Young Consumers’ Price Perceptions in Purchasing Foods: Evidence from Greece

Abstract

The recent consecutive economic and social crises impose sustainable “from farm to fork” food chain management to feed the global population. In this study, we investigated the price perceptions of young consumers (Gen Z) in purchasing foods in Greece to find out the determinants ensuring sustainable, future food consumption. We used eight overall price perception determinants, five with negative roles, namely value and price consciousness, coupon and sales proneness, and price mavenism, and three with positive roles, namely price–quality, price–value, and prestige–sensitivity for the formation of the study’s questionnaire. A total of 514 students (Gen Z, 85%) answered the questionnaire, promoted through the Google platform during September and October 2023. The data were analyzed with statistical tools, combining cross and chi-square tests. Between the negative determinants, the “value consciousness” price perceptions (71.02%) were the most important parameters in purchasing food, followed by “price consciousness” (55.02%) parameters. “Coupon proneness”, 48.4%, and “sales proneness”, 49%, were equally lower, while “price mavenism” parameters were minimally preferred by only 26.4% of the participants. Participants exhibited a major preference for the “value to price” interconnection (66.7%), such as good value for money, value exceeding a product’s price, and overvalued low-priced foods, while their preference for the “quality to price” interconnection was significantly lower (48.8%), such as in terms of getting what you pay for, more money for better quality, and priced, quality foods. The “prestige–sensitivity” price perception was outside of their preferences in terms of food purchasing (only 7.1%). Our findings indicate that young consumers (Gen Z) pay more attention to the values of negative and positive parameters concerning price perceptions when purchasing food rather than quality, coupons and sales, low prices, and mavenism, or even the prestige of the foods. This means that value issues such as the perceived environmental impact (green value), the climate crisis, the social signaling potential, and others are significant concerns, including their price perceptions for food purchases.

1. Introduction

Daily lifestyle habits have changed in a significant manner due to the global burden of COVID-19, which continues to redefine parts of our daily habits [1]. Changes vary from country to country and include, among others, time spent with family, physical activity, office work, sleeping behavior, mental health, eating habits, etc. Changes have been recorded in the food choice motives (FCM) of consumers, too, as evidenced in recent literature which was systematically reviewed by our group last year [2]. FCM, namely health—convenience—sensory appeal—nutritional quality—ethical concerns—weight control—mood—familiarity—price—shopping frequency behavior, in the new era, are perceived differently by consumers depending on their age, country, sex, and culture [2]. “Health” refers to the link of food consumption with chronic food-related diseases, “convenience foods” refers to those foods prepared and made available for easy and quick consumption, “sensory appeal” is the taste, smell, texture, and appearance of foods, and “nutritional quality” refers to the food combinations that affect overall diet quality and health [2]. “Ethical concern” refers to the impact of food production and consumption on the environment or society, “weight control” refers to the diets and exercise programs controlling body weight, “mood and stress” refers to the mood and emotional eating which influences the quantity and frequency of meals, and “familiarity” is the cognitive ability to apply knowledge acquired via experience [2]. Finally, “price” refers to the selection of foods based on their sale prices, and “shopping frequency behavior” refers to the frequency of shopping based on, among others, the sustainability and shelf-life of perishable foods [2].

Changes due to the pandemic are still underway; therefore, definite answers defining the “new” index of consumer satisfaction cannot be given yet for the “from farm to fork” food consumption process, which is an important aspect of sustainable development, especially due to new global crises caused by political instability and conflict around the world [3]. The “farm to fork” agri-food chain’s hidden, external costs of USD 12 trillion illustrate the need to make the food process more sustainable to overcome the planetary boundaries responsible for the climate crisis and biodiversity loss [4].

Since the young generation is the “future”, comprising consumers forming the future index of food satisfaction, we exploited the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on college students of Greece regarding FCM for sustainable eating behavior [5]. Most college students (18 to 32 years old) by far belong to the newest generation, referred to as Generation Z (12–28 years old), which is very different from earlier generations in terms of their preferences and characteristics, shaping the global future in a unique way, including in terms of food consumption [6]. We found that students have already returned to their previous motives for food selection engendered by the period before COVID-19, as most of the 10 parameters studied, except for “home-cooked food”, now rank higher in their preferences, and “eating at restaurants” and “eating fast food” ranked lower in their preferences. The “shopping frequency” which changed during the pandemic has now returned to the preferences of the pre-pandemic period. The study showed that the motive that continues to be of the highest concern for students before and after the pandemic is price, with students looking for good value, inexpensive foods [5].

Literature Review

The marketing literature, for a long time now, has shown that consumer knowledge, including price, plays an important role in purchase behavior [7,8,9]. Price is an important factor in food choice, especially for low-income consumers [10], who are significantly more conscious of value and price than higher-income consumers [11]. The most attractive strategies, according to the consumers’ opinions so far, are discounting healthy food more often and applying a lower VAT (value-added tax) rate on them. Pricing strategies (e.g., price reductions/increases, the “buy one get two” strategy, bonus systems, etc.) are seen as a promising approach because sales promotions form an important part of the marketing mix [12,13]. The price gradient more favorable to large unit sizes receives wide criticism because it can trigger consumers to over-purchase and eventually waste food [14]. However, recent research indicates that this relationship is not as straightforward as the criticism implies [15,16]. Two systematic reviews on the effects of price perceptions and consumer shopping behavior highlight the importance of assessing possible different parameters of pricing strategies on dietary behaviors, and the limited evidence available addressing these parameters [17,18]. Investigating if pricing interventions differentially affect subgroups of the population is important, especially in studying new generations such as Gen Z, since these interventions may alter their food disparities [17,19]. The consumers’ pricing perceptions may differ across socio-economic positions or person-related factors such as Body Mass Index and sex [20,21]. To date, limited research results have been published on the potential differential effects of pricing attitudes in terms of personal characteristics, including targeted subgroups, impulsivity, decision-making styles, price sensitivity, and food choice motives [22]. Even though price sensitivity is related to individuals’ decision-making processes, evidence shows that individuals who highly value “health”, “natural content”, and “weight control” tend to purchase foods with high prices compared to individuals who find these motives of less importance [22].

Currently, studies are targeting trust and consumers’ acceptance of food products incorporating social and environmental costs into the price of the food, i.e., “True price food products” [23]. Among the rather novel approach of the economic instrument of “true price food”, another possible measure is cost accounting [24], and ecological and sometimes social implications from agricultural production are monetized and internalized into the price of foods. Consumers show interest in true food pricing, even though there are concerns that many of them might not be able to afford to pay the true prices. The more consumers that perceive themselves as gaining value from true food pricing as it pertains to social status and green value (positive environmental impact), the greater the consumers’ trust in true pricing characteristics and in organizations that implement true pricing, and therefore the higher the consumers’ intentions to purchase true price foods [25]. True pricing levels the food’s market prices and true costs of food production [26], encouraging the food industry to come up with more beneficial externalities in food production and to provide more transparency about the true price or even charge for it [27].

Recent studies show that the current continuing global economic crises are causing increased prices for all economic activities [28]. Not only the agricultural products of the farm-to-fork chain are dramatically affected [29], but also the food prices [30], with inflation increasing worldwide [31]. Therefore, studying youngsters’ (Gen Z) price perceptions in purchasing their foods is an urgent research topic for shaping the future of the sustainable “farm to fork” food chain in such OKturbulent periods.

In this study, we exploited the Greek students’ responses about their perceptions of food prices when deciding to choose their food. To accomplish this research, according to the literature on food pricing [32], our work tested the following determinants regarding purchasing food:

Determinants with a negative role of price on food selection:

○

Value consciousness;

○

Price consciousness;

○

Coupon consciousness;

○

Sales proneness;

○

Price mavenism (maven).

Determinants with a positive role of price in food selection:

○

Price–quality;

○

Value–price;

○

Prestige–sensitivity.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Collection and Sample Characterization

A questionnaire was prepared to investigate the students’ food price perceptions; it was composed of nine parts, based on the parts presented for the first time by Lichtenstein et al. in 1993 [32] (Table S1). The questions were initially formed in English, as presented in Table S1, and then were translated into Greek for the promotion of the questionnaire to the Greek students. The social/demographic characteristics of the respondents were obtained in the first part (gender, age, civil state, employment status, and permanent residency). Parts 2–8 consisted of four questions each designed to assess the perceptions of students regarding their consciousness of value, price, coupon proneness, sales proneness, price mavenism, the price–quality relationship, and the value–price relationship, while part 9 consisted of eight questions regarding the prestige–sensitivity relation.

The initial testing of the questionnaire as well as the method used for its distribution was conducted as described by Skalkos et al. in the first paper regarding students’ questionnaires [5].

The survey took place during the period of September to October 2023. The research was conducted through the online Google Forms distributed to the students of the University of Ioannina, Greece, which has seven schools, fifteen departments covering all subject matters, and more than 30,000 active students from all over Greece. GDPR approval was granted by the University’s Bureau of Personal Data Protection and the students were reached afterward through their academic e-mails. In the survey, 514 students of the University responded, a survey population comprising 1.7% of the 30,000 enrolled students. The sociodemographic characterization of the perticipants is shonw in

Table 1. Sociodemographic characterization of the sample.

Variable	Groups	%
Gender	Male	27.9
	Female	72.1
Age	18–20	46.7
	21–25	33.7
	26–30	8.1
	31–35	11.4
Civil state	Single	89.5
	Married	7.9
	Divorced	2.6
Job situation	Employed student	30
	Student exclusively	70
Permanent residency (among the Greek regions)	NORTH GREECE (regions of Macedonia—Thrace)	27.5
	WEST GREECE (region of Epirus—Aitoloakarnania prefecture)	35.4
	CENTRAL GREECE (including Athens)	24.2
	SOUTH GREECE (region of Peloponnese)	6.1
	ISLANDS	6.8

below.

In terms of geographical distribution, participants, students studying in the Epirus region of Greece but residing permanently in other regions were 35.4% permanent residents of west Greece, 27.5% of north Greece, 24.2% residents of Central Greece, 6.8% residents of the Greek islands, and 6.1% of South Greece, a well-balanced national distribution based on the population of each region. Most of the participants were aged between 18 and 20 and between 21 and 25 years old (46.7% and 33.7%, respectively), and less between 26 and 30 and 31 and 35 years (8.1% and 11.4%, respectively). Therefore, Generation Z (18–28 years old) comprised more than 85% of the participants. Regarding the employment status category, students (70%) dominated the respondents, which is also representative for the Gen Z population.

2.2. Data Analysis

The questionnaire was built up on a five-point Likert scale (1 = not at all important, 2 = less important, 3 = moderately important, 4 = quite important, and 5 = very important) [33] to measure the students’ perceptions of price. Statistical treatment of data was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (Version 25.0, IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Nonparametric tests were used. Nonparametric testing was performed to test the distribution of the variables of each group and response based on the hypothesized equal proportions for each variable. The Chi-Square Independence Test was used to determine whether there was an association between the variables. Cramer’s V coefficient was used to analyze the strength of the significant relations found between some of the variables in the study. This coefficient ranged from 0 to 1 and can be interpreted as follows: V ≈ 0.1, the association is considered weak; V ≈ 0.3, the association is moderate; and V ≈ 0.5 or over, the association is strong. Sociodemographic characteristics were considered as predictor variables that could affect the other responses to the questionnaire. In all of the tests performed, the level of significance considered was 5% (p < 0.05), as described by Skalkos et al. [34].

3. Results

The results of the negative role of price perceptions on food purchase answered by the participants of the study are presented in

Table 2. Young consumers’ perceptions of the negative role of price on food selection regarding consciousness of value and price, proneness toward coupons and sales, and price mavenism (Values represent %).

THE NEGATIVE ROLE OF PRICE IN PURCHASING FOOD
PREFERENCE REGARDING VALUE CONSCIOUSNESS IN PURCHASING FOOD
How important is the criterion for your purchase of FOOD	Not at all important	Less important	Moderately important	Quite important	Very important
The low prices in connection with the food quality	2.8	7.3	20.9	37.2	31.9
The “shopping around” for lower prices of food	0.8	6.1	21.3	40.2	31.7
The “worth of money” selection criteria	0.6	4.1	17.6	41.4	36.3
The comparison of the “price per Kg” between the available foods for purchase	3.1	9.8	21.6	37.6	27.8
PREFERENCE REGARDING PRICE CONSCIOUSNESS IN PURCHASING FOOD
How important is the criterion for your purchase of FOOD
Not to go to extra effort to find lower prices.	10.2	16.5	28.9	28.5	15.7
To shop at more than one store to take advantage of low prices.	9.1	18.5	26.0	29.5	16.9
The time it takes to find low prices.	6.3	12.4	31.4	31.8	18.1
The money saved by finding low prices.	1.8	3.9	14.7	34.3	45.3
PREFERENCE REGARDING COUPON PRONENESS ON PURCHASING FOOD
How important is the criterion for your purchase of FOOD
To redeem coupons in order to feel good.	13.6	14.2	21.1	26.0	25.2
To enjoy clipping coupons out of different sources.	21.5	21.9	22.0	22.2	12.4
To feel you are getting a good deal using coupons.	13.4	14.8	21.1	29.5	21.3
To enjoy using coupons regarding the amount of money saved by doing so.	13.9	9.9	19.0	27.9	29.3
PREFERENCE REGARDING SALES PRONENESS ON PURCHASING FOOD
How important is the criterion your purchase of FOOD
The food is on sale.	2.0	5.1	20.1	33.7	39.2
The selection of the food brand because it is on sale.	2.2	11.2	25.1	36.5	25.1
The selection of a favorite food brand regarding the sale status.	5.3	15.1	37.6	30.7	11.4
The negative attitude toward purchasing food brands that are on sale.	26.8	26.2	27.2	15.2	4.7
PREFERENCE REGARDING PRICE MAVENISM ON PURCHASING FOOD
How important is the criterion your purchase of FOOD
Searching for information in advance about prices for different types of food.	13.9	23.2	28.7	22.0	12.3
Being well-informed constantly as an expert on food prices.	19.2	26.1	28.1	17.0	9.7
Asking an expert that you know about food prices before purchasing the food.	31.0	24.5	25.7	12.6	6.1
Trusting the internet as a reliable source about the prices of foods.	20.0	25.7	28.1	18.4	7.7

. As shown, based on the “quite” and “very important” answers, the most important negative price determinant for food purchase was “value consciousness”, for which it was “quite” or “very important” in the “worth for money” selection criterion (77.7%), followed by “shopping around” for lower prices (71.9%), the connection between “quality and low price” (69.1%), and “price per Kg” (65.4%) among the available foods for purchase.

The second important determinant was “price consciousness”, for which it was “quite” or “very important” for the participants that the food they purchase helped them “save money by finding low prices” (79.6%), followed by “the time that it takes to find lower prices” (49.9%), “shopping in more stores for lower prices” (46.4%), and “not expend extra effort to find lower prices” (44.2%).

The third important determinant for the participants was “coupon proneness”, for which was is “very” and “quite important” that consumers are “enjoying using coupons regarding the saving of money” (57.2%), followed by “redeeming coupons to feel good“ (51.2%), “the feeling of getting a good deal with the coupons” (50.8%), and “less extend enjoying clipping coupons of different sources” (34.6%).

The fourth important determinant, almost equal to the third one, was “sales proneness”, for which it was “quite” or “very important” for the participants that “the food be on sale” (72.9%), followed by “the selection of the food brand be on sale” 61.6%); important to a lesser extent were the “the selection of food brand regarding the sales status” (42.1%) and “the negative attitude for food brand on sale” criteria (29.9%).

The fifth negative important determinant, by far the last one in the participants’ price perceptions, was “price mavenism”, for which it was “quite” and “very important” that the students “search for information in advance about prices” for different types of food, 34.3%, “ask experts for food prices”, 28.7%, and “be well informed about food prices”, 26.7%, followed by “trust the internet for food prices”, 26.1%. Price mavens, coined by Feick and Price in 1987 [35], like their market maven counterparts, collect price information in order to share it with others and obtain social returns from their searching behavior [36].

Table S2 depicts the significant (p < 0.05) associations between participants’ perceptions of negative food pricing determinants and sociodemographic variables. Specifically, regarding the topic of value consciousness, associations were observed between gender, age, civil state, job situation and residency (connection of low prices and food quality: age (x² = 23.672, p = 0.023), comparison of the “price per Kg” between the available foods: gender (x² = 12.739, p = 0.013), age (x² = 35.417, p = 0.000), job situation (x² = 13.930, p = 0.008)), the price convenience topic showed significant associations between age, job situation and residency (no extra effort to find lower prices: job situation (x² = 11.050, p = 0.026), shop to more than one stores to find lower prices: gender (x² = 11.106, p = 0.025), saving money by finding lower prices: job situation (x² = 13.405, p = 0.009), residency (x² = 26.649, p = 0.046)). The coupon proneness showed statistically significant associations (p < 0.05) between gender and residency (redeem coupons to feel good: residency (x² = 26.255, p = 0.050), enjoy clipping coupon from different sources: residency (x² = 27.667, p = 0.035), getting a good deal: residency (x² = 29.751, p = 0.019) and enjoy using coupons regarding the amount of money saved by doing so: gender (x² = 11.214, p = 0.024), residency (x² = 26.308, p = 0.050)), while the sales proneness topic showed associations with most of the sociodemographic variables (food on sale: gender (x² = 18.123, p = 0.001), age (x² = 26.593, p = 0.009), selection of a food brand on sale: gender (x² = 15.402, p = 0.004), residency (x² = 27.623, p = 0.035), selection of the favor food brand regarding the sale status: gender (x² = 10.130, p = 0.038), negative attitude toward purchasing a food brand which is on sale: civil state (x² = 31.716, p = 0.000)). Finally, the price mavenism topic showed associations between the sociodemographic variables regarding the trust in the internet as a reliable source about the prices of foods: gender (x² = 11.729, p = 0.019), age (x² = 27.213, p = 0.007), and residency (x² = 39.460, p = 0.001).

The results of the positive role of price on food selection and purchase answered by the participants of the study are presented in

Table 3. Young consumers’ perceptions of the positive role of price on food selection regarding the connections of price–quality, value–price, and prestige–sensitivity (Values represent %).

THE POSITIVE ROLE OF PRICE IN PURCHASING FOOD
PREFERENCE REGARDING PRICE–QUALITY WHEN PURCHASING FOOD
How important is the criterion for your purchase of FOOD	Not at all important	Less important	Moderately important	Quite important	Very important
The higher the price of a food, the higher its quality.	9.4	21.0	35.4	19.3	14.9
The common phrase “you get what you pay for” is generally true.	4.9	16.7	28.7	31.4	18.3
The price of food is a good indicator of its quality.	5.5	15.7	25.3	28.5	25.0
You must pay a bit more for the best food.	3.6	11.5	27.1	35.0	22.9
PREFERENCE REGARDING VALUE–PRICE WHEN PURCHASING FOOD
How important is the criterion for your purchase of FOOD
To be priced based on its exact value.	3.0	13.0	30.2	34.5	19.3
To be a “good value for money” food.	0.6	4.1	14.7	40.8	39.8
To have a value exceeding its price.	4.3	8.3	27.2	33.9	26.4
Not to be undervalued because of its low price.	2.9	4.7	20.2	40.6	31.6
PREFERENCE REGARDING THE PRESTIGE–SENSITIVITY WHEN PURCHASING FOOD
How important is the criterion for your purchase of FOOD
To pay attention when you buy the most expensive brand of food.	42.5	31.8	19.9	3.7	2.1
To feel better buying a high-priced food brand.	38.8	30.2	19.5	8.2	3.3
To feel classy buying the most expensive food brand.	58.7	20.9	11.5	6.0	2.9
To enjoy the prestige of buying a high-priced food brand.	53.4	22.6	12.5	8.0	3.5
To have your friends consider you are cheap if you consistently buy the lower priced version of a food.	64.1	20.5	6.2	5.8	3.3
To buy the most expensive food brand just because your friends will notice it.	78.6	14.4	3.5	2.1	1.4
To buy the kinds of foods and food brands based on the judgments others will make about you because of the specific selections.	78.0	13.8	4.5	2.1	1.6
To select a costly food brand versus a relatively inexpensive food since it is impressive.	81.1	12.7	3.3	1.6	1.4

. The most important determinant was the “value–price” interconnection, for which it was “quite” or “very important” for the participants to receive “good value for money food”, 80.6%, “not an undervalued food because of its low price”, 72.2%, “value exceeding its price”, 60.3%, and “price base on foods’ exact value, 53.8%.

The second most important determinant was the “quality–price” interconnection, for which it was “quite” or “very important” for the participants to “pay a bit more for the best food”, 57.9%, “get a price indicator of the food’s quality”, 53.5%, “get what you pay for”, 49.7%, and “get a higher price with higher quality”, 34.2%.

The third and least important determinant was the “prestige–sensitivity” interconnection, for which all questions had a very low percentage of “quite” or “very important” responses, including “feeling better buying high-priced food brands”, 11.5%, “enjoying the prestige of buying high-priced food brands”, 11.5%, “having friends considering you cheap buying constantly lower-priced versions of food”, 9.1%, “feeling classy buying the most expensive food brand”, 8.9%, ”paying attention when buying the most expensive food brand”, 5.8%, “buying the specific food brand based on the judgment of others will make about you”, 3.7%, “buying the most expensive food brand for friends’ attention”, 3.5%, and “selecting a costly food brand since it is impressive”, 3%.

Table S3 shows the statistically significant (p < 0.05) associations between participants’ perceptions on the remaining topics of the food pricing questionnaire and sociodemographic variables. Regarding the connection between price and quality, significant associations were found between civil state and gender (the higher the price of a food, the higher its quality: civil state (x² = 17.232, p = 0.028), the common phrase “you get what you pay for” to be generally true: civil state (x² = 16.786, p = 0.032), and one must pay a bit more for the best food: gender (x² = 12.790, p = 0.012)). The connection between value and price showed significant associations for two of the questions with the sociodemographic variables (to be priced based on its exact value: age (x² = 25.368, p = 0.013), and residency (x² = 26.675, p = 0.045), to be a “good value for money” food: civil state (x² = 18.174, p = 0.020)). Finally, for the connection between prestige and sensitivity, the significant associations were the following: between paying attention when you buy the most expensive brand of food and age (x² = 30.044, p = 0.003), between feeling better when buying a high-priced food brand and age (x² = 23.711, p = 0.022), and between feeling classy buying the most expensive food brand and age (x² = 22.745, p = 0.030), and civil state (x² = 15.391, p = 0.050).

4. Discussion

The results presented above indicate that young consumers’ price perceptions for the purchase of their foods vary depending on the determinant (parameter) chosen for the food selection.

Between the negative determinants, the “value consciousness” price perception on purchasing food was the most important parameter for the participants of the study (average 71.02% of “quite” and “very important” answers based on the five questions included in the questionnaire). Our results agree with the reported literature indicating that initial value sources can potentially contribute to promoting trust and consumer acceptance of the true pricing of foods [25]. Wikstrom et al. reported that, often, consumers’ biggest problem is how to integrate available resources and to make trade-offs between different value dimensions in a way so as to contribute to a good price of food [37].

The second most important negative determinant based on participants’ answers was been “price consciousness”, providing an average of 55.02% of “quite” and “very important” answers. The importance of low pricing was addressed by Afshin et al., who systematically reviewed existing literature on the prospective impact of food pricing on improving food consumption (an action that follows the purchase of foods) [38]. They indicated that, according to existing literature, a 10% decrease in the price of food increases consumption by 12%, and a 10% increase in price decreases consumption by 6%.

The two determinants with equal negative importance for price perceptions recorded, third and fourth in a row, were “coupon proneness” with a 48.4% average of “quite” and “very important” answers and “sales proneness” with a 49% average. Our results agree with the findings of Yen-Ting et al. [39], who studied the effects of price discounts and bonus packs together on consumers. The authors reported that either for vice foods (pearl milk tea) or virtue foods (sugar-free tea), a price discount is as effective as a bonus pack. They contended that consumers would prefer a price discount when purchasing pearl milk tea, but a bonus pack when purchasing sugar-free tea.

The last negative price determinant for the participants’ preference for food purchase, with a very low average percentage of “quite” and “very important answers”, was “price mavenism”, with only 26.4%. Feick and Price introduced the concept of market mavens (MM) to describe a unique pattern of consumer behavior wherein a minority of retail consumers disproportionately influences the behavior of other consumers [35]. Goldsmith et al. showed that mavenism is positively associated with brand engagement in self-concept, status consumption, and materialism [40]. Somers et al. studied the association of mavenism and pleasure with food involvement in older adults and found that food mavenism and pleasure motivation are stronger predictors of food involvement than demographic factors [41].

From the three determinants with positive affects on price perceptions recorded by the young participants, the most important was “value–price” with an average of 66.7% of “quite” and “very important” answers to the four questions asked. The importance of the value-to-price connection by consumers for food purchase has been emphasized by many scholars [42,43,44,45]. Taufik et al. recently studied consumer value for true-price food products and found that value sources can potentially contribute to promoting consumer acceptance of true pricing in the food domain, with various other factors being relevant as well [25].

The determinant with second most positive importance for the young consumers on purchasing food recorded was “quality–price”, with an average of 48.8% of “quite” and “very important” answers, significantly lower than the “value–price” answers. Food quality as a major parameter for consumers’ food perception has been studied extensively for more than 20 years [46,47]. Studies have focused recently on purchase decisions based on quality and price for selected foods such as fast food [48], organic food [49], and others. Nabila and Tambunan recently indicated that customers in making purchases are influenced by the quality of food, service levels, prices, and the store environment [50]. Our results indicated, however, that value assets are much more important than quality for price perceptions in food purchasing for young consumers, which may include assets such as the perceived positive environmental impact (green value), the social signaling potential [25], and others.

The determinant with no positive importance on purchasing food by the young consumers of our study was “prestige–sensitivity”, with a low 7.1% average of “quite” and “very important” answers. Based on the eight questions used in this parameter and the answers received, young consumers do not pay attention to expensive brands when purchasing their food, even when they are persuaded by their friends. Even though personal branding is highly important for Gen Z youngsters for their own activities [51,52], apparently it is not important for their food choice, even when it has to do with specific food brand groups such as halal foods [53].

5. Conclusions

As Generation Z (Gen-Z) consumers currently constitute approximately 40% of global consumers and are projected to become the largest consumer segment worldwide by 2030 [54], their burgeoning spending power has become increasingly evident. They are now moving to the next phase in which they will constitute the predominant majority of the incoming workforce bringing a distinct set of characteristics into the workplace and marketplace, including the purchase and consumption of foods. The current work on young consumers’ perceptions is the first study ever that systematically examines Gen Z’s price determinants in purchasing foods. It is the research extension of our earlier findings indicating students’ preference for value for money, inexpensiveness, and cheap foods as part of their food choice motives [5].

Our current findings indicated that youngsters are positively affected primarily by the “value to price” interconnection for the food they buy, and secondarily by the “quality to price” relationship. Interestingly, they do not purchase expensive, high-priced food brands, neither as a prestigious, impressive projection for friends nor as a prompt from friends.

On the other hand, our findings showed that youngsters are negatively affected by the “value consciousness” of the food price they select, shopping around to receive proper value for their money and low-priced, and priced-per-Kg foods. Secondarily, they pay attention to the “price consciousness” of foods, evaluating the time they spend, the extra effort they take, the stores they visit, and the money they save searching for the lowest price of each food. Interestingly, they are not affected by “coupon and sales proneness” as much as expected, such as redeeming coupons or selecting food brands on sale, except for finding food and food brands on sale. Lastly, “price mavenism” is the price perception that does not interest the young participants of this study significantly, and they are affected minimally by advanced information and expert opinions when purchasing foods.

The study has two limitations concerning the participants’ group. The first is the female participation of 72.1%, exceeding by far the male participation, which is only 27.9% (a discrepancy typical of most online studies). The second is the participation of the Gen Z participants of Greece only (extension to other countries should be conducted in the future).

This research has not only managerial and policy implications for marketing but also poses a theoretical contribution for marketing researchers studying Gen Z’s behavior. The results are very helpful for the food industry and those organizations which participate in the farm-to-fork process overall, ensuring a successful path to market for foods. With this research work, the industry has a first indication of the price perceptions of future adults in order to be prepared in advance for the food market of the near future.

Future research as a continuation of the current study will include an examination of youngsters’ price perceptions of selected groups of daily purchased foods such as dairy, fruits and vegetables, etc. and a further investigation of the various determinants affecting the value-to-price and value consciousness criteria food-purchasing behavior, since value appears to be the most important criterion.