| Literature DB >> 35885415 |
Diva Cabral1,2, Susana Caldas Fonseca1,2, Ana Pinto Moura1,3, Jorge C Oliveira4, Luís Miguel Cunha1,2.
Abstract
Rice and cereal consumption has become a concern for consumers due to usually high glycaemic indexes (GI), which is a critical issue for a balanced and healthy diet. Therefore, the development of new products with low GI is an important target of the industry, particularly in countries with high consumption. This study assesses consumers' perceptions about "rice" and "rice with low GI" and evaluates the effect of consumers' rice consumption profiles through the application of a free word association technique in a structured self-administered electronic questionnaire with 256 Portuguese consumers (the European market with the highest per capita consumption of rice by far). The frequency of rice consumption was evaluated, and the consumption profile was determined through a hierarchical cluster analysis, with 9% identified as daily consumers. The response words were categorized by the triangulation technique, and the association between the word categories and dimensions, sociodemographic characteristics, and consumption profile were determined. Respondents most frequently associated "rice" with rice dishes, its sensory attributes, and nutrition, highlighting the satisfaction of nutritional and hedonic needs. Consumers revealed positive expectations in relation to the functionality of "rice with low GI". The consumers' rice consumption profiles, sex, age, and educational levels influenced their perception towards "rice" and "rice with low GI". This study provides important insights for the industry to develop a consumer-oriented, low GI rice product.Entities:
Keywords: Portugal; consumers’ perceptions; consumption; free word association; glycaemic index; rice
Year: 2022 PMID: 35885415 PMCID: PMC9319176 DOI: 10.3390/foods11142172
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Sociodemographic characteristics of the participants (n = 256).
| Variable | Absolute Frequency | Relative Frequency | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age group (mean ± SD: 40 ± 13 years) | |||
| [18; 35[ | 90 | 35.2% | |
| [35; 55[ | 124 | 48.4% | |
| 55+ | 42 | 16.4% | |
| Sex | |||
| Female | 164 | 64.1% | |
| Male | 92 | 35.9% | |
| Education level | |||
| No higher education | 164 | 64.1% | |
| Higher education | 92 | 35.9% | |
| Net monthly per capita household income | |||
| ≤250 € | 65 | 25.4% | |
| [250–400[ € | 66 | 25.8% | |
| [400–550[ € | 62 | 24.2% | |
| >550 € | 63 | 24.6% | |
Figure 1Word frequency of the twenty most evoked words for the stimulus: (a) “rice” and (b) “rice with low glycaemic index”. * Cabidela rice is a traditional Malandro rice dish of the gastronomy of the Northern region of Portugal made with Carolino rice, poultry, and chicken blood with vinegar, where the offal is also incorporated, resulting in a creamy/saucy rice with meat served as a main course.
Figure 2Frequency of respondents (%) describing words according to the dimensions for the “rice” stimulus.
Frequencies of words and respondents (%) according to each dimension and category for the “rice” stimulus. The predominant consumption value associated with the words within each dimension is also referred.
| Dimension | Category | Examples of Elicited Words | Word (%) | Respondent (%) 1 | Predominant Consumption Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sensory | Appearance | appearance, colour, white, large grain, loose, size, small grain | 16.3 | 38.3 | Experiential |
| Flavour | aroma, savour, smell, sweet, taste | 9.8 | 26.2 | ||
| Texture | 4.2 | 10.9 | |||
| Positive hedonics | appetizing, favourite, good, ‘I love it’, pleasant, wonderful | 3.9 | 10.9 | ||
| Cooking and consumption | Specific foods | bacon, beans, cabbage, carrot, chicken, herbs, meat, red beans, shrimp, onion, peas, tomatoes, tuna, vegetables | 8 | 15.6 | Utilitarian |
| Rice side dish | bean rice, cabbage rice, carrot rice, | 7.6 | 21.9 | ||
| Rice main course | 5.8 | 14.1 | |||
| Culinary practice | bake, braise, | 2.9 | 7.8 | ||
| Nutrition | Staple/sustenance | basic, eating, essential, food, meal, staple, sustenance | 6.8 | 18.4 | Utilitarian |
| Nutritional aspect | balanced, calories, carbohydrates, energy, good nutrition, nutritious, natural, nutritious, protein | 4.3 | 12.5 | ||
| Types of rice * | Basmati, | 8.5 | 19.5 | Utilitarian | |
| Geography and culture | Africa, Asia, China, national, East, Thailand, exotic, chopsticks | 4.8 | 12.9 | Symbolic | |
| Agriculture | agriculture, countryside, farming, environment, paddy field, plantation, seeds | 4.1 | 10.2 | Symbolic | |
| Convenience | easy, fast, practical, variety, versatile | 3 | 8.6 | Utilitarian | |
| Positive feelings and emotions | comfort, enjoyment, fun, joy, passion, pleasure, spectacular, success | 3.4 | 8.2 | Experiential | |
| Health | health, healthy | 3 | 8.2 | Utilitarian | |
| Family | childhood, holidays, home, family, mother, grandmother, son | 2.5 | 5.9 | Symbolic |
1 Respondent percentages for each category. * Types of rice utilizes the nomenclature freely used by consumers, as explained in the text.
Figure 3Frequency of respondents (%) describing words according to the dimensions for the “rice with low glycaemic index” stimulus.
Frequencies of words and respondents (%) according to each dimension and category for the “rice with low glycaemic index” stimulus. The predominant consumption value associated with the words within each dimension is also referred.
| Dimension | Category | Examples of Elicited Words | Word (%) | Respondent 1 (%) | Predominant Consumption Values |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Types of rice | brown, Basmati, wild, parboiled | 19.4 | 41.0 | Utilitarian | |
| Nutrition | Nutritional aspects | low sugar, low carbohydrates, calories, energy, fat, fibre, nutrients, nutritive, nutrition, protein | 7.0 | 20.3 | Utilitarian |
| Diet patterns | balanced regime, diet, eat small amounts, few, less, moderation | 5.7 | 15.2 | ||
| Low GI disconnects | gluten free, with vitamins, more vitamins, more phosphorus, without salt, fat free, high in carbohydrates, non-fat rice | 4.3 | 11.7 | ||
| Health | Physiological | blood glucose, diabetic, health, healthy, hunger, slow absorption | 18.0 | 38.0 | Utilitarian |
| Health benefits | cleanse organism, slimming, treatment, good for health, prevent, longevity, strengthening the organism, healthy life, quality of life, good disposition | 2.5 | 6.6 | ||
| Cooking and consumption | Rice dishes | plain rice, vegetable rice, | 6.3 | 16.4 | Utilitarian |
| Specific foods | bean, chia, chicken, coconut water, fish, mushrooms, oat, quinoa, rice, seeds, spices, vegetables, yogurts | 4.8 | 11.3 | ||
| Culinary practices | boiling, confectioning, cooking, grilling, steaming, stewing | 1.7 | 5.1 | ||
| Attitudes and emotions | Positive attitudes and emotions | advisable, alternative, appropriate, better, essential, good mood, happiness, ideal, interesting, joy, quality, recommendable, safe, satisfaction, special, suitable, wanting | 4.7 | 12.9 | Experiential |
| Negative feelings and emotions | dissatisfied, doubt, expendable, misinformation, uncertainty, unfamiliarity | 2.0 | 4.3 | ||
| Sensory | Positive | delicious, loose, multicolour, taste, tasty | 3.6 | 10.9 | Experiential |
| Negative | bitter, little taste, insipid, less appealing, no-taste, tasteless, unpleasant | 2.5 | 5.9 | ||
| Naturalness | additive-free, natural, organic, preservative-free, pure, unprocessed | 4.0 | 10.5 | Utilitarian | |
| Supply chain | brand, chain, cost, customer, dehydrated, expensive, health and wellbeing section, instant rice, rice drink, price, tufted rice | 3.0 | 8.2 | Utilitarian | |
| Innovation | created, develop, development experiment, innovation, laboratory, produce | 2.5 | 5.9 | Symbolic |
1 Respondent percentages for each category.
Figure 4Frequency of (a) respondents and (b) words associated with each consumption values (utilitarian, experiential, symbolic) and stimuli (“rice” and “rice with low GI”). Effect of the chi-square per cell: (+) or (−) indicate that the observed value is significantly (p < 0.001 for all comparisons) higher or lower than the expected theoretical value.
Self-reported frequency of consumption of different types of rice (meals/week) by consumption profile.
|
| |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Rice * | 4.4 (0.12) | 3.6 (0.27) b | 4.2 (0.20) b | 6.8 (0.73) a | 4.5 (0.33) b |
|
| 2.6 (0.08) | 0.5 (0.53) c | 2.8 (0.15) b | 4.1 (0.61) a | 3.6 (0.31) a |
|
| 1.9 (0.08) | 1.3 (0.10) b | 2.8 (0.10) a | 4.3 (0.43) a | 0.3 (0.03) c |
| Basmati | 1.0 (0.05) | 1.7 (0.16) b | 0.5 (0.04) c | 2.7 (0.26) a | 0.9 (0.09) c |
| Parboiled | 0.8 (0.05) | 1.3 (0.13) b | 0.6 (0.07) c | 2.2 (0.22) a | 0.4 (0.57) c |
| Brown | 0.5 (0.04) | 0.7 (0.07) b | 0.3 (0.04) c | 2.1 (0.24) a | 0.3 (0.04) c |
| Jasmine | 0.3 (0.03) | 0.5 (0.06) b | 0.2 (0.11) c | 1.7 (0.23) a | 0.2 (0.02) c |
| Risotto | 0.2 (0.04) | 0.4 (0.04) b | 0.2 (0.01) c | 0.7 (0.07) a | 0.2 (0.02) c |
a, b, c Homogeneous group according to the nonparametric test of Kruskal–Wallis with 5% significance level and the pairwise comparison post hoc test. * Global rice consumption frequency as directly reported by participants. Mean (standard error).
Sociodemographic characterization of the rice consumption profiles according to age group, sex, education level, and monthly household income.
| Rice Consumption Profile (n = 256) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sociodemographic Variables | Specialities (n = 58) | Local | High Frequency |
| |
| (n = 108) | (n = 24) | (n = 66) | |||
| Age group (mean ± SD: 40 ± 13) | |||||
| [18; 35[ | 18.1 | 43.0 | 12.2 | 26.7 | |
| [35; 55[ | 25.8 | 41.9 | 8.1 | 24.2 | |
| 55+ | 22.2 | 43.7 | 4.8 | 29.3 | |
| Sex | |||||
| Female | 25.7 (+) *** | 35.4 (−) *** | 11.5 (+) *** | 27.5 | |
| Male | 16.8 (−) *** | 55.7 (+) *** | 4.4 (−) *** | 23.1 | |
| Education level | |||||
| No higher education | 19.5 (−) ** | 46.0 (+) ** | 8.4 | 26.1 | |
| Higher education | 28.1 (+) ** | 36.3 (–) ** | 10 | 25.6 | |
| Monthly household income (estimated per capita) | |||||
| ≤250 € | 21.5 | 44.6 | 12.3 | 21.6 | |
| [250–400[ € | 18.7 | 45.0 | 12.1 | 24.2 | |
| [400–550[ € | 19.4 | 43.0 | 6.5 | 31.1 | |
| >550 € | 30.7 (+) ** | 37.6 | 4.7 (−) ** | 27.0 | |
(+) or (−) indicate that the observed value is greater or less than, respectively, the expected theoretical value. ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001 chi-square effect per cell.
Frequency (%) of elicited words according to dimensions, categories, and values in the free word association task using the ‘‘rice” stimulus according to sex, age group, education level, and rice consumption profile.
| Dimension | Sex | Age Group (years) | Education Level | Rice Consumption Profile | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Category | Male | Female | [18; 35[ | [35; 55[ | 55+ | No Higher | Higher | Specialities | Local | Daily |
|
|
| 30 (−) ** | 70 (+) ** | 39 | 46 | 15 | 68 | 32 | 16 (−) * | 45 | 11 | 28 |
| Appearance | 33 | 67 | 43 (+) *** | 43 | 14 | 63 | 37 | 14 (−) ** | 44 | 10 | 32 |
| Flavour | 32 | 68 | 30 | 53 | 17 | 75 (+) *** | 25 (−) *** | 19 | 49 | 11 | 21 |
| Texture | 22 | 78 | 47 | 41 | 12 | 63 | 37 | 16 | 40 | 16 | 28 |
| Positive hedonics | 20 (−) ** | 80 (+) ** | 33 | 53 | 14 | 77 | 23 | 20 | 43 | 14 | 23 |
|
| 45 (+) ** | 55 (−) ** | 34 | 55 (+) *** | 11 (−) *** | 57 (−) *** | 43 (+) *** | 22 | 48 | 8 | 22 |
| Specific foods | 52 (+) ** | 48 (−) ** | 31 | 67 (+) *** | 2 (−) *** | 62 | 38 | 16 | 52 | 16 | 16 |
| Rice side dish | 43 | 57 | 33 | 47 | 20 | 50 (−) *** | 50 (+) *** | 26 | 45 | 7 | 22 |
| Rice main course | 45 | 55 | 36 | 50 | 14 | 61 | 39 | 30 | 42 | 5 | 23 |
| Culinary practice | 32 | 68 | 41 | 55 | 4 | 50 | 50 | 19 | 49 | 11 | 21 |
|
| 34 | 66 | 34 | 42 | 24 (+) *** | 67 | 33 | 26 | 42 | 10 | 22 |
| Staple/sustenance | 27 | 73 | 29 | 46 | 25 | 67 | 33 | 29 | 36 | 8 | 27 |
| Nutritional aspect | 45 | 55 | 43 | 36 | 21 | 67 | 33 | 21 | 52 | 12 | 15 |
|
| 25 (−) ** | 75 (+) ** | 45 | 53 | 2 (−) *** | 44 (−) *** | 56 (+) *** | 34 (+) * | 31 (−) * | 7 | 28 |
|
| 31 | 69 | 8 (−) *** | 57 | 35 (+) *** | 85 (+) *** | 15 (−) *** | 15 | 19 (−) ** | 4 | 62 (+) ** |
|
| 53 (+) ** | 47 (−) ** | 36 | 56 | 8 | 67 | 33 | 19 | 47 | 12 | 22 |
|
| 45 | 55 | 32 | 32 | 36 (+) *** | 65 | 35 | 42 (+) * | 29 | 32 | 26 |
|
| 30 | 70 | 39 | 30 | 31 (+) *** | 87 (+) *** | 13 (−) *** | 22 | 39 | 26 (+) * | 13 |
|
| 35 | 65 | 13 (−) *** | 35 | 52 (+) *** | 96 (+) *** | 4 (−) *** | 22 | 43 | 5 | 30 |
|
| 18 (−) ** | 82 (+) ** | 23 | 64 | 13 | 64 | 36 | 36 | 32 | 5 | 27 |
|
| |||||||||||
| Utilitarian | 39 | 61 | 36 | 48 | 16 | 61 | 39 | 25 | 43 | 9 | 23 |
| Experiential | 29 (−) * | 71 (+) * | 35 | 48 | 16 | 69 | 31 | 16 (−) * | 43 | 11 | 30 (+) * |
| Symbolic | 42 | 58 | 32 | 48 | 20 | 66 | 34 | 32 (+) * | 38 | 7 | 23 |
Effect of the chi-square per cell. (+) or (−) indicate that the observed value is higher or lower than the expected theoretical value: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Frequency (%) of elicited words according to dimensions, categories, and consumption values in the free word association task using the ‘‘rice with low glycaemic index” stimulus according to sex, age group, education level, and rice consumption profile.
| Dimension | Sex | Age Group (Years) | Education | Rice Consumption Profile | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Category | Male | Female | [18; 35[ | [35; 55[ | 55+ | No Higher | Higher | Specialities | Local | Daily |
|
|
| 19 (−) *** | 81 (+) *** | 40 | 49 | 11 (−) *** | 54 (−) ** | 46 (+) ** | 34 (+) * | 34 (−) * | 8 | 24 |
|
| 33 | 67 | 34 | 48 | 18 | 90 | 42 | 24 | 41 | 10 | 25 |
| Nutritional aspect | 35 | 65 | 50 (+) *** | 43 | 7 (−) *** | 56 | 44 | 28 | 35 | 9 | 28 |
| Diet patterns | 33 | 47 | 30 | 48 | 22 | 70 | 30 | 18 | 48 | 11 | 23 |
| Low GI disconnects | 30 | 70 | 15 (−) *** | 58 | 27 | 88 (+) ** | 12 (−) ** | 27 | 39 | 9 | 24 |
|
| 41 | 59 | 33 | 50 | 17 | 66 | 34 | 16 (−) * | 45 | 12 | 27 |
| Physiological | 40 | 60 | 32 | 52 | 16 | 65 | 35 | 16 | 45 | 10 | 29 |
| Health benefits | 11 | 10 | 37 | 42 | 21 | 74 | 26 | 16 | 47 | 21 | 16 |
|
| 39 | 61 | 21 (−) *** | 68 (+) *** | 9 | 76 (+) * | 24 (−) * | 26 | 50 | 7 | 17 (−) * |
| Rice dishes | 31 | 69 | 27 | 58 | 15 | 79 (+) ** | 21 (−) ** | 21 | 56 (+) * | 6 | 17 |
| Specific foods | 46 | 54 | 16 (−) *** | 81 (+) *** | 3 | 76 | 24 | 30 | 43 | 8 | 19 |
| Culinary practices | 46 | 54 | 15 | 70 | 15 | 62 | 38 | 31 | 46 | 8 | 15 |
|
| 50 (+) *** | 50 (−) *** | 24 | 42 | 34 (+) *** | 68 | 32 | 18 | 46 | 6 | 30 |
| Positive attitudes | 44 | 56 | 22 | 33 (−) *** | 45 (+) *** | 75 | 25 | 19 | 39 | 8 | 33 |
| Negative feelings and emotions | 69 (+) *** | 31 (−) *** | 31 | 56 | 13 | 56 | 44 | 13 | 63 (+) * | 6 | 19 |
|
| 40 | 60 | 42 | 51 | 7 (−) * | 60 | 40 | 7 (−) * | 49 | 12 | 33 |
| Positive | 39 | 61 | 32 | 57 | 11 | 61 | 39 | 16 (−) * | 45 | 10 | 29 |
| Negative | 40 | 60 | 60 (+) *** | 33 | 7 (−) *** | 60 | 40 | 7 | 53 | 20 | 20 |
|
| 35 | 65 | 32 | 39 | 29 (+) *** | 65 | 35 | 16 | 42 | 3 | 39 |
|
| 26 | 74 | 35 | 39 | 26 | 65 | 35 | 22 | 43 | 13 | 22 |
|
| 68 (+) *** | 32 (−) *** | 74 (+) *** | 21 (−) *** | 5 | 32 (−) ** | 68 (+) ** | 11 | 42 | 16 | 32 |
|
| |||||||||||
| Utilitarian | 33 | 67 | 35 | 50 | 15 | 64 | 36 | 24 (+) * | 41 (−) * | 10 | 25 |
| Experiential | 42 | 58 | 33 | 46 | 21 | 65 | 35 | 13 (−) * | 50 (+) * | 7 | 30 |
| Symbolic | 44 | 56 | 43 | 44 | 13 | 56 | 44 | 6 | 50 | 19 | 25 |
Effect of the chi-square per cell. (+) or (–) indicate that the observed value is higher or lower, respectively, than the expected theoretical value: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.