Consumer's means-end chains for “think” and “feel” products

Abstract

Qualitative or Motivation Research have great difficulties in gaLmng widespread acceptance in marketing research, due to their lack of rigor and validity. Laddering is a recently introduced method to conduct motivation research which holds the promise to resist the well-known criticisms. This paper attempts to contribute to the establishment of validity and reliability of the technique. The structural differences in the laddering data obtained for two types of products, "think" and "feel" products, are tested against hypotheses derived from this theoretically founded distinction. Whether the influence of the involvement construct on structural properties of the ladders matches expectations is investigated as well. The results obtained indicate that laddering can be succesfully applied to reveal cognitive structures. The technique appears not to be subject to an interviewer bias.I. Introduction: Means-End Chain Theory.Consumer researchers have always searched for satisfactory ways to understand and research the motivation of consumer behavior. Two major paradigms were adopted to achieve this goal :(1) the "cognitively" oriented approach, supported by a wide range of quantitative analytical techniques (factor analysis, multidimensional scaling, conjoint analysis, multi-attribute attitude models of preference formation, etc.), where product perception in terms of attributes dominates the scene,(2) the "motivational" approach, typified by qualitative techniques (focus group discussions, depth interviews, projective techniques, etc.), emphasizing "self' as the driving force behind product purchases.Both perspectives have proven to be to some extent inadequate to depict and clarify consumer behavior. The cognitive approach tends to reduce consumer choice to a rational optimisation problem, mainly based on product knowledge. Unconscious motives, goals, needs and values of the consumer are typically ignored. The motivational approach, on the other hand, suffers from the incapacity to relate the motives identified and the objects involved (products or brands) in a satisfactory way.

Understanding satisfying service encounters in retail banking - a dyadic perspective

“…The map consists of nodes, which stand for the most important attributes/consequences/values (conceptual meanings) and lines, which represent the linkages between the concepts. The map graphically sums up the information collected during the laddering interviews (Claeys et al, 1995) and normally consists of three different levels, which relate to the three concepts of meaning.…”

Frequency of consumption and changing determinants of purchase decision: from attributes to values in the organic food market

“…According to their observations, beliefs are easier to assess when consequences and values are taken into consideration rather than attributes alone. Another relevant study is the contribution made by Lind (2007) where the proposed methodology is used to identify how the decision-making process differs when purchasing a «think» product or a «feel» product (Claeys et al, 1995). In «think» products, functional consequences were found to dominate and the level of abstraction to be lower.…”

FAC-SEM using PLS-SEM: an empirical illustration in a customer value measurement context

“…Furthermore, Claeys et al (1995) infer that under a high level of involvement the difference between think and feel offerings may become more prominent, because under high involvement conditions, the cognitive structure is better organized at the product-knowledge levels (i.e., the attributes) and the self-knowledge levels (i.e., the consequences). Accordingly, we propose the following hypothesis.…”

“…According to consumer research (e.g., Mulvey and Olson (1994), Claeys, Swinnen, and Abeele (1995)) the level of involvement and the type of product (feel-think) influence customers' means end chains. Mulvey and Olson (1994) show that the higher the level of involvement, the more a person is aware of the consequences that stem from product use.…”