Determining consumer purchase intentions: The importance of dry matter, size, and price of kiwifruit

Journal of Food Science

Volumn 76, Issue 3, 2011, Pages S177-S184

  Jaeger, Sara R ^a   Harker, Roger ^a   Triggs, Chris M ^b   Gunson, Anne ^a   Campbell, Rachel L ^a   Jackman, Richard ^a   Requejo Jackman, Cecilia ^a  

^a THE NEW ZEALAND INSTITUTE FOR PLANT AND FOOD RESEARCH LIMITED   (New Zealand)

^b UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Actinidia chinensis"Hort16A; Actinidia deliciosa"Hayward; Conjoint analysis; Consumer research; Dry matter; Fruit size; Japan

Indexed keywords

ACTINIDIA CHINENSIS; ACTINIDIA DELICIOSA;

EID: 79955043497     PISSN: 00221147     EISSN: 17503841     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2011.02084.x     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Baker GA. 1999. Consumer preferences for food safety attributes in fresh apples: market segments, consumer characteristics, and marketing opportunities. J Agric Resour Econ 24(1):80-97.
2. Baker GA, Peter JC. 1994. Consumer preferences for food safety attributes: a market segment approach. Agribusiness 10(4):319-24.
3. Belrose Inc. 2008. World kiwifruit review: 2008 edition. Pullman, Wash. Belrose Inc.
4. Cavalieri RP. Fresh fruits and vegetables: quality and food safety. Proceedings of Beltsville Symposium XXIII, 1998 May; Beltsville Postharvest Biology and Technology; 1998. vol. 15;195-333.
5. Connors M, Bisogni CA, Sobal J, Devine CM. 2001. Managing values in personal food systems. Appetite 36(3):189-200.
6. Cox DR. 1972. Regression models and life-tables (with discussion). J R Stat Soc B 34:187-220.
7. Davis K, Stover E, Wirth F. 2004. Economics of fruit thinning: a review focusing on apple and citrus. HortTechnology 14:282-9.
8. de Graaf C.2007. Sensory influences on food choice and food intake. In: Frewer L, van Trijp H, editors. Understanding consumers of food products. Cambridge Woodhead Publishing. p 30-66.
9. Deliza R, Rosenthal A, Hedderley D, Jaeger SR. 2010. Consumer perception of irradiated fruit: a case study using choice-based conjoint analysis. J Sens Stud 25:184-200.
10. Gamble J, Harker FR, Jaeger SR, White A, Bava C, Beresford M, Stubbings B, Wohlers M, Hofman PJ, Marques R, Woolf A. 2010. The impact of dry matter, ripeness and internal defects on consumer perceptions of avocado quality and intentions to purchase. Postharvest Biol Tec 57(1):35-43.
11. Gamble J, Jaeger SR, Harker FR. 2006. Preferences in pear appearance and response to novelty among Australian and New Zealand consumers. Postharvest Biol Tec 41(1):38-47.
12. Gil J, Sanchez M. 1997. Consumer preferences for wine attributes: a conjoint approach. Br Food J 99:3-11.
13. Green PE, Srinivasan V. 1978. Conjoint analysis in consumer research: issues and outlook. J Consum Res 5(2):103-23.
14. Green PE, Srinivasan V. 1990. Conjoint analysis in marketing: new developments with implications for research and practice. J Mark 54(4):3-19.
15. Harker F, Jaeger S, Lau K, Rossiter K. 2007. Consumer perceptions and preferences for kiwifruit: a review. Acta Hortic 753:81-8.
16. Harker FR, Carr BT, Lenjo M, MacRae EA, Wismer WV, Marsh KB, Williams M, White A, Lund CM, Walker SB, Gunson FA, Pereira RB. 2009. Consumer liking for kiwifruit flavour: a meta-analysis of five studies on fruit quality. Food Qual Prefer 20(1):30-41.
17. Harker FR, Gunson FA, Jaeger SR. 2003. The case for fruit quality: an interpretive review of consumer attitudes, and preferences for apples. Postharvest Biol Tec 28(3):333-47.
18. Hollebeek LD, Jaeger SR, Brodie RJ, Balemi A. 2007. The influence of involvement on purchase intention for new world wine. Food Qual Prefer 18(8):1033-49.
19. Jaeger SR. 2000. Uncovering cultural differences in choice behaviour between Samoan and New Zealand consumers: a case study with apples. Food Qual Prefer 11(5):405-17.
20. Jaeger SR, Macfie HJH. 2000. Incorporating "Health" Into promotional messages for apples- a means-end theory approach. J Food Prod Mark 6(2):57-78.
21. Jaeger SR, Rose JM. 2008. Stated choice experimentation, contextual influences and food choice: a case study. Food Qual Prefer 19(6):539-64.
22. Jaeger SR, Rossiter KL, Wismer WV, Harker FR. 2003. Consumer-driven product development in the kiwifruit industry. Food Qual Prefer 14(3):187-198.
23. John PWM. 1971. Statistical design and analysis of experiments. Chapters 8-9. London :Macmillan.
24. Jordan RB, Walton EF, Klages KU, Seelye RJ. 2000. Postharvest fruit density as an indicator of dry matter and ripened soluble solids of kiwifruit. Postharvest Biol Tec 20:163-73.
25. Köster EP. 2009. Diversity in the determinants of food choice: a psychological perspective. Food Qual Prefer 20(2):70-82.
26. Kuhfeld WF. 1996. Multinomial logit, discreet choice modelling. An introduction to designing choice experiments, collecting, processing and analysing the choice data on with the sas system. Cary, N.C.: SAS Inst. Inc. p 273.
27. Lange C, Issanchou S, Combris P. 2000. Expected versus experienced quality: trade-off with price. Food Qual Prefer 11:289-97.
28. Louviere JJ, Woodworth G. 1983. Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: an approach based on aggregate data. J Mark Res 20(4):350-67.
29. McCutcheon, AL (1987). Latent class analysis. Quantitative applications in the social sciences series Nr 64. Thousand Oaks, California Sage Publications.
30. Macfie HJ, Bratchell N, Greenhoff K, Vallis LV. 1989. Designs to balance the effect of order of presentation and first-order carry-over effects in hall tests. J Sens Stud 4(2):129-48.
31. Manski C, McFadden D. 1981. Structural analysis of discrete data. Cambridge, Mass., London, England The MIT Press.
32. Martens, H, Anderssen, E, Flatberg, A, Gidskehaug, LH, Høy, M, Westad, F, Thybo, A, Martens, M. 2005. Regression of a data matrix on descriptors of both its rows and of its columns via latent variables: L-PLSR. Comput Stat Data Anal 48(1):103-23.
33. Næs T, Brockhoff PB, Tomic O. 2010. Statistics for sensory and consumer science. London Wiley & Sone.
34. Plant and Food Research. 2007. Fresh facts: New Zealand horticulture (2006 edition). Auckland, NZ Plant and Food Research.
35. R Development Core Team. 2009. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL .
36. Stec MGH, Hodgson JA, Macrae EA, Triggs CM. 1989. Role of fruit firmness in the sensory evaluation of kiwifruit (actinidia deliciosa cv hayward). J Sci Food Agric 47(4):417-33.
37. Steptoe A, Pollard TM, Wardle J. 1995. Development of a measure of the motives underlying the selection of food- the food choice questionnaire. Appetite 25(3):267-84.
38. Telser H, Zweifel P. 2007. Validity of discrete-choice experiments for health reduction. Appl Econ 39(1):69-78.
39. Tronstad R, Stephens Huthoefer L, Monke E. 1992. Market windows and hedonic price analyses: an application to the apple industry. J Agric Resour Econ 17:314-22.
40. Tuorila H. 2007. Sensory perception as a basis for food acceptance and consumption. In: MacFie H, Editor. Consumer-led food product development. Cambridge Woodhead Publishing. p 34-80.
41. Van Der Pol M, Ryan M. 1996. Using conjoint analysis to establish consumer preferences for fruit and vegetables. Br Food J 98:5-12.
42. Venables WN, Ripley BD. 2002. Modern applied statistics with S. 4th ed. New York Springer.