How can previous knowledge about food science/technology and received information affect consumer perception of processed orange juice?

Abstract

This article evaluates the perception of whether orange juice processing is different between lay and nonlay (people who studied or study food science/technology/engineering) consumers. It also assesses how it is influenced by the received information about the products. More than 1,000 lay and 340 nonlay consumers responded to blind and informed online questionnaires about fresh and processed orange juices.The results showed a consensual positive evaluation for fresh juice and negative for powdered drink mix in both questionnaires. Other categories of processed juices were evaluated as a little (concentrated) or very different ("processed," "pasteurized,"and "sterilized") among lay and nonlay consumers in blind questionnaires, where product aversion was more frequent among the lay participants. In contrast, information changed the participants' perception about processed juices (especially "pasteurized" and "sterilized" products), resulting in a more consensual evaluation among lay and nonlay participants. Therefore, access to correct information allows consumers (especially lay ones) to make more conscious choices about their juices. Practical ApplicationsConsumers' rejection regarding processed juices is growing due to associating them with processed food and adverse health effects. The comparison of the perception of lay and nonlay consumers about fresh and processed orange juices showed two practical applications: (a) the juice industry needs to improve consumers' access to information about product ingredients and process characteristics, aiming to improve product acceptance and (b) nonlay consumers have different perceptions of processed products than lay ones, therefore data collected from nonlay consumers (common in research carried out at universities) need to be used with caution.

European Consumers’ Perceptions and Attitudes towards Non-Thermally Processed Fruit and Vegetable Products

“…Furthermore, consumers are grocery shopping with an ever-expanding perspective on overall health and well-being [19,25]. In addition to health, consumers' desires for taste, food safety, affordability, convenience, and clear labeling and transparency were identified [6,14,17], which explained the major expected benefits and concerns stated in our focus groups. The increasing environmental awareness and sustainable thinking among consumers help them associate NTP with environmental cost [10,27], which was found to be one of the important factors that influenced consumers' perceptions towards non-thermally processed F&V.…”

Perception and preferences of processed sweet foods: differences between diabetic and nondiabetic consumers

“…The participants' demographic information in each group was used to calculate the consumer percentage in each age group, sex, education, BMI (weight/height 2 ), perceived difficulty to control BMI, physical exercise habits and type of sweetener consumed (if applicable). Differences in the groups' demographic profiles were determined by chi-square test at 95% confidence level (Honorio et al, 2019). The frequency of use of each CATA term was determined for each stimulus (sugar, NE-S and CS-S) in each consumer group (D, NC and C).…”

“…The frequency of use of each CATA term was determined for each stimulus (sugar, NE-S and CS-S) in each consumer group (D, NC and C). The Cochran Q test was carried out to identify differences in the frequencies of terms used to describe the stimuli for each group of participants, followed by the Marascuilo test (Honorio et al, 2019) to identify differences Light on sugar #5 g sugars per 100 g or 100 ml Light 25% reduction of energy compared with a regular similar product (unreduced) Diet (food for people with restriction of sucrose, fructose and dextrose ingestion) #0.5 g sugars per 100 g or 100 ml…”

Consumer preferences for burgers and milk desserts: Evaluating the importance of health claim attributes

“…They were mainly between 18 and 35 years old (69.2%), 63.4% women, 77.7% from the Southeast region of Brazil, and 61.6% from the medium class regarding the socioeconomic status. The participants were recruited through convenient and non‐probabilistic snowball sampling (Eldesouky, Pulido, & Mesias, 2015; Honorio et al, 2019; Kinnear & Taylor, 1993), using email lists of universities, research groups, social networks, and personal database. Within the scope of this work, snowball sampling took place in the context of social networks, in which a consumer could publicize the survey to other people who could access it and respond.…”

“…According to Rife, Cate, Kosinski, and Stillwell (2016), social networks sampling is feasible, bringing results comparable to those reached by other snowball sampling ways. In addition, a non‐probability sample was considered appropriate for this type of study (Eldesouky et al, 2015; Honorio et al, 2019; Kinnear & Taylor, 1993).…”