5.4 Results and discussion
5.4.1 Exploratory factor analysis of attitudes and perceptions
Two factor analyses were performed using the principal component analysis (PCA) with varimax rotational strategies to evaluate (1) consumers’ general attitudes toward food and chicken meat, and (2) consumers’ perceptions and attitudes toward domestic versus imported chicken meat. Before the factor analyses, we performed a series of diagnostic measures to access internal consistency. First, we checked for the inter-item correlation (correlation among items). Based on this, three and four items were respectively, not included in the first and second factor analyses, due to low correlation coefficients, which are below the acceptable threshold of 0.30 (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010). In the end, we included 17 and 22 survey statements in the first and second factor analyses, respectively. All factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 were retained. Since the reliability was measured using Cronbach’s alpha (α) with a critical score of 0.60 (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006), the fifth factor (α = 0.45) in the first factor analysis (not shown in the Table) was excluded from subsequent regression analysis. Tables 5.3 and 5.4 report the Kaiser Meyer Olkin (KMO) values, final items with their respective factor loadings, explained variance, and reliability coefficients.
49
Table 5.3 contains statements regarding consumers’ general attitudes toward food and chicken meat. It includes four factors that explain 52.4% of the error variance. Factor one (food safety concern) comprises four statements that represent safety-consciousness and related behaviors aimed at mitigating different food safety-related risks. The second factor (interest in human health and production standards) is composed of five statements and reflects consumers concerns about health-related issues with regard to meat and food consumption in general.
Factor three (availability and convenience) is made up of three statements concerning attitudes toward the availability of chicken meat as well as the ease of preparing chicken meat compared to other meat types. The fourth factor (price consciousness) emphasizes two statements that are associated with concern about prices such as “price is the most important factor for me when I am shopping.”
Table 5.3: Factor analysis of statements regarding food in general
Items Mean
Factor 1: Food safety concern 15.51 0.81
I am very concerned about the use of antibiotics and hormones in food.
3.97 0.892 I would pay a premium for antibiotic-free and
hormone-free chicken.
4.04 0.917 The safety of meat concerns me a lot. 4.16 0.729 I reject all types of chicken during times of bird flu
disease outbreaks.
4.81 0.510 Factor 2: Interest in human health and production
standards
14.71 0.71
It is good that chicken is available because it is low in fat.
4.09 0.541
I reflect a lot about my health. 4.36 0.811
I take care of what I eat because of health reasons. 4.32 0.769 It is important that animals are well fed, raised, and
healthy.
4.54 0.655 Government should monitor and ensure good animal
husbandry practices and standards in the production and processing of meat.
4.49 0.533
Factor 3: Availability and convenience 12.54 0.72
It is important for me to have chicken available throughout the year at markets/stores close to where I live or work.
3.86 0.732
Chicken is easy to prepare compared to other meats. 3.88 0.780 It is easier to obtain chicken than other meats
(excluding fish).
4.16 0.828
Factor 4: Price consciousness 9.64 0.71
Price is the most important factor for me when I am shopping.
3.68 0.872 It is mainly the price that influences my choice of
chicken.
3.10 0.858 Notes: Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Test for sampling adequacy = 0.716.
Bartlett’s test of sphericity χ2 = 0.000. Only factor loadings with absolute value above 0.50 are presented.
50
Regarding consumers’ perceptions and attitudes toward domestic versus imported chicken meat, six factors emerged, which account for 62.6% of the explained variance (Table 5.4). We label the first factor “convenience of imported chicken” as it emphasizes three statements suggesting that imported chicken is more convenient than domestic chicken. The second factor (domestic chicken safer and healthier) comprises a mix of four items related to perceived safety and healthiness of domestic chicken compared to imported chicken. Factor three (domestic chicken of higher quality) consists of three items that capture respondents’
perceptions that domestic chicken relative to its imported counterpart has better quality, suggesting that it is tastier and fresher. The fourth factor (imported chicken more affordable) includes three items that measure the affordability of domestic and imported chicken. Factor five consists of three statements which make an appeal to consumers to buy foreign food products when domestic products are not available or domestic supply are lower than demand, suggesting an association with “pragmatism”. We refer to this factor as pragmatism because it reflects a practical attitude by the respondents who are not closed to food imports when necessary (Schnettler, Miranda, Lobos, Sepúlveda, & Denegri, 2011). The last factor (ethnocentrism) is composed of three items that reflect consumers’ fear, and a general dislike for foreign food products.
51
Table 5.4: Factor analysis of statements regarding domestic versus imported chicken
Items Mean
Factor 1: Convenience of imported chicken 11.91 0.85
Domestic chicken is difficult to prepare and time-consuming compared to imported chicken.
3.76 0.832 For me, imported chicken is everyday food but not
for special occasions.
3.40 0.846 For special occasions, I would only buy domestic
chicken.
3.64 0.800
Factor 2: Domestic chicken safer and healthier 11.35 0.76
Domestic chicken is completely safe to eat compared to imported chicken.
4.09 0.852 Domestic chicken has no antibiotics, hormones or
additives.
3.92 0.857 Imported chicken has no antibiotics, hormones or
additivesa.
3.63 0.551 I consider domestic chicken to be healthier than
imported chicken.
4.13 0.753
Factor 3: Domestic chicken of higher quality 11.1 0.82
I consider imported chicken to be of less quality than domestic chicken.
4.10 0.803 I prefer domestic chicken because of its good taste
and freshness.
4.45 0.726 For me, imported chicken is not tasty. 3.93 0.825
Factor 4: Imported chicken more affordable 9.55 0.71
Domestic chicken is more expensive than imported chicken.
4.07 0.763 The price of domestic chicken is too high for me 3.20 0.789 Imported chicken is the cheapest meat you can get. 3.71 0.733
Factor 5: Pragmatism 9.49 0.71
Only those food products that are not available in Ghana should be imported.
3.75 0.899 Foreign food products should be imported when
domestic supply cannot meet the demand.
4.41 0.514 Food products that our farmers cannot produce
cheaply should be imported so that they can concentrate on producing other things that make them competitive and improve our food situationa.
3.78 0.861
Factor 6: Ethnocentrism 9.18 0.70
It is good to import foreign food products so that we can get cheaper alternativesa.
2.78 0.655 Ghanaians should not buy foreign food products,
because this hurts Ghanaian business and causes unemployment.
3.16 0.792
Foreign products should be taxed heavily to reduce their entry into Ghana.
3.24 0.792 Notes: Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Test for sampling adequacy = 0.727.
Bartlett’s test of sphericity χ2 = 0.000. Only factor loadings above 0.50 are presented.
a Item is reverse coded (1 = “strongly agree” to 5 = “strongly disagree”).