Table 1.
Demographic characteristics of respondents (N=702)
| Demographic characteristics | Na | % |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||
| Female | 445 | 63.4 |
| Male | 257 | 36.6 |
| Employed | ||
| Yes | 401 | 57.1 |
| No | 301 | 42.9 |
| Number of household members | ||
| 1 | 54 | 7.7 |
| 2 | 90 | 12.6 |
| 3 | 151 | 21.5 |
| 4 | 221 | 31.5 |
| 5 and more | 186 | 26.5 |
| Financial situation | ||
| Very bad | 4 | 0.6 |
| Bad | 26 | 3.7 |
| Average | 245 | 34.9 |
| Good | 338 | 48.1 |
| Very good | 89 | 12.7 |
| Place of residence | ||
| Rural area | 249 | 35.5 |
| City below 20.000 residents | 77 | 11.0 |
| City from 20 to 100.000 residents | 117 | 16.7 |
| City up 100.000 residents | 259 | 36.9 |
Table 2.
Summary of responses to the survey (N = 702)
| Items | Mean; SD |
|---|---|
| Price | 4.43 ± 0.774 |
| Use-by date/date of minimum durability | 4.42 ± 0.816 |
| Taste and aroma | 4.37 ± 0.762 |
| Condition of packaging | 4.35 ± 0.801 |
| Appearance | 4.34 ± 0.799 |
| Hygienic conditions | 4.24 ± 0.859 |
| Information on the packaging | 3.86 ± 0.920 |
| Method of storing food in the store | 3.84 ± 1.010 |
| Storage conditions | 3.65 ± 1.042 |
| Product composition | 3.64 ± 1.079 |
| Weight/volume | 3.63 ± 1.079 |
| Brand | 3.28 ± 1.148 |
| Energy value | 3.13 ± 1.306 |
| Nutrient content | 3.08 ± 1.257 |
| Manufacturer | 3.04 ± 1.175 |
| Organic origin | 2.86 ± 1.149 |
| Country of origin | 2.76 ± 1.203 |
Table 3.
The results of EFA
| Variables | Information | Hygiene and food safety | Product appearance and price | Origin |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nutrient content | 0.857 | |||
| Energy value | 0.808 | |||
| Product composition | 0.706 | |||
| Weight/volume | 0.570 | |||
| Information on the packaging | 0.565 | |||
| Storage conditions | 0.728 | |||
| Hygienic conditions | 0.701 | |||
| Method of storing food in the store | 0.649 | |||
| Use-by date/date of minimum | 0.537 | |||
| durability | ||||
| Appearance | 0.749 | |||
| Taste and aroma | 0.697 | |||
| Price | 0.641 | |||
| Condition of packaging | 0.630 | |||
| Manufacturer | 0.901 | |||
| Brand | 0.856 | |||
| Organic origin | 0.561 | |||
| Country of origin | 0.437 | |||
| Cronbach′s α | 0.789 | 0.711 | 0.708 | 0.746 |
| Variance explained (%) | 27.44% | 13.78% | 9.59% | 7.14% |
| Total variance explained (%) | 57.95% | |||
Table 4.
Cluster analysis
| Cluster 1 | Cluster 2 | Cluster 3 | Cluster 4 | Cluster 5 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of respondents | 702 | 42 | 196 | 216 | 151 | 97 | |
| Number of respondents (%) | 100% | 5.98% | 27.92% | 30.77% | 21.52% | 13.82% | |
| Nutrient content | 3.08 | 2.25 | 4.00 | 2.29 | 3.82 | 1.68 | p<0.001 |
| Energy value | 3.13 | 1.92 | 4.01 | 2.34 | 4.04 | 1.56 | p<0.001 |
| Product composition | 3.64 | 1.83 | 4.38 | 3.26 | 3.72 | 2.82 | p<0.001 |
| Weight/volume | 3.63 | 1.92 | 4.15 | 3.40 | 3.74 | 2.97 | p<0.001 |
| Information on the packaging | 3.86 | 1.75 | 4.45 | 3.60 | 3.85 | 3.36 | p<0.001 |
| Storage conditions | 3.65 | 1.33 | 4.24 | 3.86 | 3.68 | 3.42 | p<0.001 |
| Hygienic conditions | 4.24 | 1.50 | 4.44 | 4.35 | 4.07 | 4.10 | p<0.001 |
| Method of storing food in the store | 3.84 | 1.75 | 4.18 | 3.56 | 3.37 | 3.28 | p<0.001 |
| Use-by date/date of minimum durability | 4.42 | 1.83 | 4.63 | 4.54 | 4.24 | 4.29 | p<0.001 |
| Appearance | 4.34 | 2.17 | 4.46 | 4.50 | 4.18 | 4.28 | p<0.001 |
| Taste and aroma | 4.37 | 2.17 | 4.56 | 4.38 | 4.28 | 4.31 | p<0.001 |
| Price | 4.43 | 1.83 | 4.54 | 4.40 | 4.46 | 4.55 | p<0.001 |
| Condition of packaging | 4.35 | 1.50 | 4.55 | 4.47 | 4.20 | 4.22 | p<0.001 |
| Manufacturer | 3.04 | 1.75 | 3.64 | 2.91 | 2.23 | 2.06 | p<0.001 |
| Brand | 3.28 | 1.83 | 3.84 | 3.43 | 2.23 | 1.70 | p<0.001 |
| Organic origin | 2.86 | 1.58 | 3.92 | 3.76 | 2.55 | 2.08 | p<0.001 |
| Country of origin | 2.76 | 2.00 | 3.67 | 2.58 | 2.35 | 1.78 | p<0.001 |
Table 5.
Socio-demographic profile of clusters
| % of total sample | Cluster 1 | Cluster 2 | Cluster 3 | Cluster 4 | Cluster 5 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | female | 63.4 | 75.0 | 65.0 | 69.0 | 53.6 | 60.8 | p<0.001 |
| male | 36.6 | 25.0 | 35.0 | 31.0 | 46.4 | 39.2 | ||
| Working shifts | no | 42.9 | 66.7 | 58.0 | 56.9 | 54.3 | 58.8 | p=0.132 |
| yes | 57.1 | 33.3 | 42.0 | 43.1 | 45.7 | 41.2 | ||
| Financial status | very bad | 0.6 | 0.0 | 13 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | p=0.203 |
| bad | 3.7 | 16.7 | 3.5 | 1.4 | 5.3 | 5.2 | ||
| average | 34.9 | 16.7 | 33.6 | 38.0 | 35.1 | 33.0 | ||
| good | 48.1 | 66.7 | 50.0 | 45.8 | 47.0 | 48.5 | ||
| very good | 12.7 | 0.0 | 11.5 | 14.8 | 12.6 | 12.4 | ||
| Place of residence | rural area | 35.5 | 16.7 | 36.3 | 38.0 | 33.1 | 34.0 | p<0.05 |
| city below 20,000 residents | 11.0 | 25.0 | 9.7 | 13.0 | 10.6 | 8.2 | ||
| city from 20 to 100,000 residents | 16.7 | 25.0 | 15.0 | 16.7 | 15.9 | 20.6 | ||
| city above 100,000 residents | 36.9 | 33.3 | 38.9 | 32.4 | 40.4 | 37.1 | ||
| Number of household members | 1 | 7.7 | 8.3 | 7.5 | 7.4 | 7.9 | 8.2 | p=0.108 |
| 2 | 12.6 | 8.3 | 16.4 | 11.1 | 10.6 | 12.4 | ||
| 3 | 21.5 | 25.0 | 21.7 | 21.3 | 19.2 | 24.7 | ||
| 4 | 31.5 | 41.7 | 24.8 | 36.6 | 33.8 | 30.9 | ||
| 5 and more | 26.5 | 16.7 | 29.6 | 23.6 | 28.5 | 23.7 |