What do we learn from comparing hedonic scores and willingness-to-pay data?

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 33, Issue , 2014, Pages 54-63

  Ginon, E ^a,b,c   Combris, P ^d   Loheac Y ^e,f   Enderli, G ^a,b,d   Issanchou, S ^a,b  

^a Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique   (France)

^b CENTRE DES SCIENCES DU GOÛT ET DE L ALIMENTATION   (France)

^c Burgundy School of Business   (France)

^d INRA ALISS   (France)

^e France Business School ^*  (France)

^f CNRS   (France)

Author keywords

Consistency; Consumer preferences; Discrimination; Food valuation; Hedonic scores; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

EID: 84890244330     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.11.003     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Becker G.M., DeGroot M.H., Marschak J. Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. Behavioral Science 1964, 9:226-232.
2. Cordelle S., Lange C., Schlich P. On the consistency of liking scores: Insights from a study including 917 consumers from 10 to 80 years old. Food Quality and Preference 2004, 15:831-841.
3. Daillant-Spinnler B., Issanchou S. Influence of label and location of testing on acceptability of cream cheese varying in fat content. Appetite 1995, 24:101-106.
4. Grether D.M., Plott C.R. Economic theory of choice and the preference reversal phenomenon. The American Economic Review 1979, 69:623-638.
5. Harrison G.W., Harstad R.M., Rutström E.E. Experimental methods and elicitation of values. Experimental Economics 2004, 7:123-140.
6. Hsee C.K., Loewenstein G.F., Blount S., Bazerman M.H. Preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of options: A review and theoretical analysis. Psychological Bulletin 1999, 125:576-590.
7. Kaplan S.L. Le retour du bon pain. Une histoire contemporaine du pain, de ses techniques et de ses hommes 2002, Editions Perrin, Paris.
8. Köster, E. P. (1991). The dynamics of consumer preferences and aversions. In Food Ingredients Asia Conference Proceedings 1991. The Netherlands: Expoconsult, Maarssen.
9. Köster E.P. The psychology of food choice: Some often encountered fallacies. Food Quality and Preference 2003, 14:359-373.
10. Köster E.P., Couronne T., Léon F., Lévy C., Marcelino A.S. Repeatability in hedonic sensory measurement: A conceptual exploration. Food Quality and Preference 2003, 14:165-176.
11. Lange C., Martin C., Chabanet C., Combris P., Issanchou S. Impact of the information provided to consumers on their willingness to pay for Champagne: Comparison with hedonic scores. Food Quality and Preference 2002, 13:597-608.
12. Lange C., Rousseau F., Issanchou S. Expectation, liking and purchase behaviour under economical constraint. Food Quality and Preference 1999, 10:31-39.
13. Lévy C.M., Köster E.P. The relevance of initial hedonic judgements in the prediction of subtle food choices. Food Quality and Preference 1999, 10:185-200.
14. Lichtenstein S., Slovic P. Reversals of preference between bids and choices in gambling decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology 1971, 89:46-55.
15. List J.A., Gallet C.A. What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values?. Environmental and Resource Economics 2001, 20:241-254.
16. Lundgren B. Effect of nutritional information on consumer responses. Criteria of food acceptance 1981, 27-33. Forster-Verlag AG, Zurich. J. Solms, R.L. Hall (Eds.).
17. Lusk J.L., Shogren J.F. Experimental auctions. Methods and applications in economic and marketing research 2007, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
18. Melton B.E., Huffman W.E., Shogren J.F., Fox J.A. Consumer preferences for fresh food items with multiple quality attributes: Evidence from an experimental auction of pork chops. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1996, 78:916-923.
19. Muller L., Ruffieux B. Do price-tags influence consumers' willingness to pay? On the external validity of using auctions for measuring value. Experimental Economics 2011, 14:181-202.
20. Murphy J.J., Allen P.G., Stevens T.H., Weatherhead D. A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics 2005, 30:313-325.
21. Noussair C., Robin S., Ruffieux B. A comparison of hedonic rating and demand-revealing auctions. Food Quality and Preference 2004, 15:393-402.
22. Nowlis S.M., Simonson I. Attribute-task compatibility as a determinant of consumer preference reversals. Journal of Marketing Research 1997, 34:205-218.
23. Roberts S.D., Micken K.S. Le fromage as life: French attitudes and behavior toward cheese. Advances in Consumer Research 1996, 23:111-119.
24. Roosen J., Marette S., Blanchemanche S., Verger P. The effect of product health information on liking and choice. Food Quality and Preference 2007, 18:759-770.
25. Stefani G., Romano D., Cavicchi A. Consumer expectations, liking and willingness to pay for specialty foods: Do sensory characteristics tell the whole story?. Food Quality and Preference 2006, 17:53-62.
26. Tversky A., Sattath S., Slovic P. Contingent weighting in judgment and choice. Psychological Review 1988, 95:371-384.
27. Umberger W.J., Feuz D.M. The usefulness of experimental auctions in determining consumers' willingness-to-pay for quality-differentiated products. Review of Agricultural Economics 2004, 26:170-185.