Does perceived inconvenience diminish seafood consumption A crosslagged panel analysis

1
Does perceived inconvenience diminish seafood
consumption? A cross-lagged panel analysis

• Torbjørn Trondsen
• Norwegian College of Fisheries Science,
• University of Tromsø, Norway
• Joachim Scholderer
• MAPP, Arhus School of Business,
• Denmark

2
IntroductionBackground

• Norway is one of the countries with the highest
  consumption of seafood in the world (19.1 kg per
  head in 2001 GfK/Norwegian Seafood Export
  Council, 2003)
• Whilst overall consumption levels are relatively
  stable, a shift can be observed in at-home
  consumption from fresh fish to processed fish,
  particularly concerning lean fish species
  (Scholderer, Lund Trondsen, 2002 in press)

3
IntroductionPrevious research

• Research in Denmark (Scholderer Grunert, 2001)
  has indicated that low levels of fish consumption
  often result from perceptions that
• the preparation of a tasty fish dish requires
  skills beyond those that consumers feel they
  possess, and
• pre-prepared products are lacking
• In Norway, it was found that consumers perceive
  many pre-prepared products on the market to be of
  insufficient quality (Trondsen, 1997 Trondsen,
  Scholderer, Lund Eggen, 2003)

4
IntroductionAims of the study

• To model the reciprocal influence of
  convenience-related barriers and actual
  consumption experience over time, including
• effects of perceived inconvenience on present
  consumption of unprocessed fish,
• stable consumption habits,
• compensatory consumption of processed fish as a
  convenient alternative, and
• learning effects arising from accumulated
  experience with unprocessed and processed fish.

5
MethodThe NOWAC panel

• NOWAC Norwegian Women and Seafood Consumption
  Study (part of EPIC Norway)
• Cohorts selected for present analysis were women
  born between 1951 and 1966
• Stratified random sample from Norwegian
  population registry, representative for all
  Norwegian regions
• Panel surveys mailed in Jan 1996 and Jan 2001,
  returned N(1996) 6941 (response quota 69.4),
  returned N(2001) 5223 (response quota 75.2)

6
MethodMeasures

• Consumption frequency
• Fat fish (7-point scale, metricised for analysis)
• Lean fish (7-point scale, metricised for
  analysis)
• Processed fish (7-point scale, metricised for
  analysis)
• Perceptions of inconvenience as a barrier
• Lack of pre-prepared dishes (3-point scale)
• Skills required for preparation (3-point scale)
• Complete data sets from N 3167 women

7
Changing seafood consumptionObserved means of
number seafood meals a month (st. dev.)
8
Path analysisFull model
9
Path analysis EstimatesFull model
.24
.09
.04
.34
-.07
-.04
.04
-.04
-.07
.35
.04
-.12
-.08
.07
.43
-.04
.05
.21
.23
10
Path analysis ModelStability coefficients
11
Self- amplifying learning processes Most stable
pattern in consumption of lean fish 1996
2001 Lack of pre pared dishes less stable than
skill as consumption barriers

• But
• More correlation between the type of product
• Category more important product less important

12
Path analysis ModelCross-lagged panel effects
(I)
13

• Self- amplifying learning processes- 2
• Processed fish consumption in 1996 has no effect
  on unprocessed fish consumption in 2001
• Lean fish consumption in 1996 has almost the same
  effect on processed fish consumption in 2001 as
  processed fish consumption in 1996
• Weak cross- lagged effect between skill of
  preparation and lack of prepared dishes.

14
Path analysis ModelCross-sectional effects
15

• Improved product choices
• Perceived barriers
• Skill of preparation
• Decreased, but still a small effect
• Lack of prepared dishes
• Removed

16
Path analysis ModelCross-lagged panel effects
(II)
17

• Convenience effects
• Lean fish consumption in 1996 has a weak negative
  effect on skill as a barrier for consumption of
  fish
• Consumption of processed fish 1996 has a
  positive effect on skill as a barrier for
  consumption of fish

18
Discussion

• Lack of pre- prepared dishes has lost influence
  as perceived consumption barrier
• Substitution from lean fish to processed fish
• Also driven by changes in relative prices in the
  same period
• More and better quality processed fish offered on
  the market
• The perception that fish is difficult to prepare
  has still a small but negative effect on
  consumption
• Self- amplifying learning process over time
• Convenience effects in substitution between
  unprocessed lean fish and processed fish

19
Conclusion

• Convenience is still an important consumption
  factor for Norwegian consumers
• Shift in the type of added value expected from
  convenience products
• Fish increases its importance as a category
• Seafood attributes are substituted to preferences
  in consumption situations
• Convenience as a product attribute are related to
  required skill of preparation and not just time
  of preparation