Quality & Quantity

, Volume 49, Issue 3, pp 1267–1286 | Cite as

Assessment of the cross-national validity of an End-anchored 9-point hedonic product liking scale

  • Alain De Beuckelaer
  • Machiel Zeeman
  • Hans Van Trijp


An end-anchored 9-point hedonic product liking (PL) scale is an easy-to-apply instrument to examine consumers’ PL. Because 9-point hedonic PL scales are also popular in cross-national research, strong demands are put on its cross-national equivalence, that is, the absence of cross-national scoring bias. The present study provides a procedure to identify the presence of cross-national scoring bias in the use of the end-anchored 9-point hedonic PL scale or any other rating scale to measure PL. The procedure is illustrated on experimental (illustrative) data from students in four European nations (i.e., Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, and Spain). It explores cross-national equivalence in terms of (1) mean PL scores, (2) variation in PL scores, and (3) the impact of cross-cultural scoring bias in statistical inference making. Data analyses revealed that cross-national scoring bias only affected the variability in participants’ PL scores, but not the level of their PL scores. However, cross-national scoring bias in variation in PL scores did exert a substantial influence on a statistical inference making of mean PL scores. In sum, this study (1) provides preliminary evidence that cross-national scoring bias may seriously hamper the validity of cross-national comparisons of PL scores; and (2) offers a new methodology allowing food researchers to assess the extent to which the amount of cross-national scoring bias in their PL data will result in invalid cross-national comparisons.


Product liking Cross-national (cross-cultural)measurement validity/bias Cross-national scoring bias End-anchored 9-point hedonic product liking scale 



The authors thank Lisa Trierweiler for the English proofreading of this paper.


  1. Cheung, G.W., Rensvold, R.B.: Assessing extreme and acquiescence response sets in cross-cultural research using structural equations modeling. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 31, 187–212 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cordonnier, S.M., Delwiche, J.F.: An alternative method for assessing liking: positional relative rating versus the 9-point hedonic scale. J. Sens. Stud. 23, 284–292 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cox, D.N., Clark, M.R., Mialon, V.S.: A cross-cultural methodological study of the uses of two common hedonic response scales. Food Qual. Prefer. 12, 119–131 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Davidov, E., De Beuckelaer, A.: How harmful are survey translations? A test with Schwartz’s human values instrument. Int. J. Public Opin. Res. 22, 485–510 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. De Beuckelaer, A.: A closer examination on some parametric alternatives to the ANOVA F-test. Stat. Pap. 37, 291–305 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. De Beuckelaer, A., Kampen, J.K., Van Trijp, J.C.M.: An empirical assessment of the cross-national measurement validity of graded paired comparisons. Qual. Quant. 47, 1063–1076 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Jong, M.G., Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M., Fox, J.-P., Baumgartner, H.: Using item response theory to measure extreme response style in marketing research: a global investigation. J. Mark. Res. 45, 104–115 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De Maeyer, S., Coertjens, L., Ardies, J.: Bivariate en Multivariate Statistiek met R. Een Open Leerpakket. [Bivariate and Multivariate Statistics with R: An Open Learning Package]. Academia Press, Ghent, Belgium (2012)Google Scholar
  9. De Mooij, M.: The future is predictable for international marketers: converging incomes lead to diverging consumer behavior. Int. Mark. Rev. 17, 103–113 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Druz, L.L., Baldwin, R.E.: Taste thresholds and hedonic responses of panels representing three nationalities. J. Food Sci. 47, 561–563 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Harzing, A.: Response styles in cross-national survey research: a 26-country study. Int. J. Cross Cult. Manag. 6, 243–266 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ingenbleek, P.T.M., Tessema, W.K., Van Trijp, H.C.M.: Conducting field research in subsistence markets, with an application to market orientation in the context of Ethiopian pastoralists. Int. J. Res. Mark. 30, 83–97 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jaeger, S.R., Cardello, A.V.: Direct and indirect hedonic scaling methods: a comparison of the labeled affective magnitude (LAM) scale and best-worst scaling. Food Qual. Prefer. 20, 249–258 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Johnson, T., Kulesa, P., Cho, Y.I., Shavitt, S.: The relation between culture and response styles: evidence from 19 countries. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 36, 264–277 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kreft, I., De Leeuw, J.: Introducing Multilevel Modeling. Sage, London (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lawness, H.T., Malone, G.J.: The discriminative efficiency of common scaling methods. J. Sens. Stud. 1, 85–98 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lawness, H.T., Popper, R., Kroll, B.J.: A comparison of the labeled magnitude (LAM) scale, an 11-point category scale and the traditional 9-point hedonic scale. Food Qual. Prefer. 21, 2–12 (2010)Google Scholar
  18. Muthén, L.K., Muthén, B.O.: Mplus User’s Guide, 6th edn. Muthén Muthén, Los Angeles (1998–2010)Google Scholar
  19. Nicolas, L., Marquilly, C., O’Mahony, M.: The 9-point hedonic scale: are words and numbers compatible? Food Qual. Prefer. 21, 1008–1015 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. O’Donnell, S., Jeong, I.: Marketing standardization within global industries: an empirical study of performance implications. Int. Mark. Rev. 17, 19–33 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Peryam, D.R., Pilgrim, F.J.: Hedonic scale method of measuring food preferences. Food Technol. 11, 9–14 (1957)Google Scholar
  22. Prescott, J., Bell, G.A.: Cross-cultural determinants of food acceptability: recent research on sensory perceptions and preferences. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 6, 201–205 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Prescott, J., Bell, G.A., Gillmore, R., Yoshida, M., O’Sullivan, M., Korac, S., Allen, S., Yamazaki, K.: Cross-cultural comparisons of Japanese and Australian responses to manipulations of sweetness in foods. Food Qual. Prefer. 8, 45–55 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Reynolds, N.L., Simintiras, A.C., Diamantopoulos, A.: Theoretical justification of sampling choices in international marketing research: key issues and guidelines for researchers. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 34, 80–89 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Samiee, S., Roth, K.: The influence of global marketing standardization on performance. J. Mark. 56, 1–17 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Smith, P.B.: Acquiescence response bias as an aspect of cultural communication style. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 35, 50–61 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Suknark, K., McWatters, K.H., Phillips, R.D.: Acceptance by American and Asian consumers of extruded fish and peanut snack products. J. Food Sci. 63, 721–725 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Van De Vijver, F.J.R., Leung, K.: Methods and Data Analysis for Cross-Cultural Research. Sage, London (1997)Google Scholar
  29. Van Herk, H., Poortinga, Y.H., Verhallen, T.M.M.: Response styles in rating scales: evidence of method bias in data from six EU countries. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 35, 346–360 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Yao, E., Lim, J., Tamaki, K., Ishii, R., Kim, K.O., O’Mahony, M.: Structured and unstructured 9-point hedonic scales: a cross cultural study with American, Japanese, and Korean consumers. J. Sens. Stud. 18, 115–139 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Yeh, L.L., Kim, K.O., Chompreeda, P., Rimkeeree, H., Yau, N.J.N., Lundahl, D.S.: Comparison in use of the 9-point hedonic scale between Americans, Chinese, Koreans, and Thai. Food Qual. Prefer. 9, 413–419 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alain De Beuckelaer
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Machiel Zeeman
    • 1
  • Hans Van Trijp
    • 5
  1. 1.Institute for Management ResearchRadboud University NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Personnel ManagementWork and Organizational PsychologyGhent UniversityBelgium
  3. 3.Centre for Social TheoryGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  4. 4.School of Sociology and Population StudiesRenmin University of ChinaBeijingP.R. China
  5. 5.Marketing and Consumer Behavior GroupWageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations