Acceptance of non personal design in leasing versus renting, f. dijckmeester & m. stolk

Paper: Acceptance of Non-personal design in Leasing versus Renting
Acceptance of non-personal design in
Leasing versus Renting
M. H. M. Stolk, F. Th. Dijckmeester, J. P. L. Schoormans and V. Tunn
Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Product Innovation Management, TU Delft
June 2018
Keywords: Sustainable, access based, Product service systems, non-personal, design, leasing, renting.
Contents
1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………….. p. 1
2. Literature Review……………….…………………………………………………………………… p. 1
3. Methodology………………....……………………………………………………………………… p. 3
4. Results………………………………..……………………………………………………………… p. 5
5. Discussion ……………………...…………………………………………………………………… p. 6
6. References……………………....…………………………………………………………………… p. 8
7. Appendix………………………..…………………………………………………………………… p. 9
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to research
whether non-personal design is more beneficial in
product renting than in product leasing.
Design: Four scenarios were created: non-personal
leasing, personal leasing, non-personal renting and
personal renting. Through a questionnaire
respondents rated one out of four bicycles on
acceptance. The non-personal bicycles were black
bicycles and the personal bicycle was the ‘favorite’
bicycle, chosen out of eight colored bicycles
(including black and grey).
Findings: The results were found to be not
significant. This was in line with findings in
literature about people's experiential involvement
with bicycles. It can be argued that this indicates
that non-personal design is suited for bicycles in
both renting and leasing PSSs..
Originality: Non-personal design is a highly new
research field. Therefore this paper is original in its
kind. However, since the results are not significant
the hypotheses can not be proved.
1. Introduction
The combination of a growing worldwide
population and increasing total resource usage has
implications for our finite planet: signs of
unwanted impacts and of irreversible changes (e.g.
the increased rate of species extinction, rising CO2
air concentration levels) are growing alarmingly
(Baldassarre et. al, 2017).
Our current amounts and means of consumption are
highly unsustainable.
In order to realise a sustainable future, both
businesses have to integrate sustainability
objectives into business models and consumers will
have to behave in a more conscious and less
environmentally damaging way (Boons et. al,
2013). But in majority the cases, it is hard to
achieve an alignment in profit, competitiveness,
and environmental benefits. As an exception, many
authors do see this potential alignment in an
approach based on product-service systems.
(Sundin et. al, 2013; Vezoli et. al, 2015 and
Geissdoerfer et. al 2016)
2. Literature review
2.1. Product Service Systems
A product–service system (PSS) can be defined as
consisting of ‘tangible products and intangible
services designed and combined so that they jointly
are capable of fulfilling specific customer needs’
(Tischner et al., 2002). Product service systems can
be a possible contribution towards a (more)
sustainable world (UNEP, 2002, p. 9) through
decoupling of resource usage from satisfaction of
consumer needs and companies’ economic benefits
(Manzini and Vezzoli, 2003; Ehrenfeld, 2001). The
biggest obstacle against the sharing of products in a
PSS is given as ‘the desire to own’ (Edbring, 2015
p. 9) and this is confirmed by research done by
Catulli (2012). Studies indicate that
1.

product-personality congruence determines a
significant part of consumer preference (Govers,
2005). Therefore, non-personal design could be a
tool to overcome this obstacle posed by Edbring
(2015).
Research has been done to the different types of
product service systems and their possible
contribution to sustainability (Tukker, 2004) and
research has been done to product personality and
its influence on consumer preference (Govers,
2005). The influence of non personal product
design on relevant PSSs has not been directly
explored in the literature.
2.2 Leasing and Renting
Tukker describes in his paper released in 2004
eight archetypical models of product service
systems. Especially the ‘use and result-oriented’
PSSs (see image 1) has the potential to overcome
all kinds of split incentive concerning the
environment (UNEP, 2002, p. 9). The product stays
in ownership of the provider, and is made available
in a different form, and sometimes shared by a
number of users. These types of PSS would benefit
both the consumer and producer to reduce
life-cycle costs, since the cost of operation is
transferred from the consumer to the producer by
transferring product ownership to the company
providing the service. Use oriented PSS exists out
of 3 specified PSSs, of which ‘pooling’ is not
researched in this paper because of its similarity to
renting, but leasing and renting are.
[image 1]
2.2.1 Product Leasing
‘Here, the product does not shift in ownership. The
provider has ownership, and is also often
responsible for maintenance, repair and control.
The lessee pay a regular fee for the use of the
product; in this case normally he/she has unlimited
and individual access to the leased product.’
(Tukker, 2004, p 248)
2.2.2. Product renting or sharing.
‘Here also, the product in general is owned by a
provider, who is also responsible for maintenance,
repair and control. The user pays for the use of the
product. The main difference to product leasing is,
however, that the user does not have unlimited and
individual access; others can use the product at
other times. The same product is sequentially used
by different users.’ (Tukker, 2004, p 249)
2.3 (Non-)Personal design
We perceive non-personal design as: “Design that
can be used (sequentially) by multiple people while
satisfying common functional and esthetical
customer needs (the ‘acceptance’), without the
necessity of strong emotional affection from the
consumer.”
We don’t perceive non-personal design as
the opposite of personal design, but it provides a
starting point. In the literature there has been
written extensively about the relation between
consumer preference and product personality
(Baxter, 2014; Barone, 1999; Govers, 2005.) The
main consensus here is that consumers are attracted
to products that match/express their personality
(Govers, 2005; Barone, 1999.)
However, a very specific product
personality might be less beneficial when product
ownership changes to product acces. This is
supported in the thesis by Baumeister (2014). Here
it is proven that consumers perceive a
significantly higher personal attachment to an
owned good as compared to a rented product.
The need for product personality congruence
inevitably decreases the amount of people that can
be satisfied by the same product’s design.
However, this sequential use and acceptance by the
user is essential in product leasing and renting. So,
when limiting this product attachment by removing
the emotional attachment the use of products by
multiple users could be better accepted. Here
non-personal design could be part of the solution.
One might expect that consumers accept
the multiple subsequent use cycles of the same
product by different consumers more easily, when
products used in use-oriented PSS are designed in a
non-personal way. The reasoning behind this is that
when there is no clear way to feel attached to a
product, we can expect that it is also harder to be
turned away from the product. Also other concerns
as quality and hygiene then might play less of an
issue (Edbring, 2015).
Secondly, since non-personal design could
potentially reduce the need of ownership this would
only add to the acceptance of PSS over traditional
ownership. More specifically, one could wonder if
product personality congruence has as much
influence on acceptance in PSSs, as it has to
acceptance in product owning. However, this
2.

relation is not yet researched posing substantial
knowledge gaps and opportunities for research.
This provides the purpose of this study. Namely, to
research whether non-personal design is more
beneficial in product renting than in product
leasing. A study on exploring the boundary
conditions of non-personal design.
2.4. Hypothesis
From the paper by Edbring (2015) we can conclude
a few key findings. Firstly, the results demonstrate
that consumer attitudes vary greatly to the
consumption models: buying, leasing and renting.
Secondly, attitudes towards buying second-hand
furniture and short-term renting are largely
positive, while attitudes to long-term renting are
negative. Thornquist (2017) argued that emotional
involvement leads to compulsive and impulsive
buying behaviour and therefore to environmentally
damaging and unsustainable consumption in the
fashion industry. We take these two findings as a
basis, combining them for our hypotheses.
We are interested in researching what the influence
of non-personal design is on the acceptance of
products in access based product service systems.
This paper researches the influence of non personal
design on acceptance of leasing and renting PSSs.
Because this relation can be interpreted in multiple
ways, the following hypotheses were designed:
H(1): Non-personal design creates a higher
acceptance in renting PSSs compared to leasing
PSSs.
H(2): The difference in means between acceptance
of personal compared to non-personal design is
greater in product leasing than in product renting.
H(3): There is an interaction effect between PSS
form (renting / leasing ) and design method
(non-personal / personal) on acceptance.
3. Methodology
3.1 Respondents
For the study students of the Technical University
of Delft will be used as respondents. An absolute
minimum of 5-10 participants is needed to perform
factorial analysis (Field, 2013). The study involves
4 independent groups of people, of which only the
people with preference for a personalised bike will
be used in the analysis (the safety margin of
not-usable data is set at 2.5). Therefore, the
minimum respondents is set at (10*4*2.5=) 100.
The respondents are gathered by sharing a
randomised link, that forwards the participant to 1
of the 4 independent questionnaires.
3.2 Stimuli
Studies on personal design and its influence on
product personality indicate that
product-personality congruence determines a
significant part of consumer preference
(Schoormans, 2005). In context to sustainable
product service systems, stimuli were chosen that
are frequently used and that are relevant to a
substantial part of society. Often the best product
that fits these criteria is an automobile (Malhotra,
1988). However, our respondents probably can not
relate very close to this topic since car ownership
among them is low (Kampert et al., 2017). The next
product that best resembles the criteria would be
the main means of transportation among our target
group. Therefore we chose to use bicycles, since
this is the most used means of transportation that is
owned by our respondents.
Within this product form, there are already
movements of both product renting and product
leasing services (e.g. Swapfiets, OV-fiets, Mobike).
These services are growing rapidly which makes
the stimuli both relevant and understandable
towards our participants which will have a positive
impact on research validity.
A total of 8 stimuli were created from a archetype
bicycle shape, shown in image 2. The bicycle are
identical except for their frame color; white, pink,
red, orange, green, yellow blue and black.
3.2.1. Pre-Test
3.2.1.1. Pre-test Design
In order to verify H(0), that a black bike is a
‘non-personal’ bicycle, a pretest was designed. In
the pretest 15 respondents were asked to order 8
bikes, where positioning is following their
preference. According to our definition, the bike
with the highest mean while having a low variance
is considered the non-personal bike.
H(0): (given same functionalities) a black bicycle is
the most non-personal bicycle
3.2.1.2. Pretest conclusion
Although 10 out of 15 have a preference for a
coloured bike, the black bike has the highest mean
of 5.8 (see appendix A). In our 14 participants,
there are 3 outliers (number 7, 12 and 13). These
participants explain the relatively big variance of
6.171. Therefore we conclude that the black bike is
accepted by most people and fits our definition of a
non-personal product. We’ve used this to design
our questionnaire.
3.

[image 2, for detailed version, see appendix B]
3.3. Design
The access based product service systems will have
to be presented through scenarios. The time you
rent a bicycle in the ‘renting scenario’ is one day.
Our time period for leasing a bike is based on the
durance of a TU Delft bachelor, which is 3 years.
We used literature of Van den Hende (2010) as a
basis.
1. You are a student just starting out with
your bachelors at the Technical University
of Delft. You decide to rent a bicycle for
one day to go to your faculty. (The picture
(x) shows the bike you receive). Please
respond to the questions below as if this
bike was the one you would interact with
as described in the scenario.
2. You are a student just starting out with
your bachelors at the Technical University
of Delft. You decide to lease a bicycle for
the duration of your bachelors, which will
be three years. (The picture (x) shows the
bike you receive). Please respond to the
questions below as if this bike was the one
you would interact with as described in
the scenario.
3.4. Procedure
Four different scenarios were created: personal and
non-personal design, each combined with leasing
or renting scenarios image 3.
[image 3].
In order to measure reliable if there would be a
difference in acceptance across the multiple
scenarios only one of the four scenarios to each
respondent were given. By clicking on a link the
respondents were randomly redirected to one of the
four separate questionnaires.
We chose for this between groups design of our
research to avoid participants starting to compare
the scenarios.
In the two personal scenario’s the participants first
choose their favorite bike out of the eight stimuli
presented. Then they would answer the questions
about their acceptance of their chosen favorite
bicycle followed by demographic questions (see
table 1). This was done on a five point likert scale
as recommended in literature (Danaher & Haddrell,
1996.) The black bike was also included here, but if
a participant would choose this one they would go
straight to the demographic questions since the
acceptance of a black favorite bicycle is not
relevant for our research.
In the two non-personal scenarios we
would present all participants with the non-personal
bicycle and then consecutively measured their
acceptance of this bicycle. Then afterwards, the
participants pick their preferred bicycle like in the
personal scenarios. Again followed by
demographic questions.
3.5. Measures
The main measure we have is acceptance, since we
are researching how well the bike is perceived to be
‘fit for the job’ by the respondent in our scenario.
Consumers’ satisfaction has been considered one of
the most important constructs (McQuitty et al.,
2000), and one of the main goals in marketing
(Erevelles and Leavitt, 1992; Wallendorf, 1988).
Other measures are demographic data to evaluate
possible differences in attitudes between different
demographics.
4.

We measure acceptance through the following
questions:
Questions
Acceptance
I believe this bicycle does/does not
satisfy my needs
I believe this bicycle has/has not a good
appearance
I find this bicycle is/is not attractive
I find this bicycle beautiful/not
beautiful
I find this a good/not a good bicycle
I do/do not feel good when using this
bicycle
I do/do not like to be seen with this
bicycle
Demographics
Do you own a bicycle (or more)?
How many bicycles do you own?
Do you currently have a subscription
for a bike sharing service? (like
OV-fiets, swapfiets etc.)
Which type of bike sharing service do
you have a subscription for?
Which type of transport do you use
most?
To which gender do you most
identify?
What is your age?
What is your total monthly disposable
income (total monthly income minus
your fixed expenses like rent,
insurance etc.)?
We choose for non personal design, to take the data
of all the respondents into account, whether the
preference is coloured or black. This is because in a
real life scenario people can also have a preference
for a non-personal design.
4. Results
The survey was sent around and shared among our
target group through various media. A sufficient
amount of people answered the questionnaire
(n=121). The four scenarios where answered
equally enough to perform statistical analysis.
Of the respondents the average age was
24.4 years old, 50 were female and 71 were male.
Of the respondents 102 people owned a bicycle.
From our questionnaire it became clear that 19
participants did have a swapfiets subscription, 47
an OV-fiets subscription and 5 a MoBike
subscription. The average amount of bicycles
people owned was 1.59. The most widely used
mode of transport was by bicycle (69,6%) followed
by public transport (17,3%) and the car (8,2%). The
other types of transport (e-bike, scooter and
motorcycle) only accounted for 5,8%.
Using a factorial analysis we created one
independent value for ‘aesthetic acceptance’. The
component was formed out of the following
questions:
1. I find this bicycle attractive
2. With this bicycle I would like to be seen
3. I believe this bicycle has a good
appearance
4. I find this bicycle beautiful
We have called this factor ‘aesthetic acceptance’
because all of the questions are linked to the
aesthetics of the product. The other factors didn’t
have an eigenvalue higher than 1, but had more to
do with the functional aspects of the product. For
the detailed statistical analysis, see appendix E. The
means of component ‘aesthetic acceptance’ are
displayed in Image 4, and numbered in appendix C.
[Image 4, see appendix f for visualised plot]
5.

Test of the hypothesis
4.1 (H1)
For (H1) an independent sample T-test was
performed to measure significant difference in
means between acceptance in leasing and renting,
using non-personal designs (in Image 4 displayed
as A). The difference of 0,654 (on scale 1-5) is not
significant (p 0.25>0.05). Therefore non personal
design creates no higher mean acceptance in
renting PSSs compared to leasing PSSs according
to our research.
4.2 (H2)
For (H2), an independent sample T-test was
performed to test whether the difference in means
between acceptance of personal compared to
non-personal design is greater in product leasing
than in product renting (in Image 4; the difference
between values B and C). Also for H2 the
difference turns out to be not significant. For
further statistics on significance related to H1 and
H2, see appendix d and appendix e.
4.3 (H3)
Our last hypothesis was tested using a between
subjects independent factorial anova. The results
are displayed in appendix g. Again, this hypothesis
is tested negative; there is no significant relation
between the interaction of design and type of
product service system on aesthetic acceptance (p
0,931 > 0,05).
In conclusion, there is no significant relation
between the independent variables (type of PSS
and design) and dependent variable (acceptance),
or the interaction of PSS and design on acceptance.
5. Discussion
5.1. Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to investigate
whether non-personal design is more beneficial in
product renting than in product leasing.
Additionally we investigated if and to which degree
the type of PSS and the type of Design influences
the acceptance of a bicycle. The study was set up
according to a between subjects design. Each
respondent only got one of the four possible
scenarios. The respondent then rated the bicycle on
seven questions taking into account the scenario
and design. This resulted in a measure of the
esthetic acceptance of a bicycle.
The results did not confirm our findings.
None of the three hypothesis could be confirmed
after conducting a statistical analysis.
Our initial analysis was done, to get an overview of
the responses (appendix H). An interesting result to
start with, is the amount of people who have a
preference for black bicycles; both in the personal
design scenario as the non-personal design scenario
(see appendix A). The ratio of preference for a
black bicycle is higher in the final results (53%
prefer black) than our pretest indicated it would be
(26% prefer black). In the questionnaires of the
non-personal design scenarios, this could be due to
the fact of answering the question about bike color
preference after filling in a questionnaire about the
black bicycle.
In graph 5 we see that H2: The difference
in means between acceptance of personal compared
to non-personal design is greater in product leasing
than in product renting, seems to fit our data with a
mean for non personal design - product renting of
3,484 compared to a mean of 3,194 in non personal
design - product leasing. However, the results are
not significant at the p<0.05 level. This is also
visually displayed in appendix F. These results
appear to be in line with our hypothesis, but might
as well be a coincidence. In both renting and
leasing, people prefer a personalised bicycle over a
non-personal bicycle. But in table 6 we’ve
summarised the significance of the comparisons
between means of the scenarios, both factorial
(aesthetic acceptance) and the overall means. As
can seen in table 6, none of the results are
significant.
Our findings, that people do not mind about the
aesthetics of a bicycle, are in line with the findings
of C. Baumeister (2014, p 151): “For bicycles,
experiential and symbolic perceptions are found
to be significantly less important than for any
other product category (Books, Cars, Handbags and
clothing).” An explanation for this could be that a
bicycle is a functional product and we only
focussed on the esthetical side of its design.
But our findings do prove one thing: the design of a
bicycle does not influence the aesthetic acceptance.
Therefore we can argue that bicycles, used in the
context of a PSS, are suited for non-personal
design.
5.1. Limitations
This study only takes into account one type of
product. It is proven that consumers attitudes vary
greatly across product groups. (E. Edbring, 2015.
C. Baumeister, 2014). Transferring these results to
another product group is therefore unlikely to
create the same results.
6.

The insignificance could exist due to a relatively
small amount of participants. A bigger group of
respondents in future research could increase
significance of the research. Another explanation is
that the terminology on which the scenarios where
created is getting outdated. Some qualitative
interviewing could have revealed more insights into
how people perceive the scenarios and if there is
any difference in attitude and interpretation then to
what we expected.
To simplify the research and follow our
interpretation of non-personal design, only the
bike-frames were coloured differently while
keeping the rest of the design identical. A bigger
variance in bicycles could increase preference
among participants.
5.2. Recommendations for further research
A recommendation for further research,
would be experimenting more with the frame
design. Also different types of bicycles that have a
different functionality might increase results. A
within subjects design could give better results with
a smaller amount of subjects. Another
recommendation could be to include a fifth
scenario: ownership, to compare. When analysing
results we did not included possible moderators,
like currently leasing a bicycle. Including
moderators can improve the quality of future
findings.
A direction for further research is to
research on a more fundamental level how people's
attitude towards access versus ownership are
shifting in our increasingly digital society.
Lastly, after many iterations, the focus of our
research was on the type of PSS used. In further
research, the focus could shift towards the
influence of ‘time’ in general acceptance of
non-personal design.
7.

6. References
Baldassarre, B., Calabretta, G., & Bocken, N. M. P. (2016). Bridging sustainable business model
innovation and user-driven innovation: A process for sustainable value proposition design. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 147, 175-186.
Boons, F., Montalvo, C., Quist, J., Wagner, M., 2013. Sustainable innovation, business models and
economic performance: an overview. J. Clean. Prod. 45, 1e8.
Catulli, M., 2012. What uncertainty?: further insight into why consumers might be distrustful of
product service systems. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 23 (6), 780e793.
Erevelles, S., & Leavitt, C. (1992). A comparison of current models of consumer
satisfaction/dissatisfaction. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 5(10),
104-114
Sundin, E.,Lindahl, M., Ijomah, W., (2009) "Product design for product/service systems: Design
experiences from Swedish industry", Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 20 Issue: 5,
pp.723-753.
Field, A. (2013). Exploratory factor analysis. Discovering statistics using SPSS (4th ed., pp. 665-719).
London: SAGE.
Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N., & Hultink, E. (2016). The Circular Economy: A new
sustainability paradigm? Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 757-768.
Gullstrand Edbring, E. (2015). Exploring consumer attitudes to alternative models of consumption:
motivations and barriers. Journal of Cleaner Production, 126, 5-15.
Hamari, J., Sjöklint, M., & Ukkonen, A. (2016). The Sharing Economy: Why People Participate in
Collaborative Consumption. Journal of the Association for information Science and Technology, 67(9),
2047-2059.
Kampert, A., Nijenhuis, J., Van der Spoel, M., & Molnár-in ‘t Veld, H. (2017). Nederlanders en hun
auto. Geraadpleegd op 26 april 2018, van
https://www.cbs.nl/-/media/_pdf/2017/08/nederlanders-en-hun-auto.pdf
Malhotra, N.K. (1988), “Self-concept and product choice: an integrated perspective”, Journal of
Economic Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 1-28.
McQuitty, S., Finn, A., & Wiley, J. (2000). Systematically Varying Consumer Satisfaction and its
Implications for Product Choice. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 10, 10-14.
P.C.M. Govers, J.P.L. Schoormans, (2005) "Product personality and its influence on consumer
preference", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 22 Issue: 4, pp.189-197.
Peter J. Danaher, Vanessa, (1996) "A comparison of question scales used for measuring customer
satisfaction", International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 7 Issue: 4, pp.4-26
Royal Society, 2012. People and the Planet by Royal Society. April 2012. Available at:
https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/people-planet/
Thornquist, C. (2017). Unemotional design: an Alternative Approach to Sustainable Design. MIT
Design Issues, 33(4), 83-91.
Tukker, A. (2004). Eight types of product-service systems: eight ways to sustainability? Experiences of
SusProNet. Business strategy and the Environment, 13, 246-260.
Tischner, U., Verkuijl, M. and Tukker, A. (2002), First Draft PSS Review, SusProNet Report,
draft 15 December, available from Econcept, Cologne, Germany; TNO-STB, Delft.
United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), 2002. Product service Systems and Sustainability.
Opportunities for Sustainable Solutions. UNEP, Paris.
van den Hende, E. A. (2010). Really new stories s.l.: s.n.
Vezzoli, C. (2015). New design challenges to widely implement 'sustainable Product - Service
Systems'. Journal of Cleaner Production, 1, 1-12.
Wallendorf, M., Arnould, E.J., 1988. My favorite things: a cross-cultural inquiry into object
attachment, possessiveness, and social linkage. J. Consum. Res. 14, 531e547 (March).
8.

7. Appendix
A. Pretest Results (8 = most prefered, 1 = least prefered)
Participa
nt no. Gender
Black
bike
White
bike Blue bike
Yellow
bike
Green
bike
Orange
bike Red bike
Pink
bike
repi f 8 7 5 2 1 3 4 6
2 f 7 8 5 6 4 2 3 1
3 f 8 7 2 3 4 5 6 1
4 m 7 5 8 2 4 3 6 1
5 f 7 4 6 5 2 3 8 1
6 f 6 2 4 8 5 1 7 3
7 f 1 3 7 2 4 5 6 8
8 m 8 4 2 7 5 6 3 1
9 f 8 3 7 2 5 6 4 1
10 f 6 5 7 1 4 2 3 8
11 m 7 1 6 8 5 3 4 2
12 f 2 8 5 7 4 3 6 1
13 m 1 7 5 3 8 4 6 2
14 m 6 2 7 8 4 5 3 1
15 m 5 6 4 7 3 2 8 1
Total: 87 72 80 71 62 53 77 38
104
Grade: 8,4 6,9 7,7 6,8 6,0 5,1 7,4 3,7
4 2 1 3 1 0 2 2
9.

B. Eight differently colored bicycles used in the questionnaire
10.

C. Estimated Marginal Means: Type of PSS * Design
11.

D. Outcome (significance) of Several Two-Tailed independent samples T-Test, Factorial
(Aesthetic acceptance)
Non personal
Leasing
Non personal
Renting
Personal Leasing Personal Renting
Non-personal
Leasing
x
Non-personal
Renting
0,24 x
Personal Leasing 0,34 0,83 x
Personal Renting 0,054 0,38 0,24 x
E. Outcome of Several Two-Tailed independent samples T-Test, Overall (all 7 ratings)
Non personal
Leasing
Non personal
Renting
Personal Leasing Personal Renting
Non personal
Leasing
x
Non personal
Renting
0,19 x
Personal Leasing 0,40 0,65 x
Personal Renting 0,13 0,66 0,36 x
12.

F. Estimated marginal means of factorial ‘aesthetic acceptance’
13.

G. Factor Analysis. Test of Between Subjects Effects + Scree Plot of point of inflection + Rotated
component matrix

14.

H. Outcome questionnaire; bike preference
Responses Black bike
prefered
Coloured bike
prefered
% Coloured
bike prefered
Non Personal
Renting
31 19 12 38,7
Non Personal
Leasing
27 14 13 48,1
Personal Renting 30 15 15 50
Personal Leasing 33 16 17 51,5
15.

Acceptance of non personal design in leasing versus renting, f. dijckmeester & m. stolk

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Acceptance of non personal design in leasing versus renting, f. dijckmeester & m. stolk

Similar to Acceptance of non personal design in leasing versus renting, f. dijckmeester & m. stolk (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)