Proposed Term
Laddering
Context
An interviewing/elicitation technique rooted in George Kelly's Personal Construct Psychology, formalised by Dennis Hinkle (1965) and later applied in marketing as means-end laddering (Reynolds & Gutman, 1988). Laddering up ("why is that important?") moves from concrete attributes toward underlying goals and values; laddering down ("how / can you give an example?") moves from abstract statements toward concrete specifics. In requirements engineering and UX it surfaces the real needs behind stated requests.
Distinct from Five Whys: laddering is bidirectional, construct-based, and an interview technique for eliciting a hierarchy of meaning — not a linear root-cause drill.
Fits requirements-engineering; relatives in the catalog: five-whys, problem-space-nvc, socratic-method, xy-problem, jobs-to-be-done.
Sources: Hinkle (1965), The change of personal constructs from the viewpoint of a theory of construct implications · Reynolds & Gutman (1988), Laddering theory, method, analysis, and interpretation.
LLM Activation Test Result
Model: Claude (Opus 4.8)
Prompt: "What concepts do you associate with 'Laddering' (interview / requirements technique)?"
Response: An elicitation technique moving up (attributes → consequences → values, "means-end chains") and down (abstract → concrete) via repeated probing; roots in Personal Construct Psychology (Kelly), Hinkle, and means-end theory (Reynolds & Gutman); used in UX research, RE, and marketing.
Honest caveat: "laddering" is polysemous (also finance/electronics/networking). Recognition of the interview technique is reliable mainly when qualified — likely a ★★ "needs qualification" anchor, recommended form "laddering interview technique" / "means-end laddering".
Pre-submission Checklist
Proposed Term
Laddering
Context
An interviewing/elicitation technique rooted in George Kelly's Personal Construct Psychology, formalised by Dennis Hinkle (1965) and later applied in marketing as means-end laddering (Reynolds & Gutman, 1988). Laddering up ("why is that important?") moves from concrete attributes toward underlying goals and values; laddering down ("how / can you give an example?") moves from abstract statements toward concrete specifics. In requirements engineering and UX it surfaces the real needs behind stated requests.
Distinct from Five Whys: laddering is bidirectional, construct-based, and an interview technique for eliciting a hierarchy of meaning — not a linear root-cause drill.
Fits requirements-engineering; relatives in the catalog:
five-whys,problem-space-nvc,socratic-method,xy-problem,jobs-to-be-done.Sources: Hinkle (1965), The change of personal constructs from the viewpoint of a theory of construct implications · Reynolds & Gutman (1988), Laddering theory, method, analysis, and interpretation.
LLM Activation Test Result
Model: Claude (Opus 4.8)
Prompt: "What concepts do you associate with 'Laddering' (interview / requirements technique)?"
Response: An elicitation technique moving up (attributes → consequences → values, "means-end chains") and down (abstract → concrete) via repeated probing; roots in Personal Construct Psychology (Kelly), Hinkle, and means-end theory (Reynolds & Gutman); used in UX research, RE, and marketing.
Honest caveat: "laddering" is polysemous (also finance/electronics/networking). Recognition of the interview technique is reliable mainly when qualified — likely a ★★ "needs qualification" anchor, recommended form "laddering interview technique" / "means-end laddering".
Pre-submission Checklist