Survey Research Center
U n i v e r s i t y of Hichigan
F e b r u a r y , I9h9
THE
ART
OF ASKING
WHY
Three P r i n c i p l e s Underlying The Formulation 6f Questionnaires
By Paul F..Lazarsfeld
Reprinted From
National Marketing rteview
Summer 193$ - V o l , I - He. 1.
I.
A s c e r t a i n i n g What A Q u e s t i o n Means; The P r i n c i p l e o f S p e c i f i c a t i o n , .
A s k i n g f o r reasons and g i v i n g answers are commonplace h a b i t s o f
everyday l i f e . V-'e have a l l had t h e e x p e r i e n c e o f a c t i n g under c e r t a i n
impulses and c e r t a i n i n f l u e n c e s so many t i m e s t h a t we are sure t h a t our
f e l l o w men have had t h e same e x p e r i e n c e s and reasons f o r t h e i r own
a c t i o n s . And we are seldom d i s a p p o i n t e d i f we i n q u i r e . Our respondent
n o t o n l y has had reasons f o r h i s a c t i o n s ; he u s u a l l y knows, a l s o , i n
w h i c h reason we might be e s p e c i a l l y i n t e r e s t e d , and i t i s upon t h i s
assumption t h a t he bases h i s answer. I f a f r i e n d e x p l a i n s why he had
come t o see me, he does n o t s t a r t t o t e l l ne t h a t he was once b o r n ,
and t h a t he moved t o t h i s c i t y two y e a r s ago, a l t h o u g h t h e s e , t o o , a r e
reasons f o r h i s b e i n g here t o d a y . He i s aware t h a t most of these r e a sons are known as w e l l t o me as t o him, and he p i c k s o u t t h e reason
which he hopes w i l l c o n t r i b u t e e s p e c i a l l y t o a mutual u n d e r s t a n d i n g
of t h e p r e s e n t s i t u a t i o n .
I n market r e s e a r c h , t h e question-and-answer business i s n o t so
s i m p l e , and t h e ease o f f u r n i s h i n g answers i n everyday l i f e may i n v o l v e dangerous p i t f a l l s . I n s o c i a l i n t e r c o u r s e , i t i s most l i k e l y
t h a t what i s i m p o r t a n t 'for our respondent i s i m p o r t a n t a l s o f o r us who
have made t h e i n q u i r y . I n market r e s e a r c h i n t e r v i e w s , ve cannot r e l y
upon t h i s good f o r t u n e . The purpose o f our why q u e s t i o n s i s t o d i s cover a l l o f t h o s e f a c t o r s w h i c h determine t h e purchases o f a c e r t a i n
group o f p e o p l e ; o r , t o put i t more e x a c t l y i n a n t i c i p a t i o n o f a l a t e r
p a r t o f t h i s paper, we want t o know a l l t h e d e t e r m i n a n t s o f a c e r t a i n
s o r t . Such knowledge s h o u l d p e r m i t us t o i n c r e a s e our f u t u r e e f f i c i e n c y i n t h i s f i e l d by p r o v i d i n g a more complete and a c c u r a t e b a s i s
f o r a n t i c i p a t i n g demand f a c t o r s o f t h e market. We cannot l e a v e i t u p
t o t h e respondents t o t e l l us whatever t h e y are i n c l i n e d . The average
consumer i s n o t t r a i n e d t o s u r v e y o f f h a n d a l l t h e f a c t o r s w h i c h det e r m i n e h i s purchases and he u s u a l l y has a g e r y hazy u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f
t h e y why q u e s t i o n . On t h e o t h e r hand, t h e i n f o r m a t i o n we want s h o u l d
be e x a c t and p r e c i s e . T h i s c r e a t e s t h e i n i t i a l problem i n t h e a r t o f
a s k i n g why i n market r e s e a r c h : how can t h e gap between these two
a t t i t u d e s be b r i d g e d ?
We have, in_.general, t h r e e p o s s i b l e purposes i n market r e s e a r c h
i n a s k i n g people q u e s t i o n s :
a. I n f l u e n c e s t o w a r d a c t i o n .
Y/e may want t o know b y w h i c h media people have been i n f l u e n c e d
t o a c t t h e way t h e y d i d , w h i c h i s t h e case when we want t o
evaluate t h e r o l e o f c e r t a i n advertisements, o f advice o f
friends,, e t c . ; or
b. A t t r i b u t e s o f t h e p r o d u c t .
We may want t o know i f i t were t h e a t t r i b u t e s o f t h e p r o d u c t
i t s e l f , and w h i c h o f t h e m — i t s t a s t e , i t s c o l o r , o r i t s u s e —
l e d t h e customer t o buy; or
c. Impulses o f t h e purchaser.
We may want t o know c e r t a i n t e n d e n c i e s by w h i c h t h e consumer
was c o n t r o l l e d : Whether he bought f o r h i m s e l f , o r as a g i f t ;
whether he bought under sudden i m p u l s e , o r a f t e r l o n g d e l i b e r a t i o n ; whether i t was an h a b i t u a l o r a unique proceeding^ e t c .
1
The consumer, however, i s seldom aware o f t h e s e v a r y i n g i n t e r - •
p r e t a t i o n s . For example, t a k e a s i m p l e q u e s t i o n such as why some one .
bought a c e r t a i n b r a n d o f ' c o f f e e . One respondent m i g h t answer t h a t
he l i k e d t h e t a s t e , and a n o t h e r t h a t a n e i g h b o r had t o l d h i m about
the brand. These two respondents i n t e r p r e t e d our q u e s t i o n why i n two
d i f f e r e n t ways. The one t h o u g h t t h a t we were i n t e r e s t e d m a i n l y i n
the a t t r i b u t e s o f t h e c o f f e e ; t h e o t h e r , t h a t we had i n mind t h e o u t s i d e i n f l u e n c e s w h i c h a f f e c t e d h i s c h o i c e . The answers, t h e r e f o r e ,
are n o t comparable. The n e i g h b o r who spoke t o t h e one respondent may
v e r y w e l l have mentioned t h e good t a s t e o f t h e c o f f e e ; and t h e man
who t o l d about t h e good t a s t e may have h e a r d about i t from a n e i g h b o r
i n t h e f i r s t p l a c e . So t h e two cases may have had t h e same sequence
of d e t e r m i n a n t s a f f e c t i n g t h e two r e s p o n d e n t s , o n l y t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n
of o u r q u e s t i o n why i n d i f f e r e n t ways l e d t o s e e m i n g l y q u i t e d i f f e r e n t
answers.
But i t i s p o s s i b l e , as we s h a l l see, t o ask our q u e s t i o n i n
such a s p e c i f i c way t h a t b o t h o f o u r respondents w i l l t e l l t h e w h o l e
story.
The ^importance o f t h e problem i n v o l v e d here becomes s t i l l more
e v i d e n t when we t u r n t o t h e s t a t i s t i c a l t r e a t m e n t o f answers g i v e n
t o a why q u e s t i o n . The u s u a l t a b l e o f reasons as we f i n d I t i n c u r r e n t
market r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s w o u l d r e c o r d t h e r e s u l t o f our c o f f e e q u e s t i o n
by s t a t i n g : X respondents bought t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r b r a n d o f c o f f e e
because o f i t s t a s t e ; Y people bought i t because o f some a d v i c e t h e y
had r e c e i v e d . But these f i g u r e s a r e a p t t o be c o m p l e t e l y e r r o n e o u s .
What t h e r e s e a r c h man may r e a l l y d i s c o v e r i s : X people u n d e r s t o o d h i s
q u e s t i o n as p e r t a i n i n g t o i n f l u e n c e , and t h e i n f l u e n c e t h e y had exp e r i e n c e d was a d v i c e ; Y people u n d e r s t o o d t h e q u e s t i o n as p e r t a i n i n g
t o a t t r i b u t e s , and t h e d e c i s i v e a t t r i b u t e f o r them was t a s t e ,
^his
danger i s i l l u s t r a t e d by t h e f o l l o w i n g diagram:
- 3 Respondent understands
the q u e s t i o n t o mean
Pertaining t o :
Respondent has
been a c t u a l l y
determined by
Influences
X
Advice
Taste
j
M
Attributes
Y
Advice was t h e r e a l d e t e r m i n i n g f a c t o r f o r X f N p e o p l e , and t a s t e
f o r IJ + Y people. But t h e q u e s t i o n , i m p r o p e r l y p u t , made t h e s t u d e n t
l o s e t h e t r u e reason o f H and N people and h i s r e s u l t s were, t h e r e fore, unsatisfactory'
( I n p r a c t i c e , t h e m a t t e r would be s t i l l more
c o m p l i c a t e d by two-way i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f t h e q u e s t i o n ; b u t we need
n o t go i n t o t h a t much d e t a i l , )
From these i l l u s t r a t i o n s , we can make t h e g e n e r a l i z a t i o n t h a t
the i n n o c e n t q u e s t i o n .why may c o n t a i n many p i t f a l l s and i s a c t u a l l y
o n l y t h e b e g i n n i n g o f a r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n n a i r e . I f we want t o c a r r y
out our program s k i l l f u l l y , we must s t a t e p r e c i s e l y i n which o f t h e
i n f i n i t e number o f d e t e r m i n a n t s o f an a c t i o n we are i n t e r e s t e d . Only
when we make i t c l e a r t o o u r s e l v e s and t o our respondents which groups
of d e t e r m i n a n t s are a t stake w i l l we get r e s u l t s w h i c h p e r m i t a sens i b l e s t a t i s t i c a l t r e a t m e n t , which i s , o f course, t h e aim o f e v e r y
f i e l d study.
The r e a l t a s k , t h e r e f o r e , w h i c h c o n f r o n t s t h e market s t u d e n t every
t i m e he s t a r t s out w i t h a why program i s t o be c o n s t a n t l y aware o f what
he r e a l l y means o r seeks t o d i s c o v e r by h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Yfhat
s p e c i a l q u e s t i o n he w i l l ask depends upon h i s d e c i s i o n . I n t h e example
j u s t d i s c u s s e d , he w i l l be constiajned t o s t a r t w i t h two q u e s t i o n s :
"What made you buy t h i s brand o f c o f f e e ? " and "Why do you l i k e i t ? "
There i s a p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t t h e w o r d i n g o f t h e f i r s t q u e s t i o n w i l l
f u r n i s h , c h i e f l y , r e p o r t s o f i n f l u e n c e s , as answers, such as r a d i o adv e r t i s i n g , magazine a d v e r t i s i n g , g r o c e r s ' d i s p l a y s . However, many
respondents w i l l answer t h e q u e s t i o n , "What made you s t a r t t o use i t ? "
w i t h such an answer as, "because i t i s a s t r o n g e r brand."
Then we,
as i n t e r v i e w e r s , w i l l r e c o g n i s e t h a t t h i s answer i s based on a t t r i b u t e s , and must proceed t o l o o k f o r i n f l u e n c e s by a s k i n g , "How d i d
you know t h a t t h i s c o f f e e i s a s t r o n g brand?"
The respondent w i l l
t h e n have t o r e p o r t t h e media, o r say, " I don't know,"
I n o r d e r t o make t h e b a s i c p r i n c i p l e o f these c o n s i d e r a t i o n s
q u i t e c l e a r , l e t us t a k e a somewhat d i f f e r e n t example. We s h a l l
assume t h a t our program i s t o ask a group o f i n d i v i d u a l s , "i«hy d i d you
change f r o m one brand o f c i g a r e t t e s t o another?" Here a g a i n , i f we
p u t t h e q u e s t i o n t h i s way, t h e respondent must decide f o r h i m s e l f what
we mean, and he may e i t h e r t e l l why he stopped u s i n g h i s o l d brand, or
r e p o r t why he chose t h e new one.
I f we t h e n t r y t o t r e a t t h e answer
s t a t i s t i c a l l y , we lump t o g e t h e r t h e responses t o two d i f f e r e n t quest i o n s . T h e r e f o r e , we s h o u l d ask t h e two q u e s t i o n s r e a l l y i n v o l v e d :
- U "Why d i d you s t o p u s i n g t h e o t h e r brand?" and "why d i d you choose
t h i s new one?" T h i s l a s t q u e s t i o n , as we a l r e a d y know, i s t o be
s p l i t a g a i n i n t o two q u e s t i o n s , one p e r t a i n i n g t o i n f l u e n c e s and one
to a t t r i b u t e s .
The reader may be t r o u b l e d by t h e f a c t t h a t , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e
t e c h n i c developed, t h e answers t o t h e q u e s t i o n why w i l l not n o r m a l l y
be r e c o r d e d by one t a b l e b u t by s e v e r a l t a b l e s . There i s r e a l l y
n o t h i n g a s t o n i s h i n g i n t h i s ; v e r y o f t e n one word o f our everyday
speech becomes a group o f f i g u r e s i n exact r e s e a r c h . For i n s t a n c e ,
vie speak about t h e p o s i t i o n o f a p o i n t i n space and understand v e r y
w e l l what we mean. But when i t comes t o n u m e r i c a l t r e a t m e n t , t h i s
p o s i t i o n i s r e p r e s e n t e d by t h r e e f i g u r e s , t h e t h r e e c o - o r d i n a t e s . I n
the same way, t h e reason f o r an a c t i o n might w e l l be r e p r e s e n t e d by
s e v e r a l i n d i c e s , The number o f i n d i c e s necessary depends t o a g r e a t
e x t e n t upon t h e complete purpose o f t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n , as we s h a l l
soon see.
Before p r o c e e d i n g , l e t us b r i e f l y c o n s i d e r what ought t o happen
when we are f o r c e d f o r one reason o r another t o use t h e g e n e r a l why
q u e s t i o n . V.'e have a l r e a d y e x c l u d e d one u n j u s t i f i a b l e procedure,
namely, t o c o n s t r u c t one t a b l e and t o r e c o r d s i m p l y e v e r y t y p e o f
answer as o f t e n as i t has been g i v e n . The diagram used above r e v e a l s
t h a t t h e f i g u r e s so o b t a i n e d w i l l be m i s l e a d i n g . L e t us t a k e t h e
example r e g a r d i n g t h e change o f c i g a r e t t e brands. Since by h y p o t h e s i s ,
the respondent has been asked o n l y one g e n e r a l q u e s t i o n , whereas
he s h o u l d have been asked t h r e e , he w i l l answer t h i s q u e s t i o n a c c o r d i n g t o h i s own i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . He w i l l r e p o r t e i t h e r a d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n
w i t h h i s -former brand, an i n f l u e n c e l e a d i n g him t o t h e new b r a n d , o r
a t t r i b u t e o f t h e new brand i n d u c i n g him t o make t h e change.
We
s h o u l d , t h e r e f o r e , segregate these answers and p r e s e n t them i n t h r e e
separate t a b l e s . L e t us suppose f o r t h e sake o f s i m p l i c i t y t h a t
e v e r y respondent r e p o r t s o n l y one element.
A c c o r d i n g t o h i s own i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , t h e answer o f one respondent w i l l be i n s e r t e d d e f i n i t e l y
i n one o f t h e t h r e e t a b l e s ; i f he answered, f o r i n s t a n c e , t h a t a c e r t a i n a d v e r t i s e m e n t made him change, h i s answer w i l l be r e c o r d e d under
" a d v e r t i s e m e n t " i n t h e t a b l e o f i n f l u e n c e s . I n t h e two o t h e r t a b l e s —
p e r t a i n i n g t o d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e previous brand and a t t r i b u t e s
of t h e new b r a n d — h e v a i l c o n t r i b u t e an e n t r y t o t h e columns d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n unknown-and . a t t r i b u t e unknown. The r e s u l t w i l l - be =-three t a b l e s ,
each w i t h t h e column "unknown" h e a v i l y l o a d e d . But a t l e a s t t h e r e s t
of t h e e n t r i e s w i l l y i e l d s e n s i b l e and comparable r e s u l t s . We would,f o r i n s t a n c e , be able t o say w i t h some t r u t h t h a t , among t h e i n f l u e n c e s
r e c o r d e d , a d v e r t i s e m e n t was more i m p o r t a n t t h a n p e r s o n a l a d v i c e , whereas
i f o n l y one t a b u l a t i o n were made, our c o n c l u s i o n s would be unsound.
s
o
m
e
We m i g h t c a l l t h e h a n d l i n g o f t h e whole s e t o f problems i n v o l v e d
h e r e i n t h e p r i n c i p l e o f s p e c i f i c a t i o n . We have e l a b o r a t e d on i t because much o f t h e d i s r e p u t e i n w h i c h t h e s t a t i s t i c a l t r e a t m e n t o f r e a sons g a t h e r e d i n f i e l d s t u d i e s has f a l l e n , i s due t o e r r o r s connected
w i t h t h i s p r i n c i p l e . T h i s , however, p r e s e n t s o n l y t h e n e g a t i v e s i d e
of t h e q u e s t i o n , I h e c o n s t r u c t i v e t a s k i s t o f i n d t h e concrete quest i o n s which should be s u b s t i t u t e d f o r t h e g e n e r a l why program.
-
$
-
We have a l r e a d y mentioned t h a t t h a t depends v e r y much upon t h e purpose
of t h e s t u d y , '..hat we want t o do i s t o p i c k o u t f r o m t h e i n d e f i n i t e
number o f f a c t o r s w h i c h determine a c o n c r e t e a c t i o n t h e ones w h i c h a r e
of i n t e r e s t t o us. To f u r t h e r i l l u s t r a t e t h i s p o i n t , l e t us t a k e t h e
reasons f o r book b u y i n g . Our program- i s t o f i n d o u t : "Why d i d you
buy t h i s book?" A respondent w i l l g i v e , o u t o f t h e same c o n c r e t e exp e r i e n c e , q u i t e d i f f e r e n t answers, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e p a r t i c u l a r word
s t r e s s e d : BUY, T-IS, and BOOK. I f he u n d e r s t o o d : ""hy d i d you BUY
t h i s book?", he might answer, "Because t h e w a i t i n g l i s t i n t h e l i b r a r y
was so l o n g t h a t I s h o u l d n ' t have g o t i t f o r two months." I f he unders t o o d : "Why d i d you buy THIS book?" he might t e l l what i n t e r e s t e d him
e s p e c i a l l y i n t h e a u t h o r . And i f he u n d e r s t o o d : T.hy d i d you buy t h i s
BOOK?" he might r e p o r t t h a t he a t f i r s t t h o u g h t o f b u y i n g a c o n c e r t
t i c k e t w i t h t h e money b u t l a t e r r e a l i z e d t h a t a book i s a much more
d u r a b l e possession t h a n a c o n c e r t , and such r e a s o n i n g caused him t o dec i d e upon t h e book, I f our s t u d y i s u n d e r t a k e n as a s e r v i c e t o t h e publ i s h i n g company which wants t o be i n a b e t t e r p o s i t i o n t o compete w i t h
l i b r a r i e s , we t . - i l l have t o s p e c i f y i n our q u e s t i o n s t h e b u y i n g aspect
v e r s u s a l l o t h e r methods by which a book may be a c q u i r e d . I f a l i b r a r y
wants us t o f i n d out i n "v.hat books people are most i n t e r e s t e d , i t i s
the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e book w h i c h need more s p e c i f i c a t i o n i n our
q u e s t i o n s . I f t h e s u r v e y i n which we are engaged i s a l e i s u r e - t i m e
s t u d y , we w i l l have t o s t r e s s a l l q u e s t i o n s which p e r t a i n t o bookr e a d i n g i n comparison w i t h o t h e r means of e n t e r t a i n m e n t . There i s
a c t u a l l y no element o f a c o n c r e t e purchase experience which cannot be •
made t h e o b j e c t o f a s p e c i f i e d why q u e s t i o n f o r a g e n e r a l why program,
We have seen t h e l i m i t a t i o n s and p i t f a l l s i n t h e use o f one
q u e s t i o n . Follow-up q u e s t i o n s w h i c h s p e c i f y d e f i n i t e motives are one
means t o c o r r e c t t h i s d i f f i c u l t y w h i l e more c a r e f u l t a b u l a t i o n o f
answers t o a s i n g l e q u e s t i o n are a p t t o b r i n g more t r u t h f u l c o n c l u s i o n s .
One f i n a l p o i n t on t h e w e i g h t o f reasons has been made* Even a f t e r
we have a s c e r t a i n e d a t t r i b u t e s and i n f l u e n c e s t h e q u e s t i o n remains:
Was t h e n e i g h b o r ' s a u t h o r i t y o r t h e v i s i o n o f t h e c o f f e e ' s t a s t e more
i m p o r t a n t ? W i t h o u t e n t e r i n g ; i n t o d e t a i l s we mention t h r e e p o s s i b i l i t i e s
i n g e t t i n g t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n . We m i g h t use t h e way our respondent
r e p o r t s i m m e d i a t e l y as our source o f i n f o r m a t i o n . He may mention
f i r s t t h e n e i g h b o r and t h e t a s t e o n l y upon our second q u e s t i o n : What .
d i d t h e n e i g h b o r say? Then we might decide t h a t t h e n e i g h b o r had
more w e i g h t as a f a c t o r . Or we might use a s p e c i a l q u e s t i o n ; i n t e r v i e w i n g about t h e movie attendance we might ask: Was t h e t h e a t e r o r
the show more i m p o r t a n t ? We s h a l l f i n d an example i n our n e x t p a r a graph.
The t h i r d way, t o l e a v e t h e d e c i s i o n t o t h e i n t e r v i e w e r , i s
i l l u s t r a t e d as f o l l o w s . I n i n t e r v i e w i n g about t h e i n f l u e n c e o f adv e r t i s i n g , f o r i n s t a n c e , i t i s sometimes a d v i s a b l e t o ask a respondent
t o r e p o r t any example i n w h i c h he bought a c e r t a i n commodity under t h e
i n f l u e n c e o f an a d v e r t i s e m e n t . We w i l l g e t w i d e l y v a r y i n g r e p l i e s ,
and t h e problem i s t h e n how t o make them s t a t i s t i c a l l y comparable.
To accomplish t h i s , t h e i n t e r v i e w e r must keep i n mind what we want t o
know. We are i n t e r e s t e d i n where t h e a d v e r t i s e m e n t was seen, i n o r d e r
t o know something about t h e s u c c e s s f u l medium; what t h e a d v e r t i s e m e n t
- 6 s a i d , i n o r d e r t o check up on t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n ;
what p o i n t i n t h e a d v e r t i s e m e n t s l e d t o t h e purchase, i n o r d e r t o
know what were t h e s u c c e s s f u l a p p e a l s , W h i l e t h e a c t u a l q u e s t i o n i n
w h i c h we a r e i n t e r e s t e d i s n o t answered d i r e c t l y by t h i s method, t h e
i n t e r v i e w e r has an e l a b o r a t e s u p p l y o f f a c t s upon w h i c h t o make a
d e c i s i o n . So we l e a v e i t t o h i m t o decide i n w h i c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g
t h r e e main c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s t h e respondent's answer s h o u l d be p l a c e d .
Has t h e a d v e r t i s e m e n t a c t u a l l y aroused a new wish? For i n s t a n c e ,
on a h o t day, a p i c t u r e o f an i c e d d r i n k makes us e n t e r a d r u g s t o r e
and ask f o r i t .
Or has i t been used as a source o f i n f o r m a t i o n
about a need o f which he was a l r e a d y aware? For i n s t a n c e , d i d he
l o o k i n the"newspaper t o d a y t o see where a s t o c k i n g s a l e i s t o be
found? Or d i d t h e respondent see t h e a d v e r t i s e m e n t b e f o r e and
d i d i t become e f f e c t i v e o n l y when t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g need was aroused
by some o t h e r circumstances?
I t i s s u r p r i s i n g t o what e x t e n t these
t h r e e p o s s i b i l i t i e s cover, f o r p r a c t i c a l purposes, t h e dynamic a s pect o f a l l r e p o r t s r e g a r d i n g purchases executed under t h e i n f l u e n c e
o f a d v e r t i s i n g . However, t h e problem o f t h e w e i g h t o f d i f f e r e n t det e r m i n a n t f a c t o r s i n v o l v e s q u i t e a f e w c o m p l i c a t e d a s p e c t s , which
we cannot e l a b o r a t e h e r e . I n s t e a d , t h e examples c i t e d are o f f e r e d
as a c o n t r i b u t i o n t o t h e p r i n c i p l e o f s p e c i f i c a t i o n .
- 7 -
II.
E n a b l i n g t h e I n t e r v i e w e e t o Answer:
The P r i n c i p l e o f D i v i s i o n
We have n o t y e t a p p l i e d our p r i n c i p l e t o t h e d i s c u s s i o n o f a c o n c r e t e
q u e s t i o n n a i r e and f o r a v e r y good r e a s o n . What we have s t a t e d so f a r i s
not s u f f i c i e n t t o l e a d t o p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n s . . Imagine, f o r i n s t a n c e ,
t h a t we want t o know t h e i n f l u e n c e s and t h e a t t r i b u t e s which d e t e r m i n e
a c e r t a i n purchase, and we s t r a i g h t w a y ask t h e housewife f o r them. We
c e r t a i n l y should not get v e r y s a t i s f a c t o r y r e s u l t s . A f t e r a s c e r t a i n i n g
what we want t o know, we must enable our respondent t o g i v e us t h e r i g h t
answers. Here we t o u c h -upon t h e f i e l d o f t h e p s y c h o l o g y o f i n t e r v i e w i n g ,
w h i c h has r e c e i v e d much a t t e n t i o n i n t h i s c o u n t r y . Bingham and Moore ( 1 )
have g a t h e r e d much v a l u a b l e m a t e r i a l about t h e r i g h t way o f k e e p i n g t h e •
respondent's a t t e n t i o n , o f a v o i d i n g l e a d i n g q u e s t i o n s , o f c r e a t i n g an
a t t i t u d e o f t r u s t w o r t h i n e s s , and so f o r t h . We do n o t i n t e n d t o r e p e a t here
m a t e r i a l which has been s u c c e s s f u l l y d e a l t w i t h elsewhere. But t h e r e i s
one p o i n t , r e l a t e d t o what we have s a i d above, w h i c h needs our s p e c i a l
a t t e n t i o n - the technic of f i t t i n g our questions t o t h e experience o f the
r e s p o n d e n t . I n s p e c i f y i n g our g e n e r a l why program, we m i g h t be f o r c e d t o
s p e c i f y i t i n a d i f f e r e n t way f o r d i f f e r e n t t y p e s of purchase experiences
undergone by d i f f e r e n t i n d i v i d u a l s . Suppose, f o r i n s t a n c e , t h a t we want t o
know why c e r t a i n people p r e f e r s i l k t o r a y o n . There may be respondents
who have, g i v e n much t h o u g h t t o t h i s t o p i c ; t h i s one w i l l be w e l l a b l e t o
g i v e us h e r reasons d i r e c t l y , w h i l e a n o t h e r one may never have e a r n e s t l y
t h o u g h t about t h e s u b j e c t , and, t h e r e f o r e , w i l l be unable t o g i v e i m m e d i a t e l y
the reasons f o r her p r e f e r e n c e . A f t e r h a v i n g s e l e c t e d t h e people who
p r e f e r s i l k t o r a y o n , we must ask them f i r s t : "Have you any s p e c i a l reasons
f o r y o u r p r e f e r e n c e ? " The one who has some may be asked d i r e c t l y what t h e y
are; t h e one who has none w i l l have t o be q u e s t i o n e d d i f f e r e n t l y . We w i l l
p r o b a b l y have t o ask h e r about her g e n e r a l e x p e r i e n c e s w i t h f a b r i c s and
w i l l have t o i n f e r from' h e r r e p o r t t h e reason f o r her p a r t i a l i t y .
Such a procedure was f o l l o w e d by a company which manufactured e l e c t r i c
m o t o r s . I t wanted t o a s c e r t a i n f r o m i n d i v i d u a l s by means o f .a q u e s t i o n n a i r e
the reasons why t h e y bought o n l y o f t h a t company. I n t h e f i r s t t r i a l
q u e s t i o n n a i r e , i t appeared t h a t some respondents were a b l e t o g i v e v e r y
d e f i n i t e r e a s o n s , whereas o t h e r answers were c o m p l e t e l y e v a s i v e , o r s t e r e o t y p e d , o r o t h e r w i s e o f no v a l u e . T h e r e f o r e , t h e subsequent q u e s t i o n n a i r e
e l a b o r a t e d upon t h e i n q u i r y . The f i r s t q u e s t i o n was:
"Had you any s p e c i a l
reason i n t h i s i n s t a n c e t o buy f r o m o u r company?" I f t h e answer was "yesjf
the respondent was asked about t h e p r o c e s s o f h i s d e l i b e r a t i o n s and e f f o r t s
w h i c h l e d t o t h e purchase; and, as he was s e l e c t e d i n t h i s way, he was a b l e
t o g i v e s a t i s f a c t o r y answers.
The o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s , m a i n l y c l i e n t s who
h a b i t u a l l y purchased f r o m t h i s company, were g i v e n another s e r i e s o f
q u e s t i o n s w h i c h t r i e d t o t r a c e t h e o r i g i n o f t h e i r h a b i t s as t o i n f l u e n c e s
and tendencies..
Another q u e s t i o n n a i r e which was used i n a s t u d y o f movie attendance
w i l l h e l p t o summarise o u r whole approach t o the.problems o f s p e c i f i e d why
q u e s t i o n s * The s t u d y was made t o determine "Yftry people a t t e n d movies?"
(1)
How
t o I n t e r v i e w , 2nd e d i t i o n , Harpers, 193U.
- 8 The d e t e r m i n a n t s i n w h i c h we were i n t e r e s t e d were: t h e s i t u a t i o n which
gave r i s e t o attendance a t t h e movie; t h e p a r t p l a y e d i n t h e d e c i s i o n by
t h e persons accompanying t h e r e s p o n d e n t ; t h e sources f r o m w h i c h i n f o r m a t i o n was g a t h e r e d ; and t h e d e c i d i n g f a c t o r s o f t h e show and t h e t h e a t e r . .
There was no q u e s t i o n i n s e r t e d as t o how our respondent came t o the movie,
a l t h o u g h a t a x i c a b company m i g h t have been most i n t e r e s t e d i n t h i s a s p e c t .
P o s s i b l y some r e a d e r may n o t a t once r e a l i z e how t h e v e h i c l e used f o r
conveyance t o t h e movie can p o s s i b l y be t h e answer t o a s p e c i f i e d why
question.
But l e t him c o n s i d e r t h e f o l l o w i n g case; "Why'did Mary,- b u t
n o t John, come i n t i m e t o my p a r t y y e s t e r d a y ? " Answer: There was a bad
snowstorm. Mary came on t h e subway. But John used h i s c a r and got s t u c k .
He t h e r e f o r e came t o o l a t e because he drove h i s c a r . The movie attendance
questionnaire f o l l o w s :
Did you go p r i m a r i l y (1) j u s t t o go t o a movie, o r ( I I ) because of a
certain picture?
I
I I
Both
I f I or B o t h :
1.
When d i d you d e c i d e t o go t o a movie?
2.
Why
3.
( I f not yet inserted)
iu
and under what c i r c u m s t a n c e s d i d you
When and how
was
decide?
y o u r company chosen?
As t o t h e s p e c i a l t h e a t e r o r show. (Check)
a. Was i t proposed by someone i n the company?
• b. D i d you have i t i n mind y o u r s e l f ?
c. D i d you l o o k f o r or g e t s p e c i a l a d v i c e o r i n f o r m a t i o n ?
I f ( b ) , how d i d you know about i t ?
I f ( c ) , where d i d you l o o k f o r advice or i n f o r m a t i o n ?
5.
How
many p i c t u r e s were t a k e n i n t o
consideration?
6.
Which was more i n d u c i v e , (A) t h e t h e a t e r
; (B) t h e p i c t u r e
(C) does n o t know
(Check.)
Remarks f o r I n t e r v i e w e r s :
I f B or C, ask q u e s t i o n 7 f i r s t . I f
A, ask q u e s t i o n 8 f i r s t .
But ask b o t h q u e s t i o n s i n any case.
7.
What i n t e r e s t e d you i n t h e p i c t u r e ?
the d e t a i l s . )
8.
What made t h e t h e a t e r s u i t a b l e t o your choice?
(Please t r y t o remember a l l
If I I :
la.
VJhen d i d you l e a r n about t h i s p i c t u r e ?
2a.
How
d i d you l e a r n about i t ?
- 93a.
What i n t e r e s t e d y o u i n i t when y o u h e a r d about i t ? ( P l e a s e t r y
t o remember a l l t h e d e t a i l s . )
Ua.
( I f not yet inserted)
When and how was your company chosen?
I n A l l Cases:
lb.
( I f n o t y e t i n s e r t e d ) When and under what c i r c u m s t a n c e s was
the f i n a l d e c i s i o n made? Why d i d y o u go a t t h i s p a r t i c u l a r
time?
2b.
What o t h e r uses o f t h e t i m e and money spent i n s e e i n g the-movie
were c o n s i d e r e d ?
T h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e c o n t a i n s s e v e r a l examples o f what we c a l l e d t h e
t e c h n i c o f f i t t i n g t h e q u e s t i o n t o t h e e x p e r i e n c e o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t . Take
f o r example, t h e q u e s t i o n on t h e media o f i n f o r m a t i o n . I f a respondent
went t o t h e movie because o f a c e r t a i n p i c t u r e , he i s v e r y l i k e l y t o
remember o f f h a n d how he l e a r n e d about t h i s p i c t u r e ; i t was t h e f i r s t reason
w h i c h s t a r t e d h i s whole movie a t t e n d a n c e . On t h e o t h e r hand, i f he j u s t
went t o t h e movie because he wanted some r e l a x a t i o n , he w i l l n o t remember
so w e l l why he s e l e c t e d t h e s p e c i a l show. T h e r e f o r e , i n o r d e r t o f i t our
q u e s t i o n s t o h i s e x p e r i e n c e , we have t o proceed t h i s way: F i r s t , we w i l l
a s c e r t a i n i f he went f o r t h e sake o f a c e r t a i n p i c t u r e o r n o t . I n the
f o r m e r case, we might a t once ask h i m "How- d i d y o u l e a r n about t h i s
p i c t u r e ? " I n t h e l a t t e r case, .an a d d i t i o n a l q u e s t i o n has t o be i n s e r t e d
f i r s t . We w i l l ask h i m : "When and under what circumstances d i d y o u decide
t o go t o t h e movie?" T h i s q u e s t i o n s h o u l d l e a d h i s memory back t o t h e
c o n c r e t e s i t u a t i o n i n which he d e c i d e d t o go and t h e n he w i l l be more l i k e l y
t o remember what i n f o r m a t i o n he l o o k e d f o r i n o r d e r t o p i c k o u t a s p e c i a l
p i c t u r e . I n a second q u e s t i o n , we w i l l f i n d h i m p r e p a r e d t o g i v e us a l l
necessary i n f o r m a t i o n about i n f l u e n c e s . Another example i s t h e way vre ask
about t h e respondent's companions i n t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e . I f o u r respondent
were i n v i t e d t o go t o t h e movie, -he w i l l have mentioned h i s companion i n
the f i r s t q u e s t i o n as a reason f o r h i s d e c i s i o n . I f he were t h e i n v i t i n g
p a r t y , a s p e c i a l q u e s t i o n w i l l be necessary t o f i n d how he chose h i s
companion. The q u e s t i o n n a i r e has t o be f l e x i b l e enough t o cover b o t h cases
i n such a way t h a t t h e respondent f e e l s a t h i s ease i n remembering t h e
whole process o f d e c i s i o n .
The reader i s u n d o u b t e d l y aware t h a t t h i s t e c h n i c o f f i t t i n g q u e s t i o n s
t o t h e e x p e r i e n c e o f t h e respondent i s i n c o n f l i c t w i t h u s u a l p r o c e d u r e .
T r a d i t i o n a l o p i n i o n i s t h a t a q u e s t i o n s h o u l d be so worded as always t o
i n s u r e t h e same r e a c t i o n on t h e p a r t o f a l l those i n t e r v i e w e d , life advocate
a r a t h e r l o o s e and l i b e r a l h a n d l i n g o f a q u e s t i o n n a i r e by an i n t e r v i e w e r .
I t seems t o us much more i m p o r t a n t t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n be f i x e d i n i t s
meaning, t h a n i n t h e w o r d i n g . T h i s new emphasis p l a c e s t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
on t h e i n t e r v i e w e r f o r knowing e x a c t l y what he i s t r y i n g t o d i s c o v e r and
p e r m i t s h i m t o v a r y t h e wording i n accordance w i t h t h e experience o f t h e
respondent. The r e s u l t i n g margin o f e r r o r would be much g r e a t e r i f a
s t a n d a r d i z e d q u e s t i o n were t o be i n t e r p r e t e d i n v e r y d i f f e r e n t ways by
-
10 -
d i f f e r e n t r e s p o n d e n t s who have t h e i r own d i f f e r e n t e x p e r i e n c e s i n mind.
I f we g e t t h e r e s p o n d e n t t o r e p o r t t o us t h e d e t e r m i n a n t s o f h i s e x p e r i e n c e
t o h i s b e s t knowledge and r e c o l l e c t i o n , our r e s u l t s w i l l be much more
homogeneous t h a n i n a case where we have i n f l e x i b l e words b u t have n o t
t a k e n any care f o r a s c e r t a i n i n g t h e meaning p l a c e d upon t h o s e words by
our respondent*
T h i s whole t e c h n i c may be d e s c r i b e d as "The p r i n c i p l e o f d i v i s i o n . "
I t c o n s i s t s i n a d a p t i n g t h e p a t t e r n o f our q u e s t i o n n a i r e t o t h e s t r u c t u r a l
p a t t e r n o f t h e e x p e r i e n c e o f t h e respondent f r o m whom vre are s e e k i n g our
i n f o r m a t i o n . By t h i s method, we f i n d much e a s i e r access t o t h e m o t i v e s
c o n t r o l l i n g h i s a c t i o n s t h a n i f we t r y t o compel t h e respondent t o conform
t o a s t e r e o t y p e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e , w h i c h he may n o t u n d e r s t a n d i n t h e way we
i n t e n d . Our method, moreover, i s s u p p o r t e d by t h e most eminent a u t h o r i t y .
P l a t o , i n h i s Phaedrus, speaks about t h e p r i n c i p l e o f d i v i s i o n and p o i n t s
out t h e wisdom o f s e p a r a t i n g on t h e b a s i s of t h e n a t u r a l s u b d i v i s i o n , as
does t h e s k i l l f u l c a r v e r , who seeks t h e j o i n t r a t h e r t h a n break t h e bone.
III.
A s c e r t a i n i n g What t h e Answer Means:
Assumption.
The P r i n c i p l e of T a c i t
We have b r i e f l y d i s c u s s e d t h e n e c e s s i t y o f s p e c i f y i n g t h e meaning
of t h e why q u e s t i o n , and t h a t o f a d a p t i n g t h e q u e s t i o n t o t h e e x p e r i e n c e
of t h e r e s p o n d e n t . There i s a t h i r d p o i n t which deserves our c o n s i d e r a t i o n . Suppose we ask a man what p l e a s e d him most i n t h e coat he bought.
Why doesn't he answer t h a t he was most p l e a s e d by t h e f a c t t h a t t h e coat
had j u s t two sleeves? He would c e r t a i n l y never have bought i t w i t h 3
s l e e v e s , however p l e a s i n g t o him o t h e r o f t h e a t t r i b u t e s m i g h t have been.
The reason i s c l e a r : There i s a t a c i t assumption between i n t e r v i e w e r
and respondent t h a t c o a t s have o n l y two sleeves and t h e r e f o r e t h a t f a c t
w i l l n o t be mentioned i n $ g i t e o f i t s predominant i m p o r t a n c e ,
Very o f t e n , however, t h e p a r t i c u l a r consequences o f t h i s p r i n c i p l e
of t a c i t assumption are o m i t t e d . - L e t us suppose we want t o know what
a t t r i b u t e s are i m p o r t a n t i n t h e consumption o f t e a . I f we ask: "Why do
y o u d r i n k t e a f o r b r e a k f a s t ? " we i m m e d i a t e l y g e t answers p e r t a i n i n g t o
the use and e f f e c t o f t e a : I t i s q u i c k l y made; i t keeps one awake; i t
doesn't burden one's stomach i n t h e morning; and so on. I f we ask:
"Why do y o u d r i n k X brand t e a ? " we g e t much more s p e c i f i c answers conc e r n i n g t h e t e a i t s e l f ; because o f i t s n i c e c o l o r ; because i t r e q u i r e s
l e s s sugar; because i t i s economical t o use; and so on. But t h e f o r m e r
group o f a t t r i b u t e s i s almost c o m p l e t e l y o m i t t e d , Of c o u r s e , t h e two'
s e r i e s o f responses are by no means c o n t r a d i c t o r y ; i n t h e f i r s t group t h e
m e r i t s o f t e a were j u d g e d i n comparison w i t h those o f o t h e r beverages,
c o f f e e , cocoa, m i l k ; whereas, i n t h e second group t h e g e n e r a l q u a l i t i e s
of t e a were t a k e n f o r g r a n t e d i n a t a c i t assumption, and secondary d i s t i n c t i o n s between d i f f e r e n t brands were d i s c u s s e d . The b e s t r e s u l t s a r e
o b t a i n e d by a s k i n g b o t h ways and i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e two
s e r i e s o f answers.
Such t a c i t assumptions a r e n o t always easy t o r e a l i z e .
I n a study
- 11 -
of candies, three brands of d i f f e r e n t p r i c e and q u a l i t y were a t s t a k e .
I t was t h e medium b r a n d w h i c h met most f r e q u e n t l y t h e o b j e c t i o n o f being
o r d i n a r y . The best brand was o f h i g h q u a l i t y and n i c e l y wrapped; t h e
medium was a l s o wrapped, b u t was o f a l o w e r q u a l i t y ; t h e cheapest b r a n d
was unwrapped.
People a p p a r e n t l y f e l t t h a t t h e b e s t b r a n d and t h e
cheapest gave j u s t what t h e y p r o m i s e d , whereas t h e medium brand made
promises i n i t s appearance w h i c h were n o t kept by i t s q u a l i t y .
Theref o r e , t h e o b j e c t i o n s o f low q u a l i t y were more f r e q u e n t w i t h t h e medium
t h a n w i t h t h e cheapest b r a n d .
The r o l e o f t a c i t assumptions shows up everywhere where q u e s t i o n s are
i n v o l v e d . T h e r e f o r e , i t m i g h t be w o r t h w h i l e t o quote a remark from one
of C h e s t e r t o n ' s d e t e c t i v e s t o r i e s , w h i c h b r i n g s i t o u t i n a v e r y amusing
way:
"Have y o u e v e r n o t i c e d t h i s : That p e o p l e never answer what y o u say?
They answer what you mean, o r what t h e y t h i n k y o u mean. Suppose one
l a d y says t o another i n a c o u n t r y house:
' I s anybody s t a y i n g w i t h you?'
The l a d y does n o t answer:
!Yes, t h e b u t l e r , t h e t h r e e f o o t m e n , t h e
p a r l o r maid, and so on, t h o u g h t h e p a r l o r maid may be i n t h e room, o r
the b u t l e r b e h i n d her c h a i r . She says:
'There i s nobody s t a y i n g w i t h
us, meaning nobody o f t h e s o r t y o u mean. But suppose a d o c t o r i n q u i r i n g i n t o an epidemic asks, 'Who i s s t a y i n g i n t h e house?' t h e n
t h e l a d y w i l l remember t h e b u t l e r , t h e p a r l o r maid, and t h e r e s t . A l l
language i s used l i k e t h a t ; you never g e t a q u e s t i o n answered l i t e r a l l y ,
even when'yet g e t i t answered t r u l y . " ( l )
1
The whole m a t t e r has, o f c o u r s e , immediate b e a r i n g upon t h e f o r m u l a t i o n
of q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . I quote t h e f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s f r o m a q u e s t i o n n a i r e
c o n c e r n i n g shoe b u y i n g : "What i s most i m p o r t a n t t o y o u i n b u y i n g shoes:
color, price, durability, style, quality, f i t ? "
Such a q u e s t i o n and the
r e s u l t i n g s t a t i s t i c a l t a b u l a t i o n have been used over and over a g a i n , 'with
q u i t e c o n t r a d i c t o r y r e s u l t s . I n Germany, much d i s c u s s i o n c e n t e r e d about
the problem o f whether customers l a y more s t r e s s upon q u a l i t y , o r upon
s t y l e , because d i f f e r e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n s f o l l o w i n g such procedure had
b r o u g h t o u t d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t s . Now, p r i c e and c o l o r and s t y l e a r e i t e m s
which can be e a s i l y a s c e r t a i n e d a t t h e t i m e o f purchase. Q u a l i t y and
d u r a b i l i t y , on t h e o t h e r hand, are a t t r i b u t e s w h i c h we can t e s t o n l y by
w e a r i n g t h e shoes. While t h e purchase i s b e i n g made, we must j u d g e them
by a c c e s s o r y c r i t e r i a . One p e r s o n m i g h t j u d g e t h e q u a l i t y by t h e s t y l e ;
a n o t h e r , by t h e p r i c e ; s t i l l a n o t h e r by some f e a t u r e o f t h e l e a t h e r .
T h e r e f o r e , t h e p e o p l e who s t a t e t h a t t h e y bought a c c o r d i n g t o q u a l i t y have
made v a r y i n g assumptions as t o how q u a l i t y can be a s c e r t a i n e d a t t h e
moment o f purchase. Consequently, t h i s whole group s h o u l d be r e c o r d e d
a c c o r d i n g t o t h e c o n c r e t e c r i t e r i a used, and n o t a c c o r d i n g t o a w o r d -which
i m p l i e s a t a c i t assumption unknown t o t h e i n t e r v i e w e r . T h i s can be e a s i l y
(1)
G, K. C h e s t e r t o n , The I n v i s i b l e Man,
"Innocence o f Father Brown."
- 12 done by adding another q u e s t i o n about t h i s i l l - d e f i n e d a t t r i b u t e s :
"In
b u y i n g , how do y o u r e c o g n i z e q u a l i t y and how do y o u r e c o g n i z e d u r a b i l i t y ? "
The r e a d e r , who may r e c a l l s i m i l a r cases, w i l l r e a d i l y see t h e
b e n e f i t t o be d e r i v e d f r o m a p r e v i o u s c a r e f u l a n a l y s i s by market r e s e a r c h
men o f terms w h i c h t h e y use, i n o r d e r t o d e s c r i b e a t t r i b u t e s . They would
n o t o n l y o b t a i n more r e l i a b l e r e s u l t s ; t h e y would be more p r e p a r e d t o
r e f u t e o b j e c t i o n s which o r i g i n a t e f r o m m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g s .
Professor
Donald L a i r d , ( 2 ) o f C o l g a t e , conducted an experiment t o show o f what
l i t t l e use i t i s t o ask a woman about a t t r i b u t e s o f commodities arid t h e i r
importance t o h e r . He took i d e n t i c a l p a i r s o f s t o c k i n g s and perfumed
them s l i g h t l y w i t h d i f f e r e n t s c e n t s . Then he asked c e r t a i n women t o
s e l e c t t h e p a i r which seemed t o them t o be o f t h e b e s t q u a l i t y . The
women d e f i n i t e l y p r e f e r r e d a c e r t a i n perfume, and L a i r d made t h e p o i n t
t h a t t h e s e women t h o u g h t t h e y j u d g e d q u a l i t y , whereas t h e y a c t u a l l y
judged s c e n t . But what about t h i s word q u a l i t y ? No d e f i n i t i o n i s g i v e n
o r presupposed. As a r e s u l t , t h e women f i r s t exhausted t h e more u s u a l
c r i t e r i a o f q u a l i t y , perhaps t e x t u r e , o r body o f t h e weave, and as t h e s e
d i d n o t g i v e any c l u e , t h e y f i n a l l y r e l i e d upon scent as a c r i t e r i o n o f
q u a l i t y , inasmuch as a d e f i n i t i o n o f q u a l i t y was l e f t e n t i r e l y t o t h e i r
own i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . The o n l y t h i n g which L a i r d ' s c l e v e r experiment
shows i s t h a t scent can be used i n t a c i t assumption as t h e d e f i n i t i o n , o f
q u a l i t y . No i n t r i n s i c d i f f i c u l t y i n t h i s k i n d o f r e s e a r c h i s shown ex- •
cept t h a t t h e b a s i c problems have t o be b r o u g h t t o l i g h t more c l e a r l y .
There i s a s i m i l a r i t y between t h i s p r i n c i p l e o f t a c i t assumption
and o u r p r i n c i p l e o f s p e c i f i c a t i o n ; E v e r y t h i n g depends upon t h e purpose
of t h e s t u d y . I f we want m a t e r i a l f o r w r i t i n g a d v e r t i s i n g copy, t h e n
t h e word q u a l i t y used by o u r respondent i s s a t i s f a c t o r y f o r us, s i n c e we
i n t e n d t o approach h i m w i t h words anyhow. B u t i f we want t o use our
i n t e r v i e w s f o r guidance i n shoe m a n u f a c t u r i n g , we want t o know e x a c t l y
what t h e word q u a l i t y connotes t o t h e consumer. I t i s , t h e r e f o r e , a d v i s a b l e
t o f o r m u l a t e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s i n such a way t h a t t h e r e t u r n s can be used
f o r b o t h copy w r i t i n g and p r o d u c t i o n guidance.
We c i t e by way o f example
a q u e s t i o n on book b u y i n g . The respondent was asked: "How d i d y o u l e a r n
about t h i s book?" The p r o b l e m was t o a s c e r t a i n : "What i n t e r e s t e d y o u
i n i t ? " The t y p i c a l answer was: t h e t i t l e , o r t h e author,- o r t h e
s u b j e c t m a t t e r , b u t i n o r d e r t o g e t more d e f i n i t e i n f o r m a t i o n , t h e f o l l o w i n g check l i s t was used, which proved t o be s u c c e s s f u l . ( 3 ) The r e s p o n dent was f i r s t r e q u i r e d t o g i v e h i s g e n e r a l answer, t h e n was asked b y
the i n t e r v i e w e r t o s p e c i f y t h i s r e p l y according t o the f o l l o w i n g
possibilities:
What i n t e r e s t e d y o u i n i t ? . '
(2)
(3)
J o u r n a l o f A p p l i e d Psychology, June, 1932.
No a t t e m p t i s here made t o d i s c u s s t h e problem o f t h e c h e c k l i s t v s .
f r e e answer. P r o f e s s o r J . G, Jenkins a t C o r n e l l i s now w o r k i n g on
c o n c l u s i v e experiments i n t h i s f i e l d .
- 13 -
What i n t e r e s t e d you i n i t ?
T i t l e . . p r e v i o u s work o f a u r t h o r . . . . ; fame o f author.---.
S u b j e c t m a t t e r w h i c h I u n d e r s t o o d f r o m source above ( t h e
i n f o r m a t i o n ) . . . . ; f r o m g l a n c i n g a t t h e book...,; from
t h e 1 a c k e t r . . < ; from t h e t i t l e . . . .
Nottvng i n t h e book i t s e l f , b u t i t s r e p u t a t i o n . . . , ; t h e
a u t h o r i t y o f t h e recommendation....; r e a d i n g was p r o - "
fessionally required....
E x t e r n a l f e a t u r e s o f the book ( c o l o r , s i z e , b i n d i n g ^ e t c . )
S p e c i f y . . . . ; Other reasons
The t a b u l a t i o n o f t h e r e s u l t s w i l l depend upon t h e use which i s t o
be ^ade o f the' d a t a . I f t h e answers a r e t o be used f o r w r i t i n g advert i s i n g copy, a t a b l e a c c o r d i n g t o t h e main groups w i l l be most u s e f u l ^
I f a j a c k e t d e s i g n o r a s t o r e d i s p l a y o f books i s a t s t a k e , t h e subi t e m s become o f c h i e f i m p o r t a n c e . V e r y o f t e n i n c u r r e n t market r e s e a r c h ,
we would f i n d t h a t t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r o f a book was a reason f o r b u y i n g .
Our example shows t h a t s u b j e c t T a t t e r can r e a n a t l e a s t f o u r d i f f e r e n t
t h i n g s , and j u s t what i t ™eans i n a s p e c i a l case has c l e a r l y t o be
a s c e r t a i n e d by t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e .
The problem o f t a c i t assumption c o n s t i t u t e s such a s t r o n g l i m i t a t i o n upon t h e use o f q u e s t i o n n a i r e s a l o n e , t h a t i t i s sometimes necessary
t o r e s o r t t o a c o m b i n a t i o n o f experiment and i n t e r v i e w . I n many instancesi t i s n o t p o s s i b l e t o a s c e r t a i n p o s i t i v e l y what t a c i t assumptions t h e
respondent i s h o l d i n g i n mind, and an experiment i s h e l p f u l i n b r i n g i n g
out t h e r e a l f a c t s o f t h e s i t u a t i o n . A p r o d u c t experiment i n market
r e s e a r c h i s , fro<n a t h e o r e t i c a l p o i n t o f v i e w , a t o o l f o r e l i m i n a t i n g
the respondent's t a c i t assumption by v a r i a t i o n s o f s t i m u l u s . We cannot
d i s c u s s t h e f i e l d o f experiment h e r e , b u t we want t o g i v e as a f i n a l
example, an e x p e r i e n c e which i s j u s t on t h e l i n e between i n t e r v i e w and
experiment.
Donald Cowen o f f e r e d a few hundred women two brands o f t h e same f o o d
p r o d u c t ; t h e one was t h e l e a d i n g brand i n t h e market, t h e o t h e r a new
brand o f h i s company. The s u b j e c t s d i v i d e d about 50-$0 f o r t h e two brands.
Then he added t h e q u e s t i o n : "Do you p r e f e r t h e p r o d u c t you j u s t s e l e c t e d
t o t h e p r o d u c t you have a t home?" Here t h e adherents o f t h e l e a d i n g p r o d u c t responded i n g e n e r a l : "Not e s p e c i a l l y . " The adherents o f Cowen's
p r o d u c t d e f i n i t e l y p r e f e r r e d i t t o t h e brand t h e y had a t home. The
i n f e r e n c e was c l e a r ; t h e two p r o d u c t s were i n t a s t e about e q u a l l y p o p u l a r ;
b u t t h e one, t h e l e a d i n g brand, had a f l a v o r o r t a s t e s i m i l a r t o t h a t of
the p r o d u c t a l r e a d y i n use, whereas t h e Cowen p r o d u c t had a r a d i c a l l y
new t a s t e . This v e r y i m p o r t a n t d i f f e r e n c e would n o t have been b r o u g h t
t o l i g h t e i t h e r t h r o u g h t h e mere c h o i c e experiment o r by a q u e s t i o n :
"V;hy do you l i k e i t ? " I t was a happy c o m b i n a t i o n o f experiment and i n t e r view w h i c h broke down a t a c i t assumption. I t i s t h e c o n v i c t i o n o f t h i s
w r i t e r t h a t such a c o m b i n a t i o n w i l l prove r^ore and ^ore s u c c e s s f u l i n
the f i e l d o f p r o d u c t improvement.*
# 1 r e f e r e s p e c i a l l y t o t h e i n t e r e s t i n g e f f o r t s o f A l e x i s Bo^maripa i n
connection w i t h the Psychological Corporation.
- Ih -
I V , Summary and T h e o r e t i c a l Background.
The assumption o f t h i s paper was t h a t t h e consumer we have i n
f r o n t o f us had c a r r i e d t h r o u g h a c o n c r e t e purchase.
Our problem was
t o r e c o r d a l l t h e f a c t o r s w h i c h had determined h i s purchase; o r ,
b e t t e r , a l l t h e f a c t o r s w h i c h were i m p o r t a n t f o r our i n v e s t i g a t i o n .
We have assumed t h a t t h i s consumer i s p e r f e c t l y w i l l i n g t o answer our
q u e s t i o n s . The main p o i n t was t o f o r m u l a t e our q u e s t i o n s i n such a
way t h a t t h e d i f f e r e n t d e t e r m i n a n t s r e a l l y came t o l i g h t , We have
seen t h a t t h r e e p r i n c i p l e s must be observed:
the p r i n c i p l e of
s p e c i f i c a t i o n , o f d i v i s i o n , and o f t a c i t assumption.
I t i s evident
t h a t our problem i s a v e r y r e s t r i c t e d one and by no means covers t h e
whole f i e l d o f psychology i n market r e s e a r c h . I t i s , t h e r e f o r e , v e r y
i m p o r t a n t t o end t h i s ,.>aper w i t h a s h o r t t h e o r e t i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n
w h i c h w i l l enable us t o show t h e c o n n e c t i o n s between our problem and
some o t h e r s n o t d i s c u s s e d h e r e .
P s y c h o l o g i s t s who have a n a l y z e d t h e s t r u c t u r e o f a c t i o n , as,
n o t a b l y , C a r l ^ u e h l e r and Madison B e n t l y have done, agree t h a t t h e
d e t e r m i n a n t s o f an a c t i o n f a l l i n t o t h r e e groups:
biological determ i n a n t s , b i o g r a p h i c a l d e t e r m i n a n t s , and what we m i g h t c a l l i n s t a n t aneous or a c t u a l d e t e r m i n a n t s o f t h e f i r s t degree.
These d i f f e r ences are easy t o demonstrate i n a purchase which i s , o f course,
j u s t a s p e c i a l case o f a c t i o n , ^ome one buys a book. He wants t o
r e a d on t h e t r a i n , t h e r e f o r e he s e l e c t s a d e t e c t i v e s t o r y . He i s
e s p e c i a l l y f o n d o f a c e r t a i n a u t h o r . He i s i n a c h e e r f u l mood, and
t h e r e f o r e he spends more money on i t t h a n he i n t e n d e d . These are
a l l d e t e r m i n a n t s o f t h e f i r s t degree, \.e c o u l d go on i n our i n v e s t i g a t i o n : Why doesn't he l i k e t o r e a d h i s t o r i c a l n o v e l s on t h e t r a i n ?
Why i s he f o n d o f t h i s s p e c i a l a u t h o r ? ..hat gave him h i s c h e e r f u l
mood? The answers t o these q u e s t i o n s would be b i o g r a p h i c a l d e t e r minants. They m i ^ h t l e a d us, more o r l e s s , f a r b a d : i n t o t h e b i o graphy o f our respondents. The b i o l o g i c a l d e t e r m i n a n t s are so obvious
t h a t we.need n o t b o t h e r w i t h them i n an i n t e r v i e w . Why does he r e a d
the book i n s t e a d o f e a t i t ? Goats l i k e t o eat paper, b u t t h e b i o l o g i c a l c o m p o s i t i o n o f our respondent makes p a p e r - e a t i n g u n c o m f o r t a b l e
f o r him.
I f one wants t o d e f i n e e x p l i c i t l y t h e d e t e r m i n a n t s o f t h e f i r s t
degree, he m i ^ h t p u t i t t h i s way:
The circumstances under which t h e
d e c i s i o n f o r purchase has been made, t h e purpose o f t h e purchase, and
a l l t h e f a c t o r s w h i c h c a r r y t h i s d e c i s i o n on u n t i l i t has a c t u a l l y
been executed, r e p r e s e n t t h e a c t u a l d e t e r m i n a n t s o f t h e f i r s t degree.
I t i s e v i d e n t t h a t t h e number o f d i f f e r e n t d e t e r m i n a n t s can v a r y
g r e a t l y f r o m one purchase t o a n o t h e r . I f v.e buy some foods under
the immediate i n f l u e n c e o f how n i c e t h e y l o c k , t h e number o f d e t e r minants o f t h e f i r s t d e g r e e , i s much s m a l l e r t h a n i f we shop around
f o r days i n o r d e r t o f i n d a c e r t a i n o b j e c t . That does n o t mean, by
the way, t h a t t h e number o f b i o g r a p h i c a l d e t e r m i n a n t s i s s m a l l e r i n
the former case. I t might w e l l be t h a t we are l e d f a r back when we
want t o f i n d out why these foods a p p e a l so much t o our respondent,
whereas t h e shopping f o r t h e o t h e r o b j e c t might have a s h o r t h i s t o r y
as t o i t s b i o g r a p h i c a l d e t e r m i n a n t s .
- 15 I t i s p r o b a b l y c l e a r t o t h e r e a d e r t h a t , i n t h i s paper, we have
been d e a l i n g w i t h t h e t e c h n i c s o f a s c e r t a i n i n g t h e d e t e r m i n a n t s o f
t h e f i r s t degree w h i c h m o t i v a t e a purchase. Here l e t us i n t r o d u c e a
new t e r m : The complete m o t i v a t i o n a l set-up o f t h e f i r s t degree.
By
t h i s , we s h a l l u n d e r s t a n d a l l t h e d e t e r m i n a n t s o f t h e f i r s t degree
w h i c h are o f s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r our s t u d y . T h i s concept i s o f p r a c t i c a l
importance because i t g i v e s us a c e r t a i n check as t o t h e v a l u e o f our
questionnaire.
A q u e s t i o n n a i r e i s s a t i s f a c t o r y when, and o n l y when,
i t a c t u a l l y secures t h e t o t a l m o t i v a t i o n a l s e t - u p o f t h e f i r s t degree.
L e t us suppose, f o r i n s t a n c e , t h a t a woman g i v e s as her r e a s o n f o r a
purchase i n a c e r t a i n s t o r e t h a t she has a charge account there,.
his
reason i s a c c e p t a b l e as l o n g as she m a i n t a i n s a charge account o n l y
a t t h i s s t o r e . As soon as she has charge accounts i n o t h e r s t o r e s
a l s o , we must demand a d d i t i o n a l reason f o r her s e l e c t i o n o f t h i s s t o r e .
Or, l e t us suppose t h a t i n a l e i s u r e - t i m e s t u d y , reasons f o r t i m e spending are asked. Some one t e l l s us:
" I was b o r e d , and, t h e r e f o r e ,
v i s i t e d a f r i e n d . " T h i s i s a c c e p t a b l e o n l y i f we have r e son t o
suppose, or i f t h e respondent t e l l s us, t h a t he always v i s i t s t h i s
f r i e n d when he i s bored. I f t h a t i s not t r u e , we must seek an a d d i t i o n a l reason f o r h i s g o i n g t o see t h i s f r i e n d , r a t h e r t h a n t a k i n g a
walk, f o r instance.
On t h e o t h e r hand, i f t h e r e i s o n l y one shoe s t o r e
i n t o w n , or o n l y one w h i c h i s s o c i a l l y " p o s s i b l e , " we don't need t o ask,
i n e v e r y case, why t h i s s t o r e has been s e l e c t e d .
x
Every c o n c r e t e t o p i c o f r e s e a r c h o f f e r s new problems f o r g e t t i n g
t h e complete m o t i v a t i o n a l set-up o f t h e f i r s t degree. The movie
q u e s t i o n n a i r e , d i s c u s s e d e a r l i e r i n t h i s paper, g i v e s many examples
o f t h i s s o r t , and t h e r e a d e r i s asked t o go back once more t o i t and
c o n s i d e r i t i n the l i g h t o f t h i s new concept, w h i c h , i n t h e p r e p a r a t i o n o f a good q u e s t i o n n a i r e , must be t a k e n i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n .
F u r t h e r , t h i s concept becomes a u s e f u l t o o l i n t r a i n i n g i n t e r v i e w e r s .
I n a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c way, even good i n t e r v i e w e r s , i n t h e b e g i n n i n g , v a i l
t u r n i n incomplete m o t i v a t i o n a l s e t - u p s . They w i l l , f o r i n s t a n c e ,
r e p o r t t h a t t h e i r respondent wanted t o see a c e r t a i n p i c t u r e and
t h e r e f o r e , went t o see i t on Tuesday n i g h t . The p i c t u r e , however, has
been shown t h r e e c o n s e c u t i v e days, and t h e respondent's i n t e r e s t i n
t h i s p i c t u r e does n o t e x p l a i n why he went Tuesday. Such a r e p o r t i n d i c a t e s t h a t some d e t e r m i n a n t s have escaped our i n t e r v i e w e r , 1."e have
t o t r a i n him i n such a way t h a t he r e a l i z e s , on t h e s p o t , t h a t t h e
m o t i v a t i o n a l set-up he secured was i n c o m p l e t e . I f he understands i t ,
he w i l l have a v e r y good c r i t e r i o n as t o whether or not h i s i n t e r v i e w was s a t i s f a c t o r y . I b e l i e v e t h a t , i n such t r a i n i n g , q u i c k e s t
p r o g r e s s can be made by u t i l i z i n g t h i s concept.
:
The n e c e s s i t y f o r g e t t i n g a complete m o t i v a t i o n a l set-up may
compel us t o use a d d i t i o n a l t o o l s o f r e s e a r c h beyond t h e mere a s k i n g *
why.
Take f o r i n s t a n c e , • t h e problem o f a s c e r t a i n i n g t h e reason why
c e r t a i n people d i d not v o t e i n an e l e c t i o n . I t would be c o m p l e t e l y
erroneous t o t a b u l a t e i n one s t r a i g h t t a b l e t h e i r reasons f o r not
v o t i n g . Two men might r e p o r t i n a h a s t y i n t e r v i e w t h a t t h e i r reasons
f o r n o t v o t i n g were t h a t t h e y were out o f town. Our p r i n c i p l e o f
s p e c i f i c a t i o n q u i c k l y t e a c h e s us t h a t n o t v o t i n g i n v o l v e s two i t e m s :
amount o f p o l i t i c a l i n t e r e s t , and t h e s o r t o f h i n d r a n c e t h a t kept
them away f r o m t h e p o l l s . One man might be eager t o v o t e , b u t a
- 16 -
d y i n ^ r e l a t i v e may make i t i m p e r a t i v e f o r h i m t o l e a v e town.
Another
man m i ^ h t care so l i t t l e f o r p o l i t i c s t h a t he goes on a f i s h i n g p a r t y
on e l e c t i o n day. So i f we want a complete m o t i v a t i o n a l s e t - u p , we
need two s e t s o f d a t a , and i n o r d e r t o get t h e one v.e have t o a s c e r t a i n
the amount o f p o l i t i c a l i n t e r e s t o f t h e s e two respondents. That might
l e a d us t o q u i t e new t e c h n i c a l problems, which we cannot d i s c u s s
here. Probably an a t t i t u d e s c a l e o r some o t h e r t o o l f o r measuring t h e
amount o f i n t e r e s t o f o u r respondent w i l l have been used t o t h i s end.*
But s t i l l i t w i l l l e a v e us i n t h e r e a l m o f a set-up o f f i r s t degree,
because an i n t e r e s t w h i c h makes us do something i s a t y p i c a l example
of an a c t u a l d e t e r m i n a n t o f f i r s t degree.
So much f o r the importance o f t h e word complete i n our concept;
now t o t h e r e s t r i c t i o n s i m p l i e d i n t h e v;ords f i r s t decree. Suppose
we have a s c e r t a i n e d t h a t a c e r t a i n c o l o r appealed e s p e c i a l l y t o o u r
respondent, o r t h a t he i s e s p e c i a l l y i n t e r e s t e d i n one a u t h o r , and so
on. Do we n o t miss j u s t what i s e s s e n t i a l f o r o u r s t u d y i f v.e f a i l t o
go back t o t h e b i o g r a p h i c a l d e t e r m i n a n t s and a s c e r t a i n why he l i k e s t h i s
c o l o r , o r why he i s i n t e r e s t e d i n t h i s author? Vre w i l l n o t answer t h e
q u e s t i o n h e r e . I t w o u l d l e a d us n o t o n l y t o new t e c h n i c s o f a s c e r t a i n i n g b i o g r a p h i c a l d e t e r m i n a n t s , b u t i t would make u s f a c e an a l t o g e t h e r
new problem:
t h e t e c h n i c s o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . These t e c h n i c s o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n a r e o f enormous importance and as <*reat a c o n t r i b u t i o n o f
psychology t o market r e s e a r c h as t h e a r t o f a s k i n g why.'*' ^T/e can o n l y
t o u c h on t h i s s u b j e c t i n t h i s paper, i n one c o n n e c t i o n , t h e t e c h n i c
of a s c e r t a i n i n g a m o t i v a t i o n a l s e t - u p o f f i r s t degree, where i t i m pinges c l o s e l y upon t h e c o n t e n t o f t h i s a r t i c l e , ;.e might,, f o r
i n s t a n c e , f i n d t h a t , i n a p a r t i c u l a r s t u d y , many r e s p o n d e n t s , asked
why t h e y d i s l i k e d a c e r t a i n commodity, raight answer, " I don't know"
or " I j u s t d i s l i k e i t . . ' * T h i s answer i s c o m p l e t e l y l e g i t i m a t e and a n
a c t u a l d e t e r m i n a n t o f t h e f i r s t degree, What such a ^ r e a t amount o f
e m o t i o n a l d i s l i k e means i s a c o m p l e t e l y d i f f e r e n t q u e s t i o n . For
example, I happened t o r e a d a market survey r e g a r d i n g t h e use o f a
canned beverage. A t h i r d o f t h e respondents approved t h e i d e a because
i t would be i n e x p e n s i v e and c o n v e n i e n t . Another t h i r d s a i d merely
t h a t t h e y d i s l i k e d t h e i d e a , b u t c o u l d g i v e no d e f i n i t e reason f o r
t h i s d i s l i k e . The r e s e a r c h man made t h e p o i n t t h & t t h i s l a t t e r group
c o u l d e a s i l y be convinced because t h e y themselves a d m i t t e d t h e weakness o f t h e i r p o i n t . Such a statement i s , o f course, p r e p o s t e r o u s .
(-"-) See "The P s y c h o l o g i c a l Approach t o i'arket Research,"
Business Review, October 193U.
Harvard
See R. L i k e r t , "The Technique o f A t t i t u d e Measurement,"
P s y c h o l o g i c a l A r c h i v e s , 1932.
- 17 The mere f a c t t h a t these respondents had an e m o t i o n a l d i s l i k e f o r t h i s
canned beverage showed t h a t t h e r e were s t r o n g b i o g r a p h i c a l r o o t s s t i l l .
t o be d i s c o v e r e d . The o n l y t h i n g w h i c h we can do w i t h such i n f o r m a t i o n
i s t o p o i n t out t h a t we have d e t e c t e d a sore s p o t . That i s i n i t s e l f
a s t r o n g p o i n t , we ought n o t t o weaken our p o s i t i o n by g o i n g beyond
our own means. -e have t o keep t h e problems o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n cons t a n t l y i n mind i n o r d e r n o t t o l e a v e t h e f i e l d where t h e t e c h n i c s
we d i s c u s s e d i n t h i s paper are l o c a t e d . B u t , on t h e o t h e r hand, we w i l l
n o t d e p r e c i a t e t h e importance o f an adequate t e c h n i c o f a s k i n g why
by t h e f a c t t h a t t h e r e arb\ o t h e r e q u a l l y i m p o r t a n t t h i n g s t o do. I t
i s t h e p a r t o f wisdom i n any f i e l d , and i t i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e p r o gress o f methodology t d develop t h e method s t e p by s t e p w i t h the
u l t i m a t e aim o f i n t e g r a t i o n o f a l l o f t h e elements i n t o t h e l a r g e r
p a t t e r n o f methodology f o r t h e e n t i r e f i e l d .
I t w o u l d be i n d e f e n s i b l e
to h o l d back s i m p l y because one s t e p i s a l l t h a t c o u l d be t a k e n a t
one t i m e .
l
The r e a d e r who has f o l l o w e d our d e l i b e r a t i o n s and matched them
w i t h h i s own experience w i l l p r o b a b l y disagree w i t h some o f our
s t a t e m e n t s and w i l l f e e l t h a t we o v e r e s t i m a t e t h e importance o f o t h e r s .
But t h a t i s always t r u e -.of d i s c u s s i o n s i n a f i e l d w h i c h , at the p r e s e n t
stage o f i t s development'> r e q u i r e s c h i e f l y c a r e f u l > l o g i c a l , and
p s y c h o l o g i c a l a n a l y s i s , Whenever t h e . w r i t e r o f t h i s paper has f o u n d
something i n '
r i s i d whicfi he b e l i e v e d neyfy he met a l . r . Smith who
had a l r e a d y Aone t h e same t h i n g s • ph tfie o t h e r hand, he always f o u n d
scores o f :-r. J t a e s who d i d hot know what Smith and he had a t t e m p t e d .
So t h i s paper was w r i t t e n f o r K e s s r s . Jones, w i t h an apology to ^ m i t h .