Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T10:22:08.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Internalisation of farm animal welfare in consumers’ purchasing decisions: A study of pork fillet at point of purchase using the means-end chain and laddering approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

M Humble ,
M Palmér  and
H Hansson
M Humble
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, PO Box 7013, SE-75007, Sweden Contributed equally
M Palmér
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, PO Box 7013, SE-75007, Sweden Contributed equally
H Hansson*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, PO Box 7013, SE-75007, Sweden
*
* Contact for correspondence: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The purpose of this study was to investigate how farm animal welfare (FAW) is internalised in consumers’ purchasing decisions at the point of purchase. The study is based on means-end chain theory and the laddering interview technique to elicit respondents’ mental representation of attributes, consequences and values of an animal food product. Respondents were approached and interviewed at the point of purchase in two supermarkets in Uppsala, Sweden. A summary representation of respondents’ mental representation of attributes, consequences and values of an animal food product (pork fillet) was created. The findings indicate that FAW is the most salient means-end-chain element FAW enters respondents’ mental representation of pork fillet at the point of purchase as a consequence of other elements. FAW is considered to lead to values of hedonism and universalism type. This study contributes to the literature by detailing how animal welfare can be embedded in consumers’ mental representation of cause and effect of animal food product attributes at the point of purchase. The findings are useful practically for policy-makers and for agri-business and other actors in the food value chain who would like to promote enhanced FAW. The findings also provide insight into how FAW can be promoted through market-based solutions.

Keywords

animal welfareconsumersladderingmeans-end chainpork filletSweden
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 30 , Issue 3 , August 2021 , pp. 355 - 363
Copyright
© 2021 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Bardi, A and Schwartz, SH 2003 Values and behavior: Strength and structure of relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 29: 1207–1220. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203254602CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barrena, R and Sanchez, M 2009 Connecting product attributes with emotional benefits: Analysis of a Mediterranean product across consumer age segments. British Food Journal 111: 120–137. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700910931959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bitzios, M, Fraser, I and Haddock-Fraser, J 2011 Functional ingredients and food choice: Results from a dual-mode study employing means-end-chain analysis and a choice experiment. Food Policy 36: 715–725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2011.06.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlsson, F, Frykblom, P and Lagerkvist, CJ 2005 Consumer preferences for food product quality attributes from Swedish agri-culture. Ambio 34: 366–370. https://doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-34.4.366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, B, Stewart, GB, Panzone, LA, Kyriazakis, I and Frewer, LJ 2017 Citizens, consumers and farm animal welfare: A meta-analysis of willingness-to-pay studies. Food Policy 68: 112–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.01.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, AIA, Dekker, M and Jongen, WMF 2004 An overview of means-end theory: Potential application in consumer-oriented food product design. Trends in Food Science and Technology 15: 403–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2004.02.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darby, MR and Karni, E 1973 Free competition and the optimal amount of fraud. The Journal of Law and Economics 16: 67–88. https://doi.org/10.1086/466756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Graaf, S, Van Loo, EJ, Bijttebier, J, Vanhonacker, F, Lauwers, L, Tuyttens, FAM and Verbeke, W 2016 Determinants of consumer intention to purchase animal-friendly milk. Journal of Dairy Science 99: 8304–8313. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2016-10886CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Denver, S, Sandøe, P and Christensen, T 2017 Consumer pref-erences for pig welfare - Can the market accommodate more than one level of welfare pork? Meat Science 129: 140–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2017.02.018CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
European Commission 2015 Attitudes of Europeans towards Animal Welfare. EC: Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
Fernqvist, F and Ekelund, L 2014 Credence and the effect on consumer liking of food – A review. Food Quality and Preference 32: 340–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.10.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Festinger, L 1962 A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press: CA, USA. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificameri-can1062-93Google Scholar
Gengler, CE, Klenosky, DB and Mulvey, MS 1995 Improving the graphic representation of means-end results. International Journal of Research in Marketing 12: 245–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8116(95)00024-VCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grunert, KG 2005 Food quality and safety: consumer perception and demand. European Review of Agricultural Economics 32: 369–391. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurrag/jbi011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grunert, KG 2006 Future trends and consumer lifestyles with regard to meat consumption. Meat Science 74: 149–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2006.04.016CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grunert, KG, Grunert, SC and Sørensen, E 1995 Means-end chains and laddering: an inventory of problems and an agenda for research. Working paper no 34. MAPP. The Aarhus School of Business: Aarhus, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
Gutman, J 1982 A means-end chain model based on consumer categorization processes. Journal of Marketing 46: 60–72. https://doi.org/10.2307/3203341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, H and Lagerkvist, CJ 2015 Identifying use and non-use values of animal welfare: Evidence from Swedish dairy agriculture. Food Policy 50: 35–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.10.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingenbleek, PTM and Immink, VM 2011 Consumer decision-making for animal-friendly products: Synthesis and implications. Animal Welfare 20: 11–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krystallis, A, de Barcellos, MD, Kügler, JO, Verbeke, W and Grunert, KG 2009 Attitudes of European citizens towards pig production systems. Livestock Science 126: 46–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2009.05.016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lagerkvist, CJ, Ngigi, M, Okello, JJ and Karanja, N 2012 Means-end chain approach to understanding farmers’ motivations for pesticide use in leafy vegetables: The case of kale in peri-urban Nairobi, Kenya. Crop Protection 39: 72–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2012.03.018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leppard, P, Russell, CG and Cox, DN 2004 Improving means-end-chain studies by using a ranking method to construct hierar-chical value maps. Food Quality and Preference 15: 489–562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2003.09.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liljenstolpe, C 2008 Evaluating animal welfare with choice exper-iments: an application to Swedish pig production. Agribusiness 24: 67–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.20147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lind, LW 2007 Consumer involvement and perceived differentiation of different kinds of pork - a Means-End Chain analysis. Food Quality and Preference 18: 690–700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2006.10.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lundmark, F, Röcklinsberg, H, Wahlberg, B and Berg, C 2016 Content and structure of Swedish animal welfare legislation and private standards for dairy cattle. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A — Animal Science 66: 35–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/09064702.2016.1198417Google Scholar
Lusk, JL and Norwood, FB 2010 Direct versus indirect questioning: An application to the well-being of farm animals. Social Indicators Research 96: 551–565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9492-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lusk, JL, Norwood, FB and Pricket, RW 2007 Consumer prefer-ences for farm animal welfare: Results of a nationwide telephone sur-vey. Department of Agricultural Economics, Oklahoma State University, Oklahoma, USAGoogle Scholar
Marshall, MN 1996 Sampling for qualitative research. Family Practice 13: 522–525CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCarthy, M, O’Reilly, S, Cotter, L and de Boer, M 2004 Factors influencing consumption of pork and poultry in the Irish market. Appetite 43: 19–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2004.01.006CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nocella, G, Hubbard, L and Scarpa, R 2010 Farm animal wel-fare, consumer willingness to pay, and trust: Results of a cross-national survey. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 32: 275–297. https://doi.org/10.1093/aepp/ppp009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, JC 1989 Theoretical foundations of means-end chains. Werbeforschung & Praxis 5: 174–178Google Scholar
Radder, L and Grunert, KG 2009 Consumers’ perceptions of african wildlife meat: A laddering study. Journal of Food Products Marketing 15: 164–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/10454440802317022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, TJ and Gutman, J 1988 Laddering theory, method, analysis, and interpretation. Journal of Advertising Research 28: 11–31Google Scholar
Rohan, MJ 2000 A Rose by any name? The values construct. Personality and Social Psychology Review 4: 255–277. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0403_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, CG, Busson, A, Flight, I, Bryan, J, van Lawick van Pabst, JA and Cox, DN 2004 A comparison of three laddering techniques applied to an example of a complex food choice. Food Quality and Preference 15: 569–583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2003.11.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schröder, MJA and McEachern, MG 2004 Consumer value conflicts surrounding ethical food purchase decisions: a focus on animal welfare. International Journal of Consumer Studies 28: 168–177. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2003.00357.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, SH 1994 Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues 50: 19–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb01196.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, SH and Bardi, A 2001 Value hierarchies across cultures: Taking a similarities perspective. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 32: 268–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022101032003002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, SH and Boehnke, K 2004 Evaluating the structure of human values with confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Research in Personality 38: 230–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00069-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SFS 2018 The Swedish Animal Welfare Act. Djurskyddslag. https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/djurskyddslag-20181192_sfs-2018-1192Google Scholar
Thorslund, CA, Aaslyng, MD and Lassen, J 2017 Perceived importance and responsibility for market-driven pig welfare: Literature review. Meat Science 125: 37–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2016.11.008CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Toma, L, Stott, AW, Revoredo-Giha, C and Kupiec-Teahan, B 2012 Consumers and animal welfare. A comparison between European Union countries. Appetite 58: 597–607.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.11.015CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Veissier, I, Butterworth, A, Bock, B and Roe, E 2008 European approaches to ensure good animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113: 279–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2008.01.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar