Drivers of consumer behaviour
Conventional food

January 2003

Summary

• The purchase of conventional food is a low involvement process performed out of habit and convenience.  However, marketing decisions still involve understanding the complexity of the interaction between food property factors, personal factors and purchasing environmental factors.

• Food property factors include physiological characteristics (such as nutritional effects and safety), plus sensory properties (such as taste, smell and appearance).  Personal factors include biological aspects (such as health, dietary needs), psychological concerns (such as ethics and attitudes), and socio-demographics (including location, education level and family).  Purchasing environmental factors include culture, economics and marketing.

• Of all the demographic variables income is the strongest moderator of purchasing intentions. Quality is important, however quality perception is affected by personal factors such as product experience and education.  Situation is important: this includes product use and physical surroundings.  Perceived value is a strong moderator of behaviour and combines quality, cost, income constraints, and other personal traits such as attitudes.  

• Maslow's hierarchy of needs provides assistance in explaining purchase behaviour.  Satisfaction of some of the lower hierarchy needs, such as physiological, safety and social needs is often the prerequisite for the higher order needs. Adding elements that satisfy higher order needs to foods that are originally designed to satisfy lower order needs is likely to increase purchases.    

• Because food is generally a low involvement purchase item, consumers tend to process information through a peripheral rather than central route.  Familiar elements serve as a purchase trigger rather than serious and time-consuming communication messages.

• Retail and situational factors could affect and moderate consumer purchases irrespective of the attitudes and purchase intentions already established.  Retail factors include crowd density, staff attitude and training, stock layout/ relocation, impulse purchasing, time pressure, location, merchandise assortment, music, lighting and heating, point-of-purchase display, quantity cues, and store brands. 

• Distinctive product characteristics of organic, functional and GM food entail different consumer purchase drivers thus requiring different decision-making processes.

Who buys, who doesn't and why

Generic factors

Consumers’ normal food purchases are viewed as low-involvement decision activities.  A supermarket trip rarely involves long and complicated decision processes.  Food purchasing is often an unconscious, instantaneous act that is accompanied by consistent and habitual purchasing behaviour.  However, even with purchases of low involvement food products, consumers generally go through a decision-making process before selection is made. 

Research studies have discovered certain personality attributes are strongly correlated with food selection.  In one study, undertaken in Germany, food purchase criteria were measured in four different dimensions:

• Egoistic and hedonistic orientation using criteria of freshness, flavour, and appearance;
• Egoistic and health orientation using as criteria healthiness, non genetically produced foods, no preservatives and organically produced;
• Altruistic orientation using criteria such as environmental packaging, non genetically produced goods, organically produced, regionally produced and with a known producer;
• Marketing orientation using criteria of price, country-of-origin, quality mark, and brand. 

                                  (Wirthgen, Kuhnert, Altmann, Demmin  & Wirthgen, 2002)                                          

In comparison, the conceptual model of food choice developed by Furst (cited in Roininen, 2001) highlights three factors:

• Life course such as a person’s experience;
• Influences including ideals, personal factors, resources, social framework, and food context;
• Personal systems and strategies for making choices and value negotiations such as sensory perceptions, monetary considerations, convenience, health, nutrition, management of relationship and quality.  

While common attributes and criteria for food selection and purchase are noted across studies, cultural or geographical differences are also evident.  For example, American consumers ranked in order of importance, taste, cost, nutrition, convenience and weight control expectations.  Taste was considered to be a minimum standard of food acceptance except for fruit and vegetables. (Glantz, Basil, Maibach, Goldberg & Snyder, 1998).  In Japan, consumers showed slightly different concerns.  In a survey quality/freshness was ranked highest followed by taste, price, convenience, package design and nutrition (Stroppiana & Riethmuller, 2000). 

Universal Food Choice Model

One model which groups together various internal and external factors that have emerged from different disciplines is illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Modified conceptual model for food purchasing

Source: Adapted from Traill, 1999

The model highlights three simplified dimensions that influence consumers’ food choice decision process: person-related factors, properties of the food and purchasing environmental factors.  These dimensions influence consumers’ decision process in combination or interaction with each other.  For example, a certain culturally determined diet pattern may affect consumer taste perceptions.  Or, previous satisfactory product experience and immature market infrastructure may make a consumer tolerant toward negative product attributes.

Properties of the food

Physiological properties of food such as nutritional effects, food safety and sensory properties such as taste, smell and appearance affect individual’s food choice decision processes (Traill, 1999).  As suggested above, there is an interactive effect between the major factors, as examined in the following sections.

Person-related factors

Traill (1999) describes person-related factors that include lifestyles, value systems, quality perceptions and environmental consciousness.  In addition, biological factors are included such as specific health conditions or dietary needs.  Examples of these include weight, cholesterol and food allergies concerns. Also, psychological concerns are included such as ethics and attitudes to the food production method such as animal husbandry.  Other issues are addressed which include socio-demographics such as education level and family composition. 

Individual factors provide the key to purchase decisions when environmental or food property factors were perceived to be the same (Traill, 1999).  When a product of universal attributes is sold under a similar price range and market conditions, personal and individual factors often become the most influential.  Termed another way, individual factors become the final gatekeeper for food choice and purchase decision.

Properties of food in interaction with person-related factors

Physical product characteristics are the most important factors for guiding food choice.   Some attributes are more generic such as taste and price.  Other attributes are more product-specific such as meat fat content (Traill, 1999). Appendix A illustrates the relative importance consumers place across different countries on various product attributes. 

However, consumers don’t purchase foods for single item attributes per se but for personal or environmental consequences (Traill 1999).  For example, eating non-fattening foods may assist in weight loss or a ready-to-cook food may save time.  These consequences were found to notably influence product selection.  The contributing components may include security, family values, fun, enjoyment and social recognition (Traill, 1999).  The weight of these values varies across personal factors and environmental background.  An example of different weights reflected in food selection is illustrated in Appendix B. 

Consumers' quality perception also influences food selection process.  The majority of Australian consumers have a preference for high quality household goods and services and this is also true of food products (Zeitner, 2000).  Since the focal point of many foods, especially organic, is on quality, this consideration is an imperative for consumer decision-making.  However, the inference of quality is subjective and prone to distortion by personal variables.  These variables include product experiences, education levels, perceived quality risks and quality consciousness in addition to situational aspects such as usage goals, physical surroundings and time pressures (Kyriakopoulos & Ophuis, 1997). 

Quality perception alone may not trigger consumers’ purchase behaviour.  Perceived value may play a more important role in consumer purchase decision as it combines with quality perception the factors of cost, income constraints, and other personal traits such as attitudes (Stokes cited in Kyriakopoulos & Ophuis, 1997). 

Sensory perception with person related factors and environmental factors

Sensory perception of food attributes is susceptible to personal differences resulting from the various psychological and marketing factors.  Sensory elements may be linked to factors such as brand names, labels, texture and colour.  These elements can influence and trigger purchasing behaviour if viewed positively.  Positive sensory appearance may trigger an elevated evaluation of the product, leading to a higher quality perception and this may ultimately make the product more desirable for purchase. 

Demographics in interaction with food attributes

Among many demographic elements, income-related factors such as budget constraint may strongly influence and moderate purchase intentions.  The moderation process happens in that once a food’s quality is perceived the perception is justified against the price before purchasing.  For example, someone who thinks a certain brand offers only supreme quality food products may consider paying high price premiums attached to the brand lines. 

Further, because customers rarely remember prices, they encode them as ‘expensive’ or ‘cheap’  (Kyriakopoulos & Ophuis, 1997).  Thus the price factor would moderate purchase intention through simplified encoding into a bimodal perceived price.  External cues such as coupons, private labels, brand name and cents-off offer creates information to simplify a consumer’s cognitive evaluation of value (Kyriakopoulos & Ophuis, 1997). 

Personal hierarchy of needs in interaction with economic and cultural factors

In a study undertaken in USA, it was found that food-related price and convenience concerns were highest among younger consumers and people with lower incomes (Glantz et al., 1998).  Nevertheless, populations in affluent western cultures are more likely to be driven by higher order needs having means to make more intelligent food choices. 

Figure 2.  Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory assists in explaining human behaviour.

Source:  Kotler, Armstrong, Brown & Adam (1998)

Maslow's hierarchy of needs attempts to explain that individuals have needs that are satisfied in a sequential way.  The lower order physiological needs of meeting hunger and thirst have to be initially satisfied.  Once satisfied, safety needs are addressed which includes factors such as security and protection. The process continues through the hierarchy to higher order needs till a person reaches the self-actualisation stage. 

The implications for marketeers, from a consumer perspective, are that lower order needs must be met before higher order needs are considered.  Further, as consumers advance through the hierarchy higher order needs need to be taken into account.  In general, in Australia and other western countries, lower order needs are seen to be largely met and thus the focus is on attending to higher order needs.  For example, someone trying to make ends meet in developing countries may not spend more money to support environmental causes.  However, those who wish to satisfy a self-actualisation need through supporting a cause such as animal welfare in affluent western countries may be willing to pay more in order to fulfil their ideological ethical needs. 

Food producers should not neglect the fact that the satisfaction of some of the lower hierarchy needs is often the prerequisite for achieving higher order needs fulfilment.  Adding ingredients or attributes which satisfy higher order needs to the types of food that conventionally satisfy lower hierarchy needs is likely to attract increased purchases.  

Healthy Lifestyle Trends and Personal Factors

A person’s lifestyle is an aggregate of biological, psychological and socio-demographic factors.  Lifestyle trends have a relationship with food selection and purchase behaviours.  Glanz et al. (1998) identified seven significant clusters from the USA consumer market based on food- and health-related tendencies and behaviours.

• Physical Fanatics (24% of population) - very health-orientated, don’t smoke or drink and watch weight
• Active Attractive (13%) - health-orientated, but in order to look attractive
• Tense but Trying (10%) - healthy in terms of food consumption but may smoke or drink
• Decent Dolittles(24%) - overweight, don’t smoke, drink, exercise or eat healthily
• Passively Healthy (15%) - healthy lifestyle but consumer of a high-fat diet
• Hard-living Hedonists (6%) - smoke, drink, eat poorly but exercise
• Non-interested Nihilists (7%) - smoke, drink, eat poorly and don’t exercise

Table 1 shows the importance of various factors according to cluster type. 

Table 1: Factors related to food consumption across healthy lifestyle clusters

The scale used in the above table was 1= not at all important to 5= very important. 

Source: Glantz et al. 1998

According to the authors of the article, concerns of taste quality were the most problematic issue for the adoption of a healthy diet (Glanz et al., 1998).

Purchasing environmental factors

As indicated in Figure 1 cultural, economic and marketing factors affect consumers’ food choice decisions.  Culture defines consumer values and diet patterns.  An affluent country with a well-developed marketing infrastructure offers more food choices and potentially more expensive value-added foods (Traill, 1998).

Marketing

Labelling

Rather than exerting thinking effort to their food purchase, consumers use cues such as labels and government agency endorsements to ensure nutritional value and food safety.  Some studies indicate that consumers usually do not bother to read labels (Gilbert, 1999b).  However, the value of labelling arises from the perception that a food is safe since it has met the labelling requirement the government imposed.  Also, consumers desire a sense of control over their food purchasing decisions through comparing labels.  Labelling is an effective method of communicating the existence of alternative food options.

Communications

Consumers’ comprehension of messages affects their attitudes toward the message, which in turn may influence subsequent behaviour (Ajzen cited in  Lepkowska-White, 2001).  When consumers are persuaded and their attitudes are formed, they go through either a central or a peripheral information processing route (Petty & Caciopo cited in Wansink & Kim, 2001).

Consumers receive information through the central route when they realise that a discussion topic has a direct influence on them.  The consumer is then motivated to concentrate at a more objective and logical level.  A credible source with factual information can persuade an attitude change through this route.  Controversial food issues, such as GM food, are more likely to trigger this method of information analysis. 

In central route processing, selecting a credible information source is important.  Australian consumers rated the CSIRO and scientists, followed by consumer organisations and universities, as credible sources of information (Cormick, 2000). 

The peripheral route is used when consumers do not hold any sustainable interest toward an issue.  Using this route, consumers look towards the environment for cues.  In that quest, it triggers attitude change without critical analysis.  As shoppers become more familiar with a food product, they are more likely to incorporate familiar elements into their routine shopping trips (Gilbert, 1999a) and familiar elements will serve as cues.  This route is usually undertaken when consumers have little motivation to evaluate a food product or the information is either too meticulous or broad (Wansink & Kim, 2001).  Since the majority of food buying behaviour is habitual, many consumers use the peripheral mode of information processing.  Examples include most of low-price everyday consumer products purchased regularly.  

Retail factors

Retail and situational factors could affect and moderate consumer purchases irrespective of the attitudes and purchase intention already established.

Shopping stressor has been explained as something occurring during the shopping activity, which disturbs the mental balance of an individual (Aylott & Mitchell, 1999). These stressors include aspects such as parking, poor signage, crowding, trolley manoeuvrability and checkout queue.  Other factors affecting shopping outcomes include staff attitude and training, stock layout/relocation, impulse purchasing, time pressure, location, merchandise assortment, music, lighting and heating (Aylott & Mitchell, 1999).  One study measured the significance of different stressors affecting food-shopping habits.  In the study, queuing and store crowding were viewed as the most stressful influencers that frustrated shoppers (Aylott & Mitchell, 1999).  Appendix C provides a comprehensive map of these shopping stressors.

Point-of-purchase displays incorporating numeric signs also influences consumer behaviour.  A study conducted in USA revealed that the amount of food products consumers purchased doubled when told they were given purchase limits such as 'a limit of 10 per customer' (Baird, 1999).  In another instance, a suggestive selling sign such as 'buy 10 for the weekend' increased sales from 42-118%.  Further, multiple unit pricing statements such as '3 for $3.00 instead of 1 for $1.00' increased sales by 35%. 

At the core of this perception, the influence of anchoring such as quantity cue moderated consumer purchase decisions.  In order to simplify the decision-making of shopping trips, consumers create biases, which allow them to make rapid, effortless decisions (Wansink, Kent & Hoch, 1998).  When promotional signs suggest a number of products, they trigger consumer questions about what they should purchase.  As shoppers decide on a quantity to purchase, they look toward it as a point of affirmation (Wansink, Kent & Hoch,1998).  For example, a sign that reads ‘Buy 10 soups for your pantry’ may be interpreted as 10 soups are the amount that everybody usually buys.  However, a little less may be purchased if the individual is not a large user.  This bias indicates how the number acts as an anchor from which consumers adjust appropriately (Wansink, Kent & Hoch, 1998). 

Other trends indicate a growing demand for store brand products over national brands or niche food products.  Consumers perceive store brands offering better value with security.  In USA, store brands comprise one out of five products purchased in supermarkets (Nemieht-Ek, 2000).  This trend is now established in Europe and Australia.  They offer target market value and loyalty opportunities. 

Consumer psychology and living conditions derived from culture

Japanese consumers are usually cautious of imported foods due to their sensitivity toward food safety (Stroppiana & Riethmuller, 2000).  They look for foods that are offered in smaller portions because by frequently purchasing smaller quantities of food they can certify freshness.  Crowded population and small living space per capita contributes to limited food storage space thus food purchases are undertaken in small quantities.

A case study, which shows the importance of understanding cross-cultural values, is seen in Australia’s persimmon exports to Singapore.  Consumer needs were analysed beyond merely understanding price and demand.  It was found with Singaporean consumers in a cultural context that value for money was perceived to be important.  Forty six percent of consumers specified price as the most important attribute whilst 25% ranked taste (Bradford, 2000).  As a result of a marketing practice based on perceived value, persimmon exports increased from 98 tones in 1989 to 894 tones in 1995 (Bradford, 2000).  Appendix A shows the similarity and differences in the importance of food purchase drivers among consumers across a number of countries.

Organic, functional and genetically modified food

It is estimated that the world population will increase 50% by 2050.  This means a consequential increase in the demand for food, fibre, timber and other natural resources.  Currently worldwide agriculture accounts for 38% of global land area and 66% of water usage (Goklany, 2001).  Other studies indicate such an increase in land area is not possible and it is argued that for sustainable long-term production the area has to be reduced.  Using traditional methods of food production, croplands in 2050 will need to be increased by 21.5% to accommodate demand (Goklany, 2001).  Innovative production technologies and improved crop management techniques may assist in offering solutions.  

Innovative production and food technology involve organic food production and the development of functional and GM foods.  Consumer demands and interest are driving the emergence of new types of food such as these.  The demand for organic food has recently increased due to the backlash against a perception of questionable food production methods.  Examples of these perceptions are in the use of toxic and dangerous chemicals in farming.  This has also been fuelled by the perception of increased natural health benefits offered by organic food. 

Organic, functional and GM food are seen as potentially important methods of future food production.  Forecasters predict the future growth of the food industry to include these foods.  Consumers attach greater involvement to these purchases than to conventional food items.  This is due to the new and different attributes of these food products, and as a consequence these foods require more information processing and evaluation by consumers.  Factors that will drive consumer behaviour toward these foods are therefore likely to be different and require approaches and strategies unlike those used to produce and market traditional food products. 

Figure 3 illustrates the distinctive positioning of the different food types. 

Figure 3: Consumer perception positioning for innovative and non-innovative foods

Source: Jonas & Beckman cited in von Alvensleben, 2001

Implications

• Consumers are increasingly looking for additional health and disease prevention functions from food. Products that deliver these functions are likely to be in increasing demand over the medium term.
• Health food products that are natural or are upgraded with natural ingredients are best positioned to take advantage of this trend.
• Functional food products such as healthy snacks and whole meal solutions are potential growth areas.  This is in addition to other significant market trends such as convenience foods and those that are easy to prepare. 
• Marketing disease prevention capabilities of fresh and natural food is a strategy to target changing needs of the consumer especially with respect to the ageing population of developed countries.
• The boundary between genetically modified, functional and traditional foods is not always clear in consumers understanding.  Further, the evidence suggests that there is two fold division of food products.  The divisions comprise one broad classification of genetically modified, functional and traditional foods, the other organic food.
• Food producers and processors, however, need to take into account that consumers often have reservations about the accuracy of health benefit claims of functional foods and may see such benefit claims as nothing more than a marketing ploy.
• Regulation and labelling are policy areas that are becoming increasingly important to ensure consumer confidence is maintained in the integrity of functional food products.

References

Aylott, R. Mitchell, V. (1999). An exploratory study of grocery shopping stressors. British Food Journal, 101, 683-700.

Baird, J (Editor). (1999). Signs that sell more… Consumer PI Newsletter, Fall 1999. http://www.consumerpsychology.com/brandlab/newsletter/fall99/index.htm. Accessed June 2002.

Baird, J (Editor). (2000). Why people buy products they don’t use. Consumer PI Newsletter, Spring 2000.  http://www.consumerpsychology.com/brandlab/newsletter/spring00/index.htm. Accessed June 2002.

Bradford. (2000). Consumer behaviour and fruit quality: supply chain management in an emerging industry. Supply Chain Management, 5, 45.

Cormick, C. (2000). Genetically modified foods and crops. Ocham’s Razor, Radio National.  http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s213390.htm. Accessed April 2002.

Gilbert, L. (1999a). Shoppers reaching beyond basic nutrition for better health. http://www.healthfocus.net/articles.htm. Accessed May 2002.

Gilbert, L. (1999b). Vegetarian and vegetarian-aware eating trends. Wiley Encyclopedia of Food Science and Technology. October.

Glanz, K., Basil, M.,  Maibach, E.,  Goldberg, J. & Snyder, D. (1998). Why Americans eat what they do: Taste, nutrition, cost, convenience, and weight control concerns as influences on food consumption. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 98,1118-1126.

Goklany, I. M. (2001). The future of food. Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy, Summer. Knoxville.

Kotler, P., Armstrong, G., Brown, L. & Adam, S. (1998). Marketing (4^th ed.). Prentice Hall.

Kyriakopoulos, K & Ophuis, P. (1997). A pre-purchase model of consumer choice for biological foodstuff. Journal of International Food and Agribusiness Marketing, 8, 37-53.

Lepkowska-White, E. (2001). Comprehension of warnings and resulting attitudes. Journal of Consumer Affairs, vol. 35, 278-294.

Nemieht-Ek, M. (2000). Private label brands captivate Europe’s consumers.  FASonline. http://www.fas.usda.gov/info/agexporter/2000/Jan/private.html. Accessed June 2002.

Prescott, J., Young, O., O’Neill, L., Yau N., & Stevens, R. (2002). Cross-cultural differences in motives for food choice: a comparison of consumers from Japan, Taiwan, Malaysia & New Zealand. www.dijon.inra.fr/aromes/presentation/Prescott.pdf. Accessed June 2002.

Roininen, K. (2001). Evaluation of food choice behaviour: development and validation of health and taste attitude scales. Department of Food Technology, University of Helsinki.

Sheppard, B., Hartwick, J. & Warshaw, P. (1988).  The theory of reasoned action: A meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research.  Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 325-343.

Stroppiana, R. & Riethmuller, P. (2000).  Factors Influencing Food Demand: Survey Evidence from Japan. www.agribusiness.asn.au/Review/Perspectives/2000StroppianaJapan.htm. Accessed June 2002.

Traill, B. (1999). Prospects for the future: nutritional, environmental and sustainable food production considerations- changes in cultural and consumer habits.http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/X2697e.htm. Accessed June 2002.

Von Alvensleben, R. (2001). Beliefs associated with food production. In: Frewer, L., Risvik, E., & Schifferstein, H. (Eds.). Food, People, and Society- A European Perspective of Consumer’s Food Choices. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg New York, 381-400.

Wansink, B. & Kim, J. (2001) The marketing battle over genetically modified foods: false assumptions about consumer behaviour. American Behavioural Scientist, 44, 1405-1417.

Wansink, B., Kent, R.J. & Hoch, S.J. (1998). Anchoring and adjustment model of purchase quantity decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 35, 1, 71-81.

Wirthgen, B., Kuhnert, H., Altmann M., Demmin U. & Wirthgen A. (2002). The importance of region of origin in influencing consumer behaviour for food products. http://www.mluri.sari.ac.uk/livestocksystems/witz/wirthgen.htm. Accessed May 2002.

Zeitner, R. (2000, May 6). Australia organic products 2000. http://www.fas.usda.gov/gainfiles/200006/25677787.pdf. Accessed May 2002.

Appendices

Appendix A

Table A1: Relative Importance of Product Attributes for Product Choice in European Countries (in percentage)

Source: Traill, 1999

Table A2 Relative Importance of Food Choice Factors in Asia-Pacific Countries

Source: Prescott et al., 2002

Appendix B

Lifestyle Segment Profile and Food Selection Factors

Source: Traill, 1999

Appendix C

Significance of Retail-Related Shopping Stressors (Aylott & Mitchell, 1999) 

(* Percentages indicate the influence weight)

Drivers of consumer behaviour- home

Last reviewed 06 April 2005