Fish Consumption: Influence of Knowledge, Product Information, and Satisfaction with Product Attributes
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Data Collection
2.2. Questionnaire
2.3. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Study Participants
3.2. Fish Consumption
3.3. Knowledge about Fish
3.4. Product Attributes and Information
3.5. Measurement Model
3.6. Structural Models and Multigroup Analysis
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- FAO. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020, Sustainability in Action; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EFSA. Scientific Opinion on health benefits of seafood (fish and shellfish) consumption in relation to health risks associated with exposure to methylmercury. EFSA J. 2014, 12, 3761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bogard, J.R.; Farmery, A.K.; Little, D.C.; Fulton, E.A.; Cook, M. Will fish be part of future healthy and sustainable diets? Lancet Planet. Health 2019, 3, e159–e160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jayedi, A.; Shab-Bidar, S. Fish Consumption and the Risk of Chronic Disease: An Umbrella Review of Meta-Analyses of Prospective Cohort Studies. Adv. Nutr. Int. Rev. J. 2020, 11, 1123–1133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Grosso, G.; Mucek, A.; Marventano, S.; Castellano, S.; Mistretta, A.; Pajak, A.; Galvano, F. Dietary n-3 PUFA, fish consumption and depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. J. Affect. Dissord. 2016, 205, 269–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Romagnolo, D.F.; Selmin, O.I. Mediterranean Diet and Prevention of Chronic Diseases. Nutr. Today 2017, 52, 208–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Koehn, J.Z.; Allison, E.H.; Villeda, K.; Chen, Z.; Nixon, M.; Crigler, E.; Zhao, L.; Chow, M.; Vaitla, B.; Thilsted, S.H.; et al. Fishing for health: Do the world’s national policies for fisheries and aquaculture align with those for nutrition? Fish Fish. 2022, 23, 125–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EUMOFA. The EU Fish Market—2021 Edition; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Eurostat. Body Mass Index Database. 2019. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/sdg_02_10/default/table (accessed on 10 February 2022).
- Eurostat. Causes of Death Database. 2019. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/hlth_cd_aro/default/table (accessed on 10 February 2022).
- Eurostat. Self-perceived Health Database. 2019. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/hlth_silc_01/default/table (accessed on 10 February 2022).
- Almeida, C.; Altintzoglou, T.; Cabral, H.N.; Vaz, S.G. Does seafood knowledge relate to more sustainable consumption? Br. Food J. 2015, 117, 894–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoque, M.Z.; Alam, M.N. Consumers’ knowledge discrepancy and confusion in intent to purchase farmed fish. Br. Food J. 2020, 122, 3567–3583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pieniak, Z.; Verbeke, W.; Scholderer, J.; Brunsø, K.; Olsen, S.O. European consumers’ use of and trust in information sources about fish. Food Qual. Prefer. 2007, 18, 1050–1063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pieniak, Z.; Verbeke, W.; Scholderer, J. Health-related beliefs and consumer knowledge as determinants of fish consumption. J. Hum. Nutr. Diet. 2010, 23, 480–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pieniak, Z.; Vanhonacker, F.; Verbeke, W. Consumer knowledge and use of information about fish and aquaculture. Food Policy 2013, 40, 25–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brucks, M. The effects of product class knowledge on information search behavior. J. Consum. Res. 1985, 12, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alba, J.W.; Hutchinson, J.W. Dimensions of consumer expertise. J. Consum. Res. 1987, 13, 411–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cowley, E.; Janus, E. Not Necessarily Better, but Certainly Different: A Limit to the Advertising Misinformation Effect on Memory. J. Consum. Res. 2004, 31, 229–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schiffman, L.G.; Kanuk, L.L.; Hansen, H. Consumer Behaviour: A European Outlook, 2nd ed.; Pearson Education Limited: Harlow, UK, 2012; p. 8. [Google Scholar]
- Solomon, M.R.; Bamossy, G.J.; Askergaard, S.; Hoog, M.K. Consumer behaviour: A European Perspective, 6th ed.; Pearson Education Limited: Harlow, UK, 2016; p. 352. [Google Scholar]
- Chang, S.C.; Chou, P.Y.; Wen-Chien, L. Evaluation of satisfaction and repurchase intention in online food group-buying, using Taiwan as an example. Br. Food J. 2014, 116, 44–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tuu, H.H.; Olsen, S.O. Food risk and knowledge in the satisfaction-repurchase loyalty relationship. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2009, 21, 521–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, M.K.; Nam, J. The determinants of live fish consumption frequency in South Korea’. Food Res. Int. 2019, 120, 382–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Suchánek, P.; Králová, M. Customer satisfaction, loyalty, knowledge and competitiveness in the food industry. Econ. Res. Ekon. Istraz. 2019, 32, 1237–1255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gaviglio, A.; Demartini, E.; Mauracher, C.; Pirani, A. Consumer perception of different species and presentation forms of fish: An empirical analysis in Italy. Food Qual. Prefer. 2014, 36, 33–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Samoggia, A.; Castellini, A. Health-Orientation and Socio-Demographic Characteristics as Determinants of Fish Consumption. J. Int. Food Agribus. Mark. 2018, 30, 211–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tomić, M.; Matulić, D.; Jelić, M. What determines fresh fish consumption in Croatia? Appetite 2016, 106, 13–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Tomić, M.; Lucević, Z.; Tomljanović, T.; Matulić, D. Wild-Caught Versus Farmed Fish—Consumer Perception. Croat. J. Fish. 2017, 75, 41–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hair, J.F.; Risher, J.J.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2019, 31, 2–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Myrland, O.; Trondsen, T.; Johnston, R.S.; Lund, E. Determinants of seafood consumption in Norway: Lifestyle, revealed preferences, and barriers to consumption. Food Qual. Prefer. 2020, 11, 169–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trondsen, T.; Braaten, T.; Lund, E.; Eggen, A.E. Health and seafood consumption patterns among women aged 45–69 years. A Norwegian seafood consumption study. Food Qual. Prefer. 2004, 15, 117–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cosmina, M.; Demartini, E.; Gaviglio, A.; Mauracher, C.; Prestamburgo, S.; Trevisan, G. Italian consumers’ attitudes towards small pelagic fish. New Medit 2012, 11, 52–57. [Google Scholar]
- Pieniak, Z.; Verbeke, W.; Olsen, S.O.; Hansen, K.B.; Brunsø, K. Health-related attitudes as a basis for segmenting European fish consumers. Food Policy 2010, 35, 448–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Claret, A.; Guerrero, L.; Ginés, R.; Grau, A.; Hernández, M.D.; Aguirre, E.; Peleteiro, J.B.; Fernández-Pato, C.; Rodríguez-Rodríguez, C. Consumer beliefs regarding farmed versus wild fish. Appetite 2014, 79, 25–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd ed.; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Falk, R.; Miller, N.B. A primer for Soft-Modeling; University of Akron Press: Akron, OH, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission. EU Consumer Habits Regarding Fishery and Aquaculture Products: Report; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ackman, R.G. Fish lipids. Part 1. In Advances in Fish Science and Technology; Connell, J.J., Ed.; Fishing News Books Ltd.: Surrey, UK, 1980; pp. 86–103. [Google Scholar]
- Pieniak, Z.; Aertsens, J.; Verbeke, W. Subjective and objective knowledge as determinants of organic vegetables consumption. Food Qual. Prefer. 2010, 21, 581–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salazar-Ordóñez, M.; Rodríguez-Entrena, M.; Cabrera, E.R.; Henseler, J. Understanding product differentiation failures: The role of product knowledge and brand credence in olive oil markets. Food Qual. Prefer. 2018, 68, 146–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wongprawmas, R.; Sogaria, G.; Gai, F.; Parisi, G.; Menozzi, D.; Mora, C. How information influences consumers’ perception and purchasing intention for farmed and wild fish. Aquaculture 2022, 547, 737504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, G.; Duffy, L.N.; Jodice, L.W.; Norman, W.C. Coastal Tourist Interest in Value-Added, Aquaculture-Based, Culinary Tourism Opportunities. Coast. Manag. 2017, 45, 310–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carlson, J.P.; Vincent, L.H.; Hardesty, D.M.; Bearden, W.O. Objective and Subjective Knowledge Relationships: A Quantitative Analysis of Consumer Research Findings. J. Consum. Res. 2009, 35, 864–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raju, P.S.; Lonial, S.C.; Mangold, W.G. Differential Effects of Subjective Knowledge, Objective Knowledge, and Usage Experience on Decision Making: An Exploratory Investigation. J. Consum. Psychol. 1995, 4, 153–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carlucci, D.; Nocella, G.; Devitiis, B.D.; Viscecchia, R.; Bimbo, F.; Nardone, G. Consumer purchasing behaviour towards fish and seafood products. Patterns and insights from a sample of international studies. Appetite 2015, 84, 212–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Richter, I.G.; Klöckner, C.A. The Psychology of Sustainable Seafood Consumption: A Comprehensive Approach. Foods 2017, 6, 86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Asensio, L.; Montero, A. Analysis of fresh fish labelling in Spanish fish retail shops. Food Control 2008, 19, 795–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cantillo, J.; Martín, J.; Román, C. Discrete choice experiments in the analysis of consumers’ preferences for finfish products: A systematic literature review. Food Qual. Prefer. 2020, 84, 103952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maesano, G.; Di Vita, G.; Chinnici, G.; Pappalardo, G.; D’Amico, M. The Role of Credence Attributes in Consumer Choices of Sustainable Fish Products: A Review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- López-Mas, L.; Claret, A.; Reinders, M.J.; Banovic, M.; Krystallis, A.; Guerrero, L. Farmed or wild fish? Segmenting European consumers based on their beliefs, Aquaculture 2021, 532, 735992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eurostat. Fisheries Database. 2019. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/fisheries/data/database (accessed on 17 March 2022).
- Verbeke, W.; Vermeir, I.; Brunsø, K. Consumer Evaluation of Fish Quality as Basis for Fish Market Segmentation. Food Qual. Prefer. 2007, 18, 651–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Altintzoglou, T.; Heide, M. Fish Quality and Consumers: How Do Consumers’ Knowledge About and Involvement in Fish Quality Define Factors That Influence Fish Buying Behavior? J. Aquat. Food Prod. 2016, 25, 885–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giacomarra, M.; Crescimanno, M.; Vrontis, D.; Miret Pastor, L.; Galati, A. The ability of fish ecolabels to promote a change in the sustainability awareness. Mar. Policy 2021, 123, 104292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferfolja, M.; Cerjak, M.; Matulić, D.; Maksan, M.T. Consumer knowledge and perception about fresh fish from organic farming in Croatia. Croat. J. Fish. 2022, 80, 7–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, B.; Lee, M. Consumer Preference for Eco-Labeled Seafood in Korea. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lawley, M.; Craig, J.F.; Dean, D.L.; Birch, D. The role of seafood sustainability knowledge in seafood purchase decisions. Br. Food J. 2019, 121, 2337–2350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Banovic, M.; Reinders, M.J.; Claret, A.; Guerrero, L.; Krystallis, A. A cross-cultural perspective on impact of health and nutrition claims, country-of-origin and eco-label on consumer choice of new aquaculture products. Food Res. Int. 2019, 123, 36–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sogn-Grundvåg, G.; Asche, F.; Zhang, D.; Young, J.A. Eco-labels and product longevity: The case of whitefish in UK grocery retailing. Food Policy 2019, 88, 101750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Altintzoglou, T.; Nøstvold, B.H. Labelling fish products to fulfil Norwegian consumers’ needs for information. Br. Food J. 2014, 116, 1909–1920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sociodemographic Variables | Croatia (n = 977) | Italy (n = 967) | |
---|---|---|---|
Gender (%) | Female | 49.6 | 49.4 |
Male | 50.4 | 50.6 | |
Age (%) | 18–30 | 21.5 | 20.5 |
31–40 | 22.6 | 22.4 | |
41–50 | 25.0 | 25.3 | |
51–65 | 30.9 | 31.7 | |
Education level (%) | Primary school or lower | 1.4 | 5.9 |
Secondary school | 46.1 | 56.4 | |
Bachelor, master or higher | 52.5 | 37.7 | |
Average household income per month (%) * | Lower | 8.3 | 25.2 |
Middle | 59.6 | 60.7 | |
Upper | 14.1 | 11.6 | |
High | 6.3 | 2.5 | |
N/A | 11.7 | 0 |
White Fish | Fatty Fish | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Croatia n (%) | Italy n (%) | Croatia n (%) | Italy n (%) | |
1 = Once a year or less | 93 (8.4%) | 61 (3.1%) | 82 (8.4%) | 30 (3.1%) |
2 = Once in 3 months | 243 (24.9%) | 117 (12.1%) | 187 (19.1%) | 91 (9.4%) |
3 = 2–3 times a month | 312 (31.9%) | 249 (25.7%) | 326 (33.4%) | 217 (22.4%) |
4 = Once a week | 274 (28%) | 331 (34.2%) | 309 (31.6%) | 387 (40%) |
5 = 2–3 times a week | 42 (4.3%) | 139 (14.4%) | 58 (5.9%) | 185 (19.1%) |
6 = 4–5 times a week | 7 (0.7%) | 50 (5.2%) | 12 (1.2%) | 40 (4.1%) |
7 = Every day | 6 (0.6%) | 20 (2.1%) | 3 (0.3%) | 17 (1.8%) |
p-value | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||
Pearson chi-squared | 155.108 | 179.120 |
Correct Answer (%) | p-Value | ||
---|---|---|---|
Objective knowledge/Statements | Croatia | Italy | |
Fish is a source of dietary fibre. (False) | 41.8 | 39.9 | 0.408 |
Fish is a source of omega-3 fatty acids. (True) | 98.2 | 94.3 | <0.001 |
It is recommended to eat fish at least twice a week. (True) | 96.0 | 91.9 | <0.001 |
Consumption of fatty fish is important in the prevention of some chronic diseases, such as cardiovascular diseases. (True) | 95.0 | 91.8 | 0.005 |
High maternal fish consumption during pregnancy and infant’s fish intake in the first year improves child developmental skills. (True) | 72.0 | 79.2 | <0.001 |
The sea bass and sea bream available in the European market are exclusively wild species. (False) | 65.5 | 66.3 | 0.717 |
The eyes of the fish demonstrate its freshness. (True) | 91.3 | 91.6 | 0.798 |
Mean ± SD | p-value * | ||
Aggregated score | 5.60 ± 0.97 | 5.55 ± 1.19 | 0.356 |
Mean ± SD | p-value * | ||
Subjective knowledge/Statements | Croatia | Italy | |
I consider that I know more about fish than the average person. | 3.05 ± 1.08 | 2.89 ± 1.13 | 0.001 |
I think that I know more about fish than my friends. | 3.07 ± 1.12 | 2.94 ± 1.16 | 0.013 |
I have a lot of knowledge about how to prepare fish. | 3.14 ± 1.05 | 3.01 ± 1.13 | 0.010 |
I have a lot of knowledge about how to evaluate the quality of fish. | 2.95 ± 1.06 | 2.93 ± 1.08 | 0.603 |
Constructs | Items | Factor Loadings | Cronbach’s Alpha | Composite Reliability | Average Variance Extracted | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total Sample | Croatia | Italy | Total Sample | Croatia | Italy | Total Sample | Croatia | Italy | Total Sample | Croatia | Italy | |||
Objective knowledge | OK_1 | 1.00 (fixed) | ||||||||||||
Subjective knowledge | SK_1 | I consider that I know more about fish than the average person | 0.910 | 0.907 | 0.915 | 0.925 | 0.922 | 0.927 | 0.946 | 0.945 | 0.948 | 0.816 | 0.811 | 0.820 |
SK_2 | I think that I know more about fish than my friends | 0.892 | 0.884 | 0.900 | ||||||||||
SK_3 | I have a lot of knowledge about how to prepare fish | 0.900 | 0.904 | 0.895 | ||||||||||
SK_4 | I have a lot of knowledge about how to evaluate the quality of fish | 0.911 | 0.906 | 0.912 | ||||||||||
Product attributes | PA_1 | Price | 0.742 | 0.662 | 0.762 | 0.881 | 0.871 | 0.882 | 0.910 | 0.901 | 0.910 | 0.627 | 0.605 | 0.628 |
PA_2 | Quality | 0.815 | 0.841 | 0.815 | ||||||||||
PA_3 | Price–quality ratio | 0.810 | 0.763 | 0.819 | ||||||||||
PA_4 | Availability | 0.781 | 0.768 | 0.784 | ||||||||||
PA_5 | Choice | 0.780 | 0.772 | 0.767 | ||||||||||
PA_6 | Freshness | 0.821 | 0.848 | 0.807 | ||||||||||
Product information | PI_1 | Shelf life | 0.660 | 0.558 | 0.733 | 0.899 | 0.882 | 0.918 | 0.916 | 0.903 | 0.931 | 0.523 | 0.483 | 0.574 |
PI_2 | Nutritional value | 0.643 | 0.600 | 0.692 | ||||||||||
PI_3 | List of ingredients | 0.736 | 0.706 | 0.764 | ||||||||||
PI_4 | Country of origin | 0.755 | 0.712 | 0.799 | ||||||||||
PI_5 | Production method (wild vs. farmed) | 0.782 | 0.773 | 0.816 | ||||||||||
PI_6 | Product brand | 0.683 | 0.660 | 0.713 | ||||||||||
PI_7 | Processing method | 0.754 | 0.717 | 0.795 | ||||||||||
PI_8 | Quality label | 0.751 | 0.747 | 0.759 | ||||||||||
PI_9 | Eco-label | 0.743 | 0.707 | 0.783 | ||||||||||
PI_10 | Previous freezing | 0.709 | 0.712 | 0.712 |
Path | Total Sample (n = 1944) | Croatia (n = 977) | Italy (n = 967) | Differences (Croatia vs. Italy) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Direct Effects | β | p-Value | βCRO | p-Value | βIT | p-Value | p-Value |
OK → PI | 0.194 | <0.001 | 0.203 | <0.001 | 0.188 | <0.001 | 0.768 |
OK → SK | 0.011 | 0.621 | 0.089 | 0.004 | −0.052 | 0.076 | 0.002 |
PI → SK | 0.161 | <0.001 | 0.210 | <0.001 | 0.086 | 0.016 | 0.010 |
PA → SK | 0.282 | <0.001 | 0.244 | <0.001 | 0.398 | <0.001 | 0.001 |
PA → FC | 0.197 | <0.001 | 0.104 | 0.001 | 0.131 | 0.004 | 0.575 |
SK → FC | 0.277 | <0.001 | 0.325 | <0.001 | 0.336 | <0.001 | 0.802 |
Indirect Effects | β | p-Value | βCRO | p-Value | βIT | p-Value | p-Value |
OK → PI → SK → FC | 0.009 | <0.001 | 0.014 | <0.001 | 0.005 | 0.027 | 0.037 |
OK → PI → SK | 0.031 | <0.001 | 0.043 | <0.001 | 0.016 | 0.024 | 0.022 |
OK → SK → FC | 0.003 | 0.624 | 0.029 | 0.007 | −0.018 | 0.089 | 0.002 |
PA → SK → FC | 0.078 | <0.001 | 0.079 | <0.001 | 0.134 | <0.001 | 0.013 |
PI → SK → FC | 0.045 | <0.001 | 0.068 | <0.001 | 0.029 | 0.019 | 0.026 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Krešić, G.; Dujmić, E.; Lončarić, D.; Zrnčić, S.; Liović, N.; Pleadin, J. Fish Consumption: Influence of Knowledge, Product Information, and Satisfaction with Product Attributes. Nutrients 2022, 14, 2691. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14132691
Krešić G, Dujmić E, Lončarić D, Zrnčić S, Liović N, Pleadin J. Fish Consumption: Influence of Knowledge, Product Information, and Satisfaction with Product Attributes. Nutrients. 2022; 14(13):2691. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14132691
Chicago/Turabian StyleKrešić, Greta, Elena Dujmić, Dina Lončarić, Snježana Zrnčić, Nikolina Liović, and Jelka Pleadin. 2022. "Fish Consumption: Influence of Knowledge, Product Information, and Satisfaction with Product Attributes" Nutrients 14, no. 13: 2691. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14132691