You are on page 1of 12

FINDING AND RESULTS

Demographic Profile

Two hundred and eighty-two respondents had been participated in the survey. Findings of the
study indicate that 98.9% of the respondents are aware about the contaminated canned sardine’s incidents
and only 1.1% are not aware about the incidents (see Figure). Among all these respondents only 97.5%
appears to be regular buyer of the canned sardines, only 2.5% respondents never buy the canned sardines
(refer Figure ) . Table 4. had shown that about 72.7% of respondents were female and only 27.3%
respondent were male had been contributing in this survey. The survey was predominantly Malay (78.4%)
followed by Chinese (10.3%), Indians (6%) and the remaining 5.3% were from others ethnicity. Majority
of the respondents age group of 20 to 29 years (62.8%) and age group of 50 to 59 years (18.4%) had
given a big contribute in the survey. Most respondents (33.1%) were university students and (27%)
respondents from people who working on private sector. Respondents that had an average gross income
of RM2000 – RM 3999 were (23.4%).

Respondent Number of Percentage (%)


Respondent
Gender
Male 77 27.3
Female 205 72.7
Ethnic
Malay 221 78.4
Chinese 29 10.3
Indian 17 6.0
Others 15 5.3
Age
Less than 20 years 15 5.3
20-29 years 177 62.8
30-39 years 17 6.0
40-49 years 21 7.4
50-59 years 52 18.4
Above 60 years 0 0
Education
Primary School 3 1.1
PMR/SRP/LCE 3 1.1
SPM/SPMV/MCE 33 11.7
Professional 11 3.9
STPM/HSC 38 13.5
Certificate/Diploma 119 42.2
Bachelor’s Degree 69 24.5
Postgraduate Degree 6 2.1
Gross Family Income
Less than RM 1,000 41 14.5
RM 1,000 – RM 1,999 43 15.2
RM 2,000 – RM 3,999 66 23.4
RM 4,000 – RM 5,999 46 16.3
RM 6,000 – RM 7,999 35 12.4
Rm 8,000 – RM 9,999 24 8.5
RM 10,000 and above 27 9.6
Work Sector
Private Sector 76 27.0
Government/Semi-Government 55 19.5
Own Business 37 13.1
Student 99 35.1
Not Working 12 4.3
Others 3 1.1

Awareness of Contaminated Canned Sardines

1%

Yes
No
99%
PURCHASED ANY CANNED SARDINES
Yes No
No
3%

Yes
97%

Figure had shown the percentage of respondents who have or never purchase the canned sardines
from 282 survey. Based on the survey result, 97.5% of the respondents had experienced in buying canned
sardines while the others 2.5% consumer had never purchased canned sardines. This means that still have
certain people had never buy and never had interest on canned sardines. Based on our analysis, it can be
concluded that main reason for respondents who purchase the canned sardines is the consumer mostly buy
their favorite brand of sardine (52.8%) and also have a tasty flavor (46.1%).

FOCUS BRAND
Focus Brand
56.7
13.1

10.6

10.6
4.3

2.8
0.7

0.7
0.4

CINTA KING CUP AYAM BOTAN STAR CUP YEO TL TAN ADABI TC BOY
BRAND LUNG
The respondents were asked to choose one brand off canned sardines that they would like to focus
when answering the survey. From the respondents 282 who had purchased canned sardines, the result had
showed that they had only to pick one brand only. Refer to Figure, most brand that people choose to focus
is Ayam Brand (56.7%), followed by King Cup (13.1%), Adabi and Botan (10.6%).While others
consumers choose Cinta (4.3%), followed by Yeo(2.8%).

Duration Customers

9% Less Than 1 year


7%
1-2 years
10%
3-4 years
6%
68% 5-6 years
More than 6 years

Based on the survey, most respondent (68%) has consume canned sardines more than 6 years. More than
3-4 years (10%) respondent had become a regular when buying canned sardine. From 282 people
consume canned sardines, only 26 respondents (9%) had become customer on canned sardines less than 1
year. Others (7%) consume only 1-2 years and 96%) had consume for 5-6 years.
OFTEN SHOP
Every Week 3-4 times month 1-2 times month
Once a Month Once every 2 months Once every 3 months

1%
15%
27%

22%

13%

22%

Based on the survey result, it found that majority of respondents (27%) purchased canned sardine
once every 3 months. It means that although 278 respondents have purchased canned sardines, the
proportion of consumers who purchase is low. Some of the respondents (22%) have purchased the canned
sardines with a frequency of once a month and 1-2 times a month. Only (15%) of respondents have
purchased canned sardines 3-4 times a month. While other (13%) purchased canned sardines once every
two months.
4.2 Reliability Analysis
Reliability tests were conducted to assure that all the items in the survey are reliable before testing the
hypothesis. The table reveals reliability was satisfactory as Cronbach’s alpha for all constructs exceed 0.7
are meet the general requirement of reliability for research instruments (Nunnally, 1978).

Construct Cronbach Alpha No. of items


Price consciousness 0.825 5
Health consciousness
Convenience 0.738 5
Psychological Contract Violation 0.94 7
Food Safety Knowledge 0.818 10

Cronbach’s alpha value showed that all construct in this survey is reliable due to its Cronbach alpha
greater than 0.7. Thus, all items in the survey are reliable to be tested in the hypothesis testing.

Analyses to Test All Hypotheses

 Relationships between the independent variables (Price consciousness, Health


consciousness, Convenience, Psychological Contract Violation, Food Safety Knowledge) and
purchase intention towards contaminated canned sardines

H1: Price consciousness has a positive influence on purchase intention towards contaminated canned
sardine’s
H2: Consumer’s health consciousness is positively related to purchase intention towards
contaminated canned sardine’s
H3: Convenience is positively related to purchase intention towards contaminated canned sardine’s
H4: Psychological contract violation is positively related to the purchase intention towards
contaminated canned sardine’s
H5: Food safety knowledge is positively related to purchase intention for contaminated canned
sardine’s
Model Summaryb
Adjusted R Std. Error of the
Model R R Square Square Estimate
1 .472a .223 .209 .92412
a. Predictors: (Constant), PCV1, Conv, HealthCons, PriceCons, FSK1
b. Dependent Variable: PurchaseInt

ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 67.629 5 13.526 15.838 .000b
Residual 235.704 276 .854
Total 303.333 281
a. Dependent Variable: PurchaseInt
b. Predictors: (Constant), PCV1, Conv, HealthCons, PriceCons, FSK1

Coefficientsa
Standar
dized
Unstandardized Coefficie 95.0% Confidence Collinearity
Coefficients nts Interval for B Correlations Statistics
Std. Lower Upper Zero- Parti Toler
Model B Error Beta t Sig. Bound Bound order al Part ance VIF
1 (Const .345 .447 .772 .441 -.535 1.226
ant)
PriceC .054 .078 .044 .693 .489 -.100 .208 .274 .042 .037 .691 1.448
ons
Health .236 .091 .162 2.58 .010 .056 .415 .257 .153 .137 .714 1.402
Cons 1
Conv .544 .090 .379 6.03 .000 .366 .721 .427 .341 .320 .715 1.399
3
FSK1 .184 .129 .100 1.42 .156 -.071 .439 .185 .085 .076 .569 1.759
3
PCV1 -.126 .086 -.098 - .143 -.295 .043 .114 -.088 -.078 .637 1.569
1.47
0
a. Dependent Variable: PurchaseInt
Multiple regression analysis was conducted to explore the relationship between purchase intention toward
contaminated canned sardine’s and independent variables (Price consciousness, Health consciousness,
Convenience, Psychological Contract Violation, Food Safety Knowledge) in this study. Based on the
ANOVA analysis, the full model containing all variables statistically significance at p < .05 level: (F (5,
276) = 15.83, p = .000). Overall, multiple regression analysis was showing a R² of .22 in which about 22%
of dependent variable is explained by all the independent variables in this study.

The result of regression analysis showed that health consciousness and convenience food were contributing
positively and significantly supported to purchase intention toward canned sardines (β = .16, p = .01, β =
.38, p = .00). In other terms, three dimensions (psychological contract violation, food safety knowledge and
price consciousness) are found to have a positive influence to purchase intention towards canned sardines
but the relationship was insignificant (β = -.098, p = .14, β = .10, p = .16, β = .04, p = .49,). This indicated
that psychological contract violation, food safety knowledge and price consciousness of Malaysian
consumers did not reflect in their purchase intention.

As shown in the coefficient table above, the largest Beta value is Convenience. This indicates that among
the five independent variables, convenience makes the strongest unique contribution to purchase intention
toward canned sardines. The Beta value for psychological contract violation was slightly lower (-.098),
indicating that it made the least of contribution toward the purchase intention. From this analysis,
respondents who want more convenience when preparing food did engage more in purchase intention
toward canned sardines. Therefore, it is concluded that hypotheses H2 and H3 are supported while H1,H4
and H5 are rejected.
LITERATURE REVIEW

FOOD SAFETY KNOWLEDGE

Food safety can be defined as the confidence degree that the food will not cause any harm or sickness to
the consumer when it is prepared, served and consumed based on its intended use (Norazmir et al., 2012).
A secure food is a food that is physically, chemically and biologically ready to be consumed when it is
prepared according to its main purpose and does not loses its nutritional value. The basic rule when it
comes to food safety is focusing at each step from buying to the consumption (Yasemin et al., 2013).
Food safety issue is not relatively new in Malaysia. Problems arise due to unsafe food handling, doubtful
in terms of preparing foods and mostly due to outbreaks of food poisoning in schools and education
institutions (Rashdi, 2009) A survey was done and showed that the level of knowledge regarding to food
safety is not enough as well as lacking when it comes to students. (Booth et al., 2013 & Sanlier et al.,
2010).

Indeed, contaminated raw foods, food not been cooked properly, and consumption of food from an unsafe
source were the factors most commonly associated with reported outbreaks of domestically acquired
foodborne illnesses (Mederios et al., 2001). Studies have estimated that 50-87% of the reported food
poisoning incident have incriminated homemade food (Redmond and Griffith, 2002). There are a number
of literature reporting that food handlers of all ages think that they know on how to handle the food safely,
but their self-reported food handling behaviors do not support their assumption (Bruhn & Schutz, 1999;
Frewer, Shepherd, & Sparks, 1994; Gettings & Kiernan, 2001; Redmond & Griffith, 2003).

Mishandling food is more common in some consumer groups than in others (Byrd-Bredbenner et al.,
2007; Sanlier, 2009). Young adults (18-29 years old), men and individuals with education further than
high school are more likely to have riskier on food handling than others (Li-Cohen & Bruhn, 2002;
McArthur, Holbert, & Forsythe, 2007; Medeiros et al., 2004). This age group (18-29 years old) is not
considered to be “at risk” for foodborne illness; however, the consequence of their unhygienic food
practices becomes serious when they start providing more care for other household members who are at
risk, such as pregnant women, young children and ageing adults (Abbot, Byrd-Bredbenner, Schaffne,
Bruhn, & Blalock, 2009; Byrd-Bredbenner et al., 2008).
The food safety knowledge is related to health consciousness because consumer that concern with their
health is really care about the safety of their food. There is positive relationship between food safety
knowledge and purchase intention towards canned sardines. It is related because people that consume
canned food need to aware about the safety when buying canned food.
REFERENCE

1. Asiegbu, C. V., Lebelo, S. L., & Tabit, F. T. (2016). The food safety knowledge and microbial
hazards awareness of consumers of ready-to-eat street-vended food. Food Control, 60, 422-429.
2. Burgus, H., & Neetoo, H. (2016). A Study on Food Safety Knowledge and Perceptions among
Poultry Consumers in Mauritius. Journal homepage: http://jwpr. science-line. com, 121, 130.
3. Bruhn, C. M., & Schutz, H. G. (1999). Consumer food safety knowledge and practices. Journal of
food safety, 19(1), 73-87.
4. Johnson, A. E., Donkin, A. J., Morgan, K., Lilley, J. M., Neale, R. J., Page, R. M., & Silburn, R.
(1998). Food safety knowledge and practice among elderly people living at home. Journal of
Epidemiology & Community Health, 52(11), 745-748.
5. Woodburn, M. J., & Raab, C. A. (1997). Household food preparers' food-safety knowledge and
practices following widely publicized outbreaks of foodborne illness. Journal of Food Protection,
60(9), 1105-1109.
6. De Boer, M., McCarthy, M., Cowan, C., & Ryan, I. (2004). The influence of lifestyle
characteristics and beliefs about convenience food on the demand for convenience foods in the
Irish market. Food quality and preference, 15(2), 155-165.
7. Kennedy, J., Jackson, V., Blair, I. S., McDowell, D. A., Cowan, C., & Bolton, D. J. (2005). Food
safety knowledge of consumers and the microbiological and temperature status of their
refrigerators. Journal of food protection, 68(7), 1421-1430.
8. Kibret, M., & Abera, B. (2012). The sanitary conditions of food service establishments and food
safety knowledge and practices of food handlers in Bahir Dar town. Ethiopian journal of health
sciences, 22(1), 27-35.
9. Botonaki, A., & Mattas, K. (2010). Revealing the values behind convenience food
consumption. Appetite, 55(3), 629-638.
10. Buckley, M., Cowan, C., & McCarthy, M. (2007). The convenience food market in Great Britain:
Convenience food lifestyle (CFL) segments. Appetite, 49(3), 600-617.
11. Mol, S. (2011). Levels of heavy metals in canned bonito, sardines, and mackerel produced in
Turkey. Biological trace element research, 143(2), 974-982.
12. Turconi, G., Guarcello, M., Maccarini, L., Cignoli, F., Setti, S., Bazzano, R., & Roggi, C. (2008).
Eating habits and behaviors, physical activity, nutritional and food safety knowledge and beliefs
in an adolescent Italian population. Journal of the American College of Nutrition, 27(1), 31-43.