Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T04:09:20.339Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact of personal values and personality on motivational factors for farmers to work with farm animal welfare: a case of Swedish dairy farmers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

H Hansson ,
CJ Lagerkvist  and
KM Vesala
H Hansson
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, PO Box 7013, SE-75007, Uppsala, Sweden Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
CJ Lagerkvist
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, PO Box 7013, SE-75007, Uppsala, Sweden
KM Vesala
Affiliation:
Department of Social Research, PO Box 54, 00014, University of Helsinki, Finland
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In this study, we sought to explain why dairy farmers give importance to various use and non-use values of animal welfare. In particular, we examined how the farmers could be segmented according to the relative importance they give to various use and non-use values in animal welfare and whether this segmentation could be explained by farmers’ personal values and personality traits. Based on a latent class analysis using best-worst scaling data on 123 Swedish dairy farmers, three segments of farmers were found: animalcentred, human-centred and business-orientated. These groups were related to measures of farmers’ personal values and personality traits in a point-biserial correlation and a hierarchal multinomial logistic regression analysis. The results suggest that the segmentation is related to personal values, but not to personality traits. This finding is important from a policy perspective, because the existence of different segments of farmers who are motivated by different values in animal welfare indicates a need to approach different farmers in different ways if policy is to succeed in improving animal welfare. It also indicates a possibility to influence the segments to improve animal welfare by measures that are sensitive to value dynamics of the farmers.

Keywords

animal welfarebest-worst scalingnon-use valuespersonal valuespersonality traitsuse values
Type
Articles
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , May 2018 , pp. 133 - 145
Copyright
© 2018 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Alphonce, R, Alfnes, F and Sharma, A 2014 Consumer vs cit-izen willingness to pay for restaurant food safety. Food Policy 49: 160–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.06.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amodio, DM, Master, SL, Yee, CM and Taylor, SE 2008 Neurocognitive components of the behavioral inhibition and acti-vation systems: Implications for theories of self-regulation. Psychophysiology 45: 11–19Google Scholar
Atkinson, JW and Birch, D 1970 The Dynamics of Action. John Wiley: Oxford, UKGoogle ScholarPubMed
Banuri, S and Keefer, P 2016 Pro-social motivation, effort and the call to public service. European Economic Review 83: 139–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2015.10.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardi, A and Schwartz, SH 2003 Values and behavior: Strength and structure of relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 29: 1207–1219. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203254602CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bateman, I, Carson, R, Dupont, D, Day, B, Louviere, JJ, Morimoto, S, Scarpa, R and Wang, P 2008 Choice set awareness and ordering effects in choice experiments. 16th Annual Conference of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economics (EAERE). 25-28 June 2008, Gothenburg, SwedenGoogle Scholar
Berkeley Personality Lab 2009 Scoring instructions. https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~johnlab/pdfs/BFI-Scoring.docGoogle Scholar
Bock, BB, Prutzer, M, Kling Eveillard, F and Dockes, A 2007 Farmers’ relationship with different animals: The importance of getting close to the animals. Case studies of French, Swedish and Dutch cattle, pig and poultry farmers. International Journal of Sociology of Food and Agriculture 15: 108–125Google Scholar
Bozdogan, H 1987 Model selection and Akaike's Information Criterion (AIC): The general theory and its analytical extensions. Psychometrica 52: 345–370. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandstätter, H 2011 Personality aspects of entrepreneurship: A look at five meta-analyses. Personality and Individual Differences 51: 222–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.07.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caprara, GV, Schwartz, S, Capanna, C, Vecchione, M and Barbaranelli, C 2006 Personality and politics: Values, traits, and political choice. Political Psychology 27: 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2006.00447.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlsson, F, Mørkbak, MR and Olsen, SB 2012 The first time is the hardest: A test of ordering effects in choice experiments. Journal of Choice Modelling 5: 19–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1755-5345(13)70051-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carver, CS and White, TL 1994 Behavioral inhibition, behav-ioural activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: the BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67: 319–333. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.2.319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, SH 2003 Maximum difference scaling: Improved measures of importance and preference for segmentation. http://www.sawtoothsoft-ware.comGoogle Scholar
Cross, P, Rigby, D and Edward-Jones, G 2012 Eliciting expert opinion on the effectiveness and practicality of interventions in the farm and rural environment to reduce human exposure to Escherichia coli O157. Epidemiology and Infection 140: 643–654. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268811001257CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dockès, AC and Kling-Eveillard, F 2006 Farmers’ and advisers’ representations of animals and animal welfare. Livestock Science 103: 43–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2006.05.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D'silva, J 2009 Modern farming practices and animal welfare. In: Gunnings, J, Holm, S and Kenway, I (eds) Ethics, Law and Society, Volume IV pp 7–18. Ashgate: UKGoogle Scholar
Eisenberg, D, Golberstein, E and Whitlock, JL 2014 Peer effects on risky behaviors: New evidence from college roommate assignments. Journal of Health Economics 33: 126–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2013.11.006CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Erdem, S, Rigby, D and Wossink, A 2012 Using best-worst scaling to explore perceptions of relative responsibility for ensuring food safety. Food Policy 37: 661–670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.07.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Commission 2002 Farm animal welfare. Current research and future directions. European Commission: Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
Evans, A and Miele, M 2008 Views about Farm Animal Welfare. Part II: European Comparative Report Based on Focus Group Research. Welfare Quality Reports no 5. School of City and Regional Planning, Cardiff University, UKGoogle Scholar
Fayolle, A, Liñán, F and Moriano, JA 2014 Beyond entrepre-neurial intentions: values and motivations in entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 10: 679–689. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-014-0306-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finn, A and Louviere, JJ 1992 Determining the appropriate response to evidence of public concern: the case of food safety. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 11: 12–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, AM 1993 Non-use values in natural resource damage assessment. In: Kopp, RJ and Smith, VK (eds) Valuing Natural Assets. The Economics of Natural Resource Damage Assessment pp 264–306. Resources for the Future: Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Gollwitzer, P and Bargh, J 1996 The Psychology of Action: Linking Cognition and Motivation to Behavior. Guilford Press: New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
Goodman, LA 1974 Exploratory latent structure analysis using both identifiable and unidentifiable models. Biometrika 61: 215–231. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/61.2.215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, H and Lagerkvist, CJ 2014 Defining and measuring farmers’ attitudes to farm animal welfare. Animal Welfare 23: 47–56. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.23.1.047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, H and Lagerkvist, CJ 2015 Identifying use and non-use values of animal welfare: Evidence from Swedish dairy agriculture. Food Policy 50: 35–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.food-pol.2014.10.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, H and Lagerkvist, CJ 2016 Dairy farmers’ use and non-use values in animal welfare: Determining the empirical con-tent and structure with anchored best-worst scaling. Journal of Dairy Science 99: 579–592. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-9755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hess, S, Hensher, D and Daly, AJ 2012 Not bored yet – revis-iting respondent fatigue in stated choice experiments. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 46: 626–644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2011.11.008Google Scholar
Hubbard, C, Bourlakis, M and Garrod, G 2006 Farmers’ perceptions of animal welfare across the UK farm assurance schemes. The rural citizen: Governance, culture and wellbeing in the 21st century. University of Plymouth, UKGoogle Scholar
Hubbard, C, Bourlakis, M and Garrod, G 2007 Pig in the mid-dle: farmers and the delivery of farm animal welfare standards. British Food Journal 11: 919–930. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700710835723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingenbleek, PTM and Immink, VM 2011 Consumer decision-making for animal-friendly products: synthesis and implications. Animal Welfare 20: 11–19Google Scholar
Ingenbleek, PTM, Immink, VM, Spoolder, HAM, Bokma, MH and Keeling, L 2012 EU animal welfare policy: Developing a comprehensive policy framework. Food Policy 37: 690–699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.07.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
John, OP, Donahue, EM and Kentle, RL 1991 The Big Five Inventory, Versions 4a and 54. Institute of Personality and Social Research, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
John, OP, Naumann, LP and Soto, CJ 2008 Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In: John, OP, Robins, RW and Pervin, LA (eds) Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research pp 114–158. Guilford Press: New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
Johnson, R and Orme, B 1996 How many questions should you ask in choice-based conjoint studies? American Marketing Association Advanced Research Forum, Beaver Creek, CO, USAGoogle Scholar
Kauppinen, T, Vainio, A, Valros, A, Rita, H and Vesala, KM 2010 Improving animal welfare: qualitative and quantitative methodology in the study of farmers’ attitudes. Animal Welfare 19: 523–536Google Scholar
Kielland, C, Skjerve, E, Osterås, O and Zanella, AJ 2010 Dairy farmer attitudes and empathy toward animals are associat-ed with animal welfare indicators. Journal of Dairy Science 93: 2998–3006. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2009-2899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kopetz, CE, Kruglanski, AW, Arens, ZG, Etkin, J and Johnson, HM 2012 The dynamics of consumer behavior: A goal systemic perspective. Journal of Consumer Psychology 22: 208–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.03.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kotey, B and Meredith, GG 1997 Relationships among owner/manager personal values, business strategies, and enter-prise performance. Journal of Small Business Management 35: 37–64Google Scholar
Krystallis, A, Dutra de Barcellos, M, Kügler, JO, Verbeke, W and Grunert K, G 2009 Attitudes of European citizens towards pig production systems. Livestock Science 126: 46–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2009.05.016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lagerkvist, CJ 2013 Consumer preferences for food labelling attributes: Comparing direct ranking and best-worst scaling for measurement of attribute importance, preference intensity and attribute dominance. Food Quality and Preference 29: 77–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.02.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lagerkvist, CJ, Hansson, H, Hess, S and Hoffman, R 2011 Provision of farm animal welfare: Integrating productivity and non-use values. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 33: 484–509. https://doi.org/10.1093/aepp/ppr037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazarsfeld, PF 1950 The logical and mathematical foundation of latent structure analysis. Measurement and Prediction 4: 362–412Google Scholar
Leutner, F, Ahmetoglu, G, Akhtar, R and Chamorro-Premuzic, T 2014 The relationship between the entrepreneurial personality and the Big Five personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences 63:58–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Louviere, JJ, Islam, T, Wasi, N, Street, D and Burgess, L 2008 Designing discrete choice experiments: Do optimal design come at a price? Journal of Consumer Research 35: 360–375. https://doi.org/10.1086/586913CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lusk, JL and Briggman, BC 2009 Food values. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 91: 184–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8276.2008.01175.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lusk, JL, Norwood, FB and Pricket, RW 2007 Consumer Preferences for Farm Animal Welfare: Results of a Nationwide Telephone Survey. Working Paper, Department of Agricultural Economics, Oklahoma State University, USAGoogle Scholar
Marley, AAJ and Louviere, JJ 2005 Some probabilistic models of best, worst, and best-worst choices. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 49: 464–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2005.05.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFadden, D 1974 Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In: Zarembka, P (ed) Frontiers in Econometrics pp 105–142. Academic Press: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
McInerney, J 2004 Animal Welfare, Economics and Policy. Farm & Animal Health Economics Division of Defra, Exeter, UKGoogle Scholar
Olver, JM and Mooradian, TA 2003 Personality traits and per-sonal values: A conceptual and empirical integration. Personality and Individual Differences 35: 109–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00145-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orme, B 2005 Accuracy of HB estimation in maxdiff experiments. http://www.sawtoothsoftware.comGoogle Scholar
Parks, L and Gauy, RP 2009 Personality, values, and motivation. Personality and Individual Differences 47: 675–684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.06.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parks-Leduc, L, Feldman, G and Bradi, A 2015 Personality traits and personal values: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review 19: 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314538548CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roccas, S, Sagiv, L, Schwartz, S and Knafo, A 2002 The Big Five personality factors and personal values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28: 789–801. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202289008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohan, MJ 2000 A rose by any name? The values construct. Personality and Social Psychology Review 4: 255–277. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0403_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sándor, Z and Wedel, M 2005 Heterogeneous conjoint choice designs. Journal of Marketing Research 42: 210–218. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.42.2.210.62285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schreiner, MSJA 2016 Empirical analysis of process quality aspects in the German agri-food sector. Doctoral dissertation, Christian-Albrechts Universität Kiel, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, SH 1992 Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and empirical tests in 20 countries. In: Zanna M (ed) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Volume 25 pp 1–65. Academic Press: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, SH 2009 Draft Users Manual: Proper Use of the Schwarz Value Survey, version 14 January 2009. Centre for Cross Cultural Comparisons, Auckland, New Zealand. http://www.crosscultural-centre.homestead.comGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, SH 2011 An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Oneline Readings in Psychology and Culture 2: 11Google Scholar
Sell, A, Mezei, J and Walden, P 2014 An attitude-based latent class segmentation analysis of mobile phone users. Telematics and Informatics 31: 209–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2013.08.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheeran, P and Orbell, S 1999 Augmenting the Theory of Planned Behaviour: roles of anticipated regret and descriptive norms. Journal of Applied Psychology 29: 2107–2142Google Scholar
Soto, CJ, John, OP, Gosling, SD and Potter, J 2011 Age dif-ferences in personality traits from 10 to 65: Big Five domains and facets in large cross-sectional sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 100: 330–348. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistics Sweden 2013 Jordbruksstatistisk årsbok 2013. Statistics Sweden: Örebro, SwedenGoogle Scholar
Thomson, DMH and Crocker, C 2015 Application of conceptual profiling in brand, packaging and product development. Food Quality and Preference 40: 343–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.04.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thurstone, LL 1927 A law of comparative judgement. Psychological Review 34: 273–286. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0070288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanhonacker, F, Verbeke, W, Van Poucke, E and Tuyttens, FAM 2008 Do citizens and farmers interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently? Livestock Science 116: 126–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2007.09.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vecchione, M, Alessandri, G, Barbaranelli, C and Caprara, G 2011 Higher-order factors of the big five and basic values: Empirical and theoretical relations. British Journal of Psychology 102:478–498. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.2010.02006.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vermunt, JK and Madgison, J 2005 Technical Guide for Latent Gold Choice 4.0: Basic and Advanced. Statistical Innovations Inc: Belmont, USAGoogle Scholar
Vermunt, JK and Madgison, J 2014 Upgrade Manual for Latent Gold Choice 5.0: Basic, Advanced and Syntax. Statistical Innovations Inc: Belmont, Massachusetts, USAGoogle Scholar
Zhao, H and Seibert, SE 2006 The Big Five personality dimensions and entrepreneurial status: A meta-analytical review. Journal of Applied Psychology 91: 259–271. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.2.259CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhao, H, Seibert, SE and Lumpkin, GT 2010 The relationship of personality to entrepreneurial intentions and performance: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Management 36: 381–404. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309335187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Hansson et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 94.1 KB