i
Semiotics and Advanced Vehicles:
What Hybrid Electric Vehicles ( HEVs)
Mean and Why it Matters to Consumers
By
REID RUSSELL HEFFNER
B. A. ( Colgate University) 1993
M. B. A. ( Georgetown University) 1997
DISSERTATION
Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
in
Transportation Technology and Policy
in the
OFFICE OF GRADUATE STUDIES
of the
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
DAVIS
Approved:
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
Committee in Charge
2007
ii
SEMIOTICS AND ADVANCED VEHICLES:
What Hybrid Electric Vehicles ( HEVs)
Mean and Why it Matters to Consumers
iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This study addresses the relationship between image and car purchases. Image, defined as
the associations linked to a product or brand name ( Aaker and Joachimsthaler 2000) is
often cited as influential in automobile purchases. But relatively little research has been
conducted into what image is or why it is important to consumers. This study focused on
the image of a particular vehicle: the hybrid electric vehicle ( HEV). The objective was to
understand how buyers of HEVs perceived the image of their vehicles, and the role image
played in buyers’ purchase decisions.
In this analysis of the image of HEVs, I applied theory from semiotics: the study of
symbols. Outlined in Chapter 2, this theory includes Saussure’s ( 1965) dyadic model in
which a symbol consists of a signifier ( such as an HEV) and a signified concept ( such as
the idea of environmental preservation.) In Saussure’s model, a given signifier can be
connected with numerous signified concepts ( also called meanings). Thus, an automobile
can have many meanings associated with it. Barthes ( 1967) divides these meanings into
two types: denotations, which are obvious and widely- recognized, and connotations,
which are more personal and idiosyncratic.
Saussure ( 1965) also observes that some signifiers are collections of other signifiers. In
this case, a main signifier ( called a syntagm) can be parsed into other signifiers ( called
paradigms), each of which has separate meanings associated with it. For example, a
Mercedes SUV may be connected to the meanings of affluence and adventurousness: the
iv
meaning of affluence is linked to the Mercedes brand ( brand paradigm), while the
meaning of adventurousness is linked to the SUV vehicle type ( vehicle type paradigm).
McCracken ( 1988a) and Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg- Halton ( 1981) explain that
consumer goods such as automobiles have meanings attached to them. In Chapter 2, I
outline an approach called Products as Self- Creation in which individuals use the
meaning in automobiles ( and other products) in two ways. In the first, called Project of
the Self, individuals use product meaning to define and express who they are. Project of
the Self is based on theory from Giddens ( 1991) who proposes that modern life requires
individuals to engage in constant definition and maintenance of their self- identities.
Giddens states that at the core of each person’s identity lies a self- narrative, a story the
individual tells about himself through regimes ( habits or behaviors) and lifestyle ( an
integrated set of regimes). Project of the Self is also based on theory from
Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg- Halton ( 1981) who define a similar identity- creation
process they call cultivation. In this process, individuals interact with product meanings
in two ways. Recognition involves attaching a culturally- assigned meaning, while
perception involves developing an individualized meaning.
The second way individuals use product meaning is called Project of Culture, a process in
which people influence social systems around them. Project of Culture occurs when
individuals become aware of what Giddens ( 1991) calls life politics: the effects that their
lifestyle choices have on others. Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg- Halton ( 1981, p. 192)
explain that individuals use meaning to influence social systems in order to realize goals
v
that are larger than themselves, including goals related to their social networks ( called
social goals) as well as goals related to “ the larger harmony of things,” called cosmic
goals.
To explore the meanings consumers recognize and perceive in HEVs, this study used
qualitative methods within an interpretivist research paradigm. These methods are
outlined in Chapter 3. Specifically, I conducted ethnographic interviews based on
McCracken’s ( 1988b) long interview technique. For the first two study phases, data was
collected in in- home ethnographic interviews with households; in the third phase, a
combination of ethnographic interviews and phone interviews were used. In total, 68
interviews were conducted that included a total of 91 participants. Interviews were
followed by analysis that included the development of semiotic maps for selected
households.
Research was conducted in three Phases. Phase I focused on buyers of high- fuel-economy
HEVs, such as the Toyota Prius and Honda Civic Hybrid. The objective was to
understand what meanings these buyers perceived in their HEVs and to assess the role of
these meanings in the vehicle purchase. Phase II examined buyers of performance HEVs
( such as the Honda Accord Hybrid) and sport- utility vehicle ( SUV) HEVs ( such as the
Ford Escape Hybrid). The goal was to understand what meanings these buyers perceived
in their HEVs, and whether they were similar to those meanings identified in Phase I.
Phase III concentrated on initial users of plug- in hybrid electric vehicle ( PHEV)
vi
conversions. The objective was to understand the meanings PHEV drivers assigned to
their vehicles as well as to explore how these new vehicles were being used.
In Chapter 4, I outline the symbolic meanings that the study’s HEV owners attached to
their vehicles. Buyers of both high- fuel- economy HEVs and performance/ SUV HEVs
saw meaning in their vehicles. In fact, both groups associated the same set of meanings
with their HEVs. These meanings included both denotations and connotations, and are
summarized in Figure A- 1. An important finding from this study was that the denotations
Denotations PRESERVE THE
ENVIRONMENT OPPOSE WAR MANAGE PERSONAL
FINANCES
REDUCE
SUPPORT TO OIL
PRODUCERS
EMBRACE NEW
TECHNOLOGY
Connotations
ETHICS
CONCERN FOR
OTHERS
COMMUNITY
ORIENTATION
INTELLIGENCE /
AWARENESS
ETHICS
MATURITY /
SENSIBILITY
ETHICS
INTELLIGENCE /
AWARENESS
PERSONAL
INDEPENDENCE
NATIONAL
INDEPENDENCE
INDIVIDUALITY
ADVOCATE TO
MANUFACTURERS
Figure A- 1: The Meanings of HEVs Among the Sample Households
that are commonly associated with HEVs are not the only meanings present in the
vehicles. Connotations also exist, and provide an important link between the vehicle and
the buyer’s identity. For example, the HEV is connected to the denotation of
environmental preservation, and many HEV buyers interested in defining themselves as
people who care about the environment. But these buyers are also interested to the
connotations that connect to the environmental denotation. That is, they also want to
define themselves as ethical people who care about others, individuals who believe in
vii
working collectively to resolve societal and global issues, or as intelligent, aware people
who seek creative solutions to pressing problems.
The HEV owners in this study purchased more than transportation in their HEVs; they
also bought meanings that were used in the development of their self- identities and to
change social systems around them. Chapter 5 shows how two households ( one from
each of the first two research phases) used their HEVs in a Project of the Self and Project
of Culture. These owners’ stories illustrate the challenges individuals face in constructing
their self- narratives. In particular, these examples highlight the diverse elements
individuals attempt to integrate into their identities and the role of vehicle meaning in this
process. For example, one owner wanted to define herself as a community- oriented
person who did what was right for society, even if it involved consuming less of the
things she enjoyed. But she also wanted to define herself as a financially- successful
businessperson who had earned the right to consume whatever goods she wished. She
considered both of these competing self- narrative elements as she shopped for vehicles
and evaluated the meanings in the HEV. For this owner, the Honda Accord Hybrid
offered meanings that tied both of these self- narrative elements together. Her HEV was a
near- luxury model that communicated her financial and professional status, but also had
an efficient hybrid powertrain that connected with the denotation of environmental
preservation and the connotation of community- orientation. Chapter 5 illustrates the
complex process HEV owners undergo in crafting self- identity, a process that dispels the
myth of HEV buyers as people who simply want to “ show off” superficial green
viii
credentials. The two examples in Chapter 5 also demonstrate how the HEV is as much an
identity solution as a transportation solution.
In Chapter 4, I explored one half of the HEV symbol: the meanings. In Chapter 6, I
examine the other element: the signifier. When conducting interviews in Phase I, I
assumed that the HEV was a single, unified signifier. However, in Phase II many
households introduced meanings that were not related to the “ hybridness” of their
vehicles. For example, one owner attached the meaning of professional success to his
Honda Accord Hybrid. This meaning did not relate to the fact that the vehicle was a
hybrid, but rather to the fact that it was a luxury sedan. Chapter 6 defines the HEV as a
syntagm composed of at least four paradigms: vehicle type, brand, model, and
powertrain. The meanings outlined in Chapter 4 are attached to the hybrid member of the
powertrain paradigm. But some owners indicated that other meanings were also
important in their purchase decisions, and these meanings were linked to the brand,
model, and vehicle type paradigms. In many cases, these meanings complemented
meanings of the hybrid powertrain. For example, the Honda Accord Hybrid owner above
blended the meaning of professional success from the vehicle type paradigm with the
meanings of environmental preservation and ethics from the powertrain paradigm. For
him, both meanings were important for the development of his self- narrative. In other
cases, meanings from different paradigms were used to balance one another. This was
particularly common among HEV SUV buyers, who felt that the positive meanings of
their vehicle’s hybrid powertrain balanced the negative meanings of its SUV vehicle
type.
ix
The results in Chapter 6 illustrate how the meanings of HEVs connect with the meanings
of other vehicles in the automotive marketplace. New vehicles are not simply dropped
into the market devoid of meaning. Instead, they often borrow ( or are assigned) meanings
from existing vehicles based on shared paradigms. Thus, hybrid versions of an existing
model assume many of the symbolic meanings that are attached to the existing model.
However, new combinations of paradigm members can sometimes confusing to
consumers. For example, several households in this study were confused by hybrid SUVs
because they found the meanings of a hybrid powertrain and an SUV vehicle type as
incompatible. Chapter 6 also shows how consumers define the meaning of their vehicle in
contrast to other vehicles, and their self- identities in contrast to other people.
Chapter 7 focuses on a new type of vehicle: the plug- in hybrid electric vehicle ( PHEV).
The chapter conducts a general assessment of important issues from the user’s
perspective, and includes exploration of the meanings attached to PHEVs. While my
assessment of symbolic meaning was less thorough for PHEVs than for HEVs, Chapter 7
indicates that the same denotations HEV owners attached to their vehicles are also being
attached to PHEVs. I also found indications that key PHEV issues are symbolic.
Questions such as how much all- electric range PHEVs require, what feedback PHEVs
should provide users regarding energy consumption, and how often PHEVs are recharged
are influenced by the meanings users attach to PHEVs.
x
Finally, Chapter 8 discusses this study’s implications for policymakers, researchers, and
automobile companies as they attempt to understand the market potential of HEVs,
PHEVs, and other advanced vehicles. Chapter 8 also outlines directions for future
research, and recommends ways to expand the qualitative techniques used in this study.
Keywords: Consumer, hybrid- electric vehicle ( HEV), market, plug- in hybrid- electric
vehicle ( PHEV), semiotics, symbols
xi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank the members of my dissertation committee – Ken Kurani, Dan
Sperling, and Tom Turrentine – for the support and guidance they provided throughout
my academic career at UC Davis. In this study, Ken Kurani and Tom Turrentine served
as both collaborators and mentors. It was a privilege to work with them, and I am grateful
for all they have taught me.
Thanks are due to the many students and faculty at UC Davis who took the time to
review and reflect on this research. In particular, I would like to acknowledge David
Bunch, Andy Burke, Anthony Eggert, Mike Hagerty, Jon Hughes, Mike Nicholas, and
Roger Rouse. Their insights strengthened this work considerably.
Thanks also to the 91 individuals who agreed to be interviewed in this study. Their
willingness to share details about themselves and their vehicles with a group of
inquisitive academic researchers made this study possible. Thanks also to Toyota Motor
Sales North America for their sponsorship of the initial phases of this work.
Finally, a special thanks to my wife, Amber, for her continual patience and support
throughout the research and writing of this dissertation.
xii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................... III
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................................................................ XI
TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... XII
PROLOGUE: MISREADING THE HYBRID MARKET........................................... 1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 8
STUDY OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................... 11
THE FOCUS ON HYBRIDS............................................................................................. 13
STUDY BACKGROUND................................................................................................. 16
STUDY OUTLINE......................................................................................................... 23
CHAPTER 2: SEMIOTIC THEORY......................................................................... 25
DEFINING SYMBOLS...................................................................................................... 4
CONSUMING SYMBOLS................................................................................................ 10
PRODUCTS AS SELF- EXPRESSION................................................................................. 12
Conspicuous Consumption: Expressing Class ........................................................ 12
Self- Congruity: Expressing Stereotypes.................................................................. 15
Symbolic Interactionism: Expressing Roles............................................................ 20
PRODUCTS AS SELF- CREATION.................................................................................... 24
The Project of the Self............................................................................................ 25
Cultivation and Creation of Meaning..................................................................... 29
The Project of Culture............................................................................................ 35
MECHANICS OF MEANING........................................................................................... 38
Stages of Product Meaning .................................................................................... 40
Meaning Chains..................................................................................................... 45
Meaning Locations and Transfers.......................................................................... 49
SYMBOLS IN PERSPECTIVE .......................................................................................... 55
Focus on Function ................................................................................................. 56
Function and Symbolism........................................................................................ 57
Function, Symbolism, and Experience.................................................................... 60
CHAPTER CONCLUSION............................................................................................... 65
CHAPTER 3: METHODS .......................................................................................... 69
TRANSPORTATION’S QUANTITATIVE PARADIGM.......................................................... 69
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN TRANSPORTATION ........................................................... 72
TOWARD AN ALTERNATE PARADIGM .......................................................................... 76
Positivism .............................................................................................................. 76
Interpretivism ........................................................................................................ 79
INTERVIEW METHODS: PHASES I AND II...................................................................... 87
Participant Selection.............................................................................................. 88
Ethnographic Interview.......................................................................................... 91
Case Analysis......................................................................................................... 98
xiii
Case Comparison................................................................................................. 104
INTERVIEW METHODS: PHASE III.............................................................................. 105
REPORTING RESULTS ................................................................................................ 107
CHAPTER 4: THE SYMBOLIC MEANINGS OF HYBRIDS ............................... 109
AN INTRODUCTION TO FOUR HEV BUYERS............................................................... 109
Dave Nelson: Honda Civic Hybrid....................................................................... 111
Mike and Ellen Bridger: Toyota Prius.................................................................. 116
Tony Garcia: Ford Escape Hybrid....................................................................... 123
Alice Murphy: Toyota Camry Hybrid................................................................... 129
THE MEANINGS ........................................................................................................ 135
Preserve the Environment .................................................................................... 136
Oppose War......................................................................................................... 138
Manage Personal Finances.................................................................................. 138
Reduce Support for Oil Producers ....................................................................... 140
Embrace New Technology.................................................................................... 141
NEGATIVE MEANINGS............................................................................................... 143
THE ROLE OF MEANING............................................................................................ 147
CHAPTER 5: HEVS - PRODUCTS AS SELF- CREATION................................... 149
THE HALLS............................................................................................................... 151
The Halls’ Project of the Self ............................................................................... 156
The Halls’ Project of Culture............................................................................... 166
THE BAILEYS............................................................................................................ 169
Pat Bailey’s Project of the Self............................................................................. 174
Pat Bailey’s Project of Culture ............................................................................ 180
( LIFE) POLITICS AND HEVS ...................................................................................... 182
CHAPTER 6: THE HEV AS SIGNIFIER................................................................ 184
REVISITING SEMIOTIC THEORY: SYNTAGMS AND PARADIGMS.................................... 187
AN INTRODUCTION TO FOUR ( MORE) HEV BUYERS.................................................. 192
Sara Harris: Honda Accord Hybrid ..................................................................... 193
Tom Lay: Toyota Prius ........................................................................................ 199
Mark and Elizabeth Walker: Honda Accord Hybrid ............................................. 205
Ron and Jill Graham: Toyota Prius ..................................................................... 211
THE PARADIGMS....................................................................................................... 216
Powertrain........................................................................................................... 216
Vehicle Class ....................................................................................................... 221
Brand................................................................................................................... 227
Model .................................................................................................................. 229
CHAPTER CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................... 233
CHAPTER 7: THE EMERGING MEANING OF PHEVS ..................................... 235
BACKGROUND.......................................................................................................... 236
PHEV Benefits..................................................................................................... 237
Current PHEV “ Market”..................................................................................... 239
SAMPLE VEHICLES.................................................................................................... 241
xiv
FINDINGS ................................................................................................................. 245
Blended or All- Electric? ...................................................................................... 245
Instrumentation.................................................................................................... 255
Recharging Behavior ........................................................................................... 262
Managing Consumer Expectations....................................................................... 273
CHAPTER CONCLUSION............................................................................................. 277
CHAPTER 8: CONCLUSIONS................................................................................ 279
RECOGNIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF SYMBOLS ........................................................... 280
AVOIDING FUNCTIONAL MYOPIA .............................................................................. 283
DEBUNKING THE ANALYST’S FALLACY..................................................................... 285
ADOPTING A NEW RESEARCH PARADIGM.................................................................. 288
SETTING A FUTURE COURSE...................................................................................... 289
Additional Research Methods............................................................................... 289
Additional Research Topics.................................................................................. 291
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 295
APPENDIX I: SAMPLE SUMMARIES ( PHASES I - III)...................................... 305
APPENDIX II: PRE- INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE ( PHASES I AND II) ...... 306
APPENDIX III: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL ( PHASES I AND II) ........................ 311
APPENDIX IV: INTERVIEW TOPIC LIST ( PHASE III) ..................................... 316
1
PROLOGUE: MISREADING THE HYBRID MARKET
Early in 2004, General Motors’ Vice Chairman for Product Development Robert Lutz
made time in his schedule at the North American Auto Show to talk with reporters about
hybrid cars. Lutz was something of a legend in the automotive industry. Part of his
reputation resulted from a colorful personality and outspoken nature. “ A former marine,
Mr. Lutz is a car magazine’s fantasy of what an auto executive should be” explained a
2005 New York Times article, “ He chews on stogies. He likes to drive fast. He flies a
Soviet- era fighter jet for fun. He thinks global warming is a bunch of tree- hugging liberal
hokum and lives off the cuff” ( Hakim 2005a). Bradsher ( 2002, p. 43- 44) characterized
Lutz as a “ macho” executive with a “ penchant for taking risks” and claimed Lutz was so
well- known in the industry that “ everyone in Detroit has a Lutz story.”
But Lutz’s celebrity was also due to his breadth of experience in the automotive world. In
his 44- year career working with vehicles, Lutz had headed sales and marketing at BMW,
run Ford’s international operations and its North American truck division, and served as
President and Chief Operating Officer at Chrysler. Along the way, Lutz influenced the
direction of hundreds of vehicles, and played an key role in the development of best-selling
models such as the Ford Sierra, Ford Explorer, Plymouth Neon, Chrysler PT
Cruiser, Chrysler LH sedans, and the Jeep Grand Cherokee ( Lutz 1998). Described by
one journalist as “ a car guy’s car guy” ( Lassa 2006), Lutz was an executive who seemed
to understand instinctively what buyers wanted. In 2001, he was recruited by General
Motors and given control over the company’s product strategy with hopes that he would
2
invigorate GM’s aging product lineup and regain some of the company’s lost market
share.
At the January 2004 show, several vehicles were showcased that Lutz himself had chosen
to lead the product renaissance at GM, including the Pontiac Solstice convertible and G6
sedan. But to Lutz’s dismay, some reporters were ignoring the new Pontiacs, choosing
instead to focus on a small set of new hybrid vehicles from the Japanese automakers.
Honda was displaying a hybrid version of its popular Accord sedan, while Toyota
exhibited hybrid versions of two car- based SUVs: the Toyota Highlander and Lexus RX.
All three of these new models would be available for sale to the public within the next 18
months, complementing the three hybrid vehicles currently in the marketplace: the Honda
Insight, Honda Civic Hybrid, and Toyota Prius. At the time, hybrids had been sold in the
U. S. for four years and, while sales were steadily growing, volumes were still low. In
2003, American carbuyers purchased just 47,525 hybrid models; in contrast, a single full-sized
SUV model from GM, the Chevrolet Tahoe, sold nearly 200,000 units that same
year ( Automotive News 2004). For Lutz and many other automobile executives, the
message was clear: compact cars with hybrid powertrains were not vehicles that most
people would want to buy.
To Lutz, cars like the Toyota Prius seemed a bit silly. “ It just doesn't make environmental
or economic sense to try to put an expensive dual- powertrain system into less expensive
cars which already get good mileage” Lutz explained at the 2004 show ( Isidore 2004).
Lutz reasoned that as soon as customers did the math, they would discover a hybrid
3
vehicle cost thousands more than a conventional model, yet yielded only modest savings
in fuel costs. Besides, compact cars already achieved high gas mileage. A hybrid
powertrain wasn’t icing on the cake: it was icing on the icing, an unnecessary addition to
vehicles that already did what they were supposed to do. Lutz was not unfamiliar with
hybrid technology. A few months earlier, GM had launched hybrid versions of its popular
Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra pickups. But the company’s approach reflected its
product czar’s skepticism: the vehicles used a hastily- developed and unsophisticated
hybrid system, were sold in low volumes, and were offered to fleet buyers only. For Lutz,
hybrids remained an “ interesting curiosity” ( Isidore 2004) but he was confident they held
little appeal for the average consumer.
In the months following the 2004 North American Auto Show, hybrid sales began to
accelerate. Toyota had redesigned the Prius for the 2004 model year, and demand for the
larger, better- appointed model quickly began to outstrip supply. Automotive journalists
were also taking notice: the Prius was named 2004 Car of the Year by Motor Trend. In
the fall, Honda launched the Accord hybrid and Ford ( GM’s cross- town rival) launched a
hybrid version of its Escape SUV, expanding the number of hybrid models. As a result,
2004 hybrid sales rose 77% to nearly 85,000 units. In addition to the larger number of
models, hybrid sales may also have been stimulated by rising gasoline prices. Gasoline
started the year at $ 1.50/ gallon, but had exceeded $ 2.00/ gallon nationally by May, an all-time
high in the United States. High prices persisted for the remainder of the year and, in
the fourth quarter of 2004, a disturbing trend began to emerge on the sales floors of GM’s
dealerships. Sales of popular ( and highly profitable) full- sized SUVs and pickups,
4
including the Chevrolet Sierra and GMC Yukon, were slipping ( Automotive News 2005).
2004 had been an excellent year for light trucks, which outsold cars for the first time
ever. But lower sales of some SUVs and pickups in the last quarter hinted that
consumers’ tastes were moving in a different direction. Automakers like General Motors
would soon be struggling to keep up.
A year later, on the floor of the January 2005 North American Auto Show, Lutz reflected
on the growth in hybrid sales and GM’s lack of hybrid offerings. He stood by his
argument that hybrids made no economic sense: “ It’s not clear that you’ll ever be able to
recapture the cost of a hybrid in the pricing,” Lutz explained ( Isidore 2005). But he also
acknowledged that GM had made a mistake in not rolling out more hybrid models
sooner. The vehicles he had dismissed a year earlier as interesting curiosities were now
selling briskly, and interest in future models was substantial. Across the show floor,
Toyota spokesman Wade Hoyt proudly announced that the company had received 11,000
customer pre- orders for its upcoming hybrid Lexus SUV. To many buyers, hybrids
seemed to be about more than just saving a few dollars at the pump. Lutz agreed. “ What
we forgot in the equation,” he explained, “ was the emotional aspect of it” ( Isidore 2005).
Lutz was an executive that knew something about the emotional appeal of automobiles.
“ The single most important thing I have learned in my business career” Lutz explains in
his management guidebook Guts, “ is that you can’t totally separate… the rational from
the emotional, the left- brained from the right- brained” ( Lutz 1998, p. 5) Sixteen years
earlier at the 1989 North American Auto Show, Lutz unveiled a car he was certain would
5
generate an emotional response among carbuyers and, in the process, change the image of
the then- struggling Chrysler corporation. The Dodge Viper, Lutz’s modern interpretation
of the AC Cobra, was a two- seat American super sports car powered by an 8.0L V- 10
engine. When it entered production three years later, the Viper boasted 400 horsepower,
0- 60 acceleration times of under 4.5 seconds and a top speed of 190 MPH. At a starting
price of $ 55,630, this was not a vehicle that made much financial sense. With no roof or
side windows, it didn’t make functional sense either. But the public wasn’t excited about
the Viper because it provided economical or practical transportation. The Viper was a
symbol of the future aspirations of Chrysler and the trajectory of automobiles in general.
One observer noted, “ The Viper Concept was nothing less than a sensation, with show
crowds mesmerized by the sheer spectacle of a car so defiantly out of step with political
correctness. This wasn't some sort of alternate- fuel vehicle pointing the way to a
diminished future, but a beast looking to feast on fossil fuel and fry rubber. And it looked
the part, too” ( Edmunds 2006). The car guy in Lutz undoubtedly was excited by the
Viper’s high performance credentials, but he also was pleased by the vehicle’s image. To
Lutz, the Viper was a “ symbol” that told the world that “ Chrysler was not dead, that
within our company there bubbled the optimism, creativity, and sense of outrage
necessary for us to fight our way back to health” ( Lutz 1998, p. 48- 49).
The Viper wasn’t the only vehicle Lutz had introduced in his career that had emotional
appeal for carbuyers. At the 1992 North American Auto Show, Lutz managed another
important product launch for Chrysler: the Jeep Grand Cherokee. By the early 1990s,
Americans were showing interest in light trucks and, in particular, in a new type of
6
vehicle called a sport- utility vehicle ( SUV). Truck sales had been increasing steadily
during the previous decade, growing from 16.5% of vehicle sales in 1980 to 32.2% in
1991 ( United States Environmental Protection Agency 2006). In 1990, models such as
the Ford Explorer and Toyota 4Runner were launched that were larger and more
luxurious than previous pickup- truck based models. To attract consumers who were new
to the truck market, these SUVs offered better on- road performance and features that had
not existed in past truck models, such as leather seating, upgraded interiors, and high- end
sound systems. Despite their creature comforts, these SUVs retained their light- truck
heritage, and Lutz knew this was important. While only a minority of drivers would ever
venture off- road in these vehicles, their rugged, go- anywhere image was emotionally
appealing to many buyers. It was this image Lutz was promoting when he introduced the
Grand Cherokee at the 1992 show. Behind the wheel of the two- ton SUV with Detroit’s
mayor Coleman Young in passenger seat beside him, Lutz hurled a new Grand Cherokee
up two flights of stairs outside the Cobo Convention Center, through one of the
building’s plate glass windows, and onto the exhibition floor where it was greeted by a
crowd of astonished attendees.
Bradsher ( 2002) suggests that it was the image of SUVs ( and the careful cultivation of
this image by automobile executives like Lutz) that led to the widespread adoption of
these vehicles in the United States. If so, image was responsible for reshaping the
American automotive landscape, and for exacerbating the environmental impact of the
country’s vehicle fleet. By the end of 2004, 52% of new vehicles sold in the U. S. were
light trucks, and the fuel economy of the average new vehicle had fallen to 20.5 MPG, a
7
level not seen since 1981 ( Heavenrich 2006). Image, it seemed, was powerful stuff. As
Lutz spoke with reporters about hybrids in 2005, he indicated that image was once again
fueling interest in a new type of vehicle. The hybrid’s image, of course, was different
from that of SUVs. SUVs were depicted as rugged, secure, and unstoppable; hybrids
were cast as futuristic, sensible, and socially- responsible. But like SUVs before them,
hybrids had an image that evoked an emotional response in many buyers, leading to
growing sales.
In the year following the 2005 North American Auto Show, the popularity of hybrids
soared. The Toyota Prius alone sold over 100,000 units, outselling high- volume GM
models like the GMC Yukon and Saturn Ion ( Automotive News 2006). In the meantime,
GM struggled to ready its own hybrid models for the marketplace. Gas prices continued
rising through the spring, and declining sales of many of GM’s bestselling light truck
models persisted. By summer, GM’s dealer inventories had grown to unsustainable
levels, leading the company to slash prices on all of its vehicles. The promotion
temporarily revived sales, but the discounted pricing eroded margins and distracted
consumers from the incoming 2006 models. Sales plummeted when the promotion ended,
and GM ended 2005 with an enormous $ 10.6 billion loss. While the dearth of hybrids in
GM’s 2005 lineup was not the main reason for the company’s dismal performance, it was
indicative of a larger problem. GM executives like Lutz had not developed automobiles
( including hybrid models) that consumers wanted to buy.
8
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
This story1 about Bob Lutz and his evolving opinion of hybrid- electric vehicles ( HEVs)
raises two important questions. First, how important is image and the emotional response
it evokes in consumers? Second, if image matters, how can we better understand it?
Aaker and Joachimsthaler ( 2000, p. 40) define image as the “ current associations” that
are linked to a product or brand name. In other words, a product is connected to a
particular set of ideas, also called symbolic meanings ( Levy 1959). Hirschman and
Holbrook ( 1982) explain that these symbolic meanings lie at the root of consumers’
emotional reactions to products. An automobile’s styling, for example, excites potential
buyers not simply because it is aesthetically- pleasing, but because it symbolizes bigger
ideas ( such as in the Dodge Viper example cited earlier).
Yet transportation researchers tend to treat consumers as rational actors who focus
primarily on the functional and financial attributes of vehicles. Most vehicle choice
models include attributes such as purchase price, vehicle class, and vehicle weight but
give little consideration to the image of the model or brand ( for example, see Choo and
Mokhtarian 2002). Even choice models that focus on adoption of new types of vehicles,
such as HEVs, emphasize functionality and cost. For example, Brownstone et al. ( 2000)
modeled future HEV sales by analyzing consumer preferences for financial attributes
( such as purchase price and fuel cost/ mile) as well as functional attributes ( such as
luggage space, top speed, and acceleration time). But executives in the automotive
1 Unlike the other stories that appear later in this dissertation, this story about Bob Lutz was not developed
from interview data. Instead, it was constructed using media accounts and Lutz’s own story of his career
published in his book, Guts ( Lutz 1998).
9
industry have a radically different view. Most acknowledge that symbolic meaning and
the emotion it evokes play an important role in people’s decisions about what vehicles
they buy. As DaimlerChrylser Chairman Dieter Zetsche commented recently, “ We not
only want to sell metal and glass and rubber, but emotion as well” ( Vlasic 2005). Bob
Lutz agrees: “ we’re not in the transportation business” he announced during a 2005
meeting with GM shareholders, “ we’re in the arts and entertainment business” which
demands a “ less analytical, more emotion- driven product strategy” ( Hakim 2005a, p. C1).
So if symbolic meaning is important, how can we better understand it? GM’s
underestimation of the HEV market provides a cautionary tale for anyone who studies
consumer behavior. Bob Lutz is no neophyte when it comes to understanding car- buyers.
He has spent his entire 44- year career working with automobiles, and is one of the few
executives in Detroit who has experience working inside four major automakers. At GM,
he has access to a large, knowledgeable marketing staff and millions of dollars worth of
consumer studies performed by many ( if not all) of the leading automotive research
vendors. If anyone should have been able to understand the HEV’s potential, it was Lutz.
So what happened? Part of the problem may have been that, like transportation models,
many automotive research studies focus on functional attributes and price, ignoring
emotional factors such as image. For example, in the same year that Lutz dismissed
hybrids as an “ interesting curiosity,” CNW Market Research ( 2004a) reported that
consumers ranked fuel economy low on a list of important vehicle attributes, even lower
in importance than cupholders. This type of attribute analysis is common in automotive
research, and this particular finding suggested that consumers wouldn’t be interested in
10
high- mileage vehicles like HEVs. But research results like these may have pointed GM in
the wrong direction. HEVs offered something else besides the traditional functional
attribute of high fuel economy, and few studies ( if any) uncovered what that “ something
else” was.
Zaltman ( 1997, p. 426) explains that part of the problem is that consumer research
methods are often biased toward reason: “ Most methods collect and present information
as if decisions were the result of logical inference and conscious processes. People are
especially likely to display this quality of their decision making because it is what they
are asked about, how they are encouraged to respond, and what they can articulate most
readily.” Indeed, research firms like CNW had hints that there was more at work in
hybrid purchases than a simple assessment of functionality and cost. A CNW phone
survey ( 2004b) showed that over a third of those buying HEVs in 2004 made their
purchases in order to “ make a statement” about themselves. CNW never published
analysis of the “ statement” hybrid buyers were trying to make. Instead, the firm focused
on the financial aspects of hybrids, releasing a detailed analysis of hybrid vehicle
lifecycle costs ( CNW 2005a) and an assessment of consumer willingness- to- pay for
hybrid technology ( CNW 2005b). Certainly market research firms have a right to define
their own research agendas and employ whatever methods they choose. However,
CNW’s hybrid research is one example of how experts can fail to identify market trends
by focusing on the wrong research questions and applying techniques that are biased
toward reason.
11
Study Objectives
Focusing on the HEV market in California, this report explores the two questions just
raised: is image important and, if so, how can it be better understood? This report
proposes a new way to look at automobiles and the automobile purchase by applying
theory from semiotics, the study of symbols. It considers automobiles not just as
machines that provide mobility, but as objects that symbolize larger ideas, many of which
are unrelated to transportation. From this perspective, a vehicle purchase is far more than
just an economic transaction in which an individual acquires a utilitarian product. The
purchase becomes a process in which a buyer accesses, interprets, and manipulates a
vehicle’s symbolic meanings, and integrates these meanings with his own sense of self.
And the automobile becomes both a tool for mobility and self- definition. To evaluate the
vehicle with a semiotic framework, this report applies methods to collect and analyze
data on vehicle purchases that are uncommon within the transportation field. While most
transportation studies rely on quantitative analysis of survey data collected from large
numbers of anonymous respondents, this study conducts a focused, personalized
examination of a small number of subjects using ethnographic interview techniques. Data
are examined using a semiotic mapping technique derived from previous studies in
semiotics and consumer behavior. The result is a detailed description of the symbolic
meaning buyers attach to HEVs, an explanation of why that symbolic meaning matters to
buyers, and an analysis of how symbolic meaning figures into the diverse and complex
processes consumers use in selecting an automobile for purchase.
The theory and methods used in this study are less commonly applied in transportation
research, but they are fairly well- established in other disciplines. Semiotics has existed
12
for nearly a century, was first applied to consumer behavior in the late 1950s, and has
received increasing attention from academic researchers in the fields of marketing and
consumer behavior during the past two decades ( Mick et al. 2004). Arnould and
Thompson ( 2005) explain how a growing number of academic consumer researchers
have exchanged the rational choice paradigm for a broader view of consumption in which
consumers assign meanings to products and use these meanings to construct their own
identities. As a result of this transition, ethnographic methods, used in anthropology for
decades, have migrated into many academic consumer research studies. Arnould and
Thompson ( 2005, p. 870) do not suggest that quantitative techniques have lost their
importance, but rather that many consumer behavior researchers have embraced a
“ methodological pluralism” that encourages customized application of qualitative or
quantitative techniques depending on the research question. Such pluralism is not yet
widespread in the transportation field and, as a result, transportation researchers approach
consumer behavior issues with a far more limited set of tools than their colleagues in
other disciplines.
This dissertation’s findings demonstrate that if transportation scholars are willing to
examine vehicles and vehicle purchases in a new way, they will see important dimensions
that were not visible to them before. Ultimately, this study aims to complement existing
transportation literature by enabling triangulation: the examination of the same problem
from a variety of perspectives. Janesick ( 1994) outlines types of triangulation that are
particularly relevant to this work, including theory triangulation, method triangulation,
and interdisciplinary triangulation. By examining a transportation topic using theoretical
13
approaches and methods from other disciplines ( namely, consumer behavior,
anthropology, and semiotics) this research creates a unique interdisciplinary perspective
on vehicle purchase behavior that does not currently exist within the transportation
literature.
The Focus on Hybrids
This study examines HEVs because hybrids ( and other advanced- technology vehicles)
offer one solution to mitigate the negative effects of the automobile on air quality,
climate change, and fossil fuel use. The United States is a mobile society, and its mode of
choice for travel is the automobile. On average, an American household drives 21,252
miles per year, making more than 85% of its trips by car ( U. S. Department of
Transportation 2002). Despite already high levels of travel, Americans’ demand for
mobility shows no signs of abating. The annual vehicle miles traveled ( VMT) for
households has been rising at nearly 3% annually for the past three decades, and has
increased 35% in just the past ten years ( U. S. Department of Transportation 2002). While
Americans are driving more each year, the fuel economy of their vehicles has remained
the same for the past two decades. In 2006, the average new vehicle had a fuel economy
rating of 24.6 miles per gallon ( MPG), the same rating attained by the average new
vehicle in 1983 ( Heavenrich 2006). As a result, Americans are consuming more gasoline,
which generates greater emissions of greenhouse gases and criteria pollutants and causes
faster depletion of worldwide petroleum reserves. The net effects are worse local air
quality, greater uncertainty regarding national energy supplies, and a heightened threat of
irreversible global climate change.
14
Because they use less fuel per mile of travel, HEVs offer one strategy to address these
issues. Relative to their gasoline counterparts, HEVs use roughly 30% less fuel, emit 25%
fewer greenhouse gases, and generate 20% fewer smog- inducing criteria pollutants
( Wang 2001). While the benefits of HEVs are promising, they can only be realized if
consumers choose to adopt these new automobiles. Since their introduction in the United
States at the end of 1999, HEVs have grown in popularity. In 2006, Americans purchased
over a quarter- million new hybrids and the bestselling HEV model, the Toyota Prius,
outsold 85% of the models available in the U. S. market ( Automotive News 2007).
Nonetheless, relative to the overall market, HEV sales remain modest, accounting for just
1.5% of new vehicles sold in the U. S. in 2006. Part of the reason is that there are still
relatively few HEV models available. At the end of 2006, only 11 HEVs2 were offered in
a market that included over 300 models. Just four manufacturers included HEVs in their
2006 lineups, and no manufacturer offered a hybrid in the important mid- sized and full-sized
light truck segments that compose 35% of the U. S. vehicle market ( Automotive
News 2007).
2 This total does not include hybrid versions of the Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra. These hybrid full-sized
pickup trucks were sold to fleet buyers rather than to consumers, and production of these vehicles
ended in December 2006.
15
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Year
Units Sold
Figure 1- 1: U. S. HEV Sales ( Automotive News 2007)
However, it is not just the lack of hybrid models that accounts for the low penetration of
HEVs in new vehicle sales. There is also a lack of interest among some buyers,
particularly in certain regions of the United States. On a per capita basis, states like
California, Oregon, and Vermont have nearly six times as many HEVs as Louisiana,
North Dakota, and Mississippi. In California, HEVs account for 3.3% of new vehicle
sales, more than double the national average ( R. L. Polk 2007a) In fact, California is the
most important HEV market in the United States. While California accounts for 27% of
all U. S. hybrid sales, it accounts for just 12% of overall U. S. light- duty vehicle sales
( R. L. Polk 2007a). For those wishing to promote HEVs as a solution to environmental
and resource issues, understanding the behavior of California’s carbuyers is essential. As
an early market for HEV technology, California is likely to hold clues about how HEVs
can be successfully marketed to consumers in other areas of the United States as well as
around the world.
16
Study Background
This study began examining HEVs in the fall of 2004, just as the HEV market was
entering a period of rapid growth. ( A timeline of HEV model introductions and this
study’s research phases is shown in Figure 1- 2.) Phase I began in November 2004, and
focused on owners of three HEV models: the Honda Insight, Honda Civic Hybrid, and
the Toyota Prius. All three models were relatively small, and were designed to provide
substantially higher fuel economy than conventional gasoline automobiles in the same
vehicle class. Two models, the Honda Insight and the Toyota Prius, were unique vehicles
designed specifically as hybrid offerings. The third, the Honda Civic Hybrid, shared all of
its components ( except for the drivetrain) with the conventional Honda Civic and looked
nearly identical to its non- hybrid twin. All three models had been sold in the U. S. for at
least two years, although the Toyota Prius was redesigned a year before the study began.
At the time, HEVs were criticized in the popular press for not making financial sense ( for
example, see O’Dell 2004 and Bradford 2003). Indeed, all three models cost several
thousands dollars more than non- hybrid offerings in the same vehicle size class. While
HEVs delivered higher fuel economy, the amount they saved owners on gasoline was
relatively small compared to their price premiums. In one Consumer Reports assessment,
the payback period of the hybrid drivetrain on a Honda Civic was estimated to be as long
as 21.5 years ( Bradford 2003). While few carbuyers actually calculate payback periods
before making a purchase ( Kurani and Turrentine 2007), discussion of the financial
aspects of HEVs in the popular press indicated that the vehicles did not pencil out.
Nonetheless, HEVs were popular. In particular, demand for the Toyota Prius was surging
as this study began. By the fall of 2004, 3- 6 month waiting lists for the Prius had formed
17
at most dealerships, and Toyota estimated they could sell twice as many hybrids as they
were producing ( Lerner 2004).
If, as many analysts suggested, HEVs did not make financial sense, why was there such
high demand for the vehicles? One hypothesis is that image, or symbolic meaning, played
a role. While there was not clear evidence showing that image influenced HEV
purchases, there were some indications of a connection. One was the CNW Market
Research ( 2004b) report cited earlier in which a third of HEV buyers said they bought
their vehicles in order to make a statement. Another was an Oregon Environmental
Council ( 2003) survey of hybrid owners which revealed that many buyers purchased their
vehicles in order to “ demonstrate their values” to others. A third indication came from
Kurani and Turrentine ( 2004) who found that some HEV owners were motivated by “ a
commitment to be pioneers” and by their perceptions of the HEV as “ the right vehicle for
society” rather than by fuel cost savings.
Building on these findings, Phase I of this study explored the symbolic meaning HEV
owners perceived in their vehicles. Since the HEVs in Phase I had been on the market for
several years, it was assumed that symbolic meaning, if present, would be well- formed.
Phase I also assessed how important this meaning was in buyers’ decisions to purchase
HEVs. This required examination of the purchase process, and analysis of how buyers
evaluated symbolic meaning in conjunction with other relevant factors, such as
functionality and price. Finally, Phase I examined the process through which HEVs
acquired their symbolic meanings. While advertisers are typically credited with instilling
18
image into products, relatively little advertising for HEVs was conducted before 2006.
This raised questions about the roles of other actors, such as journalists, celebrities, and
HEV owners in developing symbolic meaning for HEVs.
The 25 households interviewed in Phase I confirmed that HEVs did have strong symbolic
meaning, and that this meaning impacted their purchase decisions. Buyers explained that
they saw their HEVs as symbols of ideas including environmental concern, financial
prudence, and technology proficiency, and that these ideas were connected to buyers’
identities. Phase I households also talked about the symbolic meaning they perceived in
other vehicles. Some of these vehicles, such as battery electric vehicles, had positive
meanings and were seen as similar to HEVs. Others, including economy cars, luxury
vehicles, and SUVs, often had negative meanings and were viewed as dissimilar to ( even
opposite of) HEVs. Somewhat unexpectedly, Phase I households also talked about future
vehicles, including fuel- cell vehicles ( FCVs) and plug- in hybrid vehicles ( PHEVs), and
shared some of the meanings they were beginning to associate with these vehicles.
19
11/ 99 7/ 07
12/ 99
Honda
Insight
5/ 00
Toyota
Prius ( I)
3/ 02
Honda
Civic
Hybrid
11/ 04
Honda
Accord
Hybrid
10/ 04
Ford
Escape
Hybrid
4/ 06
Toyota
Camry
Hybrid,
Lexus
GS450h
6/ 05
Toyota
Highlander
Hybrid
10/ 03
Toyota
Prius ( II)
4/ 05
Lexus
RX400h
9/ 06
Saturn
VUE
Greenline
11/ 04 - 4/ 05
Phase I
High Fuel Economy HEVs
5/ 06 - 9/ 06
Phase II
SUV &
Performance HEVs
2/ 07
Nissan
Altima
Hybrid
12/ 06 - 3/ 07
Phase III
PHEVs
Figure 1- 2: Timeline of HEV Market and Study Phases
While Phase I interviews were underway, a second group of HEV models were entering
( or preparing to enter) the market. These models included small hybrid SUVs, such as the
Ford Escape Hybrid and Toyota Highlander Hybrid. They also included larger,
performance- oriented models such as the Honda Accord Hybrid that offered more
horsepower and faster acceleration than their conventional counterparts. While high- fuel-economy
HEVs like the Insight boasted the highest mileage of any gasoline vehicles in
the U. S. market, the new performance and SUV hybrid models could not make this claim.
These HEVs coupled more modest fuel economy gains with other features, such as four-wheel
drive, increased cargo room, and larger interiors. Phase II explored the same topics
as Phase I, but with a focus on buyers of the new performance and SUV hybrids. Because
performance and SUV hybrids were relatively new, my hypothesis was that owners
would still be in the process of attaching meaning to these vehicles. Therefore, additional
attention was devoted to understanding how buyers determined meanings to attach to the
new vehicles, and where these meanings originated. Since negative meanings of luxury
20
cars and SUVs emerged in Phase I, Phase II also explored whether buyers in Phase II
perceived the same negative meanings and, if so, whether they were carried over into
SUVs and luxury vehicles that utilized hybrid technology. In addition, Phase II included
some exploration of what meanings ( if any) households associated with future vehicles,
including FCVs and PHEVs.
11/ 99 7/ 07
12/ 99
Honda
Insight
5/ 00
Toyota
Prius ( I)
3/ 02
Honda
Civic
Hybrid
11/ 04
Honda
Accord
Hybrid
10/ 04
Ford
Escape
Hybrid
4/ 06
Toyota
Camry
Hybrid
6/ 05
Toyota
Highlander
Hybrid
10/ 03
Toyota
Prius ( II)
September 2006
18 May 2006
3,12
April 2006
8
February 2006
5
January 2006
20
December 2005
14,15,19
June 2005
4
September 2005
10,16
March 2005
1,6
February 2005
25 January 2005
7,17
October 2004
2
May 2001
5
May 2002
8
October 2002
4
April 2003
6
July 2003
12
November 2003
22
December 2003
13,14,20,23
March 2004
A1p1ril 2004
7
May 2004
1,3,9
June 2004
J2ul4y 2004
19
August 2004
10,18
August 2004
15
October 2004
2,21 June 2006
9,13
March 2001
16
July 2001
17
Figure 1- 3: Timeline of HEV Purchases ( Phases I and II)
I expected that our research in Phase II would yield additional symbolic meanings that
had not been attached to the high- fuel- economy HEVs studied in Phase I. New symbolic
meanings can develop for a product over time, and a substantial amount of time ( over six
years) had elapsed between the earliest purchase of an HEV by a household interviewed
in Phase I and the latest purchase in Phase II. ( Figure 1- 3 shows a timeline of purchase
dates for all of the HEV owners in this study). However, new symbolic meanings did not
emerge in Phase II: buyers of SUV and performance hybrids attached the same ideas to
the HEV as Phase I’s high- fuel- economy HEV owners did. What we did identify,
however, was other sets of symbolic meanings linked to the Phase II vehicles that were
21
not directly related to their hybrid powertrains. For example, one owner viewed his
Honda Accord Hybrid as a symbol of professional success not because it was a hybrid,
but because it was a large sedan with luxury features. Another saw his Toyota Camry
Hybrid as a symbol of maturity due to the fact that it was a Camry rather than because it
was an HEV. These findings showed that the different aspects of the HEV ( model, brand,
powertrain, etc.) each could have their own set of associated symbolic meanings. The
possibility that the HEV had multiple sets of meanings was not considered during Phase
I, nor was it explained by the semiotic theory that had been reviewed up to that point.
Therefore, I reviewed additional theory and applied it to the Phase II findings. I also
reexamined Phase I data and found that those interviews also showed evidence of
multiple sets of symbolic meanings. The results ( and additional semiotic theory) are
discussed in detail in Chapter 6.
At the time of this study’s Phase II interviews, PHEVs were receiving increased attention
from policymakers, the popular press, and members of the public. In 2004, independent
engineers began adding additional battery capacity to an existing HEV, the Toyota Prius,
to convert it into a working PHEV. By June 2006, nine Toyota Prius- based PHEV
prototypes were on the road in the United States, operated mainly by institutional owners
such as city governments, regional air quality agencies, and electric utilities. Press
coverage of PHEVs was increasing, and included enthusiastic reviews of PHEV
technology on the op- ed pages of major newspapers ( for example, see Woolsey 2006 and
Morris 2006). Consumer awareness followed: one study found that over 70% of
respondents had heard something about PHEVs by the spring of 2006 ( Wall 2006). That
22
summer, Congress saw its first bill ( H. R. 5538) that focused exclusively on developing
and promoting PHEVs.
Phase III of this study examined the emerging symbolic meanings in PHEVs. Because
PHEVs were so new, the goal of Phase III was to conduct more general, exploratory
analysis than occurred in earlier phases of this study. Basic questions existed about
PHEVs, including who owned the vehicles and why, how PHEVs were being used, when
they were recharged, and what benefits and drawbacks were perceived by drivers of the
vehicles. Understanding the symbolic meaning that drivers attached to PHEVs, therefore,
was one component within a larger set of research topics. The novelty of PHEV
technology also meant that the PHEV’s symbolic meaning was unlikely to be fully-formed.
Therefore, Phase III focused less on constructing a detailed definition of existing
symbolic meaning, and probed instead for more general themes that were likely to evolve
into more defined symbolic meaning in the future. Phase III also focused more heavily on
participants’ experiences driving and recharging the vehicles, whereas earlier phases
centered much of the questioning on the purchase process. This focal shift was necessary
because Phase III participants had not been through a purchase process to acquire their
PHEVs. Most participants drove PHEVs that were owned by their employer; even the
few private owners in the study had not bought their PHEVs in the traditional sense, but
rather had converted them from HEVs they already owned.
Study Outline
This dissertation includes eight chapters. Chapters 1- 3 discuss this study’s background,
theory, and methodology. Chapter 1, the current chapter, provides background on the
23
study and outlines its objectives. Chapter 2 provides an overview of semiotic theory,
including an explanation of what symbols are and how they work. It also reviews several
perspectives on why symbols matter to individuals, and proposes a new approach called
products as self- creation in which consumers use the symbolic meaning in goods such as
automobiles to define and communicate who they are. Chapter 3 includes a brief review
of qualitative methods within the transportation field, and outlines the ethnographic
interviewing techniques used for data collection in this study. It also explains how the
study’s interview results were analyzed, and describes the semiotic mapping technique
that was employed to examine the symbolic meaning that participants perceived in their
vehicles.
Chapters 4- 6 discuss findings from this study’s interviews with HEV owners. Chapter 4
gives a detailed explanation of the symbolic meanings, both positive and negative, that
households associated with their HEVs. It also describes why these meanings were
important to HEV buyers, and demonstrates how, in many cases, buyers sought a
combination of meanings in their vehicles rather than one specific symbolic meaning.
Chapter 5 includes a more detailed analysis of the interaction between HEVs’ symbolic
meaning and the identities of owners. Using several households as case studies, this
chapter shows how the concepts in the products as self- creation approach apply to
specific HEV owners. Chapter 6 assesses where HEVs’ symbolic meanings came from,
and examines how particular meanings became attached to these vehicles.
24
Chapters 7- 8 look toward the future. Chapter 7 examines the symbolic meaning of a
future vehicle: the PHEV. Using findings from Phase III interviews, this chapter
discusses current meanings of PHEVs as well as potential future meanings. The chapter
also explores the sources of these meanings, and highlights features of PHEVs that may
deliver symbolic value to users. Finally, Chapter 8 provides conclusions, advice for
applying this study’s findings to future vehicles, and directions for future research.
25
CHAPTER 2: SEMIOTIC THEORY
Semiotics is the study of symbols and symbol systems. This chapter focuses on semiotics
as it relates to motor vehicles. It explores how automobiles serve as symbols, and the
effects symbolic meaning has on consumer behavior. Symbolic meaning in automobiles
has been observed by numerous researchers, but has been deeply explored only by a few.
As Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg- Halton ( 1981, p. 27) note, “ In our own culture the
enormous symbolic significance of vehicles is so obvious that it is too easily taken for
granted.” The first part of this chapter defines what a symbol is, identifies the types of
symbols, and discusses how consumer goods ( such as automobiles) can serve as symbols.
Then, the chapter investigates how individuals use the meaning in their automobiles to
form and maintain their self- identities. Several theoretical approaches ( including
conspicuous consumption, self- congruity theory, and symbolic interactionism) are
examined and contrasted with a more comprehensive approach, called products as self-creation,
which is based on the theories of Anthony Giddens, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi
and Eugene Rochberg- Halton, and Grant McCracken. The next section explores how
automobiles acquire their meaning, and how this meaning is transferred to the consumer.
The final section of this chapter examines how consumers evaluate the benefits from
symbolic meaning relative to other types benefits vehicles provide, such as mobility.
Defining Symbols
What exactly are symbols? Simply defined, a symbol is something that stands for or
represents something else, and symbolism is the use of symbols. We are surrounded by
symbols, and they serve as essential tools in examining the world and communicating
26
with others. The spoken language we use is really just a set of symbols ( also known as
words) that are used to convey the meaning of things we see or feel. Thus, among
American English- speakers, the word “ car” means automobile, although to speakers of
other languages the word “ car” may have no meaning or an entirely different
significance. That language is a shared system of symbols quickly becomes evident when
we travel overseas, or when corporations attempt to market their products across cultures.
In a recent case of symbolic misinterpretation, General Motors was forced to rename one
of its models ( the Buick LaCrosse) in the Canadian market after it was discovered that
the word “ LaCrosse” carried strong sexual meaning to French Canadians ( Automotive
News Europe 2003). This episode demonstrates an important aspect of symbols: they are
so integral to our lives, we often forget they exist. It may be only when their meaning is
contested that we become fully aware of them.
Although words are symbols, language is not the only symbol system. Objects ( such as
automobiles) can be highly symbolic, as can behaviors ( such as religious rituals); in fact,
virtually anything can serve as a symbol. Like language, objects and behaviors may be
interpreted differently by different groups, particularly by members of different cultures.
Chandler ( 2002) identifies several symbolic frameworks; this study utilizes Saussure’s
( 1965) model of the sign. In this dyadic model, symbols are part of a larger concept
known as a sign, which is composed of two parts. The first part is the symbol, or
signifier: a word, object, or other entity that stands for something else. The second part is
the signified: the “ something else” that supplies the meaning. For example, a pickup truck
can be viewed as a symbol of traditional, working- class values. The truck is the signifier,
27
and working- class values is the signified concept; together, they form a sign that connects
a tangible object and an intangible idea. 3 In this chapter, the words symbol and signifier
will be used to refer to signifiers, and symbolic meaning or signified concepts will be
used to refer to the signified ideas.
Symbols are powerful because they are at the root of how we interpret the world around
us. Symbols form the basis for communicating culture which, loosely defined, is “ a
particular way of life which expresses certain meanings and values not only in art and
learning, but also in institutions and ordinary behavior” ( Hebdige 1979, p. 6). Embedded
within culture is a certain way of viewing the world, and symbols are essential to this
process. As Geertz ( 1973, p. 5) explains, “ The concept of culture I espouse… is
essentially a semiotic one. Believing, with Max Weber, that man is an animal suspended
in webs of significance he himself has spun, I take culture to be those webs, and the
analysis of it to be therefore not an experimental science in search of law but an
interpretive one in search of meaning.”
Anthropologist Sherry Ortner ( 1979, p. 94) defines a symbol as a “ vehicle for cultural
meaning” and identifies two types of key symbols: summarizing symbols and elaborating
symbols. A summarizing symbol distills a wider, more complicated set of concepts into a
unified, generalized whole. For example, a hybrid vehicle may stand for environmental
preservation; it is a simple statement about a very complex set of technical issues relating
to criteria pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions. In contrast, an elaborating symbol
3 In this case, the signifier ( pickup truck) is an object, but signifiers can also be intangible ( a behavior, for
example).
28
addresses specific rather than generalized concepts. An elaborating symbol serves as “ a
source of categories for conceptualizing the order of the world” or provides value by
“ implying mechanisms for successful social action” ( Ortner 1979, p. 94). In other words,
an elaborating symbol provides more detailed information on how to interpret one’s
environment and how to behave. For example, automobiles can be used as a means to
divide a diverse population. Some consumers identify themselves based on the type of
vehicle they drive, and view themselves as different from those that drive another type of
vehicle. To declare oneself as “ not a minivan person” or someone else as “ a pickup truck
guy” is to use the automobile as an elaborating symbol, as a tool to categorize elements
( in this case, people) in one’s environment. Ortner notes that this is an essential function
of culture: to help us order and make sense of the world, and determine how to behave
within it ( Ortner 1979, p. 95). Symbols are important tools in this ordering process.
Not only does our culture give us a symbolic structure that defines the world; our own
cognitive processes also rely on symbols. According to Saussure ( 1965) the ability to link
concepts through signs is essential to human thought. An individual’s culture provides
the underlying structure for seeing the world; culture establishes a set of rules, a symbolic
framework that defines some ideas as connected and others as separate. The mind
internalizes this structure, functioning as a “ system of operations that generate structures
of similarity and differentiation” ( Palmer 1997, p. 24). Thought, therefore, is much like
looking up symbolic meanings in a sort of “ cultural dictionary” within the mind.
29
Within the field of anthropology, there has been significant criticism of the rigidity and
inalterability of Saussure’s symbolic framework ( for example, see Desmond 2003). One
contrasting view is presented by sociologist Gerald Zaltman, who agrees that people use
culturally- imparted symbolic frameworks to process information, but sees symbolic
frameworks as a starting point for thought rather than a system that rigidly directs
cognition. Zaltman, who describes signs as metaphors, proposes that people possess
“ metaphorical schemes reflecting basic dimensions of culture such as time, information
flows, primary modes of activity, assumptions about relationships between people, and so
on” ( Zaltman 1995, p. 292). Like Saussure, Zaltman proposes that symbolism lies at the
root of thought, that “ thought is ultimately and irreducibly metaphorical” ( Zaltman 1995,
p. 292). However, Zaltman sees thought as more than simply accessing existing meanings
in a symbolic framework; the individual can also modify symbolic frameworks and create
new meanings. The process of imagining new ideas takes place through metaphors. By
linking concepts together in unique ways, we develop new ideas and ways of seeing the
world. Thus, signs can be given to us by culture, or developed by the individual. In both
cases, they serve as essential tools in the interpretation of one’s environment.
In a consumer society, products are important carriers of meaning. The rules and
classification schemes embedded in culture are abstract concepts, as are the thoughts and
ideas that originate in our own minds. Anthropologist Grant McCracken ( 1988a) has
observed that goods make these intangible concepts more visible, and therefore more
real. According to McCracken ( 1988a, p. 132) “ material culture makes culture material.”
Thus, physical objects “ bring to life” the beliefs, values, and behaviors that are practiced
30
within a culture. It is tempting to assume that only certain types of objects are culturally
important, and therefore that only specific categories of goods can serve as symbols.
While the symbolic properties of some objects, such as religious icons or national flags,
are more apparent and deliberate, this does not mean that they are the only goods that are
signifiers. Common, mass- produced consumer goods like automobiles can also carry
cultural meaning. In fact, as Western culture abandons many of its ethnic and religious
traditions, consumer goods assume an increasingly important role in defining ourselves
and our culture. As cultural historian Judith Williamson ( 1986, p. 227) notes, “ Every
society has some kind of map, a grid of the terms available to think in at any given time.
In ours, consumer goods are some of the chief landmarks which define the natural
categories we are accustomed to.”
When consumer goods serve as symbols, function and meaning coexist and often blend
together. In Saussure’s view, the relationship between signifier and signified concept is
completely arbitrary and is independent of the signifier’s physical characteristics. Using
Saussure’s logic, a pickup truck need not signify working- class values: it could signify
whatever meaning a culture chooses to assign to it. While this may be theoretically
possible, products such as automobiles generally display some relationship between their
physical properties and their meanings. McCracken describes a product that displays this
relationship as an icon: a “ sign that reproduces some of the qualities of the thing it
signifies” ( McCracken 1988a, p. 37). For example, an SUV may be seen as masculine
because of its powerful engine or rugged off- road capabilities. The meaning of the
vehicle, masculinity, is directly related to physical attributes, power and ruggedness.
31
Vehicle designers are aware of this connection, and create vehicle designs that project
meanings which are appropriate to their particular car and truck models.
This blending of function and meaning can complicate our understanding of consumer
behavior. Is a buyer of a truck- based SUV attracted to the vehicle’s off- road capability
because of the utilitarian benefits it provides or because the off- road features are
signifiers for other concepts? As Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg- Halton ( 1981, p. 21)
observe, “ it is extremely difficult to disentangle the use- related function from the
symbolic meanings in even the most practical objects.” In the case of truck- based SUVs,
clearly something other than utilitarian needs is at work since fewer than 15% of owners
ever drive their vehicles off the road ( Bradsher 2002). Like the Kabyle house in which
anthropologist Pierre Bourdieu ( 1979, p. 135) observed a “ loci where symbolic or social
necessity is articulated with technical necessity,” an automobile simultaneously provides
practical benefits and serves as a symbol of larger ideas.
Marketers are aware of this dual function of consumer goods. Much of modern marketing
is about the creation and management of signs, although few practitioners use this
language. Instead, marketers generally refer to the image and identity of a product or a
brand. Aaker and Joachimsthaler ( 2000, p. 40) define image as the “ current associations”
that are linked to a product or brand name; this contrasts with identity, which is also a set
of associations, but associations that are aspired to rather than actually embodied in a
brand or good. Both image and identity cast the product as a symbol with a set of
associated meanings. In the case of image, these meanings are assigned by consumers; in
32
the case of identity, they are the meanings that the marketer actively attempts to assign
through advertising and brand development. Marketing’s focus is generally on
understanding how the meaning of a particular product is interpreted by consumers, and
how that meaning can be adjusted to align with the desired identity. In general, market
researchers give relatively little consideration to the question of why consumers seek
meaning at all in the goods they buy. In other words, why do consumers value the
signified concepts that are attached to products such as automobiles?
Consuming Symbols
Products embody signified concepts that can be used to interpret, express, and define
ourselves. Thus, product meaning is tied to individual identity. This section considers two
categories of approaches to the connection between people’s identities and products’
meanings. The first category, termed products as self- expression, involves the use of
product meanings to enact or portray one’s own identity. In general, approaches in this
category assume people exist within fairly defined systems of meaning. Individuals use
signified concepts associated with products to portray themselves in different ways, but
have little or no influence to alter the overall system of meanings. Self- concepts must fit
pre- defined roles or stereotypes, and products can only possess socially- defined
meanings. In the second category of approaches, called products as self- creation,
individuals have much greater freedom to manipulate their own identities and the
meanings of products. Rather than simply expressing who they are, people have the
capability to invent and re- invent themselves. Self- definition becomes an ongoing,
creative project in which the individual constructs a unique self that is capable of viewing
33
product meaning in novel ways. The two categories ( and the four approaches that
compose them) are shown in Figure 2- 1:
Meaning of Individual ( Identity) Meaning of Goods
Approach Scope Actor Scope Actor
CONSPICUOUS
CONSUMPTION
LIMITED
Identity defined by
position in class
hierarchy
INDIVIDUAL
Individual acts on
product
LIMITED
Goods only symbolize
status; meaning
accessed through
ownership
SOCIAL
Social system defines
product meaning
SELF- CONGRUITY
MEDIUM
Identity defined by
stereotypes
INDIVIDUAL
Individual acts on
product
MEDIUM
Goods have wider
meanings; meaning
accessed by matching
with self- concept
SOCIAL
Social system defines
product meaning
Product as
Self-
Expression
SYMBOLIC
INTERACTIONISM
MEDIUM
Identity defined by
roles
INDIVIDUAL &
PRODUCT
Individual acts on
product, product acts
on individual
MEDIUM
Goods have wider
meanings; meaning
accessed by matching
with desired role
SOCIAL
Social system defines
product meaning
Product as
Self- Creation
LIFESTYLES AND
CULTIVATION
EXTENSIVE
Identity defined by
unique efforts of
individual
INDIVIDUAL &
PRODUCT
Individual acts on
product, product acts
on individual
EXTENSIVE
Goods have
unlimited,
individualized
meanings; meaning
accessed after
interpretation of
product
SOCIAL &
INDIVIDUAL
Social system or
individual defines
product meaning
Figure 2- 1: Summary of Approaches Evaluating Product Meaning and Personal Identity
Products as Self- Expression
This section examines three approaches to self- expression through products. Each has its
origins in a distinct field: conspicuous consumption from economics, self- congruity
theory from social psychology, and symbolic interactionism from sociology. All three
approaches assume that predefined systems of meaning exist, and that individuals define
products and themselves within the boundaries of these systems. However, there are
important differences in the approaches, mainly in the scope of meanings that can be
assigned to individuals and products. This section begins by considering the narrow
34
meanings of conspicuous consumption, then progresses to broader meanings
encompassed by self- congruity theory and symbolic interactionism.
Conspicuous Consumption: Expressing Class
Early analysis of product meaning by economist Thorstein Veblen assumes a strict social
hierarchy stratified by wealth, in which affluent members enjoy greater status than less-affluent
members. Status can be defined as “ the position or rank in a society or group
awarded to an individual by others” ( Eastman et al., 1999). Veblen’s analysis centers
around status, and on the ability of products to impart enhanced status on their owners. In
Veblen’s view, a person’s status forms the basis for his worth, both in his own eyes and
in the opinions of others. Goods serve as proof of social status, which generates respect
and admiration from other people; “ property… therefore becomes the conventional basis
of esteem” ( Veblen 1899, p. 28- 29). The meaning Veblen sees in goods is fairly simple:
they can signify wealth. The greater the wealth that is symbolized, the higher the status
category of the owner, and the higher his value as a person. Thus, wealthy consumers
purchase goods simply because the goods demonstrate affluence and lead to greater status
and self- worth, a phenomenon Veblen labels “ conspicuous consumption” ( Veblen 1899,
p. 75). Conspicuous consumption by wealthy consumers spawns a competition among
consumers at all income levels as they attempt to elevate themselves within the status
hierarchy. The result is a system in which ownership of products is used to conduct “ a
valuation of persons” ( Veblen 1899, p. 34).
As Bagwell and Bernheim ( 1996) note, Veblen’s seminal work has led to a wide body of
research on the consumption of “ prestige” or “ status” goods. Certainly there is validity in
35
Veblen’s theories; even a century after they were first published, they seem to apply well
to consumer behavior. Indeed goods like automobiles are perceived by many as status
goods. For example, a 1987 Roper Research report revealed that nearly half of Americans
viewed an expensive automobile as a status symbol ( Waldrop 1989). Status consumption
in the automobile market has been observed in past research ( Eastman et al., 1999), and
may account for the rapid growth in luxury vehicle offerings in the U. S. market during
the past decade. 4 In addition, studies have demonstrated that people’s perception of status
symbolized in a particular automobile can affect their behavior toward its owner; the
higher the perceived status of the vehicle, the more favorable people’s response to the
driver ( Doob and Gross 1968; Solomon and Herman 1977).
Yet viewing all consumer behavior as status- driven and all meanings of goods as status-related
is far too narrow a perspective. The analysis of conspicuous consumption
conducted by Veblen and others is valuable because it alerts us to the meaning in
products and the impact this meaning can have on purchase behavior. Yet Veblen’s
approach is limiting because it renders products as capable of carrying just one type of
signified concept. For many of us, “ status” may be the first idea that comes to mind when
considering consumer goods as symbols, but this is not the only meaning present in
consumer goods. In fact, certain automobiles have been successful precisely because they
represent an obvious rejection of status and affluence ( Meenaghan 1995). This
observation, therefore, runs directly counter to Veblen’s view of acquisition as the pursuit
of social status. In short, while Veblen’s theories have merit, they do not tell the whole
4 Ward’s data shows 108 luxury vehicle offerings planned for the American market in 2008, double the
number of models available in 1993 ( Zoia 2003).
36
story. Consumers desire more than just status, and therefore status is not the only
signified concept that appears in consumer goods such as automobiles.
Veblen’s approach is also limiting because it assumes people have a fairly superficial
understanding of product meanings. Even authors who agree with Veblen on the
importance of social status disagree with him on the richness of signified concepts
embedded in goods. Bourdieu ( 1984, p. 31) dismisses conspicuous consumption as
“ naïve exhibitionism, which seeks distinction in the crude display of ill- mastered luxury.”
According to Bourdieu, status cannot be attained simply by purchasing and exhibiting
expensive possessions. The symbolic system that defines class hierarchy is far more
complicated and subtle, and understanding it requires a “ cultivated habitus” ( Bourdieu
1984, p. 66) that cannot be easily attained. Individuals who wish to climb within the class
hierarchy can develop “ a ( more or less adequate) symbolic mastery of the practical
principles of taste” but will never truly acquire high- class taste, which Bourdieu describes
as a “ natural gift” ( Bourdieu 1984, p. 67- 68). Like Veblen, Bourdieu sees the meanings
of goods as providing demarcation between class boundaries. But Bourdieu identifies a
far deeper significance in goods: meaning which cannot be accessed simply through
purchase, but which must be comprehended and, by a select few, truly appreciated.
Self- Congruity: Expressing Stereotypes
A second approach is self congruity theory, 5 which examines self- expression through
objects using a wider set of meanings than just status. Rooted in psychology, self-congruity
theory focuses on the individual’s self- image ( or self- concept) which is defined
5 Also called self- image congruity theory or image congruence hypothesis.
37
as “ the totality of the individual’s thoughts and feelings having reference to himself as an
object” ( Sirgy 1982, p. 287). Self- congruity begins with evaluation of oneself, and the
development of a self- concept as a result of this introspection. Like Veblen, supporters of
self- image congruity theory argue that the desire for increased self- esteem is an important
source of behavioral motivation; however, they also recognize the importance of a second
motive, namely the tendency for an individual to behave in ways that are consistent with
his self- concept ( Sirgy 1982). This goal of consistency is complicated by the fact that the
self- concept contains not just one idea of who the individual is, but multiple “ possible
selves” ( Myers 2005). Most authors agree that at a minimum, the self- concept includes an
actual self- concept ( an image of who one currently is) as well as an ideal self- concept ( an
image of the way one would like to be). Sirgy ( 1982) notes that many researchers include
other selves within the self concept, including the social self- concept ( an image that one
believes others have of him) and the ideal social self- concept ( an image that one would
like others to have of him). Regardless on the number of selves that are included within
the self- concept, self- congruity theory implies that individuals make assessments of who
they are and who they would like to be. Behavior is motivated by the desire to enhance
one’s self- concept by acting in ways that are consistent with one or more of the various
selves.
In self- congruity theory, an individual’s self- image interacts with product image ( that is,
a product’s symbolic meaning) and drives purchase behavior. A consumer assesses the
meaning of a product and compares that meaning to the person he believes he is or would
like to be. The closer the match between product meaning and self- concept, the more
38
likely that a purchase is made. While self- congruity theory permits products to have a
range of meanings, the main “ associations” in a product’s image involve “ stereotypes of
the generalized or typical user” ( Sirgy 1982, p. 287). By purchasing a product,
individuals infuse themselves with the qualities possessed by a stereotyped user of that
product. So if the generalized user of a Harley- Davidson motorcycle is a rough and wild
Hells Angel, then a balding, middle- aged accountant can assume these same qualities by
purchasing a Harley for himself ( assuming, of course, that this purchase is congruent with
at least one aspect of the accountant’s self- image).
This transfer of meaning occurs due to consumption stereotyping, a process in which
people judge another individual based on the symbolic meaning of a product that the
individual owns or uses. Consumption stereotyping is complementary to self- congruence;
self- congruence determines product selection in anticipation of consumption stereotyping
later assigning that product’s meaning to its owner. However, theorists disagree about
this transfer process and whether it occurs based on an individual’s own perceptions or is
rooted exclusively in the perceptions of others. In other words, if an individual purchases
a Harley- Davidson and applies the Hells Angel stereotype to himself, does it matter what
others think? Sirgy ( 1982, p. 288) notes that this distinction may be irrelevant since
“ consumers may not be able to distinguish between their ‘ own’ feelings about a product
and their beliefs about how they are viewed by others.” Thus, if an individual applies a
stereotype to himself, he assumes that others are doing the same.
39
Numerous studies have applied self- congruity theory to automobiles. Past research
demonstrates that individuals recognize a ‘ fit’ ( or lack thereof) between themselves and
their vehicles, and between other people and their vehicles ( Grubb and Stern 1971),
indicating some conscious awareness of self- congruity among consumers. Studies of
automobiles also show that consumers’ actual and ideal self- images influence their
attitude toward particular vehicle models ( Sirgy 1985), affect purchase intent ( Sirgy
1985; Ericksen 1996), and correlate with ownership of particular cars ( Grubb and Stern
1971; Heath and Scott 1998). Studies of automobiles also provide evidence of
consumption stereotyping. Research indicates individuals stereotype themselves based on
the vehicle they own, and view themselves as similar to those who own the same vehicle
( Grubb and Hupp 1968). In addition, individuals stereotype others based on their
automobiles ( Grubb and Hupp 1968). This stereotyping is evident in both adults and
children, and often goes beyond simple generalizations. For example, research of
consumption stereotyping by Belk et al. ( 1982) shows that individuals are willing to
make fairly significant deductions about a person based on the automobile he owns,
drawing conclusions about the subject in areas such as intelligence, life satisfaction, and
behavioral inclinations. Based on these studies, it appears that self- congruity theory
applies well to the automobile market.
Like Veblen’s theory of conspicuous consumption, self- congruity theory provides a
useful model of consumer behavior, but it has some limitations. As social psychologist
Helga Dittmar ( 1992) notes, self- congruity represents a departure from earlier studies
which viewed product choice as simply a result of the consumer’s personality traits. One
40
study of automobile consumers conducted in the 1950s, for example, examined whether
“ typical” owners of Fords and Chevrolets had different personalities ( Evans 1959).
Instead of seeing purchase behavior as passive choices driven by consumers’ inherent
personality characteristics, self- congruity theorists viewed product selection as a process
in which the consumer deliberately selects products that match his self- concept. While
earlier studies focused on who the consumer is, self- congruity research emphasized who
the customer thinks he is. This implies much more active involvement by the consumer,
who formulates impressions of his current self and acts on this self- perception rather than
simply being blindly driven by pre- determined personality traits. More importantly, the
consumer has freedom to change his image through the creation of other possible selves.
Thus, self- congruity theory grants the individual greater freedom in using products as a
means of self- expression.
However, self- congruity theory has its drawbacks. First, it offers few guidelines as to
which self is most relevant in a given situation, and acknowledges that inconsistencies
may arise. As Sirgy ( 1982, p. 289) points out, a consumer’s preferences may change
depending on which self is at the fore: “ Consumption of a brand may be highly congruent
with self- image in one situation and not at all congruent with it in another.” The middle-aged
father of two who is shopping for a new car knows he should buy the minivan, but
can’t resist looking at a sports car. The first vehicle matches his actual self, the second his
ideal self. Yet if consumers are constantly switching between selves and there is no way
to tell which is active in a given situation, self- congruity theory loses much of its value as
a predictor of consumer behavior. While some studies have attempted to isolate which
41
self is operating in a given scenario ( for example, see Sirgy 1985) it is not clear that the
same self is always active under the same conditions.
A second issue in self- congruity theory is that it assumes individuals work within a
framework of predefined product meanings. Dittmar ( 1992, p. 61) criticizes self-congruity
theory for its focus on the individual and individually- defined product meaning
“ neglects the socially- defined meanings of consumer goods.” Yet self- congruity theory
assumes that a user stereotype exists for a given product, and that this stereotype is
generally understood by many ( if not all) consumers. User stereotypes, therefore, are
socially- shared, and may even be socially- defined. This leads to a criticism that is
opposite of Dittmar’s, namely that self- congruity theory gives individuals relatively little
freedom to interpret product meaning, which must remain rooted in user stereotypes.
Consumers simply work with existing product images, selecting those that fit with their
self- concepts and discarding those that do not. Redefinition of the stereotypes associated
with a particular product does not appear to be possible, at least not for the individual.
These fixed stereotypes are limiting; individuals can express themselves through goods,
but only in ways that are permitted by existing definitions.
Symbolic Interactionism: Expressing Roles
A third approach, symbolic interactionism, expands the relationship between consumers
and products they use. First defined by sociologist Herbert Blumer ( 1937), the symbolic
interactionist perspective emphasizes social interaction as the central activity in the
development of self- identity. Like self- congruity theory, symbolic interactionism views
the individual as composed of numerous selves. Each self corresponds to a role, which is
42
defined as a “ set of related meanings that directs the individual’s behavior in a social
setting” ( Solomon 1983, p. 321). An individual has numerous roles, and behavior consists
selecting an appropriate role for a given situation and acting according to the role’s
guidelines. Over the course of a single day, one individual may play the roles of mother,
executive, coach, and wife; in each role, she exposes a different self. The various selves
together compose the individual’s self concept, which is formed through interaction with
others. This interaction involves “ taking the perspective of the other” and analyzing
oneself from another’s point of view ( Dittmar 1992, p. 77). Thus, symbolic
interactionism emphasizes the social nature of self- concept; an individual forms his self-concept
by imagining how others see him. The idea of a “ looking glass self,” of seeing
oneself through another’s eyes, it is a key component in the symbolic interactionist
perspective. According to Blumer ( 1937, p. 183) “ the individual derives his conception of
himself largely from the way in which he is conceived by others.” In fact, this version of
the self has been adopted by some self- congruity theorists, who have melded it together
with the self- congruity approach ( for example, see Sirgy 1985 and Jamal and Goode
2001).
The most distinctive characteristic of symbolic interactionism is how products are used
by the consumer. Like in self- congruity theory, products can be used to express one’s
self- concept. In his analysis of symbolic interactionist theory, social psychologist
Michael Solomon ( 1983) observes that one function of products is as tools which are
used to reinforce the individual’s performance of a particular role. In this case of product
as response, purchase or use of a product is the result of a consumer’s desire to perform a
43
role effectively. For example, a consumer who wishes to enact the role of
“ environmentalist” purchases an HEV because he sees this type of vehicle as enhancing
the environmentalist role. But symbolic interactionism views products not just as results
of behavior, but also as causes. In a major departure from self- congruity theory, symbolic
interactionism allows a product to serve as a catalyst which alters the individual’s self-concept
and changes his behavior. In this product as stimuli case, a consumer purchases
an HEV without explicit knowledge or intentions regarding the environmentalist role, and
the product causes him to perform the role. Anyone who has tried on a piece of clothing
and unexpectedly felt different as a result can relate to this phenomenon. Products can
influence our self- concepts, even if we don’t intend for them to do so. Thus symbolic
interactionism establishes our relationship with goods as bi- directional: product purchase
can result from an individual’s role intentions, or can be the cause of those role
intentions.
According to Solomon, whether a product serves as response or as stimuli is determined
by an individual’s level of role knowledge. Role knowledge reflects a person’s
understanding and mastery of the behaviors associated with the successful performance
of a particular role ( Solomon 1983). For example, a recent college graduate is likely to
have little knowledge about the “ business executive” role, while a seasoned corporate
manager understands this role well and can play it effortlessly. Solomon ( 1983) suggests
that when individuals face situations which require unfamiliar roles, they look to product
meaning for assistance in fulfilling the new role. Products serve as stimuli; they shape the
individual’s portrayal of himself, compensating for his lack of role knowledge. The
44
recent graduate may purchase a luxury sedan, and the signified concepts in this vehicle
facilitate his understanding and enactment of his new role. Once his role knowledge has
increased, he may continue to purchase symbolic goods, but these goods will be
responses to his self- concept rather than stimuli that alter it. According to Solomon
( 1983) this occurs because when the required role is understood, an individual uses
products to validate his role performance rather than to define it. Thus, a consumer’s use
of product meaning changes depending on his level of role knowledge. At low levels of
role knowledge, products are stimuli that help define roles; at high levels of role
knowledge, products act as responses that reinforce roles.
Other researchers have examined these two uses of product meaning further, seeking to
identify segments of consumers that consistently emphasize one use of product meaning
over another. For example, Leigh and Gabel ( 1992, p. 7) propose that products serve as
stimuli for consumers in role transitions ( such as starting a new job or entering a new
school) or consumers “ who place high levels of importance on social group membership
and advancement.” In both cases, role knowledge tends to be limited, and new roles must
be learned and enacted. Leigh and Gabel’s discussion of social group membership is
reminiscent of Veblen’s theories, particularly since “ social group” can easily be
interpreted as a euphemism for “ social class.” Yet Leigh and Gabel repeatedly stress the
importance of reference groups, which can be defined generally as any groups with
whom an individual identifies ( Myers 2005). Social group membership, therefore, refers
to entry into all types of groups, not just those delineated by class. The important
element, according to symbolic interactionism, is the role: social groups expect a new
45
member to enact a certain role in order to gain entry, and expect current members to
continue role performances to maintain membership.
There have been numerous interpretations of symbolic interactionism since Blumer first
developed the theory. Solomon’s version makes a bold assertion about the relationship
between consumers and the products they buy. Product acquisition is not merely the
result of consumer self- concept; purchasing a good ( and the meaning within it) also can
shape the individual’s self- concept and behavior. Although it expands the relationship
between product and consumer, symbolic interactionist theory has limitations in other
areas. In particular, it does not extend the boundaries of the individual’s self- concept. In
symbolic interactionism, the self exists only within predefined roles, and life consists
merely of role- playing. Identity- development, therefore, is not a creative process as much
as a selection of the self from established options. So while products can have significant
symbolic meaning that stimulates behavior, individual identity remains fairly shallow.
Products as Self- Creation
The previous three self- expression approaches outline a relationship between product
meaning and self- concept in which the self must be defined within existing categories.
Products are used by an individual to act out a pre- scripted part according to class
categories, social stereotypes, or social roles. This leaves relatively little room for
creative self- definition, since the idea of developing a new stereotype or social role is not
discussed. A fourth approach, products as self- creation, views goods and their signified
concepts as essential elements in the crafting and maintenance of a unique individual
identity. Individuals in modern societies have unprecedented freedom to define who they
46
are, and possessions like automobiles are frequently used as tools in the process of
identity- formation. In the words of automotive market analyst G. Clotaire Rapaille,
Americans are in “ a permanent search of an identity” ( Rapaille 2004, p. 144) and “ cars
are very key… maybe the best way for Americans to express themselves” ( CBS 2003, p.
2). The following section interprets the works of Anthony Giddens, Mihaly
Csikszentmihalyi and Eugene Rochberg- Halton, and Grant McCracken and examines the
role of products not just in self- expression, but in self- creation.
The Project of the Self
If our self- concepts are more than just stereotypes and roles, what are they? Sociologist
Anthony Giddens ( 1991, p. 53) provides one important viewpoint, describing self-identity
as “ the self as reflexively understood by the person in terms of his or her
biography.” Giddens frames the self as a continuous project and emphasizes the reflexive
nature of self- development; reflexivity refers an ongoing reexamination and redefinition
of who one is. At the core of an individual’s identity is his biography, an “ ongoing ‘ story’
of the self” ( Giddens 1991, p. 54). According to Giddens, individuals develop
biographies that connect their past experiences and actions with their present
circumstances, as well as outlining paths for their futures. This is not a biography in the
traditional sense; that is, it does not simply provide a factual account of past events.
Instead, it is an interpretation of the past in light of the present and an anticipated future.
It is an individual’s attempt to connect who he was with who he is currently and who he
believes he will be. According to Giddens, identity- creation is an active development
process rather than just passive adherence to assigned cultural roles. “ Self- identity, in
47
other words, is not something that is just given… but something that has to be routinely
created and sustained in the reflexive activities of the individual” ( Giddens 1991, p. 52).
The identity described by Giddens is a much deeper and more original creation than the
self outlined by the theories discussed earlier in this chapter. The creation and
maintenance of Giddens’ expanded self requires a more substantial investment by the
individual. A person’s ongoing development of his self- identity leads him to engage in
particular regimes, which are personal habits or behaviors that reveal aspects of identity.
Giddens ( 1991, p. 62) cites the example of a consumer good, clothing, and explains how
a consumer’s choice of clothing items “ relates directly to concealment/ revelation in
respect of personal biographies.” Thus, the meaning of products can be used to reflect an
individual’s identity. Giddens ( 1991, p. 81) also discusses how the project of the self
leads an individual to embrace a certain lifestyle, which is defined as a “ more or less
integrated set of practices which an individual embraces, not because such practices
fulfill utilitarian needs, but because they give material form to a particular narrative of
self- identity.” While Giddens does not mention the use of products specifically when
discussing lifestyle, he implies that lifestyle practices ( including the consumption of
products) are motivated not only by functional needs but by the desire to develop one’s
identity.
Past research shows that the ownership and use of motor vehicles can be at the center of
individuals’ lifestyles. In his analysis of consumer interest in battery- electric vehicles
( BEVs), Turrentine ( 2003) notes how households who were exploring BEV ownership
48
saw the potential for BEVs to enhance their self- identities by enabling new lifestyle
practices. In one household, a father who had little interest in environmental preservation
became interested in BEV use after discovering the new technology could be an area of
shared interest with his teenaged son. For this individual, it was not just the vehicle that
was important, but the lifestyle that it enabled: a lifestyle that included the possibility of
spending more time with his child.
Lifestyle adoption is complicated by the fact that we are exposed to many diverse
lifestyles during the course of a typical day or week. Giddens ( 1991, p. 83) frames this
exposure as movement through “ lifestyle sectors, which are “ time- space ‘ slice[ s]’ of an
individual’s overall activities, within which a reasonably consistent and ordered set of
practices is adopted and enacted.” Lifestyle sectors are obvious to anyone whose work
and recreation contrast significantly. For example, an ambitious business executive who
is also an avid birdwatcher moves through two distinct lifestyle sectors: the office
environment during the week, and bird- watching club events on the weekends. In each
sector, he faces a different set of peers as well as a distinct standard of acceptable
behavior, requisite equipment, and shared signs.
At first glance, Giddens’ concept of lifestyle seems to resemble roles or stereotypes, but
there are important distinctions. Giddens points out that there is a significant difference
between simply playing a part and actually committing oneself to a particular lifestyle.
He observes that “ All human beings, in all cultures, preserve division between self-identities
and ‘ performances’ they put on in specific social contexts” ( Giddens 1991, p.
49
58). The adoption of a lifestyle involves more analysis and commitment than the
enactment of the symbolic interactionist’s “ role.” In symbolic interactionist theory,
individuals can switch from role to role; the only barrier to new role enactment is role
knowledge, which can be attained through product acquisition. In Giddens’ reflexively-constructed
self, new lifestyles that are adopted must fit with the individual’s self- concept
and underlying biography. The business executive/ birdwatcher must weave together his
two diverse lifestyles into a coherent self- concept that is compatible with his past and his
future. This is a more complex and demanding exercise, which makes adding new
lifestyles a more significant event than merely casting oneself temporarily in a new role.
The reason new lifestyles must be woven into an individual’s self- narrative points out
another important distinction between Giddens’ theories and symbolic interactionism.
While symbolic interactionism stresses the importance of others in defining an
individual’s self- concept, Giddens emphasizes the role of the individual in defining
himself. According to Giddens ( 1991, p. 66) one must have “ confidence in the integrity
and value of [ his] narrative of self- identity” in order to have a healthy sense of self- worth.
Because an individual’s self- esteem is rooted in the quality of his self- narrative, he is
motivated to carefully examine lifestyles and adopt only those that are truly compatible
with his self- concept. Symbolic interactionism, in contrast, suggests that individuals are
more flexible, exploring new roles and adopting whichever yield the most favorable
response from others.
50
Giddens goes on to place development of the self- concept within a broad social context.
Self- congruity and symbolic interactionism attribute the expression of one’s identity to
forces within the individual, namely the simultaneous desires to increase self- esteem and
to maintain self- consistency. Giddens looks outside the individual, to the unique
conditions of modern social, political, and economic systems. According to Giddens, the
conditions of modernity have led to a replacement of tradition with reflexivity. Culture no
longer provides a well- defined prescription for how to live one’s life; instead, the
individual now faces an “ indefinite range of potential courses of action” ( Giddens 1991,
p. 29). Whether they find this liberating or frightening, individuals have little choice but
to press on with the process of self- definition. Giddens notes that at the center of
modernity lie two important conditions: a network of industries that produces goods, and
a capitalist economy that exposes consumers to them. Thus, although Giddens does not
make product meaning a primary focus in his work, his portrayal of modern society
makes clear the integral position of goods. In the modern industrialized capitalist system,
consumer goods ( and the meanings attached to them) are an important element in the
process of self- definition. The question of “ who am I?” is answered “ in day- to- day
decisions about how to behave, what to wear and what to eat – and many other things”
( Giddens 1991, p. 14) including ( I would add) decisions about the purchase and use of
products like automobiles.
Cultivation and Creation of Meaning
Like Giddens, psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and sociologist Eugene Rochberg-
Halton examine the individual’s creation of his identity, but include a more detailed
examination of the role of goods in the self- definition process. These authors view self-
51
development in much the same way Giddens does, although their terminology differs.
What Giddens called “ the reflexive project of the self,” Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-
Halton ( 1981, p. 13) refer to as cultivation, which they define as “ the process of investing
psychic energy so that one becomes conscious of the goals operating in oneself, among
and between other persons, and in the environment. It [ cultivation] refers also to the
process of channeling one’s attention in order to realize such goals.” An individual has
goals that drive his intentions, and his intentions serve to focus his attention ( also called
psychic energy) on objects and actions that bring him closer to realizing his goals. Since
individuals’ goals are unique, the ways they focus attention in their cultivation processes
and the identities that result are also highly individuated.
Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg- Halton extend the theories of product meaning discussed
previously in this chapter. They agree with symbolic interactionists that goods serve as
both responses and stimuli: “ this symbolic meaning… of any other expressive object, is
not simply to reflect an already existing actuality. It also helps bring that actuality about”
( Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg- Halton 1981, p. 27). However, according to
Goal
Intention
Attention
Figure 2- 2: Cultivation Process ( Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg- Halton 1981)
52
Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg- Halton, product meaning is created not just by social
forces, but also by the individual himself. This represents a significant departure from
structuralism and other theories which view a product’s symbolic meaning as constructed
entirely outside of any single individual. Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg- Halton do not
deny that a culture can assign signified concepts to an object, or that a product’s signified
concepts can become widely understood among members of that culture. However, they
recognize a second route of meaning creation in which the main agent is the individual
rather than society. They call this process perception; it occurs “ when we experience a
thing and realize its own inherent character” rather than its culturally- assigned meaning
( Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg- Halton 1981, p. 44) Since each of us may come to
distinct conclusions when exposed to the “ inherent character” of a particular object, this
leads to unique perceptions of product meaning. Perception, therefore, is a process in
which the individual can “ create new insights” ( Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg- Halton
1981, p. 45) and attach his own signified concepts to an object. Perception stands in
contrast to recognition, which occurs “ when we experience a thing and interpret it only as
something we already know” based on socially- shared meanings ( Csikszentmihalyi and
Rochberg- Halton 1981, p. 44). Therefore, an individual can either recognize or perceive
the meaning of a given product, depending on the level of attention he devotes to it.
The idea that individuals can develop their own symbolic meanings for products has been
observed by other authors as well, especially among anthropologists studying social
change. In his analysis of style among English youth subcultures, Hebdige ( 1979)
discusses the process of bricolage, which involves the appropriation of a recognized sign
53
and the replacement of its socially- assigned meaning with an alternative meaning. The
alternative meaning generally comes from a subcultural group that aims to communicate
not only its identity, but its desire for social change. Hebdige ( 1979, p. 104) describes
how “ the motor scooter, originally an ultra- respectable means of transport, was turned
into a menacing symbol of group solidarity” by one group of youths known as the
“ mods.” Like Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg- Halton’s perception process, bricolage
leaves a sign’s signifier in place, but changes its signified concepts to a more
individualized meaning. This implies that an individual, or at least a group of individuals,
can redefine a product’s meaning.
Automobiles also can be the subjects of bricolage. O’Dell ( 2001) describes how a
subculture of Swedish youth called the “ raggare” assigned unique meanings to American-made
automobiles, and how these new meanings then were adopted by the larger
Swedish society. O’Dell ( 2001, p. 114) explains “ The cars became a forum for self-expression,
and raggare developed their own aesthetic code which was at least partially a
reaction against the dominant and normative Swedish preference for the practical and
rational.” The American automobile, which for the Swedish once had socially- assigned
meanings of “ the beauty and potential of things to come” and a “ better standard of living”
( O’Dell 2001, p. 110) was transformed by the raggare into “ a signifier of potential
danger” ( O’Dell 2001, p. 122) and rebellion.
In addition to allowing individuals to assign their own meaning to products,
Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg- Halton’s work differs from the theories discussed earlier
54
in another important way. Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg- Halton see an important role
for signifiers in referencing abstract signified concepts. Signifiers do not simply “ stand
for” something else, but embody the signified concept and make it real. This is important
for intangible concepts like thoughts, feelings, and desires which have no presence in the
physical world. According to Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg- Halton ( 1981, p. 21),
symbols grant abstract ideas “ an objective existence outside immediate situations.”
Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg- Halton’s analysis raises an existential question. Do
abstract concepts like love, freedom, or religious beliefs really exist if we cannot touch or
see them? In other words, do we need proof of physical existence in order to recognize
that something is real? Perhaps not, but Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg- Halton suggest
that it helps to have physical evidence to objectify an abstract concept. This may be
especially important given our limited understanding of many abstract ideas. For
example, all of us recognize love, but do we really understand it? With only a limited
comprehension of what love is, it may be easier to consider the concept generally; this
generalized concept is then accessed through a summarizing symbol. The symbol, rather
than a detailed understanding of the concept, now makes the concept “ real.” In this case,
the signifier and the signified concepts merge. In other words, the symbol becomes its
meaning. This explains why, as Ortner ( 1979, p. 94) notes, many summarizing symbols
become “ sacred symbols.” For example, many Americans view desecration of the U. S.
flag as desecration of the ideals for which it stands. In this sacred summarizing symbol,
the piece of fabric that serves as signifier cannot be separated from the its underlying
55
signified concepts. The sign and signifier merge due partly to our limited understanding
of the complex set of abstract ideas embodied within the sign.
In his analysis of consumer behavior, McCracken ( 1988a) observes the same merging of
signifier and signified concept noted by Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg- Halton.
However, McCracken proposes another explanation for why this merging occurs. In his
displaced meaning strategy, McCracken ( 1988a, p. 104) examines “ cultural meaning that
has been deliberately removed from the daily life of a community and relocated into a
distant cultural domain.” Displaced meaning is a method for individuals to cope with the
discrepancy between their abstract ideals and the world around them. For example,
although we may believe in utopian ideas such as peace, equality, and kindness toward
others, life often exposes us to the opposite. According to McCracken ( 1988a, p. 106)
people respond to this type of incongruity between reality and ideals by relocating their
ideals to any of an “ almost infinite number of locations on the continua of time and
place,” virtually anywhere except current reality. The future is a popular choice:
individuals often look forward to a time in the future when their utopian vision will be
realized. The past can also be used. McCracken ( 1988a, p. 106) notes that the idea of a
“ golden age” in which life was better is also a common location for displaced meaning.
Wherever individuals choose to relocate their ideals, they need a method to access them
so they are not lost. McCracken ( 1988a, p. 104) suggests that consumer goods serve as
this link: “ Consumer goods are bridges to these hopes and ideals.” Since the ideals are
not compatible with current reality, consumer goods serve as their surrogate: they serve
56
as signifiers for ideals without removing the ideals from their displaced locations. For
example, displaced meaning may be evident among HEV buyers in this study. Owners
view the purchase of an HEV as “ the right thing to do” and look forward to a world in
which “ everyone drives hybrids” ( see Chapter 4 for more detail). Their idealistic vision is
far from the current reality of a car- dependent, heavily- polluting society, so they relocate
it to the future. Their automobiles serve as a bridge between today’s unpleasant reality
and their ideals of environmental harmony. For these individuals, HEVs serve as
important symbols: they are “ real” things that link to ideas that their owners recognize
cannot be “ real” in the current version of the world.
The Project of Culture
As reviewed above, much of the analysis of people’s relationships with goods focuses on
the role of product meaning in the formation of individual identity. Yet goods can have a
broader impact: their meaning contributes not only to the definition of individuals, but
also to the definition of their surrounding culture. In his discussion of life politics,
Giddens suggests that the development of the self is closely linked to changes in larger
social systems. Giddens ( 1991, p. 214) observes that a consequence of the individual’s
process of identity- creation is life politics, “ political issues which flow from processes of
self- actualization in post- traditional contexts” In other words, “ the ‘ personal is political’”
( Giddens 1991, p. 215): a person’s lifestyle decisions have an inevitable impact on those
around him. In modern globalized society, one’s lifestyle can have far- reaching effects.
Automobile use by American consumers, for example, generates greenhouse gas
emissions that threaten the entire world’s ecosystem. In