the effect of packaging material properties on …
TRANSCRIPT
Clemson UniversityTigerPrints
All Theses Theses
5-2013
THE EFFECT OF PACKAGING MATERIALPROPERTIES ON CONSUMER FOODQUALITY PERCEPTION IN QUICK-SERVICE RESTAURANTSEmily ThackstonClemson University, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at: https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_theses
Part of the Engineering Science and Materials Commons
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses at TigerPrints. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Theses by an authorizedadministrator of TigerPrints. For more information, please contact [email protected].
Recommended CitationThackston, Emily, "THE EFFECT OF PACKAGING MATERIAL PROPERTIES ON CONSUMER FOOD QUALITYPERCEPTION IN QUICK-SERVICE RESTAURANTS" (2013). All Theses. 1673.https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_theses/1673
THE EFFECT OF PACKAGING MATERIAL PROPERTIES ON CONSUMER FOOD QUALITY PERCEPTION IN QUICK-SERVICE RESTAURANTS
A Thesis Presented to
the Graduate School of Clemson University
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Science Packaging Science
by Emily Kate Thackston
May 2013
Accepted by: Dr. R. Andrew Hurley, Committee Chair
Dr. Charles E. Tonkin Dr. Kay D. Cooksey
ii
ABSTRACT
The majority of menu items available in quick-service restaurants (QSR)
are consumed directly from a container or package. The main reasons
consumers choose to eat fast food are because it is convenient, prepared
quickly, a good value, and inexpensive. Therefore, the packaging becomes an
integral part of the food product and from a consumer perspective must be
consistent with their expectations and motives for choosing to eat fast food. Prior
research has directly linked characteristics of consumer food packaging
experience to their perception of its contents. The purpose of this research is to
determine if consumer quality perception of food products in quick-service
restaurants varies depending on the material properties of the packaging in which
the food product is presented. All materials were tested in a realistic QSR
environment. The commonly used foodservice packaging styles and materials
selected for testing included: a 14-pt paperboard clamshell, an expanded
polystyrene (EPS) clamshell, an F-flute (micro-flute) corrugated clamshell, and a
paper wrap. Sensory, functionality, and credence attributes were evaluated by
participants. Preference and ranking response data was also collected. A self-
administered computerized questionnaire, which was developed from the
literature review, was used to measure participant response.
Findings from the research indicate that while the sensory attribute ratings
did not differ significantly, respondents had significant preference for certain
iii
materials based on functionality and credence attributes, and perceived certain
materials as more suitable for certain food products. Understanding what
attributes are important to consumers in foodservice packaging enables the
foodservice packaging providers and companies in the QSR industry to
manipulate those attributes which are most beneficial for enhancing consumers
perceived quality, while also improving consumers overall experience.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Andrew Hurley, and the members of my
thesis committee, Dr. Chip Tonkin and Dr. Kay Cooksey, for their guidance and
support throughout this project.
Thank you to Joe Turner, Kelly Durham, and all employees of First Sun
Management Corporation. This project would not have been possible without
your generous support and encouragement.
A special thank you to the current and past graduate students who have always
been supportive and assisted me with my research: Rachel Randall, Daniel
Hutcherson, Erin Snyder, Andrew Ouzts, Josh Galvarino, Joanna Fischer, Toni
Gomes, Andy Pham, Wilson Sansbury, Julianne Holmes, Nathan Bailey, and
Gabrielle Conlon.
I would like to thank Harris A. Smith, Sonoco, Esko, and all other industry
members of the Sonoco Institute of Packaging Design and Graphics for their
support and donations.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TITLE PAGE ....................................................................................................... i ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................... ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..................................................................................... iv LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................. vii LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................... viii CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 1 Quick-Service Restaurant Industry ............................................... 1 Foodservice Packaging ................................................................ 2 Consumer Experience .................................................................. 3 Prior Research .............................................................................. 4 Research in QSR Context ............................................................ 5 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ............................................................... 7 The Quick-Service Restaurant Industry ........................................ 7 Food Packaging .......................................................................... 10 Single-Use Foodservice Packaging ............................................ 15 The Quick-Service Restaurant Industry Today ........................... 21 Consumer-Oriented Food Quality ............................................... 27 Quality in the Foodservice Industry ............................................ 29 Sensory Evaluation ..................................................................... 31 The Effect of Food Packaging on Contents ................................ 37 III. PILOT STUDY ................................................................................. 43 Methods and Materials ............................................................... 43 Results, Discussion, & Application ............................................. 55
vi
Table of Contents (Continued)
Page
IV. MATERIALS AND METHODS ......................................................... 64 Objectives ................................................................................... 64 Location ...................................................................................... 64 Participants ................................................................................. 65 Experimental Design .................................................................. 68 V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ......................................................... 78
Sensory Attributes ...................................................................... 78 Functionality Attributes ............................................................... 84 Credence Attributes .................................................................... 94 Preference and Ranking ........................................................... 104 VI. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................. 108 VII. RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................. 110 APPENDICES ................................................................................................ 111 A: Background Research and Information ......................................... 112 B: Pilot Study Results ......................................................................... 116 C: Pilot Study Data and Statistical Analysis ....................................... 121 D: Full Scale Study Data and Statistical Analysis ............................... 150 E: Surveys and Questionnaires .......................................................... 175 REFERENCES ............................................................................................... 193
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page 1 Descriptors used on the Food Action Rating Scale (FACT) ............ 34 2 Pilot study containers ....................................................................... 50 3 Open-ended survey questions from pilot study ................................ 59 4 Open-ended survey question from full scale study .......................... 66 5 Preference Selection ...................................................................... 105 6 Preference Chi-square ................................................................... 105 7 Burger Preference Selection .......................................................... 106 8 Burger Chi-square .......................................................................... 106 9 Chicken Preference Selection ........................................................ 106 10 Chicken Chi-square ....................................................................... 106 11 Rank Borda Count ......................................................................... 107 12 Rank Mean Rating ......................................................................... 107
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page 1 An assembly line of workers in a quick-service restaurant ................ 8 2 Examples of single-use foodservice packaging ............................... 16 3 QSR menu with nutrition information displayed beside food items ................................................................................... 23 4 Quiznos "Eat Toasty, Be Green" campaign included all biodegradable food packaging ................................................... 25 5 Packaging waste in the fast food industry ........................................ 26 6 Three stage model of perceived quality ........................................... 28 7 Model of food quality factors in different contexts ............................ 30 8 CU-café staged restaurant environment used for pilot study ........... 45 9 Black tray used to present containers. ............................................. 47 10 CU-café floor plan and table layout .................................................. 48 11 McDonaldʼs single cheeseburger, food product used for pilot study ................................................................................... 51 12 Pie charts of survey Section 2 results .............................................. 56 13 Chart of participant responses indicating how much they would pay for each sample .......................................................................... 57 14 Pie chart of survey Section 3 survey results .................................... 58 15 Pie chart of survey Section 1 survey results .................................... 67 16 Four containers selected for full scale study .................................... 69
ix
List of Figures (Continued) Figure Page 17 The food product used for testing Wendyʼs Homestyle Chicken Sandwich and Single 1/4 lb. Hamburger .................................... 70 18 Sensory booth set-up inside the testing environment ...................... 75 19 Mean ratings for sensory attribute Flavor ........................................ 78 20 Mean ratings for sensory attribute Texture ...................................... 80 21 Mean ratings for sensory attribute Overall Liking ............................. 81 22 Mean ratings for sensory attribute Acceptance ................................ 83 23 Mean ratings for functionality attribute “Protects Product” ............... 85 24 Mean ratings for functionality attribute “Easy to Open” .................... 87 25 Mean ratings for functionality attribute “Contains Product” .............. 88 26 Mean ratings for functionality attribute “Keeps Product Warm” ......................................................................................... 90 27 Mean ratings for functionality attribute “Easy to Carry” .................... 92 28 Mean ratings for credence attribute Natural ..................................... 94 29 Mean ratings for credence attribute Environmentally Friendly ....................................................................................... 96 30 Mean ratings for credence attribute Modern .................................... 99 31 Mean ratings for credence attribute Neat ....................................... 100 32 Mean ratings for credence attribute Premium ................................ 102 33 Chart displaying percentages for how often each container was selected .................................................................................... 104
x
List of Figures (Continued) Figure Page 34 Chart displaying how often each container was selected in each of the conditions ........................................................................... 105
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Quick-Service Restaurant Industry
The quick-service or fast food restaurant industry in the United States
currently includes over 200,000 restaurant locations with a combined annual
revenue of approximately $191 billion (Marketline Industry Profile, 2011). These
quick-service restaurants (QSRs) are characterized by providing full meals
quickly, at an affordable price, and with no table service. According to consumers
the main reasons they choose to eat fast food are because it is convenient,
prepared quickly, a good value, and inexpensive (Technomic Consumer Trend
Report, 2009). From a consumer perspective, the packaging used by QSRs must
be consistent with these expectations and positively impact the overall product
experience.
In general, in the food packaging, industry there is a strong movement
towards improving consumer convenience; increasingly foods are available in
packages from which they can be directly consumed. QSRs offer a wide variety
of foods on their menu and nearly all of the menu items are eaten “on-the-go”,
meaning they do not require the use of cutlery and can be eaten with hands.
Consequently, the majority of food products in QSRs are consumed directly from
a container or package. In the QSR, industry this type of packaging is known as
single-use or disposable foodservice packaging.
2
Foodservice Packaging
Packaging on products is primarily used to protect and preserve, however
it can also provide a valuable marketing tools to the producer (Meyers & Lubliner,
1998). Food product packaging can be a factor in consumer decision-making,
because it enables consumers to make assumptions about how the product
tastes. In some cases in addition to shaping taste expectations, the packaging
can even affect subsequent product experiences (Cardello, 1994; Schifferstein,
Kole, & Mojet, 1999). The packaging chosen for food products often
communicates a message to consumers, which makes choosing an appropriate
packaging material critical for companies in the QSR industry.
Materials commonly used to package fast food products include: paper,
paperboard, plastic, foil, and cardboard (Foodservice Packaging Institute, 2007).
Consumers tend to prefer certain materials with products, partially because they
are perceived to be appropriate for the distinct product (Raudenbush, Meyer,
Eppich, Corley, & Petterson, 2002). In addition to material the packaging
containers often vary in regard to size, shape, and appearance. Sandwich
category products available at QSRs primarily use a clamshell package, two
hinged halves of a shell that can be opened and closed by the consumer, or a
wrap style package, which is a flat sheet that is folded around the food product
after it is prepared (http://www.businessdictionary.com/). Understanding the
qualities conveyed to consumers by various styles of packaging could ultimately
3
be used in the new product development process and to help improve consumers
overall experience in QSRs.
Consumer Experience
Consumers overall experience in the QSR setting is defined by many
factors. The perception of food quality is considered the main component of the
experience, because it is necessary to satisfy the needs and expectations of the
consumer (Peri, 2006). Packaging is an example of an extrinsic component of
food quality. The containers in which foods are packaged and consumed from
can influence the perception of their related sensory qualities and even the
overall consumption experience (Piqueras-Fiszman, Harrar, & Spence, 2012).
Measuring consumer food quality perception is a complex task and often varies
depending on setting or context.
Quality is considered multidimensional in nature, meaning it cannot be
measured using one dimension, but must be evaluated using many dimensions
(Meiselman 2001). Many techniques exist to measure quality perception,
however most view quality as a product attribute and approach it from a single
dimension. In order to fully understand how packaging used in QSRs can
influence food quality perception a combination of sensory testing and product
evaluation techniques is necessary.
4
Prior Research
Food packaging characteristics such as shape, color, and material are
useful to convey a message to the consumer; however, they are not directly
related to the taste of the food product. The prior research presented in the
review of literature suggests that consumers use symbolic information
represented by these packaging characteristics (shape, color and material) to
draw assumptions about the packages contents. Research has shown this
concept holds true even when the product attributes being evaluated are
completely unrelated to packaging appearance. The process consumers use to
draw assumptions about packaging contents is not considered a deliberate
process, but rather an innate process. Consumers draw on understood notions in
which impressions derived from one source, such as packaging attributes, form
expectations for subsequent product impressions such as product taste (Huber &
McCann, 1982; Pinson, 1986; Becker, Van Rompay, Schifferstein, & Galetzka
2011).
The current body of research concerning the effects food packaging has
on the perception of its contents primarily involves retail food, meaning all food,
other than restaurant food, that is purchased by consumers and consumed
elsewhere (http://smallbusiness.chron.com/). Brown (1958) demonstrated how
the sound and feel of different wrapper materials impact perception of bread
freshness, the most intense product freshness being perceived with cellophane.
5
Krishna and Morrin (2008) determined that the material properties of a cup could
modify the perceived quality of the water consumed from it. Schifferstein (2009)
established that drink sweetness and liking could be impacted by cup material.
McDaniel and Baker (1977) discovered that the ease with which a bag of potato
chips opened was directly linked to the perceived taste of its content; the difficult-
to-open bags were viewed to contain better quality chips. Becker, van Rompay,
Schifferstein, and Galetzka (2011) directly linked characteristics of consumers
packaging experience to the perception of its contents.
Research In QSR Context
In an environment such as a restaurant or other food service outlet, a
variety of environmental factors may have a greater impact on the consumerʼs
perception of food quality than the inherent traits of the food (Pierson, Reeve, &
Creed, 1995). This research methodology combines several existing quality
perception models as well as past marketing research involving product
perception. Using this type of multidisciplinary approach takes the product, the
consumer, and the situation into consideration, and in the end provides a better
prediction of quality (Meiselman, 2001). By examining the food products using
intrinsic and extrinsic quality cues combined with experience and credence
quality attributes the consumers quality perception of a product is more
thoroughly represented (Oude Ophuis & van Trijp, 1995).
6
As it is formulated the goal of this research is to determine how a food
container can effect the consumers quality perception of its contents in quick-
service restaurants. This is done by analyzing how different containers are
identified based on certain attributes and by evaluating the effect of each
container has on the experience of consuming a food product. A pilot study was
completed prior to the experiment to determine the attributes used to define the
experience and credence qualities. All data was collected using a computerized
self-administered survey instrument, which was developed from the present body
of literature related to this topic.
7
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The Quick-Service Restaurant Industry
In the last several decades, food consumption habits in the United States
have noticeably shifted, Americans now consume a greater percentage of their
total calories outside the home (Guthrie, Lin, & Frazao, 2002). The source of this
shift can be linked to numerous social changes; Americans now work longer
hours and an increasing amount of women work outside the home (Levenstein,
2003). For meals consumed outside the home Americans have turned to the
restaurant industry.
The restaurant industry consists of two main divisions: full-service
restaurants and quick-service restaurants (QSR), also known as fast food
restaurants. The most common type of fast food restaurant is a franchised chain.
Fast food restaurants are commonly associated with the restaurant industry,
because they use a similar food selling and consumption model. However, the
food production methods used in fast food more closely resemble the food
industry.
Fast food restaurants offer a limited number of items on their menu, which
are created from a defined list of raw materials much like the food industry.
These fast food menus normally include a combination of hamburgers, chicken,
sandwiches, pizza, Mexican dishes, breakfast foods, and snack or side items.
8
Menu items in fast food restaurants are created in store using an assembly line
procedure and are then sold to consumers in highly standardized single-use
packaging (Aarnio & Hämäläinen, 2008). In the QSR industry this type of
packaging is commonly called single-use or disposable foodservice packaging.
Figure 1 shows a typical assembly line in a QSR. The fast food industry uses the
food industryʼs efficient food production and packaging techniques to offer
consumers food products in a restaurant setting that are convenient, quick, and
inexpensive.
Figure 1. An assembly line of workers in a quick-service restaurant
9
History
The Quick-service restaurant industry has grown and expanded at an
incredible rate over the past century. Many people perceive fast food as a
modern concept, however it dates back to the early 1900s. The first QSR chain in
the United States, White Castle, was founded in Kansas in 1921. After WWII the
rise of the automobile industry lead to the development of many drive-in fast food
restaurants (Levenstein, 2003). In the 1940s-1950s many large chains were
founded including KFC, McDonaldʼs, Sonic, and Burger King. The 1960s brought
about a growth period in the fast food industry and several important chains were
founded including Wendyʼs and Subway.
Quick-Service restaurants in the United States were founded on the
principle of standardization; all restaurants visually looked the same, had the
same menus, and used the same operating procedures. In the 1990s many fast
food chains began franchising and expanding to international locations. Countries
outside of the United States often view fast food as an American concept and
some countries took time to adjust to the new style of restaurant (Smith, 2006).
Over the past century the fast food industry has been recognized for itʼs
aggressive advertising, novel food products, and stable expansion. In order to
stay relevant chains have constantly introduce new products and features such
as the drive-thru window, the value menu, and the kidsʼ meal. This innovative
10
forward thinking has contributed to the fast food industry becoming the powerful
multi-billion dollar industry it is today.
Food Packaging
Food packaging is the container in which the food product is packed to
ensure safe transfer to consumers (Robertson, 2006). The food packaging
container can be in direct contact or indirect contact with food product. Food
packaging holds, protects, preserves, and identifies the food product in addition
to facilitating handling and commercialization. There are three types of
packaging: primary packaging which is in direct contact with the product or
contents, secondary packaging which contains one or more primary packages
and serves to protect and identify the primary, and tertiary packaging also known
as transport packaging which offers protection for the primary and secondary
packaging while being transported. Each packaging layer contributes to the
overall process of product delivery from manufacturer to consumer (Capsule,
2008).
Packaging has become an integral part of food products (Ahmed, Ahmed,
& Salman, 2005). The basic functions of food packaging are to protect and
preserve the food product, make it easier to carry, display the product or
graphical representations of the product, and communicate a message to
consumers (Meyers & Lubliner, 1998). The marketing function of communicating
11
a message to the consumer has become increasingly important. Food packaging
is now considered an important component of the marketing process in the food
industry. McCarthy & Perreault developed the “marketing mix” or 4 ʻPsʼ of
marketing: price, product, promotion, and place (1996). Packaging affects all
segments of the marketing mix; packaging displays the price or indicates a price
range, it contains the product, provides messages about product attributes to
consumers, and can also present promotions (Meyers & Lubliner, 1998).
Food Safety
Consumer food products are used by a typical consumer three or more
times per day, which is more than any other product class. Consumers have a
right to assume that the food products they purchase and consume will be high
quality and safe. In addition to food processing technology, one reason the U.S.
food supply is so safe is because of advancements in food packaging (Marsh &
Bugusu, 2007). Effective food packaging ensures that products remain safe after
the food processing procedure is complete.
Packaging enables food products to then be transported from stores or
restaurants to various locations with no compromise in food quality. Peri (2006)
suggests that many of the legal requirements for safety and service are ʻʻimplicit
requirementsʼʼ because consumers expect them to exist. He goes on to say that
though food safety is assessable and therefore confirmable consumers still have
12
doubts about food safety within certain product categories. Hazard analysis and
critical control point (HACCP) is a federal food production, storage, and
distribution monitoring system for identification and control of associated health
hazards (http://www.businessdictionary.com/). Many states currently require
approved HACCP plans for restaurants.
Materials
Food packaging uses many different types of materials. Often several
materials are combined to create food packaging; this method normally exploits
each of the materialʼs functional or aesthetic characteristics (Marsh & Bugusu,
2007). How these two materials are combined helps to determine things like shelf
life, product protection, and the packages insulation properties. Finding the ideal
material or combination of materials helps to maintain product quality and
freshness during storage, distribution, and consumption (Fellows & Axtell, 2002).
Materials commonly used in food packaging include but are not limited to
the following (Marsh & Bugusu, 2007):
• Glass
• Metals (aluminum, foils, laminates, tinplate, and tin-free steel)
• Paper and paperboards
• Plastics
13
There are several Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations
pertaining to the manufacturing of food packaging materials. In the FDA Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) Chapter IV: Sec. 409, Sec. 348- Food
Additives the FDA requires that food packaging manufacturers notify FDA 120 d
prior to marketing a food contact substance (FCS) for a new use. The FDA
defines an FCS as “any substance intended for use as a component of materials
used in manufacturing, packing, packaging, transporting or holding of food if the
use is not intended to have a technical effect in such food”. These regulations are
put in place to protect consumers and ensure all packaged food products are
safe for consumption (Food and Drug Administration, 2006).
Trends in Food Packaging
The food package is the product delivery system for consumers, and the
package comes of great use in selling the product (Richmond, 2004). According
to Market Publishers report titled Food and Beverage Packaging Trends in the
U.S.: Consumer Viewpoints and Marketer Opportunities, “Packaging has
increasingly moved beyond basic functionality into value-added features that amp
up convenience, product quality and freshness, and eco-friendliness (2012).” The
report continues to discuss how consumer packaging trends such as quality,
convenience, sustainability, recyclables, and over-packaging impact food
14
packaging perception and why manufacturers and retailers should focus on these
trends to increase consumer satisfaction.
Over the past several decades food packaging has developed from itʼs
basic requirements to corresponding with consumer priorities (Market Publishers,
2012). Ideally, a food package protects the food product from damage and keeps
the product safe to consume for a certain amount of time. In addition to these
basic functions food packaging must also be in line with consumer trends
including: being visually appealing, environmentally friendly, portable, and
convenient (Euromonitor, 2004). It is very difficult to meet all the criteria to create
an ideal food package and manufacturers are rarely able to achieve this feat.
Manufacturers and companies who have managed to align themselves with
emerging consumer trends have benefited significantly (Market Publishers,
2012).
Food products are ultimately created for the consumer, their attitudes and
opinions play a key role in creating food packaging. The factors driving growth in
the food packaging market including, convenience, functionality and indulgence,
are consumer centered (Euromonitor, 2004). To remain competitive in the
dynamic packaged food environment, manufacturers and retailers must
understand what matters most to consumers and which packaging innovations
can deliver benefits that actually impact consumer buying practices.
15
Food packaging holds an important place in the supply chain connecting
the food product to the consumer. Ahmed, Ahmed, & Salman (2005) explain how
packaging has become an integral part of all food products developed today. A
food productʼs packaging may be a driver of consumer decision making, because
it allows consumers to draw inferences about the product taste (Becker, Van
Rompay, Schifferstein, & Galetzka, 2011). This makes choosing the correct
packaging for food products increasingly important for brands.
Single-Use Foodservice Packaging
In the QSR industry the packaging used for food products is commonly
referred to single-use or disposable foodservice packaging. This type of
packaging has been around since 1904, when the paper plate was developed to
hold cakes in bakeries. In the 1960s McDonaldʼs began using single-use
foodservice products and since they have become a standard in the quick-
service restaurant industry. The majority of the single-use foodservice products
currently used are either made of paper including paper, paperboard, and molded
pulp or plastic including rigid polystyrene (PS), expanded polystyrene (EPS),
polypropylene (PP), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), and polylactic acid (PLA)
(Dorn, 2013). Several examples of common single-use foodservice packaging
products can be seen in Figure 2.
16
Regulations in QSRs
Single-use foodservice packaging is necessary in quick-service
restaurants to support sanitation, portability, and to help with costs associated
with reusable items. According to many health officials the benefits of single-use
foodservice packaging far outweigh any perceived environmental impact
(Foodservice Packaging Institute, 2007). By being used only once, this type of
packaging considerably reduces food contamination and the spread of
sicknesses. Single-use foodservice packaging is helpful in preventing the spread
of many foodborne illnesses. In the United States food borne illnesses from
bacteria and viruses cause approximately 48 million illnesses, 325,000
hospitalizations, and 3,000 deaths each year (USDA Food Safety and Inspection
Service, 2011).
The Food and Drug Administrationʼs Food Code highlights the sanitary
and health advantages of single-use foodservice packaging. In the FDA Food
Figure 2. Examples of single-use foodservice packaging
17
Code 2009, Chapter 4 - Equipment, Utensils, and Linens subparts 4-102 and 4-
502 there are several sections pertaining to single-use foodservice packaging in
a QSR environment:
Single-Service and Single-Use 4-102.11 Characteristics.
Materials that are used to make single-service and single-use articles:
• (A) May not:
1. (1) Allow the migration of deleterious substances, or
2. (2) Impart colors, odors, or tastes to food; and
• (B) Shall be:
1. (1) Safe, and
2. (2) Clean.
4-502.12 Single-Service and Single-Use Articles, Required Use.
• A food establishment without facilities specified under Parts 4-6 and 4-
7 for cleaning and sanitizing kitchenware and tableware shall provide
only single-use kitchenware, single-service articles, and single-use
articles for use by food employees and single-service articles for use
by consumers.
The FDA also has regulations for where single-use products are to be
stored and how they are to be handled by workers in the restaurants. Consumers
18
often take the high level of food safety in the United States for granted and do not
understand the significance of the food and packaging technologies used today.
Benefits of Single-Use Foodservice Packaging
According to a report by the National Restaurant Association, Americans
spend nearly fifty percent of their food budget in restaurants. Single-use
foodservice packaging in QSRs has become an incredibly important part of the
modern fast-paced life. With less time for meal preparation at home, more people
are relying on the restaurant industry for meals. Single-use packaging allows
foodservice establishments to package meals in a sensible, safe and cost-
effective fashion, while providing customers an efficient and convenient way to
transport meals. The Foodservice Packaging Instituteʼs report on the benefits of
single-use packaging published in 2007 highlighted four advantages including:
sanitation, cost, worker safety, and convenience.
Features and Functions
The Foodservice Packaging Institute created the following list of questions
concerning features and functions of the packaging to help companies in the fast
food industry choose proper packaging for their food products (2007):
1. Whatʼs going in or on the packaging?
The item(s) require(s) that the packaging…
19
a. Keeps hot items hot
b. Keeps cold items cold
c. Keeps frozen items frozen
d. Needs to be heated, re-heated or cooked in a microwave or
oven
e. Doesnʼt absorb grease/juice
f. Is leak resistant
g. Has a light or heavy weight/strength
2. What should the packaging look like? It…
a. Is a certain color
b. Is a certain shape
c. Is a certain size, i.e. single portion versus multi-serving
d. Has different compartments
e. Has a base and lid hinged together
f. Has a base and lid in two pieces
g. Has different dome or lid options for the same base
h. Needs to part of a family of packaging options
i. Is film-sealable or tamper-resistant
j. Has graphics or printing on it, such as a logo or special
design
20
k. Has an area for labels, such as nutritional information or
heating instructions
3. What will you do with the packaged item?
a. Store it in a hot display case
b. Store it in a cold display case
c. Store it in a freezer case
d. Place it under a heat lamp or in a microwave or oven to
warm or cook it
e. Lid it
f. Stack it
g. Use with automated equipment
4. What will your customer do with the packaged item?
a. Heat or re-heat it in the microwave or oven
b. Freeze it
c. Open or close it several times
d. Cut and/or eat the items out of the packaging
e. Travel some distance before consuming the food/beverage
f. Use it to present foods
While the list presented by the Foodservice Packaging Institute is through
consumer perception of packaging and how this affects food quality judgments is
not taken into account.
21
The Quick-Service Restaurant Industry Today
While it continues to expand, the current fast food industry has
experienced a significant slowdown in growth due to a poor economy and
changing consumer preferences (Anthony, 2008; Samadi, 2010). The same basic
operating principle of standardization is still applied in the fast food industry,
however the food products offered are constantly changing and adapting to
consumer demands in the marketplace. There are seven main segments of the
QSR industry that have developed including: Burger, Sandwich, Snack, Mexican,
Pizza/pasta, Chicken, and Asian/Seafood (http://www.qsrmagazine.com/reports).
In all segments within any fast food chains franchise interior design, exterior
design, employee uniforms, and the visual appearance of the menu boards is
fairly consistent. The food packaging also tends to be similar in terms of material
and container style. As new food products are added to QSR menus and existing
products are altered, the need to understand consumer perception of these
products increases.
Controversial Issues
There are currently several controversial issues in the fast food industry,
which directly relate to the packaging, including the marketing techniques used,
and the food product nutrition. Marketing techniques aimed at children have been
22
called into question by several organizations. In their report, “Evaluating Fast
Food Nutrition and Marketing to Youth”, Harris, Scwartz, and Brownell reported
“fast food restaurants spend billions of dollars in marketing every year to increase
the number of times that customers visit their restaurants, encourage visits for
new eating occasions, and purchases of specific menu items (rarely the healthy
options), and create lifelong, loyal customers (2010).”
The health risks of fast food have also been brought to light, making
customers question their eating habits, and forcing fast food restaurants to create
healthier alternatives. Consumption of fast food has been linked to several
negative health complications, most commonly unhealthy diet that leads to an
increased risk for obesity (Saelens, Glanz, & Sallis, 2007). Solutions to the health
concerns that have been raised in fast food restaurants include smaller overall
portions, product nutrition information displayed on menu, and limiting the
amount of food that can be purchased per visit. Figure 3 shows a QSR menu
displaying nutrition information for food items and images of packaging for each
food item. All of these issues directly affect the packaging used in QSRs and
require that it be changed and optimized frequently in accordance with any
issues.
23
Environmental Concerns
In the fast food industry packaging sustainability is currently a highly
debated topic. According to the Sustainable Packaging Coalition sustainable
packaging (http://www.sustainablepackaging.org/):
• Is beneficial, safe & healthy for individuals and communities throughout
its life cycle
• Meets market criteria for both performance and cost
• Is sourced, manufactured, transported, and recycled using renewable
energy
• Optimizes the use of renewable or recycled source materials
Figure 3. QSR menu with nutrition information displayed beside food items
24
• Is manufactured using clean production technologies and best
practices
• Is made from materials healthy throughout the life cycle
• Is physically designed to optimize materials and energy
• Is effectively recovered and utilized in biological and/or industrial
closed loop cycles
The disposable, single-use packaging products used are an unfortunate
necessity in the QSR industry due to hygiene and convenience issues. Today,
there are a number of more sustainable packaging options available including
reusable alternatives, products with recycled content, and biodegradable choices
(Dorn, 2013).
Many reports emphasize the importance of the restaurant industry using
sustainable packaging materials. However, the cost associated with many of the
environment friendly materials is much higher than the materials currently being
used. Several fast food chains have attempted to implement sustainable
materials in packaging for a select number of menu items (Dogwood Alliance
Roadmap, 2010). An example of sustainable fast food packaging can be seen in
Figure 4. According to the Environmental Protection Agency in 2009, foodservice
packaging (paper and plastic material) discarded in the U.S. municipal solid
waste stream accounted 1.3 percent (by weight) of all U.S. municipal solid waste
(http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/). A litter composition study
25
conducted in 2009, by the Foodservice Packaging Institute, found that fast food
packaging makes up 5.3 percent of the entire U.S. litter stream.
Studies suggest that the theoretical recovery rate of packaging waste in
the fast food industry is around 93 percent, while the actual recovery rate is only
29 percent of the total amount of packaging each year; In order to improve this
recovery rate new waste management practices should be employed (Aarnio &
Hämäläinen, 2008). The Foodservice Packaging Institute suggests that the
biggest obstacles to recycling foodservice packaging items involve public health
concerns and excessive cost (2007). Foodservice packaging that has been used
is considered contaminated and much of it is unfit for recycling procedures, until it
has been cleaned and separated.
Figure 4. Quiznosʼ "Eat Toasty, Be Green" campaign included sustainable packaging materials
26
Approximately 75 percent of packaging used at a typical fast food
restaurant is taken “to-go” and ends up in homes, workplaces, and public
locations, scattering the used packaging, which makes the recycling process
much more challenging. Despite the difficult recovery and recycling process for
foodservice packaging, recycled materials are increasingly being used in
foodservice packaging (Dorn, 2013). Finding a balance between consumer
expectations for sustainability while also achieving profit goals continues to be a
challenge in the fast food industry. Consumer quality perception of materials
used in packaging has become increasingly important as new sustainable
materials are explored. Figure 5 shows the waste generation cycle in the fast
food industry (T. Aarnio & A. Hamalainen, 2008).
Figure 5. Packaging waste generation in the fast food industry (T. Aarnio & A. Hamalainen 2008)
27
Consumer-Oriented Food Quality
Food quality is a complex concept, over the years many definitions of
food quality have been proposed, deciding which definition to use varies
depending on the type of research (Meiselman, 2001). Peri (2006) proposed that
food quality is a set of consumer requirements such as safety, commodity,
nutritional, and sensory. Cardello (1995) stated, “Food quality is a psychological
construct. It is both perceptually based and evaluative. To be valid, food quality
must be judged by consumers of the product.”
Consumer-oriented food quality is considered a psychological concept,
founded on consumer perceptions and measured using a perceived quality
approach, similar to the technique used in market and consumer behavior
research (Grebitus, 2008). Consumer quality perception is formed from
conscious and unconscious evaluation of observed quality cues, which are
connected to relevant quality attributes. Context, experience, and situational
variables must also be taken into consideration, as they vary among consumers
(Cardello, 1995). A quality cue is defined as “any informational stimulus, which is,
according to the consumer, related to the products quality, and can be
ascertained by him/her via the senses before purchase” (Grebitus, 2008).
Steenkamp (1989) developed a model of the quality perception process
based on quality cues. Steenkampʼs model can be viewed in Figure 6. The model
contains two distinct categories of quality cues, extrinsic and intrinsic (Olson,
28
1972). Intrinsic quality cues express the physical composition of the product for
example, flavor, color, and texture. Intrinsic quality attributes are consumed as
the food product is consumed (Zeithaml, 1988). Extrinsic quality cues such as
price, store, and brand name refer to the product but are not physically part of the
product. An extrinsic quality cue can be altered and will not directly affect the
food product.
Intrinsic and extrinsic quality cues are then used to form assessments of
quality attributes (Steenkamp, 1989). Experience and credence quality attributes
are the two typical categories of quality attributes. Experience quality attributes
Figure 6. Three stage model of perceived quality (Steenkamp, 1989)
29
are directly experienced when the product is consumed including sensory
characteristics including freshness, texture, and convenience. While credence
quality attributes, such as healthiness, naturalness, and neatness, cannot be
directly experienced. Oude Ophuis & van Trijp (1995) proposed that credence
quality attributes are highly abstract in nature and cannot truly be experienced.
Consumers overall quality perception evaluation proposed to be based on
impressions of the product with regard to the quality attributes (Oude Ophuis &
Van Trijp, 1995).
Product experience is defined as “a change in core affect that is attributed
to human-product interaction (Desmet & Hekkert, 2007).” The relationship
between quality perception (before consumption) and quality experience (after
consumption) is generally considered a method to understand product
satisfaction, and consequently the likelihood of a consumer repurchasing the
product (Mittal & Kamakura, 2001).
Quality in the Foodservice Industry
Current methods used to assess the consumers perceived quality of food
products tend to focus solely on the food, by strictly using sensory measurement
techniques these methods do not consider other contributing factors. In a
detailed context such as a restaurant or foodservice outlet it is important to
consider many elements outside of the intrinsic food properties that may have a
30
greater influence on the consumer perception of food quality (Pierson, Reeve, &
Creed, 1995). Figure 7 presents a model developed by Pierson, Reeve, & Creed,
(1995) illustrating the factors taken into consideration by consumers when
evaluating quality in different contexts including raw and manufactured food
products.
Figure 7. Model of food quality factors in different contexts (Pierson, Reeve, & Creed, 1995)
31
Meiselman (2002) suggested that there are at least four main concurrent
contextual effects that may alter the perception of food products during
consumption including: “the product functions as a meal component, social
inderation during food consumption, the environment in which food is selected
and consumed, and food choice freedom.” Each of these effects should be taken
into account in research involving food product consumption.
Sensory Evaluation
Sensory evaluation is defined as “A scientific discipline used to evoke,
measure, analyze and interpret those responses to products that are perceived
by the senses of sight, smell, touch, taste and hearing (Stone & Sidel, 1993).” In
food sensory evaluation the respondent groups are called panels. These panels
taste specific food samples under controlled conditions and evaluate the samples
in different ways depending on the particular type of sensory test being used.
Participants in sensory evaluation panels can be classified as consumers,
panelists, or experts. Lawless & Heymann (1998) defined an Expert as “an
individual acknowledged or self-ordained to act as a judge of sensory attributes,
defects, or overall product quality based on experience and/or training. Generally
not used in sensory evaluation tests”. They defined a Panelist as “generally, a
participant in a sensory evaluation.” While Lawless & Heymann do not directly
32
define consumer participants they mention that consumer evaluation can be
useful for many purposes (1998).
There are three common classes of sensory evaluation tests, each class
(Lawless & Heymann, 2010; Gengler, 2009):
1. Discrimination tests (difference tests) are designed to determine whether
there is a difference between products. Samples size should be 30+ or 15
with a replicate.
2. Descriptive tests are intended to determine the extent of difference in
specific sensory characteristics. Samples size should be 8 -12, with a
replicate.
3. Affective tests (acceptance/preference tests) are used to determine how
well the products are liked or which products are preferred. Sample size
should be from 30-100+.
Analytical vs. Hedonic
The three common types of sensory tests are categorized as either
analytical or hedonic. Discrimination and descriptive sensory tests are identified
as analytical because they are used to detect product differences or
characteristics. When a test is classified as analytical, participant sensory
sharpness is critical. Participants in analytical tests are generally expected to be
more sensitive to variances in food products than average consumers.
33
Affective tests are classified as hedonic tests, which are used to explore
consumer preference or liking of a product. In general hedonic tests are
subjective and do not require participants to possess a high level of sensory
acuteness. However, the industry is becoming more formal and quantitative when
it comes to hedonic style testing (Stone & Sidel, 2004).
Measuring Product Acceptance
Affective tests are a common type of sensory evaluation used to measure
consumer response to and acceptance of products. These tests can be used for
a variety of reasons, which include: product improvement, new product
development, support of product advertising claims, and product market
evaluation (Gengler, 2009). Depending on the purpose of the research being
conducted affective tests can be qualitative or quantitative. The sample of
respondents used must be representative of the target market population of
consumers who will purchase the product. The group of respondents can consist
of trained or untrained testers. However, for most affective tests since overall
acceptance is being measured an untrained panel is appropriate. ʻʻ...as with any
untrained panel, beyond the overall acceptance judgment there is no assurance
that the responses are reliable or valid” (Stone & Sidel, 1993).
Several methods have been proposed to measure food product
acceptance. The most common measured used is a scale of liking, such as the
34
9-point hedonic scale, varying from dislike extremely to like extremely (Peryam
and Pilgrim 1957). Schutz (1965) developed the Food Action Rating Scale
(FACT) for measuring overall food acceptance. The FACT scale has been used
to effectively test food products as well as market-research product tests,
descriptors used for the scale can be seen in Table 1.
Researchers must be comprehensive when developing a questionnaire or
survey to evaluate food product acceptance because this can ultimately effect
they quality of the data collected. “There is a complicated relationship among the
survey question as it appears in the questionnaire, the rules the correspondent is
Table 1 Descriptors used on the Food Action Rating Scale (FACT) (Schutz, 1965)
I would eat this food every opportunity I had.I would eat this very often.I would frequently eat this.I like this and would eat it now and then.I would eat this if available but would not go out of my way.I do not like it but would eat it on occasion.I would hardly ever eat this.I would eat this only if there were no other food choices.I would eat this only if I were forced to.
35
trained to follow, the cognitive processing of the participants…and the quality of
the resulting data” (Schaeffer & Presser, 2003).
Sensory Evaluation in Marketing Research
Marketing research is defined as “the link with the consumer, providing
information that assists companies to carry out marketing to monitor that
marketplace” (Meiselman, 1994). Carpenter, Lyon, & Hasdell (2000) proposed
that preference and acceptability sensory tests, which measure product liking or
acceptance, lie on the fringe between sensory analysis and consumer research
or marketing research. In many organizations sensory evaluation provides valid
and reliable information about the perceived sensory properties of products to the
marketing department, which they in turn use to modify products. The growing
relationship between sensory evaluation and market research has been
established and plays an important role in food product development.
Many food scientists and researchers support the idea of a
multidisciplinary approach to developing new food products. Meiselman (1994)
conveys his desires for a new science of human eating behavior founded on the
strengths of sensory research, market research, and food choice research.
Due to shifting consumer trends a greater demand for value added food
products has developed, food companies are increasing product research and
new product development to meet this need. One key element of research done
36
to understand consumer trends is the setting or context of an experiment.
Meiselman (2001) suggests that “actual judgment of quality takes place at the
eating. Therefore, more studies of quality should take place where the food is
consumed… context should be considered more in studies of food acceptance
and food habits as well.”
Jaeger (2006) in her article titled, “Non-Sensory Factors in Sensory
Science Research” suggests three principles consumer food product research
should be based on to properly evaluate the relationship:
1. Multi-method and interdisciplinary approaches are needed to
research peoples relationships with food
2. Using tools and techniques that are tailored to food- related
research
3. Not taking account of context threatens the validity of food-related
research.
Food quality should not be regarded as simply a sensory experience
(Pierson, Reeve, & Creed, 1995; Meiselman, 1994). Kramer and Twigg (1970)
present a wide range of factors that impact the food industry, and explain how
these factors vary between individuals. In the foodservice context, quick-service
restaurant offers a specific service to consumers and research is necessary in
37
food quality improvement areas. Food product packaging is just one factor that
should be taken into account in order to understand consumer behavior and
perception of food products in the quick-service setting.
The Effect of Food Packaging on Contents
Properties
Food packaging properties include its shape, color, material, weight, and
size. Each of these packaging properties can communicate different ideas to
consumers. While the packaging properties are not directly linked to the taste of
the food product they can represent a certain attribute or characteristic to
consumers. The attribute expressed can then cause the consumer to draw
assumptions or have expectations about the content of the package simply from
viewing itʼs packaging.
According to several past studies consumers draw on understood notions
in which impressions derived from one source, such as food packaging attributes,
can form expectations for subsequent product impressions, such as food product
taste (Huber & McCann, 1982; Pinson, 1986; Becker, Rompay, & Schifferstein,
2011). This body of research suggests that if the effect certain food packaging
properties have on their contents can be understood from research then
packaging can be created that better meets consumerʼs needs and preferences.
38
Prior Research
Food packaging conveys favorable or unfavorable implied meaning about
the product it contains (Ampuero & Vila, 2006). Consumers envision aspects of
how a product is going to look, taste, feel, smell, and sound as they are viewing
the package or a graphic on the packaging without ever seeing the food product
(Underwood, 2001). Becker, van Rompay, Schifferstein, and Galetzka (2011)
were able to directly link characteristics of consumers packaging experience to
the perception of its contents. Prior research done in this area has predominantly
focused on retail food product packaging, tableware, cutlery, bottles, and cups
involving properties such as color, shape, size, and material.
Cutlery and Tableware
Cutlery and tableware products are made from many different types of
materials and come in various shapes, sizes, and colors. Laughlin, Conreen,
Witchel, & Miodownik (2011) investigated if spoons made of different metals had
distinctively different taste. They tested seven different metal materials including:
gold silver, zinc, copper, tin, chrome and stainless steel. Participants wore
blindfolds making them unable to see any visual difference between the spoons.
Physically all of the spoons used had identical size, shape and weight. The
metric measured was metallic taste sensation given off by the spoons. Results
revealed that spoons plated with different metals had a noticeably different taste.
39
The spoons composed of gold and chrome were evaluated as least metallic,
bitter, and strong tasting of all the spoons. The zinc and copper spoons were
evaluated as having the most metallic, bitter, and strongest taste overall.
Piqueras-Fiszman, Laughlin, Miodownik, & Spence (2012) examined the
transfer of taste from metal spoons further by evaluating food consumed from the
spoons. Each spoon was had been plated with one of four different metals: gold,
copper, zinc, or stainless steel. Visual appearance was hidden from consumers
with a blindfold and physical size, shape, and weight of all four spoons was
identical. Participants in the study had to evaluate sweet, sour, bitter, salty, or
plain cream samples. Similar to the Laughlin, Conreen, Witchel, & Miodownik
(2011) findings, the results showed that zinc and copper spoons increased each
creamʼs dominant taste rating, and gave a somewhat metallic and bitter taste to
the food. Another study done in 2012 by Piqueras-Fiszman & Spence determined
that food was assessed as significantly more pleasant, and rated higher quality,
when sampled from a heavier metallic spoon rather than a plastic spoon, which
looked metallic. The weight and material properties of the spoons varied in this
study, meaning the contributions of each factor to the overall perception of the
food eaten from them could not be separated.
A study involving tableware by Harrar, Piqueras-Fiszman, and Spence
(2011) evaluated the effect bowl color has on its contents. Participants sampled
sweet or salty popcorn from the four different color bowls (white, blue, green, and
40
red). The results showed that participants rated salty popcorn as tasting sweeter
when taken from a blue or red bowl. When tasted from the blue bowl the sweet
popcorn was rated as tasting saltier.
Cups
A large amount if research has been conducted on the perceived effects of
serving beverages in various types of cups. Raudenbush & Meyer (2002) found
that certain materials are perceived by consumers to be more appropriate for
consuming specific beverages. In this study three beverages: orange juice, hot
chocolate, and beer were served in three types of containers a glass, a cup, and
a bottle. Response data collected indicated that the three beverages were rated
as more pleasant overall when consumed from containers commonly used for
that beverage. A study done by Krishna and Morrin (2008) found that the material
properties of a cup could modify the perceived quality of the beverage consumed
from it. Their results suggested that touching a flimsy cup decreased the
perceived quality of the water served in the cup for some participants and when
those participants were not able to touch or hold the cup the perceived quality of
the water samples was rated higher.
Schifferstein (2009) found that respondentsʼ ratings of various attributes of
beverages including tea and soft drinks varied depending on the type of cup
used. A combination of durable and disposable cup containers were presented to
41
each participant containing either tea or a soft drink. The containers were then
rated based on sensory, experience, and suitability attributes. Particularly the
results showed that beverage sensory ratings varied depending on the container
material and that certain materials are understood to be more appropriate for
specific beverages, which is consistent with the findings of Raudenbush & Meyer
(2002).
Retail Food Product Packaging
A retail food product is defined as all food, other than restaurant food, that
is purchased by consumers and consumed elsewhere (http://smallbusiness.chr
on.com/). Several types of retail food product packaging have been studied in
past research. McDaniel and Baker (1977) determined that the ease with which a
bag of potato chips can be opened can be directly associated with the perceived
taste of its content. Wax-coated paper bags and polyvinyl bags were used as
materials and filled with potato chips. The more difficult-to-open bags, made of
polyvinyl, were perceived to contain better quality chips.
A study done by Becker, Rompay, Schifferstein & Galetzka (2011)
discovered that packaging color and shape in terms of angular or rounded yogurt
containers had an effect on the overall product evaluation. The yogurt packaging
presented varied in shape: angular versus rounded and also in color saturation:
low versus high saturation. The results suggested packaging color and packaging
42
shape can encourage food product potency perceptions, which may impact
product evaluations.
43
CHAPTER THREE
PILOT STUDY
The pilot study or “pre-study” was the first step in developing the
experiment. This chapter reviews the value of pilot studies, the methods used,
and the goals of this particular pilot study. The findings from the pilot study and
their application in the current research are then discussed.
Definition and Value of a Pilot Study
A pilot study is a small-scale version or a trial run of a major study. The
pilot study comes after the literature review when the researcher has developed
clear research questions, procedures, and methods. The researcherʼs goal is to
research instruments, techniques and methods, to see how well they will work in
practice and if necessary, the study can then still be adapted and modified
according to the findings (www.aqr.org.uk/glossary) The pilot study for the current
research was designed as a pre-testing tool for the questionnaire and to test the
general feasibility of the study.
Methods and Materials
Objectives
This pilot study was conducted to determine if changing only the food
container could have an effect on quality attribute ratings of food products in a
44
quick-service restaurant environment. The food containers used were each
different while the food products (a burger) presented inside the containers were
identical. A custom paper-and pencil survey questionnaire was administered to
participants to rate the food and container. The survey was designed from the
literature review and used to collect participant responses.
Location
The pilot study took place during Pack Expo 2012 at the McCormick
Center in Chicago, Illinois. A 5,800 sq-ft exhibit called “The Packaging Test
Track” was designed and fabricated by graduate students from the University.
“The Packaging Test Track” had five distinct areas designed to run various types
of packaging design and consumer research. The five areas were staged as
small shops called: CU-Shop, CU-Mart, CU-Cafe, CU-Auto, and CU-Office. CU-
Cafe was used for this pilot study to test consumer perception of different types
of single-use foodservice containers packaging.
The interior of CU-Café was staged as a restaurant environment. The front
and entrance to CU-Café can be seen in Figure 8 and floor plan is available in
Figure 10. This mock restaurant environment was designed to mimic a realistic
restaurant environment where consumers would actually be making similar
quality judgments as suggested by Meiselman (2001).
45
Participants
Participants in the pilot study were attendees at Pack Expo 2012. The
study took place over three days and there were a total of 90 participants who
completed the survey, 30 participants each day. However, only 71 of the
participants had usable data including, thirty-eight male respondents (53.53%)
and thirty-three female respondents (46.48%). Participant age ranged from 18-
60+ years, with 60.56% of participants in the 21-39 age range. Education level of
participants varied, 5.63% of participants had a high school degree or equivalent
while 47.89% of participants had a bachelor degree and 25.35% had a graduate
degree.
Figure 8. CU-café the staged restaurant environment used for testing
46
All participants were randomly selected and recruited verbally, no
incentive was initially offered. There were three groups in the experiment the
group assigned to each participant was based on the day they participated.
Participants were instructed that they were volunteers and could choose to not
participate at anytime during the study. Upon completing the survey participants
were given a free koozie drink insulator. All demographic data collected for the
pilot study is available in Appendix C.
Experimental Design
In order to narrow the scope the “Burger” segment of the fast food industry
was selected for the study. Nine distinct types of containers used in the “Burger”
segment were selected as stimuli. To determine which containers to use an audit
of the packaging currently used in the fast food industry was performed and
combined with expert reports from the literature review. Restaurant packaging
included in this audit were the Top 16 Burger quick-service restaurants from QSR
Magazines 2011 Special Report: The QSR 50. The Top 16 restaurants included:
McDonaldʼs, Wendyʼs, Burger King, Sonic Drive-Inn, Jack In The Box, Dairy
Queen, Hardeeʼs, Carlʼs Jr, Whataburger, Five Guys Burgers & Fries, Steak ʻn
Shake, Culverʼs, Checkers/Rallyʼs, White Castle, In-N-Out Burger, and Krystal
(http://www.qsrmagazine.com/reports/2011-qsr-50). A detailed version of data
gathered in the retail audit is available in Appendix A. Reports from the literature
47
review including, The Foodservice Instituteʼs 2010-2012 Market Research Study
on Foodservice Packaging Products and Single-Use Foodservice Packaging: A
Tutorial, were also taken into account when selecting the container styles and
materials.
The most commonly used containers and materials according to the audit
and reports were included in the study to make results as applicable to the
current fast food industry as possible. Container styles selected were the
clamshells and wrap. Materials included were: paperboard, polystyrene (oriented
and expanded), bagasse, paper, and foil. A total of 9 containers/stimuli were
incorporated.
The containers had no added graphics or branding to prevent any bias or
brand preferences. Inside the testing environment, CU-Cafe, three tables were
set-up as observation booths. A researcher was seated behind the counter
throughout the experiment incase participants had any questions or problems.
Figure 9. Black tray used to present containers
48
The containers were each presented on a single black foodservice tray
and placed in the middle of the observation booth. The food tray can be seen in
Figure 9. Each container was identified using a blind code, which in this case was
a randomly generated three-digit number. Three of the nine containers were
tested each day, the containers tested included:
• Day 1
o 170- Expanded polystyrene (EPS) clamshell
o 236- Oriented polystyrene (OPS) clamshell
Figure 10. CU-café floor plan and table layout
49
o 430- Bagasse clamshell
• Day 2
o 852- White paperboard clamshell
o 305- Orange paperboard clamshell
o 709- Kraft paperboard clamshell
• Day 3
o 321- Foil wrap
o 654- Paper wrap
o 752- E-flute corrugated clamshell
Appendix A contains a table with more detailed information on the
containers, materials, and their properties. The orange paperboard container was
included to test the assumption that participants would be partial to a container
with added color or graphics when compared to the white paperboard. The
bagasse clamshell was included to represent many new environmentally friendly
packaging options that are increasingly available. The bagasse containers are
composed of sugar cane fiber waste left after juice extraction, and are 100%
decomposable and biodegradable. Table 2 below shows images of each
container and the corresponding day it was tested. All clamshell containers were
approximately the same size. The Paper wrap and Foil wrap were similar in
thickness, and also in size when flat.
50
Each container held a burger inside, but was presented closed on the tray
to participants. For the pilot study a McDonaldʼs Single Cheeseburger was used
inside the containers, see Figure 11. All containers held identical burgers with the
same bun, toppings, condiments, etc. All containers and burgers were replaced
with new/unused products each hour between participants to ensure the stimuli
remained visually consistent across all participants.
The order the samples were evaluated in was balanced across
respondents, so each sample was evaluated (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th) as equally as
possible using a balanced Latin square design. The study ran 480 minutes each
day (9:00am to 5:00pm); the three containers each day were rotated
approximately every 80 minutes to maintain the balance.
Table 2 Pilot study containers
51
Survey
To collect data from participants a paper-and-pencil style questionnaire
was used. The survey was created and printed from a web-based service
provided by Survey Monkey Inc. (www.surveymonkey.com). The questionnaire
was developed from the literature review and pre-tested (Presser, Couper, &
Lessler, 2004) prior to the pilot study. The outcome of this pretesting process was
the development of a self-administered paper-and-pencil questionnaire. During
the pre-testing certain language used in the questionnaire was identified to be
unclear and confusing, including the phrase “quick-service restaurant”, which was
changed to “fast-food restaurant” and the term “packaging”, which was changed
to “container”. Several respondents indicated they were unsure of how well the
term “packaging” applied to the paper and foils wraps.
Figure 11. McDonaldʼs single cheeseburger, food product used for pilot study
52
The survey contained four main sections. The full pilot study survey
questionnaire is available to view in Appendix E. The first section consisted of
questions about the visual appearance of the burger in each container.
Participants were asked to rate on a 7-point Likert-scale the extent to which they
agreed or disagreed with a set of attributes. After viewing and interacting with
each sample in its container the participant rated based on the following
attributes: appealing, neat, messy, purchasable, high quality, tasty, attractive,
fresh, and premium. Participants were also asked how much they would be
willing to pay for each burger (Miller & Hofstetter, 2011).
The second section contained general fast food preference and habits
questions used to develop a profile of the sample population and compare it to
past research in the fast food industry. The third section of the survey asked
participants if they noticed a distinct difference in the burger packaging and they
were asked to rate which container they preferred then explain why in an open-
ended format question. Participants were asked to rate on a scale of one to ten
the importance of packaging in fast food and then describe the characteristics
that are most important to them in fast food packaging. The fourth and final
section of the survey involved basic demographic questions, which help to better
understand and characterize the sample population.
53
Experimental Procedure
Participants were verbally recruited from the Pack Expo 2012 attendees.
Prior to entering CU-cafe each participant was pre-screened to ensure they had
no food allergies and were asked if they consented to being observed for the
experiment. Participants were allowed into the testing environment one at a time,
each participant took around fifteen minutes on average to complete the study.
Participant was then escorted to the study area and given a self-response survey
packet to complete. The researcher then instructed the participant to read over
the following instructions printed at the front of the survey:
• There are three observation booths set up around the store.
• Please visit each booth to complete survey pages 1-3.
• After you have completed pages 1-3 please feel free to take a seat at the
front of the room to complete the remainder of the survey.
• DO NOT consume the food.
• Feel free to open, touch, and interact with the food as you normally would.
• If you have any questions please ask the attendant behind the counter.
If the participant had no questions they began the study. The participant
then proceeded to view and answer survey questions about each sample. They
walked to all three booths to view the containers and answer the corresponding
54
survey questions. When finished the participant handed their survey to the
researcher. After completing the survey participants were verbally asked for any
feedback they had regarding the format of the questions and/or the study
procedure. This feedback was taken into account for the full scale research
study. Participants were then given a koozie or tote bag as reward for their
participation.
Statistical Analysis
A within stages mixed model design, where quantitative and qualitative
approaches are mixed within one or more of the stages of research, was used for
this study (Johnson & Onwuegbuzi, 2004). Due to the exploratory nature and
desired outcome of the pilot study much of the data collected was qualitative,
involving open-ended questions. The analysis was performed to find the
patterns/common themes, which emerged around specific items. Response
categories were designed from the most common words or phrases that
appeared in participant answers. All responses were assigned an appropriate
category, which was represented by a key words/phrases found.
The quantitative data collected including attributes ratings were analyzed
using a repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). Repeated measures
ANOVAs were conducted for each attribute to determine whether there were
statistically significant differences in the mean rating of the attribute based on the
55
container presented. The ratings were treated as the source of variance. The
data for each attribute was assessed for normal distribution using a boxplot and
the Shapiro-Wilk test. The assumption of sphericity was also assessed using
Mauchly's Test of Sphericity. If sphericity was violated the Greenhouse-Geisser
correction was applied.
All statistical analysis information and tables for pilot study data are
located in Appendix C. Due to the fact that participants each day saw only three
of the nine stimuli, each day has separate ANOVA tables for each attribute.
Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS 20.0.0 (2011, PASW Statistics,
Chicago, IL).
Results, Discussion, & Application
Results from the pilot study, are presented and discussed in this section,
and then their application to the full scale study is reviewed. Overall the 71
participants included in the analysis indicated that they considered fast food
packaging importance as 6.61 out of 10. Of the 71 participants 83.10% claimed
they ate fast food at least a few times a month. When asked about fast food
consumption habits the most common meal eaten was “Lunch” (67.61%) and the
most common location was “In Car” (40.85%).
Figure 12 presents results from all respondent data collected regarding
fast food consumption habits. The sample of participants used in the pilot study
56
had a very similar profile to current fast food market research from the literature
review.
Participants rated the food containers they viewed based on nine
attributes including: appealing, neat, messy, purchasable, high quality, tasty,
attractive, fresh, and premium. A 7-pt Likert-scale (1-Strongly Disagree to 7-
Strongly Agree) was used to rate all attributes. Appendix B contains charts
(a) (b)
(c)
Figure12. Pie charts of survey Section 2 results. Respondents were asked (a) How often do
you eat fast food? (b) Where do you normally eat fast food after you purchase it? (c) For which
meal for you most often eat fast food?
57
representing each attribute and displaying the mean ratings for each of the 9
containers in relation to the attributes, significance is shown using error bars.
After viewing and rating the samples based on the presented attributes
each participant was asked to select how much they would pay for each sample
from the price ranges presented, results are shown below in Figure13 classified
by container.
Figure 13. Chart of participant responses indicating how much they would pay for each sample (when selecting from four ranges: $0.00-$2.00, $2.00-
$4.00, $4.00-$6.00, $6.00-$8.00)
58
Each participant was asked if they noticed a distinct difference in the
containers each sample was presented in and if so, which package they
preferred. All participants included in the analysis answered yes to noticing a
distinct difference in containers. These results are presented below in Figure 14.
Since the sample size on Day 2 was not equal to Day 1 & Day 3 the preference
data has been weighted accordingly. Materials that were tested on the same day
are located adjacent to each other in groups of three on the chart in Figure 14.
Figure 14. Pie chart of Section 3 survey results. Respondents were asked, which package/container did you prefer? (Day 1: Clear (OPS), Bagasse, EPS; Day 2: White Paperboard, Orange Paperboard, Kraft Paperboard; Day 3: Foil Wrap, Paper Wrap, E-flute)
59
Participants were asked two open-ended questions in the survey. The
questions are listed in Table 3 along with the most common response categories.
When responding to the open-ended questions in the survey more than half of
the participants mentioned the importance of environmentally friendly packaging
that protects the product, and presents the product in an attractive way. The main
issues raised with current fast food packaging included grease leaking or
toppings.
The open-ended question data collected from participants was used in
development of the survey for the full scale study. The following comment from a
respondent illustrates these themes:
Open-Ended Question Response Categories
Please explain why you preferred this package.
Please briefly describe characteristics that are important to you in fast
food packaging.
Eco Friendly/ Recyclable Protects productPresentation Environmentally FriendlyClean/Neat Does not leakKeeps food warm Easy to eat fromColor Keeps food warmProtection PresentationHigh Qualty/ Premium Natural
Table 3 Open-ended survey questions from pilot study
60
“I look for environmentally friendly packaging, it must support and contain
food. The food should be kept warm and it should be easy to clean up. I
like the sturdiness of boxes, they seem to protect the food. I try to avoid
Styrofoam because it is not microwave-friendly and it takes the longest to
decompose in waste facilities.”
Discussion
The results from the pilot study suggested several interesting concepts,
which were then taken into account when designing the full scale study. In the
quantitative analysis of the attributes the paper and foil wraps, which are
commonly used and inexpensive compared to other alternatives, were rated
significantly lower than the E-flute clamshell for all attributes. While significance
between the paper and foil wraps and materials tested on day 1 and 2 cannot be
directly determined, due to separate samples, the mean ratings were
suggestively lower than other materials. Though the foil wrap was selected
slightly more than the paper wrap the two materials received nearly identical
ratings for each attribute, suggesting consumers perceive the wraps as
comparable. The foil and paper wrap ratings for “messy” were significantly higher
than all other materials and for “neat” they were significantly lower, indicating that
consumers do not perceive these packages as an alternative
61
Environmentally friendly packaging characteristics were mentioned as very
important for open-ended response questions. However, the environmentally
friendly packaging materials presented, including the paperboard and bagasse
clamshells, received low mean ratings based on the extrinsic attributes appeal,
high quality, attractive, and premium. This suggests that while consumers value
packaging which is considered environmentally friendly, they do not perceive it to
be aesthetically pleasing.
The three containers tested on day 2, the white paperboard clamshell,
orange paperboard clamshell, and Kraft paperboard clamshell, had similar mean
ratings on many attributes. Several respondents indicated that the orange
paperboard clamshell was more attractive and a higher quality because of the
added color. This information was taken into account in the full scale study, as no
color or graphics were present on the stimuli.
The E-flute container had the highest overall mean ratings for nearly all
attributes presented, however the EPS container was rated similarly in several
categories and higher based on the attribute “tasty”. Many respondents indicated
they preferred these materials due to their insulation and containment properties.
This suggests that the consumer perception of food quality in QSRs could be
influenced based on how well a package retains heat and keeps the product
inside protected.
62
Application to Full Scale Study
Several key findings presented in the pilot study results were applied to
the full scale study. The characteristics participants indicated were most
important in fast food packaging were included and categorized as functionality
or credence attributes for the full scale study. The materials used were cut to four
from the nine used in the pilot which helped narrow the scope of the study and
find more meaningful results. Suggestions regarding the study techniques and
survey instrument were collected verbally from participants and applied to the full
scale study as well. Overall, the pilot study helped refine proper attributes and
procedures for the full scale study.
Limitations
The major limitation of this study involved the presentation of stimuli in that
each participant was only able to see three of the nine total stimuli. This limitation
was present because of time and space constraints in the testing environment.
Creating these three groups of stimuli, one for each day, limited the statistical
analysis between all of the stimuli. However, the due to the fact that all three
sample groups came from the same population certain conclusions can be drawn
from the data.
Due to restrictions at testing location participants were not allowed to
actually consume any food products. This restricted the range of the survey, as
63
we were not able to collect any type of sensory responses from participants. The
area of the exhibit where the testing environment was located had a lot of
background noise and inconsistent lighting conditions, which could have been a
factor in participant ratings of the containers. In general a more controlled
environment may have been beneficial, for the pilot study.
64
CHAPTER FOUR
METHODS AND MATERIALS
Objectives
The purpose of this research is to determine if consumer quality
perception of food products in quick-service restaurants varies depending on the
material properties of the packaging in which the food product is presented.
Location
The entire study took place in the Wendyʼs restaurant located on Clemson
University campus. The employees and management of the Wendyʼs restaurant
were briefed regarding the testing procedure and assisted the researchers where
possible. An isolated area in the back of the store was chosen as the testing
environment. The area was blocked off and supervised by researchers to prevent
any distractions for participants. Two sensory booths were setup around pre-
existing tables in the area. The booth contained several items including: a laptop
computer (to administer the survey), a bottle of water, a note pad and pen,
napkins, cutlery, and condiments. Lighting in and around each booth was
consistent, and the background noise level was fairly stable throughout the
testing
This realistic environment is ideal when testing packaging and also food
products. According to Meyers & Lubliner (1998) realistic test markets are the
65
“most ideal method of confirming the effectiveness of a new package design
program...”. Sensory research involving food acceptance according to Meiselman
(1992, 1993, 1994, 2001) should take place where the food is consumed, since it
is in that environment that consumers form their judgment of quality.
Participants
Participants in the full scale study were students and employees of
Clemson University. The study took place over two days and there were a total of
110 participants who completed the survey. The participants consisted of
including, 72 male respondents (65.50%) and 37 female respondents (34.55%)
and 1 other respondent (0.91%). Participant ages ranged from 18-59 years, with
93.9% in the 18-29 age range. Education level of participants varied, 12.73% of
participants had a high school degree or equivalent, 66.36% of participants had
some college but no degree and 14.55% had a bachelor degree.
Participants rated the importance of packaging fast food as a 6.73 on
average, which was slightly higher than the pilot study average. Participants were
also asked an open-ended question regarding packaging characteristics in fast
food. The responses were similar to those of the pilot study. The most common
answer categories are presented in Table 4.
All participants were randomly selected and recruited verbally, no
incentive was initially offered. There were two conditions in the experiment the
66
condition assigned to each participant was based on the day they participated.
Participants were instructed that they were volunteers and could choose to not
participate at anytime during the study. All demographic data collected for the full
scale study is available in Appendix D.
In addition to the basic demographic data collected, participants were
asked a series of fast food preferences and habits questions in Section 1 of the
survey. This data was compared to the current research regarding the fast food
target market in order to confirm the sample population. Figure 15 contains pie
charts of the results from Section 1 of the questionnaire.
Open-Ended Question Response Categories
Please briefly describe characteristics that are important to you in fast food
packaging.
Easy to OpenProtects ProductContains GreaseKeeps Product WarmEnvironmentally FriendlyPortable
Table 4 Open-ended survey question from full scale study
67
Figure 15. Pie charts of survey Section 2 results. Respondents were asked (a) How often do you eat fast food? (b) Where do you normally eat fast food after you purchase it? (c)
How much do you spend on average? (d) For which meal for you most often eat fast food? (e) Do you normally walk inside or used a drive-
thru to purchase fast food?
(a) (d)
(b)
(c)
(e)
68
Experimental Design
Participants sampled four food products each and rated each products
packaging according to a set list of attributes. The design used for this
experiment was a monadic sequential scheme meaning each respondent was be
asked to evaluate multiple or all stimuli in a rotated fashion, one after the other.
Respondents were evenly distributed across all stimuli as a starting point, so they
had an identical chance of seeing each of the stimuli first (http://www.sensory
society.org/).
Each participant was required to complete the computerized self-
administered survey in order to receive their participation incentive, a coupon for
a free food product and their remaining samples. The order in which each
participant saw each survey section stayed consistent, however the questions
within each section were randomized using the randomization tool in Survey
Monkey.
Results from the literature review, pilot study, and retail audit were used to
determine the four distinct types of containers tested in this study. The F-flute
container and Paper wrap were included because they had interesting results
from the pilot study and are commonly used in the QSR industry. The paperboard
clamshell, which was determined to be the industry standard container in the
literature review and retail audit was included, as well as the EPS clamshell. The
containers had no added graphics or branding to prevent any bias as was
69
observed in the pilot study when a solid color clamshell was tested. All materials
were white in color as well due to the observed preference towards colorful
containers suggested in the pilot study. Images of containers used as stimuli can
be seen in Figure 16.
The containers used were almost identical in shape, except for the paper
wrap, which was not a clamshell structure. All containers used were food-safe
and had similar grease resistance properties. The clamshell structures all had
approximately the same size, between 3 to 3.375 inches in height, between 4.5
to 5 inches width, and between 4.5 to 5 inches in length. The weight of all three
clamshells was also approximately the same. Each container/ sample was
identified using randomly generated three-digit number, known as a blind code.
Figure 16. Four containers selected for full scale study
70
Appendix A contains more detailed information regarding the containers used
and their materials.
All four of the containers were tested containing two different food
products, a burger and chicken sandwich. In the Burger condition participants
received containers containing a Single 1/4 lb. Hamburger. In the Chicken
condition participants received containers containing a Homestyle Chicken
Sandwich. The Single 1/4 lb. Hamburger and Homestyle Chicken Sandwich both
weigh approximately 250 grams and are approximately 4” x 4” x 2.75” in size.
(http://www.wendys.com/). In both conditions, participants filled out an identical
computer administered questionnaire with items that reflected what they
experienced while interacting with or while eating from the container. The food
products used as stimuli can be seen in Figure 17. The only topping included on
the food products were lettuce and tomato, this was held consist across both
conditions.
Figure 17. The food product used for testing Wendyʼs Homestyle Chicken
Sandwich and Single 1/4 lb. Hamburger
71
The average lag time between the food product cooking, being put into the
container, and presented to the participant was around 30 seconds. All food
products were cooked or “dropped” separately to ensure freshness and to
maintain a constant serving temperature. The researcher presented to food to
participants directly in an isolated testing area so they had no interaction with
restaurant employees, this was an attempt to control for the service factor in
restaurant environments.
Survey
The instrument used to collect data from participants was a survey
questionnaire administered on a laptop computer at each booth. The survey was
created and administered using a web-based service provided by Survey Monkey
Inc. (www.surveymonkey.com). The survey was developed from the literature
review, pre-tested in the pilot study, and adjusted according to the findings. The
survey was organized into 7 major sections, which included:
1. Fast food preferences and habits
2. Sensory acceptance evaluation
3. Willingness to pay/re-purchase intent
4. Functionality attributes
5. Perceived attributes
72
6. Fast food packaging
7. Demographic profile
The complete survey used for the full scale study is available to view in
Appendix E. The first section of the survey consisted of general fast food
preference and habits questions regarding consumption time, location, and
frequency. Section 2 of the survey contained sensory questions regarding flavor,
texture, and overall liking of the product, which are experience attributes. The
goal was to finding overall preference or liking for a product. Acceptance testing
was used to determine how much each sample was liked based on a 7-point
hedonic scale for a set of attributes including: overall liking, flavor, and texture
(where 7=like extremely and 1=dislike extremely). The FACT (food action rating
scale) developed by Schutz (1965) was used to measure overall acceptance.
The FACT scale is a highly recommended tool used by the food scientists to
estimate overall food acceptance.
The acceptance testing and FACT were appropriate for this because they
do not require trained panelists. Section 3 of the survey measured the
participants willingness to pay by asking which sample would you choose to
purchase if these were the only options available (A “none” choice option was
included). Participants were also asked to rank the samples by how willing they
would be to repurchase them (1-most willing to 4-least willing). Section 4 of the
73
survey asked about the functionality attributes of the container for each sample.
Participants were asked to rate on a 7-point Likert scale the extent to which they
agreed or disagreed with each of the following descriptions in regard to the
functionality of each container: easy to carry, contains product, keeps product
warm, easy to open, and protects product.
Section 5 of the survey inquired about the perceived attributes of the
container for each sample, which are considered credence qualities due to their
abstract nature. Participants were asked to rate on a 7-point Likert scale the
extent to which they agreed or disagreed with each of the following attributes in
regard to the physical qualities of each container: natural, environmentally
friendly, modern, neat, and premium. Section 6 asked questions about the
importance of packaging in fast food and presented an open-ended question
about what characteristics are most important for the packaging. Section 7 was
the final section of the survey and included basic demographic questions.
Experimental Procedure
All research was conducted in accordance with procedures approved by
IRB2013-062: Fast Food Packaging Evaluation. Prior to beginning the
experiment participants were screened to ensure no food allergies existed. Each
participant was reminded that his or her participation was voluntary. Participants
74
sign in and were given a participant number. They were then escorted to an open
booth and given basic instructions.
The sensory booth can be seen in Figure 18, the booth contained a laptop
computer to complete the survey on, a bottle of water, several napkins, hand
wipes, silverware, and a container of condiments. The researcher then instructed
each participant to read the instructions on the screen and proceed if they had no
questions. After finishing section 1 the survey informed participants to alert the
researcher to bring the first randomly assigned sample in their condition.
Presentation of samples was balanced between participants using a Williams
design latin square to account for first order carryover effects (Williams, 1949).
The latin square table design for experiment can be seen in Appendix A.
Participants were presented with one sample container at a time.
Containers held either a Single ¼ lb. Hamburger or a Homestyle Chicken
Sandwich, presented in Figure 17. For each sample participants filled out an
identical set of survey questions. After completing the set of survey questions for
each sample, they received the next sample, but the previous sample remained
on the table. The survey instructions guided participants to Section 3 after all four
samples had been evaluated and the corresponding survey questions completed.
At this point in the survey the ongoing interaction between the participant and
researcher ceased, unless participant had a question regarding the survey.
75
Section 3 instructed participants to consider all four containers and to ranking the
sample containers based willingness to buy.
Section 4 and section 5 asked questions regarding the containers/
packaging directly rather than the sample. Functional qualities as well as
perceived physical qualities of each container were ranked. Section 6 asked
participants about the importance of packaging for fast food and an open-ended
which requested participants name the most important characteristic in fast food
packaging. The final section, Section 7, of the survey asked basic demographic
Figure 18. Sensory booth set-up inside the testing environment
76
questions. The survey then instructed participants to alert researcher they had
completed the study. The researcher then gave the participant their coupon for a
free food item and thanked them for their participation. The booth area was then
cleared of any trash, cleaned, and set up for the next participant. If requested,
after collecting their response data, each participant was fully debriefed as to the
nature and purpose of the experiment.
Statistical Analysis
In order to determine whether the material of the containers exerted a
significant effect on the perceived quality attributes measured, a repeated
measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on each set of data
considering the attributes as dependent variables. The container material
(Paperboard, E-flute, EPS, Paper wrap) was considered a fixed source of
variation, the independent variable.
Prior to running the repeated measures ANOVA data was assessed by a
boxplot and Shapiro-Wilk test to make sure there were no outliers and that the
data was normally distributed for each group. The assumption of sphericity was
also evaluated prior to running the ANOVA, using Mauchly's Test of Sphericity. If
the assumption of sphericity was violated then a Greenhouse-Geisser correction
was applied. If any significance was found a post-hoc analysis with a Bonferroni
adjustment was applied to determine where the group differences lie with paired
77
comparisons were completed using t-tests All repeated measures ANOVA tables
as well as the results from the pre and post tests are available in Appendix D.
78
CHAPTER FIVE
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The goal of this research was to determine if consumer quality perception
of food products in quick-service restaurants varies depending on the material
properties of the packaging in which the food product is presented. Quality
perception in this study is assessed using 14 predetermined attributes, which
were divided into three categories including: sensory, functionality, and credence.
Participants were also asked to indicate their preference and rank the containers
depending on how willing they would be to repurchase the sample. Means ratings
on bar charts with different letters are significantly different (Bonferonni, p<.05).
Sensory Attributes
ContainerPaper wrapEPSF-flutePaperboard
5.845.935.785.755.295.355.315.29M
ean
Rat
ing
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
ChickenBurger
Condition
Error Bars: +/- 1 SE
Figure 19. Mean ratings for sensory attribute Flavor
a a
a a a
a a
a
79
The mean ratings based on the sensory attribute “Flavor” can be seen in
Figure 19 (Means with different letters are significantly different [Bonferonni.
p<.05]) A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to determine whether there
were statistically significant differences in the mean ratings based on attribute
“Flavor”, with the four material “Flavor” ratings as a source of variance and also
the material “Flavor” ratings within conditions (material*condition) as a source of
variance. There were no outliers and the data was normally distributed for each
group, as assessed by boxplot and Shapiro-Wilk test (p < .05), respectively. The
assumption of sphericity was not violated, as assessed by Mauchly's Test of
Sphericity, χ2(2) 9.857, p = .079. The material interaction did not lead to any
statistically significant changes in “Flavor” ratings for the food product, F(3,324) =
.322, p = .810. The material*condition interaction did not lead to any statistically
significant changes in “Flavor” ratings for the food product, F(3,324) = .114, p =
.952. While no significance was observed between containers based on the
“Flavor” attribute the results show an interesting trend in respect to the
conditions. The “Burger” condition over all materials had an average mean rating
range of 5.29-5.35 and the “Chicken” condition had a slightly higher average
mean rating range of 5.75-5.93. This suggests a high level of “Flavor”
consistency between the food products in each respective condition, with the
“Chicken” condition product having slightly higher “Flavor” ratings than the
“Burger”.
80
The mean ratings based on the sensory attribute “Texture” can be seen in
Figure 20. A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to determine whether
there were statistically significant differences in the mean ratings based on
attribute “Texture”, with the four material “Texture” ratings as a source of variance
and also the material “Texture” ratings within conditions (material*condition) as a
source of variance. There were no outliers and the data was normally distributed
for each group, as assessed by boxplot and Shapiro-Wilk test (p < .05),
respectively. The assumption of sphericity was violated, as assessed by
Mauchly's Test of Sphericity, χ2(2) 14.020, p = .015. Therefore, a Greenhouse-
Geisser correction was applied (ε = 0.928). The material interaction did not lead
to any statistically significant changes in texture ratings for the food product,
F(2.784,300.667) = 1.782, p = .155. The material*condition interaction did not
ContainerPaper wrapEPSF-flutePaperboard
Mea
n R
atin
g
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
5.585.755.785.95
5.155.385.315.16
ChickenBurger
Condition
Error Bars: +/- 1 SE
Figure 20. Mean ratings for sensory attribute Texture
a
a a
a a
a a
a
81
lead to any statistically significant changes in texture ratings for the food product,
F(2.784,300.667) = .954, p = .410.
While no significance was observed between containers based on the
“Texture” attribute the results show a similar trend as the “Flavor” attribute with
respect to the conditions. The “Burger” condition over all materials had an
average mean rating range of 5.15-5.38 and the “Chicken” condition had a
slightly higher average mean rating range of 5.58-5.95. This suggests a high
level of “Texture” consistency between the food products in each respective
condition, with the “Chicken” condition product having slightly higher “Texture”
ratings than the “Burger”.
Container
Paper wrapEPSF-flutePaperboard
Mea
n R
atin
g
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
5.675.895.805.655.115.385.315.24
ChickenBurger
Condition
Error Bars: +/- 1 SE
Figure 21. Mean ratings for sensory attribute Overall Liking
a a
a a
a a
a a
82
The mean ratings based on the sensory attribute “Overall Liking” can be
seen in Figure 21(Means with different letters are significantly different
(Bonferonni, p<.05). A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to determine
whether there were statistically significant differences in the mean ratings based
on attribute “Overall Liking”, with the four material “Overall Liking” ratings as a
source of variance and also the material “Overall Liking” ratings within conditions
(material*condition) as a source of variance. There were no outliers and the data
was normally distributed for each group, as assessed by boxplot and Shapiro-
Wilk test (p < .05), respectively. The assumption of sphericity was violated, as
assessed by Mauchly's Test of Sphericity, χ2(2) 12.885, p = .024. Therefore, a
Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied (ε = 0.966). The material interaction
did not lead to any statistically significant changes in “Overall Liking” ratings for
the food product, F(2.791,301.461) = 1.486, p = .221. The material*condition
interaction did not lead to any statistically significant changes in overall ratings for
the food product, F(2.791,301.461) = .111, p = .945.
While no significance was observed between containers based on the
“Overall Liking” attribute the results show a similar trend as the “Flavor” and
“Texture” attributes with respect to the conditions. The “Burger” condition over all
materials had an average mean rating range of 5.11-5.38 and the “Chicken”
condition had a slightly higher average mean rating range of 5.65-5.89. This
suggests a high level of “Overall Liking” consistency between the food products
83
in each respective condition, with the “Chicken” condition product having slightly
higher “Overall Liking” ratings than the “Burger”.
The mean ratings based on the sensory attribute “Acceptance” can be
seen in Figure 22. It should be noted that the “Acceptance” attribute was not
evaluated using a standard Likert scale, the Food Action Rating Scale (FACT)
was used (Schutz, 1965). A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to
determine whether there were statistically significant differences in the mean
ratings based on attribute “Acceptance” with the four material “Acceptance”
ratings as a source of variance and also the material “Acceptance” ratings within
conditions (material*condition) as a source of variance. There were no outliers
and the data was normally distributed for each group, as assessed by boxplot
ContainerPaper wrapEPSF-flutePaperboard
Mea
n R
atin
g7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
5.786.045.855.875.31
5.655.715.51
ChickenBurger
Condition
Error Bars: +/- 1 SE
Figure 22. Mean ratings for sensory attribute Acceptance
a a a a a
a a a
84
and Shapiro-Wilk test (p < .05), respectively. The assumption of sphericity was
not violated, as assessed by Mauchly's Test of Sphericity, χ2(2) 10.350, p = .066.
The material interaction did not lead to any statistically significant changes in
“Acceptance” ratings for the food product, F(3, 324) = 1.638, p = .181. The
material*condition interaction did not lead to any statistically significant changes
in “Acceptance” ratings for the food product, F(3, 324) = .466, p = .707.
While no significance was observed between containers based on the
“Acceptance” attribute the results show a similar trend as the “Flavor”, “Texture”,
and “Overall Liking” attributes with respect to the conditions. The “Burger”
condition over all materials had an average mean rating range of 5.31-5.71 and
the “Chicken” condition had a slightly higher average mean rating range of 5.38-
6.04. This suggests a high level of “Acceptance” consistency between the food
products in each respective condition, with the “Chicken” condition product
having slightly higher “Acceptance” ratings than the “Burger”.
Functionality Attributes
The mean ratings based on the functionality attribute “Protects Product”
can be seen in Figure 23. A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to
determine whether there were statistically significant differences in the mean
ratings based on attribute “Protects Product” with the four material “Protects
Product” ratings as a source of variance and also the material “Protects
85
Product” ratings within conditions (material*condition) as a source of variance.
There were no outliers and the data was normally distributed for each group, as
assessed by boxplot and Shapiro-Wilk test (p < .05), respectively. The
assumption of sphericity was violated, as assessed by Mauchly's Test of
Sphericity, χ2(2) 49.523, p < .05. Therefore, a Greenhouse-Geisser correction
was applied (ε = 0.754). The material interaction elicited statistically significant
changes in “Protects Product” ratings for the samples, F(2.263, 244.397) =
147.946, p < .05. The material*condition interaction did not lead to any
statistically significant changes in “Protects Product” for the samples, F(2.263,
244.397) = 1.152, p = .322. Post-hoc analysis with a Bonferroni adjustment
revealed that “Protects Product” rating was statistically significantly different
between the Paperboard and Paper Wrap (M = 2.482, 95% CI [1.946 to 3.018], p
Figure 23. Mean ratings for functionality attribute “Protects Product”
ContainerPaper wrapEPSF-flutePaperboard
Mea
n R
atin
g
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
3.27
6.296.275.91
3.31
5.826.29
5.64
ChickenBurger
Condition
Error Bars: +/- 1 SE
b b
a a
a a a a
86
< .05), F-flute and Paper Wrap (M = 2.991, 95% CI [2.493 to 3.488], p < .05),
EPS and Paper Wrap (M = 2.764, 95% CI [2.261 to 3.266], p < .05), but not
between the Paperboard and EPS (M = .282, 95% CI [.637 to .073], p =.211),
Paperboard and F-flute (M = 0.509, 95% CI [.861 to .158], p = .001) or the F-flute
and EPS (M = .277, 95% CI [.077 to .532], p =.285).
The significance observed between containers based on the “Protects
Product” attribute show that the Paper Wrap is perceived by consumers to
protect the product it contains significantly less than all other containers tested.
The Paperboard, F-flute, and EPS containers all have high mean ratings of
“Protects Product” with the “F-flute Burger” and “EPS Chicken” having the highest
mean rating of 6.29. These results suggest that when companies are looking for
fast food packaging to protect the food product from a consumer perspective a
Paper wrap should avoided and other alternatives such as the Paperboard, F-
flute, and EPS containers should be researched further.
The mean ratings based on the functionality attribute “Easy to Open” can
be seen in Figure 24. A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to determine
whether there were statistically significant differences in the mean ratings based
on attribute “Easy to Open” with the four material “Easy to Open” ratings as a
source of variance and also the material “Easy to Open” ratings within conditions
(material*condition) as a source of variance. There were no outliers and the data
was normally distributed for each group, as assessed by boxplot and Shapiro-
87
Wilk test (p < .05), respectively. The assumption of sphericity was violated, as
assessed by Mauchly's Test of Sphericity, χ2(2) 38.277, p < .05. Therefore, a
Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied (ε = 0.810). The material interaction
elicited statistically significant changes in “Easy to Open” ratings for the samples,
F(2.431, 262.505) = 147.946, p < .05. The material*condition interaction did not
lead to any statistically significant changes in “Easy to Open” for the samples,
F(2.431,262.505) = .401, p =.710. Post-hoc analysis with a Bonferroni
adjustment revealed that “Easy to Open” rating was statistically significantly
different between Paperboard and F-flute (M = 1.218, 95% CI [.686 to .1750], p <
.05), Paperboard and EPS (M = 1.945, 95% CI [1.337 to 2.554], p < .05)
Paperboard and Paper wrap (M = 1.982, 95% CI [1.355 to 2.609], p < .05), F-
flute and EPS (M = .727, 95% CI [.258 to 1.197], p < .05), F-flute and Paper wrap
ContainerPaper wrapEPSF-flutePaperboard
Mea
n R
atin
g
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
6.226.18
5.27
4.22
5.895.855.31
3.93
ChickenBurger
Condition
Error Bars: +/- 1 SE
Figure 24. Mean ratings for functionality attribute “Easy to Open”
a a a a b b
c c
88
(M = .764, 95% CI [.244 to 1.283], p <.05), but not between the Paper Wrap and
EPS (M = .036, 95% CI [.347 to .420], p =1).
The significance observed between containers based on the “Easy to
Open” attribute show that the Paperboard container was perceived by
participants to be significantly more difficult to open than all other containers
tested. The Paper wrap and EPS containers had the highest mean ratings for the
“Easy to Open” attribute, there was not significant difference between them but
they were rated significantly easier to open than the F-flute container. These
results suggest that when companies are looking for fast food packaging that is
considered easy to open from a consumer perspective the Paper wrap and EPS
containers should be researched further
The mean ratings based on the functionality attribute “Contains Product”
ContainerPaper wrapEPSF-flutePaperboard
Mea
n R
atin
g
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
5.00
6.366.536.07
4.89
6.116.29
5.55
ChickenBurger
Condition
Error Bars: +/- 1 SE
Figure 25. Mean ratings for functionality attribute “Contains Product”
b b
a a a a c c
89
can be seen in Figure 25. A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to
determine whether there were statistically significant differences in the mean
ratings based on attribute “Contains Product” with the four material “Contains
Product” ratings as a source of variance and also the material “Contains Product”
ratings within conditions (material*condition) as a source of variance. There were
no outliers and the data was normally distributed for each group, as assessed by
boxplot and Shapiro-Wilk test (p < .05), respectively. The assumption of
sphericity was violated, as assessed by Mauchly's Test of Sphericity, χ2(2)
75.857, p < .05. Therefore, a Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied (ε =
0.713). The material interaction elicited statistically significant changes in
“Contains Product” ratings for the samples, F(2.139, 231.053) = 42.303, p < .05.
The material*condition interaction did not lead to any statistically significant
changes in “Contains Product” for the samples, F(2.139, 231.053) = .766, p
=.474. Post-hoc analysis with a Bonferroni adjustment revealed that “Contains
Product” rating was statistically significantly different between Paperboard and F-
flute (M = .600, 95% CI [.282 to .918], p < .05), Paperboard and EPS (M = .427,
95% CI [.088 to .766], p < .05) Paperboard and Paper Wrap (M = .864, 95% CI
[.367 to 1.361], p < .05), F-flute and Paper wrap (M = 1.464, 95% CI 1.036 to
1.891], p < .05), EPS and Paper wrap (M = 1.291, 95% CI [.864 to 1.718], p
<.05), but not between the F-Flute and EPS (M = .173, 95% CI [-.045 to .390], p
=.210).
90
The significance observed between containers based on the “Contains
Product” attribute show that the F-flute and EPS containers were perceived by
participants to be significantly better than the Paperboard or Paper wrap at
containing the food product. The Paper wrap had the lowest mean ratings for the
“Contains Product” attribute, significantly lower than all other materials tested.
These results suggest that when companies are looking for fast food packaging
that contains the product well from a consumer perspective they should look into
an F-flute or EPS container but avoid a paper wrap.
The mean ratings based on the functionality attribute “Keeps Product
Warm” can be seen in Figure 26. A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted
to determine whether there were statistically significant differences in the mean
ratings based on attribute “Keeps Product Warm” with the four material “Keeps
ContainerPaper wrapEPSF-flutePaperboard
Mea
n R
atin
g
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
3.62
6.135.91
5.20
3.89
5.855.73
4.93
ChickenBurger
Condition
Error Bars: +/- 1 SE
Figure 26. Mean ratings for functionality attribute “Keeps Product Warm”
a a a a
b b
c c
91
Product Warm” ratings as a source of variance and also the material “Keeps
Product Warm” ratings within conditions (material*condition) as a source of
variance. There were no outliers and the data was normally distributed for each
group, as assessed by boxplot and Shapiro-Wilk test (p < .05), respectively. The
assumption of sphericity was violated, as assessed by Mauchly's Test of
Sphericity, χ2(2) 75.857, p < .05. Therefore, a Greenhouse-Geisser correction
was applied (ε = 0.833). The material interaction elicited statistically significant
changes in “Keeps Product Warm” ratings for the samples, F(2.499, 269.857) =
78.693, p < .05. The material*condition interaction did not lead to any statistically
significant changes in “keeps product warm” for the samples, F(2.499, 269.857) =
1.295, p =.277. Post-hoc analysis with a Bonferroni adjustment revealed that
“Keeps Product Warm” rating was statistically significantly different between
Paperboard and F-flute (M = .755, 95% CI [.397 to 1.112], p < .05), Paperboard
and EPS (M = .927, 95% CI [.509 to 1.345], p < .05) Paperboard and Paper Wrap
(M = 1.309, 95% CI [.809 to 1.809], p < .05), F-flute and Paper (M = 2.064, 95%
CI [1.577 to 2.550], p < .05), EPS and Paper wrap (M = 2.236,, 95% CI [1.737 to
2.735], p <.05), but not between the F-Flute and EPS (M = .173, 95% CI [.148 to
.494], p =.906).
The significance observed between containers based on the “Keeps
Product Warm” attribute show that the F-flute and EPS containers were
perceived by participants to be significantly better than the Paperboard or Paper
92
wrap at insulating and keeping the food product warm. The Paper wrap had the
lowest mean ratings for the “Keeps Product Warm” attribute, significantly lower
than all other materials tested. These results suggest that when companies are
looking for fast food packaging which that keeps the food product warm from a
consumer perspective they should look into an F-flute or EPS container but avoid
a paper wrap container.
The mean ratings based on the functionality attribute “Easy to Carry” can
be seen in Figure 27. A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to determine
whether there were statistically significant differences in the mean ratings based
on attribute “Easy to Carry” with the four material “Easy to Carry” ratings as a
source of variance and also the material “Easy to Carry” ratings within conditions
(material*condition) as a source of variance. There were no outliers and the data
ContainerPaper wrapEPSF-flutePaperboard
Mea
n R
atin
g
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
5.36
6.186.18
5.165.475.475.58
4.62
ChickenBurger
Condition
Error Bars: +/- 1 SE
Figure 27. Mean ratings for functionality attribute “Easy to Carry”
a a a
a a
a b
b
93
was normally distributed for each group, as assessed by boxplot and Shapiro-
Wilk test (p < .05), respectively. The assumption of sphericity was violated, as
assessed by Mauchly's Test of Sphericity, χ2(2) 25.165, p < .05. Therefore, a
Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied (ε = 0.859). The material interaction
elicited statistically significant changes in “Easy to Carry” ratings for the samples,
F(2.577, 278.313) = 14.436, p < .05. The material*condition interaction did not
lead to any statistically significant changes in “Easy to Carry” for the samples,
F(2.577, 278.313) = 2.350, p =.082. Post-hoc analysis with a Bonferroni
adjustment revealed that “easy to carry” rating was statistically significantly
different between the Paperboard and F-flute materials (M = .991, 95% CI [.591
to 1.391], p < .05), Paperboard and EPS materials (M = .936, 95% CI [.518 to
1.355], p < .05), but not between the, F-Flute and EPS (M = .055, 95% CI [-.306
to .415], p =1), F-Flute and Paper wrap (M = .464, 95% CI [-.044 to .971],
p=.094), EPS and Paper wrap (M = .409, 95% CI [-.080 to .899], p =.160) .
The significance observed between containers based on the “Easy to
Carry” attribute show that the F-flute and EPS containers were perceived by
participants to be significantly better than the Paperboard container when it
comes to portability. The Paperboard container had the lowest mean ratings for
the “Easy to Carry” attribute, but was not rated significantly lower than the paper
wrap. These results suggest that when companies are looking for fast food
packaging that is considered portable and easy to carry from a consumer
94
perspective they should look into an F-flute or EPS container but avoid a
Paperboard container.
Credence Attributes
The mean ratings based on the credence attribute “Natural” can be seen
in Figure 28. A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to determine whether
there were statistically significant differences in the mean ratings based on
attribute “Natural” with the four material “Natural” ratings as a source of variance
and also the material “Natural” ratings within conditions (material*condition) as a
source of variance. There were no outliers and the data was normally distributed
for each group, as assessed by boxplot and Shapiro-Wilk test (p < .05),
ContainerPaper wrapEPSF-flutePaperboard
Mea
n R
atin
g
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
4.55
3.18
5.24
4.384.02
2.49
5.51
4.55
ChickenBurger
Condition
Error Bars: +/- 1 SE
Figure 28. Mean ratings for credence attribute Natural
a a a a
b b
c c
95
respectively. The assumption of sphericity was violated, as assessed by
Mauchly's Test of Sphericity, χ2(2) 28.441, p < .05. Therefore, a Greenhouse-
Geisser correction was applied (ε = 0.861). The material interaction elicited
statistically significant changes in “Natural” ratings for the samples, F(2.582,
278.830) = 56.482, p < .05. The material*condition interaction did not lead to any
statistically significant changes in “natural” for the samples, F(2.582, 278.830) =
2.494, p =.062. Post-hoc analysis with a Bonferroni adjustment revealed that
“Natural” rating was statistically significantly different between the Paperboard
and F-flute (M = .909, 95% CI [.525 to 1.293], p < .05), Paperboard and EPS (M
= .1.527, 95% CI [1.001 to 2.054], p < .05), F-flute and EPS (M = 2.436, 95% CI
[1.832 to 3.041], p < .05), F-flute and Paper wrap (M = 1.091, 95% CI [.580 to
1.602], p < .05), EPS and Paper wrap (M = 1.345, 95% CI [.812 to 1.879], p <
.05), but not between the Paperboard and Paper wrap (M = .182, 95% CI [-2.82
to .645], p=1). T
The significance observed between containers based on the “Natural”
attribute show that the F-flute container was perceived by participants to be
significantly more natural that all other containers. The EPS container had the
lowest mean ratings for the “Natural” attribute, and was rated significantly less
natural than all other containers presented, meaning participants perceived it to
be the least natural container. The Paper wrap and Paperboard containers had
similar mean “Natural” ratings and were not significantly different. These results
96
suggest that when companies are looking for fast food packaging considered
natural from a consumer perspective they should look into an F-flute but avoid
EPS containers.
The mean ratings based on the credence attribute “Environmentally
Friendly” can be seen in Figure 29. A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted
to determine whether there were statistically significant differences in the mean
ratings based on attribute “Environmentally Friendly” with the four material
“Environmentally Friendly” ratings as a source of variance and also the material
“Environmentally Friendly” ratings within conditions (material*condition) as a
source of variance. There were no outliers and the data was normally distributed
for each group, as assessed by boxplot and Shapiro-Wilk test (p < .05),
ContainerPaper wrapEPSF-flutePaperboard
Mea
n R
atin
g
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
4.56
2.55
5.094.56
4.18
2.44
5.20
4.47
ChickenBurger
Condition
Error Bars: +/- 1 SE
Figure 29. Mean ratings for credence attribute Environmentally Friendly
a a
a a b b
c c
97
respectively. The assumption of sphericity was violated, as assessed by
Mauchly's Test of Sphericity, χ2(2) 24.434, p < .05. Therefore, a Greenhouse-
Geisser correction was applied (ε = 0.871). The material interaction elicited
statistically significant changes in “Environmentally Friendly” ratings for the
samples, F(2.613, 282.174) = 70.494, p < .05. The material*condition interaction
did not lead to any statistically significant changes in “Environmentally Friendly”
for the samples, F(2.613, 282.174) = .602, p =.591. Post-hoc analysis with a
Bonferroni adjustment revealed that “Environmentally Friendly” rating was
statistically significantly different between the Paperboard and F-flute (M = .627,
95% CI [.246 to 1.008], p < .05), Paperboard and EPS (M = 1.918, 95% CI [1.396
to 2.440], p < .05), F-flute and EPS (M = 2.545, 95% CI [1.983 to 3.107], p < .05),
F-flute and Paper wrap (M = .773, 95% CI [.310 to 1.236], p < .05), EPS and
Paper wrap (M = 1.773, 95% CI [1.201 to 2.345], p < .05), but not between the
Paperboard and Paper wrap (M = .145, 95% CI [-2.82 to .583], p=1).
The significance observed between containers based on the
“Environmentally Friendly” attribute show that the F-flute container was perceived
by participants to be significantly more environmentally friendly than all other
containers. The EPS container had the lowest mean ratings for the
“Environmentally Friendly” attribute, and was rated significantly less
environmentally friendly than all other containers presented, meaning participants
perceived it to be the least environmentally friendly container. The Paper wrap
98
and Paperboard containers had similar mean “Environmentally Friendly” ratings
and were not significantly different. These results suggest that when companies
are looking for fast food packaging considered environmentally friendly from a
consumer perspective they should look into an F-flute but avoid EPS containers.
The mean ratings based on the credence attribute “Modern” can be seen
in Figure 30. A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to determine whether
there were statistically significant differences in the mean ratings based on
attribute “Modern” with the four material “Modern” ratings as a source of variance
and also the material “Modern” ratings within conditions (material*condition) as a
source of variance. There were no outliers and the data was normally distributed
for each group, as assessed by boxplot and Shapiro-Wilk test (p < .05),
respectively. The assumption of sphericity was violated, as assessed by
Mauchly's Test of Sphericity, χ2(2) 12.978, p < .05. Therefore, a Greenhouse-
Geisser correction was applied (ε = 0.924). The material interaction elicited
statistically significant changes in “Modern” ratings for the samples, F(2.772,
299.388) = 38.801, p < .05. The material*condition interaction did not lead to any
statistically significant changes in “Modern” for the samples, F(2.772, 299.388) =
.175, p =.901. Post-hoc analysis with a Bonferroni adjustment revealed that
“Modern” rating was statistically significantly different between the Paperboard
and EPS (M = .645, 95% CI [.056 to 1.235], p < .05), Paperboard and Paper
wrap (M = 1.745, 95% CI [1.207 to 2.284], p <.05), F-flute and EPS (M = .882,
99
95% CI [.308 to 1.456], p < .05), F-flute and Paper wrap (M = 1.982, 95% CI
[1.424 to 2.540], p < .05), EPS and Paper wrap (M = 1.100, 95% CI [.580 to
1.620], p < .05), but not between the Paperboard and F-flute (M = .236, 95% CI [-
.693 to .221], p =1).
The significance observed between containers based on the “Modern”
attribute show that the Paperboard and F-flute containers were perceived by
participants to be significantly more modern than the EPS or Paper wrap. The
Paper wrap had the lowest mean ratings for the “Modern” attribute, and was
rated significantly less modern than all other containers presented, meaning
participants perceived it to be the least modern container. The F-Flute and
Paperboard containers had similar mean “Modern” ratings and were not
significantly different. These results suggest that when companies are looking for
ContainerPaper wrapEPSF-flutePaperboard
Mea
n R
atin
g
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
3.13
4.22
4.984.80
3.00
4.11
5.114.82
ChickenBurger
Condition
Error Bars: +/- 1 SE
Figure 30. Mean ratings for credence attribute Modern
a a a a
b b
c c
100
fast food packaging that is considered modern from a consumer perspective they
should look into an F-flute or Paperboard container.
The mean ratings based on the credence attribute “Neat” can be seen in
Figure 31. A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to determine whether
there were statistically significant differences in the mean ratings based on
attribute “Neat” with the four material “Neat” ratings as a source of variance and
also the material “Neat” ratings within conditions (material*condition) as a source
of variance. There were no outliers and the data was normally distributed for
each group, as assessed by boxplot and Shapiro-Wilk test (p < .05), respectively.
The assumption of sphericity was violated, as assessed by Mauchly's Test of
Sphericity, χ2(2) 14.805, p < .05. Therefore, a Greenhouse-Geisser correction
ContainerPaper wrapEPSF-flutePaperboard
Mea
n R
atin
g7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
3.00
5.115.294.95
3.24
4.82
5.56
4.80
ChickenBurger
Condition
Error Bars: +/- 1 SE
Figure 31. Mean ratings for credence attribute Neat
a a a a
b b
c c
101
was applied (ε = 0.918). The material interaction elicited statistically significant
changes in “Neat” ratings for the samples, F(2.755, 297.514) = 55.560, p < .05.
The material*condition interaction did not lead to any statistically significant
changes in “Neat” for the samples, F(2.755, 297.514) = 1.056, p =.364. Post-hoc
analysis with a Bonferroni adjustment revealed that “Neat” rating was statistically
significantly different between the Paperboard and F-flute (M = .555, 95% CI
[.083 to 1.027], p =.012), Paperboard and Paper wrap (M = 1.755, 95% CI [1.175
to 2.334], p <.05), F-flute and EPS (M = .464, 95% CI [.040 to .887], p < .05), F-
flute and Paper wrap (M = 2.309, 95% CI [1.745 to 2.873], p < .05), EPS and
Paper wrap (M = 1.845, 95% CI [1.300 to 2.391], p < .05), but not between the
Paperboard and EPS (M = .091, 95% CI [.411 to .593], p =1).
The significance observed between containers based on the “Neat”
attribute show that the F-flute container was perceived by participants to be
significantly neater than any of the other containers. The Paper wrap had the
lowest mean ratings for the “Neat” attribute, and was rated significantly less neat
than all other containers presented, meaning participants perceived it to be the
least neat container. The Paperboard and EPS containers had similar mean
“Neat” ratings and were not significantly different. These results suggest that
when companies are looking for fast food packaging that is considered neat from
a consumer perspective they should look into an F-flute container and should
avoid a Paper wrap.
102
The mean ratings based on the credence attribute “Premium” can be seen
in Figure 32. A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to determine whether
there were statistically significant differences in the mean ratings based on
attribute ““Premium” with the four material “Premium” ratings as a source of
variance and also the material “Premium” ratings within conditions
(material*condition) as a source of variance. There were no outliers and the data
was normally distributed for each group, as assessed by boxplot and Shapiro-
Wilk test (p < .05), respectively. The assumption of sphericity was violated, as
assessed by Mauchly's Test of Sphericity, χ2(2) 14.117, p < .05. Therefore, a
Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied (ε = 0.914). The material interaction
elicited statistically significant changes in “Premium” ratings for the samples, lead
ContainerPaper wrapEPSF-flutePaperboard
Mea
n R
atin
g
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
2.96
4.02
4.934.49
2.96
3.96
5.024.44
ChickenBurger
Condition
Error Bars: +/- 1 SE
Figure 32. Mean ratings for credence attribute Premium
a a a a
c c
b b
103
to any statistically significant changes in “Premium” for the samples, F(2.743,
296.261) = .055, p =.977. Post-hoc analysis with a Bonferroni adjustment
revealed that “Premium” rating was statistically significantly different between the
Paperboard and F-flute (M = .509, 95% CI [.034 to .984], p < .05), Paperboard
and Paper wrap (M = 1.500, 95% CI [.905 to 2.095], p <.05), F-flute and EPS (M=
.982, 95% CI [.040 to 1.531], p < .05), F-flute and Paper wrap (M = 2.009, 95%
CI [1.383 to 2.635], p < .05), EPS and Paper wrap (M = 1.027, 95% CI [.499 to
1.555], p < .05) but not between the Paperboard and EPS (M = .473, 95% CI [-
.075 to 1.020], p =.133).
The significance observed between containers based on the “Premium”
attribute show that the F-flute container was perceived by participants to be
significantly more premium than all other containers. The Paper wrap had the
lowest mean ratings for the “Premium” attribute, and was rated significantly less
premium than all other containers presented, meaning participants perceived it to
be the least premium container. The Paperboard and EPS containers had similar
mean “Premium” ratings and were not significantly different. These results
suggest that when companies are looking for fast food packaging that is
considered premium from a consumer perspective they should look into an F-
flute container and should avoid a Paper wrap.
104
Preference and Ranking
The preference data for how often each container was selected can be
seen in Figure 33. A chi-square goodness-of-fit test was done for participants
who selected a preference (N=106), the “None” preference was not included.
Table 5 shows the observed and expected values and Table 6 lists the test
statistic, which is not statistically significant: χ2(2) = 2.302, p =.512. From this we
can conclude that there is no statistically significant difference in the preference
of container material between participants existed. The F-flute container was
selected most frequently (N=26), the Paper wrap was selected least frequently
(N=21).
MaterialNonePaper wrapEPSE-flutePaperboard
Perc
ent
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
3.6%
19.1%24.5%
29.1%
23.6%
Figure 33. Chart displaying percentages for how often each container was selected.
105
Con
ditio
n
Chicken
Burger
Count20151050
10.91%
32.73%
1110.00%
109.09%
1412.73%
1311.82%
1513.64%
1715.45%
1412.73%
1210.91%
NonePaper wrapEPSE-flutePaperboard
Prefer
Figure 34. Chart displaying how often each container was selected in each of the conditions
Preference Observed N Expected N Residual Paperboard 26 26.5 -.5 F-flute 32 26.5 5.5 EPS 27 26.5 .5 Paperwrap 21 26.5 -5.5 Total 106
Table 5 Preference Selection
Test Statistics Preference Chi-Square 2.302a df 3 Asymp. Sig. .512 a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected frequencies less than 5. The minimum expected cell frequency is 26.5.
Table 6 Preference Chi-square
106
Preference data for how often each container was selected in each
condition can be seen in Figure 34. A chi-square goodness-of-fit test was done
for participants in each condition who selected a preference (Burger N=52;
Chicken N= 54), the “None” preference was not included. Table 7 shows the
Burger condition observed and expected values and Table 8 lists the test
statistic, which is not statistically significant: χ2(2) = 2.00, p =.572. Table 9 shows
the Chicken condition observed and expected values and Table 10 lists the test
statistic, which is not statistically significant: χ2(2) = .667, p =.881.
Test Statistics Burger Pref Chi-Square 2.000a df 3 Asymp. Sig. .572 a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected frequencies less than 5. The minimum expected cell frequency is 13.0.
Table 8 Burger Chi-Square Burger Preference
Observed N Expected N Residual Paperboard 12 13.0 -1.0 F-flute 17 13.0 4.0 EPS 13 13.0 .0 Paperwrap 10 13.0 -3.0 Total 52
Table 7 Burger Preference Selection
Test Statistics Chicken Pref Chi-Square .667a df 3 Asymp. Sig. .881 a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected frequencies less than 5. The minimum expected cell frequency is 13.5.
Table 10 Chicken Chi-Square Chicken Preference
Observed N Expected N Residual Paperboard 14 13.5 .5 F-flute 15 13.5 1.5 EPS 14 13.5 .5 Paper wrap 11 13.5 -2.5 Total 54
Table 9 Chicken Preference Selection
107
The preference data showed no significant preference overall or in each
condition for the containers. The F-flute container was selected the most and the
Paper wrap was selected the least overall as well as in each condition (Burger
and Chicken). While these results are not significant it they do indicate a possible
difference in preference between the F-flute and Paper wrap. The ranking data
collected is presented below in Table 11 as a Borda count table and by the mean
ratings in Table 12. Both ranking methods produced the same rank outcome. The
F-flute container was ranked as most willing to re-purchase followed by the
Paperboard container, then the EPS container, and finally the Paper wrap. Re-
purchase intent is an important factor in QSRs, this type of ranking data where
participants compare all stimuli is useful to understand consumer preference.
Mean Rating Rank
Paperboard !"#$% !F-Flute !"!% &EPS !"'(% #Paper wrap !"() '
Table 12 Rank Mean Rating
1 2 3 4 Total Rank
Paperboard 120 81 62 21 284 2
F-Flute 132 99 52 17 300 1
EPS 104 90 54 26 274 3
Paper wrap 80 57 50 45 232 4
Table 11 Rank Borda Count
108
CHAPTER SIX
CONCLUSIONS
Fast food has become a major component of the American diet, and the
increase in fast-food use in the United States is likely to continue (Paeratakul &
Ferdinand, 2003). The purpose of this research was to determine if consumer
quality perception of food products in quick-service restaurants varied depending
on the material properties of the packaging in which the food product was
presented.
By testing in a realistic QSR environment and using common foodservice
packaging styles and materials, the research was extremely relevant to the
current fast food industry. Nearly all of the participants in the full scale and pilot
study were part of the target market age range for the fast food industry. Based
on the sensory attribute mean ratings it can be concluded that sensory food
quality perception does not vary depending on packaging material. However,
from the significance found between the participant ratings for certain materials
based on functionality and credence attributes it can be concluded that materials
are perceived differently and can impact the overall consumer perception.
Participant preference and ranking data revealed interesting trends and
distinctions between materials and showed which materials were considered
appropriate for each condition.
109
New food products are constantly added to the menu in QSRs, it is
important for restaurants to pay attention to consumer trends and work to
understand consumer needs. Quick-service restaurants in particular present a
challenge because of constantly changing consumer trends and unique nature of
the product and packaging interaction. This research has only started to touch on
the many components of the overall consumer experience in the restaurant
industry. While no significance was found between the four materials based on
the sensory attribute ratings, the packaging materials were perceived fairly
different based on the functionality and credence attributes. Research into
packaging characteristics consumers consider important could help the
foodservice industry be more in touch and deliver a more thoroughly developed
foor product. In order to improve consumers perceived quality, attributes that are
most important to consumers much be thoroughly understood and then in turn
used to alter and test new food products and their packaging.
110
CHAPTER SEVEN
RECOMMENDATIONS
The goal of this study was to explore the variance between sensory,
functionality, and credence attribute ratings depending on packaging material the
food product was presented in. There are a number of properties including
package color, shape, size, branding, and weight, which should be included in
future research since the material is only part of the food presentation to
consumers. Future studies could also take price into consideration, since the
majority of sustainable packaging options are more expensive to implement. The
pilot study results suggested participants considered sustainability an important
characteristic of fast food packaging, however the sustainable options presented
did not receive high ratings for the extrinsic attributes such as appeal and
attractiveness. It would be interesting to see if the ratings for these attributes
could be manipulated using graphics and branding applied to the packaging.
If foodservice packaging suppliers and QSR companies had an
understanding of attributes required by consumers in QSR packaging the results
could then be applied and used to develop new packaging along with food
products. Additional packaging materials should be tested and compared as well,
especially due to the ever-changing consumer trends present in the QSR industry
and continuous advances in food packaging materials. This experiment could
also be adapted to apply in other restaurant segments and food service outlets.
111
APPENDICES
112
Appendix A
Background Research and Information
Sandwich Package Style Material
McDonaldʼs Clamshell Paperboard
Wendyʼs Clamshell/ Paper wrap/ Half box Paperboard, Greaseproof/ wax coated paper
Burger King Clamshell/ Paper wrap Paperboard
Sonic Drive-Inn Paper/foil bag Greaseproof/ wax coated paper foil laminate
Jack In The Box Paper wrap/ half box Paperboard
Dairy Queen Paper wrap Greaseproof/ wax coated paper
Hardeeʼs Paper wrap Greaseproof/ wax coated paper
Carlʼs Jr Paper wrap Greaseproof/ wax coated paper
Whataburger Paper wrap Greaseproof/ wax coated paper
Five Guys Burgers & Fries Foil Wrap Aluminum foil sheet
Steak ʻn Shake Paper wrap Greaseproof/ wax coated paper
Culverʼs Paper wrap/ clamshell Paperboard
Checkers/Rallyʼs Paper wrap Greaseproof/ wax coated paper
White Castle Box Paperboard
In-N-Out Burger Paper bag Greaseproof/ wax coated paper
Krystal Box Paperboard
Table A1. Retail audit summary
113
Table A2. Detailed Material Information From Pilot Study
Day Material ID number Specs Image Additional Info
Day 1
EPS Clamshell 1705" (2.88" x 5.13" x 5.38") Medium Sandwich Foam Hinged Lid Carryout Containers Dart DCC 50HT1 - Case of 500
Styrofoam. Secure closure. High-insulation keeps food hot/cold for transporting and storing. (DCC 85HT1, DCC 85HT2 and DCC 205HT1 containers feature Performer™ perforated hinge, allowing the containerʼs lid to be easily
Clear Clamshell 2365" x 5" x 3" Clear Hinged Lid Plastic Container 500/CS. OPS construction. (5.25" x 5.625" x 2.75")
This 5" x 5" x 3" clear hinged lid plastic container is a perfect way to send desserts, pastries, salads, and specialty sandwiches home with your customers! It provides a solid seal to maintain product freshness and reduce leaks, while its crystal clear construction promotes excellent product visibility. Sold 500 per case.
Bio Clamshell 4306" Bagasse Hamburger Clamshell IFN Green 29-2001 - Case of 500 (6" x 6" x 3.4")
Bagasse is made from sugar cane fiber waste left after juice extraction. 100% decomposable and biodegradable. Microwave and freezer safe.
Day 2
14 pt Clamshell White 852 14pt International Paper Paperboard Everest Folio (5.75" x 5.75" x 3") Oil and grease resistant coating applied.
14 pt Clamshell Red 305 14pt International Paper Paperboard Everest Folio (5.75" x 5.75" x 3")
Outside printed with Epson Stylus Pro 7900, color is Pantone 485. Oil and grease resistant coating applied.
14 pt Clamshell Kraft 709 16pt MeadWestvaco Custom Kote Paperboard (5.75" x 5.75" x 3") Oil and grease resistant coating applied.
Day 3
Paper Wraps 654 DeliWrap Wax unprinted food safe sheet Oil and grease resistant (15" x 15")
Pop-up sheets have added wet strength for improved performance and greater economy. 100% microwaveable. 500 sheets per pack; 12 packs per case (6,000 sheets). 6 x 10 Eco-Pac Natural Interfolded Dry Wax Paper
Foil Wraps 321 Reynolds Wrapper Pre Cut Pop-up Foil Sheets (14"x10.25")
Reynolds foil sheets are precut and perfect for cooking, grilling, eating on the go. Case includes 24 – 25-ct. boxes of 14x10¼" Reynolds® Wrappers™ pop-up foil sheets.
E-flute Clamshell 752 Pratt Industries E-Flute Corrugated Board (5.75" x 5.75" x 3") Clay coated on one side.
114
Table A3. Detailed Material Information From Full Scale Study
Material/container ID number Specs Image Description
EPS Clamshell 180 Dart 60HT1 6" x 6" x 3" White Foam Hinged Lid Container 500/CS
Dart 60HT1 white foam 1 compartment container with a perforated hinged lid that can be removed cleanly. Preferred by diners as an easy way to share carryout meals and reduce clutter while dining. Insulated to maintain food's proper serving temperature.
14 pt Paperboard Clamshell White 602
Southern Champion Tray 0705 Solid Bleached Sulfate Paperboard White Hamburger Clamshell Food Container, 4-3/8" Length x 4-3/8" Width x 3-3/8" Height (Case of 500)
Recyclable and compostable, White interior and exterior, 1 pc. Clamshell construction. Top locks in place when closed. Sturdy packaging made from premium paperboard. Made in the USA from renewable resources
Paper Wraps 532 DeliWrap Wax unprinted food safe sheet Oil and grease resistant (15" x 15")
Pop-up sheets have added wet strength for improved performance and greater economy. 100% microwaveable. 500 sheets per pack; 12 packs per case (6,000 sheets). 6 x 10 Eco-Pac Natural Interfolded Dry Wax Paper
F-flute Clamshell 983 Hamburger Corrugated Clamshell Take-Out Box 400/CS - 4" x 4" x 3"
This 4" x 4" x 3" white corrugated clamshell take-out container is designed specifically for your mouth-watering burger creations! Micro-flute insulation preserves your food temperature and appearance by eliminating condensation within each box. For a secure closure, a handy locking feature will keep your burger safe and sound until its final destination. Each corrugated clamshell take-out features an attractive white exterior and a kraft interior. Measures 4"L x 4"W x 3"D. Sold 400 per case.
115
Table A4. Full Scale Study Latin Square Experimental Design
1 Paperboard F-Flute Paper wrap EPS
2 F-Flute EPS Paperboard Paper wrap
3 EPS Paper wrap F-Flute Paperboard
4 Paper wrap Paperboard EPS F-Flute
116
Appendix B
Pilot Study Results
Figure B1. Mean ratings of materials for attribute Appealing
0!
0.5!
1!
1.5!
2!
2.5!
3!
3.5!
4!
4.5!
5!
5.5!
6!
Foil Wrap
!
Paper
Wrap!
E-flute!
White P
aperb
oard!
Orange
Paperb
oard!
Kraft P
aperb
oard!
EPS!
Bagas
se!
Clear (O
PS)!
Mea
n R
atin
g!
Appealing!
117
Figure B2. Mean ratings of materials for attribute Neat
Figure B3. Mean ratings of materials for attribute Messy
0!
0.5!
1!
1.5!
2!
2.5!
3!
3.5!
4!
4.5!
5!
5.5!
6!
Foil Wrap
!
Paper
Wrap!
E-flute!
White P
aperb
oard!
Orange
Paperb
oard!
Kraft P
aperb
oard!
EPS!
Bagas
se!
Clear (O
PS)!
Mea
n R
atin
g!
Neat!
0!
0.5!
1!
1.5!
2!
2.5!
3!
3.5!
4!
4.5!
5!
5.5!
6!
Foil Wrap
!
Paper
Wrap!
E-flute!
White P
aperb
oard!
Orange
Paperb
oard!
Kraft P
aperb
oard!
EPS!
Bagas
se!
Clear (O
PS)!
Mea
n R
atin
g!
Messy!
118
Figure B4. Mean ratings of materials for attribute High Quality
Figure B5. Mean ratings of materials for attribute Tasty
0!
0.5!
1!
1.5!
2!
2.5!
3!
3.5!
4!
4.5!
5!
5.5!
6!
Foil Wrap
!
Paper
Wrap!
E-flute!
White P
aperb
oard!
Orange
Paperb
oard!
Kraft P
aperb
oard!
EPS!
Bagas
se!
Clear (O
PS)!
Mea
n R
atin
g!
High Quality!
0!
0.5!
1!
1.5!
2!
2.5!
3!
3.5!
4!
4.5!
5!
5.5!
6!
Foil Wrap
!
Paper
Wrap!
E-flute!
White P
aperb
oard!
Orange
Paperb
oard!
Kraft P
aperb
oard!
EPS!
Bagas
se!
Clear (O
PS)!
Mea
n R
atin
g!
Tasty!
119
Figure B6. Mean ratings of materials for attribute Attractive
Figure B7. Mean ratings of materials for attribute Fresh
0!
0.5!
1!
1.5!
2!
2.5!
3!
3.5!
4!
4.5!
5!
5.5!
6!
Foil Wrap
!
Paper
Wrap!
E-flute!
White P
aperb
oard!
Orange
Paperb
oard!
Kraft P
aperb
oard!
EPS!
Bagas
se!
Clear (O
PS)!
Mea
n R
atin
g!Attractive!
0!
0.5!
1!
1.5!
2!
2.5!
3!
3.5!
4!
4.5!
5!
5.5!
6!
Foil Wrap
!
Paper
Wrap!
E-flute!
White P
aperb
oard!
Orange
Paperb
oard!
Kraft P
aperb
oard!
EPS!
Bagas
se!
Clear (O
PS)!
Mea
n R
atin
g!
Fresh!
120
Figure B8. Mean ratings of materials for attribute Re-purchasable
Figure B9. Mean ratings of materials for attribute Appealing
0!
0.5!
1!
1.5!
2!
2.5!
3!
3.5!
4!
4.5!
5!
5.5!
6!
Foil Wrap
!
Paper
Wrap!
E-flute!
White P
aperb
oard!
Orange
Paperb
oard!
Kraft P
aperb
oard!
EPS!
Bagas
se!
Clear (O
PS)!
Mea
n R
atin
g!Repurchasable!
0!
0.5!
1!
1.5!
2!
2.5!
3!
3.5!
4!
4.5!
5!
5.5!
6!
Foil Wrap
!
Paper
Wrap!
E-flute!
White P
aperb
oard!
Orange
Paperb
oard!
Kraft P
aperb
oard!
EPS!
Bagas
se!
Clear (O
PS)!
Mea
n R
atin
g!
Premium!
121
Appendix C
Pilot Study Data and Statistical Analysis
C1. Demographic Data
American Indian or Alaskan Native 1.41%Asian / Pacific Islander 5.63%Black or African American 7.04%Hispanic American 4.23%White / Caucasian 81.69%
Married 38.03%Widowed 0.00%Divorced 9.86%Separated 0.00%Never Married 52.11%
1 21.13%2 45.07%3 19.72%4 7.04%5 5.63%6 1.41%
Number of People in Household
Marital Status
Ethnicity
18-20 8.45%21-29 30.99%30-39 29.58%40-49 12.68%50-59 16.90%60+ 1.41%
Male 53.52%Female 46.48%Other 0.00%
$0-$24,999 14.08%$25,000-$49,999 2.82%$50,000-$74,999 9.86%$75,000-$99,999 16.90%$100,000-$124,999 18.31%$125,000-$149,999 9.86%$150,000-$174,999 9.86%$175,000-$199,999 9.86%$200,000 and up 8.45%
Less than High School Degree 0.00%High school degree or equivalent 5.63%Some College No Degree 19.72%Associate Degree 1.41%Bachelor Degree 47.89%Graduate Degree 25.35%
Age Range
Education Level
Average Household Income
Gender
122
C2. Fast Food Preferences
Almost Daily 4.23%Not everyday but more than once a week 36.62%A few times a month, at most 42.25%Rarely or never 16.90%
Breakfast 7.04%Lunch 67.61%Dinner 23.94%As a snack in between meals 1.41%
In Car 40.85%Inside the restaurant 19.72%At home 21.13%At work 18.31%
How often do you eat fast food?
For which meal do you most often eat fast food?
Where do you normally eat fast food?
123
C3. Day 1 Appeal (Clear/OPS, Bagasse, EPS) GET FILE='/Users/ekthackston/Desktop/cucafe_day1.sav'. DATASET NAME DataSet3 WINDOW=FRONT. GLM appealing1 appealing2 appealing3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=Appealing /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet3] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/cucafe_day1.sav
Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Appealing Material Dependent Variable 1 appealing1 2 appealing2 3 appealing3
!
!
Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Clear (OPS) 3.5455 1.65406 22 Bagasse 3.6818 1.46015 22 EPS 4.3636 1.52894 22
Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Appealing Within Subjects Effect
Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square
df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-
Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound
Material .910 1.885 2 .390 .917 1.000 .500 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.
!Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Appealing Source Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Material
Sphericity Assumed 8.455 2 4.227 17.386 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 8.455 1.835 4.607 17.386 .000 Huynh-Feldt 8.455 2.000 4.227 17.386 .000 Lower-bound 8.455 1.000 8.455 17.386 .000
Error(Material)
Sphericity Assumed 10.212 42 .243 Greenhouse-Geisser 10.212 38.535 .265 Huynh-Feldt 10.212 42.000 .243 Lower-bound 10.212 21.000 .486
!Estimates Measure: Appealing Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 3.545 .353 2.812 4.279 2 3.682 .311 3.034 4.329 3 4.364 .326 3.686 5.042
!Pairwise Comparisons Measure: Appealing (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference (I-
J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb
Lower Bound Upper Bound
1 2 -.136 .136 .986 -.491 .218 3 -.818* .169 .000 -1.259 -.377
2 1 .136 .136 .986 -.218 .491 3 -.682* .138 .000 -1.040 -.323
3 1 .818* .169 .000 .377 1.259 2 .682* .138 .000 .323 1.040
Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.
!
124
Neat (Clear/OPS, Bagasse, EPS) GLM neat1 neat2 neat3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=Neat /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet3] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/cucafe_day1.sav
Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Neat Source Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Material
Sphericity Assumed 12.091 2 6.045 38.613 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 12.091 1.910 6.329 38.613 .000 Huynh-Feldt 12.091 2.000 6.045 38.613 .000 Lower-bound 12.091 1.000 12.091 38.613 .000
Error(Material)
Sphericity Assumed 6.576 42 .157 Greenhouse-Geisser 6.576 40.118 .164 Huynh-Feldt 6.576 42.000 .157 Lower-bound 6.576 21.000 .313
! Estimates Measure: Neat Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 4.182 .284 3.591 4.773 2 4.955 .267 4.399 5.510 3 5.182 .193 4.780 5.584
!
Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Neat Material Dependent Variable 1 neat1 2 neat2 3 neat3
!
!
Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Clear (OPS) 4.1818 1.33225 22 Bagasse 4.9545 1.25270 22 EPS 5.1818 .90692 22
Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Neat Within Subjects Effect
Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square
df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-
Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound
Material .953 .961 2 .618 .955 1.000 .500 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.
!
Pairwise Comparisons Measure: Neat (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference (I-
J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb
Lower Bound Upper Bound
1 2 -.773* .113 .000 -1.066 -.480 3 -1.000* .132 .000 -1.342 -.658
2 1 .773* .113 .000 .480 1.066 3 -.227 .113 .170 -.520 .066
3 1 1.000* .132 .000 .658 1.342 2 .227 .113 .170 -.066 .520
Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.
!
125
Messy (Clear/OPS, Bagasse, EPS) GLM messy1 messy2 messy3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=Messy /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet3] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/cucafe_day1.sav
Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Messy Material Dependent Variable 1 messy1 2 messy2 3 messy3
!
!
Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Clear (OPS) 2.9091 1.44450 22 Bagasse 2.1818 1.18065 22 EPS 2.6364 1.29267 22
Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Messy Within Subjects Effect
Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square
df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-
Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound
Material .954 .941 2 .625 .956 1.000 .500 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.
!Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Messy Source Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Material
Sphericity Assumed 5.939 2 2.970 23.124 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 5.939 1.912 3.106 23.124 .000 Huynh-Feldt 5.939 2.000 2.970 23.124 .000 Lower-bound 5.939 1.000 5.939 23.124 .000
Error(Material)
Sphericity Assumed 5.394 42 .128 Greenhouse-Geisser 5.394 40.155 .134 Huynh-Feldt 5.394 42.000 .128 Lower-bound 5.394 21.000 .257
!Estimates Measure: Messy Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 2.909 .308 2.269 3.550 2 2.182 .252 1.658 2.705 3 2.636 .276 2.063 3.210
!Pairwise Comparisons Measure: Messy (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference (I-
J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb
Lower Bound Upper Bound
1 2 .727* .117 .000 .422 1.033 3 .273* .097 .032 .020 .526
2 1 -.727* .117 .000 -1.033 -.422 3 -.455* .109 .001 -.737 -.172
3 1 -.273* .097 .032 -.526 -.020 2 .455* .109 .001 .172 .737
Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.
!
126
Re-purchasable (Clear/OPS, Bagasse, EPS) GLM repurchasable1 repurchasable2 repurchasable3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=RePurchase /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet3] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/cucafe_day1.sav
!
Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Clear (OPS) 3.6818 1.75625 22 Bagasse 4.1364 1.45718 22 EPS 4.6818 1.32328 22
Within-Subjects Factors Measure: RePurchase Material Dependent Variable 1 repurchasable1 2 repurchasable2 3 repurchasable3
!
Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: RePurchase Within Subjects Effect
Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square
df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-
Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound
Material .588 10.634 2 .005 .708 .744 .500 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.
!
Pairwise Comparisons Measure: RePurchase (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference (I-
J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb
Lower Bound Upper Bound
1 2 -.455* .157 .026 -.864 -.045 3 -1.000* .255 .002 -1.663 -.337
2 1 .455* .157 .026 .045 .864 3 -.545* .171 .013 -.989 -.102
3 1 1.000* .255 .002 .337 1.663 2 .545* .171 .013 .102 .989
Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.
!
Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: RePurchase Source Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Material
Sphericity Assumed 11.030 2 5.515 12.656 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 11.030 1.416 7.790 12.656 .000 Huynh-Feldt 11.030 1.489 7.410 12.656 .000 Lower-bound 11.030 1.000 11.030 12.656 .002
Error(Material)
Sphericity Assumed 18.303 42 .436 Greenhouse-Geisser 18.303 29.737 .616 Huynh-Feldt 18.303 31.261 .585 Lower-bound 18.303 21.000 .872
!Estimates Measure: RePurchase Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 3.682 .374 2.903 4.460 2 4.136 .311 3.490 4.782 3 4.682 .282 4.095 5.269
!
127
High Quality (Clear/OPS, Bagasse, EPS) GLM highquality1 highquality2 highquality4 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=HighQuality /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet3] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/cucafe_day1.sav
Pairwise Comparisons Measure: HighQuality (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference (I-
J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb
Lower Bound Upper Bound
1 2 -.227 .130 .288 -.567 .112 3 -.864* .201 .001 -1.385 -.342
2 1 .227 .130 .288 -.112 .567 3 -.636* .155 .002 -1.039 -.233
3 1 .864* .201 .001 .342 1.385 2 .636* .155 .002 .233 1.039
Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.
!
Within-Subjects Factors Measure: HighQuality Material Dependent Variable 1 highquality1 2 highquality2 3 highquality4
!
!
Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Clear (OPS) 2.6818 1.58524 22 Bagasse 2.9091 1.34196 22 EPS 3.5455 1.29935 22
Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: HighQuality Within Subjects Effect
Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square
df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-
Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound
Material .742 5.964 2 .051 .795 .850 .500 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.
!Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: HighQuality Source Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Material
Sphericity Assumed 8.818 2 4.409 14.797 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 8.818 1.590 5.546 14.797 .000 Huynh-Feldt 8.818 1.699 5.190 14.797 .000 Lower-bound 8.818 1.000 8.818 14.797 .001
Error(Material)
Sphericity Assumed 12.515 42 .298 Greenhouse-Geisser 12.515 33.390 .375 Huynh-Feldt 12.515 35.682 .351 Lower-bound 12.515 21.000 .596
!Estimates Measure: HighQuality Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 2.682 .338 1.979 3.385 2 2.909 .286 2.314 3.504 3 3.545 .277 2.969 4.122
!
128
Tasty (Clear/OPS, Bagasse, EPS) GLM tasty1 tasty2 tasty3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=Tasty /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet3] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/cucafe_day1.sav
Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Tasty Material Dependent Variable 1 tasty1 2 tasty2 3 tasty3
!
!
Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Clear (OPS) 3.7273 1.69542 22 Bagasse 3.7727 1.50971 22 EPS 4.5455 1.22386 22
Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Tasty Within Subjects Effect
Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square
df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-
Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound
Material .940 1.246 2 .536 .943 1.000 .500 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.
!Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Tasty Source Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Material
Sphericity Assumed 9.303 2 4.652 18.263 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 9.303 1.886 4.932 18.263 .000 Huynh-Feldt 9.303 2.000 4.652 18.263 .000 Lower-bound 9.303 1.000 9.303 18.263 .000
Error(Material)
Sphericity Assumed 10.697 42 .255 Greenhouse-Geisser 10.697 39.608 .270 Huynh-Feldt 10.697 42.000 .255 Lower-bound 10.697 21.000 .509
!Estimates Measure: Tasty Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 3.727 .361 2.976 4.479 2 3.773 .322 3.103 4.442 3 4.545 .261 4.003 5.088
!Pairwise Comparisons Measure: Tasty (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference (I-
J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb
Lower Bound Upper Bound
1 2 -.045 .139 1.000 -.408 .317 3 -.818* .169 .000 -1.259 -.377
2 1 .045 .139 1.000 -.317 .408 3 -.773* .146 .000 -1.153 -.393
3 1 .818* .169 .000 .377 1.259 2 .773* .146 .000 .393 1.153
Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.
!
129
Attractive (Clear/OPS, Bagasse, EPS) GLM attractive1 attractive2 attractive3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=Attractive /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet3] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/cucafe_day1.sav
Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Attractive Material Dependent Variable 1 attractive1 2 attractive2 3 attractive3
!
!
Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Clear (OPS) 3.5000 1.56601 22 Bagasse 3.4091 1.59341 22 EPS 4.0455 1.52682 22
Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Attractive Within Subjects Effect
Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square
df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-
Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound
Material .342 21.448 2 .000 .603 .620 .500 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.
!Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Attractive Source Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Material
Sphericity Assumed 5.212 2 2.606 3.555 .037 Greenhouse-Geisser 5.212 1.206 4.320 3.555 .064 Huynh-Feldt 5.212 1.240 4.204 3.555 .063 Lower-bound 5.212 1.000 5.212 3.555 .073
Error(Material)
Sphericity Assumed 30.788 42 .733 Greenhouse-Geisser 30.788 25.335 1.215 Huynh-Feldt 30.788 26.037 1.182 Lower-bound 30.788 21.000 1.466
!Estimates Measure: Attractive Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 3.500 .334 2.806 4.194 2 3.409 .340 2.703 4.116 3 4.045 .326 3.369 4.722
!Pairwise Comparisons Measure: Attractive (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference (I-
J) Std. Error Sig.a 95% Confidence Interval for Differencea
Lower Bound Upper Bound
1 2 .091 .112 1.000 -.201 .383 3 -.545 .307 .269 -1.343 .252
2 1 -.091 .112 1.000 -.383 .201 3 -.636 .305 .149 -1.431 .158
3 1 .545 .307 .269 -.252 1.343 2 .636 .305 .149 -.158 1.431
Based on estimated marginal means a. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.
!
130
Fresh (Clear/OPS, Bagasse, EPS) GLM fresh1 fresh2 fresh3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=Fresh /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet3] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/cucafe_day1.sav
Pairwise Comparisons Measure: Fresh (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference (I-
J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb
Lower Bound Upper Bound
1 2 -.636* .214 .022 -1.192 -.081 3 -1.091* .354 .017 -2.011 -.171
2 1 .636* .214 .022 .081 1.192 3 -.455 .277 .347 -1.175 .266
3 1 1.091* .354 .017 .171 2.011 2 .455 .277 .347 -.266 1.175
Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.
!
Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Fresh Material Dependent Variable 1 fresh1 2 fresh2 3 fresh3
!
!
Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Clear (OPS) 2.9545 1.52682 22 Bagasse 3.5909 1.56324 22 EPS 4.0455 1.55769 22
Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Fresh Within Subjects Effect
Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square
df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-
Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound
Material .686 7.546 2 .023 .761 .808 .500 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.
!Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Fresh Source Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Material
Sphericity Assumed 13.212 2 6.606 7.278 .002 Greenhouse-Geisser 13.212 1.522 8.682 7.278 .005 Huynh-Feldt 13.212 1.616 8.176 7.278 .004 Lower-bound 13.212 1.000 13.212 7.278 .013
Error(Material)
Sphericity Assumed 38.121 42 .908 Greenhouse-Geisser 38.121 31.956 1.193 Huynh-Feldt 38.121 33.937 1.123 Lower-bound 38.121 21.000 1.815
!Estimates Measure: Fresh Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 2.955 .326 2.278 3.631 2 3.591 .333 2.898 4.284 3 4.045 .332 3.355 4.736
!
131
Premium (Clear/OPS, Bagasse, EPS) GLM premium1 premium2 premium3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=Premium /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet3] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/cucafe_day1.sav
Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Premium Material Dependent Variable 1 premium1 2 premium2 3 premium3
!
!
Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Clear (OPS) 3.0000 1.54303 22 Bagasse 2.8636 1.28343 22 EPS 3.3182 1.35879 22
Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Premium Within Subjects Effect
Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square
df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-
Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound
Material .644 8.799 2 .012 .738 .780 .500 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.
!Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Premium Source Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Material
Sphericity Assumed 2.394 2 1.197 2.130 .132 Greenhouse-Geisser 2.394 1.475 1.623 2.130 .147 Huynh-Feldt 2.394 1.560 1.535 2.130 .144 Lower-bound 2.394 1.000 2.394 2.130 .159
Error(Material)
Sphericity Assumed 23.606 42 .562 Greenhouse-Geisser 23.606 30.975 .762 Huynh-Feldt 23.606 32.751 .721 Lower-bound 23.606 21.000 1.124
!Estimates Measure: Premium Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 3.000 .329 2.316 3.684 2 2.864 .274 2.295 3.433 3 3.318 .290 2.716 3.921
!Pairwise Comparisons Measure: Premium (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference (I-
J) Std. Error Sig.a 95% Confidence Interval for Differencea
Lower Bound Upper Bound
1 2 .136 .151 1.000 -.257 .530 3 -.318 .274 .777 -1.032 .395
2 1 -.136 .151 1.000 -.530 .257 3 -.455 .235 .199 -1.065 .156
3 1 .318 .274 .777 -.395 1.032 2 .455 .235 .199 -.156 1.065
Based on estimated marginal means a. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.
!
132
Price (Clear/OPS, Bagasse, EPS) GLM price1 price2 price3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=WTP /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet3] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/cucafe_day1.sav
Within-Subjects Factors Measure: WTP Material Dependent Variable 1 price1 2 price2 3 price3
!
!
Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Clear (OPS) 1.6818 .64633 22 Bagasse 1.7727 .61193 22 EPS 2.0000 .75593 22
Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: WTP Within Subjects Effect
Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square
df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-
Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound
Material .600 10.201 2 .006 .715 .752 .500 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.
!Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: WTP Source Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Material
Sphericity Assumed 1.182 2 .591 5.151 .010 Greenhouse-Geisser 1.182 1.429 .827 5.151 .020 Huynh-Feldt 1.182 1.504 .786 5.151 .018 Lower-bound 1.182 1.000 1.182 5.151 .034
Error(Material)
Sphericity Assumed 4.818 42 .115 Greenhouse-Geisser 4.818 30.010 .161 Huynh-Feldt 4.818 31.588 .153 Lower-bound 4.818 21.000 .229
!Estimates Measure: WTP Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 1.682 .138 1.395 1.968 2 1.773 .130 1.501 2.044 3 2.000 .161 1.665 2.335
!Pairwise Comparisons Measure: WTP (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference (I-
J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb
Lower Bound Upper Bound
1 2 -.091 .063 .486 -.254 .072 3 -.318* .121 .047 -.633 -.003
2 1 .091 .063 .486 -.072 .254 3 -.227 .113 .170 -.520 .066
3 1 .318* .121 .047 .003 .633 2 .227 .113 .170 -.066 .520
Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.
!
133
C4. Day 2
Appeal (White Paperboard, Orange Paperboard, Kraft Paperboard) GET FILE='/Users/ekthackston/Downloads/cucafe_day2.sav'. DATASET NAME DataSet4 WINDOW=FRONT. DATASET ACTIVATE DataSet4. SAVE OUTFILE='/Users/ekthackston/Downloads/cucafe_day2.sav' /COMPRESSED. GLM appealing1 appealing2 appealing3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=Appealing /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet4] /Users/ekthackston/Downloads/cucafe_day2.sav
Neat (White Paperboard, Orange Paperboard, Kraft Paperboard) GLM neat1 neat2 neat3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=Neat /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet4] /Users/ekthackston/Downloads/cucafe_day2.sav
Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Appealing Material Dependent Variable
1 appealing1
2 appealing2 3 appealing3
!
!
Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N White Paperboard 3.4815 1.62600 27 Orange Paperboard 3.6296 1.39085 27 Kraft Paperboard 3.2222 1.47631 27
Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Appealing Within Subjects Effect
Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square
df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-
Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound
Material .982 .453 2 .798 .982 1.000 .500 a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.
!Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Appealing Source Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Material
Sphericity Assumed 2.296 2 1.148 1.047 .358 Greenhouse-Geisser 2.296 1.965 1.169 1.047 .357 Huynh-Feldt 2.296 2.000 1.148 1.047 .358 Lower-bound 2.296 1.000 2.296 1.047 .316
Error(Material)
Sphericity Assumed 57.037 52 1.097 Greenhouse-Geisser 57.037 51.084 1.117 Huynh-Feldt 57.037 52.000 1.097 Lower-bound 57.037 26.000 2.194
!
!
Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N White Paperboard 4.2963 1.51441 27 Orange Paperboard 4.5556 1.18754 27 Kraft Paperboard 4.1852 1.49453 27
Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Neat Material Dependent Variable 1 neat1 2 neat2 3 neat3
!
Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Neat Within Subjects Effect
Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square
df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-
Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound
Material .868 3.549 2 .170 .883 .943 .500 a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.
!
134
Messy (White Paperboard, Orange Paperboard, Kraft Paperboard) GLM messy1 messy2 messy3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=Messy /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet4] /Users/ekthackston/Downloads/cucafe_day2.sav Re-purchasable (White Paperboard, Orange Paperboard, Kraft Paperboard) GLM repurchasable1 repurchasable2 repurchasable3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=RePurchase /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE
Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Neat Source Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Material
Sphericity Assumed 1.951 2 .975 1.151 .324 Greenhouse-Geisser 1.951 1.766 1.104 1.151 .320 Huynh-Feldt 1.951 1.885 1.035 1.151 .322 Lower-bound 1.951 1.000 1.951 1.151 .293
Error(Material)
Sphericity Assumed 44.049 52 .847 Greenhouse-Geisser 44.049 45.922 .959 Huynh-Feldt 44.049 49.019 .899 Lower-bound 44.049 26.000 1.694
!
!
Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N White Paperboard 3.0741 1.49167 27 Orange Paperboard 2.9259 1.35663 27 Kraft Paperboard 2.7037 1.40917 27
Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Messy Material Dependent Variable 1 messy1 2 messy2 3 messy3
!
Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Messy Within Subjects Effect
Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square
df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-
Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound
Material .979 .531 2 .767 .979 1.000 .500 a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.
!Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Messy Source Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Material
Sphericity Assumed 1.877 2 .938 1.028 .365 Greenhouse-Geisser 1.877 1.959 .958 1.028 .364 Huynh-Feldt 1.877 2.000 .938 1.028 .365 Lower-bound 1.877 1.000 1.877 1.028 .320
Error(Material)
Sphericity Assumed 47.457 52 .913 Greenhouse-Geisser 47.457 50.930 .932 Huynh-Feldt 47.457 52.000 .913 Lower-bound 47.457 26.000 1.825
!
!
Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N White Paperboard 2.8148 1.44214 27 Orange Paperboard 3.0370 1.48016 27 Kraft Paperboard 2.2963 1.17063 27
Within-Subjects Factors Measure: RePurchase Material Dependent Variable 1 repurchasable1 2 repurchasable2 3 repurchasable3
!
135
/CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet4] /Users/ekthackston/Downloads/cucafe_day2.sav
High Quality (White Paperboard, Orange Paperboard, Kraft Paperboard) GLM highquality1 highquality2 highquality4 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=HighQuality /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet4] /Users/ekthackston/Downloads/cucafe_day2.sav
Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: RePurchase Within Subjects Effect
Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square
df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-
Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound
Material .970 .750 2 .687 .971 1.000 .500 a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.
!
Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: RePurchase Source Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Material
Sphericity Assumed 1.556 2 .778 1.273 .289 Greenhouse-Geisser 1.556 1.943 .801 1.273 .288 Huynh-Feldt 1.556 2.000 .778 1.273 .289 Lower-bound 1.556 1.000 1.556 1.273 .270
Error(Material)
Sphericity Assumed 31.778 52 .611 Greenhouse-Geisser 31.778 50.508 .629 Huynh-Feldt 31.778 52.000 .611 Lower-bound 31.778 26.000 1.222
!
Within-Subjects Factors Measure: HighQuality Material Dependent Variable 1 highquality1 2 highquality2 3 highquality4
!
!
Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N White Paperboard 2.8148 1.44214 27 Orange Paperboard 3.0370 1.48016 27 Kraft Paperboard 2.2963 1.17063 27
Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: HighQuality Within Subjects Effect
Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square
df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-
Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound
Material .989 .275 2 .872 .989 1.000 .500 a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.
!Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: HighQuality Source Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Material
Sphericity Assumed 7.802 2 3.901 4.590 .015 Greenhouse-Geisser 7.802 1.978 3.944 4.590 .015 Huynh-Feldt 7.802 2.000 3.901 4.590 .015 Lower-bound 7.802 1.000 7.802 4.590 .042
Error(Material)
Sphericity Assumed 44.198 52 .850 Greenhouse-Geisser 44.198 51.437 .859 Huynh-Feldt 44.198 52.000 .850 Lower-bound 44.198 26.000 1.700
!
136
Tasty (White Paperboard, Orange Paperboard, Kraft Paperboard) GLM tasty1 tasty2 tasty3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=Tasty /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet4] /Users/ekthackston/Downloads/cucafe_day2.sav
Attractive (White Paperboard, Orange Paperboard, Kraft Paperboard) GLM attractive1 attractive2 attractive3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial
Estimates Measure: HighQuality Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 2.815 .278 2.244 3.385 2 3.037 .285 2.452 3.623 3 2.296 .225 1.833 2.759
!Pairwise Comparisons Measure: HighQuality (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference (I-
J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb
Lower Bound Upper Bound
1 2 -.222 .247 1.000 -.853 .409 3 .519 .263 .180 -.156 1.193
2 1 .222 .247 1.000 -.409 .853 3 .741* .242 .015 .121 1.361
3 1 -.519 .263 .180 -1.193 .156 2 -.741* .242 .015 -1.361 -.121
Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.
!
Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Tasty Material Dependent Variable 1 tasty1 2 tasty2 3 tasty3
!
!
Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N White Paperboard 3.4074 1.57527 27 Orange Paperboard 3.5926 1.42125 27 Kraft Paperboard 3.1111 1.71718 27
Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Tasty Within Subjects Effect
Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square
df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-
Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound
Material .938 1.588 2 .452 .942 1.000 .500 a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.
!Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Tasty Source Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Material
Sphericity Assumed 3.185 2 1.593 1.720 .189 Greenhouse-Geisser 3.185 1.884 1.691 1.720 .191 Huynh-Feldt 3.185 2.000 1.593 1.720 .189 Lower-bound 3.185 1.000 3.185 1.720 .201
Error(Material)
Sphericity Assumed 48.148 52 .926 Greenhouse-Geisser 48.148 48.986 .983 Huynh-Feldt 48.148 52.000 .926 Lower-bound 48.148 26.000 1.852
!Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Attractive Material Dependent Variable 1 attractive1 2 attractive2
3 attractive3
!
137
/MEASURE=Attractive /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet4] /Users/ekthackston/Downloads/cucafe_day2.sav
Fresh (White Paperboard, Orange Paperboard, Kraft Paperboard) GLM fresh1 fresh2 fresh3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=Fresh /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet4] /Users/ekthackston/Downloads/cucafe_day2.sav
Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Attractive Source Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Material
Sphericity Assumed 3.432 2 1.716 1.541 .224 Greenhouse-Geisser 3.432 1.801 1.906 1.541 .226 Huynh-Feldt 3.432 1.927 1.781 1.541 .225 Lower-bound 3.432 1.000 3.432 1.541 .226
Error(Material)
Sphericity Assumed 57.901 52 1.113 Greenhouse-Geisser 57.901 46.822 1.237 Huynh-Feldt 57.901 50.092 1.156 Lower-bound 57.901 26.000 2.227
!
!Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N White Paperboard 3.2593 1.37540 27 Orange Paperboard 3.3704 1.41824 27 Kraft Paperboard 2.8889 1.42325 27
Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Attractive Within Subjects Effect
Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square
df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-
Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound
Material .889 2.930 2 .231 .900 .963 .500 a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.
!
Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Fresh Material Dependent Variable 1 fresh1 2 fresh2 3 fresh3
!
!
Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N White Paperboard 2.8148 1.30198 27 Orange Paperboard 3.0370 1.28547 27 Kraft Paperboard 2.1481 1.35032 27
Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Fresh Within Subjects Effect
Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square
df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-
Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound
Material .983 .433 2 .805 .983 1.000 .500 a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.
!Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Fresh Source Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Material
Sphericity Assumed 11.556 2 5.778 6.377 .003 Greenhouse-Geisser 11.556 1.966 5.877 6.377 .004 Huynh-Feldt 11.556 2.000 5.778 6.377 .003 Lower-bound 11.556 1.000 11.556 6.377 .018
Error(Material)
Sphericity Assumed 47.111 52 .906 Greenhouse-Geisser 47.111 51.122 .922 Huynh-Feldt 47.111 52.000 .906 Lower-bound 47.111 26.000 1.812
!
138
Premium (White Paperboard, Orange Paperboard, Kraft Paperboard) GLM premium1 premium2 premium3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=Premium /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet4] /Users/ekthackston/Downloads/cucafe_day2.sav
Pairwise Comparisons Measure: Fresh (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference (I-
J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb
Lower Bound Upper Bound
1 2 -.222 .258 1.000 -.882 .438 3 .667* .245 .034 .041 1.293
2 1 .222 .258 1.000 -.438 .882 3 .889* .274 .010 .188 1.590
3 1 -.667* .245 .034 -1.293 -.041 2 -.889* .274 .010 -1.590 -.188
Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.
!
Estimates Measure: Fresh Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 2.815 .251 2.300 3.330 2 3.037 .247 2.529 3.546 3 2.148 .260 1.614 2.682
!
Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Premium Material Dependent Variable 1 premium1 2 premium2 3 premium3
!
!
Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N White Paperboard 2.6667 1.27098 27 Orange Paperboard 2.9630 1.31505 27 Kraft Paperboard 2.2963 1.03086 27
Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Premium Within Subjects Effect
Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square
df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-
Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound
Material .781 6.165 2 .046 .821 .869 .500 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.
!Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Premium Source Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Material
Sphericity Assumed 6.025 2 3.012 4.054 .023 Greenhouse-Geisser 6.025 1.641 3.671 4.054 .031 Huynh-Feldt 6.025 1.737 3.468 4.054 .029 Lower-bound 6.025 1.000 6.025 4.054 .055
Error(Material)
Sphericity Assumed 38.642 52 .743 Greenhouse-Geisser 38.642 42.674 .906 Huynh-Feldt 38.642 45.166 .856 Lower-bound 38.642 26.000 1.486
!
139
Price (White Paperboard, Orange Paperboard, Kraft Paperboard) GLM price1 price2 price3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=WTP /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Mode [DataSet4] /Users/ekthackston/Downloads/cucafe_day2.sav C5. Day 3
Estimates Measure: Premium Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 2.667 .245 2.164 3.169 2 2.963 .253 2.443 3.483 3 2.296 .198 1.889 2.704
!Pairwise Comparisons Measure: Premium (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference (I-
J) Std. Error Sig.a 95% Confidence Interval for Differencea
Lower Bound Upper Bound
1 2 -.296 .191 .399 -.785 .193 3 .370 .221 .317 -.195 .936
2 1 .296 .191 .399 -.193 .785 3 .667 .282 .078 -.056 1.389
3 1 -.370 .221 .317 -.936 .195 2 -.667 .282 .078 -1.389 .056
Based on estimated marginal means a. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.
!Within-Subjects Factors Measure: WTP Material Dependent Variable 1 price1 2 price2 3 price3
!
!
Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N How much would you be willing to pay for this burger? 1.4815 .64273 27
How much would you be willing to pay for this burger? 1.6296 .68770 27 How much would you be willing to pay for this burger? 1.4074 .57239 27
Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: WTP Within Subjects Effect
Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square
df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-
Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound
Material .788 5.967 2 .051 .825 .874 .500 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.
!Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: WTP Source Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Material
Sphericity Assumed .691 2 .346 2.459 .095 Greenhouse-Geisser .691 1.650 .419 2.459 .107 Huynh-Feldt .691 1.747 .396 2.459 .103 Lower-bound .691 1.000 .691 2.459 .129
Error(Material)
Sphericity Assumed 7.309 52 .141 Greenhouse-Geisser 7.309 42.892 .170 Huynh-Feldt 7.309 45.424 .161 Lower-bound 7.309 26.000 .281
!Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Appealing Material Dependent Variable 1 appealing1 2 appealing2 3 appealing3
!
140
Appeal (Foil Wrap, Paper Wrap, E-flute) GLM appealing1 appealing2 appealing3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=Appealing /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet1] /Users/ekthackston/Documents/cucafe_day3.sav
!
Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Foil Wrap 3.0000 1.51186 22 Paper Wrap 2.9545 1.36198 22 E-Flute 4.4545 1.43849 22
Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Appealing Within Subjects Effect
Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square
df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-
Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound
Material .914 1.806 2 .405 .921 1.000 .500 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table. !Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Appealing Source Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Material
Sphericity Assumed 32.030 2 16.015 12.311 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 32.030 1.841 17.398 12.311 .000 Huynh-Feldt 32.030 2.000 16.015 12.311 .000 Lower-bound 32.030 1.000 32.030 12.311 .002
Error(Material)
Sphericity Assumed 54.636 42 1.301 Greenhouse-Geisser 54.636 38.662 1.413 Huynh-Feldt 54.636 42.000 1.301 Lower-bound 54.636 21.000 2.602
!Estimates Measure: Appealing Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 3.000 .322 2.330 3.670 2 2.955 .290 2.351 3.558 3 4.455 .307 3.817 5.092 !Pairwise Comparisons Measure: Appealing (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference
(I-J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for
Differenceb Lower Bound Upper Bound
1 2 .045 .290 1.000 -.710 .801 3 -1.455* .376 .003 -2.434 -.475
2 1 -.045 .290 1.000 -.801 .710 3 -1.500* .359 .001 -2.434 -.566
3 1 1.455* .376 .003 .475 2.434 2 1.500* .359 .001 .566 2.434
Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni. !
141
Neat (Foil Wrap, Paper Wrap, E-flute) GLM neat1 neat2 neat3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=Neat /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet1] /Users/ekthackston/Documents/cucafe_day3.sav
!
Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Foil Wrap 3.2273 1.82396 22 Paper Wrap 3.4091 1.56324 22 E-Flute 5.2273 1.06600 22
Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Neat Material Dependent Variable 1 neat1 2 neat2 3 neat3
!
Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Neat Within Subjects Effect
Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square
df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-
Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound
Material .969 .627 2 .731 .970 1.000 .500 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.
!Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Neat Source Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Material
Sphericity Assumed 53.818 2 26.909 12.260 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 53.818 1.940 27.739 12.260 .000 Huynh-Feldt 53.818 2.000 26.909 12.260 .000 Lower-bound 53.818 1.000 53.818 12.260 .002
Error(Material)
Sphericity Assumed 92.182 42 2.195 Greenhouse-Geisser 92.182 40.743 2.263 Huynh-Feldt 92.182 42.000 2.195 Lower-bound 92.182 21.000 4.390
!Estimates Measure: Neat Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 3.227 .389 2.419 4.036 2 3.409 .333 2.716 4.102 3 5.227 .227 4.755 5.700
!Pairwise Comparisons Measure: Neat (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference (I-
J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb
Lower Bound Upper Bound
1 2 -.182 .435 1.000 -1.312 .949 3 -2.000* .483 .001 -3.258 -.742
2 1 .182 .435 1.000 -.949 1.312 3 -1.818* .419 .001 -2.909 -.727
3 1 2.000* .483 .001 .742 3.258 2 1.818* .419 .001 .727 2.909
Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.
!
142
Messy (Foil Wrap, Paper Wrap, E-flute) GLM messy1 messy2 messy3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=Messy /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet1] /Users/ekthackston/Documents/cucafe_day3.sav
Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Messy Material Dependent Variable 1 messy1 2 messy2 3 messy3
!
!
Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Foil Wrap 3.7727 1.79767 22 Paper Wrap 4.1818 1.59273 22 E-Flute 2.9091 1.10880 22
Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Messy Within Subjects Effect
Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square
df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-
Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound
Material .741 5.993 2 .050 .794 .849 .500 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.
!Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Messy Source Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Material
Sphericity Assumed 18.576 2 9.288 4.567 .016 Greenhouse-Geisser 18.576 1.589 11.693 4.567 .024 Huynh-Feldt 18.576 1.697 10.943 4.567 .022 Lower-bound 18.576 1.000 18.576 4.567 .045
Error(Material)
Sphericity Assumed 85.424 42 2.034 Greenhouse-Geisser 85.424 33.361 2.561 Huynh-Feldt 85.424 35.647 2.396 Lower-bound 85.424 21.000 4.068
!Estimates Measure: Messy Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 3.773 .383 2.976 4.570 2 4.182 .340 3.476 4.888 3 2.909 .236 2.417 3.401
!
143
Re-purchasable (Foil Wrap, Paper Wrap, E-flute) GLM repurchasable1 repurchasable2 repurchasable3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=RePurchase /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet1] /Users/ekthackston/Documents/cucafe_day3.sav
Pairwise Comparisons Measure: Messy (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference (I-
J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb
Lower Bound Upper Bound
1 2 -.409 .320 .645 -1.242 .423 3 .864 .515 .325 -.476 2.204
2 1 .409 .320 .645 -.423 1.242 3 1.273* .432 .023 .148 2.397
3 1 -.864 .515 .325 -2.204 .476 2 -1.273* .432 .023 -2.397 -.148
Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.
!
Within-Subjects Factors Measure: RePurchase Material Dependent Variable 1 repurchasable1 2 repurchasable2 3 repurchasable3
!
!
Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Foil Wrap 3.3182 1.67293 22 Paper Wrap 3.0909 1.19160 22 E-Flute 4.9091 1.37699 22
Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: RePurchase Within Subjects Effect
Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square
df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-
Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound
Material .874 2.684 2 .261 .888 .965 .500 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.
!Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: RePurchase Source Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Material
Sphericity Assumed 43.182 2 21.591 14.284 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 43.182 1.777 24.303 14.284 .000 Huynh-Feldt 43.182 1.929 22.380 14.284 .000 Lower-bound 43.182 1.000 43.182 14.284 .001
Error(Material)
Sphericity Assumed 63.485 42 1.512 Greenhouse-Geisser 63.485 37.313 1.701 Huynh-Feldt 63.485 40.519 1.567 Lower-bound 63.485 21.000 3.023
!Estimates Measure: RePurchase Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 3.318 .357 2.576 4.060 2 3.091 .254 2.563 3.619 3 4.909 .294 4.299 5.520
!Pairwise Comparisons Measure: RePurchase (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference (I-
J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb
Lower Bound Upper Bound
1 2 .227 .322 1.000 -.610 1.065 3 -1.591* .430 .004 -2.709 -.473
2 1 -.227 .322 1.000 -1.065 .610 3 -1.818* .352 .000 -2.734 -.902
3 1 1.591* .430 .004 .473 2.709 2 1.818* .352 .000 .902 2.734
Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.
!
144
High Quality (Foil Wrap, Paper Wrap, E-flute) GLM highquality1 highquality2 highquality4 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=HighQuality /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet1] /Users/ekthackston/Documents/cucafe_day3.sav
Within-Subjects Factors Measure: HighQuality Material Dependent Variable 1 highquality1 2 highquality2 3 highquality4
!
!
Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Foil Wrap 2.4545 1.26217 22 Paper Wrap 2.7273 .98473 22 E-Flute 4.6818 1.28680 22
Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: HighQuality Within Subjects Effect
Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square
df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-
Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound
Material .837 3.554 2 .169 .860 .929 .500 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.
!Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: HighQuality Source Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Material
Sphericity Assumed 64.939 2 32.470 26.708 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 64.939 1.720 37.757 26.708 .000 Huynh-Feldt 64.939 1.859 34.935 26.708 .000 Lower-bound 64.939 1.000 64.939 26.708 .000
Error(Material)
Sphericity Assumed 51.061 42 1.216 Greenhouse-Geisser 51.061 36.119 1.414 Huynh-Feldt 51.061 39.036 1.308 Lower-bound 51.061 21.000 2.431
!Estimates Measure: HighQuality Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 2.455 .269 1.895 3.014 2 2.727 .210 2.291 3.164 3 4.682 .274 4.111 5.252
!Pairwise Comparisons Measure: HighQuality (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference (I-
J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb
Lower Bound Upper Bound
1 2 -.273 .273 .986 -.982 .437 3 -2.227* .389 .000 -3.239 -1.216
2 1 .273 .273 .986 -.437 .982 3 -1.955* .326 .000 -2.801 -1.108
3 1 2.227* .389 .000 1.216 3.239 2 1.955* .326 .000 1.108 2.801
Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.
!
145
Tasty (Foil Wrap, Paper Wrap, E-flute) GLM tasty1 tasty2 tasty3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=Tasty /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet1] /Users/ekthackston/Documents/cucafe_day3.sav
Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Tasty Material Dependent Variable 1 tasty1 2 tasty2 3 tasty3
!
!
Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Foil Wrap 3.4545 1.73829 22 Paper Wrap 3.0909 1.23091 22 E-Flute 4.2727 1.31590 22
Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Tasty Within Subjects Effect
Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square
df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-
Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound
Material .902 2.067 2 .356 .911 .992 .500 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.
!Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Tasty Source Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Material
Sphericity Assumed 16.121 2 8.061 5.654 .007 Greenhouse-Geisser 16.121 1.821 8.852 5.654 .009 Huynh-Feldt 16.121 1.985 8.122 5.654 .007 Lower-bound 16.121 1.000 16.121 5.654 .027
Error(Material)
Sphericity Assumed 59.879 42 1.426 Greenhouse-Geisser 59.879 38.245 1.566 Huynh-Feldt 59.879 41.681 1.437 Lower-bound 59.879 21.000 2.851
!Estimates Measure: Tasty Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 3.455 .371 2.684 4.225 2 3.091 .262 2.545 3.637 3 4.273 .281 3.689 4.856
!Pairwise Comparisons Measure: Tasty (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference (I-
J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb
Lower Bound Upper Bound
1 2 .364 .312 .772 -.449 1.176 3 -.818 .409 .176 -1.882 .246
2 1 -.364 .312 .772 -1.176 .449 3 -1.182* .352 .009 -2.098 -.266
3 1 .818 .409 .176 -.246 1.882 2 1.182* .352 .009 .266 2.098
Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.
!
146
Attractive (Foil Wrap, Paper Wrap, E-flute) GLM attractive1 attractive2 attractive3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=Attractive /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet1] /Users/ekthackston/Documents/cucafe_day3.sav
Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Attractive Material Dependent Variable 1 attractive1 2 attractive2 3 attractive3
!!Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Foil Wrap 2.7727 1.50971 22 Paper Wrap 2.6818 1.17053 22 E-Flute 4.6364 1.46533 22
Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Attractive Within Subjects Effect
Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square
df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-
Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound
Material .892 2.290 2 .318 .902 .982 .500 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.
!Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Attractive Source Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Material
Sphericity Assumed 53.545 2 26.773 16.426 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 53.545 1.805 29.669 16.426 .000 Huynh-Feldt 53.545 1.964 27.260 16.426 .000 Lower-bound 53.545 1.000 53.545 16.426 .001
Error(Material)
Sphericity Assumed 68.455 42 1.630 Greenhouse-Geisser 68.455 37.900 1.806 Huynh-Feldt 68.455 41.249 1.660 Lower-bound 68.455 21.000 3.260
!Estimates Measure: Attractive Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 2.773 .322 2.103 3.442 2 2.682 .250 2.163 3.201 3 4.636 .312 3.987 5.286
!Pairwise Comparisons Measure: Attractive (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference (I-
J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb
Lower Bound Upper Bound
1 2 .091 .341 1.000 -.797 .979 3 -1.864* .443 .001 -3.016 -.712
2 1 -.091 .341 1.000 -.979 .797 3 -1.955* .363 .000 -2.899 -1.010
3 1 1.864* .443 .001 .712 3.016 2 1.955* .363 .000 1.010 2.899
Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.
!
147
Fresh (Foil Wrap, Paper Wrap, E-flute) GLM fresh1 fresh2 fresh3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=Fresh /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet1] /Users/ekthackston/Documents/cucafe_day3.sav
Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Fresh Material Dependent Variable 1 fresh1 2 fresh2 3 fresh3
!
!
Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Foil Wrap 2.9091 1.94958 22 Paper Wrap 2.7727 1.26986 22 E-Flute 4.3182 1.17053 22
Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Fresh Within Subjects Effect
Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square
df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-
Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound
Material .674 7.897 2 .019 .754 .800 .500 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.
!Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Fresh Source Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Material
Sphericity Assumed 32.212 2 16.106 7.765 .001 Greenhouse-Geisser 32.212 1.508 21.360 7.765 .004 Huynh-Feldt 32.212 1.600 20.139 7.765 .003 Lower-bound 32.212 1.000 32.212 7.765 .011
Error(Material)
Sphericity Assumed 87.121 42 2.074 Greenhouse-Geisser 87.121 31.669 2.751 Huynh-Feldt 87.121 33.590 2.594 Lower-bound 87.121 21.000 4.149
!Estimates Measure: Fresh Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 2.909 .416 2.045 3.773 2 2.773 .271 2.210 3.336 3 4.318 .250 3.799 4.837
!Pairwise Comparisons Measure: Fresh (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference (I-
J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb
Lower Bound Upper Bound
1 2 .136 .462 1.000 -1.065 1.338 3 -1.409* .517 .038 -2.753 -.065
2 1 -.136 .462 1.000 -1.338 1.065 3 -1.545* .292 .000 -2.306 -.785
3 1 1.409* .517 .038 .065 2.753 2 1.545* .292 .000 .785 2.306
Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.
!
148
Premium (Foil Wrap, Paper Wrap, E-flute) GLM premium1 premium2 premium3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=Premium /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet1] /Users/ekthackston/Documents/cucafe_day3.sav
Estimates Measure: Premium Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 2.455 .300 1.832 3.077 2 2.500 .205 2.073 2.927 3 4.682 .318 4.020 5.344
!
Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Premium Material Dependent Variable 1 premium1 2 premium2 3 premium3
!
!
Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Foil Wrap 2.4545 1.40500 22 Paper Wrap 2.5000 .96362 22 E-Flute 4.6818 1.49241 22
Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Premium Within Subjects Effect
Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square
df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-
Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound
Material .702 7.069 2 .029 .771 .820 .500 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.
!Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Premium Source Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Material
Sphericity Assumed 71.303 2 35.652 26.724 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 71.303 1.541 46.266 26.724 .000 Huynh-Feldt 71.303 1.640 43.487 26.724 .000 Lower-bound 71.303 1.000 71.303 26.724 .000
Error(Material)
Sphericity Assumed 56.030 42 1.334 Greenhouse-Geisser 56.030 32.364 1.731 Huynh-Feldt 56.030 34.433 1.627 Lower-bound 56.030 21.000 2.668
!
Pairwise Comparisons Measure: Premium (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference (I-
J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb
Lower Bound Upper Bound
1 2 -.045 .250 1.000 -.697 .606 3 -2.227* .421 .000 -3.322 -1.132
2 1 .045 .250 1.000 -.606 .697 3 -2.182* .352 .000 -3.098 -1.266
3 1 2.227* .421 .000 1.132 3.322 2 2.182* .352 .000 1.266 3.098
Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.
!
149
Price (Foil Wrap, Paper Wrap, E-flute) GLM price1 price2 price3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=WTP /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet1] /Users/ekthackston/Documents/cucafe_day3.sav
Within-Subjects Factors Measure: WTP Material Dependent Variable 1 price1 2 price2 3 price3
!
!
Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Foil Wrap 1.5909 .50324 22 Paper Wrap 1.5000 .51177 22 E-Flute 2.2273 .61193 22
Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: WTP Within Subjects Effect
Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square
df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-
Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound
Material .994 .115 2 .944 .994 1.000 .500 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.
!Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: WTP Source Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Material
Sphericity Assumed 6.909 2 3.455 14.870 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 6.909 1.989 3.474 14.870 .000 Huynh-Feldt 6.909 2.000 3.455 14.870 .000 Lower-bound 6.909 1.000 6.909 14.870 .001
Error(Material)
Sphericity Assumed 9.758 42 .232 Greenhouse-Geisser 9.758 41.762 .234 Huynh-Feldt 9.758 42.000 .232 Lower-bound 9.758 21.000 .465
!Estimates Measure: WTP Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 1.591 .107 1.368 1.814 2 1.500 .109 1.273 1.727 3 2.227 .130 1.956 2.499
!Pairwise Comparisons Measure: WTP (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference (I-
J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb
Lower Bound Upper Bound
1 2 .091 .146 1.000 -.288 .470 3 -.636* .140 .001 -1.001 -.271
2 1 -.091 .146 1.000 -.470 .288 3 -.727* .150 .000 -1.117 -.338
3 1 .636* .140 .001 .271 1.001 2 .727* .150 .000 .338 1.117
Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.
!
150
Appendix D
Full Scale Study Data and Statistical Analysis
D1. Demographic Data Summary
18-20 47.20%21-29 46.40%30-39 1.80%40-49 1.80%50-59 2.70%
Male 65.50%Female 33.60%Other 0.91%
$0-$24,999 31.82%$25,000-$49,999 17.27%$50,000-$74,999 7.27%$75,000-$99,999 10.91%$100,000-$124,999 10.91%$125,000-$149,999 6.36%$150,000-$174,999 0.91%$175,000-$199,999 1.82%$200,000 and up 12.73%
Less than High School Degree 0.00%High school degree or equivalent 12.73%Some College No Degree 66.36%Associate Degree 1.82%Bachelor Degree 14.55%Graduate Degree 4.55%
Age Range
Education Level
Average Household Income
Gender
American Indian or Alaskan Native 0.00%Asian / Pacific Islander 5.45%Black or African American 10.91%Hispanic American 1.82%White / Caucasian 81.82%
Married 6.36%Widowed 0.00%Divorced 2.73%Separated 0.00%Never Married 90.91%
1 13.00%2 56.00%3 11.00%4 7.00%5 9.00%6 4.00%
Number of People in Household
Marital Status
Ethnicity
151
D2. Fast Food Preference Data Summary
Almost Daily 9.09%Not everyday but more than once a week 50.00%A few times a month, at most 37.27%Rarely or never 3.64%
Breakfast 3.64%Lunch 56.36%Dinner 34.55%As a snack in between meals 5.45%
In Car 27.27%Inside the restaurant 29.09%At home 33.64%At work 10.00%
Walk Inisde 52.73%Drive-thru 47.27%
<$2.00 0.91%$2.00-$4.00 17.27%$4.00-$6.00 49.09%$6.00-$8.00 30.00%$8.00+ 2.73%
On average how much do you spend at fast food restaurants per visit?
How often do you eat fast food?
For which meal do you most often eat fast food?
Where do you normally eat fast food?
Do you normally walk inside the restaurant or use the drive-thru?
152
D3. Sensory Attributes
Flavor GET FILE='/Users/ekthackston/Desktop/THESIS: GRADUATION/Graphs_tables/Wendys_all_sensory_3.sav'. DATASET NAME DataSet2 WINDOW=FRONT. SAVE OUTFILE='/Users/ekthackston/Desktop/THESIS: GRADUATION/Graphs_tables/wendys_sensory_anova.sav' /COMPRESSED. GLM sample602_flavor sample983_flavor sample180_flavor sample532_flavor BY Condition /WSFACTOR=Material 4 Polynomial /MEASURE=Flavor /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Condition) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Condition*Material) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material /DESIGN=Condition. General Linear Model [DataSet2] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/THESIS:GRADUATION/Graphs_tables/wendys_sensory_anova.sav Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Flavor Material Dependent Variable 1 sample602_flavor 2 sample983_flavor 3 sample180_flavor 4 sample532_flavor
Descriptive Statistics
Condition Mean Std. Deviation N
sample602_flavor Burger 5.2909 1.34264 55 Chicken 5.7455 1.32243 55 Total 5.5182 1.34595 110
sample983_flavor Burger 5.3091 1.24533 55 Chicken 5.7818 1.19708 55 Total 5.5455 1.23879 110
sample180_flavor Burger 5.3455 1.17407 55
Between-Subjects Factors Value Label N
Condition 1.00 Burger 55 2.00 Chicken 55
153
Chicken 5.9273 1.08619 55 Total 5.6364 1.16310 110
sample532_flavor Burger 5.2909 1.13321 55 Chicken 5.8364 1.06742 55 Total 5.5636 1.12948 110
Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Flavor Within Subjects Effect
Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square
df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-
Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound
Material .912 9.857 5 .079 .940 .977 .333 a. Design: Intercept + Condition Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.
Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Flavor Source Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Material
Sphericity Assumed .843 3 .281 .322 .810 Greenhouse-Geisser .843 2.819 .299 .322 .797 Huynh-Feldt .843 2.930 .288 .322 .805 Lower-bound .843 1.000 .843 .322 .572
Material * Condition
Sphericity Assumed .298 3 .099 .114 .952 Greenhouse-Geisser .298 2.819 .106 .114 .945 Huynh-Feldt .298 2.930 .102 .114 .949 Lower-bound .298 1.000 .298 .114 .737
Error(Material)
Sphericity Assumed 283.109 324 .874 Greenhouse-Geisser 283.109 304.501 .930 Huynh-Feldt 283.109 316.400 .895 Lower-bound 283.109 108.000 2.621
Estimates Measure: Flavor Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 5.518 .127 5.266 5.770 2 5.545 .116 5.315 5.776 3 5.636 .108 5.423 5.850 4 5.564 .105 5.356 5.772
Texture GLM sample602_texture sample983_texture sample180_texture sample532_texture BY Condition /WSFACTOR=Material 4 Polynomial /MEASURE=Texture /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Condition) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Condition*Material) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material /DESIGN=Condition. General Linear Model
154
[DataSet2] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/THESIS:GRADUATION/Graphs_tables/wendys_sensory_anova.sav
Descriptive Statistics
Condition Mean Std. Deviation N
sample602_texture Burger 5.1636 1.30190 55 Chicken 5.9455 .91121 55 Total 5.5545 1.18543 110
sample983_texture Burger 5.3818 1.26916 55 Chicken 5.9455 1.00771 55 Total 5.6636 1.17526 110
sample180_texture Burger 5.3818 1.28367 55 Chicken 5.7455 1.22048 55 Total 5.5636 1.26002 110
sample532_texture Burger 5.1455 1.33913 55 Chicken 5.5818 1.43618 55 Total 5.3636 1.39939 110
Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Texture Material Dependent Variable 1 sample602_texture 2 sample983_texture 3 sample180_texture 4 sample532_texture
Between-Subjects Factors Value Label N
Condition 1.00 Burger 55 2.00 Chicken 55
Between-Subjects Factors
155
Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Texture Within Subjects Effect
Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square
df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-
Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound
Material .877 14.020 5 .015 .928 .964 .333 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept + Condition Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.
Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Texture Source Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Material
Sphericity Assumed 5.182 3 1.727 1.782 .150 Greenhouse-Geisser 5.182 2.784 1.861 1.782 .155 Huynh-Feldt 5.182 2.892 1.792 1.782 .153 Lower-bound 5.182 1.000 5.182 1.782 .185
Material * Condition
Sphericity Assumed 2.773 3 .924 .954 .415 Greenhouse-Geisser 2.773 2.784 .996 .954 .410 Huynh-Feldt 2.773 2.892 .959 .954 .413 Lower-bound 2.773 1.000 2.773 .954 .331
Error(Material)
Sphericity Assumed 314.045 324 .969 Greenhouse-Geisser 314.045 300.667 1.044 Huynh-Feldt 314.045 312.285 1.006 Lower-bound 314.045 108.000 2.908
GLM sample602_overall sample983_overall sample180_overall sample532_overall BY Condition /WSFACTOR=Material 4 Polynomial /MEASURE=Overall /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Condition) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Condition*Material) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material /DESIGN=Condition. General Linear Model [DataSet2] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/THESIS:GRADUATION/Graphs_tables/wendys_sensory_anova.sav Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Overall Material Dependent Variable 1 sample602_overall 2 sample983_overall 3 sample180_overall 4 sample532_overall
Descriptive Statistics
Condition Mean Std. Deviation N sample602_overall Burger 5.2364 1.30474 55
Value Label N
Condition 1.00 Burger 55 2.00 Chicken 55
156
Chicken 5.6545 1.26518 55 Total 5.4455 1.29633 110
sample983_overall Burger 5.3091 1.26011 55 Chicken 5.8000 1.00738 55 Total 5.5545 1.16198 110
sample180_overall Burger 5.3818 1.14651 55 Chicken 5.8909 1.11675 55 Total 5.6364 1.15518 110
sample532_overall Burger 5.1091 1.14944 55 Chicken 5.6727 1.20269 55 Total 5.3909 1.20470 110
Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Overall Within Subjects Effect
Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square
df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-
Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound
Material .886 12.885 5 .024 .930 .966 .333 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept + Condition Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.
Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Overall Source Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Material
Sphericity Assumed 3.989 3 1.330 1.486 .218 Greenhouse-Geisser 3.989 2.791 1.429 1.486 .221 Huynh-Feldt 3.989 2.899 1.376 1.486 .220 Lower-bound 3.989 1.000 3.989 1.486 .226
Material * Condition
Sphericity Assumed .298 3 .099 .111 .954 Greenhouse-Geisser .298 2.791 .107 .111 .945 Huynh-Feldt .298 2.899 .103 .111 .950 Lower-bound .298 1.000 .298 .111 .740
Error(Material)
Sphericity Assumed 289.964 324 .895 Greenhouse-Geisser 289.964 301.461 .962 Huynh-Feldt 289.964 313.137 .926 Lower-bound 289.964 108.000 2.685
Acceptance GLM sample602_how_often_would_you_eat_this_product sample983_how_often_would_you_eat_this_product sample180_how_often_would_you_eat_this_product sample532_how_often_would_you_eat_this_product BY Condition /WSFACTOR=Material 4 Polynomial /MEASURE=Acceptability /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Condition) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Condition*Material) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material /DESIGN=Condition. General Linear Model [DataSet2] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/THESIS: GRADUATION/Graphs_tables/wendys_sensory_anova.sav
Between-Subjects Factors
157
Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Acceptability Material Dependent Variable
1 sample602_how_often_would_you_eat_this_product
2 sample983_how_often_would_you_eat_this_product
3 sample180_how_often_would_you_eat_this_product
4 sample532_how_often_would_you_eat_this_product
Descriptive Statistics
Condition Mean Std. Deviation N sample602_how_often_would_you_eat_this_product
Burger 5.509 1.5501 55 Chicken 5.873 1.4789 55 Total 5.691 1.5190 110
sample983_how_often_would_you_eat_this_product
Burger 5.7091 1.74984 55 Chicken 5.8545 1.26810 55 Total 5.7818 1.52280 110
sample180_how_often_would_you_eat_this_product
Burger 5.6545 1.51802 55 Chicken 6.0364 1.30474 55 Total 5.8455 1.42189 110
sample532_how_often_would_you_eat_this_product
Burger 5.3091 1.43853 55 Chicken 5.7818 1.54789 55 Total 5.5455 1.50617 110
Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Acceptability Within Subjects Effect
Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square
df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-
Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound
Material .908 10.350 5 .066 .947 .984 .333 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept + Condition Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.
Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Acceptability Source Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Material
Sphericity Assumed 5.589 3 1.863 1.638 .181 Greenhouse-Geisser 5.589 2.841 1.967 1.638 .183 Huynh-Feldt 5.589 2.952 1.893 1.638 .181 Lower-bound 5.589 1.000 5.589 1.638 .203
Material * Condition
Sphericity Assumed 1.589 3 .530 .466 .707 Greenhouse-Geisser 1.589 2.841 .559 .466 .696 Huynh-Feldt 1.589 2.952 .538 .466 .703 Lower-bound 1.589 1.000 1.589 .466 .497
Error(Material)
Sphericity Assumed 368.573 324 1.138 Greenhouse-Geisser 368.573 306.798 1.201 Huynh-Feldt 368.573 318.867 1.156 Lower-bound 368.573 108.000 3.413
D4. Functionality Attributes
Value Label N
Condition 1.00 Burger 55 2.00 Chicken 55
158
Protects Product GET FILE='/Users/ekthackston/Desktop/THESIS: GRADUATION/Graphs_tables/Wendys_all_functionality.sav'. DATASET NAME DataSet1 WINDOW=FRONT. SAVE OUTFILE='/Users/ekthackston/Desktop/THESIS: '+ 'GRADUATION/Graphs_tables/Wendys_all_functionality_anova.sav' /COMPRESSED. DATASET ACTIVATE DataSet1. SAVE OUTFILE='/Users/ekthackston/Desktop/THESIS: '+ 'GRADUATION/Graphs_tables/Wendys_all_functionality_anova.sav' /COMPRESSED. GLM sample602_protects sample983_protects sample180_protects sample532_protects BY Condition /WSFACTOR=Material 4 Polynomial /MEASURE=ProtectsProduct /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Condition) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Condition*Material) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material /DESIGN=Condition. General Linear Model [DataSet1] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/THESIS: GRADUATION/Graphs_tables/Wendys_all_functionality_anova.sav Within-Subjects Factors Measure: ProtectsProduct Material Dependent Variable 1 sample602_protects 2 sample983_protects 3 sample180_protects 4 sample532_protects
Descriptive Statistics
Condition Mean Std. Deviation N
Protects product Burger 5.6364 1.39262 55 Chicken 5.9091 1.20605 55 Total 5.7727 1.30390 110
Protects product Burger 6.2909 .80904 55 Chicken 6.2727 .98985 55 Total 6.2818 .89987 110
Protects product Burger 5.8182 1.07309 55 Chicken 6.2909 .78582 55 Total 6.0545 .96580 110
Protects product Burger 3.3091 1.66525 55 Chicken 3.2727 1.75810 55 Total 3.2909 1.70453 110
Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: ProtectsProduct Within Subjects Effect
Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square
df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-
Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound
Material .629 49.523 5 .000 .754 .778 .333 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept + Condition Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.
Between-Subjects Factors Value Label N
Condition 1.00 Burger 55 2.00 Chicken 55
159
Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: ProtectsProduct Source Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Material
Sphericity Assumed 636.155 3 212.052 147.946 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 636.155 2.263 281.119 147.946 .000
Huynh-Feldt 636.155 2.335 272.414 147.946 .000 Lower-bound 636.155 1.000 636.155 147.946 .000
Material * Condition
Sphericity Assumed 4.955 3 1.652 1.152 .328 Greenhouse-Geisser 4.955 2.263 2.189 1.152 .322
Huynh-Feldt 4.955 2.335 2.122 1.152 .323 Lower-bound 4.955 1.000 4.955 1.152 .285
Error(Material)
Sphericity Assumed 464.391 324 1.433 Greenhouse-Geisser 464.391 244.397 1.900
Huynh-Feldt 464.391 252.207 1.841 Lower-bound 464.391 108.000 4.300
Estimates Measure: ProtectsProduct Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 5.773 .124 5.527 6.019 2 6.282 .086 6.111 6.453 3 6.055 .090 5.877 6.232 4 3.291 .163 2.967 3.615
Pairwise Comparisons Measure: ProtectsProduct (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference
(I-J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for
Differenceb Lower Bound Upper Bound
1 2 -.509* .131 .001 -.861 -.158 3 -.282 .132 .211 -.637 .073 4 2.482* .200 .000 1.946 3.018
2 1 .509* .131 .001 .158 .861 3 .227 .113 .285 -.077 .532 4 2.991* .185 .000 2.493 3.488
3 1 .282 .132 .211 -.073 .637 2 -.227 .113 .285 -.532 .077 4 2.764* .187 .000 2.261 3.266
4 1 -2.482* .200 .000 -3.018 -1.946 2 -2.991* .185 .000 -3.488 -2.493 3 -2.764* .187 .000 -3.266 -2.261
Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.
Easy to Open GLM sample602_open sample983_open sample180_open sample532_open BY Condition /WSFACTOR=Material 4 Polynomial /MEASURE=EasyOpen /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Condition) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI)
160
/EMMEANS=TABLES(Condition*Material) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material /DESIGN=Condition. General Linear Model [DataSet1] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/THESIS: GRADUATION/Graphs_tables/Wendys_all_functionality_anova.sav Within-Subjects Factors Measure: EasyOpen Material Dependent
Variable 1 sample602_open 2 sample983_open 3 sample180_open 4 sample532_open
Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: EasyOpen Within Subjects Effect
Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square
df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-
Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound
Material .699 38.277 5 .000 .810 .838 .333 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept + Condition Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.
Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: EasyOpen Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Material
Sphericity Assumed 283.518 3 94.506 44.222 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 283.518 2.431 116.645 44.222 .000 Huynh-Feldt 283.518 2.514 112.791 44.222 .000 Lower-bound 283.518 1.000 283.518 44.222 .000
Between-Subjects Factors Value Label N
Condition 1.00 Burger 55 2.00 Chicken 55
Descriptive Statistics
Condition Mean Std. Deviation N
Easy to open Burger 3.9273 2.01710 55 Chicken 4.2182 2.02476 55 Total 4.0727 2.01694 110
Easy to open Burger 5.3091 1.42560 55 Chicken 5.2727 1.78942 55 Total 5.2909 1.61043 110
Easy to open Burger 5.8545 1.23855 55 Chicken 6.1818 1.00168 55 Total 6.0182 1.13317 110
Easy to open Burger 5.8909 1.36995 55 Chicken 6.2182 1.06616 55 Total 6.0545 1.23286 110
161
Material * Condition
Sphericity Assumed 2.573 3 .858 .401 .752 Greenhouse-Geisser 2.573 2.431 1.058 .401 .710 Huynh-Feldt 2.573 2.514 1.023 .401 .717 Lower-bound 2.573 1.000 2.573 .401 .528
Error(Material)
Sphericity Assumed 692.409 324 2.137 Greenhouse-Geisser 692.409 262.505 2.638 Huynh-Feldt 692.409 271.476 2.551 Lower-bound 692.409 108.000 6.411
Estimates Measure: EasyOpen Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 4.073 .193 3.691 4.455 2 5.291 .154 4.985 5.597 3 6.018 .107 5.805 6.231 4 6.055 .117 5.823 6.287
Pairwise Comparisons Measure: EasyOpen (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference
(I-J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for
Differenceb Lower Bound Upper Bound
1 2 -1.218* .198 .000 -1.750 -.686 3 -1.945* .227 .000 -2.554 -1.337 4 -1.982* .233 .000 -2.609 -1.355
2 1 1.218* .198 .000 .686 1.750 3 -.727* .175 .000 -1.197 -.258 4 -.764* .193 .001 -1.283 -.244
3 1 1.945* .227 .000 1.337 2.554 2 .727* .175 .000 .258 1.197 4 -.036 .143 1.000 -.420 .347
4 1 1.982* .233 .000 1.355 2.609 2 .764* .193 .001 .244 1.283 3 .036 .143 1.000 -.347 .420
Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.
Contains Product GLM sample602_contains sample983_contains sample180_contains sample532_contains BY Condition /WSFACTOR=Material 4 Polynomial /MEASURE=ContainsProduct /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Condition) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Condition*Material) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material /DESIGN=Condition. General Linear Model [DataSet1] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/THESIS: GRADUATION/Graphs_tables/Wendys_all_functionality_anova.sav Within-Subjects Factors Measure: ContainsProduct Material Dependent Variable 1 sample602_contains 2 sample983_contains
162
3 sample180_contains 4 sample532_contains
Descriptive Statistics
Condition Mean Std. Deviation N
Contains product Burger 5.5455 1.53741 55 Chicken 6.0727 1.16832 55 Total 5.8091 1.38468 110
Contains product Burger 6.2909 .80904 55 Chicken 6.5273 .71633 55 Total 6.4091 .76979 110
Contains product Burger 6.1091 .89593 55 Chicken 6.3636 .82470 55 Total 6.2364 .86658 110
Contains product Burger 4.8909 1.62928 55 Chicken 5.0000 1.56347 55 Total 4.9455 1.59032 110
Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: ContainsProduct Within Subjects Effect
Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square
df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-
Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound
Material .491 75.857 5 .000 .713 .735 .333 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept + Condition Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.
Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: ContainsProduct Source Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Material
Sphericity Assumed 140.991 3 46.997 42.303 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 140.991 2.139 65.903 42.303 .000 Huynh-Feldt 140.991 2.204 63.966 42.303 .000 Lower-bound 140.991 1.000 140.991 42.303 .000
Material * Condition
Sphericity Assumed 2.555 3 .852 .766 .514 Greenhouse-Geisser 2.555 2.139 1.194 .766 .474 Huynh-Feldt 2.555 2.204 1.159 .766 .477 Lower-bound 2.555 1.000 2.555 .766 .383
Error(Material)
Sphericity Assumed 359.955 324 1.111 Greenhouse-Geisser 359.955 231.053 1.558 Huynh-Feldt 359.955 238.047 1.512 Lower-bound 359.955 108.000 3.333
Estimates Measure: ContainsProduct Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 5.809 .130 5.551 6.067 2 6.409 .073 6.265 6.553 3 6.236 .082 6.074 6.399 4 4.945 .152 4.644 5.247
163
Pairwise Comparisons Measure: ContainsProduct (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference
(I-J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for
Differenceb Lower Bound Upper Bound
1 2 -.600* .118 .000 -.918 -.282 3 -.427* .126 .006 -.766 -.088 4 .864* .185 .000 .367 1.361
2 1 .600* .118 .000 .282 .918 3 .173 .081 .210 -.045 .390 4 1.464* .159 .000 1.036 1.891
3 1 .427* .126 .006 .088 .766 2 -.173 .081 .210 -.390 .045 4 1.291* .159 .000 .864 1.718
4 1 -.864* .185 .000 -1.361 -.367 2 -1.464* .159 .000 -1.891 -1.036 3 -1.291* .159 .000 -1.718 -.864
Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.
Keeps Product Warm GLM sample602_warm sample983_warm sample180_warm sample532_warm BY Condition /WSFACTOR=Material 4 Polynomial /MEASURE=KeepsWarm /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Condition) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Condition*Material) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material /DESIGN=Condition. General Linear Model [DataSet1] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/THESIS: GRADUATION/Graphs_tables/Wendys_all_functionality_anova Within-Subjects Factors Measure: KeepsWarm Material Dependent Variable 1 sample602_warm 2 sample983_warm 3 sample180_warm 4 sample532_warm
Descriptive Statistics
Condition Mean Std. Deviation N
Keeps product warm Burger 4.9273 1.59692 55 Chicken 5.2000 1.33888 55 Total 5.0636 1.47317 110
Keeps product warm Burger 5.7273 1.25395 55 Chicken 5.9091 1.05887 55 Total 5.8182 1.15879 110
Keeps product warm Burger 5.8545 .93131 55 Chicken 6.1273 .94388 55 Total 5.9909 .94331 110
Between-Subjects Factors Value Label N
Condition 1.00 Burger 55 2.00 Chicken 55
164
Keeps product warm Burger 3.8909 1.67412 55 Chicken 3.6182 1.70501 55 Total 3.7545 1.68744 110
Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: KeepsWarm Within Subjects Effect
Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square
df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-
Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound
Material .720 35.126 5 .000 .833 .862 .333 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept + Condition Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.
Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: KeepsWarm Source Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Material
Sphericity Assumed 341.898 3 113.966 78.693 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 341.898 2.499 136.832 78.693 .000 Huynh-Feldt 341.898 2.586 132.198 78.693 .000 Lower-bound 341.898 1.000 341.898 78.693 .000
Material * Condition
Sphericity Assumed 5.625 3 1.875 1.295 .276 Greenhouse-Geisser 5.625 2.499 2.251 1.295 .277 Huynh-Feldt 5.625 2.586 2.175 1.295 .277 Lower-bound 5.625 1.000 5.625 1.295 .258
Error(Material)
Sphericity Assumed 469.227 324 1.448 Greenhouse-Geisser 469.227 269.857 1.739 Huynh-Feldt 469.227 279.316 1.680 Lower-bound 469.227 108.000 4.345
Estimates Measure: KeepsWarm Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 5.064 .140 4.785 5.342 2 5.818 .111 5.599 6.038 3 5.991 .089 5.814 6.168 4 3.755 .161 3.435 4.074
Pairwise Comparisons Measure: KeepsWarm (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference
(I-J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for
Differenceb Lower Bound Upper Bound
1 2 -.755* .133 .000 -1.112 -.397 3 -.927* .156 .000 -1.345 -.509 4 1.309* .186 .000 .809 1.809
2 1 .755* .133 .000 .397 1.112 3 -.173 .119 .906 -.494 .148 4 2.064* .181 .000 1.577 2.550
165
3 1 .927* .156 .000 .509 1.345 2 .173 .119 .906 -.148 .494 4 2.236* .186 .000 1.737 2.735
4 1 -1.309* .186 .000 -1.809 -.809 2 -2.064* .181 .000 -2.550 -1.577 3 -2.236* .186 .000 -2.735 -1.737
Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.
Easy to Carry GLM sample602_carry sample983_carry sample180_carry sample532_carry BY Condition /WSFACTOR=Material 4 Polynomial /MEASURE=EasyCarry /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Condition) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Condition*Material) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material /DESIGN=Condition. General Linear Model [DataSet1] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/THESIS: GRADUATION/Graphs_tables/Wendys_all_functionality_anova.sav Within-Subjects Factors Measure: EasyCarry Material Dependent Variable 1 sample602_carry 2 sample983_carry 3 sample180_carry 4 sample532_carry
Descriptive Statistics
Condition Mean Std. Deviation N
Easy to carry Burger 4.6182 1.77942 55 Chicken 5.1636 1.48777 55 Total 4.8909 1.65538 110
Easy to carry Burger 5.5818 1.48687 55 Chicken 6.1818 1.00168 55 Total 5.8818 1.29736 110
Easy to carry Burger 5.4727 1.31733 55 Chicken 6.1818 .79561 55 Total 5.8273 1.14025 110
Easy to carry Burger 5.4727 1.51357 55 Chicken 5.3636 1.60282 55 Total 5.4182 1.55264 110
Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: EasyCarry Within Subjects Effect
Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square
df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-
Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound
Material .790 25.165 5 .000 .859 .890 .333 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept + Condition Within Subjects Design: Material
Between-Subjects Factors Value Label N
Condition 1.00 Burger 55 2.00 Chicken 55
166
b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.
Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: EasyCarry Source Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Material
Sphericity Assumed 69.355 3 23.118 14.436 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 69.355 2.577 26.913 14.436 .000 Huynh-Feldt 69.355 2.670 25.977 14.436 .000 Lower-bound 69.355 1.000 69.355 14.436 .000
Material * Condition
Sphericity Assumed 11.291 3 3.764 2.350 .072 Greenhouse-Geisser 11.291 2.577 4.381 2.350 .082 Huynh-Feldt 11.291 2.670 4.229 2.350 .080 Lower-bound 11.291 1.000 11.291 2.350 .128
Error(Material)
Sphericity Assumed 518.855 324 1.601 Greenhouse-Geisser 518.855 278.313 1.864 Huynh-Feldt 518.855 288.347 1.799 Lower-bound 518.855 108.000 4.804
Estimates Measure: EasyCarry Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 4.891 .156 4.581 5.201 2 5.882 .121 5.642 6.121 3 5.827 .104 5.622 6.033 4 5.418 .149 5.124 5.713
Pairwise Comparisons Measure: EasyCarry (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference
(I-J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for
Differenceb Lower Bound Upper Bound
1 2 -.991* .149 .000 -1.391 -.591 3 -.936* .156 .000 -1.355 -.518 4 -.527 .204 .066 -1.075 .021
2 1 .991* .149 .000 .591 1.391 3 .055 .134 1.000 -.306 .415 4 .464 .189 .094 -.044 .971
3 1 .936* .156 .000 .518 1.355 2 -.055 .134 1.000 -.415 .306 4 .409 .182 .160 -.080 .899
4 1 .527 .204 .066 -.021 1.075 2 -.464 .189 .094 -.971 .044 3 -.409 .182 .160 -.899 .080
Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni. D5. Credence Attributes
Natural GET FILE='/Users/ekthackston/Desktop/THESIS: GRADUATION/Graphs_tables/Wendys_all_qualities.sav'. DATASET NAME DataSet2 WINDOW=FRONT. SAVE OUTFILE='/Users/ekthackston/Desktop/THESIS: GRADUATION/Graphs_tables/quality_all_anova.sav' /COMPRESSED. DATASET ACTIVATE DataSet2. SAVE OUTFILE='/Users/ekthackston/Desktop/THESIS: GRADUATION/Graphs_tables/quality_all_anova.sav' /COMPRESSED.
167
GLM s602_nat s983_nat s180_nat s532_nat BY Condition /WSFACTOR=Material 4 Polynomial /MEASURE=Natural /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Condition) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Condition*Material) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material /DESIGN=Condition. General Linear Model [DataSet2] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/THESIS: GRADUATION/Graphs_tables/quality_all_anova.sav Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Natural Material Dependent Variable 1 s602_nat 2 s983_nat 3 s180_nat 4 s532_nat
Descriptive Statistics
Condition Mean Std. Deviation N
s602_nat Burger 4.5455 1.52532 55 Chicken 4.3818 1.34013 55 Total 4.4636 1.43148 110
s983_nat Burger 5.5091 1.24533 55 Chicken 5.2364 1.37388 55 Total 5.3727 1.31232 110
s180_nat Burger 2.6909 1.83457 55 Chicken 3.1818 1.67874 55 Total 2.9364 1.76758 110
s532_nat Burger 4.0182 1.75848 55 Chicken 4.5455 1.42489 55 Total 4.2818 1.61491 110
Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Natural Within Subjects Effect
Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square
df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-
Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound
Material .766 28.441 5 .000 .861 .892 .333 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept + Condition Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.
Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Natural Source Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Material
Sphericity Assumed 333.527 3 111.176 56.482 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 333.527 2.582 129.186 56.482 .000 Huynh-Feldt 333.527 2.675 124.683 56.482 .000 Lower-bound 333.527 1.000 333.527 56.482 .000
Material * Condition Sphericity Assumed 14.727 3 4.909 2.494 .060 Greenhouse-Geisser 14.727 2.582 5.704 2.494 .069
Between-Subjects Factors Value Label N
Condition 1.00 Burger 55 2.00 Chicken 55
168
Huynh-Feldt 14.727 2.675 5.506 2.494 .067 Lower-bound 14.727 1.000 14.727 2.494 .117
Error(Material)
Sphericity Assumed 637.745 324 1.968 Greenhouse-Geisser 637.745 278.830 2.287 Huynh-Feldt 637.745 288.899 2.208 Lower-bound 637.745 108.000 5.905
Estimates Measure: Natural Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 4.464 .137 4.192 4.735 2 5.373 .125 5.125 5.621 3 2.936 .168 2.604 3.269 4 4.282 .153 3.979 4.584
Pairwise Comparisons Measure: Natural (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference
(I-J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for
Differenceb Lower Bound Upper Bound
1 2 -.909* .143 .000 -1.293 -.525 3 1.527* .196 .000 1.001 2.054 4 .182 .172 1.000 -.282 .645
2 1 .909* .143 .000 .525 1.293 3 2.436* .225 .000 1.832 3.041 4 1.091* .190 .000 .580 1.602
3 1 -1.527* .196 .000 -2.054 -1.001 2 -2.436* .225 .000 -3.041 -1.832 4 -1.345* .199 .000 -1.879 -.812
4 1 -.182 .172 1.000 -.645 .282 2 -1.091* .190 .000 -1.602 -.580 3 1.345* .199 .000 .812 1.879
Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.
Environmentally Friendly GLM s602_env s983_env s180_env s532_env BY Condition /WSFACTOR=Material 4 Polynomial /MEASURE=EcoFriendly /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Condition) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Condition*Material) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material /DESIGN=Condition. General Linear Model [DataSet2] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/THESIS: GRADUATION/Graphs_tables/quality_all_anova.sav Within-Subjects Factors Measure: EcoFriendly Material Dependent Variable 1 s602_env 2 s983_env 3 s180_env 4 s532_env
169
Descriptive Statistics
Condition Mean Std. Deviation N
s602_env Burger 4.4727 1.54985 55 Chicken 4.5636 1.44995 55 Total 4.5182 1.49453 110
s983_env Burger 5.2000 1.35264 55 Chicken 5.0909 1.51868 55 Total 5.1455 1.43250 110
s180_env Burger 2.5273 1.83439 55 Chicken 2.6727 1.54026 55 Total 2.6000 1.68751 110
s532_env Burger 4.1818 1.76479 55 Chicken 4.5636 1.37118 55 Total 4.3727 1.58467 110
Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: EcoFriendly Within Subjects Effect
Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square
df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-
Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound
Material .795 24.434 5 .000 .871 .903 .333 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept + Condition Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.
Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: EcoFriendly Source Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Material
Sphericity Assumed 393.609 3 131.203 70.494 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 393.609 2.613 150.651 70.494 .000 Huynh-Feldt 393.609 2.708 145.345 70.494 .000 Lower-bound 393.609 1.000 393.609 70.494 .000
Material * Condition
Sphericity Assumed 3.364 3 1.121 .602 .614 Greenhouse-Geisser 3.364 2.613 1.287 .602 .591 Huynh-Feldt 3.364 2.708 1.242 .602 .597 Lower-bound 3.364 1.000 3.364 .602 .439
Error(Material)
Sphericity Assumed 603.027 324 1.861 Greenhouse-Geisser 603.027 282.174 2.137 Huynh-Feldt 603.027 292.475 2.062 Lower-bound 603.027 108.000 5.584
Estimates Measure: EcoFriendly Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 4.518 .143 4.235 4.802 2 5.145 .137 4.874 5.417 3 2.600 .161 2.280 2.920 4 4.373 .151 4.074 4.671
Pairwise Comparisons
Between-Subjects Factors Value Label N
Condition 1.00 Burger 55 2.00 Chicken 55
170
Measure: EcoFriendly (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference
(I-J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for
Differenceb Lower Bound Upper Bound
1 2 -.627* .142 .000 -1.008 -.246 3 1.918* .194 .000 1.396 2.440 4 .145 .163 1.000 -.292 .583
2 1 .627* .142 .000 .246 1.008 3 2.545* .209 .000 1.983 3.107 4 .773* .172 .000 .310 1.236
3 1 -1.918* .194 .000 -2.440 -1.396 2 -2.545* .209 .000 -3.107 -1.983 4 -1.773* .213 .000 -2.345 -1.201
4 1 -.145 .163 1.000 -.583 .292 2 -.773* .172 .000 -1.236 -.310 3 1.773* .213 .000 1.201 2.345
Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.
Modern GLM s602_mod s983_mod s180_mod s532_mod BY Condition /WSFACTOR=Material 4 Polynomial /MEASURE=Modern /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Condition) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Condition*Material) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material /DESIGN=Condition. General Linear Model [DataSet2] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/THESIS: GRADUATION/Graphs_tables/quality_all_anova.sav
Descriptive Statistics
Condition Mean Std. Deviation N
s602_mod Burger 4.8182 1.56455 55 Chicken 4.8000 1.54440 55 Total 4.8091 1.54739 110
s983_mod Burger 5.1091 1.34264 55 Chicken 4.9818 1.64981 55 Total 5.0455 1.49854 110
s180_mod Burger 4.1091 1.79168 55 Chicken 4.2182 1.75004 55 Total 4.1636 1.76369 110
s532_mod Burger 3.0000 1.76383 55 Chicken 3.1273 1.50376 55 Total 3.0636 1.63268 110
Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Modern Material Dependent Variable 1 s602_mod 2 s983_mod 3 s180_mod 4 s532_mod
Between-Subjects Factors Value Label N
Condition 1.00 Burger 55 2.00 Chicken 55
171
Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Modern Within Subjects Effect
Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square
df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-
Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound
Material .886 12.978 5 .024 .924 .960 .333 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept + Condition Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.
Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Modern Source Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Material
Sphericity Assumed 259.443 3 86.481 38.801 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 259.443 2.772 93.591 38.801 .000 Huynh-Feldt 259.443 2.879 90.121 38.801 .000 Lower-bound 259.443 1.000 259.443 38.801 .000
Material * Condition
Sphericity Assumed 1.170 3 .390 .175 .913 Greenhouse-Geisser 1.170 2.772 .422 .175 .901 Huynh-Feldt 1.170 2.879 .407 .175 .907 Lower-bound 1.170 1.000 1.170 .175 .676
Error(Material)
Sphericity Assumed 722.136 324 2.229 Greenhouse-Geisser 722.136 299.388 2.412 Huynh-Feldt 722.136 310.912 2.323 Lower-bound 722.136 108.000 6.686
Estimates Measure: Modern Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 4.809 .148 4.515 5.103 2 5.045 .143 4.761 5.330 3 4.164 .169 3.829 4.498 4 3.064 .156 2.754 3.373
Pairwise Comparisons Measure: Modern (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference
(I-J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for
Differenceb Lower Bound Upper Bound
1 2 -.236 .170 1.000 -.693 .221 3 .645* .219 .024 .056 1.235 4 1.745* .200 .000 1.207 2.284
2 1 .236 .170 1.000 -.221 .693 3 .882* .214 .000 .308 1.456 4 1.982* .208 .000 1.424 2.540
3 1 -.645* .219 .024 -1.235 -.056 2 -.882* .214 .000 -1.456 -.308
172
4 1.100* .193 .000 .580 1.620
4 1 -1.745* .200 .000 -2.284 -1.207 2 -1.982* .208 .000 -2.540 -1.424 3 -1.100* .193 .000 -1.620 -.580
Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.
Neat GLM s602_neat s983_neat s180_neat s532_neat BY Condition /WSFACTOR=Material 4 Polynomial /MEASURE=Neat /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Condition) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Condition*Material) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material /DESIGN=Condition. General Linear Model [DataSet2] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/THESIS: GRADUATION/Graphs_tables/quality_all_anova.sav Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Neat Material Dependent Variable 1 s602_neat 2 s983_neat 3 s180_neat 4 s532_neat
Descriptive Statistics
Condition Mean Std. Deviation N
s602_neat Burger 4.8000 1.50800 55 Chicken 4.9455 1.71506 55 Total 4.8727 1.60909 110
s983_neat Burger 5.5636 1.18265 55 Chicken 5.2909 1.47413 55 Total 5.4273 1.33725 110
s180_neat Burger 4.8182 1.49184 55 Chicken 5.1091 1.51135 55 Total 4.9636 1.50185 110
s532_neat Burger 3.2364 1.67734 55 Chicken 3.0000 1.56347 55 Total 3.1182 1.61831 110
Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Neat Within Subjects Effect
Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square
df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-
Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound
Material .870 14.805 5 .011 .918 .953 .333 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept + Condition Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.
Between-Subjects Factors Value Label N
Condition 1.00 Burger 55 2.00 Chicken 55
173
Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Neat Source Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Material
Sphericity Assumed 339.536 3 113.179 55.560 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 339.536 2.755 123.255 55.560 .000 Huynh-Feldt 339.536 2.860 118.710 55.560 .000 Lower-bound 339.536 1.000 339.536 55.560 .000
Material * Condition
Sphericity Assumed 6.455 3 2.152 1.056 .368 Greenhouse-Geisser 6.455 2.755 2.343 1.056 .364 Huynh-Feldt 6.455 2.860 2.257 1.056 .366 Lower-bound 6.455 1.000 6.455 1.056 .306
Error(Material)
Sphericity Assumed 660.009 324 2.037 Greenhouse-Geisser 660.009 297.514 2.218 Huynh-Feldt 660.009 308.902 2.137 Lower-bound 660.009 108.000 6.111
Estimates Measure: Neat Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 4.873 .154 4.568 5.178 2 5.427 .127 5.175 5.680 3 4.964 .143 4.680 5.247 4 3.118 .155 2.812 3.425
Pairwise Comparisons Measure: Neat (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference
(I-J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for
Differenceb Lower Bound Upper Bound
1 2 -.555* .176 .012 -1.027 -.083 3 -.091 .187 1.000 -.593 .411 4 1.755* .216 .000 1.175 2.334
2 1 .555* .176 .012 .083 1.027 3 .464* .157 .024 .040 .887 4 2.309* .210 .000 1.745 2.873
3 1 .091 .187 1.000 -.411 .593 2 -.464* .157 .024 -.887 -.040 4 1.845* .203 .000 1.300 2.391
4 1 -1.755* .216 .000 -2.334 -1.175 2 -2.309* .210 .000 -2.873 -1.745 3 -1.845* .203 .000 -2.391 -1.300
Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.
Premium GLM s602_prem s983_prem s180_prem s532_prem BY Condition /WSFACTOR=Material 4 Polynomial /MEASURE=Premium /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Condition) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Condition*Material) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material /DESIGN=Condition.
174
General Linear Model [DataSet2] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/THESIS: GRADUATION/Graphs_tables/quality_all_anova.sav Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Premium Material Dependent Variable 1 s602_prem 2 s983_prem 3 s180_prem 4 s532_prem
Descriptive Statistics
Condition Mean Std. Deviation N
s602_prem Burger 4.4364 1.60743 55 Chicken 4.4909 1.52598 55 Total 4.4636 1.56027 110
s983_prem Burger 5.0182 1.66100 55 Chicken 4.9273 1.56175 55 Total 4.9727 1.60538 110
s180_prem Burger 3.9636 1.52708 55 Chicken 4.0182 1.63855 55 Total 3.9909 1.57675 110
s532_prem Burger 2.9636 1.77392 55 Chicken 2.9636 1.65511 55 Total 2.9636 1.70766 110
Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Premium Within Subjects Effect
Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square
df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-
Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound
Material .876 14.117 5 .015 .914 .949 .333 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept + Condition Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.
Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Premium Source Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Material
Sphericity Assumed 241.680 3 80.560 34.291 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 241.680 2.743 88.103 34.291 .000 Huynh-Feldt 241.680 2.848 84.866 34.291 .000 Lower-bound 241.680 1.000 241.680 34.291 .000
Material * Condition
Sphericity Assumed .389 3 .130 .055 .983 Greenhouse-Geisser .389 2.743 .142 .055 .977 Huynh-Feldt .389 2.848 .136 .055 .980 Lower-bound .389 1.000 .389 .055 .815
Error(Material) Sphericity Assumed 761.182 324 2.349 Greenhouse-Geisser 761.182 296.261 2.569
Between-Subjects Factors Value Label N
Condition 1.00 Burger 55 2.00 Chicken 55
175
Huynh-Feldt 761.182 307.559 2.475 Lower-bound 761.182 108.000 7.048
Estimates Measure: Premium Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 4.464 .149 4.167 4.760 2 4.973 .154 4.668 5.277 3 3.991 .151 3.692 4.290 4 2.964 .164 2.639 3.288
Pairwise Comparisons Measure: Premium (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference
(I-J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for
Differenceb Lower Bound Upper Bound
1 2 -.509* .177 .029 -.984 -.034 3 .473 .204 .133 -.075 1.020 4 1.500* .221 .000 .905 2.095
2 1 .509* .177 .029 .034 .984 3 .982* .204 .000 .433 1.531 4 2.009* .233 .000 1.383 2.635
3 1 -.473 .204 .133 -1.020 .075 2 -.982* .204 .000 -1.531 -.433 4 1.027* .197 .000 .499 1.555
4 1 -1.500* .221 .000 -2.095 -.905 2 -2.009* .233 .000 -2.635 -1.383 3 -1.027* .197 .000 -1.555 -.499
Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.
176
Appendix E
Surveys and Questionnaires
Survey E1. Pilot study CU-café full questionnaire
Welcome to CUcafe! Please read the instructions below carefully before you begin.
Instructions:
1. There are three observation booths set up around the store. 2. Please visit each booth to complete survey pages 1-3.3. After you have completed these pages please feel free to take a seat at the front of the room to complete the remainder of the survey.
DO NOT consume the food.
Feel free to open, touch, and interact with the food as you normally would. If you have any questions please ask the attendant behind the counter.
Thank you for your participation!
177
CUcafe SurveyCUcafe SurveyCUcafe SurveyCUcafe Survey
!"#$%&'(&#)*+,&#,-&#,-*&&./+0+,#('12%ൗ&*#5&%6)!
7"#$%&'(&#+3/+8',&#,-&#&9,&3,#,6#)-+8-#:64#'0*&*#/+('0*&&#)+,-#,-&#;6%%6)+30#',,*+54,&(<2-*'(&(#*&0'*/+30#,-+(#('12%&"
="#>6)#148-#)64%/#:64#5&#)+%%+30#,6#2':#;6*#,-+(#('12%&?
!
!
"#$%&'()!*+,-'$..
*+,-'$.."(+'/#()!*+,-'$..
0.+#/.$!1'$..!&%$!*+,-'$..
"(+'/#()!1'$..
1'$.."#$%&'()!1'$..
122.-(+&'
0.-#
3.,,)
4+5.!,%6.#/+&'!7!8%9(:!29$;/-,.!-'-+&
<+'/!=9-(+#)
>-,#)
1##$-;#+?.
@$.,/
A$.6+96
!
BCDCCEBFDCC!
BFDCCEBGDCC!
BGDCCEBHDCC!
BHDCCEBIDCC!
BIDCCEBJCDCC!
178
CUcafe SurveyCUcafe SurveyCUcafe SurveyCUcafe Survey
!"#$%&'(&#)*+,&#,-&#,-*&&./+0+,#('12%ൗ&*#5&%6)!
7"#$%&'(&#+3/+8',&#,-&#&9,&3,#,6#)-+8-#:64#'0*&*#/+('0*&&#)+,-#,-&#;6%%6)+30#',,*+54,&(<2-*'(&(#*&0'*/+30#,-+(#('12%&"
="#>6)#148-#)64%/#:64#5&#)+%%+30#,6#2':#;6*#,-+(#('12%&?
!
!
"#$%&'()!*+,-'$..
*+,-'$.."(+'/#()!*+,-'$..
0.+#/.$!1'$..!&%$!*+,-'$..
"(+'/#()!1'$..
1'$.."#$%&'()!1'$..
122.-(+&'
0.-#
3.,,)
4+5.!,%6.#/+&'!7!8%9(:!29$;/-,.!-'-+&
<+'/!=9-(+#)
>-,#)
1##$-;#+?.
@$.,/
A$.6+96
!
BCDCCEBFDCC!
BFDCCEBGDCC!
BGDCCEBHDCC!
BHDCCEBIDCC!
BIDCCEBJCDCC!
179
CUcafe SurveyCUcafe SurveyCUcafe SurveyCUcafe Survey
!"#$%&'(&#)*+,&#,-&#,-*&&./+0+,#('12%ൗ&*#5&%6)!
7"#$%&'(&#+3/+8',&#,-&#&9,&3,#,6#)-+8-#:64#'0*&*#/+('0*&&#)+,-#,-&#;6%%6)+30#',,*+54,&(<2-*'(&(#*&0'*/+30#,-+(#('12%&"
="#>6)#148-#)64%/#:64#5&#)+%%+30#,6#2':#;6*#,-+(#('12%&?
!
!
"#$%&'()!*+,-'$..
*+,-'$.."(+'/#()!*+,-'$..
0.+#/.$!1'$..!&%$!*+,-'$..
"(+'/#()!1'$..
1'$.."#$%&'()!1'$..
122.-(+&'
0.-#
3.,,)
4+5.!,%6.#/+&'!7!8%9(:!29$;/-,.!-'-+&
<+'/!=9-(+#)
>-,#)
1##$-;#+?.
@$.,/
A$.6+96
!
BCDCCEBFDCC!
BFDCCEBGDCC!
BGDCCEBHDCC!
BHDCCEBIDCC!
BIDCCEBJCDCC!
A(.-,.!#-5.!-!,.-#!-#!#/.!K$%&#!#-L(.!#%!;%62(.#.!#/.!$.,#!%K!#/.!,9$?.)D!
@A"#>6)#6;,&3#/6#:64#&',#;'(,#;66/?
1(6%,#!:-+()D!
0%#!.?.$)!:-)M!L9#!6%$.!#/-&!%&;.!-!8..5D!
1!K.8!#+6.,!-!6%&#/M!-#!6%,#D!
N-$.()!%$!&.?.$D!
180
CUcafe SurveyCUcafe SurveyCUcafe SurveyCUcafe Survey!!"#$%&#'()*(#+,-.#/%#0%1#+%23#%43,5#,-3#4-23#4%%/6
!7"#8(,&,#/%#0%1#5%&+-..0#,-3#4-23#4%%/#-43,�%1#91&*(-2,#)36
!:"#;)/#0%1#5%3)*,#-#/)23)5*3#/)44,&,5*,#)5#3(,#*%53-)5,&<9-*=->)5>#4%&#,-*(#2-+9.,6
!?"#8()*(#*%53-)5,&<9-*=->,#/)/#0%1#9&,4,&6
!@"#A.,-2,#,B9.-)5#'(0#0%1#9&,4,&&,/#3()2#9-*=->,#)5#3(,#C%B#C,.%'"
!
!D"#E5#-#2*-.,#%4#!#3%#!FG#')3(#!F#C,)5>#+%23#)+9%&3-53G#(%'#)+9%&3-53#)2#9-*=->)5>#)5#4-23#4%%/6#
!
" # $ % & ' ( ) * "+
,-./01/23!
45678!
9:66.-!
;2!/!26/70!:6!<.3=..6!>./?2!
@38.-!AB?./2.!2B.7:1CD!
!
E6!7/-!
E62:F.!38.!-.23/5-/63!
;3!8G>.!
;3!HG-0!
@38.-!AB?./2.!2B.7:1CD!
!
I.2!
JG!
JG3!25-.!
)&#!
$+&!
(+*!
181
CUcafe SurveyCUcafe SurveyCUcafe SurveyCUcafe Survey!!"#$%&#'()#*+,-&.#/0123#(%#$4%,2156$7&%,215.#$7&%,215#859,15#(%#$01:315#;1-,<&.#$:,15.#;1-,<&#=1>1,,15#(%#(-+&%#?12,4,2#,:0159&%.#(%#:(7&#(-+&%#%12&@
!A"#=(>#715'#B&(B0)%%&5-0'#0,<&#,5#'()%#+():&+(09@!
!C"#=(>#715'#2+,09%&5#1D&#EF#(%#'()5D&%#0,<&#,5#'()%#+():&+(09@!
!G"#*+1-#,:#-+&#+,D+&:-#0&<&0#(4#:2+((0#'()#+1<(7B0&-&9#(%#-+&#+,D+&:-#9&D%&&#'()#+1<&#%&2&,<&9@
!H"#$%&#'()#5(>#71%%,&9.#>,9(>&9.#9,<(%2&9.#:&B1%1-&9.#(%#5&<&%#71%%,&9@
"#$!%&!'()*+,-!./+01+!20#$!,%()!3/456%0)$!7%!72+!5+)1%#!6+24#$!72+!3%(#7+)-!820#9!,%(!&%)!50)74345074#:!4#!72+!;<30&+!'()*+,=!
>247+!
?/039!%)!@&)430#A@B+)430#!
@B+)430#!C#$40#!%)!@/0190#!D074*+!
@140#!
D074*+!E0F0440#!%)!%72+)!.034&43!C1/0#$+)!
G)%B!B(/745/+!)03+1!
H72+)!I5/+01+!15+34&,J!
K+11!720#!24:2!132%%/!$+:)++!
E4:2!132%%/!$+:)++!%)!+L(4*0/+#7!I+-:-M!N"OJ!
'%B+!3%//+:+!6(7!#%!$+:)++!
@11%3407+!$+:)++!
?032+/%)!$+:)++!
N)0$(07+!$+:)++!
P0))4+$!
>4$%F+$!
O4*%)3+$!
'+50)07+$!
D+*+)!B0))4+$!
182
Survey E2. Full scale study CU-café full questionnaire
!"#$%&'()&*(+&,#%-$.&,"/&,-0/&,(&1(023/,/&,"-4&4)+5/'6&&&7()+&2#+,-1-2#,-($&8-33&-$5(35/&4#023-$.&*()+&*((9&2+(9)1,4&#$9&1(023/,-($&(*&,"-4&:)/4,-($$#-+/;&,"/&/$,-+/&2+(1/44&4"()39&,#%/&$(&0(+/&,"#$&<=&0-$),/46&7()&0#'&/#,&3-,,3/&(+&0)1"&(*&/#1"&4#023/&'()&8-4">&"(8/5/+&%//2&-$&0-$9&'()&8-33&?/&4#023-$.&*()+&2+(9)1,46&&&@3/#4/&2#'&13(4/&#,,/$,-($&,(&,"/&-$4,+)1,-($4&#,&,"/&,(2&(*&/#1"&2#./6&&&7()&8-33&$(,&?/&2/$#3-A/9&-$&#$'&8#'&*(+&9/1-9-$.&,(&4,(2&2#+,-1-2#,-($&#,&#$'&,-0/6&B2($&1(023/,-($&(*&,"/&4)+5/'&'()&8-33&+/1/-5/&#&1()2($&*(+&#&*+//&C/$9'D4&*((9&-,/06&&&E*&'()&"#5/&#$'&:)/4,-($4&#?(),&,"/&4)+5/'>&23/#4/&1($,#1,&F+6&G)2/+,&H$9+/8&I)+3/'&#,&+)2/+,"J13/04($6/9)&(+&1#33&KLMNLO=NMPOM6&&&E$&(+9/+&,(&2+(.+/44&,"+()."&,"-4&4)+5/'>&23/#4/&)4/&,"/&*(33(8-$.&$#5-.#,-($&?),,($4Q&
R3-1%&,"/&S/T,&?),,($&,(&1($,-$)/&,(&,"/&$/T,&2#./6&R3-1%&,"/&@+/5-()4&?),,($&,(&+/,)+$&,(&,"/&2+/5-()4&2#./6&R3-1%&,"/&UT-,&,"/&V)+5/'&U#+3'&?),,($&,(&/T-,&,"/&4)+5/'6&R3-1%&,"/&V)?0-,&?),,($&,(&4)?0-,&'()+&4)+5/'6&
!"#$%&#'()*#+&*,-.%/,#(-#(/$#-.0*#12*(,*#(2*3-#-'*#3*,*(34'*35&&&@3/#4/&13-1%&S/T,&,(&1($,-$)/6&
!!/,-3&4-.%/,6#72*(,*#8*(9
!
W6&@3/#4/&/$,/+&'()+&2#+,-1-2#$,&$)0?/+&-$&,"/&?(T&?/3(86&
!7(3-.4.1(/-#:&0;*3
!
!"#$%#&$'%(#)&*+#&,-#%*./'%&0#"/(&*+#'&+.*&1#2*&$*&*+#&0/**/3&/4&*+#&5$6#&*/&7/'*.'-#&*+#&%-)8#9:&
X6&I(8&(*,/$&9(&'()&/#,&*#4,&*((9Y
!<*4-.%/#=
H30(4,&9#-3'6&
S(,&/5/+'&9#'>&?),&0(+/&,"#$&($1/&#&8//%6&
H&*/8&,-0/4&#&0($,">&#,&0(4,6&
G#+/3'&(+&$/5/+6&
>%/,&0*3#8*,*(34'
183
!"#$%&#'()*(#+,-.#/%#0%1#+%23#%43,5#,-3#4-23#4%%/6
7"#8(,&,#/%#0%1#5%&+-..0#,-3#4-23#4%%/6
9"#8(,5#:1&*(-2)5;#4-23#4%%/#/%#0%1#5%&+-..0#'-.<#)52)/,#3(,#&,23-1&-53#%,#3(,#/&)=,>3(&16
!!"#$%&'()(*+&'$%',"-.
?&,-<4-23#
@15*(#
A)55,&#
B2#-#25-*<#)5#C,3',,5#+,-.2#
D3(,&#E:.,-2,#2:,*)40F#
#
G5#*-&#
G52)/,#3(,#&,23-1&-53#
B3#(%+,#
B3#8%&<#
D3(,&#E:.,-2,#2:,*)40F#
#
8-.<#)52)/,#
A&)=,>3(&1#
D3(,&#E:.,-2,#2:,*)40F#
#
H"#D5#-=,&-;,I#(%'#+1*(#/%#0%1#2:,5/#-3#4-23#4%%/#&,23-1&-532#:,&#=)2)36
J"#8()*(#%4#3(,#4%..%')5;#4,-31&,2#)2#)3#+%23#)+:%&3-53#3%#0%1#)5#-#4-23#4%%/#&,23-1&-536
!
KLM"NN#
LM"NN>L7"NN#
L7"NN>LH"NN#
LH"NN>LO"NN#
LO"NNP#
Q1-.)30#4%%/#
$&),5/.0#2,&=)*,#
R.,-5#&,23-1&-53#
$-23#2,&=)*,#
#
184
!"#$%%&$'()*(&+(),&-.*/012/34.*&5('46!
!"#$%#&$"#'(&()#&'#%#$'*)#'&()$(&+,-&$'#&'#$.+&/,'&0$12"#&3456&&
7/(#'&()#&'#%#$'*)#'&)$%&2"$*#.&()#&/,,.&%$12"#&$(&+,-'&($8"#&+,-&1$+&*,9(:9-#&(,&()#&;-#%(:,9%&8#",<6!
$'()*(&/)7(&)&,03.7&48&6)/(0&9(840(&/)*/3.:&/;(&2;327(.&*)<='(>!
"#!$%&!'()*!+%!,%(!-./0!%1!+.2-./0!3*0!4-56%1!%7!3*.2!)*.)/08!25'9-0:
;#!$%&!'()*!+%!,%(!-./0!%1!+.2-./0!3*0!<0=3(10!%7!3*.2!)*.)/08!25'9-0:
>?#!@6015--A!)%82.+01.8B!4-56%1!58+!<0=3(10A!*%&!'()*!+%!,%(!-./0!%1!+.2-./0!3*.2!)*.)/08!25'9-0:
>>#!C-0520!.8+.)530!*%&!%7308!,%(!&%(-+!%1!&%(-+!8%3!053!3*.2!91%+()3#
!!(2/34.&?&!@A$BC&DE?!
D.2-./0!E01,!F()*
D.2-./0!F%+01530-,
D.2-./0!G-.B*3-,H0.3*01!I./0!H%1!D.2-./0
I./0!G-.B*3-,I./0!
F%+01530-,I./0!E01,!F()*
D.2-./0!E01,!F()*
D.2-./0!F%+01530-,
D.2-./0!G-.B*3-,H0.3*01!I./0!H%1!D.2-./0
I./0!G-.B*3-,I./0!
F%+01530-,I./0!E01,!F()*
D.2-./0!E01,!F()*
D.2-./0!F%+01530-,
D.2-./0!G-.B*3-,H0.3*01!I./0!H%1!D.2-./0
I./0!G-.B*3-,I./0!
F%+01530-,I./0!E01,!F()*
J!&%(-+!053!3*.2!%8-,!.7!J!&010!7%1)0+!3%
J!&%(-+!053!3*.2!%8-,!.7!3*010!&010!8%!%3*01!7%%+!)*%.)02
J!&%(-+!*51+-,!0601!053!3*.2
J!+%!8%3!-./0!.3!K(3!&%(-+!053!.3!%8!
%))52.%8
J!&%(-+!053!3*.2!.7!565.-5K-0!K(3!&%(-+!8%3!B%!%(3!%7!',!&5,
J!-./0!3*.2!58+!&%(-+!053!.3!8%&!58+!3*08
J!&%(-+!710L(083-,!053!3*.2
J!&%(-+!053!3*.2!601,!%7308
J!&%(-+!053!3*.2!7%%+!0601,!
%99%13(8.3,!J!*5+
!
185
!"#$%
!"#$%%&$'()*(&+(),&-.*/012/34.*&5('46&
!"#$%#&$"#'(&()#&'#%#$'*)#'&()$(&+,-&$'#&'#$.+&/,'&0$12"#&3456&&&7/(#'&()#&'#%#$'*)#'&)$%&2"$*#.&()#&/,,.&%$12"#&$(&+,-'&($8"#&+,-&1$+&*,9(:9-#&(,&()#&;-#%(:,9%&8#",<6&
$'()*(&/)7(&)&,03.7&48&6)/(0&9(840(&/)*/3.:&/;(&2;327(.&*)<='(>&
!'(&)*+&,-./&0*&1*-&2345&*$&0362345&7/5&829:*$&*;&7/36&./3.45<&69,=25>
!?(&)*+&,-./&0*&1*-&2345&*$&0362345&7/5&@5A7-$5&*;&7/36&./3.45<&69,=25>
!B(&C:5$922D&.*<6305$3<E&829:*$&9<0&@5A7-$5D&/*+&,-./&0*&1*-&2345&*$&0362345&7/36&./3.45<&69,=25>
!F(&G25965&3<03.975&/*+&*;75<&1*-&+*-20&*$&+*-20&<*7&597&7/36&=$*0-.7(
!!(2/34.&?&!@A$BC&DEF&
H362345&I5$1&J-./
H362345&J*05$97521
H362345&K23E/721L537/5$&M345&L*$&H362345
M345&K23E/721M345&
J*05$97521M345&I5$1&J-./
H362345&I5$1&J-./
H362345&J*05$97521
H362345&K23E/721L537/5$&M345&L*$&H362345
M345&K23E/721M345&
J*05$97521M345&I5$1&J-./
H362345&I5$1&J-./
H362345&J*05$97521
H362345&K23E/721L537/5$&M345&L*$&H362345
M345&K23E/721M345&
J*05$97521M345&I5$1&J-./
N&+*-20&597&7/36&*<21&3;&N&+5$5&;*$.50&7*
N&+*-20&597&7/36&*<21&3;&7/5$5&+5$5&<*&*7/5$&;**0&./*3.56
N&+*-20&/9$021&5:5$&597&7/36
N&0*&<*7&2345&37&#-7&+*-20&597&37&*<&
*..963*<
N&+*-20&597&7/36&3;&9:9329#25&#-7&+*-20&<*7&E*&*-7&*;&,1&+91
N&2345&7/36&9<0&+*-20&597&37&<*+&9<0&7/5<
N&+*-20&;$5O-5<721&597&7/36
N&+*-20&597&7/36&:5$1&*;75<
N&+*-20&597&7/36&;**0&5:5$1&
*==*$7-<371&N&/90
!
186
!"#$%%&$'()*(&+(),&-.*/012/34.*&5('46!
!"#$%#&$"#'(&()#&'#%#$'*)#'&()$(&+,-&$'#&'#$.+&/,'&0$12"#&3456&&&7/(#'&()#&'#%#$'*)#'&)$%&2"$*#.&()#&/,,.&%$12"#&$(&+,-'&($8"#&+,-&1$+&*,9(:9-#&(,&()#&;-#%(:,9%&8#",<6!
$'()*(&/)7(&)&,03.7&48&6)/(0&9(840(&/)*/3.:&/;(&2;327(.&*)<='(>!
"#$!%&'!()*+!,&!-&)!./01!&2!,/3./01!4+1!5.67&2!&8!4+/3!*+/*019!36(:.1;
"<$!%&'!()*+!,&!-&)!./01!&2!,/3./01!4+1!=1>4)21!&8!4+/3!*+/*019!36(:.1;
"[email protected]!*&93/,12/9B!5.67&2!69,!=1>4)21A!+&'!()*+!,&!-&)!./01!&2!,/3./01!4+/3!*+/*019!36(:.1;
"C$!D.1631!/9,/*641!+&'!&8419!-&)!'&).,!&2!'&).,!9&4!164!4+/3!:2&,)*4$
!!(2/34.&?&!@A$BC&DEF!
E/3./01!F12-!G)*+
E/3./01!G&,12641.-
E/3./01!H./B+4.-I1/4+12!J/01!I&2!E/3./01
J/01!H./B+4.-J/01!
G&,12641.-J/01!F12-!G)*+
E/3./01!F12-!G)*+
E/3./01!G&,12641.-
E/3./01!H./B+4.-I1/4+12!J/01!I&2!E/3./01
J/01!H./B+4.-J/01!
G&,12641.-J/01!F12-!G)*+
E/3./01!F12-!G)*+
E/3./01!G&,12641.-
E/3./01!H./B+4.-I1/4+12!J/01!I&2!E/3./01
J/01!H./B+4.-J/01!
G&,12641.-J/01!F12-!G)*+
K!'&).,!164!4+/3!&9.-!/8!K!'121!8&2*1,!4&
K!'&).,!164!4+/3!&9.-!/8!4+121!'121!9&!&4+12!8&&,!*+&/*13
K!'&).,!+62,.-!1712!164!4+/3
K!,&!9&4!./01!/4!L)4!'&).,!164!/4!&9!
&**63/&9
K!'&).,!164!4+/3!/8!676/.6L.1!L)4!'&).,!9&4!B&!&)4!&8!(-!'6-
K!./01!4+/3!69,!'&).,!164!/4!9&'!69,!4+19
K!'&).,!821M)194.-!164!4+/3
K!'&).,!164!4+/3!712-!&8419
K!'&).,!164!4+/3!8&&,!1712-!
&::&24)9/4-!K!+6,
!
187
!"#$%%&$'()*(&+(),&-.*/012/34.*&5('46!
!"#$%#&$"#'(&()#&'#%#$'*)#'&()$(&+,-&$'#&'#$.+&/,'&0$12"#&3456&&&7/(#'&()#&'#%#$'*)#'&)$%&2"$*#.&()#&/,,.&%$12"#&$(&+,-'&($8"#&+,-&1$+&*,9(:9-#&(,&()#&;-#%(:,9%&8#",<6!
$'()*(&/)7(&)&,03.7&48&6)/(0&9(840(&/)*/3.:&/;(&2;327(.&*)<='(>!
"#$!%&'!()*+!,&!-&)!./01!&2!,/3./01!4+1!5.67&2!&8!4+/3!*+/*019!36(:.1;
"<$!%&'!()*+!,&!-&)!./01!&2!,/3./01!4+1!=1>4)21!&8!4+/3!*+/*019!36(:.1;
""$!?7126..@!*&93/,12/9A!5.67&2!69,!=1>4)21@!+&'!()*+!,&!-&)!./01!&2!,/3./01!4+/3!*+/*019!36(:.1;
"B$!C.1631!/9,/*641!+&'!&8419!-&)!'&).,!&2!'&).,!9&4!164!4+/3!:2&,)*4$
!!(2/34.&?&!@A$BC&DE?!
D/3./01!E12-!F)*+
D/3./01!F&,12641.-
D/3./01!G./A+4.-H1/4+12!I/01!H&2!D/3./01
I/01!G./A+4.-I/01!
F&,12641.-I/01!E12-!F)*+
D/3./01!E12-!F)*+
D/3./01!F&,12641.-
D/3./01!G./A+4.-H1/4+12!I/01!H&2!D/3./01
I/01!G./A+4.-I/01!
F&,12641.-I/01!E12-!F)*+
D/3./01!E12-!F)*+
D/3./01!F&,12641.-
D/3./01!G./A+4.-H1/4+12!I/01!H&2!D/3./01
I/01!G./A+4.-I/01!
F&,12641.-I/01!E12-!F)*+
J!'&).,!164!4+/3!&9.-!/8!J!'121!8&2*1,!4&
J!'&).,!164!4+/3!&9.-!/8!4+121!'121!9&!&4+12!8&&,!*+&/*13
J!'&).,!+62,.-!1712!164!4+/3
J!,&!9&4!./01!/4!K)4!'&).,!164!/4!&9!
&**63/&9
J!'&).,!164!4+/3!/8!676/.6K.1!K)4!'&).,!9&4!A&!&)4!&8!(-!'6-
J!./01!4+/3!69,!'&).,!164!/4!9&'!69,!4+19
J!'&).,!821L)194.-!164!4+/3
J!'&).,!164!4+/3!712-!&8419
J!'&).,!164!4+/3!8&&,!1712-!
&::&24)9/4-!J!+6,
!
188
!"#$%#&'()%*+#,&$""&-(.,&'/*'0#)&%$12"#%&3/#)&$)%3#,*)4&5/#&6.#%5*()%&7#"(38!
"#$!%&!'()!*+,-./!-(!0)123+4.!+!23526.,!4+,/*523!-(!.+-!+,/!-3.4.!*.1.!'()1!(,7'!(0-5(,48!*3523!*()7/!'()!23((4.9
":$!;<.1+778!1+-.!-3.!4+=07.4!>'!3(*!*5775,?!'()!*()7/!>.!-(!1.0)123+4.!-3.=!@AB=(4-!*5775,?!-(!#B7.+4-!*5775,?C$
!!"#$%&'()
DE"
FGH
AGE
:H"
!
DE"!
FGH!
AGE!
:H"!
I(,.8!%!*()7/,J-!23((4.!+,'!(&!-3.4.!
*+",-"(%'.%#,$"($/"("0$"'$($&(1/%#/(2&3(,45""(&5(.%-,45""(1%$/($/"(6&++&1%'4(9.)'5*()$"*5:&;55,*7.5#%(5"4,5.%'4($/"(7&'$,%'"58*,#9,4%'4(6&5(",#/(-,:;+"<!
"D$!!=>*?@(ABC
!!"#$%&'(DE(F3'#$%&',+%$2(&6(7&'$,%'"58*,#9,4%'4
K-1(,?7'!L54+?1..
L54+?1..K75?3-7'!L54+?1..
I.5-3.1!M?1..!I(1!L54+?1..
K75?3-7'!M?1..
M?1..K-1(,?7'!M?1..
N+4'!-(!(0.,
O(,-+5,4!01(/)2-
P1(-.2-4!01(/)2-
Q..04!01(/)2-!*+1=
N+4'!-(!2+11'
189
!"#$!"#$%&'()*
!%#$!"#$%&'+),
!!-./012'34'562./012780/9'1:';12/702-<=$7.>7?02?'@;12/026-AB
&'()*+,-$./01+(22
./01+(22&,/+3',-$./01+(22
42/'32($5+(22$4)($./01+(22
&,/+3',-$5+(22
5+(22&'()*+,-$5+(22
610-$')$71((-
8)*'1/*0$9():;7'
<()'27'0$9():;7'
610-$')$)92*
=2290$9():;7'$>1(?
&'()*+,-$./01+(22
./01+(22&,/+3',-$./01+(22
42/'32($5+(22$4)($./01+(22
&,/+3',-$5+(22
5+(22&'()*+,-$5+(22
<()'27'0$9():;7'
610-$')$)92*
610-$')$71((-
8)*'1/*0$9():;7'
=2290$9():;7'$>1(?
!@#$!"#$%&'C*D
&'()*+,-$./01+(22
./01+(22&,/+3',-$./01+(22
42/'32($5+(22$4)($./01+(22
&,/+3',-$5+(22
5+(22&'()*+,-$5+(22
610-$')$)92*
8)*'1/*0$9():;7'
610-$')$71((-
=2290$9():;7'$>1(?
<()'27'0$9():;7'
!
190
!"#$%#&'()'*$+#&+,#&#-+#(+&+.&/,'*,&0.1&$23##&.3&)'%$23##&/'+,&+,#&4.""./'(2&!"#$%&%'(&3#2$3)'(2&+,#&5.(+$'(#36!$*7$2'(2&4.3&#$*,&%$89"#:!
"#$!;<=!>?&@AB
"%$!;<=!>?&CDE
"&$!;<=!>?&FDA
!;#*+'.(&GH&I1$"'+'#%&.4&5.(+$'(#36!$*7$2'(2
'()*+,-.!/012,)33
/012,)33'-0,4(-.!/012,)33
530(43)!6,)33!5*)!/012,)33
'-0,4(-.!6,)33
6,)33'()*+,-.!6,)33
7*83)+
9)3:0;:
<+=0)*+:3+(2--.!>)03+8-.
52(;)2-
532(
'()*+,-.!/012,)33
/012,)33'-0,4(-.!/012,)33
530(43)!6,)33!5*)!/012,)33
'-0,4(-.!6,)33
6,)33'()*+,-.!6,)33
7*83)+
<+=0)*+:3+(2--.!>)03+8-.
52(;)2-
9)3:0;:
532(
'()*+,-.!/012,)33
/012,)33'-0,4(-.!/012,)33
530(43)!6,)33!5*)!/012,)33
'-0,4(-.!6,)33
6,)33'()*+,-.!6,)33
52(;)2-
9)3:0;:
<+=0)*+:3+(2--.!>)03+8-.
532(
7*83)+
191
!"#$%#&'()'*$+#&+,#&#-+#(+&+.&/,'*,&0.1&$23##&.3&)'%$23##&/'+,&+,#&4.""./'(2&!"#$%&%'(&3#2$3)'(2&+,#&5.(+$'(#36!$*7$2'(2&4.3&#$*,&%$89"#:!
!;#*+'.(&<=$&>1$"'+'#%&.4&5.(+$'(#36!$*7$2'(2&?5.(+'(1#)@A
""#!;BC!DE&<FG
$%&'()*+!,-./)&00
,-./)&00$*-)1%*+!,-./)&00
20-%10&!3)&00!2'&!,-./)&00
$*-)1%*+!3)&00
3)&00$%&'()*+!3)&00
4(5-&'(60(%/**+!7&-0(8*+
9&06-:6
;'80&(
20/%
2/%:&/*
)$'#('*#+(,'-*&.'*/"'(&%0+(*1'$0,*&.'+*.%&*2'3&*#&*&.'*10&&04*05*&.'*6#7'*&0*80+&%+"'*&.'*("-9':;!
"<#!=(!/!.>/*0!'?!@!%'!@AB!C-%1!@A!D0-()!6'.%!-6E'&%/(%B!1'C!-6E'&%/(%!-.!E/>F/)-()!-(!?/.%!?''8G!
"H#!9*0/.0!D&-0?*+!80.>&-D0!>1/&/>%0&-.%->.!%1/%!/&0!-6E'&%/(%!%'!+':!-(!?/.%!?''8!E/>F/)-()#
!
"I#!9*0/.0!E*/>0!/(+!/88-%-'(/*!>'660(%.!/D':%!?/.%!?''8!E/>F/)-()!-(!%10!D'J!D0*'C#
!
!;#*+'.(&H=&I$%+&I..)&!$*7$2'(2
@ K " < H I L M N @A
!
192
!"#$%#&$'%(#)&*+#&,-#%*./'%&0#"/(&*+#'&+.*&1#2*&$*&*+#&0/**/3&/4&*+#&5$6#&*/&7/'*.'-#&*+#&%-)8#9:!
"#$!%&'(&!()*+,-./!0+1-2!'3(145+6!/-4.!),+7
"8$!%&)*!'6!/-4.!,+35+.7
"9$!%&)*!'6!/-4.!)::.-;'<)*+!)=+.),+!&-46+&-15!'3(-<+7
>?$!@-2!<)3/!:+-:1+!(4..+3*1/!1'=+!'3!/-4.!&-46+&-157!
>A$!@-2!<)3/!(&'15.+3!),+!A#!-.!/-43,+.!1'=+!'3!/-4.!&-46+&-157!
!!"#$%&'()*(+",&-./01%#2
A#!-.!/-43,+.!
A8BC?!
CABC9!
"?B"9!
>?B>9!
D?BD9!
E?!-.!-15+.!
F+<)1+!
G)1+!
H*&+.!
I?BIC>J999!
ICDJ???BI>9J999!
ID?J???BI#>J999!
I#DJ???BI99J999!
IA??J???BIAC>J999!
IACDJ???BIA>9J999!
IAD?J???BIA#>J999!
IA#DJ???BIA99J999!
IC??J???!)35!4:!
193
!"#$%&'($)*$(&+$&),&+*($-+.+-$/0$*1&//-$2/3$&'.+$1/45-+(+6$/7$(&+$&),&+*($6+,7++$2/3$&'.+$7+1+).+68
!9#$%&)1&$7'1+:+(&;)1)(2$<+*($6+*17)<+*$2/38$=>-+'*+$1&//*+$/;-2$/;+#?
!!#$@7+$2/3$;/A$4'77)+6B$A)6/A+6B$6)./71+6B$*+5'7'(+6B$/7$;+.+7$4'77)+68
!
C+**$(&';$&),&$*1&//-$6+,7++$
D),&$*1&//-$6+,7++$/7$+E3).'-+;($=+#,#B$FGH?$
I/4+$1/--+,+$<3($;/$6+,7++$
@**/1)'(+$6+,7++$
J'1&+-/7$6+,7++$
F7'63'(+$6+,7++$
@4+7)1';$K;6)';$/7$@-'*L';$M'().+$
@*)';$:$>'1)0)1$K*-';6+7$
J-'1L$/7$@07)1';$@4+7)1';$
D)*5';)1$@4+7)1';$
%&)(+$:$N'31'*)';$
O'77)+6$
%)6/A+6$
H)./71+6$
I+5'7'(+6$
M+.+7$4'77)+6$
!!"#$%&$'()*+,
-./"0$,%($&%)$1/)23431/23"56
194
REFERENCES
Aarnio, T., & Hämäläinen, A. (2008). Challenges in packaging waste management in the fast food industry. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 52(4), 612–621. Doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2007.08.002
Ahmed, A., Ahmed, N., & Salman, A. (2005). Critical issues in packaged food business. British Food Journal, 107(10), 760–780. Doi:10.1108/00070700510623531
Ampuero, O., & Vila, N. (2006). Consumer perceptions of product packaging. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23(2), 100–112. Doi:10.1108/07363760610655032
Anthony, P. (2008). Encyclopedia of Global Industries, 1–16.
Becker, L., Van Rompay, T. J. L., Schifferstein, H. N. J., & Galetzka, M. (2011). Tough package, strong taste: The influence of packaging design on taste impressions and product evaluations. Food Quality and Preference, 22(1), 17–23. Doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.06.007
Brown, R. L. (1958). Wrapper influence on the perception of freshness in bread. Journal of Applied Psychology, 42(4), 257–260. Doi:10.1037/h0046879
Capsule. (2008). Design matters: packaging 01 : an essential primer for today's competitive market. Beverly, Mass: Rockport Publishers.
Cardello, A. V. (1994). Measurement of Food Preferences. (H. J. H. Macfie & D. M. H. Thomson, Eds.). Boston, MA: Springer US. Doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-2171-6
Cardello, Armand V. (1995). Food quality: Relativity, context and consumer expectations. Food Quality and Preference, 6(3), 163–170. Doi:10.1016/0950-3293(94)00039-X
Carpenter, R. P., Lyon, D. H., & Hasdell, T. A. (2000). Guidelines for sensory analysis in food product development and quality control. Aspen Pub.
Design Matters, Packaging 01: An Essential Primer for Todayʼs Competitive Market. (2008). (p. 191). Rockport Publishers.
Desmet, P., & Hekkert, P. (2007). Framework of product experience. International Journal of Design, 1(1).
195
Dogwood Alliance. (2008). 2008 Fast Food Industry Packaging Report.
Dorn, B. (2013). Picking Up Foodservice Packaging, (March), 31–34.
Euromonitor (2004), “Global packaged food: from added value to availability”, Euromonitor,16 June, available at: www.euromonitor.com/article.asp?Id=3259
FDA Food Code (2009), available at: http://www.fda.gov/Food/guidancereg ulation/retailfoodprotection/foodcode/ucm188064.htm
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), available at: http://www.fda.gov/Regulatory Information/Legislation/federalfooddrugandcosmeticactfdcact/default.htm
Fellows, P., & Axtell, B. (2002). Packaging materials. Appropriate food packaging: materials and methods for small businesses. Essex, UK: ITDG Publishing. P, 25-77.
Foodservice & Packaging Institute, I. (2007). Single-use foodservice packaging: a tutorial.
Gengler, I. (1940). When People Are The Instrument: Sensory Evaluation Methods, 27(4), 9–13.
Grebitus, C. (2008). Food Quality from the Consumerʼs Perspective: An Empirical Analysis of Perceived Pork Quality (p. 263). Cuvillier Verlag.
Guthrie, J. F., Lin, B.-H., & Frazao, E. (2002). Role of food prepared away from home in the American diet, 1977-78 versus 1994-96: changes and consequences. Journal of nutrition education and behavior, 34(3), 140–50.
Huber, J., & mccann, J. (1982). The impact of inferential beliefs on product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research.
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26. Doi:10.3102/0013189X033007014
Kramer, A. D., & Twigg, B. A. (1970). Fundamentals of quality control for the food industry. The Avi.
196
Krishna, A., & Morrin, M. (2008). Does touch affect taste? The perceptual transfer of product container haptic cues. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(6), 807–818.
Laughlin, Z., Conreen, M., Witchel, H. J., & Miodownik, M. (2011). The use of standard electrode potentials to predict the taste of solid metals. Food Quality and Preference, 22(7), 628–637. Doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.03.012
Lawless, H. T., & Heymann, H. (2010). Sensory evaluation of food: principles and practices (Vol. 5999). Springer.
Levenstein, Harvey A. Paradox of plenty : a social history of eating in modern America. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2003. Print.
Marketline Industry Profile. (2011). Fast Food in the United States, (February), 1–33.
Marketpublishers Report Database. (2012). Food and Beverage Packaging Trends in the U.S.: Consumer Viewpoints and Marketer Opportunities, June, 1, 2012.
Marsh, K., & Bugusu, B. (2007). Food packaging--roles, materials, and environmental issues. Journal of food science, 72(3), R39–55. Doi:10.1111/j.1750-3841.2007.00301.x
Mcdaniel, C., & Baker, R. (1977). Convenience food packaging and the perception of product quality. The Journal of Marketing, 41(4), 57–58.
Meiselman, H.L. (1992). Methodology and theory in human eating research. Appetite 19:49–55.
Meiselman. H.L. (1993). Critical evaluation of sensory techniques. Food Quality and Preference 4:33–40.
Meiselman, H.L. (1994). Bridging the gap between sensory evaluation and market research. Trends in Food Science and Technology 5:396–8.
Meiselman, H. (2001). Criteria of food quality in different contexts. Food Service Technology, 67–84.
Meyers, H., & Lubliner, M. J. (1998). The Marketerʼs Guide To Successful Package Design (p. 272). Mcgraw-Hill.
197
Miller, K., & Hofstetter, R. (2011). How Should Consumers ʼ Willingness to Pay Be Measured? An Empirical Comparison of State-of-the-Art Approaches. Journal of Marketing …, XLVIII(February), 172–184.
Mittal, V., & Kamakura, W. (2001). Satisfaction, Repurchase Intent, and Repurchase Behavior: Investigating the Moderating Effect of Customer Characteristic. Journal of marketing research, 38(1), 131–142.
Olson, J. C. (1972). Cue utilization in the quality perception process: a cognitive model andan empirical test. , etd collection for purdue university 1 – 207.
Ophuis, P. O., & Trijp, H. Van. (1995). Perceived Quality: A Market Driven and Consumer Oriented Approach. Food quality and Preference, 3293(94).
Paeratakul, S., Ferdinand, D. P., Champagne, C. M., Ryan, D. H., & Bray, G. A. (2003). Fast-food consumption among US adults and children: dietary and nutrient intake profile. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 103(10), 1332.
Peri, C. (2006). The universe of food quality. Food Quality and Preference, 17(1-2), 3–8. Doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2005.03.002
Perreault, W. & McCarthy, E. (1996). Basic marketing: a global-managerial approach. Chicago: Irwin.
Pierson, B., Reeve, W., & Creed, P. (1995). “The Quality Experience” in the Food Service Industry. Food quality and preference, 6, 209–213.
Pinson, C. (1986). An implicit product theory approach to consumersʼ inferential judgments about products. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 3(1), 19–38. Doi:10.1016/0167-8116(86)90040-6
Presser, S., Couper, M., & Lessler, J. (2004). Methods for Testing and Evaluating Survey Questions. Public opinion quarterly. Doi:10.1093/poq
Raudenbush, B., & Meyer, B. (2002). Ratings of pleasantness and intensity for beverages served in containers congruent and incongruent with expectancy. Perceptual and motor skills, (1963), 671–674.
Robertson, G. L. (1990). Good and Bad Packaging: Who Decides? International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 20(8), 37–40. Doi:10.1108/09600039010005575
198
Saelens, B. E., Glanz, K., Sallis, J. F., & Frank, L. D. (2007). Nutrition Environment Measures Study in restaurants (NEMS-R): development and evaluation. American journal of preventive medicine, 32(4), 273–81. Doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2006.12.022
Samadi, N. (2010). On the fast track: Restaurants expand their menus and global operations to boost demand Fast Food Restaurants in the US About this Industry, (December), 1–38.
Schaeffer, N. C., & Presser, S. (2003). The Science of Asking Questions. Annual Review of Sociology, 29(1), 65–88. Doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.29.110702.1 10112
Schifferstein, H. N. J. (2009). The drinking experience: Cup or content? Food Quality and Preference, 20(3), 268–276. Doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2008.11.003
Schifferstein, H. N., Kole, A. P., & Mojet, J. (1999). Asymmetry in the disconfirmation of expectations for natural yogurt. Appetite, 32(3), 307–29. Doi:10.1006/appe.1998.0208
Schutz, H. G. (1965). Food Action Rating Scale for Measuring Food Acceptance. Journal of Food Science, 30(2), 365–374. Doi:10.1111/j.1365-2621.1965.tb00316.x
Schwartz, M. B., Ph, D., Brownell, K. D., & Cheyne, A. (2010). Evaluating Fast Food Nutrition and Marketing to Youth.
Sidel, J. L., & Stone, H. (1993). The role of sensory evaluation in the food industry. Food Quality and Preference, 4(1-2), 65–73. Doi:10.1016/0950-3293(93)90314-V
Smith, A. F. (2006). Encyclopedia of junk food and fast food. Greenwood Publishing Group.
Spence, C., Harrar, V., & Piqueras-Fiszman, B. (2012). Assessing the impact of the tableware and other contextual variables on multisensory flavour perception. Flavour, 1(1), 7. Doi:10.1186/2044-7248-1-7
Steenkamp, J. B. E. M. (1989). Product quality: an investigation into the concept and how it is perceived by consumers.
Stone, H., & Sidel, J. L. (2004). Sensory Evaluation Practices (Google ebook) (p. 408). Academic Press.
199
Technomic. (2009). The Status and Future of Fast Foods: Consumer Trend Report.
Underwood, R. (2001). Packaging communication: attentional effects of product imagery. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 10(7), 403–422.
United States Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service. (2011). Food Safety Information Foodborne Illness: What Consumers Need to Know, 1–4.
Williams, E. J. (1949): Experimental designs balanced for the estimation of residual effects of treatments. Australian Journal of Scientific Research, Ser. A 2, 149-168.
Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2-22.