Consumer perceptions toward sugar content of fruit juice products in a developing country

Figures & data

Table 1. FJ sugar content construct descriptive statistics and principle component factor analysis.

FJ sugar content construct items	M	SD	Factor loading	AVE	CR	p Value
FJ products are high in sugar	3.43	1.347	0.826	0.648	0.760	0.001**
Certain FJ product classifications are sweetened with sugar	3.69	0.965	0.738

** Significant at the p < 0.001 level

Table 2. Influence of FJ products’ consumption patterns on consumer perceptions toward FJ sugar content.

Consumption patterns		n	%	p
FJ product drinking incidence	Several times a day (1)	1126	14.7	0.003* (2–5)–(1)^a
	Daily (2)	1840	24.1
	2–4 times a week (3)	2233	29.2
	2–3 times a month (4)	1440	18.8
	Rarely or never (5)	1001	13.1
Purchase of FJ product prevalence	Several times a day (1)	520	6.8	0.209
	Daily (2)	1630	21.3
	2–4 times a week (3)	2577	33.7
	2–3 times a month (4)	1962	25.7
	Rarely or never (5)	951	12.4
Time-of-day FJ product consumption	Breakfast (1)	705	9.2	0.555
	Lunchtime (2)	1238	16.2
	Supper (3)	940	12.3
	Between meals (4)	1796	23.5
	All of these options (5)	1222	16.0
	No specific times (6)	1739	22.8
Reasons for FJ product consumption	It’s healthier than other drinks (1)	2162	28.3	0.030* (2–8)–(1)^a
	It’s refreshing (2)	1477	19.3
	I like the taste (3)	1360	17.8
	My family prefers it (4)	731	9.6
	Inexpensive (5)	258	3.4
	Widely available (6)	379	5.0
	To quench my thirst (7)	587	7.7
	Other (8)	257	3.4
	I don’t know (9)	429	5.6
Other beverage product preference	Soft drinks/soda (1)	2232	29.2	0.000** (7 & 8)–(1 & 2)^b
	Diet soft drinks/soda (2)	960	12.6
	Sports or energy drinks (3)	829	10.9
	Alcoholic beverages (4)	663	8.7
	Hot beverages (5)	834	10.9
	Bottled water (6)	814	10.7
	Tap water (7)	633	8.3
	Sweetened beverages powder/syrup (8)	471	6.2
	None, I prefer to drink FJ most (9)	204	2.7
Factors that could increase FJ product consumption	Information on nutrition/health benefits (1)	2280	29.8	0.000** (3)–(2, 4, 6 & 7)^b
	Increase awareness of benefits via advertising (2)	1205	15.8
	Lower prices (3)	1497	19.6
	If other family members drank FJ (4)	711	9.3
	Improved taste (5)	792	10.4
	Other (6)	502	6.6
	I drink enough FJ (7)	653	8.5

* Significant at the p < 0.05 level

** Significant at the p < 0.001 level

^aBonferroni correction pairwise comparisons mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level

^bBonferroni correction pairwise comparisons mean difference is significant at the 0.001 level

Table 3. Influence of socio-demographic factors on consumer perceptions toward sugar content of FJ products.

Socio-demographic factors		n	%	p Value
Gender	Male (1)	3559	46.6	0.856
	Female (2)	4081	53.4
Age	16–25 years (1)	3373	44.1	0.016* (5 & 6)–(2)^a
	26–35 years (2)	2299	30.1
	36–45 years (3)	1143	15.0
	46–55 years (4)	527	6.9
	56–65 years (5)	200	2.6
	66+ years (6)	98	1.3
Marital status	Single (1)	4417	57.8	0.059
	Married (2)	1962	25.7
	Widow/widower (3)	394	5.2
	Living together (4)	638	8.4
	Divorced (5)	229	3.0
Education level	Grade 1–7 (1)	298	3.9	0.648
	Grade 8–11 (2)	856	11.2
	Grade 12 (3)	3363	44.0
	Diploma or degree (4)	2375	31.1
	Post-graduate degree (5)	748	9.8
Employment status	Student (1)	2633	34.5	0.000** (5)–(1 & 2)^b
	Employed (Full-time) (2)	2621	34.3
	Employed (Part-time) (3)	877	11.5
	Self-employed (4)	545	7.1
	Unemployed (5)	356	4.7
	Learner (6)	285	3.7
	Pensioner (7)	132	1.7
	Housewife/homemaker (8)	124	1.6
	Not working – other (9)	67	0.9
Population group	Black (1)	3690	48.3	0.408
	Colored (2)	2520	33.0
	White (3)	992	13.0
	Indian (4)	337	4.4
	Asian (5)	101	1.3
Monthly household income	Less than ZAR800 (1)	1306	17.1	0.030* (5)–(2)^a
	ZAR801 – 3200 (2)	1539	20.1
	ZAR3 201 – 6400 (3)	1122	14.7
	ZAR6 401 – 12800 (4)	1204	15.8
	ZAR12 801 – 25600 (5)	1393	18.2
	ZAR25 601 – 51200 (6)	803	10.5
	ZAR51 201 – 102400 (7)	197	2.6
	ZAR102 401+ (8)	76	1.0

* Significant at the p < 0.05 level

** Significant at the p < 0.001 level

^aBonferroni correction pairwise comparisons mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level

^bBonferroni correction pairwise comparisons mean difference is significant at the 0.001 level.