Consumer Attitudes and Preference Exploration towards Fresh-Cut Salads Using Best–Worst Scaling and Latent Class Analysis
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Data Collection
2.2. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Participants
3.2. Analysis of Preferences
3.3. Latent Class Clustering Analysis
4. Discussion and Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Artes, F.; Allende, A. Minimal fresh processing of vegetables, fruits and juices. In Emerging Technologies for Food Processing; Elsevier: London, UK, 2005; pp. 677–716. [Google Scholar]
- Calonico, C.; Delfino, V.; Pesavento, G.; Mundo, M.; Nostro, A.L. Microbiological Quality of Ready-to-eat Salads from Processing Plant to the Consumers. J. Food Nutr. Res. 2019, 7, 427–434. [Google Scholar]
- Brown, H.; Williams, J.; Kirwan, M. Packaged product quality and shelf life. In Food Beverage Packaging Technology; Blackwell Publishing Ltd.: Oxford, UK, 2011; pp. 108–109. [Google Scholar]
- Mainetti, L.; Patrono, L.; Stefanizzi, M.L.; Vergallo, R. An innovative and low-cost gapless traceability system of fresh vegetable products using RF technologies and EPCglobal standard. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2013, 98, 146–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stranieri, S.; Baldi, L. Shelf Life Date Extension of Fresh-Cut Salad: A Consumer Perspective. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2017, 23, 939–954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DeVoe, S.E.; Pfeffer, J. When time is money: The effect of hourly payment on the evaluation of time. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2007, 104, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Okada, E.M. Justification effects on consumer choice of hedonic and utilitarian goods. J. Mark. Res. 2005, 42, 43–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Babin, B.; Harris, E. CB 8. Cengage Learning. 2016. Available online: https://books.google.it/books?id=X6j5DQAAQBAJ&pg=PA364&dq=Babin,+B.;+Harris,+E.+CB+8.+Cengage+Learning&hl=it&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwif_Z2F--HlAhVCaVAKHW-TCxAQ6AEIMzAB#v=onepage&q=time%20for%20money%20&f=false (accessed on 11 November 2019).
- Blanc, S.; Massaglia, S.; Brun, F.; Peano, C.; Mosso, A.; Giuggioli, N.R. Use of Bio-Based Plastics in the Fruit Supply Chain: An Integrated Approach to Assess Environmental, Economic, and Social Sustainability. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ISMEA. Acquisti Di IV Gamma. 2017. Available online: file:///C:/Users/AndreaDV/Downloads/report_IV_gamma_gen_apr17%20(3).pdf (accessed on 21 October 2019).
- ISMEA. I Consumi Delle Famiglie Italiane. 2017. Available online: file:///C:/Users/AndreaDV/Downloads/Report_consumi__2017tot_revdef%20(2).pdf (accessed on 21 October 2019).
- Bunning, M.L.; Kendall, P.A.; Stone, M.B.; Stonaker, F.H.; Stushnoff, C. Effects of seasonal variation on sensory properties and total phenolic content of 5 lettuce cultivars. J. Food Sci. 2010, 75, S156–S161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dinnella, C.; Torri, L.; Caporale, G.; Monteleone, E. An exploratory study of sensory attributes and consumer traits underlying liking for and perceptions of freshness for ready to eat mixed salad leaves in Italy. Food Res. Int. 2014, 59, 108–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumpulainen, T.; Sandell, M.; Junell, P.; Hopia, A. The effect of freshness in a foodservice context. J. Culin. Sci. Technol. 2016, 14, 153–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Demartini, E.; Ricci, E.C.; Mattavelli, S.; Stranieri, S.; Gaviglio, A.; Banterle, A.; Richetin, J.; Perugini, M. Exploring Consumer Biased Evaluations: Halos Effects of Local Food and of Related Attributes. Int. J. Food Syst. Dyn. 2018, 9, 375–389. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, H.-J.; Hwang, J. The driving role of consumers’ perceived credence attributes in organic food purchase decisions: A comparison of two groups of consumers. Food Qual. Prefer. 2016, 54, 141–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van den Heuvel, T.; van Trijp, H.; van Woerkum, C.; Jan Renes, R.; Gremmen, B. Linking product offering to consumer needs; inclusion of credence attributes and the influences of product features. Food Qual. Prefer. 2007, 18, 296–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koukkidis, G.; Freestone, P. Salmonella Contamination of Fresh Salad Produce: Prevalence, Impact and Reduction Strategies. J. Hortic. Sci. Crop Res. 2018, 1, 102. [Google Scholar]
- Lokerse, R.F.A.; Maslowska-Corker, K.A.; Van de Wardt, L.C.; Wijtzes, T. Growth capacity of Listeria monocytogenes in ingredients of ready-to-eat salads. Food Control 2016, 60, 338–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pang, H.; Lambertini, E.; Buchanan, R.L.; Schaffner, D.W.; Pradhan, A.K. Quantitative microbial risk assessment for Escherichia coli O157: H7 in fresh-cut lettuce. J. Food Prot. 2017, 80, 302–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Plazzotta, S.; Manzocco, L.; Nicoli, M.C. Fruit and vegetable waste management and the challenge of fresh-cut salad. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 63, 51–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Finn, A.; Louviere, J.J. Determining the Appropriate Response to Evidence of Public Concern: The Case of Food Safety. J. Public Policy Mark. 1992, 11, 12–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crouch, G.I.; Louviere, J.J. International Convention Site Selection: A Further Analysis of Factor Importance Using Best-Worst Scaling; CRC for Sustainable Tourism Queensland: Queensland, Australia, 2007; Chapter 2; pp. 2–7. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, C.; Li, J.; Steele, W.; Fang, X. A study on Chinese consumer preferences for food traceability information using best-worst scaling. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0206793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mueller Loose, S.; Lockshin, L. Testing the robustness of best worst scaling for cross-national segmentation with different numbers of choice sets. Food Qual. Prefer. 2013, 27, 230–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mori, T.; Tsuge, T. Best–worst scaling survey of preferences regarding the adverse effects of tobacco use in China. SSM-Popul. Health 2017, 3, 624–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Girgenti, V.; Massaglia, S.; Mosso, A.; Peano, C.; Brun, F. Exploring perceptions of raspberries and blueberries by Italian consumers. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Merlino, V.M.; Borra, D.; Girgenti, V.; Dal Vecchio, A.; Massaglia, S. Beef meat preferences of consumers from Northwest Italy: Analysis of choice attributes. Meat Sci. 2018, 143, 119–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bello Acebrón, L.; Calvo Dopico, D. The importance of intrinsic and extrinsic cues to expected and experienced quality: An empirical application for beef. Food Qual. Prefer. 2000, 11, 229–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marques, H.M.F.V.R.; Boller, C.; de Godoy, R.C.B.; Prado, M.R.M. Fresh-cut produce: Comparison between sanitation and production methods: Organic versus conventional. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2018, 7, 3038–3048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Basha, M.B.; Mason, C.; Shamsudin, M.F.; Hussain, H.I.; Salem, M.A. Consumers Attitude Towards Organic Food. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2015, 31, 444–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saba, A.; Messina, F. Attitudes towards organic foods and risk/benefit perception associated with pesticides. Food Qual. Prefer. 2003, 14, 637–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bogomolova, S.; Loch, A.; Lockshin, L.; Buckley, J. Consumer factors associated with purchasing local versus global value chain foods. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2018, 33, 33–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bulsara, H.P.; Trivedi, K.G. An Exploratory study of factors related to Consumer Behaviour towards purchase of Fruits and Vegetables from different Retail Formats. J. Res. Mark. 2016, 6, 397–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chinnici, G.; Di Grusa, A.; D’AMICO, M. The consumption of fresh-cut vegetables: Features and purchasing behavior. Qual.-Access Success 2019, 20, 178–185. [Google Scholar]
- Pilone, V.; Stasi, A.; Baselice, A. Quality preferences and pricing of fresh-cut salads in Italy: New evidence from market data. Br. Food J. 2017, 119, 1473–1486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tecco, N.; Peano, C. The Environmental Quality Factors Sought by Consumers in Alternative and Conventional Market Channels. In Alternative Food Networks; Springer: London, UK, 2018; pp. 119–136. [Google Scholar]
- Allen, M.; Clifford, J.; Atkinson, D. Exploring consumers reliance on plastic in fresh food packaging: Adding to the waste? In Proceedings of the 39th International Scientific Conference on Economic and Social Development—“Sustainability from an Economic and Social Perspective”, Lisbon, Portugal, 29–30 April 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Hoek, A.C.; Pearson, D.; James, S.W.; Lawrence, M.A.; Friel, S. Healthy and environmentally sustainable food choices: Consumer responses to point-of-purchase actions. Food Qual. Prefer. 2017, 58, 94–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nassivera, F.; Sillani, S. Consumer perceptions and motivations in choice of minimally processed vegetables: A case study in Italy. Br. Food J. 2015, 117, 970–986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stranieri, S.; Ricci, E.C.; Banterle, A. Convenience food with environmentally-sustainable attributes: A consumer perspective. Appetite 2017, 116, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Revell, B.J. Urban consumer attitudes to fresh produce safety in China. J. Food Sci. Eng. 2016, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, H.; Neal, J.A.; Sirsat, S.A. Consumers’ food safety risk perceptions and willingness to pay for fresh-cut produce with lower risk of foodborne illness. Food Control 2018, 86, 83–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, B.; Fu, Z.; Huang, J.; Wang, J.; Xu, S.; Zhang, L. Consumers’ perceptions, purchase intention, and willingness to pay a premium price for safe vegetables: A case study of Beijing, China. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 197, 1498–1507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cavaliere, A.; Ventura, V. Mismatch between food sustainability and consumer acceptance toward innovation technologies among Millennial students: The case of Shelf Life Extension. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 175, 641–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hanson, K.L.; Garner, J.; Connor, L.M.; Pitts, S.B.J.; McGuirt, J.; Harris, R.; Kolodinsky, J.; Wang, W.; Sitaker, M.; Ammerman, A. Fruit and Vegetable Preferences and Practices May Hinder Participation in Community-Supported Agriculture Among Low-Income Rural Families. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 2019, 51, 57–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baselice, A.; Colantuoni, F.; Lass, D.A.; Nardone, G.; Stasi, A. Trends in EU consumers’ attitude towards fresh-cut fruit and vegetables. Food Qual. Prefer. 2017, 59, 87–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santeramo, F.G.; Carlucci, D.; De Devitiis, B.; Seccia, A.; Stasi, A.; Viscecchia, R.; Nardone, G. Emerging trends in European food, diets and food industry. Food Res. Int. 2018, 104, 39–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Charles, F.; Nilprapruck, P.; Roux, D.; Sallanon, H. Visible light as a new tool to maintain fresh-cut lettuce post-harvest quality. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2018, 135, 51–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaeger, S.R.; Antunez, L.; Ares, G.; Johnston, J.W.; Hall, M.; Harker, F.R. Consumers’ visual attention to fruit defects and disorders: A case study with apple images. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2016, 116, 36–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilson, M.D.; Stanley, R.A.; Eyles, A.; Ross, T. Innovative processes and technologies for modified atmosphere packaging of fresh and fresh-cut fruits and vegetables. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2019, 59, 411–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kader, A.A. Quality parameters of fresh-cut fruit and vegetable products. In Fresh-Cut Fruits and Vegetables; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2002; pp. 20–29. [Google Scholar]
- Nousiainen, L.-L.; Joutsen, S.; Lunden, J.; Hänninen, M.-L.; Fredriksson-Ahomaa, M. Bacterial quality and safety of packaged fresh leafy vegetables at the retail level in Finland. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2016, 232, 73–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Asioli, D.; Canavari, M.; Malaguti, L.; Mignani, C. Fruit branding: Exploring factors affecting adoption of the new pear cultivar ‘Angelys’ in Italian large retail. Int. J. Fruit Sci. 2016, 16, 284–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cook, R. Trends in the marketing of fresh produce and fresh-cut products. Fresh-Cut Prod. Maint. Qual. Saf. 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Derbali, C.; Periklis, D.; Spyridon, M.; van Dijk, G.; Angelakis, G. Factors That Influence Consumer Buying Behavior of Fresh Packaged Food in Tunisia. Int. J. Food Beverage Manuf. Bus. Models 2018, 3, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buscher, L.A.; Martin, K.A.; Crocker, S. Point-of-purchase messages framed in terms of cost, convenience, taste, and energy improve healthful snack selection in a college foodservice setting. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 2001, 101, 909–913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carrasco, E.; Pérez-Rodríguez, F.; Valero, A.; García-Gimeno, R.M.; Zurera, G. Survey of temperature and consumption patterns of fresh-cut leafy green salads: Risk factors for listeriosis. J. Food Prot. 2007, 70, 2407–2412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Um, H.-J.; Kim, D.-M.; Choi, K.-H.; Kim, G.-H. A Survey on Consumers Perception of Fresh-cut Agri-food Products for Quality Enhancement. J. Korean Soc. Food Sci. Nutr. 2005, 34, 1566–1571. [Google Scholar]
- Alfonzo, A.; Gaglio, R.; Miceli, A.; Francesca, N.; Di Gerlando, R.; Moschetti, G.; Settanni, L. Shelf life evaluation of fresh-cut red chicory subjected to different minimal processes. Food Microbiol. 2018, 73, 298–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Alongi, M.; Sillani, S.; Lagazio, C.; Manzocco, L. Effect of expiry date communication on acceptability and waste of fresh-cut lettuce during storage at different temperatures. Food Res. Int. 2019, 116, 1121–1125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Manzocco, L.; Alongi, M.; Lagazio, C.; Sillani, S.; Nicoli, M.C. Effect of temperature in domestic refrigerators on fresh-cut Iceberg salad quality and waste. Food Res. Int. 2017, 102, 129–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tsironi, T.; Dermesonlouoglou, E.; Giannoglou, M.; Gogou, E.; Katsaros, G.; Taoukis, P. Shelf-life prediction models for ready-to-eat fresh cut salads: Testing in real cold chain. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2017, 240, 131–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mao, W. Sometimes “fee” is better than “free”: Token promotional pricing and consumer reactions to price promotion offering product upgrades. J. Retail. 2016, 92, 173–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Donselaar, K.H.; Peters, J.; de Jong, A.; Broekmeulen, R.A. Analysis and forecasting of demand during promotions for perishable items. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2016, 172, 65–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Louviere, J.J. Modeling single individuals: The journey from psych lab to the app store. In Choice Modelling: The State of the Art and the State of Practice; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MS, USA, 2013; pp. 1–47. [Google Scholar]
- Casini, L.; Corsi, A.M.; Goodman, S. Consumer preferences of wine in Italy applying best-worst scaling. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2009, 21, 64–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Massaglia, S.; Borra, D.; Peano, C.; Sottile, F.; Merlino, V.M. Consumer Preference Heterogeneity Evaluation in Fruit and Vegetable Purchasing Decisions Using the Best–Worst Approach. Foods 2019, 8, 266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cohen, E. Applying best-worst scaling to wine marketing. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2009, 21, 8–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chrysochou, P.; Corsi, A.M.; Krystallis, A. What drives Greek consumer preferences for cask wine? Br. Food J. 2012, 114, 1072–1084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dekhili, S.; Sirieix, L.; Cohen, E. How consumers choose olive oil: The importance of origin cues. Food Qual. Prefer. 2011, 22, 757–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Merlino, V.M.; Borra, D.; Lazzarino, L.L.; Blanc, S. Does the organic certification influence the purchasing decisions of milk consumers? Qual.-Access Success 2019, 20, 382–387. [Google Scholar]
- Fusi, A.; Castellani, V.; Bacenetti, J.; Cocetta, G.; Fiala, M.; Guidetti, R. The environmental impact of the production of fresh cut salad: A case study in Italy. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2016, 21, 162–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Altintzoglou, T.; Helen Nøstvold, B.; Carlehög, M.; Heide, M.; Østli, J.; Egeness, F.-A. The influence of labelling on consumers’ evaluations of fresh and thawed cod fillets in England. Br. Food J. 2012, 114, 1558–1570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cox, D.N.; Evans, G.; Lease, H.J. The influence of information and beliefs about technology on the acceptance of novel food technologies: A conjoint study of farmed prawn concepts. Food Qual. Prefer. 2007, 18, 813–823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Massaglia, S.; Merlino, V.; Borra, D. Marketing strategies for animal welfare meat identification: Comparison of preferences between millennial and conventional consumers. Qual.-Access Succes 2018, 19, 305–311. [Google Scholar]
- Van Boxstael, S.; Devlieghere, F.; Berkvens, D.; Vermeulen, A.; Uyttendaele, M. Understanding and attitude regarding the shelf life labels and dates on pre-packed food products by Belgian consumers. Food Control 2014, 37, 85–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Darke, P.R.; Chung, C.M. Effects of pricing and promotion on consumer perceptions: It depends on how you frame it. J. Retail. 2005, 81, 35–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Di Vita, G.; Blanc, S.; Brun, F.; Bracco, S.; D’Amico, M. Quality attributes and harmful components of cured meats: Exploring the attitudes of Italian consumers towards healthier cooked ham. Meat Sci. 2019, 155, 8–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andreyeva, T.; Long, M.W.; Brownell, K.D. The impact of food prices on consumption: A systematic review of research on the price elasticity of demand for food. Am. J. Public Health 2010, 100, 216–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Webber, C.B.; Sobal, J.; Dollahite, J.S. Shopping for fruits and vegetables. Food and retail qualities of importance to low-income households at the grocery store. Appetite 2010, 54, 297–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Attributes category | Fresh-cut salads attributes (FCSa) | References |
---|---|---|
Credence attributes | Organic certification | [30,31,32] |
Local production | [33,34,35,36,37] | |
Environmental sustainability | [9,38,39,40,41] | |
Safety product | [42,43,44,45] | |
Intrinsic quality cues | Seasonality | [41,46,47] |
Variety | [36,47,48] | |
Freshness/appearance | [5,49,50,51] | |
Extrinsic quality cues | Labeling information | [52,53] |
Brand | [54,55,56] | |
Price | [27,28,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69] | |
Expiration date | [60,61,62,63] | |
Promotional offers | [64,65] |
Template | LL | BIC | Chi-Square | Relative Chi-Square |
---|---|---|---|---|
Two-cluster model | −8074.19 | 16,352.67 | 3814.25 | 165.83 |
Three-cluster model | −7920.02 | 16,150.90 | 4122.60 | 117.79 |
Four-cluster model | −7808.59 | 16,034.63 | 4345.45 | 92.46 |
Five-cluster model 1 | −7718.68 | 15,961.39 | 4525.28 | 76.70 |
Features | Categories | Percentages |
---|---|---|
Sex | Women | 68% |
Men | 32% | |
Age (years-old) | 18–25 | 6% |
26–35 | 13% | |
36–45 | 14% | |
46–55 | 27% | |
56–65 | 25% | |
over 65 | 15% | |
Education | Elementary school degree | 2% |
Middle school degree | 17% | |
High school degree | 51% | |
University degree | 30% | |
Employment | Student | 4% |
Employee | 49% | |
Independent worker | 13% | |
Retired | 22% | |
In search of work | 7% | |
Housewife | 5% | |
Annual average income | <25,000 euros | 35% |
25,000–40,000 euros | 43% | |
40,000–60,000 euros | 17% | |
>60,000 euros | 5% | |
Number of family members | 1 | 18% |
2 | 32% | |
3 | 24% | |
4 | 20% | |
>4 | 6% |
Label | Times Selected Best | Times Selected Worst | B-W | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Freshness/appearance | 653 | 69 | 584 | |
Expiry date | 619 | 80 | 539 | |
Brand | 463 | 87 | 376 | |
Variety | 285 | 278 | 7 | |
Local production | 334 | 291 | 43 | |
Labeling information | 223 | 287 | −64 | |
seasonality | 240 | 326 | −86 | |
Environmental sustainability | 117 | 301 | −184 | |
Price | 182 | 401 | −219 | |
Organic certification | 137 | 381 | −244 | |
Promotional offers | 222 | 450 | −228 | |
Safety product | 125 | 649 | −524 | |
Sum 1 | 3600 (a) | 3600 (b) | 0 (c) |
Name of Cluster | Attention Appearances | Local Sensitive | Variety/Price Sensitive | Health Safeguard | Value for Money | P-Value 1 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Size Group | 30.0% | 21.6% | 18.5% | 16.3% | 13.6% | |
Attributes | Rescaled Score (Standardized Degree of Preference) 1 | |||||
Food security | 1.07 | 0.98 | 2.10 | 13.67 | 1.60 | ns . |
Information on the label | 5.90 | 9.44 | 3.06 | 6.76 | 5.25 | ** |
Manufacturer/retailer brand | 15.80 | 16.34 | 5.78 | 12.49 | 11.13 | * |
Expiry date | 19.22 | 12.66 | 18.50 | 12.30 | 15.26 | *** |
Organic certification | 3.71 | 8.02 | 1.89 | 5.17 | 2.45 | * |
Local origin | 6.92 | 16.29 | 1.91 | 8.97 | 5.85 | * |
Price | 2.49 | 1.61 | 15.28 | 3.72 | 13.85 | ns . |
Appearance/freshness | 22.76 | 9.57 | 20.11 | 14.57 | 13.21 | ** |
Seasonality | 7.12 | 10.60 | 2.20 | 3.92 | 4.99 | * |
Promotional offers | 1.72 | 1.17 | 12.77 | 3.44 | 18.07 | ns . |
Environmental impact/attention to the environment | 4.76 | 9.34 | 1.35 | 5.46 | 5.44 | * |
Type/variety | 8.52 | 3.97 | 15.06 | 9.54 | 2.90 | * |
Social-Demographic Variables | ||||||
Gender | ||||||
Woman | 68% | 65% | 67% | 74% | 63% | ** |
Man | 32% | 35% | 33% | 26% | 37% | ** |
Age | ||||||
18–25 | 4% | 6% | 7% | 6% | 11% | ** |
26–35 | 11% | 11% | 22% | 3% | 17% | ** |
36–45 | 10% | 9% | 25% | 16% | 13% | ** |
46–55 | 29% | 26% | 29% | 30% | 20% | *** |
56–65 | 30% | 28% | 11% | 25% | 28% | ** |
over 65 | 15% | 20% | 6% | 20% | 11% | ** |
Family size (n. Components) | ||||||
1 | 22% | 20% | 18% | 13% | 11% | *** |
2 | 31% | 29% | 36% | 31% | 33% | *** |
3 | 20% | 28% | 25% | 25% | 26% | *** |
4 | 21% | 19% | 15% | 20% | 24% | ** |
5 | 6% | 2% | 6% | 9% | 6% | * |
6 | 0% | 1% | 0% | 2% | 0% | ns . |
Education | ||||||
Elementary high school | 2% | 2% | 0% | 0% | 2% | ns . |
Lower average license | 16% | 14% | 7% | 30% | 22% | * |
Upper middle school license | 51% | 54% | 56% | 53% | 37% | *** |
Graduation | 31% | 29% | 38% | 17% | 39% | ** |
Occupation | ||||||
housewife | 5% | 6% | 4% | 5% | 6% | *** |
employee | 49% | 43% | 61% | 47% | 47% | *** |
in search of work | 5% | 6% | 10% | 8% | 11% | ** |
Self-employed | 15% | 13% | 13% | 11% | 9% | ** |
retired | 25% | 29% | 6% | 27% | 19% | *** |
student | 2% | 2% | 6% | 3% | 8% | * |
Income (000 Euro) | ||||||
<25 | 31% | 32% | 42% | 34% | 39% | *** |
25–40 | 40% | 52% | 42% | 44% | 39% | *** |
40–60 | 22% | 15% | 13% | 16% | 17% | *** |
> 60 | 7% | 1% | 4% | 6% | 6% | ** |
© 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
Massaglia, S.; Merlino, V.M.; Borra, D.; Bargetto, A.; Sottile, F.; Peano, C. Consumer Attitudes and Preference Exploration towards Fresh-Cut Salads Using Best–Worst Scaling and Latent Class Analysis. Foods 2019, 8, 568. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods8110568
Massaglia S, Merlino VM, Borra D, Bargetto A, Sottile F, Peano C. Consumer Attitudes and Preference Exploration towards Fresh-Cut Salads Using Best–Worst Scaling and Latent Class Analysis. Foods. 2019; 8(11):568. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods8110568
Chicago/Turabian StyleMassaglia, Stefano, Valentina Maria Merlino, Danielle Borra, Aurora Bargetto, Francesco Sottile, and Cristiana Peano. 2019. "Consumer Attitudes and Preference Exploration towards Fresh-Cut Salads Using Best–Worst Scaling and Latent Class Analysis" Foods 8, no. 11: 568. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods8110568
APA StyleMassaglia, S., Merlino, V. M., Borra, D., Bargetto, A., Sottile, F., & Peano, C. (2019). Consumer Attitudes and Preference Exploration towards Fresh-Cut Salads Using Best–Worst Scaling and Latent Class Analysis. Foods, 8(11), 568. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods8110568