J East Asian Soc Diet Life 27(3): 243 256 (2017) http://dx.doi.org/10.17495/easdl.2017.6.27.3.243 243 Purchasing Needs of Frying Powder according to Purchasing Attributes - Analysis for Selection Attributes through Importance-Satisfaction Analysis and Conjoint Analysis - Hyesun Chang and Ki Hyeon Sim Dept. of Traditional Dietary Life, Graduate School of Traditional Culture and Arts, Sookmyung Women s University, Seoul 04310, Korea ABSTRACT This study attempted to improve frying powder products based on 272 consumers purchase conditions. Factor analysis by type was conducted on purchase attributes of consumers who purchased frying powder by categorizing them based on five factors-namely, convenience, information, diversity, safety, and economy. Five main factors were divided into four purchase attributes named various pursuit, convenience pursuit, economical pursuit, and inform/safety pursuit. Purchasing status of frying powder products was analyzed according to three independent variables such as age, meal preparation type, and purchase attributes. The top motivation for using frying powder was convenience. According to the importance-satisfaction analysis survey, taste, expiration date, and certification mark were chosen as highly important and high satisfaction characteristics for frying powder (p<0.001), whereas nutrition, oil absorption, adhesiveness, crispiness, origin, and food additives were highly important and low satisfaction characteristics (p<0.001). In the conjoint analysis, crispiness was the most important attribute of fried food. Key words : Purchasing needs, purchasing attributes, frying powder, importance-satisfaction analysis, conjoint analysis Corresponding author : Ki Hyeon Sim, Tel: +82-2-2077-7475, Fax: +82-2-2077-7475, E-mail: santaro@sm.ac.kr (Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs & Korea Agro-Fisheries Trade Corporation 2013). (premix) (prepared mix),, (Kim HS & Song E 2011). 2013 2009, (Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs & Korea Agro-Fisheries Trade Corporation 2013). 4,,,,,,, (Asia economic news 2016; Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs & Korea Agro-Fisheries Trade Corporation 2016). 2012 22.5% 2015 30.3% 3 7.8% (Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs & Korea Agro-Fisheries Trade Corporation 2016; Trot news 2016).
244. 140 180 (Yoon YJ 2007; Choi SI 2011). (Lee SJ 2001; Kim BS & Lee YE 2009)..,. (Dziezak JD 1991), (Balasubramaniam VM 1997), (Lee SJ 2001), (Baixauli R 2003; Myers AS & Brannan RG 2012), (Sanz T 2004), (Lee MJ 2005), (Yoon YJ 2007), (Shim JY 2007), (Kim BS & Lee YE 2009), (Choi SI 2011). 2013 (Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs & Korea Agro-Fisheries Trade Corporation 2013) - (Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs & Korea Agro-Fisheries Trade Corporation 2016).. - (Importance-Satisfaction Analysis; ISA) - (Importance-Performance Analysis; IPA) (Hammit WE 1996; Lee HR & Seo YM 2013; Oh JE & Cho MS 2016). (Kim HS & Lyu ES 2012; Lim HM & Moon HY 2015; Oh JE & Cho MS 2016). (conjoint analysis) (Jung YW & Lee EY 2008; Jo MN 2010). (Jung YW & Lee EY 2008; Jo MN 2010)., -.,,. 1. 20 300 2016 5 15 5 30 (self-administered questionnaire survey).. 300 291 ( 97.0%), 272 ( 90.7%). (χ 2 -test), t- (independent samples t-test), (One-way ANOVA) G Power 3.1 0.25, 0.05 0.80 180. 2. Kwon TS (2005) Ju SY (2012).,,,,.,,,,, 5., Nam SH & Sim KH(2013) Park JS & Sim KH(2014), Hwang SY & Na JG (2015) (convenience),
27(3): 243 256 (2017) 245 (informativity), (diversity), (safety), (economical efficiency) 30., 1,, 1,, 5., 19 (1 : 5 : ) (1 : 5 : ) 5., (Choi WS 2012; Kim HA & Lee KH 2013)., (Lee SJ 2001; Lee MJ 2005; Choi SI 2011; Kim HS & Song E 2011),, (Focus Group Interview; FGI),, 3. 3 2 ( ), 4 (,,, ), 2 (, ). (full-profile approach) 16 (2 4 2). 16, (fractional factorial design). SPSS for Window(ver. 23.0, IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) (orthogonal array) 8. 2 10. 3. SPSS for Window (ver. 23.0, IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). (frequency analysis). (factor analysis), K-, Cronbach s α., t-,,, Duncan multiple range test. t- (paired t-test), -. 10. α=0.05, α=0.01, α=0.001. 1. Table 1. 20 87 (32.0%), 50 68 (25.0%), 40 66 (24.3%), 30 51 (18.8 %). 4 / 128 (47.1%), / 69 (25.4%), 2 / 47 (17.3%), 28 (10.3%). 59 (21.7%), 57 (21.0%) 52 (19.1%). 31 (11.4%), 24 (8.8%), 18 (6.6%). 119 (43.8%), 87 (32.0%), 66 (24.3%). 50 75 69 (25.4%), 25 50 65 (23.9%), 75 100 60 (22.1%), 100 53 (19.5%), 25 25 (9.2%).
246 Table 1. General characteristics of the respondents Age (yrs) Education level Occupation Meal preparing type Monthly expenses for food (Unit: 10,000 Korean won) Variables Respondents N (%) 20s 87 ( 32.0) 30s 51 ( 18.8) 40s 66 ( 24.3) 50s 68 ( 25.0) Less than high school 28 ( 10.3) College 47 ( 17.3) University 128 ( 47.1) More than graduate school 69 ( 25.4) Housewife 59 ( 21.7) Specialized job 57 ( 21.0) Student 52 ( 19.1) Office work 31 ( 11.4) Self-employed 31 ( 11.4) Sales and service 24 ( 8.8) Technical post 18 ( 6.6) By own 119 ( 43.8) Family or friend 87 ( 32.0) Convenient food 66 ( 24.3) <25 25 ( 9.2) 25 <50 65 ( 23.9) 50 <75 69 ( 25.4) 75 <100 60 ( 22.1) 100 53 ( 19.5) Total 272 (100.0) 2. 5 (Table 2). 1,,,, 17.58%. 2,,,, 14.69%. 3,,,, 11.87%. 4 (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point; HACCP),, (Genetically Modified Organism; GMO),, 9.26%. 5, 1+1,, PB(Private Brand), 8.00%. Cronbach s α, 0.70, (p<0.001).. K- 4. Table 3. 1, 2, 3, 4 /., (p<0.001). 3. 1,, 1, Table 4. 1, 1 3 54.4%, 4 6 21.9%, 15.2%, 7 8.5%., 1 1 3 60.9%, 57.8%, 54.2%, / 46% (p<
27(3): 243 256 (2017) 247 Table 2. Examination of reliability according to the factor analysis of purchasing attribute Factors Item Factor loading Eigen value Variance explained (%) Cronbach's α 1) Factor 1. Convenience Factor 2. Informativity Factor 3. Diversity Factor 4. Safety Factor 5. Economical efficiency I frequently buy instant food. 0.88 I like to eat fast food. 0.84 I frequently eat delivery food. 0.78 I prefer foods that are easy to cook. 0.67 I consult the review when I purchase foods. 0.77 I prefer food company which I purchased before. 0.76 I get a recommendation when I buy the product for the first time. 0.76 Brand image is important when buying food. 0.75 I try new products right away when it comes out. 0.79 I buy food made by different company every time. 0.79 I try to cook a variety of recipes. 0.74 I often use online shopping mall to buy food. 0.63 I prefer food with the HACCP label. 0.79 I put emphasis on food ingredients safety. 0.77 I do not buy GMOs. 0.75 I prefer organic processed foods. 0.58 I prefer foods that are relatively cheap. 0.83 I purchase 1+1 event food. 0.73 I compare the price of the food before purchasing. 0.70 I prefer retailers' PB products. 0.66 3.52 17.58 0.82 2.94 14.69 0.78 2.38 11.87 0.75 1.86 9.26 0.73 1.60 8.00 0.72 Total variance ratio (%) 61.40 Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin scale=.742, Bartlett s test of sphericity: χ 2 =1,745.865 (p<0.001), 1) Cronbach's α=0.70. Table 3. Analysis of factor differences according to purchasing attribute Factor Cluster 1) Various pursuit (N=49) Convenience pursuit (N=69) Economical pursuit (N=93) Inform/safety pursuit (N=61) F-value Convenience 2.58±0.65 b2) 3.68±0.62 c 2.23±0.53 a 3.59±0.67 c 104.199 *** Informativity 2.74±0.67 a 3.65±0.53 b 3.84±0.51 b 4.05±0.67 c 52.526 *** Diversity 3.09±0.75 c 2.16±0.50 a 2.54±0.56 b 3.78±0.53 d 97.301 *** Safety 3.23±0.75 a 3.13±0.70 a 3.88±0.47 b 4.15±0.61 c 41.017 *** Economical efficiency 3.04±0.61 a 3.50±0.73 bc 3.33±0.62 b 3.66±0.76 c 8.329 *** *** p<0.001. 1) Each value represents the means (M) and standard deviation (S.D.) of ratio of using 5-point scale (1: very negative 5: very positive). 2) a d Means in each row with different superscript letters are significantly different by Duncan s multiple range test (p<0.05).
248 장혜선 심기현 東아시아 食生活學會誌
27(3): 243 256 (2017) 249 0.01)., 50 1 3, 20 30, 40 54.5% 55.6%, 65.6% 1 3 (p<0.01). 50 1 4 6 42.3%, 1 3 32.7%. 1 1 3 62.0% 57.8% (p<0.001). 21 (52.5%). 2013 6 1 (31.6%), 3 1 (22.5%), 1 1 (15.9), 2 1 (14.9%), 1 1 (11.4%), 2 1 (4.2%), 1 (1.0%), 20 3 1 (24.6%), 6 1 (Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs & Korea Agro-Fisheries Trade Corporation 2013). 1 1 3, (Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs & Korea Agro-Fisheries Trade Corporation 2013). 2012, 1/4 4/4,. 3/4 (7 9 ) 2/4(4 6 ) 9 (Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs & Korea Agro- Fisheries Trade Corporation 2013)., (easy cook) 39.3 %, (good taste) 28.5%, (curiosity) 11.6%, (cost cutting) 11.2%, (nutritious value) 9.4%.,,, / 39.1% 35.5 %, 38.6%, 44.0%, / 30.5 % 31.1%, 33.7%.,,. 43.4% 43.7%, 24.8% 32.4 % (p<0.05). 32.5%, 22.5%. Song MJ(2009) (Home Meal Replacement; HMR),,, Choi SW & Ra YS(2013) HMR, HMR.., (Lee JS 2008).,.,,, (Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs & Korea Agro-Fisheries Trade Corporation 2013). 1, 2,000 3,000 49.6%, 3,000 4,000 25.0%, 4,000 14.7%, 1,000 2,000 10.7%., 2,000 3,000, / 58.0%, 54.4%, 45.8%, 42.2%
250 (p<0.05)., 2,000 3,000 (p<0.01). 1 2,000 3,000 20 34.9%, 30 48.9%, 40 65.6%, 50 50.0%. 1 2,000 3,000, 51.3%, 50.7%, 42.5 %. -, 2014 1 2,207 2016 11 2,266 2.7%, 1 2,000 3,000 (Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs & Korea Agro-Fisheries Trade Corporation 2016).,,. (Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs & Korea Agro-Fisheries Trade Corporation 2013).,,. 0, 5 3.56. 3.57, 3.38, 3.64, / 3.58,. 30 40 3.64, 50 3.56, 20 3.42,., 3.69, 3.44, 3.40 (p<0.05). (Oliver RL 1980)., (Lee YJ 1994). (Jeon IH 2009)., 3.56.,. (Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs & Korea Agro-Fisheries Trade Corporation 2013). 3 Table 5. 28.1%, 25.4%, 21.4%. 1.9% Table 5. Preferred ingredients for the frying dish Variables N % Meat 144 21.4 Seafood 171 25.4 Vegetables 189 28.1 Fruits 40 6.0 Nuts 40 6.0 Cheese 75 11.2 Other 13 1.9 Total 672 100.0 1) Plural response.
27(3): 243 256 (2017) 251. Lee JK & Yoon KS(2011),,,,.,,,. 4. - 19 - Table 6. 3.84 3.22. 4.00, (4.58 ), (4.29 ), (4.25 ), (4.19 ), (4.07 ), (4.00 ). (3.90 ), (3.89 ), (3.84 ), (3.87 ) 3.84,., (3.69 ), (3.48 ), (3.47 ), (3.46 ), (3.43 ), (3.43 ), (3.35 ), (3.31 ), (3.29 ), (3.27 ) 3.22,. t 2.598 (p<0.05).. - Fig. 1.,, 1. 2 (, ),,,,,,.,, 3 Table 6. Importance-satisfaction analysis for selective characteristic of frying powder Selective characteristic 1) Importance Satisfaction t p A1. Taste 4.25±0.63 3.48±0.61 14.613 0.000 *** A2. Nutrition 3.90±0.83 3.11±0.68 11.985 0.000 *** A3. Price 3.84±0.78 3.43±0.71 6.013 0.000 *** A4. Volume 3.79±0.77 3.46±0.70 5.085 0.000 *** A5. Package style 3.61±0.89 3.35±0.72 3.358 0.001 ** A6. Design 3.10±0.89 3.29±0.68 2.598 0.010 * A7. Cookery 3.83±0.70 3.43±0.69 7.545 0.000 *** A8. Organic 3.73±0.87 3.04±0.77 9.532 0.000 *** A9. Gluten free 3.46±0.93 2.87±0.80 7.196 0.000 *** A10. Functional supplement 3.37±0.95 3.03±0.69 4.417 0.000 *** A11. Oil absorption 4.07±0.85 2.93±0.82 13.359 0.000 *** A12. Adhesiveness 4.19±0.79 2.85±0.89 15.557 0.000 *** A13. Crispiness 4.58±0.58 2.84±1.03 21.720 0.000 *** A14. Origin 3.89±0.86 3.17±0.83 10.008 0.000 *** A15. Company 3.70±0.85 3.47±0.71 3.405 0.001 ** A16. Discount 3.55±0.89 3.27±0.83 3.981 0.000 *** A17. Expiration date 4.29±0.67 3.69±0.80 9.994 0.000 *** A18. Food additive 4.00±0.86 3.10±0.79 12.928 0.000 *** A19. Certification mark 3.87±0.83 3.31±0.74 9.446 0.000 *** Total 3.84±0.41 3.22±0.43 * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001. 1) Each value represents the means (M) and standard deviation (S.D.) of ratio of using 5-point scale (1: very negative~5: very positive).. 4,,,,,,,., Lee JS(2008),,,,,,,,.
252 Fig. 1. Importance-satisfaction analysis matrix for selective characteristic of frying powder.,,. Kim HS & Song E(2011),,,.,,,,,.,.,.,. 5. Table 7. 62.74%. 25.58%, 11.68%., (0.647) ( 0.647). (1.957), (0.215), ( 0.778), ( 1.394)
27(3): 243 256 (2017) 253 Table 7. Utility value and relative importance of the frying powder High attribute Lower attribute Utility value Relative importance (%) Utility combination Correlation Batter thickness Texture Fortify nutrition Thin 0.647 16.551 25.581 Thick 0.647 16.551 Hardness 1.394 87.464 Crispiness 1.957 122.788 62.743 Chewiness 0.215 13.490 Adhesiveness 0.778 48.814 Yes 0.213 2.487 11.676 No 0.213 2.487 Pearson s R=0.986, p<0.001 Kendall s tau=0.929, p<0.01. (0.213) ( 0.213). Table 8.,,,.,. Table 8. Final rank of the profiles consumers prefer for frying powder Preference ranking Composite attributes levels Texture Batter thickness Fortify nutrition Effectiveness level 1 Crispiness Thin No 2.817 2 Crispiness Thick Yes 1.097 3 Chewiness Thin No 1.075 4 Chewiness Thick No 0.219 5 Adhesiveness Thin Yes 0.344 6 Chewiness Thick Yes 0.645 7 Hardness Thin Yes 0.960 8 Adhesiveness Thick No 1.212 9 Hardness Thick No 1.828 10 Hardness Thick Yes 2.254 Pearson R Kendall. Pearson R,, 0.6 (Lee HY 2010). Kendall (Lee HY 2010)., Pearson R 0.986(p<0.001)., Kendall 0.929(p<0.01) 10. Han MH(2014),,,.,,,. Hong EY(2005).,. -,,
254. 20 272 -,.,,.,,,, 5,,, / 4.,, 4. 1, 1 3 54.4%, 21.9% 4 6. (p<0.01) (p<0.001) 1 3, 50 1 3 (p<0.01). 39.3%, 28.5%. (p<0.05). 1, 2,000 3,000 49.6%, 3,000 4,000 25.0%, 4,000 14.7%, 1,000 2,000 10.7%. (p<0.05) (p<0.01) 1 2,000 3,000. - (p<0.001), (p<0.001), (p<0.001), (p<0.001), (p<0.001), (p<0.001), (p<0.001), (p<0.001), (p<0.001)., 62.74%, 25.58%, 11.68 %., (0.647), (1.957), (0.213).. -,,. -,,,. -,. REFERENCES Asia economic news (2016) Blowing the premium winds into the pan frying and deep frying powder. http://view.asiae.co. kr/news/view.htm?idxno=2016042009000810364. Accessed November 30, 2017. Baixauli R, Sanz T, Salvador A, Fiszman SM (2003) Effect of the addition of dextrin or dried egg on the rheological and textural properties of batters for fried foods. Food Hydrocol 17(3): 305-310. Balasubramaniam VM, Chinnan MS, Mallikarjunan P, Phillips
27(3): 243 256 (2017) 255 RD (1997). The effect of edible film on oil uptake and moisture retention of a deep-fat fried poultry product. J Food Process Engineer 20(1): 17-29. Choi SI, Kim TJ, Park JH, Lim CS, Kim MY (2011) Quality characteristics of frying mix added with brown rice fiber. Korean J Food Cook Sci 27(6): 671-680. Choi SW & Ra YS (2013) Influence of purchase motivation and selection attributes of HMR on repurchase intention according to lifestyles. Korea J Culinary Res 19(5): 296-311. Choi WS, Seo KW, Lee SB (2012) A study on the development of HMR products of Korean foods using conjoint analysis. Korea J Culinary Res 18(1): 156-167. Dziezak JD (1991). A focus on gums. Food Technol 45(3): 116-132. Hammitt WE, Bixler RD, Noe FP (1996) Going beyond important performance analysis to analyze the observanceinfluence of park impact. J Park Recreat Adm 14(1): 45-62. Han MH (2014) A survey on needed processed food development according to consumers with different attributes. MS Thesis Sookmyung Women s University, Seoul. pp 13-54. Hong EY (2005) Development of recipes for fried chicken using traditional food. MS Thesis Sookmyung Women s University, Seoul. pp 1-66. Hwang SY, Na JG (2015) The influence of purchase attributes of traditional sauces on customer satisfaction and repurchase intention. J Table Food Coordinate 10(1): 107-118. Jeon IH (2009) Effects of wine purchase motivation and selection attributes on the customer satisfaction and repurchasing intention. Ph D Dissertation Sejong University, Seoul. pp 1-70. Jo MN (2010) Conjoint analysis of restaurant attributes on customer intentions to choose restaurant. CSHR 16(1): 254-268. Ju SY (2012) Study on importance-performance analysis regarding selective attributes of home meal replacement (HMR). Korean J Food Nutr 41(11): 1639-1644. Jung YW, Lee EY (2008) An exploratory study on the selection attributes of food courts through the conjoint analysis. CSHR 14(4): 106-118. Kim BS, Lee YE (2009) Effect of cellulose derivatives to reduce the oil uptake of deep fat fired batter of pork cutlet. Korean J Food Cook Sci 25(4): 488-495. Kim HA, Lee KH (2013) Conjoint analysis with the addition of brown rice and black rice in triangular gimbap of the consumer preference. J East Asian Soc Dietary Life 23(5): 662-669. Kim HS, Song E (2011) A study on the use behavior and satisfaction of home-baking premix products. Korean J Food Nutr 24(4): 509-519. Kim HS, Lyu ES (2012) Importance and satisfaction with Korean food for foreigners living in Busan with regard to nationality. Korean J Food Cook Sci 28(2): 89-96. Kwon TS, Lee YN, Choi W (2005) HMR selection motive and behaviorism by lifestyle type. Korea Hotel Resort Res 4(2): 395-408. Lee HR, Seo YM (2013) Importance performance analysis of wine specific restaurant s servicescape, customer satisfaction and revisit factors. J Foodserv Manag 16(4): 161-184. Lee HY (2010) Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. Chungram, Korea. pp 183-209. Lee JK, Yoon KS (2011) A study of adult s consumption of cooked food with high heat. J Korean Soc Food Sci Nutr 40(2): 290-307. Lee JS (2008) Analysis on consumer responses and selection points for home-baking premix products. MS Thesis Yonsei University, Seoul. pp 1-106. Lee MJ (2005) Utilization of starch to improve quality of deep-fat fried batter. MS Thesis Korea University, Seoul. pp 1-50. Lee SJ (2001) The functional properties of batter using rice flor. Bucheon Univ Collect Dessert 22: 201-206. Lee YJ (1994) Differences in the consumer satisfaction process between goods and services. Korean Soc Consumer Stud 8 (1): 101-118. Lim HM, Moon HY (2015) The effect of Korean restaurant s selection attributes on customers satisfaction - Focused on the moderating effect of nationalty in foreigners. J Hospital Tourism Stud 17(5): 204-219. Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, Korea Agro- Fisheries Trade Corporation (2013) The 2013 Markets Segmented Report of Processed Foods. Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, Korea Agro-Fisheries Trade Corporation, Sejong. pp 1-98. Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, Korea Agro- Fisheries Trade Corporation (2016) Processed Food Market Reports for Premix. Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, Korea Agro-Fisheries Trade Corporation, Sejong. pp 1-6.
256 Myers AS, Brannan RG (2012) Efficacy of fresh and dried egg white on inhibition of oil absorption during deep fat frying. J Food Quality 35(4): 239-246. Nam SH, Sim KH (2013) A survey on food purchasing of internet users via on-line shopping. Korean J Food Cook Sci 29(4): 367-376. Oh JE, Cho MS (2016) Analysis of tangible and intangible attributes in foodservice products by IPA - Focus on dumpling shops. J Korean Soc Food Cult 31(2): 149-160. Oliver RL (1980) A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. J Marketing Res 17 (4): 460-469. Park JS, Sim KH (2014) Effects of corporate social responsibility (CSR) on consumers food purchasing intention according to purchasing attributes. Korean J Food & Nutr 27(5): 859-871. Sanz T, Salvador A, Fiszman SM (2004) Effect of concentration and temperature on properties of methylcelluloseadded batters application to battered, fried seafood. Food Hydrocol 18(1): 1-5. Shim JY (2007) Preparation of batter premix using different flours and gums for convenience food. MS Thesis Kunsan National University, Kunsan. pp 1-55. Song MJ (2009) Analysis on consumer buying behavior for home meal replacement. MS Thesis Yonsei University, Seoul. pp 1-97. Trot news (2016) The pan frying and deep frying powder market, more than 30% of premium products are available. http://www.trotnews.co.kr/news/articleview.html?idxno=29 809. Accessed November 30, 2016. Yoon YJ (2007) Effects of soy flour addition to the dough on the frying oil oxidation and lipid stability of fried products during storage. MS Thesis Inha University, Incheon. pp 1-65. Date Received Date Revised Date Accepted Fab. 8, 2017 Mar. 15, 2017 May 11, 2017