Click here to download

The assessment of consumer sensitivity to animal welfare: An application of Rasch Model
Journal Title: RIVISTA DI STUDI SULLA SOSTENIBILITA' 
Author/s: Enrico Gori, Ting Fa Margherita Chang, Luca Iseppi, Beniamino Cenci Goga, Maria Francesca Iulietto, Paola Sechi, Maria Antonietta Lepellere 
Year:  2017 Issue: Language: English 
Pages:  21 Pg. 107-127 FullText PDF:  275 KB
DOI:  10.3280/RISS2017-001008
(DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation:  clicca qui   and here 


The sensitivity has become a mass phenomenon, still in expansion. The Euro-pean Commission, during last decade, carried out several surveys on food quality and animal welfare. This research, using data from a survey conducted on 320, respondents and applying the Rasch model on 14 selected questions (items), wants to develop a measure that appears representative of a latent variable defined as ‘Sensitivity towards Animal Welfare’. The ability to measure the individual level of this ‘Sensitivity’ therefore represents an interesting and important result, especially if there are correlations between this variable and other variables characterizing the opinions and habits of individuals, both in general and in relation to consumer decisions.
Keywords: Animal welfare, Rasch Model, Rasch-Andrich Thresolds, consumer be-havior, consumption, sensitivity

  1. Popper K. (1934). The Logic of Scientific Discovery (as Logik der Forschung, English translation 1959).
  2. Rasch G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  3. Rifkin J. (2008). Ecocidio. Ascesa e caduta della cultura della carne. Milano: Mondadori.
  4. Roe E.J. (2006) Things becoming food and the embodied, material practices of an organic food consumer. Sociologia Ruralis, 46(2): 104-121.
  5. Sechi P., Baldinelli C., Iulietto M.F., Cenci Goga B.T. (2015). Animal welfare: data from an online consultation. Italian Journal of food safety, 4(1).
  6. Serpell J. (1996) In the company of animals A study of human animal relationships. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  7. Singer P., Mason J. (2006). The ethics of what we eat why our food choices matter. Emmaus, Pennsylvania: Rodale.
  8. Slow Food (2013). Sondaggio sui consumi di carne e sul benessere animale rivolto ai soci Slow Food europei, -- http://www.slowfood.com/sloweurope/wpcontent/uploads/ITA_sondaggio_benessere.pdf.
  9. Special Eurobarometer (2005; 2007). 229/Wave 63.2 3, Attitudes of consumers towards the welfare of farmed animals; 270/Wave 66.1 4 Attitudes of EU citizens towards Animal Welfare.
  10. Thurstone L.L. (1927). A law of comparative judgement. Psychological Review, 34: 273-286.
  11. Toma L., Stott A.W., Revoredo-Giha C., Kupiec-Teahan B. (2012). Consumers and animal welfare. A comparison between European Union countries. Appetite, 58: 597-607.
  12. Weis T. (2010). The Ecological Hoofprint and the Population Bomb of Reverse Protein Factories. Food, Energy, Environment: Crisis of the Modern World-System, 33(2/3): 131-152.
  13. Wright B.D., Masters G.N. (1982). Rating scale analysis. Chicago: MESA Press.
  14. Allen M.J., Yen W.M. (2002). Introduction to Measurement Theory. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
  15. Andersen E.B. (1977). Sufficient statistics and latent trait models. Psychometrika, 42: 69-81.
  16. Andrich D. (1978). A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika, 43: 561-573.
  17. Bertoni G. (2016). Etica e allevamento animale. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  18. Bond T.G. (2003). Validity and assessment: a Rasch measurement perspective. Metodología de las Ciencias del Comportamiento, 5(2): 179-194.
  19. Brambell F.W.R. (1965). Report of the Technical Committee to Enquire into the Welfare of Animals kept under Intensive Livestock Husbandry Systems. London: HMSO.
  20. Campbell N.R. (1920). Physics: The Elements. London: Cambridge University Press.
  21. Carenzi C., Verga M. (2009). Animal Welfare: review of the scientific concept and definition. Italian Journal of Animal Science, 8(1 Suppl.): 21-30.
  22. Cenci Goga B.T., Fermani A.G. (2010). La macellazione religiosa: protezione degli animali e produzione igienica delle carni. Milano: Point Veterinaire Italie.
  23. Censis (2016). Gli italiani a tavola: cosa sta cambiando. Rapporto finale, Roma.
  24. Chang T.F.M., Iseppi L. (2011), Specialization versus Diversification in EU Economies: a Challenge for Agro-food? Transition Studies Review, 18(1): 16-37.
  25. Chang T.F.M., Droli M., Iseppi L. (2014). Does Smart Agriculture Go Downstream in the Supply Chain? Italian Journal of Food Science, 26(4): 451-457.
  26. Chang T.F.M., Iseppi L., Droli M. (2015). Extracore production and capabilities: where is the Food Industry going? International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 18(1): 105-126, February.
  27. EC (2007). Attitudes of EU citizens towards animal welfare. Special EUROBA-ROMETER 270.
  28. Evans A., Miele M. (eds.) (2007). Consumers’ views about farm animal welfare. Part I: National Reports based on Focus Group Research. Welfare Quality Re-port Series No. 4.
  29. FAO (2013a). Edible Insects. Future Prospects for Food and Feed Security. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
  30. FAO (2013b). Tackling Climate Change through Livestock. A global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
  31. Glennie P.D., Thrift N.J. (1995). ‘Consumers, identities, and consumption spaces in earlymodern England’, Environment and Planning A, 28: 25-45.
  32. Guilford J.P. (1936). Psychometric methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  33. Guttman L. (1950). The basis for scalogram analysis. In: Stouffer et al. (Eds.). Measurement and prediction. New York: Wiley.
  34. Harrison R., Newholm T., Shaw D. (2005). The ethical consumer. London: Sage.
  35. Hermes J. (1993). Media, meaning and everyday life. Cultural Studies, 7: 493-506.
  36. ISMEA (2017). Consumi alimentari domestici delle famiglie italiane - Periodo gennaio-dicembre 2016. Roma.
  37. Karabatsos G. (1999a). Rasch vs. two- and three-parameter logistic models from the perspective of conjoint measurement theory. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association. Montreal, Canada.
  38. Karabatsos G. (1999b). Axiomatic measurement theory as a basis for model selection in itemresponse theory. Paper presented at the 32th Annual Conference for the Society for Mathematical Psychology. Santa Cruz, CA.
  39. Karabatsos G. (2000). A critique of Rasch residual fit statistics. Journal of Applied Measurement, 1(2): 152-176.
  40. Linacre J.M. (2009). Local Independence and Residual Covariance: A Study of Olympic Figure Skating Ratings. Journal of Applied Measurement, 10(2).
  41. Luce R.D., Tukey J.W. (1964). Simultaneous conjoint measurement: A new type of fundamental measurement. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, J: 1-27.
  42. Miller D., Jackson P., Thrift N., Holbrook B., Rowlands M. (1998). Shopping, Place and Identity. London: Routledge.
  43. Perline R., Wright B.D., Wainer H. (1979). The Rasch model as additive conjoint measurement. Applied Psychological Measurement, 3: 237-256.
  44. Piccinini L.C., Lepellere M.A., Chang T.F.M., Iseppi L. (2014). Partitioned frames in discrete Bak Sneppen models. Italian Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, 33: 461-488.
  45. Piccinini L.C., Lepellere M.A., Chang T.F.M., Iseppi L. (2016). Structured Knowledge in the Frame of Bak-Sneppen Models. Italian Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, 36: 703-718.

Enrico Gori, Ting Fa Margherita Chang, Luca Iseppi, Beniamino Cenci Goga, Maria Francesca Iulietto, Paola Sechi, Maria Antonietta Lepellere, in "RIVISTA DI STUDI SULLA SOSTENIBILITA'" 1/2017, pp. 107-127, DOI:10.3280/RISS2017-001008

   

FrancoAngeli is a member of Publishers International Linking Association a not for profit orgasnization wich runs the CrossRef service, enabing links to and from online scholarly content