The research, published in Frontiers in Communication, surveyed 991 supermarket shoppers, 400 in Croatia and 591 in Tanzania, using a structured questionnaire built around the classic five marketing mix dimensions: product, price, distribution, promotion, and people. Each dimension was measured with multiple statements on a five-point Likert scale, capturing whether shoppers felt that product quality, assortment breadth, discounts, store proximity, advertising, and staff expertise influenced their choice of supermarket and their willingness to switch to a competitor offering better alternatives.

The analytical design was unusually rigorous for a retail perception study. Before any group comparisons were made, the researchers validated their measurement instrument using exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and multi-group measurement invariance testing. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy reached 0.926, well within the highest category, and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was highly significant, confirming that the survey items were sufficiently intercorrelated to justify a latent factor structure. Only after establishing that the five-factor model operated comparably in both national samples did the team proceed to test cross-national differences.

That validation sequence produced a methodological surprise. The exploratory factor analysis, using Promax rotation, extracted only three broader factors rather than the theoretically specified five: one grouping personnel, store appearance, and promotional activities; a second capturing pricing; and a third covering product quality and assortment. Together these three factors explained 54.4 percent of the total variance, and their intercorrelations were substantial, with the strongest pair correlating at 0.730. This pattern suggests that in consumers’ everyday evaluations, some theoretically distinct marketing instruments, particularly the human element, promotional communication, and the ambient impression of the store, tend to blur together.

However, the confirmatory factor analysis told a different story. When the theoretically specified five-factor model was tested against the three-factor alternative suggested by the exploratory analysis, the five-factor structure provided a substantially better representation of the data. The five-factor model yielded a Comparative Fit Index of 0.906 and a root mean square error of approximation of 0.088, whereas the three-factor model fit noticeably worse, with a CFI of 0.845 and an RMSEA of 0.111. Composite reliability values for all five constructs exceeded the recommended threshold of 0.70, and average variance extracted surpassed the 0.50 benchmark for each dimension, supporting both reliability and convergent validity of the traditional framework.

Multi-group confirmatory factor analysis then established that the five-factor structure held with sufficient comparability across the two countries. Sequentially constraining factor loadings and item intercepts to equality produced only small deteriorations in approximate fit indices, changes of no more than 0.010 in CFI and negligible shifts in RMSEA and SRMR, which are commonly accepted criteria for metric and scalar measurement invariance. In practical terms, this means Croatian and Tanzanian shoppers interpreted the survey items in a sufficiently similar way that any observed differences in mean scores reflect genuine perceptual differences between the two markets rather than artifacts of the measurement instrument.

With measurement comparability secured, the hypothesis tests delivered unambiguous results. A multivariate analysis of variance using Pillai’s Trace revealed a statistically significant effect of country on the combined set of five marketing dimensions, Pillai’s Trace of 0.125 with F(5,985) equal to 28.150 and p below .001. Subsequent univariate analyses confirmed significant differences for every individual dimension. The promotion dimension showed the most pronounced divergence, F(1,989) equal to 130.429, followed by personnel at 71.195 and distribution at 43.763. Independent-samples t-tests corroborated these findings, with effect sizes ranging from 0.329 to 0.739 in absolute value, spanning small-to-moderate to moderate-to-large magnitudes.

The descriptive statistics make the direction of these differences vivid. Tanzanian respondents rated promotional activities at a mean of 3.618 on the five-point scale, compared with just 2.921 among Croatian respondents, the single largest gap in the study. Tanzanian shoppers also rated supermarket personnel at 3.791 versus 3.263 in Croatia, and expressed more favorable perceptions of product offerings, pricing strategies, and store accessibility. Croatian consumers, navigating a more established retail landscape characterized by brand familiarity and service standardization, appear to apply a more analytical and demanding evaluation of price, product attributes, and promotional incentives.

The authors frame these patterns through cross-cultural theory while being careful about causal claims. Hofstede’s cultural dimensions suggest that Croatia scores higher on individualism and uncertainty avoidance, while East African contexts display stronger collectivist tendencies and higher power distance, implying that Tanzanian consumers may assign greater importance to interpersonal interaction, trust, and social value. Schwartz’s value theory points in a similar direction, suggesting that societies emphasizing embeddedness and hierarchy heighten the significance of personnel behavior and promotional engagement. Crucially, however, the study did not directly measure cultural values at the individual level, so these frameworks serve as theoretically informed interpretations rather than empirically tested mechanisms.

The managerial implications are clear for international retailers. Standardized marketing approaches cannot be assumed to generate equivalent consumer perceptions across national markets. In Tanzania, the particularly favorable evaluations of promotions and personnel suggest these dimensions deserve close managerial attention, while the comparatively lower Croatian evaluations point to opportunities to strengthen promotional communication and service delivery. The study also highlights the value of establishing measurement invariance before interpreting cross-national differences, a step many comparative retail studies skip. Future research, the authors suggest, should incorporate direct measures of cultural values, economic conditions, and retail formats, and could extend the analysis to digital marketing, sustainability initiatives, and brand trust to build a fuller picture of what drives consumer satisfaction in diverse retail environments.

Subject of Research: Consumer perceptions of supermarket marketing mix: a cross-cultural analysis of Croatia and Tanzania

Article Title: Consumer perceptions of marketing mix in supermarkets: a cross-cultural analysis of Croatia and Tanzania

Article References: Šostar, M., Suphian, R., Garić, G., & Knežević, J. (2026). Consumer perceptions of marketing mix in supermarkets: a cross-cultural analysis of Croatia and Tanzania. Frontiers in Communication, 11, Article 1967803. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2026.1967803

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.3389/fcomm.2026.1967803

Keywords: marketing mix, cross-cultural analysis, Croatia, Tanzania, supermarkets, consumer behavior, customer satisfaction, measurement invariance, retail marketing, promotions, Consumer, perceptions

The research team, led by midwifery and nursing researchers at Istanbul Esenyurt University and partner institutions, interviewed 21 parents who reported using oils during infant massage. Participants were recruited through criterion-based purposive sampling, meaning the researchers deliberately sought out parents with direct experience of the practice rather than a random sample of the general population. Data were collected through semi-structured, face-to-face interviews and analyzed using Braun and Clarke’s six-phase thematic analysis approach, supported by MAXQDA 24 software. The study was reported in accordance with the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research, or COREQ, a guideline designed to make qualitative studies more transparent and reproducible.

One of the study’s most important methodological choices was its use of the term aromatic oils as an umbrella category. In everyday parenting conversations, people rarely distinguish between essential oils, which are highly concentrated plant extracts, and carrier oils such as almond or olive oil, which are used to dilute them or applied on their own. The researchers deliberately grouped both under one term to capture the full range of products parents discussed. However, the authors themselves caution that this grouping was an analytical decision, not necessarily a reflection of how parents mentally categorize these products in daily life.

The analysis generated three major themes. The first, which the researchers described as meaning-making within the framework of natural and relaxing, captured how parents perceived oils as plant-based and calming. Parents described obtaining information or advice from other parents, friends, and, in one account, from social media and healthcare professionals. This pattern is consistent with a well-documented phenomenon in health psychology: when formal medical guidance is sparse, informal networks become the primary information infrastructure. Parents are not simply applying oils; they are participating in a social exchange of caregiving knowledge.

The second theme, from need to routine, described how oil use typically began in response to a specific infant complaint, such as restlessness, gas-related discomfort, or skin dryness. Over time, however, many parents described incorporating oil use into a regular massage practice, transforming a reactive remedy into a proactive ritual. This transition from targeted intervention to embedded routine is a common pattern in complementary care adoption and helps explain why such practices persist across generations even in the absence of clinical evidence.

Participants also reported taking precautions such as diluting oils, testing them on a small area of skin before broader application, and carefully selecting products. These self-directed safety behaviors suggest that parents are not blindly trusting of natural products. Instead, they operate with an intuitive risk framework, one that balances faith in nature with an awareness that even plant-derived substances can cause harm, particularly on the delicate skin of newborns.

The third theme, balancing expected benefits and risk concerns, encompassed parents’ perceived changes in relaxation, sleep, and skin condition, alongside concerns about allergies, misinformation, and product safety. Parents expressed conditional willingness to recommend oil use to other parents, meaning they would do so only if certain safety conditions were met. This nuance is significant: parents are not uncritical evangelists of natural remedies but thoughtful decision-makers navigating uncertainty with limited formal guidance.

Crucially, the study’s authors emphasize that these were parents’ reported perceptions, not measured infant outcomes. The interviews captured what parents believed and observed, not what clinical trials would recognize as verified effects. This distinction matters enormously for how the findings should be interpreted and applied. The study cannot establish that aromatic oils cause improved sleep, reduced gas discomfort, or better skin condition in infants. What it can establish is how parents think, decide, and act, which is itself valuable knowledge for healthcare providers.

The practical implications are directed squarely at healthcare professionals. The authors recommend that providers identify the specific product a parent is using and how it is being applied, particularly for neonates, whose skin is thinner, more permeable, and less mature than that of older infants. They also suggest discussing the reliability of the advice parents receive, given that much of it originates from informal sources rather than clinical guidelines. This approach respects parental autonomy while introducing evidence-based safety considerations into the conversation.

Published on 15 October 2026 as an open-access article, the study received no external funding and was approved by the Ethics Committee of Istanbul Gelisim University in April 2025. All participants provided written informed consent, and the research was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The authors declare no competing interests. As a qualitative descriptive study with 21 participants recruited purposively in Türkiye, its findings are context-specific and cannot be generalized to all populations. Nevertheless, it adds an important layer to the growing body of research on complementary care in early childhood, illuminating the beliefs, routines, and risk calculations that shape one of parenting’s most intimate practices.

Subject of Research: Parents’ experiences, risk perceptions and decision-making regarding aromatic oil use during infant massage in Türkiye: a qualitative study

Article Title: Parents’ experiences, risk perceptions and decision-making regarding aromatic oil use during infant massage in Türkiye: a qualitative study

Article References: Parents’ experiences, risk perceptions and decision-making regarding aromatic oil use during infant massage in Türkiye: a qualitative study. (n.d.). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12906-026-05636-4

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s12906-026-05636-4

Keywords: aromatherapy, infant massage, qualitative research, parental decision-making, complementary medicine, Türkiye, Parents, experiences, risk, perceptions, decision-making, regarding