The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0007-070X.htm

Exploring consumer Utilitarian

food attributes
preferences for hedonic
and utilitarian food attributes
Natalia Maehle 3039
Centre for Innovation, Bergen University College, Bergen, Norway Received 16 April 2015
Nina Iversen Revised 10 August 2015
Accepted 12 August 2015
BI Norwegian Business School and
Centre for Applied Research at NHH (SNF), Oslo, Norway
Leif Hem
Norwegian School of Economics, Bergen, Norway, and
Cele Otnes
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to identify the relative importance of four main attributes of
food products for consumer’s choice. These are price, taste, environmental friendliness and
healthfulness, tested across hedonic and utilitarian food products (milk and ice-cream). The weighting
of attributes involved in food choices is a complex phenomenon, as consumers must consider
contradictory requirements when making their choices. Consumers’ decision-making processes might
also be influenced by food category. Some food products are mostly consumed for pleasure, whereas
others are consumed because of their nutritional value.
Design/methodology/approach – The study employs a choice-based conjoint technique, which
addresses how consumers make trade-offs across a set of product attributes.
Findings – The results indicate that price and taste attributes are rated as the most important for both
hedonic and utilitarian food products. However, when the authors group consumers according to their
product preferences, the relative importance of product attributes changes. Specifically, the importance
of environmental friendliness and healthfulness is much higher among the health-conscious and
environmentally conscious segments than for other segments.
Originality/value – To the knowledge, this is the first study comparing the importance of this
combination of product attributes (price, taste, calorie content and eco-label) across hedonic and
utilitarian foods in a choice-based conjoint setting. Moreover, a new way of grouping consumers
according to their ethical-value profiles enables the authors to create a psychographic description of
these segments, and to relate it to their food attribute preferences.
Keywords Consumer behaviour, Food consumption, Consumer choice,
Consumer purchasing decisions, Conjoint analysis
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Today’s consumers must manage complex food choices resulting from possible
conflicting interests between their individual objectives and long-term collective goals
(Van Strien and Koenders, 2012). Many seem to be moving away from “convenience
consumption,” where their main goal is to save time and effort, toward consuming not
only objective and tangible benefits, but also subjective, hedonic or symbolic British Food Journal
components. For instance, a general trend sees many consumers switching toward Vol. 117 No. 12, 2015
pp. 3039-3063
environmentally friendly and more healthy food products, as they become increasingly © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0007-070X
aware of the possible negative consequences of their choices upon the environment, DOI 10.1108/BFJ-04-2015-0148
BFJ upon public health and upon workers in less-developed areas in the world (Carrigan
117,12 and Attalla, 2001; Crane and Matten, 2004). Yet there is no doubt that traditional
purchasing criteria – such as price and taste – remain crucial (e.g. De Pelsmacker et al.,
2005). Studies show that what consumers say about the significance of environmental
or health-related issues often differs from their actual purchase and consumption
behavior. This attitude-behavior gap is detected in several studies (e.g. Carrigan et al.,
3040 2004; Auger and Devinney, 2007).
Clearly, the motivations driving food consumption can differ. Some foods are mostly
consumed for hedonic pleasure (e.g. ice cream), whereas others are consumed mainly
for their utilitarian, nutritional value (e.g. milk). Several studies argue that consumers’
decision-making processes differ for hedonic and utilitarian products (Burnett and
Lunsford, 1994; Strahilevitz and Myers, 1998), with different attributes driving choice
process for these types of food products.
Previous research shows consuming hedonic products leads to feelings of guilt,
which may motivate consumers to reflect and behave more altruistically to compensate
for this feeling (Burnett and Lunsford, 1994; Strahilevitz and Myers, 1998). Such
altruism can then spur higher preferences for environmentally friendly, socially
responsible or fair-trade products, even if the price is substantially higher or the taste is
inferior. In addition, price sensitivity may be reduced for hedonic products compared to
utilitarian products (Wakefield and Inman, 2003).
Thus, consumers may consider many contradictory requirements and expectations
while making their food choices. As more environmentally friendly and health-oriented
products gradually enter the global market, this scenario becomes more complicated.
Accordingly, the need remains for a more unified understanding of the relative
weighting of different attributes involved in food choices, and for generating new
insights into how consumers make trade-offs between them (Chatzidakis et al., 2006).
To provide insight into these issues, the current study seeks to identify the relative
importance of four attributes, evaluated for both a hedonic and a utilitarian food
product. We focus on two traditional purchasing criteria – price and taste – as well as
the two less-studied criteria – environmental friendliness and healthfulness. These
less-understood criteria pertain to consumers’ ethical value profiles. The study employs
a choice-based conjoint technique that resembles a real-life choice situation. Our main
contribution is to provide new insights into how food-attribute weighting decisions
differ across distinct lifestyle-segments. We specifically explore how consumers assess
these food attributes in combination, and how the trade-offs they exhibit amongst them
influence choices. We argue that the weighting of food attributes is driven by: the type
of food product evaluated; and the ethical-value profiles of the consumer segments
judging the food products. We demonstrate the attributes consumers perceive to be the
most important while making their food choices, and the extent to which these
perceptions differ across food categories (i.e. hedonic and utilitarian). To our
knowledge, ours is the first study comparing the importance of this combination of
product attributes (price, taste, calorie content and eco-label) across hedonic and
utilitarian foods in a choice-based conjoint setting. Moreover, a new way of grouping
consumers according to their ethical-value profiles enables us to create a
psychographic description of these segments, and to relate it to their food attribute
preferences. Our findings therefore could be useful to those marketers who believe
identifying homogenous consumer clusters and their common descriptions is essential
to designing effective and targeted marketing or public campaigns (Grunert et al., 2001;
Wedel and Kamakura, 2002).
Theoretical background Utilitarian
Food choice: importance of different product attributes food attributes
Weighting of ethical food attributes – healthfulness and environmental friendliness.
Several studies find consumers are becoming increasingly aware of the consequences of
their consumption choices, and thus more inclined to choose environmentally responsible
products (e.g. Carrigan and Attalla, 2001; Crane and Matten, 2004; Freestone and
McGoldrick, 2008). Bjørner et al. (2004) show that an environmental label on a food 3041
product significantly affects choice. They show consumers will pay more for certified
environmentally friendly brands. Blend and Van Ravenswaay (1999) also demonstrate
substantial consumer demand and willingness to pay a price premium for an eco-labeled
food product. Furthermore, Loureiro et al. (2002) explain that the perceived quality of this
product exerts a positive and significant effect on the probability of choosing it. Along
the same lines, Trudel and Cotte (2008) reveal some consumers are willing to pay a price
premium for ethically produced or fair-trade products.
Environmental concern, or an individual’s general orientation toward protection of
the environment, seems to predict environmentally conscious behavior such as
recycling (Arbuthnot and Lingg, 1975; Kellgren and Wood, 1986: Simmons and
Widmar, 1990) and green buying (Donaton and Fitzgerald, 1992; Schlossberg, 1992;
Chan, 1996; Kerr, 1990; Kim and Choi, 2005). Concern for the environment also is one
factor found to be relevant to ethical behavior (Hines et al., 1987). Likewise, consumers
who express strong environmental concerns are more willing to buy products that
reflect those concerns (Mainieri et al., 1997).
Health concerns also play an important role in consumption, especially of food.
Many studies show interest in health is a primary motive for purchasing organic food
(Grankvist and Biel, 2001; Lockie et al., 2002). Moreover, Magnusson et al. (2003) argue
that perceived healthfulness predicts attitude, intention and actual purchase of organic
food. The reasons for organic consumer choices can be allocated into two broad
categories (Wandel and Bugge, 1997; Padel and Foster, 2005): health (egoistic) and
environmental/animal welfare (altruistic). Cicia et al. (2009) also show that drivers of
willingness to pay a premium price for organic products can be divided into different
underlying motives. Health promotion and environmental protection were found to be
the main motives.
Still, there is a disagreement regarding which of these motives exert the strongest
effect on actual consumers’ choices. Magnusson et al. (2003) argue that as a product
attribute, perceived healthfulness is the strongest predictor of attitude and purchase
intention toward organic foods, compared with perceived environmental friendliness.
Likewise, Schifferstein and Oude Ophuis (1998) find health to be the predominant
motive amongst consumers, both in shaping attitudes and in purchasing organic food.
However, Honkanen et al. (2006) find that both environmental friendliness and animal
welfare exert strong influences on attitudes. Finally, Tarkiainen and Sundqvist (2005)
refute healthfulness as a predictor of attitudes toward organic foods.
However, Iversen and Rundmo (2002) demonstrate significant links between
health-promoting behavior and environmental behavior, with health behavior
specifically mediating the influence of environmental-behavior. Put simply, people
who care about their own health are usually also more involved in pro-environmental
behavior. In summary, ethical product attributes such as environmental friendliness
and healthfulness are expected to influence consumers’ food choice behavior. Yet the
relative weighting of these attributes and trade-offs amongst them remain unclear.
BFJ Weighting of traditional food attributes (price and taste) – and the role of the attitude-
117,12 behavior gap. Despite the growing significance of environmental and health-related
considerations, there is a “disconnect between the issues consumers claim to care about
and their purchasing behavior” (Belk et al., 2005, p. 276). Specifically, what consumers
say about the importance of environmental or health-related issues often differs from
their actual behavior. Pro-environmental behavior does not provide instant personal
3042 gain, but may relate to future-oriented outcomes that could benefit society as a whole
(McCarty and Shrum, 2001). Despite valuing ethical considerations, consumers often
exhibit “moral hypocrisy” (Batson et al., 1999, p. 525), as they do not reflect their
supposed moral beliefs in actual consumption choices. Therefore, products embodying
commonly held values are not guaranteed success in the marketplace. In fact,
consumers’ stated ethical intentions seldom translate into actual buying behavior
(Carrigan and Attalla, 2001; Belk et al., 2005; Auger and Devinney, 2007). In short,
attitudes are not always good predictors of people’s behavior. This phenomenon is now
known as the attitude-behavior gap (Boulstridge and Carrigan, 2000; Carrigan and
Attalla, 2001; Sheeran, 2002).
Several research perspectives attempt to explain this gap (Newholm and Shaw,
2007). One perspective focusses on the limitations of self-report survey methods used to
assess consumers’ purchase intentions. For instance, Auger and Devinney (2007) and
Carrigan and Attalla (2001) argue that social desirability bias distorts measures of
ethical consumers’ intentions. Another perspective tries to identify the factors that
directly and indirectly affect the translation of ethical attitudes into ethical purchase
intentions and subsequent behavior (e.g. Shaw and Shui, 2002; Vermeir and Verbeke,
2008). When making a purchasing decision, consumers conjointly consider many
different attributes. They often choose a less ethical alternative when needing to make
a trade-off between their own ethical positions and traditional purchasing criteria such
as price, taste quality or availability. For instance, De Pelsmacker et al. (2005) find
consumers do not want to pay a price premium for fair-trade coffee. Nor do they
consider ethical company behavior (e.g. green production) as a substitute for key
product qualities such as good taste (Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001). Thus, few
consumers are willing to trade basic functional attributes for socially acceptable
attributes (Auger et al., 2008). Ethical alternatives usually cost more than the traditional
ones, and consumers often argue that some ethical products are too expensive, given
their budgetary limitations (Uusitalo and Oksanen, 2004; Papaoikonomou et al., 2011).
Moreover, the attitude-behavior gap can be explained by consumers’ lack of
attention to environmental or health-related issues. For instance, van Dam and van
Trijp (2011) demonstrate that in the motivational structure of light users of sustainable
products, all product attributes not offering direct and personal benefits are collapsed
into a single dimension. The resulting abstract construct (e.g. sustainability or
environmental concern) explains purchases more parsimoniously than a more complex
structure and fails to predict their purchase behavior. In addition, many food products
are usually considered to be low-involvement products, and therefore the related
purchasing behavior does not include extensive decision-making. Tarkiainen and
Sundqvist (2009) explain the attitude-behavior gap for organic food by the absence of
ideologically formed attitudes in habitual, low-involvement shopping activities with
limited problem-solving needs such as food shopping. Also, Thøgersen et al. (2012)
show that consumers want their shopping to be effortless and time-efficient and use
simple choice heuristic while buying conventional food products.
 In summary, environmental friendliness and healthfulness – when applied as food Utilitarian
attributes – are not expected to be mutually excludable seen in relation to price and food attributes
taste quality. Yet, the pattern of trade-offs of these attributes across product categories
and across market segments is still unclear.

Utilitarian vs hedonic products

Products may provide both utilitarian and hedonic benefits (Hirschman and Holbrook, 3043
1982). Hedonic benefits focus on the pleasure gleaned from the good taste of food.
In contrast, utilitarian benefits (of in this case, food) are rooted in instrumental
functionality such as low price, low calorie content or high nutritional value. Most
products seek to provide consumers with a combination of hedonic and utilitarian
benefits. Nevertheless, some product categories can be classified as primarily hedonic
or utilitarian (see Fuljahn and Moosmayer, 2011).
There is evidence that consumers’ decision-making process may differ for hedonic
products (Burnett and Lunsford, 1994; Strahilevitz and Myers, 1998). When consumers
purchase hedonic products, they typically experience emotional responses
(e.g. happiness when eating a delicious dessert). Yet utilitarian products generally
are not associated with evoking feeling-states (Strahilevitz and Myers, 1998).
Furthermore, hedonic products may cause not only positive emotions, but also negative
ones (e.g. guilt stemming from indulgence).
According to Lascu (1991), when people consume products they find pleasurable,
they may feel higher levels of guilt. Burnett and Lunsford (1994) identify four
dimensions of guilt that relate to hedonic consumption: financial-related feelings
resulting from buying products perceived as unnecessary or expensive; health-related
feelings resulting from consuming unhealthy products that provide pleasure vs
practical utility; moral feelings resulting from consuming products that contradict
consumers’ own moral values; and feelings resulting from a lack of social responsibility
(e.g. consuming products that pollute). These types of guilt pertain directly to the
essence of hedonic consumption (Strahilevitz and Myers, 1998).
Feelings of guilt represent a part of consumers’ consumption-related emotions and
may influence their behavior (Burnett and Lunsford, 1994). Prior research argues these
feelings may lead people to behave more altruistically (e.g. Burnett and Lunsford, 1994;
Strahilevitz and Myers, 1998). This happens because hedonic consumption may trigger
cognitive dissonance, as guilt feelings provoked by consuming hedonic products
constitute deviations from the desired state of not feeling guilty. This dissonance will
remain salient until a consumer compensates to reestablish social harmony. To do so,
people may add a positive component to their consumption of hedonic products.
For instance, consumers may be willing to perform altruistic behavior and do good
deeds (e.g. Lascu, 1991; Strahilevitz and Myers, 1998). The feelings of guilt from
hedonic consumption may thus increase preference for environmentally friendly
products. The reason is that behavior perceived as ethical contributes a positive
component to the consumption situation and therefore reduces dissonance.
Another aspect that may differ for hedonic and utilitarian products is consumers’
price sensitivity. Few studies explore the salience of this issue to functional vs
hedonic consumption. Wakefield and Inman (2003) argue consumers are less price-
sensitive when making a hedonic purchase. The differences in motivations behind the
purchase of hedonic vs utilitarian products lead to price being relatively more
important for utilitarian products than for hedonic ones. Consumers seek to derive
fun or relaxation from hedonic products and thus are less price-sensitive than when
BFJ buying primarily functional products. This finding suggests an acceptable range
117,12 of prices is likely to be wider for a hedonic product when compared to the range for
a utilitarian one.

Psychographic consumer segmentation

As the research cited above affirms, the food-choice context is highly complex and
3044 consumers vary in their preferences concerning food product attributes. Such
variability makes identifying homogenous consumer segments a desirable goal when
designing effective food marketing campaigns. Smith (1956) introduced the concept of
market segmentation, noting it enables marketers to view “a heterogeneous market as a
number of smaller homogeneous markets in response to differing product preferences
among important market segments” (p. 6). The idea behind such segmentation is to
recognize the differences between groups of consumers, and more precisely identify
and satisfy their varying wants and needs. Initial segmentation studies relied on
demographic characteristics to define consumer segments. However, demographic
segmentation provides little information about the motives underlying consumers’
decisions; therefore, researchers argued for a broader psychographic perspective to
explain behavioral differences across various consumer segments (Verain et al., 2012).
Early psychographic research mainly focussed on personality profiles (e.g. the
Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, the Gordon Personal Profile, the California
Personality Inventory), but this approach proved inefficient for marketing purposes
(Dhalla and Mahatoo, 1976). The personality concept was replaced with the lifestyle
concept, defined as consumers’ characteristic patterns of behavior (Anderson and
Golden, 1984). For instance, Brunsø and Grunert (1995) developed the food-related
lifestyles instrument measuring lifestyle dimensions in five major life domains,
including ways of shopping, cooking methods, quality aspects, consumption situations
and purchasing motives. Later, more studies started to highlight consumers’ values as
important lifestyle determinants and as bases for consumer segmentation. Values are
commonly defined as trans-situational goals that are prioritized by importance as
guiding principles in people’s lives (Schwartz, 1992). Several authors discuss the link
between product attribute preferences and consumer values (e.g. Torelli et al., 2012).
Previous research also demonstrates that individual factors can be useful in predicting
green and health bringing behavior (e.g. Kim and Choi, 2005; Mostafa, 2009).
The current study follows this line of research by developing a new way of grouping
consumers according to their ethical-value profiles related to food attribute preferences.

Hypotheses
The discussion above reveals contradictory findings regarding the importance of product
attributes related to consumers’ ethical-value profiles and their altruistic life-style
orientations. In particular, the research offers mixed results regarding how attitudes toward
environmental friendliness, societal fairness and people’s healthfulness shape purchase
behavior. For instance, several studies argue consumers are becoming more sensitive to the
ways their consumption choices impact public health, the global and local environment and
the global society as a whole. Thus, they may be more inclined to choose environmentally
responsible and healthy products (e.g. Carrigan and Attalla, 2001; Crane and Matten, 2004;
Freestone and McGoldrick, 2008). However, others show consumers do not want to pay a
price premium for such products, or to trade basic functional attributes for socially
acceptable ones (e.g. De Pelsmacker et al., 2005; Auger et al., 2008; Papaoikonomou et al.,
2011). Moreover, food shopping is often assumed to be a low-involvement activity
(Tarkiainen and Sundqvist, 2009). When purchasing everyday, low-involvement products, Utilitarian
prior research indicates consumers spend a very limited amount of time and effort, and food attributes
these purchases do not involve extensive decision making (Olshavsky and Granbois, 1979).
Furthermore, some argue that habitual shopping does not entail the cognitive processing of
beliefs and attitudes (Rothschild and Gaidis, 1981) and that consumers tend to use simple-
choice heuristics (Thøgersen et al., 2012). If such constraints truly influence food shopping, it
is likely that ideological considerations such as ethical attributes may be irrelevant 3045
(Tarkiainen and Sundqvist, 2009). Therefore, we suggest the following hypothesis:
H1. In a food choice situation, consumers will rate utilitarian types of attributes
(i.e. price and taste) higher in importance, relative to ethical attributes
(i.e. environmental friendliness and healthfulness).
However, according to the previous research (e.g. Burnett and Lunsford, 1994;
Strahilevitz and Myers, 1998) the decision-making process is different for hedonic and
utilitarian products. Therefore, we expect consumers to differ in the ways they make
evaluations of utilitarian and hedonic foods regarding the rating of importance of
various product attributes (see Table I).
Hedonic consumption often leads to the feeling of guilt (Lascu, 1991), which may
influence consumers’ purchase behavior (Burnett and Lunsford, 1994). Existing studies
find that the feeling of guilt makes people to behave more altruistically to compensate
for any cognitive dissonance they may experience (e.g. Burnett and Lunsford, 1994;
Strahilevitz and Myers, 1998). Adding a positive component to their consumption
activity can help consumers in this compensating process. Environmentally friendly
purchasing does not offer consumers immediate personal benefits; furthermore,
consumers may consider such behavior as a good deed. Thus, they understand it as
pro-social behavior contributing to the greater good, and is therefore to some degree
altruistic. In this way, environmental friendliness adds a positive component to the
hedonic consumption situation and can reduce the cognitive dissonance created by
guilt. Moreover, previous research (e.g. Stern et al., 1993) shows the positive influence of
social altruism (concern for the welfare of others) and biospheric altruism (a concern for
the non-human elements of the environment) on consumers’ green behavior. We expect
the relative importance of the environmental friendliness attribute will be higher for
consumers of hedonic food products than of utilitarian products:
H2. Consumers’ ratings of the importance of an environmental friendliness attribute
will be higher for hedonic food products than for utilitarian food products.

Differences in the decision-making process Relative importance of various product attributes

Hedonic food products

Feeling of guilt Environmental friendliness↑
Focus on pleasure Taste↑
Healthfulness↓ Table I.
Low price sensitivity Price↓ Expected relative
importance of
Utilitarian food products various product
High price sensitivity Price↑ attributes for
Focus on instrumental functionality Healthfulness↑ utilitarian and
Taste↓ hedonic food
No feeling of guilt Environmental friendliness↓ products
BFJ The nature of hedonic products (i.e. focus on pleasure; Babin et al., 1994) implies taste is
117,12 more important for that category than for the utilitarian/functional food product
category (Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982). Moreover, the higher importance of taste
leads to the lower importance of healthfulness for hedonic products compared to
utilitarian ones. Raghunathan et al. (2006) show that consumers perceive less healthy
products to be tastier, but prefer an unhealthy product more when a hedonic goal is
3046 more salient. On the other hand, healthfulness will be more important for utilitarian
food products because they are more focussed on instrumental functionality
(Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982). Based on this reasoning, we suggest the following
hypotheses:
H3. Consumers’ ratings of the importance of a taste attribute will be higher for
hedonic food products than for utilitarian food products.
H4. Consumers’ ratings of the importance of a healthfulness attribute will be higher
for utilitarian food products than for hedonic food products.
Finally, prior research shows that an acceptable price range is wider for a hedonic
product compared to a utilitarian one, and that consumers are less price-sensitive when
making hedonic purchases (Wakefield and Inman, 2003). Thus, prices are relatively
more important for utilitarian products due to the differences in motivations behind
their purchases. When buying hedonic products, consumers want to achieve fun
and relaxation, which makes them less price-sensitive (Wakefield and Inman, 2003).
We argue that this is also the case for different types of food products:
H5. Consumers’ ratings of the importance of a price attribute will be lower for
hedonic food products than for utilitarian food products.

Methodology
In total, 306 students from a Midwestern US university participated in a conjoint task
study in exchange for a $10 coffee shop gift card. The sample consisted of 236 females
and 70 males (average age 22.9 years).
We employed a choice-based conjoint analysis technique to study preferences for
different product attributes. We used an internet-based questionnaire to obtain the
data. Conjoint is a popular methodology for studying consumer preferences (Carroll
and Green, 1995). With this method, respondents express their choice preferences by
choosing from sets of products rather than by ranking or rating them along various
attributes. Part-worth utilities (i.e. estimates of the overall preference or utility
associated with each level of each attribute) for different product attributes are then
inferred from consumers’ choices. In this way, the technique resembles a real-life
consumer choice situation where people consider trade-offs between product attributes.
We used two different food products based on the classification by Fuljahn and
Moosmayer (2011): milk as a utilitarian product, and ice cream as a hedonic one.
We showed respondents different product alternatives that each possessed different
attribute-level compositions. We asked them to evaluate and make choices from sets of
product profiles (four alternative products in each choice set) by choosing the product
in each set that they would most likely purchase.
In conjoint analysis, the selection of attributes and their listed levels are essential.
Green and Srinivasan (1990) recommend a maximum of six to ten attributes in
traditional full-profile conjoint studies. However, for choice-based conjoint analysis, the
effective number of attributes is lower. The number and variance of attribute levels Utilitarian
should also be kept low (Wittink et al., 1989). We chose the following four attributes, food attributes
each with two or three various levels, for this study:
(1) price: three levels (for one gallon of milk: $2.99; $4.99; $6.99; for one quart of ice
cream: $4.99; $6.99; $8.99);
(2) environmental label: two levels (labeled as environmentally friendly; not labeled 3047
as environmentally friendly);
(3) taste evaluations from a fictitious consumer panel: two levels (excellent;
mediocre); and
(4) calories-per-serving: three levels (for milk: 90, 120, 150; for ice cream: 90, 120, 160).
We used the calories-per-serving attribute as a proxy for healthfulness of food
products. The price and calorie levels were based on the real prices/calories levels
observed in American supermarkets.
At the end of the survey, we collected background data (e.g. gender, age and product
use frequency). Respondents also filled out several additional ethical-value related
scales measuring environmental concern (Dunlap et al., 2000), health consciousness
(Moorman, 1990), ethical self-identity (Michaelidou and Hassan, 2008), local societal
responsibility (Tanner and Kast, 2003), importance of food taste (Tanner and Kast,
2003), importance of calorie content and importance of price (see scales in Table VI).
We collected the conjoint analysis data using the choice-based conjoint analysis
software (choice based conjoint (CBC) System) by Sawtooth Software Ltd (Sequim, WA,
USA). A total of ten conjoint choice sets (each including four product variants) for each
product category were presented for each respondent, by using a random (complete
enumeration) sampling of profiles.

Data analysis
Average importance of product attributes
We used the Sawtooth Software SMRT statistical tool to analyze the results.
The relative importance of selected product attributes was estimated by conducting a
conjoint analysis based on the data from the consumer survey. This resulted in utility
(or part-worth) functions for each individual, reflecting respondents’ preferences for
different attributes in the product-choice conditions. Consequently, we were able to
calculate the average importance of each product attribute (see Table II).

Segmentation from conjoint data using SPSS

After the conjoint analysis, we conducted a cluster analysis to group respondents into
homogenous segments based on the similarity of their preferences in product choices.
SPSS software and K-means cluster analysis were applied. The analysis recommended an
optimal four-cluster solution after testing several alternative solutions (see Tables III and IV).

Milk (%) Ice cream (%)

Price 49.1 45.4 Table II.

Taste 19.2 23.9 The relative
Environmental label 16.2 13.9 importance of
Calories per serving (proxy for healthfulness) 15.2 16.2 product attributes
BFJ Environmentally
117,12 Price-sensitive Health-conscious Taste-conscious conscious

Respondents in cluster (%) 32 20 25 24

Number of respondents 98 61 75 72
Average utility values for attribute levels
3048 Price 2.99 6.7 2.1 4.1 2.5
Price 4.99 −0.1 0.6 0.8 0.9
Price 6.99 −6.5 −2.6 −4.9 −3.4
Environmental label 0.9 0.5 1.1 2.7
No environmental label −0.9 −0.5 11.1 −2.7
Taste excellent 1.3 0.6 3.5 1.2
Taste mediocre −1.3 −0.6 −3.5 −1.2
Calories 90 1.2 1.8 0.8 0.4
Calories 120 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1
Calories 150 −1.4 −1.9 −0.9 −0.5
Table III.
Relative attribute Average importance of attributes
importance for Price 65.4 41.2 44.3 37.5
preference clusters Environmental label 8.7 11.9 11.4 36.5
for a utilitarian Taste 12.9 12.7 35.1 15.9
product (milk) Calories/healthfulness 13.1 34.3 9.2 10.1

Environmentally
Price-sensitive Health-conscious Taste-conscious conscious

Respondents in cluster (%) 22 18 32 28

Number of respondents 66 55 99 86
Average utility values for attribute levels
Price 4.99 6.3 5.7 3.9 1.7
Price 6.99 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.7
Price 8.99 −6.5 −5.9 −4. 6 −2.4
Environmental label 0.9 0.7 1.0 1.5
No environmental label −0.9 −0.7 −1.0 −1.5
Taste excellent 2.2 0.6 4.5 1.1
Taste mediocre −2.2 −0.6 −4.5 −1.1
Calories 90 1.1 1.8 0.9 1.4
Calories 120 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.1
Calories 160 −1.3 −1.9 −1.2 −1.5
Table IV.
Relative attribute Average importance of attributes
importance for Price 38.4 39.3 20.2 19.7
preference clusters Environmental label 13.3 14.1 12.5 28.6
for a hedonic Taste 30.8 11.5 53.7 21.5
product (ice cream) Calories/healthfulness 17.5 35.1 13.6 30.2

CBC studies produce data that in their raw form are ill-suited for segmentation.
Most conjoint procedures ask respondents to signal their preferences for desirable
properties of a product by choosing among several attributes associated with the
product. Thus, respondents do not evaluate each item presented to them, but
rather make choices between alternatives. Hence, unlike traditional survey research,
respondents complete only a subset of the items introduced. The procedure provides Utilitarian
sufficient information to evaluate the joint preferences for the various attributes of the food attributes
product under scrutiny; however, it does not offer a complete representation of each
respondent’s attitude toward the product in question.
Customer segmentation based upon data from CBC assumes individual-level
utilities can be constructed for each respondent. Since each respondent provides only a
minor amount of information during the information collection phase, individual 3049
utilities have to be calculated in another way. Sawtooth Software’s CBC/HB (2005)
module suggests a Hierarchical Bayesian (HB) algorithm that estimates individual
utilities by means of two-steps approach which: calculates the likelihood a respondent
will select a specific concept in a choice task; and calculates the probability that the
respondent’s utilities are consistent with the patterns of utilities observed for the
remaining respondents. Assuming each choice task is solved independently of all
others, and that the sample density of the second step can be approximated as a
multivariate normal distribution, Sawtooth’s CBC/HB algorithm estimates the best
approximation to individual utilities by numerous iterations over a multinomial logit
model (MNL). By assuming the choices are made according to a MNL, this procedure
makes it possible to produce the most likely estimation for the individual utility that
can be attached to each concept of the conjoint study.
The segmentation procedures in SPSS require that we model the preferences
expressed by the utilities for the various levels of price and calories. For
environmentally friendly and taste evaluations, we included only two mutually
exclusive levels. In such situations, the method for estimating utilities ensures the two
variables corresponding to the two levels correlate at −1. That is, a positive utility for
one level invariably results in a negative utility of the same magnitude for the other
level. Thus, we may consider the preference for the attribute as given directly by the
utility of the “yes” level of the environmentally friendly attribute and the excellent level
of the taste evaluation attribute. This yes level mirrors exactly the no level of this
attribute. Obviously, both variables (each with a yes and no level) should not be used
simultaneously for segmentation purposes, since for each respondent both a negative
and a corresponding positive value would appear. Thus, only the positively valued
variable is used for all dichotomized conjoint items.
Those items featuring three values must be treated differently for analysis. Here, the
challenge is to identify a proper preference function that sums up the preferences
indicated by the utilities for each attribute level. We chose to apply the vector model
and utilized ordinary least square procedure, which provides a measure for how well
the three points fits on a straight line. Thus, a simple regression model is applied for the
estimation of the slopes of the lines for each respondent. Note that we ignore the
constants; only the coefficients (the derivatives) are used for the segmentation
procedures.
As a result, a cluster analysis reveals groups of homogenous respondents, based on
the similarity of their preferences in product choices. We identify four segments, and label
these price-sensitive, health-conscious, taste-conscious and environmentally conscious.

Results
The relative importance of product attributes
Table II depicts the average utility estimates for each attribute. The results indicate
that the price attribute is the most important attribute in determining consumers’
choices in both product categories, contributing to 49.1 percent of the overall utility of
BFJ attributes for milk and 45.4 percent of the overall utility of attributes for ice cream.
117,12 Respondents prefer the least expensive product; in addition, the medium price variant
produces slightly positive utility and the most expensive price yields clearly negative
utility (see Tables III and IV). The second-most important attribute for both categories
is taste, with a relative importance of 19.2 percent for milk and 23.9 percent for ice
cream on average. Respondents clearly prefer excellent taste within both product
3050 categories. The attribute rated third in importance for milk is an environmental label,
contributing to 16.2 percent of overall utility (the eco-labeled product was preferred),
while the least significant attribute is calories per serving with a relative importance of
15.2 percent.
Furthermore, respondents prefer the type of milk with the least calories; the
medium-calorie content version produces slightly positive utility and the highest
calories content produces clearly negative utility. Similarly, the attribute rated third in
importance for ice cream is calories per serving, contributing to 16.2 percent of overall
utility. Again, respondents prefer the ice cream product with the least calorie content;
the medium-calorie content version produces slightly positive utility and the highest-
calorie content produces clearly negative utility. Against our expectations, the least
important attribute for ice cream was the environmental label, with a relative
importance of 13.9 percent. The environmentally labeled product was, however,
preferred. Table V summarizesour findings with respect to support of our hypotheses.
Our results support H1: utilitarian attributes (i.e. price and taste) are rated as the
most important attributes across product categories. This can be explained by the
attitude-behavior gap theory, implying that what consumers say about the importance
of environmental and health-related issues can differ from their actual behavior. It is
especially true for low-involvement products, such as food (Tarkiainen and Sundqvist,
2009). In fact, our results offer a classic example of this gap, as defined in the ethical
consumer behavior literature (e.g. Carrigan et al., 2004; Auger and Devinney, 2007).
H2 was not supported, as the rating of importance of environmental friendliness
was found to be lower for ice cream (a hedonic product) than for milk (a utilitarian
product). This finding contradicts with the previous literature claiming that
hedonic products may be associated with feelings of guilt and cognitive dissonance,
which consumers then try to resolve by adding a positive component to their
consumption (e.g. Lascu, 1991; Strahilevitz and Myers, 1998).
H3 was supported. Our results show that with regard to taste, its importance is
rated higher for ice cream (a hedonic product) than for milk (a utilitarian product). This
finding is consistent with the existing literature on hedonic products (Babin et al., 1994).

H1: in a food choice situation, consumers will rate utilitarian types of attributes Supported
(i.e. price and taste) higher in importance, relative to ethical attributes
(i.e. environmental friendliness and healthfulness)
H2: consumers’ ratings of the importance of an environmental friendliness attribute Not supported
will be higher for hedonic food products than for utilitarian food products
H3: consumers’ ratings of the importance of a taste attribute will be higher for Supported
hedonic food products than for utilitarian food products
H4: consumers’ ratings of the importance of a healthfulness attribute will be higher Not supported
for utilitarian food products than for hedonic food products
Table V. H5: consumers’ ratings of the importance of a price attribute will be lower for Supported
Hypotheses hedonic food products than for utilitarian food products
H4 was not supported. We find that healthfulness (with calories per serving as a proxy) Utilitarian
is the least important product attribute for milk (a utilitarian product). This finding food attributes
contradicts the literature, which argues that consumers’ focus on instrumental
functionality is inherent when they consider utilitarian products (Hirschman and
Holbrook, 1982).
H5 was supported: consumers’ evaluations of the importance of price is lower for ice
cream (a hedonic product) than for milk (a utilitarian product). This finding supports 3051
previous research on price sensitivity for utilitarian and hedonic products (Wakefield
and Inman, 2003).

Consumer segments based on attribute preference

As noted, the optimal cluster solution suggested four consumer segments; we labeled
these price-sensitive, health-conscious, taste-conscious and environmentally conscious.
This analysis enables us to examine the average utility for each attribute on the cluster
level, and therefore provides a better understanding of consumers’ food choice decision-
making behavior across segments.
We first compared differences in the relative importance of product attributes across
the whole sample, and then compared these across the four segments (see Tables III
and IV). Across the entire sample, we find that environmental label and healthfulness
(i.e. calorie content) are rated as the least important attributes. However, while price still
plays the main role in most segments, the relative importance of the environmental
label and healthfulness is much higher for both the health-conscious and the
environmentally conscious segments. This pattern is consistent for both utilitarian
(milk) and hedonic (ice cream) products. Moreover, for the hedonic product, the
environmental label and the healthfulness attribute are rated as the most important
attributes for the environmentally conscious segment. Not surprisingly, taste is also
most important for the taste-conscious segment. For this segment, the taste attribute
has a relative importance of 53.7 percent for ice cream and is fairly important for milk
(35.1 percent).

Psychographic profiling of the preference segments

We conducted a deeper functional-value and ethical-value analysis to capture the
psychographic properties of the identified preference segments. However, first we ran a
factor analysis to confirm the dimensionality of the applied functional-value and
ethical-value constructs.
We assessed the dimensionality of the two functional utility factors (price and
calorie content) via exploratory factor analysis. These factors both showed satisfactory
factor loadings and Cronbach’s α values (see Table VIII). Our examination of the
dimensionality of the ethical-value measures, completed by analyzing the correlations
between all items, revealed that all were in acceptable ranges. The validation procedure
involved fitting the preliminary confirmatory model to the scales that are hypothesized
to co-vary. Since our measurement scales demonstrated validity, we then conducted a
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) across all respondents, using the robust ML
estimation method ( Jöreskog and Sörbom, 1993). We then analyzed each construct
separately, and assessed their fit and construct validity. In support of convergent
reliability, all factor loadings were satisfactorily related to their respective constructs as
they all (except one, at 0.28) were close to the required cut-off point of 0.5. Moreover, all
loadings were significantly different from 0 (all t-values ⩾ 9.17). Table VI depicts the
results from these analyses.
 BFJ

3052
117,12

Results of
Table VI.

measurement model
Indicators (confirmatory factor analysis) Completely Indicator Error Composite Average
standardized reliability variance reliability variance
loadings extracted
Weighting of psychographic ethical-values
Environmental concern (adapted from Dunlap et al., 2000)
Against-nature dimension (1 ¼ not at all agree, 7 ¼ totally agree)
1. The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern
industrial nations 0.55 (7.45) 0.30 0.70 0.58 0.41
2. The so-called “ecological crisis” facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated 0.72 (8.36) 0.51 0.49
Pro-nature dimension
1. We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support 0.65 (13.97) 0.42 0.58 0.84 0.44
2. When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous consequences 0.74 (18.68) 0.55 0.45
3. Humans are severely abusing the environment 0.80 (22.10) 0.64 0.36
4. Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist 0.53 (10.38) 0.28 0.72
5. Despite our special abilities humans are still subject to the laws of nature 0.42 (6.22) 0.16 0.84
6. The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset 0.62 (13.96) 0.38 0.62
7. If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major
ecological catastrophe 0.79 (24.54) 0.62 0.38
Health consciousness (adapted from Moorman, 1990)
Prevent health-hazards dimension (1 ¼ not at all agree, 7 ¼ totally agree)
1. I try to protect myself against health hazards I hear about 0.81 (18.30) 0.65 0.35 0.85 0.66
2. I am concerned about health hazards and try to take action to prevent them 0.90 (27.23) 0.80 0.20
3. I try to prevent health problems before I feel any symptoms 0.72 (16.97) 0.53 0.47
Worry about health-hazards dimension
1. I do not worry about health hazards until they become a problem for me or
someone close to me 0.78 (21.25) 0.61 0.39 0.83 0.47
2. There are so many things that can hurt you these days. I am not going to worry
about them 0.67 (14.86) 0.47 0.53
3. I often worry about the health hazards I hear about, but do not do anything
about them 0.67 (13.44) 0.45 0.55
4. I do not take any action against health hazards I hear about until I know
I have a problem 0.85 (33.25) 0.72 0.28

(continued )
 5. I would rather enjoy life than try to make sure I am not exposing myself
to a health hazard 0.51 (8.92) 0.26 0.74
6. I do not think health hazards I hear about will happen to me 0.50 (8.64) 0.25 0.75
Ethical self-identity (adapted from Michaelidou and Hassan 2008)
1. I think of myself as someone who is concerned about ethical issues 0.83 (15.12) 0.68 0.32 0.74 0.59
2. I think of myself as an ethical consumer 0.70 (12.41) 0.50 0.50
Local societal responsibility (adapted from Tanner and Kast, 2003)
1. It is important to me to support local farmers when making purchase 0.72 (16.59) 0.51 0.49 0.85 0.65
2. It is good to support domestic agriculture by buying regional products 0.84 (19.60) 0.70 0.30
3. Consumers should show solidarity with domestic farmers 0.85 (22.04) 0.72
Food liking
1. When making purchases I would primarily buy products which taste good 0.71 (7.53) 0.50 0.50 0.68 0.45
2. When making purchases, I am guided by what I like 0.87 (8.24) 0.76 0.24
3. People should eat what they like, even if what they eat is unhealthy 0.28 (3.63) 0.08 0.92
Fit statistics: Satorra-Bentler χ2 ¼ 492.57 (df ¼ 278, p o 0.05); CFI ¼ 0.96; GFI ¼ 0.85; All t-values were significant at the p o 0.05 level
RMSEA ¼ 0.050; Standardized RMR ¼ 0.050 AGFI ¼ 0.81 Test method: Robust Maximum Likelihood
CN ¼ 208.91
Indicators (exploratory factor analysis) Extractions Eigenvalue Cumulative variance Cronbach α
explained (%)
Weighting of functional product utility
Calorie content
1. I pay a lot of attention to the calorie content when I buy food 0.958 1.964 49.10 0.87
2. I always look on the calories content when I buy food 0.957
Price
1. I pay a lot of attention to the price when I am shopping 0.943 1.649 90,32 0.91
2. I always look on the price when I am shopping 0.943
food attributes
Utilitarian

3053

Table VI.
BFJ Based on findings in previous research, we then grouped the items from functional-
117,12 value and ethical-value constructs into eight distinct factors (see Table VI).
All variables scored highly on one common latent factor each. The factors were
assessed on their reliability using the procedure suggested by Bagozzi and Yi (1988).
The reliability coefficients were close to or above 0.5 ( Jöreskog and Sörbom, 1993). We
also calculated the average variance extracted for each construct and most of these
3054 scores were close to or exceeded the suggested threshold of 0.5 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988).
Finally, the composite reliability was assessed and all scores were close to or exceeded
the 0.6 threshold (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). Thus, the reliability measures were generally
acceptable. In summary, the CFA showed that all identified factors satisfy the
criteria of convergent validity. We also conducted a test of construct discriminant
validity using an approach suggested by Fornell and Larcker, (1981), which
provides evidence of discriminant validity among the factors. Table VI reports the
parameter estimates and the global goodness-of-fit indexes for the measurement model.
The fit measures showed acceptable values, except for the χ2 test ( p o 0.01).
The analysis showed a Satorra-Bentler χ2 value of 492.57 (df ¼ 278, p o 0.0). However,
structural equation modeling may be judged to provide an acceptable fit even though
the χ2 value, which is notably influenced by sample size, is statistically significant
(Anderson and Gerbing, 1988).
The eight identified ethical-value factors and the two functional utility factors were
used to describe the four attribute-preference segments in psychographic terms using
variance analysis. We applied univariate variance analysis, and compared the mean
scores of each factor across the four segments. The results of these analyses are
depicted in Tables VII and VIII.
When analyzing the psychographic profiles of the segments we identified
the following patterns. We found significant differences across the segments for
both product categories. For milk, the environmentally conscious segment exhibited
significantly higher scores on the positive environmental concern factor than
the taste-conscious segment and lower scores on the negative environmental
concern factor than the health-conscious segment. The environmentally conscious
segment also scored significantly higher on the ethical self-identity factor than
the price-sensitive and the taste-conscious segments. Moreover, they scored
significantly higher on the local societal responsibility factor than any other
segment. At the same time, the environmentally conscious segment scored lower
on the health consciousness dimension “worry about health-hazards” than the
price-sensitive and the taste-conscious segments. The taste-conscious segment
scored higher on the taste factor than the health-conscious and the environmentally
conscious segments. The health-conscious segment scored highest on the calorie
content factor. Finally, the price-sensitive segment scored higher on the price factor
than any other segment.
For ice cream, we found fewer significant differences. The importance of the taste
factor varied across segments. It was significantly higher for the taste-conscious and
the price-sensitive segments compared to the health- and environmentally conscious
segments. The health-conscious segment showed significantly higher scores on the
importance of calorie content than the price-sensitive and the taste-conscious segment.
The price-sensitive segment, on the other hand, scored higher than environmentally
conscious segment on calorie content, which in turn scored higher than the taste-
conscious consumers. Finally, the importance of the price factor was significantly
higher for the price-sensitive segment than for the taste- and environmentally
 Segments
1 2 3 4
Price- Health- Taste- Environmentally-
sensitive conscious conscious conscious Scheffe’s
Variable F-ratio Sig. Total n ¼ 98 n ¼ 61 n ¼ 75 n ¼ 72 comparisons Sig.

Environmental concern (1) neg. (5 and 7 item) 2.885 0.036 3.3235 3.2245 3.6230 3.4733 3.0486 2 W4 0.07
Environmental concern (2) pos. (1-4 and 6, 8, 9 item) 2.660 0.048 5.2180 5.1356 5.1991 5.0838 5.4861 3 o4 0.09
Health consciousness (1) prevent (1-3 item) 2.176 0.091 5.3519 5.3776 5.2623 5.1733 5.5787 ns
Health consciousness (2) worry about (4-9 item) 3.268 0.022 3.6019 3.6871 3.6776 3.7489 3.2685 1 W4 0.085
3 W4 0.053
Ethical self-identity 3.209 .023 5.1487 5.0459 5.0656 5.0467 5.4653 1 o4 0.061
3 o4 0.090
Importance of local societal responsibility (1-3 item) 5.952 0.001 4.7729 4.7679 4.6639 4.4867 5.1701 1 o4 0.089
2 o4 0.042
3 o4 0.001
Importance of food taste (1-3 item) 6.020 0.001 4.8878 4.9388 4.6175 5.1689 4.7546 2 o3 0.002
3 W4 0.024
Importance of calorie content (1-2 item) 13.955 0.000 4.2647 4.3163 5.3934 3.4267 4.1111 1 o2 0.004
1 W3 0.015
2 W3 0.000
2 W4 0.001
Importance of price (1-2 item) 10.683 0.000 6.2173 6.6122 6.0164 6.2067 5.8611 1 W2 0.001
1 W3 0.041
1 W4 0.000
Note: The test scores are represented as experimental group mean scores
food attributes

Univariate analyses
Utilitarian

Table VII.
3055

– for milk
ethical-values and

preference segments
across four
functional utility
evaluations of
of differences in
 BFJ

3056
117,12

values and

across four
Table VIII.

– for ice cream

of differences in

functional utility
Univariate analyses

preference segments
evaluations of ethical
Segments
1 2 3 4
Price- Health- Taste- Environmentally
sensitive conscious conscious conscious Scheffe’s
Variable F-ratio Sig. Total n ¼ 66 n ¼ 55 n ¼ 99 n ¼ 86 comparisons Sig.

Environmental concern (1) neg. (5 and 7 item) 0.563 0.640 3.3235 3.2879 3.1636 3.3333 3.4419 ns
Environmental concern (2) pos. (1-4 and 6, 8, 9 item) 1.036 0.377 5.2180 5.1515 5.1714 5.1544 5.3721 ns
Health consciousness (1) prevent (1-3 item) 0.470 0.703 5.3519 5.2626 5.4727 5.3232 5.3760 ns
Health consciousness (2) worry about (4-9 item) 1.865 0.135 3.6019 3.4192 3.7758 3.7189 3.4961 ns
Ethical self-identity 2.078 0.103 5.1487 5.1894 4.8909 5.1212 5.3140 ns
Importance of local societal responsibility (1-3 item) 2.046 0.107 4.7729 4.7917 4.7591 4.5960 4.9709 ns
Importance of food taste (1-3 item) 8.351 0.000 4.8878 5.1414 4.6485 5.0707 4.6357 1W2 0.011
1W4 0.002
2o3 0.022
4o3 0.004
Importance of calorie content (1-2 item) 9.400 0.000 4.2647 3.82058 4,9091 3.7121 4.8256 1o2 0.015
1W4 0.011
2W3 0.002
4W3 0.001
Importance of price (1-2 item) 8.848 0.000 6.2173 6.5833 6.4909 6.0859 5.9128 1W4 0.000
1W3 0.010
2W4 0.005
2o3 0.081
Note: The test scores are represented as experimental group mean score
conscious segments. Health-conscious consumers had significantly lower score on the Utilitarian
price factor than the taste-conscious consumers and significantly higher score on the food attributes
price factor than the environmentally conscious segment.

Discussion
The results show that consumers rate price and taste as the most important product
attributes for both hedonic and utilitarian food products when the whole sample is 3057
considered. These findings are not surprising and support those of other studies that
show how few consumers wish to trade basic functional attributes for socially
acceptable ones when making food choices (e.g. Auger et al., 2008).
One surprising finding in our study is that consumers’ rating of importance of
environmental friendliness is found to be lower for a hedonic product than for a
utilitarian product, which contradicts with our assumption based on the previous
literature (e.g. Lascu, 1991; Strahilevitz and Myers, 1998). A possible explanation is that
asking consumers to just consider the purchase of ice cream did not generate a strong
enough feeling of guilt to motivate consumers to compensate and choose an
environmentally friendly product. Further investigation is necessary in this case.
A stronger manipulation could be incorporated into future studies (e.g. allowing
consumers to taste a real food product or priming hedonic associations prior to the
conjoint study). Also, incorporating a more expensive or scarce product may provide a
stronger manipulation.
Another surprising result is that consumers’ ratings of the importance of the
healthfulness attribute are lower for the utilitarian food product than for the hedonic
one. In fact, healthfulness is found to be the least important product attribute for a
utilitarian product. The definition of utilitarian products (focus on instrumental
functionality; Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982) suggests healthfulness should be
important when purchasing utilitarian products. Moreover, Raghunathan et al. (2006)
argue that unhealthy products are preferred when a hedonic goal is more salient.
One explanation of our finding could be that the importance of price is so strong
(especially in case of a utilitarian product) that it overrides all the other attributes.
In addition, the effect of the feeling of guilt can lead to the higher importance of the
healthfulness attribute for a hedonic product to compensate for a cognitive dissonance
(Burnett and Lunsford, 1994). Further research is necessary to explain this finding.
The rest of the findings support the existing literature on the differences between
utilitarian and hedonic products. The rating of importance of taste is higher for a
hedonic product than a utilitarian product, which can be explained by focus on pleasure
inherent to hedonic products (Babin et al., 1994). On the other hand, the rating of
importance of price is lower for a hedonic product than for a utilitarian product due to
the differences in price sensitivity for utilitarian and hedonic products (Wakefield and
Inman, 2003).

Preference segments
When we group consumers based on their preferences and look on the segment level,
the relative importance of product attributes changes. The importance of
environmental label and healthfulness (i.e. calorie content) are much higher for the
health- and environmentally conscious segments, in some case even higher than the
importance of price. Previous research shows the importance of environmental
concerns and other individual factors in predicting green and health bringing behavior
BFJ (e.g. Kim and Choi, 2005; Mostafa, 2009). Even in the low-involvement activity such as
117,12 food shopping, consumer involvement in the “environmentally friendly” or “health”
issue matters when it comes to product choice (Thøgersen et al., 2012). The health- and
environmentally conscious consumers learn a new choice heuristic based on the
“green” or “healthy” product attribute as the performance criterion, which allows them
to make decisions about these products as effortless and efficiently as the decisions
3058 about conventional products.
Our findings support these results, as we find differences in the psychographic
profiles of various consumer segments. For instance, environmentally conscious
consumers exhibit the highest scores on measures of positive environmental concern
and ethical self-identity. The health-conscious segment shows significantly higher
scores on the importance of calorie content than the price-sensitive and the taste-
conscious segment. This means environmentally friendly and healthy products remain
a niche market. However, the importance of environmental label and healthfulness for
specific consumer segments should not be underestimated.
The current study offers both theoretical and practical value, as it addresses a need
for a unified understanding of the role of different factors in consumers’ food choices
(Chatzidakis et al., 2006), and explains how consumers make trade-offs among them.
By utilizing conjoint methodology, we provide insights into how various product
attributes are weighted across distinct lifestyle segments, and demonstrate which
attributes consumers perceive as most important while making their choices across
food categories (i.e. hedonic and utilitarian). Furthermore, we explore the importance of
choice criteria that are becoming increasingly relevant among contemporary
consumers, namely, environmental friendliness and healthfulness. To our knowledge,
our study is the first to compare the relative importance of this combination of
attributes (price, taste, calorie content and eco-label) across hedonic and utilitarian
foods in a choice-based conjoint setting. Moreover, we suggest a new way of grouping
consumers according to their ethical-value profiles, and create a psychographic
description of these segments.
The food considerations of contemporary consumers are very complex and cannot
be explained merely by understanding socio-demographic factors. There is a need for a
broader psychographic perspective to acquire a deeper perspective of behavioral
differences across various consumer segments (Verain et al., 2012). For this reason, we
provide a basis for further theoretical exploration of consumers’ food choices.
Practitioners may find our study useful as they consider different product attribute
combinations while designing new food offerings and develop targeted promotional
campaigns for various consumer segments. They should take into account the
differences across consumer segments and remember to use psychographic variables
while targeting specific segments.
However, as with all research, the current study has limitations. First, we look only at
the relative importance and utility of four separate attributes. It would be interesting to
expand the combinations of different product attributes for these product categories.
Second, we use university students as our respondents. Future research should examine
the issues we address in non-student samples, to establish the external validity of the
findings. Finally, it would also be interesting to explore how the findings may differ for
other product categories. For instance, consumers may perceive ice cream as too
“everyday” to be representative of a truly hedonic food choice; thus, repeating or
extending this study with a more exotic food choice in that category might elucidate the
differences between this category of food products and those considered more utilitarian.
References Utilitarian
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: food attributes
a review and recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3,
pp. 411-423.
Anderson, W.T. Jr and Golden, L.L. (1984), “Lifestyle and psychographics: a critical review and
recommendation”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 11, pp. 405-411.
Arbuthnot, J. and Lingg, S. (1975), “A comparison of French and American environmental 3059
behaviors, knowledge, and attitudes”, International Journal of Psychology, Vol. 10
No. 4, pp. 275-281.
Auger, P. and Devinney, T.M. (2007), “Do what consumers say matter? The misalignment of
preferences with unconstrained ethical intentions”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 76 No. 4,
pp. 361-383.
Auger, P., Devinney, T.M., Louviere, J.L. and Burke, P.F. (2008), “Do social product features
have value to consumers?”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 3,
pp. 183-191.
Babin, B.J., Darden, W.J. and Griffin, M. (1994), “Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and
utilitarian shopping value”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 644-656.
Bagozzi, R. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural equation models”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.
Batson, D.C., Thompson, E.R., Seuferling, G., Whitney, H. and Strongman, J.A. (1999),
“Moral hypocrisy: appearing moral to oneself without being so”, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, Vol. 77 No. 3, pp. 525-537.
Belk, R., Devinney, T.M. and Eckhardt, G. (2005), “Consumer ethics across cultures”,
Consumption, Markets and Culture, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 275-289.
Bjørner, T.B., Hansen, L.L.G. and Russell, C.S. (2004), “Environmental labelling and consumers’
choice: an empirical analysis of the effect of the Nordic Swan”, Journal of Environmental
Economics and Management, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 411-434.
Blend, J.R. and van Ravenswaay, E.O. (1999), “Measuring consumer demand for ecolabeled
apples”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 1072-1077.
Boulstridge, E. and Carrigan, M. (2000), “Do consumers really care about corporate
responsibility? Highlighting the attitude-behaviour gap”, Journal of Communication
Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 355-368.
Brunsø, K. and Grunert, K.G. (1995), “Development and testing of a cross-culturally
valid instrument: food-related lifestyle”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 22,
pp. 475-480.
Burnett, M.S. and Lunsford, D.A. (1994), “Conceptualizing guilt in the consumer decision-making
process”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 33-43.
Carrigan, M. and Attalla, A. (2001), “The myth of the ethical consumer – do ethics matter in
purchase behavior?”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 560-577.
Carrigan, M., Szmigin, I. and Wright, J. (2004), “Shopping for a better world? An interpretive
study of the potential for ethical consumption within the older market”, Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 401-417.
Carroll, J.D. and Green, P.E. (1995), “Psychometric methods in marketing research: Part 1, conjoint
analysis”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 385-391.
Chan, T.S. (1996), “Concerns for environmental issues and consumer purchase preferences:
a two-country study”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 1,
pp. 43-55.
BFJ Chatzidakis, A., Hibbert, S. and Smith, A. (2006), “Ethically concerned, yet unethically behaved:
towards an updated understanding of consumer’s (un)ethical decision making”, Advances
117,12 in Consumer Research, Vol. 33, pp. 693-698.
Cicia, G., Del Giudice, T. and Ramunno, I. (2009), “Environmental and health components in
consumer perception of organic products: estimation of willingness to pay”, Journal of
Food Products Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 324-336.
3060 Crane, A. and Matten, D. (2004), Business Ethics: A European Perspective, Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
De Pelsmacker, P., Driesen, L. and Rayp, G. (2005), “Do consumers care about ethics?
Willingness to pay for fair-trade coffee”, The Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 39 No. 2,
pp. 363-385.
Dhalla, N.K. and Mahatoo, W.H. (1976), “Expanding the scope of segmentation research”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 34-41.
Donaton, S. and Fitzgerald, K. (1992), “Polls show ecological concerns is strong”, Advertising Age,
Vol. 63, June, pp. 49.
Dunlap, R.E., Van Liere, K.D., Mertig, A.G. and Jones, R.E. (2000), “Measuring endorsement
of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale”, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 56 No. 3,
pp. 425-442.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1,
pp. 39-50.
Freestone, O. and McGoldrick, P. (2008), “Motivations of the ethical consumer”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 79 No. 4, pp. 445-467.
Fuljahn, A. and Moosmayer, D.C. (2011), “The myth of guilt: a replication study on the suitability
of hedonic and utilitarian products for cause related marketing campaigns in Germany”,
International Journal of Business Research, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 85-92.
Grankvist, G. and Biel, A. (2001), “The importance of belief and purchase criteria in the
choice of eco-labelled food products”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 4,
pp. 405-410.
Green, P.E. and Srinivasan, V. (1990), “Conjoint analysis in marketing research: new
developments and directions”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 3-19.
Grunert, K.G., Brunsø, K., Bredahl, L. and Bech, A.C. (2001), “Food related lifestyle:
a segmentation approach to European food consumers”, in Frewer, L.J., Risvik, E. and
Schifferstein, H. (Eds), Food, People and Society: A European Perspective of Consumers’
Food Choices (ed. by), Springer, Berlin, pp. 211-230.
Hines, J.M., Hungerford, H.R. and Tomera, A.N. (1987), “Analysis and synthesis of research on
responsible environmental behavior: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Environmental
Education, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 1-8.
Hirschman, E.C. and Holbrook, M.B. (1982), “Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts, methods
and propositions”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 92-101.
Honkanen, P., Verplanken, B. and Olsen, S.O. (2006), “Ethical values and motives driving organic
food choice”, Journal of Consumer Behavior, Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 420-431.
Iversen, H. and Rundmo, T. (2002), “Environmental concern and environmental behaviour among
the Norwegian public”, Journal of Risk Research, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 265-279.
Jöreskog, K.G. and Sörbom, D. (1993), LISREL VIII: Analysis of Linear Structural Relations by the
Method of Maximum Likelihood, National Education Resources, Chicago, IL.
Kellgren, C.A. and Wood, W. (1986), “Access to attitude-relevant information in memory as a Utilitarian
determinant of attitude-behavior consistency”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 328-338.
food attributes
Kerr, K. (1990), “Thinking green is no longer a hippie dream”, AdWeek, Vol. 31, pp. 18-19.
Kim, Y. and Choi, S.M. (2005), “Antecedents of green purchase behavior: an examination of
collectivism, environmental concern, and PCE”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 32,
pp. 592-599. 3061
Lascu, D.-N. (1991), “Consumer guilt: examining the potential of a new marketing construct”,
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 18, pp. 290-295.
Lockie, S., Lyons, K., Lawrence, G. and Mummery, K. (2002), “Eating green: motivations behind
organic food consumption in Australia”, Sociologia Ruralis, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 23-40.
Loureiro, M.L., McCluskey, J.J. and Mittelhammer, R.C. (2002), “Will consumers pay a premium for
eco-labeled apples?”, The Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 203-219.
McCarty, J.A. and Shrum, L.J. (2001), “The influence of individualism, collectivism, and locus
of control on environmental beliefs and behavior”, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing,
Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 93-104.
Magnusson, M.K., Avrola, A., Hursti Koivisto, U.K., Aberg, L. and Sjoden, P.O. (2003), “Choice of
organic foods is related to perceived consequences for human health and to
environmentally friendly behaviour”, Appetite, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 109-117.
Mainieri, T., Barnett, E.G., Valdero, T., Unipan, J.B. and Oskamp, S. (1997), “Green buying.
The influence of environmental concern on consumer behavior”, Journal of Social
Psychology, Vol. 137 No. 2, pp. 189-204.
Michaelidou, N. and Hassan, L.M. (2008), “The role of health consciousness, food safety concern
and ethical identity on attitudes and intentions towards organic food”, International
Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 163-170.
Moorman, C. (1990), “The effects of stimulus and consumer characteristics on the utilization of
nutrition information”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 362-374.
Mostafa, M.M. (2009), “Shades of green: a psychographic segmentation of the green consumer
in Kuwait using self-organizing maps”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36 No. 8,
pp. 11030-11038.
Newholm, T. and Shaw, D. (2007), “Studying the ethical consumer: a review of research”, Journal
of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 253-270.
Olshavsky, R.W. and Granbois, D.H. (1979), “Consumer decision making: fact or fiction?”, Journal
of Consumer Research, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 93-100.
Padel, S. and Foster, C. (2005), “Exploring the gap between attitudes and behaviour:
understanding why consumers buy or do not buy organic food”, British Food Journal,
Vol. 107 No. 8, pp. 606-626.
Papaoikonomou, E., Ryan, G. and Ginieis, M. (2011), “Towards a holistic approach of the attitude
behavior gap in ethical consumer behaviors: empirical evidence from Spain”, International
Advances in Economic Research, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 77-88.
Raghunathan, R., Naylor, R.W. and Hoyer, W.D. (2006), “The unhealthy – tasty intuition and its
effects on taste inferences, enjoyment, and choice of food product”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 70 No. 4, pp. 170-184.
Rothschild, M.L. and Gaidis, W.C. (1981), “Behavioral learning theory: its relevance to marketing
and promotions”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 70-78.
Schifferstein, H.N.J. and Oude Ophuis, P.A.M. (1998), “Health-related determinants of organic food
consumption in the Netherlands”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 119-133.
BFJ Schlossberg, H. (1992), “Kids teach parents how to change their buying habits”, Marketing News,
Vol. 26 No. 5, p. 8.
117,12
Schwartz, S.H. (1992), “Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances
and empirical tests in 20 countries”, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 25,
pp. 1-65.
Sen, S. and Bhattacharya, C.B. (2001), “Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer
3062 reactions to corporate social responsibility”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38 No. 2,
pp. 225-243.
Shaw, D. and Shui, E. (2002), “An assessment of ethical obligation and self-identity in ethical
consumer decision-making: a structural equation modelling approach”, International
Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 286-293.
Sheeran, P. (2002), “Intention-behavior relations: a conceptual and empirical review”, European
Review of Social Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1-36.
Simmons, D. and Widmar, R. (1990), “Motivations and barriers to recycling: toward a strategy for
public education”, Journal of Environmental Education, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 13-18.
Smith, W. (1956), “Product differentiation and market segmentation as alternative marketing
strategies”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 3-8.
Stern, P., Dietz, T. and Kalof, L. (1993), “Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern”,
Environment and Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 322-348.
Strahilevitz, M. and Myers, J.G. (1998), “Donations to charity as purchase incentives: how well
they work may depend on what you are trying to sell”, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 434-446.
Tanner, C. and Kast, S.W. (2003), “Promoting sustainable consumption: determinants of green
purchases by Swiss consumers”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 10, pp. 883-902.
Tarkiainen, A. and Sundqvist, S. (2005), “Subjective norms, attitudes and intentions of Finnish
consumers in buying organic food”, British Food Journal, Vol. 107 No. 11, pp. 808-822.
Tarkiainen, A. and Sundqvist, S. (2009), “Product involvement in organic food consumption: does
ideology meet practice?”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 9, pp. 844-863.
Thøgersen, J., Jørgensen, A.K. and Sandager, S. (2012), “Consumer decision making regarding a
‘green’ everyday product”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 187-197.
Torelli, C.J., Özsomer, A., Carvalho, S.W., Keh, H.T. and Maehle, N. (2012), “Brand concepts as
representations of human values: do cultural congruity and compatibility between values
matter?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 76 No. 4, pp. 92-108.
Trudel, R. and Cotte, J. (2008), “Corporate reputation: does being ethical pay?” The Wall Street
Journal, 12 May, p. R.4.
Uusitalo, O. and Oksanen, R. (2004), “Ethical consumerism: a review from Finland”, International
Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 214-221.
Van Dam, Y.K. and Van Trijp, H.C. (2011), “Cognitive and motivational structure of
sustainability”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 726-741.
Van Strien, T. and Koenders, P.G. (2012), “How do life style factors relate to general health and
overweight?”, Appetite, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 265-270.
Verain, M.C.D., Bartels, J., Dagevos, H., Sijtsema, S.J., Onwezen, M.C. and Antonides, G. (2012),
“Segments of sustainable food consumers: a literature review”, International Journal of
Consumer Studies, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 123-132.
Vermeir, I. and Verbeke, W. (2008), “Sustainable food consumption among young adults in
Belgium: theory of planned behaviour and the role of confidence and values”, Ecological
Economics, Vol. 64 No. 3, pp. 542-553.
Wakefield, K.L. and Inman, J.J. (2003), “Situational price sensitivity: the role of consumption Utilitarian
occasion, social context and income”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 79 No. 4, pp. 199-212.
food attributes
Wandel, M. and Bugge, A. (1997), “Environmental concern in consumer evaluation of food
quality”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 19-26.
Wedel, M. and Kamakura, W. (2002), “Introduction to the special issue on market segmentation”,
International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 181-183.
Wittink, D.R., Krishnamurthi, L. and Reibstein, D.J. (1989), “The effect of differences in the 3063
number of attribute levels on conjoint results”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 113-123.

Corresponding author
Dr Natalia Maehle can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]