What is an associative target group?

Two people can have the same role, age and education yet choose an offer for different reasons. Conversely, people from very different backgrounds may attach the same meaning to a brand, product or employer. For your communications, it is useful to investigate which similarities actually help explain their choices.

An associative target group brings people together through associations that guide a particular decision. This article explains what Neurofactor means by the term, how to define such a group and what evidence you need to support the grouping.

An associative target group is a defined group of people whose decisions are guided by similar associations within a specific choice context.

This is the working definition within the Neurofactor methodology. You describe the meanings people attach to an offer or situation, how those meanings shape their evaluation and where the group’s boundaries lie. The grouping concerns a pattern relevant to the choice being studied. It does not require identical personalities or completely identical behaviour.

Here, an association means a mental connection: what a word, image, brand or situation brings to mind. It might be a memory, a feeling, an expectation or a related concept.

For example, ‘personal service’ might suggest care and reassurance to one person. Someone else might think of dependency or intrusive phone calls. These are illustrations. The same offer can mean different things to different people, so investigate what lies behind a word they mention.

For the target group profile, we distinguish three questions:

• Meaning: what exactly does the participant mean by the association?
• Evaluation: does that meaning make the offer more attractive, less attractive or neither?
• Choice relevance: does the association play a part in the decision you are studying?

A shared word without shared meaning is a weak basis for a group. Shared meaning that has no connection to the choice is also insufficient under the definition used here.

‘Associative target group’ is the name used here for Neurofactor’s working definition. We do not attribute the term to the authors below. Their publications provide starting points for parts of the approach.

In 1975, Collins and Loftus described a model in which activation spreads between connected concepts in a semantic network. It provides a theoretical framework for relationships between meanings. Collins & Loftus, 1975

In 2006, John and colleagues introduced Brand Concept Maps: a method for eliciting individual brand association networks and combining them into a consensus map. It also makes connections between associations visible. John et al., 2006

Greenwald, McGhee and Schwartz introduced the Implicit Association Test in 1998. It uses performance differences in categorisation tasks to measure relative associations between presented concepts. Greenwald et al., 1998

In Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior, behavioural intentions relate to attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control. This underlines why a choice should not be explained through one association alone. Ajzen, 199190020-T)

These publications support concepts and measurement approaches. Together, they do not constitute an independent validation of Neurofactor’s grouping method. The usefulness of a particular associative target group needs to be assessed within the relevant study.

We use six practical criteria when applying the concept to our target group profile. These are working instructions, not a universal scientific scale.

Do not decide in advance that exactly three or five groups must exist. A study may find insufficient differentiation. Allow for mixed profiles and participants who cannot yet be assigned reliably.

‘The same associations’ means sufficient similarity according to explicit criteria. Explain those criteria and any thresholds. A name such as ‘certainty seekers’ summarises the grouping; it is not the measurement method.

A marketing target group describes who you direct your marketing towards. An associative target group adds a specific grouping criterion: similar associations that guide a choice.

A marketing target group may already be based on needs, behaviour or values. The distinction is therefore not a contrast between superficial marketing and deep psychology. Within our approach, it concerns explicitly investigating and defining an association pattern.

An associative target group may sit within one marketing target group or cut across several. Once you have investigated the pattern, you can use role, life stage and channels to describe where these people can be found. Those characteristics do not replace the associative grouping criterion.

The following steps are our practical approach to association research and the target group profile.

1. Define the choice. Specify who chooses what and in which situation. Distinguish between a stated preference, an intended choice and actual behaviour.
2. Elicit meanings. For example, invite spontaneous associations and ask about concrete experiences. When comparing participants, use the same starting situation and avoid supplying the answers you hope to hear.
3. Make associations comparable. Develop a coding framework. Combine words only when their meanings are sufficiently similar. Preserve different meanings, opposing evaluations and unexpected responses.
4. Investigate patterns. Compare combinations of associations at the individual level. Explore groups using a substantive or statistical analysis appropriate to the data. A selected cluster solution is initially a candidate grouping.
5. Test the relationship to choices. Investigate whether candidate groups differ on a relevant outcome that did not already determine their assignment. This could be a separate choice task or later behavioural data. You are then testing more than a repetition of your own grouping criteria.
6. Check and document. Assess whether the pattern recurs with other participants or another measurement. Record selection, measurement method, assignment rules, uncertainty and date. Keep provisional groupings clearly labelled as provisional.

Match the measurement to the question. An interview can clarify meanings; a focused task can test a predefined relationship. Do not present a test score as a complete explanation of someone’s choice. Also distinguish an observed relationship from an established causal effect.

Fictional example — the groups and outcomes have not been measured.

Suppose you study marketing leads at B2B service companies choosing a CRM system. You explore two possible patterns:

The table outlines a research direction. It does not establish that these groups exist or that a message changes their purchasing behaviour.

For example, ask participants to choose between concrete offers and examine how their choices relate to their previously identified association pattern. If price, functionality and support all vary at once, you cannot simply attribute an effect to one association. A causal claim requires a research design suited to that purpose.

The identification fields remain the same, but the composition must make the associative criterion explicit. For candidate group A in the fictional example, it could look like this:

Keep the choice context, measurement data, assignment rules and evidence status with the profile. Separate measured associations from interpretations and communication proposals. A suggested tone of voice, for example, is a next step rather than a measured characteristic of the group.

Use an evidenced pattern to develop focused hypotheses for your proposition, supporting proof and language. For ‘control and predictability’, you could test a clear implementation plan. For ‘growth and flexibility’, you could investigate an approach with demonstrable expansion options.

Then check whether the message evokes the intended meaning and contributes to the desired outcome. A target group profile is a starting point for that testing, not a guarantee of improved conversion.

Also keep understanding and reaching people distinct: an association pattern does not automatically tell you which advertising channel lets you select them. That requires additional information collected appropriately for the purpose.

• Counting words without investigating meaning. Identical words may express different expectations.
• Applying a group average to everyone. Preserve relevant differences and uncertainty within the pattern.
• Building the choice into the group definition and then using it as proof. Test against additional data or a separate outcome.
• Calling every association unconscious. Record what the selected measurement method actually captures.
• Turning a temporary pattern into a personality type. Keep the conclusion within the choice context studied.
• Deriving scores from a description. Do not enter BIS, BAS or a discount parameter as a measured score unless an appropriate method was used to determine it.

Report the sample and research boundaries. If you have only an exploratory pattern, use ‘candidate group’ or ‘working hypothesis’. If a group cannot convincingly be distinguished from others, a compelling name should not imply greater certainty.

An associative target group makes explicit which shared meanings you consider relevant to a choice and how you identify the group. Its value lies in the combination of a clear pattern, testable boundaries and evidence connecting it to decisions.

Start with the choice context, investigate the meaning behind the words and record the strength of the evidence. The target group profile can then support focused research and communication.

Discuss the decision you want to understand and how association research can help define and test possible patterns.