ACV laddering in user research

A simple method to uncover user’s core values

Have you ever been in an interview where you feel you are so close to uncovering something crucial about the user’s behavior or motivation? For me, it happens quite often. I know there are shallow ways to respond to user research questions, and most participants respond in that way. Sometimes I do it myself when my students are interviewing me, simply because, it takes an awful lot of self-awareness to truly answer a question with a deep-rooted motivation. This is especially the case when you are sitting in front of a total stranger and they ask you to talk to them about how you use a product.

The above is the exact reason why we have widely known methods such as TEDW* or the 5-why’s techniques*. These methods get the user to open up and elaborate on their answers by focusing on open-ended questions, memory recall and stories. With these approaches, you can get much more emotional and rich qualitative data, including more deep insights into the participant’s mind.

The best thing a participant can do is tell us a story — we get all the context from someone who engaged in activity naturally, and we also get their retrospective opinion on the past. Although recalled memories can be “false,” we care most about their perception.

We have these tried and true methods, yes, but sometimes it simply doesn’t feel like enough. I can open up the conversation with all the TEDW questions in the world, but that doesn’t necessarily mean I will get to the core of a participant’s thought process or behavior. How do I get the most out of my (short) time with participants?

Enter the ACV ladder.

Where did ACV laddering come from?

Laddering was first introduced in the 1960s by, who other than, clinical psychologists. It was presented as a way to get through all of the noise in order to understand a person’s true values and belief system. It became so popular because it is a simple method of establishing a person’s mental models, and it is a well-established tool in the field of psychology. Yes, we aren’t psychologists but…

Being a user researcher sometimes feels like I am simultaneously trying to be a therapist

This methodology didn’t just pop out of nowhere, but is based on the means-end-chain theory. Since I don’t want to bore you with a long discussion on this (although I am totally a nerd and obsessed with this stuff), I will succinctly summarize:

The means-end-chain theory assigns a heirarchy to how people think about purchasing (because everything comes back to money):

1. People look at the characteristics of a product (shiny, red car)
2. People determine the functional, social and mental benefits for buying the product (I can get from point A to point B, I get a new car, the car is cool)
3. People have unconscious thoughts about values that align with their reasoning for the purchase (A new car makes me feel cool, which makes me feel young, which, ultimately, makes me feel important and less insecure about my age, looks, etc.)

I know I mention only in the last point that thoughts are unconscious, but they tend to be fairly unconscious throughout the entire process.

Anyways…

So, what is ACV laddering?

Essentially, it is a type of probing that gets to a core value. ACV laddering breaks down the means-end-chain theory into three categories:

1. Attributes (A) — The characteristics a person assigns to a product or a system
2. Consequences ? —Each attribute has a consequence, or gives the user a certain benefit and feeling associated with the product
3. Core values (V) — Each consequence is linked to a value or belief system of that person, which is the unconscious (and hard to measure) driver of their behaviors

How do I use ACV laddering?

When we start to understand the different areas of the ACV ladder, we can identify where a participant is when they are responding, and try to urge them forward towards core values. For example:

- Q: Why do you like wine coolers? (Assuming the participant has indicated they do like them)

- A: They are less alcoholic than other options (attribute)

- Q: Interesting. Why do you like them because they are less alcoholic?

- A: I can’t drink as many as other types of alcohol, which is important (attribute)

- Q: Why is that important to you?

- A: I don’t get as drunk and tired (consequence)

- Q: And how does not getting as drunk and tired impact you?

- A: Well, I don’t want to look like a drunk…it is important for me to appear sophisticated (consequence)

- Q: Sophisticated?

- A: It is important for me to get the respect of others, and it is hard to do that when you’re drunk (core value)

With ACV laddering in mind, it is easier to pick up on attributes and consequences to, ultimately, get to someone’s core value behind their actions or thoughts. This also helps you get the most from your participants!

This information can then be used to create a hierarchical value map, which displays the ladder with the participant’s responses into a very visually stimulating map.

When you use ACV laddering, you get very concrete insights that are much deeper than whether or not someone liked something, or even a story they recall. This can really impact the user experience of a product, from how it is displayed, how the copy is written, how it is sold, the micro-interactions within a product, the colors and the even the order of screens shown to a user. Essentially, it can have a huge, company-wide impact.

I am using laddering to level-up as a user researcher and bring my team (and beyond) even better insights. What do you think?

*

The TEDW approach uses the following words to open up conversation, as opposed to asking yes/no or closed questions:

- “Talk me through/tell me about the last time you…”

- “Explain the last time/explain why…”

- “Describe what you were feeling/what happened…”

- “Walk me through how you…”

The 5-why’s technique is to remind us to ask why five times, in order to get to the core of why a participant is saying what he/she is saying