Conjoint Analysis Study to Examine Consumer’s Preferences for Hybrid Yogurt
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Recruitment and Participants
2.2. Study Questionnaires
2.2.1. Food Neophobia Questionnaire
2.2.2. Attitudes and Values
2.3. Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis
2.4. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Participant Characteristics
3.2. Individual Importance
3.2.1. Product Attributes and Individual Importance
3.2.2. Demographic Factors and Individual Importance
3.2.3. Person Values and Individual Importance
3.3. Attribute Utility Scores
3.3.1. 100% Dairy Yogurt
3.3.2. Hybrid (50% Dairy + 50% Oat)
3.3.3. 100% Oat
3.4. Are Dairy or Plant-Based Foods Healthier?
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- 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]
- 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]
- 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).
- 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).
- U.S. Retail Market Insights for the Plant-Based Industry. Available online: https://gfi.org/marketresearch/#yogurt (accessed on 28 June 2024).
- 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).
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- Li, T.; Dando, R. Impact of common food labels on consumer liking in vanilla yogurt. Foods 2019, 8, 584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weinrich, R.; Elshiewy, O. Preference and willingness to pay for meat substitutes based on micro-algae. Appetite 2019, 142, 104353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- 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).
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- Nolden, A.A.; Forde, C.G. The Nutritional Quality of Plant-Based Foods. Sustainability 2023, 15, 3324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Siegrist, M.; Hartmann, C. Consumer acceptance of novel food technologies. Nat. Food 2020, 1, 343–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Attributes | Attribute Levels |
---|---|
100% Dairy | |
Protein source | 50% Dairy + 50% Oat (Hybrid) |
100% Oat | |
3 g | |
Protein content | 8 g |
13 g | |
Fortified with Vit.D | |
Package claim | Contains probiotics |
No claim | |
Vanilla | |
Flavor | Blueberry |
Plain | |
$1.29 | |
Price | $1.69 |
$2.29 |
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 education | 0 (0) | 3 (0.8) | 3 (0.4) |
High school | 85 (19.3) | 54 (14.2) | 139 (16.9) |
Associate degree | 39 (8.9) | 42 (11.1) | 81 (9.9) |
Bachelor’s degree | 250 (56.8) | 215 (56.7) | 465 (56.8) |
Graduate degree or higher | 66 (15) | 65 (17.2) | 131 (16) |
Employment | N (%) | ||
Employed | 404 (91.8) | 340 (89.7) | 744 (90.9) |
Unemployed | 22 (5) | 23 (6.1) | 45 (5.5) |
Student | 6 (1.4) | 4 (1.0) | 10 (1.2) |
Other | 8 (1.8) | 12 (3.2) | 20 (2.4) |
Area of Residence | N (%) | ||
Urban | 202 (45.9) | 170 (44.9) | 372 (45.4) |
Suburban | 147 (33.4) | 138 (36.4) | 285 (34.8) |
Rural | 80 (18.2) | 69 (18.2) | 149 (18.2) |
Remote | 10 (2.3) | 2 (0.5) | 12 (1.5) |
Not sure | 1 (0.2) | 0 (0) | 1 (0.1) |
Consumption Dairy Yogurt | N (%) | ||
Never | 6 (1.4) | 15 (4) | 21 (2.6) |
<1 per month | 30 (6.8) | 29 (7.7) | 59 (7.2) |
1–3 times a month | 89 (20.2) | 85 (22.4) | 174 (21.2) |
Once a week | 73 (16.6) | 63 (16.6) | 136 (16.7) |
2–4 times a week | 156 (35.5) | 115 (30.3) | 271 (33.1) |
5–6 times a week | 86 (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 month | 47 (10.7) | 55 (14.5) | 102 (12.5) |
1–3 times a month | 59 (13.4) | 62 (16.4) | 121 (14.8) |
Once a week | 54 (12.3) | 54 (14.2) | 108 (13.2) |
2–4 times a week | 64 (14.5) | 50 (13.2) | 114 (13.9) |
5–6 times a week | 42 (9.5) | 28 (7.4) | 70 (8.5) |
Consumer Values | Mean ± SD | ||
Health | 27.7 ± 4.3 | 28.2 ± 4.3 | 27.9 ± 4.2 |
Moral satisfaction | 15.6 ± 2.6 | 15.8 ± 2.7 | 15.7 ± 2.7 |
Sustainability | 21.9 ± 4.9 | 22.2 ± 4.6 | 22.1 ± 4.8 |
Social norms | 11.1 ± 2.5 | 10.8 ± 2.6 | 10.9 ± 2.5 |
Food neophobia | 25.5 ± 6.7 | 24.8 ± 6.6 | 25.2 ± 6.6 |
Predictors | 100% Dairy | Hybrid | 100% Oat |
---|---|---|---|
Product Attributes | β | β | β |
Protein Content | −0.164 | 0.177 | - |
Flavor | −0.119 | 0.188 | - |
Price | −0.076 | - | - |
Model Statistics | |||
R2 | 2.1% | 4.0% | - |
F | 6.9 | 18.2 | - |
p | <0.001 | <0.001 | NS |
Person Values | β | β | β |
Moral Satisfaction | −0.210 | −0.081 | 0.258 |
Health | −0.087 | - | - |
Model Statistics | |||
R2 | 5.5% | 0.5% | 6.5% |
F | 24.9 | 5.4 | 58 |
p | <0.001 | 0.02 | <0.001 |
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. |
© 2024 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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
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
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 StyleMarlapati, 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