Best-Worst Scaling of Food Values
Best-worst scaling of food values measures how much consumers care about a fixed set of food attributes — safety, price, taste, nutrition, naturalness, origin, environmental impact, fairness, and so on — by repeatedly asking them to pick the most and least important value from small subsets. Jayson Lusk and Brian Briggeman's 2009 article 'Food Values' introduced this specific application, adapting the best-worst (maximum-difference) scaling method that Finn and Louviere pioneered for food-safety research. Rather than rating each value on a 1-to-5 scale, where everything tends to look important, respondents are forced to trade values off against one another, yielding a discriminating, interval-scaled ranking of what truly drives their food choices and avoiding the scale-use biases that plague conventional importance ratings.
Source record
Citations copied verbatim from the method’s source record. No claim-level verification is inferred from them.
- Lusk, J. L., & Briggeman, B. C. (2009). Food Values. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 91(1), 184-196. · DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8276.2008.01175.x
- Finn, A., & Louviere, J. J. (1992). Determining the Appropriate Response to Evidence of Public Concern: The Case of Food Safety. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 11(2), 12-25. · DOI 10.1177/074391569201100202
Curated claims
Claims persisted in the evidence ledger, each with its own assessment.
This view does not invent a claim assessment when the ledger has none.
Related methods
Generated from the method graph and shown as machine-suggested relations — no evidence claim is inferred.