To Raise or Not to Raise the Level of Ingredients in Yoghurts: Polish Consumer Preferences Regarding Dairy Products
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Material and Methods
2.1. Design of the Experiment
2.2. Data Collection Process
2.3. Consumer Attributes
2.4. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Socio-Demographic Profile of the Total Sample and the Clusters Identified
3.2. Attitudinal Questionnaire
3.3. The Relative Importance of Attributes
4. Discussion
4.1. The Most Important Yoghurt Features
4.2. Perspectives of Information on the Yoghurt‘s Labels
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Jezewska-Zychowicz, M.; Królak, M. Do Consumers ’ Attitudes Towards Food Technologies and Motives of Food Choice In fl uence Willingness to Eat Cereal Products Forti fi ed with Fibre? Pol. J. Food Nutr. Sci. 2015, 65, 281–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bell, V.; Ferrão, J.; Pimente, L.; Pintado, M.; Fernandes, T. One Health, Fermented Foods, and Gut Microbiota. Foods 2018, 7, 195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Thorning, T.K.; Raben, A.; Tholstrup, T.; Soedamah-Muthu, S.S.; Givens, I.; Astrup, A. Milk and dairy products: good or bad for human health? An assessment of the totality of scientific evidence. Food Nutr. Res. 2016, 60, 32527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tapsell, L.C. Fermented dairy food and CVD risk. Br. J. Nutr. 2015, 113, S131–S135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Laassal, M.; Kallas, Z. Consumers Preferences for Dairy-Alternative Beverage Using Home-Scan Data in Catalonia. Beverages 2019, 5, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Astrup, A.; Geiker, N.R.W.; Magkos, F. Effects of Full-Fat and Fermented Dairy Products on Cardiometabolic Disease: Food Is More Than the Sum of Its Parts. Adv. Nutr. 2019, 10, 924S–930S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mazidi, M.; Mikhailidis, D.P.; Sattar, N.; Howard, G.; Graham, I.; Banach, M. Consumption of dairy product and its association with total and cause specific mortality—A population-based cohort study and meta-analysis. Clin. Nutr. 2019, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gahruie, H.H.; Eskandari, M.H.; Mesbahi, G.; Hanifpour, M.A.; Hadi, H.G.; Hadi, E.M.; Gholamreza, M.; Amin, H.M. Scientific and technical aspects of yogurt fortification: A review. Food Sci. Hum. Wellness 2015, 4, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Eales, J.; Lenoir-Wijnkoop, I.; King, S.; Wood, H.; Kok, F.J.; Shamir, R.; Prentice, A.; Edwards, M.; Glanville, J.; Atkinson, R.L. Is consuming yoghurt associated with weight management outcomes? Results from a systematic review. Int. J. Obes. 2016, 40, 731–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lenoir-Wijnkoop, I.; Mahon, J.; Claxton, L.; Wooding, A.; Prentice, A.; Finer, N. An economic model for the use of yoghurt in type 2 diabetes risk reduction in the UK. BMC Nutr. 2016, 2, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Graham, D.J.; Jeffery, R.W. Predictors of nutrition label viewing during food purchase decision making: An eye tracking investigation. Public Health Nutr. 2012, 15, 189–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Barreiro-Hurle, J.; Gracia, A.; De-Magistris, T. Does nutrition information on food products lead to healthier food choices? Food Policy 2010, 35, 221–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miklavec, K.; Pravst, I.; Grunert, K.G.; Klopčič, M.; Pohar, J. The influence of health claims and nutritional composition on consumers’ yoghurt preferences. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015, 43, 26–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ares, G.; Giménez, A.; Gámbaro, A. Influence of nutritional knowledge on perceived healthiness and willingness to try functional foods. Appetite 2008, 51, 663–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Johansen, S.B.; Næs, T.; Øyaas, J.; Hersleth, M. Acceptance of calorie-reduced yoghurt: Effects of sensory characteristics and product information. Food Qual. Prefer. 2010, 21, 13–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barreiro-Hurle, J.; Gracia, A.; Barreiro-Hurle, J.; De-Magistris, T.; Barreiro-Hurlé, J.; De-Magistris, T. The Effects of Multiple Health and Nutrition Labels on Consumer Food Choices. J. Agric. Econ. 2010, 61, 426–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Svederberg, E.; Wendin, K. Swedish consumers’ cognitive approaches to nutrition claims and health claims. Food Nutr. Res. 2011, 55, 5929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grunert, K.G.; Wills, J.M. A review of European research on consumer response to nutrition information on food labels. J. Public Heal. 2007, 15, 385–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chamorro, A.; Miranda, F.J.; Rubio, S.; Valero, V.; Chamorro-Mera, A. Innovations and trends in meat consumption: An application of the Delphi method in Spain. Meat Sci. 2012, 92, 816–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erickson, J.; Slavin, J. Are restrictive guidelines for added sugars science based? Nutr. J. 2015, 14, 124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Louviere, J.J.; Flynn, T.N.; Carson, R.T. Discrete Choice Experiments Are Not Conjoint Analysis. J. Choice Model. 2010, 3, 57–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Van Wezemael, L.; Caputo, V.; Nayga, R.M.; Chryssochoidis, G.; Verbeke, W. European consumer preferences for beef with nutrition and health claims: A multi-country investigation using discrete choice experiments. Food Policy 2014, 44, 167–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Enneking, U.; Neumann, C.; Henneberg, S. How important intrinsic and extrinsic product attributes affect purchase decision. Food Qual. Prefer. 2007, 18, 133–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Orme, B. Sawtooth Software, Research Paper Series, Hierarchical Bayes: Why All the Attention? 2001, Copyright 2000–2001, Sawtooth Software, Inc. Available online: https://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/support/technical-papers/hierarchical-bayes-estimation/hierarchical-bayes-why-all-the-attention-2000 (accessed on 18 October 2019).
- 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]
- Sajdakowska, M.; Gębski, J.; Gutkowska, K.; Żakowska-Biemans, S. Importance of Health Aspects in Polish Consumer Choices of Dairy Products. Nutrients 2018, 10, 1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bauer, J.J. Selection Errors of Random Route Samples. Sociol. Methods Res. 2014, 43, 519–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sawtooth Software, Technical Paper Series: The CBC/HB System for Hierarchical Bayes Estimation Version 5.0 Technical Paper; 2009, Copyright 2000-2009, Sawtooth Software, Inc. Available online: https://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/support/technical-papers/hierarchical-bayes-estimation/cbc-hb-technical-paper-2009 (accessed on 18 October 2019).
- Mascarello, G.; Pinto, A.; Parise, N.; Crovato, S.; Ravarotto, L. The perception of food quality. Profiling Italian consumers. Appetite 2015, 89, 175–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sajdakowska, M.; Jankowski, P.; Gutkowska, K.; Guzek, D.; Żakowska-Biemans, S.; Ozimek, I. Consumer acceptance of innovations in food: A survey among Polish consumers. J. Consum. Behav. 2018, 17, 253–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bayarri, S.; Carbonell, I.; Barrios, E.; Costell, E. Impact of sensory differences on consumer acceptability of yoghurt and yoghurt-like products. Int. Dairy J. 2011, 21, 111–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Domanski, T.; Bryla, P. The fragile strength of a leading Polish yoghurt company (case study of Bakoma). Br. Food J. 2013, 114, 618–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Czarnacka-Szymani, J.; Jezewska-Zychowicz, M. Impact of nutritional information on consumers’ acceptance of cheese with reduced sodium chloride content. Int. Dairy J. 2015, 40, 47–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kraus, A. Development of functional food with the participation of the consumer. Motivators for consumption of functional products. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2015, 39, 2–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pohjanheimo, T.; Sandell, M. Explaining the liking for drinking yoghurt: The role of sensory quality, food choice motives, health concern and product information. Int. Dairy J. 2009, 19, 459–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rahnama, H.; Rajabpour, S. Factors for consumer choice of dairy products in Iran. Appetite 2017, 111, 46–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Das, K.; Choudhary, R.; Thompson-Witrick, K.A. Effects of new technology on the current manufacturing process of yogurt-to increase the overall marketability of yogurt. LWT 2019, 108, 69–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gutkowska, K.; Sajdakowska, M.; Zakowska-Biemans, S.; Kowalczuk, I.; Kozłowska, A.; Olewnik-Mikołajewska, A. Poziom Akceptacji Zmian Na Rynku Żywności Pochodzenia Zwierzęcego W Opinii Konsumentów. Zywn. Nauk. Technol. Jakosc Food. Sci. Technol. Qual. 2012, 19, 187–202. [Google Scholar]
- Tomic, N.; Dojnov, B.; Miocinovic, J.; Tomasevic, I.; Smigic, N.; Djekic, I.; Vujcic, Z. Enrichment of yoghurt with insoluble dietary fiber from triticale—A sensory perspective. LWT 2017, 80, 59–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Argın, S.; Eskinazi, B.; Tavlı, D. A Consumer Perception Study on Functional Dairy Products Among Consumers in Istanbul, Turkey. Turk. J. Agric. Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 7, 963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ates, H.C.; Ceylan, M. Effects of socio-economic factors on the consumption of milk, yoghurt, and cheese: Insights from Turkey. Br. Food J. 2010, 112, 234–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lefèvre, M. Do Consumers Pay More for What They Value More? The Case of Local Milk-hased Dairy Products in Senegal. Agric. Resour. Econ. Rev. 2014, 43, 158–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Almli, V.L.; Næs, T.; Enderli, G.; Sulmont-Rossé, C.; Issanchou, S.; Hersleth, M. Consumers’ acceptance of innovations in traditional cheese. A comparative study in France and Norway. Appetite 2011, 57, 110–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Napolitano, F.; Girolami, A.; Braghieri, A. Consumer liking and willingness to pay for high welfare animal-based products. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2010, 21, 537–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olewnik-Mikołajewska, A.; Guzek, D.; Głąbska, D.; Sajdakowska, M.; Gutkowska, K. Fodder enrichment and sustaining animal well-being as methods of improving quality of animal-derived food products, in the aspect of consumer perception and acceptance. Anim. Sci. Pap. Rep. 2016, 34, 361–372. [Google Scholar]
- Vanhonacker, F.; Verbeke, W. Public and Consumer Policies for Higher Welfare Food Products: Challenges and Opportunities. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2014, 27, 153–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EFSA Special Eurobarometer Wave EB91.3 Food safety in the EU Report Fieldwork. 2019; ISBN 9789294990822.
- Font-I-Furnols, M.; Guerrero, L. Consumer preference, behavior and perception about meat and meat products: An overview. Meat Sci. 2014, 98, 361–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shan, L.C.; De Brún, A.; Henchion, M.; Li, C.; Murrin, C.; Wall, P.G.; Monahan, F.J. Consumer evaluations of processed meat products reformulated to be healthier—A conjoint analysis study. Meat Sci. 2017, 131, 82–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Żakowska-Biemans, S.; Sajdakowska, M.; Issanchou, S. Impact of Innovation on Consumers Liking and Willingness to Pay for Traditional Sausages. Pol. J. Food Nutr. Sci. 2016, 66, 119–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Markovina, J.; Stewart-Knox, B.J.; Rankin, A.; Gibney, M.; De Almeida, M.D.V.; Fischer, A.R.; Kuznesof, S.A.; Poínhos, R.; Panzone, L.; Frewer, L.J. Food4Me study: Validity and reliability of Food Choice Questionnaire in 9 European countries. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015, 45, 26–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Román, S.; Sánchez-Siles, L.M.; Siegrist, M. The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 67, 44–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aschemann-Witzel, J. Consumer perception and trends about health and sustainability: trade-offs and synergies of two pivotal issues. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2015, 3, 6–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fazilah, N.F.; Ariff, A.B.; Khayat, M.E.; Rios-Solis, L.; Halim, M. Influence of probiotics, prebiotics, synbiotics and bioactive phytochemicals on the formulation of functional yogurt. J. Funct. Foods 2018, 48, 387–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nowak, A.; Ślizewska, K.; Libudzisz, Z. Probiotyki—Historia i mechanizmy działania. Zywn. Nauk. Technol. Jakosc Food. Sci. Technol. Qual. 2010, 17, 5–19. [Google Scholar]
- Žeželj, I.; Milošević, J.; Stojanovic, Z.; Ognjanov, G. The motivational and informational basis of attitudes toward foods with health claims. Appetite 2012, 59, 960–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ballco, P.; De-Magistris, T.; Caputo, V. Consumer preferences for nutritional claims: An exploration of attention and choice based on an eye-tracking choice experiment. Food Res. Int. 2019, 116, 37–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wills, J.M.; Bonsmann, S.S.G.; Kolka, M.; Grunert, K.G. European consumers and health claims: attitudes, understanding and purchasing behaviour. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 2012, 71, 229–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Attribute | Attribute Level |
---|---|
Increased content of ingredients | With an increased amount of vitamins and minerals |
With an increased amount of fiber | |
With an increased amount of live bacteria cultures | |
With an increased amount of cholesterol lowering ingredients | |
With an increased amount of omega 3 acids | |
With an increased amount of coenzyme Q10 | |
With an increased amount of ingredients positively affecting body shape, complexion, nails | |
No information | |
Reduced content of ingredients | No added sugar |
Low energy content | |
Low salt content | |
Reduced sugar content | |
No information | |
Additional claims | High nutritional value |
High health values | |
High quality | |
No information | |
Price | 12 levels (from PLN * 1.00 to PLN 15.99) |
Option 1 | Option 2 | Option 3 |
---|---|---|
Yoghurt | ||
with high fiber content | with an increased amount of live bacteria cultures | with an increased amount of cholesterol-lowering ingredients |
with no added sugar | with law salt content | with reduced sugar content |
with high health values | of high quality | of high nutritional value |
PLN 12.99 | PLN 3.59 | PLN 2.29 |
Variable | Total Sample (n = 489) | Cluster 1 (n = 78, 16%) | Cluster 2 (n = 123, 25%) | Cluster 3 (n = 233, 48%) | Cluster 4 (n = 55, 11%) | Sig. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | 0.040 | |||||
Female | 59% | 47% | 58% | 37% | 56% | |
Male | 41% | 53% | 42% | 63% | 44% | |
Education | 0.484 | |||||
Primary and junior high school | 8% | 13% | 6% | 6% | 15% | |
Vocational | 29% | 23% | 32% | 30% | 29% | |
Secondary | 41% | 38% | 46% | 43% | 27% | |
Higher | 20% | 26% | 14% | 19% | 29% | |
Refusal of answer | 1% | 0% | 2% | 2% | 0% | |
Age | 0.008 | |||||
34 and below | 37% | 28% | 40% | 43% | 22% | |
35–54 | 39% | 40% | 37% | 37% | 53% | |
55–64 | 15% | 18% | 15% | 14% | 11% | |
65 and over | 9% | 14% | 8% | 6% | 15% | |
Place of residence | 0.000 | |||||
Country | 34% | 37% | 29% | 29% | 47% | |
Up to 20,000 | 13% | 13% | 9% | 15% | 7% | |
20,000–100,000 | 21% | 26% | 24% | 20% | 20% | |
100,000–500,000 | 18% | 15% | 17% | 24% | 11% | |
Over 500,000 | 14% | 9% | 21% | 11% | 15% | |
Children | 0.219 | |||||
Yes | 49% | 46% | 46% | 48% | 62% | |
No | 34% | 28% | 35% | 38% | 24% | |
Refusal of answer | 1% | 1% | 2% | 1% | 0% | |
N.A. | 16% | 24% | 18% | 13% | 15% | |
Financial status | 0.898 | |||||
Sufficient budget without necessity to economise | 10% | 10% | 11% | 10% | 11% | |
We live frugally and have enough money to buy what we need | 40% | 47% | 41% | 38% | 38% | |
We live very frugally to save money for major purchases | 28% | 22% | 24% | 31% | 31% | |
We have enough money for the cheapest food or clothing | 10% | 9% | 15% | 9% | 5% | |
We have enough money for the cheapest food only, there is not enough money for clothing | 2% | 4% | 0% | 2% | 4% | |
There is not enough money even for the cheapest food or clothing | 1% | 0% | 1% | 1% | 0% | |
I don’t know/hard to say | 7% | 4% | 7% | 8% | 9% | |
Refusal of answer | 2% | 4% | 2% | 1% | 2% |
Statements | Total Sample | Cluster 1 QUALITY ORIENTED | Cluster 2 INVOLVED | Cluster 3 QUALITY ENTHUSIASTS | Cluster 4 NEUTRAL | Sig. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Quality matters to me while choosing a dairy products | 5.96 | 6.28 a | 5.40 b | 6.15 a | 5.96 a | 0.000 |
I buy high-quality dairy products because they have a beneficial influence on the health of my children | 5.11 | 4.91 a | 4.93 a | 5.23 a | 5.24 a | 0.375 |
I buy high-quality dairy products because they have a beneficial influence on my body shape | 4.48 | 3.79 b | 4.72 a | 4.71 a | 3.91 b | 0.000 |
I buy high-quality dairy products only for those family members who have health issues | 3.35 | 3.06 b,c | 3.94 a | 3.11 b,c | 3.40 a,c | 0.000 |
I am very particular about the new dairy products I will eat | 4.79 | 4.49 a | 4.63 a | 4.98 a | 4.76 a | 0.139 |
Ethnic food deprived of dairy products looks too weird to eat (e.g., Asian cuisine) | 4.58 | 4.88 a | 4.46 a | 4.49 a | 4.76 a | 0.954 |
If I do not know what is in a dairy product, I will not try it | 4.54 | 4.71 a | 4.37 a | 4.51 a | 4.82 a | 0.514 |
New dairy products arouse my curiosity | 4.39 | 3.04 b | 4.78 a | 5.00 a | 2.23 b | 0.000 |
I do not trust new foods 1 | 4.32 | 2.91 b | 4.56 a | 4.89 a | 3.36 b | 0.000 |
I like to buy new and various dairy products | 4.26 | 1.71 c | 4.92 a | 5.24 a | 2.24 b | 0.000 |
I will eat virtually everything | 4.16 | 3.69 b | 4.52 a | 4.30 a | 3.38 b | 0.000 |
At dinner parties, I will try new dishes based on dairy products | 4.09 | 2.88 b | 4.77 a | 4.49 a | 2.56 b | 0.000 |
I like dairy products from cuisines of different countries | 3.39 | 2.67 c | 4.70 a | 4.02 b | 2.35 c | 0.000 |
I constantly try new and varied dairy products | 3.83 | 2.12 b | 4.49 a | 4.40 a | 2.35 b | 0.000 |
I am usually amongst the first ones to try new dairy products | 3.74 | 1.95 b | 4.59 a | 4.27 a | 2.11 b | 0.000 |
I am afraid to eat dairy products I have never tried before | 3.74 | 4.47 a | 4.03 a | 3.34 b,c | 3.73 a,c | 0.000 |
I know more than others about the latest dairy products | 3.40 | 2.32 b | 4.02 a | 3.75 a | 2.06 b | 0.000 |
Among friends I am usually the first person to try new dairy products | 3.30 | 1.81 b | 4.20 a | 3.64 a | 2.02 b | 0.000 |
I like to try ethnic restaurants (e.g., Asian cuisine) | 3.27 | 2.51 b | 4.26 a | 3.19 b | 2.49 b | 0.000 |
I look for information about what new dairy products appear on the market | 3.09 | 1.92 c | 3.96 a | 3.27 b | 2.09 c | 0.000 |
Statements Referring to Attributes of Yoghurt that Is Usually Consumed | Total Sample | Cluster 1 QUALITY ORIENTED | Cluster 2 INVOLVED | Cluster 3 QUALITY ENTHUSIASTS | Cluster 4 NEUTRAL | Sig. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
It was good for health | 6.47 | 6.85 a | 5.57 b | 6.76 a | 6.76 a | 0.000 |
It was tasty | 6.44 | 6.67 a | 5.64 b | 6.76 a | 6.58 a | 0.000 |
It was easily accessible | 6.13 | 6.50 a | 5.26 b | 6.44 a | 6.20 a | 0.000 |
It had a pleasant smell | 6.09 | 6.32 a | 5.37 b | 6.42 a | 6.00 a | 0.000 |
It was made in a traditional way | 6.06 | 6.63 a | 5.20 b | 6.42 a | 5.65 b | 0.000 |
It came from farms where the producer pays special attention to the proper way of breeding animals | 5.99 | 6.68 a | 4.92 c | 6.40 a | 5.65 b | 0.000 |
It was of Polish origin | 5.97 | 6.55 a | 5.05 b | 6.33 a | 5.69 c | 0.000 |
It contained a lot of vitamins and minerals | 5.91 | 6.27 a | 5.09 b | 6.31 a | 5.55 b | 0.000 |
It contained fiber | 5.67 | 6.09 a | 4.80 b | 6.09 a | 5.24 b | 0.000 |
It was low in sugar | 5.34 | 5.65 a | 4.76 b | 5.70 a | 4.73 b | 0.000 |
It was low in fat | 5.10 | 5.28 a,c | 4.73 b,c | 5.43 a | 4.25 b | 0.000 |
It was low in calories | 5.08 | 5.35 a | 4.74 a,c | 5.34 a | 4.40 b,c | 0.000 |
It contributed to maintaining a slim body | 5.06 | 4.56 b | 4.85 b | 5.52 a | 4.31 b | 0.000 |
The packaging was appealing | 4.95 | 4.55 b,c | 4.69 c | 5.48 a | 3.85 b | 0.000 |
Statements | Total Sample | Cluster 1 QUALITY ORIENTED | Cluster 2 INVOLVED | Cluster 3 QUALITY ENTHUSIASTS | Cluster 4 NEUTRAL | Sig. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
With live bacteria cultures | 5.89 | 6.19 a | 5.07 c | 6.23 a | 5.87 b | 0.000 |
Produced using raw materials from organic farms | 5.81 | 6.36 a | 4.98 b | 6.17 a | 5.36 b | 0.000 |
With an increased level of substances beneficial to health | 5.56 | 5.62 a,c | 5.11 b,c | 5.87 a | 5.16 a,c | 0.000 |
With reduced levels of some ingredients, e.g., salt or sugar, to prevent various diseases e.g., obesity, hypertension, diabetes | 5.41 | 5.56 a,c | 4.88 b | 5.75 a | 4.98 b,c | 0.000 |
With higher levels of some vitamins and minerals to prevent nutritional deficiencies | 5.40 | 5.41 b,c | 4.98 b | 5.73 a,c | 4.89 b | 0.000 |
Attribute | Attribute Level | Total Sample | Cluster 1 QUALITY ORIENTED | Cluster 2 INVOLVED | Cluster 3 QUALITY ENTHUSIASTS | Cluster 4 NEUTRAL | Sig. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Increased level of ingredients | Relative importance (%) | 15.7 | 19.4 | 13.0 | 16.0 | 16.3 | |
With an increased amount of vitamins and minerals | 0.546 | 0.594 | 0.582 | 0.540 | 0.411 | 0.517 | |
With an increased amount of fiber | 0.453 | 0.523 | 0.338 | 0.489 | 0.420 | 0.189 | |
With an increased number of live bacteria cultures | 0.939 | 1.160 | 0.645 | 0.951 | 1.209 | 0.001 | |
With an increased amount of cholesterol lowering ingredients | 0.133 | 0.188 | 0.062 | 0.160 | 0.118 | 0.751 | |
With an increased amount of omega3 acid | –0.232 | –0.185 | –0.292 | –0.170 | –0.412 | 0.427 | |
With an increased amount of coenzyme Q10 | –0.774 | –0.834 | –0.552 | –0.837 | –0.860 | 0.073 | |
With an increased amount of ingredients that have a beneficial effect on the body shape, complexion and nails | –0.081 | –0.360 | 0.191 | –0.109 | –0.149 | 0.005 | |
Lack of information | –0.985 | –1.085 | –0.973 | –1.024 | –0.737 | 0.262 | |
Reduced level of ingredients | Relative importance (%) | 5.4 | 8.5 | 4.2 | 6.2 | 3.6 | |
No added sugar | 0.323 | 0.497 | 0.147 | 0.382 | 0.241 | 0.032 | |
Low energy content | –0.338 | –0.485 | –0.206 | –0.382 | –0.221 | 0.008 | |
Low salt content | –0.038 | –0.166 | 0.165 | –0.085 | –0.083 | 0.002 | |
With reduced sugar content | 0.270 | 0.426 | 0.207 | 0.279 | 0.151 | 0.055 | |
Lack of information | –0.218 | –0.272 | –0.312 | –0.195 | –0.087 | 0.331 | |
Additional information | Relative importance (%) | 8.5 | 8.4 | 7.4 | 9.2 | 8.1 | |
On high nutritional value | 0.257 | 0.197 | 0.224 | 0.317 | 0.164 | 0.169 | |
On high health values | 0.315 | 0.352 | 0.274 | 0.320 | 0.345 | 0.717 | |
On high quality | 0.155 | 0.076 | 0.154 | 0.173 | 0.177 | 0.495 | |
Lack of information | –0.727 | –0.625 | –0.652 | –0.811 | –0.686 | 0.079 | |
Price | Relative importance (%) | 70.4 | 63.7 | 75.4 | 68.7 | 71.9 | |
PLN * 1.00 | 5.064 | 4.251 | 5.540 | 4.978 | 5.441 | 0.301 | |
PLN 1.29 | 4.547 | 3.805 | 5.000 | 4.477 | 4.822 | 0.230 | |
PLN 1.69 | 3.670 | 3.147 | 4.034 | 3.586 | 3.882 | 0.140 | |
PLN 2.19 | 3.118 | 2.661 | 3.436 | 3.085 | 3.126 | 0.094 | |
PLN 2.79 | 1.634 | 1.549 | 1.721 | 1.617 | 1.594 | 0.580 | |
PLN 3.59 | –0.535 | –0.316 | –0.705 | –0.481 | –0.663 | 0.089 | |
PLN 4.59 | –1.568 | –1.249 | –1.766 | –1.540 | –1.667 | 0.165 | |
PLN 5.89 | –2.502 | –2.099 | –2.699 | –2.490 | –2.625 | 0.353 | |
PLN 7.59 | –3.108 | –2.691 | –3.392 | –3.059 | –3.220 | 0.233 | |
PLN 9.79 | –3.288 | –2.879 | –3.568 | –3.238 | –3.403 | 0.198 | |
PLN 12.99 | –3.468 | –3.046 | –3.754 | –3.417 | –3.598 | 0.191 | |
PLN 15.99 | –3.564 | –3.133 | –3.848 | –3.518 | –3.687 | 0.164 |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Sajdakowska, M.; Tekień, A. To Raise or Not to Raise the Level of Ingredients in Yoghurts: Polish Consumer Preferences Regarding Dairy Products. Nutrients 2019, 11, 2526. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11102526
Sajdakowska M, Tekień A. To Raise or Not to Raise the Level of Ingredients in Yoghurts: Polish Consumer Preferences Regarding Dairy Products. Nutrients. 2019; 11(10):2526. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11102526
Chicago/Turabian StyleSajdakowska, Marta, and Agnieszka Tekień. 2019. "To Raise or Not to Raise the Level of Ingredients in Yoghurts: Polish Consumer Preferences Regarding Dairy Products" Nutrients 11, no. 10: 2526. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11102526
APA StyleSajdakowska, M., & Tekień, A. (2019). To Raise or Not to Raise the Level of Ingredients in Yoghurts: Polish Consumer Preferences Regarding Dairy Products. Nutrients, 11(10), 2526. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11102526