4.7 Article

Cross-Cultural Differences in the Perception of Lamb between New Zealand and Chinese Consumers in New Zealand

期刊

FOODS
卷 11, 期 14, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/foods11142045

关键词

cross-cultural; preference; lamb; consumer; China; New Zealand

资金

  1. AgResearch Strategic Science Investment Fund [SSIF-A27235]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study revealed differences between general New Zealand consumers and ethnic Chinese consumers in terms of the importance of lamb attributes at the point of purchase and opinions of New Zealand lamb. Chinese consumers placed more importance on attributes like animal origin and food safety, while New Zealand consumers focused more on price and animal welfare.
This study investigated differences between general New Zealand consumers and ethnic Chinese consumers living in New Zealand regarding the importance of lamb attributes at the point of purchase and opinions of New Zealand lamb. A central location test survey was undertaken with 156 New Zealand consumers living in Dunedin, New Zealand, and 159 Chinese consumers living in Auckland, New Zealand. In terms of importance at the point of purchase, Chinese consumers rated a number of attributes as more important than New Zealand consumers by a difference of >1.0 on a 9-point Likert scale for importance: animal origin, feeding, age, presence of hormones/residues, traceability, food safety, place of purchase, brand/quality label, and label information (p < 0.05). New Zealand consumers rated the price of other meats and animal welfare as more important than Chinese consumers (p < 0.05); however, the differences in scores were <1.0. In terms of opinions, Chinese consumers also considered New Zealand lamb to be better value for money, more additive-free, and more likely to make people feel good (p < 0.05), by scores >1.0 on a 7-point Likert scale for agreement. New Zealand consumers considered New Zealand lamb more traditional and boring (p < 0.05); however, the differences in scores were <1.0.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据