IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v9y2021i10p1136-d556282.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Q or R Factor Analysis for Subjectiveness Measurement in Consumer Behavior? A Study Case on Durable Goods Buying Behavior in Romania

Author

Listed:
  • Manuela Rozalia Gabor

    (Economic Sciences Department, Faculty of Economics and Law, “George Emil Palade” University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Sciences and Technology of Târgu Mures, 540142 Târgu Mureș, Romania)

  • Nicoleta Cristache

    (Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, “Dunărea de Jos” University of Galati, 800008 Galati, Romania)

Abstract

The complexity of consumer behavior requires new research methods to overcome the limitations of conventional evident-based research. The aim of this paper is the comparison between two types of factor analyses, Q and R (PCA and cluster analysis) for subjectiveness measurement in the case of durable goods buying behavior in Romanian households with different levels of education and occupancy. Our study explores different subjective patterns of stimulus of 30 statements (Q-sample) by 30 Romanian households (P-sample) using the Q-sort method for collecting data. For the Q-sample inputs, results from the literature were used. Based on the 30 Q-sorts, we discovered four factors for both Q and R factor analysis, mostly different according to specific results from different methods. For the Q method, we used the labels “pragmatic”, “modern”, “traditionalist”, and “innovator. For R factor analysis and cluster, we used “traditional Romanian brands”, “real needs and power purchasing”, “sceptic versus optimistic subjectiveness”, and “negative subjectiveness”. This paper suggests the Q methodology as a structured and transparent approach to consumer behavior research by combining the in-depth subjectivity of qualitative methods and statistical rigor of factor analysis to identify groups in consumers. The research provides useful suggestions for selecting and approaching target consumer segments in the Romanian durable goods industry.

Suggested Citation

  • Manuela Rozalia Gabor & Nicoleta Cristache, 2021. "Q or R Factor Analysis for Subjectiveness Measurement in Consumer Behavior? A Study Case on Durable Goods Buying Behavior in Romania," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-24, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:9:y:2021:i:10:p:1136-:d:556282
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/9/10/1136/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/9/10/1136/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Manuela Rozalia Gabor, 2014. "Retailer – Consumer Relationships for Durable Goods Market in Romania. A Multimethod Analysis," The International Journal of Economic Behavior - IJEB, Faculty of Business and Administration, University of Bucharest, vol. 4(1), pages 67-82.
    2. Carr, Liam, 2016. "Stakeholder Perspectives on a Tourism - Dependent Economy," Working Papers 262594, National University of Ireland, Galway, Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit.
    3. Angie Chung & Dennis F. Kinsey, 2019. "An Examination of Consumers’ Subjective Views that Affect the Favorability of Organizational Logos: An Exploratory Study Using Q Methodology," Corporate Reputation Review, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 22(3), pages 89-100, August.
    4. Manuela Rozalia Gabor, 2012. "Are There Differences Reffering To The Living Standard In Romania According To The Occupational Status? Empiric Research Reffering To The Endowment With Durable Goods In Romanian Households," Annals - Economy Series, Constantin Brancusi University, Faculty of Economics, vol. 3, pages 117-124, September.
    5. Bredin, Yennie K. & Lindhjem, Henrik & van Dijk, Jiska & Linnell, John D.C., 2015. "Mapping value plurality towards ecosystem services in the case of Norwegian wildlife management: A Q analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 198-206.
    6. Winkler, Klara J. & Nicholas, Kimberly A., 2016. "More than wine: Cultural ecosystem services in vineyard landscapes in England and California," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 86-98.
    7. Sy, Mariam Maki & Rey-Valette, Hélène & Simier, Monique & Pasqualini, Vanina & Figuières, Charles & De Wit, Rutger, 2018. "Identifying Consensus on Coastal Lagoons Ecosystem Services and Conservation Priorities for an Effective Decision Making: A Q Approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 1-13.
    8. Manuela Rozalia GABOR & Flavia Dana OLTEAN, 2018. "Is the old communist brand preferred by the young consumers? A country of origin study case with multimethod analysis," Risk in Contemporary Economy, "Dunarea de Jos" University of Galati, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, pages 355-366.
    9. Hermelingmeier, Verena & Nicholas, Kimberly A., 2017. "Identifying Five Different Perspectives on the Ecosystem Services Concept Using Q Methodology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 255-265.
    10. Maksims Kornevs & Jannicke Baalsrud Hauge & Sebastiaan Meijer, 2018. "Perceptions of stakeholders in project procurement for road construction," Cogent Business & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(1), pages 1520447-152, January.
    11. Sneegas, Gretchen & Beckner, Sydney & Brannstrom, Christian & Jepson, Wendy & Lee, Kyungsun & Seghezzo, Lucas, 2021. "Using Q-methodology in environmental sustainability research: A bibliometric analysis and systematic review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    12. Kim, Ki Youn & Lee, Bong Gyou, 2015. "Marketing insights for mobile advertising and consumer segmentation in the cloud era: A Q–R hybrid methodology and practices," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 78-92.
    13. Armatas, Christopher A. & Venn, Tyron J. & Watson, Alan E., 2014. "Applying Q-methodology to select and define attributes for non-market valuation: A case study from Northwest Wyoming, United States," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 447-456.
    14. Phi, Giang & Dredge, Dianne & Whitford, Michelle, 2014. "Understanding conflicting perspectives in event planning and management using Q method," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 406-415.
    15. Chung-Chu Liu & Jason C. H. Chen & Che-Cheong Poon, 2019. "Perception Types Of Home Buyers By Q Methodology: A Comparative Study Of Hong Kong, Taiwan, And The Usa," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 64(01), pages 235-257, March.
    16. Krabbenborg, Lizet & Molin, Eric & Annema, Jan Anne & van Wee, Bert, 2020. "Public frames in the road pricing debate: A Q-methodology study," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 46-53.
    17. Jensen, Anne Kejser, 2019. "A Structured Approach to Attribute Selection in Economic Valuation Studies: Using Q-methodology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 1-1.
    18. Carola van Eijk & Trui Steen & Bram Verschuere, 2017. "Co-producing safety in the local community: A Q-methodology study on the incentives of Belgian and Dutch members of neighbourhood watch schemes," Local Government Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(3), pages 323-343, May.
    19. repec:but:manage:v:4:y:2014:i:1:p:67-82 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Aura COLAN & Irina SUSANU, 2021. "Improving The Quality And Efficiency Of Educational Systems €“ A Condition For The Development Of Society," Proceedings of the INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, Faculty of Management, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 15(1), pages 378-389, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Grimsrud, Kristine & Graesse, Maximo & Lindhjem, Henrik, 2020. "Using the generalised Q method in ecological economics: A better way to capture representative values and perspectives in ecosystem service management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    2. Mahlalela, Linda Siphiwo & Jourdain, Damien & Mungatana, Eric Dada & Lundhede, Thomas Hedemark, 2022. "Diverse stakeholder perspectives and ecosystem services ranking: Application of the Q-methodology to Hawane Dam and Nature Reserve in Eswatini," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    3. Arturo Zenone & Carlo Pipitone & Giovanni D’Anna & Barbara La Porta & Tiziano Bacci & Fabio Bertasi & Claudia Bulleri & Anna Cacciuni & Sebastiano Calvo & Stefano Conconi & Maria Flavia Gravina & Ceci, 2021. "Stakeholders’ Attitudes about the Transplantations of the Mediterranean Seagrass Posidonia oceanica as a Habitat Restoration Measure after Anthropogenic Impacts: A Q Methodology Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-13, November.
    4. Dimitra Syrou & Iosif Botetzagias, 2022. "Stakeholders’ Perceptions Concerning Greek Protected Areas Governance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-23, March.
    5. Nhem, Sareth & Lee, Young Jin, 2019. "Using Q methodology to investigate the views of local experts on the sustainability of community-based forestry in Oddar Meanchey province, Cambodia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 1-1.
    6. Buckwell, Andrew & Fleming, Christopher & Muurmans, Maggie & Smart, James C.R. & Ware, Dan & Mackey, Brendan, 2020. "Revealing the dominant discourses of stakeholders towards natural resource management in Port Resolution, Vanuatu, using Q-method," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    7. Canessa, Carolin & Venus, Terese E. & Wiesmeier, Miriam & Mennig, Philipp & Sauer, Johannes, 2023. "Incentives, Rewards or Both in Payments for Ecosystem Services: Drawing a Link Between Farmers' Preferences and Biodiversity Levels," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    8. S. S. Ganji & A. N. Ahangar & Samaneh Jamshidi Bandari, 2022. "Evaluation of vehicular emissions reduction strategies using a novel hybrid method integrating BWM, Q methodology and ER approach," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(10), pages 11576-11614, October.
    9. Dirtje Marie Derksen & Dagmar Mithöfer, 2022. "Thinking sustainably? Identifying Stakeholders' positions toward corporate sustainability in floriculture with Q methodology," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(4), pages 1762-1787, December.
    10. Søren B. Olsen & Cathrine U. Jensen & Toke E. Panduro, 2020. "Modelling Strategies for Discontinuous Distance Decay in Willingness to Pay for Ecosystem Services," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(2), pages 351-386, February.
    11. Namakando, Namakando, 2020. "Stakeholder perceptions of raw water quality and its management in Fetakgomo and Maruleng municipalities of Limpopo Province," Research Theses 334769, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    12. Sy, Mariam Maki & Rey-Valette, Hélène & Simier, Monique & Pasqualini, Vanina & Figuières, Charles & De Wit, Rutger, 2018. "Identifying Consensus on Coastal Lagoons Ecosystem Services and Conservation Priorities for an Effective Decision Making: A Q Approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 1-13.
    13. Iakovidis, Dimitrios & Gadanakis, Yiorgos & Park, Julian & Gonzalez, Jorge Campos, 2023. "How can the design of Decision Support Tools for different agricultural stakeholders be improved?," 97th Annual Conference, March 27-29, 2023, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 334568, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.
    14. Canessa, Carolin & Venus, Terese & Wiesmeier, Miriam & Mennig, Philipp & Sauer, Johannes, 2023. "Farmers’ preferences over alternative AECS designs. Do the ecological conditions influence the willingness to accept result-based contracts?," 97th Annual Conference, March 27-29, 2023, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 334508, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.
    15. Zagata, Lukas & Uhnak, Tomas & Hrabák, Jiří, 2021. "Moderately radical? Stakeholders' perspectives on societal roles and transformative potential of organic agriculture," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    16. Venus, Terese E. & Sauer, Johannes, 2022. "Certainty pays off: The public's value of environmental monitoring," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    17. Yue Su & Congmou Zhu & Lin Lin & Cheng Wang & Cai Jin & Jing Cao & Tan Li & Chong Su, 2022. "Assessing the Cultural Ecosystem Services Value of Protected Areas Considering Stakeholders’ Preferences and Trade-Offs—Taking the Xin’an River Landscape Corridor Scenic Area as an Example," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-16, October.
    18. Huaranca, Laura Liliana & Iribarnegaray, Martín Alejandro & Albesa, Federico & Volante, José Norberto & Brannstrom, Christian & Seghezzo, Lucas, 2019. "Social Perspectives on Deforestation, Land Use Change, and Economic Development in an Expanding Agricultural Frontier in Northern Argentina," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 1-1.
    19. Loring, Philip A. & Hinzman, Megan S., 2018. "“They're All Really Important, But…”: Unpacking How People Prioritize Values for the Marine Environment in Haida Gwaii, British Columbia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 367-377.
    20. Tobias Holmsgaard Larsen & Thomas Lundhede & Søren Bøye Olsen, 2020. "Assessing the value of surface water and groundwater quality improvements when time lags and outcome uncertainty exist: Results from a choice experiment survey across four different countries," IFRO Working Paper 2020/12, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:9:y:2021:i:10:p:1136-:d:556282. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.