Professional Documents
Culture Documents
To cite this article: Artur Kraus, Azzurra Annunziata & Riccardo Vecchio (2017) Sociodemographic
Factors Differentiating the Consumer and the Motivations for Functional Food Consumption,
Journal of the American College of Nutrition, 36:2, 116-126, DOI: 10.1080/07315724.2016.1228489
Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the (1) role of gender, age, and education in the evaluation
of multidimensional criteria of the purchase of functional products, which were (a) quality and organoleptic
attributes, (b) attributes of packaging and labeling, (c) healthful properties, (d) functional components, (e) base
product (carrier) and (2) most important motives for the purchase and consumption of functional food among
consumers of different sociodemographic profiles.
Design: The data were collected in direct interviews. The sample (n D 200) consisted of 137 women and 63
men age 18–60 years. The research tool was a questionnaire divided into 4 sections. The first one included
quality attributes. The second one included healthful properties, functional components, and carriers. The third
one concerned the motives for purchasing functional food and included the consequences and values. In the
fourth section the participants were asked about gender, age, and education.
Results: Gender, age, and education differentiated the criteria influencing the decision to purchase functional
food. Women, older people (35–60 years), and those with university education attach the greatest importance to
naturalness, nutritional value, freshness, food safety, and quality guarantee. Clear differences between men and
women appear in the field of functional components, which are significantly more important for women than for
men. Gender, age, and education essentially differentiate the preferences for base product (carrier). Young men
prefer meat products in the role of functional carriers. In turn, women and older men prefer cereal products as
basic functional carriers. Young consumers are more open to high-technology food processing. Motivations are
differentiated by age and gender. Young men, as opposed to women and older men, attach less importance to
functional and psychological consequences: improvement of health, healthy eating, conscious choice, and health
promotion. Women and older men are more interested in health safety and are more responsible for their health.
Among young men, lower self-esteem can be found.
Conclusion: The analysis conducted revealed that groups of consumers are significantly different from each
other in the evaluation of the significance of each of the variables in the selection of functional food.
Sociodemographic factors differentiate the motivations for consumption of functional food.
INTRODUCTION diet-related chronic diseases [21, 25, 33, 44]. In the light
of emerging health problems, educational initiatives for the
Healthy characteristics of food and diets are recurrent development of healthy eating habits become increasingly
themes in health policy, the media, and everyday discus- important. As a partial response to issues of healthy nutri-
sions concerning eating. In addition, government policy tion and disease prevention, we can witness the rise of
focuses on the promotion of health and measures for functional food, which, also in the face of an aging society,
disease prevention. Healthy eating is essential to avoid can play an important role.
Address correspondence to: Artur Kraus, Department of Economics, University of Rzeszow, 35-601 Rzeszow, ul. Cwiklinskiej 2, Poland. E-mail: akraus@ur.edu.pl
Journal of the American College of Nutrition, Vol. 36, No. 2, 116–126 (2017) Ó American College of Nutrition
Published by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
116
Functional Food
to 6 persons. There were 240 participants. The research Table 1. Characteristics of Participants and Sociodemographic
involved 200 persons, 137 women and 63 men, who purchased Profiles of Clusters (N D 200)
functional foods and agreed to participate in the research. Peo-
Gender Age Education
ple aged 18–60 participated in the program.
Category N Category N Category N
Questionnaire Structure Female 137 18–34 years 58 Secondary 21
University education 37
The research tool was a specially designed questionnaire that
35–60 years 79 Secondary 35
was divided into four sections. The first section contained the University education 44
perceived quality attributes of functional food (organoleptic Male 63 18–34 years 25 Secondary 14
attributes, attributes of packaging and labeling). The second sec- University education 11
35–60 years 38 Secondary 11
tion consisted of health benefits, functional components, and car-
University education 27
riers. The third section concerned the motives for purchasing
functional food and included consequences and values. The con-
sequences were divided into functional and psychological. The Data Analysis
values were divided into instrumental values and final ones.
Hypotheses about the diversity of opinion expressed in the
(Instrumental [basic] values are related to general ways of behav-
questionnaire, occurring between the created segments of
ior. These are individual beliefs. The values of the second group
respondents, were verified by a multidimensional method of
are secondary or of lower significance. They constitute an auxil-
cluster analysis. Before starting the analysis, participants were
iary element in achieving the highest (autotelic) values and are
grouped according to 3 criteria—gender, age, and education—
executive in nature and serve to pursue higher aims. Final (auto-
in such a way as to form groups of uniform characteristics
telic) values are the most important aims of human life. These
indicated by these criteria. In this way, 8 segments were built—
are autonomous, principal, central values occupying the central
elements subsequently subjected to agglomeration (Table 1).
place in the hierarchy of values. The realization of these values
Homogeneous clusters were determined on the basis of 8
is good per se [39].) In the fourth section the participants were
multidimensional criteria, specifically: (1) organoleptic and
asked about gender, age, and education. These issues were devel-
quality attributes, (2) attributes of packaging and labeling, (3)
oped on the basis of a literature review [12, 26, 30, 43, 48]
healthful properties, (4) functional components, (5) base prod-
uct (carrier), (6) functional consequences, (7) psychological
The Survey Procedure consequences, and (8) values (instrumental and final). The
bases for the analysis were calculated for each of the isolated
In order to carry out the survey, the participants were
segments, and values of the arithmetic mean were calculated
divided into groups of 25. The survey was conducted by a
according to the answers to the questionnaire, which concerned
member of the research team. The interview procedure started
a given criterion.
with a brief introduction. The respondents were informed about
Ward’s agglomeration method was applied for the calcu-
the purpose of the survey. At the beginning of the session, to
lations. The basis of agglomeration was Euclidean distance.
ensure that the term functional food was understood, the defini-
Following cluster analysis, the data were examined to verify
tion of functional food was used:
the significance of differences between the average levels of
a food product can only be considered functional if together
each element (making up the multidimensional criterion of
with the basic nutritional impact it has beneficial effects on one creation of clusters) in the designated clusters. The null
or more functions of the human organism thus either improving hypothesis of equality of the average value was verified by
the general and physical conditions or/and decreasing the risk the Fisher-Snedecor F-test, and post hoc analysis was car-
of the evolution of diseases. The amount of intake and form of
the functional food should be as it is normally expected for die-
ried out by Tukey’s test. This allowed identification of
tary purposes. Therefore, it could not be in the form of pill or homogeneous groups of arithmetic means. This verification
capsule just as normal food form. [18, p. 26] was performed at a significance level a D 0.05. Statistical
analysis was carried out using the package StatSoft Polska
In addition, the questionnaire contained the definition so Statistica 9 (Krakow, Poland).
that the respondents were able to become freely acquainted
with it. Later, the participants were asked to evaluate each of
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
the attributes in terms of their importance when purchasing
functional food. Evaluation of each of the attributes was per-
formed according to a 5-point scale with 1 D not important at Characteristics of Participants
all and 5 D very important. The amount of time allowed to The final sample (N D 200) consisted of 137 (68.5%)
complete the questionnaire was up to 30 minutes. women and 63 (31.5%) men. The majority of the
participants had a university education (119, 59.50%), and The studies consistently confirm that the attribute “safe and
81 (40.50%) of the participants had secondary education. healthy product” plays an important role in making the deci-
Among the participants, 117 (58.50%) were in the 34C age sion to purchase functional food [29]. The naturalness of the
group, and the smaller age group consisted of people product is of less significance for this group, which may result
between the ages of 18 and 34 (83, 41.5%). A detailed from the fact that cluster D consists mainly of young women
description of the sample and the sociodemographic profile (84.1%) who are more open to food produced with the use of
is included in Table 1. high technology. A similar attitude toward naturalness is
shown by young men (cluster B). An interesting observation
Sociodemographic Characteristics Differentiating from the analysis is that young consumers are more open to
the Consumer of Functional Food new technologies in food production.
Table 2. Sociodemographic Differentiation of Identified Clusters; Attributes of Functional Food (n D 200), in Percentage
Quality Attributes and Organoleptic Properties Attributes of Packaging and Label Healthful Properties Functional Component Base Product (Carrier)
Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster
A B C D A B C A B C A B A B C
(n D 106; (n D 14; (n D 11; (n D 69; (n D 25; (n D 46; (n D 129; (n D 96; (n D 46; (n D 58; (n D 52; (n D 148; (n D 25; (n D 108; (n D 77;
53%) 7%) 5.5%) 34.5%) 12.5%) 23%) 64.5%) 48%) 23%) 29%) 26%) 74%) 12.5%) 54%) 38.5%)
Gender
Female 74.5 — — 84.1 — 76.0 79.1 45.8 76.0 100 — 92.6 — 75.0 85.7
Male 25.5 100 100 15.9 100 24.0 20.9 54.2 24.0 — 100 7.4 100 25.0 14.3
Age
18–34 years — 100 — 100 100 — 45.0 26.0 100 100 48.1 39.2 100 34.3 27.3
35–60 years 100 — 100 — — 100 55.0 74.0 — — 51.9 60.8 — 65.7 72.7
Education
Secondary 33.0 100 100 30.4 56.0 100 16.3 14.6 100 36.2 26.9 45.3 56.0 — 100
University 67.0 — — 69.6 44.0 — 83.7 85.4 — 63.8 73.1 54.7 44.0 100 —
education
Table 3. Importance of Attributes of Functional Food—Differentiation between the Separated Clusters (Results of Variance
Analysis)
Cluster
A B C D
*Indicates that the calculated value of the F-test allows rejection of the null hypothesis (a D 0.05). Identical letters indicate a lack of significant difference between the
clusters in the post hoc analysis.
Healthful Properties
(Table 2). Cluster A included mostly men (54.2%) and persons
Three clusters were identified. Cluster A (n D 96) consists aged 35–60 years (74%). People with a university education
of diverse consumers in terms of gender, age, and education (85.4%) prevailed in this group. This segment was isolated due
to the lower level of importance of the healthful properties better educated persons attach more importance to functional
“improves memory,” “helps to maintain a youthful appear- components. For these consumers the content of functional
ance,” “helps to maintain correct body weight,” “strengthens components was an important determinant in food choices.
hair and nails,” “strengthens the immune system,” and The recent literature indicates that age and level of education
“reduces stress” (Table 3). This group of consumers is not con- are important predictors of consumers’ awareness of functional
cerned with their appearance because they gave lower ratings components in food [9]. An interesting observation from the
to health properties connected with appearance. This is likely analysis is that these are women who attach the greatest impor-
because the segment is dominated by men and older respond- tance to the content of functional components.
ents, who are most likely looking for other healthful properties.
This segment is not particularly interested in healthful proper-
ties connected with the improvement of memory and the reduc- Base Product (Carrier)
tion of stress. Three clusters were identified. Cluster A (n D 25) consists
Clusters B (n D 46) and C (n D 58) consist entirely of only of young men aged 18–34 years (Table 2). This cluster
young persons (18–34 years). In terms of gender, these 2 clus- was isolated due to the higher level of preference for meat
ters consist mainly of women (B, 76%; C, 100%). The consum- products as functional carriers (Table 3). This group of con-
ers in these segments show more interest in the healthful sumers seems to be the most interested in functional meat prod-
properties connected with appearance in an effort to maintain ucts. Noteworthy is the inclusion of meat products as good
or improve their existing appearance. This group of people carriers for functional products. The development of functional
also seems to be interested in strengthening eyesight and reduc- meat products may be a useful solution with a high market
ing stress. Paying more attention to these healthful properties potential and consequent health benefits [6, 37].
may result from daily activities related to work and family Cluster B (n D 108) consists mainly of women (75%), with
responsibilities. Cluster B gave the highest ratings to health a small proportion of men (25%). This group consists mostly
properties connected with a reduction in the risk of osteoporo- of people aged 35–60 years (65.7%). The whole group had a
sis and dementia. This result indicates that young women with university education. Cluster B is distinguished by the lower
a secondary education wish to carry out preventive activities in level of preference for meat products as carriers for functional
this regard. These 2 segments are also very interested in products.
strengthening the immune system. There are no reports in the Cluster C (n D 77) mainly includes women (85.7%). In this
literature regarding the diversity of consumers in the field of group consumers aged 35–60 years (72.7%) prevail, with all
healthful properties. Studies carried out thus far have revealed having a secondary education. Cluster C is distinguished by
the great importance of such healthful properties as the higher level of preference for cereal products as carriers for
“strengthens the body’s defense mechanisms,” “reduces the functional products. The results of studies have revealed that
risk of coronary heart disease,” “lowers cholesterol level,” and women who make up clusters B and C prefer meat products
“improves physical fitness” [15, 29]. Other studies [7] argue the least, showing greater preferences for cereal products as
that older people explain their intentions to purchase mainly basic functional carriers. Greater preference for cereal products
from the point of view of disease prevention. Moreover, Bogue as functional carriers is also observed among older well-edu-
and Ryan [8] showed that older consumers are more concerned cated men. Numerous literature sources emphasize that the
with a reduction in the risk of a disease, whereas younger con- acceptance of functional products mainly depends on the basic
sumers are more interested in increasing energy levels. product used as a carrier for the functional element [24, 49,
51]. Our results have revealed differences between women and
Functional Component young men in preferences for functional carriers.
Table 4. Sociodemographic Differentiation of the Identified Clusters, Consequences and Values (n D 200), in Percentage
A B C D A B C A B
(n D 38; (n D 14; (n D 79; (n D 69; (n D 38; (n D 14; (n D 148; (n D 25; (n D 175;
19%) 7%) 39.5%) 34.5%) 19%) 7%) 74%) 12.5%) 87.5%)
Gender
Female — — 100 84.1 — — 92.6 — 78.3
Male 100 100 — 15.9 100 100 7.4 100 21.7
Age
18–34 years 28.9 100 — 84.1 28.9 100 39.2 100 33.1
35–60 years 71.1 — 100 15.9 71.1 — 60.8 — 66.9
Education
Secondary — 100 44.3 46.4 — 100 45.3 56.0 38.3
University 100 — 55.7 53.6 100 — 54.7 44.0 61.7
education
appearance improvement as a result of the consumption of Most likely, they may aim to maintain their current health con-
functional food. dition through functional food. Moreover, they attach less
Cluster B (n D 14) is the smallest one in this division and importance to a healthy diet in comparison to other clusters.
consists exclusively of young men (18–34 years) with a sec- Clusters C (n D 79) and D (n D 69) consist mainly of
ondary education. For young men in cluster B the level of women (C, 100%; D, 84.1%). Cluster C consists exclusively of
importance of the consequences “improvement of health,” older women (35–60 years), whereas in cluster D young people
“needs of organism,” and “healthy eating” is lower compared aged 18–34 years (84.1%) predominate. Cluster C differs from
to the other clusters. The results of studies show that young cluster D with a lower level of validity of improved appearance
men, who most likely enjoy good health, do not expect to as a functional consequence. This means that mainly for young
improve their health with the consumption of functional food. people, especially women, the consumption of functional food
Table 5. Importance of Consequences and Values—Differentiation between the Separated Clusters (Results of Variance Analysis)
Cluster
A B C D
Functional consequences n D 38 n D 14 n D 79 n D 69
Improved health 4.50 b 3.93 a 4.52 b 4.50 b 7.41* (0.041)
Needs of organism (providing the organism with nutrients) 4.26 b 3.86 a 4.33 b 4.36 b 5.98* (0.049)
Improvement of external appearance 3.49 a 3.57 a 3.91 b 4.35 c 45.75* (0.001)
Healthy nutrition 4.24 b 3.64 a 4.56 c 4.46 c 99.46* (0.000)
Psychological consequences n D 38 n D 14 n D 148
Promotion of health 3.99 b 3.50 a 3.94 b — 9.68* (0.019)
Pleasure of eating 3.75 4.07 3.92 — 3.31 (0.121)
Conscious choice 3.93 a 3.86 a 4.31 b — 15.55* (0.007)
Instrumental (basic) values n D 25 n D 175
Care for health 3.63 3.92 — — 1.78 (0.231)
Responsibility for health 4.10 4.34 — — 2.26 (0.184)
Final (autotelic) values n D 25 n D 175
Health safety 4.14 4.34 — — 3.76 (0.100)
Good health and long life 4.32 4.47 — — 4.32 (0.082)
Inner harmony 3.75 4.16 — — 3.77 (0.100)
Self-respect 3.80 4.20 — — 40.78* (0.001)
Self-belief 3.62 4.13 — — 22.02* (0.003)
*Indicates that the calculated value of the F-test allows rejection of the null hypothesis (a D 0.05). Identical letters indicate a lack of significant difference between the
clusters in the post hoc analysis.
should be connected with the consequence in the form of cluster A (the differences for the values “self-respect” and
improved appearance, which is the external sign of a healthy “self-belief” are statistically significant).
diet; in particular for this group of consumers, it is a pleasant The results of studies show that gender and age differentiate
consequence of effective and purposeful action. An improved motivations. For women and older men, safety and good health
appearance reinforces positive thinking about oneself and addi- and long life are the most important motivators for the con-
tionally motivates one to act. As has been indicated in previous sumption of functional foods. Differences between the groups
studies [26, 34], healthy eating, improved health, eating enjoy- also appear in the assessment of internal harmony, which
ment, and improved physical appearance are important motiva- allows achieving inner balance and peace. One of the bases for
tors in purchasing and consuming functional food. achieving inner peace is taking care of oneself and one’s
health. As research by Jonas and Beckmann [26] shows, long
Psychological Consequences life and good health are major determinants motivating the
consumption of functional food. The greatest differences
Three clusters were defined. Clusters A (n D 38) and B (n D
between clusters A and B are shown in the evaluation of the
14) consist only of men (Table 4). In cluster A there were pre-
values “self-respect” and “self-belief.” These 2 values can be
dominately older men aged 35–60 years (71.1%) with a univer-
defined as self-esteem. In other words, self-esteem is the way
sity education, whereas cluster B consists only of young men
we think and speak about ourselves. The way we think about
(18–34 years) with a secondary education. Cluster A was iso-
ourselves shapes our image and the way we refer to each other.
lated due to the highest level of importance of the consequence
The results of studies reveal that the group of young men has
“health promotion” and a high level of importance of the con-
lower self-esteem. Other results of studies also point to the
sequence “conscious choice.” In contrast, cluster A and cluster
great importance of the values of security, internal harmony,
B show the lowest level of importance of “promotion of
and self-confidence as important motivators for purchasing
health” (Table 5).
functional food [29]. An interesting observation from the anal-
Cluster C (n D 148) is mostly women, with men constitut-
ysis is that women and older men are more interested in health
ing only 7.4%. In cluster C persons aged 35–60 years (60.8%)
safety and are more responsible for health.
predominate. Cluster C is characterized by the higher level of
importance of the consequence “conscious choice” and a high
level of importance of the consequence “promotion of health.”
Health promotion in the psychological sense is the process of CONCLUSIONS
acquiring the skills to control and influence one’s own health.
Gender, age, and education differentiated ratings of the cri-
This is an intentional activity that can be developed by increas-
teria influencing the decisions to purchase functional food. The
ing individual and social awareness regarding issues concern-
research analysis has shown that mainly women, older persons,
ing health.
and consumers with a university education attach the greatest
The results of studies reveal that women and older men
importance to the naturalness of the product and food safety.
(35–60 years) appreciate the ability to control and influence
Younger consumers attach less importance to naturalness and
health. For these 2 groups of consumers “conscious choice”
seem to be more open to high-technology food processing.
has important consequences. From the above it appears that
Women and older men, in contrast to younger men, attach great
these 2 segments of consumers do not want to make random
importance to the freshness of the product and its nutritional
decisions. They want to decide themselves and make conscious
value when making food choices. Taking healthful properties
choices in achieving their goal, which is to maintain good
into consideration, the differences in the evaluation appear in
health. The results of studies reveal that health promotion and
the group of that which may generally lead to improved
conscious choice are less important for young men (18–34
appearance. Older persons show a lower level of importance of
years). According to other studies, health promotion is a major
healthful properties connected to appearance. Young people
motivator for the purchase and consumption of functional food
would be more willing to seek healthful properties that could
[26, 29].
contribute to improved appearance.
Clear differences between women and men appear in the
Instrumental (Basic) and Final (Autotelic) Values
field of functional components. For women the content of func-
Two clusters were identified. Cluster A (n D 25) consists tional components was an important determinant in food
only of young men (18–34 years). Cluster B (n D 175) consists choices. Gender, age, and education essentially differentiate
mostly of women, with a smaller proportion of men (21.1%). preferences for the base product (carrier). Young men to the
In this group, older people aged 35–60 years (66.9%) predomi- greatest extent prefer meat products as a functional carrier.
nate, most with a university education (61.7%; Table 4). For Women, older men, and consumers with higher education are
the consumers making up cluster B the importance of all values more interested in cereal products in the role of functional
listed in Table 5 is higher than for consumers making up carriers.
18. Diplock AT, Aggett PJ, Ashwell M, Bornet F, Fern, EB, Roberf- 36. Niva M, M€akel€a J: Finns and functional foods: socio-demo-
roid M: Scientific concepts of functional foods in Europe: consen- graphics, health efforts, notions of technology and the acceptabil-
sus document. Br J Nutr 81:1–27, 1999. ity of health-promoting foods. Int J Consum Stud 31:34–45, 2007.
19. European Opinion Research Group: “Health, Food and Alcohol 37. Olmedilla-Alonso B, Granado-Lorencio F, Herrero-Barbudo C,
and Safety.” European Opinion Research Group, 2003. Special Blanco-Navarro I: Nutritional approach for designing meat-based
Eurobarometer 186. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ functional food products with nuts. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr
ebs/ebs_186_en.pdf. Accessed December 9, 2016. 46:537–542, 2006.
20. Gilbert L: The functional food trend: what is next and what Amer- 38. Pounis GD, Makri S, Gougias L, Makris H, Papakonstantinou M,
icans think about eggs. J Am Coll Nutr 19:507S–512S, 2000. Panagiotakos DB, Kapsokefalou M: Consumer perception and use
21. Gomez-Candela C, Roldan Puchalt MC, Palma Milla S, Lopez of iron fortified foods is associated with their knowledge and under-
Plaza B, Bermejo L: The role of omega-3 fatty acids in diets. J standing of nutritional issues. Food Qual Prefer 22:683–689, 2011.
Am Coll Nutr 34:42–47, 2015. 39. Rokeach M: “The Nature of Human Values.” New York: The Free
22. Gregori D, Ballali S, V€ogele C, Galasso F, Widhalm K, Berchialla Press, 1973.
P, Baldi I: What is the value given by consumers to nutritional 40. Roos E: “Social Patterning of Food Behaviour Among Finnish
label information? Results from a large investigation in Europe. J Men and Women.” Helsinki, Finland: National Public Health
Am Coll Nutr 34:120–125, 2015. Institute, 1998. Publications A6/1998.
23. Grunert KG, L€ahteenm€aki L, Boztug Y, Martinsdottir E, Ueland 41. Siro I, Kapolna E, Kapolna B, Lugasi A: Functional food. Product
O, Astr€om A, Piritta Lampila: Perception of health claims among development, marketing and consumer acceptance—a review.
Nordic consumers. J Consum Policy 32:269–287, 2009. Appetite 51:456–467, 2008.
24. Hailu G, Boecker A, Henson S, Cranfield J: Consumer valuation 42. Sarkar S: Potential of probiotics as pharmaceutical agent: a
of functional foods and neutraceuticals in Canada. A conjoint review. Br Food J 115:1658–1687, 2013.
study using probiotics. Appetite 52:257–265, 2009. 43. Sorenson D, Bogue J: A conjoint-based approach to concept opti-
25. Jebb SA: Dietary determinants of obesity. Obes Rev 8:93–97, mization: probiotics beverages. Br Food J 107:870–883, 2005.
2007. 44. Sundararajan K, Campbell MK, Choi, YH, Sarma S: The relation-
26. Jonas MS, Beckmann SC: “Functional Foods: Consumer Percep- ship between diet quality and adult obesity: evidence from Can-
tions in Denmark and England.” Denmark: MAPP, Aarhus School ada. J Am Coll Nutr 33:1–17, 2014.
of Business, 1998. Working Paper 55. 45. Teratanavat R, Hooker NH: Consumer valuations and preference het-
27. Kraus A: Development of functional food with the participation of erogeneity for a novel functional food. J Food Sci 71:533–541, 2006.
the consumer. Motivators for consumption of functional products. 46. Urala N: “Functional Foods in Finland: Consumers’ Views, Atti-
Int J Consum Stud 39:2–11, 2015. tudes and Willingness to Use.” Finland: VTT Publications, 2005.
28. Kraus A: Factors influencing the decisions to buy and consume 47. Urala N, L€ahteenm€aki L: Attitudes behind consumers’ willingness
functional food. Br Food J 117:1622–1636, 2015. to use functional foods. Food Qual Prefer 15:793–803, 2004.
29. Kraus A, Popek S: Structural model of fruit juice quality determin- 48. van Kleef E, van Trijp HCM, Luning P, Jongen WMF: Consumer-
ing factors in product design and development. Br Food J oriented functional food development: how well do functional dis-
115:865–875, 2013. ciplines reflect the “voice of the consumer”? Trends Food Sci
30. Krystallis A, Maglaras G, Mamalis S: Motivations and cognitive Technol 13(3):93–101, 2002.
structures of consumers in their purchasing of functional foods. 49. van Kleef E, van Trijp HCM, Luning P: Functional foods: health
Food Qual Prefer 19:525–538, 2008. claim–food product compatibility and the impact of health claim
31. Laz TH, Rahman M, Berenson AB: Association of frequent use of framing on consumer evaluation. Appetite 44:299–308, 2005.
food labels with weight loss behaviors among low-income repro- 50. van Kleef E, van Trijp HCM, Luning P: Consumer research in the
ductive-age women. J Am Coll Nutr 34:73–79, 2015. early stages of new product development: a critical review of
32. Leathwood PD, Richardson DP, Str€ater P, Todd PM, van Trijp methods and techniques. Food Qual Prefer 16:181–198, 2005.
HC: Consumer understanding of nutrition and health claims: sour- 51. van Trijp, HCM, van der Lans IA: Consumer perceptions of nutri-
ces of evidence. Br. J. Nutr 98:474–484, 2007. tion and health claims. Appetite 48:305–324, 2007.
33. McNamara RK: Mitigation of inflammation-induced mood dysre- 52. Verbeke W: Consumer acceptance of functional foods: socio-
gulation by long-chain omega-3 fatty acids. J Am Coll Nutr demographic, cognitive and attitudinal determinants. Food Qual
34:48–55, 2015. Prefer 16:45–57, 2005.
34. Morris D, McCarthy M, O’Reilly S: “Customer Perceptions of 53. Verbeke W: Functional foods: consumer willingness to compro-
Calcium Enriched Range Juice.” Cork: Department of Food Eco- mise on taste for health? Food Qual Prefer 17:126–131, 2006.
nomics, National University of Ireland, 2004. Agribusiness Dis- 54. Weststrate JA, van Poppel G, Verschuren PM: Functional
cussion Paper 42. foods, trends and future. Br J Nutr 88(Suppl 2):S233–S235,
35. Nayga RMJ, Capps OJ: US consumers’ perceptions of the impor- 2002.
tance of following the US dietary guidelines. Food Policy 24:553–
564, 1999. Received January 24, 2016; accepted August 22, 2016.