Meat Science 93 (2013) 449–454

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Meat Science
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/meatsci

Consumers' expected quality and intention to purchase high quality pork meat
P. Papanagiotou a,⁎, I. Tzimitra-Kalogianni a, K. Melfou b
a
Department of Agricultural Economics, School of Agriculture, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, P.O. Box 232, 54124, Thessaloniki, Greece
b
Department of Agricultural Products Marketing and Quality Control, TEI of Western Macedonia — Florina branch, Terma Kondopoulou, 53100, Florina, Greece

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Expected quality is believed to be one of the most important factors that influence consumers' intention to
Received 21 April 2012 purchase food. The present study seeks to explore the concept of pork meat expected quality and compare
Received in revised form 6 November 2012 it with self-stated consumer intention to purchase pork meat. The aim is attempted by means of a field re-
Accepted 10 November 2012
search conducted in Greece, following a conjoint analytic procedure. Results show that quality expectations
comply with intention to buy pork, in many aspects. However, several differences have been identified.
Keywords:
Expected quality
More specifically, country of origin and marbling appear to be more important for respondents' purchase de-
Intention to purchase cisions than they are for their quality evaluations, while the opposite appears to be true for price. Finally,
Pork socio-demographic factors such as gender, level of education, place of purchase and consumption habits
Greece seem to influence perceptions.
© 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction of relevant definitions and theoretical models have been proposed.

Food quality has been in the forefront for many decades. However,
food scandals and scares, public efforts to guarantee food quality, as
well as consumers' becoming more demanding and well-informed
about quality, have made its study more intensive during the past de-
cade. Quality is a concept with many aspects, and its definition de-
pends on the background of the person that uses this term (Becker,
2000). Nevertheless, it is often acknowledged that it is the consumer's
definition of food quality that drives the economy of the global food
industry (Cardello, 1995), while this definition is at the same time
very complex and dynamic (Troy & Kerry, 2010). Despite the fact
that quality is often believed to influence consumers' buying decisions
(Fandos & Flavián, 2006; Grunert, 1997; Steenkamp, 1986), there is
evidence that consumers do not always purchase quality food products
and an example of that is “junk food” (Moskowitz, 1995).
The present study has attempted to investigate expected quality and
intention to purchase pork meat, by employing the perceived quality
theoretical approach, without, though, incorporating purchase motives.
It, actually, attempted to identify similarities and differences between
these two concepts. More specifically, the purpose of this research
was to apply a conjoint analytic procedure to pork meat in Greece and
to identify consumer segments with similar perceptions and intentions.
2. Theoretical framework
The perceived quality theoretical framework has drawn much
attention over the past three decades, and consequently, a number
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +30 2310998821; fax: +30 2310998809.
E-mail address: ppapanag@agro.auth.gr (P. Papanagiotou).
However, there is a consensus regarding their basic concepts. Thus,
the perceived quality approach explores product quality from the
consumer's perspective by making quality a subjective evaluation de-
pendent on the perceptions, needs and goals of the consumer
(Northen, 2000; Steenkamp, 1990).
Quality evaluation takes place at two stages, prior and during pur-
chase and after purchase and during consumption. After purchase,
consumers evaluate food quality (experienced quality or quality per-
formance) on the basis of the quality attributes they believe that the
product possesses. According to Steenkamp (1989), quality attributes
are the functional and psychosocial benefits provided by the product,
and they represent what the product is perceived as doing or provid-
ing to the consumer. Furthermore, quality attributes are distinguished
between experience and credence attributes, with the former being
ascertained by consumers on the basis of actual experience with the
product (e.g. taste), and the latter being difficult to be ascertained
even after frequent consumption (e.g. healthiness).
Nevertheless, quality attributes are not known before consump-
tion, and consequently consumers have to rely on some indicators,
known as quality cues, to predict food quality (expected quality or
quality expectations). Quality cues are defined as any informational
stimulus that can be ascertained through the senses prior to consump-
tion (Steenkamp & Van Trijp, 1996), and are either intrinsic or extrinsic.
In particular, intrinsic cues cannot be manipulated without changing
the nature of the product (e.g. marbling), while extrinsic are related to
the product but are not physically part of it (e.g. price) (Bernués,
Olaizola, & Corcoran, 2003).
Most of the theoretical models proposed (Acebrón & Dopico, 2000;
Becker, 2000; Hoffmann, 2000; Poulsen, Juhl, Kristensen, Bech, &
Engelund, 1996; Steenkamp, 1989; Steenkamp & Van Trijp, 1996; Van

0309-1740/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.11.024
450 P. Papanagiotou et al. / Meat Science 93 (2013) 449–454

den Heuvel, Van Trijp, Van Woerkum, Renes, & Gremmen, 2007) adopt Table 1
the aforementioned key concepts. However, the first model to incorpo- Factors and their levels.

rate intention to purchase in the perceived quality process was the L⁎ a⁎ b⁎

Total Food Quality Model, TFQM (Grunert, Hartvig Larsen, Madsen, & Factors Levels of factors
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Baadsgaard, 1996), followed by the Model of Bernués et al. (2003).
Colour Light 61.23 0.48 19.53 0.20 20.10 0.53
According to the TFQM, expected quality and expected fulfilment of
Medium 48.10 2.13 34.03 0.92 26.00 0.67
purchase motives are the positive outcomes consumers expect from Dark 37.31 0.29 37.81 0.17 24.03 1.23
buying a food product, and are offset against the negative consequences Marbling 0%
in the form of various costs, while this trade-off determines intention 3%
to buy (Grunert, Bredahl, & Brunsø, 2004, p. 261). More specifically, 6%
Price 3.00 €/kg
expected quality is believed to be a mediator between cue perception 5.45 €/kg
and expected purchase motive fulfilment, which in turn mediates be- 7.90 €/kg
tween expected quality and intention to buy. However, there is evi- Origin Greek
dence that expected quality is not the only mediator between quality Imported
cues and purchase motives and intention to purchase (Grunert, 1997). L⁎ is a factor of brightness (Lightness, black-white axis), a⁎ defines the content of red
Conjoint Analysis refers to a set of procedures that explore con- or green (magenta-green spectrum), and b⁎ indicates the content of yellow or blue
sumers' responses to combinations (profiles) of independent factors (yellow-blue spectrum), using the CIE Lab colour space (Du & Sun, 2004; Van Oeckel,
Warnants, & Boucqué, 1999).
or attributes in an attempt to understand the contributions of these
factors to the evaluation of the profiles (Moskowitz & Silcher, 2006).
More specifically, Conjoint Analysis is based on the assumption that Finally, an additive mixed model (Green & Srinivasan, 1978, 1990)
consumers assess the value of a product by combining the separate was adopted, assuming that marbling had an ideal point function, and
amounts of value provided by each level of each attribute or factor price and origin a linear function, with utility increasing with the in-
(Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010). As a result, respondents are crease of price and when pork chops were labelled as Greek. In addi-
asked to give an overall rating for each profile, and the researcher is tion, colour was assumed to have a discrete function because it was
able to estimate the relative importance of the factors and the part- not safe to make an assumption about the relationship between factor
worth utility of each factor level, without having to ask directly levels and data. More details about the methodology followed are
the consumer about his or her opinion of either of them (Cardello, given in Papanagiotou, Tzimitra-Kalogianni, and Melfou (2012).
Schutz, & Lesher, 2007). The fact that both relative importance and utility are estimated at
the individual level in the context of Conjoint Analysis facilitates the
3. Materials and methods segmentation of respondents into groups with similar preferences
(Deliza, MacFie, & Hedderley, 2003; DeSarbo, Ramaswamy, & Cohen,
The factors (attributes) investigated in the present study were 1995; Green & Krieger, 1991). In this case, respondents were classi-
quality cues that were selected after an extensive review of the per- fied according to the relative importance they attached to each factor
ceived quality of meat literature. The number of cues was restricted with regard to perceived quality. More specifically, k-means Cluster
to four so that the number of profiles would be low enough to be eas- Analysis was employed to group participants, while both the number
ily handled by respondents. Thus, two intrinsic (colour and marbling/ of clusters and the centres of each cluster were decided using a hier-
intramuscular fat) and two extrinsic (price and country of origin) archical method (Ward's method, squared Euclidean distance).
quality cues (Acebrón & Dopico, 2000; Banović, Grunert, Barreira, & Subsequently, non parametric tests (Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–
Fontes, 2009, 2010; Becker, Benner, & Glitsch, 2000; Davidson, Whitney), as well as cross tabulation (Pearson's chi-square, χ2), were
Schröder, & Bower, 2003; Glitsch, 2000; Grunert, 1997; Issanchou, used to uncover statistically significant differences among the clusters
1996; Krystallis & Arvanitoyannis, 2006; Krystallis, Chryssochoidis, and describe clusters in terms of socio-demographic variables and pork
& Scholderer, 2007; Mannion, Cowan, & Gannon, 2000; Verbeke, purchase and consumption habits.
Demey, Bosmans, & Viaene, 2005) were included in the study. The field research was conducted in the second largest urban area
The full-profile method was utilised as the means of presentation of Greece, Thessaloniki, from May until November 2010. The sample,
to respondents and pictures of pork loin chops were computer ma- included 626 pork consumers and was selected by means of a non
nipulated, using Adobe Photoshop CS, to attain several levels of the probability procedure, quota sampling. The population under research
aforementioned factors. This method has been applied for the first consisted of all adult pork consumer inhabitants of the 13 municipal-
time in Greece to assess the quality perception of meat, for, to the ities in the wider urban area of Thessaloniki. Furthermore a screening
best of our knowledge, the only other study using computer manipu- question was used to identify the sample.
lated pictures of meat focused on consumer preference (Fortomaris et
al., 2006), and was a part of a research project performed in 23 coun- Table 2
tries (Dransfield, Martin, Miramont, & Ngapo, 2001; Ngapo, Martin, & Final profiles rated by respondents.
Dransfield, 2007a, 2007b). Factors' Level
More specifically, levels for colour and marbling were deter- Profile Number Profile status
Colour Marbling Price Origin
mined based on the National Pork Producer Council (NPPC) standards
(Aberle, Forrest, Gerrard, & Mills, 2001). Furthermore, pork chops were 1 Light 3% 5.45 €/kg Imported Design
2 Medium 0% 7.90 €/kg Imported Design
labelled as either Greek or imported, while price labels were also added
3 Medium 6% 5.45 €/kg Greek Design
(Table 1). 4 Medium 3% 3.00 €/kg Greek Design
The combination of all the levels of all the factors resulted in 54 5 Dark 6% 3.00 €/kg Imported Design
profiles. The orthogonal design procedure in PASW Statistics 18 was 6 Dark 0% 5.45 €/kg Greek Design
7 Light 0% 3.00 €/kg Greek Design
employed to reduce the number of profiles to 13, 4 of which were
8 Light 6% 7.90 €/kg Greek Design
holdout profiles (rated by respondents only to assess validity and 9 Dark 3% 7.90 €/kg Greek Design
reliability of the original estimates). Respondents were asked to eval- 10 Light 0% 7.90 €/kg Greek Holdout
uate the final group of profiles (Table 2) with regard to quality and 11 Light 3% 7.90 €/kg Greek Holdout
intention to purchase, using two 11-point semantic differential scale 12 Medium 0% 7.90 €/kg Greek Holdout
13 Light 0% 3.00 €/kg Imported Holdout
questions.
 P. Papanagiotou et al. / Meat Science 93 (2013) 449–454 451

4. Results and discussion Table 4

Conjoint analysis' results for quality and intention to buy.

4.1. Conjoint Analysis' results Factor Level Quality Intention to buy

Utility Importance Utility Importance

A description of the sample with regard to consumers' socio-
Colour Light −0.072 26.37% −0.123 26.78%
demographic characteristics and pork purchase and consumption
Medium 0.161 0.183
habits is presented in Table 3, while Conjoint Analysis' results are Dark −0.089 −0.061
presented in Table 4. The statistics that were estimated (Pearson's R Marbling 0% 0.872 30.01% 1.488 30.11%
and Kendall's tau) indicate that the models fit the data well for both 3% 0.886 1.794
perceived quality and intention to purchase pork meat. According 6% 0.043 0.917
Price 3.00 €/kg 0.656 27.35% 0.603 25.00%
to respondents' evaluations, a pork chop of medium colour, covered 5.45 €/kg 1.312 1.206
with 3% marbling, costing 7.90 €/kg and being of Greek origin would 7.90 €/kg 1.968 1.808
be considered of higher quality and would be bought by them. Origin Imported 0.625 16.27% 0.911 18.11%
Marbling appears to be the most important factor for consumers Greek 1.250 1.822
Constant 2.842 1.141
regardless of whether they evaluate quality or intention to purchase. Pearson's R 0.990 0.983
However, it should be mentioned that although marbling has the Kendall's tau 0.833 0.778
same relative importance for both quality and intention to buy, the Kendall's tau for holdouts 1.000 1.000
part-worth utilities for intention to purchase are much larger. This
fact indicates that respondents probably want an assurance that
the pork meat they choose possesses the desired sensory attributes
consumers rely on an extrinsic cue (price) to assess it. Moreover, price
(taste, tenderness, juiciness) that are influenced by marbling.
is a more objective quality cue, especially when compared to colour
It would be expected that price is more important for intention to
and especially when consumers are less experienced or less confident
buy than for perceived quality. Nevertheless, results reveal that the op-
in evaluating pork quality.
posite is true, which is surprising. An explanation for this phenomenon
In both quality and intention to purchase, origin appears to be the
could be that quality is a difficult concept to define, and consequently
factor that affects perceptions less. However, it should be mentioned
that the small percentage of origin's importance is probably partly
Table 3 due to the fact that it had a smaller number of levels compared to
Sample's socio-demographic characteristics and pork purchase and consumption the other factors in Conjoint Analysis, for relative importance of
habits. factors tends to increase with the increase in the number of levels
Variable Average Frequency Percentage (Verlegh, Schifferstein, & Wittink, 2002).
Origin seems to have greater influence on intention to buy in com-
Gender Male 262 41.9%
Female 364 58.1% parison with quality, for not only does it concentrate a higher percent-
Average age 43.8 age of relative importance but also has the highest utility compared to
Age 18–24 67 10.7% all the levels of all the factors studied. The fact that origin is important
25–34 145 23.2% for intention to purchase but not so important for quality, indicates
35–44 125 20.0%
45–54 102 16.3%
that consumers probably prefer Greek pork meat for other reasons
55–64 110 17.6% (ethnocentric behaviour or to support local pork producers), and not
>64 77 12.3% because they actually believe it to be of superior quality.
Educational level No formal education 17 2.7%
Primary school 85 13.6%
Junior high school 49 7.8% 4.2. Cluster Analysis' results
High school 204 32.6%
Institute of Vocational 36 5.8%
A Cluster Analysis was applied to classify respondents according to
Training (IVT)
Technological 58 9.3% the importance they attach to quality cues. A number of differences
Educational Institute among consumer segments have been highlighted, and these differ-
University 138 22.0% ences can be explained with regard to socio-demographic character-
Postgraduate studies 39 6.2% istics of respondents and their consumption and purchase habits.
Marital Status Single 210 33.5%
Married 377 60.2%
Conjoint Analysis' results for each Cluster are presented in Table 5,
Divorced 18 2.9% and socio-demographic characteristics and purchase and consump-
Widowed 21 3.4% tion habits by Cluster are presented in Table 6.
Average frequency of pork purchase 3.5 The solution given by Cluster Analysis appears to be very clear, for
(times per month)
consumers' preference for both quality and intention to buy is obvi-
Average frequency of pork consumption 5.4
(times per month) ous, and despite the fact that when it comes to intention to buy the
Average household consumption of pork 5.8 relative importance of the preferred cue is less than that of perceived
meat (kg/month) quality, they still coincide, with the exception of Cluster 3. It should
Average household consumption of pork 2.1 also be mentioned that utilities for Greek origin are higher for inten-
meat (kg/person/month)
tion to buy than for quality for all Clusters apart from 4, as the general
Average household expenditure on pork 35.1
(€/month) Conjoint Analysis' results suggest.
Preferred place Local butcher's shop 331 52.9% Despite the fact that a significant relationship has been found
of purchase Butcher's shop in a 78 12.5% between Cluster membership and place of pork purchase, butcher's
village
shop is the preferred place of purchase for participants in every Clus-
Remote butcher's shop 43 6.9%
Super market 110 17.6% ter. This fact signifies the role that traditional' shops play for Greek
Hyper market 9 1.4% consumers, and the personal relationship, and consequently trust,
Meat market 23 3.7% that has been developed between them.
Directly from the farmer 22 3.5% Cluster 1 consists of respondents that attach more importance
Other 9 1.6%
to intramuscular fat. However, contrary to the overall results, these
452 P. Papanagiotou et al. / Meat Science 93 (2013) 449–454

Table 5
Conjoint Analysis results' by cluster.

Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 Cluster 5 e

Significance
Factors and levels 139 respondents 102 respondents 187 respondents 87 respondents 111 respondents

Quality Intention Quality Intention Quality Intention Quality Intention Quality Intention Quality Intention
to buy to buy to buy to buy to buy to buy

Colour
Light −0.145 −0.145 −0.084 −0.303 −0.133 −0.200 −0.232 −0.291 0.258 0.275 ** **
Medium 0.130 0.088 0.053 0.178 0.140 0.160 0.231 0.276 0.276 0.332 n.s. n.s.
Dark 0.015 0.057 0.031 0.125 −0.008 0.040 0.001 0.015 −0.535 −0.608 ** **
Relative importance 20.94%a 23.15% 15.70%b 20.21% 23.84%c 25.59% 22.22%ac 22.61% 50.48% d 42.66% ** **

Marbling
0% 0.962 1.659 0.065 0.386 1.176 1.462 1.080 2.245 0.823 1.739 ** **
3% 0.496 1.588 −0.029 0.454 1.419 1.840 1.261 2.893 1.024 2.345 ** **
6% −1.396 −0.216 −0.284 0.206 0.727 1.134 0.540 1.943 0.604 1.820 ** **
Relative importance 54.06%a 44.63% 15.29%b 19.37% 28.50%c 29.23% 21.43%d 25.95% 22.70%d 26.53% ** **

Price
3.00 €/kg 0.084 −0.036 1.623 1.614 0.931 0.923 0.534 0.299 0.116 0.171 ** **
5.45 €/kg 0.168 −0.072 3.245 3.229 1.863 1.847 1.069 0.598 0.231 0.342 ** **
7.90 €/kg 0.252 −0.108 4.868 4.843 2.794 2.770 1.603 0.897 0.347 0.514 ** **
Relative importance 13.07%a 17.39% 56.27%b 45.65% 33.57%c 28.04% 19.23%d 17.15% 14.54%a 16.59% ** **

Origin
Imported 0.344 0.717 0.415 0.685 0.442 0.755 2.107 2.293 0.315 0.542 ** **
Greek 0.688 1.434 0.830 1.369 0.884 1.510 4.215 4.586 0.631 1.084 ** **
Relative importance 11.93%a 14.83% 12.74%a 14.77% 14.09%b 17.14% 37.12%c 34.29% 12.28%a 14.22% ** **
abcd
Different superscripts indicate statistically significant differences of clusters' means (Mann–Whitney U test).
e
Statistically significant differences across groups were tested using Kruskal–Wallis H test (* indicates statistically significant relationships for p b 0.05, ** for p b 0.01 and n.s. stands
for non significant relationships).

consumers prefer lean pork meat. It is also worth noting that respon-
dents of Cluster 1 are the only ones to admit that they would rather
buy cheaper meat although they perceive it as being of inferior qual-
ity, and that seems to be the reason they have the lowest expenditure
on pork meat among respondents of all Clusters. Nevertheless, both
utilities of price levels and price's importance are very low to be
very important.
Respondents of Cluster 2 are mostly price-oriented and with the
lowest familiarity with pork meat among all Clusters. This result is
consistent with past research, which suggests that consumers with
low familiarity with a product, and consequent uncertainty and per-
ceived difficulty in quality evaluation, rely principally on extrinsic
cues to judge its quality (Bredahl, 2004). Furthermore, this Clusters'
participants are the only ones that consider lean meat as being of su-
perior quality but would prefer to buy pork with a small quantity of
marbling, which obviously results from their interest in the sensory
attributes of meat. Taking into consideration that this Cluster consists
mostly of men, it could be concluded that males prefer pork with
some marbling, for they are oriented by the satisfaction they derive
from the consumption of meat.
The third Cluster is the largest one, and consumers do not appear
to be particularly influenced by any of the cues studied. Furthermore,
although they use price to evaluate quality, marbling is the cue that
they attach more importance to when they purchase pork meat.
Cluster 4 consists of consumers that consider country of origin
as the most important quality cue. Given that this Cluster is the one
with the highest average age of respondents and the lowest level of
education, and combined with the results of Cluster 1, which consists
of younger and more educated consumers who attach the least im-
portance to origin among Clusters, it seems that origin's importance
increases with the increase of age while the reverse appears to be
true for education. Furthermore, it seems that experience and high fa-
miliarity with pork meat has taught these consumers that a small per-
centage of marbling is necessary for meat in order for it to be more
tasty, tender and juicy.
Respondents of Cluster 5, who are mostly women, regard colour as
the most important cue. In addition, it is the Cluster with the highest
familiarity with meat, and that is probably the reason they are able
to evaluate pork on the basis of intrinsic cues and principally colour,
which requires experience and self-confidence. Finally, there is evi-
dence that more educated consumers tend to employ intrinsic quality
cues more than extrinsic when evaluating pork meat, taking into con-
sideration that participants grouped in this Cluster and in Cluster 1
seem to be the most educated among all Clusters, while they attach
more importance on colour and marbling.
5. Conclusions
The aim of this study was to explore consumer perceptions of pork
meat quality, and to uncover possible differences and similarities
between perceived quality and intention to purchase pork meat.
According to the results, there is evidence of a strong relationship be-
tween expected quality and intention to buy pork. Nevertheless, there
appear to be some differences between them, and these differences do
not seem to result from perceived monetary costs, for respondents, in
both cases, prefer the highest price. It should be mentioned, though,
that intention to purchase often deviates from actual purchase, and
this means that in a real life situation, consumers might not always
buy the most expensive meat. Furthermore, the usage of the cue
‘price’ (extrinsic) for the formation of quality judgements is an indica-
tion of uncertainty and perceived difficulty in quality evaluation, a
conclusion further supported by the decrease of price's relative impor-
tance regarding intention to purchase.
It is possible that differences revealed in the present study could be
partly explained by consumers' expected purchase motive fulfilment;
unless there are other factors, requiring further research, that cause
them. First of all, country of origin seems to have a more important
impact on consumers' purchase decisions than quality evaluations.
Thus, respondents acknowledge that they prefer Greek pork not only
because they consider it to be of superior quality but also for other rea-
sons. Such reasons could be social acceptance, ethnocentric behaviour
or just the intention to support local meat producers.
Marbling has proven to be the most important criterion for both
evaluating quality and purchasing pork meat. However, respondents
 P. Papanagiotou et al. / Meat Science 93 (2013) 449–454 453

Table 6
Description of clusters and sample.

Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 Cluster 5 Sample Significancea

Gender *
Men 41.0% 52.9% 36.9% 48.3% 36.0% 41.9%
Women 59.0% 47.1% 63.1% 51.7% 64.0% 58.1%

Age n.s.
Average 41.6 45.2 43.6 47.6 42.6 43.8
18–24 12.2% 8.8% 12.3% 5.7% 11.7% 10.7%
25–34 25.9% 22.5% 21.4% 19.5% 26.1% 23.2%
35–44 23.0% 20.6% 20.9% 18.4% 15.3% 20.0%
45–54 13.7% 13.7% 16.0% 18.4% 20.7% 16.3%
55–64 17.3% 19.6% 16.0% 19.5% 17.1% 17.6%
65–74 7.9% 13.7% 10.7% 10.3% 9.0% 10.2%
≥75 0.0% 1.0% 2.7% 8.0% 0.0% 2.1%

Level of education **
No formal education 2.2% 2.0% 3.2% 6.9% 0.0% 2.7%
Primary school 4.3% 20.6% 10.7% 28.7% 11.7% 13.6%
Junior high school 2.9% 10.8% 7.5% 9.2% 10.8% 7.8%
High school 32.4% 30.4% 36.9% 32.2% 27.9% 32.6%
Institute of Vocational Training (IVT) 6.5% 7.8% 7.0% 2.3% 3.6% 5.8%
Technological Educational Institute 10.1% 8.8% 10.2% 4.6% 10.8% 9.3%
University 31.7% 18.6% 18.2% 14.9% 25.2% 22.0%
Postgraduate studies 10.1% 1.0% 6.4% 1.1% 9.9% 6.2%

Marital status n.s.

Single 38.1% 34.3% 34.8% 20.7% 35.1% 33.5%
Married 56.8% 59.8% 57.8% 73.6% 58.6% 60.2%
Divorced 3.6% 3.9% 2.1% 1.1% 3.6% 2.9%
Widowed 1.4% 2.0% 5.3% 4.6% 2.7% 3.4%

Preferred place of purchase *

Local butcher's shop 56.1% 46.1% 50.8% 58.6% 54.1% 52.9%
Remote butcher's shop 4.3% 11.8% 7.5% 5.7% 5.4% 6.9%
Butcher's shop in a village 16.5% 12.7% 10.7% 13.8% 9.0% 12.5%
Super market 16.5% 13.7% 20.9% 13.8% 19.8% 17.6%
Hyper market 2.2% 2.0% 1.6% 0.0% 0.9% 1.4%
Meat market 2.9% 9.8% 3.7% 1.1% 0.9% 3.7%
Directly from the farmer 1.4% 3.9% 2.7% 4.6% 6.3% 3.5%
Other 0.0% 0.0% 2.1% 2.3% 3.6% 1.6%
Average frequency of pork purchase (times per month) 3.5 3.1 3.2 3.7 4.0 3.5 n.s.
Average frequency of pork consumption (times per month) 5.3 5.0 5.4 5.5 5.8 5.4 n.s.
Average household consumption of pork meat (kg/month) 5.2 4.6 6.2 6.5 6.2 5.8 **
Average consumption of pork meat (kg/person/month) 1.8 1.8 2.0 2.4 2.6 2.1 *
Average household expenditure on pork (€/month) 31.9 32.0 36.6 38.7 36.8 35.1 *
a
Statistically significant differences across groups were tested using Pearson's χ2 and Kruskal–Wallis H test (* indicates statistically significant relationships for p b 0.05, ** for
p b 0.01 and n.s. stands for non significant relationships).

seem to be very interested in intramuscular fat, especially with regard
to intention to purchase. This fact constitutes actual evidence that
Greek consumers' choices are influenced by expected satisfaction de-
rived by pork consumption, for marbling affects experience attributes
like taste, tenderness and juiciness. There is, however, a segment of re-
spondents that prefer lean meat, which is probably a consequence of
modern lifestyle (e.g. weight control) and consequent eating habits.
It could be concluded, though, that no matter whether consumers pre-
fer lean meat or meat with some marbling, it is probably purchase mo-
tive fulfilment that drives their preference for intramuscular fat.
In addition, gender, educational level, and preferred place of pur-
chase, as well as average consumption of pork meat, have been identi-
fied as the variables that differ significantly among Clusters. However,
it appears that age also influences consumers' quality perception pro-
cess and intention to buy, despite the fact that a statistically significant
relationship was not identified.
It could be concluded that although expected quality and inten-
tion to buy pork meat are similar in many aspects, in a way, con-
sumers appear to admit that they do not always want to purchase
meat of superior quality. Furthermore, there is evidence that this re-
sult is not only a matter of personal consumer preferences but is
also a consequence of consumers' lack of confidence and proper infor-
mation about meat quality. Therefore, public efforts are required to
boost consumer confidence in quality evaluation and increase their
knowledge by disseminating accurate information about meat quali-
ty. Finally, despite the fact this research has been conducted in Greece
it is believed that results may be indicative of consumer perceptions
in other Mediterranean countries as well, for Southern European con-
sumers share similar consumption habits, e.g. Mediterranean diet.
References
Aberle, E. D., Forrest, J. C., Gerrard, D. E., & Mills, E. W. (2001). Principles of meat science.
Duduque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt.
Acebrón, L. B., & Dopico, D. C. (2000). The importance of intrinsic and extrinsic cues to
expected and experienced quality: An empirical application for beef. Food Quality
and Preference, 11, 229–238.
Banović, M., Grunert, K. G., Barreira, M. M., & Fontes, M. A. (2009). Beef quality percep-
tion at the point of purchase: A study from Portugal. Food Quality and Preference,
20, 335–342.
Banović, M., Grunert, K. G., Barreira, M. M., & Fontes, M. A. (2010). Consumers' quality per-
ception of national branded, national store branded, and imported store branded beef.
Meat Science, 84, 54–65.
Becker, T. (2000). Consumer perception of fresh meat quality: A framework for analy-
sis. British Food Journal, 102, 158–176.
Becker, T., Benner, E., & Glitsch, K. (2000). Consumer perception of fresh meat quality
in Germany. British Food Journal, 102, 246–266.
Bernués, A., Olaizola, A., & Corcoran, K. (2003). Extrinsic attributes of red meat as indi-
cators of quality in Europe: An application for market segmentation. Food Quality
and Preference, 14, 265–276.
454 P. Papanagiotou et al. / Meat Science 93 (2013) 449–454
Bredahl, L. (2004). Cue utilisation and quality perception with regard to branded beef.
Food Quality and Preference, 15, 65–75.
Cardello, A. V. (1995). Food quality: Relativity, context and consumer expectations.
Food Quality and Preference, 6, 163–170.
Cardello, A. V., Schutz, H. G., & Lesher, L. L. (2007). Consumer perceptions of foods
processed by innovative and emerging technologies: A conjoint analytic study.
Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies, 8, 73–83.
Davidson, A., Schröder, M. J. A., & Bower, J. A. (2003). The importance of origin as a
quality attribute for beef: Results from a Scottish consumer survey. International
Journal of Consumer Studies, 27, 91–98.
Deliza, R., MacFie, H., & Hedderley, D. (2003). Use of computer-generated images and
conjoint analysis to investigate sensory expectations. Journal of Sensory Studies,
18, 465–486.
DeSarbo, W. S., Ramaswamy, V., & Cohen, S. H. (1995). Marketing segmentation with
choice-based Conjoint Analysis. Marketing Letters, 6, 137–147.
Dransfield, E., Martin, J. -F., Miramont, J., & Ngapo, T. M. (2001). Meat appearance: Pork
chops. A tool for surveying consumer preferences. Paris: INRA.
Du, C. -J., & Sun, D. -W. (2004). Recent developments in the applications of image pro-
cessing techniques for food quality evaluation. Trends in Food Science & Technology,
15, 230–249.
Fandos, C., & Flavián, C. (2006). Intrinsic and extrinsic quality attributes, loyalty and
buying intention: An analysis for a PDO product. British Food Journal, 108, 646–662.
Fortomaris, P., Arsenos, G., Georgiadis, M., Banos, G., Stamataris, C., & Zygoyiannis, D.
(2006). Effect of meat appearance on consumer preferences for pork chops in
Greece and Cyprus. Meat Science, 72, 688–696.
Glitsch, K. (2000). Consumer perceptions of fresh meat quality: Cross-national compar-
ison. British Food Journal, 102, 177–194.
Green, P. E., & Krieger, A. M. (1991). Segmenting markets with Conjoint Analysis. Jour-
nal of Marketing, 55, 20–31.
Green, P. E., & Srinivasan, V. (1978). Conjoint Analysis in consumer research: Issues and
Outlook. Journal of Consumer Research, 5, 103–123.
Green, P. E., & Srinivasan, V. (1990). Conjoint Analysis in marketing: New develop-
ments with implications for research and practice. Journal of Marketing, 54, 3–19.
Grunert, K. G. (1997). What's in a steak? A cross-cultural study on the quality percep-
tion of beef. Food Quality and Preference, 8, 157–174.
Grunert, K. G., Bredahl, L., & Brunsø, K. (2004). Consumer perception of meat quality
and implications for product development in the meat sector — A review. Meat
Science, 66, 259–272.
Grunert, K. G., Hartvig Larsen, H., Madsen, T. K., & Baadsgaard, A. (1996). Market orien-
tation in food and agriculture (7th ed.). Boston: Kluwer Academic.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A
global perspective. New Jersey: Pearson.
Hoffmann, R. (2000). Country of origin — A consumer perception perspective of fresh
meat. British Food Journal, 102, 211–229.
Issanchou, S. (1996). Consumer expectations and perceptions of meat and meat product
quality. Meat Science, 43, S5–S19.
Krystallis, A., & Arvanitoyannis, I. S. (2006). Investigating the concept of meat quality
from the consumers' perspective: The case of Greece. Meat Science, 72, 164–176.
Krystallis, A., Chryssochoidis, G., & Scholderer, J. (2007). Consumer-perceived quality
in ‘traditional’ food chains: The case of the Greek meat supply chain. Appetite, 48,
54–68.
Mannion, M. A., Cowan, C., & Gannon, M. (2000). Factors associated with perceived
quality influencing beef consumption behaviour in Ireland. British Food Journal,
102, 195–210.
Moskowitz, H. R. (1995). Food quality: Conceptual and sensory aspects. Food Quality
and Preference, 6, 157–162.
Moskowitz, H. R., & Silcher, M. (2006). The applications of conjoint analysis and their
possible uses in Sensometrics. Food Quality and Preference, 17, 145–165.
Ngapo, T. M., Martin, J. -F., & Dransfield, E. (2007a). International preferences for pork
appearance: I. Consumer choices. Food Quality and Preference, 18, 26–36.
Ngapo, T. M., Martin, J. -F., & Dransfield, E. (2007b). International preferences for pork
appearance: I. Factors influencing consumer choice. Food Quality and Preference, 18,
139–151.
Northen, J. R. (2000). Quality attributes and quality cues: Effective communication in
the UK meat supply chain. British Food Journal, 102, 230–245.
Papanagiotou, P., Tzimitra-Kalogianni, I., & Melfou, K. (2012). Pork quality in the eye of
the Greek consumer. British Food Journal, 114, 647–660.
Poulsen, C. S., Juhl, H. J., Kristensen, K., Bech, A. C., & Engelund, E. (1996). Quality guid-
ance and quality formation. Food Quality and Preference, 7, 127–135.
Steenkamp, J. -B. E. M. (1986). Perceived quality of food products and its relationship to
consumer preferences: Theory and measurement. Journal of Food Quality, 9, 373–386.
Steenkamp, J. -B. E. M. (1989). Product quality: An investigation into the concept and how
it is perceived by consumers. Assen: Van Gorcum.
Steenkamp, J. -B. E. M. (1990). Conceptual model of the quality perception process.
Journal of Business Research, 21, 309–333.
Steenkamp, J. -B. E. M., & Van Trijp, H. C. M. (1996). Quality guidance: A consumer-
based approach to food quality improvement using partial least squares. European
Review of Agricultural Economics, 23, 195–215.
Troy, D. J., & Kerry, J. P. (2010). Consumer perception and the role of science in the meat
industry. Meat Science, 86, 214–226.
Van den Heuvel, T., Van Trijp, H., Van Woerkum, C., Renes, R. J., & Gremmen, B. (2007).
Linking product offering to consumer needs; inclusion of credence attributes and
the influences of product features. Food Quality and Preference, 18, 296–304.
Van Oeckel, M., Warnants, N., & Boucqué, C. (1999). Measurement and prediction of
pork colour. Meat Science, 52, 347–354.
Verbeke, W., Demey, V., Bosmans, W., & Viaene, J. (2005). Consumer versus producer
expectations and motivations related to “superior” quality meat: Qualitative re-
search findings. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 11(3), 27–41.
Verlegh, P. W. J., Schifferstein, H. N. J., & Wittink, D. R. (2002). Range and number-
of-levels effects in derived and stated measures of attribute importance. Marketing
Letters, 13, 41–52.