Submitted:
26 September 2025
Posted:
30 September 2025
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Experimental Auction Protocol
2.2. Market Price and Market Demand of Catfish Products
3. Results
3.1. Basic Characteristics of the Participants
3.2. Sensory Evaluation of the Ready-to-Cook Catfish Products
3.3. Market Price for Ready-to-Cook Catfish Products
3.4. Factors Influencing Market Price
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
| PBSS | Panko breaded standard catfish strips |
| PBSF | Panko breaded standard catfish fillet |
| PBDF | Panko breaded standard catfish fillet |
| SMDF | Sriracha marinated delacata catfish fillet |
| SGMDF | Sesame-ginger marinated delacata catfish fillet |
| JAR | Just About Right |
Appendix A
| Appearance | Color | Glossiness | Serving size | Smell | Taste | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Appearance | 1.00 | |||||
| Color | 0.82*** | 1.00 | ||||
| Glossiness | 0.30*** | 0.25*** | 1.00 | |||
| Serving size | 0.12*** | 0.07 | 0.23*** | 1.00 | ||
| Smell | 0.19*** | 0.16*** | 0.09** | 0.06 | 1.00 | |
| Taste | 0.14*** | 0.14*** | 0.08** | 0.04 | 0.61*** | 1.00 |
| Texture | 0.19*** | 0.21*** | 0.13*** | -0.03 | 0.51*** | 0.64*** |
| Smell intensity | -0.03 | 0.00 | 0.00 | -0.01 | -0.16*** | -0.12*** |
| Crispy | 0.13*** | 0.15*** | 0.04 | -0.09** | 0.24*** | 0.32*** |
| Saltiness | 0.06 | 0.07* | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.11*** |
| Oily | 0.01 | 0.07 | -0.01 | 0.09** | 0.07* | 0.05 |
| Juicy | 0.05 | 0.09** | 0.00 | 0.08** | 0.12*** | 0.21*** |
| JAR glossiness | 0.53*** | 0.49*** | 0.37*** | -0.05 | 0.15*** | 0.11*** |
| JAR serving | 0.06 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.35*** | 0.05 | 0.03 |
| JAR saltiness | -0.03 | -0.03 | -0.03 | -0.03 | 0.18*** | 0.28*** |
| JAR oiliness | 0.14*** | 0.19*** | 0.04 | -0.00 | 0.19*** | 0.32*** |
| JAR juiciness | 0.09** | 0.13*** | 0.06 | 0.02 | 0.24*** | 0.27*** |
| Age | 0.10** | 0.08** | 0.09** | 0.03 | 0.05 | -0.02 |
| DFemale | -0.01 | -0.04 | -0.04 | 0.09*** | -0.02 | -0.09** |
| DAfrAm | -0.15*** | -0.11*** | -0.12*** | -0.11*** | -0.03 | -0.05 |
| DGradaute | 0.18*** | 0.15*** | 0.15*** | 0.14*** | 0.01 | 0.05 |
| DMyself | 0.06 | 0.05 | 0.05 | -.02 | 0.03 | -0.04 |
| DIncA60k | 0.07* | 0.12*** | 0.12*** | 0.05 | 0.08** | 0.16*** |
| Panel size | -0.08** | -0.08* | -0.10** | -0.09** | -0.09** | -0.06 |
| Texture | Smell intensity | Crispy | Saltiness | Oily | Juicy | |
| Texture | 1.00 | |||||
| Smell intensity | 0.02 | 1.00 | ||||
| Crispy | 0.44*** | 0.03 | 1.00 | |||
| Saltiness | -0.02 | 0.10** | 0.03 | 1.00 | ||
| Oily | 0.06 | 0.16*** | 0.02 | 0.13*** | 1.00 | |
| Juicy | 0.25*** | 0.05 | 0.12*** | 0.08** | 0.37*** | 1.00 |
| JAR glossiness | 0.12*** | -0.03 | 0.12*** | 0.04 | 0.01 | -0.02 |
| JAR serving | -0.01 | 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.11*** | 0.03 |
| JAR saltiness | 0.20*** | -0.03 | 0.11*** | -0.58*** | 0.00 | 0.08* |
| JAR oiliness | 0.37*** | 0.03 | 0.24*** | -0.08** | 0.21*** | 0.24*** |
| JAR juiciness | 0.37*** | -0.02 | 0.21*** | -0.03 | 0.16*** | 0.38*** |
| Age | 0.06 | -0.03 | 0.11*** | 0.15*** | -0.03 | -0.03 |
| DFemale | -0.07* | 0.03 | -0.11*** | 0.08* | 0.01 | -0.01 |
| DAfrAm | -0.06 | -0.07* | -.00 | -0.13*** | -0.08** | -0.05 |
| DGradaute | 0.08* | 0.05 | 0.08** | 0.24*** | 0.05 | 0.06 |
| DMyself | 0.03 | -0.1** | 0.06 | 0.09** | 0.02 | 0.01 |
| DIncA60k | 0.12*** | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.07* | 0.02 | 0.03 |
| Panel size | -0.17*** | 0.00 | -0.03 | -0.03 | 0.09** | -0.00 |
| JAR glossiness | JAR serving | JAR saltiness | JAR oiliness | JAR juiciness | Age | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| JAR glossiness | 1.00 | |||||
| JAR serving | 0.22*** | 1.00 | ||||
| JAR saltiness | -0.05 | -0.05 | 1.00 | |||
| JAR oiliness | 0.11*** | 0.06 | 0.24*** | 1.00 | ||
| JAR juiciness | 0.05 | 0.11*** | 0.15*** | 0.38*** | 1.00 | |
| Age | 0.14*** | 0.01 | -0.11*** | -0.06 | -0.04 | 1.00 |
| DFemale | -0.03 | 0.23*** | -0.13*** | -0.04 | 0.02 | 0.11*** |
| DAfrAm | -0.08* | 0.08* | 0.10** | -0.01 | 0.01 | -0.17*** |
| DGradaute | 0.07* | -0.02 | -0.18*** | 0.02 | -0.05 | 0.18*** |
| DMyself | 0.07* | -0.03 | -0.06 | -0.04 | 0.01 | 0.23*** |
| DIncA60k | 0.04 | 0.07* | -0.09** | -0.02 | -0.00 | 0.17*** |
| Panel size | -0.04 | -0.06 | 0.04 | -0.00 | -0.02 | -0.09** |
| DFemale | DAfrAm | DGrad. | DMyself | DIncA60k | Panel size | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DFemale | 1.00 | |||||
| DAfrAm | 0.12*** | 1.00 | ||||
| DGradaute | -0.10** | -0.51*** | 1.00 | |||
| DMyself | 0.05 | 0.00 | 0.06 | 1.00 | ||
| DIncA60k | 0.05 | -0.24*** | 0.14*** | -0.13*** | 1.00 | |
| Panel size | 0 | 0.23*** | -0.18*** | 0.08 | -0.28*** | 1.00 |
References
- Harris JM, Shiptsova R. Consumer Demand for Convenience Foods: Demographics and Expenditures. Journal of Food Distribution Research. 2007;38: 15. [CrossRef]
- Carrigan M, Attalla A. The myth of the ethical consumer – do ethics matter in purchase behaviour? Journal of Consumer Marketing. 2001;18: 560–578. [CrossRef]
- Nelson P. Information and Consumer Behavior. Journal of Political Economy. 1970;78: 311–329. Available: http://www.jstor.org.wvu.idm.oclc.org/stable/1830691.
- Dey MM, Rabbani AG, Singh K, Engle CR. Determinants of retail price and sales volume of catfish products in the United States: An application of retail scanner data. Aquaculture Economics & Management. 2014;18: 120–148. [CrossRef]
- Govindasamy R, Italia J, Zurbriggen M, Hossain F. Predicting Consumer Willingness-to-Purchase Value-Added Products at Direct Agricultural Markets. Journal of Food Products Marketing. 2002;8: 1–15. [CrossRef]
- Thong NT, Solgaard HS. Consumer’s food motives and seafood consumption. Food Quality and Preference. 2017;56: 181–188. [CrossRef]
- Furst T, Connors M, Bisogni CA, Sobal J, Falk LW. Food Choice: A Conceptual Model of the Process. Appetite. 1996;26: 247–266. [CrossRef]
- Shepherd R. Factors influencing food preferences and choice. Handbook of the Psychophysiology of Human Eating. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1989. pp. 3–24.
- Gallardo RK, Kupferman E, Colonna A. Willingness to pay for optimal ’Anjou’pear quality. HortScience. 2011;46: 452–456. Available: https://s3.wp.wsu.edu/uploads/sites/290/2015/04/Willingness-to-pay-for-optimal-Anjou-pear-quality.pdf.
- Kotler P, Keller KL. Marketing management. 14th [ed.]. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Prentice Hall; 2012.
- Ainslie A, Rossi PE. Similarities in Choice Behavior Across Product Categories. Marketing Science. 1998;17: 91–106. [CrossRef]
- Rabin M. Psychology and Economics. Journal of Economic Literature. 1998;36: 11–46. Available: http://www.jstor.org.wvu.idm.oclc.org/stable/2564950.
- Bi X, House L, Gao Z, Gmitter F. Sensory Evaluation and Experimental Auctions: Measuring Willingness to Pay for Specific Sensory Attributes. American J Agri Economics. 2012;94: 562–568. [CrossRef]
- Costanigro M, Kroll S, Thilmany D, Bunning M. Is it love for local/organic or hate for conventional? Asymmetric effects of information and taste on label preferences in an experimental auction. Food Quality and Preference. 2014;31: 94–105. [CrossRef]
- Dinis I, Simoes O, Moreira J. Using sensory experiments to determine consumers’ willingness to pay for traditional apple varieties. Span j agric res. 2011;9: 351–362. [CrossRef]
- Breidert C, Hahsler M, Reutterer T. A review of methods for measuring willingness-to-pay. Innovative Marketing. 2006;2: 8–32. Available: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85075173403&partnerID=40&md5=4482db78504a3abe1e10646b4cec8557.
- Dey MM, Surathkal P, Chen OL, Engle CR. Market trends for seafood products in the USA: Implication for Southern aquaculture products. Aquaculture Economics & Management. 2017;21: 25–43. [CrossRef]
- Singh K, Dey MM, Surathkal P. Analysis of a Demand System for Unbreaded Frozen Seafood in the United States Using Store-level Scanner Data. Marine Resource Economics. 2012;27: 371–387. [CrossRef]
- Singh K, Dey MM, Surathkal P. Seasonal and Spatial Variations in Demand for and Elasticities of Fish Products in the United States: An Analysis Based on Market-Level Scanner Data. Canadian J Agri Economics. 2014;62: 343–363. [CrossRef]
- Surathkal P, Dey MM, Engle CR, Chidmi B, Singh K. Consumer demand for frozen seafood product categories in the United States. Aquaculture Economics & Management. 2017;21: 9–24. [CrossRef]
- Alfnes F, Rickertsen K. European Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for U.S. Beef in Experimental Auction Markets. American J Agri Economics. 2003;85: 396–405. [CrossRef]
- Demont M, Rutsaert P, Ndour M, Verbeke W, Seck PA, Tollens E. Experimental auctions, collective induction and choice shift: willingness-to-pay for rice quality in Senegal. European Review of Agricultural Economics. 2013;40: 261–286. [CrossRef]
- Hung Y, Verbeke W. Sensory attributes shaping consumers’ willingness-to-pay for newly developed processed meat products with natural compounds and a reduced level of nitrite. Food Quality and Preference. 2018;70: 21–31. [CrossRef]
- Melton BE, Huffman WE, Shogren JF. Economic Values of Pork Attributes: Hedonic Price Analysis of Experimental Auction Data. Applied Eco Perspectives Pol. 1996;18: 613–627. [CrossRef]
- Uchida H, Onozaka Y, Morita T, Managi S. Demand for ecolabeled seafood in the Japanese market: A conjoint analysis of the impact of information and interaction with other labels. Food Policy. 2014;44: 68–76. [CrossRef]
- Wakamatsu H, Anderson CM, Uchida H, Roheim CA. Pricing Ecolabeled Seafood Products with Heterogeneous Preferences: An Auction Experiment in Japan. Marine Resource Economics. 2017;32: 277–294. [CrossRef]
- Umberger WJ, Feuz DM. The Usefulness of Experimental Auctions in Determining Consumers’ Willingness-to-Pay for Quality-Differentiated Products. Review of Agricultural Economics. 2004;26: 170–185. Available: http://www.jstor.org.wvu.idm.oclc.org/stable/3700829.
- Adhikari S, Deb U, Dey MM, Xie L, Khanal NB, Grimm CC, et al. Consumers’ willingness-to-pay for convenient catfish products: Results from experimental auctions in Arkansas. Aquaculture Economics & Management. 2021;25: 135–158. [CrossRef]
- Deb UK, Dey MM, Adhikari S, Khanal NB, Gosh K, Xie L, et al. Convenient (Ready-to-Cook) Catfish Products: The Development Process, Sensory Attributes, and Consumers’ Evaluation. Journal of Agricultural, Environmental and Consumer Sciences. 2020;20: 5–18.
- Khanal NB, Deb UK, Adhikari S, Dey MM. Taste and value: Exploring sensory acceptance and willingness-to-pay for convenient farm-raised catfish products through experimental auction. Aquaculture Economics & Management. 2025; 1–27. [CrossRef]
- Dey MM, Rahman MdS, Dewan MdF, Sudhakaran PO, Deb U, Khan MdA. Consumers’ willingness to pay for safer fish: Evidence from experimental auctions in Bangladesh. Aquaculture Economics & Management. 2024;28: 460–490. [CrossRef]
- Lusk J, Shogren JF. Experimental auctions: methods and applications in economic and marketing research. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press; 2007.
- USCB. U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: United States. 2024. Available: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/RHI125223.
- Bland JM, Grimm CC, Bechtel PJ, Deb U, Dey MM. Proximate Composition and Nutritional Attributes of Ready-to-Cook Catfish Products. Foods. 2021;10: 2716. [CrossRef]
- Engle CR, Dellenbarger LE, Hatch U, Capps OJ, Dillare J, Kinnucan H, et al. The U.S. market for farm-raised catfish: an overview of consumer, supermarket and restaurant surveys. University of Arkansas, Pine Bluff, Arkansas, USA: Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station; 1990 Jan p. 25. Report No.: 925.
- Riepe R. Marketing Seafood to Restaurants in the north Central Region. North Central Regional Aquaculture Center in cooperation with USDA; 1998. Available: https://www.ncrac.org/files/inline-files/ncrac110_0.pdf.
- Cheng H, Capps O. Demand Analysis of Fresh and Frozen Finfish and Shellfish in the United States. American J Agri Economics. 1988;70: 533–542. [CrossRef]
- Kinnucan HW, Venkateswaran M. Effects of Generic Advertising on Perceptions and Behavior: The Case of Catfish. J Agric Appl Econ. 1990;22: 137–151. [CrossRef]
- Myrland Ø, Trondsen T, Johnston RS, Lund E. Determinants of seafood consumption in Norway: lifestyle, revealed preferences, and barriers to consumption. Food Quality and Preference. 2000;11: 169–188. [CrossRef]
- Nayga RM, Capps O. Factors Affecting the Probability of Consuming Fish and Shellfish in the Away from Home and at Home Markets. J Agric Appl Econ. 1995;27: 161–171. [CrossRef]
- Brooks PM, Andersen JL. Effects of retail pricing, seasonality and advertising on fresh seafood sales. Journal of Business and Economic Studies. 1991;1: 77–90.
- Carroll MT, Anderson JL, Martínez-Garmendia J. Pricing U.S. North Atlantic bluefin tuna and implications for management. Agribusiness. 2001;17: 243–254. [CrossRef]
- McConnell KE, Strand IE. Hedonic Prices for Fish: Tuna Prices in Hawaii. American J Agri Economics. 2000;82: 133–144. [CrossRef]
- Asche F, Guillen J. The importance of fishing method, gear and origin: The Spanish hake market. Marine Policy. 2012;36: 365–369. [CrossRef]
- Nurse Rainbolt G, Onozaka Y, McFadden DT. Consumer Motivations and Buying Behavior: The Case of the Local Food System Movement. Journal of Food Products Marketing. 2012;18: 385–396. [CrossRef]
- Boleware V, Dillard JG. Consumer Awareness and Acceptance of Farm Raised Catfish-Second Survey. MAFES Information Bulletins. 1984;14. Available: https://scholarsjunction.msstate.edu/mafes-info-bulletins/14?utm_source=scholarsjunction.msstate.edu%2Fmafes-info-bulletins%2F14&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages.
- Dixon DAJr, Miller JS, Conner JR, Waldrop JE. Survey of Market Channels for Farm-raised Catfish. AEC research report - Mississippi State University, Dept. of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station | AEC Res Rep Miss State Univ Dep Agric Econ Agric For Exp Sta; 1982.
- Drammeh L, House L, Sureshwaran S, Selassie H. Analysis of factors influencing the frequency of catfish consumption in the United States. 2002 [cited 10 Sep 2025]. [CrossRef]
- Dellenbarger LE, Dillard J, Schupp AR, Zapata HO, Young BT. Socioeconomic factors associated with at-home and away-from home catfish consumption in the United States. Agribusiness. 1992;8: 35–46. [CrossRef]
- Shafer W, Sonnenschein H. Chapter 14 Market demand and excess demand functions. Handbook of Mathematical Economics. Elsevier; 1982. pp. 671–693. [CrossRef]
- Froehlich EJ, Carlberg JG, Ward CE. Willingness-to-Pay for Fresh Brand Name Beef. Canadian J Agri Economics. 2009;57: 119–137. [CrossRef]
- Marn MV, Roegner EV, Zawada CC. The power of pricing. McKinsey and Company; 2002. Available: https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/growth-marketing-and-sales/our-insights/the-power-of-pricing.
- Gall KL, Otwell WS, Koburgier JA, Appledorf H. Effects of Four Cooking Methods on the Proximate, Mineral and Fatty Acid Composition of Fish Fillets. Journal of Food Science. 1983;48: 1068–1074. [CrossRef]
- Gulati S, Misra A. Abdominal obesity and type 2 diabetes in Asian Indians: dietary strategies including edible oils, cooking practices and sugar intake. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2017;71: 850–857. [CrossRef]
- Moumtaz S, Percival BC, Parmar D, Grootveld KL, Jansson P, Grootveld M. Toxic aldehyde generation in and food uptake from culinary oils during frying practices: peroxidative resistance of a monounsaturate-rich algae oil. Sci Rep. 2019;9: 4125. [CrossRef]
- Raatz SK, Golovko MY, Brose SA, Rosenberger TA, Burr GS, Wolters WR, et al. Baking Reduces Prostaglandin, Resolvin, and Hydroxy-Fatty Acid Content of Farm-Raised Atlantic Salmon ( Salmo salar ). J Agric Food Chem. 2011;59: 11278–11286. [CrossRef]
- Rodríguez-Ayala M, Banegas JR, Ortolá R, Gorostidi M, Donat-Vargas C, Rodríguez-Artalejo F, et al. Cooking methods are associated with inflammatory factors, renal function, and other hormones and nutritional biomarkers in older adults. Sci Rep. 2022;12: 16483. [CrossRef]

| Participants Rating |
PBSS | PBSF | PBDF | SMDF | SGMDF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Appearance score (1 to 5) | 3.34 (0.84) |
3.34 (0.87) |
3.61 (0.80) |
2.26 (1.14) |
1.80 (0.98) |
| Color score (1 to 5) | 3.46 (0.82) |
3.45 (0.94) |
3.54 (0.91) |
2.45 (1.22) |
1.81 (0.93) |
| Smell score (1 to 5) | 3.43 (0.81) |
3.35 (0.74) |
3.68 (0.86) |
3.33 (0.85) |
3.22 (0.95) |
| Taste score (1 to 5) | 3.54 (0.96) |
3.36 (1.02) |
3.82 (0.84) |
3.38 (1.03) |
3.31 (1.04) |
| Texture score (1 to 5) | 3.63 (0.85) |
3.51 (0.88) |
3.70 (0.92) |
3.27 (1.00) |
3.31 (1.04) |
| Glossiness JAR (% of participants) |
69.4 | 70.2 | 73.6 | 47.9 | 33.9 |
| Serving size JAR (% of participants) |
55.4 | 73.6 | 73.6 | 63.6 | 66.9 |
| Crispiness JAR (% of participants) |
52.9 | 45.5 | 42.1 | NA | NA |
| Saltiness JAR (% of participants) |
45.5 | 52.9 | 59.5 | 54.5 | 48.8 |
| Oiliness JAR (% of participants) |
71.9 | 74.4 | 85.1 | 68.6 | 61.2 |
| Juiciness JAR (% of participants) |
71.9 | 71.1 | 77.7 | 58.7 | 64.5 |
| Overall liking score (1 to 9) |
6.22 (1.80) |
5.98 (1.92) |
6.77 (1.51) |
5.70 (2.01) |
5.51 (2.11) |
| Appearance score (1 to 5) | 3.34 (0.84) |
3.34 (0.87) |
3.61 (0.80) |
2.26 (1.14) |
1.80 (0.98) |
| Color score (1 to 5) | 3.46 (0.82) |
3.45 (0.94) |
3.54 (0.91) |
2.45 (1.22) |
1.81 (0.93) |
| Panel sizea | Number of Observationsb |
Average market price for the product (before tasting) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PBSS (80 gm) |
PBSF (110 gm) |
PBDF (110 gm) |
SMDF (110 gm) |
SGMDF (110 gm) |
||
| 3 | 1 | 2.25 (NA) |
3.00 (NA) |
3.50 (NA) |
2.50 (NA) |
2.00 (NA) |
| 4 | 3 | 4.33 (2.31) |
4.50 (1.32) |
4.55 (2.21) |
2.19 (0.65) |
3.18 (0.99) |
| 5 | 2 | 2.63 (0.88) |
3.13 (0.53 |
3.00 (0.70) |
2.50 (0.71) |
2.50 (0.71) |
| 6 | 4 | 3.44 (1.26) |
3.75 (1.50) |
3.88 (1.09) |
3.81 (0.55) |
2.69 (0.85) |
| 7 | 1 | 5.00 (NA) |
5.00 (NA) |
5.00 (NA) |
1.10 (NA) |
1.50 (NA) |
| 8 | 2 | 2.88 (0.18) |
3.75 (0.35) |
5.00 (1.41) |
3.50 (0.71) |
4.25 (1.06) |
| 9 | 2 | 3.38 (0.88) |
4.50 (0.00) |
4.38 (0.88) |
4.50 (0.71) |
3.75 (0.35) |
| 10 | 2 | 4.50 (0.71) |
4.63 (0.53) |
5.33 (0.46) |
4.75 (0.35) |
4.00 (0.00) |
| 11 | 1 | 4.11 (NA) |
7.00 (NA) |
7.00 (NA) |
4.00 (NA) |
3.00 (NA) |
| All Panels | 18 | 3.60 (1.28) |
4.19 (1.22) |
4.45 (1.38) |
3.33 (1.15) |
3.10 (0.98) |
| Panel sizea | Number of Observationsb |
Average market price for the product (before tasting) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PBSS (80 gm) |
PBSF (110 gm) |
PBDF (110 gm) |
SMDF (110 gm) |
SGMDF (110 gm) |
||
| 3 | 1 | 1.50 (NA) |
3.00 (NA) |
3.50 (NA) |
2.50 (NA) |
2.00 (NA) |
| 4 | 3 | 2.66 (2.08) |
2.00 (1.00) |
3.50 (1.32) |
2.46 (0.50) |
4.17 (2.02) |
| 5 | 2 | 2.63 (1.24) |
3.00 (0.71) |
3.13 (0.88) |
2.08 (0.11) |
2.50 (0.71) |
| 6 | 4 | 2.94 (0.97) |
2.81 (1.25) |
3.75 (1.32) |
3.19 (0.94) |
3.69 (0.94) |
| 7 | 1 | 5.00 (NA) |
3.00 (NA) |
5.00 (NA) |
2.00 (NA) |
3.00 (NA) |
| 8 | 2 | 3.75 (1.06) |
3.50 (0.71) |
4.50 (0.71) |
3.88 (0.18) |
3.75 (1.06) |
| 9 | 2 | 2.88 (0.53) |
3.13 (0.88) |
4.00 (0.00) |
3.00 (0.00) |
3.50 (0.71) |
| 10 | 2 | 5.75 (0.35) |
5.00 (0.01) |
6.78 (1.73) |
6.00 (0.00) |
4.94 (1.33) |
| 11 | 1 | 5.00 (NA) |
8.00 (NA) |
8.99 (NA) |
6.00 (NA) |
7.00 (NA) |
| All Panels | 18 | 3.40 (1.51) |
3.36 (1.59) |
4.43 (1.79) |
3.36 (1.40) |
3.81 (1.44) |
| Products | Market Price in Round I (Before tasting) |
Market Price in Round II (After tasting) |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | |
| PBSS (80 gm) | 3.60 | 1.28 | 3.40 | 1.51 |
| PBSF (110 gm) | 4.19 | 1.22 | 3.36 | 1.59 |
| PBDF (110 gm) | 4.45 | 1.38 | 4.43 | 1.79 |
| SMDF (110 gm) | 3.33 | 1.15 | 3.36 | 1.40 |
| SGMDF(110 gm) | 3.10 | 0.98 | 3.81 | 1.44 |
| Variable | Before tasting the products | After tasting the products | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coefficient | Std. Err. | Coefficient | Std. Err. | |
| Appearance | 0.064*** | 0.022 | -0.007 | 0.021 |
| Glossiness JAR | 0.127** | 0.052 | 0.127** | 0.052 |
| Serving size JAR | 0.009 | 0.048 | -0.043 | 0.047 |
| Smell | - | - | 0.066** | 0.034 |
| Taste | - | - | 0.128*** | 0.032 |
| Texture | - | - | -0.006 | 0.032 |
| Smell Intensity | - | - | -0.020 | 0.039 |
| Crispiness JAR | - | - | 0.036 | 0.046 |
| Saltiness JAR | - | - | 0.065 | 0.045 |
| Oiliness JAR | - | - | 0.065 | 0.057 |
| Juiciness JAR | - | - | 0.012 | 0.052 |
| Age | -0.003* | 0.002 | -0.001 | 0.002 |
| Dummy for Female | -0.039 | 0.045 | 0.012 | 0.044 |
| Dummy for African American | 0.095* | 0.052 | 0.043 | 0.052 |
| Dummy for Graduate | -0.236*** | 0.056 | -0.308*** | 0.058 |
| Dummy for Myself | -0.117*** | 0.044 | -0.168*** | 0.044 |
| Consumes fish frequently | 0.096** | 0.045 | 0.165*** | 0.046 |
| Family Income >= $60k | 0.185*** | 0.049 | 0.132*** | 0.049 |
| Panel Size | -0.062*** | 0.010 | -0.060*** | 0.010 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).