Insight into the relative merits of rating and ranking in a cross-national context using three-way correspondence analysis

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 18, Issue 8, 2007, Pages 1096-1105

  van Herk, Hester ^a   van de Velden, Michel ^b  

^a VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Cross national research; European Union; Ranking; Rating; Three way correspondence analysis; Values

Indexed keywords

EID: 34547592667     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2007.05.006     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Alwin D.F., and Krosnick J.A. The measurement of values in surveys: A comparison of ratings and rankings. Public Opinion Quarterly 49 (1985) 535-552
2. Barnard N.R., and Ehrenberg A.S.C. Robust measures of consumer brand beliefs. Journal of Marketing Research 27 (1990) 477-484
3. Barylko-Pikielna N., Matuszewska I., Jeruszka M., Kozlowska K., Brzozowska A., and Roszkowski W. Discriminability and appropriateness of category scaling versus ranking methods to study sensory preferences in elderly. Food Quality and Preference 15 (2004) 167-175
4. Bass F.M., and Wind J. Introduction to the special issue: Empirical generalizations in marketing. Marketing Science 14 (1995) G1-G5
5. Baumgartner H., and Steenkamp J.B.E.M. Response styles in marketing research: A cross-national investigation. Journal of Marketing Research 38 (2001) 143-156
6. Becker B.W. Values in advertising research: A methodological caveat. Journal of Advertising Research 38 (1998) 57-60
7. Benzécri J.P. L'analyse des correspondances: (introduction, théorie, applications diverses, notamment à l'analyse des questionnaires, programmes de calcul) (1973), Dunod, Paris
8. Brunsø K., Scholderer J., and Grunert K.G. Closing the gap between values and behaviour a means-end theory of lifestyle. Journal of Business Research 57 (2004) 665-670
9. Carlier A., and Kroonenberg P.M. Decompositions and biplots in three-way correspondence analysis. Psychometrika 61 (1996) 355-373
10. Chryssohoidis G.M., and Krystallis A. Organic consumers' personal values research: Testing and validating the list of values (LOV) scale and implementing a value-based segmentation task. Food Quality and Preference 16 (2005) 585-599
11. Costa A.I., Schoolmeester D., Dekker M., and Jongen W.M.F. To cook or not to cook: A means-end study of motives for choice of meal solutions. Food Quality and Preference 18 (2007) 77-88
12. Cox D.N., Clark M.R., and Mialon V.S. A cross-cultural methodological study of the uses of two common hedonic response scales. Food Quality and Preference 12 (2001) 119-131
13. Craig C.S., and Douglas S.P. International marketing research (2000), Wiley, Chichester
14. Falahee M., and MacRae A.W. Perceptual variation among drinking waters: The reliability of sorting and ranking data for multidimensional scaling. Food Quality and Preference 8 (1997) 389-394
15. Feather N.T. The measurement of values: Effects of different assessment procedures. Australian Journal of Psychology (1973) 221-231
16. Gabriel K.R. The biplot graphic display of matrices with application to principal component analysis. Biometrika (1971) 453-467
17. Goldman A. Important considerations in cross-cultural sensory and consumer research - Introductory overview. Food Quality and Preference 17 7-8 (2006) 647
18. Gower J.C., and Hand D.J. Biplots (1996), Chapman and Hall, London
19. Greenacre M.J. Theory and applications of correspondence analysis (1984), Academic Press, London
20. Greve K.W.P., Bianchini K.J.P., Doane B.M.B., Love J.M.P., and Stickle T.R.P. Psychological evaluation of the emotional effects of a community toxic exposure. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 47 (2005) 51-59
21. Grimm S.D., and Church A.T. A cross-cultural study of response biases in personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality 33 (1999) 415-441
22. Grunert K.G., Grunert S.C., and Beatty S.E. Cross-cultural research on consumer values. Marketing and Research Today 17 (1989) 30-39
23. Gutman J. A means-end chain model based on consumer categorization processes. Journal of Marketing 46 (1982) 60-72
24. Hsieh C. To weight or not to weight: The role of domain importance in quality of life measurement. Social Indicators Research 68 (2004) 163-174
25. Johnson T., Kulesa P., Cho Y.I., and Shavitt S. The relation between culture and response styles: evidence from 19 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 36 (2005) 264-277
26. Johnson M.F., Sallis J.F., and Hovell M.F. Comparison of rated and ranked health and lifestyle values. American Journal of Health Behavior 23 (1999) 356-367
27. Kahle L.R. Social values and social change: Adaptation to life in America (1983), Praeger, New York
28. Kamakura W.A., and Mazzon J.A. Value segmentation: A model for the measurement of values and value systems. Journal of Consumer Research 18 (1991) 208-218
29. Kamakura W.A., and Novak T.P. Value-system segmentation: Exploring the meaning of LOV. Journal of Consumer Research 19 (1992) 119-132
30. Kiers H.A.L. Some procedures for displaying results from three-way methods. Journal of Chemometrics 14 (2000) 151-170
31. Klein M., and Arzheimer K. Ranking and rating procedures for measuring value orientations: A study using the example of the Inglehart Index (Ranking- und Rating-Verfahren zur Messung von Wertorientierungen, untersucht am Beispiel des Inglehart-Index: Empirische Befunde eines Methodenexperiments). Kolner Zeitschrift fur Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 51 (1999) 550-564
32. Klein M., Dülmer H., Ohr D., Quandt M., and Rosar U. Response sets in the measurement of values: A comparison of rating and ranking procedures. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 16 (2004) 474-483
33. Krosnick J.A., and Alwin D.F. A test of the form-resistant correlation hypothesis: Ratings, rankings, and the measurement of values. Public Opinion Quarterly 52 (1988) 526-538
34. Lancaster H.O. Complex contingency tables treated by the partition of chi-squared. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B (Methodological) 13 (1951) 242-249
35. Maio G.R., Bell D.W., and Esses V.M. Ambivalence and persuasion: The processing of messages about immigrant groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 32 (1996) 513-536
36. McEwan J.A., and Schlich P. Correspondence analysis in sensory evaluation. Food Quality and Preference 3 (1991) 23-36
37. Munson J.M., and McIntyre S.H. Developing practical procedures for the measurement of personal values in cross-cultural marketing. Journal of Marketing Research 16 (1979) 48-52
38. Ng S.H., Athar-Hossain A.B.M., Ball P., Bond M.H., Hayashi K., Lim S.P., et al. Human values in nine countries. In: Rath R., Asthana H.S., and Sinha J.B.H. (Eds). Diversity and unity in cross-cultural psychology (1982), Swets and Zeitlinger, Lisse, The Netherlands 196-205
39. Nielsen N.A., Bech-Larsen T., and Grunert K.G. Consumer purchase motives and product perceptions: A laddering study on vegetable oil in three countries. Food Quality and Preference 9 (1998) 455-466
40. Ovadia S. Ratings and rankings: Reconsidering the structure of values and their measurement. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 7 5 (2004) 403-414
41. Park J.Y., O'Mahony M., and Kim K.O. 'Different-stimulus' scaling errors; effects of scale length. Food Quality and Preference 18 (2007) 362-368
42. Pinsoneault T.B. A variable response inconsistency scale and a true response inconsistency scale for the Jesness Inventory. Psychological Assessment 10 (1998) 21-32
43. Rankin W.L., and Grube J.W. A comparison of ranking and rating procedures for value system measurement. European Journal of Social Psychology 10 (1980) 233-246
44. Resurreccion A.V.A. Consumer sensory testing for product development (1998), Aspen, Gaithersburg, Maryland
45. Rodrigue N., Guillet M., Fortin J., and Martin J.F. Comparing information obtained from ranking and descriptive tests of four sweet corn products. Food Quality and Preference 11 (2000) 47-54
46. Rokeach M. The nature of human values (1973), The Free Press, New York
47. Russell P.A., and Gray C.D. Ranking or rating? Some data and their implications for the measurement of evaluative response. British Journal of Psychology 85 (1994) 79-92
48. Schwartz S.H. Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In: Zanna M.P. (Ed). Advances in experimental social psychology Vol. 25 (1992), Academic Press, San Diego, CA, USA 1-65
49. ten Kleij F., and Musters P.A.D. Text analysis of open-ended survey responses: a complementary method to preference mapping. Food Quality and Preference 14 (2003) 43-52
50. Timmerman M.E., and Kiers H.A.L. Three-mode principal components analysis: Choosing the numbers of components and sensitivity to local optima. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology 53 (2000) 1-16
51. Torres A., and van de Velden M. Perceptual mapping of multiple variable batteries by plotting supplementary variables in correspondence analysis of rating data. Food Quality and Preference 18 (2007) 121-129
52. Tourangeau R., Rips L.J., and Rasinski K. The psychology of survey response (2000), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge [etc.]
53. Van Herk H., Poortinga Y.H., and Verhallen T.M. Response styles in rating scales: Evidence of method bias in data from six EU countries. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology 35 (2004) 346-360
54. Villanueva N.D.M., Petenate A.J., and Da Silva M.A.A.P. Performance of the hybrid hedonic scale as compared to the traditional hedonic, self-adjusting and ranking scales. Food Quality and Preference 16 (2005) 691-703
55. Yeh L.L., Kim K.O., Chompreeda P., Rimkeeree H., Yau N.J.N., and Lundahl D.S. Comparison in use of the 9-point Hedonic Scale between Americans, Chinese, Koreans, and Thai. Food Quality and Preference 9 (1998) 413-419