Mu...“ - ’.;..,.._...;I..‘....,,.,....,.J._ L37 [Eh-mam a)? k. ! ABSTRACT INVESTIGATION OF CONSUMER BEHAVIOR RESEARCH IN THE AREA OF FOOD AS A BASIS FOR IMPROVED CONSUMER PROTECTION, EDUCATION AND RESEARCH BY France Dufour The purpose of this study was to review consumer :research in the area of food done in the years 1955—1970 in <3rder to determine the state of our knowledge about the consumer and identify areas where more information is needed. Research findings serve as a basis to draw implica— tions for the improvement of consumer protection and edu- cational programs and to formulate guidelines for future research designed to assist the consumer. ’R 32 8 refers to the stimulus that arouses a need often believed to be an unconscious determinant or a "push" to action; R is the response or the observable behavior; and the Black Box is supposed to encompass the mental processes leading to the particular response. At this point, no attempt was made to assess and explain the content Of the Black Box. Subsequent psychological research has concentrated in studying the behavior or process that goes on in the Black Box,_Which content we may call the "intervening variables." MotivatioanCOgnition and Learning For behavioral scientists, motivation, cognition and learning are considered to be the basic psychological factors leading to human behavior. Motivation refers to the needs, drives, urges, desires or wants that initiate behaviors. The different ways used to classify needs or wants have been described in the first section of this chapter. In recent years, scientists inter- ested in consumer behavior have done extensive research on specific secondary or sociogenic needs, such as attitudes, expectations, Opinions, dominance, etc., believed to be important "intervening variables” in the consumption decision. The research done in this area by sociologists has been described in a previous section. We now review some important contributions from the psychologists. Cognitive processes have been emphasized by Bilkey and Bayflxn warren Bilkey (90) postulated that consumer behavior .... ... 33 (or decision) is delineated by four main sets of influences: (l) biogically based needs, drives, and instincts; (2) socio- cultural environment; (3) institutional availability (which could also be listed under environment); and (4) immediate influences. Bilkey applied the concept of Lewin's Field Theory to a study of family expenditures. He hypothesized that the pur- chase decision is determined by valence relationships, the desire for a good being a positive valence while the cost is seen as a negative valence. Whether the purchase will occur depends on the result of weighing positive and negative valences. Bilkey described six important variables involved in the consumer expenditure behavior, four of them may be considered as personal variables while the last two are situational. They are: 1) goals, or the short— or long—term Objectives that the individual aims at or strives for; 2) past experiences, that help determine the way in which the individual interprets events and formulates his judgments; 3) expectations, or subjective probabilities that a particular choice or decision will result in a parti- cular outcome; 4) habits, that relieve consumers of the necessity of giving careful consideration to every purchase; 34 5) past commitments, or constraints of any sort: economic, legal, social; and 6) current prices. Bilkey believed that a sudden change in a fairly constant price affects not only income and alternative opportunities but also attitudes toward what is a “fair price." James Bayton (44), while recognizing the importance of motivational factors as initiators of behaviors, gave more emphasis to cognition and learning. He defined cognition as "the area in which all the mental phenomena (perception, memory, judging, thinking, etc.) are grouped" (44:282). According to him, cognitive processes are purposive--they serve the individual in his attempts to achieve satisfaction of his needs-—and regulatory--they determine the direction and the particular steps taken to attain satisfaction. Bayton was one of the first to describe the process of choice in psychological terms. The process goes as follows: 1) a need is perceived that must be satisfied; 2) a variety of goal-Objects, or alternatives, come into awareness as potential sources of gratification. Some alternatives may be unknown because the subject has no experience with the object; some may be judged irrelevant to the present decision situation; 3) attributes of the goal—objects serve as signs or cues to discriminate and differentiate among them. Bayton defined two kinds of attributes: (l) "stimulus 35 attributes" such as brand name, package, design, color, etc., and (2) "image attributes, perceived by the consumer as its being a prestige item or representing social stigma. These attributes are combined into the consumer's expectations about how the product may satisfy his needs. Generalizations are then made about the similarity of expectations from different goal-objects. 4) Finally, instrumental acts are necessary to buy and consume or utilize the chosen goal-Object. Bayton (44:288) explained that learning occurs when "the consumption or utilization of the goal—object leads to grati- fication of the initiating need,” that is to say reinforce- ment. He maintained that reinforcement is necessary for learning to take place but he also argued that continued re— inforcement may reduce the amount of cognitive activity by developing habits or repeated response patterns. In 1963, Bayton (43) reformulated the stimulus-response paradigm by introducing perception as having the key role in consumer decision, schematically describing the phenomenon as: S—--§-P—-—>-R (S for stimulus, P for perception and R for response). In this model, perception becomes the unifying concept and all other psychological constructs such as motivation, attitudes, learning, are approached through this central 36 organizing theme. Bayton is not concerned here with the process of decision—making (or the steps taken to arrive at a decision) but with the perceptual content in consumer decision-making, in his words (43:1431): ... the substantive mental material (data, information) being acted upon in making the decision. He is interested in "searching for the fundamental parameters involved in this content" (43:1431). The concept of perception is very important to Gestalt psychologists who stressed the fact that every individual perceives the continually changing world as unique and private experiences often very different from the "absolute reality.” What is important for every human being is not the world out— side but the approximation of the reality that becomes his perceptual field. The differences between the "real" world and the "perceptual" world of the individual involve both omissions and distortions and arise in inferences and new perceptions. The organized set of perceptions held by the individual has been called "the Image" by Boulding (3). Developing the image idea and borrowing from the self- theory of Rogers and Combs, Shaffer holds that the self-image, or "the organized conceptual pattern of perceptions the indi- vidual holds of himself" is a "pervading influence on per— ception—~on the meaning imposed upon data as it enters the (perceptual) field" (96:9). According to him, the self image is an "evolving structure with new experience modifying the image but always in terms of the image as it exists at the time of the experience" (96:9). 37 Self-perception and perceptions of the situation are certainly important elements in consumer behavior but they say nothing of the processes involved in the act of choice. In a discussion of Bayton's paper, Joseph Gartner (55:1436) suggested that: Once we understand the processes (of decision-making) by varying content,... we can Observe the end product of the process and from this infer the manner in which content is perceived. The interrelationships of a number of psychological variables have been examined by Walter Woods (76) who sug— gested that consumer and product variables are the two sets Of factors determining the choices made by the consumer. In the category of consumer variables, he included motives, cognitive structure and habit, which are different from individual to individual and are influential in the pro— cess of discrimination among products. Woods sees the market as being composed of: (l) a habit-determined group; (2) a cognitive group—-sensitive to rational claims; (3) a price— cognitive group; (4) an impulse group—-reacting mainly to [physical appeals; (5) a group Of "emotional" reactors; and (6) a group of new consumers not yet stabilized. Woods maintained that maybe as much as 60 percent of the market is habit dominated,"While 20 percent of the de- cisions made result from cognitive behavior. The other 20 percent results from consumer's responses to affective and syuaxolic appeals, which WoOds described as "impulsive" and "irrirtional" behaviors. An important qualification not u. .§,. 38 mentioned by Woods is that every individual, at times, may shift from group to group according to the type of product bought, the mood he or she is in, the immediate influence, the available resources at the moment, etc. Woods' classification of behaviors according to speci- fic product qualities (affective) or the meaning attached to a particular product rather than its function (symbolic) is similar to Bayton's classification of product attributes into stimulus and image attributes. What Woods identified as product variables are not the particular attributes of a good such as size, color, brand, etc. but the "demand character" of the products which may be functional, hedonic or symbolic (prestige, maturity, status and anxiety). Implicit in Woods' classification of consumer and product attributes is the importance of perception on the cognitive structure Of the individual and on his reaction to product appeals. George Katona, who is both a psycholOgist and an econo- mist, has done extensive research on consumer behavior and it is under his leadership that the annual series of Surveys of Consumer Finances was initiated, first by the USDA and then at the Michigan Survey Research Center. In his earlier work, KatOna (l9) emphasized the multi— plicity of motives entering into decisions, some reinforcing one another and some conflicting with one another. He main— tained that it is necessary and feasible to analyze motives, q~u s . u\u\ 39 keeping in mind that it is not enough to list them, but essential to find out about the strength and immediacy of the motives in order to make predictions. While traditional economic theory recognized only one positive motivational force, the maximization of satisfac— tion (utility), psychologicaI theories recognize negative motives as well, such as the reduction of tension and the avoidance of disequilibrium. Studying consumer motivation, Katona concluded that motivation can be strengthened by the presence of positive and negative motives and that highly motivated behavior may arise even without dissatis— faction, for instance in peOple who exhibit a high need for achievement. According to Katona, what seems to be most important to the individual is to achieve his level of aspiratflon. This level of aspiration changes from time to time and it is usually lower than the ideal level but higher than the achieved level, so that people are continually striving to improve the conditions in which they live. Katona believes that aspirations usually grow with achievement and decline with failure. This would explain the strong desire Of rela- tively high-income families to further increase their income 'while low-income families, because of continual frustrations, seem to lack motivation and exhibit an apparent absence of concern for striving toward specific goals. Other important 4O aspects of aspirations are: (1) that they are "reality— tested," that is, dependent of the consumer's situation and ability to buy; and (2) they are influenced by peers and frequently imposed upon the individual from the outside. In contrast to many psychologists who believe that motives are difficult to ascertain because they are elusive and unconscious and consequently argue for the necessity of probing for the hidden motives, Katona maintained that even the superficial answer people give when asked about the "why" Of their behavior may be Of importance, even more so than the hidden motives, because these are often unique cases not to be generalized. Katona prOposed that another fruitful method of discovering motives in addition to asking people directly is to compare the economic characteristics (income, age, liquid-asset holdings, etc.) Of buyers and non-buyers Of a particular item for a given year as well as the attitudes and expectations of the two groups concerning general eco— ruxnic conditions, prices and incomes. Katona did extensive studies of the attitudes of con- :nnners toward income, assets and expenditures. In relation 1x3 income, he suggested that the meaning of a given income is dependent on the situation in which the consumer finds himself: age, number Of dependents, levels of aspirations, past income changes, income expectations and the consumer's position in the income distribution. These three last factors are closely related to Duesenberry's and Friedman's relative- and permanent-income hypotheses. 41 Levels of aspirations are also at work in developing attitudes toward assets. Katona pointed out that there is no absolute limit to the accumulation of a variety of assets—~1iquid assets, investments, inventories—~except the continual conflict between savings and expenditures. Attitudes toward expenditures depend, according to Katona, on past commitments, enabling conditions and pre— cipitating circumstances. Past commitments refer to fixed or prior charges on the household budget; enabling conditions would mean "ability to buy" and are influenced by income (as explained above), taxation, assets and credit avail—- ability; precipitating circumstances are external variables that may trigger or arouse a need for a particular item-— advertising, new invention, etc.-—or produce a problem resolv- able by means of a purchase-—running out of a particularil product, breakdown of an appliance, etc. All along, Katona speaks about attitudes (or subject'sy attributes) because they are the intervening variables through which the other variables are perceived before they influence the act Of choice. Since attitudes are part of the consumer's make-up and the other variables are attributes of the environ— xnent, consumer behavior is seen as the result of the interplay ibetween an individual and his sociO-economic environment. Social variables seem to be overlooked in Katona's paradigm, 'but they are implicit in the importance given to attitudes. ‘We know that attitudes are shaped by past and present economic. 42' social and political factors. Once they become internalized, attitudes have an important role to play in the behavior of the individual. Simon (73:48), comparing theories of decision-making in Economics and the Behavioral Sciences, stated: The work on the formation of expectations represents a significant extension of classical theory. For, instead of taking the environment as a 'given', known to the economic decision-maker, it incorporates in the theory the process of acquiring knowledge about that environment. In doing so, it forces us to include in our model of economic man some of his prOperties as a learning, estimating, searching, information-processing organism. A group Of social psychologists, working on the process of decision-making (without any reference to consumer de- cision) described the phases of the decision process and then attempted to identify relationships among decisionmmaking processes and personality characteristics, using paper and pencil tests with 100 pairs of adults. Brim et a1. (4) focused their research on the evaluation phase—~weighing alternatives-~and on the strategy-selection phase--choosing-— of the decision-making process. Various personality tests were administered and correlated with the decision—making procedures of the individuals studied. Brim and his co» workers defined three explanatory variables: (1) character- istics of the individual; (2) characteristics of the situa- tion; and (3) characteristics resulting from the interaction Of the two. The personality variables studied were: (1) intellectual abilities; (2) motives—-1evel of drive, 43 desire for certainty, twelve enduring personality traits, and unconscious motivational factors; and (3) beliefs: epistemo- logical—-those concerned with characteristics of nature, instrumental, cognitive complexity and dominance. Results of the study showed that people who tend toward dependency will be more Optimistic over outcomes of decisions, will consider fewer such outcomes in evaluating alternatives, and will be less "rational" in their preferential ranking of actions. Some differences in the decision—making process were also found according to social class and sex. The researchers concluded (4:234-235): General values and orientations toward life, together with the cultural background of the respondents, seem to account for more variability in decision-making than the more traditional personality traits.... Verbal intelligence has a negligible relation to de- cision-making process.... Anxiety seems unrelated to whatever cognitive processes are involved in decision-making. The study of problem-solving behavior contributed sig— nificantly to our knowledge of the personality, an important variable in the act of choice. The literature on the subject has been reviewed by Gagne(12) who indicated the following individual differences as having the strongest relationships with problem—solving: (1) amount Of information stored; (2) ease of recall; (3) concept distinction; and (4) fluency Of hypotheses, a very important concept defined as the dif- ference in the facility which people combine rules into new hypotheses. Such concepts as flexibility, rigidity, vertical and lateral thinking and creativity may be important factors 44 in the cognitive processes of the individual as a consumer but no research has yet been done in this area. Motivational Research A consumer research that has become popularly known as motivation research draws extensively from clinical psychol— ogy and contends that needs, drives and motives——conscious or unconscious-~are the key to understanding consumer behavior. Concentrating on the study of the consumer's attributes, researchers involved in motivation research de- veloped a series of techniques: depth and group interviewing, narrative and picture probes, role playing, sentence comple— tion, word association, etc., to probe into the remotest corners of man's mind in order to find reasons for behavior. In many instances, they fail to recognize that, not only the personality of the individual, but also the socio-cultural environment are basic determinants of motivation and cognition. They seemed to ignore the fact that the psychological make-up of an individual is dependent on the societal and cultural values he has internalized through the socialization and acculturation processes. Another flaw of the motivational research results from the assumption or inference that per- sonal motives, whether biological or social, are generally in Operation in all individuals, which is not always true in the case of socially determined motives. Motivation research can be useful to study consumer's response to certain attributes of a product but it has often 45 been overvalued and misused in an attempt to know more about consumer motivation. While the devices and techniques of motivation research have helped determine some conscious and unconscious factors underlying consumer behavior, they have been less useful to study the consumption decision and they have limited use for prediction. Contributions Of Economics In the conventional theories of consumption, psycho— logical and socio—economic factors (other than income and price) were considered to remain constant (a ceteris paribus assumption). The formation of tastes and preferences was assumed to be outside the field of economics, and the sub- ject's and product attributes were completely ignored. The postwar developments brought about new dimensions to consumer behavior research. Income and Consumer Behavior: New Hypotheses Based on the fact that time-series data on ratios of consumption and savings to income did not adequately support Keynes' theory, economists (notably Duesenberry, Brady and Friedman) formulated and tested a "relative-income" hypothe- sis. They postulated and found evidence that one's consump- tion is dependent on actual consumption of others in his group and/or on his own past levels of consumption. 46 Duesenberry argued that imitation and/or emulation govern one's pattern of expenditures and he referred to the "demonstration effect," or the effect Of the use Of a product by one person on the purchase pattern of another. Such a phenomenon implies that preference patterns are not independ- ent between individuals in a group. In Duesenberry's words (9:19): A real understanding of the problem of consumer behavior must begin with a full recognition of the social char— acter of consumption patterns. Milton Friedman and Modigliani, Brumberg and Ando (M—B-A) proposed the "permanent-income hypothesis." They described consumer's expenditures as being related both to past and expected income as well as to current or actual in- come. Friedman (11) identified transitory and permanent components in current income and consumption of a consuming unit: transitory refers to present income and events while permanent represents the expected wealth over the consuming unit's lifetime (discounted to derive present values). Friedman assumed that transitory and permanent income as well as transitory and permanent consumption are not related in a systematic fashion and that permanent consumption has a fixed ratio to permanent income, depending On a variety of factors such as human resources Of the consuming unit, their tastes and preferences, the interest rate, etc. A number of economists have questioned the validity of Friedman's assump— tions. 47 Modigliani, Brumberg and Ando (27) also identified transitory and permanent components in income and consump~ tion but they did not assume that they must necessarily be unrelated. Their basic propositions, on the whole, are similar to Friedman's. Socio-economic Factors Life cycle of the family. Using the family as Opposed to the individual as the consuming unit, David and Morgan investigated the relationship between consumption and the family life cycle. David (8) was primarily concerned with economic factors and he postulated that family composition (age, sex, marital status, expectations, planning horizons and culturally defined needs) at a particular point in time largely determines the household preference function. While lhe did not empirically investigate expectations and planning ihorizons, he studied the size of the family in relation to «consumption of selected durable goods. He found evidence of :significant relationships between family size and such variu ables as frequency and kinds of goods purchased, and the sub- stritution of goods for commercial services. He also found tlmat age and marital status were important factors in the consumption of specific durable goods, like housing and auto- mobiles . Working at the Michigan Survey Research Center, James Morgan (28) investigated family decision—making expenditure; patterns over the entire life cycle of a family using cross 48 section data of families classified according to the eight stages be defined. He found evidence Of sequential pur- chases and of a replacement cycle of durable goods related to specific stages in the life cycle of the family. Other socio-economic factors. Other socio-economic factors studied in relation to consumption have been educa- tion and occupation. Research done in this area pointed out that both factors affect preference for goods, long—run income expectations and attitudes toward savings, income and assets. Morgan (29) and Watts (37) did the most significant studies in this area. From their findings it would seem that the security and stability provided by a better educa- tion (and occupation) result in a greater capacity to plan ahead and a readiness to make commitments and to innovate or "try new things" more willingly. Race and location have been incidentally incorporated into some of the consumer behavior studies but not in a systematic fashion. Ikoutine vs Genuine Decision-Making Another important contribution Of Katona, besides his research on motives, attitudes and expectations, is his dis- txinction between routine behavior and genuine decisions. Katona never questions the consumer's rationality and he firmly believes that the consumer is not ignorant about economic news that is very important or very salient to him. 49 He contends that adaptability, which implies flexibility and learning, is the "prototype of intelligent behavior" (20). Habits are a result Of the consumer's ability to adapt to new situations; they are formed by repetition and are carried out quite automatically. On the other hand, problem— solving behavior is a highly selective process. It is char- acterized: ... by the arousal of a problem or question, by deliber— ation or thinking which involves reorganization in a specific direction, by understanding the requirements of the situation, by weighing alternatives and taking their consequences into consideration, and finally, by choosing among alternative courses of action. (20:140) Genuine decision-making is a relatively rare occurrence; its main alternative is not impulsive but rather habitual behavior; it is usually a derivation from routine behavior following strong changes in motivation or in the environment; and changes due to decision-making tend to be substantial and abrupt. Once made, many decisions—-those involving frequent and :flnaller expenditures-~usually lead to habitual or routine loehavior over a long period of time. Breaking with habitual expenditure behavior may be very difficult when it is neces- sary to give up habitual satisfactions but it is made easier nfluem it Opens the possibility of satisfying further desires. If we relate these characterizations of routine and genuine decision-making to the previous remarks on the per- ceptual field (p. 36) we could say that it is only when new data which are irrelevant to the image or to a set of 50 organized perceptions are observed that habitual behavior is replaced by genuine decision-making. Katona suggested that it is even possible that no genuine decisions are ever made in respect to certain regular expenditures. The individual will simply follow the pattern set by relatives or friends without any deliberation or appraisal of the situation. George Katona described the process of decision-making as a rare Occurrence, used mostly for major purchases and associated to certain personality characteristics and to different precipitating circumstances. Ruby Norris was also concerned with the degree of con- scious deliberation before purchases. She differentiated ‘between short- and long-run theory of consumer demand (34). In the short-run--a period so short that no changes in income and consumption occur--consumer's expenditure patterns may vary in three possible ways: (1) areas where careful weigh- ing is absent-—expenditures are already established by past commitments or goods are so unimportant or low-priced (Wpetty goods") that the consumer does not feel it worthwhile tr) spend time in evaluating alternatives; (2) areas in which careful weighing occurs-—habitually—used goods for which amount to be spent is large enough to influence other expendi- tures; and (3) dynamic residual, or the amount of money left after commitments and habitually-used goods have been bought. In the long-run, Norris believed that commitments are usually carefully revised, estimates of what are "petty goods may also be reascertained and habits, tastes and preferences 51 change significantly. Norris stressed the cultural influ- ences as a major factor affecting long—run changes in the expenditure pattern of the consumer but she did not explain how these changes come about. Shaffer defined the dynamic residual as the amount left after commitments, necessities and repetitively purchased luxuries have been bought (96:31). He maintained that this money left represents "experimental funds" and provides the greatest element of change in the cumulative process of consumption. Such goods and services acquired with the dy- namic residual were not previously known to the consumer and his new experience may influence future purchase pattern in different ways: (1) the consumer's preference pattern may be modified; (2) newly acquired goods or services may become necessities and thus alter future expenditures; (3) new com- mitments may be created that will also affect the future purchase pattern; and (4) the existing bundle of goods is affected by the new acquisitions. Shaffer concluded that the larger the magnitude of the dynamic residual, the greater the potential influence of advertising on consumer choices. Decision-Makingyas a Process Economists as well as psychologists, such as Orville Brim and James Bayton, have worked on the theory and process of decision-making. They suggested that theories of utility and demand could be reformulated by testing a wide variety of individual decision-making behavior. The most significant 52 research in this area was conducted by Clarkson and Burk. (narkson (6:126) suggested that consumer decision-making involves at least five sets of sub—processes: (l) decisions as to what proportion of income will be spent on each cate— gory of commodities over a specific period Of time; (2) de— cisions concerning the use of cash or credit to obtain the good or service; (3) decisions involving choice among alterna- tives within each category of commodities. Some economists still believe that consumers will be motivated by the maxi- mization of utility or finding the best alternative in terms of specific criteria; others suggest a satisficing model, where decision-making is based on search activity to meet certain aspiration levels; (4) another subeprocess will be directed to handling expectations about future variations in a number of variables such as price, assets and income; and (5) the last set of decision processes will help control and evaluate over different periods of time. Clarkson suggested that a theory of decision—making may 'be develoPed from the theory of human problem—solving developed by Newell, Shaw and Simon which explains behavior in terms of a set of basic information processes. These processes involve : (l) A control system consisting of a number of memories which contain symbolized information and are inter- connected by various ordering relations.... (2) A number of primitive information processes, which Operate on the information in the memories.... (3) A perfectly definite set of rules for combining these processes into whole programs of processes.... 6:110) 53 Nicosia (33) developed a scheme integrating behavioral and marketing knowledge and their effect on the consumer decision processes. His framework can be tested by computer simulation but may be confusing because it incorporates a series of decisions by both the firm and the consumer. Nevertheless, further developments of the model may provide useful ways of improving experimental research and marketing theory. Pack (40), studying decisions under uncertainty, described three models of decision-making: l) rational models, where the actual decision made is compared with the Optimal decision determined inde- pendently. This decision theory based on statistics and probabilities is seldom used for family consump— tion decision behavior. 2) irrational models derived from the structure of the person. Back says that: Ideally, if we knew everything about the person, we could predict all his decisions according to these models, just as we can predict all rational decisions if we know the structure of the situation, the payoff, and the probabilities. The problem is that what we know about an individual is a small part of him and not necessarily the part most indicative of his behavior. 3) non-rational models, that apply to situations of subjective uncertainty and individual autonomy. The sources of this model are not mathematical or psycho— dynamic, but rest more on the analysis of experience. 54 Back pointed out that models are idealized situations and that almost every decision is partially rational, irra— tional and non-rational. Each decision is determined jointly by the objective situation, the individual predispositions and the conscious commitment. Other Approaches to Consumer Behavior A theory of consumer efficiency was develOped by Anthony Downs (51). He suggested that consumers are seeking maximum efficiency of consumption and he hypothesized that, in order to do so, consumers try to minimize the basic costs of con- sumption-~in terms of money, time and energy spent. Money costs include not only the price of the good but also the cost of transportation and any income foregone by using time to shop around. Downs believed that consumers regard time as more important than money for low-cost, standardized items; and money more important than time for high—cost items. The relative importance varies depending upon consumer's income, specific prices, degree of standardization and time-pressure, in terms of both the time available and the value attached to leisure. Lincoln Clark, in his book on consumer behavior (5:100), developed a diagram Of the factors affecting consumer choices. Specific stable personality variables such as motives, needs and goals (measurable by T.A.T. or other projective tests) and also situational variables (incentives and constraints of each Of them) and the way they are perceived by the individual 55 are the factors involved in the evaluation of the expected relative utilities of alternatives. In the decision—making process, they function differently according to the mental and psychological make-up Of the individual: his abilities, his generalized habits and attitudes, his defense mechanisms and his abnormal or pathological responses to specific stimuli. The research done by Marguerite Burk on food consumption has been extensive and very significant. A large segment of her work consisted in macroeconomic analysis of United States food consumption trends and patterns, but Burk also devoted much effort and time to studying food consumption behavior and expenditures of specific groups--children, upper-income families--and in developing conceptual frameworks and models to analyze the structure of the food consumption. Burk prOposed a systems approach to studying food eco- nomic behavior of the family (47). She sees the family as Operating a set of systems, one Of which is concerned with the economic functioning of the family. Five subsystems are necessary to the economic functions of the family: 1) Communication and decision—making, which involves planning and control at three different levels. This subsystem coordinates and serves each Of the other four economic subsystems. 2) Development of human capital, to increase knowledge, information and skills; to help clarify values; and to develop buymanship. This development is made 56 possible by formal education and search for relevant information. 3) Consumption, which include food procurement, informa- tion regarding family needs and market possibilities. 4) Production, or the processes necessary to the distri— bution and utilization of foods, i.e., food prepara— tion, home preservation, etc. 5) Storage: inventory management, upkeep, etc. For the systems to Operate efficiently, information and decision-making are necessary at all levels and these are in turn affected by the social, psychological and economic factors described earlier in this chapter. In her study of food expenditures of upper-income fami— lies, Burk utilized a conceptual framework she had developed previously. This framework shows the relationships between factors believed to influence consumption (48). The socio- economic variables are: (1) family structure and organiza— tion; (2) current social placement; (3) mobility history; and (4) economic situation. Two other sociO-economic vari— ables are considered: family value orientation and family life style. A third category of factors related to consump- tion enters from the supply side. Finally, the last category comprises the psychological factors: motivation, biogenic and sociogenic needs, cognition, "consumership,' expecta- tions and attitudes. The combination of all these factors result in such consumer actions as rate Of expenditures for 57 all foods, relationships of food expenditures to total con- sumer expenditures, shares of food groups in total expendi- tures and several types of food buying practices. Contributions of Home Management and Family Economics Home economists with a particular interest in home man~ agement and family economics have done a great deal of research in the general area of decision-making and have emphasized the importance of values, goals and resources in the process of choice among alternatives. Decision-making was initially studied in relation to the total management process (15,32) and it is only in the last 15 or 20 years that research has concentrated on the process or the act of choice. Gross and Crandall (14) were pioneers in this area and their definition of decision- -making as the "crux of management," the core from which depends all other phases of the process, Opened new avenues for research. Paolucci defined the decision-making process as: (l) identification of feasible alternatives--including goals and resources—-; (2) evaluation Of each alternative; and (3) selection of one alternative or mediation of conflicting alternatives. She pointed out the importance of accurate information agg_family participation in order to make con— scious and effective decisions. In her words (70:342): I. 58 Adequate knowledge about the alternatives coupled with participation of family members in the decision—making provides the family with a twofold advantage: (1) im- proved decisions because they are based on more accur— ate information and (2) greater motivation to implement decisions. Magrabi (65) defined decision as a system having as its object the selection of an alternative. The system is com- posed of a set of alternatives characterized by both subjec- tive and objective relationships. The decision—maker, endowed with specific attitudes, skills and predispositions, operates in a circumscribed environment delineated by his own perception of the reality around him. Magrabi and Paolucci both differentiated between the field of choice or the "realm Of possibilities" and the act Of choice or the "processes involved in arriving at a decision." Paolucci suggested differences between central and satel— lite decisions (95), an aspect of decision studied by Plonk for her doctoral dissertation (87). The concept of central and satellite decisions is important because it is related to most of the variables associated with the consumption decision. For instance, the decision of a married woman to seek gainful employment outside the home is a central decision that will bring about a number of satellite decisions in regard to home management practices, purchase of foods, use of public services, etc. It will also affect income, family members and activities in innumerable ways. Personality characteristics of the decision-maker were studied'by Bustrillos (84) and Halliday (85). In addition, 59 Halliday related personality factors to the type Of decision and procedure used to make a particular choice. Theoretical research was generally limited and most of the studies done by home management people concentrated on the different factors involved in specific household deci- sions, i.e., the buying of food, clothing and housing, the use of credit, etc. Factors most often studied were: educa~ tion, income and social class, family life cycle, gainful employment of the wife and mother and the consumption pattern for specific goods and services. Knowledge, preferences, attitudes about products, laws, grades and standards for different commodities were also the subject of some research, but to a lesser extent. Research on resources and the concept of resourcefulness has also a direct bearing on the study of consumer behavior. Resources, as identified by home economists, are an encom- passing term for personality as well as economic variables and the review of literature on consumption demonstrated how important these variables are in the act of choice. The research on values has proceeded in several direc— tions, none of which directly relates to their influence on the consumption decision except in a very general sense. Values have sometimes been confused with needs, incentives or goals and home economists have shown an increasing concern for the clarification of the concept. Further research in this area could contribute significantly to the study of 60 consumer behavior. Scientists interested in the hows and whys of consumption are still baffled by the process of change in tastes and preferences, a phenomenon that might very well be related to the values held by the individual. How do changes come about? What are the most important factors involved in change of tastes and preferences? What are the characteristics of the people most prone to acquire new preferences? Most Of the work done on the diffusion and adoption Of innovations emphasize personal attributes of the individual as important variables related to the way they react to new ideas and techniques. Empathy, leader— ship and cosmOpOliteness are among the important factors described by communication scientists. The relationship between values and change has not been explored extensively despite the fact that values are believed to play an essen- tial role in the process. Home economists, with their con- cern for values as the reason behind individual and family behaviors, should direct their attention to such study. It is one area where they could make a valuable contribution. Research in Consumer Behavior with Emphasis on Food While the previous section was devoted to the study of consumption in general, the following section attempts to briefly review some of the literature on food consumption behavior. Borrowing and develOping concepts from sociology, psychology and economics, scientists and scholars with a 61 particular interest in food and food products have done research in many areas of food consumption. Research in food consumption can be classified into four main categories: 1) Surveys of household food consumption and expendi- tures at the national and/or regional level. 2) Study of consumer's knowledge, Opinions, attitudes and preferences concerning food and food products. 3) Study of one or more aspects of food consumption: food planning, food procurement, food preparation, food preservation and storage, etc. 4) Research on consumer's response to marketing and merchandising techniques as they relate to food and food products. A review of the most significant research in each cate— gory leads to the conclusion that food consumption is affected by economic, psychosocial and merchandising factors. The government studies of food consumption and expendi— tures such as the 1965 Household Food Consumption Survey (77), the study of Food Consumption and Dietary Levels of Households in the United States (78) and the Survey of Con- sumer Expenditures done by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (81); and such studies as the Life Study Of Consumer Expendi- tures (93), the annual Consumer Expenditures Study by the publishers of Supermarketing (98) and the Expenditure Patterns studies conducted by-the National Industrial Conference Board 62 (94) suggest that the key factors responsible‘for variations in the family expenditures for food are: age, income, race, location (regionality, urbanization), stage in the family life cycle and size of the family. Occupation of head and education are also related to expenditures and they have Often been associated in the analysis of findings. Education, particularly, may contribute to an increased awareness and knowledge about nutrition and result in a greater concern for the health of the family members. It may also reduce the number of misconceptions about food and food products. Reports from research show that employment of homemaker is also a factor, but findings are contradictory (as we will see in the analysis of consumer research about foods). Not only total amount spent but also choices among cate— gories of foods are affected by these socio-economic factors. Outside the family or external to it, price, quality and availability of food products are also important factors affecting decisions about food purchases. Gordon Bivens (91) mentioned two additional factors: credit and market structure. Availability of credit for various commodities other than food may have increased the family commitments and reduced the money available for food. On the other hand, if credit plans were widespread and easily available in food stores, the expenditure for food might be someWhat different. Market structure, as it affects competition, prices, quality and availability of goods is another important factor in food consumption choices. 63 In her study of the food consumption decision, Minden incorporated the factors just mentioned above in her approach to consumption decision (86) and suggested a few additional variables: (1) environmental determinants, such as current household inventory of goods, immediate and long-range family goals; (2) nature of the products, such as number and closeness of substitute products and relative degree of necessities; and (3) resource limitations, namely storage facilities at home and community facilities of the marketing area. Preferences, attitudes and Opinions about food and food products seem also to be affected by a number of psycho- logical factors. Motives and needs have been studied more than any other factors in relation to food choices. Shapiro (97) indicated that women shoppers have three basic concerns when shOpping for food: reduce work, please the family and enjoy the process of cooking. Each concern varies from one individual to the next and one is generally prevalent. Following his study of Chicago shoppers, Shapiro classified his sample in three categories: 1) The "work-oriented" women, with a main concern for minimizing the effort involved in food preparation. To this group, which represents 43 percent of the sample, convenience may be a prime factor in their food selection. 2) 'Fhe "peOple-Oriented" women, mainly concerned in 64 pleasing the family members. They represent 40 per- cent of the total. 3) The "food-oriented" women, who just love to cook. Their group, which is 13 percent of the total, will probably be more prone to innovate and try new foods and new recipes. Quality will probably be more im— portant than price in their food purchases. The work-oriented group may increase in the future be- cause of such social changes as: (l) the greater number of women working part- or full-time outside the home or engaged in voluntary outside activities and (2) the diminishing number of people in domestic service. These trends will develop an interest and a need for food products that are worksavers. Gardner (54) and later Marguerite Burk (92) described two very common motives for buying: (1) the striving to be economical and (2) the desire to emulate people of higher status. Burk called "economy-minded" those shoppers whose primary concerns are to buy lows Or sale-priced items; and "reputation-strivers" those shoppers who seek products with established brand names that connote reliability and prestige. Needs, habit and past experience affect the choice among alternatives by widening or restricting the field of choice. How'tfliese factors work has been explained earlier in this chapter. What was said regarding consumption in general will also rue relevant to food consumption. Selected other psycho— logical characteristics like mental flexibility and )vv. ... \ n.- as I... o 65 resistance to sales pressure have also been mentioned as possible variables affecting food purchase decisions. Consumer responses to product attributes, advertising and merchandising techniques have been researched exten— sively by marketing scientists. While we have a bulk of informations about consumers' reactions to physical quali- ties of a food product and to various promotional techniques, Bivens pointed out that we don't know "the relative impor— tance of beauty in food products relative to such elements as price factors, safety factors and convenience factors" (91:44). We also need to investigate further the effects of advertising. Advertising contributes to consumer's knowl- edge about food products but it is also admitted that it creates confusion and that the identification of elements which will result in consumer's satisfaction is clouded by many promotional techniques. How is this to affect the food purchase decision? We do not have an answer yet. Home economists, agricultural economists and marketing scientists working for the government or the industry did a sizeable amount Of research on the food buying and managea ment.pmactices of rural and urban homemakers, young married studemts and elderly, low-income and upper-income housewives, handicapped, etc. The most comprehensive and significant researrm.of the last 15 years in this particular area of food consumption behavior is analyzed in Chapter four. 66 Summary This review of the literature on consumption and con- sumer behavior research is far from exhaustive but it points out to us the complexity of the consumption decision and the infinite number of variables which may influence individual and family behavior. Because of his unlimited wants and the limited amount Of resources available for their satisfaction, the individual (or the family) is faced with the problem of choice between few or many alternatives and he must choose even if his choice is to do nothing. Consumption is one area of behavior where choices have to be made and in this area, like in any other areas of behavior, the decisions made are contingent upon pervasive and numerous conscious and unconscious factors, more or less controllable. The individual consuming unit is involved in a decision problem at a particular time and in a particular place and thus, his locus of action is limited. Further boundaries are set by the psychological dispositions of the decision- maker--physical and social needs, value orientation, immediate and long-range goals, personality traits, beliefs, attitudes, opinions, skills and abilities, expectations, total life experience--and his sociocultural structure-- written laws and rules, unwritten norms and customs, roles, social class, reference groups, etc. 67 These appear to set the frame of reference for the decision. These factors are interrelated and interact with each other, sometimes limiting the field of choice, at other times expanding it. They are not static, even if some of them--values, norms, customs, personality traits—-seem more stable than others. They continually change and shift in a two-way process: they influence the decisions made and, in turn, they are affected by the consequences of the indi— vidual's actions. These personal and cultural determinants are relevant to the decision situation. The decision situation or de- cision context is defined as the particular setting of the decision: type of decision, environmental conditions and circumstances, external stimuli, resource limitations and other constraints. Each and all of these variables will affect the consumption decision: 1) The type of decision will influence the amount of resources (time, energy, skills, etc.) devoted to the search for, the evaluation and the selection of alternatives. 2) Environmental conditions and circumstances-—composi- tion of the consuming unit, current household inventory, nature of the product, institutional availability, social placement, economic situation of the family and Of the economy as a whole, etc.-— will affect the number Of possible alternatives, widening or restricting choices. 68 3) External stimuli-—advertising, marketing and merchan- dising techniques, mass media, etc.--stem from the factors just mentioned and influence the consumption decision by arousing needs, shaping values, providing new facts and informations about products, and so on. 4) Limitations of resources, both human and non—human, as well as constraints influence the field and the act of choice. Human and non—human resources affect the way people perceive and evaluate alternatives and also affect the quantity and the quality of alternatives available to the individual consuming unit. Constraints of any sort—-legal, cultural, social and economic--impose further restrictions and limitations upon the decision. At this point, it can be summarized that all decisions involve a unique individual in a very particular environment at a specific time and place. The outcomes of the decisions are a function Of both the decision—maker and the decision context. Furthermore, the processes used to arrive at a decision, as defined by psychologists and economists, if they are the same for every individual confronted with the act of choice, will also be affected by the decision-maker and the decision context. For instance, the search for and the evalu- ation of alternatives as well as the selection of a course of action will be affected, among other things, by the type of decision, the resources available, the constraints imposed 69 by the environment, by cognition and perception and by the individual's attitudes toward risk and uncertainty. It is evident that this particular classification of variables influencing the consumption decision is one among a variety of ways to clarify the complex aspects of decision- making. Other classifications would serve this purpose as well or better: descriptions and definitions of concepts may be different, i.e., what is called resource by one scien- tist may be classified as attributes or dispositions by another; external stimuli may be described as situational factors, and so on. Despite the fact that approaches to the study of con— sumer behavior may differ or models emphasize some aspects rather than others, every scientist interested in consumer behavior research recognizes the complexity of the process and the need to broaden the research done in this area. Science, industry and consumers, all will benefit in the process. L. .A. Ry. ~I , n-r CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY Research on consumer behavior in the area of food (reviewed for this dissertation) was conducted by the follow— ing organizations: (1) universities; (2) government; and (3) industry. University research includes two categories: (1) studies done by one or more faculty members interested in some par~ ticular aspects of food consumption; and (2) student disser— tations for the completion of a master's or doctoral degree. Government-sponsored research comprises studies done by various departments Of the United States Department of Agri— culture and research published by Agricultural Experiment Stations and Extension Services across the states as well as special projects, i.e., nutrition studies conducted by the Department of Public Health. Commercially-conducted research includes studies done by or for various sectors Of the food industry: manufacturers, retailers, marketing and advertis— ing agencies, magazines, etc. For the purpose of this dissertation, a total of 306 different studies done by these different organizations were reviewed. As evidenced by Table I, more than 80 percent of 70 71 mom mm om oaa as so am Hmuoa as m m Ha m a o madame m H I m N I m m>o>uom moonamaoe me ha I m I am N mhm>uom Ham: mm OH I m m m c OHOUm may cw m30a>uoucH oma ma ha mm mm ha mm mzma>uoucw Hmcomuom OD. S as ..me w. m m qnu 14+e.1 o s . av A. o T? n .4. G 1 T? 0 TI. 3 o w “w m.a .M 1m .m P 9% s Hmuoe nonmomom pmuOOOQOO Summoner sonmmmmm Imaacwouoeeoo pmuomcomqucoecuo>oo anamnm>aoo SHH>MM mom QmBUmqmm Evadmmmm m0 ZOHBdUHmHmmdQU H mqmdfi 72 the studies selected for review were published by the govern— ment and the academic community. The relatively small contribution Of the commercial sector is due to the fact that the findings of most research conducted by business firms are not easily available and if they are, an abridged version is Often offered. Moreover, a sizeable prOportion of this research is published in magazines without any reference to the research design and to the statistical tools used for data analysis. Aside from availability, selection of research to be reviewed was guided by the Objectives of the dissertation and by the definition of some criteria for evaluating the findings reported by the investigators. One of the main concerns of the author was to summarize the actual state of our knowledge on consumer behavior in the area of food. This was considered more important than a thorough critique of every piece of research in this area. Nevertheless, since the organizations sponsoring or directing the research project, the techniques employed to secure the data and the statistical tools used for their analysis are all important factors influencing the results obtained, an attempt was made to make sure of the validity and reliability of the findings reported by examining every piece of research according to the following criteria: 1) Is statement of purpose clearly defined? Are the hypotheses and assumptions clearly stated, if any? What are the limitations of the study? 73 2) What were the sampling methods used? Are they well described? Is the sample representative of the universe studied? Was this verified and how?:' 3) If an instrument or schedule was used to collect the information, has it been tested for validity and reliability? Is the questionnaire adequate to secure relevant data? Was it tested previously and how? 4) Are the statistical techniques appropriate for the purpose Of the study? 5) Are the findings of the study clearly reported? 6) What contributions dOes the research make to our knowledge about consumer behavior? In most instances, only the studies that were satisfac— tory according to these criteria were retained for reviewing. When a piece Of research was found to lack some of the attributes Of "good" research but was reporting information that was not to be secured Otherwise, the findings were in- cluded but mention was made of the shortcomings of the study. Evaluating Different Techniques Used for Investigating Consumer Behavior A number of techniques have been found useful for in- vestigating consumer behavior: personal interviews, mail surveys, telephone surveys and panel studies. Every one of these has advantages as well as shortcomings and a brief statement of the relative merits of these various techniques 74 is in order, since all of them were used in the studies selected for review. Personal Interviews A little over sixty percent of the studies reviewed re— lied on personal interviews for data collection. Most government-sponsored and a majority of university research studies were done by face—to—face contacts while about one- third of the commercially-conducted research utilized the technique. Personal interviews Offer the following advantages: (1) they allow better control of the sample, and (2) more questions can be asked and, as a result, more information can usually be obtained. 0n the other hand, interviews are time—consuming, they tend to be given too hastily and per- sonal bias are Often introduced by the interviewer, especial- ly with questions involving an expression of opinion (42,57). Interviews at the point of purchase were used in some of the research reported in the next chapter. When such a tech- nique is used only to select a sample of respondents that will be interviewed later in a more appropriate setting, the investigator may get the benefits attributed to personal interviews but we can doubt the randomness of such a sample. On the other hand, if interviews in the stores are intended to be the sole means of collecting the required data, not only randomness is questionable but the conditions of the pt ... ... ... u... 75 interview are such that the advantages of the technique are lost for all practical purposes. Mail Surveys Mail surveys represent less than 15 percent of the studies reviewed. They were used mostly in commercially— conducted research and by students working toward a master's degree. Aside from its low cost as compared to personal inter— views, Shaffer (89) sees the following advantages of the mail technique: (1) a wide geographic distribution of respondents is possible; (2) it is useful in reaching specific classes of people; (3) there is no interviewer bias; and (4) no identification of respondents is necessary so that more honest replies can be obtained in certain subject areas. Problems with this technique center around the low return rates and the tendency for mail surveys to exhibit an educa- tion and income bias. Authorities in the field (63,68,75,89) ‘believe that there is present in the response to any mail questionnaire as many as 50 percent or more of the total who .reply to most other questionnaires they receive. Thus the sample can never be called truly "representative" of the uni- ‘verse being sampled. Wallace (75) maintains that mail surveys Should not be used to sample a heterogeneous universe. Telephone Surveys Information collected by telephone surveys constitute only 2 percent of the research reviewed and in half of the 76 cases, telephone surveys were used along with personal inter- views or mail surveys. The technique is useful for the following reasons: (1) economy; (2) rapidity in collecting data and simplicity of the procedure; and (3) ease Of getting interviews with upper-income groups. In addition, biases resulting from the characteristics of the interviewer are minimized and call- backs are easier to handle. On the other hand, disadvantages are many: (1) the rate of refusal is higher than with per- sonal interviews; (2) the questionnaire must necessarily be short and only a restricted amount and type of information can be secured; (3) socio-economic characteristics of the respondent may be hard to determine; and (4) there is no adequate way to handle "not-at-home," "busy" signals and refusals. Panel Studies Panels, by definition, are constituted of a list or group of persons selected for a specific purpose. When applied to consumer research, panels may be of two kinds. In one case, the sample of consumers selected are involved in frequent, regular and continuous reporting of their purchasing behavior. Such a panel is meant to be a longitudinal measure of change and trends. In the other case, panel members are recruited by the investigator for a specific purpose, but once they have fulfilled their task, they are under no Obligation to report on a regular basis. They may be asked again in the 77 future but every one of their contributions is a unique event, no different than if they were interviewed personally at home, by telephone or through the mail. Panels represent approximately thirteen percent Of the studies selected for review. In some cases, they were organ— ized by University researchers1 and lasted from two to ten years, contributing a host of information about behavior and attitude toward food and food products. In other in— stances, they are set up by commercial firms, magazines and newspapers, retailers, etc., and they are used repetitively for a variety of purposes.2 Data collected by these various organizations are Often made available to independent re- searchers (University or government staff members) and most of the Ph.D. and Master's dissertations reporting the use of panels for their research utilized such information. Panels can usually collect more data from a given re— spondent than any other survey techniques and if used over a long period of time, changes with respect to particular variables can be more accurately measured. Moreover, a suc- cession of variables can be introduced into the panel or into portions of the panel and their effect studied in various 1Consumer panels for the specific study of consumer be— havior in the area of food have been organized at Michigan State University, Berkeley, Louisiana State, Raleigh (North Carolina) and in Atlanta. 2Results from the following panels are reported in Chapter IV: Chicago Tribune, Good Housekeeping, National Family Opinion, and government panels. o. so P 1“. I ... - .... ‘ . m’.‘ “‘PB [Dari a In" (I, In C 78 ways. Operating a panel over a long period presents many problems, namely in regard to recruiting panel members; handling mortality, conditioning and reporting biases; and maintaining sufficient cooperation and rapport as to stimu— late accurate response for the duration of the panel. Summarizing Limitations of the Research Reviewed Restrictions inherent to the techniques used to collect the data are only one aspect to consider when evaluating research results. A summary follows of the other limitations that were believed to influence the findings of the studies selected for review. Sampling Size of sample. As a rule, the samples used were suf- ficiently large to be representative of the universe studied. The major exception concerns dissertations done utilizing personal interviews. In these cases, samples were very small and, consequently, generalizations of the findings should be made with reservations . Randomness. It has already been mentioned that random- :ness was questionable in the case of interviews at the point of purchase, but such research was relatively a small per— centage of the total number of studies reviewed. "Convenient" samples, which also limit the generalization of findings, were used by most students at the Master's level and by some 79 investigators working in Agricultural Experiment Station or the Extension Service. Questionnaire or Schedule Used Response variation encountered with different question- naire forms cannot be ascertained but it appears that the layout and the phrasing of the questions and the length of the questionnaire may have influenced the results consider— ably. 1) 2) 3) 4). For instance: Respondents who were given a list of items to choose from usually mentioned more items than respondents who had no choice given and had to think of their answers themselves. Closed-end questions about Opinions, attitudes and knowledge generally elicited more answers than open— end ones. When respondents were asked to rank items-ulst, 2nd, 3rd choice--the answers varied according to the number of choices possible, i.e., items were omitted that might have been included by the respondent if five instead of three choices had been available. The meaning of some of the terms used in the ques- tionnaire--"convenience," "impulse purchase," etc.-— was not always clear or explained. As a result, what the investigator had in mind when he designed the question and when he analyzed the results may have been different than what the respondent was thinking when he gave his answer. 80 In addition, questionnaires sent through the mail Often failed to motivate respondents to answer with care and pre— cision. This was evidenced by the number of items that had to be ignored because of incomplete or useless information. The possibility of biases introduced by the investigator in the case of personal interviews has already been mentioned. Other limitations due to the preparation and/or administra- tion of the questionnaire used for specific studies were listed when reporting results. Analysis of the Results Statistical computations, mostly descriptive, were gen— erally appropriate for the type of research done. Neverthe— less, two comments should be made regarding the association reported between particular consumption behaviors and selected socio-economic characteristics. First, in many instances, no test for significance was administered to measure differences between subjects, which limits the value or the real meaning of the findings. Secondly, factor analysis and/or multiple classification analysis (MCA) should have been used by more investigators for identifying the relative importance of specific sociO-economic characteristics. Such techniques would have provided the researcher with better information concerning both identification and magnitude of relationships between several predictor variables and a dependent variable. Idethods of treating missing information were usually reported in the government-sponsored research and in some 81 university research, whether they were methods applied before any statistics were estimated or adjustments applied after statistical computations. Commercially-conducted research may have used similar methods to adjust for missing dwelling units, non-response, incomplete interviews and incomplete families but information on how the statistical analysis Of the results was made was usually lacking in the studies reviewed. In concluding this chapter, it should be mentioned that the task of comparing findings from studies so different in scope, orientation and design can be as trying as the effort required to reconstruct a broken mosaic or a giant puzzle but it is hoped that the results obtained will add substan- tially to the existing knowledge in the area of consumer behavior in relation to food and food products and provide a basis for improved consumer protection, consumer education and research. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS FROM CONSUMER BEHAVIOR RESEARCH This chapter is concerned with the reports and analyses of more than 300 studies pertinent to consumer behavior research in the area of food. Findings from these studies have been presented under the following sections: I. Motivational Factors Influencing Food Management II. Budgeting and Menu Planning III. Shopping Practices IV. Behavior in the Store V. Attitudes Toward Selected Marketing and Merchan- dising Practices VI. Meal Preparation and Service VII. Knowledge About Food and Nutrition VIII. Summary of Research Reviewed Each section has been organized to present a compila- tion Of research results. Associations or relationships between the behavior studied and selected socio-economic Characteristics were reported, when available. 82 83 Motivational Factors Influencing Food Management Behaviors and attitudes toward food shopping and prepa— ration are affected by how the homemaker perceives her role as the food provider and by what are the goals she has set for herself. Most women are concerned with providing well— balanced nourishing meals that their family will like. Nevertheless, they are often restricted by the income and time at their disposal. Moreover, while some housewives en— joy cooking for family and company, others dislike preparing meals but nonetheless feel obligated to perform as well as possible. As a result, differences observed among homemakers in regard to time pressures and/or attitudes toward food preparation will show in their concern and motivations when shOpping for and preparing food. Several studies have been done to evaluate or determine the key motivational factors in food buying. In an attempt to find how housewives differed in the ways they decide what foods to buy, Trier [287,288]1 asked 242 homemakers repre- senting various income groups to reply to each of 37 state— ments on a 5-point scale. In addition, women were classified according to eight personality traits, eight socio-economic characteristics and role and self-perception.2 Replies were 1[] refer to the "List of Research Analyzed," pp. 290-319. 2Socio-economic variables included: size of family, type of family, age of wife, education of wife, number of working members in the family, occupation of husband, income of family 84 analyzed and factors revealed were as follows (in order of degree of difference in attitude): cost of food, influence from friends, influence from parents, influence from husband, food preparation time, food value, food quality and mass media. These results do not necessarily mean that cost of food is more important than other factors, for example food value, which was in sixth place. They mean only that women differed more in their attitudes toward cost than in their attitudes toward other factors. None of the sociological variables had any significant relationship to cost-consciousness, time—consciousness, time— value and mass media. Better-educated housewives were more likely to be influenced by friends and parents, while hus- bands' influence was positively related to social status. The younger the housewife and the younger her children, the more likely she was to be influenced by her parents; Older homemakers, on the other hand, placed greater stress on quality of food. The more dominating wives were influenced by friends, husbands and mass media. Possibly, as was pointed out by the author, well-educated and dominant wives are more active in their search for food information and more discriminating and jthelligent in their use of it. Non-conformists and percentage of income spent for food. Personality traits were: Idominance, conformity, gregariousness, warmth, emo- tional control, Optimism, self—confidence and orderliness. 85 emphasized the idea of using little time. Housewives ranking high on orderliness and conformity stressed food value. Trier found that wives generally viewed the use Of prepared foods (convenience) as not consistent with their role. It is, therefore, the "non-conformist" who most readily accepts them. Spaeth [266] classified 211 Lansing families into the following categories, according to their Observed and verbal- ized attitudes toward shopping: (1) price—orientation; (2) quality—orientation; (3) convenience—orientation; (4) pre— planning-orientation; (5) information—seeking—orientation; (6) calculation-orientation; (7) other—orientation; (8) parent— orientation; and (9) dominance. Spaeth reported that price, quality and convenience— oriented shopping attitudes were unrelated to per capita income and age of the homemaker. Housewives who scored low in price—orientation also scored low on convenience shopping attitudes. Homemakers highly oriented toward convenience were also highly oriented toward preplanning, information—seeking and calculation. Hudson and Banner [150] utilized the same categories to determine how professionally employed women made their food buying decisions. Results showed that friends and quality 'were the most important factors, followed by preplanning and convenience. Mass media, parents, cost and husband dominance were at the bottom Of the list. Idinden [201] reviewed 200 studies to determine the importance of price, convenience and quality in the selection 86 of foods. She revealed that quality was the most important consideration; price and economy were second; and convenience and time management, third. Minden found that homemakers tended to buy a specific quality of foods according to the intended use. Most homemakers could report on food costs for recent periods even if they had limited knowledge of the prices of individual items. Convenience was more important in the selection of the store. Zehner [335] reported that homemakers' goals were to prepare nutritious meals, get the most "value" from food money spent and provide appealing and satisfying meals for all members of the family. With increased income, women tended to move away from the economic to the more psychologi- cal aspect of food. Mize [202] used 18 statements about food marketing choices to classify the 7,059 homemakers in her study into three groups: (1) the homemaker who buys from habit--habitua1; (2) the homemaker who analyzes needs and finds justifiable reasons for her actions——rational; and (3) the housewife who follows no set patterns of action, often departing from prevailing practices, and who makes decisions rapidly—-innovative. Seventy percent of homemakers were classified as rational, 15 percent as habitual and about the same prOpor- tion as innovative in their approach to making choices about food for household consumption. Age, education, income and marketing knowledge levels were related to behavioral types 87 of homemakers: younger women with more education and income and higher levels of marketing knowledge were more likely to be innovative and rational in their shopping behavior than women over 60 and those with less education and income. Since marketing knowledge was positively related to educa- tion, years of schooling may be the intervening variable. Hoobler in 1959 [144] and Porter et al. in 1961 [226] investigated motivational factors for food buying and meal planning. Homemakers were asked to choose the six state- ments (among sixteen) that corresponded to their most im— portant preoccupations in food shopping. Cost, health and nutrition and selection were most important; family wishes and time preparation were second in importance; appearance, prestige and achievement were third. Porter et al. reported that quality and nutritive value were more important to families with higher income While low-income homemakers were more concerned with saving money on food; however, the difu ferences were not statistically significant. Education and income were inversely related to concern for status and prestige. The Chicago Tribune Survey [1] utilized a scale developed by Shapiro & Associates to measure attitudes toward food shOp— ping. The scale positioned women into one Of the three following categories according to their approach to food preparation: (1) work--concern with avoiding work and reduc- ing effort; (2) people--concern with pleasing friends and 88 family members; and (3) food——enjoyment in the preparation of family meals. Results from the 1958 and 1970 Chicago Tribune surveys showed that cooking orientations have changed in the past decade: Orientation 1958 Percent of Homemakers 1970 43 Work 27 40 People 24 17 Food 49 A number of factors could be responsible for this shift in orientation. The higher standard Of living and the new value found in leisure activities have certainly contributed to a new concern for the good life. Preparing food has be- come an art and evidence Of this fact is found every day in the supermarket offerings, in the gourmet section of most supermarket and chain stores and in the proliferation of cookbooks in the bookstores. Even women in gainful employ- ment have more labor-saving appliances at their disposal and the time element is not as much a problem as one may be tempted to believe. In general, the majority of homemakers expressed satis- faction with their food shopping [56,150,219,272,335] and thought they succeeded in fulfilling the needs of their family. Low-income families said they needed more money to purchase all kinds of foods but generally did a very good job with what they had 'available [15,26,151]. From 35 to 40 per- cent Of the families with medium income said they would 89 increase their expenditures for meats and dairy products if more money was available. Twenty percent Of the upper—income families in the Burk study [35] admitted they would like to buy more and better meats. In time of inflation, homemakers tended to cut more on food than on non—food purchases. Ways of fighting increased food prices were many: watching more carefully for sales and specials, clipping coupons, buying economy sizes, shopping around more often, preparing more dishes at home, cutting on snacks and convenience foods and using less expensive cuts Of meats [182,324]. Budgeting and Menu Planning Attempt to Follow a Budget Expenditures for food take such an important share of the family income that careful planning and food budgeting should be a major concern Of every homemaker. This is not always the case, however. Research findings suggest that from 33 to 80 percent of homemakers make some attempt to follow a budget, with about 30 to 40 percent doing it on a more or less regular basis. In half of the studies reviewed, more than 40 percent, and in some instances, up to 69 percent of the homemakers, did not keep any food records (Table II). Which is not to say that they have no idea at all Of the amount of money spent for food. As a matter of fact, in Minden's study [201], a very high percentage of homemakers, while unable to quote 90 TABLE II PERCENTAGE OF HOMEMAKERS KEEPING A FOOD BUDGETl Study Attempt DO Not Number Usually Sometimes Never To Attempt 84 56.8 43.2 89 33 67 125 31 . 69 174 70 30 210 56.5 43.5 220 37 44 19 244 62.5 260 52 48 265 53 47 300 7 46 47 324 46.4 20.8 32.8 1Additional information about each study tabulated by study numbers in the Appendix. prices of.individua1_items, could report total food costs for recent periods of time. These results led the author to sug- gest that consumers use price as a frame of reference with the total food budget in mind, and also as a means Of making adjustments in spending. There are a wide variety Of approaches to the food bud- get: (1) no attempt at budgeting--cost is no concern, and the homemaker buys whatever is wanted; (2) no fixed budget but general idea of the maximum amount to be spent on food in a given period-~1ong—range planning with flexible limitations; (3) more or less rigid food budget; and (4) spending what is left after paying other necessary bills. _.:I . IIAF‘. . DU. .11 “Luau“ 91 The second approach, general idea of the maximum amount to be spent within a given period, seemed to be most common [84,89,91,210,211,260,335,337]. Several researchers investi— gated various aspects of budgeting. Zehner [335,337] studied the relationship between approach to the food budget and such variables as income and education of homemakers. She re- ported that significantly more women with a higher income and education beyond high school used a flexible and long- range approach while those with less education and a lower income relied on a more formal spending guide. She also studied the husband's attitude toward food expenditures and food buying. Of the households with husbands present (98 per— cent Of the sample), 31 percent of the wives thought their husbands were very interested in food buying decisions; 31 percent believed their husbands were mildly to fairly inter- ested; and 36 percent said their husbands were completely indifferent and did not care about the amount of money spent on food. Income level was the most significant variable: the higher the income, the greater the possibility that home- makers considered their husbands indifferent toward food expenditures. Shaffer [249] found that the approach used to food budgeting significantly influenced the type of purchases and the selection of a store. Findings about relationships between socio-economic variables and whether or not homemakers follow a budget are 92 someWhat contradictory. Ottenhouse [220], Schmalder [244] and Shetler [260] found no significant differences by socio- economic characteristics, but their samples consisted of mothers of senior high school students enrolled in home ecOnomics classes and might not be representative Of the total population. Nevertheless, Shetler pointed to some trends: higher income and more home economics training were associated with less budgeting. Since homemakers having more training in home economics were also the ones who en— joyed a higher income, income may be the intervening vari— able. Lamkin et al. [174], in their study of the food practices Of young families reported the same negative association be— tween income and food budgeting. Moreover, they found a significant relationship between the use of a spending plan and weekly food expenditures. Below a certain level, more homemakers tended to follow some kind of budget. If we assume that the lower the income, the lower the level of expenditures, these results reinforce the association between income and interest in food budgeting. On the other hand, Williams [324] found no consistent pattern between amount spent for groceries and the attempt to follow a budget. Her sample consisted Of young student wives and differed from Lamkin's subjects in many aspects: higher level of education, more home economics training, more wives in gainful employment and younger homemakers. 93 Results of other studies [129,210,260,300] showed the same inconsistent pattern. This suggests the possibility that a multiplicity of factors are, in fact, affecting whether or not the homemaker will follow some kind of spending plan. Meal Planning Planning specific menus before shopping is practiced by less than 40 percent of the homemakers [8,201,219,335]. The general tendency is to buy the food first, sometimes with specific items in mind, then plan menus around the food items purchased. When is the planning done. The majority of homemakers planned their meals on a day-to—day basis, either prior to meal time or at the beginning of the day [8,89,125,211,265, 324,333]. One study [333] reported that younger, better- educated homemakers and those who had studied foods did more advance planning. The reverse was true in the lower-income brackets. Amount and type of planning. The amount of planning and the decisions made as to the foods to be served vary according to the meal and the Occasion. Generally, breakfast is either not planned at all or has evolved into a daily set pattern fixed by family preferences [125,300]. Formal lunch is a thing of the past for a significant number of households and it is mostly served in families with young children. In such cases, family preferences, leftovers, time at hand and routine seem to dictate the type of meals served. 94 Dinner has become the main meal of the day and is usually planned in most of the households. The majority of homemakers plan this meal around meat or a meat substitute and they are more likely, for the Occasion, to spend more time in meal preparation and consider such factors as variety in flavor and texture and "good nutrition." Factors Considered in Meal Planning Investigations of factors considered in menu planning are indeed very limited. However, many researchers studied the factors influencing food buying decisions and since both aspects of food management are closely related and cannot be disassociated (one buys according to plans and/or one plans according to what was bought), findings in this area reveal also the priorities established by the homemaker when feeding her family (Table III). Preferences of the family members seemed to be the number one factor in meal planning. Shaffer [247] investigated con— sumer attitudes toward 157 food items and he reported that the most common reason given for not buying food products was that "someone in the family did not like it." High price was an important reason for not purchasing specific foods such as cream and beefsteak. Motivational factors for meal planning were investigated by Hoobler [144]. Cost, health and nutrition and selection were most important; family wishes and time and preparation pressures were less important; appearance, prestige and achievement were the least important. 95 .ooaono umuwme .Houmowumo>ca an poumommsm no: moauommumom .HOpmmHuno>sH an couscousm mowuomoumow .oucooawcw moo can» OHOE Umuuomou muomeoEon oEomH as e as I am mmm mmm cm mm new mom am so add new mm m mm Hm nmm mam mm mm mam mam ma em «on mom mm mm so mm mm «mm mNH mm mm mm mmm mm mm as mm Cowmom hpaamoo coaumu moam> mo>aumawm madcmummmum umou HmQEdz muoaHm> Immmum mo Hmooauauuoz pom maaemm acoum mmOMIIwEHB moccaum ommucwonmm HmZOHmHomQ OZHNDm QOOh 02¢ OZHZZ¢Am DZQE-OZHBUWmm¢ mmUZmDAmZH HHH mqm¢8 96 In other studies [7,22,83,128,219,292,333], cost and nutritional value occupied still a prominent role, but family likes and dislikes were considered more important. Ease and amount Of preparation, variety in flavor and texture, and season were also frequently mentioned. Bailey [8] found that only 6 percent of the homemakers in her study planned their meals around the "Basic 4" or "Basic 7"; six out of ten used no guide at all but planned according to family prefer— ences and cost. Young et al. [333] reported no significant differences between families of different income levels but Hoobler [144] and Van de Mark [292] found that families with higher income were more concerned with family preferences, health and nutrition, and quality of foods while the low-income group was primarily concerned with cost (keeping within budget limits). In both studies, younger homemakers were more likely to be interested in the amount and ease of preparation. Education was positively associated with con— cern for nutrition and variety in the meals served to the family. Training in or knowledge of nutrition showed a similar pattern. Problems in mealyplanning. Almost 4 out of 10 home- makers acknowledged problems about planning and buying foods for their family. Younger homemakers, who have not developed yet their own routine and better-educated ones probably because of greater expectations, appeared to have more concerns than older homemakers. 97 Problems ranged from getting more variety into meals to suiting family nutritional needs and keeping expenditures for food within certain limits. Motivating family members to eat various foods and adjusting to their likes and dis- likes were also common concerns [70,144,201,303,333]. These findings were substantiated by the desire for help expressed by more than 60 percent of the homemakers in various studies [113,125,144,201,244,292,333]. When asked for suggestions about the kind of information that would be helpful to them, these homemakers showed great interest in the following areas: 1) budgeting and food buying--ways of buying more economically and keeping within the average budget; information on “good" and "best" buys; ways to prepare cheaper cuts of meats; low-cost substitutes; etc. 2) variety in the meals-—help with meal planning, menus and recipes; suggestions for using fancy foods; information about new products; new recipes; etc. 3) nutrition--how to develop better eating habits; information about diets and diet foods; ways to prepare better-balanced meals; etc. 4) food preparation--ideas to prepare specific foods such as salads, vegetables and desserts; cooking information for meats; suggestions for quick meals; time-saving ideas; etc. Minden [201] investigated homemakers' receptiveness to different programs suggested to improve their meal planning. I‘Vfl‘II'WKS- '8'- w- .. no ... .H. (n 98 Generally speaking, ideas about "new and different" foods, food preparation, price and economizing, and selection Of the "right food" were of higher interest to most homemakers than ideas about improving food buying and marketing knowl- edge and nutrition information. All these various approaches but one were of high or medium interest to 74 to 84 percent of the homemakers. Nutrition information was the only approach to be of low interest to almost 50 percent of the sample. When analyzed by socio-economic characteristics, a few differences were found. Price and economizing appealed most to the middle-income group; food preparation and nutrition information were of more interest to women with better educa— tion. Younger homemakers were more receptive to information about nutrition while a higher percentage of Older women in the sample showed less interest in a number of the suggested approaches. Sources of Information About Food Buying and Meal Planning Most homemakers appeared to be interested in food in- formation for various reasons: help with menu planning, aid in shopping, suggestions for food preparation, seasonal in- formation about food products, etc. But the exposure and the media used to gather such information vary considerably among homemakers. Results of research are sometimes contradictory, but this may be due to a number of factors: (1) phrasing or 99 wording of the questions asked; (2) emphasis on some sources of information and omission of others in the questionnaire; (3) number of choices possibIe; and (4) interests of the investigator. Discrepancies between figures obtained are also dependent on the formulation of the question; for example, whether the respondents were choosing their answers from a list of media or sources suggested by the author or whether they had to name the sources used to get food in- formation, without any help from the investigator. Sources of information used by the homemakers. Notwith- standing the restrictions just mentioned On the reliability of the findings, some general trends are evident (Table IV): 1) Family members are the most influential when it comes to deciding what food to buy. As pointed out earlier, their preferences dictate what the homemaker will eventually pur- chase at the food store. Advice and ideas also come from friends and relatives but they are less important than out— side sources, particularly newspapers. 2) Advertisements about food and food products are pOpular, especially newspaper ads which are the primary source of information outside the family. From 30 to 75 percent of the homemakers read food advertisements in newspapers and approximately one out of five are influenced by television or radio commercials. The annual surveys done by Burgoyne Index Incorporated show a 15 percent gain in advertising readership from 1954 to 1965 [243]. Samples, leaflets .VI. ...-.1:- xL nu. 100 TMEEHJ SOURCES OF INFORMATION ABOUT FOOD PLANNING AND/OR SHOPPING1 % of homemakers utilizing d) c .3 -H m m > m c m H >4 (0 H c: O H 'U C. 0 In a) 0) o 0 to O .Q 'U H H m -v-I c: .12 «4 5 c: Q. o. u U 0 5 a; JJH to 660) m g CC CU -:-l 0) €10 0 E 0 -H (>0 H u m x C: O. 09: c: 61> 'd U) w-IE UNJ m JJ 0 «1 mm :o-I >1 'O-v-I 01:: an EU) 0 O >I 0: (II N H Q-IJ O (D 0 CH mic: LII-I r-l .Q 'U U) '60) In -:-I on --I H H 00 .340 00 'H .54 :3 3 O3 01% -r-lr-I 'U 0 O 4J> 08 'HI) Id 0 -IJ (1) 00) m 340 :> It! 4J 4J X0 0 on Q) 0 m z m: z m mu B m m m am up HH A U 8 522 32 16 7 38 8 333 26 18 9 14 22 53 16 4o 24 7 27 21 2 9 14 42 25 382 12 25 28 16 11 4 32 6 35 25 343 18 12 25 10 9 3 26 5 27 27 29 41 18 2 34 75 17 14 35 59 18 4 84 67 62 48 96 62 20 12 3o 18 19 14 23 15 53 89 83 58 50 87 18 122 522 15 27 53 42 38 14 20 31 7 60 11 40 122 393 5 8 45 28 22 18 16 24 7 47 5 25 125 52 25 52 3o 18 4 40 144 60 14 8 1 17 179 62 25 46 18 14 52 34 72 183 35 11 21 16 3 19 6 32 '7 34 210 68 52 51 77 55 25 8 35 32 4o 31 4o 27 53 260 74 50 45 93 49 23 1o 41 29 35 32 32 19 54 2954 292 16 23 17 17 20 3 16 2 30 2954 253 6 17 15 _ 18 18 3 16 3 12 2955 412 8 28 29 19 22 6 2 37 5 41 2955 303 4 10 25 14 14 8 1 35 8 28 1More than one answer possible. Figures rounded. 2White 3Negro 4Alabama 5Georgia 101 distributed by the store or by other agencies, store displays, mail-out coupons and recipes for a specific product or com- modity, are also important for about 25 percent of the home— makers [48,50,223,238,293]. (Percentages might be higher when consumers are probed about one type of advertising only.) 3) Magazine articles and advertisements are a valuable source of information for white, middle-class homemakers; from 25 to 50 percent use them more or less regularly as a source of information for food buying and meal planning. 4) Cookbooks are consulted extensively by about 25 to 50 percent of the homemakers, mostly for menu planning and food preparation. Many homemakers also view them as a "good” source of information for nutrition [185,272,331]. 5) A sizeable number of women rely also on information on food labels and packages for help in food buying and food preparation. 6) Cooking demonstrations, televised or not, are not very popular with the majority of the homemakers and, in most cases, approximately one out of ten mentioned them as pos- sible source Of information, and then only when specifically included in the questionnaire. 7) Many homemakers are aware of the existence of govern- Inent.services concerned with food (Extension Service, Con- :nnner and Marketing Information Program, etc.) but only one out (of four (and sometimes less) mentioned them as a regular source of information. The proportion might actually be 102 higher since a substantial part Of the information released by these agencies is often incOrporated in newspaper articles and in the food section of most weeklies and dailies and homemakers may not be aware of the origin of the information. Several researchers have investigated relationships be- tween socio-economic characteristics and preferences for specific sources of information. Preference for newspaper ads was positively associated with age and education [22,35, 79,119,122,l79,239,249,256,289]. Innovative, white home— makers, suburbanites and families in the middle-income group were also more likely to consult newspaper advertisements than non-white, city dwellers, and both low— and upper— income groups [8,59,79,202,249,295]. Magazine articles, cookbooks, family preferences and friends and relatives were more likely to influence white homemakers with higher edu— cation and income [8,22,25,79,ll9,122,260,289,295]. City dwellers showed greater interest in store circulars and posters than families living in the suburban areas [124]. Non-white, younger homemakers and low—income families used TV and radio ads more extensively than other groups [8,144,159, 239,289,295]. Employment of the wife did not seem to affect preferences for a particular source of information. Evaluating consumer and marketing information pro- ,grmms (CMI). People involved in Consumer and Marketing Information (CMI) Programs are conscious of the fact that sources of information available to consumers are not used to 103 the fullest. Investigations have been made to assess such programs and to evaluate homemakers' attitude toward the services offered. Matthews and Ueland [196,197] investigated the CMI program in Louisville and found that nearly 40 percent of the respondents were never reached by any of the media used regularly in the program (radio, TV, newspaper). Of those ever contacted, 46 percent were reached by one media only. Newspaper was the most popular source of information, with 45 percent ever reached and 30 percent more or less regular readers of the marketing column. Radio and television were listened to or watched occasionally by approximately 20 per— cent of the homemakers. Seven to eight percent only were contacted regularly by these two media. TV programs appeared to have more interest for low—income families. When asked about how much use they made of the information received, fewer homemakers answered affirmatively and newspaper in— formation seemed to be used more often. Use of newspaper information was positively related to education and income. Burgess [34] did an investigation Of the ways consumers in California get their food information. Questionnaires were not geared to any particular extension program but part of them were sent to homemakers enrolled in the Extension program. Results agreed with those Of Matthews and Ueland: most homemakers referred to newspapers for food buying helps and 1:5 to 17 percent also listened to the radio and watched 104 television. The higher percentage obtained in this study may be dependent upon the higher percentage of Extension members in the sample. Borton [27,28] conducted personal interviews in one city and telephone surveys in twelve cities to evaluate consumer use of mass media for food information. He reported that 37 percent of the homemakers interviewed read the newspaper food page daily while 44 percent were occasional readers. Approximately two-thirds of them also read magazines for information about food. Television and radio were far less popular. Magazine and newspaper readership was positively associated with education and income. TV viewing was not significantly related to age, income or education. In an attempt to evaluate the potential of the market- ing program, Borton completed 6,802 telephone surveys in 12 Michigan cities. He found that, on the whole, the program was reaching a little more than half of the homemakers through a combination of all three media. On a weekly basis, somewhat less than one-third of the homemakers were reached by the program. In all cities but one, newspaper was the most popular media of information. In the seven cities where TV programs were presented, from 12 to 50 percent of the homemakers had seen the agent previously, but only 4 to 22 percent had watched the program on the day of the survey. Selected releases of the CMI Program and homemaker's attitudes as well as professional Opinions of 14 respondents 105 toward this type Of information were evaluated by Gillespie [113,114]. She reported that, on the whole, 63 percent of the consumers read the releases as often as once a month and approximately 85 percent found some value in the informa- tion given. Generally speaking, professional respondents and the author were more critical of the releases than were the consumers. Porter et a1. [226,227] and Johnston [159] found differ- ences between sociO-economic characteristics and media pre— ferred for marketing information. Education and income were inversely related to radio listening but there was no con— sistent pattern for television viewing. More urban than rural homemakers were regular readers of newspapers. These investigations of the CMI program in various parts of the country suggest that the majority of homemakers get their food information from newspapers. Radio and television take approximately an equal share of the remainder. As a whole, a sizeable number of consumers are reached by one or more media on a regular or occasional basis but there is evidence that not all of them use the information regularly. Education, income and location appear to be positively associated to newspaper readership but there is no consistent pattern for radio or TV viewing. Type of information wanted. When asked what type of infornmtion they were most interested in [27,28,34,1l3,144, ‘D... “'1'. n so 0.- I..' 'ant. ...- m.~ .4,‘ u... "u '\~ \ a‘. 106 159,292], the majority of homemakers mentioned economic information as their primary concern: how to get good buys, value comparisons, seasonal outlook and prices. Selection of foods in terms of quality, taste and freshness was another important area of interest. Meal planning, food preparation were next on the list. Nutritional information and ways of identifying grades and varieties were less frequently men- tioned. Either consumers are not particularly interested in those aspects of food management or they feel they have satisfactory knowledge in these areas. The section dealing with consumer knowledge about food and food products will show that this is nOt the case. Planning for Shopping Planning for shopping can be done in a number of ways: some homemakers plan their menus in detail for a defined period or plan around specific foods (generally meats) and build menus from stocks of other foods on a meal—to-meal basis; others do not have any definite plan but use the food advertisements available before going to the store to decide about the foods to buy; many homemakers plan in a very general way for enough meat, vegetables and staples to last until the next shopping trip, with our without consideration for the season, the advertised "specials," etc. Needless to say, these different methods are not mutually exclusive and may be used interchangeably; yet, there are some indications tfluat women tend to adopt one method and use it more frequently. 107 Whatever the method or the combination Of methods used, homemakers usually perform one or more Of the following tasks: reading and comparing newspaper ads; preparing a partial or complete list; planning for substitutions; con- sulting food articles in magazines, newspapers and cookbooks; clipping and/or sorting coupOns; etc. The extent of some of these preliminary steps to food shopping is discussed in the following section. Preparing a shopping list. The possibility, exposed in Chapter III, that results from university-sponsored re- search may differ significantly from commercially-sponsored studies seems to find some justification in this particular area of consumer behavior. Results from 34 studies show that, when interviewed by members Of the university community, a much higher proportion of homemakers said they prepared a Ilist before going shopping than when interviewed by investi- gators from the industry. This may be due to a number of factors. More of the university-sponsored studies were done by interviews and direct contacts with the homemakers and it is possible that the respondents tried to favorably impress the investigator. In many of the commercially—sponsored studies, homemakers were interviewed in the store and were asked if they had a list on that particular day, a case which might not be representative of their habitual behavior. Industry-sponsored studies utilized bigger samples for their surveys so the results Obtained may be more reliable. 108 According to 80 percent of the studies reviewed, from 50 to 90 percent of the homemakers prepared a more or less complete shopping list before going shopping (Table V). As shown in the table, the practice varies considerably depending on the group studied and there is no discernible pattern as to whether or not homemakers prepare their list on a regular basis or only occasionally. Homemakers used more than one way to set up their list. Zehner [335] reported that seven out of ten women decided upon half or more of their food items before they reached the store. More than 50 percent planned on supplementing their shopping list at the point of purchase. Harris [125] found evidence of a similar pattern and she also mentioned that, for some homemakers, keeping a running or cumulative list or checking cupboards are usua11neans of preparing their food shopping. Fagot [89] and Peterson [222] reported similar findings. In addition, Peterson found that 38 per- cent of the respondents in her sample always arranged their list according to the layout Of the store in order to save time and energy. An additional 37 percent did so once in a while. Lamkin et al. [174] indicated that most homemakers kept their list general enough so that some decisions could be made at the store, especially for kinds of produce, baked products and snack items. Women who did not make a list said they "had in mind" what they wanted and made other decisions 109 TABLE V PERCENTAGE OF HOMEMAKERS PREPARING A SHOPPING LIST AND TYPE OF LIST PREPARED «IJ a) U) H +1 H H IO U) JJ 0 H D. --I In A 0 F. -H 5 M H m H H £1: (D ID 0 C 0 >1 E H FI 3 H +3 +1 v-I -:-I a.) m 0) >1 ‘0 0 (n H U H v-0 «4 C 'U a. r.‘ --I to a) m 0. H as :1 O H :3 E > E H 4) H O U) 0 0 O «I O 0) GI Q It! D a) Z 0 cu Z 1 66 34 26 48 16 36 53 86 14 72 19 71 10 84 70.4 19.2 10.4 95 70 30 112 73 19 8 121 331 121 502 125 66 33 ' 1 144 87 13 146 36 64 160 60 40 174 52 20 28 179 52 18 30 195 65 35 210 40.2 23.1 16.7 20 220 40.2 37.4 22.4 222 64 31 5 244 47 31.5 21.5 260 66 34 261 35 50 15 265 75 25 272 44 38.1 17.9 273 71 29 279 37.4 62.6 283 45.1 54.9 324 72.4 14.6 13 335 77 22 1 1White 2Negro 110 in the store as well. An investigation of consumers in Milwaukee and St. Louis [95] showed that shOpping lists were non-restrictive and mainly a cOllection of basic, needed items. Approximately 15 percent of the respondents said that their list was restrictive. This fact would suggest that an overwhelming majority Of homemakers are prone to some decisionemaking in the store. Of the 66 percent of respondents in the Chicago Tribune survey [1] who reported using a shopping list, 37 percent filled their list as items were used in the home; 26 percent listed the items needed before going shopping; 25 percent consulted the ads to make their list and sometimes brought the ad to the store; and 22 percent supplemented their list by decisions in the store. (One or more answers were given by the respondents.) Positive relationships between education and income and the use of a list were reported by many researchers [1,147, 174,201,210,220,222,244,273,335]. Race and occupation of the head of the household seemed also to be related to the use Of a shopping list: families in which the head is white and is engaged in a white-collar or a professional Occupa— tion were more likely to use a list than non-white and blue- collars and laborers. Age and place of residence did not show a consistent pattern. Reading newspaper ads. Since newspaper advertising was named more often than any other printed media as a source Of 111 information for food buying decisions, it appears that home- makers are avid readers of newspaper ads when planning their food shopping. Results of the majority of studies concerned with this area of consumer behavior confirm the fact that 50 to 75 percent of homemakers read newspaper ads before going shopping [1,14,59,179,184,249,285]. There are a few excep— tions to this general consensus, however. In one study, only 25 percent of the homemakers performed this pre-shopping task; but the sample consisted of student wives who, for the most part, did not receive a newspaper regularly [188]. The Seventh DuPont Consumer Buying Habits Study [283] showed that only 3 out Of 10 women checked newspaper ads before shopping. 0n the other hand, the latest consumer survey by the Chicago Tribune [1] revealed that 95 percent of the consumers inter— viewed did read the food ads, the greater majority of them on a regular basis. Newspaper advertisement pages are consulted extensively. Stubbs [273] found that seven out of ten of the ad-readers in her sample read from one to three newspaper ads regularly; one out of two read three or more; 7 percent read all grocery ads available. The average number Of ads read per ad-reeding shopper was 2.4 to 2.9 (depending on the city) in the 1966 survey by Burgoyne Index Incorporated [285]. The same survey also revealed that 50 percent of the ad-reading shoppers read 3 or more different store ads before going shopping . 112 Reading of newspaper advertisements contributed signifi— cantly to food buying decisions. Shaffer [249] interviewed 1,200 urban homemakers and reported that 45 percent of his sample believed they were influenced by newspaper ads in what they bought and 30 percent in yhggg they shopped. Among the ad-readers, the percentages were 72 and 49 percent, respectively. Homemakers used the newspaper ads in a variety of ways: to check "best buys" and "specials“ at their usual shopping place; to compare prices between stores; to prepare their shopping list; to decide which meats to buy; to find meal suggestions; to clip food coupons when available, etc. Shopping around was often in direct relationship to newspaper ads readership [1,59,147,184,188,201,222,273]. Few investigators have studied associations between newspaper ad reading and socio-economic characteristics. Trends seemed to indicate that homemakers over 40 years of age, low- or middle-income families and women with larger households were more likely to be regular ad-readers [1,147, 179,249]. Education and home economics training showed no consistent pattern. No mentiOn was made of other character- istics in the studies reviewed. Kohls and Britney [163] found a significant relationship between reading food ads and general orientation of home- Immkers toward food buying: 'those who put more emphasis on pricerdid.read food advertisements more often and more :r‘ Cub ' t ...I a... wt.- 1... “V § . \ l “ I“" ‘, 4“- F I \‘. .. u .I .‘x ‘ - \u n . s IO] 1). 113 extensively; less reading was correlated with more concern for convenience and/or quality. The investigators pointed out, however, that these results may just show that women concerned with prices read the food ads as a logical means to get their information. Shopping Practices Who Does Grocery Shopping The wife generally takes responsibility for grocery shopping. Findings of 29 studies revealed that shopping trips for food are made by women alone in 50 to 90 percent of the cases (see Table VI).- The proportion is higher for homemakers residing in urban or suburban areas than for rural women [125,146,159,205,226]. More employed than non-employed women tend to shOp alone [8,125] and the higher the income of the family the higher the possibility that the homemaker assumes total responsibility for food shopping [35,146]. Children or other members of the family often accompany the homemaker but they seldom do the shopping by themselves. Hquahds do shop alone sometimes but they are more likely to accompany their wives, especially in young and middle-income families [128,146,201,226]. Negro husbands shop alone more Often than white husbands [8,121,146] whether in urban or rural areas . iEducation as an influential factor has been ignored in most of the studies reviewed. 114 TABLE V I WHO DOES GROCERY SHOPPING1 Study Percentage Number Wife Husband Both Other 8 73 10 16 1 26 57 24 13 6 35 75 25 53 44 14 44 77 67 12 89 69 2 14 15 121 50 25 125 90 4 6 128 50 10 40 144 38 9 25 28 146 69 16 15 159 94 6 160 60 32 8 174 76 9 15 188 25 7.5 67.5 195 74 14 8 4 204 55 404 205 63 15 10 12 219 40 37 23 220 66.6 8.6 24.8 222 71 19 10 226 892 4 6 l 226 823 2 14 2 253 68 l6 l3 3 261 65 14 20 l 272 71 3 26 273 91 4 5 279 54.7 10.5 8.6 26.2 333 64 9 17 10 tMore than one choice possible 2Urban 3Rural “With children—-60% if no children. 115 Frequency of Shopping Findings of many studies are confusing, mainly because of the wording of the question asked the subjects partici- pating in the studies. In some instances, the researcher defined clearly the categories and choices were numerous (once a week, twice, three times, more, etc.) but most of the time categories were more encompassing, which makes com- pilation of the results somewhat difficult. It is also possible that, in some cases, findings were distorted by the type of study. For example, when homemakers participating in a study about meats, dairy or egg products are asked about their general shopping practices, they might give their answer in terms of these particular products rather than for their food shopping as a whole. Some peculiar answers seem to corroborate this fact. Generally, once-a-week shopping was most common for about 50 percent of the homemakers. However, large groups of homemakers shopped two or three times a week, mostly to supplement their major trip, and a sizeable number did not appear to follow any particular pattern. The series of annual studies of supermarket shoppers conducted since 1954 by Burgoyne Index Incorporated of Cincinnati point to a trend toward more frequent shopping (Table VII). Schapker [243] attributes this change to a number of factors: (1) introduction Of early-week advertising; (2) Imeekrday evenings and Sunday Openings; (3) multiple-car 116 .moma .umnouoo .ommoHQO .xuow 3oz ..OCH xOOGH ocmomusm .mnomoosm quHOEHOQOm mo hosum assess Sana one Eoum Ooummom "condom I m m N N c N 0 hot mum>m I n n n o o c c #003 m mosey O>wm no Hoom OH OH ma ma 4H NA NA OH x003 6 mafia» mouse mN mN ON 4N 4N mN mN ma #003 m OOH3B no no me am mm Hm mm No Emma no #003 m coco mama some moms «was moms moms Hood «has moans meanoosm no mucosomnm whomaonm evxumEHomom mo Ommvsooumm mBmMmdzmmmDm OB mmHmB OZHmmOmm mo NUZWDOmmm ZH QZMmB HH> mqmdfi 117 ownership; and (4) games and contests related to number of visits to the store. It is also possible that the burgeoning of discount stores has changed food shOpping patterns significantly. Visits to the discount stores have become a new way for the homemaker to occupy her spare time and she usually comes out of the store with additional food items in her shopping bag. Bishop and Brown [24], investigating factors associated with grocery shopping behavior, found that frequency of trips was significantly related to the location of the store. There are some indications in the studies reviewed that homemakers with larger families and those who live in larger cities shop more Often [35,59,201,226,260] while shOpping is less frequent when the wife is employed outside the home [8,35,152,l99,201] and when she has better and more storage facilities [75,174,201]. There was no evidence of a significant relationship between frequency of shopping trips and income; however, average expenditures for shopping trips was inversely re- lated to shopping frequency. Age of the homemaker did not appear to be an important factor, but research in this area is too small to draw any valid conclusions. Timing of Shopping Trips Time of week. According to the studies reviewed, home- makers do most of their food shopping during the last part ofthe week, with Friday and Saturday the most popular days. 118 These findings are also supported by Greenbaum's and Ponder's analysis of sales in nine Ohio supermarkets [116,225]. In recent years, the number of Wednesday shoppers has increased noticeably and there are indications that the distribution of double trading stamps on that particular day in many parts of the country is the reason for such a change. When given the choice (in the design of the question— naire), from 4 to 37 percent of the homemakers indicated no preference as to the days most favored for food shopping. One longitudinal study [253] indicated that there may be a trend away from week-end shOpping in favor of the first part of the week. The main reasons respondents shop during the early part of the week are "less crowded stores" and "better quality" [1,46,226]; shoppers who prefer Thursday, Friday or Saturday do so for a variety of reasons; "payday," "stock— up for the week-end," "more time available,’ "week-end specials," etc. [1,46,226]. A very small percentage of homemakers go food shopping on Sundays. Reasons for such a behavior have not been in- vestigated extensively. Surveys conducted in Detroit by the University of Michigan [278] and annual studies by the Burgoyne Index Inc. Company [285] revealed that more than 50 percent of the sample felt that it was wrong to do business on Sunday. In the Detroit study, one—third even wanted to mauait illegal. Opposition to Sunday openings seemed to hmmease with age and church membership and decreased with higher education and income. 'g- u n O n o“: h L i 5“ .- x” ‘a 4 p... n ! >‘ V I 119 Large, young families with full-time homemakers as well as suburban dwellers tend to shop in the middle Of the week while city dwellers, older families and families with an em- ployed woman concentrate most of their shopping on Fridays and Saturdays [59,128,201,324]. Burk, in her study of upper- income families [35], found associations between shopping early in the week and such factors as higher social position and a high level of education of the wife. Young medium—size families also tended to fit this pattern. Time of day. All but one Of the studies reporting on preferences for shopping at a particular time of day found that 23 to 35 percent of the homemakers do not favor any particular period of the day and shop at their convenience. However, the majority of homemakers indicated some prefer- ences: from 14 to 67 percent would rather shop in the morn— ing; 20 to 56 would prefer the afternoon; 5 to 32, the even- ing hours. Mealtime hours are the least preferred time, for Obvious reasons. These findings partly agree with Greenbaum's results [116]. In his economic analysis of consumer shopping patterns in five supermarkets, he found that during the first five business days of the week, peak sales generally occurred ibetween 4:00 and 7:00 p.m. No mention was made of the peak hours for Saturdays. Motives vary for the choice of a particular time: rmarning shoppers enjoy the less-crowded store while evening shoppers have to shop at night because they work during the day'cor do not have access to a car at any other time [46]. 120 Burk [35] found evidence that the three factors most related to time of shopping are: stage in the family life cycle, social placement (based on husband's year of school— ing and the ranking of his occupation), and incidence and extent of the wife's employment. Morning and afternoon shOp— pings are most affected by these socio-economic characteris- tics. Families with young children and families higher in the social scale are more likely to shop in the morning; late afternoon or evening shopping seem more convenient for smaller households or families without children. Evening shopping is common practice for wives working part— or full— time. A word of caution is in order: we have to keep in mind that Burk was studying upper—income families and that these findings may not apply to the general population. For example, families with young children may opt for morn— ing shopping because they can afford to pay for a baby—sitter, which might not be the case for younghfamilies in the middle or lower-income groups. Time Spent in Shopping Judging from the data available, it appears that food shoppers do not spend much time in the food store (Table VIII). National surveys done by DuPont in 1965 [279,283] and A 80 P Stores in 1970 [147] reported that the average customer spends 26 to 27 minutes in the supermarket (including shop- rurmg, checkout and bagging) in his major end—of-the-week 'buyixug excursion. Other studies [72,126,220,290] confirm the 121 TABLE VIII TIME SPENT IN GROCERY STORE Percentage Study 30 Min. 30—60 About More than Number or less min. one hour one hour 72 49 46 5 220 23 39 38 279 64.2 26.1 9.7 290 22 22 38 fact that 50 to 90 percent of the homemakers devote less than one hour to their food shopping, most of them spending little more than 30 minutes in the store. Trumbull [290], commenting on a series of surveys done by National Family Opinion, reported that rural families were more likely to spend a shorter time in the grocery store while a greater proportion of city dwellers extended their food shopping from one to two hours in some cases. The report makes no mention of the type of store patronized by customers, which is an important factor to consider in relation to duration of shopping trips. No evidence was found in the literature reviewed in respect to relationship between time spent in food.shopping and other socio-economic variables. 122 Type of Store Preferred An overwhelming majority of homemakers prefer the super- market, whether nationally or regionally owned, when it comes to food shOpping (Table IX). This pattern holds true for general food shopping as well as for specific categories of food products such as meats, poultry and dairy products. A relatively important number of homemakers also shop exten— sively in locally—owned supermarkets and neighborhood or small grocery stores. In some instances, this might be the only choice available to them; in other cases, convenience of location becomes a primary factor in their selection of a store. Despite the fact that discount stores have been taking an increasing share of the market in recent years, a surpris— ingly small proportion of homemakers mentioned them as the store they preferred. This should not be misleading, however; it is reasonable to assume that discount stores may have been confused with supermarkets in the respondent's mind. Preferences for a particular type of store are probably related to particular socio—economic characteristics. Unfortunately, research done in this area is very meager. Alice Stubbs [273] interviewed 1,314 families from 23 urban and 12 rural communities in Texas and she found that rural families were more likely to shOp for food in a locally-owned grocery while national chain stores were mostly patronized tw'urban homemakers with high income and education. 123 .Oum .mCOHumaoommm wuHOOEEOO .mo>aumummooo .uoxumza .Ho3mcm oc o>mo no mommo meow OH OOGOHOMOHQ moo Oman OHoE o>mo musopcommmmH NH ma m 00 can H mm mm th H.mN H.0H H.m N.mb ch m.H m.¢a m.© p.mh ONN m.o m.mm OHN ma mm sea N no mNH c.N so m.¢ c.mw cm mN 0H 00 me Ha ma cm Nb be ad Ne oc ma mm m mm mm ma mmlom mm N mN mN mm m museum «muosuo [onoum uomeEHmmom muoum muoum poxumsuomdm HOQEOZ Iwoum oz poo: useocomoch ucooomfln muamaummm OHOpm cacao Mpoum Iuonsoamz mocmaco>coo momucmonma .ommmmmmmm EEOEm no mass NH mqmdfi I: A“ V. I ‘- . ;,. ‘4 \l 124 Burk [35] reported some relationship between preference for a particular type of store and social position. Patrons of independent supermarkets (specializing in high quality line) were in the higher social position, had higher incomes and had the head of the household in a managerial or professional occupation. 0n the other hand, discount store shOppers tended to have lower incomes and rank lower in Occupational and educational levels. Wife's employment also seemed to be associated to choice among types of stores [8,35]. More non-working wives patronized small independent stores and many of the wives that regularly went to the discount stores were employed part—time. Bailey [8] compared Negro and white shoppers and she found that Negro were more likely to be patrons of privately— owned grocery or small independent stores while white home- makers shopped predominantly in chain stores or supermarkets. This behavior may be explained by income and place of resin dence rather than race: more Negro than white families live in cities and are in the lower income levels so their shopping in small grocery stores may be dependent upon such factors as availability of credit, transportation, location of stores, etc. Bymers and Murray [40] studied food marketing practices ofcflder households and they reported that 42 percent of the faMJies did their food shopping at the supermarket. About 125 33 percent patronized a neighborhood store, but only one out of ten seemed to rely on this source of supply exclusively. Reasons for selecting ayparticular store. Because home- makers' desires and interests are many and varied, there is no single reason for selecting a particular food store. It is very revealing to Observe, however, that when respondents have to answer a closed-end question (when they are asked to choose among a list of motives suggested by the researcher), a greater number of reasons are given and the percentage for any particular category is much higher than when the sub- jects are left to answer an open-end question (no choices given by the author of the survey). Nevertheless, findings from all studies are quite consistent (Table X). Most of the studies reviewed acknowledged the central importance of price, convenience and quality in the selection of a food store [57,201,319]. Price is the most important reason in about 50 percent of the cases, but there is no indication as to whether it is the general pricing policy of the store or the price of some categories of food products that is a major factor for consideration. It appears that customers form impressions of the overall prices charged by the store rather than memorize specific prices of items. The term "convenience" usually refers to the location of the store, but it is not always clearly defined. Is it loca— tion in relation to home, to other stores, to access roads and highways? Convenience may also mean much more: ample .manflmmom moaoao moo Omen «MOSH c SN mN OH HN MN cN we mam N p.ma Ha m.m N.h m.om mmN m.om H.hN N.mm OH om m.om mm ONN m.a m.m NH m.m o.NN m.mm ma OHN 0.0N or m.ma m.ma 0N m.ma n.o om OON h +om find me AN mm ma ma omH cm on Ne 5N Nb sea mm we Hm mm Ho mm on em mm mNH m.om N.mm N.mm p.mo m.vc w.ow cm m mm NH om m w No mN 0N om we mm mm a mQEmpm awesomumm coaumooq Hmnuo moopoum wuaamso hu0aum> wuHHmoo mowum HOQEOZ mmoam> Hoa>m£mm mmocamom mooam> use: hosum OOCOHCO>OOO mooam> uusponm ommucmonmm HMMOBm 000m OZHBUMAmm mom mZOmmmm X mdm<8 127 parking facilities, parcel pick—up, check cashing, convenient hours, etc. Most studies do not distinguish between the different meanings of the term. Data show that the distance traveled for food shopping varies considerably [146]. Is five miles or more from home to the store a "convenient loca- tion" or is it called convenient because of easy access? This and similar issues have not received much attention. The only evidence available [24,163] stresses the importance of convenience, without further explanations. It could be profitable to investigate these different aspects of conven— ience more adequately. Quality of the food in general and, more importantly, the quality of specific items is another significant vari- able. In some instances, the quality of meats will be the decisive factor for selection of a particular store. Quality Of produce is also considered but to a smaller extent. Kohls and Britney [163] developed a model to show the different values affecting the choice of a store. They labeled them: (1) values of convenience--1ocation, physical layout, product aux and.facilities; (2) values of products-— prices, quality, variety; and (3) values of business behavior—- personnel, store features such as trading stamps, etc. Their compilation of the results of twelve studies dealing with-con— sumer selection Of food stores showed that 51 percent of all the reasons given referred to product values, 32 percent to convenience values, and 17 percent to business behavior 128 values. Their own findings from a panel of urban families show the following: Percentage Basic decision-making orientation of panel convenience reasons 15 price reasons 22 quality reasons 17 price-convenience combinations ll quality-convenience combinations 22 no consistent patterns 13 100 Results of the studies reviewed for this research stress the fact that product values (price, quality, variety) and convenience values (mainly location Of the store) are chief factors in the consumer's selection of a store. Values associated with merchandising and marketing of food products (courtesy of the personnel, service, cleanliness, etc.) are often considered but they are less important to most home- makers. Among business behavior values, trading stamps follow a very erratic pattern. In two studies [128,220], as many as 50 percent of the homemakers rated the giving of trading stamps above or as high as convenience and quality when list- ing their reasons for the selection of a particular store; in other studies [1,4,8,l74,200,210], stamps were at the bottom of the list and apparently not a very significant factor. (Trading stamps will be dealt with more extensively in another section of this chapter.) Past behavior Often influences the selection of a food same. A study of supermarket customers in Milwaukee and 129 St. Louis [95] revealed that families who recently moved to a new town or to a different neighborhood usually show a preference for the store they shopped at their last resi- dence. When asked about their reasons, 75 percent believed they shopped in the store with the lowest prices, which was not necessarily the case. According to the author [95:40]: "Apparently, once a habit pattern is established, a shopper justifies her store selection by convincing herself that her store is, at the very least, competitive." Even when they have many complaints and dislikes, consumers do not seem to be prepared to change easily, mainly for reason of con— venience. Possible relationships between reasons for selecting a store and a variety of socio—economic characteristics have not been researched very extensively. Income appears to be more significant than any other variables studied. While price and convenience are usually more important for low- income families, higher-income households are more likely to select a store for reasons such as quality of the food products, service and personnel, etc. [35,144,163,224]. Bailey [8] reported that more Negro than white home- makers were concerned with price in selecting their food store, but this may be related to income rather than race. KOhls and Britney [163] found evidence that the middle—income group is the most unpredictable and the more likely to give a variety of reasons for their selection. They also reported 130 that age, education and shopping practices are not signifi— cant factors. Food interests and attitudes of homemakers were corre- lated with their rationale for selecting a store and the results showed agreement between the two variables for al— most 80 percent of the sample, which speaks for some "rationality" among consumers. Loyalty to a store. The multiplicity of factors influ- encing food buying and the increased number of supermarkets, convenience and discount stores in recent years would sug- gest that it is now possible and more convenient for shoppers to patronize more than one store for food shopping. Evidence from the literature reviewed shows that this is indeed the case. The majority of women, 50 to 90 percent, shop regularly in two or three stores [5(6,46,59,92,l46,147,163,174,194,200, 243,262]. The pattern was different fifteen years ago. The annual surveys of Burgoyne Index Incorporated [285] reveal that while 41 percent of shoppers patronized one supermarket exclusively in 1954, the number had dropped to 18 percent in 1966. Percentage of housewives shOpping in more than one supermarket went from 59 to 82 percent in the same period. Surveys of the Chicago Tribune in 1957 and 1963 showed similar trends [194]. Many causes are responsible for the collapse of loyalty toIa particular store: new networks of highways and express- ways, overlapping of price lines, convenience and accessibility 131 of transportation, discount stores, competition in weekly "store specials,‘ etc. Motives for shOpping around stem from the many factors influencing the selection of a store: good prices, wide selection, general quality of food products or quality of specific foods (meats, produce), convenient location, pre- ferred brands, deal—offers, evening shopping, delivery, credit, etc. No single store can usually offer all these advantages and most women find a solution to the problem by visiting two or three stores in order to fill their food basket in the best possible time at the best possible price. Does it pay to shOp around? A USDA report (126) says that homemakers can save up to 6 percent on their weekly food bill by shOpping the different food stores in their area of residence. McFadden [200] recorded weekly food prices in 3 supermarkets and 4 independent stores of Lafayette, Indiana, for a period of 16 weeks. A market basket of 26 common items (week food supply for 2 persons) was selected and prices on these items were collected in all stores near the end of each week (Thursday evening, Friday or Saturday). McFadden found that shopping around was the best method and would result in savings of 5.5 to 9.9 percent. Selecting one store and buying special items in bigger quantities did not necessarily afford the greatest price advantage. The investigator pointed out, however, that facilities for storage and time involved should be considered before drawing definite conclusions. 132 According to Cunningham [74], store loyalty should not be measured by the number of stores in which a family shops but by the proportion of a family's food expenditures made in one particular store, what he called the "first store" of their choice. Findings in this area indicate that the majority of homemakers do most of their shopping at a favor- ite store, however the favorite store may change over time [74,147,163]. In this respect, the A & P study of 1970 [146] revealed that 45.5 percent of the families had over 5 years loyalty to A & P stores in the area. Cunningham studied store loyalty in this context and he revealed the following facts: 1) families with high first store loyalty did not neces— sarily shop in fewer stores but concentrated most of their purchases in the preferred store; 2) 86 percent of the group studied had been essentially loyal to a specific store during the year of the study. In a study by Kohls and Britney [163], 63 percent of the panel members had the same shOpping pattern in 1958 and 1961, the two years of the study. 3) store loyalty was independent of the total amount spent for food purchases; 4) families were more loyal to chains than to inde- pendent Or specialty stores. (This finding agrees with the preference for chain stores expressed by most housewives. See page 122.) 133 5) families with high store loyalty did not necessarily have high brand loyalties. Similar findings were reported by Enis [88] who also revealed that the perception of marketing strategy by con- sumers was the major determinant of food store loyalty. Kohls and Britney [163] reported a significant relationship between loyalty and reasons given for the selection of a store: consumers emphasizing quality were more loyal than those concerned mainly with convenience or price. There was a small relationship between food interests and loyalty: homemakers interested in convenience in choosing their food products were more loyal than housewives interested in shOp- ping for "good prices" only. Reading ads was not related to loyalty. In most studies [88,92,163], relationships between store loyalty and income, education and size of the family were not of sufficient magnitude to be used in the identifi— cation of loyal consumers. Age and family composition were statistically significant: younger families were more loyal to the "favorite store" and younger homemakers did generally less shopping around [92,163]. Kohls and Britney [163] explained that their pattern of buying is not estab- lished yet; they have less knowledge and also less time to shOp around because of their young children. Medium-size households were found to have the most mobile travel patterns for grocery expenditures [240]. 134 Two surveys conducted by business and industry [59,146] indicated that city dwellers were more loyal to their store than suburbanites or rural homemakers. Number of stores available and transportation facilities may be significant reasons for such a pattern. Carman [44] found no significant relationship between store loyalty and "deal-proneness," or the propensity to shop for lower prices and all kinds of deals. Behavior in the Store Store displays and flyers, deals and store specials, "double-day" for trading stamps and more than 8,000 products on the shelves consistently solicit the homemaker doing her grocery shopping. On the other hand, money and time are limited and the housewife must'make her choice hastily to the best of her knowledge. Consumer educators have exhorted the homemaker to read labels, compare prices and packages in order to get the best for the money spent. But it is doubtful that this control and evaluation are possible when data available suggest that women spend about 30 minutes in the store on the average (see page 120). The following section examines results of various studies done to evaluate a wide range of store behaviors: 1) Label reading behavior 2) Price comparisons " Q .h 1 135 3) Brand choices 4) Unplanned and impulse purchases 5) Selection of various food products: Meats and Poultry Fish and Seafood Fruits and Vegetables Eggs and Dairy Products Convenience Foods Label Reading Behavior Labels were read mostly for product identification and factual information by 50 to 95 percent of the homemakers [53,54,85,153,l8l,208,220,222,315]. Such results, however, should not lead the reader to believe that the majority of homemakers read labels as a matter of course when doing their shopping. Questions asked for information in this particular area of consumer behavior were very general and, consequently, do not tell us much. Are labels read as a general practice or only when buying an unfamiliar product? Are they read in the store before purchases are made or at home for "serving direc- tions"? What are the types of information usually sought on the labels: price, brand name, size, number of servings, directions for preparation, recipes, list of contents, etc.? These distinctions were not made by most investigators and had they been included in the studies, results might have been different and certainly more enlightening. Homemakers in a national survey by National Family Opinion [290] were asked to rank their preferences for six 136 items on can labels. Choices were suggested by the re- searcher: four items were related to preparation and service, one to calorie content and one to deal—offering (premium offer). Items dealing with the serving of the food were ranked higher than the other two by the majority of homemakers. In another national survey designed to assess home- makers' opinions about packaging [96,97,98], more items were included for the respondents to choose from and results indicated that serving directions and number of servings were still important but less than size or weight and con- tents of the package (which were not included in the study mentioned earlier). Brand name, size or weight, number of servings and price were considered in that order when reading labels for canned fruits and vegetables [181]. These results seem to indicate that homemakers rely on labels for a variety of reasons but it has not been ascer- tained if the information is used to discriminate between products on the basis of size and quality. Price Comparisons Price comparisons were made mostly at home and less often in the store. Reading ads and shopping around were the most common ways of finding about price differentials between stores. Limited data available in the literature reviewed suggest that the majority of homemakers did not 137 usually compare prices in relation to size when shopping. The average time spent in the store is further evidence supporting this observation. Women did compare prices when shOpping for specific categories of foods——meats, produce, dairy products--but the quantity of packages available on the shelves, the prolifera— tion of sizes for each product plus the use of fractional sizes by most food manufacturers complicate the task to a point where it is almost impossible for the average homemaker to attempt any meaningful cost-size comparisons. Consumer advocates, legislators and businessmen have recognized this fact and they have proposed "unit-pricing" as a possible solution to the problem. Several supermarkets across the nation have experimented various methods of unit- pricing; some stores have even tested consumers' reactions to the innovation. Results to date indicate that, as a rule, homemakers did not use the system extensively and to its fullest advantage [106,221]. Reports were that low-income consumers, who would need it the most, benefit less than any other group from the introduction of unit-pricing. This is not to say that the idea is not promising; but the method is new and it will take a while before consumers develop a habit of using it. Education in this area may be of great help to the majority of housewives. 138 Brand Choices Competition faced by chain stores and supermarkets has increased tremendously in recent years and retailers have become aware of the need to differentiate their offerings from those of their competitors. One means to accomplish this purpose has been the development of private or store brands. Private brands, also called "distributor brands," are those owned by firms whose primary function is distribu— tion; they compete in the market place with "manufacturer's" or "nationally advertised brands," or those owned by firms whose primary function is manufacturing. In 1959, approximately 84 percent of all supermarkets carried some private labels [338]. In 1970, this figure was probably higher. In the meantime, the number of items carried under private labels has soared and, as pointed out by Weiss in 1963 [313], quality of private brands is compar- able to manufacturers' brands and frequently come off the same manufacturer lines as do manufacturer brands. Consumer preferences for types of brands. Despite the facts mentioned above, results from various studies at the national or local level seem to indicate that, while con- sumers buy both manufacturers' and distributors' brands, they have a preference for the nationally advertised as Op— posed to the store brands (l,38,4l,100,109,117,130,212,217, 285]. 139 Results from a private brands study organized for the National Commission on Food Marketing [117] indicated that 34 percent of the women interviewed showed strong preferences for well-known brands, 14 percent preferred less well-known and 52 percent bought both. A recent survey by the Chicago Tribune [1] found that 48 percent of the homemakers pur— chased only brand labels while 10 percent bought only private labels. Reasons.for preferences were not always clearly defined but most women said they bought well-known brands because they considered them better in terms of confidence in quality, dependability and the like. In some studies [45,155,191], a significant number of housewives said they were willing to pay a premium for a well-known brand. Private brands were thought to be cheaper and about one—third of the homemakers bought them for "experimenting" and "looking for variety." Brand loyalty. These attitudes toward brands become stabilized as consumers repeat their purchases of a particu— lar brand and develop into loyalty for a specific brand. Research available suggested that preference for a particular family brand was a basic dimension of consumer brand choice [17,109,110,29l]. Tucker, reporting on various studies [291], suggested that brand loyalty is a function of the frequency and regularity with which a brand has been selected in the past and of the type of product involved. He pointed out that consumers vary greatly in their susceptibility to brand loyalty. 140 According to Farley [90], many "outside" variables can cause variation in brand loyalty: (1) price activity (not necessarily price level); (2) importance of the product to the consumer-—time and money spent; (3) product character- istics; (4) market distribution--many brands widely avail- able; and (5) availability--number of brands available. Cavallo [45] investigated brand switching at the point of purchase and he reported that the closer to "superior" a shopper rated the brand she intended to buy, the less likely she was to switch within the store. Effects of selected variables on brand choices. Psycho- logical and sociological characteristics did not seem to be strong predictors in explaining attitude toward private brands [17,99,100,115,212,213,313]. Myers [213] reported that personality variables explained less than 5 percent of the total variance in private brand attitude. Sociological variables were not strong but superior to personality vari— ables. Wives in gainful employment showed smaller acceptance of private brands. Income was a poor predictor of attitude. In partial contradiction to these statements are the results of a few other studies. An audit of six stores by Progressive Grocer [228,229] revealed that private brand ' purchasing was inversely related to income and expenditures for food. White, larger families and those with higher income were more likely to have a positive attitude toward private brands [1,100,186]. Tucker [291] and Stafford [268] found 141 definite evidence that reference groups influenced brand preferences. Brand loyalty did not seem to be affected by use of coupons or deal-proneness [44,236] but women who shopped for bargains were less likely to be brand loyal [201]. Unplanned Purchases—-Impulse Buying The two terms unplanned or impulse purchases are used interchangeably in the literature reviewed to suggest in- store decisions to buy one or more items not previously planned. Most items purchased on an unplanned basis have usually been purchased before. They represent either out-of— stock items of the same brand or inventory—addition pur- chases. In-store stimuli usually remind shoppers of present or future needs rather than evoking new needs. Research results showed that the amount of unplanned purchases varied widely. From 18 to 86 percent of the total purchases have been reported as being the results of store decisions [154,201,254,260,26l,279]. Impulse buying varied among the different foods, ranging from produce in the low- impulse category to baked goods and snacks in the high-impulse category. Several studies indicated that women who did not plan in advance were more receptive to various promotions at the point of purchase. Crabtree [72] indicated that dis— plays, store demonstrations, distribution of recipes and leaflets affected impulse buying considerably. There was also evidence [72,83,158,26l] that presence of the husband or children contributed significantly to an increase in the amount of unplanned purchases. 142 Kollat reported [167,168] that neither income, demo- graphic nor personality variables affected customer unplanned purchasing behavior. Variables most susceptible to influence are: (1) size of the transaction-~the higher the grocery bill the greater the number of unplanned purchases; (2) type of shOpping trip--few unplanned purchases in "fill-in" as opposed to major trips; (3) presence of a shopping list—— shoppers with a list had lower unplanned rates; and (4) num- ber of years the shOpping party has been married--greater experience with and exposure to food increased the possi— bility for more unplanned purchases. Shopping for Meats, Poultry, Fish and Seafood Meats, poultry, fish and seafood have always consti— tuted the major component in the food budget, representing approximately one-third of the total expenditures for food eaten at home (80). Meats and poultry generally accounted for the bigger share of expenses in this particular category, but with the booming of the frozen industry in recent years, fish and seafood have been made readily available to home- makers and they have been served at family meals more often and in a greater variety of ways. Other scientific and technological innovations in agri— culture, processing, transportation and marketing, together 'with the general improvement in the standard of living have contributed significantly to the increase in consumption of 143 these high-quality protein foods observed in the last decade. Prices and the division of expenditures among the various kinds of meats, poultry, fish and seafood have also changed considerably for similar reasons. Because of their special importance in the food budget and for scientific purposes also, preferences and attitudes of consumers toward meats and poultry have been studied ex— tensively. Homemakers have been asked to reveal their buying habits, define their criteria for selection, voice their Opinion about such innovations as self—service and frozen products, and state their preferences for various kinds of meats and poultry products. Fish and seafood have not been studied so extensively, but some data are also available. Results from these studies are discussed in the follow— ing section under two headings: (l) meats and poultry and (2) fish and seafood. Meats and Poultry Buying meats and poultry is a primary concern for most families, mainly because of such factors as high price of most meats, selection problems, and lack of knowledge about and time involved in preparation and cooking. Results of various studies [l8,29,42,52,75,84,127,144, 150,176,179,187,210,215,233,234,246,250,267,269,297,328] showed that: 1) Approximately 55 percent of the homemakers shopped once a week for meats, and an additional 20 to 25 percent twice. 144 2) Most homemakers preferred the supermarkets and the chain stores for buying their meats for such reasons as prices, convenience (all foods bought there), and variety (selection). The minority who favored specialty stores and meat markets emphasized quality, variety and reputation of the store. 3) Sixty to eighty percent of the families purchased from one source only [250,283] but the proportion of con— sumers who shopped around was important enough to suggest that many factors influence where and what to buy. Factors most often mentioned were quality, price and convenience of location [75,150,210,328]. Results of studies were not consistent as to the dominant factor in the selection of a store for meats and poultry buying: in some cases, quality was of prime importance and was often the decisive factor, not only for meat products but for general grocery shopping as well; in other instances, price was mentioned first by the majority of respondents. Business practices (service, personnel, cleanliness, etc.) were other variables considered but to a lesser degree. Woods and Jenkins [328] reported that reasons for se— lecting a store where to buy meats and poultry were related to income and level of living—-education and occupation of head. 4) Since women did most of the grocery shopping, they also bought meats and poultry for the family most of the time. 145 5) Household income and composition were the two most important variables affecting quantities purchased and expenditures for meats [187,323]. Pre—shopping plans for meats and poultry buying. Half or more of the homemakers did plan their meat and poultry purchases before going shOpping [20,210,215,246,252,283,328]. As mentioned in the section on meal planning (page 93), meals are often planned around meat and poultry products. Lawyer [179] asked the homemakers in her sample to prepare a shOp- ping list; 204 submitted market orders and of these, 87 per- cent listed meats, more than half of them even specifying kinds and cuts. Meat order was most Often at the top of the list. Consumers also consult the newspaper ads for "best buys" and "store specials." Neigh and Trotter [215] analyzed con- sumer response to meat—price specials and they reported that 55 percent of the homemakers did in fact shop for meat spec- ials. Response to kinds of specials varied and was related to income, age and education. Women who shOpped at more than one store bought more specials. NO association was found between freezing storage space and the purchase of meat specials. Of the meats offered at sale prices, beef was the most popular, followed by pork, sausage, luncheon meats and poultry. 146 Hoobler [144] found similar evidence. In Lawyer's study [179], 87 percent of the women admitted being influ- enced by advertised specials and, of this group, 42 percent purchased specials every week. The nationwide survey done by Weidenhamer et al. in 1969 [312] revealed that 60 per— cent of the homemakers were influenced by price specials, 34 percent of them most of the time. In—store decisions. Planning leaves room for flexibil— ity and homemakers often alter their plans in the store, for very pertinent reasons: 1) Prices—-sales on other meat items, lower prices on other cuts, etc. 2) Appearance and quality factors——questionable or poor quality of items originally planned, unexpected offers that "looked very good," better quality or appearance of other items, displays, etc. 3) Availability-—items planned not in stock, preferred brand or grade not sold at time of shopping, etc. Moxey [210] and Douglas [84] found that only 6 to 8 percent of the homemakers stuck to their list when purchasing Ineats and poultry. Unplanned purchases were occasionally done for the "rational" motives listed above, but "impulse— ‘buying" of lunch meats, sausage, barbequed meats, wieners and chicken parts were also frequent. Similar findings were reported in The 7th Du Pont Consumer Buying Habits Study [279]. 147 Selection of meats and poultry: factors considered. There are two aspects in the selection Of meats and poultry: the homemaker must first decide what to buy (kind of meat, cuts, etc.) and then she must make her choice from what is available. These two Operations do not always follow in this order. In many occasions, women check first to see what is available and "looks best" and decide on the spot (whether or not plans have been made earlier). Deciding what to buy.—-Family preferences are usual- ly mentioned as the most important factor influencing the purchase of meats and poultry. Price and quality follow closely. Other factors considered are ease of preparation, interest in innovations and concern for nutrition [7,20,34, 203,210,226,292]. Homemakers will purchase the meats the family members like, but there is more than one choice possible (hopefully) and it is here that price will be the decisive factor between, say, chicken or pork or beef, chOps, steaks or roasts. On the other hand, women will seldom buy a meat, however low the cost is, if the family dislikes it. Quality is important to all homemakers but only a few can purchase all kinds of Ineats and cuts without any consideration for their cost. Mize [203] studied determinant factors and motivations in meat choices utilizing a scheduled questionnaire and pro- jective techniques. She classified the 973 homemakers in her sample according to the strength for four motivational fac— tors. 148 The results were as follows: Motivation determinants of Strength homemakers Strong Moderate Little None % % % % 1. Concerned about economic considerations 34 8 50 8 2. Influenced by family preferences 23 13 57 7 3. Consistent in applying knowledge to choices 19 24 40 17 4. Interested in innovations 20 7 38 35 Mize found that low—income families and younger home— makers showed strong interest for economic factors. Family preferences were a strong motivational determinant for women with higher income and higher standard of living and those less influenced by mass media. Consistency in applying knowledge to choices and interest in innovations were strong motivations for women with higher income and for those rely- ing on mass media for their food information. In addition, Mize compared the strength of motivational factors with adequacy of the diet for meats. Forty-one per— cent of the homemakers strongly interested in being consis- tent in applying their knowledge to choices had diets below the recommended allowances for meats; the percentage was more than doubled (84 to 89 percent) for the three other groups. These findings seem to indicate that there is more to good nutrition than sufficient income and education. Women who do not consistently apply their knowledge to meat choices and put other interests first may give plenty of food to 149 their family but many times at the expense of nutritional quality. Moxey [210], Douglas [84] and Shetler [260] asked selected homemakers to rank the factors considered when buy- ing meats. The following table shows the results obtained by these investigators (see page 150). In all studies, price per pound was the first factor considered. Number of servings and total cost (in Douglas and Shetler studies) were next, followed by price per serving and time to cook. The findings confirm the importance of price in meat selection and also indicate that the importance of price per serving, suggested by specialists as the best yardstick for selection, has not been understood by the majority of homemakers in these studies. The same three investigators studied criteria used by consumers for judging quality. Results obtained by Moxey [210] differed from the other two [84,260]. Moxey found that government grades were most important, followed by brand name, store reputation and appearance. In Shetler and Douglas studies, appearance was named first, which seems much more plausible. Brand name was the least important. The high importance given to government grades in all three studies may be questionable, especially for the reason that homemakers were probed for all meats and not only beef, which is the only graded meat available (not including poul- try products). Consumers often confuse grade with 150 .maco mowooum Hmauonm pom mmamooa OH co>am mxcmu sum pom gum .nucou ummumoc ogy on poocoou monsmam« mm EH as e as m 6H m m ma hm hm as mm mm ..eomae umaumam em mm Hm NH 4 4H om 6 a mm am em as on em Iraomav mmamsoo I I I I I I am as a as am Ne w mm mm «lemmas meos as. a a a a cum new has ohm 6cm own cum cam aha ohm cam one can 6cm nma scam scam xcmm scam scam umOO Hmuoa mCH>HOm x000 moca>umm £H\moaum \ooaum Op OEHB mo HOQEOZ demz OZHNDm ZHEB QmmeHmZOU mmOBU¢m 151 inspection (see section on consumer's knowledge, page 207) and it is possible that such occurrence may have biased the results. Samples of the three studies consisted of mothers of students enrolled in home economics classes, which are not representative of the whole United States pOpulation. Moreover, respondents may have answered the question with the desire to impress their daughter's teacher. The nationwide survey conducted by Weidenhamer et al. [312] to assess homemakers' opinion about selected meats revealed that the use of meats is affected by a variety of attributes. Quality, taste, little waste and "helpful to eat" are most important for 49 to 64 percent of the home- makers. Of moderate importance are cooking possibilities, digestibility, safety, perishability and nutritional value (specific nutrients). These categories were suggested by the investigators and it is possible that answers would have been somewhat different if women had been left to their own listing of attributes. Criteria for judging quality.--Data concerning quality judgments about meats are mostly for beef, since it is preferred to pork, lamb and veal and also more suscept— ible to vary considerably in quality. Tenderness was the most desirable quality in beef and homemakers tried to evaluate it by the following character- istics: color and appearance, texture, amount of bone, cut, marbling and trimming [3,l8,20,29,42,52,75,149,177,179,203, 260,269,328]. The order of importance of these varied among 152 the various studies but color and amount of external fat were particularly important. Grades were mentioned at the bottom of the list or ignored in the studies reviewed and they could be of greater importance if homemakers knew more about them. Mize [203] discovered that 60 percent of the women in her sample were unsure of their judgment about tenderness of meat. More Often than not, they thought tenderness was re- lated to cooking methods or tenderizing the meat by pounding or cubing. Six percent of the homemakers always used a meat tenderizer, regardless of the cut bought. Mize did not look for association between these attitudes about tenderness and selected sociO-economic characteristics. Seventy-two percent of the women in a study by Seltzer [246] also used a meat tenderizer but 21 percent of them were not satisfied with it. Woods and Jenkins [328] reported that marbling and grades as indication of tenderness were mentioned more often by better-educated homemakers with higher income and level of living. White respondents were more likely to mention fat while non-white used amount of bone more often as a criterion for meat selection. Size or weight, skin color, plumpness and cleanliness ‘were the most important factors considered when buying poultry [31,71,ll8,209,218,264,310]. Ranking varied among studies but weight and skin color were mentioned first more often than any other characteristics. Many homemakers indi- cated that number of pieces was more important than weight 153 when buying cut—up poultry. Brand name was relatively unim- portant and grades were never or seldom mentioned. Criteria for selection and selected socio—economic characteristics were studied by Mountney et al. [209]. They reported that weight was more likely to be important to white, young housewives and large families; plumpness, to Older homemakers and those with a higher income. Help with meat selection.--Investigators at Louisiana State University [177,328] found that women learned to select meat mostly by trial and error. Outside help came mainly from the butcher, close relatives-—mother, husband—- and friends. Magazine and newspaper articles were more popular than any other mass media of information. Home eco- nomics courses, cooking classes and demonstrations, govern— ment bulletins and Extension classes were at the bottom of the list. Women with less education learned mostly by experience (trial and error) and better-educated housewives relied more on magazines, newspapers and knowledge from previous train- ing with foods. White homemakers used advice from friends and relatives more often; non—white frequently watched tele— vision programs as an aid in meat selection [29,42,52,l49, 177]. When homemakers manifested a desire to learn more about meat selection--30 percent in Weidenhamer's study [312] showed no interest whatsoever-—they could not express what they 154 wanted except when suggestions were given by the investi- gators [84,210,260]. In such cases, information as to the cuts that are "best buys" and advice on preparation of se— lected cuts (mostly those which can be quickly fixed) were most desired. Information about new meat products available and nutritive value of particular cuts of meats were rela- tively less important. Lawyer [179] reported similar findings. Difficulties with meat selection were first on a list of buying problems in a study by Burgess [34]. In this study, sixty-five per- cent of the housewives admitted they had problems with grades, quality of meat, cuts and their uses, evaluation of amount needed to feed the family and nutrition. Complaints.--Three-fourths of the homemakers in a nationwide survey [312] voiced complaints against meats. Their grievances ranged from deceptive packaging to price, quality (freshness) and waste. Mize [203] reported similar causes of dissatisfaction among the homemakers in her sample. Butcher vs Self-service. Generally speaking, the majority of homemakers prefer a butcher to the self—service for the selection of their meats. That is, they would rather buy their meat cut to order if cost and time were no con— sideration and if they had sufficient knowledge of different cuts [18,29,42,52,75,84,95,122,203,210,237,246,260,264,269, 285,298]. 155 Evidence is found in Table XI that preferences do not always dictate behavior. In many instances, and even if they showed preference for the service of a butcher, women in the studies reviewed bought most of their meats pre— packaged. Homemakers found numerous advantages to prepackaged meats: (1) convenience--saves time, speeds shopping, ready to store, ready to use; (2) ease of selection—-meat labeled as to cut, exact weight and cost known; (3) economy--exact price known, less bone and waste, cheaper; and (4) quality and variety--meat fresher, larger selection of sizes, more sanitary, cleaner, etc. Ranking of these might vary but saving of time and known cost in relation to weight were the two most important factors for the majority Of homemakers. Negative attitudes toward prepackaging centered around the impossibility to inspect the meat bought. Housewives mentioned that they liked to see all sides of the meat and were Often deceived by excess bone and fat concealed in the package. Complaints about freshness were also voiced. In this respect, dating of the package as a suggestion for im— provement was mentioned in one of the studies [179]. Butcher service was appreciated for the following reasons: meat could be cut to specifications, quality was better (flavor, freshness) and inspection was facilitated. On the other hand, prices were often higher and the selection was time-consuming. 156 .memEmEOQ OOMOHQEOIGOZh auoxmemeoa pomoamemo “AHOQOmm amuHO¢ “mOHHHEmm OEOUGNIHmmmDn “mOHHHEmm oEoocHIOHOOHEN “mOHHHEmm OEOOCHIBOAH mm hmm NNm he saw NNm mm ha mN Nam he ow ma ma mm HN mmN mm mm mN mp mmN ma hN or mmm cON OH mm mm OH me «He vON so ocN mo Nm hMN H.HH m.ma c.05 OHN an nvN NON ow «mN NON om Hem mON or NNH om c.¢m p.mo cm m an ch mm m or mmN mm m om Hem mm mm em ma R X X X em a Honaoz mocouomoum oz Honousm oomoxommmum nuom Hopuo Op #90 ooomxommoum wooum Hummus ham mwamomb mmozmmmeMm 92¢ meDBHBB¢ .mMflMdZMEOE umUH>MMm mMmUBDm mDmmm> MOH>mmmlmqmm HX mamfie 157 When available, data showed a positive relationship be— tween education and income and the type of service preferred and utilized. Younger homemakers and working wives were more likely to prefer packaged meats than any other groups. Attitudes toward frozen meats. Most women interviewed expressed some general or specific aversion for frozen meats and poultry, despite the fact that the majority of them froze meat at home for a period of one or two weeks [25,65,84,131,210, 218,237,260,264,294,310,312]. Many factors may be responsible for this negative atti- tude: (1) no experience with frozen meats; (2) bad "memories" about previous use; and (3) selection problems in terms of size, appearance, quality, etc. Attitudes have not improved and, in some cases, have worsened, between 1955 and 1970. In earlier studies [131,264,310], from 25 to 45 percent of homemakers said they bought frozen meats and poultry Occa- sionally, depending on the prices and the choices available. Favorable comments were expressed by 68 percent of those who purchased frozen poultry in a study by Weidenhamer [310]. Findings about quantities purchased agree with those of Nybroten [218] who reported that from the 83,591 pounds of poultry meats sold in a sample of food markets in 12 North— eastern states, only 1,561 pounds (less than 2 percent) were frozen (data for 1956). Results from more recent surveys showed that consumers were still very reluctant to buying frozen meats and poultry. 158 Cook and Martin [65] investigated 600 families in Long Island and reported that less than half of them bought any kind of frozen meats. Chicken was not included in their study. Weidenhamer et al. [312] interviewed 3,099 homemakers through— out the nation and they found that 79 percent of the respond- ents never purchased frozen meats and only thirteen percent bought them frequently. Of the remainder, 20 percent bought only frozen poultry. The Chicago Tribune survey [1] revealed that only one in ten homemakers would be willing to buy any frozen meat or poultry, 52 percent would purchase only some, and 37 percent would buy none. Convenience was the chief reason for buying any frozen meats. Homemakers appreciated having them handy for unex— pected guests and emergencies and they thought that buying frozen meats reduced the number of trips to the store. Freshness and quality were also frequently mentioned. In one study, 63 percent of the homemakers said that lack of standards available for judging quality was the main motive for not buying frozen meats. Thawing was no major problem, since most housewives froze some meats at home and were used to considering this factor in figuring the time necessary for meal preparation. Storage facilities as a factor preventing the use of frozen meats and poultry was no problem for the majority of homemakers in all studies reviewed. Most had a freezer com- partment in their refrigerator or a separate freezer. 159 A minority had also a locker compartment or subscribed to some sort of freezer plan. Beef and poultry were bought frozen more often than any other meats [65,84,210,237,312]. Small cuts (chops, patties, cubed or chopped steaks) were more readily available and, for that reason, purchased more often than heavier cuts. Frozen meats were served at regular meals, to house guests and at informal barbecues; and more Often in summer [65]. Relationships between selected socio—economic character— istics and attitudes toward frozen meats received prac- tically no attention on the part of most investigators. Weidenhamer et al. [312] found no significant associations whatsoever. Younger homemakers and suburbanites in the Chicago Tribune survey [1] revealed a more positive attitude toward frozen meats than any other groups. Suburbanites, it must be remembered, differs from city-dwellers according to other characteristics as well (greater income, better edu— cation, etc.) and these may be more important than the place of residence regarding attitudes toward frozen meats. Preferences for meats and poultry. Beef is the favorite meat for 50 to 90 percent of American families [71.75.118.150, 177,178,179,203,246,312,323,326,329]. It is suggested as the “best meat" for all situations: regular family meals, "prestige meals" for guests, special occasions, informal dinners with friends, etc. Taste and versatility of beef are the main factors for consumers' preferences, but housewives 160 are also well aware of the nutritive value of beef. In some cases, they are even tempted to assign a higher value to beef than to any other meats. More often bought cuts are ground beef, hamburger meat, roasts and steaks. Pork and chicken share the second place and homemakers are more likely to serve these meats for family or informal meals [25,30,203,295,310,329]. Pork is often associated with childhood memories and has a sentimental connotation. On the other hand, it may be related to souvenirs of "darker days" and families striving for higher status may tend to shift to other meats. Chicken, mostly fryers and broilers, will often be a second choice for prestige meals for white families with higher income. Non-white and low-income fami- lies consider it a highly desirable meat for guests. Whole chickens, cut up, are preferred for reason of convenience and versatility of preparation. Few families think of chicken in terms of its food value and nutritional advantages [30]. Turkey is a festive item but turkey parts, fresh or frozen, are gaining wider acceptance [31,175,235,310]. Veal, lamb and variety meats are not served by more than 10 to 15 percent of the homemakers, mostly because of taste preferences, price and lack of knowledge about their preparation. Hammett reported [118] that half of the families in her study used meats at three cost levels, and the majority served moderate-cost meats. Choice grades were usually 161 preferred over prime grades in most of the studies reviewed. Income, age and education were related to both consump- tion and preferences for meats. Families with higher income and education ate more of all kinds, grades and cuts of beef and more veal and lamb. Those with middle income and educa- tion ate mostly beef, pork and chicken. Older homemakers were more likely to eat less ground beef and pork. Negro families have a basic preference for chicken, apart from any influence family income may have. Fish and Seafood Almost no research has been done to study the consump- tion and preferences of consumers for fish and seafood. Findings reported here are based for the most part on four studies of canned and frozen fish products by government and industry [43,62,108,3l6]. Fish consumption and preferences. Frozen vs fresh fish.—-Cook and Martin [62] found that 85 percent of their sample of 1,000 families ate some kind of fish; 67 to 76 percent of them purchased fresh, canned and frozen fish products more or less regularly. Similar findings were reported in studies concerned with frozen meats [84,210,237]. Twenty-two percent ate fresh fish only as com- ‘pared to 10 percent who ate only frozen. Frozen fillets were bought by 92.3 percent of those buying frozen fish; flounder was a favorite, twice as pOpular as cod which was second. 162 Forty-two percent ate fillets as often as once a week. Three-fourths of the fish users purchased fish sticks, 31 percent of them at least once weekly. Convenience and flavor were the primary reasons for a particular choice. Only four out Of ten of the fish—user families bought fish portions. Flavor was the major reason for choice. All forms of frozen fish were served, mostly on Fridays, and adults ate them more frequently than teenagers and children. A national study of 1,500 households [108] found 55 percent of them favoring frozen products and 40 percent, fresh. One out of every three persons was either very posi— tive or very negative in his attitudes. Many of the negative reactions were not associated with seafood--shrimp, crab or lobster. Age was related to preferences. Homemakers under 45 years of age showed higher preferences for frozen fish and seafood. Family size was also an influential factor: as the family size increased, so did the preference for frozen fish products. Canned fish.-—Government studies conducted at the national level [43] and in specific cities [316] revealed that canned fish were bought by 69 to 95 percent of the homemakers. Tuna was most pOpular, followed by salmon and sardines. A small minority also bought canned shrimp and other seafood. Most people bought domestic products in a variety of styles. Appearance and flavor usually dictated the kind of canned fish bought. Canned fish was served mostly 163 at lunch and dinner and was sometimes used for picnics. In the national study, consumption of canned fish was corre— lated with sociO-economic characteristics. Larger families, non-employed, middle—aged housewives and better-educated consumers with higher income ate more of all kinds and styles of canned fish. Shopping for Fruits and Vegetables Fruits and vegetables are bought on a more or less regular basis by all families. However, expenditures, pref- erences for specific products and forms purchased vary considerably among families. Generally, expenditures for fruits and vegetables increase with age, income and family size and composition. Forms and Kinds of Fruits and Vegptables Bogght [104,llly124,138,152,161,l8lyl95L220] Fpgmp. The majority of homemakers, from 71 to 88 per- cent, generally preferred fresh fruits. The figures for fresh vegetables were 50 to 73 percent. Canned products were second choice; frozen products, third (Table XII). However, certain types of fruits and vegetables (peas, spinach, beans, pineapple, pears) were more Often eaten canned or frozen than fresh [58,66,272]. Regarding the purchase of frozen fruits and vegetables, Marshall [193] reported that 65 percent of all expenditures for this food category were made 164 m.¢c m.mh m.mc ONN ON em ma N OH mm Ha OH mm mma c mN an m AN an AA mcauuomoum X. mcamuowoum X ocauumwmum a HOQEOZ Gowoum oosomu Amoum sououm poccmu smoum souonm ooccmu Amosm monum moosoummoum ocean moocouomonm passe moocoummmnm OHQmuoom> Qmmmmmmmm mMAm¢Bm0m> 92¢ mBHDmm m0 mEMOh HHN mdmdfi 165 by 25 percent of the families. The figures were similar for frozen juices. Fruit and vegetable juices were purchased by most fami- lies: canned juices were generally more popular than frozen and fresh [64,272,280]. This pattern may be changing, however. Sales records and market research surveys from the frozen food industry show that consumption of frozen concen— trate has increased significantly in recent years [64,280]. More people drink frozen concentrates the year round and serve them in many occasions. The development of new flavors and blends is also partly responsible for the change. Quality, price and convenience were reasons most often given for preferences for a particular form. Kipgs. Preferences for different kinds of fruits and vegetables varied among families but there were some favor- ites [251,258]. Bananas, peaches, strawberries and apples came first on the fruit list; potatoes, lettuce, corn, peas and tomatoes were the favorite vegetables of most families. Orange and tomato juice lead the list in their respective categories [138]. Stribling [272] indicated that 84 percent of the women in her sample served fruits and vegetables for snacks. Fruits were served three times as much as vegetables. Preferences relative to socio-economic characteristics. It is not clear if preferences for specific fruits and 166 vegetables are related to basic differences in socio—economic characteristics. There was some indication that Older home— makers, large families and those with higher income and education bought more of almost all kinds of fresh, canned and frozen juices, fruits and vegetables [11,19,73,76,104, 111,124,138,l74,l93,257,258,280]. However, correlation be- tween per capita purchases and other family characteristics was very low. It appears that individual tastes were more important than income and other sociO-economic characteris- tics in explaining large variations in consumption. On the other hand, Bailey and Mize [11] suggested that race was the only significant variable explaining differences in the uses made of fruits and vegetables by the women in their sample. Buying Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Source of purchase. As was the case for all grocery products, most purchases of fruits and vegetables were made in chain supermarkets-—a1most 60 percent in a study by Shaffer [259]. Independent stores accounted for about one- fourth of the purchases and farm or market got the rest of the share. Factors influencing selection. As mentioned earlier, family likes and dislikes usually determined the kinds and,. to a certain extent, the form of fresh fruits and vegetables purchased [195,220,272]. Price and nutritive value were also important factors considered (determining the degree of 167 knowledge concerning the nutritive value of specific fruits and vegetables is another matter). Convenience was rated lower than any other factor in a study by Ottenhouse [220]. In the Stribling study [272], nutritive value was rated second, next to family preferences and before price but the investigator did not include convenience or quality factors. The sample for the tWO studies just mentioned consisted of mothers of daughters enrolled in home economics classes and was probably not representative of the total pOpulation. Criteria for judginquuality. Research done in this area is relatively non-existent. Matthews and Ueland [195] found that appearance was the decisive factor in choosing fresh fruits and vegetables. Ottenhouse [220] revealed that criteria for judging quality varied according to the form purchased. Appearance was a decisive factor for fresh fruits and vegetables; label was more important for canned products and, for frozen items, brand name was a chief factor. A question about the importance of label reading confirmed the results for canned fruits and vegetables: % of homemakers reading labels Form Bought Usually Sometimes Never fresh 35.5 18.7 45.6 canned 65.4 29.9 4.7 frozen 37.4 49.5 13.1 Importance of brand names for frozen fruits and vegetables was also reported in the A & P study of 1970 [146]. 168 Self—service (bulk) vs prepackaged. Findings from three studies at the local and national levels [49,220,272] showed that most women preferred loose displays (bulk, self-service) when purchasing their fruits and vegetables (Table XIII). The two most often mentioned reasons for such a preference were assurance of better quality and possibility of purchasing small or large quantities according to need. Convenience was the main reason given for preferring prepackaged produce. Women reported few problems in buying fruits and vegetables: quality was usually easy to judge, especially when buying loose produce. Price was sometimes a concern with the purchase of fresh fruits [34]. Summary of Fruits and Vegetables Purchasing Most homemakers do not serve a wide variety Of fruits and vegetables and prepare mostly familiar products for their families. Moreover, they do not seem to vary greatly the methods of preparation. Such behavior may be altered in the years to come: the technological developments in marketing and transportation have brought exotic and unfamiliar fruits and vegetables in the most remote places and familiarized the housewife with a greater variety Of products. The frozen industry has also marketed fruits and vegetables in a wide variety of sizes, forms and presentations. Such innovations will eventually combine with the trend toward better educa— tion and higher income to change the consumption pattern for fruits and vegetables. 169 mooumuom N no 0m NNN uaoum Imamum m ov hm NhN momomuo. N pm No NhN mooumaou _ e ma Hm NnN madman m mN Nb NhN mm ONN MN OH do a ma me me mGHHHOMOHm X moflnuomoum X HOQEOZ Loom oommxommoum mmammao mmooq OOOHOOOGD oommxommoum amamman omooq mooum (“Hi"I’ MUDmomm Qm0<¥0¢mmmm mDmmm> qum mom mmuzmmmmmmm HHHN mqm<9 170 Shopping for Eggs and DairyiProducts Eggs and dairy products are necessary to everybody's diet and they represent an important share of the food dollar. Consumption of these products has changed somewhat in the last decades. Sales of cheese have soared while the consumption of whole milk and butter has been decreasing considerably. Eggs and ice cream consumption has also decreased but at a slower pace (80). Producers and retailers have been increasingly concerned with the marketing of eggs and specific dairy products and several studies have been done to evaluate consumer's atti- tudes and Opinions toward a variety of products in this cate— gory. Results of some of these studies are reported in the following section. Eggs Per capita consumption has decreased regularly in the last ten years (80). Results from a number of studies [13, 47,121,192,l93,216,24l,296,301,311] showed that egg consump- tion was somewhat affected by the season, but the majority of housewives served them the year round. Preferences, health problems, weight consciousness were various reasons for not eating eggs. Women ate less eggs than men and they tended to believe that males need more eggs than anybody else in the family. Eggs were mostly eaten for breakfast and less than 50 percent of the families sometimes had eggs as main dishes at noon or for the evening meal. 171 White, large urban families with Older homemakers, higher income and higher per capita food expenditures con— sumed more eggs. Hammett and Blackstone reported [121] that if size of family and income were adjusted, race was not a significant factor in egg consumption. Sources of supply. About 60 percent of the eggs were purchased from retail stores [121,170]. A national study by Weidenhamer [311] revealed that four purchasers in ten usually got eggs at places different from those where they bought most of their other groceries. Other sources men— tioned were delivery at home, purchased from farmers, or other stores. The main reason given for the selection of a particular source of supply was quality (freshness). Lower prices, convenience and past experience were also important considerations. Criteria for selecting eggs. Most studies showed that the key factors for egg selection were: size, grade, shell color and price. Large eggs of grade A or AA were preferred but consumers did not seem to understand the relation between size, weight and grade [192,311]. Brown shell were favored by 40 to 50 percent or more of the homemakers (more by non- white) but were not always available., Price was a less important factor and an increase of a few cents did not usually affect purchase [121,170,242]. Younger homemakers, those with more education, and those with higher family income were more likely to know about 172 grades and used them more as a criterion for egg selection. Findings from research done at the Alabama Polytechnic Institute [121,296] showed that 50 to 80 percent of the home- makers had no interest in brand name when selecting eggs; thirty-three to sixty percent were not concerned with or aware of grades. Milk Products Use of milk products seems to be limited to a few of the best known products. Milk, in a variety of forms, is con- sumed by more than 95 percent of the families almost every day or several times a week[37,55,68,80,120,132,160,180,205. 299,324]. Evidence available suggests that white families, on the average, are getting the recommended amounts needed while more than half of the non—white families receive only 50 to 80 percent (sometimes less) of the recommended allow" ances [37,80,120,123,160,205]. Types of milk consumed Kinds and forms consumed.--Fresh milk was the first choice Of most people, especially for drinking. Canned milk-~mostly evaporated—~was used by a sizeable number of homemakers for drinking and cooking. Dry milk (NFDMS) was used mainly for cooking and for dieting purposes. Prefer- ences for other types of milk--buttermilk, sweet milk, half and half, etc.--were less generalized and consumption of these milk products were often limited to particular groups (Table XIV). 173 .maso MHHE Odogzm .wam pom RN .OHOA3 mOODHUcHM OH 04 .mm mom on as me now m.o as «as mos 6.68 mma om ems ma m.om om mma om mm em «ma massages oummz No es mm 2m» oma massages muss: mm mm No Hem oma HHHE xHHE MAME >HQ omumnomm>m amoum Honesz saxm ummzm Iumuusm sans Hogan moan: moHHHEmw mo fl MAHE m0 mmmWB UHmHUmmm m0 mmb >HX mqmfifi 174 Taste was very important in the selection of fresh and canned milk for drinking. Fresh milk is now available in three forms: whole, low-fat and skim. Whole milk was con- sumed mostly by children and teenagers, skim milk by a higher proportion of overweight persons and of those concerned with their diets. The introduction of low-fat milk on the market is relatively recent and investigations of its acceptance are practically non—existent. One study was done by Magleby [190] to assess awareness, trial and acceptance of 2 percent buttermilk fat (2% milk). Results showed that the 2% milk was purchased predominantly by older and smaller households. Awareness and use were greater with households having one or more persons overweight or watching weight, better- educated homemakers with middle to higher income. Females consumed 2% milk more often than males. Few homemakers were aware of the fortification of the milk. A richer milk seemed to be preferred by most families. Research done at the University of Arizona [137] and Clemson University [68] showed that milk with higher fat contents was consistently preferred by the majority of the panel members. Findings from the various studies mentioned above indi- cated that dry milk was used mostly because of its low cost. Preferences relative to sociO-economic character- istics.--Preferences for different kinds and forms of milk seemed to be related to socio-economic characteristics. iFamilies with children under 12 years of age, urban white 175 families and those with higher income and education were more likely to consume fresh milk—-(whole, 2 percent fat or skim) [12,37,55,68,120,123,132,l60,l83,205,299]. Sex and age were also significant: male of all age groups drank more of a variety of milk than female and milk consumption decreased with age. Rural families and families with less education were more likely to consume canned milk. Dry milk was used more extensively by women with middle income and education and by those living in rural areas [132,133,134,160,183]. Non—white showed a distinct prefer— ence for buttermilk while white and male preferred sweet milk. Source of purchases.--Delivery of fresh milk at home used to be common for a majority of the families. But the pattern has changed in the last 10 or 15 years. Accord— ing to a study by Wessel et al. [314], the percentage of families who had all their milk delivered at home dropped from 56 percent in 1960 to 38 percent in 1963. Recent figures may be even lower. Families who still preferred home delivery used it mostly for fresh fluid milk and were usually heavy milk users. Preference for delivery did not seem to be related to income [314]. More important factors were habit and convenience. Package and size preferences.--Jones and Blackstone [160] investigated package and size preferences for milk. Ninety percent of the families in their sample had used milk 176 in bottles and cartons and 61 percent of them preferred bottles. Most homemakers bought quart containers and about 30 percent bought half-gallons; 50 percent who used both sizes preferred the half—gallon container; 40 percent preferred the quart and the remainder had no preference. Mize et al. [205] revealed that the proportions of housewives showing a preference for glass or carton containers were similar. Preference for sizes varied according to place of residence: rural families tended to prefer bigger sizes but 70 percent had no particular preferences; urban homemakers preferred the half-gallon and the quart. Attitudes toward different types of_milk.-—Most homemakers had a favorable attitude toward different types of milk, even if they admitted not drinking it as often as they should. Wightman [320] reported that 90 percent of the housewives in her study believed that "you never outgrow your need for milk." Milk was drunk mostly at home and less often at work or in the restaurants. Even if a sizeable number of homemakers thought it was appropriate to serve milk to guests, they usually offered tea and coffee and many of them said they would serve milk only if the guest asked for it or if they already knew their guests' preferences. Most homemakers acknowledged the nutritive value of milk, especially for children, teenagers and "hard-workers." From 27 to 75 percent of the women believed that whole milk 177 was fattening and they said they would not include it in a reducing diet [80,120,132,133,l34,160,277,321]. Skim or dry milk was usually suggested as a substitute by most home— makers. Housewives (and other adults as a whole) have shown increasing concern for the possible connection between milk products and coronary diseases. The controversy has been made public in recent years and concerned people have relied on their family doctors and the printed media for information and advice. The decrease in consumption of whole milk and butter noted earlier may be related to such concern but the increase in sales and consumption of other milk products contradict such statement. It is also possible that the cost of butter, rather than its possible hazard to health, has been a factor in the switch to margarine. Attitudes toward milk substitutes.-—Milk substi— tutes (imitation milk," "filled milk") have net been widely accepted by homemakers according to the results of three studies [148,306,336]. Unfamiliarity with the product seemed to be the most important reason for the small pur- chases of substitutes by most homemakers. Investigators also reported that most people could not define what a milk sub— stitute was and were confused about its nutritive value. The majority thought it had a lower calorie content than regular milk. Users were mostly large families. 178 Cheese Consumption of cheese has increased tremendously in recent years (80) but, as in the case of milk, a few varieties——cottage, American, cheddar--account for most of the expenditures for cheese [69,80,120,132,133,134,l35,l36, 277,321]. The American Dairy Association has published a series of studies from 1954. to 1961 investigating public attitudes and uses of dairy products [132,133,134,135]. Results showed that 90 to 95 percent of the families ate some kind of cheese: 75 to 95 percent had tried cottage, American, Swiss and Cheddar; 35 to 40 percent knew the blue varieties; and 15 to 20 percent, the soft or semi-soft cheeses. Percentages of homemakers having these varieties at home on survey week ‘was lower but in line with the figures just mentioned. Reasons for not trying a particular variety were related to preferences for other kinds and lack of familiarity with the product. Income and education were positively related to quantities and varieties bought. Upper—income families used cheese more often for snacks and desserts, lower—income, as a meat substitute. Women ate more cheese sandwiches than men. Almost six out of ten homemakers bought pre-sliced cheese and 47 percent preferred it this way. Thirty percent preferred "one—piece" cheese. A higher percentage of middle— and lower-income homemakers preferred pre—sliced cheese and the percentage buying it was higher in the upper—income group. Hp 51': III a~i :? 179 Cheese was served at all meals or between meals, but it was preferred for lunch (snacks at home or away). It was some- times given or received as a gift, more often by upper-income families. Cottage Cheese. Cottage cheese is in a category of its own. Most studies on cheese reported more findings for cottage than for any other variety [69,80,120,132,133,134,l35, 321]. About 30 percent of the homemakers interviewed never purchased cottage cheese; taste was the main reason for not purchasing it. Frequent users liked it mostly for its low caloric contentr its nutritive value and its low cost. Attitude toward“ cottage cheese was related to concern for weight but the percentage of users did not vary consider— ably between dieters and non—dieters [69,135]. Consumption of cottage was positively related to income and education. White, upper-income families living in urban areas and home— makers with better education served more cottage cheese than any other groups. Selecting Convenience Foods Convenience foods have long been with us if we define them as any food that has undergone one or any number of processes to make it easier to use. Foods that are washed, trimmed, packaged, sifted, sliced, measured, frozen, cooked, dried, etc. are convenient. Many convenience foods, like TV dinners and frozen entrees, have only recently appeared on 180 the store shelves, but some we have known for many years: canned goods and instant coffee, for example. Over $36 billion of the $69 billion grocery store food sales in 1970 had some degree of convenience built in by the processors (72). Convenience is clearly the dominant sector of the American food market and there seems to be a continued movement away from fresh unprepared toward the ready-to- serve foods. Extensive research has been done to determine the extent to which homemakers use convenience foods, their attitudes toward these particular products and the effect, if any, of selected socio-economic characteristics. Results from some of these studies are reported in the following section. For the purpose of this dissertation, convenience foods 'were classified into three categories:1 1) Baked goods: fresh, canned or frozen; prepared mixes for baked products. 2) Frozen and canned fruits and vegetables. 3) Main—course dishes: packaged or frozen; frozen entrees, TV dinners, spaghetti, etc. The percentage of homemakers using convenience foods varied according to the type of product and the group studied ‘but all homemakers admitted purchasing some and most bought one or more items in each category [12,39,62,125,174,181,231, 260,282,289,324]. 1It was impossible to find relevant or detailed data for other products. 181 Reasons for purchasing convenience foods were many: 1) Convenience——save time, handy for emergency meal, easy for husband and children to prepare, etc. 2) Variety-—seasonal products available the year round, selection of items hard to prepare from scratch at home, etc. 3) Quality and novelty-—taste appeal, enjoy specialties not prepared at home, like to try new product, etc. There was no such person as a "full-time convenience user." While a small minority used all types of convenience foods at almost every meal as a general practice, most used them occasionally, some more frequently than others. Baked Goods and Desserts Baked goods and desserts were served almost every day by more than 90 percent of the homemakers. Some were totally “home-produced," but most were prepared from mixes or bought ready-tO-cook or ready-to—serve. Only about 10 percent of the homemakers never bought any mixes or commercially-baked goods. Pancakes, puddings and cakes were prepared from mixes by 73 to 96 percent of the housewives. About 50 per- cent used mixes to bake yeast rolls, muffins and pastry [33,112,125,174,270]. French [103] reported that 66 percent of the women in his sample bought commercially-prepared pies sometime during the year (1957). This was a 26 percent increase from 1953. In the Harris study [125], four out of five homemakers 182 purchased commercially-prepared pies once in a while (1963). Frozen pies seemed to be less pOpular. A survey by Cook and Martin in 1965 [62] revealed that only 26 percent of the families in their sample purchased frozen pies. Use of baked goods and desserts relative to socio— economic characteristics. Few socio-economic characteristics were found to have a significant effect upon the use of pre— pared or semi-prepared baked goods and desserts. Urban families and younger homemakers were more likely to use mixes than any other groups. Employment of the wife and size of the family were not important factors, except for a few items in the category of baked goods. Commercially-baked products 'were purchased more Often by families in the middle—income group and by older homemakers [103]. Fruits and Vegetables, Juices- It has already been reported that fresh fruits and vege— tables were generally preferred to canned and frozen, in that order. Nevertheless, a wide variety of produce were 'bought in all three forms and specific items were preferred in a "convenient" form, canned or frozen [60,181,290,304]. Levine study. One of the most extensive studies in this area was done by Levine [181] who interviewed 1,192 Ihomemakers in three cities. He reported that canned fruits and vegetables were used by 80 to 90 percent of the women; frozen products by 60 to 70 percent; and frozen juices by 183 about 50 percent. Generally speaking, homemakers indicated preferences for frozen vegetables and canned fruits and juices. Convenience and ease of preparation were important factors in the preference for canned products. Taste and flavor were mentioned most often in connection with frozen items. When asked about the factors considered in purchasing canned products, the homemakers answered as follows: % of homemakers mentioning Items considered canned products brand name 80 to 90 size, weight about 50 recipes, cooking instructions about 33 number of servings about 33 price about 20 Brand name was considered the most important item on canned and frozen labels by 40 to 60 percent of the respon— dents. Other items—-price, quantity, form, grade, ingredients, etc.--were not mentioned by more than 10 percent. As a rule, canned fruits and vegetables were not stored for more than 2 to 3 weeks by most homemakers. Only 5 to 10 percent of the women removed the contents from the can before refrigerating it, but 50 to 75 percent thought it was safer to do so. Frozen products were stored for about a week and approximately 90 percent of the housewives cooked the entire package at one time (this was in 1958, before the introduction of 2-lb. bags at the frozen counter). Sixty percent of the 'homemakers believed taste was not affected by ppfreezing but 40 to 60 percent felt it unsafe. 184 In regard to storage of frozen products, Redstrom et al. [231] found that 50 percent of the homemakers in their sample stored frozen fruits and vegetables in the ice compartment; only fourteen to 23 percent kept their products in a separate freezer compartment at 00F or below. Levine found little variation in the use of canned and frozen fruits and vegetables between different socio-economic groups in the three cities included in the study. Cook study. Prepared vegetables (with sauce, buttered, au gratin, etc.) have been introduced in the market in the last 6 or 7 years and there are new varieties coming up. Cook [60] investigated 600 families in Long Island to deter— mine their attitudes toward prepared vegetables. Findings revealed that almost all of the people who bought frozen "regular" vegetables—-69 percent of the sample--also bought "prepared" vegetables, but not as often. Pouches were pre- ferred to boxes and aluminium trays, mostly because they were more convenient to use. Price of the prepared vegetables was considered "too high" by 42 percent of the respondents. Buttered peas, corn, spinach and broccoli were purchased more frequently than other vegetables (fifteen, in all). More than 90 percent thought the quality of the products was good to excellent. Prepared vegetables were consumed by the entire family in 73 percent of the cases. Relationships between attitudes toward and use of pre- ;pared vegetables and socio-economic characgeristics were not investigated by the author. 185 Entrees and Main—Course Dinners Results from various studies indicated that canned, packaged and frozen entrees and main-course dinners were used more or less regularly by 80 to 90 percent of the home- makers [61,62,63,67,107,125,174,210,231,252,264,294,310]. Canned and luncheon meats, frozen meat pies (chicken, turkey) and pizzas were the most popular, with macaroni and cheese (packaged or frozen), meats in gravy and fried clams, next. Nationality dinners are relatively new but were generally well accepted by those who tried them. TV dinners were bought by 25 to 35 percent of the housewives, on a more or less regular basis. Most homemakers did not like the flavor of TV dinners but thought they were very convenient. Frozen entrees and meat pies were considered good by about half of the homemakers. Younger housewives, urban families with higher income and education were more likely to serve frozen entrees than any other groups. Canned and luncheon meats were used by most homemakers and differences were not very significant among various groups. General Attitude Toward Convenience Foods The majority of homemakers thought that mpg; convenience foods were more expensive than their prepared counterparts but they were increasingly willing to pay a premium for the saving in time and energy they afford. It is also possible that a sizeable number of housewives do not like cooking 186 enough or do not have the ability to prepare some of these items themselves. In these cases, the convenience foods enable the homemaker to serve varied and exotic meals with— out the risk of failure and with little expense of time and energy. Quality varies for different categories of convenience foods and seems to be more of a problem for certain types of packaged and frozen dinners. Storage does not seem to be difficult for most homemakers. Convenience Foods Relative to Socio— economic Characteristics In 1969, Anderson [2] attempted to ascertain whether identifiable syndromes or typologies of convenience-orienta- tion (toward food products) could be distinguished within and across socio-economic strata, stage in the family life cycle and different use of leisure time. His sample con- sisted of 1,000 families from the 90,000 United States families participating in the National Family Opinion survey of 1969.1 Anderson reported the following findings: 1) There were significant differences in convenience— orientation according to family life cycle, family size, age, income, education and total grocery expenditures. Homemakers under 50 years of age, larger young families, those who spent more for 1The sample was drawn from suburban metropolitan areas of 500,000 population and over. Data were collected through a mail questionnaire. ’ 187 foods and had higher income and education were more likely to be convenience-oriented. 2) There were no significant relationships between convenience-orientation and the following character- istics: occupation of the head of the family, socio—economic status, employment of the wife and frequency of shopping. Urban vs suburban, or urban vs rural were not con- trasted in terms of convenience—orientation, but other stud— ies mentioned earlier [264,270] revealed that suburban families bought more convenience foods than urban families. Rural families were the least convenience-oriented of all groups. In that case, availability and familiarity with convenience foods may be more important factors than place of residence. If personality characteristics were researched exten— sively in connection with orientation toward convenience, they could be more revealing than socio—economic character— istics. Attitudes Toward Selected Marketing and Merchandising Practices .Attitudes Toward Packaging Food packaging was initially intended to protect products against all possible damages from handling and transportation. It still serves this purpose today but it has acquired a new 188 dimension, that of a silent salesman. Most manufacturers today compete for the attention of the homemaker by devoting considerable money to package design, shape and color, often at the expense of useful information. This manipulation has resulted in a proliferation of packages on the shelves, sometimes to the disadvantage of the housewife who may rely only on package appeal to make her selection rather than take the time to compare products for their intrinsic merits and qualities. In addition, manufacturers have used pack— aging for hiding increased costs of their products. In lieu of hiking the price, they have reduced the content of the package. This practice of "packaging to price" has resulted in more and more products with fractional and odd sizes-- 15% ounce, 4.08 ounces, etc.—-that make cost-size comparisons impossible for the majority of the consumers. Another packaging innovation has been the "cents Off” deals offered on the package, a reduction from the regular price not always passed on to the consumer or, if so, not always ascertainable. The consumer's confusion with packaging was brought to public attention 10 years ago when Senator Philip Hart in- troduced a bill for a Fair Packaging and Labeling Act. Five years of debate and hearings resulted in the passage of a law that required specific statements on every package and/or label. The legislation also recommended a reduction in the number of sizes of many food products, elimination of 21E —7 .M.‘ 3: 1‘ ' ‘1 189 "cents off" deals, prohibition of deceptive names, and a few other specifics. Studies to evaluate consumer's attitudes toward and confusion with packaging are relatively scarce and the data available have been collected either previous to or during these five years that it took to pass a legislation for better packaging. In 1958, Levine [181] did an extensive study to appraise consumer attitudes toward canned and frozen foods, their packages and labels. He reported that 90 percent of the housewives were satisfied with canned foods size and approxi- mately 60 percent, with frozen food sizes. One reason for some dissatisfaction with frozen was that there was not enough variety in sizes. Containers were usually liked for their convenience and ease of storage but about one-third of the homemakers suggested that they could be easier to open. Only 10 to 20 percent of the housewives offered suggestions for changes in the package labels: they wanted more recipes, an accurate statement of the number of servings, more realistic pictures of the products, larger print, calorie count and packing data. Approximately 60 percent of the :respondents said they would not accept a label showing only ibrand name and content. National Family Opinion conducted two national surveys (of consumer Opinion of food store packaging [92,93,94,96,97, 9E”, one in 1960 (1,089 homemakers) and one in 1965 (1,141 Inomemakers). Housewives were asked to agree or disagree with 190 a list of statements about packaging. Results of the two surveys reported in Sales Management magazine showed that consumers' attitudes did not change much in the five years between the two studies. The majority of women admitted being considerably influenced by packages and almost half sometimes changed brands if a competing company came out with a better package. Nearly two-thirds said they would pay more for a more convenient or more efficient package; conversely, only a little more than a third preferred the old—style packages at a lower cost. Answers to specific statements seemed to indicate that the debate over truth-in— packaging has sharpened the homemaker's critical sense. In 1965, 85 percent of the housewives said they made a habit of looking for information about weights and sizes on the package they intended to buy (not asked in 1960); thirty- four percent agreed with the statement that economy size" packages Often cost more per unit of weight than smaller packages (24 percent in 1960); four out Of ten indicated that "cents off" labels did not necessarily mean a bargain (not asked in 1960). Similarities between income and age groups were more striking than discrepancies; however, families with higher income and middle-aged homemakers were least determined to stick to familiar brands and most willing to pay for con— venience. Inquiries about consumer preferences for different types of containers and closures revealed the importance of 191 convenience: the majority of homemakers-liked sifter tops, portion packaging (individual servings), pull—tab Openings, containers usable for other purposes, cans and throw-away bottles for soft drinks and beers. At the time of these surveys, there was not much public concern for the environ- ment. The same questions asked today could reveal different attitudes toward disposable containers and bottles. But attitude does not always translate into behavior. A recent survey by Wrigley supermarkets [263] showed that even if 67 percent of the consumers wanted returnable bottles as a means of reducing pollution, only 40 percent purchased them. Brooks [32] studied consumer preferences for different types of food packaging. He reported that convenience and economy were important factors in package selection. Younger Ihomemakers and those with larger families were more likely 'to emphasize convenience; economy—mindedness was closely aassociated with a lower than average grocery expenditure per person. Place of residence and employment of the wife did rust affect packaging preferences. In the Sales Management surveys [92,93,94,96,97,98], luousewives rated package characteristics in the following order of importance: keeps content fresh until used up, leakproof, can be tightly reclosed after opening, moisture— proof, convenient size and shape for storing, easy to Open, easy to move about and pour, and easy to carry. Such results showed that packages that keep food quality and freshness ‘H‘ R. ’1‘ QIIU 192 longer are more important than convenience for the majority of homemakers. Most frequent complaints about packaging centered on deceptive package performance and a lack of adequate informa— tion about the product [16,32,92,93,94,96,97,98,105,171,218, 315] rather than any misleading practice. The majority of homemakers thought that deceptive packaging was not de— liberately intended by most manufacturers. Corrective measures taken to deal with deception consisted in switching to another brand and telling friends about it. Sometimes, products were returned to the store. Notification to the manufacturer or a governmental agency was a very rare occurrence . Trading Stamps In 1956, one year after they entered the supermarket, about half of the families in the United States were saving one or more of the different kinds of stamps distributed by retail food stores [286] . Since then, consumer acceptance (If trading stamps has endured and a review of studies done iri'the last 15 years suggest that many consumers show a great entfliusiasm for trading stamps even though 35 to 65 percent of stamp savers believe this practice generally increases This belief in price the price paid for food [243,285] . increase is supported by studies done to measure the impact (Df tflne use of trading stamps on food prices [145,173,286, 302,327]. 193 Results of research indicated that the majority of homemakers--from 66 to 96 percent——saved trading stamps when they were given in the store; but when probed about their attitudes toward the practice, the percentage of homemakers who confessed liking and wanting them drOpped to around 50 percent and only about one-third were directly influenced by stamps in the selection of a store [1,3,46,59,87,179,188, 243,248,253,255,285]. In the studies done in the last decade, a trend shows toward a reduction of interest for trading stamps [243]. The annual surveys by Burgoyne Index In- corporated [285] also reveal that while 55 percent of home— makers declared a preference for stamps as Opposed to a 2 percent reduction in prices in 1962, four years later, 7 out of 10 women said they would select a store with prices lower and only about 28 percent acknowledged that they would favor the store giving stamps. In all studies, less than 20 per— cent of the respondents were prepared to switch to another store if the store they patronized was to cease the practice of giving stamps. The homemakers' propensity to save stamps, not neces- sarily because they like them but because they are "free" and "you do not throw them away when you know you can get something for them," was evidenced in the number of different stamps women saved: 60 to 90 percent of homemakers partici- pated in one or two plans [87,255,285] and 15 percent, in three. Burgoyne Index Incorporated [285] calculated that 194 respondents of their 13th annual survey averaged participa~ tion in 1.5 to 2.2 plans, depending on the city. Shaffer is one of the very few who studied the redemp— tion of trading stamps [253,255]. He reported that the number of different kinds of stamps redeemed during one year was markedly different from the number saved: in all cases, only a fraction of those saving a particular stamp redeemed it some time during the year. Reasons for the behavior was not investigated by the author but it is safe to assume that they are varied: amount of stamps insufficient for the redemption of a particular item; redemption center not available in place of residence; indecision about the gift desired; time pressures, etc. Results of a study done during the same period by Ellsworth et a1. [87] were somewhat different and the propor— tion of redeemers was much smaller-—only 24 percent. But ‘their sample was small and consisted of customers of grocery stores interviewed after they completed their shopping. 0 {They may not be as representative as the almost 4,000 :Eamilies investigated by Shaffer in two surveys. In one of tflnese studies [255],Shaffer asked the homemakers to agree (It disagree with some statements about trading stamps. 1; small minority-—22 percent——thought stamps should be jILlegal and 43 percent said they benefited from them. More tlian 50 percent believed Stores giving trading stamps had higher prices and that the general practice increased the cost of food. 195 To summarize, there is some evidence that the popularity of trading stamps has decreased somewhat since their intro- duction in the supermarkets in 1955, but they still represent an important factor in food buying decisions for about half of the homemakers and one-third of the customers will con— sider this form of promotion in their selection of a store. Recently, many supermarkets have introduced "double-stamp" day (usually Wednesday) and this practice may induce the consumers to buy more on this particular day. However, no research was available on that aspect of the stamps business. Fifty percent of the homemakers believed stamps con“ tribute to higher food prices, but only a minority declared having switched to another food store to protest against the giving of stamps. Relationships between selected socio-economic character- istics and.attitudes toward trading stamps showed that alxfluough a higher prOportion of better-educated homemakers auui of those higher in the income scale exhibited a negative attitude toward the practice, they were more likely to save them: than women with lower income or education. A sizeable percentage of the homemakers with higher education and income were even prepared to patronize another food store if the giAning of stamps was discontinued in the store of their ciuiice [1,3,122,255,275]. Least influenced by stamps were smaller-size families and those with older homemakers [122, 255) . There was no mention of other types of relationships ixi'the studies reviewed. 196 Coupons and Deals Homemakers are exposed every day to some kind of deal- offers from manufacturers and/or retailers: cents—off labels on the packages garnishing the store shelves, coupons in newspapers or magazines, coupons sent through the mail, retailers' specials, etc. The reaction of consumers to this form of promotion has received practically no attention in the academic field and little more in business circles. The report of a study published in Printer's Ink in 1965 [317] revealed that about 58 percent of all consumers bought some kind of a deal. Deal—buyers were classified by the investigator as to their "deal-proneness": 22 percent were considered heavy deal—buyers; 61 percent, light deal— buyers; and the remainder were in the medium group. It was found that three—fifths of all deal volume was accounted for by the heavy deal-buyers, while only 14 percent of the total volume was purchased by light deal-buyers. Smith [265] asked the homemakers in her sample if their food plans were influenced by various kinds of coupons. She found that it was not the case for the majority of the respondents-—approximately 73 percent of the sample. Attitudes toward mail-out coupons were assessed by a few researchers. Hammett and Blackstone [123] reported that although 63 percent of her respondents remembered re- ceiving mail-out coupons at one time or another, one-fourth of them never cared to use them. An earlier study by the same investigator [122] revealed that, of those receiving 197 coupons, 54 percent never used them, 38 used them for some products, and the others used them all the time. Fourteen percent of the sample never received mail-out coupons, mainly non-white and residents of the rural areas. In the series of studies by National Family Opinion [290], less than half of the homemakers used coupons frequently. Reasons for not using coupons were not always specified by the respondents. When stated, the most frequently men— tioned were: time-consuming, troublesome, lost or forgotten, given away, products not available in the area or in the store usually patronized. Clipping of newspaper coupons was investigated by The Chicago Tribune [1]. Results indicated that 63 percent of the homemakers did use newspaper coupons in order to save Inoney or try new food products coming on the market. .Approximately one-fourth of the student wives interviewed iby'Lustberg [188] thought newspaper coupons were discrimina— ‘tory, but this result cannot be applied to the pOpulation at large, since a significant number of the respondents in the .sample did not receive the local newspaper. Nevertheless. tfliis comment indicates that the consumers less likely to receive or read a newspaper-—non-white, low—income, less- eaducated-—may be at a disadvantage, although they are the ones in most need. Evidence found in these studies indicated that income, education and family size were positively related to use of (nonpons and cents-off deals. Suburban residence seemed also 198 to be a factor. Age showed no consistent pattern [1,271, 308,317]. A study mentioned earlier [317] showed that the heavy deal—buyer was less loyal to a store and made 55 per— cent more trips to the supermarkets in a given period than the light deal-buyer. Richardson [236] and Webster [308] reported that deal—proneness decreased as brand loyalty and number of units purchased increased. Contests and Games Contests and games emerged in 1965-1966 in food retail- ing. According to a recent report by the Federal Trade Commission [284], 52 different types of games and contests were used in 55 major grocery markets in 1966. These pro- motional devices are relatively newer than coupons and stamps and investigations of their influence on food shopping be— havior are very scarce. Most of the available studies were done by business and industries and, when not kept secret, do not reveal a great deal of information. Two studies done by Burgoyne Index Incorporated in 1965 and 1966 [284,285] showed that games and contests increased in popularity in that one year between the two surveys. In 1965, 45 percent of the homemakers indicated no interest in games of chance while the percentage decreased to 35 percent 1J1 1966. The customer group that 1iked this type of pro- motion went from 11 percent in 1965 to 19 percent in 1966. The remainder, 44 percent, expressed no preference. 199 Results from a Progressive Grocer survey of consumers across the nation [284] revealed that a little over 90 per- cent of the sample indicated that they favored the elimina— tion of games of chance if it would result in lower prices. In a pool conducted all over the United States by Harris and Associates Incorporated [284], as many as 70 percent of the respondents had a similar attitude toward the discon- tinuance of contest and games. A more recent study by The Chicago Tribune [1] assessed the participation of homemakers in store contests. Results showed that 50 percent of the women acknowledged their participation. The suburban, white, better-educated, higher- income women with a larger family were more likely to participate in this form of promotion. A recent investigation by the Federal Trade Commission on the use of games of chance in the food retailing industry [284] examined over 350 letters from consumers commenting about the practice. This sample cannot be representative, since we can reasonably assume that customers favorable or indifferent to such a promotion do not usually take the time 113*write and let people know about their feelings. Letters are most likely to pour in from dissatisfied consumers. Complaints of alleged fraud represented 39.3 percent of the sample. Blaming high prices on games was next, with 29.9 percent of the respondents believing that the increased food prices were due to such promotions. General dislike of 200 the practice was expressed by 12 percent of the sample but 22 percent of this particular group said it was because they preferred stamps, which is another controversial form of promotion. Five percent of the writers had favorable com— ments, one-third of them for the reason that they had been winners at one time. Meal Preparation and Service Meal Management Food shopping behavior is affected by meal preparation behavior and reciprocally. Housewives who enjoy cooking are usually willing to take more time to prepare and serve family meals: they like to try new products and new recipes; they are proud of their baked goods and their "home-made" jams and preserves and they consider the meal management activi— tieswan'occasion for creation rather than a chore. 0n the other hand, women who resent preparing meals one or more times a day, seven days a week, will use any means at their disposal to reduce work; they will probably purchase more convenience foods; they will cut on home production and preservation; they will enlist help from the family members or from outside. Unfortunately, no research has been done to determine relationships between attitude toward cooking and food pmeparation and a variety-of meal management practices. 201 Most researchers have concentrated their investigations in this area on time management, amount of home preservation and adequacy of meals in relation to selected socio-economic variables, particularly income, age, education and employ- ment of the wife. Findings from these studies are reported in the following section. Meals prepared at home [7,35,40,77,78,128,140,141,142, l79,189,201,211,305,322]. Approximately 75 percent of the homemakers prepared three meals a day. However, about 65 percent reported that one or more member of the family took at least one meal a day away from home, usually the noon meal. In such cases, lunches were packed or meals were eaten in restaurants or cafeterias (at work or at school). The number of meals eaten away was somewhat greater for families with working wives, but this is due to a large number of all—adult households in this group. That is, the employed—wife families did not necessarily make a habit of eating out because of the homemaker's job. Rather, the absence of young children made it easier for the homemakers to seek outside employment and, as a result, family members did not have to come home for lunch. More than half of the homemakers reported taking their family to the restaurant once in a while. Young families with higher education and income were more likely to do so than older or low—income households. 202 Assistance from family members or paid workers [21, 77,78,125,128,140,141,142]. The chore of preparing meals was often lightened by help from other family members or paid workers. Working wives received more help than non— employed; and employed wives in the city had more assistance than those in the country. In families with children old enough to help, husbands were less likely to assist their wives with meal prepara- tion and cleaning up, and more so in rural areas. Generally speaking, white homemakers received more assistance from their husbands but less from their children than non—white. This may not be due to race, but to the fact that more non— white families had school children old enough to help. Some assistance was given at all stages of meal management, from grocery shopping to putting dishes away after cleaning. Husbands and sons were more likely to help with grocery shopping and setting the table while daughters did the dish— 'washing more often than anybody else. Time spent in meal preparation and cleaning up [125, 128,150,211,322,324]. Time spent to prepare meals and clean up afterwards varied according to the meal and the help received. As pointed out earlier (page 93), breakfast was a routine meal and 95 percent of the homemakers spent less than 30 minutes to prepare and serve it. Very often in the case of breakfast, cleaning up was done later during the day, sometimes postponed until after the evening meal. 203 When lunch was served, preparation did not take much time. In one study [125], 92 percent of the homemakers spent less than 30 minutes in preparing the meal, the time neces— sary to reheat leftovers or prepare soup and sandwiches. Dinner has become the main meal of the day for most families and it is usually more elaborate. From 80 to 90 percent of the homemakers spent more than 40 minutes in pre— paring the family evening meal, the majority spending about one hour. Cleaning up afterwards took also more time than for the other two meals, except when family members coop— erated to do the task. One investigator [125] compared the time spent in meal preparation between employed and non-employed homemakers. She reported that non-employed women spent much more time than employed women for the preparation of all three meals. This may be explained in a number of ways: (1) non-employed homemakers may have young children requiring more variation in their diets; (2) it is possible that women who do not work outside the home do so because they enjoy housework in general and, consequently, they willingly spend more time in food preparation; and (3) Parkinson's Law may be at work in such instances: non—working women have more time at their disposal and they use it more lavishly. As was reported earlier (page 187). differences in use of convenience be- tween employed and non-employed homemakers are not statis- tically significant; they cannot explain the variation in time management. 204 From the data available, it seems reasonable to con— clude that homemakers spend between two and three hours daily on meal preparation on the average. This includes such activities as preparing and cooking meals, packing lunches for meals eaten away and preparing foods in advance for later usage. This time may be expanded considerably if home- makers cook for large families, bake and preserve foods extensively, use less short-cuts and time-saving devices (i.e., doubling recipes and freezing half), indulge in exotic and fancy "cuisine," entertain guests and friends frequently, etc. Food production and preservation at home [8,9,10,33,78, 86,89,128,140,l4l,l42,l98,199,204,322]. Food production and preservation considered here are baking, canning and freez- ing. More than 90 percent of the homemakers did some baking at home, mostly pies, cakes and cookies. Employment of the wives seemed to reduce, to some extent, the amount of baking done at home but the difference was not significant. Both working and non-working wives used packaged mixes extensively and, in some cases, non-employed women prepared more baked goods from mixes than the employed wives. PrOportion of homemakers doing any kind of food pres— ervation at home—-canning, freezing, pickling-—varied accord- ing to socio-economic characteristics. On the whole, freez- ing was more popular than any other method of preservation. Place of residence, race and employment were important 205 variables: white homemakers, women living in rural areas and non-working wives did more food preservation at home than non-white, city and working wives. However, the employed-wives and city families who did any preservation compared favorably with the others in average quantity of food frozen or canned. Homemakers with elementary school children tended to preserve more foods than did the ones with preschoolers (9). Usingirecipes-—trying new recipes [39,78,81,82,118, 122,134,135,136,169,214,232,312,321]. The majority of home— makers used recipes, at least once in a while, but the proportion using them regularly was much lower. Cookbooks, magazines, friends and relatives were the best sources of recipes. Food packages, newspapers, radio and television followed in that order. Recipes were used mostly for baked goods and desserts. Education and income were positively related to the use of recipes. Willingness to try new recipes varied considerably according to the type of recipes. If the ingredients used for the recipes were known, from 70 to 82 percent of the homemakers said they would go ahead and try them; the number of those ready to experiment dropped to about 45 percent when the recipe was using unfamiliar ingredients. Liking innovations and variety were the main reasons for trying a new recipe; fear of failure, for hesitating to try it. In some cases, the time and money involvements combined with 206 this fear of failure prevented the homemaker from trying anything "new." Income and education were positively associated to willingness to experiment with new recipes. Age was sig— nificant only for homemakers under 50 years of age who were more receptive to new recipes than those 50 or over. Knowledge About Food and Nutrition Inasmuch as level of knowledge affects behavior, it is reasonable to assume that homemakers who possess a good knowledge of food marketing, food products and nutrition are better equipped to fulfill their task as food provider for the family than housewives who have not or could not acquire some basic facts about foods. Consumer education and information are precisely aimed at increasing knowledge about all aspects of food manage— ment; and in order to develop meaningful programs, those in charge of education must know the needs of their audience. With this purpose in mind, researchers have attempted to assess consumer's knowledge about the two main aspects of food: buying or marketing and nutrition. Marketing or buy- ing knowledge refers to knowledge of marketing terms, relationships of supply and prices, grades and inspection for a variety of food products, etc. Nutrition knowledge implies knowledge about the nutritive value of specific products, the relationships between food intake and health, etc. 207 Research in these areas has been quite extensive; however, for the most part, it has remained very general and the methods used to evaluate consumer's knowledge were not always adequate, to say the least. In many instances, consumer knowledge about nutrition was measured and analyzed with no more than 5 or 6 answers to vague or simplistic statements; in other cases, questions were formulated in such a way that they led to expected answers. Nevertheless, results are generally consistent and they are worth studying to further clarify our image of the con- sumer. Findings about the level of consumer knowledge about nutrition and specific areas of food buying are reported in the following section. Level of Marketing Knowledge The general level of marketing knowledge was fairly low in all areas of information. Inspection and grades. Most respondents, from 43 to 97 percent, remembered seeing inspection and grade symbols used for meats and eggs, but only a small minority could explain their respective meaning and the proportion of home— makers who could differentiate between the two was indeed very small [18,29,51,71,75,85,113,118,144,153,172,174,226, 246,269,281,294,298,310,311,312]. Consumers were not only confused between grade and inspection; they also assigned specific grades to ungraded products (at the retail level); 208 they were misinformed about or unaware of what characteris— tics are considered in determining grades and they were wrong in interpreting the grade names. Homemakers seemed to be more familiar with the grades of eggs and beef but less than half could give correct responses to specific statements concerning these grades. These findings suggest that there is a general lack of awareness about government grades and inspection. Even correct answers cannot be taken to indicate knowledge but rather they were often dictated by the belief that all foods were graded. It has been reported earlier that few consumers used grades as a cri— terion for selection. It is possible that a better under- standing of their meaning would change the selection pattern of a significant number of homemakers. HutChinson[153] investigated sources of grade knowledge and preferences for grade designation. He reported that one-third of those who correctly identified grades learned them in shopping; 19 percent had learned about them in school or college and 31 percent took their information from news— papers and magazines. Most easily understood designations for grades were letters (preferred by 43.6 percent of the respondents), words (31.6 percent), and numbers (18.2 per- cent). Six percent of the homemakers did not have any Opinion. These results differed from those obtained by Knotts [153]: in his study, words were preferred to letters as designations for grades. 209 Younger homemakers (20 to 30 years of age), those with more education and higher income were more likely to give correct answers to statements and questions about grades and inspection. There was no significant relationship between evaluation (grades very useful, useful, not useful) and the knowledge about grades. Place of residence was not a significant variable. Food selection and_preparation [51,144,179,244]. A few studies in this area revealed that consumers relied on trial and error to learn about food selection and preparation. Hoobler [144] found that homemakers knew very little about comparative value of different forms of fruits, size—price evaluation of eggs and criteria for selecting beef cuts. Holmes [143] asked the 1,000 homemakers in her study to agree or disagree with 40 statements concerning food buying in- formation. She reported that only 24 percent of the home— makers could give a clear definition of "marbling"; many housewives did not understand the descriptive labels on partially-cooked hams and the names of specific cuts of meat (included in a statement). Homemakers had more knowl- edge on buying meats for certain uses and on cooking methods appropriate for selected cuts. Lawyer [179] investigated knowledge of cooking temperatures for nine cuts of meats and she found that one-half of the respondents lacked basic meat cookery knowledge. She also indicated that avoidance of specific meats--lamb, veal, variety meats-—was partly due 210 to a lack of knowledge about how to prepare them properly. Clow [51] reported that home—economics-trained homemakers had better knowledge and practices in regard to meat as compared with those without training. Schmalder [244] found that most women could not indicate accurately the cooking time required for four vegetables commonly used. Marketing information. Holmes [143] included state- ments about the economic aspects of food costs in her in— vestigation and she found that 83 percent of the homemakers failed to answer more than one question correctly in this area. Most housewives had false conceptions of the relative cost of food in relation to wages, marketing and transporta- tion costs. Few homemakers were aware of the seasonal variations in the price of selected products. Porter et al. [226] indicated that 18 to 30 percent of the women in their study knew about the relation between supply and price, and price and seasonability. Hoobler [L44]and Swank [281] reported similar findings. Swank found that homemakers did not have a good understanding of the meaning of some commonly used marketing terms, but the level of knowledge ‘was significantly higher for those homemakers who had been exposed to consumer information. Hoobler reported that the improvement in the level of marketing knowledge ranged from 1 to 8 percent after an intensive marketing program in Raleigh, North Carolina. 211 Level of Nutrition Knowledge Results from most studies that attempted to probe the nutritional information of consumers revealed that the majority of women had some knowledge of the "Basic 4" and recognized that specific foods (milk, meats, fruits and vegetables) should be included in the daily diet. However, only about one-fifth to one-third of the housewives could provide any nutritional reason for their statements [71, 118,120,161,210,274,276,330,331,332,333]. Knowledge seemed to be concentrated to a few specifics such as: "milk is a good source of protein and calcium," “orange juice is a good source of vitamin C," "yellow cheese is a good substitute for milk," "enriched bread is good for you," etc. (Table XV). However, the high percentage of correct answers in some studies should be taken with some reservations. In most cases, homemakers had only to agree or disagree with such statements and they probably associated the "reputation" of these foods with good nutritional value. Results may have been somewhat different if women had been left to their own choice of good sources for specific nutrients or if they had to list the main nutrients provided by a specific food. Evidence of erroneous information or low level of knowl— edge about foods was found by several investigators. Courtenay and Branson [71] revealed that 30 percent of the respondents in their study could not rate chicken as a good 212 mnoxmemeon oummza mumxmamaos muwnza mm om mm mm mm om Hmm mm and ma no «m mm «mm oma em mm mm mm Ham oma mm m Hm mm mm «mm om Hm ma om om mm “mm om I I I I I I I I I I I I ImeSmcm uomuuoo mcfl>flm XI I I I I I I I I I I I I O .us> Mo ooao xHflE How musuflumnom m .ufl> mo cfiououm HoQEsz wousom poom cozy 05Hm> ooom mmmmSU 3oaamw “mo condom poom xawz hpsum mowsfl meoHO QHOE H0 ovum ZOHBHmBDZ m0 HUQMQKOZM mpmMM¢2mSOm >X MAQ¢B 213 source of protein; 66 percent said chicken was not lower in calorie than other meats or did not know; and 70 percent could not rate it for vitamin B. Only about 25 percent of the homemakers in Rochester and Syracuse, New York, could define adequately what the term "balanced diet" meant to them [330,331,332]. Ottenhouse [220] and Stribling [272] reported that 35 to 80 percent of the homemakers had miscon- ceptions about the caloric and/or vitamin content of bananas, potatoes, cantaloupes and strawberries. Forty to 60 percent gave wrong answers to statements about cooking. Hammett [118], Young et al. [332] and Smith [265] indicated that knowledge about substitutions was higher for meats than for milk and citrus but, in all cases, 30 to 85 percent of the women could not name any substitute products. A national survey conducted in 1969 [206] revealed that, while 71 per- cent of the homemakers said they bought fortified foods, only about half of them knew what the term "fortified" meant. The general lack of information about nutrition was translated into poor or inadequate diets for a large number of families at all income levels and supplementation of food intake by a great quantity of nutritional supplements, vitamins and minerals for the most part. This low level of knowledge also resulted in erroneous food beliefs and prac— tices in a large sector of the population [72,156,157,207,309, 325]. Jalso et al.[156,157] and Weems [309] reported that close to 30 percent of the population had some tendency toward 214 food faddism. Food faddists had a higher concern for nutri- tion, consumed more health foods, avoided more types of foods and bought more nutritional supplements than non-faddists. They also relied less on professional people for their in- formation about nutrition. Jalso [156,157] and Schulte [245] indicated that faddists were distributed throughout the edu— cational range while non—faddists were concentrated in the higher education category. Low-income and older homemakers were more likely to succumb to faddism than upper-income and younger women. Consumers have been increasingly exposed to nutrition information in recent years, particularly concerning dieting, food fortification and enrichment and possible relationships between specific food products and coronary diseases. Yet, few studies have been done to evaluate consumer awareness in these areas. Investigations at the national and local level [134,135,136] revealed that about one-third of the homemakers were dieting to lose or maintain their weight; half of them obtained diets from their doctor while the remainder relied on popular sources of information, friends and relatives. Awareness of possible relationships between diet and cor— onary disease almost doubled between 1956 and 1961 [136], from 26 percent who had heard about it in 1956 to 50 percent in 1961. Recent figures were not available but it is safe to as- sume that the proportion of homemakers being aware of the con- troversy is greater today than it has ever been. Magazines and newspapers were used most as sources of information about the 215 subject. Awareness did not necessarily affect change in diet. In the 1961 study by the American Dairy Association. only 27 percent of the respondents thought they had changed their diet in line with the new information acquired. Investigations of consumer Opinions and attitudes toward fortification are practically non—existent. Opinion Research Corporation conducted a national survey for Hoffman-Laroche Inc. in 1970 [230] to provide current data on public atti- tudes toward vitamins added to foods. The following points summarize the most important results Of the study: 1) One out Of five consumers said they considered the list Of ingredients when comparing two or more brands Of a similar food product. 2) Seventy percent Of the nation population said there was a definite need for some vitamins to be added to food products. 3) The majority Of people (75 percent) believed that the addition Of vitamins would result in little or no in- crease in prices. 4) PeOple did not easily recognize those foods that were sometimes or always enriched or fortified. 5) Consumers had specific views about which vitamins were most important and these views tended to mirror the promotion efforts of the specific food industries. A nationwide survey of the food and nutrition knowledge of American homemakers has just been undertaken by the USDA. 216 In the one—year study, 2,500 homemakers will be interviewed about their knowledge of the nutritive values of foods; their ideas on handling foods to preserve nutritive value, appearance and flavor; their storage practices; etc. The study should be completed by the end Of 1971. Nutrition knowledge relative to sociO-economic charac- teristics. Results from most studies indicated that educa- tion and home economics training were positively related to nutrition knowledge [23,118,156,157,185,210,217,260,265,272, 292,330,33l,332]. Negative associations were reported with age [23,71,156,157,210,330,33l,332]. Hodgson [139] compared nutrition knowledge of both overweight and normal weight sub- jects and she reported no significant difference between the two groups in all areas Of nutrition measured by the test. Income and race did not seem to be very significant factors. Differences between white and non-white were found in many studies but investigators pointed out that education rather than race was believed to be the intervening variable. Summary of Research Reviewed The classification and evaluation Of consumer behavior research in the area of food undertaken in this chapter suggest that, while women vary considerably in their attitude and behavior toward food management, the similarities among them are Often greater than the differences. Findings from 217 the research reviewed are summarized according to their implications for improved consumer protection, education and research. Findings Which Suggest Areas to Be Improved by Better Legislation 1) The majority Of homemakers are concerned with pro- viding nutritious meals the family will like [56,150,219, 272,335]. Quality is viewed as a very important factor to consider in the procurement Of food for the family but so are price and economy. Convenience is Often rated first when it comes tO specific choices, such as the selection of a store or the purchase Of convenience foods [7,20,27,28,34, 51,113,144,159,201,292,319]. 2) When shopping for fOOd, women do not take much time tO compare prices between sizes and brands [106,221]. Most prefer nationally-advertised products but about 50 percent buy both manufacturers' and private brands [1,38,41,100,109, ll7,130,212,217,285]. The majority Of homemakers say they read labels but it is not clear if they do so to compare products or only as a guide for serving the food [53,54,85, 153,181,208,220,222,315]. 3) More than half Of the homemakers do not seem to be very confident of their ability to judge meat quality and this may be the reason why they purchase more prepackaged meats even if they voice a preference for a butcher's service. Frozen meats are not very popular and only specific items 218 are bought, mostly because they are convenient. Homemakers complain that frozen meats do not provide them with any standards to judge adequately the freshness and overall qual- ity of the product [42,52,84,l44,l76,l79,203,210,215,234, 267,269,312,328]. 4) Appearance is the main factor considered when select— ing fresh produce; label is important for canned goods; and brand name, for frozen products [l46,l81,l95,220]. 5) Attitudes toward selected merchandising techniques-- packaging, advertising, trading stamps, deals, contests and games-~are not very critical and generally favorable. Reaction to deception consists mainly in switching tO ano- ther store or brand and telling friends about it. Complaints are sometimes voiced to the store manager but notification to the manufacturer or a governmental agency is a very rare occurrence [l6,32,87,92,93,94,96,97,98,123,181,218,284,285, 286,302,327]. 6) The general level of nutrition and marketing knowl- edge is fairly low. Most women have some knowledge Of the value Of a few specific food items but only a minority can give nutritional reasons for their statements [71,118,120,l61, 210,274,276,330,331,332,333]. The majority have wrong or nO information concerning the nutritive value and caloric con- tent Of most foods, food substitutes, health foods, dieting, etc. [206,220,265,272,309,325,333]. Food faddism has been Observed in about 30 percent of the population [156,157,309]. 219 There seems to be an awareness Of the relation of specific foods to certain diseases, but knowledge is Often incomplete or inaccurate. Marketing knowledge varies with level Of education but is not very extensive, even for women with some training in food and related areas. Most consumers confuse symbols for grade and inspection and they cannot explain their meaning. This lack Of knowledge is evidenced by the small proportion Of homemakers who mentioned grades as criteria for selecting specific fOOd products [18,29,51,7l,75,85,118,144,153,l72, 226,269,294,310,311,312]. The majority Of homemakers have false conceptions Of the cost of food in relation to produc- tion, transportation and marketing; only a few know the meaning Of simple marketing terms [l43,144,226,281]. Findings Which Suggest Areas to Be Improved by Better Consumer Education 1) Women, in general, assume major responsibility for food purchase decisions. They use a variety of approaches to food management and the majority Of them express satis- faction with the way they handle their task [56,150,163,219, 272,335]. 2) Only 30 to 40 percent Of the homemakers follow a more or less rigid budget on a somewhat regular basis. Nevertheless, most women have a general idea of the maximum amount to be spent within a given period [84,89,125,l74,201, 210,220,244,260,265,300,324,335]. 220 3) Meal planning is not a common practice and less than 40 percent of the housewives do some planning, usually on a day-tO-day basis. Dinner is planned more Often than any other meal [8,89,125,211,265,324,333,335]. Family prefer— ences are the most important factor in planning meals and selecting foods [22,89,128,202,219,272,292,333]. Problems with meal planning range from getting more variety into meals and motivating family members to eat various foods tO suiting the family nutritional needs and keeping food expend— itures within certain limits [70,113,125,144,201,244,292, 333]. 4) Besides influences from family members, housewives rely mostly on newspaper advertisements, magazines and cook- books to gather their information and suggestions about food, food products, recipes, prices, etc. Radio and television are less popular sources Of information and are more important for Negro than for white families [8,22,25,27,34, 35.84.89,122,l44,l79,183,201,210,295]. 5) The majority Of homemakers plan their shopping trip by preparing a list and reading the newspaper ads. Their list is usually non-restrictive and leaves room for some unplanned purchases [1,26,53,72,112,121,125,l44,210,220,244, 272,279,335]. Those concerned with prices generally read more newspapers for advertisements and specials [1,14,59,179, 184,249,285]. 6) Women shOp usually alone and generally once a week, during the last part of the week. There seems to be a trend 221 toward more shopping trips to the grocery store and toward more shopping done early in the week. On the average, women spend around 30 to 40 minutes in the store on a major shopping trip [8,26,35,59,77,89,125,144,174,188,205,220,226, 253,272,333]. 7) Supermarkets, nationally or regionally owned, are favored by the majority Of homemakers. Prices, quality and convenience are the main reasons for the selection of a particular store. More than half Of the women regularly shop two or three stores, but they usually do most of their shopping in one place [8,33,35,40,72,84,125,l44,210,244,273, 310]. 8) The amount Of unplanned purchases varies widely among the different foods, ranging from produce in the low-impulse category to baked goods and snacks in the high-impulse cate- gory [154,201,254,260,261,279]. Unplanned purchases tend to increase when women are shopping with their husband or children. 9) More than half Of the homemakers plan their meat purchases before going shopping but they allow for enough flexibility to alter their plans, if necessary, for such reasons as prices, appearance, quality and availability. Income and family composition are most important in affect- ing quantities purchased and amount spent for meats (52,84, 144,176,179,203,210,215,312,328]. Fresh fruits and vegetables are preferred by the ma— jority of homemakers but some items are usually bought canned 222 or frozen for reasons Of convenience and availability [104, lll,124,138,152,l8l,195,220]. 10) Eggs and dairy products are consumed by most fami- lies but, in the case Of dairy products, use seems to be limited to a few Of the best known products. Women have many misconceptions about eggs and dairy products concerning their nutritive value and their effect on health [121,193, 216,301,311]. 11) Convenience foods are used by most homemakers but the percentage using them and the frequency Of use vary according to the type Of products. Income and place of residence are more important than age, race and employment Of the wife in differentiating between heavy and light users Of convenience foods [12,39,62,125,l74,181,260,282,289,324]. 12) Approximately three—fourths Of the housewives serve three meals a day. Time spent for meal preparation, service and cleaning up amounts to 2 to 3 hours daily, on the average [7,35,40,77,78,140,141,142,179,189,201,305,322]. NOn-employed wives spend more time preparing meals than em- ployed homemakers and they usually get less help from other Inembers Of the family [125,128,150,211,322,324]. Home ‘preservation consists mainly Of freezing foods and varies according to place of residence, age and employment of the \dife [8,9,10,33,78,86,128,l40,l41,l42,204,322]. Women use J:ecipes from cookbooks, magazines, friends and relatives to Irrepare a variety Of dishes, mostly baked goods and desserts. 223 The majority Of them are willing to try new recipes if the ingredients used are familiar to them [39,78,81,82,ll8,134, l35,l69,312,321]. 13) In spite of their lack Of knowledge about nutri- tion and marketing, women for the most part are less con- cerned with improving their knowledge in these areas than they are with learning more about ways to prepare more varied, quick and inexpensive meals [70,125,144,201,292]. 14) Associations between food management practices and selected sociO-economic characteristics have been investi- gated in the majority Of the studies reviewed and it appears that income and education are the two characteristics re— sponsible for most Of the differences found among homemakers in respect to their food management and food shOpping prac- tices. Women with higher income buy more of most products, are more concerned with convenience and quality, rely on more sources Of information and are influenced to a greater extent by the likes and dislikes of family members. Better- educated homemakers are more innovative and more active in their search for information, they exhibit greater interest in the psychological aspects of food, they show greater con- cern for nutrition and they have more knowledge about foods. Age and place of residence are also significant, especially for management practices related to shopping practices and meal management. Employment of the wife is not a very sig- nificant factor. J.» ..L w . L K 224 The review of research consistently pointed out the positive value of education in the procurement Of food for the family. The observable trend toward more education should increase substantially the number of better-informed consumers in the near future. Findings Which Suggest Areas to Be Investi- gated by Further Research 1) There are a number of areas in consumer behavior as it relates to food that need to be investigated more exten- sively to provide a basis for improving consumer welfare. Research is needed to assess the value of new innovations in food marketing such as unit-pricing, open-dating, enrich— ment and fortification of food products, etc.; to determine more adequately the level Of consumer knowledge and attitudes concerning food preparation, nutrition and marketing; to survey the reasons for apathy and lack of feedback from con- sumers to industry and the government; and to study the process of change in tastes and preferences. '2) Associations between various food management prac— tices and a number of sociO-economic characteristics--age, race, income, education, occupation of head, family composi— tion, employment of the wife, place Of residence——have been studied by many investigators but research to measure associ- ations between personality variables and knowledge, attitudes and behavior is practically non-existent. 225 3) Consumer motivations have been studied from the standpoint Of the industry rather than in the interest of the consumer. 4) Instruments used to measure consumer level Of infor- mation were usually not very sophisticated and they may have altered the results Obtained in some instances. CHAPTER V IMPLICATIONS FOR IMPROVED CONSUMER PROTECTION, EDUCATION AND RESEARCH Determining the actual state Of our knowledge concerning consumer behavior in the area Of food was one Objective Of this dissertation. Two other purposes were defined: (1) to utilize the findings of the research to draw implications for consumer protection and consumer education, and (2) to formu- late guidelines for future research in this particular area of consumption. In this chapter, research reviewed will be evaluated in relation to the recent literature on consumer protection and education in order to suggest improvements in our consumer protection and consumer education programs and recommend study areas that could be investigated by researchers inter- ested in improving consumer welfare in the area Of food and nutrition . Implications for Consumer Protection Consumer protection can be defined as any federal, state or: local agencies, laws, legislative proposals or programs aimed at insuring that the consumer gets sanitary and whole- some foods to his best economic advantage and in fair and honest dealing with the producer and the retailer. 226 227 Consumer laws and regulations in the area of food were primarily intended to protect the consumer against physical injury resulting from adulterated or unsanitary foods. But in recent years, a new dimension has been added to consumer protection and significant steps have been taken to protect the consumer against economic losses resulting from faulty market structures, deceptive business practices and lack of information about food products. In response to an increased awareness Of the problems faced by the consumer in the market place, new or revised legislation has been adopted concerning wholesomeness of meats and poultry, additives in foods, product standardiza— tion, packaging and labeling, promotional techniques and advertising, among others. Moreover, numerous proposals for more legislation are presently being studied and new items are added periodically. At present, some of the most important governmental programs are: a reevaluation of the safety of specific ingredients added to food products and generally recognized as safe (GRAS list), the labeling Of convenience foods and a project to assess the feasibility of nutritional labeling on specific products. The governmental efforts for better consumer protection have been valuable but more needs to be done if we want to further consumer interests. As things now stand, it is almost impossible for the consumer to make rational food choices: Information about products is Often lacking, new materials, 228 processes and products are introduced without much nutri- tional data and Often with deceptive or exaggerated claims, and informed assistance to consumers is increasingly scarce relative to the needs. The consumer movement that developed in recent years has given impetus to a number Of voluntary innovations by industry. Grocers and store managers, particularly, have shown an increased concern for the consumer: chain stores have created their own department of Consumer Affairs or appointed a director in charge of consumer problems; some nationally or regionally—owned supermarkets are experimenting with such innovations as Open-dating and unit-pricing; others are doing their share to reduce waste, pollution, etc. On the other hand, producers have done very little to facilitate consumer decision-making. It appears that this situation will prevail if producers are not compelled by legislation to share responsibility with the retailers for providing the means through which the consumers can improve their market choices. Findings from the research reviewed suggest particular areas that appear to be most relevant and to most urgently need improved legislation. The proposals Offered here- - after are not necessarily new and some have been the concern of consumer—oriented groups or government representatives in recent years. A few are already studied in government circles. 229 Labeling Research indicates that the majority of women do read labels [53,54,85,153,181,208,220,222,315] but it is not ascertained whether it is for factual information about food preparation or whether it is to make cost-size and cost- quality comparisons between food products. Label information concerning the appropriate ways to serve a food is usually adequate; the same cannot be said regarding the information about the quality and the quantity Of a variety of food products. In many instances, the con- sumer cannot assess the nutritive value of a food product; he must Often rely solely on a brand name to judge its quality; he has no means to determine the net and drained weight Of a wide selection of canned goods; he can seldom evaluate how much he is paying for water or inert ingredients; he must find for himself the proper methods for storing the product; etc. These shortcomings could be partially alleviated with a consumer protection program aimed at improving food label— ing. A meaningful labeling program would serve two purposes: (1) it would provide a basis for a sound nutrition program, and (2) it would facilitate comparisons between food products. Providing a basis for a sound nutrition program. Find— ings from the analysis Of consumer behavior research showed ‘that homemakers are generally concerned with providing nutritious meals for their family [56,150,219,272,335] but 230 they also recognize the difficulty of the task. Providing the nutritional needs of the family is one of the problems faced by homemakers [70,144,201,244,333] because it re- quires a knowledge Of nutrition that most do not possess [71,118,120,161,210,330,331]. Furthermore, as was pointed out above, information about the nutritive value Of many foods is non-existent. Educational effort designed to improve the nutritional knowledge of the American people would be more effective if supplemented by a meaningful labeling program. In order to select a prOper diet, the consumer needs labels that will help him estimate if he is getting what he needs in the food he consumes. This disclosure of information about in- gredients and their nutritional value is particularly important in view Of the trend for more and more production of convenience foods, synthetic foods, analogs, etc. and the increase use of such products by most families. It was mentioned earlier in this chapter that the gov- ernment is presently involved with the food industry on a Ixroject to assess the value and potential of different methods (of nutritional labeling on specific products. Three alterna— tives are under study: 1) Listing Of the absolute amount of each nutrient as the total quantity per container, per ounce Of the food, or per serving with the size of the serving given. 231 2) Percentage of a standard based on amount of the nutrient needed each day in the meals and expressed in terms or weight or serving. 3) Qualitative rating using words or symbols indicat- ing whether the food is an excellent, good, fair or poor source Of some nutrients. The results from the study should be out by the middle of 1972 and should help determine the most effective and efficient method Of labeling food products in terms of their nutritional contribution to the consumer's diet. Depending on the method used to rate food products according to their nutritional value, the list and proportion of ingredients used to prepare a specific product may or may not be included in the label. Nevertheless, it seems that both are necessary to evaluate the quality of many food products. Facilitating comparisons between food products. Cost— size and cost—quality comparisons are important elements in the selection Of alternatives in food management. In fact, research findings indicate that quality and cost are the two main factors considered by homemakers in the decision-making process relative to what is bought and where the purchases are made [7,20,27,28,34,51,113,144,159,201,292,319]. As things now stand, it is Often very difficult for the consumer to compare specific food products in terms of quan- tity and quality. Regarding the information about quantity, the only indication available is the weight of the package, 232 a weight Often expressed in fractional numbers, which makes computations difficult for the majority of homemakers [18, 25,41,106]. Moreover, it is not always clear if the weight refers to volume or to avoir-du-poids weight, which makes a difference for many foods; there is seldom any men- tion of net and drained weight; and it is impossible to determine the weight of added ingredients such as water in ham, stuffing in poultry, breading in fried foods, cereals in luncheon meats, etc., which may change considerably the real cost of these foods. Repetitively but to no avail, processors have been urged to improve their labeling regarding quantitative information. It appears that only when they are compelled to do so by legislation will the consumer get the information he needs to make useful cost-size comparisons between specific food products. Cost-quality comparisons are even more difficult to make than cost-size comparisons. In most instances, consumers must rely on advertised brand name and/or trial—and-error to judge the quality Of a food [34,146,177,181,203,220,312]. Such a procedure leads to economic waste: unadvertised or less known brands of equal quality and lower price are left on the store shelves; unsatisfactory products for which the consumer does not take the trouble to get his money refunded are discarded; and prices paid are too high relative to the nutritional quality of the food bought. Labeling to improve 233 the disclosure of qualitative information on food products may include the following: (1) listing of kinds and propor— tions of ingredients in a specific food, (2) "freshness codes" for a variety Of perishable products, and (3) grade designation or product specifications. (1) Listing Of kind and proportion of ingredients. Listing of ingredients is already required for all food products for which there are no standards of identity. For non—standardized products, ingredients are listed in decreas— ing order of importance but the producer is not required to include the proportion of each ingredient used to prepare the food. If this listing by percentages were made mandatory, the consumer would be in a better position for evaluating the quality of food products. Such a detailed list may not be necessary for all foods, but it should be included on the label of products likely to deceive the consumer or to vary considerably from processors to processors. Drinks, punches and ades are examples of the first case; pork and beans and frozen dinners illustrate the second possibility. (2) Freshness codes for perishable products. In the analysis Of research, homemakers most frequent com— plaint concerning meats, frozen foods, eggs and specific dairy products was that it was impossible to judge their freshness adequately [108,179,3ll,3l2]. Dating these perish— able products is a possible solution to the consumer problem. Opponents to the insertion Of a pull-date (or any other date) 234 on packages argue that time is only one factor affecting the freshness Of a product, and they rightly point out that handling and storage are also major factors. It is true that an expiration date on a perishable food will not be of much help if handling Of the product is careless, or storage inadequate. But there are solutions to these problems: a simple device has been developed to determine whether frozen foods have been kept at 00 during handling and storage in the store; information on storage at home can be incorpor- ated in the label; instruction for cooking particularly sensitive products could be more precise and more readily available, etc. Another major argument against dating of perishable products refers to the extra cost that the consumers will have to pay if the measure is legalized. It is argued that retailers will incur extra waste Of products (and money) since the consumers will always chose the freshest pabkage, leaving perfectly satisfactory products to age on the shelf or in the cabinet. This is certainly a possibility to con— sider and research should be promptly done to determine the extent of such a practice. Studies done recently by two major supermarkets which have been using Open-dating for a few months1 have shown that the practice was not as general as expected and the loss to the retailer was no greater than it was before the introduction Of Open—dating in the store. 1Frank Soltan, "Publish Rules on Open-Dating, FTC is Urged," Supermarket News, July 5, 1971, pp. 2,10. 235 Such a result does not prove the case in favor of required freshness codes but it points out that the measure cannot be rejected before a careful cost-benefit evaluation is made, keeping in mind the interest of the consumer. Many retailers have already broken their code dating system or introduced a new simplified "freshness code" in the interest of the consumers. But if the Open-dating con— cept is adopted, legislation should be promptly enacted so that Open-dating is made easy to understand and uniform for all food categories throughout the nation. The adoption of Open-dating has also important implications for consumer education. Consumers will have to be informed of the exact meaning and usefulness of freshness codes; they will have to learn that differences in shelf-life vary for different categories and kinds of perishables; and that if they con- sistently choose the freshest product, they will have to pay a price for the service. (3) Grade designation. Adequate grade designation would be an effective way to cut through the product differentiation that makes cost-quality comparisons difficult. Opponents of unit-pricing have argued that quality if overlooked in cost—size comparisons; a good grading system would facilitate cost-quality compari- sons. Results Of most surveys on consumer's use of grades in the selection Of foods show that grades are seldom used as 236 a criteria for decision-making in respect to food products [18,42,121,l49,179,203,296]. Consumer apathy is certainly one reason for this state of affairs. Despite their will- ingness to improve their food management behavior, as evi- denced by the analysis of research, consumers do not seem to realize the importance of learning about the fundamentals of marketing as a help to decision-making and they tend to rely more on "rules—Of-thumb" and "hints" to select the best foods at the best price. Consumer educators have spent much time and effort trying to improve consumer's knowledge of grades. Unfortun- ately, results from several studies concerned with deter- mining the level Of knowledge in this area suggest that, for all practical purposes, they have failed. The majority of consumers cannot differentiate between inspection and grade symbols; they assign specific grades to ungraded foods; they are misinformed about or unaware Of what characteris— tics are considered in determining grades; and they are wrong in interpreting the grade names [18,51,85,118,153, 226,294,310,311,312]. Programs to inform consumers about grades have failed for the reason that most retail grades, as they exist now, 'were primarily designed to help wholesalers, processors and Inanufacturers in their internal transactions. They are non- uniform, ambiguous and confined to a few products. At present, it is impossible for the average consumer to learn and remember that grade A is the best for one product 237 while it is second best (after AA) for another; that grade 1 might indicate a superior quality for one food while it means a lower grade in other cases (below 0 or 00); that no first grade is assigned in some instances; etc. Grades for a few foods are adequate and intelligible, such as the grades used for beef, poultry and eggs; but in general, the present system of grade designations is not intended to help the consumer. And as long as it remains unchanged, programs aimed at improving consumer's knowledge in this area will continue to show little success. Legislation seems to be the most effective way to alter grade designations. Selection on the basis of quality, one of the most important factors considered by homemakers when making decisions about foods, could be facilitated consider- ably by a uniform system of retail quality grade designa- tions for specific categories of products (explained to the consumer through mass communication). Better grading could also facilitate comparisons between nationally-advertised and private brands, well-known and new products in the same category, etc. Such a use of grades for food selection could replace or complement decisions based mainly on adver— tising and hearsay by decisions related to the inherent qualities of a product. For many years now, Canada has used uniform grades on most canned products and on a variety of perishable foods to the great advantage of the consumers and to no detrimental effects for the producer. In fact, all 238 canned products imported from the United States and sold on the American market are graded to satisfy Canadian legisla— tion and they are Offered at comparative prices. The methods of adopting a new grading system are varied and should be studied carefully with the Objective Of pro- moting consumer interest. For economic reasons, it might be necessary to confine the use of grades to food products most commonly used by homemaker: canned and frozen fruits and vegetables, canned soups, frozen fish, beef and poultry, eggs, butter and specific dairy products. In cases where grades are not used, the listing of ingredients on the labels could serve as a criterion for selection. As for the implementation of a simplified grading sys— tem, attention should be given to selecting appropriate criteria for determining the grades to be used. Attitudes and beliefs of both specialists and consumers should be sought in order to establish meaningful criteria. In some cases, testing may be necessary to determine actual preferences for a food product; in other cases, Objective standards may be developed for the grading of food products according to uniformity in size, color, maturity, general appearance, etc. Opinions of consumers should also be sought as to the most effective symbols to use for grade designations. The limited research in this area [153] suggests that letters or ‘words are preferred to numbers by the majority of homemakers. 'Whatever symbols are used, they should be easy to understand and uniform for all graded products. 239 Product Standardization At present, about 200 food products have been standard- ized (not including special diet foods) which means that standards of identity are still lacking for many products. Besides, standards of identity are hard to interpret even for educators: some are mandatory while others are volun- tary; information about standards is piecemeal; language is difficult to interpret; and changes in status are so frequent that it is almost impossible to keep up-tO-date. Educators involved in the business Of consumer education and consumer information are making considerable effort to interpret food standards to the public. But, because of the confusion existing in product standardization, the task takes time and even for those well-read on food standards, it is practically impossible to keep the details in mind. There is a substantial need for revision of the current— ly effective standards Of identity. However, such a process is costly and it might be necessary to reevaluate criteria for establishing standards of identity in order to maximize benefits relative to the costs involved. Possible criteria could be: (1) How important is the product in the consumer's food basket? (2) What is the frequency of use? (3) How im- portant is the product in the diet, from a nutritional stand— point? (4) Is the standard necessary to maintain the integrity of the product, to help develop a better product or to prevent the marketing of a food Of inferior quality? 240 Revision of the current standards Of identity should go along with the establishment of standards for the new classes of foods coming to the market. Among these classes should be: formulated main dishes, snack foods, new foods (i.e., meat analogs, nondairy dairy substitutes, and similar products) and staples that are important in the diet Of particular/éthnic groups. Government legislation concerning enrichment and fortification of food is urgent. Unless there are effective regulations at this level, there may be wide-scale addition of nutrients to food (what FDA Commis- sioner Grant termed the "nutritive horsepower race“) with accompanying rise in food costs without real consumer bene- fits. The potential for expanded marketing Of convenience, snack and fabricated foods appears to be increasing tre- mendously. The new standards, therefore, are needed to set up orderly guidelines for manufacturers to follow in the marketing process. New labeling legislation would require that present labeling laws for standardized products be reconsidered. The present legislation does not require the listing of in— gredients on the label of a standardized product. Should standardized products be labeled like any other product? Would a simple statement or seal that the product meets Federal standards of identity be the only labeling required? Should the label include both the statement on Federal standards and a listing of ingredients? Could the methods 241 of labeling vary according to the kind of product to be standardized and its contribution to the diet? Finding the answers to these problems is important and urgent if we want the labeling of standardized products to be relevant for the consumer and in line with the improve- ment in the labeling Of other food products. Packaging In spite Of the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act of 1966, there is still much to be done to improve consumer protection in this area. Mandatory provisions of the legis— lation have generally been enforced but recommendations for changes to be effected on a voluntary basis have not been followed. Proliferation Of packages has been somewhat checked for a few products, but even in these cases, the gain for the consumer has been minimal. Packaging-to-price still prevails as evidenced by the large number of packages with fractional sizes; packages designed to exaggerate con— tents and "slack-filling" packages are still to be found on the shelves Of most grocery stores. Legislation concerning cents-Off deals and coupon-offers has been passed but only recently. Better enforcement of the law is necessary but enforcement cannot be done without adequate funds. Money is lacking tO administer the truth-in—packaging legislation and the personnel in charge of enforcement is much too re- stricted for the task at hand (26). 242 Most research on packaging has been done by the industry people, who were mainly interested in knowing the kinds of packages consumers liked most [92,93,94,96,97,98,181]. Unfortunately, no research has been conducted yet to study the degree to which consumers are suffering economic losses from packages with fractional sizes, "slack-filled" packages, deceptive packages, etc. The only evidence we have that relates to packaging suggests that such packaging practices result in making it difficult for consumers at all educa- tional levels to make meaningful cost-size comparisons between packages [153]. Alerted to this fact by consumer advocates and consumer groups, retailers in many areas have voluntarily tried to improve consumer shOpping by instituting "dual-pricing," or the practice of stating both the price for the package and the price per unit (ounce, pound, etc. depending on the product). The relative merits Of this consumer aid have been discussed elsewhere and such a system Offers possibili- ties for improving consumer decision—making provided that consumers are informed of its value and educated on how to use it in their decision-making. Legislation concerning unit-pricing should not be left to chance. A uniform set of rules should determine, nation- wide, whether a package should be priced by the pound or the ounce, by the quart, the pint, or the gallon, by the 10- count, the 50-count, or the lOO—count, etc. And a standard 243 should be laid down for the size, the conspicuousness, and the location Of the price tag. All that calls for some- thing more dependable than "consumerism-encouraged" promo- tional sales campaigns, welcome though they are. What it calls for is a Federal law. Dual—pricing at its best is an effective tool for the consumer but it may be only a stopgap solution to the prob- lem. As was pointed out by Padberg and McCullough [221:23]; "The burden Of keeping unit pricing labels readable, accur- ate, and in the proper location is not trivial." In addition, costs, while lower than previous estimates and not particu— larly large compared to other things offered (stamps and games), are still large in relation to the aggregate con- sumer savings and discriminatory against small stores. As an alternative, if manufacturers would make it a standard practice (or would be compelled by legislation) to pack their products in units of simple divisions or multiples of a pound, the more costly system of dual-pricing would not be needed. Additional efforts should be devoted to assessing the advantages Of the metric system for the consumer. A special committee of the American Home Economics Association has done extensive investigations in this area1 and the data available provide a basis for designing improved weights and measures legislation. 1"Report of the National Metric Study Conference-—Consum- ers Affairs," Journal Of Home Economics 63(5), May 1971, pp. 345-349. 244 Advertising Consumer sovereignty, or the expression of consumer wants in the marketplace, is supposed to guide producer's activities. But in many cases, people in the food industry (this holds true for other categories of products as well) engage in all sorts of sales promotion, advertising and other devices to get the consumer to buy what they have to sell. The research reviewed suggests that advertisers succeed in influencing what and where homemakers buy. The majority Of homemakers rely heavily on newspaper advertising to plan their food shopping [8,22,25,27,89,122,125,144, 179,210,295]; they usually shOp around quite extensively and buy advertised specials [75,84,210,215]; most are considerably influenced by nationally-advertised brand names [1,38,41,100,lO9,117,130, 212,217,285]; a sizeable proportion like and collect trading stamps and participate in contests and games [1,3,46,59,87, l79,188,243,253,284,285]. This situation has both desirable and undesirable aspects. The consumer generally appreciates better shopping conditions and is willing to pay a price for them. .He cer- tainly gains from information about the foods available and their prices. But nowadays, more and more advertising is substituting imagery and mood for product information and claims. Much of it is merely expensive attention-getting, and false impressions of value are Often implanted in the 245 consumer's mind. Such use of advertising leads to super— ficial product proliferation and economic waste. Conscious Of this fact, the Federal Trade Commission recently announced a program to require firms in all major industries (the food industry included) to substantiate their advertising claims. Such public disclosure with respect to safety, performance, efficacy or quality of the product advertised will serve many purposes: (1) it will assist consumers in making rational choice among competing claims which purport to be based on objective evidence; (2) it will enhance competition by encouraging competitors to challenge advertising claims which have no basis in fact; and (3) it will encourage advertisers to have on hand adequate substantiation before claims are made. This develOpment in consumer protection is certainly a step in the right direction, but the consumer is left with the responsibility Of reviewing and scrutinizing the data made available to him and of alerting the Commission to pos— sible violations of the law. The average consumer has a long history of apathy and indifference and he is not likely to fulfill adequately his task Of watchdog if education in consumership does not convince him of the necessity to in— crease his participation in the marketplace. Preclearance requirement for advertising would seem to be a better type of legislation for insuring that consumers are exposed to honest and informative claims about food products offered in 246 the market place, especially for those products advertised as superior from a nutritional standpoint. Another area Of concern ought to be the control of advertising geared to an audience comprised Of children. According to recent figures, the moderate TV watching child sees at least 5,000 food ads per year, an average Of 10 per hour. Most advertisements directed to youth audiences stress vitamins, desserts, snacks and cereals. A high percentage stress sugar and sweetness content of product. As a result parents are influenced by their children to buy those products publicized through commercials [72,83,158,26l] and their continuing struggle to persuade their children to eat a balanced diet is impeded from the start. We also know that habits formed in early childhood are very difficult to eradicate. It becomes thus a major responsibility of the government to apply better control of advertising designed for the young pOpulation, if we want our nutrition education programs to bear fruit in due time. Consumer Rapresentation at the Government lee—V2.1. The governmental effort in the behalf of the consumers has been real and significant. But in too many instances, there is a gap between the passage of a law and solid and visible results. A new office or agency turns out to be all talk and no action; regulatory efforts bog down in poli- tics or bureaucracy; a well—intentioned law proves unwork— able; a workable law is laxly enforced. It has also been 247 argued that many of the regulatory agencies supposedly serv- ing consumer interests were primarily designed for other purposes and their consumer-oriented activity is only a by- product Of their major functions. Others have changed their orientation over time to servicing processors and handlers rather than protecting consumers. Some Of the shortcomings Of consumer protection as it now exists could be alleviated if consumers were effectively represented at the governmental level and were in a posi- tion to indicate what they want, voice their complaints and lobby for a better enforcement of current laws. At present, there is no existing device in the United States government which assures that the consumer view will be registered expertly where it needs to be heard. The ad- visor selected by the President to be his counsel on consumer affairs cannot as a member Of the White House team Operate as a counsel for the consumer cause without embarrassing the administration. He cannot speak publicly against specific omissions of the government even though they are often the cause Of consumer distress. What it amounts to is that in the policy-making at the White House, the consumer cause generally finds very few defenders. Whether a centralized consumer agency in the executive branch is the solution or whether existing agencies are given full recognition of their duties and Opportunities, the need for adequate representa- tion of consumer's interests in government activities seems clear. 248 Implications for Consumer Education There is a distinction between consumer education and consumer information. Consumer information refers to the content Of different programs designed by government, industry, and consumer groups to convey information about specific products. Consumer education can be broadly de- fined as any systematic program designed tO develOp compe- tencies in one or more areas of consumership, from the clarification Of values and goals to the selection and use Of any specific product. Consumer education aims at developing intelligent con- sumers who are aware Of the many choices that confront them in the market place; consumers who want to improve, not only their level Of consumption by wiser purchases, but also their level of living by improving the quality of their environ— ment; consumers who are not only concerned with private decisions but also with public ones. The ultimate purpose Of consumer education is the pro- duction of changes in an individual's behavior in his role as a consumer. Minden (I86) defined the following changes: (1) changes in knowledge, or things known; (2) changes in skills, or things done; and (3) changes in attitudes, or things felt and values held. The need for consumer education is not new. Margaret Reid (35:109) was writing in 1942: 249 Much of the interest in this (consumer) education arises from the belief that consumers might be trained to get more for their money. Again and again studies have been quoted revealing choices and prac- tices which are the direct outcome of ignorance. Small scale unspecialized buying will always interfere with achieving a high level of competence. Neverthe— less, a well-planned and executed educational program should achieve much.... In many cases consumers need to be aware Of their shortcomings; they need to be shaken out of a rut, to have their eyes Opened to possible benefits from increased knowledge as well as different methods of selling. That the consumer is still in need Of more information on which to base his buying decisions is even more true today, in an era characterized by affluence, impersonal markets, daily technological innovations and mass communica— tion. Our research in one particular aspect of consumption-— the procurement Of food for the family—-showed that the general level of marketing and nutrition knowledge was fairly low in all areas of information and at all educational levels [71,118,120,161,210,220,265,272,274,276,325,333]. Improved knowledge in these two areas would result in a better level Of living for all consumers because: (1) better—informed consumers could, through improved choices, direct production toward less waste and more welfare, and (2) improved diets would contribute to the general well-being Of the population, reduce the number of disabled citizens, increase the quantity and improve the quality of the human resources available. Educators, government agencies and businessmen are well aware of the need for more and better consumer education for 250 all citizens. Their conviction that the consumer cannot participate effectively in the democratic processes of the country if he is a slave of ignorance or misinformation has been translated into a great variety of programs for special target audiences including young families, senior citizens, low-income families, etc. Programs aimed at helping consumers improve their eating and shopping habits and get the most for their food dollar are conducted regularly by the Cooperative Extension Service and the Consumer and Marketing Information (CMI) across the nation. A few examples will give an idea of the various programs designed to educate the consumer.1 - Food production and food preservation project for low- income families in Georgia. - Metropolitan Extension Consumer Committee in Maryland and the District of Columbia. Various resources of the area (FDA, AHEA, USDA, Federal Extension Service, etc.) are coordinated to help families of four count- ies become better—informed consumers. - Consumer Forums in Wilmington and Georgetown, Delaware. Speakers from all sectors of the food industry meet with consumers to exchange suggestions and ideas. - Self-improvement workshOps for supermarket managers, food wholesalers and retailers, at Michigan State 1Reports on such programs are published regularly in the following USDA publications: Agricultural Marketing and Extension Review. 251 University, East Lansing. Such programs for whole- salers and retailers have been conducted as far back as 1948. - Money management series for military families in Hawaii. - "Food for Young Families,’ program taught by the Minnesota Extension Service in ten counties. - Family Living Program at Michigan State University. The emphasis of the program is on improving diets of low-income families. — Consumer information TV programs in Duluth, Minnesota. The series, four 30—minute programs, dealt with the different aspects of food management, the FDA, etc. Consumers could call for information during the program. - Expanded Nutrition Programs in all the states. - Marketing releases on radio, television and news- papers are regular features Of the CMI program along with classes and programs on food marketing to Exten- sion members, club and church members, low-income families, etc. Business organizations, manufacturers, retailers, finance companies and consumer groups have also developed materials and programs designed to improve consumer knowledge and understanding of the complex food industry. Leaflets and booklets about general principles of food management, 252 nutrition, food products, etc.; workshOps; consumer dia— logues; demonstrations; etc., are some of the activities sponsored by these organizations. Consumer programs, whether Operated by the government or sponsored by business organizations, professional or consumer groups, make an important contribution to the national consumer education effort but their impact varies according to the Objectives of the organization. In a recent survey and evaluation of consumer education programs in the United States, Joseph Uhl (100) reported that many of the commercial programs are still allied with the public rela- tions and advertising departments of sponsors. He found that where the consumer education prOgram is highly differentiated within the organization, the quality Of the educational effort appears somewhat higher. Uhl also indicated that most of the programs studied were aimed at a general audience with little differentiation Of materials or teaching tech- niques for different age groups, income strata, or sex. Findings from the review of research suggest that the following are very important problems in consumer education: 1) Motivating the consumer to improve knowledge of nutrition and management and decision—making rela— tive to food. 2) Revising the content and updating existing informa- tion. 3) Finding the appropriate channels to reach the con- sumer and utilizing their full potential. 253 4) Adapting the information to the audience and trans- lating the material into laymen's language. Motivating the Consumer The biggest problem ahead in our education effort is to convince homemakers Of the need to improve their knowledge of food management and nutrition. This is not as easy a task as it seems, for two main reasons. The first reason is that food is one big item that is not automatically built into the budget. Many families com— mit themselves first to various monthly payments for rent, car, insurance, appliances, etc. and they use what money is left to buy food. If the cash residue is not sufficient to include favorite family foods, homemakers are more likely to blame the price Of food rather than their own management. As we have observed, women may have a good idea of the gen— eral pricing policy of a particular store but their knowledge of prices for individual items is very limited and is Often better for non-food items [56,150,163,201,219,335]. Secondly, we have found that homemakers are generally satisfied with their food shopping and they feel they are suc— cessful in providing nutritious food to their family [201,272, 335]. How could it be otherwise when they see their children grow, an abundance of food being eaten and no apparent signs Of nutritional deficiencies? Moreover, they feel they can always count on vitamin and mineral supplements to compensate for possible insufficiencies in the diet! In most cases, however, the lack of nutritional knowledge makes it impos— sible for the majority Of homemakers to develop an awareness of the possible dangers of over consumption of some nutrients and to evaluate the economic losses resulting from inadequate eating patterns. The concern for nutrition, if important, is by no means the sole priority in feeding the family. Food plays a major role in the desire to show love and warmth to the family members and homemakers utilize foods with low or no nutritional values as reward or treat to prove their loving care. Women also respond to family preferences. They prefer not to serve a food or a particular brand that is not liked, even if it is more nutritious or better priced [22,89,128,202,219,272,292, 333]. Other Objectives such as convenience, ease of prepara- tion, time, play an important part in the decision vis-a-vis food selection [7,20,27,28,34,51,113,144,159,201,292,319]. TO meet these Objectives, a compromise is Often made and it is fully acceptable to the housewife since she is convinced that on an overall basis her family is consuming healthful and nutritious foods. From these Observations, it is evident that the task of motivating the homemaker to improve her knowledge and change some Of the food habits of the family is a difficult endeavor. Consumer educators will have tO convince the housewife of the rewards attached to better knowledge and information. They will have to sell the advantages of education in food 255 management and nutrition. This is easier said than done. The process of change is long-term and unspectacular. Gains to be realized are not dramatic, reward is not always immedi— ate and, consequently, educators cannot expect to win instant acceptance. How will it be possible for the educator to provide information about management and decision-making relative to food and nutrition through more meaningful programs? Two Objectives must be set forth: 1. An interest in eating balanced meals should become a part of daily life Of the family. Women should be con- vinced that they have a vital role to play, not only in pro- viding nourishing meals for their family (this is already one of their main concerns), but in developing good eating habits from the start. NO matter how well we teach nutrition education in the classroom and outside, no matter how con- vincing our plea for better diets is, it is indeed a challenge to try to alter habits formed in early childhood. The review of research revealed that family preferences, more than any other factors, dictate the types of foods purchased by the homemaker. This is fine. But if mothers knew more about their role in developing those preferences and were more conscious about it, they would see to it that their children develOp proper eating habits and they could later indulge in buying what foods the family prefers, knowing that nutrition will not have to suffer at the expense of "taste demands." 256 Government and industry have a great responsibility in developing programs and campaigns to foster sound nutrition. But homemakers should know that neither of these organiza— tions can completely package good family nutrition and deliver it to the home. That is a choice the consumer must make on each trip to the market. At present, a large number Of Americans are "nutri- tional illiterates" who do not know what constitutes a healthful diet, the vitamins and minerals they need or the foods that contain them or understand the function of speci- fic nutrients in maintaining good health. Moreover, a sig- nificant number do not show a great concern for good nutrition [70,125,144,201,292]. The educator's responsibility will be (1) to develop an awareness Of the problem and a desire to bring about some changes in the food habits, and (2) to provide the means to make improvements possible. Developing awareness can probably be best done on a large scale and by utilizing the mass media of information. Methods used in recent years to attract the attention of the public to the dangers of smoking or to the importance of early diagnosis in the fight against cancer have certainly been effective in "Opening the eyes" Of a wide sector of the popu- lation. Similar campaigns will have to be developed if we want the consumer to know that a nutritional problem exists. Once the public is aware, it is hOped that they will seek to improve their knowledge of nutrition. We cannot 3‘.) U1 '4.) count on a general reversal of the situation, however. Just as the knowledge of the dangers Of smoking has not stopped people from buying tobacco products, awareness of their nutritional illiteracy will not automatically lead consumers to enroll in a nutrition class or seek information on the subject. But for those who will, educational pro- grams should be readily available. Consumers will have to be informed about their nutri- tional needs and about the types of foods at their disposal to satisfy those needs. Besides they will need enough nutri- tional knowledge to properly evaluate the information avail- able. Nutrition as practiced by the consumer relates to the selection Of a diet composed of readily available foods. TOO Often, consumers are unaware of the food ingredients incorporated into some mixtures or unable tO ascertain whether these foods do supply the necessary selection to insure an adequate nutrient intake. Nutrition education in relation to new foods and new eating habits is left by default to the manufacturer: For reasons justifiable to him, he may con— vince housewives that his product deserves a larger place than can be warranted from a nutritional standpoint. We should remember that, in most cases, any new food added to the diet will replace some other food product. This shows the importance of knowledge and accurate information. 2. Motivating homemakers to improve their food manage- ment behavior should be the second Objective of consumer educators. In the studies reviewed in the preceding chapter, 258 women showed great interest in learning more about food preparation, cooking, new recipes, budgeting and economiz— ing, etc.; and even if interest in marketing and nutrition was mentioned less Often, it was important for a substantial proportion Of the housewives. Women are aware that better knowledge of food preparation and cooking influences the meals served at home; they know that if they learn new recipes and hear about new products, they are more apt to vary their menus (a goal very important to most homemakers); the majority of them show a concern for price and cost of food and they want to learn about different ways to stay within certain budget limits. These are general concerns for most homemakers [70,113,125,144,201,244,292,333]. What seems to be lacking is the consumer's conviction that improvement in decision—making is the base for improve— ment in all aspects of food buying and meal preparation. Programs intended to describe the desirable outcomes Obtained from a sound management have been numerous and varied but, for the most part, they have failed to deliver an important message. That is, food management should be seen in a much longer perspective than the weekly trips to the supermarkets. The homemakers should realize that saving pennies is only one aspect of their food management. Money saved is valuable only because it offers so many possibilities. With it consumers can buy more and better meats, or a greater variety of fruits and vegetables, or more convenience, etc. If the money allocated to food is sufficient for the present 259 needs, savings derived from better planning and careful shop- ping can be used for other purposes. Concentration on buymanship is only one approach to consumer education. Education for family living is much more important. The problem faced by the homemaker is one of making choices in the light of long-term goals for the family unit. Her concern should be more with the quality Of family life than with immediate consumer choices. And it is only by conscious management and decision-making that home- makers will be able tO define their goals in line with the values held by the family and take the apprOpriate steps to fulfill them. If consumers were motivated enough toward this Objec- tive, consumer education will be considerably facilitated. Furthermore, consumers would probably be more eager to en- courage mandatory or voluntary programs beneficial to them. But to repeat what was said earlier in this chapter, the task is not easy. Homemakers feel they are already do— ing a good job and it will take persuasion and stamina to convince them that they can do much better. Moreover, this can only be done by changing consumer attitudes and philo- sophical outlook. Educators need not be reminded the com- plexity of such an endeavor. Revising the Content and Updating Existing,Information Continuous reassessment of informative materials should be done for two purposes:‘ (1) to find better ways to 260 disseminate valuable information long taught but not used by the consumer, and (2) to adapt information to research find- ings, marketing trends and innovations. There is evidence in the research reviewed that many concepts that have been taught for years and are very sound guidelines for buying a variety Of foods are seldom or never used by homemakers [l8,29,75,85,l44,172,226,281,310,311, 312]. Such concepts as "Basic 4," price per serving for buy— ing meats, cost-size comparisons between eggs, grades as a criterion for selection are examples of relevant information that have not been assimilated by most consumers. Who is to blame? It is the responsibility of consumer specialists to know where and why the communication system breaks down. In what respect is the breakdown due to the communicator's omis- sions and commissions; and in what respect is the breakdown due to the actions or inactions of the consumer? Consumer educators are also responsible for keeping up-tO-date with current consumer behavior research in order to adapt their teaching and information to the needs of their audience. Some of the actual practices and dictum should be revised or altered in line with the acquisition of new knowl- edge about the consumer and new knowledge about the market and the alternatives available to consumers. For example, we tell the homemaker to read labels and compare prices and brands in the store. Could we reasonably expect her to do so when we learn from research that most 261 women do not spend more than 30 minutes (including check-out) for their major weekly trip to the supermarket? For many years, we have exhorted homemakers to look for grades for meats and other products. But research shows that they do not do it. Why is it so? Have we always made it clear to them that grade designations differ from product to product? That Grade A does not always mean the highest quality? Or that Grade one is not top-notch but next to Grades 00 or 0 for some commodities? We advise the consumer to plan menus around the "Basic 4," but research tells us that menu planning is not very systematic and that the trend is toward more meals eaten away from home. Did we ever attempt to suggest menus or plans that will fit with this new pattern Of eating? We exhort the housewife to read the ads and shop for "specials." This is fine. However, research shows that women can compare general price levels of various grocery stores, but most are unable to quote prices of specific food items [201]. Price comparison becomes a guess; and more so since the practice of food advertisers is to fill the whole newspaper page with suggestions, with most of the items marked at their regular prices and only a few Offered at a real dis— count. One more item. We advise the homemaker to return faulty food products to the store. That is a very wise sug-