Food Quality and Preference 29 (2013) 7788

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Food Quality and Preference

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodqual

Consumer preferences for food labelling attributes: Comparing direct

ranking and bestworst scaling for measurement of attribute
importance, preference intensity and attribute dominance
Carl Johan Lagerkvist
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Economics, P.O. Box 7013, 750 07 Uppsala, Sweden

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The use of food labelling to convey information about product and process quality and for product differ-
Received 7 December 2012 entiation purposes has multiplied. In order to judge the relevance attributed by consumers to such infor-
Received in revised form 25 February 2013 mation, valid measurement methods are needed. Such methods are also needed to reveal the
Accepted 25 February 2013
probabilistic nature of preference data, so that heterogeneity can be explicitly accounted for. A survey
Available online 7 March 2013
among Swedish residents (n = 506) compared attribute importance rankings for labelling of beef from
two formats of bestworst scaling (BWS) with those from standard direct ranking (DR). A choice proba-
Keywords:
bility Rindex measure was modelled to make the methodological comparison consistent. While earlier
Food quality
Food labelling
studies on labelling of beef were conrmed, BWS and DR did not concur when directly compared, even
Standard ranking when using the Rindex. BWS improved individual choice predictions compared with DR, and generated
Bestworst scaling a more consistent dominance ordering of attribute importance. These ndings suggest that methods used
Hierarchical Bayesian estimation to elicit importance weights or preference ranking may violate transitivity and dominance requirements.
Rindex 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction is imperative in marketing and consumer research and public pol-

Although the use of product labelling for communication of
quality and product differentiation has been growing for some
time, food labels and packaging information have now multiplied
and packaging has acquired a role as an informative element in di-
rect marketing communication. Functioning as extrinsic cues, food
labelling allows consumers to evaluate food products so as to make
informed choices. In order to plan effective marketing communica-
tion activities and optimise the potential of food product presenta-
tion, there is a need among processors and retail distributors to
understand how the information supplied relates to the pre-pur-
chase information search, so that the most important informa-
tional attributes in terms of relevance to consumers can be
highlighted on product packaging. Likewise, in seeking to effec-
tively address public interest in product credence quality areas
such food safety, nutrition, health and animal welfare, policy mak-
ers need information on the credibility and relevance of food labels
in order to understand how consumers treat the content and depth
of information these labels provide.
In general, the ability of preference measurement methods to
elicit reliable and valid measures of product attribute importances
Tel.: +46 18 671783; fax: +46 18 673502.
E-mail address: carl-johan.lagerkvist@slu.se
icy development. Despite the theoretical and empirical interest in
the area of information acquisition in general, and consumer use
of information on food labels in particular, and the wide variety
of existing approaches to measure the concept of attribute impor-
tance, relatively little research has compared and evaluated the
validity of importance measurement methods. Moreover, Combris,
Bazoche, Giraud-Hraud, and Issanchou (2009) found large hetero-
geneity in consumer assessment of labelling information and sug-
gested that account should be taken of the variance in consumer
responses, as differences may otherwise even out at the aggregated
level. Equally problematic when analysing aggregated importance
data is that the probabilistic existence of ordered preference rela-
tions between attributes cannot be detected within existing mea-
surement methods.
The ability of available measurement methods to generate
probabilistic order and dominance relations of attribute impor-
tance is an issue rarely addressed in the development of models
for preference measurement to date. Hence, at the aggregated le-
vel, transitivity should be reected in an ordered set of prefer-
ences and in established attribute dominance relations which,
when considered in relation to measurements of product attri-
bute importance, are of particular interest for internal consis-
tency and for opportunities for external validation of such
methods.
The present study therefore had two major aims:

0950-3293/$ - see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.02.005
78 C.J. Lagerkvist / Food Quality and Preference 29 (2013) 7788
 To compare two methods for measuring attribute importance
for beef labelling and packaging information attributes in such
a way that the underlying importance dimension could be
isolated.
 To examine the ability of the two methods to generate domi-
nance order of attribute importances and thereby compare the
approach by which individual importances are aggregated with
a probabilistic approach by adapting the non-parametric R
index method. This approach avoids the cancelling-out effect
associated with the traditional way of analysing choice data
pooled across respondents by instead making data comparable
in terms of choice probabilities. The Rindex approach was orig-
inally developed to represent measures of discrimination for
use in food and sensory research (OMahony, 1992).
2. Overview of labelling information processing research
Food packaging provides an attractive way to convey cues for
product differentiation to potential consumers and such visual
and informational elements have been identied as potentially
affecting consumer purchasing decisions (Silayoi & Speece, 2007).
Extrinsic credence and non-credence informational elements then
relate to information about the product as such, as well as about
the processing or packaging technology in relation to the product
(e.g. vacuum packaging for presenting meat).
Consumer research into the information search process includes
three dimensions: (a) The amount of information sought (the
depth) (Bettman, 1979), (b) the type of information examined
(the content) (e.g. Jacoby, Speller, & Kohn-Berning, 1974), and
(c) the order or pattern by which information is acquired (the se-
quence) (e.g. Bettman & Jacoby, 1976). The decision-making pro-
cess used by consumers has been described as a phased process,
in which selective attention to the stimuli to which individuals
are exposed is used to sort out the depth of information based
on certain criteria (e.g. relevance), after which selected information
is examined for content (e.g. Srinivasan, 1988).
Regarding the amount of information sought, the literature sug-
gests that relatively few informational items are used by consum-
ers as a basis for their purchasing decisions and that relevance may
be predicted by relatively few pieces of information (e.g. Olson and
Jacoby, 1972).
Regarding the type of information examined, the type to which
consumers are likely to attribute importance is of interest. Early
ndings suggested that brand and price attributes are exceedingly
important and also veried the existence of dominance relations
(Jacoby, Olson, & Haddock, 1971; Stokes, 1973). However, ndings
related to meat labelling are not congruent: Bernus, Olaizola, and
Corcoran (2003) noted that the preferences for labelling are likely
to be diverse due to the existence of quite heterogeneous views on
quality. While little research seems to be available concerning the
likely importance of labelling information, one exception is
Verbeke and Ward (2006), who used an ordered probit model to
assess the impact of individual and labelling characteristics.
As the number of informational cues increases, the interplay
and meaning in the interpretation of information elements be-
comes a complicated process and consumers can be expected to
use a set of choice heuristics when choosing and comparing prod-
ucts based on information provided (Bettman, 1979). While some
heuristics are based on comparison by brand, others such as elim-
ination by aspects imply processing by attributes, and others imply
processing of attribute dominance through paired comparison
(Russo & Rosen, 1975), which means that there is a transition in-
volved. In this respect, the existence and use of higher order infor-
mational elements, so-called chunks (Simon, 1974), as aggregated
quality cues, may provide more accurate meaning of importance,
or may provide more saliency and as such establish relative attri-
bute dominance relations within information sets (Jacoby et al.,
1971).
Furthermore, lack of attribute discrimination and use of choice
heuristics may exist due to lack of attribute attractiveness or to
choice task complexity (Hensher, 2006). It is therefore important
that methods devised to measure the same dimension of attribute
importance do not differ in understanding by respondents. In es-
sence, the ability to assimilate and understand labelling informa-
tion and the experimental conditions could have implications for
the statistical validity when comparing methods devised to mea-
sure attribute importance.
Moreover, if attribute importance measures are to be used to in-
form research, practice and policy, it is important that issues sur-
rounding adherence to basic axioms in decision theory are
explored. Transitivity (which depicts consistency on preference
relations) represents such a key normative axiom (von Neumann
& Morgenstern, 1947). In addition, dominance (which denes an
attribute as best when its preference intensity equals or exceeds
the preference intensity of every other attribute) and invariability
(a requirement for the preference order between two prospects not
to depend on the way they are described or captured) represent the
two principles in rational choice theory (Kahneman & Tversky,
1984).
3. Overview of stated direct methods to assess attribute
importance
Louviere and Islam (2008) found high agreement within direct
or indirect methods for measuring the concept of importance used
in judgment and decision making, but reported divergence be-
tween direct and indirect methods. In addition, indirect methods,
i.e. those inferring importance through an outcome measure such
as choices, were found to be more susceptible to context effects,
while direct methods were not. Existing direct measurement
methods such as rating, ranking or bestworst scaling and indirect
methods such as conjoint or trade-off models that typically dene
importance as the difference between the least and most liked, or
between a base level and some increment, can be used to impose
importances from a set of attributes under study on an ordered
common scale. However, even when data are estimated at the indi-
vidual level, the results are often interpreted at an aggregated level
and may be taken as inputs to marketing or policy decisions as
such.
This study compared two prominent methods for measuring
attribute importance: direct ranking (DR) and bestworst scaling
(BWS). While traditional rating scales provide a way to obtain
quantitative data for assessment of attribute importance through
multivariate methods, several potential response biases (e.g. social
desirability bias, acquiescence bias, extreme response bias), as
identied by Paulhus (1991), provide clear disadvantages. In addi-
tion, due to cultural equivalence problems (e.g. related to terms of
gradation), rating measures typically have meaning only within a
specic experimental context.
Within the extant literature attribute importance has been dis-
tinguished to include three dimensions: salience, relevance and
determinance (Myers & Alpert, 1968, 1977), but a lack of conver-
gent validity of available methods for measuring attribute impor-
tance has been noted and attributed to the fact that different
methods measure different dimensions of attribute importance
(Van Ittersum, Pennings, Wansink, & Trijp, 2007, p. 1178).
The DR and BWS methods are similar in not explicitly identify-
ing sub-levels of included attributes. Instead, in both of these
methods people are asked to assess the importance of attributes
through an information search and judgment process, while attri-
bute information is held at a general level. According to Myers and
Alpert (1968), people rely on their personal values and desires
 C.J. Lagerkvist / Food Quality and Preference 29 (2013) 7788
when responding to attribute information held at a more general
level, hence providing their assessment of attribute relevance.
Therefore, as the methods chosen for comparison in this study
measure the same sub-dimension of attribute importance, con-
struct and convergent validity could be anticipated. In addition,
since neither of these methods uses verbal anchors, they are repre-
sentative of methods which should be applicable across cultures
(Hein, Jaeger, Carr, & Delahunty, 2008).
3.1. Direct ranking
Direct ranking is a non-forced choice method by which prefer-
ence intensity is obtained by directly comparing alternative attri-
butes. It is based on direct consumer behaviour and therefore
eliminates the variance from combining individual rating data.
For each respondent, the boundary between 1st and 2nd, 2nd
and 3rd, etc. is unambiguous, so the spacing of numbers is not an
issue as it would be when making numerical estimates using rating
scales (Lee & Van Hout, 2009). At the individual level, the revealed
ranking is then based directly upon respondents behaviour, unlike
results obtained by application of multivariate methods to rating
data. When aggregating ranking data across individuals, rank
sums, or alternatively mean ranks, are capable of showing not only
the rank order, but also the distance between attribute ranks.
Importantly, however, use of rank sums as an indicator of product
attribute importances comes with the caveat of being unable to ad-
dress heterogeneity across respondents, as such effects are aver-
aged out when aggregating ranks over individuals and expressing
attribute importances by mean ranks or by order of rank sums.
3.2. Bestworst scaling
Bestworst scaling is a theory-driven preference scaling proce-
dure (Finn & Louviere, 1992; Marley & Louviere, 2005) that has
gained popularity within applications in consumer research (e.g.
Jaeger, Jrgensen, Aaslyng, & Bredie, 2008). In BWS the preference
intensity between alternative attributes is obtained using an indi-
rect chain of alternatives. This makes comparison of DR and BWS of
particular interest.
Based on an assumption of ordinality, such as a difference mod-
el, relative bestworst scaling (RBWS) generates estimates of attri-
bute importance relative to a single reference attribute. However,
the relativism of standard BWS means that the degree of attribute
importance is only comparable within a respondent, not across
respondents (e.g. Lagerkvist, Okello, & Karanja, 2012), thus exclud-
ing information that would be useful in comparing individual pref-
erences or in dividing respondents into groups with distinctive
preferences. Consumer research typically reports that product
attributes (such as price, size, nutritional value, durability, etc.)
are compared disproportionately, i.e. one is the focal subject of
comparison (Mantel & Kardes, 1999).
The recently developed anchored bestworst scaling (ABWS)
approach (Sawtooth Software, 2009; Lagerkvist et al., 2012) pro-
vides a way to overcome the relativism of BWS by introducing a
dual-response format which is used to augment the standard
BWS method. The dual format provides further indicators of attri-
bute discrimination in which a threshold choice alternative (some
attributes are important, some are not) establishes an anchor be-
tween important and unimportant from which a common scale
origin exists, with the utility of the anchor being zero. Importantly,
this anchoring allows between-subject comparison of attribute
importance.
RBWS is a forced choice method requiring the consumer to
make sequential choices of most and least preferred. ABWS is clo-
ser to non-forced choice, but comes with additional information
about the discrimination between response alternatives. Among
79
methods for the measurement of attribute importance, BWS has
been found to generate greater respondent discrimination, provid-
ing more accurate information in sensory testing, while viewed by
panellists as the most demanding method, requiring several suc-
cessive choice tasks to be completed (Hein et al., 2008). In addition,
compared with ranking techniques, use of BWS may be susceptible
to attribute non-attendance because of task (non-)attractiveness or
complexity (Hensher, 2006), e.g. in responding to a set in which the
cognitive burden of deciding upon importance becomes too dif-
cult when all attributes are considered to be vital, resulting in lack
of discrimination.
While a growing body of research has emerged around BWS, lit-
tle attention has been paid to fullment of the qualitative princi-
ples that should govern the preferences of rational choice. For
BWS the lack of complete transitivity is inherent in each choice
task, at the individual level. To illustrate this, consider a choice
set of ve attributes (AE) providing data on two end-points, say
attribute A as best and attribute E as worst. Such a choice reveals
that AB, C, D and E, and that BE; CE and DE, but no information
about the transitivity of preferences concerning attributes B, C and
D can be inferred. Successive choice tasks would reveal further
transitive pairs, but there is clearly no guarantee of the existence
of an transitive relationship over the set of attributes included.
However, dominance and invariance are the two fundamental
principles in all analysis of rational choice. Dominance with respect
to attribute importance would require attribute A to be at least as
important as attribute B in every respect and more important than
B in at least one respect. Invariance would require two choice for-
mats that are recognised as equivalent as regards the importance
domain they tap to elicit the same preference order even when
shown separately.
4. Design and hypotheses
The study followed a within-subjects design, where the two
methods for direct measurement of labelling preferences were pre-
sented in a randomised order.
Hypotheses H1H6 summarise our expectations regarding the
relationships between the two methods:
H1. Methods used to generate comparable measures of attribute
importance are equally well understood by respondents.
H2. The ranking of attribute importance is invariant to method
(DR, RBWS, ABWS) used for eliciting attribute importance. This is
also an indirect test of transitivity, as differences in rankings then
indicate that the preference intensity obtained by comparing how
a direct measure differs from an indirect chain of alternatives.
H3. A method based on forced choice (RBWS) does not differ in
attribute preference intensity to a method based on non-forced
choice, such as ABWS.
H4. Discrimination in attribute importance across methods does
not depend on whether the data are analysed by direct aggregation
or by choice probabilities.
H5. For any method used, attribute importance obtained by aggre-
gating over individual ranks or attribute weights is consistent with
attribute importances obtained as choice probabilities.
H6. For any method used, a strict dominance relationship exists
across attributes.
80 C.J. Lagerkvist / Food Quality and Preference 29 (2013) 7788

5. Materials and methods
5.1. Stimulus material labelling of pre-packaged beef
EU Regulation 1760/2000 requires mandatory labelling of all
non-minced beef and beef products sold in the EU with an individ-
ual reference or code number referring to the specic animal and a
licence number for the slaughterhouse, in order to allow for trace-
ability to the country where slaughter took place and where cut-
ting were performed. Furthermore, labelling must include
information about the country where the animal were born, fat-
tened and slaughtered. If these aspects coincide, this information
can be pooled into one heading, origin. Imported beef to be sold
within the EU must be labelled Origin: non-EC, followed by the
name of the third country. Any further voluntary information to
be provided on the product package must be specied, for account-
ability, and sent for approval to the relevant authority of the Mem-
ber State in which the beef is to be sold.
Beside including the attributes stipulated in EU Regulation
1760/2000, the present study included further attributes corre-
sponding to the 10 main requirements within EU Directive 2000/
13/EC with annexes (Ofcial Journal L 109, 6.5, 2002, pp. 2942)
on approximations of the laws of the Member States relating to
labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs. In addition,
the main European Directive for nutrition and health claims (Coun-
cil Directive 1924/2006/EC; OJ L 404, 30.12.2006, p. 9) in all cases
requires substantiation based on scientic evidence and in some
Member States prior authorisation. A detailed presentation of the
EU labelling requirements can be found in Cheftel (2005).
The labelling attributes in the present study also introduced an
alternative labelling scheme on origin by which a set of attributes
regarding the geographical zone where animals were born, fat-
tened and slaughtered and where meat was packaged was used,
as inside or outside the EU, but not specic country (Table 1).
The reason for this was to examine current policy proposals.
Additional attributes were developed based on focus group dis-
cussions and an extensive literature review. Four separate focus
group sessions (total n = 31; male = 14, female = 17) were con-
ducted by a marketing research company to identify the food label-
ling attributes that received attention during beef purchasing by
various age groups (younger 2044; older 4575) and by type of
resident (larger city (Stockholm); non-urban (City of Enkping)).
Participants expressed concerns about trust in labelling informa-
tion related to intrinsic product quality characteristics and the nal

Table 1
Description of the 30 food quality attributes used in the survey by rank, and mean of importance weight as percentages.

Attribute Rank: Rank: relative Rank: anchored Attribute importance: Attribute importance:
standard bestworst bestworst relative bestworst anchored bestworst
ranking scaling scaling scaling % scaling %
1 Environmental impact of the livestock productiona 19 20 20 2.82 0.96
2 Extent of good animal welfare for the livestock 8 6 6 6.99 6.88
productiona
3 Health impact from consumption of beefa 24 23 23 0.86 0.85
4 Extent of social responsibility for the livestock 17 16 17 1.41 1.45
productiona
5 Information about organic productiona 15 13 14 1.87 1.95
6 Information about if the animal received 9 5 5 7.14 7.14
preventative medication or nota
7 Traceability to group or specic animal 18 18 18 1.32 1.30
8 Country where the animal was born 6 9 9 3.87 3.79
9 Country where the animal was fattened/bred 1 2 2 10.96 11.56
10 Country where the animal was slaughtered 5 10 10 3.19 3.10
11 Traceability to specic slaughterhouse 13 14 13 1.84 1.95
12 Country where the meat was cut 10 15 15 1.69 1.61
13 Country where the meat was packaged 11 19 19 1.19 1.16
14 Ingredients 12 11 11 2.89 2.84
15 Nutrient value per 100 g 22 25 26 0.74 0.68
16 Recommended storage temperature 23 29 29 0.65 0.61
17 Storage instructions and expiry date for opened 16 12 12 2.88 2.80
package
18 Date of minimum durability (expiry) 2 1 1 15.28 15.82
19 Date of packaging 3 4 4 8.48 8.18
20 Method used to tender the meat 27 28 27 0.67 0.68
21 Brand 25 27 28 0.68 0.64
22 Price 4 3 3 9.47 9.24
23 Weight (kg) 7 7 7 5.32 5.41
24 Geographical zone where the animal was born 28 24 25 0.74 0.68
(inside or outside the EU, but not specic country)
25 Geographical zone where the animal was fattened/ 21 17 16 1.40 1.46
bred (inside or outside the EU, but not specic
country)
26 Geographical zone where the animal was 26 21 21 0.88 0.91
slaughtered (inside or outside the EU, but not
specic country)
27 Geographical zone where the meat was cut (inside 29 30 30 0.59 0.56
or outside the EU, but not specic country)
28 Geographical zone where the meat was packaged 30 26 24 0.72 0.71
(inside or outside the EU, but not specic country)
29 Traceability to specic breeder 14 8 8 4.40 4.17
30 Type of animal feed given during raising of the 20 22 22 0.86 0.88
animal
Average percentage certainty (Chance ratio) 50.3% (2.51) 51.7% (3.10)
a
Veried by government authority or EU body.
 C.J. Lagerkvist / Food Quality and Preference 29 (2013) 7788 81

Table 2 and ability to express what is important concerning labelling of

Respondent demographics. beef.
Category Class Share % Two additional questions were included on completion of the
Age a
2034 28.9 survey to investigate: (a) the self-reported attention given to label-
3549 36.9 ling information (on the package) when purchasing beef today and
5065 34.2 (b) the perceived level of difculty in expressing the type of label-
Genderb Male 49.4 ling information that is important to the respondent, so as to inves-
Female 50.6
Household income 6SEK 20,000 14
tigate the cognitive burden related to the responses.
(gross monthly) SEK 2040,000 28
SEK 40,00160,000 29 5.2. Recruitment and data collection
PSEK 60,000 15
No information 14
Household size 1 Person 22 The study was carried out as an internet survey after initial pre-
2 Persons 40 testing. A convenience sample of 630 individuals was recruited by
34 Persons 31 a marketing research company. Respondents were initially
P4 Persons 22 screened on their beef purchasing frequency (purchasing beef at
Area of living Large city area (P150,000) 33.6
least 12 times per quarter-year was used as the cut-off) and on
Medium size city area (50150,000) 34.2
Rural or small city area (650,000) 31.4 whether they worked in public relations, journalism or marketing
No information 0.8 research (as disqualiers or to avoid professional responses). The
Level of highest education Primary school 5 response rate was 80 per cent (506 individuals; men n = 250; wo-
Secondary school 33
men n = 256) and the average time taken to complete the survey
College or equiv. (63 years) 21
University or equiv. (>3 years) 32
was 23 min. A small participation fee in terms of reward points
Other higher education 9 (equivalent to SEK 10.50) was provided. Detailed demographic
Other 1 characteristics are shown in Table 2. The sample was representa-
a
The corresponding values for the Swedish population (2011) are 32.4% (2034);
tive of the Swedish population with respect to age and gender.
34.3% (3549); and 33.3% (5065) (Statistics Sweden, 2012).
b
49.3% of the Swedish population between 20 and 65 years are women (Statistics 5.3. Procedures
Sweden, 2012).

The DR and BWS study contained all the attributes listed in

set of attributes therefore explicitly stated that such attributes
were veried by the EU or a government authority (Table 1).
The study comprised two parts. In part 1, the nal list of 30
attributes (Table 1) was subjected to a sequential DR procedure
without replacement. In part 2, BWS was carried out to obtain a
measurement of importance ranking of the attributes.
Three evaluative statements on a semantic differential scale
(agreedisagree) were given after completion of each part to ad-
dress the respondents understanding of each method. These state-
ments referred to: ease of understanding of how to provide
responses; understanding of the labelling attributes included;
Table 1.
5.3.1. Direct ranking
DR, as well as a subsequent Rindex analysis based on ranking
data, has limitations when there are many attributes to order (Lee
& Van Hout, 2009). Therefore, a four-stage sequential DR procedure
was used. First, the respondents were asked to rank the ve most
important attributes out of all available attributes; then asked to
rank the 10 most important out of the remaining 25 attributes;
then asked to rank the 10 most important out the remaining 15;
and nally to rank the ve remaining attributes in descending or-
der of importance. This procedure makes the ranking follow an

Fig. 1. Example of anchored bestworst (BW) questions used in the consumer survey.
82 C.J. Lagerkvist / Food Quality and Preference 29 (2013) 7788
Fig. 2. Illustration of a given response matrix for the computation of Rindex
indicating choice probability.
analytical hierarchy process, which allows the overall importance
of each attribute to be derived (Saaty, 1977).
5.3.2. Bestworst scaling
To implement the BWS, as shown in Fig. 1, respondents were,
for each set of attributes, asked to choose the BW labelling combi-
nation and then to choose between the labelling features and the
dual-response question. Choice situations in the BWS experiment
were specied using the MaxDiff designer v.2.0.2. (Sawtooth Soft-
ware). A highly randomised design including 300 versions was em-
ployed to reduce issues related to scale effects, as these can be
expected to be more pronounced with few versions of a question-
naire. The balanced design meant that for each version, 18 choice
sets were generated, with each set including ve information
attributes. Each attribute was presented three times per version.
A two-way balance was favoured in the design, which meant that
the design was directed towards how often paired combinations of
the attributes appeared together, and each pair of attributes ap-
peared together on average 0.4 times. The hierarchical Bayesian
method used to estimate attribute importance does not require
perfect balance. Research by Orme (2005) directed the number of
attributes to be combined into the choice set, as well as the num-
ber of displays of choice sets.
5.4. Rindex for comparison of partial order of ranking and scaling
data
While DR, RBWS and ABWS are theoretically consistent in terms
of tapping the relevance dimension of attribute importance, a the-
oretically appropriate empirical measure of similarity in data re-
trieved from such measurement has been lacking to date. To
measure the similarity between attribute importances and the ex-
tent of transitivity of each ranking method, we therefore adapted
the Rindex measure proposed by OMahony (1992)).
Our adapted Rindex measure expresses the pairwise probabil-
ity (Rij) that a given attribute i is preferred over another attribute j,
with i = 1,. . ., n and j = 1,. . .n. For Rindex analysis, the frequencies
for each rank, summed over all respondents, are counted and a re-
sponse matrix is derived, as illustrated in Fig. 2. This computational
approach is recommended when there may be heterogeneity in the
ranking of choice alternatives (Lee & Van Hout, 2009). The pooled
probability to which attribute 1 is preferred over attribute 2 is then
obtained as R12 A B=A 2B C  100, where A is the total
of attribute 1 preferred over attribute 2, B is the total of ties in
Fig. 3. Illustration of the R-index matrix indicating choice probability.
ranks, and C is the total of attribute 2 preferred over attribute 1
with:
A a1 b2    z2 b1 c2    z2    w1 z2 1
1
B a1 a2    z1 z2 2
2
C a2 b1    z1 b2 c1    z1    w2 z1 3
When calculated pair-wise for all n attributes, an n  n matrix
of Rindex values is obtained (Fig. 3) with Rii = 100. By rows, the
Rindex matrix includes the pair-wise probability that a given
attribute is chosen as more important than any of the other attri-
butes. These pair-wise probabilities then reect the dominance
relations between attributes. A strictly dominant attribute could
be expected to be preferred to all other attributes (except itself),
whereas an attribute revealing weak dominance would not be
dominated by other attributes but would dominate at least one
other attribute in terms of importance. Furthermore, by summing
across rows in the Rindex matrix, the sum of choice probabilities
is obtained for each attribute, which can be used to assess the sto-
chastic rank order of attributes. Such a measure would be directly
comparable across ranking methods. By expressing choice proba-
bilities, the Rindex therefore provides further information for
the analysis of choice data beyond the masking regression to the
mean effect that is entailed in analysing importance weights
pooled across respondents.
5.4. Data analysis
For the DR data, attribute rank sums obtained by aggregating
ranks across respondents were used to rank attributes by
importance.
Hierarchical Bayesian (HB) models were used to estimate loca-
tions of attributes on the underlying scale of importance from the
BWS data. HB models have recently been shown to outperform
aggregate methods (MNL) and latent class methods in estimations
of B-W choice data related to food quality attributes (Lagerkvist
et al., 2012). HB models can handle the presence of within- and be-
tween-respondent choice heterogeneity and offer the advantage of
investigating the probability distribution of the parameters given
the data, instead of the opposite as in random parameters logit
models (RPL), which means that data quality is not lost in estimat-
ing a HB model. A further advantage of HB is the ability to generate
individual specic data from sparse data sets.
Estimation of the HB models was performed here using CBCHB
v.5.0.4 (http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com). The model was esti-
mated through an iterative process in a Monte Carlo Markov Chain
approach to obtain convergence. The estimation was carried out
with 10,000 iterations before results were used and then with an
additional 20,000 iterations to calculate importance weights for
each interviewee. The ABWS data were coded in accordance with
the procedure detailed in Appendix 4 of Sawtooth Software.
(2009). This coding means that no attribute choice information is
lost when accounting for the dual-response question. Instead, the
data le is augmented by additional choice tasks to recognise
 C.J. Lagerkvist / Food Quality and Preference 29 (2013) 7788 83

either: (a) that all ve attributes are preferred to the threshold Table 3
(zero utility) with a new worst task, or (b) that all ve attributes Respondents use of labelling information.

are inferior to the threshold by a new best task. The importance Statement Alternative Share
weighting of attribute k over the full set of attributes was obtained %
on a common ratio scale following the procedure outlined in Lag- To what extent would you say that you look at the I look at all 17
erkvist et al. (2012), from which ranks were obtained. labelling information (on the package) when I look at most 38
The average percentage certainty measure (Hauser, 1978), ob- you buy beef today? I look at some 35
but not all
tained as the difference between the log likelihood of each model I look at just a 9
and the log likelihood of a chance model, was used to assess model few
t. In addition, a chance ratio measure (average percentage cer- I do not look at 1
tainty divided by the chance) was used to compare the predictive it
accuracy between model specications. For the relative BWS a How do you nd expressing the type of beef Very easy 7
chance model had a predictive power of 20% (one out of ve choice labelling information that is important to you? Fairly easy 35
Neither easy 25
options) while in the anchored BWS study, a chance model had a
nor difcult
predictive power of 16.7% (one out of six choice options). Fairly difcult 29
For Rindex analysis, the direct ranking method provided all Very difcult 4
necessary input, while for the BWS methods the individual ranking
of attributes was obtained through the estimated location of each
attribute on the underlying interval scale of importance and then
transformed onto the common ratio scale. Critical values for test-
Table 4
ing the signicance of the Rindex were obtained from Bi and Respondents evaluation of the response formats.
OMahony (2007). A two-tailed test was used, since the comparison
Statement Alternative Direct Best
was whether attribute i or attribute j, in the comparison, was to be
ranking worst
chosen as more important over the other for whatever attribute % scaling %
under consideration. The chance value for a Rij index was 50%.
It was easy to understand how I Disagree 2 3
The Friedmans test for related samples was applied to test should provide my choices Partly disagree 7 8
equality of distributions of attribute importances per attribute be- Neutral (neither 19 19
tween direct ranking and BWS. Furthermore, the bivariate Spear- disagree nor
man rank-order correlation coefcient, which indicates the agree)
Partly agree 30 28
degree of association between the rankings (Siegel & Castellan, Agree 42 42
1988) was used for comparison of rankings across methods.
I understood the meaning of the Disagree 2 1
labelling alternatives Partly disagree 7 8
Neutral (neither 17 17
6. Results
disagree nor
agree)
6.1. Understanding of methods used to assess attribute importance Partly agree 34 39
Agree 41 35
The distribution of responses about use of labelling information I was able to express what was Disagree 3 3
when buying beef is shown in Table 3. The majority of respondents important for me concerning Partly disagree 8 10
indicated that they look at most or some, but not all, labelling beef labelling Neutral (neither 20 20
disagree nor
information. These results are similar to ndings on how often con- agree)
sumers read nutrition fact panel labels (Gracia, Loureiro, & Nayga, Partly agree 35 38
2009). In addition, the majority of respondents were neutral or Agree 33 30
were found on the range between fairly easy and easy to express
the importance of the type of beef labelling that they prefer. Hence,
Table 4 shows the respondents evaluation of response formats be-
that the choices were balanced in relation to the experimental de-
tween DR and BWS. For each of the evaluative statements, an anal-
sign. The anchored dual-response option all ve of these are
ysis of cross-classication using the crosstab (Bonferrioni adjusted)
important was selected in total 2713 times (29.9%), while the
Chi-square test was unable to reject the possibility that the evalu-
threshold some are important, some are not was selected 5959
ation differed by response format: Ease of understanding
times (65.5%), leaving only 418 observations (4.6%) to the none
n216 439:4, P < 0.0001); understanding meaning of labelling alter-
of these are important alternative. Taken together, these results
natives (n216 583:9, P < 0.0001); ability to express what was
indicate that the majority of choices were made in a discriminatory
important concerning labelling of beef (n216 568:1, P < 0.0001).
way. The average percentage explained was 50.3% and 51.7% for
Hypothesis H1, which stated that the understanding of methods
the RBWS and ABWS models, respectively. This corresponds to a
used to measure importance of labelling attributes is equal, could
predictive accuracy of 2.51 and 3.10 times higher than a pure
thus not be rejected.
chance model, respectively. The estimated average variance was
slightly higher for the ABWS model (10.07) than for the RBWS
6.2. Comparison of attribute importance between direct ranking and model (9.25). Likewise, the parameter root mean square was
bestworst scaling slightly higher for the ABWS model (3.52) than for the RBWS mod-
el (3.37). This indicates that the use of the dual-response task
The ranks from DR data pooled across the respondents and the introduced some further heterogeneity in preferences and that
estimated attribute importances for the RBWS and the ABWS, the magnitude of the locations on the underlying interval scale of
which are based on 9108 observations (36 observations per importance became slightly higher.
respondent), are presented in Table 1. The choice frequencies for Visual inspection of the results in Table 1 suggests that the two
the alternative response categories 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 were 21.45%, ranking methods did not concur in rankings of attribute impor-
19.71%, 18.68%, 19.77% and 20.38%, respectively, which indicates tances. Table 5 shows the results for the Friedman tests of equality
84 C.J. Lagerkvist / Food Quality and Preference 29 (2013) 7788

Table 5
Test of equality in medians of distributions of importance ranking and correlation between importance ranking by attributes.

Attribute Friedman testa Spearman rho correlation

Direct ranking vs. Direct ranking vs. Relative vs. anchored Direct ranking vs. Direct ranking vs. Relative vs. anchored
relative bestworst anchored bestworst bestworst scaling relative bestworst anchored bestworst bestworst scaling
scaling scaling scaling scaling
1 Reject Reject Retain 0.589 0.557 0.934
2 Reject Reject Reject 0.646 0.635 0.963
3 Reject Reject Retain 0.558 0.525 0.942
4 Reject Reject Retain 0.614 0.585 0.951
5 Retain Retain Retain 0.605 0.606 0.964
6 Reject Reject Retain 0.61 0.576 0.955
7 Retain Retain Retain 0.423 0.409 0.936
8 Reject Reject Retain 0.525 0.518 0.927
9 Retain Retain Retain 0.624 0.602 0.926
10 Reject Reject Retain 0.46 0.432 0.921
11 Retain Retain Reject 0.546 0.522 0.939
12 Reject Reject Reject 0.481 0.481 0.943
13 Reject Reject Retain 0.427 0.432 0.957
14 Retain Retain Retain 0.58 0.551 0.927
15 Reject Reject Reject 0.599 0.596 0.949
16 Reject Reject Retain 0.6 0.574 0.919
17 Reject Reject Retain 0.584 0.566 0.951
18 Reject Reject Reject 0.604 0.596 0.957
19 Reject Reject Retain 0.544 0.545 0.919
20 Reject Reject Retain 0.52 0.497 0.929
21 Reject Reject Retain 0.565 0.557 0.949
22 Reject Reject Retain 0.756 0.717 0.917
23 Retain Retain Reject 0.692 0.685 0.934
24 Reject Reject Retain 0.26 0.278 0.914
25 Reject Reject Retain 0.318 0.301 0.917
26 Reject Reject Retain 0.354 0.323 0.911
27 Reject Reject Reject 0.348 0.361 0.915
28 Reject Reject Retain 0.351 0.333 0.92
29 Reject Reject Reject 0.616 0.595 0.958
30 Reject Reject Retain 0.548 0.565 0.953
a
H(0): the median of the distributions are the same.

in mean ranks of pair-wise differences for the ranking of each
respective attribute by DR, RBWS and ABWS, respectively.
Although not conclusive, there are rather strong indications that
the distributions of ranking differed more between DR and BWS,
while the two BWS methods had more similarities between distri-
butions of rankings. However, a pair-wise comparison of the Spear-
man (rho) rank-order correlation coefcient indicated that the
associations between the rankings were signicantly positive
(P < 0.0001) and strong. Hence, hypothesis H2, that ranking of
attribute importance is invariant to elicitation format, cannot be
strictly rejected. This observed degree of association is an impor-
tant aspect of the structural reliability of the measurement
methods.
Furthermore, the Friedman test rejected equality between the
distributions of attribute importance weights, except for three
attribute pairs: price (test statistic = 0.198, P = 0.657); date of
minimum durability (test statistic = 0.387, P = 0.534); and coun-
try where the animal was fattened/bred (test statistic = 3.83,

Fig. 4a. Frequency by ranks for the class of attributes with a strong indication of being selected as most important. Data from anchored bestworst scaling.
 C.J. Lagerkvist / Food Quality and Preference 29 (2013) 7788 85

Fig. 4b. Frequency by ranks for the class of attributes with a strong indication of being selected as least important. Data from anchored bestworst scaling. Note: method used
to tender the meat refers to type of package.

P = 0.05). On average, ABWS gave greater heterogeneity than
RBWS and the heterogeneity was less pronounced for attributes
of higher importance than for those of lower importance (minA-
BWS = 1.10; minRBWS = 1.07 (attribute 19), maxABWS = 4.05;
maxRBWS = 3.83 (attribute 20). Hypothesis H3, that attribute
discrimination does not differ depending on the use of forced
choice (RBWS) or non-forced choice (ABWS), could therefore be
rejected. This means that a non-forced method suggests larger
heterogeneity in attribute importances than a forced choice
method.
6.3. Comparison of choice probabilities and attribute order by Rindex
Two classes of responses from ABWS data for distributions of
frequency by rank are shown in Figs. 4a and 4b, respectively. Sim-
ilar patterns were found for the other two methods. Fig. 4a shows
the distributions for attributes which the majority of respondents
strongly endorsed in terms of importance, while Fig. 4b shows
the distributions for which there was strong lack of endorsement
in terms of importance. For a third class (not shown), more even
distributions of frequency by ranks were obtained. The results

Table 6
Rank, choice probabilities and attribute dominance based on Rindex calculation.

Rank Direct ranking Relative bestworst scaling Anchored bestworst scaling

Attribute Prob. AD Diff. Attribute Prob. AD Diff. Attribute Prob. AD Diff.
1 A9 2282.8 27 2 A18 2412.9 29 0 A18 2402.9 29 0
2 A18 2236.6 27 1 A19 2402.9 27 1 A19 2394.8 27 1
3 A19 2138.7 25 2 A9 2328.7 27 0 A9 2319.7 27 0
4 A22 2119.3 27 1 A22 2018.8 25 1 A22 2022.9 24 2
5 A10 2023 23 2 A10 1959.3 22 3 A23 1967.8 22 3
6 A8 1912.2 21 3 A6 1950.6 22 2 A10 1957.9 22 2
7 A23 1910.1 23 0 A23 1935.2 22 1 A6 1949.3 22 1
8 A2 1818.3 20 2 A2 1891.7 21 1 A2 1876.1 21 1
9 A6 1815.6 20 1 A8 1828.4 20 1 A8 1827.9 20 1
10 A12 1815.1 19 1 A29 1754.6 18 2 A29 1741.3 19 1
11 A13 1721.6 17 2 A12 1697.5 16 3 A12 1664.5 14 5
12 A14 1651.3 17 1 A17 1665.5 14 4 A14 1655.9 16 2
13 A11 1618.4 15 2 A14 1656.1 16 1 A17 1649.9 14 3
14 A29 1549.4 15 1 A25 1630.1 13 3 A25 1629 13 3
15 A5 1530.8 14 1 A13 1600.7 13 2 A11 1614.2 13 2
16 A17 1447.1 10 4 A11 1590.5 13 1 A13 1591 13 1
17 A4 1412.2 10 3 A5 1527.1 13 0 A5 1527.4 13 0
18 A7 1409.8 10 2 A7 1378.9 11 1 A7 1388 11 1
19 A1 1375.8 8 3 A26 1330.3 11 0 A26 1334.4 11 0
20 A30 1365.1 8 2 A4 1197.4 5 5 A4 1202.5 5 5
21 A25 1274.7 7 2 A28 1194.8 5 4 A28 1200.8 6 3
22 A15 1266.5 6 2 A24 1191.8 5 3 A1 1194.9 5 3
23 A16 1214.2 4 3 A1 1190.4 5 2 A30 1189.9 5 2
24 A3 1199 2 4 A30 1186.4 5 1 A24 1188.2 5 1
25 A21 1166.1 2 3 A27 1131.2 5 0 A27 1113.3 5 0
26 A26 1120 2 2 A3 1051 2 2 A3 1060.5 1 3
27 A20 1103.5 1 2 A16 996.8 1 2 A16 1011.3 1 2
28 A24 1078.2 2 0 A21 979.3 1 1 A15 1001.7 1 1
29 A27 968.3 0 1 A15 979.1 1 0 A21 984 1 0
30 A28 956.3 0 0 A20 842 0 0 A20 838 0 0
Sum 53 47 49

Note: Prob. = total choice probability per attribute in percentage, i.e. sum of Rindex by rows in the Rindex matrix. AD = attribute dominance = number of attribute which the
attribute dominates according to the attribute Rindex at the 5% signicance level. Diff. = difference between rank of attribute minus AD.
86 C.J. Lagerkvist / Food Quality and Preference 29 (2013) 7788
displayed in Figs. 4a and 4b suggest that there may be more infor-
mation within the choice data than is captured when additively
aggregating attribute importance ranking or weights across
respondents.
The attribute rankings and dominance relations based on choice
probabilities as expressed by the Rindex calculations are shown in
Table 6. The results indicate that ranking of product attribute
importance did not differ between DR and Rindex ranking based
on the DR data (rs = 1, P < 0.0001). However, although attribute
ranking between pooled importance weights and choice probabil-
ities was very similar for RBWS (rs = 0.949, P < 0.0001) and for
ABWS (rs = 0.964, P < 0.0001), the rankings did not concur. It was
found that the same 10 attributes were ranked with the highest
Rindex, irrespective of measurement model. These attributes
were also associated with the highest ranking when the data were
analysed over rank sums and importance weights. However, for
RBWS there were 27 preference reversals compared with the attri-
bute importances obtained by pooling individual importance
weights, whereas ABWS revealed 26 reversals. Hence, there is sup-
port for rejection of H5 being conditional upon measurement
method.
Furthermore, the results in Table 6 show that the ability for dis-
crimination of attribute importances differed across methods. To
further highlight this, the total choice probability per attribute
was plotted against the rank (Fig. 5). RBWS and ABWS revealed
strong similarities, suggesting that these methods generate stron-
ger tails discrimination (more emphasised kinks separating the
most important and least important attributes). For DR the results
revealed a more linear structure, indicating less polar discrimina-
tion. In addition, the relationship between choice probabilities re-
vealed a different relationship between the scope of differences in
attribute importance than the comparison between importance
weights from RBWS or ABWS. For example, attribute 18 (date of
minimum durability) was 2 (=2404.9/1202.5) times more likely
to be chosen as most important in comparison with attribute 20
(extent of social responsibility) from the Rindex based on ABWS,
while the difference in importance weights was 10.9 times
(=15.82%/1.45%).
Finally, Table 6 shows the extent to which each of the methods
established a dominant ordering of labelling attributes (an Appen-
dix with Rindex tables corresponding to Fig. 2 is available upon
Fig. 5. Total choice probabilities per attribute by rank within the Rindex method.
request). For RBWS and ABWS, the date of minimum durability
was the only strictly dominant attribute, while as the least impor-
tant in terms of choice probabilities, nutritional labels together
with method used to package the meat (RBWS) and brand (ABWS)
were the only strictly dominant attributes. For DR there was no
strictly dominant attribute. The RBWS method showed the lowest
deviation between rank based on choice probability and theoreti-
cal rank dominance, while DR showed the largest deviation. Hence,
as regards hypothesis H6, none of the methods generated a com-
plete transitive ordering of attributes.
7. Discussion
Irrespective of measurement method, the results related to
importance of beef labelling attributes corroborate ndings from
earlier studies that the highest level of attribute importance is gi-
ven to expiry date (Bernus et al., 2003; Verbeke & Ward, 2006)
and that the related quality cue of packaging date is a top priority.
Furthermore, information about country where the animal was fat-
tened/bred or born, together with traceability to a specic breeder,
apparently functioned as an important quality cue to consumers,
while other country-of-origin and traceability attributes did not.
The results also show that country-specic information is more
important than information about geographical zone. Beside meet-
ing stipulated labelling criteria, some food labels with little or no
standards make further claims to certify a wide array of product
quality and process characteristics concerning animal welfare, sus-
tainability or environmental values, all of which may be strong
marketing features for the food industry. In this respect, the results
corroborate earlier ndings that information cues about produc-
tion processes related to animal welfare conditions are of high rel-
evance (Tonsor & Wolf, 2011). Interestingly, the importance
concerning preventative medication suggests that this designation
of production methods could be perceived as an important extrin-
sic cue related to food safety.
The nding that price is considered of high importance, thus
functioning as a quality indicator, while brand information is not,
is consistent with the previous nding that consumers loyal to a
brand pay less attention to price (Bronnenberg & Vanhonacker,
1996).
 C.J. Lagerkvist / Food Quality and Preference 29 (2013) 7788
At the lower end of attribute importances, those cues related to
environmental, human health effects from meat consumption, so-
cial responsibility during rearing, and organic production were
consistently ranked low. The literature shows mixed ndings
about information cues on the production process.
While the results presented here for labelling of beef (Table 1)
hold specically for Swedish consumers, they show that the dis-
crimination among attribute importances was rather pronounced
and that several of the label cues have, or would have, little impor-
tance to consumers, which is in line with results from Verbeke and
Ward (2006). The sum of attribute importance for the 10 most
important attributes was 75.1% and 75.3% for RBWS and ABWS,
respectively.
As the methods used to elicit importance weights or preference
ranking reveal violations of transitivity and dominance, this may
indicate that people violate such basic axioms. If so, then existing
models used by researchers and practitioners need to be revised
to better describe human behaviour. A related issue, in the event
of such deviations, is whether the observed pattern represents true
deviations, is due to random errors, or is induced by shortcomings
in the data generation process. The relatively large sample used in
this study together with the highly randomised design should have
reduced problems with scale factors, so the pattern was due to true
deviations. In any case, the potential inuence of choice heuristics
for interfacing with, and contributing to, traditional preference
analysis is demonstrated here. Considerable attention was focused
on measuring but not explaining attribute attendance. An impor-
tant further step would be to incorporate consumers use of pro-
cess-orientated procedures of attribute selection into the
measurement models of importance weights to improve predictive
accuracy.
8. Conclusions
This study compared the direct ranking (DR) and bestworst
scaling (BWS) methods, which theoretically should relate to an
underlying relevance dimension, in terms of their results with re-
spect to attribute importance discrimination and dominance for
beef labelling and packaging information attributes. The ability of
the two methods to generate a dominance order of attribute
importances was also compared using an adapted non-parametric
Rindex method.
Overall, the results conrmed previous ndings suggesting that
consumer information searches in relation to beef labelling focus
on extrinsic quality cues. Regarding the depth of information
search, the results suggested that as few as 10 attributes explained
75% of consumers importance rankings in terms of relevance. This
indicates that there is an hierarchy of labels which needs to be
carefully considered, as consumers are increasingly exposed to a
wider set of information cues as the product range and number
of labelling attributes increase. There is thus a need for prioritisa-
tion, in which the results of this study can be useful.
Use of the Rindex method, instead of importance measures
using aggregation over individuals, illustrated how information
contained in heterogeneous responses can contribute additional
insights into labelling preferences. For DR, the ordering of attribute
importance was identical between the use of rank sums and sto-
chastic rank sums, but not so for BWS. This suggests that there is
more choice information in BWS data than is typically reported
from such studies. The measurement methods suffered from
incomplete transitivity of attribute importances, although the
two BWS scaling methods were slightly better than DR in terms
of deviations from the theoretical order. This is an important meth-
odological issue on which future research is required. Based on the
ndings, it is recommended that Rindex results be reported so
87
that data quality can be ascertained for preference intensity
studies.
The public policy considerations emanating from the results of
this study are interesting. First, the ndings suggest that there is an
ordering of attributes within the concept of origin. Specication of
country where the beef was fattened, slaughtered and born was
found to be among the most important attributes, while other
mandatory country-of-origin attributes, including traceability,
ranked only of medium importance. Furthermore, the alternative
labelling of origin by geographical zone (inside or outside the EU
but no specication of country) was among the lowest ranked
attributes, suggesting that the current legislation on labelling is
acceptable.
Second, animal welfare and medication for preventative pur-
poses were among the top ranked attributes. This suggests that
the ongoing work within the EU Commission to introduce a label-
ling scheme for animal welfare is well justied in relation to how
relevant consumers nd this information. Information about pre-
ventive medication can be expected to be related to concerns about
animal welfare, but also about public health. Such concerns extend
beyond practices within organic production and have come to be
used in marketing, for example in restaurants. In addition, antibi-
otic residues are a clear concern to the public and in environmental
policy.
Third, and related to the issue of pharmaceutical residues, the
ndings suggest that more extended quality cues (health claims,
environmental impact, social responsibility, information on organ-
ic production) are not of general relevance to consumers. This does
not mean that they are irrelevant, but from an informational search
perspective they should be used to target specic consumer seg-
ments instead of all consumers.
Acknowledgements
Kristian Sundstrm and Helena Johansson from AgriFood Eco-
nomics Centre in Lund, Sweden, contributed to the development
of labelling attributes to be included in the study. Constructive
comments and suggestions as well as assistance in data collection
were provided by NORM Nordic Market Research AB, Sweden is
greatly appreciated.
References
Bettman, J. R., & Jacoby, J. (1976). Patterns of processing in consumer information
acquisition. In B. B. Anderson (Ed.). Advances in consumer research (Vol. 3,
pp. 315320). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Bettman, J. R. (1979). An information processing theory of consumer choice. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bernus, A., Olaizola, A., & Corcoran, K. (2003). Labelling information demanded by
European consumers and relationships with purchasing motives, quality and
safety of meat. Meat Science, 65, 10951106.
Bi, J., & OMahony, M. (2007). Updated and extended table for testing the
signicance of the Rindex. Journal of Sensory Studies, 22(6), 713720.
Bronnenberg, B. J., & Vanhonacker, W. R. (1996). Limited choice sets, local price
response, and implied measures of price competition. Journal of Marketing
Research, 33, 163173.
Cheftel, J. C. (2005). Food and nutrition labelling in the European Union. Food
Chemistry, 93, 531550.
Combris, P., Bazoche, P., Giraud-Hraud, E., & Issanchou, S. (2009). Food choices:
What do we learn from combining sensory and economic experiments? Food
Quality and Preference, 20, 550557.
Finn, A., & Louviere, J. J. (1992). Determining the appropriate response to evidence
of public concern: The case of food safety. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing,
11, 1225.
Gracia, A., Loureiro, M. L., & Nayga, R. M. Jr., (2009). Consumers valuation of
nutritional information: A choice experiment study. Food Quality and Preference,
20, 463471.
Hauser, J. R. (1978). Testing and accuracy, usefulness and signicance of
probabilistic choice models: An information-theoretic approach. Operations
Research, 26, 406421.
Hein, K., Jaeger, S. R., Carr, B. T., & Delahunty, C. M. (2008). Comparison of ve
common acceptance and preference methods. Food Quality and Preference, 19,
651661.
88 C.J. Lagerkvist / Food Quality and Preference 29 (2013) 7788
Hensher, D. (2006). How do respondents process stated choice experiments?
Attribute consideration under varying information load. Journal of Applied
Econometrics, 21, 861878.
Jacoby, J., Olson, J. C., & Haddock, R. A. (1971). Price, brand name, and product
composition characteristics as determinants of perceived quality. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 55, 570579.
Jacoby, J., Speller, D. E., & Kohn-Berning, C. A. (1974). Brand choice behavior as a
function of information load: Replication and extension. Journal of Consumer
Research, 1, 3342.
Jaeger, S., Jrgensen, A. S., Aaslyng, M. D., & Bredie, W. L. P. (2008). Bestworst
scaling: An introduction and initial comparison with monadic rating for
preference elicitation with food products. Food Quality and Preference, 19,
579588.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values and frames. American
Psychologist, 39, 341350.
Lagerkvist, C. J., Okello, J. J., & Karanja, N. (2012). Anchored vs. relative bestworst
scaling and latent class vs. hierarchical Bayesian analysis of bestworst choice
data: Investigating the importance of food quality attributes in a developing
country. Food Quality and Preference, 25, 2940.
Lee, H.-S., & Van Hout, D. (2009). Quantication of sensory and food quality: The R
index analysis. Journal of Food Science, 74, R57R64.
Louviere, J. J., & Islam, T. (2008). Acomparison of importance weights and
willingness-to-pay measures derived from choice-based conjoint, constant
sum scales and bestworst scaling. Journal of Business Research, 61,
903911.
Mantel, S. P., & Kardes, F. R. (1999). The role of direction of comparison, attribute-
based processing, and attitude-based processing in consumer preference.
Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 335352.
Marley, A. A. J., & Louviere, J. J. (2005). Some probabilistic models of best, worst, and
bestworst choices. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 49, 464480.
Myers, J. H., & Alpert, M. I. (1968). Determinant buying attitudes: Meaning and
measurement. Journal of Marketing, 32, 1320.
Myers, J. H., & Alpert, M. I. (1977). Semantic confusion in attitude research: salience
vs. importance vs. determinance. Advances in Consumer Research, 4, 106110.
Olson, J. C., & Jacoby, J. (1972). Cue utilisation in the quality per-ception process. In
M. Venkatesan (Ed.), Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the Association
for Consumer Research (pp. 167179). Chicago: Association for Consumer
Research.
OMahony, M. (1992). Understanding discrimination tests: A user-friendly
treatment of response bias, rating and ranking Rindex tests and their
relationship to signal detection. Journal of Sensory Studies, 7, 147.
Orme, B. (2005) Accuracy of HB estimation in Maxdiff experiments. Technical paper
available at: <http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com>.
Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson, P.
R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social
psychological attitudes (pp. 1759). New York: Academic Press.
Russo, J. E., & Rosen, L. D. (1975). An eye xation analysis of multi-alternative
choice. Memory and Cognition, 3, 267276.
Saaty, S. L. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal
of Mathematical Psychology, 15, 234281.
Sawtooth Software. (2009). Anchored scaling in MaxDiff using dual response.
Available at: <http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/download/techpap/
dualresponsemaxdiff.pdf>. Last accessed 15.09.12.
Siegel, S., & Castellan, N. J. (1988). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences.
New York: McGraw-Hill International Editions.
Silayoi, P., & Speece, M. (2007). The importance of packaging attributes: A conjoint
analysis. European Journal of Marketing, 41, 14951517.
Simon, H. A. (1974). How big is a chunk? Science, 183, 482488.
Statistics Sweden (2012). Annual population statistics. Available at: http://
www.scb.se/BE0101-EN. Accessed 23.11.12.
Stokes, R. C. (1973). Unit pricing, differential brand density, and consumer deception.
Washington, DC: Consumer Research Institute.
Srinivasan, V. (1988). A conjunctive-compensatory approach to the self-explication
of multiattributed preferences. Decision Sciences, 19, 295305.
Tonsor, G. T., & Wolf, C. A. (2011). On mandatory labelling of animal welfare
attributes. Food Policy, 36, 430437.
Van Ittersum, K., Pennings, J. M. P., Wansink, B., & Trijp, H. C. M. (2007). The validity
of attribute-importance measurement: A review. Journal of Business Research,
60, 11771190.
Verbeke, W., & Ward, R. W. (2006). Consumer interest in information cues denoting
quality, traceability and origin. An application of ordered probit models to beef
labels. Food Quality and Preference, 17, 453467.
von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1947). Theory of games and economic behaviour
(2nd ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.