Consumer Attitudes to
Different Cuts & TyPes of Meat
4.61\t‘ by clANNIN1 FgyiNIDATION OF AGR1CULT1AL ECONOMICS
P.J. BARON JUN 30 1981 R. EAGLE
Department of Agricultural Marketing, University of Newcastle upon Tyne
REPORT NO. 27 CONSUMER ATTITUDES TO
DIFFERENT CUTS & TYPES OF MEAT
P.J. Baron Professor of Agricultural Marketing Department of Agricultural Economics The University College of Wales Aberystwyth
R. Eagle Assistant Consumer Research Manager, Unilever Research Bedford. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was sponsored by the Meat rnd Livestock
Commission. We are very grateful for their generous assistance without which the departments exploration of consumer attitudes would have been very much more limited.
Our panel of housewives must also receive mention. In this survey they were asked to do much more in the way of keeping
records than in the past. As usual, they proved most helpful
and were, indeed, interested in our work. To them we express our sincere thanks.
Both authors left the department of Agricultural Marketing
during the course of this study and before the analytical work
was completed. We would, therefore, like to express our special appreciation and thanks to Miss C. Lowes of the Department of
Agricultural Marketing on whose shoulders has fallen most of the coding of questionnaires and the detailed work of computer analysis. CONTENTS
Page
Introduction
Part I Methodology 6
Chapter I : Questionnaire Design 6
Chapter 2 : Respondent Selection & 18 Questionnaire Design
Part II Attitudes 26
Chapter 3 : Meat Attitude Structure 28
Chapter 4 : National & Regional Attitudes to Meat Cuts 38
Chapter 5 : Variation in Attitudes Among Socio economic and Other 66 Groupings
Chapter 6 : Temporal Variation in Attitudes 76
Part III Consumption 92
Chapter 7 Meat Consumption 94
Conclusions 108
Bibliography 111
Appendix A : Survey Questionnaire
Appendix B : Instructions to Interviewers
Appendix C : Scales Used in Previous Surveys
Appendix D : Factor Structure Matrices for Sub Groups
Appendix E : Weighting Procedures - 4 -
INTRODUCTION
In 1970 the Department investigated the attitudes of North
Eastern housewives to Pork, Beef, Chicken and Lamb (Baron et al.,
1973). This study allowed general conclusions to be made about
the major meat types. For example, Pork is perceived as a rather
greasy and fatty meat whilst Chicken is considered the most tender,
leanest and cheapest. Hughes (1976a) extended this research to
investigate meat's advantages and disadvantages to the housewife,
compared to its main unprocessed competitors in the British diet -
fish, cheese and eggs. He also studied attitudes towards a number
of particular meat cuts, such as lamb chops and rump steak. He discovered the unique position of meat as the main basis of a
meal and revealed differences in scores between the meat and cuts.
In addition he showed that 'housewives' attitudes to certain cuts
were associated with frequency of consumption of these cuts.
In January 1977 the Meat and Livestock Commission provided
funds for further research with four primary objectives in mind:
Firstly, to broaden the study to include consumers from other
regions of the country. This is particularly important since the
separate regions have historically shown different patterns of
meat consumption. Secondly, to investigate attitudes to a larger
selection of cuts. Thirdly, to record consumption in the same
respondents' households. In earlier studies only rough measures
of consumption were made. Fourthly, to relate differences in
consumption to differences in attitude, after allowing for the effect of socio-economic characteristics such as income, family size and composition. A secondary objective was to check for
any seasonal variation in attitudes to the different cuts. This report presents the final results of the two year study. PART I METHODOLOGY CHAPTER I : QUBSTIONNAIRE DESIGN
Attitudes and Their Measurement In planning this research the working definition that attitudes are "pre-dispositions to behave in particular ways" was adopted. Attitudes are seen as mental states held at high or low degrees of consciousness which influence a person's behaviour in relation to some object or event. A favourable attitude to.a product therefore increases the probability that it will be purchased whilst an un- favourable attitude increases the probability that an alternative is bought. It is recognised that consumers can have both favourable and unfavourable opinions about different aspects of any product.
Several characteristics or attributes of a product can determine its overall standing in relation to others on the market. One can, for example, dislike the appearance of a car but appreciate its re- liability and performance. Thus the concept of an 'overall attitude' is an over-simplified formulation. It is consumers' opinions about the different characteristics which must be studies, measured and understood.
Several basic techniques with numerous modifications, have been devised to measure these component opinions (Tuck, 1976). Although the final selection of technique is somewhat arbitrary there are _
important differences between them. Some require more skil7 and
effort from the respondent whilst others provide data ,,hich is
easier and more interesting to analyse. For example, Likert
Scales are laborious when used to study opinions about several
objects over a number of attributes. Similarly it is not
realistic to expect respondents to use a complete ranking
procedures when more than a few objects are being studied.
Bi-polar scales consist of sets of opposing descripin
separated by a number of boxes such as that illustrated below
Good Taste I i I 1 I F-1 Poor Taste
Respondents are asked to rate each product over a number
scales which are presented to represent the attributes often used
when consumers evaluate and compare different but similar products.
They rate one meat by ticking one of the boxes according to the
strength of her agreement with one of the descriptions in the
pair. Neutral feelings require ticks to be placed in the central
box.
Most people find this an easy task and several products can
be studied in a few minutes. The resultant scores are relatively
easy to analyse and facilitate the production of detailed nrofiies
Finally these -attributes scores can readily be reduced by means
of Factor Analysis to represent a product's performance on
smaller number of dimensions or components. Such data reduction
is a means of eliminating scales of similar meaning or doubtful
value and provides descriptive data which is amenable to further
quantitative analysis. Such scales appeared to work well in earlier research by the department and were retained for this study.
It should be noted that published research with non-meat products has produced inconclusive or negative findings concerning the value of .including measures of Attribtite Importance - 8 -
in the prediction of purchasing behaviour. (EG. Bass and Willie 1973.) One probable explanation is that the importance of an
attribute influences consumers' perceptions of, or beliefs about,
the level of that attribute in any product. They may be
especially sensitive to the levels of the important attributes which are found in or absent from a product. One might,
therefore, expect respondents to tick more extreme boxes on important attributes and more central boxes on attributes causing less concern. In addition, a product like meat is bought
frequently thus stimulating the need for variety and may be bought for differing culinary purpose. It is therefore likely
to be difficult to obtain accurate and reliable measures of the general importance of each attribute. Nevertheless, a rating scales was constructed in which respondents were asked to
indicate the importance, to her, of each of the attributes used
in the bi-polar scales (see Appendix A). Scores on the attribution and importance scales can later be used in com-
bination. The rationale behind the bi-polar scales used in this study will now be described.
Bi-polar Scales and the Characteristics of Meat
A researcher can use three basic types of method to aid his identification of the salient attributes of a product. Firstly
he can put direct questions to a sample of consumers. Whilst
simple,this is not too successful since people are usually
unaware of all the factors which influence their behaviour or may find difficulty in putting them into words. Secondly he can A try a variety of less direct, unstructured or partially structured techniques such as word association games, sentence completion games, group discussion depth interviews and the repertory grid.
These techniques stimulate the respondents to reveal attitude
dimensions not voluntarily or easily recoverable by question and
answer. Thirdly the researcher can use a number of structured scaling methods which make use of multi-variate methods to help exclude those which are low in importance or which represent attributes already measured by another and better scale. Factor analysis is the most common multi-variate technique employed. The researcher can apply this form of analysis to the scores of a pilot sample of respondents over a larger number of character-
istics, so reducing the list to a smaller number of uncorrelated dimensions which still contain most of the information. Scales can then be constructed to represent these dimensions.
All three types of procedure were employed as preliminaries to the earlier Newcastle research (see Baron et al 1973 for a
discussion of factor analysis and Hughes, 1976b for unstructured would investigation) and it was not thought likely that repetition produce any major new insight. As an alternative it was decided to critically scrutinise the end product of the research
performed at Newcastle and elsewhere and produce a composite and hopefully improved list of scales. This would, of course, be tested before commencing the full survey.
The list of scales had to be short enough to allow respondents
to rate a dozen meats in a single interview. Table 1 shows the
final selection. Note that these scales refer to, at least, the 'value', 'sensory', 'nutritive', 'convenience' and 'popularity'
aspects of meat. Section 1 Appendix C shows Hughes' (op cit) by Baron et al. scales and Section 2 Appendix C shows those used current (op cit). There are several similarities between the selection and its predecessors.
used in this Scales 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15 and 16 Hughes' study have direct origins in Baron et al's and not use a scale questionnaires. It is surprising that Hughes did above) since this to measure digestibility (Scale 11 in Table 1
is often said to be an important aspect of food. For example 2 it is often claimed to be one of pork's weak points. Scale for was introduced in order to avoid employing several scales - 10 -
TABLE 1
"BI -POLAR SCALES"
Poor value for money [IL] Good value for money
Has a lot of wasteful Has little wasteful fat fat
Poor taste Good taste
A troublesome meat - An easy meat to prepare to prepare
Men, dislike it Men like it
• Low in vitamins r LI High in vitamins
Not especially Especially nourishing nourishing H 1 Would not serve Would serve to to visitors visitors
A tough meat A tender meat
Few ways of serving Many ways of serving
Not very digestible Digestible
Disliked by children Li 1 r- Liked by children
Awkward to cut Easy to cut or carve or carve El Does not make a -r Makes a substantial substantial meal Li Li .meal
expensive meat An expensive meat Li LI Fl Not an
meat Poor as a cold meat H .Good as a cold proteins Low in proteins High in • measurin the quantity, edibility and wastefulness of fat.
It is a reasonable assumption that women will be
influenced by their husband's (or other elder male's) opinions
about a meat. Earlier work showed that meat is often thought
to be an important requirement of a "man's diet". Scale 5 was
introduced in an attempt to measure her beliefs in this respect.
Scales 6 and 17 were introduced for several related reasons.
Firstly, they would appear to be a better formulation of the nourishment dimension measured by Hughes (1976a), Scales 10, 12 and 18. Secondly,Hughes(1976a) found that housewives use phrases like
"full of proteins" to justify their belief that a food is nutritious. Thirdly,the result of research by other organisations has indicated that housewives do give favourable or unfavourable scores to some meats on vitamin and protein scales. Finally, in view of the importance often attached to the value of a healthy diet, it would be interesting to know how much housewives do discriminate between meats; how concerned they are about differ- ences; and whether their judgements are at all accurate.
Scale 8 was introduced as a rough measure of the 'social standing' or popularity of a meat.
Hughes used three scales to measure opinions about the amount of bone, the ease of carving,and the amount of 'cutting', whilst
Baron et al also used a scale to measure 'ease of carving'. The combination of common sense and preparatory work definitely indicates that such a dimension influences consumers' evaluation of meat. The choice of the wording of these scales can, however, be criticised. "Plenty of cutting" is vague whilst "ease of carving" tends to refer exclusively to joints of meat and not to stewing joints or chops. It was felt that the scale "not much bone"/"lot of bone" was also a poor choice. In fact housewives in a pilot study did express more difficulty over this scale than over others especially when rating cuts not having any bone. In - 12 -
an attempt to overcome these difficulties the wording was finally modified to read as on scale 13 "awkward to cut or carve"/"easy to cut or carve".
Scale 14 was considered to be an improved version of
Hughes' scale "makes a poor main meal"/"makes a good main meal". Hughes' scale was again thought to be vague - a meal can be good for several reasons. It is also taking a risk asking people to
admit that they might make poor meals. It is also worth noting
that Hughes (1976b) found that the substantiality of meat was its chief advantage in comparison with milk, fish and eggs.
Some explanation will now be given for the exclusion of
several scales previously used by Hughes and Baron et al. The first of these studies was more relevant since it was concerned
with cuts rather than with categories of meat and will therefore be dealt with first.
His scale 7 ("takes a long time to cook"/"cooks quickly") was found to have a low correlation with the other scales and in any case is largely duplicated by the scale "a troublesome meat to prepare"/"an easy meat to prepare". Baron et al also found that the time required to cook a joint did not 'upset' house- wives to any great extent. Consequently the scale was not considered important enough to warrant inclusion. Hughes' Scale 8 "poor flavour"/"good flavour" was also thought to replicate the "poor taste"/"good taste" scale. Not surprisingly he found scores on flavour and taste to correlate highly. Scale 10 "dry/ "juicy" was considered to be more of a means by which consumers compare different purchases of the same cut or joint,rather than different types of meat. Since people also vary in their pre- ferences for the amount of juice in meat it was not thought a very useful scale. In any case the amount of juice in some meats depends largely upon the manner and ingredients with which it is prepared.
Since Baron et al used a larger number of scales more have been excluded or modified. Not too surprisingly their Scale 4 "not much use for left-overs"/"can easily use up leftovers" correlated with "no waste", "digestible", "no fat" and "makes a good cold meat". The scales "poor as a cold meat"/"good as a cold meat" and "has a lot of wasteful fat"/"has little wasteful fat" were considered sufficient. The latter scales also reduced the need for Baron et al's scales 7, 15, 20 and 22. Their Scale
"thrifty"/"extravagant" was replaced by "poor value for money"/ n good value for money" and "expensive meat"/"not an expensive meat". Scales 8, 19 and 24 were excluded. Baron et al found that all meats were considered very appetising and as such the scale is not sufficiently discriminating. Beef, pork, lamb and chicken also all scored very well on a dull/appetising scale in a recent confidential commercial study.
Baron et al's Scale 9 was an oddity. Firstly it did not distinguish between the three red meats and secondly it was not thought sufficiently evaluative. One cannot assume that
'modernity' is either good or bad. A similar criticism can be directed against Scales 21 and 23. In any case all the popular meat cuts are now available in most supermarkets. Further, since that study was undertaken consumer prejudice against buying meat in a supermarket has probably declined. Moreover, the purpose of this project is to investigate attitudes to meats and not store types or shopping. Finally Scale 11 was incorporated in "few ways of serving"/"many ways of serving". There is more to versatility or culinary knowledge than fancy cooking, and this modified scale has discriminated between meats in other studies.
In summary, 17 scales (Table 1) were selected to represent the attributes housewives use when they assess different cuts or types of meat. These scales were used to investigate attitudes to 12 types and cuts of meat: - 14 -
BACON JOINTS TOPSIDE LEG OF LAMB WHOLE CHICKEN
LEG OF PORK GRILLING STEAK LA/.113 CHOPS
PORK CHOPS STEWING STEAK
MINCE
TINNED CORNED BEEF
BEEFBURGERS
The choice was conditioned by a desire to preserve some comparability with the A.G.B. classification of data currently
being produced for the Meat and Livestock Commission. It was
also essential to ensure that each cut had as nearly as possible a unique identity in the respondents mind. A pilot study using
other processed meats, e.g. pork luncheon meat, showed that
housewives were unsure of the precise meaning.
Beefburgers and tinned corned beef were chosen as two widely used and clearly identified meats. The other ten meats are all
well known and are regularly or occas ionally purchased by the
majority of housewives (see Baron et al Chapter 3).
Attitudes to Food and Cooking
Hughes (1976a) produced a detailed but essentially
qualitative report on housewives' opinions about meat's standing
in relation to its competitors such as fish, milk eggs and cheese.
The predominant message of his paper is that, although expensive,
meat and particularly beef enjoys an excellent image with
consumers. It is, for instance, tasty, nutritious, needed by men
and easy to turn into a main meal. Conversely eggs and cheese
whilst not lacking in proteins and vitamins are insufficiently
filling and fish is less appetising and not so popular. For the
purpose of this study these observations were turned into a set
of Likert scales as listed in Appendix A (page viii). Analyses
of these scales in their own right should serve to validate
earlier results over a broader regional base, and may be valuable
in explaining household consumption patterns. Some of the scales
shown in Table 8 have also been previously used by Baron et al
(Appendix C Section 3). - 15 -
Household Meat Consumption
Respondents recorded their household's meat consumption Table A in four one-week diaries (Appendix A pages iv - vi). In home of the diary a respondent recorded all the meats eaten at the by members of her household. If known, she recorded both had come weight and cost of each meat, and indicated if the meat at the meal. from a household freezer or if visitors were present each of In Table B she recorded the number of people present at mid-day meal, the three normal main meals of the day - breakfast, if some or all evening meal. She was asked to fill this in even was also of the people present did not eat at the meal. She record the number instructed to use the six columns to separately of male adults (15-0, female adults (15+), children aged 0-5, children (0-15). children aged 6-15, adult visitors and visiting
of the At the end of the four week period, after completion indicate the bi-polar scales respondents filled in a Table to meats listed time since they last served each of the twelve above (Appendix A page ix).
Socio-Economic Characteristics for Respondent Classification
The Basic Questionnaire
in a single Most socio-economic details were recorded the diaries or questionnaire before the respondent received A page i iii). This completed the bi-polar scales (Appendix concerning the size and section contains some common questions the respondent's age composition of the respondent's household, relevant, that of and details about her occupation and, where be classified her spouse or parent. Respondents would later JICNAR (Monk 1976) according to a simplified version of the social grading scheme.
Household income
- Household income was recorded in a later interview scales (see Appendix immediately after completion of the bi-polar 16
A page x). Conventionally it was thought easier for interviewers to enquire about housewhold income at the end of
the survey when they will have established some rapport with their respondents. Asking about income early in the survey might have led to a greater number of refusals and lowered the
inclination to co-operate at other stages of the survey.
Even when respondents are willing to answer questions
about their incomes it is difficult to obtain accurate and reliable information. Income may vary considerably over each
week, month or year and in any case even people receiving salaries often do not remember their total earning. This is aggravated by the existence of many additional, albeit relatively small, sources of income such as interest or family
allowances. Finally many respondents in surveys of this nature may not have jobs or not be the only breadwinners in the house-
hold. The problems just mentioned will consequently be multi- plied and, in addition, members of the household can be deliberately secretive with each other about their own income. Nevertheless, a household's consumption isEtill very much influenced by its income and, combined with details about occupation, income can be a useful means of classifying respondents.
Respondents were asked to record the total after tax income of their household in either of two methods. Firstly they could tick a box to indicate a range which contained their income. Alternatively they could give an income estimate for either each week, each month or each year. CHAPTER 2 : RESPONDENT SELECTION AND QUESTInNNkIRE DESIGN
Regional Selection
An examination of National Food Survey& EIC(1979) data finds • enduring regional variations in the levels and patterns of meat consumption. Total consumption varies as does the proportions spent on each of the carcase meats and poultry Thus Pork consumption increases towards the south, especially in London.
Converseley Beef consumption increases towards the North, especially in Scotland. Mutton and Lamb consumption is highest•
in the North West, Wales, the Midlands, the South and the South
East. Poultry consumption is highest in the Suith, South West
and North West (Table 2). •
One requirement of this project was to measure attitudes -Le
meat in regions with known differences in meat consumotlen. The
limited budget restricted the choice of region onree urban
areas and the towns of Bolton, Gateshead and Reading werefinF-LLy
selected; the latter being considered preferable to one of thE London suburbs or smaller southern towns. Dolton is in an ar:ea of high lamb and low pork consumption. atesheafi 7 s region has.
high beef and low lamb consumption and the .southern regions eat
more pork, poultry and lamb but less beef than is Sampling was restricted to urban households, contalLied. within
:each town's boundary. Table 2. Regional Meat Consumption 1976*
All Yorks + North East West South S.E. GLC House- North Humber- West Mid- Mid- West East England Wales Scotland area holds side lands lands Anglia
Beef and Veal 100 107.6 107.5 94.0 86.2 110.6 88.7 90.0 96.1 85.2 156.6 95.8
Mutton and Lamb 100 64.3 79.5 123.1 93.3 110.2 99.3 115.5 104.5 116.0 43.3 122.1
Pork 100 81.3 111.8 64.4 88.6 113.5 137.4 118.3 105.5 102.8 38.4 143.6
Total Carcase Meat 100 90.1 100.3 96.5 88.7 111.1 101.4 102.9 100.3 97.3 101.0 112.7
Broiler Chicken 100 74.2 77.8 114.9 85.1 113.4 113.1 111.4 103.8 81.3 67.4 143.2
* Per capita consumption as percentage of National Average. NFS (1977) - 20 -
Respondents were approached and enrolled by interviewers
following a 'random-walk' procedure Each interviewer was
allocated a defined area of hel- town and instructed to follow
the rules listed in Appendix ±.3 page i). These rules
required up to two call-backs to be mace to houses where there
was no reply. At least one of the call-backs was to be in the
evening. Three weak quotas were employed to set a maximum
proportion of 'over 60's'and minimum proportions of non-employed married women and freezer owners.
Interviewers were told to "interview the cook of the
household, regardless of sex or marital status". If cooking
was shared equally amongst the adults of the house they were to
interview the first adult to answer the door. Similarly 'non- family' households such as groups of young adults or solitary
0.A.P.'s were still to be included in the sample. A prize draw was offered to potential respondents as an incentive to increase co-operation. Only respondents who completed all sections of the questionnaire would be eligible to enter. In each town there were five prizes of £5 and one of L'250.
In •the first interview held on the day of contact the respondents provided two sets of data - they filled in the Socio
Economic Questionnaire and the Statement Scales. In the second full interview held after completion of the fourth Diary they filled in the batteries of Bi-Polar Scales, the Attribute
Importance Scale, the Frequency of Eating Table and the Household Income Sheet.
The Socio Economic Questionnaire
This was only completed after the Respondent had con- firmed she was the cook of the household and able to co-operate for the full period of the survey. A household was defined as
"those members of a house who usually eat together and any relatives, friends, guests or lodgers staying and eating in the house for the duration of the survey. Members of a family, such - 21 -
as shift_workers and older children, who eat an odd hours were
also to be included. Visitors at a meal or just staying for a part of the 4 weeks were not to be recorded in this section.
Interviewers were told to obtain a sufficiently detailed
description of the occupation of a respondent and where relevant
that of her spouse or parent. If the respondent refused to
volunteer her age the interviewer made an estimate after leaving
the house.
Attitudes to Food and Cooking
Respondents were asked to read each statement and then tick a box to indicate the direction and strength of her reaction.
Agreement with a statement required her to tick one of the left hand boxes and disagreement one of the three boxes on the right hand side. Weak or neutral feelings should be reflected by a tick in one of the central boxes and strong feelings by a tick nearer or at the relevant extremity. It was emphasised that there are no 'right' or 'wrong' answers - the respondent should indicate her own feelings. She was asked to give first impress- ions rather than a considered verdict and interviewers were instructed to encourage slow respondents to speed up.
The statements were printed in four different orders and questionnaires allocated randomly to interviewers and respon- dents.
The Diaries
Meat Consumption was recorded in the four one-week Diaries during the summer of 1977. The most important instructions given to respondents are printed in Appendix A, page iv.
At the end of each week the interviewers returned to each household to check and collect the completed diary, deliver another and arrange the next week's visit. When they returned to collect the fourth and last Diary respondents completed the final sections of the Questionnaire. - 22 -
Bi-Polar -Scales
Respondents had already been asked if they would complete some additional attitude scales but, prior to the last inter- view had not been informed of their purpose or content. This secrecy was a means of reducing deliberate changes in meat consumption during the survey period. Respondents were once more carefully instructed to indicate the direction and strength of their feelings by ticking the appropriate box.
Each Questionnaire contained a random ordering of the twelve batteries of scales used to rate each meat. In addition, although the twelve batteries in each questionnaire were identical but for the meat on the title, four differently ordered version of these batteries were printed. These four variations in scale order were, like the Statement scales, allocated randomly to each interviewer and respondent.
Household Income
Respondents were carefully instructed to indicate the total after tax Income of their Household. This figure was to include all earnings from every member of the household and money received from other sources such as Pensions, Family Allowances, Lodgers,
Social Security Payments and Interest. Only the total figure was requested and not the nature of its composition. The income of guests or temporary visitors was not to be included. As noted above respondents could either indicate the range encompassing their income or provide an exact estimate.
Survey Timetable and Response
The main survey in Reading and Newcastle was completed in the four weeks beginning June 27th, 1977. Local holidays required the Bolton survey to commence a fortnight later. The number of completed questionnaires from each survey is set out In Table 3. 23
Between Monday 28th November and Sunday December Lith a second survey was carried out in all three towns. This was
undertaken to investigate the possibility of seasonal differences
in Attitude. Respondents were only required to complete a set
of Bi-Polar Scales which were identical to those used in the Summer Survey but for an additional meat cut included to study
opinions about Brisket. Interviewers returned to the same respondents who co-operated in the summer and obtained completed
sets of scales from Reading, from Gateshead and from Bolton.
Table 3. Sample Size
Summer Winter
Bolton 207 165
Gateshead 253 195 Reading 164 116
Total 624 476
A series of checks were carried out on interviewers
examining the sex, age, employment state, social grade, and
income of their respondents. No serious anomalies were observed. Only 3% of respondents refused the question on age. Income, as expected, was least well answered and there was
indication that some interviewers were markedly less successful at eliciting this fact than others. 537 respondents or 86% answered the question and on the basis of these, average income per head was estimated to be £1,093 per annum, or £3,793 per household. By way of comparison the Family Expenditure Survey
(1979) gave average family income after all taxes and benefits as £3,808 for 1977. Given the difficulties over questions about income this represents a surprisingly close agreement.
. Fridge and freezer ownership offers another check on sample representatives with a topical interest. The National Food
Survey (1977) provide comparible figures with those of the survey. 24
Table 4.- Percentage of Households with Deep Freezers and Refrigerators
Survey NFS
Deep F. Fridge Deep F. Fridge
Gateshead/North 31.2 93.3 31 89
Bolton/North West 28.0 92.8 29 94
Reading/South East/ 46.3 99.4 44 96 East Anglia
Total/England 34.1 94.7 36 94
Neither survey offers perfect regional representativeness
but show a gratifying similarity of ordering.
Age distribution in the sample is also recorded below:
Table 5. Family Composition
Average No. in each group
Children Children Female Male Total 0-5 6-15 Adult Adult
1.43 Gateshead 0.38 0.66 1.21 3.39 1.14 3.47 Bolton 0.35 0.83 1.15 1.24 3.58 Reading 0.41 0.78 1.16
Total sample 0.38 0.75 1.18 1.28 3.47
size These figures suggest slightly higher average family results from than would be.truely representative. This probably -representation of the slight over-representation -of AB and under for this DE grades in the sample. Appropriate adjustment is made
in later chapters. PART II : ATTITUDES
Market Researchers have long been both plagued and intri- gued by the diversity with which people can express a few basic beliefs about a topic. It has already been described how early in this project care and effort was needed to reduce the list of scales to a more manageable number. The short list of seventeen
Bi-Polar scales still provides a considerable amount of inform- ation concerning opinions about each of the 12.cuts of meat.
Clearly it would be tedious and difficult to attempt to summarize beliefs about these meats on the basis of respondents' scores over each of the seventeen scales. Any discussion would soon
get bogged down in detail which would hinder the formation of an easily comprehensible overview of each meats' status. More- over it is quite possible that there is redundancy in the set of raw data. For example, the 'value' and 'expense' scales might largely be measuring different aspects of a single perception or
belief about, say, "Economy" whilst the 'Vitamins', .'Proteins
and Nourishment' scales might all be recording beliefs about a
single "Nourishment" or Health-Giving" quality of meat. In
order to make further reductions in the' data set and concurrently
search for the existence of such underlying beliefs the scale
scores were subjected to a Factor Analysis. This is the name
given to a set of statistical techniques which are capable of
reducing complex. sets of data to more convenient numbers or, - 27 -
indices termed Factor Scores. During the last 15 years these
techniques have been frequently used in Market Research. For
example Baron (1973, 1977) and Hughes (1976b) both applied them to studies of attitudes to meat.
In this study, it was found that the 17 scales described in
Part I could best be represented by five Factors. One chiefly
measured beliefs about the 'Nourishment' qualities of meat; another measured 'Usefulness' aspects of meat with scales such as
"Ease of Preparation", "Tenderness" and "Liked by Children" being influential determinants; a third Factor or what might be called its"arength" reflected the Taste and popularity with men and visitors; a fourth reflected the meat's Value for Money or
'Economy' and the fifth measured the meat's 'Versatility' quality.
Chapter 3 provides a brief discussion of some general aspects of Factor Analysis and presents the particular steps • taken in this analysis. Chapter 4 describes the factors in more detail and,using both Factor and Scales scores as evidence. reviews Consumer attitudes to the twelve cuts. Subsequently the affect of socio-economic and other factors are considered in
Chapter 5 and changes in attitudes between summer and winter surveys examined in Chapter 6. CHAPTER 3 : MEAT ATTITUDE STRUCTURE
As has been indicated one of the most impressive aspects of
Factor Analytic techniques is their ability to reduce a complex set of data to a comprehendable size. They enable the researcher to probe his original matrix of scores to see if underlying patterns exist and whether it is possible to reduce it to a smaller set of Factor Scores. The meaning of the Factors are inferred from the variables or scales with which they correlate.
Since the Factors are based on interrelationships within the larger set of data, it can be sensibly argued that they provide an alternative and briefer description of respondents' beliefs. Factors help make intelligent generalizations about the beliefs of groups of people at a point in time but they necessarily have a narrow and static range of interest.
It must be emphasised that a given set of Factors can never claim to represent all the important aspects of meat. Some types of beliefs may be exceedingly difficult to quantify, some attributes will be deliberately ignored and some may have simply been over- looked.
It must also be stressed that Factor Analysis is not a single straightforward technique. Decisions are required at several points in any analysis. Several procedures are available and different criteria can be employed to control their use. These 29
decisions will not only be based on the relevance of supporting
theory and simplicity of operation but also on the nature of each stage's output.
Four fundamental steps are encountered in any Factor Analysis:
a) Selection of relevant input data
b) Selection of method for extracting the Initial Factors
c) Specification of the number of Factors to be extracted
d) 'Rotation' of the Initial Factors to a more meaningful solution.
Finally, after the preferred combination of procedures has been selected and checked, the raw data can be transformed into Factor Scores using Formula derived from earlier output.
Extraction of Initial Factors
The SPSS* procedure used for extracting the Initial Factors followed the "Classical Factor Analysis" model which considers an observed variable score to be influenced by several Factors.
Some Factors influence more than one variable and are termed
'Common Factors', some only influence a single variable and are called "Unique". Mathematically the model becomes:
z • = a .F + a F .c. a. F + d.U. ji 1 j2 2 jm m J where z. , variable j in standard form
F.. hypothetical factor
U.. unique factor for variable j
a..= coefficient of variable j on factor i 31
d .coefficient of variable j on unique factor j.
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, 2nd ed. PA2, principal factoring with itteration was employed in this analysis. (SPSS, 1975) 30
As a result of the assumptions above the observed ,correlation
between variables must necessarily be due to their sharing some of the Common Factors. The Unique portion of a variable neither
correlates with any other variable nor with the part of the • variable caused by the Common Factors. Following this, formulae can be devised for estimating the coefficients, a.. for each j variable for any specified number of Factors. Conversely
equations can also be devised for estimating Factor Scores from the standardized variable scores. Note that the Factors them- selves do not exist but are mathematical constructs representing dimensions which correlate to a greater or lesser extent with
the original variables. The meaning of these calculated constructs might be inferred from the "Factor pattern matrix" which contains the weights or "loadings" used to estimate the variables from Factors.
Rotation of the Initial Factor Solution
Unfortunately it usually happens that the initial matrix of loadings does not provide a perfectly clear and. interpretable picture of the meanings of the different Factors. This study was no exception with the weights failing to present themselves in
any sensible pattern. Remembering, however, that these Factors represent dimensions or axis in mathematical space it is possible
to rotate the Factors without violating the mathematical properties of a solution. After such rotation the newly cal- culated coefficients or loadings are far more readily inter- pretable. The Varimax rotation was adopted in this analysis. Theoretically this method produces uncorrelated Factors and
hinders the emergence of a strong general Factor tending to
produce a few Factors which each have only a small number of
highly loading variables. In practice there was little difference between most of the alternative methods which were tested. With Varimax and other orthoganal methods of rotation the loadings in the Factor Pattern Ebttrix also represent the correlations between variables and Factors. 31
Selection of the Number of Factors to be Extracted
Technically it is possible to extract as many Factors as there are variables in the original data. Needless to say such
an operation would defeat the purpose of an analysis. The Kaizer
criterion was used as a main guide to the number of Factors
required to provide an adequate description of the data set.
Subsequently a search was made of results by incorporating or
deleting up to two additional Factors.
Five was considered the most realistic number of Factors. If more were extracted the following problems could be noted:
a) the additional Factors made a low contribution to total variance - about 2 per cent;
b) variables had low loadings on the last Factor - about
0.2 to 0.3 for the highest loading scale;
c) vagueness of the meaning of this last Factor,
d) more pronounced differences between sub groups and meat selections. Sometimes the last Factor would
have puzzlingly different variables loading "heavily"
upon it.
On the other hand extracting only three or four Factors
failed to separate perceptions about "Nourishment" from those concerning "Taste" or "Popularity". These formed two clearly
separate Factors when five or more were selected.
The raw scale data included scores for 12 meats by over
600 respondents falling into a wide range of occupation, age
and family size groupings. It might be rash to assume that the
patterns between scale scores were the same for all the major
sub-groups or across all twelve meats. Factor analysis was carried out for the complete sample and for sub groups. The
sub groups were based on meat types (weekend-v-midweek cuts), socio economic characteristics, age, and region. There are
no well established criteria for judging whether there are - 32 -
significant differences in Factor structure estimated for
separate sub groups. Consequently a subjective appraisal had to be made.
When five Factors were selected the structures were remarkably stable across the meat and respondents sub groups.
Consequently the entire sample of scale scores was
subjected to a single analysis which produced Five Factor Scores for each of the twelve meats for each of the 624 respondents*.
This result is extremely interesting because it implies that
housewives have similar perceptions about the nature of the important charactertistics possessed by meat. This similarity applies across not only age, and class, as had been found in earlier departmental work but importantly across regions.
Consequently greater credance can be given to that earlier work which was restricted to the North East of England. It is however important to realise that at this stage the analysis has only shown all housewives to have similar beliefs about the char- acteristics in general possessed by meats. It does not mean that they all believe a particular meat to have the same level of these common characteristics. Indeed, variation in these will be considered in the next chapter.
Weighting of Sample Preceeding the Analysis
A basic purpose of sampling is to select respondents representative of some larger, specified, population. In the first instance our respondents were selected to represent households in the towns of Bolton, Gateshead and Reading.
Secondly these towns were selected to represent three large regions of the country. Thirdly one would wish the three towns together to be good representatives of Great Britain as a whole.
* The Factor structure matrices for Socio Economic and Regional sub groups appear in Appendix D -33 -
It is inevitable that, in practice, the costs and chances of
field work will combine to produce imperfect samples even when only a few characteristics are used to describe respondents.
Before proceeding with the final Factor Analysis it was
considered desirable to weight the sample to allow for differ-
ences in both the size and class composition between it and its
parent population. Weighting occurred at two stages - before
both the determination of the Factor Structure or matrix of
loadings and before the breakdowns of Factor Scores by town and various socio economic characteristics.
The nation was divided into three broad regions - the North
East, and Scotland; the North West, Western Midlands; and Wales
and the South, South East, South West and Eastern Midlands. The
three towns sample sizes were adjusted to make them proportional to the regional distribution of population in the country. In
addition the respondents within each town were weighted according
to their Socio Economic Grade to make that town reflect the Socio
Economic Profile of its region. Details of the calculations appear in Appendix E.
As would be expected from the earlier findings there were few sub-group variations. Moreover, weighting had only a small effect on the Factor Structure produced in the analysis.
The Five Factors
The five important Factors underlying the scale and consumer perception can now be introduced. Table 6 is a Factor structure matrix and shows the correlation between each Factor and the seventeen attribute scales. The scales have been reordered for this tabulation to facilitate interpretation of the Factors, and only a brief label for each bi-polar scale used.*
* Significance of factor loadings can be tested although no widely accepted test appears available. Using the Burt-Banks (Burt 1952) formula loading of about 0.14 would be significant at the 10% level. A cautious approach has been imployed here using a value of 0.4 or above. - 34 -
Table 6. Varimax Rotated Factor Matrix (weighted data, all towns)
The decimal point in front of each number has been ommitted for clarity
Factor Scale Factor Factor Factor Factor I II III IV V
Vitamins 69688 14144 22500 05433 09817 Proteins 66219 21612 24275 05869 14433 Nourishment 61220 21354 44826 14616 10794 Ease Preparation 13147 65152 16193 02970 -06046 Tender 11451 56148 30200 11889 19955 Child Like 03366 48536 17516 20667 13901 Digestible 22495 45717 26085 20133 21695 Cut Carve 15640 47347 12285 0.8188 18504 Wasteful Fat 17874 43074 06764 27562 10157 Taste 24590 34182 64812 06325 07834 Men Like 19861 23058 63329 04466 05898 Substantial 30361 18375 57875 15304 15378 Visitors 23472 15988 55626 02656 33276 Value 1800 25509 25589 68419 07918 Not Expensive -02853 11435 -07094 6804o 00498 Good Cold 12087 18250 13310 05101 56090 Ways Serving 14815 11802 22602 36532 32676 - 35 -
The first three Factors have moderate or high loadings on
nearly all the scales. They thus tend to measure a general
element of attitudes to each meat. People who think well or
badly about something tend out of prejudice to rate it high or low over all or most attributes regardless of its "real" per-
formance. But having noted this it is apparent that each of these Factors also represents something more specific.
Factor I loads heavily with the "Vitamin" "Protein" and
"Nourishment" Scales and quite obviously relates to the perceived
"Nourishment" value of meat meals.
Factor II is more complex because the scales that correlate
highest relate to different aspects of cooking, eating and
digestion. Nevertheless it might sensibly be interpreted as a
general "Usefulness" Factor since it deals for instance with the
ease of preparation, popularity with children, cutting and carving, digestibility and fat content.
Factor III represents more positively appealing and attractive
aspects of meat. Taste, Popularity with men, Substantiality,
Suitability for visitors and Nourishment all 'load' well and
Tenderness has a moderately high loading. This Factor has been named "Strength".
Factor 1Vis the "Economy" Factor, correlating very highly
with the 'value' and 'not expensive' scales and to a moderate
extent with "Ways of serving", "Wasteful Fat", "Digestible" and
"Liked by Children". Most of the remaining scales have very low correlations.
Factor V is more appropriate to joints of meat. It concerns itself with the possibility of serving as a cold meat or as a prestige item, having a fairly high loading from 'Good Cold' and moderate loadings from 'Ways of Serving' and 'Would Serve to
Visitors'. It might be called the "Versatility" characteristic of the meat. - 36 -
Scale Importance
,As a final section to this chapter it is interesting to examine respondents rating -of the importance of the 17 meat scales. Table 7 presents the mean scores for the complete sample and for each town separately. Results are presented as mean values and, to assist inspections are ranked according to mean score. Individual scores could range between 1 and 7 and a high score indicated that the particular scale was extremely important.
All means were above the neutral value of 4,- potentially indicating that respondents thought in general all of the scales to be of importance. It is, however, quite likely that this reflects a fairly typical wish of respondents to answer in what they believe is the interviewers favour. The interesting examination is therefore of the relative ordering given to the scales. To facilitate comparison the order of scales used in Table 6 is retained. It is worth noting, however, that the scales which go together to make up a particular factor may have quite different scores for importance.
A remarkable degree of consistency in ranking is found across the three towns. Taste is considered the most important scale followed closely by scales in substantiality and value.
The least important are scales for visitors, ease of preparation, and goodness cold. This confirms on a inter-regional basis
Hughes (1976b) findings. The analysis in this report does not attempt to use importance scores of weight scales prior to factor analysis. It is interesting to note that the scales considered most important do not figure in the combinations which make up factors one and two. It is these factors, however, which reflect the major variability in consumers perceptions of the meat cuts and could be argued more likely to influence buying behaviour. Table 7. Mean Score and Ranking of Meat Scale Importance
Bolton Rank Gateshead Rank Reading Rank All Rank
Vitamins 5.5069 10 5.7061 10 4.9859 12 5.3047 10
Proteins 5.5368 9 5.8407 8 5.2825 9 5.4892 9 Nourishment 5.7591 8 5.7927 9 5-5731 8 5.6777 8
Ease Preparation 5.1232 14 5.0127 15 4.6988 16 4.8912 16 Tender 6.1361 4 6.1825 4 6.1863 4 6.1718 4
Child Like 5.3638 11 5.4448 11 5.1421 11 5.2767 11
Digestible 6.0730 5 5.9675 5 5.9146 5 5.9705 5 I LJ Cut Carve 5.2766 12 5.1039 14 4.7906 15 4.9995 14 ..„1
Wasteful Fat 5.8919 7 5.8709 6 5.8904 6 5.8860 6 Taste 6.4178 1 6.5364 1 6.4605 1 6.4677 1
Men Like 5.9824 6 5.8604 7 5.5824 7 5.7593 7 Substantial 6.2372 3 6.4359 2 6.3694 3 6.3500 2 Visitors 4.9953 16 4.9333 16 4.9479 14 4.9566 15 Value, 6.2447 2 6.3860 3 6.3758 2 6.3428 3 Not Expensive 5.2024 13 5.3539 • 12 5.1892 10 5.2335 12
Good Cold 4.5137 17 4.7578 17 4.6225 17 4.6265 17 Ways Serving ,5.0669 15 5.2343 13 4.9815 13 5.0669 13 CHAPTER 4 : NATIONAL AND REGIONAL ATTITUDES TO MEAT CUTS
In this chapter the factor structure matrix derived in
Chapter 3 is used to estimate mean factor scores for each meat cut. Using the five factor selectionyFactor Scores were calculated for each respondent. This provided five scores for each cut of meat in place of the original 17 scores for each.
Each factor score was estimated from all seventeen scales and not just those with the most substantial loadings.
Normalization of Factor Scores and Replacement of Missing Values
Whilst factor scores provide a satisfactory index for studying average beliefs about different aspects of the twelve meats there are problems in using them to compare differences in attitudes among sub-groups of the sample.
Differences in scale ratings can be caused not only by differences in beliefS about each meat but also by idiosyncratic factors which predispose some people to tick near the middle of scales,and others to tick near one or other of the extremes.
Moreover, some people differ in their general attitude to all meats vis a vis,other forms of meal,and absolute scores will not be appropriate measures of relative preference for particular cuts.
It was, therefore, considered advantageous to normalise each respondents factor scores. For each respondent each of the 5 - 39 -
factors was normalised seperately using the mean and standard
deviation of that factor over the twelve meats. Before this can
be achieved missing data must be replaced by estimates.
• Interviewers had been instructed to persuade respondents to
indicate beliefs about each meat no matter how strong their
criticism or infrequent their consumption. Nevertheless some
respondents still failed to complete their batteries of scales
(249 or 3.3% of 7488 scale sheets). It is a reasonable assumption that in such cases respondents are either totally
ignorant of the meat or, more likely, especially sensitive to its
bad points. Hence it was decided to replace missing data with yalues showing a typical factor score pattern but reflecting a
stronger than normal degree of criticism.
Means and standard deviations were calculated separately for
each factor score, for each meat, across the whole sample of
households. Two units of S.D. below each mean was chosen as the
replacement factor score value. Such a value was not thought to
grossly exaggerate a respondent's criticism of each meat. One could sensibly argue that it might actually underestimate it. In
practice substituting these values for missing data usually made
no difference to a meat's factor score rank within each of the major sub groups.
National and Regional Attitudes to Meat Cuts
The attitude results are presented in this section in two
ways. Firstly all the households in the survey are considered
as a whole,with the results presented in diagram 1for 'joints' and in diagram 2 for 'other cuts'. Secondlyl each cut is diagrammalseperately so that regional variations can be described.
An asterisk is used to indicate regional scores which differ significantly at the 10% level or greater. The numerical values used for the graphs are collected at the end of this chapter in Table 9. , ...... : ...... •. •... ..••,. .•,. . .• . • .•.• ...... •....•...... 1. ....;..: . .:.•.• f • • Weighted & Normalised Factor Scores : Joints
•__ !• . 7••,.. .1 ".. .,. ,i, : ,..ir' • ' - I ' : ---'--.------I---- -I..-- "'" • - ...... :::.:. ,. :...., . 1...... :. ... i .._ ...... ::.,...7".":.T..- ''.• . . ,.. /....,,....:.....4.....!....1...... !...... , • ..: ..._.....).:::1 ...... ,,:, ------4 . • • 1 . .17- -•:,.., •.• . .... -.:."-.4- :;_.: :.:: . • • • ._: • .. . :.. ../.‹ , ,, . ! •...... : • • 1 . - .: ' ; -42, •• ' 4 . • I- • i .. ,. ;• . i . ..1:• I ...-....•— . __.:...... :,...... 1 ....:: • . _ _...... ,. ...:...L..t.: ..:..._:.:L..LL:. '.-__:.1.:.: ....:;,..J.. _ L • ', .. 7 ...,, .,. ...,... .1 . .-. ....!.. . - . [...... ,i' -''' ..7..7....7. ', . .. .1 ...... :.....:- ....- ....i.::- .:::.:1.. ----.. .:...... „ : ...... 1.- ,,i_ .., ..:_...... ::: .-... .-,-..1 { -...... t. - ...... _ ...... l...... ,...... ,... , . . •. ., .... .! -s. '" .• .-
• • ', ' :: ...... :.....: ,I ...... • l i , ..- ,'.1 : • ., ...' .. i:...... "...... • 7 . .-1 :77 i . .i . ., ____ I . e • ' .: .:...... : ...: .. I::. 7::. .1....:.. ; • , : ::.:..::...... i . 1.._....:_* • [: - i .. . !. ... : • :-i---- :4:::-Z4.--:i- • :: ..-.1:- -. •:--I • --'4. -- ...... I••• ••• •, . : • . 7 ..• -1 7 :•...... 1 .. .::: .. "J •••' •. t i •• i • ••• • —...... -, ' .:-.-:- . 7 . • -... • ' • 7 7 • • . : 1:7 ...... : ... . I...... FT.... .: -1. .. ,. 1 .. .:. ..: .. . •.• • . •••' -4 . . ,.4 : . . :::...I ...... :'. i ..1:•-_-•-•_.: - 1:______.__.__ •„ _ • .-:: ' :1 ..:'....:- —...: :_j. .• ••• •, . . 4 .. - ' -1 ...: . ., .7 -777 : '...- ' '....: .'',- - 7-.-77:::i ...... ••• , I . • . :1 ...... :.: : . : ... . :7 .:' ••• 7 • • :•:.;• • ' 4- -,------• ...... "1-7-71----7 .77- • • . i I . *:4 ..... !• • • •i •••-• ; ..... -4 . • .". • ... ','• ' —.••,. •••• : ' :•. ", •••'...... , ; . : ..... I- .- 1 ... -..... •- - : ...:. T. . "I. ... :',....:•-•- ..,.. ! ..,.• •.,• . ... :I • :: :•. i : *: . .i .... ! :::. ' -'
•• • • •,• . • ' . . . . ••••teo .
• . . •• 0 ..
• -I. - ...... • - • " • •••• :-.t. . ::-:.--:H :...{.1 ...... :-.....;...... H... i .:....4,.H...1 I • • 4 Fig 2 : Weighted & Normalised Factor Scores : Mid Week Cuts .: . :,• , . . . I .1 :1 . • . j • :..• : • ; " .1. . I a .. I .. . • :1, . .. . • . — I : . „ . . ., ...... •-• . a . . 1 • • : —.—....— ....--: . — - . 1. • • • ' . • 1 i • '• • . — ,. • • • • • . t::: • : • .• 1 • • • .• • • • t • • . •. . • l.. • • .,:. .. • • I. • • •' ..—.:. • • i ...... --4 - •• ' .• -'• • • ' ' • •••:. • .....71- . : 1. .. I... • - 1 ..... ::: . . r: ...... :::. .:•.,•;- • ....,....•:!....: :: :.:: ...•-•::•• ••••• :i • .: ..:,.. .: .-:- ; • "... -, . 1 .• • -; : •: ,• . ! ,. 1 . ; • ...... I...... i..:.: -.. .::::: .::::.:....•:.::. 1 • ..; ..: :_.: ..:. . ., - ---•-,- -.:,.r...... :::.",-:...... ;:-. ...1-::::. :•1•::-.:.::-..-1 :::,:------. .•,. ••••••••-••• .... ••• . • . ...: . .:.....•::•-• . . ._...... :-. ...• --•... •,,. - •:.--- i.. -:. . •I .. ., ...... ,..... 1 !• i . .. ; ...... 1: • -.• I. . . ; ...... ,.. .T.• ...... •., . . •• • • -.•.:._,_•••_:•._,_:. - -. - - • • - • • ; - : ; •: i• ..• ...... __,,,. .•.....______:....__.1...... :,.....:...... _:__: 4...... ;...... :...... :....:...... :.....; , . : • • ; • :: . -. :. ; ,. -- ..... t•- ----:- 1- - - -4. •-•: .: : . •,• ... , .•. ..l...... 1..: • . . i. .• 1 , 4 • • • •—• • • 4 • ...... ::•... • t • . . ..;...... • 1 1 ...... I ...... 1 .... . •—•. • •' 1 . • . • .. . • • •: — — : . t • • • — .. . • . • . • ....., I ..—• .... . • : • . .. ••• . 1 • • . •• . .1 . • ... . • I 7 ...... :...... I • . • ..•.• i .. ! • • , t • .. 1 : '• I • . — • ..., • • • . , • • • - • ' :_.. 1.• • • . t.- • • • • • _.:_:....._.:_•..:_:_: :- .,.- • ...... -4, ..._.•,...... :_._.4...... L...... -4.---..... t....--..t...i.._:--:....] ••• . • .•.. • . - ..• ,.. •:•. :i . : ! • .. • : ••••• .• :,...... 1.. :7.: ...I.. ... 4...... : . :-t --": -.. i •--t ----- ••1 .•: - ...... -t-- -•:-•::1. . :.-.1:-. ... •-:;•.::;.:7...... i - ••---i •i
• X : ...:::'i.. .-7L / . W • . :'::. • -: : '. '
• I •.:__.-V.: i-- ..: .. - -;---- Stewing Stc — .•1. :.. •-:--/.. :. ,,- ,.• •...... - --...., - , :• 4.4 --:.—;--/ . - • ,./44. .,:::•4i.: •- -- :. :.:: ! k ‘,'‘ :: .: ... • 4 , ••• • •:: '.1 .: \;,..'7 '.. ., ', ..I : ••••1 : -...,,-. : ..• " --.. i--i • 7: ------• : -4- :, • ..: .. 7 • • :.-'.:i .....), . — .: • /. : .:‘ ..., ,_ - •:•:.. ::•-::;.. . : . :.___:.._•_•.:._ A7_ '1.—. i'(‘. Pork Chops . ,1' .: :. '''' r: _,::___-...... ------I-- -" q .t. :...... :- A ."••: -:.: • ..i:. .: ..:1 . .:../.-: : : .: ' : . 1..:.:: • • -1 . •...: . - -, • - . , . i.. 4 • ....._....:...... _7:L.i . t : -•••••-:1---- . . . . i . ... X A ••::'\-li,,::- ----. -- i . • .1 -: -t•-• :• i : • .•!- --- • •. ,-...... __ -- . :. . . . 4 ..• .. .,...... 1 •, i:::::..:A. .- (:-.A. :‘ .: ., . -Lamb Chops ,._ • • - •., \ t -.....,...: -..; . • i .. • 1 ..... : — .•:" .: t 1 . • . , . • -r. . t • .• i .1.• • i• -: : •": : __.4_:::.:...... ,...._ ---t------4 .7 • ".:".--V:77— I--: ---.17•:-.. — "—:— .• ..1—:.. . .} ...... !,...... , .. t. I ‘. .:1:.• .... 4...... :.... 4.— .1 - ' I 7,-- ...1.• 1 • .3.2 •: .. ..::I .. ..1. ''...... L.::,:\::1-—i" ..• " • 1 " .":-..._..:._:_: ".../ :" ; :.' : ' :1 " . ''' 4. ,---: .-:-.--..1. ....'------i-...... :-....- i ...... , .. Crilling . : ...... : • 4 .7. ••:: • •I ..i.: :..: •i .../. -....-...• : :.: i. : : : '' --,— ...2--:-. • : ..7.1------q--;-+- • .. .-: i...... :--4- ...:. I.. ::;.V.../..: • :-. .: 1 •: .:-.- . :. ...:. .: ..:1• ....: :,..:::....„t _.....:....: :.t...: :_:i::....:... • ....-.. t. . •: I :t .•.. ; -, •••:. 1 . t- .,...... • ... __-___: • : • -- .. '...... :._ :••• • -.• t . . • i • ' . ::. . .7.--:.:...:: i". ...• •1 . - .. : ..t ...-.:-..:..i.. . i .. • :- :_"...... :::!..:...... — . • '..: L._ : ...L..... ::!- : ti . .. :.... I. : . .1, . :: ...... , ••• . . . - 42 -
In the discussion a further measure:- the sum of the first four factor scores is used as an overall descriptive device for comparing the meats. This summed quantity has been widely used
as an aggregate measure of overall attitude (Bass and Wilie 1973).
For this report only the first four factors are summed because
the fifth factor, 'Versatility', loaded almost exclusively on the
scale good as a cold meat. It was felt that some of the cuts
used mainly for mid-week meals such as beefburgers could not be appropriately compared on such a basis.
CHICKEN
Chicken differs to all other meats because it does not have any outstandingly bad characteristicsy and is given very high
ratings on most factors. Using the sum of the first four factors
as an overall index of satisfaction it consistently rates the best meat in the selection - a selection which included several quality beef cuts. It nevertheless does have some relatively
unfavourable characteristics. It is not thought a particularly nourishing meat receiving an average score in Reading and
Gateshead and only a moderate score in Bolton. Nor is it a very
appetizing meal receiving a middle rank - sixth overall - and
rated poorer than all the other joints except bacon joint. It does, however, have more 'strength' than all the more economical
cuts. The average figure also hides an intriguing and large
regional difference since chicken rated as high as second on Factor three in Boldon and as low as ninth in Gateshead. Leg of
pork which also scores worst in Bolton and best in Gateshead is the only other meat to show such a large regional difference on this 'strength' factor.
All three towns consider chicken to be the most 'versatile', with bacon joint rating second and corned beef third. Chicken's
good performance on the versatility factor is matched by it giving good value for money. It is on the 'economy' factor that chicken shows its main advantages over the more appetizing competitors. Grilling steak, topside, leg of pork and even leg
of lamb do much worse and whilst bacon joint achieves fourth rank
there is still a considerable absolute difference in score.
Chicken is moreover, a trouble free meat ranking second to
corned beef on the usefulness factor. Only corned beef, beef-
burgers and topside come close. The lamb, pork and bacon joints score poorly on this factor, as do most of the mid-week cuts.
In brief, chicken is considered an economical meat which is tender, digestible, good for children, has little wasteful fat,
suitable for visitors, makes substantial meals and is excellent cold. It is more appetizing than the other economical cuts and a lot cheaper than the most appetizing meats. Bolton respondents
gave it the best ratings.
TOPSIDE
This provides excellent meals but suffers from being expensive and does not give good value for money, especially in Reading.
It enjoys a reputation as a very nourishing and tasty meat.
On the first factor it is second to grilling steak in all three towns and also ranks second or third meat on the 'strength' factor.
It is clearly seen as the most 'nourishing' joint which is matched by favourable opinions about its 'strength'. Topside also provides readily digestible meals which are suitable for children, fairly tender, easy to prepare, easy to cut and carve and have little wasteful fat. It is in other words 'useful'. Chicken is the only unprocessed meat to score higher on this second factor and, as with the 'Nourishment' factor, topside clearly scores much better than the other joints.
The joint, however, is only moderately 'Versatile', better than pork and lamb, but much worse than chicken and a little worse than bacon joint. It continues to lose favour on the fourth factor - probably the factor uppermost in many consumer minds. Chicken and bacon joint become increasingly advantageous meats and some of the 'mid-week' cuts are also considered to give better value. There appears to be an important regional differ- ence in assessment of topside's value. Despite a higher standard of living in the south topside is rated the eleventh meat on the
'Economy' factor, whilst in Bolton and Gateshead it achieves eigth and ninth positions respectively.
Topside is, therefore, a trouble free and digestible meat which is suitable for all the family, very appetizing and makes substantial meals. It is, however, seen as rather expensive and more so than other joints.
GRILLING STEAK
Grilling steak has a rather more complex profile scoring excellently or badly on different factors. It resembles topside in being a very 'nourishing' meat, and having a good score on 'strength'.
It is, however, thought to be very expensive and to give poor value for money. Unlike topside, or the other joints, it does not possess the compensatory advantage of being 'versatile' and cannot be cooked or used in an economical manner. Perhaps surprisingly it scores poorly on the 'usefulness' factor, especially in Bolton and Gateshead. Reference to raw scales shows it to be a meat not liked by children, fairly indigestible and not tender. It fails therefore to provide satisfactory family meals and these implied risks do not bode well for its use on "special occasions".
STEWING STEAK
Stewing steak provides economical but rather poor meals. It scores badly on 'Usefulness', 'Strength' and 'Versatility'.
It rates very poorly on the second factor in Reading- noticeable worse even than lamb chops. In Gateshead it also scores poorly, achieving tenth rank and nearly as low as leg of pork and pork chops. Bolton respondents have a more favourable •
-!• I .- 1 •;- •::1•••...1. •••••••••,. .•i•.: .7..::. :: 1 i • •;--; • I' 1,1 • • I:: :: - • • ''. • ••• .• 1 • Fig 5 : Weighted & Normalised Factor Scores : Grilling Steak ' Fig 6 : Weighted .: . & Normalised Factor Scores : Stewing Steak *1.2 ------i- - •i - - • . • , .._...... i. -_:.. :....i... i_:._...;... i...... „•: -' +1.2... . ,. :• : • 1.• • - •._ :• ; :: 7 •1 -.7:.: ,. • . : ; - - I. +1.1 . . . 7- --. i•,--1-- .+1.1 .. i-- i :• . 1---:'. . --,-* .....J.-...-1 . .I.• :•• . ; I : •: 1 •• 1 :.•••• . :- :.: • • ••• • .. .. .I. .... • ••••:-:•:•••!••• t :•- t :-. • ; •: : .. •• • ,41.01 , • . . . •: • i. • i . . . ; ;' . •• • • .- ...._ ,______„:, ...... _...... !...... • ', : • ;.• :• l• • ...... ••.: • :
. • t • • •; I I • i E tar ; • i- • • i • r• • .. •.• • . 1.0.9 . i .: ;I . 7::.:i...... 1 :2: ....t.....:.F...... 1...... 1...... 1. -'-' Bolton 1 - 1- "••• : :. .... : . .4...... 7 ,...... ' 6 . . 6 Bolton Gateshead 1.0.8 'i.".: . 1 • : I - • :•• ! . ! • . . •! ••::: 7" I:.. :i 7 .1 .. .: . i.. 7. +0.8 7 :• ; .•: . 1 ; ------i ---1. Gateshead tl • :...... •... . • , - 1 .... :: ; • •' - • +..Reading , .::. . 1 .: , •. +0.7 • .. . i. • . : i :: i .: . • • •• •• • • . • 4•0•7 .• ..._,2 . t : 1 ; +++ ..: .i...L.-Lri ...-...L.--;.-.:-. Itk • Reading .-:-: '--...-..----..-- ..-...--...... :-- -.._ . .:::.1 ,•••:•• , • i I 1 4 - - --- : •• , :.. : • - ; • • • :1 • •! • • • •: • -: .. • 1 t t • : t • t X 4 .. : 4 . . -1-; • .i .- .!.....::-!-:• ":*:: ';• :- +0.6 : . : 3 . -:" •,. ;" t. T.-.-- j : ; 7------7- .. !----7-- -f---- 7-- - ... -.. . /40.5 4 • i . . ; - ... 1 :1 . :: - . • ; • - - • • . - • , A• .7, --• .L44 .7 .0.5 . i :. 1 • .•; ..I. .. ! .; ; , : : : : : . : 4 : _-_,.... - • • . • • • . ,,. .0.4 t • 1 .• '. .: i : • 1 * :.... i:• : •• : ...: .' •• • . / . • . . • +0.4 /1 :40.3 :- - • I : I • t . 7 i, 7 /...... \ ,..1...... !...... 7... .. ;_..._...... _;.....I.7_.; ‘.. +0.3 II . : \ +0.2 1 +0.2 40.1 • . . - ...... ; • i ; +0.1 ; : •- 0.0 \\ / - , - */ • . . -0.1 ... .\\ . .. 7.. . .•...... L....._...... • • ../.•• . , ... : • : , -0.1 4 \ , • ' '‘S ' _,/ A ; ' -0.2 • •:• •-• v.- ... •••••-•-•-,-----••••••-•i•-•-- ; :. ••... • - • k \• - ; • ...... • 1 IC • • • . . . .• . -0.2 4 \ • : '\.• 7 T. V 4 -0.3 :. - ,. .... _ ' , _ ‘4_‘ • ... .. • t f. ..- . . . :.... :.....1...... 1....:i...... :_l__...!....1.....,.., ; .3 ; :: . ; : • : . ..; ... - _ : , ; • 1 . ; ; . .; ; k • , • • : / 5 . .. 1 . . ‘.• !1 \ : .-1•Ii 1 1, -/ -• -1•-• - --!------.:::!------7--i-4----'""'"" . . - . --q-- --;-1 -0.5 i • : : : • ; . - k . • i ---7-----:.,L1 : : i• • : • . . • ,... __.... : 7 4 -.›,,z_ei ...,__.1..__-A -0.6 7 --, ''I • : ''• I • -0.7 ...,-. .1. i . ir . ; 1 .• ] • .1 .. : . . . •-• • -0.7 •• I
• ••••...;•• • ••• -••• i •:.•• 1 • .....•••••,...... •••••••••••••••••••••• -0.8 i : .. l• ' -0.8 • . • : • I. : . ... : • • • • :•• i : i .••• . ! : • -0.9 ; . ; 1 • i • . V -0.9 ^ -1.0 • • • 1 • I t• • I- : ..!.. .1. : -1.0 • 71.1 . .
•-1.2 - ; . • t ... -1.2 ...... : ...... ;
1••tt•tor A IV Fit c t or 14 -47 -
attitude rating it a little better over this factor than bacon
joint and grilling steak and much higher than the pork cuts. All
in all though it is criticised as a troublesome meat being less easy to prepare, not tender, not liked by children, awkward to cut and carve and carrying wasteful fat.
Although substantial and nourishing it is not, like the pork
cuts and grilling steak, compensated by making appealing meals. In Reading it rates as low as ninth on the 'Strength' factor, with
mince, corned beef, and beefburgers being the only meats to score lower. It appears to be thought of as a rather dull and heavy
meal which is not a great pleasure to eat. It is, however,
relatively cheap, being the third best meat on the 'Economy' factor.
MINCE
Mince is the most 'Economical' meat but this reflects its cheapness rather than any great merits it might have as a meal maker.
Perhaps significantly mince fails to draw on Beef's prestige and scores very poorly on Nourishment - as badly as corned beef
and worse than all the other meats except beefburgers. Itii
additionally shares with these two meats a very poor score on the
strength factor being unpopular with men, unsuitable for visitors and relatively tasteless. It does not even score well on the substantiality scale.
The cut does, however, score fairly well on the second
'Usefulness', factor; better, for instance, than grilled steak, stewing steak and the two chops. It is fairly tender, digestible, good for children, has little wasteful fat and in the North considered easy to prepare. Note that while in Gateshead it receives the second highest (best) score on the 'Usefulness' factor, in Reading it achieves only seventh rank. - 118 -
All three towns considered the meat to give very good value for money rating it far higher than bacon joint - the fourth rated meat - and still impressively better than stewing steak, the third highest scorer.
LEG OF LAMB
There appears to be a marked regional difference in pre- ference for leg of lamb with Bolton, and to some extent Reading, respondents scoring the joint more favourably than those in
Gateshead. But even in Bolton the meat fails to score out- standingly well on any factor.
Bolton and Reading respondents consider the joint to be tasty, popular with men, substantial and suitable for visitors. It has the fourth highest rating on strength in Bolton and Reading, falling to grilling steak, topside and chicken in Bolton and
grilling steak, topside and leg of pork in Reading. Gateshead respondents do not have such a high regard for the cut, rating leg of pork, pork chops, the two expensive beef cuts and even stewing steak to have better strength. Leg of lamb has fairly good prestige as a nourishing meal - a lot less than the two expensive beef cuts but much better than leg of pork. In Bolton it also scores much better than bacon joint.
Although quite tender and suitable for children the meat only achieves a middle rank on the second factor since it is fatty, awkward to prepare, awkward to cut and carve and in Newcastle not considered digestible.
Leg of lamb is also middling on the Economy factor, rating seventh overall, but is better value than the chops, leg of pork and the expensive beef cuts. Bacon joint is considered a more economical cut in all three towns. In Reading and Gateshead it receives the lowest score on the 'Versitality' factor, although in Bolton it is preferred to pork, bacon joint and even topside.
Leg of lamb therefore reveals itself as a fairly economical joint which, unlike leg of pork and bacon joint, is suitable for ------7 . . •! • I . ;.... , Fig 7 : Weighted & Normalised Factor Scores : Mince Fig 8 : Weighted •. -I- & Normalised Factor Scores : Leg of Lamb +1.2 ...., ...... +1.2.
.t1.1
$1.0 +1.0 .0.9 +0.9 .0.8 +0.8
...... •0.7 +0.7
•0.6 40.6
+0.5
+0.4
+0.3 Pak
+0.2
+0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.5
-0.5 ....•.- •
-o.6 -0.6
-77.7-- • . 7. 77-7 7' -0.7
-0.8 Bolton
...... -•. • • -0.9 : Gateshead .
-1.0 ••-• + Reading
-
------.
• . V ,actor III IV 4 V .• • - 50 -
all the family. It best suits an occasion when all the meat will • be eaten and the meal-preparer is not looking for leftovers. It is a good substitute for poultry. Since it is not very expensive it can be a good alternative to mince, stewing steak and the
processed meats. Nevertheless there is a tendency for stewing
steak and mince to receive a higher rating in the North East.
LAMB CHOPS
'Lamb Chops' has a weak competitive position as a meat. It is expensive and gives poor value for money and also suffers competition from pork chops. On no factor does lamb chops score
well.
None of the towns consider the cut to have 'Strength'. On
this third factor it scores only a middling rank. Like leg of lamb it does receive slightly better ratings in Bolton. The same situation is repeated on the first factor.
Its performance on the second factor is also mediocre with
a markedly poorer rating in Reading. Stewing steak though re- ceiving lower ratings is a more economical, substantial and nourishing meat. It is on the second factor, however, that lamb chops gains an advantage over pork chops with the Northern Respondents. Although lamb chops are fatty, not very digestible,
awkward to cut and carve, not liked by children and not tender, pork chops score even worse. In Reading they only score a little higher. Many respondents, particularly those cooking for children, might prefer to serve the lamb cut.
Lamb chops is an uneconomical meat receiving much lower ratings on the 'Economy' factor than stewing steak and mince. Chicken, leg of lamb and bacon joint also score better and topside fairs little worse. Pork chops are, however, also considered to be
expensive. Finally like the other 'mid-week' cuts lamb chops are
not suitable as a cold meat and therefore do badly on the 'Versatility' factor. Thus, although providing an alternative
type of hot meal to stews or jOints, lamb chops are costly and 51
not very popular with either adults or children.
LEG OF PORK
Leg of pork is a rather awkward meat to assess since it has a complex factor profile and suffers much greater criticism from Bolton respondents.
Reading and Gateshead's respondents consider it to make rather appealing meals being popular with men, tasty, sub-
stantial and suitable for visitors. They score it better for 'Strength' than chicken, leg of lamb and bacon joint. Bolton
respondents, however, give chicken and leg of lamb more favourable scores.
All three towns, but especially Bolton, rate the meat very
poorly on the second factor. They consider it fatty, indigest-
ible, not liked by children, and awkward to prepare. They also
give the meat low ratings - the lowest joint - on the first
factor - indicating a reputation as a not very nourishing meat.
In Bolton the cut is also rated the poorest joint on
'Versatility', but in Reading and Gateshead it is preferred to
the lamb joint. The joint is considered to be expensive. It
scores lower on the fourth factor than chicken, bacon joint and
leg of lamb._ In Reading it does, however, score much better than topside.
For many people, therefore, the cut is not an attractive product suffering competition from leg of lamb and chicken and topside. It is much more favourably perceived in Reading than Bolton.
PORK CHOPS
Pork chops have a similar profile to leg of pork and lamb chops. Its best scores are for 'Nourishment' and 'Strength'.
Pork chops are more 'Nourishing' than bacon joint, lamb chops, mince, stewing steak and the processed meats. This Bolton - 53 -
advantageous score is counteracted by a poor score on 'Usefulness' and 'Economy'. The highest rank it achieves on both the second
and fourth factors is only ninth. On the other hand lamb chops
which performs slightly better on the 'Usefulness' factor are also
expensive and much less 'Nourishing'.
Pork chops, like leg of pork, is generally better received in
Reading.
BACON JOINT
Bacon joint is an 'economical' meat which is 'Versatile'.
It lacks 'Nourishment', 'Usefulness' and 'Strength' in comparison to the other joints and many of the midweek cuts.
Respondents in Gateshead who are not as favourably disposed to Chicken and lamb chops give bacon joint a slightly higher score for 'Strength' whilst its position improves a little more in Reading where stewing. steak is not so well received. A similar pattern is found on the second 'Usefulness', factor with Bolton respondents still rating the joint as low as tenth and Reading rating it higher but still only sixth. Bolton respondents have a higher regard for lamb chops, leg of lamb and stewing steak. Bacon joint is awkward to prepare, fatty, not so digestible and unsuitable for children.
In Reading and Gateshead the joint is seen to be fairly nour- ishing since it scores fourth and fifth respectively on the first factor - better than chicken. In Bolton it only receives the eight highest score with only leg of pork, mince, beefburgers and corned beef scoring lower.
The regional differences in attitude are reflected once more on the fifth factor when it scores poorly as a cold meat in Bolton but better in Gateshead and Reading, where it is preferred to topside and the lamb joint. Respondents in all three towns think it gives better value than the pork, beef and lamb joints, grilling steak and the chops. Nevertheless it still ranks much lower on the
Economy factor than stewing steak, mince and chicken. Fig 12 : Weighted & Normalised Factor Scores : Bacon Joint j.1.2 Bolton
Gateshead
+ + + Rending Bolton
Gateshead
..0.7 +0.7 + + +
.0.6 +0.6 • •.
.0.5 +0.5 7
.0:4 ...
40.3 +0.3 .. .. ••7•7•••i•
.0.2 +0.2 „.._. •• • • 4 • A..- • P 1 +0.1 L--- .0.1 •,• .... •
• 0.0 • -0•01
-0.1 . -0.1
-0.2 - -0.2----
... -0.3 -0.3 .....
-0.4 -0.4
-0.5
46••• ••• -0.6
-0.7 ..7 .. ••••••••••
-0.9
-1.0 ... -1.0
• 1
-1.2 .
. . • r,tc...cir I III Factor I II 1yo V /A 4 -55 -
CORNED BEEF
Corned beef is viewed as a meat with considerable variation
in characteristic levels, but with little regional variation. It
scores well on 'Usefulness' and on 'Versatility'. It does badly on 'Nourishment' and 'Strength' and is indeterminate on 'Economy'.
Its 'Usefulness' score is superior to all other cuts considered, being approached by only chicken and beefburgers. For 'Versatility' it is only surpassed by chicken and, marginlyo bacon joint.
The only significant regional variation occurs over 'Ver- satility' when it is favourably scored in increasing order of Reading, Bolton, Gateshead. Although not significant on other factors this order of rating persisted for the other factors.
BEEFBURGERS
Beefburgers show, in total the worst factor trellis. They score exceedingly badly on 'Nourishment', 'Strength' and 'Versatility'. They only just achieve a positive score for
'Economy' but do relatively well for 'Usefulness', only being exceeded by chicken and corned beef. It is their score on scales for ease of preparation and liking by children that contribute strongly to the latter.
Regionally few variations are shown with only 'Versatility' showing statistical significance. In this case Reading respondents scored the cut lower than Gateshead or Bolton. ... II III * -57 -
Summary
In general a similar pattern of beliefs appears in each region but the level of belief varies. In the case of beef the
Gateshead respondents tend to give higher scores than Bolton and particularly Reading. In the case of lamb, Gateshead and Bolton reverse roles with Reading again tending to give lowest scores. on In contrast leg of pork scores much more favourably in Reading much all factors and both Gateshead and Reading give bacon joint a more preferable score than Bolton.
Finally the summed factor scores can be examined (fig. 15)
This graph is arranged so that the meats appear in horizontal order of increasing mean summed factor score. This measure is likely to show smaller differences between meats and regions because of the averaging process. It also makes the implicit assumption that each of the four factors is of equal importance and that the fifth factor is of no value in general comparison. They do, however, provide a widely used and convenient summary measure. The descriptions provided for separate cuts are substantially badly. reproduced. Beefburgers, lamb chops and leg of pork score variations Topside and particularly chicken do very well. Regional leg of are displayed for some products. Pig meat as pork chops, lamb pork, and bacon joint are viewed critically in Bolton. Both the pig cuts are viewed favourably. Reading, in contrast scores than average. meat cuts well,whereas lamb tends to marginally lower better than average Reading respondents also give grilling steak a In Gateshead the score'but a poor score for the other beef cuts. score above average, beef products except for beefburgers, all lamb and pork tend to noticably mince, and grilling steak,while have below average scores. - 58 -
Fig. 15: Sum of Weighted Normalised Mean Factor Scores (on first 4 factors) •,• BB - Beefburgers LC - Lamb-Chops 2.2 LP - Leg Pork PC - Pork Chops CB - Corned Beef 2.0 LL - Leg Lamb BJ - Bacon Joint GS - Grilling Steak 1.8 M - Mince SS - Stewing Steak T - Topside 1.6 CH - Chicken
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
-0.2
-0,114 -
-0.6 •-:.-
-0.8 •
=1.0
Overall
-1.2 Bolton Gateshead Reading
••
1 ;.. I. .1 .-. I BB LC LP PC CB LL BJ GS M SS T CH -59 -
The Cooking Environment
The restats so far presented examine tne housewifes beliefs
about individual meats. The set of statements about meat and cooking were designed to elicit housewives views on the position-
ing of meat as a separate group in competition with other foods.
Responses to the statements used in the first interview are presented in table 8. They provide an interesting complement to earlier findings.
Responses to Statements 3, 5 and 8 show very favourable attitudes to cooking, particularly of meat, as an activity. As a
general rule it would be wrong to say that cooks begrudge the effort needed to make meat-based meals. Baron et al (1973) drew similar conclusions and McCarney (1975) in a meat oriented study found very favourable attitudes to both "old fashioned cooking" and "Experimenting with new foods" amongst his sample of ABC1 housewives. Many people also consider meat to be very tasty and nutritious - a necessary and appetizing part of a family's diet (Statements 2, 12, 16 18) and two thirds of respondents are reluctant to agree strongly that "Meat is too expensive to eat regularly". Despite the recent price rises meat is still held in high esteem by consumers.
Whilst, however, tinned meat is thought expensive and con- venience foods far less "good for you" attitudes to eggs, fish and cheese are not that unfavourable. Cheese and eggs can, for over half the respondents, clearly be used to make substantial meals and many people consider fish to be appetising. Baron et al and McCarney found that fish was considered a suitable substitute for meat. Cheese, fish and fried food are, however, tainted by a fear of boredom (see also Hughes (1976a)).
Table 8 shows that Northern respondents and the middle and lower Socio Economic Grades tend to have a higher regard for meat than do Reading respondents and the higher social Grades (Statements
1, 3, 5, 8, 12, 13, 16). This regional and class difference in - 60 -
to Cookin- Statements (All Respondents) TABLE 8 - Mean Scores for Res,onses
Vnweighted Weighted Grades Grade Grade Grades Bolton Gateshead Reading All A/B Cl C2 B/E Respondents
meat is not as 39.4 51.5 48.2 42.5 1. Tinned 47.5 46.3 39.9 appetizing as fresh meat 43.5 57.1 56.9 2. Children need plenty 42.8 30.3 18.8 47.6 '44.5 60.6 of meat
who tries can cook 59.6 69.1 71.2 74.3 3. Anyone 68.9 73.1 66.6 interesting meals 68.8 to 32.5 55.1 4. Meat is too expensive 44.8 19.2 31.5 40.8 35.7 38.4 eat regularly
is a time- 16.2 19.6 29.8 32.9 5. Cooking 26.0 25.4 34.0 consuming chore 29.8 47.9 6. Eggs are as energy giving 42.6 28.3 35.2 47.1 42.8 36.6 49.9 as meat 42.5 7. Regular cheese meals 32.3 37.6 37.2 39.0 41.0 37.1 38.9 would be boring 74.1 8. It is easy to build a meal 57.6 71.5 75.4 72.7 74.5 71.2 72.5 round meat 61.1 9. Eggs can make a substantial 42.4 57.0 57.6 57.2 51.8 60.1 58.7 meal 15.0 Convenience foods are as 7.1 , 15.2 17.3 10. 15.9 11.3 16.3 18.3 good for you as traditional meals 39.8 44.3 11. Fish is as appetizing 47.5 44.8 42.9 47.4 39.3 42.3 as meat 5679 Meat is necessary for a 42.4 53.9 62.8 12. 52.8 54.9 64.7 45.8 good diet 52.4 58.1 13. Tinned meat 50.5 38.4 49.1 51.3 52.0 52.4 is expensive 44.9 It would be boring to 31.3 40.0 39.3 14. 41.4 46.3 34.9 41.9 serve fish frequently 40.7 Fried food gets 48.5 52.1 46.1 15. 45.4 40.5 48.1 46.7 monotonous 52.4 53.3 16. Men need a meat meal in 22.2 43.6 45.3 42.7 56.2 41.3 the evening 50.9 One can make filling evening " 510.5 49.7 46.1 17. 51.4 44.3 47.3 57.3 meals out of cheese 59.3 18. Meat makes the tastiest 33.3 53.3 64.9 55.1 55.6 64.2 50.4 meals 100 166 191 167 - 61
scoring tendency was repeated four weeks later when the Bi Polar scales were completed. Reading respondents gave notably lower scores to most of the meats whilst the 'C's were the highest
scoring grades. It is a moot point whether this reflects
differences in attitudes to meat or merely some general aspect of
response tendency. Intuitively one would expect the difference to lie in attitudes to meat not scale completion. A plausible explanation for these findings is of course that the Southern respondents and Higher Social Grades experiment more with their cooking and are not as committed to the "traditional" British diet of meat and veg. Table 9. Mean Normalised Factor Score & Standard Deviation for Each Cut in Each Town
FACTOR I Nourishment Leg of Bacon Corned Beef No. in Chicken Top Grilling Stewing Mince Leg of Lamb Pork Pork Joint Beef Burger Sample Side Steak Steak Lamb Chops Chops
Means -0.154 0.021 -0.109 -0.256 -0.966 166 Bolton 0.255 0.431 0.512 0.285 -0.363 0.220 0.121 -0.082 • -0.003 0.067 -0.175 -1.1942 152 Gateshead 0.041 0.525 0.649 0.319 -0.160 0.090 -0.076
-0.009 0.055 0.069 -0.308 -1.0077 • 306 Reading 0.011 0.515 0.948 0.090 -0.252 -0.002 -0.111 -0.04 0.080 -0.431 0.021 -0.262 -1.042 624 All Towns 0.083 0.495 0.759 0.198 -0.259 0.080
Standard Deviation 0.845 0.827 0.852 0.971 1.1682 166 Bolton 0.836 0.782 0.851 0.758 0.974 0.734 0.974 0.798 1.031 1.1335 152 Gateshead 0.790 0.786 0.782 0.859 0.875 0.748 0.750 0.727 0.872 0.810 0.984 1.063 306 Reading 0.839 0.757 0.816 0.786 0.998 0.690 0.722 0.835 0.755 0.800 0.992 1.110 624 All Towns 0.857 0.770 0.838 0.803 0.964 0.721 0.7607 0.841 0.795
F test for Sig. 1.820 3.052 0.915 1.970 4.677 17.127 1.785 5.225 5.216 0.265 Diff between groups 0.791 5.527 0.048 0.401 0.140 Sig. 0.010 0.452 0.000 0.004 0.169 0.006 0.006 0.163 0.767 *** NS NS • *** NS *** *** NS ss. NS NS
Factor II: Usefulness Corned Beef Grilling Stewing Leg of Lamb Leg of Pork Bacon Topside Mince Joint Beef Burger Means Chicken Steak Steak Lamb Chops Pork Chops
-0.094 -0.744 -0.496 -0.312 0.646 0.286 Bolton 0.648 0.269 -0.237 -0.162 0.134 0.061
-0.511 -0.479 -0.129 0.671 0.311 Gateshead 0.422 0.241 -0.238 -0.443 0.426 -0.082 -0.189 -0.280 -0.276 -0.242 -0.055 0.583 0.486 Reading 0.431 0.211 -0.000 -0.598 -0.087 -0.173 -0.208 -0.458 -0.368 -0.141 0.621 0.390 All Towns. 0.487 0.234 -0.121 -0.444 0.097 -0.088
Standard Deviation 0.832 0.883 0.938 0.842 1.097 Bolton 0.670 0.838 0.940 0.851 0.882 0.731 0.887 0.892 0.848 0.893 0.812 1.187 Gateshead 0.731 0.797 0.917 0.980 0.747 0.867 0.795 0.814 0.804 0.758 0.961 0.900 - 1.091 Reading 0.749 0.797 1.002 0.966 0.855 0.932 0.832 0.855 0.823 0.943 0.864 1.119 All Towns 0.730 0.807 0.971 0.956 0.846 0.871
F test for Sig. 17.332 7.119 4.045 0.623 2.246 Diff. between 5.625 0.288 4.705 11.565 20.024 3.933 2.756 Groups 0.107 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.064 0.000 0.001 0.018 0.537 Sig. 0.004 0.750 NS NS Ns *** *0 Table 9. Mean Normalised Factor Score & Standard Deviation for Each Cut in Each Town
FACTOR III Strength
Chicken Top Grilling Stewing Mince Leg of Lamb Leg of Pork Bacon Corned Beef Side Steak Steak Lamb Chops Pork Chops Joint Beef Burger
Means
Bolton 0.370 0.299 0.378 0.207 -0.211 0.293 0.269 0.211 0.248 -0.115 -0.699 -0.115
Gateshead 0.087 0.365 0.373 0.210 -0.196 0.183 0.154 0.367 0.343 0.171 -0.659 -1.399
Reading 0.166 0.505 0.576 -0.004 -0.484 0.354 0.084 0.405 0.352 0.230 -0.846 -1.336
All Towns 0.201 0.416 0.474 0.104 -0.341 0.296 0.150 0.344 0.322 0.123 -0.761 -1.328
Standard Deviation
Bolton 0.662 0.733 0.645 0.649 0.960 0.763 0.817 0.832 0.891 0.745 1.033 1.069
Gateshead 0.682 0.630 0.786 0.773 0.866 0.737 0.875 0.727 0.806 0.739 0.933 1.133
Reading 0.660 0.571 0.723 0.819 0.740 0.737 0.883 0.736 0.799 0.701 0.898 0:921
All Towns 0.673 0.638 0.725 0.772 0.913 0.746 0.866 0.764 0.826 0.736 0.946 1.010
F test for Sig. 8.033 6.354 6.032 6.006 Diff between groups 7.490 2.655 2.478 3.582 0.916 12.743 2.467 0.885
Sig: 0.000 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.001 0.071 0.85 0.028 0.401 0.000 0.086 0.413 000 SO. • • NS • NS
Factor IV: Economy
Grilling Stewing Leg of Lamb Leg Pork Bacon Corned Means Chicken Topside Mi nce of Beef Steak Steak Lamb Chops Pork Chops Joint Beef Burger
Bolton 0.907 -0.278 -0.485 0.500 0.991 -0.196 -0.366 -0.442 -0.443 -0.062 -0.105 -0.022
Gateshead 0.808 -0.434 -0.679 0.608 0.978 -0.157 -0.365 -0.449 -0.547 0.222 0.089 -0.074
Reading 0.987 -0.659 -0.952 0.745 0.905 -0.180 -0.566 -0.179 -0.368 0.219 -0.066 0.114
All Towns 0.922 -0.502 -0.761 0.647 0.946 -0.179 -0.464 -0.315 -0.431 0.145 -0.039 0.032
Standard Deviation
Bolton 0.572 0.820 0.855 0.726 0.769 0.782 0.873 0.773 0.811 0.857 0.962 1.017
Gateshead. 0.652 0.775 0.782 0.695 0.726 0.760 0.825 0.765 0.803 0.791 0.915 1.056 • Reading 0.565 0.828 0.764 0.608 0.740 0.737 0.779 0.700 0.772 0.589 0.890 0.918
All Towns 0.599 0.828 0.817 0.670 0.744 0.754 0.821 0.747 0.792 0.729 0.917 0.982
F test for Sig. Diff. Between 4.755 12.508 19.812 7.687 0.906 0.110 4.721 10.196 2.643 9.392 2.050 2.219 Groups
Sig. 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.404 0.896 0.009 0.000 0.072 0.000 0.130 0.109 *** *** 0.. NS NS *** *** *** NS NS Table 9 Mean Normalised Factor Score & Standard Deviation for Each Cut iii Each Town
Factor V: Versatility Grilling Stewing Leg of Lamb Leg of Pork Bacon Corned Beef Chicken Topside Mince Means Steak Steak Lamb - Chops Pork Chops Joint Beef iBurger
Bolton 1.067 0.588 -0.610 -0.623 -0.534 0.593 -0.423 0.308 -0.561 0.4.60 0.712 -0.978
Gateshead 1.058 0.539 -0.582 -0.750 -0.644 0.379 -0.561 0.494 -0.540 0.771 0.832 -0.996
Reading 1.166 0.613 -0.578 -0.607 -0.522 0.264 -0.544 0.582 -0.525 0.795 0.538 -1.182
All Towns 1.113 0.589 -0.588 -0.646 -0.555 0.380 -0.516 0.487 -0.538 0.700 0.656 -1.082
- Standard Deviation
Bolton 0.532 0.605 0.798 0.731 0.736 0.628 0.754 0.704 ' 0.790 0.734 0.716 0.705
Gateshead 0.567 ' 0.623 0.709 0.715 0.697 0.711 0.660 0.646 0.692. 0.648 0.595 0.790
Reading 0.526 0.647 0.632 0.654 0:576 0.742 0.631 0.522 0.756 0.569 0.665 0.701
All Towns 0.539 0.630 0.698 0.692 0.653 0.718 0.674 0.616 0.750 0.651 0.673 0.709
F test for Sig. Diff. Between 2.910 0.708 0.114 2,287 1.908 11.732 2.187 10.991 0.125 16.213 10.772 6.069 Groups
Sig. 0.055 0.493 0.893 0.102 0.149 0.000 0.113 0.000 0.882 0.000 0.000 0.002 *** *** NS NS NS NS *** NS *** NS , *** •
CHAPTER 5 : VARIATION IN ATTITUDES AMONG SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND OTHER GROUPINGS
It is suspected that attitudes may vary with a number of
household characteristics such as socio-economic group, freezer
ownership, age, and the presence of children in the family. The
picture presented so far of regional variation in beliefs about
meat cuts does not adjust for the numerous variations in regional
make up of the population. In this chapter a brief verbal des-
cription is given first, of attitudes to each cut emphasising
the differences among socio economic grade. It concludes with a
least squares analysis which tries to give a more comprehensive
summary of the numerous characteristics which may influence
attitude. This chapter again uses the sum of the first four
factors as a summary attitude statistic.
• BEEFBURGERS
Regional differences persist across all Socio Economic
Grades with Reading respondents being the least critical of the
product and Gateshead respondents the most. The difference is
greatest amongst the higher grades.
LAMB CHOPS
Whilst continuing through all grades the regional difference
in scores is rather small except amonst A/B households y where
Bolton respondents give the cut a very high score. These same
respondents also give mince an exceptionally low score. -67 -
LEG OF PORK
Once again there is a regional difference in attitude over all the Socio Economic grades but unlike bacon joint the difference is least with A/B households. In Reading the joint scores higher with the lower grades but in Bolton it tends to score lower.
PORK CHOPS
The regional differences in attitude to Pork Chops are not consistent across the occupational grades. In Reading this meat,like Leg of Pork, scores higher with the C2 and D/E grades but in Bolton and Gateshead it receives a lower score from these occupational groups. Amongst A/B and C1 households the meat actually receives its lowest score with Reading respondents. Thus it is with the C and D/E households that 2 Reading's relative preference for the cut is found. With these grades the meat scores quite well, especially in relation to lamb chops.
CORNED BEEF
A regional difference in attitudes between Bolton and Gateshead is rather doubtful since with A/B and C households 1 Bolton respondents give Corned Beef the higher scores. Gateshead
A/B are also the group which is most critical of this meat.
Reading's scores are the most depressed. They never rank top town nor give it a positive score.
LEG OF LAMB •
In all three towns, but especially Bolton, this tends to score better with the higher grades. The Regional Difference is also greatest with A/B households.
BACON JOINT
Bolton's greater criticism of this cut persists throughout all the occupational grades but is especially apparqnt with A/B households. - 68 -
Table 17 : Sum of Weighted Normalised Mean Factor Scores (on first 4 factors) A/B Households
3.0 4--
• • • -
2.0
t-
1.0
-1.0
-2.0
,•
-4.0
Bolton Gateshead +•+ + Reading ) I . 1 1
BB LC LP CB LL SS T CM
(Key to Beef Cuts on page 58) -69-
Table 18 : Sum of Weighted Normalised Mean Factor Scores (on first 4 factors) Cl Households _ .
3.0 •••••••••••
_ •^ • •.. ...
2.0
1.0
4 -I-- -t`- -t-• I- 44, Ar Att-
/ / A' AA X
• •
-1.0
-2.0
...... ' .. . •
-3.0
Bolton Gateshead • + + + Reading
BB LC LP PC CB LL BJ GS M SS T CM
(Key to Beef Cuts on page 58) - 70 -
Table 19 : Sum of Weighted Normalised Mean Factor Scores (on first 4 factors) ... C2 Households. • i • 3.0 I
I
•. .. .. 2.0 . . ••••••••
1.0
• t • • • • •
• i
•1t /\.• \./ : . 1/ I. 77
- 1.0 ••••••••••••••••.....• .../..••,r_____ , ,1 1 t • • • • ....,..._ •• fI 7 ----.1 i i -2.0 i . . I . - • •
. , .
Gateshead ••■•
•• ••••• •
4. + Reading
• ..
1 I
•••••••••••• BB LC LP PC CB LL• GS SS T CM
(Key to Beef Cuts on page 58) •
-71 -
Table 20 : Sum of Weighted Normalised Mean Factor Scores (on first 4 factors) D/E Households
^
3.0 ••
• 2.0
. . . 1.0
-1.0
•••
-2.0
•••11•••
Bolton 1 Gateshead 1 01.011 1...... _. I 1 i + + + Reading i
BB LC LP PC CB LL TO. GS M SS T CM
(Key to Beef Cuts on 'page 58) - 72 -
In Reading and Gateshead, however, the meat scores better with the A/B households and the regional difference istherefore greatest amongst the higher grades.
GRILLING STEAK
It is difficult to make sense of the regional differences, if any, in attitudes to Grilling Steak since the direction of the differences in score between Bolton and Gateshead also varies with class. Furthermore, as has already been mentioned, whilst there is an indication that Reading respondents have a more favourable attitude to the cut they are the most critical over its economy.
MINCE
There is an unclear pattern in the Grade breakdown of scores for mince. In Reading and Gateshead it scores no less favourably with A/B than D/E households but in Bolton - where lamb scores well - it scores very poorly with the upper grades. In Reading it is the C and D/E respondents - who also gave Corned Beef low 2 ratings - who have an unfavourable attitude to the meat.
Thus in Gateshead there is no clear relationship between attitudes and Grade, in Reading it increases in favour with a rise in grade,whilst in Bolton there is a marked rejection of the cut by A/B households.
STEWING STEAK
Stewing Steak receives somewhat lower scores from Reading respondents in all but the A/B households. There is, however, no real evidence for a difference in attitude between Bolton and
Gateshead since, as with Corned Beef, their relative position changes with grade and may be due to chance sampling factors.
TOPSIDE
Like Leg of Lamb, Topside scores better with the higher grades, particularly in Bolton. There is some indication that the
Reading A/B, C,andC 2 groups have slightly less favourable - 73 -
attitudes to the cut than respondents in Bolton or Gateshead.
The difference if it exists is not great and Figure 4 shows that if Reading respondents are especially critical of the joint's economy they also consider it to make very appealing meals.
Perhaps, however, as was mentioned above, Reading respondents think that leg of Pork, Bacon Joint and Leg of Lamb are closer that substitutes to Beef than do respondents in the North. Note in Reading, Topside and Grilling Steak obtain very similar scores on this summed index, but in both Bolton and Gateshead Topside consistently achieves a slightly higher score.
CHICKEN
Chicken always achieves the highest score. Gateshead poultry respondents tend to be somewhat less enthusiastic about the especially the D/E households who score it a lot lower than
A/B Grades in Bolton.
Least Squares Analysis of Attitudes
which Finally in an attempt to draw together the many factors squares may contribute to attitude variation a step-wise least in Table 10 analysis is performed. The results are presented are included. where only coefficients significant at the 10% level as a Again use is made of the score of the first four factors summary attitude statistic.
listed Possible contributary factors to the attitude score are social grade across the top of the table. They include region, a freezer. family size, age, income, sex and possession of which suggested the Following the evidence of the last section, among social possibility of non-consistent regional differences town is also included. grades, an interaction variable for class and
regional Examination of the first three columns shows the to be substantively summary presented at the end of the Chapter 4 for. Indeed, the reproduced even when other factors are allowed and grilling steak apparently anomalous low scores of beefburgers adjustment. in Gateshead are much reduced after this Table 106 Least Squares Analrls of Swwd Factors
Per Cap Per Cap Constant No. or No. of Incont income RESPONDENT Bolton Catsh.d A/B Cl C2 Ago Age Inc BOLTON CATES4010 NO Child Adults 40-60 not F, 66. L752- L1410 • And . and 4.EE, Declared ,14,0 72 F Mr. Yrs. A/B ,, Cl 1 C2 A/B CI C2 - Beeft,rger -2.03 -0.61 -1.29 -0.59 0.3 -0.52 0.4,, Lvt.h C,c, -0.31 3.6I 7.11 0.:3 0.93 -6.29 -0.47 0.75 1.55 . ... Leg of Fork -0.16 -1.16 -0.73 0.64 . 0.20 • 3.31 Pore C:o, 0.66 -0.52 3.07 9.45 -0.45 0.31 -0.20 -3.50 I cos Ckfr, Ere: -OM 0.09 0.64 i.r., I 0.53 . 1 -0.91 6.6-1 of L,1, 1.71 0.13 0.03 5.33 -0.25 0.37 0.53 0.3: I -0.:7 Cocos .77:.n0 0.29 0.35 5.72 -0.03 1 6.11 I -1.33 1 3.07 Cril0ir4 :te.111c 0.33 -0.2.2 10.12 1 0.14 -0.37 -0.79 -0.72 0.04 tqn,a 0.12 , 0.70 5.43 1.10 -0.43 -0.69 i -1.91 -6.73 1 0.07 ntrvIftg Staa4 -0.06 0.57 1.22 (J.11 0.54 0.30 0:45 , . -0,:o 1 0.5 To7s1dz 0.61 0.00 4.05 -0.06 0.80 1 0.02 Chloltn 1.90 0.70 0.06 4.92 • -0.22 -0.37 -0.76 I . re.„ I .06 7.35 1 ...... L I Base Respondent as Indicated by Constant : Reacing. Class DIE. lee. than 40 yrs, Miss, With Freezer. Lowest 1/3 Inca., Only Cotficiente Significant at 10% or greater level included. -75 -
Other influential factors show a scattered effect usually in the direction of a priori belief. For example A/B and to a lesser extent Cl households score beefburgers poorly, whereas families with more children score them favourably. One inter- esting question concerns the effect of age on beliefs about meat cuts, particularly lamb. In this analysis only a broad categor- isation of age has been made, but to the extent that it represents a valid grouping, few systematic shifts are observed. Respondents do appear to increasingly prefer stewing steak as they age. This feature is not however reproduced for lamb as would be expected from popular belief. Indeed only in the case of leg of lamb do the over 60's group show a significantly better score. It may, nevertheless, be that there is an age effect for individual factors which are particularly influential with regard to purchase. CHAPTER 6 : TEMPORAL VARIATION IN ATTITUDES
The second survey of respondents facilitated two checks on the attitude study. The first check concerns the attitude • methodology. There would be little reason to think that consumers would have a different conceptional framework for appraising meat in the two periods. This is particularly true, if,as is often suggestedlattitudes and beliefs about meat are very slow to change. The six month interval is unlikely to be long enough for this to happen. A comparative Factor Analysis of the two sets of responses should therefore reveal little change in the Factor Structure Matrix if the methodology is satisfactorily measuring attitude components.
The second test concerns the persistance of beliefs about the different meat cuts. Even if consumers are found to judge meats on the same characteristics in each period it might be that their beliefs about the level of those characteristics are not constant. Indeed,it might well be that there would be some variation in their perceived level of some characteristics if climatic factors cause housewives to focus on different household needs. For example, the 'Strength' Factor which loads heavily on substantiality is likely to be of more interest during colder months of the year. Other activities such as advertising or highly publicised calamities (e.g. 1964 outbreak of typhoid from corned beef) may - 77 -
also affect belief levels. There appeared to be no major
disasters in the meat market between the two survey periods.
Nor, in general, were there any major advertising initiatives for a particular meat cut. Bacon Joints were heavily advertised • by the Danes (Supermarketing 1977) prior to the first survey with a campaign in which economy was emphasised. This campaign continued till just before the second survey.
It might be expected, therefore, that there would be only modest changes in the average belief levels -between surveys excepting possibly bacon joints. Individually, however, res- pondents would be expected to show more variation reflecting changes in personal family circumstances and experiences.
Survey Procedure
Interview and scale completion were conducted in a similar manner to the first survey,with the same respondents0 months later. Details of the timetable, questionnaire, and response have been spelt out in Chapter 2. Seventy six per cent of respondents in the first survey completed the second; to give
476 usable questionnaires. The poorest repeat survey success was in Reading at 71%.
The opportunity of adding one additional cut of meat, brisket, was taken in the second survey. The results for this cut are presented at the end of this Chapter.
Factor Solutions
The fact that only 476 households were available for Summer/Winter comparison had a double implication for the analysis. Firstly the weighting of the sample had to be modified so that the reduced sample would more nearly represent the whole county. Details.of weight used appear in Appendix E. Secondly, the initial Factor solution of the Summer survey presented in Chapter 3 related to 624 respondents qnd would - 78 -
not necessarily compare directly with one produced for the 476 of the Winter survey. To permit comparison Factor Analyses
were completed for the respondents common to both surveys. The analyses has performed separately for each survey, and in a combined analysis of all '25' cuts for 476 respondents. In this latter analysis brisket made up the '25th cut'.
The resultant Factor Matrices are shown in Table 10. It can
be seen that a very considerable similarity emerges. For ease of comparison the order of scales used in Table 6 is preserved.
In all cases the same Factor Structure emerges. Very minor differences in ordering of the scales within each Factor are apparent but nowhere is there any indication that different conclusions would be reached about the Factor Structure if the surveys had been analysed in isolation. It is concluded, therefore, that the characteristics on which respondents judge
meat did not alter between the survey periods. Alternatively,
if it is accepted that change in the structure of beliefs was unlikely, then the result provides. confirmation of the re-
liability of the analytical procedure.
Changes in Beliefs About Meat Cuts
As in Chapter 4 the Factor Structure ERtrix is used to derive average Factor scores for each cut of meat. A number of changes in procedure are, however, necessary in their calculation.
Average raw scale scores for the 13 Winter meats are quite likely to differ from the 12 Summer meats. Obviously the inclusion of Brisket will have an impact but other Factors such
as learning or adaptation to the questionnaire must be con- sidered. Hence it would be inappropriate to normalize Factor
scores on the basis of means and S.D. for the 25 meats.
Two calculations were used, therefore, to produce normalized
Factor scores for the meat in the two surveys. The Summer
Factor scores were normalized exactly by the procedure described - 79 -
Table 10a. Varimax Rotated Factor Solution for Summer and Winter Surveys
WINTER 476 Respondents
12 Meats
The decimal point in front of each number has been ommitted for clarity
I II III IV V
Vitamins 75250 16776 31792 06921 10524
Proteins 69128 21685 31262 08684 13844 Nourishment 50360 22058 53441 17994 12390
Ease Preparation 11107 60551 19267 03237 -02452 Tender 12603 58261 31651 07545 16201
Child Like 04252 51757 14190 21698 10350 Digestible 24169 49133 24172 24615 13086
Cut Carve 13895 48236 09550 02491 27706 Wasteful Fat 11833 50410 05320 28445 10569
Taste 24189 31617 66854 07640 06948 Men Like 21049 21323 69247 -01288 06608
Substantial 26986 17967 62721 18835 12415
Visitors 16923 13918 59582 03518 37638 11469 Value 18898 25487 30977 63436
Not Expensive 00174 12350 -05814 68436 -00704 62080 Good Cold 10385 18081 14524 05456
Ways Serving 13473 18028 27092 32093 29811 - 80
Table 10b. Varimax Rotated 'Factor Solution for Summer and Winter Surveys
SUMMER 476 Respondents
12 Meats
The decimal point in front of each number has been ommitted for clarity
II III IV
Vitamins 69844 14454 23505 05639 11473
Proteins 69637 20677 26371 03670 12062 Nourishment 67647 24286 46090 11837 09159
Ease Preparation 12754 60498 17424 02417 -04322 Tender 11142 57553 30691 07117 15351 Child Like 02085 49238 14437 20153 11321 Digestible 22426 49833 25129 20433 12220
Cut Carve 13260 44804 11370 05049 20438 Wasteful Fat 15650 48917 04965 24813 05714
Taste 26703 34401 65216 05261 05950 Men Like 19194 21964 63202 04293 06502 Substantial 27299 18465 61581 13406 12109
Visitors 20353 15650 56881 04714 32748 Value 16820 28149 30088 62618 08738 Not Expensive -02182 13477 -05253 69984 01134 Good Cold 12206 16592 14043 04422 65873
Ways Serving 13285 12673 27509 31167 30628
• 81_
Table 10c. Varimax Rotated Factor Solution for Summer and Winter Surve.i2
SUMMER AND WINTER with brisket included analysis weighted
12 Meats
The decimal point in front of each number has been ommitted for clarity
I II III IV
Vitamins 75432 14254 24650 06228 10791
Proteins 69275 21153 27475 07521 12089
Nourishment 56719 22092 47302 16337 11341
Ease Preparation 12200 62545 16608 00874 -04976
Tender 10665 58749 29769 10314 17445 Child Like 05761 48890 16546 18799 11605 Digestible 25162 47097 24569 23242 16608 Cut Carve 13237 48218 11730 05792 21852 Wasteful Fat 11940 45882 06149 27266 09852 Taste 26388 33733 64173 09099 07111 Men Like 21215 24225 65021 00989 06245 Substantial 27929 18715 61765 17117 11246 Visitors 19452 15710 58790 00290 34770 Value 15925 25410 28373 65244 08824 Not Expensive -00041 10122 -07639 70200 -00381
Good Cold 11269 18861 13945 05437 59328
Ways Serving 16444 15648 24166 32779 28705 in Chapter 4. Estimates for missing values were, however,
derived from means and S.D.s for 476 respondents.
In order to retain the normalized Factor Score as a valid
measure of relative preference of the Winter sample Briskets'
scores were excluded from the estimations of the mean and
standard deviation of each Factors scores. Factor scores were then normalized by use of the usual formula. What one might call
an uequivalentnormalized score" was then calculated from Briskets
Factor scores. It's scores were normalized on the basis of means and S.D.s of scores for the other twelve meats.
The end results of these calculations are scores which
indicate the relative position of each meat vis-a-vis the other
11 meats in the Summer survey and the other 12 meats in the Winter survey.
Differences in the score for the same meat (e.g. Bacon Joint)
between Summer and Winter will thus reflect changes in relative
preference, and sampling errors, rather than be the consequence of changes in respondent tendency,and other forms of respondent bias.
.Results
Comparison across season is shown on the accompanying charts
(figure20 to figure 31). In no cases are there startling shifts and the pattern of change or non-change fits mostly with a prior
expectation.
Indeed, although statistically significant shifts are observed (marked as before with an asterisk) the majority of even these are so slight as to suggest little commercial importance. Fig 20 : Weighted & Normalised Factor • L: `:"! . Scores by Season : Chicken I Fig 21 : Weighted & Normalised Factor Score's by Season : Topside 1.2 All Towns : 476 Respondents 1.1 All Towns : 476 Respondents ... • . I
r .9
.7
..••••••••••k••••.••• •••••••,..••••••• .6 ••••••••:•• ••••••4•••• :••••••••••• • • : . .. I . • • •
... • I .• . • :.. • • '
/7 • .4.-
•
•
-.5 '
-.6
-.7
Winter
Suzzaer
-: ......
•-1.2 i
:
••
IV V Fig 22 : Weighted & Normalised Factor Scores by Seakson :*Grilling Steak Fig 23 : Weighted & Normalised Factor Scores by Season :
1.2 t ; 1.1
o I
.9 .:••• ; . * 1' Fig 24 : Weighted & Normalised Factor Scores by Season : Mince . : -7- . Fig 25 : Weighted & Normalised Factor Scores by Season All Towns : 476 Respondents : Leg of Lamb
!- ! All Towns : 476 Respondents 1.0 .. . . •. : • .: . • .: -9 7 .8
-7
.6
.5 'r •
-3
.2 .2
-.1
-.2
_
-.5 Winter
-.6 Summer
-.7 -.8
......
-1.0 .; .. I • • ;. .. , • • • • •.. .. 7 ; • .: • 1
...... : ..1 ...... -1.2 1
•-• ... • 1 . i
Iv 1.77.77 Fig 26 : Weighted & Normalised Factor Scores by Season : Lamb Chops Fig 27 : Weighted & Normalised Factor Scores by Season : Leg of Pork
All Towns : 476 Respondents -• •- •I• • - • • :- • ; T . % . ,, 7 ..7 . . . -r, ,. • r . • ,. . .. 4 Fig 29 : Weighted & Normalised Factor Scores by Season : Bacon Joint Fig 28 : Weighted & Normalised Factor Scores by Season : Pork Chops .1.2 I All Towns : •:. • . " 476 Respondents All Towns : 476 Respondents .....
.. .
_
Winter .7 / Summer I . : ... . : • • . , ...... • .6
-5 -
:
. .3 .2
.1
-.1
-.2
Vinter - . . Sumner
_
-.6
-.7 -.a
-1.0
-1.2
- "i • • • • ,1 ... : i • : - ...- 40 1 ; i • I i . ii...... L
1 4 IV V
• • Fig 30 : Weighted & Normalised Factor Scores by Season : Corned Beef Fig 31 Weighted & Normalised Factor Scores by Season Beefburger •: All Towns : 476 Respondents All Towns : 476 Respondents
Winter
Sur.m}er
,•1
—.5 Winter Summer —.6
.7
—.8 ' - ...
—.9 •
—1.0 • •
—1.1 •
...
—L) I
IV V - 89 -
Chicken, Beefburgers, Corned Beef and Bacon Joint might be
considered more standardised products susceptible to little or
no seasonal change in product quality or price, but possibly
more likely to experience promotional campaigns. The first
three of these showed exceptionally slight change in mean factor
scoreland only one factor (strength) for corned beef showed a
significant shift. Bacon Joint shows more marked and significant
changes. On factors II, III and IV it scores worse in Winter than Summer. As noted earlier there was considerable adver-
tising for this product by the Danes and it might be that these
changes reflected the end of that particular campaign.
A number of other cuts show changes which might reflect a
change in the focus of housewives cooking purpose during Winter: for example a greater concern to provide warm and substantial
meals during Winter months. Lamb and Pork Chops and Stewing
Steak score better on average on nearly every Factor during the
Winter. Mince, however, does not show such a consistent shift although its only significant change (factor III) is in the
same direction.
Topside and Grilling Steak show no marked change between seasons. The remaining two joints, Leg of Lamb and Leg of Pork offer the only surprises in the analysis. In both cases they are rated worse during the Winter survey. As with other cuts, though, the changes in score are typically less than + 0.1.
It is worth noting that just as there are regional variations in belief levels about the cuts there are region variations in changes of those belief levels. As in the case of temporal changes in the overall sample, however, they are not of a large magnitude. Since these small changes are also of varying level and even different direction they reinforce the impression that there are no major temporal variation in belief levels. For this report, therefore, temporal variation is not analysed in any greater detail. - 90 -
Brisket
This cut was appraised by respondents only in the second survey. The relevant chart follows (figure 32). Although quite economicalpthe meat scores very badly on factor II
(usefulness) and poorly in factor III (strength). It makes unappealing meals, not being popular with men or children, being troublesome to prepare, tough, fatty, and indigestive. In view of its cookery book reputation as a good cut for using cold on sandwiches, it is a little surprising to find it does not score well on the versatility factory to which the 'good cold' scale is the major contribution. In terms of summed factor scores Brisket is rated almost as bad as Beefburgers. It would, however, have done better on a summation of all factor scores since, despite its poor showing on factor 5, it does do better than beefburgers.
Bolton respondents give it the highest scores and like
Mince and Stewing Steak it scores worst in Reading. The graph, in fact, indicatesa more noticable regional difference in beliefs about this meat than is apparent for any of the other twelve meats in our selection. Fig 32 : Weighted & Normalised Factor Scores : Brisket Winter Survey : 476 Respondents ,-
PART III CONSUMPTION
7
I CHAPTER 7 : MEAT CONSUMPTION
The main purpose of collecting consumption data was to
explore its relation to attitude. It does offer, however, a further cl- ck on representativeness of the sample by comparison
with National Food Survey data (1977) and with that produced for the MLC by Audits of Great Britain (1979). Since frequent reference is made to these data sources, they are abbreviated respectively to 'NFS' and 'AGB', and not referred at each citation.
It also permits a more detailed breakdown of meat cut than that published by the other two surveys.
This chapter provides, first, a description of meat con- sumption together with a comparison with the other published data, and secondly, considers the impact of attitudes on consumption. In the first Dart of the chapter the results are weighted as described in chapter 3 for the attitude data. This is done to facilitate comparison with other surveys and ensure that any regional differences are not the result of variations of sample representativeness. Weighting is not employed in the subsequent analysis of consumption/attitude relationship since the varying sample characteristics can be explicitly included in the model.
Consumption Measures Employed,
Meat consumption and expenditure data was collected from respondents using a set of weekly diary sheets. Details of the - 95
collection procedure are included in Chapters 1 and 2 and an
example diary included in Appendix A. Respondents were asked
to describe the meat as precisely as possible. Their answers
were initially coded into 80 different meat groups, made up of
the various cuts of different meat types, and of various processed
meats. For the analysis in this report the groups were combined
into 25 meat or meat product types. This reduction was used
because many of the types described in the larger classification
list were mentioned by very few households, and often represented
minor differences among processed meats. The 25 types were chosen
to be as nearly as possible to those used in the NFS and AGB
panel, whilse also preserving the separate identity of the cuts used in the attitude part of the survey.
For this report results are analysed, in general, on a per- capita basis. The calculation of per-capita consumption was based on the number of adults and children in the household for whom the respondent normally provided meals. This definition of a person is not so precise as that used in the NFS* but is believed to be a reasonable approximation. Table B of the diary sheets (Appendix
A, vi) should have provided details of individuals present at epch meal so that an exact correspondence with the NFS figures could be calculated. Unfortunately this was the least well completed part of the questionnaire and its use would have markedly reduced the number of usable consumption figures.
The results are presented as average consumption per week for the four week period of the survey. This enables a ready comparison with NFS figures and,with minor adjustments,the AGB results. It is important to emphasise here, however, the differ- ent basis on which these sets of figures have been collected. The National Food Survey sample retains each household for one
* Person: An individual of any age who during the week of the survey spends at least four nights in the household, and has at least one meal a day from the household food supply on at least four days, except if he/she is the head of the house- hold, or the housewife, he or she is regarded as a-person in all cases. 96 -
week only. In contrast the AGB data is based on continuous sampling of each household throughout the year. This survey used each household, for 4 weeks only. It therefore, falls somewhere between these other two surveys. There are suggestions that households may alter their consumption patterns when initially recruited to a food survey panel. Indeed, AGB discard the first four weeks results for this reason. In designing the survey on which this study was based it was hoped that much of any such variation would be averaged out over the 4 week period.
Although it cannot be certain that such an averaging out occurred, it is possible to examine the results for changes between the 4 weeks. This is done in table 11. Because freezer owners might be assumed to have more flexibility in their con- sumption choice they were distinguished from non freezer owners in this analysis. Average per-capita consumption of all meat is used as a measure,instead of particular cuts, to try to avoid complications caused by requirements for variety. The lower half of the table, expressed in percentage terms, suggests that there may well be some exaggeration at the outset of the survey, although there is not a constant downward trend in consumption in each group. Non freezer owners seem to show less exaggeration; recorded first week consumption increase of perhaps 2 or 3% in Bolton and Gateshead, and 6% in Reading. Freezer owners, as might be expected, showed a greater exaggeration reaching 12% in Gateshead. Given these results it is arguable that at least the first week of data should be discarded. There was some indication however that recorded consumption might be rising again towards the end of the survey. It was, therefore, decided to include all four weeks in the analysis.
Consumption Levels
The results presented first are chosen to give an overall picture of meat consumption, and permit compacison with the NF§ figures. Table 12 presents consumption for major groups of meat Table 11 Consumption of All Meat by Week oz/head
Bolton Gateshead Peading
Freezer No Freezer Freezer No 14Feezer Freezer No Free•i,el•
Week 1 14.8 30.8 38.3 33.1 31.5
Week 2 30.7 30.0 )1 1-, in • 311.8 31.9 .jc-ou 30.3 Week 3' 30.1 28.7 33.1 32.8 3:1,4 27.6
Week 4 32.7 30.2 30.6 32.4 2q.7 28.9
Average 32.0 , 29.9 34.2 32.5 31.7 29.6
% of 4 week average
Bolton Gateshead Reading
Freezer N- 1.-eezer Freezer No Freezer Freezer No Freezer - Week 1 _ 109 , 103 112 102 106 106 Week 2 96 100 102 98 101 102 Week 3 94 96 97 101 99 93 Week 4 102 101 89 100 94 98
Average 100 100 100 100 100 100
^ - 98 -
for each town, and the appropriate National Food Survey Region.
Corned Beef is also included as the one fairly precisely
identifiable type common to both surveys.
The weighting employed in this survey is such as to try to
make it representative of the country as a whole (see Appendix E). Consequently the figures for all-households are likely to be more in agreement than for each region. For example, Gates- head is hardly likely to be full representative of the North of
England and Scotland. Another difficulty concerns the timing of this survey. It took place in the summer, while published regional NFS data is for the whole year. Table 12 includes available NFS estimates of national consumption for the period
April to September for an alternative comparison with the all- household results in this survey.
Examination of 'all-household', figures in Table 12 shows a reasonably good similarity for the carcase meats and poultry
which were our main concern. There is a more marked deviation in the case of non-carcase meats. This is particularly so in the case of Bacon and Ham. It is possible that in this survey res- pondent were not pressed hard enough to record some of the processed meat products such as pastes and pates which would account for some of the. short-fall. It is also true that the evidence on the previous page of first week exaggeration would suggest that NFS data should be reduced by about 5.5%. This, however, would still not eliminate these non-carcase meat anomalies.
These overall differences are repeated in the regional breakdown. In most cases the relative position of the different types in the different regions matches that shown in the National
Food Survey. This is true even of bacon and' corned beef. The major regional anomaly is for lamb. It would appear that our sample in Gateshead ate much more lamb and the Reading res-
pondents much less lamb than those in the 1977 National Food
Survey. Part of this discrepancy is almost certainly attri- Table 12. Comparison of Survey Results with NFS: Consumption/head (oz/wk)
All Households Bolton Gateshead Reading a Meat Survey NFS NF b Survey NFS1 Survey NFS2 Survey NrS3
Beef 7.59 8.25 7.40 8.46 8.52 8.52 8.57 6.64 8.07 1 Lamb 4.07 3.97 4.24 4.17 4.55 4.49 2.95 3.80 .0 4.70 \ID Pork 2.93 3.32 3.27 1.93 2.34 2.48 2.58 3.70 4.02 1 All Carcase 14.59 15.53 14.91 14.57 15.41 15.49 14.10 14.15 16.79 Bacon & Ham 2.89 4.34 4.25 2.73 Uncooked 4.93 3.61 5.23 2.62 3.87
Poultry 6.12. 5.96 6.o8 6.28 Uncooked 6.33 5.26 5.63 6.45 6.90
Corned Beef 0.52 0.69 0.74 .0.54 0.70 o.76 0.90 0.40 0.60 All Meat 31.05 38.58 37.95 30.48 38.86 33.03 39.56 30.37 39.84
1 North West 2 North 3 South East/East Anglia a. Average for all year b. Average of 2nd & 3rd Quarter - 100 -
butable to the choice of regional survey town. The NFS figure corresponding to Reading includes London, a recorded high consumer of lamb. Gateshead as part of a metropolitan borough is likely to show higher lamb consumption than the region as a whole.
Thus our southern town was likely to underestimate its region's lamb consumption and our northern town overestimate that in it's region. This explanation is unlikely, however, to fully explain the substantially greater lamb consumption in Gateshead.
Table 13 provides a breakdown of consumption separating out freezer owners from non-freezer owners. Again comparison is
possible with the National Food Survey. The survey results suggest, as does the National Food Survey, that freezer owners eat about 4% more meat and meat products in total although there are differ-
ences in the relative changes for some meat types. It is notable
that this survey also picks up the relatively strong swing to pork AGB consumption (a 23% increase) just as the NFS consumption and
purchase data indicated for the period.
The next table indicates average consumption recorded in the
survey for each cut of meat. The data is presented in oz/head/wk
separately for Beef, Lamb, Pork, Poultry-l and Other Meats. In the differ- case of the first fours it indicates the relative share of
ent cuts in each region. Multiplication of the group quantity by the cut proportion will provide actual consumption of each cut if
required. The data for cuts is provided in proportionate terms so
that it can more easily be compared with other sources.
The most obvious comparison would be with AGB data. AGB,
however, presents its information in terms of purchases so that
exact comparison with the consumption data of this survey is not
possible. Since there is seasonal variation in purchase and
consumption, this must also be taken into account and hinders agree- comparison on the basis of published AGB data. A broad in ment does, however, seem to emerge. The results are also of NFS broad agreement with the recent more detailed analysis
data produced by Oughton and Baron (1980). Table 13. Consumption/head (oz wk)
Survey NFS
All Freezer Freezers % All Freezer Freezers % Meat Households Owners All Households Households Owners All Households
Beef 7.59 7.93 105 8.25 9.41 114
Lamb 4.07 4.00 98 3.97 4.39 111
Pork 2.93 3.62 123 3.32 4.09 123
All Carcase 14.59 15.55 107 15.53 17.84 115
Bacon & Ham 2.89 3.29 114 4.34 4.48 103
Poultry 6.12 6.05 99 5.96 6.50 109
All Meat 31.05 32.28 104 - 38.58 40.69 105 • •
•.•..•••,••••.••••••••••*1•,•.•••..•••••• •••••• ••••••••,{
Table 14. Regional Consumption of Meat Cuts Gateshead Reading All Households Bolton OZ OZ OZ BEFF oz Total 7.59 8.46 8.52 6.64 10.1 14.6 15.6 22.1 Steaks 28.1 30.4 25.1 14.7 1st Quality Roast 6.4 3.0 6.3 11.0 2nd Quality Roast 30.2 26.8 22.7 Beef 26.0 Stewing 22.0 28.6 29.3 Mince 26.9
4.07 4.17 4.49 3.80
24.9 28.9 35.9 Leg 31.0 21.0 27.3 27.4 Shoulder 25.6 29.0 47.1 32.6 Chops 34.9 7.1 11.2 7.6 Inexpensive Lamb 8.4
PORK
Total 2.93 1.93 2.48 3.70 14.0 24.2 23.2 Leg 21.8 1•..) 0.4 1.7 1.5 Loin 1.4 19.3 17.1 11.5 15.0 Shoulder 37.4 43.3 Chops 46.0 65.2 8.8 21.7 12.6 Inexpensive Pork 13.3
POULTRY
Total 6.12 6.28 5.26 6.45 87.1 83.7 80.4 Whole Chicken 32.9 12.9 16.3 19.6 Cuts & Pieces 17.1 OTHER 0110131'S 1.73 Bacon & Gammon 2.24 2.44 3.04 0.89 Bacon Joints 0.65 0.28 0.57 Processed Hams 0.38 0.30 0.68 0.28 1.11 1.02 1.28 1.03 Offal 0.40 Corned Beef 0.52 0.54 0.76 0.74 Beefburgers 40.65 0.58 0.57 Cold Meats' $0.94 0.95 1.01 0.90 4.35 Other Processed 4,,t 3.81 3.49 3.72
• Tongue, Sliced Cooked Meats. Tinned meats other than corned, and Pasties. *• Sausages, Pies, Packet and Tinned Meats, Rissoles and other Processed meats. - 103 -
In the case of Beef cuts, Steaks, Stewing Beef, and 2nd
Quality Joints are very much more popular in Bolton than the other two towns, which show a preference for 1st Quality joints and Mince. In the case of Lamb, chops are very popular in Bolton, while joints are more popular in Gateshead and Reading. Reading
respondents in particular ate much more leg of lamb. Pork shows
the most variation. Bolton respondents ate less than elsewhere
and what they do eat is mostly as chops. With poultry the consumption of pieces appears higher in Reading.
Among 'Other Groups' notable features were.disparities in
bacon consumption with Bolton respondents preferring Bacon and
Gammon, while those in Reading preferred Bacon Joints, but eating
less bacon in total than elsewhere. Corned Beef has a consider- ably higher consumption per-head in Gateshead; Beefburgers in
Reading. The known high consumption of processed meats in the North is also apparent among Gateshead respondents.
The Effect of Attitudes and Socio economic Factors on Consumption
The analysis of regional consumption so far has the dis- advantage that no recognition is made of the many factors which are likely to influence it. The survey sample has been weighted to ensure representativeness of each region. Consumption may still differ because of varying regional make-up of the population.
For example their incomes may vary, they have different sizes and structures of family, varying proportion of wives at work, and differing ownership of deep freezers. An analysis of the data by any one characteristic may well hide its true effect because of associated variation in another characteristic. To allow for the various possible factors a least-squares analysis of covariance is performed on the data.
A relationship which was to be explored in the project concerned the impact of beliefs about meat characteristics on consumption. The economic model for such a goods characteristic demand analysis has been presented elsewhere; Baron (1977). - 104 -
Essentially this proposes that if a meat cut is perceived to have a higher level of a desirable characteristic, then con-
sumption will tend to be higher. To examine this hypothesis,
the level of belief about the five characteristics described in
earlier chapters are included as explanatory variables in the last-squares analysis.
If the hypothesis is correct the attitude characteristics
should show a significant influence on consumption. The associated sign will indicate the desirability of that character- istic. A positive sign shows an effect of increasing consumption
and a negative sign that of reducing it. For this analysis the
data is not weighted since each causal factor is allowed to have its separate effect.
In this kind of analysis a very wide variety of detailed
variation in modeling is possible. For example logarithmic
transformations might be explored particularly with regard to
the income variable. In these results only linear relationship
are presented. Similarly much time can be spent on chosing the
best set of significant explanatory variables. In these results the simple forward stepwise regression package of SPSS (1975)
is employed. It should be noted that in each regression only those households that ate any of the product are included. This approach is chosen because the primary focus was on attitude effects. It cannot be established whether non-eaters in the 4 week survey period were reflecting their attitude to the product or simply their desire for variety. The survey does, however, include evidence on recency of consumption to explore this factor at another time.
Finally the analysis is limited to those cuts for which attitude data is available. It would have been possible to examine the effect of the socio economic factors on all cuts.
Since this has been carried out frequently elsewhere, using more comprehensive data sources, it was not attempted for this report. tible 15. 1,,ast Squares Analysis of Factors Influencing Consumption. Dependent Variable 07 head/four -weeks
A/B in Cl in R Inter- Bolt. Gates- Income Fact. Fact. Fact. Fact. Fact. Number of No Working A Gates Gates Resp. 2 added n Meat Cut cept head (E100) 1 2 3 4 5 Child Adults A/9 Cl C2 Freezer Wife 9e head head Male R by Att.
Steak 11.77 +5.02 +0.16 - +1.23 +1.68 + - -2.39 -1.42 0.23 0.03 253
Expensive 18.93 -4.96 -4.76 -2.65 -2.31 +0.19 0.22 0.01 241 Beef Joints
Stewing Beef 9.38 - + +1.38 + + -1.31 -1.22 +0.15 +3.62 0.12 0.01 387
Mince 10.06 +0.12 + + +1.22 - -1.26 -3.59 -1.46 +0.08 +5.90 4W.00 0.17 0.02 412
Leg of Lamb 27.07 - + - + +3.55 -3.18 -3.08 -3.37 -17.18 0.18 0.04 176
Lamb Chcps 8.73 +2.06 - +1.08 .0.08 - -1.32 -1.12 -1.56 +0.11 +6.98 0.21 0.02 312
Leg of Pork 23.48 + + + - - -2.19 -2.57 0.17 77
Pork Chops 13.04 -2.07 +1.39 +1.88 + + + -2.30 0.22 0.08 257
Chicken 37.30 + + - - - -5.18 -7.47 +0.43 +13.42 0.18 - 332
Beefburgers 7.53 -1.05 +0.18 . - +0.55 + +0.84 -0.51 -0.31 -3.58 -2.95 -2.27 +0.06 0.17 0.05 208
-1.08 +0.12 Corned Beef 4.05 - + +1.21 + - -0.97 +1.41 0.25 0.03 227
• Bacon Joint 24.76 -4.86 . - -5.00 +3.57 - -3.70 -2.29 -9.19 0.31 0.05 85
Factor 1 = (Nourishment) Factor 2 = (Usefulness) Factor 3. (Strength) Factor 4 = (Economy) Factor 5 (Versitility) - 106 -
Table 15 provides •the results of the stepwise least
squares analysis using individual beliefs. Only coefficient
values significant at least at the 10% level are reported;
although the signs of the coefficients for all attitude variables
are included as a best estimate of the direction of their
influence. In the table most cut descriptions are self
explanatory. Two, however, need explanation. Although attitude
scales were completed for 'Grilling Steak' it was quite clear
that when recording their consumption housewives did not dis- tinguish well between frying and grilling steak. The dependent
variable used in table 15 was therefore 'all steak'. In the
case of beef joints 'Topside' was used for attitude scaling.
Many other Newcastle studies have shown this to be the beef
roasting joint most commonly named by households. Although the name Topside focused respondents attention on prime roasting
joints it is fairly clear from previous experience that those
cooked are not always Topside. In table 15, therefore, the
reported regression uses 'all expensive beef joints' as dependent variable.
The result of the least squares analysis proved somewhat
disappointing. Partly because of missing data (notably income),
and partly because of non purchase in the survey period, the
number of household observations was much reduced. Indeed the
maximum, for mince, was only 412 out of a total sample of 624.
The number of available observations is reported in table 15.
These give a guide to frequency of purchase but it must be emphasised that observations are lost for other reasons than non-consumption and can therefore only be treated as a very rough guide.
For all cuts only a small proportion of the variation in - consumption was explained (R2). As presented, the major influence on percapita consumption appears to be the number of children and adults in the household. This has been observed in previous surveys. Family size has always a depressing - 107 -
effect on consumption; markedly so in the case of all joints, and of steaks. Town or regional effects are typically non
significant, although if a statistical significance were ignored,
they are mostly in the same direction as that revealed in the earlier analysis. Income also is rarely significant, though in
all cases, except for lamb chops, it has a positive sign.
Examination of attitude scale results suggests a complex
picture. A higher score on a particular scale does not appear
necessarily to contribute to higher consumption, as evidenced by the numerous negative signs. Only two significant negative
signs are reported, though; factor 4 for steak, and factor 3 for
Bacon Joint. Nevertheless, this result implies that the fairly
conventional procedure of adding factor scores to derive a summary
measure of attitude is not necessarily correct; particularly if
it is to be used an an indicator of propensity to consumer.
Among the factors, number 3 which has been called 'Strength'
has the most (7) cases of a significant coefficient. Even this factor does not, however, appear to have a consistent effect;
sometimes increasing consumption, sometimes depressing it. Finally
it can be noted that the attitude variables, when significant,
typically add little to the explanatory power of the fitted -2 equations. As the column headed"R added by Att" indicates, this
reaches a maximum of 8% out of 22% in the case of pork chops.
It cannot be denied that the results reported here with
regard to consumption and attitude have proved less clean-cut than had been hoped. Indeed, they have not done as well as the measures reported earlier (Baron 1977). Part of this may result from measurement errors inherent in the survey procedure, and in the inexactitude of attitude measures. Further, the model employed has been a relatively simple linear function based on a modest search routine for significant variables. It may be that a more complex analysis will reveal more consistent results. This must, however, await new analytical resources. CONCLUSIONS
The survey reported on in this study was designed to extend
earlier attitude work so that it would be more representative of Great Britain as a whole. The survey involved households in three separate towns, Gateshead, Bolton and Reading. They supplied
details of household meat consumption over a four week summer
period, and completed a battery of attitude scales in the summer and during the following winter.
The first, and most important, conclusion to be drawn from
the study is that respondents have a very similar perception of
meat in different parts of the country and among different socio
economic groups. That is that the some five characteristics are
perceived to be important in appraising meat in the three survey towns. Moreover, these same five characteristics were found to apply both in summer and during the winter. They were labled 'Nourishment', 'Usefulness', 'Strength', 'Economy', and
'Versatility'. It must be stressed, however, that caution must be employed when using these labels since they each represent combinations of scores on several scales, and are subjectively chosen by the authors.
Although respondents are found to appraise meat on the basis of common characteristics, they do not necessarily rate cuts similarly. Indeed, marked regional differences were discovered
in their perceptions of individual cuts. Gateshead respondents - 109 -
gave more favourable scores to beef than those in Bolton and
much more so than those in Reading. In the case of lamb, Gateshead and Bolton reverse roles with Reading respondents
again tending to give the lowest scores. In the case of pigmeat,
pork scored much more favourably in Reading on all factors and
both Gateshead and Reading give Bacon Joint a much more preferable
score than Bolton. Using a conventional summary technique Chicken
and Topside are the best thought of cuts,while Beefburgers are rated worst.
These variations in belief about the level of a particular
characteristic which individual cut possess are influenced by such factors as class and family size. Many regional differences
persist, however, even when adjustments are made for regional
variation in household make-up. A more detailed summary of these influences is provided at the end of Chapter 5.
The consumption diaries reveal broadly similar regional patterns to those obtained in other surveys. The established
greater meat consumption per head by freezer owners is also picked
up as is their swing to pork consumption. Because the data was collected over four weeks it is possible to tentatively explore
the suggestion that respondents increase consumption during the first week of a survey. The results suggested a first week exaggeration of about five and a half percent.
The final part of the study attempted to relate consumption
to the factors which might influence it such as income , family size and perceived levels of the five attitude characteristics.
This part of the work was less successful than had been hoped and only moderate explanatory ability was achieved in the model. In general, when statistically significant, positive characteristic scores increased consumption. Many were, however, not significant,
and if the evidence of their sign alone is considered, they appear
to have a conflicting impact; for some meat cuts increasing, for some cuts decreasing, consumption. Nor did the charaCterigtie scores contribute much additional explanatory power to the model. - 110 -
There remains in the consumption data set a considerable amount of additional information which might be explored given additional resources. For example it would be possible to examine the pattern of meat eating by day of week, to examine the use of meat leftovers, and study which members of the family were present at different meals. It would also be possible to examine the effect of the desire for variety as an influence on consumption, by incorporating respondent's answers on when cuts were last eaten. Finally, there is scope for more detailed explanation of the consumption attitude relationship using models of greater complexity. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Audits of Great Britain (1979) Results reported in Regional Trends in Meat Consumption MLC Demand Trends April 1979 pp 5 - 8.
Baron P.J., Cowie W.J.G., Hughes, D.R. and Lesser, D.L. (1973) Housewives Attitudes to Meat Department of Agri Marketing. Rep No.16 University Newcastle upon Tyne
Baron P.J. (1977) Attitudes - Goods Characteristics - And the Theory of Demand in Proc. Symposium on Meat Demand and Price Forecasting. Meat and Livestock Commission.
Bass F.M., and Wilkie, W.L. (1973) A Comparative Analysis of Attitudinal Predictions and Brand Preference. Journal of Marketing Rescarch. 10; 262-269
Burt C. (1952) Tests of Significance in Factor Analysis British Journal of Psychology. 5; 109-133 1952
Critchley R.A. (1977) The I.P.C. Marketing Manual of the UK.IPC ltd
Family Expenditure Survey (1979) Annual Report for 1977 HMSO February 1979
Hughes D.R. (1976a) Why We Eat Meat Dept. Agri. Marketing Rep. No.20 University Newcastle upon Tyne
Hughes D.R. (1976b) Common Attitudes to Meat Cuts - A Further Study Dept. Agri. Marketing Rep. No.21 University Newcastle upon Tyne
McCarney L.J. (1975) Communication Problems in the Marketing of Synthetic Meat European Journal of Markeing. 9, 188-197
MLC (1979) Meat Demand Trends Economic Information Service Meat and Livestock Commission Milton Keynes
Monk D. (1976) Social Grading on the National Readership Survey third edn. Joint Industry Committee for National Readership Surveys. London
National Food Survey (1977) Annual Report of the National Food Survey Committee. HMSO - 112 -
Oughton E. and Baron P.J. (1980) Regional Consumption Patterns of Meat in the UK.. Oxford Agrarian Studies. IX; 115-128
SPSS (1975) Statistical Package for the Social Sciences McGraw Hill
Super Marketing (1977) Value Claim by DAP Brown 22 April p.28
Tuck M. (1976) How do we Choose? Methuen APPENDIX A SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE MARSHY OF tftwcAsra UPON TYNE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING Office Use
interviewer
Date ..
Time of Interview
Town
am wo;king for Newcastle University. We are doing some research LL,out buying and eating ick.:at and would like to talk to the person v4:10 usucAly cooks the meals in your household.
(Questions to be put only to person who does most of cooking unless cooking shared fairly evenly. Describe the idea of diary, questionnaire and prizes briqfly. Chuck on availability and v.,:,lingness to help.)
throAh the Diary in detail. Then ask the following :-
,Iould I have your name please?
1a me MR/MRS/MISS
Address
In your household, that is taking into account all 'those for vhom you normally provide the meals. i) How many m",de adults are there (aged 16 or over)
ii) How many female adults are there (aged 16 or over)
iii) How many children aged 6 - 15
iv) How many children aged 0 - 5
Of the adults aged 16 or over in your household do any regularly take part in or go to watch a strenuous sport or leisure activity? (exclude compulsory school activiijes) YES
If YES, h6w many persons?
Are there any meats you do not buy for religious or other reasons apart from price? (Record animals not cuts)
Beef . . Pork . . Lamb . . Chicken . • .
(If any obtain a brief explanation) ...... - 11 Off 1(.0 Wo.
5. Do you have ro
tf, Do you have a frvc.7.,...r7 (To be included as a frzr he co)artm,3nt has to have a separate door aqd be greater than 1 cubic feet in vo:urie Yes
(If respondent is Male go to /0)
Do you have a paid job at all, part time or full time? None
Part Time
Full Time
Retired (If NOHC go to 9).
kiould you tell me w:lar yoLir jot. is?
Name of job
(If not ciLar)
ii) i'lef?su describe what yc.;
5. May I ask what o:iitr.- us cr.i s al*.. oft?
(If retired 31 Elet r / GccupaCun)
i) Name f.)F. his ;06
(If not clear)
ii) Plcas describe what he f.;ce!
Husband retired
Vidow
Unua r r i ed
(Go to )2'; Office ••••••••••••••••••••••••
10. (For Male respondents)
Would you tt....11 mu what your job is?
(If retired or not now working rLco:-d IdtA occupation)
Name of job
(If not clear)
ii) Please describe whdt you do
11,:tired
Does your wife have a job at all, part time or till t. lire?
No Job
Part lime
Full Time
Widower
Unmarricd
12. And your age please.
(Arrange call back for diary collection)
Now explain statement scales and get respondents to complete them. THE UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE HEAD OF DEPARTMENT: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING PROFESSOR E. M. CARPENTER THE UNIVERSITY, NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE NEI 7RU TELEPHONE NEWCASTLE 28511 EXT 2909
Thank you for offering to help in the survey. By filling in the diary you will provide us with much needed information.
Please use the following. notes as a guide :
Please record all types of meat and poultry eaten in the home, excluding fish, fish products and complete "Convenience Meals". b) When naming the meat give as much detail as you can. Descriptions like 'Roast Lamb' or 'Beef Joint' are vague. Give the name of the cut if you know it.
For lamb state.whether it is British or New Zealand (if you know).
For bacon joints say whether British or Danish.
For poultry note if you served pieces rather than a whole bird. If a meat was tinned or packaged please dive a full description such as 'Tinned Beef Steak Pie Filler' or 'Packaged Roast Beef in Gravy'. c) Record the Name, Total Weight and Total Cost of each meat at the first meal. If a meat lasts for more than one meal do not note the weight and cost for a second time. Still, however, indicate meals using 'leftover' meats as, for example, 'Leftover Chicken'.
•
If you are unsure of the weight of any meat please check, if possible by reweighing.
Please keep till the nterviewer calls to collect on TABLE A
'MEAT EATEN IN THE HOUSEHOLD'
Please record the name, weight and cost of the meat eaten in your household.
TOTAL TICK IF TICK IF MEAT(S) EATEN WEIGHT mva visrroR(s) COST FROMAT ... FREEZER MEAL Office Use
MONDAY
TUESDAY
_
WEDNESDAY . . / /
THURSDAY -
FRIbAY
SATURDAY
SUNDAY vi —
TABLE B
PLEASE INDICATE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE EATING THEIR MEALS AT HOME EVEN IF NO MEAT SERVED. • BREAKFASTS
MEMBERS OF THE HOUSEHOLD ' VISITORS
MALE ' FEMALE CHILDREN CHILDREN CHILDREN ADULTS ADULTS ADULTS (0 - 5) (6 - 15) (0 - 15) ,.. MONDAY
TUESDAY
WEDNESDAY
THURSDAY
FRIDAY
SATURDAY
SUNDAY
Office Use
2. MID-DAY MEALS
MONDAY
TUESDAY
WEDNESDAY
THURSDAY
FRIDAY
SATURDAY
SUNDAY
Office Use
3. MAIN EVENING MEALS
MONDAY
TUESDAY
WEDNESDAY
THURSDAY
FRIDAY
SATURDAY
SUNDAY
7 Office Use I I T h - o
Poor value • for money Good value for money
Hasa lot of wastefu' Has little wastefu fat fat
Poor taste 7-1 Good taste
A troublesome meat 1 ET flT An easy meat to prepare to prepare
Men dislike it I I 7-1 Men like it
Low in vitamins I nn High in vitamins
Not especially nourishing Especially nourishing
Would not serve to v:sitors Would serve to visitors
A tough meat r-i A tender meat
Few ways of servin9 r r1 -1 7 -I 1 Many ways of serving
Not very digest!b!e Digestible
Disliked by children I Liked by children .••• -
Awkward to cut 7-1 r"--1 1 or carve Easy to cut or carve
Does not make a r--- substantial mea! Makes a substantial meal
An expensive meat expensive meat
Poor as a cold mee. n"--- Good as a cold meat
Low in prote!ns High n proteins vi
In general when choosing a cut of meat, how Important is it to you that it :
Not at all Important Is good value for money I
Has little wasteful fat I 1
Has a good taste 1 - 4 I Is an easy meat to prepare j
Is liked by men
Is high in vitamins
Is especially nourishing
Is suitable for visitors
Is a tender meat
Has many ways of serving i Li
Is digestible
Is liked by children
Is easy to cut or carve
Makes a substantial meal
Is not an expensive meat I 1 1
Is good as a cold meat I I
Is high in proteins I I Frayfncy of Ea!,..ing.
For each of the meats listed below piease indicate when you last served it to your household
within within within more than the last the last the last 9 months Never 3 months 6 months 9 months ago
Leg of Lamb , , Beefburgers (bought)
Topside
Pork Chops
Grilling Steak
I Mince .
Tinned Corned Beef ,
Lamb Chops. . ,
Stewing Steak
Leg of Pork
Bacon Joint .
Whole Chicken Thank you, you have been very helpft.
There Is one f'ne! quesCon :-
Would you mind y;vin9 me an tl:timeze of the Total income, after tax, of your Whoe How,ehold.
Please include the after tax earnings of all members of your household; those working full Mt:, any wcrny part: time. Also include all money received from other 5ources uch dS Pen.,ions, Family Allowances, Lodgers, Social Security Payment!, and Interest.,
We are only interested in rhe Toral Fiuure after tax.
Answer by ticking the appropriate rancje of figures for annual income or by prov 1 L:!no a direct em.Atf. t.h,: method you find easiest.
HOUSEHOLD INCOi'lE AFTER TAX •
1 7-- ---E- £0 £1500 £2500 ; £3500 L400 £5500 ' £6500 £7500 , ! Over to to :(:. , t-.) • LO : tO ' tO to I £8500 Eili!a9 , 12):(J1-) 4- 314 Liii“:;9. ' 1.(1;;9 L649 £7499 £8499
E1HEt Each Week .
OR Each t•'0oith L .
OR Each Yedr . Agree Disagree Strongly Strongly Tinned meat is not as appetizing as fresh meat n
Children need plenty of meat
Anyone who tries can cook interesting meals
Meat is too expensive to eat regularly
Cooking is a time consuming chore
Eggs are as energy giving as meat L_1
Regular cheese meals would be boring
It is easy to build a meal round meat LI
Eggs can make a substantial meal
Convenience foods are as good for you as traditional meals
Fish is as appetizing as meat
Meat is necessary for a good diet
• Tinned meat is expensive
It would be boring to serve fish frequently I 1
Fried food gets monotonous I fI
Men need a 'meat meal in the evening
One can make filling evening meals out of cheese
Meat makes the tastiest meals WI APPENDTX B INSTRUCTIONS TO INTERVIEWERS MaigMennilMalIM
1. Sampling Method
Households are to be selected using a random route procedure as follows:
a) Start Interviewing at address indicated on map.
b) Continue working along - that road. Keep on RIGHT-hand side of the road and call at every 5th address from starting point, continue by calling at every 5th address until you come to the first turning to the RIGHT. Take this and continue calling as before until there Is a turning off LEFT. Take this and continue calling, taking RIGHT AND LEFT turns alternately ...
N. B. Work on Right-hand side of road only.
cl Please ignore all shops, offices, factories, etc., and institutions such as hospitals, prisons, etc., unless there is a private address associated with them, for example, living premises above or behind a shop, or the lodge of a hospital.
d) A purpose-built block of flats should be treated as part of the road you are working in. Call at every 5th number in the block. At a converted house, where all dwellings have a common front door, and a common address, make only one contact.
e) A cul-de-sac should be treated as a bulge in the road. Work round it as if it were part of the road you are working in. Do not treat it as a left or right turn.
A road ending in a park entrance, factory entrance, etc., should be treated in the same way as a cul-de-sac.
A road leading to the boundary of your area should also be treated in the same way.
If you find you are retracing your steps, i.e. you are interviewing along the same side of the road on which you have interviewed before, cross the road and continue making contacts on the other side.
9) Make up to two call-backs, at least one of which should be in the evening.
2. Sample Controls
Three basic controls are to be exercised:
a) Not more than one-fifth (20%) of your 'respondents should be over 60.
b) At least one-third (30%) of wives interviewed should have some kind of job (full or part-time).
c) At ieast one fifth (20%) of your sample should own a deep freeze.
Check these controls on your log sheet and, if after three days, these targets are not being met, contact your supervisor for instructions. THE BIPOLAR SCALES
The Bipolar scales are to be filled in after the completion of the Diary. Respondents should not be told the details of this part of the questionnaire nor the actual meats^ to be studied before this interview.
We want to measure attitudes to the twelve meats by having respondents rate each meat on our list of 'bipolar' scales. These are pairs of opposing ' descriptions separated by seven boxes. When rating a meat respondents should read both descriptions in a pair. and then indicate how this applies by ticking one of the boxes. If the respondent agrees with a description then she should • tick one of the boxes that are near it - the more strongly she agrees the nearer the box. Suppose she is rating 'Whole Chicken' on the scale:-
An expensive meat Not an expensive meat
If she thinks that 'Whole Chicken' is 'An expensive meat' she should tick one of the boxes near that description. On the other hand, if she thinks that the description 'Not an expensive meat' applies to chicken, she should tick one of the boxes nearer than description.
If a housewife is uncertain what to respond, or indifferent, she should tick one of the more central boxes. She must tick a box for every scale. As with the statements described above, she should only tick one of the end boxes if she has strong feelings. Use the specimen sheet for Fish to help explain that we want her to indicate the strengths or weaknesses of her feelings about each meat on each scale by varying the box she ticks. Nevertheless, once again, it is her individual response we want and the respondent must not spend a lot of time thinking about her answer to each scale.
(If respondent is still going slow after the second or third meat prompt her to be a bit quicker. Tell her we want her immediate response.)
The twelve meats we have selected are :
1. Leg of Lamb 7. Tinned Corned Beef 2. Beefburgers (bought) 8. Lamb Chops 3. Topside 9. Stewing Steak 4. Pork Chops 10. Leg of Pork 5. Grilling Steak 11. Bacon Joint 6. Mince 12. Whole Chicken
They are rated on identical scales, although the order varies from one set to another.
The Importance Scale
The eighteen pairs of descriptions have been converted into a list of factors which a respondent may feel important when she chooses a meat. We would like them to indicate by ticking a box on the scale ranging from "Not at all Important" to "Extremely Important" how important each of these factors are.
Once again impress upon the respondent that she can vary her response on this occasion according to the importance of each factor in influencing her choice of meat. •
APPENDIX C SECTION 1 SCALES USED BY HUGHES (197613)
UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE Chicken
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING 1. Tasty 1 I El Not so tasty
2. Tender I I I 1 El Tough Rump Steak 3. Very nourishing I I El Not very nourishing 1. Tasty I • Not so tasty 4. Good value for i I I Poor value 2. Tender 1 1 Tough money El for I I 1 I I I money 5. Children like 1 I 1 Eli I 1 I [2] Children don't like 3. Very nourishing i I I 1 Not very nourishing 6. Many ways of [ I 1 serving I I El Few ways of 4. Good value for iririr-1 1 Poor value for serving money money 7. Cooks quickly Li [:21]1 Takes a long time 5. Children like Children don't like I to cook 8. Good flavour El Poor flavour 6. Many ways of 1 Few ways of serving serving 9. Easy to prepare Not easy to prepare 7. Cooks quickly LJ Takes a long time to cook 10. Juicy 1 1 Dry 8. Good flavour I 1 I LJ Poor flavour 11. Not much bone I L___J El Lot of bone 9. Easy to prepare Not easy to prepare 12. Lean 1 I I I I El Fat 10. Juicy 1 1 I 1 Dry 13. Cheap 1 I Li :21 Expensive Not much bone 1 1 I I Lot of bone 14. No waste Eli I El Wasteful 12. Lean El Li 1 Fat 15. Makes a good El Makes a poor 13. Cheap Expensive main meal main meal 16. Plenty of cutting El Not good cutting 14. No waste E" 1LliLILi Wasteful 17. Makes a good f 1 1 I I cold meat El Not good cold 15. Makes a good 71 1 1 Li r 1 I I Makes a poor main meal main meal 18. Easy to car•,:e } [ 1 [2] Not very easy to. carve APPENDIX C SECTION 2 SCALES USED BY BARON ET AL (1973)
Scales used in Main Survey s,
1. smells appetising 1--1 smells unappeti- when cooked sing when cooked Mean Raw Data Scores for each Meat on the 24 most important Scales The complete list of scales for beef, chicken, pork and lamb are listed below. Pork Beef Lamb Chicken usually readily available in not often in supermarke; supermarket no fat too much fat Makes a good cold meat 1.9 1.6 2.4 1.4 would buy in supermarket would not buy in super- No waste 2.9 1.7 3.0 2.5 market Digestible 4.1 1.8 1.9 1.4 most people can eat fat cold most people cannot eat fat cold Can easily use up leftovers 3.3 ,1.7 2.9 1.9 pleasant smell not pleasant smell Thrifty 4.2 3.9 3.4 2.3 2.4 1.9 1.5 housewives especially need not especially needed by Very tender 2.1 housewives Most people can eat fat hot 4.0 3.3 3.9 3.9 subtle taste not subtle taste Looks appetising when cooked 1.6 1.4 1.8 1.4 cheap expensive Modern 4.1 4.4 4.1 2.1 not greasy fat greasy fat Full of goodness 2.1 1.4 2.1 2.2 good flavour poor flavour Good for fancy cooking 3.7 3.8 4.1 2.1 easy to carve not very easy to carve Manual workers especially need 3.2 1.8 3.1 4.2 manual workers especially not especially needed by Easy to carve 2.3 1.7 2.4 2.0 need manual workers Good flavour 1.7 1.4 1.9 2.2 good for fancy cooking not good for fancy cooking Not greasy fat 5.1 2.7 4.4 3.2 full of goodness not much goodness Cheap 5.1 5.8 4.1 2.1 modern old fashioned Subtle taste 2.6 2.6 2.8 2.7 looks appetising when cooked looks unappetising when cooked Housewives especially need 4.o 2.7 3.5 3.6 most people can eat fat hot most people cannot eat fat Pleasant smell 1.7 1.4 2.0 1.8 hot Most people can eat fat cold 4.1 3.7 4.4 4.2 very tender not tender Would buy in a supermarket 5.0 4.9 4.9 3.1 thrifty extravagant No fat 4.6 2.6 3.9 1.9 can easily use up leftovers not much use for leftovers Usually readily available in 1.4 digestible not very digestible supermarket 2.8 2.5 2.7 1.3 1.9 1.7 no waste wasteful Smells appetising when cooked 1.5 makes a good cold meat not good cold 1 = Strongly Agree 5 = Slightly Disagree 2 = Agree 6 = Disagree 3 = Slightly Agree 7 = Strongly Disagree 4 = Neither Agree or Disagree
0 APPENDIX C SECTION 3
LIST OF SCALES FOR ATTITUDES TO FOOD AND COOKING USED BY BARON ET AL 1973)
Tinned meats are expensive. I like to buy my meat where the people know me. What meat I can buy is limited by what my husband likes. I like to try something different occasionally. Meat is an expensive necessity. About the only way to get good meat is to find a good butcher and stick to him. Fish is a poor substitute for meat. Supermarket meat is not as good as the traditional butcher's. I try to vary the meat we have. The trouble with a joint is the time it takes to cook. Meat is the basis of a meal. Meat cooked on the bone has more flavour than boned meat. Cooking is fun. Meat is necessary for a good diet. You can never be sure how a piece of meat will turn out. My family think I'm a good cook. APPENDIX D : FACTOR STRUCTURE MATRICES FOR SUB GROUPS
The matrices for socio economic sub groups are included as an example of those prepared for meat type, age,and socio economic characteristics. Regional matrices are also included.
Each matrix shows a remarkable similarity, with factors appearing in the same order and loading heavily on the same scales. The only slight regional discrepancy is for factor 5 in the Reading group to be slightly more diverse with a lower loading on 'Good Cold' and a compensating increase on some other scales. 'Good Cold' still has, however, the highest coefficient. -
Table D.1 Varimax Rotated Factor Matrix - Socio Economic Grades A/B
The decimal point in front of eachnumber has been ommitted for clarity
Factor Factor Factor - Factor Factor Scale I II III IV V
Vitamins 50267 18469 24627 17652 14519
Proteins 64957 28619 35531 06038 10242 Nourishment 65143 22906 42905 15103 11968
Ease Preparation 15669 63559 21030 -02963 -02989 Tender 16708 55425 39580 15003 12651
Child Like 01384 53402 14156 27328 17170
Digestible 27089 48326 30476 30621 16981
Cut Carve 15050 47783 14687 05137 07872 Wasteful Fat 24017 58416 -00125 25531 22172
Taste 28547 31280 70641 12920 03220 Men Like 22472 26995 70210 05375 07190 Substantial 35321 22050 59412 21038 11179
Visitors 22538 10803 67424 01327 29813
Value 25032 24374 29900 65157 12774 Not expensive 03427 10814 -05603 69944 00187
Good cold 11701 17439 13943 08189 41665 Ways serving 15025 07677 33102 42744 29842 Table D.2 Varimax Rotated Factor Matrix - Socio Economic Grades C1/C2
The decimal point in front of each number has been ommitted for clarity
Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Scale I II III IV V
Vitamins 70278 14293 26423 03177 12256 Proteins 72397 19678 25695 04643 13334 Nourishment 55795 24915 48267 11418 08975 Ease Preparation 14135 62104 16185 02592 -03223
Tender 11591 58233 26326 08797 16759
Child Like -00017 50060 12978 20697 10117 Digestible 21090 51160 23785 19288 14940
Cut Carve 13702 43200 12602 00687 22489 Wasteful Fat 14030 48337 06976 24523 05427
Taste 26384 36299• 62586 03092 06423
Men Like 18069 20512 61001 02691 07609 Substantial 27027 16478 63282 14122 12701 Visitors 20333 16523 55535 02518 34485 Value 15175 31751 29455 60450 09804
Not expensive -02797 15000 -07450 71492 01248 Good cold 12657 15954 14310 05160 66398
Ways serving 13145 16355 25278 31748 30791 Table D.3 Varimax Rotated Factor Matrix - Socio Economic Grades D/E
The decimal point in front of each number has been ommitted for clarity
Factor Factor , Factor Factor Factor Scale IV V
Vitamins 75981 15086 22153 10091 07070
Proteins 68333 22206 20240 08203 1446/
Nourishment 60182 22547 43797 14201 12644 Ease Preparation 09642 61330 19966 09640 -02451
Tender 13512 60392 26110 09804 16631 Child Like 10484 50858 16474 22712 11336
Digestible 26773 47854 20943 22390 13350 Cut Carve 15425 49891 14054 04941 24141
Wasteful Fat 17948 39160 11598 29371 07908
Taste 24522 33138 66310 10659 08035
Men Like 20210 26027 67231 07262 04862
Substantial 31739 25469 52075 12033 13707
Visitors 22438 19503 52413 13533 35202 Value 16561 20709 29366 73370 08677 Not expensive 02200 13105 -03169 65498 01635
Good Cold 11295 16765 10789 05196 71658 Ways serving 15711 17962 24574 32069 30154 Table D.4 Varimax Rotated Factor Matrix - Gateshead
The decimal point in front of each number has been ommitted for clarity
Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Scale I II III IV V
Vitamins 69257 18823 28640 09346 •102.50 Proteins 75307 19404 24246 09141 13957 Nourishment 55154 22330 50348 14405 10604 Ease Preparation 12731 61571 20018 06692 00697 Tender 14487 54807 27197 11860 16749 Child Like 05470 50229 13770 27434 12315 Digestible 26875 45523 24055 24960 14512 Cut Carve 12320 39548 13928 04831 29048 Wasteful Fat 16433 47707 11327 25770 0711.5
Taste 28008 32074 ....._.67191 09912 06567 Men Like 19167 21311 66424 04209 10005
Substantial 29861 18953 59209 13914 15249
Visitors 18761 21509 56477 13222 34453 Value 19100 26558 35296 65655 11917 Not expensive 04159 17400 -00723 65376 03423 Good Cold 11831 14181 15615 06745 72251
Ways serving 12375 20450 33851 30325 32560 - vi
Table D.5 Varimax Rotated Factor Matrix - Bolton
The decimal point in front of each number has been ommitted for clarity
Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Scale I II III IV V
Vitamins 74338 11435 28914 06849 12417
Proteins 67668 23555 29768 03717 14850
Nourishment 52850 28351 47939 11883 10676 Ease Preparation 09849 63064 22777 06521 -02403
Tender 13181 65966 25930 02811 13624
Child Like 02411 55596 11283 18522 06663 Digestible 22639 58495 20010 19897 08145
Cut carve 13976 47599 17488 06092 24123 Wasteful fat 14591 46397 06345 28390 03354
Taste 24801 38913 60990 03123 07161
Men Like 20722 24213 62312 15225 02597
Substantial 27816 22743 62541 11847 07782
Visitors 21252 14027 54397 01794 34348 Value 12345 30121 29142 58715 07069
Not expensive -02945 12984 -09503 76742 -00124
Good cold 12861 12160 09634 05149 76885
Ways serving 16288 12716 20023 29547 24492 vii
Table D.6 Varimax Rotated Factor Matrix - Reading
The decimal point in front of each number has been ommitted for clarity
Factor Factor Factor Scale Factor Factor I II III IV V
Vitamins 58563 13972 17651 02822 10425 Proteins 66376 20501 22037 05751 10041
Nourishment 68299 16991 38563 12064 11538
Ease Preparation 12778 65258 14536 -02891 -04108
Tender 09945 47439 35691 14960 30819
Child Like 02139 40424 19595 - 18247 23800 Digestible 22057 38439 29141 19189 34106
Cut carve 17000 52879 08820 10260 09539 Wasteful fat 18383 45289 02902 25244 21821
Taste 26940 28638 66000 05060 12249
Men Like 18270 20798 65594 01660 07824
Substantial 34892 11738 55046 17866 17942 Visitors 28906 05267 58191 -00713 31504
Value 18624 22679 21146 71115 10131 Not expensive -05018 07475 -09509 67840 01023
Good cold 11595 16709 16011 05277 39970 Ways serving 14684 05426 21199 41757 35437 •
APPENDIX E : WEIGHTING PROCEDURES
Weighting of Sample
The sample was weighted before proceeding with the analysis in order to make it more representative of the Population and Social Grade profiles of three large regions of Great Britain.
Our sample towns of Bolton, Gateshead and Reading were considered to represent three "conglomerate regions".
a. North Western England, the Western Midlands, Wales.
b. The North East and Scotland
c. The South, South East, South West and Eastern Midlands (including London).
Respondents or 'cases', need to be weighted to allow both
for the unequal population size of these regions and also for slight variations in the Social Grade profile within each region.
The end result of the analysis 1;iould then produce mean
figures representative of the entire nation and subgroup means for each town representative of their respective region. In practice both demands can be met by the use of a single weighting index.
The source data used in calculating the weight indexes were
the population distribution, by standard region of Great Britain (see Table I) and Social Grade profile of homes by ITV area (Table ha). Regional figures were obtained from Critchley
R.A. (1977).
Representative size and Social Grade profiles were cal-
culated for each region and compared with the sample actually achieved in order to produce weights. Figures are of course best estimates due firstly to the overlap of ITV regions, and secondly to the difference in boundaries between 'Standard' and
'ITV' regions.
Table I. Population by Standard Regions (millions
North West, North East, South, SE, Wales, Border Scotland
North 3.13 Yorks & Humber 4.89
North West 6.58 East Midlands 3.73 West Midlands 5.18 East Anglia 1.78 South East 16.94 South West 4.23 Scotland 5.21
Wales 2.77
14.53 26.69%) 13.23 (24.39 26.68 (49.01%)
'Ideal' Sample Size 624 x 26.69% = 166.546 624 x 24.3% = 151.632 624 x 49.01% = 305.822 Table IIa. Social Grade profile on Homes by ITV area •
Population Grade % C C ('000) A/B l 2 D/E
London 5,072 14 24 35 27 Midlands 3,517 11 17 36 34 North Lancs 2,899 10 17 33 39 North Yorks 2,524 10 17 40 33 Central Scotland 1,373 10 17 36 37 Wales & West 1,677 13 18 36 33 Southern 2,068 17 25 31 27
North East 961 10 15 40 35 Eastern 1,518 13 20 36 31
Ulster 440 11 19 31 39 South West 635 17 23 30 30
Border 209 13 21 31 35 North East 418 13 17 31 38 Scotland
National 12 20 35 34 - iv -
14.14e II1;. Representative Social Grade Profile of Conglomerate Regions*
1. Totals ('000) homes
North West & Wales North East & Scotland South & East 7
A/B 728.57 540.14 1,560.42 1,137.60 877.70 2,482.96 1 C2 2,288.45 2,017.86 3,786.50
D/E 2,355.23 1,836.12 3,186.94
2. Percentages
A/B 11.14772 10.24579 14.16397 C 17.47505 16.64889 22.53790 1 C2 35.15365 38.27634 34.37017
D/E 36.17948 34.82895 28.92794
99.9559 99.99997 99.99998
* calculated from data in Table Ha. The Midlands population was allocated equally to the North Western and South Eastern Regions. Border ITV was allocated to the North Western Region. Figures are of course approximations due to errors at each stage of calculations due to overlap of ITV regions. - v
IIIc. Weights used in Factor Analysis* of Main Survey
• North West, Wales. N. East & South, SE, SW & Border Scotland
0.7426 0.5179 0.9626 0.5390 0.4855 1.1488
0.8871 0.6521 2.9198
0.9719 o.644o 3.8464
* Desired Cell Values divided by Actual Cell Values
IIId. Weights used in Winter Survey
A/B 0.8331 0.5387 0.9179 0.4697 1.3482 1 0.5163 C2 0.8427 0.6236 3.0839
D/E 0.8839 o.6604 4.4990
*Desired cell values divided by actual all values. - vi -
Table Ilia. Actual Sample Breakdown
Bolton Gateshead Reading Summer Summer Summer w
A/B 25 30 45 CI 54 52 60
C 66 89 36 2 p/E 62 82 23
207 253 164
IIIb Representative Breakdown with Same Total Sample Size
North West, Wales, North East, South, SE, Border Scotland SW
Summer Summer Summer
A/B 18.566037 15.1535896 43.316592
C 29.103926 25.245044 68.925855 1
C 58.546857 58.039179 105.11167 2 D/E 60.255332 52.811833 88.468120
The population figures given in Table I were used as the
best estimate of the populations of our 'conglomerate regions' Representative sample sizes were calculated from proportions
derived from these figures and the percentages shown in Table IIb 2 were used subsequently to produce the representative
social profile of our sample.
The data in IIb 2 were considered a more accurate
indication of the Social Grade Profile of our regions than
the figures for Lancs, Tyne Tees and Southern regions.