Ladder of Inference Model

LADDER OF INFERENCE MODEL It is important in any group and/or organization to establish and maintain a reliable exchange of valid and verifiable information about important problems and issues. This requires the ability to discriminate among four types of information: description, inference, attribution, and evaluation. A description is a (hopefully objective and reasonably accurate) report of what was said and done during a particular experience or observation. An inference is a conclusion about what happened, derived from beliefs or what are thought to be facts. An attribution is an ascribed, inferred, or assumed cause, characteristic, or motive of another person. An evaluation is a judgment about the value or "goodness" of a statement or action by another person (and frequently takes the form of a generalized evaluation of the value or goodness/badness of that person). The Ladder of Inference Model is a useful tool for helping individuals improve their interactions by becoming more aware of and discriminating among these four very different types of information and their use in communication. The model can help improve both sending and receiving communications. This model represents different ways that individuals make sense of and deal with everyday events. Individuals select and process certain aspects of an event, and may introduce past experiences and/or other elements from outside this event into their processing, with the result affecting their thinking, feeling, and interactions. These outside elements often lead to inferences, attributions, and evaluations that have considerable error. The further an individual moves or extrapolates from the actual data (i.e., the verbatim words spoken and observable actions made by individuals), the greater is the potential error. This model can be useful in helping individuals reduce such errors and the resulting interpersonal problems. The Ladder of Inference Model describes several levels on which an individual may be operating – levels of extrapolation from the here-and-now data. The levels start with the data (the actual statements and actions) and move progressively further away from the data, e.g., as illustrated in the levels shown below (read from bottom to top). The boundaries between the levels can be fuzzy, and an individual can be operating at more than one level in a single event. However, it is not necessary that we identify exactly what level(s) corresponds to a particular response. The important thing is to realize how far away from the data I am operating and recognize how this makes me prone to error. Such realization can, hopefully, help me (or another person) reexamine my initial assumptions and inferences, and operate closer to the data. 5. EVALUATION (of the other person) 4. ATTRIBUTION (assumed cause or motive of the other) 3. INFERENCE (interpretation & conclusion about what I think happened) 2. SELECTIVE & PARTIAL FOCUS (on some part of what was said or done) 1. DESCRIPTION (accurate recounting of the observed actions &/or verbatim statements of the other) 0. DATA (verbatim words said and/or specific actions taken) In the following illustration of this model, we consider a situation in which two individuals, X and Y, were participants - and then we consider a range of possible interpretations and responses by X to the actions of and verbatim words spoken by Y (i.e., "the data"). Briefly, the data are: X and Y are both high-level managers in an organization. In a staff meeting X has just made a proposal for a new project – that would require a sizeable investment, but is projected to produce a good profit. Y leans forward and speaks, rather loudly: "Certainly we need new projects to raise money. This is an interesting idea, but I have a lot of questions. What is the basis for your conclusion that this project would produce a good profit within six months?” Now, let's consider a range of possible ways that X might make sense of this brief interaction. Four different possibilities are summarized below, in order of increasing distance or extrapolation from the original data. These possibilities are referred to as different levels on the "ladder of inference," a model in which increasing extrapolation beyond the original data is represented as operating at higher (not better) levels on the ladder. 1. X could possibly think accurately (silently) what Y said and did (level 1 above); however, it is likely that X would operate at one or more levels removed from the verbatim data to select and make sense of what happened. It is likely that X will at least move to level 2 on the ladder of inference, in which X focuses on a portion of Y's words and actions, e.g., X might select and focus on Y's words: ... I have a lot of questions..." and that Y was speaking loudly. 2. X could move further away from the data to level 3. At this level, X might infer meaning and draw conclusions that are quite different from the verbatim statements and the common cultural meaning of the statements. Inferences at this level are quite specific to the individual making them. One possible example of X's thinking could be: Y is trying to make me look bad and shoot down my proposal. 3. X may move further away from the data to level 4 by developing attributions about Y's motives, for example: Y is trying to hurt my chances of being considered as the next President. 4. X may move even further from the data to level 5 by developing conclusions and evaluations of Y and his/her actions and statements, for example: Y is a {expletives deleted} lazy no-good who wouldn't know a good idea if it hit him/her in the face! He's not willing to hustle and make things happen, but doesn't want anyone else to make him look bad by their accomplishments. She should have been fired years ago! Each time X operates at a higher level on the ladder of inference, she/he moves further away from the actual data from the event and, therefore, is more prone to error. Also, as one operates further up the ladder, it is increasingly likely that the inferences, attributions, and evaluations made by different participants will differ. For example, an alternative inference at level 3 (which might be the inference made by a different individual observing the same event) is: Y is asking some important questions that X didn't address in his presentation. Y is really looking after the organization’s interests and future. The Ladder of Inference Model can be used to help individuals recognize the kinds of inferences and attributions they are making, the assumptions implicit in these, the consequences they lead to, and the effects that acting on these assumptions and inferences have in specific situations. Such insights are likely to be generalizable to the individuals' other organizational and life settings. Further, the model can be used to help individuals consider that there are other alternative inferences and attributions, learn to inquire and check out alternatives, and ultimately act in more effective ways. For example, individuals can be helped to learn from a specific event by slowing down and focusing on the inferences and implicit assumptions they are using in abstracting conclusions from the original data of this event. Usually, these inferential processes are done quickly and tacitly, without awareness – so an individual usually needs assistance in reconstructing his/her implicit assumptions and reexamining the inferences and attributions made. This kind of analysis can help individuals learn about their typical response patterns and become more skillful in recognizing and avoiding ineffective patterns as they deal with future events.