Food Quality and Preference 17 (2006) 20–30
www.elsevier.com/locate/foodqual
Exploring consumersÕ perceptions of local food with two
different qualitative techniques: Laddering and word association
Katariina Roininen *, Anne Arvola, Liisa Lähteenmäki
VTT Biotechnology, P.O. Box 1500, FIN-02044 VTT, Finland
Received 28 September 2004; accepted 29 April 2005
Available online 28 June 2005
Abstract
In recent years, a growing number of consumers in Finland have started to show interest in the origin of the foods they eat.
Although the concept of local food has been launched to describe food produced near the consumer, it is not yet well-defined
and consumers may understand it in different ways. The aim of the study was to establish the personal values, meanings and specific
benefits consumers relate to local food products by comparing two different qualitative interview techniques: laddering and word
association methods. Product names, presented as cards for participants, were used as stimulus material. In the word association
(n = 25), four product categories (general term, fresh pork meat, marinated pork slices, and pork sausage) and of four types of production method or production location (locally, organically, conventionally and intensively produced) were presented. In laddering
(n = 30), the production methods were the same as in the word association method, with the exception that there were only two
product categories, instead of four. The content analysis of the participantsÕ responses resulted in very similar categories in both
studies, such as ‘‘quality’’, ‘‘locality’’, ‘‘vitality of rural areas’’, ‘‘short transportation distances’’, ‘‘freshness’’, and ‘‘animal wellbeing’’. Only the laddering study, however, revealed cognitive structures, i.e., links between such constructs as ‘‘short transport’’
and ‘‘animal welfare’’. Word association was found to be an efficient and rapid method for gathering information on consumer perceptions of local foods. Laddering interviews, which were time-consuming and required laborious analysis, provided us with important information on the relationship between perceived attributes and the reasons for choices.
2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Local; Organic; Laddering; Word association
1. Introduction
Interest in the origin of foods and in the production
method has increased among Finnish consumers in recent years. The concept of local food has been launched
to describe local food systems or short food chains
where the food is produced near the consumer; this
could contribute to rural development and labor markets to promote local economies (Urban–Rural Interaction, 2001). This concept is not, however, well-defined
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +358 9 708 58724; fax: +358 9 708
58212.
E-mail address: katariina.roininen@vtt.fi (K. Roininen).
0950-3293/$ - see front matter 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2005.04.012
yet, due to which it can mean different things to different consumers. It is not clear what consumers exactly
appreciate in local foods and whether these valuations
differ from those that they associate with organic foods.
In order to promote marketing possibilities for local
foods, it is important that we understand how consumers perceive the concept of local food and what advantages or disadvantages and values they relate to the
concept.
In the case of a new concept, qualitative methods are
suitable tools for revealing how consumers view and
perceive that concept. Word association techniques,
which are commonly applied in psychology, are qualitative methods that could serve as quick and convenient
K. Roininen et al. / Food Quality and Preference 17 (2006) 20–30
tools in exploring consumer perceptions for new and
undefined concepts such as local food. Word association
may be less laborious than many other qualitative methods, such as personal interviews. Most importantly,
indirect associative techniques are able to grasp affective
and less conscious aspects of respondentsÕ mindsets better than methods that use more direct questioning (Szalay & Deese, 1978). Based on the expectancy-value
theories of Ajzen and Fishbein (1980), the most salient
associations or beliefs that the consumers has about
the attitude object in question are the best predictors
of the consumerÕs behaviour related to that attitude object. Thus, the associations that first come to the respondentÕs mind are the ones that should be the most
relevant for consumer choice and product purchase. Slovic et al. (1991) and Benthin et al. (1995) have demonstrated an application of a word association technique
where respondents are asked, not only about their associations, but also to score their responses as regards to
their valuations. Thus, the method applied in this
fashion provides both a qualitative understanding of
the beliefs behind the attitudes as well as quantitative
estimates of the attitude valence (unfavourable/favourable). At its best, this method could provide fast and
convenient tool for exploring the motives behind food
choice. At its worst, though, it could provide results that
are shallow and difficult to interpret.
Laddering interviews are another qualitative method
that can provide both the perceptions of the local food
concept and a comprehensive investigation of the structure of the concepts that are relevant for the respondent.
It provides a method that can capture the salient attributes of product choices, which then lead to the benefits
and values that these attributes signify to a person. It is
based on the means-end theory, which is a model of the
consumersÕ cognitive structures that focuses on how
product attributes (the ‘‘means’’) are linked to self-relevant consequences and personal values (the ‘‘ends’’)
(Olson, 1989; Reynolds & Gutman, 1988). Laddering
provides a rich and useful understanding of consumers
perceptions of products and the basis for their purchase
decisions. The advantage of the laddering technique
over other qualitative approaches is that the meanings
in a means-end chain are personally relevant; therefore,
laddering could provide results that are more closely related to preference and choice behaviour (Olson, 1989).
This approach has previously been shown to be useful
tool in analysing consumer behaviour in the food domain (Baker, Thompson, & Engelken, 2004; Grunert
et al., 2001; Makatouni, 2002; Nielsen, Bech-Larsen, &
Grunert, 1998; Roininen, Lähteenmäki, & Tuorila,
2000; Urala & Lähteenmäki, 2003).
The aim of this study was to establish the personal
values, meanings and specific benefits consumers relate
to local food products by comparing word association
and laddering methods as elicitation techniques.
21
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Participants
This study consisted of two parts: word association
and laddering interviews. Both parts were conducted
in two different locations, Mikkeli and Espoo, in Finland. Mikkeli is a small town in eastern Finland and
Espoo is part of the Helsinki Metropolitan Area. Espoo
was chosen to represent an urban area that is far from
production and Mikkeli to represent as location that is
in the middle of a rural, agricultural area. For the word
association interviews (n = 25; 15 participants from
Espoo and 10 from Mikkeli; 40% of which were males
and 60%, females), the mean age of the participants in
Espoo was 39 (range: 19–68) and in Mikkeli, 42 (range:
18–68). In the laddering interviews (n = 30; 15 participants in Espoo and 15 participants in Mikkeli; 54% of
which were males and 46%, females), the mean age of
the participants in Espoo was 49 (range: 18–67) and in
Mikkeli, 44 (range: 20–64).
2.2. Word association
The applied method relies on the word association
method demonstrated by Slovic et al. (1991) and Benthin et al. (1995). It involves presenting subjects with a
target stimulus and asking them to provide the first
thoughts or images that come to mind. In this study,
the target stimuli were written descriptions of pork meat
products. The descriptions were combinations of three
types of products with varying levels of processing (fresh
pork meat, marinated pork slices, and pork sausage)
and of four types of production method or production
location (locally, organically, conventionally and intensively produced), such as ‘‘locally produced sausage’’
or ‘‘conventionally produced marinated pork slices’’.
In addition, the four production methods were presented as general descriptions without any reference to
a specific product, e.g., ‘‘organically produced food’’.
Each of the (n = 25) respondents were shown (4 · 4) 16
cards, one at a time, in a random order. The respondents
were asked to write down the first four images, associations, thoughts or feelings that came to mind. After
going through the 16 stimulus descriptions, the participant was asked to rate each association that he or she
had written on the questionnaire on a scale from 1 (very
negative/bad) to 5 (very positive/good). At the end, the
participants answered a few background questions
about their age, gender, education, and familiarity of
terms local and organic food (on scale from 1 = very
unfamiliar to 5 = very familiar).
The data were collected in Espoo and Mikkeli during
autumn 2003. In both places, the interviews took place
in coffeehouses. After completing the task, each respondent received a gift voucher, ranging in value from EUR
22
K. Roininen et al. / Food Quality and Preference 17 (2006) 20–30
5 to 8, depending on the place, to the coffeehouse where
the interview took place.
2.3. Laddering interviews
In laddering interviews, the types of production
methods or production location (locally, organically,
conventionally and intensively produced) were the same
as those in the association task, with the exception that
only two product categories were used (fresh pork meat
and marinated pork slices). Both product categories
were presented to each participant. The order of the
food category was randomised. The one-to-one interviews were divided into two parts: sorting (part A) and
the main interview (part B). The session started with
an explanation of the study tasks that emphasised that
‘‘there were no right or wrong answers’’ to the questions, and that researchers were only interested in the
participantsÕ opinions. In part A, participants were instructed to sort the foods by their choice priority. In
the main interview (part B), participants were asked
about the reasons for their first choice compared to
other choices. They were then further asked ‘‘why is this
reason important to you?’’ The laddering process continued in this manner until the participant could not
produce any further information. This was then repeated for their second, third and last choice. After part
B, the participants were asked to fill out a background
questionnaire on their age, gender, education, and their
use frequencies of the target foods. The interviews took
between 30 min and 1 h to complete. The participantsÕ
responses were recorded on pre-prepared answering
sheets by the interviewer during the course of the interview. In addition, the interviews were tape-recorded. In
Espoo, the interviews took place in two coffeehouses
and in Mikkeli, in a room provided by the YTI Research
Centre. After completing the task, each respondent received a small gift (in Mikkeli, which was worth EUR
6), a cinema ticket (worth EUR 7) or a gift voucher
(worth EUR 6) to the coffeehouse where the interview
took place (in Espoo).
2.4. Data analysis
2.4.1. Word association
Quantitative estimates of the attitudes towards the
stimuli were obtained by averaging the ratings of the
four images that the respondent had provided for each
stimulus. Normality of the distributions was tested by
one sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov normality test. All
variables used in the analyses were normally distributed
based on this test. Therefore, parametric tests could be
used for these analyses. Repeated measure analyses of
variances were used to compare these attitudes (or
image ratings) between the stimuli. Comparisons were
made (independent within subjects variables) between
the production methods/production distance (locally
produced, organic, conventionally produced, intensively
produced) and product type (raw pork meat, marinated
pork slices, sausage), with the interview location (Espoo,
Mikkeli) acting as the subject variable. In addition to
mean ratings, we also calculated the percentages of associations that gave a positive or negative score for each
stimulus. The software used for the quantitative analyses was SPSS.12.0 for Windows (2003).
The elicited associations were qualitatively analysed
by means of content analysis. The analysis proceeded
sequentially from the initial search of recurrent themes
to the classification of each elicited association into
one of the 32 categories. Finally, these categories were
reduced to the 18 categories presented in this article.
Ten was used as the reduction cut-off, i.e., the association need to be mentioned at least 10 times when all
the products were combined.
2.4.2. Laddering interviews
Information collected during the interviews was content analysed. In the content analysis, the attributes and
consequences having the same meaning were grouped
together and each group was labelled. These groupings
formed a scheme that was used to categorise the attributes and consequences. Once the content analysis
had been performed, the laddering data, e.g., the attributes and their consequences, were aggregated and
interpreted through hierarchical value maps (HVM),
which are graphical representations of the most frequently mentioned links summed across all subjects.
These graphic maps were generated using MecAnalyst
software (Skymax Inc., Italy) which is tailored to analysing means-end chains. The number of links between
the concepts reflects the complexity of the map and
the strength of the line illustrates the number of participants that mentioned the link. The software forms individual chains and then analyses the number of links
across the study population. A cut-off level of four
was chosen, except in the case of conventionally produced food, where a cut-off level three was selected. A
cut-off level of four means that a link is drawn between
two concepts if at least four of the participants mentioned one concept as a direct or indirect link to another concept.
3. Results
3.1. Word association
In word association, term local food was regarded
familiar (values 4–5 on familiarity scale) by 80% of participants from Mikkeli and 20% by participants from
Espoo. There was no difference in familiarity of organic
food between the two locations.
K. Roininen et al. / Food Quality and Preference 17 (2006) 20–30
For all product categories, locally, organically and
conventionally produced foods received mostly positive
associations. On the other hand, intensively produced
food evoked mostly negative associations. Freshness,
short transport, security as well as contribution to local
economy and viability were associated with local food
production. The transparency of locally produced food
23
was considered good. This was expressed in associations
such as ‘‘knowing what theyÕre getting’’, ‘‘knowing
where the food came from’’, and ‘‘trustworthiness’’.
The only negative association that was related to locally
produced food was price, which was considered to be
high. Expensive pricing was, however, more often associated with organically produced than locally produced
Table 1
Association categories and examples of individual associations
Category
Examples
Local
Organic
Conventional
Intensively
Total
Wholesome
Healthy (l, o), low-fat (l, o),
unhealthy (c, i), high-fat (c, i)
6
1; 0; 5
16
0; 1; 15
13
10; 2; 1
10
10; 0; 0
45
21; 3; 21
Clean
No additives (l, o, c), no preservatives (o),
additives or preservatives can be added
(c, i), more additives (i), preservatives (i)
5
0; 2; 3
32
0; 2; 30
11
6; 3; 2
15
13; 2; 0
63
19; 9; 35
No pesticides
No pesticides (o), pesticides can be used
(c), may contain antibiotic substances (i)
0
0; 0; 0
12
0; 1; 11
3
2; 1; 0
13
0; 0; 13
28
2; 2; 24
Organic, natural
Organic (l, o), natural (o), not organic (c),
unnatural (i)
7
0; 2; 5
17
0; 1; 16
5
1; 3; 1
7
7; 0; 0
36
8; 6; 22
Quality, taste
Do not affect taste (l), good taste and
quality (l, o, c), conventional (c),
bad taste and quality (i)
38
4; 2; 32
49
0; 1; 48
44
14; 12; 18
43
34; 3; 6
174
52; 18; 104
Fresh
Fast delivery (l), fresh (l, o, c)
20
0;0; 20
3
0; 0; 3
2
1; 0; 1
0
0; 0; 0
25
1; 0; 24
Conflict between processing
and production
The idea of local product is spoiled by
the marinade (l, o), marinated
product cannot be organic (o), negative
effect of marinade (c)
4
1; 3; 0
13
5; 8; 0
5
1; 4; 0
0
0; 0; 0
22
7; 15; 0
Inform and security
Trust (l, o), origin is known (l), good
quality control (c), lack of confidence (i)
16
0; 5; 11
1
0; 0; 1
9
4; 2; 3
13
9; 2; 2
39
13; 9; 17
No added value of
production method
Does not affect buying decision or
food choice (l, i), quality product is enough (o)
15
1; 5; 9
2
1; 0; 1
4
0; 4; 0
2
1; 1; 0
23
3; 10; 10
Availability, selection
Availability not good (l, o), not many
alternatives (o), conventional food (c, i),
limited selection (o)
14
3; 4; 7
16
9; 4; 3
17
2; 4; 11
7
0; 4; 3
54
14; 16; 24
Price (cheap)
Expensive (l, o), good buy (c, i),
special offer product (i)
11
8; 2; 1
34
28; 6; 0
18
3; 4; 11
18
0; 2; 16
81
39; 14; 28
Animal welfare
Animal welfare (l, o), awareness of animal
treatment (l, o, c), animal welfare is ignored (i)
8
0; 0; 8
19
0; 0; 19
2
0; 0; 2
19
19; 0; 0
48
19; 0; 29
Affects viability of countryside
Affects viability of countryside (l), good for
economy (l), creates unemployment (i)
20
0; 1; 19
0
0; 0; 0
0
0; 0; 0
1
1; 0; 0
21
1; 1; 19
Transport, costs
Low transport costs (l), long transport (i)
11
1; 0; 10
0
0; 0; 0
0
0; 0; 0
1
0; 0; 1
12
1; 0; 11
Local
Local product (l), produced locally (l, o),
industrial product (i)
29
0; 2; 27
3
0; 0; 3
0
0; 0; 0
0
0; 0; 0
32
0; 2; 30
Large production unit
Large production units (l, o, i), profit seeking (i)
2
0; 0; 2
0
0; 0; 2
18
2; 11; 5
60
38; 14; 8
80
40; 25; 15
Small production
unit, traditional
Homelike (l, o), self-produced (o, c),
traditional (o, c)
19
0; 2; 17
32
0; 3; 29
24
0; 3; 21
0
0; 0; 0
75
0; 8; 67
Products
Products of Portti in Mikkeli (l), vegetables (o),
convenience foods (c), chicken (i)
8
0; 3; 5
8
0; 0; 8
16
3; 5; 8
13
8; 1; 4
45
11; 9; 25
In each column, below the total number is number of negative, neutral and positive associations.
(l) = local, (o) = organic, (c) = conventional and (i) = intensive.
24
K. Roininen et al. / Food Quality and Preference 17 (2006) 20–30
food. In general, organically produced food aroused
more associations such as the purity (no added additives
or very few) of the product and the production method,
wholesomeness, good taste and quality, animal welfare
and small-scale production than locally produced
food. Good quality, affordable price, easily available,
unhealthy, impure and industrially produced were associations that were more often connected with conventionally produced food than locally produced foods.
Most of the terms evoked by intensively produced food
were considered negative such as cruelty to animals, pesticides, unhealthy, unnatural and large-scale production.
Intensively produced food was, however, considered to
be cheaper and better in quality than local food (Table
1).
Value scores were significantly different for the different production methods when the all 16 terms were included in the analysis (F(3, 69) = 69.4; p < 0.001) (Fig.
1). Although the number of associations linked to the
organically produced food was higher than those for locally produced food, the value scores of organically produced food were lower compared to locally produced
food generally speaking. Interaction between the production method and degree of processing was observed
(F(6, 138) = 4.9; p < 0.001). The value scores of organically produced food were lower when the degree of production was higher (F(2, 46) = 8.6; p < 0.001). In the
case of intensively produced food, foods that were more
processed received higher value scores than foods that
were not processed (F = (2, 46) = 4.3; p < 0.05). The degree of processing did not significantly affect the scores
of locally and conventionally produced foods and no
difference was observed between pork sausage and marinated pork slices. The interview location did not significantly influence the association value ratings.
Locally produced
Organically produced
3.2. Laddering
In laddering interviews, term local food was regarded
familiar (values 4–5 on familiarity scale) by 67% of participants from Mikkeli and 40% by participants from
Espoo. Whereas, 73% of participants from Mikkeli
and 67% of participants from Espoo regarded organic
food familiar.
Choices in the sorting part (A) varied between different production methods and interviewing locations but
not between products. Therefore, the choice data of
products is combined. In Mikkeli 33% of participants
chose local food, 55% organic, 13% conventional and
3% intensively produced food as their first choice.
Whereas, in Espoo 30% of participants chose local food,
33% organic, 33% conventional and 3% intensively produced food as their first choice.
The maps of locally produced food noticeably differed between the two locations (Fig. 2a and b). In both,
the short transportation distance was given as a reason
for preference, leading to fresh product quality and the
Finnish origin of products creating a sense of security.
In Mikkeli, however, the local food was mostly considered a way to support local production and to create
economic welfare in the area; whereas, local food was
linked with animal welfare, environment and health in
Espoo, which was quite similar to their perception of organic products (Fig. 3a). Moreover, the attribute-consequence links were more concrete in Mikkeli than in
Espoo; for example, in Mikkeli, short transportation
distance was related to good taste, lower price, freshness
and saving money. In Espoo, this was related to animal
welfare and respect for nature.
Local food was perceived similarly to organic food in
Espoo (Figs. 2a and 3a); in Mikkeli, the perception was
Conventionally produced
Intensively produced
5
4.5
Value score
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
General term
Fresh pork meat
Marinaded pork slices
Pork sausage
Fig. 1. Affect scores of four types of production methods (locally, organically, conventionally and intensively produced) with four types of products
(general term, fresh pork meat, marinated pork slices, and pork sausage).
K. Roininen et al. / Food Quality and Preference 17 (2006) 20–30
25
Cut-Off=4
Well-being
Environment
stays clean
Creates no
waste
Avoid
diseases
Quality of life
Animal
welfare
Does not
spoil
Creates
employment
Respect for
nature
Good
for health
Creates
security
Like to
support
Stays fresh
Can do
alternative
activies
Short
transport
Finnish
Familiar
a
Cut-Off=4
Common
good
Subsistence
wages
Creates
employment
Affects
viability of
countryside
Stays fresh
Tastes good
Creates
security
Like to
support
Avoid
diseases
Lower price
Local
Short
transport
Finnish
Saves
money
Improves
quality
b
Fig. 2. Hierarchical value map of locally produced foods (data from fresh pork meat and marinated pork slices combined): (a) for participants from
Espoo and (b) participants from Mikkeli.
close to that of conventional production (Figs. 2b and
4b). The overall picture of organic products in the hierarchical value maps is similar in the two towns with animal welfare, good taste and respect for nature included
on the map. The ladders describing conventional production are, however, dissimilar in the two locations.
For Mikkeli, the value map is a complex picture with
many attributes that link conventional production to
health, nature and well-being and the map is comparable to that of local food. In Espoo (please note the
cut-off point of 3), the conventional production is considered to be practically neutral, not expensive and an
easily available option.
Intensive production is perceived with parallel
negative attributes in Espoo and Mikkeli (Fig. 5a and
b). Intensive production means cruelty to animals
and is bad for health. The hierarchical value maps
also have very simple structures indicating that respondents perceived intensive production in a stereotypic
manner.
26
K. Roininen et al. / Food Quality and Preference 17 (2006) 20–30
Cut-Off=4
Balance of
nature
Respect for
nature
Well-being
Recreactional
value of environment remain
Enjoys
Avoid
diseases
Good for
health
Animal
welfare
Creates no
waste
Chemicals do
not cumulate
Fresh
Environment
stays clean
Tastes good
Improves
quality
Animalfriendly
Organic
animals
a
Cut-Off=4
Quality of life
Improves
quality
Well-being
Happiness
Pleasure
Enjoys
Will not
purchase
Avoid
diseases
Animal
welfare
Chemicals
do not
cumulate
Tastes good
Good physical
condition
Expensive
Organic animals
Clean
Organic
Good quality
b
Fig. 3. Hierarchical value map of organically produced foods (data from fresh pork meat and marinated pork slices combined): (a) for participants
from Espoo and (b) participants from Mikkeli.
3.3. Comparison of word association with laddering
results
Both the association and laddering methods gave
similar descriptions for locally produced food such as
positive effects on food quality, locality, viability of local
areas, short transportation distances, freshness, and animal well-being. With word association, the number of
consequences from eating and buying these foods were
fewer than in laddering and the links between attributes
and consequences, e.g., association between short trans-
portation distances and animal well-being, were only
obtained with the laddering technique.
4. Discussion
In the present study, locally produced food was considered to support the local economy, was related to
short transport distance, freshness and trustworthiness
of its origin regardless of the elicitation method. The results are congruent with a previous focus group study
K. Roininen et al. / Food Quality and Preference 17 (2006) 20–30
27
Cut-Off=3
Can do alternative
activities
Saves time
Easy
Can afford
Saves
money
Price not
expensive
Good
availability
a
Cut-Off=3
Pleasure
Can do
alternative
activies
Respect for
nature
Well-being
Enjoys
Can afford
Animal
welfare
Avoid
diseases
Saves
money
Good for
health
Familiar
Awareness
of animal
treatment
Know what
you get
Is important
Lower price
Clean
Safe
Animalfriendly
Price not
expensive
Large
production
unit
Good quality
b
Fig. 4. Hierarchical value map of conventionally produced foods (data from fresh pork meat and marinated pork slices combined): (a) for
participants from Espoo and (b) participants from Mikkeli.
about ecolabel prototypes that was carried out in three
locations in Iowa, USA. In that study, it was found that
for consumers, ‘‘freshness’’ and ‘‘supporting family
farmers’’ were the two most important reasons for buying local foods (Pirog, 2003).
Organically produced food evoked more associations
related to purity (no added additives or very few) than
locally produced food did. Getting clean food or food
free from pesticides or other chemicals have also been
found to be common benefits associated with organic
food in earlier studies (Baker et al., 2004; Grunert &
Juhl, 1995; Huang, 1996; Mathisson & Schollin, 1994;
Tregear, Dent, & McGregor, 1994). Moreover, healthi-
ness, and animal welfare were more associated with
organically than with locally produced food. Organically produced food, however, evoked more negative
associations, such as that it was more expensive than locally produced food. In addition, processing was not
considered appropriate in the case of organically produced food. Moreover, in many other studies, the main
benefits consumers have been found to associate with
organic foods (or indicate as their reasons for buying
them) are related to health, taste and environment; these
are among the most commonly mentioned characteristics or purchase motives of organic foods, regardless
of the country that the study took place in (Baker
28
K. Roininen et al. / Food Quality and Preference 17 (2006) 20–30
Cut-Off=4
Animals are
stressed
Will not
purchase
Bad for
health
Creates
suspicion
Taste
deteriorates
Cruelty to
animals
Not animalfriendly
Not clean
a
Cut-Off=4
Develop
diseases
Taste
deteriorates
Animals are
stressed
Chemicals
cumulates
Cruelty to
animals
Profitseeking
Not animalfriendly
Deteriorates
quality
Not clean
Large
production
unit
b
Fig. 5. Hierarchical value map of intensively produced foods (data from fresh pork meat and marinated pork slices combined): (a) for participants
from Espoo and (b) participants from Mikkeli.
et al., 2004; Granqvist & Biel, 2001; Hill & Lynchehaun,
2002; Magnusson, Arvola, Koivisto-Hursti, Åberg, &
Sjöden, 2001, 2003; Roddy, Cowan, & Hutchinson,
1996; Saba & Messina, 2003; Tregear et al., 1994; Wandel & Bugge, 1997; Zanoli & Naspetti, 2002).
Differences between local and organically produced
foods are congruent with an earlier study by Winter
(2003). This study consisted of face-to-face interviews
with 736 residents from five regions in England and
Wales. Fifty four percent of the respondents claimed
that they made regular, weekly purchases of foods produced by local farms. The reasons that they gave for the
purchases of local food were related to supporting the
local farmers and the local economy, freshness and
knowing where their food was coming from. On the
other hand, health, food safety and environment were
stressed more often as the reasons for buying organic
food.
In the laddering results, a huge difference between the
constructs of the hierarchical value maps were observed
between participants from the rural area (Mikkeli) and
participants from the urban area (Espoo). Participants
from the rural area were more interested in supporting
the local economy than participants from the urban area
were. This is in accordance with earlier findings in the
UK (n = 734), where rural consumers gave higher priority to ‘‘civic’’ issues in food choice and showed higher
interest in local foods than urban consumers did
K. Roininen et al. / Food Quality and Preference 17 (2006) 20–30
(Weatherell, Tregear, & Allinson, 2003). The reason for
this might be that participants from the rural area are
closer to sources of food production. Therefore the concern of local economic issues might be greater.
Both association and laddering methods gave similar
descriptions for the foods produced. As expected, word
association provided a useful approach for examining
the images and outcomes participants associated with
local food. This is in accordance with the study of Benthin et al. (1995), who found word association to be a
useful method for eliciting positive and negative affects
associated with the behaviour of adolescents. The laddering technique, however, provided an overview of
the characteristics of locally and organically produced
foods as well as information on why these characteristics
are important to the participants. Laddering has been
found to be a very useful method in understanding the
self-relevant consequences consumers attach to food
products (Baker et al., 2004; Grunert, Grunert, & Sørensen, 1995; Grunert et al., 2001; Nielsen et al., 1998).
Moreover, the differences between rural and urban participants were mainly observed by the laddering technique. Differences between the degree of processing
was observed when the association technique was used;
the same was not observed with the laddering technique.
In the laddering the participants sorted different production methods by their choice priority and this was done
separately for both products that different in processing
level therefore they might paid more attention in comparison of different production methods than comparison of different level of processing.
Word association was found to be an efficient and
rapid method to gain information about consumer perceptions of local foods. Product attributes may, however, not be sufficient by themselves and the link they
have to one or more desirable or undesirable consequences is more important. Laddering interviews were
time-consuming and the analysis of laddering data was
a laborious and relatively slow task. Laddering is,
though, a useful tool when the purpose is to get self-related information on the attribute–consequence–value
associations that consumers hold about a product.
The limitation of this study is that only small number
of respondents were used in both methods. Therefore,
generalization of the views consumers have about local
and organic foods is complicated. However, this study
gives good insight about advantages and disadvantages
of associations and laddering methods when these methods are used for getting information about the new concepts. The association method was found to be fast and
useful in situations when information about product
attributes is sufficient themselves. When association
method was used, it was not possible to get values and
links between attributes, consequences and values. Because association method was faster, more respondents
could be used, and this would make the results more eas-
29
ily generalized. Laddering, in turn, was found to be
more time-consuming than association method. However, it gave more information than association method.
Te use of laddering would be recommended in the situation when deep information about the concept is
needed.
Acknowledgements
This study is part of the Consumers, decision makers
and local or organic foods. Possibilities for SMEs project
supported by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
of Finland.
References
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting
behavior. Engelwood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Inc.
Baker, S., Thompson, K. E., & Engelken, J. (2004). Mapping the
values driving organic food choice: Germany vs the UK. European
Journal of Marketing, 38(8), 995–1012.
Benthin, A., Slovic, P., Moran, P., Severson, H., Mertz, C. K., &
Gerrard, M. (1995). Adolescent health-threatening and healthenhancing behaviors: a study of word association and imagery.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 17, 143–152.
Granqvist, G., & Biel, A. (2001). The importance of beliefs and
purchase criteria in the choice of eco-labeled food products.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 405–410.
Grunert, K.G., Grunert, S.C., & Sørensen, E., (1995). Means-end
chains and laddering: An inventory of problems and an agenda for
research (Working paper No. 34). Aarhus: The Aarhus School of
Business, MAPP.
Grunert, S. C., & Juhl, H. J. (1995). Values, environmental attitudes,
and buying of organic foods. Journal of Economic Psychology, 16,
39–62.
Grunert, K., Lähteenmäki, L., Nielsen, N. A., Poulsen, J. B., Ueland,
O., & Åström, A. (2001). Consumer perceptions of food products
involving genetic modification—results from a qualitative study in
four Nordic countries. Food Quality and Preference, 12, 527–542.
Hill, H., & Lynchehaun, F. (2002). Organic milk: attitudes and
consumption patterns. British Food Journal, 104(7), 526–542.
Huang, C. L. (1996). Consumer preferences and attitudes towards
organically grown produce. European Review of Agricultural
Economics, 23, 331–342.
Magnusson, M., Arvola, A., Koivisto-Hursti, U.-K., Åberg, L., &
Sjöden, P.-O. (2001). Attitudes towards organic foods among
Swedish consumers. British Food Journal, 103(3), 209–226.
Magnusson, M. K., Arvola, A., Koivisto Hursti, U.-K., Åberg, L., &
Sjödén, P.-O. (2003). Choice of organic foods is related to
perceived consequences for human health and to environmentally
friendly behaviour. Appetite, 40, 109–117.
Makatouni, A. (2002). What motivates consumers to buy organic food
in the UK? Results from a qualitative study. British Food Journal,
104(3/4/5), 345–352.
Mathisson, K., & Schollin, A., (1994). Konsumentaspekter på ekologiskt odlade grönsaker—en jämförande studie (Consumer aspects on
organic vegetables—a comparative study) (No. 18). Uppsala:
Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet, Institutionen för växtodlingslära.
Nielsen, N. A., Bech-Larsen, T., & Grunert, K. G. (1998). Consumer
purchase motives and product perceptions: a laddering study on
vegetable oil in three countries. Food Quality and Preference, 9(6),
455–466.
30
K. Roininen et al. / Food Quality and Preference 17 (2006) 20–30
Olson, J. C. (1989). Theoretical foundations of means-end chains.
Werbeforschung & Praxis Folge, 5, 174–178.
Pirog, R. (Ed.). (2003). Ecolabel value assessment consumer and food
business perceptions of local foods. Iowa: Leopold Center for
Sustainable Agriculture and the Iowa State University Business
Analysis Laboratory.
Reynolds, T. J., & Gutman, J. (1988). Laddering theory, method,
analysis, and interpretation. Journal of Advertising Research, 2,
11–31.
Roddy, G., Cowan, C. A., & Hutchinson, G. (1996). Consumer
attitudes and behaviour to organic foods in Ireland. Journal of
International Consumer Marketing, 9(2), 41–63.
Roininen, K., Lähteenmäki, L., & Tuorila, H. (2000). An application
of means-end chain approach to consumersÕ orientation to health
and hedonic characteristics of foods. Ecology of Food Nutrition, 39,
61–81.
Saba, A., & Messina, F. (2003). Attitudes towards organic foods and
risk/benefit perception associated with pesticides. Food Quality and
Preference, 14, 637–645.
Slovic, P., Layman, M., Kraus, N., Flynn, J., Chalmers, J., & Gesell,
G. (1991). Perceived risk, stigma and potential economic impacts of
a high-level nuclear waste repository in Nevada. Risk Analysis, 11,
683–696.
Szalay, L., & Deese, J. (1978). Subjective meaning and culture: An
assessment trough word associations. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tregear, A., Dent, J. B., & McGregor, M. J. (1994). The demand for
organically-grown produce. British Food Journal, 96(4), 21–25.
Urala, N., & Lähteenmäki, L. (2003). Reasons behind consumersÕ
functional food choices. Nutrion & Food Science, 33(4), 148–158.
Urban–Rural Interaction (2001). Report of the Working Group of
Urban–Rural Interaction, Ministry of the Interior, Helsinki.
Wandel, M., & Bugge, A. (1997). Environmental concern in consumer
evaluation of food quality. Food Quality and Preference, 8(1),
19–26.
Weatherell, C., Tregear, A., & Allinson, J. (2003). In search of the
concerned consumer: UK public perceptions of food, farming and
buying local. Journal of Rural Studies, 19, 233–244.
Winter, M. (2003). Embeddedness, the new food economy and
defensive localism. Journal of Rural Studies, 19, 23–32.
Zanoli, R., & Naspetti, S. (2002). Consumer motivations in the
purchase of organic food. A means-end approach. British Food
Journal, 104(8), 643–653.