Preferences and Intentions of Seafood Consumers in Oman An Empirical Analysis PDF

Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing
ISSN: 0897-4438 (Print) 1528-6983 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wifa20
Preferences and Intentions of Seafood Consumers

in Oman: An Empirical Analysis
Jaynab Begum Yousuf, Shekar Bose, Hemesiri Kotagama & Houcine

Boughanmi
To cite this article: Jaynab Begum Yousuf, Shekar Bose, Hemesiri Kotagama & Houcine
Boughanmi (2019) Preferences and Intentions of Seafood Consumers in Oman: An Empirical
Analysis, Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing, 31:2, 175-203, DOI:
10.1080/08974438.2018.1497565
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08974438.2018.1497565
Published online: 14 Sep 2018.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 90
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 1 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wifa20
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL FOOD & AGRIBUSINESS MARKETING
2019, VOL. 31, NO. 2, 175–203
https://doi.org/10.1080/08974438.2018.1497565
Preferences and Intentions of Seafood Consumers in

Oman: An Empirical Analysis
Jaynab Begum Yousuf, Shekar Bose, Hemesiri Kotagama, and
Houcine Boughanmi
College of Agricultural and Marine Sciences, Sultan Qaboos University, Al-Khod, Sultanate
of Oman
ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
This study examines the influence of product attributes and Seafood consumption;
socio-economic, demographic, cultural, psychological, and consumer preferences and
market-related factors on “preferences” and “intention” of sea- intention; choice theory and
planned behavior; choice
food consumers in Oman using the classical economic choice model; Oman
theory, the theory of planned behavior (TPB), and their hybrid
form. Primary data were collected using questionnaires admin-
istered through online and face-to-face survey. A total of 906
responses were received from the online (N ¼ 778), hypermar-
kets (N ¼ 93), and fish market (N ¼ 35) sources. Descriptive and
empirical analyses were performed to the survey data.
Findings from the preference model suggest that nationality,
habit, freshness (perceived as quality), taste, household size,
income, and education are significantly influencing the pur-
chasing frequency of seafood. While consumer attitudes and
control beliefs (i.e., facilitating conditions) are significant in the
intention model, the hybrid model identifies additional signifi-
cant variables such as past and current consumption behavior
that influence consumers’ intention of seafood purchase. The
findings will enable seafood firms and the concerned authorities
to formulate appropriate management and marketing strategies.
Introduction
In Oman, fisheries have occupied an important place in the national policy
agenda as the “Oman Vision 2020”—a long-term development plan—
reflects the country’s desire to achieve food security, enhance fishers’
income, and maximize socio-economic benefits from the sector (Bose, Al-
Mazrouai, Al-Habsi, Al-Busaidi, & Al-Nahdi, 2010; MNE, 2007). These
strategic objectives are innately linked to market performance and, in turn,
depend on the behavior of end users.
In examining the significance of relevant socio-economic, demographic,
psychological factors, and product attributes that are likely to exert
CONTACT Shekar Bose sbose@squ.edu.om Department of Natural Resource Economics, College of

Agricultural and Marine Sciences, Sultan Qaboos University, P.O. Box 34, Al-Khod 123, Sultanate of Oman.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/wifa.
ß 2018 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
176 J. B. YOUSUF ET AL.
influence on “preferences” and “intention” of seafood consumers two dis-

tinct but interrelated theoretical postulates—the economic choice theory
and the theory of planned behavior (TPB)—of consumer choice structure
are widely used in the literature. However, the application of an integrated
model by combining the two theoretical postulates in predicting the behav-
ior of seafood consumer is sparse. The consideration of these theoretical
postulates is to emphasize the fact that the consumer behavior is multifa-
ceted and interdisciplinary and, therefore, influenced by many factors
involving multiple disciplines. In predicting human behavior and the subse-
quent decision process, Simon (1959) argued that the hybrid model can
accommodate both economic and social elements in consumer choice. In
exploring the relationship between product convenience and fish consump-
tion in a cross-cultural setting, Olsen, Scholderer, Brunsø, and Verbeke
(2007) acknowledged the omission of socio-economic variables such as age,
income, and family size from the model was one of the limiting factors of
their study. Mazrooei, Chomo, and Omezzine (2003) noted that respond-
ents with high income do not prefer buying seafood in bulk (or whole) but
in processed forms and in small portions.
Furthermore, Conner and Armitage (1998) advocated the inclusion of
“habit” as a construct to the TPB model to improve the predictive power
of the model. However, the role of habits and their formation has a long
history in economics which is based on the simple proposition that past,
present, and future consumption patterns are interconnected (Gorman,
1967; Pollak, 1970; Ravina, 2005). Alessie and Kapteyn (1991) recom-
mended the inclusion of habit formation and preference interdependence
(i.e., preferences are non-separable with respect to time) as taste shifter in
consumer choice model.
Therefore, to integrate the two theoretical postulates and following the
economic reasoning of preference interdependence and “fixed
commitments” under the assumption of “myopic” habit formation,1 this
article includes past and present consumption frequencies as “habit
persistence” measures along with other significant socio-economic variables
(resulted from the preference model) to the hybrid model. It should be
noted that the conceptual and operational aspects of “habit construct” in
this study differ from Honkanen, Olsen, and Verplanken (2005) and
Verbeke and Vackier (2005). Conner and Armitage (1998) argued that
repeated performance of behavior may exert influence on subsequent
behavior and suggested the frequency of past behavior to be used as a
measure of habit in the TPB model.
Seafood consumption preferences are also influenced by culture and geo-
graphical location of consumers (Cardoso, Lourenço, Costa, Gonçalves, &
Nunes, 2013). In the context of Arab countries, Musaiger (1993) found that
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL FOOD & AGRIBUSINESS MARKETING 177
socio-cultural factors such as religion, beliefs, food preferences, etc. have

considerable influence on food consumption patterns. In a cross-cultural
research from an international marketing perspective, McCort and
Malhotra (1993) described the impact of culture on consumers’ behavioral
constructs of perception, information processing, value system, and self-
concept. The underlying assumption and conditions of market homogeneity
under globalization promoted by Levitt (1983) was critically examined by
Graham and Anzai (1994) and potential barriers to its implementation
were highlighted. Shaw and Clarke (1998) argued that the relationships
between consumption, culture, and choice need to be considered in
explaining consumer choice behavior and further pointed out that cross-
cultural differences which are particularly evident in food industries act as
a barrier to global market homogeneity.
In explaining the influence of culture on consumption behavior, Bednall
and Kanuk (1997) defined culture as the sum total of learned beliefs, val-
ues, and customs that serve to direct the consumer behavior of members of
a particular society. This definition reflects the notion of subjective culture
that conceptualizes culture as cognitive processes such as beliefs, values,
and norms shared by a group of people (Overby, Woodruff, & Gardial,
2005). Morsello et al. (2015) observed that cultural attributes reflected
through beliefs, attitudes, and social norms are important predictors of
bushmeat consumption and preferences in the Amazonian towns. Habit
persistence, as mentioned earlier, is also influenced by cultural attributes as
consumer taste and preferences reflect cultural aspects (Schenck et al. 2006)
and that leads to habit formation (Gorman, 1967). Morsello et al. (2015)
used national origin as a proxy for culture.
A number of studies of global and local origin pointed out that the con-
sumption of fish has several health-promoting effects (Al-Riyami et al.
2016; Brunsø, Verbeke, Olsen, & Fruensgaard, 2009; Oken et al., 2012;
Trondsen, Braaten, Lund, & Eggen, 2004; Verbeke & Vackier, 2005). A
local study by Al-Riyami et al. (2016) pointed out the level of awareness of
health benefits associated with fish consumption as one of the key factors
that influenced the pattern of fish consumption in Oman. The Ministry of
Agriculture and Fisheries (MAF) has also been endeavoring to increase the
awareness among consumers about the health benefits of fish and seafood
products and communicated through an “International Conference on the
Economic Importance of Fisheries and Their Impact on Public health” held
in Muscat, March 8–10, 2008 (http://www.mccarrisonsociety.org.uk/resour-
ces/previous-newsletters/nl-421/846-421- oman-overview; accessed April 16,
2018). With regard to consumer education, there are at least two arguments
existing in the literature. First, educated people are more likely to be aware
of the health and nutritional aspects of seafood and such knowledge is likely
to exert positive influence on seafood consumption (Myrland, Trondsen,

Johnston, & Lund, 2000). Second, educated people lead a busy lifestyle and,
therefore, are less likely to consume seafood at home (Spinks & Bose, 2002).
Given this background and considering the national strategic initiatives,
the main objective of this case study is to examine the significance of rele-
vant socio-economic, demographic, psychological factors, and product attrib-
utes that are likely to exert influence on “preferences” and “intention” of
seafood consumers in Oman, by applying two distinct but interrelated theor-
etical postulates—the economic choice theory and the TPB—of consumer
choice structure and the hybrid form. Furthermore, following the line of rea-
soning by Conner and Armitage (1998) and the existing studies (Birch &
Lawley, 2014; Honkanen et al., 2005; Verbeke & Vackier, 2005), the TPB
model has been extended by including “habit” as an additional construct to
examine the predictive power of the TPB and the hybrid models.
More specifically, the preceding discussion forms the basis of the follow-
ing main hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: With regard to the preference model, households’ income, family size
with children and teenagers, and the level of education are expected to exert
influence on the frequency of seafood consumption.
Hypothesis 2: From cultural perspectives, it is expected that factors such as

nationality, habit and taste, attitudes, norms, and perceived behavioral controls
would exert significant influence on seafood consumption.
Hypothesis 3: The higher the awareness among consumers about the health benefits of
seafood, the higher will be the frequency of seafood consumption.
Hypothesis 4: The statistical performance of the hybrid model is superior to that of

the conventional economic model and the TPB individually.
This research has significance in terms of academic, industry, and policy

perspectives. From an academic perspective, this study promotes the desir-
ability of interdisciplinary research on consumer behavior which is becom-
ing common in academic institutions in the world. While various country-
specific studies have been conducted on preferences of seafood consumers
using either of the above mentioned theoretical frameworks, the application
of the hybrid model to investigate seafood consumption behavior using a
conditional logit regression model is limited. Olsen (2004) argued that to
accommodate ever-changing patterns of preferences, motivation, and
behavior of consumers more analytical research is required. To the best of
authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to apply the TPB and the hybrid
frameworks to study consumer attitudes to seafood in Oman, and to this
end, this article not only fills the existing knowledge gap in seafood con-
sumer research but also complements the existing global literature by add-
ing country-specific information.
In addition, this study contributes to the practical realm as well, as it pro-

vides policymakers and seafood businesses of local and global origins with
knowledge that has the potential to assist in designing effective strategic
actions. With the influence of information technology on the gradual change
in consumer attitudes (Tansey, 1994) and growing consumer interest in sea-
food quality and safety (Wessells & Anderson, 1995), it is of strategic
importance for domestic seafood industry and policymakers to be up-to-date
about consumer preferences and intention. In addition, it is observed that
Oman has been importing fish products from a number of countries like
India, UAE, France, Pakistan, Yemen, Vietnam, Norway, Canada, and Iran.
This further rationalizes the importance of cross-cultural consumer prefer-
ence analysis to identify heterogeneity in consumer preferences, attitudes,
social norms, and thereby, enhance the knowledge of the relevant actors of
foreign origin and enable them to formulate appropriate localized marketing
strategies to accommodate the preferences of seafood consumers in Oman.
Since 2011, the MAF has implemented export ban on selected large pela-
gic and demersal species to ensure the availability of these popular species
in the domestic market and to reduce inflationary pressure on fish prices
(Bose, Al Naabi, Boughanmi, & Yousuf, 2016). This suggests that the fish
exports to the European Union (EU) market (which is one of the econom-
ically important export markets) have been facing competition from the
domestic market. Therefore, information on consumer preferences in
Oman would help importers such as the EU to design alternative strategies
to reduce supply uncertainty concerning their domestic markets.
The remainder of the article is structured as follows. Section 2 discusses
briefly the conceptual background along with a schematic diagram identify-
ing the key dimensions/elements from the review of related studies. Section
3 describes the data and empirical approach used for analytical purposes.
Results are detailed in Section 4. Discussion, key policy recommendations,
and concluding comments are provided in Sections 5, 6, and 7, respectively.
Conceptual framework and previous research

The cardinal utility theory of consumer behavior for a riskless choice has
traditionally been assumed that the objective of a fully informed and
rational consumer is to maximize (minimize) utility (disutility) (Edwards,
1954). However, this classical view has gradually been shifted toward the
preference version of the theory, where preference ranking rather than
quantification of utility is essential (Suranyi-Unger, 1981). Under the
ordinal theory, it is postulated that one of the key determinants of consum-
ers’ choice is preference, which signifies intensities of consumers’ wants
under various socio-economic, regulatory, legal, and cultural constraints
(McFadden, 1986). McFadden (1986) stated that in the process of maxi-

mization under the economic choice theory, the consumer uses product
attributes, socio-economic factors, market characteristics, market informa-
tion, past experience, and the like in determining purchase decisions.
However, the discipline of social psychology suggests that consumers’
preferences consist of three key constructs, namely affective (i.e., feelings
about a particular product), cognitive (i.e., the knowledge and perceptions
that are acquired by a combination of direct experience with products and
information from various sources), and conative (i.e., concerned with the
likelihood that the consumer will undertake a specific action with regard to
products) (Zajonc & Markus, 1982). This view is explained by the TPB pro-
moted by Ajzen (1991), which suggests that the best predictor of consum-
ers’ purchasing behavior is the “intention to act” which in turn is
influenced by the factors such as consumers attitudes toward the behavior,
the subjective norm (social and personal), and perceived behavioral control
(i.e., facilitating conditions and past experiences). Figure 1 presents a sim-
ple summary flow chart to highlight the components, variables, and interre-
lationships of various elements of the two models.
With particular reference to seafood, the application of the conventional
economic choice theory and the TPB—which is mediated through the three
key constructs, namely attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behav-
ioral control—can be found in a considerable number of studies in the con-
text of both developed and developing countries. Tables 1 and 2 highlight
some key factors along with their source references that were identified to
be significant in explaining the seafood consumption behavior.
Three interesting observations can be made from this brief review of lit-
erature. First, it illustrates that behavioral factors are uncommon across
countries that support the case of this country-specific study made in the
introductory section. Second, while the two theoretical postulates differ in
their analytical approach, the analytical findings are not in conflict under
the same domain of inquiry. Third, the consideration of the role of habit
in the TPB framework helps to create a bridge between the two theoretical
postulates that motivates the use of hybrid model in this article.
Data and method

To meet the objectives of the study, primary data on various potential vari-
ables were collected using two survey modes, namely online and face-to-
face, involving three different groups of respondents. The face-to-face sur-
vey was considered to guard against the potential risk of low- or no-
response from online survey. The online survey used Google Drive plat-
form and was conducted at the Sultan Qaboos University (SQU) during
Variables of TPB Model
Attitudes: Norms: Perceived Control:

• Evaluative • Social • Control beliefs
• Affective • Personal • Past experience
Behavioral Intentions
Consumer Purchase Decision
Socio-economic Other factors:

factors: • Product attributes (e.g. quality,
• Price taste, size, forms, types,
• Income appearance & odor, nutritional
• Substitutes value, etc.)
• Household size • Availability
• Education level • Seasons
• Age • Market outlets
• Gender • Habit
• Nationality, etc. • Ecolabel certification, etc.
Variables of Economic Choice Model
Figure 1. Hybrid model (combining the components of the TPB model and the economic
choice model) for the seafood consumer.
March 5–12, 2014, and the face-to-face survey was conducted in two local
hypermarkets (“Lulu” and “Sultan Centre”) and a local fish market (locally
termed “souq”) at Seeb. The face-to-face survey questionnaire was self-
administered and therefore was not subject to interviewer bias, and the
selection of respondent was random. The questionnaire had two distinct
sections devoted to collect relevant data for the proposed theoretical models
(Figure 1). Following the studies by Bose and Brown (2000), Spinks and
Bose (2002), and Redkar and Bose (2004), the first section of the question-
naire was designed to illicit information on the respondent’s preferences
for seafood products and the likely constraints they face in purchasing the
products for home consumption. It incorporates questions that are mainly
related to product attributes, socio-economic, and demographic characteris-
tics of the respondent’s household, households’ beliefs, and attitudes that
Table 1. Significant factors of seafood consumption under the economic choice model.
Factors Source reference
Quality (perceived Bockstael (1984), Bose and Brown (2000), Spinks and Bose (2002), Al-Mazrooei et al.
as freshness) (2003), Quagrainie, Xing, and Hughes (2011), Oken et al. (2012)
Quality assurance Quagrainie et al. (2011),
Safety Wilcock, Wilcock, Pun, Khanona, and Aung (2004)
Age Edwards (1992), Wilcock et al. (2004), Redkar and Bose (2004), Altintzoglou et al. (2012)
Gender Cardoso et al. (2013)
Income Edwards (1992), Al-Mazrooei et al. (2003), Wilcock et al. (2004), Quagrainie et al. (2011),
Price Bose and Brown (2000), Birch et al. (2012)
Household Size Redkar and Bose (2004)
Forms Foltz Foltz, Dasgupta, and Devadoss (1999), Boughanmi et al. (2007), Altintzoglou
et al. (2012)
Types Al-Mazrooei et al. (2003), Cardoso et al. (2013)
Size Al-Mazrooei et al. (2003)
Taste Bose and Brown (2000), Birch et al. (2012)
Past experience Nauman et al. (1995), Myrland et al. (2000)
Health benefits Edwards (1992), Nauman et al. (1995), Birch et al. (2012), Al-Riyami et al. (2016)
Religion Redkar and Bose (2004)
Ethnicity Kinnucan, Nelson, and Hiariey (1993)
Geographical location Bose and Brown (2000), Cardoso et al. (2013)
Lifestyle Myrland et al. (2000)
Convenience Thong and Solgaard (2017)
Cooking easiness Spinks and Bose (2002), Boughanmi Boughanmi et al. (2007), Birch et al. (2012)
Availability Quagrainie et al. (2011),
Appearance and odor Foltz et al. (1999), Spinks and Bose (2002)
Ecolabel certification Johnston, Wessells, Donath, and Asche (2001), Uchida, Onozaka, Morita, and
Managi (2014)
Table 2. Significant factors of seafood consumption under the TPB model.

Factors Source reference
Construct: Attitudes Verbeke and Vackier (2005)
Affective elements
Health benefits Olsen (2003), Verbeke and Vackier (2005), Patch, Tapsell, and
Williams (2005)
Quality Olsen (2004)
Prices Myrland et al. (2000), Olsen (2004), Trondsen, Scholderer, Lund, and
Eggen (2003)
Evaluative elements
Taste and texture Olsen (2003), Verbeke and Vackier (2005),
Appearance and smell Myrland et al. (2000), Olsen (2004), Trondsen et al. (2003)
Construct: Subjective Norms Verbeke and Vackier (2005)
Moral obligations Olsen (2001)
Eating healthy foods Olsen (2003), Trondsen et al. (2003)
Social norms Olsen (2001), Olsen (2003), Trondsen et al. (2003), Tuu et al. (2008)
Family expectations and pressures Olsen (2001), Verbeke and Vackier (2005)
Advertisement Verbeke and Vackier (2005)
Construct: Perceived behavioral control Verbeke and Vackier (2005)
Cooking easiness Olsen (2004)
Meal variety Olsen (2001), Verbeke and Vackier (2005)
Convenience Olsen et al. (2007)
Past experience (familiarity) Rortveit and Olsen (2007), Birch and Lawley (2014)
Knowledge in forming preference set Rortveit and Olsen (2007)
Habit Honkanen et al. (2005), Verbeke and Vackier (2005), Birch and
Lawley (2014)
are highly likely to influence the purchase frequency of the respondent.

The description of the factors, the measuring scale used, and the corre-
sponding mean value are presented in Table 5. On the other hand, follow-
ing Verbeke and Vackier (2005) and Tuu, Olsen, Thao, and Anh (2008),
the second section of the questionnaire incorporated 18 statements (see
Table 8) to measure the three key dimensions, namely attitude toward eat-
ing seafood, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control under the
TPB model. The selected statements are measured using a 5-point scale
with bipolar adjectives (for instance, “strongly agree” and “strongly dis-
agree”). A pilot study was conducted involving three academic staff and
three students from SQU to improve clarity of the questions and where
appropriate their feedbacks were taken into account in finalizing the ques-
tionnaire. A total of 906 responses were received from the online
(N ¼ 778), hypermarkets (N ¼ 93), and fish market (N ¼ 35) sources. It
should be noted that the present study sample involves respondents who
consume fish and seafood products.
Prior to performing empirical modeling exercise, one has to decide on
the task of data pooling to estimate cross-sectional choice models.
Recognizing the inherent complexity of consumer decision-making and to
improve the poor predictive validity of attitudes under the TPB, the
researcher proposed the aggregation of specific behavior across occasions
and situations (Ajzen, 1991). The underlying reason behind the “principle
of aggregation,” as described by Ajzen (1991), is that the aggregate would
generate a more valid measure of underlying behavioral dispositions than
any single sample of behavior by offsetting the influence of other unique
factors associated with the particular situation or occasion. In the context
of consumer choice research and complexity of consumer decision-making
process, Louviere et al. (1999) argued that by pooling the sources of prefer-
ence data, the consumer choice research would benefit greatly by generat-
ing efficient estimates. Furthermore, for the present case at hand,
respondents from different interview locations should not be treated as
they belong to a particular consumer sub-group as respondents happened
to be there simply because of personal convenience (i.e., time, distance,
etc.). In addition, different locations and data collection methods were
chosen as a mode of risk mitigation exercise and to augment sample size.
Based on these arguments, it was decided to perform the empirical analysis
on the pooled data. However, the data pooling exercise must be confirmed
through the statistical test of the validity of the preference-invariance
assumption (Louviere et al., 1999). Therefore, a statistical test was per-
formed following the “coding method” by generating a dummy variable
with different codes for online, hypermarkets, and souq data and included
in the preference model along with all the relevant variables. The model
Table 3. Respondents’ socio-economic profile.

Traditional
Hypermarket market
Online N ¼ 778 N ¼ 93 (Souq) N ¼ 35
Item No. % No. % No. %
Nationality
Omani 600 85.00 27 29.67 34 97.14
Non-Omani 108 15.00 64 70.32 1 2.85
Household size
Less than 5 230 30.00 70 75.00 10 28.57
6–10 338 43.00 11 12.08 16 45.71
11–15 149 19.00 10 10.98 6 17.14
16 and above 62 8.00 – – 3 8.57
Job type
Own Business 163 44.00 14 13.20 5 9.60
Government 585 96.00 31 29.20 30 57.60
Private Companies 267 65.00 61 57.50 17 32.60
Other 124 29.00 – – – –
Education
Read and write 43 6.00 3 3.33 – –
Elementary 33 4.00 1 1.11 – –
Secondary 42 5.00 4 4.44 5 14.28
Vocational training 76 10.00 4 4.44 3 8.57
University 585 75.00 78 83.00 27 77.14
Monthly income
Less than 500 55 9.00 10 11.11 2 5.71
501–1500 223 35.00 47 52.22 13 37.14
1501–2000 144 23.00 13 14.44 6 17.14
2001–2500 65 10.00 12 13.33 8 22.85
2501 and above 148 23.00 8 8.88 6 17.14
Age range of household members No Mean No Mean
Less than/equal to 18 No response received 159 2.27 103 3.43
19–25 from online respondents 61 2.25 60 2.85
26–30 54 1.86 43 2.52
31–35 58 1.52 32 2.00
36–40 46 1.31 22 2.00
42–45 31 1.55 12 1.71
46–50 15 1.36 9 1.50
51 and above 29 1.61 15 1.66
was estimated using the logit regression techniques and test for the statis-
tical significance of the dummy variable coefficient. The Wald test score
(0.227, p ¼ 0.634) indicated that the variable was statistically insignificant at
the 5% level and thereby failed to reject the preference-invariance assump-
tion. Therefore, the data from different survey locations were pooled for
further modeling exercise. The data pooling was also performed by others
such as Boughanmi, Musalami, Oufi, and Zaibet (2007) and Tuu et al.
(2008) in consumer behavior research. Nonetheless, to capture the patterns
of response from respondents of different locations, the descriptive results
were also presented in Tables 3 and 4.
A widely used logit model (see, for instance, Bose & Brown, 2000; Redkar
& Bose, 2004; Spinks & Bose, 2002) was employed to predict consumer pref-
erences for (hereafter, refer to as preference model) and intention to purchase
(hereafter referred to as intention model) seafood. For the preference model,
Table 4. Respondents’ preferences, expenditure, and information source.

Hypermarket
Online N ¼ 778 N ¼ 93 Souq N ¼ 35
Item No. % No. % No. %
Eating preference
Home 613 83.0 87 86.13 35 100.0
Restaurant 78 11.0 9 4.47 – –
Take away 45 7.0 5 2.71 – –
Other 36 6.0 – – – –
Form of seafood
Fresh 373 52.0 59 45.7 30 68.1
Fresh (cleaned & cut) 475 67.0 67 51.9 14 31.8
Frozen & packed 47 7.0 – – – –
Dried 70 11.0 2 1.5 – –
Other – – 1 0.7 – –
Expenditure/month/(OMR)
10 86 12.0 12 13.7 2 5.8
11–20 200 27.0 31 35.6 3 8.8
21–30 201 27.0 19 21.8 4 11.7
31–40 118 16.0 17 19.5 5 14.7
41–50 75 10.0 8 9.19 7 20.5
Above 50 56 8.0 5 5.7 13 38.2
Food products preference
Beef 80 12.0 4 2.5 2 2.6
Poultry 118 18.0 12 7.5 10 13.3
Lamb 143 22.0 10 6.2 7 9.3
Vegetables 325 49.0 65 40.6 25 33.3
Seafood 417 63.0 69 43.1 31 41.3
Season
Winter season 232 25.0 30 26.3 11 19.2
Summer season 375 41.0 28 24.5 13 22.8
Festive season 120 13.0 13 11.4 11 19.2
Other 197 21.0 43 37.7 22 38.5
Information source
Friends & relatives 354 18.0 55 25.11 26 29.5
Health practitioners 281 14.0 40 18.20 12 13.6
Educational institutions 421 22.0 37 16.89 16 18.1
Media 383 20.0 37 16.89 13 14.7
Newspaper & magazine 301 15.0 24 10.9 12 13.6
Ministry of Health 60 3.0 13 5.9 5 5.6
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries 107 5.0 6 2.7 2 2.2
Other 51 3.0 7 3.1 2 2.2
the unobservable dependent variable is defined as the willingness to purchase

seafood for home consumption at least 2–3 times a week, and accordingly the
observed binary variable (as a proxy variable in the realization process) was
created if the household currently purchases seafood at least 2–3 times a
week, it is represented as “1,” and “0” otherwise.
Similarly, the variable “intention” to purchase seafood was determined
with a 5-point scale by asking the respondent how often will your household
purchase seafood in the next month? The possible responses were (a) more
than 3 times a week, (b) 3–2 times a week, (c) once a week, (d) once every
2 weeks, and (e) once a month. Responses (a) and (b) are coded as 1 and 0
otherwise and used as a dependent variable of the intention model under
the TPB framework as discussed earlier.
The logit model for predicting consumer preference and intention can be
expressed as:
Xk
Pi
log ¼aþ bj Xij þ ei ; (1)
1 Pi j¼1
where log ð1PPi

i
Þ is called the log-odds ratio, that is, the logarithm of the
odds that a particular purchasing choice will be made by the representative
household, Pi represents the probability that the household purchases (or
intended to purchase) seafood for home consumption at least 2–3 times a
week, and ð1Pi Þ is the probability that the event did not occur, the vari-
able Xij represents the different factors for preference and intention model
listed in Tables 5 and 8, respectively, and ei is the error term which repre-
sents measurement error in Xij , likely fluctuations in perceptions, attitudes
or other omitted factors. The parameters “a” and “b” of the logit model (1)
have been estimated by maximum likelihood estimation technique using
Eviews (8.1).
Results
Descriptive
Respondents’ socio-economic and preference profile
Tables 3 and 4 present the respondents’ socio-economic and preference
profile based on the interview methods/locations. From Table 3, it can be
noted that while online and souq respondents were dominated by Omanis,
a majority of hypermarket respondents were non-Omani. It is also observed
that hypermarket outlets attracted more non-Omani consumers while
opposite holds true for the Sultan Centre. A majority of the Omani
respondents had a household size of 6–10 members and were employed in
the government sector, while a majority of the non-Omani respondents
had a household size of 5 members and worked in the private sector. A
majority of respondents’ household had at least one household member
with a university degree. A high proportion of all respondents’ monthly
family income falls in the range of 501–1500 Omani Rials (OMR) followed
by the range 1501–2500 OMR.2 It is noted that most of the online survey
respondents did not respond to the question regarding the age of house-
hold members. However, maximum of the households for other respondent
groups consisted of young children and teenagers.
From Table 4, it can be noted that a majority of the respondents showed
a very strong preference for consuming seafood at home. While a majority
of the online and hypermarket respondents preferred cleaned and fresh sea-
food, the souq respondents preferred only fresh seafood. In most cases, the
Table 5. Description and measurement of model variables along with sample mean.
Model variables Sample mean
1 if the respondent is non-Omani; 0 otherwise 0.16
1 if household (HH) was a frequent consumer of seafood in the last month (at least 2–3 times a 0.46
week); 0 otherwise
1 if HH highly preferred fresh seafood for home consumption (1–2); 0 otherwise 0.99
1 if HH highly preferred fresh (cut and cleaned) seafood for home consumption (1–2); 0.82
0 otherwise
1 if HH highly preferred frozen & packed seafood for home consumption (1–2); 0 otherwise 0.18
1 If HH highly preferred dried seafood for home consumption (1–2); 0 otherwise 0.22
1 if HH strongly preferred eating seafood at home (1–2); 0 otherwise 0.89
1 if HH strongly preferred eating seafood at restaurants (1–2); 0 otherwise 0.39
1 if HH strongly preferred eating seafood for take away (1–2); 0 otherwise 0.22
1 if HH purchases more seafood in winter; 0 otherwise 0.31
1 if HH purchases more seafood in summer; 0 otherwise 0.48
1 if HH purchases more seafood in festive; 0 otherwise 0.16
1 if HH is very concerned about quality of seafood for home-consumption (1–2); 0 otherwise 0.93
1 if HH is very concerned about taste of seafood for home-consumption (1–2); 0 otherwise 0.92
1 if HH is very concerned about source of protein seafood for home consumption (1–2); 0.54
0 otherwise
1 if HH is very concerned about convenience of seafood for home consumption (1–2); 0.75
0 otherwise
1 if HH is very concerned about availability of preferred type of seafood for home consumption 0.77
(1–2); 0 otherwise
1 if HH is very concerned about the price of seafood for home consumption (1–2); 0 otherwise 0.67
1 if HH is very concerned about health benefits of seafood for home consumption (1–2); 0.75
0 otherwise
1 if HH prefers purchasing seafood from landing sites; 0 otherwise 0.22
1 if HH prefers purchasing seafood from retail fish shops; 0 otherwise 0.22
1 if HH prefers purchasing seafood from supermarkets (i.e., Lulu); 0 otherwise 0.43
1 if HH prefers purchasing seafood from fish markets (i.e., souq); 0 otherwise 0.72
1 if HH size is 5 or lower than 5; 0 otherwise 0.26
1 if members of the HH’s highest level of education attained is university; 0 otherwise 0.85
1 if HH’s income is 1500 R.O. per month or less; 0 otherwise 0.47
monthly expenditure of the souq respondents on seafood was higher than

that of their counterparts. In comparison with other food products (such as
beef, poultry, lamb, and vegetables), seafood was highly preferred by
respondents from all three groups followed by vegetables. Beef was the least
preferred food product amongst all the groups. In terms of attaining infor-
mation regarding seafood and its health benefits, “educational institutions”
ranked first for online respondents, and “friends and relatives” for hyper-
market and souq respondents, respectively. With regard to seasonality in
preferences, it is noted that a majority of the online respondents preferred
purchasing seafood during summer, but no such particular seasonal prefer-
ences were noted for hypermarkets and souq respondents.
When respondents were asked about the preferred days of the week and
the time of purchasing seafood, morning times of Friday and Saturday
were selected across all groups. This is due to time convenience and avail-
ability of more variety of fresh fish species in the morning. The top three
preferred fish species were kingfish, longtail tuna, and shrimp across all
groups. When asked for open suggestions for improvement of distribution
of seafood, some respondents are keen to improve their unfamiliarity with
the ways to select, store, and cook fresh seafood by displaying a picture of
cooked fish or including recipes in both Arabic and English. Respondents
were asked about their perception of quality with the options being appear-
ance, color, odor, taste and texture, freshness, certified as safe, high price
represents good quality, nutritional and health benefits, production source,
and presentation. It is noted that a majority of the respondents across all
groups perceived quality as freshness and appearance followed by taste
and texture.
Empirical
Preference model
The estimated results from the preference models (initial and preferred)
along with the corresponding diagnostics are presented in Tables 6 and 7,
respectively. The initial model included 26 relevant variables as covariates
(Table 6). However, a large number of insignificant variables in the model,
perhaps, signal the presence of multicollinearity. In an effort to deal with
the issue a “general-to-specific” modeling approach (Owen, 2003) was
adopted and following Bose and Brown (2000), the insignificant variables
with Z-score less than 1 were progressively removed from the initial model
to reduce the likely influence of multicollinearity and the preferred model
was derived. This exclusion process for variables involves a number of sys-
tematic iterations prior to reaching the preferred model based on some
model diagnostics and selection criteria such as R2 value, sum square error
(SSE), likelihood ratio (LR) statistic, Akaike information criteria (AIC),
root mean square error (RMSE), and expected sign of the estimates (see
Table 6). Table 7 indicates that the preferred model produced similar
results with respect to summary statistics, model adequacy test, and forecast
performance to the initial model. However, the results from all model
selection criteria were in favor of the preferred model. Therefore, the inter-
pretation and discussion of results will be based on the preferred model
presented in Table 6.
It can be noted from Table 6 that only seven variables, namely national-
ity, habit, fresh, taste, income, household size, and education, were statistic-
ally significant at the 5% level. These results provide support to the
statistical hypotheses 1 and 2 under the considered theoretical postulates.
As logit estimates do not usually have a straightforward interpretation
(Gujarati, 2003), the results should be interpreted based on the odds ratio
(Bose & Brown, 2000) and the estimated sign of the corresponding coeffi-
cient. For example, the sign of the estimated coefficient and the corre-
sponding odds ratio of the nationality variable indicate that non-Omanis
are 0.463 times less likely to prefer seafood than Omanis. In relation to
Table 6. Empirical results of the preference model.

Initial model (N ¼ 766) Preferred model (N ¼ 824)
Item Variables b Odds ratio Wald test Z Test b Odds ratio Wald test Z Test
Nationality 0.635 0.530 3.791 1.69 0.769 0.463 7.517 1.74
Habit 3.47 32.137 244.463 16.17 3.456 31.690 258.207 16.77
Form of seafood
Fresh 1.595 4.928 5.314 2.71 1.576 4.836 5.387 3.10
Fresh (Cleaned & Cut) 0.084 1.088 0.066 0.16
Frozen 0.155 0.856 0.255 0.67
Dried 0.289 1.335 1.153 1.6
Eating outlet
Home 0.245 1.278 0.307 0.22
Restaurant 0.082 0.921 0.135 0.02
Takeaway 0.012 0.988 0.002 0.06
Season
Winter 0.185 0.831 0.558 1.12
Summer 0.282 1.326 1.611 1.5
Festive 0.12 0.887 0.152 0.33
Product and physical attributes
Quality 1.083 2.954 2.492 1.46 1.207 3.343 3.669 1.63
Taste 1.298 0.273 4.537 2.17 1.277 0.279 4.879 2.25
Protein 0.034 1.035 0.021 0.00
Convenience 0.145 0.865 0.283 0.59
Availability 0.008 1.008 0.001 0.37
Health benefits 0.383 1.467 1.739 1.05 0.411 1.508 2.264 1.18
Selling outlet
Landing sites 0.007 1.007 0.001 0.42
Retail 0.051 0.950 0.038 0.13
Supermarket 0.001 1.001 0.000 0.45
Souq 0.033 0.968 0.015 0.79
Socio-economic factors
Price 0.022 1.022 0.008 0.29
Income 0.633 1.883 7.663 2.89 0.641 1.898 8.52 3.16
Household Size (HHSize) 0.554 1.740 4.478 2.52 0.563 1.756 4.79 3.05
Education 0.557 0.573 2.969 2.04 0.547 0.579 3.01 2.04
Constant 3.572 0.028 12.979 4.09 3.445 0.032 7.52 4.42
Sample size differs between the two models because responses of certain variables contained in the initial
model are missing.
product form such as fresh fish, the results suggest that respondents, who
are frequent consumers and prefer consuming fresh fish, are 4.836 times
more likely to consume fish than their counterparts. The results with
respect to household size and the highest level of education of households’
member suggest that smaller household size are 0.563 times more likely,
and households’ with the university education are 0.547 times less likely to
consume seafood than their counterparts.
The estimate with respect to income variable indicates that respondents,
with income range of 500–1500 OMR, are 1.898 times more likely to fre-
quently consume seafood than the higher income counterparts. The finding
with respect to habit indicates that respondents, who were highly habited
persistent (i.e., consuming seafood more than 2–3 times per week), are
almost 32 times more likely to influence the purchasing frequency of sea-
food than their counterparts.
Table 7. Summary statistics and diagnostics of preference model.

Initial model Preferred model
Summary statistics
Cox and Snell R2 0.453 0.449
Nagelkerke R2 0.604 0.600
McFadden R2 0.436 0.432
Sum square error (SSE) 0.349 0.346
Log likelihood 298.98 301.39
Model adequacy
Likelihood ratio (LR) statistic 461.84 457.03
H-L Statistic (v2, df ¼8) 5.37 4.45
% of correct prediction 85.5 85.4
Model selection criteria
Akaike information criteria (AIC) 0.851 0.813
Schwarz criterion 1.01 0.874
Hannan–Quinn criterion 0.914 0.836
Forecast performance
Root mean square error (RMSE) 0.344 0.345
Mean absolute error (MAE) 0.236 0.238
Factor analysis and intention model

To avoid the potential problem of multicollinearity involving a number of
variables, a factor analysis was conducted using principal component ana-
lysis (PCA) with a “varimax rotation” method involving all the statements.
The results of the factor analysis are presented in Table 8. The factor ana-
lysis generated 2 components and their respective factor loadings. Under
component 1 and in relation to the attitude dimension, items 3 and 4 had
the highest factor loadings (0.813 and 0.731, respectively). Similarly, under
component 2, items 1 and 2 had high factor loadings (0.678 and 0.781,
respectively). Based on this, items 3 and 4 were combined and generated
factor 1 under component 1 and items 1 and 2 were combined and gener-
ated factor 2 under component 2. The similar approach was followed for
other dimensions such as norms and control beliefs. As there were only 2
statements under the components of “facilitating conditions” and “past
experience,” they were grouped as one factor under each component.
The reliability of items under each component was examined by comput-
ing “Cronbach a” statistics for all and selective items. The group of items
under each component that gave a value of “Cronbach a” greater than 0.6
(as the rule of thumb) was selected following Honkanen et al. (2005). Next,
the sum of the individual mean scores was used to measure the variable for
the corresponding dimension and included as a covariate in the intention
model. The empirical results from the model are presented in Table 9.
It is noted that the estimated coefficients of “attitude” and “control
beliefs (preparation)” were found to be significant at 5% level. These results
provide support to “hypothesis 2” for two constructs, namely attitudes and
perceived control beliefs. However, the sign of “attitude” coefficient indi-
cates that respondents’ attitudes had a negative influence (with odd-ratio
Table 8. Results from the factor analysis.
Factor loading Reliability analysis
Cronbach’s a
Items Statements Component 1 Component 2 All elements Selective elements
Attitude Evaluation 1 Eating seafood is healthy and nutritious 0.516 0.678 0.402 0.679 (Excluding items 3 and 4)
2 Eating seafood is safe 0.328 0.781
3 Eating seafood is cheap 0.813 0.328
4 Eating seafood is good value for money 0.731 0.464
Affective 5 Fish has an unpleasant smell 0.028 0.842 0.428 0.796 (Excluding items 7 and 8)
6 The bones in fish are unpleasant 0.185 0.819
7 Seafood tastes good 0.907 0.103
8 Very satisfied when seafood is cooked for meals 0.906 0.09
Norms Social 9 My family thinks that we should eat/buy seafood 0.711 0.125 0.747 0.777 (Excluding item 12)
10 My friends/peers suggest we should eat more seafood 0.671 0.436
11 Doctors/health practitioners think that we should eat more seafood 0.781 0.165
12 Advertisement campaigns stimulate us to eat more seafood 0.429 0.57
Personal 13 To serve our family a healthy and nutritious meal 0.752 0.49
14 To provide our family a varied meal 0.683 0.566
Control Facilitating 15 Seafood can be prepared in different ways in our family 0.766 NA 0.64 0.785 (Excluding item 16)
beliefs conditions 16 Seafood is difficult to prepare 0.766 NA
Past experience 17 We are familiar with seafood that we buy 0.840 NA
18 My family is familiar with eating seafood 0.870 NA
191
0.599) on the intention to consume seafood. Similarly, seafood preparation

(as part of control beliefs) was identified as a significant barrier (with
odd-ratio 1.723) to more frequent purchase of seafood. Social norms (i.e.,
family, friends, and doctors) and personal norms are not prominences in
respondents’ purchasing decisions.
Hybrid model
Following Verbeke and Vackier (2005) and Honkanen et al. (2005), the
present study examines the performance of a hybrid model by including
the relevant socio-economic variables, namely income, household size, and
education from the preference model, and consumer “habit” to the initial
intention model (Table 9). It is found that the habit variables measured by
past and present consumption frequency are significant at 1% level. The
results suggest that the present and past consumption behavior of more fre-
quent consumers were 30.489 and 12.337 times more likely to have the
intention to consume seafood, respectively. In addition, the results con-
firmed “hypothesis 4” as the statistical performance (measured by various
criteria listed in Table 9) of the hybrid model is superior to that of the con-
ventional economic model and the TPB model individually.
Discussion
In the introduction to the present article, four key statistical hypotheses
were formulated under which the significant influence of several socio-eco-
nomic and culturally linked factors and the awareness of health benefits on
consumers’ preferences and intentions along with the empirical superiority
of the hybrid model were expected. The following section will discuss the
results generated through descriptive and empirical analysis along with the
conformity (or otherwise) to the hypotheses.
Descriptive results
Descriptive statistical analysis reveals some interesting observations in rela-
tion to respondents personal and behavioral particulars that include (1)
preferences for seafood is dominant across all other potential substitute
goods, (2) a majority prefer seafood for home consumption, (3) preference
for fresh seafood is dominant, (4) respondents’ preference set size is limited
with few species, (5) educational institution and friends and relatives are
the top two affective factors, (6) seafood expenditure pattern differs across
segments, (7) seasonal preference of particular segment, (8) preferred day
(weekend) and time (morning) of purchase, and (9) unfamiliarity with spe-
cies, preservation, and cooking.
Table 9. Empirical results from the intention and hybrid models.
Intention model (N ¼ 787) Hybrid model (N ¼ 787)
EXP
Variables b Wald-test Z-test (b) b Wald-test Z-test EXP (b)
Constant 1.984 12.270 6.39 7.268 0.174 0.074 0.06 1.190
Attitude 0.513 10.425 3.147 0.599 0.546 5.15 2.27 0.580
Norm 0.06 0.176 0.441 1.062 0.085 0.15 0.39 1.089
Control beliefs: Facilitating conditions 0.544 3.918 1.953 1.723 0.338 3.68 1.92 0.713
Control beliefs: Past experience 0.047 0.149 0.117 0.954 0.071 0.134 0.37 1.074
Current consumption 3.417 154.72 12.44 30.489
Past consumption 2.513 37.89 6.16 12.337
Income 0.027 0.00 0.10 0.994
HHSize 0.269 0.98 1.01 0.764
Education 0.221 0.28 0.53 1.247
Summary statistics Intention model Hybrid model
Cox and Snell R2 0.024 0.429
Nagelkerke R2 0.037 0.650
McFadden R2 0.022 0.519
Sum square error (SSE) 0.416 0.275
Log likelihood 414.757 204.00
Model adequacy
Likelihood ratio (LR) statistic 19.281 440.795
H–L statistic (v2, df ¼8) 8.156 7.11
% of correct prediction 76.4 91.1
Model selection criteria
Akaike information criteria (AIC) 1.066 0.543
Schwarz criterion 1.096 0.603
Hannan–Quinn criterion 1.078 0.566
Forecast performance
Root mean square error (RMSE) 0.415 0.273
Mean absolute error (MAE) 0.345 0.15
Notes: , , and indicate significance at the 1, 5, and 10% levels, respectively.
193
The preference model

The estimated results of the preference model in relation to household
income, family size with children and teenagers, and education level pro-
vided support to “hypothesis 1,” which asserted that households with rela-
tively high income, larger size with children and teenagers, and where
university is the highest attained level of education are less likely to fre-
quently consume seafood. The finding in relation to income is in line with
Mazrooei et al. (2003) who noted that respondents with high income do
not prefer buying seafood in bulk (or whole) but in processed forms and in
small portions. However, the finding differs from the study by Myrland
et al. (2000) and Nauman, Gempesaw, Bacon, and Manalo (1995) where
income did not play any significant role in explaining seafood consump-
tion behavior.
With regard to households with children and teenagers, the finding of
this study is in line with Verbeke and Vackier (2005). Based on a cross-sec-
tional data in Belgium, Verbeke and Vackier (2005) found that the increase
in the household size dominated by children and teenagers leads to lower
fish consumption. However, this is quite opposite to the finding of
Myrland et al. (2000) who observed that seafood consumption is positively
associated with household size 6 members.
As stated earlier, there are at least two arguments existing in the litera-
ture in relation to the seafood consumption associated with education. The
finding of this study differs from the first argument stating that educated
people are more likely to be aware of the health and nutritional aspects of
seafood and such knowledge is likely to exert positive influence on seafood
consumption. However, the finding is consistent with the second argument
that educated people lead a busy lifestyle and, therefore, are less likely to
consume seafood at home. One possible reason is that the creation of
employment opportunities by the government (Valeri, 2015) and educa-
tional progress in the country have made it possible for more women to
participate in the workforce resulting in higher income and changes in life-
style. Another possible explanation could be that because of their busy life-
style they become bulk buyers during weekends and, hence, do not fall into
the frequent consumer category as defined in the study. In a local context,
Mazrooei et al. (2003) argued that a higher level of education leads to
higher level of income, which in turn leads to lower levels of fish
consumption.
The statistical significance of nationality, habit, taste, and product fresh-
ness provided support to “hypothesis 2.” As indicated earlier, the signifi-
cance of “nationality” reflects the cultural aspect of food preferences. In
fact, Mazrooei et al. (2003) found that Omani consumers prefer fresh large
sized familiar fish with satisfactory appearance. The significance of habit
indicates that frequent seafood consuming households were persistent in

their habit and were more likely to transfer it from one time period to the
next. This finding is in line with Honkanen et al. (2005), Verbeke and
Vackier (2005), and Conner and Armitage (1998).
Regarding the taste, the result was unexpected. This, perhaps, could be
due to respondents developing distaste for seafood after it was purchased
and prepared for consumption. Being categorized as “experience goods,”
uncertainty about physical attributes such as taste and texture of fish prod-
ucts cannot be eliminated prior consumption (Bockstael, 1984).
Furthermore, this unexpected result could be due to the way seafood is pre-
pared at home and also could depend on the perception based on sensory
measurements. Although the result differs from some existing studies
(Birch, Lawley, & Hamblin 2012; Bose & Brown, 2000), this is not unusual.
The negative influence of post-consumption experience on (Olsen, 2004)
and difficulty in preparation of (Myrland et al., 2000) seafood consumption
was also noted in the literature.
Preference for fresh product with good appearance was significant, which
was also noted by Mazrooei et al. (2003) and Quagrainie et al. (2011). This
also reflects respondents’ perception of quality which is consistent with
Spinks and Bose (2002), Redkar and Bose (2004), and Mazrooei et al. (2003).
The empirical result in relation to awareness of health benefits failed to
provide support to “hypothesis 3” that asserted a significant positive influ-
ence on the frequency of seafood consumption. It was unexpected given
the government efforts to promote health benefits of seafood consumption.
In addition, the finding is not in line with the finding from the local study
by Al-Riyami et al. (2016) and the point made by Brunsø et al. (2009) as
stated earlier. However, the present finding is similar to Spinks and Bose
(2002) who found no significant influence of health benefits on seafood
consumption in a case study of New Zealand. In addition, Al Ani, Al
Subhi, and Bose (2016) noted a negative association between age and the
prevalence of adequate intake of fruits and vegetables in eight countries in
the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR) including Oman.
The intention model

Under the intention model, it was found that the constructs attitudes, control
beliefs (i.e., facilitating conditions), and habit persistence (measured by past
and current seafood consumption frequency) were significantly influencing the
respondents’ purchasing intentions, thereby providing support to statistical
“hypothesis 2.” The negative coefficient with respect to attitude, perhaps, sug-
gests that negative influence of the affective component (such as the smell of
and bones in fish) outweighs the positive influence of evaluative component of
attitude comprising health, safety, and nutrition (Zajonc & Markus, 1982).
With particular reference to seafood, the dichotomy between positive and

negative attributes has been acknowledged in several studies (Leek, Maddock,
& Foxall, 2000; Olsen, 2001; Verbeke & Vackier, 2005). Olsen (2001) found
negative feelings—measured by two belief-statements comprising bones and
smell—was one of the important antecedents (explained 13% of variation) of
involvement in seafood consumption in Norway. Similarly, seafood prepar-
ation (as part of control beliefs) was identified as a significant barrier to more
frequent purchase of seafood. The negative attitudes may result from the
smaller size of the respondents’ species preference set affected by the lack of
knowledge with particular reference to familiarity and cooking experience
(Rortveit & Olsen, 2007) which has strong positive association with the fre-
quency of use (Olsen 2004). In this context, the result from this study differs
from Rortveit and Olsen (2007) and Olsen (2003). Social norms (i.e., family,
friends, and doctors) and personal norms are not prominent in respondents’
purchasing decisions. These results differ from Olsen (2001) and Tuu et al.
(2008) who noted social norms as an important predictor of behav-
ioral intention.
The hybrid model

The significance of the present and past consumption behavior of more fre-
quent consumers confirmed the habit persistence behavior. The result may
be attributed to “myopic habit formation” which may be influenced by lack
of knowledge about consumption possibilities outside the preference set or
the reluctance of gaining new experience through trials and repeating the
same consumption behavior as in the past, which is in line with the “fixed
commitments” assumption stated earlier. The result provides support to the
finding of Honkanen et al. (2005). Furthermore, habit has the strongest
influence on intention compared to attitudes and control beliefs. This find-
ing is in line with Bamberg, Ajzen, and Schmidt (2003). Also, inclusion of
habit did not diminish the significant influence of attitude and control
beliefs on intention. This is in contrast with Verbeke and Vackier (2005).
However, the statistical insignificance of income, household size, and edu-
cation variable was in sharp contrast to the preference model. The basic
economic theory of consumption function suggests that consumption is
strongly positively correlated with disposable income and household size.
The influence of these variables is, perhaps, counteracted by the past and
present consumption variables used for habit persistence measure. Despite
the statistical insignificance, their presence in the model improves the
explanatory power, forecast performance, and other aspects as evident from
the summary statistics and model diagnostics which provided support to
statistical “hypothesis 4” (Table 9). This is consistent with other studies

(Honkanen et al., 2005; Verbeke & Vackier, 2005).
In summing up, the findings from this study revealed similarities and
dissimilarities with previous findings on seafood consumers’ preferences
and intention from various studies involving both developed and develop-
ing countries. The country-specific dissimilarities may be attributed to
socio-cultural, economic, and preferential differences between countries
and thereby reinforces our justification of this study.
However, some limitations of this study are worth mentioning. First, this
study is based on the representative samples drawn from Muscat Governorate
(one of the seven Governorates in Oman) only, and therefore the results pre-
sented are not representative of the whole of Oman. Further research in this
area covering the whole country would be of great value. The findings should
provide motivation for future research concerning the preferences and atti-
tudes of seafood consumers. For instance, in the context of the intention
model, future study should consider identifying the precise influence of each
component under each construct using alternative choice modeling techni-
ques. Second, the study is limited only to home-consumption. Future research
should cover restaurant consumption as dining out with family is gaining
popularity in Oman. Despite these limitations, the seafood industry and the
concerned authorities may find the findings of this study useful for develop-
ing appropriate plans to increase awareness of the importance of health bene-
fits associated with seafood and improving its quality.
Policy recommendation
Based on the above findings, some policy recommendations are provided
below. Consumer characteristics such as species preference, monthly
expenditure patterns, and the significance of nationality are useful informa-
tion for decision-makers as well as seafood firms. From a policy perspec-
tive, this is reflected, by the export ban of some domestically preferred
species executed by the MAF in recent years to meet domestic demand
(Bose et al., 2016). From a business perspective, these preference character-
istics could be used to identify market segments. However, any such deci-
sion to pursue a concentrated or a differentiated marketing strategy would
depend upon the economic viability of the segment.
Furthermore, given strong preferences for fresh seafood for home consump-
tion and the limited consideration set of respondents, it would be economic-
ally beneficial for the seafood industry to design appropriate marketing
strategies to develop greater knowledge and confidence among consumers in
selecting and preparing seafood at home. It should be noted that consumer
preference is dynamic and it evolves with experience with the product
regardless of its attributes. Given the sign of respondents’ unfamiliarity with

species and cooking experience, service can be offered to the consumers by
adopting appropriate marketing promotions like distribution of seafood recipe
card, seafood testing counter at supermarket and encourage trial, cooking dis-
play, etc. during morning times of weekends. To date, there is no guidance
available to consumers to make informed choices. This promotional and
awareness campaign would also be useful to address the problem with seasonal
preferences (particularly summer) during which availability of some preferred
species such as kingfish is very low (Al-Balushi, Bose, & Govender, 2016).
Preferences for fish in summer (period which normally overlaps with
Ramadan-the fasting period) may be influenced by consumers’ belief that fish
is a cooling food (Franklin, 1997). In Oman, conservative preference for famil-
iar fish (such as kingfish) has an implication for the management of wild stock
as their market demand may create pressure on the fishing stock.
In addition, perceived quality and preferences for fresh form of seafood
suggest that any efforts to improve quality such as developing quality assur-
ance program with seafood quality mark and preserve product freshness
and appearance by using ice would be productive in raising consumer satis-
faction and thereby economic returns. Respondents suggested that the qual-
ity of seafood should be maintained in the overall supply chain. Qatan,
Bose, and Mothershaw (2015) identified that the lack of availability of ice—
as perceived by the authority and the seafood firms—affects seafood qual-
ity. To overcome this issue, an integrated approach is required by involving
various actors in the overall supply chain.
With regard to respondents’ unfamiliarity with the ways to select, store,
and cook fresh seafood, the Ministry of Health (MoH), the MAF, and sea-
food companies could take persuasive approach by issuing various seafood
recipes, instructions on cutting, preparing, and cooking instructions on their
official website. This action could have positive effects as consumer taste may
change over time when familiarity with seafood product increases.
Furthermore, given the awareness/priority of dietary change (i.e., healthy diet)
around the world and the influence of information technology on the gradual
change in consumer attitudes (Tansey, 1994), it seems appropriate that the
authority should adopt demand-pull strategy by generating awareness and
information regarding the positive health aspects associated with seafood
through media such as television, internet, school podiums, and supermarket
banners/leaflets. However, given the habit persistence, this persuasive
approach may not be effective as consumers may be unwilling to take part in
developing experience through learning-by-eating process. In addition, due to
search costs, consumers are reluctant to take alternative courses of action
(Deaton, 1980). This is the line of reasoning provided by the concept of
“bounded rationality” which essentially suggests that consumers may not
always follow the rational choices because of their inability to be sufficiently

focused, or alert enough in seeking and using information that would be
required for the complete pursuit of rationality (Sen, 2009). Therefore, this
type of persuasive approach should be supplemented by adopting a public
campaign to encourage early age fish consumption as a part of healthy diet to
tackle social issues such as obesity among children (Al Ani et al., 2016; Al-
Subhi, Bose, & Al Ani, 2015). Existing literature suggests that consumption of
seafood from an early age positively influences development of positive atti-
tudes toward seafood in adult life (Birch & Lawley, 2014).
Zajonc and Markus (1982) argued that strong negative effect is possible
to overcome by embracing another affective stimulus like an advertisement,
exposures, reinforcement by health practitioners, and social conformity
pressures. Anecdotal information suggests that Omani people do not like
fish with too many bones. Negative attributes such as smell and bones
could be addressed with better quality management and improvement in
product through processing (Olsen, 2004).
Also, habit persistence may be due to consumers’ unawareness of consump-
tion possibilities outside the range of their species preference set. It is possible
for seafood businesses to take necessary steps to change negative attitudes
toward seafood as well as to develop taste for other types of seafood outside
their current preference set. For example, MAF could help seafood businesses
by opening up a culinary school to teach how to cook and prepare seafood
that consumers are not familiar with. This also helps reduce the market pres-
sure of the most preferred species (e.g., kingfish) (Al-Balushi et al., 2016).
Johansson (1997) mentioned that for generating awareness, changing
attitude and building product image television serves well. Effective com-
munication of knowledge about a product requires the use of words,
whether spoken or written. To affect behavior directly, the chosen media
have to be prompt in persuading the consumer near the time of purchase.
Promotional activity inside the store called in-store or point-of-purchase
promotions may be effective. Educational institutions and food service pro-
fessions in the country should get involved in promoting and serving sea-
food as healthy foods to its clients. If information about health benefit can
be publicly promoted, consumers would be better off.
Conclusions
This case study has examined the significant influence of potential factors
on “preferences” and “intention” of seafood consumers in Oman using two
theoretical postulates of consumer research and their hybrid form. With
the growing consumer interest in seafood quality and safety globally
(Caswell, 2006), it is imperative for both the authority and seafood
businesses to have a clear conception of consumers’ perception of seafood

quality and to gain an understanding of consumer’s attitudes toward fish
and other seafood products as part of healthy food choices in Oman.
Finally, it is worth mentioning that the issue of fish consumption behavior
is expected to become more important in the future due to the strategic
move by MAF to develop aquaculture industry in the country.
Notes
1. “When in each period the consumer takes into account his consumption history but
does not recognize the impact of present consumption on future tastes (Pashardes
1986, p. 387).”
2. 1 Omani Rial (OMR) US $2.59.
References
Alessie, R., & Kapteyn, A. (1991). Habit formation, interdependent preferences and demo-
graphic effects in the almost ideal demand system. The Economic Journal, 101 (406), 404.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50 (2), 179–211.
Al Ani, M. F., Al Subhi, L. K., & Bose, S. (2016). Consumption of fruit and vegetable
among adolescents: A multi-national comparison of eleven countries in the Eastern
Mediterranean Region. British Journal of Nutrition, 115 (06), 1092–1099.
Al-Balushi, A., Bose, S., & Govender, A. (2016). Stakeholders’ views on management
arrangements: A case of kingfish fishery in the Sultanate of Oman. Natural Resources, 07
(05), 251–264.
Al-Riyami, Z. K., Al-Ismaili, A. A., Al-Hattali, H. S., Essa, M. M., Sathishkumar, J., &
Manickavasagan, A. (2016). Role of cultural and socioeconomic factors in fish consump-
tion among Omani population: A pilot survey. International Journal of Nutrition,
Pharmacology, Neurological Diseases, 6 (3), 119–124.
Al-Subhi, L. K., Bose, S., & Ani, M. F. A. (2015). Prevalence of physically active and seden-
tary adolescents in ten Eastern Mediterranean countries and its relation with age, gender
and BMI. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 12 (2), 257–265.
Altintzoglou, T., Nøstvold, B. H., Carleh€ og, M., Heide, M., Østli, J., & Egeness, F.-A.
(2012). The influence of labeling on consumers’ evaluations of fresh and thawed cod fil-
lets in England. British Food Journal, 114 (11), 1558–1570.
Bamberg, S., Ajzen, I., & Schmidt, P. (2003). Choice of travel mode in the theory of
planned behavior: The roles of past behavior, habit and reasoned action. Basic and
Applied Social Psychology, 25 (3), 175–187.
Bednall, S., & Kanuk, W. (1997). Consumer behaviour. Sydney, Australia: Prentice Hall.
Birch, D., & Lawley, M. (2014). The role of habit, childhood consumption, familiarity, and
attitudes across seafood consumption segments in Australia. Journal of Food Products
Marketing, 20 (1), 98–113.
Birch, D., Lawley, M., & Hamblin, D. (2012). Drivers and barriers to seafood consumption
in Australia. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 29 (1), 64–73.
Bockstael, N. E. (1984). Uncertainty about consumption and consumer uncertainty. Marine
Resource Economics, 1 (1), 67–76.
Bose, S., & Brown, N. (2000). A preliminary investigation of factors affecting seafood con-
sumption behaviour in the inland and coastal regions of Victoria, Australia. Journal of
Consumer Studies & Home Economics, 24 (4), 257–262.
Bose, S., Al Naabi, A. M. R., Boughanmi, H., & Yousuf, J. B. (2016). On the effect of sani-
tary and phytosanitary measures on Oman’s fish exports to the EU: An empirical analysis,
Project report under the WTO Chair Program, Department of Natural Resource
Economics. Oman: Sultan Qaboos University (SQU).
Bose, S., Al-Mazrouai, A., Al-Habsi, S., Al-Busaidi, I., & Al-Nahdi, A. (2010). Fisheries and
food security: The case of the Sultanate of Oman. Paper presented at the International
Conference on Food Security in the Arab Countries: New Challenges and Opportunities
in the Context of Global Price Volatility, Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat.
Boughanmi, H., Musalami, J. A., Oufi, H. A., & Zaibet, L. (2007). Estimating consumer
preferences for value-added fish products in Oman. Journal of Food Products Marketing,
13 (2), 47–68.
Brunsø, K., Verbeke, W., Olsen, O. S., & Fruensgaard, J. L. (2009). Motives, barriers and
quality evaluation in fish consumption situations: Exploring and comparing heavy and
light users in Spain and Belgium. British Food Journal, 111 (7), 699–716.
Cardoso, C., Lourenço, H., Costa, S., Gonçalves, S., & Nunes, M. L. (2013). Survey into the
seafood consumption preferences and patterns in the Portuguese population: Gender and
regional variability. Appetite, 64, 20–31.
Conner, M., & Armitage, C. J. (1998). Extending the theory of planned behavior: A review and
avenues for further research. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28 (15), 1429–1464.
Deaton, A. (1980). Economics and consumer behavior. United States of America: Cambridge
University Press.
Edwards, W. (1954). The theory of decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 51 (4), 380–417.
Edwards, S. F. (1992). Evidence of structural change in preferences for seafood. Marine
Resource Economics, 7 (3), 141–151.
Foltz, J., Dasgupta, S., & Devadoss, S. (1999). Consumer perceptions of Trout as a food
item. The International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 2 (1), 83–101.
Franklin, A. (1997). An unpopular food? The distaste for fish and the decline of fish con-
sumption in Britain. Food and Foodways, 7 (4), 227–264.
Graham, E. M., & Anzai, N. T. (1994). The myth of globalization. Columbia Journal of
World Business, 29 (3), 6–29.
Gorman, W. M. (1967). Tastes, habits and choices. International Economic Review, 8 (2),
218–222.
Gujarati, D. N. (2003). Basic Econometrics, New York: McGraw-Hill Productions.
Honkanen, P., Olsen, S. O., & Verplanken, B. (2005). Intention to consume seafood: The
importance of habit. Appetite, 45 (2), 161–168.
Johansson, J. K. (1997). Global marketing: Foreign entry, local marketing, and global man-
agement. Chicago, USA: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Johnston, R. J., Wessells, C. R., Donath, H., & Asche, F. (2001). Measuring consumer pref-
erences for ecolabeled seafood: An international comparison. Journal of Agricultural and
Resource Economics, 20, 39.
Kinnucan, H. W., Nelson, R., & Hiariey, J. (1993). U.S. preferences for fish and seafood:
An evoked set analysis. Marine Resource Economics, 8 (3), 273–291.
Leek, S., Maddock, S., & Foxall, G. (2000). Situational determinants of fish consumption.
British Food Journal, 102 (1), 18–39.
Levitt, T. (1983). The globalization of markets. Harvard Business Review, 61 (May–June),
pp. 92–102.
Louviere, J. J., Meyer, R. J., Bunch, D. S., Carson, R., Dellaert, B., Hanemann, W. M., …
Irwin, J. (1999). Combining sources of preference data for modeling complex decision
processes. Marketing Letters, 10 (3), 205–217.
Mazrooei, N. A., Chomo, G. V., & Omezzine, A. (2003). Purchase behavior of consumers
for seafood products. Journal of Agricultural and Marine Sciences [JAMS], 8 (1), 1–7.
McCort, D. J., & Malhotra, N. K. (1993). Culture and consumer behavior: toward an
understanding of cross-cultural consumer behavior. In International Marketing. Journal
of International Consumer Marketing, 6 (2), 91–127.
McFadden, D. (1986). The choice theory approach to market research. Marketing Science, 5
(4), 275–297.
MNE (Ministry of National Economy) (2007). Seventh Five-Year Development Plan
2006–2010. Muscat, Sultanate of Oman: National Center for Statistics and Information.
Morsello, C., Yag€ ue, B., Beltreschi, L., van Vliet, N., Adams, C., Schor, T., … Cruz, D.
(2015). Cultural attitudes are stronger predictors of bushmeat consumption and prefer-
ence than economic factors among urban Amazonians from Brazil and Colombia.
Ecology and Society, 20 (4), 21. doi:10.5751/ES-07771-200421
Musaiger, A. O. (1993). Socio-cultural and economic factors affecting food consumption
patterns in the Arab countries. Journal of the Royal Society of Health, 113 (2), 68–74.
Myrland, Ø., Trondsen, T., Johnston, R. S., & Lund, E. (2000). Determinants of seafood
consumption in Norway: Lifestyle, revealed preferences, and barriers to consumption.
Food Quality and Preference, 11 (3), 169–188.
Nauman, F. A., Gempesaw, C. M., Bacon, J. R., & Manalo, A. (1995). Consumer choice for fresh
fish: Factors affecting purchase decisions. Marine Resource Economics, 10 (2), 117–142.
Oken, E., Choi, A. L., Karagas, M. R., Marien, K., Rheinberger, C. M., Schoeny, R., …
Korrick, S. (2012). Which fish should I eat? Perspectives influencing fish consumption
choices. Environmental Health Perspectives, 120 (6), 790–798.
Olsen, S. O. (2001). Consumer involvement in seafood as family meals in Norway: An
application of the expectancy-value approach. Appetite, 36 (2), 173–186.
Olsen, S. O. (2003). Understanding the relationship between age and seafood consumption:
The mediating role of attitude, health involvement and convenience. Food Quality and
Preference, 14 (3), 199–209.
Olsen, S. O. (2004). Antecedents of seafood consumption behavior: An overview. Journal of
Aquatic Food Product Technology, 13 (3), 79–91.
Olsen, S. O., Scholderer, J., Brunsø, K., & Verbeke, W. (2007). Exploring the relationship
between convenience and fish consumption: A cross-cultural study. Appetite, 49 (1), 84–91.
Overby, J. W., Woodruff, R. B., & Gardial, S. F. (2005). The influence of culture upon con-
sumers’ desired value perceptions: A research agenda. Marketing Theory, 5 (2), 139–163.
Owen, P. D. (2003). General-to-specific modelling using PcGets. Journal of Economic
Surveys, 17 (4), 609–628.
Pashardes, P. (1986). Myopic and forward looking behavior in a dynamic demand system.
International Economic Review, 27 (2), 387–397.
Patch, C. S., Tapsell, L. C., & Williams, P. G. (2005). Attitudes and intention towards pur-
chasing novel foods enriched with omega-3 fatty acids. Journal of Education and
Behavior, 37 (5), 235–241.
Pollak, R. A. (1970). Habit formation and dynamic demand functions. Journal of Political
Economy, 78 (4, Part 1), 745–763.
Qatan, S., Bose, S., & Mothershaw, A. (2015). Stakeholders’ views on the status of the fish
quality and safety regulatory schemes: The case of the Sultanate of Oman. British Food
Journal, 117 (4), 1303–1314.
Quagrainie, K. K., Xing, A., & Hughes, K. G. (2011). Factors influencing the purchase of
live seafood in the North Central Region of the United States. Marine Resource
Economics, 26 (1), 59–74.
Ravina, E. (2005). Habit persistence and keeping up with the Joneses: Evidence from micro
data. NYU Working Paper No. FIN-05-046. SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract ¼1294189
Redkar, S. B., & Bose, S. (2004). Modelling purchasing decisions of seafood products: A
case study of Mumbai, India. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 28 (1), 75–82.
Rortveit, A. W., & Olsen, S. O. (2007). The role of consideration set size in explaining fish
consumption. Appetite, 49 (1), 214–222.
Schenck, M., Effa, E. N., Starkey, M., Wilkie, D., Abernethy, K., Telfer, P., … Treves, A.
(2006). Why people eat bushmeat: results from two-choice, taste tests in Gabon, Central
Africa. Human Ecology, 34 (3), 433–445.
Sen, A. (2009). The idea of justice, Allen Lane. London, England: Penguin Books Ltd.
Shaw, D. S., & Clarke, I. (1998). Culture, consumption and choice: Towards a conceptual
relationship. Journal of Consumer Studies and Home Economics, 22 (3), 163–168.
Simon, H. A. (1959). Theories of decision-making in economics and behavioral science.
American Economic Review, 49 (3), 253–283.
Spinks, A., & Bose, S. (2002). Factors affecting households’ seafood purchasing decisions in
Auckland, New Zealand: An empirical analysis. International Journal of Consumer
Studies, 26 (1), 62–70.
Suranyi-Unger, T. (1981). Consumer behavior and consumer well-being: An economist’s
digest. Journal of Consumer Research, 8 (2), 132–143.
Tansey, G. (1994). Food policy in a changing food system. British Food Journal, 96 (8), 4–12.
Thong, N. T., & Solgaard, H. S. (2017). Consumer’s food motives and seafood consump-
tion. Food Quality and Preference, 56, 181–188.
Trondsen, T., Braaten, T., Lund, E., & Eggen, A. E. (2004). Consumption of seafood—The
influence of overweight and health beliefs. Food Quality and Preference, 15 (4), 361–374.
Trondsen, T., Scholderer, J., Lund, E., & Eggen, A. E. (2003). Perceived barriers to con-
sumption of fish among Norwegian women. Appetite, 41 (3), 301–314.
Tuu, H. H., Olsen, S. O., Thao, D. T., & Anh, N. T. K. (2008). The role of norms in
explaining attitudes, intention and consumption of a common food (fish) in Vietnam.
Appetite, 51 (3), 546–551.
Uchida, H., Onozaka, Y., Morita, T., & Managi, S. (2014). Demand for ecolabeled seafood
in the Japanese market: A conjoint analysis of the impact of information and interaction
with other labels. Food Policy, 44, 68–76.
Valeri, M. (2015). Simmering unrest and succession challenges in Oman. Washington, DC,
USA: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Verbeke, W., & Vackier, I. (2005). Individual determinants of fish consumption:
Application of the theory of planned behaviour. Appetite, 44 (1), 67–82.
Wessells, C. R., & Anderson, J. G. (1995). Consumer willingness to pay for seafood safety
assurances. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 29 (1), 85–107.
Wilcock, A., Pun, M., Khanona, J., & Aung, M. (2004). Consumer attitudes, knowledge and
behaviour: A review of food safety issues. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 15 (2),
56–66.
Zajonc, R. B., & Markus, H. (1982). Affective and cognitive factors in preferences. Journal
of Consumer Research, 9 (2), 123–131.

Preferences and Intentions of Seafood Consumers in Oman An Empirical Analysis PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Preferences and Intentions of Seafood Consumers in Oman An Empirical Analysis PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing

ISSN: 0897-4438 (Print) 1528-6983 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wifa20

Preferences and Intentions of Seafood Consumers

Jaynab Begum Yousuf, Shekar Bose, Hemesiri Kotagama & Houcine

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08974438.2018.1497565

Published online: 14 Sep 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Preferences and Intentions of Seafood Consumers in

CONTACT Shekar Bose sbose@squ.edu.om Department of Natural Resource Economics, College of

influence on “preferences” and “intention” of seafood consumers two dis-

socio-cultural factors such as religion, beliefs, food preferences, etc. have

to exert positive influence on seafood consumption (Myrland, Trondsen,

Hypothesis 2: From cultural perspectives, it is expected that factors such as

Hypothesis 4: The statistical performance of the hybrid model is superior to that of

This research has significance in terms of academic, industry, and policy

In addition, this study contributes to the practical realm as well, as it pro-

Conceptual framework and previous research

(McFadden, 1986). McFadden (1986) stated that in the process of maxi-

Data and method

Variables of TPB Model

Attitudes: Norms: Perceived Control:

Consumer Purchase Decision

Socio-economic Other factors:

Variables of Economic Choice Model

Table 2. Significant factors of seafood consumption under the TPB model.

are highly likely to influence the purchase frequency of the respondent.

Table 3. Respondents’ socio-economic profile.

Table 4. Respondents’ preferences, expenditure, and information source.

the unobservable dependent variable is defined as the willingness to purchase

where log ð1PPi

monthly expenditure of the souq respondents on seafood was higher than

Table 6. Empirical results of the preference model.

Table 7. Summary statistics and diagnostics of preference model.

Factor analysis and intention model

0.599) on the intention to consume seafood. Similarly, seafood preparation

The preference model

indicates that frequent seafood consuming households were persistent in

The intention model

With particular reference to seafood, the dichotomy between positive and

The hybrid model

statistical “hypothesis 4” (Table 9). This is consistent with other studies

regardless of its attributes. Given the sign of respondents’ unfamiliarity with

always follow the rational choices because of their inability to be sufficiently

businesses to have a clear conception of consumers’ perception of seafood

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen