-Geisser 188.900 108.889 1.735

Huynh-Feldt 188.900 112.572 1.678

Lower-bound 188.900 57.000 3.314

Complexity Sphericity Assumed 83.598 2 41.799 14.441 .000 .202

Greenhouse-Geisser 83.598 1.725 48.462 14.441 .000 .202

Huynh-Feldt 83.598 1.774 47.128 14.441 .000 .202

Lower-bound 83.598 1.000 83.598 14.441 .000 .202

Error(Complexity) Sphericity Assumed 329.958 114 2.894

Greenhouse-Geisser 329.958 98.325 3.356

Huynh-Feldt 329.958 101.110 3.263

Lower-bound 329.958 57.000 5.789

Harmony * Complexity Sphericity Assumed 29.805 4 7.451 4.764 .001 .077

Greenhouse-Geisser 29.805 3.658 8.148 4.764 .002 .077

Huynh-Feldt 29.805 3.940 7.565 4.764 .001 .077

Lower-bound 29.805 1.000 29.805 4.764 .033 .077

Error(Harmony*Complex Sphericity Assumed 356.640 228 1.564


ity)
Greenhouse-Geisser 356.640 208.504 1.710

Huynh-Feldt 356.640 224.574 1.588

Lower-bound 356.640 57.000 6.257


7HVWVRI:LWKLQ6XEMHFWV&RQWUDVWV

Measure:Safety

Complexit Type III Sum Mean Partial Eta


Source y of Squares df Square F Sig. Squared

Harmony Linear 125.520 1 125.520 64.662 .000 .531

Quadratic 3.802 1 3.802 2.769 .102 .046

Error(Harmony) Linear 110.647 57 1.941

Quadratic 78.254 57 1.373

Complexity Linear 44.899 1 44.899 11.549 .001 .168

Quadratic 38.698 1 38.698 20.357 .000 .263

Error(Complexity) Linear 221.601 57 3.888

Quadratic 108.357 57 1.901

Harmony * Complexity Linear Linear .728 1 .728 .435 .512 .008

Quadratic 21.036 1 21.036 13.935 .000 .196

Quadratic Linear .070 1 .070 .056 .814 .001

Quadratic 7.970 1 7.970 4.394 .041 .072

Error(Harmony*Comple Linear Linear 95.522 57 1.676

xity)
Quadratic 86.047 57 1.510

Quadratic Linear 71.680 57 1.258

Quadratic 103.391 57 1.814

7HVWVRI%HWZHHQ6XEMHFWV(IIHFWV
Measure:MEASURE_1

Transformed Variable:Average

Type III Sum of Partial Eta


Source Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Squared

Intercept 5.586 1 5.586 .765 .385 .013

Error 416.192 57 7.302

GLM Driveability_11 Driveability_12 Driveability_13 Driveability_21 Driveability_22 Driveability_23


Driveability_31 Driveability_32 Driveability_33

/WSFACTOR=Harmony 3 Polynomial Complexity 3 Polynomial

/METHOD=SSTYPE(3)

/PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE ETASQ

/CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05)

/WSDESIGN=Harmony Complexity Harmony*Complexity.

*HQHUDO/LQHDU0RGHO

1RWHV

Output Created 18-Jan-2013 15:42:58

Comments

Input Data C:\Users\Ryan\Documents\12F\Islas


Project\Data_Islas.sav
Active Dataset DataSet0

Filter <none>

Weight <none>

Split File <none>

N of Rows in Working Data 522


File

Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing User-defined missing values are


treated as missing.

Cases Used Statistics are based on all cases with


valid data for all variables in the model.

Syntax GLM Driveability_11 Driveability_12


Driveability_13 Driveability_21
Driveability_22 Driveability_23
Driveability_31 Driveability_32
Driveability_33

/WSFACTOR=Harmony 3 Polynomial
Complexity 3 Polynomial

/METHOD=SSTYPE(3)

/PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE ETASQ

/CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05)

/WSDESIGN=Harmony Complexity
Harmony*Complexity.

Resources Processor Time 00 00:00:00.032

Elapsed Time 00 00:00:00.045

[DataSet0] C:\Users\Ryan\Documents\12F\Islas Project\Data_Islas.sav


LWKLQ6XEMHFWV)DFWRUV

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

Mean Std. Deviation N

Driveability_11 .1897 1.62715 58

Driveability_12 1.1724 1.29963 58

Driveability_13 1.1379 1.57222 58

Driveability_21 -.5000 1.58114 58

Driveability_22 -.0345 1.69587 58

Driveability_23 .3448 1.68118 58

Driveability_31 -.3448 1.75271 58

Driveability_32 -1.6552 1.55091 58


'HVFULSWLYH6WDWLVWLFV

Mean Std. Deviation N

Driveability_11 .1897 1.62715 58

Driveability_12 1.1724 1.29963 58

Driveability_13 1.1379 1.57222 58

Driveability_21 -.5000 1.58114 58

Driveability_22 -.0345 1.69587 58

Driveability_23 .3448 1.68118 58

Driveability_31 -.3448 1.75271 58

Driveability_32 -1.6552 1.55091 58

Driveability_33 .1552 1.83343 58

E
0XOWLYDULDWH7HVWV

Hypothesis Partial Eta


Effect Value F df Error df Sig. Squared

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

Within Subjects Design: Harmony + Complexity + Harmony * Complexity

E
0DXFKO\
V7HVWRI6SKHULFLW\

Measure:Driveability

a
Epsilon

Within Subjects Mauchly's Approx. Chi- Greenhouse- Huynh- Lower-


Effect W Square df Sig. Geisser Feldt bound

Harmony .970 1.708 2 .426 .971 1.000 .500

Complexity .952 2.737 2 .254 .954 .987 .500

Harmony * .594 28.905 9 .001 .793 .845 .250


Complexity

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

Within Subjects Mauchly's Approx. Chi- Greenhouse- Huynh- Lower-


Effect W Square df Sig. Geisser Feldt bound

Harmony .970 1.708 2 .426 .971 1.000 .500

Complexity .952 2.737 2 .254 .954 .987 .500

Harmony * .594 28.905 9 .001 .793 .845 .250


Complexity

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

Within Subjects Design: Harmony + Complexity + Harmony * Complexity

7HVWVRI:LWKLQ6XEMHFWV(IIHFWV

Measure:Driveability

Type III Sum Partial Eta

Source of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Squared

Harmony Sphericity Assumed 185.931 2 92.966 48.109 .000 .458

Greenhouse-Geisser 185.931 1.942 95.758 48.109 .000 .458

Huynh-Feldt 185.931 2.000 92.966 48.109 .000 .458

Lower-bound 185.931 1.000 185.931 48.109 .000 .458


Error(Harmony) Sphericity Assumed 220.291 114 1.932

Greenhouse-Geisser 220.291 110.676 1.990

Huynh-Feldt 220.291 114.000 1.932

Lower-bound 220.291 57.000 3.865

Complexity Sphericity Assumed 63.943 2 31.971 13.192 .000 .188

Greenhouse-Geisser 63.943 1.909 33.496 13.192 .000 .188

Huynh-Feldt 63.943 1.973 32.402 13.192 .000 .188

Lower-bound 63.943 1.000 63.943 13.192 .001 .188

Error(Complexity) Sphericity Assumed 276.280 114 2.424

Greenhouse-Geisser 276.280 108.809 2.539

Huynh-Feldt 276.280 112.486 2.456

Lower-bound 276.280 57.000 4.847

Harmony * Complexity Sphericity Assumed 94.299 4 23.575 17.948 .000 .239

Greenhouse-Geisser 94.299 3.170 29.743 17.948 .000 .239

Huynh-Feldt 94.299 3.379 27.908 17.948 .000 .239

Lower-bound 94.299 1.000 94.299 17.948 .000 .239

Error(Harmony*Complex Sphericity Assumed 299.479 228 1.314

ity)
Greenhouse-Geisser 299.479 180.714 1.657

Huynh-Feldt 299.479 192.597 1.555

Lower-bound 299.479 57.000 5.254


7HVWVRI:LWKLQ6XEMHFWV&RQWUDVWV

Measure:Driveability

Complexit Type III Sum Mean Partial Eta


Source y of Squares df Square F Sig. Squared

Harmony Linear 182.483 1 182.483 89.784 .000 .612

Quadratic 3.448 1 3.448 1.882 .175 .032

Error(Harmony) Linear 115.851 57 2.032

Quadratic 104.441 57 1.832

Complexity Linear 50.830 1 50.830 17.246 .000 .232

Quadratic 13.112 1 13.112 6.903 .011 .108

Error(Complexity) Linear 168.003 57 2.947

Quadratic 108.277 57 1.900

Harmony * Complexity Linear Linear 2.914 1 2.914 1.456 .233 .025

Quadratic 82.759 1 82.759 73.813 .000 .564

Quadratic Linear .282 1 .282 .275 .602 .005

Quadratic 8.345 1 8.345 7.538 .008 .117

Error(Harmony*Comple Linear Linear 114.086 57 2.002

xity)
Quadratic 63.908 57 1.121

Quadratic Linear 58.385 57 1.024

Quadratic 63.100 57 1.107


7HVWVRI%HWZHHQ6XEMHFWV(IIHFWV

Measure:Driveability

Transformed Variable:Average

Type III Sum of Partial Eta


Source Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Squared

Intercept 1.397 1 1.397 .141 .708 .002

Error 563.381 57 9.884

GLM Driving_Performance_11 Driving_Performance_12 Driving_Performance_13


Driving_Performance_21 Driving_Performance_22 Driving_Performance_23 Driving_Performance_31
Driving_Performance_32 Driving_Performance_33

/WSFACTOR=Harmony 3 Polynomial Complexity 3 Polynomial

/METHOD=SSTYPE(3)

/PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE ETASQ

/CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05)

/WSDESIGN=Harmony Complexity Harmony*Complexity.

*HQHUDO/LQHDU0RGHO

1RWHV

Output Created 18-Jan-2013 15:43:21

Comments

Input Data C:\Users\Ryan\Documents\12F\Islas


Project\Data_Islas.sav
Active Dataset DataSet0

Filter <none>

Weight <none>

Split File <none>

N of Rows in Working Data 522


File

Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing User-defined missing values are


treated as missing.

Cases Used Statistics are based on all cases with


valid data for all variables in the model.

Syntax GLM Driving_Performance_11


Driving_Performance_12
Driving_Performance_13
Driving_Performance_21
Driving_Performance_22
Driving_Performance_23
Driving_Performance_31
Driving_Performance_32
Driving_Performance_33

/WSFACTOR=Harmony 3 Polynomial
Complexity 3 Polynomial

/METHOD=SSTYPE(3)

/PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE ETASQ

/CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05)

/WSDESIGN=Harmony Complexity
Harmony*Complexity.

Resources Processor Time 00 00:00:00.047

Elapsed Time 00 00:00:00.048




[DataSet0] C:\Users\Ryan\Documents\12F\Islas Project\Data_Islas.sav

: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

Mean Std. Deviation N

Driving_Performance_11 -.1034 1.62966 58

Driving_Performance_12 .3793 1.58753 58

Driving_Performance_13 .4310 1.61258 58

Driving_Performance_21 -.9655 1.58906 58

Driving_Performance_22 -.2586 1.66027 58

Driving_Performance_23 .0517 1.53808 58

Driving_Performance_31 -.8966 1.74406 58

Driving_Performance_32 -1.5690 1.52306 58

Driving_Performance_33 .2069 1.90805 58

E
0XOWLYDULDWH7HVWV

Hypothesis Partial Eta


Effect Value F df Error df Sig. Squared

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

Within Subjects Design: Harmony + Complexity + Harmony * Complexity

E
0DXFKO\
V7HVWRI6SKHULFLW\

Measure:Driving_Performance

a
Epsilon

Within Subjects Mauchly's Approx. Chi- Greenhouse- Huynh- Lower-


Effect W Square df Sig. Geisser Feldt bound

Harmony .729 17.729 2 .000 .787 .805 .500

Complexity .937 3.669 2 .160 .940 .971 .500

Harmony * .552 32.896 9 .000 .755 .802 .250


Complexity

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

Within Subjects Mauchly's Approx. Chi- Greenhouse- Huynh- Lower-


Effect W Square df Sig. Geisser Feldt bound

Harmony .729 17.729 2 .000 .787 .805 .500

Complexity .937 3.669 2 .160 .940 .971 .500

Harmony * .552 32.896 9 .000 .755 .802 .250


Complexity

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

Within Subjects Design: Harmony + Complexity + Harmony * Complexity

7HVWVRI:LWKLQ6XEMHFWV(IIHFWV

Measure:MEASURE_1

Type III Sum Partial Eta

Source of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Squared

Harmony Sphericity Assumed 87.038 2 43.519 24.824 .000 .303

Greenhouse-Geisser 87.038 1.573 55.329 24.824 .000 .303

Huynh-Feldt 87.038 1.610 54.060 24.824 .000 .303


Lower-bound 87.038 1.000 87.038 24.824 .000 .303

Error(Harmony) Sphericity Assumed 199.851 114 1.753

Greenhouse-Geisser 199.851 89.667 2.229

Huynh-Feldt 199.851 91.772 2.178

Lower-bound 199.851 57.000 3.506

Complexity Sphericity Assumed 76.613 2 38.307 15.184 .000 .210

Greenhouse-Geisser 76.613 1.881 40.736 15.184 .000 .210

Huynh-Feldt 76.613 1.943 39.436 15.184 .000 .210

Lower-bound 76.613 1.000 76.613 15.184 .000 .210

Error(Complexity) Sphericity Assumed 287.609 114 2.523

Greenhouse-Geisser 287.609 107.201 2.683

Huynh-Feldt 287.609 110.735 2.597

Lower-bound 287.609 57.000 5.046

Harmony * Complexity Sphericity Assumed 58.249 4 14.562 7.706 .000 .119

Greenhouse-Geisser 58.249 3.020 19.285 7.706 .000 .119

Huynh-Feldt 58.249 3.208 18.156 7.706 .000 .119

Lower-bound 58.249 1.000 58.249 7.706 .007 .119

Error(Harmony*Complex Sphericity Assumed 430.862 228 1.890


ity)
Greenhouse-Geisser 430.862 172.163 2.503

Huynh-Feldt 430.862 182.874 2.356

Lower-bound 430.862 57.000 7.559


7HVWVRI:LWKLQ6XEMHFWV&RQWUDVWV

Measure:Driving_Performance

Complexit Type III Sum Mean Partial Eta


Source y of Squares df Square F Sig. Squared

Harmony Linear 85.011 1 85.011 34.780 .000 .379

Quadratic 2.027 1 2.027 1.909 .173 .032

Error(Harmony) Linear 139.322 57 2.444

Quadratic 60.529 57 1.062

Complexity Linear 68.149 1 68.149 21.599 .000 .275

Quadratic 8.464 1 8.464 4.477 .039 .073

Error(Complexity) Linear 179.851 57 3.155

Quadratic 107.759 57 1.891

Harmony * Complexity Linear Linear 4.694 1 4.694 1.533 .221 .026

Quadratic 40.070 1 40.070 31.140 .000 .353

Quadratic Linear .760 1 .760 .476 .493 .008

Quadratic 12.725 1 12.725 7.886 .007 .122

Error(Harmony*Comple Linear Linear 174.556 57 3.062

xity)
Quadratic 73.346 57 1.287

Quadratic Linear 90.990 57 1.596

Quadratic 91.970 57 1.614


7HVWVRI%HWZHHQ6XEMHFWV(IIHFWV

Measure:Driving_Performance

Transformed Variable:Average

Type III Sum of Partial Eta


Source Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Squared

Intercept 47.824 1 47.824 5.752 .020 .092

Error 473.954 57 8.315


SET B
SAVE OUTFILE='C:\Users\Ryan\Documents\12F\Islas Project\Data_IslasB.sav'

/COMPRESSED.

GLM Price_11 Price_12 Price_13 Price_21 Price_22 Price_23 Price_31 Price_32 Price_33

/WSFACTOR=Harmony 3 Polynomial Complexity 3 Polynomial

/MEASURE=Price

/METHOD=SSTYPE(3)

/PLOT=PROFILE(Harmony*Complexity)

/PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE ETASQ

/CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05)

/WSDESIGN=Harmony Complexity Harmony*Complexity.

*HQHUDO/LQHDU0RGHO

1RWHV

Output Created 30-Jan-2013 17:09:13

Comments

Input Data C:\Users\Ryan\Documents\12F\Islas


Project\Data_IslasB.sav

Active Dataset DataSet0

Filter <none>
Weight <none>

Split File <none>

N of Rows in Working Data 58


File

Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing User-defined missing values are


treated as missing.

Cases Used Statistics are based on all cases with


valid data for all variables in the model.

Syntax GLM Price_11 Price_12 Price_13


Price_21 Price_22 Price_23 Price_31
Price_32 Price_33

/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.

Resources Processor Time 00 00:00:02.714

Elapsed Time 00 00:00:04.040


[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

Mean Std. Deviation N

Price_11 .7931 1.65178 58

Price_12 1.2759 1.44845 58


Price_13 1.3793 1.32225 58

Price_21 -.8103 1.46846 58

Price_22 .5345 1.51270 58

Price_23 .8793 1.61221 58

Price_31 -.6034 1.58877 58

Price_32 -.8276 1.52336 58

Price_33 -.7241 1.59817 58

E
0XOWLYDULDWH7HVWV

Hypothesis Partial Eta


Effect Value F df Error df Sig. Squared

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

Within Subjects Design: Harmony + Complexity + Harmony * Complexity

E
0DXFKO\
V7HVWRI6SKHULFLW\

Measure:Price

a
Epsilon

Within Subjects Mauchly's Approx. Chi- Greenhouse- Huynh- Lower-


Effect W Square df Sig. Geisser Feldt bound

Harmony .775 14.305 2 .001 .816 .837 .500

Complexity .933 3.885 2 .143 .937 .968 .500

Harmony * .802 12.243 9 .200 .901 .969 .250


Complexity

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

Within Subjects Design: Harmony + Complexity + Harmony * Complexity


7HVWVRI:LWKLQ6XEMHFWV(IIHFWV

Measure:Price

Type III Sum Partial Eta


Source of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Squared

Harmony Sphericity Assumed 303.544 2 151.772 57.800 .000 .503

Greenhouse-Geisser 303.544 1.632 185.986 57.800 .000 .503

Huynh-Feldt 303.544 1.674 181.377 57.800 .000 .503

Lower-bound 303.544 1.000 303.544 57.800 .000 .503

Error(Harmony) Sphericity Assumed 299.345 114 2.626

Greenhouse-Geisser 299.345 93.029 3.218

Huynh-Feldt 299.345 95.392 3.138

Lower-bound 299.345 57.000 5.252

Complexity Sphericity Assumed 48.464 2 24.232 8.749 .000 .133

Greenhouse-Geisser 48.464 1.874 25.856 8.749 .000 .133

Huynh-Feldt 48.464 1.936 25.035 8.749 .000 .133

Lower-bound 48.464 1.000 48.464 8.749 .005 .133

Error(Complexity) Sphericity Assumed 315.759 114 2.770

Greenhouse-Geisser 315.759 106.840 2.955

Huynh-Feldt 315.759 110.343 2.862

Lower-bound 315.759 57.000 5.540

Harmony * Complexity Sphericity Assumed 56.812 4 14.203 12.222 .000 .177

Greenhouse-Geisser 56.812 3.602 15.772 12.222 .000 .177

Huynh-Feldt 56.812 3.875 14.661 12.222 .000 .177


Lower-bound 56.812 1.000 56.812 12.222 .001 .177

Error(Harmony*Complex Sphericity Assumed 264.966 228 1.162

ity)
Greenhouse-Geisser 264.966 205.319 1.291

Huynh-Feldt 264.966 220.879 1.200

Lower-bound 264.966 57.000 4.649

7HVWVRI:LWKLQ6XEMHFWV&RQWUDVWV

Measure:Price

Complexit Type III Sum Mean Partial Eta


Source y of Squares df Square F Sig. Squared

Harmony Linear 303.520 1 303.520 78.886 .000 .581

Quadratic .024 1 .024 .017 .897 .000

Error(Harmony) Linear 219.313 57 3.848

Quadratic 80.032 57 1.404

Complexity Linear 44.899 1 44.899 13.084 .001 .187

Quadratic 3.564 1 3.564 1.691 .199 .029

Error(Complexity) Linear 195.601 57 3.432

Quadratic 120.158 57 2.108

Harmony * Complexity Linear Linear 7.246 1 7.246 5.470 .023 .088

Quadratic 2.415 1 2.415 2.898 .094 .048

Quadratic Linear 41.036 1 41.036 28.451 .000 .333

Quadratic 6.115 1 6.115 5.834 .019 .093


Error(Harmony*Comple Linear Linear 75.504 57 1.325
xity)
Quadratic 47.501 57 .833

Quadratic Linear 82.214 57 1.442

Quadratic 59.746 57 1.048

7HVWVRI%HWZHHQ6XEMHFWV(IIHFWV

Measure:Price

Transformed Variable:Average

Type III Sum of Partial Eta


Source Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Squared

Intercept 23.180 1 23.180 4.156 .046 .068

Error 317.931 57 5.578

GLM Build_Quality_11 Build_Quality_12 Build_Quality_13 Build_Quality_21 Build_Quality_22


Build_Quality_23 Build_Quality_31 Build_Quality_32 Build_Quality_33

/WSFACTOR=Harmony 3 Polynomial Complexity 3 Polynomial

/MEASURE=Build_Quality

/METHOD=SSTYPE(3)

/PLOT=PROFILE(Harmony*Complexity)

/PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE ETASQ

/CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05)

/WSDESIGN=Harmony Complexity Harmony*Complexity.


*HQHUDO/LQHDU0RGHO

1RWHV

Output Created 30-Jan-2013 17:10:08

Comments

Input Data C:\Users\Ryan\Documents\12F\Islas


Project\Data_IslasB.sav

Active Dataset DataSet0

Filter <none>

Weight <none>

Split File <none>

N of Rows in Working Data 58


File

Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing User-defined missing values are


treated as missing.

Cases Used Statistics are based on all cases with


valid data for all variables in the model.
Syntax GLM Build_Quality_11
Build_Quality_12 Build_Quality_13
Build_Quality_21 Build_Quality_22
Build_Quality_23 Build_Quality_31
Build_Quality_32 Build_Quality_33

/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.

Resources Processor Time 00 00:00:00.702

Elapsed Time 00 00:00:01.115

[DataSet0] C:\Users\Ryan\Documents\12F\Islas Project\Data_IslasB.sav


: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

Mean Std. Deviation N

Build_Quality_11 .9310 1.47330 58

Build_Quality_12 1.2931 1.32465 58

Build_Quality_13 1.6379 1.32053 58

Build_Quality_21 -.4310 1.64490 58

Build_Quality_22 .8966 1.47124 58

Build_Quality_23 1.2414 1.45470 58

Build_Quality_31 -.1034 1.68262 58

Build_Quality_32 -.1724 1.90233 58

Build_Quality_33 .1897 1.66972 58

E
0XOWLYDULDWH7HVWV

Hypothesis Partial Eta


Effect Value F df Error df Sig. Squared

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

Within Subjects Design: Harmony + Complexity + Harmony * Complexity

E
0DXFKO\
V7HVWRI6SKHULFLW\

Measure:Build_Quality

a
Epsilon

Within Subjects Mauchly's Approx. Chi- Greenhouse- Huynh- Lower-


Effect W Square df Sig. Geisser Feldt bound

Harmony .807 12.039 2 .002 .838 .860 .500

Complexity .924 4.417 2 .110 .930 .960 .500

Harmony * .768 14.601 9 .103 .889 .955 .250


Complexity

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

Within Subjects Mauchly's Approx. Chi- Greenhouse- Huynh- Lower-


Effect W Square df Sig. Geisser Feldt bound

Harmony .807 12.039 2 .002 .838 .860 .500

Complexity .924 4.417 2 .110 .930 .960 .500

Harmony * .768 14.601 9 .103 .889 .955 .250


Complexity

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

Within Subjects Design: Harmony + Complexity + Harmony * Complexity

7HVWVRI:LWKLQ6XEMHFWV(IIHFWV

Measure:Build_Quality

Type III Sum Partial Eta

Source of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Squared

Harmony Sphericity Assumed 151.115 2 75.557 23.266 .000 .290

Greenhouse-Geisser 151.115 1.676 90.174 23.266 .000 .290

Huynh-Feldt 151.115 1.721 87.821 23.266 .000 .290

Lower-bound 151.115 1.000 151.115 23.266 .000 .290


Error(Harmony) Sphericity Assumed 370.218 114 3.248

Greenhouse-Geisser 370.218 95.521 3.876

Huynh-Feldt 370.218 98.081 3.775

Lower-bound 370.218 57.000 6.495

Complexity Sphericity Assumed 70.080 2 35.040 18.331 .000 .243

Greenhouse-Geisser 70.080 1.859 37.698 18.331 .000 .243

Huynh-Feldt 70.080 1.919 36.517 18.331 .000 .243

Lower-bound 70.080 1.000 70.080 18.331 .000 .243

Error(Complexity) Sphericity Assumed 217.920 114 1.912

Greenhouse-Geisser 217.920 105.964 2.057

Huynh-Feldt 217.920 109.390 1.992

Lower-bound 217.920 57.000 3.823

Harmony * Complexity Sphericity Assumed 39.149 4 9.787 8.259 .000 .127

Greenhouse-Geisser 39.149 3.556 11.009 8.259 .000 .127

Huynh-Feldt 39.149 3.822 10.243 8.259 .000 .127

Lower-bound 39.149 1.000 39.149 8.259 .006 .127

Error(Harmony*Complex Sphericity Assumed 270.184 228 1.185

ity)
Greenhouse-Geisser 270.184 202.701 1.333

Huynh-Feldt 270.184 217.848 1.240

Lower-bound 270.184 57.000 4.740


7HVWVRI:LWKLQ6XEMHFWV&RQWUDVWV

Measure:Build_Quality

Complexit Type III Sum Mean Partial Eta


Source y of Squares df Square F Sig. Squared

Harmony Linear 150.693 1 150.693 32.234 .000 .361

Quadratic .422 1 .422 .232 .632 .004

Error(Harmony) Linear 266.474 57 4.675

Quadratic 103.744 57 1.820

Complexity Linear 69.037 1 69.037 29.559 .000 .341

Quadratic 1.043 1 1.043 .701 .406 .012

Error(Complexity) Linear 133.129 57 2.336

Quadratic 84.790 57 1.488

Harmony * Complexity Linear Linear 2.483 1 2.483 2.418 .125 .041

Quadratic .971 1 .971 .798 .375 .014

Quadratic Linear 26.575 1 26.575 20.537 .000 .265

Quadratic 9.121 1 9.121 7.584 .008 .117

Error(Harmony*Comple Linear Linear 58.517 57 1.027

xity)
Quadratic 69.362 57 1.217

Quadratic Linear 73.759 57 1.294

Quadratic 68.546 57 1.203


7HVWVRI%HWZHHQ6XEMHFWV(IIHFWV

Measure:Build_Quality

Transformed Variable:Average

Type III Sum of Partial Eta


Source Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Squared

Intercept 193.724 1 193.724 28.342 .000 .332

Error 389.609 57 6.835

GLM Design_Execution_11 Design_Execution_12 Design_Execution_13 Design_Execution_21


Design_Execution_22 Design_Execution_23 Design_Execution_31 Design_Execution_32
Design_Execution_33

/WSFACTOR=Harmony 3 Polynomial Complexity 3 Polynomial

/MEASURE=Design_Execution

/METHOD=SSTYPE(3)

/PLOT=PROFILE(Harmony*Complexity)

/PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE ETASQ

/CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05)

/WSDESIGN=Harmony Complexity Harmony*Complexity.


*HQHUDO/LQHDU0RGHO

1RWHV

Output Created 30-Jan-2013 17:10:50

Comments

Input Data C:\Users\Ryan\Documents\12F\Islas


Project\Data_IslasB.sav

Active Dataset DataSet0

Filter <none>

Weight <none>

Split File <none>

N of Rows in Working Data 58


File

Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing User-defined missing values are


treated as missing.

Cases Used Statistics are based on all cases with


valid data for all variables in the model.
Syntax GLM Design_Execution_11
Design_Execution_12
Design_Execution_13
Design_Execution_21
Design_Execution_22
Design_Execution_23
Design_Execution_31
Design_Execution_32
Design_Execution_33

/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.

Resources Processor Time 00 00:00:00.983

Elapsed Time 00 00:00:01.248

[DataSet0] C:\Users\Ryan\Documents\12F\Islas Project\Data_IslasB.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

Mean Std. Deviation N

Design_Execution_11 .8966 1.83236 58

Design_Execution_12 1.2069 1.60873 58

Design_Execution_13 1.4828 1.45387 58

Design_Execution_21 -.7931 1.68334 58

Design_Execution_22 .1379 1.78147 58

Design_Execution_23 .9138 1.57039 58

Design_Execution_31 -1.0172 1.74206 58

Design_Execution_32 -.9483 1.75141 58

Design_Execution_33 -.3621 2.04080 58

E
0XOWLYDULDWH7HVWV

Hypothesis Partial Eta


Effect Value F df Error df Sig. Squared

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

Within Subjects Design: Harmony + Complexity + Harmony * Complexity

E
0DXFKO\
V7HVWRI6SKHULFLW\

Measure:Design_Execution

a
Epsilon

Within Subjects Mauchly's Approx. Chi- Greenhouse- Huynh- Lower-


Effect W Square df Sig. Geisser Feldt bound

Harmony .695 20.350 2 .000 .766 .783 .500

Complexity .962 2.173 2 .337 .963 .996 .500

Harmony * .812 11.559 9 .240 .916 .987 .250


Complexity

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

Within Subjects Mauchly's Approx. Chi- Greenhouse- Huynh- Lower-


Effect W Square df Sig. Geisser Feldt bound

Harmony .695 20.350 2 .000 .766 .783 .500

Complexity .962 2.173 2 .337 .963 .996 .500

Harmony * .812 11.559 9 .240 .916 .987 .250


Complexity

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

Within Subjects Design: Harmony + Complexity + Harmony * Complexity

7HVWVRI:LWKLQ6XEMHFWV(IIHFWV

Measure:Design_Execution

Type III Sum Partial Eta

Source of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Squared

Harmony Sphericity Assumed 339.843 2 169.921 53.752 .000 .485

Greenhouse-Geisser 339.843 1.533 221.693 53.752 .000 .485

Huynh-Feldt 339.843 1.567 216.891 53.752 .000 .485


Lower-bound 339.843 1.000 339.843 53.752 .000 .485

Error(Harmony) Sphericity Assumed 360.379 114 3.161

Greenhouse-Geisser 360.379 87.378 4.124

Huynh-Feldt 360.379 89.312 4.035

Lower-bound 360.379 57.000 6.322

Complexity Sphericity Assumed 84.372 2 42.186 19.146 .000 .251

Greenhouse-Geisser 84.372 1.927 43.792 19.146 .000 .251

Huynh-Feldt 84.372 1.993 42.340 19.146 .000 .251

Lower-bound 84.372 1.000 84.372 19.146 .000 .251

Error(Complexity) Sphericity Assumed 251.184 114 2.203

Greenhouse-Geisser 251.184 109.820 2.287

Huynh-Feldt 251.184 113.586 2.211

Lower-bound 251.184 57.000 4.407

Harmony * Complexity Sphericity Assumed 25.364 4 6.341 3.722 .006 .061

Greenhouse-Geisser 25.364 3.664 6.923 3.722 .008 .061

Huynh-Feldt 25.364 3.946 6.427 3.722 .006 .061

Lower-bound 25.364 1.000 25.364 3.722 .059 .061

Error(Harmony*Complex Sphericity Assumed 388.414 228 1.704


ity)
Greenhouse-Geisser 388.414 208.820 1.860

Huynh-Feldt 388.414 224.941 1.727

Lower-bound 388.414 57.000 6.814


7HVWVRI:LWKLQ6XEMHFWV&RQWUDVWV

Measure:Design_Execution

Complexit Type III Sum Mean Partial Eta


Source y of Squares df Square F Sig. Squared

Harmony Linear 338.072 1 338.072 69.460 .000 .549

Quadratic 1.771 1 1.771 1.217 .275 .021

Error(Harmony) Linear 277.428 57 4.867

Quadratic 82.951 57 1.455

Complexity Linear 84.026 1 84.026 35.353 .000 .383

Quadratic .346 1 .346 .170 .681 .003

Error(Complexity) Linear 135.474 57 2.377

Quadratic 115.710 57 2.030

Harmony * Complexity Linear Linear .069 1 .069 .036 .851 .001

Quadratic 1.471 1 1.471 .826 .367 .014

Quadratic Linear 22.810 1 22.810 19.945 .000 .259

Quadratic 1.013 1 1.013 .517 .475 .009

Error(Harmony*Comple Linear Linear 109.931 57 1.929

xity)
Quadratic 101.529 57 1.781

Quadratic Linear 65.190 57 1.144

Quadratic 111.764 57 1.961


7HVWVRI%HWZHHQ6XEMHFWV(IIHFWV

Measure:Design_Execution

Transformed Variable:Average

Type III Sum of Partial Eta


Source Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Squared

Intercept 14.835 1 14.835 1.603 .211 .027

Error 527.609 57 9.256

GLM Safety_11 Safety_12 Safety_13 Safety_21 Safety_22 Safety_23 Safety_31 Safety_32 Safety_33

/WSFACTOR=Harmony 3 Polynomial Complexity 3 Polynomial

/MEASURE=Safety

/METHOD=SSTYPE(3)

/PLOT=PROFILE(Harmony*Complexity)

/PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE ETASQ

/CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05)

/WSDESIGN=Harmony Complexity Harmony*Complexity.


*HQHUDO/LQHDU0RGHO

1RWHV

Output Created 30-Jan-2013 17:11:17

Comments

Input Data C:\Users\Ryan\Documents\12F\Islas


Project\Data_IslasB.sav

Active Dataset DataSet0

Filter <none>

Weight <none>

Split File <none>

N of Rows in Working Data 58


File

Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing User-defined missing values are


treated as missing.

Cases Used Statistics are based on all cases with


valid data for all variables in the model.
Syntax GLM Safety_11 Safety_12 Safety_13
Safety_21 Safety_22 Safety_23
Safety_31 Safety_32 Safety_33

/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.

Resources Processor Time 00 00:00:00.655

Elapsed Time 00 00:00:00.835

[DataSet0] C:\Users\Ryan\Documents\12F\Islas Project\Data_IslasB.sav


:LWKLQ6XEMHFWV)DFWRUV

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

Mean Std. Deviation N

Safety_11 .8621 1.69051 58

Safety_12 1.1724 1.44049 58

Safety_13 1.3276 1.39407 58

Safety_21 -.7586 1.62557 58

Safety_22 .6034 1.48607 58

Safety_23 1.0345 1.57798 58

Safety_31 -.2759 1.60911 58

Safety_32 -.8621 1.62705 58

Safety_33 -.2931 1.60053 58


E
0XOWLYDULDWH7HVWV

Hypothesis Partial Eta


Effect Value F df Error df Sig. Squared

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

Within Subjects Design: Harmony + Complexity + Harmony * Complexity


E
0DXFKO\
V7HVWRI6SKHULFLW\

Measure:Safety

a
Epsilon

Within Subjects Mauchly's Approx. Chi- Greenhouse- Huynh- Lower-


Effect W Square df Sig. Geisser Feldt bound

Harmony .812 11.674 2 .003 .842 .864 .500

Complexity .814 11.496 2 .003 .843 .866 .500

Harmony * .715 18.618 9 .029 .857 .919 .250


Complexity

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

Within Subjects Design: Harmony + Complexity + Harmony * Complexity

7HVWVRI:LWKLQ6XEMHFWV(IIHFWV

Measure:Safety

Type III Sum Partial Eta

Source of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Squared

Harmony Sphericity Assumed 222.176 2 111.088 46.780 .000 .451

Greenhouse-Geisser 222.176 1.683 131.992 46.780 .000 .451

Huynh-Feldt 222.176 1.729 128.518 46.780 .000 .451

Lower-bound 222.176 1.000 222.176 46.780 .000 .451


Error(Harmony) Sphericity Assumed 270.713 114 2.375

Greenhouse-Geisser 270.713 95.946 2.822

Huynh-Feldt 270.713 98.539 2.747

Lower-bound 270.713 57.000 4.749

Complexity Sphericity Assumed 48.579 2 24.289 13.001 .000 .186

Greenhouse-Geisser 48.579 1.687 28.797 13.001 .000 .186

Huynh-Feldt 48.579 1.733 28.036 13.001 .000 .186

Lower-bound 48.579 1.000 48.579 13.001 .001 .186

Error(Complexity) Sphericity Assumed 212.977 114 1.868

Greenhouse-Geisser 212.977 96.155 2.215

Huynh-Feldt 212.977 98.765 2.156

Lower-bound 212.977 57.000 3.736

Harmony * Complexity Sphericity Assumed 72.467 4 18.117 13.212 .000 .188

Greenhouse-Geisser 72.467 3.429 21.132 13.212 .000 .188

Huynh-Feldt 72.467 3.676 19.716 13.212 .000 .188

Lower-bound 72.467 1.000 72.467 13.212 .001 .188

Error(Harmony*Complex Sphericity Assumed 312.644 228 1.371

ity)
Greenhouse-Geisser 312.644 195.472 1.599

Huynh-Feldt 312.644 209.506 1.492

Lower-bound 312.644 57.000 5.485

7HVWVRI:LWKLQ6XEMHFWV&RQWUDVWV
Measure:Safety

Complexit Type III Sum Mean Partial Eta

Source y of Squares df Square F Sig. Squared

Harmony Linear 222.080 1 222.080 65.278 .000 .534

Quadratic .096 1 .096 .071 .791 .001

Error(Harmony) Linear 193.920 57 3.402

Quadratic 76.793 57 1.347

Complexity Linear 48.563 1 48.563 18.607 .000 .246

Quadratic .015 1 .015 .014 .908 .000

Error(Complexity) Linear 148.770 57 2.610

Quadratic 64.207 57 1.126

Harmony * Complexity Linear Linear 3.379 1 3.379 3.527 .066 .058

Quadratic 8.299 1 8.299 5.158 .027 .083

Quadratic Linear 47.592 1 47.592 33.052 .000 .367

Quadratic 13.197 1 13.197 8.929 .004 .135

Error(Harmony*Comple Linear Linear 54.621 57 .958


xity)
Quadratic 91.701 57 1.609

Quadratic Linear 82.075 57 1.440

Quadratic 84.247 57 1.478

7HVWVRI%HWZHHQ6XEMHFWV(IIHFWV
Measure:Safety

Transformed Variable:Average

Type III Sum of Partial Eta


Source Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Squared

Intercept 50.898 1 50.898 6.327 .015 .100

Error 458.546 57 8.045

GLM Driveability_11 Driveability_12 Driveability_13 Driveability_21 Driveability_22 Driveability_23


Driveability_31 Driveability_32 Driveability_33

/WSFACTOR=Harmony 3 Polynomial Complexity 3 Polynomial

/MEASURE=Driveability

/METHOD=SSTYPE(3)

/PLOT=PROFILE(Harmony*Complexity)

/PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE ETASQ

/CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05)

/WSDESIGN=Harmony Complexity Harmony*Complexity.


*HQHUDO/LQHDU0RGHO

1RWHV

Output Created 30-Jan-2013 17:11:42

Comments

Input Data C:\Users\Ryan\Documents\12F\Islas


Project\Data_IslasB.sav

Active Dataset DataSet0

Filter <none>

Weight <none>

Split File <none>

N of Rows in Working Data 58


File

Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing User-defined missing values are


treated as missing.

Cases Used Statistics are based on all cases with


valid data for all variables in the model.
Syntax GLM Driveability_11 Driveability_12
Driveability_13 Driveability_21
Driveability_22 Driveability_23
Driveability_31 Driveability_32
Driveability_33

/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.

Resources Processor Time 00 00:00:00.718

Elapsed Time 00 00:00:00.996

[DataSet0] C:\Users\Ryan\Documents\12F\Islas Project\Data_IslasB.sav


:LWKLQ6XEMHFWV)DFWRUV

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

Mean Std. Deviation N

Driveability_11 .7759 1.61183 58

Driveability_12 1.1034 1.44720 58

Driveability_13 1.5690 1.17147 58

Driveability_21 -.7241 1.65214 58

Driveability_22 .3793 1.58753 58

Driveability_23 1.0345 1.41379 58

Driveability_31 -.4483 1.40391 58


Driveability_32 -.4828 1.72943 58

Driveability_33 -.2241 1.68630 58

E
0XOWLYDULDWH7HVWV

Hypothesis Partial Eta


Effect Value F df Error df Sig. Squared

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

Hypothesis Partial Eta


Effect Value F df Error df Sig. Squared

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

Within Subjects Design: Harmony + Complexity + Harmony * Complexity


E
0DXFKO\
V7HVWRI6SKHULFLW\

Measure:Driveability

a
Epsilon

Within Subjects Mauchly's Approx. Chi- Greenhouse- Huynh- Lower-


Effect W Square df Sig. Geisser Feldt bound

Harmony .941 3.424 2 .180 .944 .975 .500

Complexity .958 2.412 2 .299 .960 .992 .500

Harmony * .776 14.070 9 .120 .884 .950 .250


Complexity

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

Within Subjects Design: Harmony + Complexity + Harmony * Complexity

7HVWVRI:LWKLQ6XEMHFWV(IIHFWV

Measure:Driveability

Type III Sum Partial Eta

Source of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Squared

Harmony Sphericity Assumed 207.544 2 103.772 45.189 .000 .442

Greenhouse-Geisser 207.544 1.888 109.927 45.189 .000 .442

Huynh-Feldt 207.544 1.951 106.397 45.189 .000 .442


Lower-bound 207.544 1.000 207.544 45.189 .000 .442

Error(Harmony) Sphericity Assumed 261.789 114 2.296

Greenhouse-Geisser 261.789 107.617 2.433

Huynh-Feldt 261.789 111.188 2.354

Lower-bound 261.789 57.000 4.593

Complexity Sphericity Assumed 74.487 2 37.243 16.792 .000 .228

Greenhouse-Geisser 74.487 1.919 38.814 16.792 .000 .228

Huynh-Feldt 74.487 1.984 37.535 16.792 .000 .228

Lower-bound 74.487 1.000 74.487 16.792 .000 .228

Error(Complexity) Sphericity Assumed 252.847 114 2.218

Greenhouse-Geisser 252.847 109.388 2.311

Huynh-Feldt 252.847 113.115 2.235

Lower-bound 252.847 57.000 4.436

Harmony * Complexity Sphericity Assumed 37.858 4 9.465 7.685 .000 .119

Greenhouse-Geisser 37.858 3.537 10.703 7.685 .000 .119

Huynh-Feldt 37.858 3.800 9.963 7.685 .000 .119

Lower-bound 37.858 1.000 37.858 7.685 .008 .119

Error(Harmony*Complex Sphericity Assumed 280.808 228 1.232


ity)
Greenhouse-Geisser 280.808 201.625 1.393

Huynh-Feldt 280.808 216.604 1.296

Lower-bound 280.808 57.000 4.926


7HVWVRI:LWKLQ6XEMHFWV&RQWUDVWV

Measure:Driveability

Complexit Type III Sum Mean Partial Eta


Source y of Squares df Square F Sig. Squared

Harmony Linear 204.853 1 204.853 72.685 .000 .560

Quadratic 2.691 1 2.691 1.516 .223 .026

Error(Harmony) Linear 160.647 57 2.818

Quadratic 101.143 57 1.774

Complexity Linear 74.486 1 74.486 29.345 .000 .340

Quadratic .001 1 .001 .001 .982 .000

Error(Complexity) Linear 144.681 57 2.538

Quadratic 108.166 57 1.898

Harmony * Complexity Linear Linear 4.694 1 4.694 2.988 .089 .050

Quadratic .116 1 .116 .087 .770 .002

Quadratic Linear 30.208 1 30.208 33.193 .000 .368

Quadratic 2.840 1 2.840 2.580 .114 .043

Error(Harmony*Comple Linear Linear 89.556 57 1.571

xity)
Quadratic 76.634 57 1.344

Quadratic Linear 51.875 57 .910

Quadratic 62.744 57 1.101


7HVWVRI%HWZHHQ6XEMHFWV(IIHFWV

Measure:Driveability

Transformed Variable:Average

Type III Sum of Partial Eta


Source Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Squared

Intercept 57.335 1 57.335 8.004 .006 .123

Error 408.331 57 7.164

GLM Driving_Performance_11 Driving_Performance_12 Driving_Performance_13


Driving_Performance_21 Driving_Performance_22 Driving_Performance_23 Driving_Performance_31
Driving_Performance_32 Driving_Performance_33

/WSFACTOR=Harmony 3 Polynomial Complexity 3 Polynomial

/MEASURE=Driving_Performance

/METHOD=SSTYPE(3)

/PLOT=PROFILE(Harmony*Complexity)

/PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE ETASQ

/CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05)

/WSDESIGN=Harmony Complexity Harmony*Complexity.


*HQHUDO/LQHDU0RGHO

1RWHV

Output Created 30-Jan-2013 17:12:31

Comments

Input Data C:\Users\Ryan\Documents\12F\Islas


Project\Data_IslasB.sav

Active Dataset DataSet0

Filter <none>

Weight <none>

Split File <none>

N of Rows in Working Data 58


File

Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing User-defined missing values are


treated as missing.

Cases Used Statistics are based on all cases with


valid data for all variables in the model.
Syntax GLM Driving_Performance_11
Driving_Performance_12
Driving_Performance_13
Driving_Performance_21
Driving_Performance_22
Driving_Performance_23
Driving_Performance_31
Driving_Performance_32
Driving_Performance_33

/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.

Resources Processor Time 00 00:00:00.608

Elapsed Time 00 00:00:00.733

[DataSet0] C:\Users\Ryan\Documents\12F\Islas Project\Data_IslasB.sav


: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

Mean Std. Deviation N

Driving_Performance_11 .5690 1.80751 58

Driving_Performance_12 1.0000 1.70654 58

Driving_Performance_13 1.6552 1.42104 58

Driving_Performance_21 -1.0517 1.67983 58

Driving_Performance_22 .2759 1.66273 58

Driving_Performance_23 .7586 1.45470 58

Driving_Performance_31 -.9828 1.61670 58

Driving_Performance_32 -.6897 1.67758 58

Driving_Performance_33 -.4828 1.72943 58

E
0XOWLYDULDWH7HVWV

Hypothesis Partial Eta


Effect Value F df Error df Sig. Squared

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

Within Subjects Design: Harmony + Complexity + Harmony * Complexity

E
0DXFKO\
V7HVWRI6SKHULFLW\

Measure:Driving_Performance

a
Epsilon

Within Subjects Mauchly's Approx. Chi- Greenhouse- Huynh- Lower-


Effect W Square df Sig. Geisser Feldt bound

Harmony .883 6.967 2 .031 .895 .922 .500

Complexity .880 7.156 2 .028 .893 .920 .500

Harmony * .655 23.413 9 .005 .843 .902 .250


Complexity

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

Within Subjects Mauchly's Approx. Chi- Greenhouse- Huynh- Lower-


Effect W Square df Sig. Geisser Feldt bound

Harmony .883 6.967 2 .031 .895 .922 .500

Complexity .880 7.156 2 .028 .893 .920 .500

Harmony * .655 23.413 9 .005 .843 .902 .250


Complexity

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

Within Subjects Design: Harmony + Complexity + Harmony * Complexity

7HVWVRI:LWKLQ6XEMHFWV(IIHFWV

Measure:Driving_Performance

Type III Sum Partial Eta

Source of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Squared

Harmony Sphericity Assumed 283.648 2 141.824 50.893 .000 .472

Greenhouse-Geisser 283.648 1.791 158.414 50.893 .000 .472

Huynh-Feldt 283.648 1.845 153.754 50.893 .000 .472


Lower-bound 283.648 1.000 283.648 50.893 .000 .472

Error(Harmony) Sphericity Assumed 317.686 114 2.787

Greenhouse-Geisser 317.686 102.061 3.113

Huynh-Feldt 317.686 105.155 3.021

Lower-bound 317.686 57.000 5.573

Complexity Sphericity Assumed 113.130 2 56.565 27.533 .000 .326

Greenhouse-Geisser 113.130 1.786 63.351 27.533 .000 .326

Huynh-Feldt 113.130 1.840 61.496 27.533 .000 .326

Lower-bound 113.130 1.000 113.130 27.533 .000 .326

Error(Complexity) Sphericity Assumed 234.203 114 2.054

Greenhouse-Geisser 234.203 101.789 2.301

Huynh-Feldt 234.203 104.860 2.233

Lower-bound 234.203 57.000 4.109

Harmony * Complexity Sphericity Assumed 30.835 4 7.709 5.350 .000 .086

Greenhouse-Geisser 30.835 3.372 9.145 5.350 .001 .086

Huynh-Feldt 30.835 3.610 8.543 5.350 .001 .086

Lower-bound 30.835 1.000 30.835 5.350 .024 .086

Error(Harmony*Complex Sphericity Assumed 328.498 228 1.441


ity)
Greenhouse-Geisser 328.498 192.202 1.709

Huynh-Feldt 328.498 205.745 1.597

Lower-bound 328.498 57.000 5.763


7HVWVRI:LWKLQ6XEMHFWV&RQWUDVWV

Measure:Driving_Performance

Complexit Type III Sum Mean Partial Eta


Source y of Squares df Square F Sig. Squared

Harmony Linear 279.724 1 279.724 74.876 .000 .568

Quadratic 3.923 1 3.923 2.135 .149 .036

Error(Harmony) Linear 212.943 57 3.736

Quadratic 104.743 57 1.838

Complexity Linear 111.520 1 111.520 40.666 .000 .416

Quadratic 1.610 1 1.610 1.178 .282 .020

Error(Complexity) Linear 156.313 57 2.742

Quadratic 77.890 57 1.366

Harmony * Complexity Linear Linear 4.983 1 4.983 4.086 .048 .067

Quadratic .466 1 .466 .388 .536 .007

Quadratic Linear 20.006 1 20.006 16.253 .000 .222

Quadratic 5.381 1 5.381 2.546 .116 .043

Error(Harmony*Comple Linear Linear 69.517 57 1.220

xity)
Quadratic 68.368 57 1.199

Quadratic Linear 70.161 57 1.231

Quadratic 120.452 57 2.113


7HVWVRI%HWZHHQ6XEMHFWV(IIHFWV

Measure:Driving_Performance

Transformed Variable:Average

Type III Sum of Partial Eta


Source Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Squared

Intercept 7.128 1 7.128 .803 .374 .014

Error 505.872 57 8.875


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.

5. Color graph showing individual semantic concepts.


6. General view of all graphs.

7. Graph showing chromatic values for SET A.

8. Graph showing chromatic values for SET B.


9. Interaction effects for all concepts
6.4.2. Price

10. Table and scale for price.


6.4.3. Build quality

11. Table and scale for build quality


6.4.4. Design execution

12. Table and scale for design execution.


6.4.5. Safety

13. Table and scale for safety


6.4.6. Driveability

14. Table and scale for driveability.


6.4.7. Driving performance

15. Table and scale for driving performance.

S-ar putea să vă placă și