6Consumer Perception and Choice of Minimally Processed Vegetables and Packaged Fruits

Consumer perception and choice of minimally processedvegetables and packaged fruits

Peter Ragaerta, Wim Verbekeb, Frank Devliegherea,*, Johan Debeverea

aDepartment of Food Technology and Nutrition, Laboratory of Food Microbiology and Food Preservation, Ghent University,

Coupure links 653, B-9000 Ghent, BelgiumbDepartment of Agricultural Economics, Ghent University, Coupure links 653, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium

Received 15 July 2002; received in revised form 8 February 2003; accepted 26 April 2003

Abstract

Sales of minimally processed vegetables and packaged fruits are rapidly increasing thanks to their image of convenience andhealthiness. In this paper, consumer perception and choice of these packaged produce was investigated through implementing aconsumer survey in Belgium. The first part of the survey consisted of face-to-face interviews (n=294) at the point of sales with

people buying minimally processed vegetables and packaged fruits. The second part of the survey was self-administered by con-sumers at home after consumption (n=237). The likelihood of buying minimally processed vegetables tends to be higher amongbetter-educated consumers and among consumers with young children. Search attributes emerge in terms of importance during the

purchasing stage, while experience attributes gain importance after consuming the product. The most important motivation forpurchasing minimally processed vegetables relates to convenience and speed, especially for consumers who buy this product duringweekends. Although health and nutritional value scored relatively low in terms of importance during the purchasing and con-

sumption stages of minimally processed vegetables, consumers with a high awareness of the relationship between food and healthattach significantly more importance to these credence attributes.# 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Vegetables; Fruits; Consumer; Perception; Survey; Belgium

1. Introduction

Today’s society is characterised by an increasinghealth consciousness and growing interest in the role offood for maintaining and improving human well-beingand consumer health (GfK, 2002a; Gilbert, 2000; IFIC,2000). Vegetables and fruits are fully recognised fortheir benefits towards healthy living (Cox et al., 1996),thanks to their protective function against cancer (IFIC,2001; WCRF/AICR, 1997) and other chronic degen-erative diseases (Leather, 1995). The World HealthOrganisation suggested a daily intake of 400 g of vege-tables and fruits (World Health Organisation StudyGroup, 1990), in response of which many food-healthcampaigns (e.g. five-a-day) were launched to promote

the intake of vegetables and fruits during the nineties(Cox et al., 1996).Despite clinical evidence and effective public health

campaigns (e.g. Cox et al., 1998), vegetable and fruitconsumption remain below recommended daily intakein many countries due to barriers such as complacencyand lack of willpower to change the diet (Marshall,Anderson, Lean, & Foster, 1994). Even among highlymotivated consumers, constraints can emerge related toavailability and income (Anderson, Cox, McKellar,Lean, & Mela, 1998). Especially for lower incomegroups, economic constraints play a major role. Leather(1995) suggested that the low intake of carotene andvitamin C, possibly resulting in a higher mortality rate,by low-income groups in the UK correlates with a lowintake of ‘‘expensive’’ vegetables and fruits. Within thericher part of society, barriers relate to changes in con-sumer’s social environment, e.g. more women workingoutside the home, less time for cooking, leisure instead of

0950-3293/03/$ - see front matter # 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/S0950-3293(03)00066-1

Food Quality and Preference 15 (2004) 259–270

www.elsevier.com/locate/foodqual

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +32-9-264-6178; fax: +32-9-225-

5510.

E-mail address: [email protected] (F. Devlieghere).

http://www.sciencedirect.com



http://www.elsevier.com/locate/foodqual/a4.3d

mailto:[email protected]

cooking and increasing out-of-home food consumption(Cowan, Cronin, & Gannon, 2001; Frewer, Risvik, &Schifferstein, 2001; Lambert, 2001; Marshall, Duxbury,& Heslop, 1995).Many of the above-cited constraints to vegetable and

fruit consumption relate to real or perceived time pres-sure, which is one of the key factors for convenienceorientation (Candel, 2001; Capps, Tedford, & Havlicek,1985; Verlegh & Candel, 1999). Numerous studies haveshown that consumer’s needs for convenience are cor-related with food choice (Anderson & Shugan, 1991;Eales & Unnevehr, 1988; Grunert, Brunsø, Bredahl, &Bech, 2001; Rappoport, Peters, Downey, McCann, &Huff-Corzine, 1993; Verbeke, 2001; Verlegh & Candel,1999). A wide assortment of minimally processed vege-tables and fruits has been developed to meet consumer’sneeds for ‘‘quick’’ and convenient products, and tobenefit from vegetable and fruit’s healthy image (Ahve-nainen, 1996). Salunkhe, Bolin, and Reddy (1991) defineminimally processed vegetables or fruits as fresh vege-tables or fruits that have been processed to increasetheir functionality without greatly changing their fresh-like properties. The type of process is dependent on thetype of produce. Examples of processes are washing,cutting, mixing and packaging. This produce is charac-terised by a good degree of freshness, convenience andlack of preservatives (Shewfelt, 1990). This assortmentof mainly vegetables and some fruits is becoming moreand more popular. In the US, the sales amounted to12,000 million US$ in 2000 and are expected to reach19,000 million US$ in 2003 (Gorny, 2001). In WesternEurope, fresh processed vegetables account for anincreasing proportion of the total fresh produce marketwith an estimated growth of 10–25% per annum since1990. In the specific case of Belgium, more than 50% ofthe turnover from vegetables and fruits at the retail levelconsists of minimally processed produce (Van de Put,2001).Most research about the food category of minimally

processed vegetables and packaged fruits focuses onmicrobiological quality, safety, processing and packa-ging issues (Foley, Dufour, Rodriguez, Caporaso, &Prakash, 2002; Francis, Thomas, & O’Beirne, 1999;Jacxsens, Devlieghere, & Debevere, 1999; Jacxsens,Devlieghere, Falcato, & Debevere, 1999; Nguyen-the &Carlin, 1994; Zagory, 1999). Consumer research, e.g.related to consumer perception or purchasing motivestowards minimally processed vegetables and packagedfruits is scarce (Ragaert, Devlieghere, Verbeke, &Debevere, 2002; Viaene, Verbeke, & Gellynck, 2000).The scarcity of insight in consumer decision-makingtowards this rapidly growing assortment of minimallyprocessed vegetables and fruits forms the rationale forthis research. In the next section, the research method,including framework, objectives and data collection ispresented.

2. Research method

2.1. Framework and objectives

The framework of the present analysis (Fig. 1) isextracted from a classic attitude–behaviour model basedon Engel, Blackwell, and Miniard (1995). During theirdecision-making process, consumers rely on differentattributes or cues before deciding whether or not to buyand which product to choose. Attributes can be dividedinto intrinsic and extrinsic ones (Grunert, Hartvig-Larsen, Madsen, & Baadsgaard, 1996; Steenkamp, 1989).An alternative classification includes categories called‘‘search attributes’’ (like price, colour and appearance),‘‘experience attributes’’ (like taste and flavour) and‘‘credence attributes’’ (like health and microbiologicalsafety) (Grunert, Bech-Larsen, & Bredahl, 2000;Nelson, 1970, 1974; Sloof, Tijskens, & Wilkinson, 1996).Since attributes are evaluative criteria based on whichconsumers form beliefs and develop attitudes andintentions, insights into the perceived importance andevaluation of attributes are a key to better understandconsumer behaviour.Evaluative criteria may change depending on previous

experience and the stage in the decision-making process(Gardial, Clemons, Woodruff, Schumann, & Burns,1994), because consumers may gradually become awareof product attributes that were not experienced beforepurchase. Zeithaml (1988) reported that consumers tendto rely on extrinsic attributes such as package and itsspecific characteristics in situations where relevantintrinsic attributes (like taste, odour and texture) couldnot be evaluated before buying the products. Onceexperienced, these intrinsic (experience) attributes canbe expected to gain importance as evaluative criteria.Hence, a relevant approach is to distinguish attributeimportance at purchase versus after consumption, adistinction that was conceptualised by Grunert et al.(1996) in their Total Food Quality Model.

Fig. 1. Framework and specific objectives (arrows) of the study.

260 P. Ragaert et al. / Food Quality and Preference 15 (2004) 259–270

Numerous variables influence consumer’s decision-making processes. Individual socio-demographiccharacteristics are commonly included as determinantsof attitudes, perception and choice (e.g. Shepherd,1989). Furthermore, motives or consumer motivationdepend on individual and situational characteristics andaffect the different levels of the consumer-decision makingprocess. Motivation strongly relates to the formation ofattitudes, preference and choice (Engelet al., 1995;Mowen, 1993; von Alvensleben, 1997). In this specificstudy, investigating consumer motivations is relevantgiven that food industry efforts towards offering pro-cessed vegetables aim at addressing two major motivesof food demand, namely the convenience and healthmotive. Finally, besides individual influences, also thepotential role of time (moment of purchase) as a situa-tional factor that may influence consumer’s conductduring the purchasing stage merits attention (Assael,1995; Meiselman, 1996; Mowen, 1993).The general objective of this study is to gain insights

in the consumer decision-making process towards mini-mally processed vegetables and packaged fruits. Thisconsumer research is part of a broader research projectaiming at modelling the evolution of the quality ofminimally processed vegetables and packaged fruitsduring storage (e.g. Ismail, Haffar, Baalbaki, & Henry,2001; Shewfelt, 1990). For such a purpose, identificationof the cues that are important in the quality perceptionprocess and investigating how consumers form impres-sions of quality based on technical objective cues iscrucial (Zeithaml, 1988). Specific objectives related tothe above-mentioned framework are twofold: first, toassess and compare the importance attached by con-sumers to different packaged product attributes duringpurchase and after consumption; and second, to inves-tigate the impact of individual and situational influencesas included in the Fig. 1.

2.2. Data collection

In order to gain insight in consumer decision-makingtowards purchasing minimally processed vegetables andpackaged fruits, cross-sectional data were collectedthrough a consumer survey. The research populationconsisted of consumers who bought minimally pro-cessed vegetables or packaged fruits in one of sixsupermarkets from the retail chain Delhaize (owner of‘‘Food Lion’’ in the USA) situated in different areas ofFlanders, Belgium. Respondents were selected throughnon-probability judgmental sampling (Malhotra, 1996,pp. 366–367), i.e. population elements were selectedbased on the personal judgement of the researcher. Thesurvey was undertaken during 2 weeks in March 2002.In order to account for moment of purchase, respon-dents were selected both during weekdays and duringweekends (Friday evening and Saturday). Furthermore,

the survey was implemented in the morning as well as inthe afternoon and the evening. Respondents buyingminimally processed vegetables that normally requirefurther processing at home before consumption likevegetables for making soup, soybeans or leek were notincluded.Parallel with the distinction between purchasing and

consumption, a two-part questionnaire was used assurvey instrument. The first part was performed bymeans of a personal interview with the consumer at themoment of purchasing minimally processed vegetablesor packaged fruits in the supermarket (purchasingstage). The second part of the questionnaire was self-administered by the respondents at home immediatelyafter consumption of the purchased vegetables or fruits(consumption stage). This way of questioning (immedi-ately after consumption) avoids potential bias caused byrelying on long-term memory. The second part of thequestionnaire was to be sent back and if complete, areward voucher of 4.00E for a purchase in Delhaize wasawarded to the respondents as acknowledgement fortheir co-operation.In the first part of the questionnaire, place, moment

of purchase, purchased product and shelf life date wererecorded. Subsequently, respondents were asked abouttheir motivation for buying the produce (open-endedquestion format) and about their frequency of this pur-chase. Then, respondents were asked to indicate theimportance of different packaged product attributeswhen buying the minimally processed vegetables or thepackaged fruits on a 7-point scale (further referred to as‘‘ImpPur’’ measures) (Malhotra, 1996). Attributes wereelicited based on insights from literature. Finally, socio-demographic characteristics like gender, age, presenceof children, education, profession and address of theconsumer were administered.In the second part of the questionnaire, respondents

were asked to fill in the shelf life date of the purchasedminimally processed vegetables or packaged fruits (ascontrol), the date of consumption and the place wherethey stored the purchased produce prior to consump-tion. Storage is relevant given its major importance withrespect to the quality and safety of the product (Jacx-sens, Devlieghere, & Debevere, 2002a, 2002b; Piga,D’Aquino, Agabbio, Emonti, & Farris, 2000). Sub-sequently, respondents were asked to give scores forimportance of the different packaged product attributesafter consuming the purchased minimally processedvegetables or packaged fruits (7-point scales, furtherreferred to as ‘‘ImpCon’’ measures). Furthermore,respondents were asked if they intend to repeat theirpurchase and about their motivation for doing so(open-ended question format). Finally, respondents wereasked to evaluate the minimally processed vegetables andpackaged fruits after consumption (‘‘EvaCon’’ mea-sures) and to elicit some aspects of their awareness of

P. Ragaert et al. / Food Quality and Preference 15 (2004) 259–270 261

the food-health association. This construct was mea-sured as a five-item 7-point scale (see Appendix). Theobtained data set was statistically analysed with SPSS10.0 for Windows.

2.3. Sample description

A total of 376 respondents were approached in thesupermarkets, of whom 294 were willing to co-operate(78%). Those 294 respondents could be separated intotwo groups consisting of 235 buying minimally pro-cessed vegetables and 59 buying packaged fruits.Respondents were personally interviewed in the super-markets and asked to complete and return the secondpart of the questionnaire. From this sample, 259respondents sent the questionnaire back within 10 daysfrom purchase, which means a response rate of 88%.From the returned questionnaires, 22 were rejected fromanalysis for reason of too many missing observations orincompleteness, which yielded a total of 237 validresponses or a valid response rate of 81%. These 237respondents included 192 consumers who had boughtminimally processed vegetables and 45 consumers whohad bought packaged fruits. During the analyses, twogroups of respondents were considered with the first onecontaining the entire sample of 294 respondents. Thesecond one was a subgroup of the first and containedonly the 237 respondents who also completed the sec-ond part of the questionnaire. There were no significantdifferences (all P>0.05) between these two groups withregard to the socio-demographic characteristics, typeof purchased produce, motivations for buying andfrequency of purchase.The gender balance of the 294 respondents was 17.3%

male and 82.7% female, which is not surprising givenour focus on persons responsible for food purchasingwithin the household. Age was normally distributedwith mean age at 43.7 years and a standard deviation of13.3 years. More than a quarter (26.9%) of the respon-dents lived alone. Two-thirds of the sample (66.9%) hadchildren, of whom 33.7% had children younger thantwelve. The composition of the sample in terms ofemployment status was as follows: 5.1% students; 9.9%retired; 55.4% workers or employees and 13.6% self-employed. The rest (16%) of the respondents wereworking at home, housewife, househusband or unem-ployed. With these distributions of socio-demographiccharacteristics, it can be concluded that a wide range ofsocio-economic classes of the population took part inthe survey, i.e. actually bought the products underconsideration.With respect to education, 41.3% of the respondents

had schooling until their 18th year and 58.7% hadschooling beyond their 18th year. In comparison to theBelgian population estimates of 25% of persons (25–64years) having schooling beyond their 18th year (GfK,

2002b), our sample was clearly biased towards highereducational status. Given our respondent selection pro-cedure, i.e. selecting consumers who actually boughtminimally processed vegetables and packaged fruits,this finding points to a higher probability of purchaseamong better educated consumers. This is consistentwith UK reports (Leather, 1995) on high-income grouppreferences for more expensive and more convenientvegetables like leafy salads instead of cabbage andsprouts that are preferentially bought by low-incomegroups. However, it should also be recognised thatDelhaize-supermarkets are positioned as top-end retailoutlets. Delhaize’s image is one of selling high qualityproducts, offering high service levels and being ratherexpensive, especially as compared with discount super-markets, which also sell minimally processed vegetablesand packaged fruits, though with a very limitedassortment.In Table 1, the ten most purchased vegetables repor-

ted by the sample are presented, together with thepackaged fruits that were bought. There were no sig-nificant socio-demographic differences between respon-dents buying minimally processed vegetables versusrespondents buying packaged fruits. Regarding the fre-quency of buying minimally processed vegetables andpackaged fruits, it seemed that some products of theassortment, more specifically mixed shredded lettucevariants, were most popular. Our respondents were veryfamiliar with the product category, as exemplified by thefact that 57.1 and 35.4% of the total sample indicated tobuy their chosen product on a weekly, respectivelymonthly basis. Only 7.5% indicated a less than monthly

Table 1

Number of respondents buying the most purchased products, together

with the relative contribution (%) in the total purchased assortment,

subdivided into minimally processed vegetables and packaged fruits

(all purchased packaged fruits are presented in table)

Purchased product
Number of
respondents

%

Vegetables

1. Mixed lettuce: sugar loaf, endive, curled endive,

radicchio

41
17.4
2. Mixture of young lettuce leaves
23 9.8
3. Salade gourmande: lamb’s lettuce, radicchio,

curled endive

19
8.1
4. Shredded carrots
16 6.8
5. Derby lettuce: carrots, red lettuce, sugar loaf,

white cabbage

14
6.0
6. Mixture of red crinkly lettuce and spinach
14 6.0
7. Lamb’s lettuce
14 6.0
8. Mixture of cabbage lettuce, lettuce leaves,

red crinkly lettuce, parsley, chive

10
4.3
9. Mixture of young lettuce leaves and chervil
10 4.3
10. Iceberg lettuce
9 3.8
Fruits

1. Strawberries in a tray
31 52.5
2. Strawberries in a tub, covered with foil
20 33.9
3. Red raspberries–blueberries–juniper berries
8 13.6

purchasing frequency, of which only one third (2.4% ofthe total sample) were purchasing the product for thefirst time (trial).

3. Empirical findings

3.1. Attribute importance during purchase versusconsumption

Table 2 presents the average scores for attributeimportance and evaluation, ordered by descendingvalues. In general, the scores given on a scale from 1 to7 were high. Typical experience and sensory attributeslike taste, odour and texture received high importancescores already at the buying stage, although these couldnot be experienced in the shop. A plausible explanationis that those high scores result from previous experiencewith the produce. In Fig. 2, the importance (ImpPurand ImpCon) scores of different packaged productattributes as perceived by the respondents are reportedand significant differences are indicated (Fig. 2). In linewith theory, search attributes (e.g. product appearance,packaging in general and transparency) were sig-nificantly more important during the buying stage,while experience attributes (e.g. taste, odour, textureand feeling) were more important at consumption.Some packaged product attributes like freshness, shapeand colour of the product were equally important inboth stages. This also holds for the credence attributes(e.g. health and nutritional value). Remarkably, shapeand feeling of the packaging scored significantly higherafter consumption versus when buying the packaged

product (P<0.05). This was a bit surprising because atthe moment of consumption, one would expect that theshape and the feeling of the packaging did not matteranymore. However, it must be noted that the impor-tance scores given to those attributes were relatively low(Table 2).In order to identify underlying dimensions among

packaged product attributes, factor analysis (principalcomponent analysis) was performed based on theimportance scores in the buying and consumptionstage. Only respondents buying minimally processedvegetables were included in this analysis. The resultsof the factor analyses with determination based onEigenvalues>1 are shown in Table 3. The factorexplaining most variance (29.6%) during the buyingstage contained the credence attributes, freshness andshelf life date. Apparently, consumers use the searchattribute ‘‘shelf life date’’ as a proxy of credence attri-butes (healthiness and nutritional value and freshness)during their purchasing decision-making. Experienceattributes load consistently on a second factor, followedby three other factors including mainly search attributeseither relating to the packaging or to its content. At theconsumption stage, search attributes are grouped in twofactors, which account for the largest shares of the var-iance (35.8% for factor 1 and 14.4% for factor 2). Atconsumption, ‘‘freshness’’ loads on the same factor asthe sensory attributes, denoting that experiencing theproduct associates with evaluating its freshness. Cre-dence attributes form a fourth factor at consumptionseparate from any other product attribute. These find-ings are consistent with the idea that consumers relymore on extrinsic search attributes in situations where

Table 2

Importance of packaged product attributes at purchase (ImpPur) and consumption stage (ImpCon) of minimally processed vegetables and packaged

fruits; evaluation of packaged product attributes in the consumption stage (EvaCon) of minimally processed vegetables; average scores on 7-point

scale

Product attribute
Imp-Pur Product attribute Imp-Con Product attribute Eva-Con
Freshness
6.85 Freshness 6.88 Labelled shelf life date 6.64
Labelled shelf life date
6.80 Taste 6.80 Freshness 6.45
Taste
6.62 Labelled shelf life date 6.62 Labelled content 6.42
Labelled content
6.58 Odour 6.53 Taste 6.40
Transparency packaging
6.42 Product general 6.48 Product general 6.35
Product general
6.42 Health 6.44 Colour 6.29
Health
6.36 Texture 6.40 Health 6.28
Odour
6.31 Labelled content 6.37 Transparency packaging 6.25
Labelled information
6.29 Colour 6.32 Odour 6.24
Texture
6.13 Labelled Information 6.22 Texture 6.23
Colour
6.11 Nutritional value 6.13 Labelled information 6.13
Nutritional value
6.03 Transparency packaging 5.92 Nutritional value 6.09
Appearance
5.96 Feeling product 5.69 Appearance 6.00
Packaging general
5.44 Appearance 5.60 Feeling product 5.99
Feeling product
5.33 Shape product 5.37 Shape product 5.92
Shape packaging
5.31 Packaging general 5.33 Packaging general 5.83
Labelled suggestions for use
4.77 Labelled suggestions for use 5.12 Feeling packaging 5.55
Feeling packaging
3.96 Feeling packaging 4.32 Shape packaging 5.53
Shape packaging
3.64 Shape packaging 3.96 Labelled suggestions for use 4.79

relevant intrinsic attributes can not be evaluated beforebuying (Zeithaml, 1988), or that consumers use observ-able indicators (shelf life date at purchase, sensoryexperience at consumption) to form an overall judge-ment of product quality, freshness in this case (Grunertet al., 1996; Steenkamp, 1989).

3.2. Role of influencing factors

Potential individual influences include socio-demo-graphic characteristics, experience with the productcategory and food-health awareness. Motivations willbe discussed separately in the next section. Relating to

Table 3

Factor analysis of the scores for the importance of different packaged product attributes at purchase (ImpPur) and consumption stage (ImpCon) of

minimally processed vegetables

Attributes (ImpPur)
Factor loading Exp. Var. (%) Attributes (ImpCon) Factor loading Exp. Var. (%)
1
Healthiness 0.73 29.6 1 Labelled information 0.84 35.8
Shelf life date
0.71 Shelf life date 0.83
Nutritional value
0.70 Transparency packaging 0.79
Freshness
0.62
2
Odour 0.87 12.2 2 Shape product 0.78 14.4
Texture
0.84 Feeling product 0.78
Taste
0.81 Colour product 0.71
Feeling packaging
0.68
Shape packaging
0.62
3
Shape product 0.83 9.8 3 Odour 0.87 10.0
Colour product
0.72 Taste 0.86
Feeling product
0.70 Texture 0.74
Freshness
0.62
4
Shape packaging 0.83 7.9 4 Nutritional value 0.91 7.3
Feeling packaging
0.80 Health 0.88
5
Transparency packaging 0.74 6.3
Appearance
0.63
Only attributes with factor loading >0.6 are included.

Fig. 2. Perceived attribute importance (packaging attributes in legend and graph in bold) in the purchasing (ImpPur) and consumption (ImpCon)

stage of minimally processed vegetables and packaged fruits; average on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 7 (very important); *Significant at

the 0.05 level.


respondents’ characteristics, it seemed that credenceattributes, both in the buying and consumption stage,were perceived as less important by consumers whoexperienced higher education (above 18 years)(P<0.05). With respect to age, consumers under 36years perceived healthiness, nutritional value and fresh-ness as less important compared to older age groups(P<0.05), both during purchasing and at consumption.Furthermore, credence attributes (healthiness, nutri-tional value, freshness) and ‘‘suggestions for use’’ wereperceived as more important both in the buying andconsumption stage by consumers with children in com-parison with consumers without children (P<0.05).There were also significant differences between malesand females. Women perceived the credence attributesand information on the package at purchase, and mostof the experience attributes at consumption (texture,flavour, and taste) as more important than men. Finally,respondents working outside the home attached moreimportance to shelf life (expiry date) when purchasingthe produce as compared to respondents working athome, being retired, student or unemployed (P<0.05).The type of purchased produce and the frequency of

buying could be related to the perceived importance ofproduct attributes during buying or consumption.Respondents buying a package with only one type oflettuce attributed significantly lower importance scoresto nutritional value (both during the buying and con-sumption stage) and health (only in the buying stage) ascompared to those who bought packages with mixedtypes of lettuce (P<0.05). Consumers buying minimallyprocessed vegetables most frequently (i.e. on a weeklybasis) attached significantly more importance to thesensory (experience) attributes texture and odour,though only in the buying stage. Furthermore, frequentusers scored the importance of the credence attributes,nutritional value and health higher after consumption,as compared to those who bought the product with alower than weekly frequency (P<0.05).Situational characteristics that may influence per-

ceived attribute importance include moment and placeof purchase. People buying the produce during theweekend attached significantly more importance to theshelf life date both in the buying and consumptionstage as compared to consumers who bought it onweekdays. A potential explanation is that consumersenvisage buying products during the weekend for sto-rage, versus purchasing for immediate consumption onweekdays. This explanation is supported when com-paring the number of days that the products are storedbefore consumption. On average, products bought onweekdays were stored for 0.62 days, which in realitymeans consumption on the day of purchase in themajority of the cases. Products bought during theweekend are stored on average for 0.98 days (t=�2.56;P=0.011).

There was a significant difference in the perceivedimportance of credence attributes (nutritional value andhealth) between consumers buying the produce in thetwo big cities (Antwerp and Ghent) compared to pur-chase in smaller towns. Consumers buying in a big cityperceived the nutritional value (both in the buying andconsumption stage) and health (only in the buyingstage) as less important than respondents buying insmaller cities.Perceived relationship between food consumption and

human health (food-health association) was measuredby means of a five-item construct on a scale from 1 to 7.The scores of the five items resulted in a Cronbach’salpha of 0.67. After dropping one item, the Cronbach’salpha reached a value of 0.73, which indicates satisfac-tory internal consistency reliability (Nunnally, 1978).The four remaining items were added up into an aggre-gated score ranging from 4 to 28 (mean=22.24,S.D.=3.68, skewed towards high awareness of thepotential impact of food consumption on personalhealth). Respondents aged >60 years reported a sig-nificantly higher score for food-health awareness ascompared with all other age groups (F=3.74;P=0.012). Consumers who reported high food-healthawareness (score >22) gave a significantly (P<0.05)higher score for the importance (both in the buying andconsumption stage) of the credence attributes (nutri-tional value and health) as compared to the consumerswho gave a lower score (422) on the food-healthawareness construct. Finally, there was a tendency forconsumers buying their produce on a weekly basis (highfrequency) to score higher on food-health awarenessthan those respondents buying their produce lessfrequently (t=1.670; P=0.096).1

3.3. Attribute evaluation and repeat purchase

In general, all product attributes scored well aboveaverage in the evaluation (Table 2). Specific packagingattributes, although some are not perceived as extremelyimportant, scored very high in the evaluation. It shouldbe noted that the last column of Table 2 (evaluation ofdifferent packaged product attributes in the consump-tion process) only presents the scores for minimallyprocessed vegetables. There was a complete lack ofinformation on the packaging of some packaged fruitswhich led to significantly worse evaluations for thiscategory as compared to vegetables. Consumers buyingminimally processed vegetables most frequently (i.e. on

1 An anonymous reviewer pointed out that individuals scoring high

on food-health awareness may generally report consuming more

vegetables. Actual overall vegetable consumption data would be

needed to verify whether minimally processed vegetables are bought as

a substitute of fresh vegetables (for reason of convenience) or rather as

a compliment to consumer’s total vegetable baskets (e.g. purchasing

those vegetables that are not available for maintaining a healthy diet).


a weekly basis) scored nutritional value higher than lessfrequent buyers (t=�0.22; P=0.028). Other individualor situational characteristics did not significantlyassociate with attribute evaluation.Although evaluation scores may depend on preserva-

tion of the product between the moment of purchaseand consumption, no significant differences were detec-ted between consumers who ate the product immedi-ately versus those who stored the product for some timeat home. From the information about the storage con-ditions of the purchased produce before consumption,the results show that packaged fruits were more fre-quently consumed immediately at home, while mostbuyers of minimally processed vegetables stored theirproduce in the refrigerator to consume it some hours ordays later (w2=10.75; P=0.001). All but one buyer ofminimally processed vegetables who did not eat theirproduce immediately claimed they stored it in therefrigerator, which may explain absence of difference inevaluation of the products. About 31% of the packagedfruits that were not consumed immediately were storedin another place than the refrigerator.From the 192 respondents who bought minimally

processed vegetables, only three of them indicated theywould not buy the produce again because of a dis-appointing or bad taste or flavour of the product. Therewere also three respondents of the 45 who bought pack-aged fruits declaring they would not buy the produceagain for reasons of taste or flavour. All respondentsindicating an intention to stop buying minimally pro-cessed vegetables or packaged fruit were less experiencedwith the product category, i.e. purchasing the producewith a relatively low frequency (once a month).

3.4. Purchasing motivations

The first- and second-stated motivations for purchas-ing minimally processed vegetables and packaged fruits

are shown in Table 4. Clearly, in the case of minimallyprocessed vegetables, convenience was the most impor-tant motivation for purchasing the produce. It is alsoobvious from Table 4 that for both vegetables and fruits,the health motivation was not so important as a moti-vation for purchasing. It was already shown that healthwas not in the top 5 of most important product attri-butes in the buying or consumption stage (Table 2).Despite consumer’s awareness of the food-health asso-ciation, health appears not to be a major motivation forbuying minimally processed vegetables.The first-stated motivations for buying minimally

processed vegetables were dependent on the moment ofpurchase (w2=5.85; P=0.016). Contrary to Verlegh andCandel (1999) in the case of TV dinner use, our datashowed that minimally processed vegetables are boughtmore for convenience during weekends.2 Conveniencewas the primary motivation for 74% of the respondentsduring weekends, versus 57% on weekdays. An expla-nation could either be that during weekends people hadless time or less willingness to spend time on preparingvegetables, or, as previously indicated that the productsare bought rather for storage and use during the busyweekdays of the next week. Furthermore, convenienceas motivation tends to be associated with working out-side the home (w2=2.79; P=0.095) and younger age(41.3 for convenience oriented versus 44.9 years forothers; t=�1.89; P=0.060). Younger age could berelated to the significant dependency between havingchildren under 12 years of age and convenience asmotivation for buying the produce (w2=4.15;

Table 4

Top five of first-stated and second-stated motivations for buying minimally processed vegetables or buying packaged fruits (frequency and %)

Motivations for buying vegetables
Freq % Motivations for buying fruits Freq %
First-stated motivation (n=225)
Convenient
101 44.9 Only packaged available 29 49.2
Quick
45 20.0 Delicious 12 20.3
Quantity (suitable for small households)
28 12.4 Convenient 5 8.5
Mixture (of different vegetables)
17 7.6 Hygienic 4 6.8
Price/quality
10 4.4 By order of. . . 3 5.1
Second-stated motivation (n=140)
30 21.4 Delicious 12 33.3
Convenient
26 18.6 Healthy 4 11.1
Delicious
Mixture (of different vegetables)
18 12.9 Hygienic 3 8.3
Quick
15 10.7 Experience previous purchases/habit 3 8.3
2 Weekend shopping was defined as Friday evening and Saturday.

An alternative approach to contrast weekend with weekday shopping

includes comparing Saturday with weekday morning shopping. This

approach was tested and did not yield stronger contrasts in terms of

motivation and perceived attribute importance. Contrasting weekend

with weekday shopping was not used as a proxy for working versus

non-working status.


P=0.042). About 76% (respectively 60%) of therespondents who have (respectively not have) childrenbelow 12 years bought minimally processed vegetablesfor convenience and quickness. This finding corrobo-rates previous empirical evidence as reported by Cowanet al. (2001) who reported that households with youngchildren tend to purchase more convenience foods. AlsoZeithaml (1988) showed that women having at least onechild younger than 10 years of age, more frequentlymentioned convenience as motivation for purchasingfruit juice. In contrast with our findings, Candel (2001)found that meal preparers with children are somewhatless convenience oriented.Finally, motivation based on convenience tends to

associate with lower importance attached to ‘‘sugges-tions for use’’, ‘‘taste’’ and ‘‘freshness’’ during purchasing(0.05<P<0.10). Candel (2001) also indicated that tasteis judged to be less important the more convenienceoriented meal preparers are. Lower importance attachedto suggestions for use and freshness may relate to timeconstraints, i.e. lack of time to read the suggestions andpurchase for immediate consumption.It should be noted that the respondents were not

asked to give scores on the importance and the eval-uation of the price of the purchased packaged produce.Nevertheless, a good price/quality relation was stated—although with a low frequency—as one of the motiva-tions to buy the minimally processed vegetables and thepackaged fruits. It is important in this perspective toconsider that the survey was performed during winter,with fresh crops being almost as expensive as the mini-mally processed vegetables. A number of respondentsclaimed that in summer, when fresh vegetables arecheaper, they would prefer to buy the fresh instead ofthe minimally processed vegetables.The first- and second-stated motivations for repeat

purchase of the same type of minimally processed vege-tables or packaged fruits in the future are mentioned inTable 5. When comparing Table 5 with Table 4, it

emerges that after consuming the product, purchasingintentions are not only based on convenience but mainlybecause the product was experienced as delicious andfresh. This supports that experience attributes and theirevaluation plays a crucial role for repeat purchases ofthe product (Gardial et al., 1994; Mittal, Ross, & Bal-dasare, 1998). In the specific case of packaged fruits,‘‘delicious’’ was the most cited first motivation forfuture purchase. While implementing the survey, itcould be seen that if strawberries were promoted bymeans of free taste samples, much more consumersbought packaged strawberries as compared to super-markets that did not provide samples.

4. Conclusions

The success of minimally processed vegetables andfruits is growing thanks to those products’ ready-to-useand convenient image (Ahvenainen, 1996; Foley et al.,2002; Piga et al., 2000). In this article, empirical evi-dence is provided for illustrating consumer perceptionof this product category. Minimally-processed vege-tables and fruits are purchased by a wide range of con-sumers in terms of socio-demographic characteristics,though with families having young children and highereducation taking the lead. The most important (repor-ted) motivation for purchasing minimally processedvegetables relates to convenience and speed, especiallyfor consumers who buy this product during weekends.Convenience and speed are traded off to some extentagainst health. This was shown by the finding thathealth and nutritional value scored relatively low interms of importance during the buying and consump-tion stages, despite rather high levels of food-healthawareness. Furthermore, convenience oriented buyersof minimally processed vegetables tend to have lowerinterest in taste and information. Generally, topimportance levels were attributed to freshness, taste,

Table 5

Top five of first-stated and second-stated motivations for future purchase intention of buying minimally processed vegetables or buying packaged

fruits (frequency and %)

Future purchase intention vegetables
Freq % Future purchase intention fruits Freq %
Delicious
44 24.0 Delicious 29 70.7
Convenient
37 20.2 Fulfils expectations 6 14.6
Fulfils expectations
29 15.8 Fresh 3 7.3
Fresh
24 13.1 Healthy 1 2.4
Healthy
Convenient
27 20.3 Healthy 6 33.3
Fresh
26 19.5 Fresh 5 27.8
Delicious
19 14.3 Delicious 4 22.2
Mixture (of different vegetable)
9 6.8 Price/quality 1 5.6

and—especially during the buying stage—some aspectsof labelling (e.g. shelf life date). Perceived importance ofsearch and experience attributes differed depending onthe stage in the consumer decision-making process.Search attributes were found to be significantly moreimportant during the buying stage, whereas experienceattributes were more important at consumption.Whereas credence attributes were equally importantduring both stages of the consumer decision-makingprocess, perceived differences in those ‘‘unascertain-able’’ attributes are found to depend mainly on thecharacteristics of the individual.A first limitation of the study pertains to the absence

of using specific attribute elicitation techniques as anexploratory research phase. This may have led toneglecting important attributes. A second limitationresults from the use of non-probability judgmentalsampling, which basically is convenience sampling, dur-ing the quantitative study. In result, findings hold forthis specific sample and cannot be extrapolated to thepopulation. Three suggestions for future research are setforth. First, the study sheds some light on the debate ofchanging evaluative criteria before and after experien-cing products. A more thorough investigation of thisissue requires adequate quota of trial versus repeat pur-chasers. The share of consumers making trial purchasesin our sample was too small to derive reliable conclu-sions as compared to experienced consumers, whichmay explain the rather modest differences in evaluativecriteria at purchase versus after consumption (Gardialet al., 1994). Second, the presented framework includesa limited number of individual and situational influ-ences. Additional individual characteristics, which meritattention in future research, include values, lifestyles,psychographics and personality (e.g. Candel, 2001;Grunert, Brunsø, & Bisp, 1997; Vannoppen, Verbeke, &Van Huylenbroeck, 2002; Verbeke & Van Kenhove,2002; Zeithaml, 1988). Furthermore, situational influ-ence was limited to moment and place of purchase inour study, whereas eating situations have also beenshown to be highly relevant in relation with conveniencefoods (e.g. Termorshuizen, Meulenberg, & Wierenga,1986; Verlegh & Candel, 1999). Third, the eventualtrade off made by consumers between convenience andhealth offers interesting perspectives for future research,especially with regard to the product category of mini-mally processed vegetables. Therefore, direct measuresof convenience orientation towards food (e.g. followingCandel, 2001), in addition to measures of food-healthawareness, need to be included in future studies.Despite the growing success of minimally processed

vegetables and packaged fruits, very little is knownabout the evolution of quality attributes like odour,taste, colour and texture, as measured in an objectiveway in relation to the microbiology and the physiologyof the product during storage. The insights from the

consumer research reported in this paper will be crucialfor further investigating the quality evolution of theseproducts from a technological point of view.

Acknowledgements

This research is part of a PhD, funded by the Institutefor the Promotion of Innovation by Science and Tech-nology in Flanders (IWT). Authors gratefully acknowl-edge Delhaize for the permission to perform the surveyin its retail outlets. Two anonymous reviewers andthe editor are gratefully thanked for their valuablecomments on an earlier version of this paper.

Appendix. Items in the food-health awareness scale

Item
Factorloading
I feel to have control over my own healtha
0.73 Food plays an important role for keepingme in good healtha
0.64

I know which food is healthy for mea
0.79 My health is determined by the food I eata 0.75 I feel to eat healthier now as compared tothree years ago
0.49

a Items included in the final scale, Cronbach’s alpha=0.73.

References

Ahvenainen, R. (1996). New approaches in improving the shelf life of

minimally processed fruit and vegetables. Trends in Food Science &

Technology, 7, 179–187.

Anderson, A. S., Cox, D. N., McKellar, S., Reynolds, J., Lean,

M. E. J., & Mela, D. J. (1998). Take Five, a nutrition education

intervention to increase fruit and vegetable intakes: impact on atti-

tudes towards dietary change. British Journal of Nutrition, 80(2),

133–140.

Anderson, E. W., & Shugan, S. M. (1991). Repositioning for changing

preferences: the case of beef versus poultry. Journal of Consumer

Research, 18, 219–232.

Assael, H. (1995). Consumer behaviour and marketing action. Cincin-

nati: Southwestern.

Candel, M. J. J. M. (2001). Consumers’ convenience orientation

towards meal preparation: conceptualization and measurement.

Appetite, 36, 15–28.

Capps, O., Tedford, J. R., & Havlicek, J. (1985). Household demand

for convenience and non-convenience food. American Journal of

Agricultural Economics, 67, 862–869.

Cowan, C., Cronin, T., & Gannon, M. (2001). Market for convenience

foods and consumer attitudes to convenience foods. In J. M. Gil, &

A. Gracia (Eds.), The food consumer in the early 21st century. Paper

presented at: 71st EAAE seminar, Zaragoza, Spain. Zaragoza:

DGA—Agricultural Economics Unit.

Cox, D. N., Anderson, A. S., McKellar, S., Reynolds, J., Lean,


M. E. J., & Mela, D. J. (1996). Vegetables and fruit: barriers and

opportunities for greater consumption. Nutrition & Food Science,

96(5), 44–47.

Cox, D. N., Anderson, A. S., Reynolds, J., Mc Kellar, S., Lean,

M. E. J., & Mela, D. J. (1998). Take Five, a nutrition education

intervention to increase fruit and vegetable intakes: impact on con-

sumer choice and nutrient intakes. British Journal of Nutrition,

80(2), 123–131.

Eales, J. S., & Unnevehr, L. J. (1998). Demand for beef and chicken

products: separability and structural change. American Journal of

Agricultural Economics, 70, 521–532.

Engel, J., Blackwell, R., & Miniard, P. (1995). Consumer behavior.

Fort Worth: Dryden Press.

Foley, D. M., Dufour, A., Rodriguez, L., Caporaso, F., & Prakash, A.

(2002). Reduction of Escherichia coli O157:H7 in shredded iceberg

lettuce by chlorination and gamma irradiation. Radiation Physics

and Chemistry, 63, 391–396.

Francis, G. A., Thomas, C., & O’Beirne, D. (1999). The micro-

biological safety of minimally processed vegetables. International

Journal of Food Science and Technology, 34, 1–22.

Frewer, L., Risvik, E., Schifferstein, H. (Eds.). (2001). Food, people

and society: a European perspective of consumers’ food choices.

Berlin: Springer Verlag.

Gardial, S. F., Clemons, D. S., Woodruff, R. B., Schumann, D. W., &

Burns, M. J. (1994). Comparing consumers’ recall of prepurchase

and postpurchase product evaluation experiences. Journal of

Consumer Research, 20, 548–560.

GfK. (2002a). To bio or not to bio: de paradox tussen prijsontwikkeling

en de vraag naar kwaliteit. GfK jaargids 2002: kerncijfers voor

marketing—en beleidsplannen. Brussels: GfK Belgium.

GfK. (2002b). Bevolking in Belgie. GfK jaargids 2002: kerncijfers voor

marketing- en beleidsplannen. Brussels: GfK Belgium.

Gilbert, L. C. (2000). The functional food trend: what’s next and what

American think about eggs. Journal of the American College of

Nutrition, 19(5), 507 S-512S.

Gorny, J. (2001). A summary of CA and MA requirements and

recommendations for fresh-cut fruit and vegetables. In C. Oos-

terhaven (Ed.), Proceedings of the 8th International Controlled

Atmosphere Research Conference (p. 59), Rotterdam, The Nether-

lands, 8–13 July 2001.

Grunert, K. G., Brunsø, K., & Bisp, S. (1997). Food-related lifestyle:

development of a cross-cultural valid instrument for market sur-

veillance. In L. Kahle, & C. Chiagouris (Eds.), Values, lifestyles and

psychographics. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

Grunert, K. G., Bech-Larsen, T., & Bredahl, L. (2000). Three issues in

consumer quality perception and acceptance of dairy products.

International Dairy Journal, 10, 575–584.

Grunert, K. G., Brunsø, K., Bredahl, L., & Bech, A. C. (2001). Food-

related lifestyle: A segmentations approach to European food con-

sumers. In L. Frewer, E. Risvik, & H. Schifferstein (Eds.), Food,

people and society: a European perspective of consumers’ food choices

(pp. 211–230). Berlin: Springer Verlag.

Grunert, K. G., Hartvig-Larsen, H., Madsen, T. K., & Baadsgaard, A.

(1996). Market orientation in food and agriculture. Boston: Kluwer.

IFIC (2000). International food information council functional foods

attitudinal research. Available: http://www.ific.org.

IFIC. (2001). Functional foods: can they reduce your risk of cancer?

Food insight, May–June.

Ismail, B., Haffar, I., Baalbaki, R., & Henry, J. (2001). Development

of a total quality scoring system based on consumer preference

weightings and sensory profiles: application ot fruit dates (Tamr).

Food Quality and Preference, 12, 499–506.

Jacxsens, L., Devlieghere, F., & Debevere, J. (1999). Validation of a

systematic approach to design equilibrium modified atmosphere

packages for fresh-cut produce. Food Science and Technology/

Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft & Technologie, 32(7), 425–432.

Jacxsens, L., Devlieghere, F., & Debevere, J. (2002a). Predictive

modelling for packaging design: equilibrium modified atmosphere

packages of fresh-cut vegetables subjected to a simulated distri-

bution chain. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 73(2–3),

331–341.

Jacxsens, L., Devlieghere, F., & Debevere, J. (2002b). Temperature

dependence of shelf-life as affected by microbial proliferation and

sensory quality of equilibrium modified atmosphere packaged fresh

produce. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 26(1), 59–73.

Jacxsens, L., Devlieghere, F., Falcato, P., & Debevere, J. (1999).

Behavior of Listeria monocytogenes and Aeromonas spp. on fresh-

cut produce packaged under equilibrium-modified atmosphere.

Journal of Food Protection, 62(10), 1128–1135.

Lambert, N. (2001). Food choice, phytochemicals and cancer preven-

tion. In L. Frewer, E. Risvik, & H. Schifferstein (Eds.), Food, people

and society: a European perspective of consumers’ food choices

(pp. 131–154). Berlin: Springer Verlag.

Leather, S. (1995). Fruit and vegetables: consumption patterns and

health consequences. British Food Journal, 97(7), 10–17.

Malhotra, N. (1996). Marketing research: an applied orientation.

Englewood cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Marshall, D., Anderson, A., Lean, M., & Foster, A. (1994). Healthy

eating: fruit and vegetables in Scotland. British Food Journal, 96(7),

18–24.

Marshall, J. J., Duxbury, L., & Heslop, L. A. (1995). Coping with

household stress in the 1990s: who uses convenience foods and do

they help? Advances in Consumer Research, 22, 729–734.

Meiselman, H. L. (1996). The contextual basis for food acceptance,

food choice and food intake: the food, the situation and the indivi-

dual. In H. L. Meiselman, & H. J. H. MacFie (Eds.), Food choice:

acceptance and consumption (pp. 239–263). London: Blackie

Academic.

Mittal, V., Ross, W. T., & Baldasare, J. M. (1998). The asymmetric

impact of negative and positive attribute-level performance on

overall satisfaction and repurchase intentions. Journal of Marketing,

62, 33–47.

Mowen, J. C. (1993). Consumer behavior. New York: MacMillan

Publishing.

Nelson, P. (1970). Information and consumer behaviour. Journal of

Political Economy, 78, 311–329.

Nelson, P. (1974). Advertising as information. Journal of Political

Economy, 82, 729–754.

Nguyen-the, C., & Carlin, F. (1994). The microbiology of minimally

processed fresh fruit and vegetables. Critical Reviews in Food

Science and Nutrition, 34(4), 371–401.

Nunnally, J. G. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-

Hill.

Piga, A., D’Aquino, S., Agabbio, M., Emonti, G., & Farris, G. A.

(2000). Influence of storage temperature on shelf-life of minimally

processed cactus pear fruits. Food Science and Technology/Lebens-

mittel-Wissenschaft & Technologie, 33(1), 15–20.

Ragaert, P., Devlieghere, F., Verbeke, W., & Debevere, J. (2002).

Factors influencing consumers’ perception towards minimally pro-

cessed fruits and vegetables. In B. Nicolaı, & J. De Baerdemaeker

(Eds.), Postharvest unlimited, book of abstracts (pp. PA10). Leuven:

K.U. Leuven.

Rappoport, L., Peters, G. R., Downey, R., McCann, T., & Huff-

Corzine, L. (1993). Gender and age differences in food cognition.

Appetite, 20, 33–52.

Salunkhe, D. K., Bolin, H. R., & Reddy, N. R. (1991). Minimal pro-

cessing. In D. K. Salunkhe, H. R. Bolin, & N. R. Reddy (Eds.),

Storage, processing, and nutritional quality of fruit and vegetables:

volume 2: processed fruit and vegetables. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Shepherd, R. (1989). Factors influencing food preferences and choice.

In R. Shepherd (Ed.), Handbook of psychophysiology of human

eating (pp. 3–24). Chichester: Wiley.

Shewfelt (1990). Quality of fruit and vegetables. Food Technology,

44(6), 99–106.


Sloof, M., Tijskens, L. M. M., & Wilkinson, E. C. (1996). Concepts

for modelling the quality of perishable products. Trends in Food

Science and Technology, 7, 165–171.

Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M. (1989). Product quality: an investigation into the

concept and how it is perceived by consumers. Assen: Van Gorcum.

Termorshuizen, J. G., Meulenberg, M. T. G., & Wierenga, B. (1986).

Consumer behaviour in respect of milk in the Netherlands. Euro-

pean Journal of Agricultural Economics, 13, 1–22.

Van de Put (2001). Responsible person for quality, Delhaize N.V.,

personal communication.

Vannoppen, J., Verbeke, W., & Van Huylenbroeck, G. (2002). Con-

sumer value structures towards supermarket versus farm shop pur-

chase of apples from integrated production. British Food Journal,

104(10), 828–844.

Verbeke, W. (2001). Beliefs, attitude and behaviour towards fresh

meat revisited after the Belgian dioxin crisis. Food Quality and

Preference, 12, 489–498.

Verbeke, W., & Van Kenhove, P. (2002). Impact of emotional stability

and attitude on consumption decisions under risk: the Coca-Cola

crisis in Belgium. Journal of Health Communication, 7(5), 455–472.

Verlegh, P. W. J., & Candel, M. J. J. M. (1999). The consumption of

convenience foods: reference groups and eating situations. Food

Quality and Preference, 10, 457–464.

Viaene, J., Verbeke, W., & Gellynck, X. (2000). Quality perception of

vegetables by Belgian consumers. Acta Horticulturae, 524, 89–95.

von Alvensleben, R. (1997). Consumer behaviour. In D. I. Padberg,

C. Ritson, & L. M. Albisu (Eds.), Agro-food marketing (pp. 209–

224). Wallingford: CAB Publishing.

WCRF/AICR. (1997). Food, nutrition and the prevention of cancer: a

global perspective. Washington: World Cancer Research Fund/

American Institute for Cancer Researh.

World Health Organization Study Group. (1990). Diet, nutrition and

the prevention of chronic disease. World Health Organization Tech-

nical Report Series 797. Geneva: World Health Organization.

Zagory, D. (1999). Effects of post-processing handling and packaging

on microbial populations. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 15,

313–321.

Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and

value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of

Marketing, 52, 2–22.


6Consumer Perception and Choice of Minimally Processed Vegetables and Packaged Fruits

Documents

Transcript of 6Consumer Perception and Choice of Minimally Processed Vegetables and Packaged Fruits