Determinants of Fruit Purchasing Decision Among Singaporean Consumers: An Empirical Study

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/356719813
Determinants of Fruit Purchasing Decision Among Singaporean Consumers:

An Empirical Study
Article in Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing · December 2021

DOI: 10.1080/08974438.2021.2006106
CITATION READS
1 608
3 authors, including:
Chubashini Suntharalingam Thanuja Rathakrishnan

Malaysian Agricultural Research & Development Institute Taylor's University
18 PUBLICATIONS 89 CITATIONS 14 PUBLICATIONS 78 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Chubashini Suntharalingam on 28 June 2022.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wifa20
Determinants of Fruit Purchasing Decision Among

Singaporean Consumers: An Empirical Study
Chubashini Suntharalingam, Thanuja Rathakrishnan & Suhana Safari
To cite this article: Chubashini Suntharalingam, Thanuja Rathakrishnan & Suhana Safari (2021):
Determinants of Fruit Purchasing Decision Among Singaporean Consumers: An Empirical Study,
Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing, DOI: 10.1080/08974438.2021.2006106
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08974438.2021.2006106
Published online: 01 Dec 2021.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wifa20
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL FOOD & AGRIBUSINESS MARKETING
https://doi.org/10.1080/08974438.2021.2006106
Determinants of Fruit Purchasing Decision Among

Singaporean Consumers: An Empirical Study
Chubashini Suntharalingama , Thanuja Rathakrishnanb, and Suhana Safaria
a
Socio-economics, Agribusiness and Market Intelligence Research Centre, Malaysian Agricultural
Research and Development Institute, Selangor, Malaysia; bFaculty of Business and Law, Taylor’s
Business School, Taylor’s University, Lakeside Campus, Subang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia
ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Empirical assessment concerning the relationship between Asia Pacific; characteristics;
fruit characteristics and fruit purchase is rather limited within consumer behavior;
the Asia-Pacific region. It is for this reason that the current fruit; marketing
study was carried out, to offer an understanding on the
fruits characteristics that consumers seek during their fruit
purchasing decision. This study was undertaken among 519
Singaporeans. The integrative data analysis approach, i.e., PCA
and PLS-SEM adopted in this study is among the first to be
undertaken in a consumer behavior study on perishables. The
three determinants influencing fruit purchase decision include
search and experience, claims and label, and visual appear-
ance. Claims and label, and visual appearance, respectively,
demonstrated positive relationship with fruit purchase, while
search and experience depicted an inverse relationship. This
study findings offer valuable insights which can assist food
supply stakeholders to strategize and adopt approaches that
serve as a move to tackle low fruit intake among
Singaporeans.
Introduction
Fruits are essential to human health and well-being as they are a major
source of macro nutrients such as fiber and carbohydrates, and micro
nutrients such as Vitamin C, B complex, A, E, minerals, polyphenolics,
carotenoids and glucosinolates (Barrett, Beaulieu, & Shewfelt, 2010). Poor
dietary habits and inadequate consumption of fruits often lead to micronu-
trient deficiencies and nutritional disorders; such as “weakened immune
systems, mental and physical impairment, birth defects and even death”
(Opara & Al-Ani, 2010, p. 797).
High consumption of fruits and vegetables may contribute to lower body
mass index (BMI) and prevent several kinds of cardiovascular diseases,
CONTACT Chubashini Suntharalingam chubalingam@gmail.com Socio-economics, Agribusiness and

Market Intelligence Research Centre, Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute,
Selangor, Malaysia.
ß 2021 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 C. SUNTHARALINGAM ET AL.
cancer, type 2 diabetes and obesity (Mellendick et al., 2018) resulting in

lower personal and social health costs (Gao & Jiang, 2010). Devine,
Connors, Bisogni, and Sobal (1998) reported that low calorie content and
high dietary fiber readily available in fruit are preferred by those who are
on a weight management regime. Besides being a major source of nutrition,
certain fruits offer anti-aging benefits (Schagen, Zampeli, Makrantonaki, &
Zouboulis, 2012). In recent years, several studies have reported that diets
with higher intake of fruits and vegetable help individuals manage depres-
sive symptoms (Bishwajit et al., 2017; Payne, Steck, George, & Steffens,
2012; Wolniczak, Caceres-DelAguila, Maguina, & Bernabe-Ortiz, 2017).
In the fruits’ literature, it is well established that consumers’ physiological
factors (Scheerens, 2001), socioeconomic conditions (Assari & Lankarani,
2018; Moser, Raffaelli, & Thilmany, 2011), behavior and lifestyle (Allende,
Tomas-Barberan, & Gil, 2006; Cranfield & Magnusson, 2003; Darby, 2006;
Govindasamy & Italia, 1998; Lohr, 2000; Magnusson & Cranfield, 2005;
Midmore et al., 2005; Scholderer & Grunert, 2005), age (Ocean, Howley, &
Ensor, 2019; Nicklett & Kadell, 2013) and, awareness and attitude (Wang,
Fan, Wang, & Li, 2015; Midmore et al., 2005) influence consumer fruit
consumption and purchasing decision. Assari and Lankarani (2018)
reported that highly educated consumers who fall in the high-income
bracket purchase more fruits. Additionally, consumers who live with their
families (Baek, Paik, & Shim, 2014; Massaglia, Borra, Peano, Sottile, &
Merlino, 2019) and women consumers (Baker & Wardle, 2003; Nicklett &
Kadell 2013; Ocean et al., 2019; Pr€att€al€a et al., 2007) tend to purchase more
fruits as compared to male consumers. Further, consumers who work full
time and lead busy life tend to prefer ready-to-eat fruits (Allende et al.,
2006; Scholderer & Grunert, 2005).
Literature and studies concerning the relationship between fruit charac-
teristics (e.g., shape, size, taste, etc.) and consumers’ fruit purchasing deci-
sion are rather limited. Hence, it is for this reason, this study was
undertaken. It aims to offer insights on the characteristics of fruits that
consumers seek during their fruit purchasing decision. The findings may be
relevant to stakeholders in the fruit supply chain, i.e., producers, process-
ors, wholesalers, retailers, scientists and policy makers concerning the char-
acteristics of fruits that consumers seek during their fruit purchasing
decision. Adopting a consumer led approach has been recommended by
numerous studies to be the key in increasing consumers uptake of fruits as
a move toward leading a healthier life (Dimech, Caputo, & Canavari, 2011;
Hussin, Wong, & Bojei, 2010; Moser et al., 2011). The findings of this
study would offer content on drawing and formulating strategies, and poli-
cies to assist marketers increase sale of fruits. Furthermore, this study
would provide valuable feedback to fruit producers on cultivating fruits,
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL FOOD & AGRIBUSINESS MARKETING 3
paying close attention on fruit characteristics. Meanwhile, research com-

munities are able to customize fruit research and development processes
toward generating new or improved fruit varieties that would satisfy con-
sumer taste and preference (Diamanti et al., 2012; Erpen-Dalla Corte et al.,
2019; van Nocker & Gardiner, 2014; Suntharalingam & Terano, 2017;
Suntharalingam et al., 2015). Marketing fruits based on consumers’ desired
characteristics would be a game changer on assisting nations to position
their fruits competitively in the market (Nik Rozana, Suntharalingam, &
Othman, 2017; Suntharalingam, Ahmad, Ali, Rusli, & Halim, 2011) and
brands to enhance their market shares.
Literature review
According to Caswell, Noelke, and Mojduszka (2002), quality of a product
is determined by its intrinsic and extrinsic indicators. Intrinsic indicator
refers to the physical aspect of a product (e.g., color, flavor, etc.) while
extrinsic indicator refers to the nonphysical aspect (e.g., brand name, pack-
aging, etc.). Barrett et al. (2010) reported that quality of fruit is described
by four attributes, which are (1) color and appearance, (2) taste and aroma,
(3) texture, and (4) nutritional value. Barrett et al. (2010) explained that
color depicts the natural pigments in fruits that are affected by enzymatic
and non-enzymatic browning reactions. The dis-coloration or enzymatic
browning usually causes quality deterioration (Ulloa et al., 2015).
Appearance is the most important component as it gives the first impres-
sion and, consumers make purchasing decisions depending on the physical
outlook. This includes the shape as well as the presence of defects such as
blemishes, bruises, spots, etc. (Barrett et al., 2010). As for taste, the sense of
taste could differentiate five primary sensory qualities, i.e., sweet, sour,
salty, bitter and umami (Melis & Barbarossa, 2017). Aroma, meanwhile,
includes spicy, flowery, fruity, balsamic, burnt and foul (Gould, 1983),
which generally represents the smell of the product and perceived by the
nose (Barrett et al., 2010). Texture in fruit is perceived to be solid and
semi-solid, with the sense of touch via hand or placed in the mouth and
chewed (Barrett et al., 2010).
A comprehensive review based on clinical and observational evidence on
fruits and vegetables consumption carried out by Wallace et al. (2020)
reported that fruits and vegetables provide essential micronutrients such as
vitamins and minerals, fiber, dietary bioactive compounds and endogenous
protective substances. The findings of the review suggest that increase con-
sumption of these produce will prevent non-communicable diseases, specif-
ically stating that specific fruits and vegetables are able to demonstrate
effects on certain chronic disease.
Experiential eating quality, i.e., flavor include taste (Govindasamy,

Italia, & Liptak, 1997; Tan, 2000), fruit color (Barrett et al. 2010; Moser
et al., 2011; Suntharalingam & Terano, 2017; Suntharalingam et al., 2015;
Tan, 2000), shape (Moser et al., 2011; Suntharalingam & Terano,
2017; Suntharalingam et al., 2015; Tan, 2000), size (Hussin et al., 2010;
Suntharalingam & Terano, 2017; Suntharalingam et al., 2015), aroma
(Ernst, Batte, Darby, & Worley, 2006; Govindasamy et al., 1997;
Suntharalingam & Terano, 2017; Suntharalingam et al., 2015; Tan, 2000),
visual presentation or fruit appearance (Brunso, Fjord, & Grunert, 2002;
Ernst et al., 2006; Pollard, Kirk, & Cade, 2002; Suntharalingam & Terano,
2017; Suntharalingam et al., 2015) and health benefits (Ness et al., 2010;
Suntharalingam & Terano, 2017; Suntharalingam et al., 2015) influence
consumers’ purchase of fruit and vegetable. Visual, smell and aroma are
top-rated eating pleasure attributes (Zanoli & Naspetti, 2002). Food, includ-
ing fruits and vegetables that carry health-related claims of nutritional con-
tent and are pesticide free (Boccaletti & Nardella, 2000; Florax, Travisi, &
Nijkamp, 2005; Govindasamy et al., 1997; Ness et al. 2010; Onozaka,
Bunch, & Larson, 2006) fetch a higher price in the market (Boccaletti &
Nardella, 2000; Florax et al., 2005; Ness et al. 2010; Onozaka et al., 2006).
In another separate study, it was found that health concerns and food
product availability were the two common factors sought by consumers in
relation to food preference (Rozin, 1996). As consumers become increas-
ingly conscious of their food choices, fruit has become a favorable option
due to the health benefits it offers (Conner, Brookie, Carr, Mainvil, &
Vissers, 2017; Govindasamy et al., 1997; Wang, Wang, & Huo, 2019).
Consumers are willing to purchase and pay more for fruits that offer health
benefits (Mabiso, Sterns, House, & Wysocki, 2005; Moser et al., 2011; Ness
et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2019). According to Nik Rozana et al. (2017), the
low-density substance in fruit makes it favorable for consumers who are on
weight management regime, and due to this reason, demand for fruits will
continue to grow. However, a meta-analysis study investigating consumers’
willingness to pay for health benefits in food products among consumers in
Canada, United States and Europe reported that Canadians generally pay a
lower price premium for health benefits as compared to consumers in
other countries (Dolgopolova & Teuber, 2018). The reason for the low
price was due to the lack of understanding among Canadians pertaining to
health benefits offered by food products. Hence, Dolgopolova and Teuber
(2018) recommended that detailed information on health benefits in food
products must be clearly communicated to overcome the lack of under-
standing among consumers on this subject.
A sensory panel conducted among 27 respondents on fruit characteristics
of sweet cherry revealed that fruit size, firmness and sweetness are
important quality traits (Kappel, Fisher-Fleming, & Hogue, 1996).

€
According to Thøgersen and Olander (2002), modern consumers purchase
food products that are safe and of high quality. A similar consumer mind-
set is also found in India, where modern consumers give special import-
ance to high quality fruits that meet health and food safety standards
(Ahmad & Juhdi, 2010; Correia & Rola-Rubzen, 2012; Rezai, Mohamed, &
Shamsudin, 2011; Shafie & Rennie, 2012). Supermarkets in Asia are empha-
sizing the importance of quality, safety and freshness when dealing with
their producers (Ruben, Boselie, & Lu, 2007). According to Barrett et al.
(2010), food quality is determined by packaging, color, aroma and texture.
Product quality vis-a-vis extrinsic cues captured in label was also found to
influence consumers’ food purchasing decision as well as offers competitive
edge to marketers (Fotopoulos & Krystallis, 2003).
A separate study was carried out by Ness et al. (2010) for four food
products (bread, eggs, tomato and yogurt) in six European countries, i.e.,
France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Switzerland and the United Kingdom
reported that food characteristics such as taste, nutritional freshness,
appearance and quality assurance label influence consumers’ purchasing
decision. Caputo, Canavari, and Nayga (2012) reported that label and certi-
fication play an important role in consumers’ willingness to purchase and
pay premium price for quality fruits. Other factors influencing consumers
purchase of fruits include fruit availability (Baker & Wardle, 2003; Cassady,
Jetter, & Culp, 2007), fruit price (Baker & Wardle, 2003; Bond, Thilmany,
& Keeling Bond, 2008; Cassady et al., 2007; Ernst et al., 2006; Kuhar &
Juvancic, 2010; Mabiso et al., 2005; Nagy-Percsi & Fogarassy, 2019; Powell,
Zhao, & Wang, 2009; Roitner-Schobesberger, Darnhofer, Somsook, & Vogl,
2008; Suntharalingam & Terano, 2017; Suntharalingam et al., 2015;
Wadoloswka, Babicz-Zielinska, & Czarnocinska, 2008; Wang et al., 2019),
flesh content of fruit (Suntharalingam & Terano, 2017; Suntharalingam
et al., 2015), flesh color (Suntharalingam & Terano, 2017; Suntharalingam
et al., 2015; Tan, 2000), flesh thickness (Barrett et al., 2010; Moser et al.,
2011; Suntharalingam & Terano, 2017; Suntharalingam et al., 2015; Tan,
2000), flesh texture (Barrett et al., 2010; Harker, Gunson, & Jaeger, 2003;
Moser et al., 2011; Suntharalingam & Terano, 2017; Suntharalingam et al.,
2015; Tan, 2000), number of seeds (Suntharalingam & Terano, 2017;
Suntharalingam et al., 2015), water content of fruit (Suntharalingam &
Terano, 2017; Suntharalingam et al., 2015), uniqueness of the fruit
(Suntharalingam & Terano, 2017; Suntharalingam et al., 2015) use for
cooking (Suntharalingam & Terano, 2017; Suntharalingam et al., 2015) and
the ease of consuming the fruit (Baker & Wardle, 2003; Cassady et al.,
2007; Naspetti & Zanoli, 2009; Pollard et al., 2002; Suntharalingam &
Terano, 2017; Suntharalingam et al., 2015).
Although, there are concerns that oxidation of ready-to-eat fruits lead to

lower vitamins, these concerns have not deterred consumers who opt for
convenience, from purchasing and consuming them (Opara & Al-Ani,
2010). In fact, a study by Miller and Knudson (2014) reported that it is
due to convenience that consumers prefer canned fruits and commercial-
ized bottled fruit juice over fresh fruits, with the belief that they are
consuming adequate fruit nutrient. Bottled and canned fruits contain high
sugar and lower nutrient values as they are loaded with syrup to preserve
the texture and flavor of the fruits (Miller & Knudson, 2014). This observa-
tion is in conformance to a recent consumer study by Suntharalingam
et al. (2015) who reported that consumers prefer consuming fresh fruits as
compared to processed ones (e.g., fruit juice or fruit flavored ice-cream)
due to lack of nutrition contained in the latter. According to Gunden and
Thomas (2012), consumers tend to place stronger emphasis on freshness,
taste and food safety attributes of fresh fruits as compared to price and
nutritional value. Freshness is also found to influence consumers’ fruit con-
sumption decision (Mabiso et al., 2005; Suntharalingam & Terano, 2017;
Wang et al., 2019). A study carried out among 881 Maltese consumers
depicted that fruits fetch a higher price if they are found to be safe and
tasty (Dimech et al., 2011), fresh (Dimech et al., 2011; Govindasamy et al.,
1997) and presented well (Dimech et al., 2011). According to Nagy-Percsi
and Fogarassy (2019), fresh fruits bring about safety concerns as they are
linked to foodborne diseases and pesticide residues.
Origin of fruits, locally produced fruits and motivation in supporting
fruit farmers were also found to influence consumers in their fruit purchas-
ing decision (Darby, Batte, Ernst, & Roe, 2008; Rodriguez-Ibeas, 2007;
Thilmany, Bond, & Bond, 2008). However, the importance placed on origin
of fruit was found to garner a mixed response from consumers, ranging
from somewhat important (Campbell et al., 2004; Darby, 2006;
Govindasamy et al., 1997; Midmore et al., 2005; Poole, Martı ’nez, &
Gimenez, 2007) to very important (Mabiso et al., 2005). Support for local
produce is primarily driven by preference for farmland conservation (Bond
et al., 2008), especially to buyers who live near to protected lands (Moser
et al., 2011). The study by Dimech et al. (2011) carried out among 881
Maltese consumers, reported that fruits fetch a higher price if they are
locally grown and thus recommends markets to enhance the values of local
produce to survive in a competitive market. According to Tey, Suryani,
Emmy, and Illisriyani (2009), fruits from Malaysia are considered local to
Singaporeans due to the short geographical distance that exists between the
two countries. The short traveling time enables Singaporeans to enjoy
fresher and better tasting Malaysian fruits (“Singaporeans going bananas
over fruit from Malaysia,” 2014).
Meanwhile, Honkanen (2010) carried out a survey with 1,081 consumers

in four Russian cities and discovered that the twelve motivating factors that
influence food choice include health benefits, mood enhancers, conveni-
ence, sensory attributes, origin of fruit, price, weight, familiarity, availabil-
ity, ecology, politics and religion. An additional characteristic that is found
important in fruit purchasing decision is the cleanliness of the fruit
(Govindasamy et al., 1997).
The characteristics of fresh fruits/perishable produce and food products
discussed above are summarized in Table 1.
During our literature search, we observed that studies discussed above
tend to focus on a limited number of fruit characteristics in a single study,
leaving out many others. As such, this sole study compiled a comprehen-
sive list of fruit characteristics from all the studies reviewed in this paper
and conducted an empirical assessment among Singaporeans concerning
their fruit purchasing decision.
Additionally, since all the respective studies discussed in this paper did
not classify the fruit characteristics under common themes, the fruit char-
acteristics discussed above seemed scattered and unstructured. Hence, to
overcome these issues, this study classified the fruit characteristics in an
organized manner using the classification method of pattern identification.
The classification approach adopted in this study is discussed in the data
analysis section.
Study description and results

Data collection
This study employed primary data collection among fruit purchasing
Singaporeans around major and frequently visited public rest areas and
farmer markets in Johor Bahru, Malaysia, between May and September
2017. A total of 653 consumers who completed their fruit purchase were
approached, individually, to participate in the survey and a total of 519
respondents agreed to partake in this study. The participation rate was
79%. The respondents were briefed on the confidentiality of the survey and
that their responses would be compiled and aggregated for research and
reporting purposes. Upon consent from the respondents, the survey was
carried out.
Research instrument
This study was carried out utilizing a questionnaire that employed ordinal
and nominal data type questions. The ordinal data type questions were for-
mulated using a 4-point Likert scale, which were (1) very important, (2),
Table 1. Characteristics of fresh fruits, perishables and food products.

Variables Reference source
Shape 000); (Barrett et al., 2010; Moser et al., 2011; Suntharalingam &
Terano, 2017; Suntharalingam et al., 2015; Tan, 2000)
Size (Hussin et al., 2010; Kappel et al., 1996; Suntharalingam &
Terano, 2017; Suntharalingam et al., 2015)
Flesh content (Suntharalingam & Terano, 2017; Suntharalingam et al., 2015)
Fruit color (Barrett et al., 2010; Moser et al., 2011; Suntharalingam & Terano,
2017; Suntharalingam et al., 2015; Ulloa et al., 2015; Tan, 2000)
Flesh color (Suntharalingam & Terano, 2017; Suntharalingam et al., 2015;
Ulloa et al., 2015; Tan, 2000)
Flesh thickness (Barrett et al., 2010; Moser et al., 2011; Suntharalingam & Terano,
2017; Suntharalingam et al., 2015; Tan, 2000)
Flesh texture (Barrett et al., 2010; Harker et al., 2003; Moser et al., 2011;
Suntharalingam & Terano, 2017; Suntharalingam et al., 2015;
Tan, 2000)
Taste (Barrett et al., 2010; Diamanti et al., 2012; Erpen-Dalla Corte
et al., 2019; Gamburzew et al., 2016; Govindasamy et al., 1997;
Gunden & Thomas, 2012; Melis & Barbarossa, 2017; Migliore
et al., 2017; Moser et al., 2011; Nelson, 1970; Ness et al., 2010;
Nicklett & Kadell, 2013; “Singaporeans going bananas over
fruit from Malaysia,” 2014; Suntharalingam & Terano, 2017;
Suntharalingam et al., 2015; Tan, 2000; van Nocker &
Gardiner, 2014)
Aroma (Barrett et al., 2010; Ernst et al., 2006; Govindasamy et al., 1997;
Gould, 1983; Suntharalingam & Terano, 2017; Suntharalingam
et al., 2015; Tan, 2000; Zanoli & Naspetti, 2002)
Number of seeds (Suntharalingam & Terano, 2017; Suntharalingam et al., 2015)
Water content (Suntharalingam & Terano, 2017; Suntharalingam et al., 2015)
Visual presentation/fruit appearance (Barrett et al., 2010; Brunso et al., 2002; Dimech et al., 2011;
Ernst et al., 2006; Pollard et al., 2002; Suntharalingam &
Terano, 2017; Suntharalingam et al., 2015; Zanoli &
Naspetti, 2002)
Freshness (Dimech et al., 2011; Govindasamy et al., 1997; Gunden &
Thomas, 2012; Mabiso et al., 2005; Miller & Knudson, 2014;
Ness et al., 2010; Ruben et al., 2007; “Singaporeans going
bananas over fruit from Malaysia,” 2014; Suntharalingam &
Terano, 2017; Suntharalingam et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2019)
Ease of consumption (Baker & Wardle, 2003; Cassady et al., 2007; Naspetti & Zanoli,
2009; Pollard et al., 2002; Suntharalingam & Terano, 2017;
Suntharalingam et al., 2015)
Quality (Ahmad & Juhdi, 2010; Barrett et al., 2010; Caputo et al., 2012;
Correia & Rola-Rubzen, 2012; Fotopoulos & Krystallis, 2003;
Govindasamy et al., 1997; Kappel et al., 1996; Ness et al., 2010;
Rezai et al., 2011; Ruben et al., 2007; Shafie & Rennie, 2012;
€
Thøgersen & Olander, 2002; Tan, 2000; Ulloa et al., 2015)
Uniqueness (Suntharalingam & Terano, 2017; Suntharalingam et al., 2015)
Use for cooking (Suntharalingam & Terano, 2017; Suntharalingam et al., 2015)
Price (Baker & Wardle, 2003; Boccaletti & Nardella, 2000; Bond et al.,
2008; Caputo et al., 2012; Cassady et al., 2007; Dimech et al.,
2011; Dolgopolova & Teuber, 2018; Ernst et al., 2006; Florax
et al., 2005; Gunden & Thomas, 2012; Honkanen, 2010; Kuhar
& Juvancic, 2010; Mabiso et al., 2005; Nagy-Percsi & Fogarassy,
2019; Ness et al., 2010; Onozaka et al., 2006; Powell et al.,
2009; Roitner-Schobesberger et al., 2008; Suntharalingam &
Terano, 2017; Suntharalingam et al., 2015; Wadoloswka et al.,
2008; Wang et al., 2019)
Malaysian produce (“Singaporeans going bananas over fruits from Malaysia,” 2014;
Tey et al., 2009)
Country of origin (Campbell et al., 2004; Darby, 2006; Darby et al., 2008;
Govindasamy et al., 1997; Honkanen, 2010; Mabiso et al.,
2005; Midmore et al., 2005; Poole et al., 2007; Rodriguez-Ibeas,
2007; Thilmany et al., 2008)
(continued)
Table 1. Continued.
Variables Reference source
Certification (e.g., GAP) (Caputo et al., 2012)
Health (Ahmad & Juhdi, 2010; Barrett et al., 2010; Conner et al., 2017;
Correia & Rola-Rubzen, 2012; Dimech et al., 2011; Dolgopolova
& Teuber, 2018; Gao & Jiang, 2010; Govindasamy et al., 1997;
Honkanen, 2010; Hussin et al., 2010; Mabiso et al., 2005;
Moser et al., 2011; Ness et al., 2010; Rezai et al., 2011; Rozin,
1996; Shafie & Rennie, 2012; Suntharalingam & Terano, 2017;
Suntharalingam et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2019)
Diet (Bishwajit et al., 2017; Devine et al., 1998; Opara & Al-Ani, 2010;
Payne et al., 2012; Wolniczak et al., 2017)
Pesticide free (Boccaletti & Nardella, 2000; Florax et al., 2005; Govindasamy
et al., 1997; Nagy-Percsi & Fogarassy, 2019; Ness et al., 2010;
Onozaka et al., 2006)
Packaging (Barrett et al., 2010; Caswell et al., 2002)
Availability (Baker & Wardle, 2003; Cassady et al., 2007; Honkanen, 2010;
Rozin, 1996)
Nutritional value (Barrett et al., 2010; Boccaletti & Nardella, 2000; Florax et al.,
2005; Gamburzew et al., 2016; Govindasamy et al., 1997;
Gunden & Thomas, 2012; Ness et al., 2010; Onozaka et al.,
2006; Opara & Al-Ani, 2010; Schagen et al., 2012;
Suntharalingam et al., 2015; Wallace et al., 2020)
Food safety (Ahmad & Juhdi, 2010; Correia & Rola-Rubzen, 2012; Dimech
et al., 2011; Gunden & Thomas, 2012; Nagy-Percsi & Fogarassy,
2019; Rezai et al., 2011; Ruben et al., 2007; Shafie & Rennie,
€
2012; Singh et al., 2014; Thøgersen & Olander, 2002)
Source: Authors’ compilation.
important, (3) not important and (4) not important at all. The conceptual-
ization of the questionnaire was based on previous established research and
literature as discussed above. It was divided into three sections; (1)
Demographic profile of respondents (e.g., age, gender, etc.); (2) Fruit pur-
chase venue (e.g., grocery stores, fruit stalls, supermarket, etc.); and (3)
Fruit characteristics (e.g., flesh thickness, flesh color, nutrition content,
number of seeds, etc.) that influence purchase of fruits. Two control varia-
bles were also incorporated to investigate the influence of demographic var-
iables, i.e., gender and age on fruit purchase. The control variables were
added based on findings of previous studies that reported age (Nicklett &
Kadell, 2013; Ocean et al., 2019; Wekeza & Sibanda, 2019) and gender
(Baker & Wardle, 2003; Pr€att€al€a et al., 2007) play an influential role toward
fruit purchase. The questionnaire was pretested with Singaporean consum-
ers at a major shopping mall in Johor Baharu. Hence, the final question-
naire, which is the primary instrument utilized in data collection was
developed through a thorough and detailed analysis of the literature fol-
lowed by empirical assessment.
Data analysis
Demographic profile of consumers and location of fruit purchase was deter-
mined via descriptive analysis. To examine the determinants of consumers’
fruit purchasing decision, this study carried out two analyses. First, as
mentioned in the literature discussion, employing the classification method

of pattern identification, the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was con-
ducted to reduce and classify the fruit characteristics to a smaller set of con-
structs (common themes), in order for relationships to be easily interpreted
and understood. This method was adopted in similar-type consumer behav-
ior studies (Alemu, Olsen, Vedel, Pambo, & Owino, 2017; Christensen,
Denver, & Olsen, 2020; Rahman, Rezai, Mohamed, Shamsudin, &
Sharifuddin, 2013). Based on the output by the PCA in which the variables
were classified according to common themes (determinants), hypotheses
were then formulated accordingly. Second, the Partial Least Squares
Structural Equation Modeling 3.0 (PLS-SEM) was carried out to test the
newly formulated hypotheses as a result of the conceptualized model derived
from PCA. PLS-SEM was adopted in this study because the modeling tech-
nique is well suited for exploratory studies (Hair, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2011;
Thompson, Barclay, & Higgins, 1995), similar to this study approach. PLS-
SEM utilizes a two-stage approach. The first stage was carried out to deter-
mine the measurement model of the proposed latent variables while the
second stage was carried out to test the variables’ structural relationships.
Results and discussion

Demographic profile
Majority of the respondents were female (56%), while male constituted 44%
(Table 2). Majority of the respondents (51%) were in the age range of
between 41 and 60, and are married (83%). The highest education level
attained by the majority of the respondents were from high school (54%)
and followed with undergraduate degree (39%). Sixty-two percent (62%) of
respondents are employed. The monthly income of the majority of the
respondents are between USD1,370.55 (SGD2,001) and USD2,739.73
(SGD4,000), aligned to the median monthly income of per household
member which was recorded to be at USD1,848.76. (SGD2,699) in 2017
(Department of Statistics Singapore, 2018).
Fruit purchase venue

Majority of the respondents preferred to purchase fruits from supermarket
(29%) followed with farmer’s market (18%) as depicted in Figure 1.
Principal component analysis (PCA)

PCA was used to identify the common fruit characteristics that influence
consumers’ fruit purchasing decision. Suitability of the data for factor
Table 2. Demographic profile of respondents.

Item Frequency Percentage (%)
Gender
Female 290 55.9
Male 229 44.1
Age
20 31 6.0
21–30 41 7.9
31–40 82 15.8
41–50 107 20.6
51–60 162 31.2
>60 96 18.5
Marital status
Married 431 83.0
Single 88 17.0
Highest education level
High school 282 54.3
College/Undergraduate 204 39.3
Postgraduate 33 6.4
Employment status
Employed 323 62.2
Housewife 73 14.1
Self employed 37 7.1
Student 43 8.3
Retiree 43 8.3
Income (SGD) (Monthly)
2,000 139 26.8
2,001–4,000 244 47.0
4,001–6,000 85 16.4
>6,000 51 9.8
Wet market
12%
Night market
13% Fruit stall
11%
Farmer's market Wholesale

18% market
10%
Retail store
7%
Supermarket
29%
Figure 1. Fruit purchase venue.
analysis was carried out before conducting PCA. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin

(KMO) measure of sampling adequacy for this study showed 0.891, exceed-
ing the recommended value of 0.6 (Kaiser, 1974), demonstrating that PCA
can be carried out. The p-value of Bartlett’s test of sphericity was 0.000,
indicating that the relationship among variables is strong. Hence, KMO
and Bartlett indicated that the sample size of this study (519) was adequate
to undertake a PCA. Twenty eight fruit characteristics listed in Table 1
were subjected to PCA. Initial solution resulted in six components
Table 3. Results of PCA on the determinants of fruit purchase.

Items Loadingsa,b Eigenvalues Variance (%) Cronbach alpha Communalities
1. Search and experience 9.10 32.51 0.86
Flesh thickness 0.75 0.64
Flesh content 0.74 0.68
Flesh texture 0.73 0.65
Flesh color 0.72 0.70
Taste 0.71 0.59
Freshness 0.65 0.64
Fruit quality 0.51 0.67
2. Well-being 2.68 9.57 0.86
Nutrition content 0.80 0.72
Health 0.79 0.67
Diet 0.74 0.69
Food safety 0.71 0.71
3. Claims and label 1.74 6.20 0.79
Malaysian produce 0.87 0.80
Origin of fruit 0.86 0.82
Certification 0.56 0.63
4. Visual appearance 1.59 5.69 0.71
Presentation 0.66 0.51
Fruit color 0.66 0.68
Shape 0.57 0.66
5. Fruit utilization 1.38 4.92 0.72
Cooking ingredients 0.84 0.73
Uniqueness 0.75 0.64
6. Fruit content 1.09 3.88 0.67
Water content 0.74 0.68
Number of seeds 0.63 0.61
Size 0.57 0.70
Note: aAfter Varimax rotation; bVariables (aroma, ease of consumption, price, pesticide free, packaging and avail-
ability) with loadings less than 0.5 were omitted.
(determinants) with eigenvalues of more than one with a total of 62.76%

variance explained (Table 3).
Components in PCA that have eigenvalues greater than 1.0 are retained,
in accordance with the Kaiser-Guttman criterion (Kaiser, 1960). Out of 28
fruit characteristics, only 22 were retained following the rule of using 0.5 as
the factor loading (Lai, Cheng, & Yeung, 2004; Lirn, Lin, & Shang, 2014;
Maskey, Fei, & Nguyen, 2018). The six fruit characteristics dropped were
aroma, ease of consumption, price, pesticide free, packaging and availability
of fruit.
The fruit content component had a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.67. According
to Nunnally (1978), the threshold value of Cronbach’s alpha should be
above 0.7. However, according to Hinton, Brownlow, McMurray, and
Cozens (2004), a Cronbach alpha of value 0.5 and above shows moderate
reliability. As such, adopting the latter’s criteria, the Cronbach’s alpha coef-
ficients for all six components which ranged from 0.67 to 0.86 were found
to be satisfactory (Hinton et al., 2004; Nunnally, 1978) and hence, retained
in this study.
The components (subsequently referred to as determinants in this paper),
items, factor loadings, eigenvalues, variance explained and reliability coeffi-
cients are presented in Table 3. The six determinants are search and
experience, well-being, claims and label, visual appearance, fruit utilization

and fruit content.
Determinant 1, search and experience explain 32.51% of the variance and
has an internal validity of 0.86, indicating that fruit characteristics play an
important role in fruit purchasing decision. Search and experience, is a com-
mon term used in consumer studies pertaining to perishables. With the search
element, consumers are able to assess relevant characteristic information before
purchase such as color and freshness. Meanwhile, experience refers to when
characteristics such as taste and texture be determined upon consumption
(Moser et al., 2011; Nelson, 1970). Besides taste, flesh and freshness of fruit,
and fruit quality play a crucial role in determinant 1. The characteristics
(excluding taste) in determinant 1 are readily observed and evaluated if fruits
are precut or packaged as ready-to-consume. Generally, fruits are commonly
sold with their exterior in-tact, hence there is no visibility of the fruit interior.
The second determinant, well-being has 9.57% of the variance explained
and an internal validity of 0.86. Nutrient value, health, diet and food safety,
are placed importance when it comes to consuming fruits among
Singaporeans. Nutrient value is the top most important variable in this
component, given its high factor loading, an indication that Singaporeans
consider nutrient value as a crucial element in purchasing fruits.
The third determinant, claims and label accounts for 6.20% of the vari-
ance explained and depicts a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.79. This determinant
shows that Singaporeans have more confident in purchasing fruits when
claims and labels are displayed. Further, Singaporeans, prefer fruits from
Malaysia, an indication that they place a high level of confidence and trust
on fruits originating from Malaysia.
The fourth determinant is on visual appearance, which accounts for
5.69% variance explained with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.71. This component
which is a combination of fruit color, shape and fruit presentation offers
consumers a visual appeal toward the fruit, which in return translate into
the action of purchasing the fruit (or otherwise).
The fifth determinant is fruit utilization, which accounts for 4.92% vari-
ance explained with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.72. There are only two fruit
characteristics that fall into this component, with the highest loading on
cooking ingredients and the lowest, on uniqueness. Utilizing fruit in food
preparation continue to gain popularity as it adds value to the dish, portray
a sense of “healthy choice” and project the authenticity of the dish.
The sixth determinant is pertaining to fruit content. It accounts for
3.88% variance explained and a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.67. The highest load-
ing is on fruit water content and the lowest is on fruit size. A high-water
content in fruit is generally preferred as it assists consumers to increase
their water intake.
Figure 2. Conceptual framework.
Hypotheses
Based on the results of the PCA analysis carried out and past literature as
discussed in the literature review section above, the variables were classified
into six determinants (constructs) based on common themes. The following
hypotheses were then proposed and the six determinants were conceptual-
ized to fit into a research model (Figure 2).
H1: Consumers’ interest in search and experience is positively related to higher
inclination towards fruit purchasing decision
H2: Consumers’ interest in well-being is positively related to higher inclination
towards fruit purchasing decision
H3: Consumers’ interest in claims and label is positively related to higher inclination
H4: Consumers’ interest in visual appearance is positively related to higher
inclination towards fruit purchasing decision
H5: Consumers’ interest in fruit utilization is positively related to higher inclination
H6: Consumers’ interest in fruit content is positively related to higher inclination
PLS-SEM
PLS-SEM is a causal-predictive approach that emphasizes prediction in esti-
mating statistical models (Hair et al., 2011). It is designed to test the causal
relationships between constructs with multiple measurement items. To
Table 4. Construct validity.

Determinants (constructs) Indicator Indicator loadings Cronbach alpha Composite reliability AVE
Search and experience Flesh color 0.62 0.86 0.86 0.51
Flesh content 0.67
Freshness 0.87
Taste 0.86
Flesh texture 0.61
Flesh thickness 0.58
Well-being Diet 0.81 0.87 0.91 0.71
Food safety 0.87
Health 0.80
Nutrient value 0.88
Claims and label Certification 0.47 0.78 0.84 0.66
Malaysian produce 0.94
Origin of fruit 0.94
Visual appearance Fruit color 0.90 0.71 0.83 0.63
Shape 0.65
Presentation 0.81
Fruit utilization Cooking ingredients 0.90 0.72 0.88 0.78
Uniqueness 0.87
Fruit content Number of seeds 0.67 0.54 0.79 0.66
Size 0.94
Note: Fruit quality and water content are removed due to low loadings (<0.4). AVE ¼ Average vari-
ance extracted.
empirically examine the research model (conceptual framework) as depicted

in Figure 2, PLS-SEM 3.0 was employed to assess the measurement and
structural models for reflective constructs.
The measurement model

The measurement model’s outer loadings, composite reliabilities, convergent
validity and discriminant validity were assessed. As demonstrated in Table 4,
all the factor loadings (except fruit quality and water content) have loadings
above 0.40, respectively. As mentioned by Hair et al., 2011), “indicators that
exhibit very low loadings of 0.40 and lower should, however, always be elimi-
nated from reflective scales” (p. 146). Thus, following this criteria, fruit quality
and water content items were removed from the model of this study.
All six constructs composite reliability, respectively, exceeded the value
suggested by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994) which was 0.7 and also by
Fornell and Larcker (1981) which was 0.6, indicating that all constructs
demonstrated high level of internal consistency.
The convergent validity for the six constructs was measured by the
Average Variance Extracted (AVE). An AVE of 0.5 suggests a satisfactory
convergent validity, as it indicates that the latent construct explains 50% or
more of the variance of its items (Hair et al., 2011). All the respective AVE
values in this study were above the threshold criteria of 0.5.
Further analyses were carried out to assess discriminatory validity using
the Fornell-Larcker approach. This was done by comparing the square root
of the AVE values with the other latent variable correlations. As shown in
Table 5. Discriminant validity.

Search
and Claims Fruit Visual
experience Fruit content and label Well-being utilization appearance AVE
Search and experience 0.71 0.51
Fruit content 0.28 0.81 0.66
Claims and label 0.14 0.24 0.81 0.66
Well-being 0.47 0.36 0.08 0.84 0.71
Fruit utilization 0.07 0.22 0.15 0.17 0.88 0.78
Visual appearance 0.36 0.59 0.24 0.47 0.15 0.79 0.63
The bold values indicates that the square root of each construct’s AVE in this study is greater than other con-
structs; vertically and horizontally (Fornell & Larcker, 1981)
Table 5, the square root of each construct’s AVE in this study is greater
than other constructs; vertically and horizontally (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
This shows that the latent construct explained the variance of its own indi-
cator better than the variance of other latent constructs. Therefore, the dis-
criminant validity was fulfilled.
The structural model

To examine the significance of relationships proposed in the hypotheses,
path coefficient and t-values were looked into. Table 6 shows the path
coefficient and t-values for the direct relationships, where t-value >1.96 is
equivalent to a significant relationship (p < 0.001).
According to Falk and Miller (1992), the R2 values should be equal to or
greater than 10% in order for the variance explained of a particular
endogenous construct to be deemed adequate. Additionally, Cohen (1988)
offered a criterion for R2 values; 26% (substantial), 13% (moderate) and 2%
(weak). In this study, the R2 value of 22%, indicates adequacy and that the
six determinants, collectively, moderately explain the variances in fruit pur-
chasing decision.
The p-value indicates a relationship between endogenous and exogenous
constructs; p-value <0.001 indicates a significant relationship exist. Table 6
shows that three relationships depicted a p-value of <0.001, indicating a
significant relationship exist between the respective endogenous and
exogenous constructs. These three relationships are pertaining to
Hypothesis 1: Consumers’ interest in well-being is positively related to
higher inclination toward fruit purchasing decision, Hypothesis 3:
Consumers’ interest in claims and label is positively related to higher
inclination toward fruit purchasing decision and Hypothesis 4: Consumers’
interest in visual appearance is positively related to higher inclination
toward fruit purchasing decision. The remaining three hypotheses (H2, H5
and H6) were not supported in this study.
The f2 value reveals the size of the effect. According to Cohen’s (1988)
criterion, a value of 0.35 indicates a substantial effect, 0.15 indicates a
Table 6. Path coefficient in the structural model.

Relationship Path coefficient Std. error t-Value p-Value Result R2 f2
Search and experience > Fruit purchase 0.36 0.06 6.03 0.00 Significant 21.8% 0.12
Fruit content > Fruit purchase 0.01 0.05 0.26 0.79 Not significant 0.00
Claims and Label Fruit purchase 0.15 0.04 3.45 0.00 Significant 0.02
Well-being > Fruit purchase 0.08 0.06 1.31 0.21 Not significant 0.01
Fruit utilization > Fruit purchase 0.02 0.04 0.41 0.67 Not significant 0.00
Visual appearance > Fruit purchase 0.29 0.05 5.26 0.00 Significant 0.06
medium effect and 0.02 indicates a small effect. Among the three signifi-
cant relationships, the search and experience determinant contributed a
medium effect (f2 ¼ 0.12) to fruit purchasing decision. The two other
determinants, i.e., claims and label, and visual appearance contributed a
small effect to fruit purchasing decision, with a f2 ¼ 0. 02 and f2 ¼ 0.06,
respectively.
The results of PLS-SEM showed that three relationships are found to be
significant and the remaining three are insignificant (Table 6). The negative
relationship between search and experience and fruit purchase (b ¼ 0.36,
t-value ¼ 6.03), indicates that while the result is significant, the relationship
is not supported (H1: Consumers’ interest in well-being is positively related
to higher inclination toward fruit purchasing decision). This means that
search and experience determinant is inversely related to fruit purchasing
decision, depicting that unless the fruits can be readily observed and eval-
uated, e.g., precut or packaged as ready-to-consume, consumers might be
reluctant to make a purchase. Similarly, if consumers do not have experi-
ence consuming such fruit, pre-tasting it would offer them the experience
they require in making their fruit purchasing decision. According to
Migliore, Farina, Tinervia, Matranga, and Schifani (2017) characteristics
such as freshness and taste could only be identified only after consuming
or experiencing the fruit. The results of the search and experience deter-
minant in our study is similar with past studies that identified how the
characteristics in this determinant are important decision factors in fruit
consumption and purchase (Gunden & Thomas, 2012; Khaled, Novas,
Gazquez, Garcia, & Manzano-Agugliaro, 2015; Peneau, Hoehn, Roth,
Escher, & Nuessli, 2006; Suntharalingam & Terano, 2017).
The finding of this study also indicates that claims and label determine
fruit purchasing decision (b ¼ 0.15, t-value ¼ 3.45), supporting H3:
Consumers’ interest in claims and label is positively related to higher
inclination toward fruit purchasing decision. Past studies reported the
importance of labeling in making purchasing decisions (Kumar & Kapoor,
2017; Slamet & Nakayasu, 2017) as labeling attracts consumers’ attention
(Drexler, Fiala, Havlıckova, Potůckova, & Soucek, 2018), and hence facili-
tate their purchasing decision. In our study, claims and label refer to certi-
fication, the fruit origin country and Malaysia as one of the origin
countries. As discussed in the literature above, the findings of this study

conform to prior observation and research findings that Singaporeans pre-
fer Malaysian fruits as Malaysian fruits are accepted as local fruits (Tey
et al., 2009) and they taste good and fresh (“Singaporeans going bananas
over fruit from Malaysia,” 2014).
Visual appearance is also found to lead to fruit purchase (b ¼ 0.29,
t-value ¼ 5.26), supporting H4: Consumers’ interest in visual appearance is
positively related to higher inclination toward fruit purchasing decision.
This finding demonstrates that fruit color, shape and presentation deter-
mine fruit purchase and is in conformance with past literature (Barrett
et al., 2010; Kuhar & Juvancic, 2010; Suntharalingam & Terano, 2017;
Suntharalingam et al., 2015). Visual stimuli have always been important in
driving purchasing decisions (Barrett et al., 2010). Positioning fruit type
among popular and familiar fruits such as apple and banana
(Suntharalingam & Terano, 2017; Suntharalingam et al., 2015) would
enhance their visibility and accessibility to consumers (Sutton, Caldwell,
Yoshida, Thompson, & Kuo, 2019), and, hence, driving consumers to pur-
chase them. Fruits which are vibrant in color should be displayed well visu-
ally in order to appeal to more buyers, thereby enticing them to purchase
these fruits. According to Barrett et al. (2010), consumer look at the fruit
appearance as an indication of freshness and taste quality.
The respective relationships between well-being (b ¼ 0.08, t-value ¼
1.31), fruit utilization (b ¼ 0.02, t-value ¼ 0.41) and fruit content (b ¼
0.01, t-value ¼ 0.26), with fruit purchasing decision showed insignificant
relationships. This suggests that fruit characteristics such as nutrition con-
tent, health and dietary benefits, food safety, ingredients for cooking and
garnishing, uniqueness, water content, number of seeds and size of fruit,
are not key factors in determining Singaporeans purchase of fruits.
For the determinant well-being, in which nutrition content, health and
dietary benefits and food safety fall under, it can be deduced that consum-
ers in this study, possibly opted for non-fruit sources to feed their well-
being. Regarding fruit utilization pertaining to using fruit for cooking or
garnishing dishes indicates that Singaporean consumers prefer to consume
their fruits fresh similar to the findings of Suntharalingam and Terano
(2017). And also the limited knowledge and skills on using fruits as cook-
ing ingredients and lack of familiarity with a variety of fruits to be used for
this purpose (Suntharalingam & Terano, 2017; Suntharalingam et al., 2015)
could be a another reason Singaporeans do not use fruits in their cooking.
Meanwhile, this study finding on fruit content determinant contradicts
with findings of Hussin et al. (2010) who reported that large size of fruit
denotes higher quality of fruit (Barrett et al., 2010). In our study, number
of seed and size of the fruit are not crucial in purchasing fruits among
Singaporean consumers.
Our study also found that there is a significant inverse relationship
between consumers’ age and fruit purchase (b ¼ 0.15, t-value ¼ 4.01)
with a p < 0.001. The inverse relationship shows that fruit purchase
decreases with age. According to Nicklett and Kadell, (2013), older adults
typically suffer from certain physiological changes such as taste
acuity, sense of smell, digestive problems, gum disease, mouth
infection, missing posterior teeth and/or have dentures that affect their
appetite and oral health. This in turn influence them to opt for other
source of nutrient intake, such as leafy vegetables and herbs (instead of
from fruits).
Our study also showed that gender demonstrated an insignificant rela-
tionship (b ¼ 0.05, t-value ¼ 1.23); indicating that gender did not play a
role on fruit purchase decision, aligned with the study findings of Wekeza
and Sibanda, (2019) who reported that there was no significant difference
between female and male purchase intentions toward organic fruit and
Figure 3. Structural model.

vegetable. To summarize the findings of the study, the final framework is

shown in Figure 3.
Managerial implications
Fruits are loaded with high nutritional content and the lack of fruit con-
sumption has been cited to cause many unfolding diseases and contribute
to health deficit. Fruit intake has remained insufficient according to the
World Health Organization (2020). The Health Promotion Board of
Singapore (2010) reported that fruit intake among Singaporeans is worry-
ing. As such we believe this study findings would offer some key insights
to the relevant stakeholders, i.e., policymakers, fruit producers and sellers,
to strategize and adopt approaches that would tackle low fruit intake
among Singaporeans.
The findings of this study indicated that search and experience element
showed an inverse but significant relationship to fruit purchase. Search and
experience determinant is related to fruit characteristics. However, not all
characteristics can be seen, experienced or felt (e.g., flesh color, taste,
aroma, etc.) and this makes it complex for consumer to make purchase
decisions. Adopting this insight could serve as an alternative marketing
strategy to marketers in a move toward generating increasing sales which
could translate into consumption (Suntharalingam et al., 2011) and also
assists in reducing wastage. Packaging precut fruits or ready to eat fruits,
which is also commonly known as minimally processed fruits, offers con-
sumers the opportunity to gauge fruit appearance, color, flesh thickness,
etc. The opportunity to assess the fruit by observing visible fruit character-
istics (search element) would lead to fruit purchase and upon experiencing
satisfaction from tasting the fruit and its texture would lead to repeated
purchases (experience element). Additionally, precut or minimally proc-
essed fruits is preferred by consumers as this marketing approach offers
convenience and proven to be hassle-free (Horning, Fulkerson, Friend, &
Story, 2017). Due to hectic work life and busy schedules (Goh et al., 2019)
this fruit sale mode saves consumers preparation time, i.e., peeling, cutting,
slicing and washing.
Precut fruits would also reduce food wastage (Schanes, Dobernig, &
G€ozet, 2018; Verghese, Lewis, Lockrey, & Williams, 2015). This is especially
true among consumers who live alone or in small family where purchasing
a whole fruit such as papaya, watermelon, jackfruit, etc. would lead to wast-
age if not consumed within a specified time frame. Therefore, cut and
packaged of these large fruits would enable consumers to enjoy freshly cut
fruits in a small amount in one-go, avoiding the need for storage and
hence, minimizing wastage. Purchasing the right fruit quantity or size
would enable consumers to also easily monitor their daily fruit intake, and
thus make adjustments concerning their fruit consumption and hence
make better choices in the fruit purchase.
This study also reported that the claims and label determinant plays a
significant role in fruit purchase as it increases confidence and trust among
fruit buyers. An example of claim and label are stickers attached on the
fruits, known as Price Look-Up (PLU), which assists in determining how
fruits are produced (e.g., cultivation without pesticides and harmful chemi-
cals, etc.) (Singh, Kumar, & Poonam, 2014). Therefore, this study recom-
mends placing claims and labels on the fruit to enhance consumers’
confidence and trust. With the increasing fear pertaining to food safety due
to contamination and toxicity in perishables, it is a smart move to place
claims and label on fruits as a move toward eliminating that fear. By doing
so, it would be advantageous to fruits originating from countries that prac-
tice strict quality control and comply with food safety regulation as the sale
of their fruits would intensify. Meanwhile, fruits that originate from
countries facing food safety concerns, the claims and label would assist
consumers identify these fruits easily and make an informed purchasing
decision. Additionally, with the claims and label displayed visibly on the
fruit, wholesalers and retailers would have to take responsible corrective
action should the fruit they sell originates from a country that has been
reported experiencing food safety concerns.
Visual appearance which includes presentation, color and shape of fruit
was also found to be significant toward fruit purchase. Fruits that are
vibrant in color should be displayed well visually in order to appeal to con-
sumers, thereby enticing them to purchase these fruits. According to
Barrett et al. (2010), consumer look at the fruit appearance as an indication
of freshness and taste quality. Leveraging on the fruit presentation, color
and shape in a bundle or package by proper positioning could enhance
their salability. Previous studies suggest that positioning a fruit type among
popular and familiar fruits such as apple and banana (Suntharalingam &
Terano, 2017; Suntharalingam et al., 2015) would enhance their visibility
and accessibility to consumers (Sutton et al., 2019), and, hence, lead to a
purchasing decision. Similar findings were reported by Thorndike, Bright,
Dimond, Fishman, and Levy (2017), in which, proper placement of fresh
produce improve their visibility which resulted in increased fruit purchase.
Additionally, studies by Walmsley, Jenkinson, Saunders, Howard, &
Oyebode (2018) and Sutton et al. (2019) also highlighted that fruits which
were placed strategically at the store entrance lead to increase in fruit pur-
chases as compared to fruits that were placed at the back of the store.
Therefore, placing fruits where it is easily accessible (e.g., front entrance,
side entrance) and visible would lead to higher purchase. Aside fruit
placement, signage (Gamburzew et al., 2016), leaflets and recipe cards

(Suntharalingam & Terano, 2017; Suntharalingam et al., 2015) detailing
fruit type and brief nutrition information, and taste testing are also recom-
mended to draw attention to consumers with the aim to increase fruit pur-
chases (Gamburzew et al., 2016) and consumption (Suntharalingam &
Terano, 2017; Suntharalingam et al., 2015)
Limitations and recommendations

This study was carried out to identify determinants of fruit purchasing
decision among Singaporean consumers. While this study findings limit
generalizations concerning fruit purchasing decision among consumers in
other countries, the findings contribute to the body of knowledge pertain-
ing to consumer behavior and fruits in Asia-Pacific, and hence, tackling the
lack of such studies carried out in this area within this region as reported
by Lim, Tham, M€ uller-Riemenschneider, and Wong (2017). Future research
could be carried out for a wider spectrum of consumers globally especially
among consumers within the Asia-Pacific setting and extend the study to
cover vegetable purchase.
Six fruit characteristics (such as price, aroma, availability, ease of con-
sumption, packaging and pesticide free) among the twenty-eight character-
istics that had low factors loadings in PCA, were dropped and not
discussed further. These study findings show that while these six character-
istics play a crucial role in fruit or perishable purchase intention, they do
not necessarily influence Singaporeans fruit purchase decision, suggesting
that the twenty-two fruit characteristics discussed in this study were found
to be more important. Carrying out similar studies in other geographical
locations might provide similar or varied findings concerning the influence
of these characteristics on fruit purchasing decision. Nonetheless, expand-
ing this study globally would offer a better understanding concerning con-
sumer behavior and fruit purchase.
Conclusion
To remain a relevant player in the fruit sector due to the intensification of
competition among sellers (e.g., grocery store, fruit vendor, wet and night
market, and supermarket, etc.), it is imperative that stakeholders within the
supply chain understand the needs of the market and consumers.
This study compiled fruit characteristics that were unstructured and scat-
tered and classified them into common themes or known as determinants
via PCA. The conceptualized framework that was formulated based on
prior single studies (as discussed in the literature review section) was then
tested using PLS-SEM to establish relationship between the determinants
resulted from PCA with fruit purchasing decision. Findings of this study
depicted that among six determinants, three established significant relation-
ships, i.e., search and experience, claims and label, and visual appearance.
While claims and label, and visual appearance, respectively had a positively
relationship with fruit purchasing decision, search and experience deter-
minant showed an inverse relationship. The latter relationship clearly
depicts that consumers prefer to purchase fruits that they can see, feel and
taste, and as such, this study finding shows that precut fruits are highly
desirable and might lead to a purchasing decision. Claims and label on fruit
offers confidence and trust to consumers, and as such, under the growing
and pressing food safety concerns pertaining to perishables, it is indeed
crucial that fruits have claims and label on them. Doing so, offers consum-
ers the insights on the fruit, its origin and hence, leading consumers to
make an informed purchasing decision. Visual appearance is another deter-
minant that enhances fruit purchasing decision. Presenting fruits by capital-
izing on their shape and color could encourage and contribute to higher
fruit purchases.
Our tested model offers pragmatic approaches and valuable information to
policy makers, producers, sellers and research community concerning fruit
purchase. We believe the findings of this study can be easily adopted and
translated into action to assist in enhancing fruit sale, which could lead to
higher fruit purchases and ultimately, consumption. Carrying out such action
could address the low fruit consumption pattern among the general popula-
tion of Singapore as reported by The Ministry of Health Singapore (2019).
Additionally, the data analysis approach, i.e., PCA and PLS-SEM that
were adopted in this study is among the first to be undertaken in a con-
sumer behavior study on perishables, which we believe, strengthened our
study findings. Our findings also resulted in contributing to the body of
knowledge concerning consumer behavior in the fruits sector, especially
within the Asia-Pacific region. Additionally, in a move toward encouraging
healthy eating, a similar study is proposed to be carried out to gauge vege-
table purchase and consumption. Further, we recommend that the frame-
work that was adopted in this study be utilized to investigate fruit and
vegetable purchasing decisions among consumers within other countries in
the Asia-Pacific region, hence enriching the body of knowledge concerning
this pressing subject, especially within this regional setting, where such
studies are found lacking.
Acknowledgments
Appreciation is extended to Maziah Norman, Nor Farhain Sarmin, Muhamad Faireal
Ahmad, Salmiah Mahnoon, Nur Fazliana Md Noh and Nor Azlina Saari for data collection.
The authors would also like to extend their utmost gratitude to the reviewers of this paper
for offering constructive feedback.
Funding
This research was funded by the Ministry of Agriculture and Agro-Based, Malaysia.
ORCID
Chubashini Suntharalingam http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2630-0082
References
Ahmad, S.N.B., & Juhdi, N. (2010). Organic food: A study on demographic characteristics
and factors influencing purchase intentions among consumers in Klang Valley, Malaysia.
International Journal of Business and Management, 5(2), 105–118. doi:10.5539/ijbm.
v5n2p105
Alemu, M. H., Olsen, S. B., Vedel, S. E., Pambo, K. O., & Owino, V. O. (2017). Combining
product attributes with recommendation and shopping location attributes to assess con-
sumer preferences for insect-based food products. Food Quality and Preference, 55,
45–57. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.08.009
Allende, A., Tomas-Barberan, F. A., & Gil, M. I. (2006). Minimal processing for healthy
traditional foods. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 17(9), 513–519. doi:10.1016/j.tifs.
2006.04.005
Assari, S., & Lankarani, M. (2018). Educational attainment promotes fruit and vegetable
intake for whites but not blacks. J, 1(1), 29–41. doi:10.3390/j1010005
Baek, Y. J., Paik, H. Y., & Shim, J. E. (2014). Association between family structure and
food group intake in children. Nutrition Research and Practice, 8(4), 463–468. doi:10.
4162/nrp.2014.8.4.463
Baker, A. H., & Wardle, J. (2003). Sex differences in fruit and vegetable intake in older
adults. Appetite, 40(3), 269–275. doi:10.1016/S0195-6663(03)00014-X
Barrett, D. M., Beaulieu, J. C., & Shewfelt, R. (2010). Color, flavor, texture, and nutritional
quality of fresh-cut fruits and vegetables: Desirable levels, instrumental and sensory
measurement, and the effects of processing. Critical Reviews in Food Science and
Nutrition, 50(5), 369–389. doi:10.1080/10408391003626322
Bishwajit, G., O’Leary, D. P., Ghosh, S., Sanni, Y., Shangfeng, T., & Zhanchun, F. (2017).
Association between depression and fruit and vegetable consumption among adults in
South Asia. BMC Psychiatry, 17(1), 15. doi:10.1186/s12888-017-1198-1.
Boccaletti, S., & Nardella, M. (2000). Consumer willingness to pay for pesticide-free fresh
fruit and vegetables in Italy. The International Food and Agribusiness Management
Review, 3(3), 297–310. doi:10.1016/S1096-7508(01)00049-0
Bond, C. A., Thilmany, D., & Keeling Bond, J. (2008). Understanding consumer interest in
product and process-based attributes for fresh produce. Agribusiness, 24(2), 231–252. doi:
10.1002/agr.20157
Brunso, K., Fjord, T. A., & Grunert, K. G. (2002). Consumers’ food choice and quality
perception. Working Paper 77. Mapp, The Aarhus School of Business.
Campbell, B. L., Nelson, R. G., Ebel, R. C., Dozier, W. A., Adrian, J. L., & Hockema, B. R.
(2004). Fruit quality characteristics that affect consumer preferences for satsuma mandar-
ins. HortScience, 39(7), 1664–1669. doi:10.21273/HORTSCI.39.7.1664
Caputo, V., Canavari, M., & Nayga, J. R. M. (2012). Valutazione delle preferenze di consu-
matori campani per un sistema di etichettatura generico sulle “food miles”. [Evaluation
of Campania’s consumers preferences for a generic food miles labelling system.
Economia Agro-Alimentare, 14(1), 99–115. doi:10.3280/ECAG2012-001005
Cassady, D., Jetter, K. M., & Culp, J. (2007). Is price a barrier to eating more fruits and
vegetables for low-income families? Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 107(11),
1909–1915. doi:10.1016/j.jada.2007.08.015
Caswell, J. A., Noelke, C. M., & Mojduszka, E. M. (2002). Unifying two frameworks for
analyzing quality and quality assurance for food products. In B. Krissoff, M. Bohman, &
J. A. Caswell (Eds.), Global food trade and consumer demand for quality (pp. 43–61).
Cham: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-5329-5_3
Christensen, T., Denver, S., & Olsen, S. B. (2020). Consumer preferences for organic food
and for the shares of meat and vegetables in an everyday meal. Journal of International
Food & Agribusiness Marketing, 32(3), 234–246. doi:10.1080/08974438.2019.1599758
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Conner, T. S., Brookie, K. L., Carr, A. C., Mainvil, L. A., & Vissers, M. C. (2017). Let them
eat fruit! The effect of fruit and vegetable consumption on psychological well-being in
young adults: A randomized controlled trial. PLoS One, 12(2), e0171206. doi:10.1371/
journal.pone.0171206
Correia, V., & Rola-Rubzen, M. F. (2012). What attributes do consumers seek when buying
vegetables: The case of East Timorese consumers. World Journal of Social Sciences, 2(5),
79–89.
Cranfield, J. A., & Magnusson, E. (2003). Canadian consumer’s willingness-to-pay for pesti-
cide free food products: An ordered probit analysis. International Food and Agribusiness
Management Review, 6(4), 13–30. doi:10.22004/ag.econ.34381
Darby, K. (2006). Consumer preferences for locally-grown berries: A discrete choice model
estimating willingness-to-pay [Unpublished master’s thesis]. The Ohio State University.
Darby, K., Batte, M. T., Ernst, S., & Roe, B. (2008). Decomposing local: A conjoint analysis
of locally produced foods. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 90(2), 476–486.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8276.2007.01111.x
Department of Statistics Singapore. (2018). Key household income trends, 2018. Retrieved
from https://www.singstat.gov.sg/-/media/files/publications/households/pp-s25.pdf
Devine, C. M., Connors, M., Bisogni, C. A., & Sobal, J. (1998). Life-course influences on
fruit and vegetable trajectories: Qualitative analysis of food choices. Journal of Nutrition
Education, 30(6), 361–190. doi:10.1016/S0022-3182(98)70358-9
Diamanti, J., Capocasa, F., Balducci, F., Battino, M., Hancock, J., & Mezzetti, B. (2012).
Increasing strawberry fruit sensorial and nutritional quality using wild and cultivated
germplasm. PLoS One, 7(10), e46470. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0046470
Dimech, M., Caputo, V., & Canavari, M. (2011). Attitudes of Maltese consumers towards
quality in fruit and vegetables in relation to their food-related lifestyles. International
Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 14(4), 1–16. doi:10.22004/ag.econ.117602
Dolgopolova, I., & Teuber, R. (2018). Consumers’ willingness to pay for health benefits in
food products: A meta-analysis. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 40(2),
333–352. doi:10.1093/aepp/ppx036
Drexler, D., Fiala, J., Havlıckova, A., Potůckova, A., & Soucek, M. (2018). The effect of
organic food labels on consumer attention. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 24(4),
441–455. doi:10.1080/10454446.2017.1311815
Ernst, S. C., Batte, M. T., Darby, K., & Worley, C. T. (2006). What matters in consumer
berry preferences: Price? Source? Quality? Journal of Food Distribution Research, 37(1),
1–4. doi:10.22004/ag.econ.8548
Erpen-Dalla Corte, L., Mahmoud, M. L., Moraes, T., Mou, Z., W. Grosser, J., & Dutt, M.
(2019). Development of improved fruit, vegetable, and ornamental crops using the
CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing technique. Plants, 8(12), 601. doi:10.3390/plants8120601
Falk, R. F., & Miller, N. B. (1992). A primer for soft modeling. Akron: University of Akron
Press.
Florax, R. J., Travisi, C. M., & Nijkamp, P. (2005). A meta-analysis of the willingness to
pay for reductions in pesticide risk exposure. European Review of Agricultural Economics,
32(4), 441–467. doi:10.1093/erae/jbi025
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobserv-
able variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. doi:
10.2307/3151312
Fotopoulos, C., & Krystallis, A. (2003). Quality labels as a marketing advantage: The case
of the “PDO Zagora” apples in the Greek market. European Journal of Marketing,
37(10), 1350–1374. doi:10.1108/03090560310487149
Gamburzew, A., Darcel, N., Gazan, R., Dubois, C., Maillot, M., Tome, D., … Darmon, N.
(2016). In-store marketing of inexpensive foods with good nutritional quality in disad-
vantaged neighborhoods: Increased awareness, understanding, and purchasing.
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 13(1), 104. doi:10.
1186/s12966-016-0427-1
Gao, R., & Jiang, Y. (2010). Comparative analysis on self-evaluation of body weight and
actual body mass index for residents aged 18-69 in China. Chinese Journal of Prevention
and Control of Chronic Diseases, 18(5), 454–457.
Goh, C. M. J., Abdin, E., Jeyagurunathan, A., Shafie, S., Sambasivam, R., Zhang, Y. J., …
Subramaniam, M. (2019). Exploring Singapore’s consumption of local fish, vegetables and
fruits, meat and problematic alcohol use as risk factors of depression and subsyndromal
depression in older adults. BMC Geriatrics, 19(1), 161. doi:10.1186/s12877-019-1178-z
Gould, W. A. (1983). Food quality assurance. Westport: AVI Publishing Company.
Govindasamy, R., & Italia, J. (1998). Predicting consumer risk perceptions towards pesticide
residue: A logistic analysis. Applied Economics Letters, 5(12), 793–796. doi:10.1080/
135048598354050
Govindasamy, R., Italia, J., & Liptak, C. (1997). Quality of agricultural produce: Consumer
preferences and perceptions (P Series 36739). New Brunswick: Rutgers University,
Department of Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics. doi:10.22004/ag.econ.36739
Gunden, C., & Thomas, T. (2012). Assessing consumer attitudes towards fresh fruit and
vegetable attributes. Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, 10(2), 85–88.
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–152. doi:10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202
Harker, F. R., Gunson, F. A., & Jaeger, S. R. (2003). The case for fruit quality: An interpret-
ive review of consumer attitudes and preferences for apples. Postharvest Biology and
Technology, 28(3), 333–347.doi:10.1016/S0925-5214(02)00215-6
Health Promotion Board Singapore. (2010). National Nutrition Survey 2010 (Report of
National Nutrition Survey 2010). Retrieved from https://www.hpb.gov.sg/workplace/work-
place-programmes/useful-information-for-organisations/national-reports-and-surveys
Hinton, P., Brownlow, C., McMurray, I., & Cozens, B. (2004). SPSS explained. New York:
Routledge.
Honkanen, P. (2010). Food preference based segments in Russia. Food Quality and
Preference, 21(1), 65–74. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2009.08.005
Horning, M. L., Fulkerson, J. A., Friend, S. E., & Story, M. (2017). Reasons parents buy
prepackaged, processed meals: It is more complicated than “I don’t have time". Journal
of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 49(1), 60–66. doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2016.08.012
Hussin, S. R., Wong, F. Y., & Bojei, J. (2010). Essential quality attributes in fresh produce
purchase by Malaysian consumers. Journal of Agribusiness Marketing, 3, 1–19.
Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 141–151. doi:10.1177/001316446002000116
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31–36. doi:10.
1007/BF02291575
Kappel, F., Fisher-Fleming, B., & Hogue, E. (1996). Fruit characteristics and sensory attributes
of an ideal sweet cherry. HortScience, 31(3), 443–446. doi:10.21273/HORTSCI.31.3.443
Khaled, D., Novas, N., Gazquez, J., Garcia, R., & Manzano-Agugliaro, F. (2015). Fruit and
vegetable quality assessment via dielectric sensing. Sensors, 15(7), 15363–15397. doi:10.
3390/s150715363
Kuhar, A., & Juvancic, L. (2010). Determinants of purchasing behaviour for organic and inte-
grated fruits and vegetables in Slovenia. Agricultural Economics Review, 11(389-2016-23461),
70–83. doi:10.22004/ag.econ.163331
Kumar, N., & Kapoor, S. (2017). Do labels influence purchase decisions of food products?
Study of young consumers of an emerging market. British Food Journal, 119(2),
218–229. doi:10.1108/BFJ-06-2016-0249
Lai, K. H., Cheng, T. E., & Yeung, A. C. (2004). An empirical taxonomy for logistics service
providers. Maritime Economics & Logistics, 6(3), 199–219. doi:10.1057/palgrave.mel.
9100109
Lim, R. B. T., Tham, D. K. T., M€ uller-Riemenschneider, F., & Wong, M. L. (2017). Are
university students in Singapore meeting the international and national recommended
daily servings of fruits and vegetables? Asia-Pacific Journal of Public Health, 29(3),
199–210. doi:10.1177/1010539517696553
Lirn, T. C., Lin, H. W., & Shang, K. C. (2014). Green shipping management capability and
firm performance in the container shipping industry. Maritime Policy & Management,
41(2), 159–175.doi:10.1080/03088839.2013.819132
Lohr, L. (2000). Changing structure of global food consumption and trade: Factors affecting
international demand and trade in organic food products. (WRS-01-1, 67-79). Economic
Research Service/USDA doi:10.22004/ag.econ.16674
Mabiso, A., Sterns, J. A., House, L., & Wysocki, A. F. (2005, July 24–27). Estimating con-
sumers’ willingness-to-pay for country-of-origin labels in fresh apples and tomatoes: A dou-
ble-hurdle probit analysis of American data using factor scores [Paper presentation].
American Association Annual Meeting, Providence, Rhode Island, United States of
America.
Magnusson, E., & Cranfield, J. A. L. (2005). Consumer demand for pesticide free food
products in Canada: A probit analysis. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/
Revue Canadienne D’agroeconomie, 53(1), 67–81. doi:10.1111/j.1744-7976.2005.00354.x
Maskey, R., Fei, J., & Nguyen, H. O. (2018). Use of exploratory factor analysis in maritime
research. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 34(2), 91–111. doi:10.1016/j.ajsl.
2018.06.006
Massaglia, S., Borra, D., Peano, C., Sottile, F., & Merlino, V. M. (2019). Consumer prefer-
ence heterogeneity evaluation in fruit and vegetable purchasing decisions using the
best–worst approach. Foods, 8(7), 266. doi:10.3390/foods8070266
Melis, M., & Barbarossa, I. T. (2017). Taste perception of sweet, sour, salty, bitter, and
umami and changes due to l-arginine supplementation, as a function of genetic ability to
taste 6-n-propylthiouracil. Nutrients, 9(6), 541. doi:10.3390/nu9060541
Mellendick, K., Shanahan, L., Wideman, L., Calkins, S., Keane, S., & Lovelady, C. (2018).
Diets rich in fruits and vegetables are associated with lower cardiovascular disease risk in
adolescents. Nutrients, 10(2), 136. doi:10.3390/nu10020136
Midmore, P., Naspetti, S., Sherwood, A. M., Vairo, D., Wier, M., & Zanoli, R. (2005).
Consumer attitudes to quality and safety of organic and low input foods: A review (Report
of EU-funded project “Improving Quality and Safety and Reduction of Cost in the
European Organic and ‘Low Input’ Food Supply Chains). Aberystwyth, UK: University
of Wales.
Migliore, G., Farina, V., Tinervia, S., Matranga, G., & Schifani, G. (2017). Consumer
interest towards tropical fruit: Factors affecting avocado fruit consumption in Italy.
Agricultural and Food Economics, 5(1), 24. doi:10.1186/s40100-017-0095-8
Miller, S. R., & Knudson, W. A. (2014). Nutrition and cost comparisons of select canned,
frozen, and fresh fruits and vegetables. American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, 8(6),
430–437. doi:10.1177/1559827614522942
Ministry of Health Singapore. (2019, October 30). War on diabetes. https://www.moh.gov.
sg/wodcj.
Moser, R., Raffaelli, R., & Thilmany, D. D. (2011). Consumer preferences for fruit and veg-
etables with credence-based attributes: A review. International Food and Agribusiness
Management Review, 14(2), 121–142. doi:10.22004/AG.ECON.103990
Nagy-Percsi, K., & Fogarassy, C. (2019). Important influencing and decision factors in
organic food purchasing in Hungary. Sustainability, 11(21), 6075. doi:10.3390/
su11216075
Naspetti, S., & Zanoli, R. (2009). Organic food quality and safety perception throughout
Europe. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 15(3), 249–266. doi:10.1080/
10454440902908019
Nelson, P. (1970). Information and consumer behaviour. Journal of Political Economy,
78(2), 311–329. doi:10.1086/259630
Ness, M. R., Ness, M., Brennan, M., Oughton, E., Ritson, C., & Ruto, E. (2010). Modelling
consumer behavioral intentions towards food with implications for marketing quality
low-input and organic food. Food Quality and Preference, 21(1), 100–111. doi:10.1016/j.
foodqual.2009.08.012
Nicklett, E. J., & Kadell, A. R. (2013). Fruit and vegetable intake among older adults: A
scoping review. Maturitas, 75(4), 305–312. doi:10.1016/j.maturitas.2013.05.005
Nik Rozana, N. M. M., Suntharalingam, C., & Othman, M. F. (2017). Competitiveness of
Malaysia’s fruits in the global market: Revealed comparative advantage analysis.
Malaysian Journal of Mathematical Sciences, 11(S), 143–157.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. London: McGraw-Hill.
Nunnally, J., & Bernstein, L. (1994). Psychometric theory. London: McGraw-Hill Higher.
Ocean, N., Howley, P., & Ensor, J. (2019). Lettuce be happy: A longitudinal UK study on
the relationship between fruit and vegetable consumption and well-being. Social Science
& Medicine, 222(February), 335–345. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.12.017
Onozaka, Y., Bunch, D. S., & Larson, D. M. (2006). What exactly are they paying for?
Decomposing the price premium for organic fresh produce of heterogeneous consumers
(Working Paper, June). Davis: Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics,

University of California.
Opara, L. U., & Al-Ani, M. R. (2010). Antioxidant contents of pre-packed fresh-cut versus
whole fruit and vegetables. British Food Journal, 112(8), 797–810. doi:10.1108/
00070701011067424
Payne, M. E., Steck, S. E., George, R. R., & Steffens, D. C. (2012). Fruit, vegetable, and anti-
oxidant intakes are lower in older adults with depression. Journal of the Academy of
Nutrition and Dietetics, 112(12), 2022–2027. doi:10.1016/j.jand.2012.08.026
Peneau, S., Hoehn, E., Roth, H. R., Escher, F., & Nuessli, J. (2006). Importance and con-
sumer perception of freshness of apples. Food Quality and Preference, 17(1–2), 9–19. doi:
10.1016/j.foodqual.2005.05.002
Pollard, J., Kirk, S. F. L., & Cade, J. E. (2002). Factors affecting food choice in relation to
fruit and vegetable intake: A review. Nutrition Research Reviews, 15(2), 373–387. doi:10.
1079/NRR200244
Poole, N. D., Martı ’nez, L. M.-C., & Gimenez, F. V. (2007). Quality perceptions under
evolving information conditions: Implications for diet, health and consumer satisfaction.
Food Policy., 32(2), 175–188. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2006.05.004
Powell, L. M., Zhao, Z., & Wang, Y. (2009). Food prices and fruit and vegetable consump-
tion among young American adults. Health & Place, 15(4), 1064–1070. doi:10.1016/j.
healthplace.2009.05.002
Pr€att€al€a, R., Paalanen, L., Grinberga, D., Helasoja, V., Kasmel, A., & Petkeviciene, J. (2007).
Gender differences in the consumption of meat, fruit and vegetables are similar in
Finland and the Baltic countries. European Journal of Public Health, 17(5), 520–525. doi:
10.1093/eurpub/ckl265
Rahman, R. A., Rezai, G., Mohamed, Z., Shamsudin, M. N., & Sharifuddin, J. (2013).
Malaysia as global halal hub: OIC food manufacturers’ perspective. Journal of
International Food & Agribusiness Marketing, 25(sup1), 154–166. doi:10.1080/08974438.
2013.809672
Rezai, G., Mohamed, Z., & Shamsudin, M.N. (2011). Malaysian consumer’s perceptive
towards purchasing organically produce vegetable. 2nd International Conference on
Business and Economic Research (2nd ICBER 2011), Conference Master Resources.
Rodriguez-Ibeas, R. (2007). Environmental product differentiation and environmental
awareness. Environmental and Resource Economics, 36(2), 237–254. doi:10.1007/s10640-
006-9026-y
Roitner-Schobesberger, B., Darnhofer, I., Somsook, S., & Vogl, C. R. (2008). Consumers’
perception of organic foods in Bangkok, Thailand. Food Policy., 33(2), 112–121. doi:10.
1016/j.foodpol.2007.09.004
Rozin, P. (1996). The socio-cultural context of eating and food choice. In H. L. Meiselman
& H. J. H. MacFie (Eds.), Food choice, acceptance and consumption (pp. 83–104). Cham:
Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-1221-5_2
Ruben, R., Boselie, D., & Lu, H. (2007). Vegetables procurement by Asian supermarkets: A
transaction cost approach. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 12(1),
60–68. doi:10.1108/13598540710724365
Schagen, S. K., Zampeli, V. A., Makrantonaki, E., & Zouboulis, C. C. (2012). Discovering
the link between nutrition and skin aging. Dermato-endocrinology, 4(3), 298–307. doi:10.
4161/derm.22876
Schanes, K., Dobernig, K., & G€ ozet, B. (2018). Food waste matters-A systematic review of
household food waste practices and their policy implications. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 182, 978–991. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.030
Scheerens, J. C. (2001). Phytochemicals and the consumer: Factors affecting fruit and vege-
table consumption and the potential for increasing small fruit in the diet.
HortTechnology, 11(4), 547–556. doi:10.21273/HORTTECH.11.4.547
Scholderer, J., & Grunert, K. G. (2005). Consumers, food and convenience: The long way
from resource constraints to actual consumption patterns. Journal of Economic
Psychology, 26(1), 105–128. doi:10.1016/j.joep.2002.08.001
Shafie, F. A., & Rennie, D. (2012). Consumer perceptions towards organic food. Procedia -
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 49, 360–367. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.07.034
Singaporeans going bananas over fruit from Malaysia [Nation]. (2014, September 3). The
Star. https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2014/09/03/malaysian-fruit-in-singapore/.
Singh, A., Kumar, V., & Poonam, G. H. (2014). Genetically modified food: A review on
mechanism of production and labeling concern. Advances in Plants & Agriculture
Research, 1(4), 121–127. doi:10.15406/apar.2014.01.00020
Slamet, A. S., & Nakayasu, A. (2017). Consumer preferences for traceable fruit and vegeta-
bles and their influencing factor in Indonesia. International Journal of Sustainable Future
for Human Security, 5(1), 47–57. doi:10.24910/jsustain/5.1/4758
Suntharalingam, C., & Terano, R. (2017). Factors influencing consumption decision of fresh
fruits from Malaysia: A case of foreign nationals in Malaysia. International Food
Research Journal, 24(4), 1437–1444.
Suntharalingam, C., Ahmad, T. M. A. T., Ali, A. K., Rusli, R., & Halim, N. A. (2011).
Competitiveness of Malaysia’s fruits in the global agricultural and selected export mar-
kets: Analyses of Revealed Comparative Advantage (RCA) and Comparative Export
Performance (CEP). Economic and Technology Management Review, 6, 1–17.
Suntharalingam, C., Kanapathy, K., Othman, A. S., Dardak, R. A., Shah, M. D. M., Harun,
A., & Ahmad, M. F. (2015). Marketing Malaysian fruits to British consumers: Exploring
influential factors. Economic and Technology Management Review, 10b, 121–133.
Sutton, K., Caldwell, J., Yoshida, S., Thompson, J., & Kuo, T. (2019). Healthy food market-
ing and purchases of fruits and vegetables in large grocery stores. Preventive Medicine
Reports, 14, 100861–100866. doi:10.1016/j.pmedr.2019.100861
Tan, S. C. (2000). Determinants of eating quality in fruit and vegetables. Proceedings of the
Nutrition Society of Australia 24, 183–190.
Tey, Y. S., Suryani, D., Emmy, F. A., & Illisriyani, I. (2009). Food consumption and expen-
ditures in Singapore: Implications to Malaysia’s agricultural exports. International Food
Research Journal, 16(2), 119–126.
Thilmany, D., Bond, C. A., & Bond, J. K. (2008). Going local: Exploring consumer behavior
and motivations for direct food purchases. American Journal of Agricultural Economics,
90(5), 1303–1309. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8276.2008.01221.x
€
Thøgersen, J., & Olander, F. (2002). Human values and the emergence of a sustainable con-
sumption pattern: A panel study. Journal of Economic Psychology, 23(5), 605–630. doi:10.
1016/S0167-4870(02)00120-4
Thompson, R., Barclay, D. W., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). The partial least squares approach
to causal modeling: Personal computer adoption and use as an illustration. Technology
Studies: Special Issue on Research Methodology, 2(2), 284–324.
Thorndike, A. N., Bright, O. J. M., Dimond, M. A., Fishman, R., & Levy, D. E. (2017).
Choice architecture to promote fruit and vegetable purchases by families participating in
the Special Supplemental Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC):
Randomized corner store pilot study. Public Health Nutrition, 20(7), 1297–1305. doi:10.
1017/S1368980016003074
Ulloa, J. O., Jimenez, V., Vargas, A. M., Beaulieu, J. C., Infante, R., & Escalona, V. (2015).
Effect of hot water dips on the quality of fresh-cut Ryan Sun peaches. Idesia (Arica),
33(1), 13–26. doi:10.4067/S0718-34292015000100002
van Nocker, S., & Gardiner, S. E. (2014). Breeding better cultivars, faster: Applications of
new technologies for the rapid deployment of superior horticultural tree crops.
Horticulture Research, 1(1), 1–8. doi:10.1038/hortres.2014.22
Verghese, K., Lewis, H., Lockrey, S., & Williams, H. (2015). Packaging’s role in minimizing
food loss and waste across the supply chain. Packaging Technology and Science, 28(7),
603–620. doi:10.1002/pts.2127
Wadoloswka, L., Babicz-Zielinska, E., & Czarnocinska, J. (2008). Food choice models and
their relation with food preferences and eating frequency in the Polish population:
POFPRES study. Food Policy., 33(2), 122–134.
Wallace, T. C., Bailey, R. L., Blumberg, J. B., Burton-Freeman, B., Chen, C.-Y O., Crowe-
White, K. M., … Wang, D. D. (2020). Fruits, vegetables, and health: A comprehensive
narrative, umbrella review of the science and recommendations for enhanced public
policy to improve intake. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 60(13),
2174–2211. doi:10.1080/10408398.2019.1632258
Walmsley, R., Jenkinson, D., Saunders, I., Howard, T., & Oyebode, O. (2018). Choice archi-
tecture modifies fruit and vegetable purchasing in a university campus grocery store:
Time series modelling of a natural experiment. BMC Public Health, 18(1), 1149. doi:10.
1186/s12889-018-6063-8
Wang, L., Wang, J., & Huo, X. (2019). Consumer’s willingness to pay a premium for
organic fruits in China: A double-hurdle analysis. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, 16(1), 126. doi:10.3390/ijerph16010126
Wang, X., Fan, Z. P., Wang, Y., & Li, M. (2015). A laboratory exploration for multi-period
perishable food pricing. British Food Journal, 117(9), 2214–2233. doi:10.1108/BFJ-12-
2014-0434
Wekeza, S. V., & Sibanda, M. (2019). Factors influencing consumer purchase intentions of
organically grown products in Shelly Centre, Port Shepstone, South Africa. International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(6), 956. doi:10.3390/
ijerph16060956
Wolniczak, I., Caceres-DelAguila, J. A., Maguina, J. L., & Bernabe-Ortiz, A. (2017). Fruits
and vegetables consumption and depressive symptoms: A population-based study in
Peru. PLoS One, 12(10), e0186379. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0186379
World Health Organization. (2020, April 20). Healthy diet. Retrieved August 28, 2020,
from https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/healthy-diet.
Zanoli, R., & Naspetti, S. (2002). Consumer motivations in the purchase of organic food:
A means-end approach. British Food Journal, 104(8), 643–653. doi:10.1108/
00070700210425930
View publication stats

Determinants of Fruit Purchasing Decision Among Singaporean Consumers: An Empirical Study

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Determinants of Fruit Purchasing Decision Among Singaporean Consumers: An Empirical Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Determinants of Fruit Purchasing Decision Among Singaporean Consumers:

Article in Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing · December 2021

Chubashini Suntharalingam Thanuja Rathakrishnan

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wifa20

Determinants of Fruit Purchasing Decision Among

Chubashini Suntharalingam, Thanuja Rathakrishnan & Suhana Safari

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08974438.2021.2006106

Published online: 01 Dec 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Determinants of Fruit Purchasing Decision Among

CONTACT Chubashini Suntharalingam chubalingam@gmail.com Socio-economics, Agribusiness and

cancer, type 2 diabetes and obesity (Mellendick et al., 2018) resulting in

paying close attention on fruit characteristics. Meanwhile, research com-

Experiential eating quality, i.e., flavor include taste (Govindasamy,

important quality traits (Kappel, Fisher-Fleming, & Hogue, 1996).

Although, there are concerns that oxidation of ready-to-eat fruits lead to

Meanwhile, Honkanen (2010) carried out a survey with 1,081 consumers

Study description and results

Table 1. Characteristics of fresh fruits, perishables and food products.

mentioned in the literature discussion, employing the classification method

Results and discussion

Fruit purchase venue

Principal component analysis (PCA)

Table 2. Demographic profile of respondents.

Farmer's market Wholesale

analysis was carried out before conducting PCA. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin

Table 3. Results of PCA on the determinants of fruit purchase.

(determinants) with eigenvalues of more than one with a total of 62.76%

experience, well-being, claims and label, visual appearance, fruit utilization

Figure 2. Conceptual framework.

Table 4. Construct validity.

empirically examine the research model (conceptual framework) as depicted

The measurement model

Table 5. Discriminant validity.

The structural model

Table 6. Path coefficient in the structural model.

countries. As discussed in the literature above, the findings of this study

Figure 3. Structural model.

vegetable. To summarize the findings of the study, the final framework is

placement, signage (Gamburzew et al., 2016), leaflets and recipe cards

Limitations and recommendations

(Working Paper, June). Davis: Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics,

View publication stats

You might also like