Consumer Perception Toward “Superfoods”: A Segmentation Study

Abstract

This study aimed to better understand consumers’ perceptions toward superfoods, to reveal segments of consumers, and to describe their behavioral patterns and sociodemographic characteristics. Data were collected from a mail survey (n = 423). Consumer segmentation revealed six segments. The “superfoodies” (13%) showed a more positive attitude toward superfoods, believing in their health and sustainable benefits. Adventurous consumers (16%) showed less knowledge on superfoods, despite that, they believe in the benefits of those foods after receiving some information during the survey. Involved consumers (13%) presented high nutritional knowledge and believe in the future of superfoods. Indifferent consumers (23%) appear to have a neutral attitude toward superfoods. Skeptical consumers (21%) and rejectors (15%) seem to be more conservative and less interested and unconvinced about the benefits of consuming superfoods. These results help guide those producing, marketing, and selling superfoods, and serve as a basis to develop strategies for different target groups.

Keywords:

• Cluster analysis
• consumer attitude
• consumer behavior
• health foods
• superfood

Introduction

The improvement of nutrition and the health of the world’s population is one of the global nutrition targets for 2025 (WHO, 2019). Worldwide, obesity and overweight levels have resulted in concern among developed and developing countries (Ng et al., 2014). Due to diet-related diseases and the consequent need for healthier nutrition, the number of studies on these topics, as well as the investigation of the multiple determinants of health-related consumption decisions, have increased (Demartini et al., 2019; Saba et al., 2019).

Food consumption and habits around this have changed in today’s society. Behaviors associated with healthier eating, the demand for health-enhanced foods (e.g., fiber-added, functional foods, and superfoods) and for organic food have emerged (Bimbo et al., 2017; Goetzke, Nitzko, & Spiller, 2014; Karelakis et al., 2020; Meyerding, Kürzdörfer, & Gassler, 2018; Prada, Rodrigues, & Garrido, 2016). Today, superfoods—with their content of high-value nutrients—are marketed in an attempt to improve health (Henrikson, 2009; Llorent-Martínez, Fernández-de Córdova, Ortega-Barrales, & Ruiz-Medina, 2013; Medina, 2011). Compounds present in these foods can have anticancer, antiviral, and antibacterial effects (Henrikson, 2009; Tacer-Caba, 2019). The Oxford English Dictionary (2019) describes a superfood as “a food considered especially nutritious or otherwise beneficial to health and well-being”. However, unlike functional foods, no legal definition exists so far for superfoods (Groeniger, van Lenthe, Beenackers, & Kamphuis, 2017; Meyerding et al., 2018; Tacer-Caba, 2019). Although there are similarities and overlaps with functional foods, one particularity of superfoods is that those products are not new “on the menu.” Most superfoods have an extended history and were, for example, used by different indigenous populations for many years due to their nutrient content and for medicinal purposes (Henrikson, 2009; Tacer-Caba, 2019; Yamaguchi, Pereira, Lamarão, Lima, & Veiga-Junior, 2015).

As there is no legal definition of superfoods, there is also no exhaustive list of them (Groeniger et al., 2017). Some examples of superfoods include chia seeds, quinoa, the microalga Spirulina, açaí, and goji berries (CBI (Centre for the Promotion of Imports from developing countries), 2015; Groeniger et al., 2017). In recent years, superfoods have become more important for food retailers. These products meet the needs of a Western society that struggles with modern lifestyle diseases and strives to become healthier (Meyerding et al., 2018; Rojas-Rivas, Espinoza-Ortega, Thomé-Ortíz, Moctezuma-Pérez, & Cuffia, 2019).

Food consumers are a highly heterogeneous group regarding their attitudes, behavior, and habits, and are influenced by various factors including product-related, environmental, and media amongst others. In this context, the cluster analysis helps to understand the needs of different consumers by grouping them together into homogeneous groups that are as different as possible from other groups. This allows for more target-group specific product marketing (Berndt, Fantapié Altobelli, & Sander, 2005). Furthermore, understanding consumer groups can support the development of new products and interventions (Pentikäinen, Arvola, Karhunen, & Pennanen, 2018; Simunaniemi, Andersson, & Nydahl, 2009).

Meyerding et al. (2018) studied consumers’ preferences for bread enriched with different superfoods, such as chia and quinoa. In a choice experiment and segmentation, the authors simulated a purchase situation where consumers had to choose between different kinds of bread containing superfoods. They found that three out of four consumer groups appreciated the added nutritional value of superfoods in bread, whereas more traditional consumers were not very interested in superfoods in their bread. Quality-, health-oriented and price-sensitive consumers are open to this type of ingredient. Groeniger et al. (2017) investigated the consumption of superfoods in different socioeconomic groups. The study revealed that consumers of a higher socioeconomic status (education, income, and cultural participation) have a higher prevalence of consuming superfoods. The study concludes that superfoods are an expression of social distinction, meaning that higher socioeconomic groups distinguish themselves from lower socioeconomic groups by consuming superfoods. However, to the best of our knowledge, none of these studies have explored how superfoods are perceived by different consumer groups in Switzerland. Therefore, the present study aimed (a) to segment consumers regarding their attitudes toward superfoods to better understand their perception toward such products, (b) to reveal behavioral patterns and sociodemographic characteristics of the different consumer segments in Switzerland, and (c) to make suggestions to increase the demand for these foods. The obtained results can help guide producers, retailers, and marketers of superfoods, serving as a basis to develop strategies for different segments of consumers.

Materials and methods

Participants and procedures

Data were collected from residents in Switzerland in March and April 2019 (response rate <15%). The survey was sent by post to a sample of addresses obtained from the Swiss telephone directory. A cover letter containing the purpose of the study and a pre-stamped return envelope were also included. The sociodemographic characteristics of the sample (n = 423) are displayed in Table 1.

Table 1. Sample information (n = 423).

	Sample (%)		Sample (%)
Age groups		Occupation
18–35 years	14.1	Full/part-time	63.5
36–50 years	26.7	Not working	36.5
51–65 years	32.2	Education level
66–79 years	20.3	None	1.0
80 years or more	6.7	Compulsory school	1.7
Gender		Apprenticeship	32.3
Female	55.1	Secondary/High School	7.7
Male	44.9	Higher technical/vocational  training	19.6
Household size		University of Applied  Sciences	18.5
1 person	20.0	University	19.2
2 persons	40.0	Place of residence
3 persons	12.2	Urban	51
4 persons	21.0	Rural	49
5 persons	6.3	Respondent is responsible to cook
6 persons or more	0.5	Yes	77.5
Respondent is responsible for household food purchases		No	22.5
Yes	84.0
No	16.0

Survey

The questionnaire was divided into four parts. First, superfoods definition was provided according to Lucas, Costa, and Brunner (2021). The consumer segmentation was based on 17 items related to superfoods (Table 2) in the first part of the questionnaire. These items were evaluated on a 6-point Likert scale, from 1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree and were queried immediately after the superfood’s definition was given.

Table 2. Scales and items used for segmentation.

Parameters	Cronbach’s α	Reference
1. Previous knowledge on superfoods^a	0.91	Based on Brunner et al. (2018) and Schlup and Brunner (2018)
I've already read/heard a lot about superfoods
I already knew about these facts
I know how superfoods basically work
I noticed that superfoods were presented in the media
2. Attitude toward superfoods	0.95	Based on Brunner et al. (2018)
I think that superfoods are generally…
Bad—good
Unimportant—important
Not to be supported—to be supported
Negative—positive
3. Position on superfoods	0.88	Based on Brunner et al. (2018)
Superfoods are foods with a great future in the food industry
I can imagine buying and consuming superfoods regularly
I would be willing to pay a little more for superfoods than for conventional foods
4. Health benefit perception^b	0.92	Based on Brunner et al. (2018)
Superfoods offer a significant health benefit
These arguments could make me eat superfoods
This information makes me curious to try superfoods
5. Sustainability benefit perception^c	0.92	Based on Brunner et al. (2018)
Superfoods offer a significant advantage in terms of sustainability
These arguments could make me eat superfoods
This information makes me curious to try superfoods

Note. All scales were queried on a 6-point Likert scale. ^aBased on the given definition of superfoods (Lucas et al., 2021). ^bHealth argument following Lucas et al. (2021); ^cSustainability argument following Lucas et al. (2021).

The second part assessed the results regarding behavioral patterns by using several validated scales: General health interest (Cronbach’s α: 0.66) (Roininen, Lähteenmäki, & Tuorila, 1999) was measured using three items: (a) The healthiness of food has little impact on my food choices^R; (b) I am very particular about the healthiness of food I eat; and (c) I eat what I like and I do not worry much about the healthiness of food^R. This scale had the anchors “strongly disagree” and “strongly agree”.

Food involvement (Cronbach’s α: 0.64) was measured using a 4-item scale (Bell & Marshall, 2003): (a) I don’t think much about food each day^R; (b) Talking about what I ate or am going to eat is something I like to do; (c) I enjoy cooking for others and myself, and (d) I care whether or not a table is nicely set. Responses were on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree).

Environmental protection scale (Lindeman & Väänänen, 2000) was used to evaluate the environmental concern of the respondents. After the statement “Is important to me that the food I eat on a typical day”, the items presented were: (a) Has been prepared in an environmentally friendly way; (b) Has been produced in a way which has not shaken the balance of nature, and (c) Is packaged in an environmentally friendly way. Answers options ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). This scale was very reliable with a Cronbach’s α = 0.92.

Food neophobia (Cronbach’s α: 0.81) level was accessed using the 10-items scale developed by Pliner and Hobden (1992): (a) I am constantly sampling new and different foods^R; (b) I do not trust new foods; (c) If I do not know what is in a food, I won’t try it; (d) I like foods from different countries^R; (e) Ethnic food looks too weird to eat; (f) At dinner parties, I will try a new food^R; (g) I am afraid to eat things I have never had before; (h) I am very particular about the foods I will eat; (i) I will eat almost anything^R, and (j) I like to try new ethnic restaurants^R.

Food technology neophobia (Cronbach’s α: 0.83) (Cox & Evans, 2008) was quantified using 4-items: (a) There are plenty of tasty foods around so we do not need to use new food technologies to produce more; (b) The benefits of new food technologies are often grossly overstated; (c) New food technologies decreases the natural quality of food, and (d) There is no sense trying out high-tech food products because the ones I eat are already good enough. For both neophobia scales the respondents were asked to specify their agreement on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree.

Cooking creativity (Cronbach’s α: 0.86) was measured using the scale developed by Brunner, Delley, and Denkel (2018). It consists of 3 items: (a) Cooking allows me to express my creativity; (b) When I cook, I like to try new recipes; and (c) The best of cooking is to develop own recipes or optimize existing ones. These items were evaluated on a 6-point Likert scale, from 1 = strongly disagree to 6= strongly agree.

Cultural participation (Cronbach’s α: 0.82) (Groeniger et al., 2017) was measured using 5 items in which participants were asked to state how often they visit: (a) Art museums; (b) Historical museums; (c) Opera or ballet; (d) Classical concerts; and (e) Theater. This scale had for extremes 1 = never and 6 = very often.

To understand the satisfaction with food-related life (Cronbach’s α: 0.71) of the respondents we follow the scale developed by Grunert et al. (2007). Five items were used: (a) My life in relation to food and meals is close to my ideal; (b) With regard to food, the conditions of my life are excellent; (c) I am generally pleased with my food; (d) When I think of my next meal, I only see problems, obstacles and disappointments^R; and (e) I wish my meals were a much more pleasant part of my life^R. Participants had to answer between 1 = strongly disagree and 6 = strongly agree.

Price/quality relation (Cronbach’s α: 0.62) was measured according to Brunsø and Grunert (1995) using three questions: (a) I always try to get the best quality for the best price; (b) I compare the prices between product variants in order to get the best value for money; (c) It is important for me to know that I get quality for all my money. These items were evaluated on a 6-point Likert scale, anchored from 1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree”.

The scales developed by Lyerly and Reeve (2015) were also used. The statement introducing the items was “When deciding what foods to buy or eat on a daily basis, how important are each of the following?”. The factors were presented to the respondents on the originally published 5-point Likert scale, anchored in the extremes 1 = not at all and 5 = very. Safety (Cronbach’s α: 0.62) was comprised by the items (a) Whether I am certain it does not contain harmful bacteria or viruses; (b) Degree to which it has been prepared with extreme care and safety, and (c) Degree to which I can be sure it is not associated with food-borne illness. Health/Weight concern (Cronbach’s α: 0.87): (a) How likely it is to help me control my weight; (b) Degree to which it will help me lose weight, and (c) The amount of calories in it. Comfort (Cronbach’s α: 0.80): (a) How much it will help me relax; (b) Degree to which it will help me cope with life events, and (c) Whether I think it will help me cope with stress. Organic (Cronbach’s α: 0.78): (a) How many artificial additives it contains; (b) Degree to which it contains natural ingredients; (c) Whether it is grown or produced in an environmentally friendly way, and (d) The amount of vitamins and minerals in it. Tradition (Cronbach’s α: 0.70): (a) Whether it is considered a traditional food; (b) How similar it is to the food I ate when I was a child, and (c) Degree to which it reflects my cultural or ethnic traditions.

In the third part of the questionnaire the nutritional knowledge (Cronbach’s α: 0.52) of the respondents was accessed. Six items based on the study of Dickson-Spillmann, Siegrist, and Keller (2011) were presented. The statement “Please indicate, in your opinion, if these statements are true or false” was followed by the items: (a) Lentils contain only few useful nutrients; therefore, their health benefit is not great^R; (b) All dietary oils have the same ingredients; the oils differ only in taste^R; (c) Fat is always bad for your health; you should therefore avoid it as much as possible^R; (d) Whole meal foods contain fiber, which is of no use for digestion^R; (e) If chips did not contain so much salt, you could eat more of them without any problem^R; (f) A healthy diet means nothing more than eating vitamins^R. Respondents had to answer between “false,” “true,” or “I don’t know”. The sum of scores varied between 0 (none correct answers) and 12 (all items correct), marking “I don’t know” resulted in 1 point.

Finally, the fourth part queried the sociodemographic characteristics, including gender, age, place of residence, occupation, education level and household size. Additionally, in this section, respondents were asked to provide information on their superfood’s consumption rate (Lucas et al., 2021).

Data analysis

The segmentation procedure was based on the five scales depicted in Table 2. The sources of the scales are also depicted in Table 2. The scales comprise between three and four items. To increase the accuracy of the scales, several similar items were queried. The agreement with the scales’ items was queried on a 6-point Likert scale. Cronbach’s α (the average of all possible correlations among the items to be included in a scale) was used to evaluate the consistency of each scale. The five scales used for segmentation procedure displayed a Cronbach’s α of above 0.8, which is highly satisfactory (Table 2). A hierarchical cluster analysis was conducted using Ward’s method and the squared Euclidean distance. By applying Ward’s method, those observations that increase the error sum of squares (the sum of the squared distances between the clusters and the cluster centroid) the least are merged (Backhaus, Erichson, Plinke, & Weiber, 2003). Next, the agglomeration schedule for cluster solutions of ten to two clusters were further examined to compare the relative changes in the coefficients (the error sums of squares) of each merging step. Based on the outcome, solutions of four, six, and seven clusters were further looked at. However, the four-cluster solution did not appear well-distributed. The six- and seven-cluster solutions led to significant differences among cluster variables (using analyses of variances with contrast tests). In the following, both cluster solutions were graphed using the means of the scales. The six-cluster solution led to obviously different clusters. Therefore, the six-cluster solution was chosen and the seven-cluster solution rejected.

Results

Description of the clusters

The cluster analysis indicated the presence of six consumer clusters (Figure 1 and Table 3) with distinct perceptions regarding superfoods: “superfoodies” (12.8%), adventurous (15.6%), involved (13.0%), indifferent (22.9%), skeptical (20.6%) and rejectors (15.1%).

Figure 1. Segments of consumers obtained from the selected six-clusters solution. Note. Values based on 6-point Likert scales.

Table 3. Means of the clustering scales and results of the contrast analyses for the six-cluster solution.

Scales	“Superfoodies”	Adventurous	Involved	Indifferent	Skeptical	Rejectors
Previous knowledge on superfoods	5.27 (0.66)***	2.79 (1.04)***	4.70 (0.55)***	2.50 (1.06)***	4.37 (0.97)***	1.98 (0.76)***
Attitude toward superfoods	5.48 (0.56)***	4.66 (0.77)***	4.36 (0.68)***	3.72 (0.95)**	3.35 (1.25)***	2.34 (0.98)***
Position on superfoods	5.33 (0.71)***	4.61 (0.73)***	4.15 (0.50)***	3.59 (0.69)	2.33 (0.85)***	1.91 (0.74)***
Health benefit perception	5.31 (0.68)***	4.87 (0.64)***	4.09 (0.60)***	3.80 (0.80)	2.36 (0.83)***	1.78 (0.66)***
Sustainability benefit perception	5.41 (0.71)***	5.01 (0.59)***	3.85 (0.70)	3.63 (0.72)	2.33 (0.82)***	2.04 (0.97)***

Notes. Clustering scales queried on a 6-point Likert scale. Standard deviations in brackets. n = 423.

Significance levels: ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05.

This six-cluster solution were obtained using the five scales depicted in Table 2. Then, the mean of the scores obtained for the behavioral patterns, consumption rate, and sociodemographic characteristics were used to describe the six consumer groups. Three of the six identified clusters, the “superfoodies,” the adventurous and involved consumers, score higher in (positive) attitude and benefit perception of superfoods.

The “superfoodies” (13%)

Consumers in this cluster already have high levels of knowledge about superfoods with scores significantly higher (p < 0.001) than the other five clusters. They also have a positive attitude toward superfoods (Figure 1 and Table 3). Their knowledge and positive attitudes do not come about by chance. Furthermore, they believe in the future of superfoods and would be willing to spend more on them and buy them regularly (which a share of them already do) compared to the other segments (p < 0.001), perhaps because they believe superfood products to be healthy and sustainable (Figure 1). Moreover, their general interest in health is high (p < 0.001) (Table 4). Because they are so open-minded and interested in many things food-wise, it does not come as a surprise that sticking to the food they know from their culture and their childhood is not of great importance to them (Table 4).

Table 4. Assessment of behavioral patterns of the six clusters.

Scales	“Superfoodies”	Adventurous	Involved	Indifferent	Skeptical	Rejectors	Overall Mean
6-point scale
Cooking creativity	4.77***	3.86*	4.40	4.07	4.48*	3.74**	4.20
Cultural participation	2.91*	2.36	2.73	2.47	2.67	2.30*	2.56
Food neophobia	2.30**	2.40*	2.42	2.69	2.71	3.04***	2.62
Food technology neophobia	3.50**	3.78	3.93	3.73**	4.56***	4.61***	4.04
General health interest	4.91***	4.46	4.55	4.15	4.14	3.89**	4.31
Price-quality relation	4.69***	4.07	4.29	4.04*	4.12	4.14	4.19
Food involvement	4.74***	4.14	4.34	3.92**	4.22	3.89*	4.17
Environmental protection	5.36**	5.02	5.19	4.75**	5.03	4.63*	4.97
Satisfaction with food-related life	5.14	4.84**	5.11	5.08	5.13	5.06	5.06
5-point scale
Safety	4.15**	3.99	4.01*	3.56**	3.81	3.48**	3.80
Health/Weight concern	3.17**	2.68	2.92	2.78	2.61	2.77	2.79
Comfort	2.70**	2.19	2.52*	2.03**	2.08*	2.07	2.22
Organic	4.47***	4.14	4.26*	3.79***	4.13	3.65***	4.04
Tradition	2.44	2.39	2.29	2.36	2.64*	2.53	2.45
By score
Nutritional knowledge^a	11.37**	10.59	11.60***	10.64	10.90	10.33**	10.86

Notes. Significant levels: ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01*, p < 0.05; bold: the highest score of the scale; italic: the smallest score of the scale. 6-point Likert scale: 1 = “strongly disagree” to 6 = “strongly agree”; 5-point Likert scale: 1 = “not at all” to 5 = “very.” ^aTotal score across six questions (max. = 12): 2 (correct); 1 (don’t know); 0 (incorrect).

They consume superfoods on a regular basis (Table 5), and this more often than the other clusters (p < 0.001). “Superfoodies” are therefore already familiar with this group of products. “Superfoodies” are, in general, a very involved cluster when it comes to food consumption and preparation (p < 0.001). As Table 4 shows, they score highest in most of the food-related scales and lowest in the food neophobia and food technology neophobia scales, making them a consumer group that is open-minded to novel foods and food production technologies (p < 0.01). Their interest in creative cooking, cooking for others, and trying and developing new recipes is high (p < 0.001). Furthermore, they are interested in organic food (p < 0.001) and in protecting the environment (p < 0.01). “Superfoodies” are also determined to find good quality for their money (p < 0.001). Additionally, they like to consume food for comfort (e.g., to make them happy and alleviate stress) more than other segments (p < 0.01). “Superfoodies” also care about the safety of food, have a generally high food involvement, and are significantly more concerned with their own health and body weight than the other segments (p < 0.01). Moreover, these consumers participate more often in cultural activities than the other clusters (p < 0.05) (Table 4). Regarding their sociodemographic profile, “superfoodies” have the highest share of females (69%) (p < 0.05) and the second-highest household income of all the clusters (Table 5).

Table 5. Assessment of sociodemographic characteristics and consumption of superfoods by cluster.

Scales	“Superfoodies”	Adventurous	Involved	Indifferent	Skeptical	Rejectors	Overall mean
Age (in years)	55.1	45.1***	51.1	53.5	57.5*	60.4***	54.0
Gender^a (% of males)	31*	51	38	53	35	57*	45
Occupation^b (% of working respondents)	67	80**	71	63	58	46**	63
Education level^c	4.91	4.82	4.95	4.66	4.93	4.32*	4.76
Income (in CHF)	9,264	9,485	8,971	7,889	8,083	7,092	8,382
Consumption of superfoods (days/week)	2.50***	0.63*	1.38*	0.38***	0.46***	0.08***	0.79

Notes. (*) in the same line means significant differences between the clusters, in which***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05; bold: highest score for the scale; italic: the smallest score for the scale.

^aGender: 1 = male, 0 = female;

^bOccupation: 1 = working, 0 = not working;

^cEducation level: 1 = “None”; 2 = “Compulsory school”; 3 = “Apprenticeship”; 4 = “Secondary/High School”; 5 = “Higher technical and vocational training”; 6 = “University of Applied Sciences”; 7 = “University”.

The adventurous (16%)

Adventurous consumers have less knowledge when it comes to superfoods. Apart from that, they have a positive attitude toward superfoods (the second highest across all clusters) (Table 3) and, for this reason, are named adventurous. The arguments for consumption lead this segment to believe that superfoods can benefit their health and that consuming them is sustainable. The information provided makes them curious about superfoods. Therefore, they could imagine consuming them more often in the future.

Consumers in this cluster appear to be open-minded about novel foods in general, with the second-lowest score in food neophobia (p < 0.05) (Table 4). Furthermore, their general health interest is high, and the protection of the environment is vital to them. Compared to the other clusters, adventurous consumers are less satisfied with their food-related life (p < 0.01) (however, they are not dissatisfied) (Table 4). People in this group are the youngest (p < 0.001) (45 years old on average) and work more often (80% are workers) compared to the other clusters (p < 0.01). Finally, these consumers are also characterized by the highest average household income (which is most likely related to the high labor force participation) (Table 5).

The involved (13%)

Involved consumers already have some knowledge on superfoods (Table 3). They are informed, aware, and open-minded, and for that reason are called involved consumers. They are not only involved in the topic of superfoods but with food in general, as indicated by their high nutritional knowledge—the highest across all clusters (p < 0.001) (Table 4). Their attitude toward superfoods is rather positive, being the third highest across all the clusters (Figure 1 and Table 3). Regarding the future of superfoods and their willingness to purchase, consume, and pay more (compared to other food products), involved consumers are rather positive and seem to believe in the future of such products, as they already consume them the second most frequently across all clusters (p < 0.05) (Table 5). Their positive view regarding the future of superfoods and their already regular consumption is in line with their positive perception of the possible health benefit of superfoods.

Regarding other characteristics, involved consumers do not differ much from the overall sample. They are rather involved with food in their daily life, like to be creative in the kitchen, and are concerned about food safety (p < 0.05) (Table 4). This cluster, which has a high proportion of females (Table 5) has preference for organic food (p < 0.05) and new foods do not seem to scare them (Table 4).

The indifferent (23%)

The indifferent consumers are uninformed and uninvolved, with an almost neutral, slightly positive attitude toward superfoods. These consumers do not have much knowledge about superfoods (Figure 1 and Table 3). The indifferent, above all, are not driven by the price-quality relation as are some of the other segments (p < 0.05) (Table 4). These consumers (of which 53% are male) (Table 5) have lower (second-lowest average) environmental awareness (p < 0.01) and interest in natural and organic ingredients (p < 0.001) (Table 4) compared to other clusters. Also, food safety is not as vital to them as it is for the “superfoodies” (p < 0.01). Furthermore, the indifferent consumers are not particularly interested in food that provides comfort, showing a mean significantly lower compared to other clusters (p < 0.01), and are less involved in food overall (p < 0.01) (e.g., cooking or preparing a nice table).

Indeed, indifferent consumers hardly ever eat superfoods, being the segment with the second-lowest consumption rate (even lower than observed for skeptical consumers) (p < 0.001) (Table 5). These consumers have the second-lowest mean for food technology neophobia (p < 0.01), indicating they are not too worried about trying foods that were made with novel technologies (Table 4).

The skeptical (21%)

Skeptical consumers are informed about superfoods but not convinced (Figure 1, Table 3). These consumers have the second highest mean of age (p < 0.05) (Table 5) and showed knowledge about superfoods (Figure 1). However, they neither believe in the benefits of superfoods (health or sustainability) nor in a successful future in the food industry (Table 3). This is in line with the low superfood consumption rate in this group (p < 0.001) (Table 5).

Even claiming some knowledge toward superfoods, and after reading the arguments in favor of superfoods being sustainable and healthy, this segment shows a low score for health and sustainability benefit perception. It seems that this group has a strongly formed opinion that is difficult to modify with arguments. Skeptical consumers are also characterized by their food technology neophobia (second-highest average) (p < 0.001). Although they claim to be creative in the kitchen (p < 0.05), they show higher interest in traditional and familiar meals than other clusters (p < 0.05) (Table 4).

The rejectors (15%)

The rejectors represent the cluster with significantly lower scores for all scales related to superfoods (Figure 1 and Table 3). They are not well-informed about, not particularly interested in, and not convinced regarding the benefits of superfoods, their sustainability, or how healthy they are. Therefore, it is not surprising that they hardly ever consume such products (p < 0.001) (Table 5). Moreover, this group shows significantly lower nutritional knowledge compared to the other segments (p < 0.01). They do not exhibit favorable propensities like general health interest (p < 0.01) or a preference for organic food (p < 0.001) and environmentally friendly food systems (p < 0.05) compared to other segments. Instead, they score significantly higher in food neophobia (p < 0.001) and food technology neophobia (p < 0.001). Furthermore, the rejectors show a significantly lower score in food involvement (p < 0.05), which is in line with the significant lowest score in cooking creativity (p < 0.01) (Table 4).

Regarding the sociodemographic characteristics, this cluster has the significant highest mean of age (p < 0.001) and is composed mostly of men (p < 0.05) (Table 5). Non-workers are overrepresented (p < 0.01) in this group and the average household income is lower, as is the education level (p < 0.05) and cultural participation (p < 0.05).

Discussion

The results of this study allow for a better understanding of superfoods perception by identifying the characteristics of individual consumer groups. Groeniger et al. (2017) found that the Dutch population showed different consumption behaviors regarding superfoods depending on the socioeconomic situation of the household, and they found that superfoods consumption is driven by “a process of social distinction.” Our study confirms the heterogeneity of superfoods consumers for the Swiss case and reveals the corresponding attitudes and behavioral patterns.

“Superfoodies,” the adventurous and involved consumers showed greater interest in health in general, in food safety, and interest in organic food more than the other three segments. Our results also show that the health and sustainability claims of superfoods are important to the adventurous and involved consumers and to the “superfoodies,” which is important for marketers of such products to know. These highly receptive and open-minded consumers also care about the proper processing of food, natural ingredients, and the minimal impact of their food on the environment. Similar results were found by Annunziata and Vecchio (2013) for functional foods (which, with their high-value nutrients, share similarities with superfoods). Annunziata and Vecchio’s study also revealed that health is a motive to consume functional foods.

The most favorable segments in our study—the “superfoodies,” the adventurous and involved consumers—are composed of a higher share of workers and have a higher household income. As confirmed in Groeniger et al. (2017) study, a higher socioeconomic position (income, among others) is associated with a higher consumption of superfoods. Hence, it might be worthwhile to address this consumer group in marketing campaigns by creating a portfolio of premium foods made with superfoods.

The present study also hints that female have great potential to further increase their consumption. They are the predominant group in the “superfoodies” segment and should, therefore, be addressed in future marketing campaigns.

Another interesting segment in terms of marketing superfoods may be the adventurous consumers. Those consumers are highly involved in their work-life and therefore may not have enough time to cook and try new recipes or ingredients regularly. This may explain their lack of cooking creativity. Therefore, one possibility to increase their demand could be to enrich convenience foods with superfoods by providing ready-to-eat food with added value, such as bioactive ingredients (Lucas, Morais, Santos, & Costa, 2018). Furthermore, adventurous consumers showed the lower mean of age which could be interesting when the aiming innovate. Sajdakowska et al. (2018) reported younger consumers as the most innovative.

Szakály, Szente, Kövér, Polereczki, and Szigeti (2012) evaluated the influence of lifestyle on health behavior and the preference for functional foods in Hungary. The authors identified a rational segment that has a greater commitment to a healthy lifestyle and is therefore considered an interesting target group for functional food manufacturers. Furthermore, the authors found a cluster of adventurous consumers. Both our and Szakály et al.’s clusters show similarities in that they are open toward novel foods and are motivated to try new recipes. However, they differ in the share of females, which is 49% in our study and 61% in Szakály et al.’s study. Another difference between the clusters from our and Szakály et al.’s study is that the adventurous consumers in the present study (even with little previous knowledge about superfoods) trust the information presented. In contrast, the adventurous segment in Szakály et al.’s study is more prone to trust personal suggestions and believe less in public information or advertisements. Specific marketing toward adventurous consumers might impart knowledge to consumers as they lack it. However, more research should be conducted on the kind of marketing that would be helpful for this consumer group.

In the present study, two segments are more skeptical toward novel foods and novel food technologies (high neophobia): the rejectors and the skeptical consumers. The rejectors have limited financial capabilities (the lowest family income across all segments) and the lowest cultural participation, an indicator of social distinction (Groeniger et al., 2017). For these consumers, it can be assumed that offering superfoods with lower prices or selling them as special offers may be favorable. However, overcoming food neophobia also seems crucial and, as suggested by Groeniger et al. (2017) may be tackled by addressing young children and parents so that healthy eating habits can be implemented early. In this way, the rejection of superfoods can be avoided.

Furthermore, for clusters with negative attitudes and little consumption of superfoods, a more interactive approach might be worth considering, such as events where consumers can learn new recipes using superfoods or can learn how to cook with superfoods alongside traditional recipes. That way, consumers with high food neophobia (that prefer recognizable and familiar meals or that have a lack of food involvement or creative cooking) may be reached and their reservations reduced.

From the results of the present study, it can be assumed that nutritional knowledge is related to the perception of superfoods since the rejectors have on average lower nutritional knowledge than the other five clusters. In line with this, Ares, Giménez, and Gámbaro (2008) reported a positive relationship between nutritional knowledge and consumers’ interest in functional foods. According to Buechler and Lee (2019), educate consumers about unfamiliar ingredients could be determinant of a product success.

In this context, exhibitions where universities and public institutions share knowledge, interact with the population face-to-face, and show how and where superfoods are produced (e.g., raceway tanks cultivating microalgae or açaí palms from the Amazon), how superfoods benefit the body, and what the benefits for health promotion and disease prevention could potentially improve consumers’ nutritional knowledge and simultaneously reduce their reservations. This kind of approach may especially motivate the skeptical segment and the rejectors to try superfoods. Another strategy could be to increase the portfolio of superfoods in supermarkets and grocery stores instead of limiting superfoods sales to online shops.

Despite the interesting new findings, the current study presents some limitations. First, the mean age of the sample is 54 years. This may have resulted in more conservative results than with a higher share of young people in the sample. The age of the respondents can partly be attributed to the recruitment method (the Swiss national telephone directory). Despite that, the average age in the present study is not far from the Swiss mean age (50 years old) in 2018 (not considering the population ≤ 19 years old) (Federal Statistical Office, 2019). This could be addressed in a future study by intentionally selecting a sample of younger consumers, such as through universities or social media. Furthermore, as described previously (Lucas et al., 2021), the low response rate could also be considered a limitation that should be addressed in future surveys.

Furthermore, this study defines superfoods in a certain way and exemplifies a limited number of foods—pomegranate, moringa, the microalgae Spirulina and Chlorella, açaí, goji berries, chia, and quinoa. This restriction was necessary to ensure an equal understanding of superfoods among all study participants. As mentioned in the beginning, there is no exhaustive list of superfoods and some superfoods may have been excluded from this study. Our findings can therefore not be generalized to all foods popularly known as superfoods. Future research might, therefore, on the one hand, include further superfoods in the list, and thus define superfoods in an even more general way and compare the results to the ones found in this study. On the other hand, studies on individual superfoods may add some further interesting findings to the existing body of literature, as it can be assumed that there are differences in consumer perception and behavior that are related to the individual product.

Conclusion

This study allowed for a better understanding of how superfoods are perceived by different consumer groups in Switzerland. Six segments (“superfoodies,” adventurous, involved, indifferent, and skeptical consumers, as well as rejectors) were identified and described regarding their food-behavioral patterns, attitudes and sociodemographic characteristics.

The proposed findings and strategies resulted in information that could help guide those who produce and market superfoods to address different target groups more successfully in the future. As this study showed, some consumers are still skeptical or even rejective toward buying and consuming superfoods. It seems that these consumers are skeptical and rejectors not only about superfoods but about other food groups. Therefore, an interesting study for the future might be to investigate more thoroughly where those reservations and food neophobia come from. Furthermore, the use of superfoods as ingredients in already familiar products may be studied. In that way, it might be possible to reach the more conservative segments in the population. In this regard, the marketing of superfoods and superfood products may also be looked at in future studies to reach different segments.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The authors are thankful to the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) for the Scholarship supported by the Program Sandwich Ph.D. Abroad (PDSE) under Process n° [88881.186834/2018-01].