Table 6 Differences between consumer groups in Hungary, Italy and Serbia (Kruskal–Wallis tests)
From: Consumers' preferences for processed meat: a best–worst scaling approach in three European countries
Attributes | Hungary | Italy | Serbia | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Test statistics | Pairwise comparisons | Effect size (η2) | Test statistics | Pairwise comparisons | Effect size (η2) | Test statistics | Pairwise comparisons | Effect size (η2) | ||||
Test statistics | Pairs (Mean ranks) | Test statistics | Pairs (Mean ranks) | Test statistics | Pairs (Mean ranks) | |||||||
Product's country of origin | n.s.d | n.s.d | 4.32* | 4.32* | Female–Male (213.33–190.13) | 0.01 | ||||||
Visual appearance of product | n.s.d | 11.16* | 39.27** | 40–49–50 < (152.55–113.29) | 0.03 | n.s.d | ||||||
Brand | n.s.d | n.s.d | 4.75* | 4.75* | Female–Male (189.03–213.48) | 0.01 | ||||||
Best-before date | 4.95* | 4.95* | Female–Male (218.02–192.98) | 0.01 | n.s.d | 7.00** | 7.00** | Female–Male (216.31–187.27) | 0.02 | |||
20.47** | 68.95* | inc. 1–inc. 3 (237.60–168.66) | 0.04 | |||||||||
72.90* | inc. 1– inc. 4 (237.60–164.71) | |||||||||||
112.65** | inc. 1– inc. 5 (237.60–124.95) | |||||||||||
8.11* | 42.58* | 30–39–40–49 (218.65–176.06) | 0.01 | |||||||||
Price | 16.71** | 16.71** | Female–Male (182.46–228.54) | 0.04 | n.s.d | 5.78* | 5.78* | Female–Male (187.93–214.54) | 0.01 | |||
10.96* | 49.88* | < 30–30–39 (231.81–181.93) | 0.02 | |||||||||
Nutritional value of product | n.s.d | 8.18* | 39.54* | Rural area–Urban (103.54–143.08) | 0.02 | n.s.d | ||||||
Traditional methods used in production/processing of product | n.s.d | n.s.d | 21.69** | 56.24** | < 30–30–39 (153.35–209.60) | 0.05 | ||||||
72.10** | <30–40–49 (153.35–225.44) | |||||||||||
56.41** | <30–50< (153.35–209.76) | |||||||||||
Animal-welfare-friendly production | 8.67** | 8.67** | Female–Male (220.77–190.23) | 0.02 | 10.24** | 10.24** | Female–Male (148.71–120.07) | 0.04 | n.s.d | |||
12.33** | 37.80* | 40–49–50 < (114.02–151.82) | 0.04 | |||||||||
Organic production | n.s.d | n.s.d | n.s.d | |||||||||
GMO free | 6.78** | 6.78** | Female–Male (219.99–191.01) | 0.01 | n.s.d | 11.86** | 52.19** | < 30–40–49 (173.33–225.52) | 0.02 | |||
Taste of product | n.s.d | n.s.d | 4.16* | 4.16* | Female–Male (189.94–212.60) | 0.01 | ||||||
My [respondent’s] knowledge of producer | 14.64* | 54.92* | inc. 3–inc. 4 (218.87–163.95) | 0.02 | n.s.d | n.s.d | ||||||
59.65* | inc. 3–inc. 5 (218.87–159.22) | |||||||||||
Fair trade | 19.00** | 65.95* | Secondary–Postgraduate (240.46–174.51) | 0.04 | n.s.d | 14.19** | 14.19** | Female–Male (180.48–221.70) | 0.03 | |||
115.03** | Lower secondary–Postgraduate (289.54–174.51) | |||||||||||
93.41* | Lower secondary–Bachelor's (289.54–196.13) | |||||||||||
86.13* | Lower secondary–Below a degree (289.54–203.41) | |||||||||||
8.09* | 42.99* | < 30–30–39 (226.72–183.73) | 0.01 | |||||||||
Product's region of origin | n.s.d | n.s.d | 4.94* | 4.94* | Female–Male (213.92–189.56) | 0.01 | ||||||