| Literature DB >> 32854396 |
Lieke Vorage1, Nicola Wiseman1, Joana Graca2, Neil Harris1.
Abstract
The functional food market is one of the fastest growing segments of the global food industry. The aims of this study were to understand the association of demographic characteristics and food choice motives (FCMs) with (a) attitudes toward functional foods and (b) consumption of functional foods in Australian emerging adults. Data were collected through a paper-based and online questionnaire completed by 370 young adults aged between 17 and 29 years. A binomial logistic regression was used to determine the association between demographic characteristics and FCMs with attitudes towards functional foods. The logistic regression model was statistically significant at χ2(11) = 48.310 (p < 0.001) and explained 18.1% of the variance in attitude towards functional food. Of the several predictors, only the FCMs natural content and weight control were statistically significant. A binomial logistic regression was also used to determine the association between demographic characteristics and FCMs with the consumption of functional foods. The logistic regression model was statistically significant at χ2(9) = 37.499 (p < 0.001) and explained 14.1% of the variance in functional food consumption. Of the eight predictors, three were statistically significant: living situation, natural content and health. Findings highlight that when targeting emerging adults, functional food companies could benefit from promoting the natural and health properties of their products. Furthermore, consumption can be increased by targeting the parents of emerging adults and by designing functional foods that attract emerging adults interested in controlling weight.Entities:
Keywords: attitude; consumption; emerging adults; functional foods; motives
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32854396 PMCID: PMC7551355 DOI: 10.3390/nu12092582
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Demographic characteristics of the participants.
| Demographic Factors | Total ( | % | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 98 | 26.5 |
| Female | 272 | 73.5 | |
| Age | 17–20 | 225 | 60.8 |
| 21–29 | 145 | 39.1 | |
| Year of enrolment | 1st | 162 | 43.8 |
| 2nd | 82 | 22.2 | |
| 3rd | 71 | 19.2 | |
| 4th | 26 | 7.0 | |
| Other | 29 | 7.8 | |
| Living situation | Dependent | 211 | 57.0 |
| Independent | 159 | 43.0 | |
| Responsible for food shopping | Me | 99 | 26.8 |
| Me and someone else | 159 | 43.0 | |
| Someone else | 111 | 30.0 | |
| Missing values | 1 | 0.3 | |
| Marital status | Single | 296 | 80.0 |
| Married/Partnership | 71 | 19.2 | |
| Separated/Divorced | 2 | 0.5 | |
| Missing values | 1 | 0.3 | |
| Income | 10,399 or less | 145 | 39.2 |
| 10,400–20,799 | 124 | 33.5 | |
| 20,800–31,199 | 46 | 12.4 | |
| ≥31,200 | 44 | 11.9 | |
| Missing values | 11 | 3.0 | |
Median score for FCMs.
| Food Choice Motives | Median Score |
|---|---|
| Price | 3.33 |
| Sensory appeal | 3.25 |
| Convenience | 3.00 |
| Health | 3.00 |
| Fitness | 3.00 |
| Mood | 2.83 |
| Ecological welfare | 2.80 |
| Natural content | 2.67 |
| Weight control | 2.67 |
| Familiarity | 2.33 |
| Political values | 2.25 |
| Religion | 1.00 |
Differences in the mean rank of the FCMs by gender, age, living situation and income.
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
| ||||
| Natural content | 10,789.0 * | 190.24 | 160.89 | Natural content | 14,420.5 | 176.05 | 192.36 |
| Convenience | 12,514.5 | 181.52 | 187.14 | Convenience | 15,864.5 | 183.39 | 182.41 |
| Health | 11,941.0 | 184.27 | 172.10 | Health | 14,426.0 | 175.87 | 188.91 |
| Political Values | 11,839.0 | 183.66 | 171.82 | Political values | 14,019.5 | 175.87 | 188.91 |
| Mood | 11,374.0 | 184.74 | 168.5 | Mood | 14,782.5 | 177.69 | 184.91 |
| Ecological welfare | 9,953.5 ** | 195.64 | 151.61 | Ecological welfare | 15,885.0 | 183.23 | 185.19 |
| Sensory appeal | 11,619.5 | 191.12 | 168.07 | Sensory appeal | 15,655.0 | 182.39 | 189.03 |
| Familiarity | 12,750.0 | 183.05 | 186.69 | Familiarity | 16,013.0 | 184.19 | 183.70 |
| Price | 12,704.0 | 185.12 | 180.83 | Price | 15,789.0 | 185.20 | 182.15 |
| Weight control | 11,157.5 * | 191.83 | 164.03 | Weight control | 14,057.5 * | 193.74 | 170.12 |
| Fitness | 12,450.0 | 182.27 | 194.46 | Fitness | 15,827.5 | 187.66 | 182.16 |
| Religion | 11,666.5 * | 179.39 | 202.45 | Religion | 16,233.5 | 185.15 | 186.04 |
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
| ||||
| Natural content | 13,697.0 | 169.99 | 190.19 | Natural content | 10,865.5 | 174 | 186.03 |
| Convenience | 14,713.5 | 166.38 | 191.71 | Convenience | 10,975.5 | 174.42 | 186.68 |
| Health | 12,993.0 * | 166.38 | 191.71 | Health | 10,529.5 | 172.04 | 187.85 |
| Political values | 14,144.0 | 172 | 182.78 | Political values | 10,769.5 | 172.95 | 185.12 |
| Mood | 14,720.0 | 178.04 | 174.32 | Mood | 11,205.5 | 174.27 | 177.20 |
| Ecological welfare | 15,310.0 | 181.75 | 177.57 | Ecological welfare | 11,647.5 | 177.62 | 182.13 |
| Sensory appeal | 15,467.5 | 179.15 | 183.57 | Sensory appeal | 10,791.0 | 174.76 | 193.60 |
| Familiarity | 14,816.5 | 175.73 | 185.88 | Familiarity | 11,166.0 | 175.48 | 187.43 |
| Price | 14,537.0 | 174.72 | 187.44 | Price | 10,809.5 | 182.51 | 166.46 |
| Weight control | 14,810.0 | 176.19 | 186.60 | Weight control | 11,664.0 | 178.59 | 184.21 |
| Fitness | 15,449.5 | 179.22 | 184.69 | Fitness | 11,726.0 | 178.59 | 184.21 |
| Religion | 15,389.5 | 178.94 | 185.08 | Religion | 15,361.0 | 183.12 | 170.68 |
U: Mann–Whitney U, ** (p ≤ 0.001),* (p ≤ 0.05)
The association of demographic characteristics and FCMs with attitudes toward functional food.
| B | SE | Wald | Df | P | Odd Ratio | 95% CI for Odds Ratio | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | |||||||
| Age | −0.06 | 0.04 | 2.44 | 1 | 0.118 | 0.94 | 0.87 | 1.01 |
| Gender | −0.20 | 0.29 | 0.47 | 1 | 0.494 | 0.82 | 0.47 | 1.14 |
| Natural content | 0.60 | 0.30 | 3.91 | 1 | 0.048 | 1.82 | 1.01 | 3.29 |
| Health | 0.36 | 0.29 | 1.57 | 1 | 0.210 | 1.43 | 0.82 | 2.51 |
| Political values | −0.10 | 0.29 | 0.12 | 1 | 0.733 | 0.91 | 0.52 | 1.60 |
| Mood | 0.07 | 0.27 | 0.06 | 1 | 0.810 | 1.07 | 0.63 | 1.82 |
| Ecological welfare | 0.26 | 0.30 | 0.78 | 1 | 0.379 | 1.30 | 0.73 | 2.32 |
| Familiarity | 0.19 | 0.25 | 0.59 | 1 | 0.441 | 1.21 | 0.74 | 1.97 |
| Weight control | 1.03 | 0.27 | 14.65 | 1 | 0.000 | 2.79 | 1.65 | 4.72 |
| Fitness | −0.37 | 0.29 | 1.63 | 1 | 0.202 | 0.69 | 0.39 | 1.22 |
| Religious | 0.43 | 0.26 | 2.74 | 1 | 0.098 | 1.54 | 0.92 | 2.58 |
| Constant | −2.38 | 1.09 | 4.74 | 1 | 0.029 | 0.09 | ||
B: coefficient for the constant, SE: standard error, Wald: Wald chi-square test, Df: degrees of freedom, P: p value, and CI: confidence interval.
The association of demographic characteristics and FCMs with functional food consumption.
| B | SE | Wald | Df |
| Odd Ratio | 95% CI for Odds Ratio | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | |||||||
| Age | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.43 | 1 | 0.511 | 1.03 | 0.94 | 1.12 |
| Gender | 0.35 | 0.29 | 1.51 | 1 | 0.219 | 1.42 | 0.81 | 2.50 |
| Living situation | 1.03 | 0.28 | 13.50 | 1 | 0.000 | 2.79 | 1.62 | 4.83 |
| Natural content | 0.72 | 0.31 | 5.30 | 1 | 0.021 | 2.05 | 1.11 | 3.77 |
| Health | 0.59 | 0.30 | 3.95 | 1 | 0.047 | 1.80 | 1.01 | 3.21 |
| Ecological welfare | 0.13 | 0.28 | 0.25 | 1 | 0.620 | 0.87 | 0.50 | 1.50 |
| Weight control | 0.09 | 0.27 | 0.10 | 1 | 0.749 | 1.09 | 0.64 | 1.85 |
| Fitness | 0.26 | 0.29 | 0.78 | 1 | 0.377 | 1.30 | 0.73 | 2.31 |
| Constant | 3.99 | 1.35 | 8.70 | 1 | 0.003 | 0.02 | ||
B: coefficient for the constant, SE: standard error, Wald: Wald chi-square test, Df: degrees of freedom, P: p value, and CI: confidence interval.