Understanding Apple Attribute Preferences of US Consumers: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 6 by Jessie Wu and Version 5 by Meike Rombach.

An encyclopedia entry to enhance the understanding on fresh apples- building on the work of Meike Rombach, David Dean and Tim Baird

Fresh apples are a commonly consumed and widely available product in food markets around the world.

  • US consumers
  • apple
  • attitude

1. Introduction

Apples as a horticultural consumer good are comprised of various product attributes, some of which may have varying levels of importance for consumers. Relevant consumer attributes possessed by fresh apples include the colour of the skin, shape, aroma, apple variety, texture and the length of their shelf life [1][2][3][4]. This latter attribute is particularly important, as even though apples have good storing qualities, they are ultimately perishable [5][6][7]. Colour and appearance are crucial in retail situations as they attract the consumer’s attention. Colour often serves as a cue for fruit quality; consumers commonly attempt to estimate the texture of apples as this gives them an indication of the taste [8]. Extant literature in this area classifies consumers into two main categories: those who prefer firmness, juiciness, and bit of acidity in apples, and those that who like sweeter, but less firm apples [9]. In addition to these product attributes which are inherent to the apple (intrinsic attributes), consumers are also interested in commercial attributes, such as price, packaging, branding, country of origin, and sustainability [10][11][12]. These are linked to the production, distribution, and presentation of apples (extrinsic attributes) [13][14][15][16][17]. Although early studies on horticultural and agricultural products have emphasised the importance of intrinsic attributes for consumers, more recent studies show that for agricultural and horticultural products external attributes are equally important for consumers [18][19][20][21][22]. Consumer choices regarding apple attributes, as well as the willingness to pay for fresh or processed apple products has been intensively studied in the US [23][24][25]; Consumer choice relies on a trade off between bundles of intrinsic and extrinsic product attribute; these include aspects of consumers personal backgrounds, including their sensory preferences and attitudes [26]. However, key-factors which lead to the determination of apple preferences are not as widely studied. In the following sub sections these factors are explained in more detail as they underpin the conceptual framework for this study. US consumers’ objective and subjective knowledge, as well as their sociodemographic backgrounds, their discernment as a buyer and their attitudes towards apple growers are likely to be key factors in determining the importance that US consumers place on physical and commercial apple attributes.

2. Apple Buyer Discernment

For the US food retail industry, as well as for the horticultural industry, it is important to know consumer preferences for new and existing varieties, as well as their ability to distinguish varieties [27]. This allows businesses to offer products that consumers need and want, and enables marketers to differentiate their products from existing ones. Very few studies have focused on the perception of apple varieties and the ability of consumers to distinguish them [27]. Studies which have shown that consumers are necessarily able to distinguish apple varieties have found that mostly neophobia or neophilia determines preference or aversion towards new apple varieties [23][27]. In the US, new varieties are often termed as club varieties [23]. Club varieties are subject to patent-protection. Growers who are part of the club have exclusive rights to produce and market the club variety as stipulated by a licensing contract. This includes both fruit quality and quantity [28]. Common examples of club varieties on the US market are ‘Jazz™’, ‘SnowSweet®’, ‘Sweet Sixteen’, ‘SweeTango®’, ‘Zestar!™’, and ‘Pink Lady®’ [23]. Examples of more traditional varieties are ‘Red’ and ‘Golden Delicious’, ‘Granny Smith’, ‘Fuji’, ‘Honeycrisp’, ‘McIntosh’, ‘Cripps Pink’ [29]. Given that the majority of consumers do not possess a good varietal knowledge, marketing promotions, such as tasting experiences which offer free samples coupled with promotional materials regarding varietals are crucial to improve the ability of consumers to distinguish amongst different varieties [28].

3. Current Insight on Apple Attribute Preferences of US Consumers

The descriptive statistics of the sample are displayed in Table 1. The median respondent was aged between 25 and 34 years, had obtained a bachelor degree, and earned an annual pre-tax income ranging between USD 25,000 to USD 50,000 per year. Additionally, the other scale measured in the model was the objective apple knowledge score, which had a mean of 1.02, a range of between −4 to +5, and a standard deviation of 1.834.
Table 1. Sample description.
  Freq % Median StDev
Table 3. Scale discriminant validity.
Fornell–Larcker Criterion Discerning Apple Buyer Importance of Apple Commercial Attributes Importance of Apple Physical Attributes Attitudes towards US Apple Growers Subjective Apple Knowledge
Age        
Under 21
Discerning Apple Buyer 0.710        
2 0.5  
Importance of Apple Commercial Attributes 
0.638 0.726       21–24 16 4.2    
Importance of Apple Physical Attributes 0.571 0.719 0.737     25–34 215 56.1 ✓ 0.940
35–44 104 27.2    
45–54 27 7.0    
55–64 14 3.7    
65+ 5 1.3  
Attitudes towards US Apple Growers 
Total 383 100    
Education        
  0.466 Did not finish high school 6 1.6  
Subjective Apple Knowledge 0.566 0.546 
H4c: Education -> My Attitudes towards US Apple Growers0.417 0.635   0.126 Finished high school 46 12.0    
2.134 0.033
H4d: Income -> My Attitudes towards US Apple Growers 0.005 0.140 0.889 Attended University 40 10.4    
Bachelors Degree 223 58.2 ✓ 0.927
Postgraduate Degree 68 17.8    
Total 383 100    
Household Annual Income        
USD 0 to 24,999 80 20.9    
USD 25,000 to 49,999 117 30.5 ✓ 1.141
USD 50,000 to 74,999 119 31.1    
USD 75,000 to 99,999 40 10.4    
USD 100,000 or higher 27 7.0    
Total 383 100    
Gender        
The measurement model assessment included the use of reliability to test the model constructs, as well as the use convergent and discriminant validity to conduct further checks. All items achieved a factor loading of well above the minimum of 0.4, indicating their suitable contribution to the scale (see Table 2). Reliability was confirmed by both the Cronbach Alpha and composite reliability scores being above 0.6. Convergent validity was also indicated by AVE scores being higher than 0.5 for all the scales. Given that all indicators were within acceptable ranges, the requirements of construct reliability and validity were considered satisfactory [30].
Table 2. Scale loadings, reliabilities, and convergent validity.
Scales and Items Factor Loadings Cronbach’s Alpha Composite Reliability Average Variance Extracted
Discerning Apple Buyer   0.836 0.877 0.504
How similar are Pink Lady and Cosmic Crisp 0.741
The conceptual framework and its overall structure was tested, resulting in a Goodness of Fit of 0.43 and a Normed Fit Index of 0.676. A Standardised Root Mean Square Residual of 0.074 was also achieved, and this indicated that adequacy of the overall model fit. The explanatory and predictive power of the conceptual model was also tested, and this resulted in average R2/Q2 values of 0.349/0.293, which indicates that the model has overall weak/moderate explanatory power and moderate predictive relevance. However, some parts of the model were found to be stronger than other parts. The R2/Q2 scores of 0.248/0.336 for discerning apple buyers would be considered weak in their explanatory power and moderate in their predictive relevance, but the score of 0.440/0.216 for importance placed on commercial apple attributes, and 0.388/0.247 for importance placed on physical apple attributes indicate weak/moderate levels of explanatory power and small predictive relevance. The score of 0.321/0.372 for attitudes towards US growers would be considered to have moderate explanatory power and medium predictive relevance. The structure of the model was confirmed to be fit for hypothesis testing due to the adequate model fit, the weak to moderate explanatory power, and the weak to medium predictive accuracy. Table 4 and Figure 1 show the results of the hypothesis testing.
Foods 11 00166 g002 550
Figure 1. Results of the conceptual model.
Table 4. Path coefficients and hypothesis testing results.
Hypothesised Relationship Coefficient T Stat p Value
H1a: Objective Apple Knowledge -> Discerning Apple Buyer −0.008 0.191 0.848
     
H1b: Subjective Apple Knowledge -> Discerning Apple Buyer 0.456 11.929
Male
196
51.2
✓
0.501
Female
How similar are Granny Smith and Royal Gala 0.731      
0.000
H2a: Gender -> Discerning Apple Buyer −0.027 0.627 0.530 How similar are Pink Lady and Cripps Pink 0.706       0.503 0.476 0.501 0.743  
187
48.8
H2b: Age -> Discerning Apple Buyer −0.077 1.773 0.076 0.749      
Subjective Apple Knowledge 0.484 0.426 0.360 0.548 0.839  
Heterotrait–Monotrait Ratio  
H2c: Education -> Discerning Apple Buyer 0.068 1.511 0.131 How similar are Zestar! and Sweet Tango 0.718      
    How similar are Fuji and Red Delicious
H2d: Income -> Discerning Apple Buyer −0.054 
H5: Discerning Apple Buyer -> Importance of Apple Physical Attributes  
  0.639
1.206 0.228       0.428 Total
Discerning Apple Buyer         383 100  
How similar are McIntosh and Braeburn  How similar are Red Delicious and Golden Delicious
H3a: Objective Apple Knowledge -> My Attitudes towards US Apple Growers −0.086 2.133 0.033 0.680      
Importance of Apple Commercial Attributes 0.831      
H3b: Subjective Apple Knowledge -> My Attitudes towards US Apple Growers 0.536  Importance of Apple Commercial Attributes
10.553 0.000   0.701 0.817 Importance of Apple Physical Attributes0.527
0.713 1      
H4a: Gender -> My Attitudes towards US Apple Growers −0.006 0.129 0.898 Importance of—Price 0.702      
Attitudes towards US Apple Growers 0.588 Importance of—Labelled as sustainable 0.719      
Importance of—Labelled as traditional varieties such as Royal Gala, Braeburn, Granny Smith 0.735      
Importance of—Labelled as club apples such as Pink lady or Cosmic Crisp 0.747      
7.142 0.000 Importance of Apple Physical Attributes   0.723 0.825 0.543
H6: My Attitudes towards US Apple Growers -> Importance of Apple Physical Attributes 0.286 4.776 0.000 Importance of—Colour of the skin is true to variety 0.773      
H7: Discerning Apple Buyer -> Importance of Apple Commercial Attributes 0.534 9.267  
US Geographical Distribution      
0.000 North-East 83 21.7    
Mid-West 133 34.8    
Importance of—Smell is appealing 0.700    
H8: My Attitudes towards US Apple Growers -> Importance of Apple Commercial Attributes 0.208 
3.586 0.000 Importance of—Texture is soft 0.793      
Importance of—Skin is free of visual blemishes 0.673      
My Attitudes towards US Apple Growers   0.836
H4b: Age -> My Attitudes towards US Apple Growers0.614 0.880 0.552
0.618   0.031 I think that US growers have a longstanding tradition and lots of experience in growing sustainable apples. 0.728     South 90 23.5    
 
I think that US apple growers contribute to the care and maintenance of the landscape 0.678      
0.729 I think that US apple growers make active contributions to preserve biodiversity 0.841      
I think that US apple growers treat land resources responsible 0.707      
I think that social pressure on apple growers should be increased as they are main agents of climate change. 0.665      
I think that US apple growers are environmental conscious 0.821      
Subjective Apple Knowledge   0.860 0.905 0.704 West 77
I understand a lot about apples 0.821      
I am confident in my knowledge of apples 0.810      
Among my friends I am the apple expert 0.882      
I know more about apples than others do 0.841 20.1    
    Total 383 100  
Both the Fornell–Larker criterion and Heterotrait–Monotrait (HTMT) ratios were utilized to test discriminant validity, with the requirements for discriminant validity being met for all of the variable constructs (see Table 3). The square root of each constructs’ AVE was found to be higher than its correlation with other constructs. HTMT ratios are all less than 0.90, with the exception of the HTMT ratio between the importance placed on physical apple attributes and the importance placed on commercial apple attributes (1), which is a higher ratio than that which is recommended. However, this does not represent a problem because the two constructs both measure the apple attribute importance, with one construct being intrinsic and the other extrinsic to the product. Additionally, the largest VIF was 1.338 and the average VIF was 1.158, indicating that there were no problems with multicollinearity [31].
Bold = p < 0.05. The subjective knowledge was the most important factor determining the discernment of buyers and attitudes towards US growers. Objective knowledge was not found to have any impact, while only education as a sociodemographic factor had impact. The discernment as a buyer and the ability to distinguish apple varieties had the greatest impact on the importance that US consumers placed on apple attributes. Additionally, attitudes towards growers impacted the importance consumers placed on intrinsic and extrinsic apple attributes.

References

  1. Harker, F.R.; Gunson, F.A.; Jaeger, S.R. The case for fruit quality: An interpretive review of consumer attitudes, and preferences for apples. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2003, 28, 333–347.
  2. De Hooge, I.E.; Oostindjer, M.; Aschemann-Witzel, J.; Normann, A.; Loose, S.M.; Almli, V.L. This apple is too ugly for me!: Consumer preferences for suboptimal food products in the supermarket and at home. Food Qual. Prefer. 2017, 56, 80–92.
  3. Bolos, L.A.; Lagerkvist, C.J.; Normann, A.; Wendin, K. In the eye of the beholder: Expected and actual liking for apples with visual imperfections. Food Qual. Prefer. 2021, 87, 1–9.
  4. Kelley, K.; Hyde, J.; Travis, J.; Crassweller, R. Assessing consumer preferences of scab-resistant apples: A sensory evaluation. HortTechnology 2010, 20, 885–891.
  5. Onik, J.C.; Wai, S.C.; Li, A.; Lin, Q.; Sun, Q.; Wang, Z.; Duan, Y. Melatonin treatment reduces ethylene production and maintains fruit quality in apple during postharvest storage. Food Chem. 2021, 337, 1–8.
  6. Cofelice, M.; Lopez, F.; Cuomo, F. Quality control of fresh-cut apples after coating application. Foods 2019, 8, 189.
  7. Šernaitė, L.; Rasiukevičiūtė, N.; Valiuškaitė, A. Application of plant extracts to control postharvest gray mold and susceptibility of apple fruits to B. cinerea from different plant hosts. Foods 2020, 9, 1430.
  8. Endrizzi, I.; Aprea, E.; Betta, E.; Charles, M.; Zambanini, J.; Gasperi, F. Investigating the Effect of Artificial Flavours and External Information on Consumer Liking of Apples. Molecules 2019, 24, 4306.
  9. Poles, L.; Gentile, A.; Giuffrida, A.; Valentini, L.; Endrizzi, I.; Aprea, E.; Gasperi, F.; Distefano, G.; Artioli, G.; La Malfa, S.; et al. Role of fruit flesh cell morphology and MdPG1 allelotype in influencing juiciness and texture properties in apple. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2020, 1–10.
  10. Loureiro, M.L.; McCluskey, J.J.; Mittelhammer, R.C. Assessing consumer preferences for organic, eco-labeled, and regular apples. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2001, 404–416. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40987117 (accessed on 15 November 2021).
  11. Fernández-Serrano, P.; Tarancón, P.; Besada, C. Consumer Information Needs and Sensory Label Design for Fresh Fruit Packaging. An Exploratory Study in Spain. Foods 2021, 10, 72.
  12. Denver, S.; Jensen, J.D. Consumer preferences for organically and locally produced apples. Food Qual. Prefer. 2014, 31, 129–134.
  13. Sackett, H.M.; Shupp, R.S.; Tonsor, G.T. Discrete Choice Modeling of Consumer Preferences for Sustainably Produced Steak and Apples. In Presented at the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association (AAEA) Conferences, 2012 AAEA/EAAE Food Environment Symposium, 30–31 May 2012; Tufts University: Boston, MA, USA, 2012.
  14. Moser, R.; Raffaelli, R. Consumer preferences for sustainable production methods in apple purchasing behaviour: A non-hypothetical choice experiment. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2012, 36, 141–148.
  15. Olynk, N.J.; Tonsor, G.T.; Wolf, C.A. Consumer willingness to pay for livestock credence attribute claim verification. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2010, 261–280.
  16. Sackett, H.M.; Shupp, R.; Tonsor, G. Consumer perceptions of sustainable farming practices: A Best-Worst scenario. Agric. Resour. Econ. Rev. 2013, 42, 275–290.
  17. Marette, S.; Disdier, A.C.; Beghin, J.C. A comparison of EU and US consumers’ willingness to pay for gene-edited food: Evidence from apples. Appetite 2021, 159, 1–11.
  18. Meyerding, S.G.; Merz, N. Consumer preferences for organic labels in Germany using the example of apples–Combining choice-based conjoint analysis and eye-tracking measurements. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 181, 772–783.
  19. Wong, R.; Kim, S.; Chung, S.J.; Cho, M.S. Texture preferences of Chinese, Korean and US consumers: A case study with apple and pear dried fruits. Foods 2020, 9, 377.
  20. Wilson, L.; Lusk, J.L. Consumer willingness to pay for redundant food labels. Food Policy 2020, 97, 1–14.
  21. Wang, Q.; Sun, J.; Parsons, R. Consumer preferences and willingness to pay for locally grown organic apples: Evidence from a conjoint study. HortScience 2010, 45, 376–381.
  22. Endrizzi, I.; Torri, L.; Corollaro, M.L.; Demattè, M.L.; Aprea, E.; Charles, M.; Gasperi, F. A conjoint study on apple acceptability: Sensory characteristics and nutritional information. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015, 40, 39–48.
  23. Yue, C.; Tong, C. Consumer preferences and willingness to pay for existing and new apple varieties: Evidence from apple tasting choice experiments. HortTechnology 2011, 21, 376–383.
  24. Oh, C.O.; Herrnstadt, Z.; Howard, P.H. Consumer willingness to pay for bird management practices in fruit crops. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 2015, 39, 782–797.
  25. Kim, S.W.; Brorsen, B.W.; Lusk, J. Not everybody prefers organic food: Unobserved heterogeneity in US consumers’ preference for organic apple and milk. Appl. Econ. Lett. 2018, 25, 9–14.
  26. Holdershaw, J.; Konopka, R. Consumer knowledge of country of origin of fresh food at point of purchase. J. Promot. Manag. 2018, 24, 349–362.
  27. Uribe, R.; Infante, R.; Kusch, C.; Contador, L.; Pacheco, I.; Mesa, K. Do Consumers Evaluate New and Existing Fruit Varieties in the Same Way? Modeling the Role of Search and Experience Intrinsic Attributes. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2020, 26, 521–534.
  28. Asioli, D.; Canavari, M.; Malaguti, L.; Mignani, C. Fruit branding: Exploring factors affecting adoption of the new pear cultivar ‘Angelys’ in Italian large retail. Int. J. Fruit Sci. 2016, 16, 284–300.
  29. US Apple. Apple Varieties. 2021. Available online: https://usapple.org/apple-varieties (accessed on 26 November 2021).
  30. Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM); Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2017.
  31. Goodman, J.K.; Cryder, C.E.; Cheema, A. Data collection in a flat world: The strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 2013, 26, 213–224.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback