For your first assignment, you will be conducting a laddering interview to create a Hierarchical Value Map (HVM). I provide conceptual background for the laddering interview techni

LADDERING THEORY, METHOD, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION

Thomas J. Reynolds and Jonathan Gutman

Journal of Advertising Research Feb/March, 1988

ersonal values research in marketing has recently received a substantial amount of attention from both academics and practitioners This more in-depth profiling of the consumer and his or her relationship to products offers potential not only for understanding the "cognitive" positionings of current products but also permits the development of positioning strategies For new products. Endorsing this more psychological view of the

marketplace, Sheth (1983) suggests that to be comprehensive in marketing products in the 1980's both researchers and management are going to have to, if they have not already, adopt this con- sumer-based orientation rather than one that merely focuses on product characteristics.

The application of the personal values perspective to the marketing of consumer products can be classified into two theoretically grounded perspectives, "macro" representing sociology and "micro" representing psychology (Reynolds, 1985). The macro approach refers to standard survey research methodology combined with a classification scheme to categorize respondents into predetermined clusters or groups (e.g..VALS methodology of the Stanford Research Institute). Products and their positioning strategies are then directed to appeal to these general target groups, such as the Merrill Lynch solitary bull appealing to the achiever orientation whose desire is to send out and “get ahead of the pack” (Plummer, 1985).

Reynolds (1985) notes, though strong on face validity these rather general classifications fail to provide an understanding, specifically, of how the concrete aspects of the product fit into the consumer‟s life. As such, the macro survey approach only gives part of the answer, namely, the overall value orientation of target segments within the marketplace. Missing are the key defining components of a positioning strategy—the linkages between the product and the per5onally relevant role it has in the life of the consumer.

The more psychological perspective offered by the "micro" approach based upon Means-End Theory (Gutman 1982), specifically focuses on the linkages between the attributes that exist in products (the "means"), „he consequences for the consumer provided by the attributes, and the personal values (the “ends”) the consequences reinforce. The means-end perspective closely parallels the origin of attitude research represented by Expectancy-Value Theory (Rosenberg, 1956), which posits that consumer actions produce consequences and that consumers Learn to associate particular consequences with particular product attributes they have reinforced through their buying behavior. The common premise, then, is that consumers learn to choose products containing attributes which are instrumental to achieving their desired consequences. Means-End Theory simply specifies the rationale underlying why consequences are important, namely, personal values.

The focus of this article is on detailing the specifics of the in-depth interviewing and analysis methodology, termed “laddering” (Gutman and Reynolds, 1979; Reynolds and Gutman, 1984a), for uncovering means-end hierarchies defined by these key elements and their linkages or connections. The combination of connected elements, or ladder, represents the linkage between the product and the perceptual process of consumers, which as pointed out previously, yields a more direct and thus more useful understanding of the consumer.

Laddering

Laddering refers to an in-depth, one-on-one interviewing technique used to develop an

P

understanding of how consumers translate the attributes of products into meaningful associations with respect to self, following Means-End Theory (Gutman, 1982). Laddering involves a tailored interviewing format using primarily a series of directed probes, typified by the “Why is that important to you?” question, with the express goal of determining sets of linkages between the key perceptual elements across the range of attributes (A), consequences (C), and values (V). These association networks, or ladders, referred to as perceptual orientations, represent combinations of elements that serve as the basis for distinguishing between and among products in a given product class.

It is these higher-order knowledge structures that we use to process information relative to solving problems (Abelson, 1981), which, in the consumer context, is represented by choice. Basically, distinctions at the different levels of abstraction, represented by the A-C-Vs, provide the consumer with more personally relevant ways in which products are grouped and cate- gorized. Thus, the detailing and subsequent understanding of these higher level distinctions provides a perspective on how the product information is processed from what could be called a motivational perspective, in that the underlying reasons why an attribute or a consequence is important can be uncovered.

For example, the following ladder, starting with a basic distinction between types of snack chips, represents part of the data collection from a single subject in a salty-snack study: (V) self-esteem I (C) better figure I (C) don‟t get fat I (C) eat less I (A) strong taste I (A) flavored chip

These elements were sequentially elicited from the respondent as a function of the laddering technique‟s ability to cause the respondent to think critically about the connections between the product‟s attributes and, in this case, her personal motivations.

The analysis of Laddering data such as this across respondents first involves summarizing the key elements by standard content-analysis procedures (Kassarjian, 1977), while bearing in mind the levels of abstraction, A-C-V, conceptualization. Then a summary table can be constructed representing the number of connections between the elements. From this summary table domi- nant connections can then be graphically represented in a tree diagram, termed a hierarchical value map (HVM). (This type of cognitive map, unlike those output from traditional factor analysis or multidimensional scaling methods, is structural in nature and represents the linkages or associations across levels of abstraction [attributes-consequences-values] without reference to specific brands.) Unfortunately, though basically accurate, this general description of; the analysis process has not been specific enough to permit first-time analysts (or their superiors) to feel comfortable with dealing with all the vagaries of qualitative data of this type. Thus, a step- by-step procedure, including both the analysis and the assessment of the resulting map, will be detailed by way of example later.

Interpretation of this type of qualitative, in-depth information permits an understanding of consumers‟ underlying personal motivations with respect to a given product class. Each unique pathway from an attribute to a value represents a possible perceptual orientation with respect to viewing the product category. Herein lies the opportunity to differentiate a specific brand, not by focusing on a product attribute, but rather by communicating how it delivers higher level consequences and ultimately how it is personally relevant, essentially creating an “image positioning.” This understanding typically serves as the basis for the development of advertising strategies, each representing a distinct “cognitive” positioning, which reinforces the various levels of abstraction for a given perceptual orientation (Olson and Reynolds. 1963; Reynolds and Gutman, 1984).

In sum, the express purpose of the interviewing process is to elicit attribute-consequence-value associations consumers have with respect to a product or service class. The general notion is to get the respondent to respond and then to react to that response. Thus, laddering consists of a series of directed probes based on mentioned distinctions initially obtained from perceived differences between and among specific brands of products or services. Again, after the initial distinction obtained by contrasting brands is elicited, all subsequent higher-level elements are not brand specific. The laddering results can be used to create an HVM summarizing all interviews across consumers, which is interpreted as representing dominant perceptual orientations, or “ways of thinking,” with respect to the product or service category.

Objectives Since the introduction of the laddering methodology into the consumer research domain, nu- merous applications, both applied and academic, have been executed (Gutman, 1984; Gutman and Alden, 1984; Gutman and Reynolds, 1983; Gutman, Reynolds, and Fiedler, 1984; Olson and Reynolds, 1983; Reynolds and Gutman, 1984a; Reynolds and Gutman, 1984b; Reynolds and Jamieson, 1984). Again, the primary application has been to develop a cognitive hierarchical value map indicating the interrelation of the attributes, consequences, and personal values for a given product or service category. Unfortunately, the term laddering in the marketing community has become a somewhat generic term representing merely a qualitative, in-depth interviewing process (Morgan, 1984), without reference to either its theoretical underpinnings (Gutman, 1982) or the rather critical distinction between the interviewing process and analytical methods used to derive meaning from the re- sulting data (Durgee, 1985). Not only have these critical distinctions been overlooked, but even the standard definition of laddering as an interviewing methodology, to date, has not been addressed in the academic literature. Given the value of this type of in-depth understanding of the consumer, in particular, the potential with respect to the specification of more accurate and appropriate positioning strategies, a comprehensive documentation of this research approach is needed. Thus, it is the primary objective of this article to detail the interviewing techniques that pertain to laddering in order to provide a foundation for both its application as well as subsequent method evaluation. A secondary objective is to provide a detailed description of how the analysis of this specific type of qualitative data is performed. The third and final objective is to demonstrate how the laddering results are interpreted with respect to developing and understanding perceptual orientations and product positionings.

Interview Environment General Considerations.

An interviewing environment must be created such that the respondents are not threatened and are thus wiling to be introspective and look inside themselves for the underlying motivations be- hind their perceptions of a given product class. This process can be enhanced by suggesting in the introductory comments that there are no right or wrong answers, thus relaxing the respon- dent, and further reinforcing the notion that the entire purpose of the interview is simply to under- stand the ways in which the respondent sees this particular set of consumer products. Put simply, the respondent is positioned as the expert. The goal of the questioning is to understand the way in which the respondent sees the world, where the world is the product domain comprised of relevant actors, behaviors, and contexts. The approaches and techniques discussed in this article are designed to assist the respondent in critically examining the assumptions underlying their everyday commonplace behaviors. Wicker (1985) discusses how researchers might use some of these same devices in breaking out of their traditional modes of thinking. Importantly, interviewers must position themselves as merely trained facilitators of this dis- covery process. In addition, due to the rather personal nature of the later probing process, it is advisable to create a slight sense of vulnerability on the part of the interviewer. This can be accomplished by initially stating that many of the questions may seem somewhat obvious and possibly even stupid, associating this predicament with the interviewing process, which requires the interviewer to follow certain specific guidelines.

Obviously, as with all qualitative research, the interviewer must maintain control of the in- terview, which is somewhat more difficult in this context due to the more abstract concepts that are the focus of the discussion. This can be best accomplished by minimizing the response options, in essence being as direct as possible with the questioning, while still following what appears to be an “unstructured” format. By continually asking the “Why is that important to you?” question, the interviewer reinforces the perception of being genuinely interested and thus tends to command the respect and control of the dialogue.

By creating a sense of involvement and caring in the interview, the interviewer is able to get below the respondent‟s surface reasons and rationalizations to discover the more fundamental reasons underlying the respondent‟s perceptions and behavior. Understanding the respondent involves putting aside all internal references and biases while putting oneself in the respondent‟s place. It is critical that rapport be established before the actual in-depth probing is initiated as well as maintained during the course of the interview. Basically, the interviewer must instill confidence in the respondent so the opinions expressed are perceived as simply being recorded rather than judged.

Also critical to the interviewing process is the ability of the interviewer to identify the elements brought forth by the respondent in terms of the levels of abstraction framework. Thus, a thorough familiarity with the Means-End theory is essential. Sensitive areas will frequently produce superficial responses created by the respondent to avoid introspection about the real reasons underlying the respondent‟s behavior. A clinical sensi- tivity is further required of the interviewer to both identify and deal with these frequent and po- tentially most informative types of dialogue. As in all interview situations, since the respondents will react directly in accordance with the interviewer‟s reactions—both verbal and nonverbal—it is vital to make the respondent feel at ease. One should carefully avoid potentially antagonistic or aggressive actions. Moreover, to avoid any “interview demand characteristics,” nonverbal cues such as approval, disapproval, surprise or hostility, or implying rejection should be avoided. Put simply, the interviewer should be perceived as a very interested yet neutral recorder of information.

Laddering Methods Eliciting Distinctions. Laddering probes begin with distinctions made by the individual re-

spondent concerning perceived, meaningful differences between brands of products. Having made a distinction the interviewer first makes sure it is bipolar, requiring the respondent to specify each pole. The respondent is then asked which pole of the distinction is preferred. The preferred pole then serves as the basis for asking some version of the “Why is that important to you?” question. The following overview identifies three general methods of eliciting distinctions that have proven satisfactory. The interview outline generally includes at least two distinct methods of eliciting distinctions to make sure no key element is overlooked.

1. Triadic Sorting (Kelly,1955). Providing the respondent with sets of three products as in the Repertory Grid procedure is one way to elicit responses from a respondent. Following are instructions for a wine cooler study which used triads to elicit initial distinctions.

Instructions for Triads

You will be presented with five groups of three different wine coolers. For each group of three you will have the opportunity to tell me how you think about the differences among the coolers. For example, if you were given a group of three cars:

Lincoln Continental—

Mustang—Cadillac you might say “car maker” as a way of thinking about them. Two are made by Ford and one is made by General Motors. Another way to think about them is size—big versus small. Of course, there are many different ways that you could think about the cars, for example:

• high styling versus ordinary styling • economy versus luxury

• sporty versus traditional

There are no right or wrong answers. As I present you with each group, take a moment to think about the three wine coolers.

Specifically, I want you to tell me some important way in which two of the three wine

coolers mentioned are the same and thereby different from the third. Again, when I show you the names of the three wine coolers, think of some overall way in which two of the coolers are the same and yet different from the third. If your response for one group of wine coolers is the same as for a previous group, try to think of another way in which they differ.

2. Preference-Consumption Differences.

Preference differences can also be a useful device for eliciting distinctions. Respondents, after providing a preference order for, say, brands of coolers, might be asked to tell why they prefer their most preferred brand to their second most preferred brand, or more simply to say why one particular brand is their most preferred (or second most preferred, least preferred. etc.) brand.

To illustrate: You said your most preferred brand is California Cooler and your second most was Bartles and Jaymes. What is it, specifically, that makes California Cooler more desirable? Along these same lines, one might ask about preference and usage and query instances where liked brands are used infrequently or less well-liked brands are used more frequently. This device worked well in a proprietary study of snack chips. Differences between what people like and what they actually used opened up the discussion to include strategies to limit or control the consumption of snacks.

3. Differences by Occasion. In most cases it is desirable to present the respondent with a personally meaningful context within which to make the distinctions. This contributes to more important distinctions being elicited as respondents‟ distinctions are being examined in the context of the setting in which they naturally occur (Barker, 1968; Runkel and McGrath, 1972). Attention to the context of consumer behavior provides a more meaningful context for laddering to proceed. People do not use or consume products in general; they do so in particular contexts. A study done in the convenience restaurant category (Gutman, Reynolds, and Fiedler, 1984) used triads between various convenience restaurants as a starting point. It was soon discovered that the distinctions elicited represented such obvious physical characteristics of the places compared (namely, hamburgers versus chicken) that they did not permit movement to higher, more personally meaningful areas from this starting point. Respondents were then questioned about their usage of various convenience restaurants and the occasion (day-part, who with, concomitant activities) in which they frequented them. Using this information to provide a relevant context relating to frequent usage of the category, re- spondents were given the same triads but with a context for making a comparison. For example, it might be suggested to a mother with young children that she has been out shopping with her children, and it being lunch time, she wants to stop for lunch on the way home. Three conve- nience restaurants could be compared for their suitability with respect to this usage situation. Re- spondents could respond to triads using their two or three most frequent usage occasions as a context for responding. What is important is to provide a meaningful basis for the respondent to keep in mind when thinking about differences among the stimuli. In this manner their distinctions are more likely to lead to a meaningful consideration of outcomes accruing to the respondent, which relate to making distinctions among the products.

Selecting Key Distinctions to Ladder. Typically, a respondent can only mention 10 to 12 dif- ferent distinctions for a given product category. Once a satisfactory number of distinctions have been mentioned, the interviewer has basically two options on how to select which ones will serve as the basis for building ladders. Either the interviewer can judgmentally select which

distinctions are to be used on the basis of prior knowledge of the category or with respect to the specific research issue at hand. Or, the interviewer can present a card with all the mentioned dis- tinctions on it and have the respondent rate the relative importance of each, then select those with the highest ratings.

The Two Basic Problems of Laddering. Prior to the detailing of the specific interviewing

techniques, two of the most common problems encountered in laddering and the general type of tactics required to counter the situation will be reviewed. An understanding of these basic issues will provide a necessary basis for learning the more detailed techniques to be presented later in the article.

1. The Respondent Really Does Not “Know” the Answer. When asked why a particular

attribute or consequence is important to them, the respondent often cannot articulate a “ready” reason. This lack of previous thinking of the reason underlying why the lower level construct is important can be dealt with by asking what would happen if the attribute or consequence was not delivered. Essentially this is negative laddering. The “nonconscious” reason (preferred in the Mean-End approach to the psychoanalytic “subconscious”) is then typically discovered by the respondent imagining the negative, resulting from the absence of the given construct, and then relating that back to what must be delivered if that negative is to be avoided.

Another general class of probing to avoid blocks on the part of the respondent is to change or rephrase the question in a situational context, much like the more concrete method illustrated earlier for initially eliciting distinctions. By discussing the issue in this manner, an answer is typically “discovered” due to the ability to concretize the issue at hand and deal with specific circumstances.

2. Issues That Become Too Sensitive. As the respondent is taken through the laddering pro-

cess, that is, moved upward through the levels of abstraction, the dynamics of the interview become more and more personal. Reaction to the continued probing “Why is that important to you?” question about sensitive issues can vary from “waffling” (redefining the question at an equal or lower level) to stating “I don‟t know,” silence, or even formulating extraneous argu- ments as an attempt to talk around the issue. Also, the respondent can manifest avoidance behavior by attaching negative or adverse characteristics to the interviewing process or to the interviewer.

Basically, three techniques can be employed to deal with respondent blocks due to sensitive issues. The first involves moving the conversation into a third person format, creating a role- playing exercise. The second, and most dangerous option, is for the interviewer to reveal a relevant personal fact (typically fabricated) about him/herself that makes the respondent feel less inhibited by comparison. The third, and most common, is to make a note of the problem area and come back to the issue when other relevant information is uncovered later in the interview.

Techniques. Each of the following techniques will be illustrated by using one common product class, wine coolers, for purposes of simplicity. A short definition of each technique will be presented. Then verbatim transcriptions are shown to give a more complete example of the laddering process. Summary ladders are detailed to illustrate the content classification by level of abstraction (A/C/V). Note that each ladder is contained within the HVM depicted in Figure 1. 1. Evoking the Situational Context (*). Laddering works beet when respondents are providing associations while thinking of a realistic occasion in which they would use the product. It is the person that is the focus of study, not the product. Therefore, it is essential to elicit from respondents the most relevant occasions for product consumption and to use these as the focus of the interview. Interviewer: You indicated that you would be more likely to drink a wine cooler at a party on the weekend with friends, why is that? Respondent: Well, wine coolers have less alcohol than a mixed drink and because they are so filling I tend to drink fewer and more slowly. Interviewer: What is the benefit of having less alcohol when you are around your friends? Respondent: I never really have thought about it. I don‟t know.

Interviewer: Try to think about it in relation to the party situation. (*) When was the last time you had a wine cooler in this party with friends situation? Respondent: Last weekend. Interviewer: Okay, why coolers last weekend? Respondent: Well, I knew I would be drinking a long time and I didn’t want to get wasted. Interviewer: Why was it important to not get wasted at the party last weekend? Respondent: When I‟m at a party I like to socialize, talk to my friends, and hopefully make some new friends. If I get wasted I‟m afraid I‟d make an ass of myself and people won‟t invite me next time. It‟s important for me to be part of the group.

The summary ladder for (1) is:

V sense of belonging (part of the group) C socialize C avoid getting drunk (wasted) A less alcohol/filling

2. Postulating the Absence of an Object or a State of Being (*). One way of “unblocking” respondents when they cannot move beyond a certain level is to encourage them to consider what it would be like to lack an object or to nut feel a certain way. This device often enables respondents to verbalize meaningful associations. Interviewer: You said you prefer a cooler when you get home after work because of the full- bodied taste. What‟s so good about a full-bodied taste after work? Respondent: I just like it. I worked hard and it feels good to drink something satisfying. Interviewer: Why is a satisfying drink important to you after work? Respondent: Because it is. I just enjoy it. Interviewer: What would you drink if you didn‟t have a cooler available to you? (*) Respondent: Probably a light beer. Interviewer: What‟s better about a wine cooler as opposed to a light beer when you get home after work? Respondent: Well, if I start drinking beer, I have a hard time stopping. I just continue on into the night. But with coolers I get filled up and it‟s easy to stop. Plus, I tend to not eat as much dinner. Interviewer: So why is continuing to drink into the evening something you don‟t want to do? Respondent: Well, if I keep drinking I generally fall asleep pretty early and I don‟t get a chance to talk to my wife after the kids go to bed. She works hard with the house and the kids all day—and it‟s really important that I talk to her so we can keep our good relationship, our family life, going. The summary ladder for (2) is:

V good family life C able to talk to my wife C don‟t fall asleep C (consume less alcohol) A filled up/easy to stop A full-bodied taste/ less alcohol

3. Negative Laddering (*).

For the most part, the laddering procedure proceeds by probing the things respondents do and

the way respondents feel. However, much can be learned by inquiring into the reasons why

respondents do not do certain things or do not want to feel certain ways. This technique is

particularly relevant when respondents cannot articulate why they do the things they do.

Exploring hidden assumptions in this manner and using the device of making the opposite

assumption have proven to be useful devices in making respondents aware of implications of

common behaviors (Davis, 1971).

Interviewer:You indicated a distinction between 12 ounce and 16 ounce bottles. What size bottle do you prefer? Respondent: I always buy a 12 ounce bottle. Interviewer: What‟s the benefit of buying a 12 ounce bottle? Respondent: I just buy it out of habit. Interviewer: Why wouldn‟t you buy a 16 ounce? (*) Respondent: It‟s too much for me to drink and it gets warm before I can finish it all. Then I have to throw it away. Interviewer: So how do you feel when you have to throw it away? Respondent: It makes me mad because I‟m wasting my money. Interviewer: What‟s the im- portance of money to you? Respondent: I‟m in charge of the family budget, so it‟s my responsibility to make sure it‟s spent right.

The summary ladder for (3) is:

V responsibility to family

C waste money

C throw it away (don‟t drink all of it)

C gets warm

C too much to drink

A larger size

4. Age-Regression Contrast Probe (*).

Moving respondents backward in time is another effective device for encouraging respondents

to think critically about and be able to verbalize their feelings and behavior.

Interviewer: You said you most often drink coolers at the bar. Why is that? Respondent: I‟ve never really thought about it. I just order them. Interviewer: Is there a difference in your drinking habits compared to a couple of years ago? (*) Respondent: Yes, I drink different types of drinks now. Interviewer: Why is that? Respondent: Well, before I

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.