THOMAS J. REYNOLDSANDJONATHAN CUTMAN

LADDERING THEORY,METHOD, ANALYSIS, ANDINTERPRETATION

THOMAS J. REYNOLDS cur-rently serves as president ofthe Institute for Consumer Re-search a research and ccn-sultjng company specializingin the assessment ol strategicpositionings and the develop-menl of strafegic ccmmunica-tion options. In addition, DrReynolds serves as a pro-fessor in the School of Man-agement al the University ofTexas at Dallas

JONATHAN GUTMAN is cur-rently professor of marketingat [he Whittemore School ofBusiness and Economics atIhe University of Mew Hamp-shire in Durham, New Hamp-shire Dr. Gufman's mam re-search interest is in the devel-opment and application ofmeans-end chain methodologyon which he has publishedmany articles including thoseappearing in the Journal ofAdvertising Research, theJournal of Marketing, and theJournal of Retailing.

The authors would like to express theirappreciation to Monique Vrinds andGregory Bunker of the institute for Consumer Research for both their technicaland practical illustrations of the lad-dering process.

Personal values research inmarketing has recently re-ceived a substantial amount

of attention from both academicsand practitioners. This more in-depth profiling of the consumerand his or her relationship toproducts offers potential not onlyfor understanding the "cogni-tive" positionings of currentproducts but also permits the de-velopment of positioning strate-gies for new products. Endorsingthis more psychological view ofthe marketplace, Sheth (1983)suggests that to be competitive inmarketing products in the 1980s,both researchers and manage-ment are going to have to, if theyhave not already, adopt this con-sumer-based orientation ratherthan one that merely focuses onproduct characteristics.

The application of the personalvalues perspective to the mar-keting of consumer products canbe classified into two theoreti-cally-grounded perspectives,"macro" representing sociologyand "micro" representing psy-chology (Reynolds, 1985). Themacro approach refers to stan-dard survey research method-ology combined with a classifica-tion scheme to categorize re-spondents into predeterminedclusters or groups (e.g., VALSmethodology of the Stanford Re-search Institute). Products andtheir positioning strategies arethen directed to appeal to thesegeneral target groups, such asthe Merrill Lynch solitary bullappealing to the "achiever" ori-entation whose desire is to stand

out and "get ahead of the pack"(Plummer, 1985).

Reynolds (1985) notes, thoughstrong on face validity, theserather general classifications failto provide an understanding,specifically, of how the concreteaspects of the product fit into theconsumer's life. As such, themacro survey approach onlygives part of the answer, namely,the overall value orientation oftarget segments within the mar-ketplace. Missing are the key de-fining components of a posi-tioning strategy—the linkagesbetween the product and thepersonally relevant role it has inthe life of the consumer.

The more psychological per-spective offered by the "micro"approach, based upon Means-End Theory (Gutman, 1982), spe-cifically focuses on the linkagesbetween the attributes that existin products (the "means"), theconsequences for the consumerprovided by the attributes, andthe personal values (the "ends")the consequences reinforce. Themeans-end perspective closelyparallels the origin of attitude re-search represented by Expec-tancy-Value Theory (Rosenberg,1956), which posits that con-sumer actions produce conse-quences and that consumerslearn to associate particular con-sequences with particularproduct attributes they havereinforced through their buyingbehavior. The common premise,then, is that consumers learn tochoose products containing at-tributes which are instrumental

V A L U E S T H R O U G H L A D D E R I N G

to achieving their desired conse-quences. Means-End Theorysimply specifies the rationale un-derlying why consequences areimportant, namely, personalvalues.

The focus of this article is ondetailing the specifics of the in-depth interviewing and analysismethodology, termed "lad-dering" (Gutman and Reynolds,1979; Reynolds and Gutman,1984a), for uncovering means-end hierarchies defined by thesekey elements and their linkagesor connections. The combinationof connected elements, or ladder,represents the linkage betweenthe product and the perceptualprocess of consumers, which aspointed out previously, yields amore direct and thus more usefulunderstanding of the consumer.

Laddering

Laddering refers to an in-depth, one-on-one interviewingtechnique used to develop anunderstanding of how consumerstranslate the attributes ofproducts into meaningful associ-ations with respect to self, fol-lowing Means-End Theory(Gutman, 1982). Laddering in-volves a tailored interviewingformat using primarily a series ofdirected probes, typified by the"Why is that important to you?"question, with the express goal ofdetermining sets of linkages be-tween the key perceptual ele-ments across the range of at-tributes (A), consequences (C),and values (V). These associationnetworks, or ladders, referred toas perceptual orientations, repre-sent combinations of elementsthat serve as the basis for distin-guishing between and amongproducts in a given product class.

It is these higher-order knowl-edge structures that we use toprocess information relative tosolving problems (Abelson,1981), which, in the consumer

context, is represented by choice.Basically, distinctions at the dif-ferent levels of abstraction, rep-resented by the A-C-Vs, providethe consumer with more person-ally relevant ways in whichproducts are grouped and cate-gorized. Thus, the detailing andsubsequent understanding ofthese higher level distinctionsprovides a perspective on howthe product information is pro-cessed from what could be calleda motivational perspective, inthat the underlying reasons whyan attribute or a consequence isimportant can be uncovered.

For example, the followingladder, starting with a basic dis-tinction between types of snackchips, represents part of the datacollection from a single subject ina salty-snack study:

(V) self-esteemt

(C) better figureT

(C) don't get fatt

(C) eat lesst

(A) strong tasteT

(A) flavored chipThese elements were sequen-

tially elicited from the respondentas a function of the ladderingtechnique's ability to cause therespondent to think criticallyabout the connections betweenthe product's attributes and, inthis case, her personalmotivations.

The analysis of laddering datasuch as this across respondentsfirst involves summarizing thekey elements by standard con-tent-analysis procedures (Kassar-jian, 1977), while bearing in mindthe levels of abstraction, A-C-V,conceptualization. Then a sum-mary table can be constructedrepresenting the number of con-nections between the elements.From this summary table domi-

nant connections can then begraphically represented in a treediagram, termed a hierarchicalvalue map (HVM). (This type ofcognitive map, unlike thoseoutput from traditional factoranalysis or multidimensionalscaling methods, is structural innature and represents thelinkages or associations acrosslevels of abstraction [attributes-consequences-values] withoutreference to specific brands.) Un-fortunately, though basically ac-curate, this general description ofthe analysis process has not beenspecific enough to permit first-time analysts (or their superiors)to feel comfortable with dealingwith all the vagaries of qualitativedata of this type. Thus, a step-by-step procedure, includingboth the analysis and the assess-ment of the resulting map, willbe detailed by way of examplelater.

Interpretation of this type ofqualitative, in-depth informationpermits an understanding ofconsumers' underlying personalmotivations with respect to agiven product class. Each uniquepathway from an attribute to avalue represents a possible per-ceptual orientation with respectto viewing the product category.Herein lies the opportunity todifferentiate a specific brand, notby focusing on a product at-tribute, but rather by communi-cating how it delivers higherlevel consequences and ulti-mately how it is personally rele-vant, essentially creating an"image positioning." This under-standing typically serves as thebasis for the development of ad-vertising strategies, each repre-senting a distinct "cognitive" po-sitioning, which reinforces thevarious levels of abstraction for agiven perceptual orientation(Olson and Reynolds, 1983;Reynolds and Gutman, 1984b).

In sum, the express purpose ofthe interviewing process is to

nf AnVERTISING RESEARCH-FEBRUARY/MARCH 1988

elicit attribute-consequence-valueassociations consumers have withrespect to a product or serviceclass. The general notion is to getthe respondent to respond andthen to react to that response.Thus, laddering consists of aseries of directed probes basedon mentioned distinctions ini-tially obtained from perceiveddifferences between and amongspecific brands of products orservices. Again, after the initialdistinction obtained by con-trasting brands is elicited, allsubsequent higher level elementsare not brand specific. The lad-dering results can be used tocreate an HVM summarizing allinterviews across consumers,which is interpreted as repre-senting dominant perceptual ori-entations, or "ways of thinking,"with respect to the product orservice category.

Objectives

Since the introduction of theladdering methodology into theconsumer research domain, nu-merous applications, both ap-plied and academic, have beenexecuted (Gutman, 1984; Gutmanand Alden, 1984; Gutman andReynolds, 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 applicationhas been to develop a cognitivehierarchical value map indicatingthe interrelation of the attributes,consequences, and personalvalues for a given product or ser-vice category.

Unfortunately, the term lad-dering in the marketing commu-nity has become a somewhat ge-neric term representing merely aqualitative, in-depth interviewingprocess (Morgan, 1984), withoutreference to either its theoretical

V A L U H S T H R O U G H L A D D E R I N G

underpinnings (Gutman, 1982) orthe rather critical distinction be-tween the interviewing processand analytical methods used toderive meaning from the re-sulting data (Durgee, 1985). Notonly have these critical distinc-tions been overlooked, but eventhe standard definition of lad-dering as an interviewing meth-odology, to date, has not beenaddressed in the academic litera-ture. Given the value of this typeof in-depth understanding of theconsumer, in particular, the po-tential with respect to the specifi-cation of more accurate and ap-propriate positioning strategies, acomprehensive documentation ofthis research approach is needed.

Thus, it is the primary objec-tive of this article to detail the in-terviewing techniques that per-tain to laddering in order to pro-vide a foundation for both itsapplication as well as subsequentmethod evaluation. A secondaryobjective is to provide a detaileddescription of how the analysis ofthis specific type of qualitativedata is performed. The third andfinal objective is to demonstratehow the laddering results are in-terpreted with respect to devel-oping and understanding per-ceptual orientations and productpositionings.

Interview Environment

General Considerations. Aninterviewing environment mustbe created such that the respon-dents are not threatened and arethus willing to be introspectiveand look inside themselves forthe underlying motivations be-hind their perceptions of a givenproduct class. This process canbe enhanced by suggesting in theintroductory comments thatthere are no right or wrong an-swers, thus relaxing the respon-dent, and further reinforcing thenotion that the entire purpose ofthe interview is simply to under-

stand the ways in which the re-spondent sees this particular setof consumer products. Putsimply, the respondent is posi-tioned as the expert. The goal ofthe questioning is to understandthe way in which the respondentsees the world, where the worldis the product domain comprisedof relevant actors, behaviors, andcontexts. The approaches andtechniques discussed in this ar-ticle are designed to assist the re-spondent in critically examiningthe assumptions underlying theireveryday commonplace be-haviors. Wicker (1985) discusseshow researchers might use someof these same devices in breakingout of their traditional modes ofthinking.

Importantly, interviewers mustposition themselves as merelytrained facilitators of this dis-covery process. In addition, dueto the rather personal nature ofthe later probing process, it isadvisable to create a slight senseof vulnerability on the part of theinterviewer. This can be accom-plished by initially stating thatmany of the questions may seemsomewhat obvious and possiblyeven stupid, associating this pre-dicament with the interviewingprocess, which requires the in-terviewer to follow certain spe-cific guidelines.

Obviously, as with all qualita-tive research, the interviewermust maintain control of the in-terview, which is somewhat moredifficult in this context due to themore abstract concepts that arethe focus of the discussion. Thiscan be best accomplished byminimizing the response options,in essense being as direct as pos-sible with the questioning, whilestill following what appears to bean "unstructured" format. Bycontinually asking the "Why isthat important to you?" question,the interviewer reinforces theperception of being genuinely in-terested and thus tends to com-

Journal nf AnuPRTiciMfi anc-c

V A L U E S T H R O U G H L A D D E R I N G

mand the respect and control ofthe dialogue.

By creating a sense of involve-ment and caring in the interview,the interviewer is able to getbelow the respondent's surfacereasons and rationalizations todiscover the more fundamentalreasons underlying the respon-dent's perceptions and behavior.Understanding the respondentinvolves putting aside all internalreferences and biases while put-ting oneself in the respondent'splace. It is critical that rapport beestablished before the actual in-depth probing is initiated as wellas maintained during the courseof the interview. Basically, theinterviewer must instill confi-dence in the respondent so theopinions expressed are perceivedas simply being recorded ratherthan judged.

Also critical to the interviewingprocess is the ability of the inter-viewer to identify the elementsbrought forth by the respondentin terms of the levels of abstrac-tion framework. Thus, a thor-ough famiharity with the Means-End theory is essential.

Sensitive areas will frequentlyproduce superficial responsescreated by the respondent toavoid introspection about the realreasons underlying the respon-dent's behavior. A clinical sensi-tivity is further required of theinterviewer to both identify anddeal with these frequent and po-tentially most informative typesof dialogue.

As in all interview situations,since the respondents will reactdirectly in accordance with theinterviewer's reactions—bothverbal and nonverbal—it is vitalto make the respondent feel atease. One should carefully avoidpotentially antagonistic or ag-gressive actions. Moreover, toavoid any "interview demandcharacteristics," nonverbal cuessuch as approval, disapproval,surprise or hostility, or implying

rejection should be avoided. Putsimply, the interviewer should beperceived as a very interested yetneutral recorder of information.

Laddering Methods

Eliciting Distinctions. Lad-dering probes begin with distinc-tions made by the individual re-spondent concerning perceived,meaningful differences betweenbrands of products. Having madea distinction the interviewer firstmakes sure it is bipolar, requiringthe respondent to specify eachpole. The respondent is thenasked which pole of the distinc-tion is preferred. The preferredpole then serves as the basis forasking some version of the "Whyis that important to you?" ques-tion. The following overviewsthree general methods of elicitingdistinctions that have proven sat-isfactory. The interview outlinegenerally includes at least twodistinct methods of eliciting dis-tinctions to make sure no key el-ement is overlooked.

1. Triadic Sortitig {Kelly,1955). Providing the respondentwith sets of three products as inthe Repertory Grid procedure isone way to elicit responses froma respondent. Following are in-structions for a wine cooler studywhich used triads to elicit initialdistinctions.

Instructions for Triads

You will be presented withfive groups of three differentwine coolers. For each groupof three you will have the op-portunity to tell me how youthink about the differencesamong the coolers. For ex-ample, if you were given agroup of three cars:

Lincoln Continental—Mustang—Cadillac

you might say "car maker" asa way of thinking about them.Two are made by Ford and oneis made by General Motors.

Another way to think aboutthem is size—big versus small.Of course, there are many dif-ferent ways that you couldthink about the cars, forexample:

• high styling versus ordinarystyling

• economy versus luxury• sporty versus traditional

There are no right or wronganswers. As I present you witheach group, take a moment tothink about the three winecoolers.

Specifically, I want you totell me some important way inwhich two of the three winecoolers mentioned are thesame and thereby differentfrom the third. Again, when Ishow you the names of thethree wine coolers, think ofsome overall way in which twoof the coolers are the same andyet different from the third. Ifyour response for one group ofwine coolers is the same as fora previous group, try to thinkof another way in which theydiffer.

2. Preference-ConsumptionDifferences. Preference differ-ences can also be a useful devicefor eliciting distinctions. Respon-dents, after providing a prefer-ence order for, say, brands ofcoolers, might be asked to tellwhy they prefer their most pre-ferred brand to their second mostpreferred brand, or more simplyto say why one particular brandis their most preferred (or secondmost preferred, least preferred,etc.) brand.

To illustrate:

You said your most preferredbrand is California Cooler andyour second most was Bartlesand Jaymes. What is it, specifi-cally, that makes CaliforniaCooler more desirable?

n( AnVFRTISING RFSEARCH-FEBRUARY/MARCH 1988

V A L U E S T H R O U G H L A D D E R I N G

Along these same lines, onemight ask about preference andusage and query instances whereliked brands are used infre-quently or less well-liked brandsare used more frequently. Thisdevice worked well in a propri-etary study of snack chips. Dif-ferences between what peoplelike and what they actually usedopened up the discussion to in-clude strategies to limit or controlthe consumption of snacks.

3. Differences by Occasion.In most cases it is desirable topresent the respondent with apersonally meaningful contextwithin which to make the dis-tinctions. This contributes tomore important distinctionsbeing elicited as respondents'distinctions are being examinedin the context of the setting inwhich they naturally occur(Barker, 1968; Runkel andMcGrath, 1972). Attention to thecontext of consumer behaviorprovides a more meaningful con-text for laddering to proceed.People do not use or consumeproducts in general; they do so inparticular contexts. A study donein the convenience restaurantcategory (Gutman, Reynolds, andFiedler, 1984) used triads be-tween various convenience res-taurants as a starting point. Itwas soon discovered that the dis-tinctions elicited representedsuch obvious physical character-istics of the places compared(namely, hamburgers versuschicken) that they did not permitmovement to higher, more per-sonally meaningful areas fromthis starting point.

Respondents were then ques-tioned about their usage ofvarious convenience restaurantsand the occasion (day-part, whowith, concomitant activities) inwhich they frequented them.Using this information to providea relevant context relating to fre-quent usage of the category, re-spondents were given the same

triads but with a context formaking a comparison. For ex-ample, it might be suggested to amother with young children thatshe has been out shopping withher children, and it being lunchtime, she wants to stop for lunchon the way home. Three conve-nience restaurants could be com-pared for their suitability with re-spect to this usage situation. Re-spondents could respond totriads using their two or threemost frequent usage occasions asa context for responding.

What is important is to providea meaningful basis for the re-spondent to keep in mind whenthinking about differences amongthe stimuli. In this manner theirdistinctions are more likely tolead to a meaningful consider-ation of outcomes accruing to therespondent, which relate tomaking distinctions among theproducts.

Selecting Key Distinctions toLadder. Typically, a respondentcan only mention 10 to 12 dif-ferent distinctions for a givenproduct category. Once a satis-factory number of distinctionshave been mentioned, the inter-viewer has basically two optionson how to select which ones willserve as the basis for buildingladders. Either the interviewercan judgmentally select whichdistinctions are to be used on thebasis of prior knowledge of thecategory or with respect to thespecific research issue at hand.Or, the interviewer can present acard with all the mentioned dis-tinctions on it and have the re-spondent rate the relative impor-tance of each, then select thosewith the highest ratings.

The Two Basic Problems ofLaddering. Prior to the detailingof the specific interviewing tech-niques, two of the most commonproblems encountered in lad-dering and the general type oftactics required to counter thesituation will be reviewed. An

understanding of these basicissues will provide a necessarybasis for learning the more de-tailed techniques to be presentedlater in the article.

1. The Respondent ReailyDoes Not "Know" the An-swer. When asked why a partic-ular attribute or consequence isimportant to them, the respon-dent often cannot articulate a"ready" reason. This lack of pre-vious thinking of the reason un-derlying why the lower levelconstruct is important can bedealt with by asking what wouldhappen if the attribute or conse-quence was not delivered. Essen-tially this is negative laddering.The "nonconscious" reason (pre-ferred in the Mean-End approachto the psychoanalytic "subcon-scious") is then typically discov-ered by the respondent imag-ining the negative, resulting fromthe absence of the given con-struct, and then relating thatback to what must be delivered ifthat negative is to be avoided.

Another general class ofprobing to avoid blocks on thepart of the respondent is tochange or rephrase the questionin a situational context, much likethe more concrete method illus-trated earlier for initially elicitingdistinctions. By discussing theissue in this manner, an answeris typically "discovered" due tothe ability to concretize the issueat hand and deal with specificcircumstances.

2. Issues That Become TooSensitive. As the respondent istaken through the laddering pro-cess, that is, moved upwardthrough the levels of abstraction,the dynamics of the interviewbecome more and more personal.Reaction to the continuedprobing^ "Why is that importantto you?" question about sensitiveissues can vary from "waffling"(redefining the question at anequal or lower level) to stating "Idon't know," silence, or even

V A L U E S T H R O U G H L A D D E R I N G

formulating extraneous argu-ments as an attempt to talkaround the issue. Also, the re-spondent can manifest avoidancebehavior by attaching negative oradverse characteristics to the in-terviewing process or to theinterviewer.

Basically, three techniques canbe employed to deal with re-spondent blocks due to sensitiveissues. The first involves movingthe conversation into a thirdperson format, creating a role-playing exercise. The second, andmost dangerous option, is for theinterviewer to reveal a relevantpersonal fact (typically fabricated)about him/herself that makes therespondent feel less inhibited bycomparison. The third, and mostcommon, is to make a note of theproblem area and come back tothe issue when other relevant in-formation is uncovered later inthe interview.

Techniques. Each of the fol-lowing techniques will be illus-trated by using one commonproduct class, wine coolers, forpurposes of simplicity. A shortdefinition of each technique willbe presented. Then verbatimtranscriptions are shown to givea more complete example of theladdering process. Summaryladders are detailed to illustratethe content classification by levelof abstraction (A/C/V). Note thateach ladder is contained withinthe HVM depicted in Figure 1.

1. Evoking the SituationalContext (*). Laddering worksbest when respondents are pro-viding associations whilethinking of a realistic occasion inwhich they would use theproduct. It is the person that isthe focus of study, not theproduct. Therefore, it is essentialto ehcit from respondents themost relevant occasions forproduct consumption and to usethese as the focus of theinterview.

Interviewer: You indicated thatyou would be more likely todrink a wine cooler at a partyon the weekend with friends,why is that?Respondent: Well, winecoolers have less alcohol than amixed drink and because theyare so filling I tend to drinkfewer and more slowly.Interviewer: What is the ben-efit of having less alcoholwhen you are around yourfriends?Respondent: I never reallyhave thought about it. I don'tknow.Interviewer: Try to think aboutit in relation to the party situa-tion. (*) When was the lasttime you had a wine cooler inthis party with friendssituation?Respondent: Last weekend.Interviewer: Okay, whycoolers last weekend?Respondent: Well, I knew Iwould be drinking a long timeand I didn't want to get wasted.Interviewer: Why was it im-portant to not get wasted atthe party last weekend?Respondent: When I'm at aparty I like to socialize, talk tomy friends, and hopefullymake some new friends. If Iget wasted I'm afraid I'd makean ass of myself and peoplewon't invite me next time. It'simportant for me to be part ofthe group.

The summary ladder for (1) is:

V

C

C

A

sense of belonging(part of the group)

socialize

avoid getting drunk(wasted)

less alcohol/filling

2. Postulating the Absense ofan Object or a State of Being (*).One way of "unblocking" re-

spondents when they cannotmove beyond a certain level is toencourage them to consider whatit would be like to lack an objector to not feel a certain way. Thisdevice often enables respondentsto verbalize meaningfulassociations.

Interviewer: You said youprefer a cooler when you gethome after work because of thefull-bodied taste. What's so goodabout a full-bodied taste afterwork?Respondent: I just like it. Iworked hard and it feels goodto drink something satisfying.Interviewer: Why is a satis-fying drink important to youafter work?Respondent: Because it is. Ijust enjoy it.Interviewer: What would youdrink if you didn't have acooler available to you? (*)Respondent: Probably a lightbeer.Interviewer: What's betterabout a wine cooler as opposedto a light beer when you gethome after work?Respondent: Well, if I startdrinking beer, I have a hardtime stopping. I just continueon into the night. But withcoolers I get filled up and it'seasy to stop. Plus, I tend to noteat as much dinner.Interviewer: So why is con-tinuing to drink into the eve-ning something you don'twant to do?Respondent: Well, if I keepdrinking I generally fall asleeppretty early and I don't get achance to talk to my wife afterthe kids go to bed. She workshard with the house and thekids all day—and it's reallyimportant that I talk to her sowe can keep our good rela-tionship, our family life, going.

The summary ladder for (2) is:

1f i .In.irnal of ADVERTISING RESEARCH-FEBRUARY/MARCH 1988

V A L U E S T H R O U G H L A D D E R I N G

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 (*}. Forthe most part, the laddering pro-cedure proceeds by probing thethings respondents do and theway respondents feel. However,much can be learned by inquiringinto the reasons why respon-dents do not do certain things ordo not want to feel certain ways.This technique is particularly rel-evant when respondents cannotarticulate why they do the thingsthey do. Exploring hidden as-sumptions in this manner andusing the device of making theopposite assumption haveproven to be useful devices inmaking respondents aware ofimplications of common be-haviors (Davis, 1971).

Interviewer: You indicated adistinction between 12 ounceand 16 ounce bottles. Whatsize bottle do you prefer?Respondent: I always buy a 12ounce bottle.Interviewer: What's the benefitof buying a 12 ounce bottle?Respondent: I just buy it out ofhabit.Interviewer: Why wouldn'tyou buy a 16 ounce? (*)Respondent: It's too much forme to drink and it gets warm be-fore I can finish it all. Then Ihave to throw it away.Interviewer: So how do youfeel when you have to throw itaway?Respondent: It makes me madbecause I'm wasting my money.Interviewer: What's the im-

portance of money to you?Respondent: I'm in charge ofthe family budget, so it's myresponsibility to make sure it'sspent right.

The summary ladder for (3) is:

V responsibility to family

C

C

waste money

throw it away(don't drink all of it)

C gets warm

C too much to drink

A larger size4. Age-Regression Contrast

Probe (*). Moving respondentsbackward in time is another ef-fective device for encouraging re-spondents to think criticallyabout and be able to verbalizetheir feelings and behavior.

Interviewer: You said youmost often drink coolers at thebar. Why is that?Respondent: I've never reallythought about it. 1 just orderthem.Interviewer: Is there a differ-ence in your drinking habitscompared to a couple of yearsago? nRespondent: Yes, I drink dif-ferent types of drinks now.Interviewer: Why is that?Respondent: Well, before Iused to be in college, and theonly thing around seemed tobe beer.Interviewer: So why do youdrink coolers now?Respondent: Well, now I havea career and when I do go outI go with CO workers. Drinkinga wine cooler looks better thandrinking a beer.Interviewer: Why is that?Respondent: The bottle shapeand the fancy label look morefeminine than drinking a beer.Interviewer: Why is that im-

portant to you?Respondent: It's important tome to have a sophisticated imagenow that I'm in the work force.I want to be just like mycoworkers.

The summary ladder for (4) is:

V like my coworkers(belonging)

C sophisticated image

C more feminine

A bottle shape

A fancy label

5. Third-person Probe (*).Another device for eliciting re-sponses from respondents whenthey find it difficult to identifytheir own motives or to articulatethem is to ask how others theyknow might feel in similarcircumstances.

Interviewer: You mentionedyou drink wine coolers atparties at your friend's house.Why do you drink them there?Respondent: Just because theyhave them.Interviewer: Why not drinksomething else?Respondent: I just likedrinking coolers.Interviewer: Why do you thinkyour friends have them atparties? (*)Respondent: I guess they wantto impress us because winecoolers are expensive. They re-late quality to how expensiveit is.Interviewer: Why do theywant to impress others?Respondent: Since coolers arenew, they are almost like astatus symbol.Interviewer: So what is thevalue to them of having astatus symbol?Respondent: My friendsalways like to do one better

Journal of ADVERTISING

V A L U E S T H R O U G H L A D D E R I N G

than anyone else. It's probablyrelated to their self-esteem.

The summary ladder for (5) is:

V self-esteem

C status symbol

C impress (others)

C quality

A expensive

6. Redirecting Techniques:Silence (*)lCommunicationCheck ( }. Silence on the part ofthe interviewer can be used tomake the respondent keep tryingto look for a more appropriate ordefinite answer when either therespondent is not willing to thinkcritically about the questionasked or when the respondentfeels uncomfortable with what heor she is learning aboutthemselves.

A communication check simplyrefers to repeating back what therespondent has said and askingfor clarification, essentially askingfor a more precise expression ofthe concept.

Interviewer: You mentionedyou like the carbonation in acooler. What's the benefit of it?Respondent: I don't thinkthere's any benefit tocarbonation.Interviewer: Why do you likeit in a cooler?Respondent: No particularreason.Interviewer: (silence) (*)Respondent: Come to think ofit, carbonation makes it crispand refreshing.Interviewer: Why is thatimportant?Respondent: It makes it thirstquenching, especially aftermowing the lawn and is apick-me-up.Interviewer: Let me see if Iunderstand what you'resaying. (**) What do you mean

by saying a pick-me-up?Respondent: I mean after Ifinish it's like a reward for com-pleting a chore I dislike.

The summary ladder for (6) is:

V completing a chore(accomplishment)

C reward

C thirst-quenching

C refreshing

A

A

crisp

carbonation

Summary. The reader will nodoubt notice the similarity ofthese techniques to other qualita-tive interviewing approaches.The purpose here has been todemonstrate their use in lad-dering and to show how theladders per se emerge from theinterviewer-respondentinteraction.

After spending a fair amountof time on one ladder withoutclosure to a higher level, it be-comes necessary to either termi-nate further discussion or pro-ceed on to another ladder andcircle back later. If one attributeor consequence ceases to becomemobile, it is of no benefit to con-tinue the laddering process withit because time is limited. Themore familiar the interviewer be-comes with the techniques andprocedures, the better the inter-viewer is able to judge if an out-come can be reached in the lineof questioning. By moving on toanother subject, the respondentis given time to think more aboutthe issue. The respondent mayhave a block and the shift cansometimes resolve the problem.

The central idea is to keep thefocus of the discussion on theperson rather than on theproduct or service. This is not aneasy task because typically at

some point the respondent re-alizes that the product seems tohave disappeared from the con-versation. Unfortunately, thereare situations where techniquesand procedures are unable toproduce a means-ends chain. Therespondent may be inarticulateor simply unwilling to answer. Italso takes a length of time for theinterviewer to test all the tech-niques and develop a personalstyle that can produce ladders.As with any qualitative techniqueexperience becomes the key.

Typically, two or three ladderscan be obtained from roughlythree-fourths of the respondentsinterviewed. Approximately one-fourth of the respondents, de-pending on the level of involve-ment in the product class, cannotgo beyond one ladder. The timerequired from distinctions to finalladders varies substantially, ofcourse, but 60 to 75 minutes rep-resents a typical standard.

Analysis

Content Analysis. As over-viewed earlier, the initial task ofthe analysis is to content-analyzeall of the elements from theladders. The first step is to recordthe entire set of ladders acrossrespondents on a separate codingform. Having inspected them forcompleteness and having devel-oped an overall sense of thetypes of elements elicited, thenext step is to develop a set ofsummary codes that reflect ev-erything that was mentioned.This is done by first classifying allresponses into the three basicA/C/V levels and then furtherbreaking down all responses intoindividual summary codes (seeTable 1 for wine-cooler codes).

Obviously, one wants toachieve broad enough categoriesof meaning to get replications ofmore than one respondent sayingone element leads to another.Yet, if the coding is too broad,

18 Journal of ADVERTISING RESEARCH-FEBRUARY/MARCH 1988

V A L U E S T H R O U G H L A D D E R I N G

Tabie 1Summary Content Codes forHypothetical Wine CooierExample

Values

(20) Accomplishment(21) Family(22) Belonging(23) Self-esteem

Consequences

( 8) Quality( 9) Filling(10) Refreshing(11) Consume less(12) Thirst-quenching(13) More feminine(14) Avoid negatives(15) Avoid waste(16) Reward(17) Sophisticated(18) Impress others(19) Socialize

Attributes

( 1) Carbonation( 2) Crisp( 3) Expensive( 4) Label( 5) Bottle shape( 6) Less alcohol( 7) Smaller

too much meaning is lost. Thekey to producing consistency inthis stage, as in all content anal-ysis, is reliability checks acrossmultiple coders.

Importantly, the goal at thislevel of the analysis is to focus onmeanings central to the purposeof the study, remembering that itis the relationships between theelements that are the focus of in-terest, not the elements them-selves. For example, "avoids thenegatives of alcohol" in Figure 1is a summarization of severalmore detailed elements (namely,not too tired, not too drunk,don't say dumb things, and don'tget numb). If all those separateelements were given separatecodes it is likely that none of therelations between them and otherelements would have very highfrequencies, and they would notappear in the HVM.

Once the master codes are fi-

nalized, numbers are assigned toeach. These numbers are thenused to score each element ineach ladder producing a matrixwith rows representing an indi-vidual respondent's ladder (onerespondent can have multipleladders and thus multiple rows),with the sequential elementswithin the ladder correspondingto the consecutive column desig-nations. Thus the number ofcolumns in the matrix corre-sponds to the number of ele-ments in the longest ladder plusany identification or demographiccodes. (See the Appendix for thehypothetical score matrix repre-senting one ladder for 67 respon-

dents from which the HVM inFigure 1 was constructed.)

It is this "crossing over" fromthe qualitative nature of the in-terviews to the quantitative wayof dealing with the informationobtained that is one of the uniqueaspects of laddering and clearlythe one that sets it apart fromother qualitative methods. Thissummary score matrix, then,serves as the basis for deter-mining the dominant pathwaysor connections between the keyelements as well as providing theability to summarize by subgroup(e.g., men only).

The impiication Matrix. Tworesearch issues remain; construct-

Figure 1

Hypotheticai Hierarchicai Vaiue Map of Wine Cooler Category

Self-esteem 23• feel better

about self• self image• self worth

Accomplishment 20• get most from life

Belonging 22• security• camaraderie• friendship

Family Life 21• maintain respect

of others• better family

ties

Impress Others 18• successful image

Reward 16• satisfying• compensation

Thirst-quenching 12• relieves thirst• not too sour

Refreshing 10• feel alert,

alive

Sophisticated Image 17• personal status• how others view me

More Feminine 13sociallyacceptable

Socialize 19(able to)

• easier to talk• open up• more sociable

Avoid Negativesof Alcohol 14• not too drunk• not too tired

Ouality 8• superior product

product quality

Carbonation( + ) 1

Expensive( + ) 3

Avoid Waste 15• doesn't get

warm

Consume less 11can't drink morecan sip

Bottle(shape)

5

LessAlcohol

6Filling

9

SmallerSize

(10 oz.)7

Journfil nf AnUPRTIQIMn

V A L U E S T H R O U G H L A D D E R I N G

ing hierarchical maps to repre-sent respondents' ladders in theaggregate; and determining thedominant perceptual segmentsrepresented in the overall map ofaggregate relations. To accom-plish this, the next step is thestraightforward one of construct-ing a matrix which displays thenumber of times each elementleads to each other element(operationally defined at thislevel as which elements in agiven row precede other ele-ments in the same row). Such amatrix will be a square matrixwith a size reflecting the numberof elements one is trying to map,usually between 30 and 50. Twotypes of relations may be repre-sented in this matrix: direct rela-tions and indirect relations.

Direct relations refer to impli-cative relations among adjacentelements. The designations of (A)through (E) for the elements refersimply to the sequential orderwithin the ladder. That is, givenour wine cooler example:

belonging (E)

able to socialize (D)

avoid negatives of alcohol (C)

consume less (B)

filling (A)

The A-B ("filling—consumeless") relation is a direct one as isB-C, C-D, and D-E. However,within any given ladder there aremany more indirect relations,A-C, A-D, A-E, B-D, and soforth. It is useful to examine bothtypes of relations in determiningwhat paths are dominant in anaggregate map of relationshipsamong elements. Without exam-ining indirect relations, a situa-tion might exist where there aremany paths by which two ele-ments may be indirectly con-nected but where none of thepaths are represented enough

times to represent a significantconnection. For example, theremay be other paths by which"avoids negatives of alcohol"leads to "belonging." Neverthe-less, it is helpful to keep track ofthe number of times "avoidsnegatives of alcohol" ultimatelyleads to "belonging" when ex-amining the strength of laddersas derived from the aggregatematrix of relations.

Another option in constructingthe overall matrix of relationsamong elements is whether tocount each mention of a relation-ship among elements that an in-dividual respondent makes or tocount a relation only once foreach respondent, no matter howmany times each respondentmentions it. Given the previousladder as an example, if "filling—consume less" leads to severalhigher level associations for agiven individual, do you countthat indirect relation as manytimes as it occurs, or just onceper respondent? The significanceof an element is in part a func-tion of the number of connec-tions it has with other elements,which argues for counting allmentions, but it does distort theconstruction of the map wherethere are surprisingly few (tothose not familiar with this re-search) connections between ele-ments in the overall matrix.Often, of all the cells having anyrelations, only one-half will bementioned by as many as threerespondents.

Table 2 presents the row-column frequency matrix indi-cating the number of times di-rectly and indirectly all row ele-ments lead to all columnelements. The numbers are ex-pressed in fractional form withdirect relations to the left of thedecimal and indirect relations tothe right of the decimal. Thus"carbonation" (element 1) leadsto "thirst-quenching" (element12) four times directly and six

times indirectly. More precisely,this means that four respondentssaid carbonation directly leads tothirst-quenching, whereas tworespondents sequentially relatedthe two elements with anotherelement in between.

Constructing the HierarchicaiValue Map. In filling in the im-plication matrix, individual re-spondent's ladders are decom-posed into their direct and indi-rect components (see Table 2). Inconstructing the HVM, "chains"have to be reconstructed from theaggregate data. To avoid confu-sion, the term "ladders" willrefer to the elicitations from indi-vidual respondents; the term"chains" will be used in refer-ence to sequences of elementswhich emerge from the aggregateimplication matrix.

To construct a HVM from thematrix of aggregate relations, onebegins by considering adjacentrelations, that is, if A ^ B and B-^ C and C ^ D, then a chainA-B-C-D is formed. There doesn'tnecessarily have to be an indi-vidual with an A-B-C-D ladderfor an A-B-C-D chain to emergefrom the analysis. A HVM isgradually built up by connectingall the chains that are formed byconsidering the linkages in thelarge matrix of relations amongelements.

The most typical approach is totry to map all relations aboveseveral different cutoff levels(usually from 3 to 5 relations,given a sample of 50 to 60 indi-viduals). The use of multiplecutoffs permits the researcher toevaluate several solutions,choosing the one that appears tobe the most informative and moststable set of relations. It is typicalthat a cutoff of 4 relations with50 respondents and 125 ladderswill account for as many as two-thirds of all relations among ele-ments. Indeed, the number of re-lations mapped in relation to thenumber of relations in the square

20 Journal of ADVERTISING RESEARCH-FEBRUARY/MARCH 1988

V A L U E S T H R O L G H L A D D E R I N G

Tabie 2Summary impiication Matrix*

8 9 10 11

1 Carbonation

2 Crisp

3 Expensive

4 Label

5 Bottle shape

6 Less alcohol

7 Smaller

8 Quality

9 Filling

10 Refreshing

11 Consume less

12 Thirst-quenching

13 More feminine

14 Avoid negative

15 Avoid waste

16 Revi/ard

17 Sophisticated

18 Impress

19 Socialize

20 Accomplishment

21 Family

22 Belonging

23 Self-esteem

1.00 10.00

3.00 4.00

12.00

2.00

1.00 1.00

1.00

1.00

4.00

12

4.06

.04

1.00

10.00

2

2

3

1.

13

.02

.02

.00

00

14

5.00

.01

.04

5.00

15

.01

3.00

1-00

16

.14

.04

2.04

.01

4.00

5,10

14.00

1

2

1

4

7.

17

.03

.01

,04

.03

,03

.01

00

18

.04

,04

1,09

,02

,01

4,04

.06

,08

,02

1,00

11,00

4.00

19

,01

1.01

,01

.01

.04

5,00

1,00

1

3

1

8.

1,

1,

20

,06

,06

,01

,02

,03

04

06

00

00

00

21

.04

,02

.02

4,01

2,00

3,00

22

,07

,05

.02

,02

.01

,01

.09

,03

,05

.03

,04

1,03

,04

,06

4,02

10.00

5,00

23

,04

.05

,03

.03

,04

,02

.02

,04

,04

1,05

5.03

9,00

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

implication matrix can be used asan index of the ability of the mapto express the aggregate relation-ships. There are (naturallyenough) a tremendous number ofempty cells and quite a few rela-tions which are mentioned onlyonce. Again, in establishing acutoff level, one may count onlythe direct linkages in any cell orone may count the total numberof linkages, direct or indirect.

To actually construct a HVMfrom the series of connectedpairs, one must literally build upthe map from the chains ex-

tracted from the matrix of impli-cative relations. Considerable in-genuity is needed for this task,with the only guideline beingthat one should try at all costs toavoid crossing lines. This disci-pline provides a coherence to themap and adds considerably to itsinterpretability. The criteria forevaluating the ability of theoverall map to represent the datais to assess the percentage of allrelations among elements ac-counted for by the mapped ele-ments. The reader will note thatFigure 1 also contains both the

significant direct and indirect re-lations among adjacent elements.

Before constructing the HVMfrom the data in Table 2, it isnecessary to point out the typesof relations which might existamong elements. Five types ofrelations are of note:

A-D Elements mapped as adja-cent which have a highnumber of direct relations.

N-D Elements mapped as nonad-jacent which have a highnumber of direct relations.

A-I Adjacent elements which

Journal of ADVERTISING RESEARCH—FEBRUARY/MARnH 9 1

V A L U E S T H R O U G H L A D D E R I N G

have a high number of indi-rect relations but a lownumber of direct relations.

N-I Nonadjacent elements whichhave a low, non-zeronumber of direct relationsbut a high number of indi-rect relations.

N-O Nonadjacent elements whichhave a low (or zero) numberof indirect relations.

An illustration of these five typeswill help make clear the consid-eration process required in theconstruction of the map.

The first type of relationship,A-D, is the most common andrepresents the standard basistypically used in constructing themap. However, even when onlythe strong pairwise linkages aresummarized, a certain degree ofsimplification can be gained fromfolding in consistent elements.For example, 10 respondents di-rectly associated "carbonation"(1) with "refreshing" (10) pro-ducing a strong linkage. And,"carbonation" (1) and "thirst-quenching" (12) have four directrelations and six indirect relationsproducing a separate yet relatedlinkage. In this case, one optionwould be to map two lines, 1-10and 1-12. Another option whichpermits essentially the same in-terpretation is to map 1-10-12 inwhich both are embedded. In ef-fect the "carbonation-thirst-quenching" (1-12) relation is a"N-D" type as described above,because these elements aremapped nonadjacently eventhough they have a high numberof direct relations.

The possibility exists that somerelations would not be consid-ered to be positioned adjacentlybecause of a low number of directrelations, yet because of a highnumber of indirect relations thispositioning appears reasonable(A-I). To illustrate, "fancy label"(4) and "bottle shape" (5) areeach linked directly to "morefeminine" (13) twice, which is

below the cutoff value chosen toconstruct the HVM. However,both elements have two indirectrelations with "more feminine"in addition to their two direct re-lations. It would seem reasonableto position both elements adja-cently to "more feminine," omit-ting the element or elementswhich come between them and"more feminine." In the casewhere there are a number of dif-fuse paths between two elementssuch that no path is dominant,as was rather simply demon-strated here, it is often useful toomit the minor relations and justmap the dominant path.

If a chain is representative ofseveral individuals' ladders, theelements in that chain will becharacterized by a high numberof indirect relations among non-adjacent relations—althoughsuch nonadjacent elements willnot necessarily have any directrelations (the "N-I" relation).This is the type of relationshipwhich characterizes a Guttmanscale. For example, "reward" (16)leads to "self-esteem" (23) onetime directly, but five times indi-rectly. If "reward" did not ulti-mately lead to "self-esteem,"even though it does lead to "im-press others" (18), and "impressothers" leads to "self-esteem,"we would certainly not charac-terize the "reward-impressothers-self-esteem" chain (16-18-23) as a strong one. Thus, the"N-I" relations, even thoughthey are not plotted, are impor-tant determinants of the qualityof the chains depicted in theHVM.

The last category of relations,nonadjacent relations which havelow or no indirect or direct rela-tions (N-O), deserves carefulconsideration because of an arti-fact in the way the HVM is con-structed. As an example, "crisp"(2) does not appear in any re-spondent's ladder with either"accomplishment" (20) or "self-

esteem" (23); however, it doeshave seven indirect linkages with"belonging" (22). The commonaspects of the "carbonation" (1)path and the "crisp" path ac-count for the HVM being drawnin this manner.

In constructing the HVM inFigure 1 from the data in Table 2,the most efficient way is to startin the first row for which there isa value at or above the arbitrarycutoff level you have chosen.Using a cutoff of 4, the first sig-nificant value is "carbonation—refreshing" (1, 10) with a value of10.00 indicating 10 direct rela-tions and 0 indirect relations be-tween these two elements. Next,one would move to the tenth rowto find the first value at or ex-ceeding the cutoff value. It can beseen in Table 2 that "thirst-quenching" (column 12) is thefirst significant value. Thus, thechain has grown to "1-10-12."Continuing in the same mannerthe chain would next extend to"reward" (1-10-12-16), then to in-clude "impress others" (1-10-12-16-18), and, lastly, to include"belonging" (1-10-12-16-18-22).

Having reached the end of thechain, one goes back to the be-ginning to see if there are othersignificant relations in the samerows of the matrix which alreadyhave been inspected. For ex-ample, inspecting the first rowindicates that "carbonation" isconnected to "thirst-quenching,""reward," and "impress others"—all elements which are alreadyincluded in the chain. In addi-tion, "carbonation" is linked to"accomphshment" and "self-es-teem" (20 and 23). A similar pat-tern will be observed when linkswith "thirst-quenching" (12) areinspected.

However, when "reward" (16)is inspected, it should be notedthat moving across to column 20in row 16, another significant re-lation is found. Thus anotherchain with common links to the

22 Journal of ADVERTISING RESEARCH—FEBRUARY/MARCH 1988

V A L U E S T H R O U G H L A D D E R I N G

original chain is plotted (1-10-12-16-20). And, "impress others"(18) also is linked to "self-es-teem" (23), producing the familyof chains shown below:

self-esteem (23)

accomphshment (20)

impress others (18)

reward (16)

thirst-quenching (12)

refreshing (10)

carbonation (1)

The next step is to move to thesecond row and start the processover again. It will be seen that"crisp" has one set of connec-tions which are identical to "car-bonation" and thus could beplotted (and is so plotted inFigure 1) next to "carbonation.""Crisp" also has connections to"quality" (8), and thus a newchain is started. It can be seen byinspecting Table 2 that "expen-sive" (3) has 12 direct connec-tions with "quality." Startingwith a "3-8" chain, "quality" (8)is connected to "reward" (16)four times so we can include aline between "quality" and "re-ward," thus yielding a "3-8-16"chain. "Quality" also leads to"sophisticated image" (17) fourtimes directly and four times in-directly for a total of eight con-nections; therefore, we can con-nect these two elements in theHVM. In scanning row 17 ofTable 2 it can be seem that "so-phisticated image" has 11 directlinkages with "impress others,"so that these two elements can beconnected in the HVM.

In a similar fashion, "fancylabel" and "bottle shape" (4 and5) have two direct and two indi-

rect linkages with "more femi-nine" (13), and that "more femi-nine" has seven direct linkageswith "sophisticated image" (17).Examination of rows 6, 7, 9, 11,and 14 (less alcohol, smaller size,filling, consume less, and avoidnegatives of alcohol) havelinkages only with "able to so-cialize" (element 19). Thus inFigure 1, it is only "able to so-cialize" that links up with any el-ements on the left side of theHVM. It is only at the valueslevel, "belonging," that the rightside of the map is connected tothe elements of the left side.

The goal of mapping these hi-erarchical relations is to intercon-nect all the meaningful chains ina map in which all relations areplotted with no crossing lines(which in almost all studies ispossible). This results in a mapwhich includes all relevant rela-tions and yet is easy to read andinterpret. The HVM in Figure 1accounts for 94.5 percent of allthe direct and indirect relationscontained in the 67 ladders fromwhich it was developed.

Having plotted all relations, itis desirable to look at all elementsin the map in terms of thenumbers of direct and indirectrelations they have with other el-ements, both in terms of otherelements leading into them andin terms of their connections tohigher order elements. Table 3presents the sums of the directand indirect relations for each el-ement. For example, "belonging"(22), at the values level, is the el-ement which has the most ele-ments leading to it. Thus, itmight be seen as the core valuein terms of importance to theproduct class. In addition, threeother elements are noteworthyfor having a high frequency ofelements leading from them aswell as into them, namely, "re-ward" (16), "impress others"(18), and "quality" (8). Indeed,the quality -^ reward -^ impress

others -^ belonging chain can beseen to have a high number ofrelations among its respectiveelements.

Determining Dominant Per-ceptual Orientations. Once a hi-erarchical value map is con-structed, one typically considersany pathway from bottom to topas a potential chain representinga perceptual orientation. For ex-ample, in Figure 1 the totalnumber of unique pathways be-tween elements at the attributelevel and elements at the values

Tabie 3Summary of Direct (XX) and indi-rect (YY) Reiations for EachEiement (XX. YY)Code To From

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

n12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

15.35

7.23

17.30

6.14

5.10

6.60

4.05

19.23

5.12

16.26

5.09

14.22

6.09

10.05

2.00

20.11

15.05

20.00

8.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

19.00

0.00

16.00

5.00

15.00

6.04

10.05

4.01

25.33

15.15

21.40

8.11

14.25

9.12

22 0.00 20.56

23 0.00 15.37

Journal of ADVERTISING RESEARCH —FFRRi lABV/MAoru I

V A L U E S T H R O U G H L A D D E R I N G

level is 23, any or all of whichwarrant consideration. To morefully understand the strength ofthe chains, the intra-chain rela-tions can be summarized andevaluated. The partitions withinTable 4 demonstrate this process.Table 4 includes detailing of the

relations for four chains withinFigure 1 in an easier-to-readformat than tracking them downin the row-column frequencymatrix in Table 2. Part A of Table4 shows the direct and indirectrelations linking "carbonation"with "accomplishment." It can be

seen by inspection that all ele-ments are linked directly or indi-rectly to all other elements in thechain. "Carbonation" has six in-direct linkages with "accomplish-ment," meaning that these twoelements are included in six re-spondents' ladders. "Refreshing"

Tabie 4Partitions of Chains by Relations

Part D "Bottle shape17

self-esteem" chain18

0

2

10

12

16

20

0

2

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

10

4.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Part A "Carbonation—accomplishment chain12 16 20

0.04

10.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.04

5.10

14.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.04

0.06

8.00

0.00

0.00

0

4.06

15.14

14.06

8.00

0.00

41.28

0

1

10

12

16

18

23

0

1

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

10

10.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0-00

Part B "Carbonation—self-esteem chain12 16

4.06

10.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.14

5,10

14.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

18

0.04

0.06

0.08

11.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

23

0.04

0.02

0.04

1.05

9.00

0.00

0.00

0

14.26

15.18

14.12

12.05

9.00

0.00

64.63

0

6

14

19

22

0

6

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

14

5.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Part C "Less alcohol—belonging" che19 22

1.01

5.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0-01

0.04

5,00

0.00

0.00

in0

6.02

5.04

5.00

0.00

16.06

24 Journal ol ADVERTISING RESEARCH—FEBRUARY/MARCH 1988

V A L U H S T H R O U G H L A D D E R I N G

and "thirst-quenching" have fourand six indirect linkages, respec-tively, and "reward" has eightdirect linkages with "accomplish-ment." In all, the chain accountsfor 51 direct relations among ele-ments and 46 indirect relations.

Part B of Table 4 shows the"carbonation—self-esteem"chain. This chain accounts formore direct relations than doesthe chain in Part A of Table 4. Itis also longer, having more ele-ments in it. In general, thelinkages among elements at thebottom of this chain have fewerlinkages with the elements at thetop of the chain. "Refreshing"has only two indirect linkageswith "self-esteem."

In Part C of Table 4, a chain isshown that has fewer elementsand accounts for far fewer rela-tions. It can also be seen that"less alcohol" is not strongly as-sociated with "socialize" or "be-longing." Such a weakness, asindicated by the lack of associa-tions respondents are making be-tween these elements, mightrepresent an opportunity for acampaign to strengthen this tie(in the beer category this indeedis what the L.A. brand has donein its advertising in the low-al-cohol segment of that category).

Part D of Table 4 shows that,whereas "bottle shape" and"more feminine" are linked to"sophisticated image," there isnot a strong association with"impress others." This may sug-gest more of an internal orienta-tion while the "expensive^quality" association with "im-press others" is quite strong andmay be reflective of an externalorientation.

Applications

Accordingly, consideration cannow be made of the optionsavailable to the researcher whouses the laddering approach andis faced with the challenge of ap-

Table 5

i-adder Frequencies for Attribute-Value Linicages*Achievement Social

Physical attributes

Accomplishment Self-esteem Total Belonging Family life Total(I'J) (15) (29) (20) (9) (29)

10 10 17

Carbonation 10

Crisp

Less alcohol

Fillmg

Price

0

7

0

5

0

12

2

5

3

0

5

5

Packaging

Label

Shape

Size

' Nine ladders did not reach the values level.

plying the results to the solutionof some marketing problem. TheHVM obtained through the lad-dering procedure offers severalparticularly valuable types of in-formation. It can serve as a basisfor: (1) segmenting consumerswith respect to their values ori-entations for a product class orbrand; (2) for assessing brands orproducts in a fashion similar tothe use of more traditionalratings; (3) evaluating competi-tive advertising; and (4) as a basisfor developing advertisingstrategies.

Segmentation. The goal ofsegmentation schemes is to clas-sify respondents with respect tosome aspect of their behavior, at-titudes, or dispositions in a waythat helps us understand them asconsumers. The values orienta-tions in a person's ladder mayserve as the basis for classifica-tion, or the researcher may groupthese values at a still higherlevel. It is also possible to includeattribute-value connections in thesegmentation scheme. Once asegmentation scheme has beendeveloped, respondents' brand-

consumption behavior or reac-tions to advertising may beassessed.

Table 5 includes a summary byattribute and value for respon-dents whose ladders extended tothe values level. "Belonging" wasincluded in the most ladders,with "self-esteem," "accomplish-ment," and "family life" fol-lowing in decreasing order of fre-quency (nine ladders did notreach the values level and thusare omitted from this analysis).The values can be grouped at ahigher level using "achievement"and "social" as higher level valueorientations. An equal number ofsubjects fall into each of thesetwo values-level orientations.

One could also include the at-tribute-value connections in thesegmentation scheme, assessingthem at the levels used in theHVM or in grouping them asshown in Table 5 into marketing-mix components. In this ex-ample, the attributes "less al-cohol" and "filling" are linked tosocial values, whereas "price" istied more closely to achievementvalues. "Packaging" attributes

Journal of ADVERTISING

are equally divided, although"size" is identified with socialvalues, not achievement values.

Respondent segments could bestudied for brand-consumptiondifferences and preferences andadvertising reactions evaluated.These segmentation bases couldbe translated into larger scale re-search on brand usage and pref-erence and advertising themeevaluation. That is, the findingsfrom this research could becomethe basis for more traditionalpaper-and-pencil methods thatmore readily lend themselves tolarge-scale data collection.

Product/Brand Assessment.Evaluation of a product or brandis another important marketingquestion for which the results ofladdering research may be of use.It is advantageous to allow re-spondents to use their own frameof reference when providingtheir evaluations of a brandrather than some researcher-sup-plied attributes that may not bethe subject's own. For manyproduct categories or subclassesof categories, respondents aremuch more likely to make prefer-ence judgments at the conse-quence and values levels than atthe attribute level (Reynolds,Gutman, and Fiedler, 1984;Reynolds and Jamieson, 1984).

A statistical approach. Cogni-tive Differentiation Analysis(CDA), has been developed(Reynolds, 1983; Reynolds andSutrick, 1986) to enable re-searchers to determine the levelof abstraction (attribute, conse-quence, or value) at which pref-erence judgments are being madeby consumers. This approachprovides indices indicating thediscrimination power of each ofthe descriptors with respect to aset of pairwise discrimination-between stimuli. To collect datafor this type of analysis, respon-dents are asked to sort or ratepairwise combinations of brandsin the relevant product class ac-

V A L U E 5 T H R O U G H L A D D E R I N G

cording to their respective pref-erence distance. Respondents arealso asked to provide informationon the extent to which thebrands possess or satisfy the ele-ments at each level of abstractionin their ladders. One appealingfeature of this analytical methodis that it only requires ordinaldata—no interval scale proper-ties are necessary.

This information not onlyallows a determination of thelevels within a respondent'sladder at which preference is de-termined, but the overall index ofthe ladder allows the researcherto determine each respondent'soptimal ladder. Results fromCDA analyses have shown thatpeople are not particularly goodat recognizing their own mostdiscriminating way of evaluatingthe brands within a productclass, nor do they recognize thelevel of abstraction at which theirjudgments are being made (seeReynolds [1985] for a detailedsummary of the method and theresults). This suggests that re-searchers ought to be suspiciousof self-report rating systems in-herent in many attitude modelsand consumer surveys.

The output from laddering,coupled with the unique analyt-ical procedures it allows, pro-vides researchers with a betterunderstanding of the basis uponwhich consumers make distinc-tions between competing brands.Further, it provides a basis fordeveloping a product space thatis truly aligned with preference,as such spatial maps may be ob-tained using different levels ofabstraction as a frame of refer-ence. Too often product-planningdecisions are based on discrimi-nation differences and not pref-erence differences. Consumers,given the means-end framework,are assumed to have multipleorientations that are triggered bya given occasional context (i.e.,combination of situation and

actors). Thus, if the means-endperspective is valid, preferencewould in most cases be multidi-mensional in nature. Therefore,the laddering approach providesa unique opportunity to under-stand the product class in theconsumer's own context. Thiswould seem to provide a goodstart for making decisions aboutproducts and brands.

Assessing Advertising. An-other important use for the re-sults obtained through ladderingresearch is to uncover respon-dents' evaluations of advertising.Advertising is viewed differentlywhen perceived in the context ofdifferent levels of abstraction (at-tribute, consequence, and value).To accomplish this, after lad-dering, when respondents aresensitized to the complete rangeof their internal feelings about aproduct class, they are shown aseries of ads and asked to ratethem on the extent to which thead communicates at each leveland to provide some comment onwhy it does or does not commu-nicate at that level.

Analysis of these commentsleads to the construction of aseries of statements reflectingtheir content. To further broadenthe coverage of these statements,a model depicting an advertisingresearch paradigm can be used(see Figure 2). This model(Reynolds and Trivedi) indicatesthe components of an ad in rela-tion to levels of involvement theconsumer may have with the ad.Fifty to sixty statements can bedeveloped covering the adver-tising's message elements, execu-tional frameworks, perceptions ofthe advertisers' strategy and in-volvement with the ad, involve-ment of the ad with the respon-dent's personal life, and the ex-tent to which the ad taps intovalues at a personal level.

These statements can then beused to assess the relative com-munication at the various levels.

26 Journal ot ADVERTISING RESEARCH-FEBRUARY/MARCH 1988

V A L U E S T H R O U G H L A D D E R I N G

Figure 2

Advertising Research Paradigm Based on Means-End Chain lUiodeiand Hierarchicai Vaiue Structure Anaiysis

PersonHow ad relates to personal values

What ad makes me think of

Ad

Consumer BenefitPerceptions ot advertisers'strategy

Executional FrameworkActors/situations

Message ElementsAttributes

Involvement What ad does to me while I watch

This can be accomplished, after asensitizing laddering procedure,by showing ads and asking "ifthe following statement applies"to each respective ad. This pro-cess can be operationalized by agame-board approach (Gutmanand Reynolds, 1987) where a tri-angle is provided to the respon-dent with each vertex repre-senting a separate ad. The use ofthree ads is suggested as an at-tempt to avoid the respondentfrom becoming too much of anadvertising expert. As each state-ment is read the respondent canrecord the applicability to one ad(recording the statement code atthe respective vertex), or two ads(recording on the connectingline), or all three (recording inthe middle of the triangle). If thestatement does not apply to anyof the three ads, a "not appli-cable" response alternative is alsoprovided.

The resulting percentage en-dorsement of each statement foreach advertisement provides agood indication of how the ad isviewed and the level at which thead communicates. That is, someads may communicate well at the

attribute level but not at the con-sequence or values level. Con-versely, other ads may commu-nicate well at the values level butbe weak at the attribute level. Aneffective ad in this context is de-fined as one which communicatesacross all levels, linking at-tributes to benefits and to per-sonal values which often driveconsumer decision-making.

Developing AdvertisingStrategy. Perhaps the major ben-efit of laddering is the insight itprovides to advertising strate-gists. A definition of advertisingcommunications which willpermit advertising strategies tobe developed from the HVM willbe briefly discussed (seeReynolds and Gutman [1984] fora fuller discussion and illustra-tion). The levels of abstractionframework, which underlie theformation of means-end chains,provide a basis for coordinatingthe results of laddering to adver-tising strategy development. Thatis, the perceptual constructs de-picted in the HVM can be usedas the basis for developing astrategy that will appeal to con-sumers with that particular ori-

entation toward the productclass.

Figure 3 shows the Means-Ends Conceptualization of Com-ponents of Advertising Strategy(MECCAS) in terms of five broadcharacteristics that correspond tothe levels of abstraction concep-tuahzation (Olson and Reynolds,1983; Reynolds and Gutman,1984). "Driving force," "con-sumer benefit," and "messageelements" are directly coordi-nated to the values, conse-quences, and attributes levels ofthe means-end model. The exe-cutional framework relates to thescenario for the advertisement—the "vehicle" by which the valueorientation is to be communi-cated. The specification of thistone for the advertisement is acritical aspect of strategy specifi-cation. It comes from an overallunderstanding of the way of per-ceiving the product class as indi-cated by a particular means-endpath. As is apparent with thisspecification, added guidance can

Figure 3

Means-Ends Conceptualizationof Components ofAdvertising Strategy

Driving ForceThe value orientation of the strategy; theend-level to be focused on in the advertising.

Leverage PointThe manner by which the advertisng will"tap into," reach, or activate the value orend-level of focus; the specific key way inwhich the value is linked to the specificfeatures of the advertising.

Executional FrameworkThe overall scenario or action plot, plus thedetails of the advertising execution. Theexecutional framework provides the"vehicle" by which the value orientation Iscommunicated; especially the gestalt of theadvertisement; its overall tone and style.

Consumer BenefitThe major positive consequences for theconsumer that are explicitly communicatedverbally or visually, in the advertising.

Message EiementsThe specific attributes, consequences, orfeatures about the product that arecommunicated verbally or visually.

Journal of ADVFRTI.SIWf^

V A L U E S T H R O U G H L A D D E R I N G

be given to creatives without in-fringing on their creativity.

The remaining and key aspectof advertising strategy specifica-tion is the concept of "leveragepoint." Having all the other ele-ments in mind, it is finally neces-sary to specify the manner bywhich the values-level focus willbe activated for the advertise-ment, that is, how the valuesconsiderations in the advertise-ment are connected to thespecific features of the advertise-ment. (Examples of advertisingstrategy specifications are notprovided—the references citedabove provide ampleillustrations.)

Nonetheless, the advantages ofbeing able to specify advertisingstrategy for all relevant parties—management, creatives, and re-searchers—can be reviewed. Thestrategy statement itself becomesa concrete way of specifying ad-vertising strategy alternatives.These alternatives are linked tothe chains which underlie them,and thus a direct connectionexists between the strategy andthe perceptual orientation of theconsumer. Furthermore, theMECCAS model coupled withthe results from the HVM facili-tate the development of several(truly different) strategies forcomparison and review. Lastly,when a strategy has been se-lected for execution, theMECCAS model provides for abetter common understanding ofwhat the final product should be.This obviously leads to the use ofthe MECCAS specification as thebasis for evaluating the effective-ness of the advertisement.

Summary

This article reviews and illus-trates the technique of ladderingboth as an interviewing processand through subsequent analysis.It demonstrates the technique'susefulness in developing an un-

derstanding of how consumerstranslate the attributes ofproducts into meaningful associ-ations with respect to self-de-fining attitudes and values. Theunderlying theory behind themethod, Means-End Theory, isdiscussed, as well as the ele-ments of the means-end chainsrepresenting the cognitive levelsof abstraction: attributes, conse-quences, and values.

The interview environmentnecessary for laddering to takeplace is given special attentionalong with the particular probingtechniques employed in the qual-itative process of laddering. Basi-cally, the respondent has to feelas if on a voyage of self-discoveryand that the object of the trip isto revisit everyday, commonplaceexperiences and examine the as-sumptions and desires drivingseemingly simple choicebehavior.

Several specific interviewingdevices are described for elicitingproduct distinctions from re-spondents that serve to initiatethe laddering process, amongthem the use of triads, exploringpreference-consumption differ-ences, and examining how con-sumption differs by occasion. Thevalue of the occasional context,providing a concrete frame ofreference to generate meaningfuldistinctions, is emphasized.Other techniques for moving theladdering interview upwardwhen blocking occurs are alsodiscussed and illustrated.

The analysis of laddering datais detailed noting the critical dif-ference between this method-ology and more traditional quali-tative research, namely, the pri-mary output being (structurally)quantitative in nature in the formof a hierarchical value map(HVM). In this vein, the contentanalysis of ladder elements is po-sitioned as an important step inthis "crossing over" from thequalitative to quantitative.

Detailed attention is paid to theconstruction of the HVM fromthe implication matrix, whichrepresents the number of directand indirect linkages between thequalitative concepts elicitedduring the laddering process.Five types of relations among el-ements are discussed, and theirrespective impUcations for con-structing a HVM are illustrated.

Having the HVM to work with,the next step in transforming theoutput of laddering into usefulinformation for marketing deci-sion-making is to determine thedominant perceptual orienta-tions. That is, all potentialpathways (connections among el-ements) must be examined to de-termine their relative strength ofassociation. Two primary consid-erations are specified with ex-amples, namely, the number ofrelations among elements withinthe chain and the extent to whichall elements are interconnected.

Lastly, the issue of applicationsis discussed referencing the keyresearch problems of perceptualsegmentation, determining theimportance weights of thevarious components of theladders, and the developmentand subsequent assessment ofadvertising from this value per-spective. All of the applicationareas have in common that theydepend on laddering's ability todraw out from the respondentthe true basis for any meaningfulconnection they have to theproduct class. •

References

Abelson, Robert. "The Psycho-logical Status of the Script Con-cept." American Psychologist 36(1981): 715-729.

Barker, R. G. Ecological Psy-chology: Concepts and Methods forStudying the Environment of HumanBehavior. Stanford, CA: StanfordUniversity Press, 1968.

28 Journal of ADVERTISING RESEARCH-FEBRUARY/MARCH 1988

V A L U E S T H R O U G H L A D D E R I N G

Davis, M. S. "That's Interesting:Toward a Phenomenology of Sociology and a Sociology or Phe-nomenology." Philosophy of theSocial Sciences 1 (1971): 309-314.

AppendixRaw Data from Hypothetical Wine Cooler DataRespondent

Durgee, J. F. "Depth-InterviewTechniques for Creative Advertising." journal of Advertising Re~search 25, 6 (1985): 29-37.

Gutman, Jonathan. "A Means-End Chain Model Based on Con-sumer Categorization Processes."Journal of Mariieting 46, 2 (1982):60-72.

Orientations Toward BeveragesThrough Means-End Chain Anal-ysis." Psychology and Marketing 1,3/4 (1984): 23-43.

, ana ocott Alcien. Ado-lescents' Cognitive Structures ofRetail Stores and Fashion Con-sumption: A Means-End Anal-ysis." In Perceived Quality ofProducts, Services and Stores, J. Ja-coby and J. Olson, eds. Lex-ington, MA: Lexington Books,1984.

, inomas j . i^eynolus, andJohn Fiedler. "The Value Struc-ture Map: A New AnalyticFramework for Family Decision-Making." In The Changing House-hold: Its Nature and Consequences,M. L. Roberts and L. Woertzel,eds. City, State: Ballinger Pub-lishing, 1984.

and . "An Investigation at the Levels of CognitiveAbstraction Utilized by the Con-sumers in Prodlirt Diffprpnti;!tion." In Attitude Research Underthe Sun, John Eighmey, ed. Chi-cago: American Marketing Asso-ciation, 1979.

and , "DevelopineImages for Services ThrouehMeans-End Cham Analysis." InProceedings of 2nd Service Mar-keting Conference, 1983.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

1

1

1

3

4

2

1

3

1

1

3

2

1

1

1

3

1

2

1

1

2

3

1

1

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

4

4

5

10

10

10

6

17

10

12

8

12

10

8

10

12

12

10

16

10

10

10

10

10

20

10

10

6

6

8

18

16

8

8

17

13

13

13

Content codes

12

16

12

20

20

12

16

20

16

16

20

12

16

16

12

20

12

12

12

16

12

0

12

16

16

16

18

23

23

18

17

18

17

17

17

16

0

16

0

0

16

20

0

18

0

0

16

20

18

16

0

16

16

16

0

16

0

16

0

20

18

20

0

0

22

18

23

18

18

23

20

0

16

0

0

18

0

0

23

0

0

18

0

23

20

0

20

18

18

0

18

0

20

0

0

23

0

0

0

0

23

0

23

22

0

0

0

23

0

0

22

0

0

0

0

0

22

0

0

0

0

0

22

23

0

22

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Journal of ADVERTISING RESFARrH—

V A L U E S T H R O U G H L A D D E R I N G

Appendix (continued)36 5 17

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

4

5

6

6

6

6

6

9

9

9

9

7

7

7

3

3

2

3

3

2

2

1

6

6

6

7

4

4

5

5

9

17

13

14

14

14

14

14

11

11

11

1

15

15

15

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

10

12

19

11

8

8

8

10

19

23

23

22

18

21

18

21

21

14

14

14

14

21

21

0

16

18

17

16

18

17

17

15

16

0

21

14

13

13

13

13

21

0

0

0

22

0

0

0

0

19

19

21

19

0

0

0

18

22

22

18

22

22

19

0

0

0

0

19

17

17

17

17

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

22

21

0

22

0

0

0

22

0

0

22

0

0

22

0

0

0

0

22

23

22

23

22

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

and -. "Coordi-nating Assessment to StrategyDevelopment: An AdvertisingAssessment Paradigm Based onthe MECCAS Approach." In Ad-vertising and Consumer Psychology,J. Olson and K. Sentis, eds.Praeger, 1987.

Kassarjian, Harold. "ContentAnalysis in Consumer Research."Journal of Consumer Research 4, 1(1977): 8-18.

Kelly, George A. The Psychology ofPersonal Constructs. New York:

W. W. Norton and Co., inc.,1955.

Morgan, Anthony. "Point ofView: Magic Town Revisited."Journal of Advertising Research 24,4 (1984): 49-51.

Olson, Jerry C , and Thomas }.Reynolds. "Understanding Con-sumers' Cognitive Structures:Implications for AdvertisingStrategy." In Advertising arid Con-sumer Psychology, Vol. I, L. Percyand A. Woodside, eds. Lex-ington, MA: Lexington Books,1983.

Plummer, Joseph. "Upfront Re-search and Emotional Strategies."Speech given at NorthwesternUniversity School of Business,Evanston, Illinois, February 1985.

Reynolds, Thomas J. "A Non-metric Approach to Determinethe Differentiation Power of At-tribute Ratings with Respect toPairwise Similarity Judgements[sic]." In proceedings of AmericanMarketing Association Educator'sConference on Research Methods andCausal Modeling. Chicago: Amer-ican Marketing Association, 1983.

. "Implications for ValueResearch: A Micro vs. Macro Per-spective." Psychology and Mar-keting 2, 4 (1985): 297-305.

-, and Jonathan Gutman."Laddering: Extending the Rep-ertory Grid Methodology to Con-struct Attribute-Consequence-Value Hierarchies." In PersonalValues and Consumer Psychology,Vol II., R. Pitts and A. Woodside,eds. Lexington, MA: LexingtonBooks, 1984a.

and . "AdvertisingIs Image Management." Journal ofAdvertising Research 24, 1 (1984b):27-36.

; ; and John Fiedler.

3 0 Journal of ADVERTISING RESEARCH—FEBRUARY/MARCH 1988

V A L U E S T H R O U G H L A D D E R I N G

"Understanding Consumers'Cognitive Structures: The Rela-tionship of Levels of Abstractionto Judgements [sic] of Psycholog-ical Distance and Preference." InPsychological Processes of Adver-tising^ Effects: Theory, Research andApplication, A. Mitchell and L.Alwitt, eds. Erlbaum, 1984.

, and Linda Jamieson."Image Representations: An An-alytical Framework." In PerceivedQuality of Products, Services andStores. J. Jacoby and J. Olson,eds. Lexington, MA: LexingtonBooks, 1984.

and Kenneth Sutrick."Assessing the Correspondenceof One or More Vectors to aSymmetric Matrix Using OrdinalRegression." Psychometrika 51, 1(1986): 101-112.

, and Minakshi Trivedi."An Investigation of the Rela-tionship Between the MECCAsModel and Advertising Affect."In Advertising and Consumer Psy-chology, Vol. IV, A. Tybout andP. Cafferata, eds. Lexington, MA:Lexington Books.

Rosenberg, Milton J. "Cognitive

Structure and Attitudinal Affect."Journal of Abnormal and Social Psy-chology 53 (1956): 367-372.

Runkel P. J., and J. E. McGrath.Research on Human Behavior: ASystematic Guide to Method. NewYork: Holt, Rinehart & Winston,1972.

Sheth, Jagdish. "MarketingMegatrends." Journal of ConsumerMarketing (1983): 5-13.

Wicker, Alan. "Getting out of ourConceptual Ruts." American Psy-chologist 40 (1985): 1094-1103.

Journal of ADVERTIRINH