SNAKES VERSUS LADDERS: A VALIDATION OF LADDERING TECHNIQUE AS A MEASURE OF HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE

Abstract

Laddering technique has become a widely applied method for accessing superordinate or core constructs in personal meaning systems since its introduction by Hinkle in 1965. In spite of this popularity, however, few efforts have been made to validate the technique, and some critics have begun to question whether it actually converges on more abstract core features of a respondent's construct system. To address these concerns, we conducted laddering interviews with a diverse group of 103 university students, analyzing the structure, process, and content of the ladders they produced. Evidence generally supported the method's validity. More concrete prompts required more hierarchical levels to converge on core themes, and theoretically more tacit or preverbal superordinate constructs were rated as more difficult to put into words, required longer latency to do so, and were considered more important to respondents than subordinate constructs from the same ladders. Furthermore, a content analysis of the ladders indicated that superordinate constructs more frequently reflected central existential themes of purpose and meaning, whereas subordinate constructs more commonly reflected more superficial attitudes and interests. We concluded by providing descriptive data on various patterns of laddering structure (e.g., self/preferred-self discrepancy, crossover conflict) in this large sample of nonclinical ladders, and offered 10 practical recommendations to assist future users of the method to do so more artfully.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 61 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.