Next Article in Journal
Urban Guidelines and Strategic Plan for a UNESCO World Heritage Candidate Site: The Historical Centre of Sharjah (UAE)
Previous Article in Journal
Impact of Pay Gap on Innovation Performance: The Moderating Role of Top Management Team Diversity
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Effect of Information Provision and Color Coding in Product Labeling on the Preference for Meat Substitutes
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 17
10.3390/su16177460
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Conjoint Analysis Study to Examine Consumer’s Preferences for Hybrid Yogurt

by
Likhitha Marlapati
,
Amanda J. Kinchla
and
Alissa A. Nolden
*
Department of Food Science, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA 01003, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(17), 7460; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177460
Submission received: 29 July 2024 / Revised: 15 August 2024 / Accepted: 22 August 2024 / Published: 29 August 2024
(This article belongs to the Collection Food Choice and Consumer Preferences)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Plant-based alternatives have a lower environmental impact than animal-derived proteins, but many consumers hesitate to try them. An alternative strategy is partially substituting animal proteins with plant proteins, creating hybrid products with improved characteristics. This study investigates consumer perception of hybrid yogurt using choice-based conjoint analysis (CBC) with five attributes: protein source, protein content, flavor, price, and claims. Results showed protein source was the most significant factor (27.5%), followed by protein content (22.4%), flavor (20.3%), price (16.5%), and claims (13.3%). Dairy and hybrid yogurts had positive utility scores, while plant-based yogurt had a negative score, indicating a preference for dairy and hybrid options.

1. Introduction

Plant-based alternatives are considered environmentally sustainable due to their lower environmental impact than animal-derived proteins [1]. The benefit of these products is achieved through the reduced consumption of animal products, as greenhouse gases produced from the agricultural system are currently estimated to be 30% of all greenhouse gas emissions [2]. Modern plant-based alternatives are formulated to mimic the sensory profile of conventional animal products; however, many consumers are reluctant to try these alternatives. According to the International Food Information Council, it is estimated that in 2022, 43% of adult consumers in the U.S. have yet to try an alternative plant-based product [3]. Of the plant-based categories, plant-based milk ranks the highest in total sales, reaching $2.9 B in 2023 [4]. In contrast, plant-based yogurt is estimated to be $384 M [5], suggesting there are opportunities to improve the sustainable alternatives for dairy yogurt.
Further, these products have been criticized for targeting vegan and vegetarian consumers, who make up a narrow group of consumers, accounting for 1% and 4%, respectively, in the United States [6]. Yet, a sustainable diet is not the removal of animals from the diet but a reduction in their consumption. Therefore, an alternative approach is needed to overcome these significant challenges in adopting a more sustainable food consumption pattern. Identifying pathways that make plant-based eating more accessible and appealing to more consumers [7] is critical for supporting a reduction in animal consumption to achieve a more sustainable diet.
A potential alternative strategy to creating a more sustainable food system is through partially replacing animal proteins with plant proteins. Partial replacement is proposed to provide a better sensory and nutritional composition and a more cost-effective strategy to attract consumers reluctant to consume plant-based alternatives. Studies examining the sensory properties of hybrid food products (meat and dairy) suggest improved acceptance compared to plant-based versions [8,9,10,11,12,13,14]. These data suggest that partial replacement may improve the taste, flavor, and texture, providing advantages over plant-based products. Hu and colleagues [14] suggest this strategy in dairy applications can provide a better sensory profile and functional characteristics than plant-protein alternatives while reducing animal protein consumption. Specific to the yogurt category, hybrid yogurts have been shown to have sensory characteristics more similar to dairy yogurt and perform better than existing plant-based products [12]. In one study, a blend of 75% dairy and 25% oat yogurt resulted in no significant difference in liking compared to 100% dairy yogurt [12], demonstrating the advantages of hybrid yogurt. This is promising, as taste and texture complaints are cited as the top reasons for not repurchasing plant-based foods [3], and many commercially available yogurt products are different in terms of the sensory properties of dairy yogurt [15,16,17]. It is essential to mention that the term yogurt will be used throughout, referring to dairy, plant-based, and hybrid products. While terms used for conventional dairy products (milk, butter, yogurt) are often deemed unsuitable for products not prepared with dairy, there needs to be more information on appropriate labeling for hybrid dairy products.
A blend of dairy and plant-based provides advantages in terms of functional properties, nutritional composition, and sensory experience, performing better than plant-based. Hybrid yogurt consisting of dairy with partially substituting milk proteins with plant-proteins almond [18] and soy [19] have been evaluated for a variety of properties that are known to influence quality, such as fermentation profile, physical-chemical characteristics, lactic acid bacteria, syneresis, water retention capacity, pH, firmness, and cohesiveness. These studies demonstrate that partial replacement can produce desirable features like dairy yogurt [12,18,19]. Nutritionally, hybrid yogurt may provide a nutritional composition that is more similar to that of dairy. This would provide advantages over plant-based yogurts, as currently, commercial products provide a distinct nutritional composition compared to dairy yogurts [20,21]. Plant-based yogurts have failed to mimic textural properties (e.g., [22]), likely due to the missing dairy casein micelles and fat globules necessary to form a stable gel structure that gives the desirable texture and mouthfeel properties. As a result, plant-based yogurts require stabilizers to mimic these properties, which consumers have viewed negatively [23]. This suggests the possibility of producing a yogurt product that maintains desirable attributes and nutritional composition while reducing the inclusion of undesirable ingredients and providing a more sustainable product.
There has been a growing emphasis on understanding consumer motivations regarding food choices, as this aids in tailoring products to appeal to consumers’ specific needs and desires (e.g., [24,25] and in the context of sustainability [26]. Initial research investigating consumers’ perceptions and barriers to adopting plant-based foods identified demographic characteristics, including age, sex, and education, as top factors associated with consumption and liking [17,27,28,29,30,31,32,33]. In addition to this work, recent studies have provided strong evidence that personal values and traits explain additional variation in adopting or accepting plant-based foods [17,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35]. For example, whether consumers think it is socially acceptable to consume plant-based foods has been associated with selecting and consuming them [27,28,32,33]. Another commonly cited personality trait with reduced consumption of plant-based foods is food neophobia, or the fear of trying new foods [34]. Most evidence has been based on plant-based meat, with fewer studies focusing on plant-based dairy. However, a recent study by Jaeger and colleagues identified that consumer values and attitudes, specifically food neophobia and attitudes toward animal welfare, were associated with purchase intention for plant-based yogurts [35]. Therefore, we hypothesize that hybrid foods may have the additional advantage of being more socially acceptable and not considered a novel food product, as they may be perceived to be more like conventional animal products. It has yet to be fully explored how hybrid products compare to plant-based and dairy yogurts, also considering how product features, consumer values, and attitudes influence selection.
Therefore, the present study aims to investigate consumer perception of hybrid yogurt and identify the main factors influencing yogurt selection. The study employed a choice-based conjoint analysis (CBC), which provides insights into the product factors driving product selection decisions. This approach has provided important new insights regarding consumer preferences and purchase intention for plant-based alternatives such as hotdogs and milk [36,37,38]. This approach allows for investigating how product attributes, such as protein source, protein content, package claim, flavor, and price, influence consumer selection. In addition, product selection was further investigated based on consumer attitudes and values, specifically, food neophobia, sustainability attitudes, and consumer values, which have been previously associated with consumer preferences for various sustainable and alternative food products [26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35]. The results of this study provide the opportunity to examine consumers’ selection of yogurt products precisely to determine if hybrid yogurt has an advantage that can help increase interest in selecting more sustainable options.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Recruitment and Participants

The study was conducted on 24 October 2022. Participants were recruited through an online platform. The online platform Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk), a crowdsourcing marketplace where requesters post tasks and workers choose which to complete for a requester-determined fee, was used to find study participants. MTurk was selected due to proof that participants tend to be more demographically diverse, realistic compensation rates have no impact on the quality of the data, and the results are at least as trustworthy as results from conventional techniques [39]. The research examined “Factors influencing a consumer’s preferences for Plant-Based Yogurt” in a brief recruitment notice sent to participants in the United States. It also included a link to the Sawtooth website hosting the survey. After initial interest in participating in the study, interested individuals completed a brief questionnaire to ensure eligibility criteria were met and provided consent before continuing the research study survey. Interested individuals were eligible to participate if they were between 18 and 65, residing in the United States, and consuming yogurt. Participants were given a unique code at the end of the survey, which they could use to redeem compensation through MTurk. The University of Massachusetts, Amherst (Amherst, MA, USA) Institutional Review Board for Human Subjects approved all research procedures.

2.2. Study Questionnaires

2.2.1. Food Neophobia Questionnaire

Food neophobia (FN), or a reluctance to eat and avoidance of novel foods, has been repeatedly reported as an essential person-related factor explaining unwillingness to adopt a plant-based diet or try alternative products [40]. FN is a mindset developed by consumers to defend themselves from unreliable food, and it could prevent someone from trying new or unfamiliar foods. A recent study reported that FN was significantly associated with the purchasing intent of plant-based yogurt [35] and is included in the present study to further examine the relationship compared to hybrid yogurt. The degree of food neophobia was evaluated using a ten-item questionnaire (see Supplementary Materials Table S1) [40]. Participants report how much they agree or disagree with each statement using a fully labeled 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 5 = “strongly agree.” The FN questionnaire contained reverse-scored statements. The sum of all the items of the food neophobia questionnaire was calculated, with a higher score indicating higher food neophobia (i.e., greater fear of trying new foods).

2.2.2. Attitudes and Values

Consumer attitudes and values were evaluated through questionnaires (see Supplementary Materials Table S2) (see [41]). Questions about healthfulness (“Which is healthier, dairy or plant-based foods?”) and environmental friendliness (“Which is better for the environment, production of dairy products or plant-based foods?”) were participants could select “Definitely dairy”, “Probably dairy”, “Both equally”, “Probably plant-based”, and “Definitely plant-based” better to understand consumer attitudes toward plant-based and dairy yogurts.
Consumers’ values towards social norms, health, moral satisfaction, and sustainability were estimated through several questionnaires. These questionnaires were based on previous studies reporting that these person-related factors are associated with relationships with plant-based foods [32,33,34,42,43]. Participants indicated their agreement or disagreement on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 5 = “strongly agree”. See supplemental data for the complete questionnaire.

2.3. Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis

The survey was hosted online by Sawtooth Software (SSI Web Version 9.14.9, Sequim, WA, USA). Conjoint Analysis (CA) is a multivariate method to model consumers’ buying decisions and evaluate consumer trade-offs. The present study employed a choice-based conjoint analysis (CBC) survey design based on recently published studies [36,37,38,44,45,46]. CBC was chosen because it parallels consumer behavior and is comparable to what people do in stores and online. Participants are provided with a variety of sequential choice scenarios that vary in pre-determined attributes presented at selected levels. According to prior studies, consumers experience choice fatigue when given a large number of product profiles to choose from [45]. The present study adopted the orthogonal arrangement technique to reduce the number of combination profiles to lighten the participant’s burden, moderately reduce the implementation difficulty, and enhance the response accuracy of the survey [45]. The number of times each level appears is almost equal, and levels from other attributes also show alongside one another almost equally frequently (Figure 1). This results in a balanced (orthogonal) experiment where each attribute level’s utility value (a quantitative value associated with preference) can be evaluated separately.
The present research study aims to investigate the consumer’s preference for a single serving (5.3 oz/150 g) of yogurts prepared using three different protein sources: (i) dairy, (ii) oat-based, and (iii) a blend of each protein source (50/50 blend of dairy and oat). The study selected oat yogurt based on its high NRF score and allergen-friendly nature [20]. Prior research on the overall preference for blended yogurts indicated that the combination of oat and dairy yogurt was preferred more than oat yogurt alone [12]. The study is designed to uncover consumers’ preferences for these yogurts while considering important product attributes: protein content, package claim, flavor, and price (see Table 1). These attributes were selected based on previous research [20,46,47,48,49] and commercially available single-serve yogurt and plant-based yogurt products available in the United States. Each attribute included three levels, as shown in Table 1.

2.4. Data Analysis

Data was collected using SSI Web (Sawtooth Software Version 9.14.9, Sequim, WA, USA) software. All data analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 29.0.1.0). Mean values were calculated, and standard deviation (±SD) values were reported. The relative importance of product factors such as protein source, protein content, flavor, price, and package claims for selecting different hypothetical yogurt products was determined using the Hierarchical Bayesian Model (e.g., [50]) through the Sawtooth Lighthouse software package (https://sawtoothsoftware.com/lighthouse-studio, Provo, UT, USA, accessed on 29 January 2024). The preference for each level under the different labels was expressed in terms of zero-centered part-worth utilities [51]. For person-related values, the average scores were calculated for food neophobia, health values, social norms, moral satisfaction, and sustainability values, following the recommendation of prior literature examining these parameters [38,52]. A multiple-stepwise linear regression was conducted to identify the factors contributing to the selection of yogurt products. Separate analyses were conducted to examine the product-related and consumer values driving the selection of products. This analytical approach follows prior studies [33,48,49].

3. Results

3.1. Participant Characteristics

A total of 819 participants completed the survey, with 440 males (53.7%) and 379 females (46.2%). Participant characteristics and demographics are reported in Table 2. The average age was 37.6 ± 10.3 years old, with no difference in age between males and females (37.3 ± 10.4 and 37.9 ± 10.3), respectively. A bachelor’s degree was the most common educational attainment among participants (56.8%), followed by a high school diploma (16.9%), a graduate degree (16%), and an associate degree (9.8%), with 3 reporting no formal education (0.3%). Most participants (90.9%) reported being employed, while 45 (5.5%) were unemployed, 10 (1.2%) were students, and the other 20 (2.4%) reported other employment status. Participants reported living in urban (45.4%), followed by suburban (34.8%), rural (18.2%), and remote (1.5%) regions, with one person reporting they were uncertain of their area of residence.

3.2. Individual Importance

3.2.1. Product Attributes and Individual Importance

A choice-based conjoint (CBC) analysis determined the product attributes influencing the yogurt selection. This technique was used to identify the most valued attribute while making purchasing decisions. The findings demonstrated in Figure 2 that protein source was given the highest importance (27.5%), followed by protein content (22.4%), flavor (20.3%), price (16.5%), and packaging claim (13.3%).

3.2.2. Demographic Factors and Individual Importance

Stepwise multiple regression analysis revealed that amongst the demographic characteristics of age, gender, area/region, employment, and education, only gender was significantly associated with individual importance for product attributes. The results revealed that self-reported gender had a significant association with particular importance for three product attributes: Protein Source (R2 = 0.008; p = 0.011), Price (R2 = 0.007; p = 0.018), and Protein Content (R2 = 0.005; p = 0.042).

3.2.3. Person Values and Individual Importance

Prior work suggests that person-related values, such as health values, beliefs about sustainability, and societal norms, are associated with consumers’ perceptions and consumption of plant-based foods (e.g., [43,44,45,52,53]). In the present study, participants completed questionnaires regarding their values for sustainability, societal norms, health, moral satisfaction, and food neophobia. The mean values for these scores are reported in Table 2.

3.3. Attribute Utility Scores

In our focus on understanding consumer perceptions of hybrid yogurt, we used utility scores to evaluate consumer preferences for the studied attributes. These utility scores, which reflect the relative preference for each attribute, were calculated to elucidate consumer perceptions and preferences. A higher utility score indicates a greater preference for the respective attribute. As protein source was given the highest priority, we investigated individual utilities of protein source, 100% dairy, hybrid (50% dairy + 50% oat), and 100% oat, catering to the aim of the study. The following results of CBC are reported for the individual utilities.

3.3.1. 100% Dairy Yogurt

In this study, “100% dairy yogurt” refers to yogurt solely made from dairy proteins. The average individual utility score for 100% dairy yogurt was 6.1 (Figure 3). Stepwise multiple regression was carried out to investigate the relationship between the dairy utility scores and product attributes (Protein content, claims, flavor, and price) (see Table 3). The analysis revealed that protein content, flavor, and price were significantly associated with the dairy utility score (R2 = 2.1%; p < 0.001). Further stepwise regression analysis into individual utilities of protein content showed that 3 g and 13 g were significantly and positively associated with the selection of dairy yogurt with beta coefficient values of 0.225 and 0.146, respectively.
Similarly, for flavor, the results revealed that plain yogurt was positively associated with the selection of dairy yogurt (β = 0.102). The analysis revealed that there was no relationship between individual price utilities and the selection of dairy yogurt. Analysis between dairy utility score and person values showed that moral satisfaction and health had a significant and negative association (R2 = 5.5%; p < 0.001) with beta coefficient values of −0.210 and −0.087, respectively. In other words, the selection of 100% dairy was associated with lower moral satisfaction and health values.

3.3.2. Hybrid (50% Dairy + 50% Oat)

“Hybrid” yogurt is a type of yogurt containing dairy and plant protein. This study described the hybrid yogurt as containing 50% oat and 50% dairy, with oat plant protein selected based on a previous study [12]. Based on the results from CBC, the average individual utility score for hybrid yogurt was 6.7 (Figure 3). Statistical analysis determined relationships between utility scores for a hybrid with product features and person values (Table 3). A stepwise multiple regression analysis revealed that protein content and flavor were significantly associated with the individual utility score (R2 = 4.0%; p < 0.001).
Further analysis revealed that 3 g of protein was significantly and negatively associated with hybrid (β = −0.124). Additionally, plain and vanilla flavors were significantly associated with the hybrid utility score. While plain was negatively associated, vanilla was positively associated with beta coefficient values of −0.178 and 0.096, respectively. A separate analysis with person-related values revealed that moral satisfaction was negatively associated with the hybrid utility score (R2 = 0.5%; p = 0.02; β = −0.081), indicating that the selection of hybrid yogurt was associated with lower moral satisfaction values.

3.3.3. 100% Oat

“100% Oat” refers to yogurt made with only plant protein. The average individual utility score for 100% oat yogurt was −12.8 (Figure 3). A stepwise multiple regression was performed for the selection of the oat utility score. The analysis revealed that the product attributes had no significant association with the oat utility score, as shown in Table 3. However, analysis between person values and oat utility score showed that moral satisfaction was significantly associated (R2 = 6.5%; p < 0.001), with a beta coefficient value of 0.258, indicating that selection of oat protein was associated with higher moral satisfaction values.

3.4. Are Dairy or Plant-Based Foods Healthier?

In the survey, participants were asked to select the product they believed to be healthier: dairy or plant-based foods, and had the option of choosing both. The results revealed that most participants (40%) felt that plant-based dairy foods are healthier, compared to 28% selecting dairy, and 32% considered both equally nutritious.
Further analysis was conducted to investigate the factors associated with the perception of healthy plant-based versus dairy foods. This analysis focused on participants who exclusively selected dairy or plant-based options, but not both. Interestingly, the participant’s age, gender, and employment were not associated with their perception of healthier food choices (p < 0.05). Yet, education (χ2(8, N = 819) = 30.46, p < 0.001) and area of residence (χ2(8, N = 819) = 27.99, p < 0.001) was significantly associated with the selection of which product was healthier. These results indicate that participants with associate and high school degrees were more inclined to believe in the benefits of plant-based foods. In contrast, participants with higher education (i.e., bachelor’s and graduate degrees) tended to select dairy foods. Further, participants residing in urban areas considered dairy the healthier option. In contrast, those in suburban areas believed that plant-based foods were better for their health. In contrast, rural residents believed that both options were equally healthy.
Regarding person values, FN was significantly associated with the participants’ perceptions of the healthiest product. A t-test was conducted to determine the level of significance between food neophobia and participants’ perception of healthier choices. The results revealed that participants who perceived dairy as healthy had a higher food neophobia score (27.5 ± 5.9) compared to those who considered plant-based options to be healthier (23.5 ± 7.8) (t(556) = 6.87, p < 0.001).

4. Discussion

Hybrid foods offer an alternative approach to guiding consumers toward a more sustainable food supply by partially substituting animal proteins with plant proteins. Prior reports suggest that this approach has the potential to produce products that have improved sensory attributes [12], functional characteristics, and nutritional profile [14] compared to 100% plant-based alternatives. However, it remains uncertain as to whether consumers would accept hybrid yogurt. The present study aimed to understand consumers’ perceptions of hybrid yogurt compared to dairy and plant-based yogurts by examining the product features: protein source, protein content, package claim, flavor, and price on consumer selection. Data from the present study revealed that protein source was the primary driver of product selection, followed by protein content, flavor, price, and packaging claim. This aligns with results from a previous study examining a selection of hybrid products, using a similar approach focused on analyzing consumers’ preferences for hotdogs [38]. Results are aligned, with a protein source as the primary driver of product selection.
Based on the individual utility scores for the three levels of protein source, dairy, and hybrid yogurts had positive utility scores, whereas plant-based yogurt was assigned a negative utility score. This suggests consumers selected dairy and hybrid yogurts at a similar rate, both seen as drivers of selection, whereas plant-based was perceived as a barrier to selection. This is distinct from the findings reported for hybrid hotdogs, with hybrid hotdogs having the lowest negative utility score and plant-based having the highest [38]. One possible explanation for these dissimilar findings is the healthfulness of the product category. In other words, yogurt is perceived as a healthier product than a hotdog, and consumers perceive more advantages of hybrid yogurt than a hybrid hotdog. A caveat to this explanation is that plant-based was perceived as having the highest utility over beef hotdogs [38]. An alternate justification may be that plant-based hotdogs were reported to be consumed frequently by the study participants (over 50% consumed plant-based hotdogs weekly) [38], whereas, in the present study, plant-based yogurts were not consumed as frequently (13% consumed plant-based yogurts weekly). In summary, consumers perceive hybrid yogurt as similar to dairy but distinct from plant-based yogurts, suggesting hybrid yogurt may provide a more sustainable product option that may be more acceptable compared to plant-based yogurt.
In addition to protein source, the study examined the influence of protein content, packaging claim, price, and flavor on participant selection. While protein source had the highest individual importance, protein content was the second most important factor, followed by flavor, price, and product claim. Participants preferred higher protein content (13 g) based on the utility scores for protein content. On average, dairy yogurt contains 8.5–9.5 g of protein per serving (5.3 oz/150 g), with plant-based versions containing significantly less protein (~2 to 6.5 g/serving) [20]. For hybrid yogurt, the actual protein content is an estimate, with the protein driven by the percentage of dairy protein substituted by plant proteins. A recent study by Martinussi and colleagues (2024) investigated the relationship between the percentage of animal protein replacement (different ratio blends) on physical and sensory characteristics [18]. The study determined that 25% replacement resulted in the ideal product characteristics and had a final protein content of 9.2 g per serving. This is supported by Gries and colleagues, demonstrating that 25% replacement resulted in no difference in liking among consumers compared to dairy [12]; however, this study did not quantify the protein content. This suggests that hybrid products may be acceptable to consumers if they provide a similar or higher protein content than in dairy yogurt. More work is needed to explore further how other macro- and micro-nutrients drive consumer selection and how the blending of these ingredients modifies the nutritional profile.
Of the flavors examined in the present study, blueberry and vanilla both had positive utility scores, with plain being the lowest. Interestingly, there was a relationship between flavor and protein source. For dairy yogurt, there was a significant positive association with plain, and vanilla and plain were associated with positive utility scores for hybrid, and no relationship was found between flavor and utility scores for oat yogurt. This finding suggests that flavor may be more critical for the selection of dairy and hybrid than for plant-based yogurts. Prior work has demonstrated that flavor can increase the perceived sweetness of plant-based yogurts [54], suggesting flavors may differentially impact the sensory profile. Indeed, while dairy yogurt is available in various flavors, adding flavors can also mask undesirable sensations associated with plant-based proteins [55]. However, for hybrid yogurts, due to the blend of plant and animal ingredients, it is anticipated that the undesirable taste of plant proteins may be reduced [12]. However, more studies are needed to determine how different ratios and protein sources impact the sensory profile.
Cost has repeatedly been reported as a barrier to purchasing plant-based foods [27,56]. Participants had the highest utility for the lowest price included in the study, suggesting that higher prices may reduce consumer selection of yogurts. Price influenced the choice of dairy, hybrid, and plant-based yogurts differently, with price only having a significant relationship with the selection of dairy but not hybrid or plant-based yogurts. This lack of a relationship between hybrid and plant-based yogurt may be explained by consumers’ expectations that plant-based products come with a higher cost [31]. However, due to the limited availability of hybrid yogurt, it is unclear if there are economic advantages to producing hybrid yogurt compared to plant-based yogurts. Considering that price can be a significant barrier to purchasing sustainable food options, it is essential to investigate whether hybrid products provide cost savings compared to plant-based alternatives.
Product claims had the least influence over consumer selection and did not have a relationship with the choice of the different types of yogurts (dairy, hybrid, or plant-based). However, both claims fortified with Vitamin D and containing probiotics had positive utility, compared to having no claim, which resulted in a negative utility. These results suggest that product claims positively influence the selection of yogurt. Studies have demonstrated that claims presented on the packaging, either nutrient or sustainability-related, can influence consumers’ acceptance and willingness to pay for sustainable food products [57,58]. Evidence from the present study and previous studies suggests that nutrient and product labels influence consumers’ perceptions of hybrid products. More studies are needed to comprehensively investigate how nutrient composition, ingredient lists, and product labels play a role in consumers’ selection of hybrid products.
In addition to product features, this study examined the influence of consumer attitudes on product selection. There was a significant negative association between moral satisfaction and health values, explaining 5.5% of the variability in the selection of dairy yogurt. Moral satisfaction was also found to be negatively associated with the selection of hybrid and positively associated with the selection of plant-based yogurt, explaining 0.5% and 6.5% of the variability, respectively. These findings align with prior reports that suggest individuals with higher moral satisfaction are more likely to consume plant-based foods [43] or perceive them to be tastier [28,33]. Interestingly, results indicated that hybrid foods may not provide moral satisfaction. However, the amount of variability explained was weak. No other consumer attitudes or values were associated with the selection of yogurts. While a person’s attitudes, such as FN, health and sustainability values, and moral satisfaction, have all been previously found to play a role in consumers’ perceptions of plant-based foods [31], there are inconsistencies in the findings across studies, which could be driven by differences in product categories (e.g., beef vs dairy) or consumer groups (e.g., frequency in consumption of plant-based foods).
Nonetheless, present results correspond to previous findings examining hybrid hotdogs, which did not find a relationship with product selection and health values, FN, or ethics, which consisted of a combined score of moral satisfaction, sustainability values, and social norms [38]. For hybrid hotdogs, product features (fat, protein content, and price) explain more variability in the selection of hotdogs, with personal values playing a small role in product selection. A similar finding is reported in the present study, with product-related features (protein content and flavor) explaining more variability (4%) compared to person-related values (moral satisfaction), only explaining 0.5%. A possible explanation for this finding is the lack of familiarity with these hybrid products, with consumers relying more on the product description to make decisions. This is supported by the lower variability (2.1%) or lack of association between product attributes and the selection of dairy and plant-based products, respectively. In the future, more studies are needed to examine how product labels describing their impact (e.g., eco-friendly, sustainable, ethical) are associated with moral satisfaction. In summary, for hybrid products, the product attributes may be more critical for product selection than consumer values or attitudes.
Generally, consumers perceive that foods made from plants and plant-based alternatives are healthy. However, several studies have noted distinct nutritional profiles between plant-based and conventional animal products (e.g., [20,59,60,61]), which could affect the overall diet quality [62]. Therefore, this study aimed to gain additional insights into consumers’ perceptions of the healthfulness of plant-based and dairy yogurt. Roughly a quarter of participants considered dairy healthier than plant-based, with a third of participants considering both plant-based and dairy equally healthy. Education and area of residence were associated with participants’ responses, with participants reporting having a higher education and living in urban areas being more likely to select dairy as the healthier option.
Interestingly, FN was significantly associated with perceptions of the healthier product. Participants selecting dairy as the healthier product had a slightly higher FN score than those selecting plant-based. These findings contradict previous findings, suggesting that food neophobia hinders consumers’ perceptions of plant-based foods [34]. However, it is crucial to consider the nutrient composition and density of both dairy and plant-based products. A recent study revealed that oat yogurts might be as good as or even better than dairy yogurts due to their low total sugar, sodium, and saturated fat content levels. It is worth noting that the present study didn’t consider the role of fat content as a factor in consumer decision-making. Examining the perceived healthfulness of hybrid products compared to conventional and plant-based products is worth investigating in future studies.
The present study could be strengthened by using actual products and including sensory components. However, no commercially available hybrid yogurt products exist in the U.S. marketplace. Future studies can utilize this information when conducting sensory studies on developed hybrid yogurts. Prior research utilized the blending of commercially prepared plant-based and dairy yogurt [12], which could be an approach explored in future studies. The conjoint analysis approach is a tool used to examine consumer choice and purchase intention. Several product attributes were not considered in the present study, such as choice of protein type, fat content, or the presence of other vitamins and minerals that may be desirable but missing from plant-based products. Future studies can expand the present study by examining how the nutritional composition varies across dairy, plant-based, and hybrid products and how consumers may perceive these differences. The present study applied this method to uncover factors influencing consumer choices; however, this may not mimic actual consumer behavior as it is outside the context of eating or purchasing (e.g., grocery store). Other experimental models, such as an experimental auction, may provide additional insights into factors influencing consumers’ selection of hybrid yogurt. Recent studies suggest trust and fear of novel food technology may provide further insights into barriers to adopting plant-based products [34,63], which was not evaluated in the present study. Given these limitations and the present findings, future studies are warranted to explore further whether consumers are more willing to adopt a diet consisting of hybrid food products, as there have been several demonstrated advantages of hybrid products over plant-based in terms of sensory and consumer perceptions.

5. Conclusions

The increasing demand for plant-based dairy alternatives has led to this research investigating consumer perception of hybrid yogurt and identifying the main factors influencing yogurt selection. The study utilized data from an online survey, where adult participants engaged in a choice-based conjoint analysis and responded to questionnaires related to food neophobia and consumer values. The findings indicate that hybrid and dairy products garnered similar positive utility scores, suggesting they are valued similarly. Results also showed specific product attributes and consumer values significantly influencing consumers’ selection of yogurts. Protein content and flavor influenced the choice of hybrid yogurts compared to dairy and oat yogurts.
In contrast, consumer values such as moral satisfaction had minimal impact on the preference for hybrid yogurts compared to other options. This signifies that product attributes may wield greater influence in the selection of hybrid products than consumer values or attitudes. This observation may be attributed to the relative unfamiliarity of hybrid products, leading consumers to rely more heavily on product descriptions when making decisions. The findings offer valuable insights into consumers’ perceptions of hybrid yogurts compared to dairy and plant-based yogurts, suggesting hybrid yogurt may be more attractive to consumers than plant-based. Adopting hybrid yogurt can lead to a greater reduction in dairy consumption, supporting a more sustainable food system. A deeper understanding of hybrid yogurts may aid in the transition to more sustainable dietary practices and pave the way for future innovations.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su16177460/s1, Table S1: Ten-item questionnaire to assess food neophobia; Table S2: Questionnaire to assess the values and attitudes of consumers.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization and methodology A.A.N., L.M. and A.J.K.; formal analysis, L.M.; writing—original draft preparation, A.A.N. and L.M.; writing—review and editing, L.M., A.J.K. and A.A.N. visualization, L.M.; supervision, A.A.N. and A.J.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding. A.A.N. receives funds from the University of Massachusetts Amherst and has awarded projects funded by the National Institutes of Health and the United States Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture and Hatch Act Appropriations. None of these organizations had any role in the study conception, design, or interpretation or the decision to publish these data. A.J.K receives funds from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Center for Agriculture, Food and the Environment, and the Food Science Department at the University of Massachusetts Amherst under project number MAS-00529. The contents are solely the authors’ responsibility and do not necessarily represent the USDA’s or NIFA’s official views.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Massachusetts Amherst (IRB #3647).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article; further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge Sawtooth Lighthouse Software (Provo, UT, USA) for using their software and guidance.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Pandey, S.; Ritz, C.; Perez-Cueto, F.J.A. An application of the theory of planned behaviour to predict intention to consume plant-based yogurt alternatives. Foods 2021, 10, 148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Tubiello, F.N.; Rosenzweig, C.; Conchedda, G.; Karl, K.; Gütschow, J.; Xueyao, P.; Obli-Laryea, G.; Wanner, N.; Qiu, S.Y.; De Barros, J.; et al. Greenhouse gas emissions from food systems: Building the evidence base. Environ. Res. Lett. 2021, 16, 065007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. International FIC. Innovations in Alternative Proteins: Understanding the Viewpoints and Purchasing Behaviors of U.S. Meat Eaters. IFIC. 2023. Available online: https://foodinsight.org/innovations-in-alternative-proteins/ (accessed on 28 May 2024).
  4. T. Good Food Institute State of the Industry Report: Plant-Based Meat, Seafood, Eggs, and Dairy. Available online: https://gfi.org/resource/plant-based-meat-eggs-and-dairy-state-of-the-industry-report/ (accessed on 5 July 2024).
  5. U.S. Retail Market Insights for the Plant-Based Industry. Available online: https://gfi.org/marketresearch/#yogurt (accessed on 28 June 2024).
  6. International Food Information Council (IFIC). Consumption Trends, Preferred Names and Perceptions of Plant-Based Meat Alternatives. November 2021. Available online: https://foodinsight.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/IFIC-Plant-Based-Meat-Survey.November-2021.pdf (accessed on 25 August 2022).
  7. Possidónio, C.; Prada, M.; Graça, J.; Piazza, J. Consumer perceptions of conventional and alternative protein sources: A mixed-methods approach with meal and product framing. Appetite 2021, 156, 104860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Baune, M.C.; Broucke, K.; Ebert, S.; Gibis, M.; Weiss, J.; Enneking, U.; Profeta, A.; Terjung, N.; Heinz, V. Meat hybrids—An assessment of sensorial aspects, consumer acceptance, and nutritional properties. Front. Nutr. 2023, 10, 1101479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Caputo, V.; Sogari, G.; Van Loo, E.J. Do plant-based and blend meat alternatives taste like meat? A combined sensory and choice experiment study. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 2022, 45, 86–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Chin, S.W.; Baier, S.K.; Stokes, J.R.; Smyth, H.E. Evaluating the sensory properties of hybrid (meat and plant-based) burger patties. J. Texture Stud. 2024, 55, e12819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Grasso, S.; Rondoni, A.; Bari, R.; Smith, R.; Mansilla, N. Effect of information on consumers’ sensory evaluation of beef, plant-based and hybrid beef burgers. Food Qual. Prefer. 2022, 96, 104417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Greis, M.; Nolden, A.A.; Kinchla, A.J.; Puputti, S.; Seppä, L.; Sandell, M. What if plant-based yogurts were like dairy yogurts? Texture perception and liking of plant-based yogurts among US and Finnish consumers. Food Qual. Prefer. 2023, 107, 104848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Petrat-Melin, B.; Dam, S. Textural and Consumer-Aided Characterisation and Acceptability of a Hybrid Meat and Plant-Based Burger Patty. Foods 2023, 12, 2246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Hu, G.G.; Liu, J.; Wang, Y.H.; Yang, Z.N.; Shao, H.B. Applications of Plant Protein in the Dairy Industry. Foods 2022, 11, 1067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Greis, M.; Sainio, T.; Katina, K.; Kinchla, A.J.; Nolden, A.; Partanen, R.; Seppä, L. Dynamic texture perception in plant-based yogurt alternatives: Identifying temporal drivers of liking by TDS. Food Qual. Prefer. 2020, 86, 104019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Jaeger, S.R.; Cardello, A.V.; Jin, D.; Ryan, G.S.; Giacalone, D. Consumer perception of plant-based yoghurt: Sensory drivers of liking and emotional, holistic and conceptual associations. Food Res. Int. 2023, 167, 112666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Grasso, N.; Alonso-Miravalles, L.; O’Mahony, J.A. Composition, physicochemical and sensorial properties of commercial plant-based yogurts. Foods 2020, 9, 252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Martinussi, F.d.S.; Poloto, G.; Navarini, G.; Marfil, P.H.M.; Baptista, D.P.; Gigante, M.L.; Merheb-Dini, C. The impact of animal protein partial substitution on the technological functionality of hybrid yoghurt. Int. J. Dairy Technol. 2024, 77, 930–939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Vital, A.C.; Itoda, C.; Hokazono, T.Y.; Crepaldi, Y.S.; Saraiva, B.R.; Rosa, C.I.L.F.; Matumoto-Pintro, P.T. Use of soy as a source of protein in low-fat yogurt production: Microbiological, functional and rheological properties. Res. Soc. Dev. 2020, 9, e779119472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. D’Andrea, A.E.; Kinchla, A.J.; Nolden, A.A. A comparison of the nutritional profile and nutrient density of commercially available plant-based and dairy yogurts in the United States. Front. Nutr. 2023, 10, 1195045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Craig, W.J.; Brothers, C.J. Nutritional content and health profile of non-dairy plant-based yogurt alternatives. Nutrients 2021, 13, 4069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Marlapati, L.; Basha, R.F.; Navarre, A.; Kinchla, A.J.; Nolden, A.A. Comparison of Physical and Compositional Attributes between Commercial Plant-Based and Dairy Yogurts. Foods 2024, 13, 984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Grant, K.R.; Gallardo, R.K.; McCluskey, J.J. Consumer preferences for foods with clean labels and new food technologies. Agribusiness 2021, 37, 764–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Chen, M.F. Consumer attitudes and purchase intentions in relation to organic foods in Taiwan: Moderating effects of food-related personality traits. Food Qual. Prefer. 2007, 18, 1008–1021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Skalkos, D.; Kalyva, Z.C. Exploring the Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Food Choice Motives: A Systematic Review. Sustainability 2023, 15, 1606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Piracci, G.; Casini, L.; Contini, C.; Stancu, C.M.; Lähteenmäki, L. Identifying key attributes in sustainable food choices: An analysis using the food values framework. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 416, 137924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Giacalone, D.; Clausen, M.P.; Jaeger, S.R. Understanding barriers to consumption of plant-based foods and beverages: Insights from sensory and consumer science. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2022, 48, 100919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Jaeger, S.R.; Giacalone, D. Barriers to consumption of plant-based beverages: A comparison of product users and non-users on emotional, conceptual, situational, conative and psychographic variables. Food Res. Int. 2021, 144, 110363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Lourenco, C.E.; Nunes-Galbes, N.M.; Borgheresi, R.; Cezarino, L.O.; Martins, F.P.; Liboni, L.B. Psychological Barriers to Sustainable Dietary Patterns: Findings from Meat Intake Behaviour. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Michel, F.; Hartmann, C.; Siegrist, M. Consumers’ associations, perceptions and acceptance of meat and plant-based meat alternatives. Food Qual. Prefer. 2021, 87, 104063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Onwezen, M.C.; Bouwman, E.P.; Reinders, M.J.; Dagevos, H. A systematic review on consumer acceptance of alternative proteins: Pulses, algae, insects, plant-based meat alternatives, and cultured meat. Appetite 2021, 159, 105058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Sharps, M.A.; Raghoebar, S.; Coulthard, H. Social norms and young adults’ self-reported meat and plant-based intake: Findings from two online cross-sectional studies. Appetite 2024, 199, 107503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Kershaw, J.C.; Nolden, A.A.; Brown, A.R.; Hites, T.; Jefferies, L.K. Tastiness of meat and plant protein foods are associated with political partisanship and may be influenced by partisan messaging. Food Qual. Prefer. 2023, 112, 105039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Faria, A.A.; Kang, J. It’s not just about the food: Motivators of food patterns and their link with sustainable food neophobia. Appetite 2022, 174, 106008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Jaeger, S.R.; Chheang, S.L.; Ares, G. Beyond plant-based alternatives to milk and meat: Product and individual variables influence purchase intention for plant-based yoghurt and eggs. Food Qual. Prefer. 2023, 112, 105019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ekanayake, E.M.M.P.S.; Kanuwana, K.G.N.; Edirisinghe, J.C. The Demand for a Balanced Diet by the Next Generation: New Evidence from a Choice Based Conjoint Analysis. Appl. Econ. Bus. 2018, 2, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. McCarthy, K.S.; Parker, M.; Ameerally, A.; Drake, S.L.; Drake, M.A. Drivers of choice for fluid milk versus plant-based alternatives: What are consumer perceptions of fluid milk? J. Dairy Sci. 2017, 100, 6125–6138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Salgaonkar, K.; Nolden, A.A. Exploring Consumer Preferences and Challenges in Hybrid Meat Products: A Conjoint Analysis of Hotdogs. Foods 2024, 13, 1460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Buhrmester, M.; Kwang, T.; Gosling, S.D. Amazon’s mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2011, 6, 3–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Pliner, P.; Hobden, K. Development of a Scale to Measure the Trait of Food Neophobia in Humans. Appetite 1992, 19, 105–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Haws, K.L.; Winterich, K.P.; Naylor, R.W. Seeing the world through GREEN-tinted glasses: Green consumption values and responses to environmentally friendly products. J. Consum. Psychol. 2014, 24, 336–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kang, J.; Jun, J.; Arendt, S.W. Understanding customers’ healthy food choices at casual dining restaurants: Using the Value-Attitude-Behavior model. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2015, 48, 12–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Lim, T.J.; Okine, R.N.; Kershaw, J.C. Health-or environment-focused text messages as a potential strategy to increase plant-based eating among young adults: An exploratory study. Foods 2021, 10, 3147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ares, G.; Giménez, A.; Deliza, R. Influence of three non-sensory factors on consumer choice of functional yogurts over regular ones. Food Qual. Prefer. 2010, 21, 361–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Gosine, L.; McSweeney, M.B. Consumers’ attitudes towards alternative grains: A conjoint analysis study. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 54, 1588–1596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ekanayaka, E.M.S.; Fernando, A.P.S.; Wickramasinghe, Y.M.; Ranadheera, R.D.C.S. Impact of yoghurt package on consumer buying behavior. In Proceedings of the Wayamba University International Conference, Kuliyapitiya, Sri Lanka, 29–30 August 2014. [Google Scholar]
  47. Graham, D.J.; Jeffery, R.W. Location, location, location: Eye-tracking evidence that consumers preferentially view prominently positioned nutrition information. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 2011, 111, 1704–1711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kim, M.K.; Lopetcharat, K.; Drake, M.A. Influence of packaging information on consumer liking of chocolate milk. J. Dairy Sci. 2013, 96, 4843–4856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Li, T.; Dando, R. Impact of common food labels on consumer liking in vanilla yogurt. Foods 2019, 8, 584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Weinrich, R.; Elshiewy, O. Preference and willingness to pay for meat substitutes based on micro-algae. Appetite 2019, 142, 104353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Chrzan, K.; Research, M.; Orme, B. An Overview and Comparison of Design Strategies for Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis. 2000. Available online: www.sawtoothsoftware.com (accessed on 29 January 2024).
  52. Kershaw, J.C.; Lim, T.J.; Nolden, A.A. Health- or Environmental-Focused Text Messages to Increase Consumption of a Sustainable Diet among Young Adults: Importance of Expected Taste. Foods 2023, 12, 1297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kim, A.; Öström, Å.; Mihnea, M.; Niimi, J. Consumers’ attachment to meat: Association between sensory properties and preferences for plant-based meat alternatives. Food Qual. Prefer. 2024, 116, 105134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Greis, M.; Kukkonen, R.; Lampi, A.M.; Seppä, L.; Partanen, R.; Sandell, M. The Impact of Vanilla and Lemon Aromas on Sensory Perception in Plant-Based Yogurts Measured with Static and Dynamic Methods. Foods 2022, 11, 2030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Pérez, C.B.; Oliviero, T.; Fogliano, V.; Janssen, H.G.; Martins, S.I.F.S. Flavour them up! Exploring the challenges of flavoured plant-based foods. Flavour Fragr. J. 2023, 38, 125–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Rombach, M.; Dean, D.L.; Bitsch, V. ‘Got Milk Alternatives?’ Understanding Key Factors Determining U.S. Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Plant-Based Milk Alternatives. Foods 2023, 12, 1277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Holt, D.; Slade, P.; Hobbs, J. Do consumers care about clean labels? Willingness to pay for simple ingredient lists and front-of-package labels on beef and plant-based burgers. Can. J. Agric. Econ. 2024, 72, 5–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Mcguinness, L.; McCabe, M.; Kiernan, C.; McCrickerd, K.; Forde, C.G.; O’Riordan, E.D.; Feeney, E.L. Impact of front-of-pack labels with nutrition and Grass-Fed claims on consumer perceptions and expected sensory and nutritional characteristics of Cheddar cheese-A comparative study of Irish and US consumers. Food Qual. Prefer. 2022, 101, 104649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Clegg, M.E.; Ribes, A.T.; Reynolds, R.; Kliem, K.; Stergiadis, S. A comparative assessment of the nutritional composition of dairy and plant-based dairy alternatives available for sale in the UK and the implications for consumers’ dietary intakes. Food Res. Int. 2021, 148, 110586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Cole, E.; Goeler-Slough, N.; Cox, A.; Nolden, A. Examination of the nutritional composition of alternative beef burgers available in the United States. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 2022, 73, 425–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Nolden, A.A.; Forde, C.G. The Nutritional Quality of Plant-Based Foods. Sustainability 2023, 15, 3324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Tso, R.; Forde, C.G. Unintended consequences: Nutritional impact and potential pitfalls of switching from animal-to plant-based foods. Nutrients 2021, 13, 2527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Siegrist, M.; Hartmann, C. Consumer acceptance of novel food technologies. Nat. Food 2020, 1, 343–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 07460 g001
Figure 1. Example of the choices presented to participants during the CBC task.
Figure 1. Example of the choices presented to participants during the CBC task.
Sustainability 16 07460 g001
Sustainability 16 07460 g002
Figure 2. Individual importance of each product attribute.
Figure 2. Individual importance of each product attribute.
Sustainability 16 07460 g002
Sustainability 16 07460 g003
Figure 3. Utility scores are reported for each level within each product attribute.
Figure 3. Utility scores are reported for each level within each product attribute.
Sustainability 16 07460 g003
Table 1. Attributes and attribute levels used in choice-based conjoint analysis.
Table 1. Attributes and attribute levels used in choice-based conjoint analysis.
AttributesAttribute Levels
100% Dairy
Protein source50% Dairy + 50% Oat (Hybrid)
100% Oat
3 g
Protein content8 g
13 g
Fortified with Vit.D
Package claimContains probiotics
No claim
Vanilla
FlavorBlueberry
Plain
$1.29
Price$1.69
$2.29
Table 2. Participant characteristics: age, education, employment, area of residence, frequency of dairy and plant-based yogurt, and personal values categorized based on gender.
Table 2. Participant characteristics: age, education, employment, area of residence, frequency of dairy and plant-based yogurt, and personal values categorized based on gender.
Characteristics Male (n = 440) Female (n = 379) Total (n = 819)
Age 37.3 ± 10.4 37.9 ± 10.3 37.6 ± 10.3
Education N (%)
No formal education0 (0) 3 (0.8) 3 (0.4)
High school85 (19.3) 54 (14.2) 139 (16.9)
Associate degree39 (8.9) 42 (11.1) 81 (9.9)
Bachelor’s degree250 (56.8) 215 (56.7) 465 (56.8)
Graduate degree or higher66 (15) 65 (17.2) 131 (16)
EmploymentN (%)
Employed404 (91.8) 340 (89.7) 744 (90.9)
Unemployed22 (5) 23 (6.1) 45 (5.5)
Student6 (1.4) 4 (1.0) 10 (1.2)
Other8 (1.8) 12 (3.2) 20 (2.4)
Area of ResidenceN (%)
Urban202 (45.9) 170 (44.9) 372 (45.4)
Suburban147 (33.4) 138 (36.4) 285 (34.8)
Rural80 (18.2) 69 (18.2) 149 (18.2)
Remote10 (2.3) 2 (0.5) 12 (1.5)
Not sure1 (0.2) 0 (0) 1 (0.1)
Consumption Dairy YogurtN (%)
Never6 (1.4)15 (4)21 (2.6)
<1 per month30 (6.8)29 (7.7)59 (7.2)
1–3 times a month89 (20.2)85 (22.4)174 (21.2)
Once a week73 (16.6) 63 (16.6)136 (16.7)
2–4 times a week156 (35.5)115 (30.3)271 (33.1)
5–6 times a week86 (19.5)72 (19)158 (19.2)
Consumption Plant-based
Yogurt		N (%)
Never tried *161 (36.6)126 (33.2)287(35)
Never **13 (3)4 (1.1)17 (2.1)
<1 per month47 (10.7)55 (14.5)102 (12.5)
1–3 times a month59 (13.4)62 (16.4)121 (14.8)
Once a week54 (12.3)54 (14.2)108 (13.2)
2–4 times a week64 (14.5)50 (13.2)114 (13.9)
5–6 times a week42 (9.5)28 (7.4)70 (8.5)
Consumer ValuesMean ± SD
Health27.7 ± 4.3 28.2 ± 4.3 27.9 ± 4.2
Moral satisfaction15.6 ± 2.6 15.8 ± 2.7 15.7 ± 2.7
Sustainability21.9 ± 4.9 22.2 ± 4.6 22.1 ± 4.8
Social norms11.1 ± 2.5 10.8 ± 2.6 10.9 ± 2.5
Food neophobia25.5 ± 6.7 24.8 ± 6.6 25.2 ± 6.6
* Participants that reported “never tired” were combined with those responding “not sure”. ** Participants that reporting to have tried but do not regularly consume plant-based yogurt.
Table 3. Product attributes and personal values influence each protein source.
Table 3. Product attributes and personal values influence each protein source.
Predictors100% Dairy Hybrid 100% Oat
Product Attributesβββ
Protein Content−0.1640.177-
Flavor−0.1190.188 -
Price−0.076--
Model Statistics
R22.1%4.0%-
F6.918.2-
p<0.001<0.001NS
Person Valuesβββ
Moral Satisfaction−0.210−0.0810.258
Health−0.087--
Model Statistics
R25.5%0.5%6.5%
F24.95.458
p<0.0010.02<0.001
Stepwise regression was conducted to examine the Product Attributes (top) and Person Values (bottom) on the individual utility scores for 100% dairy, hybrid, and 100% oat yogurts. Variables included in the Product Attribute model: protein content, flavor, price, and product label. Variables included in the Person Values model: moral satisfaction, health, sustainability, and societal norms. Β: Standardized Beta values. Model statistics are reported under each model. R2 is reported for each final model resulting from stepwise regression. Only predictors selected in the final model from stepwise regression are reported. “-” Indicates the variable was not a significant contributor to the overall model.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Marlapati, L.; Kinchla, A.J.; Nolden, A.A. Conjoint Analysis Study to Examine Consumer’s Preferences for Hybrid Yogurt. Sustainability 2024, 16, 7460. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177460

AMA Style

Marlapati L, Kinchla AJ, Nolden AA. Conjoint Analysis Study to Examine Consumer’s Preferences for Hybrid Yogurt. Sustainability. 2024; 16(17):7460. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177460

Chicago/Turabian Style

Marlapati, Likhitha, Amanda J. Kinchla, and Alissa A. Nolden. 2024. "Conjoint Analysis Study to Examine Consumer’s Preferences for Hybrid Yogurt" Sustainability 16, no. 17: 7460. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177460

APA Style

Marlapati, L., Kinchla, A. J., & Nolden, A. A. (2024). Conjoint Analysis Study to Examine Consumer’s Preferences for Hybrid Yogurt. Sustainability, 16(17), 7460. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177460

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop