Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Jun 16;18(6):e0287232. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287232

Perception and demand for healthy snacks/beverages among US consumers vary by product, health benefit, and color

Glory Esohe Okpiaifo 1,#, Bertille Dormoy-Smith 1,#, Bachir Kassas 1,#, Zhifeng Gao 1,*,#
Editor: Charles Odilichukwu R Okpala2
PMCID: PMC10275438  PMID: 37327182

Abstract

Concerns about the numerous health problems associated with unhealthy snacks prompted recommendations to steer individuals toward healthier eating habits. One such recommendation advises limiting unhealthy snacks and replacing them with more fruits and vegetables with significant health benefits. This study investigates US consumers’ perceptions and preferences for healthy (vegetable-based) snacks/beverages. An online survey was designed to estimate consumer perception and willingness-to-pay (WTP) for vegetable-based crackers, spreads, and beverages. A sampling company sent the survey to its national consumer panels in 2020, resulting in a sample of 402 US consumers. Eligible participants were adults, primary grocery shoppers who consumed crackers, spreads, and beverages. Consumer WTP for healthy snacks/beverages, the dependent variable, was elicited using a payment card method. Independent variables include personality traits (Innovativeness and Extraversion) and the important factors affecting healthy snack purchases, health consciousness, and demographic variables. Results show that consumers’ preferences for healthy snacking vary by product, even when the products have similar health benefits. Significant positive associations exist between WTP for healthy snacks/beverages and personality traits, health consciousness, and some demographics. This study provides critical insights to policymakers and informs marketing campaigns to promote healthy snacking in the US more effectively.

Introduction

Snacking is a practice that is commonplace among people from all age groups, both in the US and the rest of the world [1]. Snacks can be described as food or caloric beverages consumed outside regular mealtimes [1]. Over 90% of adults in the United States reported consuming snacks at least once daily [2]. While the frequency of snacking has increased over time, consumption of fruits and vegetables has decreased [3, 4]. This raises significant health concerns since most snacks tend to be high in carbohydrates while providing minimal amounts of other essential nutrients [1]. High consumption of these unhealthy snacks (mainly salty snacks, desserts, candy, and sweetened beverages) would lead to an energy-dense and nutrient-poor diet [2]. Nutrient-poor diet associated with the consumption of unhealthy snacks substantially raises energy intake, leading to an increased prevalence of overweight and obesity, along with accompanying health problems, including type 2 diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and cardiovascular diseases [2, 5]. Negative associations have also been identified between unhealthy snacking, oral hygiene, satiety/appetite, and metabolism [6]. In addition, unhealthy snacking could impact the ability to maintain a balanced diet, contributing to poor eating habits and exacerbating weight gain [6, 7]. This is especially worse when unhealthy snacks are added to regular meal consumption without any compensation for the additional energy intake from these snacks. Therefore, there is a critical need to promote healthy snack options that would fulfill the snacking needs of individuals while providing a more nutrient-rich and calorie-balanced diet.

Healthy snacks can be described as snack choices that are more nutritionally balanced and intended to boost positive health outcomes. Examples of healthy snack choices are fruits, vegetables, and functional foods (consist of functional ingredients (which impart the health benefit) incorporated into a carrier/base food product, encompassing various food categories) that are modified to provide specific health benefits and reduce the risk of adverse health outcomes [8]. A growing awareness of the role of diet in improving wellbeing and life expectancy has led to a rise in consumer interest in healthy food/snack choices [9]. Despite the interest in healthy food/snack among consumers, most current research focuses on the consumption of unhealthy snacks. Research shows that the reasons for the prevalence of unhealthy snacks in diets vary by age group. Children and adults seem to base their choice of snacks on taste, thus biasing their choices towards unhealthy and indulgent snacks [10]. For college students, the stress of schoolwork, lack of time, and lack of experience and skills required to prepare healthy meals/snacks are primary factors underlying the predisposition for unhealthy snacking [6, 11]. Unemployment and socioeconomic status are also factors that may push adults towards unhealthy snacking due to a need to buy cheaper food and/or cope with psychological stress [6, 12]. It is therefore important to identify novel healthy snacking options that will be perceived favorably by consumers and fit their needs. Thus, this study aims to investigate consumers’ preferences for multiple novel healthy snacking options.

There is a large body of work on consumer preferences for novel food technologies/products in general. In contrast to non-food domains, many technological innovations resulting in novel food products aren’t perceived as favorably by consumers [1315]. Given the importance of technological innovations to meeting global food demand, much research has been devoted to investigating the underlying factors driving these perceptions. Due to factors such as limited knowledge, consumers have been shown to utilize heuristics (e.g., emotions, trust, natural-is-better) in their evaluation of food products, which can result in biased decisions [13, 16]. The framing of food technology information can also influence consumers’ acceptance of new products [1719]. Additionally, food technology neophobia [20], disgust sensitivity [21], cultural differences [22], and personality traits such as openness and conscientiousness [23], may help explain some of the differences in consumer acceptance. Some other determinants revealed by various studies include food safety concerns [24], risk perceptions [24], socio-demographic factors (e.g., age, gender, education level) [25, 26], lifestyle habits (e.g., vegetarian, travelling habit) [25, 26]. Our study contributes to this literature by exploring preferences specifically for novel healthy snacking products.

As demand for healthy snacking choices continues to increase, more research is focusing on developing new products that can appeal to consumers. Recent work has examined consumer perceptions of novel functional products such as fortified farmed fish [27], granola bars [28], enriched coffee [29], and probiotic yogurt [30], among others. Also, given the high nutritional value of vegetables and the growing global demand for plant-based food products [31], there is growing research into vegetable-based functional food product alternatives and general healthy snacking [3234]. Research shows that when consumers become more aware of their health benefits, they report a significant increase in the demand for these foods [35, 36]. For example, one study [37] found that Turkish consumers had a favorable attitude towards functional food products, with a majority believing that these foods are necessary and part of a healthy diet. Other studies across various countries found similar results using outcomes such as willingness to try [38, 39], willingness to pay [40, 41], and willingness to buy/purchase intention [4245]. These studies spanned various food and beverage products such as apples, tomatoes, yogurts, cereals, etc.

This stream of literature has identified a wide range of factors that possibly influence preferences for these novel products. Demographic factors such as age [27], gender [39], education level [46], and household size [46], and marital status [8] have been linked to willingness to consume various functional food products. The perceived healthiness of the product/ingredients [47], health information [41], knowledge of product brand [48], price [49], taste [45], and other product characteristics have also been found to influence preferences. Multiple studies have also reported associations between various psychological/behavioral characteristics such as, health consciousness [42], knowledge [50], trust [44], food neophobia [44], motivations [51], health-related behaviors [52], beliefs [52], and consumer preferences for novel food and beverage products.

Our study contributes to this growing literature and efforts to improve the nutrition quality of consumers’ diets by examining consumer preferences for healthy snacking options and the possible predictors of these preferences. Specifically, this study investigates US consumer preferences for multiple novel healthy (vegetable-based) snacks, including crackers and spreads. Since sugar-sweetened beverages are a major source of calories for people who enjoy snacking [53], we also include vegetable-based beverages to examine how consumers’ preferences differ for healthy snack foods vs. beverages. This study also examines several factors that influence consumer willingness-to-pay (WTP) for healthy snacks and beverages, including Innovativeness, Extraversion, and other behavioral and socioeconomic/demographic factors.

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to measure consumer WTP for multiple novel healthy snacks and beverage products that are differentiated by appearance and health benefits. The three focus product categories chosen for this study–crackers, spreads, and beverages–were selected because these are popular snacking options. This study provides valuable insights for food industries to develop more healthy snacks and beverages that appeal to consumers and inform marketing campaigns to promote healthy snacking. The results of this study can also benefit policymakers by providing information to guide dietary guidelines for healthy snacking recommendations.

Methods

Data collection

An online survey was conducted in 2020 using a nationally representative sample of 402 US consumers. Prior to the survey data collection, a focus group was conducted to collect feedback from participants that helped refine the survey instruments. The survey was also pretested multiple times to improve and finalize the questions. Eligible survey participants were at least 18 years old, primary grocery shoppers in the household, who consume crackers, spreads, and beverages other than water and milk. The survey duration was limited to 20 minutes to avoid respondent fatigue. The survey included attention check questions to improve data quality by filtering out respondents who did not pay attention to the questions [5456]. After providing consent and answering screening questions, respondents provided information relating to their snack and beverage consumption habits, attitudes towards health/environment, preferences for different healthy snack and beverage products, and behavioral and sociodemographic characteristics. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Florida (IRB 201901626), and participants provided written informed consent on the online questionnaire before answering the survey questions.

WTP estimates

Respondents reported their preferences for six product alternatives in each of the three snack categories (crackers, spreads, and beverages). The products from each snack category were plant-based and produced using a zero-waste process, which was clearly explained to the respondents using text and an illustrative diagram (Fig 1). In this process, the vegetables are first pressed and fermented to produce the beverages. The vegetable byproducts from this step are then used to produce the crackers and spread, which would hold a similar taste profile and nutritional value to the beverages. The six products in each category were differentiated by color and health benefits (Table 1). Preferences were elicited using a payment card contingent valuation method (CVM). Before the valuation sections, the respondents were presented with the products’ production process and health benefits, prices of related products in grocery stores, and a cheap talk script to control hypothetical bias. The respondents then proceeded to the payment card questions, where they provided their WTP for all six products in each product category (crackers, spreads, and beverages), totaling 18 WTP bids from each respondent.

Fig 1. Illustration of snack product alternatives and production process.

Fig 1

Table 1. Description of snack product alternatives.

Product Composition Health benefits
Red products
Orange products
Yellow products
Green products
Blue products
Purple products
Tomato & Ginseng
Orange, Carrot, Turmeric
Barley Malt
Broccoli, Onion, Herbs
Red Cabbage, Sodium Bicarbonate
Beetroot, Carrot
Aphrodisiac [57, 58]
Anti-aging [59, 60]
Aids breastfeeding [61]
Heart protector [6264]
Improves athletic abilities [65, 66]
Antioxidant [60, 67]

CVM is a well-established method for eliciting stated preferences, which has gained traction in food marketing and behavioral economics [68, 69]. The payment card method is one of the CVMs in which respondents are presented with a series of prices (in ranges or point estimates) and asked to select the one that best reflects their maximum WTP. This method has been used to elicit WTP in several food studies [7072]. In this study, we first ask respondents to select from a series of presented price ranges and then (based on their choice from the price ranges) ask them to further select from a series of presented price point estimates. This way, we elicit both interval and point WTP estimates. Example questions are illustrated in the S1 and S2 Appendices.

Measurement of personality traits and behavioral variables

Psychology literature has established the importance of personality traits in humans, which, aside from demographics, capture the uniqueness of an individual. Personalities are usually expressed through thoughts, feelings, and actions. They are the foundation for numerous psychological and behavioral characteristics and have been extensively used to study various attitudes and behaviors in humans [73, 74]. Results from this stream of literature have linked personality traits to consumer decision-making and, more recently, consumer food-related choices [74, 75]. We thus explore the influence of two personality traits–Innovativeness and Extraversion–on consumer healthy snack and beverage preferences.

Innovativeness, a personality trait identified since the 1970s, describes an individual’s willingness/ability to adopt new ideas before others. More specifically, consumer innovativeness relates to the tendency of an individual to purchase new products relatively earlier than other consumers [76]. Various scales have been used to measure consumer innovativeness, one of which is the Domain Specific Innovativeness Scale (DSI) developed by Goldsmith and Hofacker [77]. The DSI scale measures Innovativeness within a specific product category and has been employed in several food and non-food product studies [7881]. Given the novelty of the focal products in this study, Innovativeness may influence respondents’ WTP. For this reason, we utilize the DSI scale to measure the degree of respondents’ Innovativeness regarding food. Respondents stated their agreement/disagreement for six statements (defined in Table 2) on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree). Higher scores indicated a higher degree of Innovativeness.

Table 2. Definition of personality trait statements.

Personality trait Scoring
Innovativeness
  • Compared to my friends, I purchase more new, different, or innovative food

  • In general, I am amongst the first of my circle of friends to buy new, different, or innovative food.

  • I buy new, different or innovative food before anyone else I know.

  • Generally, I am amongst the first in my circle of friends to remember a brand of new, different or innovative food.

  • If new, different, or innovative foods are available in shops and supermarkets I always purchase them.

  • I do purchase new, different, or innovative foods even if I have not tasted/experienced them beforehand

1 = Strongly disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Somewhat disagree
4 = Neither agree nor disagree
5 = Somewhat agree
6 = Agree
7 = Strongly agree
Extraversion
  • I enjoy human interaction

  • I am enthusiastic

  • I am talkative

  • I am full of energy and I thrive on the presence of other people

  • I take pleasure in activities that involve large social gathering

  • I work well in a group

  • I find few rewards in time spent alone

  • I am bored when I am by myself

1 = Strongly disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Somewhat disagree
4 = Neither agree nor disagree
5 = Somewhat agree
6 = Agree
7 = Strongly agree

The second personality trait we consider, Extraversion, relates to an individual’s tendency to be friendly, sociable, and energetic. Extraverted consumers tend to be impulsive buyers [82], willing to purchase novel food products/try new aspects of food products [23, 75]. Also, since the food products used in this study are popular options at social gatherings, and extraverted individuals tend to be sociable, it is likely that their level of extraversion will be correlated with their consumption of these products. Based on these, the degree of Extraversion may influence respondents’ willingness to purchase the products. We use the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), developed based on psychologist Carl Jung’s theory of psychological type, to measure respondents’ Extraversion [83]. The respondents stated their agreement/disagreement for the eight statements (defined in Table 2) on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree). Higher scores indicated higher Extraversion.

Other behavioral variables explored in this study include product-related factors (e.g., price, health benefits, flavor, non-GMO, organic, etc.) that respondents consider essential when purchasing healthy snack products. Given the health benefits and zero-waste nature of the products in this study, the health and environmental consciousness of the respondents may influence their preferences. The respondents were asked to rate statements of how much they care about their health and the environment on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree). They also rated the degree of the healthfulness of their diets on a scale from 1 (Very unhealthy) to 7 (Very healthy). Sociodemographic characteristics such as age, race, gender, presence of kids, household income, and education were also collected.

Regression models

To determine the factors that influence WTP for each product, we estimated three Seemingly Unrelated Regressions (SUR), one for each product category. Due to the potential interrelatedness of subjects’ preferences across the different alternatives in each product category, it is safe to assume that the error terms associated with the equations may be correlated. The SUR method is thus appropriate in this context since it allows for robustness of parameter covariance to error terms across the equations. Each regression has six linear equations, described below.

yijk=αn+βjkXijk+eijk,i=1N,j=1...6,k=13 (1)

where yijk represents respondent i’s WTP for the jth product (Red products, Orange products, Yellow products, Green products, Blue products, or Purple products) in the kth category (crackers, spread, or beverages), Xijk represents the vector of selected independent variables and eijk represents the unobserved variables. For each regression, the dependent variables were different based on the product differentiated by color and health benefits, while the independent variables were the same for all six equations. The selected independent variables include Innovativeness, Extraversion, important factors that influence the purchase of healthy drinks/snacks (Health benefits, Flavor, Non-GMO, Organic, Price), health consciousness (healthfulness of food consumed, care for health), and demographics. In the final model, environmental consciousness was not included because it was statistically insignificant in all regression models.

Results

Summary statistics

Table 3 presents a summary of the sociodemographic and behavioral characteristics of the sample. Approximately 55% are females, and the majority (87.6%) are Caucasian/White. Around half the subjects are married (53.9%) and have a Bachelor’s degree or higher (54.7%). Subjects seem to be evenly distributed across the different age and income categories. Regarding the behavioral factors, average Innovativeness and Extraversion scores were 26.58 and 37.30, respectively. With maximum scores of 42 for Innovativeness and 56 for Extraversion, our results indicate a relatively high degree of Extraversion and Innovativeness among our sample. The average scores for health and environmental consciousness were 6.28 and 5.84, respectively, indicating a health and environmentally conscious sample.

Table 3. Summary of demographic and behavioral characteristics (n = 402).

Variable % Variable %
Gender Income
Male 45 1 = Under $14,999 8.21
Female 55 2 = $15,000-$24,999 10.20
Age 3 = $25,000-$34,999 12.94
1 = 18–24 8.46 4 = $35,000-$49,999 8.96
2 = 25–34 18.66 5 = $50,000-$74,999 19.15
3 = 35–44 19.15 6 = $75,000-$99,999 12.94
4 = 45–54 16.92 7 = $100,000-$149,999 13.93
5 = 55–64 17.41 8 = $150,000-$199,999 7.21
6 = 65–74 14.18 9 = > = $200,000 6.47
7 = > = 75 5.22
Education Race
1 = Less than high school 0.50 1 = Hispanic 7.46
2 = Some high school/high school graduate 16.42 2 = White 87.59
3 = Some college, no degree 16.17 3 = Black/African American 6.84
4 = Associate’s degree, occupational/academic 12.19 4 = Asian 3.54
5 = Bachelor’s degree 28.86 5 = Others 2.03
6 = Master’s degree 20.65
7 = Professional/Doctoral degree 5.22
Marital Status
1 = Single/never married 23.94
2 = Co-habiting 4.74
3 = Married 53.87
4 = Widowed 5.74
5 = Divorced/Separated 11.72
Mean Median Std. Dev.
Extraversion 37.30 38 9.15
Innovativeness 26.58 28 9.99
Care for health 6.28 7 0.96
Care for environment 5.84 6 1.22

Consumption frequency/importance of health benefits

We evaluated how frequently the respondents consume various food products and beverages (Fig 2). The consumption frequencies for all food products are high, including snacks. Consumption frequency was relatively higher for water, tea/coffee, milk, soda, fruit juice, and lower for sport drinks, energy drinks, alternative milk, and vegetable drinks. We also asked the respondents to rate the importance of six health benefits that can be provided by snacks/beverages in this study when purchasing food products (Fig 3). The graph shows that the heart protector and antioxidant health benefits are very important to the respondents, while the least important health benefits are Aphrodisiac and Breastfeeding.

Fig 2. Consumption frequency of food and beverage products.

Fig 2

Notes: Frequency: 1 –Almost never. 2 –Several times a year, but not every month. 3 –Monthly. 4- Several times a month, but not every week. 5- Weekly. 6- Several times a week, but not every day. 7 –Daily. 8 –More than once per day.

Fig 3. Important health benefits when purchasing food products.

Fig 3

Notes: Each bar represents the fraction of the respondents that selected the corresponding health benefit.

Important factors that influence the purchase of healthy snacks/beverages

Fig 4 presents the importance of factors that influence respondents’ purchase of healthy products (snacks/beverages). The respondents seem to have similar preferences for both snacks and beverages across most factors. Flavor is the most important factor that respondents consider when purchasing healthy snacks and beverages, followed by price. The least important factor seems to be organic.

Fig 4. Important factors that influence the purchase of healthy beverages/snacks.

Fig 4

Notes: Y-axis represents mean ratings. Ratings—1 = Extremely unimportant. 2 = Unimportant. 3 = Slightly unimportant. 4 = Neither important nor unimportant. 5 = Slightly important. 6 = Important. 7 = Extremely important.

Willingness to pay

The average WTP for each product is presented in Fig 5. First, we found that the WTP for all alternatives in all three product categories are positive and significant. This shows that consumers do indeed have significant preferences for healthy snacks/beverages. Importantly, in all 3 product categories, pairwise tests (Wilcoxon signed rank tests) show that the WTP for the green (heart protector) and the purple (antioxidant) products are significantly higher (p<0.09 for crackers, p<0.01 for spreads, p<0.05 for beverages) than the other four alternatives. This is an interesting result and seems to corroborate the earlier results showing that respondents place higher importance on heart protector and antioxidant health benefits than on the other health benefits. The average WTP for green products are $2.18, $3.16 and $3.43, respectively, for beverages, crackers, and spreads. For purple products, average WTP are $2.19, $3.11, and $3.28, respectively, for beverages, crackers, and spreads. Friedman test results indicate statistically significant differences in WTP between the products within each category (p<0.000), thus confirming that consumer preferences for healthy snacks/beverages vary by health benefits.

Fig 5. Average WTP bids.

Fig 5

Notes: Friedman test was used to test for significant differences between products in each category (p<0.000).

Results from the SUR model over beverage products are presented in Table 4. We observe a significant positive influence of Innovativeness on WTP for orange (anti-aging) and purple (antioxidant) drinks, indicating that respondents who are more likely to try new things (i.e., have a higher innovativeness score) are willing to pay more for these drinks. Extraversion is also positively correlated with WTP for red (aphrodisiac), green (heart-protector), and yellow (breastfeeding) drinks, indicating that individuals who are more friendly/sociable hold higher WTP for these drinks. We also find that individuals who consider health benefits as a primary factor when purchasing healthy drinks are willing to pay more for all the beverage options except for red (aphrodisiac) and yellow (breastfeeding). In contrast, the perceived importance of price seems to drive a negative effect on WTP for the orange (anti-aging) beverage, implying that consumers who place high importance on price are willing to pay less for the orange beverage. The stronger the respondents’ impression of the healthfulness of their diet, the higher their WTP for all beverage options except the green (heart-protector) and orange (anti-aging) drinks. Looking at demographics in Table 4, we see a significant negative correlation between age and WTP for all beverage products, indicating that younger individuals are willing to pay more for the healthy beverages. We also find evidence that African Americans have a higher WTP for the red (aphrodisiac) and yellow (breastfeeding) drinks, Asians have a lower WTP for the purple (antioxidant) drink, and those with kids have a higher WTP for the green (heart-protector) drink.

Table 4. Willingness-to-pay for healthy drink regression.

Red
(Aphro-rodisiac)
Orange
(Anti-aging)
Yellow
(Breast feeding)
Green
(Heart protector)
Blue
(Athlete recovery)
Purple
(Anti- oxidant)
Intercept 0.364
(0.685)
0.672
(0.714)
0.578
(0.799)
1.222
(0.768)
0.914
(0.751)
1.148
(0.792)
Innovativeness 0.009
(0.008)
0.017**
(0.008)
0.009
(0.010)
0.007
(0.009)
0.014
(0.009)
0.028***
(0.009)
Extraversion 0.016**
(0.008)
0.012
(0.008)
0.026***
(0.009)
0.023***
(0.009)
0.014
(0.009)
0.008
(0.009)
Important factors that influence the purchase of healthy drinks
Health benefits -0.004
(0.048)
0.087*
(0.050)
-0.039
(0.056)
0.165***
(0.054)
0.115**
(0.053)
0.117**
(0.056)
Flavor 0.063
(0.071)
0.057
(0.074)
-0.109
(0.083)
-0.103
(0.080)
-0.011
(0.078)
-0.079
(0.082)
Non-GMO 0.009
(0.044)
0.009
(0.046)
0.072
(0.051)
-0.028
(0.049)
0.010
(0.048)
-0.035
(0.051)
Organic 0.034
(0.048)
-0.019
(0.050)
-0.014
(0.056)
-0.006
(0.054)
-0.011
(0.053)
-0.058
(0.056)
Price -0.075
(0.053)
-0.128**
(0.056)
0.041
(0.062)
-0.084
(0.060)
-0.098*
(0.058)
-0.065
(0.062)
Health variables
Healthfulness of food consumed 0.127***
(0.050)
-0.001
(0.052)
0.126**
(0.059)
0.057
(0.056)
0.136***
(0.055)
0.111*
(0.058)
Care for health -0.046
(0.066)
0.106
(0.069)
-0.003
(0.077)
0.050
(0.074)
-0.026
(0.072)
0.083
(0.076)
Demographics
Age -0.138***
(0.042)
-0.102**
(0.043)
-0.175***
(00048)
-0.142***
(0.047)
-0.207***
(0.046)
-0.121***
(0.048)
Hispanic 0.013
(0.243)
-0.015
(0.254)
-0.463
(0.284)
-0.428
(0.273)
0.133
(0.267)
-0.186
(0.281)
Caucasian 0.512
(0.351)
-0.107
(0.366)
0.203
(0.410)
0.221
(0.394)
0.289
(0.385)
-0.253
(0.406)
African-American 0.667*
(0.387)
-0.101
(0.403)
0.797*
(0.451)
0.189
(0.433)
0.546
(0.424)
-0.065
(0.447)
Asian -0.216
(0.447)
-0.105
(0.466)
-0.382
(0.522)
-0.094
(0.501)
-0.647
(0.490)
-0.855*
(0.517)
Female 0.052
(0.129)
-0.054
(0.134)
-0.231
(0.150)
0.080
(0.144)
-0.120
(0.141)
0.074
(0.149)
Married 0.183
(0.146)
0.139
(0.152)
0.252
(0.170)
0.047
(0.163)
0.114
(0.160)
0.155
(0.168)
Presence of kids -0.070
(0.163)
0.096
(0.170)
0.208
(0.190)
0.314*
(0.182)
0.121
(0.178)
0.255
(0.188)
Household income 0.033
(0.038)
0.051
(0.040)
0.018
(0.044)
0.040
(0.042)
0.001
(0.042)
0.026
(0.044)
Education -0.014
(0.051)
0.002
(0.053)
0.011
(0.059)
-0.051
(0.057)
0.006
(0.056)
0.002
(0.059)

Notes: N = 402, OLS R2 = 0.25.

* 10% significance level.

** 5% significance level.

*** 1% significance level.

Numbers in parentheses are standard errors.

Results from the SUR model over the crackers product alternatives are presented in Table 5. Innovativeness is positively correlated with the WTP for all crackers except for the green (heart-protector) alternative, indicating that people with a higher willingness to try new things (i.e., have a higher innovativeness score) are willing to pay more for these products. People who consider flavor as an important factor when purchasing healthy snacks are willing to pay more for the red (aphrodisiac) crackers only. In contrast, people who pay attention to organic are willing to pay more for the green (heart-protector) crackers. The stronger the respondents’ impression of the healthfulness of their food consumption, the higher their WTP for every cracker product alternative. Looking at demographic variables in Table 5, we see a significant negative correlation between age and WTP for all crackers. We also observe that Caucasians are willing to pay more for the red (aphrodisiac), yellow (breastfeeding), and green (heart-protector) crackers, while African Americans are willing to pay more for the yellow (breastfeeding) crackers only. Increasing household income is associated with higher WTP for all crackers except blue (athlete recovery) and purple (antioxidant).

Table 5. Willingness-to-pay for healthy crackers regression.

Red
(Aphro-rodisiac)
Orange
(Anti-aging)
Yellow
(Breastfeeding)
Green
(Heart protector)
Blue
(Athlete recovery)
Purple
(Anti- oxidant)
Intercept -2.490**
(1.225)
-1.250
(1.280)
-0.954
(1.342)
-1.279
(1.294)
0.279
(1.324)
-1.044
(1.369)
Innovativeness 0.032**
(0.014)
0.027*
(0.015)
0.031**
(0.015)
0.024
(0.015)
0.041***
(0.015)
0.034**
(0.016)
Extraversion 0.008
(0.014)
0.004
(0.014)
0.020
(0.015)
0.021
(0.014)
0.021
(0.015)
0.020
(0.015)
Important factors that influence purchase of healthy snacks
Health benefits -0.078
(0.088)
-0.099
(0.092)
-0.098
(0.096)
-0.046
(0.093)
-0.078
(0.095)
-0.072
(0.098)
Flavor 0.291***
(0.118)
0.197
(0.123)
0.101
(0.129)
0.134
(0.125)
-0.008
(0.128)
0.111
(0.132)
Non-GMO 0.007
(0.072)
0.014
(0.076)
0.038
(0.079)
-0.017
(0.076)
0.049
(0.078)
0.102
(0.081)
Organic 0.069
(0.081)
0.079
(0.085)
0.039
(0.089)
0.144*
(0.086)
-0.005
(0.087)
0.006
(0.090)
Price -0.023
(0.081)
-0.027
(0.084)
-0.032
(0.088)
-0.083
(0.085)
-0.047
(0.087)
-0.141
(0.090)
Health variables
Healthfulness of food consumed 0.226***
(0.089)
0.278***
(0.093)
0.270***
(0.098)
0.232***
(0.094)
0.342***
(0.096)
0.281***
(0.099)
Care for health 0.002
(0.113)
-0.037
(0.118)
0.006
(0.124)
-0.029
(0.120)
-0.054
(0.123)
0.060
(0.127)
Demographics
Age -0.241***
(0.072)
-0.201***
(0.075)
-0.352***
(0.079)
-0.187***
(0.076)
-0.381***
(0.078)
-0.254***
(0.080)
Hispanic 0.268
(0.421)
0.433
(0.440)
0.265
(0.461)
0.401
(0.445)
0.061
(0.455)
0.198
(0.470)
Caucasian 1.460**
(0.606)
0.768
(0.633)
1.149*
(0.664)
1.212*
(0.640)
0.675
(0.655)
0.812
(0.677)
African-American 0.515
(0.669)
0.285
(0.699)
1.256*
(0.733)
0.713
(0.707)
0.627
(0.723)
0.027
(0.747)
Asian 0.483
(0.773)
0.000
(0.808)
0.282
(0.847)
0.758
(0.816)
-0.563
(0.835)
-0.480
(0.864)
Female 0.088
(0.222)
0.104
(0.232)
-0.181
(0.243)
0.262
(0.234)
0.115
(0.240)
0.156
(0.248)
Married -0.292
(0.252)
-0.033
(0.263)
-0.151
(0.276)
0.219
(0.266)
0.134
(0.272)
0.056
(0.281)
Presence of kids 0.413
(0.282)
-0.097
(0.295)
0.382
(0.309)
0.222
(0.298)
0.189
(0.305)
0.517
(0.315)
Household income 0.200***
(0.065)
0.216***
(0.068)
0.154**
(0.072)
0.138**
(0.069)
0.106
(0.071)
0.117
(0.073)
Education -0.059
(0.088)
0.025
(0.092)
-0.047
(0.097)
-0.038
(0.093)
-0.056
(0.095)
0.030
(0.099)

Notes: N = 402, OLS R2 = 0.25.

* 10% significance level.

** 5% significance level.

*** 1% significance level.

Results from the SUR model over the spread products are presented in Table 6. We observe a significant positive influence of Innovativeness on the WTP for just the blue (athlete recovery) and purple (antioxidant) spreads, indicating that people who are willing to try new things (i.e., higher innovativeness scores) are willing to pay more for these spreads. Extraversion is positively correlated with the WTP for the yellow (breastfeeding) spread only, indicating that individuals who are more friendly/sociable (i.e., have a higher extraversion score) are willing to pay more for this spread. People who place importance on flavor when purchasing healthy snacks are willing to pay more for the red (aphrodisiac) spread, and the stronger the respondents’ impression of the healthfulness of their food consumption, the higher their WTP for all spreads. Looking at demographic variables in Table 6, we see that younger respondents are willing to pay more for all the spreads. We also find suggestive evidence that Hispanics are willing to pay more for the orange (anti-aging) spread, while Caucasians are willing to pay more for all spreads except blue (athlete recovery) and purple (antioxidant), and African Americans are willing to pay more for the red (aphrodisiac), orange (anti-aging) and yellow (breastfeeding) spreads. We find a significant negative correlation between females and WTP for the yellow (breastfeeding) spread, while people with kids are willing to pay more for the yellow (breastfeeding), green (heart protector), blue (athlete recovery), and purple (antioxidant) spreads. Income is also positively correlated with WTP for all spreads. Together, results from Tables 46 confirm hypothesis (iii) by showing significant correlations between WTP for healthy snacks/beverages and several behavioral and sociodemographic factors.

Table 6. Willingness-to-pay for healthy spread regression.

Red
(Aphro-rodisiac)
Orange
(Anti-aging)
Yellow
(Breastfeeding)
Green
(Heart protector)
Blue
(Athlete recovery)
Purple
(Anti- oxidant)
Intercept -2.658**
(1.303)
-1.880
(1.275)
-1.548
(1.343)
-0.808
(1.320)
0.381
(1.350)
-1.016
(1.331)
Innovativeness 0.0214
(0.015)
0.012
(0.015)
0.019
(0.015)
0.004
(0.015)
0.029*
(0.015)
0.032**
(0.015)
Extraversion 0.002
(0.015)
0.009
(0.014)
0.029**
(0.015)
0.018
(0.015)
0.005
(0.015)
0.011
(0.015)
Important factors that influence purchase of healthy snacks
Health benefits 0.024
(0.093)
0.139
(0.091)
-0.057
(0.096)
0.116
(0.094)
-0.030
(0.096)
0.065
(0.095)
Flavor 0.381***
(0.126)
0.159
(0.123)
0.111
(0.129)
0.110
(0.127)
-0.077
(0.130)
0.170
(0.128)
Non-GMO -0.026
(0.077)
-0.001
(0.075)
0.101
(0.079)
-0.001
(0.078)
0.054
(0.080)
0.018
(0.078)
Organic 0.067
(0.086)
0.016
(0.084)
0.003
(0.089)
0.062
(0.087)
0.025
(0.089)
-0.007
(0.088)
Price -0.103
(0.086)
-0.133
(0.084)
-0.032
(0.089)
0.062
(0.087)
-0.035
(0.089)
-0.128
(0.088)
Health variables
Healthfulness of food consumed 0.239***
(0.095)
0.226**
(0.093)
0.274***
(0.098)
0.204**
(0.096)
0.270***
(0.098)
0.261***
(0.097)
Care for health -0.017
(0.121)
0.043
(0.118)
-0.075
(0.124)
-0.011
(0.122)
0.033
(0.125)
-0.055
(0.123)
Demographics
Age -0.168**
(0.076)
-0.156**
(0.075)
-0.293***
(0.079)
-0.160**
(0.077)
-0.321***
(0.079)
-0.140*
(0.078)
Hispanic 0.306
(0.448)
0.772*
(0.438)
0.344
(0.462)
0.291
(0.454)
0.130
(0.464)
0.081
(0.457)
Caucasian 1.299**
(0.645)
1.236**
(0.631)
1.364**
(0.664)
1.248*
(0.653)
0.997
(0.668)
0.777
(0.658)
African-American 1.282*
(0.712)
1.358**
(0.696)
1.561**
(0.733)
1.061
(0.721)
1.162
(0.737)
0.869
(0.727)
Asian 0.368
(0.822)
0.524
(0.804)
0.620
(0.847)
0.525
(0.833)
-0.354
(0.851)
-0.459
(0.840)
Female -0.097
(0.236)
-0.116
(0.231)
-0.510**
(0.243)
-0.037
(0.239)
-0.141
(0.244)
-0.156
(0.241)
Married -0.355
(0.268)
-0.055
(0.262)
-0.201
(0.276)
-0.161
(0.271)
-0.178
(0.277)
-0.082
(0.274)
Presence of kids 0.273
(0.300)
-0.088
(0.294)
0.649**
(0.309)
0.631**
(0.304)
0.529*
(0.311)
0.529*
(0.307)
Household income 0.209***
(0.070)
0.197***
(0.068)
0.187***
(0.072)
0.188***
(0.071)
0.158**
(0.072)
0.237***
(0.071)
Education 0.012
(00094)
0.075
(0.092)
0.026
(0.097)
-0.017
(0.095)
-0.005
(0.097)
-0.015
(0.096)

Notes: N = 402, OLS R2 = 0.25.

* 10% significance level.

** 5% significance level.

*** 1% significance level.

Discussion

The prevalence of unhealthy snacking, which has been associated with negative health outcomes, underscores the need to promote healthier snacking alternatives that appeal to consumers. This study evaluated consumer preferences for healthy crackers, spreads, and drinks, which are differentiated by color and health benefits. Out of six health benefits presented in the different product alternatives, respondents seem most attracted to two–heart protector and antioxidant–and are willing to pay higher premiums for the products carrying these benefits. A possible explanation for this result is that respondents are more familiar with these health benefits and/or perceive them as more primary/important than the other health benefits presented. Since the products in this study are related to functional food products, the results can be discussed in the context of functional foods literature. Previous work on consumer acceptance of functional food shows that familiarity with the health benefits provided by functional foods will boost consumer acceptance [84]. Although consumers have been shown to be more willing to purchase functional foods based on their health benefits [85], our study shows that consumers also differentiate between different health benefits, preferring some over others. In line with our results, earlier studies of functional food found that purchase intention is higher when the product’s health claims are physiological (e.g., less risk of cardiovascular disease) rather than psychological [36, 43, 86]. For instance, information about reduced cholesterol benefits increased consumers’ purchase intention for a fortified yogurt drink [87]. In another study, information about antioxidant benefits increased consumers’ purchase intention for functional foods [41].

Understanding factors underlying consumer preferences for healthy products will help marketers and policymakers to promote healthier snacking behavior. In our study, we highlight the relationship between various personality/sociodemographic/behavioral factors and consumer WTP for the healthy snack products. The influence of psychological characteristics on consumer decision-making for food products is an important topic that remains relatively underexplored, specifically in the area of preference for healthy snacking products. Some studies have examined the significance of psychological factors such as perceptions, beliefs, attitudes, trust and food neophobia [50, 51, 8894]. Our results show that Innovativeness is one factor that exhibits a strong relationship with WTP for multiple products across the three product categories, which is reasonable considering the novelty of the products used in the study. For example, purple is an unusual color for a drink, cracker, or spread, and "anti-aging" is not a popular health benefit marketed in food products. Our results conform with the literature showing that Innovativeness predicts willingness to try various new healthy food/drink products [8, 95, 96]. Innovative consumers are a very important group because they are willing to try new products first and are usually the first to spread information about these products to others [8]. Consumers are influenced by these innovative consumers when making decisions about purchasing new products [97]. Given this background and our results, marketing campaigns for new healthy food products should first target innovative consumers.

Extraversion is also significantly correlated with WTP for some beverage and spread products. For example, extraverted individuals prefer red (aphrodisiac), green (heart-protector), and yellow (breastfeeding) beverages, showing that personality traits may also influence consumers’ differentiation of health benefits. This is consistent with previous research results, which showed that extroverted consumers are more willing to purchase novel aspects of food products [23, 98]. The confirmed positive correlations between Innovativeness/Extraversion and preferences for various products can be used by marketers to explore personality-based marketing. Research shows that this type of marketing strategy can be done using platforms such as social media and is effective [99, 100].

Consumers consider several factors (extrinsic and intrinsic product characteristics) as they decide to purchase healthy food products. We explored the influence of some of these factors on WTP for healthy snacks/beverages. Health benefit shows up as a strong predictor of WTP for most beverage products. This is in line with the literature showing consumers are attracted to healthy products based on their health benefits [39, 44, 85, 101]. This is especially beneficial to marketers if consumers are familiar with the health benefits [84]. Thus, marketing campaigns could increase consumers’ awareness and knowledge of various health benefits of healthy snacks and use labels to display these attributes more clearly on the products. The respondents’ perceived importance of price seems to exert a small negative influence on only two of the beverage products (Orange, Anti-aging, and Blue, Athlete recovery), which could imply that these two benefits are not as important to the respondents’ beverage purchase. For the rest of the products, however, the respondents are not deterred by price. This conforms with Huang et al. [49] and Ares et al. [101], who argue that functional food consumers are usually more interested in the health benefits of the products than the price. Flavor strongly influences WTP for the red (aphrodisiac) crackers and spreads only. The strong positive impact of flavor is in line with previous sensory studies that identified flavor as a critical attribute contributing to consumer acceptance of functional food [102, 103]. The result that flavor was only correlated with the WTP for the red crackers and spread is interesting and could be explained by the fact that consumers placed the lowest importance on the health benefit of the red products (i.e., aphrodisiac). Respondents who place higher importance on organic have a higher WTP for the green (heart protector) crackers. This is a reasonable result given the importance of this health benefit to the respondents, and considering that individuals who prefer organic foods tend to be health conscious [104, 105]. The positive effect of consumers’ health consciousness, and attention to the healthiness of their diet, on acceptance of healthy food products, is well-established in the literature [45, 49, 106]. These studies can explain the strong positive correlation between the respondents’ perception of the healthiness of their diets and their WTP for almost all products in the study.

Our results show a significant influence of various demographics on WTP for health snacks, confirming the conclusion of previous research on healthy food consumption. We find a negative correlation between age and WTP for all products used in our study. This is in line with some earlier studies that reported a higher interest in functional foods among younger individuals [37, 107]. However, it also contradicts the results of several past studies, where older individuals were found to have a higher WTP for healthy food products compared to younger individuals [50, 108111]. One possible explanation is that older individuals are not convinced by/do not trust the health claims of the snacks, or they do not believe that snacks can be healthy. Previous studies found that in contrast to younger individuals, older individuals are more attracted to healthy food products when the health claims refer to a reduction of negative outcomes (e.g., reduction of risk for heart disease) rather than health benefits [112, 113]. Another possible reason could be due to the novelty of the products since younger individuals tend to be open-minded and willing to try novel foods [96]. Race was also correlated with the WTP for some snack products, with the results showing differences, particularly in preferences among Caucasians and African Americans. This could guide marketing campaigns to target the specific needs of certain consumer groups. We do not find a significant correlation between gender and WTP for most of the products, which is contrary to previous findings of higher acceptance of healthy food products among females compared to males [50, 111, 114, 115]. Our result could be driven by females’ skepticism about the health claims of the novel products in this study. We also find a higher WTP for people with kids across some of the products, which can be explained by the fact that parents of young children tend to be nutrition conscious, and they tend to pay attention to the healthiness of the foods they purchase, to ensure that their kids are in good health [116, 117]. Lastly, household income strongly influences WTP for all spreads and most of the crackers. This is similar to other studies, which found that higher income consumers have higher purchase intentions for healthy food products [29, 107, 118120].

Previous functional foods studies found that consumers care not just about the ingredients but also about the functional food carrier/base product used [38, 49, 93, 121, 122]. Some products are perceived by consumers to be intrinsically healthier/more credible and thus preferred [85, 123]. This can explain the key differences between our results for the beverages, crackers, and spreads. For example, Innovativeness seems to be an important characteristic in all three product categories, but most especially for the crackers, as it influences the WTP for all the cracker product alternatives besides the green (heart protector) crackers. On the other hand, it only affects WTP for two product alternatives from beverages and spreads. A possible reason for this is that the novelty of the crackers is more appealing to the respondents than the beverages/spreads. The exception of the green crackers may be because the respondents do not perceive green crackers’ characteristics (color/health benefit/ingredients) as novel as those of other alternatives. Another notable difference is that Extraversion has no effect on crackers, a small effect on one of the spreads, but a stronger effect on beverages. Also, the health benefits of the beverages seem to be more important to respondents than those of the snacks/spreads. A possible explanation is that the respondents perceive the beverages to be healthier carriers of the ingredients than the crackers and spreads. In contrast, for the crackers and spreads, flavor is the attribute considered more important. Another interesting difference is that respondents who tend to consume healthier food, in general, are willing to pay more for all the alternatives in all three product categories, except for the orange (anti-aging) and green (heart protector) beverages. One key finding is that household income was not significantly correlated with WTP for the beverages but positively correlated with WTP for crackers and spreads, which implies the differential effect of income on health snack consumption that are product dependent.

Conclusion/implications for research and practice

Our results show that US consumers have strong preferences for plant-based healthy snacking. Their preferences for healthy snacking vary by product category and the specific health benefit that can be provided by the products. In addition, several key personality, demographic, and attitudinal variables have significant effects on consumer WTP for healthy snacks. However, the effect of these variables also varies depending on the health benefits and the product category. Results uncovered in this study provide useful and critical information for the food industry/policymaker to produce/promote healthy food products that are more likely to succeed in the marketplace. Future research may estimate the relationship between healthy snack consumption and health outcomes. In addition, identifying the messages that can be used to educate consumers more effectively about healthy snacks is critical to developing effective education programs among different consumer groups to promote healthy food consumption.

Finally, despite the useful insights afforded in this study, it also has some limitations. First, consumer preferences were elicited using a stated preference approach, where the respondents reported their valuation in a hypothetical setting. This was necessary in this study since the products being investigated do not yet exist in the market. While we included a cheap talk script to improve the accuracy of the stated preferences, hypothetical bias is still possible (where respondents report higher valuations than they would be willing to pay in a real shopping scenario). Future studies could investigate this point further by comparing preferences for similar products in a hypothetical vs. incentive-compatible setting. Second, our sample size is relatively small for a nationwide survey. Although the current sample size ensures meaningful statistical power for all analyses conducted in this study, it may not support in-depth sub-analyses over different consumer groups that vary in socioeconomic or behavioral characteristics. Future research could investigate these sub-analyses to potentially uncover important insights that could help identify segments of the market.

Supporting information

S1 Appendix. Example valuation question (point estimate).

(TIF)

S2 Appendix. Example valuation question (interval estimate).

(TIF)

Data Availability

All data files are available from Harvard Dataverse repository - https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/V47JMW.

Funding Statement

This study was supported by the Florida Agricultural Experiment Station and the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (Hatch/multistate project FLA‐FRE‐006196, [PI Zhifeng Gao]). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Hess JM, Jonnalagadda SS, Slavin JL. What Is a Snack, Why Do We Snack, and How Can We Choose Better Snacks? A Review of the De fi nitions of Snacking, Motivations to Snack, Contributions to Dietary Intake, and Recommendations for Improvement 1, 2. Adv Nutr 2016;7:466–75. doi: 10.3945/an.115.009571.466 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Cowan AE, Id KAH, Fisher JO, Tripicchio GL, Mattes RD, Zou P, et al. Examination of different definitions of snacking frequency and associations with weight status among U. S. adults. PLoS One 2020;15:1–19. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234355 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Kant AK, Grubard BI. 40-Year Trends in Meal and Snack Eating Behaviors of American Adults. J Acad Nutr Diet 2015;115:50–63. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2014.06.354 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Williamson VG, Dilip A, Dillard JR, Morgan-daniel J, Lee AM, Cardel MI. The Influence of Socioeconomic Status on Snacking and Weight among Adolescents: A Scoping Review. Nutrients 2020;12:1–18. doi: 10.3390/nu12010167 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Mozaffarian D. Dietary and Policy Priorities for Cardiovascular Disease, Diabetes, and Obesity. Circulation 2016;133:187–225. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.018585 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Almoraie NM, Saqaan R, Alharthi R, Alamoudi A, Badh L, Shatwan IM. Snacking patterns throughout the life span: potential implications on health. Nutr Res 2021;91:81–94. doi: 10.1016/j.nutres.2021.05.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Smith-Jackson T, Reel JJ. Freshmen women and the “freshman 15”: Perspectives on prevalence and causes of college weight gain. J Am Coll Heal 2012;60:14–20. doi: 10.1080/07448481.2011.555931 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Bekoglu FB, Ergen A, Inci B. The Impact of Attitude, Consumer Innovativeness and Interpersonal Influence on Functional Food Consumption. Int Bus Res 2016;9:79. doi: 10.5539/ibr.v9n4p79 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Moro D, Veneziani M, Sckokai P, Castellari E. Consumer Willingness to Pay for Catechin-enriched Yogurt: Evidence from a Stated Choice Experiment. Agribusiness 2015;31:243–58. doi: 10.1002/agr [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Jones BL. Making time for family meals: Parental influences, home eating environments, barriers and protective factors. Physiol Behav 2018;193:248–51. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2018.03.035 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Sogari G, Velez-Argumedo C, Gómez MI, Mora C. College students and eating habits: A study using an ecological model for healthy behavior. Nutrients 2018;10:1–16. doi: 10.3390/nu10121823 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Milicic S, DeCicca P. The Impact of Economic Conditions on Healthy Dietary Intake: Evidence From Fluctuations in Canadian Unemployment Rates. J Nutr Educ Behav 2017;49:632–638.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jneb.2017.06.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Siegrist M, Hartmann C. Consumer acceptance of novel food technologies. Nat Food 2020;1:343–50. doi: 10.1038/s43016-020-0094-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Rozin P. The meaning of “natural” process more important than content. Psychol Sci 2005;16:652–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01589.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Gaskell G, Allansdottir A, Allum N, Castro P, Esmer Y, Fischler C, et al. The 2010 Eurobarometer on the life sciences. Nat Biotechnol 2011;29:113–4. doi: 10.1038/nbt.1771 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Montibeller G, von Winterfeldt D. Cognitive and Motivational Biases in Decision and Risk Analysis. Risk Anal 2015;35:1230–51. doi: 10.1111/risa.12360 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Tversky Amos, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science (80-) 1981;211:453–8. doi: 10.1126/science.7455683 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Runge KK, Chung JH, Su LYF, Brossard D, Scheufele DA. Pink slimed: Media framing of novel food technologies and risk related to ground beef and processed foods in the U.S. Meat Sci 2018;143:242–51. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.04.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Evans G, de Challemaison B, Cox DN. Consumers’ ratings of the natural and unnatural qualities of foods. Appetite 2010;54:557–63. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2010.02.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Cox DN, Evans G. Construction and validation of a psychometric scale to measure consumers’ fears of novel food technologies: The food technology neophobia scale. Food Qual Prefer 2008;19:704–10. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2008.04.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Scott SE, Inbar Y, Rozin P. Evidence for Absolute Moral Opposition to Genetically Modified Food in the United States. Perspect Psychol Sci 2016;11:315–24. doi: 10.1177/1745691615621275 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Marris C, Langford IH, O’Riordan T. A Quantitative Test of the Cultural Theory of Risk Perceptions: Comparison with the Psychometric Paradigm. Institutional Dyn Cult Vol I II New Durkheimians 2018;1–2:221–34. 10.4324/9781315238975-11. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 23.Lin W, Ortega DL, Caputo V, Lusk JL. Personality traits and consumer acceptance of controversial food technology: A cross-country investigation of genetically modified animal products. Food Qual Prefer 2019;76:10–9. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.03.007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Chen Q, Anders S, An H. Measuring consumer resistance to a new food technology: A choice experiment in meat packaging. Food Qual Prefer 2013;28:419–28. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.10.008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Van Loo EJ, Caputo V, Lusk JL. Consumer preferences for farm-raised meat, lab-grown meat, and plant-based meat alternatives: Does information or brand matter? Food Policy 2020;95:101931. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101931 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Torri L, Tuccillo F, Bonelli S, Piraino S, Leone A. The attitudes of Italian consumers towards jellyfish as novel food. Food Qual Prefer 2020;79:103782. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.103782 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Ramalho Ribeiro A, Altintzoglou T, Mendes J, Nunes ML, Dinis MT, Dias J. Farmed fish as a functional food: Perception of fish fortification and the influence of origin–Insights from Portugal. Aquaculture 2019;501:22–31. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2018.11.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Mohamad R, Fazliana Md Noh N, Samsiah Mohamad S. Consumer preferences and purchasing intention towards a new healthy snack product (Penerimaan dan pertimbangan untuk membeli dalam kalangan pengguna terhadap produk snek sihat baharu). Econ Technol Manag Rev 2014;9:123–32. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Corso MP, Kalschne DL, Benassi M de T. Consumer’s attitude regarding soluble coffee enriched with antioxidants. Beverages 2018;4. doi: 10.3390/beverages4040072 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Sarkar S. Potentiality of probiotic yoghurt as a functional food–a review. Nutr Food Sci 2019;49:182–202. doi: 10.1108/NFS-05-2018-0139 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Beacom E, Bogue J, Repar L. Market-oriented Development of Plant-based Food and Beverage Products: A Usage Segmentation Approach. J Food Prod Mark 2021;27:204–22. doi: 10.1080/10454446.2021.1955799 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Crofton EC, Scannell AGM. Snack foods from brewing waste: consumer-led approach to developing sustainable snack options. Br Food J 2020;122:3899–916. doi: 10.1108/BFJ-08-2018-0527 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Nayak SN, Aravind B, Malavalli SS, Sukanth BS, Poornima R, Bharati P, et al. Omics Technologies to Enhance Plant Based Functional Foods: An Overview. Front Genet 2021;12:1–18. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2021.742095 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Burri S, Tato I, Nunes ML, Morais R. Functional Vegetable-Based Sausages for Consumption by Children. Food Nutr Sci 2011;02:494–501. doi: 10.4236/fns.2011.25072 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Bigliardi B, Galati F. Innovation trends in the food industry: The case of functional foods. Trends Food Sci Technol 2013;31:118–29. doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2013.03.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Baker MT, Lu P, Parrella JA, Leggette HR. Consumer Acceptance toward Functional Foods: A Scoping Review. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022;19. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19031217 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Çakiroǧlu FP, Uçar A. Consumer attitudes towards purchasing functional products. Prog Nutr 2018;20:257–62. doi: 10.23751/pn.v20i2.5859 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Ares G, Gámbaro A. Influence of gender, age and motives underlying food choice on perceived healthiness and willingness to try functional foods. Appetite 2007;49:148–58. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2007.01.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Ares G, Giménez A, Gámbaro A. Consumer perceived healthiness and willingness to try functional milk desserts. Influence of ingredient, ingredient name and health claim. Food Qual Prefer 2009;20:50–6. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2008.07.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Kavoosi-kalashami M, Pourfarzad A, Ghaibi S, Sadegh M. Urban consumers ‘ attitudes and willingness to pay for functional foods in Iran: A case of dietary sugar 2017;2:310–23. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2017.3.310 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Markosyan A, McCluskey JJ, Wahl TI. Consumer response to information about a functional food product: Apples enriched with antioxidants. Can J Agric Econ 2009;57:325–41. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7976.2009.01154.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Nguyen N, Nguyen HV, Nguyen PT, Tran VT. Some Key Factors A ff ecting Consumers ‘ Intentions to Purchase Functional Foods: A Case Study of Functional Yogurts in Vietnam 2020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 43.Siegrist M, Stampfli N, Kastenholz H. Consumers’ willingness to buy functional foods. The influence of carrier, benefit and trust. Appetite 2008;51:526–9. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2008.04.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Siegrist M, Shi J, Giusto A, Hartmann C. Worlds apart. Consumer acceptance of functional foods and beverages in Germany and China. Appetite 2015;92:87–93. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2015.05.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Jung SE, Shin YH, Severt K, Crowe-White KM. Determinants of a Consumer’s Intention to Consume Antioxidant-infused Sugar-free Chewing Gum: Measuring Taste, Attitude, and Health Consciousness. J Food Prod Mark 2020;26:38–54. doi: 10.1080/10454446.2020.1717712 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Brecic R, Gorton M, Barjolle D. Understanding variations in the consumption of functional foods–evidence from Croatia. Br Food J 2014. doi: 10.1108/BFJ-05-2012-0133 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Huang L, Bai L, Gong S. The effects of carrier, benefit, and perceived trust in information channel on functional food purchase intention among Chinese consumers. Food Qual Prefer 2020;81:103854. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.103854 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Bimbo F, Bonanno A, Van Trijp H, Viscecchia R. Body image dissatisfaction and health-enhancing food choices: A pilot study from a sample of Italian yogurt consumers. Br Food J 2018;120:2778–92. doi: 10.1108/BFJ-03-2018-0157 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Huang L, Bai L, Zhang X, Gong S. Re-understanding the antecedents of functional foods purchase: Mediating effect of purchase attitude and moderating effect of food neophobia. Food Qual Prefer 2019;73:266–75. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.11.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Verneau F, La Barbera F, Furno M. The role of health information in consumers’ willingness to pay for canned crushed tomatoes enriched with lycopene. Nutrients 2019;11. doi: 10.3390/nu11092173 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Mirosa M, Mangan-Walker E. Young Chinese and Functional Foods for Mobility Health: Perceptions of Importance, Trust, and Willingness to Purchase and Pay a Premium. J Food Prod Mark 2018;24:216–34. doi: 10.1080/10454446.2017.1266555 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Landström E, Koivisto Hursti UK, Becker W, Magnusson M. Use of functional foods among Swedish consumers is related to health-consciousness and perceived effect. Br J Nutr 2007;98:1058–69. doi: 10.1017/S0007114507761780 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Ranjit N, Evans MH, Byrd-Williams C, Evans AE, Hoelscher DM. Dietary and activity correlates of sugar-sweetened beverage consumption among adolescents. Pediatrics 2010;126. doi: 10.1542/peds.2010-1229 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Gao Z, House L, Bi X. Impact of satisficing behavior in online surveys on consumer preference and welfare estimates. Food Policy 2016;64:26–36. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.09.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Jones MS, House LA, Gao Z. Respondent Screening and Revealed Preference Axioms: Testing Quarantining Methods for Enhanced Data Quality in Web Panel Surveys. Public Opin Q 2015;79:687–709. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfv015 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Gao Z, House LA, Xie J. Online Survey Data Quality and Its Implication for Willingness-to-Pay: A Cross-Country Comparison. Can J Agric Econ 2016;64:199–221. doi: 10.1111/cjag.12069 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Melnyk JP, Marcone MF. Aphrodisiacs from plant and animal sources-A review of current scientific literature. Food Res Int 2011;44:840–50. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2011.02.043 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Shamloul R. Natural aphrodisiacs. J Sex Med 2010;7:39–49. doi: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2009.01521.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Liju V, Jeena K, Kuttan R. An Evaluaton of Antioxidant, Anti-inflammatory and Antinociceptive activities of essential oil from Curcuma Longa L. Indian J Pharmacol 2011;43:526–31. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Rao A V., Rao LG. Carotenoids and human health. Pharmacol Res 2007;55:207–16. doi: 10.1016/j.phrs.2007.01.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Koletzko B, Lehner F. Beer and Breastfeeding. Short Long Term Eff. Breast Feed. Child Heal., 2002, p. 23–8.
  • 62.Wang X, Ouyang YY, Liu J, Zhao G. Flavonoid intake and risk of CVD: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Br J Nutr 2014;111:1–11. doi: 10.1017/S000711451300278X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Lin J, Rexrode KM, Hu F, Albert CM, Chae CU, Rimm EB, et al. Dietary intakes of flavonols and flavones and coronary heart disease in US women. Am J Epidemiol 2007;165:1305–13. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwm016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Salvamani S, Gunasekaran B, Shaharuddin NA, Ahmad SA, Shukor MY. Antiartherosclerotic effects of plant flavonoids. Biomed Res Int 2014;2014. doi: 10.1155/2014/480258 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Egger F, Meyer T, Such U, Hecksteden A. Effects of sodium bicarbonate on high-intensity endurance performance in cyclists: A double-blind, randomized cross-over trial. PLoS One 2014;9:1–15. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0114729 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Freis T, Hecksteden A, Such U, Meyer T. Effect of sodium bicarbonate on prolonged running performance: A randomized, double-blind, cross-over study. PLoS One 2017;12:1–14. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0182158 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Shyamala BN, Jamuna P. Nutritional content and antioxidant properties of pulp waste from Daucus carota and Beta vulgaris. Malays J Nutr 2010;16:397–408. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Hossain KZ, Xue J, Rabbany MG. Consumers’ willingness to pay for GLOBALG.A.P. certified chicken: Empirical evidence from a consumer survey in Bangladesh. Food Control 2021;130:108397. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2021.108397 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Riccioli F, Moruzzo R, Zhang Z, Zhao J, Tang Y, Tinacci L, et al. Willingness to pay in main cities of Zheijiang provice (China) for quality and safety in food market. Food Control 2020;108:106831. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2019.106831 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Casini L, Boncinelli F, Contini C, Gerini F, Scozzafava G, Alfnes F. Heterogeneous preferences with respect to food preparation time: Foodies and quickies. Food Qual Prefer 2019;71:233–41. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.07.010 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Hu Y, House LA, McFadden BR, Gao Z. The Influence of Choice Context on Consumers’ Preference for GM Orange Juice. J Agric Econ 2021;72:547–63. doi: 10.1111/1477-9552.12416 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Nguyen L, Gao Z, Anderson J, Love D. Consumers willingness to pay for information transparency at casual and fine dining restaurants. Int J Hosp Manag 2022;100. [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Nuckcheddy A. The Effect of Personality on Motivation and Organisational Behaviour. Psychol Behav Sci Int J 2018;9. doi: 10.19080/pbsij.2018.09.555760 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Ufer D, Lin W, Ortega DL. Personality traits and preferences for specialty coffee: Results from a coffee shop field experiment. Food Res Int 2019;125. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2019.108504 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Bazzani C, Caputo V, Nayga RM, Canavari M. Revisiting consumers’ valuation for local versus organic food using a non-hypothetical choice experiment: Does personality matter? Food Qual Prefer 2017;62:144–54. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.06.019 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Foxall G, Goldsmith R, Brown S. Consumer Psychology for Marketing. London: Thompson Learning; 1998. [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Goldsmith RE, Hofacker CF. Measuring consumer innovativeness. J Acad Mark Sci 1991;19:209–21. doi: 10.1007/BF02726497 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.de Oliveira Santini F, Ladeira WJ, Sampaio CH. Tourists’ perceived value and destination revisit intentions: The moderating effect of domain-specific innovativeness. Int J Tour Res 2018;20:277–85. doi: 10.1002/jtr.2178 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Tanner SA, McCarthy MB, O’Reilly SJ. Digital labelling in the retail environment: a domain-specific innovativeness perspective. Int J Retail Distrib Manag 2019;47:1336–52. doi: 10.1108/IJRDM-08-2018-0175 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Payini V, Ramaprasad BS, Mallya J, Sanil M, Patwardhan V. The relationship between food neophobia, domain-specific innovativeness, and food festival revisit intentions: A structural equation modeling approach. Br Food J 2020;122:1849–68. doi: 10.1108/BFJ-08-2018-0563 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Delorme MM, Pimentel TC, Freitas MQ, da Cunha DT, Silva R, Guimarães JT, et al. Consumer innovativeness and perception about innovative processing technologies: A case study with sliced Prato cheese processed by ultraviolet radiation. Int J Dairy Technol 2021;74:768–77. doi: 10.1111/1471-0307.12807 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Parsad C, Prashar S, Vijay TS. Comparing between product-specific and general impulse buying tendency: Does shoppers’ personality influence their impulse buying tendency? Asian Acad Manag J 2019;24:41–61. doi: 10.21315/aamj2019.24.2.3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Briggs-Myers I, Briggs KC. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press; 1985. [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Menrad K. Market and marketing of functional food in Europe. J Food Eng 2003;56:181–8. doi: 10.1016/S0260-8774(02)00247-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Annunziata A, Vecchio R. Functional foods development in the European market: A consumer perspective. J Funct Foods 2011;3:223–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jff.2011.03.011 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Van Kleef E, Van Trijp HCM, Luning P. Functional foods: Health claim-food product compatibility and the impact of health claim framing on consumer evaluation. Appetite 2005;44:299–308. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2005.01.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Marette S, Roosen J, Blanchemanche S, Feinblatt-Mélèze E. Functional food, uncertainty and consumers’ choices: A lab experiment with enriched yoghurts for lowering cholesterol. Food Policy 2010;35:419–28. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.04.009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Peng Y, West GE, Wang C. Consumer attitudes and acceptance of CLA-enriched dairy products. Can J Agric Econ 2006;54:663–84. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7976.2006.00072.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Xin L, Seo S. The role of consumer ethnocentrism, country image, and subjective knowledge in predicting intention to purchase imported functional foods. Br Food J 2020;122:448–64. doi: 10.1108/BFJ-05-2019-0326 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Rezai G, Kit Teng P, Mohamed Z, Shamsudin MN. Structural Equation Modeling of Consumer Purchase Intention Toward Synthetic Functional Foods. J Food Prod Mark 2014;20:13–34. doi: 10.1080/10454446.2014.921868 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Jahn S, Tsalis G, Lähteenmäki L. How attitude towards food fortification can lead to purchase intention. Appetite 2019;133:370–7. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2018.11.022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Phuong NND, Dat NT. The Effect of Country-of-Origin on Customer Purchase Intention: A Study of Functional Products in Vietnam. J Asian Financ Econ Bus 2017;4:75–83. doi: 10.13106/jafeb.2017.vol4.no3.75 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Krutulyte R, Grunert KG, Scholderer J, Lähteenmäki L, Hagemann KS, Elgaard P, et al. Perceived fit of different combinations of carriers and functional ingredients and its effect on purchase intention. Food Qual Prefer 2011;22:11–6. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.06.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.de Jong N, Ocké MC, Branderhorst HAC, Friele R. Demographic and lifestyle characteristics of functional food consumers and dietary supplement users. Br J Nutr 2003;89:273–81. doi: 10.1079/BJN2002772 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Huotilainen A, Pirttilä-Backman AM, Tuorila H. How innovativeness relates to social representation of new foods and to the willingness to try and use such foods. Food Qual Prefer 2006;17:353–61. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2005.04.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Carrillo E, Prado-Gascó V, Fiszman S, Varela P. Why buying functional foods? Understanding spending behaviour through structural equation modelling. Food Res Int 2013;50:361–8. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2012.10.045 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Ho C-H, Wu W. Role of Innovativeness of Consumer in Relationship between Perceived Attributes of New Products and Intention to Adopt. Int J Electron Bus Manag 2011;9:258–66. [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Byrnes NK, Hayes JE. Personality factors predict spicy food liking and intake. Food Qual Prefer 2013;28:213–21. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.09.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Back MD, Stopfer JM, Vazire S, Gaddis S, Schmukle SC, Egloff B, et al. Facebook profiles reflect actual personality, not self-idealization. Psychol Sci 2010;21:372–4. doi: 10.1177/0956797609360756 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Hirsh JB, Kang SK, Bodenhausen G V. Personalized Persuasion: Tailoring Persuasive Appeals to Recipients’ Personality Traits. Psychol Sci 2012;23:578–81. doi: 10.1177/0956797611436349 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Ares G, Giménez A, Deliza R. Influence of three non-sensory factors on consumer choice of functional yogurts over regular ones. Food Qual Prefer 2010;21:361–7. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2009.09.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Walker JA. Development of low-fat sugar-free orange sherbet containing soy protein. Food Sci 2002:1–205. [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Pavon NR. Sensory characteristics of flavored milk candies. 2003.
  • 104.Gundala RR, Singh A. What motivates consumers to buy organic foods? Results of an empirical study in the United States. PLoS One 2021;16:1–17. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257288 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Michaelidou N, Hassan LM. The Role of Health Consciousness, Food Safety Concern and Ethical Identity on Attitudes and Intentions towards Organic Food. Int J Consum Stud 2008;2:163–70. [Google Scholar]
  • 106.Chen MF. The joint moderating effect of health consciousness and healthy lifestyle on consumers’ willingness to use functional foods in Taiwan. Appetite 2011;57:253–62. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2011.05.305 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Rezai G, Teng PK, Mohamed Z, Shamsudin MN. Functional Food Knowledge and Perceptions among Young Consumers in Malaysia. Int J Soc Behav Educ Econ Bus Ind Eng 2012;6:7–12. [Google Scholar]
  • 108.Gulseven O, Wohlgenant M. Demand for functional and nutritional enhancements in specialty milk products. Appetite 2014;81:284–94. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2014.06.105 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 109.Urala N, Lähteenmäki L. Consumers’ changing attitudes towards functional foods. Food Qual Prefer 2007;18:1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2005.06.007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 110.Moons I, Barbarossa C, De Pelsmacker P. The Determinants of the Adoption Intention of Eco-friendly Functional Food in Different Market Segments. Ecol Econ 2018;151:151–61. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.05.012 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 111.Büyükkaragöz A, Bas M, Sağlam D, Cengiz ŞE. Consumers’ awareness, acceptance and attitudes towards functional foods in Turkey. Int J Consum Stud 2014;38:628–35. doi: 10.1111/ijcs.12134 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 112.Verbeke W. Consumer acceptance of functional foods: Socio-demographic, cognitive and attitudinal determinants. Food Qual Prefer 2005;16:45–57. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2004.01.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 113.Vassallo M, Saba A, Arvola A, Dean M, Messina F, Winkelmann M, et al. Willingness to use functional breads. Applying the Health Belief Model across four European countries. Appetite 2009;52:452–60. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2008.12.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 114.Johansen SB, Næs T, Hersleth M. Motivation for choice and healthiness perception of calorie-reduced dairy products. A cross-cultural study. Appetite 2011;56:15–24. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2010.11.137 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 115.Siró I, Kápolna E, Kápolna B, Lugasi A. Functional food. Product development, marketing and consumer acceptance-A review. Appetite 2008;51:456–67. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2008.05.060 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 116.Childs NM. Functional foods and the food industry: Consumer, economic and product development issues. J Nutraceuticals, Funct Med Foods 1997;1:25–43. doi: 10.1300/j133v01n02_04 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 117.Gilbert LC. The Functional Food Trend: What’s Next And What Americans Think About Eggs. J Am Coll Nutr 2000;19:507S–512S. doi: 10.1080/07315724.2000.10718973 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 118.Anttolainen M, Luoto R, Uutela A, Boice J, Blot WJ, McLaughlin JK, et al. Characteristics of users and nonusers of plant stanol ester margarine in Finland:An approach to study functional foods. J Am Diet Assoc 2001;101. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 119.Teratanavat R, Hooker NH. Consumer valuations and preference heterogeneity for a novel functional food. J Food Sci 2006;71. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2006.00120.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 120.Szakály Z, Kovács S, Pető K, Huszka P, Kiss M. A modified model of the willingness to pay for functional foods. Appetite 2019;138:94–101. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2019.03.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 121.Temesi Á, Bacsó Á, Grunert KG, Lakner Z. Perceived correspondence of health effects as a new determinant influencing purchase intention for functional food. Nutrients 2019;11:130–1. doi: 10.3390/nu11040740 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 122.Lu J. The effect of perceived carrier-ingredient fit on purchase intention of functional food moderated by nutrition knowledge and health claim. Br Food J 2015;117:1872–85. doi: 10.1108/BFJ-11-2014-0372 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 123.Ares G, Giménez A, Gámbaro A. Influence of nutritional knowledge on perceived healthiness and willingness to try functional foods. Appetite 2008;51:663–8. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2008.05.061 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Charles Odilichukwu R Okpala

14 Feb 2023

PONE-D-22-31581Perception and Demand for Healthy Snacks/Beverages among US Consumers Vary by Product, Health Benefit, and ColorPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Gao,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: Please check the details provided below.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 31 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Charles Odilichukwu R Okpala

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians.

3. Please upload a new copy of Figures 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 as the detail is not clear. Please follow the link for more information: " ext-link-type="uri" xlink:type="simple">https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/" https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics

Additional Editor Comments :

Please authors, kindly attend to the comments raised by the reviewers.

Kindly pay attention to the justification of this current study, this needs further details. Why is this study relevant?

Also, the methodology of the work, please provide additional details.

Also, kindly strengthen the discussion with additional relevant literature.

Look forward to your revised manuscript.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript "Perception and Demand for Healthy Snacks/Beverages among US Consumers Vary by Product,

Health Benefit, and Color" is a good piece of literature and can be recommended for publication in PLOS ONE after major revisions.

I've some suggestions for its improvement;

1) The authors have presented a graphical abstract, I don't think the journal requires a structured abstract, please confirm.

2) The structure of introduction is really confusing, authors have presented a mix information in this section. i.e., in first paragraph authors are giving a background and in second paragraph they are giving the objectives of the study while in 3rd paragraph again the authors have presented details about the topic. The objectives of the study and conceptualization should be shared at end of introduction.

3) The quality of figures provided is really poor and its being very difficult to interpret the results.

4) Authors should provide high quality illustration

5) Authors should add a graphical abstract

6) The conclusion part is missing in the main manuscript file

Reviewer #2: This study investigated consumer preferences for healthy crackers, spreads, and drinks, which are differentiated by color and health benefits. To address their research question, the authors estimated the willingness to pay for the afore mentioned products. Overall, the manuscript is well structured and amazingly written.

The research question is visibly defined, and an informative literature review is presented to support it. In addition, the authors clearly described how the instruments were administered to the subjects, and the approach is reliable according to the published literature. Based on the variables studied, appropriate statistical tests were applied. Lastly, the implications for research and practice are supported by the data.

What I adored the most about this manuscript and its findings is the fact that US consumers are willing to pay for functional foods that are manufactured with zero waste. This will prompt hope in achieving sustainability.

Recommended Minor revisions:

1. Discussion section may be improved by displaying more data already existing in the literature and compare them with those obtained in this study.

2. In the conclusions, I recommend including the limitations observed while undertaking this investigation.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Jun 16;18(6):e0287232. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287232.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


15 Mar 2023

Response to Academic Editor and Reviewers

Response to Academic Editor

Comment 1: Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Response to comment 1: Thank you for your comment. We have formatted the title page and the manuscript headings to meet PLOS ONE’s style requirements.

Comment 2: Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians.

Response to comment 2: Thank you for your comment. We have specified the consent type obtained.

Line 104-109

“The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Florida (IRB 201901626), and participants were provided written informed consent before answering the survey questions. The last part of the informed consent read as, “By choosing "continue" on the question below, you are indicating that you voluntarily agree to participate in this survey.” And respondents who did not select “continue” would exit the survey.”

Comment 3: Please upload a new copy of Figures 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 as the detail is not clear. Please follow the link for more information: https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/

Response to comment 3: Thank you for your comment. We have made new copies of the figures using the PLOS ONE tool.

Additional Editor comments

Comment 4: Please authors, kindly attend to the comments raised by the reviewers.

Response to comment 4: Thank you. We have addressed all the reviewers’ comments and included details below on revisions made to address each comment raised by each reviewer.

Comment 5: Kindly pay attention to the justification of this current study, this needs further details. Why is this study relevant?

Response to comment 5: Thank you for your comment. Given the prevalence of unhealthy snacks and their associated negative health outcomes, our study contributes to efforts to identify healthy snacking options that will be appealing to consumers and economically viable. We explained this justification in the manuscript by giving a background on the problem – unhealthy snacking – and why studies like ours are needed.

To make sure that this relevance is clearer and to address your comments, we added a statement addressing our contribution to literature and efforts to improve nutrition quality.

Lines 74 – 76

“Our study contributes to this growing literature and efforts to improve nutrition quality by examining consumers’ preferences for healthy snacking options and the possible predictors of these preferences.”

Lines 84 - 91 also provide more information on our contribution to the literature and food industry/policy makers –

“To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to measure consumer WTP for multiple novel healthy snacks and beverage products that are differentiated by appearance and health benefits. The three focus product categories chosen for this study – crackers, spreads and beverages – were selected because these are popular snacking options at social gatherings. This study provides valuable insights for food industries to develop more healthy snacks and beverages that appeal to consumers and inform marketing campaigns to promote healthy snacking. The results of this study can also benefit policymakers by providing information to guide dietary guidelines of healthy snacking recommendations.”

Comment 6: Also, the methodology of the work, please provide additional details.

Response to comment 6: Thank you for your comment. We have provided additional details about the consent type, the survey progression, and also included a table defining the statements used to capture the personality traits.

Lines 104-109

“The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Florida (IRB 201901626), and participants were provided written informed consent before answering the survey questions. The last part of the informed consent read as, “By choosing "continue" on the question below, you are indicating that you voluntarily agree to participate in this survey.” And respondents who did not select “continue” would exit the survey.”

Line 101-105

“After providing consent and answering screening questions, respondents provided information relating to their snack and beverage consumption habits, attitudes towards health/environment, preferences for different healthy snack and beverage products, and behavioral and sociodemographic characteristics”

Lines 169-172

Table 2. Definition of personality trait statements

Personality trait

Innovativeness

- Compared to my friends, I purchase more new, different, or innovative food

- In general, I am amongst the first of my circle of friends to buy new, different, or innovative food.

- I buy new, different or innovative food before anyone else I know.

- Generally, I am amongst the first in my circle of friends to remember a brand of new, different or innovative food.

- If new, different, or innovative foods are available in shops and supermarkets I always purchase them.

- I do purchase new, different, or innovative foods even if I have not tasted/experienced them beforehand

Extraversion

- I enjoy human interaction

- I am enthusiastic

- I am talkative

- I am full of energy and I thrive on the presence of other people

- I take pleasure in activities that involve large social gathering

- I work well in a group

- I find few rewards in time spent alone

- I am bored when I am by myself

Note: Respondents’ agreement/disagreement with these statements was measured using the five-point Likert scale: 1= Strongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3= Somewhat disagree, 4= Neither agree nor disagree, 5= Somewhat agree, 6=Agree, 7= Strongly agree

Comment 7: Also, kindly strengthen the discussion with additional relevant literature.

Response to comment 7: Thank you for your comment. We have added more text discussing the results in the context of previous studies, and also included additional citations throughout the discussion. For example –

Lines 341-346

“In line with our results, earlier studies of functional food found that purchase intention is higher when the health claims of the product are physiological (e.g., less risk of cardiovascular disease) rather than psychological (52–54). For instance, information about reduced cholesterol benefits resulted in an increase in consumers purchase intention for a fortified yoghurt drink (55), and in another study, information about antioxidants benefits increased consumers purchase intention for functional foods (56).”

Lines 352-356

“Some studies have examined the significance of psychological factors such as perceptions, beliefs, attitudes, trust and food neophobia (57–65). Our results show that Innovativeness is one factor that exhibits a strong relationship with the WTP for multiple products across the three product categories, which is reasonable considering the novelty of the products used in the study.”

Lines 384-387

“For the rest of the products, however, the respondents are not deterred by price. This conforms with Huang et al. (75) and Ares et al. (73) who argue that functional food consumers are usually more interested in the health benefits of the products than the price.”

Response to Reviewer 1

Comment 1: The authors have presented a graphical abstract, I don't think the journal requires a structured abstract, please confirm.

Response to comment 1: Thank you for your comment. We rewrote the abstract to meet PLOS ONE’s requirements.

Comment 2: The structure of introduction is really confusing, authors have presented a mix information in this section. i.e., in first paragraph authors are giving a background and in second paragraph they are giving the objectives of the study while in 3rd paragraph again the authors have presented details about the topic. The objectives of the study and conceptualization should be shared at end of introduction.

Response to comment 2: Thank you for your comment, and apologies for any confusion in the introduction. Following your suggestion, we have restructured the introduction and moved the objectives paragraph next to the contributions at the end of the section.

Comment 3: The quality of figures provided is really poor and its being very difficult to interpret the results.

Response to comment 3: Thank you for your comment. We have made new copies of the figures using the PLOS ONE tool, which significantly improved the quality of the figures.

Comment 4: Authors should provide high quality illustration

Response to comment 4: Thank you for your comment. As mentioned in the response to your third comment, we have made new copies of the figures using the PLOS ONE tool and this significantly improved the quality of the illustrations in the manuscript.

Comment 5: Authors should add a graphical abstract

Response to comment 5: Thank you but we are confused by this comment. In your comment 1, you said that “The authors have presented a graphical abstract….” but in this comment, you ask us to add a graphical abstract. We are really confused.

But anyways, based on your comment 1, we have provided an abstract that meets PLOS ONE requirements.

Comment 6: The conclusion part is missing in the main manuscript file

Response to comment 6: Thank you for your comment. The “Implications for Research and Practice” section was meant to serve as the conclusion. We have renamed this section to avoid confusion, and we also edited this section with more information about limitations and suggestions for future work.

Line 448

“Conclusion/Implications for Research and Practice”

Line 460-472

“Finally, despite the useful insights afforded in this study, it also has some limitations. First, consumer preferences were elicited using a stated preference approach, where the respondents reported their valuation in a hypothetical setting. This was necessary in this study since the products being investigated do not yet exist in the market. While we included a cheap talk script to improve the accuracy of the stated preferences, there is still a possibility of hypothetical bias occurring (where respondents report higher valuation than they would be willing to pay in a real shopping scenario). Future studies could investigate this point further by comparing preferences for similar products in a hypothetical vs incentive compatible setting. Second, our sample size is relatively small for a nationwide survey. Although the current sample size ensures meaningful statistical power for all analyses conducted in this study, it may not support in-depth sub-analyses over different consumer groups that vary in socioeconomic or behavioral characteristics. Future research could investigate these sub-analyses to potentially uncover important insights that could help identify segments of the market.”

Response to Reviewer 2

Comment 1: Discussion section may be improved by displaying more data already existing in the literature and compare them with those obtained in this study.

Response to comment 1: Thank you for your comment. We have added more text discussing the results in the context of previous studies, and also included additional citations throughout the discussion. For example –

Lines 341-346

“In line with our results, earlier studies of functional food found that purchase intention is higher when the health claims of the product are physiological (e.g., less risk of cardiovascular disease) rather than psychological (52–54). For instance, information about reduced cholesterol benefits resulted in an increase in consumers purchase intention for a fortified yoghurt drink (55), and in another study, information about antioxidants benefits increased consumers purchase intention for functional foods (56).”

Lines 352-356

“Some studies have examined the significance of psychological factors such as perceptions, beliefs, attitudes, trust and food neophobia (57–65). Our results show that Innovativeness is one factor that exhibits a strong relationship with the WTP for multiple products across the three product categories, which is reasonable considering the novelty of the products used in the study.”

Lines 384-387

“For the rest of the products, however, the respondents are not deterred by price. This conforms with Huang et al. (75) and Ares et al. (73) who argue that functional food consumers are usually more interested in the health benefits of the products than the price.”

Comment 2: In the conclusions, I recommend including the limitations observed while undertaking this investigation.

Response to comment 2: Thank you for your comments. We have included a paragraph on limitations

Line 460-472

“Finally, despite the useful insights afforded in this study, it also has some limitations. First, consumer preferences were elicited using a stated preference approach, where the respondents reported their valuation in a hypothetical setting. This was necessary in this study since the products being investigated do not yet exist in the market. While we included a cheap talk script to improve the accuracy of the stated preferences, there is still a possibility of hypothetical bias occurring (where respondents report higher valuation than they would be willing to pay in a real shopping scenario). Future studies could investigate this point further by comparing preferences for similar products in a hypothetical vs incentive compatible setting. Second, our sample size is relatively small for a nationwide survey. Although the current sample size ensures meaningful statistical power for all analyses conducted in this study, it may not support in-depth sub-analyses over different consumer groups that vary in socioeconomic or behavioral characteristics. Future research could investigate these sub-analyses to potentially uncover important insights that could help identify segments of the market.”

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Academic Editor and Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Charles Odilichukwu R Okpala

10 Apr 2023

PONE-D-22-31581R1Perception and Demand for Healthy Snacks/Beverages among U.S. Consumers Vary by Product, Health Benefit, and ColorPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Gao,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: Please see below.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 25 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-emailutm_source=authorlettersutm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Charles Odilichukwu R. Okpala

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Please, kindly address the comments raised by the reviewer, it will help improve the quality of this work.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: My comments have been critically addressed by the author.

The manuscript's quality has been elevated.

Reviewer #3: In general, the reviewer's comments have been addressed well in the revised version. However, the introduction part must be improved: The flow of the introduction is not clear, why the study is needed and why it is important. Most of the introduction is about improving healthy snacks, not about consumer perception. While the study is investigating the consumers feedback. I would suggest focusing on consumer perceptions. For example, what is the current trend in the perception of potential consumers about developing new products (in general)? Then continue with the importance of healthy snacks, and continue to emphasize the current aim.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: Yes: Mouandhe Imamou Hassani

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Jun 16;18(6):e0287232. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287232.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


23 May 2023

Response to Academic Editor and Reviewers

Response to Academic Editor

Comment 1: Please, kindly address the comments raised by the reviewer, it will help improve the quality of this work.

Response to comment 1: Thank you for your comment. We have addressed the reviewer’s comments and included details below on revisions made to address the comments

Response to Reviewer 3

Comment: In general, the reviewer’s comments have been addressed well in the revised version. However, the introduction part must be improved: The flow of the introduction is not clear, why the study is needed and why it is important. Most of the introduction is about improving healthy snacks, not about consumer perception. While the study is investigating the consumers feedback. I would suggest focusing on consumer perceptions. For example, what is the current trend in the perception of potential consumers about developing new products (in general)? Then continue with the importance of healthy snacks, and continue to emphasize the current aim.

Response to comment: Thank you for your comment. We have incorporated your suggestions to improve the introduction section by adding discussions about consumer perceptions of new products (in general) and novel snacking products. We also reorganized the introduction to make the flow better.

Lines 71 – 109

There is a large body of work on consumer preferences for novel food technologies/products in general. In contrast to non-food domains, many technological innovations resulting in novel food products aren’t perceived as favorably by consumers (39–41). Given the importance of technological innovations to meeting global food demand, much research has been devoted to investigating the underlying factors driving these perceptions. Due to factors such as limited knowledge, consumers have been shown to utilize heuristics (e.g., emotions, trust, natural-is-better) in their evaluation of food products, which can result in biased decisions (39,42). The framing of food technology information can also influence consumers’ acceptance of new products (43–45). Additionally, food technology neophobia (46), disgust sensitivity (47), cultural differences (48), and personality traits such as openness and conscientiousness (49), may help explain some of the differences in consumer acceptance. Some other determinants revealed by various studies include food safety concerns (50), risk perceptions (50), socio-demographic factors (e.g., age, gender, education level) (51,52), lifestyle habits (e.g., vegetarian, travelling habit) (51,52). Our study contributes to this literature by exploring preferences specifically for novel healthy snacking products.

As demand for healthy snacking choices continues to increase, more research is focusing on developing new products that can appeal to consumers. Recent work has examined consumer perceptions of novel functional products such as fortified farmed fish (13), granola bars (14), enriched coffee (15), and probiotic yogurt (16), among others. Also, given the high nutritional value of vegetables and the growing global demand for plant-based food products (17), there is growing research into vegetable-based functional food product alternatives and general healthy snacking (18–20). Research shows that when consumers become more aware of their health benefits, they report a significant increase in the demand for these foods (21,22). For example, one study (23) found that Turkish consumers had a favorable attitude towards functional food products, with a majority believing that these foods are necessary and part of a healthy diet. Other studies across various countries found similar results using outcomes such as willingness to try (24,25), willingness to pay (26,27), and willingness to buy/purchase intention (28–31). These studies spanned various food and beverage products such as apples, tomatoes, yogurts, cereals, etc.

This stream of literature has identified a wide range of factors that possibly influence preferences for these novel products. Demographic factors such as age (13), gender (25), education level (32), and household size (32), and marital status (8) have been linked to willingness to consume various functional food products. The perceived healthiness of the product/ingredients (33), health information (27), knowledge of product brand (34), price (35), taste (31), and other product characteristics have also been found to influence preferences. Multiple studies have also reported associations between various psychological/behavioral characteristics such as, health consciousness (28), knowledge (36), trust (30), food neophobia (30), motivations (37), health-related behaviors (38), beliefs (38), and consumer preferences for novel food and beverage products

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Academic Editor and Reviewers_Final.docx

Decision Letter 2

Charles Odilichukwu R Okpala

2 Jun 2023

Perception and Demand for Healthy Snacks/Beverages among U.S. Consumers Vary by Product, Health Benefit, and Color

PONE-D-22-31581R2

Dear Dr. Gao,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Charles Odilichukwu R. Okpala

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The editor is very satisfied with the revised version. It is acceptable for publication.

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Charles Odilichukwu R Okpala

8 Jun 2023

PONE-D-22-31581R2

Perception and Demand for Healthy Snacks/Beverages among US Consumers Vary by Product, Health Benefit, and Color

Dear Dr. Gao:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Charles Odilichukwu R. Okpala

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Appendix. Example valuation question (point estimate).

    (TIF)

    S2 Appendix. Example valuation question (interval estimate).

    (TIF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Academic Editor and Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Academic Editor and Reviewers_Final.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All data files are available from Harvard Dataverse repository - https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/V47JMW.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES