British Food Journal

Evaluation of food purchasing behaviour of consumers from supermarkets

Nevin Sanlier, Suzan Seren Karakus,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Nevin Sanlier, Suzan Seren Karakus, (2010) "Evaluation of food purchasing behaviour of
consumers from supermarkets", British Food Journal, Vol. 112 Issue: 2, pp.140-150, https://
doi.org/10.1108/00070701011018824
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/00070701011018824
Downloaded by Southern Cross University At 02:15 08 October 2017 (PT)

Downloaded on: 08 October 2017, At: 02:15 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 31 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 6857 times since 2010*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2012),"Consumer behavior and purchase intention for organic food", Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 29 Iss 6 pp. 412-422 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/07363761211259223">https://
doi.org/10.1108/07363761211259223</a>
(2005),"Exploring the gap between attitudes and behaviour: Understanding why consumers buy
or do not buy organic food", British Food Journal, Vol. 107 Iss 8 pp. 606-625 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/00070700510611002">https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700510611002</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:398589 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
 *Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Downloaded by Southern Cross University At 02:15 08 October 2017 (PT)
 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0007-070X.htm

BFJ
112,2 Evaluation of food purchasing
behaviour of consumers from
supermarkets
140
Nevin Sanlier
Faculty of Health Sciences, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey, and
Suzan Seren Karakus
Faculty of Vocational Education Food and Nutrition Education,
Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey
Downloaded by Southern Cross University At 02:15 08 October 2017 (PT)

Abstract
Purpose – This study was conducted with the aim of determining the food purchasing behaviour of
consumers from supermarkets.
Design/methodology/approach – A total of 430 consumers, 194 males and 236 females, with an
average age of 29.96 ^ 10.99 were included in this study, and was conducted to find out the criteria
which consumers took into account while purchasing food.
Findings – A significant relationship was determined between the scores the consumers received
from nutrition, the reliability and all of the shopping criteria, and their level of education (p , 0.05)
between the percentage of income spared for nutrition (p , 0.01) and between the cost (p , 0.05) and
the total scores received from all of the shopping criteria (p , 0.01). It was also determined that women
paid more attention to the nutrition and reliability criteria than men did (p , 0.05).
Research limitations/implications – The research is restricted in so far as it only considers
consumers in the big city and as it is an exploratory study the research is limited in so far as the
number of participants is only 430. Further research needs to include other big and small cities.
Practical implications – The study has concluded that consumers need effective and versatile
education in the subjects of label reading and buying the right kind of food for their budgets. It is
revealed that consumer education is essential in the process from cradle to grave in creating the
awareness of consumers to buy food.
Originality/value – The paper is useful to both practitioners and academics in the fields of
relationship consumer and marketing. Informing and training consumers will help increase the
awareness of consumers and make them behave more rationally in their shopping. It will lead the
studies to be carried out in the future to activate the control of the consumers on their shopping,
instead of losing the control of consumers.
Keywords Purchasing, Food products, Supermarkets, Consumer behaviour
Paper type Research paper

British Food Journal
Vol. 112 No. 2, 2010
pp. 140-150
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0007-070X
DOI 10.1108/00070701011018824
Introduction
To make the decision of purchasing, consumers take into account criteria such as taste,
nutritional value, reliability, quality, price and convenience of the food. They prefer to
shop at supermarkets due to the reliability of the food sold, the ambiance and
convenient personal inspection which is allowed in big stores (Knight et al., 2003). The
most important stage of providing safe food for the home is by purchasing it (Unusan,
2007). When faced with too many choices and qualities of products, the consumer may
be indecisive about which of the products to choose, how best to put the money to use
and how to provide healthy feeding. The taste, nutritional value, reliability and
persuasiveness of the price are quite important when buying food (Duyff, 1998).
 Two factors that affect the food choices of consumers can be discussed: Food purchasing
(1) consumer-related factors include health considerations, sensory variables, behaviour
social interactions, familiarity and habit, psychographics and demographics;
and
(2) the most important market-related issues comprise price, distribution and
promotion (Radder and Roux, 2005).
141
The income level of the family also influences food-purchasing behaviour. There is an
inverse relationship between the increase in income and the money allotted for food
purchasing (Kenslea et al., 1985). The labels on the foods are very important. All the
prices and information about the food should be clearly marked on the label; the
production and expire date, the contents of the nutritional facts, the net-gross weight as
well as its preparation, cooking and keeping conditions should appear on the package.
Downloaded by Southern Cross University At 02:15 08 October 2017 (PT)

In choosing a supermarket, it is important that the sales staff are honest and sincere,
the food is properly displayed on the shelves where it can easily be seen, and that there
is a clear display of brands and other information. Moreover, factors such as the ease of
carrying goods to the car count towards the choice of where consumers will do
food-shopping (Engel and Blackwell, 1994; FDA, 1994).
This study was conducted in order to determine the principles consumers take into
consideration and the variables they are influenced by when purchasing food.
Knowing the baseline knowledge and behaviour of consumers is essential for the
development of effective nutrition, food safety and knowledge, purchasing behaviour
and health education programs in Turkey.
Consumers in Turkey prefer grocers, butchers, greengrocers or smaller markets in
their shopping first. Shopping in our country is done by woman consumers on their
own particularly at that weekend, but it is also done by family members altogether.
Such demographic developments as increase in income, going away to the country
from urban life and some technological developments have changed the habits of
shopping within the rapid tempo of life. As in the whole world, hypermarkets have
become more preferable, with supermarkets and shopping centers emerging as a result
of rapid development of retail shopping in Turkey as well.
Consumers living in Turkey have been introduced to huge retail businesses where
they can buy various products, find entertainment and facilities of eating, drinking and
parking altogether in the recent decade. With various products, affordable prices, away
from disturbing factors, a comfortable atmosphere, a suitable environment for leisure
time, these shopping centers have been considered as attractive alternatives for our
people having been bored of traditional markets for years (Akat et al., 2006). It is
regarded that supermarkets are preferred due to the fact that various sizes of
supermarkets are so widespread in the city compared to hypermarkets and they have
reliable transportation facilities. The number of hyper, super and chain supermarkets
have reached 8,252 in Turkey within the year 2008, which was 2,135 in 1998
(Pazarlama ve Kamuoyu Araştırmacıları Dernegi Aylık Bülten, 2008).

Methodology
Subjects and study design
A randomly chosen sample of 430 participants (194 males, 236 females) shopping at
supermarkets around Ankara (the capital of Turkey), completed the survey between
 BFJ January and March 2006. Supermarket is defined in Turkey as having two or more
112,2 cash registers, a large self-service shop selling a wide range of groceries and household
goods, often one of a chain of stores.
Data were collected from six malls at weekends and weekday afternoons when a
member of the particular target group is most likely to be at the supermarket.
Interviewers were trained postgraduates students and research assistants, who visited
142 selected supermarket or interviewed consumers in larger shopping centers in Ankara,
Turkey.
None of consumers were taking nutritional or food courses at the time of the survey
or had taken any prior courses. The objective of the study was briefly explained to
consumers by interviewers. The research data were collected through a questionnaire
and face-to-face interviews after purchasing food. To guarantee anonymity of
responses and easy identification of questionnaires by individuals, identity numbers
Downloaded by Southern Cross University At 02:15 08 October 2017 (PT)

were randomly assigned to each questionnaire. Items in the questionnaire were

explained when necessary and administered at one sitting as far as possible.
The questionnaire which was administered to the consumers took 20 to 25 minutes
to fill in.

Instrument
The survey questionnaire was divided into two major sections. The first part measured
the demographic profile. Here, basic demographic information such as age, gender,
educational level and the percentage of income spared for food was included. The
second section contained questions about the consumers’ nutrition and food safety
applications, cost and convenience criteria when purchasing food. The questions and
factor analysis for the items included in the final version of the questionnaire are
shown in Table I.
The 30-item written questionnaire was a modified version of Duyff’s (1998)
research. The questionnaire was pilot tested on 89 consumers for three months,
resulting in minor modifications in the wording of the questions.
The revised questionnaire was divided into five sections:
(1) a demographic section;
(2) nutrition applications (five questions);
(3) food safety applications (11 questions);
(4) cost saving applications (nine questions); and
(5) convenience practices (five questions).

The questionnaire was a 30-item instrument employing a four-point Likert scale. A

four-level Likert scale was used to depend on the literature (Duyff, 1998). Responses to
all items ranged from never “0” to always “3”. In tabulizing the questions, “always” and
“in general” options were evaluated as “often”, and “never” and “sometimes” options
were evaluated as “seldom” (Duyff, 1998). The questionnaire was also designed as one
scale with possible scores ranging from 0 to 90.

Statistical analyses
The SPSS 11.0 statistical package was used for all analyses. Mean responses and
percentage of responses in each issue were calculated and presented in tabular form.
 Food purchasing
Often Seldom
n % n % Factor loading behaviour
For nutrition
Do you read the nutrition facts? 224 52.1 206 47.9 0.554
Do you use food labels to compare the nutrients and
ingredients in similar foods? 181 42.1 249 57.9 0.610 143
Do you use nutrition facts on food labels to plan
healthful meals and snacks? 154 35.8 276 64.2 0.496
Do you buy foods to match your needs using
nutrition information on food labels? 215 50.0 215 50.0 0.586
Do you use food labels to compare the nutrition for
fresh food: produce, meat, poultry, and fish? 234 54.4 196 45.6 0.504
For cost savings
Downloaded by Southern Cross University At 02:15 08 October 2017 (PT)

Do you do a price check from different places before

going shopping? 224 52.1 206 47.9 0.432
Do you take advantage of cents-off coupons and in
store specials? 299 69.5 131 30.5 0.238
Do you use unit price codes on shelves to compare
cost of similar products? 358 83.3 72 16.7 0.491
Do you compare the quantity and price of the
product you are buying with those of other products? 323 75.1 107 24.9 0.538
Do you buy foods on promotion (which give away
gifts) by comparing the prices with other brands? 321 74.7 109 25.3 0.434
Consider carefully before buying a new food after
you sample it or see an attractive display 320 74.4 110 25.6 0.480
Do you shop for seasonal produce? 394 91.6 36 8.4 0.494
Do you buy only the amount you will use to avoid
waste? 384 89.3 46 10.7 0.494
Do you pay attention to the price as the cashier scans
each item? 262 60.9 168 39.1 0.385
For safety
Do you shop in a store that is clean and free of
unpleasant odors? 359 83.5 71 16.5 0.350
Do you look for dates printed on packages to buy
foods at their peak season? 386 89.8 44 10.2 0.625
Do you prefer foods which have the TSE (Turkish
Standards Institute) brand to other foods? 357 83.0 73 17.0 0.420
Do you check the expiry date when you buy reduced
price products? 351 81.6 79 18.4 0.662
Do you check packaging and cans to be sure they are
clean and not damaged? 383 89.1 47 10.9 0.561
Do you choose produce and raw meat, poultry, and
fish with qualities of freshness? 409 95.1 21 4.9 0.529
Do you check to be sure that frozen foods are solid
and that refrigerated food is cold? 321 74.7 109 25.3 0.470
Do you put food that needs to be refrigerated in Table I.
separate bags to help maintain a cooler temperature The distribution of
when they are bagged? 342 79.5 88 20.5 0.487 consumers’ food
Do you put fresh meat, poultry, and fish in separate purchasing behaviour in
bags when you can so they do not drip on other foods terms of nutrition, cost,
in your cart? 396 92.1 34 7.9 0.625 safety and convenience
(continued) (n ¼ 430)
 BFJ Often Seldom
112,2 n % n % Factor loading

Do you buy meat products at the end of your

shopping? 240 55.8 190 44.2 0.449
If you have meat in your shopping bag, do you
144 immediately go home and put it in the refrigerator? 369 85.8 61 14.2 0.555
For convenience
Do you keep a shopping list to use as you shop? 306 71.2 124 28.8 0.653
Do you shop during off hours to save time and avoid
crowds? 273 63.5 157 36.5 0.592
Do you keep shopping trips to a minimum – no more
than once or twice a week? 260 60.5 170 39.5 0.496
Do you buy foods that are partly or fully prepared? 304 70.7 126 29.3 0.293
Downloaded by Southern Cross University At 02:15 08 October 2017 (PT)

Do you buy single-portion or small-sized packages

Table I. when you are feeding one or two? 246 57.2 184 42.8 0.715

Means and standard deviations, t-tests and ANOVA were conducted to explore the
relationship between the study variables. The level of significance selected for use was
P , 0.05. Cronbach alpha values were determined to assess the inter-item reliability of
the final scores. The Alpha coefficient for internal consistency was found to be 0.85 for
all the 30 items on the questionnaire scale.

Results
Profile of respondents
The participants were selected randomly from supermarkets in Ankara, Turkey.
Demographic data including age, gender, educational background and the percentage
of income spent on food are given in Table II.
A total of 54.9 per cent of the participants were female and 45.1 per cent were male,
with an average age of 29.9 ^ 10.99 years; 30.9 per cent of the participants were
university graduates and 17.2 per cent were high school graduates. Furthermore, 30.0
per cent of the participants spared 31-40 per cent of their income for nutrition while
17.6 per cent spared 7-20 per cent of their income for food consumption. Ten of the
consumers reported to have no income.
About half of the consumers (52.1 per cent) stated that they read the label
information on the foods, and they did this to compare the nutritional value of similar
foods (42.1 per cent) and for planning healthy meals (35.8 per cent). It was determined
that 52.1 per cent of the consumers did price checks in different places prior to
shopping and 75.1 per cent of them compared the quantity and prices of different
products. Shopping from clean places (83.5 per cent), looking at production-expire date
on the package (89.8 per cent), and trying to choose a fresh food product (95.1 per cent)
are commonly observed behaviour among consumers. Among the four groups of
criteria prepared to measure the food purchasing behaviour of consumers, the majority
of the consumers were observed to take notice of the cost and reliability group, while
the ratio of consumers who valued the nutritional level and convenience criteria as
important and the ratio of those who did not were similar to each other (Table I).
At the end of the variant analysis, significant associations were determined between
educational level and nutrition practice (F: 2.69, p , 0.05), reliability (F: 3.39, p , 0.05)
 Food purchasing
Variables N %
behaviour
Gender
Male 194 45.1
Female 236 54.9
Age group (years)
20-29 257 59.8 145
30-39 77 17.9
40-49 73 17.0
.50 23 5.3
Education
Primary school 69 16.1
High school 74 17.2
Downloaded by Southern Cross University At 02:15 08 October 2017 (PT)

University 133 30.9

University student 154 35.8
The percentage of monthly income spared for
nourishment (n ¼ 420)
7-20 74 17.6
21-30 122 29.1
31-40 126 30.0 Table II.
41-50 52 12.4 Characteristic of
51 and over 46 10.9 consumers (n ¼ 430)

and total score (F: 3.46, p , 0.05). Consumers who spend a big part (50 per cent or
more) of their income on food take more notice of nutrition and cost criteria than
consumers who devote a lesser part (21-30 per cent) of their income to buying food. A
meaningful relation was found between the percentage of income spared for
nourishment and nutrition practice (F: 3.27, p , 0.01), cost saving (F: 2.74, p , 0.05),
total score (F: 3.41, p , 0.01). The difference between food shopping time and
convenience criteria was found to be significant (F: 2.76, p , 0.05). Those who prefer
weekends for their shopping give more importance to convenience criteria than those
who do their shopping any time they need to (Table III).
Among the criteria taken notice of while shopping, another important difference
was the gender of consumers, between nourishment, reliability and final total point.
(p , 0.05). According to these results, women pay more attention to the nourishment
criteria when shopping (male: 6.89 ^ 3.66, female: 7.59 ^ 3.36) and to buying reliable
food (male: 24.57 ^ 5.72, female: 26.37 ^ 4.74) (p , 0.05) and they have more total
points (male: 57.69 ^ 12.16, female: 60.72 ^ 10.34, p , 0.05) than men (Table IV).
Table III.
What is the relationship
of the following factors
F
when shopping for food:
Nutrition Safety Cost saving Convenience Total score
nutrition, food safety,
Education level 2.69 * 3.39 * 1.63 1.19 3.46 * cost, reliability, level of
The ratio of income spared for nutrition 3.27 * * 1.64 2.74 * 1.78 3.41 * * education, the ratio of
Food shopping time 0.62 0.35 0.65 2.76 * 0.58 income spared for food,
and the time when the
Notes: *p , 0.05; * *p , 0.01 shopping takes place
 BFJ Discussion
112,2 Consumers make their purchasing decisions based on a number of factors. Apart from
the price of the product, factors such as appearance, convenience, and perceived quality
determine the decisions made in the marketplace.
Consumer attitudes about nutrition and purchasing knowledge, food safety and
quality and alike change demographics and buyer policies. Food purchasing begins
146 with the preparation of a menu appropriate to a person’s nutritional requirements. This
is followed by the preparation of an appropriate shopping list, the buying of foods and
finally by the evaluation of the purchase. In this process, for the consumers to be
properly nourished, they have to buy reliable foods and to do their shopping at
appropriate times with their budget in mind (Wilson et al., 1986; Li-Cohen and Bruhn,
2002; Suri et al. 2003; Goktolga et al., 2006; Unusan, 2007; Byrd-Bredbenner et al., 2007).
Downloaded by Southern Cross University At 02:15 08 October 2017 (PT)

In a study conducted to ascertain the skills of the consumer in the buying process, it
was determined that after being informed about this topic, consumers were able to
prepare menus appropriate to their nutritional needs, their skills of shopping were on
the rise, they could cut the cost of their shopping list and that they could systematically
and efficiently improve their shopping (Wilson et al., 1986). This finding, that shopping
skills can be improved with education, was not at the desired level before the
education, is parallel with the findings of this study. The food label is an important tool
for improving the public’s understanding of the health benefits of following a
nutritious diet (Legault et al., 2004). For individuals to benefit from food labels, the
labels must be written in an understandable manner they must adhere to the
established standards and they must be used by consumers for diet planning and
buying by reading (FDA, 1994; Medeiros and Zies, 1996; Sheehan and Parham, 1997;
Satıa et al., 2005). Results from another study show that lower-income consumers have
higher preferences for lower-priced, private label brands. Higher-income consumers
purchase more national brands and relative to lower-income consumers, they show a
less elastic demand for all product classes (Akbay and Jones, 2005). It can also be
understood from this study that consumers do not use food labels at the desired
measure and for the desired aims.
Health and diet-related attitudes, special nutritional status, perceived importance of
product attributes like nutrition and ease of preparation, race, gender, income, and
body mass index are important factors affecting consumer perception and belief about
label use. Understanding the type of consumers who have these perceptions and
beliefs, as well as the factors that influence these perceptions, is crucial for designing

Male (n ¼ 194) Female (n ¼ 236)

Shopping criteria x S x S t p

Nutrition practice 6.89 3.66 7.59 3.36 2.06 0.040 *

Table IV. Cost saving 18.08 4.31 18.45 4.06 0.91 0.365
Nutrition practices Food safety applications 24.57 5.72 26.37 4.74 3.51 0.001 * *
according to gender, cost, Convenience practice 8.15 2.35 8.31 2.40 0.71 0.477
food safety practices, Total score 57.69 12.16 60.72 10.34 2.75 0.006 *
reliability, and the
average for the total score Notes: *p , 0.05; * *p , 0.01
 an effective marketing and nutrition education campaign (Marietta and Syler, 1997; Food purchasing
Rodolfo and Nayga, 1999). behaviour
In order to increase the levels of use of food labels, consumers need to be educated
about the subject. In a study done on elementary students, it was found that the
knowledge of the food label could be improved through participation in an education
program (Widdowson and Holben, 1997). In other studies, it was also determined that
the information on the labels “always” or “sometimes” influenced female consumers 147
(Byrd-Bredbenner et al., 2000a, 2000b). Pricing is an important aspect of a product and
can influence consumer purchases. Moskowitz (1995) observed that the effect of pricing
versus overall linking on purchase intent was a function of product type. Lange et al.
(1999) study results revealed differences between consumer behaviours under
economic constraints. No direct relationship was found between consumers’ incomes
and the way they changed their product choices under economical constraint. The
Downloaded by Southern Cross University At 02:15 08 October 2017 (PT)

results show parallels with the results of this research.

Different promotion applications, the interaction between the information
individuals possess, their shopping motivations and the market value of a product
all affect the perception of the consumer and the price (Suri et al., 2003; Darke and
Chung, 2005). Price reductions and promotions affect the perception of the real value of
a product. Therefore, consumers should act carefully about promotions of food
products and price reductions. It has also been found in this study that consumers take
notice of products that are reduced in price or are being promoted.
Three distinct socio-economic groups of housewives were interviewed about their
awareness of safe food handling and practices, risk perception, and their attitude to
food safety issues. The majority of respondents reported a fairly high knowledge of
safe food handling practices; however, more than half were unfamiliar with the correct
procedure for freezing and thawing of foods. These findings raise concerns about
consumer food safety knowledge and practices (Knight et al., 2003).
Roseman and Kurzynske (2006) have found an important relationship between the
gender of the consumers, per capita income, household population, race and education,
the perception of labor and food safety and behaviour. They have emphasized the
importance of providing efficient food safety education materials and messages to the
consumers, for them to comprehend food safety risks and to understand the
consequences of their own actions.
In a different study carried out, it was found that when level of education is higher,
women read labels in a larger ratio than men, and they take notice of food safety and
health information (Byrd-Bredbenner et al., 2000a; Rodolfo and Nayga, 2000).
Additionally, they are more involved with food safety and are able to find the foods
they consume more easily (Turk-Incel, 2005).
Unusan (2007) found a significant difference among the education levels concerning
attitude towards food safety and knowledge. These findings increase concerns about
consumer safety knowledge and practices. This study also found that there was an
important difference between the level of education and the scores received from the
reliability and nutrition criteria. However, the difference between the cost and
convenience criteria was not found to be significant.
Households with high education and high income are more likely to choose reliable
food. The age of respondents, gender, education and income level are among the
important household characteristics influencing the primary preference in food
 BFJ purchases. Furthermore, results indicate that older respondents are more careful about
112,2 health than younger respondents are. The gender variable affects respondents’ choice
on the reliability of food over the taste of food. According to results, while female
respondents prefer safety to taste, male respondents prefer taste in the consumption of
food (Goktolga et al., 2006). In these studies, it is evident that the level of education and
gender are important variables affecting consumption. It has also been determined that
148 there were important differences between the scores received from the criteria of
income spared for nourishment, and nourishment and cost, and the results appear to be
in parallel with the studies that were done.
The above results have important implications for nutrition practices, food safety
and knowledge, cost saving, education programs and government policies. Educating
consumers about nourishment and food shopping consciousness will uphold food
safety, food information and habits, and will reduce buying inappropriate foods, which
Downloaded by Southern Cross University At 02:15 08 October 2017 (PT)

will lead to reduced concerns and changes in food consumption habits. Nutritional
status and food safety should be a collaborative approach between governments,
universities, food industry and consumers. Although television and other mass media
have wider reach, government publications are more trusted, hence, can be used more
effectively in educating consumers (Rimal et al., 2001; Unusan, 2007). For nutrition,
food safety, cost saving and convenience education to be effective, there must be a
collaborative effort among households, educators and nutrition professionals.

Conclusion
When consumers shop for food, they pay attention to the criteria of nutrition,
reliability, cost and convenience. The level of education affects the behaviour of
consumers. Compared to consumers who always shop for food, those consumers who
prefer to shop for food on the weekends care more about the convenience criterion. It
has become apparent that women are more careful about safety when shopping for
food and they are generally better shoppers. According to these results, nourishment
education should be given to all ages, continuously and effectively, and should be
nationwide. In addition, the Turkish government should put new arrangements such
as providing financial credit at a low interest rate, reduce tax and encourage
investment for firms providing for food safety. If the cost of safe food can be reduced,
the probability of choosing price of food to safety among households with low-income
will also be reduced.
Cultural change does not appear so fast. Shopping culture is not a phenomenon
changing so quickly. The current study was carried out three years ago. Within this
time, there has not been a rapid change in the shopping culture of consumers in
Turkey. However, shopping has become a social place to meet for the urban people and
they have had a habit of entertaining, eating, shopping, shortly, a habit of spending
whole day in large shopping centres. In addition, the trend for shopping through the
internet for the male consumers day by day has improved, due to technological
developments and the increase in the number of its users.
The most basic feature making the current study different from those of earlier
years is that; a need to collect detailed data concerning nutrition habits showing
regional differences, the behaviours of buying food and preparing them in order to
determine consistent and maintainable health and nutrition policies were revealed.
Therefore, with the determination of the factors having an impact on attitudes and
 behaviours individuals show in buying food and preparing them will allow that plans Food purchasing
and policies will be able to reach the target mass in better conditions, behaviour
References
Akat, Ö., Taksın, Ç. and Özdemir, A. (2006), “Uluslararası Alısveris Merkezi Tüketicilerinin Satın
Alma Davranısı: Bursa Ilinde Bir Uygulama”, Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Vol. 2, pp. 13-30. 149
Akbay, C. and Jones, E. (2005), “Food consumption behavior of socio-economic groups for private
labels and national brands”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 16 No. 7, pp. 621-31.
Byrd-Bredbenner, C., Wong, A. and Cottee, P. (2000a), “Consumer understanding of US and EU
nutrition labels”, British Food Journal, Vol. 102 No. 8, pp. 615-29.
Byrd-Bredbenner, C., Alfieri, L. and Kiefer, L. (2000b), “The nutrition label knowledge and usage
behaviors of women in the USA”, British Nutrition Foundation Nutrition Bulletin, Vol. 25
Downloaded by Southern Cross University At 02:15 08 October 2017 (PT)

No. 4, pp. 315-22.

Byrd-Bredbenner, C., Wheatley, V., Schaffner, D., Bruhn, C., Blalock, L. and Maurer, J. (2007),
“Development of food safety psychosocial questionnaires for young adults”, Journal of
Food Science Education, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 30-7.
Darke, P.R. and Chung, C.M.Y. (2005), “Effects of pricing and promotion on consumer
perceptions: it depends on how you frame it”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 81 No. 1, pp. 35-47.
Duyff, R.L. (1998), Food Nutrition Guide, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Engel, J.F. and Blackwell, R.D. (1994), Consumer Behavior, Dryden Press, Chicago, IL.
FDA (1994), A Food Labeling Guide, Food and Drug Administration Center for Food Safety and
Applied Nutrition, College Park, MD, available at: www.cfsan.fda.gov
Goktolga, Z.G., Bal, S.G. and Karkacier, O. (2006), “Factors effecting primary choice of consumers
in food purchasing: the Turkey case”, Food Control, Vol. 17 No. 11, pp. 884-9.
Kenslea, T.J., Wagner, H. and Wiesner, L. (1985), Decision Making Personal Economic Choise,
EMC Publishing, St Paul, MN.
Knight, P.G., Jackson, J.C., Bain, B. and Eldemire-Shearer, D. (2003), “Household food safety
awareness of selected urban consumers in Jamaica”, International Journal of Food Sciences
and Nutrition, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 309-20.
Lange, C., Rousseau, F. and Issanchou, S. (1999), “Expectation, liking and purhase behaviour
under economical constraint”, Food Quality Preference, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 31-9.
Legault, L., Brandt, M. and McCabe, N. (2004), “Evaluation food label”, Nutrition Research
Newsletter, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 5-6.
Li-Cohen, A.E. and Bruhn, C.M. (2002), “Safety of consumer handling of fresh produce from the
time of purchase to the plate: a comprehensive consumer survey”, Journal of Food
Protection, Vol. 65, pp. 1287-96.
Marietta, A.B. and Syler, G.P. (1997), “Older Americans and nutrition facts food label”, Journal of
the American Dietetic Association, Vol. 97 No. 9, p. A113.
Medeiros, L.S. and Zies, S. (1996), “Label reading program impacts Ohioans”, Journal of the
American Dietetic Association, Vol. 96 No. 9, p. A101.
Moskowitz, H.R. (1995), “The dollar value of product quality: the effect of pricing versus overall
liking on consumer stated purchase intent for pizza”, Journal of Sensory Studies, Vol. 10
No. 3, pp. 239-47.
Pazarlama ve Kamuoyu Araştırmacıları Dernegi Aylık Bülten, (2008), “A-Bulten”, Vol. 49,
pp. 1-12.
 BFJ Radder, L. and Roux, R. (2005), “Factors affecting food choice in relation to venison: a South
African example”, Meat Science, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 583-9.
112,2 Rimal, A., Fletcher, S.M., McWatters, K.H., Misra, S.K. and Deodhar, S. (2001), “Perception of food
safety changes in food consumptions habits: a consumer analysis”, International Journal
of Consumer Studies, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 43-52.
Rodolfo, M. and Nayga, R.M. Jr. (1999), “Toward an understanding of consumers’ perceptions of
150 food labels”, International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, Vol. 2 No. 1,
pp. 29-45.
Rodolfo, M. and Nayga, R.M. Jr. (2000), “Nutrition knowledge, gender and food label use”, Journal
of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 34 No. 16, pp. 97-102.
Roseman, M. and Kurzynske, J. (2006), “Food safety perceptions and behaviors of Kentucky
consumers”, Journal of Food Protection, Vol. 69 No. 6, pp. 1412-21.
Satıa, J.A., Galanko, J.A. and Neuhouser, M.L. (2005), “Food nutrition label use is associated with
Downloaded by Southern Cross University At 02:15 08 October 2017 (PT)

demographic, behavioral, and psychosocial factors and dietary intake among African
Americans in North Carolina”, Journal of the American Dietetic Association, Vol. 105 No. 3,
pp. 392-402.
Sheehan, N.T. and Parham, E.S. (1997), “Effectiveness of the food guide pyramid, the nutrition
facts food label, and work site wellness program in the task of making healthy food
choices”, Journal of the American Dietetic Association, Vol. 97 No. 9, p. A57.
Suri, R., Long, M. and Monroe, K.B. (2003), “The impact of the internet and consumer motivation
on evaluation of prices”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 56 No. 5, pp. 379-90.
Turk-Incel, E. (2005), “Yetişkin tüketicilerin besin güvenliği konusundaki bilgi ve davranışları”,
Master’s thesis, Hacettepe University, Ankara.
Unusan, N. (2007), “Consumer food safety knowledge and practices in the home in Turkey”, Food
Control, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 45-51.
Widdowson, L. and Holben, D. (1997), “Elementary school students benefit from food labeling
education”, Journal of the American Dietetic Association, Vol. 97 No. 9, pp. A-114.
Wilson, P.G., Cuvo, A.J. and Davis, P.K. (1986), “Training a functional skill cluster: nutritious
meal planning within a budget, grocery list writing, and shopping”, Analysis and
Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 179-201.

Corresponding author
Nevin Sanlier can be contacted at: nevintekgul@gmail.com

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. Eric Obedy Gido, Oscar Ingasia Ayuya, George Owuor, Wolfgang Bokelmann. 2017. Consumption
intensity of leafy African indigenous vegetables: towards enhancing nutritional security in rural and urban
dwellers in Kenya. Agricultural and Food Economics 5:1. . [Crossref]
2. Zenobia Talati, Simone Pettigrew, Kylie Ball, Clare Hughes, Bridget Kelly, Bruce Neal, Helen Dixon.
2017. The relative ability of different front-of-pack labels to assist consumers discriminate between
healthy, moderately healthy, and unhealthy foods. Food Quality and Preference 59, 109-113. [Crossref]
3. Eric Obedy Gido, Oscar Ingasia Ayuya, George Owuor, Wolfgang Bokelmann. 2017. Consumer
Acceptance of Leafy African Indigenous Vegetables: Comparison Between Rural and Urban Dwellers.
International Journal of Vegetable Science 7, 1-16. [Crossref]
4. Zenobia Talati, Simone Pettigrew, Bruce Neal, Helen Dixon, Clare Hughes, Bridget Kelly, Caroline
Miller. 2017. Consumers’ responses to health claims in the context of other on-pack nutrition
Downloaded by Southern Cross University At 02:15 08 October 2017 (PT)

information: a systematic review. Nutrition Reviews 75:4, 260-273. [Crossref]

5. Zenobia Talati, Simone Pettigrew, Helen Dixon, Bruce Neal, Clare Hughes, Trevor Shilton, Caroline
Miller. 2017. Protocol for a Randomized Trial Assessing Consumer Evaluations of Pre-Packaged Foods
that Systematically Vary by Nutrition Information and Product Attributes. BMC Nutrition 3:1. .
[Crossref]
6. Eric O. Gido, Oscar I. Ayuya, George Owuor, Wolfgang Bokelmann. 2016. Consumer���s choice of
retail outlets for African indigenous vegetables: Empirical evidence among rural and urban households in
Kenya. Cogent Food & Agriculture 2:1. . [Crossref]
7. Krista Miklavec, Igor Pravst, Monique M. Raats, Jure Pohar. 2016. Front of package symbols as a tool to
promote healthier food choices in Slovenia: Accompanying explanatory claim can considerably influence
the consumer's preferences. Food Research International 90, 235-243. [Crossref]
8. Zenobia Talati, Simone Pettigrew, Helen Dixon, Bruce Neal, Kylie Ball, Clare Hughes. 2016. Do Health
Claims and Front-of-Pack Labels Lead to a Positivity Bias in Unhealthy Foods?. Nutrients 8:12, 787.
[Crossref]
9. Niraj Kumar, Sandip Anand. 2016. The Attitude of Indian Youth Toward Nutrition: Factors, Segments,
and Implications. Journal of Food Products Marketing 22:8, 967-985. [Crossref]
10. Zenobia Talati, Simone Pettigrew, Bridget Kelly, Kylie Ball, Helen Dixon, Trevor Shilton. 2016.
Consumers' responses to front-of-pack labels that vary by interpretive content. Appetite 101, 205-213.
[Crossref]
11. Lalit Mohan Kathuria, Varinder Singh. 2016. Product Attributes as Purchase Determinants of Imported
Fruits in Indian Consumers. Journal of Food Products Marketing 22:4, 501-520. [Crossref]
12. Urszula Samotyja. 2015. Influence of shelf life labelling on the sensory acceptability of potato snacks.
British Food Journal 117:1, 222-233. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
13. Mary K. Griffin, Jeffery Sobal. 2014. Consumer Food System Participation: A Community Analysis.
Ecology of Food and Nutrition 53:6, 579-595. [Crossref]
14. D. van der Merwe, M. Bosman, S. Ellis. 2014. Consumers' opinions and use of food labels: Results from
an urban−rural hybrid area in South Africa. Food Research International 63, 100-107. [Crossref]
15. Simone Pettigrew, Melanie Pescud. 2013. The Salience of Food Labeling Among Low-income Families
With Overweight Children. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior 45:4, 332-339. [Crossref]
 16. Jaekwon Chung, Dong Li. 2013. The prospective impact of a multi‐period pricing strategy on consumer
perceptions for perishable foods. British Food Journal 115:3, 377-393. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
17. Stephen L. Baglione, Louis A. Tucci, John L. Stanton. 2012. Self‐reported nutritional knowledge and
the acceptance of health‐related food benefit claims. British Food Journal 114:4, 453-468. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by Southern Cross University At 02:15 08 October 2017 (PT)