2-7-2019

Food for thought: temporal distance and

the purchase-consumption difference

And the effect of household size in this food waste context

Christiaan Mensink

S2893940

July 1st, 2019

Introduction

“Imagine walking out of a grocery store with four

bags of groceries, dropping one in the parking lot,

and just not bothering to pick it up. That is

essentially what we are doing”

– Dana Gunders

Table of contents

› Food waste and its antecedents

› Household characteristics

› Conceptual model

› Hypotheses

› Method

› Results

› Summary of findings

› Implications

› Limitations

Food waste and its antecedents

› Household food waste is a result of the mismatch between

expectation and reality, with respect to all factors at the consumer

level

› 3 phases:



Purchase: unplanned purchase

(Stefan et al., 2013)

and

over-shopping

(Koivupuro et al., 2012)



Storage: consciously

(Chandon & Wansink, 2006)

and properly

(Hebrok &

Boks, 2017)

Consumption: over-preparation

freshness

Household characteristics

› Size



Food waste is positively related with household occupants

(Wenlock

et al., 1980)



Waste per capita decreases when household size increases

(Baker

et al., 2009)



Avoidable food waste is larger for smaller than bigger

households

(Koivupuro et al., 2012)

› Composition:

(Wenlock et al., 1980)

Effects of +1 person Absolute effect

Relative effect

Adults

++

0

Children

+

Conceptual model

Temporal distance

Δ Buying/consuming

Household size

Hypothesis 1

› Spontaneous purchasing and spur of the moment decisions

result in an ignorance of the food that is already in stock

(Cox &

Downing, 2007, Farr-Wharton et al., 2014).

› The underestimation of future contextual factors result in

purchasing food that is eventually not consumed

(Griffin & Ross,

1991, Evans, 2011).

› H1: When a consumer purchases for a distant (vs. close)

consumption moment, the difference between purchased and

consumed food is bigger (vs. smaller).

8 | 26-06-2019

Hypothesis 2

› Lifestyle of small households is more flexible

(Ganglbauer et al., 2014)

› Over-shopping

(Chandon & Wansink, 2006)

is stimulated: too large package

sizes and big package promotions

› H2: The smaller (vs. bigger) household size, the stronger (vs.

weaker) the effect of temporal distance on the difference between

purchased and consumed food.

Method

› Qualtrics survey with 218 respondents

› Manipulation of temporal distance: shopping for today’s meal or

for the meal in 3 days: scenarios

› Pasta meal

› What are the chances that you would choose for one of the

suggested alternatives above?

› What are the chances that you will prepare a meal with the

ingredients you chose in the supermarket?

› ANOVAs and ANCOVAs

Summary of findings (1)

Chances to use ingredients  positive when TD increases

› Consumers underestimate contextual factors of the event that will

take place in the future

› Products bought in advance decrease in relative value

Chances to go for alternative  negative when TD increases

› Consumers prefer desirability for future events, and feasibility for

near events

› Not significant

Summary of findings (2)

Effect of household size

› Suggested reasons: lifestyle and over-shopping because of too big

packages

› No significant interactions for both DVs

› Efficient small households: age?

› Significant covariate

Implications

Policy makers

› Make people more attentive to future contextual factors: e.g. by

shopping list

› Emphasize people’s feelings while they cook/waste during

shopping: negative experiences can change the consumption

pattern

› Raise awareness via multiple channels and use devices (apps)

Companies

› Highlight feasibility to overcome contextual factors/feelings

› Decrease package size

14 | 26-06-2019

Limitations

› Self-reported items can be biased estimates of real behaviour

› Sample may not be representative

› DV is not normally distributed (assumption)

References

› Baker, D., Fear, J., & Denniss, R. (2009). What a waste - An analysis of household expenditure on food. Policy Brief No, 6, 2009. › Chandon, P., & Wansink, B. (2006). How biased house-hold inventory estimates distort shopping and storage decisions. Journal of

Marketing, 70(4), 118–135.

› Cox, J., & Downing, P. (2007). Food behaviour consumer research: quantitative phase. Retail Programme–Food Waste: Final Report. Material change for better environment. Brook Lyndhurst.

› Evans, D. (2011a). Blaming the consumer–once again: the social and material contexts of everyday food waste practices in some English households. Critical Public Health, 21(4), 429-440.

› Farr‐Wharton, G., Foth, M., & Choi, J. H. J. (2014). Identifying factors that promote consumer behaviours causing expired domestic food waste. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 13(6), 393-402.

› Ganglbauer, E., Fitzpatrick, G., Comber, R., (2013). Negotiating food waste: using a practice lens to inform design. ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact. 20, 1-25.

› Griffin, D. W., & Ross, L. (1991). Subjective construal, social inference and human misunder-standing. In M. Zanna. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 24, pp. 319-359). New York: Academic Press.

› Hebrok, M., & Boks, C. (2017). Household food waste: Drivers and potential intervention points for design–An extensive review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 151, 380-392.

› Koivupuro, H. K., Hartikainen, H., Silvennoinen, K., Katajajuuri, J. M., Heikintalo, N., Reinikainen, A., & Jalkanen, L. (2012). Influence of socio‐demographi-cal, behavioural and attitudinal factors on the amount of avoidable food waste generated in Finnish house-holds. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 36(2), 183-191.

› Parizeau, K., von Massow, M., & Martin, R. (2015). Household-level dynamics of food waste production and related beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours in Guelph, Ontario. Waste Management, 35, 207-217.

› Porpino, G., Parente, J., & Wansink, B. (2015). Food waste paradox: antecedents of food disposal in low income households. International journal of consumer studies, 39(6), 619-629.

› Stefan, V., van Herpen, E., Tudoran, A. A., & Lähteen-mäki, L. (2013). Avoiding food waste by Romanian consumers: The importance of planning and shopping routines. Food Quality and Preference, 28(1), 375-381.

› Wenlock, R. W., Buss, D. H., Derry, B. J., & Dixon, E. J. (1980). Household food wastage in Britain. British Journal of Nutrition, 43(1), 53-70.