United States Department of the Interior, Fred A. Seaton, Secretary-
Fish and '.-Jildlife Service, Arnie J. Suomela, Commissioner
Bureau of Gomnercial Fisheries, Donald L. McKernan, Director

WHO BUYS CANNED TUNA, AND WHY?

A Study of Consumer Motivation In Three Cities

Prepared in the Branch of Economics

United States Fish and '."ildlife Service

Circular 88

V;ashington, D. C. : June i960

United States Department of the Interior, Fred A. Seaton, Secretary-
Fish and VJildlife Service, Arnie J. Suomela, Commissioner
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Donald L, McKernan, Director

WHO BUYS CANNED TUNA, AND WHY?

A Study of Consumer Motivation In Three Cities

Prepared in the Branch of Economics

i

J

United States Fish and '."ildlife Service

Circular 88

V.'ashington, D. C. : June i960

ABSTRACT

This report contains the results of a marketing
research study directed toward the i^nprovement of pro-
motional and merchandising techniques for the marketing of
canned tuna. Special emphasis is placed upon motivational
analysis using psychological techniques in probing for
information as to why consumers are attracted to canned
fishery products with certain styles of pack, taste, color,
or other attributes. Public acceptance of canned tuna
packed in brine as compared with consumer response for
canned tuna packed in oil is investigated. The report con-
tains specific suggestions for an advertising program
directed toward increasing tuna consumption among consumers
already using tuna, and among light and sporadic user groups,

ii

PREFACE

l/hile the trend of total canned fish production in the
United States has been generally upward since the end of World War
II, the fortunes of the various canned fish industries have been
diverse. Canned tuna, the leader, has been breaking production
records but has been encountering increasing competition from
Japanese imports. On the other hand, the scarcity of salmon ij
a major problem of the canned salmon industry. The canned sardine
industry and particularly the California sardine industry, is
confronted with both supply problems and the loss of traditional
markets ,

The prime objective of this m.arket research study is to
aid the domestic canned fish industries to expand markets for
their products. Results and findings of the study are especially
directed toward the Improvement of promotional and merchandising
techniques. However, the study has also a direct bearing upon
other important aspects of canned fish marketing such as the
adaptation of the product to meet specific consumer preferences.

This report describes the results of a survey of the
motivational factors which influence the buying habits of house-
hold consumers of canned tuna. The survey also examines the buying
habits of household consumers of canned salmon and sardines.
Separate reports will be issued for those products.

The study was made by the A, J. Wood Research Corporation
of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, under contract to the U, S, Bureau
of Commercial Fisheries. It was financed with funds made available
under the Saltonstall-Kennedy Act, approved July 1, 195^4.
(68 Stat. 376)

The survey was conducted under the general supervision
of V/alter H. Stolting, Chief, Branch of Economics. Preliminary
statistical and planning work was done by Adolph Scolnick, Analytical
Statistician. The report was edited and adapted for publication by
Alton T, Murray and Frans L. v;iderstrom, Jr., Economists.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Introduction 1

Consiimer preferences for canned tuna : 2

Use of canned tuna 2

Style preference 3

Color preference it

Can size h

Tuna packed in oil h

Tuna packed in brine 5

Buying habits 6

Serving habits 6

Recipe sources 7

Ordering of tuna in public eating places 7

Reasons for not using or seldom using tuna 7

Canned tuna advertising 8

Personal characteristics 9

Motivational analysis : 11

Determining the product image 11

Measuring the motivational difference 11

Index of possible market gain 12

Observations based on computed indexes of possible

market gain 12

Suggestions 13

Tables 13

^atistical tables ; c 15

Use of canned tuna : 15

Table 1. — What kind of canned fish do you like best? . 1$
Table 2. — During the last 12 months have you served

canned tuna? IS

Table 3. --During the past h weeks, about how often

did you serve canned tuna? 16

Table h. — ".vTio in your family eats tuna? 16

Style preference : 17

Table 5. — '/Jhich style of canned tuna do you like best? 17
Table 6. — Haw often do you buy that style of tuna?

(Tuna users by style preferred) 17

Table 7.— How often do you buy that style of tuna?

(Tuna users who like ... style best) .... 18
Table Q.—vJhy do you like this particular style

of tuna? 19

Color preference: 20

Table 9. — l-yTiich color tuna do you like best? 20

Table 10.-- Ho>.' often do you buy that color tuna? 20

Table ll.-4«Jhy do you like this particular color tuna? 21

TABLE OF CONTEi^rrS - Continued

Page

Statistical tables: - Continued

Tuna packed in oil : 22

Table 12. — Have you ever tried tuna packed in oil? ... 22

Table 13. — ^Do you use the oil or pour it off? 22

Table ih.-^f'hat do you dislike about tuna packed

in oil? 22

Tuna packed in brine : , . « 23

Table l^.— Have you ever tried tuna packed in brine,

that is, salt v.'ater? 23

Table 16 . — i^Jhich do you like better? 23

Table l?.-- '^vhat do you dislike about tuna packed

in brine? 2k

Table 18. — \.^ould you pay more for tuna packed in oil

rather than in brine? 2U

Table 19.— I'Jhy haven't you tried tuna packed in brine? 25
Table 20. — How often do you buy tuna packed in that

liquid? ". 25

Table 21.— ^/.'hat do you like about tuna packed in

brine? 26

Table 22. --Do you prefer light or white meat tuna

packed in brine? 26

Table 23. --Do you prefer solid, chunk or grated tuna

packed in brine? 2?

Table 2I4. — '.vTiich has more uses, tuna packed in ... ? 2?

Buying habits : 28

Table 2^. — Do you buy tuna for day to day use, or do

you buy several cans at one time? 28

Table 26. — ^The last time you bought tuna — did you plan

to buy it before you went to the store or

did you decide on it at the store? ., 28

Table 27. — IVhat made you decide to buy it?' ., 29

Serving habits : 29

Table 28.— HovJ do you serve tuna, hot or cold or

both ways ? , 29

Table 29.— ^'/hy dontt you serve tuna (hot /cold)? 30

Table 30,— Do your children ever ask for tuna? 30

Table 31. — Are your children served tuna at school as

a part of the hot lunch program? 31

Table 32.— i^'as tuna served in your home when you were

a child? (Tuna users) 31

Table 33. — i'fas tuna served in your home when you were

a child? (Tuna non-users) ,«,.... 32

Table 3U.— '-Vhat would induce you to serve more tuna? . 32

Recipe s ources : <> 33

Table 35. — Have you ever gotten a tuna recipe

from a . . . ? 33

TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued

Page

Statistical tables: - Continued

Ordering of tuna in public eating places; 3ii

Table 36.— Have you ordered tuna in a public eating

place in the last two months? 3h

Table 37.— How many times in the last two months

have you ordered tuna in ary form? 3U

Table 38.-4-/hat kind of tuna dishes did you ojrder? . 35
Table 39 •—Generally speaking, what day of the week
did you order tuna in a public eating

place 35

Table ijO.— Generally, at what time did you order

tuna in a public eating place? ......... 36

Reasons for not using or seldom using tuna: 37

Table Iil.-- 4«,Tiy don't you use tuna? 37

Table Ii2. — Did you ever use tuna in the past? 37

Table h3. — ^'^'hy did you stop using tuna? 38

Table hh. — '//hy do you use tuna so seldom? 38

Table h^. — Did you use tuna more often in the past?. 39
Table U6.— J/.Tiy have you reduced the number of tirr.es

you serve it? 39

Table 14.7.— Does anyone living in the house like

tuna? 39

Canned tuna advertising: , UO

Table kQ. — Have you seen or heard any advertising

for canned tuna? iiO

Table U9."^Tiere have you seen or heard canned

tuna advertising? 1;0

Characteristics : Ul

Table 50.— Selected socio-economic characteristics

of households , homemakers ill

Appendix: I|3

Survey methods : h3

Questionnaire h3

Sample design h3

Field work U6

Data processing procedures U6

Sampling errors hi

Sample questionnaire 5l

vii

viii

',^'HO BUYS CANfED TUNA, AND -VHY?

INTRODUCTION

In market research it is important tc
know how many people do what. It is even
more important to know why.

The method of obtaining answers to
how-many-people-do-^hat is well estab-
lished. The first part of this report is
concerned with the interpretation of house-
hold consumers' responses to questions on
what are their buying habits, serving
habits, etc. The results tabulated show
how many household consumers prefer partic-
ular attributes of canned tuna in relation
to other consur^iers v.'ith different pre^r-
ences. The selection of a random sample
representative of all the householders in
the areas surveyed was determined by sta-
tistical methods in common use. /,lso in-
cluded in the first section of the report
is the analysis of consumer responses to
the use of two related motivational re-
search techniques — the open question and
the probe. These techniques represent an
initial step in the process of learning
the why of consumer buying.

V-liile the stuJy of marketing behavior
over several decades has developed a num-
ber of methods of investigating the why
of consumer habits, motivational research
is relatively new. Practitioners in the
field of motivational research sometimes
disagree as to the emphasis tc be placed
upon the special techniques drawn from any
one of the social sciences such as sta-
tistics, psychology, economics, and
sociology. The principal techniques of
motivational research in the field of
consumer marketing behavior, however, are
derived from psychology.

The second part of this report is con-
cerned with the results of the motivational
analysis of the marketing behavior of con-

sumers of canned tuna based on other re-
search techniques. Motivational market
surveys require the services of a staff
trained to interrogate consumers with
special probing techniques, and a highly
skilled research staff is needed to inter-
pret the results of the recorded responses.
Moreover, motivational research studies are
much more expensive than consumer surveys
using conventional statistical methods.
This situation has a direct bearing upon
the size cf the motivational research sur-
vey which can be made for a fixed sum
available for consumer research, ^^s a
compromise between the maximum population
coverage to find out how many people do
what with canned fish and the limitation
inposed by the cost of motivational re-
search into why they used it, three urban
markets were selected for study instead
of a national survey.

The populations under study consisted
of households ^-ithin the urban areas of
Boston, Massachusetts,' Detroit, Michigan;
and Birmingham, Alabana. In addition, Negro
households in the ritual areas of Qrangeb'irg
County, South Carolina, were surveyed. Negro
households in rural areas of the southern
states represent an important market for
canned sardines. The Orangeburg County re-
sults will be sujnnarized in the sardine re-
port which iidll shov7 the cross-classifica-
tion of various marketing data by race for
Birmingham and Detroit. Area probability
samples vrere selected to represent these
populations and the homemaker or person
mainly responsible for planning the meals
was interviewed. A western city v;as not
included in the survey because of a lack of
funds to cover the cost of interviews.

The interviewing phase of this study
was carried out between March 13, 1959, and
May hy 1959 as follows:

Number of

/J"ea

interviews

Birminghan

585

Boston

553

Detroit

609

Orangeburg

County-

200

Specifically, the survey was designed
to elicit detailed answers to such ques-
tions as: why consumers decided to buy or
not to buy certain canned fishery items;
whether or not shoppers for canned fish
and shellfish were motivated by advertise-
ments or labels; the influence of income on
buying habits and other marketing factors.
Then there were the "how many people do
vrhat" questions to find out consumers'
preferences for size of can; tj^pe of pack-
age; kind of oil in which fish are canned;
color; text;ire; and other characteristics
of canned fishery products.

among consumers in Boston and 'Jetroit, but
in Birmingham tuna and salmon were about
equal in consumer esteem. In Boston, 56
percent of all respondents in the survey
said they liked tuna best; only 1? percent
named salmon. In Detroit, hi percent
liked tuna best, followed by salmon with
27 percent. In Birraingham, t'ona and salmon
tied for the first place with li2 percent
each. Canned shrimp and sardines trailed
far behind tuna and salmon in order of
consumer preference in all three cities,

■.■■'ith regard to actual use, the survey
revealed that 21 percent of all households
in Birmingham and 13 percent in both
Boston and Detroit had not used canned
tuna in the 12 months prior to the inter-
viet-rs. For purposes of statistical
analyses, these households were classified
as "never users" of canned tuna. Of those
who had used canned tuna in the 12 months

Percentage of
respondents

60

Boston

:tetroit

Birmingham

FIGURE I.— CONSUMER PREFERENCES FOR CANNED TUNA AND CANNED SAMON
CONSUMER PREFERMCES FOR CANNED TUNA 1/

Use of Canned Tuna

Tuna is the most popular canned fish

1/ Tables containing data referred to in
this section are given on pages I5-Ul and
an explanation of the tables on page 13.

prior to the interview, 65 percent in
Birmingham, 82 percent in Boston, and 81
percent in Detroit had used it in the
It weeks immediately prior to the inter-
view. These latter households were

classified as "tuna users." Those who had
used canned tuna in the past 12 months but
not within the li-week period were termed
"sporadic users" .

The tuna users were further divided
into light and heavy user groups. The
"li^^ht users" are defined as those who
used tuna one or two trries in the h weeks
imnediatsl.Y prior to the interview and the
"heavy users" as those who had served it
three tl-nes or more in this period. The
distribution of these user groups in the
three cities is sumarized in the following
table. (Note; The reader should keep in mind
while reading the following text and tables
that "tuna-users" are by definition all
respondents representing households who had
used canned tuna within the l^-week period.
The tern., therefore, includes both li£ht
users and heavy users.)

DISTRIBUTION OF TUl-JA USER GROUPS,

BY FREQUENCY OF USE, BliL'-aNGH/J^,

BOSTON, /-ND DETROIT, 1959

..11

responde

nts

Classificat

ion
ips

of user gro

Birming-
ham

Boston

Ifetroit

Percent

Percent

Percent

Never users

21

13

13

Sporadic users

28

15

17

Light users

1/

31

20

30

Heavy users

1/

20

52

liO

Total

100

100

100

1/ Referred to in text as "tuna users."

The freouency of seinring canned tuna
in the li-week period varied somewhat among
the three cities. The tuna-user households
in Birmingham averaged 2.5 servings per
household compared with ii.l in Boston and
3.14 in Detroit.

The entire family vjas reported as
eating canned tuna by approximately four-
fifths of the tuna users in all three
cities.

ever, the majority (52 percent) of tuna
users liked the solid style best. Chunk-
style tuna is liked best by h3 percent of
the tuna users in Boston, with grated a
poor third at k percent. The solid -style
tuna is liked best by Ih percent of the
tuna-users in Birmingham and by 16 percent
in Detroit, and the grated style by 12 per-
cent and 8 percent, respectively.

Percentage of tuna users
0 10 20 30 bo 50 60 70 80

Chunk

Birmingham

Solid

Grated

FIGURE II. —CONSUMER PREFERENCES K)R
STYLE OF PACK OF CANNED TUNA

Style Preference

Chunk-style canned tuna is liked best
by a va^t majority cf the tuna users in
both Birmingham and Detroit, 71 percent and
70 percent, respectively. In Boston, how-

There is considerable loyalty to the
style liked best. It is highest in Boston
where 89 percent said they always buy their
preferred style, followed by Jetroit, 75
percent, and Birmingham, 69 percent. V.-hen
this over-all measure of loyalty is broken
down by those tuna users who prefer a spe-
cific style, the pattern does not change,
/•jnong the three cities, tuna users in
Boston showed the greatest loyalty to the
style preferred for each of the three
styles in which tuna is marketed.

[jxi ijnportant technique used
in motivational research is the
"open Question" --one which seeks
the why of consumer behavior.
Such questions permit the re-
spondent to reply freely and do
not restrict his choice of an-
swers to the limited categories
imposed by the direct or closed
tj-pe. If the respondent's reply
is meaningful, a reason is avail-
able as to why he thinks or feels
the way he does. A response of
the type "just because I like it"
would not be considered adequate
and it would be the responsibil-
ity of the interviewer to focus
the respondent on more specific
areas in which to ans>;er. The
focusing process is known as
probing; it is not used in in-
stances where the initial reply
is deemed satisfactory by the
specially trained interviewer.
In cases where probing is used,
it must be handled skillfully so
as not to bias the respondent's
answer_j7

The first open question asked of tuna
users sought the reasons for their style
preferences, "^ase of preparation" was the
leading reason in all three cities by those
who preferred either the chunk style or the
grated style of tuna. "Better taste" was
the leading reason for preference by those
who liked the solid style of tuna best in
Detroit and Boston. Those who liked the
solid style best in Birmingham gave "not
as oily" and "better taste" as leading
reasons for their style preference.

Color Preference

The majority of tuna users in Boston,
83 percent, and Detroit, 63 percent, prefer

white HTieat tuna. Light-meat tuna was
favored in Birmingham by 53 percent of the
tuna users. Loyalty to color is very
strong with more than three -fourths of the
tuna users indicating that they always
stay with the same color. Loyalty to color
is highest in Boston, 90 percent, followed
by Detroit and then Birmingham.

/Another example of an unsat-
isractory response to an open
question is the often encountered
"I don't know." The interviewer
must be extremely careful not to
put words in the mouths of the
respondent when probing for a
more meaningful reply./

The second open question directed to
tuna users was designed to discover the
reasons for stated color preferences.
"Nicer appearance" and "better taste" were
the most frequently mentioned reasons for
liking the preferred color of tuna in all
three cities. "Nicer appearance" was the
leading reason in all cases except among
those who liked the light meat tuna best
in Boston where "better taste" was
mentioned most frequently and in Detroit
where "better taste" was mentioned just
as often as "nicer appearance."

Can Size

Only 11 percent of all respondents in
Birmingham, 8 percent in Boston, and Vlx
percent in Detroit felt that the tuna can-
size was not right for the needs of their
households.

Tuna Packed in Oil

Almost every tuna user in all three
cities had bought tuna packed in oil at
some time. The majority of these people
poured off the oil: In Boston, 81 percent;
in Birmingham, 56 percent; and in Detroit,
59 percent.

/l)pen questions and the probing
techniques also may be used when
attempting to ascertain what is
liked or disliked about the
product. Specific spontaneous
responses of the type elicited
only after skilled probing are
important sources of information
for those interested in expanding
the market for canned tuna_j7

The response of consumers to the third
open question in the tuna section of the
survey revealed that there is considerable
dislike of the oil. Such criticisms as
"too oily" and "too fattening" were ex-
pressed by it? percent in Boston, h^ percent
in iJetroit, and 25 percent in Birmingham.
,. consumer product test of tuna packed in
varyinj amounts of oil is recommended to
determine quantity of oil preferred, i-.
reduction in the amount of oil presently in
use is indicated.

Tuna Packed in Brine

One of the specific objectives of this
s'jrvey was to detsrmine the acceptance in
the market of tuna packed in brine, a mat-
ter of considerable importance to the
canned fish industry. , series of Ques-
tions bearing directly on this problem was
asked of the tuna users and yielded the
followin;-; data.

The proportion of tuna users who have
tried tuna packed in brine varies consider-
ably among the three cities. The propor-
tion of triers is 63 percent in Boston, 25
percent in Detroit, and only 8 percent in
Birmingham,

Percentage of tuna users
0 10 20 30 UO 50 60 70

Boston

Detroit

Birmingham

FIGURE III . —FSRCSNTAGE OF TUNA USERS
WHO HAVE TRIED TUNA PACKED IN BRINE

A most significant finding is that
among those who tried tuna packed in
brine, about as many prefer tuna in brine
as tuna packed in oil. This situation
prevailed in all three cities.

This finding is confirmed by the
negative approach in the analysis of what
is disliked about tuna packed in brine.
In both Binningham and Boston, about 60
percent of those who tried it found
nothing to dislike about tuna packed in
brine J in Detroit, 39 percent found
nothing to dislike.

There is very little inclination among
the tuna users to pay more for tuna packed
in oil than for tuna in brine . In Boston,
61 percent said they would pay no more for
oil than for brine; in Detroit, SS percent
and in Birmingham, Uo percent. It is sig-
nificant that these percentages were al-
most the sane as those having actual
experience with tuna packed in brine.

Again using the negative approach,
there is no strong disinclination to try
tuna packed in brine. Lack of awareness
of t'jna packed in brine was the major
reason given by those who have not as yet
tried it: 6? percent in Birmingham; U6
percent in Boston; 68 percent in Detroit.

Finally, loyalty to tuna packed in
brine in Boston is even stronger than for
tuna packed in oil. In this city, 85 per-
cent of those preferring brine indicated
that they alwaj'^s buy tuna packed in brine
as compared to 71 percent for those who
preferred tuna packed in oil. In Detroit,
the comparable percentages were I48 percent
and 52 percent.

Additional opinions and preferences of
users who have tried tuna packed in brine
may be siajmnarized briefly. Tuna packed in
brine compares favorably with tuna packed
in oil with respect to taste for this
group. The major reason given for liking
tuna packed in brine for all three cities
is "lack of oil, less fattening," followed
by "taste." The triers in all three cities
prefer white-meat tuna packed in brine to
light -me at tuna. Boston triers prefer the
solid-style tuna packed in brine. In
Boston, the tuna users who have tried tuna
packed in brine selected the brine pack
over the oil pack as having more uses.

hS percent versus 30 percent. In Detroit
the reverse was true, 30 percent versus ii3
percent.

Buying Habits

Ln overwhelming majority of the tuna
users buy more than one can of tuna at a
time. Impulse buying is lovj in all three
cities. More than h out of 5 of the tuna
users in all three cities indicated that
they planned to buy tuna before they went
to the store. In response to an open
ouestion, those who had made an impulse
purchase the last time they bouijht tuna
gave as their main reasons "low price, on
sale" and "just happened to notice it."

Serving Habits

the four weeks prior to the interviews)
only 25 percent in Boston, 28 percent in
Birmingham, and 37 percent in Detroit said
tuna was served in ttieir horr^s when they
were children,

/rhe replies of consumers to
an open ouestion and their
responses to the use of the
probing technique revealed the
relative L".portance of price
reductions as a motive for the
more frequent use of canned
tuna^

almost one -fifth of the tuna users in
Binrdnghan said a lower price vjould induce
them to serve tuna more often. Only about
one -eighth of the users in Boston and

Tuna is served in both hot and cold
forms by form than 6 out of 10 of the tuna
users in all three cities . It is served
only in the cold form by 39 percent in
Birminghajn, 33 percent In Boston, and 21;
percent in Detroit. Only 1 percent of the
tuna users in each of the three cities
served canned tuna in the hot form only.
According to the tabulation of responses
to an open question concerning serving
habits, users who serve tuna in the cold
form only did not serve it hot because they
only liked it In a salad or sandwiches.

Children were fond of tuna in more
than one-half of the tuna-user families in
all three cities, .-.pparently mothers are
convinced that tuna is an excellent food
for children. Mothers reported serving
canned tuna to their children practically
as often as the latter asked for it. In
each of the three cities, 22 percent of the
tuna users with children could say defi-
nitely that their children v;ere served tuna
at school as part of the hot lunch program.
However, 68 percent in Birmingham, 19 per-
cent in Boston, and 38 percent in Detroit
did not know if their children were served
tuna at school.

More than half of the tuna-user re-
spondents in all three cities said tuna
was served at home when they were children.
The proportion in this category was 7^ per-
cent in Boston compared to 56 percent in
Birmingham and 57 percent in Detroit. It
is significant that among tuna non-users
(those who had not served canned tuna in

Percentage of
tuna users

60 _

50 \-

Uo

30 -

20 -

10 -

0 .

Boston Detroit Birming-
ham

FIGURE IV. —PERCENTAGE OF TUNA USERS

WHO SAID THAT NOTHING WOULD INDUCE

THEM TO USE MORE- TUNA

Detroit said they would be induced to serve
tuna more often if the price were lower.
On the other hand, iil percent of the users
in Bimingham, 57 percent in Boston, and
56 percent in Detroit said nothing would
induce them to serve more tuna.

Recipe Sources

Friends were reported to be the main
source of information for tuna recipes in
all three cities. Can labels, which
ranked below both newspapers and magazine
sources in all three cities, were mentioned
by 18 percent of the tuna users in Birming-
ham, 7 percent in Boston, and 19 percent in
Detroit. Television and radio ranked lower
than can labejs in all three cities as a
source of tuna recipes.

Ordering of Tuna in Public Eating Places

In the two months prior to the inter-
view, IL percent of the tuna users in
Birmingham, 18 percent in Boston, and 17
percent in Detroit reported ordering tuna
in a public eating place. More than 3 out
of h of these people in each of the cities
ordered tuna from 1 to 3 times during this
period. More than Ii out of 5 ordered tuna
sandwiches in Boston and Detroit, while in
Birmingham only hii percent ordered a tuna
Siindwich and 62 percent ordered a tuna
salad during this same period.

Percentage of tuna users

10

15

20

Boston

Detroit

Birm Ingham

FIGURE V. —PERCENTAGE OF TUNA USERS
ORDERING TUNA IN A PUBLIC EATING PUCE

Friday is the leading day of the week
on which tuna is ordered in a public
eating place in both Boston, 75 percent,
and Detroit, 56 percent. V.'ednesday is the
second most important dey in each of these
two cities. However, in Biiningham, Mon-
day, Friday, and Saturday were mentioned
with almost equal frequency as the leading
days on which tuna was ordered in a public
eating place. This differential behavior
is related to religious affiliation of the
respondents. In Boston, 58 percent of the
respondents wei^ Catholic; 3^1 percent in
Itetroit; and only 6 percent in Birmingham.

Percentage of
respondents

60
50
UO
30
20

10 _

Boston Detroit Birming-
ham

FIGURE VI . —PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS
OF THE CATHOLIC RELIGION

For the most part, tuna was ordered
for lunch by the respondents eating tuna
in a public eating place.

Reasons for Not Using or Seldom Using Tuna

/Flotivational Research tech-
niques—the open question and

the probe — ^were used to great
advantage when the survey
sought the reasons for not
using, seldom using, or dis-
continuing the use of canned
tunaj_7

The reasons given for not using tuna
by the "never users" (those who had not
used tuna in the 12 months prior to the
interview) in all three cities referro i
primarily to a lack of appeal to the
senses; 5U percent in Birmingham; 66 per-
cent in Detroit and Boston. Reasons re-
lated to health were given by Hi percent,
39 percent, and 31 percent, respectively,
flifficulty in preparation or use were the
reasons offered by 11 percent, 6 percent,
and 9 percent, respectively. "Price too
high" was mentioned by only 13 percent of
the "never users" in Birminghain, 7 percent
in Detroit, and was not mentioned in
Boston.

Some of these "never users" had used
tuna sometime in the past; 38 percent in
Birmingham, 31 percent in Boston, and 52
percent in Detroit. The major reasons
given by this group for discontinuing the
use of tuna were related to a lack of sense
appeal by 3U percent in Birmingham and rea-
sons referring to health by 38 percent in
Detroit. Also, in Detroit, 35 percent re-
ported tha^ tuna was not worth the trouble
to prepare; 22 percent gave reasons in
this category in Birmingham. Only 9 per-
cent in Birmingham and 2 percent in Detroit
said that they abstained from usiiig tuna
because it was too expensive. The number
of respondents in this category in Boston
was insignificant.

The reasons for using tuna infrequently
as reported by the "sporadic users" (those
who had served tuna in the 12 months prior
to the interview but not in the U weeks
prior to the interview) dealt mainly with
lack of sense appeal: Birmingham, 63 per-
cent; Boston, 62 percent; and Detroit, 55
percent. Price was mentioned as a reason
by 111 percent in Birmingham, 1 percent in
Boston, and 11 percent in Detroit, /.bout
1 out of 10 of these respondents in BiJ'ming-
ham and 1 out of 6 in Boston and Detroit
said they only used canned tuna during the
summer.

More than one -third of the sporadic
users reported that they used tuna more
often in the past and gave "reduction in
family size" as their primary reasons for
now serving tuna less often. A smaller
group gave "health or diet reasons."

/iS explanations, approximately two-
thirds of the tuna non-users, "never
users", and "sporadic users" combined, in
Birmingham and Detroit reported that at
least one household member liked tuna;
only itO percent of the tuna non-user
households in Boston were reported to be
in this category.

Canned Tuna Advertising

Among all persons interviewed, 6U per-
cent in Birrainghairi, 76 percent in Boston,
and 70 percent in Detroit said they had
seen or heard advertising for canned tuna.
The medium mentioned most frequently by
those exposed to advertising in Birmingham
was magazines, 59 percent, followed by
television, 55 percent; newspapers, hh per-
cent; with radio a poor fourth at 13 per-
cent. In Boston, on the other hand, tele-
vision was mentioned by 76 percent, fol-
lowed by magazines and newspapers with 30
percent each; and radio 11 percent. In
Detroit, magazines again led with 61 per-
cent; followed by nevrspapers with 58 per-
cent; television, U6 percent; and radio
only 7 percent.

The frequency of canned tuna consump-
tion is related to exposure to advertising
for canned tuna in all three cities; The
proportion of respondents v7ho said they
had seen or heard any advertising for
canned tuna increased with frequency of
tuna consumption in all of the cities. For
example, in Birmingham, the increase in
this proportion is from. IjO percent among
the never users to 82 percent among the
heavy users of tuna. Similarly, the in-
crease is from hi percent among the never
users in Boston to 8U percent for the
heavy users and in Detroit, from 56 per-
cent to 77 percent.

Clearly, advertising has increased
tuna consumption although the survey does
not provide specific m.easurements as to how
effective advertising has been.

Percentage

of those

interviewed

80_

70 _
SO-
l40_

30-

20-
10-
0_

Boston

Detroit

Birmingham

FIGURE VII.— "SOURCES OF CANNED TUNA ADVERTISING
AS REP0RT3D BY CONSUMERS

Tuna users most exposed to advertising
Fientioned magazines and nev;spapers as the
medium for the ads they had seen. The non-
user group mentioned television more fre-
ouently as the source for the ads they had
seen. This relationship of ad source vTith
frequency of use was smilsr in all three
cities.

Personal Charecteristics

The socio-economic characteristics of
the househol'ls and homemakers in all three
cities differed considerably with rcr. TGct
to race, relii-'ion, income, nativity of
parents, emplojTnent status, and education.
In Binr.ingharr,, 36 percent of the hoiuse-
holds were Negro compared to 19 per-
cent in Jetroit and only 2 percent in
Boston.

In Birmingham 6 percent were Catholic
as compared with 3h percent in Jetroit and
58 percent in Boston. The remainder com-
prised families of the Protestant religion,
for the most part. ;. significantly higher
proportion of the Birmingham families have
a lower incomie than is the case for Boston
and Detroit, Only 3 percent of the Bir-
mingham, respondents had one or both of
their parents born outside of the United
States com.pared v/ith it2 percent in Boston
and 28 percent in Detroit. A slij^htly
higher proportion of the Birmingham re-
spondents were emploj-ed as compared with
the other two cities. Finally, a higher
proportion of the Boston respondents
received an education beyond the eighth
grade than was the case in Birmingham and
Detroit.

Percentage of
respondents

1^0

30

-

20

10

0

-

1 1

Boston

Detroit Birming-
ham

FIGURE VIII. —PERCENTAGE OF NEGRO
RESPONDENTS OF TOTAL RESPONDENTS

The personal characteristics of the
households and homemakers were tabulated
for each of the canned tuna consur.iption
groups defined for this study. These
tabulations revealed frequency of canned
tuna usage in these cities to be asso-
ciated with the following characteristics:
maritial status, size of household, occu-
pation of respondent's husband, age of
homemaker, family income, education of
homenaker, nativity of parents of hone-
maker, religion of family and race.

The light user and heavy user groups,
when compared with the sporadic user and
never user groups, are found to contain a
higher proportion of: households with
married respondents j larger households;
husbands with an executive, professional,
or sales occupation; homemakers less than
56 years of age; higher income families;
homemakers with education beyond elemen-
tary school; homemakers whose parents are
foreign bom; families affiliated with the
Catholic religion; and white families.

A summary of the findings revealed by
classification of the data by race, family
income , the homemaker' s age , education,
and employment status, the number of per-
sons eating dinner at home, family reli-
gious affiliation, and nativity of the
homemaker' s parents, together with data
on product image mentioned in the next
section, will be made available for a
limited time upon request to the Fish and
Wildlife Service by persons have a need
for such data.

10

MOTIVATIONAL ANALYSIS

The motivational analysis in this sur-
vey was carried out by two different meth-
ods. The first method was to ask the re-
spondents open questions as to why they use
or do not use tuna so that they could spon-
taneously mention anj'' reason or motive. The
interviewers, all of whom were familiar
with probing techniques, were instructed to
probe as deeply as possible for any reasons
which the respondents did not bring out
immediately. There was a series of such
open questions. The users were asked what
would induce them to serve more tuna; non-
users were asked why they do not use tuna;
those who had stopped using tuna were
asked why they had stopped. The sporadic
users were asked why they used tuna so
seldom, those who now use tuna less often
than in the past were asked v;hy they had
reduced the number of tijnes they served it.
Similarly, there were open questions as to
why people liked their preferred style of
tuna; their preferred color; and v;hy they
served tuna hot only or why they served
tuna cold only. The responses to these
open questions (as well as the responses to
the more usual direct questions) have been
summarized in the first part of this report.

Detemining the Product Image

The second method which was used to
study motivations is statistical and re-
quires some technical explanation. The
first step in this analysis was to deter-
mine the "image" of the product --that is,
what each respondent thought of tuna, what
characteristics she attributes to it, what
associations the product evokes. There-
fore, each respondent was asked whether she
agreed or disagreed with a series of state-
ments, each representing a characteristic
of tuna, for example: "Tuna has a good
flavor."

/rhe motivational technique
used in this phase of the analy-
sis is kno>m as the "guided
association question." Although
the respondent is asked only
whether or not he agrees or dis-
agrees with the statement, the
interviewer actually records
the intens ity of the answer.
Thus, strong agreement or

disagreement (as well as less
intensely expressed feelings
or opinions) is noted by the
interviewer. In addition, the
statements on the questionnaire
were sometimes phrased posi-
tively and sometimes negatively— ^
as for example: "Tuna has an
unpleasant smell." This was done
in order to minimize what is
called a "halo" or clustering
effect whereby a favorable
attitude toward a product tends
to make respondents attribute
all favorable characteristics
to the product ._7

The product image phase of the study
revealed that canned tuna is considered
to be a convenient food, one that is not
too troublesome to prepare by more than
9 out of 10 homemakers. To a slightly
lesser extent, tuna is considered to have
a good flavor, a nice appearance, and to
be a food of high quality which is not
hard to make look good and which has many
uses.

The image of canned tuna is quite
similar in all three cities except for
the items, "Does not leave a bad odor in
the refrigerator," "Is not expensive,"
"Is only good if a well-knoi-jn brand," and
"Is used a great deal by Negroes." In
Boston as many as 72 percent of the re-
spondents felt that tuna did not leave a
bad odor in the refrigerator, but only
ii2 percent in Birmingham agreed with this.
Also in Boston 78 percent felt that canned
tuna is not expensive, but only hi percent
agreed in Birmingham. Again, 75 percent
of the Boston respondents agreed that tuna
was only good if it were a well-known
brand compared to only 56 percent in Bir-
mingham. Finally, 18 percent in Boston
thought that tuna was used a great deal
by Negroes, compared to lil percent in Bir-
mingham. The proportions for Detroit for
these items are approximately midway be-
tween those of Birmingham and Boston.

Measuring the Motivational Difference

The aim of motivational analysis is
to determine the characteristics which
have the greatest influence on the be-
havior of the respondent. The approach

11

used in this study to measure the strength
of a motive was first to determine the
ratio of heavy users amonp those who agree
with the statement and compare it with the
ratio of heavy users among those who do
not agree with it. The difference between
these ratios, which will be called the
motivational difference, indicates whether
agreeing with the statement has influence
and measures the extent of the motivational
strength of the statement. The greater the
difference between the ratios, the stronger
the influence of the specific statement.
The selection of heavy user groups is justi-
fied because there is an interest in con-
verting not only the never users into
regular users but also to transfonn the
light users into heavy users of canned tuna.

The most important characteristics of
canned tuna are practically the same in all
three cities. Good flavor is first in all
three cities and is clearly the most im-
portant motive. The motivational differ-
ences for the statements "Tuna is not too
troublesome to prepare," "Tuna is net hard
to make look good," and "Tuna is a conven-
ient food," are all high on the list fo"
each of the cities indicating that eact- of
use is also an important motive among
heavy users of canned tuna. Quality is
also among the leading motives conmon to
all three cities.

Index of Possible Market Gain

As a third step, the extent to which
a motivating characteristic is already
attributed to the product by homemakers
must be measured. 2/ Conversely, the pro-
portion of homemakers who are to be con-
vinced that canned tuna has a specific
desirable quality must be established. It
is in this group that the potential nt,rket
gain is greatest. The result of multi-
plying the motivational difference by the
potential to be convinced yields an index
of the possible market gain.

2/ There is no need to try to convince
¥hat sector of the public that a product
has a certain characteristic when everyone
within the sector recognizes that this is
the case.

Observations Based on Computed Indexes
of Possible Ilarket Gain

Only the item "Does not leave a bad
odor in the refrigerator" is listed for
all three cities. The remaining factors
are listed for only one or two of the
three cities.

One or more of the items referring to
the idea that tuna is a food for everyone
occurs in each of the cities. This theme
is manifested in the statement "Not eaten
mainly by manual laborers," which appears
among the leading Binningham and Detroit
indexes] in the statement "Not food for
poor people," which has the highest index
in Boston; and in the leading index for
Detroit, "Not used a great deal by Negroes,"

Taste qualities are important also:
"Has a pleasant after taste" appears in
both Birmingham and Boston; "Has a good
flavor" appears in both Boston and Detroit.

"Tuna is often eaten by sick people" —
implying that tuna is easily digested, is
nourishing, etc. — is among the leaders in
both BirminghaiT. and Boston.

"Tuna is not expensive compared to
other canned fish" appears in both Birming-
ham and 'Detroit. The competition provided
hy pink salmon in these areas undoubtedly
is a major reason why this factor occurs
in the two cities.

In Birmingham it is advantageous to
convince consumers that canned tuna may be
used by inexperienced cooks; in Detroit the
reverse situation prevails vfith the appeal
best directed tov/ard hom.emakers who con-
sider them.selves experienced cooks.

The index referring to canned tuna as
a food eaten by people tr^-ing to lose
weight is important in Boston onl^j^.

It is of considerable significance to
note that the three characteristics "Tuna
is a convenient food", "Tuna is not too
troublesome to prepare", and "Tuna is not
hard to make look good" are not among
the leaders for any of the three cities.
These items, all dealing with ease of
preparation, had relatively high

12

motivational differences. On the other
hand, relatively few hor.emakers in the
three cities remain to be convinced that
canned tuna does have these desirable
characteristics .

SUGGESTIONS

The following suggestions have been
derived from the analysis and sa^mary of
the data:

The domestic tuna canning industry-
should pack and distribute tuna packed in
brine in all three markets . There is no
need for another can size for tuna.

T!;e selection of Binr.ingham, Boston,
and Detroit was nade, in part, with the
intention of giving representation to three
regions of the country — the South, North-
east, and North Central — rather than to
three particular cities. V^^hen vievred from
this perspective it should be noted that
the factors vfith the greatest potential for
motivating consumers to becorie heavy asers
of tuna are quite different for the three
areas. Cnly one motivating characteristic
appears among the leaders for all three
cities; thus the problem of increasing tuna
consumption cannot be solved by the use of
a single national advertising program.

Advertising csLmpairriS in all three
cities should stress that caxmed tuna is a
desirable food for all population groups
and that it has a pleasant taste . i'e rional
promotional themes should be developed for
Birmingham underscoring the facts that
canned tuna is an inexpensive, nourishing,
and easily digested food. In Boston the
emphasis should be shifted so as to accen-
tuate the ideas that the product is popular
v/ith those interested in losing weight and,
in order to combat the brine market, that
tuna packed in oil is not undesirably oily.
Detroit advertising should be based on the
concepts that tuna is an inexpensive food
and that it is used by experienced cooks.

It is no longer necessarj' to emphasize
convenience and ease of preparation themes
in canned tuna advertising since av/areness
of these characteristics is widespread
among homemakers.

It is apparent fran the results of the
survey that the promotional efforts made by
tuna canners should be directed toward
increasing consumption among consaters

already using tuna and particularly among
those using the product cnly occasionally —
the light and sporadic user groups.

TABLES

The tables showing the percentage dis-
tribution of the responses to each of the
questions pertinent to this report are in-
cluded in the next section. A weighted base
was employed for the computation of each
percentage distribution. This base is
shown at the bottom of each table column.
Weighting the actual number of interviews
corripleted in each city was necessary since
a small number of the sampling units were
sub-sainpled to avoid an excessive number
of interviews in any one interviewing
assignment. This procedure was necessary
in those sample area segments which had
grown considerably in number of households
since the 1950 Census. In addition, the
total Detroit area was divided into zones
which were either predominately white or
non-*Jhite with the former sampled at one-
half the rate of the latter zone; weighting
vjas employed to restore the proportionality
of the race distribution in this city.

No weighting was attempted for house-
holds selected for the sample but not inter-
viewed (refusals, unable to contact, etc.).
The actual number of completed interviews
and the weighted base for the total re-
spondent population in each city are shown
below.

Cit£

Birmingham

Boston

Detroit

Actual number
of interviews

553
609

'.veighted
base

669
572
916

Percentage distributions were computed
whenever the weighted base was 25 or more.
Only the number of responses in each
category is shown whenever this criterion
is not met. In percentage distributions,
each percentage vjas computed separately and
no effort was made to force the column to
add to exactly 100 percent. The occasional
discrepancies which occur because of
rounding should not affect use of the data.
In instances where the percentages add to
more than 100 percent because of multiple
answers by respondents, a footnote to this
effect is included in the table.

13

lli

STATISTICAL TABLES

Use of Canned Tuna

TABLE 1.— WHAT KIND OF CANNED FISH DO YOU LIKE BEST?

Kind of canned fish

All respondents

Birmingham Boston Detroit

Tuna
Salmon
Sardines
Shrimp
Don't know

Number of respondents

Percent Percent Percent

100

42

k2

5

3

8

(669)

100

56
17

k
Ik

9

100

hi
27

6
11

9

(572) (916)

TABLE 2. --DURING THE LAST 12 MONTHS HAVE YOU SERVED CANNED TUNA?

Response

All resx>ondents

Birmingham

Boston

Detroit

Percent

Percent

Percent

100

100

100

79

87

87

21

13

13

Yes

No

Number of respondents

(669)

(572)

(916)

15

Use of Canned Tuna

TABLE 3. — DURING THE PAST k WEEKS, ABOUT
HOW OFTEN DID YOU SERVE CANNED TUNA?

Number of times

Those who have served canned
tuna within last 12 months

Birmingham

Boston

Detroit

Percent

Percent

Percent

100

100

100

15
2k

9
Ik

15
20

7
13

6
35

0

9
31

19
17

1

11
22
13

19
0

(531)

ih9l)

(796)

1.8
2.5

3A
k.i

2.7
3 A

1 time

2 times

3 times
k times

5 or more times
Did not sei-ve
Don't know

Number of respondents

Average (last 12 months)
Average (last k weeks)

TABLE 4. --WHO IN YOUR FAMILY EATS TUNA?

Family member

Tuna users

Birmingham Boston Detroit

Percent Percent

Entire family-
Husband
Respondent
Children

Number of respondents

(1)

79
10

19

12

(345)

(1)

77
9

17
20

(i^ll)

Percent
(1)

78

8

18

11

(636)

1/ Totals more than 100 percent as some respondents mentioned more
than one answer.

16

style Preference

TABLE 5. --WHICH STYLE OF CANNED TUNA DO YOU LIKE BEST?

Style

Tuna users

Birmingham Boston Detroit

Chunk

Solid

Grated or flaked

Don ' t know

Number of respondents

Percent Percent Percent
100

100

71

14

12

3

100

43 TO

52 l6

k 8

1 6

(411)

(636)

TABLE 6. --HOW OFTEN DO YOU BUY THAT STYLE OF TUNA?

Frequency of purchase

Tuna users by style preferred

Birmingham

Boston

Detroit

Percent

Percent

Percent

100

100

100

69

23

6

(1)
2

89
8
1
0
2

75

18

6

(1)
1

Always buy
Usually buy
Sometimes buy
Rarely
Don't know

fTumber of respondents

(337)

(4o8)

(6o4)

1/ Less than one percent,

17

1 +^

§

J- Ol-* o o
VD CO

CO

u c

(U (U

§

ir\ ONVO O O

CO

O
H

8

\0 MD C^ r-l O

CO

J-
J-

t

*»

^

g

eu

o

1

-p

ti

c

<u

0)

Ph

o

1

■p

^

c

(U

(U

Ph

o

H I I I I I

O t^ O -H O OJ t^

O CO H f-

(U
■P

a]

C5

J3

t!D'

^H

C

<U

Q)

PH

O.

1

-P

u

a

0)

0)

Ph

o

,

-p

^

c

0)

0)

Pk

c

O J- -^ O O OJ H
O CO l^ H -*

o ^ CO MD cy O Q

8

vo CO on o on vo

OJ

CO

4h
O

0)
>> ^

o 05

0) o

O nH -H

bd -P

CO 08 «) 0) -

> ^ § b S

^ D cS P5 a

o
a

H -p

>1

18

1

+»

u

c

0)

0)

PU

o

1

+3

u

c

(U

a)

p^

o

,

+^

u

c

0)

0)

Ph

o

CM CO o voooNono

0\ H H

H ITS CO

CO H

CO

1

+^l

^^

^

c

CM

0

<D

N ^

Ph

V

u

c

H

0)

(U

.^^^

pL.

1

o
■p 1

^1

c i

iH

01

0)!

v..^

PM

U|

I I I I I I I

(1) 0)

Pu o

H OD ifN iTN ro On if\ CO

-* CVJ rH rH H

CM O ir\<\J ITN

1

-p

^-N

o

u

c

.H

CO

V

<D

v_^

Ph

O

1

-P

^

VD

u

c

iH

^

V

0)

N_^

P-,

o

CO CVJ -:* OJ CO OJ

CU H CO H

C fn 6

cd a>
o o «

=( c

CT'H
73 O

C q

cd

-^

CO VO

O VO OJ

ir\

OJ

rH

1

s

-p

i

43

^

6*

CO to -P hO 0)

c

•\

c

c

1

iH

p- b ^

««

<d

0) rt •> f^

p.

O CO

^H 15 Qj ai •>

o

H C

e o

P^ -p -p ^<

XJ

■P t3 >5

0) (0 +3 0)

•'i

W C .H

o m s

o t-i rt ^ o

+J Q 4J ^ .H

r-J

S -H -H

C rt b

0)

o
w

O ^ O

O (D C

f-. ' f-1 •>

■P QJ cd

(U

<4h
O

ox; 0' j5 w

<D

U -P

•H a) -p M ^

f^

•H ;C

0) a> •.

W W -P -H O
rt d Q) Cm o

o

-CI +3 +i

Jh J^ c

u

X)

E

nJ o o

O -P o

K m y-7

K S

son

fn -P
Q) C

U etJ

to V

C -H

ca vi
c So

O -H
(0

a

oJ >>
^ H
-P rH

05
4) O

2 -^

a CQ

•H

0) -P

!> (S
(C -P
bO CO

C U

-P

CO c

r-l <U

aj o

-p ^1

O 0)

Eh P-,

HloJl

19

Color Preference

TABLE 9. --WHICH COLOR TUNA DO YOU LIKE BEST?

Color

Tuna users

Birmingham Boston Detroit

Percent

Percent Percent

100

100

100

White
Light
Don't know

Number of respondents

kk

53

3

(3i^5)

83 63

Ik 30

3 7

(i^li) (636)

TABLE 10. --HOW OFTEN DO YOU BUY THAT COLOR TUNA?

Frequency of
purchase

Tuna users with a color
liked beet

Birmingham

Boston

Detroit

Percent

Percent

Percent

100

100

100

76

90

81

19

6

16

2

(1)

3

1

0

(1)

2

k

(1)

Always
Usualljr buy
Some tines buy
Rarely
Don't know

Number of respondents

(333)

(402) (592)

1/ Less than one percent.

20

+>

Ml

,

-p

u

c

0)

<u

p^

o

CU OJ ONH CO HCO

1 -p

,-^

VDVD

on OJ ro o C~-

^-^

u c

H

-* OO

OO H

CO

0) (U

N_^

On

CM cjI

en

■p

^ 1

1

-t^l

!h

c

0)

<D

CL,

O

1

■P

^^

G

<U

0)

Ph

O

1

+J

u

c

i)

(U

Oh

o

1

■p

f^

C!

0)

0)

fl4

o

CO UN

OOOO C\ ITNOO

•H C
O O

r-l O

bD

O tfl

> -H

rt -p

r-i •^ ra

-p

•g

bo 4^
C to

•H (ti
N +5

0)

f^ ^

0) o
+5 "H
•P 43

(1>

+3 rH +5
•H -H

fn CJ (U

Q) P^ -P

•H nJ 0)

E2 CQ

<D .C
JS -p

>l

21

Tuna Packed in Oil

TABLE 12.— HAVE YCO EVER TRIED TUNA PACKED IN OIL?

Response

Tuna users

Birmingham Boston Detroit

Percent Percent Percent

100

100

100

Yes

No

Don't know

Number of respondents

93
6

1

99
(1)

1

(345) (i^ll)

97

3

(1)

(636)

TJ Less theui one percent.

TABLE 13.— DO YOU USE THE OIL OR POUR IT OFF?

Response

Those who have tried

tuna packed in oil

Birmingham Boston Detroit

Percent Percent Percent

"Trr"

Use the oil
Pour off the oil
No answer

Number of respondents

56

1

19

81
(2)

(322) (it08)

kz

59
2

(616)

YJ Totals more than 100 percent as some respondents gave more than

one answer.
2/ Less than one percent.

TABLE 14.— WHAT DO YOU DISLIKE ABOUT WNA PACKED IN OIL?

Reasons

Those who have tried

txHia packed in oil

Birmingham Boston Detroit

Percent Percent Percent

Nothing, no dislike
Too rich, too fattening
Too much oil, too oily, too greasy-
Other
Don't know

Number of respondents

6U

3
22

3
9

(322)

50

7

ko
2
3

(1^8)

(1)

51

8

37

1

k

(6l6)

T7 Totals more than 100 percent as some respondents gave more than
one answer.

22

Tuna Packed in Brine

TABLE 15. --HAVE YOU EVER TRIED TUNA
PACKED IN BRINE, THAT IS, SALT WATER?

Response

Tuna users

Birmingham Boston Detroit

Percent Percent Percent

100

100

100

Yes

No

Don't know

Number of respondents

8 63 2?

92 36 75

(1) 1 0

(3i^5)

(hn) (636)

1/ Less than one percent.

TABLE 16. --WHICH DO YOU LIKE BETTER?

Pack

Tuna users who have tried

tuna packed in brine

Birmingham Boston Detroit

Percent Percent Percent

100

100

100

Brine

Oil

Don't know

Number of respondents

50
k2

8

(26)

52

3

(260)

U6

51

3

(158)

23

Tuna Packed in Brine

TABLE 17. --WHAT DO YOU DISLIKE ABOUT TUNA PACKED IN BRINE?

Criticisms

Those who have tried
tuna packed in brine

Birmingham

Boston

Detroit

Percent
(1)

Percent
(1)

Percent
(1)

8
23

9

18

k

31

15

58

0

0

27

60

0

(2)

ko
39

1
8

Too much salt
Too dry

poor taste, poor quality,
poor flavor
No dislike
Other
Don't know

Number of respondents

(26) (260)

(158)

1/ Totals more than 100 percent as some respondents gave more than

one answer.
2/ Less th€in one percent.

TABLE 18.— WOULD YOU PAY MORE FOR TUNA
PACKED IN OIL RATHER THAN IN BRINE?

Tuna users

Response

Birmingham Boston Detroit

Percent Percent Percent

Yes

No

Don't know

100

37
ko
23

Number of respondents (3'*^5)

Average amount (those •triio would pay more) 3»9^

100

3^

61

5

(im)
3M

100

31
55
14

(636)
3.1^

2U

Tuna Packed in Brine

TABLE 19. --WHY HAVEN'T YOU TRIED TUNA PACKED IN BRINE?

Reasons

Tuna users who have not tried

tuna packed in brine

Birmingham Boston Detroit

Not aware of it

Prefer oil

Sounds too salty, too salty

All other reasons

No answers

Number of respondents

Percent Percent

-JTT' ~

67
8

12

16

3

;3i8)

h6

19

3

2k

s
(150)

Percent

TIT"

10

19
2

1/ Totals more than 100 percent as some respondents gave more than
one answer.

TABLE 20. --HOW OFTEN DO YOU BUY lUNA PACKED IN THAT LIQUID?

Frequency of
purchase

Tuna users who prefer tuna packed in . . .

Biimir

Lgham
Oil

Boston ,

Detroit

Brine

Brine

Oil

Brine

Oil

Per-

Per-

Per-

Per-

Per-

Per-

cent

cent

cent

cent

cent

cent

(1)

(1)

100

100

100

100

-

-

85

71

kd

52

-

-

11

17

23

28

-

-

2

5

18

2

-

-

1

3

8

18

-

-

1

k

3

0

(13)

(11)

(13^)

(116)

(73)

(80;

Always
Usually
Sometimes
Retrely
Don't know

Number of respondents

1/ Percentages are omitted because the data are not statistically
significant.

2?

Tuna Packed in Brine

TABLE 21." WHAT DO YOU LIKE ABOUT TUNA PACKED IN BRINE?

Those

who have

tried

Reasons

tuna packed in

brine

Birmingham Boston

Detroit

Percent

Percent

Percent

(1)

(1)

(1)

The taste (of the tuna)

27

25

16

The lack of oil; less fattening

62

43

50

The salty taste

8

(2)

1

Better for you, easier to digest.

for diet

19

Ik

16

Other

k

7

3

Don't know

0

31

28

Number of respondents

(26)

(260)

(158)

l/ Totals more thsji 100 percent as some respondents mentioned more

than one answer.
2/ Less than one percent.

TABLE 22. --DO YOU PREFER LIGHT OR WHITE MEAT TUNA PACKED IN BRINE?

Color

Those who have tried

tuna packed in brine

Birmingham Boston Itetroit

Percent

Percent Percent

(1)

100

100

Light
White
Don't know

Number of respondents

27
65
12

(26)

16

10

(260)

30
51
19

(158)

1/ Totals more than 100 percent as some respondents gave more thsji one
answer.

26

Tuna Packed in Brine

TABLE 23. --DO YOU PREFE3^ SOLID, CHUNK OR G3?ATED TUM PACKED IN BRINE?

Style

Those who have tried

tuna packed in brine

Birmingham Boston Detroit

Percent Percent Percent

Solid

Chunk
Grated
Don't know

Number of respondents

100

31

38

23

8

(26)

100

63

2k

3

10

100

38

ko

6

16

(260) (158)

TABI£ 24. --WHICH HAS MORE USES, TUNA PACKED IN ... ?

Pack

Those who have tried

tiuia packed in brine

Birmingham Boston Detroit

Percent Percent Percent

Brine

Oil

Don't know

Number of respondents

100

35
38
27

(26)

100
U5

30

25

(260)

100

30
43
27

(158)

27

Buying Habits

TABLE 25. --DO YOU BUY TUNA FOR TAX TO DAY USE,
OR DO YOU BUY SEVERAL CANS AT ONE TIME?

Purchase in
relation to use

Tuna users

Birmingham Boston Dstroit

Day to day
Several cans
Don't know

Number of respondents

Percent Percent Percent

100

30

70

(1)

100

14

86

(1)

(411)

100

12

88

(1)

(636)

1/ Less thaji one percent.

TABLE 26.— THE LAST TIME YOU BOUGHT TUNA- -DID YOU PLAN TO BUY IT
BEFORE YOU WENT TO THE STORE OR DID YOU DECIDE ON IT AT THE STORE?

Response

Tuna users

Birmingham Boston Detroit

Percent Percent Percent

Planned
Not planned
Don't know

Number of respondents

100

84
15

1

(345)

100

95
4

1

(411)

100

81
19

(1)
(636)

1/ Less than one percent,

28

Buying Habits

TABLE 27. --WHAT MADE YOU DECIDE TO BUY IT?

Impulse

buyers of

tuna

Reasons

Birmingham

Boston

Detroit

Percent

Percent

Percent

(1)

(2)

(1)

Low price, on sale, special
Just happened to notice it
Other reasons
Don't know

35

48

25
2

-

76

16

Ik

2

Number of respondents

(52)

(17)

(121)

1/ Totals more than 100 percent as some respondents gave more than

one answer.
2/ Psrcentages are omitted because the data are not statistically

significant.

Serving Habits

TABLE 28. --HOW DO YOU SERVE TUNA, HOT OR COLD OR BOTH WAYS?

Tuna users

Responses

Birmingham Boston Detroit

Percent Percent Percent

Hot

Cold

Both

No response

Number of respondents

(1)

1

39

61

(2)

(3U5)

(1)

1

33

65

(2)

(411)

(1)

1
2k
76

0

(636)

1/ Totals more than 100 percent as some respondents gave more than

one answer.
2/ Less than one percent.

29

Seizing Habits

TABLE 29. --WHY DON'T YOU SERVE TUNA (HOT/COLD)?

Reasons

Tuna users who serve tuna
only hot or only cold

Binningham

Boston

Detroit

Percent

Percent

Percent

(1)

(1)

(1)

20
kk

kd
25

30
28

19

37

33

2k

20

2

12

12
1

17

11

3

Only like sandwiches

Only like in salads

Not good except (hot /cold),

family does not like it
Did not know it could be served

that way, never tried it
Other reasons
DonH l:ncM

Number of respondents

(135)

(iJ^l) (155)

1/ Totals more than 100 percent as some respondents gave more than
one answer.

TABLE 30. --DO YOUR CHILDREN EVER ASK FOR TUNA?

Responses

Tuna users with children
Birmingham Boston Detroit

Percent Percent Percent

100

100

100

Yes

No

Don ' t know

Number of respondents

52

kk

k

(209)

72

28

(1)

(279)

62

36

2

(390)

1/ Less than one percent,

30

Serving Habits

TABLE 31. --ARE YOUR CHILDREN SERVED TUNA AT
SCHOOL AS A PART OF THE HOT LUNCH PROGRAM?

Responses

Tuna users vrLth children
Birmingham Boston Detroit

Percent Percent Percent

100

100

100

Yes

No

Don't know

23

9

68

22
59
19

22
41
37

Number of respondents

(209)

(279)

(390)

TABLE 32. --WAS 1UNA SERVED IN YOUR HOME WHEN YOU WERE A CHILD?

Responses

Tuna users

Birmingham Boston Detroit

Percent Percent Percent

100

100

100

Yes

No

Don't know

56

39

5

Ik

2k

2

57

ko

3

Number of respondents

(345)

(411)

(636)

31

Serving Habits

TABLE 33.— WAS TUNA SERVED IN YOUR HOME WHEN YOU WERE A CHILD?

Responses

Tuna non-users

Birmingham Boston Detroit

Percent Percent Percent

Yes

No

Don't know

Number of respondents

100

28
60
12

(324)

100

25
2k
51

100

37
62

1

(l6i) (280)

TABLE 34.—WHAT WOULD INDUCE YOU TO SERVE MORE TUNA?

Tuna users

Responses

Birmingham

Boston

Detroit

Percent

Percent

Percent

(1)

(1)

(1)

Nothing
Lower price.
More, better.
Other
Don't know

sale
new recipes

41

19

8

16

32

57
12
k
Ik
15

56

12
7

15
10

Number of respondents

(345)

(411)

(636)

l/ Totals more than 100 percent as some respondents gave more than
one answer.

32

Recipe Sources

TABLE 35. --HAVE YOU EVER GOTTEN A TUNA RECIPE FROM A .

Tuna users

Responses

Birmingham

Boston

Detroit

Percent

Percent

Percent

(1)

(1)

(1)

Friend(s)

39

28

hi

Newspaper food colimn

27

21

25

Magazine advertisement

26

23

38

Newspaper advertisement

2I^

19

38

Magazine food column

23

13

30

Can label

18

7

19

Recipe book, calendar

9

3

10

Television advertisement

8

6

12

Television service program

h

3

8

Radio advertisement

3

1

5

Radio service program

1

1

k

Other

1

1

2

Don't know

31

37

19

Number of respondents

(3J+5)

(^11)

(636)

1/

Totals more than 100 percent as some respondents mentioned more
than one answer.

33

Ordering of Tuna in Public Eating Places

TABLE 36.— HAVE YOU ORDERED TUNA IN A PUBLIC
EATING PLACE IN THE LAST WO MONTHS?

Responses

Tuna users

Birmingham Boston Detroit

Percent Percent Percent

100

100

100

Yes

No

Don't know

Number of respondents

Ik 18 17

86 82 82

(1) (1) 1

(31^5) (^11)

(636)

l/ Less than one percent.

TABLE 37.— HOW MANY TIMES IN THE LAST TWO
MONTHS HAVE YOU ORDERED TUNA IN ANY FORM?

Number of times

Tuna users who have ordered tuna in a
public eating place in last two months
Birmingham Boston Detroit

1 to 3 times
4 to 6 times
Over 6 times

Number of respondents

Percent Percent Percent

100

100

100

85

75

83

12

17

16

3

8

1

(48)

(75)

(108)

3k

Ordering of Tuna in Public Eating Places

TABLE 38.— WHAT KIND OF TUNA DISHES DID YOU ORDER?

Kinds of dishes

Tuna users who have ordered tuna in a
public eating place in last two months
Birmingham Boston Detroit

Tuna salad

Tuna sandwich

Tuna casserole

Other

Don 't know

Number of respondents

Percent Percent Percent

(1)

(1)

(1)

62

21

31

kk

85

81

2

5

10

2

0

1

0

7

2

(^8)

(75)

(108)

1/ TotaLLs more than 100 percent as some respondents gave more thsm
one answer.

TABLE 39.— GENERALLY SPEAKING, WHAT DAY OF THE
WEEK DID YOU ORDER TUNA IN A PUBLIC EATING PLAGE?

Day of the week

Tuna users who have ordered tuna in a
public eating place in last two months
Birmingham Boston Detroit

Nfonday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday

Saturday

Sunday

Don't know

Number of respondents

Percent Percent Percent

(1)

(1)

(1)

27

5

8

15

9

6

17

23

27

10

7

6

25

75

56

23

5

8

k

0

1

17

12

18

(W)

(75)

(108)

1/ Totals more than 100 percent as some respondents gave more than
one answer.

35

Ordering of Tuna in Public Eating Places

TABLE 40. --GENERALLY, AT WHAT TIME DID YOU ORDER
TUNA IN A PUBLIC EATING PLACE?

Time of day-

Tuna users who have ordered tuna in a
public eating place in last tvo months
Birmingham Boston Detroit

Percent Percent Percent

Morning

Lunch

Afternoon

Dinner

Evening

Don't know

Number of respondents

100

(1)

(1)

k

0

0

71

95

90

h

3

5

8

1

6

8

5

7

5

3

0

ihS)

(75)

(108)

l/ Totals more than 100 percent as some respondents gave more than
one answer.

36

Reasons for ?Jot Using
or Seldom Using Tuna

TABLE 4l.— WHY" DON'T YOU USE TUNA?

Reasons

Tuna non-users who have not served

tuna in past tvelve months

Birmingham Boston Detroit

Percent Percent Percent

Appears unattractive

Health

Difficult to prepare or use

Other

Don't know

Number of respondents

(1)

(1)

(1)

5k

66

66

Ik

39

31

11

6

19

32

3

12

2

0

0

(138)

(75)

(120)

l/ Totals more than 100 percent as some respondents gave more than
one answer.

TABLE 42.— DID YOU EVER USE TUNA IN THE PAST?

Responses

Tuna non-users who have not served
tuna in past twelve months
Birmingham Boston Detroit

Percent Percent Percent

Yes

No

Don't know

Number of respondents

100

38
56

6

(138)

100

31

69

0

(75)

100

52

hi

1

(120)

37

Reasons for Not Using
or Seldom Using Tuna

TABLE 43.. --WHY DID YOU STOP USING TUNA?

Reasons

Tuna non-users who have
tuna in past twelve 1

not served
months

Birmingham

Boston

Detroit

Percent

Percent

Percent

(1)

(2)

(1)

Appears unattractive

Health

Difficult to prepare or use

Other

Don't know

34

8

22

k

-

13
38
35
13

0

Number of respondents

(53)

(23)

(62)

1/ Totals more than 100 percent as some respondents gave more than

one answer.
2/ Percentages are omitted because the data are not statistically

significant.

TABLE 1*4." WHY DO YOU USE TUNA SO SELDOM?

Not regular tuna users 1/

Reasons

Birmingham

Boston

Detroit

Percent

Percent

Percent

(2)

(2)

(2)

Appears unattractive

Health

Difficult to prepare or use

Only use in summer

Price

Other

Don't know

63

6

6

10

Ik

13

k

62

9
0

16

1

18

0

55
5
2

15

11

2lf

2

Number of respondents

(186)

(86)

(160)

1/ Includes those who had searved tuna in the twelve months prior to
the interview, but not in the four weeks prior to the interview.
2/ Totals more them 100 percent as some respondents mentioned more

than one answer,

38

Reasons for Not Using
or Seldom Using Tuna

TABLE i^5.--DID YOU USE TUM MORE OFTEN IN THE PAST?

Responses

Tuna non-users vrtio had served

tuna In past twelve months
Birmingham Boston Detroit

Percent Percent Percent

Yes

No

Don't know

Number of respondents

100

Ul
59

0

(186)

100

33

6?

0

(86)

100

U2

58

0

(160)

TABLE 14-6. --WHY HAVE YOU REDUCED THE NUMBER OF TIMES YOU SERVE IT?

Reasons

Tuna non-users who had served

tuna in past twelve months and

used nore tuna previously

Birmingham

Boston

Detroit

Percent

Percent

Percent

(1)

(1)

(1)

Family reduced in size

2k.

i^3

21

Health, diet

13

Ik

22

Appears unattractive

9

k

13

Difficult to prepare or use

11

7

0

Other

47

h3

21

Don't know

3

7

0

Number of respondents

(75)

(28)

(67)

l/ Totals more than 100 percent as some respondents gave more than
one emswer.

TABLE U7.--DOES ANYONE LIVING IN THE HOUSE LIKE TUNA?

Responses

Tuna sporadic and non-t;t3ers
Birmingham Boston Detroit

Percent Percent Percent

Yes

No

Don't know

Number of respondents

100

69

23

8

(324)

100

ko

10

50
(161)

100

67
31

2
(280)

39

^

<D

o

t-OOO

m

U

o

^ i^

t—

U

H

0)

(U

■P

c

^— «v

0)

o

<M CO O

vo

o

o

00 H

CO

Jh

H

H

0)

%_•

&H

•P

c

^'— N

(U

O

5^^

CO

o

O

m

u

H

H

<u

■s_^

CL,

-p

fl

y— «s

OJ

O

o o o

VO

u

O

t:-oo

H

^1

H

CT\

<u

-. .'

PL.

p

c

*«— S,

Q)

O

vO-d- O

OJ

O

q

t--C\J

t—

o\

o

^vo o

VD

o

VD ro

VD

H

O

>

ft

o

09

c

<U

J«J

^4

p

<tH

O

m ~c

^^a

u

c

o

o

<(H

•H

p

^

ft

c

•H

p

to

CO

•H

c

P

o

In

o

0)

>

a

-d

c

cS

:3

p

O

P

>^

^

-d

<u

•s

(0

0}

o

&"

p

(U

t)

4)

0)

CO

c

O

c

^

OS

H

o

> OJ

S ;3

a] 0)

(1> CO

K :3

^ CO

d) u

> 0)

(U CO

S5 :3

Q) CO

K 13

U CO

<1) f-l

> a;

(U CO

B :3

bO

C

•H

W

•H

P

^

(I)

>

•d

0)

cS

c

o

r!

p

P

'd

-d

(U

0

CO

c

o

c

^

05

0)

ti

a)

o

CO

<M

o

^

p?

CJ H
OH

o[h

VD -*VD

on o H o\c\J

t^ iH VD U^

O iHVO O O
OO H t^co

^

CO

J-

0^

CO

VD

0\
OJ

J-

^

c

o

c

M I*

ft

CO

o

Jh O

CO

d)

•r1

a) c

(U

a

CO

ft ^

^

■H

•H

oJ

N O

>

ftp

<N

^•^

0)

CO -

o

03 oS

0)

^a

fH

S «

E-i

0)

^

liO

Characteristics

TABLE 50. --SELECTED SOCIO-ECONOMIC
CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSEHOLDS, HOMEMAKERS

All

respondents

Race

Birmingham

Boston

Detroit

Percent

Percent

Percent

I'Ttiite

61i

98

81

Negro

36

2

19

Other

0

0

0

Religion

Protestant

9^

33

63

Catholic

6

58

3k

Jewish

0

8

2

Other

0

1

1

Income

Under $2,999

31

12

19

$3,000 to $3,999

16

15

13

$J+,000 to $4,999

l6

35

20

$5,000 to $6,999

18

20

26

$7,000 or more

15

15

17

Unclassified

h

3

5

Number of re

!spondents

(669)

(572)

(916)

Both parents native born

Yes

96

58

71

No

3

k2

28

Unclas sif ied

1

0

1

Number of re

ispondents

{668)

ikQ3)

(764)

Outside employment of

' homemaker

Yes

33

26

29

No

6k

72

70

Unclassified

3

2

1

^lumber of respondents

(669)

(572)

(916)

Completed education of homemaker

Less than 8th grade

2k

10

2k

8th through 12th

grade

62

73

62

College

13

16

Ik

Unclassified

1

1

0

Number of re

ispondents

(669)

(572)

(916)

iil

U2

APPEMDIX

SURVEY METHODS

Questionnaire

The development phase of the studj'
consisted of 57 depth interviev/s conducted
by specialists in this type of interviewing.
Respondents were chosen for these inter-
views in a non-systematic, but also non-
random method. These intervievjs consisted
of informal and casual discussions co/ering
aspects of household consumers' preferences
for canned fish. The respondent vas al-
lov:ed to take whatever direction she wanted
to in these discussions, followin" her own
natural inclinations. No atteir.pt was made
to limit or restrict the discussion to
predetermined areas of interest. Qnlr when
the respondent had exhausted some topic did
the intervievjer attempt to give sor.ie fur-
ther direction to the interviews by asking
a very general and open "why" or "how"
question.

In addition, a number of specific
techniques were used in these initial
interviews as further aids in eliciting
consumer attitudes and motivations. Such
techniques as word association, sentence
completion, response projection, role
taking, and cartoon tests were used.

After the first few of these Si inter-
views were completed, discussions were held
by the staff and the interviewers. Sug-
gestions were made regarding procedural
changes in order to increase the prospects
for more complete and detailed infonnation.

Using these 57 preliminary intein^iews
as a basis, a list of associations was
developed showing all of the relevant areas
to be explored in the full scale study.
This "item list" formed the basis for de-
velopment of the "guided association"
portion of the questionnaire.

Several drafts of the pre-test oues-
tionnaire were then developed, in consul-
tation with staff members of the U. S. Fish
and VJildlife Service,with each draft re-
ceiving limited field tests by a specialist
in interviewing techniques. An improved
draft of the questionnaire was also for-
warded to members of the fish canning
industry for their comments and suf^/estions.

A full scale pre-test of the ques-
tionnaire was carried out in the three

urbanized areas selected for the full
scale survey, Boston, Massachusetts; Bir-
mingham, Alabama and Detroit, Michigan. A
total of 61 pre-test interviews were com-
pleted. These were distributed approxi-
mately equally among the three urbanized
areas, .i complete review of all questions
included in the pre-test was carried out
with differences in local interpretation
noted especially. Based on this review
final revisions in the questionnaire were
made and specific instructions to the in-
terviewers prepared. A copy of the ques-
tionnaire is included in this Appendix.

Sample Design

The sample design for this study was
constructed with two basic requirements in
mind. First, the sampling techniques em-
ployed must be consistent with the demands
of sound research methodology; they must be
techniques by which valid inferences may be
drawn from the sample for the population
group under investigation. The only known
way to meet this requirement is through
probability sampling. v;ith probability
samples, the chance of observing a given
individual or element of the population of
interest is knoim. It permits the re-
searcher to not only control the sampling
areas, but also to measure them. It is
this property, the measurability of area,
which lends validity to the conclusions
drav/n from probability samples.

Second, the sample design must be
economically and statistically efficient;
that is, it should, for the budget allotted
and resources available, provide the most
accurate estimates of the characteristics
studied. The estimates derived from the
sample must be of sufficient accuracy to
be used with confidence. Selection of the
most efficient desiroi implies knovledge of
the sources of variation affecting a set
of saiTiple observations or measurements.
The problem of sample design is to make
that judicious selection among the many
techniques available for controlling these
sources of variation, and hence the
eventual sa.Tiplinr- area, which will achieve
an appropriate balance between adminis-
trative efficiency anci statistical
efficiency. The specific techniques em-
plqyed in the sample designs constructed
for this study include:

U3

1. Grouping the eligible population
into snail clusters or sampling
units conprising an efficient
interviewer daily work load.

2. Gro'ipinfT the sampling units
into city and suburban zones,
in each of the three urbanized
areas surveyed, to provide
approximately proportionate
representation.

3 . ji f urtlier grouping of the
sampling units Kithin each
zone into geographic or area
strata, xirith an equal number
of sar.pling units in each
stratum, to ensure adequate
distribution of the saFiple to
all segments of the population
of interest.

h. Using equal probabilities for
the selecting of sampling units
within strata and thereby con-
siderably simplifying the formu-
las necessary for valid compu-
tation of the estimates and of
their standard errors.

A strict probability sample implies
the application of completely objective
methods for the selection of respondents.
In the absence of a list of households or
persons eligible for interview, the re-
ouired objectivity is met through the use
of area probability sampling technioucs.
To be satisfied with simple area sa;"plinf^
techniques is not enough, however. Inge-
nuity in the use of available resources
and facilities can considerably increase
the efficiency of one area probability
sample over another.

United States P-^isus Population end
Housing data, both published and unpub-
lished, are our major resource in the
design of efficient probability sam.ples.
Unpublished data for small areas, such as
enurr.erat ion districts used in collecting
census data, may be purchased on special
order from the Bureau of the Census, In
open countrjr areas maps indicating the
location of dwelling units are available
from State Highway Commissions, This
supplementary- information may be used for
a variety of purposes in the design of a
sample including stratification, assigning
selection probabilities, or for the con-

struction of approximately equal-sized
sampling units. The san.ple design out-
lined below makes use of 1950 census data
to establish the area strata and for the
assignment of the sampling units within
these strata. Although these data were not
used for the direct assignm.ent of selection
probabilities , the sajnpling plan adopted
is such that the chance for any segment of
the areas surveyed, to be represented in the
sample, was approximately proportionate to
the number of occupied dwelling units
contained within the segment whether it was
an enumeration district, census tract,
township, urban place, city block, or
portion of an enujrierat ion district, etc.

/I sample representative of all house-
holds in the urbanized areas of Birmingham,
/ilabama; Boston, Massachusetts; Detroit,
Michigan was selected for this study. In
addition, a representative sample of all
non-white households located in the rural
portion of Orangeburg County, South
Carolina was chosen. Bureau of the Census
definitions of households, di-;elling units,
urbanized area, rural territory, etc. v/ere
employed. The sample designs for the
three urbanized areas will be described
first. These designs were stratified one-
stage sample designs, constructed in
accordance with the principles outlined
above. Careful control in all steps of
the sample selection made it possible to
know exactly the chance every household
cluster or sampling unit had of falling
into the sample.

The first step in the sairiple design
consisted of listing and ordering geo-
graphically the census tracts in the
central city portions of each of the three
urbanized areas. In Detroit, those census
tracts with 10 percent or more of the
cfcjelling units occupied by non-white house-
holds in 1950 were listed and ordered
separately. Similarly, ordered lists of the
1950 Census Jliiumerat ion Districts were
prepared for those portions of the three
urbanized areas which fall outside the
central cities. Geographic or area strata
were then constructed within the central
city zones and the suburban zones for each
of the urbanized areas using the ordered
lists and 1950 census data an the number of
occupied dt/elling units or households found
in each census tract, block or enumeration
district. These strata, seventy in number
for each urbanized area, vjere constructed

Uh

to contain approxinately the sanie nanber
of households in each.

Each of the seventy strata was then
divided into a number of small area seg-
ments having boundaries which could easily
be identified in the field by the inter-
viewers, ^ach such trea segment contained
one or more clusters of households or san-
plijng units. The number of sampling ■anits
or interviev;er work loads assigned to each
area segment iras based on data available on
the number of occupied divelling units lo-
cated within these segment boundaries.
These data vjere obtained from a variety of
sources including 1950 block statistics,
1930 enumeration district statistics, state
highway maps, etc.

The geographic strata in each city
were all constructed to contain the same
number of sampling units with the exception
of Detroit. In the central city port.ion cf
Detroit , the area strata for the tracts in
the white zone (that is, the tracts with at
least 90 percent of their 1950 dvjelling
units occupied by white families) were con-
structed to contain twice as many sampling
units as the remaining area strata estab-
lished for the Detroit urbanized area
sample. Initially, tv;o sampling units were
selected with equal probability and without
replacement from each of the geographic
strata, yielding a sample total of IhO
sampling units for each urbanized area.

The sample selection was accomplished
hy choosing tv;o random numbers for ujich
stratum between one and the total number of
sampling units in the stratum. Thus, the
sampling rate v;as the same for all geo-
graphic strata within a city with the ex-
ception of those comprising the white zone
in Detroit referred to above. Sinco these
strata contained twice as many sampli:ig
units as the remaining geographic strata
in Detroit they viere sampled at one -half
the rate of the remaining strata in that
urbanized area. The disproportionate sam-
pling in Detroit was deemed necessary to
yield sufficient intervie'ws with non-^'ihite
families for separate tabulation.

The number of strata and sampling
units for the central cities and the re-
maining portions of the three urban j.zed
areas are shown in the follav;ing table:

Append.ix Table 1

NUMBER OF STRATA AND SMPLHIG UNITS OF

URBANIZ?:D AREAS EXCLUDED IN THE

MOriVATIOH SUiT?.'EY

Area

Number

of
strata

Sampling
units
per
stratum

Boston Urbanized Area

Boston city

25.0

i,U5U

Outside city

U5.0

l,l451i

Birmingham Urbanized

Area

Birmingham city

52.0

298

Outside city

13.0

298

Detroit Urbanized Area

Detroit city.

vjhite zone

25.5

2,560

Detroit city.

non -white

15.5

1,280

Outside city

29.0

1,280

The decision to include a sample of
non-white households in Orangeburg, South
Carolina was made after the sample for the
three principal urbanized areas was de-
signed and selected. The expected sample
size in each of the three urbanized areas
was then reduced from 3uO households to
725 households in order to shift a portion
of the field budget to the survey to be
conducted in Orangeburg County. Rather
than design and select a new sample in
each of the three urbanized areas, twenty
sampling units in Birmingham, thirteen in
Boston, and twenty-eight in Detroit were
discarded at random with a condition that
no more than one sampling unit would be
discarded from any one stratum.

Strict field procedures were employed
to detenriine the eligible households
associated with the selected sampling units
in an unbiased manner. The interviewers
were required to list the occupied dwelling
units in each area segment containing a
selected sampling unit in advance of the
interviewing. The listings shov;ed addresses
and other necessary identification for all
dwelling units located within the boundaries
of each area segment. The enumerators were
provided with maps showing these boundaries,
as well as the starting point and direction
to take through the sejTnent for listing

purposes. These lists were then returned
to the Philadelphia office of the A. J.
\iooi Research Corporation where they were
checked. Next,, the dwelling units on each
list which were associated with the se-
lected sampling units were marked for
interviev.'ing. For example, if a given area
segment was assigned three sampling units
and the random selection had designated the
second saxapling unit, the list was first
divided into three equal parts and then the
d-ft-elling units listed in the second of the
three parts were marked for interview.
The few sampling: units in each urbanized
area which contained more than 12 house-
holds selected for inters iev; vjere sub-
sampled. The lists were then returned to
the interviewers for interviev^^inc.

The interviewers vjere instructed to
interview the sample (marked) households
on the list and any other household (not
shown on the list) found beU^een a sample
household and the next one listed. Thus
households which might have been omitted
in the pre-listing were included; and
changes occurring after the pre-listing
were accounted for. Interviews in the
sajr.ple households were conducted with the
person mainly responsible for planning the
meals, '.-.here the person designated for
intervievi was not at home on the first
call, succeeding calls up to a total of
three were made on different days or
evenings, (In some instances more than three
calls were made)

The sample design for the Orangeburg
County, South Carolina sample was similar
in many respects, ^fter preparing an
ordered list of the enumeration districts
falling in the rural portion of the county,
sampling units were assigned to the enu-
meration districts according to the number
of di;elling units occupied in 1950 by non-
v;hite households contained in each. Thnse
sampling units were then grouped into geo-
graphic strata, 21 in total, with each
stratum containing 5? sampling- units. Two
sampling units were selected at random
without replacement from each stratum,
yielding a total of U2 sampling units for
the sample, Next, naps of each of the
area segments containing a selected sam-
pling unit were prepared and the inter-
viewers listed all dwelling units fallinij
v;ithin the area segment, classifying these
dwelling units according to whether they
were occupied by white households or

non-ifhite households or were vacant . The

location of each dwelling unit was marked
on the segment map and numbered; this same
number was used on the listing sheet.

Field V/ork

Training sessions with the super-
visors and interviev;ers were conducted in
each of the survey areas by members of the
Philadelphia office staff of the ,-.. J.
l.'ood Research Corporation. Initial field
work was checked for quality and under-
standing of the instructions.

In addition to the check of the
initial interviews, the area super^risors
were required to conduct a preliminary-
edit of all work turned in and to check
10 percent of each interviev;er«s work by
telephone, n further verification check
on the field staff was carried out by the
home office by means of a check-card-
mailing to 33 percent of the respondents
in each city.

A total of 2,385 households were
designated for interview in this survey;
706 in Birmingham, 7h3 in Boston, 716 in
Detroit and 220 in Orangeburg. Interviews
were completed in l,9hl of the sample
households. The reasons for the non-inter-
views are tabulated in Appendix Table 2.

Data Processing Procedures

a11 questionnaires v.-ere edited upon
receipt in the Philadelphia office and
those which were incomplete or contained
questionable responses were returned to
the field supervisors for re-interview.
The coding department then prepared tabu-
lations of the open-end questions from a
sample of the completed interviews from
each survey area. Codes for these ques-
tions were established and coding instruc-
tions prepared and reproduced.

The questionnaire and coding proce-
dures were explained and reviewed with
the coders. The open-end questions were
reser'/ed for coding by the most experi-
enced coders only, answers to open-end
questions which were not readily classi-
fied into specific code categories were
held aside for review by the coding super-
visor and project director. Specific

k6

cate;'orios for the latter cases "isere es-
tablished when necessary-.

The v.'ork of all coders was checked by
the codinr; supervisor until an acneptable
level of coding consistency '..'as achieved
both betv.'een and v;ithin coders. There-
after a 10 percent check for the purpose
of iT.aintaining this consistency level was
carried out.

The punch cards were then prepared
and weighted as follows: In Detroit, the
interviews completed in sar.plinf; units
selected from the white zone were dupli-
cated once since these interviewer assifjn-
ments had one -half the probability of
beinj: included in the sample as did the re-
maining sampling units chosen for this
sur\'ey in that city. In addition the punch
cards for interviev/s com.pleted in assign-
ments which had been subsampled were
weighted according to the subsanpling
rates. No attemprt was made to substitute
or v;eight for households desi,:nated for the
sample but not interviewed.

The punch cards then received a thor-
ough error and consistency check on the
IK-1 Electronic Statistical machine. iJhere
necessar>/ the punch cards were corrected
by reference to the specific questionnaires
corresponding to the cards in question.

Sampling Krrors

The sampling error for a particular
estimate serves as a guide to the confi-
dence with which this estimate can be used.
It is a measure of the closeness of the
sample estimate to the result v;hich ■'..'ould

be obtained from a complete census of the
population sampled, usin;: the same ques-
tionnaire, interviews and interviev;ing
procedures.

Practically all of the estimates
developed from the riata collected in this
study are simple percentages of the re-
spondents having a particular opinion or
characteristic. In technical terminology,
these percentages are actually combined
strata ratio estimates, since the sample
design employed extensive geographic
stratification and cluster sampling, in
which the number of respondents in each
cluster was subject to random sampling
variation. Thus, sampling errors were
computed using the formula for the
variance of a ratio estimate.

This formula contains variance meas-
ures for the cluster average of both the
numerator and denominator of the computed
proportion or percentage estimate, as v:ell
as a covariance measure for these two
averages. These measures were computed
from the average variance between clusters
within strata.

The chances are approximately 2 to 1
that the error, due to sampling, in a
particular estimate, will not exceed one
standard error; the chances are 19 to 1
against a deviation as large as two stand-
ard errors from the result vjhich v.'ould
be obtained with a complete census using
the same procedures.

Estimates of the standard errors for
several items included among the guided
association questions are shovm in
Appendix Table 3.

hi

5;

&

M

CO

>

a:;

(h

to

r-A

f-l

5

t-i

1

X

C3

•H

^

-d

C

cc;

0)

o

a

fe.

a

■=«;

en

O r-l

0)

O O

(X,

!-.

M aj

^"

^ J^

u

0) -p

M 3

Q)

c o

u

S

o

^

r-l

o

rH

i-i

d

^

o

Ch

o

o

43

0)

x:

T^

x;

•H

0)

t3

"S

QJ

Q)

X)

^

to

(D

:i

CO

:s

W

(P

3

+J

S

3

0)

ri

-P

0)

O

CTJ

•H

O

•H

o

nj

-p

x:

£

x:

£

x:

•r-l

iH

•H

0

.—1

(B

1— 1

•H

rt

(0

■(->

rd

-P

nJ

cn

-P

-p

(D

c

+5

.5

-P

Q)

o

73

•H

o

o

-a

c

in, ^ r-\ I

CO vO t^ MD

m ^f t-1

CN CO CO CM

On J^ ro I-I

to

8

f-l

•H

o

t

o

to

+i

c

c

o

■H

w

1

m

C

o

o

Oi

c

t-M

cu

Q)

r-l

^

Sh

XI

o

O

~\

•H

1

TJ

-HI

•H

-p

!h

CU

rH

c3

1

O

to

3

(D

4'

r^

«M

,C!

+J

o

^—^

Ci

i£

o

:3

<D

M

^

J

o
X!

-p

•\

CtJ

-p

c

C

0)

0)

•o

•p

c

nS

o

Q)

p-

to

+i

0

Q

u

C

to t3

to <u
0 o

&^

x:

CO

xs

C o

(U x:

o (U

U to

a. o

u 3 o
cd d x: 5

O -H -p

.-II OJlr«=^|

U8

Appendix Table 3
SMPLBIG ERRORS

Question

Item

Percent
who agree

1
2

Tuna has a good flavor:
Birmingham
Boston
Detroit

Tuna has an unpleasant smell:
Birmingham
Boston
Detroit

85. ij
86.0
87.0

35.0
20.3
32.8

Estimated standard

error in percentage

points

23

Tuna is expensive compared
to other canned fish:
Birmingham
Boston
Detroit

Tuna is too troublesorie
to prepare:

Birmingham

Boston

Oetroit

11.7

9.8

3h.l

9.6

k.2

U.6

1.9
2.1
1.^

2.6
1.7
2.1

2.6

i.a

2.6

1.2
0.9
0.8

h9

^0

stratum No._
City

3,') Segnsnt No.

QUESTIONNAIRE
5 Unit No. (>

Bureau of the Budget

No. 1<2-5901

Auth. expires June 30, 19^9

r niTERVrEW THAT PERSON MAIMLY RESP0N3IBLB FOP PLANNING THE MEAI^ 3ERVKD IN THE HOUSEHOLD ]
RECORD OF CALL:

Date . Interview Not at Home Refusal Ott^r (SPECIFY)

1st Call

2nd Call

3rd Call

A.J. WOOD RISKAECH CORPORATION

PART A - OUIDKD ASSOCIATION QUESTIONS

CANNSD FISH STUDY

Time Interview Started:

A.M.

P.M.

Introduce yourself as being from the A. J. Wood national research corporation doing a study for
the U. S. Government. Then say, "I am going to make several statements about three types of
canned fish. After I make the statement will you tell me how you feel about It, If you agree or
disagree? (Interviewer will grade Inteotjlty of feeling by respondent's statement, attitude, tone,
etc. )

(READ EACH STATBffiNT
INSERTING EACH VARIBrT
OF CANNiED FISH)

PART A

Strongly
agree

Agree

Dlseigree

strongly
disagree

Don't know or
Indifferent

1. has a good

Sardine

9-1

-2

-3

-J»

flavor.

Tuna

-5

-6

-7

-8

Salmon

-9

-0

-X

-Y

2. has an unpleasant

Tuna

10-1

-2

-3

-4

smell.

sardine

-5

-6

-T

-8

Salmon

-9

-0

-X

-Y

3 . leaves a bad odor

Salmon

11-1

-2

-3

-k

In the refrigerator.

Tuna

-5

-6

-7

-8

Sardine

-9

-0

-X

-Y

U . has a pleasant

Tuna

12-1

-2

-3

-i*

aftertaste, that Is after
It has been eaten.

Sardine

-5

-6

-7

-8

Salmon

-9

-0

-X

-Y

5. can size Is

Sardine

13-1

-2

-3

-it

about right for my
household .

Tuna

-5

-6

-7

-6

Salmon

-9

-0

-X

-Y

6. Is undesirably

Tuna

14-1

-2

-3

-1*

oily.

Salmon

-5

-6

-7

-8

Sardine

-9

-0

-X

-Y

7. le a food of

Salmon

15-1

-2

-3

-k

high quality.

Tuna

-5

-6

-7

-8

Sardine

-9

-0

-X

^

51

(READ EACH STATEMENT
niSERTING EACH VABIETY
OF CAIfflED FISH)

Strongly
agree

Agree

Disagree

strongly
disagree

Don't Imow or
Indifferent

8. Is expensive, com-

Tuna

16-1

-2

-3

-k

pared to other canned fish.

Salmon

-?

-6

-7

-8

Sardine

-9

-0

-X

-Y

9. has a nice ap-

Salmon

17-1

-2

-3

-k

pearance when you open
the can.

Tuna

-5

-6

-7

-8

Sardine

-9

-0

-X

2l

Tell me what you think Immediately when I ask the following questions.

Fruit

Soft Juice

Coffee Tea Milk Beer Drink or Punch other

10. What beverages go best with sardines?

11. What beverages go best with salmon?

12. What beverages go best with tuna?

(READ EACH STATEMENT
INSEBTIHG EACH VARIETY
OF CANNED FISH)

Strongly
agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly
disagree

Don't know or
Indifferent

13 . does not have

Sardine

21-1

-2

-3

-It

many uses .

Tuna

-5

-6

-7

-8

Salmon

-9

-0

-X

jOf

Ik . is mainly eaten

Tuna

22-1

-2

-3

-k

by manual laborers .

Sardine

-5

-6

-7

-8

Salmon

-9

-0

-X

-y

15. is used by

Salmon

23-1

-2

-3

-k

people who are In-
experienced cooks.

Tuna

-5

-6

-7

-8

Seu-dlne

-9

-0

-X

-Y

16. is hard to

Tuna

2U-1

-2

-3

-J*

make look good to oat.

Sardine

-5

-6

-7

-8

Salmon

-9

-0

-X

-Y

17. Is used a great

Salmon

25-1

-2

-3

-k

deal by Negroes .

Tuna

-5

-6

-7

-8

Sardine

-9

-0

-X

-Y

18. is often oaten

Tuna

26-1

-2

-3

-k

by sick people.

Sardine

-5

-6

-7

-8

Salmon

-9

-0

-X

;i

52

A-3

(READ EACH STATEMENT
INSERTING EACH VARIETY
OF CANNED FISH)

Strongly
auree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly
disagree

Don't know or
Indifferent

19. Is usiially

Salmon

27-1

-2

-3

-1*

eaten only by
children.

Tuna

-5

-6

-7

-8

Sardine

-9

-0

-X

-Y

20. Is not eaten

Sardine

28-1

-2

-3

-k

by people trying to lose
weight.

Tuna

-5

-6

-7

-8

Salmon

-9

-0

-X

-Y

21. Is a convenient

Salmon

29-1

-2

-3

-1*

food for a busy housewife.

Tuna

-5

-6

-7

-8

Sardine

-9

-0

-X

-Y

22 . is only Rood

Tuna

30-1

-2

-3

-h

If it Is a well-known
brand .

Sardine

-5

-6

-7

-8

Salmon

-9

-0

-X

-Y

23 . IB too trouble-

Sardine

31-1

-2

-3

-k

some to prepare.

Tuna

-5

-6

-7

-8

Salmon

-9

-0

-X

-Y

21* . is food for

Sardine

32-1

-2

-3

-It

poorer people .

Tuna

-5

-6

-7

-8

Salmon

-9

-0

-X

-Y

25. Canned shrimp are equal
In quality to fresh
shrimp.

33-1

-2

-3

-k

26. Canned shrimp are loss

costly than fresh shrimp.

-5

-6

-7

z8

53

B-1
PART B
TUBA
A-1. During the last 12 months have you served canned tuna?

Yes-
No—

fg "NO," SKIP TO NON-USER SECTION |
B-1. During the past U weeks, about how often did you serve canned tuna?

1 time - -3

2 times -1»

3 times -5

k times -6

5 times or more

(SPECIFY)

1. I TUNA USERS ONLY |

Who 111 your feunlly eats tuna?

— iDld not serve -
Don't know

IF NO TUNA SERVED IN LAST h WEEKS,
SKIP TO NON-USER SECTION

Entire family?

or only

Husband , ---

Respondent,

Children 5 or under,

Children 5 - 10,

Children 11 - 15,- --

Male children over 15, —
Female children over 15 > -
Other adults?

-31.-1

-35-1

- -2

- -3

- Jt

- -5

- -6

- -7

- -8

- ±

2. Which style of canned tuna do you
like best. . .

2a. How often do you buy that style
of tuna . . .

2b. How many times, approximately, In the
last six months have you served your
favorite style of tuna?

2c. Why do you like this particular style of tuna?_

Chunk, 36-1

Solid, -2

Grated or flake? -3

Always buy,

Usually buy, —
Sometimes buy,-
Rarely?

1-10

11-20---
21-30 —

3ij»o—
Over 1*0-

37-

PROBE

3. Which color tuna do you like better...

3a. How often do you buy that color tuna..

3b. Why do you like that color tuna?

White

or Light (plnk)?-

Always, -3

Usually buy,~- -h

Sometimes buy, -5

Rarely? -6

5k

B-2

U . Have you ever tried tuna packed In oil?

Ua. What do you like about tuna packed In oil?

Yee-
No--

-39-1
- -2

PROBE

Ub.

What do you dislike about tuna packed in oil?
PROBE

Uc. Do you use the oil or pour it off?

I ASK Q. U-ca IF "POUR OFF" |
Uca. Why do you pour it off ?

Have you ever tried tuna packed In brine,
that Is salt water?

I IF "TES" ] I IF "NO," SKIP TO QUESTION 5h~l

5a. What do you like about tuna packed in brine?

Use--- -X

Pour off ^L

Yea ^0-1

No — - -2

PROBE

5b.

What do you dislike about tuna packed In brine?

PROBE

5c. Do you prefer light or white meat tuna Light 1*1-1

packed In brine? White -2

5d. Do you prefer solid, chunk or flake (grated) Solid -3

tuna packed In brine? Chunk -U

Flake -5

5e. Which has more uses, tuna packed In... Brine,----- -6

or Oil? -7

5f. Which has the better taste, tuna packed in... Brine, -8

or Oil? -9

5g. Which do you like bettor... Brine, -0

or Oil? ^

5ga. How often do you buy tuna packed in Always, 42-1

that liquid... Usually,--- -2

Sometimes, -3

Rarely? -k

I IF RESPONDENT DOES NOT "ALWAYS BUY." ASK QUESTIONS 5gaa AND 5gab |

5gaa. How many times, approximately. In the last 1-10 -5

six months have you served tuna packed In 11-20 -6

your favored liquid? 21-30 -7

31J»0 8

Over kO -9

5gab. Why do you buy something other than yovor pt^farance?

55

B-3

I IF "NO" OH QUBSTION g \

5h. Why haven't you tried tiina packed In t)rlne?_

1*3-

6. Do you think the oil tuna is packed In has a
pleasant taste or an unpleasant taste?

7. How much more would you pay for a half pound

size can of tuna packed In oil rather than In brine?

8. Vfhlch do you think Is more fattening, tuna packed In.

9. How do you serve tuna, hot or cold or both ways?

I IF ONLY HOT OR ONLY "COLD |

9a. Why don't you serve tuna (hot/cold)?_

Pleasant hk -1

Unpleasant -2

I* 3

2(i — -h

34 5

H— 6

5(ii 7

6^ or more -8

No more -9

Brine, -X

or Oil? Jf

Hot 45-1

Cold 2

Both -3

PROBE

Have you ever gotten a tuna recipe from a...

Newspaper advertisement? -46-1

Magazine advertisement? -3

Television advertisement? -5

Radio advertisement? -7

Frlend(8)? -9

Other source (SPECIFY)

11. Do you buy tuna for day to day use, or do you
buy several cans at one time?

12. The last time you bought tuna - did you plan to
buy It before you went to the store or did you
decide on It at the store?

Newspaper food column? -2

Magazine food column? -h

TV service program? -6

Radio service program? -8

Can label? -0

Day to day 47-1

Several cans-- -2

Planned -3

Not planned -4

I IF NOT PLANNED |

12a. What made you decide to buy lt?_
PROBE - ESPECIALLY PRICE

I ASK QCTESTION 13 ONLY OF PEOPLE WITH CHILDREH |
13 . Do your children ever ask for tuna?

13a. Do you serve It as often as they ask for It?

13aa. Why don't you serve them tuna more?

Yes 48-1

No 2

Yes 3

No -4

56

B-1*

' ASK QUBTION lU ONLY OF PSOPIB WTTH CHILPRgS [

lU . Are your children served tuna at school ae a part
of the hot lunch program?

15. What would Induce you to serve more tuna?

PROBg

16 . Was tuna served In your home when you vere a child?

17. Have you ordered tuna In a public eating place in the
last tvo months?

17a. How many times in the last two months have
you ordered tuna In any form?

17b. What kinds of dishes did you order? (SPECIFY)

17c. Generally speaking, what day of the va«k did
you order tuna In a public eating place?

IF MOKE THAN ONE DAT MENTIONED,
CIBCLE ALL DAYS MENTIOHKD

17d. Generally at what time did you order tuna
In a public eating place?

I IF MORE THAM ONE TIME MENTIONED,
CIPCLK ALL TIMES MENTIONED

18. Besides yourself, has anyone eating with you ordered
tuna in a public eating place In the past two months?

18a. Who was It?

Yes 1*9-1

No 2

Don't know -3

Yes -X

No _-Y

Yes 50-1

Ho -2

1 to 3 times -3

U to 6 times -1*

7 to 9 times -5

10 to 12 times -6

Over 13 times -7

Monday 51-1

Tuesday -2

Wednesday -3

Thursday -k

Friday -5

Saturday -6

Sunday—- -7

Morning -8

Lunch -9

Afternoon -0

Dinner -X

Svenlng ^

Yes 52-i

No 2

Spouse -3

Child -k

Friend or other relative ^

57

TUNA - NON-USER SECTION

ASK OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE NOT
SERVED TUNA IN LAST 12 MONTHS

1. Vhy don't you use tuna?

2. Did you ever use tuna In the past?

2a. How long ago did you use lt?_
2b. Why did you stop using tuna?

ASKED OF PEOPLE WHO SERVED TUNA IN PAST
12 MONTHS, BUT NOT IN PAST h WEEKS

3- Why do you use tuna so seldom?

J5^

37-

38-

1* . Did you use tuna more often In the past?

IF "YES"

Ita. Why have you reduced the number of times you serve It?

PROBE

5. Was tuna served In your home when you were a child?

6. Doe.s anyone living In the house like tuna?

-[Yes 39-1

No ^

ItO^

Yes -J*l-1

No 2

Yes - 3

No -^

E-1
PART E

ROTATE qjOESTIOHS
1. 2 and 3

r"ASk ALL RESPONDEyrS )
1 . Have you seen or heard any advertising for canned tuna?

I IF "YES" I

la. Have you seen or heard It...

2 . Have you seen or heard any advertising for
canned salmon?

I IF ■■YES"7l

2a. Have you seen or heard It.

3 . Have you seen or heard any advertising
for canned sardines?

I IF "YES" I

3a. Have you seen or heeurd it

U. Have you seen or heard advertising for
canned shrimp?

I IF "YES'T

ka.. Have you seen or heard it.

5 . Do you use canned shrlnpT

I IF "YES"_|

5a. Do you use the veined or de-velned
variety, or both?

I IF "BOrnn

5aa. Which do you like better...

6. Which kind of canned fish do you like best.

Yes- 77-1

Ho - -2

In aagazines, -3

On radio, -U

On television, -5

In neusjiapers? -6

Yes 7

Bo - -8

In magazines, -9

On radio, -0

On television, -X

In newspapers? -Y

Yes — 78-1

No—- - -2

In magazines, -3

On radio, -k

On television, -5

Ih newsjpapers? -6

Yes 7

Bo 8

In magazines, -9

On radio, -0

On television, -X

In nowspapers? -Y

fYes 79-1

No — -2

Veined 3

De-velned -■*

[Both -5

Veined,- -6

or de-veinedV -7

taoa., -8

Salaon, - 9

Sardines, -0

Shrimp? ;X

59

CUSSiriCATION DATA

Kt^TThL STATUS:

Married

Single--

Widowed, divorced, etc.

-70-1

- -2

- 2l

la. Sou many people eat dinner at home
with you7 (CIRCLE ONE)

What was the last grade you completed In

school?

Less than 8th 76-I

8th through 12th — 2

College 3

I ASKED OKLY OF COLORED HOUSEHOLDS |

1 2 3 1* 5 6 7
71-1 -2 -3 -1* -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 :C
I IF NOT SIMGLE, ASK QUESTIONS lb ABD Ic [

lb.

How many children eat dinner at
home? (CIRCLE ONE)

9 10 or more 6. How long have you lived in this city?

1 year or less

More than 1 to 5 years

More than 5 to 10 years

More than 10 to 15 years

More than 15 years

pg LBSS THAN 15 rSABS . ASK QUBSTION 6a |

6a.

1 23U56789 10or more
What are their approximate ages?

Vhere did you ccoe from?

I IF HARRIED. ASK QUETION Id |

Id. What is_ your husband's job?

Executive, professional, mer-
chant or own business '

Clerical or sales personnol-----
Manual skilled, semi-skilled

or unskilled worker

Retired, unemployed, or student -
Other (SPECIFY)

-72-1

- -2

Do you work?

Yes-
Ho-

-73-1
- -2

I IF "YES . " ASK QUESTION 2a |

2a. What Is your Job?

Executive, professional, mer-
chant or own business

Clerical or sales personnel

Manual skilled, semi-skilled

or unskilled worker

Retired, unemployed, or student-
Other (SPECIFY)

I HAND RESPONDENT CARD

Would you tell me which letter Indicates
the age you are? (CIRCLB ONE)

A B C D E

7U-I -2 -3 -It ^

I HAMD RESPONDENT CARD #5 |

Would you tell me Into which group your
total family Income falls? (CIRCLE ONE)

A

B

C

D

E

75-1

-2

-3

-k

zl

Haae

Address

Northern state —
Southern state--
Forelgn country-

I ASK ALL RESFONDEMTS"

7. Where were you born?

Northern state

Southern state

Foreign country (SPECIFY)

-77-1
- -2

IF NATIVE BORN

Yes-
No—

Were both of your parents
born In this country?

I IF "NO" ]

In what country (s) were they born?
(SPECIFY)

Father

-78-1
- -2

Mother

Ten years ago did you live in.

open country, ■

suburbs,

city?

-79-1

- -2

- -3

10. The religious background of a family at
times influences eating habits. With what
religion Is your family most closely asso-
ciated?

Protestant -^

Catholic -5

Jewish -6

Other (SPECIFY)

AUTOMATIC CLASSIFICATION

U. RACE: White - 90-l

- -2

- -3

Negro

Other non-white-

12. LOCATION OF DWKLLIKG:

City — -
Suburb -

-It

Clty_

Interviewer's Slgnature_

60

Time Interview Ccnpleted:
^A.M. P.H.

IHT.^UP. .D.C.6P- 7*8 Jt

MBL WHOI Libtnrv Sei

5 WHSE 00200

'J