Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Traditional, Interpretive, and Reception Based Content Analyses: Improving the Ability of Content Analysis to Address Issues of Pragmatic and Theoretical Concern

  • Published:
Social Indicators Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper argues for a subtle but important shift in the way we view content analysis which allows for the introduction of two new variants on this methodology. Previously, content analysis has been seen as a method for quantifying the content of texts. This paper argues that we should view content analysis as a method for counting interpretations of content. Based on this reconceptualization, this paper suggests two new varieties of content analysis. Reception based content analysis allows researchers to quantify how different audiences will understand text. Interpretive content analysis is specially designed for latent content analysis, in which researchers go beyond quantifying the most straightforward denotative elements in a text. These new forms of content analysis are contrasted with traditional content analysis, and the appropriate conditions for their use are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Arnold, S.J. and E. Fischer: 1994, ‘Hermeneutics and consumer research’, Journal of Consumer Research 21, pp. 55-70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Babbie, E.R.: 1975, The Practice of Social Research (Wadsworth Publishing Co, Belmont, CA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Belk, R.W.: 1991, ‘Epilogue: Lessons learned’, in R. Belk (ed.), Highways and Buyways: Naturalistic Research from the Consumer Behavior Odyssey (Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT), pp. 234–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belk, R.W., M. Wallendorf and J.F. Sherry Jr.: 1989, ‘The sacred and the profane in consumer behavior: Theodicy or the odyssey’, Journal of Consumer Research 16, pp. 1–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berelson, B.: 1952, Content Analysis in Communications Research (The Free Press, Glance, IL).

    Google Scholar 

  • Berelson, B.: 1954, ‘Content analysis’, in G. Lindzey (ed.), Handbook of Social Psychology: Theory and Method, Vol. 1 (Addison-Wesley, Cambridge, MA), pp. 488–522.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J.: 1960, ‘A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales’, Educational and Psychological Measurement 20, pp. 37–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J.B.: 1989, ‘Counting advertising assertions to assess regulatory policy: When it doesn't add up’, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 8, pp. 24–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eco, U.: 1976, A Theory of Semiotics (Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN).

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliot, R., S. Eccles, and M. Hodgson: 1993, ‘Re-coding gender representations: Women, cleaning products, and advertising's ‘NewMan,''International Journal of Research in Marketing 10, pp. 311–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K.A. and H.A. Simon: 1984, Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data (The MIT Press, Cambridge,MA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M.S.: 1995, Strategies for interpreting Qualitative Data (SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, J.H., P.J. Kreshel and S.F. Tinkham: 1990, ‘In the pages of Ms.: Sex role portrayals of women in advertising’, Journal of Advertising 19, pp. 40–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, J.: 1982, Introduction to Communication Studies (Methuen, London).

    Google Scholar 

  • Fowles, B.R. and V.M. Horner: 1975, ‘A suggested research strategy’, Journal of Communication 25, pp. 98–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfinkel, H.: 1967, Studies in Ethnomethodology (Polity, Cambridge,MA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilly, M.C.: 1988, ‘Sex roles in advertising: A comparison of television advertisements in Australia,Mexico, and the United States’, Journal of Marketing 52, pp. 75–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B.: 1978, Theoretical Sensitivity (Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Holbrook, M.B.: 1977, ‘More on content analysis in consumer research’, Journal of Consumer Research 4, pp. 176–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holsti, O.R.: 1968, ‘Content analysis’, in G. Lindzey and E. Aronson (eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 2 (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA), pp. 596–692.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holt, D.B.: 1991, ‘Rashomon visits consumer behavior: An interpretive critique of naturalistic inquiry’, in R. Holman and M. Solomon (eds.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 18 (Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT), pp. 57–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoyer, W. and J. Jacoby: 1985, ‘Miscomprehension of public affairs programming’, Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 29, pp. 437–443.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacoby, J., W. Hoyer and D. Sheluga: 1980, Miscomprehension of televised Communication (American Association of Advertising Agencies, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Janis, I.L.: 1943, ‘Meaning and the study of symbolic behavior’, Psychiatry 6, pp. 425–439.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janis, I.L.: 1965, ‘The problem of validating content analysis’, in H.D. Lasswell and N. Leites (eds.), Language of Politics (The MIT Press, Cambridge,MA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, A.: 1943, ‘Content analysis and the theory of signs’, Philosophy or Science 10, pp. 230–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kassarjian, H.H.: 1977, ‘Content analysis in consumer research’, Journal of Consumer Research 4, pp. 8–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kepplinger, H.M.: 1989, ‘Content analysis and reception analysis’, American Behavioral Scientist 33, pp. 175–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolbe, R.H. and M.S. Burnett: 1991, ‘Content-analysis research: An examination of applications with directives for improving research reliability and objectivity’, Journal of Consumer Research 18, pp. 243–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasswell, H.D.: 1941, ‘The technique of symbol analysis (content analysis)’, Experimental Division, op. cit. As cited in Kaplan (1943).

  • Lincoln, Y.S. and E.G. Guba: 1985, Naturalistic Inquiry (Sage, Newbury Park, CA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Matacin, M.L. and J.M. Burger: 1987, ‘A content analysis of sexual themes in playboy cartoons’, Sex Roles 17, pp. 179–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mead, G.H.: 1934, Mind, Self, and Society (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mick, D.G. and C. Buhl: 1992, ‘A meaning-based model of advertising experiences’, Journal of Consumer Research 19, pp. 317–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mick, D.G. and L.G. Politi: 1989, ‘Consumers’ interpretations of advertising imagery: A visit to the hell of connotation’, in E. Hirschman (ed.), Interpretive Consumer Research (Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT), pp. 85–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M.B. andM.A. Huberman: 1984, Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New Methods (Sage, Newbury Park, CA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, C.: 1946, Signs, Language and Behavior (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).

    Google Scholar 

  • Perreault, W.D., Jr. and L.E. Leigh: 1989, ‘Reliability of nominal data based on qualitative judgments’, Journal of Marketing Research 26, pp. 135–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollay, R.W.: 1983, ‘Measuring the cultural values mManifest in advertising’, Current Issues and Research in Advertising 1, pp. 71–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollay, R.W.: 1989, ‘Filters, flavors flim-flam, too! On ‘Health information’ and policy implications in cigarette advertising’, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 8, pp. 30–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ringold, D.J. and J.E. Calfee: 1989, ‘The informational content of cigarette advertising: 1926–1986’, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 8, pp. 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ringold, D.J. and J.E. Calfee: 1990, ‘What can we learn from the informational content of cigarette advertising? A reply and further analysis’, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 9, pp. 30–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rust, R.T. and B. Cooil: 1994, ‘Reliability measures for qualitative data: Theory and implications’, Journal of Marketing Research 31, pp. 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schroder, K.C.: 1994, ‘Audience semiotics, interpretive communities and the ‘ethnographic turn’ in media research’, Media, Culture and Society 16, pp. 337–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, L.M.: 1994, ‘Images in advertising: The need for a theory of visual rhetoric’, Journal of Consumer Research 21, pp. 252–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiggle, S.: 1994, ‘Analysis and interpretation of qualitative data in consumer research’, Journal of Consumer Research 21, pp. 491–503.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern, B.B.: 1993, ‘Feminist literary criticism and the deconstruction of ads: A postmodern view of advertising and consumer responses’, Journal of Consumer Research 19, pp. 556–566.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A. and J. Corbin: 1990, Basics of Qualitative Research (Sage, Newbury Park, CA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, C.: 1990, ‘Eureka! and other tests of significance: A new look at evaluating interpretive research’, in M. Goldberg et al. (eds.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 17 (Association for Conumer Research, Provo, UT), pp. 25–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, C., W.B. Locander and H.R. Pollio: 1989, ‘Putting consumer experience back into consumer research: The philosophy and method of existentialphenomenology’, Journal of Consumer Research 16, pp. 133–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, C., H.R. Pollio and W.B. Locander: 1994, ‘The spoken and the unspoken: A hermeneutic approach to understanding the cultural viewpoints that underlie consumers’ expressed meanings’, Journal of Consumer Research 21, pp. 432–452.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallendorf, M. and E. Arnould: 1988, ‘'My favorite things': A cross-cultural inquiry into object attachment, possessiveness, and social linkage’, Journal of Consumer Research 14, pp. 531–547.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallendorf, M. and R.W. Belk: 1989, ‘Assessing trustworthiness in consumer research’, in E. Hirschman (ed.), Interpretive Consumer Research (Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT), pp. 69–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, R.P.: 1985, Basic Content Analysis (Sage, Beverly Hills, CA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Zinkhan, G.M. and A. Shermohamad: 1986, ‘Is other-directedness on the increase? An empirical test of Riesman's Theory of social character’, Journal of Consumer Research 13, pp. 127–130.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Management, University of Michigan-Dearborn, 4901 Evergreen Road, Dearborn, MI, 48128-1491, USA

    Aaron Ahuvia

Authors
  1. Aaron Ahuvia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ahuvia, A. Traditional, Interpretive, and Reception Based Content Analyses: Improving the Ability of Content Analysis to Address Issues of Pragmatic and Theoretical Concern. Social Indicators Research 54, 139–172 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011087813505

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011087813505

Keywords

Search

Navigation