| Literature DB >> 35159474 |
Raquel Alves Mauricio1, Rosires Deliza2, Renata Tieko Nassu3.
Abstract
The use of edible coatings in meat is currently being investigated in several studies. However, consumers' attitudes toward this technology are not clear. This study evaluated consumers' intention to purchase vacuum-packaged meat with a chitosan coating based on the label information. Three factors combined with different levels were considered: type of cut ("loin", "French rack", or "leg steak"), coating/information (no information, chitosan without information explained, and chitosan with information explained), and price (low or high). Consumers' purchase intentions were evaluated using a 7-point structured scale (1 = certainly would not buy; 7 = certainly would buy). The data were analyzed by conjoint analysis and cluster analysis. The average purchase intention value was 4.3 ± 0.5. The "French rack" cut showed the highest value for purchase intention and a high price was also a relevant factor. The packaging with the label stating the presence of a "chitosan" coating without giving any further information obtained higher purchase intentions than the one with the more detailed information label. In the cluster analysis, the factor "type of cut" showed the highest relative importance in two groups, while "price" had a higher impact in another. The type of cut was the main factor affecting consumers' purchase intentions. However, different attitudes were observed depending on the group.Entities:
Keywords: chitosan; conjoint analysis; packaging; purchase intention
Year: 2022 PMID: 35159474 PMCID: PMC8834480 DOI: 10.3390/foods11030323
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Frequency of socio-demographic characteristics of participants.
| Frequency (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Socio-Demographic Parameters | Total | Cluster 1 | Cluster 2 | Cluster 3 |
| Gender | ||||
| Male | 36.5 | 32.1 | 48.1 | 35.3 |
| Female | 63.5 | 67.9 | 51.9 | 64.7 |
| Age | ||||
| 18 to 25 years | 8.8 | 4.8 | 17.3 | 5.9 |
| 26 to 35 years | 17.6 | 17.9 | 21.2 | 8.8 |
| 36 to 45 years | 26.5 | 33.3 | 17.3 | 23.5 |
| 46 to 55 years | 29.4 | 25.0 | 30.8 | 41.2 |
| 56 to 65 years | 10.6 | 11.9 | 7.7 | 11.8 |
| More than 65 years | 7.1 | 7.1 | 5.8 | 8.8 |
| Education | ||||
| Elementary/middle school | - | - | - | - |
| High school | 5.3 | 3.6 | 7.7 | 5.9 |
| Technical school | 1.8 | 1.2 | 1.9 | 2.9 |
| Undergraduate | 17.0 | 11.9 | 25.0 | 20.6 |
| Graduate | 75.9 | 83.3 | 65.4 | 70.6 |
| Region | ||||
| North | 0.6 | - | - | 2.9 |
| Northeast | 13.5 | 11.9 | 17.3 | 8.8 |
| Central-West | 15.3 | 19.0 | 5.8 | 20.6 |
| Southeast | 60.6 | 58.3 | 67.3 | 61.8 |
| South | 10.0 | 10.7 | 9.6 | 5.9 |
| Income | ||||
| Less than 2 minimum wages * | 4.7 | 2.4 | 9.6 | 2.9 |
| 3 to 5 minimum wages | 18.8 | 13.1 | 26.9 | 17.6 |
| 5 to 10 minimum wages | 15.9 | 20.2 | 9.6 | 17.6 |
| 10 to 20 minimum wages | 36.5 | 41.7 | 32.7 | 29.4 |
| More than 20 minimum wages | 24.1 | 22.6 | 21.2 | 32.4 |
| Lamb meat consumption | ||||
| Never | 18.2 | 21.4 | 21.2 | 17.6 |
| Occasionally | 49.4 | 51.2 | 46.2 | 38.2 |
| Sometimes | 21.2 | 15.5 | 25.0 | 29.4 |
| Frequently | 10.6 | 10.7 | 7.7 | 14.7 |
| Always | 0.6 | 1.2 | - | - |
| Label reading | ||||
| Never | 3.5 | 2.4 | 3.8 | 5.9 |
| Occasionally | 10.0 | 9.5 | 9.6 | 11.8 |
| Sometimes | 15.9 | 11.9 | 13.5 | 26.5 |
| Frequently | 35.3 | 35.7 | 38.5 | 29.4 |
| Always | 35.3 | 40.5 | 34.6 | 26.5 |
* minimum wage = R$ 998.00 (US$ 255.00) in January 2019.
Factors and levels of the fractionated factorial design used in this study.
| Treatment n. | Coating/Information | Type of Cut | Price |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | No information | French rack (carré) | High R$ 32.20 (US$ 8.21) |
| 2 | Chitosan, explained information 1 | French rack (carré) | High R$ 32.20 (US$ 8.21) |
| 3 | Chitosan, explained information 1 | Loin | Low R$ 18.36 (US$ 4.68) |
| 4 | Chitosan, information 2 | Loin | High R$ 39.57 (US$ 10.09) |
| 5 | No information | Leg steak | Low R$ 12.03 (US$ 3.06) |
| 6 | Chitosan, information 2 | Leg steak | High R$ 21.13 (US$ 5.39) |
| 7 | No information | Loin | High R$ 39.57 (US$ 10.09) |
| 8 | Chitosan, information 2 | French rack (carré) | Low R$ 17.89 (US$ 4.56) |
| 9 | Chitosan, explained information 1 | Leg steak | High R$ 21.13 (US$ 5.39) |
1 “With chitosan edible coating, technology for preserving meat properties”. 2 “With chitosan edible coating”.
Figure 1Examples of labels and packagings used in the study (a) treatment 8: chitosan/information, French rack cut (“carré”), low price and (b) treatment 9: chitosan/explained information, leg steak cut, high price.
Figure 2Relative importance (RI) of different factors for total consumers and clusters.
Part-worth utilities of each investigated factor and levels for the intent to purchase of coated lamb meat.
| Utilities | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Factor | Levels | Total | Cluster 1 | Cluster 2 | Cluster 3 |
| Coating/information | Chitosan, information 2 | 0.084 | 0.007 | 0.130 | 0.203 |
| Chitosan, explained information 1 | −0.101 | −0.037 | −0.043 | −0.346 | |
| No information | 0.084 | 0.030 | −0.088 | 0.144 | |
| Type of cut | French rack (“carre”) | 0.093 | −0.144 | 0.297 | 0.369 |
| Loin | −0.095 | 0.022 | −0.639 | 0.448 | |
| Leg steak | 0.001 | 0.122 | 0.342 | −0.817 | |
| Price | High | 0.440 | 0.358 | 0.263 | 0.914 |
| Low | −0.440 | −0.358 | −0.263 | −0.914 | |
1 With chitosan edible coating, technology for preserving meat properties; 2 With chitosan edible coating.