Understanding consumers' perceptions to stimulate aquaculture fish consumption in Europe

Article-based Doctoral Thesis Department of Agri-Food Engineering and Biotechnology Doctoral programme in Agri-food Technology and Biotechnology UNDERSTANDING CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTIONS TO STIMULATE AQUACULTURE FISH CONSUMPTION IN EUROPE Laura López-Mas 2023 Tutor Isabel Achaerandio Puente Thesis advisors Luis Guerrero Asorey Roser Romero del Castillo Shelly This page intentionally left blank Dedicat als meus pares i al Miquel Dedication to my parents and Miquel CONTENTS 4 CONTENTS ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................................... 6 RESUMEN ...................................................................................................................................... 8 RESUM ......................................................................................................................................... 10 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................... 12 PUBLICATIONS AND CONFERENCES ............................................................................................ 13 LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................... 16 LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................ 16 ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................................................... 17 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 18 1.1. Fish: general overview ................................................................................................ 19 1.1.1. Growing fish demand .......................................................................................... 19 1.1.2. Aquaculture ......................................................................................................... 20 1.1.3. Blue Transformation ............................................................................................ 22 1.1.4. Aquaculture and consumers ............................................................................... 24 1.2. Food choice: strategies to persuade consumers......................................................... 25 1.2.1. Personal factors ................................................................................................... 26 1.2.2. Situational and environmental factors ................................................................ 30 1.2.3. Product factors .................................................................................................... 31 1.3. Measurement of consumers’ behaviour ..................................................................... 34 1.3.1. Explicit and implicit measurements .................................................................... 34 1.3.2. Qualitative techniques ........................................................................................ 35 1.3.3. Quantitative techniques ...................................................................................... 37 2. OBJECTIVES .......................................................................................................................... 38 2.1. General objective ........................................................................................................ 39 2.2. Specific objectives ....................................................................................................... 39 3. METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................. 40 3.1. General beliefs ............................................................................................................ 42 3.2. Sustainability beliefs .................................................................................................... 42 3.3. Product variety ............................................................................................................ 43 3.4. Packaging optimisation ............................................................................................... 44 3.5. Summary of the methodology .................................................................................... 46 4. RESULTS ............................................................................................................................... 47 Publication 1 ............................................................................................................................ 49 CONTENTS 5 López-Mas, L., Claret, A., Reinders, M. J., Banovic, M., Krystallis, A., & Guerrero, L. (2021). Farmed or wild fish? Segmenting European consumers based on their beliefs. Aquaculture, 532, 735992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.735992. Publication 2 ............................................................................................................................ 59 López-Mas, L., Claret, A., Arvisenet, G., Romero del Castillo, R., Kallas, Z., Zuccaro, M., & Guerrero, L. (2023). European consumers’ beliefs about the main pillars of the sustainability: a comparison between wild and farmed fish. Aquaculture International. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-023-01070-2. Publication 3 ............................................................................................................................ 81 López-Mas, L., Claret, A., Stancu, V., Brunsø, K., Peral, I., Santa Cruz, E., Krystallis, A., & Guerrero, L. (2022). Making full use of qualitative data to generate new fish product ideas through co-creation with consumers: a methodological approach. Foods, 11(15), 2287. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11152287. Publication 4 .......................................................................................................................... 100 López-Mas, L., Claret, A., Bermúdez, A., Llauger, M., & Guerrero, L. (2022). Co-creation with consumers for packaging design validated through implicit and explicit methods: exploratory effect of visual and textual attributes. Foods, 11(9), 1183. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11091183. 5. GENERAL DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................... 123 5.1. Main findings ............................................................................................................. 124 5.1.1. Strategy 1: Guiding promotional campaigns: general and sustainability beliefs 126 5.1.2. Strategy 2: Increasing products’ variety in the market ..................................... 132 5.1.3. Strategy 3: Packaging optimisation ................................................................... 136 5.1.4. How to reach the audience ............................................................................... 139 5.2. Limitations and future research ................................................................................ 141 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................... 142 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 144 APPENDIX .................................................................................................................................. 164 Appendix A ............................................................................................................................ 164 Appendix B ............................................................................................................................ 166 Appendix C ............................................................................................................................ 168 Appendix D ............................................................................................................................ 169 Appendix E………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..171 ABSTRACT 6 ABSTRACT Fish can play a crucial role in feeding the growing global population and providing it with essential nutrients. However, the world’s fish stocks are limited and almost fully exploited. Consequently, aquaculture is regarded as the most suitable alternative to relieve pressures on wild-caught fish stocks while satisfying the increasing worldwide demand for fish. However, aquaculture consumption is unevenly distributed; in Europe it represents only 25% of the total amount of fish consumed, which is a remarkably lower proportion than the global average (56%). While wild fish enjoy a good reputation among European consumers, farmed fish still have their detractors. This less positive image of farmed fish is an additional barrier to the acceptance of the whole aquaculture sector, which may explain its lower consumption. Consequently, it is crucial to understand consumers’ perception of aquaculture fish to determine what is hindering its consumption to ensure the full development of the aquaculture sector in the European Union. The main objective of this doctoral thesis was to study, from various perspectives, consumers’ perceptions of aquaculture fish and fish products to stimulate their consumption. To tackle the main objective, three different studies were carried out, each belonging to one of the three main factors influencing individuals’ food choices: personal (beliefs), situation/environment (product variety), and product (packaging). The results of these studies and their implications should offer a substantive and rich picture of the actual fish consumers´ concerns and provide insights towards the same aim; favouring and stimulating aquaculture fish consumption by focussing on different consumer-driven strategies. The first strategy involved exploring and understanding consumers’ beliefs when wild and farmed fish were compared to guide informational and promotional campaigns for aquaculture fish. Two different online surveys in five European countries each were used to analyse general consumers’ beliefs and those dealing with sustainability issues. The results showed that European consumers perceived wild fish as being fresher and of a higher overall quality, containing lower concentrations of antibiotics, having higher animal welfare, and being more organic than farmed fish. Conversely, aquaculture fish were better perceived in terms of price and availability, being less affected by chemical (pollutants and heavy metals) and biological hazards (parasites), being more sustainable and locally obtained, providing environmental benefits, generating employment, improving human living conditions, generating rural development, and ensuring fairer fish prices than wild fish. Accordingly, different guidelines for designing informational and promotional campaigns have been provided to influence and drive consumers’ beliefs. The second strategy was centred on generating novel ideas for new aquaculture fish products to increase the product variety on the market. A combination of creative and projective techniques was applied in six focus groups that were conducted in three European countries. The results showed that focus groups were useful in generating a pool of ideas, 112 in total. From those, the “meagre burger with black trumpet mushrooms” was selected for later optimisation of its packaging (third strategy). Likewise, focus groups were also useful for identifying key dimensions behind participants’ discourses, including naturalness, quality, ethics, price, and health. Given that often the lack of diversity of fish products on the market may negatively affect its consumption, increasing the range of products can be highly relevant. In this ABSTRACT 7 sense, aquaculture should offer additional benefits to the producers of new products, providing a more uniform and year-around supply of the raw material needed. Finally, the third strategy focused on optimising packaging to attract consumers’ attention and increase its potential success in the market. An online survey served to co-create two packaging designs for the “meagre burger with black trumpet mushrooms”. A second step using explicit (preference, acceptability, purchase intention, and in-depth interview) and implicit techniques (eye tracking, galvanic skin response, and automatic facial expression analysis) was used to validate the success of the co-creation process and test the co-created packaging against some of its possible competitors in the market. Results showed that the co-creation with consumers was useful in designing packaging for fish products, while the validation procedure confirmed its effectiveness. In particular, one of the co-created packagings stood out as consumers manifested a higher preference, acceptability, and purchase intention over the two possible competitor products in the Spanish market. Therefore, the co-creation with consumers for the design of packaging seems particularly useful to increasing the products’ impact on the market, thus attracting consumers’ attention and enhancing their acceptability, which may lead to increased consumption of aquaculture fish products. The outcomes and insights captured within this doctoral thesis can be valuable in guiding the efforts of governments, administrations, producers, and other agents involved in the aquaculture sector towards the improvement of the image of farmed fish. All these efforts should facilitate the promotion of fish consumption and the full development of the aquaculture sector in the European Union. Keywords: farmed fish, wild fish, behaviour, belief, new product development, packaging RESUMEN 8 RESUMEN El pescado puede desempeñar un papel crucial en la alimentación de la población mundial, así como en la provisión de nutrientes esenciales. Sin embargo, la población de peces salvajes es limitada y está siendo explotada casi en su totalidad, por lo que la acuicultura constituye la alternativa más viable para aliviar esa presión a la vez que satisface la demanda creciente de pescado a nivel mundial. No obstante, el consumo del pescado de acuicultura está distribuido de forma desigual; en Europa solo representa el 25% de la cantidad total de pescado consumido, una proporción notablemente inferior a la media global (56%). Mientras que el pescado salvaje goza de buena reputación entre los consumidores europeos, el de acuicultura sigue teniendo sus detractores. Esta imagen menos positiva del pescado de acuicultura constituye una barrera adicional para la aceptación de este sector, lo cual podría explicar su menor consumo. En consecuencia, para poder determinar qué factores obstaculizan el consumo del pescado de acuicultura y asegurar así el desarrollo de este sector en la Unión Europea es esencial conocer y entender la percepción que poseen los consumidores sobre el pescado de acuicultura. El objetivo principal de esta tesis doctoral ha sido estudiar, desde varias perspectivas, la percepción de los consumidores sobre el pescado de acuicultura y de los productos elaborados a base de este, con el fin de estimular su consumo. Para abordar el objetivo principal, se llevaron a cabo tres estudios diferentes, cada uno de ellos relacionado con uno de los tres factores principales que influyen en las decisiones alimentarias de los individuos: personal (creencias), situación/entorno (variedad de productos) y producto (envase). Los resultados de estos estudios y sus implicaciones deberían ofrecer una imagen rica y sustantiva de las inquietudes de los consumidores de pescado y aportar ideas y soluciones hacia un mismo objetivo; favorecer y estimular el consumo del pescado de acuicultura centrándose en diferentes estrategias orientadas hacia los consumidores. La primera estrategia se centró en explorar y entender las creencias de los consumidores comparando el pescado salvaje y el de acuicultura con el fin de orientar las campañas de información y promoción del pescado de acuicultura. Se realizaron dos encuestas en línea en cinco países europeos para analizar las creencias generales de los consumidores y las relacionadas con la sostenibilidad. Los resultados mostraron que los consumidores europeos percibían el pescado salvaje como más fresco y de mayor calidad, con menor concentración de antibióticos, mayor bienestar animal y un carácter más ecológico que el de acuicultura. Por el contrario, el pescado de acuicultura era mejor percibido en términos de precio y disponibilidad, con una menor afectación de riesgos químicos (agentes contaminantes y metales pesados) y biológicos (parásitos), una mayor sostenibilidad, obtenido de forma más local, aportando mayores beneficios medioambientales, generado más empleo y un mayor desarrollo rural, mejorando las condiciones de vida de la población y garantizando unos precios más justos que el pescado salvaje. Basándose en los resultados obtenidos, se proponen distintas directrices para diseñar campañas informativas y promocionales que puedan influir y dirigir las creencias de los consumidores de una manera más efectiva. La segunda estrategia se centró en generar ideas de nuevos productos elaborados a base de pescado de acuicultura con la finalidad de aumentar la variedad de productos en el mercado. Para ello, se utilizó una combinación de técnicas creativas y proyectivas en seis grupos de discusión realizados en tres países europeos. Los resultados mostraron que los grupos de RESUMEN 9 discusión fueron extremadamente útiles para generar ideas, obteniéndose un total de 112. De entre todas ellas, se seleccionó la “hamburguesa de corvina con trompetas de la muerte” para optimizar posteriormente su envase (tercera estrategia). Asimismo, los grupos de discusión también sirvieron para identificar las dimensiones clave que subyacían en el discurso de los participantes, entre las cuales destacaron la naturalidad, la calidad, los aspectos éticos, el precio y la salud. Normalmente, la falta de diversidad en el mercado de productos elaborados a base de pescado puede afectar negativamente a su consumo, por lo que el aumento de la gama de productos puede ser especialmente útil. En este sentido, la acuicultura podría ofrecer beneficios adicionales a los productores y elaboradores de productos procesados de pescado, proporcionándoles un suministro de materia prima más uniforme durante todo el año. Por último, la tercera estrategia se centró en la optimización del envase para atraer la atención de los consumidores y aumentar su potencial éxito en el mercado. Con el fin de cocrear con los consumidores dos diseños de envase diferentes para la “hamburguesa de corvina con trompetas de la muerte” se realizó una encuesta en línea con consumidores españoles. Posteriormente, en un segundo estudio, se utilizaron técnicas explícitas (preferencia, aceptabilidad, intención de compra y entrevista en profundidad) e implícitas (seguimiento ocular, respuesta galvánica de la piel y análisis automático de la expresión facial) para validar el éxito del proceso de cocreación y poner a prueba los envases cocreados frente a algunos de sus posibles competidores en el mercado. Los resultados mostraron que la cocreación con los consumidores fue útil para el diseño del envase de productos a base de pescado, mientras que el proceso de validación confirmó su efectividad. En concreto, uno de los envases cocreados destacó por encima de dos de los posibles competidores en el mercado español, ya que los consumidores manifestaron una mayor preferencia, aceptabilidad e intención de compra por este. Por lo tanto, la cocreación con consumidores para el diseño de envases parece ser especialmente útil para aumentar el impacto de los productos en el mercado, atrayendo la atención de los consumidores y mejorando su aceptabilidad, hecho que puede contribuir a un mayor consumo de productos a base de pescado de acuicultura. Los resultados y reflexiones recogidos en esta tesis doctoral pueden ser de utilidad para guiar y orientar las actuaciones de gobiernos, administraciones, productores y otros agentes implicados en el sector a la hora de mejorar la imagen del pescado de acuicultura. Todo ello debería estimular el consumo de pescado y un mayor desarrollo del sector de la acuicultura en la Unión Europea. Palabras clave: pescado de acuicultura, pescado salvaje, comportamiento, creencia, desarrollo de nuevos productos, envase LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES 16 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Global production of aquatic animals (excluding algae) from 1950-2020: aquaculture production and fishery catches ................................................................................................... 21 Figure 2. Percentage of aquaculture production (excluding algae) over the total aquatic animals (aquaculture production and fishery catches) per country during 2020 .................................... 22 Figure 3. Model of the factors influencing consumer behaviour in the food domain ................ 26 Figure 4. Main stages of the new product development (NPD) process .................................... 31 Figure 5. Thesis’s methodology overview and the derived publications .................................... 41 Figure 6. Overview of the methods used in the focus group sessions ........................................ 44 Figure 7. Nexus between the publications included in the doctoral thesis, the specific and general objectives, and the factors affecting individuals’ food choices ................................................ 126 Figure 8. Mock-ups of the packaging designed through co-creation with consumers. Combination of the preferred visual and textual attributes chosen by participants in the first (left) and the second place (right). ............................................................................................ 138 Figure 9. Results of the creative sessions on how to communicate aquaculture to consumers aggregated per country ............................................................................................................. 140 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Summary of the main driver factors of fish consumption. ........................................... 24 Table 2. Selected general beliefs comparing wild with farmed fish. .......................................... 42 Table 3. Selected sustainability beliefs comparing wild with farmed fish. ................................. 43 Table 4. Factors and levels of the three conjoint analyses to select textual information for packaging design. ........................................................................................................................ 45 Table 5. Summary of the publications and respective chapters. ................................................ 46 Table 6. Summary of the aim and the main findings of publications P1 and P2. ..................... 127 Table 7. Summary of the aim and the main findings of publication P3. ................................... 133 Table 8. Summary of the aim and the main findings of publication P4. ................................... 137 ABBREVIATIONS 17 ABBREVIATIONS AFEA (automatic facial expression analysis) ANOVA (analysis of variance) DHA (docosahexaenoic acid) EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid) ET (eye tracking) EU (European Union) FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) GSR (galvanic skin response) NPD (new product development) SDG (sustainable development goal) UN (United Nations) INTRODUCTION 1. INTRODUCTION 19 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Fish: general overview Fish are an excellent source of macronutrients and bioavailable micronutrients. Some of them are scarce in plant-based diets (FAO, 2022a) and they are often more effectively absorbed than in plant-source foods (WorldFish, 2011). The composition of fish flesh is affected by many factors, including the species, size, maturity, nutrition, season, geographic area, and edible parts, among others (Coppes-Petricorena, 2015; Raatz et al., 2013). Generally, the predominant fish macronutrients are proteins (16.0–22.9%), followed by lipids (0.5–11.1%) and carbohydrates (<0.5%) (Grigorakis, 2007; Coppes-Petricorena, 2015). Fish flesh proteins are of high biological value because they contain all the essential amino acids in a well-balanced manner (Raatz et al., 2013). Fish lipids comprise saturated fatty acids, mainly palmitic acid (16:0), monounsaturated fatty acids, and primarily oleic acid (18:1 n-9), but they are uniquely different from other animal protein sources because of their content of polyunsaturated acids (Raatz et al., 2013), particularly omega-3 fatty acids. Humans cannot synthesise omega-3 fatty acids; consequently, they must be obtained through the diet (FAO, 2022a). Fish are the primary dietary source of omega-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids, including eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA, 20:5 n-3) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA, 22:6 n-3), but also omega-6 (Bernstein et al., 2019; FDA, 2021; Nøstbakken et al., 2021; Coppes-Petricorena, 2015; USDA & HHS, 2020). Fat content is widely used to classify fish species as lean or fatty, depending on the total fat storage in body tissues (Raatz et al., 2013). Cod (Gadus morhua L.) is an example of a lean species, while salmon (Salmo salar L.) exemplifies a fatty one. Fish micronutrients are primarily vitamins, including A, B, and D, and minerals such as calcium, iron, zinc, iodine, magnesium, potassium, and selenium (Bernstein et al., 2019; EFSA, 2014; FAO, 2022a; FDA, 2021). Governments and health authorities around the world encourage the consumption of at least two servings of fish per week to ensure the provision of key nutrients, especially omega-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids, but also for its positive impact on human well-being (EFSA, 2014; NSC, 2018; Piepoli et al., 2016; USDA & HHS, 2020). Fish consumption has been associated with a long list of health benefits, including a decrease in the risk of mortality from coronary heart disease (EFSA, 2014; Zheng et al., 2012) and cardiovascular disease (FAO, 2018, 2020; Jayedi et al., 2018; Piepoli et al., 2016; Raatz et al., 2013), lower blood pressure (Bernstein et al., 2019; FAO, 2022a), promotion of bone health (FDA, 2021), a decrease in the risk of numerous types of cancer (FDA, 2021; Li et al., 2020), protection from obesity (FDA, 2021), facilitation of chewing and swallowing for people suffering from dysphagia (Coppes-Petricorena, 2015), beneficial effects on mental health (FAO, 2020), and contributing to the cognitive development of unborn or young children’s growth (Bernstein et al., 2019; FAO, 2020, 2022a). 1.1.1. Growing fish demand Aside from the well-known benefits in terms of health and disease prevention, as well as being a source of exceptional nutrients, many factors have driven the impressive increase in global fish consumption (Santeramo et al., 2018). The ongoing expansion of the world’s human population is probably the most noticeable determinant of the increase in fish consumption. 1. INTRODUCTION 20 From three billion inhabitants in 1960, the global population rose to 7.8 billion in 2021 (World Bank, 2022), and it is expected to continue growing up to 10.4 billion in 2100 (UN, 2022a). Such an increase in the global population requires a proportional growth in food production, including fish and fish products. Not only has the total amount of fish consumed increased due to the expansion of the world’s population but per capita consumption has also risen. Global fish consumption climbed from an average of 9.9 kg per capita in the 1960s to 20.2 kg in 2020, a trend that is set to continue up to 21.4 kg in 2030 (FAO, 2022a; OECD & FAO, 2022). Among the various factors that may explain the growth in per capita fish consumption are the changes in dietary habits and food trends, its benefits for health and well-being, economic development, income growth, urbanisation, changes in consumer preferences, valorisation of its gastronomic properties, and its ability to provide diets that are socially, economically, and environmentally sustainable (APROMAR, 2018; Cantillo et al., 2020; Claret et al., 2012; FAO, 2022a; González Laxe, 2002; Masi et al., 2022; Merino et al., 2012; OECD & FAO, 2022; Santeramo et al., 2018; Smárason et al., 2018; Vallejo Vela & Ojeda González-Posada, 2007). In addition, the expansion of fish production is also responsible for the increase in fish consumption, including the development of supply chains logistics, the rise of international fish trade, the increase in the offer of new products, the advancement in technology, the greater efficiency in the conversion ratio when compared with terrestrial animal production, and the improvement of post-harvest practices, among many others (APROMAR, 2018; Bacher, 2015; Cantillo et al., 2020; FAO, 2022a; González Laxe, 2002; Ruiz-Chico et al., 2020; Santeramo et al., 2018) To face the growing fish demand, the fish supply has to increase further (Merino et al., 2012). However, various factors have led to the depletion of natural wild fish stocks, including overfishing, pollution, climate change, and inadequate policies for managing the sector (FAO, 2022a; UN, 2022b). Nowadays, figures show that 35.4% of marine resources are overfished, while 57.3% of fishery resources are already exploited at maximum-sustainable-yield levels (FAO, 2022a). Because the world’s stocks are limited and almost fully exploited, capture fisheries alone cannot meet the global demand for fish (Atalah & Sánchez-Jerez, 2020; Cahu et al., 2004; Raatz et al., 2013; World Bank, 2013). Consequently, aquaculture is presented as the most suitable alternative to relieve pressures on wild-caught fish stocks and satisfy the increasing worldwide demand for fish (Claret et al., 2016; Duarte et al., 2007; FAO, 2022a; Kole et al., 2009; Martin, 2017; Masi et al., 2022; Natale et al., 2013; Risius et al., 2017). 1.1.2. Aquaculture According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), aquaculture is the “farming of aquatic organisms including fish, molluscs, crustaceans and aquatic plants. Farming implies some sort of intervention in the rearing process to enhance production, such as regular stocking, feeding, protection from predators, etc.” (FAO, 2021). Aquaculture offers some advantages when it is compared with other food production systems. In particular, most of those benefits relate to terrestrial animal production and agriculture due to land constraints and freshwater availability (Duarte et al., 2009, 2022). With regard to terrestrial animals production, farmed fish have the advantage of having a more 1. INTRODUCTION 21 efficient feed conversion rate (ingested food/weighted gain) because they require a lower metabolic expenditure on thermal regulation; the reproductive potential of marine animals is higher; the vital space is used in its entire volume and not only on the surface as in the case of terrestrial animals; and unlike cattle, aquaculture does not yield direct greenhouse gases, among other examples (Vallejo Vela & Ojeda González-Posada, 2007). The origin of aquaculture dates back to ancient times (Harland, 2019), although it was not until the start of the twentieth century that its astonishing worldwide expansion began (Duarte et al., 2007). Aquaculture has been the world’s fastest-growing food production system since the mid-1980s, coinciding with the relative stagnation of the capture fisheries (Anderson et al., 2018; FAO, 2018). From 1990 to 2020, the aquaculture production average growth rate was around 6.7% per year (FAO, 2022a), a proportion that outpaced that of all other terrestrial animals intended for meat production (FAO, 2018). Consequently, the contribution of aquaculture to global fisheries and aquaculture production has climbed steadily. While in 1990, aquaculture represented 13.4% of the total aquatic animal production, in 2020 this rate had risen to 49.2%, which represented a global aquaculture production of 87.5 million tonnes (FAO, 2022a, 2022b, 2022c) (Figure 1), which is projected to rise as far as 108 million tonnes in 2031 (OECD & FAO, 2022). Figure 1. Global production of aquatic animals (excluding algae) from 1950-2020: aquaculture production and fishery catches. Elaborated from FAO (2022b, 2022c). In regard to global aquaculture fish consumption, figures differ slightly from production. In 2020, the amount of fish available for human consumption coming from aquaculture (56%) surpassed that coming from wild fisheries (44%) (FAO, 2022a; OECD & FAO, 2022), a trend that is expected to continue rising up to 59% in 2031 (OECD & FAO, 2022). At the regional level, aquaculture figures are unevenly distributed. Asian countries overwhelmingly dominated both global aquaculture production of aquatic animals (88.4%) (Figure 2) (FAO, 2022a, 2022b) and their consumption (72%) (OECD & FAO, 2022), with an exceptional contribution to those numbers being made by China. Indeed, since 1991, China has 0 20 40 60 80 100 1950 1953 1956 1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 Weight (million tonnes) Time (year) Aquaculture production Fishery catches 1. INTRODUCTION 22 produced more aquatic foods, including animals and algae, than the rest of the world combined (FAO, 2022a). Figure 2. Percentage of aquaculture production (excluding algae) over the total aquatic animals (aquaculture production and fishery catches) per country during 2020. Grey colour: no data available. Elaborated from FAO (2022b, 2022c). Figure powered with Bing technology. © Australian Bureau of Statistics, GeoNames, Geospatial Data Edit, Microsoft, Navinfo, OpenStreetMap, TomTom, Wikipedia. When it comes to Europe, it only provided 3.7% of the global aquaculture production of aquatic animals, with Norway accounting for almost half of the production (45.6%) (FAO, 2022a, 2022b). In terms of the European Union (EU) countries, their contribution to world aquaculture production decreased to 1.7% with a total of 1.4 million tonnes in 2019 (EUMOFA, 2021), falling further to 1.1 million tonnes in 2020 due to the exit of the United Kingdom from the EU (FAO, 2022b, 2022c). Aquaculture production in the EU only provided around 21.8% of the total amount of aquatic animals during 2020 (FAO, 2022b, 2022c). Indeed, since the mid-2000s, aquaculture production in the EU has stagnated (Alexander et al., 2015; APROMAR, 2022; European Commission, 2021a) and it is still far from its full potential development (APROMAR, 2022; Claret et al., 2014; Masi et al., 2022). In regard to consumption, only 25% of fish consumed come from aquaculture in the EU (EUMOFA, 2021; European Commission, 2020, 2021b). 1.1.3. Blue Transformation Aquatic foods have the potential to contribute to providing essential nutrients and feeding the growing global population (FAO, 2022a; Merino et al., 2012; Coppes-Petricorena, 2015), as stated in the Blue Transformation initiative. The FAO (2022a) defined Blue Transformation as “a visionary strategy that aims to enhance the role of aquatic food systems in feeding the world’s growing population by providing the legal, policy and technical frameworks required to sustain 1. INTRODUCTION 23 growth and innovation”. As established in its road map for the period 2022–2030, Blue Transformation has three core objectives (FAO, 2022a, 2022d): 1. Aquaculture: sustainable aquaculture intensification and expansion — to satisfy the global demand for aquatic food and equitable distribution of the benefits. 2. Fisheries: effective management of all fisheries — to deliver healthy stocks and secure equitable livelihoods. 3. Value chains: updated value chains — to ensure the social, economic, and environmental viability of aquatic food systems. Within the frame of this thesis, aquaculture is of particular relevance given its crucial role in ensuring the fish supply worldwide as global fish stocks are limited and almost fully exploited (Atalah & Sánchez-Jerez, 2020; Cahu et al., 2004; FAO, 2022a; Kole et al., 2009; Raatz et al., 2013; Risius et al., 2017; Santeramo et al., 2018; World Bank, 2013). However, the development of the aquaculture sector as an alternative to wild-catch fish must be sustainable, as it often occurs at the expense of the environment (FAO, 2022a). The World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) defined sustainable development as “the development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. In this context, the United Nations (UN) state members adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development for the period 2016–2030 (UN, 2015). This universal agenda consists of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It aims to guide the decision-making of governments, the private sector, civil society, and other institutions (FAO, 2016) to achieve sustainable development in its three dimensions: environmental, social, and economic (UN, 2015). Aquaculture may contribute to multiple SDGs at a time, including ending poverty (SDG 1); ending hunger (SDG 2); promoting good health and well-being (SDG 3); achieving gender equality and empowering women (SDG 5); promoting decent work and economic growth (SDG 8); ensuring responsible consumption and production (SDG 12); fighting climate change (SDG 13); and protecting, restoring, and promoting sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems (SDG 15) (APROMAR, 2020; Bossier & Ekasari, 2017; Duarte et al., 2022; Jiang et al., 2022). Although several SDGs are directly related to aquaculture, “Life below water” (SDG 14), is the one that can play the most relevant role as it is dedicated to conserving and sustainably using the oceans, seas, and marine resources (FAO, 2016). Among the multiple challenges addressed by SDG 14 are regulating harvesting, ending overfishing, ending destructive fishing, restoring fish stocks, reducing marine pollution, and conserving coastal and marine areas (UN, 2022c). In summary, it is for its crucial role in providing essential nutrients and feeding the growing global population (FAO, 2022a; Merino et al., 2012; Coppes-Petricorena, 2015), relieving pressure on wild fisheries (Duarte et al., 2007; FAO, 2022a; Martin, 2017; Masi et al., 2022; Natale et al., 2013; Risius et al., 2017), delivering sustainable diets, building resilient food systems, and supporting the achievement of the SDGs (FAO, 2022a), mainly the 14th, that aquaculture can be described as the livestock farming of the future (Vallejo Vela & Ojeda González-Posada, 2007). For this reason, consumption of farmed fish should be encouraged, especially in the EU, where only 25% of fish consumed come from aquaculture (EUMOFA, 2021; 1. INTRODUCTION 24 European Commission, 2020, 2021b), a remarkably lower proportion than the average global consumption of farmed fish (56%) (FAO, 2022a). 1.1.4. Aquaculture and consumers Fish consumption is complex and multiple factors may influence it (Krešić et al., 2022; Saidi et al., 2023); some can increase it (drivers), while others may hinder it (barriers). Among the most common drivers associated with fish consumption are availability, price perception, convenience perception, health benefits, nutritional value, pleasant hedonic perception, near origin, high knowledge, quality perception, presence of quality labels, and strong eating habits (Table 1) (Carlucci et al., 2015). On the other hand, the main barriers related to fish consumption are sensory disliking (taste and smell), lack of convenience, presence of bones, lack of availability, lack of knowledge, low self-efficacy in preparation, health risk concerns, trend for reducing fish and meat intake, environmental concerns, contamination, and price perception (Brunsø et al., 2009; Cantillo et al., 2021; Carlucci et al., 2015; Pieniak et al., 2010; Saidi et al., 2023). Additionally, other fish attributes also may play a relevant role in its consumption as they may affect consumers’ preferences. Among those attributes are the country of origin, storage conditions, product innovativeness, sustainability perception, animal welfare, ethical perception, organic character, packaging, brand knowledge, and production method (Cantillo et al., 2021; Carlucci et al., 2015; Claret et al., 2012; Conte et al., 2014; European Commission, 2021c; Hoerterer et al., 2022; Petereit et al., 2022; Pieniak et al., 2010; Pulcini et al., 2020; Risius et al., 2017; Saidi et al., 2022, 2023). Table 1. Summary of the main driver factors of fish consumption. Driving factor Reference Availability (Pieniak et al., 2010; Pulcini et al., 2020; Saidi et al., 2022) Price perception (Bacher, 2015; Cantillo et al., 2021; Claret et al., 2012; Conte et al., 2014; Hoerterer et al., 2022; Petereit et al., 2022; Pieniak et al., 2010; Saidi et al., 2022) Convenience perception (Bacher, 2015; Birch et al., 2012; Cantillo et al., 2021; Pieniak et al., 2010; Saidi et al., 2023) Health benefits (Birch et al., 2012; Brunsø et al., 2009; Cantillo et al., 2021; Hoerterer et al., 2022; Pieniak et al., 2010; Reig et al., 2019; Saidi et al., 2023; Verbeke et al., 2005) Nutritional value (Saidi et al., 2023; Verbeke et al., 2005) Hedonic perception (Bacher, 2015; Birch et al., 2012; Brunsø et al., 2009; Cantillo et al., 2021; Claret et al., 2016; Conte et al., 2014; Pieniak et al., 2010; Saidi et al., 2023) Origin (Cantillo et al., 2021; Petereit et al., 2022; Risius et al., 2017; Saidi et al., 2022) High knowledge (Hoque & Alam, 2020; Krešić et al., 2022; Pulcini et al., 2020) Quality perception (Bacher, 2015; Conte et al., 2014) Quality labels (Cantillo et al., 2021; European Commission, 2021c) The production method or, more explicitly, whether the fish comes from aquaculture or wild fisheries, is one of its singular characteristics. Except for fish and some minor exceptions, it is difficult to find any example of terrestrial animals intended for meat production in the EU that 1. INTRODUCTION 25 have both versions available at the selling point, the farmed and the wild one. This dichotomy in fish production methods has caused a divergence in consumers’ perceptions. While wild fish enjoy a good reputation among European consumers, farmed fish still hold a less positive perception. Indeed, various studies found that consumers believe that wild fish outperformed farmed fish in several aspects, including being of better quality, containing fewer antibiotics, being fresher, healthier, more natural, and nutritious, having a better taste, and in terms of animal welfare, among others (Claret et al., 2014, 2016; Feucht & Zander, 2015; Hall & Amberg, 2013; López-Mas et al., 2021; Reig et al., 2019; Rickertsen et al., 2017; Risius et al., 2019; Schlag & Ystgaard, 2013; Stubbe & Yang, 2011; Vanhonacker et al., 2013; Verbeke, Sioen et al., 2007; Wongprawmas et al., 2022). This less positive image of farmed fish when it is compared with their wild counterparts has become a barrier to the acceptance of the whole aquaculture sector (Altintzoglou et al., 2010), which may be translated into lower consumption (López-Mas et al., 2023), as may have occurred it the EU. At the same time, another factor responsible for the low aquaculture fish consumption can be related to the small range of fish species in the EU market (Lazo, 2017). Aquaculture fish production is mainly focused on a few species; indeed, the top ten most produced fish species represent 92.8% of the total production in the EU, including rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss W.) (33.2%), sea bream (Sparus aurata L.) (16.9%), sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax L.) (14.7%), and common carp (Cyprinus carpio L.) (13.1%) as the most produced species (APROMAR, 2022). Therefore, if a specific farmed fish species is unavailable in the market, consumers are forced to buy its wild counterpart. Also related to product variety that may negatively affect fish consumption are the fewer new processed products available in the market compared with other sectors, such as meat (Mintel, 2023), being especially low for aquaculture fish processed products (Lazo, 2017). Within this framework, it is crucial to understand how consumers perceive aquaculture products (Reig et al., 2019), which factors determine their food choices (van Kleef et al., 2005), and which are the main obstacles behind them to stimulate its consumption and ensure the full development of the aquaculture sector in the EU. 1.2. Food choice: strategies to persuade consumers Food choice is a daily life action that humans must face every day involving the selection and consumption of foods and beverages (Sobal et al., 2006). Although it may seem simple, understanding food-related consumer behaviour is complex as it is influenced by many interacting factors (Alonso & Grande, 2015; Hoque & Alam, 2020; Köster, 2009). Fortunately, multiple theories, frameworks, and models can assist in predicting consumer behaviour and food choice (Sobal et al., 2006). Such models simplify a rather more complex reality (Alonso & Grande, 2015), as the diversity of factors involved in food choice is vast and enormously varied (Sobal et al., 2006). Multiple models exist because no single one can accurately predict consumer behaviour. From the various models available in the literature (Asioli et al., 2017; Font-i-Furnols & Guerrero, 2014; Köster, 2009; Marques et al., 2022), a compilation was made to ease the understanding of the underlying motives behind consumers’ food choices (Figure 3). 1. INTRODUCTION 32 1.2.3.1 Intrinsic characteristics The first purchase is mainly conditioned by the product’s extrinsic attributes (Frewer & van Trijp, 2007), as consumers generally do not taste it before its acquisition (Fenko et al., 2018). Hence, in the absence of sensory information, consumers must rely on extrinsic food factors (Symmank, 2019). However, in repeating purchases, other aspects may play an important role, including memory, knowledge, and previous experience, as well as intrinsic characteristics, especially sensory ones (Ares & Varela, 2018b). The relevance that sensory properties have for individuals’ preferences (Risvik, 1994) and how their preferences may influence food choices (Ahrens, 2015) are acknowledged. Sensory characteristics of food products can be divided according to the order in which senses perceive them: smell, appearance, taste/flavour, and texture (Dairou & Sieffermann, 2002). Even though appearance is a sensory property, which depends on the physical and chemical properties of products, it is closer to the extrinsic characteristic domain. Orthonasal smell is detected when food volatiles enter the nostrils and reach the olfactory receptors (Meilgaard et al., 2016), while retronasal smell depends on the molecules rising from the mouth (Lawless & Heymann, 2010). Scent-encoded information is stored in individuals’ memory and lasts longer than any other senses (Kotler & Keller, 2016). Indeed, the smell can modify the evaluation of food products; hence, can influence consumers’ purchasing decisions (Kotler & Keller, 2016). Both aromas and flavour depend on a mixture of multiple volatile compounds (Lawless & Heymann, 2010). Flavour combines olfactory and gustatory stimuli (Spence, 2015). Humans can distinguish between five basic tastes, namely bitter, salty, sour, sweet, and umami, which are perceived by the tongue and mouth and are caused by the soluble substances in foods (Meilgaard et al., 2016). Sensors located in the oral cavity (lips, teeth, tongue, and throat) also perceive the texture of foods (Lawless & Heymann, 2010). Texture, along with the rest of the sensory characteristics, is key in determining consumers’ acceptance (DeMan et al., 2018; Frewer & van Trijp, 2007). Indeed, this is precisely the aim of the “sensory marketing” strategy, to engage consumers’ senses and influence their perceptions and behaviours (Kotler & Keller, 2016). Sensory characteristics, in turn, depend on the chemical composition of foods, as do nutritional properties. Finding nutritious food sources is vital for survival; humans should determine which nourishing foods to ingest and which ones to reject (Spence et al., 2016). Within nutritional characteristics, there are three main groups of macronutrients (carbohydrates, proteins, and fats). Depending on the individual, the presence or absence of these macronutrients in food may encourage or discourage consumption. In the same vein, nutritional properties may play a particularly relevant role in individuals’ food choices following restrictive diets either for health reasons (e.g., reduction of fat intake) or in the search for specific benefits, such as weight reduction or gaining muscle mass (e.g., high protein content). 1.2.3.2 Extrinsic characteristics Extrinsic characteristics are those associated with the product but are not physically a part of it, including brand, label, claim, packaging, and price (Bernués et al., 2003; Fandos & Flavián, 2006; Fernqvist & Ekelund, 2014). It is well recognised that extrinsic features of food products 1. INTRODUCTION 33 can significantly influence consumers’ perceptions (Meilgaard et al., 2016). Most food choices are made without direct experience of its intrinsic characteristics (Frewer & van Trijp, 2007), therefore, consumers have to rely on extrinsic ones. Indeed, irrefutable proof that extrinsic features play a critical role in purchasing decisions is that about 90% of consumers buy food products only by examining the front-of-pack (Urbany et al., 1996). Consumers are increasingly making in-store, impulsive buying decisions, especially in the food domain (Hallez et al., 2020). Certainly, food shopping is regarded as a low-involvement process in which consumers expend little cognitive effort (Kumar et al., 2020; Silayoi & Speece, 2004). Indeed, around 76% of purchasing decisions occur at the point of sale (POPAI, 2014). Therefore, grabbing consumers’ attention at the point of purchase is primordial in ensuring the long-term commercial success of products (Simmonds & Spence, 2017), and one of the best ways to do it is through the packaging. Food packaging is far more than merely a structural element whose sole purpose is storing and protecting products (Simmonds & Spence, 2017). Packaging can capture consumers’ attention at the selling point and ensure that products are differentiated from their competitors (López-Mas, Claret, Bermúdez et al., 2022). Therefore, the packaging is a crucial marketing tool on its own, capable of significantly influencing consumers’ perceptions, opinions, and food choices (Ares & Deliza, 2010; Butkevičiene et al., 2008; Newman et al., 2016; Schifferstein et al., 2013; Wyrwa & Barska, 2017). As van Rompay and Veltkamp (2014) stated, packaging can be the most significant communication element at the food’s selling point. Therefore, the role of packaging is increasingly recognised as an indispensable constituent of any marketing strategy (Hallez et al., 2020; Wyrwa & Barska, 2017) that can reach almost all consumers of a particular product category (Butkevičiene et al., 2008). To ensure that food packaging transmits the message, attracts consumers’ attention in-store, and enhances its food experience, many parameters may be considered during its design (Simmonds & Spence, 2017), which may be broadly divided into textual or visual attributes. Visual cues deliver non-verbal information, which primarily appeals to individuals’ emotions (e.g., size, shape, colour, or pictures) (Butkevičiene et al., 2008; Hallez et al., 2020; Heide & Olsen, 2017). In contrast, textual cues provide written or numerical information; which mainly affects individuals’ cognition (e.g., labelling, ingredients, cooking instructions, or claims) (Butkevičiene et al., 2008; Hallez et al., 2020; Silayoi & Speece, 2004). Consequently, visual and textual cues constitute salient elements in consumers’ perceptions and influence their food choices (Fenko et al., 2018; Hallez et al., 2020; Silayoi & Speece, 2004). Usually, food labels are key extrinsic cues that display both visual and textual attributes (Rasmussen et al., 2013). A label’s written information generally includes ingredients, quantity, serving size, suggested use, expiration date, nutritional values, and instructions for preparation, storage, and proper disposal (Heide & Olsen, 2017). Many of these parameters are optional, while others are mandatory and strictly controlled by law. In particular, European food product labels are controlled by Regulation (EU) 1169/2011. In turn, any nutritional or health claim displayed on a food’s label must follow Regulation (EC) 1924/2006. Claims are textual cues in the form of short statements that provide valuable information to consumers, such as “low-fat” or “source of protein”. which sometimes may encourage consumers to purchase a product (Wyrwa & Barska, 2017). 1. INTRODUCTION 34 Another attention-grabbing element of food labels is the product’s brand placement along with brand strength (Bialkova et al., 2020). Branding is widely known to significantly influence consumer perception, which is an extrinsic characteristic of any goods (Frewer & van Trijp, 2007), including food products. Indeed, consumers often consider brand, but also price, as an indicator of the quality of products (Claret et al., 2012). Price is among the most important extrinsic features of food products as it may play a crucial role in the decision-making process (Conte et al., 2014; Kole et al., 2009; Meiselman & MacFie, 1996; Pieniak et al., 2010; Saidi et al., 2022; Weatherell et al., 2003). According to Meiselman and MacFie (1996), price, along with availability, dominates consumption. In particular, when there is little information available, individuals tend to rely heavily on the price to make the purchasing decision (Veale et al., 2006). If products’ prices are excessively low, this can create mistrust among consumers, while if prices are exaggeratedly high, they are doomed to fail. 1.3. Measurement of consumers’ behaviour Understanding consumer behaviour is complex (Alonso & Grande, 2015; Köster, 2009) and, for this reason, no single technique to measure it exists (de Wijk & Noldus, 2021). Instead, understanding consumer behaviour can be approached from numerous techniques that provide complementary information (Pérez & Salvador, 2022; Rocha et al., 2019; van Bommel et al., 2020). Selecting the most appropriate ones depends on the study’s objective. Among the array of techniques available to measure consumers’ behaviour, a primary distinction can be made between implicit and explicit measurements (Piqueras-Fiszman et al., 2013), but also between quantitative and qualitative approaches (Pérez & Salvador, 2022). More details about each technique are provided in the following sections. 1.3.1. Explicit and implicit measurements The Cambridge dictionary defines explicit as “communicated directly in a clear and exact way”, while implicit is described as “suggested but not communicated directly” (Cambridge University Press, 2023). In the field of consumer behaviour, explicit measurements refer to those that collect individuals’ responses explicitly stated through conscious introspection. In contrast, implicit techniques attempt to capture consumers’ behaviour at a subconscious level, collecting responses that participants cannot control (Rocha et al., 2019). Social conventions may constrain the expression of individuals’ opinions (Donoghue, 2000) collected through explicit measurements (López-Mas, Claret, Bermúdez et al., 2022). In this sense, implicit techniques are especially relevant for inquiring into individuals’ thoughts that are not accessible by simply asking them (Nosek et al., 2011), as they have the major strength of providing a range of more objective and less biased measurements (Piqueras-Fiszman et al., 2013). Implicit techniques for measuring an individual’s behaviour are classified into four categories depending on what is intended to be measured: (1) activity of the central nervous system (e.g., electroencephalography, magnetic resonance imaging); (2) activity of the 1. INTRODUCTION 35 autonomic (peripheral) nervous system (e.g., eye tracking, skin conductance, heart rate); (3) expressive measures (e.g., facial expression, electromyography); and (4) behavioural measures (e.g., implicit association test) (de Wijk & Noldus, 2021; Nosek et al., 2011; Piqueras-Fiszman et al., 2013; Rocha et al., 2019; van Bommel et al., 2020). Despite the apparent advantages of implicit measurements, one of the main drawbacks is the difficulty of interpreting the results. Furthermore, an additional limitation of such techniques is that they are not practical for being implemented with a large pool of consumers (Thomas & Chambault, 2016), which limits the extrapolation of the conclusions to the population. For this reason, explicit measurements have dominated consumer research and sensory analysis fields in recent decades (de Wijk & Noldus, 2021; Gonzalez Viejo et al., 2019; Kytö et al., 2019). A wide variety of explicit techniques are available to measure consumers’ behaviour (Thomas & Chambault, 2016). Explicit measurements can be classified into qualitative or quantitative techniques, depending on the nature of the data gathered. The use of focus groups is one of the most common methods employed to gather qualitative data, while surveys are widely used to gather quantitative data. 1.3.2. Qualitative techniques Qualitative research provides insight into the cognitive and rational side of consumers (Guerrero, 2012) in a more profound but less structured way than quantitative research does (e.g., fixed questionnaires) (Lawless & Heymann, 2010). Bazeley (2013) defined qualitative research as a “covering term for a variety of approaches to research that tend to focus on the qualities of things more than their quantity”. Among the most widespread qualitative approaches, focus groups are of special relevance (van Kleef et al., 2005), although other methodologies exist, such as in-depth interviews, focus panels, mini groups, and ethnographic participant observation, among others (Stewart et al., 2007). A focus group is an open discussion about a specific topic in which participants, often consumers, sit around a table and freely discuss that particular topic guided by a moderator (Meilgaard et al., 2016). Issues not easily assessed in surveys can usually be addressed through focus groups (Kotler & Keller, 2016). According to Krueger and Casey (2015), every focus group discussion has five common features: (1) it involves a small group of people, usually around eight to ten; (2) participants are selected according to certain criteria (e.g., frequency of consumption); (3) it provides qualitative data; (4) it is a focused discussion around a specific topic; and (5) it is aimed at obtaining insights about the subject of interest. The moderator’s function is to direct the discussion toward the topic being studied, generally following a structured guideline. The moderator’s guide usually gathers some of the multiple group dynamic techniques available to uncover participants’ real opinions (Meilgaard et al., 2016). One of the most common is the “presentation technique”, used at the beginning of any focus group as a warm-up to create a friendly and comfortable environment among participants (Bazeley, 2013; Krueger & Casey, 2015). A primary distinction in focus group approaches is between projective and creative techniques (Stein, 2015). 1. INTRODUCTION 36 Creative techniques centre on creating a pool of candidate ideas through cognitive mental processes (Banović et al., 2016; Garfield et al., 2001). Such techniques are especially relevant for the NPD process, particularly at early stages, during idea generation (Banović et al., 2016; Chang, 2019; Moon et al., 2018). Among the techniques available are direct analogies (Dahl & Moreau, 2002), brainstorming, empathy design, and storyboarding (Banović et al., 2016). In contrast, projective techniques are grounded on inferring an individual’s unconscious desires by using ambiguous and unstructured stimuli, in which the subjects project their beliefs, attitudes, feelings, and motivations (Donoghue, 2000). The more vague, unstructured, and ambiguous the stimulus, the more the individuals may reveal their undercover personality (Donoghue, 2000; van Kleef et al., 2005). Among the wide range of projective techniques it is worth highlighting the Rorschach test (Rorschach & Morgenthaler, 1942), drawing techniques (Garb et al., 2002), sentence completion tasks (Donoghue, 2000; Garb et al., 2002; Vidal et al., 2013), and word associations (Banović et al., 2016; Donoghue, 2000; Guerrero et al., 2010; Melendrez-Ruiz et al., 2021; Vidal et al., 2013). Qualitative methodologies provide some advantages as they are especially useful in capturing consumers’ spoken needs, exploring their behaviour, attitudes, wants, and needs (Ares & Varela, 2018a; Lawless & Heymann, 2010; Pérez & Salvador, 2022; Witell et al., 2011). Additionally, interaction between participants is a distinct feature of focus groups and also one of their major advantages. Lastly, focus groups are extensively used to understand the underlying motives behind individual food choices, to generate ideas for new products, and to accelerate the NPD process (Earle & Earle, 2008; López-Mas, Claret, Stancu et al., 2022). Despite the valuable insights that qualitative techniques provide, some of their disadvantages have limited the expansion of their use, including data interpretation difficulties and the lack of representativeness of the population. Many authors have agreed that the interpretation of qualitative data is one of its main disadvantages as they have long been criticised for their subjective nature (Guerrero et al., 2009; Pokorny et al., 2018; Symmank, 2019). The traditional semantic analysis of focus groups involves transcribing the discussion (Stewart et al., 2007). From this transcription, the researchers extract the main conclusions of the discussion in a rather subjective process (Guerrero et al., 2009; Symmank, 2019). It is precisely to aid in reducing the data interpretation subjectivity and researchers’ biases that the “pseudo-triangulation” process is useful (Ares & Varela, 2018a; Guerrero et al., 2010). “Pseudotriangulation” is grounded on the independent interpretation of three experts, sharing the results, and reaching a consensus on the main conclusions. Fortunately, in recent years, some content analysis software (e.g., Alceste, ATLAS.ti, and NVivo) have become available to assist in the interpretation of qualitative data (Ares & Varela, 2018a; Illia et al., 2012), although its subjective nature and its associated disadvantages cannot be entirely overcome. The other major disadvantage of qualitative research is the low number of participants (Lawless & Heymann, 2010), which is usually not representative of the population. Therefore, caution is required in generalising the insight gathered to the general population (Lawless & Heymann, 2010). For this reason, focus groups are regarded as mainly exploratory rather than verifier techniques (Guerrero et al., 2010; Lawless & Heymann, 2010; Masumoto, 2007; Pérez & Salvador, 2022). Therefore, it is common in the research process to use focus groups as a preliminary step that precedes a quantitative phase (Symmank, 2019). 1. INTRODUCTION 37 1.3.3. Quantitative techniques Quantitative techniques gather numerical measures of previously established variables through predesigned surveys or questionnaires to capture consumers’ opinions, habits, beliefs, and behaviours, among others (Pérez & Salvador, 2022). Therefore, results obtained with quantitative techniques are numerical data allowing statistical treatment and the drawing of representative conclusions about the population (Lawless & Heymann, 2010). A survey systematically gathers information by asking many individuals the same set of questions (Cambridge University Press, 2023). Data collection can be conducted face-to-face, by telephone, or through self-administered paper or online questionnaires. Information gathered usually belongs to a subsample representative of a larger population, allowing the results to be extrapolated (Masumoto, 2007; Pérez & Salvador, 2022). To conduct a survey, a questionnaire is required (Krosnick & Presser, 2010), which generally contains standardised questions similar for all participants (Masumoto, 2007). These may be open questions, which permit respondents to use their own words to reply; closed questions, which ask them to choose one alternative between an array of options (Krosnick & Presser, 2010); or mixed questions. Individuals’ responses to closed questions are sometimes quantified by itemised rating scales, which may use numbers or brief descriptions to measure the intensity of sensations (Crawford, 1997; Lawless & Heymann, 2010), although they may also be helpful for measuring beliefs, attitudes, or opinions, among many others. Scales using words or brief descriptions are called “semantic scales” and require assigning numbers to semantic categories to perform further statistical analysis (Masumoto, 2007; Meilgaard et al., 2016). The number assignation depends on the number of categories, with 1 usually being the lowest intensity, increasing by one unit per category until reaching the maximum number. The Likert scale is one of the best-known semantic scales used in social and consumer research science (Joshi et al., 2015). The scale measures the degree of agreement with a given statement (item) and always has an odd number of categories. The extremes are labelled, from left to right, from low to high intensity, as “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. In the middle of the scale, there is a neutral category (neither agree nor disagree), which allows the participant to select any category in a balanced and symmetrical way (Joshi et al., 2015). Although some authors use five-point Likert scales (e.g., Pieniak et al., 2013; Verbeke, Vermeir et al., 2007), it is more advisable to use seven, nine, or 11 points to apply a more appropriate parametric statistical analysis such as analysis of variance (ANOVA) (e.g., Claret et al., 2014; López-Mas et al., 2021; Sánchez-Bravo et al., 2020). OBJECTIVES 2. OBJECTIVES 39 2. OBJECTIVES 2.1. General objective The main objective of this doctoral thesis is to study, from various perspectives, consumers’ perceptions of aquaculture fish and fish products to stimulate their consumption and facilitate the full development of the aquaculture sector in the European Union. 2.2. Specific objectives To address this general aim, three specific objectives were defined to lay down the basis for different strategies to stimulate aquaculture fish consumption, each one belonging to one of the three main factors influencing individuals’ food choices; personal (beliefs), situation/environment (product variety), and product (packaging). • Understanding consumers’ beliefs when farmed fish and wild fish are compared to guide informational and promotional campaigns. General beliefs and sustainability beliefs were assessed. • Generation of novel ideas for new aquaculture fish products to increase the product variety on the market. • Optimisation of extrinsic characteristics of a new aquaculture fish product according to consumers’ demands to attract their attention and to increase its potential success in the market; the product’s packaging was targeted. METHODOLOGY 3. METHODOLOGY 41 3. METHODOLOGY The methodology used throughout this doctoral thesis is detailed in each of the scientific publications compiled within. However, a brief overview of the methods used is presented in Figure 5 and described in the following sections. The figure shows how the understanding of aquaculture fish consumption has been approached through the three main factors influencing consumer behaviour in the food domain: personal, situational and environmental, and product. With regard to the personal factor, the socio-cultural characteristics of consumers and, more specifically, their beliefs were addressed. First, a survey assessed consumers’ general beliefs about wild fish compared with farmed fish (Publication 1: general beliefs). Due to the increasing importance of sustainability issues for consumers, a second survey was conducted only focusing on their beliefs about the sustainability of wild fish compared to farmed fish (Publication 2: sustainability beliefs). The research on the situational and environmental factors was centred on product variety. Several focus groups with consumers were conducted to generate ideas for new aquaculture fish products (Publication 3: product variety), aiming to increase the product variety on supermarket shelves to encourage consumers to increase their consumption. Finally, in terms of the product factor, food products’ extrinsic characteristics were targeted, specifically the packaging. A first study was conducted to design the packaging for a new aquaculture fish product through a survey. A successive second study validated the packaging against its possible competitors in the market by applying a combination of explicit and implicit methods (Publication 4: packaging optimisation). Figure 5. Thesis’s methodology overview and the derived publications. 4. RESULTS 48 4. RESULTS The four scientific publications compiled within this doctoral thesis are attached in this section in the following order: 1. Farmed or wild fish? Segmenting European consumers based on their beliefs. 2. European consumers’ beliefs about the main pillars of the sustainability: a comparison between wild and farmed fish. 3. Making full use of qualitative data to generate new fish product ideas through cocreation with consumers: a methodological approach. 4. Co-creation with consumers for packaging design validated through implicit and explicit methods: exploratory effect of visual and textual. PUBLICATION 1 Farmed or wild fish? Segmenting European consumers based on their beliefs López-Mas, L.; Claret, A.; Reinders, M.J.; Banovic, M.; Krystallis, A.; Guerrero, L. Farmed or wild fish? Segmenting European consumers based on their beliefs. Aquaculture. 15 February 2021, vol. 532, 735992. © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Available on: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.735992. Aquaculture International 1 3 Table 1 Sociodemographic and economic characteristics of the participants from the five selected countries (N = 2145) FR, France; DE, Germany; IT, Italy; PL, Poland; ES, Spain. *Quantitative variable mean values in a 7-point scale: economic situation ranges from 1 (difficult) to 7 (well-off); place of living: rural–urban ranges from 1 (rural) to 7 (urban); place of living: inland-coastal ranges from 1 (inland) to 7 (coastal); Is farmed/wild fish sustainable? ranges from 1 (not sustainable at all) to 7 (very sustainable); **age (continuous variable) Overall FR DE IT PL ES Quantitative (mean values)* Age** 40.7 42.2 41.8 43.6 36.4 39.6 Economic situation 4.3 4.2 4.4 4.1 4.9 3.9 Rural–urban 5.1 4.6 4.5 5.1 6.0 5.1 Inland-coastal 3.8 3.4 4.1 3.5 3.8 4.1 Is farmed fish sustainable? 4.6 3.9 4.8 4.7 4.5 4.9 Is wild fish sustainable? 4.8 4.8 4.6 4.7 5.3 4.5 Qualitative (relative frequencies [%]) Country 100.0 22.0 19.3 18.8 19.7 20.2 Gender Female 54.5 63.7 44.2 54.0 52.0 57.0 Male 45.5 36.3 55.8 46.0 48.0 43.0 Education level Basic 1.8 1.3 2.4 1.5 1.2 2.5 Secondary 9.2 4.7 16.2 13.1 2.8 10.2 High school/technical training 42.6 38.9 43.2 45.3 43.5 42.5 University 46.4 55.2 38.2 40.1 52.5 44.8 Children at home No 50.2 54.4 54.6 62.6 32.9 46.9 Yes 49.8 45.6 45.4 37.4 67.1 53.1 Aquaculture International 1 3 validate the number of clusters retained by checking how many individuals were properly classified in their corresponding cluster (confusion matrix). A subsequent cluster profiling allowed for the identification of statistical differences among the selected segments for the participants’ sociodemographic and economic characteristics, as well as the two questions about the overall sustainability perception. To carry it out, an additional two-way ANOVA with Tukey’s HSD post hoc test was applied for quantitative variables, whereas a k proportion test after a pairwise comparison with the Marascuilo procedure (Marascuilo and Serlin 1988) was used for qualitative variables. Finally, a paired sample t-test was conducted to assess statistical differences between overall fish sustainability perception. Results European consumers’ sustainability beliefs European participants’ beliefs comparing sustainability of wild fish with farmed fish are shown in Table2. All beliefs are presented in the format “Wild fish _____ than farmed fish” to facilitate the subsequent interpretation. The mid-point of the 7-point Likert scale indicates neither agreement nor disagreement (4), values lower than 4 indicate disagreement, while values higher than 4 indicate agreement with the beliefs statement presented. Table 2 Mean values of the selected beliefs comparing wild versus farmed fish per country Mean values in a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Superscript a–d: different letters in the same row indicate statistically significant differences (p ≤ 0.05); the absence of letters within a row indicates no statistical differences Pillar Item Mean values Wild fish _____ than farmed fish Overall FR DE IT PL ES General is more sustainable 3.4 3.9a3.2b3.5b3.4b3.2b has more animal welfare 4.9 5.1a5.1a5.0a4.4b5.1a is more ethical 3.7 4.0a3.6b3.7ab 3.5b3.6b is more organic 4.8 4.5c5.1a4.7bc 4.8ab 4.8ab Environmental catching causes more environmental damage 4.5 4.1d4.4cd 4.7ab 4.5bc 4.9a is more locally obtained (closer origin) 3.4 3.6a3.2c3.6ab 3.2c3.3bc catching is more polluting 4.3 4.0c4.2bc 4.4ab 4.4ab 4.6a practices preserve more the marine ecosystem 4.1 4.0b4.4a3.9b4.4a3.9b provides more environmental benefits 3.5 3.9a3.4b3.5b3.5b3.4b Social generates more employment 3.4 3.5a3.2b3.4ab 3.2b3.7a generates better employment 4.2 4.2ab 4.3a4.1b4.4a4.2ab industry favours more the gender equality 3.6 3.8a3.6ab 3.8a3.6ab 3.5b improves more the human living conditions 3.5 3.8a3.3b3.5b3.3b3.4b provides more social benefits 4.3 4.2 4.4 4.2 4.2 4.4 Economic improves more the local economy 4.4 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.4 4.5 generates more rural development 3.4 3.6a3.2b3.6a3.2b3.6a limits more the expansion of tourism 4.1 4.0bc 4.4a3.8c4.2ab 4.1ab ensures more fair fish prices 3.2 3.4 3.2 3.2 3.3 3.1 provides more economic benefits 4.3 4.2b4.3ab 4.1b4.3ab 4.5a Aquaculture International 1 3 Overall, when both production systems were compared, European consumers considered farmed fish as being more sustainable, more locally obtained, providing more environmental benefits, generating more employment, improving more the human living conditions, generating more rural development, and ensuring more fair fish prices than wild fish. Conversely, wild fish was perceived as ensuring better animal welfare, being more organic, and causing more environmental damage than farmed fish. When focusing on participants’ beliefs from different countries, there were significant differences in 16 out of 19 beliefs. If general sustainability is targeted, farmed fish was perceived as more sustainable in all countries, even though French respondents exhibited scores more neutral (3.9), closer to the scale’s mid-point. Regarding animal welfare, participants from all countries believed that wild fish has higher welfare, even though this belief was lower for Polish. Higher ethics of farmed fish was recognised by respondents from all countries, but this belief was less salient for Italian and, specially, for French participants whose punctuations were in the mid-point of the scale. The belief that wild fish is more organic was shared by respondents from all countries, even though it was significantly stronger for German than for French and Italian participants. Concerning the environmental pillar, the belief that wild fish catching causes more environmental damage was widespread across all countries, although French held it weaker when compared with Spanish respondents. In the same line, French participants perceived significantly less prominent than the rest of the countries the belief that farmed fish provides more environmental benefits. In general terms, participants perceived farmed fish as more locally obtained. In particular, German and Polish respondents were the ones that significantly perceived farmed fish as being of closer origin when they were compared with French participants. Spanish respondents believed that wild fish catching is more polluting than French did. Finally, significant differences were found in the preservation of the marine ecosystem beliefs. German and Polish participants stressed that wild fish practices preserve more the marine ecosystem, while the remaining countries did not have a clear trend against one or another production system. If the spotlight is on the social pillar of the sustainability, participants from all countries agreed that farmed fish improves more the human living conditions, although this belief was held less strongly by French. German and Polish respondents perceived significantly more prominent than Spanish and French the belief that farmed fish generates more employment. Conversely, also participants from Germany and Poland were the ones who believed that employment generated by aquaculture fish industry is worse when compared with the same belief held by Italian participants. Respondents from all countries stressed that farmed fish provides more gender equality, although Italian and French held it weaker than Spanish participants did. Concerning the economic pillar, the belief that farmed fish generates more rural development was more salient among German and Polish participants when compared with the other countries. Regarding the expansion of tourism, Italian respondents believed that farmed fish limits the expansion of tourism while the rest of the countries, in particular Germany, believed otherwise. Finally, participants from Spain believed that wild fish provides more economic benefits than Italian and French did. Segments ofconsumers The two-step clustering analysis suggested the existence of four segments of consumers with similar sustainability beliefs regarding wild fish when compared with farmed fish Aquaculture International 1 3 (Table3). The DA allowed to classify each individual in their expected cluster for 87.9% of the participants, confirming the optimal four-segment solution. Participants from segment 1 (n = 420 respondents; 19.6% of the total sample) were labelled as “ambivalent” as their scores showed positive opinions towards both production systems. On the one hand, some of their beliefs were in favour of wild fish as it was perceived as having better animal welfare, being more organic, preserving more the marine ecosystem, generating better employment, providing more social benefits, improving more the local economy, and providing more economic benefits. On the other hand, some of their beliefs were in favour of farmed fish as it was perceived as being more sustainable, being more ethical, causing less environmental damage, being more locally obtained, being less polluting, providing more environmental benefits, generating more employment, favouring more the gender equality, improving more the human living conditions, generating more rural development, and ensuring more fair fish prices. Regarding the belief about the limitation of tourism expansion, it is difficult to predict whether it favours farmed or wild fish as it is more ambiguous when compared with the other beliefs (see the “European consumers’ sustainability beliefs” section). Table 3 Mean values of the four segments of participants identified according to their beliefs comparing sustainability of wild versus farmed fish Mean values in a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Superscript a–d: different letters in the same row indicate statistically significant differences (p ≤ 0.05); the absence of letters within a row indicates no statistical differences. Segment 1, ambivalent; segment 2, pro aquaculture; segment 3, pro wild fish; segment 4, impartial Pillar Item Segment (mean values) Wild fish _____ than farmed fish 1 (n = 420) 2 (n = 472) 3 (n = 653) 4 (n = 600) General is more sustainable 2.4c2.4c4.4a4.0b has more animal welfare 5.7a4.4b5.7a4.0c is more ethical 2.5d2.9c4.6a4.1b is more organic 5.6a4.3b5.5a3.8c Environmental catching causes more environmental damage 5.5a5.6a3.6c3.9b is more locally obtained (closer origin) 2.5c2.7b3.9a4.0a catching is more polluting 5.5a5.2b3.5d3.7c practices preserve more the marine ecosystem 5.6a3.0d4.5b3.5c provides more environmental benefits 2.4d2.6c4.4a4.1b Social generates more employment 2.3d3.2c3.7b4.0a generates better employment 5.6a3.6c4.3b3.7c industry favours more the gender equality 2.5d3.3c4.0b4.3a improves more the human living conditions 2.4c2.9b4.0a4.1a provides more social benefits 5.6a3.6c4.6b3.6c Economic improves more the local economy 5.7a3.7d4.5b3.9c generates more rural development 2.4d3.0c3.8b4.0a limits more the expansion of tourism 5.5a4.0b3.8c3.6c ensures more fair fish prices 2.3d2.6c3.6b4.0a provides more economic benefits 5.5a3.7c4.4b3.8c Aquaculture International 1 3 Segment 2 (n = 472; 22.0%) grouped the participants whose beliefs favoured farmed fish and, consequently, it was labelled as “pro aquaculture”. Only two exceptions disturbed their unanimity on a better perception of farmed fish, as wild fish was perceived as having higher animal welfare (4.4) and being more organic (4.3). Segment 3 (n = 653; 30.4%) was labelled as “pro wild fish” as their participants’ beliefs had the tendency to favour wild fish. Respondents from this segment held the strongest beliefs, along with the participants belonging to segment 1, that wild fish has higher animal welfare (5.7) and is more organic (5.5) than farmed fish. Other beliefs in favour of wild fish were related to its more ethical character, its lower pollution, its higher preservation of the marine ecosystem, and its higher improvement of the local economy. Almost all remaining beliefs also were in favour of wild fish, although they were not held with the same strong convictions as its mean values were around the midpoint of the scale (4 ± 0.5). Finally, segment 4 (n = 600; 28.0%) was labelled as “impartial” as consumers’ punctuations were in the neighbourhood of the mid-point of the scale (4 ± 0.5). Their beliefs did not show a clear trend in favour or against the sustainability of one or another production system. Segment’s profiling The four segments of consumers were profiled according to participants’ sociodemographic and economic characteristics, as well as their overall perception of farmed and wild fish sustainability (Table4). Differences between segments were found in all variables except for education. The segment “ambivalent” grouped the younger participants, with a higher perceived economic situation, from urban and coastal areas, which considered sustainable both farmed and wild fish. More German and Polish, followed by Spanish, took part in this segment. The “pro aquaculture” segment grouped older respondents, together with the “pro wild fish” segment. Participants from the “pro aquaculture” segment, along with the “impartial” segment, perceived the sustainability of wild fish as lower when compared to the other two segments. More Italian and Spanish participants took part in this segment, but also more males. Participants belonging to the “pro wild fish” segment were the ones that perceived the sustainability of farmed fish as lower when compared with the other segments. More French participants than Polish ones belonged to this segment, as well as more females. Lastly, “impartial” segment grouped more French and Polish participants, but it did not stand out for any other sociodemographic or economic characteristic. Discussion European consumers’ sustainability beliefs The first aim of this study was to assess European consumer beliefs regarding sustainability of farmed fish when compared with wild fish. As expected, when examining the overall mean values, there was not a general cognitive consensus; i.e., some of the Aquaculture International 1 3 beliefs favoured farmed fish while others favoured the wild option. These mean values ranged between 3.4 and 4.9, close to the scale’s mid-point, which normally is an indicator of high variability in the responses as frequently observed in overall acceptability scores (Font-i-Furnols and Guerrero 2014). Results showed that there were statistical differences between countries, but in most cases, consumers’ beliefs from all countries were in unison, i.e., different mean values but indicating agreement (higher than 4) or disagreement (lower than 4) in all countries. The only two beliefs with a slight disagreement between countries were related to the preservation of the marine ecosystem and the limitation of tourism expansion, probably because those are more ambiguous when compared with the other beliefs. Particularly, some participants believed that farmed fish limits the expansion of tourism (e.g., Italian), whereas other respondents believed Table 4 Sociodemographic and other characteristics of the participants grouped within the segments identified FRFrance, DEGermany, ITItaly, PLPoland, ESSpain.*Quantitative variable mean values in a 7-point scale: economic situation ranges from 1 (difficult) to 7 (well-off); place of living: rural–urban ranges from 1 (rural) to 7 (urban); place of living: inland-coastal ranges from 1 (inland) to 7 (coastal); Is farmed/wild fish sustainable? ranges from 1 (not sustainable at all) to 7 (very sustainable); **age (continuous variable). Superscript a–d: different letters in the same row indicate statistically significant differences (p ≤ 0.05); superscript A–C: different letters in the same column indicate statistically significant differences (p ≤ 0.05); the absence of letters within a row or a column indicates no statistical differences. The segment size or the number of individuals must be considered to compare the data between columns and rows, respectively. Segment 1, ambivalent; segment 2, pro aquaculture; segment 3, pro wild fish; segment 4, impartial Segment Number of individuals 1 (n = 420) 2 (n = 472) 3 (n = 653) 4 (n = 600) Quantitative (mean values)* Age** 38.9c43.0a41.2ab 39.7bc 2145 Economic situation 4.9a4.2b4.2b4.1b Rural–urban 5.5a5.2ab 5.0bc 4.8c Inland-coastal 4.5a3.5b3.8b3.5b Is farmed fish sustainable? 5.4a5.1b3.9d4.2c Is wild fish sustainable? 5.4a4.3c5.0b4.5c Qualitative (observed frequencies) Country FR 52Cb 70Cb 173Aa 176Aa 471 DE 111Aa 80BCb 126ABab 97Bb 414 IT 60BCb 119Aa 119ABab 106Bb 404 PL 108Aa 91ABCab 102Bb 122ABab 423 ES 89ABab 112ABa 133ABab 99Bb 433 Gender Female 211b227Bb 395Aa 335ab 1168 Male 209a245Aa 258Bb 265ab 977 Education Basic 11 5 12 10 38 Secondary 45 35 55 63 198 High school/ technical training 177 196 273 267 913 University 187 236 313 260 996 Children No 137Bb 265Aa 353Aa 322Aa 1077 Yes 283Aa 207Bb 300Bb 278Bb 1068 Aquaculture International 1 3 that is wild fish (e.g., the rest of the countries) that hampers tourism. Those results raise a question of whether the expansion of tourism seems to be beneficial or harmful for the overall sustainability. On the one hand, the limitation of tourism in coastal areas allows the preservation of the ecosystems (Nitivattananon and Srinonil 2019) (environmental pillar). On the other hand, the livelihoods of many coastal communities are dependent on tourism as a source of employment (European Commission 2021a) (economic and social pillars). This ambiguity may hinder consumers’ comprehension of the real meaning of this belief and, therefore, results obtained should be interpreted with caution. If a closer look is given at other beliefs, it could be seen that European respondents perceived farmed fish as more sustainable but with worst animal welfare. Similar results were reported by Hoerterer etal. (2022) for German consumers, who found that 40% of the general public agreed with the statement that “aquaculture is not good for fish welfare, but the only way to ensure seafood availability”. Farmed fish welfare has been criticised for a long time (Feucht and Zander 2015). Indeed, during the qualitative research phase of this study (López-Mas etal. 2021a), and as it was found in previous literature (Claret etal. 2014; López-Mas etal. 2021c), some consumers questioned farmed fish welfare and stated that wild fishes are “happier” because they can freely swim. However, this analogy was not applied to terrestrial animals, whose freedom is rarely questioned. What consumers probably do not know is that swimming freely is only one of the “five freedoms” defined by the Farm Animal Welfare Council. Those guidelines were widely adopted as a practical checklist for animal welfare assurance, which include freedom from (1) hunger and thirst; (2) discomfort; (3) pain, injury, and disease; (4) express normal behaviour; and (5) fear and distress (FAWC 2009; Stien etal. 2020). Therefore, it is important to transmit to consumers that fish welfare does not only depend on one single aspect but is a conjunction of different ones. In this line, it is worth informing consumers that despite farmed fish cannot swim in the open ocean, they gain in other aspects of animal welfare such as feed availability, absence of predators, control of diseases and parasites, among others. This information provision may help consumers to form an informational belief in favour of farmed fish welfare. As reported by Feucht and Zander (2015), aquaculture is sometimes criticised for its negative environmental impacts. However, results obtained within this study tend to indicate the opposite. Overall, European consumers believed that farmed fish causes less environmental damage, is less pollutant, and provides more environmental benefits. Considering the growing importance of environmental issues among consumers, this better perception should wisely be exploited in favour of aquaculture when communicating its benefits to citizens. Also related to environmental issues is the fish origin, as consumers associated longer distances between the fishing zone and the selling point with higher environmental impact (Feucht and Zander 2015). In line with those findings, participants from this study perceived farmed fish as more locally obtained (closer origin). In Europe, consumers increasingly demand products with short supply chains (European Commission 2021c), acquiring prominence initiatives such as Km 0 products. Besides, origin has gained relevance over the last years in fish purchase as, behind appearance and cost, it is the third most important aspect for Europeans when buying fish, increasing from 41% in 2018 (European Commission 2018) to 49% in 2021 (European Commission 2021d). Even so, considering that aquaculture facilities could be located closer to the consumption place, especially in landlocked regions, and that consumers already have a good perception, marketers should emphasise the closer origin of the farmed fish products to increase its demand (Petereit etal. 2022). The same reasoning may explain why German and Polish respondents are the ones that perceived farmed fish as of closer origin, probably because their inland aquaculture and Aquaculture International 1 3 inland fishery catching (e.g., rivers and lakes) production are higher (FAO 2020), as a result of their shorter coastline, when compared with the one from France, Italy, and Spain. Interestingly, the higher inland aquaculture production and inland fishery catching in Germany and Poland may also have influenced their perception of rural development, as inland aquaculture is particularly suitable for providing jobs in landlocked regions (European Commission 2021e). Indeed, the belief that farmed fish promote the rural development was more salient among German and Polish consumers than in other countries. Altogether, participants perceived that farmed fish generates more employment than wild fish; however, this belief was only supported by factual data in France and Poland (European Commission 2020). What is noteworthy is that participants slightly believed that farmed fish generates more employment but of lower quality than the one generated by wild fisheries. Results were contrary to what was expected considering that fishery workers are likely to stand long working hours, often far from home, in challenging work conditions, and often with the dangers associated with navigating on the high seas. Indeed, according to the International Labour Organization (ILO), fishing is among the most hazardous occupations in the world (FAO 2022; ILO 2007). Therefore, transforming this belief in favour of farmed fish is crucial for improving consumers’ perception of the aquaculture sector and its potential social benefits for the community. Respondents from all countries agreed that farmed fish provide more gender equality than wild fish, which is consistent with actual European figures (FAO 2020). Even so, the representativeness of females in the primary fish sector is minimal, around 3% for capture fisheries and 22% for aquaculture, although it increases in the processing sector. If differences between countries are targeted, 16 out of 19 items presented significant differences. Various studies reported that French participants have a worst perception of aquaculture production when compared with wild fishing (European Commission 2018; López-Mas etal. 2021b; Rickertsen etal. 2017). Those findings were corroborated in the present study as French participants showed a generally worst perception of aquaculture sustainability for all the explored pillars. Therefore, the general worst perception of farmed fish may have distorted French consumers’ perception of its sustainability. Indeed, French respondents were the ones who significantly scored lower on the question about overall farmed fish sustainability. If a closer look is given at both questions about overall sustainability of wild and farmed fish, European consumers perceived wild fish as being significantly more sustainable. In other words, if participants were directly asked about which production method is more sustainable, their answer was wild fish. However, if they were asked about different aspects (beliefs) of sustainability and its main pillars when wild and farmed fish are compared, farmed fish was favoured in many beliefs. This fact suggests that to effectively communicate aquaculture sustainability, it is better to focus on single aspects of the sustainability rather than encompassing the whole concept. Similar results were reported by López-Mas etal. (2022), who found that consumers placed higher importance on a single aspect of the environmental pillar (i.e., recyclability) rather than the whole concept of sustainability. A plausible reason for this fact may be the use and abuse of the term sustainability and its derivates, which might have caused some indifference among consumers (Luttenberger 2021). Segments ofconsumers andtheir profile The second aim of the study was to identify and profile segments of consumers with similar perceptions about fish sustainability. The findings showed that sustainability beliefs Aquaculture International 1 3 were useful for identifying segments of consumers and profiling them according to participants’ sociodemographic and economic characteristics. As pointed out by Stancu etal. (2022), one of the main advantages of identifying international segments of consumers is the possibility of uniting the communication efforts in favour of aquaculture rather than conducting country-specific strategies. As defined by Gardner (1987, p. 241), “ambivalence is a psychological state in which a person holds mixed feelings (positive and negative) towards some psychological object”. In the present study, segment 1 was labelled as “ambivalent” as participants showed mixed feelings, sometimes favouring sustainability of farmed fish while others wild fish. Honkanen and Olsen (2009) already reported the existence of a similar segment among Spanish consumers when it comes to aquaculture fish welfare and environmental issues. To target participants from “ambivalent” group, those worst perceived aspects regarding aquaculture fish should be addressed through communication and marketing campaigns. In this sense, fact-based communication campaigns may play a relevant role in enhancing the societal perception of aquaculture and adding value to the sector (Carrassón etal. 2021; Wongprawmas etal. 2022). However, caution is required when consumers are approached in any form. To improve the overall farmed fish image is probably better to highlight the positive aspects of aquaculture rather than pointing out the negative aspects of wild fish. Communicating negative facts to consumers could provoke a collateral effect and dull the general positive image that fish products enjoy, independent of the production method (Vanhonacker etal. 2013). Various studies reported that younger generations consume less fish (Pieniak etal. 2010; Pulcini etal. 2020; Skuland 2015; Verbeke and Vackier 2005). Considering that participants belonging to this segment, a part of being younger, are mainly from urban areas and have a higher perceived economic situation, strategies such as online shopping or delivery of ready-to-eat or ready-to-cook may increase their fish consumption (Cantillo etal. 2021). Indeed, as reported by Pulcini etal. (2020), younger generations have the highest rate of fish consumption out of home, but also the highest takeaway and street-food consumption. It is highly relevant that participants from the “pro aquaculture” segment, who are mostly in favour of aquaculture fish and that perceived the overall sustainability of wild fish as lower than other segments, believed that wild fish outperforms it in two aspects (i.e., animal welfare and organic character). This fact underlines the need to emphasise these two attributes when communicating aquaculture benefits to the public. Indeed, numerous studies reported the importance of fish welfare for consumers (Altintzoglou etal. 2010; European Commission 2021e; Risius etal. 2019; Saidi etal. 2022; Wongprawmas etal. 2022; Zander and Feucht 2018). As mentioned before, animal welfare may be addressed in several ways, including targeting the “five freedoms” defined by the Farm Animal Welfare Council. Therefore, when promoting farmed fish welfare, special emphasis should be placed on its freedom from hunger, discomfort, pain, injury, diseases, express normal behaviour, fear, and distress. In the same vein, considering the relevance of the organic character for consumers, it is important to inform them that fishing of wild animals could not be considered organic production (Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007). Therefore, providing information to consumers on organic farmed fish existence may offer aquaculture producers a marketing advantage over their wild counterpart (Engle etal. 2017). Certainly, there exists a positive correlation between knowledge and general fish consumption (Hoque and Alam 2020; Krešić etal. 2022), and more in particular, the consumption of organic aquatic foods (Pulcini etal. 2020). Consequently, more information should be given to consumers on the distinction between organic and sustainable, as the difference is sometimes not fully aware (Sánchez-Bravo etal. 2021). Aquaculture International 1 3 Despite the fact that older consumers tend to have a better perception of wild fish for various attributes (e.g., taste, health, and nutritious value) (Verbeke etal. 2007a), aged respondents of the present study were mainly split into two segments, the “pro wild fish” and the “pro aquaculture”, suggesting that there is no relationship between age and a better wild fish perception regarding sustainability beliefs. At a time, this lack of correlation may be caused by the lower concern of aged consumers about environmental, social, or ethical issues when compared with younger generations (European Commission 2021d), as the latter tend to be more sensitive regarding sustainability and animal welfare issues (Wongprawmas etal. 2022). Additionally, although more males took part in this segment, there are relatively few differences between males and females when it comes to attitudes towards aquaculture and fishery products (European Commission 2021d). Therefore, to target this segment, is probably better to focus on the country (Italy and Spain), which yields opportunities for conducting country-specific marketing campaigns and communication efforts, as are the nationalities most prevalent in this segment. Similarly, although strongly held, participants from the “pro wild fish” believed that wild fish has higher animal welfare and is more organic than farmed fish, while the remaining beliefs also favoured wild fish. Consequently, participants from this segment seem less likely to buy and adopt sustainable aquaculture fish products, as beliefs are prime determinants of human behaviour (Fishbein and Ajzen 2011), including food intake and food choices (Ares and Varela 2018). Even so, it is worth providing consumers with objective and truthful information coming from credible sources (Krešić etal. 2022) to transform inferential beliefs, sometimes based on prejudices against intensive terrestrial livestock and agricultural production (Engle etal. 2017; Feucht and Zander 2015; Verbeke etal. 2007a), into informational ones. Actually, Carrassón et al. (2021) demonstrated that providing consumers with scientifically based information can improve the perception of aquaculture. Bearing that participants in this segment perceived the sustainability of farmed fish as lower than the other segments, the information provision should focus on the crucial role that aquaculture may play in global sustainability. Indeed, the European Green Deal plan that Europe will become a climate-neutral continent by 2050 (European Commission 2020). Within this context, aquaculture is deemed crucial in creating a sustainable food system as a valuable method for obtaining food that can reduce the pressure on fisheries (FAO 2022). Considering that more French participants belonged to this segment, specific campaigns highlighting those aspects should be carried out in this country. Consumers of segment “impartial” had no clear belief against the sustainability of one or another production system. Previous studies also identified segments of consumers which were not involved with the product when different segmentation criteria were used. For example, Risius etal. (2019) identified five consumer segments based on sustainability attributes and country of origin of aquaculture products. One of the clusters identified was referred to as “average consumers” as their preference structure resembled the mean preferences of the overall sample. In the same line, Reinders etal. (2016) also identified a segment of consumers labelled as “ambiguous indifferent”, as they did not show any specific interest in the psychographic moderators studied regarding farmed fish. Similarly, Stancu etal. (2022) also reported the existence of a segment of consumers which was uninvolved or indifferent. In the present study, although it is not within its scope, it would be interesting to inquire whether consumers of the impartial segment are unaware or indifferent regarding fish sustainability. In the former case, as already reported by Risius etal. (2019), certified sustainable aquaculture is a relatively new market segment, which may have caused consumers’ unawareness. Therefore, providing consumers with information about sustainability could transform inferential beliefs into informational ones and, thus, raising consumers’ Aquaculture International 1 3 Authors and Affiliations LauraLópez‑Mas1,2· AnnaClaret1· GaëlleArvisenet3· RoserRomerodelCastillo2· ZeinKallas2· MassimoZuccaro4· LuisGuerrero1 * Luis Guerrero [email protected] Laura López-Mas [email protected]; [email protected] Anna Claret [email protected] Gaëlle Arvisenet [email protected] Roser Romero del Castillo roser[email protected] Zein Kallas [email protected] Massimo Zuccaro [email protected] 1 Food Quality andTechnology, Institute ofAgrifood Research andTechnology (IRTA), Finca Camps i Armet, s/n, 17121Monells, Spain 2 Department ofAgri-Food Engineering andBiotechnology (DEAB), Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC), Baix Llobregat Campus, Building D4, st/ Esteve Terradas, 8, 08860Castelldefels, Spain 3 Centre des Sciences du Goût et de L’Alimentation, CNRS, INRAE, Institut Agro, Université Bourgogne-Franche-Comté, F-21000Dijon, France 4 Mediterranean Agronomic Institute ofBari (CIHEAM), Via Ceglie, 9, 70010Valenzano, Italy PUBLICATION 3 Making full use of qualitative data to generate new fish product ideas through co-creation with consumers: a methodological approach López-Mas, L.; Claret, A.; Stancu, V.; Brunso, K.; Peral, I.; Santa Cruz, E.; Krystallis, A.; Guerrero, L. Making full use of qualitative data to generate new fish product ideas through co-creation with consumers: a methodological approach. Foods. 2022, vol. 11, no. 15, 2287. Under a CC BY 4.0 license. Available on: https://doi.org/10.3390/ foods11152287. Citation: López-Mas, L.; Claret, A.; Stancu, V.; Brunsø, K.; Peral, I.; Santa Cruz, E.; Krystallis, A.; Guerrero, L. Making Full Use of Qualitative Data to Generate New Fish Product Ideas through Co-Creation with Consumers: A Methodological Approach. Foods 2022,11, 2287. https://doi.org/10.3390/ foods11152287 Academic Editor: Cristina Calvo-Porral Received: 8 July 2022 Accepted: 27 July 2022 Published: 31 July 2022 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). foods Article Making Full Use of Qualitative Data to Generate New Fish Product Ideas through Co-Creation with Consumers: A Methodological Approach Laura López-Mas 1,2 , Anna Claret 1, Violeta Stancu 3, Karen Brunsø 3, Irene Peral 4, Elena Santa Cruz 4, Athanasios Krystallis 5and Luis Guerrero 1,* 1Food Quality and Technology, Institute of Agrifood Research and Technology (IRTA), Finca Camps i Armet, s/n, 17121 Monells, Spain; [email protected] (L.L.-M.); [email protected] (A.C.) 2Department of Agri-Food Engineering and Biotechnology (DEAB), Baix Llobregat Campus, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC), Building D4, st/Esteve Terradas, 8, 08860 Castelldefels, Spain 3MAPP Centre, Department of Management, Aarhus BSS, Aarhus University (AU), Fuglesangs Allé4, 8210 Aarhus, Denmark; [email protected] (V.S.); [email protected] (K.B.) 4AZTI, Food Research, Basque Research and Technology Alliance (BRTA), Parque Tecnológico de Bizkaia, Astondo Bidea, Edificio 609, 48160 Derio, Spain; [email protected] (I.P.); [email protected] (E.S.C.) 5Centre of Excellence in Food, Tourism and Leisure, American College of Greece (ACG), Gravias 6, 15342 Athens, Greece; [email protected] *Correspondence: lluis.guerrer[email protected]; Tel.: +34-97-263-0052 (ext. 1494) Abstract: Co-creation is a process that directly involves different stakeholders in the idea generation phase of a new product development process. A pool of 112 new aquaculture fish product ideas was obtained by applying a combination of creative and projective techniques to the co-creation process with consumers in six focus groups conducted in three European countries (Germany, France, and Spain). The subjectivity of qualitative data analysis (e.g., focus groups) is one of its recognised disadvantages. To overcome this drawback, a combination of specialised software (i.e., Alceste), along with word frequency, co-occurrence, and context checking, was applied to provide a different approach to data analyses in qualitative studies. The method identified the most salient dimensions behind the participants’ discourse (naturalness, quality, ethics, price, and health) and inferred the importance those dimensions had for them, thus proving the existence of a correlation of 0.7 between what the participants said (frequency of mention) and what they liked the most (importance). Overall, the exploratory approach proposed is deemed useful for drawing key conclusions from qualitative research, thus offering an alternative to traditional content analysis. In future, the results obtained may be useful for selecting the co-created ideas with the greatest potential to be well received in the market. Keywords: focus group; new product development; aquaculture; seafood; content analysis; pseudo-triangulation; context; co-occurrence; word frequency 1. Introduction Approximately 80% of new food products launched in the market fail within the first year [ 1 ]. One of the most effective ways to enhance new product success in the market is to actively involve end-users during the new product development (NPD) process [2,3] . The early stages of NPD are crucial because failure at these stages is inexpensive compared with the cost of launching an unsuccessful product on the market [ 2 , 3 ]. Idea generation, screening, and the selection of the most promising ones are usually at the beginning of any NPD procedure [ 4 ]. Co-creation is a process that directly involves different stakeholders, such as consumers, in idea generation. According to Prahalad and Ramaswamy [ 5 ], co-creation can be defined as the “joint creation of value by the company and the customer, allowing the customer to co-construct the service experience to suit her context”. The collaboration Foods 2022,11, 2287. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11152287 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/foods Foods 2022,11, 2287 2 of 18 between companies and consumers through co-creation not only allows the creation of customer value [ 6 , 7 ], but also examines consumers’ wants and needs [ 8 ], enhances NPD performance and reduces the risk of failing to meet consumer demands [ 9 ], reduces product development costs [ 10 ], and elicits more original and valuable ideas than those created by professional developers [ 11 ]. Co-creation can be applied in traditional creative techniques (e.g., brainstorming), in which the main goal is to generate a pool of ideas in a process that is primarily cognitive [ 12 ]. In contrast to creative techniques, projective techniques are based on the principle that people’s unconscious desires can be inferred by using ambiguous and unstructured stimuli, in which the subjects project their beliefs, attitudes, feelings, and motivations [ 13 ]. The more ambiguous and unstructured the stimuli, the more consumers may reveal their underlying personalities [ 3 , 13 ]. Banovi´c et al. [ 14 ] demonstrated that a combination of creative and projective techniques is a useful approach for generating new ideas in which consumers’ voices are widely incorporated. This combination of techniques can be applied to traditional qualitative methods, such as focus groups. Focus groups are often used to capture consumers’ spoken needs [ 8 ], gain insights into their behaviour, attitudes, needs, and wants, understand the underlying motives of their choices, generate new products, and accelerate NPD processes [ 15 , 16 ]. The traditional semantic analysis of focus group results involves the transcription of the discussion to draw main conclusions [ 17 ], a process that can be improved through the so-called “pseudotriangulation” [ 16 ]. Pseudo-triangulation is based on the independent analysis of three researchers or experts, reaching a consensus on a specific interpretation of the findings, which allows for the extraction of key conclusions [ 18 ]. Although the independent analysis of three researchers aims to balance the subjective influences of individuals [ 19 ], when interpreting qualitative data, it is common for a confirmatory bias to occur [ 20 ]; that is, researchers more strongly support the hypotheses that confirm what they believe [ 21 ]. Therefore, the subjectivity of the interpretation of results is one of the recognised disadvantages of qualitative techniques [22,23]. To overcome some of the limitations of traditional content analysis and manual coding, other alternatives can be used to increase the objectivity of the interpretation of results, such as the use of specialised software [ 24 ] (e.g., Alceste, ATLAS.ti, MAXQDA, NVivo). Software assistance is extremely useful during content analysis, as it allows for a reduction in content to take place in an objective way, saving time, cost, and effort [ 17 , 22 ]. In dealing with qualitative data, the less redundant the information there is, the easier the subsequent analysis is. Word frequency count and co-occurrent words are common outputs of qualitative data analysis software. Co-occurrence analysis reveals the relationship between words based on the number of times they are mentioned together [ 25 ], giving structure to the data. In contrast, word frequency counting is probably the most widespread softwareassisted method, as it is a simple and rapid way to summarise the results in terms of the most frequently mentioned words [ 26 ]. Hence, word frequency counting is commonly used in qualitative research as, for example, an indicator of the importance of certain words for participants [ 27 – 30 ]. Nevertheless, one of the main drawbacks associated with frequency counting is the loss of the context in which words are mentioned, which may lead to erroneous conclusions [ 17 , 31 , 32 ]. Therefore, because the meanings of words are often context-dependent, carrying out an in-depth qualitative analysis requires the interpretation of each word in its respective context [17]. In general, there is a lack of consensus on how to analyse and interpret qualitative data [ 17 ]. Most studies found in the literature seldom provide details on how they conducted the qualitative analysis or the complete set of codes applied [ 20 ]; some only mention “content analysis”. In addition, despite its advantages, the use of software for qualitative data analysis is still relatively limited in terms of studying the latent meaning of discourse [ 24 ]. Therefore, it could be hypothesised that the combination of software, along with the use of word frequency, co-occurrence, and context checking, could provide a different approach for data analyses in qualitative studies. The establishment of solid Foods 2022,11, 2287 3 of 18 methodological guidelines can be extremely useful when analysing qualitative data, as it has been criticised for its rather subjective nature for a long time. To prove the effectiveness of the methodology proposed in this study, the aquaculture fish sector was targeted. Food lifestyles are changing in Europe, and consumers usually have less time to spend on food preparation. New lifestyles, along with higher consumer awareness, have caused an increasing demand for a year-round supply of innovative and disruptive food products [ 33 ]. However, although the current food market seems to be saturated for most food categories [ 23 ], there are fewer new processed fish products in the market compared with other industries, such as meat [ 34 ], which leaves room for NPD, co-creation, and an exploration of the usefulness of qualitative data and its full potential. Accordingly, the aim of this exploratory study is threefold: (1) to propose an alternative approach to traditional qualitative content analysis by combining word frequency, co-occurrence and contextual analysis; (2) to explore the usefulness of the proposed approach in generating aquaculture fish product ideas and identify the most relevant product dimensions affecting potential acceptance by consumers; and (3) to explore whether word frequencies can be related to the subjacent relevant concepts or dimensions for the participants involved. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Participants’ Recruitment Purposive sampling with a predetermined quota for gender (evenly split) was used to select 36 participants in three countries (France, Germany, and Spain). A market research agency based in the three countries under study was subcontracted in June 2019 to recruit the participants and lead the moderation of the focus groups. Country selection was based on various aspects that may influence the generation of distinct ideas of fish products, including: differences in fish consumption per capita ( Spain > France > Germany ) [ 35 ]; differences in the main place of fish purchase—grocery store (Germany) or fishmonger/market (Spain) [ 36 ]; and the number of new fish products available in the national markets (France > Germany > Spain) [34]. In addition, participants also met the criteria of being older than 18 years, responsible for food purchase and preparation within their household, and fish consumers. In each country, fish consumption was used to divide participants into two groups: regular (at least once a week) and occasional fish consumers (three times a month or less), as it can be assumed that fish consumption frequency may be related to the demand for different fish products. 2.2. Focus Group Sessions Two face-to-face focus groups were conducted in each of the three countries targeted. Each focus group session with six participants lasted for two hours. The relatively low number of participants per focus group was selected based on the criteria that qualitative research does not intend to make inferences to a larger population, but to gain a deeper understanding of consumers’ perceptions and opinions about fish products [ 16 ]. Additionally, the qualitative approach used allowed participants to generate ideas about new aquaculture fish products. The moderators from the market research agency were previously briefed and followed a detailed discussion guide that included the following sections (Figure 1): 1. A warm-up debate about new foods and fish products. 2. A creative approach by applying direct analogies (also known as analogical thinking) [ 37 ] and storyboarding [ 14 ] to engage participants in generating new product ideas. Additionally, a reverse thinking task (also known as reverse brainstorming, tear-down, or purge) [ 38 ] was included to determine which characteristics of the ideas previously elicited would be rejected by the rest of the consumers. 3. A section where participants scored their acceptance of each new product idea elicited in the creative phase on a scale from 1 (“I very much dislike this fish product idea”) to 10 (“I like this fish product idea”). Foods 2022,11, 2287 4 of 18 4. A projective approach that included word association [ 13 , 14 , 18 , 39 ] and sentence completion tasks [ 13 , 39 ]. Four new fish product concepts identified by Gartzia et al. [ 40 ] were used as stimuli in both projective tasks to gain useful insights into consumers’ latent desires and feelings. 5. Finally, a general discussion section about fish and fish products to gain a deeper understanding of people’s practices regarding their purchase and consumption, opinions, interests, motivations, barriers, and behaviour with regard to new products. Foods 2022, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 20 Figure 1. Outline of the main steps taken during data analysis of the focus groups: (1) dimensions’ identification and their frequencies; (2) dimensions’ importance; and (3) dimensions’ importance versus dimensions’ frequency. 2.4.1. Part 1: Dimensions’ Identification and Their Frequencies The final corpus included the transcripts from all countries, arranged according to IMAGE [42], allowing the Alceste software, version 2018 (2018) (IMAGE, Toulouse, France) to perform content analysis in the following stages [24,41]: (1) text segmentation: into elementary context units (ECUs), i.e., basic analysable statistical units; (2) lemmatisation: simplifying words to their lemmas, i.e., to root forms that can be found in a dictionary (e.g., plurals into singulars); (3) reduction: discarding certain words (i.e., conjunctions, prepositions, pronouns); and (4) classification: the software’s internal dictionaries serve to sort the “content words”, i.e., words that were retained, by grammatical category (nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs). An example of a quotation from one of the focus groups, “I buy new products to try out new flavours”, may be used to illustrate how Alceste reduces the content into two verbs (buy, try), one adverb twice (new), and two nouns (product, flavour), while all other components are discarded (I, to, out). Alceste tabulated some of the content analyses conducted; for example, a proximity matrix (co-occurrence within an ECU) and a contingency table (word frequency). Both outputs were modified according to the steps described in the next paragraphs, as illustrated in Figure 2. Figure 1. Outline of the main steps taken during data analysis of the focus groups: ( 1 ) dimensions’ identification and their frequencies; ( 2 ) dimensions’ importance; and ( 3 ) dimensions’ importance versus dimensions’ frequency. In addition, a brief discussion of salient ideas was carried out after each task to further understand the participants’ perceptions. The above-described focus group sessions were conducted in the native language of each country, audio-recorded and videotaped, simultaneously translated into English, and transcribed verbatim for further analysis from the English translation. 2.3. Transcript Preparation: Data Preparation Prior to data analysis, the transcripts were reviewed to detect and correct possible mistakes. Three researchers who were native French, German, or Spanish speakers listened to the recordings in their national languages and checked the English transcripts. Afterwards, all English transcripts were reviewed by the same researcher, following the guidelines proposed by Dalud-Vincent [ 41 ]. The spelling was standardised into British English (e.g., flavour instead of flavor) and the same spelling was used to designate the same concept (e.g., fillet instead of filet, the counterpart French word). The moderators’ speeches were removed from the transcripts, and only the participants’ individual speeches were retained. Finally, the content that was not relevant to the study was also removed (e.g., personal conversations between participants). 2.4. Data Analysis Data analysis was divided into three main parts: (1) dimensions’ identification and their frequencies; (2) dimensions’ importance; and (3) dimensions’ importance versus dimensions’ frequency. All steps taken are illustrated in Figure 1and are described in this section. Foods 2022,11, 2287 5 of 18 2.4.1. Part 1: Dimensions’ Identification and Their Frequencies The final corpus included the transcripts from all countries, arranged according to IMAGE [ 42 ], allowing the Alceste software, version 2018 (2018) (IMAGE, Toulouse, France) to perform content analysis in the following stages [ 24 , 41 ]: (1) text segmentation: into elementary context units (ECUs), i.e., basic analysable statistical units; (2) lemmatisation: simplifying words to their lemmas, i.e., to root forms that can be found in a dictionary (e.g., plurals into singulars); (3) reduction: discarding certain words (i.e., conjunctions, prepositions, pronouns); and (4) classification: the software’s internal dictionaries serve to sort the “content words”, i.e., words that were retained, by grammatical category (nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs). An example of a quotation from one of the focus groups, “I buy new products to try out new flavours”, may be used to illustrate how Alceste reduces the content into two verbs (buy, try), one adverb twice (new), and two nouns (product, flavour), while all other components are discarded (I, to, out). Alceste tabulated some of the content analyses conducted; for example, a proximity matrix (co-occurrence within an ECU) and a contingency table (word frequency). Both outputs were modified according to the steps described in the next paragraphs, as illustrated in Figure 2. Foods 2022, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 20 Figure 2. Outline of the steps taken for the identification of the categories and dimensions and their frequencies. CA: correspondence analysis; MDS: multidimensional scaling. The original proximity matrix provided by Alceste had the same codes (words) in the rows and columns, while the cells were filled in with the frequency of co-occurrence (a measure of similarity), similar to a correlation matrix, but for categorical data [43]. Nevertheless, as Alceste does not consider the context in which words are said, a manual merging was conducted through the first pseudo-triangulation process with three independent researchers [18] to reduce the content. As a rule, throughout context checking in ECUs, when a word was used more than 75% of the time with a specific meaning, that meaning was attributed to that word. The reduction process through the first pseudo-triangulation consisted of the following stages: 1. Words with a common root (e.g., try, tried, and trying) were grouped under the same label (e.g., “try”). 2. Filler words, meaningless words, or sounds that consumers use while talking to fill in the pauses (e.g., basically, just, well) were removed after context checking. 3. Some words were grouped after checking their context in semantic (i.e., a set of words with related meanings) and associative semantic fields (i.e., similar to semantic fields but more subjective associations) to retain the information contained in the less frequently mentioned words. 4. Antonym words were grouped because they were considered to be extremes of the same scale (e.g., the “easy” label grouped the words easy, ease, difficult, and complicated). 5. Finally, homograph words, those with the same spelling but different meanings, were merged into their corresponding groups according to their meanings after context checking. Once the context was checked, the original proximity matrix provided by the Alceste software was reduced accordingly, thus grouping some words and removing others. Subsequently, a second reduction based on the frequency of mention was conducted, retaining only those words whose diagonal values in the proximity matrix were greater than 50. This cut-off was set by averaging all the values on the diagonal of the proximity matrix, rounding upward; therefore, only retaining words that co-occurred more frequently than the average. The words retained were labelled “categories”. The reduced proximity matrix was submitted to multidimensional scaling (MDS) analysis to plot the strength of the connections between co-occurring categories. Finally, some of the results from the MDS were used to group the categories into dimensions through a second pseudo-triangulation process. The selection of the final Figure 2. Outline of the steps taken for the identification of the categories and dimensions and their frequencies. CA: correspondence analysis; MDS: multidimensional scaling. The original proximity matrix provided by Alceste had the same codes (words) in the rows and columns, while the cells were filled in with the frequency of co-occurrence (a measure of similarity), similar to a correlation matrix, but for categorical data [43]. Nevertheless, as Alceste does not consider the context in which words are said, a manual merging was conducted through the first pseudo-triangulation process with three independent researchers [ 18 ] to reduce the content. As a rule, throughout context checking in ECUs, when a word was used more than 75% of the time with a specific meaning, that meaning was attributed to that word. The reduction process through the first pseudo-triangulation consisted of the following stages: 1. Words with a common root (e.g., try, tried, and trying) were grouped under the same label (e.g., “try”). 2. Filler words, meaningless words, or sounds that consumers use while talking to fill in the pauses (e.g., basically, just, well) were removed after context checking. 3. Some words were grouped after checking their context in semantic (i.e., a set of words with related meanings) and associative semantic fields (i.e., similar to semantic fields but more subjective associations) to retain the information contained in the less frequently mentioned words. 4. Antonym words were grouped because they were considered to be extremes of the same scale (e.g., the “easy” label grouped the words easy, ease, difficult, and complicated). Foods 2022,11, 2287 6 of 18 5. Finally, homograph words, those with the same spelling but different meanings, were merged into their corresponding groups according to their meanings after context checking. Once the context was checked, the original proximity matrix provided by the Alceste software was reduced accordingly, thus grouping some words and removing others. Subsequently, a second reduction based on the frequency of mention was conducted, retaining only those words whose diagonal values in the proximity matrix were greater than 50. This cut-off was set by averaging all the values on the diagonal of the proximity matrix, rounding upward; therefore, only retaining words that co-occurred more frequently than the average. The words retained were labelled “categories”. The reduced proximity matrix was submitted to multidimensional scaling (MDS) analysis to plot the strength of the connections between co-occurring categories. Finally, some of the results from the MDS were used to group the categories into dimensions through a second pseudo-triangulation process. The selection of the final dimensions was agreed upon by the three researches, who identified them based on the categories obtained, using input from the single-item food choice questionnaire (FCQ) [ 44 ]. The FCQ, originally developed by Steptoe et al. [ 45 ], is regarded as one of the most widespread methods used in consumer research to assess the motivations underlying food selection by measuring nine different factors. The original contingency table provided by Alceste with the word frequency count was reduced according to the process described in Figure 2. The words elicited (rows) were grouped according to the identified dimensions by simply adding the corresponding frequencies for each participant (columns). In addition, supplementary variables (columns) were added (i.e., country, focus group session, age category, gender, and fish consumption). A simple correspondence analysis (CA) was run to graphically display the reduced contingency table. 2.4.2. Part 2: Dimensions’ Importance The importance of dimensions was calculated by multiplying the acceptability given by participants with the scores given by a group of experts (see Table 1for an example). In detail, on one hand, the individual acceptability of the participants given to each idea generated using creative techniques (see Section 2.2) was used. On the other hand, a panel of eight experts from the food sectors of different European countries, with different backgrounds (i.e., academia and research centres) and expertise in NPD, evaluated all the ideas generated by the participants. These experts identified the dimensions (Table 2), from those obtained in the previous part (see Section 2.4.1), that were contained within each idea and their extent by scoring the dimensions identified in a continuous scale from 0 (“this dimension is not contained at all in this product idea”) to 10 (“this dimension is fully contained in this product idea”). Multiple factor analysis (MFA) was performed to determine the extent of agreement between the expert’s scores. As a high agreement was reached, the mean scores were used in subsequent analyses. The identification of the dimensions contained within each idea was necessary to explore whether there was a relationship between the importance of dimensions and their frequency of mention (see Section 2.4.3). In summary, the acceptability given by participants to each idea and the corresponding intensity for each dimension given by the experts were used to infer the importance attributed by the participants to each dimension. Foods 2022,11, 2287 7 of 18 Table 1. Fictitious example of the calculation of the dimensions’ importance for participant 1. Experts’ Mean Acceptability Dimension’s Importance Ideas Sensory Price Participant 1 Sensory Price Idea 1 2 6 9 18 * 54 Idea 2 7 4 5 35 20 ∑53 ** 74 * The importance of the sensory dimension for idea 1 was calculated by multiplying the experts’ mean scores for sensory dimension and the consumer’s (participant 1) acceptability for this idea. The same procedure was conducted for all dimensions, ideas, and participants. ** The dimension’s importance was then computed as the sum of all individual importances (for all the ideas); higher values in the sum indicates the higher importance of that dimension for participant 1. In this fictitious example, the dimension price is more important for participant 1 than sensory one. Table 2. Dimensions formulated by the grouping of the 44 categories through the second pseudotriangulation process. Dimension Categories Health Health, nutritious Process/preparation Product, preparation, condiments, cook, ingredient, recipe Sensory Colour, experience, flavour, gourmet, taste, try Quality Quality, fresh, origin, preservation Price Price, buy Familiarity Frequency, use Natural Natural, chemical Food_product Consumption, eat, fish, meat, food, meal Variety Variety, different, format, new, presentation, species Convenience Convenience, easy, snack Ethical Responsibility, packaging Occasion Occasion, people, share To illustrate which dimensions had a greater influence on participant acceptability, a preference map [ 46 ] was created for each focus group. For that purpose, the experts’ mean scores per dimension and the mean acceptability of participants per idea were used. In addition, to overcome the limitations linked to the fact that the participants only scored the ideas generated within their focus group, an overall preference map was created. The results of the preference maps could be useful when selecting those ideas to scale up in the NPD process. 2.4.3. Part 3: Dimensions’ Importance versus Dimensions’ Frequency To determine whether there is a relationship between what consumers say (dimensions’ frequency) and what they like most about the ideas generated (inferred dimensions’ importance), an MFA between these two matrices was conducted. The dimensions’ frequencies were gathered from the reduced contingency table used to conduct the CA (see Figure 2). The dimensions’ importance matrix was built using dimensions (rows) and the inferred dimension’s importance for each participant, as explained in Table 1(columns). All statistical analyses were performed using XLSTAT software, version 2020.1 (2020) (Addinsoft, Paris, France). 3. Results 3.1. Part 1: Dimensions’ Identification and Their Frequencies The automatic merging and reduction performed with the Alceste software allowed for a reduction in words from the 36,765 that had been in the initial corpus to only 747, retained for later analysis. After the first manual pseudo-triangulation process, 747 words were reduced to 186. Finally, from the 186 words obtained, only those whose diagonal values in the proximity matrix were greater than 50 were retained, as explained above, leaving 44 categories, as shown in the MDS plot (Figure 3). Foods 2022,11, 2287 8 of 18 Foods 2022, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 20 3. Results 3.1. Part 1: Dimensions’ Identification and Their Frequencies The automatic merging and reduction performed with the Alceste software allowed for a reduction in words from the 36,765 that had been in the initial corpus to only 747, retained for later analysis. After the first manual pseudo-triangulation process, 747 words were reduced to 186. Finally, from the 186 words obtained, only those whose diagonal values in the proximity matrix were greater than 50 were retained, as explained above, leaving 44 categories, as shown in the MDS plot (Figure 3). Figure 3. Multidimensional scaling of the 44 categories obtained using Alceste software, grouped by the first pseudo-triangulation process, and reduced by frequency of co-occurrence (Dimensions 1 and 2). The closer the categories are in the MDS plot, the higher the number of times those categories are mentioned together (co-occur). For example, the categories “ingredient” and “origin” (which grouped the word “local”) were repeatedly mentioned together, as exemplified in one quotation from a German participant: “Local ingredients are very important”. In addition, “quality” was frequently mentioned alongside the category “origin”, as shown in this quote by a Spanish participant: “It is the most determinant factor in the low quality, the origin of the fish”. As illustrated in another quotation from a focus group in France (i.e., “If it is quality fish, it is going to be expensive”), the categories “quality”, “fish”, and “price” (which grouped the word “expensive”) were frequently mentioned together. Interestingly, participants also frequently mentioned the categories “price” and “taste” in the same phrase; for example, “It is the price that decides, and the taste, of course” (a quote from a German participant). As previously explained, some of the results obtained from the MDS were used to group the 44 categories into 12 dimensions through a second pseudo-triangulation proFigure 3. Multidimensional scaling of the 44 categories obtained using Alceste software, grouped by the first pseudo-triangulation process, and reduced by frequency of co-occurrence (Dimensions 1 and 2). The closer the categories are in the MDS plot, the higher the number of times those categories are mentioned together (co-occur). For example, the categories “ingredient” and “origin” (which grouped the word “local”) were repeatedly mentioned together, as exemplified in one quotation from a German participant: “Local ingredients are very important”. In addition, “quality” was frequently mentioned alongside the category “origin”, as shown in this quote by a Spanish participant: “It is the most determinant factor in the low quality, the origin of the fish”. As illustrated in another quotation from a focus group in France (i.e., “If it is quality fish, it is going to be expensive”), the categories “quality”, “fish”, and “price” (which grouped the word “expensive”) were frequently mentioned together. Interestingly, participants also frequently mentioned the categories “price” and “taste” in the same phrase; for example, “It is the price that decides, and the taste, of course” (a quote from a German participant). As previously explained, some of the results obtained from the MDS were used to group the 44 categories into 12 dimensions through a second pseudo-triangulation process. For instance, the co-occurring categories “natural” and “chemical” in the MDS were grouped under the higher-order dimension “natural”. The final dimensions identified are listed in Table 2. The results of the CA performed on the 12 dimensions graphically displayed the contingency table with the dimensions’ frequency of mention and the supplementary variables (Figure 4), which allowed for the comparison between qualitative variables. Foods 2022,11, 2287 15 of 18 Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.C., V.S., K.B., I.P., E.S.C., A.K. and L.G.; methodology, L.L.-M., A.C., V.S., K.B., I.P., E.S.C., A.K. and L.G.; formal analysis, L.L.-M., A.C. and L.G.; investigation, L.L.-M., A.C., V.S., K.B., I.P., E.S.C., A.K. and L.G.; data curation, L.L.-M., A.C. and L.G.; writing—original draft preparation, L.L.-M.; writing—review and editing, A.C., V.S., K.B., I.P., E.S.C., A.K. and L.G.; project administration, I.P.; funding acquisition, K.B., I.P., A.K. and L.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research was funded by the European Union’s Horizon2020 MedAID project, grant number 727315. L.L.-M. and was supported by a grant from the Secretaria d’Universitats i Recerca de la Generalitat de Catalunya and the European Social Fund. Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was approved by the Ethical Committee of the Institute of Agrifood Research and Technology (IRTA), registration number CCSC 8/2021, in accordance with the Code of Ethics of the World Medical Association (Declaration of Helsinki) for experiments involving humans. Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. Acknowledgments: Special thanks to WP5 colleagues from the MedAID project. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. Appendix A Table A1. Ranking of ideas with higher participant acceptability in France. Ranking New Product Idea Total Score 1 Average Score 2SD 3 1 Fish brochettes for grilling, heathy appetizers 46.0 7.7 1.0 2 Aquaculture fish without additives, without chemicals 44.0 7.3 1.8 3 Salad with fish for self-service 43.5 7.0 1.9 4 Fish salad with biodegradable packaging, scannable to know the ingredients 42.0 6.7 2.3 5 Fishballs for snacking/appetizer 42.0 6.5 2.2 6 Mousse to spread on bread 42.0 6.3 3.0 7 Fish cooked with Reunion Island flavours and tastes 41.5 6.0 1.6 8 Box for snacking with assorted fishes 40.0 6.0 2.3 9 Ready sauce with fish 40.0 5.2 2.7 10 Fish mousse without bones, with dill, only fish 39.0 4.2 2.4 11 Frozen or chilled dishes, gourmet, designed by chefs 39.0 6.5 2.7 12 Fish dish with innovative sauce and fish-shaped packaging 38.5 6.4 2.8 13 Fish cooked in a natural way 38.0 6.3 2.3 14 Fish carpaccio 36.0 6.0 2.5 15 Uncommon fish species crumbed and of high quality 36.0 6.0 2.3 1 Sum of all participants’ acceptability within a focus group, scored on a scale from 1 (I very much dislike this fish product idea) to 10 (I like this fish product idea). Minimum score: 6, maximum: 60. 2 Participants’ mean acceptability of every idea: sum of all participants’ acceptability divided by the number of participants within each focus group (6). 3SD: standard deviation. Foods 2022,11, 2287 16 of 18 Table A2. Ranking of ideas with higher participant acceptability in Germany. Ranking New Product Idea Total Score 1 Average Score 2SD 3 1 New packaging for frozen fish (e.g., bag instead of using foil) 55.0 9.2 1.0 2 Recyclable packaging (second use) 52.0 8.7 2.0 3 High-grade convenience products, local, quick 51.0 8.5 2.1 4 Avoiding problems (e.g., storage life, no shell, no fishbone, etc.) 47.0 7.8 2.2 5 Product with healthy ingredients (e.g., for crumb coating) like protein bars 46.0 7.7 2.7 6 Combination of different fish tastes and textures 45.0 7.5 1.8 7 New fish convenience products 44.0 7.3 2.5 8 A whole fish (fillable, already filleted, etc.) 44.0 7.3 2.4 9 No-waste burger 44.0 7.3 2.5 10 Packaging not made of plastic or aluminium 41.0 6.8 3.9 11 Fish with more power/enriched/all necessary ingredients contained 37.0 6.2 3.3 12 Product containing only fish, no other animal products 36.0 6.0 3.5 13 Canned fish with new supplements (e.g., lentils) 35.0 5.8 2.6 14 Fish-to-go (patty for burger, etc.), for microwave 35.0 5.8 2.4 15 Fish that does not taste fishy 32.0 5.3 2.4 1 Sum of all participants’ acceptability within a focus group, scored on a scale from 1 (I very much dislike this fish product idea) to 10 (I like this fish product idea). Minimum score: 6, maximum: 60. 2 Participants’ mean acceptability of every idea: sum of all participants’ acceptability divided by the number of participants within each focus group (6). 3SD: standard deviation. Table A3. Ranking of ideas with higher participant acceptability in Spain. Ranking New Product Idea Total Score 1 Average Score 2SD 3 1With flavours, to mix with a small sauce bag (fine herbs, olive oil, pepper, mustard, garlic, and lemon) 57.0 9.5 0.8 2 Seabass, seabream, meagre in dices or crumbs, frozen, and boneless 56.0 9.3 1.2 3 Fish hamburgers 51.0 8.5 1.4 4 Tasty and boneless fish products 50.0 8.3 1.2 5 Coloured spaghetti surimi to decorate and add flavour 49.0 8.2 2.8 6 Fish tray (such as cheese tray), two fish species in the same tray, fresh 49.0 8.2 1.2 7 Fillets, cubes, smoked, in brine 49.0 8.2 1.2 8 Seabass fillets 48.0 8.0 2.0 9 New formats for children (stars, trapezoids, triangles) 48.0 8.0 2.5 10 Sushi with nice flavours 47.0 7.8 1.9 11 Fish with sauce preparation, tasty, high quality 47.0 7.8 1.7 12 Fish with flavour of other things (e.g., octopus + cooked potato, anchovies + chip potato) 44.0 7.3 3.3 13 Fish products with an extra healthy component 44.0 7.3 1.2 14 Small fish pieces with intense flavour 39.0 6.5 2.4 15 Different fish assortment, shellfish, different tastes 36.0 6.0 2.2 1 Sum of all participants’ acceptability within a focus group, scored on a scale from 1 (I very much dislike this fish product idea) to 10 (I like this fish product idea). Minimum score: 6, maximum: 60. 2 Participants’ mean acceptability of every idea: sum of all participants’ acceptability divided by the number of participants within each focus group (6). 3SD: standard deviation. References 1. Melgarejo, R.; Malek, K. Setting the Record Straight on Innovation Failure; Nielsen: New York, NY, USA, 2018. 2. Moon, H.; Johnson, J.L.; Mariadoss, B.J.; Cullen, J.B. Supplier and customer involvement in new product development stages: Implications for new product innovation outcomes. Int. J. Innov. Technol. Manag. 2018,15, 1850004. [CrossRef] 3. van Kleef, E.; van Trijp, H.C.M.; Luning, P. Consumer research in the early stages of new product development: A critical review of methods and techniques. Food Qual. Prefer. 2005,16, 181–201. [CrossRef] 4. Chang, W. The joint effects of customer participation in various new product development stages. Eur. Manag. J. 2019 ,37, 259–268. [CrossRef] 5. Prahalad, C.K.; Ramaswamy, V. Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. J. Interact. Mark. 2004 ,18, 5–14. [CrossRef] Foods 2022,11, 2287 17 of 18 6. Galvagno, M.; Dalli, D. Theory of value co-creation: A systematic literature review. Manag. Serv. Qual. 2014 ,24, 643–683. [CrossRef] 7. Hoyer, W.D.; Chandy, R.; Dorotic, M.; Krafft, M.; Singh, S.S. Consumer cocreation in new product development. J. Serv. Res. 2010 , 13, 283–296. [CrossRef] 8. Witell, L.; Kristensson, P.; Gustafsson, A.; Löfgren, M. Idea generation: Customer co-creation versus traditional market research techniques. J. Serv. Manag. 2011,22, 140–159. [CrossRef] 9. Hsieh, L.-F.; Chen, S.K. Incorporating voice of the consumer: Does it really work? Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2005 ,15, 769–785. [CrossRef] 10. Potts, J.; Hartley, J.; Banks, J.; Burgess, J.; Cobcroft, R.; Cunningham, S.; Montgomery, L. Consumer co-creation and situated creativity. Ind. Innov. 2008,15, 459–474. [CrossRef] 11. Kristensson, P.; Gustafsson, A.; Archer, T. Harnessing the creative potential among users. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2004 ,21, 4–14. [CrossRef] 12. Garfield, M.J.; Taylor, N.J.; Dennis, A.R.; Satzinger, J.W. Research report: Modifying paradigms—Individual differences, creativity techniques, and exposure to ideas in group idea generation. Inf. Syst. Res. 2001,12, 322–333. [CrossRef] 13. Donoghue, S. Projective techniques in consumer research. J. Fam. Ecol. Consum. Sci. 2000,28, 47–53. [CrossRef] 14. Banovi´c, M.; Krystallis, A.; Guerrero, L.; Reinders, M.J. Consumers as co-creators of new product ideas: An application of projective and creative research techniques. Food Res. Int. 2016,87, 211–223. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 15. Earle, M.; Earle, R. (Eds.) New product development: Systematic industrial technology. In Case Studies in Food Product Development; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2008. 16. Guerrero, L.; Xicola, J. New approaches to focus groups. In Methods in Consumer Research, Volume 1: New Approaches to Classic Methods; Ares, G., Varela, P., Eds.; Woodhead Publishing: Duxford, UK, 2018; Volume 1, pp. 261–296. 17. Stewart, D.; Shamdasani, P.; Rook, D. Analyzing focus group data. In Focus Groups: Theory and Practice; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2007; pp. 109–133. 18. Guerrero, L.; Claret, A.; Verbeke, W.; Enderli, G.; Zakowska-Biemans, S.; Vanhonacker, F.; Issanchou, S.; Sajdakowska, M.; Granli, B.S. ; Scalvedi, L.; et al. Perception of traditional food products in six European regions using free word association. Food Qual. Prefer. 2010,21, 225–233. [CrossRef] 19. Denzin, N.K. The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2017. 20. Pokorny, J.J.; Norman, A.; Zanesco, A.P.; Bauer-Wu, S.; Sahdra, B.K.; Saron, C.D. Network analysis for the visualization and analysis of qualitative data. Psychol. Methods 2018,23, 169–183. [CrossRef] 21. García, J.A.; Rodriguez-Sánchez, R.; Fdez-Valdivia, J. Authors and reviewers who suffer from confirmatory bias. Scientometrics 2016,109, 1377–1395. [CrossRef] 22. Guerrero, L.; Guàrdia, M.D.; Xicola, J.; Verbeke, W.; Vanhonacker, F.; Zakowska-Biemans, S.; Sajdakowska, M.; Sulmont-Rossé, C.; Issanchou, S.; Contel, M.; et al. Consumer-driven definition of traditional food products and innovation in traditional foods. A qualitative cross-cultural study. Appetite 2009,52, 345–354. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 23. Symmank, C. Extrinsic and intrinsic food product attributes in consumer and sensory research: Literature review and quantification of the findings. Manag. Rev. Q. 2019,69, 39–74. [CrossRef] 24. Illia, L.; Sonpar, K.; Bauer, M.W. Applying co-occurrence text analysis with ALCESTE to studies of impression management. Br. J. Manag. 2012,25, 352–372. [CrossRef] 25. Deng, S.; Xia, S. Mapping the interdisciplinarity in information behavior research: A quantitative study using diversity measure and co-occurrence analysis. Scientometrics 2020,124, 489–513. [CrossRef] 26. Puerta, P.; Laguna, L.; Vidal, L.; Ares, G.; Fiszman, S.; Tárrega, A. Co-occurrence networks of Twitter content after manual or automatic processing. A case-study on “gluten-free”. Food Qual. Prefer. 2020,86, 103993. [CrossRef] 27. Ares, G.; Deliza, R. Studying the influence of package shape and colour on consumer expectations of milk desserts using word association and conjoint analysis. Food Qual. Prefer. 2010,21, 930–937. [CrossRef] 28. Ares, G.; de Saldamando, L.; Giménez, A.; Claret, A.; Cunha, L.M.; Guerrero, L.; de Moura, A.P.; Oliveira, D.C.R.; Symoneaux, R.; Deliza, R. Consumers’ associations with wellbeing in a food-related context: A cross-cultural study. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015 ,40, 304–315. [CrossRef] 29. Melendrez-Ruiz, J.; Claret, A.; Chambaron, S.; Arvisenet, G.; Guerrero, L. Enhancing assessment of social representations by comparing groups with different cultural and demographic characteristics: A case study on pulses. Food Qual. Prefer. 2021 , 92, 104188. [CrossRef] 30. Polizer Rocha, Y.J.; Lapa-Guimarães, J.; de Noronha, R.L.F.; Trindade, M.A. Evaluation of consumers’ perception regarding frankfurter sausages with different healthiness attributes. J. Sens. Stud. 2018,33, e12468. [CrossRef] 31. Hsieh, H.F.; Shannon, S.E. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual. Health Res. 2005,15, 1277–1288. [CrossRef] 32. Vidal, L.; Ares, G.; Machín, L.; Jaeger, S.R. Using Twitter data for food-related consumer research: A case study on “what people say when tweeting about different eating situations”. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015,45, 58–69. [CrossRef] 33. Guiné, R.P.F.; Florença, S.G.; Barroca, M.J.; Anjos, O. The link between the consumer and the innovations in food product development. Foods 2020,9, 1317. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 34. Mintel. Global New Products Database (GNPD). Available online: https://www.gnpd.com/sinatra/search_results/?search_id= Fvf0PuANFb&page=0 (accessed on 2 December 2021). Foods 2022,11, 2287 18 of 18 35. EUMOFA. The EU Fish Market; European Commission: Luxembourg, 2021. 36. European Commission. Special Eurobarometer 515: EU Consumer Habits Regarding Fishery and Aquaculture Products; Maritime Affairs and Fisheries: Brussels, Belgium, 2021. 37. Dahl, D.W.; Moreau, P. The influence and value of analogical thinking during new product ideation. J. Mark. Res. 2002 ,39, 47–60. [CrossRef] 38. Souder, W.E.; Zeigler, R.W. Review of creativity and problem solving techniques. Res. Manag. 1977,20, 34–42. [CrossRef] 39. Vidal, L.; Ares, G.; Giménez, A. Projective techniques to uncover consumer perception: Application of three methodologies to ready-to-eat salads. Food Qual. Prefer. 2013,28, 1–7. [CrossRef] 40. Gartzia, I.; Peral, I.; Alfaro, B.; Riesco, S.; Cruz, E.S.; Krystallis, A.; Brunsø, K.; Stancu, V.; Claret, A.; Guerrero, L. Deliverable D5.1: Identification of Product and Market Requirements of Aquaculture Chain Stakeholders; MedAID Project: Derio, Spain, 2018. 41. Dalud-Vincent, M. Trial and critique of Alceste as a tool for analyzing semi-structured interviews in sociology. Lang. Société 2011 , 135, 9–28. [CrossRef] 42. IMAGE. Préparation du Corpus. Available online: https://www.image-zafar.com/images/formatage_alceste.pdf (accessed on 21 November 2021). 43. Bazeley, P. Qualitative Data Analysis: Practical Strategies; SAGE Publications: London, UK, 2013. 44. Onwezen, M.C.; Reinders, M.J.; Verain, M.C.D.; Snoek, H.M. The development of a single-item Food Choice Questionnaire. Food Qual. Prefer. 2019,71, 34–45. [CrossRef] 45. Steptoe, A.; Pollard, T.M.; Wardle, J. Development of a measure of the motives underlying the selection of food: The Food Choice Questionnaire. Appetite 1995,25, 267–284. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 46. Carroll, J.D. Individual differences and multidimensional scaling. In Multidimensional Scaling: Theory and Applications in the Behavioral Sciences; Shepard, R.N., Romney, A.K., Nerlove, S.B., Eds.; Seminar Press: New York, NY, USA, 1972; Volume 1, pp. 105–155. 47. Robert, P.; Escoufier, Y. A unifying tool for linear multivariate statistical methods: The RVcoefficient. Appl. Stat. 1976 ,25, 257. [CrossRef] 48. Claret, A.; Guerrero, L.; Aguirre, E.; Rincón, L.; Hernández, M.D.; Martínez, I.; Peleteiro, J.B.; Grau, A.; Rodríguez-Rodríguez, C. Consumer preferences for sea fish using conjoint analysis: Exploratory study of the importance of country of origin, obtaining method, storage conditions and purchasing price. Food Qual. Prefer. 2012,26, 259–266. [CrossRef] 49. Conte, F.; Passantino, A.; Longo, S.; Vosláˇrová, E. Consumers’ attitude towards fish meat. Ital. J. Food Saf. 2014 ,3, 178–181. [CrossRef] 50. Pieniak, Z.; Verbeke, W.; Scholderer, J. Health-related beliefs and consumer knowledge as determinants of fish consumption. J. Hum. Nutr. Diet. 2010,23, 480–488. [CrossRef] 51. McConnell, J.D. The price-quality relationship in an experimental setting. J. Mark. Res. 1968,5, 300. [CrossRef] 52. Kole, A.P.W.; Altintzoglou, T.; Schelvis-Smit, R.A.A.M.; Luten, J.B. The effects of different types of product information on the consumer product evaluation for fresh cod in real life settings. Food Qual. Prefer. 2009,20, 187–194. [CrossRef] 53. Claret, A.; Guerrero, L.; Ginés, R.; Grau, A.; Hernández, M.D.; Aguirre, E.; Peleteiro, J.B.; Fernández-Pato, C.; Rodríguez-Rodríguez, C. Consumer beliefs regarding farmed versus wild fish. Appetite 2014,79, 25–31. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 54. de Andrade, J.C.; de Aguiar Sobral, L.; Ares, G.; Deliza, R. Understanding consumers’ perception of lamb meat using free word association. Meat Sci. 2016,117, 68–74. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 55. European Commission. Facts and Figures on the Common Fisheries Policy: Basic Statistical Data; European Union: Luxembourg, 2020. 56. Fishbein, M.; Ajzen, I. Predicting and Changing Behavior: The Reasoned Action Approach; Taylor & Francis: New York, NY, USA, 2011. 57. Bleiel, J. Functional foods from the perspective of the consumer: How to make it a success? Int. Dairy J. 2010 ,20, 303–306. [CrossRef] 58. Klincewicz, K.; D˛ebska, K. Limits of co-creation: Evidence from a large-scale empirical study of food consumers. In Proceedings of the ESA Conference, Barcelona, Spain, 31 August–3 September 2021. 59. Guerrero, L.; Colomer, Y.; Guàrdia, M.D.; Xicola, J.; Clotet, R. Consumer attitude towards store brands. Food Qual. Prefer. 2000 ,11, 387–395. [CrossRef] PUBLICATION 4 Co-creation with consumers for packaging design validated through implicit and explicit methods: exploratory effect of visual and textual attributes López-Mas, L.; Claret, A.; Bermúdez, A.; Llauger, M..; Guerrero, L. Cocreation with consumers for packaging design validated through implicit and explicit methods: exploratory effect of visual and textual attributes. Foods. 2022, vol. 11, no. 9, 1183. Under a CC BY 4.0 license. Available on: https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11091183. Citation: López-Mas, L.; Claret, A.; Bermúdez, A.; Llauger, M.; Guerrero, L. Co-Creation with Consumers for Packaging Design Validated through Implicit and Explicit Methods: Exploratory Effect of Visual and Textual Attributes. Foods 2022,11, 1183. https://doi.org/10.3390/ foods11091183 Academic Editor: Rafael Gavara Received: 9 March 2022 Accepted: 17 April 2022 Published: 19 April 2022 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). foods Article Co-Creation with Consumers for Packaging Design Validated through Implicit and Explicit Methods: Exploratory Effect of Visual and Textual Attributes Laura López-Mas 1,2 , Anna Claret 1, Alejandra Bermúdez 1, Mar Llauger 1and Luis Guerrero 1,* 1Food Quality and Technology, Institute of Agrifood Research and Technology (IRTA), Finca Camps i Armet, s/n, 17121 Monells, Spain; [email protected] (L.L.-M.); [email protected] (A.C.); [email protected] (A.B.); mar[email protected] (M.L.) 2Department of Agri-Food Engineering and Biotechnology (DEAB), Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC), Baix Llobregat Campus, Building D4, st/ Esteve Terradas, 8, 08860 Castelldefels, Spain *Correspondence: lluis.guerrer[email protected]; Tel.: +34-97-263-0052 (ext. 1494) Abstract: Packaging is no longer a mere structural element that only aims to preserve foods, but it is also a powerful marketing tool able to affect product perception, purchase decision and consumers’ food choices. Incorporating consumers’ voices into packaging design through co-creation could maximise its impact on the market. The main goal of this exploratory study was to test the usefulness of co-creation with consumers for packaging design. For that purpose, a survey with 200 Spanish participants was conducted to find out which of the presented visual and textual packaging attributes were the most appropriate. A validation study with 40 participants using implicit (eye tracker, galvanic skin response and automatic facial expression analysis) and explicit measurements was used to test the packaging co-created by consumers against some of its possible competitors in the market. The co-creation process with consumers allowed for the identification of the visual and textual attributes, among the available options, that best fit their preferences, whereas the validation process confirmed that the packaging design co-created by consumers was equally or even preferred over the competitors. The information gathered might help designers and marketers to guide the packaging design for fish products in the Spanish market. Keywords: claim; informative; interpretative; new product development; implicit measurements 1. Introduction Currently, consumers have more options than ever when shopping, as they can choose between a large variety of food products that are usually in stock at a regular supermarket. Most purchasing decisions, approximately 76%, are made at the point of purchase [ 1 ]. In-store buying decisions are sometimes impulsive, especially when it comes to lowinvolvement products such as foods [ 2 ]. In this sense, packaging is able to grab a consumer’s attention at the point of purchase and allow for the differentiation of a product from the competition. Indeed, according to van Rompay and Veltkamp [ 3 ], food packaging could be the most direct and influential communication element at the point of purchase. Therefore, packaging is no longer a mere structural element that only aims to store and preserve foods, but it is also a powerful marketing tool able to affect product perception, purchase decision and consumers’ food choices [4–6]. When designing food packaging, there are many attributes to consider to ensure that it attracts consumer attention in the marketplace, transmits the most effective message and enhances consumers’ experience [ 7 ]. A main distinction can be made between packaging elements: (i) visual attributes, which draw attention, transmit non-verbal information, and mainly affect people’s emotions (for example, colour); and (ii) textual attributes (or informational), which transmit verbal or numerical information and are more likely to affect Foods 2022,11, 1183. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11091183 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/foods Foods 2022,11, 1183 2 of 22 people’s cognition (for example, claims) [ 2 , 5 , 8 ]. Other packaging cues less explored may also play a relevant role in consumers’ perceptions, such as tactile and auditory attributes, as demonstrated by Labbe et al. [9] for consumers’ expectations of food naturalness. In turn, textual cues can be divided into two main domains, namely: (i) informative claims, also known as objective or reductive, that provide impartial and objective information (for example, the exact number of calories), and (ii) interpretative, also known as evaluative, which provide information with some kind of processing to aid consumers in reducing the cognitive burden needed to interpret its meaning (for example, low in calories) [2,6,10]. Several authors have studied the role that visual attributes of packaging play in consumers’ preferences and evaluations of food products such as colour [ 8 , 11 ], visibility (window presence) [ 7 ], photography [ 7 , 8 , 12 , 13 ], typeface [ 14 , 15 ], presentation of the product inside the packaging [ 16 ] and quantity [ 8 , 16 ]. The role of textual attributes in consumers’ preferences has also received attention, for example, claims regarding convenience [ 11 ], taste [ 11 , 13 ], health [ 12 , 17 , 18 ], nutrient content [ 18 – 20 ], freshness [ 11 ], sustainability [ 21 ], environment [22] and processing [19]. However, despite the multiple studies on the topic, most investigations focused on the separate functions of the packaging (such as visual or textual cues) rather than analysing them in a holistic way [ 5 ]. In addition, some of those studies started from a premise that considered only a few packaging attributes, preselected by the researchers, instead of considering a larger number. Approximately 80% of new food products launched on the market fail within the first year [ 23 ], in some cases, as a result of poor packaging design that does not entirely satisfy consumers’ demands and expectations [ 8 ]. Therefore, understanding consumers’ responses to food product packaging seems to be relevant for maximising package impact [ 8 ], and one of the best ways to do so is by incorporating consumers’ voices into new product development (NPD) through co-creation [24,25]. Co-creation, defined as collaboration between firms and consumers [ 26 ], has proven to be a useful tool for inquiring into consumers’ wants and needs during NPD [ 27 , 28 ]. However, despite its potential usefulness, no study has been found using co-creation with consumers in packaging design, considering visual and textual attributes, and focusing on multiple attributes at the same time. Several implicit techniques can be useful for testing the effectiveness of involving consumers in packaging design in addition to traditional explicit techniques (for example, surveys), which often are not able to capture unconscious motives, emotions and associations of individuals [ 29 ]. Implicit techniques have the major strength of providing a range of more objective measurements [ 30 ], as some social conventions may constrain the expression of individuals’ opinions [ 31 ] gathered through explicit measurements. Various authors successfully used several implicit techniques during packaging design, including eye trackers (ETs) [ 30 , 32 ], galvanic skin response (GSR) [ 33 ] and automatic facial expression analysis (AFEA) [ 34 – 36 ]. ETs are capable of capturing visual attention and objectively assessing consumers’ perceptions of visual stimuli, such as food packaging [ 32 ], using eye movement as an indicator of information acquisition behaviour [ 37 ]. GSR measures the changes in the electrical conductance of the skin that occur when glands secrete sweat, which are indicative of sympathetic activity and emotional intensity [ 38 , 39 ]. AFEA is a means of emotional valence measurement (positive vs. negative emotions). Computerbased facial expressions analysis systems capture and map facial configurations to class them into emotion predictors using computer-vision algorithms [40]. Implicit techniques have long been debated on its ecological validity, which refers to whether or not the study findings in a laboratory setting can be generalised to real-life [ 41 ]. Ecological validity greatly depends on the techniques used, for example, it is higher for screen-based ET and lower for electroencephalography (EEG) [ 42 ]. In addition, the type of stimuli also can affect ecological validity. In other words, if standard stimuli are used in emotional research, the contextual information that makes emotions meaningful is normally lost, thus causing a decrease in its ecological validity [ 43 ]. For this reason, the combination of implicit and explicit techniques is often applied, as it provides complementary informa- Foods 2022,11, 1183 3 of 22 tion [ 29 ], consequently, allowing one to overcome some of the main limitations associated with each technique. Product category usually influences the packaging design [ 18 , 44 ]. Fish is a product that, historically, was commercialised unpackaged or with minimal packaging, as it was mainly sold unprocessed. However, in recent years, packaged fish products appeared on the market to satisfy consumers’ demands for more convenient products, more detailed information provision (labelling) and more transparent pricing [ 45 ]. Despite its increasing visibility, fish packaging has received little attention among researchers [ 46 ]. Indeed, there are only a few published studies that focus on fish and fish product packaging [11,45,47]. The main goal of this paper was to explore, through implicit and explicit techniques, the usefulness of co-creation with consumers for packaging design of fish products, thus including visual and textual attributes. 2. Materials and Methods This study analyses the effectiveness of co-creating packaging with consumers. Given the large number of attributes that normally define a package (colours, shape, size, claims, etc.) and the possible interactions between them, we opted for a holistic exploratory approach despite all the limitations associated with it, which are discussed in Section 3.5. The alternative would have been to only focus on some aspects of the packaging, but in that case, we would have moved further away from the real situation in which the packaging is usually evaluated as a whole. 2.1. Participants A sample of 200 participants was recruited in Spain. A convenience sampling method was applied, which included quotas for gender (evenly split) and age (between 18 and 64 years). All participants were fish consumers (once a month, at least) and responsible for food purchase and preparation within their household. A subcontracted market research agency oversaw the recruitment of the participants and the launch of the online survey. For the validation study, 40 respondents were recruited in Spain through a convenience, intentional, and reasoned sampling. All of the participants were older than 18 years, fish consumers (once a month, at least) and responsible for food purchase and preparation within their household. In addition, they met several specific criteria to take part in the implicit experiment [ 40 , 48 , 49 ] including not wearing glasses (except for monofocal) and neither having had eye surgery nor suffering from any eye disorders or diseases (for example., strabismus, amblyopia (lazy eye), mydriasis (permanently dilated pupils), daltonism (colour blindness), cataract and glaucoma). No items that covered participants’ faces (for example, bushy beard, facial tattoos, and thick-rimmed glasses) or substances that hindered their facial mobility (e.g., Botox) were allowed. 2.2. Questionnaire The co-creation process for packaging design focused on the fish product “meagre burger with mushrooms (black trumpet)” developed within the European Horizon 2020 funded project MedAID (see the Funding section for more details). The product was selected based on its convenience, but also on its novelty, as its ingredients (meagre and black trumpets) are seldom used in the Spanish market. The questionnaire was divided into three main parts: (i) visual attributes; (ii) textual attributes; (iii) sociodemographic characteristics (such as gender, age, education level, household size and presence of children at home). The visual attributes preferred by participants were identified by means of a compositional approach [ 50 ], similar to the self-explicated measurements, which are particularly useful for measuring consumers’ preferences when many attributes are considered simultaneously, although it does not allow for an exploration of the interaction between them [ 51 , 52 ]. Participants were asked to select which visual attributes they preferred among different options. When dealing with low involvement products, such as food, preference is Foods 2022,11, 1183 4 of 22 a good predictor of purchase intention [ 53 ]. The visual attributes of the packaging included the container type (bowl, bag, tray and box), colour (61 different options), window presence and type (16 options), picture presence and type (6 options), typeface (15 options), package presentation (individual, per serving and without divisions) and quantity of the package (one, two, four and more than four servings). An extract of the questionnaire used to assess preferred visual attributes for consumers can be found in Appendix A. The textual attributes of the packaging were grouped into three dimensions of quality: (i) searched attributes, those that are available before consumption; (ii) experienced attributes, which can only be evaluated after consumption; and (iii) credential attributes, which cannot be evaluated even after normal use of the product [ 54 – 57 ]. Three ratingbased full-profile conjoint analyses were performed, one per each quality dimension, to determine the relative importance of each factor in the consumers’ purchase intention, measured on an 11 point probability scale (0 = “absolutely no chance” to 10 = “absolute certain to buy”) [ 58 ]. Four factors were included in each conjoint analysis: (i, searched quality) convenience, price, products’ presentation and recyclability; (ii, experienced quality) freshness, texture, flavour and novelty; (iii, credential quality) health, natural, animal welfare and sustainability. Within each factor, two ways (levels) of deliver textual claims were tested: informative vs. interpretative. Two main approaches were used to select the textual attributes: a literature review and an assessment of current food products available in Spanish market. The information and attributes that were not considered were those that are mandatory on European fish labels such as production method (wild/farmed fish) or date of minimum durability [59]. 2.3. Packaging Design Four mock-ups of fish burger packaging were designed using Photoshop, version 21.2.1 (2020) (Adobe Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA) (Appendix B) and used as stimuli in the validation study. The mock-ups used were: (i) packaging of the preferred visual and textual attributes for the participants: the visual attributes most frequently chosen and the textual claims (levels from the conjoint analysis) with higher utility from the factor with higher relative importance for each of the quality dimensions; (ii) packaging of the second preferred visual and textual attributes chosen by the participants; (iii) packaging from an owned brand in Spanish supermarkets with the largest market share; (iv) packaging from the best-known and well-established brand of fish products in Spain. The former two packages were co-created by participants while the last two fish burgers packages from the Spanish market were regarded as possible competitors. The selection of two completely different packages for both the co-created and the competing products was made to reduce the possible bias caused by the inference of a particular attribute. In other words, to avoid that a specific attribute might triggers participants’ preference regardless of the rest of the packaging. The inclusion of multiple attributes in the co-created packages allowed the designing of a realistic packaging to be compared with real competitor products. Conversely, the two competing products were slightly modified to ensure that participants focused on the packaging rather than the product itself. To this end, the two packages from the competitors were photographed and photo edited (for example, brand name was removed and replaced with the packaging background, salmon fish burgers were replaced by meagre fish burgers with mushrooms to avoid respondents making their decisions based on the fish species, etc.). We do not have information on how the two competing packaging were created, neither if consumers took part in their design. However, this is not a critical aspect, as the goal of our study was to explore the usefulness of co-creation with consumers for packaging design, this is whether a packaging designed by means of co-creation can become a real competitor of successful products already existing in the market. 2.4. Validation Procedure The validation process included a combination of implicit (ET, GSR and AFEA) and explicit measurements. The equipment used to gather implicit measurements were ET Foods 2022,11, 1183 5 of 22 (Tobii Pro Nano, Tobii Pro, Stockholm, Sweden), GSR sensor (Shimmer3 GSR+, Shimmer Research, Dublin, Ireland) and a camera for AFEA (AFFDEX, Affectiva Inc., Boston, MA, USA) (Figure 1). Prior to the start of the test, participants received all the information needed to decide if they wanted to take part in the experiment in an informed way (informed consent). A calibration process preceded the data acquisition. To increase the ecological validity of the gathered data, a shopping setting was evoked. The participants were shown with a picture of a trolley in a supermarket and the context was evoked by telling them to imagine themselves in there doing shopping. The first task carried out by participants was to look at the four packaging mock-ups presented simultaneously for 30 s, trying to emulate a real situation in a supermarket (implicit measurement). To avoid the effect of the presentation order of the images, four balanced orders were established following the William’s Latin square [ 60 ]. Next, respondents were asked to rank their preference for each packaging from 1 to 4 as well as to punctuate the acceptability of each one on a continuous scale from 0 to 10 (0 = “lowest acceptability” to 10 = “maximum acceptability”) (explicit measurement). Following this, respondents were presented sequentially with each image individually for 10 s to allow them to observe the details of the packaging (implicit measurement). Afterwards, they were presented with the four packages simultaneously and asked about their purchase intention for each one on an 11 point probability scale (0 = “absolutely no chance” to 10 = “absolute certain to buy”) [58] (explicit measurement). Finally, more in-depth questions were formulated for each packaging to inquire into the consumers’ perceptions (for example, what were the positive and the negative aspects) through a personal interview (explicit measurement). Foods 2022, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 22 competing packaging were created, neither if consumers took part in their design. However, this is not a critical aspect, as the goal of our study was to explore the usefulness of co-creation with consumers for packaging design, this is whether a packaging designed by means of co-creation can become a real competitor of successful products already existing in the market. 2.4. Validation Procedure The validation process included a combination of implicit (ET, GSR and AFEA) and explicit measurements. The equipment used to gather implicit measurements were ET (Tobii Pro Nano, Tobii Pro, Stockholm, Sweden), GSR sensor (Shimmer3 GSR+, Shimmer Research, Dublin, Ireland) and a camera for AFEA (AFFDEX, Affectiva Inc., Boston, MA, USA) (Figure 1). Prior to the start of the test, participants received all the information needed to decide if they wanted to take part in the experiment in an informed way (informed consent). A calibration process preceded the data acquisition. To increase the ecological validity of the gathered data, a shopping setting was evoked. The participants were shown with a picture of a trolley in a supermarket and the context was evoked by telling them to imagine themselves in there doing shopping. The first task carried out by participants was to look at the four packaging mock-ups presented simultaneously for 30 s, trying to emulate a real situation in a supermarket (implicit measurement). To avoid the effect of the presentation order of the images, four balanced orders were established following the William’s Latin square [60]. Next, respondents were asked to rank their preference for each packaging from 1 to 4 as well as to punctuate the acceptability of each one on a continuous scale from 0 to 10 (0 = “lowest acceptability” to 10 = “maximum acceptability”) (explicit measurement). Following this, respondents were presented sequentially with each image individually for 10 s to allow them to observe the details of the packaging (implicit measurement). Afterwards, they were presented with the four packages simultaneously and asked about their purchase intention for each one on an 11 point probability scale (0 = “absolutely no chance” to 10 = “absolute certain to buy”) [58] (explicit measurement). Finally, more in-depth questions were formulated for each packaging to inquire into the consumers’ perceptions (for example, what were the positive and the negative aspects) through a personal interview (explicit measurement). Figure 1. Experimental set up for implicit measurements acquisition in the validation study: (a) camera for automatic facial expression analysis; (b) screen-based eye tracker; (c) galvanic skin response Bluetooth sensor; (d) example of a gaze path collected with the eye tracker; (e) example of automatic facial expression analysis. Informed consent was obtained from all participants. Figure 1. Experimental set up for implicit measurements acquisition in the validation study: ( a ) camera for automatic facial expression analysis; ( b ) screen-based eye tracker; ( c ) galvanic skin response Bluetooth sensor; ( d ) example of a gaze path collected with the eye tracker; ( e ) example of automatic facial expression analysis. Informed consent was obtained from all participants. 2.5. Data Analysis Visual attributes were analysed by means of absolute frequency of selection, as they were single-choice questions. To estimate the utility values and the relative importance that participants placed on the textual attributes within each quality dimension, the “conjoint analysis” function from the XLSTAT software, version 2020.1 (2020) (Addinsoft, Paris, France) was used, which also served to perform all statistical analyses. A oneway analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD) post hoc test was used to determine if there were statistical differences (p< 0.050) among levels and factors of the conjoint analysis. Foods 2022,11, 1183 12 of 22 Table 5. Implicit measurements (eye tracking metrics) and explicit measurements for the four packaging images presented simultaneously. Packaging Implicit Measurements Explicit Measurements TTFF (ms) Fixation Count Revisit Count Ranking Mean Score Ranking Acceptability Purchase Intention White tray 6955.04 723 b161 1 1.88 a6.55 a6.65 a Blue carton 7073.16 937 a164 2 2.45 a,b 5.85 a,b 5.00 b Black tray 7710.72 757 b146 3 2.75 b5.38 b5.25 b Bag 7755.21 755 b135 4 2.93 b4.71 b5.13 b a,b Different letters in the same column indicate statistically significant differences (p< 0.050); acceptability ranged from 0 (lowest acceptability) to 10 (maximum acceptability). Purchase intention ranged from 0 (absolutely no chance) to 10 (absolute certain to buy). In the present study, both packages design co-created by participants (white tray and blue carton) caught the participants’ attention first and were revisited more frequently, although no significant differences were found between the four packaging at the fixed p-value < 0.050. Gigerenzer [ 88 ] advised that the significance level should not be fixed by convention at 0.050 in any discipline but not especially in social science, as always depend on the aim of the research and the sample size. Although 0.050 is the most widespread value to set the significance level, other authors opt for considering using higher p-values, such as 0.100 or 0.200 [ 89 – 91 ]. It should be noted that the statistical probability values obtained for the non-significant variables in our case were 0.299 for revisit count and 0.220 for the TTFF, indicating those values certain discriminant ability. In addition, it should be kept in mind that the number of participants in implicit measurement experiments is usually low (N= 40 in this study) and that the measures tend to show a higher inter-individual variability. Finally, the fixation count was higher for the blue carton (p< 0.0001), meaning that it elicited higher amounts of attention. Broadly speaking, the results obtained indicated that there were no major differences between the two co-created packages and the two most well-established existing fish products in the Spanish market in terms of capturing the participants’ visual attention. Therefore, considering that capturing consumers’ attention is the first step in arousing interest in a product [ 92 ], the co-created products have similar likelihood of being considered during the buying decision process. 3.4.2. Visual Attention: Individual Packaging Presentation When individual packaging images were presented, the larger size of the pictures displayed a greater level of detail. The individual heatmap of the four packages allowed for the discovery that for the packages co-created by consumers (white tray and blue carton), the textual attributes drew a lot of attention (such as freshly filleted, processed and packed; 80% recyclable packaging; guaranteed animal welfare; now 5% cheaper) (Figure 3). In the same vein, visual cues (such as quantity, presentation, picture, and window) also grabbed participants’ attention. Nevertheless, some visual cues were difficult to evaluate with ET, for example, it was not possible to determine if participants were looking at the type of container or its colour. For the mock-ups of the competitors, the name of the mushroom “black trumpet”, which in Spanish means “trumpets of death”, obtained the most attention together with the ready-to-eat picture, serving suggestion text, fish species and instructions for use. Nevertheless, although attention by individuals is a gateway to a higher-order cognitive process of the information [ 92 ], seeing is not necessarily liking [ 93 ]. Therefore, complementing ET measurements with other implicit (for example, emotional response) and explicit techniques allowed to more accurately capturing consumers’ opinions and preferences. Foods 2022,11, 1183 13 of 22 Foods 2022, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 22 (a) (b) (c) (d) Figure 3. Individual heatmap (visual attention): (a) white tray; (b) blue carton; (c) black tray; (d) bag. Visual attention ranged from low (green colour) to high (red colour). 3.4.3. Emotional Response: Intensity and Valence Emotional intensity indicated how many emotional activation events occurred every minute. The higher the number, the more intense the participant’s emotional response. The valence of the emotional response was expressed as the percentage of time that participants displayed a positive or negative facial expression. Results showed that no statistically significant differences were found in GSR (p = 0.246) and AFEA (p = 0.481) measurements among the four packaging (Figure 4). Two main reasons may explain the results obtained, (i) all packages elicited a similar emotional intensity and valence; (ii) the type of stimuli used (images) were not engaging-enough to arise intense emotional responses. Some images are able to arise emotional responses, especially disgusting or shocking ones, whereas other images require more contextual information [43]. Figure 4. Intensity and valence (positive and negative) of the emotions elicited by the packaging (individual presentation). Figure 3. Individual heatmap (visual attention): ( a ) white tray; ( b ) blue carton; ( c ) black tray; ( d ) bag. Visual attention ranged from low (green colour) to high (red colour). 3.4.3. Emotional Response: Intensity and Valence Emotional intensity indicated how many emotional activation events occurred every minute. The higher the number, the more intense the participant’s emotional response. The valence of the emotional response was expressed as the percentage of time that participants displayed a positive or negative facial expression. Results showed that no statistically significant differences were found in GSR (p= 0.246) and AFEA (p= 0.481) measurements among the four packaging (Figure 4). Two main reasons may explain the results obtained, (i) all packages elicited a similar emotional intensity and valence; (ii) the type of stimuli used (images) were not engaging-enough to arise intense emotional responses. Some images are able to arise emotional responses, especially disgusting or shocking ones, whereas other images require more contextual information [43]. Foods 2022, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 22 (a) (b) (c) (d) Figure 3. Individual heatmap (visual attention): (a) white tray; (b) blue carton; (c) black tray; (d) bag. Visual attention ranged from low (green colour) to high (red colour). 3.4.3. Emotional Response: Intensity and Valence Emotional intensity indicated how many emotional activation events occurred every minute. The higher the number, the more intense the participant’s emotional response. The valence of the emotional response was expressed as the percentage of time that participants displayed a positive or negative facial expression. Results showed that no statistically significant differences were found in GSR (p = 0.246) and AFEA (p = 0.481) measurements among the four packaging (Figure 4). Two main reasons may explain the results obtained, (i) all packages elicited a similar emotional intensity and valence; (ii) the type of stimuli used (images) were not engaging-enough to arise intense emotional responses. Some images are able to arise emotional responses, especially disgusting or shocking ones, whereas other images require more contextual information [43]. Figure 4. Intensity and valence (positive and negative) of the emotions elicited by the packaging (individual presentation). Figure 4. Intensity and valence (positive and negative) of the emotions elicited by the packaging (individual presentation). Foods 2022,11, 1183 14 of 22 3.4.4. Explicit Measurements To infer which attributes from the packaging conveyed positive and negative emotions from the participants, the results from individual interviews were used, connecting implicit and explicit results; the most recurrent ones are listed in Table 6. The results showed that all positive aspects elicited for the two packages co-created by participants were visual (such as ready-to-eat picture, individually packed and fish picture) or textual attributes (such as “80% recyclable packaging”, “guaranteed animal welfare” and “protects your heart”). Only “now 5% cheaper” conveyed negative feelings among participants. Most of them argued that they were distrustful, one participant stated, “do they save on the quality of the product as well?”, while others hesitated if claim should not be permanently printed on the label. Table 6. Most common positive and negative opinions about the packaging gathered through individual interviews. Packaging Positive Opinion Negative Opinion White tray “80% recyclable packaging” claim “Guaranteed animal welfare” claim Ready-to-eat picture Valuable information was missing Uncertain about packing per serving or no division Blue carton Individually packed “Protects your heart” claim Fish picture Too much plastic Mistrust due to the “now 5% cheaper” claim Valuable information was missing Black tray Packed per serving Lot of information at first sight Full vision of the product Black colour of the tray Small letter size Too much plastic Bag Ready-to-eat picture “Tapeo” as the product’s description Blue colour Unable to see the product Bag format container Information was missing The results of the self-reported explicit measurements (Table 5) showed a clear preference of participants for one of the packaging co-created by consumers in the former experiment. In particular, the preferred option was the white tray, which obtained the best scores in the three explicit measurements: ranking, acceptability, and purchase intention. 3.5. Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research This study is exploratory in nature and not without limitations. The recruitment of the 200 participants was made by means of a convenience sampling, therefore, generalisation of the results to the studied population should be made with caution. Because of the relatively low number of consumers recruited, it has not been possible to carry out a deeper analysis to identify consumer segments with differentiated preferences and design different packaging tailored for specific consumers’ needs. The inclusion of multiple attributes in the co-created packages allowed us to design a realistic packaging and to test it against real competitor products in the market, although it limits the possibility to assess interactions between attributes or to identify which combination of them may play the most important role in shaping participants’ preferences. In the questionnaire of the former study, participants were only offered the Spanish word “pescado” (fish in English) to select the typeface they preferred. Results obtained showed that participants frequently chose style script typefaces, which are not suited for long-written documents due to their poor readability. Thus, results might have changed if they had been presented with a full statement that also allowed them to assess the legibility of the typeface. Introducing this change in the questionnaire is highly advisable for future studies. Finally, the ecological validity of data gathered through surveys or in artificial laboratory setting can be easily argued. In this sense, sometimes the stimuli used in the implicit measurements (for example, fish product pictures), may be not engaging enough to arise a Foods 2022,11, 1183 15 of 22 measurable emotional response. Therefore, future studies should focus on more realistic settings, such as a real shopping environment, thus including physical prototypes to better confirm or reject the usefulness of incorporating consumers through co-creation in the design of the packages. 4. Conclusions A co-creation process with consumers was successfully applied for packaging design, which allowed for the independent identification of the visual and textual attributes that best fit their preferences. Participants had clear preferences for specific package attributes for a fish product, both in terms of visual and textual attributes. The information gathered could be useful for designers and marketers to guide the packaging design for fish products in the Spanish market, although care is required if the results obtained are extrapolated to other countries and products, as there may be significant differences among consumers’ preferences from different regions and cultures. Consumers showed their preference for informative claims over interpretative ones when it comes to the packaging of a fish product. The validation process carried out with implicit and explicit methods showed that the packaging co-created by consumers were equally or even more preferred than two of the competitor fish products from the Spanish market. The use of implicit techniques allowed us to obtain measurements without the interference of social conventions. The results obtained indicated that co-created packaging captured participants’ visual attention and emotional response in a similar way to that of the competitor fish products. Explicit measurements showed that the co-created packaging designed according to the participants’ selected visual and textual attributes (white tray) was the mock-up preferred in the validation study, showing a higher acceptability and purchasing intention. Therefore, the validation performed confirmed the usefulness of incorporating consumers’ opinions during packaging design. As a final conclusion, it is highly encouraged to involve consumers in all stages of the NPD, but especially in packaging design, as it has been proven that co-creation is a straightforward and effective way to design the fish product’s packaging according to consumers’ needs and demands, a fact that could improve a products’ success on the market. Author Contributions: Conceptualisation, L.L.-M. and L.G.; methodology, L.L.-M., A.C., A.B., M.L. and L.G.; formal analysis, L.L.-M., A.B. and L.G.; investigation, L.L.-M. and A.B.; writing—original draft preparation, L.L.-M.; writing—review and editing, A.C., A.B., M.L. and L.G.; supervision, L.G.; project administration, L.G.; funding acquisition, L.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research was funded by the European Union’s Horizon2020 MedAID project (grant number 727315). L.L.-M. was supported by a grant from the Secretaria d’Universitats i Recerca de la Generalitat de Catalunya and the European Social Fund. Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Institute of Agrifood Research and Technology (IRTA) (protocol code CCSC 8/2021). Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Data Availability Statement: Data is contained within the article. Acknowledgments: Special thanks to all partners from the MedAID project and WP5 colleagues. Particular recognition to AZTI for leading the WP5 and the development of the fish products. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results. Foods 2022,11, 1183 16 of 22 Appendix A Questionnaire to assess participants’ preferences for visual attributes for a fish burger packaging. The full questionnaire can be obtained from the first author of this paper upon request. Imagine you could design the appearance of your favourite packaging. For a sea and mountain burger: fish (meagre) with mushrooms (black trumpets), choose your favourite option from those presented in each question. (1) Container type For a sea and mountain burger: fish (meagre) with mushrooms (black trumpets), which container would you favour the most? Please select your preferred option from those presented below. Foods 2022, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 22 Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results. Appendix A Questionnaire to assess participants’ preferences for visual attributes for a fish burger packaging. The full questionnaire can be obtained from the first author of this paper upon request. Imagine you could design the appearance of your favourite packaging. For a sea and mountain burger: fish (meagre) with mushrooms (black trumpets), choose your favourite option from those presented in each question. (1) Container type For a sea and mountain burger: fish (meagre) with mushrooms (black trumpets), which container would you favour the most? Please select your preferred option from those presented below. □ Bowl □ Bag □ Tray □ Box (2) Container colour For a sea and mountain burger: fish (meagre) with mushrooms (black trumpets), which colour of the container would you favour the most? Please select your preferred option from those presented below. Foods 2022, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 22 Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results. Appendix A Questionnaire to assess participants’ preferences for visual attributes for a fish burger packaging. The full questionnaire can be obtained from the first author of this paper upon request. Imagine you could design the appearance of your favourite packaging. For a sea and mountain burger: fish (meagre) with mushrooms (black trumpets), choose your favourite option from those presented in each question. (1) Container type For a sea and mountain burger: fish (meagre) with mushrooms (black trumpets), which container would you favour the most? Please select your preferred option from those presented below. □ Bowl □ Bag □ Tray □ Box (2) Container colour For a sea and mountain burger: fish (meagre) with mushrooms (black trumpets), which colour of the container would you favour the most? Please select your preferred option from those presented below. Foods 2022, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 22 Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results. Appendix A Questionnaire to assess participants’ preferences for visual attributes for a fish burger packaging. The full questionnaire can be obtained from the first author of this paper upon request. Imagine you could design the appearance of your favourite packaging. For a sea and mountain burger: fish (meagre) with mushrooms (black trumpets), choose your favourite option from those presented in each question. (1) Container type For a sea and mountain burger: fish (meagre) with mushrooms (black trumpets), which container would you favour the most? Please select your preferred option from those presented below. □ Bowl □ Bag □ Tray □ Box (2) Container colour For a sea and mountain burger: fish (meagre) with mushrooms (black trumpets), which colour of the container would you favour the most? Please select your preferred option from those presented below. Foods 2022, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 22 Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results. Appendix A Questionnaire to assess participants’ preferences for visual attributes for a fish burger packaging. The full questionnaire can be obtained from the first author of this paper upon request. Imagine you could design the appearance of your favourite packaging. For a sea and mountain burger: fish (meagre) with mushrooms (black trumpets), choose your favourite option from those presented in each question. (1) Container type For a sea and mountain burger: fish (meagre) with mushrooms (black trumpets), which container would you favour the most? Please select your preferred option from those presented below. □ Bowl □ Bag □ Tray □ Box (2) Container colour For a sea and mountain burger: fish (meagre) with mushrooms (black trumpets), which colour of the container would you favour the most? Please select your preferred option from those presented below. Bowl Bag Tray Box (2) Container colour For a sea and mountain burger: fish (meagre) with mushrooms (black trumpets), which colour of the container would you favour the most? Please select your preferred option from those presented below. Foods 2022, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 22 Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results. Appendix A Questionnaire to assess participants’ preferences for visual attributes for a fish burger packaging. The full questionnaire can be obtained from the first author of this paper upon request. Imagine you could design the appearance of your favourite packaging. For a sea and mountain burger: fish (meagre) with mushrooms (black trumpets), choose your favourite option from those presented in each question. (1) Container type For a sea and mountain burger: fish (meagre) with mushrooms (black trumpets), which container would you favour the most? Please select your preferred option from those presented below. □ Bowl □ Bag □ Tray □ Box (2) Container colour For a sea and mountain burger: fish (meagre) with mushrooms (black trumpets), which colour of the container would you favour the most? Please select your preferred option from those presented below. Foods 2022,11, 1183 17 of 22 (3) Window presence and type For a sea and mountain burger: fish (meagre) with mushrooms (black trumpets), choose whether you would prefer the packaging to have a window and, if so, which type of window? Please select your preferred option from those presented below. 1. Large left side window 2. Medium left side window 3. Small left side window 4. Lower medium window 5. Large right side window 6. Medium right side window 7. Small right side window 8. Upper medium window 9. Triangular left side window 10. Triangular right side window 11. Central medium window 12. Circular central 13. No window 14. Full window 15. Asymmetrical left side window 16. Asymmetrical right side window (4) Picture presence and type For a sea and mountain burger: fish (meagre) with mushrooms (black trumpets), choose whether you would prefer the packaging to have a picture and, if so, which type of picture? Please select your preferred option from those presented below. 1. Dish ready-to-eat; 2. Ingredients (e.g., fish, black trumpet . . . ); 3. People (e.g., someone eating, a family . . . ); 4. Other pictures (e.g., a landscape, the sea . . . ); 5. A combination of the latter options; 6. Without a picture. (5) Typeface For a sea and mountain burger: fish (meagre) with mushrooms (black trumpets), which typeface would you favour the most? Please select your preferred option from those presented below. Foods 2022,11, 1183 18 of 22 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. (6) Package presentation For a sea and mountain burger: fish (meagre) with mushrooms (black trumpets), which type of package presentation would you favour the most? Please select your preferred option from those presented below. 1. Individually packed 2. Packed per serving (two burgers per serving) 3. Without divisions, all burgers in the package together (7) Quantity of the package For a sea and mountain burger: fish (meagre) with mushrooms (black trumpets), which number of servings would you prefer? Consider two burgers per serving. Please select your preferred option from those presented below. 1 serving 2 servings 4 servings More than 4 servings Appendix B The stimuli in full resolution can be obtained from the first author of this paper upon request. Foods 2022,11, 1183 19 of 22 Foods 2022, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 22 (a) (b) (c) (d) Figure A1. Mock-ups used as stimuli in the validation process: (a) packaging of the preferred visual and textual attributes chosen by participants; (b) packaging of the second preferred visual and textual attributes chosen by participants; (c) photo edited packaging from an owned brand in Spanish supermarkets with the highest sales share; (d) photo edited packaging of the best-known and wellestablished brand of fish products in Spain. References 1. POPAI. Mass Merchant Shopper Engagement Study; POPAI: Chicago, IL, USA, 2014. 2. Hallez, L.; Qutteina, Y.; Raedschelders, M.; Boen, F.; Smits, T. That’s my cue to eat: A systematic review of the persuasiveness of front-of-pack cues on food packages for children vs. adults. Nutrients 2020, 12, 1062. 3. van Rompay, T.J.L.; Veltkamp, M. Product packaging metaphors: Effects of ambiguity and explanatory information on consumer appreciation and brand perception. Psychol. Mark. 2014, 31, 404–415. 4. Ares, G.; Deliza, R. Studying the influence of package shape and colour on consumer expectations of milk desserts using word association and conjoint analysis. Food Qual. Prefer. 2010, 21, 930–937. 5. Butkevičiene, V.; Stravinskiene, J.; Rutelione, A. Impact of consumer package communication on consumer decision making process. Eng. Econ. 2008, 1, 57–65. 6. Newman, C.L.; Howlett, E.; Burton, S. Effects of objective and evaluative front-of-package cues on food evaluation and choice: The moderating influence of comparative and noncomparative processing contexts. J. Consum. Res. 2016, 42, 749–766. 7. Simmonds, G.; Spence, C. Thinking inside the box: How seeing products on, or through, the packaging influences consumer perceptions and purchase behaviour. Food Qual. Prefer. 2017, 62, 340–351. 8. Silayoi, P.; Speece, M. Packaging and purchase decisions: An exploratory study on the impact of involvement level and time pressure. Br. Food J. 2004, 106, 607–628. 9. Labbe, D.; Pineau, N.; Martin, N. Food expected naturalness: Impact of visual, tactile and auditory packaging material properties and role of perceptual interactions. Food Qual. Prefer. 2013, 27, 170–178. 10. Kees, J.; Royne, M.B.; Cho, Y.N. Regulating front-of-package nutrition information disclosures: A test of industry self-regulation vs. other popular options. J. Consum. Aff. 2014, 48, 147–174. 11. Heide, M.; Olsen, S.O. Influence of packaging attributes on consumer evaluation of fresh cod. Food Qual. Prefer. 2017, 60, 9–18. 12. Chrysochou, P.; Grunert, K.G. Health-related ad information and health motivation effects on product evaluations. J. Bus. Res. 2014, 67, 1209–1217. 13. Fenko, A.; de Vries, R.; van Rompay, T. How strong is your coffee? The influence of visual metaphors and textual claims on consumers’ flavor perception and product evaluation. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 53. Figure A1. Mock-ups used as stimuli in the validation process: ( a ) packaging of the preferred visual and textual attributes chosen by participants; ( b ) packaging of the second preferred visual and textual attributes chosen by participants; ( c ) photo edited packaging from an owned brand in Spanish supermarkets with the highest sales share; ( d ) photo edited packaging of the best-known and well-established brand of fish products in Spain. References 1. POPAI. Mass Merchant Shopper Engagement Study; POPAI: Chicago, IL, USA, 2014. 2. Hallez, L.; Qutteina, Y.; Raedschelders, M.; Boen, F.; Smits, T. That’s my cue to eat: A systematic review of the persuasiveness of front-of-pack cues on food packages for children vs. adults. Nutrients 2020,12, 1062. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 3. van Rompay, T.J.L.; Veltkamp, M. Product packaging metaphors: Effects of ambiguity and explanatory information on consumer appreciation and brand perception. Psychol. Mark. 2014,31, 404–415. [CrossRef] 4. Ares, G.; Deliza, R. Studying the influence of package shape and colour on consumer expectations of milk desserts using word association and conjoint analysis. Food Qual. Prefer. 2010,21, 930–937. [CrossRef] 5. Butkeviˇciene, V.; Stravinskiene, J.; Rutelione, A. Impact of consumer package communication on consumer decision making process. Eng. Econ. 2008,1, 57–65. 6. Newman, C.L.; Howlett, E.; Burton, S. Effects of objective and evaluative front-of-package cues on food evaluation and choice: The moderating influence of comparative and noncomparative processing contexts. J. Consum. Res. 2016 ,42, 749–766. [CrossRef] 7. Simmonds, G.; Spence, C. Thinking inside the box: How seeing products on, or through, the packaging influences consumer perceptions and purchase behaviour. Food Qual. Prefer. 2017,62, 340–351. [CrossRef] 8. Silayoi, P.; Speece, M. Packaging and purchase decisions: An exploratory study on the impact of involvement level and time pressure. Br. Food J. 2004,106, 607–628. [CrossRef] 9. Labbe, D.; Pineau, N.; Martin, N. Food expected naturalness: Impact of visual, tactile and auditory packaging material properties and role of perceptual interactions. Food Qual. Prefer. 2013,27, 170–178. [CrossRef] 10. Kees, J.; Royne, M.B.; Cho, Y.N. Regulating front-of-package nutrition information disclosures: A test of industry self-regulation vs. other popular options. J. Consum. Aff. 2014,48, 147–174. [CrossRef] 11. Heide, M.; Olsen, S.O. Influence of packaging attributes on consumer evaluation of fresh cod. Food Qual. Prefer. 2017 ,60, 9–18. [CrossRef] 12. Chrysochou, P.; Grunert, K.G. Health-related ad information and health motivation effects on product evaluations. J. Bus. Res. 2014,67, 1209–1217. [CrossRef] Foods 2022,11, 1183 20 of 22 13. Fenko, A.; de Vries, R.; van Rompay, T. How strong is your coffee? The influence of visual metaphors and textual claims on consumers’ flavor perception and product evaluation. Front. Psychol. 2018,9, 53. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 14. Celhay, F.; Boysselle, J.; Cohen, J. Food packages and communication through typeface design: The exoticism of exotypes. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015,39, 167–175. [CrossRef] 15. Velasco, C.; Hyndman, S.; Spence, C. The role of typeface curvilinearity on taste expectations and perception. Int. J. Gastron. Food Sci. 2018,11, 63–74. [CrossRef] 16. Ilyuk, V.; Block, L. The effects of single-serve packaging on consumption closure and judgments of product efficacy. J. Consum. Res. 2016,42, 858–878. [CrossRef] 17. Grunert, K.G.; Scholderer, J.; Rogeaux, M. Determinants of consumer understanding of health claims. Appetite 2011 ,56, 269–277. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 18. Feunekes, G.I.J.; Gortemaker, I.A.; Willems, A.A.; Lion, R.; van den Kommer, M. Front-of-pack nutrition labelling: Testing effectiveness of different nutrition labelling formats front-of-pack in four European countries. Appetite 2008 ,50, 57–70. [CrossRef] 19. Rybak, G.; Burton, S.; Johnson, A.M.; Berry, C. Promoted claims on food product packaging: Comparing direct and indirect effects of processing and nutrient content claims. J. Bus. Res. 2021,135, 464–479. [CrossRef] 20. Egnell, M.; Talati, Z.; Hercberg, S.; Pettigrew, S.; Julia, C. Objective understanding of front-of-package nutrition labels: An international comparative experimental study across 12 countries. Nutrients 2018,10, 1524. [CrossRef] 21. Hanss, D.; Böhm, G. Sustainability seen from the perspective of consumers. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2012,36, 678–687. [CrossRef] 22. Luttenberger, D. 2021 Packaging Trend: The Rise of Responsibility; Mintel: Sewell, NJ, USA, 2021. 23. Nielsen. Setting the Record Straight on Innovation Failure; Nielsen: New York, NY, USA, 2018. 24. Moon, H.; Johnson, J.L.; Mariadoss, B.J.; Cullen, J.B. Supplier and customer involvement in New Product Development stages: Implications for new product innovation outcomes. Int. J. Innov. Technol. Manag. 2018,15, 1850004. [CrossRef] 25. van Kleef, E.; van Trijp, H.C.M.; Luning, P. Consumer research in the early stages of new product development: A critical review of methods and techniques. Food Qual. Prefer. 2005,16, 181–201. [CrossRef] 26. Hoyer, W.D.; Chandy, R.; Dorotic, M.; Krafft, M.; Singh, S.S. Consumer cocreation in new product development. J. Serv. Res. 2010,13, 283–296. [CrossRef] 27. Witell, L.; Kristensson, P.; Gustafsson, A.; Löfgren, M. Idea generation: Customer co-creation versus traditional market research techniques. J. Serv. Manag. 2011,22, 140–159. [CrossRef] 28. Banovi´c, M.; Krystallis, A.; Guerrero, L.; Reinders, M.J. Consumers as co-creators of new product ideas: An application of projective and creative research techniques. Food Res. Int. 2016,87, 211–223. [CrossRef] 29. de Wijk, R.A.; Noldus, L.P.J.J. Using implicit rather than explicit measures of emotions. Food Qual. Prefer. 2021 ,92, 104125. [CrossRef] 30. Piqueras-Fiszman, B.; Velasco, C.; Salgado-Montejo, A.; Spence, C. Using combined eye tracking and word association in order to assess novel packaging solutions: A case study involving jam jars. Food Qual. Prefer. 2013,28, 328–338. [CrossRef] 31. Donoghue, S. Projective techniques in consumer research. J. Fam. Ecol. Consum. Sci. 2000,28, 47–53. [CrossRef] 32. Ares, G.; Giménez, A.; Bruzzone, F.; Vidal, L.; Antúnez, L.; Maiche, A. Consumer visual processing of food labels: Results from an eye-tracking study. J. Sens. Stud. 2013,28, 138–153. [CrossRef] 33. Liao, L.X.; Corsi, A.M.; Chrysochou, P.; Lockshin, L. Emotional responses towards food packaging: A joint application of self-report and physiological measures of emotion. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015,42, 48–55. [CrossRef] 34. Kessler, S.J.; Jiang, F.; Andrew Hurley, R. The state of automated facial expression analysis (AFEA) in evaluating consumer packaged beverages. Beverages 2020,6, 27. [CrossRef] 35. Pentus, K.; Mehine, T.; Kuusik, A. Considering emotions in product package design through combining conjoint analysis with psycho physiological measurements. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014,148, 280–290. [CrossRef] 36. Vergura, D.T.; Luceri, B. Product packaging and consumers’ emotional response. Does spatial representation influence product evaluation and choice? J. Consum. Mark. 2018,35, 218–227. [CrossRef] 37. Russo, E.J. Eye fixations can save the world: A critical evaluation and a comparison between eye fixations and other information processing methodologies. In Advances in Consumer Research; Kent Hunt, A.A., Ed.; Association for Consumer Research: Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 1978; pp. 561–570. 38. Caruelle, D.; Gustafsson, A.; Shams, P.; Lervik-Olsen, L. The use of electrodermal activity (EDA) measurement to understand consumer emotions—A literature review and a call for action. J. Bus. Res. 2019,104, 146–160. [CrossRef] 39. Critchley, H.D. Electrodermal responses: What happens in the brain. Neuroscientist 2002,8, 132–142. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 40. iMotions. Facial Expression Analysis: The Complete Pocket Guide; iMotions: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2017. 41. Andrade, C. Internal, external, and ecological validity in research design, conduct, and evaluation. Indian J. Psychol. Med. 2018,40, 498–499. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 42. Spinelli, S.; Monteleone, E. Emotional responses to products. In Methods in Consumer Research, Volume 1: New Approaches to Classic Methods; Ares, G., Varela, P., Eds.; Woodhead Publishing: Duxford, UK, 2018; Volume 1, pp. 261–296. 43. Grühn, D.; Sharifian, N. Lists of emotional stimuli. In Emotion Measurement; Meiselman, H.L., Ed.; Woodhead Publishing: Duxford, UK, 2016; pp. 169–196. 44. Marques da Rosa, V.; Spence, C.; Miletto Tonetto, L. Influences of visual attributes of food packaging on consumer preference and associations with taste and healthiness. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2019,43, 210–217. [CrossRef] Foods 2022,11, 1183 21 of 22 45. Birch, D.; Lawley, M.; Hamblin, D. Drivers and barriers to seafood consumption in Australia. J. Consum. Mark. 2012 ,29, 64–73. [CrossRef] 46. Carlucci, D.; Nocella, G.; De Devitiis, B.; Viscecchia, R.; Bimbo, F.; Nardone, G. Consumer purchasing behaviour towards fish and seafood products. Patterns and insights from a sample of international studies. Appetite 2015,84, 212–227. [CrossRef] 47. Arvanitoyannis, I.S.; Krystallis, A.; Panagiotaki, P.; Theodorou, A.J. A marketing survey on Greek consumers’ attitudes towards fish. Aquac. Int. 2004,12, 259–279. [CrossRef] 48. Duerrschmid, K.; Danner, L. Eye tracking in consumer research. In Methods in Consumer Research, Volume 2: Alternative Approaches and Special Applications; Ares, G., Varela, P., Eds.; Woodhead Publishing: Duxford, UK, 2018; Volume 2, pp. 279–318. 49. van Bommel, R.; Stieger, M.; Visalli, M.; de Wijk, R.; Jager, G. Does the face show what the mind tells? A comparison between dynamic emotions obtained from facial expressions and Temporal Dominance of Emotions (TDE). Food Qual. Prefer. 2020 , 85, 103976. [CrossRef] 50. Jain, A.K.; Mahajan, V.; Malhotra, N.K. Multiattribute preference models for consumer research: A synthesis. Adv. Consum. Res. 1979,6, 248–252. 51. Sattler, H.; Hensel-Börner, S. A comparison of conjoint measurement with self-explicated approaches. In Conjoint Measurement: Methods and Applications; Gustafsson, A., Herrmann, A., Huber, F., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2000; pp. 121–133. 52. Schlereth, C.; Eckert, C.; Schaaf, R.; Skiera, B. Measurement of preferences with self-explicated approaches: A classification and merge of trade-offand non-trade-off-based evaluation types. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2014,238, 185–198. [CrossRef] 53. Banks, S. The relationships between preference and purchase of brands. Source J. Mark. 1950,15, 145–157. 54. Bernués, A.; Olaizola, A.; Corcoran, K. Extrinsic attributes of red meat as indicators of quality in Europe: An application for market segmentation. Food Qual. Prefer. 2003,14, 265–276. [CrossRef] 55. Fandos, C.; Flavián, C. Intrinsic and extrinsic quality attributes, loyalty and buying intention: An analysis for a PDO product. Br. Food J. 2006,108, 646–662. [CrossRef] 56. Fernqvist, F.; Ekelund, L. Credence and the effect on consumer liking of food—A review. Food Qual. Prefer. 2014 ,32, 340–353. [CrossRef] 57. Lee, H.J.; Yun, Z.S. Consumers’ perceptions of organic food attributes and cognitive and affective attitudes as determinants of their purchase intentions toward organic food. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015,39, 259–267. [CrossRef] 58. Juster, F.T. Consumer Buying Intentions and Purchase Probability: An Experiment in Survey Design. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1966 ,61, 658–696. [CrossRef] 59. European Parliament. REGULATION (EU) No 1379/2013 of 11 December 2013 on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1184/2006 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000. Off. J. Eur. Union 2013,L354, 1–21. 60. Macfie, H.J.; Bratchell, N.; Greenhoff, K.; Vallis, L.V. Designs to balance the effect of order of presentation and first-order carry-over effects in hall tests. J. Sens. Stud. 1989,4, 129–148. [CrossRef] 61. Vu, T.M.H.; Tu, V.P.; Duerrschmid, K. Design factors influence consumers’ gazing behaviour and decision time in an eye-tracking test: A study on food images. Food Qual. Prefer. 2016,47, 130–138. [CrossRef] 62. Farnsworth, B. 10 Most Used Eye Tracking Metrics and Terms. Available online: https://imotions.com/blog/7-terms-metricseye-tracking/ (accessed on 15 August 2021). 63. Antúnez, L.; Vidal, L.; Sapolinski, A.; Giménez, A.; Maiche, A.; Ares, G. How do design features influence consumer attention when looking for nutritional information on food labels? Results from an eye-tracking study on pan bread labels. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 2013,64, 515–527. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 64. Kulke, L.; Feyerabend, D.; Schacht, A. A Comparison of the affectiva iMotions facial expression analysis software with EMG for identifying facial expressions of emotion. Front. Psychol. 2020,11, 11. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 65. iMotions. Galvanic Skin Response: The Complete Pocket Guide; iMotions: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2017. 66. EUROSTAT. Population on 1 January by Age and Sex. Available online: https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do? dataset=demo_pjan&lang=en (accessed on 15 April 2021). 67. Claret, A.; Guerrero, L.; Aguirre, E.; Rincón, L.; Hernández, M.D.; Martínez, I.; Peleteiro, J.B.; Grau, A.; Rodríguez-Rodríguez, C. Consumer preferences for sea fish using conjoint analysis: Exploratory study of the importance of country of origin, obtaining method, storage conditions and purchasing price. Food Qual. Prefer. 2012,26, 259–266. [CrossRef] 68. Llauger, M.; Claret, A.; Bou, R.; López-Mas, L.; Guerrero, L. Consumer attitudes toward consumption of meat products containing offal and offal extracts. Foods 2021,10, 1454. [CrossRef] 69. Gacula, M.; Rutenbeck, S. Sample size in consumer test and descriptive analysis. J. Sens. Stud. 2006,21, 129–145. [CrossRef] 70. Gonzalez Viejo, C.; Fuentes, S.; Howell, K.; Torrico, D.D.; Dunshea, F.R. Integration of non-invasive biometrics with sensory analysis techniques to assess acceptability of beer by consumers. Physiol. Behav. 2019,200, 139–147. [CrossRef] 71. Mintel. Global New Products Database (GNPD). Available online: https://www.gnpd.com/sinatra/search_results/?search_id= jGAUEhRTnx&page=0 (accessed on 30 July 2021). 72. Labrecque, L.I.; Milne, G.R. Exciting red and competent blue: The importance of color in marketing. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2012,40, 711–727. [CrossRef] 73. Luttenberger, D. The Use of Windows on Packaging; Mintel: Sewell, NJ, USA, 2015. 74. Spiekermann, E. Stop Stealing Sheep & Find Out How Type Works, 3rd ed.; Adobe Press: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2014. 5. GENERAL DISCUSSION 128 The results of the general beliefs (P1) demonstrated that European consumers perceived wild fish as fresher and of a higher overall quality than farmed fish. In contrast, aquaculture fish was better perceived in terms of price, availability, and being less affected by chemical (pollutants and heavy metals) and biological hazards (parasites), but containing higher concentrations of antibiotics than wild fish. An in-depth discussion of consumers’ beliefs when both production systems are compared is provided below. PRACTICAL IMPLICATION (1.I): determining which consumers’ beliefs are in favour or against farmed fish may be useful for designing informational and promotional campaigns and communication strategies aimed at improving the image of aquaculture fish to encourage its consumption. The perceived quality of a product is one of the main reasons behind its purchase (Bacher, 2015; Conte et al., 2014). A multitude of studies revealed that consumers perceive wild fish as being of better quality than farmed fish (Claret et al., 2014; NSC, 2018; Reig et al., 2019; Vanhonacker et al., 2013; Verbeke, Vanhonacker et al., 2007), including studies P1, P2, and P3. Even so, it is recognised that for those species where farmed fish is well established and widely available in the markets (e.g., salmon), most consumed fish comes from aquaculture (European Commission, 2022). This indicates that consumers’ perceptions of the higher availability and the lower price of farmed fish (Hall & Amberg, 2013; Vanhonacker et al., 2013; Verbeke, Sioen et al., 2007) may have had greater weight in their purchasing decisions than the higher perceived quality of wild fish (P1). It is worth noting that beliefs price and availability are both shaped by individuals’ perceptions. It is well known that observational beliefs are less likely to be erroneous (Pinder, 2008) as subjects rarely doubt the authenticity of their observations (Underwood, 2009). PRACTICAL IMPLICATION (1.II): it is recommended to emphasise during farmed fish promotion those observational aspects that are well perceived among consumers, as were its lower price and greater availability. Fish safety encompasses the absence of harmful agents, including chemical, biological, and physical hazards (Jennings et al., 2016; Poli, 2005). Generally, European consumers perceived aquaculture fish as less affected by these hazards, except for drug residues or antibiotics (P1). The authors of P1 suggested reinforcing during informational and promotional campaigns those beliefs that were already well perceived among consumers about farmed fish, such as the lower levels of chemical (heavy metals and marine pollutants) and biological hazards (parasites). Nevertheless, during subsequent research (focus groups (P2) and Appendix A) emerged that providing information to consumers of negative facts, even if in favour of farmed fish, could damage the overall image of fish (Vanhonacker et al., 2013) as consumers often have a vague idea of the difference between the two production methods (Bacher, 2015; Claret et al., 2016). In other words, communicating to consumers that aquaculture fish has few parasites may provoke a sense of risk and distrust, as it is difficult for them to balance the potential benefits and risks of its intake (Verbeke et al., 2005). In turn, this perceived risk might trigger stigmatisation of the fish in general, leading to consumer product avoidance caused by its negative perception (Gregory et al., 1996; Siddiqui et al., 2022). 5. GENERAL DISCUSSION 129 PRACTICAL IMPLICATION (1.III): it is recommended to avoid using negative aspects (e.g., lower presence of heavy metals or parasites) to encourage the consumption of farmed fish. Such communication could affect the overall image of the fish sector, which may provoke consumer product avoidance or the search for substitutes. Freshness is one of the most important factors for consumers, especially in highly perishable products such as fish (Carlucci et al., 2015; Cheng et al., 2014; Claret et al., 2012; Heide & Olsen, 2017; Kole et al., 2009; Lazo et al., 2017; Prabhakar et al., 2020; Viana et al., 2022). The relevance of freshness was also highlighted during focus groups (P2, P3) as well as packaging optimisation (P4). Nevertheless, consumers’ perceptions vary depending on the production method, as wild fish is perceived as fresher (P1) in line with other authors (Claret et al., 2014; Girard & Paquotte, 2003; Vanhonacker et al., 2013; Verbeke, Sioen et al., 2007). According to Girard and Paquotte (2003), consumers believe that wild fish is fresher because it came from the ocean and was still alive the day before purchase. However, for many species, farmed fish is the fresher option because aquaculture farms offer greater control over the production, including its harvesting, allowing it to accurately meet supply chain demands (Engle et al., 2017; Poli, 2005). Generally, the origin is linked to freshness; a closer origin is synonymous with a fresher food (Sánchez-Bravo et al., 2021). However, this association seemed not to occur in consumers’ minds in studies P1 and P2. Indeed, consumers perceived aquaculture fish as less fresh (P1) but obtained from a closer origin (P2). This divergence in consumer perceptions may be due to a lack of awareness of the production and distribution channels of the fish they buy (Girard & Paquotte, 2003), as well as the location of aquaculture farm facilities. Another possible explanation is that consumers’ beliefs may have evolved over time due to the provision of information (e.g., promotional campaigns) (Appendix B). Given the importance of fish freshness, the fact that consumers perceived wild fish as being fresher reveals the lack of information they possess. Indeed, various authors reported the importance of knowledge about freshness evaluation. More knowledgeable consumers are confident about evaluating fish freshness using extrinsic and intrinsic product characteristics (e.g., smell and appearance) (Brunsø et al., 2009). In contrast, less experienced consumers can only rely on extrinsic characteristics (e.g., packaging or labelling) to judge fish freshness and to reduce the risk perception of making an erroneous choice (Brunsø et al., 2009; Carlucci et al., 2015; Heide & Olsen, 2017). During packaging optimisation (P4), consumers ascribed greater importance to freshness from all the experienced quality factors, reinforcing this aspect’s relevance. This may reveal a possible lack of self-confidence when evaluating fish freshness, which could explain why consumers asked to include an explicit claim on the packaging about freshness. Often, the lack of extrinsic characteristics to rely on can influence the food choices of less knowledgeable consumers and cause the movement towards other food categories that are perceived as less risky (Carlucci et al., 2015; Pieniak et al., 2007). PRACTICAL IMPLICATION (1.IV): providing information to consumers on aquaculture fish freshness could transform this inferential belief into an informational one. This information provision may also transform the inferential belief into an observational one as fish freshness is often assessed through extrinsic and intrinsic product characteristics such as appearance and 5. GENERAL DISCUSSION 130 odour. Less knowledgeable consumers in fish freshness assessment should rely on other extrinsic product characteristics to make food choices (e.g., packaging). Nowadays, sustainability and animal welfare aspects are gaining special relevance among consumers (Altintzoglou et al., 2010; European Commission, 2021c; Hoerterer et al., 2022; Pulcini et al., 2020; Risius et al., 2019; Ruiz-Chico et al., 2020; Saidi et al., 2022; Stubbe & Yang, 2011; Wongprawmas et al., 2022; Zander & Feucht, 2018). Likewise, P3 and P4 also gathered the increasing concern among consumers over both issues. Given that P1 did not included any belief related to fish sustainability, a later study was conducted to focus specifically on this (P2). The results of the sustainability beliefs (P2) showed that European consumers perceived wild fish as having higher animal welfare and being more organic than farmed fish. Conversely, aquaculture fish was perceived as being superior in terms of sustainability, being locally obtained, providing environmental benefits, generating employment, improving human living conditions, generating rural development, and ensuring fairer fish prices than wild fish. Consumers perceived farmed fish as having a lower level of animal welfare than wild fish (P2), in line with other European studies (Feucht & Zander, 2015; Hoerterer et al., 2022) and qualitative phases of P2 and P3. Participants of the focus group sessions highlighted the farmed fish’s lack of “happiness”, using it as a synonym for animal welfare. Consumers claimed that wild fishes are happier because they can swim freely. Even so, this analogy was generally not applied to terrestrial animal livestock, whose freedom is seldom questioned (P2). Nevertheless, the fishes’ freedom to express their normal behaviour, such as swimming uncaged, is only one of “the five freedoms” guidelines to ensure animal welfare along with freedom from hunger, thirst, discomfort, pain, injury, disease, fear, and distress (FAWC, 2009; Stien et al., 2020). PRACTICAL IMPLICATION (1.V): consumers may perceive negatively that farmed fish cannot conduct their normal behaviour of swimming freely. Therefore, information provision on other farmed fish welfare aspects in favour of farmed fish (e.g., feed availability or absence of predators) can assist consumers in creating and establishing an informational belief in support of aquaculture fish welfare. Organic food is well known among consumers (Appendix C), especially for agricultural products. However, when it comes to organic aquatic foods, there is a widespread shortage of knowledge (Pulcini et al., 2020). This lack of awareness was corroborated in P2 as consumers perceived wild fish as more organic than farmed fish. Nevertheless, Council Regulation (EC) 834/2007 stated that “the products of hunting and fishing of wild animals shall not be considered as organic production”. Therefore, only farmed fish can be regarded as organic production if rigorous standards are met. Considering that consumers have positive preferences towards organic labelled fish and are even willing to pay a higher price (Ankamah-Yeboah et al., 2019), aquaculture producers can benefit from this distinctive feature. PRACTICAL IMPLICATION (1.VI): administering information to consumers about the organic farmed fish existence may offer aquaculture producers a relevant marketing advantage over their wild fish counterparts, as current EU regulations do not consider the existence of organic wild fish. Providing information to consumers might help to transform this inferential belief into an informational one. 5. GENERAL DISCUSSION 131 Generally speaking, except for animal welfare and the organic character, aquaculture fish was better perceived than wild fish in many sustainability beliefs (P2). However, when consumers were directly asked about their general perception of fish sustainability (i.e., do you believe aquaculture/wild fishing is sustainable?), responses favoured wild fish. In other words, directly asking consumers which production method is more sustainable results in answers favouring wild fish. However, if various aspects (beliefs) of the three main pillars of sustainability are used to infer their perceptions, farmed fish was favoured in multiple beliefs. This suggests that consumers are not fully aware of which aspects encompass the concept of sustainability as they usually associate it with environmental issues (Sheth et al., 2011). PRACTICAL IMPLICATION (1.VII): communicating farmed fish sustainability should focus on specific aspects rather than the whole concept holistically. Those specific aspects may be related to aquaculture fish issues already positively perceived by consumers or those that are contrary to scientific evidence. Consumers’ general (P1) and specific sustainability beliefs (P2) reflected the lack of knowledge about aquaculture fish and its practices. As already reported by Verbeke and Brunsø (2005), many of the beliefs analysed were against the scientific evidence (e.g., wild fish is more organic or fresher). Extant bibliography corroborates the shortage of consumers’ knowledge about aquaculture fish and its practices (Feucht & Zander, 2015; Honkanen & Olsen, 2009; Pieniak et al., 2013; Poli, 2005; Reig et al., 2019; Risius et al., 2017; Verbeke, Sioen et al., 2007; Verbeke, Vanhonacker et al., 2007), which was also reflected in the focus groups (P2 and P3). This widespread lack of knowledge about aquaculture can often hinder its social acceptability (Reig et al., 2019). Therefore, the general farmed fish perception can be enhanced through information provision, communication, and promotional campaigns to raise consumers’ awareness (Altintzoglou & Nøstvold, 2014; Carrassón et al., 2021). Indeed, one of the risks associated with the lack of objective and factual information about aquaculture is that consumers may form their beliefs based on inferences about other terrestrial animal production systems (Verbeke, Sioen et al., 2007). Therefore, providing information favouring aquaculture fish could transform inferential beliefs into informational ones. Additionally, an increase in consumers’ knowledge may have a positive impact on their aquaculture fish consumption, as suggested by several authors (Honkanen & Olsen, 2009; Hoque & Alam, 2020; Krešić et al., 2022; Pieniak et al., 2010; Pulcini et al., 2020; Wongprawmas et al., 2022). Similar conclusions could be drawn from P1, as the segment labelled “balanced view” grouped the participants with the highest objective knowledge who, at the same time, reported the lowest consumption of wild fish. Also, given that mistrust is a direct consequence of a lack of awareness, increasing consumers’ knowledge and transparency in aquaculture practices could improve its image (Bacher, 2015; Reig et al., 2019). It is well recognised that providing information, that may lead to an increase in individuals’ knowledge, may decrease their food neophobia (Frewer et al., 2001) and increase products’ acceptance (Carrassón et al., 2021). Aquaculture may cause some degree of neophobia among consumers as it is a relatively new food production system compared to wild fisheries (Fernández-Polanco & Luna, 2012), since it was not until the early 1980s that its astonishing expansion began (FAO, 2022b, 2022c). Furthermore, as all agents involved in the aquaculture fish supply chain also perceived negatively the lack of information about the sector, stakeholder-targeted communication 5. GENERAL DISCUSSION 132 campaigns should be conducted (Reig et al., 2019). Those campaigns should direct their focus towards fishmongers, as their advice is the primary source of information among European consumers when purchasing fish (52%) (EUMOFA, 2017) and amongst the most trusted ones (Pieniak et al., 2007) along with other agents involved in the supply chain such as retailers’ personnel (Nijssen et al., 2021). PRACTICAL IMPLICATION (1.VIII): information provision through informational and promotional campaigns is critical to enhance the knowledge of European consumers as well as all agents involved in the aquaculture supply chain. Increasing consumers’ knowledge about aquaculture and its practices may lead to a rise in its consumption. Once the general (P1) and sustainability beliefs (P2) were analysed, broadly speaking, four consumer segments were identified. The first segment comprised those consumers who had a generally better perception of aquaculture, who were labelled as “pro-aquaculture” (P1 and P2) and “open to aquaculture” (P1). In contrast, the segments “pro-wild fish” (P1 and P2) and “slightly pro-wild fish” (P1) included those consumers who had a better perception of wild fish. Consumers whose beliefs did not show a clear trend in favour of one or another production system but depended on each specific belief were identified as “balanced view” (P1) and “ambivalent” (P2). Finally, the fourth segment was integrated by consumers belonging to the “impartial” (P2) segment, whose responses were at the midpoint of the scale, meaning that their beliefs did not favour any production system and that their existence had already been reported by multiple authors (Risius et al., 2019; Stancu et al., 2022). Identifying a segment of impartial consumers raises doubts about whether information provision could increase their fish consumption. It would be worth further inquiring weather consumers grouped under the label “impartial” were unaware or indifferent regarding the fish production system — a subtle but significant difference, as unawareness may be combated with information acquisition, but indifference is not. Indeed, fighting indifference may be an arduous task, as the first step in individuals gaining knowledge is that they are motivated to do so (P2). PRACTICAL IMPLICATION (1.IX): segment identification is of great importance when personalising promotional campaigns for farmed fish and selecting the information they should contain. To reach consumers from the “impartial” segment, who may not be sensitive to informational and communication campaigns for aquaculture fish, other strategies should be prioritised such as increasing product variety in supermarkets (P3) or packaging optimisation (P4). 5.1.2. Strategy 2: Increasing products’ variety in the market A summary of the objective and the main findings obtained in the publication (P3) included in this strategy and focused on increasing aquaculture fish consumption is presented in Table 7. 5. GENERAL DISCUSSION 133 Table 7. Summary of the aim and the main findings of publication P3. Increasing product variety (Objective 2) Publication 3 (P3) Title Making full use of qualitative data to generate new fish product ideas through co-creation with consumers: a methodological approach Aim To explore the usefulness of the proposed approach in generating aquaculture fish product ideas and identify the most relevant product dimensions affecting potential acceptance by consumers Findings •The use of co-creation with consumers to generate new product ideas, including the combination of creative and projective techniques, proved to be very useful, allowing the capture of not only cognitive but also unconscious individual desires •There is a strong correlation between what consumers say (frequency of mention) and what they attribute more importance to. Therefore, when interpreting qualitative data, frequency of mention could be used to infer the importance for individuals Besides informational and promotional campaigns, other valuable strategies can be used to promote aquaculture fish consumption. Some of these strategies belong to the situation/environment factor that may influence consumer behaviour, such as product variety. Sometimes, the low aquaculture fish consumption in the EU can be partially attributed to the lack of diversity of fish species and processed products (Husein et al., 2020; Lazo, 2017). While other food sectors have a wide variety of ready-to-eat or ready-to-cook products, this is not the case for fish, where supply is more limited (Mintel, 2023), which gives room for new product development (NPD) and the expansion of products’ variety. The NPD process consists of numerous successive phases (Figure 4). The first stages are opportunity identification and idea generation. One way to produce ideas is using co-creation with consumers, which, according to Moon et al. (2018), Morgan et al. (2018), and van Kleef et al. (2005), is one of the best ways to increase the success of new products in the market (P4). Considering the advantages of incorporating consumers’ voices into the NPD process, various focus groups were conducted to generate new fish product ideas through co-creation with consumers (P3). The use of creative techniques in the focus groups produced 112 ideas. From this pool of ideas, the “meagre burger with black trumpet”, a sea and mountain hamburger made with meagre fish (Argyrosomus regius A.) and black trumpet mushrooms (Craterellus cornucopioides L.), was selected to optimise its packaging (P4). The reasons behind the selection were related to the type of product, as fish burgers are well known among Spanish consumers, while incorporating two novel ingredients, black trumpets and meagre, a fish species with a relatively low consumption among the Spanish population compared to others (e.g., sea bream and sea bass) (APROMAR, 2022). It is recognised that novel products that are too disruptive, that is, less familiar, can often provoke rejection among consumers due to the emergence of food neophobia (Fernández-Polanco & Luna, 2012; Siddiqui et al., 2022). PRACTICAL IMPLICATION (2.I): creative techniques applied in focus group sessions can be useful for incorporating consumers’ voices during idea generation and create a vast pool of candidate ideas. Focus group sessions (P3) were helpful not only in eliciting new consumer-driven product ideas but also in demonstrating that there exists a correlation (0.7) between what participants say (frequency of mention) and what they attribute more importance to. 5. GENERAL DISCUSSION 134 PRACTICAL IMPLICATION (2.II): when interpreting qualitative data, frequency of mention could be used to infer the importance for individuals. This finding could encourage researchers and marketers to use social media and other qualitative data sources to extract key dimensions for consumers in different domains. One of the benefits associated with this proposal is the high ecological validity of the data, as in social media consumers tend to express themselves freely and without the influence of a moderator. Focus groups (P3) were useful in identifying 12 key dimensions behind participants’ discourses, namely health, process/preparation, sensory, quality, price, familiarity, natural, food product, variety, convenience, ethical, and occasion. PRACTICAL IMPLICATION (2.III): the 12 dimensions identified during focus groups could be regarded as among the most important for consumers when dealing with fish and fish products. Such valuable information may be useful for driving informational and promotional campaigns for aquaculture fish (P2), new product development processes (P3), and packaging design (P4). Some dimensions identified behind participants’ discourse during the focus groups (P3) are discussed below, along with the results obtained in the other studies included in this doctoral thesis. These dimensions were selected based on their relationship with this second strategy to increase fish consumption (variety and convenience) and their relevance observed in P3 (preference map). Variety was one of the dimensions that stood out during focus group discussions (P3). This dimension grouped several categories during the second pseudo-triangulation process, including variety, different, format, new, presentation, and species. In turn, variety was behind freshness as the most important experienced quality factor during packaging design (P4). Therefore, developing new processed aquaculture fish products may increase the variety on supermarket shelves to meet consumer demand (MARM, 2011; Stancu et al., 2022), especially for those with a pronounced variety-seeking behaviour (McAlister & Pessemier, 1982). PRACTICAL IMPLICATION (2.IV): diversifying species and expanding the processed fish product variety on the market could satisfy consumer demands for new products. In particular, developing new aquaculture fish products could encourage the consumption of this type of fish, especially among those who seek new sensory experiences and positively value its convenience. Consumers are spending less time preparing meals, which has generated a demand for processed foods that are more convenient, easier, and faster to prepare (FAO, 2022a; Husein et al., 2020; Melendrez Ruiz, 2020; Siddiqui et al., 2022; Vidal et al., 2013), in line with the results obtained in the focus groups (P3). In fact, a lack of convenience is often a barrier for fish consumption due to the time and effort required to prepare it (Saidi et al., 2023). The widespread shortage of knowledge identified in Section 5.1.1 could also be extended to fish preparation, as a lack of skills is often perceived as a barrier to its consumption (Cantillo et al., 2021; Carlucci et al., 2015; Pieniak et al., 2010; Vanhonacker et al., 2010) — even more so among young generations, whose fish consumption is lower (Altintzoglou & Heide, 2014; Cantillo et al., 2021; Pieniak et al., 2010; Pulcini et al., 2020; Skuland, 2015; Verbeke & Vackier, 2005). Therefore, the NPD of aquaculture fish could be a way to encourage fish consumption among this segment of the population (European Commission, 2021c), as they are major consumers of processed products (e.g., ready-to-eat) (Grech et al., 2017), which may be accentuated by 5. GENERAL DISCUSSION 135 communicating its sustainable character and the protective function of wild fish stocks (Wongprawmas et al., 2022). Fish quality is a complex construct encompassing multiple aspects such as freshness, naturalness, cleanliness, texture, nutritional value, chemical composition, animal welfare, and price, among many others (Claret et al., 2012; Engle et al., 2017; Grigorakis, 2007; Poli, 2005; Santeramo et al., 2018). For this reason, the quality dimension grouped, inter alia, the freshness category during the second pseudo-triangulation process conducted within P3. As already mentioned, the freshness of fish was one of the most important factors for consumers (P2, P3, and P4). It is well known that fresh fish is a perishable product with a short shelf life, as the spoilage process starts immediately after the fish is caught (Prabhakar et al., 2020). As reported by the FAO et al. (2022), 35% of the world's fish, both farmed and wild, is wasted. Reducing fish waste is primordial to accomplishing SDG 12.3 to achieve a more sustainable food system (VidalMones et al., 2022). One strategy to prevent such wastage may be processing fish products or developing new products to increase their shelf life (Bou et al., 2023; Kung et al., 2022; Rathod et al., 2022). PRACTICAL IMPLICATION (2.V): NPD can assist in minimising the impact of consumers' search for fish freshness while reducing food waste given its short shelf life. Considering the relevance of ethical aspects for consumers (P3), it would be worth informing them about how aquaculture can assist in reducing food waste. Details should be provided on the higher degree of control over production that aquaculture farms may exert, which allows the raw material supply to be adapted according to market demands (Engle et al., 2017; FAO, 2018; Poli, 2005). Additionally, farmed fish have an essential advantage over wild fish for the processing industry, as several of their characteristics can be modulated on demand, including fish size, which is usually homogeneous, greatly facilitating their automated processing (Poli, 2005). Consumers also perceived this greater control over farmed fish than wild fish (P1). Another advantage for the processing industry is that aquaculture fish is not subject to the seasonality of the wild fish species or temporal fishing closures, which allows consumers’ demand for year-round supply products to be met (Guiné et al., 2020). In addition, ethical issues (P3) also include other relevant aspects such as those observed in P2 dealing with social impact (i.e., greater employment generation, favouring gender equality, and improving human living conditions). However, satisfying consumer demands for more ethical products is particularly challenging as it is a credence cue, which consumers cannot evaluate, even after consumption (Fernqvist & Ekelund, 2014). Consequently, consumers must rely on inferring its ethical character from the information provided (P2), for example, using product packaging (P4). PRACTICAL IMPLICATION (2.VI): NPD of aquaculture fish may benefit all stakeholders involved in the supply chain, including producers, processors, and consumers, as well as the society in general (social sustainability pillar). Price (P3 and P4) and quality (P3) were identified as among the most important dimensions for consumers. In fact, price is often used by consumers as an indicator of the perceived quality (Claret et al., 2012; Kole et al., 2009). Given that farmed fish was regarded as cheaper among consumers, this may have contributed to the worse perception of aquaculture fish compared to wild fish (P1) (Claret et al., 2014; Wongprawmas et al., 2022). Nevertheless, fish processing can 5. GENERAL DISCUSSION 136 play a key role in adding value to the raw material (European Commission, 2021c; Peral et al., 2021). New processed aquaculture fish products may bring additional benefits to consumers, such as greater variety or convenience (P3), which, as stated earlier, have an important effect on fish waste and social impact. PRACTICAL IMPLICATION (2.VII): the influence of the production method could have a lower impact on consumers’ purchase decisions if new processed products are developed to provide them with additional benefits. In other words, perhaps consumers would be willing to buy new processed products from aquaculture fish if they had some differential characteristic desired by them — for example, they are healthier (P3) or have a more appealing packaging (P4). Globally, consumers perceive fish as a healthy food (Bacher, 2015; Hall & Amberg, 2013; Honkanen & Olsen, 2009; Pieniak et al., 2010; Vanhonacker et al., 2013) regardless of the production system it comes from (P1). The healthiness and nutritional quality of fish are well known to consumers; evidence of this was the results obtained on their objective knowledge (P1). A total of 91% of consumers answered correctly the question “fish is a source of omega-3 fatty acids”. In turn, fish healthiness not only showed a remarkable relevance among the focus group participants (P3) but also stood out during the packaging design (P4). Therefore, it seems that consumers demand healthy fish products and, despite already knowing the associated benefits of its consumption, they value positively seeing a claim on the product’s packaging reaffirming it (P4). PRACTICAL IMPLICATION (2.VIII): although some aspects of farmed fish are already well perceived among consumers, it is worth reinforcing them through other strategies — for example, emphasising their healthiness on the packaging of aquaculture fish products or developing healthier fish products. The dimension natural was not only frequently mentioned in the focus groups but was also very relevant to consumers (P3), even though, during packaging optimisation, the natural character did not stand out among the credential quality cues (P4). A possible explanation for these results may be related to the fish processing during the development of the “meagre burger with black trumpet”; in other words, handling may have a negative effect on the “natural” character of fish (Claret et al., 2014). If the two fish production systems are compared, this greater handling was perceived as being more accentuated in aquaculture fish than in wild fish, with the latter being perceived as more natural (P1) as reported by other authors (NSC, 2018; Verbeke, Sioen et al., 2007; Verbeke & Brunsø, 2005). As noted by the Norwegian Seafood Council (NSC, 2018), the more natural character of wild fish may be linked to the perception that it is produced only by nature, without human influence. Therefore, developing new aquaculture fish products may not be appropriate for increasing consumption among all consumers, especially those who perceive negatively its low natural character. Accordingly, other paths should be explored to increase aquaculture fish consumption among this population segment. 5.1.3. Strategy 3: Packaging optimisation A summary of the objective and the main findings obtained in the publication (P4) included in this strategy and focused on increasing aquaculture fish consumption is presented in Table 8. 5. GENERAL DISCUSSION 137 Table 8. Summary of the aim and the main findings of publication P4. Product optimisation (Objective 3) Publication 4 (P4) Title Co-creation with consumers for packaging design validated through implicit and explicit methods: exploratory effect of visual and textual attributes Aim To explore the usefulness of co-creation with consumers for packaging design of fish products Findings • The co-creation process with consumers is a straightforward and effective way to design a fish product’s packaging according to their needs and demands, a fact that could improve a product’s success on the market • The packagings co-created by consumers were equally or even more preferred than those of the competitor fish products from the Spanish market • The information collected could be useful for designers and marketers to guide the packaging design for fish products in the Spanish market Many product-related factors can influence consumers’ food choices, including its packaging. When fresh products, such as fish, are marketed, consumers tend to base their purchasing decision on appearance as they are often sold unbranded and unlabelled (Grunert et al., 2004; Viana et al., 2022). However, when the product is processed, consumers have the packaging (e.g., size, shape, and colour) and labelling (e.g., ingredients, nutritional value, and claims) to infer their expectations (Kole et al., 2009; Verbeke, Vermeir et al., 2007). The primary functions of the packaging are to contain and protect the product, attract consumers’ attention, and convey messages about the product’s attributes (Silayoi & Speece, 2004). Packaging can be the most significant communication element at the point of purchase (van Rompay & Veltkamp, 2014). Indeed, grabbing consumers’ attention at the point of purchase is essential to ensure long-term products’ commercial success (Simmonds & Spence, 2017). Understanding consumers’ responses to food product packaging could be essential to maximise its impact in the market (Silayoi & Speece, 2004). Moreover, the impact of packaging may be particularly relevant to less experienced consumers in assessing fish freshness, as they are the ones who most heavily rely on extrinsic product attributes to form their expectations about the product (Brunsø et al., 2009; Carlucci et al., 2015; Heide & Olsen, 2017). As mentioned above, incorporating consumers during the idea generation stage in the NPD process (P3) may increase its success in the market (Moon et al., 2018; Morgan et al., 2018; van Kleef et al., 2005). Following the same reasoning, it can be hypothesised that co-creation with consumers for food packaging design may also increase its success in the market. Hence, two consecutive studies assessed the influence of incorporating consumers during packaging design (P4). The former study focused on packaging design for the “meagre burger with black trumpet” (selected in P3), incorporating consumer voices through co-creation (P4). The packaging visual and textual attributes were selected according to consumers’ preferences; two packagings were designed accordingly. Figure 8 shows the mock-ups of the first and second combination of visual and textual attributes consumers prefer. REFERENCES 144 REFERENCES Adebayo, F. A., Itkonen, S. T., Koponen, P., Prättälä, R., Härkänen, T., Lamberg-Allardt, C., & Erkkola, M. (2017). Consumption of healthy foods and associated socio-demographic factors among Russian, Somali and Kurdish immigrants in Finland. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 45(3), 277–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494817693457. Agyekum, C. K., Haifeng, H., & Agyeiwaa, A. (2015). Consumer perception of product quality. Microeconomics and Macroeconomics, 3(2), 25–29. https://doi.org/10.5923/j.m2economics.20150302.01. Ahrens, W. (2015). Sensory taste preferences and taste sensitivity and the association of unhealthy food patterns with overweight and obesity in primary school children in Europe — a synthesis of data from the IDEFICS study. Flavour, 4(8). https:// doi.org/10.1186/2044-7248-4-8. Ajzen, I. (2015). Consumer attitudes and behavior: the theory of planned behavior applied to food consumption decisions. Rivista Di Economia Agraria, 70(2), 121–138. https://doi.org/10.13128/REA-18003. Albarracín, D., & Shavitt, S. (2018). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 69, 299–327. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011911. Alexander, K. A., Potts, T. P., Freeman, S., Israel, D., Johansen, J., Kletou, D., Meland, M., Pecorino, D., Rebours, C., Shorten, M., & Angel, D. L. (2015). The implications of aquaculture policy and regulation for the development of integrated multi-trophic aquaculture in Europe. Aquaculture, 443, 16–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2015.03.005. Alonso, J., & Grande, I. (2015). Comportamiento del consumidor: decisiones y estrategia de marketing (8th ed.). ESIC. Altintzoglou, T., & Heide, M. (2014). A comparison of French and English consumers expectations regarding labeled cod fillet products. Journal of Aquatic Food Product Technology, 23(2), 155–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/10498850.2012.702855. Altintzoglou, T., & Honkanen, P. (2020). Report on consumer awareness, perception and acceptance of European aquaculture and methods (Deliverable D3.1). FutureEUAqua project. https://futureeuaqua.eu/index.php/media/public-deliverables/. Altintzoglou, T., & Nøstvold, B. H. (2014). Labelling fish products to fulfil Norwegian consumers’ needs for information. British Food Journal, 116(12), 1909–1920. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-06-2013-0144. Altintzoglou, T., Verbeke, W., Vanhonacker, F., & Luten, J. (2010). The image of fish from aquaculture among Europeans: impact of exposure to balanced information. Journal of Aquatic Food Product, 19(2), 103–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/10498850.2010.492093. Anderson, J. L., Asche, F., & Garlock, T. (2018). Globalization and commoditization: the transformation of the seafood market. Journal of Commodity Markets, 12, 2–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomm.2017.12.004. Ankamah-Yeboah, I., Jacobsen, J. B., Olsen, S. B., Nielsen, M., & Nielsen, R. (2019). The impact of animal welfare and environmental information on the choice of organic fish: an empirical investigation of German trout consumers. Marine Resource Economics, 34(3), 248–266. https://doi.org/10.1086/705235. APROMAR. (2018). La Acuicultura en España. https://apromar.es/wp- REFERENCES 145 content/uploads/2021/12/La-Acuicultura-en-Espana-2018.pdf. APROMAR. (2020). Aquaculture in Spain. https://apromar.es/wpcontent/uploads/2021/12/Aquaculture-in-Spain-2020.pdf. APROMAR. (2022). Aquaculture in Spain. https://apromar.es/wpcontent/uploads/2022/10/Aquaculture-in-Spain-2022_APROMAR.pdf. Ares, G. (2018). Methodological issues in cross-cultural sensory and consumer research. Food Quality and Preference, 64, 253–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.10.007. Ares, G., & Deliza, R. (2010). Studying the influence of package shape and colour on consumer expectations of milk desserts using word association and conjoint analysis. Food Quality and Preference, 21(8), 930–937. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.03.006. Ares, G., & Varela, P. (Eds.). (2018a). Methods in consumer research, volume 1: new approaches to classic methods (Vol. 1). Woodhead Publishing. Ares, G., & Varela, P. (Eds.). (2018b). Methods in consumer research, volume 2: alternative approaches and special applications (Vol. 2). Woodhead Publishing. Asioli, D., Aschemann-Witzel, J., Caputo, V., Vecchio, R., Annunziata, A., Næs, T., & Varela, P. (2017). Making sense of the “clean label” trends: a review of consumer food choice behavior and discussion of industry implications. Food Research International, 99(Part 1), 58–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2017.07.022. Atalah, J., & Sánchez-Jerez, P. (2020). Global assessment of ecological risks associated with farmed fish escapes. Global Ecology and Conservation, 21, e00842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00842. Bacher, K. (2015). Perceptions and misconceptions of aquaculture: a global overview (120). Globefish Research Programme, FAO. https://www.fao.org/3/bc015e/bc015e.pdf. Balderjahn, I., Buerke, A., Kirchgeorg, M., Peyer, M., Seegebarth, B., & Wiedmann, K.-P. (2013). Consciousness for sustainable consumption: scale development and new insights in the economic dimension of consumers’ sustainability. AMS Review, 3(4), 181–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-013-0057-6. Banović, M., Krystallis, A., Guerrero, L., & Reinders, M. J. (2016). Consumers as co-creators of new product ideas: an application of projective and creative research techniques. Food Research International, 87, 211–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2016.07.010. Bar-Tal, D. (1990). Group beliefs: a conception for analyzing group structure, processes, and behavior. Springer-Verlag. Baumgartner, H., & Steenkamp, J. B. E. M. (2006). An extended paradigm for measurement analysis of marketing constructs applicable to panel data. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(3), 431–442. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.43.3.431. Bazeley, P. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: practical strategies. SAGE Publications. Bernstein, A. S., Oken, E., De Ferranti, S., Lowry, J. A., Ahdoot, S., Baum, C. R., Bernstein, A. S., Bole, A., Byron, L. G., Landrigan, P. J., Marcus, S. M., Pacheco, S. E., Spanier, A. J., Woolf, A. D., Balbus, J. M., DeNicola, N. G., Etzel, R. A., Hindman, D. E., Mortensen, M. E., … Burrowes, D. L. (2019). Fish, shellfish, and children’s health: an assessment of benefits, risks, and sustainability. Pediatrics, 143(6), 330–352. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2019-0999. Bernués, A., Olaizola, A., & Corcoran, K. (2003). Extrinsic attributes of red meat as indicators REFERENCES 146 of quality in Europe: an application for market segmentation. Food Quality and Preference, 14(4), 265–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(02)00085-X. Bialkova, S., Grunert, K. G., & van Trijp, H. (2020). From desktop to supermarket shelf: eyetracking exploration on consumer attention and choice. Food Quality and Preference, 81(November 2019), 103839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.103839. Birch, D., Lawley, M., & Hamblin, D. (2012). Drivers and barriers to seafood consumption in Australia. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 29(1), 64–73. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363761211193055. Borgogno, M., Favotto, S., Corazzin, M., Cardello, A. V., & Piasentier, E. (2015). The role of product familiarity and consumer involvement on liking and perceptions of fresh meat. Food Quality and Preference, 44, 139–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.04.010. Bossier, P., & Ekasari, J. (2017). Biofloc technology application in aquaculture to support sustainable development goals. Microbial Biotechnology, 10(5), 1012–1016. https://doi.org/10.1111/1751-7915.12836. Bou, R., Guerrero, L., López, M., Claret, A., López-Mas, L., & Massimo, M. (2023). Effect of vacuum impregnation and high hydrostatic pressure treatments on shelf fife, physicochemical, and sensory properties of seabream fillets. Food and Bioprocess Technology, 0123456789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11947-022-02980-4. Brewer, S., & Hilton, G. (2010). Consumer attitudes: what they say and what they do (PIG 1207-02). Pork Information Gateway. https://porkgateway.org/resource/consumer-attitudeswhat-they-say-and-what-they-do/. Brunsø, K., Verbeke, W., Olsen, S. O., & Jeppesen, L. F. (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. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700910972387. Butkevičiene, V., Stravinskiene, J., & Rutelione, A. (2008). Impact of consumer package communication on consumer decision making process. Engineering Economics, 1(56), 57–65. Cahu, C., Salen, P., & De Lorgeril, M. (2004). Farmed and wild fish in the prevention of cardiovascular diseases: assessing possible differences in lipid nutritional values. Nutrition, Metabolism and Cardiovascular Diseases, 14(1), 34–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/S09394753(04)80045-0. Cambridge University Press. (2023, January 2). Cambridge dictionary. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/. Cantillo, J., Martín, J. C., & Román, C. (2020). Discrete choice experiments in the analysis of consumers’ preferences for finfish products: a systematic literature review. Food Quality and Preference, 84, 103952. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.103952. Cantillo, J., Martín, J. C., & Román, C. (2021). Determinants of fishery and aquaculture products consumption at home in the EU28. Food Quality and Preference, 88, 104085. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.104085. Caporale, G., Policastro, S., Carlucci, A., & Monteleone, E. (2005). Consumer expectations for sensory properties in virgin olive oils. Food Quality and Preference, 17(1), 116–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2005.07.011. Carlucci, D., Nocella, G., De Devitiis, B., Viscecchia, R., Bimbo, F., & Nardone, G. (2015). REFERENCES 147 Consumer purchasing behaviour towards fish and seafood products. Patterns and insights from a sample of international studies. Appetite, 84, 212–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.10.008. Carrassón, M., Soler-Membrives, A., Constenla, M., Escobar, C., Flos, R., Gil, J. M., Luzón, V., Piferrer, F., & Reig, L. (2021). Information impact on consumers’ perceptions towards aquaculture: dismantling the myth about feeds for farmed fish. Aquaculture, 544, 737137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2021.737137. Chang, W. (2019). The joint effects of customer participation in various new product development stages. European Management Journal, 37(3), 259–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2018.11.002. Cheng, J. H., Sun, D. W., Han, Z., & Zeng, X. A. (2014). Texture and structure measurements and analyses for evaluation of fish and fillet freshness quality: a review. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 13(1), 52–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12043. Claret, A., Guerrero, L., Aguirre, E., Rincón, L., Hernández, M. D., Martínez, I., Peleteiro, J. B., Grau, A., & Rodríguez-Rodríguez, C. (2012). Consumer preferences for sea fish using conjoint analysis: exploratory study of the importance of country of origin, obtaining method, storage conditions and purchasing price. Food Quality and Preference, 26(2), 259–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.05.006. Claret, A., Guerrero, L., Gartzia, I., Garcia-Quiroga, M., & Ginés, R. (2016). Does information affect consumer liking of farmed and wild fish? Aquaculture, 454, 157–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2015.12.024. Claret, A., Guerrero, L., Ginés, R., Grau, A., Hernández, M. D., Aguirre, E., Peleteiro, J. B., Fernández-Pato, C., & Rodríguez-Rodríguez, C. (2014). Consumer beliefs regarding farmed versus wild fish. Appetite, 79, 25–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.03.031. Cohen, D., & Kitayama, S. (Eds.). (2019). Handbook of cultural psychology (2nd ed.). Guilford Press. Collins dictionary. (2023, January 5). HarperCollins Publishers. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/. Conte, F., Passantino, A., Longo, S., & Voslářová, E. (2014). Consumers’ attitude towards fish meat. Italian Journal of Food Safety, 3(3), 178–181. https://doi.org/10.4081/ijfs.2014.1983. Council Regulation (EC) 834/2007, of 28 June 2007, on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) 2092/91. Official Journal of the European Union, L 189/1, 20 July 2007. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32007R0834&from=en. Crawford, I. M. (1997). Marketing research and information systems. FAO. Dahl, D. W., & Moreau, P. (2002). The influence and value of analogical thinking during new product ideation. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(1), 47–60. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.39.1.47.18930. Dairou, V., & Sieffermann, J. M. (2002). A comparison of 14 jams characterized by conventional profile and a quick original method, the Flash Profile. Journal of Food Science, 67(2), 826–834. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2002.tb10685.x. de Boer, J., Schösler, H., & Aiking, H. (2020). Fish as an alternative protein – A consumeroriented perspective on its role in a transition towards more healthy and sustainable diets. REFERENCES 148 Appetite, 152, 104721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2020.104721. De Cosmi, V., Scaglioni, S., & Agostoni, C. (2017). Early taste experiences and later food choices. Nutrients, 9(2), 107. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu9020107. De Pelsmacker, P., Driesen, L., & Rayp, G. (2005). Do consumers care about ethics? Willingness to pay for fair-trade coffee. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39(2), 363–385. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.2005.00019.x. de Wijk, R. A., & Noldus, L. P. J. J. (2021). Using implicit rather than explicit measures of emotions. Food Quality and Preference, 92, 104125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.104125. DeMan, J. M., Finley, J. W., Hurst, W. J., & Yong, C. (2018). Principles of biochemistry (4th ed.). Springer. Donoghue, S. (2000). Projective techniques in consumer research. Journal of Family Ecology and Consumer Sciences, 28(1), 47–53. https://doi.org/10.4314/jfecs.v28i1.52784. Dooren, C. Van, Keuchenius, C., Vries, J. H. M. De, Boer, J. De, & Aiking, H. (2018). Unsustainable dietary habits of speci fi c subgroups require dedicated transition strategies: evidence from the Netherlands. Food Policy, 79, 44–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2018.05.002. Duarte, C. M., Bruhn, A., & Krause-Jensen, D. (2022). A seaweed aquaculture imperative to meet global sustainability targets. Nature Sustainability, 5(3), 185–193. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00773-9. Duarte, C. M., Holmer, M., Olsen, Y., Soto, D., Marbà, N., Guiu, J., Black, K., & Karakassis, I. (2009). Will the oceans help feed humanity? BioScience, 59(11), 967–976. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2009.59.11.8. Duarte, C. M., Marbá, N., & Holmer, M. (2007). Rapid domestication of marine species. Science, 316(5823), 382–383. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1138042. Earle, M., & Earle, R. (2008). New product development: systematic industrial technology. In M. Earle & R. Earle (Eds.), Case studies in food product development. CRC Press. EFSA. (2014). Scientific opinion on health benefits of seafood (fish and shellfish) consumption in relation to health risks associated with exposure to methylmercury. EFSA Journal, 12(7), 3761. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3761 Engle, C. R., Quagrainie, K. K., & Dey, M. M. (2017). Seafood and aquaculture marketing handbook (2nd ed.). Wiley Blackwell. Enneking, U., Neumann, C., & Henneberg, S. (2007). How important intrinsic and extrinsic product attributes affect purchase decision. Food Quality and Preference, 18(1), 133–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2005.09.008. EUMOFA. (2017). EU consumer habits regarding fishery and aquaculture products: annex 4. European Commission. https://www.eumofa.eu/documents/20178/84590/Annex+4+- +Country+fiches_all+MS.pdf. EUMOFA. (2021). The EU fish market — 2021 edition. European Commission. https://www.eumofa.eu/documents/20178/477018/EN_The+EU+fish+market_2021.pdf/27a6 d912-a758-6065-c973-c1146ac93d30?t=1636964632989. European Commission. (2020). Facts and figures on the common fisheries policy: basic REFERENCES 149 statistical data — 2020 edition. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2771/88869. European Commission. (2021a). The EU blue economy report 2021. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2771/8217. European Commission. (2021b). A new strategic vision for sustainable aquaculture production and consumption in the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2771/961425. European Commission. (2021c). Strategic guidelines for a more sustainable and competitive EU aquaculture for the period 2021 to 2030. https://eurlex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:bab1f9a7-b30b-11eb-8aca01aa75ed71a1.0022.02/DOC_1&format=PDF. European Commission. (2022). Facts and figures on the common fisheries policy: basic statistical data — 2022. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2771/737237. Regulation (EC) 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 20 December 2006, on nutrition and health claims made on foods. Official Journal of the European Union, L 404/9, 30 December 2006. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32006R1924&from=EN. Regulation (EU) 1169/2011 of the European parliament and of the Council, of 25 October 2011, on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) 1924/2006 and (EC) 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) 608/2004. Official Journal of the European Union, L 304/18, 22 November 2011. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:02011R1169-20180101&from=EN. Fandos, C., & Flavián, C. (2006). Intrinsic and extrinsic quality attributes, loyalty and buying intention: an analysis for a PDO product. British Food Journal, 108(8), 646–662. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700610682337. FAO. (2016). The state of world fisheries and aquaculture: contributing to food security and nutrition for all. https://www.fao.org/3/i5555e/i5555e.pdf. FAO. (2018). The state of world fisheries and aquaculture: meeting the sustainable development goals. https://www.fao.org/3/i9540en/i9540en.pdf. FAO. (2020). The state of world fisheries and aquaculture: sustainability in action. https://www.fao.org/3/ca9229en/ca9229en.pdf. FAO. (2021). Aquaculture. https://www.fao.org/fishery/en/aquaculture. FAO. (2022a). The state of world fisheries and aquaculture: towards blue transformation. https://www.fao.org/3/cc0461en/cc0461en.pdf. FAO. (2022b, August 22). Global aquaculture production: quantity (1950–2020). https://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics-query/en/aquaculture/aquaculture_quantity. FAO. (2022c, August 22). Global capture production: quantity (1950–2020). https://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics-query/en/capture/capture_quantity. FAO. (2022d). Blue Transformation - Roadmap 2022–2030: a vision for FAO’s work on aquatic food systems. https://www.fao.org/3/cc0459en/cc0459en.pdf. REFERENCES 150 FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, & WHO. (2022). The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2022. FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO. https://www.fao.org/3/cc0639en/cc0639en.pdf. FAWC. (2009). Farm animal welfare in Great Britain: past, present and future. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_da ta/file/319292/Farm_Animal_Welfare_in_Great_Britain_-_Past__Present_and_Future.pdf. FDA. (2021). Advice about eating fish. https://www.fda.gov/media/102331/download. Fenko, A., de Vries, R., & van Rompay, T. (2018). How strong is your coffee? The influence of visual metaphors and textual claims on consumers’ flavor perception and product evaluation. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(53), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00053. Fernández-Polanco, J., & Luna, L. (2012). Factors affecting consumers’ beliefs about aquaculture. Aquaculture Economics and Management, 16(1), 22–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/13657305.2012.649047. Fernqvist, F., & Ekelund, L. (2014). Credence and the effect on consumer liking of food - A review. Food Quality and Preference, 32(Part C), 340–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.10.005. Feucht, Y., & Zander, K. (2015). Of earth ponds, flow-through and closed recirculation systems - German consumers’ understanding of sustainable aquaculture and its communication. Aquaculture, 438, 151–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2015.01.005. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2011). Predicting and changing behavior: the reasoned action approach. Taylor & Francis. Font-i-Furnols, M., & Guerrero, L. (2014). Consumer preference, behavior and perception about meat and meat products: an overview. Meat Science, 98(3), 361–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.06.025. Frewer, L., Risvik, E., & Schifferstein, H. (Eds.). (2001). Food, people and society: a European perspective of consumers’ food choice. Springer-Verlag. Frewer, L., & van Trijp, H. (Eds.). (2007). Understanding consumers of food products. CRC Press. Garb, H. N., Lilienfeld, S. O., Wood, J. M., & Nezworski, M. T. (2002). Effective use of projective techniques in clinical practice: let the data help with selection and interpretation. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33(5), 454–463. https://doi.org/10.1037/07357028.33.5.454. Garfield, M. J., Taylor, N. J., Dennis, A. R., & Satzinger, J. W. (2001). Research report: modifying paradigms - Individual differences, creativity techniques, and exposure to ideas in group idea generation. Information Systems Research, 12(3), 322–333. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.12.3.322.9710. Girard, S., & Paquotte, P. (2003). The French market for fresh fish: an opportunity for farmed cod? [Conference paper]. 15th Conference of the European Association of Fisheries Economists, Brest, France. González Laxe, F. (2002). La acuicultura y el desarrollo económico. Boletín Instituto Español de Oceanografía, 18(4), 265–274. REFERENCES 151 Gonzalez Viejo, C., Fuentes, S., Howell, K., Torrico, D. D., & Dunshea, F. R. (2019). Integration of non-invasive biometrics with sensory analysis techniques to assess acceptability of beer by consumers. Physiology and Behavior, 200, 139–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2018.02.051. Grech, A., Sui, Z., Siu, H. Y., Zheng, M., Allman-Farinelli, M., & Rangan, A. (2017). Sociodemographic determinants of diet quality in Australian adults using the validated healthy eating index for australian adults (HEIFA-2013). Healthcare, 5(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare5010007. Gregory, R., Slavic, P., & Flynn, J. (1996). Risk perceptions, stigma, and health policy. Health & Place, 2(4), 213–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/1353-8292(96)00019-6. Grigorakis, K. (2007). Compositional and organoleptic quality of farmed and wild gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata) and sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) and factors affecting it: a review. Aquaculture, 272(1–4), 55–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2007.04.062. Grunert, K. G., Bredahl, L., & Brunsø, K. (2004). Consumer perception of meat quality and implications for product development in the meat sector – A review. Meat Science, 66(2), 259– 272. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(03)00130-X. Guerrero, L. (2012). Definición de los conceptos “tradicional” e “innovación” en alimentos desde la perspectiva del consumidor europeo [Doctoral thesis, Universitat de Girona]. Tesis Doctorals en Xarxa. http://www.tdx.cat/handle/10803/81888. Guerrero, L., Claret, A., Verbeke, W., Enderli, G., Zakowska-Biemans, S., Vanhonacker, F., Issanchou, S., Sajdakowska, M., Granli, B. S., Scalvedi, L., Contel, M., & Hersleth, M. (2010). Perception of traditional food products in six European regions using free word association. Food Quality and Preference, 21(2), 225–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2009.06.003. Guerrero, L., Guàrdia, M. D., Xicola, J., Verbeke, W., Vanhonacker, F., Zakowska-Biemans, S., Sajdakowska, M., Sulmont-Rossé, C., Issanchou, S., Contel, M., Scalvedi, M. L., Granli, B. S., & Hersleth, M. (2009). Consumer-driven definition of traditional food products and innovation in traditional foods. A qualitative cross-cultural study. Appetite, 52(2), 345–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2008.11.008. Guiné, R. P. F., Florença, S. G., Barroca, M. J., & Anjos, O. (2020). The link between the consumer and the innovations in food product development. Foods, 9(9), 1317. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9091317. Hall, T. E., & Amberg, S. M. (2013). Factors influencing consumption of farmed seafood products in the Pacific northwest. Appetite, 66, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2013.02.012. Hallez, L., Qutteina, Y., Raedschelders, M., Boen, F., & Smits, T. (2020). That’s my cue to eat: a systematic review of the persuasiveness of front-of-pack cues on food packages for children vs. adults. Nutrients, 12(4), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12041062. Harland, J. (2019). The origins of aquaculture. Nature Ecology and Evolution, 3(10), 1378– 1379. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-0966-3. Heide, M., & Olsen, S. O. (2017). Influence of packaging attributes on consumer evaluation of fresh cod. Food Quality and Preference, 60, 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.02.015. Hill, L., Casswell, S., Maskill, C., Jones, S., & Wyllie, A. (1998). Fruit and vegetables as adolescent food choices in New Zealand. Health Promotion International, 13(1), 55–65. REFERENCES 152 https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/13.1.55. Hoerterer, C., Petereit, J., & Krause, G. (2022). Informed choice: the role of knowledge in the willingness to consume aquaculture products of different groups in Germany. Aquaculture, 556, 738319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2022.738319. Honkanen, P., & Olsen, S. O. (2009). Environmental and animal welfare issues in food choice: the case of farmed fish. British Food Journal, 111(3), 293–309. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700910941480. Hoque, M. Z., & Alam, M. N. (2020). Consumers’ knowledge discrepancy and confusion in intent to purchase farmed fish. British Food Journal, 122(11), 3567–3583. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-01-2019-0021. Hoyer, W. D., Chandy, R., Dorotic, M., Krafft, M., & Singh, S. S. (2010). Consumer cocreation in new product development. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 283–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670510375604. Husein, Y., Secci, G., Mancini, S., Zanoni, B., & Parisi, G. (2020). Nutritional quality, physical properties and lipid stability of ready-to-cook fish products are preserved during frozen storage and oven-cooking. Journal of Aquatic Food Product Technology, 29(2), 207–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/10498850.2019.1708834. Husić-Mehmedović, M., Omeragić, I., Batagelj, Z., & Kolar, T. (2017). Seeing is not necessarily liking: advancing research on package design with eye-tracking. Journal of Business Research, 80, 145–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.04.019. Illia, L., Sonpar, K., & Bauer, M. W. (2012). Applying co-occurrence text analysis with ALCESTE to studies of impression management. British Journal of Management, 25(2), 352–372. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2012.00842.x. Issanchou, S. (1996). Consumer expectations and perceptions of meat and meat product quality. Meat Science, 43(Supplement 1), 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/0309-1740(96)000514. Jayedi, A., Shab-Bidar, S., Eimeri, S., & Djafarian, K. (2018). Fish consumption and risk of allcause and cardiovascular mortality: a dose-response meta-analysis of prospective observational studies. Public Health Nutrition, 21(7), 1297–1306. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980017003834. Jennings, S., Santos, A. R., Auchterlonie, N. A., Clyne, F. J., Mangi, S. C., O’Brien, C. M., Turner, A. D., Lee, J., Taylor, N. G. H., Baker-Austin, C., Posen, P. E., Luisetti, T., Catchpole, T. L., Morgan, O. C., Katsiadaki, I., Dye, S. R., Edmonds, N. J., Lees, D. N., Metcalfe, J. D., … Verner-Jeffreys, D. W. (2016). Aquatic food security: insights into challenges and solutions from an analysis of interactions between fisheries, aquaculture, food safety, human health, fish and human welfare, economy and environment. Fish and Fisheries, 17(4), 893–938. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12152. Jiang, Q., Bhattarai, N., Pahlow, M., & Xu, Z. (2022). Environmental sustainability and footprints of global aquaculture. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 180, 106183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106183. Joshi, A., Kale, S., Chandel, S., & Pal, D. (2015). Likert scale: explored and explained. British Journal of Applied Science & Technology, 7(4), 396–403. https://doi.org/10.9734/BJAST/2015/14975. Juster, F. T. (1966). Consumer buying intentions and purchase probability: an experiment in REFERENCES 153 survey design. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 61(315), 658–696. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1966.10480897. Kole, A. P. W., Altintzoglou, T., Schelvis-Smit, R. A. A. M., & Luten, J. B. (2009). The effects of different types of product information on the consumer product evaluation for fresh cod in real life settings. Food Quality and Preference, 20(3), 187–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2008.09.003. Köster, E. P. (2009). Diversity in the determinants of food choice: a psychological perspective. Food Quality and Preference, 20(2), 70–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2007.11.002. Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2016). Marketing management: global edition (15th ed.). Pearson Education Limited. Krešić, G., Dujmić, E., Lončarić, D., Zrnčić, S., Liović, N., & Pleadin, J. (2022). Fish consumption: influence of knowledge, product information, and satisfaction with product attributes. Nutrients, 14(13), 2691. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14132691. Krosnick, J. A., & Presser, S. (2010). Question and questionnaire design. In P. Marsden & J. Wright (Eds.), Handbook of Survey Research (2nd ed.). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2015). Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research (5th ed.). SAGE Publications. Kumar, A., Chaudhuri, S., Bhardwaj, A., & Mishra, P. (2020). Impulse buying and postpurchase regret: a study of shopping behaviour for the purchase of grocery products. International Journal of Management, 11(12), 614–624. https://doi.org/10.34218/ijm.11.12.2020.057. Kung, H. F., Lin, C. Saint, Liu, S. S., Huang, C. Y., Chiu, K., Lee, Y. C., & Tsai, Y. H. (2022). High pressure processing extend the shelf life of milkfish flesh during refrigerated storage. Food Control, 134, 108768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2021.108768. Kytö, E., Bult, H., Aarts, E., Wegman, J., Ruijschop, R. M. A. J., & Mustonen, S. (2019). Comparison of explicit vs. implicit measurements in predicting food purchases. Food Quality and Preference, 78, 103733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.103733. Lafarga, T., Rodríguez-Bermúdez, R., Morillas-España, A., Villaró, S., García-Vaquero, M., Morán, L., Sánchez-Zurano, A., González-López, C. V., & Acién-Fernández, F. G. (2021). Consumer knowledge and attitudes towards microalgae as food: the case of Spain. Algal Research, 54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2020.102174. Lawless, H. T., & Heymann, H. (2010). Sensory Evaluation of Food (2nd ed.). Springer. Lazo, O. (2017). Development of new products from aquaculture fish species [Doctoral thesis, Universitat de Girona]. Tesis Doctorals en Xarxa. http://hdl.handle.net/10803/471460. Lazo, O., Guerrero, L., Alexi, N., Grigorakis, K., Claret, A., Pérez, J. A., & Bou, R. (2017). Sensory characterization, physico-chemical properties and somatic yields of five emerging fish species. Food Research International, 100(Part 1), 396–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2017.07.023. Lee, Y. M., Sozen, E., & Wen, H. (2022). A qualitative study of food choice behaviors among college students with food allergies in the US. British Food Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ10-2021-1077. Leng, G., Adan, R. A. H., Belot, M., Brunstrom, J. M., De Graaf, K., Dickson, S. L., Hare, T., Maier, S., Menzies, J., Preissl, H., Reisch, L. A., Rogers, P. J., & Smeets, P. A. M. (2017). The