Means – End Chains

as Goal Hierarchies
Jonathan Gutman
University of New Hampshire

ABSTRACT

A means – end chain (MEC) has been defined as a hierarchy of goals

that represents potential identities of the actions necessary for the
person to reach his or her goal. Goals as ends in MECs can be
grouped into three levels: action goals (concerned with the act
itself ), outcome goals (immediate effects of actions), and
consequences (indirect effects stemming from outcomes). An action
unit (AU) is defined as a planned sequence of acts directed toward
goal achievement. AUs may be part or all of a MEC, thus the highest
goal in a MEC may not be what the consumer has in mind when
making a purchase or consumption decision. Data are presented that
suggest that laddering takes respondents beyond the intended goals
of their initial actions or choice. Goals beyond AU’s which are part of
a MEC may represent the underlying reasons why we strive for the
goals we do. This seems to be one useful way to differentiate goals
from values. Goals are what we want; values are why we want them.
©1997 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

The means – end chain (MEC) model is based on expectancy-value the-

ory. Consumers’ actions in choosing to consume or use products or ser-
vices (and their attributes) produce outcomes. Consumers learn which
outcomes they desire and which to avoid. Once they learn which acts
produce desired or undesired outcomes, their choice behavior is guided
accordingly (Gutman, 1982).
As a result of this process, consumers learn to think about products
and services in terms of their attributes, the consequences accruing to
them from their use, and their instrumentality in achieving important

Psychology & Marketing Vol. 14(6):545 – 560 (September 1997)

© 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0742-6046/97/060545-16
545
personal values. The levels-of-abstraction concept describes this way of
thinking about products or services. The product or service itself is
represented by its attributes — those that are physical or concrete, and
those that are abstract (the way the product is perceived) — at the low-
est level. The remaining levels are consumers’ outcomes — functional
and psychosocial consequences, and consumers’ instrumental and ter-
minal values (Olson & Reynolds, 1983; Reynolds & Gutman, 1988).
The nature of the levels suggests a hierarchical ordering. Consumer
outcomes cannot affect product attributes, but consuming or using
products with particular attributes can affect consumer outcomes.
And, as personal values are held to be relatively constant over long pe-
riods of time (Rokeach, 1973), achieving a valued state is brought
about, facilitated, or caused by consequences at lower levels of abstrac-
tion, not the converse. Thus, there is a flow toward desired ends at suc-
cessively higher levels of abstraction extending from the product to
important aspects of consumers’ self-concepts. It is in this way that
means – end chains are said to be hierarchically related sets of ele-
ments across levels of abstraction.
Laddering is a frequently used approach for eliciting means – end
chains (Reynolds & Gutman, 1988). In laddering, the respondent
replies to a series of “why?” probes, typically starting with the attrib-
utes that distinguish more-desired from less-desired alternatives. In-
herent in the answer to why a consumer wants a particular attribute
or consequence is that it causes, leads to, or facilitates the benefit at
the next higher level of abstraction. This series of successive elicita-
tions creates a chain of elements, with each element being directly
linked to the elements adjacent to it.
An illustrative ladder elicited from a respondent in a study of break-
fast cereal (Gutman & Reynolds, 1978) appears below:

crunchy : has body : stays with me : avoid snacks :

aids weight loss : improved appearance : romance

Does eating crunchy cereal improve your love life? Laddering would
have it so. And, maybe it is true. Starting with “has body,” this respon-
dent connected each element to the prior element, indicating that she
felt there was an implicative relation between them. If A, then B; if B,
then C; if C, then D; and so forth until one can go no further. But, does
A really lead to D? Kosko (1993), p. 94) notes that the Greek word
sorites refers to a logical chain in which the first term implies the last
term. In the example above, eating crunchy cereal set a chain of events
in motion that eventually led (in this respondent’s mind) to improved
romance, but was this the goal she had in mind when she made her
decision to eat crunchy cereal?
Thinking of a MEC as a hierarchy of goals (Bagozzi & Dabholkar,
1994; Pieters, Baumgartner, & Allen, 1995), with each successive goal

546 GUTMAN
being a subgoal of the final goal, may help us to examine this question.
To what extent would this respondent perceive romance as the in-
tended goal of her choice to eat crunchy cereal? And, to what extent
would she feel that eating crunchy cereal helped her achieve romance,
or any of the subgoals leading to it? This is the question to be explored
in this article. In addressing this question, the nature of consumer
goals will be discussed, as will action units (goal sequences designed to
reach intended goals). Some of the tenets of action psychology
(Vallacher & Wegner, 1987) will be discussed to clarify the relationship
between goals at the lower levels of MECs and goals at higher levels.
The following will address the question of how high up in a MEC the
person’s identification of their actions is. Concepts from these domains
will be integrated into the means – end chain model to support viewing
a MEC as a hierarchy of goals. Following that, some empirical data
will be presented to demonstrate the strength of these relations in
MECs.

GOALS

Goals are pleasant consequences (end states or otherwise) to be de-

sired or unpleasant consequences to be avoided (negative goals)
(Winell, 1987). Goals are organized in hierarchies to facilitate their
accomplishment. Lower-level goals (subgoals) are subordinate to
higher-level goals (Bandura, 1988, 1989; Beach, 1990; Bettman,
1979). This means that satisfying lower-level goals helps in achiev-
ing higher-level goals. Higher-level goals represent the deep layer of
consumer motivation (Pieters et al., 1995; Reynolds & Gutman,
1988).
Goals provide the primary motivating and directing factor for con-
sumer behavior. Consumer choice can be regarded as a person’s move-
ment through a goal hierarchy (Bettman, 1979). Goals influence
actions because they represent the benefits for which consumers
search (Park & Smith, 1989). People compare their current state with
their desired goal. Differences between what is and what is desired
motivate people to action. And people continually monitor this differ-
ence to assess their progress in achieving their goal states (Carver &
Scheier, 1981; Miller, Galanter, & Pribram, 1960; Powers, 1973; von
Bertalanffy, 1968). Goals are able to guide a plan of action because
they activate procedural knowledge that tells people how to achieve
their goals and allows them to assess their progress while doing so
(Bagozzi, 1992; Carver & Scheier, 1981; Srull & Wyer, 1986).
The elements in a MEC — attributes, consequences, and values —
can be considered to be elements in a goal hierarchy. A goal hierarchy
is the way a consumer breaks up a complex or longer-range problem
into a series of smaller, shorter-range problems that can be managed

MEANS – END CHAINS AS GOAL HIERARCHIES 547

better over an extended period of time (Bettman, 1979). The goal hier-
archy’s final goal can be at the personal values level, at the conse-
quence level, or at the attribute level. When the final goal is at the
values level, relevant attributes and desired consequences are the goal
hierarchy’s subgoals. Thus, a MEC can be conceptualized as a goal hi-
erarchy with product goals at lower levels linked to important per-
sonal goals at higher levels.
The goal hierarchy is an attractive alternative to the levels-of-
abstraction concept as a way of thinking about the components of
means – end chains for a number of reasons. First, consumer’s
thoughts and actions are directed by goals (Carver & Scheier, 1981).
The levels-of-abstraction concept is a useful way to think about the
categorization process by which consumers make sense of their worlds.
But it is goals that motivate behavior (Pieters et al., 1995). Another
reasons is that it is easier and more direct to think of goals being
achieved than to think about attributes, consequences, and values be-
ing achieved.

ACTION UNITS

If our actions are goal directed, then goals are the aims of actions
(Heckenhausen & Kuhl, 1985; Lee, Locke, & Latham, 1989, p. 299).
Therefore, if we wish to understand someone’s actions, a good place to
start is to inquire about the goals of their actions. Goals rest on three
levels of end states in an ascending hierarchical order: (1) action goals;
(2) goals relating to the outcomes of actions; and (3) goals relating to
the consequences of those more immediate outcomes (Heckenhausen
& Kuhl, 1985, p. 138). At the first level, enjoyment or interest is in the
action itself. At the next level, end states refer to direct or immediate
outcomes of actions. And, at the highest level, end states refer to indi-
rect consequences that are caused by or facilitated by these direct
outcomes.
The decision to try to accomplish a goal involves planning an act or
a sequence of acts directed toward reaching that goal. The actions to-
gether with the sought goal are called an action unit (AU). The proxi-
mal boundary of the AU is the decision (to act) itself; the distal
boundary is the goal that represents what we are trying to achieve as
defined in our decision to act. The person moves toward their final goal
by moving through the goal hierarchy to achieve the end goal of the
AU. Success toward achieving the distal goal can be gauged by mea-
suring progress in achieving subgoals en route to the final goal of the
AU.
An AU is very much like a plan (Miller et al., 1960). The TOTE unit
component of plans (test – operate – test – exit) emphasizes constructing
a list of tests to perform to direct progress toward the goal. “When we

548 GUTMAN
have a clear [i]mage of a desired outcome, we can use it to provide the
conditions for which we must test, and those tests, when arranged in
sequence, provide a crude strategy for a possible Plan” (Miller et al.,
1960, p. 38). What an AU and a Plan have in common is that they refer
to a sequence of actions directed toward accomplishing a goal. And
both imply that there is an intention at the time of the decision to act
that encompasses a final goal of that act.

ACTION IDENTITIES AND MEANS – END CHAINS

The intention behind an action is its identity, which is the meaning at-
tached to an action — what a person thinks he or she is doing. The end
point of every action in an action sequence, no matter how minute, is a
goal (Beach, 1985), but at the time of the initial decision to act, and
during the implementation of that decision, there is a desirable and of-
ten fairly well defined state of affairs that is regarded as the end point
of our endeavors.
An action’s identity structure is a hierarchical arrangement of an
action’s various identities. Lower-level identities convey the details or
specifics of the action and the action’s immediate consequences.
Higher-level identities convey a more general understanding of the ac-
tion, indicating why the action is done or what its effects and implica-
tions are (Vallacher & Wegner, 1987). Researchers interested in
studying goal hierarchies have used approaches similar to laddering
(Bower, Black, & Turner, 1979; Little, 1983, 1989; Palys & Little, 1983;
Strack, Schwarz, & Gschneidinger; Vallacher & Wagner, 1985). “Why”
probes are used to prompt people to think about higher-level concepts;
“how” prompts encourage thinking about lower-order components of
goal hierarchies. Laddering, then, can be considered to be an approach
for eliciting a person’s hierarchical set of goals with regard to a partic-
ular consumer decision.
The objective of laddering is to elicit as complete a chain as possible
stemming from an initial act. In eliciting MECs laddering may proceed
beyond the person’s highest intended goal for his or her decision to act
(the act’s highest identity). Miller et al. (1960, p. 62) make te observa-
tion that “. . . a crucial difference between a chain of actions and a
Plan of action is: when a chain is initiated with no internal represen-
tation of the complete course of action, the later parts of the chain are
not intended. When a Plan is initiated, the intent to execute the later
parts of it is clear.” Thus, in laddering, we may be trying to elicit plans,
but are ending up with chains.
For example, the initial act of using or consuming a product may re-
quire additional acts to reach the final goal. Having a cup of coffee
may accomplish the immediate goal of refreshing the coffee drinker. In
the situation in which this activity takes place, refreshment may

MEANS – END CHAINS AS GOAL HIERARCHIES 549

enhance the ability to perform various other acts, such as studying.
Studying may help to accomplish the goal of doing well on an upcom-
ing test, et cetera. Of course, studying itself involves many separate
activities, as does test-taking. Coffee drinking may well facilitate the
goal of studying more effectively, especially if it takes place immedi-
ately preceding (or coincident with) studying, because of coffee’s caf-
feine content. However, it is less likely that the coffee drinker would
represent or identify their coffee drinking as helping them do well on a
test, because the test takes place in a different situation at a later
point in time (and the effects of coffee’s caffeine will have worn off ).
Nonetheless, laddering might elicit a connection among these ele-
ments because success on the test would likely be attributed to study-
ing, which is facilitated by coffee drinking. Working backwards, with
means – end analysis used as a problem solving approach (Newell &
Simon, 1972), one might reason that good test performance is depen-
dent on studying, studying is dependent on being alert and refreshed,
and being alert and refreshed is enhanced by drinking coffee. Top-
down (means – end analysis) or bottom-up (using laddering to probe
the person as to why they wanted each successively higher goal), the
question of the intent of the person doing the studying who decides to
have a cup of coffee remains. The study described below was designed
to shed additional light on this issue.

THE STUDY

Purpose
The purpose of this study is to determine the extent to which the hier-
archy of goals elicited through the laddering proceeds beyond the abil-
ity of the initial act of consumption to contribute to goal attainment. A
related objective is to determine if goals elicited through laddering ex-
tend beyond what people thought their initial acts would lead to. That
is, in an A : B : C : D goal sequence, the strength of the A : B,
A : C, and A : D relations will be assessed.
To this end, a hierarchy of goals stemming from an initial act was
elicited, and then the instrumentality of the act in achieving each suc-
cessive goal was determined. The act in question was drinking a bever-
age while studying for a test. Using “studying for a test” assured that
the situation was familiar to all respondents (all of whom were stu-
dents) — one in which they had found themselves many times, and for
which their goals could be readily accessed and rated. It was hypothe-
sized that instrumentality ratings of goals in respondents’ elicited goal
hierarchies would decrease as goals move from those most closely re-
lated to the immediate effects of consumption toward study goals, to
goals beyond the studying situation. Also, it was hypothesized that as
goals became more distant from the act of consumption, they would be

550 GUTMAN
less descriptive of what respondents were thinking about at the time
of consumption.

Method
Students in a first-year marketing principles class at a New England
university were given a self-administered laddering questionnaire (see
Walker & Olson, 1991), for another example of a self-administered lad-
dering questionnaire) to fill out in class. A series of questions led re-
spondents from considering the beverage benefit they desired, to why
they wanted this benefit, to their study, test, and course goals. The
highest goal levels queried were their long-range and final goals (see
Table 1 for goal-level descriptions and the question asked for each
level). Respondents wrote down their answer to the question at the
first level and used this response in conjunction with the question at
the next level to generate a response to that question. This process
continued until the last question was answered.
Two rating scales were used to rate the goals at each level. The in-
strumentality rating scale (a 9-point scale ranging from “not at all” to
“a lot”) used the phrasing: To what extent does drinking this beverage
help you get this benefit (or achieve this goal)? The descriptive rating
scale (a 9-point scale ranging from “not at all” to “a lot”) used the
phrasing: To what extent did you think of this benefit (or goal) at the
time you decided to drink this beverage?

Results
Frequency Tabulations of Elicited Goals at Each Level. Ninety-
eight questionnaires were handed out; 14 were returned incomplete,
leaving 84 for analysis. Of these, 7 respondents said that drinking a
beverage while studying for a test had no effect on the effectiveness
of their studying (their results will be reported separately, leaving 77

Table 1. Goal-Level Questions.

Goal Levels Question
Beverage What beverage do you drink while studying for a test?
Desired beverage What physical or mental benefit do you get from drinking this
benefit beverage?
Benefit goal How does this increase the effectiveness of your studying?
Study goal When you study for a test, what goal do you achieve through more
effective studying?
Test goal What test goal does this help you achieve?
Course goal What course goal does this help you achieve?
Long-range goal What long-range goal does achieving your course goal help you
achieve?
Final goal Why is this important to you?

MEANS – END CHAINS AS GOAL HIERARCHIES 551

Table 2. Frequency of Responses to Goal Questions at Each Goal Level.
Goal Level
Long
Responses Beverage Benefit Study Test Course Range Final
Caffeine 22.1%
Thirst 27.3
quenching
Stay awake 32.7 31.2%
Study longer 26.0
Concentrate 23.4
better
Retain more 41.6% 7.8% 11.7%
Better grades 57.1 92.2 88.3 10.4%
More 9.1
knowledge
Higher GPA 28.6
Better job 22.1 40.3%
Graduate 23.4 9.1%
Success 14.3
More money 13.0
Other 17.9 19.4 1.3 6.4 23.3

respondents’ data to be reported). Soft drinks and coffee were the most
frequently mentioned beverages.
Table 2 shows a tabulation of the responses for each goal level.
“Staying awake” was mentioned by 63.9% of respondents at either the
beverage goal level (32.7%) or the benefit goal level (31.2%). Almost
half the respondents responded that their studying was made more ef-
fective because they could concentrate more or study longer. Study,
test, and course goals were the same: “retaining more,” and “getting
better grades.” Significantly, almost half the respondents mentioned
“retaining more” as a study goal, whereas this goal was much less fre-
quently mentioned at the test and course goal levels (beyond the study-
ing situation). The long-range goals reflect typical student concerns,
“graduating,” “getting a higher GPA,” and “finding a good job.” Final
goals were diverse, extending from “getting a better job,” to “success”
and “making more money” (other goals at this level were “security,”
“freedom,” “being self-supporting,” and “getting a good education”).

Hierarchical Goal Map. Numerical codes were given to each respon-

dent’s goals, yielding a vector of goals for each respondent. The result-
ing matrix was used to generate another matrix of the number of
times each goal preceded (led to) each other goal (see Reynolds &
Gutman, 1988, for further details). The map is based on the frequency
of relations among adjacent elements aggregated across respondents
(frequencies for plotted relations are shown on the map). The hierar-

552 GUTMAN
chical goal map (using a cutoff level of 6 to indicate only the main rela-
tionships) for the aggregate group of respondents is shown in Figure 1.
This map shows the interrelations among the elements shown in
the frequency tabulation (Table 2). As can be seen, “studying longer”
stems from “staying awake,” whereas “concentrating better” comes
from “quenching one’s thirst.” The “retain more — better grades” rela-
tion extends from study goals through to course goals. At the higher
levels, “getting a good job” is seen as coming mostly from “a high GPA,”
but also from “more knowledge,” and “having graduated.” And, at the
highest level, “a good job” leads to “more money” and “success.”
To refer back to the original question behind this study, what goal
level is the highest at which these students identify in terms of their
act of drinking a beverage while studying for a test? The way these
maps are often interpreted is to consider any pathway from the bottom
to the top as a perceptual orientation (Reynolds & Gutman, 1988) — a
way a segment of respondents has of looking at the world with respect
to a given product category. The obvious implication is that elements

Figure 1. Hierarchical goal map.

MEANS – END CHAINS AS GOAL HIERARCHIES 553

at the bottom do indeed link up in a meaningful way to elements at
the top. The discussion of this topic will be returned to later in the ar-
ticle. However, the following section presents findings on direct ratings
of these relations.

Instrumentality and Descriptive Ratings. Table 3 shows the goal

instrumentality and description ratings, and for both ratings there are
significant differences across levels (F[6,532]) 5 23.1, p , .001 for in-
strumentality, and F[5,532] 5 18.9, p , .001 for description). Compar-
isons among individual means made with the use of Duncan’s multiple
range test (at the .05 level) are also shown in the table. In both cases,
the hypotheses are supported, as means at lower goal levels are signif-
icantly higher than means at higher goal levels.
For instrumentality ratings, goal achievement at the beverage level
as a function of beverage consumption is rated significantly higher
than goal achievement at the benefit level. This indicates that respon-
dents felt that their immediate physical or mental goals were achieved
to a significantly higher degree by drinking the beverage of their
choice than the extent to which beverage consumption helped them in-
crease their studying effectiveness. And the impact of drinking the
beverage on their studying effectiveness was higher than for their
achieving their ultimate study goals.
The achievement of study goals as a function of beverage consump-
tion, while not rated higher than achievement of test goals, was rated
higher than achieving course goals (much farther removed in time and

Table 3. Average Instrumentality and Description Ratings.

Beverage Benefit Study Test Course Long Range Final
Instrumentality Ratings: How Much Does Drinking this Beverage Help You
Achieve the Goal at Each Level?
6.38 5.63 4.91 4.35 3.95 3.45 3.21

Description Ratings: To What Extent Do You Think of this Goal at the Time
You Decide to Drink this Beverage?
6.18 5.63 4.91 4.35 3.95 3.45 3.21

Instrumentality Ratings for Respondents Who Said the Beverage Benefit Was
“No Effect”
6.43 2.43 2.14 2.00 1.86 1.43 1.57
Description Ratings for Respondents Who Said the Beverage Benefit Was
“No Effect”
4.43 1.57 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.43
Note. 1 — not at all; 9 — a lot.
p , .05 for nonunderlined means.

554 GUTMAN
place from the act of studying for one particular test, or in taking that
test). Test goal achievement was rated higher than long-range and fi-
nal goal achievement. Thus, as we move up the goal hierarchy, the in-
strumentality ascribed to beverage consumption while studying drops
in a meaningful pattern. Roughly similar results occurred for the de-
scription ratings. The goals respondents had in mind when deciding
what beverage to drink while studying were better described by their
lower-level goals than their higher-level goals.
There were seven respondents who indicated that although their de-
sired beverage benefits were achieved by consuming the beverage of
their choice while studying, drinking this beverage had no effect on
their studying effectiveness. As they went on to state their study, test,
course, long-range, and final goals, their ratings for the efficacy of
drinking a beverage while studying could be ascertained as a check on
scale usage. These results, also shown in Table 3, show that although
they get their desired beverage benefits, their low ratings for all the
other goal levels confirms their “no effect” answer. A similar pattern
occurs for the description ratings.

DISCUSSION

Relation between Action Units and Means–End Chains

The means – end chain as presently conceptualized (and operationalized
in laddering) is a series of elements (attributes, benefits, and values),
each of which is linked in some way to adjacent elements, but not explic-
itly to nonadjacent elements. Thus, the final element in the chain may
or may not be the intended goal of the initial act, which is the basis for
the chain. Thus, although a person may drink a cup of coffee to wake up;
and waking up make get them ready to face the day, which may lead to
enhanced on-the-job performance, which may lead to success and accom-
plishment, they may not think of their goal at this highest level when
drinking coffee. And, as additional acts are necessary to move through
the goal hierarchy, the question of the nature of the consumer’s plan of
action — what is intended — becomes more difficult to answer. The re-
sults of this small empirical test suggest this to be the case, at least
with respect to beverage consumption while studying for a test.
Understanding consumer choice means understanding why con-
sumers make the choices they do. The means – end chain model and
laddering contribute to this process. But, as indicated in these results,
laddering does not directly address the issue of the highest level at
which consumers actually think about what it is they are doing. The
A : B, B : C, C : D approach used in laddering does not directly deal
with specific linkages A has with elements at other levels beyond B.
Different products (and brands within product classes) may differ in
the extent to which their use or consumption is directly connected to

MEANS – END CHAINS AS GOAL HIERARCHIES 555

high level goals. When products or brands are purchased for their sym-
bolic value, or for what they mean rather than what they do
(Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982; Levy, 1964) the act of using or consum-
ing the product is more likely to be directly connected to high-level
goals than when purchase motives are more functionally oriented.
However, ladders may appear similar for both types of products.
One of the strengths of the means – end chain model and of ladder-
ing in particular is its ability to build bridges between potentially in-
consequential choices and important personal values. But although it
is true that high-level goals or values may represent the underlying
motivation for why consumers make the choices they do (Reynolds &
Gutman, 1988), it is important to determine whether consumers think
of their actions in this context. One way the means– end chain study
results are applied is by creating advertising that tries to link high-
level goals to product use or consumption (Reynolds & Gutman, 1988).
In doing so, it is important to distinguish whether consumers have al-
ready made this linkage or whether the advertiser has to create this
linkage in consumers’ minds. If connecting brand choice to personal
values is an advertising goal, then advertising effectiveness research
ought to determine whether in fact the consumer identifies his brand
choice in terms of personal values. This relates to the difference be-
tween a Plan and a chain (Miller et al., 1960). In conducting
means – end chain studies, goals beyond AUs that are part of a MEC
may represent the underlying reasons why we strive for the goals we
do — but they are not the actual reasons why we do what we do.

Methodological Considerations
There are several factors that affect the nature of intended goals at
the initiation of a planned action sequence and of the efficacy of the
initial act on goals higher up in the goal sequence. Taking these fac-
tors into account can improve the laddering process to more accurately
reflect consumers’ underlying motivation.

Situation. A situational context is important in eliciting means – end

chains (Reynolds & Gutman, 1988). By having the respondent consider
the product in the situation in which he or she uses it, the demands of
the situation (time, place, others present, and other activities engaged
in) as well as the person’s situational involvement (Celsi & Olson,
1988) are brought to bear on the elicitation of the MEC. Using the
most typical consumption situation when laddering is one effective ap-
proach, although a particular consumption situation can also be used
if it is of special interest (also MECs for different consumption situa-
tions can be compared).
The action unit perspective is helpful in laddering because it de-
mands consideration of what the intended goal is and whether it can
be achieved in the original use/consumption situation, or if the end

556 GUTMAN
goal of the AU extends beyond the situation in which the behavior se-
quence is initiated. If the distal goal is achieved in a subsequent situa-
tion, what situation is it, and how does the product help the user
achieve goal satisfaction in that situation?

One Act versus Many Acts. Determining the highest intended goal
with respect to an initial action is simplified when a single act accom-
plishes more than one goal. Referring back to our coffee drinker men-
tioned earlier, the intention in drinking the coffee may be to feel
refreshed (subgoal). And, being refreshed caused one to be alert. Tak-
ing a coffee break may serve both of these goals. When we consider
drinking coffee as a means to the subgoal of studying better, other acts
with respect to studying behavior come into play. As higher-order goals
are considered, such as getting a better grade on the test; doing well in
the course; succeeding in college; getting a better job; and living a
happy, successful life; many additional acts become necessary. These
additional acts make it less likely that the final goal would be the in-
tent of the initial act of drinking a cup of coffee.
In this study, drinking a beverage, by itself, will not enhance goal at-
tainment without additional actions (reviewing notes, studying text ma-
terial). The data suggest that the more these subsequent acts interpose,
the lower the ratings of the impact of the initial act (beverage consump-
tion). Further, a lack of consideration of the highest goal the product can
be directly linked to may lead to overpromising in marketing communi-
cations. On the other hand, high-level goals (or personal values) that are
not explicitly linked to product use or consumption can provide a valu-
able contextual basis for marketing communication. Or, a lack of explicit
linkage may lead to the development of cues that create such a linkage.

Act Difficulty. Some acts are more difficult to perform than others.
This raises the question of the extent to which product attributes
alone provide the desired outcomes as opposed to the outcomes of ac-
tions needed on the part of the consumer. In the coffee example, the re-
quired action is easy — just swallow the drink and the attribute of
caffeine will cause you to feel more alert. However, a great deal of skill
is needed for a skier to go faster by taking advantage of the attributes
of a pair of skis. Even though the actual physical involvement with the
product differs between the two cases, felt (psychological) involvement
can be high in both cases. Both cases offer opportunities for attributes
to be connected to important personal goals. Thus, it is important in
laddering to explore the explicit linkage between the benefits the prod-
uct provides and high-level goal attainment in relation to other actions
required for goal attainment.

Acts of Others. Are the acts of others needed for goal accomplish-
ment? Social goals, in particular, require feedback (and in some cases,

MEANS – END CHAINS AS GOAL HIERARCHIES 557

cooperation) from others. Ego goals, such as self-esteem, depend on be-
ing admired by others. Being a leader requires the cooperation of fol-
lowers. In many cases, goal satisfaction lies beyond the control of the
product or of the user. Probing for action sequences needed to fulfill de-
sired goals should uncover these types of actions and help to put the
contributions of the product in a proper perspective.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

A means – end chain (MEC) has been defined as a hierarchy of goals.

Goals are pleasant consequences to be desired or unpleasant conse-
quences to be avoided. Goal hierarchies are a way to break down long-
range goals into a manageable sequence of subgoals that can guide a
sequence of actions over time. Goals as ends in MECs can be grouped
into three levels: action goals (concerned with the act itself ), outcome
goals (immediate effects of actions), and consequences (indirect effects
stemming from outcomes).
An action unit is defined as a planned sequence of acts directed to-
ward goal achievement. An AU’s final goal is the intention of the act at
the time of the decision to act. An AU represents an action’s potential
identities — what the person thinks they are doing or the most ab-
stract way they might describe their actions. AUs may be part or all of
a MEC. Goals beyond AUs that are part of a MEC may represent the
underlying reasons why we strive for the goals we do.
Data have been presented that suggest that laddering takes respon-
dents beyond the intended goals of their initial actions or choice. The
action sequence the consumer has in mind in using or consuming a
product or service is indicated by an action unit (and related action
identity). This AU may be part or all of the MEC. If higher-level conse-
quences lie beyond the distal goal of the initial act (and what is in-
tended by that act), they can be thought of as reasons why the distal
goal is desired by the person. This represents a top-down view in
which higher-level consequences (and values) explain goals of actions,
but do not represent the actual goals of actions (as recognized by the
consumer). This seems to be one useful way to differentiate goals from
values. Goals are what we want; values are why we want them.

REFERENCES

Bagozzi, R. P. (1992). The self-regulation of attitudes, intentions, and behav-

ior, Social Psychology Quarterly, 55, 178 – 204.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Dabholkar, P. (1994). Consumer recycling goals and their ef-
fect on decisions to recycle: A means – end chain analysis, Psychology and
Marketing, 11(4), 313 – 340.

558 GUTMAN
Bandura, A. (1988). Self-regulation of motivation and action through goal sys-
tems. In V. Hamilton, G. H. Bower, & N. H. Frijda (Eds.), Cognitive perspec-
tives on emotion and motivation. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Bandura, A. (1989). Self-regulation of motivation and action through internal
standards and goal systems. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Goal concepts in person-
ality and social psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Beach, L. R. (1985). Action: Decision-implementation strategies and tactics. In
R. R. Valacher & D. M. Wegner (Eds.), A theory of action identification.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Beach, L. R. (1990). Image theory: Decision making in personal and organiza-
tional contexts. Chichester: Wiley.
Bettman, J. R. (1979). An information processing theory of consumer choice.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bower, G. H., Black, J. B., & Turner, T. J. (1979). Scripts in memory for texts,
Cognitive Psychology, 11, 177 – 220.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and self-regulation: A control-
theory approach to human behavior. New York: Springer.
Celsi, R. L., & Olson, J. C. (1988). The role of involvement in attention and
comprehension processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 210 – 224.
Gutman, J. (1982). A means – end chain model based on consumer categoriza-
tion processes. Journal of Marketing, 46 (Spring), 60 – 72.
Gutman, J., & Reynolds, T. J. (1978). An investigation of the levels of cognitive
abstraction utilized by consumers in product differentiation. In J. Eighmey
(Ed.), Attitude research under the sun. Chicago: American Marketing
Association.
Heckenhausen, H., & Kuhl, J. (1985). From wishes to action: The dead
ends and short cuts on the long way to action. In R. R. Valacher & D. M.
Wegner (Eds.), A theory of action identification. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Hirschman, E., & Holbrook, M. (1982). Hedonic consumption: Emerging con-
cepts, methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46, 92 – 101.
Kosko, B. (1993). Fuzzy thinking. New York: Hyperion.
Lee, T. W., Locke, E., & Latham, G. P. (1989). Goal setting theory and job per-
formance. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Goal concepts in personality and social psy-
chology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Levy, S. (1964). Symbols for sale, Harvard Business Review, 37, 117 – 124.
Little, B. R. (1983). Personal projects: A rationale and methods for investiga-
tion. Environmental Behavior, 15, 273 – 309.
Little, B. R. (1989). Personal projects analysis: Trivial pursuits, magnificent
obsessions and the search for coherence. In D. M. Buss & N. Cantor (Eds.),
Personality psychology: Recent trends and emerging directions (pp. 15 – 31).
New York: Springer.
Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K. H. (1960). Plans and the structure of
behavior. New York: Holt.
Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Olson, J., & Reynolds, T. J. (1983). Understanding consumers’ cognitive struc-
tures: Implications for marketing strategy. In L. Percy & A. G. Woodside
(Eds.), Advertising and consumer psychology. Lexington, MA: Lexington
Books.

MEANS – END CHAINS AS GOAL HIERARCHIES 559

Palys, T. S., & Little, B. R. (1983). Perceived life satisfaction and the organiza-
tion of personal project systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 44, 1221 – 1230.
Park, C. W., & Smith, D. C. (1989). Product-level choice: A top-down or bottom-
up process? Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 289 – 299.
Pieters, R., Baumgartner, H., & Allen, D. (1995). A means – end chain ap-
proach to consumer goal structures, International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 12(3), 227 – 244.
Powers, W. T. (1973). Behavior: The control of perception. Chicago: Aldine.
Reynolds, T. J., & Gutman, J. (1988). Laddering theory, method, analysis, and
interpretation, Journal of Advertising Research, 28, 11 – 34.
Rokeach, M. J. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.
Srull, T. K., & Wyer, R. S. (1986). The role of chronic and temporary goals in
social information processing. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.),
Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior
(pp. 503 – 549). New York: Guildford Press.
Strack, F. N., Schwarz, & Gschneidinger, E. (1985). Happiness and reminisc-
ing: The role of time perspective, affect, and mode of thinking. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1460 – 1469.
Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1985). A theory of action identification.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1987). What do people think they’re doing?
Action identification and human behavior. Psychological Review, 94(1),
3 – 15.
von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General systems theory. New York: Braziller.
Walker, B. A., & Olson, J. (1991). Means – end chains: Connecting products
with self. Journal of Business Research, 22, 11 – 118.
Winell, M. (1987). Personal goals: The key to self-direction in adulthood.
In M. E. Ford and D. H. Fort (Eds.), Humans as self-constructing living sys-
tems: Putting the framework to work. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to: Jonathan Gutman,
Whittemore School of Business and Economics, University of New Hamp-
shire, Durham, NH 03824 (JGutman@Christa@UNH.edu).

560 GUTMAN