<%BANNER%>

Taste Test of Organic versus Conventional Products and What Influences the Consumers' Decision to Purchase

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024517/00001

Material Information

Title: Taste Test of Organic versus Conventional Products and What Influences the Consumers' Decision to Purchase
Physical Description: 1 online resource (78 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Thomas, Danielle
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Food and Resource Economics -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Food and Resource Economics thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: TASTE TEST OF ORGANIC VERSUS CONVENTIONAL PRODUCTS AND WHAT INFLUENCES THE CONSUMERS DECISION TO PURCHASE By Danielle S Thomas May 2009 Chair: Lisa House Major: Food and Resource Economics The previous research on willingness to pay does not take into account the consumer s taste preference for each product. The purpose of this research was to test if there was a taste difference or explicit preference for an organic product versus a conventionally produced product. For this research participants were asked their taste preference for a product and then asked conjoint questions about their willingness to pay. Participants were given either a sample of an organic orange juice and a conventional orange juice or an organic baby carrot and a conventional baby carrot. The participants were then asked to taste each product and rate how much they liked or disliked the overall flavor and other attributes, such as texture, sweetness, etc. Once the participant picked which product they preferred the most they were given conjoint questions which asked what product they would buy based on the characteristics of price and production. They also used their preference for one product or the other to answer the questions. The purpose of this type of test was to determine if participants are purchasing the product based on their preference (taste) or on price or production method. The results of the rating taste test were analyzed using descriptive statistics and an Analysis of Variance. The results of the carrot rating test showed many significant differences between the attributes of the two products. Overall the Analysis of Variance showed a significant difference between the overall appearance, color, overall flavor and sweetness. When the results were separated between males and females there were very few significant differences between the products attributes. The results of the ranking test showed that there was no overall significant difference between the panelist s preferences for the two products. The results of the orange juice test showed very few significant differences between the attributes. Overall the only attribute that had a significant difference between the products was the sweetness; this attribute was also significant when the results were separated into males and females. The results of the questions using conjoint analysis were analyzed using a model that was created with eighteen variables and then from this model the willingness to pay was calculated. For the carrots the largest price premium was $0.79 and the largest discount needed to purchase the product was $0.25. In the model used for the orange juice data the price and whether the product was organic or not were both significant. The significance of the price variable can be attributed to the large price difference between organic and conventional orange juices. The demographic interaction variables were also significant. The price premiums calculated for organic orange juice were much larger and were strongly influenced by the race of the consumer. The largest price premium was $1.15 and the largest discount rate was $1.56. The implications for this research show that it is possible to test willingness to pay using a taste test. It adds an extra attribute that participants will take into consideration when they are choosing which product to purchase, which is not often found in previous research on a consumer s willingness to pay.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Danielle Thomas.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: House, Lisa O.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024517:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024517/00001

Material Information

Title: Taste Test of Organic versus Conventional Products and What Influences the Consumers' Decision to Purchase
Physical Description: 1 online resource (78 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Thomas, Danielle
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Food and Resource Economics -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Food and Resource Economics thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: TASTE TEST OF ORGANIC VERSUS CONVENTIONAL PRODUCTS AND WHAT INFLUENCES THE CONSUMERS DECISION TO PURCHASE By Danielle S Thomas May 2009 Chair: Lisa House Major: Food and Resource Economics The previous research on willingness to pay does not take into account the consumer s taste preference for each product. The purpose of this research was to test if there was a taste difference or explicit preference for an organic product versus a conventionally produced product. For this research participants were asked their taste preference for a product and then asked conjoint questions about their willingness to pay. Participants were given either a sample of an organic orange juice and a conventional orange juice or an organic baby carrot and a conventional baby carrot. The participants were then asked to taste each product and rate how much they liked or disliked the overall flavor and other attributes, such as texture, sweetness, etc. Once the participant picked which product they preferred the most they were given conjoint questions which asked what product they would buy based on the characteristics of price and production. They also used their preference for one product or the other to answer the questions. The purpose of this type of test was to determine if participants are purchasing the product based on their preference (taste) or on price or production method. The results of the rating taste test were analyzed using descriptive statistics and an Analysis of Variance. The results of the carrot rating test showed many significant differences between the attributes of the two products. Overall the Analysis of Variance showed a significant difference between the overall appearance, color, overall flavor and sweetness. When the results were separated between males and females there were very few significant differences between the products attributes. The results of the ranking test showed that there was no overall significant difference between the panelist s preferences for the two products. The results of the orange juice test showed very few significant differences between the attributes. Overall the only attribute that had a significant difference between the products was the sweetness; this attribute was also significant when the results were separated into males and females. The results of the questions using conjoint analysis were analyzed using a model that was created with eighteen variables and then from this model the willingness to pay was calculated. For the carrots the largest price premium was $0.79 and the largest discount needed to purchase the product was $0.25. In the model used for the orange juice data the price and whether the product was organic or not were both significant. The significance of the price variable can be attributed to the large price difference between organic and conventional orange juices. The demographic interaction variables were also significant. The price premiums calculated for organic orange juice were much larger and were strongly influenced by the race of the consumer. The largest price premium was $1.15 and the largest discount rate was $1.56. The implications for this research show that it is possible to test willingness to pay using a taste test. It adds an extra attribute that participants will take into consideration when they are choosing which product to purchase, which is not often found in previous research on a consumer s willingness to pay.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Danielle Thomas.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: House, Lisa O.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024517:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 TASTE TEST OF ORGANIC VERSUS CONVENTIONAL PRODUCTS AND WHAT By DANIELLE S. THOMAS A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009

PAGE 2

2 2009 Danielle S Thomas

PAGE 3

3 To my family

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank everyone on my committee. They have all worked very hard in helping me put this thesis together. Especially big thanks are due to Dr. House, whose patience and willingness to help has really made this process much easier. I would like to thank Dr. Gao for his tireless efforts in helping me with SAS, without him I would have no analysis. Thanks go out to Dr. Sims for his help in running the taste test at the Food Science Sensory Lab. Thanks also go out to Lorenzo, who helped me write my survey in the necessary computer program. To Kristina, thanks are due for her wonderful editing. My family also deserves thanks; they have always been there for me. Thanks go out to my parents for all of their love and support and to my brothers for always listening. Also, to Adam, thank go out fo r all of your love and support. These past few months have been much easier with you supporting me and urging me to fight and finish strong. Lastly, I would like to thank the Food and Resource Economics Department and the University of Florida for giving me the chance to pursue this research. Thanks go out for the monetary support and the support of all of the Food and Resource Economic and Food Science professors who have helped me in five years at UF.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................7 LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................8 ABSTRACT .....................................................................................................................................9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................11 Organic Demand .....................................................................................................................11 Problem ...................................................................................................................................12 Objective ..........................................................................................................................12 Testable Hypotheses .........................................................................................................13 Thesis Outline .........................................................................................................................13 2 LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................................16 Demand for Organic Products ................................................................................................16 Conjoint Analysis Research ....................................................................................................19 3 DATA .....................................................................................................................................21 Introduction .............................................................................................................................21 Science of Sensory Evaluation ...............................................................................................21 Data Collection Process ..........................................................................................................22 Data .........................................................................................................................................24 Demographic Profile of Panelists ....................................................................................24 Organic Purchase Behavior ..............................................................................................25 Sensory Test Results ........................................................................................................27 Carrots .......................................................................................................................27 Orange juice ..............................................................................................................29 Summary Results of Conjoint Analysis Questions ..........................................................30 4 THEORETICAL MODEL ......................................................................................................43 Conjoint Utility Theory ..........................................................................................................43 Logit Model ............................................................................................................................43 Model Specification ................................................................................................................44 5 EMPIRICAL MODEL............................................................................................................47

PAGE 6

6 Introduction .............................................................................................................................47 Analysis of Model ...................................................................................................................47 Carrots .............................................................................................................................48 Orange juice .....................................................................................................................50 6 CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................56 Summary .................................................................................................................................56 Hypothesis Summary ..............................................................................................................57 Study Limitations....................................................................................................................58 Further Research .....................................................................................................................59 APPENDIX A SURVEY INSTRUMENT DAY 1 AND DAY 2 ...................................................................60 B CONJOINT ANALYSIS QUESTIONS FROM DAY 1 AND DAY 2 .................................73 LIST OF REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................77 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .........................................................................................................78

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 1-1 Total foods and organic foods consumer sales and penetration, 1997-2005. ..............15 3-1 Conjoint questions and percentage of panelists who selected each choice. (Day 1) ....38 3-2 Conjoint questions and percentage of panelists who selected each choice. (Day 2) ....40 4-1 Definition of carrot and orange juice variables from logit models. .............................46 5-1 Carrot logit model with factor score. (Model 1)..........................................................53 5-2 Price premium for organic carrot product based on different demographics. X indicates a 1 used for the dummy variables. ...............................................................53 5-3 Orange juice logit model with factor score. (Model 1) ................................................54 5-4 Price premium for organic orange juice product based on different demographics. X indicates a 1 used for the dummy demographic variables. ............................................55

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1 Organic food category share. ............................................................................................15 3-1 Bar graph showing the age breakdown of panelists for both Day 1 and Day 2. ................31 3-2 Bar graph showing income breakdown of panelists from Day 1 and Day 2. ....................31 3-3 Bar graph showing the race/ethnicity breakdown of panelists from Day 1 and Day2. .....32 3-4 Bar graph showing what percent of organics the panelists purchase from Day 1 and Day 2. .................................................................................................................................32 3-5 Bar graph showing what organic products panelists purchase from Day 1 and Day 2. ....33 3-6 Bar graph showing what factors influence decision to buy from Day 1 and Day 2. .........33 3-7 Attribute averages of carrots from Day 1. .........................................................................34 3-8 Averages of attributes for organic carrots split by gender. ................................................34 3-9 Averages of attributes for conventional carrots split by gender. .......................................35 3-10 Averages of carrot attributes for males. .............................................................................35 3-11 Averages of carrot attributes for females. ..........................................................................36 3-12 Attribute averages of orange juice from day 2...................................................................36 3-13 Averages of attributes for organic orange juice split by gender. .......................................37 3-14 Averages of attributes for conventional orange juice split by gender. ..............................37 3-15 Averages of orange juice attributes for males. ...................................................................38 3-16 Averages of orange juice attributes for females ................................................................38 3-17 Bar graph showing frequency of choices picked for each question (Day 1). ....................40 3-18 Bar graph showing frequency of choices picked for each question (Day 2). ....................42

PAGE 9

9 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfi llment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science TASTE TEST OF ORGANIC VERSUS CONVENTIONAL PRODUCTS AND WHAT By Danielle S Thomas May 2009 Chair: Lisa House Major: Food and Resource Economics taste preference for each product. The purpose of this research was to test if there was a taste difference or explicit preference for an organic product versus a conventionally produced product. For this research participants were asked their taste preference for a product and then asked conjoint questions about their willingness to pay. Participants were given either a sample of an organic orange juice and a conventional orange juice or an organic baby carrot and a conventional baby carrot. The participants were then asked to taste each product and rate how much they liked or disliked the overall flavor and other attributes, such as texture, sweetness, etc. Once the participant picked which product they preferred the most they were given conjoin t questions which ask ed what product they would buy based on the characteristics of price and production. They also used their preference for one product or the other to answer the questions. The purpose of this type of test was to determine if participants are purchasing the product based on their preference (taste) or on price or production method. The results of the rating taste test were analyzed using descriptive statistics and an Analysis of Variance. The results of the carrot rating test showed many significant differences between the attributes of the two products.

PAGE 10

10 Overall the Analysis of Variance showed a significant difference between the overall appearance, color, overall flavor and sweetness. When the results were separated between males and females there were very few significant differences between the products attributes. The results of the ranking test showed that there was no overall significant difference between the ferences for the two products. The results of the orange juice test showed very few significant differences between the attributes. Overall the only attribute that had a significant difference between the products was the sweetness; this attribute was also significant when the results were separated into males and females. The results of the questions using conjoint analysis were analyzed using a model that was created with eighteen variables and then from this model the willingness to pay was calculated. For the carrots the largest price premium was $0.79 and the largest discount needed to purchase the product was $0.25. In the model used for the orange juice data the price and whether the product was organic or not were both significant. The significance of the price variable can be attributed to the large price difference between organic and conventional orange juices. The demographic interaction variables were also significant. The price premiums calculated for organic orange juice were much larger and were strongly influenced by the race of the consumer. The largest price premium was $1.15 and the largest discount rate was $1.56. The implications for this research show that it is possible to test willingness to pay using a taste test. It adds an extra attribute that participants will take into consideration when they are choosing which product to purchase, which is not often found in

PAGE 11

11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Organic Demand The demand for the organic food market is expanding rapidly. Zepeda and Li (2007) found the demand for organic food products is growing at a rate of 10-20% annually while the demand for conventional food products only grows at a rate of 2-4% annually. The organic food industry represents 2.5% of total U.S. food sales, totaling $14.6 billion in 2005 (Heiman and Peterson 2008). With many large food companies such as Tyson and General Mills now producing organic products, more than two-thirds of U.S. households buy some organic products. The certified organic production is increasing at an average of 11% from 3,587 farms in 1992 to 8, 035 farms in 2003 (Heiman and Peterson 2008). Table 1-1 shows the growth of organic products and its penetration into the market. organic market (Dettmann 2008). Many consumers purchase organic produce before widening their purchases to include other organic products. Figure 1-1 shows what percentage of organic food categories the consumers purchase from. Almost 40% of consumers choose to purchase organic fruits and vegetables. For this study organic carrots and organic orange juice were used. The products were chosen based on the data which shows almost 40% of consumers choose to purchase organic fruits and vegetables. The growth in the demand for organic foods can be attributed to many different factors. food products to fit into their new lifestyle choice. Organic foods are perceived by the consumer to be healthier

PAGE 12

12 for them and for the environment. Since organic foods lack any pesticides the average consumer believes they are healthier. They are also healthier for the environment because the soil and water runoff from these plants does not contain any of the inorganic matter that is used to grow conventional products. Recent food scares and the growing introduction of genetically modified organisms into the food supply have also aided in the increase in demand for organic products. It is not required to labe for organic foods will require the supply of organic foods to grow. Understanding the types of consumers who purchase organic produce is extremely important to producers, processors and retailers. Problem Objective The decision to purchase a product while shopping. The factors will be determined using both a taste test and conjoint analysis including price information. The specific objectives of this study are To determine any sensory differences between an organic product and a conventional product, through the use of a taste test. To determine the panelists preference for one product over another. To determine the influence of both taste and price on the consumers willingness to pay for the organic product. To achieve these objectives, consumers will be surveyed usin g a sensory evaluation where they will be asked to taste an organic product and a conventional product. While tasting they will be asked to rate five characteristics about the products: overall appearance, color, overall flavor, texture or mouthfeel and sweetness. The results of these questions will explain whether the panelists found the organic product or the conventional product to appear or taste better. The

PAGE 13

13 second part of the taste test requires the panelists to choose which product they prefer more than the other. The survey will then ask the panelists why they choose to purchase organic products and what food categories they purchase organic foods from. These responses will verify the results from the literature about why consumers choose to purchase organic foods. To determine how organic food, conjoint analysis will be used. The panelists will be asked which of the two products they would purchase based on the taste or their preference, the price and whether it is produced organically or conventionally. The results of this test will show what has more of an influence on the decision to purchase, price, taste or how the product is produced. Testable hypotheses From the stated objectives hypotheses can be determined. In determining the sensory differences between the products, there will be no significant differences between the attributes of the products. The preferences for the products will have a fifty-fifty split with no significant difference between the products the panelists choose. The price of the product will have more of an influence on the decision to purchase than the taste or how the product was produced, either conventionally or organically. Thesis Outline Chapter 1 introduced the current problems in the organic food market. It discussed why the producers need to be more knowledgeable about the consumers purchasing their products. Chapter 2 begins with more information about the growing demand for organic foods. Chapter 2 also explains previous studies that have used sensory analysis to show the taste differences between organic and conventional products. Other studies explain how the use of contingent pay can be found. Chapter 2

PAGE 14

14 goes on to explain studies done using conjoint analysis as an effective way of finding the Chapter 3 begins by explaining the science behind sensory analysis. Chapter 3 then goes on to discuss the data collection process. How the data was collected and what the panelists were required to do during the testing process is explained in this section. The summary results of the data collected are also shown in Chapter 3. Demographic results and organic buying behavior results are first explained. The results of the taste test are also laid out in Chapter 3. Chapter 3 shows the significant differences between the products. Chapter 3 concludes with summary results from the questions using conjoint analysis. Chapters 4 and 5 explain the theory behind conjoint utility theory and the theory behind logit models. After explaining logit models, the specified logit model for this study is explained. Each variable used in the model is explained, followed by analysis of the results from the logit model. Chapter 6 draws conclusions about the results and analysis. Chapter 6 also summarizes the testable hypotheses and the results of these hypotheses. Finally, Chapter 6 explains any limitations to this study.

PAGE 15

15 Table 1-1. Total foods and organic foods consumer sales and penetration, 1997-2005. Organ ic f ood ($ Mil) Organic food g rowth Total food s ales ($ Mil) Organic p enetration 1997 $3,594 N a $443,790 0.81% 1998 $4,286 19.20% $454,140 0.9 4% 1999 $5,039 17.60% $474,790 1.06% 2000 $6,100 21.00% $498,380 1.22% 2001 $7,360 20.70% $521,830 1.41% 2002 $8,635 17.30% $530,612 1.63% 2003 $10,381 20.20% $535,406 1.94% 2004 $11,902 14.60% $544,141 2.19% 2005 $13,831 16.20% $566,79 1 2.48% Adapted from Nutrition Business Journal annual Nutrition Business Journal surveys of manufacturers, SPINS, and other sources. Figure 1-1. Organic food category s anufacturer Survey. Category and growth estimates derived from survey responses, Nutrition Business organic industry model, SPINS retail data, and other sources.

PAGE 16

16 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Demand for Organic Products The demand for organic foods has increased dramatically in the last twenty years. Some about the environment, health, genetically modified foods and the recent series of highly publicize consumer survey with probit and ordered probit models to determine who is buying organic food recaution Adoption Process. This process "offers insights into how individuals make behavior changes" (Zepeda and Li 2007 p. 19). The process uses five stages to show what an individual goes through before actually changing their behavior. The five stages for the model are information or awareness (the consumer needs to be aware of organic foods), personal connection (the consumer must perceive a need for the product), intention to act, opportunity to act and act on the preference. Zepeda and Li chose to drop the second stage and focus only on personal benefits and costs of changing behavior. From their data they found significant demographic significant characteristics were religious affiliation, education level and age Lack of religious affiliation, higher levels of education and younger age respondents were more likely to buy organic products. However, Rodriguez, Lacaze and Lupin, 2007, found the opposite. In their study, quality than con (Rodriguez, Lacaze and Lupin 2007 p. 191). Those consumers who felt personal health and family health were the most important issue were 7% less likely to

PAGE 17

17 purchase organic products. Those interested in convenience also typically did not buy organic products. Surprisingly, economic variables such as income or amount of food expenditures had no affect on purchasing organic products. The conclusions of this study indicate that there is less interest in purchasing organic products because it is not as readily available to purchase as conventional foods. The increasing availability of organic foods in conventional shopping venues will likely increase the consumption of these products. Some who purchase organic products do so because of a perceived higher quality and taste. Lester, Manthey and Buslig, 2007 led a study that researched the differences between organic and conventionally grown whole grapefruit and juice. They compared the production inputs, market quality, consumer acceptance and human health-bioactive compounds. In this study Lester, Manthey and Buslig grew the grapefruits so that there would be no doubts about how they were produced. The purpose of this study was to determine if there would be a sensory difference due to the different production methods. The study found that the organic grapefruit had a thinner rind and was considered to be a better quality whole fruit compared to the conventional fruit. However, they also tested the juice from each fruit and found that the juice from the conventional fruit was less bitter and tart. Consumers accepted this juice over the juice from the organic fruit. The study used a group of untrained panelists to taste test the juice. The juice was graded on sweetness intensity, tartness, and overall acceptability. The observations of the whole uction Another test of quality was done at the University of Alberta. This study also controlled

PAGE 18

18 the size and the determinants of the price premium a sample of consumers are willing to pay for and untrained panelists. Boxall, et al. also used a contingent valuation method to determine the These two studies combined show that sensory variables can play a significant role in senso ry test in the Boxall et al. study, the consumers were asked if they would be willing to pay some amount more for the organic bread over the conventional product. The results of the study found that increasing prices reduced the probability that the consumer will purchase the organic bread. The average price the respondents were willing to pay was $1.50. This question provides evidence of what the consumer is willing to pay for the product. Findings have shown that contingent (Boxall, et al. 2007). Rodriguez, Lacaze and Lupin, found that quality are more accurate willingness to pay predictors than other demographic characteristics such as age or gender. This study found that for organic, leafy vegetables consumers would be willing to pay more for the product if available. A difficulty of performing this type of test in Argentina is their small organic food supply. Of the organic food grown in this country, 94% is exported (Rodriguez, Lacaze, Lupin 2007, p. 188). This study also found that for most products consumers were willing to pay a premium for the organic product for health issues. There is more confidence in the la inability to regulate fresh food production. Consumers believe that organic food will be more

PAGE 19

19 regulated since Argentina was one of the first Developing Countries to have a national regulation for organic foods (Rodriguez, Lacaze, Lupin 2007 p. 188). Conjoint Analysis Research as conjoint analysis. A study by Wang and Sun used conjoint analysis to determine the consumer preference and demand for organic food in Vermont. The major purpose of their study was to needed for the organic food industry to expand it and Sun 2003 p. 2). Conjoint analysis was used to assess attributes and the relative importance of each attribute. This study chose to investigate the ss to pay for organic apples and organic milk because they are the most used extensively in marketing research to estimate the impact of selected product or service characteristics on customer preference They conducted a mail survey which included four major sections: general questions about the purchasing behavior of organic foods; a conjoint valuation of apple profiles, a conjoint valuation of milk profiles, and a section on the opinions about the organic food industry and demographic information about the the average ratings between the people who have purchased organic food and people who have not purchased any organic food. The results from the conjoint analysis also showed that price for apple consumers and production method and certification for milk consumers. organic products based on certain attributes. However, they collected their data in a mail survey

PAGE 20

20 which implies that the consumer may have never tasted the product before. The purpose of this

PAGE 21

21 CHAPTER 3 DATA Introduction This chapter introduces the purpose of sensory evaluation and its relevance to this study. The chapter goes on to explain the method of data collection. The chapter also reports the summary statistic results from the demographic data, the taste test and the paired comparison test. The chapter ends by explaining how the conjoint analysis was done and the summary results of the questions asked in the survey. Science of Sensory Evaluation Sensory evaluation has been conducted for centuries. The methods developed serve economic interests; the results of the tests can determine the worth of a commodity or even its acceptabil alternative courses to select the one that optimizes value Carr 2007). Using humans in sensory analysis is necessary because there is no machine that can accurately predict how a consumer will perceive the product in the store. Only human sensory data can provide the best model for how consumers may perceive and react to food products in real life. Sensory evaluation used to evoke measure, analyze, and interpret those responses to products as perceived through The uses of sensory evaluation are used as a set of techniques to accurately measure the human responses to foods and to minimize the biasing effects of brand identity and other information that may influence the perception of the product. Sensory tests are most commonly used for product development and improvement. They can also be used in cost cutting, quality control, and processing or packaging concerns. Before a

PAGE 22

22 company can make any advertising claims about their products they must first test it and analyze the results. The three main types of sensory testing are discrimination tests (are the products different), hedonic (l ikeability or preference of the products), and descriptive (quantifying specific characteristics of the products). Before determining what type of test should be used it is necessary to determine the project and test objectives. In this study the objective was to determine both the likeability and the preference for the products. This type of test uses untrained panelists to collect the data. The results of the sensory test should reflect the opinions and perceptions of consumers who might buy the product in the general population. Data Collection Process Sensory evaluation surveys were conducted with 200 people over a two-day period. The surveys averaged fifteen minutes in length, with panelists answering questions about the taste characteristics and willingness to pay for carrots or orange juice. The survey was pre-tested prior to data collection. The majority of the questions for this survey were formed using examples from previous research. Many of the demographic questions and response choices were taken from the U.S. Census to ensure the proper descriptors were used in the responses. Questions on the organic buying behavior of the respondents were based on previous research about organic product consumption. Conjoint analysis questions were developed. The survey instrument is shown in Appendix A. The survey was conducted at the University of Florida Sensory Lab. The survey begins with a standard introduction of the research to the panelist. Following the introduction the panelists are asked a series of demographic questions and questions about the panelists purchasing behavior of organic products. A set of questions about the taste characteristics of the

PAGE 23

23 on. The final section of the survey was a series of questions using conjoint analysis. The sensory evaluation was conducted on November 6 th and November 7 th 2008. On the first day of the survey, respondents were presented with an organic baby carrot and a conventional baby carrot; each carrot was labeled with a random 3-digit code. The samples are labeled with a 3-digit random number so that the panelists do not form judgments based the labels but rather on their sensory experiences. Panelists were asked to rate the samples based on five different characteristics: overall appearance, color, overall flavor, texture, and sweetness using a 9-point hedonic scale ranging from dislike extremely (1) to like extremely (9). A paired one product over the other. The panelist was forced to choose which product they preferred after tasting them one final time. On the second day, orange juices were test ed with each panelist receiving a sample of organic orange juice and a sample of conventional orange (Simply Orange) juice. The panelists were asked to rate the samples on five different characteristics: overall appearance, color, overall flavor, mouthfeel, and sweetness using the same 9-point hedonic scale as in the carrot test. Once the panelists were finished rating the characteristics, they were asked to rank the samples from most preferred to least preferred. The last series of questions answered by panelists were questions about their willingness to pay for the products. The questions used conjoint analysis and preference, production method and price were used as the categories for purchasing decisions. For the carrot test the panelists answered nine questions asking which product the panelists would be willing to purchase based on the three characteristics. The prices were chosen based on the actual prices of the products in

PAGE 24

24 the stores. There were eleven conjoint analysis questions for the orange juice test. The prices were chosen the same way as for the carrot test. There were more conjoint questions for the orange juice survey because the price difference between the organic and conventional products was much bigger than the price difference between the organic and conventional carrots. The significant price difference between the products made it necessary to have more price options for each question and therefore more questions were needed. An example of the conjoint orange juice with the following properties, which would would be listed as sample 270, conventional, $2.94 or sample 978, $2.94 or neither. For every question the panelists were given the option to purchase neither of the choices. The properties of each option were placed using a statistical computer program that randomly ordered the characteristics by price and production method. The questions using conjoint analysis can be seen in Appendix B. Data Demographic profile of panelists For the carrot test conducted on day one, there were 100 panelists, of which 54% (n=54) were male and 46% (n=46) were female. This compares to the average University of Florida population, which contains 54% females and the U.S. general population, which contains 51% females. Of these 100 panelists, 84% (n=84) were under the age of 30. This differed slightly by gender, with 20% males (n=11) over age 30 compared to 11% females (n=5). Figure 3-1 shows the total age breakdown of the panelists. Over 60% of the panelists had an income of less than $20,000 a year (Figure 3-2). The majority of the sample was white, non-Hispanic (54%,n =54) followed by 19% who identified themselves as white, Hispanic and 19% who identified themselves as black, Hispanic (Figure 33)

PAGE 25

25 On the second day of testing 99 panelist s completed the survey (one participant withdrew before the end of the survey).The gender of the panelists was 57.5% male (n=57) and 42.4% female (m=42), very similar to the results from day one (Table X). Of the 99 panelists, 84.8% (n=84) were under the age of 30. For males, 19.2% (n=11) were over 30 and 9.5% (n=4) females were over 30 (Figure 3-1). Over 80% of the panelists had an income of under $20,000 (Figure 32). More than half of the panelists were white, non-Hispanic (53.5%, n=53), 19.2% (n=19) wer e white, Hispanic, 18.1% (n=18) were black, Hispanic (Figure 3-3). Organic purchase behavior Panelists were asked if they currently purchase organic food items, and if so what percentage of their food items purchased are organic. Eighty-two panelists (82%) responded that they purchase at least some organic foods during their trips to the grocery store. More than a third of the panelists (31%) responded that more than 10% of the food they purchase is organic (Figure 3-4). On day two 83.2% of the panelists (n=83) responded that they purchase at least some organic foods during their food shopping and 65.6% of the panelists (n=65) responded that during their trips to the grocery store at least 10% of the food they purchase is organic (Figure X). Panelists who indicated they purchase organic products were then asked to select from a list of product categories to indicate which types of organic foods are purchased (Figure 35) Of the eighty-two panelists who said they do purchase organic foods, 68.3% (n=56) purchased organic fruits and 61.0% (n=50) purchase organic vegetables. Thirty-six (44.0%) of the panelists indicted they purchase organic dairy products, and 37.8% (n=31) purchase some type of organic juice. For meats, processed foods and other products, less than 30% of those that purchased organic foods indicated they selected organic products in these categories. Panelists were asked to identify other organic food products purchased. The majority of other items purchased were

PAGE 26

26 grains, pastas and eggs. For day two, 73.5% (n=61) purchase fruits and 63.8% (n=53) purchase vegetables. More than a third of the panelists chose dairy (42%) and juices (37.3%) as an organic product they purchase. Twenty-one panelists (25.3%) purchase meats and 20.5% (n=17) purchase processed foods. Eight of the panelists chose (8.6%) other and wrote in that they purchase items such as oats, herbs and nuts. Next, panelists who purchased organic products were asked why they purchase organic products by selecting from a list of nine factors that might influence their decisions to purchase organic products (Figure 3-6). The list included: taste, the use of fewer pesticides, more nutritious, cost, to support local farmers, the emergence of Genetically Modified products, recent food scares, food safety and other reasons. On day one more than 50% of the panelists indicated they purchase organic products for the taste (57.3%) and reduced use of pesticides (51.2%). The next reasons most selected were because organic products are more nutritious (39.0%), cost (37.8%) and food safety (33.0%). Nearly one quarter (24.4%, n=20) of the panelists chose the support of local farmers as at least one reason they choose to purchase organic products. Less than 14% of the panelists chose the emergence of Genetica ll y Modified products (13.4%), recent food scares (9.6%) and other (3.7%) as reasons for purchasing organic products. Of the three panelists (3.7%) who chose other as a factor that influences their decision to purchase, one of the panelists responded they purchase due to a training on organic foods, another purchases because they have a small child and the third purchases because of the nutrients and ingredients. The results of day two were similar to day one. On day two, more than 45% of the panelist who chose to purchase organic products chose taste (59.0%), less use of pesticides (48.2%), and more nutritious (48.2%) as factors that influence their decisions to purchase. Of the panelists who do purchase organic products, 38.6% (n=32) chose cost as a reason they choose to purchase organic

PAGE 27

27 products. Twenty-one of the panelists (25.3%) chose that food safety is one of the factors that influence their decisions to purchase. Less than 10% chose the emergence of Genetically Modified products (6.02%), the recent food scares (4.8%) and other (4.8%) as factors that influence their decision to purchase organic products. Those who chose other listed having a small child, the use of antibiotics in non-organic products, and health reasons as factors that influence their decision to purchase organic products. Sensory test results Carrots The third section of the survey contained the questions on the taste test of carrots or orange juice. The average overall appearance for the organic carrot was 7.13. The average overall appearance for the conventional carrot was 6.73 (statistically significant difference at the 95% confidence level). Interestingly, there were significant differences by gender when rating appearance of the organic carrots versus the conventional carrots. The average rating by males for overall appearance was 6.9 compared to 7.4 for females. Average ratings by males for the conventional carrot was 6.8 (not statistically different from the organic ratings), but for the females the average for the conventional carrot decreased to 6.7 (statistically significant difference. Figures 3-7 through 3-11 show the averages for this attribute. The average color rating for the organic carrot was 7.35 and for the conventional carrot the average color was 7.14 (statistically significant difference at the 95% confidence level). There was no significant difference between the products by gender (Figures 3-7 through 3-11) The average overall flavor for the organic carrot was 7.1 and for the conventional carrot it was 6.6 (significant difference at the 95% confidence level, Figure 3-7). For males, the average overall flavor was 7.1 for the organic carrot and 6.5 for the conventional carrot (a statistically

PAGE 28

28 significant difference). Females rated the average overall flavor a 7.1 for the organic carrot and 6.8 for the conventional carrot; there was no significant difference between the products (3-8 through 3-11). Average texture for the organic and conventional carrot was 6.9 and 6.5, respectively (Figure 3-7). There was no statistically significant difference between the products or by gender. Average sweetness for the organic and conventional carrots was 6.9 and 6.5, respectively (statistically significant difference). There were statistically significant different preferences for males, but not females, with males rating the average sweetness 7.1 for the organic carrot and 6.2 for the conventional carrot and females rating the average sweetness 6.7 and 6.8 for the organic and conventional carrot, respectively (Figures 3-7 through 3-11). The average total ratings of the products were also calculated. The total average rating by the panelists for the organic product was 35.41 out of a total 45 score. The maximum rating for the organic product was a 45 and the minimum was a 17. For the conventional carrots the average rating by the panelists was 33.82. The maximum rating of the conventional carrot was a 44 and the minimum was 17. When the panelists finished rating the five attributes of the carrots they were asked to choose which of the two samples they preferred the most. Forty-seven of the panelists (47%) chose the organic carrot as the most preferred and fifty-three panelists (53%) chose the conventional carrot as the most preferred. These results show no significant difference between the products. There was also no difference in overall preference by gender, with 52% (n=28) of males rating the conventional carrot as preferred compared to 48% (n=26) for the organic carrot. Twenty-five (54%) females preferred the conventional carrot and 21 (46%) preferred the organic carrot.

PAGE 29

29 Orange juice On day two, the third section of the test also asked the panelists to taste the products and rate the listed attributes. The average overall appearance of the organic and the conventional orange juice was 7.09 and 7.11, respectively (no statistically significant difference). There were no significant differences between the products by gender (Figures 3-12 through 3-16). Average color for the organic orange juice was rated a 7.35 overall and the conventional was rated a 7.27 (no statistically significant difference).There was no significant difference between the products by gender (Figures 3-12 through 3-16). Average overall flavor of the organic and the conventional orange juice was rated a 6.65 an d a 7.05, respectively (no statistically significant difference). There was no statistically significant difference between the products by gender. (Figures 3-12 through 3-16). Mouthfeel was the next characteristic rated; this attribute is used for liquids in lieu of texture. The average mouthfeel was rated a 6.72 by all panelists for the organic orange juice and a 6.57 for the conventional orange juice. From the overall data and from the results of the data separated into male and female there were no significant differences between the products mouthfeel (Figures 3-12 through 3-16). Average sweetness for the organic and conventional orange juice was 6.59 and 7.19, respectively (there was a statistically significant difference). The males rated th e organic orange juice a 6.55 and the conventional a 7.13 (statistically significant). The females rated the organic orange juice a 6.64 and the conventional orange juice a 7.26 (no statistical significance; Figures 3-12 through 3-16). For the orange juices the average total ratings were also calculated for each panelist. The total average rating for the organic orange juice was 34.4 out of a possible 45. The maximum average rating was 43 and the minimum average rating was 21. The results of the average ratings

PAGE 30

30 for the conventional orange juice were 35.19 for total rating by panelists. The maximum rating was 45 and the minimum rating was 19. At the end of the survey the panelists were finally asked to choose which product they preferred most over the other. Fifty-eight of the panelists (58.5%) preferred the conventional orange juice and forty-one (41.4%) of the panelists preferred the organic orange juice (no statistically significance). There was no significant difference between the genders, 54.4% of males (n=31) preferred the conventional orange juice to the organic orange juice and 62% of the females preferred the conventional orange juice over the organic orange juice. Summary results of conjoint analysis questions In the conjoint analysis section, panelists were presented with choices between two preference. For each question from day one the first choice was the organic sample. The differences between each questions first choice were the production method and the price. The second choice for each question listed the conventional sample listed along with varying prices and different production methods. For question one over half of the panelists said they would purchase choice two (n=58). More than a third of the panelists chose option one (n=36). The results of the orange juice conjoint questions show the frequency of panelists who chose each option for each question. For the first choice of each question the organic sample was listed. For the second choice the conventional sample was listed. In this model the frequency of panelists who chose to purchase neither product was much higher. For questions one, eight, nine and ten more than 25% of the panelists chose to purchase neither product (n=36, n=31, n=42, n=27) respectively.

PAGE 31

31 Figure 3-1. Bar graph showing the age breakdown of panelists for both Day 1 and Day 2. Figure 3-2. Bar graph showing income breakdown of panelists from Day 1 and Day 2.

PAGE 32

32 Figure 3-3. Bar graph showing the race/ethnicity breakdown of panelists from Day 1 and Day2. Figure 3-4. Bar graph showing what percent of organics the panelists purchase from Day 1 and Day 2.

PAGE 33

33 Figure 3-5. Bar graph showing what organic products panelists purchase from Day 1 and Day 2. Figure 3-6. Bar graph showing what factors influence decision to buy from Day 1 and Day 2.

PAGE 34

34 Figure 3-7. Attribute averages of carrots from Day 1. indicates significance at 95% Figure 3-8. Averages of attributes for organic carrots split by gender.

PAGE 35

35 Figure 3-9. Averages of attributes for conventional carrots split by gender. Figure 3-10. Averages of carrot attributes for males. indicates significance at 95%

PAGE 36

36 Figure 3-11. Averages of carrot attributes for females. indicates significance at 95% Figure 3-12. Attribute averages of orange juice from day 2. indicates significance at 95%

PAGE 37

37 Figure 3-13. Averages of attributes for organic orange juice split by gender. Figure 3-14. Averages of attributes for conventional orange juice split by gender.

PAGE 38

38 Figure 3-15. Averages of orange juice attributes for males. indicates significance at 95% Figure 3-16. Averages of orange juice attributes for females Table 3-1. Conjoint questions and percentage of panelists who selected each choice. (Day 1) Sample Production method given in q uestion Price Choice Question 1 311 (organic) 890 (conventional) Neither Organic Conventional $2.29 $1.69 36% 58% 6%

PAGE 39

39 Table 3-1. Continued. Sample Production method given in q uestion Price Choice Question 2 311 (organic) 890 (conventional) Neither Organic Organic $1.99 $1.69 61% 33% 6% Question 3 311 (organic) 890 (conventional) Neither Organic Organic $1.69 $1.99 56% 36% 8% Question 4 311 (organic) 890 (conv entional) Neither Organic Conventional $1.69 $1.99 45% 51% 5% Question 5 311 (organic) 890 (conventional) Neither Organic Organic $1.39 $2.29 50% 40% 10% Question 6 311 (organic) 890 (conventional) Neither Conventional Organic $2.29 $1.39 51% 40% 9% Question 7 311 (organic) 890 (conventional) Neither Conventional Conventional $1.99 $2.29 48% 36% 16% Question 8 311 (organic) 890 (conventional) Neither Conventional Organic $1.69 $1.69 49% 46% 5% Question 9 311 (organic) 8 90 (conventional) Neither Conventional Conventional $1.39 $1.99 51% 36% 9%

PAGE 40

40 Figure 3-17. Bar graph showing frequency of choices picked for each question (Day 1). Table 3-2. Conjoint questions and percentage of panelists who selected each choice. (Day 2) Sample Prod uction method given in q uestion Price Choice Question 1 978 (organic) 270 (conventional) Neither Organic Conventional $6.34 $6.34 31% 33% 36% Question 2 978 (organic) 270 (conventional) Neither Organic Organic $5.49 $2.94 44% 46% 10% Question 3 978 (organic) 270 (conventional) Neither Organic Conventional $5.49 $3.49 39% 47% 14% Question 4 978 (organic) 270 (conventional) Neither Organic Conventional $4.04 $2.94 37% 57% 6%

PAGE 41

41 Table 3-3. Continued. Sampl e Production m etho d given in q uestion Price Choice Question 5 978 (organic) 270 (conventional) Neither Organic Organic $3.49 $4.04 48% 36% 16% Question 6 978 (organic) 270 (conventional) Neither Organic Organic $2.94 $5.49 48% 37% 15% Questi on 7 978 (organic) 270 (conventional) Neither Conventional Organic $6.34 $3.49 46% 42% 12% Question 8 978 (organic) 270 (conventional) Neither Conventional Conventional $5.49 $4.04 31% 38% 31% Question 9 978 (organic) 270 (conventional) Nei ther Conventional Organic $4.04 $6.34 34% 24% 42% Question 10 978 (organic) 270 (conventional) Neither Conventional Conventional $3.49 $5.49 42% 31% 27% Question 11 978 (organic) 270 (conventional) Neither Conventional Conventional $2.94 $2 .94 45% 51% 4%

PAGE 42

42 Figure 3-18. Bar graph showing frequency of choices picked for each question (Day 2).

PAGE 43

43 CHAPTER 4 THEORETICAL MODEL Conjoint Utility Theory Conjoint analysis is commonly used to measure price effects. Consumers use price as a signal for both quality and also as a monetary constraint on choice. Price effects are measured number of attributes, including price, and collecting some kind of preference data for those product behavior says that the consumer will maximize their utility by allocating a limited budget to alternative products. Conjoint measurement will use the determine if they will purchase a product based on certain attributes including price. In this research a type of paired profiles comparison test was done to determine the utility for purchasing organic products based on the price and the taste of the sample. In a paired profile comparison the participant is given two choices (product profiles) and is asked to decide which of the choices they prefer most. For this survey the participants were also given a third option of neither if they did not prefer either of the first two choices. Random Utility Theory is used to random is used to account for the randomness of consumer and their alternatives. Since the true feelings cannot be measured or observed by researchers, tests like conjoint analysi Logit Model Logistic regression is a model used for predicting the probability of an occurrence of an event. Depending on if the outcomes of the model can be ranked or not gives either an ordered or

PAGE 44

44 non-ordered model. In this survey the model will predict the probability of the participant choosing to purchase either an organic product or a conventional product. These two different outcomes cannot be ranked, making the model for this research a non-ordered Logit model. Model Specification The model created to explain the results of this test includes eighteen variables. The first two variables are price and org. These are the basic variables that show both how much price and how the model also includes many interaction variables. The interaction variables are interacted with either price or production (organic or not). The organic variable i s a dummy variable where one equals organic and zero equals conventional. The other dummy variables included in the model are age (where one equals over 30 and zero equals under 30), gender (one equals male and zero equals male), the race variable white (where one equals white and zero equals not white), and the race variable hisp (where one equals Hispanic and zero equals non-Hispanic). The dependent variable for this model is whether the respondent will choose to purchase the product or not. If y=1 then the respondent will choose to purchase the product and if y=0 the respondent will choose not to purchase. U( A,B)= 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 genderorg+ 8 9 10 11 12 13 ageprice+ (4 -1) 14 15 hi 16 17 18 expendprice U(C)= 0 + 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 genderorg+ 8 9 10 11 12 13 ageprice+ (4 -2) 14 15 16 17 expen 18 expendprice The variables in this model are explained in Table 4.1. The variables orateXorg and crateXorg are the sum of all the organic attributes rated during the taste test for each panelist and

PAGE 45

45 the conventional attributes rated during the taste test, respectively. Each of these variables is interacted with both org and price. The demographic variables are also interacted with org and price. These interactions were used to show what has more influence on the to purchase: the demographics or price or the demographics or if the product is organic or not.

PAGE 46

46 Table 4-1. Definition of carrot and orange juice variables from logit models. (Model 1 and 2) Variable Definition Price Price of product Org If produc t is organic or conventional Orateorg An interaction of the total of all organic attribute ratings times if product is organic or conventional Orateprice An interaction of the total of all organic attribute ratings times price Crateorg An interaction of the total of all conventional attribute ratings times if product is organic or conventional Crateprice An interaction of the total of all conventional attribute ratings times price Genderorg An interaction of gender times if product is organic or conven tional Ageorg An interaction of age times if product is organic or conventional Whiteorg An interaction of if white or not times if product is organic or conventional Hisporg An interaction of if Hispanic or not times if product is organic or convention al Incorg An interaction of if income is below 30,000 or over times if product is organic or conventional Genderprice An interaction of gender times price Ageprice An interaction of age times price Whiteprice An interaction of if white or not times pri ce Hispprice An interaction of is Hispanic or not times price Incprice An interaction of if income is below 30,000 or over times price Expendorg An interaction of amount spent on organic products times if product is organic or conventional Expendprice An interaction of amount spent on organic products times price

PAGE 47

47 CHAPTER 5 EMPIRICAL MODEL Introduction This chapter begins with an analysis of the logit model used to explain the results of this study. The model used includes data from both the sensory test and the questions using conjoint analysis. This chapter explains which variables are significant and which variables have an influence on the intent to purchase a product. Analysis of Model The logit analysis examined the consumers intent to purchase the product based on production method of the actual product tasted, production method identified to respondent (may or may not match actual production method) and price. The study had 100 usable responses for the carrot model and 99 usable responses for the orange juice model. The dependent variable represented whether or not the consumer indicated they would choose the specified product in the conjoint questions of the survey (1 if yes, 0 if no). The model used was the same model for both the carrots and the orange juice data. The only difference between the two models is the sum of the attribute characteristics. For carrots the panelists were asked to rate the overall appearance, color, overall flavor, texture and sweetness. For orange juice the attributes were the same except for texture, instead the panelists were asked to rate mouthfeel. The coefficients of each variable in the model show whether or not the variable rchase). If the parameter is negative, purchase the product. If the parameter is positive then the independent variable will positively influence the dependent variable. Most of the eighteen variables used in this model are interacted with dummy variables. Expenditure is a dummy variable equal to zero if the consumer purchases

PAGE 48

48 indicated they purchase organic products less than 10% of the time and one if they purchase more frequently. Age (equal to 0 if under thirty or one if over thirty), gender (zero if female, one if male),race (white (1) or non-white (0)), ethnicity (zero if non-Hispanic, one if Hispanic), and income (zero if less than $30,000 and one if $30,000 or greater) are other dummy variables. Equation 5This equation uses the coefficients from all of the eighteen variables calculated in the conjoint analysis. The willingness to pay calculated will show whether the consumer who fits the given demographics is willing to pay either a premium for the product or will need a discount to purchase the product. If the consumer is willing to pay a premium for the product the willingness to pay will be positive and show that the consumer is willing to purchase the product at the base price but would also pay more than the base price for it. If the willingness to pay calculated is negative the consumer is not willing to purchase the product unless they are given a discount on the product. The consumer is not willing to purchase the product at the base price given in the store. They would need the product to be on sale a certain amount before they would consider purchasing the product. WTP= 2 3 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 genderprice 13 17 1 4 6 12 13 14 15 16 18 ) (5 -1) Carrots Few variables are significant in the model for carrots. Price, production method and rating of the products tastes were all insignificant in influencing the decision to purchase the product. Only two variables were significant in the model at the 95% confidence level. One was significant at the 90% confidence level. One significant variable was the interaction term between age and price, the other was the interaction between race and price. The coefficient for ageXprice was negative and significant. This can be interpreted as if price is held constant and

PAGE 49

49 the consumer is over thirty, the respondent is less likely to purchase the product. The coefficient for whiteXprice was positive and significant indicating if the consumer is white and the price is held constant, they are more likely to purchase the product. The coefficient for HispanicXprice was negative and significant at the 90% confidence level, indicating if the consumer is Hispanic and the price is held constant they are less likely to purchase the products. The willingness to pay a price premium for the organic carrots was also calculated. The price premium was calculated by using the coefficients from the regression analysisin equation 5-1 and the average ratings of each product.This identifies the willingness to pay (or discount needed) based on different demographics. Holding everything constant except for age allows us to see the influence of age on the base female case. In this case, the discount is $0.15, indicating a female in the older age group with the base characteristics will pay less than a female with the same characteristics in the lower age group.Assuming the age of the panelist is under 30, they are female, they have an income of less than $30,000 they are not white or Hispanic and they spend 10% or less on organic foods, the panelists would be need a $0.16 discount on the base price in order for the panelist to purchase the organic product. If the panelist was a male and all other characteristics were kept the same as above the consumer would need a $0.25 discount on the original price to purchase the product. However, if the panelist is male and over 30, all other factors remaining the same, the consumer would be willing to pay a $0.07 price premium for the product. This indicates that holding all other things constant, a male over the age of 30 will pay $0.32 more for the organic product than a male under the age of 30.

PAGE 50

50 Another variable that was significant was race. When the base is changed from nonWhite to White the premium they need a t$0.10 discount in order to purchase the organic product. The largest price premium a consumer would be willing to pay would be if the consumer was male, over 30, had an income of less than $30,000 was white, Hispanic and spent more than 10% on organic products during shopping trips. If the consumer fit these characteristics the results show that they would be willing to pay a $0.69 over the base price to purchase the organic product. If the consumer is a male, under 30, with an income of less than $30,000, white and spends 10% or less on organic products they would need a $0.19 discount on the product to purchase. If the consumer is female and the previous factors remain the same as above then the consumer would need a $0.10 discount on the product to purchase it. Orange juice The results of the model using the orange juice are very different than that of the carrots. In this case, the price and production methods are both significant at the 95% confidence level. The price variable is negative, indicating that as price increases, likelihood to purchase the product decreases. This is the expected relationship for price. The variable representing production method is positive, indicating that if the product is organic, the consumer is more willing to purchase the product. The rating from the taste test was also significant at the 95% confidence level when interacted with price and at the 90% level when interacted with production method. The variable orateXprice (the interaction term of the sum of the organic attribute ratings and price) was significant and positive indicating that as the ratings of the attributes increase (the respondent likes the product better) and the price is constant, the respondent is more likely to indicate a

PAGE 51

51 willingness to purchase the orange juice. The variable orateXprice was positive. This can be interpreted as the ratings of the attributes increase and the price remains constant this variable The variable whiteXorg has a negative coefficient; if the product is organic and the consumer is white this variable will The HispXorg variable also has a negative coefficient; if the consumer is Hispanic and the product is organic this variable will also have a negative effect on the cons The variable incXorg shows the interaction between income and an organic product; the coefficient is positive. If the income is over $30,000 and if the product is organic the consumer will be more willing to purchase the product. The variable ageXprice has a positive coefficient; if th e consumer is over thirty and as price is held constant the decision to purchase will increase. The coefficient of the variable whiteXprice is positive also; if the consumer is white and the price is kept constant the consumer will be more willing to choose the product. The final significant variable in this model is the variable incXprice. The coefficient of this variable is negative; as price is held constant and ome is more than $30,000 there will be a negative price premium was calculated using equation 5-1 and the coefficients from the logit model (4-1). The results from the willingness to pay equation show the price premium that the consumer is demographics they may require a discount of the base price on the organic product in order for them to purchase it. The coefficients from table 5-3 were used in equation 5-1 to calculate the price premiums. Using the coefficients and the average hedonic ratings of each product the

PAGE 52

52 willingness to pay price premium can be calculated based on different demographics. Assuming the age of the panelist is under 30, they are female, they have an income of less than $30,000 they are not white or Hispanic and they spend 10% or less on organic foods, the panelists would be willing to pay $0.94 extra for the organic product. If the panelist was a male and all other characteristics were kept the same as above the consumer would be willing to pay a $1.15 price premium for the organic orange juice and if the panelist is male and over 30, all other factors remaining the same, the consumer would be willing to pay a $0.86 price premium for the product. The orange juice results also show some demographics that would need a discount on the organic product to purchase it. If the consumer is female, over 30, white-Hispanic with an income of less than $30,000 and spends 10% or less on organic products they would not be willing to purchase the organic product unless the original price was discounted $1.56.

PAGE 53

53 Table 5-1. Carrot logit model with factor score. (Model 1) Variable Coefficient Standard Error b/std.er. p value PRICE 0.6209 0.5943 1.045 0.2961 ORG 0.3339 0.7935 0.421 0.6738 ORATEORG 0.0271 0.0254 1.068 0.2855 ORATEPRICE 0.01633 0.0186 0.878 0.3802 CRAT EORG 0.0222 0.0224 0.991 0.3218 CRATEPRICE 0.0091 0.0171 0.569 0.5694 GENDERORG 0.07349 0.2147 0.342 0.7322 AGEORG 0.2538 0.3302 0.769 0.442 0 WHITEORG 0.05333 0.2523 0.211 0.8326 HISPORG 0.3174 0.2255 1.407 0.1594 INCOORG 0.04385 0.2386 0.184 0.8241 GENDERPRICE 0.0366 0.1613 0.227 0.8207 AGEPRICE 0.5971* 0.2288 2.61 0 0.009 0 WHITEPRICE 0.5265* 0.1834 2.87 0 0.0041 HISPPRICE 0.2988** 0.1679 1.779 0.0752 INCPRICE 0.1247 0.1789 0.697 0.4859 EXPENDORG 0.1189 0.2748 0.433 0.6652 EXPENDPR ICE 0.2832 0.1945 1.456 0.1454 Note: and ** indicate the variable is statistically significant at the 95% and 90% levels respectively, based on the t-value for OLS. Table 5-2. Price premium for organic carrot product based on different demographics. X indicates a 1 used for the dummy variables. Age=0 if under 30 Gender=0 if female White=0 if not white Hisp=0 if not Hispanic Inc=0 if under $30,000 Expend=0 if 10% or less Price Premium 0.16 x 0.25 x x 0.07 x x x 0.13 x x x x 0 .54 x x x x x 0.69 x x x x x x 0.63 x x 0.19

PAGE 54

54 Table 5-2. Continued. Table 5 3 Orange juice logit model with f actor score. (Model 1) Variable Coefficient Standard Error b/std.er. p value PRICE 0.7568* 0.1608 4.706 0.0000 ORG 2.41 00 0.8031 3.001 0.0027 ORAT EORG 0. 0 339** 0.0199 1.701 0.089 0 ORATEPRICE 0.0129* 0.0039 3.264 0.0011 CRATEORG 0.0179 0.0169 1.052 0.2928 CRATEPRICE 0.0037 0.0034 1.079 0.2805 GENDERORG 0.1352 0.1953 0.692 0.4888 AGEORG 0.1884 0.317 0 0.594 0.5524 WHITEORG 0.8157* 0.2382 3.424 0.0006 HISPORG 0.6298* 0.2209 2.851 0.0044 INCORG 0.69 00 0.3022 2.283 0.0224 GENDERPRICE 0.0659 0.0395 1.669 0.951 0 AGEPRICE 0.1511* 0.0663 2.279 0.0227 WHITEPRICE 0.1224* 0.4712 2.598 0.0094 HISPPRICE 0.036 0 0.442 0 0.814 0.4156 INCPRICE 0.2384* 0.0595 4.006 0.0001 EXPENDORG 0.4304 0.2682 1.604 0.1086 EXPENDPRICE 0.0831 0.0511 1.627 0.1038 Note: and ** indicate the variable is statistically significant at the 95% and 90% levels respectively, based on the t-value for OLS. Age=0 if under 30 Gender=0 if female White=0 if not white Hisp=0 if not Hispanic Inc=0 if under $30,000 Expend=0 if 10% or less Price Premium x x 0.23 x x x 0.25 x x x x x 0.48 x x x 0.63 x x 0.31 x 0.10

PAGE 55

55 Table 5-4. Price premium for organic orange juice product based on different demographics. X indicates a 1 used for the dummy demographic variables. Age=0 if under 30 Gender=0 if female White=0 if not white Hisp=0 if not Hispanic Inc=0 if under $30,000 Expend=0 if 10% or less Price Premium 0.94 x 1.15 x x 0.86 x x x 0.39 x x x x 1.36 x x x x x 0.70 x x x x x x 0.36 x x 0.10 x x 0.60 x x x 1.03 x x x x x 0.30 x x x 1.56 x x 1.28 x 0.31 x x x 0 .47 x 0.02

PAGE 56

56 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION Summary The results from the conjoint analysis show us what factors are important in determining that variable will h The significance of each variable was also calculated. This value explains how important that The results from the carrot model show very few significant variables. The price variable of the carrot model was insignificant. This can be attributed to the price difference between the organic baby carrots and the conventional baby carrots. The price premium for organic baby carrots was $0.30. This difference may not be large enough to have an influence on the insignificant. The significant demographic variables from the carrot model were interacted with price. decision to purchase than the age of the consumer, unless the consumer is less than thirty years the product. As price is held constant and if the consumer is white they will be more willing to purchase the product. However, if the consumer is any other race but white, this variable will have no influence on the dependent variable. The price premiums for the organic carrots were small, but in most cases positive. Most consumers were willing to pay a price premium for the

PAGE 57

57 organic carrot over the conventional carrot. The largest price premium willing to be paid was $0.69. This small price premium may be a result of the actual price difference between organic and conventional carrots. The price difference is usually about $0.50 in the market. The results from the orange juice model showed remarkably different results. There were many more significant variables found in this model. For orange juice, the price variable had a premium for organic orange juice over conventional orange juice is at least $2.00. This large price gap between the two products would explain why the price variable is significant. The demographic variable, white played a large role in determining the price premium for the organic product. The coefficient of the white variable was a large, negative number. This coefficient kept the price premium from being negative when other variables were included. Most of the variable combinations tried that included the white variable the consumer would required a discount on the product to purchase it. Hypothesis Summary The results of this study are used to prove or disprove the previous stated hypotheses. The first hypothesis predicts that there will be no differences between the organic and conventional products. The results of the study show that with the baby carrot products there were many significant differences. Of the five attributes rated by the panelists the only attribute that was not statistically different between the conventional and organic product was the texture. The results of the orange juice sensory test were different with sweetness being the only attribute that differed significantly between the organic and conventional products. This would indicate that the hypothesis is disproved as respondents identified differences in the tastes of the products. However, the second hypothesis stated that there would be no significant preference for one product over the other and the results of both tests allow this hypothesis to be generally accepted.

PAGE 58

58 For both products there was no significant preference for one product or the other, indicating that even though there were taste differences, the consumer did not have an overall preference for one product over the other based on taste attributes. The final hypothesis stated that price would have the largest affe decision to purchase the product. The results from the logit model show that for the data the product. Demographic variables interacted with price do have a significant influence on the consumers decision to purchase, but for these variables, the demographic variable has the greatest influence on the decision to purchase. The results of the orange juice model show that price does have a sig demographics interacted with price and with product method also have a significant influence on othesis can be rejected. However, the results from the orange juice model will allow the hypothesis to be accepted. Study Limitations It is necessary to discuss the limitations of this survey in order to further the research of this topic. The first limitation would be the sample size. A sample size of 100 panelists was appropriate for the taste test results of the survey, but for the conjoint analysis questions it would have been more appropriate to have more respondents. A second limitation is the demographics of the panelists. Since the survey was conducted on a college campus it was difficult to collect panelists older than thirty years of age. A wide range of incomes was also difficult to collect; as most college students have a very small, if any, annual income. It will be difficult to apply the results of this research to the entire population due to the lack of evenly distributed demographics.

PAGE 59

59 Due to time constraints another limitation arose. For the conjoint questions there were originally twelve questions for day one and sixteen questions for day two. However, because the entire survey required the panelists to answer many questions it was decided to randomly select nine questions for day one and eleven questions for day two. Further Research In order to further this research it would be best to test the survey in a supermarket or collect normally distributed results. The demographics of the panelists would be more spread out. Also, it would be easier to catch consumers who are already purchasers of organic products. In addition, if the study wanted to determine why consumers choose not to purchase organic products it would be easier to catch those consumers as well.

PAGE 60

60 APPENDIX A SURVEY INSTRUMENT DAY 1 AND DAY 2 Day One Welcome Today's Sample: Carrots To start the test, click on the Continue button below. Question # 1. Please indicate your gender. Male Female Question # 2. Male: Which of the following ranges includes your age ? Under 18 18-20 21-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-65 Over 65 Question # 3. Female: Which of the following ranges includes your age ? Under 18 18-20

PAGE 61

61 21-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-65 Over 65 Question # 4. Which of the following represents your race? White, non-Hispanic White, Hispanic Black or African-American, non-Hispanic Black or African-American, Hispanic Native American or Alaska Native Asian Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander Other Question # 5. Which of the following categories describes your total annual income before taxes? Under $24,999 $25,000-$34,999 $35,000-$44,999 $45,000-$54,999 $55,000-$64,999 $65,000-$74,999 $75,000-$84,999 $85,000-$94,999 Over $95,000 Question # 6. On each trip to the grocery store, what percentage of the food you purchase is organic? 0% less than 10% 10%-25% 26%-50%

PAGE 62

62 51%-75% More than 75% Question # 7. What product categories do you purchase from? Please select all that apply. Fruits Vegetables Meats Dairy Processed Foods Juices Other Question # 8. Please specify what other product categories you purchase from. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______ Question # 9. What factors influence your decision to purchase organic products? Please select all that apply. Taste The use of less pesticides More nutritious Cost To support local farmers The emergence of Genetically Modified products The recent food scares Other Question # 10. Please specify what other factors influence your decision to purchase organic products.

PAGE 63

63 ______________________________________________________________________________ ______ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______ Please lift your window to recieve your samples. WHEN ANSWERING ANY QUESTION, MAKE SURE THE NUMBER ON THE CUP MATCHES THE NUMBER ON THE MONITOR. The next three questions will be related to appearance, please don't taste yet. Please click on the 'Continue' button below. Question # 11. Please rate the overall apperance of each sample. Sample <> dislike extremely dislike very much dislike moderatel y dislike slightly neither like nor dislike like slightly like moderatel y like very much like extremely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Sample <> dislike extremely dislike very much dislike moderatel y dislike slightly neither like nor dislike like slightl y like moderatel y like very much like extremely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Question # 12. Please rate the color of each sample. Sample <> dislike extremely dislike very dislike moderatel dislike slightly neither like nor like slightly like moderatel like very much like extremely

PAGE 64

64 much y dislike y 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Sample <> dislike extremely dislike very much dislike moderatel y dislike slight ly neither like nor dislike like slightly like moderatel y like very much like extremely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Question # 13. Please rate the smell of each sample. Sample <> dislike extremely disl ike very much dislike moderatel y dislike slightly neither like nor dislike like slightly like moderatel y like very much like extremely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Sample <> dislike extremely dislike ver y much dislike moderatel y dislike slightly neither like nor dislike like slightly like moderatel y like very much like extremely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Take a bite of cracker and a sip of water to rinse your mouth. Remember to do this before you taste each sample. WHEN ANSWERING ANY QUESTION, MAKE SURE THE NUMBER ON THE CUP MATCHES THE NUMBER ON THE MONITOR. Please click on the 'Continue' button below. Question # 14. Please rate the overall flavor of each sample. Sample <>

PAGE 65

65 dislike extremely dislike very much dislike moderatel y dislike slightly neither like nor dislike like slightly like moderatel y like very much like extremely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Sample <> dislike extremely dislike very much dislike moderatel y dislike slightly neither like nor dislike like slightly like moderatel y like very much like extremely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Question # 15. Please rate the texture of each sample. Sample <> dislike extremely dislike very much dislike moderatel y dislike slightly neither like nor dislike like slightly like moderatel y like very much like extremely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Sample <> dislike extremely dislike very much dislike moderatel y dislike slightly neither like nor dislike like slightly like moderatel y like very much like extremely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Question # 16. Please rate the sweetness of each sample. Sample <> dislike extremely dislike very much dislike moderatel y dislike slightly neither like nor dislike like slightly like moderat el y like very much like extremely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Sample <>

PAGE 66

66 dislike extremely dislike very much dislike moderatel y dislike slightly neither like nor dislike like slightly like moderatel y li ke very much like extremely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Paired Comparison In front of you are two samples. Taste both samples and indicate which sample you prefer. <> <> Day Two Welcome Today's Sample: Orange Juice To start the test, click on the Continue button below. Question # 1. Please indicate your gender. Male Female Question # 2. Male: Which of the following ranges includes your age ? Under 18 18-20 21-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54

PAGE 67

67 55-59 60-65 Over 65 Question # 3. Female: Which of the following ranges includes your age ? Under 18 18-20 21-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-65 Over 65 Question # 4. Which of the following represents your race? White, non-Hispanic White, Hispanic Black or African-American, non-Hispanic Black or African-American, Hispanic Native American or Alaska Native Asian Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander Other Question # 5. Which of the following categories describes your total annual income before taxes? Under $24,999 $25,000-$34,999 $35,000-$44,999 $45,000-$54,999 $55,000-$64,999 $65,000-$74,999 $75,000-$84,999 $85,000-$94,999

PAGE 68

68 Over $95,000 Question # 6. On each trip to the grocery store, what percentage of the food you purchase is organic? 0% less than 10% 10%-25% 26%-50% 51%-75% More than 75% Question # 7. What product categories do you purchase from? Please select all that apply. Fruits Vegetables Meats Dairy Processed F oods Juices Other Question # 8. Please specify what other product categories you purchase from. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______ Question # 9. What factors influence your decision to purchase organic products? Please select all that apply. Taste The use of less pe sticides More nutritious Cost

PAGE 69

69 To support local farmers The emergence of Genetically Modified products The recent food scares Other Question # 10. Please specify what other factors influence your decision to purchase organic products. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______ Please lift your window to recieve your samples. WHEN ANSWERING ANY QUESTION, MAKE SURE THE NUMBER ON THE CUP MATCHES THE NUMBER ON THE MONITOR. The next three questions will be related to appearance, please don't taste yet. Please click on the 'Continue' button below. Question # 11. Please rate the overall apperance of each sample. Sample <> dislike extremely dislike very much dislike moderatel y dislike slightly neither like nor dislike like slightly like moderatel y like very much like extremely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Sample <> dislike extremely dislike very much dislike moderatel y dislike slightly neither like nor dislike like slightly like moderatel y like very m uch like extremely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

PAGE 70

70 Question # 12. Please rate the color of each sample. Sample <> dislike extremely dislike very much dislike moderatel y dislike slightly neither like nor dis like like slightly like moderatel y like very much like extremely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Sample <> dislike extremely dislike very much dislike moderatel y dislike slightly neither like nor dislike l ike slightly like moderatel y like very much like extremely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Question # 13. Please rate the smell of each sample. Sample <> dislike extremely dislike very much dislike moderate l y dislike slightly neither like nor dislike like slightly like moderatel y like very much like extremely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Sample <> dislike extremely dislike very much dislike moderatel y dis like slightly neither like nor dislike like slightly like moderatel y like very much like extremely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Take a bite of cracker and a sip of water to rinse your mouth. Remember to do this before you taste each sample. WHEN ANSWERING ANY QUESTION, MAKE SURE THE NUMBER ON THE CUP MATCHES THE NUMBER ON THE MONITOR.

PAGE 71

71 Please click on the 'Continue' button below. Question # 14. Please rate the overall flavor of each sample. Sample <> dislike extremely dislike very much dislike moderatel y dislike slightly neither like nor dislike like slightly like moderatel y like very much like extremely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Sample <> disl ike extremely dislike very much dislike moderatel y dislike slightly neither like nor dislike like slightly like moderatel y like very much like extremely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Question # 15. Please rate the sweetness of each sample. Sample <> dislike extremely dislike very much dislike moderatel y dislike slightly neither like nor dislike like slightly like moderatel y like very much like extremely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Sample <> dislike extremely dislike very much dislike moderatel y dislike slightly neither like nor dislike like slightly like moderatel y like very much like extremely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

PAGE 72

72 Paired Comparison In front of you are two samples. Taste both samples and indicate which sample you prefer. <> <>

PAGE 73

73 APPENDIX B CONJOINT ANALYSIS QUESTIONS FROM DAY 1 AND DAY 2 Day One Question # 1. If you had the opportunity to purchase a 1-lb bag of baby carrots with the following properties, which would you select? If you would not purchase either product, please select neither. Sample 311, Organic, $2.29 Sample 890, Conventional, $1.69 Neither Question # 2. If you had the opportunity to purchase a 1-lb bag of baby carrots with the following properties, which would you select? If you would not purchase either product, please select neither. Sample 311, Organic, $1.99 Sample 890, Organic, $1.69 Neither Question # 3. If you had the opportunity to purchase a 1-lb bag of baby carrots with the following properties, which would you select? If you would not purchase either product, please select neither. Sample 311, Organic, $1.69 Sample 890, Organic, $1.99 Neither Question # 4. If you had the opportunity to purchase a 1-lb bag of baby carrots with the following properties, which would you select? If you would not purchase either product, please select neither. Sample 311, Organic, $1.69 Sample 890, Conventional, $1.39 Neither Question # 5. If you had the opportunity to purchase a 1-lb bag of baby carrots with the following properties, which would you select? If you would not purchase either product, please select neither. Sample 311, Organic, $1.39 Sample 890, Organic, $2.29 Neither Question # 6.

PAGE 74

74 If you had the opportunity to purchase a 1-lb bag of baby carrots with the following properties, which would you select? If you would not purchase either product, please select neither. Sample 311, Conventional, $2.29 Sample 890, Organic, $1.39 Neither Question # 7. If you had the opportunity to purchase a 1-lb bag of baby carrots with the following properties, which would you select? If you would not purchase either product, please select neither. Sample 311, Conventional, $1.99 Sample 890, Conventional, $2.29 Neither Question # 8. If you had the opportunity to purchase a 1-lb bag of baby carrots with the following properties, which would you select? If you would not purchase either product, please select neither. Sample 311, Conventional, $1.69 Sample 890, Organic, $1.69 Neither Question # 9. If you had the opportunity to purchase a 1-lb bag of baby carrots with the following properties, which would you select? If you would not purchase either product, please select neither. Sample 311, Conventional, $1.39 Sample 890, Conventional, $1.99 Neither Day Two Question # 1. If you had the opportunity to purchase a 1.75 liter (about a 1/2 gallon) of orange juice with the following properties, which would you select? If you would not purchase either product, please select neither. Sample 978, Organic, $6.34 Sample 270, Conventional, $6.34 Neither Question # 2. If you had the opportunity to purchase a 1.75 liter (about a 1/2 gallon) of orange juice with the following properties, which would you select? If you would not purchase either product, please select neither. Sample 978, Organic, $5.49 Sample 270, Organic, $2.94

PAGE 75

75 Neither Question # 3. If you had the opportunity to purchase a 1.75 liter (about a 1/2 gallon) of orange juice with the following properties, which would you select? If you would not purchase either product, please select neither. Sample 978, Organic, $5.49 Sample 270, Conventional, $3.49 Neither Question # 4. If you had the opportunity to purchase a 1.75 liter (about a 1/2 gallon) of orange juice with the following properties, which would you select? If you would not purchase either product, please select neither. Sample 978, Organic, $4.04 Sample 270, Conventional, $2.94 Neither Question # 5. If you had the opportunity to purchase a 1.75 liter (about a 1/2 gallon) of orange juice with the following properties, which would you select? If you would not purchase either product, please select neither. Sample 978, Organic, $3.49 Sample 270, Organic, $4.04 Neither Question # 6. If you had the opportunity to purchase a 1.75 liter (about a 1/2 gallon) of orange juice with the following properties, which would you select? If you would not purchase either product, please select neither. Sample 978, Organic, $2.94 Sample 270, Organic, $5.49 Neither Question # 7. If you had the opportunity to purchase a 1.75 liter (about a 1/2 gallon) of orange juice with the following properties, which would you select? If you would not purchase either product, please select neither. Sample 978, Conventional, $6.34 Sample 270, Organic, $3.49 Neither Question # 8. If you had the opportunity to purchase a 1.75 liter (about a 1/2 gallon) of orange juice with the following properties, which would you select? If you would not purchase either product, please select neither.

PAGE 76

76 Sample 978, Conventional, $5.49 Sample 270, Conventional, $4.04 Neither Question # 9. If you had the opportunity to purchase a 1.75 liter (about a 1/2 gallon) of orange juice with the following properties, which would you select? If you would not purchase either product, please select neither. Sample 978, Conventional, $4.04 Sample 270, Organic, $6.34 Neither Question # 10. If you had the opportunity to purchase a 1.75 liter (about a 1/2 gallon) of orange juice with the following properties, which would you select? If you would not purchase either product, please select neither. Sample 978, Conventional, $3.49 Sample 270, Conventional, $5.49 Neither Question # 11. If you had the opportunity to purchase a 1.75 liter (about a 1/2 gallon) of orange juice with the following properties, which would you select? If you would not purchase either product, please select neither. Sample 978, Conventional, $2.94 Sample 270, Conventional, $2.94 Neither

PAGE 77

77 LIST OF REFERENCES Borooah, V. K. Logit and Probit: Ordered and Multinomial Models. Sage University Papers Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2001. Boxall, P., S. Cash, W. Wismer, V. Muralidharan et. al. University of Alberta, 2007. ventionally Grown Rio Red Whole Grapefruit and Juice: Comparison of Production Inputs, Market Quality, Consumer Acceptance, and Human HealthJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 55, 1(2007): 4474-4480. -29 July 2008. Grebitus, C., C. Yue, M. Bruh, and H. Jensen ns for Organic and Conventional 2007 Gustafsson, A., A. Herrmann and F. Huber. Conjoint Measurement: Methods and Applications Heidelberg: Springer, 2001. ed by Organic Field Crop Review of Agricultural Economics 30, 4(2008): 729-749. Lawless, H. T., and H. Heymann. Sensory Evaluation of Food: Principles and Practices. New York: Springer, 1999. Meilgaard, M.C, G. V. Civille and B. T. Carr. Sensory Evaluation Techniques. New York: Taylor and Francis Group, 2007. IT, 8-10 March 2007. -30 July 2003. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 39,1(2007):17-28.

PAGE 78

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Danielle Thomas was raised in Orlando, Florida and started at the University of Florida in August 2004. She received her Bachelor of Science in food and resource economics with a specialization in agricultural marketing and management. She completed her Master of Science as part of a combined degree program. She received her Master of Science in food and resource economics with a minor in food science.