Journal of Nutrition and Health

The Korean Nutrition Society (한국영양학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Analysis of Dietary Identify Questionnaire according to perception about soybean meat of Korean consumers

국내 소비자의 콩고기 인식에 따른 식생활 정체성 분석

  • Lee, Seo-Hyun (Department of Foods and Nutrition, Kookmin University) ;
  • Park, Jae-Hee (Department of Food and Nutrition, Kyungnam University) ;
  • Lee, Min A (Department of Foods and Nutrition, Kookmin University) ;
  • Park, Eunju (Department of Food and Nutrition, Kyungnam University)
  • Received : 2022.07.15
  • Accepted : 2022.08.02
  • Published : 2022.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: This study was undertaken to examine the perception of Korean consumers regarding soybean meat. Using the Dietary Identify Questionnaire (DIQ), the data obtained were analyzed to identify various factors related to a plant-based diet. Methods: A consumer survey was conducted from June 1st to 30th, 2021, targeting 260 Korean consumers over the age of 20 years. Subjects were asked to answer six questions related to the perception of soybean meat. Of the 52 items present in the DIQ, 33 items were verified and reconstructed. All data were analyzed using the SPSS statistics (ver.25). Results: The subjects were divided into two groups, 'passive consuming group' and 'active consuming group', based on their perception of soybean meat. Demographic analysis according to the perception of soybean meat showed significant differences in age, marital status, academic background, and family members. The DIQ was categorized into 7 types: prosocial motivation, out-group regard, centrality, public regard, personal motivation, strictness, and private regard. Comparing by perception about soybean meat, significant differences were obtained between both groups for 'prosocial motivation (p < 0.01)', 'centrality (p < 0.01)', 'private norm (p < 0.05)', and 'personal motivation (p < 0.001)'. The 'passive consuming group' showed relatively low scores in all 4 factors. Conclusion: In the future, the results of this study can be applied to define the meaning of vegan in Korea. We believe our results will provide basic marketing data for the plant-based meat market. This will help expand the soybean meat market for a sustainable life for consumers, which is based on various needs such as health and the environment.

본 연구에서는 콩고기에 대한 인식으로 집단을 나누어 이에 따른 식생활 정체성을 파악함으로써, 이를 통해 향후 콩고기 시장 진입을 위한 기초자료로서 국내 소비자의 지속 가능한 식품 선택을 위한 활용에 기여하고자 하였다. 국내 소비자 260명을 대상으로 수집된 자료를 SPSS 통계 프로그램을 이용하여 분석을 진행하였다. 군집 별 국내 소비자를 대상으로 콩고기 인식에 따른 인구 통계학적 분석과 식생활 정체성에 관한 연구 결과는 다음과 같다. 콩고기 인식에 따라 '소극적인 소비자 집단', '적극적인 소비자 집단'으로 군집을 나누었으며, 콩고기 인식에 따른 인구통계학적 분석은 연령, 결혼여부, 교육수준, 가족구성원의 항목에서 유의적인 차이가 나타났다. 콩고기 인식별 식생활 정체성의 결과로는 '친사회적동기 (p < 0.01)', '중심성 (p < 0.01)', '사적 규범 (p < 0.05)', '개인적 동기 (p < 0.001)'에서 유의적인 차이가 나타났다. 유의한 차이가 나타난 4가지 요인 모두 '소극적인 소비자 집단'이 상대적으로 낮은 점수로 나타났다. 본 연구의 결과는 향후 국내 채식주의자의 특성을 정의하는데 활용될 수 있을 것이며, 건강과 환경 등 다양한 국내 소비자의 지속가능 한 삶을 위해 콩고기 시장 확대에도 도움될 것으로 판단된다.

Keywords

References

  1. Dodge R, Daly AP, Huyton J, Sanders LD. The challenge of defining wellbeing. Int J Wellbeing 2012; 2(3): 222-235. https://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v2i3.4
  2. Kim YS. Awareness of environmental pollution and attitudes toward eco-friendly clothing according to women's LOHAS lifestyle. Res J Costume Cult 2010; 18(3): 499-513. https://doi.org/10.29049/rjcc.2010.18.3.499
  3. Aschemann-Witzel J, Gantriis RF, Fraga P, Perez-Cueto FJ. Plant-based food and protein trend from a business perspective: markets, consumers, and the challenges and opportunities in the future. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 2021; 61(18): 3119-3128. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2020.1793730
  4. Hoek AC, Luning PA, Stafleu A, de Graaf C. Food-related lifestyle and health attitudes of Dutch vegetarians, non-vegetarian consumers of meat substitutes, and meat consumers. Appetite 2004; 42(3): 265-272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2003.12.003
  5. Parra-Fernandez ML, Manzaneque-Canadillas M, Onieva-Zafra MD, Fernandez-Martinez E, Fernandez-Munoz JJ, Prado-Laguna MD, et al. Pathological preoccupation with healthy eating (orthorexia nervosa) in a Spanish sample with vegetarian, vegan, and non-vegetarian dietary patterns. Nutrients 2020; 12(12): 3907. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12123895
  6. Noguerol AT, Pagan MJ, Garcia-Segovia P, Varela P. Green or clean? Perception of clean label plant-based products by omnivorous, vegan, vegetarian and flexitarian consumers. Food Res Int 2021; 149: 110652.
  7. Vainio A. How consumers of meat-based and plant-based diets attend to scientific and commercial information sources: eating motives, the need for cognition and ability to evaluate information. Appetite 2019; 138: 72-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.03.017
  8. Rosenfeld DL, Burrow AL. The unified model of vegetarian identity: a conceptual framework for understanding plant-based food choices. Appetite 2017; 112: 78-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.01.017
  9. Kirsten H, Seib-Pfeifer LE, Luth CA, Rosenfeld DL. Validation and application of a German version of the Dietarian Identity Questionnaire: revealing differences between omnivores, vegetarians, and vegans. Food Qual Prefer 2020; 86: 103988.
  10. Rosenfeld DL. Psychometric properties of the Dietarian Identity Questionnaire among vegetarians. Food Qual Prefer 2019; 74: 135-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.01.020
  11. Rosenfeld DL, Burrow AL. Development and validation of the Dietarian Identity Questionnaire: assessing self-perceptions of animal-product consumption. Appetite 2018; 127: 182-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.05.003
  12. Endres JG. Soy Protein Products: Characteristics, Nutritional Aspects, and Utilization. Urbana (IL): The American Oil Chemists Society; 2001.
  13. Reipurth MF, Horby L, Gregersen CG, Bonke A, Cueto FJ. Barriers and facilitators towards adopting a more plant-based diet in a sample of Danish consumers. Food Qual Prefer 2019; 73: 288-292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.10.012
  14. Banovic M, Arvola A, Pennanen K, Duta DE, Bruckner-Guhmann M, Lahteenmaki L, et al. Foods with increased protein content: a qualitative study on European consumer preferences and perceptions. Appetite 2018; 125: 233-243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.01.034
  15. Lee HY, Shin YM, Hwang JE, Lee BW, Kim HT, Ko JM, et al. Production of soybean meat using Korean whole soybean and it's quality characteristics and antioxidant activity. J Agric Life Sci 2014; 48(5): 139-156. https://doi.org/10.14397/jals.2014.48.5.139
  16. Kim MR, Yang JE, Chung LN. Study on sensory characteristics and consumer acceptance of commercial soy-meat products. J Korean Soc Food Cult 2017; 32(2): 150-161. https://doi.org/10.7318/KJFC/2017.32.2.150
  17. Shin YM, Cho KM, Seo WT, Choi JS. Quality characteristics and antioxidant activity of soybean meat using heat-treated soybean powder. J Agric Life Sci 2014; 48(5): 105-117.
  18. Michel F, Hartmann C, Siegrist M. Consumers' associations, perceptions and acceptance of meat and plant-based meat alternatives. Food Qual Prefer 2021; 87: 104063.
  19. De Boer J, Aiking H. On the merits of plant-based proteins for global food security: marrying macro and micro perspectives. Ecol Econ 2011; 70(7): 1259-1265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.03.001
  20. Elzerman JE, Hoek AC, van Boekel MJ, Luning PA. Appropriateness, acceptance and sensory preferences based on visual information: a web-based survey on meat substitutes in a meal context. Food Qual Prefer 2015; 42: 56-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.01.010
  21. Kim HK. Intake patterns and preference of soy foods by age and gender in Ulsan Area. J Hum Ecol 2005; 7(1): 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/09709274.1996.11907183
  22. Hoek AC, Luning PA, Weijzen P, Engels W, Kok FJ, de Graaf C. Replacement of meat by meat substitutes. A survey on person- and product-related factors in consumer acceptance. Appetite 2011; 56(3): 662-673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.02.001
  23. de Boer J, Schosler H, Aiking H. "Meatless days" or "less but better"? Exploring strategies to adapt Western meat consumption to health and sustainability challenges. Appetite 2014; 76: 120-128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.02.002
  24. DeBoer J, Aiking H. On the merits of plant-based proteins for global food security: marrying macro and micro perspectives. Ecol Econ 2011; 70(7): 1259-1265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.03.001
  25. Schifter DE, Ajzen I. Intention, perceived control, and weight loss: an application of the theory of planned behavior. J Pers Soc Psychol 1985; 49(3): 843-851. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.843
  26. Rosenfeld DL, Tomiyama AJ. How proximal are pescatarians to vegetarians? An investigation of dietary identity, motivation, and attitudes toward animals. J Health Psychol 2021; 26(5): 713-727. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105319842933
  27. Rosenfeld DL. A comparison of dietarian identity profiles between vegetarians and vegans. Food Qual Prefer 2019; 72: 40-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.09.008
  28. Lee KB, Park G, Kwon HK. Korean consumers' awareness of cultured meat and influencing factors by gender. J Digit Converg 2022; 20(1): 239-247. https://doi.org/10.14400/JDC.2022.20.1.239
  29. Kim GH, Oh J, Cho MS. Perception and choice attribute of vegetarians and omnivores toward plant-based foods. J Korean Soc Food Cult 2022; 37(2): 99-108.
  30. Jeon BK, Lee JH, Yoon EJ. Nutritional intake of women in their twenties according to different degree of inclusion of animal foods: based on the 7th Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. J Nutr Health 2022; 55(1): 101-119. https://doi.org/10.4163/jnh.2022.55.1.101