3.5.1. Steenkamp (1990)
Steenkamp (1990) focused on the theoretical concepts of the food quality perception process. A definition of perceived quality was developed and discussed
43
in the context of value. Relating perceived quality and value was developed from Rokeach’s (1973) study of human values. Value was seen as the core concept in all social sciences. Value has been defined as a relativistic preference characterising a subject’s interaction experience with some object (Holbrook and Corfman 1983, p.23).
Value is related to perceived quality through three dimensions; preference, subject- object interaction and consumption experience (Steenkamp 1990). Preference indicates an evaluative judgment, for example, whether the consumer prefers the food or some alternative. Perceived quality can also be subjective. Objective interaction occurs through comparison and is influenced by personal and situational contexts. Finally, perceived quality involves the consumption experience, where a product is valued for its purpose after consumption.
As a result of conceptualising perceived quality along the three dimensions of value, Steenkamp (1990) defined perceived quality as an idiosyncratic value
judgement with respect to the fitness for consumption which is based upon the conscious and/or unconscious processing of quality cues in relation to relevant quality attributes within the context of significant personal and situational variables
(p.317).
When consumers decide to select a particular food, their preferences are based on several sensory characteristics (taste and texture) and non-sensory characteristics (health, religious, ethics, etc). For example, each consumer perceives that the food they consume is influenced by the values and beliefs they possess. However, most consumers are largely unaware how the subconscious values and beliefs that they hold influence their food choices.
3.5.2. Oude Ophuis and Van Trijp (1995)
Oude Ophuis and Van Trijp (1995) have a different approach to defining perceived quality. According to these authors, quality can be seen from two different perspectives. The first perspective suggests that quality can be captured through experience, but cannot be analysed. The other perspective indicates that quality is
44
measurable through certain standards. Both authors support the latter perspective, but reinforce the need to understand and to define the standards.
In order to define perceived quality, Oude Ophuis and Van Trijp (1995) introduced a quality quadrant, which consisted of four Ps; perception, product, person and place. Perception is the overall judgment of the product characteristics (either visible or invisible), which the consumer could associate with or have experienced when evaluating the product.
The other three Ps; product, person and place, represent and relate back to the whole concept of perceived quality. Perceived quality is different, depending on the product category. For example, quality attributes such as leanness may be relevant to consumers when purchasing fresh meat. However, this attribute is not applicable to consumers when selecting fruit and vegetables from a retail store.
The personal factor is important, as the whole idea of perceived quality is based on an individual consumer’s judgments. One person’s understanding of perceived quality will be different from another person, since personal preferences and experience levels differ from one to another. Finally, place is associated with situational factors which influence perceived quality.
3.5.3. The Total Food Quality Model
The Total Food Quality Model (TFQM) was developed by Grunert, Larsen, Madsen and Baadsgaard (1996) [cited in Grunert 2002]. According to Grunert et al. (1996), the TFQM is a common framework which was developed as a result of emerging concerns about food quality and safety.
Grunert (2005) demonstrated that food quality could be examined through two different dimensions; horizontal and vertical. The horizontal dimension represents the time dimension, which investigates quality perceptions prior to and after purchase. By utilising the three quality attributes (search, experience and credence), consumers were expected to measure the quality of food before (quality expectation) and after purchase (quality experience). Consumers’ satisfaction or
45
dissatisfaction with the purchase will reflect upon the cues that have been utilised in the purchasing process. It means that consumers’ satisfaction or dissatisfaction was determined by the relationship between quality expectations and quality experience (Grunert 2002). Subsequently, the level of consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction will then influence the likelihood of repeat purchase.
The vertical dimension involves the means-end approach, which Grunert (2005) describes as a more complex process. The means-end approach attempts to link product characteristics (quality cues) to the more abstract quality dimensions which are associated with consumer motivations (beliefs, attitudes) and values. When relating food with quality, the concept revolves around four central concepts: sensory characteristics, health, convenience and process characteristics (production) (Grunert 2005). For instance, consumers use colour and fat as quality indicators of the tenderness of meat.
The level of confidence consumers have in making this inference relies on their experience, knowledge and expertise. According to Grunert (2005), how consumers relate the product characteristics to the quality of the food is inexplicable.
3.5.4 Peri (2006)
Peri (2006) presented a dynamic model of food quality which involved an on-going process to fulfil consumers changing needs. According to Peri (2006), consumers express their expectations and needs, which are also labelled as ‘requirements’, which are satisfied by the ‘performance’ of the product. Unlike Steenkamp (1990) and Grunert (2005) who utilised the concept of attributes, Peri (2006) utilised the concept of ‘performance’ to capture the importance of quality, which was comprised of safety, nutritional, sensory, functional, aesthetic, ethical and convenience. Additionally, the concept of ‘performance’ was observed when there was an interaction between consumers and products. ‘Performance’ was then derived from the ‘characteristics’ of the product. Peri (2006) further described ‘characteristics’ as the structural and objective data such as shape, weight, size, structure and composition of the product. The ‘characteristics’ of the product are obtained through the production process.
46
Through this model, Peri (2006) also highlighted the importance of being able to associate a product’s performance with the consumers’ expectations of the product’s characteristics. Peri (2006) identified a significant barrier in the food industry where there is little communication between consumers, who emphasise the importance of ‘performance’, and producers, who are more concerned about the ‘characteristics’ of the product.