Investigating individual preferences in rating and ranking conjoint experiments. A case study on semi-hard cheese

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 39, Issue , 2015, Pages 28-39

  Almli, Valérie Lengard ^a,b   Øvrum, Arnstein ^c   Hersleth, Margrethe ^a,b   Almøy, Trygve ^b   Næs, Tormod ^a  

^a NOFIMA   (Norway)

^b NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES   (Norway)

^c NORWEGIAN INSTITUTE OF BIOECONOMY RESEARCH   (Norway)

Author keywords

Cheese; Conjoint; Consumer segmentation; Method comparison; Mixed logit; Self explicated measures

Indexed keywords

EID: 84904302163     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.06.011     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Almli V.L., Næs T., Sulmont-Rossé C., Enderli G., Issanchou S., Hersleth M. Consumers' acceptance of innovations in traditional cheese. A comparative study in France and Norway. Appetite 2011, 57:110-120.
2. Barreiro-Hurlé J., Colombo S., Cantos-Villar E. Is there a market for functional wines? Consumer preferences and willingness to pay for resveratrol-enriched red wine. Food Quality and Preference 2008, 19(4):360-371. 10.1016/j.foodqual.2007.11.004.
3. Combris P., Bazoche P., Giraud-Heraud E., Issanchou S. Food choices: What do we learn from combining sensory and economic experiments?. Food Quality and Preference 2009, 20(8):550-557. 10.1016/j.foodqual.2009.05.003.
4. Endrizzi I., Gasperi F., Rødbotten M., Næs T. Interpretation, validation and segmentation of preference mapping models. Food Quality and Preference 2014, 32(Part C(0)):198-209. 10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.10.002.
5. Endrizzi I., Menichelli E., Johansen S.B., Olsen N.V., Næs T. Handling of individual differences in rating-based conjoint analysis. Food Quality and Preference 2011, 22(3):241-254. 10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.10.005.
6. Grunert K.G., Juhl H.J., Esbjerg L., Jensen B.B., Bech-Larsen T., Brunso K., et al. Comparing methods for measuring consumer willingness to pay for a basic and an improved ready made soup product. Food Quality and Preference 2009, 20(8):607-619. 10.1016/j.foodqual.2009.07.006.
7. Hein K.A., Jaeger S.R., Carr B.T., Delahunty C.M. Comparison of five common acceptance and preference methods. Food Quality and Preference 2008, 19(7):651-661.
8. Hersleth M., Lengard V., Verbeke W., Guerrero L., Næs T. Consumers' acceptance of innovations in dry-cured ham impact of reduced salt content, prolonged aging time and new origin. Food Quality and Preference 2011, 22(1):31-41. 10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.07.002.
9. Hess, S., Ben-Akiva, M., Gopinath, D., & Walker, J. Advantages of latent class over continuous mixture of Logit mo. (2011).http://www.stephanehess.me.uk/papers/Hess_Ben-Akiva_Gopinath_Walker_May_2011.pdf.
10. Hole A.R. Fitting mixed logit models by using maximum simulated likelihood. Stata Journal 2007, 7:388-401.
11. Jaeger S.R., Rose J.M. Stated choice experimentation, contextual influences and food choice. A case study. Food Quality and Preference 2008, 19(6):539-564. 10.1016/j.foodqual.2008.02.005.
12. Johansen S.B., Hersleth M., Næs T. A new approach to product set selection and segmentation in preference mapping. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21(2):188-196. 10.1016/j.foodqual.2009.05.007.
13. Kozak M., Cliff M.A. Systematic comparison of hedonic ranking and rating methods demonstrates few practical differences. Journal of Food Science 2013, 78(8):S1257-S1263. 10.1111/1750-3841.12173.
14. Lagerkvist C.J. Consumer preferences for food labelling attributes: Comparing direct ranking and best-worst scaling for measurement of attribute importance, preference intensity and attribute dominance. Food Quality and Preference 2013, 29(2):77-88. 10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.02.005.
15. Martens H., Martens M. Modified Jack-knife estimation of parameter uncertainty in bilinear modelling by partial least squares regression (PLSR). Food Quality and Preference 2000, 11(1-2):5-16.
16. Martens, H., & Næs, T. (1989). Multivariate calibration. Wiley, ISBN 0-471-90979-3.
17. Mueller S., Lockshin L., Saltman Y., Blanford J. Message on a bottle: The relative influence of wine back label information on wine choice. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21(1):22-32. 10.1016/j.foodqual.2009.07.004.
18. Nordgren L.F., Dijksterhuis A.P. The devil is in the deliberation: Thinking too much reduces preference consistency. Journal of Consumer Research 2009, 36(1):39-46. 10.1086/596306.
19. Næs T., Brockhoff P., Tomic O. Statistics for sensory and consumer science 2010, Wiley, Chichester, UK.
20. Næs T., Lengard V., Johansen S.B., Hersleth M. Alternative methods for combining design variables and consumer preference with information about attitudes and demographics in conjoint analysis. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21(4):368-378. 10.1016/j.foodqual.2009.09.004.
21. Ortúzar J.D.D. Estimating individual preferences with flexible discrete-choice-models. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21(3):262-269. 10.1016/j.foodqual.2009.09.006.
22. Øvrum A., Alfnes F., Almli V.L., Rickertsen K. Health information and diet choices: Results from a cheese experiment. Food Policy 2012, 37:520-529.
23. Rayner K. Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 2009, 62(8):1457-1506. 10.1080/17470210902816461.
24. Sattler H., Hensel-Börner S. A comparison of conjoint measurement with self-explicated approaches. Conjoint measurement: Methods and applications 2003, 147-159. Springer, Berlin. A. Gustafsson, A. Herrmann, F. Huber (Eds.).
25. Sichtmann C., Stingel S. Limit conjoint analysis and Vickrey auction as methods to elicit consumers' willingness-to-pay - An empirical comparison. European Journal of Marketing 2007, 41:1359-1374. 10.1108/03090560710821215.
26. Steptoe A., Pollard T.M., Wardle J. Development of a measure of the motives underlying the selection of food: The Food Choice Questionnaire. Appetite 1995, 25(3):267-284. 10.1006/appe.1995.0061.
27. Train K. Discrete choice methods with simulation 2009, Cambridge University Press, 2003. 2nd ed.
28. Tuorila H., Cardello A.V. Consumer responses to an off-flavor in juice in the presence of specific health claims. Food Quality and Preference 2002, 13(7-8):561-569. PII: s0950-3293(01)00076-3. 10.1016/s0950-3293(01)00076-3.
29. Verbeke W. Functional foods: Consumer willingness to compromise on taste for health?. Food Quality and Preference 2006, 17(1-2):126-131. 10.1016/j.foodqual.2005.03.003.
30. Vigneau E., Endrizzi I., Qannari E.M. Finding and explaining clusters of consumers using the CLV approach. Food Quality and Preference 2011, 22(8):705-713. 10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.01.004.
31. Vigneau E., Qannari E.M., Punter P.H., Knoops S. Segmentation of a panel of consumers using clustering of variables around latent directions of preference. Food Quality and Preference 2001, 12(5-7):359-363. 10.1016/s0950-3293(01)00025-8.
32. Villanueva N.D.M., Petenate A.J., Da Silva M. Performance of three affective methods and diagnosis of the ANOVA model. Food Quality and Preference 2000, 11(5):363-370.
33. Villanueva N.D.M., Petenate A.J., Da Silva M. Performance of the hybrid hedonic scale as compared to the traditional hedonic, self-adjusting and ranking scales. Food Quality and Preference 2005, 16(8):691-703. 10.1016/j.foodqual.2005.03.013.
34. Westad F., Hersleth M., Lea P. Strategies for consumer segmentation with applications on preference data. Food Quality and Preference 2004, 15(7-8):681-687.