an integrated method to assess consumer motivation in ... · measurement of consumer motivation....

An Integrated Method to Assess Consumer

Motivation in Difficult Market Niches:

A Case of the Premium Car Segment in Russia

vorgelegt von Master of Science in Economics

Marina Shcheglova aus Nowosibirsk, Russland

Von der Fakultät VII ─ Wirtschaft und Management der Technischen Universität Berlin

zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades

Doktor der Wirtschaftswissenschaften Dr. rer. oec.

genehmigte Dissertation Promotionsausschuss: Vorsitzender: Prof. Dr. Hans G. Gemünden Berichter: Prof. Dr. Volker Trommsdorff Berichter: Prof. Dr. Frank Jacob Tag der wissenschaftlichen Aussprache: 21. September 2009

Berlin 2009 D 83

II

Content

List of figures...........................................................................................................V

List of tables...........................................................................................................VI

List of abbreviations ..............................................................................................VII

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1

1. Research problem............................................................................................... 1

2. Research objectives............................................................................................ 2

3. Thesis structure................................................................................................... 4

I. THEORY.................................................................................................................. 7

1. Motives and consumer motivation...................................................................... 7

1.1. Definition of the concepts of motivation and motive ......................................... 7

1.2. Motivation research in consumer behavior..................................................... 11 1.2.1. Origin of consumer motivation research ............................................................11

1.2.2. Contemporary directions and applied methods in motivation research ..............12

1.2.3. Common limitations of contemporary motivation theories..................................14

1.3. Motives in consumer behavior........................................................................ 15 1.3.1. Goal-oriented nature of consumer motives........................................................15

1.3.2. Hierarchical network of consumer motives ........................................................16

1.4. Summary........................................................................................................ 17

2. Consumer motivational sphere ......................................................................... 19

2.1. Theoretical backgrounds for modeling consumer motivational sphere........... 20 2.1.1. Cognitive structures...........................................................................................20

2.1.2. Means-end chain theory....................................................................................23

2.2. Conceptualization of the consumer motivational sphere ................................ 28

2.3. Summary........................................................................................................ 33

3. Premium car market ........................................................................................... 35

3.1. The notion of ‘premium’ in the car market ...................................................... 35 3.1.1. The meaning of the term ‘premium’ ...................................................................35

3.1.2. Premium, luxury and volume car brands ...........................................................36

3.2. Consumer behavior in the premium car market ............................................. 39 3.2.1. Types of consumer buying behavior..................................................................40

3.2.2. Perceived product value....................................................................................44

3.2.3. Reasons for purchasing premium cars ..............................................................46

3.3. The role of society in consumer behavior....................................................... 47 3.3.1. Consumer society .............................................................................................47

3.3.2. A person within the social environment .............................................................48

3.3.3. Social status......................................................................................................49

3.3.4. Symbols generated by premium brands ............................................................51

3.3.5. Aspirational brands ...........................................................................................52

3.4. Summary........................................................................................................ 54

III

II. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................. 56

4. Repertory grid technique within the personal construct psychology ........... 56

4.1. Introduction to methodology........................................................................... 56

4.2. Personal construct theory .............................................................................. 58

4.3. Repertory grid technique: basic description ................................................... 62 4.3.1. Topic .................................................................................................................63

4.3.2. Elements ...........................................................................................................64

4.3.3. Constructs.........................................................................................................68

4.3.4. Scaling methods................................................................................................70

4.4. Application of the repertory grid technique in marketing and other fields ....... 72 4.4.1. Application experience ......................................................................................72

4.4.2. Criticism of the applicability of the repertory grid ...............................................76

4.4.3. Criticism solution ...............................................................................................77

4.5. Repertory grid technique: elicitation procedure.............................................. 80 4.5.1. Knowledge elicitation phase: element selection.................................................81

4.5.2. Knowledge elicitation phase: construct elicitation ..............................................83

4.5.2.1. Construct elicitation approaches.................................................................84

4.5.2.2. Construct specification ...............................................................................89

4.5.2.3. Elicited and supplied constructs..................................................................91

4.5.3. Rating grid or element comparison phase .........................................................93

4.5.4. Eliciting personal values....................................................................................96

4.5.4.1. Capturing personal values: laddering up technique ....................................96

4.5.4.2. Prioritizing personal values: resistance-to-change technique......................97

4.6. Analysis of a repertory grid........................................................................... 100 4.6.1. Qualitative methods for repertory grid analysis................................................102

4.6.1.1. Frequency counts .....................................................................................102

4.6.1.2. Content analysis.......................................................................................103

4.6.1.3. Honey’s content analysis ..........................................................................107

4.6.2. Quantitative methods for repertory grid analysis..............................................115

4.6.2.1. Hierarchical cluster analysis .....................................................................117

4.6.2.2. Principal component analysis ...................................................................121

4.6.2.3. Synergy of principal component and hierarchical cluster analysis.............128

4.7. Reliability and validity of the repertory grid................................................... 130

4.8. Summary...................................................................................................... 134

5. Modeling the consumer motivational sphere................................................. 141

5.1. Product characteristics................................................................................. 143

5.2. Product attributes ......................................................................................... 145

5.3. Specific expected consequences ................................................................. 147

5.4. Abstract expected consequences ................................................................ 150

5.5. Values .......................................................................................................... 153

5.6. Situational and environmental incentives ..................................................... 154

5.7. Summary and conclusion............................................................................. 156

IV

III. FIELD RESEARCH ........................................................................................... 161

6. Research design............................................................................................... 161

6.1. Research objectives..................................................................................... 161

6.2. Research design .......................................................................................... 162 6.2.1. Structure of the sample ...................................................................................162

6.2.2. Survey instrument: repertory grid design .........................................................166

7. Analysis of repertory grids .............................................................................. 177

7.1. Preparation of data....................................................................................... 177

7.2. Content analysis........................................................................................... 177 7.2.1. The generic content analysis procedure..........................................................177

7.2.2. Honey’s content analysis.................................................................................182

7.3. Analysis of relationships within a single grid ................................................ 187 7.3.1. Preparation and input of data into the software package .................................188

7.3.2. Systematization of elicited meanings...............................................................189

7.3.3. Systematization of elements perceptions ........................................................202

7.4. Segmentation based on the comparison of the findings from the single grids analyses.............................................................................................................. 209

7.5. Multi-grid analysis ........................................................................................ 218

7.6. Additional analysis and findings for managerial implications........................ 228 7.6.1. Segmentation according to aims for purchasing an auto .................................228

7.6.2. Stereotypes of car attribute perceptions ..........................................................233

7.7. Summary...................................................................................................... 235

CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 240

1. Theoretical contribution................................................................................... 240

2. Methodological contribution ............................................................................ 242

3. Practical contribution and implication .............................................................. 245

4. Limitations....................................................................................................... 250

5. Potential for future research............................................................................ 252

References ............................................................................................................ 254

Appendix ............................................................................................................... 271

Appendix 1: Car classification ............................................................................. 271

Appendix 2: Minkowski metric ............................................................................. 272

Appendix 3: Repertory grid form and questionnaire developed for interviews .... 273

Appendix 4: Categorized elicited constructs ....................................................... 281

Appendix 5: Customers’ values and most preferred car attributes...................... 289

Appendix 6: Brands of cars named for element categories................................ 290

V

List of figures

Figure 1: Means-end chain original structure............................................................ 24

Figure 2: Consumer cognitive structure by Olson and Reynolds .............................. 24

Figure 3: Consumer motivational sphere.................................................................. 29

Figure 4: Public coverage by premium and luxury brands........................................ 38

Figure 5: Components of product utility by Vershofen .............................................. 42

Figure 6: Components of total product value ............................................................ 44

Figure 7: Reasons for purchasing premium brand products ..................................... 46

Figure 8: Aspirational brands audience .................................................................... 53

Figure 9: The assumptive structure of the personal construct theory ....................... 60

Figure 10: Display of elicited repertory grid ............................................................ 118

Figure 11: Graphic plot (dendrogram) of HCA of the grid ....................................... 119

Figure 12: Graphic plot of PCA of the grid .............................................................. 123

Figure 13: Element perception on different dimensions.......................................... 127

Figure 14: Synergy effect of PCA and HCA............................................................ 129

Figure 15: Consumer motivational sphere .............................................................. 141

Figure 16: The CMS schema extended with sources ............................................. 142

Figure 17: Display of the 14th repertory grid............................................................ 188

Figure 18: Graphic plot of a PCA of the 14th grid .................................................... 190

Figure 19: HCA: Component 1 including constructs 5, 9, 10 .................................. 193

Figure 20: HCA: Component 2 including constructs 5, 9, 10 .................................. 194

Figure 21: Relationships between elements ........................................................... 203

Figure 22: HCA producing element and construct dendrograms ............................ 204

Figure 23: HCA conducted within the first PCA dimension ..................................... 205

Figure 24: HCA conducted within the second PCA dimension ............................... 205

Figure 25: HCA of the collective grid ...................................................................... 225

Figure 26: PCA of the collective grid....................................................................... 226

Figure 27: Relationships between elements ........................................................... 226

Figure 28: Aims of purchasing the current or next auto .......................................... 229

VI

List of tables

Table 1: The repertory grid elicitation form ............................................................... 63

Table 2: Scaling methods used in repertory grid based research............................. 71

Table 3: An example of an elicited repertory grid ..................................................... 81

Table 4: An example of a ladder derived from one construct.................................... 97

Table 5: Subsequent comparison of personal values ............................................... 99

Table 6: Frequency of value preferences over other ones and a value hierarchy .. 100

Table 7: Relationship between two constructs about six elements......................... 109

Table 8: Relationship between two constructs showing a reversal ......................... 110

Table 9: Repertory grid using Honey’s technique ................................................... 114

Table 10: Links between constructs ....................................................................... 119

Table 11: Links between elements ......................................................................... 120

Table 12: Element sort after cluster rearrangement ............................................... 120

Table 13: Construct sort after cluster rearrangement ............................................. 120

Table 14: Percentage of variance accounted for by each component .................... 123

Table 15: Ratings given on constructs of the same product attribute. .................... 146

Table 16: Personal estimation of welfare................................................................ 166

Table 17: Category based questions for eliciting a set of elements........................ 169

Table 18: Repertory grid record of the 14th respondent .......................................... 176

Table 19: Content analysis procedure .................................................................... 179

Table 20: Homogeneity and the importance of the derived meanings.................... 181

Table 21: Honey’s technique calculations............................................................... 183

Table 22: Intervals for H-I-L indices........................................................................ 184

Table 23: Honey’s content analysis of all grids....................................................... 185

Table 24: Correspondence between category poles and construct poles............... 189

Table 25: Percentage of variance accounted for by each component. ................... 189

Table 26: Construct loadings on each component.................................................. 191

Table 27: Links in the dendrogram of Figure 19 ..................................................... 193

Table 28: Links in the dendrogram of Figure 20 ..................................................... 194

Table 29: Individual structure of construct meanings.............................................. 196

Table 30: Individual schema of a consumer motivational sphere ........................... 201

Table 31: Links between adjacent elements in the dendrogram of Figure 22......... 204

Table 32: Interrelationships between element perceptions..................................... 207

Table 33: Customer segmentation.......................................................................... 214

Table 34: Collective construct ‘comfortable – uncomfortable’................................. 220

Table 35: Constructs of the collective grid .............................................................. 220

Table 36: Collective RG with average ratings......................................................... 221

Table 37: Fundamental core perceptual dimensions based on construct loadings. 222

Table 38: Correlation matrix of collective constructs .............................................. 223

Table 39: Correlation matrix of element categories ................................................ 225

Table 40: Common customer abstract consequences............................................ 230

Table 41: Stereotypes of car attribute perceptions among the respondents........... 235

VII

List of abbreviations

CMS Consumer Motivational Sphere

dim. dimension

e.g. exempli gratia (for example)

et al. et alii (and others)

etc. et cetera (and so forth)

HCA Hierarchical Cluster Analysis

i.e. id est (in other words)

M match

MEC Means-End Chain

p. page

PCA Principal Component Analysis

PCP Personal Construct Psychology

PCS Product Construct System

PCT Personal Construct Theory

PSS Percentage Similarity Score

RG Repertory Grid

RGT Repertory Grid Technique

SDI Subjective Discretionary Income

SUV Sport Utility Vehicle

var. variance

Introduction

1

“I don’t know anything more interesting in life, than motives of human actions.”

Maxim Gorky

Introduction

1. Research problem

Understanding consumer purchasing behavior is one of the major challenges for

companies to succeed in highly competitive and overloaded markets. To understand

the reasons for actual purchase, retention, failure, recommendation and other

essentials of consumer behavior, marketers need to explore psychological dynamics

that determine consumer behavior. With increased competition, diversity of

assortment and importance of social factors, consumer behavior becomes more

complex and differentiated being influenced by very different aspects of consumers’

knowledge, cognitive representations and external environmental incentives. People

choose products according to the lifestyle they aspire to, often acting irrationally, and

value things that are rather distant from a single product but have a strong impact on

the preference and final choice for a certain product or brand. Therefore, the

challenge is to figure out which processes, factors and incentives, among everything

that a consumer experiences and is surrounded with, define particular consumer

behavior within a given situation and circumstance. Marketers need to understand

the principal motivation behind product consumption in order to precisely target

current and potential customers.

Motivation refers to the processes that cause people to behave as they do. From a

marketing research perspective the study of motivation represents a search for

principles that can help in understanding why people initiate, choose or persist in

specific actions and in specific circumstances. Motivation research targets motives

for specific behavior and tries to analyze them.

The concept of consumer motivation represents a long lasting debate between

researchers who are trying to create commonly agreed upon and adopted definition,

however, to this date there is still no consensus regarding the definition and

measurement of consumer motivation. There are certain limitations and lack of

consensus in contemporary consumer motivation research which provide an

inducement for this dissertation.

Most concepts of consumer motivation suggest universal sets or categories of

motives, needs or goals which can be applied to any type of product, consumer and

Introduction

2

pattern of behavior. The major disadvantage of these sets is that they appear unable

to account for specific actions and to recognize the situational variability of consumer

behavior.

Most theory based concepts of consumer motivation do not provide certain

supportive methodology which would enable samples to be drawn in investigations of

consumers and their attitudes towards particular products, brands or product

categories.

The concept of consumers' motives based on the hierarchical nature of their

interrelations distinguishes between too-specific motives, middle-range motives and

too-general motives. It is assumed that too-specific motives explain a very specific

purchasing behavior and often cannot be approximated either on other products or

within a group of people. One the other hand, too-general motives are rather distal

determinants which do not explain by themselves much about consumers’ particular

buying motivation. Therefore, it is important to obtain the full sequence of motives

where motives in the middle-range can be defined and measured so that they allow

us to approximate and to find commonalities within a group of people while, however,

not being too general to be interpreted in terms of product features and perceptions.

In consumer research a long-standing dispute between qualitative and quantitative

approaches to motivation research resulted in attempts to develop a compromise

approach, however, the true synthesis of motivation research with quantitative

practice has remained obscure.

These limitations and research dilemmas cause the major disadvantage of most

analysis of motives which are conducted as purely atheoretical predictive exercises

resulting in an ad hoc inductive explanation. Therefore, a theoretical model of

motivation and causality underpinning an active guidance for assessment algorithms

is required.

2. Research objectives

The goal of this dissertation is to contribute to the understanding of the consumer

motivation which explains the psychological dynamics determining consumer

behavior. Considering limitations and the potential for contribution described above,

the general objective of this thesis is to propose a logical construction

conceptualization of consumer’s cognitive structure of knowledge and perceptions

Introduction

3

which defines his motivated consuming behavior and to provide a methodological

guidance for its practical implementation. As recognized by researchers, it is a key

factor in attaining a useful understanding of customer behavior because such

cognitive structures bear a major influence on behavior as they are essential in

explaining information-processing behavior and, in turn, explicit behaviors like

purchasing choices that are functions of those cognitive processes.

The theoretical objective of this thesis is to provide a concept of a consumer

motivational sphere built on existing theoretical statements, assumptions and

propositions. It is based on the notion that motivated behavior is goal-directed and

that the reasons for choosing a particular goal are represented in a hierarchical

network of motives.

In order to make the concept applicable in practical investigations of consumers, two

methodological objectives of the thesis are defined. The first objective is to suggest

and describe an appropriate interpretive research framework for exploring

relationships in the content and structure of consumers’ subjective meaning systems.

The second objective is to develop a methodology for estimating how customers‘

preferences are influenced by motives and external factors which would be

supportive and congruent with the theoretical conceptualization of consumer

motivational sphere and would integrate both qualitative and quantitative

approaches. A significant peculiarity of the proposed methodology is that it aims at

the exploration and aggregation of personal meanings expressed in a person’s own

language and comparative estimates. Furthermore, the focus is put on the definition

and assessment of ‘motives of the middle range’ in which a special interest of

marketing theory is shown.

The practical objective of the dissertation is to demonstrate the applicability of the

suggested methodology and to provide some recommendations for its practical

implication. To achieve this goal, an exploratory research study of customers’

motivation mechanism and preferences was conducted on the Russian automotive

market with the focus on consumers of premium cars. Thus, a special focus of the

study is put on motivation research of difficult groups of consumers characterized by

often irrational and, therefore, behavior that is difficult both to access as well as to

predict.

Introduction

4

3. Thesis structure

The dissertation consists of three major parts.

The theoretical part is devoted to the development of the concept of a consumer

motivational sphere that further serves as a theoretical framework for which an

assessment methodology is proposed. The theoretical part consists of three

chapters.

The first chapter contains a review about theoretical conceptions of consumer

motivation and motives as described in literature. This chapter presents definitions,

consumer motivation research experience and its contemporary state and the nature

of motives in consumer behavior.

The second chapter is devoted to the conceptualization of the consumer motivational

sphere based on the existing theoretical statements and propositions. At first, this

chapter provides an overview of the theoretical background for the concept and then

presents a schematic model of the consumer motivational sphere.

The third chapter describes the peculiarities of consumer behavior in the markets of

premium products in general and on the premium car market in particular. It focuses

on the consumer behaviors influenced by the social environment and describes

concepts which consider such factors as prestige, social status, social perception,

etc. and their role in a consumer’s decision making process and perceived product

value.

The methodological part provides a thorough description of a qualitative technique

of structured interviewing named ‘repertory grid’ based on the personal construct

psychology and describes the proposed methodology for the assessment of the

consumer motivational sphere. This part consists of two chapters.

The first chapter presents the repertory grid technique, which provides an interpretive

research framework. The format of the data gathered by means of the repertory grid

technique and its further analysis enables the disclosure of each component of the

schematic model suggested in the theoretical part of the work. This chapter

thoroughly describes a procedure of repertory grid elicitation, considering its

numerous variations, and presents different methods for analyzing the data.

Introduction

5

The second chapter describes a methodology developed to derive each level of the

consumer motivational sphere from the data elicited by means of the repertory grid

technique. The suggested methodology represents an integrated method based on

qualitative and quantitative approaches which is aimed at the investigation of the

individual construing system.

The empirical part of the thesis is devoted to the field research that is conducted

and presented in order to demonstrate the applicability of the suggested

methodology. This part consists of two chapters.

The first chapter describes the objectives, peculiarities, circumstances and a sample

of the conducted survey and, based on that, the repertory grid form appropriate for

this research is designed.

The second chapter presents analysis of the data. A single-grid analysis

demonstrates disclosure and construction of an individual consumer motivational

sphere from a single grid. Customer segmentation is performed based on all of the

grid analysis conducted by analogy. Afterwards, multi-grid analysis based on the

collective grid is conducted and inferences are presented.

The empirical study conducted with an application of suggested interviewing

techniques and analysis methods was requested by a major German car

manufacturer. All findings that have been made during the study and presented to

the company could not be presented in this dissertation due to either secondary

relevance to the scientific aspect of the dissertation and proposed methodology or

the confidentiality restrictions imposed by the company. Therefore, the empirical part

of the work is mainly concentrated on the demonstration of the proposed

methodology, however, several additional inferences made for managerial implication

are included.

All chapters (except the sixth chapter which describes objectives and the sample of

the empirical study) are provided with a summary listing the main issues discussed in

the context. The dissertation ends with a discussion of its theoretical, methodological

and practical contributions, limitations and potential for future research.

Throughout the context of this dissertation pronouns referred to a person, an

individual, a consumer, a respondent, etc. or referred to an indefinite antecedent,

Introduction

6

such as ‘one’ or ‘anybody’, are written in male sex form. This form stands for both

male and female where, for example, ‘he’ implies ‘he or she’. According to English

grammar such writing is applied when a phrase refers to a person of unknown or

unspecified sex. The issue of political correctness should not be addressed to this

work considering the female sex of its author.

1. Motives and consumer motivation

7

I. Theory


Since many decades marketers try to understand why customers act or react as they

do. This question is one of the major questions the theory of consumer behavior

pursues to explore and disclose. There are a lot of questions researchers have to ask

themselves when trying to understand certain purchasing behaviors. Why customers

prefer certain brands or products, why do they often act irrationally, why some

consumers aspire to a certain lifestyle which others reject and why they value not

only an assortment and quality of products but also a distinctive purchasing

experience, etc. (Kroeber-Riel et al., 2009, p. 167). Marketers need to understand

the principal motivation behind each product consumption to accurately target current

and potential customers.

This chapter provides an overview of theoretical conceptions of consumer motives

and motivation. In section 1.1 definitions of motivation and motives are presented

followed by a description of the nature of motives. Section 1.2 is aimed at providing

an overview of the motivation research, its history and contemporary agreements and

limitations found in the literature. The last section of the chapter describes motives

within the theory of consumer behavior. It is focussed on the notion and the nature of

consumer motives rather than on general motives of human behavior. Considering

agreements and limitations described in the literature, the chapter ends with a

discussion of the direction in which consumer motives will be further considered and

used in this work.

1.1. Definition of the concepts of motivation and motive

Motivation refers to the processes that cause people to behave as they do. The

concept of motivation is aimed at explaining reasons for a certain behavior. From

marketing research perspective to understand motivation is to understand why

consumers do what they do. Study of motivation represents search for principles that

can help in understanding why people initiate, choose or persist in specific actions

and in specific circumstances. Motivation research targets motives for specific

behavior and tries to analyze it. Especially important next to the basic, physical

motives are social motives (Mook, 1987, p. 4).


8

Motivation is a goal-oriented driving process which consists of two major components

namely emotional component and cognitive component (Kroeber-Riel et al., 2009, p.

177). The emotional component represents a trigger for the action, whereas the

cognitive component defines the direction and the way the action is to be realized.

Often instincts are considered separately as part of motivation construct which can

trigger and influence the behavior. Instincts are inborn and, therefore, not learned

behavior patterns which are activated by basic, inner stimuli and automatically result

in certain actions. Thus, instincts are biologically preprogrammed and can be also

understood as physiological deficiency, e.g., hunger, which activates a certain

behavior to liquidate this deficiency (Puca and Langens, 2008, p. 194).

Therefore, motivation appears from an interaction between affective and cognitive

processes which results in the goal definition and a certain way of acting (Kroeber-

Riel et al., 2009, p. 169).

Notion of motivation and motive are closely interrelated. The term ‘motive’ is often

used as identification of an outlasting, latent disposition, whereas the notion of

motivation refers to the process of actualization of motives (Kroeber-Riel et al., 2009,

p. 170).

Motives identify qualities of people which they can be more or less aware of, to

respond emotionally to the goals related to a certain topic such as, for example,

affiliation, power or achievement. Motivation describes the state of purposeful

behavior which can be characterized by such parameters as direction, intensity and

duration (Puca and Langens, 2008, p. 224).

Trommsdorff (2009, p. 32) also defines motives as latent states which, in case of

actualization, drive the behavior with a certain intensity and in a certain direction. The

actualization can be resulted by deficiency or by external incentives. Thus, motives

can be seen on a wide range between ‘extremely uncontrolled, emotional’ to

‘extremely controlled, rational’.

In the literature motives are classified in two directions, first, according to their origin

and necessity and, second, according to their extent of consciousness.

Regarding their origin and necessity, motives are subdivided into primary and

secondary motives (Kroeber-Riel et al., 2009, p. 170):


9

• Primary motives are coursed by inborn needs such as hunger or thirst which

each person has to satisfy in order to exist. Thus, instincts refer to the primary

motives.

• Secondary motives are acquired during socialization processes. These

motives arise as a result of learning through interacting with other people and

society and adapting to the different situations and circumstances. Secondary

motives are aimed at satisfying needs that are not vital and indispensable to

life but essential for individual esteem and importance to self and to the

society.

Maslow (1954) proposed the most popular but, at the same time, controversial and

debatable pyramid of needs in attempt to classify motives. He emphasized five levels

of needs where each level refers either to the primary or “deficiency” needs or to the

secondary or “growth” needs. It is argued that as soon as the needs of a lower level

are satisfied the next level of needs is activated (Kroeber-Riel et al., 2009, p. 170).

Second classification of motives distinguishes between conscious and unconscious

motives.

• Conscious motives refer to the individual’s conscious functioning.

Consciousness is associated with an individual experience gained from both

outside and inner worlds and, thus, associated with own identity (Kiefer, 2008,

p. 156). Conscious processes bear on the individual attention or the capability

to notice and reflect events in the individual’s mind (Kroeber-Riel et al., 2009,

p. 171). Motive that precedes the action is conscious if the person is aware of

the cause of this action.

The informational environments that the brain has to handle are too complex and

appear beyond the capacity of consciousness. Therefore, especially frequently

performed actions and behaviors become automatic being guided to a large degree

by unconscious motives.

• Unconscious motives refer to the individual’s unconscious processing.

Unconsciousness implies the individual’s capability to very quickly derive

meanings from different signs in the environment. However, the main

difference with conscious formulation of meanings is that the individual has no


10

or very incomplete insight of how this happens. Although, once formed, these

meanings become rather authoritative and guide individual’s behavior without

him being entirely aware of it or choosing that this should happen (Sohlberg,

2006, p. 151). The motive is unconscious if it activates behavior without

individual’s realization of its cause.

People cannot be conscious about everything what they do and how they do.

However, much of automatic, unconscious processing can become conscious by an

effort of recall or attention. For example, if to ask a person who goes every day to the

same store and automatically buys the same milk why he chooses this milk, he might

immediately answer that he likes its taste, however, if he takes time to recall the

whole process and to think about actual reason for the purchase, he might

understand that he also chooses this milk because in its advertising the person who

got the milk looked very healthy, good and happy. That is why the person

unconsciously stored the image of the person from the advertising and tried to

associate himself with this image by purchasing the promoted milk. This example

also illustrates how advertising can influence consumer behavior even without

consumer’s awareness of it. The behavior remains automatic and unconscious until

the person does not need to pay attention to what is guiding his behavior (Sohlberg,

2006, p. 151).

Motives, as results of inner processes, can be unconscious and influence the

behavior outside of awareness, however, they can often be made conscious by

individual own reflection or by means of certain questioning techniques, especially

those, which apply indirect questioning approaches (Kroeber-Riel et al., 2009, p. 175;

Trommsdorff, 2009, p. 108; Jacob, 2009, p. 64).

The notion of motives should be distinguished from notions of needs and wants

which are often used as synonyms for each other.

Concept of needs exists on a different theoretical level than concept of motives.

Needs are, indeed, the elicitors for motives, characterizing a level of deprivation.

Motives are already explained, i.e. they are goal-oriented, while needs are not. Thus,

with a real sensation of deprivation a need attains a grade of motive possessed of its

defined direction (Trommsdorff, 2009, p. 108).


11

Wants are also often used in the context without any difference to motives. Wants

are on the same theoretical level as needs. While needs explaining what is really

needed, wants are equally to wishes or desires. They explain what people wish to

achieve or to obtain. Wants (wishes or desires) represent specific implementation of

a goal that motivates consumer to buy a particular product (Lass, 2002, p. 593).

1.2. Motivation research in consumer behavior

1.2.1. Origin of consumer motivation research

Ernest Dichter, considered by many a founding father of motivation research

(Haugtvedt et al., 2008, p. 20), was a successful market researcher who began to

develop the theory of a “dynamic psychology”, which later became the conceptual

basis of motivation research. Thereby, Dichter and his colleagues, psychologists,

brought a discovery from two perspectives. “On the one hand, Dichter began to

conceptualize the human soul as a hidden “realm of desires”, full of taboos and

secrets. On the other hand, Dichter discovered the “soul of the products”, which was

also structured as a space of complexes and taboos” (Gries, 2005).

Dichter was the first who employed one-on-one format of in-depth interviews based

on the indirect questioning, as opposed to the direct approach typically used in early

quantitative research. He also applied projective techniques borrowed from the

clinical psychology. The questioning was stressed on revealing the conditions

surrounding different purchase and consumption occasions and on finding the

evidence of a symbolic expression of hidden motivations (Pincus, 2004).

Dichter sought clues into consumer motivation by questioning selected individuals

who would be proactive in providing insights into product usage. This information he

used to provide a “psychological inventory” of basic motives for specific product

purchases (Dichter, 1964 cited in Haugtvedt et al., 2008, p. 19). The purchasing

motives he proclaimed were derived from application of psychoanalytic theories and

methods to study consumer behavior (Trommsdorff, 2009, p. 109; Pincus, 2004).

Thus, for many different products he identified the most dominant purchasing

motives. He meant that this information about certain products would help marketers

and advertisers develop messages that would directly address the consumer

motives.


12

Dichter’s work caused the initial split in consumer research between qualitative

motivation research and more typical quantitative research which, since then, have

competed against each other, resulting in attempts to develop a compromise

approach, however, true synthesis of motivation research with quantitative practice

has remained obscure (Pincus, 2004).

1.2.2. Contemporary directions and applied methods in motivation research

In the literature two basic directions of motivation research can be emphasized which

compete against each other to be a better concept of motivation explanation.

The first direction is psychological motivation research on cognition. This type of

research is stressed on the cognitive component of the motive construct and, thus,

on the conscious reasonable goal-oriented consumer behavior (Kroeber-Riel et al.,

2009, p. 176). Consumers’ attention and mechanisms of information selection as well

as perceptive processes are studied. The motivation is considered as being based on

a subjective perception of means-goal (end)-coherence and subjective expected and

desired quality of the goal achievement.

One of the most well-known theories consistent with cognitive motivation is called

“means-end chain theory” which studies subjective conscious processes of goal

definition and desirable or expected ways of its reaching within the given situation.

Therefore, the derived motivation is restricted within the conscious drivers and

incentives aimed at an achievement of goals resulted in gained experience and

desires.

Researchers who work in the cognitive-oriented direction mostly use so called

laddering technique to reveal and explain causes of action (e.g., Botschen et al.,

1999; Lin, 2002; Reynolds and Gutman, 1988; Reynolds and Whitlark, 1995; Huber

et al., 2004; Grunert and Grunert, 1995; Wansink, 2003; Valette-Florence and

Rapacchi, 1991). This technique is based on the questioning procedure where a

respondent is urged to express perceived linkages between his individual goals and

means to reach these goals (or ‘ends’). Laddering technique and the underpinning

means-end chain theory are discussed further in this work as a part of the suggested

methodology related to the cognitive and conscious oriented exploration of the

consumer behavior.


13

The second research direction is psychological motivation research on emotions.

Advocates of this direction argue that the behavior is not always caused by a

cognitively realized goal orientation but in the foreground can be influenced and

defined by inner driving forces that activate the behavior (DeCharms and Shea, 1976

cited in Kroeber-Riel et al., 2009, p. 177). This kind of research is focused on the

investigation of emotions and instincts that activate and direct actions often without a

cognitive awareness of their causes.

Methods widely used in emotions oriented research are adopted from the

psychoanalytical theory, clinical social psychology and cultural anthropology. Most

widely used methods are Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) and one of its

modifications Rorschach Test (Kroeber-Riel et al., 2009, p. 179). These methods as

well as their further modifications represent projective techniques which use pictures,

stories, cartoons, photos, collages, etc. to reach respondent’s unconscious and

reveal reserved aspects of personality such as motives, needs, desires, attitudes,

etc. (see Gröppel-Klein and Königstorfer, 2007 for more about projective methods).

The respondent is assessed according to his projects onto the indefinite and

uncertain images or stories, the way he interprets them and associates with self or

ideal self. Thus, respondent creates his stories, i.e., interpretations which must be

further carefully analyzed to uncover underlying meanings and patterns of reaction.

Projective methods attracted much criticism regarding findings validity and reliability

and it is suggested that a combination of different types of methods should be

applied in order to overcome this criticism (see Kroeber-Riel et al., 2009, pp. 179-183

for more detail).

Motivation research on cognition refers to a considerable extent to the quantitative

type of research often aimed at empirical testing of hypotheses, whereas motivation

research on emotions is a qualitative research which explores the behavior on a

deep psychological level (Trommsdorff, 2009, p. 110). Thus, Dichter’s work gave the

first basis for psychological motivation research on emotions and caused the first

rivalry between two research directions.

Overall, the definition of motivation based on consistence of both emotional and

cognitive components where motives differ on the driving intensity of each


14

component requires research methods and underpinning theories which would

comprise exploration of both cognitive and emotional driving forces.

1.2.3. Common limitations of contemporary motivation theories

Research activity in the area of motivation as an explicit focus for marketing research

has got cyclic intensity having declined significantly after the fisrt half of the twentieth

century (Trommsdorff, 2009, p. 107; Paulssen, 1999; Fennell, 1975). Although it has

gained interest in the last decades and a lot of researchers and authors proposed

their concepts of understanding and explaining the construct of consumer motivation

(e.g., Berkman and Gilson, 1986; Rossiter and Percy, 1991; Fennell, 1978), there is

still no common agreement on this construct reached. Moreover, the theory of

consumer motivation lacks methodological approaches based on its underpinning

theory explaining the impact of motivational mechanism on the purchasing behavior.

Bagozzi, in his article (2003), overviews motivation theories which propose within

their own framework different sets of motives that drive human behavior. The list

comprises theories of such authors as Murray (1938), Maslow (1954), Alderfer (1972)

and McClelland (1987) who suggested categories of motives (Murray) and needs

(Maslow, Alderfer, McClelland) as well as more recent approaches to categorization

of general goals and evaluating them on different dimensions provided by Ford and

Nichols (1987) and Novacek and Lazarus (1990) (see Bagozzi, 2003 for more detail).

In the field of marketing research authors also suggest categories or types of motives

aimed at explaining consumer behavior (e.g., Rossiter and Percy, 1991; Fennell,

1978; Trommsdorff, 2009, p. 114; Vigneron and Johnson, 1999). Thus, the author

points out that to date most concepts of consumer motivation suggest universal sets

or categories of motives, needs or goals which can be applied to any type of

products, consumers and patterns of behavior. These sets are not so general as

goals of highest levels which stand for values and, therefore, can be applied to a

particular purchasing behavior.

However, despite differences among their content these sets are all similar in sense

of being given a priori and specifying rather general motives that are presumed to

apply universally across contexts. This defines their major disadvantage which is

their inability to account for specific actions and to recognize the situational variability

of consumer behavior. Therefore, they appear helpless in deciding on particular

strategies aimed at influencing a specific behavior.


15

Finally, even if a researcher agrees with a particular concept and tends to apply its

definition and categorization of consumer motives, as already mentioned, most

concepts do not provide certain supportive methodology which would enable to

sample it in a certain investigation of consumers and their attitudes towards particular

products, brands or product categories (Bagozzi, 2003).

1.3. Motives in consumer behavior

1.3.1. Goal-oriented nature of consumer motives

Since many decades marketers try to explore and answer the question why

consumers often behave differently in the same situations. However, the question is

too general to be explored and clearly answered so that it will cover all aspects of

motivation study aroused from its different perspectives. Up to date no universal

answer is found and it is reasonable, in attempts to understand consumer motivation,

to specify some of its aspects and define the direction in which and purpose for which

this question is to be answered (Trommsdorff, 2009, p. 107).

The direction of motivation study conducted in this work is based on the often cited

statement provided by James (1980): “The pursuance of future ends and the choice

of means for their attainment are the mark and criterion of the presence of mentality

in a phenomenon” (cited in Austin and Vancouver, 1996). This statement declares a

purposive and goal-oriented view of human behavior (Paulssen, 1999).

According to Bagozzi (2003) “one of the first ways to specify motives is to identify

which goals are more important to people as ends for their own sake”. General goals

provide a basis for action, however, being rather distal determinants. At the same

time the reasons for choosing a particular goal are represented in a hierarchical

network of motives. Therefore, to be able to more accurately predict particular action

or behavior a consideration of more precise, context-specific motives is required

(Mowday and Sutton, 1993 cited in Bagozzi, 2003).

The concept of direction in this context defines the notion of motivated behavior as a

goal-directed and further in this work goal-directed action or behavior is understood

identically to the motivated action or behavior (Heckhausen et al., 1985, p. 6).

According to Heckhausen and colleagues (1985, p. 7): “motivation consists of the

anticipation of possible actions expected to lead to an outcome that will have certain

consequences, which will possibly bring the person closer to a superordinate goal”.


16

1.3.2. Hierarchical network of consumer motives

Trommsdorff (2009, p. 108) proposes hierarchical relationship between consumer

motives according to their level of abstraction. He argues that for a practical use

further differentiation of the motive concept is reasonable. It will allow a formation of

at least rough motive classes identified already with regard to specified products,

product categories or consumers.

On top of his hierarchy, Trommsdorff positions ‘too-general’ motives such as, for

example, self-actualization. These motives are too general to explain a consumer

preference towards specific product or brand, for example, how the consumer

discriminates between Mercedes and Porsche and why he prefers one to another.

Therefore, too-general motives on their own are quite useless for marketing interests

and purposes.

On the other hand, on the bottom of the motive hierarchy ‘too-specific’ motives are

disposed. These motives explain very specific purchasing behavior which usually can

be related only to a particular product or brand, for example, “Mercedes-buying-

motive” which explains why Mercedes customer purchases Mercedes and this motive

cannot be used for other products.

To overcome this dilemma, market researchers need to solve two tasks

(Trommsdorff, 2009, p. 109).

First of all, “motives of the middle range” which will balance between too-specific and

too-general motives need to be defined and investigated. Motives have to be sought

that can explain consumer behavior in a broader sense, i.e., enable revelation of

behavior patterns. These motives should be goal-oriented, emotional and cognitive

controlled, relative-universally and theoretically reasonable drivers of consumer

behavior. It is also important that motives of the middle range are meaningful for

different target groups and can explain consumer behavior regarding different

products. That is, even if motives are identified during a research conducted for a

particular product or product category, the level of motive abstraction should, on the

one hand, be sufficient to apply them towards other product categories and, on the

other hand, still be associated with the consumer behavior regarding a certain

class(es) of products. It is hard to define motives that will not be too general and, at

the same time, will be applicable to the consumption of all products a person


17

purchases because different types of products are considered or purchased due to

different drivers depending on the extent of involvement, product intended

application, extent of conspicuity, etc.

As a second task, a measurement instrument needs to be developed to support

researchers in solving actual problems. Motives cannot simply be educed by

inferences made about consumers’ behavior. In this way hundreds of motives would

be produced without any specific validity. Different criteria or systemized approaches

are needed to methodize motives.

1.4. Summary

♦ The study of motivation represents a search for principles that can help in

understanding why people initiate, choose or persist in specific actions and in

specific circumstances.

♦ Motivation appears from an interaction between affective and cognitive processes

which results in a person’s goal definition and a certain way of acting.

♦ Motives represent latent states which, in case of actualization, drive the behavior

with a certain intensity and in a certain direction.

♦ Motives identify an outlasting, latent disposition, whereas motivation reflects the

process of actualization of motives.

♦ Motives, as results of inner processes, can be unconscious and influence the

behavior outside of awareness, however, they can often be made conscious by

individual own reflection or by means of indirect questioning approaches.

♦ In consumer research a long-standing dispute between qualitative and

quantitative approaches to motivation research resulted in attempts to develop a

compromise approach, however, the true synthesis of motivation research

with quantitative practice has remained obscure.

♦ Most developed concepts of consumer motivation do not provide certain

supportive methodology which would enable to sample it in a particular

consumer investigation.


18

♦ Most concepts of consumer motivation suggest universal sets or categories of

motives, needs or goals which appear unable to account for specific actions

and to recognize the situational variability of consumer behavior.

♦ The major disadvantage of most ‘motives’ analysis is that they are conducted as

purely atheoretical predictive exercises resulting in an ad hoc inductive

explanation. A theoretical model of motivation and causality underpinning an

active guidance for statistical algorithms is required.

♦ Motivated behavior is goal-directed where reasons for choosing a particular

goal are represented in a hierarchical network of motives.

♦ Goals represent motives at their highest level of abstraction. They are too-

general to explain consumer preference towards a specific product or brand.

However, too-specific motives which explain very specific purchasing behavior

cannot be approximated on other brands or products even within the same

product category.

♦ To overcome the dilemma between too-specific and too-general motives two

tasks need to be solved:

� “motives of the middle range” which will balance between too-specific and

too-general motives need to be defined and investigated;

� a measurement instrument which would provide some criteria or systemized

approach needs to be developed to support researchers in actual problems.

♦ In order to investigate consumer motives for implementation within the practical

marketing objectives a conceptualization of consumer motivational sphere

providing a certain representation of consumer knowledge structure is required

which would be:

� a theory based conception of content and structure of consumer’s mental

representations and their interrelations;

� construed with respect to a methodology underpinning theoretical

assumptions and, thereby, allowing for further practical application by

marketers and researchers.

2. Consumer motivational sphere

19


The goal of this chapter is to propose a conceptualization of consumer motivational

sphere based on the existing theoretical statements and propositions which will

further be evolved with the methodological approach. Following a brief introduction,

section 2.1 provides an overview of the theoretical background underpinning the

proposed conceptualization. In section 2.2 a model of consumer motivational sphere

is conceptualized.

Exploration of consumer motivation is a key to understanding the psychological

dynamics that determine actual purchase, retention, failure, recommendation and

other essentials of consumer behavior. The major disadvantage of most ‘motives’

analysis is that they are conducted as purely atheoretical predictive exercises

resulting in an ad hoc inductive explanation. In order to explain causal linkages that

motivate consumer behavior a deductive approach in which the stated causal theory

would be tested is necessary. It means that a researcher must begin with a

theoretical model of motivation and causality which can provide an active guidance

for statistical algorithms (Pincus, 2004).

The purpose of this study is to propose a logic construction conceptualization for

consumer’s cognitive structure of knowledge and perceptions and to provide a

methodological guidance for its practical implementation. As recognized by

researchers it is a key factor in attaining a useful understanding of customer

behavior. Such cognitive structures bring to bear a major influence on behavior as

they are essential in explaining the information-processing behavior and, in turn, the

explicit behavior like purchase choice, that is a function of those cognitive processes

(Olson and Reynolds, 1983, p. 77).

In the marketing literature discussions about knowledge structures or cognitive

structures are being held by researchers for a long time. There are numerous studies

devoted, for instance, to product perceptions, brand attitudes, brand images, etc. but

all of them, at the end, refer to kinds of knowledge about products and brands. When

this knowledge is to be interrelated, associated and organized it can be considered

as a structure of knowledge or a cognitive structure (Olson and Reynolds, 1983, p.

78).


20

Person’s knowledge structure is captured in person’s schemas. Schemas are

“learned, internalized patterns of thought-feeling that mediate both the interpretation

of on-going experience and the reconstruction of memories” (Strauss, 1992).

Bagozzi (2003), in his article, discusses schemas as an appropriate framework for

thinking about motives within which they can be hierarchically organized. He argues

that: “a person’s focal goal in any situation is explained by his superordinate motives

and is achieved through implementation of subordinate goals”. Although his study

was conducted in the context of human motivation in working settings, some of its

notions and assumptions can be taken over in the marketing research.

2.1. Theoretical backgrounds for modeling consumer motivational sphere

2.1.1. Cognitive structures

In economic theory most models are built on assumptions such as the consumer

rationality which implies utility maximizing behavior and the perfect information. To

explain consumer behavior the models use relative prices and disposable

income/budget as explanatory variables and consider other influences such as

social, cultural or quality perception as latent or unobservable variables (Zanoli and

Naspetti, 2002).

In marketing, however, most consumer behavior analysis deal with consumer

perceptions, preferences and the way preferences are represented and structured in

the consumer’s mind. Marketing approaches to consumer behavior can be

distinguished as cognitive versus behavioral (Zanoli and Naspetti, 2002).

The behavioral approaches tend to explain consumer behavior through observation

assuming that our environment is what causes us to behave differently. Cognitive

approaches look at thinking processes and other unobservable activities with the

belief that such processes affect the way in which consumers behave. Thus,

behavioral approaches focus on the consumer visible or observable behavior which

depends on the external stimuli without trying to understand the internal processes

that create it, whereas cognitive approaches are focused on how consumers think

and construe their mental representations, studying consumer product knowledge,

memory, perception, involvement, motivation and other mental and emotional

processes which define consumer behavior (Zanoli and Naspetti, 2002; Foxall,


21

1998). In its turn, analysis of thinking processes does not imply an ignorance of

external influences such as environmental or social characteristics. It is rather

assumed that a person perceives external influences and information and processes

it mentally acquiring his own construction of world perception. Both approaches are

widely accepted and used in consumer behavior analysis being complemented and

adjusted (Peter and Olson, 1990, p. 27).

This study is concentrated on the cognitive approach and focus on knowledge,

meanings and beliefs that consumers develop from their experience and store in their

memories.

The general concept of cognition implies that the human cognitive system has two

major functions. The first function is to make sense of, interpret or understand

significant aspects of people’s experience in their environment. To do so, the

cognitive system creates symbolic or cognitive representations which represent the

subjective meanings reflecting each person’s individual interpretation of the stimuli in

question. Thus, the second function of the cognitive system is to use these cognitive

representations or meanings to carry out cognitive tasks such as identifying

objectives and goals, developing and evaluating alternative courses of action to meet

those goals, choosing a particular course of action and carrying out the behaviors.

Cognition processes comprise mental processes of understanding, learning,

remembering, evaluating, interpreting, deciding, and planning (Peter and Olson,

1990, p. 45).

Not all cognitive processes are conscious. Consumers often are unaware of their

cognitive processes. However, consumers are often aware of the cognitive meanings

produced by those processes, although still being unable to reason the actions or

perceived meaning (Peter and Olson, 1990, p. 48). For example, a person has a

cognitive meaning or representation of his behavior: “I eat a lot of apples” or of a

symbolic meaning: “this style of watches is appropriate for older people” but he

actually cannot explain or does not realize why he eats so much apples or why he

thinks that way about that watches. That is why consumer behavior represents, in

essence, a consequence of consumption relevant cognitive structure (Grunert and

Grunert, 1995).


22

Cognitive structures described by authors in different disciplines including marketing

and psychology differ fundamentally depending on the general basis for taxonomy of

cognitive representations. That means it is necessary to define the foundation for

distinguishing between cognitive representations, i.e., on which basis they differ and

what brings them to a certain level of the taxonomy. In this study the cognitive

representations are discriminated and put to a schema according to their level of

abstraction.

Gutman and Reynolds (1979) used as a basis to decide on the level of abstraction of

a certain mental representation its relationship to self. That is, the stronger and more

direct the association between representation and one’s self-concept the higher is

the level of abstraction (Olson and Reynolds, 1983, p. 80).

Another presentation of concept of abstraction was suggested by Geistfeld, Sproles,

and Badenhop (1977) and Cohen (1979). It states that representations that are

relatively direct reflections of physical features of the product (for example, color)

may be considered as concrete or low in abstraction. Representations that are

reflections of several concrete features (for example, style) involve higher-order

meanings and are more abstract (Olson and Reynolds, 1983, p. 80). Product

features at some higher levels of abstraction are usually represented by functional

and psychosocial consequences of product use. In turn, a positive outcome brought

by functional or psychosocial consequences is called benefits or desirable

consequences, otherwise they bring undesirable consequences.

At this point of the concept closer linkages referred to self as also proposed by

Gutman and Reynolds (1979) can be recognized. At the highest level of abstraction

the product can be represented in terms of values that may be reached by its

purchase and use. Such values are very abstract and have much to do with

individual ideas and image of self. Although values stand in the hierarchy associated

with a product, they are several levels away from any physical referent (Olson and

Reynolds, 1983, p. 80).

The taxonomy proposed in this study orders representations hierarchically such as

product characteristics, attributes, consequences and values based on levels of

abstraction connected through means-end linkages. It is built on the assumptions of

means-end chain (MEC) theory and some of its modifications and on the concept of


23

consumers’ motives proposed by Trommsdorff (2009) described earlier in this

chapter.

The proposed taxonomy is, therefore, based on the concepts which are already

known and have proved to be solid by applications in many marketing as well as

other context studies. For example, Bagozzi and his colleagues (2003) in their study

of hierarchical representation of motives in human goal setting used means-end

relationships to disclose superordinate motives for striving for a personal goal. Similar

approach has been used to generate hierarchies of causal attributions (e.g., Antaki,

1989), goals (e.g., Antaki, 1988; Bagozzi and Dabholkar, 1994; Pieters et al., 1995),

and values (e.g. Bagozzi and Dabholkar, 2000), however, “no studies have

investigated hierarchical schemas for motives” (cited in Bagozzi et al., 2003).

Within the marketing context MEC was typically applied to analyze and interpret

consumers’ product and brand perceptions. Thus, MEC is being more broadly viewed

as representing the relationship between self and products (Walker and Olson, 1991;

Walker et al., 1987). Next section is devoted to the application of MEC in marketing

research.

2.1.2. Means-end chain theory

The means-end chain theory was originally developed in order to relate consumers’

product knowledge to their self knowledge (Gutman, 1982; Olson and Reynolds,

1983, p. 80). In a broader sense it is assumed that knowledge structure represents a

hierarchy where concrete thoughts are linked to more abstract thoughts in a

sequence progressing from means to ends.

Gutman (1982) defines MEC as: “Means are objects (products) or activities in which

people engage (running, reading). Ends are valued states of being such as

happiness, security, and accomplishment. A means-end chain is a model that seeks

to explain how a product or service selection facilitates the achievement of desired

end states.”

In sense of product consumption, MEC represents a simple knowledge structure that

links product attributes to the consequences produced by these attributes (Gutman,

1982). This approach is based on the assumption that consumers see products as

means to important ends. That means that product characteristics can produce

personal consequences which are self-relevant and important for a person. And thus,


24

the person perceives a product with its certain characteristics as instrumental in

achieving important for him consequences or values (Mulvey et al., 1994). Personal

values are the end consequences produced by the product attributes. They are

mental representations of important life goals that consumers are trying to achieve.

Values are more abstract than functional or psychological consequences and its

achievement tends to be quite subjective and intangible personal experience (Peter

and Olson, 1990, p. 75). Figure 1 illustrates MEC originally consisting of three levels

of abstraction.

Figure 1: Means-end chain original structure

In general, MEC represents consumer’s cognitive structure interrelating consumer’s

knowledge about a product which is in turn defined as a bundle of salient attributes

and benefits and consumer’s self knowledge which consist of personal psychological

and social consequences and values (Mulvey et al., 1994). Thus, the means-end

approach assumes that products are purchased and used not for themselves or their

characteristics but for meanings they produce in minds of consumers (Reynolds and

Gutman, 1988). Although products being selected for fairly concrete features such as

their characteristics and attributes and for the benefits which they are capable of

providing, they are perceived subconsciously as aimed at and associated with the

achievement of personal values (e.g., Solomon, 2004, p. 133).

A number of extensions of the original conception of MEC have received a solid

attention of researchers and being used in conduction of rather fine analysis of the

types of mental representations. One of such extensions was suggested by Olson

and Reynolds (1983, p. 81). They have made finer distinctions in terms of abstraction

by dichotomizing each of three levels of Figure 1 (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: Consumer cognitive structure by Olson and Reynolds

The extended model suggests that each basic level of abstraction can be subdivided

leading to distinct categories of abstraction: attributes into concrete and abstract,

Concrete attributes

Abstract attributes

Functional con-

sequences

Psychosocial con-

sequences

Instrumental values

Terminal values

Attributes Consequences Values


25

consequences into functional and psychosocial, and personal values into

instrumental and terminal.

Attributes are at the lowest level in the chain. Both concrete and abstract attributes

are relatively concrete meanings that represent physical or perceptible characteristics

in a product (Gengler et al., 1999). Concrete attributes are defined as the directly

perceptible physical characteristics of a product, for example color, size, and weight

(Vriens and Hofstede, 2000), while abstract characteristics refer to relatively

intangible characteristics (e.g., style and image) or perceived value (Botschen et al.,

1999). Botschen, Thelen and Pieters (1999) define attributes as characteristics of

products which may be preferred or sought by consumers, however, they do not

explain per se for what reasons the product is or might be bought. They also

subdivide attributes into concrete and abstract emphasizing that they both give

additional information about the product itself but do not provide discovering of any

underlying reasons why the product is selected or purchased.

Consequences have more abstract meanings which reflect perceived benefits or

perceived risks associated with attributes (Gengler et al., 1999). Peter and Olson

(1990, p. 73) define consequences as specific events that happen to a consumer

when the product is bought and used. This definition seems to reflect a common

understanding of consequences more accurately unlike definition provided by Lin

(2002) which states that consequences are what the customer feels after consuming

the product. Vriens and Hofstede (2000) define consequences as characteristics that

are less directly perceptible in a product or brand and represent the result of various

attributes combinations and the product use by the customer.

In this study it is agreed that consequences may represent emotions, feelings,

evaluations, events (Peter and Olson, 1990, p. 74), and in some situations behaviors

(Valette-Florence and Rapacchi, 1991) experienced by consumers. It is assumed

that differentiation between attributes and consequences lies not in “what” is

expressed by a customer but rather “what kind of information” is underlying in

expression. Adapted definitions for attributes and consequences and distinction

between them are those proposed by Botschen and his colleagues (1999). According

to them, while attributes give additional information about the product itself,

consequences explain why people are looking for certain attributes: “for customers it


26

is not the product’s attributes which count, but the problem solution - the benefit

sought – which they derive from a certain combination of attributes”.

It is important to distinguish between positive and negative consequences. Positive

consequences or benefits represent the desirable consequences which are the

advantages consumers enjoy from the usage or consumption of products (Gutman,

1982) and when selecting a certain product or brand they are looking for and

expecting to receive these benefits. Negative consequences or perceived risks

represent the undesirable consequences which consumer seeks to avoid when

purchasing and consuming a product (Peter and Olson, 1990, p. 74).

Some marketers consider consumers as thinking about products as bundles of

benefits. That is, in their researches the intermediary MEC consists of benefits

subdivided into two levels of abstraction not taking into account perceived risks (e.g.,

Young and Feigin, 1975). In general, consideration of negative consequences in

marketing research depends on the purpose of the research. For example, for an

efficient product positioning, advertising and distribution it is preferred to develop

benefit segmentation, that is, to divide consumers into homogeneous segments

based on their interest in particular product benefits (Peter and Olson, 1990, p. 74;

Botschen et al., 1999). To further appeal to segments by their benefits sought, this

approach is based on the assumption of MEC theory stating that consumer behavior

is driven by the ‘true’ benefits sought which cause the desire of preference for certain

attributes (Botschen et al., 1999). However, for example, for a successful new

product development and launch it is also important to elicit and analyze consumers’

perceived risks when they select the product. It can help product developers to focus

on the characteristics which cause negative consequences and to introduce possible

improvements (Herm and Gall, 2008).

Olson and Reynolds (1983, p. 81) differentiate consequences on functional and

psychosocial levels. Functional consequences are less abstract outcomes of product

use that act directly on the consumer from the time the product is consumed (Peter

and Olson, 1990, p. 73; Valette-Florence and Rapacchi, 1991). They include the

immediate physiological, physical, tangible, performance outcomes of using or

consuming the product, for example, a car gets a certain number of miles per gallon

or an ink pen writes smoothly without skipping (Peter and Olson, 1990, p. 74).


27

The term ‘psychosocial consequences’ comprises two types of an outcome

psychological consequences and social consequences (Peter and Olson, 1990, p.

74). Psychological consequences are less tangible and more personal outcomes of a

product use which reflect how the usage of product makes a person feel; for

example, wearing clothes of a certain brand might make a person feel more attractive

or stylish. Psychosocial consequences also include intangible social consequences

which a customer might be aware of, such as “my partners will respect me if I buy

this auto” or “people from my surrounding will consider me as smart and successful if

I buy this house”.

Personal values are at the most abstract level in the chain representing beliefs and

relatively stable cognitions that have a strong emotional impact (Vriens and Hofstede,

2000). Rokeach (1973) suggested subdividing of values into instrumental and

terminal values. Instrumental values are defined as cognitive representations of

preferred modes of behavior which lead to an achievement of terminal values.

Terminal values, in turn, represent final preferred states of existence, i.e., they are

mental representations of the most fundamental goals and end states that

consumers seek in life. As an example for terminal values can be self-achievement,

prosperity, happiness, whereas for instrumental values some authors give examples

such as having a good time, being independent, being resourceful and ambitious

(Peter and Olson, 1990, p. 75; Veludo-de-Oliveira et al., 2006).

Although the authors propose 6-level chain, they emphasize that not all the links

have to be presented in every case. For example, a consumer may be aware of a

product, but yet not knowing its performance consequences of certain attributes or

the valued end state the attribute can help to reach and, thus, the person can

possess little abstract meaning for this product attribute (Olson and Reynolds, 1983,

p. 81). In such case certain levels of abstraction in the scheme might be missing or

the person may express untruly meanings just to satisfy the researcher or pretending

being aware of what he is talking about. Both cases are damaging for the findings,

especially when a group of individuals is analyzed and the data is to be aggregated

to find similarities and differences in representations.

Another problem with such a complex MEC is that it might be difficult to differentiate,

for example, psychosocial consequences and some instrumental values. Peter and

Olson (1990, p. 79) argue that making such fine distinctions is actually seldom


28

necessary and original three-level means-end structure is sufficient for many

marketing purposes.

It is also pointed that not every MEC leads to an instrumental or terminal value. The

end of the chain can be a consequence at any level of abstraction (Peter and Olson,

1990, p. 80). When product attributes have no associations with consequences or

values, for example, if a person doesn’t know what the attribute is good for or if he is

aware of the consequence but it is not important for him this might have a small

impact on his purchasing decision.

Therefore, at first, it is important to identify the importance of each product feature for

a consumer to produce veritable, not artificial chains linking product characteristics to

values.

In marketing research methods such as repertory grid technique and laddering are

commonly applied to perform MEC analysis. However, the repertory grid technique is

mostly used only to elicit relevant product characteristics as means from which ends

are further revealed through the laddering technique (Jacob, 2009, p. 64). This

approach does not use the full potential of the repertory grid technique thus

diminishing the richness of analysis (Marsden and Littler, 2000a). As a result, the

produced outcome does not show, for example, the difference between

characteristics’ importance and the role of each particular product characteristic or

attribute in consumer’s purchase decision. This analysis identifies product perception

structures, however, it is rather limited in prediction of consumer purchase decision

(Jacob, 2009, p. 68).

In this dissertation the potential of the repertory grid technique is discussed in the

methodological part in order to show how analysis and findings can be enriched by

this versatile tool.

2.2. Conceptualization of the consumer motivational sphere

In this study the general conception of MEC and its original structure consisting of

three major levels of abstraction is adhered. Further extensions are proposed

building on the existing theoretical assumptions and propositions found in the

literature. At the end, the suggested taxonomy is aimed at providing a certain

representation of consumer knowledge structure which, on the one hand, is a theory

based conception of content and structure of consumers mental representations and


29

their interrelations and, on the other hand, is construed with respect to the

methodology underpinning theoretical assumptions and, thereby, allowing for further

practical application by marketers and researchers. The extensions and modifications

are made with an attempt to overcome some limitations of traditional approaches in

construing and measuring consumers’ cognitive structures and to suggest a

congruent methodology which gives an insight to other aspects of consumers’ mind

than being traditionally explored.

Incorporating the results of the preceding discussion of structuring consumers’

mental representations the schema proposed in this work brings some extensions to

the basic conceptualization. The following Figure 3 illustrates the proposed extended

model.

Product characteristics Product attributes Specific consequences Abstract consequences

"too specific motives" "motives of

middle range"

"too general motives"

MOTIVES

Expected consequences

(desirable/undesirable)Product

Values

Situational and Environmental incentives

Figure 3: Consumer motivational sphere

The most apparent modification lies not in the consistence of components of the

main structure but in the underlying meanings of each component. Three main

substructures of the model can be emphasized.

The first substructure comprises first two levels of abstraction that refer to a product.

Product characteristics which represent product physical characteristics are linked to

product attributes representing product perceptible characteristics (Gengler et al.,

1999). These two levels reflect features offered by a product which are in complex

may offer a person benefits that he seeks for.

The second substructure of the chain consists of three main levels of abstraction

which represent the subjective motivational cognitive structure related to a product

purchasing decision (Trommsdorff, 2009, p. 104). These three levels reflect product

related consequences and values. Consequences are subdivided according to level


30

of abstraction. At the bottom lay specific expected consequences which are very

personal and hard to approximate in order to reach a common set of expected

consequences. The third, highest level of abstraction reflects values which are also

personal but already very general ends which themselves cannot show what is it

expected from a product consumption that would bring a person or a group of people

to the wished state of being. And in between, the meanings lay that express

consequences on the level which, on the one hand, allows to approximate and to find

commonalities within a group of people and, on the other hand, they are not too

general and can be interpreted in terms of product features and perceptions.

Concerning the issue about positive and negative outcomes, both desirable and

undesirable consequences are implied in the term ‘expected consequences’.

Interviewing technique and assessment methodology further suggested in this work

allow revealing both types of consequences followed by also disclosing consumer

preferences which already indicate desirable outcomes. For this reason, in the

general model the term expected consequences is used and it is, then, depends on

the research objectives whether researcher considers undesirable states or he needs

to consider just consumer preferences, i.e., desirable consequences.

The third substructure consists of only one component which is situational and

environmental incentives which have a certain impact on the choice made by

consumer. People consume products in a variety of situations and environments

(Gutman, 1982; Yang et al., 2002) which certainly effect their attributes preferences

and benefits they seek for. According to Clancey (1989), knowledge is a capacity to

behave adaptively within an environment; it cannot be reduced to representations of

behavior or the environment (cited in Shaw and Gaines, 2005). Numerous

discussions in literature are devoted to the issue of situational and environmental

incentives, their impact on the consumer behavior and how they should be

considered and linked within the main cognitive structure of mental representations.

Gutman (1982) defines product-use situation as “any situation that involves the use

of a commercially available product or service”. He states that consumers learn over

time which choices in given situations produce their desirable consequences and

which do not. He also points that within the time spent by a consumer to adopt with

regard to a given situation the importance of the consequences may adjust. That

means that over time consumers learn in which types of situations which products


31

they would use. As an example, Gutman considers purchasing of hot dog which can

be consumed during regular lunch, occasional lunch or at baseball game. Each

usage situation would modify the importance of consequences the person seeks for.

For example, if person eats hot dogs every single lunch he may look for the ones that

contain less fat, salt, etc., or he may consider the preparation process and choose

the one that he likes. But if a person buys it at a baseball game, what happens rarely,

he probably would like to have it big and full of ketchup, mustard and mayonnaise to

enjoy its taste. Thus usage situation produces a set of consequences for particular

consumption situation.

Fennell (1978) also discusses the effect of situations in which consumers find

themselves. She gives an example when three different consumers, motorists, ask

for the power however each of them is willing to satisfy different wants by that and so

the consequences of obtaining power differ. One may want power because his

habitual driving pattern makes it necessary to be able to enter fast-moving traffic,

while second one wants to have a powerful car because it reflects his masculine self-

image. And third consumer might enjoy a sensory experience of driving a powerful

machine. This example demonstrates the importance to understand the conditions

that lead the consumer to ask for specific product attributes and consequently to

expect particular benefits. These conditions can be found in consumers’ personality

and their life situation. According to Fennell: “the person is viewed as a unique

composite of genetic inheritance and past experience, now in a current set of life

circumstances (family, job, circle of friends, avocational activities, geographic

location) that are perceived through the filter of his or her individuality”. As long as

person moves from one activity or state to another, the environmental stimuli

interconnect with person systems forming an actual situational perception.

Walker and Olson (1991) discuss the importance of decision situation. They assume

that personal self-schema contains an enormous amount of information about

oneself which is stored in personal long-term memory and only a small portion of

consumer’s self-related knowledge is activated at any given time in his or her working

memory. Only the activated self-meanings can influence consumer’s cognitions and

behaviors. Therefore, it is essential to identify factors that influence which self-related

ends are activated. One of important determinants of self in working memory is the

decision situation. Thus, features and characteristics of situations largely determine

what self-meanings are accessed and, in turn, the abstractness and importance of


32

these meanings affect how relevant and important that situation is to the consumer

and what product knowledge is activated (Walker and Olson, 1991; Kihlstrom and

Cantor, 1984).

Fennell (1978), proposing her brand choice model, includes internal, relatively

permanent personal aspects like genetic inheritance and past experience and

external, relatively temporary life circumstances in the notion of product-use situation.

Therefore, she views consumer perception of product-use situation as an activator

for product purchase which also directs the choice among available brands. Later, by

modeling variation in brand preference, Fennell and her colleagues distinguish

between personal systems and environmental systems, arguing that intersection of

these components “allocates an individual’s resources to a domain of action and

direction of desired adjustment within that domain”. In turn, the result of such

intersection produces motivating conditions that specify the kinds of attribute an

individual finds valuable (Yang et al., 2002).

In this study, considering described concepts of situational aspect in consumers’

cognition and behavior, it is agreed that consumer’s “core” self which includes

genetic inheritance and past experience as well as personal systems is relatively

stable (Walker and Olson, 1991; Fennell, 1978) and generates basic desirable

consequences. However, there are environmental systems and current life

circumstances, as described by Fennell (1978), which person faces at a given time

that may significantly affect the perception of desirable ends and choice criteria

related to the product attributes. Environmental systems and current life

circumstances are relatively temporary and unstable, i.e., they can be changed when

person achieves another social level, moves to another place, changes family status

or work, etc.

Building on ideas of Fennell (1978) and Walker and Olson (1991) it is assumed that

the expected consequences having origin from “core” self are influenced by rather

temporary situational and environmental incentives. Consumer expresses his

meanings and perceptions already considering these incentives. Therefore, it is

needed to identify where he points these incentives in order to understand better why

and in which circumstances consumer prefers certain attributes and expects certain

benefits.


33

Overall, the proposed structure of consumer motivational sphere which links product

related knowledge to person related knowledge serves as a basic framework within

which an assessment methodology is to be proposed in this study. An integrated

method for assessing each level of abstraction in consumer motivational sphere

based on data gathered by means of repertory grid interviewing technique is

suggested. Therefore, further in this work each level of abstraction will be discussed

in terms of its disclosing. The suggested methodology underpinning this concept is

proposed as an expansion of the traditional analysis of consumer knowledge

structure in marketing research.

2.3. Summary

♦ The purpose of this study is to propose a logic conceptualization for consumer’s

cognitive structure of knowledge and perceptions and to provide a

methodological guidance for its practical implementation.

♦ A person’s knowledge structure is captured in person’s schemas which represent

learned, internalized patterns of thought-feeling that mediate both the

interpretation of an on-going experience and the reconstruction of memories.

Schemas represent an appropriate framework for thinking about motives within

which they can be hierarchically organized.

♦ Cognitive representations are discriminated and put to a schema according to

their levels of abstraction.

♦ Representations such as product characteristics, attributes, consequences and

values are ordered hierarchically based on levels of abstraction connected

through means-end linkages. The taxonomy is based on the assumptions of the

means-end chain theory, some of its modifications and on the concept of

consumers’ motives suggesting three levels of motives: too-specific motives,

motives of the middle range and too-general motives.

♦ Schema of consumer motivational sphere consists of three main substructures:

� The first substructure comprises first two levels of abstraction which refer to

the person’s product knowledge and links product characteristics with

product attributes representing physical and perceptible characteristics of the

product;


34

� The second substructure consists of three levels which refer to the

person’s self knowledge:

• Specific expected consequences are very personal and hard to

approximate in order to reach a common set of expected consequences.

• Abstract expected consequences allow to approximate and to find

commonalities within a group of people, however, being not too

general to be interpreted in terms of product features and perceptions.

• Values represent very general ends which themselves cannot show what

is it expected from a product consumption that would bring a person or a

group of people to the desired state of being.

� The third substructure consists of only one component reflecting situational

and environmental incentives which currently influence a consumer’s choice.

♦ Expected consequences have origin from the “core” self which is relatively stable

including the genetic inheritance, past experience and personal systems but they

are also influenced by rather temporary and unstable situational and

environmental incentives.

♦ Product characteristics and attributes give additional information about the

product itself, whereas consequences and values explain why people look for

certain attributes, that is the problem solution or the benefit which they derive

from a certain combination of attributes.

♦ The schema of consumer motivational sphere which links the product related

knowledge with the person related knowledge serves as a basic framework

within which the assessment methodology is to be proposed in this study.

3. Premium car market

35


This chapter is devoted to the peculiarities of consumer behavior in the markets of

premium goods in general and in the premium car market. Although theoretical

concepts of this chapter do not refer to the theoretical background of the elaboration

of methodological approach suggested in this work, they still underpin the

methodology in a sense that the method is best appropriate for exploration research

of a relatively small sample. In turn, the sample represents customers whose

consumer behavior is not obvious, often irrational in terms of commonly considered

factors influencing purchasing decision and with its peculiarities which need to be

disclosed.

This chapter presents concepts which consider such factors as social status, social

perception and its role in the consumer decision process and perceived product

value. Section 3.1 is devoted to the notion of ‘premium’ in general and in the car

market. It also specifies differences between premium, luxury and volume car brands.

In section 3.2 different types of consumer behavior in the premium car market are

described. Also in this section product components which form a product utility and a

product value in the premium markets are presented. The last section, 3.3, is

devoted to the role of society in consumer behavior; it presents a man within the

society and his social environment and discusses such aspects as social status, its

symbolic expression and how products may reflect personal attitudes and

aspirations, distinguish the person from others and emphasize personal status and

belonging to certain social groups. In this chapter peculiarities of the consumer

behavior in the Russian premium car market regarding some aspects are presented

in order to give a clue on which base some research interpretations of the empirical

part of the work are made.

3.1. The notion of ‘premium’ in the car market

3.1.1. The meaning of the term ‘premium’

At first, the general understanding of the term ‘premium’ needs to be discussed to

further specify this notion towards automotive market.

The definition of the word ‘premium’ as an adjective in English language was first

indicated in 1926, originally in reference to a grade of motor fuel (Harper, 2001). It

qualifies an object “of exceptional quality or of greater value than others of its kind”,


36

i.e., something superior. As an example, it can be spoken of a wine made of premium

grapes and whose quality would be particularly high. From a purely mercantile point

of view, this adjective would characterize an object of higher price or more expensive

(Rundell and Fox, 2007, p. 1167).

The word ‘premium’ as a noun was first introduced in 1601 and referred to a “reward

given for a specific act”. It came from the Latin praemium “reward, profit derived from

booty” (Harper, 2001). Today the word has retained its meaning as a reward, a

bonus but the criminal origin of its sense has evolved and definition of premium is “a

sum of money or bonus paid in addition to a regular price, salary, or other amount”

(Soukhanov et al., 2000). The increase of its price by means of a bonus places the

premium product in the category of products with prices above the average of the

market.

In the context of the relationship between a retailer and a customer it is said that

customers who purchase a premium product are ready to spend more money on it

than they would for a regular product in order to benefit from premium superiority.

3.1.2. Premium, luxury and volume car brands

This section is aimed at providing a clear difference between the notions of premium,

luxury and volume car brands. At first, the distinction between premium and luxury

car brands is discussed.

Premium and luxury car brands

According to the meaning of the term ‘premium’ described in the previous section,

the first characteristic of a premium car brand is the price-premium, defined as a

positive price difference as compared with the market average. The price- premium

can also be defined as a positive difference in prices to the average price on the

global market or on a specific market segment (Diez, 2001, p. 3).

The first characteristic does not help to make a clear distinction of the nature

between premium and luxury brands as a luxury brand also works with a price-

premium and its products are sold at a price higher than the average price on the

market segment. The difference between premium and luxury brands would then

only consist in the amount of the price-premium, i.e., the luxury brands’ products

being more expensive than the premium brands’ ones.


37

An essential characteristic of a premium brand on the car market which distinguishes

it from a luxury one is that premium brand has a focus on innovation through which it

is also able to set trends and standards in the industry in terms of technology. This

focal point is communicated through advertising and company performance and

brings the brand a premium image (Rosengarten and Stürmer, 2005, p. 26).

Premium brands aim at being leaders on the car market as far as new technologies

are concerned and care to have top quality products near technical perfection. This

perfection is searched in all tangible functions and properties of a car. A premium car

is a standard car which tends to represent the highest quality, especially oriented

towards the functions which it is intended to fulfill (Diez, 2001, p. 11). These

innovations can contribute, for instance, to a better security of passengers or to an

improvement of the road holding of a car in difficult driving conditions. This, however,

does not mean premium brands do not care about the aesthetics of a car and its

features but the aesthetics is subordinated to the functionality.

On the contrary, luxury brands bet on sensational features and obtain their status

either from their heritage related to the respect of brand tradition or from a very

strong marketed image. Thus, the idiosyncrasy of luxury brands is the focus on the

increase of sophistication-related features which are outside of rationality rather than

on the permanent improvement of features related to the primary function of a

product (Rosengarten and Stürmer, 2005, p. 26). As an example, Rolls Royce does

not exactly represent a model of technological and ergonomic perfection but its

luxury image relies more on its aesthetics and the legendary history.

While luxury car brands rely mostly on the strength of image, premium brands can

rely on two focal strengths: an image of a high-class product and a high innovation

potential (Figure 4). This enables premium brands to target more potential customers

than luxury brands as they can resort to more sales arguments and of different

natures (Rosengarten and Stürmer, 2005, p. 27). Today, though, when customers

are relatively experienced and aware of the existing technologies the distinction

between luxury and premium becomes vaguer as luxury brands cannot keep the

competitiveness without advancing in the technological and functional perfection.

However, the essential difference between the notions can be further supported as

luxury brands may often adopt most recent but already developed technologies,


38

whereas, premium brands concentrate on innovations in order to appeal to

customers as providing leading and new technologies.

Figure 4: Public coverage by premium and luxury brands

When talking about luxury brands it is sometimes important to bear in mind that there

is a certain difference between considerations of luxury on the European and

American car markets. On the European market luxury is based on the refinement in

car details and on the brand history, whereas on the American market perception of

luxury is based on comfort and size of a vehicle (Rosengarten and Stürmer, 2005, p.

27).

This is explained by the peculiarity of the country which is the large territory and,

therefore, long distances which influence auto exploitation and general car culture

including perceptions and attitudes towards notions of premium and luxury.

In America large territory of the country and, therefore, long distances influence auto

exploitation and general car culture. Consumers tend to buy big cars in terms of size

to make long rides. Therefore, people put a lot of value on comfort and space in their

cars.

As a result, car classifications used in Europe and North America differ especially

regarding entry-level luxury segment (see Appendix 1 for most commonly used car

classifications). However, today, car classification is rather subjective because many

vehicles either fall into multiple categories or do not fit well to any.

Peculiarities of Russian car market when compared with American and European

are closer to the American in sense of territory and distances, variety of climate

conditions as well as consumer attitudes towards size, space, comfort and consumer


39

exploitation art implying often long rides. The Russian or, better to say, Soviet

classification of cars applied to the Russian autos does not correspond to the

contemporary foreign classifications. At the same time, there are no autos produced

in Russia which are considered as premium or luxury. Some companies attempt to

position their brands as of an upper class, however, technologies and design are still

far from the world progress and, therefore, it will probably take long time until

customers of premium and luxury autos will want to buy domestic cars.

Premium and volume car brands

The notion of premium referred to car brands also enables to differentiate premium

car brands from volume car brands. As their name indicates, volume brands aim at

selling as much products as possible in order to increase their revenue. Thus, they

position themselves on the market with relatively low prices. To enable this they

pursue low-cost production process reducing in the first ranks research and

development costs. That is, volume brands do not innovate as much as premium

brands and benefit from innovations of the latter, for instance, by adopting them with

a delay. However, today, the delay tends to reduce itself as evolution in the car

market is becoming faster resulting in shortening of products’ life cycle. Doing that,

volume brands cannot display a status of technological leadership. They also do not

have the same care concerning quality of materials and precision of the finish. This

constitutes the main distinctions between premium and volume brands. A common

point, though, is their focus on the improvement of a car in its functional use

(Rosengarten and Stürmer, 2005, p. 30).

3.2. Consumer behavior in the premium car market

In this section reasons for consumption of premium products with the focus on the

consumer behavior in the premium car market is discussed. Further, in this study, the

notion of premium will be used implying both premium and luxury cars in a sense that

they both relate to the price-premium car segment, possessing both quality and

image components on a higher level comparing to the volume brands. Thus,

purchasing behavior towards price-premium cars is opposed to the purchasing

behavior towards volume brand cars rather than purchasing behavior towards

premium is opposed to the purchasing behavior towards luxury.


40

The aim is to disclose what actually attracts consumers in the premium segment in

order to define the strengths of premium brands and how they can communicate on

them. Specifically, it is aimed at showing that even if objective reasons play a

significant role in the process of customer decision making, there is also a great role

of subjective reasons, and notably a search for prestige, which can explain the

preference of consumers for a premium brand rather than for a volume brand.

3.2.1. Types of consumer buying behavior

One of the principal categorization of consumer buying behavior, displayed in the

literature is a categorization according to the degree of cognitive buyer involvement.

It implies that decisions with a comparatively high degree of cognitive involvement

can be distinguished from forms with comparatively low cognitive involvement

(Assael 1995, p. 152 cited in Esch et al., 2003). This results in four types of

consumer buying behavior (Esch et al., 2003).

1. Routine decision making implies buying decision with low cognitive and

emotional involvement which is made neither with effort nor considering. It is a

widely automatic process without assimilating much of external information.

This decision has been solved before as a result of learning processes from

repeated behavior. This type of decision is made towards frequently

purchased, low-involvement and relatively low cost items, for instance,

newspapers, milk, snack foods, etc.

2. Limited decision making implies buying decision characterized by simplified

cognitive processes. This decision is taken when consumer is familiar with a

product category but not familiar with a brand or doesn’t show any clear

preference for a certain brand. The customers are assumed to be emotionally

low involved and hence as soon as an alternative satisfies the needs, the

consumer terminates the decision making process and purchases this

alternative, for example, clothes in case of unfamiliar brand.

3. Impulse buying behavior implies a decision making process in which

customers are only little cognitively involved but usually show a high degree of

emotional involvement. It occurs when consumers feel an unexpected, sudden

and urgent need to buy. Thus, impulse purchases are unplanned and without

an evaluation of need. They often occur in favorable situations with strong


41

stimuli like POS (place of sale) displays. This type of decision making usually

relates to such categories of products as clothes and delicacies, however, it

also depends on the level of income consumers dispose of.

4. Extensive decision making implies customer’s both cognitive and emotional

high involvement. This decision making requires a comparatively long period

of time for seeking wide information and deciding between alternatives which

are thoroughly examined and evaluated. This type of behavior is followed

during infrequent purchases of expensive products often with high risk degree

such as housing, car, computer or education.

The type of occurring decision making process in concrete purchase depends on

several factors which are: price of product, frequency of product purchases,

consumer involvement and the perceived risk related to the purchase. However, in

practice these four types of decision making do not usually occur in their pure form.

Depending on situation and circumstances some combinations and overlaps are

likely, and other factors may appear to be important. Even the purchase of the same

product in different circumstances may elicit different types of buying behavior.

Basically, product consumption is aimed at satisfying certain consumer needs. In

order to answer the question why consumers choose a particular product it is useful

to turn to the concept of utility.

Concept of utility developed by Vershofen (1940) expresses an individualistic

measure of need satisfaction (Vershofen, 1959 cited in Orth and Krska, 2002). Its

main assumption states that total (product) utility is made of partial, i.e., attribute level

utilities. In order to offer a proper product marketing managers need to know what

partial utilities product attributes (e.g., design, price) and levels on which these

attributes are performed contribute to an overall product utility (Orth and Krska,

2002).

Two types of partial utilities are recognized ‘basic’ and ‘additional’ (Figure 5). Basic

(functional) utility of a product is derived from its physical-chemical-technical

attributes, either concrete or abstract (Bauer, et al., 1998) and refers to the technical-

rational intended purpose. Additional utilities aimed at satisfaction of any need which

exceeds the actual use purpose, they relate to a capacity to impart psychological

added value on a person in oneself (Haury, 2007, p. 44). Essentially, additional


42

utilities of a product are designed to satisfy the craving for social recognition of the

owner. Cars relate to the type of products which are characterized as socially

remarkable products for which sufficient performance of additional utilities is

particularly important.

Basic utilities Fulfillment of technical-functionally

intended use

Additional utilities Fulfillment of socio-psychological

intended use

Edification utilities Satisfaction of needs originated

from personal images

Esteem utilities Satisfaction of needs originated

from social interaction

� Social affiliation integration

� Social distinction

� Social recognition, prestige

� Aesthetic needs

� Self-realization

� Well-being

Product utility

Figure 5: Components of product utility by Vershofen

(own interpretation from Vershofen, 1940 cited in Haury, 2007, p. 92)

In its turn, additional utilities are sub-divided into ‘edification’ and ‘esteem’ utilities.

Edification utilities serve to provide personal emotional use images such as aesthetic,

self-realization and well-being. Esteem utilities serve to satisfy more socially oriented

emotional use images such as social affiliation and integration, social distinction,

recognition and prestige. Product benefit perceived by consumers arises from the

sum of all product utility components.

When considering premium products, the fulfillment of needs provided by additional

utilities comes to the forefront and withdraws the competitive role of basic utilities.

The progressive saturation of material basic needs causes an increase of the relative

importance of social consumption motives such as striving for prestige and status.

Therefore, needs for self-esteem, recognition and respect represent important factors

by the purchasing decision.


43

Following Vershofen’s distinction between components of product utility, Belz (1994)

emphasizes two need categories which refer to the consumption of premium and

luxury products: the need for prestige and the need for self-esteem.

The need for prestige is based on the consumer crave to obtain own position within

the society through owned products and visible consumer behavior. Here, the

product fulfills a staging function demonstrating symbols of the position a consumer

possesses or wants to possess. The need for prestige represents, therefore, a

socially-oriented need and is satisfied by a high esteem utility of the product.

The need for self-esteem is based on personal aspiration to consume products which

correspond to and underline own personality. The consumer prefers products by

which means he can identify himself and which embody his values, becoming

symbols of a life position or of an attitude to life which consumer the considers as his

own. This need represents a personally-oriented need of the consumer and is

satisfied by a high edification utility of the product.

According to the given definitions premium and luxury cars are similar in terms of

their higher price than on the volume brand cars which show comparable tangible

functions. The difference between premium and luxury brands and products implies

focus of premium brands on technological excellence, innovation and ability to set

the trends and standards (Rosengarten and Stürmer, 2005, p. 26). However, this

differentiation does not deny importance of emotional and image perception of

premium brands. Moreover, premium in American classification refers to the entry

level of luxury cars (see Appendix 1) and, therefore, more similarities can be

expected in consumer behavior towards premium and luxury cars rather than

differences. When considering luxury products the concept of utility focuses on the

additional utilities which correspond to the fulfillment of socio-psychological needs.

Thus, the concept underestimates the possibility to appeal to a customer by

technological achievements and innovations referred to the basic or functional

utilities according to their definition applied in the concept. For this reason another

approach to explore the perceived product value from the consumer standpoint is

also considered in this work.


44

3.2.2. Perceived product value

According to the extent and the way a product can satisfy individual needs a

consumer perceives the product more or less valuable. From consumer’s standpoint

there are three elements that compose consumer’s overall perception of product

value: the prime value, the labor value and the symbolic value (Karmasin, 1998, p.

249).

Technology and material

Production process and country of origin

Labor Value

Symbolic Value

Psychographic value of the brand

Prime Value

Figure 6: Components of total product value

• Prime value stands for the value of a product determined by its performed

level of technology and materials used.

• Labor value reflects the value of a product resulting from its production

process. In a narrow sense, an applied method of product production is

considered. In a broader sense, the place where a product is made, especially

a country of origin, also belongs to the labor value. Very often consumers

have particular judgements about a product according to its place of

production.

• Symbolic value consists in the emblematic signification of a product.

Predominantly brands embody some signification and the value of a particular

brand results from its anchoring in consumers’ minds.

On automotive market these three types of values, when being added or

strengthened, allow to explain why consumers are ready to pay a higher price for the

premium brand car rather than to buy a volume brand car if both are assumed to be

comparable products in the sense that they fulfill the same tangible functions being

both means of conveyance.


45

Considering prime value of a car, if the product affords innovative technologies that

improve its attributes from the consumer’s standpoint then it increases the perceived

value of the product. These technologies can, for instance, improve comfort, driving

performance or reliability of the car. This is also true for the quality of the materials

used in an auto design, i.e., the use of high-class materials which can be perceived

by the consumer can lead to an increase of the product value from the consumer’s

point of view and, thus, increase his willingness to pay.

Labor value in automotive industry presents a significant component in overall

perceived product value. The origin of a product is an important influencing factor for

the value appeal, especially for products which production is perceived as complex

by consumers. On the automotive market the so called “country-of-origin-effect”

represents an important issue that one must not underestimate (Hausruckinger and

Helm, 1996). For example, often people considering cars produced by German or

Japanese companies already have prejudicial view concerning its high level of

quality. The same occurs regarding different product categories such as, for

example, Swiss watches or Swiss banks, however, in some cases place of origin

may impart negative value to a product. Another source that can also bring additional

labor value is a method of production. In automotive industry it is a particular issue to

explicitly denominate products which have benefit from a special care (e.g.,

handmade finish) in the production process which gives a more noble impression to

the consumer and, thereby, produces a greater value.

The symbolic value of premium brands is stronger than the average, i.e., the one of

volume brands and, moreover, the lower the potential for an increase of the prime

and the labor value, the stronger the symbolic value is. Thus, in relatively simple

product categories such as T-shirts or sunglasses the premium price is essentially

based on the symbolic value. On the contrary, on the automotive market there are

certainly possibilities to increase product value due to technology, quality and

production process. However, the strength of the symbolic value is also undisputed.

An illustration of this is the consumers’ willingness to pay for almost identical cars in a

sense of functionality, equipment, body structure, etc. sold under different brand

names. This reflects the importance of the symbolic value for the general value

appeal of autos (Diez, 2001, p. 8). The strength of the symbolic value is based on six

factors: creative innovation, a clear brand code which enables the brand to


46

differentiate, attractiveness, credibility through authenticity, mastery of the elite codes

and continuity.

Overall, premium nature of premium brands and/or products is based on the above

the average perception of prime, labor and symbolic values by consumers. Thus, the

premium attribute is not an objective feature which comes with the product in itself

but rather a subjective attitude perceived by consumers.

3.2.3. Reasons for purchasing premium cars

Another approach to explain consumer purchasing behavior in the premium car

market described by Diez (2001, p. 14) distinguishes between two types of purchase

reasons, on the one hand, reasons related to the product in itself and to the function

it fulfills and, on the other hand, reasons based on the personal benefit in terms of

image and self-fulfillment which consumer pursues to obtain by owning the product.

Figure 7: Reasons for purchasing premium brand products

Reasons related to the product in itself and to the function it fulfills can be

schematized as follows. Consumers who opt for a premium brand car want to have a

qualitatively high-class product and this because they want to make a profitable

investment, reduce purchase risks or benefit from a technologically and aesthetically

well executed product (or all of these reasons at the same time).


47

• Make a profitable investment:

Premium brand products are often considered as more reliable and more

durable than volume products. And that is particularly true in the car market

where premium brand cars definitely have, for instance, a higher residual

value. Therefore, buying a premium brand car with a higher price is not seen

as a waste but rather as a rational decision based on economic realities.

• Reduce purchase risks:

Purchase of a premium brand car can also be the sign of a search for security.

In the opinion of lots of consumers buying a premium brand car prevents from

technical-qualitative risks as well as social risks as premium brands have

originally a good reputation.

• Benefit from a technologically and aesthetically well executed product:

Premium brand products represent products which received a lot of care from

the car makers during the development phase and, therefore, are sometimes

seen by consumers as works of art and trigger enthusiasm.

Reasons based on the personal profit in terms of image and self-fulfillment, comprise

two main outcomes which consumer obtains with the product ownership. These

outcomes include the pursuit of social prestige and the pursuit of a meaning of life.

These social functions are seen as major purchase reasons in the premium car

market. It corresponds to a consumer’s wish to assert himself in the society and not

to mingle with the crowd.

3.3. The role of society in consumer behavior

3.3.1. Consumer society

Certain tendencies inherent in our modern society make it reasonable and

meaningful to define our society as a consumer society. Firstly, with the world

globalization the market has become saturated with a variety of products where

people being a part of the economic process cannot avoid consumption activities

(Feemers, 1992, p. 15).


48

Secondly, during the period of a dynamic movement between social classes an

earlier accepted traditional system of status is no longer presented in most of the

countries. Thus, the traditional symbols of status like titles, medals, uniforms, etc. are

either lost or maintained rather formally without giving actual prestige value to the

owner within the modern perception of the social status and prestige. With this

tendency people miss the feeling of being certain and secure in their social status,

whereas the human ambition, nevertheless, retains the desire for social classification

where a person can fulfill his ambition to social appreciation and differentiation

(Rinsche, 1961, p. 127; Kluth, 1957, p. 10). Thus, in the period of growing disposable

income and reduction of traditional social boundaries, economic goods attained the

quality of status symbols reflecting individual performance and success as well as

being an instrument for satisfaction of a need for recognition (Rinsche, 1961, p. 129).

Also, the population agglomeration resulted in the relative anonymity of an individual

within the society. For example, the professional performance of an individual is

rarely visible outside the firm. Therefore, individual success and material prosperity of

a person who is anonymous to the majority of his fellow men can be socially effective

only if it becomes outwardly visible (Rinsche, 1961, p. 130).

For these reasons the act of purchase and consumption is no more neutral but a

particular form of social behavior, especially regarding products which have public

resonance, i.e., which have an added benefit of recognition next to their original

intended function. This explains difficulties and the complexion of determination of

consumers’ purchase reasons and motives which are originated from very different

natures and not obviously rational.

A man as a social entity is influenced by his environment what defines the concept of

socialization. Socialization is a process of a mutual influencing between a person and

his fellow men, a process that leads to an acceptance and an adaptation of the social

behavior patterns (Fichter, 1968, p. 23).

3.3.2. A person within the social environment

People are influenced, consciously or not, in their acts and decisions by their

environment, that is, they live in relationship with other fellow men or belong to circles

of people. For example, a person works in a team, can be a part of an association or

a part of a social class. All these circles of people can be defined as groups which


49

have an impact and influence on the life and behavior of a person who belongs to it.

The groups differ from one another according to their size, stability, structure, level of

organization, goals, function and the way they integrate new members (Feemers,

1992, p. 21). Groups bring together people who interact with one another and who

share similarities on essential points. Inside a group there are norms and values

which can be formal or informal but which influence and direct the behavior of the

members. These norms are not motionless, they evolve with the time.

The groups to which a person refers are called reference groups. The norms

established in the group very often include consumption norms. These norms enable

to differentiate members of the group from people who do not belong to this group.

Therefore, when a person wants to be associated with a group, he needs to present

the same attributes as other members. This behavior represents the search for

conformity which can bring the person the recognition of the group and assert his

belonging to the group. The conformity has to be strong but not total so that the

person keeps his individuality. Thus, consumption norms should be considered as a

frame which indicates what kind of products corresponds to the group but the

consumer remains a master of his decision and can demonstrate his individuality

while respecting the norms of his group.

Another type of the influencing circles of groups is called aspiration groups.

Aspiration group is a group to which a person wants to belong. As a result, the

person orients his consumption towards the standards of that group, especially

regarding visible goods. This represents a conspicuous consumption aimed at

gaining the recognition of the society (Wiswede, 1995, p. 324; Beckmeier-Feuerhahn,

1998, p. 133).

3.3.3. Social status

Social status, according to the theory of a social stratum, describes classified

positions in the social hierarchy. The higher the associated appreciation and

recognition of the person’s position by others, the higher his social status (Adlwarth,

1983, p. 36). Since the ‘internal’ characteristics of a person such as intellect, values,

etc. are difficult to evaluate at first sight, the association of a person with a social

status is based on the evaluation of exterior characteristics that are immediately

visible and can be appreciated. Thus, criteria for a social status can be a family

lineage, education, profession, income, standard of living, etc. In most of the


50

developed countries the consistency of status demonstrates a high correlation

between these characteristics of a person. In order to make these characteristics

visible for everyone in the society, the person turns to symbols which stand for

denotation of his social status or the status he strives for.

However, sometimes inconsistency of status may occur when people, for example,

have a high income but have a lower standard of education or are regarded as

having an inferior job. According to the theory of cognitive dissonance, these people

try to compensate their incongruity of status by demonstrating strong and often

overreaching consumer conspicuous behavior (Wiswede, 1973, p. 150). This kind of

behavior explained by status inconsistency is very common in Russia, where the

economic and political situation of the last decade of 20th century gave a lot of

opportunities for rapid enrichment of people who were rather ambitious and very risky

than educated and professionally experienced. A lot of young people of that

generation decided in favor of opened business opportunities rather than education

what caused later a feeling of deficiency of intellectual capital.

Achievement of a high social status is accompanied by obtaining a prestige which is

a person’s respect, reputation and recognition provided from his social environment

(Schuster, 1994, p. 108). Prestige represents a strong social motive which stimulates

the behavior aimed at gaining appreciation by other people (Trommsdorff, 2009, p.

117). Therefore, the motive of prestige influences consumer behavior regarding

noticeable purchases which can be perceived by others.

The prestige value pertains to the products of a high quality or exclusive on account

of their ‘prestige pricing’. Therefore, a person can be recognized and identified as a

member of a certain (high) social class through the prestige value of products or

property he possesses. Prestige value, especially provided by product exclusiveness,

is to a large extent based on and associated with the product positioning. Products

with prestige value stand for symbols of a social status and, therefore, their decisive

characteristics are visibility and comparative and absolute higher price (Veblen,

1981, p. 24). By purchasing premium and luxury goods the consumer aspires to a

higher status and prestige and tries, on the one hand, to distinguish himself from the

lower class and, on the other hand, to belong to the upper class (Mason, 1981, p.

146).


51

After 1900 autos have become a typical example of a status symbol along with

places for vacation, watches, wine, clothes, etc. Since autos are used in the public

area, they can easily be perceived by others in the society, i.e., they represent a

great heraldic product with a high social visibility (Diez, 2001, p. 17). Moreover, the

auto’s brand name is an integrated component which can immediately be seen and

perceived by observers.

3.3.4. Symbols generated by premium brands

As described above, together with the instrumental function premium brand autos

have a social function which enables to provide the consumer, firstly, a social

prestige and, secondly, a sense of life he aspires to.

Brands and, in particular, premium brands can become some kind of objects of

devotion which then represent landmarks in the consumer’s life towards which the

consumer orients his consumption behavior (Lucerna, 1999, p. 359). As soon as the

person can afford this ‘object’ he becomes gratified and gets a sense of

accomplishment in reaching or becoming closer to the way of life he wants to live.

Premium brands generate symbols through which a consumer obtains social prestige

and acknowledgement of his social status. The symbolic meaning can reflect

different aspects of an individual.

• Premium brands as a symbol of wealth and power:

According to their definition, premium brand products are products with prices above

the average and, moreover, relatively high prices. Thus, especially regarding

premium brand autos not everybody can afford them. For this reason premium

brands work as a symbol of wealth and power. The disposal of resources is the

classical basis of social prestige in the modern society which is typically hierarchically

structured (Diez, 2001, p. 18).

• Premium brands as a symbol of taste and connoisseurship:

Other sources of social prestige are taste and connoisseurship. According to

Bourdieu, it implies instead of standing out by the financial well-being a

demonstration to the society that one has a “cultural capital” (Bourdieu, 1982 cited in

Diez, 2001, p. 20). The cultural capital is the ability of a person to stylize his life, to


52

search for aesthetics in every part of his life even in the objects of the everyday life.

Premium brand autos fully refer to the category of products that can provide

aesthetics as their designers try to pay attention to every detail and to make of each

auto a high-class product in terms of quality and design. Connoisseurship results

from taste and can be defined as an ability to differentiate high quality products from

average products. This is a knowledge which only experienced consumers can

usually have what gives them the ‘entrance ticket’ to a selected circle of people and,

thereby, brings respect, recognition, i.e., social prestige.

• Premium brands as a symbol of a lifestyle opened to an experience:

Another source of prestige in the society is the quality of life. By seeking for this

symbol people want to show others that they have a happy life full of success and,

more important, full of experience and adventure. This is demonstrated by the

ostentatious consumption of products with an ‘experience value’ (Schulze, 1992, p.

186). That is, premium brand products, especially autos, represent high-class

products with an orientation towards innovation and performance of features that

have never been seen. Thereby, premium brand products stand for challenge and

creativity and bring the consumer this ‘experience’ image resulting in the acquiring of

social prestige.

3.3.5. Aspirational brands

In consumer marketing a brand or a product is premium, i.e., can command the price

premium in the marketplace over a commodity (volume) brand until it refers to the

category of aspirational brands (or products).

Aspirational brand (or product) means that a large part of its exposure audience

wishes to own it but at present cannot afford it for economical reasons. The exposure

audience includes the audience which wishes to own the brand but can never afford

it and the target audience of the aspirational brand (Figure 8). In its turn, target

audience comprises brand’s aspirational audience and consumption audience.

Aspirational audience represents the part that cannot purchase the brand or the

product today but thinks of itself as having a fair probability of at a certain point in the

future being able to do so. Consumption audience represents the part that already

can afford the brand (or the product) (o. V. 2008).


53

Figure 8: Aspirational brands audience

As a general rule, the smaller the size of the product's consumption audience

compared to the exposure audience, the more the product satisfies the consumer’s

need for conspicuous consumption, and the higher the premium that such a

consumer is prepared to pay. Besides, the larger the ratio of aspirational to

consumption consumers in the target audience, the higher the brand's price premium

is. To keep the premium level of a brand high, the portion of consumption audience

should not exceed 30% of the aspirational audience (o. V. 2008).

Becoming an aspirational brand is important to make it perceived differently from

competitive offerings and, moreover, to acquire consumers’ loyalty which provides

stronger resistance to change purchasing decisions towards competitive brands.

Overall, nowadays, instead of vertical differentiation between social classes, the

society is prone to the horizontal differentiation between various lifestyles which are

in a large extent reflected in the consumer behavior (Schuster, 1994, p.111). People

use the perceived features of consumed products to demonstrate their personality

and lifestyle and expect that the valued product characteristics are projected onto

themselves (Adlwarth, 1983, p. 49). By purchasing premium and luxury goods people

want to benefit from their functional and quality superiority as well as from social

perception of goods which results in social prestige and self-esteem.

Therefore, in order to be successful, premium brands need to provide their

customers, on the one hand, with the high-quality and innovative products and, on

the other hand, with the social prestige. That means that the products must have a

positive resonance among the society and people who own such products should be

associated with the socially perceived attributes of the brand.


54

3.4. Summary

♦ Customer who purchases a premium product is ready to spend more money on it

than he would for a regular product in order to benefit from its premium

superiority.

♦ The progressive saturation of material basic needs causes an increase of the

relative importance of social consumption motives such as striving for prestige

and status.

♦ The total product utility is made of partial, i.e., attribute level utilities.

♦ There are two need categories which refer to the consumption of premium and

luxury products: the need for prestige and need for self-esteem.

♦ From consumer’s standpoint there are three elements that compose consumer’s

overall perception of the product value:

� Prime value stands for the value of a product determined by its performed

level of technology and materials used.

� Labor value reflects the value of a product resulting from its production

process, applied method and place of production.

� Symbolic value consists in the emblematic signification of a product

emphasizing personal status.

♦ Premium attribute is not an objective feature which comes with the product in

itself but rather a subjective attitude towards prime, labor and symbolic values

perceived by consumers.

♦ Personal profit in terms of image and self-fulfillment results in the pursuit of

social prestige and pursuit of a meaning of life. These social functions are

evaluated as major purchase reasons in the premium car market.

♦ The act of purchase and consumption is no more neutral but a particular form of

the social behavior, especially regarding products which have public

resonance, i.e., which have an added benefit of recognition next to their original

intended function.


55

♦ Reference group is a group to which a person belongs. It establishes norms

including consumption norms which enable to differentiate members of the

group from others.

♦ Aspiration group is a group to which a person wants to belong. As a result, the

person orients his consumption towards standards of this group, especially

regarding visible goods. It represents a conspicuous consumption aimed at

gaining recognition of the society.

♦ Together with the instrumental function premium brand autos have the social

function which enables to provide a consumer, firstly, with the social prestige

and, secondly, with the sense of life he aspires to.

♦ Premium brands generate symbols through which a consumer obtains the social

prestige and acknowledgement of his social status.

♦ Premium brand or product refers to the category of aspirational brands or

products which implies that a large part of its exposure audience wishes to own it

but at present cannot afford it for economical reasons.

♦ To be successful, premium brands need to provide their customers with high-

quality and innovative products and with the social prestige.

4. Repertory grid technique within the personal construct psychology

56

II. Methodology


This chapter presents a technique which provides an interpretive research framework

which format of gathered data and its further analysis enables to disclose each

component of the model suggested in the first part of the work. An introduction to

methodology is followed by the personal construct theory underpinning the repertory

grid technique. Afterwards, parts 4.3 and 4.4 provide a basic description of the

technique and its origin and also discuss a solution for some criticism as a result of

various experience of the technique application. Part 4.5 thoroughly describes a

procedure of a grid elicitation considering its numerous variations. Next part provides

different methods for analyzing the data elicited by the technique. It shows how both

qualitative and quantitative approaches can be used. This part ends with the

proposed way of application of existing methods so that a certain synergy effect can

be reached in structuring and presenting the information. The last part 4.7 is devoted

to the questions of reliability and validity of the repertory grid technique and to the

results revealed by its application.

4.1. Introduction to methodology

Individual perception partiality, life stands and experience cause a diversity of

perceptions of an investigated object. Therefore, a problem of describing this specific

psychological reality – subjective picture of the world arises.

For uncovering subjective mental representations with respect to the theoretical

conceptualization, first of all, a proper data collection technique is needed that

enables to extract these underlying, conscious, subconscious and often unconscious

meanings with a minimum of interviewer bias. Besides, a research of cognitions and

underlying meanings requires the use of a methodological technique that would be

able to capture respondents’ mental representations without a bias of predetermined

questions on a questionnaire that may also influence and frame their responses. To

really bring to the surface how people see, interpret and make sense of their worlds

using their own “theories in use”, in their own language and within their own

environment the research needs to go further beyond the supplied and

predetermined questions of a survey instrument (Wright and Cheung, 2007). The


57

whole point, as expressed by Fennell (1985), is that: “at base, the marketer’s task is

not to assess perceived value in objects that already exist but to identify the

antecedents of perceived value so that valuable offerings can be fashioned,

produced and made available for sale” (cited in Saegert and Fennell, 1991).

There are certain limitations in the application of a questionnaire survey. The problem

of impropriety of using this traditional method for solving a whole number of problems

facing researchers is not new. Yadov (1991), famous Russian scientist in sociology

and psychology, emphasizes a list of reasons why a researcher has to refuse

questionnaire survey in favor of methods related to the qualitative paradigm. One of

his statements is that quantitative methods are good to prove already beforehand

formulated hypotheses. But when a research concerns peoples’ conceptions about

complex things and phenomena, their attitudes and motives and etc., the

interpretation of responses based on offered beforehand formulated multiple-choice

questions won’t adequately reflect the whole variety of meanings projected in them.

The researcher induces a respondent to use system of meanings, which can be

partly or even fully not concurrent with the respondent’s one. It should be also taken

into consideration that in different systems of conceptions and relations the same

attitude or the same motive can have opposite meanings. This often causes

misleading interpretations, “noisiness” of investigated components and future

development forecast errors.

The repertory grid (RG) is a cognitive mapping instrument designed to capture

dimensions and a structure of personal meanings. It is aimed at eliciting and

describing the ways in which people give meanings to their experience in their own

terms, in their own language. Its methodology allows a researcher to go deep into

respondents’ theories in use to provide a new insight on how they think and perceive

life experience and things around. The technique implies the qualitative approach for

data collection designed so that gathered data is appropriate for both qualitative and

quantitative analysis methods (Marsden and Littler, 2000a). Therefore, RG

represents a versatile tool where an inquiry design and further applied analysis

methods are very much determined by research objectives.

Studies conducted by means of RG are considered qualitative in a sense that they

are aimed at eliciting and exploring personal meanings rather than to testify

predetermined hypothesis about personal representations. Although theoretically the


58

qualitative approach represents an alternative to the quantitative one, in practical

perspective more and more researchers recognize a significant potential of methods’

complementarity which synthesis can bring new insights into the exploration and

explanation of consumer behavior and consumer motivation (Pincus, 2004). By using

the RG technique in consumer research interpretations and findings can be made by

an application of both qualitative and quantitative analysis methods, however, the

qualitative paradigm on which the technique and the underlying theory are based

needs to be borne in mind.

In this chapter, at first, personal construct theory on which basis the RG technique is

grounded is presented. Afterwards, the RG technique and its consistent qualitative

paradigm are thoroughly discussed.

4.2. Personal construct theory

George A. Kelly developed the repertory grid technique (RGT) (originally ‘The Rep

Test’) as an instrument for elicitation of personal constructs. This technique is derived

directly from Kelly's (1955) personal construct theory (PCT) (see, e.g., Fransella et

al., 2004, p. 1). The PCT is considered to be a predecessor of the cognitive approach

currently dominating the field of clinical and social psychology. Although difficult to

classify, Mahoney's (1991; Mahoney and Gabriel, 1987) idea of considering PCT as

a cognitive constructivist approach seems suitable (Neimeyer and Mahoney, 1995)

because it would respect the phenomenological inclination (Rychlak, 1981) of Kelly's

theory. This definition not only has the advantage of linking PCT to other cognitive

approaches, but it also differentiates it from more rationalistic approaches, which may

not be epistemologically compatible.

Kelly (1955) describes humans as “scientists” whose existence consists essentially of

trying to predict and control events in their environment. A person, as well as a

scientist, develops his individual set of concepts by continuously evaluating and

revaluating own experience. Kelly calls this ‘construction system’ and says that

individuals use it to classify the objects and events in their environment, to interpret

them and to use their own interpretations for understanding, controlling and

predicting the world around them.

People do not go through life without goal or direction, but are constantly and actively

engaged in improving the cognitive system they use to make their predictions


59

(Meyer, 1997). People observe the results of their experiments (they live with the

outcomes of their behavior), they modify their theory (i.e., they change their minds,

and they change themselves), and so the cycle continues (after Fransella et al.,

2004, p. 6). Thus people used to make sense of their material and social

environments as Mick and Buhl (1992) point out: “Philosophers such as Merleau-

Ponty and Sartre and psychologists such as Allport and Kelly have observed that

people structure their goals and means in an effort to create coherence in their lives”.

In contrast to the dominant deterministic theories of consumer behavior, PCT

maintains that a person’s understanding of the world is the result of an active,

constructive process rather than a passive reaction to some external reality

(Mahoney, 1988; Ross and Nisbett, 1991 cited in Marsden and Littler, 2000a).

PCT suggests that this understanding is achieved through the process of contrast

and similarity, what Kelly (1955/1991, Vol.1, p. 51/1991) termed ‘construing’. As

Eden and Jones (1984) explain: “We construe situations by seeking to differentiate

them from others and see them as similar to others; it is only through such a process

that we give meanings to events, that they have significance”.

One of the central assumptions of the theory is that reality and what people make of

it is built up of contrasts rather than absolutes (Jankowicz, 2004, p. 11). Thus, Kelly

emphasizes an important characteristic of process of individual meaning making:

when we separate, name, argue, etc., we are always also aware of an opposite

meaning to what is being actualized at the moment (also in Kelly, 1969).

Similarity and contrast in events or objects that are being observed by an individual

stimulate a creation of his personal classification standards – constructs. By Kelly,

construct represents a basic unit similar to the concept introduced before by

Vygotsky (Vygotsky, 1989; Wertsch, 1985 cited in Shaw and Gaines, 1992).

However, unlike Vygotsky’s notion of concept which reveals from objects some

common characteristic, leaving the difference aside, in the notion of Kelly’s construct

both generalization and difference are presented concurrently. By introducing a

notion of construct, Kelly combines two mental functions – the function of

generalization (i.e., determination of similarity, abstraction) and the function of

contrasting or contraposition.


60

In order to fully understand and properly evaluate the RGT in consumer research it is

important to examine the assumptions of the theory that underpins it.

Figure 9: The assumptive structure of the personal construct theory

Kelly expresses his PCT in the form of a fundamental postulate which is elaborated

by means of eleven corollaries (Kelly, 1955/1991, Vol. 2, p. 4/1991). The corollaries

or clarifying statements extended the theory and added more elaboration to how the

theory impacts and is used (Fisher and Savage, 1999). Figure 9 presents a summary

of the assumptive structure of the PCT.

Kelly's Fundamental Postulate is that: A person's processes are psychologically

channelized by the way in which he anticipates events (Kelly, 1955, p. 46).

A postulate represents an accepted basic assumption on which the rest of the theory

is built. This language is very confusing on first encounter but Kelly selected every

word accurately to fully reflect an underpinning nature of the concept (Atherton,

2007):

‘Person’ indicates that Kelly is referring to the individual person as a whole and

not to any part or processes of the person.

With ‘processes’ Kelly indicates that a person is not an object that is temporary

in a moving state, but is himself a form of motion always making efforts to

understand and always acting on and in the world.

‘Psychologically’ indicates that it’s not about the brain, or culture, but the mind:

it is quite clear about its level of analysis and its “range of convenience”.


61

By ‘channelized’ Kelly points that a person’s behavior takes place in a flexible

and frequently altering network of rather than in a vacuum. This network is

structured what, in turn, facilitates and restricts a person’s range of action.

‘Ways’ indicate that the channels are outcomes of an individual’s own

deliberate choices and, thereby, are set up as means to ends.

With ‘he’ Kelly emphasizes that it is not an ideal or a perfect but rather an

individually chosen way in which the person operates.

‘Anticipates’ denote that PCT is future-oriented. The person is only a product

of memory and learning to the extent he makes use of these in his construct

system. He is a scientist in formulating hypotheses (his constructs) about the

world he perceives, and testing them by acting on them.

By ‘events’ Kelly shows that a person seeks to anticipate real events. That is,

person wants the future reality to be best or better performed.

• Construction Corollary: A person anticipates events by construing their

replications

• Individuality Corollary: Persons differ from each other in their constructions of

events

• Organization Corollary: Each person characteristically evolves for his

convenience in anticipating events, a construction system embracing ordinal

relationships between constructs

• Dichotomy Corollary: A person's construct system is composed of a finite number

of dichotomous constructs

• Choice Corollary: A person chooses for himself that alternative in a dichotomized

construct through which he anticipates the great possibility for the elaboration of

his system.

• Range Corollary: A construct is convenient for the anticipation of a finite range of

events only.


62

• Experience Corollary: A person's construction system varies and he successively

construes the replications of events.

• Modulation Corollary: The variation in a person's construction system is limited by

the permeability of the constructs within whose ranges of convenience the

variants lie.

• Fragmentation Corollary: A person may successively employ a variety of

construction subsystems which are inferentially incompatible with each other.

• Commonality Corollary: To the extent that one person employs a construction of

experience which is similar to that employed by another, his processes are

psychologically similar to those of the other person.

• Sociality Corollary: To the extent that one person construes the construction

processes of another he may play a role in the social process involving the other

person (Kelly, 1955, pp. 50-95).

A detailed explanation of each corollary is not included in this context (see Boeree, o.

J. for detailed explanation of each statement). However, certain corollaries will be

discussed further in chapter within the descriptions and statements made with

respect or built on the corollaries.

4.3. Repertory grid technique: basic description

Grounded in the PCT, the RGT is a widely used method for studying personal and

interpersonal systems of meanings and their organization (Neimeyer, 2002). ‘Grid’ is

a generic term for a number of simple rating-scale procedures. They are all used for

arriving at straightforward descriptions of how a person views the world around him,

or some smaller part of it, in his own terms (Jankowicz, 2004, p. 8). The RG is a

qualitative technique that is often compared with the structured interviewing. Such

type of an interview is often appropriate when the nature and extent of participant

opinions on the researched topic are not known beforehand and cannot be quantified

easily. The technique is no longer inextricably tied to Kelly’s theory of personal

constructs and its use as an analytical tool does not require an acceptance of the

model of man which Kelly proposed (Slater, 1976) However, the terms Kelly used

have become standard (Dillon and McKnight, 1990).


63

The resulting form of the elicitation procedure in whole represents a set of rating

scales printed one above the other, with the ratings arranged in rows and columns

into a table or grid.

E1 E2 E3 E4 Q Em

1 E1, E3, E4 beautiful 2 4 5 1 @ 1 unattractive design

2 E2, E4, Em for business purposes 3 1 4 1 Q 5 for leisure time

Q Q Q

n

ElementsConstruct emergent pole (1) Construct implicit pole (5)Construct № Triad

Table 1: The repertory grid elicitation form

Every grid consists of four main components (Table 1):

• Topic;

• Elements;

• Constructs;

• Ratings.

The basic unit of description and analysis is called a construct. People construe

things by means of constructs. To construe means to make sense of something; to

have a personal understanding of it; to find meaning in it (Jankowicz, 2004, p. 10).

Earlier used expressions ‘viewing the world’ and ‘ways of seeing’ mean construing.

Describing what is meant by a construct is more difficult than describing other

components of RG because construct has properties and Kelly has offered several

definitions of it as well as certain assumptions (Fransella et al., 2004, p. 15). For this

reason, at first, other three components are described followed by a comprehensive

description of the notion of construct.

4.3.1. Topic

A grid is always conducted about a particular topic with an intention of eliciting just

those constructs which the person uses in making sense of that particular field of

discourse, i.e., that particular piece of his experience.

By revealing the constructs a researcher discovers how person thinks and what

meanings he usually distinguishes about a particular topic. The person can possess

many more other constructs about his experience concerning other topics that


64

researcher is not dealing with. Therefore, by filling out a grid on particular topic, only

the related part of a person’s repertoire can be discovered.

RGT allows to disclose and to understand participant’s private language including his

jargons and some terms which he uses when talks on particular topic (Jankowicz,

2004, p. 12). When a number of grids of different people who are clustered in one

group or segment based on a certain criteria is being analyzed, it is important to

reveal common terms, words and phrases that have got entrenched into their

language related to the investigated topic. It allows further to appeal to the group

applying its own jargons and meanings and so making it easier for them to

understand and perceive a message. This can be especially useful when conducting

a market research with a purpose of revealing customers’ needs, motives and

perceptions and then to use it in positioning and communication planning.

“A grid, then, is a highly focused technique, in which the topic must always be clearly

specified in advance.” (Jankowicz, 2004, p. 13)

4.3.2. Elements

Kelly defined elements as ‘the things or events which are abstracted by a construct’

and are seen as one of the ‘formal aspects of a construct’ (Kelly, 1955/1991, Vol.1, p.

95/1991).

As formulated by Jankowicz (2004, p. 13), “an element is an example of, exemplar

of, instance of, sampling of, or occurrence within, a particular topic”. By providing a

set of elements related to a certain topic, researcher stimulates participant’s display

of constructs which he uses to perceive the realm of discourse. Thus, a small sample

of that person’s construing of the world can be studied. A researcher can investigate

the system of constructs of an individual consciousness and get a notion of individual

underlying (unconscious, nonverbalized) constructs. Besides, the researcher can

investigate individual peculiarities in perception of elements, study the relationships

between the elements within individual insight and build up a subjective semantic

space of individual meanings associated with the elements (Fransella et al., 2004, p.

21).

Since elements represent objects of a particular topic, it becomes crucial to choose

the right set of elements in doing a grid because elements that are chosen to present

a given topic will influence the types of elicited constructs and consequently the


65

gained insight into the ‘language’ of the participant in that particular subject matter

(Jankowicz, 2004, p. 13; Fransella et al., 2004, p. 21).

Depending on the topic to be explored by means of RGT, elements that are used can

be almost anything. For instance, if marketers want to find out how people construe

meanings about snack food the elements might be different types of snack food

which fully represent the range of common snacks available or if marketers are

interested in particular list of types, only these types can be represented as elements.

Originally, Kelly’s RGT was developed for use in clinical psychology as a technique

for exploring individuals’ personal constructs about interpersonal relationships in the

context of psychotherapy. He used interpersonal relationships as his context and

developed role-title list providing people as elements. However, the technique has

been further applied extensively to the elicitation of personal constructs for many

other purposes and a wide variety of elements have been used (Steed and

McDonnell, 2003; Fransella et al., 2004, p. 19). Some other examples provided by

Fransella and her colleagues (2004, p. 21) include photographs of people first used

by Bannister (1962), feelings by Fransella and Adams (1966), situations by Fransella

(1972), diseases by Orley and Leff (1972), rooms by Honikman (1976), shops by

Hudson (1974), foreign countries by Lemon (1975), classes of Spirit in Ganda

mythology by Orley (1976), brightly colored stand-up models by Salmon (1976),

architectural maps by Stringer (1974), an artist’s paintings, drawings of different

motion phenomena in physics by Winer and Vázquez-Abad (1997), and perceptions

of different scents by Williams, Whittlestone and Martin (1992). R. Neimeyer (1985)

and further R. Neimeyer and Stewart (1996) used different stages in life which the

person construed as important elements in his ‘biographical grid’. Fransella (1978)

used specially designed elements – a standard body shape altered by an artist to

range from the extreme thinness of the person with anorexia nervosa to extreme

obesity (Fransella et al., 2004, p. 21). There are many more other examples and they

all prove the ability of repertory grid to analyze individual construing system about

very different aspects of personal life and world around.

Three guiding principles that can help and should be considered when selecting the

elements are (Stewart et al., 1981, p. 28):


66

• Elements should be as precise and specific as possible. Imprecise elements

when being compared to produce a construct are likely to induce vagueness

of contrast and, therefore, not enough clear construct.

• A nonuniform scatter over the elements area is acceptable, i.e., elements do

not have to be evenly distributed over the available area.

• When one is interested in the boundary between the elements, both sides of

the bordered area need to be covered by elements. For example, if researcher

is interested in what consumer likes and dislikes in different types of snack

food, elements which person does and does not like should be included.

Moreover, there are several criteria for choosing the right set of elements in a grid

(Stewart et al., 1981, p. 29):

• Elements should be discrete. Most often elements are people, objects, events

or activities – in other words, nouns or verbs. Nouns should be quite specific

and indicate tangible things or subjects, e.g., specific objects or particular

people. Abstract nouns such as “good person” or “leadership” should be

avoided. Verb elements such as events and activities should be defined as

close as possible in space and time. The verbs should be, if possible,

converted into a verbal noun trying to express them as activities, each ending

with ‘-ing’ since it is more user-friendly and easier to handle while presenting

the elements (Jankowicz, 2004, p. 29). For example, instead of “to read” it is

better to offer “reading” or “to offer” should be replaced by “offering”. Loose

descriptions that cannot be specified clearly, such as “thinking” or “negotiating”

- should also be avoided.

• It is also recommended to avoid adjectival and adverbial phrases as elements.

It is better to stick to nouns and verbs or even verbal nouns. Another fault is to

use features of elements as elements, but not elements themselves. It can be

recognized if an ‘opposite’ can be produced to the element. It would show that

things that are used as elements should really emerge during the construct

elicitation phase (Stewart et al., 1981, p. 30).

• Elements should be within the range of convenience of the constructs to be

used. It does not mean that the constructs are already known beforehand


67

when elements are being chosen, but that the context determines the range of

elements which can be reasonably used. When participant discriminates

people, events or objects by means of constructs, he applies these

discriminations only to a limited number of people, events or objects. It is not

needed to have old people in among the elements while conducting a grid

about youth of today because they may appear to be outside the range of

convenience of the youth-of-today type of construct (Fransella et al., 2004, p.

18).

• Elements should be homogeneous. Classes of elements should not be mixed,

i.e., people should not be mixed with things or things with activities and etc.

Yorke (1985) showed that heterogeneous elements are likely to result in range

of convenience problems as well as in decreasing grid validity (Fransella et al.,

2004, p. 19).

• Elements should not be subsets of other elements. That means one element

must not comprise another and the whole set should consist of mutually

exclusive items. It would prove impossible to work with an element set where

one element describes the rest or at least some other elements, for example

set that would include elements: ‘cats’, ‘dogs’, ‘budgerigars’, ‘Siamese’, and

‘German shepherd’ (Jankowicz, 2004, p. 30).

• Elements should not be evaluative. Some elements, especially events or

activities, may contain an implicit evaluative nuance what can make it difficult

to handle them during an interview (Stewart et al., 1981, p. 30). For instance,

elements like ‘leading a team’, or ‘drinking alcoholic beverages’ may be

attached with rather different meanings depending on the understanding what

‘leading’ implies or on the extent of alcohol consumption, i.e., whether it is a

glass of wine during the meal or it is an alcohol addiction.

Described principles and criteria for selecting the elements do not sometimes have to

be all followed. However, only an experienced interviewer, who has gained a good

feeling and intuition for suitable and easily-handled elements, should experiment with

element set kind.


68

4.3.3. Constructs

A construct always represents a contrast and the contrast is needed to be spelled out

before an interviewer can be sure of the meaning intended to the whole construct

(Jankowicz, 2003). Among different formulations Kelly (1955/1991, Vol.1, p. 5/1991)

defines construct as “a way in which two or more things are alike and thereby

different from a third or more things”.

Constructs form the building blocks of our 'personality' and as such come in various

shapes and sizes. According to the Organization corollary some constructs are more

important than others. The most important constructs are those which are “core” to

our sense of being. These are very resistant to change and include things like moral

code, religious beliefs, etc. and cause significant psychological impact if they are

threatened in any way (Fisher and Savage, 1999). The other constructs are called

“peripheral” constructs and a change to them does not have such a strong impact.

Construct theory offers descriptive ways of categorizing constructs, firstly, according

to the type of thinking a person uses to produce a construct and, secondly, according

to the way constructs are interrelated within the construing system (Fransella et al.,

2004, p. 12).

According to the type of thinking a person applies to produce a construct, three types

of constructs can be defined:

• Pre-emptive constructs – constructs that are applied in an all or nothing way.

They provide very black and white type of thinking – if this is a table, then it is

nothing else but just a table (Fransella et al., 2004, p. 12; Fisher and Savage,

1999). Thus, when a person provides pre-emptive constructs he obliges

himself to choose between one of its two poles (alternatives).

• Constellatory constructs – stereotyping constructs – if this is a table, it must be

square, made of wood and located in the kitchen. In other words, the

subordinate constructs are strongly associated with superordinate construct.

Such constructs bring a lot of supplementary baggage with them, no matter

whether it is right or wrong as individual perceptions of elements and

construing system are considered.


69

• Propositional constructs – the most open form of construct which carries no

additional labels or implications. Use of propositional constructs allows people

to construe the elements circumscribed by their constructions in various ways.

Propositional construing represents the opposite of pre-emptive and

constellatory construing.

In terms of the extent to which constructs imply each other within a construing

system, Kelly differentiates between ‘tight’ and ‘loose’ constructs. That is, given

where a person rates an element on one construct, to what extent does that predict

where he will place the same element on other constructs (Smith, 2000).

A loose construct is one which may or may not lead to the same behavior every time

(Fisher and Savage, 1999). This makes a researcher unable to predict the

construer’s actions consistently. On another hand, a tight construct leads to the same

behavior.

According to Kelly (1955), a loose construct system leads to varying predictions,

whereas, a tight construct system leads to unvarying predictions. People who provide

tight construct system obtain firmly held views concerning considered elements.

People mostly start off with loose constructs, trying things out for different

characteristics, seeing what works and what doesn’t. As we move towards the new

we tighten up our construing, narrowing down our experimentation and so we begin

making clearer associations and developing more clearly the 'new' (Fisher and

Savage, 1999). Thus, the essence of Kelly’s argument is that we loosen and then

tighten and then loosen our thinking in a cyclic manner. Our aim is, first of all, to gain

perspective and then become concrete enough to define our themed operationally

and so regain a new perspective. As an example of loose and tight construct

systems, in a very tight system an element perceived as ‘honest’ might also be

perceived as ‘generous’, ‘kind’, ‘intelligent’ and so on. A looser system might allow

the possibility that ‘honest’ people are considered as ‘unkind’ or ‘mean’ (Smith,

2000).

Bieri and colleagues (1966, p. 185) invented a notion of ‘cognitive complexity’ which

is defined as “Qthe capacity to construe social behavior in a multidimensional way. A

more cognitively complex person has available a more differentiated system of

dimensions for perceiving others’ behavior than does a less cognitively complex


70

individual.” Thus, in terms of cognitive complexity the more loosely knitted constructs,

the more cognitively complex the person’s construing system.

4.3.4. Scaling methods

George Kelly, physicist, mathematician and would-be engineer, loved mathematics.

He regarded mathematics as the “purest form of construing” (Hinkle, 1970 cited in

Fransella et al., 2004, p. 1).

After constructs are elicited a question arises which contrast pole of each construct is

being applied by the participant to which element and in what extent (Fransella et al.,

2004, p. 54). “But we can look beyond words. We can study contextsQ The answers

to questions such as these may give us an understanding of the interviewing of the

client’s terminology and provide us with an understanding of his outlook which no

dictionary can offer” (Kelly, 1955/1991, Vol.1, p. 189/1991).

Kelly offered a methodology for deriving a mathematical description of part of a

person’s psychological space. His basic assumption was that a mathematical

relationship between a person’s judgements reflects psychological assumptions

underlying those judgements (Fransella et al., 2004, p. 54).

Mathematical relationships in this context actually represent the structural

relationships between the constructs and the set of elements (Marsden and Littler,

2000a). To examine these relationships various scaling methods are suggested.

Most common, accepted and discussed methods are (Feixas and Alvarez, 1996):

1. Dichotomous method;

2. Ordinal method;

3. Rating scale method (Table 2).

1. The dichotomous method implies placing all the elements on either one pole or

the other of the construct.

In Kelly’s original grid form after having elicited the constructs, to complete the grid

form the person is asked to place a tick under the name of each element to which the

construct applies. The final form of grid then appears in the form of matrix which

consists of a number of ticks and blanks. However, Kelly faced a problem with this


71

kind of grid. A person often would perceive hardly any other element as being

characterized by one pole of the construct. At first, to overcome this difficulty Kelly

suggested to simply eliminate those rows from the grid calculations. This conclusion

didn’t appear to be satisfactory because of losing part of elicited context information

and, so, other approaches to complete repertory grids were developed (Fransella et

al., 2004, p. 55).

E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6

beautiful + - + + - + unattractive

E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6

beautiful 3 6 5 2 4 1 unattractive

E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6

beautiful 5 5 3 4 2 4 unattractive

Rating scale method (rating)

Construct emergent pole (1)Elements

Construct implicit pole (5)

Dichotomous method (dichotomizing)

Ordinal method (ranking)

Construct emergent pole (1)Elements

Construct implicit pole (6)

Construct emergent pole (+) Construct implicit pole (-)Elements

Table 2: Scaling methods used in repertory grid based research

2. The ordinal method implies ordering the elements from one pole of the construct

to the other. This method emerged as an attempt to overcome difficulties presented

in the dichotomous approach (Feixas and Alvarez, 1996).

It was suggested by Phillida Salmon and first described by Bannister (1963) to ask

the person to rank the elements in terms of each personal construct. The task is to

rank all the elements according to how each element is subsumed under the

construct poles. Ranking grids proved to be very popular allowing different forms of

analysis to be applicable such as simple arithmetic or Spearman’s rank order

correlation. However, again they have been found too restrictive because they force

the elements to be uniformly distributed across the construct, not allowing any form

of lopsidedness, even if it is appropriate (Fransella et al., 2004, p. 59).

3. In the rating scale method “each element is assigned a value in a Likert-type

scale delimited by both poles of the constructs” (Feixas and Alvarez, 1996).

Finally, Bannister returned to Kelly’s original method but now using a longer scale

then 2-point scale which Kelly used. In this grid each element is rated on a scale


72

defined by the two construct poles. It is this “rating” method which is much in use

today (Fransella et al., 2004, p. 59).

Now grid allows to identify exactly what the person means when he uses certain

terms in constructs. Thus by rating each element on each construct the person

provides an exact picture of what he has got in mind about the elements and topic in

general (Jankowicz, 2004, p. 14).

The length of the scale can be anything from Kelly’s 2-point scale (tick or blank) to 10

or even 16. Longer scales are seen as providing more scope for people to express

their views and judgements therefore producing more comprehensive data. A

commonly used length is the 5-point or 7-point scales as they also give the mid-point.

According to the conducted researches aimed to find out whether the length of scale

might well affect grid measures, it doesn’t proved to matter greatly what length of

scale is used (Fransella et al., 2004, p. 63).

The rating scale is most widely used and recommended by authors (Jankowicz,

2004; Marsden and Littler, 2000a; Björklund, 2005; Dillon and McKnight, 1990).

More detailed consideration of RG components will be described in 4.5. By now, it

can be resumed that RG is “simply a set of rating scales which uses the individual’s

own constructs as the subject matter on which ratings are carried out” (Jankowicz,

2004, p. 14). One could argue about this definition. There are more different ways of

thinking and defining RG and it also confirms one of the fundamental assumptions

made by Kelly which he called ‘constructive alternativism’ when he developed the

Role Construct Repertory Test (Kelly’s original name of RG interviewing technique).

By this he meant that people construe the same thing differently and also that a

single person always has the option of construing the same thing in different ways on

separate occasions. Therefore, it is also possible to accept a variety of different

definitions of a repertory grid (Jankowicz, 2004, p. 15).

4.4. Application of the repertory grid technique in marketing and other fields

4.4.1. Application experience

Developed within the PCT, the RGT with its various modifications represents a widely

used technique for studying personal and interpersonal systems of meanings.

Because of its flexibility the technique was used for a broad variety of matters,


73

however, its most consistent area of application was probably in the clinical domain

where grids were used to assess the properties of meaning systems of different

groups of persons (e.g., those diagnosed as “thought disordered” or “agoraphobic”)

and how these change over the course of treatment (Neimeyer, 2002).

Among other clinical and non-clinical applications can be mentioned: studying

neurotics by Ryle (1976); magistrates’ decision making by McKnight (1981);

categorization analysis by Coltheart and Evans (1982); job analysis by Hassard

(1988) and application to the domain of human computer interaction, particularly with

respect to elicitation of knowledge in the development of expert systems (Shaw and

Gaines, 1987). This list can be widely extended by names and topics.

Jankowicz (2004, p. 9) provides a comprehensive list of applications in which RG can

be used, mentioning also that the list still doesn’t cover all the applications. His list is

divided into application groups according to the fields where the repertory grid was

used. Applications, in which its developmental and didactic implications are most

profound (Ravenette, 1997 cited in Jankowicz, 2001), include educational,

occupational and clinical applications. He also emphasizes a group of general

applications which contains examples of using RGT mostly concerning interpersonal

relationships and/or exploration of personal meanings and attitudes about different

matters. One example of use which demonstrates the value of technique is in

heightened risk field of bank commercial lending and venture capital investment

decision making which are thoroughly discussed by Jankowicz (see his 2001 for

more detail).

The RGT was also widely employed as a qualitative method in market research,

consumer research and new product development in identifying those attributes of

products which are not self-evident (Frost and Braine, 1967; Hallsworth, 1988 listed

in Marsden and Littler, 2000b; Jankowicz, 1990; Stewart et al., 1981; Jankowicz,

2001; Marsden and Littler, 2000a). RGT procedure enables researchers to

investigate their products, markets and customers allowing to pursue different

research purposes. Most widely pursued objectives in marketing research conducted

by means of RGT are related to capturing market and product perception, i.e.,

learning what customers think about certain products, product categories or group of

products in their own language. Some common objectives of market studies

conducted by means of RGT include investigation of:


74

� How company’s product compares with others.

Customers draw their cognitive map by describing and rating the differences and

similarities between company’s product and its competitors, what allows the

researchers to:

• Define customer’s ideal product and ideal attributes;

• Assign priorities between attributes as well as between different brands;

• Experiment with different scenarios or product packages;

• Reveal whether customers’ view of the product and things they

consider to be important are the same as with those of company’s staff

responsible for product development, promotion and sale.

� How customers experience a certain product.

Customers provide constructs which reflect their experience with a company’s

product and its rivals allowing revelation of critical incidents and defining company’s

competitive edge, especially in the markets with only a few highly competitive

players.

� Specification or design of a new product.

Obtaining customers’ cognitive maps of existing products or services and then

experimenting with ‘what if’ scenarios allows to build a picture of the key features of a

new product and to examine priorities and trade-offs.

� Customer perception tracking.

It can be useful to obtain a database of key customer perceptions in a particular

sector or to track customer perceptions of products over time (o. V., 2007).

� Positioning opportunities of new and existing products.

By identifying dimensions on which consumers evaluate products, marketers can

elaborate the benefits and most important consumers’ attributes.

� Development of accurate distribution strategies


75

Understanding the different ways in which consumers search for products permits to

develop more precise distribution strategies.

� Development of communication strategies

Marketers can design communication programs based on the RGT findings which

incorporate the consumers’ language and vocabulary and therefore increase the

probability of mutual understanding. Besides the complexity levels of consumers’

construct systems can serve as an index to decide on the amount and type of

information that should be presented in communication programs. It is also possible

to link by means of communication strategies product benefits to the important beliefs

and values held by consumers.

� Segmentation

Commonalities in subjective meanings can provide a useful basis for identifying

concrete segments of consumers (Marsden and Littler, 2000b).

Marsden and Littler (2000b) emphasize five basic components of the network of

subjective meanings that consumers attach to their consumption experience which

can be explored by means of RGT. Authors have termed these components as

consumers’ product construct systems (PCSs) which include:

1. Consumption domains: how do customers categorize different products and

services?

2. Decision rules: what search strategies and evaluative criteria are employed for

each category?

3. Values: what core beliefs underpin different decision rules?

4. Construct complexity: how discriminating are consumer’s decision rules and

values?

5. Construct commonalities: what are the similarities and differences in

consumers’ PCSs and how are they mediated by their demographic

backgrounds?


76

Thus, RGT is not new to market research, however, despite a solid amount of market

studies conducted within the application of RGT many studies failed to account for

the diversity and richness of consumer experience because they did not employ the

technique in its entirety and full capacity (Marsden and Littler, 2000b).

4.4.2. Criticism of the applicability of the repertory grid

Despite its relatively widespread use the RGT was constantly attracting much

criticism. Among other issues, it was criticized for generating “utterly valueless” and

“irrelevant” information from consumers (Sampson, 1972; Gordon and Langmaid,

1988 listed in Marsden and Littler, 2000b), for its “inherent complexity” and “slavish

adherence” to the notion of bipolar constructs (Reynolds and Gutman, 1984; Frost,

1982), and for not being based on an “adequate theory” of human behavior (Grunert

et al., 1995).

Thereby, at the beginning of 90s it was agreed that the RGT has “limited use” as a

qualitative method in consumer research (Rice, 1993 cited in Marsden and Littler,

2000a). At that time, in response to this criticism, Chisnall (1992, p. 178) said:

“Further consideration of construct theory in the marketing sphere is called for; the

intellectual attractions of Kellian techniques need to be tested in some length before

they can be expected to win support of practical researches” (cited in Marsden and

Littler, 2000a).

Marsden and Littler (2000a) argue that the reason for a failure of the RGT to reach its

full potential in the field of consumer research appeared from a “limited and

somewhat confused way in which qualitative methods in general have traditionally

been used and evaluated in the field” (confer Murray and Evers, 1989). The authors

(Marsden and Littler, 2000b) emphasize four reasons why the RGT was not used to

its full potential as a qualitative method in market research in general and in

consumer research in particular:

1. In market research RGT was mostly confined to the exploratory stages

because qualitative methods played a secondary role to quantitative methods

(Hunt, 1994). Hence, the way in which the RGT can be applied throughout the

market research process and how its findings can be reported on in their own

right was not adequately addressed (Stewart, 1990).


77

2. Kelly’s PCT which underpins and provides general guidelines for using and

evaluating the RG was largely ignored (Chisnall, 1992). Instead, the RGT was

incorporated into the theoretical framework of what is called the natural

science, or onto the dominant “positivist” paradigm” what resulted in various

operational and conceptual misunderstandings (Marsden and Littler, 2000b;

Fransella et al., 1988).

3. Traditionally the RGT combines an integrated set of elicitation methods which

include triading, laddering and pyramiding. However, these methods were

rarely employed together in any systematic manner (Earl, 1986; Fransella et

al., 1988). Therefore, the RGT was often criticized for incompleteness and

inadequacy of its findings for developing marketing strategy (e.g., Frost, 1982;

Gordon and Langmaid, 1988; Rice, 1993; Sampson, 1972 listed in Marsden

and Littler, 2000b).

4. The RGT was used to explore various structural components of consumers’

subjective meaning systems where each component was often considered in

isolation from one another. The nature of such meaning systems was

assumed to be a simply quantitative sum of their component parts (i.e.,

1+1=2) while later it was argued that the totality of consumers’ meaning

systems is qualitatively different to any of their individual component parts (i.e.,

1+1=3). In this sense, the findings constituted a rather fragmented body of

knowledge in consumer research (Stewart, 1990).

In response to these limitations Marsden and Littler (2000a, 2000b) showed how the

RGT and theory can be employed in market research as a qualitative method in its

own right with its potential usefulness.

4.4.3. Criticism solution

According to Shrivastava (1985), evaluations of the research methods should be

grounded in the assumptions of their underlying paradigm. Personal construct

psychology (PCP) and, respectively, theory derives from the

“interpretive/constructivist” paradigm which assumptions differ from positivist

paradigm regarding the nature of consumer experience and its representation

(Marsden, 1997 cited in Marsden and Littler, 2000a). The traditional positivist

assumption such as the existence of an objective reality which is verifiable and


78

quantifiable is largely irrelevant to the underlying assumptions of the RGT (Marsden

and Littler, 2000a; Highlen and Finley, 1996).

By resuming a solid number of statements and findings related to the PCT and RGT

offered in literature, Marsden and Littler (2000a) provided detailed evidence that

interpretive paradigm is the one the underlying assumptions of PCT and RGT

methodology are consistent with. Hence, further development of the assumptions of

interpretive paradigm is complemented and facilitated by assumptions of PCP by its

emphasis on the process of meaning construction (construing), the structure of

individual and shared meanings (hierarchical bipolar construct systems) and

advocacy of pluralistic methods of investigation (RGT).

Originally, the interpretive paradigm emerged in consumer research in the early

1980s. It was an alternative to deterministic theories such as cognitive, behavioral

and trait which obtained a growing criticism for depicting consumers as passive

organisms simply responding to marketing incentives. Besides, it was also a

response to the criticism of reductionistic methods of inquiry, i.e., quantitative

associated with the positivist paradigm which was criticized for ignoring much of the

complexity and richness of experience (Kassarjian, 1994; Dholakia and Arndt, 1985).

By examining the relationship between the assumptions of PCT and those of the

interpretive paradigm researchers pointed that the PCT is consistent with the

interpretive paradigm’s focus on exploring the psychological processes that people

use to make sense of their material and social environments. Moreover, based on the

process of construing which implies an achievement of understanding through a

process of contrast and similarity, the PCT offers a more integral understanding of

the process of meaning making (Neimeyer, 1993; Marsden and Littler, 2000a).

Another assumption of the PCT that contributes to the further development of

interpretive paradigm is that subjective meanings take the form of bipolar constructs

which are organized into a system of superordinate and subordinate relationships

(Earl, 1986; Droge and Calantone, 1984). The elicitation methods including triading,

laddering up and laddering down or pyramiding which in complex produce

hierarchically organized constructs, when used together are capable of eliciting a

wide range of meanings from participants at different levels of psychological

abstraction, from which fairly holistic representation of consumer experience can be


79

produced (Marsden and Littler, 2000b). Therefore, not only content but also structure

of meanings is considered within PCT which offers a concrete analytical basis for

exploring nature and form of subjective meaning systems (Zinkin and Biswas, 1988).

Interpretive paradigm was criticized for being “solipsistic” because of its focus on the

individual’s subjective consciousness. While some authors argue that interpretations

are highly individualistic and cannot be generally agreed and that any given situation

is going to be interpreted differently by each individual because all people have got

different experiences, the PCT avoids the blame of solipsism by clarifying the

conceptual basis for examining the commonalities between individuals’ subjective

meaning systems (Droge and Calantone, 1984). It assumes the possible similarity

between individuals not in their gained experience but in the way people construe

their experiences (Neimeyer, 1993). Duck (1994, p. 125) maintains that people can

similarly construe their interpretive maps of the world around though having different

experiences. He points out: “psychological similarity is founded on the similar

construction of experience where experience is considered as subjective

interpretation, but not on similarity of experience itself where experience is equated

with events”.

PCT and RGT as interpretive theory and method correspondently are limited in

application for understanding the social context of construing at a macro level of

abstraction and, thus, inadequate for understanding the ideological dimensions of

subjectivity. However, their usefulness for exploring the micro-processes of meaning

construction, interconnection and organization is undoubted (Burkitt, 1991 cited in

Marsden and Littler, 2000a).

Another advantage of PCT which contributes to the development of interpretive

paradigm is a capability of RGT to incorporate both qualitative and quantitative

approaches. It is demonstrated that RGT allows to interleave concept formation, data

collection and qualitative dimensions of analysis throughout the entire research

process. As mentioned before, in consumer research the RGT was often employed

within the dominant positivist paradigm what caused much confusion. The RGT was

applied in the preliminary stages of research prior to the forming of standardized

questionnaires (e.g., Hallsworth, 1988) and it resulted in suspicion of either deceiving

of data contributors or in producing an alienating distance instead of maintaining the

close interpersonal relationship.


80

Since the RGT is diametrically opposed to such objective research strategies it is

suggested to consider the RGT as a ‘participatory exercise’ where researchers and

participants talk ‘with’ but not ‘to’ one another (Fewtrell and O’Connor, 1995).

Interpretive paradigm suggests that researchers should consider the meaning of

phenomena from the consumer’s perspective and this is maintained in the RGT by

focusing on the language as the medium of psychological inquiry (Ozanne and

Anderson, 1989).

The RGT avoids the criticism of an adherence to “incommensurable thesis” which

means mutual exclusiveness of different theories and methods such as, for instance,

qualitative and quantitative (Heath, 1992; Kavanagh, 1994). The potential of

supplement of different methods has been increasingly recognized and RGT has

become more attractive for incorporating the virtues of both approaches.

Overall, it is proved that RGT and PCT offer a potentially useful approach to

conducting qualitative market research. However, it is also concluded that “their full

implications for marketing strategy will only be fully realized along with their further

elaboration and refinement at both the theoretical and methodological methods”

(Marsden and Littler, 2000b).

4.5. Repertory grid technique: elicitation procedure

Kelly developed the RGT as a way by which individual’s construction systems can be

uncovered and enables a researcher to obtain a mental map of how a participant

views the world.

The technique represents a content-free procedure for exploring and forming

personal constructs. The assumption underlying the technique is that people can

represent their experiences, i.e., the situations with which they are faced, by placing

alternative constructions upon them. A grid conversation encourages a person to

make it clear what for him distinguished one experience from another (Steed and

McDonnell, 2003).

The grid is not so much a test but rather a methodology involving highly flexible

techniques and variable applications. What all applications have in common is their

seeking to understand how people impose meaning in their worlds (Solas, 1991).

The grid can be used for various purposes but only one purpose at a time can

prevail. A researcher must first decide on the topic according to his purpose for doing


81

a grid. An example of a completed RG is shown in Table 3. Subsequent sections

describe elicitation of a grid and its components by various procedures.

Topic: Computers I might buy for my work

Elements: 4 different computers and 1 generalized image of 'my ideal' computer

Constructs: 7 constructs elicited from the buyer and 1 construct supplied by the interviewer

Ratings: on a 5-point scale

emergent pole (1) PC Mac G3 iMac G4 eMac Ideal implicit pole (5)

Looks boxy and 'standard' 1 2 5 4 5 The looks are to die for

Large range of software 1 2 4 2 1 Smaller range of software

Slow performer 1 3 5 2 5 Fast

Easy to set up 5 1 1 2 1 Difficult to set up

Good build quality 5 2 1 3 1 Flimsy build

Easy to upgrade 2 3 1 1 1 Upgrade is a dealer job

Difficult to move 1 1 4 5 5 Transportable

Appropriate for my work 5 4 1 2 1 Doesn't fit properly

Table 3: An example of an elicited repertory grid

The procedure of RG elicitation basically consists of two main phases: knowledge

elicitation phase and rating grid or element comparison phase. In turn, knowledge

elicitation phase comprises two stages: element selection and then construct

elicitation (Marsden and Littler, 2000a).

4.5.1. Knowledge elicitation phase: element selection

Representing the topic which is an inquiry focus a research, the first stage in applying

the RGT is to choose a set of elements which are consistent with the objectives of

the research and the targeted (sub)system of constructs to be elicited from

participants (Stewart et al., 1981, p. 32).

There are 3 strategies for element selection (Stewart et al., 1981, p. 32):

1. Interviewer provides all or some part of the elements.

Interviewer chooses the elements based on his own knowledge, experience and

reason for doing the grid. This strategy can be used when interviewer needs

certain elements to be presented in a grid to perceive individual meanings and

judgements specifically about them. However, if it happens that the participant is

not familiar with provided elements, the value of the interview will be reduced.

Another problem may appear when part of the elements is provided by the

interviewer. In this case, the respondent may consider them as more important or


82

interesting for the interviewer what may result in bias of his judgements (Stewart

et al., 1981, p. 32). Supplying elements may also run the risk of omitting elements

which are important to the interviewee (Jankowicz, 2004, p. 30).

However, very often it can be valuable to work with supplied elements when only

one or two are provided as additional to elicited ones. This permits a comparison

of how the interviewee construes elements he has provided with these key

elements. The most common key elements of this kind are ‘self’ and ‘ideal self’.

By making the interviewee rating himself on the constructs, it can be revealed

where his personal actual and desirable images are among the elements being

construed.

The ‘self’ or the ‘ideal self’ elements do not need to be related to the individual

person’s actual self, current or ideal. If a person is considering different jobs

elements could usefully include “my current job” and “my ideal job”. A customer

choosing between different autos as elements could have ‘my current auto’ and

‘my ideal auto’ as elements (Jankowicz, 2001). Therefore, ‘self’ elements

represent individual perceptions and images of what respondent actually has or

wants when talking about things, events or people enclosed in the elements set.

Although being provided, ‘self’ elements avoid the problem of unfamiliarity of

elements to the respondent. Usage of such key elements permits to significantly

extend the findings from further analyses. For instance, ratings of the ‘ideal’

element allow to discover which element is closest to the ideal and which

construct poles are preferable (Jankowicz, 2004, p. 58).

2. Respondent generates the list of elements himself.

Once the interviewer explained to the respondent what class of elements is

wanted and on which matter, the respondent names the elements himself what

ensures that the topic is represented from respondent’s point of view. The

disadvantage of this strategy is that participant’s responses will have a definite

bias with regard to those elements he personally values little, Thus he may omit

elements and, hence, issues that the interviewer is interested in (Jankowicz,

2004, p. 11; Stewart et al., 1981, p. 33).

3. Interviewer elicits elements.

The interviewer provides general categories which cover the range of the topic

and formulates questions based on the categories, answers to which appear as


83

elements. On the one hand, the respondent names the elements himself and,

hence, is familiar with them. On the other hand, the interviewer by providing the

categories and directing the choice by his questions reveals elements that are

interesting for him from the light of the respondent’s prism.

This strategy has a significant advantage of enabling to offer the same categories

of elements to a sample of respondents. Although each of them will be

considering different named instances, the existence of common categories helps

in analyzing the grids as a set (Jankowicz, 2004, p. 32) and, therefore, allows

comparison of perceptions and meanings within the group of people.

In Kelly’s generalised variant of his original Role Construct Repertory Test the third

strategy with elicited-element form was applied. He used twenty four standard

categories that he found useful in his clinical work (Stewart et al., 1981, p. 35).

Once the suitable set of elements is defined it is time to specify the constructs.

4.5.2. Knowledge elicitation phase: construct elicitation

Constructs represent individual scales that a person uses when thinking about the

elements, where poles of a construct represent scale limits. There are many ways for

eliciting constructs depending on purpose of the research, the nature of elements,

the amount of respondents and type of analysis to be applied further. A

comprehensive review of different approaches of construct elicitation is presented by

Epting, Probert and Pittman (1993).

A construct is a way in which some things are construed as being alike and yet

different from others. Therefore, it is essential in the nature of the construct that it is

bipolar (Steed and McDonnell, 2003). The bipolar form implies a construct to be

composed of two poles, emergent or similarity pole and implicit or differentiation pole.

The poles present a pair of contrast descriptors in their own right, rather than of a

phrase and its dictionary opposite. When an assertion and its bare, grammatical

negative are stated it cannot be considered as a construct because it does not

actually provide an indication of what is meant by the similarity pole (Jankowicz,

2001). Therefore, it is essential for investigator to reveal both ends of the construct

equally clear, what usually means avoiding attaching a simple negation to the

similarity pole (Stewart et al., 1981, p. 16).

The researcher has to decide first whether to provide a list of previously determined

constructs or to elicit them directly from respondent. Although both options can be


84

performed in RGT, the fundamental definition of the RG assume that researcher aims

at eliciting the respondent’s own constructs which reflect own meanings (Jankowicz,

2004, p. 56). This represents probably the greatest value of the technique and should

be pursued when applying RGT to benefit from its full capacity.

Rarely appears to be enough to use only suggested or supplied constructs. For

example, if the researcher provides the constructs for the study, then it is likely that

his interest lies in discovering commonalities between the ways people evaluate

elements on certain dimensions. Even in such case of supplying constructs, authors

still recommend carrying out a series of pilot studies involving free elicitation of

constructs in order to facilitate the selection of the most representative ones (see

Neimeyer, 1993 for review). Further, in 4.5.2.3, the issue about reasonability for

partly supplying constructs for particular objective is discussed. Here the context is

stressed on the basic procedure of construct elicitation.

4.5.2.1. Construct elicitation approaches

Two approaches to construct elicitation are common in the personal construct

literature: dyadic elicitation and triadic elicitation (Caputi and Reddy, 1999).

The dyadic elicitation implies consideration of two elements at a time. The

interviewee is asked to specify how the two elements are alike or different in some

particular way. If the two elements are perceived to be similar, the contrasting pole is

determined by considering remaining elements from the elements set, identifying an

element which is different from the considered pair and describing the difference

(Caputi and Reddy, 1999).

In triadic elicitation the interviewee is presented with three elements from the

elements set at a time. He is then asked to specify some important way in which two

of the three elements are alike and thereby different from the third. A word or phrase

may be used to represent first the similarity which forms an emergent pole. The

respondent then generates a contrast, i.e., implicit pole by stating the difference of

two elements from the third one (Caputi and Reddy, 1999). Therefore, the construct

elicited appears to be strongly determined by the particular triad.

Grids employing dyadic elicitation tend to provide lower ordination scores, more

functionally independent constructs, and lower level of cognitive complexity than

grids using triadic elicitation (Caputi and Keynes, 2001).


85

By using dyadic approach the elicited grids do not reflect the full complexity and

variety of constructs potentially available. This approach works well where the basic

triadic procedure is too difficult and confusing for the interviewee, as in working with

children under 10 to 12 years of age (Salmon, 1976), individuals with learning

difficulties (Barton, Walton and Rowe, 1976) and the deaf (Baillie-Grohman, 1975).

However, if the triadic procedure can be used adequately, it is suggested to do so

(Jankowicz, 2004, p. 53; Fransella et al., 2004, p. 28).

The implicit pole of the construct can also be elicited in two different ways: with an

opposite method or with a difference method. Each method can be used in both,

dyadic and triadic elicitation approaches.

In difference method the contrast pole appears from the comparison of two similar

elements with the third element of the triad or, in case of dyadic elicitation, from

comparison of two elements if they appear to be different for respondent or from

comparison of similar elements with one of the remaining elements in a set. Anyway,

in difference method contrast pole emerges by discovering the difference between

the elements.

In opposite method contrast pole is elicited by asking the opposite of the word or

phrase expressed in the initially elicited emergent pole (Fransella et al., 2004, p. 28).

• Triadic difference: implies presenting three elements at a time and asking

“How are two alike in some way, but different from the third?”

• Triadic opposite: implies presenting three elements at a time and asking “How

are two alike in some way?” followed by “What is the opposite of that?”

• Dyadic difference: presenting two elements and asking “How are these two

alike or different?” If a difference is given, this is taken to be a contrast pole of

the construct. If a similarity is given, the person is asked to find among

remaining elements one that would represent a difference.

• Dyadic opposite: presenting two elements and asking “How are these two

alike or different?” If a difference is reported, this specifies the two poles of the

construct. If a similarity is reported, the person is asked for the opposite of that

similarity (Fransella et al., 2004, p. 30).

Kelly’s original method utilized a triadic difference elicitation procedure. This method

produces constructs that are less functionally independent and more meaningful in


86

that they are better able to discriminate among discussed elements. The construct

sets revealed by this method are more cognitively complex (Caputi and Reddy,

1999).

Hagans, Neimeyer and Goodholm (2000) pointed out that when using the triadic

opposite method the contrast pole may not directly apply to any of the elements in

the grid but the similarity pole was elicited under condition of presence of the third

element. Therefore, “the third element may well play a part in the verbal label

elicited”. However, an important consideration, further provided by Hagans and his

colleagues (Hagans et al., 2000) is that asking for the ‘opposite’ of the elicited

similarity pole produces more extreme ratings, i.e. more highly polarized constructs

than if a person states how the third element in the triad is different from other two.

For example, if the opposite to beautiful is not so attractive the person can give an

extreme rating, e.g., ‘5’ regarding the car he is not really attracted to. But if the

opposite is ugly the rating could only be ‘3’. Providing opposites may produce

construct poles that are too negative to be applied to the elements. The consequence

is that a greater number of elements are assigned to a single pole of the construct,

thereby decreasing differentiation of elements along constructs and provoking an

artificial deflation of differentiation measures (Hagans et al., 2000).

Another important consideration with regard to both the triadic and dyadic opposite

methods is that their instructions to produce an ‘opposite’ allow the possibility that the

third element or at least one element in the full element set is not applicable to the

construct and may fall outside the range of convenience of the construct. In contrast,

both triadic and dyadic difference methods require that the contrast pole is developed

from, and therefore applicable to, at least one element in the grid (Hagans et al.,

2000).

Based on obtained evidence (see Hagans et al., 2000; Caputi and Reddy, 1999) it is

not yet possible to advocate on behalf of any one preferred form of repertory grid

procedure. However, researchers need to be aware that application of opposite

methods of personal construct elicitation may cause development of a greater

number of positive emergent poles, more extreme, negative contrast poles, and

significantly lower levels of construct system differentiation.

According to Hagans, Neimeyer and Goodholm (2000), the triadic difference method

represents traditional, most frequently used method for construct elicitation applied

within the RGT.


87

Kelly offered six assumptions that underlie his original Role Construct Repertory Test

but which are equally applicable to subsequent grid modifications and to construct

elicitation in general (cited in Fransella et al., 2004, p. 23):

• The elicited constructs should be permeable. This means that each elicited

construct can be applied by the respondent to all other elements from the set

besides the three ones from which the construct was elicited.

• Pre-existing constructs should be elicited. It is assumed that there is a certain

remaining degree of permanence in the constructs elicited and it rarely

happens when respondent produces a new (for himself) meaning and,

therefore, construct during the process of elicitation.

• The verbal labels attached to the constructs should be communicable. The

interviewer should have some reasonably accurate idea of what the

respondent intends.

Other three assumptions were made regarding using people as elements. However,

essential ideas should be suitable for other grids.

• The construct should represent the respondent’s understanding regardless of

the judgement whether it is right or wrong from other people’s point of view.

• The constructs elicited should be explicitly bipolar. By stating what a thing or a

person is, respondent is also saying that which it or he is not.

• People should not dissociate themselves entirely from the elements or from

the constructs elicited. They must be able to see themselves somewhere

along the construct dimensions.

Although the last assumption relates only to the case when people are used as

elements, it can be resumed that respondents should not provide objectivism but

rather subjectivism by seeing themselves and their personal perceptions and

attitudes related to the discussed subject matter.

The following description of RG elicitation procedure is focused on the approaches

and methods that are most appropriate with respect to the current research

objectives and, therefore, applied in this work. Description of further numerous

modifications of grid usage depending on its objectives and field of research can be

found in literature (e.g., Fransella et al., 2004; Jankowicz, 2004).


88

In the context of this study Kelly’s original triadic difference method of elicitation is

applied. To make sense from similarity and contrast bearing in mind that constructs

are dichotomous an interviewee needs to consider three elements at a time and so

provide two contrasting or dichotomous poles of a construct.

Practically, it is proved to be easier and friendlier to think and compare elements

when each element is written on a separate card. Respondent is presented with

appropriate three cards at a time, laid out in a triangle to provide one construct. Many

people find it helpful to think about the constructs if they have something tangible to

move around on a table (Jankowicz, 2004, p. 33; Eden and Jones, 1984).

Respondents are expected to produce one construct per triad. However, sometimes

a person may produce several constructs from one triad by reorganizing the three

elements in different contrasts (Dillon and McKnight, 1990). This need should not be

discouraged. Although the process normally continues by offering further selected

triads, this process is, indeed, designed to help articulation and provide the analyst

with a sense of order rather than being a rigid method (Eden and Jones, 1984).

The amount and sequence of selected triads is an important issue when talking

about grid reliability. Triads should be selected either randomly or according to a

reasonably determined consequence. It is also important that a person considers all

of the elements at one time or another.

The number of constructs to be elicited depends on the research.

The procedure depends on the purpose, given time for interview and whether further

analysis to be conducted within a single grid or within several grids. When time for

interviewing is not limited and the purpose of investigation is to obtain an in-depth

detailed view of a single person, the researcher is aimed at more information and

would provide all possible combinations of elements revealing maximum constructs

and living all of them even if there is a potential overlap and some constructs seem

very similar (Jankowicz, 2004, p. 45). All this is done in order to reach as full picture

of personal construing capturing his tacit knowledge as possible. In these conditions

the RG elicitation procedure is relative free and elicited information and details

depend a lot on the negotiation between interviewer and interviewee.

Thereby, sometimes constructs are elicited by considering different triads until no

more constructs seem to be emerging, for instance, when constructs start to repeat

or if the respondent cannot supply any more constructs (e.g., Steed and McDonnell,


89

2003; Eden and Jones, 1984). However, the researcher has to be careful with

recognizing among simple repeats those meanings that bare a certain importance to

the respondent. It was found from an experiment that people repeat some constructs

because they are important to them. In the test people were allowed to repeat

constructs and then to rate the constructs in terms of importance. As a result, the

repeated constructs were rated more highly signifying their higher importance

(Fransella et al., 2004, p. 46).

However, when several grids are to be analyzed together or in order to compare

single grids assessment methods often require same amount of constructs and,

moreover, constructs should be elicited from the same set of triadic combinations.

This not only increases the validity and reliability of findings but also allows for

additional inferences regarding, for example, ways people differentiate same

elements.

4.5.2.2. Construct specification

According to the “Organization Corollary” of Kelly’s PCT personal constructs do not

operate in isolation from each other but form an integrated construction system

containing ordinal relationships between constructs (Jankowicz, 2004, p. 186) Thus,

elicitation of knowledge implies both eliciting the content as well as the hierarchical

structure of the subjective meanings that people attach to the set of elements. It is

essential to expose as much of this construction as it is necessary for the purpose of

an interview.

By using the RGT individual's constructs can be elicited at different levels of

psychological abstraction. Four interviewing procedures designed for this purpose

are triading, laddering down, pyramiding and laddering up (Banister et al., 1994).

Bipolar constructs elicited through triading by asking a person how two elements of a

triad are alike and different from the third can be stated in more or less detail – in

rather abstract terms or in very precise terms (Jankowicz, 2004, p. 64). However, “a

‘good’ construct is also one which is appropriately detailed” (Jankowicz, 2004, p. 33).

The interviewer has to reveal the real respondent’s meanings attached to expressed

labels.

Two procedures which take the person either ‘up’ a ladder or ‘down’ a ladder allow to

elicit the more abstract values or, in contrast, more concrete meanings associated


90

with constructs obtained from triading (Marsden and Littler, 2000a; Fransella et al.,

2004, p. 44).

Laddering down provides an opportunity to make a person express the construct in

sufficient additional detail so that interviewer understands the intended meaning as

precisely as possible. After the respondent stated a construct he is asked “how do

you mean?” or “what do you mean?” to encourage him to express each pole of the

original construct in greater detail being more explicit about the content involved

(Jankowicz, 2004, p. 64).

The interviewer always has a choice: whether to accept the originally expressed

construct or whether to ladder the person ‘down’ to look for more detail. Sometimes

people may provide constructs which are actually clichés. This can happen when a

person has never thought about the discussed issue before. Therefore, the clichés

may reflect insufficient consideration and don’t represent interviewee’s actual view.

However, they might also represent his views precisely. Also what may seem

superficial or vague to the interviewer may appear to be neither superficial nor vague

to the respondent. Free-flow discussion, interviewer’s own empathy and sensitivity as

well as awareness of respondent’s background, experience, vocabulary, etc. can be

helpful during elicitation and interpretation of personal meanings (Jankowicz, 2004, p.

34; Fransella and Bannister, 1997).

The procedure of revealing clear, operationally defined, non-clichéd constructs can

be conducted differently depending on the topic of the grid or on the circumstances in

which the topic is investigated. If the interviewer needs to identify constructs at a

detailed level he would use simple laddering down procedure. Practically this is done

by asking the question “how” or “what” first about the emergent pole and then

providing the same question about the implicit pole of the original construct.

Laddering down is used to express the construct more precisely.

Sometimes it is needed to investigate the variety of a person’s construing i.e., the

range of person’s points of view. In this case an alternative to laddering down

procedure called ‘pyramiding’ is used.

Pyramiding was suggested by Landfield (1971) and implies elicitation of increasing

subordinate constructs from the original one. The person is first asked the question

“how” or “what” about the emergent pole of the original construct. Then he needs to

state opposite or contrast to the just expressed pole. Afterwards, the same procedure


91

is done regarding the implicit pole of the original construct. The shape of the

gathered data structure at the end reminds a pyramid, where each pole of

superordinate construct is expanded by the subordinate bipolar construct (Jankowicz,

2004, p. 67; Fransella et al., 2004, p. 43).

To summarize, the main difference between laddering down and pyramiding

procedures lies in the purpose of constructs specification. In laddering down the

superordinate-subordinate relationship between constructs is described by seeking

ever-more specific ways of expressing constructs. Whereas in pyramiding this

relationship is elaborated in ever-expanding detail by examining and expanding on

each pole separately (Jankowicz, 2004, p. 66)

In the current study laddering down technique was appropriate to be used in the

interviews. Very often it was needed to understand the meanings attached to some

expressions or jargons used by respondents. Therefore, the concern was to get a

clear, operationally defined and non-clichéd construct.

Pyramiding was less appropriate because of time consuming and the fact that

respondents represent intellectual, self conscious and determined people who are

able to clearly express their meanings which are enough determined and precise.

Laddering up is in a sense an opposite of laddering down or pyramiding. The

procedure is designed to elicit superordinate constructs. Hence, when laddered

down, constructs are more precise and detailed, whereas when laddered up, the

interviewer arrives at more abstract meanings associated with original constructs

(Jankowicz, 2004, p. 186; Marsden and Littler, 2000a).

Laddering up technique is developed for eliciting means and ends, i.e., mental

representations of higher levels of abstraction than constructs. In order to keep up

with the sequence of the elicitation procedure, laddering up procedure is described

further (4.5.4.1) as it enables to reach personal values (Jankowicz, 2004, p.188) from

some of the elicited constructs selected after elements are rated on all of the

constructs.

4.5.2.3. Elicited and supplied constructs

The repertory grid procedure fundamentally assumes elicitation of interviewee’s own

constructs. However, the purpose of the procedure is to understand how the person

construes the topic in question. One issue that emerged in grid usage is whether or

not supplied constructs give the same disclosure of the matter as elicited constructs.


92

For some purposes it can be useful to supply interviewee with constructs, at least in

part in order to enhance an extent of complexity and richness of interview (Fransella

et al., 2004, p. 46). For example, the interviewer needs to find out how interviewee’s

own constructs relate to some other construct which may not be in the interviewee’s

repertoire but which is still important to the interviewer. Interviewer may provide a

construct to see which of the interviewee’s constructs are used in a similar way, i.e.,

are rated the same way (Jankowicz, 2004, p. 56).

However, the interviewer may face a problem when the supplied construct appear

meaningless to the interviewee. By providing a construct an interviewer is supplying

a verbal label to which the person will attach his personal construct. Provided

construct labels may range from those that are identical with constructs used by the

interviewee to constructs that are nonsense to him. As example for the later may be

constructs with verbal labels in a foreign language, or from specialized field

containing jargons. Therefore, it is important to bear in mind when supplying a

construct that the labels should be meaningful to a person.

According to Kelly’s Individuality Corollary “persons differ from each other in their

construction of events” what implies that constructs are personal in the sense that the

person is able to attribute them to events and make something of them. Elicited own

constructs may appear not as useful for an interviewer as constructs he could have

provided himself, but he can usually make some sense of them (Fransella et al.,

2004, p. 46).

The matter of elicited versus supplied constructs attracted a substantial research

attention. Some researches provided evidence that although supplied constructs,

selected in a proper way, can be meaningful to other people, own personal

constructs are more meaningful and useful. Assuming that the more meaningful and

important the construct is the more extremely people rate it, Bonarius (1977) showed

that people provide more extreme ratings on constructs elicited from them than on

supplied constructs. It was also showed that elicited constructs produce more

differentiation or cognitive complexity (for review of some studies see Neimeyer,

1992).

The research conducted within this study is aimed, among others, at discovering

personal meanings and revealing expressions which customers use when talking

about the discussed matter. Therefore, most of the constructs were elicited from

respondents.


93

However, two so called “overall” constructs were supplied in order to apply further a

certain kind of content analysis developed by Honey (1979). Overall construct implies

obtaining respondent’s ‘overall summary’ on the topic in question by asking him to

provide ratings on a construct which summarises his overall view on the discussed

topic (Jankowicz, 2004, p. 56). For example, if a grid is designed to explore

consumers’ perception of a variety of refreshing beverages in order to make

improvements in taste, the grid might involve a supplied construct which assessed

the extent to which they slaked their thirst: ‘overall, I fully slaked my thirst – overall, I

did not satisfy my thirst’.

Honey’s content analysis justifies an enclosure of supplied constructs but the

purpose of its providing implies possibility to make additional inferences about

elicited constructs, their interrelations and relation to the topic rather than elicitation

of personal meanings. Thus, Honey did not suggest to use supplied construct instead

of elicited ones but to add one or two supplied constructs in addition to the elicited to

expand the variety of findings available from analysis of RG data. Honey’s content

analysis is described further in the chapter devoted to the analysis methods applied

for RG data (see 4.6.1.3).

4.5.3. Rating grid or element comparison phase

Once a representative lists of elements and constructs are obtained the next phase is

the construction of a grid, i.e., a matrix of elements and constructs. The elements are

placed vertically on the top half of the grid and constitute the columns. The constructs

are placed horizontally so that on the left side of the grid the emergent poles and on

the right side of the grid the implicit poles of constructs are placed. Thereby,

constructs constitute the rows of the grid. The arrangement corresponds to the RGT

implication where each construct can be related to every element via a rating scale.

Therefore, it is necessary that all the elements fall within the range of convenience of

the constructs (Feixas and Alvarez, 1996).

As soon as columns and rows of the grid are attributed with meanings, participants

are asked to rate all elements in terms of each construct (Cassell et al., 2000).

Each participant is introduced to the idea that the bipolar constructs should be

considered as the two ends of a rating scale (Fransella et al., 2004, p. 59). The end

of the construct which describes the similarity, i.e., emergent pole should be written

down on the left and the rating assigned to this pole on a 1-5 point scale is ‘1’. The


94

contrasting end, i.e., implicit pole is written on the right with a ‘5’ rating assigned

(Jankowicz, 2004, p. 48).

It was discussed in 4.3.4 that it does not appear to matter greatly what length of scale

should be used. However, it is suggested to use scale containing a mid-point as

neutral. This is supported by numerous applications of repertory grid using ‘5’ or ‘7’

point scales (e.g., Jankowicz, 2004, p. 37; Fransella et al., 2004, p. 63; Marsden and

Littler, 2000a; Björklund, 2005). In the current study ‘5’ point scale is used, therefore,

further descriptions regard to this length of scale.

Several issues may arise when asking for ratings.

The first issue namely ‘direction’ of rating is whether each construct should be rated

on all elements in turn, as Kelly first suggested, or whether each element should be

rated on all constructs in turn. However, at the present time there is no consistent

evidence that the direction of rating affects grid measures. Hence, it is suggested to

follow Kelly’s chosen way of rating each construct on all elements before moving to

the next construct (Fransella et al., 2004, p. 64). This way also seems more

meaningful from the point that respondent rather compares elements on different

dimensions than simply evaluates each element on those dimensions. This is

followed from the initial procedure of the triadic or dyadic elicitation where constructs

are elicited by comparison of three or two elements respectively.

Second consideration is whether it would make sense and would be more friendly for

a respondent if the left end of the construct is the one that positively evaluated and

the right end is with a negative contrast. It sounds right until a construct has a clear

positively and negatively evaluated end, for example ‘nasty versus nice’ or ‘evil

versus good’. However, not all constructs do have such clear ends and it is hard to

judge which end is better, e.g., ‘light versus dark’ or ‘speedy versus calm’. Also,

sometimes, one end can be slightly better, but only a little, and vice versa. This can

lead to enormous confusion during constructs analysis. Thereby, the form of

recording should always follow the rule ‘emergent on the left, and implicit on the

right’, regardless of ‘which way round is positively evaluated’ (Jankowicz, 2004, p.

48).

Third consideration arises when a construct does not apply to all of the elements

from the element set. How this should be handled in order to conduct further analysis

properly, especially, when a certain software is used which is not able to cope with


95

missing ratings? Researcher’s task is to let the interviewee express his meanings as

precisely as possible and when he cannot provide a rating on a particular element,

the researcher should not insist on a rating. Otherwise, it would deform the intended

meaning. It is suggested to leave the cell blank without any rating. However, if the

software is used which demands the ratings in each cell of the grid the least damage

would be to put a neutral mid-point rating (Jankowicz, 2004, p. 49).

Fourth issue concerns the turn in which the elements should be rated on a construct.

That is, whether interviewer should always ask for the ratings of the elements in the

triad first, before getting the ratings of the remaining elements or whether to simply

run along the row each time. Jankowicz (2004, p. 47) suggests that, at first, elements

from the triad should be rated and then remaining elements. He finds it more logical

to the interviewee and simplifies the recording for unpracticed interviewer. Still, he

admits that both ways are acceptable.

During conduction of the current study it was assumed that when first asking the

respondent to rate the elements from the triad it is likely that respondent would

assign extreme ratings to the elements, especially to the element which differs from

other two. However, during the rating of remaining elements there could be elements

which he would rate more extremely than the one from the triad but, by that moment,

he would already used the most extreme rating. To avoid this confusion, the way of

rating along the row was applied. By obtained results it is seen that very often

elements from a triad were rated less extremely than remaining ones, although still

without reversing the ratings unintentionally.

Sometimes, rating value assigned to element from presented triad was neutral, i.e.,

‘3’ despite that the contrast pole was defined by consideration of this element. This

happens because, at the end of the day, as was pointed by Stewart and colleagues

(1981): “the rating figures carry no inherent meaning in themselves, but simply

provide a way in which consumers can position the elements in relative terms on

each of their construct dimensions, thus, providing the researcher with a richer

picture of the overall structure of their construct system” (cited in Marsden and Littler,

2000a).

In general, grid form enables to get closer to the functional meanings of elements

and constructs. The interview form and the procedure allow to see how each element

is rated on each construct and how each construct is being used, thereby, allowing

comparison of both the elements and the constructs respectively.


96

4.5.4. Eliciting personal values

Elicitation of personal values within the PCT and RGT is supported by Kelly’s

‘Organization Corollary’ which assumes that personal constructs do not operate in

isolation from each other, but form an integrated system comprising ordinal

relationships between the constructs (Jankowicz, 2004, p. 186). Therefore, eliciting of

personal values implies at first, arriving to the most abstract mental representations

which represent personal values and secondly, revealing the relationships between

derived personal values.

4.5.4.1. Capturing personal values: laddering up technique

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

an understanding of how consumers translate product related knowledge about

characteristics and attributes into person or self related knowledge which is

meaningful associations with respect to self, following the MEC theory (Reynolds and

Gutman, 1988). Laddering up procedure, first described by Hinkle (1965), is

designed to elicit increasingly superordinate constructs – constructs of a higher order

of abstraction then those elicited from the original triads or dyads of elements.

Hence, by giving an interviewee the laddering up task the interviewer arrives at more

abstract meanings associated with original constructs (Jankowicz, 2004, p. 186;

Marsden and Littler, 2000a).

The procedure represents a discussion between interviewer and respondent using

repetitive and interactive questions to dig deeply into the product associative

meanings. Based on the elicited respondent’s construct which refers to product

characteristics and attributes the value hierarchy begins to be built, where the

interviewer derives the reasons for preferences pointed out by the respondent, and

thus, moves the answers to the abstraction levels corresponding to consequences

and values. The researcher leads the respondent to abstraction by repeatedly asking

him “why is this important to you” concerning each arisen level. By sequentially

answering this question, the respondent expresses consequences derived from

attributes, and personal values that arise from consequences (Veludo-de-Oliveira et

al., 2006). Questions based on the question “why is it important to you” are

continually asked until a personal value is revealed (Wansink, 2000).

For example, the interviewer can ask an auto buyer: “Why presence of comfort

electronics and technologies in an auto is important to you?” The respondent can


97

answer: “Because I can feel myself comfortable and relaxed during the ride”. The

interviewer continues: “Why is it important for you to feel relaxed during the ride?”

The respondent’s answer can be: “Because it helps me to refresh my strength and,

therefore, stay always effective at work”. Interviewer: “Why is it important to stay

always effective at work?” Respondent: “Because I want to become successful in my

career and realize my professional goals and ambitions”. Thereby, the interviewer

arrived to the laddering shown in Table 4.

Personal value professional success and self realization

stay always effective at work

feel comfortable and relaxed during the ride

Product characteristic / attribute comfort electronics and techniques / comfort

Consequences

Table 4: An example of a ladder derived from one construct

The procedure implies that the product characteristic from which ladder is derived is

important to the respondent so that he can associate it with more abstract

consequences and, even, with personal values. Therefore, it is another question of

the interviewing procedure how to identify important characteristics and attributes

among all elicited. This is one of the critical issues which are often discussed by

researchers with respect to the laddering up technique. In this work the process of

recognizing most preferred and important constructs and construct poles towards

which laddering task is to be applied is discussed in 5.3 as it relates to the proposed

methodology. In the current part the description of laddering up basic procedure from

any specific meaning is discussed in order to illustrate how a personal value can be

revealed.

4.5.4.2. Prioritizing personal values: resistance-to-change technique

One of the most important concepts in Rokeach’s (1973) theory of human values

implies that once a value is learned by a person, it becomes part of personal value

system in which each value is ordered in priority relative to each other (cited in

Kamakura and Novak, 1992). It is assumed that most situations in life activate more

than one value and often involve a conflict between values, for example, striving for

hedonic pleasure and professional achievement. In this case the person uses his


98

value system as a tool for conflict resolution and decision making so that self-esteem

can be maintained or enhanced. Therefore, value system consisting of prioritized

personal values, rather than a single value, can provide a more complete

understanding of motivational forces driving consumer attitudes and behavior

(Kamakura and Novak, 1992).

The resistance-to-change procedure is a technique designed for identifying which

personal values are more important and central and which are less so and, thereby,

describing an individual’s hierarchy of personal values.

It is argued that core meanings representing personal values are relatively resistant

to change. That is, the more important and central an individual belief, the more

important it is for a person to see the world in that way, and the less likely an

individual is to change his mind about it. Therefore, in order to recognize which

personal values are more important for the individual and which less, he is asked to

make a choice between values presented in a way which focuses attention on their

relative desirability. The choice is made by a person according to the dominance of

desirability of one option over another. Hence, the respondent appears to be ready to

compromise on some choices indicating less important values which are relatively

more open to change, and he is not ready at all to compromise on the others

indicating the bedrock, most important values which are highly resistance to change

(Jankowicz, 2004, p. 199).

At first, the first two personal values identified by the laddering technique are

presented to the respondent as a choice between ‘experiencing one at the cost of

another’ and visa versa. For example, if the first value is ‘A’ versus its contrast ‘-A’

and second value is ‘B’ versus its contrast ‘-B’, such as follows:

A -A B -B

achievement and success

aspirations failure

enjoyment and pleasure of life

no feel of joy and gratification

_ _

The respondent is presented with a choice between ‘A at the cost of –B’, or ‘B at the

cost of –A”. The choice actually makes the respondent to think about how strongly he

feels about each personal value and which option has the greatest reward with the

least pain.


99

In this case the respondent is asked to imagine the choice as an existential one and

make a choice between ‘imagine in the future, even at the end of your life, you

understand that you have achieved everything you have strived for and gained

success, however, you also realize that you do not enjoy your life and there is no

gratification and joy in it’, or ‘imagine in the future, even at the end of your life, you

understand that your life is full of pleasure, joy and excitement but you have not

managed to achieve everything you have been striving for to realize your ambitions

and aspirations’. By making the choice between these options the respondent points

the value which he prefers over the other. For instance, he chooses the second

option being more prepared to compromise on success rather than on the enjoyment

of life. On the record sheet the option ‘B at cost of –A’ is marked with ‘yes’ indicating

preference of value B over value A (Table 5).

Procedure of resistance-to-change technique implies presenting the respondent in

turn with all pairs of values revealed through laddering up technique. Thus, if there

are three revealed personal values, the respondent is asked then to choose between

‘A at the cost of –C’, or ‘C at the cost of –A’ and, afterwards, he is asked to choose

between ‘B at the cost of –C’, or ‘C at the cost of –B’. And if there are more values

then each value is compared to all the remaining ones as shown in Table 5:

A -B B -A Yes

A -C Yes C -AA -D Yes D -AB -C Yes C -BB -D Yes D -BC -D D -C Yes

Either Or

Table 5: Subsequent comparison of personal values

When all the values are compared with each other, the number of times that each

value is preferred over another is counted. In Table 6 the number of ‘yes’ responses

against each personal value is counted and the value hierarchy based on the

revealed order is built up. In case of two or more personal values chosen an equal

number of times, they are recorded side by side, rather than one above the other.

The hierarchy revealed through resistance-to-change technique may also identify

values that are not sincere and central for a person, but were expressed rather

fictitious to seem more meaningful. Such values, if any, are likely to appear at the

bottom of the hierarchy.


100

Personal Value Times chosen Hierarchy of personal valuesA 2 BB 3 AC 0 DD 1 C

Table 6: Frequency of value preferences over other ones and a value hierarchy

Another important inference that can be made from the revealed hierarchical value

system relates to the subordinate constructs that draw on values and are particularly

representatives of these values. The higher the personal value in the hierarchy, the

higher its resistant to change and, thus, the representative subordinate constructs,

including product knowledge related levels of abstraction, i.e., product attributes, are

tend to be similarly resistant to change (Jankowicz, 2004, p. 203).

4.6. Analysis of a repertory grid

Once the RG is elicited, the resulting data matrix is potentially as complex as the

rating system allows, and its size depends on the ultimate number of provided or

elicited elements and constructs used (Feixas and Alvarez, 1996). There can be a lot

of these data, for example, a 4 x 4 grid contains 28 pieces of data and an 8 x 8 grid

contains 88 pieces of data which consists of the element figures, construct poles

labels and numbers which indicate the relationships between elements and

constructs (Fransella et al., 2004, p. 82). The matrix format (Table 3) is a compact

representation of a deceptively large amount of information contained in the RG. A

researcher is, therefore, faced with a great deal of information which must be

processed so that the initial structure can be retained without too much loss of

information (Feixas and Alvarez, 1996).

One of the most interesting and attractive features of the RGT is the wide variety of

different types of analysis that can be applied to the elicited information (Hessenzahl

and Wessler, 2000). Many efforts made to mathematically synthesize the basic

structure of RG data so that it can become useful to a researcher, starting from non-

parametric factor analysis proposed by Kelly himself to the more modern multivariate

analyses (Feixas and Alvarez, 1996). This chapter briefly covers the most significant

methods proposed in the literature.

Analyzing grid data can be conducted by means of one of or a combination of a

number of ways that can broadly be categorized as quantitative or qualitative.


101

Furthermore, in order to better understand what is being said in a grid a blend of

both, qualitative and quantitative approaches are very often appear useful to be

applied.

The RGT permits to capture the meanings where each meaning is expressed by both

words and numbers (or symbols). People need words to express and communicate a

construct – a dimension through which meaning can be expressed; and they need

numbers to describe the elements with respect to that dimension, i.e., “to ascribe the

meaning attached to the elements by their positions on the various constructs in the

grid” (Jankowicz, 2004, p. 72).

In general, in grid analysis the main task is dual: first is to identify a participant’s

meanings, and second, is to draw whatever implications seem to be appropriate to

the investigator depending on his research objectives (Jankowicz, 2004, p. 72).

Originally, Kelly proposed the first system for summarizing grid data using

dichotomous scores (described in 4.3.4) with an implication of a form of non-

parametric factor analysis that could be done by hand. Although Kelly’s creative

mathematical contribution was admitted and appreciated, it is only applicable to the

dichotomically scored grids what certainly limits overall RGT’s potential.

Nowadays, the amount of approaches and techniques to be used for grid analysis is

numerous however most of them present original as well as forms or modifications of

four principle methods of analysis that are traditionally being used (Stewart et al.,

1981):

� Frequency counts;

� Content analysis;

� Cluster analysis;

� Principal component analysis.

The first two methods can be described as qualitative approaches which are

concerned with analyzing the contents of the grid. Two remaining are quantitative

approaches which also analyze the inter-relationships contained in the grid. Choice

of the method will depend on the purpose of the grid and what aspects of the


102

person’s construct system a researcher wants to understand (Gutierrez, 1989 cited in

Marsden and Littler, 2000b; Stewart et al., 1981).

The first two methods are usually used for analyzing more than one grid. They are

aimed at finding commonalities and coincidences between grids either from different

people or from one person but elicited on several occasions or in different time.

The remaining twp methods are mainly intended for analyzing relationships between

constructs and/or elements within a single grid. They include more mathematical and

statistical procedures and mainly deal with the structure of the information captured

in repertory grid rather than its content (Jankowicz, 2004, p. 93; Stewart et al., 1981).

4.6.1. Qualitative methods for repertory grid analysis

4.6.1.1. Frequency counts

Frequency counts allow to count the number of times a particular element or a

construct is mentioned. When elements and constructs are not supplied during the

elicitation procedure, the number of times a certain element or construct has been

stated in response to eliciting question gives a useful insight in itself and can be

valuable when comparing different people or groups of people and revealing

common trends. It can be especially useful when elements are elicited by using

identical elicitation categories (described in 4.5.1) revealing elements which can be

different as instances, i.e., different brands, products, people or events but present

the same set of categories. The number of mentioned elements which can be, for

example, different brands of a certain product category may already contribute to the

understanding the topic in question (Stewart et al., 1981).

Defining the index of frequency of constructs is often more complicated and requires

complementary methods because different interviewees may rarely produce identical

constructs in terms of used wording. As one of the solutions, one can select a fairly

common construct or group of constructs and make a pattern to see how they are

used but he needs to be careful to bring misleading when similarly sounded

constructs imply absolutely different meanings revealed during the laddering

procedure (Stewart et al., 1981). Therefore, frequency counts often appear more

appropriate regarding elements, whereas, classification of different constructs as well

as of different types of constructs provided by interviewees is usually conducted by

means of content analysis (Jankowicz, 2004, p. 146).


103

Some authors, for example Stewart, V., Stewart, A., and Fonda, N. (1981)

differentiate frequency analysis and content analysis putting them in one list of

variety of methods used for repertory grid analysis (Stewart et al., 1981). Green

(2004), however, assigns frequency count analysis as one of three basic approaches

to content analysis. The procedure of frequency analysis basically presents the

simplified content analysis where the content itself doesn’t need to be interpreted and

coded before counting for coincidences. Still, as frequently counts method has got its

own procedure based on certain terms, it does have a right to be considered as an

independent method. In this study it is adhered to the Stewart’s and her colleagues’

definition but this question is only a matter of definitions and it is up to the reader

which definition to accept.

4.6.1.2. Content analysis

Content analysis is a set of techniques that have a potential to assist in examining

different kinds of verbalized or other meaningful data including grid content. It is a

common type of category generation that involves revealing of patterns in the data

and then assigning each pattern into a category (Highlen and Finley, 1996).

According to Krippendorf (2004), “content analysis is a research technique for

making replicable and valid inferences from texts (or other meaningful matter) to the

contexts of their use” (cited in Green, 2004). This definition contains three

fundamental features of content analysis, namely (Green, 2004):

a. The findings from a content analysis should be able to be replicated by others;

b. The analysis should measure what it claims to measure;

c. Content analysis is not limited to textual data.

A variety of different approaches to content analysis is available to researchers,

however, three basic ones can be emphasized. The first is to examine the co-

occurrence of words. That means to count how many times a combination of certain

words is used together. The second is to code the text units (e.g., words, sentences

or paragraphs) using some form of coding scheme (Green, 2004).

Green (2004) describes three basic approaches including frequency counts and two

described in the previous paragraph. The first two approaches, i.e., frequency counts

and words co-occurrence are more likely to be suited to relatively larger texts


104

because the likelihood of the same word repeating a number of times or two words

appearing together will always be less than the likelihood of either word appearing

individually because of the relatively small number of words provided in the grid in

general.

Coding of text units is an approach which is mostly used in PCP research (Green,

2004). The analysis of data is a non-linear simultaneous process of brining order,

structure and meaning to the data in search for general statements about

relationships among categories of this data (Highlen and Finley, 1996). The central

here is ‘meaning’ and the objective is to try to understand the content and complexity

of those meanings derived from participants rather than take some measures of

frequency (Smith, 1995).

Some concerns regarding interpretation of individual meaning made researchers

either to refuse application of content analysis or, as later, to find explanation and

solution to overcome confusion.

The first concern suggested by Kelly (1995) is that constructs are not necessarily

equivalent to word labels. Four possible relationships that may exist between

construct meanings and word labels are emphasized (Shaw, 1994):

a. Agreement between construct meanings and word labels;

b. Different words being used for the same construct meanings;

c. The same word being used for different construct meanings;

d. Different words being used for different construct meanings.

Second concern is that individual meaning cannot be readily categorized by another

person, especially in the absence of elaboration or understanding of context and

application (Yorke, 1989). Kelly (1995) meant that in order to avoid serious

misinterpretation of respondent’s meaning, a researcher should realize that he is

setting out to learn a new language rather than relying on presumption that the

respondent agrees with the dictionary (cited in Green, 2004).

Thus, researchers need to find the proper ways or improve the existing ones to

interpret personal meanings more accurately. One of the defining aspects in

considering the trustfulness and precision of interpretation is related to the nature of


105

coding process. That is, an important difference in application of content analysis

provides whether the categories utilized are theory driven or data driven (Simon and

Xenos, 2004; Stewart et al., 1981).

Theory driven content analysis categorize data in terms of categories developed

beforehand on the basis of theory or on empirical grounds, whereas data driven

approach develops the categories from the raw data.

“Theory driven approaches are more transparent, more readily applied by others and

make explicit assumptions, which may not be as apparent in data driven approaches”

(Green, 2004).

Theory driven approaches have acquired a certain criticism regarding its limitations.

The main problem is that it is hard to develop a category coding scheme which will

cover all the constructs elicited afterwards. In most studies utilizing theory driven

code schemas a major issue is how constructs that come from different domains

should be treated. Categories, especially when derived from not RGT based data,

are often formulated in one or two words which can bear rather universal meanings

or originally imply different meanings than those current researcher wants to attach

and ascribe constructs to them (Green, 2004). In the RGT constructs are usually

coded as bipolar entity rather than both poles are coded separately, and the problem

arises when construct poles appear to relate to different aspects and, therefore,

coding such a construct into a single predefined category becomes problematic.

Another disadvantage of theory driven categorization is that it limits the range of

purposes for which the RGT can be used. Stewart with her colleagues (1981)

provides an example of a study which purpose is to test whether the predetermined

categories in the questionnaire developed to examine the meanings of co-workers

really reflect the aspects used by these people when talking about the matter. The

findings showed that four aspects in the questionnaire were not used by people at all,

whereas four other aspects not presented in the questionnaire were revealed.

Data driven categories employed in the content analyses are much more flexible and

appealing because categories are derived from and, thus, closer to the raw data. A

researcher does not need to force data into predetermined categories that may

sometimes not be applicable to the data at all (Green, 2004).


106

The major advantage of data driven approach is that categories reflect the constructs

they were developed from. This enables to recognize new patterns, domains and

categories which are specific for current topic and, maybe, were overlooked during

previous research studies.

There are, however, concerns which make researchers look for solutions.

One of the disadvantages of data driven approach is the potential for low replicability

by others, especially, when there is no accurate and apparent technique for coding

development being adopted.

Another concern is about the fact that data driven approaches involve construing the

constructs of others by a certain person (or several people). This fact gives rise to

following concern about the reliability of construing. When one is authorized to

interpret and develop categories based on the raw data, it is obvious that very often

the results will meet some disagreements from others because, according to Kelly’s

Individuality Corollary, each individual not only construes things differently but also

interprets other’s meanings in different ways. Therefore, resolving potential

disagreements may cause difficulties.

In solution, Honey (1979) has proposed the use of additional coders to resist

potential bias of the codes, i.e., categories developer. However, there is no evidence

in literature of how many coders should be involved. Moreover, Krippendorf (2004)

warned against additional coders because “they are more likely to be aware of the

researcher’s aims or general approach and are less likely to be truly independent”

what causes another kind of coders’ bias (cited in Green, 2004).

In general, data driven approach is favored by researchers working in business and

management field (Honey, 1979, Jankowicz, 2004, p. 169; Stewart et al., 1981;

Wright, 2004). It is recommended by these authors to cut up all respondents’ single

grids so that each elicited construct appears on a separate sheet and then to sort

constructs into groups all together revealing common patterns (Jankowicz, 2004, p.

151; Green, 2004).

In order to decide which approach should be employed it is important to consider the

respective advantages and limitations, as well as the range of available approaches.

It is also suggested to apply a combination of theory and data derived categories


107

(Stewart et al., 1981). A different hybrid approach proposed by Honey (1979) implies

an enclosure of supplied constructs which permit to sum individual’s perspective on

the topic in question.

In the current study the data driven approach of categorization is applied because the

main interest of research lies, first of all, in exploring peculiarities, commonalities and

utilized language of customers from another culture as well as their environment and

mentality aspects associated with the research topic.

4.6.1.3. Honey’s content analysis

Traditional content analysis approaches allow to categorize different meanings

expressed in a set of grids. However, traditional content analysis does not use all the

available information given in the grids. Thus, ratings of elements on constructs are

completely ignored in content analysis.

Honey (1979) developed a technique which permits to make use of individual

meanings being expressed by person’s ratings. It is based on the Kelly’s

assumptions that constructs are organized into a system (Organizational Corollary)

and that some constructs are more important and central to the person’s views and

knowledge about the topic while others even though relevant to the topic, are minor.

The personal construing system is not monolithic and it can be expected that while

there is certainly some kind of consistency among the constructs a person uses,

some constructs are particularly related to the discussed matter and carry more

meaning about the topic while others may bring secondary notes which do not reflect

“what the whole thing is really all about” (Jankowicz, 2004, p. 170).

Honey (1979) argued that the researcher is interested in exploring the individual

understanding of the topic in question and at the end all the elicited constructs are

more or less related to the “overall issue a person has in mind when thinking about

the topic”. He proposed at the end of the elicited list of constructs to supply an overall

assessment construct designed to sum up the interviewee’s individual attitude to the

topic as a whole. For instance, if a grid is made to explore customers’ preferences

among different brands of a certain product, the supplied construct could be “overall,

absolutely satisfied – overall, absolutely unsatisfied”.

Obtainment of the ratings on the overall construct gives an opportunity to compare

overall construct with all other constructs and see how close ratings on each


108

particular construct match the ratings on the overall construct. Constructs which

match highly with the overall construct represent what the person strongly felt and

thought about the topic, overall and constructs matching less highly also represent

what the person felt and thought about the topic, overall, however, somewhat less

strongly (Jankowicz, 2004, p. 170).

Two indices are used to reflect the extent of match between elicited and overall

constructs. The first index is called “percentage similarity score” (PSS). This index

reflects the actual similarity between constructs. Second, “H-I-L” index allows to

aggregate constructs across the sample taking into account the fact that people differ

in their typical percentage similarity scores (Jankowicz, 2004, p. 171).

1. The Percentage similarity score (PSS) index

The PSS index is based on counting the differences between the ratings along the

rows of the grid, where each row represents ratings on particular construct. At first,

absolute differences between each two ratings on the particular and overall

constructs corresponding to the same elements need to be found and summarized

(Formula 1). Each sum of differences indicates how small or high the difference is

and, therefore, how similar the constructs are. Some authors prefer the term

‘distance’ between the constructs rather than ‘difference’, however, the implied

meaning and the formula remain the same for a conventional grid (Bhatia and Yao,

1993).

If repertory grid consists of ratings on n elements and m constructs so that the sum

of differences is denoted by jjDD ′ and is given as

∑=

′−=n

i

jiijjj rrD1

', , (Formula 1)

where ijr is the rating assigned to element iE with respect to the construct jC .

The similarity then between the two constructs, i.e., the PSS which is denoted as

', jjσ can be computed as

nk

D jj

jj ×−

×−=

)1(

%200%100

',

,'σ , (Formula 2)


109

where k is the maximum possible rating. So ( k -1) is the largest possible difference

between ratings and ( k -1) × n is the largest possible sum of differences between

constructs in the whole grid.

The constructs are bipolar and each element can be rated on the construct in both

ways, running from ‘1’ to ‘5’ (on the 5-point scale) or running from ‘5’ to ‘1’ when

expressions at each pole of the construct are reversed. The expressed meanings

regarding personal attitude and preference to one of the poles remain the same,

however, relationships between meanings of reversed constructs with remain

constructs may change. Table 7 shows two constructs on which six elements are

being rated. The sum of difference computed according to Formula 1 is 16 (whereas

the largest possible sum of difference is (5-1)×6 = 24), which is rather large and

demonstrates weak relationships between the constructs.

Triad combination E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 Sum of Difference,

1 5

E1 E3 E6 Construct A Speedy 2 4 5 5 3 1 Calm

E2 E4 E5 Construct B Large 4 2 2 1 5 4 Compact

2 2 3 4 2 3 16'ijij rr −

jjDD ′

Table 7: Relationship between two constructs about six elements

However, basic grid elicitation procedure implies that the way both poles are written

down in the grid depends on what has been expressed as similarity and what was

expressed as contrast during the triadic comparison. It is suggested as a convenient

way of recording the elicited information which helps to quickly see where the elicited

information is coming from. Triads are used just as combinations of elements in order

to encourage fresh constructs and are offered arbitrary. Most important is the

meaning expressed when person was comparing some triad but not the triad itself or

on which pole of the construct which meaning is placed (Jankowicz, 2004, p. 109).

In Table 7 for construct A a triad composed of elements E1, E3 and E6 was offered.

Elements E1 and E6 are defined as similar in that they are both “speedy” and, hence,

this emergent pole is written down on the left, indicating the ‘1’ end of the scale.

If the triad offered for eliciting construct B was E2, E4 and E5 and element E2 is

defined similar with E4 as more or less ‘large’, whereas E5 is considered as

‘compact’, the construct is to be written down as shown in Table 7.


110

However, if the same domain implicated in construct B was elicited from another

triad, for example, E4, E5, E6 where now E5 and E6 are construed similar as

‘compact’, then the pole ‘compact’ should be written on the left as a similarity

meaning defining the ‘1’ end of the scale. In this case the ratings on construct B

would be given as shown in Table 8.

Triad combination E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 Sum of Difference,

1 5

E1 E3 E6 Construct A Speedy 2 4 5 5 3 1 Calm

E4 E5 E6 Construct B Compact 2 4 4 5 1 2 Large

0 0 1 0 2 1 4'ijij rr −

jjDD ′

Table 8: Relationship between two constructs showing a reversal

It can be seen that both ways of recording the construct B express the same

meanings, although, in Table 8 the sum of difference is 4 what already demonstrates

close relationship between two constructs and in particular between meanings of

emergent poles and between meanings of implicit poles respectively.

As exemplified, it is very important that construct analysis takes into account the

possible reversed relationship between constructs when calculating construct

similarity. The calculation should be conducted twice, once with each construct as it

stands and once with the ratings being the same of the first of compared constructs

and ‘reversed’ of the second of compared constructs. It is apparent that if ratings of

both constructs are reversed the sum of difference and, therefore, constructs’ PSS

would be the same as without construct reverse (Jankowicz, 2004, p. 108).

Coming back to the calculation of construct similarity (Formula 2), in order to take into

account possible reversed construct relationships the range of the percentage scale

should be spread over a 200%-point scale. Hence, the proportion is multiplied by

200%, but not by 100% (Jankowicz, 2004, p. 115; Bhatia and Yao, 1993).

Subtraction from 100% turns the percentage sum of difference into a percentage

similarity score. Similarity and difference are calculated in proportion Thereby, the

percentage permits to compare the extant to which pairs of constructs are matched

when grids to be compared have different amount of elements.

The PSS in the provided example is: %7,666)15(

4%200%100, =

×−

×−=BAσ


111

Constructs compared to demonstrate calculation of PSS are rather elicited according

to their meanings. However, the same way ‘overall assessment’ construct can be

compared with any elicited one.

2. The „H-I-L” index

The „H-I-L” index allows to analyze a group of individuals and to compare similarity

scores within a single grid with those of other grids and, thereby, to identify relevance

of each individual construct to general matter of the interview.

It is recognized that people have different construct similarity metrics. Their ranges of

PSSs for any topic may differ. For example, supposing in one interview the highest

PSS between given elicited constructs and overall construct is 100% and the lowest

is 80%, whereas in another interview where the person tends towards seeing many

different aspects when thinking about the topic, the highest PSS may be 85% and the

lowest, 55%. In this case, PSS of 82% indicates comparatively very similar meanings

between constructs for the second person and lies towards the bottom of the range

of similarity for the first person.

Therefore, the PSS index represents a relative value and Honey’s procedure is

aimed at assigning the actual percentage value of PSS index to either ‘high’,

‘intermediate’ or ‘low’ (‘H-I-L’) values for a particular individual. Then, for example,

when selecting constructs with similar meaning and with high similarity scores,

researcher should focus attention on constructs with individually high rather than

simply high PSSs, i.e., PSSs which are particularly high for the given individual who

provided that particular constructs (Jankowicz, 2004, p. 171). As a result, the

aggregated set of constructs, on the one hand, represents the categorized views, i.e.,

clusters of constructs on which there is a consensus across the sample of

interviewees and, on the other hand, preserves information about each individual’s

views in terms of personal relevance to the topic.

The steps for accomplishing Honey’s technique have the following consequence:

1. Ratings on a supplied overall construct are obtained.

2. Sums of differences for each construct against the overall construct are

calculated according to the formula provided in Formula 1. In order to check for

reversals, i.e., if the sum of differences is smaller when one of the two constructs is


112

reversed, at first, the sum of difference is computed between overall construct and

elicited construct. Secondly, the sum of differences is computed between reversed

overall construct and remaining unreversed elicited construct. The smaller sum is

then being noted.

3. Turn all computed sums of differences into PSSs (Formula 2), therefore,

ensuring comparability with other grids.

4. Within each grid the H-, I- and L-value intervals to be defined and each

construct is labeled according to the calculated score. The highest, intermediate and

lowest thirds defined by

ii lL =

3

iiii

lhlL

−+<

3

iiii

lhlI

−+=

3

)(2 iiii

lhlI

−+<

3

)(2 iiii

lhlH

−+=

ii hH =

Where:

ih and il – are the highest and lowest PSS between elicited construct ic and overall

construct respectively;

iL and iL – are the lower and the higher boundaries of the L-value interval;

iI and iI – are the lower and the higher boundaries of the I-value interval;

iH and iH – are the lower and the higher boundaries of the H-value interval.


113

When all the elicited constructs within the single grid are assigned with H-I-L indices,

those constructs that are labeled with ‘H’ index represent most relevant constructs to

the overall assessment construct and, thus, contain meanings that reflect what the

person particularly had in mind when thinking about the topic, even though, within

their category they may be different in meaning covering different aspect of the topic.

Constructs assigned with ‘L’ index appear less salient to the overall topic.

Procedure of Honey’s technique described in this section is demonstrated in Table 9.

The used RG represents the one shown in Table 3 as an example of elicited RG.

Similarity between elicited constructs with overall supplied construct is calculated.

The reversed ratings of the overall construct are shown at the bottom, below the

construct unreversed ratings. The unreversed sums of differences are shown below

each construct, on the left. The reversed sums of differences are shown below, on

the right. All sums of differences are turned into the PSSs. For each construct the

higher of the two values of PSS (for unreversed and reversed) are chosen and

shown in bold. The constructs are labeled (letters in bold below each construct, in the

middle) by H-, I- and L-values taking individual’s personal metric into account where

the highest PSS is 100% and the lowest PSS is 30%. Table 9 demonstrates how grid

data is complemented with Honey’s technique estimations. Interpretation and

inferences which can be derived from this will be discussed in 7.2.2.

When analyzing all the grids where constructs are ascribed to categories, a certain

consensus between the respondents can be revealed.

If most of the H-I-L indices are high within one category it signifies that the category,

i.e., attribute which the category represents is relevant and important for all or most

of the respondents in the sample and, therefore, important for the sample as a whole.

If most of the H-I-L indices are low within the category, it signifies that the sample as

a whole agree that the attribute does not relate particularly well to the topic in

general.

If the H-I-L indices are mixed within the category, especially if there are mostly either

‘H’ or ‘L’ indices, the researcher should pay special attention to the respondents of

the sample and the category because such a division may reveal a presence of latent

group among the sample for which the attribute presented by the category is


114

important and relevant to the topic in general despite the fact that for other

respondents of the sample it is less salient.

emergent pole (1) PC Mac G3 iMac G4 eMac Ideal implicit pole (5)

1 2 5 4 5

Unreversed Reversed

Sum of Diffs. 16 H Sum of Diffs. 0

PSS(%) -60 PSS(%) 100

1 2 4 2 1

Unreversed Reversed

Sum of Diffs. 9 L Sum of Diffs. 7

PSS(%) 10 PSS(%) 30

1 3 5 2 5

Unreversed Reversed

Sum of Diffs. 13 I Sum of Diffs. 3

PSS(%) -30 PSS(%) 70

5 1 1 2 1

Unreversed Reversed


PSS(%) 70 PSS(%) -50

5 2 1 3 1

Unreversed Reversed


PSS(%) 70 PSS(%) -30

2 3 1 1 1

Unreversed Reversed

Sum of Diffs. 5 L Sum of Diffs. 13

PSS(%) 50 PSS(%) -30

1 1 4 5 5

Unreversed Reversed


PSS(%) -70 PSS(%) 70

5 4 1 2 1

1 2 5 4 5

The looks are to die for

Smaller range of software

Doesn't fit properly

Fast

Difficult to set up

Flimsy build

Upgrade is a dealer job

Transportable

Reversed

Unreversed

Looks boxy and 'standard'

Easy to set up

Slow performer

Large range of software

Difficult to move

Easy to upgrade

Good build quality

Appropriate for my work

Table 9: Repertory grid using Honey’s technique

In this work it is proposed that the relevance of the elicited constructs to the supplied

construct identified by application of Honey’s technique can also be applied regarding

not just overall assessment construct representing the general topic of the grid but

also regarding constructs representing subthemes of the survey. While the general

importance of the elicited constructs can be identified by other approaches, for

example, supplying the ‘ideal’ element, the relevance of constructs to a concrete

question which researcher is interested in within the general topic can be revealed by


115

supplying the construct which would reflect the question and comparing it with other

constructs by analogy with the described technique. This is demonstrated in the

empirical part of the work.

4.6.2. Quantitative methods for repertory grid analysis

When conducting an empirical study using the RGT analysis of several individual

grids aimed at exploration of similarities and differences in content and structure of

consumers’ individual and collective personal construct systems can be pursued. The

main methodological problem is to find a way of aggregating the information from all

participants without destroying the phenomena of individuality of each personal world

(Jankowicz, 1990).

It was George Kelly (1955), the founder of PCP theory who had first suggested to

analyze psychological space by means of statistical approaches. He invented a

nonparametric form of factor analysis for RG. Later two major contributions were

made to the history of RG quantitative analysis.

• The first contribution was made by Patrick Slater (1964, 1976, 1977) who

developed a computer program “Ingrid” based on application of “The Principal

Components of a repertory grid” (Slater, 1964).

• The second significant contribution was the adoption of cluster analysis for RG

data (Jankowicz and Thomas, 1982; Shaw, 1980).

There was also an attempt in suggesting multidimensional scaling within multivariate

methods for grid analysis, but it did not receive a wide use as well as adoption in

computer programs (Feixas and Alvarez, 1996). Most of computer programs

developed for analyzing grid data and most of conducted researches using

quantitative methods still use for RG analysis principal component analysis and

cluster analysis or derivatives of them (Fromm, o. J.).

For those researchers who are not familiar with statistics the quickest, simplest and

most effective method for interpreting grid data is counting simple frequencies.

However, for those who have got proper grounding in statistical procedures it is

suggested that repertory grids can be analyzed with standard computer statistics

packages (Bell, 1994).


116

Originally, the RG was devised as an interview-based or paper-and-pencil technique.

A number of computer packages have been developed for their elicitation and

analysis which are constantly being used by contemporary researchers. The thing is,

when using a RG in clinical purposes for understanding meanings about a certain

topic of a particular person, it is better to analyze constructs and ratings by means of

paper, pencil and professional look. However, since the technique is used in a variety

of disciplines where one of the aims of research is to aggregate the information from

a number of RGs or from a great grid consisting of a large number of constructs, it

became more helpful to conduct a comprehensive analysis by means of computer

program to recognize larger patterns. Computer software is also helpful as it provides

a graphical illustration so that some relationships between constructs or elements

can be seen at a first glance.

Despite the fact that there is a number of excellent programs which offer certain

analysis tools, repertory grid research deals with a large number of variables and

pursues different objectives to be reached and the programs may or may not match

the needs of a specific research project. None of the packages is a complete solution

to all the possible repertory grid designs and there is no one best way to interpret grid

data (Shaw and McKnight, 1981 cited in Hadley, 1996). Most important is to

remember as Easterby-Smith (1980, p. 17) says: “Qthe interpretation of grid data is

very much an art and not a technology”. So the researcher is relatively free to choose

the way of interpreting grid data “so long as it is well-informed and consistent with

repertory grid theory” (Hadley, 1996).

In this study the analysis are carried out by means of a popular WEBGRID IV

program developed by Brian R. Gaines and Mildred L. G. Shaw (Bell, 2003). It is a

Web version of REPGRID program (Shaw, 1989) available via the Internet which

offers “the capability to elicit and analyze grids over the Internet or a local network

with customized interactive dialogs and privacy of data” (Gaines and Shaw, 2005).

Some peculiarities of the RG form such as bipolarity of constructs and consideration

of construct reversing make application of software which is not developed specially

for RGT rather problematic and effort consuming. A variety of computer packages for

RGT analysis is provided by Bell (see 2003 for description of different software). The

program chosen for this study provides all the necessary analysis tools for proposed


117

methodology. Besides, it has friendly, clear design without any additional complexity

what makes its practical use suitable in business and managerial applications.

4.6.2.1. Hierarchical cluster analysis

Technique that is used for highlighting the relationships in a grid so that they become

visible at a glance is called Hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA). Originally, clustering

methods are based on analysis of correlations, however, for grid analysis the HCA of

distances, also called “Focus” or “focusing”, is commonly adopted (Fransella et al.,

2004, p. 87). This method sorts and rearranges rows (constructs) and columns

(elements) of the grid so that simultaneously similarly-rated elements are situated

together and similarly-rated constructs are situated together both being displayed in

same dendrogram. Such ‘focusing’ of the structure gives the technique its name.

In the WEBGRID IV package, used in the current study, one of the supplied tools is

called “Focus sorting and hierarchical clustering”. This tool was firstly designed and

presented in FOCUS program (Thomas and Shaw, 1976) and then, later, in

REPGRID (Shaw, 1989) which became one of the earliest computer programs

designed to carry out clustering of repertory grid data (Fransella et al., 2004, p. 88;

Thomas and Shaw, 1976). The program utilizes the city-block distance metric rather

than the common Euclidian distance metric (Shaw, 1980, p. 159) (see Appendix 2 for

more details on metrics).

In an output of HCA the PSS (in the software term ‘matching’ is used for PSS) of both

adjacent elements and adjacent constructs are presented in numeric form as well as

in a dendrogram like is shown further in Figure 11.

There are other general statistical packages such as SPSS, BMDP, CLUSTAN and

G-PACK which analyze the clusters. However, as above mentioned, the hierarchical

clustering presented in the FOCUS and REPGRID (WEBGRID) programs has

significant advantage over other statistical packages of taking into account the

bipolarity of the constructs. Thus, if two constructs are very different in their ratings a

distance coefficient is high indicating independence between the constructs.

However, as constructs represent bipolar dimensions, if one construct is reversed a

strong association between constructs may be revealed. Therefore, when distance

coefficient between constructs is high it is difficult to determine whether it indicates

inverted association or constructs independence. The “Focus” tool of WEBGRID


118

reverses the two poles of one of the constructs by replacing scores (e.g. a ‘1’

becomes a ‘5’ and a ‘2’ becomes a ‘4’, etc.) and, basically, establishes a single

direction of construing between each pair of constructs (Feixas and Alvarez, 1996).

As a result, those constructs that are more similar to others when being reversed, are

printed out so.

Reading of HCA outcome

This part is focused on reading and understanding of relationships between RG

components revealed by HCA produced by WEBGRID in a form of dendrogram and

supported figures (the term “Focus Cluster” is used for HCA outcome in the

WEBGRID software). The example of RG represents one of the elicited grids of the

current study. However, interpretation of underlying meanings is not presented in this

part and will be provided in the next chapter. The description here is stressed only on

the reading of quantitative analysis outcome where the RG form is used as an

example, therefore, reader should not pay attention to the expressed meanings

provided (therewith, expressed constructs are not fully provided but only bipolar

categories they were assigned to) but only bear in mind the bipolarity nature of

constructs elicited to describe elements set and rated on the 5-point scale according

to the described earlier in this work RG elicitation procedure.

The elicited individual grid is displayed in Figure 10 where elicited constructs form

grid’s rows and elicited elements form grid’s columns. To the left is the emergent pole

and to the right the implicit pole of a construct. The elements are printed out in turn

they were originally elicited (The numeric indications in front of emergent poles stand

for the number of construct, therefore, it can serve as numeration of constructs which

will be rearranged during analysis and also can serve as an indicator of emergent

pole which also may be placed to the other side in case of construct reverse).

Figure 10: Display of elicited repertory grid


119

In Figure 11 the elements are rearranged and constructs are rearranged and

reversed so that the construct poles to the left of the grid are the ‘1’ end of the scale,

and those poles to the right are the ‘5’ end. The rating values of ‘4’ and ‘5’ are

produced dark shaded, whereas ratings of ‘1’ and ‘2’ are left unshaded and rating

values of ‘3’ are given light shading. This reproduction of the grid is given in order to

highlight the clusters and make the identification of “blocks” within the “focused” grid

even more visualized and clear (McKnight, 2000).

The PSS of constructs/elements can be found if to follow adjacent lines from two

constructs/elements till they meet at a common apex and then further to the scale.

This “tree” structure which reflects the % similarity scores for adjacent constructs is

actually a construct dendrogram of the grid. Ditto for the adjacent elements and

element dendrogram (Jankowicz, 2004, p. 121). General dendrogram comprising

both construct and element dendrograms illustrates the strength of association

between elements and between constructs.

Figure 11: Graphic plot (dendrogram) of HCA of the grid

R - reversed PSS (%)

8 1 R 100

4 5 90

5 3 R 90

1 3 85

8 7 R 85

2 6 70

4 6 70

Constructs

Table 10: Links between constructs


120

PSS (%)

iMac G4 Ideal 87.5

eMac Ideal 71.9

PC Mac G3 59.4

Mac G3 eMac 59.4

Elements

Table 11: Links between elements

iMac G4 Ideal eMac Mac G3 PC

Sort of elements

Table 12: Element sort after cluster rearrangement

2 6 4 5 3R 1R 8 7R

Sort of constructs

Table 13: Construct sort after cluster rearrangement

High matches between constructs indicate that the relevant constructs distinguish

identically or similarly between the majority of elements. High matches between the

elements signify that the elements share identical or similar ratings on the majority of

constructs (Dillon and McKnight, 1990).

In Figure 11 if the cutoff point is 75%, i.e., if to break up any associations whose

matching score is less than 75%, 1 major cluster of constructs is identified consisting

of constructs 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8; constructs 2 and 4 stand apart not referring to any

cluster.

The match of 100% between reversed construct 1 and construct 8 means that

elements that are seen as having ‘The looks are to die’ have a very strong tendency

to be seen as ‘Appropriate for my work’ and those that are seen as ‘Looks boxy and

'standard'’ are likely to be perceived as ‘Doesn't fit properly’. Rather strong

resemblance, 90%, is seen between meanings ‘Easy to set up - Difficult to set up’

and ‘Good build quality – Flimsy build’ (constructs 4 and 5) as well as between

meanings ‘Good build quality – Flimsy build’ and ‘Fast - Slow performer’ (construct 5

and reversed construct 3). Less strongly alike but still significantly, 85%, are

constructs ‘Looks boxy and 'standard' - The looks are to die’ and ‘Slow performer –


121

Fast’ (constructs 1 and 3); and ‘Appropriate for my work - Doesn't fit properly’ and

‘Transportable - Difficult to move’ (construct 8 and reversed construct 7). It is

important that similarity between construct meanings should be interpreted according

to the way poles are rearranged.

Similar inferences can be made considering elements. Thus, focusing on the

columns, i.e., the elements 1 cluster is sorted out if to take a 75% cutoff level. This

cluster includes elements ‘Ideal’ and ‘iMac G4’. Although, these elements are

comprised in a cluster their match is only 87% what indicates that ‘iMac G4’ still does

not entirely fit the person’s image of an ideal product. Elements ‘PC’ and ‘Mac G3’

appeared isolate and stand out. Element ‘eMac’ stands also out from the main

cluster, however, differs less strongly from the element ‘Ideal’ than other two isolate

elements. By using here the term ‘isolate’ it should be borne in mind that although

these elements do not match with other elements at 75% or higher, they still join a

general cluster by the 59% and 72% level respectively (McKnight, 2000).

The ‘Focus’ display of HCA allows a convenient illustration of variance graphically

what helps the researcher to get a first view of similarities or differences (Björklund,

2005).

4.6.2.2. Principal component analysis

Principal component analysis (PCA) permits, on the one hand, to analyze

relationships between constructs and elements within a single analysis, i.e., analysis

of one individual grid and, on the other hand, to group together the persons’

constructs and reveal the relationships between them (Easterby-Smith et al., 1996).

PCA indicates how different constructs group together and where different elements

are placed in relation to these. Besides, it indicates the statistical distance of each

element from any other (Senior, 1996).

When talking about PCA, two different calculation procedures can be implied, first,

calculation of the eigenvalue decomposition of a data covariance matrix and, second,

singular value decomposition of a data matrix, often after mean centering the data for

each attribute. The results of these two calculation procedures are expressed in

terms of component scores and loadings (Shaw, 2003). In this description both

procedures of decomposition are named as PCA, however some authors distinguish

the methods and apply the term PCA to the first procedure and the term singular


122

value decomposition (SVD) to the second method emphasizing its independency as

a statistical method.

It is important to note that PCA used for grid analysis differs from the original

statistical method of principal component analysis. One of the most significant

contributions to the advance in RG mathematical analysis was made by Patrick

Slater who introduced a most widely known method for representing both constructs

and elements. Slater proclaimed the method as “The Principal Components of a

repertory grid” (Slater, 1964), however, the mathematical procedure was, actually,

SVD and this fact caused later a lot of confusion in the literature.

The SVD is a technique which implies a linear transformation which is often used in

pattern recognition, i.e., to explore structures in multivariate data. A matrix such as

RG can be approximated by another matrix of a lower rank. As a mathematical

procedure it means that a number of variables (elements or constructs) are

translated into a lesser number of composite variables (principal components) which

explain the maximum possible variance (Feixas and Alvarez, 1996).

Further in this study the term PCA is adopted for the analysis name as most of

literature and computer packages devoted to the RG use the term PCA bearing in

mind SVD as an underpinning mathematical procedure. As the procedure is

developed and computerized for specialized software for a long time, its accuracy

and validity are assumed to be proved. The study is not aimed at providing a

comprehensive description of difference between calculation procedures of SVD and

PCA. At the end, both SVD and PCA are data compression techniques for

determining a set of weighted linear composites (principal components) of original

variables such that each principal component is uncorrelated with the others. In

marketing research it is rather important to understand an outcome produced by the

analysis tool provided by the software in order to make inferences and an accurate

interpretation of data.

Principal components identified through the analysis are used as the axes where the

constructs are plotted according to their factor loadings. Thereby, a certain

representation of a grid is produced which presents a useful map for further grid

interpretation (Feixas and Alvarez, 1996, Easterby-Smith et al., 1996). An essential

interpretation of this analysis is that the greater the amount of variance that an


123

element or construct accounts for within the overall RG data, the more important they

are (Metzler and Neimeyer, 1988).

Reading of the PCA map

The PCA map produced by PCA tool of the software (the term “PrinGrid map” is used

for PCA outcome in the WEBGRID software) contains the information about

relationships between constructs, between elements, and between the constructs

and the elements. The analysis tool provides a number of tables and graphs for the

data (Easterby-Smith et al., 1996).

First of all, the PCA tool provides a table with the percentage of variance accounted

for by each component, as shown in Table 14.

1 Component 2 Component 3 Component 4 Component

Percentage, % 76.38 15.50 5.09 3.03

Cumulative % 76.38 91.88 96.97 100.00

Table 14: Percentage of variance accounted for by each component

The information is then presented in a form of series of graphs. Each graph plots columns

(elements) and rows (constructs) according to their arrangement with respect to the principal

components as shown in a Figure 12.

Figure 12: Graphic plot of PCA of the grid


124

The vertical and horizontal axes stand for the first two components and plotted at

right angles to each other reflecting the maximal distinguish between two

components as patterns in the original grid data. One plot reproduces any two of all

revealed principal components.

The textual output of the data underlying the plot contains tables with constructs

(rows) and elements (components) loadings on each component. The absolute

values of the loadings produced are arbitrary and depend on how the grid data was

scaled. Only the relative values are meaningful. Therefore, in the resulting plot

distances between lines, points and poles are important and can be meaningfully

interpreted (Gaines and Shaw, 2005).

To produce the plot the grid is treated as if the elements were points plotted in an n-

dimensional space defined by the constructs as axes centered on the means of the

elements. The data is then rotated through principal components analysis to spread

the elements out as much as possible in a 2-dimensional plot. As a technical note,

PCA map carries out an analysis of the double-centered matrix of distances between

elements with all construct ranges scaled to be the same (because the software

supports grids with constructs having differing ranges) (Gaines and Shaw, 2005).

This analysis is equivalent to a principal components analysis of the construct

variance matrix which is the basis of most grid analysis packages emulating Slater's

(1976; 1977) “Ingrid” (Gower, 1966).

John Gower showed in his work (1966) that it is not always possible to recognize

different patterns (components) in the original sample of data and “these must be first

found by using an analysis based on similarities or distances which do not allow for

within data correlation”. He pointed that very often an interpretation of such methods

as PCA and factor analysis can be better understood by examining the distances

suitably defined between the variables rather than by correlations between them. He

suggested a method for finding co-ordinates for each variable referred to principal

axes which preserve these distances.

Gower’s work, published in 1966, where he described the technique based on the

concept of distance between variables has become a “bible” and a manual for Dr.

Brian Gaines, one of the developers of the RepGrid software who programmed the

PCA for RepGrid (and WEBGRID) software:


125

“Ny far the best ref on PCA is John Gower, "Some distance properties of latent root

and vector methods in multivariate analysis", Biometrika, 1966. 53, 325-338. John

sent me a draft of that paper in 1964 and I programmed PCA on the Cambridge

TITAN -- it has been my bible ever since and is a recognized citation classic.” (from

personal correspondents with Dr. Brian Gaines, 2008)

As mentioned before, the distances between variables are counted with Minkowski

metric where the default power of 1 defines the standard city-block metric (in contrast

to Euclidean metric which is defined by power of 2, see Appendix 2).

Components and constructs

Constructs are plotted as straight lines where the angle with respect to each

component reflects the extent to which the construct is represented by the

component.

The angle between any two construct lines reflects the extent to which the ratings of

elements on those constructs are correlated: the smaller the angle, the more similar

the ratings.

In a broader outlook, the angle between a group of construct lines and the

component line reflects the extent to which the component can be taken to represent

the grouping of constructs; the smaller the angle, the greater the extent (Jankowicz,

2004, p. 130; Gaines and Shaw, 2005).

The construct poles’ names are spread so it is also can be seen right away in which

direction the constructs are similarly rated.

In Figure 12, for example, the first, horizontal, component represents constructs 1

and 8 quite well (construct lines of 1 and 8 are coincided as their ratings are identical

when one of the constructs is reversed, i.e., PSS between them is 100% (Table 10)).

The second, vertical, component does not stand clearly for any construct. Lines of all

other constructs are disposed between the components being well represented by

neither of them. Interpretation of meanings underlying such plotting is presented in

section 7.3 of empirical part of the work.

Further, in this work, the term ‘dimension’ stands for a principal component which, in

its turn, represents a distinct pattern of variability in the grid, i.e., a certain direction in


126

which the values of the ratings vary. Thus, constructs with highest variance define

directions based on which respondent perceives a product. The PCA of a grid

reveals the dimensions in which a person perceives elements. When looking at the

constructs referred to one component usually a shared meaning of those constructs

can be identified. The shared meaning represents a common topic or direction of

meanings described by the constructs. Each person perceives elements in several

dimensions which can be named generally according to the meanings of the

constructs aligned to each dimension.

Components and elements

Elements are also placed on the plot. As each component stands for several

constructs, the elements can be positioned along each component in place of their

original position along each construct. It is like the position of a point on a graph far

along both axes. Itself, it does not bring a lot of sense and is not that useful for

interpretation until other elements are positioned on the plot (Jankowicz, 2004, p.

130).

The distance between any two elements gives an idea of the relationships between

these two elements because it reflects the ratings, each element was given on all the

constructs. Thus, if two elements are closely positioned on the graph it means they

received similar ratings on those constructs which are represented by the

components reflected on the plot.

Only two components can be reflected on the plot at a time. Therefore, when more

then two principal components are significant it is important to look how elements are

positioned on plots reflecting all pairs of components. It can be revealed that two

elements that are placed closely on the graphic plot, for example, of two first

components are placed apart on the plot of, e.g., first and third components, still

showing the similarity on the first component but real difference on the third one.

Such positioning observation reveals on which dimensions the elements are

considered differently by the respondent and on which dimensions perceptions of

elements are similar.

For example, in Figure 13 on the first plot reflecting first and second components,

i.e., dimensions, elements ‘Ideal’ and ‘iMac G4’ are placed identically on the first

dimension and appeared in different quadrants but also not very distantly on the


127

second dimension. However, on the second and third plots reflecting first and third;

and second and third components respectively these elements are positioned far

apart. This signifies that although element “iMac G4’ is considered similar to the

‘Ideal’ element on the first dimension, they are considered different on the second

and very different on the third dimension (construct lines are not shown in Figure 13

for visual convenience).

Figure 13: Element perception on different dimensions

This is a particularly useful property offered by grid analysis which allows to compare

how closely a person construes his perceptions towards certain elements on different

dimensions. Depending on how far the two elements are positioned on the plot it can

be concluded, for example, what might need to be changed to make element ‘iMac

G4’ to be perceived closer to or like ‘ideal’ element. Along which dimensions and,


128

hence, constructs the movement should occur so that the rating values of

perceptions on that constructs would be altered by the person (Jankowicz, 2004, p.

131).

4.6.2.3. Synergy of principal component and hierarchical cluster analysis

Analysis of similarities and differences between construct meanings allows to identify

groups of customers whose perceptions of elements, e.g., products or brands, are

similar or different in certain ways. These findings can help a company to appeal to

the customers in a proper way emphasizing and focusing on important attributes and

characteristics sought by each group taking into account customer’s preferences and

expectations.

The RG contains not only meanings but also ratings which allow to apply both

qualitative and quantitative approaches making the analysis of similarities and

differences more thorough. This study is aimed at proposing an application of PCA

and HCA in a way which would produce a synergy effect by structuring and

systemizing RG data into a certain form to simplify data visualization and to allow

customers' classification according to their perceptions and preferences.

PCA and HCA present pattern detection methods which purpose is to represent the

variation in a data set into a more manageable form by recognizing categories or

groups (Van Ooyen, 2001). The principle of synergy effect produced by combination

of PCA and HCA is illustrated in Figure 14.

At first, PCA allows to distinguish constructs according to the distinct patterns of

variability. Each dimension, i.e., component contains constructs that have the same

variation trend of the ratings (Jankowicz, 2004, p. 128).

Within each dimension by means of HCA the distances between constructs as well

as between elements are calculated and grouping according to PSSs in ratings is

performed.

Combination of PCA and HCA allows recognizing:

1. Common patterns of variation, i.e., common directions in which construct

ratings vary (where the first component accounts for the largest variance);


129

2. Similarities among rating absolute values which indicate possible similarity

between meanings underlying constructs.

Constructs with highest variance attributed to the principal components define

directions based on which a respondent perceives a product. And if there are

constructs that do not only vary in the same direction but also have the same or

similar rating values it may indicate strong resemblance between meanings

underlying constructs or, at least, strong correlation and complementarity of

perceptions.

PCA: distinct patterns of variability

HCA: similarity grouping by distances

1 Cluster

2 Cluster

1 Cluster

1 Component 2 Component

1 Component 2 Component

General data set

Figure 14: Synergy effect of PCA and HCA

It is very important to bear in mind that the nature of the research to be conducted by

means of described methodology is exploratory. Exploratory research, although

applying quantitative methods such as PCA and HCA, implies the biggest role of the

interpretation aspect comprised in methodology. Exploratory research is, first of all,

aimed at recognizing common patterns which can describe people, i.e., consumer

behavior and permits to classify people according to these patterns.

Therefore, although pattern detection is sometimes regarded as yet another form of

statistics, there are important conceptual differences which should be taken into


130

account when conducting quantitative analysis within the suggested methodology

(Hogeweg, 1976 cited in Dijkshoorn et al., 2001, p. 44):

1. In statistics deviations from randomness in the data set are looked for.

In pattern detection the structure in the data set is sought.

2. In statistics attempts are made to make sample-independent statements. The

data under consideration is assumed to be a random sample of the whole

population, and the objective is to make statements about the whole

population by looking at a representative sample of the population. Ideally,

these statements should not change if a different random sample is taken from

the population.

In pattern detection, the data set under study is not considered a sample from

a larger population but is considered all there is. A different structure may be

found if new data is added.

3. In statistics groups (and an underlying distribution) are presupposed and tests

are made to determine whether these groups differ significantly form each

other (i.e., more than can be expected on the basis of random fluctuations

alone). In other words, concepts are tested (i.e., attempts are made to answer

the question whether presupposed groups are different).

In pattern detection groups are generated per se. In other words, concepts

(i.e., groupings) are generated. Descriptive statistics, however, may be used in

pattern detection for characterizing the grouping obtained in cluster analysis.

PCA and HCA can best be seen as heuristic, rather than statistical, methods for

exploring the diversity in a data set by means of pattern generation. Thus, rather than

trying to find the “right” pattern or classification, the differences in the patterns as

revealed by analysis should be used to gain further understanding of the objects

under the study (Dijkshoorn et al., 2001, p. 45).

4.7. Reliability and validity of the repertory grid

When talking about the concepts of reliability and validity, first of all, the

determination needs to be differentiated according to whether it determines the

reliability and validity of the RG as a data collecting technique or it determines the


131

reliability and validity of measures applied for data analysis. It is also important how

these two concepts are construed from the PCT perspective underlying the RGT

(Fransella et al., 2004, p. 132).

Although a resulting grid contains a lot of numbers, it is important to remember that

the technique remains qualitative where the data represents the result of a sorting

process by a respondent. This data shows relations between the elements and is

rather susceptible to the selection of elements and the interview situation. The

elicited constructs contain very subjective individual meanings and labels which

require a great care of the researcher to be interpreted ‘correctly’. Therefore, an

excess of statistical processing may distort information derived from this ‘soft’ data

(Björklund, 2005).

It is important to remember that the RG represents a flexible and diverse

methodology but not a standardized test with the set procedure. The manuals written

about the RG outline the diversity of the technique, the variety of form design,

elicitation procedures and analyzing approaches (e.g., Fransella et al., 2004,

Jankowicz, 2004; Feixas and Alvarez, 1996). Unlike tests, where the administering

procedure is clearly specified and described and the ratings and scores are based on

an adequate standardization data, the RGT does not meet these requirements and

grids do not have norms (Beail, 1985, p. 22).

Given the wide variety of form, content and analysis available in the RG application it

makes no sense to discuss reliability and validity of RG in general. The same as

when talking about the reliability and validity of a questionnaire, the defining issues

comprise what grid, in what area administrated, to what kind of people, under what

kind of conditions, analyzed in what kind of manner and what kind of results are

sought (Fransella et al., 2004, p. 134). Therefore, the RG should be viewed as a

specific format which is used for collecting the data and the question of reliability and

validity should be referred to a particular case of RG application and its measurement

procedures.

When talking about the reliability of a measure, there are two various definitions of

the term used by researchers. The first definition of the reliability concept implies the

general capacity of a measure to ‘reliably’ assess a characteristic, whether or not the

‘amount’ of the characteristic is changing in the subject. As second, by ‘reliability’ is


132

meant the tendency of a test to produce exactly the same result for the same subject

at different times. There are the research contexts in which the second definition

could be regarded as a reasonable operational form of the first definition, for example

when it is assumed that the characteristic is relatively stable and unchanging for a

given subject such as the height of an adult or a temperature of a healthy person.

However, the universal application of the second definition as a requirement of a

measure becomes pointless when it is about things that change a priori.

In Kelly’s PCT, underlying the RGT, the person is a ‘form of motion’, not a static

object and, therefore, the consistence between person’s construct systems over time

could be low (Björklund, 2005). Hence, since much of life is about change and the

stability or the instability exists in what is measured, not in the measure, the aim is

not to produce stable measures but to assess as accurately as possible the

predictable stability and the predictable change (Fransella et al., 2004, p. 133).

The question arises under what circumstances a researcher would expect stability or

change from a personal construct system? This question can be answered only

regarding a particular form of the RG. It would depend on which part of the person’s

viewpoint, attitudes or knowledge is examined and re-examined. For example, a high

degree of stability can be expected when examining from time to time personal

notions of the rules of arithmetic. However, when examining, for example, personal

viewpoint about the political situation, more variation in attitude can be expected in

time (Fransella et al., 2004, p. 133). In marketing research, it can also be expected

that more superordinate constructs such as values or socio-psychological expected

consequences would appear more stable than consumer’s attitude or perception of a

particular product characteristic, such as high level of product quality. However, even

in this case a lot depends on what kind of product or product category is in question.

This exemplifies that the idea of the static mind represents a contradiction in terms.

Therefore, the application of the RG should not be done to repeat the same result but

to understand, when it shows change, what that change is signifying. In these terms

the reliability can be rather regarded as merely one aspect of validity (Fransella et al.,

2004, p. 134).

The discussion of the RG validity took place in a lot of studies again due to its flexible

format and a variety of applications (see Fransella et al., 2004, p. 143 for discussions


133

in different fields of research). However, at the end, as Fransella and colleagues

(2004, p. 146) point out that the grid became a problem for those researchers who

regarded it as a ready-made device or tool for their purposes rather than a broad

methodology which involves them in solving a series of experimental problems if it is

to be of any value.

The RG does not represent a test. It is a format in which data can be placed what

reveals if there is a pattern or meaning to the data. As it has no specific content, its

validity can be discussed in a sense that the researcher can question whether or not

it can effectively reveal patterns and relationships in certain types of data (Fransella

et al., 2004, p. 144).

The validity of the technique in terms of the PCT is its capacity to enable us to

elaborate our construing, our ability to anticipate (Björklund, 2005). Elaboration,

according to the PCT, occurs by the extension and definition of personal construing

system. In its turn, the extension implies an increase of the range of convenience of

personal constructs so that more events or elements are taken into consideration.

Elaboration of construing by definition implies tightening of the construing within an

investigated area so that the researcher attains a more precise, detailed and exact

comprehension of this area. Thus, Kelly equated the concept of validity with

usefulness and saw understanding as the most useful of enterprises. The validity

ultimately refers to the way in which a mode of understanding enables the researcher

or the respondent to take effective action (Fransella et al., 2004, p. 151).

Bannister and Bott (1973, p. 162) say: “Qif we substitute for validity the notion of

usefulness, or at least make usefulness the central feature of validity, we shall be

less concerned with the correlation between a test and some relatively arbitrary

criterion, and more concerned with the values which users of a test find in it”.

The interpretive paradigm and the PCT underpinning the RGT are congruent with

what Kelly argued that the validity of any theory is to be found in its usefulness. In

this respect the RGT has proven its utility by being applied and tested in widely

differing fields for several decades and remains a fruitful technique offering a number

of fundamental advantages to the researchers.

The above explanation and arguments confirm that the validity of a grid should be

questioned within a particular study applying a particular elicitation and administering


134

procedure. The fact that even slight procedural variations can produce a substantial

impact on the content and structure of the elicited personal constructs emphasizes

the role and responsibility of the researchers who have to understand their own

contributions to the grid outcomes that they interpret (Neimeyer, 2002). Thus, if it is

found that a particular grid does not have any predictive value and did not produce

the sought information, the researcher should look for the shortcomings in that

specific grid format and design rather than make general remarks regarding the

validity of the technique.

Although there are shortcomings and limitations of the method many of them can be

overcome due to the various ways of grid application, its flexibility. Within the each

area where the method is used researchers try to adopt and further expand the

methodology by suggesting new variations which can make the technique even more

suitable to a particular field.

In this work the general description of the RG includes discussions of reliability,

validity or, at least, reasonability of either option appropriateness depending on the

topic, objective and conditions of the research. Although almost in every aspect of

RGT various ways and approaches are described, there is still a lot left aside

because of its diversity especially in respect to different fields where the technique is

applicable. It is, therefore, a researcher’s task to consider the options and nuances

and design the grid which would meet the conditions and the requirements regarding

information of his study.

The market research study conducted in the frame of this work is aimed at exploring

the customers’ constructs related to a particular product category. Therefore, the

utility presents in the discovered information and inferences that can be made by

interpreting the data to be used further for strategic, positioning and advertising

objectives. The reliability estimates of the study are not tested as they need to be

based on re-test correlations replicated previous research finding which are not

available due to the specificity of the research topic, the conditions, the region and

the sample involved in the study.

4.8. Summary

♦ Repertory grid is a technique of structured interviewing designed to capture the

dimensions and the structure of personal meanings. It is aimed at eliciting


135

and describing the ways in which people give meanings to their experience in

their own terms, in their own language. Its methodology allows a new deeper

insight on how people think and perceive life experience and things around.

♦ The technique represents a qualitative approach for data collection designed so

that the gathered data is appropriate for both qualitative and quantitative

analysis methods.

♦ Repertory grid technique is developed within the personal construct theory

which maintains that a person’s understanding of the world is the result of an

active, constructive process rather than a passive reaction to some external

reality.

♦ This understanding is achieved through a construing, i.e., the process of

contrast and similarity. People construe situations and give meaning to events

by seeking to differentiate them from others and see them as similar to others.

♦ Similarity and contrast in events or objects that are observed and perceived by an

individual stimulate the creation of his personal classification standards –

constructs. Thus, subjective meanings take the form of bipolar constructs

which are organized into a system of superordinate and subordinate relationships.

♦ Therefore, not only the content but also the structure of meanings is considered

within the personal construct theory and the repertory grid technique.

♦ Personal construct theory is consistent with the interpretive paradigm which

focus lies on the exploring the psychological processes that people use to make

sense of their material and social environments.

♦ The resulting form of the repertory grid elicitation procedure in whole represents a

set of rating scales printed one above the other with the ratings arranged in

rows and columns into a table or a grid.

♦ A grid is always conducted about a particular topic with an intention of eliciting

just those constructs which a person uses in making sense of that particular field

of discourse, i.e., that particular piece of his experience.


136

♦ Repertory grid mainly consists of:

� a set of elements which are representative of the content area under the

study;

� a set of personal constructs that a person uses to compare and contrast the

elements;

� a rating system that evaluates the elements based on a bipolar arrangement

of each construct.

♦ Constructs represent individual scales that a person uses when thinking about

the elements, where poles of a construct represent scale limits. Constructs can be

elicited or supplied. Elicited constructs are more informative for an explorative

research. An enclosure of supplied constructs enables to expand the variety of

findings.

♦ Elements can also be elicited or supplied. Elicitation of elements based on

supplied categories represents an advantageous approach which, on the one

hand, implies consideration of elements a respondent is aware of and, on the

other hand, enables further comparison of individual grids within the sample.

♦ ‘Self’ elements such as ‘ideal’ or ‘current’ represent individual perceptions and

images of what a respondent actually has or wants when talking about things,

events or people enclosed in the element set. Supplying of such key elements

permits to significantly extend the findings from further analyses.

♦ When elements represent products or brands the ‘ideal’ element represents a

generalized image comprising mostly desired performance of a product or a

brand from the domain. This element appears helpful in any research in which a

grid is used to understand a respondent’s choice, i.e., preferences.

♦ Personal values represent desired end states which can be derived from

constructs by means of the laddering up technique and then prioritized and put

into a hierarchical order by means of the resistance-to-change technique.


137

♦ Resistance-to-change technique enables to identify values that are not sincere

and central for a person, but were expressed rather fictitious to seem more

meaningful.

♦ The higher the personal value in the hierarchy, the higher its resistant to change

and, thus, the representative subordinate constructs, including product attributes

are tend to be similarly resistant to change.

♦ In order to better understand what is being said in a grid a blend of both,

qualitative and quantitative approaches appear useful to be applied.

♦ Qualitative analysis methods that are traditionally used are frequency counts

and content analysis. These methods are concerned with analyzing contents of a

grid.

♦ Quantitative analysis methods most often used are hierarchical cluster analysis

and principal component analysis which also enable to analyze inter-

relationships contained in a grid.

♦ When applying traditional content analysis the ratings contained in a grid are

completely ignored. Honey’s content analysis technique permits to make use of

individual meanings expressed by person’s ratings.

♦ Honey’s content analysis suggests to supply an overall assessment construct

which is formulated to sum up the interviewee’s individual attitude to the topic as

a whole. Ratings on this construct are compared with the ratings of elicited

constructs to identify how closely the elicited meanings relate to the topic in

question.

♦ Honey’s content analysis allows aggregation of constructs across a sample

revealing the homogeneity in attributes’ relevance and importance. It takes

into account respondents’ personal metrics of construct similarity to the overall

construct.


138

♦ Honey’s content analysis also allows to discern a presence of latent groups for

which attributes that appeared less salient for the rest of a sample are commonly

important.

♦ It is proposed that the relevance of the elicited constructs to the supplied

construct identified by Honey’s technique can also be applied regarding

constructs representing subthemes of a survey rather than only its general topic.

♦ Hierarchical cluster analysis used for analyzing repertory grid data differs from

the traditional cluster analysis as:

� it sorts and rearranges rows (constructs) and columns (elements) of a grid so

that the resulting dendrogram comprises both construct and element

dendrograms illustrating the strength of association between elements and

between constructs;

� it takes into account the bipolarity of constructs by considering both reversed

and unreversed constructs.

♦ High matches between constructs indicate that the relevant constructs

distinguish identically or similarly between the majority of elements. High

matches between elements signify that the elements share identical or similar

ratings on the majority of constructs.

♦ Principal component analysis of a grid reveals the dimensions in which a person

perceives elements.

♦ The difference of the principal component analysis used for a grid data in

comparison to the original analysis approach is that it allows to compare how

closely a person construes his perceptions towards certain elements on

different dimensions. This is attained by the analysis tool capability to place

elements on the same plot that reflects constructs on different dimensions.

♦ It is suggested that application of the principal component analysis and

hierarchical component analysis on the complementary basis can produce a

synergy effect by structuring and systemizing repertory grid data into a certain

form which simplifies data visualization and allows consumers' classification

according to their perceptions and preferences.


139

� At first, principal component analysis allows to distinguish constructs

according to distinct patterns of the variability.

� Secondly, within the each dimension by means of the hierarchical cluster

analysis distances between the constructs as well as between the elements

are calculated and a grouping is performed.

♦ Combination of the principal component analysis and hierarchical cluster analysis

allows recognizing:

� Common patterns of variation, i.e., common directions in which construct

ratings vary (where the first component accounts for the largest variance);

� Similarities among rating absolute values which indicate possible similarity

between the meanings underlying constructs.

♦ Constructs with highest variance attributed to the principal components are

determinative for the directions based on which a respondent perceives a

product. Each person perceives elements in several dimensions which can be

generally named according to a common meaning of the constructs aligned to

each dimension.

♦ Constructs that do not only vary in the same direction but also have the same or

similar rating values may have a strong resemblance between their meanings

or, at least, there is a strong correlation and complementarity of these

perceptions.

♦ In an exploratory research after recognizing common patterns and similarities in

consumer perceptions by means of quantitative approaches the inferences and

conclusions are very much dependent on the interpretation of these findings.

♦ Concepts of reliability and validity of the repertory grid are built on the fact that

the technique represents a flexible and diverse methodology but not a

standardized test with the set procedure.

♦ In the personal construct theory a person is a ‘form of motion’, therefore, when

talking about technique’s reliability, application of the repertory grid should not


140

be done to repeat the same result but to understand, when it shows change,

what that change is signifying.

♦ The interpretive paradigm and the personal construct theory are congruent with

what Kelly argued that the validity of any theory is to be found in its usefulness.

The validity ultimately refers to the way in which a method of understanding

enables a researcher or respondent to take effective actions.

5. Modeling consumer motivational sphere

141

5. Modeling the consumer motivational sphere

In this chapter the individual consumer motivational sphere (CMS) described in the

theoretical part is further discussed with the focus on a procedure suggested to

identify the concepts and linkages represented in the CMS schema. The purpose of

the chapter is to define where each level of abstraction can be found when analyzing

RG data by means of analysis methods described in 4.6. After showing the initial

schema developed in 2.2 the model is further extended with its analysis sources

assigned to each level of the initial schema. Following parts of the chapter are

devoted to the description of each level presented in the model focusing on the

analysis approach suggested to reveal relevant information.

According to Trommsdorff (2009, p. 108) values represent too-general motives and

by themselves do not explain much about consumer buying motivation. It is important

to obtain the full sequence of motives starting from too-specific which explain a lot

about purchasing motivation of an individual, then moving to motives of the middle

range which allow revealing of commonalities within a group of consumers and

ending up with too-general motives in order to understand the full structure of

consumers’ mental representations regarding the investigated topic and the nature of

the consumer behavior underlined by their preferences and choices.

Product characteristics Product attributes Specific consequences Abstract consequences

"too specific motives" "motives of

middle range"

"too general motives"

MOTIVES

Expected consequences

(desirable/undesirable)Product

Values

Situational and Environmental incentives

Figure 15: Consumer motivational sphere

It is assumed that each level of abstraction presented in the schema can be

disclosed by analyzing data elicited by means of the RGT. In Figure 16 the schema is

extended with its sources, i.e., each level is assigned with that part of the

methodology by which the level can be identified and described.


142

Product characteristics Specific consequences Values

Personal constructs Laddering UP Laddering UP

WHICH Resistance-to-Change

Product attributes Abstract consequences

Content Analysis PCA Dimensions

WHAT Clusters

Sit. and Env. incentives

HOW+ Ideal ratings

Ana

lysi

s dr

iven

: re

lativ

ely

obj

ectiv

eP

erso

n dr

iven

: su

bjec

tive

Figure 16: The CMS schema extended with sources

Thus, it is suggested that by integrating both qualitative and quantitative approaches

in analyzing RG data a clear structure of an individual CMS schema can be obtained.

On the one hand, this structure contains very individual aspects which usually can be

useful when working with each customer individually or with very small group of

people. It is especially appropriate for companies producing high involvement

products usually at relatively high prices. On the other hand, the structure provides

more abstract information about the customer which permits comparison of different

individuals and revelation of similarities among people on different levels of

abstraction of their mental representations.

The suggested methodology integrates and extends existing qualitative and

quantitative approaches to investigate an individual construing system on two levels

according to the extent of meaning objectivity.

The first level of integrated method is based on producing a person driven outcome

which actually organizes the information elicited directly from an individual using his

own meanings. Findings made on this level are based on the individual expressed

meanings where the numeric part of the RG form is not considered. This method,

actually, represents the common method usually applied for RG analysis based on

the laddering technique developed on principles of the MEC theory. Within the

suggested methodology this ‘upper’ level represents a more subjective part of the

whole methodological chain.

The second, ‘bottom’ level of the method is based on producing the analysis driven

outcome which is aimed at revealing and structuring the underlying meanings


143

expressed, on the one hand, directly in a sense of elicited expressions and, on the

other hand, indirectly in a sense of meaning relationships implied by numeric

evaluations, i.e., given ratings. All the analyzed data is still elicited from an individual,

however, an attempt is pursued to uncover subconscious part of construing system

built on certain relationships between meanings which are hard to be recognized

when only interpreting individual’s directly expressed wording. Involving quantitative

analysis the ‘bottom’ level of methodology represents a relatively objective part of the

methodological chain.

The ‘bottom’ level of the methodology represents a major methodological contribution

to broadening the variety and complexity of approaches used for analysis of the RG

data. The proposed methodology does not contradict the traditional approaches to

analyze RG but rather complements them with an opportunity to use and produce

inferences from fuller capacity of the RG elicitation technique.

As for contribution to the theory of consumer motivation the suggested methodology

comprises a certain approach to define and assess motives of the middle range

building on the motives conception proposed by Trommsdorff.

In the Figure 16 the linkages within the chain show that the procedure comprised in

the upper level methodology is not directly connected to the procedure implied in the

bottom methodology level. It is assumed that although the levels of abstraction in the

scheme do not necessarily sequentially flow out from each other in terms of analysis

procedure, their linkages are preserved in terms of sense implied by revealed and

interpreted structured meanings in each level of abstraction. It means that the

methodology is developed to identify each level of abstraction according to its

definition where level distinction is based on the extent of its relation to the person’s

product or self knowledge.

Further each level of abstraction presented in the CMS schema is described in terms

of its disclosing procedure based on the elicited RG data.

5.1. Product characteristics

At first, elicited personal constructs represent product characteristics that are more or

less important for the consumer. Sometimes, personal construct is expressed in

relatively abstract way when it is not clear which specific product characteristic or


144

feature is implied, for example, “more comfortable versus less comfortable”. This

should be précised during the interview by means of laddering down technique, when

asking, for example, ‘what does it mean ‘more comfortable’ for you?’ Then person

states what is it that he considers ‘comfortable’ for him. In this case, one may say:

“there is enough space for me to stretch my legs and lay down”, another may say:

“the auto is better equipped with different technical devices that provide passenger’s

comfort”, while the third one points that: “comfortable means not to feel bumpy roads

at a high speed” and so on. Therefore, it is important to try to keep all the information

and expressions provided by the interviewee.

In order to detect which constructs should be specified during the interview it is

helpful to examine the constructs that distinguish between the elements on the

classificatory criteria employed by the respondents (Dillon and McKnight, 1990). To

do so, constructs can be classified virtually as referring to different aspects of the

elements’ description. Within the context of the current research elements which

represent different autos appear to be distinguishable on three types of elicited

constructs according to the direction of their meanings about the elements. Thus,

constructs refer to one of the following aspects of elements’ description:

• ‘Which’ characteristics the auto contains, e.g., large or compact in size, rigid or

soft suspension, attractive or unappealing design, capacity of high speed and

power or lack of the capacity, etc.

• ‘What’ the auto provides or emphasizes, e.g., comfortable or not, prestigious

or ordinary, provides a feel of safety or does not provide such a feel, enjoy

from driving or stressful driving, evokes respect on the road or imperceptible,

etc.

• ‘How’ the auto is being used, e.g., for work or for leisure time, in summer or

all-year around, in the city or in the countryside, with a driver or for self-driving,

for oneself or for the family use, etc.

Such a virtual classification of constructs helps the researcher to examine the

constructs right away during the interview. Thus, at first level of abstraction all

personal constructs are kept and those constructs that answer the question ‘which’

and ‘how’ are usually recorded as initially expressed while those constructs that refer

to the question ‘what’ often reflect more abstract meanings that rather stand for the


145

attributes or even consequences and, therefore, should be précised through the

laddering down technique.

The virtual classification of constructs is feasible in the studies regarding different

topics. It is only important for the researcher to accurately define the questions or the

aspects of elements to which the constructs refer. When aspects are accurately

defined, usually most constructs refer to one of them. Rarely, constructs that can be

referred to neither of aspects are either very specific to the individual or bear little

obvious semantic resemblance to any other construct with which they may match

(Dillon and McKnight, 1990).

The elicited constructs may appear at any level of abstraction, although it is usually

found that consumers make distinctions at relatively concrete level of abstraction

such as product physical characteristics or product perceived attributes. However,

some may discriminate elements at the higher level of abstraction such as

consequences and very rarely at the highest level, i.e., personal values (Olson and

Reynolds, 1983, p. 82). In this study it is found that in most cases by laddering down

procedure when asking the question “how, in what way?” or “what does it mean for

you?” interviewer can reveal chains of lower level of abstraction such as concrete

product characteristic or at least attribute (see also Jankowicz, 2004, p. 64).

5.2. Product attributes

Product attributes represent perceptible product characteristics and features.

Perceptible characteristics of a product often enclose several product physical

characteristics. As an example taken from one of the elicited grids of this study, a

person provides one construct “reliable vehicle which needs less service versus

unreliable, often breaks down” and another construct “producer’s proved image of

high quality production versus not proved”. As a result of content analysis and

categorization these constructs refer to the perception of quality of the vehicle. And

by looking at the ratings given by the interviewee (see Table 15) it is seen that most

ratings are similar and only on one element ratings differ at minimal value. The PSS

between these two constructs is 94%.

Product attributes are individually perceptible and, sometimes, presence and

performance of the same product physical characteristic may be associated with


146

different attributes by different people. As an example, in the conducted study several

interviewees mentioned “presence of rigid versus soft suspension” in vehicle.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

reliable, needs less servicing 1 2 2 2 3 2 3 4 1 unreliable, breaks more often

producer's proved quality (e.g. German or Japanese producers)

1 3 2 2 3 2 3 4 1not proved production quality (e.g. Italian

proucers)

ElementEmergent pole (1) Implicit pole (5)

Table 15: Ratings given on constructs of the same product attribute.

For one person who purchases armored tough body vehicles, presence of a rigid

suspension is essential for a safe reliable exploitation and, therefore, he perceives

the presence and quality of rigid frame and suspension as one of the components of

a high quality vehicle.

Another person, who also pointed necessity of a rigid suspension, often utilizes his

auto out of the city area which is characterized by a very bad quality of roads. For

this person presence of rigid suspension defines the level of rough-terrain

performance provided by a vehicle implying assurance that the auto will not get stuck

in a ditch or mud.

However, for the third person who also expressed the construct “rigid versus soft

suspension”, it appears to be important to have soft suspension which provides a

comfortable ride. This person utilizes an auto only in the city where he does not face

problems with a bad quality of roads. For him it is important to experience a soft calm

ride without feeling any bumps on the roads.

This example proves the importance of understanding the underlying meanings

expressed in the constructs and importance of interpretation of expressions in

compliance with all elicited and even beforehand known information, if available,

about an interviewee.

Categorization and assignment of product characteristics to product attributes can be

highlighted later, as a researcher goes with analysis, by means of the HCA which

sorts and rearranges constructs so that similarly-rated constructs are situated

together. This method can, sometimes, help to prove an uncertain assignment,

however, it is important to always pay attention to the expressed meaning as similarly

rated constructs not necessarily imply reference to the same product attribute.


147

5.3. Specific expected consequences

Specific expected consequences represent the lowest of three levels of abstraction

which already represent the motives that stimulate and influence consumer decision

making process. Specific consequences are very personal and hard to approximate

in order to reach common set of expected benefits.

In suggested model specific consequences are identified through the laddering up

technique. Consumers are given laddering up task aimed at understanding of

consumers’ underlying personal motives with respect to a given set of elements, e.g.,

products or brands. Each unique pathway from product characteristic to a personal

value represents a possible perceptual orientation with respect to viewing the product

category (Reynolds and Gutman, 1988).

Laddering task is undertaken during the one-on-one interview to elicit individuals’

means-end knowledge structures linking product characteristics to related values or

end states. There are reasons to apply laddering technique only to some elicited

constructs rather than make a person provide ladders for each given construct.

One reason to be emphasized is time limit during an interview. This reason refers to

the conduction of the research, i.e., its practical accomplishment rather than scientific

or theoretical limitation. RGT requires relatively long time, usually not less than 1

hour for one interview. When the technique is to be used in clinical purposes or by

human resources department in organizations respondents usually may or ready to

devote as much time as needed because they are forced or self interested in it,

besides they are usually interested in the results received from analysis of their

personal repertory grids. In marketing it is researchers and managers who are

interested in the outcome and the findings rather than consumers who, indeed, make

a favor to a researcher by participating in survey. They are not interested in the

results of the study (as they rarely acquire access to them) and it is hard to ask them

to devote so much time as would be needed to elicit all possible cognitive meanings

and ladders related to the investigated topic. That is why it is vital to understand at

the beginning which information is useless and should not be asked in order to make

interview less time consuming.

Second reason refers to a common criticism of the original means-end chain

approach which claims that by asking “why is it important for you?” artificial abstract


148

levels may occur (Grunert and Grunert, 1995). This problem does not take place only

when all the characteristics from which ladders are elicited are considered as enough

important to produce benefits for an interviewee. Otherwise, respondents are

basically forced to find arguments for their buying behavior what makes them think in

a more strategic way and provide reasons that often do not explain their actual

preferences and choice (Botschen, et al., 1999).

The RGT does not imply elicitation of most important characteristics that respondents

seek for when choosing a concrete product. The triadic sort task described in section

4.5.2.1 is intended to elicit the salient distinctions respondents use to discriminate

among stimuli in the domain of interest (for example, brands in a product category)

(Olson and Reynolds, 1983, p. 82). These salient distinctions, i.e., elicited constructs

reflect cognitive meanings that respondents use when thinking about that domain,

however, not all of them appear to be important when making purchasing decisions.

The ‘ideal’ element which represents a generalized image comprising mostly desired

performance of the product or brand from the domain appears helpful in any research

in which a grid is used to understand the respondent’s choice, i.e., preferences

(Jankowicz, 2004, p. 58). The rating value assigned to the construct on the ‘ideal’

element points the preferred by the respondent construct pole. Rating value of ‘1’ or

‘2’ points that respondent prefers product characteristic performance as expressed in

the emergent pole and, correspondingly, rating value of ‘5’ or ‘4’ indicates that the

product characteristic performance of the implicit pole is preferred.

For this reason, in the proposed methodology it is suggested that laddering

procedure should be carried only with those constructs that are given extreme rating

value which is either ‘1’ or ‘5’ (in case of 5-point scale) on the ‘ideal’ element. It is

assumed that when respondent provides extreme rating on the ‘ideal’ element he is

consciously aware of why and what for he wants a product characteristic expressed

in the construct to be necessarily present as stated in the preferred pole. Therefore,

he can provide conscious consequences that he expects from obtaining the product

characteristic.

Depending on the field and research purpose ladders can be elicited either from

preferred pole or from both contrast poles. In the elicitation from both contrast poles

at each iteration when respondent answers the question “why is it important for you?”


149

the following question “what would the other end of that construct be?” is to be asked

next. Thus, the resulting ladder consists of a set of superordinate constructs on top

of which most superordinate one reflects personal value and its contrast for example

“life and hope versus death, hopelessness, and despair” (Jankowicz, 2004, p. 191).

In marketing, elicitation of both contrasts of personal values seems to be excessively

unlike. In condition of limited time asking for contrasts at each ladder doubles the

time and rarely brings significant information. Personal values are very general and

their contrasts are more or less clear unlike subordinate constructs, especially at the

lower levels of abstraction. If the procedure for eliciting personal values implied

straight asking for ‘your’ values, expressed ‘life and hope’ would not say much about

a person to the researcher, however, the elicited contrast ‘death, hopelessness, and

despair’ also would not be so helpful in explaining individual’s construing system of

his buying behavior. Sequence of ladders obtained only from the preferred pole

explains much more about personal mental representations which bridge product

characteristics and personal values what is of a greater interest for marketers.

Moreover, it saves time and does not let the respondent become bored with an

interview what is very important when the data is based on the meanings expressed

by respondent and his disinterest and unwillingness to support may lead to artificial

or scant data.

Specific expected consequences, being elicited from constructs which are given the

extreme rating value on the ideal element, ensure that revealed ladders are

consciously realized and, thus, meanings expressed in each ladder are scarcely

artificial. On the other hand, meanings implied by other constructs are not considered

on the higher levels of abstraction because of a doubt of the fact that a respondent

can actually produce consciously realized and, at the same time, not artificial ladders.

However, being elicited by the RGT these other constructs are assumed to be a part

of a customer’s construing system related to the domain and, therefore, need to be

considered, analyzed and interpreted in terms of their role within the CMS.

The term ‘specific’ used for defining the expected consequences elicited by means of

laddering technique emphasizes that these consequences are directly formulated by

the respondent based on his conscious mental representations and, thus, they are

individually peculiar.


150

Disclosing of abstract expected consequences, discussed next, implies application of

quantitative approaches in addition to the qualitative content interpretation in order to

consider all constructs, i.e., meanings associated with the topic in question, and

define their motivational role in the respondent’s cognitive structure related to the

topic.

5.4. Abstract expected consequences

Next level of abstraction in the proposed model concept represents consequences

that are identified by means of quantitative analysis and interpretation of elicited

product characteristics and attributes. In original MEC theory consequences of a

higher level of abstraction are obtained through the laddering and bridge product

characteristics, product attributes and consequences of a lower level of abstraction

with personal values. As described in 2.1.2 there is, however, a certain criticism in

literature concerning identification and distinguishing between consequences of

different levels of abstraction and values.

This work proposes different approach for disclosing abstract consequences, i.e.,

motives of the middle range that drive and direct consumers in their buying behavior.

The aim pursued is to suggest a method that would allow to identify and to formulate

consequences at a level of abstraction which permits to approximate and find

commonalities within a group of people but, at the same time, the identified

consequences would still be not too general and could be interpreted in terms of

product features and perceptions.

The virtue of identifying abstract consequences by means of suggested methodology

is that another type of human cognitive representation is additionally involved. In

laddering a person is actually using his ability for reasoning, that is, he expresses

underlying reasons for perceiving and preferring things in this or that way. In the

proposed method analysis of person’s comparing ability is involved. Therefore,

mental representations underlying person’s evaluative and comparative approach to

perceive things are analyzed and inferences are made not only from vertical

relationships between meanings, i.e., linkages between different levels of abstraction,

but also from horizontal interrelationships between meanings that are on the same

level of abstraction.


151

Slater’s PCA described in 4.6.2.2 reveals dimensions which represent directions

based on which a respondent perceives elements. By conducting PCA of elicited

constructs and ratings components, i.e., dimensions which represent distinct patterns

of variability in the grid can be identified. According to Jankowicz (2004, p. 128) and

as it was found in this study, in most cases constructs aligned to one component

share some common meaning and, hence, a common direction of characteristics

described by constructs can be defined.

Common meanings underlying each identified dimension represent abstract

expected consequences. Therefore, an abstract consequence is derived from

product characteristics and their perceptions by identification of sort of a bundle

comprised of product features which person construes in the same way and direction

and associates them with attainment of a certain benefit.

Sometimes, meanings of constructs within one dimension can be different but the

fact that their rating values vary in the same way indicates a strong correlation

between these constructs. For this reason after carrying the quantitative procedure of

the PCA it comes to the numerously discussed importance of the interpretive

process.

PCA as complex analysis requires the researcher to make assumptions when

interpreting the original grid and unlike, for example, cluster analysis these

assumptions are less visible (Jankowicz, 2004, p. 132).

An essential interpretation of this analysis is that the greater the amount of variance

that a construct accounts for within the component and within the overall grid data,

the more important the construct is (Metzler and Neimeyer, 1988). Therefore, this

construct should be thoroughly considered when identifying underlying component

meaning. Finding a common meaning between constructs which lie closest to the

component, i.e., account for greater variance within the component, and naming the

component requires cautious interpretation.

The name given to a component which, in turn, represents an abstract consequence

reflects researcher’s judgement. Therefore, it is suggested, if possible, to negotiate a

meaning with an interviewee and check whether the researcher’s judgement reflects

true meaning of an interviewee (Jankowicz, 2004, p. 132). However, collaborative

process of verifying components denotation with an interviewee, i.e., consumer, is


152

rarely feasible in marketing and it appears vital how good the researcher is qualified

and can understand respondent’s jargon and meanings. Anyway, quantitative

assistance in distinguishing the elicited meanings makes the qualitative procedure of

interpretation more straightforward, clear and scientifically grounded.

PCA also provides hierarchical importance of identified abstract consequences.

There are two indicators that can specify hierarchical relationship between

components, i.e., dimensions.

• First indicator is a percentage of variance that component accounts for within

the overall RG data. The greater the percentage of variance a component

accounts for the more important the component is.

• Second indicator is a loading of the ‘ideal’ element. It is assumed that the

greater the loading of the ideal element a component has got the more

important the component is. As each component represents an abstract

consequence a respondent seeks for, consequences can be arranged

according to their importance for the respondent.

An indicator to be used depends on the aim of the research. If a research focus lies

in pursuing better understanding of how people construe their meanings and what

aspects people consider when thinking about a domain such as, for example, product

category then first indicator is more appropriate. However, when research is aimed at

revealing consumer preferences and expectations regarding product consumption an

indicator based on the ideal element evaluation should be used.

When PCA of the RG data is performed and constructs are assigned to the

components, it is suggested to perform the HCA regarding each component. That is,

in order to reach a synergy effect described in 4.6.2.3 and to structure elicited

meanings more precisely, within the each identified dimension constructs are

rearranged so that similarly rated constructs are positioned as adjacent. Such

positioning indicates that the person perceives meanings underlying similar

constructs not only in the same direction but also in the same way. This strengthens

the credibility of inferences made regarding similarity of individual subjective

meanings. At the same time, meanings underlying constructs which appear in

different clusters within the same dimension are considered, although different but


153

highly correlated what signifies their complementary relationship within the personal

cognitive structure of meanings.

Moreover, elements are also clustered within the each dimension allowing revealing

on which dimensions elements are considered similar or different. This is important in

order to understand on which dimensions a particular product or brand is perceived,

for example, differently from the ‘ideal’ one. This would mean that this particular

product cannot cause the abstract expected consequences, implied by that

dimensions, in the desired manner and, therefore, product characteristics and

product attributes comprised in that dimensions need to be improved or repositioned

(see also 4.6.2.1).

5.5. Values

The highest level of abstraction stands for personal values. Values are “end benefits”

that are expressed by respondent during laddering procedure (Gutman, 1991). They

are obtained during an interview when respondent at first is given a laddering task

regarding only the constructs that are given extreme rating values and secondly, the

respondent is given a task to prioritize all named values by means of resistance-to-

change technique described in 4.5.4.2.

Process of laddering from different constructs may lead to the same personal values.

Since it is dealt with the hierarchy of meanings at different levels of abstraction a

single superordinate meaning can have several subordinate ones below it. That

means that an interviewee is likely to associate several of his original constructs with

the same value (Jankowicz, 2004, p. 189). In the conducted study it was found that

most respondents draw not more than three or four personal values associated with

consumption of a certain product.

Because values represent consciously desired end states, they are directly elicited

from a person. Although the process of identifying abstract expected consequences

is not directly linked to the process of values elicitation, they are still linked on the

principles of MEC where values represent end states and abstract consequences

represent psychosocial consequences provided by product characteristics and

attributes.


154

All constructs that are given extreme values on ‘ideal’ element are also ascribed to

the dimensions on which a person perceives elements. Therefore, values, laddered

from these constructs are also linked to the dimensions, i.e., abstract consequences.

However, now it can also be found how close are the other constructs, not rated by

extreme values, to the constructs from which values are elicited and, thereby, how

actually important is their performance in reaching consciously desired end states.

5.6. Situational and environmental incentives

As discussed in 2.2, in the proposed CMS schema situational and environmental

incentives reflect environmental systems and current life circumstances which a

consumer faces at a given time. They are relatively temporary and unstable, i.e., they

can be changed when person achieves another social level, moves to another place,

changes family status or work but they may significantly affect the perception of

desirable end states and choice criteria related to the product attributes at a given

time and circumstance.

It is almost impossible to reveal from an interviewee all the conditions related to the

product use, however, some important incentives appear to be available for the

researcher. As shown in section 5.1 elements appear to be distinguishable on

different types of constructs which represent product characteristics. Constructs can

be classified virtually as referring to one of aspects of the elements’ description

(Dillon and McKnight, 1990). In the current study three levels on which elements are

distinguishable were defined where one of the levels reflects an aspect ‘How’

element, i.e., product is being used. Constructs that pertain to this level basically

enclose meanings that demonstrate how and in which circumstances respondent

uses a product. Some examples of such constructs taken from the current study

where autos represent elements, are: ‘an auto can be used for (in)’: work – leisure

time, in the city – countryside, in summer – all the year round, business – family, with

driver – self-driving, only for me – for family, friends.

All these constructs reflect environmental incentives such as “in summer – all year

around” or “in the city – countryside” as well as life circumstances in which an auto is

to be used, for example “for business – for family” or “with driver – for self-driving”.

(Differentiation between usage of an auto in summer time or all year around reflects

climate peculiarities of the location the respondent is living; in this study conducted in


155

Russia the conditions of vehicle exploitation in winter time strongly differ from

conditions in summer time because of very low temperature degrees and

atmospheric precipitation. Differentiation between exploitation in the city or in the

countryside reflects the problem of quality of roads in the investigated area as well as

problem of clearance of roads, especially in winter time.)

Elicitation of such constructs does not itself indicate which pole reflects the way of

respondent’s exploitation. For example, construct “with driver – for self-driving”

expressed during triadic sort task does not show whether the respondent uses his

auto with driver or drives his auto himself. The pole referred to the type of

respondent’s use can be identified by looking at the rating value on the ‘current’

element. In the study it was found that the neutral rating value (‘3’ on a 5-point scale)

is given when respondent either uses his auto for (in) both kinds of exploitation, e.g.,

for family and for business purposes or that he does not face such choice and the

difference does not make sense in his current situation. For example, if a person has

moved to another location where climate factor is not actual anymore, however, he is

aware of difference from his previous experience and, therefore, might name such a

construct when differentiating elements in triads.

Ratings given on the ‘ideal’ element can also indicate how vehicle is being used.

However, this would represent useful information for marketer when sample

represents consumers that are likely to purchase a desired product from a product

category rather than consumers who are limited, e.g., by resources or available

product variety and are obliged to purchase not desired but available and affordable

products.

In the current study consumers of premium and luxury autos have been investigated.

These consumers are characterized by relatively high standard of living who can

afford products which they really like and which include desired attributes and

features. In this case ratings on both ‘ideal’ and ‘current’ elements should be taken

into account. It is likely that a person who currently drives his auto himself within the

next few months will higher personal driver and will buy a new auto to be a

passenger rather than a driver. Or, if a person is going to purchase a new house out

of the city and his ideal auto is to be appropriate for both, city and countryside.


156

It is useful to look at how similarly ‘ideal’ and ‘current’ elements are rated. If the

ratings on constructs highly differ, it may indicate that ideal auto represents some

kind of a dream auto which exists in respondent’s mind with respect to his drawn

ideal world and life. For example, respondent is a hard worker and mostly uses his

auto for business purposes, however, he dreams about calm life in a tropical country

where he drives an auto only for pleasure. In this case it is important to be aware of

the way the auto is being used currently because, probably, when he is going to

make his next choice he still will be living in a country of a temperate or frigid climate.

Overall, the model, proposed in this study, serves to make elicited mental

representations organized to a structural form which allows more thorough

understanding of consumers’ construing system and makes it possible to differentiate

consumers on different levels of abstraction and develop segments according to

consumers’ commonalities. In this chapter it was described how each level of

proposed chain can be identified from the data gathered by means of RG

interviewing technique.

The suggested approach does not claim to be a substitute to the traditional

qualitative procedure of laddering technique. The methodology represents an

integrated approach which is aimed at an attempt to get an insight into the individual

mind from another perspective. It is believed that quantitative analysis and related

interpretation of expressed meanings and evaluations provided by the RG form can

extend the existing approaches enabling more thorough and broad understanding of

individual’s construing system on different levels of abstraction and, thereby,

reaching closer insight to the consumer motivational sphere.

5.7. Summary and conclusion

♦ It is proposed that each level of abstraction presented in schema of consumer

motivational sphere can be derived from the data elicited by means of the

repertory grid technique.

♦ It is important to obtain the full sequence of motives starting from too-specific

which explain a lot about purchasing motivation of an individual, then moving to

motives of the middle range which allow approximation and revelation of

commonalities within the sample and ending up with too-general motives in order


157

to understand the full structure of consumers’ mental representations regarding

the investigated topic.

♦ Suggested methodology integrates and extends existing qualitative and

quantitative approaches to investigate individual construing system on two levels

according to the extent of meaning objectivity.

♦ The first level is based on producing the person driven outcome which

organizes information elicited directly from the person using his own meanings.

This level uses meanings elicited by laddering up technique and, therefore, the

numeric part of the repertory grid form is not considered. This level represents a

subjective part of the whole methodological chain.

♦ The second level is based on producing the analysis driven outcome which is

aimed at revealing and structuring the underlying meanings expressed, on the

one hand, directly in a sense of elicited expressions and, on the other hand,

indirectly in a sense of meanings relationships implied by numeric evaluations,

i.e., given ratings. This level of the methodology represents a relatively objective

part of the methodological chain.

♦ Analysis of meanings underlying evaluative and comparative approach to

cognitive representation uncovers subconscious part of construing system built

on interrelationships between meanings which are hard to be recognized when

only interpreting individual’s directly expressed wording.

♦ The suggested methodology comprises a certain approach to define and

assess motives of the middle range building on the motives conception

proposed by Trommsdorff.

♦ Product characteristics are expressed in the elicited constructs and should be

virtually categorized by the researcher during the interview according to their

extent of specification in order to precise the meanings if needed.

♦ Product attributes are identified by means of content analysis when all

constructs are assigned to the perceptible attributes.

♦ Sometimes, presence and performance of the same product physical

characteristic may be associated with different attributes by different people. It is


158

vital when interpreting the underlying meanings expressed in the constructs to

consider the expressions in compliance with all elicited, observed and even

beforehand known information, if available, about an interviewee.

♦ Specific expected consequences are identified through the laddering up

technique.

♦ Laddering up procedure is applied towards constructs that are given extreme

rating values on the ‘ideal’ element. In this case a person is consciously aware

of the reasons why he wants a product characteristic to be necessarily present as

stated in the preferred pole and, therefore, is likely to provide not artificial ladders.

♦ Constructs that are not given extreme ratings on the ‘ideal’ element, however,

being elicited by the repertory grid technique are assumed to be a part of a

customer’s construing system related to the domain and, therefore, need to be

considered, analyzed and interpreted in terms of their role within the consumer

motivational sphere.

♦ Disclosing of abstract expected consequences implies application of quantitative

approaches in addition to the qualitative content interpretation in order to consider

all the constructs, i.e., meanings associated with the topic in question

♦ The most apparent difference of identifying abstract consequences, i.e.,

motives of the middle range is that mental representations underlying person’s

evaluative and comparative approach to perceive things are analyzed and

inferences are made not only from vertical relationships between meanings but

also from horizontal interrelationships between meanings that are on the same

level of abstraction.

♦ Principal component analysis reveals dimensions which represent directions

based on which respondent perceives elements. Usually dimensions can be

generally named according to the common meaning or direction of the construct

meanings ascribed to each dimension, however, it requires cautious

interpretation.

♦ Common meanings underlying each identified dimension represent abstract



159

product characteristics and their perceptions by identification of a bundle

consisting of product features which person construes in the same way and

direction and associates them with attainment of a certain benefit.

♦ The greater the amount of variance that a construct accounts for within the

dimension the more important the construct is to be thoroughly considered

when identifying underlying dimension meaning.

♦ Principal component analysis enables hierarchical order of identified abstract

consequences. Two indicators can be considered:

� First indicator is a percentage of variance a dimension accounts for within

the overall repertory grid data; the greater the percentage the more important

the dimension, i.e., abstract consequence is.

� Second indicator is a loading of the ‘ideal’ element a dimension has got; the

greater the loading the more important the dimension is.

♦ An indicator to be used depends on whether the aim is to better understand the

personal construing system regarding the domain or to reveal consumer

preferences.

♦ In order to reach a synergy effect and to structure elicited meanings more

precisely, within the each identified dimension constructs are rearranged by

means of hierarchical cluster analysis. It discloses the relationships between the

meanings which are either perceived in the same way or, at least, highly

correlated signifying complementary relationship within the personal cognitive

structure of meanings.

♦ Elements are also clustered within the each dimension allowing to understand on

which dimensions elements are considered similar or different. This is important in

order to understand on which dimensions a particular element is perceived, for

example, differently from the ‘ideal’ one, showing the weakness of the element in

providing certain abstract consequences in the desired manner.

♦ Values are elicited and prioritized by the respondent during the laddering up and

the resistance-to-change procedures. Constructs from which values are laddered


160

are also ascribed to the dimensions and, thereby, the abstract consequences are

linked to the values.

♦ The method for identifying abstract consequences exposes how close are other

constructs, not rated by extreme values, to the constructs from which values are

elicited and, thereby, how actually important the performance of other

constructs is in reaching the desired end states.

♦ Situational and environmental incentives are enclosed in the meanings and

ratings on the ‘ideal’ and ‘current’ elements of constructs that pertain to the virtual

category which answers the question ‘how and in which circumstances’

respondent uses a product.

♦ Overall, the model and the methodology proposed in this study serve to make

elicited mental representations organized to a structural form which allows more

thorough understanding of consumers’ construing system and makes it possible

to differentiate consumers on different levels of abstraction and develop segments

according to consumers’ commonalities.

♦ The proposed methodology does not contradict the traditional approaches to

analyze the repertory grid data and does not claim to be a substitute to the

traditional analysis approaches but rather extends them with an opportunity to use

and produce inferences from fuller capacity of the repertory grid elicitation

technique.

♦ An integrated method is aimed at getting an insight into the individual mind from

another perspective and extending the existing approaches allowing more

thorough and broad understanding of individual’s construing system on different

levels of abstraction and, thereby, reaching closer insight into the consumer

motivational sphere.

6. Research design

161

III. Field research

6. Research design

6.1. Research objectives

In the previous chapters issues of defining customer motivation and motives of

different ranges, modeling the CMS and assessing each level of the CMS schema

have been addressed using a number of theories, assumptions and analysis

approaches from different areas related to the fields of consumer behavior and

psychology. Apart from a systematic discussion of the many ways to design, proceed

and analyze RG data comprising various individual mental representations, the major

result of this work so far is the development of a conceptual model and supportive

methodology to assess each level of abstraction comprised in the CMS.

The aim of this chapter is to demonstrate the applicability of the suggested

methodology by conducting a comprehensive analysis of customers’ motivation

mechanism and preferences on the Russian automotive market with the focus on

customers of premium cars.

The full capacity of the RGT is hard to demonstrate as it allows numerous findings

and inferences depending on the design of the form and applied analysis. Therefore,

empirical part of the work is mainly concentrated on demonstration of the proposed

methodology, however, some additional inferences and managerial

recommendations for the company that ordered the study are provided as well.

The objectives of the empirical study presented in this thesis can be described as

follows:

• Design of a particular form of RG which would be appropriate according to the

research objectives and peculiarities;

• Elicitation of the individual consumer motivational sphere from an individual

grid;

• Performance of a customer segmentation based on the grid analyses of the

sample.

6. Research design

162

6.2. Research design

To demonstrate an applicability of the methodology proposed in this work a primary

data is used. The proposed methodology built on principles and design of a particular

interviewing technique implies that a research should be conducted from the very

beginning and the data acquisition has to be done according to the suggested

methodology. For this reason it was impossible to use secondary data, all analyses

and findings should be accomplished within the data gathered in a particular form.

Secondary data collected by the RGT implication would also not be appropriate for

this work because the interviewing technique is very flexible in its design and

included components (e.g., elicited or supplied elements and constructs, way of

rating and domain of elements). The ultimate form depends on the objectives of a

particular research.

The data set was generated in the context of a market research project conducted on

a behalf of a major German car manufacturer. For confidentiality reasons the

company name is not disclosed. The interest of the research practical outcome lies in

the exploration of perceptions, preferences and purchasing intentions of customers of

premium and luxury cars in the Russian car market. A particular interest also lies in

exploring customer attitudes towards auto safety and security measures as well as

the perceived confidence in a car.

6.2.1. Structure of the sample

The survey was conducted in two of three largest cities of Russia, Moscow and

Novosibirsk. A sample of 20 (18 male and 2 female) respondents was surveyed in

July-August 2007. Besides, 7 experts were asked to share their opinion on the

investigated topic in order to provide a more thorough insight into the behavior of

premium armored car customers. In this chapter the focus lies on the scientific part of

the research that is an application of the methodology suggested in this study.

Information and findings gathered for the practical outcome, such as expert opinions

and specific information about armoring and criminal situation is not provided in the

work because, on the one hand, it does not represent the scientific interest pursued

here and, on the other hand, most of the information was asked to be kept

confidential by the company.

6. Research design

163

Respondents represent current owners of premium or luxury autos who are as well

current or potential customers of armored cars. Design of the interview form required

a particular thoroughness and accuracy taking into consideration peculiarities of the

respondents who are:

• hardly accessible;

• continually busy and not ready to devote 1,5 hour for an interview which

doesn’t bring them any profit or benefit;

• not ready to share much about private and business issues of their life.

Selection criteria include objective and subjective criteria.

Objective criteria for respondents’ selection include two aspects:

1. class and price of a car in possession;

2. position and field of activity of a respondent.

Each respondent obtains at least one luxury auto starting from entry-level luxury cars

(i.e., premium according to European classification) and ending by high-end and ultra

luxury autos according to American classification of luxury autos (see Appendix 1).

Besides, all respondents spend their own means for an auto purchase.

In the initial stage of respondent selection it was assumed that people who spend

their own money are likely to make final purchasing decision and choice, although,

their decision may be influenced by opinions of opinion leaders from respondents’

surrounding or presented in different kinds of media. During the survey conduction

this assumption was proved. On the question: “Who makes decision on purchasing

an auto?” all respondents named themselves. On the question: “Who influences a

choice of technical equipment and other characteristics of an auto to be purchased?”

70% of respondents named themselves, 24% named “me and friends” and rest 6%

named “me and mass media”.

In addition to the current ownership of a premium or luxury car (further, in the study,

the notion ‘premium’ is used for both), all respondents represent experienced users

in a sense that currently used auto is not the first purchased auto.

6. Research design

164

Second objective criterion is respondent’s position and field of activity. This criterion

gives an insight into the social status and level of respondent’s welfare. The

specificity of the surveyed sample is that interviewer cannot ask direct question about

income or welfare. Most of the respondents either wouldn’t answer this question at all

or would give an answer which most probably does not reflect true state. Eighty

percent of respondents are owners or joint owners of private companies and the rest

represent chief executives and people working on top managerial positions.

Peculiarities of the sample do not allow using an objective criterion. For this reason,

subjective criterion appears supportive in sample selection.

Subjective criterion reflects respondents’ subjective estimation of personal income

and welfare. Personal income represents one of the most often asked data and can

be effectively used for predicting consumer behavior in marketing research.

However, this indicator when asked directly is not perfect. Consumers with low

income often pretend and behave as having higher income, especially when being

surveyed rather than observed during actual buying behavior, and vice versa. One of

the reasons for such contradiction is that consumers differ in their financial

commitments and abilities to manage own assets. Two people having the same

income, after fulfillment of necessary payments and purchasing essential goods may

perceive their discretionary income differently. One may perceive his discretionary

income as relatively low and therefore feel himself relatively poor while another one

perceives discretionary income as relatively high and feels himself as relatively rich

person. People with higher discretionary income have more opportunities to spend

money on special, luxury or comfortable goods and services or save money for future

expenses. Therefore, information about respondents’ subjective discretionary income

appears to be useful in selection, segmentation and prediction of consumers buying

behavior in marketing research (Churchill, 1996, p. 356).

Subjective discretionary income (SDI) is a measure of perceived spending power

originally conceptualized and developed by O’Guinn and Wells (1989). Specifically, it

is an estimate by the consumer of how much money he or she has to spend on

nonessentials. The SDI index is “considered as attitudinal rather than an objective

behavioral resource” and is based on the psychological approach allowing

assessment of a capacity to spend. This approach implies revealing subjective

estimation of personal well-being rather than asking respondents to provide complex

6. Research design

165

objective economic data. Analysis conducted in different fields provided evidence of

the SDI predictive validity (e.g., Rossiter, 1995; O’Guinn and Wells (1989) cited in

Bearden and Netemeyer, 1999).

SDI measurement approach allows to overcome criticism claiming that firstly,

consumers cannot objectively and precisely calculate and say about their

discretionary income. Secondly, understanding of “discretionary” and “necessary”

income is very subjective and depends on the individual perception.

Psychological approach of assessing respondents’ SDI implies estimation of three

statements in terms of how they reflect personal perception of his state of well-being.

The following statements were scored on 5-point scale starting from “absolutely

agree” (5) and ending up with “absolutely disagree” (1) (Bearden and Netemeyer,

1999):

1. “No matter how fast my income goes up, I never seem to get ahead.”

2. “I have more to spend on extras than most of my neighbors.”

3. “My income is high enough to satisfy nearly all of my important desires.”

The first statement reflects personal economic state and his ability to manage

personal assets. It shows the ability to earn and at the same time to spend less than

it is available. Second statement reflects availability of means and resources that are

not available for neighbors who represent respondent’s considerable reference

group. The third statement stands for an attitude towards money in terms of having

sufficient resources to purchase goods and services that are considered to be

desirable and, at the same time, represent rather important desires, because desires

in general are unlimited and there is always something unreachable at the moment

no matter how much a person can spend (Churchill, 1996).

Sum of individual scores given on each statement form an overall SDI index that can

range from 3 to 15. Respondents having higher sums on the scale show that they

can afford what they desire and even more. Respondents having smaller sums on

the scale show lack of means (Churchill, 1996). In this study four states of welfare

are proposed based on the sum of ratings (Table 16).

A majority of respondents estimate their income and welfare as relatively high and no

respondent estimates his income as “not enough”. This shows that the sample

6. Research design

166

comprises people who feel themselves as having high standard of well-being and at

the same time they can afford premium or luxury auto and, therefore, it can be

assumed that respondents represent consumers from upper-middle or higher class

who can afford almost everything. Although their purchasing behavior can be

sometimes perceived as irrational in terms of common understanding of main

reasons for buying behavior (usually pursued regarding volume brands), these

people still can be characterized as rational and adequate consumers who make a

choice instead of ‘buying everything up’.

State of welfare Sum of ratings Amount of respondents (%)

High income 13-15 25%

High income “for me” 10-12 65%

Not always high enough 7-9 10%

Not enough 3-6 0%

Table 16: Personal estimation of welfare

Measuring of SDI in the demonstrated way might also provoke some criticism

concerning measurement and data accuracy. However, in conditions of inability to

estimate respondents’ income directly, this approach was found most appropriate to

reach an insight to the respondents’ standard of living without asking them

undesirable and often provocative direct questions.

6.2.2. Survey instrument: repertory grid design

The survey instrument represents a questionnaire consisting of a repertory grid form

and additional questions concerning the car usage and demographic data. Some

complementary questions are included to get more detailed information about

respondents that is important for the company which is also interested in practical

findings. Within the context, these questions are only briefly addressed and the full

questionnaire form is provided in Appendix 3. For the empirical study to be

conducted in accordance with the proposed methodology the relevant part of the

questionnaire is a design of the RG form. This part is comprehensively described

further.

6. Research design

167

The final survey instrument consisted of an eight page questionnaire. Four pages

comprised repertory grid form, laddering down form, laddering up form and

resistance to change form. The rest pages included questions regarding:

♦ Utilized auto:

� Model and maker of an auto, car owner, driver, person who makes decisions

concerning the auto;

♦ Aim of purchase of a car (current or next);

♦ (open-ended) Importance and meaning of being confident about an auto;

♦ Usage of enhanced security devices and measures;

♦ (open-ended) Situations related to auto utilization and ownership which

respondent beware of:

� in general (what comes to mind at first);

� affecting:

• respondent’s image;

• respondent’s property (e.g. auto, notebook, briefcase, bag, etc.);

• respondent in physical or psychological way;

♦ Preference to either high-tech or physical security methods in terms of confidence

in case of need;

♦ Estimation of subjective discretionary income;

♦ Personal data:

• Field and sort of activity, education, family status, age, etc.

Next each component of the designed repertory grid form is described.

Topic

At first the topic has been agreed with representatives of the company which has

ordered the study in accordance with the aim of the scientific aspect of the work. The

topic of the repertory grid elicitation is “Exploration of similarities and differences in

the content and structure of customers’ subjective meaning systems related to a

decision making process of buying a car”.

Grids were elicited individually during face-to-face interviews conducted in places

convenient for respondents (home, office, restaurant) allowing for calm, undisturbed

6. Research design

168

1,5 hour (on average) conversation. Respondents were given a brief introduction into

the aims of the study and the nature of the repertory grid technique.

Set of elements

Two aspects need to be considered while selection of elements:

1. Decide on appropriate strategy for element selection (see 4.5.1 for strategies

description and their advantages and disadvantages);

2. Elements set should meet the requirements described in section 4.3.2 to

preserve the validity of a grid’s design.

In this study the third strategy described in 4.5.1 was chosen. Each respondent was

provided with general categories which cover the range of the topic and was asked

questions based on the categories, answers to which appeared as elements.

The aim of the RG application is to explore and build a model of a particular domain

of knowledge by enabling consumers to verbalize how they perceive certain

elements within the area of interest (McKnight, 2000). In the current study area of

interest covers questions such as how consumers of luxury and premium autos

perceive ownership and exploitation of an auto and what thoughts, feeling, priorities

and preferences do they have regarding auto purchase, ownership and usage.

To derive a set of elements so that the proposed method would be meaningful it is

necessary to identify a set of autos among respondent’s consideration set, i.e., autos

that are known to the respondent (McKnight, 2000). Therefore, at the end, elements

should be named by the respondent.

In order respondents’ grids to be comparable, each respondent names autos that

correspond to answers on the category based questions. All respondents are asked

the same questions so that the elements are elicited by using identical elicitation

categories (Jankowicz, 2004, p. 32). This approach, on the one hand, allows

respondents to consider their own elements which they are aware of and, on the

other hand, permits further analysis and comparison of all grids. Each respondent

names different autos which he can consider, that is, either he has got an experience

of exploitation or knows about it from, for example, friends and has got a certain

opinion and attitude towards named autos.

6. Research design

169

Each respondent was asked to name eight different cars as answers for the

questions listed in Table 17. To find most of individual’s constructs which also may

reflect undesired states and meanings, respondent had to provide a stratified set of

elements (Björklund, 2005), including some that he likes in a way and some that he

does not like or that are not suitable in a way. Provided questions make respondent

consider vehicles from different perspectives and, thereby, to think about different

autos according to the provided situation or condition. Provided categories cover

most important and common consideration aspects which arise when thinking about

auto ownership and exploitation.

Marking for analysis Categories questions for elements elicitation

1 (work) Which auto would you prefer to use mostly for work

2 (vacation) Which auto would you prefer to use mostly for vacation (weekend or holiday)

3 (evening) Which auto would you prefer to use mostly for leisure (evening) time

4 (in no way) Which car evokes negative emotions and you wouldn’t consider it as an alternative

5 (previous) Your previous auto

6 (doesn't fit) Which auto really attracts you, however it doesn’t fit your lifestyle or environment

7 (alternative) Which auto did you consider as an alternative to buy (during the last purchase)

8 (current) Your current auto (mostly used)

9 (ideal) Your generalized image of an ideal auto - supplied element, provided after all constructs were elicited

Table 17: Category based questions for eliciting a set of elements

First three categories cover most common auto exploitation situations:

• 1 (working): If a person is about to choose an auto which would be used

particularly for his working time, which auto would he prefer. His preferences

and choice would depend on the way the person exploits an auto during

working hours, for example, whether he has a driver or drives himself; whether

he uses time during the rides for work or for rest, etc.;

• 2 (vacation): An auto a person would prefer to use mainly during holidays and

weekends. Preferences would depend on the way the person spends his

vacation, for example, with family, with friends or by himself; whether he goes

out of the city to the mountains or suburbs or prefers to spend vacation in the

city or abroad, etc.;

• 3 (evening): An auto a person would prefer to use mainly for evening, i.e.,

leisure, after work time. Preferences would depend on the way the person

spends his free time, for example, whether he goes to fancy clubs or

6. Research design

170

restaurants or he prefers to spend evenings in cottage with family or closest

friends (what is very popular in Russia), etc.

Categories 5, 7 and 8 reveal autos with which respondents are good familiar and

experienced.

• 5 (previous): A respondent got an experience with previously owned auto,

therefore, he can surely express in the constructs what he did or did not like,

what disconfirmations were faced and reasons for purchasing next, i.e.,

“current” auto (the reasons, though, may not reflect negative experience);

• 7 (alternative): When making auto purchasing decision a respondent is likely

to choose among most desirable range (in case of this study, when people

can afford what they really like rather than for what they have enough money).

The final choice in favor of “current” auto is likely to leave behind at least one

auto which was carefully studied and examined, however, the choice has

fallen on another one;

• 8 (current): Auto which is currently used implies a certain experience and

opinion about it. When a respondent owns more than one auto it is up to him

which auto he names. The study shows, however, that respondents likely

name those autos which they use more often or which exploitation perceived

as primary.

Categories 4 and 6 derive elements regarding which respondents a likely to have

negative or not suitable judgements and perceptions:

• 4 (in no way): A respondent may have negative personal experience, be

aware of negative reference, have negative attitude towards car maker or

simply not like certain auto. There are certain meaning representations for

such an attitude which can be revealed by triadic differentiation;

• 6 (doesn’t fit): There are often situations, life circumstances or a way of

exploitation which entail possession of certain auto features or attributes.

However, desirable autos may often lack these features and, therefore,

appear not appropriate for a personal use in that particular circumstance or

situation. For example, in situation of a very cold winter time and bad quality of

roads it does not make sense to buy a sporty cabriolet unless to buy it only for

summer months, although, quality of roads is not a seasonable problem; or

6. Research design

171

when a person lives in downtown where problems with traffic jams and lack of

parking place are actual it becomes inconvenient to have a relatively big auto

such as, e.g., van or SUV.

During the elicitation of elements the last supplied ‘ideal’ element was not yet

provided. Only until thereafter it was included.

According to Yorke (1985), sampling of elements can actually rarely be

representative of their respective area. However, validity can be considered from the

notion of usefulness, that is, grids are valid in the sense that they allow accurate

capturing of respondent’s construing and “they tell the researchers what they don’t

know, thereby, contributing to the building of theory about individual concerned”

(Yorke,1985).

Elicited constructs

Once elements were elicited from the respondent, construct elicitation procedure

occurred. Respondent was presented with a subset of elements, i.e., triad and asked

to generate a construct which would meaningfully for him facilitate comparison and

discrimination between these elements. The aim is to elicit a set of bipolar constructs

which the respondent utilizes to perceive the elements (Dillon and McKnight, 1990).

Constructs were elicited by using the triadic difference method (see 4.5.2.1). This

method was selected because the produced constructs are able to better

discriminate between elements (Caputi and Reddy, 1999). It was important since

elements were rather similar in a sense that they represented autos mostly of a

higher class reflecting sample’s consideration sets. Besides, the method yields

constructs that are more cognitively complex (Fransella et al., 2004, p. 63)

Each respondent was presented with three elements at a time (triad) written on

different cards and asked to think of a way in which two of these three are similar

and, thereby, different from the third. The elements were always selected from the

set elicited from the respondent. Eight constructs were elicited by presenting different

triads composed according to a predefined sequence arranged so that no pairings of

elements are repeated and each element is presented 3 times among triads (Dillon

and McKnight, 1990; Jankowicz, 2004, p. 42). The sequence of triads allows future

comparison between the grids when certain categories are compared in terms of

6. Research design

172

individual constructs. For example, frequency of constructs with similar meanings

expressed towards same triad, i.e., same categories’ comparison. The combinations

were presented to each respondent in the same order:

128

427

137

368

265

534

578

164.

Depending on the research field and objective the sufficient amount of constructs

may vary. However, when it is not for a clinical purpose, it is agreed that eliciting

between 7 and 12 constructs during 1 hour session is usually sufficient and any

additional constructs provide little difference to the distribution of elements

(Jankowicz, 2004, p. 44). Easterby-Smith (1980) argues that even from eight to ten

constructs are quite adequate for most purposes.

Each respondent was expected to generate one construct per triad, however, in

practice several respondents produced more then one construct from a given triad. In

this case, these were noted and used in turn (Dillon and McKnight, 1990).

It is important to tell the person that he should voice that difference and similarity that

come at first moment when triad is presented. It is important that he uses the terms in

which he actually construes in mind, no matter if they are jargon or censorial.

Besides, it appeared to be useful to explain that each thought, each kind of

expression is important; there are no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answers and what is more,

there are no ‘clever’ or ‘stupid’ answers. What is important, is the person and his own

individual construing such as it is.

When a meaningful construct was generated the two poles were written in the cells of

the grid form, the emergent pole on the left and implicit pole on the right. Constructs

6. Research design

173

that were not enough precise were at first specified through laddering down

technique by asking the respondent “how/what do you mean; in what way?” (there is

a variety of ways the question can be asked depending on the context that can be

found in Jankowicz, 2004, p. 34) and the answer was used as a construct to be

noted in the grid form. Ladders were also recorded on a separate ‘laddering down’

form.

Elicited data was recorded on a recording sheet. The numbers of element cards

between which the similarity occurred were underlined to indicate which element pair

formed the construct pole.

There are plenty of pitfalls that may occur during interviewing concerning adequacy

of expressed meanings and ways to overcome uncertainties and misunderstandings.

Different examples and solutions are thoroughly described by Jankowicz (2004). This

study does not cover these details because most of the cases relate to application of

repertory grid in other fields rather than marketing such as clinics, human recourses,

education, etc.

Ratings

Once constructs on all given triads were elicited and noted in the grid form,

respondent was asked to rate all the elements, i.e., autos on each construct. Each

construct was presented as a rating scale with the contrast meaning on the left

(emergent pole) standing for the ‘1’ end of the scale and the contrast meaning on the

right (implicit pole) standing for the ‘5’ end of the scale. The 5-point scale was chosen

following recommendations and arguments provided in the literature (e.g.,

Jankowicz, 2004, p. 36; Marsden and Littler, 2000a; Dillon and McKnight, 1990).

Respondent rated each element based on how his perception of the element is

referred to one of the construct poles.

Supplied constructs

One of practical research objectives is to explore respondents’ attitude towards the

issue of safety related to the auto usage. Following aspects are of a special interest

in the research:

• What is meant by safety and feeling safe in a car;

6. Research design

174

• How is it important to feel safe in a car;

• How close are perception of feeling safe in a car and perception of feeling

confident about a car.

For this reason two overall assessment constructs were supplied:

• Feel confident about a car – Not feel confident about a car

• Feel safe in a car – Not feel safe in a car

In addition, beforehand, in the provided questionnaire an open end question “what

does it mean to you to feel confident about a car?” was asked to reveal how person

perceives ‘confidence’ within the context.

Respondent was asked to rate elements on the supplied constructs in the same way

as he did with elicited constructs.

Supplied element

After elicited elements, constructs and ratings were obtained the respondent was

asked to rate the supplied ‘ideal’ element on the same constructs. Ratings assigned

to the ‘ideal’ element represent the extent of preference for the characteristic

performance comprised in the corresponding pole. Ratings of ‘ideal’ element can also

point where respondent’s actual and desirable images are among the construed

elements.

Personal values

Once ratings on elicited and supplied elements were obtained, respondent was given

laddering up task regarding constructs which were assigned with the extreme rating

values on the ‘ideal’ element (see 5.3 for the reasoning). Laddering task was aimed

at eliciting individual’s means-end knowledge structures linking product

characteristics to associated values or ends.

Respondent was asked ‘why is this important for you’ and each given ladder was

noted on the separate ‘laddering up’ form (see Appendix 3). Thereby, interviewer

arrived at more abstract values associated with original constructs (Jankowicz, 2004,

p. 186; Marsden and Littler, 2000a).

6. Research design

175

After all personal values were elicited, respondent was asked to make choice

according to resistance-to-change technique described in section 4.5.4.2 aimed at

prioritizing personal values. He was asked to imagine the choice as an existential

one. For example, if the revealed values were ‘pleasure, enjoyment of life’ and

‘success, achievement’ the respondent was asked to choose one option either

“imagine, after some years you are going to live the rest of your life having everything

what you need to enjoy every day, but you will realize that you have not achieved

desired success and aspirations that you have been striving for” or, alternatively,

“imagine, you have gained everything you have been working for, absolute self-

realization, however, you realize that your achievements appeared to be not enough

to make you happy and enjoy the rest of your life”. Thereby, a person had to prefer

one end state at cost of another, i.e., to prefer one value over another. When all

respondent’s personal values were compared with each other the outcome record

represented a hierarchy of his personal values.

Example of the recorded individual RG is presented in Table 18. Such a full and

structured way of recording allowed by RGT has advantages which make the

technique even more convenient in application. Although the record is extremely full

of data, it is possible to reconstruct all the substantive points that occurred in the

interview by looking at the record. Another advantage is that the structured form

allows several interviewers working on the same problem where each researcher can

understand his colleagues’ interview records without making long discussions,

explanations and distorting reconstructions of what went on during their various

interviews (Stewart et al., 1981).

6. Research design

176

Table 18: Repertory grid record of the 14th respondent

of grid and construct

Combination

Em

erge

nt p

ole

(1)

Mercedes S221 Guard

Audi Q7

Porsche Carrera

Jaguar

Mercedes CLK

Aston Martin DB9 Coupe

Mercedes S220

Audi S8 Armored

IDEAL

Implic

it pol

e (5

)

(1)

wor

k(2

) va

catio

n(3

) ev

enin

g(4

) in

no

way

(5)

pre

viou

s(6

) d

oesn

't fit

(7)

alte

rnat

ive

(8)

curr

ent

(9)

idea

l

14.1

1 2 8

appro

pria

te for

arm

orin

g1

55

55

51

11

inex

pedie

ncy

of ar

mor

ing

14.2

4 2 7

beau

tiful

12

15

31

31

2uns

atis

fact

ory

des

ign

14.3

1 3 7

nov

elty

of a

mod

el1

11

53

13

22

old m

odel

14.4

3 6 8

for

leis

ure

time

51

13

11

55

5fo

r bus

ines

s, n

ot for

en

tert

ainm

ent

14.5

2 6 5

wor

se t

echnol

ogic

al e

quip

men

t in

sen

se o

f sa

fety

54

43

45

45

5 in

itial

ly b

ette

r te

chnol

ogic

al

equi

pm

ent

in s

ense

of sa

fety

14.6

5 3 4

ther

e is

no

late

r m

odel

:

tech

nol

ogic

ally

innov

ativ

e1

11

31

13

11

ther

e is

alrea

dy a

late

r m

odel

14.7

5 7 8

with

drive

r1

45

35

51

12

for

self-

driv

ing

14.8

1 6 4

appro

priat

e fo

r co

mfo

rt

elec

tron

ics

and t

echnol

ogie

s1

11

32

12

12

limite

d e

quip

men

t w

ith c

omfo

rt

elec

tron

ics

and t

echnol

ogie

s

14.9

sup

plie

dfe

el c

onfid

ent

abou

t th

is c

ar1

22

32

11

11

not

fee

l con

fiden

t ab

out

this

car

14.1

0su

pp

lied

feel

saf

e in

thi

s ca

r1

22

32

12

11

not

fee

l saf

e in

this

car

7. Analysis of repertory grids

177


7.1. Preparation of data

The first step in analyzing the data is to turn it into a proper format. All interviews

were conducted in Russia and noted in Russian. Therefore, the first thing to do was

to translate all the grids and record them digitally. At this phase skills of the

researcher play an essential role in his ability to accurately translate and justify all the

expressed meanings. Thorough knowledge of both languages is required to be

aware not only of word meanings provided by dictionaries but also awareness of their

special underlying meanings which are used in certain cultural and social

surroundings.

Once all grids are translated and recorded an appropriate data format for the

computer package is required.

Constructs of all grids are coded with the first number denoting an interviewee and

the second number - the construct order within the grid. For example, the code 14.7

indicates that the construct in question is the seventh construct in the fourteenth

interviewee’s grid (Jankowicz, 2004, p. 151). After the constructs are coded and,

thereby, can be identified, a categorization procedure which represents the generic

procedure of content analysis is performed.

7.2. Content analysis

7.2.1. The generic content analysis procedure

Content analysis is a technique in which constructs of all the respondents are

grouped and categorized according to the meanings they express. As discussed in

4.6.1.2, categories can be theory driven or data driven. In this study categories are

derived from constructs themselves by identifying the various themes they express.

The reason for choosing data driven approach is explained by the research purpose.

The study is aimed at revelation of common meanings, perceptions and stereotypes

as well as jargon used by a certain kind of customers in considering a very specific

product category. Moreover, respondents represent residents of a different culture to

the one in which the producing company is founded.

To reveal categories and allocate constructs to them all grids are cut into pieces,

each piece containing one grid row, i.e., one construct. When all pieces are put on a


178

large table they can be shuffled around until all of them are placed into piles, each

pile constituting a different category (Jankowicz, 2004, p. 151). Each item is to be

compared with another and if they are alike in some way they are placed together

under a single category created for them at that very moment or if meanings are

different they are put into separate piles. Each time remaining items are compared

with each of the already derived categories and allocated to the appropriate one or a

new category is created. Once a new category is created, other existing categories

are reconsidered and if needed redefined, i.e., combined or broken up with their

items reallocated accordingly (Jankowicz, 2004, p. 149).

It can happen that some number of items appears to be unclassifiable. In this case,

as suggested by Jankowicz (2004, p. 149), if the number of unclassified items is less

than 5% of the total they can be allocated to a single category labeled

‘miscellaneous’, otherwise one or more categories should be redefined so that at the

end not more than 5% of the total are categorized as ‘miscellaneous’.

In the current study all constructs are classified and allocated to a certain category.

However, it is found that some meanings of constructs actually enclose combination

of two (and in one case, three) meanings which belong to different categories. In this

case the construct is assigned to both categories. For example, the construct

“attractive, good design – bad, old (outdated) design” reflects respondent’s

judgement that “only autos of new models have attractive, good design as they are

not yet widespread”. This person considers only new car models as having good

design and he is ‘right’ as he is always right in his personal perceptions and attitudes.

In this case the construct was allocated to categories “design” and “novelty” as both

these aspects are equally important in the content of the construct meaning and need

to be satisfied to bring the desirable consequence.

Derived categories are also identified with respect to their position in the CMS

scheme. In the model conceptualization defined categories represent higher level of

abstraction of constructs. Therefore, categories are defined in such a way that they

represent product attributes reflecting perceived product characteristics rather than

product physical characteristics.


179

Comfort 1.2 comfortable: driver's comfort in terms of less emotional and physical efforts 281.5 comfortable2: comfort electronics and technologies 14.2

2.3 comfortable: appropriate size, comfortable passenger seating arrangement2.11 comfortable2: comfort electronics and technologies 3.5 comfortable: don't feel hummocks, potholes and bumpy roads at driving Q

Prestige prestigious -- ordinary 4.4 prestigious: others will notice me 264.5 universal exploitation / large / prestigious -- narrow exploitation/compact/ordinary: universal-for business and family use, narrow-cool, only for me

12.7

5.1 prestigious / representative: not youth5.4 prestigious2: black color - spectacular, convincing5.8 prestigious3 -- ordinary3: super image, for men, not womenQ

Representativeness 1.8 representative -- unrepresentative: prestigious, which means reflects my status 232.8 representative: prestigious, which means reflects my status 11.7

3.4 representative -- unrepresentative: for business but not for entertainment, family or vacation3.6 representative2: not for self-drivingQ

of high technical quality -- of low technical quality

1.1 rough-terrain high -- low -performance/of high -- low technical quality: safe "anywhere" ride in tough climate conditions (mud, ice)

20 10.2

2.4 of high technical quality: time and money savings2.7 of high technical quality2: producer's proved high quality (producer reputation)3.2 of high technical quality: won't break down, time and money savings4.7 of high technical quality: safe in our climate (snowdrift, glare ice)Q4.3 narrow exploitation: sporty for pleasure, not city-universal 17

4.5 universal exploitation/large/prestigious -- narrow exploitation/compact/ordinary: for business and family use

8.6

6.5 universal exploitation: for year-round 6.8 universal exploitation2: highly functional7.5 universal exploitation -- narrow: for everyday life not only for leisure driving7.12 universal exploitation2 / unrepresentative2: can fit and seat my dog, when car is too representative, I can't seat in my dogQ

Size large -- compact 1.6 large: for several people or luggage 17

1.7 large2: comfortable luggage transportation (don't need to push in and stuff) 8.6

2.6 large: better observation (panoramic view) and feel safeQ

Design stylish -- unattractive 2.2 stylish: bright attractive appearance 17

3.3 stylish -- unattractive: stylish appearance 8.6

4.8 stylish: attractiveQ

Speed/Power 1.3 high-speed/powerful: adequacy between power and weight 13

4.12 high-speed/powerful -- limited: speedy 6.6

9.2 high-speed/powerful: powerful10.3 high-speed/powerful: sporty = speedy and powerfulQ1.1 rough-terrain high -- low -performance/of high -- low technical quality: safe "anywhere" ride in tough climate conditions (mud, ice)

12 6.1

2.1 rough-terrain high performance: city, countryside, mountains5.7 rough-terrain high performance: city, countryside, mountains7.1 rough-terrain high -- low -performance: for city/everywhere7.7 rough-terrain high performance2 / of high technical quality: rigid suspension, rugged auto will survive in fosseQ

Safety/Security safe/secure -- unsafe 1.4 safe/secure: appropriate for security measures (bodyguard, driver, armoring) 108.1 safe/secure -- unsafe: practical = not notable on the roads, less risk of criminal attempt 5.1

8.11 safe/secure: no risk of criminal attempt because of good car brand 9.5 safe/secure: maneuverabilityQ

Price 2.5 expensive -- affordable price: not affordable by anyone 8

7.8 expensive -- affordable price: rather expensive but without extra frills that make car overpriced

4.1

10.7 expensive -- affordable price11.8 affordable price -- expensive: affordable for majority - expensive16.4 expensive -- affordable price: need to work hard to afford this auto Q

Novelty new model -- old model 3.1 new model: new means technologically innovative, not outdated 7

5.3 new model -- old model: unique, uncommon 3.67.6 stylish2/new model: elegant because of novelty, uniqueness12.3 new model: new means technologically innovative, better steering, can't be burnt anymoreQ

Totals 197

100.0

Intended application (Universality)

Cross-country ability

Technical quality

universal exploitation -- narrow exploitation

Category Bipolar category's poles Construct

comfortable -- uncomfortable

expensive -- affordable price

high-speed/powerful -- limited

rough-terrain high

performance --

rough-terrain low performance

Sum and % in

general sample

representative -- unrepresentative

Table 19: Content analysis procedure

Twelve different categories are identified according to the content of constructs. It is

important to remember that the same attribute may imply different meanings for


180

different respondents. For this reason the original construct phrases are kept and

their implied meanings are enclosed into the analysis and interpretation phases.

A total of 180 elicited constructs are content-analyzed and because, as mentioned

above, some can be attributed to two categories the total amount of constructs

comprised by categories is 197.

Table 19 provides all the categories and numbers of constructs categorized under

each heading. All constructs allocated to each category are provided and categories

are ordered according to the number of constructs allocated to them (see Appendix 4

for the full table). Construct poles are reflected according to preferences expressed

by ratings on ‘ideal’ element. Both poles are written when the ‘ideal’ element is given

the neutral rating, ‘3’ on the construct.

Performance of frequency counts by categorizing constructs discloses common

aspects which respondents consider when they construe meanings about the

discussed topic, i.e., about premium cars. Thus, derived categories and the amount

of constructs in each category reflect more or less common aspects being

considered. The top four categories which together cover 49% of all constructs are

‘comfort’, ‘prestige’, ‘representativeness’ and ‘technical quality’. It means that these

four categories represent product attributes that are most common among the

respondents and describe 49% of their expressed meanings.

Therefore, first aggregation of individuals’ meanings is done by recognizing and

categorizing similarities and differences in the respondents’ meanings.

Categorization technique, however, employs only the context presented in the

constructs and does not take into account information provided by ratings which

emphasize the ways in which respondents use those constructs.

Frequency counts conducted for all elicited constructs reflect the homogeneity of

aspects that respondents consider when thinking about the elements. It is also

meaningful to examine how important mentioned aspects are (see Table 20).

Relative importance of constructs is defined by rating values given to the ‘ideal’

element indicating the importance of the corresponding construct pole (Walker and

Olson, 1991). Thus, when constructs to be counted are only those that are given

rating value of ‘1’ of ‘5’, the extent of importance of each category can be assumed.


181

In total, on 100 out of 197 elicited constructs (51%) the ‘ideal’ element is rated with

value of ‘1’ or ‘5’.

Category name

Sum in general sample

Homogeneity among all

elicited constructs, %

Rank of homogeneity

Sum among 'important' constructs

Homogeneity among

important constructs, %

Importance among

constructs in category, %

Rank of importance

Comfort 28 14 1 22 22 79 2

Prestige 25 13 2 10 10 40 7

Representativeness 23 12 3 8 8 35 8

Technical quality 20 10 4 16 16 80 1

Intended application (Universality) 17 9 5,6,7 5 5 29 10,11

Size 17 9 5,6,7 5 5 29 10,11

Design 17 9 5,6,7 12 12 71 4

Speed/Power 13 7 8 7 7 54 6

Cross-country ability 12 6 9 4 4 33 9

Safety/Security 10 5 10 6 6 60 5

Price 8 4 11 0 0 0 12

Novelty 7 4 12 5 5 71 3

Totals 197 100 100 100 51

Table 20: Homogeneity and the importance of the derived meanings

There are categories that are rather common and related meanings emerge very

often among respondents when thinking about a certain product category. Although

categories are common, these meanings can be of different importance for

respondents.

If categories are ranked according to the percentage of most important constructs the

order looks different (compare 3rd “rank of homogeneity” and 7th “rank of importance”

columns of Table 20). Category ‘technical quality’ is on the 4th place when looking at

the sum of constructs; however, 80% of these constructs are valued as very

important. Whereas category ‘prestige’ which is on the 2nd place according to the

aspect mentioned, when considering importance of the attribute this category drops

to the 7th place as only 40% of all constructs in this category are perceived as very

important.

Categories which are rare are likely to represent either very important aspect for

people or, on the contrary, may be not important and emerge within the expressed

meanings because respondents could not construe any other more actual for them

meaning.

Category ‘novelty’ which is not very common attribute among respondents is very

important for those who mentioned it. It means that there is a certain consumer

segment for which novelty of a car, its model or technical innovations play very


182

important role in making decision about its purchase and this segment’s priority

should not be underestimated.

The second assumption can be demonstrated on the example of category ‘price’.

Only 4% of all elicited constructs are about price and none of them are considered to

be important. This is, actually, a peculiarity which characterises the sample that was

interviewed. For these customers price is not a determinant factor when making

purchase decision.

Overall, it can be noticed that the most important categories are those which reflect

attributes important for confident and convenient utilization such as ‘technical quality’,

‘comfort’, ‘novelty’, ‘design’, ‘safety’ and ‘speed/power’. Confident utilization implies

both confidence in a car’s quality and in its image.

Next two categories according to rank of importance rather relate to the external

perception by others which are ‘prestige’ and ‘representativeness’. These both

attributes imply ability of auto’s image and image of auto’s owner to reflect

customer’s social status.

Other categories represent attributes that allow proper auto usage depending on the

conditions and circumstances in which auto is used. These categories include ‘cross-

country ability’, ‘intended application (universality)’ and ‘size’.

7.2.2. Honey’s content analysis

Honey’s content analysis is applied in this research with the goal of identifying

constructs that are more related to a particular issue the survey is focused on. A

particular interest of the survey is to understand how people perceive and what their

attitudes towards the notion of confidence and safety when talking about autos are.

It was expected that for some people the perception of feeling safe and secure in an

auto may differ from the perception of being confident about an auto. For this reason

two overall assessment constructs were supplied to be rated by each respondent.

The first construct is “overall, feel confident about this car – overall, not feel confident

about this car” and the second construct is “overall, feel safe in this car – overall, not

feel safe in this car”.


183

All single grids are analyzed according to the procedure described in section 4.6.1.3.

For each elicited construct the sum of differences and the percentage similarity score

(PSS) index against both supplied overall assessment constructs are calculated

(formulas were presented in the 4.6.1.3). The calculation regarding each elicited

construct against each supplied construct is conducted twice, once with the given

ratings and once with the reversed ratings of the supplied construct. After all PSS

indices in the grid are estimated each construct is labeled with either ‘H’, ‘I’ or ‘L’

index standing for high, intermediate or low relevance of the construct to the overall

assessment construct of the respondent. To do so the individual’s personal metric is

calculated by defining individual H-, I- and L-value intervals. Table 21 shows 14th grid

(presented in Table 18) analysis by Honey’s technique.

Emergent pole (1)

Mer

cede

s S

221

Gua

rd

Aud

i Q7

Por

sch

e C

arre

ra

Jagu

ar

Mer

cede

s C

LK

Ast

on M

artin

DB

9 C

oupe

Mer

cede

s S

220

Aud

i S8

Arm

ore

d

IDE

AL

Implicit pole (5)

(1) work (2) vacation (3) evening (4) in no way (5) previous (6) doesn't fit (7) alternative (8) current (9) ideal

1 5 5 5 5 5 1 1 1

15 16,67 21 -16,67

16 11,11 20 -11,11

1 2 1 5 3 1 3 1 2

7 61,11 25 -38,89

6 66,67 24 -33,33

1 1 1 5 3 1 3 2 2

9 50,00 25 -38,89

8 55,56 24 -33,33

5 1 1 3 1 1 5 5 5

19 -5,56 13 27,78

18 0,00 14 22,22

5 4 4 3 4 5 4 5 5

25 -38,89 1 94,44

24 -33,33 0 100,00

1 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 1

5 72,22 27 -50,00

4 77,78 26 -44,44

1 4 5 3 5 5 1 1 2

13 27,78 17 5,56

14 22,22 16 11,11

1 1 1 3 2 1 2 1 2

4 77,78 26 -44,44

3 83,33 25 -38,89

1 2 2 3 2 1 1 1 1

5 4 4 3 4 5 5 5 5

1 2 2 3 2 1 2 1 1

5 4 4 3 4 5 4 5 5

14.10 supplied

14.9 supplied

H

H

14.8

not feel safe in this car

not feel confident about this car

feel safe in this car

feel confident about this car

14.7

14.6

14.5

14.4

limited equipment with comfort electronics and

technologies

14.2

14.1

for business, not for entertainment

old model

unsatisfactory design

inexpediency of armoringappropriate for armoring

for leisure time

novelty of a model

L

L

initially better technological equipment in sense of

safety

there is already a later model

for self-driving

H

H

H

L

I

I

L

H

L

L

I

I

beautiful

appropriate for comfort electronics and technologies

with driver

there is no later model: technologically innovative

worse technological equipment in sense of

safety

14.3

Table 21: Honey’s technique calculations


184

The sums of differences are shown below each construct followed by PSSs. The left

two numbers are calculations between the unreversed ratings and the right two

numbers are the calculations between ratings of the elicited construct as they are

and the reversed ratings of the supplied construct. The reversed ratings of the

supplied constructs are shown bellow the supplied constructs 14.9, 14.10. Two rows

bellow each construct show calculations, first, between the construct and the

supplied construct 14.9 “feel confident about this car – not feel confident about this

car” and, second, between the construct and the supplied construct 14.10 “feel safe

in this car – not feel safe in this car” placed one above another correspondingly. For

each construct the higher of the two values of PSS (unreversed and reversed) is

chosen and shown in bold with respect to each comparison with supplied constructs.

Thus, the sum of difference between unreversed constructs 14.1 and 14.9 is

159

1

', =−=∑=

′

i

jiijjj rrD and the PSS is then

%67,169)15(

15%200%100

)1(

%200%100

',

,' =

×−

×−=

×−

×−=

nk

D jj

jjσ .

The constructs are divided evenly into three sets, high, intermediate and low

according to the individual’s personal metric, i.e., based on the grid’s highest and

lowest PSSs. For this grid the intervals are shown in the Table 22.

Similarity with 14.9 Similarity with 14.10

Interval for PSS Interval for PSS

"H" 68,53 - 94,44 70,38 - 100,00

"I" 42,60 - 68,52 40,75 - 70,37

"L" 16,67 - 42,59 11,11 - 40,74

Label

Table 22: Intervals for H-I-L indices

All elicited constructs within the sample are allocated to the categories. When all the

constructs are assigned with the H-I-L indices according to the individual’s personal

metrics the consensus between all respondents can be defined. In Table 23 the

constructs within each category are shown in three groups according to their high,

intermediate and low relevance to the supplied constructs.


185

Sum of constructs

% in the category

Sum of constructs

% in the category

Sum of constructs

% in the category

Sum of constructs

% in the category

Sum of constructs

% in the category

Sum of constructs

% in the category

Comfort 28 14 14 50% 8 29% 6 21% 18 64% 7 25% 3 11%

Prestige 25 13 12 48% 6 24% 7 28% 12 48% 3 12% 10 40%

Representativeness 23 12 3 13% 7 30% 13 57% 5 22% 8 35% 10 43%

Technical quality 20 10 11 55% 4 20% 5 25% 10 50% 5 25% 5 25%

Intended application (Universality) 17 9 1 6% 8 47% 8 47% 7 41% 6 35% 4 24%

Size 17 9 2 12% 5 29% 10 59% 4 24% 9 53% 4 24%

Design 17 9 8 47% 6 35% 3 18% 8 47% 5 29% 4 24%

Speed/Power 13 7 4 31% 4 31% 5 38% 3 23% 5 38% 5 38%

Cross-country ability 12 6 3 25% 3 25% 6 50% 3 25% 2 17% 7 58%

Safety/Security 10 5 1 10% 1 10% 8 80% 2 20% 1 10% 7 70%

Price 8 4 0 0% 2 25% 6 75% 1 13% 0 0% 7 88%

Novelty 7 4 4 57% 2 29% 1 14% 4 57% 2 29% 1 14%

Totals 197 100,0 63 56 78 77 53 67

Percentage of all (197) 32% 28% 40% 39% 27% 34%

Sum in general sample

Sum in general

sample, %

Similarity with construct 14.9 'Confidence' Similarity with construct 14.10 'Safety'

H LIHLI

Table 23: Honey’s content analysis of all grids

Category ‘comfort’ is not only most common but also has a high relevance to both

supplied constructs for the majority of respondents. Also constructs ascribed to the

category ‘technical quality’ are rated similarly with the supplied constructs indicating

high relevance of their meaning when respondents think about overall confidence

and safety of an auto.

Although category ‘novelty’ is least common among the respondents, for the majority

of those who expressed constructs ascribed to this category the constructs are also

highly relevant and important when considering the question of confidence and safety

of an auto. This group of respondents represents a latent group for which the fact

that the auto is new and embodies most recent technological achievements is an

important factor influencing the choice decision and, therefore, it can be effectively

used in positioning and advertising of a product targeting this latent group.

When thinking about confidence about an auto, categories ‘size’, ‘cross-country

ability’, ‘safety/security’ and ‘price’ have rather low relevance for the majority. At the

same time, categories ‘prestige’ and ‘design’ appear relevant and similarly rated for

the large part of the sample. This signifies that the notion of confidence is often

related to the image of an auto and the social perception of an auto as well as of its

owner rather than to the feeling of safety.

Moreover, when thinking about the safety of an auto or provided by an auto, the

category ‘safety/security’ has a low relevance for the majority of people expressed

the constructs ascribed to this category. However, categories ‘prestige’ and ‘design’

remain highly relevant for a large part of the sample.


186

This confusion is likely to be explained by the specificity of the sample and its

common attitude towards questions reflected in the supplied constructs. The

respondents, on the one hand, represent consumers of premium autos who perceive

general safety measures provided by an auto as a must have in premium autos due

to their superiority in quality. Cars named for each element category present premium

autos which, when being distinguished between each other by triadic differentiation,

usually can not be distinguished by general safety measures. On the other hand, the

respondents represent people referred to the risk group who are, if really concerned,

have particular requirements about safety and security measures which often exceed

the ordinary measures provided by ‘average’ premium autos. For example, as can be

seen in the individual grid (Table 21) the first construct ascribed to the category

‘safety/security’ has a low relevance to the overall construct about auto safety

because the respondent considers auto’s appropriateness for armoring which implies

rather different requirements of an auto than those which are needed for general

safety measures. For example, Audi Q7, although possessing all or most of the

superior technologies and safety measures in the general notion, is perceived by the

respondent as inappropriate for armoring because of its relatively large size what

makes it easier to hit it with the bullet or projectile.

The common attitude towards the notion of auto safety is rather skeptical in a sense

that people, at least in Russia, believe that if there is a plan to commit crime against

a person in a car or aimed at stealing property from an auto or stealing or damaging

the auto itself it will most probably be accomplished. This belief is explained by

another one which is “there are no technologies smarter than a man”. That is why

most safety and security measures are perceived either against different kinds of

accidents and provided by premium autos as a must or against foolish, poorly

thought out crimes. More serious measures require both specific technological

achievements as well as physical protection involving the human factor.

The H-I-L indices regarding both supplied constructs do not differ much within each

category. That is because most respondents rated both supplied constructs rather

similarly and the general match between these constructs is 96% considering all the

grids. It can, therefore, be supposed that most of respondents when rating the last

supplied construct were actually thinking about each element as a package

consisting of technological achievements as well as of the social value provided by a


187

car and the more appropriate meaning to such assessment is probably the

convenience about an auto.

Because of the relatively small number of respondents in the sample the

assumptions based on this data might need additional testing. However, this study is,

first of all, aimed at demonstration of the technique application and illustrates how

researcher can handle the estimations. It shows on which kind of differences and

similarities in calculations the researcher needs to pay a particular attention because

it can disclose unconsidered, unexpected or unknown aspects of the study. It is also

very important to be careful with the interpretations to produce accurate inferences.

7.3. Analysis of relationships within a single grid

RG analysis is aimed at systematization of data and presenting it in a structure which

allows to reveal commonalities and differences among consumers according to their

perceptions and preferences. For this purpose each grid is separately analyzed,

elicited meanings are systematized and the CMS schema of each respondent is

constructed and presented. Afterwards, all structured individual data is analyzed

together.

To conduct the analysis of relationships within a single grid the following steps need

to be accomplished:

1) Preparation and input of data into the used software package.

2) Systematization of the elicited meanings:

a) Perform Slater’s PCA and provide a convenient structure form for findings

representation;

b) Perform HCA within each defined PCA component and structure individual

constructs based on the interrelationships between their meanings;

c) Build an individual CMS.

3) Systematization of elements perceptions:

a) Analyze matches between elements perceptions with respect to the

revealed construct dimensions, i.e., abstract consequences.


188

7.3.1. Preparation and input of data into the software package

In this study analysis are carried out by means of a web version of REPGRID

program (Shaw, 1989) namely WEBGRID IV. This is the latest version introduced in

2008. Description of the software was provided in section 4.6.2.

Table 18 in section 6.2.2.1 shows the grid elicited from 14th interviewee as it was

recorded. All grids are inputted into the software including elements, constructs and

ratings. Figure 17 shows the 14th grid as it is displayed in the WEBGRID package.

Elements are inputted as element categories instead of mentioned particular cars in

order to later compare the grids and to analyze a collective grid representing several

individual ones. This allows having different constructs but the same set of elements.

Constructs are inputted in a coded form so that each construct is represented by its

unique coding number and the category it is ascribed to. As well as constructs,

categories are also bipolar as shown in Table 24.

Figure 17: Display of the 14th repertory grid


189

Construct category Elicited meaning of construct Construct category Elicited meaning of construct

14.1 Safety/Security safe/secure appropriate for armoring unsafe inexpediency of armoring

14.2 Design stylish beautiful unattractive unsatisfactory design

14.3 Novelty new model novelty of a model old model old model

14.4 Representativeness unrepresentative for leisure time representative for business, not for entertainment

14.5 Safety/Security unsafeworse technological equipment in

sense of safetysafe/secure

initially better technological

equipment in sense of safety

14.6 Novelty new modelthere is no later model:

technologically innovativeold model there is already a later model

14.7 Representativeness representative with driver unrepresentative for self-driving

14.8 Comfort comfortableappropriate for comfort electronics

and technologiesuncomfortable

limited equipment with comfort

electronics and technologies

14.9 Overall confidencefeel confident about this car

feel confident about this carnot feel confident about this car

not feel confident about this car

14.10 Overall safety feel safe in this car feel safe in this car not feel safe in this car not feel safe in this car

Emergent pole Implicit poleConstruct № Category name

Table 24: Correspondence between category poles and construct poles

After all individual grids are inputted, WEBGRID’s analysis tools are used.

7.3.2. Systematization of elicited meanings

a) Perform Slater’s PCA and provide a convenient structure form for findings

representation

Each individual grid is examined by means of PCA. The produced graphic plot is

presented in Figure 18. In addition, a table with percentage of variance accounted for

by each component is also provided as shown in Table 25. Description of reading the

plot was described in section 4.6.2.2.

1 Component 2 Component 3 Component 4 Component

Percentage, % 64.36 30.80 2.23 1.19

Cumulative % 64.36 95.17 97.39 98.59

Table 25: Percentage of variance accounted for by each component.

Interpretation of the graphical plot involves three steps.

• At first it is needed to determine how many components are significant and

should be examined.

In this graphical plot the first component accounts for 64% of the variance and

together with the second, 31%, it identifies 95% of the variance in the data. It means


190

that to analyze this grid only one plot of first component against the second should be

examined.

Figure 18: Graphic plot of a PCA of the 14th grid

• Secondly, the positioning of the lines representing the constructs needs to be

examined to reveal the distinct patterns.

Around the first component, i.e., x-axis three constructs are grouped, including:

� construct ‘14.1 safe/secure – unsafe’,

� construct ‘14.4 unrepresentative – representative’,

� construct ‘14.7 representative 2 – unrepresentative 2’.

These constructs form a joint with small angles around the first principal component

and could all be considered as important for the grading process.

Second grouping consists of four constructs including:

� construct ‘14.2 stylish – unattractive’,

� construct ‘14.3 new model – old model’,

� construct ‘14.6 new model 2 – old model 2’,

� construct ‘14.8 comfortable – uncomfortable’.

These constructs have relatively small angles towards the second component

indicating another dimension in the assessment system of this respondent.


191

Apart from the grouped constructs, three constructs 14.5, 14.9 and 14.10 are

disposed between the components being well represented by neither of them. Two of

these constructs are overall supplied constructs ‘14.9 feel confident about this car –

not feel confident about this car’ and ‘14.10 feel safe in this car – not feel safe in this

car’ and the third construct is elicited one ‘14.5 unsafe2 – safe/secure2’. Construct

lines of 14.5 and 14.10 are coincident as their ratings are identical when construct

14.5 is reversed, i.e., the PSS between them is 100%. The expressed meaning

underlying the elicited construct is ‘safe means initially better technological

equipment in sense of safety’ which has a close meaning to the overall construct

14.10.

Thus, constructs 14.5, 14.9 and 14.10 align neither with the first grouping nor the

second. It can be concluded that overall feeling of safety or confidence about a car

depends neither on attributes aligned to the first component nor on the attributes

aligned to the second component but more or less equally on both (Jankowicz, 2004,

p. 129).

The graphical plot allows interpretation of the data, however, it is not always easy to

attribute constructs to the components by visual inspection.

Together with graphical plot the tool provides an underlying textual output. It includes

tables of construct and element loadings on each principal component. To further

discuss the constructs a table of construct loadings is first presented and interpreted

(Table 26).

Construct Component 1 Component 2 Component 3 Component 4 Construct poles (categorized)

14.1 -2.95 0.29 -0.16 -0.11 safe/secure--unsafe

14.2 -0.32 1.87 0.12 0.00 stylish--unattractive

14.3 0.03 1.87 0.36 -0.06 new model--old model

14.4 2.77 0.48 0.07 -0.11 unrepresentative--representative

14.5 0.49 -0.79 0.33 0.03 unsafe2--safe/secure2

14.6 0.19 1.08 -0.32 0.49 new model2--old model2

14.7 -2.46 -0.43 0.42 0.16 representative2--unrepresentative2

14.8 -0.00 0.96 0.31 0.02 comfortable--uncomfortable

14.9 -0.67 0.64 -0.21 -0.38 feel confident about this car--not feel confident about this car

14.10 -0.49 0.79 -0.33 -0.03 feel safe in this car--not feel safe in this car Table 26: Construct loadings on each component

As described in section 4.6.2.2 construct loadings do not directly represent the

correlation between the component and its construct as in original principal

component analysis. Loadings represent distances which absolute values depend on

how the data has been scaled. Thus, for interpretation the relative values are


192

meaningful (Gaines and Shaw, 2005). It means that the criteria for construct loading

value to be considered significant also depends on the relative loading values.

Therefore, the loadings are considered as follows:

� Constructs with highest loadings on one component and, at the same time,

with relatively low loadings on other components are considered indicative for

the component generalized meaning.

� Constructs with high loadings on two (or more) components are not indicative

for defining generalized meaning and name of each component. However,

these constructs are significant and demand deliberation bearing in mind that

their meanings take account of both components.

� Constructs with low loadings on all components are considered to be

insignificant for component definition.

In Table 26 constructs with the highest loadings are marked in bold. The constructs

that are attributed to the components and account for the largest variance repeat the

clusters identified through visual inspection of the plot. It is also seen that three

constructs that were not aligned to either of the components have similar loadings of

a middle level on both components.

• After lines in the plot are examined and groupings are recognized, the third

step is to identify a common meaning between constructs within each group.

At this phase a researcher examines construct meanings and looks if there is any

shared meaning. It is very important procedure of ‘naming components’ when

abstract desirable consequences are actually identified. However, in this study this

step is postponed and will be accomplished after reaching the synergy effect of

conducting both PCA and HCA. This will provide a more clear view on the meanings

of constructs in each component and their importance.

b) Perform HCA within each defined PCA component and structure individual

constructs based on the interrelationships between their meanings

Constructs within each dimension are clustered according to percentage of similarity

in their rating values. Thereby, each construct grouping is based on, firstly, common

pattern of variability and, secondly, close distances between rating absolute values.


193

Dendrograms in Figures 19 and 20 illustrate ‘trees’ of both components identified by

PCA.

Figure 19: HCA: Component 1 including constructs 5, 9, 10

Links between constructs Links between elements

R - reversed PSS (%) PSS (%)10 5 R 100.0 1 (work) 8 (current) 100.09 5 R 97.2 3 (evening) 5 (previous) 100.04 1 R 94.4 1 (work) 9 (ideal) 95.87 4 R 94.4 2 (vacation) 3 (evening) 95.87 9 63.9 7 (alternative) 8 (current) 91.7

5 (previous) 6 (doesn't fit) 87.52 (vacation) 4 (in no way) 75.06 (doesn't fit) 9 (ideal) 54.2

Constructs Elements

Table 27: Links in the dendrogram of Figure 19


194

Figure 20: HCA: Component 2 including constructs 5, 9, 10

Links between constructs Links between elements

R - reversed PSS (%) PSS (%)10 5 R 100.0 1 (work) 6 (doesn't fit) 100.09 5 R 97.2 1 (work) 8 (current) 96.42 3 94.4 2 (vacation) 3 (evening) 96.46 8 91.7 8 (current) 9 (ideal) 92.98 10 91.7 3 (evening) 6 (doesn't fit) 89.32 6 83.3 5 (previous) 7 (alternative) 89.3

2 (vacation) 5 (previous) 85.74 (in no way) 7 (alternative) 67.9

Constructs Elements

Table 28: Links in the dendrogram of Figure 20

Constructs 14.5, 14.9 and 14.10 are first included in both dendrograms as they have

similar loadings on both dimensions. In Figure 19 these three constructs compose

separate cluster, whereas, in Figure 20 they are embodied in the cluster with the rest

constructs aligned with second dimension. Thus, it is concluded that three constructs

have comparatively closer meanings with constructs from the second dimension and,

therefore, they are retained there in order to keep the completeness of information for

further interpretation.

c) Build an individual CMS

Table 29 presents the form developed in this study which comprises all the

attributions that were derived through consecutive conduction of PCA and HCA.

Columns of the table represent dimensions. In the upper part of rows constructs are

arranged according to their dimension ascription. Each construct is put down so that


195

its number of interviewee (of RG), number of construct, category the construct is

ascribed, indicator of category repeat, and emergent and implicit poles are reflected.

Besides, preferred poles are written in bold.

Pole preference is identified by rating given on the ‘ideal’ element. In case of a

neutral rating on the ‘ideal’ element meaning of the pole which corresponds (i.e., is

on the same side of the dendrogram) to the preferred pole of the adjacent construct

is to be interpreted. If preferred pole of a construct appears on the other side

regarding preferred poles of adjacent constructs in cluster and percentage of

similarity between adjacent constructs is high, the researcher needs to pay more

attention to expressed meanings of each pole to interpret their similarity or difference

in meanings appropriately.

In this study such examples appeared very few times and the reason for

contradiction could be reasonably explained. For example, one interviewee (8th RG)

expressed the construct ‘high risk of criminal attempt because of good expensive car

brand’ versus ‘no risk of criminal attempt’. By rating the ‘ideal’ element on this

construct he gave ‘4’ meaning that he does not want to incur any criminal attempt.

However, by high risk he actually meant an ownership of a good expensive car which

is often a reason for criminal attempts. It is his personal perception and he has a full

right to judge so. Ratings of ‘ideal’ element on constructs reflecting prestigiousness

vary from ‘1’ to ‘3’ on cars including current and alternative as well as those that he

would prefer for work, vacation or leisure time. Hierarchical clustering arranged

respondent’s constructs so that pole ‘high risk of criminal attempt’ appeared to be on

the side among other preferred poles in favor of prestige and representativeness.

This can be interpreted as that the respondent prefers obtaining an expensive

prestigious car despite the fact that this kind of autos is incurred criminal attempts in

Russia. It would be ‘ideal’ for him when a good expensive car does not bring such

risk, although he realizes that it is not possible (in Russia) like it is not possible, for

instance, to purchase an ‘expensive’ auto at a cheap price.

In the bottom of Table 29 constructs are arranged according to percentage of match,

i.e., similarity between their ratings what is displayed in the right upper tree structure

of dendrograms (Figures 19, 20). This representation of data allows to see which

meanings are more or less similar. Constructs attributed to the first dimension all

match with each other between 90% and 100% (excluding 100%) where construct


196

Table 29: Individual structure of construct meanings

1

dim

en

sio

n2

dim

en

sio

n

Loa

din

gs

Loa

din

gs

14

.1-2

.95

14

.21

.87

14

.31

.87

14

.4R

2

.77

14

.5R

-0.7

9

14

.61

.08

14

.7-2

.46

14

.80

.96

14

.90

.64

14

.10

0.7

9

M=

100

%1

00%

>M

>=

90

%9

0%

>M

>=

80%

80

%>

M>

=7

5%

M<

75

%M

=1

00%

10

0%

>M

>=

90%

90

%>

M>

=8

0%

80%

>M

>=

75

%M

<7

5%

14

.1

1

4.9

14

.4 (

R)

1

4.5

(R

)

14

.7

1

4.1

0

1

4.8

14

.6

14

.2

1

4.3

Con

stru

ctR

ever

sed

co

nst

ruct

sB

ipol

ar c

onst

ruct

sB

ipol

ar c

onst

ruct

s

14

.1 s

afe/

secu

re:

ap

pro

pri

ate

fo

r a

rmo

rin

g -

inex

ped

ien

cy o

f ar

mor

ing

14

.2 s

tylis

h:

be

au

tifu

l -

un

satis

fact

ory

des

ign

14

.3 n

ew m

odel

: n

ove

lty

of

mo

de

l -

old

mod

el

14

.4 r

epre

sen

tativ

e: fo

r le

isu

re t

ime

- fo

r b

usin

ess,

no

t fo

r

en

tert

ain

me

nt

14

.5 s

afe/

secu

re2

: w

orse

tec

hn

olog

ical

eq

uip

men

t in

sen

se o

f sa

fety

- i

nit

iall

y b

ett

er

tec

hn

olo

gic

al

eq

uip

me

nt

in s

en

se

of

sa

fety

14

.6 n

ew m

odel

2:

the

re i

s n

o l

ate

r m

od

el,

i.e

. te

ch

no

log

ica

lly

inn

ova

tive

- t

her

e is

a la

ter

mod

el

14

.7 r

epre

sen

tativ

e2:

wit

h d

rive

r -

for

self-

driv

ing

14

.8 c

omfo

rtab

le:

co

mfo

rt e

lec

tro

nic

s a

nd

te

ch

no

log

ies -

lim

ited

eq

uip

men

t w

ith c

omfo

rt e

lect

ron

ics

and

tec

hn

olog

ies

Mat

ches

be

twe

en c

ons

truc

ts (

%)

2 d

ime

nsio

n1

dim

en

sio

n

14

.9 f

ee

l c

on

fid

en

t a

bo

ut

this

ca

r--n

ot fe

el c

onfid

ent

abou

t th

is

car

14

.10

fe

el

sa

fe i

n t

his

ca

r--n

ot fe

el s

afe

in t

his

car

Va

r.:

64,3

6%

V

ar.

: 3

0,8

0%


197

14.4 is reversed. This means that the absolute difference between their ratings is one

or two units and it is likely that constructs share very close meanings or are in some

sense complementary in respondent’s related perceptual structure. Hence, it is

important to look at the content of the expressed meanings.

Construct 14.7 ‘with driver – for self-driving’ and reversed construct 14.4 ‘for leisure

time – for business, not for entertainment’ basically both express personal perception

of a representative auto where he sits on a passenger seat and uses an auto for

business purposes also implying working process while being in the car (e.g.,

telephone calls, reading, working with notebook, etc.) and, therefore, requires

appropriate fulfillment. Although expressions ‘with driver’ and ‘for business purposes’

do not share the same meaning, they present complementary characteristics of

perceived representative, business auto.

At first sight construct 14.1 ‘appropriate for armoring – inexpediency of armoring’

does not share any common meaning with constructs 14.4 and 14.7. However,

appropriateness for armoring represents for the respondent another very important

characteristic of an owned auto. During the interview it seemed that appropriateness

for armoring is respondent’s prior requirement. This assumption is proved by the

produced quantitative analysis. The construct has got the highest loading (in absolute

value) on the first component, i.e., dimension.

Identifying similarities in the meanings, constructs of the first component seem to

relate to practical characteristics that are essential for the consumer’s car exploitation

taking into account his life circumstances and first purpose for the car use. According

to constructs answering the question how a car is used and ratings of ‘current’ and

‘ideal’ elements, the main purpose for car exploitation is business (‘for business, not

for entertainment’). An auto does not represent any working instrument (as, for

example, for taxi driver) by means of which the respondent earns money or receives

profit. The auto is to be used to provide proper conditions for its owner to lead his

business and spend time during the rides differently than when self driving a car

(‘with driver’). The respondent prefers autos that are appropriate for armoring and

estimates the characteristic as very important (rating value ‘1’ on ‘ideal’ and ‘current’

elements). Ratings of this construct vary in the same way as ratings on other two

constructs which refer to the preferences regarding working exploitation. Business is

the main purpose for the car exploitation. Therefore, it can be assumed that


198

‘appropriateness for armoring’ is also perceived as an important requirement referred

to the main purpose of vehicle exploitation. Considering ratings on different elements,

it appears that those autos that respondent considers as representative and

appropriate for business exploitation are also considered as appropriate for armoring.

Based on this interpretation the resulting name of the first dimension which reflects

the shared meaning of included constructs and their preferred poles is formulated as

“Appropriate for my business use” and can also be precised as “Appropriate for my

business use: armored and representative”.

Here, it is useful to describe some details revealed during the interview in order to

provide a reader with a broader picture. The respondent is an entrepreneur who

leads several large businesses in Russia. A couple years ago he was shot five times

but survived. The reason behind armed assault was related to his business activities.

For this reason this person does not feel in safety so far and always moves in

armored auto with escort armored vehicles and thirteen bodyguards. These

circumstances and the fact that respondent still leads his businesses makes

construct pole ‘appropriateness for armoring’ likely to be called a requirement rather

than a preference.

Returning to Table 29, constructs attributed to the second dimension also share a

common meaning. First of all, indicative meanings of constructs which have high

loadings on the second component should be considered. Constructs 14.8 ‘comfort

electronics and technologies – limited equipment with comfort electronics and

technologies’ and 14.6 ‘there is no later model, i.e., technologically innovative – there

is already a later model’ match at 92%. They both relate to the technological

achievements which provide better comfort as well as general exploitation features.

According to the respondent’s perception the newer a model is the more innovative

technologies it possesses.

Constructs 14.2 ‘beautiful - unsatisfactory design’ and 14.3 ‘novelty of model - old

model’ match at 94%. During laddering down specification the respondent mentioned

that beautiful design is only provided by new models which are not yet often seen on

the streets. He basically perceives auto’s beauty depending on its uniqueness.

Quantitative analysis proves this judgement and shows this strong interrelation in


199

meanings in form of two adjacent constructs which highly match and have high

loadings on the second important dimension.

Besides, constructs 14.6 and 14.2 match at 83% in rating values. The double line

between constructs 14.6 and 14.2 indicates that their matching score lies in the

column where percentage of match is between 80% and 90%, while they both match

with adjacent constructs, 14.8 and 14.3 correspondingly, at score between 90% and

100%.

Four constructs which have higher loadings on the second dimension appear to

share respondents attitude and preference to novelty of auto model which, in turn,

means (for the respondent) representation of most updated technologies in

automotive industry. As these four constructs appeared to be indicative for

determining the second dimension, the resulting name of second dimension is

“Novelty of a model with recent technological achievements”.

Three constructs 14.5, 14.9 and 14.10 form a cluster within the second dimension.

Overall assessment construct 14.10 ‘feel safe in this car – not feel safe in this car’

matches at 100% with reversed elicited construct 14.5 ‘worse technological

equipment in sense of safety - initially better technological equipment in sense of

safety’. It can be interpreted that for respondent a question of safety when talking

about car features relates to the technical equipment and level of quality which can

increase security and protection measures. If the respondent felt safe in an auto

which meets certain attribute requirements he probably would not need other security

measures such as bodyguards and escort. The person feels safe only when all

measures are presented in complex which, in turn, involves a maximum technical

quality and equipment of the used vehicle, besides measures not related to the auto

itself. For this reason the respondent when talking about feeling safe and confident

about an auto, is likely to consider its provided technical quality and features enabling

its appropriateness for armoring. Therefore, construct loadings laying between two

dimensions show that overall feeling of confidence and safety when talking about an

auto depends more or less equally on both dimensions. However, meanings of three

constructs are closer to the meanings expressed in constructs of the second

dimension.


200

The resulting schema of individual CMS is presented in Table 30. The schema

accumulates all the elicited data which was analyzed and structured according to

different levels of abstraction of respondent’s personal meanings.

In the bottom of the hierarchy (on the left of the schema) product characteristics are

put into a tabular form reflecting the extent of similarity between personal meanings.

Constructs are arranged according to the dimensions and clusters they have been

attributed to. It repeats the Table 29 but dimensions are located one on another

instead of side by side.

Product attributes reflect categories that were assigned to the elicited constructs.

They are ordered according to their relation to one of the dimensions. Thus, it can be

seen which attributes are sought to satisfy each of identified abstract expected

consequences.

Specific expected consequences which represent too-specific motives include

individual expressions revealed during laddering technique procedure carried out

with mostly preferred constructs according to their given ratings on the ‘ideal’

element. Resulting expected consequences, actually, reflect desirable consequences

as they were derived from the preferred construct poles. It was proved that people do

not necessarily provide ladders that link product characteristics with personal values

through all levels of abstraction, especially, in terms of six level chain proposed by

Olson and Reynolds (1983, p. 81). For example, ladders from constructs 14.5 and

14.6 have only one meaning linking product attribute with personal value. Actually, it

does not mean that the respondent could not produce and explain details

corresponding to each level of abstraction. In contrast to clinical purposes,

application of laddering in marketing research targets relatively adequate people who

usually can clearly express their thoughts especially about ‘obvious’ things. During

the current study it was found that asking for more details often does not provide

additional information, however, can evoke respondent’s irritation and, thereby,

endanger the remained interviewing procedure. It depends on the researched topic,

type and complexity of product, sample and conditions of the survey that makes

interviewer either feel comfortable and free to ask for more details even regarding

obvious things or be cautious and realize the situation going on to adjust his

scrupulosity.


201

Table 30: Individual schema of a consumer motivational sphere

M =

10

0%

10

0%

> M

>=

90

%9

0%

> M

>=

80

%8

0%

> M

>=

75

%M

< 7

5%

14

.1 s

afe/

secu

re:

app

rop

riate

fo

r ar

mor

ing

Security

(14

.1)

Pro

vid

e m

axim

um

se

curit

y m

easu

res

Sec

urit

y

14

.4 r

epre

sen

tativ

e: fo

r b

usi

nes

s, n

ot fo

r en

tert

ain

men

tRepresentativeness

Be

con

fiden

t ab

out

surr

oun

din

g

peo

ple

an

d t

hin

gs

14

.7 r

epre

sen

tativ

e2:

not

for

self-

driv

ing

Sta

y al

ive

as lo

ng

as

pos

sib

le

14

.9 f

ee

l co

nfid

en

t a

bo

ut

this

ca

rNovelty

14

.5 s

afe/

secu

re2

: in

itial

ly

bet

ter

tech

nol

ogic

al e

qu

ipm

ent

in s

ense

of s

afet

yDesign

(14

.4)

Fee

l com

fort

able

as

a p

asse

ng

er

14

.10

fe

el sa

fe in

th

is c

ar

Comfort

Sav

e tim

e fo

r w

orki

ng

pu

rpos

es

14

.8 c

omfo

rtab

le:

com

fort

el

ectr

onic

s an

d t

ech

nol

ogie

sSecurity

14

.6 n

ew m

odel

2:

new

mea

ns

tech

nol

ogic

ally

inn

ovat

ive

(14

.5)

Fee

l saf

er d

ue

to la

st h

i-te

ch a

chie

vem

ents

14

.2 s

tylis

h:

bea

utif

ul

14

.3 n

ew m

odel

: n

ovel

ty(1

4.6

) E

njo

y rid

ing

du

e to

last

hi-

tech

ach

ieve

men

ts

Bu

sin

ess

With

driv

er

Sec

urit

y m

easu

res

Pro

du

ct

ch

ara

cte

risti

cs

Ach

ieve

men

t

Pro

du

ct

att

rib

ute

sS

pe

cif

ic e

xp

ec

ted

co

nse

qu

en

ce

s

Ab

str

ac

t e

xp

ec

ted

co

nse

qu

en

ce

s

Dim

. 1

: Appropriate for

my business use

(arm

ore

d a

nd

rep

rese

nta

tive

)

Inc

en

tive

s

Dim

. 2

: Novelty of a

model with most recent

technological

achievements

Va

lue

s

Pro

du

ct

ch

ara

cte

risti

cs

Sp

ec

ific

co

nse

qu

en

ce

sV

alu

es

Pe

rso

nal c

onst

ruct

s L

ad

deri

ng

UP

Lad

der

ing

UP

WH

ICH

Re

sist

an

ce-t

o-C

han

ge

Pro

du

ct

att

rib

ute

sA

bs

tra

ct

co

ns

eq

ue

nce

s

Co

nte

nt

Ana

lysi

sP

CA

Dim

en

sio

ns

WH

AT

Clu

ste

rs

Sit.

and

Env

. in

cen

tives

HO

W+

Ide

al r

atin

gs

Analysis driven: relatively objective

Person driven: subjective


202

Abstract expected consequences representing individual motives of the middle range

consist of defined dimensions. They aggregate individual meanings which are not

only put into words but also expressed in individual estimations. These abstract

consequences are more general and can be compared with preferred abstract

consequences of other individuals, although they are still expressed in terms of

product features.

The incentives are revealed from the content and preferred construct poles of

constructs which explain how and in which circumstances the auto is used.

Values represent motives at the highest level of abstraction that are too-general and

do not directly reflect product preferences and requirements which help come closer

or reach the value state. Nevertheless, values represent the final states which person

is trying to achieve by living his life and doing as well as consuming what he does.

Values associated with investigated product consumption can be partly or fully

attained through benefits identified on the lower levels of abstraction.

7.3.3. Systematization of elements perceptions

a) Analyze matches between elements perceptions with respect to the revealed

construct dimensions, i.e., abstract consequences

Elements, i.e., autos named for each supplied category can also be analyzed and

differences in perceptions can be revealed by the suggested methodology.

Figure 21 displays the PCA plot reproducing only the elements. PCA of the grid data

rely on one plot reproducing two first principal components which account for 95% of

the variance in the data.

Looking at the distances between the elements, elements 2 (vacation), 3 (evening)

and 6 (doesn’t fit) are plotted close to each other indicating that they received similar

ratings.

The same similarity can be seen within another group including elements 1(work), 8

(current) and 9 (ideal).

Element 4 (in no way) is plotted far apart from other elements which tends to show

rather different ratings given on this element.


203

Figure 21: Relationships between elements

Positions of elements 5 (previous) and 7 (alternative) provide less evidence of their

interrelations to other elements, although with respect to the first dimension element

5 (previous) seems to be similar with the first mentioned group of elements and

element 7 (alternative) is similar to the second group of elements. Positions of

elements with respect to the second dimension show strong similarities in ratings

between both groups mentioned above, however, when looking at elements 9 (ideal)

and 6 (doesn’t fit) they are plotted already far enough from each other.

This exemplifies how visible relations can be recognized from the plot, however,

more precise and comprehensive interpretation of element relationships requires

additional procedures. Moreover, it becomes harder to interpret and easier to

misinterpret the relationships between elements when more than two components

appear significant for data analysis.

Relationships between cars based on the constructs, i.e., perceptions are presented

in dendrogram of Figure 22. Table 31 shows links between elements, i.e., the

percentage of match between adjacent elements. Dendrogram displays the result of

HCA conducted with all respondent’s constructs. An advantage of such

representation offered by the computer package is that clustering of both constructs


204

and elements is provided simultaneously and both ‘trees’ are displayed in the

analysis outcome.

Figure 22: HCA producing element and construct dendrograms

PSS (%)1 (work) 8 (current) 97.52 (vacation) 3 (evening) 95.03 (evening) 6 (doesn't fit) 92.58 (current) 9 (ideal) 92.52 (vacation) 5 (previous) 87.57 (alternative) 9 (ideal) 82.51 (work) 6 (doesn't fit) 70.04 (in no way) 5 (previous) 65.0

Elements

Table 31: Links between adjacent elements in the dendrogram of Figure 22

Examining the element dendrogram presented in Figure 22 and its supportive Table

31, two major clusters are sorted out by 75% cutoff level. First cluster includes

elements 1, 8, 9 and 7, second cluster includes 2, 3, 6 and 5 elements; and there is

also one “isolate” element 4 which stands out. By using the term “isolate” it should be

borne in mind that although this element does not match with any other elements at

75% or higher, it still joins a general cluster by the 65% level (McKnight, 2000).

This illustration replicates what was assumed from the first view on PCA plot

considering elements interrelations.


205

Additional inferences can be made when elements are clustered with respect to

constructs within each dimension. Figures 23 and 24 show dendrograms displayed

for each PCA dimension.

Figure 23: HCA conducted within the first PCA dimension

Figure 24: HCA conducted within the second PCA dimension

In Table 32 clusters are summarized and elements are arranged according to their

matching scores. The algorithm is similar to the one shown in Table 29 but this time

examining elements rather than constructs.

• In the first column which reflects clusters considering all the constructs the first

cluster consists of elements 1, 7, 8 and 9.


206

Elements 1(work) and 8(current) have the highest match of 97%. Elements 8

(current) and 9 (ideal) have also relatively high match of 92%. In turn,

elements 9(ideal) and 7(alternative) match at 82%.

It can be assumed that the respondent when choosing his current auto was

looking for a one that is mostly appropriate for his working purposes. He draws

his ideal car very close to the current one. Besides, he considered as

alternative purchasing an auto which also was alike with his ideal image.

Second cluster of the first column illustrates how similar the ratings between

elements 6 (doesn’t fit), 3 (evening), 2 (vacation) and 5 (previous) are. In other

words, autos that are more suitable for free time and an auto that this person

really likes but it doesn’t fit to his surrounding, environment or life

circumstances are perceived relatively similar to each other and different from

those that are practical and to be used for work.

• In the second column it is shown how elements are similar on the constructs

ascribed to the first dimension. There are no cardinal changes in element

groupings. Moreover, it can be seen that elements 8, 1 and 7 as well as 6, 3

and 5 match now at 100% correspondingly. This is not surprising as first

dimension “Appropriate for my business use” accounts for the largest

percentage of the variance in the grid data and, basically, is most

determinative in the general positions and distances between the elements.

• In the third column elements grouping appears different from those in previous

two columns. There is only one major cluster and an isolate element 4 (in no

way). Here, elements are compared regarding constructs attributed to the

second dimension “Novelty of a model with recent technological

achievements”. The respondent named autos that are relatively new and

correspond to recent technological achievements in automotive industry (see

in the bottom of Table 32). For this reason the ratings on these constructs do

not differ so much to build different clusters. However, the extent of similarity

between elements is different.


207

Table 32: Interrelationships between element perceptions

PS

S (

%)

PS

S (

%)

PS

S (

%)

1 (

wor

k)8

(cu

rren

t)9

7.5

1 (

wor

k)7

(al

tern

ativ

e)1

00

.01

(w

ork)

6 (

doe

sn't

fit)

10

0.0

2 (

vaca

tion

)3

(ev

enin

g)

95

.01

(w

ork)

8 (

curr

ent)

10

0.0

1 (

wor

k)8

(cu

rren

t)9

6.4

3 (

even

ing

)6

(d

oesn

't fit

)9

2.5

3 (

even

ing

)5

(p

revi

ous)

10

0.0

2 (

vaca

tion

)3

(ev

enin

g)

96

.48

(cu

rren

t)9

(id

eal)

92

.53

(ev

enin

g)

6 (

doe

sn't

fit)

10

0.0

8 (

curr

ent)

9 (

idea

l)9

2.9

2 (

vaca

tion

)5

(p

revi

ous)

87

.52

(va

catio

n)

5 (

pre

viou

s)9

1.7

3 (

even

ing

)6

(d

oesn

't fit

)8

9.3

7 (

alte

rnat

ive)

9 (

idea

l)8

2.5

7 (

alte

rnat

ive)

9 (

idea

l)9

1.7

5 (

pre

viou

s)7

(al

tern

ativ

e)8

9.3

1 (

wor

k)6

(d

oesn

't fit

)7

0.0

2 (

vaca

tion

)4

(in

no

way

)7

5.0

2 (

vaca

tion

)5

(p

revi

ous)

85

.74

(in

no

way

)5

(p

revi

ous)

65

.04

(in

no

way

)9

(id

eal)

41

.74

(in

no

way

)7

(al

tern

ativ

e)6

7.9

Gen

eral

mat

ch

1 D

im2

Dim

Inte

rval

of

PS

SM

= 1

00%

100%

> M

≥ 9

0%

90%

> M

≥ 8

0%

80%

> M

≥ 7

5%

M <

75

%M

= 1

00%

100%

> M

≥ 9

0%

90%

> M

≥ 8

0%

80%

> M

≥ 7

5%

M <

75

%M

= 1

00%

10

0%

> M

≥ 9

0%

90

% >

M ≥

80%

80

% >

M ≥

75%

M <

75%

Clu

ster

17

(al

tern

ativ

e)8

(cu

rren

t)9

(id

eal)

9 (

idea

l)1

(w

ork)

8 (

curr

ent)

8 (

curr

ent)

7 (

alte

rnat

ive)

1 (

wor

k)

1 (

wor

k)9

(id

eal)

6 (

doe

sn't

fit)

3 (

even

ing

)

2 (

vaca

tion

)

5 (

pre

viou

s)

7 (

alte

rnat

ive)

4 (

in n

o w

ay)

Clu

ster

26

(d

oesn

't fit

)6

(d

oesn

't fit

)

3 (

even

ing

)3

(ev

enin

g)

2 (

vaca

tion

)5

(p

revi

ous)

5 (

pre

viou

s)2

(va

catio

n)

4 (

in n

o w

ay)

4 (

in n

o w

ay)

(1)w

ork

(2)v

acat

ion

(3)e

ven

ing

(4)in

no

way

(5)p

revi

ous

(6)d

oesn

't fit

(7)a

ltern

ativ

e(8

)cu

rren

t

Mer

ced

es

S2

21

Gu

ard

Au

di Q

7P

orsc

he

Car

rera

Jag

uar

(an

y)M

erce

des

CL

KA

ston

Mar

tin

DB

9 C

oup

eM

erce

des

S

22

0A

ud

i S8

A

rmor

edM

erce

des

C

14

0 G

uar

dM

erce

des

GW

G

uar

d

E

lem

ents

E

lem

ents

E

lem

ents

Nam

ed a

uto

s

Oth

er o

wn

ed a

uto

s


208

Element 6 (doesn’t fit) is closer to elements 1 (work), 8 (current) and 9 (ideal)

rather than to elements 3, 2 and 5 as in previous columns (the double line

stands for the match score between 80%-90%). Moreover, element 6 matches

element 1 at 100%. It indicates that the car named as an auto that ‘I really like

but it doesn’t fit’ mostly meets all individual preferences regarding

technological equipment, design and comfort. Therefore, the main reason why

this auto would not probably be purchased by the respondent lays in lack of

correspondence to the preferences presented in the first dimension. During

the interview the respondent has mentioned that he is delighted with Aston

Martin DB9 Coupe, auto that he named as element 6 (doesn’t fit), and he

would love to have it. However, his current life circumstances prevent this

purchase.

Besides, element 7 (alternative) is now positioned relatively far from elements

1 (work), 8 (current) and, especially, from 9 (ideal). Respondent didn’t choose

the ‘alternative’ auto over the ‘current’ one because its technological and

design features did not enough meet his preferences, although this auto fully

corresponded to most important preferences related to its appropriateness for

security measures and representativeness.

Such element comparison is very useful when differences between elements carry

special meaning for researcher and, especially, for the manufacturer. It allows to

draw inferences regarding what needs to be changed or improved to make a certain

product be perceived closer to the ‘ideal’ or at least ‘current’ product. It gives a clue

along which constructs and in which direction product improvement or its

repositioning should occur to make ratings of the improved product move towards

customer’s ‘ideal’ image.

Representation of dimensions and clusters as in Table 32 permits to compare

element interrelationships and to recognize how respondent perceives each element

with respect to his perceptual dimensions, i.e., abstract expected consequences he

seeks for. It can be useful for managers who want to reveal disadvantages of their

product or brand from perspective of a consumer.

To sum up, the suggested methodology for analyzing individual grid data by means

of subsequent conduction of PCA and HCA permits to reveal relationships,


209

similarities and differences between individual perceptions and between products

within the product category which often can be already assumed from observational

inspection of resulting graphs.

However, inferences made from observational inspection often bear doubt and

should be supported by other evidence to be persuasive. Otherwise, there is often a

risk to be claimed in making conjectures. The methodology implies both qualitative

and quantitative analyzing procedures which on their own represent solid and

recognized techniques and the findings made from their application are considered

reliable. It has also proved to reflect all assumptions and notices recognized during

interviewing. Therefore, it is believed that if interviewer and analyst appear to be two

different people the proper inferences could still be drawn revealing different aspects

of consumer’s life. The variety of aspects includes life circumstances, environment

and some features of character which influence the way a product is exploited. Last

but not least, personal perceptions, preferences and choice depending on the whole

complex of internal and external incentives can be drawn.

7.4. Segmentation based on the comparison of the findings from the single grids analyses

All twenty grids were analyzed according to the suggested method and for all

respondents CMS schemas were produced similarly to the provided example of 14th

respondent’s grid. Such representation of individual meanings associated with the

topic allows researcher a comparison of respondents on different levels of

abstraction depending on the aim in research and application of findings.

In this study an attempt to identify groups of customers is pursued to differentiate

them on higher levels of abstraction in order to appeal to the customer’s motives in

positioning products which are very similar to the competitors’ products in sense of

technological, functional and quality performance and the distinction between

products and brands is reached mostly on the emotional component of a high

involvement product.

The selection of appropriate segmentation type depends on the purpose of the

research, e.g., understanding markets, product positioning or new product

development (Wind, 1978; Botschen et al., 1999). When the main purpose is to use

findings in effective new product development differences of rather specific meanings


210

are of an interest and segmentation that works well statistically based on product

characteristics and attributes as well as psychographic and general attitudinal

approaches is reasonable (Young et al., 1978). However, such approaches to

segmentation are less useful when the research is aimed at deriving effective

positioning and marketing strategy. For these purposes segmentation on higher

levels of abstraction such as benefits and values is preferred (Wind, 1978).

Human values as a basis for market segmentation have attracted much attention

from consumer researchers driven by the view that values are more closely related to

behavior than are personality traits (Kamakura and Novak, 1992). Besides, values

are less numerous, more central and stable determinants of behavior and attitudes

(Vallette-Florence, 1988 cited in Kamakura and Novak, 1992).

Conducted value-segmentation studies applied different approaches, some have

relied on a single, and most highly-ranked value from each individual to define

segments, whereas, other suggested segmentation based on value systems shared

by groups of customers (Kahle et al., 1986; Novak and MacEvoy, 1990; Kamakura

and Novak, 1992). Value construct is used both as criteria for segmentation and as a

way to enrich the description of segments identified through other criteria.

Researchers agree that segmentation based on higher levels of abstraction such as

values is more meaningful and stable (Gutman, 1982; Reynolds and Gutman, 1988).

However, it is also argued that any situation in life including product purchasing or

consumption is likely to activate several values rather than only one from a whole set

of personal values (Rokeach, 1973) and it is reasonable to consider the priority of

values associated with particular situation or, in this context, with particular

purchasing decision (Kamakura and Novak, 1992).

Value system of a person consists of values that are most central and general

determinants of consumer behavior and, therefore, fairly remote from each particular

decision, which can also be influenced by many other more immediate but less stable

situational and environmental affects. That is why segmentation on particular product

market based on general value-systems doesn’t seem reliable and meaningful. Other

more immediate and closer influences such as product attributes, product

consequences and consumer preferences must be taken into account when defining

segments for a particular market (Kamakura and Novak, 1992).


211

Maslow’s (1954) analysis of “deficiency” versus “growth” needs suggests that

deficiency needs (e.g., health, safety) are inactive or functionally absent once the gap

between desired standard or satisfaction and the person’s perceived current state is

eliminated. Satisfaction of growth needs (e.g., self-actualization, curiosity), on the

contrast, is pursued even after high levels of satisfaction are reached and there is no

stable external standard that when is attained turns the need into inactive. From

psychological perspective behavior patterns aimed at satisfying growth needs are

different from those aimed at satisfying deficiency needs and, hence, people are

likely to attribute high importance to different values depending on the pursued

behavior pattern (Bilsky and Schwartz, 1994). This conception can be helpful in

marketing implementation when deciding from which perspective communications

and positioning are to be provided.

In this study segments are formed according to individual differences in their

consumer behavior patterns. Values have long been suggested as means for

understanding consumers’ underlying motivations and groups identified accordingly

are more likely to engage in a common pattern of attitudes, beliefs and behavior

(Kamakura and Novak, 1992).

Botschen and his colleagues (1999) provided a study aimed at clarifying the

distinction between attributes and benefits sought and suggesting modified laddering

technique to be applied to form benefit segments. It is not an aim of this work to

prove the appropriateness of a certain segmentation approach in different situations.

Relying on the statements and inferences made by authors it is agreed that the MEC

concept is ideally suited to form market segments according to different levels of

abstraction, such as attributes, desirable consequences (benefits), values or linkages

between the meanings. In this work it is demonstrated how segmentation can be

performed based on the systemized structure of personal meanings represented in

individual motivational schemas.

Expected consequences and values being motives of different ranges represent

actual drivers for purchase and choice of certain set of product attributes. Because

same product attribute may lead to different consequences and single consequence

may be reached by combination of attributes (Pieters, 1993), segments based on

attributes may differ from segments based on consequences sought and derived

segmentation may appear grossly misleading.


212

In this study individual analysis of respondents’ motivational schemas allowed to

conduct a two-stage segmentation considering at first stage the most general

motives, i.e., values and on the second stage the revealed abstract consequences

which represent the motives of the middle range (Table 33).

The first stage of segmentation considers values which are derived by laddering

technique related to the subjective part of the proposed integrated method. To

remind the procedure, from all elicited constructs that were given rating ‘1’ or ‘5’

laddering technique was applied and values associated with the product category

were derived. Elicited personal values were then prioritized by respondent according

to the resistance-to-change technique described in section 4.5.4.2.

Respondents are compared in terms of frequency and priority of elicited values. It

was found that most common associated values named by respondents were ‘self-

actualization, achievement’ and ‘pleasure and enjoyment of life’. All respondents

named either both values or at least one of them.

For this reason, at first, participants are distinguished according to whether their first

priority value implies ‘achievement and self-actualization’ or whether it implies

‘pleasure and enjoyment of life’.

Thus two main groups are identified according their preference between these two

general values.

• The first group includes respondents who prefer ‘self-actualization and

achievement’ over ‘pleasure and enjoyment of life’ or who did not mention the

second at all. Among these respondents two have also named value “power

and social recognition” and prioritized it over the ‘self-actualization and

achievement’. Power and social recognition imply social influence and

achievements recognized not only by individual himself but also by social

surrounding. Power and achievement are compatible in that they both

emphasize superiority and esteem (Schwartz, 1992 cited in Paulssen, 1999).

• The second group includes respondents who either prefer ‘pleasure and

enjoyment of life’ over ‘self-actualization and achievement’ or named only

‘pleasure and enjoyment of life’ as an only value or among other values

excluding ‘self-actualization and achievement’ associated with car use.


213

On the second stage commonalities among important individual abstract

consequences are explored. For this purpose from each individual CMS attributes,

i.e. categories the constructs are ascribed to, are extracted that appeared to be

indicative for dimensions on which ‘ideal’ element has got highest loading(s).

Indicative attributes are considered those that have high loadings on the revealed

dimensions of each single grid. Dimensions that are significant by variance and on

which ‘ideal’ element has highest loading(s) are considered in segmentation.

Table provided in Appendix 5 shows respondents’ most important attributes (on the

left hand side) and prioritized personal values derived from individual ladders (in the

right part). Respondents are divided into two groups according to the presence of

attribute ‘prestige’ among three most preferred attributes.

Five groups are identified from the investigated sample which description is

presented in the form of matrix shown in Table 33. Testing of representativeness and

validity of segmentation is not pursued in this study because the aim is to derive

common patterns of consumer behavior in the surveyed sample rather than to claim

to be a statistically representative (see 2.6.2.3).

Horizontally the groups are divided into two types of customers according to their

priority regarding aspiration for self-actualization and professional success or

aspiration for pleasure and enjoyment of life ensured by professional success in

terms of financial and status security. Thus, groups and divided into ‘careerists’ and

‘hedonists’.

Groups of careerists refer to people for whom “success and self-realization means

pleasure and enjoyment of life”, whereas groups of hedonists refer to people for

whom “self-realization serves as means for pleasure and enjoyment of life”. In the

first definition the term ‘mean(s)’ is used as a verb to emphasize that business or

professional success and self-realization make a person feel enjoyment of life. In the

second definition the term ‘means’ is used as a noun to emphasize that self-

realization in terms of professional success does not bring enjoyment itself but

serves as a resource to obtain status and to afford things that make a person enjoy

his life.

Vertically the groups are divided into two types according to social orientation and

conspicuity of product consumption. The first type represents people who are self-


214

oriented regarding products consumption and consume premium goods to benefit,

first of all, from their quality and functional superiority. Attributes like image and

design are also important for these people but for own enjoyment rather than to make

sure to be perceived properly by others. The second type represents people whose

consumption of premium goods is more socially oriented and they pursue social

prestige and acknowledgement by such a conspicuous consumption. Thus, vertically

groups are divided into ‘introverts’ and ‘extroverts’.

Prioritized values Common important attributes Prioritized values Common important attributes

Self-actualization, Achievement Representativeness Pleasure and enjoyment of life Comfort

Pleasure, enjoyment of life Comfort Technical quality

Technical quality Cross-country ability

Prioritized values Common important attributes Prioritized values Common important attributes

Power, Social Recognition Prestige Pleasure and enjoyment of life Prestige

Self-actualization, Achievement Speed/Power Self-actualization, Achievement Design

Novelty / Comfort

Prioritized values Common important attributes

Pleasure and enjoyment of life Prestige

Affiliation, Recognition Speed/Power

Design

Se

lf-or

ien

ted

Careerist-introvert: "I know how successful I am" Hedonist-introvert: "I enjoy my life"

Orientation: professional success Orientation: enjoyment of life

Consume prestigious brands to reflect achieved successConsume brands that proved to be qualitative and

appropriate for personalized use

Orientation: be unique among others

Consume prestigious brands to demonstrate themselves

Success and self-realization means pleasure and enjoyment of life

Self-realization as means for pleasure and enjoyment of life

So

cial

ly o

rient

ed

Careerist-extrovert: "Others know how successful I

am"

Hedonistic careerist-extrovert: "Others should know

how successful I am"

Orientation: strong leadership Orientation: become successful and recognized

Consume prestigious brands to demonstrate success and

power

Consume prestigious brands to demonstrate achieved

success

Hedonist-extrovert: "Others notice me"

Table 33: Customer segmentation

The terms ‘introvert’ and ‘extrovert’ are used to define people with an ‘introverted

type of consumption’ and an ‘extroverted type of consumption’ respectively. In this

work an introverted type of consumption implies a consumer behavior oriented first of

all at person’s own opinion and judgement. In contrast, an extroverted type of

consumption implies a consumer behavior strongly influenced by stereotypes,

attitudes and perceptions generated by the society. Thus a consumer with an

extroverted type of consumption is predominantly concerned with other’s opinion and


215

tends to make his choice towards products or brands that are first of all recognizable

by others. Two types of behavior represent opposite dispositions, however,

consumers fluctuate in their behavior and, therefore, their belonging to one of the

types is relative and based actually on the tendency towards one of the behavior

types in particular situation.

Customers who belong to introverts do not have the attribute ‘prestige’ among three

most important attributes. For these people the social function of premium brand

autos provides first of all a sense of life they possess or aspire to. In contrast, three

remaining groups related to extroverts all have a common most important attribute

‘prestige’ among first three. For these people the social function of premium brand

autos provides social prestige and recognition. Next each segment is described in

details.

Careerist-introvert: "I know how successful I am"

This group includes respondents oriented at professional success. They are

motivated by achievement and self-realization and exhibit their professional success.

This people refer to self-oriented individuals who put own opinion and self-esteem

over the social opinion and social recognition.

Members of this group prefer premium brand cars first of all to profit from their

technological and aesthetical advantages. In the first place they value the practical

use and an appropriateness of a car for their individual way of its exploitation.

Through a social prestige provided by the social function of premium brand these

people reflect their maturity and achieved success. They are likely to seek for a

symbol of well-being and wealth, taste and connoisseurship. Therefore, they are

especially interested in the representativeness of a car which reflects their social

status of mature, successful and respectable people.

Common most important attributes that contribute to the perceived product utility are

comfort, representativeness and technical quality of an auto.

Careerist-extrovert: “Others know how successful I am”

This group comprises people oriented towards strong leadership. As a car

exploitation associated value they name ‘self-actualization and achievement’ but in


216

the first place they put ‘power’ as a prior value. They are motivated not only by

achievement but they perceive self-realization in attaining social status that enables

strong influence, authority, control and dominance over people and resources.

Although for these people own opinion is primary factor, the desire to influence other

people requires social recognition and preserving public image. Their buying

behavior regarding remarkable products is likely to be socially-oriented by which they

exhibit their strength and power.

For this group social function of premium or luxury brands comes to the foreground

although they also require sufficient level of functional fulfillment. To demonstrate

success and power they seek for attribute ‘prestige’ which reflects their status and

attribute ‘speed/power’ that underlines strength and risk-loving. As already discussed

rather functional attribute ‘speed/power’ significantly contribute to the social function

of car brand in customers’ perception in Russia.

Hedonist-introvert: “I enjoy my life”

This group includes people oriented at enjoyment of life. They are motivated by life

gratification and tend to enjoy an active life full of excitement, entertainment, and

socializing. For this group achievement and professional success present means to

attain sufficient social level when they can afford things they need to enjoy time and

life in general. Relative to the previous two groups, members of this group are likely

to spend more time for leisure and fun-filled, social activities. They also spend more

time with family and friends and are likely to try new things in life.

Premium brand car is valued by these people first of all due to its technical and

functional advantages over volume brands. They prefer products that proved to be

highly qualitative and appropriate for their personal way of exploitation.

Members of this group are self-oriented in terms of car perception. Social perception

and attitude play secondary role in their purchasing decision. Common most

important attributes that contribute to the perceived product utility are ‘comfort’ and

‘technical quality’. Also such attributes as ‘size’ and ‘cross-country ability’ appeared

important for majority of members of the group according to their individual favors for

outdoor activities.


217

Hedonistic careerist-extrovert: “Others should know how successful I am”

Members of this group are oriented at achieving success and, thereby, are being

recognized by others. They are motivated by social recognition and respect because

of achieved success. If compare with the first group: “I know how successful I am”,

members of the first group are also oriented at achievement, however, they are

interested first of all in professional success i.e., to make a career in particular field,

to master every aspect of their professional activities.

In contrast, members of this group want to gain success to prove others what they

can. It may not be so important in what field and how interesting their work is but

what is important is an attained social status through earned wealth. At the end this

people are motivated by enjoyment and pleasure in life. They believe that to reach

this state they need to earn enough money and show or prove others that they are

successful. Thereby they build up a sense of self-esteem which is necessary for

further full enjoyment of life. This group represents some kind of a gold middle

between full hedonists and full careerists for whom pleasure and enjoyment of life is

a prior value (associated with product consumption), however, not possible without

achievement and success.

Because they pursue to let others recognize their achievements, social function of

premium brand car comes to the forefront. It can be expected that these people tend

to change cars and purchase new ones with stronger image and brighter appearance

every time they feel they have reached next level within society and in well-being.

Most important common attributes for them are ‘prestige’ and ‘design’ and often also

considered ‘novelty’ and ‘comfort’ which reflect pacing in step with trend and

progress and enjoying correspondingly.

Hedonist-extrovert: “Others notice me (and my success)”

Members of this group present highly hedonistic group oriented at becoming noted

by others. They are extroverts motivated by pleasure and enjoyment within social

environment. This people usually have already attained a status which they consider

sufficient for their wished state of well-being and rather maintain this position than

pursue new challenges. They enjoy life and like being recognized by others and

being affiliated with subjectively perceived highest strata of society.


218

This group is tended to purchase cars which already belong to high-end or ultra-

luxury cars as they impress first of all with their sophistication and excess. They

purchase such cars to demonstrate themselves, to make others notice them on the

road or in general. Therefore, this type of product consumption is also regarded as

socially-oriented.

They are likely to seek for a symbol of wealth, omnipotence and lifestyle opened to

enjoyment and excitement. Such image is brought by sufficient performance of

attributes: ‘prestige’, ‘design’ and ‘speed/power’. According to the conducted survey,

this combination is usually found in luxury sport cars e.g., Bentley Continental GT

Speed or Jaguar S-type.

As a result, people that were surveyed for this research work are distinguished.

These respondents all together already represent relatively homogeneous group of

customers who all belong to an upper-middle or a higher class characterized by a

high level of well-being able to purchase almost everything including property and

assets. They all are successful professionals or entrepreneurs who dispose self-

earned means. However, provided segmentation permits to differentiate these people

according to very stable meanings and to define common patterns in consumer

behavior based on desired and pursued end states of well-being and on directed

intervening states which facilitate approaching of desired end states.

Vershofen and Belz (Belz, 1994) argued that premium products provide, besides

their intended use, additional utilities of satisfying needs for prestige and self-esteem.

According to the findings of this study, both these utilities should be presented.

However, the customer’s prioritized utility among these two significantly defines his

behavior, his choice for particular brand and product and combination of important

attributes, sought to provide desirable consequences.

7.5. Multi-grid analysis

In this part of the work elicited constructs from all respondents are to be aggregated

in order to draw inferences about commonalities and differences in customers’

perceptions, i.e., meanings. This is another opportunity provided by RGT which is

helpful when analysis of single grids is time consuming in a sense of big amount of

grids.


219

Multi-grid analysis implies analysis of respondents’ constructs by analogy with the

proposed methodology regarding analysis of a single grid. However, in a multi or

collective grid each construct represents a collective construct developed from

respondents’ constructs ascribed to a particular category (Wright and Cheung, 2007).

Analysis and comparison of single grids allow to compare customers, their behavior

and attitudes, whereas, multi-grid analysis allows comparison of meanings of

different customers.

Twenty face-to-face in-depth RG interviews produced 180 bipolar personal

constructs of how customers perceive ownership and exploitation of cars. In addition

40 supplied constructs were rated by respondents to reveal their preference on the

overall assessment constructs and its relation to elicited perceptions. The

categorization procedure of content analysis allowed to aggregate and to reduce the

original 180 elicited constructs into 12 major collective bipolar construct categories

(see Appendix 4). Two more categories enclose supplied constructs, that is, each

additional category includes supplied overall assessment constructs of all

respondents. Therefore, each additional category consists of 20 constructs. As

described in section 7.2 constructs that actually enclose meanings of two (and in one

case, three) categories are allocated to both related categories. Therefore, the sum

of constructs allocated to twelve identified categories is 197.

Table 34 provides an example of how one collective construct ‘comfortable-

uncomfortable’ which represents a bipolar category ‘comfort’ was generated from 28

individually elicited constructs. Codes on the left-hand side of the table stand for the

number of a construct and number of respondent the construct is elicited from. In this

category six constructs were reversed so that all preferred poles were aligned on the

left-hand side to provide easier grouping of the constructs.

Table 35 shows all collective constructs with the numbers of constructs comprised in

each collective construct. In some categories the preferred poles of customers do not

relate to one of the poles of collective construct as in category ‘comfort’. For

example, some respondents may prefer having large cars, whereas, others prefer

rather compact autos or some prefer autos of universal exploitation and others prefer

more specialized cars such as sport cars. Therefore, constructs in such categories

were reversed so that meanings of their poles correspond to the poles of collective

constructs.


220

Coded elicited

construct Construct pole: 'comfortable' Construct pole: 'uncomfortable'

1.2 Driver's comfort in terms of less emotional and physical efforts More stress at driving

1.5 Comfort electronics and technologies Limited technological features

2.3 Appropriate size, comfortable passenger seating arrangement Uncomfortable

2.11 Comfort electronics and technologies Lack of comfort electronics and technologies

3.5 R Don't feel hummocks, potholes and bumpy roads at driving Feel hummocks, potholes and bumpy roads at driving

3.7 Feel comfortable on the passenger seat (don't feel bumpy roads and potholes) Feel bumpy roads and potholes on the passenger seat

3.8 R Enough space to lie (stretch legs) Only sitting position

4.6 Appropriate size for tall people Not appropriate size for tall people

5.6 R Comfort electronics and technologies Lack of comfort electronics and technologies

5.11 R Don't feel hummocks, potholes and bumpy roads at driving Feel hummocks, potholes and bumpy roads

6.3 Smooth running, feel comfortable on the passenger seat Not smooth running

6.6 Good ergonomics of saloon Bad ergonomics of saloon

6.11 Feel comfortable on the passenger seat Feel uncomfortable on the passenger seat

8.5 R Comfort electronics and technologies, feel my own space Lack of comfort electronics and technologies, lack of space

9.7 Don't feel hummocks, potholes and bumpy roads (soft suspension) Feel hummocks, potholes and bumpy roads (rigid suspension)

10.1 Driver's comfort, relatively large Not comfortable at driving

12.4 Large and high for tall people Not appropriate size for tall people

12.8 Comfortable for tall people to get in Uncomfortable to get in

13.1 Driver's comfort at driving Not comfortable at driving

13.8 Attractive, comfortable and not harsh interior Uncomfortable and harsh interior

14.8 Comfort electronics and technologies Lack of comfort electronics and technologies

15.2 Driver's comfort in car handling Not comfortable handling

16.3 R No bumpy ride at high speed Bumpy ride at high speed

17.2 Comfortable enjoying steering Not enjoying steering

17.13 Don't feel hummocks, potholes and bumpy roads Feel hummocks, potholes and bumpy roads

18.1 For self-driving at high speed: steering, not noisy, good view Noisy, bad view at a high speed

19.5 Comfortable, good noise isolation Bad noise isolation

19.11 Soft car suspension, not sporty car suspension Rigid, sporty car suspension

Table 34: Collective construct ‘comfortable – uncomfortable’

Type of construct

№ CategoryNumber of individual

constructs representing collective construct

1 Comfort Comfortable Uncomfortable 28

2 Prestige Prestigious Ordinary 25

3 Representativeness Representative Unrepresentative 23

4 Technical quality Of high technical quality Of low technical quality 20

5 Intended application (Universality) Universal exploitation Narrow exploitation 17

6 Size Large Compact 17

7 Design Stylish Unattractive 17

8 Speed/Power High-speed/powerful Limited 13

9 Cross-country ability Rough-terrain high-performance Rough-terrain low-performance 12

10 Safety/Security Safe/secure Unsafe 10

11 Price Expensive Affordable price 8

12 Novelty New model Old model 7

13 Overall confidence Feel confident about a car Not feel confident about a car 20

14 Overall safety Feel safe in a car Not feel safe in a car 20

Total 237

Elicited

Supplied

Collective grid bi-polar construct

Table 35: Constructs of the collective grid

For further analysis a collective aggregated grid incorporating average ratings and

collective constructs of the sample group was produced (Wright and Cheung, 2007).

Display of the collective grid is shown in Table 36.


221

Table 36: Collective RG with average ratings

(1)

wo

rk(2

) va

catio

n(3

) ev

enin

g(4

) in

no

wa

y(5

) p

revi

ous

(6)

doe

sn't

fit(7

) a

ltern

ativ

e(8

) cu

rren

t(9

) id

ea

l

C1

Com

fort

able

1.6

81

.89

2.2

53

.82

3.0

42

.64

2.5

02

.04

1.2

9U

nco

mfo

rtab

le

C2

Pre

stig

iou

s2

.28

2.4

41

.96

4.0

83

.48

1.9

21

.88

2.4

01

.80

Ord

inar

y

C3

Rep

rese

nta

tive

1.7

42

.35

3.5

23

.43

3.8

33

.09

2.7

82

.78

2.3

0U

nre

pre

sen

tativ

e

C4

Of h

igh

tec

hn

ical

qu

ality

1.8

01

.70

2.1

53

.75

2.3

02

.75

2.2

01

.90

1.2

5O

f low

tec

hn

ical

qu

ality

C5

Un

iver

sal e

xplo

itatio

n2

.06

2.0

63

.59

2.3

51

.76

3.4

72

.65

2.1

22

.35

Nar

row

exp

loita

tion

C6

Lar

ge

2.3

52

.06

4.1

23

.24

2.8

23

.06

2.6

52

.24

2.2

9C

omp

act

C7

Sty

lish

2.2

42

.35

1.9

44

.18

2.7

11

.71

2.4

12

.76

2.1

2U

nat

trac

tive

C8

Hig

h-s

pee

d/p

ower

ful

1.6

92

.08

1.3

84

.00

2.6

21

.77

1.8

52

.00

1.8

5L

imite

d

C9

Rou

gh

-ter

rain

hig

h-p

erfo

rman

ce2

.50

1.8

32

.83

3.4

21

.75

4.1

72

.08

2.4

22

.08

Rou

gh

-ter

rain

low

-per

form

ance

C1

0S

afe/

secu

re2

.50

3.1

03

.50

3.8

02

.70

2.9

02

.20

2.3

01

.60

Un

safe

C1

1E

xpen

sive

2.8

83

.25

2.3

84

.50

3.8

81

.75

3.5

03

.00

2.7

5A

fford

able

pric

e

C1

2N

ew m

odel

1.2

91

.57

1.1

44

.14

2.8

61

.57

2.7

12

.86

1.4

3O

ld m

odel

C1

3F

eel c

onfid

ent

abou

t a

car

1.5

51

.75

2.1

03

.85

2.5

02

.50

2.3

01

.70

1.0

0N

ot fe

el c

onfid

ent

abou

t a

car

C1

4F

eel s

afe

in a

car

1.6

51

.75

2.6

03

.25

2.6

02

.50

2.2

01

.75

1.1

0N

ot fe

el s

afe

in a

car

Ele

men

t ca

teg

ory

Col

lect

ive

con

stru

ct p

ole

(1)

Col

lect

ive

con

stru

ct p

ole

(5)


222

PCA was performed with the collective grid (the produced PCA map is shown further

in Figure 26). Table 37 shows construct loadings on two principal components, i.e.,

on two dimensions in psychological space (Wright and Cheung, 2007). Component 1

and component 2 account for 85.58% of the total variance.

Dimension 1 Dimension 2

C1 Comfortable Uncomfortable 1,03 0,22

C2 Prestigious Ordinary 1,00 -0,33

C3 Representative Unrepresentative 0,62 0,36

C4 Of high technical quality Of low technical quality 0,92 0,37

C5 Universal exploitation Narrow exploitation -0,12 0,85

C6 Large Compact 0,33 0,71

C7 Stylish Unattractive 0,88 -0,40

C8 High-speed/powerful Limited 1,00 -0,31

C9 Rough-terrain high-performance Rough-terrain low-performance 0,34 0,87

C10 Safe/secure Unsafe 0,62 0,46

C11 Expensive Affordable price 0,84 -0,72

C12 New model Old model 1,26 -0,48

C13 Feel confident about a car Not feel confident about a car 1,08 0,31

C14 Feel safe in a car Not feel safe in a car 0,79 0,43

Percentage of variance for each component 61.09% 24.49%

Collective grid bi-polar construct

Table 37: Fundamental core perceptual dimensions based on construct loadings

Given the constructs with heaviest loadings, dimension 1 includes attributes which

define the class and the level of a car interior design and equipment. Thus, for

example, the more comfortable, technologically equipped, well-designed, prestigious

and powerful a vehicle is, the higher class it belongs to.

Dimension 2 comprises attributes which define level of practicality of auto

exploitation. Thus, large, multifunctional auto with rough-terrain high performance

implies different kind of exploitation than rather compact, specific, e.g., sport car.

However, these attributes do not define how premium a car is as it can be premium

mid-size SUV as Porsche Cayenne or BMW X5 as well as ordinary mid-size SUV

such as Toyota Highlander or Honda Pilot which all satisfy the same characteristics

regarding size, cross-country ability and multifunctional exploitation.


223

Therefore, dimension 1 is labeled as “Class and image defining” and dimension 2 is

labeled as “Practicality defining”.

The findings indicate that customers’ preferences about a car are built on, on the one

hand, desirable and affordable social aspect which defines the price and

corresponding level of car interior design, equipment, quality and image, and on the

other hand, desirable and needed utility aspect which defines the size and range of

exploitation.

Construct correlations of car perceptions

Table 38 shows correlation matrix of collective constructs. Of particular interest of this

study are supplied overall assessment constructs C13 and C14. The purpose for

supply was to reveal perceptions which are highly correlated with perception of

overall confidence about an auto and overall safety feeling in a car. Both overall

assessment constructs are highly correlated with each other signifying the

importance of perception of feeling safe in general perception of confidence about an

auto. Besides, both supplied constructs are highly correlated with construct C1 and

construct C4 which represent comfort and technical quality of an auto. It means that

for the interviewed sample of customers comfort and technical quality represent

attributes that are determinative when considering general confidence and safety of

an auto. Furthermore, correlation between constructs C1 and C4 is also very high

signifying the interdependence of perceptions of technical quality and comfort.

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14

Comfort C1 1.00

Prestige C2 0.78 1.00

Representativeness C3 0.76 0.49 1.00

Technical quality C4 0.94 0.68 0.61 1.00

Intended application (Universality) C5 0.06 -0.48 0.28 0.22 1.00

Size C6 0.49 0.12 0.70 0.53 0.73 1.00

Design C7 0.69 0.88 0.31 0.65 -0.45 0.02 1.00

Speed/Power C8 0.78 0.92 0.40 0.74 -0.39 0.06 0.94 1.00

Cross-country ability C9 0.41 0.04 0.24 0.66 0.67 0.51 0.04 0.16 1.00

Safety/Security C10 0.67 0.54 0.52 0.72 0.30 0.64 0.41 0.46 0.47 1.00

Price C11 0.57 0.82 0.26 0.41 -0.65 -0.12 0.88 0.82 -0.37 0.23 1.00

Novelty C12 0.78 0.78 0.47 0.69 -0.37 0.02 0.90 0.86 0.06 0.26 0.81 1.00

Overall confidence C13 0.98 0.74 0.67 0.98 0.14 0.52 0.69 0.78 0.51 0.74 0.53 0.74 1.00

Overall safety C14 0.94 0.63 0.81 0.92 0.31 0.73 0.51 0.59 0.51 0.81 0.37 0.57 0.95 1.00

Category

Table 38: Correlation matrix of collective constructs


224

It is also interesting that construct ‘prestige’, C2, is very high correlated with construct

‘speed/power’, C8, showing the importance of attribute performance ‘speed/power’ in

perceiving prestigiousness of an auto. Perception of ‘prestige’, C2, is also highly

influenced by ‘design’, C7, and ‘price’, C11. It is rather evident that prestige of an

auto is reflected in its relatively high price.

Construct ‘design’, C7, is also highly correlated with construct ‘speed/power’, C8, as

well as with construct ‘novelty’, C12. During interviews it was found that very often

customers consider design as good and attractive when car model is new and not

often seen on the roads yet.

For Russian customers of premium autos ‘speed/power’ attribute represents not just

physical characteristics of vehicle capacity. Speed and power are indirect indicators

of consumer character and ambition. The more risky, ambitious and, sometimes,

even aggressive a person is the higher potential speed as well as more horsepower

the person is likely to ask for. People who are also ambitious but prefer rather safe

business or activity in a sense of, for example, legitimacy, possible loss or

competition rules are likely to choose less speedy, rather calm and gentle types of

autos.

Construct ‘price’, C11, in turn, stronger correlates with constructs ‘design’, C7,

‘speed/power’, C8 and ‘prestige’, C2. It turns out that three components are important

for a car to be perceived as reasonably expensive: appearance, physical potential

and social acknowledgement. At the same time, construct ‘price’ is low correlated

with ‘comfort’ and ‘technical quality’. It signifies that for customers higher price is

rather an indicator of status and social acknowledgment rather than good quality and

comfortableness. Probably, such an attitude gives rise to a rather common notion

between customers of ‘adequacy between quality and price’.

HCA of the collective grid presented in Figure 25 confirms the results generated from

the construct correlations. It can be seen that the smaller the clusters, the higher the

significant matches between the ratings and, hence, the stronger the matching.

Constructs C2, C13, C14 and C1 build a tight cluster and when this cluster is

extended it is linked to another tight cluster of C2, C7 and C8 and then to C12.

Another distinct cluster links less correlated constructs and, therefore, it was not seen

evidently in the correlation matrix. This cluster ties constructs C5, C6, C3, C9 and


225

C10 further confirming the identified by PCA dimensions, the second of which named

“Practicality defining” comprises constructs which reflect the exploitation and practical

appropriation rather than image and class component of an auto.

Figure 25: HCA of the collective grid

Correlation matrix of element categories presented in Table 39 shows no strong

correlation between any element categories. It signifies that consideration set used

for construct elicitation comprises diversified auto categories which allows thorough

distinction between elements and, thereby, increases the validity of findings.

Category E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8 E9

Work E1 1.00

Vacation E2 0.75 1.00

Evening E3 0.43 0.28 1.00

In no way E4 0.09 0.33 -0.68 1.00

Previous E5 0.12 0.53 -0.08 0.56 1.00

Doesn't fit E6 0.20 -0.18 0.73 -0.75 -0.52 1.00

Alternative E7 0.25 0.37 0.24 0.08 0.46 -0.11 1.00

Current E8 0.40 0.50 -0.04 0.41 0.53 -0.27 0.59 1.00

Ideal E9 0.68 0.57 0.41 -0.09 0.26 0.12 0.53 0.67 1.00

Table 39: Correlation matrix of element categories

Collective cognitive map of all customers’ perceptions of autos

Figures 26, 27 show the collective cognitive map (Bougon, 1992) of all twenty

respondents. In Figure 26 cognitive map displays the relationships between


226

elements, the relationships between constructs and how elements relate to

constructs, i.e., perceptions in psychological space on two major perceptual

dimensions. Figure 27 displays the cognitive map without vector lines, i.e., construct

lines. This allows to easily distinguish the location of each element with respect to

others.

Figure 26: PCA of the collective grid

Figure 27: Relationships between elements

The ‘ideal’ element is located in the same quadrant with elements ‘work’, ‘vacation’,

‘current’ and ‘alternative’. Given the labeling of two core perceptual dimensions, it

can be analytically defined in which directions elements categories are distinguished.


227

It is apparent that elements ‘evening’ and ‘doesn’t fit’ differ from the ‘ideal’ and

‘current’ as well as from other elements located in the bottom quadrants on the

second dimension “Practicality defining”. Elements ‘evening’ and ‘doesn’t fit’ are

perceived more as autos of a narrow exploitation which are likely to be compact,

unrepresentative and with low cross-country ability (rough-terrain low-performance).

At the same time these elements represent cars that have strong image and mostly

relate to premium or luxury cars which are prestigious, expensive, stylish, novel,

high-speedy and powerful. Such set of attributes including both perceptual

dimensions is likely to describe sports cars. Most brands and car models named by

respondents for categories ‘evening’ and ‘doesn’t fit’ relate to sports cars, supercars

or luxury speedy cars, for example, Porsche 911 Carrera, Porsche Cayman, Ferrari,

Mercedes-Benz S-Class, etc. (see Appendix 6 for cars mentioned). These cars are

very attractive for respondents, however, according to the findings most of the

customers use auto first of all for business purposes and, hence, sport cars are

usually not appropriate. Other reasons for being not suitable are climate conditions

and the quality of roads which are significant regional distinctions of the most parts of

Russia.

Element 5 ‘previous’ represents car category which includes cars used directly before

the ‘current’ ones. From plots it can be seen that ‘previous’ differs from elements in

the bottom, left-hand quadrant mainly on the first dimension “Class and image

defining”. The inference can be made that participants are experienced and

determined concerning what kind of auto they need in terms of their practical

exploitation. They are not likely to change an auto type but rather look for an updated

quality and comfort features as well as new, stronger or improved image component

and higher class.

This inference is also confirmed by the main difference between ‘current’ and ‘ideal’

elements. They are very close, almost the same on the second dimension and

distinct on the first dimension although both already being plotted in the same

quadrant. The same tendency occurs between elements ‘previous’ and ‘current’.

However, ‘current’ element is already closer to the ‘ideal’ on the first dimension

appearing in the same quadrant.


228

Similar analysis can be performed regarding other elements using two major

perceptual dimensions and the construct lines to describe how each auto category is

perceived by respondents.

In the current study elements were elicited from respondents according to the

supplied categories in order to compare single grids and carry out collective

aggregate analysis of the grids. However, each respondent was considering his own

category set comprised of particular auto models associated with supplied element

categories what enabled each respondent to express constructs comparing subjects

he is familiar with. Therefore, in aggregated collective grid customers’ perceptions of

supplied auto categories rather than certain auto models or brands are analyzed. The

study is aimed, first of all, at deriving cognitive meanings and mental representations

as well as preferences associated with auto purchase and exploitation. The study

was not aimed at revealing perceived differences and preferences in consumers’

mental structures regarding particular autos. When this goal is pursued in the

research it is recommended to supply a set of elements consisting of interested

brands or particular products, however, the researcher should then conduct the

survey with respondents who are familiar or, at least, aware of all supplied elements.

7.6. Additional analysis and findings for managerial implications

7.6.1. Segmentation according to aims for purchasing an auto

In the customer segmentation according to associated values and benefits sought

(described in 7.4) the revealed abstract consequences are considered as bundles of

common important attributes defined for each identified group. Thus, commonly

important attributes are recognized within the each group. This kind of segmentation

provides useful information first of all for the company and can be used for internal

processes such as product development and positioning strategies.

Abstract consequence, however, also provides a common meaning of product

characteristics and attributes comprised in each bundle. This shared meaning if

accurately defined can be effectively used in advertising and positioning as a

message for an appeal to customers.

One of the questions of the questionnaire offered to respondents after RG elicitation

was “What was (is) the aim of purchase of the current or next car?” The respondents


229

were asked to select from a multiple choice or to provide own answer in case none of

the options appeared suitable. The options included:

1. Need for transportation during leisure and free time

2. Need for transportation at work

3. To maintain and fit a social status

4. To enjoy driving (ride)

All respondents chose one of the provided options and none of them chose the first

option. The resulting distribution of answers is presented in the diagram of Figure 28.

To enjoy driving (ride)50%

To maintain and f it a

social status

30%

Need for transportat ion

at work

20%

Figure 28: Aims of purchasing the current or next auto

Respondents are divided into three groups according to the aim of purchasing they

named. Constructs of all respondents within one group are put together and analyzed

by means of PCA. It is permitted by the RG form designed for this study where

elements are elicited by common categories.

The revealed dimensions are ordered according to the percentage of variance each

dimension accounts for within the overall number of constructs in each group.

Constructs in each dimension are considered and common meanings are suggested

for each dimension. Names reflecting meanings of abstract consequences that

allowed to identify commonalities within each group are presented in Table 40.

In each group along with common significant dimensions there are also significant

dimensions which reflect very personal requirements and, therefore, they are

reflected in the table as individual requirements. For example, in the first group the

fifth dimension consists only of two constructs which both are expressed by the same

respondent, construct 3.1 ‘new model: new means technologically innovative, not


230

outdated’ versus ‘old model’ and construct 3.8 ‘comfortable: enough space to lie

(stretch legs) so I can take a rest during a ride’ versus ‘uncomfortable’. These

constructs are rather specific and do not have common variation pattern of ratings.

However, when a customer is to be considered individually these requirements are

very important to take into account.

Aim Dimension Variance % Cumulative %Loadings of

'ideal' element

1. Most important features of a car to be used for my working purpose 48,43 48,43 -3,35

2. Reflecting my status 24,37 72,8 -0,37

3 Individual requirements 9,26 82,07 -0,97



1. "Auto - as my mirror" - reflects my character 36,05 36,05 -3

2. Perception of ME in an auto - everybody should know who I am 17,9 53,96 0,11

3. Purpose of use especially during leisure time - to enjoy the ride (for country side / for city)

15,24 69,2 -0,64

4. Image and perception of my AUTO 11,36 80,55 -1,69

5. Individual requirements 8,06 88,61 -0,32

6 Individual requirements 4,45 93,06 1,51


1. Auto for me - fits my character and driving style 32,45 32,45 -3,10

2. Practical use (e.g., for work but not for enjoyment) 24,72 57,17 -3,02

3. Use for long, far trips (camping, country side) 11,67 68,83 1,73

4. What means for ME to "feel confident (safe)", i.e., a 'must' which defines the type of my car

9,47 78,30 0,69




8 Individual requirements 3,71 100 2,54

Need for transportation at work

To maintain and fit a social status

To enjoy driving (ride)

Table 40: Common customer abstract consequences

Although, in each customer group individual requirements are presented, first

dimensions within each group can be defined according to a shared meaning of

comprised constructs.

In the first group of customers whose aim of purchase of the current or next auto is

associated with business purposes the first dimension (accounts for 48% of variance)


231

reflects constructs mostly referred to the requirements related to business

exploitation of an auto. Most of the ascribed attributes are technical quality, comfort,

cross-country ability and speed/power. The supplied constructs regarding feeling

safe and confident are also mostly ascribed to the first dimension.

The second dimension comprises constructs that are mostly associated with the

status and reflect the attribute “representativeness”.

In the second group where consumers pursue to maintain and fit the social status the

first dimension is named “auto as my mirror which reflects my character”. Attributes

ascribed to this dimension are very different such as prestige, design, comfort,

speed/power and size, however, they all reflect characters of respondents who

named the constructs. For example, some respondents who are aimed at strong

leadership and power have prestige and speed/power ascribed to this dimension,

others who refer to the type of ‘hedonistic extroverts’ have comfort, design,

speed/power, size and cross-country ability which reflect their way of driving or

exploitation of an auto as well as aesthetic preferences. Defining general meaning of

this dimension especially required a thorough consideration of all the observed and

known data about the respondents obtained by the researcher.

The second dimension “perception of me in an auto” contains attributes which can

reflect and project auto peculiarities on its owner. Attributes such prestige reflecting

tough image, new model emphasizing uniqueness, limited exploitation in a sense of a

speedy car, pompous auto, unsafety in a sense of being notable on the road, etc. are

ascribed to this dimension.

The third dimension contains attributes related to the practical use of a car,

especially, during leisure time. Thus, it comprises size, cross-country ability, intended

application, comfort as well as technical quality and safety/security.

The fourth common dimension is “image and perception of my auto”. This dimension

reflects attributes and underlying characteristics that can be perceived by others and

emphasize a certain image of an auto. For example, the construct (construct 17.14,

see Appendix 4) related to the attribute safety/security is ascribed and respondent’s

preferred pole is reversed, showing that he actually prefers an unsafe auto. This is

because by an ‘unsafe auto’ the respondent implies a car of a good brand which has


232

a high risk of being hijacked. Therefore, this construct actually emphasizes a brand of

the auto. Other attributes are unrepresentativeness emphasizing sports type of a

vehicle, prestige, novelty, price and design.

The third group comprises people who purchase the next auto to enjoy driving or

ride. Similarly to the first dimension of the second group, the first dimension of this

group “auto for me, e.g., fits my character and driving style” (accounts for 32% of

variance) contains a variety of attributes which actually reflect car features that

characterize the way of exploitation and the style of driving. Most common attributes

in this dimension are comfort, speed/power and intended application. However,

regarding some respondents this dimension also reflects prestige and design.

The second dimension “practical use, e.g., for work but not for enjoyment” consists of

constructs which mostly reflect auto characteristics and attributes necessary for

business purposes. Although the respondents enjoy driving, they still devote much of

the time to working and business purposes and, therefore, their preferences

concerning car attributes relate to a considerable degree to the practical, business

use. Thus, attributes such as representativeness, prestige, quality and intended

application are most common for this dimension.

The third dimension “use for long, far trips (camping, country-side)” reflects the group

peculiarity of enjoying driving and ride. It contains constructs which show

requirements of a car that make it appropriate for long distances and driving out of

the city. Prevailed attributes are size, intended use, technical quality and cross-

country ability.

The last dimension “what means for me to feel confident (safe), i.e., a ‘must’ which

defines the type of my car” reflects attributes which define individual perception of

safety and confidence associated with car exploitation. Attributes such as intended

application emphasizing auto universal exploitation, cross-country ability reflecting

rough-terrain high performance and comfort are presented in this dimension. Also

attributes prestige and representativeness are presented as reversed describing

ordinary, not prestigious and unrepresentative types of autos.

From the last column of Table 40 it is seen that in all groups first dimensions have

the highest loadings of the ‘ideal’ element. It emphasizes not only the homogeneity

but also the preference and importance of the identified abstract consequences.


233

It is also shown that in the second group of customers whose aim is to maintain their

social status the second highest loading of the ‘ideal’ element is presented by the

fourth dimension reflecting attributes which allow to perceive an auto by others. This

finding supports theoretical statements about the conspicuous consumption of people

who strive for social status, prestige and recognition.

In the third group the second and the third dimensions have second and third highest

loadings of ‘ideal’ element emphasizing customers’ enjoyment from using a car in

their free time. However, the peculiarity of the whole sample is also taken into

account and customers’ need to devote a considerable part of auto exploitation to

business purposes is reflected.

This type of segmentation illustrates how common abstract consequences which are

pursued by customers can be recognized and formulated as a message in which

people can recognize their own benefits sought. When the common meaning or

direction of a consequence is defined it is further a wording art to make a strong

appeal but it is clear which meaning the message should communicate.

7.6.2. Stereotypes of car attribute perceptions

Table 41 provided in this section shows most common consumers’ perceptions of

product attributes. Although these meanings are common among consumers of the

sample, some of them may appear new for the researcher and for company

managers.

RGT allows to reveal meanings that are common among a particular group or type of

consumers. For example, perceptions can reflect or be based on regional

peculiarities from where respondents come from as well as cultural peculiarities and

generally adopted attitudes towards product consumption peculiar for the sample.

Especially when conducting a survey in a foreign country or in an uninvestigated

region, the RGT enables to reveal perceptions that are not self-evident and are hard

to think of when developing a questionnaire in office. Often, important aspects of

consumers’ construing systems associated with the domain are not considered in

surveys based on questionnaires with supplied questions regarding individual

perceptions (Stewart et al., 1981, p. 49).


234

Comfort

Comfort electronics and technologies

Not feel hummocks, potholes and bumpy roads

Comfortable passenger seating arrangement

Comfortable enjoying steering

Appropriate size

Feel my own space being far from other people

For self-driving at high speed: steering, not noisy, good view

Prestige

Reflects my status

Respect of other drivers on roads who give me a way

For mature experienced users who are good judges of autos

Expensive, immodest image

Image of brand and manufacturer

Not youth

Super image, for men, not women

Others will notice me

Representative: Prestigious, which means reflects my status

With driver / not for self-driving

For business, not for family or entertainment

For experienced users of premium cars who are good judges

Not youth

Unrepresentative: For self-driving

For youth who are more risky (not for mature people)

Speedy self-driving of a cool auto

Technical quality

Won't break down, time and money savings

Producer's proved high quality (producer reputation)

Available good service

Safe in our climate (snowdrift, glare ice)

Rigid frame and suspension

Universal exploitation: For work and leasure

All-year round, for climate conditions

Can be only one in garage

Not pompous

Highly functional

For everyday life not only for entertainment

Not sporty

Narrow exploitation: With strongly marked peculiarities (e.g. high-speed or powerful)

Sports car for pleasure

Size

Large: Better observation (panoramic view) and feel safeCan fit people and luggageSteady, not short: not to go off from rut For more than 2 people

Compact: Others will notice me, aesthetically acceptableBetter to move on in traffic jam or narrow roads

Design

Attractive appearanceStylish: beautifulCan be expected uncommon, not boring coloring Demonstrative, bright designModern, not datedSharp, aggressive forms

Representativeness



235

Speed/Power

Speed: SpeedyAllowable high speedCombination of allowable high speed and cross-country abilityLimited in speed: for comfortable, calm driving

Power: Powerful: not girlyAdequacy between power and weightCombination of power and economy


For city, countryside and mountainsSafe "anywhere" ride in tough climate conditions (mud, ice) No worry about potholesRigid suspension

Safety-Secure

No risk of criminal attempt because of good car brand Appropriate for bodyguard, driver, armoring

Price

Not affordable for majority Value for moneyOverpriced to make a splash

Novelty

Technically innovativeModern, not datedUnique, uncommonElegant because of novelty, uniqueness

Table 41: Stereotypes of car attribute perceptions among the respondents

7.7. Summary

♦ Twelve categories are identified according to the content of elicited constructs.

♦ The top four categories which together cover 49% of all constructs are ‘comfort’,

‘prestige’, ‘representativeness’ and ‘technical quality’. It means that these

four categories represent product attributes that are most common among the

respondents.

♦ Category ‘novelty’ is the least common attribute among respondents, however, it

is very important for those who mentioned it. These respondents form a latent

group for which the fact that a car is new and embodies most recent

technological achievements is an important factor influencing the choice decision.

♦ The notion and feeling of confidence about an auto is often associated with the

image and social perception of an auto as well as with the perception of its owner

rather than with the feeling of safety.


236

♦ For the majority of customers who expressed constructs ascribed to the category

‘safety/security’ these constructs have a low relevance to the perception of safety

of an auto or provided by an auto. The respondents represent people referred to

a risk group who perceive general safety measures provided by an auto as a

must have in premium autos due to their superiority in quality. However, when

really concerned in a sense of criminal threat, they have particular requirements

about safety and security measures which often exceed ordinary measures

provided by ‘average’ premium autos. Respondents of the sample share belief

that “there are no technologies smarter than a man”. Therefore, the common

attitude towards the notion of auto safety is rather skeptical in a sense that people

believe that if there is a plan to commit a crime it will most probably be

accomplished.

Single grid analysis

♦ Individual schema of consumer motivational sphere is built. It accumulates all

the elicited personal data which was analyzed and structured according to

different levels of abstraction of the respondent’s personal meanings.

♦ Abstract expected consequences representing individual motives of the

middle range aggregate individual meanings which are not only put into words

but also expressed in individual estimations.

� Respondent’s first abstract consequence is defined as “Appropriate for my

business use: armored and representative”. The shared meaning between

constructs attributed to the first dimension, i.e. principal component is that they

relate to practical characteristics that are essential for the consumer’s car

exploitation taking into account his life circumstances and business as the

main purpose for car exploitation.

� Respondent’s second abstract consequence is defined as “Novelty of a

model with recent technological achievements”. Indicative constructs of

the second dimension reflect respondent’s attitude and preference to novelty

of an auto model which, in turn, means for him a representation of most

updated technologies in automotive industry.


237

♦ Structuring of elements relations showed that the respondent chooses cars that

are mostly appropriate for his working purposes. He draws his ideal car very

close to the currently possessed auto as well as to the one that he considered as

an alternative.

♦ The respondent did not choose the ‘alternative’ auto over the ‘current’ one

because its technological and design features did not enough meet his

preferences, although this car was considered as appropriate for security

measures and representativeness.

♦ It is also found that the car (Aston Martin DB9) named as an auto that ‘I really like

but it doesn’t fit’ meets all individual preferences regarding technological

equipment, design and comfort. That is, it is very close to the ideal image on

the second dimension which reflects the second abstract consequence. The

main reason why this auto ‘does not fit’ (and is not purchased) lays in a lack of

its correspondence to the consumer preferences regarding auto

appropriateness for his working purposes reflected in the first dimension.

♦ Analysis of single grids has shown that the suggested methodology reflects all

assumptions and notices recognized during the interview. Therefore, it is

believed that if an interviewer and an analyst appear to be two different people

the proper inferences can still be drawn revealing different aspects of

respondent’s life influencing his consumer behavior.

Segmentation based on the comparison of the findings from the single grids analyses

♦ Individual analysis of respondents’ motivational schemas allowed to conduct a

two-stage segmentation. At first stage consumers are divided according to the

most general motives, i.e., values and on the second stage – according to the

revealed abstract consequences which represent the motives of the middle

range. As a result, customers are divided into five groups. Description of groups

is presented in a form of matrix.

♦ Horizontally the groups are divided into two types of consumers ─ ‘careerists’

and ‘hedonists’:

� Careerists represent people who aspire to self-actualization and

professional success


238

� Hedonists represent people who in the first place aspire to pleasure and

enjoyment of life. For these people professional success represents means

by which they ensure the aspiration in terms of financial and status security.

♦ Vertically the groups are divided into two types, ‘introverts’ and extroverts’,

based on the social orientation and the extent of conspicuity of product

consumption:

� Introverts represent people with an introverted type of consumption. These

people are self-oriented in consumption and purchase premium goods to

benefit from its quality and functional superiority in the first place. Attributes

like image and design are also important for these people but for own

enjoyment rather than to make sure to be perceived properly by others. For

these people the social function of premium brand autos provides first of all

a sense of life they possess or aspire to.

� Extroverts represent people whose consumption of premium goods is more

socially oriented and they pursue social prestige and acknowledgement

by such a conspicuous consumption.

♦ It is found that additional utilities of satisfying needs for prestige and self-

esteem provided by premium products both should be present. However, a

customer’s prioritized utility among these two significantly defines his behavior,

his preference for a particular brand or a product and combination of important

attributes sought to provide desirable consequences.

Multi-grid analysis

♦ Analysis of the collective grid which incorporates average ratings and collective

constructs of the sample group revealed two major directions in which

customers’ perceptions are built.

� The first direction is called “Class and image defining”. It represents the first

dimension where attributes define the price and corresponding level of car

interior design and equipment, technical quality and image.

� The second direction is called “Practicality defining”. It represents the

second dimension which comprises attributes defining the level of practicality


239

of car exploitation. These attributes define the size and range of vehicle use.

That is, they define the type of a vehicle but they do not define how premium

the car is.

♦ The collective construct ‘design’ is highly correlated with the construct ‘novelty’. It

is found that very often customers consider design as good and attractive when

car model is new and not often seen on the roads yet.

♦ The collective construct ‘speed/power’ is attributed to the first dimension

which defines a car class and image rather than its practicality. For Russian

customers in the premium car market the ‘speed/power’ attribute represents not

just physical characteristics of a vehicle capacity. Speed and power are indirect

indicators of consumer character and ambition.

♦ It is revealed that when purchasing a next car to replace the previous one the

participants are not likely to change a car type. They are experienced and

determined concerning what kind of auto they need in terms of their practical

exploitation. So when purchasing a new car they rather look for an updated

quality and comfort features as well as a new, stronger or improved image

component and higher class.

Additional analysis and findings for managerial implications

♦ Customer segmentation according to customers’ aim of purchasing a next

auto is presented. Common abstract consequences pursued by customers within

each segment are recognized and formulated as a message in which people can

then recognize their own benefits sought. When the common meaning or direction

of an expected consequence is defined marketers can produce a strong appeal

by communicating this meaning.

♦ The repertory grid technique allows to reveal meanings or stereotypes that are

common among a particular group or type of consumers, but not necessarily

known before to a researcher and company managers.

Summary and conclusion

240

Conclusion

1. Theoretical contribution

The main goal of this dissertation was to contribute to the understanding of consumer

motivation which explains the psychological dynamics determining consumer

behavior.

In literature, concepts of consumer motivation and motives have been often

approached, however, there are certain limitations regarding the explanation and

disclosure of these notions. Most concepts of consumer motivation suggest universal

sets or categories of motives that are presumed to apply universally across contexts

and, therefore, they appear unable to account for specific actions and to recognize

situational variability of consumer behavior. Most theoretical concepts of consumer

motivation do not provide certain supportive methodology which would enable

sampling it in a particular investigation of consumers. Besides, in consumer research

a long-standing dispute between qualitative and quantitative approaches to

motivation research resulted in attempts to develop a compromise approach based

on the synthesis of motivation research with quantitative practice, however, an

accomplishment of this task has remained vague.

Lack of a certain theoretical model of consumer motivation and causality which would

provide an active guidance for analysis algorithms results in the conduction of most

of the research and analysis of consumer motives as purely atheoretical predictive

exercises producing an ad hoc inductive explanation.

Considering the aforementioned limitations and dilemmas in the field of consumer

motivation research, the main theoretical contribution of the thesis is the suggested

conceptualization of the consumer motivational sphere that provides a certain

representation of a personal cognitive structure. The conceptualized schematic

model is:

• a theory based conception of content and structure of consumers mental

representations and their interrelations;


241

• constructed with respect to the methodology supporting theoretical

assumptions and, thereby, allowing for further practical application by

marketers and researchers.

Consumer motivation is goal-oriented. It consists of the anticipation of possible

actions expected to result in certain consequences which can bring a person closer

to his goal. The reasons for choosing a particular goal are represented in a

hierarchical network of motives.

The suggested taxonomy of the individual consumer motivational sphere links an

individual’s product related knowledge with person related self-knowledge where

representations such as product characteristics, attributes, consequences and values

are ordered hierarchically according to their levels of abstraction and connected

through means-end linkages. The schema constitutes the relationships between

purchasing decision and its associated motives, where the motives are interrelated

according to their levels of abstraction.

Consumer motives are represented in the person related self-knowledge part of the

schema where specific and abstract consequences represent “too-specific motives”

and “motives of the middle range”, and personal values represent “too-general

motives”.

The schematic model is based on the assumptions of the means-end theory and

some of its modifications and on the concept of consumers’ motives implying three

levels of motivational abstraction. Values represent too general ends which

themselves cannot show what is it expected from the product consumption that

would bring a person or a group of people to the desired state of being. Too-specific

motives explain very specific purchasing behavior which is hard to approximate in

order to reach a common set of expected consequences of a group of people. As a

result, motives of the middle range represent a theoretical challenge in defining it and

providing a measurement instrument which would allow a balance between too-

specific and too-general motives.

Built on that, another contribution of the work is the definition and assessment of

motives of the middle range comprised in the consumer motivational sphere. Since

the definition of this type of motives is tied to its assessment, this contribution is

considered as methodological and discussed in the next section.


242

The proposed schema of consumer motivational sphere serves as a theoretical

framework underpinning the suggested methodology which enables the

conceptualization to be appropriate for practical implication.

2. Methodological contribution

Extensions and modifications adopted in the theoretical model of consumer

motivational sphere are made to overcome some limitations of traditional approaches

in construing and measuring consumers’ cognitive structures. It is aimed at

suggesting a congruent methodology which gives an insight into other aspects of

consumers’ mind rather than the ones that are usually explored within consumer

motivation research.

The major methodological contribution of this work is the proposed integrated method

for assessing each level of abstraction in the consumer motivational sphere. The

methodology shows how each level of abstraction represented in the schema can be

derived from the data elicited by means of the repertory grid technique and analyzed

by qualitative and quantitative approaches.

Repertory grid is a cognitive mapping instrument designed to capture the dimensions

and the structure of personal meanings allowing the researcher to attain new, deeper

insight on how people think and perceive life experiences and the world around.

Based on the personal construct theory, the repertory grid technique provides an

interpretive research framework for exploring similarities and differences in the

content and structure of consumers’ subjective meaning systems.

The integrated method represents an algorithm built on existing qualitative and

quantitative approaches that produces two types of analysis outcomes. The first type

is based on producing a ‘person driven’ outcome which organizes information elicited

directly from the person using his own meanings expressed in wording and,

therefore, the numeric part of the data is not considered. This qualitative approach is

based on the laddering technique which is often used for qualitative analysis of the

repertory grid data. The proposed methodology does not contradict traditional

approaches to analyze repertory grid data but is rather aimed at further

methodological elaboration by involving quantitative analysis to benefit from the fuller

capacity of the repertory grid technique.


243

Hence, the second type of analysis produces an ‘analysis driven’ outcome whose

goal is to reveal and structure the underlying meanings expressed in both direct

wording and numeric evaluation and comparison. Analysis of meanings that are

construed by an evaluative and comparative approach to cognitive representation

permits one to uncover some part of subconscious or even unconscious construing

system. Thus, mental representations built on the interrelationships between

meanings are considered. Such interrelationships are hard to recognize when only

interpreting an individual’s directly expressed wording.

As mentioned above, another contribution of this dissertation is that the suggested

methodology comprises of a certain approach to define and assess motives of the

middle range. To assess motives of the middle range a quantitative approach is

suggested which structures personal meanings so that they can be approximated

and commonalities within a group of people can be revealed.

Motives of the middle range are reflected in abstract consequences which are

positioned in the chain of levels of the consumer motivational sphere between

specific consequences and values representing too-specific and too-general motives

respectively. Principal component analysis of a grid data reveals dimensions which

represent directions based on which a person perceives objects. By cautious

interpretation, the dimensions can be generally defined according to the common

meaning, or the direction of construct meanings, ascribed to each dimension.

Common meanings underlying each identified dimension represent abstract


product characteristics and their perceptions by identification of a bundle consisting

of product features, each of which a person construes in a similar way and direction

and associates them with an attainment of a certain benefit.

The virtue of identifying abstract consequences by means of the suggested

methodology is that another type of human cognitive representation is additionally

involved. In laddering a person actually uses his ability to reason, that is, he

expresses underlying reasons for perceiving and preferring things in this or that way.

In the proposed method, analysis of a person’s comparing ability is involved.

Therefore, mental representations generated by a person’s evaluative and

comparative approach in perceiving things are analyzed and inferences are made not

only from vertical relationships between meanings, i.e., linkages between different


244

levels of abstraction, but also from horizontal interrelationships between meanings

that are on the same level of abstraction.

The quantitative methods applied together with the qualitative content interpretation

allow to consider respondent’s less salient meanings which are still presented in his

construing systems related to the topic in question and may influence person’s

choice decision. These meanings reflect consumer preferences regarding product

characteristics which may not be very important for the consumer in terms of benefits

sought as long as these characteristics are appropriately provided. However,

deficiency of appropriate presence of these characteristics may significantly impact a

consumer’s choice and, therefore, it is important to consider them and define their

role in the person’s cognitive structures related to the domain.

The proposed methodology approaches some concepts and analysis which are

rarely or never have been used by researchers for analysis of repertory grid data,

although their application may significantly extend the findings during further

analysis.

♦ The application of principal component analysis and hierarchical cluster analysis

on the complementary basis allows one to reach a synergy effect by structuring

and systematization of the repertory grid data. The subsequent implementation of

these analysis methods enables a more precise and reliable recognition of the

similarities and differences between meanings. It also permits the presentation of

the data and interpreted inferences in a form which simplifies data visualization

and allows customer segmentation according to customers’ perceptions and

preferences.

♦ Supplying of ‘self’ elements appears helpful in any research in which a grid is

used to understand the respondent’s choices, i.e., preferences. ‘Self’ elements

such as ‘ideal’ or ‘current’ represent individual perceptions and images of what

the respondent actually has or wants when talking about things, events or people

enclosed in the elements set. When elements represent products or brands the

‘ideal’ element represents a generalized image comprising mostly desired

performance of a product or a brand from the domain.

♦ Honey’s content analysis, in contrast to the traditional content analysis in which

the numeric part of the grid data is ignored, permits the researcher to make use of


245

individual meanings expressed in ratings. This analysis method identifies how

closely elicited meanings relate to the overall issue about the topic. Honey’s

content analysis also allows the discernment of a presence of latent groups of

customers for whom attributes that appeared less salient for the rest of the

sample are commonly important.

♦ Application of resistance-to-change technique enables prioritizing personal

values. An identified, hierarchical order of values permits the researcher to reveal

values that are not sincere and central for a person, but being rather expressed

fictitiously to seem more meaningful.

Overall, the development of the methodology was aimed at providing approaches

which would allow the researcher to overcome some limitations of concepts of

consumer motives and motivation described in the beginning. As a result, the

methodology:

• is supportive and congruent with the theoretical conceptualization of consumer

motivation;

• is appropriate to reveal motives which define particular consumer behavior in a

given situation and circumstance;

• integrates qualitative and quantitative analysis methods that enables an

insight into different aspects of consumers’ cognition;

• allows one to take into account product characteristics and perceived

attributes that are less salient but, however, may significantly impact the

consumer behavior.

Moreover, the suggested approach to define and assess motives of the middle range

provides probably the first attempt to build upon Trommsdorff’s concept of motives of

the middle range by extending it with a methodized assessment approach which

overcomes the limitations of given universal sets of motives.

3. Practical contribution and implication

The following quotation clearly paraphrases the inspiration on which a contribution of

this dissertation to the managerial implication was focused.


246

“The danger is not of getting too close to customers; the real danger is not getting

close enough.” (Johnson, 1998, p. 27)

Nowadays highly competitive markets and increasing complexity of consumer

behavior influenced by their social environment make companies strive for each

individual customer by providing benefits far beyond just primary functions of

products. The act of purchase and consumption is no longer neutral but a particular

form of social behavior, especially, regarding products which have public resonance.

In the markets of premium and luxury goods a social function of a product, to a large

extent, defines the product success. Thus, together with the instrumental function

premium brand cars have a social function which can ensure a consumer the social

prestige and sense of life he aspires to.

In order to offer a consumer product which would generate symbols emphasizing

exactly the aspects on which the consumer puts an emphasis, a company needs to

know the consumer much more deeply than just his buying habits and main

preferences. The consumer needs to be considered as a bearer of a certain ideology

or world perception. A consumer’s mental representations comprised in certain

cognitive structures, his goals and values have to be investigated in order to meet his

personal dispositions in life which in turn can be somehow reflected by or associated

with the offered product.

Based on the theoretical model an assessment approach is developed in this thesis

within the interpretive research framework underlying the repertory grid technique.

This technique is not only advantageous because of its capability to gather a variety

of personal data expressed in the person’s own language and to organize it into a

convenient form, but also due to its flexibility and adaptability in different fields and

areas of research. In this work, the description of the repertory grid technique is

presented rather thoroughly in order to demonstrate how versatile this tool is and

how its design can be formed according to the field, objectives and circumstances of

a research. The repertory grid is widely applied in psychology along with other

numerous fields of application, it has also been proved to be potentially useful

approach for conducting qualitative market research, however, up to now this

technique is rarely used with its full potential by marketers. The repertory grid

technique can be very effective for exploratory research when consumers’ opinions

on the researched topic are to be disclosed and investigated.


247

The suggested methodology allows the structuring of personal meanings according

to different levels of abstraction that, in turn, allows the approximation and revelation

of commonalities in personal representations within a group of people. Thus, the

proposed format of the findings structure enables customer segmentation based on

different levels of abstraction giving marketers more flexibility in deciding on an

appropriate appeal to customers with respect to, for example, the size of the sample

and derived segments.

The method can also appear useful for advertising and positioning as it allows the

researcher to reveal stereotypes associated with the topic and relative products or

brands. The meanings are elicited in the customers’ own language and jargon that

permits the use of common expressions and underlying meanings to create

messages which would be understandable and more personal to the people.

Another perspective of the methodology's application is to reveal customers’ attitudes

towards both their own and their rivals’ products or brands. Elements representing

different products or brands can be compared according to their ability to provide

abstract expected consequences. By clustering the elements within each dimension,

i.e., principal component which represents an abstract consequence, marketers can

make conclusions about how products can be improved. For example, if a product

has a high match with its ideal, generalized image on the first dimension but appears

rather distant on the second, it signifies that this particular product cannot provide or

cause the consequence implied by the second dimension in the desired manner.

Therefore, product characteristics and product attributes comprised in the second

dimension need to be improved or repositioned.

The addition of the repertory grid form with supplied constructs, which reflect a

general topic or sub-theme of a research, allows one to discover latent groups of

customers with specific requirements and preferences. This feature is especially

useful for studies conducted in the markets where products are almost individually

customized.

Segmentation, from the empirical point of view, is done according to the values and

abstract consequences. It permits the differentiation of customers according to

relatively stable meanings in life. Common patterns in the studied consumer behavior


248

are defined based on desired and pursued end states of well-being and on

intermediary pursuance which facilitates an attainment of desired end states.

As a result respondents, who together already represent relatively homogeneous

group of customers of premium cars, being professionals and self-made

entrepreneurs able to purchase almost everything including desired cars, property

and assets, are divided into five groups.

The whole segmentation has a form of a matrix where the horizontal dimension

differentiates between careerists and hedonists and the vertical dimension – between

introverts and extroverts.

Horizontal division is based on their priority regarding aspiration for self-actualization

and professional success or aspiration for pleasure and enjoyment of life ensured by

professional success in terms of financial and status security.

Vertical division is based on the respondents’ social orientation and the extent of

conspicuity of product consumption.

Thus, customers who relate to introverts do not have an attribute ‘prestige’ among

their three most important common attributes. For these people the social function of

premium brand autos provides, first of all, a sense of life they possess or aspire to. In

contrast, extroverts have a common most important attribute ‘prestige’ among their

first three. The social function of premium brand cars provides extroverts with social

prestige and recognition.

Findings of this dissertation show that additional utilities of satisfying needs for

prestige and self-esteem provided by premium products should both be present.

However, the customer’s prioritized utility among these two significantly defines his

behavior, his preference for a particular brand or a product and combination of the

important attributes sought to provide the desirable consequences.

Based on the differences described above and considering other revealed

peculiarities of the identified groups, fine borderlines can be drawn between relatively

homogenous customers that marketers can use for effective communication to

appeal to deep and rather stable dispositions and values.


249

Multi-grid analysis has shown that customers’ preferences about a car are built in two

major directions. The first direction reflects desirable and affordable social aspect

which basically determines a car class. Preferences representing the direction define

price and corresponding level of car interior design and equipment, technical quality

and image. The second direction reflects desirable and needed utility aspect which

determines type of a car. Respective preferences define the size and range of

vehicle use.

Analysis of elements relations has shown that when purchasing a next car to replace

the previous one customers are not likely to change an auto type but rather look for

an updated quality and comfort features as well as for a new, stronger or an

improved image component and a higher class.

Customer segmentation according to customers’ aims of purchasing the next auto

illustrates how common abstract consequences pursued by customers within each

segment can be recognized and formulated as a message in which people can then

recognize their own sought benefits.

When common meaning or direction of an expected consequence is defined it is

further a wording art to make a strong appeal but it is clear which meaning the

message should communicate.

All findings and inferences made during the empirical verification of the suggested

conceptualization of the consumer motivational sphere and supportive methodology

provided a detailed picture of relevant buyer segments. The company has got a clear

view on the portrait of relevant buyers of premium cars in Russia including rather

specific and hardly assumed characteristics of the market and its customers.

Russian customers of premium cars and premium goods in general are rather

peculiar. Their consumer behavior is impacted by their attitudes and mental

representations built on historical and cultural peculiarities as well as on personal

experiences which took place during the last two decades. The “turbulent nineties”

during which Russia has gone through drastic alterations of the whole national

system, strongly influenced people’s system of values, aspirations, attitudes and

behavior including their purchasing behavior. That is why it is important for

companies that enter Russian markets, especially the markets of premium goods, to


250

investigate consumers born after the seventies, whose values, interests, notions and

world-view significantly differ from those of older generations.

4. Limitations

Several limitations should be mentioned regarding the methodology and empirical

study.

The suggested methodology based on the repertory grid technique has its limited

applicability to a relatively small sample of participants.

It is appropriate to apply it in exploratory comprehensive research aimed at

revealing new information about customers or products. “The grid is par

excellence a technique for measuring individual perceptions and any attempts

to generalize to collective perceptions begin to lose the advantages peculiar to

it” (Easterby-Smith et al., 1996). Therefore, when new things are discovered

they can be used further in quantitative analysis aimed at testing hypotheses

regarding the population.

Considering the empirical study, the major critique might be addressed to the

question of reliability of performed content analysis. The procedure of categorization

did not involve additional coders and, therefore, its accuracy might be perceived as

doubtful.

The peculiarity of the repertory grid interviewing and, especially, of the survey

conducted for this thesis is that the person who has carried out the interviews,

besides the information recorded in the grid form, often bears additional

observed or noticed information. According to Jankowicz (2004, p. 163),

agreement on the content with a collaborator may cause prevalence of the

collaborator’s reality and perception of the content. If the collaborator did not

participate in the design of the study, design of the grid form and the

interviewing it is recommended to use the researcher’s content analysis rather

than the collaborator’s.

The reliability check would of course be desirable but the fact is that the survey

was conducted in Russia, in the Russian language, with a very specific group of

customers, by a single Russian researcher and applying a rarely used

technique and, finally, the data was analyzed and presented in Germany for a


251

German automaker, making the reliability check rather difficult. For this study it

would make sense if there was a second coder who is familiar with the

language, jargon, the cultural and mental peculiarities of the participants and

region as well as being familiar with the elicitation procedure technique and the

topic in question.

As a practical outcome presented for the company all interpretations and

findings appeared informative, useful and interesting due to the fact that the

researcher comes from the country the survey was conducted in and can,

therefore, understand and communicate much better the implied meanings

expressed by participants. From the scientific perspective, on the one hand, the

empirical study is first of all aimed at demonstration of the applicability of the

proposed methodology and its practical findings and inferences regarding

meanings remain secondary. On the other hand, the concept of the reliability of

the repertory grid technique is regarded as merely one aspect of validity in a

sense that the repertory grid should be done to explain causality and signify

changes occurring in a person’s construing systems but not to repeat the same

result (Fransella et al., 2004, p. 134). In turn, the validity, according to Kelly,

ultimately refers to the way in which a mode of understanding enables the

researcher or the respondent to take effective action.

The design of the repertory grid form developed for this study can evoke some

questions concerning, for example, the representativeness of the set of elements and

categories developed for elements elicitation or concerning design of other

components comprised in the form.

The repertory grid technique represents a very flexible tool which has almost no

rules to be followed, only recommendations which can help the researcher to

design the form which would be appropriate for his particular research. The

variety of procedures which can be chosen and the reasons and conditions for

their appropriateness are thoroughly described in this work and reasons for

choices made for the repertory grid design applied in this study are explained to

the extent it is permitted within the underlying personal construct theory.


252

5. Potential for future research

The potential of the repertory grid technique and methods for analyzing its data is

great within market research, especially in the area of consumer motivation, and it

provides a large number of actions for its further development.

The proposed methodology applies analysis approaches which are not new and have

proved their appropriateness and usefulness. Therefore, apart from the aspect of

interpretation, research results strongly depend on the elicitation procedure. It is

important to investigate whether the potential changes in the findings in case of

repeated interviewing would be caused by the fact that a person represents a

permanent ‘form of motion’ and the consistence of a person’s construct systems over

time could be low or the changes are caused by the application of different elicitation

procedures. Thus, the question should be investigated whether the elicited set of

meanings, i.e., constructs and corresponding results, would differ depending on the

elicitation approach used. And if it differs, then which set of meanings should be

considered as the correct one?

One of the suggestions that could make interpretation and findings more accurate is

to perform quantitative analysis taking into account the weight of constructs

according to their relevance and importance. This would enable better differentiation

between personal meanings and, thereby, a more accurately structured personal

construing systems. Thus, an estimation measure for a construct's weight could be

suggested. However, it is important to bear in mind that quantitative analysis without

its clear understanding may cause a misleading interpretation. Quantitative analysis

has to be carefully approached, making sure that the researcher understands it and

can confidently explain it.

Further research can also address practical applicability of the repertory grid and

supportive methodology. Procedures and forms to interpret and perform information

regarding elements can be further suggested that would provide more findings about

consumers’ consideration sets and their attitudes towards particular products or

brands. This implies a different objective of the research and needs a different design

of the repertory grid form.

Besides, researchers can make use of triads to derive information about elements.

For example, constructs elicited by the triads containing particular elements can be


253

compared or constructs elicited by the same triads can be compared within the group

of people.

These are several ideas to further extend the use of the repertory grid technique,

methods for its analysis and types of resulting outcome, leveraging the technique’s

flexibility and adaptability. Further research should take a closer look at the potential

for using repertory grids in the research of different markets and product categories,

attaining an insight into consumers’ related cognitive construing systems and

purchase motivation.

254

References

Adlwarth, W. (1983), Formen und Bestimmungsgründe prestigegeleiteten

Konsumverhaltens. München

Alexander, P.M. and van Loggerenberg, J.J. (2005), The repertory grid: "discovering"

a 50-year-old research technique, SAICSIT '05: Proceedings of the 2005 annual

research conference of the South African institute of computer scientists and

information technologists on IT research in developing countries

Antaki, C. (1988), Structures of belief and justification, in C. Antaki (Ed.), Analyzing

everyday explanation, London: Sage, pp. 60–73

Antaki, C. (1989), Structured causal beliefs and their defense in accounts of student

political action, Journal of language and social psychology, 8 (January), pp. 39–

48.

Assael, H. (1995), Consumer behavior and marketing action. South-Western College,

Publishing, Cincinnati, OH

Atherton, J.S. (2007), Learning and Teaching: Personal Construct Theory,

http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/personal.htm#Formal, accessed:

25 March 2008

Austin, J.T. and Vancouver, J.B. (1996), Goal constructs in psychology: structure,

process and content, Psychological Bulletin, 120, pp. 338-375

Bagozzi, R.P. and Dabholkar, P.A. (1994), Customer recycling goals and their effect

on decisions to recycle: A means-end chain analysis, Psychology and

Marketing, 11, pp. 313–340

Bagozzi, R.P. and Dabholkar, P.A. (2000), Discursive psychology: An alternative

conceptual foundation to means-end chain theory, Psychology and Marketing,

17, pp. 535–586

Bagozzi, R.P., Bergami, M. and Leone, L. (2003), Hierarchical Representation of

Motives in Goal-Setting, Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, pp. 915-943

Baillie-Grohman, R. (1975), The use of a modified form of repertory grid technique to

investigate the extent to which deaf school leavers tend to use stereotypes,

Unpublished MSc dissertation, University of London, London.

Banister, P., Burman, E., Parker, I., Taylor, M. and Tindall, C. (1994), Qualitative

Methods in Psychology: A Research Guide. Milton Keynes: Open University

Press.

Bannister, D. and Bott, M. (1973), Evaluating the person, in P. Klein (Ed), New

Approaches to Psychological Medicine, Chichester: John Wiley

255

Barton, E.S., Walton, T. and Rowe, D. (1976), Using grid technique with the mentally

handicapped, in Slater, P. (Ed.), The Measurement of Intrapersonal Space by

Grid Technique. Volume 1. Explorations of Intrapersonal Space, London: John

Wiley & Sons

Bauer, H.H., Huber, F. and Keller, T. (1998), Using product-policy variants to increase

customer retention in the automotive industry - Results of an empirical study, in

Proceedings of the Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy

Conference

Beail, N. (1985), Repertory grid technique and personal constructs: Applications in

clinical and educational settings. London: Croom Helm

Bearden, W.O. and Netemeyer, R.G. (1999), Handbook of Marketing Scales: Multi-

item Measures for Marketing and Consumer Behavior Research, Inc; 2 Sub.

Ed., Sage Publications

Beckmeier-Feuerhahn, S. (1998), Marktorientierte Markenbewertung. Eine

Konsumenten und unternehmensbezogene Betrachtung. Wiesbaden: Gabler

Bell R.C. (2003), http://www.pcp-net.org/encyclopaedia/editors.html, accessed: 24

November 2008

Bell, R.C. (1994), Using SPSS to analyse repertory grid data, Paper presented at the

29th Annual Conference of the Australian Psychological Society, Wollongong

Belz, O. (1994), Luxusmarkenstrategie, in Bruhn, M. (Ed.), Handbuch Markenartikel,

Band 1, Stuttgart, pp. 646-651

Berkmann, H.W. and Gilson, C. (1986), Consumer Behavior - Concepts and

Strategies. Boston: Kent Publishing

Bieri, J., Atkins, A.L., Briar, S., Leaman, R.L., Miller H. and Tripodi T. (1966), Clinical

and social judgment. New York: John Wiley & Sons

Björklund, L. (2005), The Repertory Grid Technique: Making Tacit Knowledge Explicit:

Assessing Creative work and Problem solving skills, in H. Middleton (Ed.),

Researching Technology Education: Methods and techniques, Sense

Publishers, Netherlands

Boeree G. (o. J.), Personality theories: George Kelly 1905-1967, in

http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/kelly.html, accessed: 16 January 2009

Bonarius, H. (1977), The interaction model of communication: Through experimental

research towards existential relevance, in A.W. Landfield, and J.K. Cole (Eds.),

Nebraska symposium on motivation 1976: Personal Construct Psychology, Vol.

26, Lincoln, NE/London: University of Nebraska Press

256

Botschen, G., Thelen, E.M. and Pieters, R. (1999), Using means-end structures for

benefit segmentation, European Journal of Marketing, 33, (1/2), pp. 38-58

Bougon, M.G. (1992), Congregate cognitive maps: a unified dynamic theory of

organization and strategy, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp.

367-389

Bourdieu, P. (1982), Die feinen Unterschiede: Kritik der gesellschaftlichen Urteilskraft.

Frankfurt am Main.

Brinkman, W.-P. and Love, S. (2006), Developing an instrument to assess the impact

of attitude and social norms on user selection of an interface design: a repertory

grid approach, ECCE '06: Proceedings of the 13th Eurpoean conference on

Cognitive ergonomics: trust and control in complex socio-technical systems

Burkitt, I. (1991), Social Selves: Theories of the Social Formation of Personality.

London: Sage

Caputi, P. and Keynes, N. (2001), A note on the stability of structural measures based

on Repertory Grids, Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 14, pp. 51-55

Caputi, P. and Reddy, P. (1999), A Comparison of Triadic and Dyadic Methods of

Personal Construct Elicitation, Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 12, pp.

253-264

Cassell, C., Duberley, J., Close, P. and Johnson P. (2000), Surfacing Embedded

Assumptions: Using Repertory Grid Methodology to Facilitate Organizational

Change, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 9(4), pp.

561-573

Chisnall, P.M., (1992), Marketing Research, 4th Ed., McGraw-Hill, London

Churchill, G.A.Jr. (1996), Basic Marketing Research, 3rd Ed., Chicago: The Dryden

Press

Clancey, W.J. (1989), Viewing knowledge bases as qualitative models, IEEE Expert,

Summer, pp. 9-23

Cohen, J.B. (1979), The structure of product attributes: defining attribute dimensions

for planning and evaluation, in Shocker, A.D. (Eds), Analytic Approaches to

Product and Marketing Planning, Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA,

pp. 54-86

Coltheart, V. and Evans, J. (1982), An investigation of semantic memory in individuals,

Memory and Cognition, 9(5), pp. 524-532

257

Coombe G. (2006), An introduction to Principal Component Analysis and Online

Singular Value Decomposition, PhD Dissertation Draft,

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~coombe/research/phd/, accessed: 26 September 2008

DeCharms, R. and Shea, D.J. (1976), Enhancing Motivation: Change in the

classroom. New York.

Dholakia, N. and Arndt, J. (1985), Changing the Course of Marketing: Alternative

Paradigms for Widening Marketing Theory. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT

Dichter, E. (1964), Handbook of Consumer Motivation - The Psychology of the World

of Objects. New York: McGraw

Diez, W. (2001), Herausforderungen und Perspektiven im Premiummarkt für

Automobile, Forschungsbericht Nr. 22 des Instituts für Automobilwirtschaft (IFA)

an der Hochschule Nürtingen-Geislingen

Dijkshoorn, L., Towner, K.J. and Struelens, M. (2001), New approaches for the

generation and analysis of microbial typing data. Elsevier

Dillon, A. and McKnight, C. (1990), Towards a classification of text types: a repertory

grid approach, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 33, pp. 623-636

Dröge, C. and Calantone, R. (1984), Assumptions underlying the metatheoretical

debates regarding methods and scientific theory construction, Advances in

Consumer Research, Vol. 11, pp. 5-9

Duck, S.W. (1994), Meaningful Relationships. Sage, London

Earl, P.E (1986), Lifestyle Economics: Consumer Behaviour in a Turbulent, World,

Wheatsheaf: Brighton

Easterby-Smith, M. (1980), How to Use Repertory Grids in HRD, Journal of European

Industrial Training, 4/2, pp. 2-32

Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe R. and Holman D. (1996), Using repertory grids in

management, Journal of European Industrial Training, 20/3, pp. 3-30

Eden, C. and Jones, S. (1984), Using Repertory Grids for Problem Construction,

Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 35, No. 9, pp. 779-790

Epting, F.R., Probert, J.S. and Pittman, S.T. (1993), Alternative strategies for construct

elicitation: Experimenting with experience, International Journal of Personal

Construct Psychology, 6, pp. 79-98

Esch, F.-R., Redler, J. and Langner, T. (2003), Promotional Efficiency and the

Interaction between Buying Behavior Type and Product Presentation Format -

Evidence form an Exploratory Study, in ANZMAC 2003 Conference

Proceedings, pp. 1838 - 1845

258

Feemers, M. (1992), Der demonstrativ aufwendige Konsum - Eine theoretisch-

empirische Untersuchung, Europäische Hochschulschriften, Reihe 6:

Psychologie Bd. 386, Frankfurt am Main: Lang

Feixas, G. and Cornejo-Alvarez, J.M. (1996), A Manual for the Repertory Grid: Using

GRIDCOR Programme (Version 2.0), Barcelona: Paidos

Fennell, G. (1975), Motivation Research Revisited, Journal of Advertising Research,

Vol. 15 (June), pp. 23-28

Fennell, G. (1978), Consumers' perceptions of the product-use situation, Journal of

Marketing, (April), pp. 38-47

Fewtrell, D. and O'Connor, K. (1995), Clinical Phenomenology and Cognitive

Psychology. Routledge, London

Fichter, J.-H. (1968), Grundbegriffe der Soziologie. Wien

Fisher, J. and Savage, D. (1999), Introduction to Personal Construct Psychology,

http://www.businessballs.com/personalchangeprocess.htm, reprinted from

Fisher, J. and Savage, D. (Eds), Beyond Experimentation into Meaning, EPCA

Publications, Farnborough

Ford, K. and Petry, F. (1989), Knowledge acquisition from repertory grids using a logic

of confirmation, ACM SIGART Bulletin, Issue 108

Foxall, G.R. (1998), Intention versus context in consumer psychology, Journal of

Marketing Management, 14, pp. 29-62

Fransella, F. and Bannister, D. (1977), A manual for repertory grid technique. London:

Academic Press

Fransella, F., Bell, R. and Bannister, D. (2004), A Manual for Repertory Grid

Technique. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 2nd Edition

Fransella, F., Jones, H. and Watson, J. (1988), A range of applications of PCP within

business and industry, in Fransella, F. and Thomas, L. (Eds), Experimenting

with Personal Construct Psychology, Routledge, London, pp. 405-417.

Fromm, M (o. J.), Grid Software, European Personal Construct Association,

http://www.epca-net.org/Default.aspx?pageId=42152, accessed: 22 October

2008

Frost, W.A. (1982), Book review: Business Applications of Repertory Grid, Journal of

the Market Research Society, Vol. 24, No.1, pp. 81-83

Gaines B.R. and Shaw M.L.G. (2005), Rep IV: Manual for Research Version 1.12,

http://repgrid.com/RepIV/RepIVManual/, accessed: 23 October 2007

259

Geistfeld, L.V., Sproles, G.B. and Badenhop, S.B. (1977), The Concept and

Measurement of a Hierarchy of Product Characteristics, in Perreault W.D.Jr.

(Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 4, Atlanta: Association for

Consumer Research, pp. 302-307.

Gengler, C., Mulvey, M. and Oglethorpe, J. (1999), A Means-End Analysis of Mothers'

Infant Feeding Choices, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 18(2), pp. 172-

188

Gordon, W. and Langmaid, R. (1988), Qualitative Market Research: A practitioner's

and buyer's guide. Gower

Green, B. (2004), Personal construct psychology and content analysis, Personal

Construct Theory and Practice, 1, pp. 82-91

Gries, R., (2005), about Ernest Dichter,

http://www.vmoe.at/show_content.php?sid=198&language=en, accessed: 15

May 2008

Gröppel-Klein, A. and Königstorfer, J. (2007), Projektive Verfahren, in Buber, R.,

Holzmüller, H. (Eds.), Qualitative Marktforschung - Theorie, Methode, Analyse,

Wiesbaden: Gabler, pp. 537-553

Grunert, K.G. and Grunert, S.C. (1995), Measuring subjective meaning structures by

laddering method: theoretical considerations and methodological problems,

International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 12, pp. 209-225

Grunert, K.G., Sorensen, E., Johansen, L.B. and Nielsen, N.A., (1995), Analysing food

choice from a means-end perspective, European Advances in Consumer

Research, Vol.2, pp. 366-371

Gutman, J. (1982), A means-end chain model based on consumer categorization

processes, Journal of marketing, 46, pp. 60-72

Gutman, J. (1991), Exploring the nature of linkages: consequences and values,

Journal of Business Research, Vol. 22, pp.143-148

Gutman, J. and Reynolds, T.J. (1979), An investigation of the levels of cognitive

abstraction utilized by consumers in product differentiation, in J. Eighmy (Ed.),

Attitude research under the sun, Chicago: American Marketing Association, pp.

128-152

Hadley G.S. (1996), Bridging the cross-cultural gap with personal construct repertory

grids, Dissertation, University of Birmingham

260

Hagans, C.L., Neimeyer, G.J. and Goodholm, C.R. (2000), The Effect of Elicitation

Methods on Personal Construct Differentiation and Valence, Journal of

Constructivist Psychology, 13, pp. 155-173

Hallsworth, A.G. (1988), Repertory grid methodology and the analysis of group

perceptions in retailing, International Journal of Retailing, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 43-

54

Harper, D. (2001), The Online Etymology Dictionary, www.etymonline.com, accessed:

24 May 2008

Hassard, J. (1987), FOCUS as a phenomenological technique for job analysis: its use

in multiple paradigm research, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies,

27, pp. 413-433

Hassenzahl, M. and Trautmann, T. (2001), Analysis of web sites with the repertory grid

technique, in Proceedings of the CHI 2001 Conference on Human Factors in

Computing. Extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, pp.

167-168, New York: ACM Press, Addison-Wesley

Haugtvedt, C.P., Herr, P.M. and Kardes, F.R. (2008), Handbook of Consumer

Psychology. CRC Press

Haury, K. (2007), Geltungsmotivierte Konsum: Befunde und Empfehlungen für eine

kundenorientierte, bedarfsgerechte Produktkonzeption, Vol. 748 der

Europäischen Hochschulschriften, Dissertation, Frankfurt am Main

Hausruckinger G. and Helm R. (1996), Die Bedeutung des Country-of-Origin Effektes

vor dem Hintergrund der Internationalisierung von Unternehmen, Marketing

ZFP, Nr. 4, pp. 267-278

Heath, T. (1992), The reconciliation of humanism and positivism in the practice of

consumer research, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 20(2), pp.

107-118

Heckhausen, H., Schmalt, H. -D. and Schneider, K. (1985), Achievement motivation in

perspective. New York: Academic Press

Herm, S. and Gall, K. (2008), Zur Messung markenspezifischer Risikowahrnehmungen

mit der Means-End-Analyse, Marketing ZFP, Nr. 3 (30. Jg.), pp. 161-174

Hessenzahl, M. and Wessler, R. (2000), Capturing Design Space From a User

Perspective: The Repertory Grid Technique Revisited, International Journal of

Human-Computer Interaction, 12 (3 and 4), pp. 441-459

261

Highlen, P.S. and Finley, H.C. (1996), Doing qualitative analysis, in F. T. L. Leong and

T. A. Austin (Eds.), The Psychology Research Handbook: A Guide for Graduate

Students and Research Assistants, Sage Publications, pp. 177-192

Hinkle, D. (1970), The game of personal constructs, in D. Bannister (Ed.),

Perspectives in personal construct theory, London: Academic Press, pp. 91-110

Hinkle, D.N. (1965), The change of personal constructs from the viewpoint of a theory

of construct implications, Unpublished PhD thesis, Ohio State University,

Columbus, OH

Hogeweg, P. (1976), Topics in biological pattern analysis, PhD Thesis, University of

Utrecht

Honey, P. (1979), The repertory grid in action, Industrial and Commercial Training,

Nov 79, 11(11): pp. 358--369; 407--414; 452--459

Huber, F., Beckmann, S.C. and Hermann, A. (2004), Means-end analysis: does the

affective state influence information processing style?, Psychology and

Marketing, Vol. 21, No.9, pp.715-37

Hunt, S.D., (1994), On Rethinking Marketing: Our Discipline, Our Practice, Our

Methods, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 28 (3), pp. 13-25

Jacob F. (2009), Marketing: Eine Einführung für das Master-Studium. Kohlhammer,

Stuttgart

Jankowicz, A.D. (1990), Applications of personal construct psychology in business

practice, Advances in Personal Construct Psychology, Vol. 1, pp. 257-87

Jankowicz, A.D. (2001), Why does subjectivity makes au nervous?: Making the tacit

explicit, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 61-73

Jankowicz, A.D. (2004), The Easy Guide to the Repertory Grid. Wiley, England

Jankowicz, D. and Thomas, L.F. (1982), An Algorithm for the Cluster Analysis of

Repertory Grids in Human Resource Development, Personell Review, No. 4

(Vol. 11), p. 15-22

Kahle, L.R., Beatty, S.E. and Homer, P.M. (1986), Alternative Measurement

Approaches to Consumer Values - the List of Values (Lov) and Values and Life-

Style (Vals), Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (3), pp. 405-409

Kamakura, W.A. and Novak, T.P. (1992), Value-System Segmentation: Exploring the

Meaning of LOV, Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (June), pp. 119-132

Karmasin, H. (1998), Produkte als Botschaften, 2. Aufl., Wien

262

Kassarjian, H.H. (1994), Scholarly Traditions and European Roots of American

Consumer Research, in Laurent, G. Lilien, G.L. and Pras, B. (Eds), Research

Traditions in Marketing, Kluwer Academic, Boston, MA, pp. 265-279

Kavanagh, D. (1994), Hunt versus Anderson: Round 16, European Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 26-41

Kelly, G.A. (1955/1991), The Psychology of Personal Constructs, Vol. 1, 2. Norton,

New York (2nd printing: 1991, Routledge, London, New York)

Kelly, G.A. (1969), A mathematical approach to psychology, in Maher, B. (Ed.), Clinical

Psychology and Personality: The Selected Papers of George Kelly, New York:

Wiley, pp. 94-113

Kiefer, M. (2008), Bewusstsein, in Müsseler, J. (Hrsg.), Allgemeine Psychologie. 2.

Aufl. Berlin, pp. 154-188

Kihlstrom, J.F. and Cantor, N. (1984), Mental representations of the self, Advances in

experimental social psychology, Vol. 17, pp. 1-47

Kluth, H. (1957), Sozialprestige und Sozialer Status. Stuttgart: Enke

Krippendorf, K. (2004), Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology, 2nd Ed.,

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

Kroeber-Riel, W., Weinberg, P. and Gröppel-Klein, A. (2009), Konsumentenverhalten,

9. Aufl., München: Vahlen

Lass, D. (2002), Kundenwünsche analysieren und verstehen: Theorien, Methoden und

Anwendungsbeispiele für Wissenschaft, Marktforschung- und Management-

praxis, Berlin: Berliner Beiträge zur Marketingforschung

Lin, C. (2002), Attribute-consequence-value linkages: A new technique for

understanding customer's product knowledge, Journal of Targeting

Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 10, pp. 339-352

Lucerna, C. (1999), Das Ritual um die Marke, in Brandmeyer, K. and Deichsel, A.

(Hg.), Jahrbuch Markentechnik 2000/2001, Frankfurt am Main, pp. 359-387

Mahoney, M.J. and Gabriel, T. (1987), Psychotherapy and the cognitive sciences: An

evolving alliance, Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 1, pp. 39-59

Marsden, D. (1997), Product construct systems: a personal construct psychology of

consumer behaviour, Manchester School of Management, UMIST, Manchester,

unpublished doctoral thesis

Marsden, D. and Littler, D. (2000a), Repertory grid technique: An Interpretive research

framework, European Journal of Marketing, Vol.34, No.7, pp. 816-834

263

Marsden, D. and Littler, D. (2000b), Exploring consumer product construct systems

with the repertory grid, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal,

Vol.3, No.3, pp.127-144

Maslow, A. (1954), Motivation and Personality. Harper and Row, New York

Mason, R.S. (1981), Conspicuous Consumption: A Study of Exceptional Consumer

Behavior. St Martin’s Press, New York

McClelland, D.C. (1987), Human motivation. New York: Cambridge University Press

McKnight, C. (1981), Subjectivity in sentencing. Law and Human Behavior, 5(2/3), pp.

141-147

McKnight, C. (2000), The Personal Construction of Information Space, Journal of the

American Society for Information Science, Vol. 51(8), pp. 730-733

Metzler, A.E. and Neimeyer, G.J. (1988), Vocational hierarchies: how do we count the

ways?, International Journal of Personal Psychology, Vol. 1, pp. 205-17

Mick, D.G. and Buhl, C. (1992), A meaning-based model of advertising experiences,

Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19, pp. 317-338

Mook, D.G. (1987), Motivation. New York: W.W. Norton

Mulvey, M., Olson, J., Celsi, R. and Walker, B. (1994), Exploring the Relationship

Between Means-End Knowledge and Involvement, Advances in Consumer

Research, Vol. 21, pp. 51-57

Murray, J.B. and Evers D.J. (1989), Theory Borrowing and Reflectivity in

Interdisciplinary Fields, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol.16, pp. 647-652

Neimeyer, G.J. (1992), Personal constructs in vocational structure: A critique of poor

reasons, in R. Neimeyer and G. Neimeyer (Eds.), Advances in Personal

Construct Psychology, Vol. 2. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press

Neimeyer, G.J. (1993), Constructivist assessment. Sage, New York, NY

Neimeyer, G.J. (2002), Towards reflexive scrutiny in repertory grid methodology,

Journal of. Constructivist Psychology, 15, pp. 89–94

Neimeyer, R.A. (1993), An appraisal of constructivist psychotherapies, Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, pp. 221-234

Neimeyer, R.A. and Mahoney, M.J. (1995), Constructivism in psychotherapy.

Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association

Neimeyer, R.A. and Neimeyer, G.J. (2002), Advances in Personal Construct

Psychology. New York: Praeger

264

Novak, T.P. and MacEvoy, B. (1990), On Comparing Alternative Segmentation

Schemes: The List of Values (LOV) and Values and Life Styles (VALS), Journal

of Consumer Research, 17, (June), pp. 105-109.

o. V., 2007, Enquire Within software: Used in market research,

http://www.enquirewithin.co.nz/market.htm, accessed: June 2007

o. V., 2008, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspirational_brand, accessed: May

2008

o. V., 2009, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/premium, accessed: January 2009

O'Guinn, T.C. and Wells, W.D. (1989), Subjective Discretionary Income, Marketing

Research: A Magazine of Application and Practice, 1, pp. 32-41

Olson, J.C. and Reynolds, T.J. (1983), Understanding consumers' cognitive structures:

implications for advertising strategy, in Percy, L., Woodside, A.G. (Eds),

Advertising and Consumer Psychology, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, pp.

77-90

Oosterhuis, F., Rubik, F. and Scholl, G. (1996), Product policy in Europe: new

environmental perspectives. Springer

Orth, U. and Krska, P. (2002), Quality Signals in Wine Marketing, International Food

and Agribusiness Management Review, 4, pp. 385-397

Ozanne, J.L. and Anderson, L. (1989), Exploring diversity in consumer research, in

Hirschman, E. (Eds), Interpretive Consumer Research, ACR, Provo, UT, pp. 1-9

Paulssen, M. (1999), Individual Goal Hierarchies as Antecedents of Market Structure.

Wiesbaden: Gabler Edition Wissenschaft

Peter, J.P. and Olson, J.C. (1990), Consumer Behavior and Marketing Strategy, 2nd

ed., Irwin, Homewood, IL

Peter, J.P. and Olson, J.C. (1994), Understanding Consumer Behavior, Burr Ridge, IL:

Richard D. Irwin

Peter, J.P., Olson, J.C. (2004), Consumer Behavior and Marketing Strategy, 7nd Ed.,

Irwin Professional Pub

Petzold, M. (2006), Persönlichkeitsorientiertes Management von Automobilmarken -

Messung der Persönlichkeit von Automobilmarken und Steuerung durch

Markentransfers, Dissertation, Universität Mannheim

Pieters, R. (1993), A Control View on the Behavior of Consumers: Turning the

Triangle, in Van Raaij, W.F. and Bamossy, G.J. (Eds), European Advances in

Consumer Research, Vol. 1, pp. 507-512

265

Pieters, R., Baumgartner, H. and Allen, D. (1995), A means–end chain approach to

consumer goal structures, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 12,

pp. 227–244

Pincus, J.D. (2004), The Consequences of Unmet Needs: The Evolving Role of

Motivation in Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, June,

Volume 4, pp. 375-387

Puca, R.M. and Langens, T.A. (2008), Motivation, Volition and Emotion, in Müsseler,

J. (Hrsg.): Allgemeine Psychologie. 2 Aufl. Berlin, pp. 191-229

Reynolds, T.J. and Gutman, J. (1984), Laddering: Extending the repertory grid

methodology to construct attribute-consequence-value hierarchies, in Pitts R.E.

and Woodside A.G. (Eds.) Personal Values and Consumer Psychology,

Lexington Books, Toronto, pp. 155-167

Reynolds, T.J. and Gutman, J. (1988), Laddering theory, method, analysis and

interpretation, Journal of Advertising Research, 28(1), pp. 11-31

Reynolds, T.J. and Whitlark, D.B. (1995), Applying laddering data to communications

strategy and advertising practice, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 35,

No.4, pp. 9-17

Rice, C. (1993), Consumer Behavior: Behavioral Aspects of Marketing. Butterworth

Heineman, London

Rinsche, G. (1961), Der aufwendige Verbrauch, in Kreikebaum, H. and Rinsche, G.,

Das Prestigemotiv in Konsum und Investition, Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, pp.

105-221

Rokeach, M. (1973), The nature of human values. New York: Free Press

Rosengarten, P.G. and Stürmer, C.B. (2005), Premium power. Das Geheimnis des

Erfolgs von Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Porsche und Audi, 2. Aufl., Wiley-VCH,

Weinheim

Rossister, J.R. and Percy, L. (1991), Emotions and Motivation in Advertising,

Advances in Consumer Research, Vol.18, pp. 100-110

Rundell, M. and Fox, G. (2007), Macmillan English Dictionary: For Advanced Learners,

2nd Ed., Macmillan Publishers Limited, Oxford

Rychlak, J.F. (1981), Introduction to personality and psychotherapy. A theory-

construction approach, 2nd Ed., Boston: Houghton Mifflin

Ryle, A. (1976), Some clinical applications of grid technique, in Slater, P. (Ed.), The

Measurement of Intrapersonal Space by Grid Technique. 2 vols., London: John

Wiley

266

Saegert, J. and Fennell, G. (1991), Qualitative Research In The Textbooks: A Review,

Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 18, The Association for Consumer

Research, pp. 262-270

Salmon, P. (1976), Grid Measures with child subjects, in Slater, P. (Ed.), The

Measurement of Intrapersonal Space by Grid Technique, Vol. 1, London: John

Wiley

Sampson, P. (1972), Using the repertory grid test, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.

9, pp. 78-81

Sanjiv K. Bhatia and Qi Yao, (1993), A new approach to knowledge acquisition by

repertory grids, CIKM '93: Proceedings of the second international conference

on Information and knowledge management, Washington, D.C., pp. 738-740

Schulze, G. (1992), Die Erlebnisgesellschaft: Kultursoziologie des Gegenwart.

Frankfurt am Main

Schuster, H.-W. (1994), Prestigegeleitetes Konsumentenverhalten – Teil 1: Typologie

des Distinktkonsums, in Jahrbuch der Absatz- und Verbrauchsforschung, Nr. 2,

pp. 108-120

Schwartz, S. H. (1992), Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theory and

Empirical Tests in 20 Countries, in M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental

Social Psychology, Vol. 25, New York: Academic Press, pp. 1-65

Senior, B. (1996), Team performance: using repertory grid technique to gain a view

from the inside, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 26-32

Sharp, H., Hall, T., Baddoo, N. and Beecham, S. (2007), Exploring motivational

differences between software developers and project managers, ESEC-FSE

companion '07: The 6th Joint Meeting on European software engineering

conference and the ACM

Shaw P.J.A. (2003), Multivariate statistics for the Environmental Sciences, Hodder-

Arnold, London

Shaw, M.L.G. (1980), On Becoming a Personal Scientist: Interactive Computer

Elicitation of Personal Models of the World. Academic Press, London

Shaw, M.L.G. (1981), Recent Advances in Personal Construct Technology. London:

Academic Press

Shaw, M.L.G. (1994), Methodology for sharing personal construct systems, Journal of

Constructivist Psychology, 7, pp. 35-52

267

Shaw, M.L.G. and Gaines, B.R. (1987), KITTEN: Knowledge initiation and transfer

tools for experts and novices, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 27,

pp. 251-280

Shaw, M.L.G. and Gaines, B.R. (1992), Kelly's geometry of psychological space and

its significance for cognitive modeling, The New Psychologist, pp. 23-31

Shaw, M.L.G. and Gaines, B.R. (2005), Expertise and expert systems: emulating

psychological processes, in Fransella, F. (Ed.), The Essential Practitioner's

Handbook of Personal Construct Psychology. Wiley, Chichester, UK, pp. 87-94

Shaw, M.L.G. and McKnight, C. (1981), Think Again: Personal Problem-Solving and

Decision-Making. Prentice-Hall

Shrivastava, P. (1985), Rigor and practical usefulness of research in strategic

management, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 8, pp.77-92

Simon, A.F. and Xenos, M. (2004), Dimensional reduction of word-frequency data as a

substitute for intersubjective content analysis, Political Analysis, 12, pp. 63-75

Slater, P. (1964), The Principal Components of a Repertory Grid. London; Vincent

Andrews

Slater, P. (1976), The measurement of intrapersonal space by grid technique, Vol. 1

Explorations of intrapersonal space. London: Wiley

Slater, P. (1977), The measurement of intrapersonal space by grid technique. Vol. 2

Dimensions of intrapersonal space. London: Wiley

Smith, H.J. (2000), The reliability and validity of structural measures derived from

Repertory Grids, Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 13, pp. 221-230

Smith, J.A. (1995), Semi-structured interviewing and qualitative analysis, in J. Smith,

R. Harre and L.V. Langenhove (Eds.) Rethinking Methods in Psychology.

London: Sage, pp. 9-26

Sohlberg, S. (2006), Concepts of the unconscious, in Steiner R., The Philosophy of

Freedom, Rudolf Steiner Press,

http://www.philosophyoffreedom.com/index.php?q=node/693 accessed on 22

September 2008

Solas, J. (1991), A constructive alternative to family assessment, Journal of Family

Therapy, 13, pp. 149-169

Solomon, M. (2004), Consumer Behavior, 6 Ed., Prentice Hall

Soukhanov, A.H., Jost, D.A., Ellie, K. and Severynse, M. (2000), The American

Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4 Ed.

268

Steed, A. and McDonnell, J. (2003), Experiences with Repertory Grid Analysis for

Investigating Effectiveness of Virtual Environments, Presence 2003, The 6th

Annual International Workshop on Presence, Aalborg, Denmark, October 6th-

8th, 2003.

Stewart, D.W. (1990), Cognition and personal structure: computer access and

analysis, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 27, pp. 112-121

Stewart, V., Stewart, A. and Fonda, N. (1981), Business Applications of Repertory

Grid. McGraw-Hill, London

Strauss, C. (1992), Models and motives, in Roy D'Andrade and Claudia Strauss

(Eds.), Human Motives and Cultural Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, pp. 1-20

Sullivan, M and Adcock, D (2002), Retail marketing, Thomson, London, UK

Thomas, L. and Shaw, M.L.G. (1976), Focus: A manual. Uxbridge, England: Centre for

the Study of Human Learning, Brunel University

Trommsdorff, V. (2009), Konsumentenverhalten, 7. Auflage, Kohlhammer, Stuttgart

Valette-Florence, P. and Rapacchi, B. (1991), Improvements in means-end chain

analysis: using graph theory and correspondence analysis, Journal of

Advertising Research, 31, pp. 30-45

Van Ooyen, A. (2001), Theoretical aspects of pattern analysis, in Dijkshoorn, L.,

Towner, K.J., and Struelens, M. (Eds.), New Approaches for the Generation and

Analysis of Microbial Typing Data, Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 31-45

Veblen, T. (1981 [1899]), Theorie der feinen Leute. Eine ökonomische Untersuchung

der Institutionen, München

Veludo-de-Oliveira, T.M., Ikeda, A.A. and Campomar, M.C. (2006), Discussing

laddering application by the means-end chain theory, The Qualitative Report,

11(4), pp. 626-642

Verlinden J.C. and Coenders M.J.J. (2000), Qualitative usability measurement of

websites by employing the repertory grid technique, CHI '00 extended abstracts

on Human factors in computing systems, The Hague, The Netherlands, pp. 143

- 144

Vershofen, W. (1940), Handbuch der Verbrauchsforschung. Bd. 1: Grundlegung.

Berlin.

Vershofen, W. (1959), Die Marktentnahme als Kernstück der Wirtschaftsforschung,

Berlin.

269

Vigneron, F. and Johnson, L. W. (1999), A review and a conceptual framework of

prestige-seeking consumer behavior, Academy of Marketing Science Review, 1,

pp. 1-15

Vrience, M. and Hofstede, F.T. (2000), Linking attributes, benefits, and consumer

values, Marketing Research, 12(3), pp. 4-10

Vygotsky, L.S. (1989), Thought and Language. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press

Walker, B., Celsi, R., Olson, J. (1987), Exploring the structural characteristics of

consumers' knowledge, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 14, pp. 17-21

Walker, B.A. and Olson, J.C. (1991), Means-end chains: connecting products with self,

Journal of Business Research, Vol. 22, No.2, pp.111-19

Wansink, B. (2000), New techniques to generate key marketing insights, Marketing

Research, Vol. 12(2), pp. 28-36

Wansink, B. (2003), Using Laddering to Understand and Leverage a Brand’s Equity,

Qualitative Market Research, Vol. 6(2), pp. 111-118

Wertsch, J.V. (1985), Culture, Communication and Cognition: Vygotskian

Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Wind, Y. (1978), Issues and advances in segmentation research, Journal of Marketing

Research, Vol. 15, pp. 317-337

Wiswede, G. (1973), Motivation und Verbraucherverhalten, München

Wiswede, G. (1995), Einführung in die Wirtschaftspsychologie, 2. Aufl., München/

Basel

Wright, R.P. (2004), Mapping cognitions to better understand attitudinal and behavioral

responses in appraisal research, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, pp.

339-374

Wright, R.P. and Cheung, F.C.K.K. (2007), Articulating Appraisal System

Effectiveness Based On Managerial Cognitions, Personnel Review, Vol. 36,

Issue 1/2, pp. 206-230

Yadov, V.A. (1991), Strategies and methods of qualitative analysis, Sociology, pp.14-

31 (Russian periodical: Ядов, В.А. Стратегия и методы качественного

анализа данных// Социология 4М. 1991. №1. стр. 14-31)

Yang, S., Allenby G.M. and Fennell G. (2002), Modeling Variation in Brand

Preference: The Roles of Objective Environment and Motivating Conditions,

Marketing Science, 21(1), pp. 14-31

Yorke, D.M. (1985), Administration, analysis and assumption: Some aspects of

validity, in N. Beail (Ed.), Repertory grid technique and personal constructs:

270

Applications in clinical and educational settings. London: Croom Helm, pp. 383-

398

Yorke, D.M. (1989), The intolerable wrestle: words, numbers, and meanings,

International Journal of Personal Construct Psychology, 2, pp. 65-76

Young, S. and Feigin, B. (1975), Using the Benefit Chain for Improved Strategy

Formulation, Journal of Marketing, 39, pp. 72-74

Young, S., Ott, L. and Feigin, B. (1978), Some Practical Considerations in Market

Segmentation, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 405-412

Zanoli, R. and Naspetti, S. (2002), Consumer motivations in the purchase of organic

food: A means-end approach, British Food Journal, Vol. 104(8), pp. 643-653

Zinkhan, G.M and Biswas, A. (1988), Using the repertory grid to assess the complexity

of consumers' cognitive structures, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 14,

pp. 493-497

271

Appendix

Appendix 1: Car classification

Car classification

American English

British English Segment Euro NCAP Examples

Microcar Microcar, Bubble car

- - BMW Isetta, Smart Fortwo

- City car A-segment Daewoo Matiz, Renault Twingo, Toyota Aygo, VW Lupo

Subcompact car Supermini B-segment

Supermini Hyundai Accent, Ford Fiesta, Opel Corsa, Suzuki Swift

Compact car Small family car C-segment Small family car

Ford Focus, Toyota Corolla, Opel Astra, VW Golf

Mid-size car Large family car Ford Mondeo, Opel Vectra, Toyota Avensis, VW Passat

Entry-level luxury car

Compact executive car

D-segment Large family car Audi A4, BMW 3 Series, Mercedes C-Class,

Volvo S60

Full-size car Ford Crown Victoria, Holden Commodore, Opel Omega, Chrysler 300C

Mid-size luxury car

Executive car E-segment Executive car

Audi A6, BMW 5 Series, Mercedes E-Class

Full-size luxury car

Luxury car F-segment - Audi A8, BMW 7 Series, Mercedes S-Class

Sports car Sports car - Chevrolet Corvette C6, Porsche 911

Grand tourer Grand tourer - Jaguar XK, Maserati GranTurismo

Supercar Supercar - Bugatti Veyron, Ferrari Enzo, Lamborghini Gallardo

Convertible Convertible - Mercedes CLK, Volvo C70, VW Eos

Roadster Roadster

S-segment

Roadster sports

Audi TT, BMW Z4, Porsche Boxster, Lotus Elise

- Leisure activity vehicle

Peugeot Partner, Škoda Roomster

- Mini MPV Opel Meriva, Fiat Idea, Ford Fusion

Compact minivan

Compact MPV, Midi MPV

Small MPV

Mazda5, Opel Zafira, Renault Scénic, VW Touran

Minivan Large MPV

M-segment

Large MPV Ford Galaxy, Toyota Previa, Renault Espace

Mini SUV Mini 4x4 Daihatsu Terios, Mitsubishi Pajero iO , Suzuki Jimny

Compact SUV Compact 4x4

Small Off-Road 4x4 BMW X3, Ford Escape, Honda CR-V, Subaru

Forester, Toyota RAV4

- Coupé SUV - Isuzu VehiCROSS, SsangYong Actyon, BMW X6

Mid-size SUV Ford Explorer, BMW X5, Jeep Grand Cherokee, VW Touareg

Full-size SUV

Large 4x4

J-segment

Large Off-Road 4x4 Cadillac Escalade, Chevrolet Suburban, Range

Rover, Toyota Land Cruiser

Pickup truck Pick-up - Pick-up Ford F-150, Mitsubishi Triton/L200, Nissan Navara

(Source: Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_classification)

272

Appendix 2: Minkowski metric

k-Minkowski metric measures the distance between two points.

The Minkowski (power) metric from a point p to a point pi in Rm is defined by

dLk(p, pi) = [j=1∑m | xj - xij |

k]1/k Equation 1

where (x1, x2, . . . , xm) and (xi1, xi2, . . . , xim) are the Cartesian coordinates of p and

pi, respectively. Customarily the symbol Lk is used for the Minkowski metric, where k

refers to the degree of the power.

The parameter k varies in the range of 1 ≤ k < ∞.

i. If k = 1, equation 1 becomes

dL1(p, pi) = j=1∑m | xj - xij |

which is called the Manhattan metric, the city-block distance or the taxi-cab

distance. Here, the distance between two points measured along axes at right

angles.

ii. If k = 2, equation 1 becomes

dL2(p, pi) = [j=1∑m | xj - xij |

2]1/2

which is called the Euclidean distance. The straight line distance between two

points is measured.

iii. If k = ∞, the equation 1 becomes

dL∞(p, pi) = [maxj { | xj - xij | j Im }

which is called the Supermum metric or dominance metric.

(Source: Muhammed, R.B. (o. J.), Computational geometry,

http://www.personal.kent.edu/~rmuhamma/Compgeometry/MyCG/CG-

Applets/Minkowski/vorMinkow.htm, accessed: 15 November 2007)

273

Appendix 3: Repertory grid form and questionnaire developed for interviews

(translated from Russian)

Combination

Em

erg

en

t p

ole

(1

)

sdfg

sgd

sg

sdg

sg

sg

sdf

sdg

sdfg

Imp

licit

po

le (

5)

1 141312111098765431 2

274

Laddering down “What does it mean?”

Preferred pole Construct

№ Preferred pole

Construct №

275

Laddering up “Why is it important for you?”

Preferred pole Construct

№ Preferred pole

Construct №

276

Resistance-to-change

A -A

B -B

C -C

D -D

E -E

F -F

G -G

H -H

I -I

Number of revealed values: ______

Number of ValuesEither Or 5A -B B -AA -C C -AA -D D -AA -E E -AB -C C -BB -D D -BB -E E -BC -D D -CC -E E -CD -E E -D

Either Or 4A -B B -AA -C C -AA -D D -AB -C C -BB -D D -BC -D D -C

Either Or 3A -B B -AA -C C -AB -C C -B

Either Or 2A -B B -A

277

Questionnaire Which car do you currently own and use? (1) Brand _________________ Model/Type ____________Model year _________________ (2) Brand _________________ Model/Type ____________Model year _________________ (3) Brand _________________ Model/Type ____________Model year _________________ In case of more than one auto to answer further questions, please, either choose only one which is mostly used or indicate with (1), (2), (3) answers according to the named cars. Who is the owner of your car? □ You □ Your organization:

□ national □ private □ Other: __________________________________________________________________ Who is driving your car? □ You □ Your driver □ Your guard-driver □ You and your driver:

During working hours _________________ During leisure time _________________ □ Other: __________________________________________________________________ Who makes the final decision about an auto purchasing (if differs then considering the last purchased auto)? □ You □ Other: __________________________________________________________________ Who influences the choice of technical equipment and characteristics of your purchased auto? □ You □ Other: __________________________________________________________________ What does it mean for you “to be confident about your auto”? __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Is it important for you to be confident about your auto? □ very important □ important □ not that important □ not important

Aim of purchase of an auto (current or next)?

278

□ Need for transportation during leisure time □ Need for transportation at work □ To fit social status □ To enjoy driving (ride) □ Other: ________________________________________________________________________________ Do you use enhanced security devices and measures □ in auto? □ at home? □ in office? □ Other: ________________________________________________________________________________ Describe a situation related to the car usage or ownership which

1. you are afraid of or you would like to avoid (for example, in certain circumstances such as during the work, during family ride or trip, etc.) ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2. affects your image that you are afraid of or you would like to avoid? ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3. affects any property (e.g., car, laptop, briefcase, bag, etc.) that you are afraid of or you would like to avoid? ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

4. affects you personally (physically or psychologically) that you are afraid of or you would like to avoid? ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Suppose you realize a serious danger regarding you or your family and you need special security measures. Please, evaluate your preference to either high-tech or physical security methods in terms of confidence (select one option):

1 2 3 4 5 Entire rigging with high-tech devices as far as possible.

Rigging with high-tech devices as far

as possible and physical

involvement only if still needed.

Does not matter which one until it

works and guards / Prefer having both

First of all physical protection and

high-tech devices if needed.

Nothing can replace or be better than

physical protection (man as a

bodyguard)

Estimate your agreement with the following statements:

absolutely

agree agree not always disagree

absolutely disagree

No matter how fast my income goes up, I never seem to get ahead.

I have more to spend on extras than most of my neighbors.

My income is high enough to satisfy nearly all of my important desires.

279

Your sex? □ Female □ Male Your marital status? □ Single □ Married How many kids do you have? __________ Your age? □<=18 □19-24 □25-29 □30-34 □35-39 □40-44

□45-49 □50-54 □55-59 □60-64 □>=65

Education (according to Russian educational institution classification)? □ Higher (university graduate) □ Incomplete higher □ Specialized school □ Secondary □ Incomplete secondary Your field of activity? □ Business (entrepreneurship) □ Politics □ Science □ Education □ Other: _______________________________________________________________________________ Your position? □ Owner (joint owner) □ Chief □ Top manager □ Manager □ Other: _______________________________________________________________________________ Pattern of ownership of your organization? □ National enterprise □ Own organization □ Private (not own) organization □ International company □ Other: _______________________________________________________________________________

280

Information about the interview

Date:

Time:

Duration:

Location:

281

Appendix 4: Categorized elicited constructs

Com

fort

1.2

com

fort

able

: d

river

's c

omfo

rt t

o p

rovi

de

less

em

otio

nal

an

d p

hys

ical

effo

rts

28

1.5

com

fort

able

2:

com

fort

ele

ctro

nic

s an

d t

ech

niq

ues

1

4.2

2.3

com

fort

able

: ap

pro

pria

te s

ize,

com

fort

able

pas

sen

ger

sea

ting

arr

ang

emen

t2

.11

com

fort

able

2:

com

fort

ele

ctro

nic

s an

d t

ech

niq

ues

3.5

com

fort

able

: d

on't

feel

hu

mm

ocks

, p

oth

oles

an

d b

um

py

road

s at

driv

ing

3

.7 c

omfo

rtab

le2

: fe

el c

omfo

rtab

le o

n t

he

pas

sen

ger

sea

t (d

on't

feel

bu

mp

y ro

ads

and

pot

hol

es)

3.8

com

fort

able

3:

enou

gh

sp

ace

to li

e (s

tret

ch le

gs)

so

I ca

n t

ake

a re

st d

urin

g a

rid

e 4

.6 c

omfo

rtab

le:

app

rop

riate

siz

e fo

r ta

ll p

eop

le5

.6 c

omfo

rtab

le:

com

fort

ele

ctro

nic

s an

d t

ech

niq

ues

5

.11

com

fort

able

2:

don

't fe

el h

um

moc

ks,

pot

hol

es a

nd

bu

mp

y ro

ads

at d

rivin

g

6.3

com

fort

able

: sm

ooth

ru

nn

ing

, fe

el c

omfo

rtab

le o

n t

he

pas

sen

ger

sea

t (d

on't

feel

bu

mp

y ro

ads

and

6

.6 c

omfo

rtab

le2

: g

ood

erg

onom

ics

of s

aloo

n6

.11

com

fort

able

3:

feel

com

fort

able

on

th

e p

asse

ng

er s

eat

8.5

com

fort

able

: co

mfo

rt e

lect

ron

ics

and

tec

hn

iqu

es,

larg

e -

feel

my

own

sp

ace

bei

ng

far

from

oth

er

peo

ple

9.7

com

fort

able

: d

on't

feel

hu

mm

ocks

, p

oth

oles

an

d b

um

py

road

s (s

oft

susp

ensi

on)

10

.1 c

omfo

rtab

le:

driv

er's

com

fort

, re

lativ

ely

larg

e1

2.4

com

fort

able

: la

rge

and

hig

h fo

r ta

ll p

eop

le1

2.8

larg

e/co

mfo

rtab

le2

: co

mfo

rtab

le fo

r ta

ll p

eop

le t

o g

et in

13

.1 c

omfo

rtab

le:

driv

er's

com

fort

at

driv

ing

13

.8 s

tylis

h2

/com

fort

able

2:

attr

activ

e, c

omfo

rtab

le a

nd

not

har

sh in

terio

r1

4.8

com

fort

able

: co

mfo

rt e

lect

ron

ics

and

tec

hn

iqu

es1

5.2

com

fort

able

: d

river

's c

omfo

rt in

car

han

dlin

g1

6.3

com

fort

able

--

un

com

fort

able

: n

o b

um

py

ride

at h

igh

sp

eed

17

.2 c

omfo

rtab

le:

com

fort

able

en

joyi

ng

ste

erin

g1

7.1

3 c

omfo

rtab

le2

--

un

com

fort

able

2:

don

't fe

el h

um

moc

ks,

pot

hol

es a

nd

bu

mp

y ro

ads

18

.1 c

omfo

rtab

le:

for

self-

driv

ing

at

hig

h s

pee

d:

stee

ring

, n

ot n

oisy

, g

ood

vie

w1

9.5

com

fort

able

: g

ood

noi

se in

sula

tion

19

.11

com

fort

able

2:

soft

car

susp

ensi

on,

not

sp

orty

car

su

spen

sion

com

fort

able

--

un

com

fort

able

Con

stru

ctC

ateg

ory

Bip

olar

cat

egor

y's

pol

esS

um

,

% in

gen

eral

sa

mp

le

282

Pre

stig

ep

rest

igio

us

-- o

rdin

ary

4.4

pre

stig

iou

s: o

ther

s w

ill n

otic

e m

e 2

54

.5 u

niv

ersa

l exp

loita

tion

/larg

e/p

rest

igio

us

-- n

arro

w e

xplo

itatio

n/c

omp

act/

ord

inar

y: fo

r b

usi

nes

s an

d

12

.75

.1 p

rest

igio

us/

rep

rese

nta

tive:

not

you

th5

.4 p

rest

igio

us2

: b

lack

col

or -

sp

ecta

cula

r, c

onvi

nci

ng

5.8

pre

stig

iou

s3 -

- or

din

ary3

: su

per

imag

e, fo

r m

en,

not

wom

en7

.4 p

rest

igio

us:

ref

lect

s m

y st

atu

s8

.2 p

rest

igio

us:

imag

e of

bra

nd

an

d p

rod

uce

r8

.4 p

rest

igio

us2

: st

ylis

h,

influ

ence

s p

erce

ptio

n o

f my

stat

us

8.1

2 p

rest

igio

us3

: re

spec

t of

oth

er d

river

s on

roa

ds

wh

o m

ake

(giv

e) m

e a

way

1

0.4

pre

stig

iou

s: in

fluen

ces

per

cep

tion

of m

y st

atu

s 1

0.6

pre

stig

iou

s2:

resp

ect

of o

ther

driv

ers

on r

oad

s w

ho

mak

e (g

ive)

me

a w

ay

11

.2 p

rest

igio

us

-- o

rdin

ary:

leg

end

ary

imag

e or

bra

nd

(e.

g.

Por

sch

e)

12

.7 p

rest

igio

us:

ref

lect

s m

y st

atu

s1

3.6

un

rep

rese

nta

tive:

for

you

th w

ho

are

mor

e ris

ky (

not

for

mat

ure

peo

ple

)1

5.1

pre

stig

iou

s: e

xpen

sive

, im

mod

est

imag

e1

5.6

pre

stig

iou

s2:

resp

ect

of o

ther

driv

ers

on r

oad

s w

ho

mak

e (g

ive)

me

a w

ay

15

.11

pre

stig

iou

s3:

for

exp

erie

nce

d u

sers

of p

rem

ium

car

s w

ho

are

goo

d ju

dg

es1

6.8

pre

stig

iou

s: s

up

er im

age,

pro

per

prid

e1

7.5

pre

stig

iou

s: e

xpen

sive

, im

mod

est

imag

e1

8.5

pre

stig

iou

s: e

xpen

sive

, im

mod

est

imag

e1

8.6

com

pac

t/p

rest

igio

us2

--

larg

e/or

din

ary2

: ot

her

s w

ill n

otic

e m

e, a

esth

etic

ally

acc

epta

ble

19

.3 u

niv

ersa

l exp

loita

tion

/ord

inar

y--n

arro

w e

xplo

itatio

n/p

rest

igio

us:

fo

r lif

e -

luxu

ry (

for

leis

ure

fun

)1

9.4

pre

stig

iou

s2/r

epre

sen

tativ

e2:

for

mat

ure

exp

erie

nce

d u

sers

wh

o ar

e g

ood

jud

ges

of a

uto

s, n

ot fo

r th

ose

wh

o sh

ow o

ff (y

outh

an

d g

irls)

20

.1 p

rest

igio

us:

su

per

imag

e2

0.2

of h

igh

tec

hn

ical

qu

ality

/pre

stig

iou

s2:

pro

du

cer's

pro

ved

hig

h q

ual

ity (

pro

du

cer

rep

uta

tion

)

283

Rep

rese

nta

tiven

ess

1.8

rep

rese

nta

tive

-- u

nre

pre

sen

tativ

e: p

rest

igio

us,

wh

ich

mea

ns

refle

cts

my

stat

us

23

2.8

rep

rese

nta

tive:

pre

stig

iou

s, w

hic

h m

ean

s re

flect

s m

y st

atu

s 1

1.7

3.4

rep

rese

nta

tive

-- u

nre

pre

sen

tativ

e: fo

r b

usi

nes

s b

ut

not

for

ente

rtai

nm

ent,

fam

ily o

r va

catio

n3

.6 r

epre

sen

tativ

e2:

not

for

self-

driv

ing

4.1

un

rep

rese

nta

tive

-- r

epre

sen

tativ

e: s

elf-

driv

ing

: g

o w

her

e an

d h

ow I

wan

t5

.1 p

rest

igio

us/

rep

rese

nta

tive:

not

you

th5

.5 r

epre

sen

tativ

e2 -

- u

nre

pre

sen

tativ

e2:

resp

ectfu

l bu

t al

so t

o m

ake

a sp

lash

6.1

rep

rese

nta

tive:

with

driv

er6

.7 r

epre

sen

tativ

e2:

for

bu

sin

ess,

not

for

fam

ily7

.11

rep

rese

nta

tive

-- u

nre

pre

sen

tativ

e: fo

r b

usi

nes

s an

d m

ysel

f 7

.12

un

iver

sal e

xplo

itatio

n2

/un

rep

rese

nta

tive2

: ca

n fi

t an

d s

eat

my

dog

, w

hen

car

is t

oo r

epre

sen

tativ

e, I

ca

n't

seat

in m

y d

og8

.7 r

epre

sen

tativ

e: fo

r st

atu

s b

ut

not

for

calm

life

10

.5 r

epre

sen

tativ

e: c

an b

e u

sed

with

a d

river

for

wor

k1

3.7

rep

rese

nta

tive

-- u

nre

pre

sen

tativ

e: r

efle

cts

my

stat

us

14

.4 r

epre

sen

tativ

e: fo

r b

usi

nes

s, n

ot fo

r en

tert

ain

men

t1

4.7

rep

rese

nta

tive2

: n

ot fo

r se

lf-d

rivin

g1

5.3

rep

rese

nta

tive:

with

driv

er1

5.7

rep

rese

nta

tive2

: re

flect

s h

igh

sta

tus

of it

s ow

ner

17

.1 u

nre

pre

sen

tativ

e --

rep

rese

nta

tive:

sel

f-d

rivin

g1

8.8

rep

rese

nta

tive:

to

show

wh

o's

got

hig

her

cre

dit

19

.1 r

epre

sen

tativ

e: u

pm

arke

t (f

or w

ork)

, n

ot fa

mily

car

19

.4 p

rest

igio

us2

/rep

rese

nta

tive2

: fo

r m

atu

re e

xper

ien

ced

use

rs w

ho

are

goo

d ju

dg

es o

f au

tos,

not

for

thos

e w

ho

show

off

(you

th a

nd

girl

s)2

0.3

un

rep

rese

nta

tive:

sp

eed

y se

lf-d

rivin

g o

n c

ool a

uto

rep

rese

nta

tive

--

un

rep

rese

nta

tive

284

Tec

hn

ical

qu

ality

1.1

rou

gh

-ter

rain

hig

h -

- lo

w -

per

form

ance

/of h

igh

--

low

tec

hn

ical

qu

ality

: sa

fe "

anyw

her

e" r

ide

in t

oug

h

clim

ate

con

diti

ons

(mu

d,

ice)

2

0

10

.22

.4 o

f hig

h t

ech

nic

al q

ual

ity:

time

and

mon

ey s

avin

gs

2.7

of h

igh

tec

hn

ical

qu

ality

2:

pro

du

cer's

pro

ved

hig

h q

ual

ity (

pro

du

cer

rep

uta

tion

)3

.2 o

f hig

h t

ech

nic

al q

ual

ity:

won

't b

reak

dow

n,

time

and

mon

ey s

avin

gs

4.7

of h

igh

tec

hn

ical

qu

ality

: sa

fe in

ou

r cl

imat

e (s

now

drif

t, g

lare

ice)

6.2

of h

igh

tec

hn

ical

qu

ality

: h

igh

est

leve

l of q

ual

ity t

o sa

ve t

ime

and

mon

ey7

.2 o

f hig

h t

ech

nic

al q

ual

ity:

won

't b

reak

dow

n,

time

and

mon

ey s

avin

gs

7.7

rou

gh

-ter

rain

hig

h-p

erfo

rman

ce2

/of h

igh

tec

hn

ical

qu

ality

: rig

id s

usp

ensi

on,

rug

ged

au

to w

ill s

urv

ive

9.1

of h

igh

tec

hn

ical

qu

ality

: to

ug

h b

ody

and

su

spen

sion

(in

cas

e of

ditc

h)

9.6

of h

igh

tec

hn

ical

qu

ality

: tim

e an

d m

oney

sav

ing

s1

1.6

of h

igh

tec

hn

ical

qu

ality

: tim

e an

d m

oney

sav

ing

12

.1 o

f hig

h t

ech

nic

al q

ual

ity:

rigid

fram

e an

d s

usp

ensi

on1

2.6

of h

igh

tec

hn

ical

qu

ality

2/s

afe/

secu

re:

adeq

uac

y of

mai

nte

nan

ce e

xpen

ses

= a

fter

run

nin

g g

ear

is

chan

ged

an

au

to c

an b

e st

ill s

old

at

it's

hig

h p

rice

12

.11

of h

igh

tec

hn

ical

qu

ality

2:

avai

lab

le g

ood

ser

vice

13

.4 o

f hig

h t

ech

nic

al q

ual

ity:

relia

ble

, n

eed

s le

ss s

ervi

cin

g1

3.5

of h

igh

tec

hn

ical

qu

ality

: p

rod

uce

r's p

rove

d q

ual

ity (

e.g

. G

erm

any,

Jap

an)

16

.2 o

f hig

h t

ech

nic

al q

ual

ity:

won

't b

reak

dow

n,

time

and

mon

ey s

avin

gs

17

.12

of h

igh

tec

hn

ical

: rig

id fr

ame

and

su

spen

sion

19

.2 o

f hig

h t

ech

nic

al q

ual

ity:

won

't b

reak

dow

n,

time

and

mon

ey s

avin

gs

20

.2 o

f hig

h t

ech

nic

al q

ual

ity/p

rest

igio

us2

: p

rod

uce

r's p

rove

d h

igh

qu

ality

(p

rod

uce

r re

pu

tatio

n)

of h

igh

tec

hn

ical

qu

ality

--

o

f lo

w t

ech

nic

al q

ual

ity

285

4.3

nar

row

exp

loita

tion

: sp

orty

for

ple

asu

re,

not

city

-un

iver

sal

17

4.5

un

iver

sal e

xplo

itatio

n/la

rge/

pre

stig

iou

s --

nar

row

exp

loita

tion

/com

pac

t/or

din

ary:

for

bu

sin

ess

and

8

.66

.5 u

niv

ersa

l exp

loita

tion

: fo

r ye

ar-r

oun

d

6.8

un

iver

sal e

xplo

itatio

n2

: h

igh

ly fu

nct

ion

al7

.5 u

niv

ersa

l exp

loita

tion

--

nar

row

: fo

r ev

eryd

ay li

fe n

ot o

nly

for

ente

rtai

nm

ent

7.1

2 u

niv

ersa

l exp

loita

tion

2/u

nre

pre

sen

tativ

e2:

can

fit

and

sea

t m

y d

og,

wh

en c

ar is

too

rep

rese

nta

tive,

I

can

't se

at in

my

dog

8.3

un

iver

sal e

xplo

itatio

n:

not

pom

pou

s8

.6 u

niv

ersa

l exp

loita

tion

2 -

- n

arro

w2

: ca

n b

e on

ly o

ne

in g

arag

e1

1.3

un

iver

sal e

xplo

itatio

n -

- n

arro

w e

xplo

itatio

n:

can

/can

't b

e on

ly o

ne

in g

arag

e1

1.4

nar

row

exp

loita

tion

2:

with

str

ong

ly m

arke

d p

ecu

liarit

ies

(e.g

. sp

orty

or

extr

a p

ower

ful)

bu

t n

ot

aver

aged

or

with

ave

rag

ed c

omfo

rt1

2.2

un

iver

sal e

xplo

itatio

n:

for

all-y

ear

rou

nd

, fo

r cl

imat

e co

nd

ition

s (n

o en

gin

e w

eep

ing

)1

3.3

un

iver

sal e

xplo

itatio

n:

not

sp

orty

16

.5 u

niv

ersa

l exp

loita

tion

/rou

gh

-ter

rain

hig

h-p

erfo

rman

ce:

for

ever

ywh

ere

(wor

k an

d le

isu

re)

17

.4 u

niv

ersa

l exp

loita

tion

--

nar

row

exp

loita

tion

: sp

orty

-for

mu

d1

8.7

un

iver

sal e

xplo

itatio

n -

- n

arro

w e

xplo

itatio

n:

doe

sn't

fit a

nyt

hin

g,

bu

mp

y rid

e1

9.3

un

iver

sal e

xplo

itatio

n/o

rdin

ary-

-nar

row

exp

loita

tion

/pre

stig

iou

s:

for

life

- lu

xury

(fo

r le

isu

re fu

n)

19

.6 u

niv

ersa

l exp

loita

tion

2:

all y

ear

rou

nd

, fa

mily

use

Siz

e la

rge

-- c

omp

act

1.6

larg

e: fo

r se

vera

l peo

ple

or

lug

gag

e1

71

.7 la

rge2

: co

mfo

rtab

le lu

gg

age

tran

spor

tatio

n (

don

't n

eed

to

pu

sh in

an

d s

tuff)

8.6

2.6

larg

e: b

ette

r ob

serv

atio

n (

pan

oram

ic v

iew

) an

d fe

el s

afe

4.2

larg

e: s

tead

y, n

ot s

hor

t -

not

to

go

off f

rom

ru

t 4

.5 u

niv

ersa

l exp

loita

tion

/larg

e/p

rest

igio

us

-- n

arro

w e

xplo

itatio

n/c

omp

act/

ord

inar

y: fo

r b

usi

nes

s an

d

4.1

1 la

rge2

: la

rge

and

hea

vy e

nou

gh

to

feel

saf

e b

ut

rath

er c

omp

act

in s

ize

6.4

larg

e: fo

r m

ore

than

2 p

eop

le6

.12

larg

e2:

not

sh

ort

8.8

larg

e --

com

pac

t: c

an g

o fa

r w

ith fr

ien

ds

and

fit

skis

9.4

com

pac

t --

larg

e: b

ette

r to

mov

e on

in c

ase

of n

arro

w r

oad

s or

tra

ffic

jam

10

.8 la

rge

-- c

omp

act:

can

fit

peo

ple

an

d lu

gg

age

11

.1 la

rge:

SU

V (

jeep

) b

ut

not

sed

an

12

.8 la

rge/

com

fort

able

2:

com

fort

able

for

tall

peo

ple

to

get

in1

7.6

larg

e --

com

pac

t: t

o si

t h

igh

er -

low

er

17

.7 c

omp

act2

: n

o n

eed

to

fit p

eop

le a

nd

lug

gag

e1

8.6

com

pac

t/p

rest

igio

us2

--

larg

e/or

din

ary2

: ot

her

s w

ill n

otic

e m

e, a

esth

etic

ally

acc

epta

ble

20

.4 c

omp

act:

bet

ter

to m

ove

on in

cas

e of

nar

row

roa

ds

or t

raffi

c ja

m

Inte

nd

ed a

pp

licat

ion

(U

niv

ersa

lity)

un

iver

sal e

xplo

itatio

n -

- n

arro

w e

xplo

itatio

n

286

Des

ign

styl

ish

--

un

attr

activ

e2

.2 s

tylis

h:

brig

ht

attr

activ

e ap

pea

ran

ce1

73

.3 s

tylis

h -

- u

nat

trac

tive:

sty

lish

ap

pea

ran

ce8

.64

.8 s

tylis

h:

attr

activ

e5

.2 s

tylis

h:

des

ign

7.3

sty

lish

: b

eau

tifu

l7

.6 s

tylis

h2

/new

mod

el:

eleg

ant

bec

ause

of n

ovel

ty,

un

iqu

enes

s1

0.2

sty

lish

: b

eau

tifu

l1

1.5

sty

lish

: b

righ

t at

trac

tive

des

ign

13

.2 s

tylis

h -

- u

nat

trac

tive:

att

ract

ive

des

ign

13

.8 s

tylis

h2

/com

fort

able

2:

attr

activ

e, c

omfo

rtab

le a

nd

not

har

sh in

terio

r1

4.2

sty

lish

: b

eau

tifu

l1

5.4

sty

lish

: d

emon

stra

tive,

brig

ht

des

ign

15

.8 s

tylis

h2

: ca

n b

e ex

pec

ted

un

com

mon

, n

ot b

orin

g c

olor

ing

1

6.7

sty

lish

/new

mod

el:

mod

ern

, n

ot d

ated

17

.11

sty

lish

: sh

arp

, ag

gre

ssiv

e fo

rms

(like

BM

W)

18

.2 s

tylis

h:

not

Am

eric

an2

0.8

sty

lish

: ot

her

s w

ill n

otic

e m

eS

pee

d/P

ower

1.3

hig

h-s

pee

d/p

ower

ful:

adeq

uac

y b

etw

een

pow

er a

nd

wei

gh

t1

34

.12

hig

h-s

pee

d/p

ower

ful -

- lim

ited

: sp

eed

y6

.69

.2 h

igh

-sp

eed

/pow

erfu

l: p

ower

ful

10

.3 h

igh

-sp

eed

/pow

erfu

l: sp

orty

= s

pee

dy

and

pow

erfu

l1

1.7

hig

h-s

pee

d/p

ower

ful:

com

bin

atio

n o

f pow

er a

nd

eco

nom

y (lo

w-c

onsu

mp

tion

en

gin

e)1

2.1

2 h

igh

-sp

eed

/pow

erfu

l: p

ower

ful

15

.5 h

igh

-sp

eed

/pow

erfu

l: sp

eed

y1

6.1

hig

h-s

pee

d/p

ower

ful/r

oug

h-t

erra

in h

igh

-per

form

ance

: co

mb

inat

ion

of a

llow

able

hig

h s

pee

d a

nd

ro

ug

h-t

erra

in h

igh

-per

form

ance

17

.3 h

igh

-sp

eed

/pow

erfu

l: p

ower

ful i

n e

very

thin

g:

spee

d,

pow

er,

des

ign

18

.3 h

igh

-sp

eed

/pow

erfu

l: n

ot g

irly

18

.4 h

igh

-sp

eed

/pow

erfu

l2:

allo

wab

le h

igh

sp

eed

19

.7 li

mite

d:

for

com

fort

able

, ca

lm d

rivin

g (

not

for

thos

e w

ho

driv

e lik

e a

clap

per

s (i.

e. e

xtre

mel

y fa

st)

20

.6 h

igh

-sp

eed

/pow

erfu

l: al

low

able

hig

h s

pee

d

hig

h-s

pee

d/p

ower

ful -

- lim

ited

287

Cro

ss-c

oun

try

abili

ty1

.1 r

oug

h-t

erra

in h

igh

--

low

-p

erfo

rman

ce/o

f hig

h -

- lo

w t

ech

nic

al q

ual

ity:

safe

"an

ywh

ere"

rid

e in

tou

gh

cl

imat

e co

nd

ition

s (m

ud

, ic

e)

12

6

.12

.1 r

oug

h-t

erra

in h

igh

per

form

ance

: ci

ty,

cou

ntr

ysid

e, m

oun

tain

s5

.7 r

oug

h-t

erra

in h

igh

-per

form

ance

: ci

ty,

cou

ntr

ysid

e, m

oun

tain

s7

.1 r

oug

h-t

erra

in h

igh

--

low

-p

erfo

rman

ce:

for

city

/eve

ryw

her

e7

.7 r

oug

h-t

erra

in h

igh

-per

form

ance

2/o

f hig

h t

ech

nic

al q

ual

ity:

rigid

su

spen

sion

, ru

gg

ed a

uto

will

su

rviv

e 9

.3 r

oug

h-t

erra

in h

igh

-per

form

ance

: fo

r "a

nyw

her

e"1

2.5

rou

gh

-ter

rain

hig

h-p

erfo

rman

ce:

for

ever

ywh

ere

= p

rese

nce

of f

ron

t ax

el1

6.1

hig

h-s

pee

d/p

ower

ful/r

oug

h-t

erra

in h

igh

-per

form

ance

: co

mb

inat

ion

of a

llow

able

hig

h s

pee

d a

nd

ro

ug

h-t

erra

in h

igh

-per

form

ance

16

.5 u

niv

ersa

l exp

loita

tion

/rou

gh

-ter

rain

hig

h-p

erfo

rman

ce:

for

ever

ywh

ere

(wor

k an

d le

isu

re)

16

.6 r

oug

h-t

erra

in h

igh

-per

form

ance

3:

no

wor

ry a

bou

t p

oth

oles

18

.11

rou

gh

-ter

rain

hig

h -

- lo

w -

per

form

ance

: ev

eryw

her

e-ci

ty2

0.5

rou

gh

-ter

rain

low

-per

form

ance

: p

refe

r ci

ty s

pee

dy

cars

Saf

ety/

Sec

urit

y1

.4 s

afe/

secu

re:

app

rop

riate

for

secu

rity

mea

sure

s (b

odyg

uar

d,

driv

er,

arm

orin

g)

10

8.1

saf

e/se

cure

--

un

safe

: p

ract

ical

= n

ot n

otab

le o

n t

he

road

s, le

ss r

isk

of c

rimin

al a

ttem

pt

5.1

8.1

1 s

afe/

secu

re:

no

risk

of c

rimin

al a

ttem

pt

bec

ause

of g

ood

car

bra

nd

9

.5 s

afe/

secu

re:

man

euve

rab

ility

9.8

un

safe

2 -

- sa

fe/s

ecu

re2

: ris

k of

crim

inal

att

emp

t b

ecau

se o

f goo

d c

ar b

ran

d (

not

pas

sen

ger

)9

.11

saf

e/se

cure

: ar

mor

eq

uip

pin

g w

ithou

t a

dam

age

of r

ide

per

form

ance

12

.6 o

f hig

h t

ech

nic

al q

ual

ity2

/saf

e/se

cure

: ad

equ

acy

of m

ain

ten

ance

exp

ense

s =

afte

r ru

nn

ing

gea

r is

ch

ang

ed a

n a

uto

can

be

still

sol

d a

t it'

s h

igh

pric

e1

4.1

saf

e/se

cure

: ap

pro

pria

ten

ess

for

arm

orin

g (

Au

di Q

7 is

not

ap

pro

pria

te a

s it

is a

n o

ff-ro

ad v

ehic

le (

too

big

, ea

sier

to

reac

h,

shoo

t d

own

)1

4.5

saf

e/se

cure

2:

initi

ally

bet

ter

tech

nol

ogic

al e

qu

ipm

ent

in s

ense

of s

afet

y1

7.1

4 s

afe/

secu

re:

no

risk

of c

rimin

al a

ttem

pt

bec

ause

of g

ood

car

bra

nd

rou

gh

-ter

rain

hig

h

per

form

ance

--

rou

gh

-te

rrai

n lo

w p

erfo

rman

ce

safe

/sec

ure

--

un

safe

288

Pric

e2

.5 e

xpen

sive

--

obta

inab

le p

rice:

not

ob

tain

able

by

anyo

ne

87

.8 e

xpen

sive

--

obta

inab

le p

rice:

rat

her

exp

ensi

ve b

ut

with

out

extr

a fr

ills

that

mak

e ca

r ov

erp

riced

4.1

10

.7 e

xpen

sive

--

obta

inab

le p

rice

11

.8 o

bta

inab

le p

rice

-- e

xpen

sive

: af

ford

able

for

maj

ority

- e

xpen

sive

16

.4 e

xpen

sive

--

obta

inab

le p

rice:

nee

d t

o w

ork

har

d t

o af

ford

th

is a

uto

1

7.8

exp

ensi

ve1

9.8

exp

ensi

ve -

- ob

tain

able

pric

e: v

alu

e fo

r m

oney

20

.7 e

xpen

sive

: ov

erp

riced

to

mak

e a

spla

shN

ovel

ty3

.1 n

ew m

odel

: n

ew m

ean

s te

chn

ical

ly in

nov

ativ

e, n

ot d

ated

75

.3 n

ew m

odel

--

old

mod

el:

un

iqu

e, u

nco

mm

on3

.67

.6 s

tylis

h2

/new

mod

el:

eleg

ant

bec

ause

of n

ovel

ty,

un

iqu

enes

s1

2.3

new

mod

el:

new

mea

ns

tech

nic

ally

inn

ovat

ive,

bet

ter

stee

ring

, ca

n't

be

bu

rnt

anym

ore

14

.3 n

ew m

odel

: n

ovel

ty1

4.6

new

mod

el2

: n

ew m

ean

s te

chn

ical

ly in

nov

ativ

e1

6.7

sty

lish

/new

mod

el:

mod

ern

, n

ot d

ated

Tot

als

19

71

00

.0

new

mod

el -

-

old

mod

el

exp

ensi

ve -

- ob

tain

able

p

rice

289

Appendix 5: Customers’ values and most preferred car attributes

Novelty

Price

Safety / Security


Speed/Power

Design

Size


Technical Quality

Representativeness

Prestige

Comfort

Self-actualization, achievement

Pleasure, enjoyment

Family happiness

Security

Freedom, Independence

Power / Social Recognition

Affiliation / Recognition

xx

xx

x2

12

xx

xx

31

xx

xx

61

2

xx

10

12

xx

14

21

xx

x1

91

2

xx

xx

xx

x1

22

31

xx

xx

x1

52

31

xx

xx

x1

1

xx

xx

81

2

xx

xx

x9

12

x1

11

xx

xx

xx

13

21

xx

xx

x1

62

31

xx

xx

x5

21

xx

xx

x7

31

2

xx

xx

xx

x1

72

13

xx

xx

xx

41

23

xx

xx

x1

81

2

xx

xx

20

12

Su

m in

g

rou

p1

12

55

66

11

12

11

11

21

21

34

33

25

56

21

11

13

11

32

31

33

11

11

31

3 20

Car

eeris

t-ex

trov

ert

Fre

qu

ency

of a

ttrib

ute

pre

sen

ce

Pre

senc

e of

att

ribute

in m

ost

impor

tant

dim

ensi

on

Respondent

Car

eeris

t-in

trov

ert

Prior

itize

d a

ssoc

iate

d p

erso

nal

val

ues

Hed

onis

t-ex

trov

ert:

"O

ther

s n

otic

e m

e"

Seg

men

t

Tot

als

Car

eeris

t-in

trov

ert:

"I

know

how

su

cces

sfu

l I a

m"

Car

eeris

t-ex

trov

ert:

"O

ther

s kn

ow

how

su

cces

sfu

l I a

m"

Hed

onis

t-in

trov

ert :

"I

enjo

y m

y lif

e"

Hed

onis

tic c

aree

rist-

extr

over

t:

"Oth

ers

shou

ld k

now

how

su

cces

sfu

l I a

m"

Hed

onis

t-ex

trov

ert

Hed

onis

tic c

aree

rist-

extr

over

tH

edon

ist-

intr

over

t

Am

oun

t of

res

pon

den

ts

290

Appendix 6: Brands of cars named for element categories

Brands mentioned for "Work" (1)

Lexus; 6

BMW; 2

Toyota; 2

Range Rover ; 1

Maserati ; 2

Mercedes ; 7Mercedes

Lexus

BMW

Toyota

Range Rover

Maserati

Brands mentioned for "Vacation" (2)

Mercedes ; 3

Lexus; 7

BMW; 3

Toyota; 1

Audi; 1

Porsche; 3

Chevrolet; 1

VW ; 1 Mercedes

Lexus

BMW

Toyota

Audi

Porsche

Chevrolet

VW

291

Brands mentioned for "Evening leisure time" (3)

Mercedes ; 3

BMW; 3

Toyota; 1

Maserati ; 1Porsche; 8

Jaguar; 1

Bentley ; 1

Cadillac ; 1

Infinity ; 1Mercedes

BMW

Toyota

Maserati

Porsche

Jaguar

Bentley

Cadillac

Infinity

Brands mentioned for "In no way" (4)

Range Rover; 1

Mitsubishi; 1

Ssangyong ; 1

Chrysler; 2

KIA; 1

Opel ; 1

Volga GAZ; 1

Skoda; 1

Volvo ; 1

Ford ; 1

Mercedes ; 1BMW; 2

Audi; 2

VW ; 3

Jaguar; 1

Mercedes

BMW

Range Rover

Audi

VW

Jaguar

Mitsubishi

Ssangyong

Chrysler

KIA

Opel

Volga GAZ

Skoda

Volvo

292

Brands of "Previously owned" (5) cars

Mercedes ; 4

Lexus; 3

BMW; 1Toyota; 8

Audi; 1

Porsche; 1

Mitsubishi; 1

Saab 93; 1

Mercedes

Lexus

BMW

Toyota

Audi

Porsche

Mitsubishi

Saab 93

Brands mentioned for

"Car that I like but it doesn't fit" (6)

Lexus; 1

BMW; 2

Toyota; 1

Maserati ; 1

Audi; 1

Skoda; 1

Hummer; 2

Mazda ; 1

Ferrari; 3

Lincoln Limo ; 1

Aston Martin ; 1

Porsche; 5

Lexus

BMW

Toyota

Maserati

Audi

Porsche

Skoda

Hummer

Mazda

Ferrari

Lincoln Limo

Aston Martin

293

Brands mentioned for

"Alternative choice during last purchase" (7)

Mercedes ; 4

Lexus; 4

BMW; 2

Toyota; 2

Range Rover; 1

Audi; 3

Porsche; 1

Infinity; 1

Honda ; 1

Land Rover; 1 Mercedes

Lexus

BMW

Toyota

Range Rover

Audi

Porsche

Infinity

Honda

Land Rover

Brands of "current" (8) cars

Lexus; 6

BMW; 4

Mercedes; 3

Audi; 1

Mitsubishi; 1

Bentley; 1

Toyota; 1

Range Rover; 1

Jaguar ; 1 Infinity ; 1Lexus

BMW

Mercedes

Audi

Mitsubishi

Bentley

Toyota

Range Rover

Jaguar

Infinity

an integrated method to assess consumer motivation in ... · measurement of consumer motivation....

Documents