• No results found

Convenience food consumption and food waste

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Convenience food consumption and food waste"

Copied!
52
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

Convenience food consumption and food waste

Master thesis, MSc Marketing, specialization Marketing Management

University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business

June 17, 2019

Belgin Mustafova

Studentnumber: 3816192

Suikerlaan 1-114

9743 DA Groningen

Tel.: +31 (0)616420897

Email: b.mustafova@student.rug.nl

First supervisor

Prof. Dr. Jenny van Doorn

Second supervisor

(2)

Abstract

(3)

Table of content

Abstract 0

1. Introduction 1

1.1 The food waste problem 1

1.2 Consequences of food waste 1

1.3 Potential interventions 2

2. Theoretical framework 4

2.1 What is known about food waste and convenience food? 4

2.1.1 Main causes of food waste 5

2.1.2 Drivers of convenience food consumption 6

2.1.3 Relation between convenience food and food waste 9 2.2 Conceptual model 11 3. Research design 16 3.1 Data collection and methodology 16

3.2 Analysis and results 18

3.2.1 Measures 18

3.2.2 Descriptive statistics 19

3.2.3 Impact of priming on the choice of convenience 21

3.2.4 Exploring food waste for the convenience and non-convenience choice 25

3.2.5 Robustness check 26

3.3 Discussion 28

3.4 Implications 30

(4)

1

1. Introduction

1.1. Food waste problem

Countries all around the world experience the problem of food waste. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations estimated that about one-third of all food produced worldwide is lost or wasted along the food supply chain (Gustavsson et al., 2011). Researchers relate food loss to the decrease of quantity in the stages of production, postharvest and processing, while the term food waste refers to the losses during the later stages, namely distribution, and consumption (Kumru et al., 2012). Recent estimates of the European food waste levels show that household food waste makes the biggest contribution to the issue, with about 53 percent (FUSIONS 2016), and about half of the total household food waste occurs in the high-income countries (Kumru et al., 2012). For example, in UK households, retail, manufacturing, and the hospitality and food service sector, the amount of food waste was around 10 million tonnes, with around 30% being considered as inedible. This had a value of over £20 billion a year. On the other hand, in the lower income countries, the agricultural and post-harvest stages account for much of the food losses (Gustavsson et al., 2011; Kumru et al., 2012). On a per-capita basis, much more food is wasted in the industrialized world (95-115 kg/year in Europe and North- America) than in developing countries (6-11 kg/year in sub-Saharan Africa and South/Southeast Asia) (Gustavsson et al., 2011; Kumru et al., 2012).

1.2. Consequences of food waste

(5)

2 1.3. Potential interventions

The negative consequences of food waste should not be neglected and therefore, the food waste problem is a priority on the agenda of the European Union (Caldeira et al., 2017; FUSIONS 2016), the United Nations (FAO) and a lot of government policies and organisations across the world. The main findings from a Eurobarometer survey reveal that European citizens view that individual consumers (76%), retailers (62%) and food producers (52%) are the most responsible in preventing food waste. Furthermore, nearly two-thirds (63%) of the participants say that better shopping and meal planning would help in reducing the food waste levels. Combined these two aspects suggest that for effective results in the food waste reduction, both consumers and retailers should work together.

Current data show that many actions are effective. For example, the British and Dutch governments support research and campaigns against food waste (Cox et al., 2010). In the UK most of the interventions started after 2007 when the amount of household food waste has reached the highest levels of 8.1 million tonnes, contributed to a 13 percent reduction of household food waste in 2015. The interventions included redistribution via charitable and commercial routes (43.000 tonnes in 2017) or use of the food in the production of animal feed (around 660.000 tonnes in 2015) (WRAP 2018). On a consumer level, there are several behavioural aspects found to affect household food waste quantities in a positive way. Pre-shop planning such as the use of shopping lists, planning meals in advance and checking food products at home before shopping are effective techniques to reduce food waste (Quested et al., 2013). For example, the shopping list enables consumers to plan their purchases instead of buying impulsively and overbuying (Buckley et al. , 2007).

(6)

3

Therefore, the focus of this research is on Minimally processed convenience food that is ready to use and provides convenience by saving time and making the process of cooking easier and at the same time is fresh and healthy. In recent years, the demand for convenience food products is steadily increasing because of people’s changing lifestyles due to increased time pressure, and changes in household demographics with an increasing female labor force participation and more single-person households (Costa et al., 2007; Yale and Venkatesh, 1986; Becker, 1965; Buckley et al., 2005).

Studies dealing with convenience food have been mostly focused on analysing the demographics and economic characteristics of consumers, such as employment status, household size, education level, and income. Furthermore, prior research dealing with convenience food and food waste differs in their findings concerning whether the use of convenience food can lead to a reduction in food waste or not. Mallinson et al. (2016) found that those that were the most reliant on convenience food wasted the most food. A study of food waste by the Waste and Resources Action Programme came to the same conclusions that ready - meals were one of the most frequently wasted foods by UK households (WRAP 2007). On the other hand, other studies found that convenience food can help in preventing food waste by buying fewer ingredients for preparing a meal and consuming them directly which prevents them to be forgotten in the fridge and to spoil (Stancu et al., 2015; Buckley et al., 2005; Brunner, 2010).

(7)

4

abstract characteristics of the task cooking, they think of the reasons for doing the task and in the case of the concrete thoughts, they focus on the process of doing the task. Therefore, the aim of this study is twofold:

• To examine whether highlighting feasibility considerations can increase the likelihood of choosing convenient food

• To uncover whether the consumption of convenience food would actually lead to less food waste.

This knowledge can have theoretical and practical relevance. On the one hand, the findings of this study contribute to the existing literature about consumers’ decision making and add new insights about consumers’ preferences regarding convenience and non-convenience food in the near and future decisions in a grocery shopping situation. On the other hand, the findings from the study have also a retailer and personal relevance, as well as overall importance in the food waste challenge. As such, the results of the study are aimed at retailers who want to trigger their consumers to prefer the convenience foods in order to have higher margins. Moreover, these findings can be very useful for consumers and policymakers who are interested in the problem of food waste and as such want to know whether choosing convenience food would be more helpful in reducing the quantity of food wasted compared to the non-convenience food.

The structure of this thesis is as follows: Section 2 presents the theoretical framework, which includes a brief review of prior literature related to the topic of food waste in combination with convenience food, as well as the theory based on which the conceptual model used for the conducted study will be explained. Section 3 proceeds with the methodology of investigation and the data used, followed by the analysis and results of the research. In conclusion, the general discussion and managerial implications of this research are presented.

2. Theoretical framework

2.1. What is known about food waste and convenience food?

(8)

5

interventions. Researchers from a wide range of disciplines have addressed the topic of food waste applying qualitative and quantitative research methods, as well as food waste diaries. Findings from previous studies improve our understanding of significant factors related to food waste and as such can be used when designing initiatives to reduce food waste quantities. The selection of literature for this review focuses on connecting the food waste drivers with the trend of convenience food as a possible opportunity for food waste prevention. Therefore, an understanding of the phenomenon of food waste is first needed in order to provide directions for behavioural change with the help of convenience food.

2.1.1. Main causes of food waste

Globally, about 1.3 billion tonnes of food is wasted per year. Food is wasted throughout the whole food supply chain, from initial production to the final consumption but the quantities of wasted food at the different stages varied across regions (Gustavsson, 2011). In prior literature, scholars differentiate between food loss and food waste. The food losses are those that occur in the production, postharvest, and processing of products while food waste occurs in the distribution and consumption. In this research, the focus is on food waste, in particular, the consumption food waste that includes all the food wasted at the household level (Gustavsson et al., 2011; Kumru et al., 2012). Household food waste relates to avoidable waste and moreover, it could be unintentional and unconscious (Leal and Kovaleva, 2015; Quested et al., 2013). In developed countries, the greatest amount of food waste occurs at the household level and consumer behaviour is considered the main cause of food waste in those regions (FAO 2012; Gustavsson, 2011). Food has been wasted in different practices of our daily life relating to the purchase, storage, preparation, and consumption of food (Evans et al., 2012; Stancu et al., 2015).

(9)

6

understanding consumers’ food waste behaviour. The leftovers reuse routines contribute mostly to food wastage, followed closely by shopping routines. Planning routines have an indirect impact on increased food waste levels through the shopping routines, referring to planning of consumers’ shopping trips and of meals ahead. In addition, according to findings from Evans (2012), consumers tend to shop and cook with the aim of “eating properly” and this demands variety in products and cooking from scratch, which is more likely to lead to overpreparation, a major driver of household food waste. The study also shows that consumers tend to purchase a larger amount of a particular product when retailers offer good value for money. Consumers are constantly exposed to marketing actions promoting food products in discounted prices, volumes or in combination with other products in order to encourage bulk buying and repeat purchasing (Evans, 2012). This overbuying and impulse buying behaviour, together with ignoring the volumes and expiration dates of existing food at home, can contribute to increased food waste quantities.

Prior studies also examine how social, cultural and material factors can have an impact on the quantity of wasted food and on the perception of edible and inedible food. For example, Porpino et al. (2015) identify affection and preference for abundance as core determinants of food waste in low-income households. This qualitative study shows that affection may contribute to overprovisioning and thus increased food waste quantities. For instance, a good mother seems as one that serves diversified and nutritious meals to their families. Moreover, this care aspect is expected also in families without children. Furthermore, a perceived status symbol relates to abundance in low-income households, where consumers link food to wealth (Porpino et al., 2015). The practice of overpreparing food is also related to excessive purchasing and overstocking which consequently promote more food waste (Porpino et al., 2015, Evans, 2012). Other drivers identified include a variety of choices, convenience, and unplanned routines. The common practices of overbuying and buying food in bulk without properly planning meals ahead lead not only to overeating (Chandon, 2012) but also to a greater amount of wasted food (Williams et al., 2012). Furthermore, Porpino et al. (2015) explain that stockpiling reduces anxiety and food insecurity of low-income customers but at the same time the abundance resulting from the convenience of easily available products may encourage more food waste.

2.1.2. Drivers of convenience food consumption

(10)

7

(2010), namely convenience goods are „those that help consumers minimize time as well as physical and mental effort required for food preparation, consumption and clean-up”. Thus, this broader definition focuses not only on saving or reducing time and physical efforts but also on mental thoughts about planning and preparing meals. Similar is also the distinction of convenience food by Darian and Cohen (1995) who suggest that convenience in food can be categorized along two dimensions: (1) the kind of effort that is reduced, means a saving of time, of physical energy, or of mental energy; (2) the stage of the home food production chain in which the saving occurs, namely when deciding what to eat, purchasing, preparation, consumption and cleaning

Previous research found that consumers perceive ready-made meals, frozen meals, takeaways as convenient because they are quick and easy to prepare and consume (Costa et al., 2007; Scholderer and Grunert, 2005). Several studies have shown that taste is the primary factor involved in the acceptance of a variety of food categories (Mallinson et al. 2016). However, because of the growing importance of convenience in the recent years, convenience orientation is becoming as important as other factors such as taste, health, price in determining consumers’ likelihood of buying food (Candel, 2001; Steptoe et al., 1995; Costa et al., 2007). Prior research evidenced that homemade meals made from scratch are perceived as tastier and healthier compared to other types of food like ready-meals, frozen foods and as such it is still the preferred choice of many people (Evans, 2012; Steptoe et al., 1995; Costa et al., 2007). Because these types of convenience foods are often perceived as unhealthy, this research focuses on another type of foods that also save time in preparing and cooking, namely minimally processed food that is pre-chopped, pre-sliced and that can be cooked in less time and at the same time is healthy. In contrast, the homemade food that is made from scratch and includes fresh and regularly processed ingredients will be considered as non-convenience food because it takes more effort and time for preparing and cooking.

(11)

8

have an impact on consumers’ convenience food choice is presented.

According to Becker (1965), convenience food consumption is mostly examined as the way households deal with time pressure. As such, it was mainly applied to investigate the impact of the housewife’s employment status on the role of convenience in food consumption. The suggestion is that when the wife enters the labour market, this will result in reduced time for meal preparation, which would lead to increased purchase of time-saving products, services or kitchen appliances that make the production of meals faster (Bonke, 1996; Brunner et al., 2010). Findings from studies show that households with a working wife are more prone to buy and eat meals outside their homes, such as fast food (Darian and Klein, 1989; Kim, 1989) and quickly prepared meals (Jackson et al., 1985). Surprisingly for the researchers, most studies couldn’t find evidence for the suggested positive relationship between employment status of the wife and the purchase of convenience food products for home use preparation (Darian and Klein, 1989; Kim, 1989; Strober & Weiberg, 1980). Candel (2001) considers the lack of correlation between the meal preparer's working status and convenience food consumption to be due to insufficient preparation convenience offered by convenience food. On the other hand, take-away meals, fast food and eating in restaurants are able to more adequately satisfy the consumer's need for convenience. In addition, Candel (2001) found the convenience orientation towards food preparation to be positively related to convenience food consumption and consumer’s overload. Furthermore, important is also to be noticed that convenience orientation is an individual characteristic in which individuals could differ but situational aspects such as time pressure and social pressure may also affect individual’s convenience orientation (Candel 2001; Yale and Venkatesh 1986).

(12)

9

cooking enjoyment, cooking involvement and variety seeking (Candel, 2001).

Health orientation, defined as the value consumers place on good health, is another important factor influencing consumers’ food choice (Steptoe et al., 1995). Convenience food is still perceived as a less healthy food choice compared to traditional home-made food (Costa et al., 2007), thus, people consuming convenience food are considered to have less nutrition knowledge and concern for the naturalness of the food content, based on results from Brunner et al. (2010). A study making the comparison between perceptions of actual and ‘ideal’ meals confirms that ideal meals were consistently perceived as less convenient than actual meals (Rappaport et al. 2001). The post-meal convenience in the means of cleaning up and disposal of waste ingredients has also been recognized as a driver of convenience food consumption. People participating in a questionnaire conducted by Buckley et al. (2007) explain that when cooking from scratch they often have to throw away food that has not been used. Other participants reveal that after buying food products and using them once they leave and forget them in the fridge. As a result, those consumer segments that value the post-meal convenience have a positive attitude towards convenience food, such as ready meals and takeaway meals (Buckley et al., 2007).

After the drivers of the food waste and convenience food were presented, the relation between these two dimensions will be explored in the next section.

2.1.3. Relation between convenience food and food waste

(13)

10

Table 2.1.3: Overview of prior research about the relation between convenience food and waste

Source Type of convenience food

investigated

Key findings of food waste

Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2018

Ready-to-eat foods; frozen foods; delivery meals, such as pizza, empanadas, etc.

Uruguayan consumers who expressed a high degree of convenience orientation were more likely to indicate a greater likelihood of food waste amounts in their household.

Brunner et

al., 2010

Four groups of convenience food products: highly processed food items (such as ready meal in a can), moderately processed food items (such as sandwich), single components (such as marinated meat), salads (such as cut and washed salads)

The survey reported that the consumption of convenience food was inversely associated with food waste avoidance. It was found that the more participants wanted to avoid food waste, the more they reduced their consumption of moderately processed food products and single components.

Buckley et al., 2007

Ready meals (form: frozen, chilled, canned, dried; type: traditional, healthy, vegetarian or meat-free, organic, fish-based), takeaways, snack, pizza

According to this study, consumers that are most motivated to choose convenience foods put also the greatest importance on the disposal of waste ingredients. These consumers have positive attitudes towards all type of ready meals and takeaway meals. Moreover, this research found that convenience foods are used to decrease the ingredient wastage. In contrast, when people cook from scratch, they often throw away ingredients. In addition, participants indicate that they often throw away leftovers and forget ingredients left in the cupboard or fridge.

Mallinson et al., 2016

Takeaway meals, going out for a meal, snack, ready meals (frozen, chilled, tinned, dried)

The authors tested the relationship between the purchase frequency of convenience food and the amount of household food waste. Five consumer groups were identified distinguishable by various food-related lifestyles. The key finding was that individuals that preferred the convenience food the most were also those that wasted the most food. These groups of consumers were mostly represented by young individuals. The biggest proportion of food waste identified constituted of fresh vegetables (8.6%) and fruits (8.1%).

Porpino et al., 2016

Convenience foods as snacks are given as treats to the children in 25% of the families studied.

This behaviour to award children with snacks was linked to skipping meals or having leftovers stored and forgotten in the fridge, which are drivers of more food wasted.

Rivera et al.,

2014

Ready-made meals that are manufactured industrially (frozen, chilled)

(14)

11

Feasibility

Furthermore, several studies examined the waste levels of convenience foods that are pre-chopped, pre-sliced and as such served in a way that are ready to eat. Because these studies are related to a greater extent to the focus of this research, they will be examined in more details in the next section.

2.2. Conceptual model

This research will examine whether consumer’s preference can be triggered towards convenience food and whether the convenience and non-convenience choices differ in their food waste levels. The following schema visualizes the conceptual model tested in this thesis:

Figure 2: Conceptual model

Construal level theory can be used in explaining how people make their planning for the near and far future. It suggests that the more psychologically distant in time an event or object is from the individual, the more abstractly it is considered, using high-level construals about its general, superordinate characteristics. The same event/object can also be considered in the near future with a focus then on its low-level concrete, contextual and subordinate features. Thus, the type of construal will lead to different decision making, behavior, and evaluation. In addition, considering a different context or goal could lead to the use of different construals (Hamilton and Thompson 2007; Trope et al. 2007). Moreover, when people plan for the distant future, they think more optimistically and do not think consciously through the concrete details of the events and thus, often end up with not having sufficient time for these plans. Prior

Temporal distance

- Near future (today) - Distant future (in 3 days)

H2

Choice of convenience

- Yes (convenience food) - No (non-convenience food)

Food waste

(15)

12

research shows that individuals are more optimistic and confident about distant future events compared to near future events (Liberman and Trope, 1998). People expect to perform better on a task that has to be performed in the far future time than in the near future, as the multiple studies conducted by Gilovich and colleagues (1993) evidenced. For instance, participants in one of the studies show that they believe they would receive higher grades on a particular exam when asked at the beginning of the semester than at a later time in the semester. The reason behind these results, Gilovich et al. (1993) explain to be the accountability that makes the difficulties of a near future task more salient and as such people feel more accountable about near future events. Moreover, Nisan (1972) even distinguish individuals into success oriented and failure oriented, finding that those who are success oriented believe that they would perform better on distant future tasks than on near future tasks. On the other hand, when planning for the near future individuals also consider other activities they have and based on that they split their time (Liberman and Trope 2007).

The high and low construal levels are also related to desirability and feasibility concerns in decision making. According to Liberman and Trope (1998), when people plan for the distant future, they apply high-level construals, focusing on the desirability of the activity, means they apply “why” thoughts (giving more importance on the end result). On the other hand, since people focus more on the time constraints when making plans for a near future event and also include more peripheral unrelated to the task features when thinking of this near event, in this case, they will use “how” thoughts

focusing more on how to reach the end state of this activity. Liberman and Trope (1998) tested and confirmed the hypothesis that people use higher level construals for far future tasks than for near future tasks with the use of open-ended questions about activity descriptions. Moreover, the results showed that participants described a near future activity giving the means of achieving it.

(16)

13

between preparing their food and all other tasks they have to do (Liberman and Trope, 2007). In contrast, when individuals consider preparing and cooking food in three days (the distant time frame), they would apply more abstract thoughts using high-level construal about its general, superordinate characteristics, such as eating healthy and focusing on the desirability of the activity, means they apply “why” thoughts, giving more importance on the end result of eating healthy, home-made food and as such they will buy fresh ingredients for preparing their food from scratch (Liberman and Trope, 1998). Moreover, when people plan for the distant future, they think more optimistically and do not think consciously through the concrete details of the action such as the time and effort of preparing and cooking all the food, as well as, they do not take into account other events they have at that time and thus, often end up with not having sufficient time for preparing all the food from scratch as they planned (Hamilton and Thompson, 2007; Trope et al., 2007). As such, there is a mismatch between what people think and consider when shopping for a couple of days in advance and what they actually do when the time of preparing and cooking that food at home comes. Therefore, the following hypothesis is suggested:

H1: A distant consumption moment will increase the preference for non-convenience food.

(17)

14

findings from another study conducted by Liberman and Trope (1998), namely that individuals find the feasibility considerations as more important and desirability considerations as less important in the near future decision situations than in far future decisions. Furthermore, Taylor et al. (1998) investigate the effect of mental simulations which increase the perceived likelihood of event occurrence by making the particular event concrete, real and as such dealing with uncertain times.

Therefore, two types of simulations have been distinguished by scholars, namely process-focused simulation or how-thinking and outcome-focused simulation or why- thinking (Taylor et al., 1998; Zhao et al., 2007). Castano et al. (2008) used the theories of mental simulation and temporal distance in the situation of adopting new products in order to test and consequently found evidence that in the distant- future adoption situation, communication strategies that promote outcome simulations are more effective in reducing performance uncertainty, boosting positive feelings, and increasing behavioural intentions. In contrast, in the near future adoption situation, communication strategies that promote process simulations can more effectively reduce their switching cost and affective uncertainties, decreasing anxiety, and increasing behavioural intentions. Furthermore, Hamilton and Thompson (2007) investigate the idea of Liberman and Trope (1998) that shifting construal can lead to shifting consumer’s preference for a product. They examined this hypothesis for the case of direct and indirect product experiences and tested whether adopting either concrete or abstract mental construal prior to an indirect or direct product experience will enhance consumer’s preference for high feasibility or high desirability products, respectively. Although the hypotheses were symmetric, evidence was found only for the indirect product experience.

(18)

15

distance and mental simulation, it is hypothesized whether highlighting the feasibility of the action by adopting more concrete “how” thoughts in the distant future, means construals that would encourage the consumer to think about the ease/difficulty and time of preparing the food would override the importance of the temporal distance and this will shift consumer’s preference towards the convenience food (Liberman and Trope, 1998; Castano et al., 2008; Taylor et al., 1998; Hamilton and Thompson, 2007). Therefore, highlighting the feasibility construal would attenuate the difference between convenience and non-convenience food preferences in the distant time frame. Thus, the following is hypothesized:

H2: When feasibility considerations are primed, a distant consumption moment will to a lesser extent lead to the preference for non-convenience food.

(19)

16

there was a small increase in the intake, results of the study support that slicing of fruits has the most promising impact on increasing fruit consumption than other factors. As such, prior studies found evidence that convenience food, in particular, sliced fruits and vegetables, are more attractive to children and therefore they prefer the consumption of those convenience products compared to non-convenience products.

All these results from prior studies strongly illustrate how making food easily available for a direct consumption influences the choice and preference of the individuals, and as such increases the consumption of those products. Consequently, based on these findings, the reasoning can be made that because convenience food is at the moment more attractive it is less likely to be trashed. These results can be used as a motivation for increasing the extent of these findings and testing whether these results will be also evidenced at other settings, namely, to add also products different from fruits and vegetables and in a sample of an adult population. Therefore, in this thesis, it is proposed that choosing more convenience food than regular ingredients for preparing food from scratch would lead to a lower quantity of food waste.

H3: Choosing convenience food leads to lower food waste levels.

3.Research design

3.1. Data collection and methodology

(20)

17

Participants were first informed that they will participate in a study investigating consumer grocery store decisions and consumer behavior. In the study, participants were told to imagine themselves in a situation in which they have to prepare dinner for their friends either today or in three days and they have to make the decision about the products they will use. A vegetarian Italian pasta had been chosen for the study as it represents a rather popular choice for dinner and does not require great cooking skills given the participants are students. They were presented with a choice between a box of non-convenience products (fresh products that have to be cut, sliced and/or peeled before cooking and a product requires regular time for cooking) and a box of convenience products (pre-chopped, pre-sliced, and/or peeled fresh ingredients, a canned product that can directly be used for cooking and a product that requires less time for cooking). Both variants of the box that participants could choose between contained five ingredients each and are given below:

Figure 3: The two variants of the grocery box provided in the study

Prior to their decision, students were asked to describe either the process of preparing the particular meal in the feasibility condition or the reasons why they would prepare the meal in the desirability condition (Hamilton and Thompson 2007; Trope and Liberman 2007). As such, it was tested whether inducing either a concrete (‘how’

GROCERY BOX 1 GROCERY BOX 2

- 400 gram macaroni

- 6 tomatoes to boil and peel

- 100 gram bell pepper

- 250 gram mushrooms

- 50 gram red onion

- 400 gram fast-boiling macaroni

- 6 ready-to-use peeled tomatoes

- 100 gram pre-cut bell pepper

- 250 gram pre-cut mushrooms

(21)

18

thoughts about the process of preparing the meal) or an abstract mental construal (‘why’ thoughts about the reasons for preparing the meal) prior to evaluating and choosing a product can lead to shifts in consumer’s product preference and more concretely, whether inducing feasibility construal would attenuate the desirability construal and thus, stimulate consumers to choose the high feasibility product (convenience food).

The questionnaire continued with nine questions about cooking skills, preferences, which participants had to rate on a seven-point scale (ranking from 1 = not at all agree to 7 = totally agree). At the end of the survey, participants were asked to indicate how much of the provided food package they think they would consume. This was used in order to measure the potential food waste for convenience food and non-convenience food. As additional insights, participants were also asked about the frequency of cooking at home in a week and about their gender.

3.2. Analysis and results

3.2.1. Measures

Before starting the analysis, it was important to have a look at the measures of the variables being studied. The measure of temporal distance, which was the independent variable in the conceptual model, was the number of days until the mentioned in the survey dinner with variants either one day (tonight) or three days. The dependent variable of the main focus of the research model was the choice of convenience with two possible values, either non-convenience (represented by a regular box with non-sliced products) or convenience (represented by a box of grocery products which are sliced and prepared for the cooking process). The moderation effect was presented by the feasibility manipulations. Finally, to measure the food waste, the participants were asked to indicate the amount of the provided food they would consume, measured on a percentage scale. In order their answers to not be influenced they were rather not asked directly about the amount of food they would waste. Therefore, in the model, there were three dichotomous variable and one continuous variable.

3.2.2. Descriptive statistics

(22)

19

the task and experienced the mental simulation of the feasibility or desirability prime before choosing their preferred box. This led to excluding 13 responses from the final sample and therefore the remained sample was consistent of 312 responses. The reason these cases were excluded from the final sample was that the particular participants did not do the task of either describe the process of preparing the meal in the feasibility condition or the reasons of preparing the meal in the desirability condition. These studies included answers like “I am not a vegetarian”, “I don’t cook”, “I can’t cook” and as such the particular participants were not able to truly experience the manipulation by the feasibility or desirability prime which was essential for the tested interaction effect. In order to check that the results from the conducted analyses were not influenced by the excluded data, a robustness check with all the 325 responses was also conducted and afterward compared with the sample with the excluded cases.

(23)

20

Table 3.2.2: Descriptive statistics

From the table, it can be observed that the sample data used for the analyses are not exactly equal distributed with approximately 10 percent more responses in the tonight scenario and the one where feasibility considerations are primed. About three-quarters of the respondents have chosen the non-convenience box and about one-third of all participants were female. When asked to indicate the amount of the products in the given box they would consume, on average around 77 percent of the package would be consumed with a standard deviation of 22.5 percent. Furthermore, the participants cook on average between 3 and 4 days a week.

Descriptive statistics

Variable Number Percentage Mean

Std. deviation Temporal distance Tonight In three days 172 140 55.10 % 44.90 % Mental simulation Feasibility prime Desirability prime 166 146 53.20 % 46.80 % Condition

Today l Feasibility prime Today l Desirability prime In three days l Feasibility prime In three days l Desirability prime

85 87 81 59 27.20 % 27.90 % 26.00 % 18.90 %

Preferred box choice

Non-convenience (regular) box Convenience (sliced) box

235 77 75,30 % 24,70 % Gender Male Female Missing value 205 104 3 65.70 % 33.30 % 1 %

Percentage of the package consumed

77.25 22.48

(24)

21

In the next part of this thesis, analyses using these variables will be conducted in order to test the hypotheses that were previously proposed.

3.2.3. Impact of priming on the choice of convenience

Because of the binary outcome variable and the binomial probability distribution, the Generalized linear model could be used for testing the first two hypotheses of the conceptual model. The outcome is a binary variable and the response probabilities are between zero and one for all values of the parameters, with one when the event is true (convenience choice) and zero otherwise (non-convenience choice). Therefore, probit and logit models could be appropriate for the analyses. Because the difference in using these two models is in the interpretation of the error term and in the thickness of the tails of the curves, means whether the probabilities approach slowly or faster the extreme values, the analyses were conducted using both methods and the results indicated a really small difference in the values of the parameter estimates and significance levels (Ai and Norton, 2003; Klieštik et al., 2015). For further analyses, the

probit link was used.

The non-linear model consistened of two binary predictors and a binary response variable is shown as follows:

P (C = 1 l x) = Φ(α + β1 * T + β2 *P + β12 *T*P + ε )

Where:

Φ is the standard normal cumulative distribution α = Constant

C = Binary dependent variable for choice of convenience (1 = convenience choice, 0 = non-convenience choice)

T = Dummy variable for temporal distance (0 = today, 1 = in three days)

(25)

22

The descriptive statistics showed that the non-convenience choice was the norm - most people in the examined population chose this variant of the provided box. The interesting comparison was to see how people who prefer convenience differ from this normative group. Therefore, the non-convenience choice served as a reference category during the analyses. It could be seen from the Omnibus test that the model that contains the set of predictors represented a marginally significant improvement of fit (p = 0.097) and a likelihood ratio chi-square of 6.324) over an unconditional model with no predictors. The Wald-chi square test was used for testing the significance of the regression coefficients. With the test of model effects, each term in the model was tested for whether the value of its effect equaled 0. Terms with significance values of less than 0.1 had some discernible effect. Thus, the feasibility/desirability prime (p = 0.418) did not contribute to the model. On the other hand, the temporal distance and the interaction between both independent variables predicted differences in the choice for convenience with a p-value of 0.049 and a marginally significant p-value of 0.081 respectively.

(26)

23

the interaction effect and that the interaction effect can differ widely for the various observations (Ai and Norton, 2003; Klieštik et al., 2015).

As such, it was necessary to further investigate the effects of the parameters and their categories on the response variable. Therefore, another part of the probit model was next examined, namely the pairwise comparisons between the estimated marginal means of the temporal distance categories and the two variants of manipulation. Before doing that, the Wald chi-square tested the effect of temporal distance, which was statistically significant at the level of 0.043 and was based on the linearly independent pairwise comparisons among the estimated margins. The Wald chi-square test for the effect of the feasibility/desirability manipulation showed a non-significance result (p-value = 0.415). The results from the pairwise comparisons for the interaction of temporal distance and feasibility/desirability manipulation are displayed on the following graph. The overall test results for the interaction between both variables had a Wald chi-square level of 7.588, degrees of freedom = 3 and a significance level of 0.055.

(27)

24

The results indicated that when the participants chose grocery products for dinner today, they clearly prefer the regular box with almost 70 percent. Furthermore, when asked to choose grocery box for a dinner in three days they still prefer the regular non-convenience package, but it can be observed that a higher percentage of the participants chose this box when the temporal distance increases. As such, the suggestion that in the distant future more people will prefer the non-convenience regular box is evidenced from the sample data – on average almost 70 percent of the participant chose the non-convenience box in the today condition and more than 86 percent of the respondents preferred this variant in the distant future condition with a statistically significant difference at the p-value = 0.009. Looking at the preference for the convenience box, there was a statistically significant difference (p-value = 0.009) between the near and the distant future condition where the percentages decreased with time distance. As such, if participants were not primed with feasibility considerations only a few people chose the convenience-box in the distant condition. Therefore, the main effect of the independent variable, namely the difference in the temporal distance on the binary outcome variable of choice of convenience as suggested in the first hypothesis is evidenced.

When participants were primed with feasibility consideration before their choice for a grocery box, in the way that they experienced the mental simulation to think more about the process of preparing the meal, their preference for non-convenience increases to a lesser extent in the distant future scenario compared with the same distant scenario but when they were primed with desirability considerations, with a marginally significant p-value of 0.089. As such, when respondents chose a grocery box for dinner in three days and they were primed with feasibility considerations, more people preferred a convenience box (24.7%) compared with the case when they are primed with desirability (13.6%). Moreover, when the feasibility prime was applied the results showed that almost as many people chose convenience box as in the tonight conditions, means that the feasibility prime overrode the effect of the temporal distance. As such, with the feasibility manipulation, the condition in the distant future became closer to the two near conditions, making them not significantly different at the p-value > 0.1. As a conclusion, it can be said that the results correspond with the second hypothesis suggested in the conceptual model.

(28)

25

amount of food consumed and respectively food wasted will be analysed.

3.2.4. Exploring food waste for the convenience and non-convenience choice

Because it was also important to know whether choosing convenience would lead to less food waste, the relationship between these two was examined. A one-way ANOVA or an independent-samples t-test could be used, as both would provide the same results in the case for two groups. A one-way ANOVA was performed in order to examine whether the indicated quantity of food consumption differed across the type of preferred box, either box with sliced products in it or a box with regular products. With a partial eta squared of 0.011 the effect of convenience was small, means that the two categories explain only 1.1 percent of the variance of the dependent variable. This level is not high, but it is marginally statistically significant at the p-level of 0.060 with a value of 3.550 for the F statistic indicating that there is a significant difference between the two groups by rejecting the null hypothesis of equal means in the data sample. Furthermore, the descriptive statistics show that on average there is about 5 percent difference of the level of consumed food between the participants that choose the convenience box (mean = 73.078 percent) and those that prefer the non-convenience box (mean = 78.617 percent). Therefore, turning this around, it can be assumed that less consumption of the convenience box means that the food waste quantities are larger than those of the non-convenience box with about 5 percent. These results are presented on the pie charts below. As such, the third hypothesis, suggesting that the choice of convenience would lead to a lower amount of food waste, is not supported.

(29)

26

The conducted ANOVA-analysis did not take into consideration the effect of other variables that might have explained some of the effect on the outcome, such as the gender of the participants. Therefore, as further insights, it was tested whether there is a change in the levels when controlling for the effect of the covariate gender that might also explain some of the differences in the amount of food consumed. In order to test for the effect of the covariate, ANCOVA analysis was next run. Before doing that, the assumptions required for this test had to be checked. The two assumptions were met, namely that the values of the covariate varied across the different levels of the independent variable and that the slope for gender and choice of convenience were homogenous. The results from the ANCOVA test indicate that the significance level has changed (p-value is 0.074 and eta squared 0.10). Therefore, when the gender is controlled, the statistical significance of the effect of the choice of convenience on the amount of food consumed has changed, however, it is still marginally significant. Furthermore, the results show that female participants indicate larger quantities of food consumed from the box. This suggests, that they would eventually waste less food compared to male participants.

3.2.5. Robustness check

(30)

27

Figure 5: Robustness check for the impact of the priming on the choice of convenience

Here, it can also be observed that participants prefer the non-convenience products for a dinner today and the preference for the non-convenience increases in the distant future with a highly significant difference of a 17 percent (p-value = 0.011). However, when the feasibility is primed the difference between the percentage of participants who choose a regular box and a box with sliced products in the distant scenario decreases significantly with the p-value of 0.031. As such, with feasibility prime, the condition in the distant future becomes closer to the two near conditions.

The results from the analyses for the food wasted were stable as well. A slightly lower marginal level of significance p-value of 0.078 and an F test value of 3.130 indicated that there was a marginally significant difference between the convenience choice and non-convenience choice in the amount of food consumed from the box, as indicated by the participants. The results can be observed in the following pie charts.

(31)

28

Overall, the results from the robustness check correspond with those from the sample with the excluded data.

3.3. Discussion

The increasing amount of food waste and at the same time increasing world population calls for change and action from everyone in the whole food-supply chain in order to reduce the negative consequences of this problem. The focus of this research was on preferences towards convenience food in a near and future event as well as on the levels of food waste. A study was conducted with the purpose to find out whether manipulation simulation by highlighting the process of preparing a meal can influence individual’s choice towards convenience food and whether this choice would lead to lower quantities of food wasted. Two of the three suggested hypotheses were supported by the conducted study.

(32)

29

The results of the second goal of this study were surprising by showing that non-convenience food consumption would lead to less food waste. Previous research found for the special type of the sliced, pre-chopped convenience food and food waste, evidenced the opposite to be true because an easier way of serving the food would lead to direct consumption and consequently less food wastage (Bönnhoff et al. 2002; Jansen et al., 2010). There are several aspects that could explain why the opposite direction of the relationship was found.

First, prior studies predominantly investigated only pre-sliced vegetables and fruits and the conducted study here tested different vegetables as well as other minimally processed foods like pasta that would take less time for boiling than the regular one and canned tomato sauce. The findings of the study conducted by Swanson and colleagues (2009) evidenced that sliced oranges were more attractive to children compared to whole oranges, but this pattern was not found for the sliced apples. These results could be due to the fact that oranges are more difficult to peal in a short time. Thus, these findings show that the effects vary according to the specific food under consideration.

Another reason behind the findings of the study could be the representative sample. The participants in the prior studies were mostly children, while the participants in this study were only students, who have different habits and preferences in regard to cooking, food consumption, and food waste might contribute to the results. As such, research that examines the preferences and consumption of heterogeneous group of people could provide different and interesting results.

(33)

30

provides the participants with the food and as such participants have to make a real consumption would provide more realistic levels of the food consumed and wasted.

Another important aspect to mention is that during the study participants were asked to choose products for preparing a meal for friends. A social aspect could play a key role since according to findings from a study conducted by Verlegh and Candel (1999) when an individual invites friends for dinner, attributes like “inexpensive” and “easy to prepare” were evaluated less positively by them. Therefore, given that convenience food may not be perceived as proper food (Buckley et al., 2005; Costa et al., 2007), then there may be social desirability behind participants’ choice that they need to cook proper food for a friend. As such, this raises the question of whether the results from the study in this thesis would also hold in real life or for the case when participants have to prepare dinner only for themselves. Therefore, a future investigation of this research topic is needed.

Prior research evidenced that convenience products were preferred more by the younger generation. For example, Brunner et al. (2010) showed that the older the consumer the lower his or her preference for convenience products, a possible explanation could be that when people enter retirement, they have more time to cook from scratch or that older people are used to cook from scratch. In addition, according to Barker et al. (2007), younger UK consumers are those that favor convenience food compared. It could also be possible that the age does not play a role in this study but rather that in general people still feel less familiar with the convenience food than with the regular food and therefore they are a bit sceptical about convenience food.

Clearly, further research is needed to understand who wastes which amount of food and to examine the factors that influence the relationship between the purchase of convenience food and reported food waste.

3.4. Implications

(34)

31

useful for retailers who want to encourage consumers to choose convenience food products in order to get higher margins. As such, those retailers have to prime their customers with marketing actions that focus on the time and effort required to prepare a meal. This would be helpful for designing the marketing campaigns and deciding for which products and customers which marketing actions are more effective. Moreover, the success of such marketing actions could not only be influenced by whether the particular product offers convenience or not but also the type of convenience product could play a role. As convenience food is getting increasing attention in the last years, this implication might have an even higher importance in the future. Moreover, the conducted study gives additional insights to the psychology of consumer decision-making, and more concretely the way individuals decide for buying products now for use at a future point. Theoretically, this research adds to previous research of construal level theory, by examining the manipulation of psychological distance between individuals and target event in the context of grocery store shopping and meal preparation which was not examined before. The second implication of this study is for everyone who wants to make a positive contribution in preventing or at least reducing the food wasted. Thus, the study provides important insights for consumers, policy makers and non-profit organisations in regard to which type of food to choose for consumptions and campaigns in order to reduce the food waste.

(35)

32

References

Ai, Chunrong, Norton, E. (2003). Interaction terms in logit and A models, Economics Letters 80 (2003) 123–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-1765(03)00032-6

Ang, I. Y. H., Wolf, R. L., Koch, P. A., Gray, H. L., Trent, R., Tipton, E., Contento, I. R. (20018). School lunch environmental factors impacting fruit and vegetable consumption. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 000, 1-12.

Aschemann-Witzel, J., de Hooge, I., Amani, P., Bech-Larsen, T., & Oostindjer, M. (2015). Consumer-related food waste: causes and potential for action. Sustainability, 7(6), 6457e6477. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su7066457.

Barker, M. E., McClean, S. I., Thompson, K. A., & Reid, N. G. (2007). Dietary behaviours and sociocultural demographics in Northern Ireland. British Journal of Nutrition, 64(02), 319e329. http://dx.doi.org/10.1079/BJN19900034.

Beck, M. (2007). Dinner preparation in the modern United States. British Food Journal, 109, 531–547.

Becker, G. S. (1965). A theory of the allocation of time. Economic Journal, 75 (September), 493–517.

Bonke, J. (1996). Economic influences on food choice. Non-convenience versus convenience food consumption. In H. L. Meiselman & H. J. H. MacFie (Eds.), Food choice, acceptance and consumption (pp. 293–318). London: Blackie Academic & Professional

Bönnhoff, N., Eissing, G., Baumann, T., & Kuss, S. (2002). Steigerung des Obst- undGemüseverzehrs bei Grundschulkindern.Ernährungs-Umschau, 49, 340–343. Brunner, T. A., van der Horst, K., & Siegrist, M. (2010). Convenience food products: Drivers for consumption. Appetite, 55(3), 498506.

Buckley, M., Cowan, C., McCarthy, M., O’Sullivan, C. (2005), The Convenience Consumer and Food-Related Lifestyles in Great Britain, Journal of Food Products Marketing, Vol. 11(3)

(36)

33

Great Britain: convenience food lifestyle (CFL) segments. Appetite, 49(3), 600e617.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2007.03.226.

Caldeira, C., Corrado, S., Serenella, S. (2017), Food waste accounting: Methodologies, challenges and opportunities.

Candel, M. (2001). Consumer’s convenience orientation towards meal preparation. Conceptualization and measurement. Appetite, 36, 15–28.

Castano, R., Sujan, M., Kacker, M., Sujan, H. (2008), Managing Consumer Uncertainty in the Adoption of New Products: Temporal Distance and Mental Simulation, Journal of Marketing Research Vol. XLV (June 2008), 320–336.

Chandon, P. (2012). How package design and packaged-based marketing claims lead to overeating. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 31, 7-31.

Costa, A. I. A., Schoolmeester, D., Dekker, M., & Jongen, W. M. F. (2007). To cook or not to cook: A means-end study of motives for choice of meal solutions. Food Quality and Preference, 18, 77–88.

Cox, J., Giorgi, S., Sharp, V., Strange, K., Wilson, D. C., & Blakey, N. (2010). Household waste prevention - a review of evidence. Waste Management & Research, 28(3), 193e219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0734242x10361506.

Darian, C., J., Judy Cohen (1995). Segmenting by consumer time shortage. Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 12 Issue: 1, pp.32-44

Darian, J., & Klein, S. (1989). Food expenditure patterns of working-wife families. Meals prepared away from home versus convenience foods. Journal of Consumer Policy, 12, 139- 164.

Darlington R., T. Staikos, S. Rahimifard (2009). Analytical methods for waste minimisation in the convenience food industry. Waste Management, Vol. 29 (4), 1274-1281.

(37)

34

Foley, K., and Hilton, M. (2011). Literature Review - Relationship between Household Food Waste Collection and Food Waste Prevention. WRAP.

Food and Agriculture Organization (2012). The State of Food and Agriculture 2010- 2011 (Women in Agriculture. Rome, Italy).

Gilovich, T., Kerr, M., & Medvec, V. H. (1993). Effect of temporal perspective on subjective confidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(4), 552-560.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.4.552

Gustavsson J, Cederberg C, Sonesson U, van Otterdijk R, Meybeck A. Global food losses and food waste: extent, causes and prevention. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO); 2011. p. 29.

Hamilton, R. W., & Thompson, D. V. (2007). Is there a substitute for direct experience? Comparing consumers’ preferences after direct and indirect experiences, Journal of Consumer Research, 34(4), 546-555.

Jackson, W. R., McDaniel W. S, Pao, P. C. (1985), Food Shopping and Preparation: Psychographic Differences of Working Wives and Housewives, Journal of Consumer

Research, Volume 12, Issue 1, June 1985, Pages 110–113.

Jansen, E., E. Mulkens, A.Jansen (2010), How to promote fruit consumption in children: Visual appal versus restriction, Appetite, 54, 599-602

John H. Aldrich & Forrest D. Nelson, 1984, Linear Probability, Logit, and Probit Models, SAGE Publications, Inc.

Kim, C. (1989). Working wives’ time-saving tendencies. Durable ownership, convenience food consumption, and meal purchases. Journal of Economic Psychology, 10, 391– 409.

Klieštik, T., Kočišová, K., Mišanková, M., 2015. Logit and probit model used for prediction of financial health of company. Procedia Economics and Finance 23, 850– 855.https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00485-2.

(38)

35

cropland, and fertiliser use, Science of the Total Environment, 438, 477–489.

Leal Filho, W., & Kovaleva, M. (2015). Food waste and sustainable food waste management in the Baltic sea region. Hamburg, Germany: Springer.

Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (1998). The Role of Feasibility and Desirability Considerations in Near and Distant Future Decisions: A Test of Temporal Construal Theory, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 75, No. I, 5-18.

Malhotra, N.K. (2010). Marketing Research, an Applied Orientation. Global Edition, 6th ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. p.461

Mallinson J. Lucy, Jean M. Russell, Margo E. Barker (2016), Attitudes and behaviour towards convenience food and food waste in the United Kingdom, Appetite, Volume 103, 1 August 2016, Pages 17-28.

Nisan, M. (1972). Dimension of time in relation to choice behavior and achievement orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 660-671.

Olsen, A., Ritz, C., Kramer, L., & Møller, P. (2012). Serving styles of raw snack veg-etables. What do children want?. Appetite, 59(2), 556e562.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2012.07.002.

Porpino, G., B. Wansink, J. Parente (2016) Wasted Positive Intentions: The Role of Affection and Abundance on Household Food Waste, Journal of Food Products Marketing, 22:7, 733-751, DOI: 10.1080/10454446.2015.1121433

Quested, T. E., Parry, A. D., Easteal, S., & Swannell, R. (2011). Food and drink waste from households in the UK. Nutrition Bulletin, 36(4), 460e467. http://dx.doi.org/

10.1111/j.1467-3010.2011.01924.x.

Quested, T., Marsh, E., Stunell, D., Parry, A. (2013). Spaghetti soup: The complex world of food waste behaviours Resources Conservation and Recycling 79:43– 51 DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.04.011

(39)

36

Rivera, X.C.Schmidt, Espinoza Orias, N,, Azapagis, A., 2014. Life cycle environmental impacts of convenience food: Comparison of ready and home-made meals. J. Clean. Prod. 73, 294-309.

Scholderer, J. and Grunert, G. K. (2005). Consumers, food and convenience: The long way from resource constraints to actual consumption patterns, Journal of Economic Psychology 26 (2005) 105–128.

Stancu, V., P. Haugaard, L. Lähteenmäki (2015). Determinants of consumer food waste behaviour: Two routes to food waste. Appetite 96, 7-17.

Stenmarck, A., Jensen, C., Quested, T., Moates, G. (2016). Estimates of European food waste levels. FUSIONS.

Steptoe, Pollard, & Wardle, (1995). Development of a Measure of the Motives Underlying the Selection of Food: the Food Choice Questionnaire. Appetite, 1995, 25, 267–284.

Strober, M., & Weinberg, C. (1980). Strategies used by working and nonworking wives to reduce time pressures. Journal of Consumer Research, 6, 338–348.

Swanson, M., Branscum, A., & Nakayima, P. J. (2009). Promoting consumption of fruit in elementary school cafeterias. The effects of slicing apples and oranges.Appetite, 53(2), 264e267.http://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2009.07.015.

Swoboda, B., & Morschett, D. (2001). Convenience-oriented shopping. A model from the perspective of consumer research. In L. Frewer, E. Riskvik, & H. Schifferstein (Eds.)

Taylor, Shelley E., Lien B. Pham, Inna D. Rivkin, and David A. Armor (1998), Harnessing the Imagination, Mental Simulation, Self-Regulation, and Coping, American Psychologist, 53 (4), 429–39.

Traub, L.G. & Odland, D.D. (1979). Convenience foods and home-prepared foods: comparative costs, yield and quality. Agricultural Economic Report No. 429. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture.

(40)

37

distance: Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behaviour. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17:83–95.

Verlegh, P. W. J., & Candel, M. J. J. M. (1999). The consumption ofconvenience foods: reference groups and eating situations.FoodQuality and Preference,10, 457–464. Wansink, David, R., Andrew S. Hanks, Laura E. Smith, (2013) Pre-sliced fruit in school cafeterias, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 44 (5): 477-480

Williams, H., Wikström, F., Otterbring, T., Löfgren, M. & Gustafsson, A. (2012). Reasons for household food waste with special attention to packaging. Journal of Cleaner Production 24:141–148.

WRAP March 2007. Understanding Food Waste.

WRAP 2018. Food Surplus and Waste in the UK – Key Facts.

Yale, L., & Venkatesh, A. (1986). Towards the construct of convenience in consumer research. Advances in Consumer Research, 13, 403– 408.

(41)

Master thesis defense

July 1, 2019

Belgin Mustafova l S3816192 l b.mustafova@student.rug.nl

(42)
(43)

➢ Around one-third of the food produced worldwide is lost or wasted along the food

supply chain

(Gustavsson et al., 2011)

➢ Household food waste: the biggest contribution

(FUSIONS 2016)

➢ Negative environmental, moral and monetary implications

(Gustavsson et al., 2011; Caldeira et al.,

2017)

➢ Examining convenience food consumption as a potential intervention

- Focus on minimally processed food in order to overcome the negative health

issues of other types of convenience food (for example ready-made meals and

takeaways are often seemed as not healthy

(Evans, 2012; Costa et al., 2007)).

➢ Use of construal level theory and mental simulation for consumer’s behavioural

change

➢ Purpose of this research

- To examine whether highlighting feasibility considerations with focus on the

process of meal preparation can increase the likelihood of choosing convenient

food.

- To uncover whether the consumption of convenience food leads to less food

waste.

In

tr

(44)

➢ Main causes of food waste

- Leftovers reuse routines

(Stancu et al., 2015)

- Shopping and planning routines

(Stancu et al., 2015)

- Overpreparation and variety seeking

(Evans, 2012)

- Bulk buying, repeat purchasing, impulse buying

(Evans, 2012)

- Social, cultural and material factors

(Porpino et al., 2015)

➢ Main drivers of convenience food consumption

- Changing lifestyles and time pressure

(Costa et al., 2007)

- An increased female participation in the workface

(Becker, 1965)

- Better value for money

(Swoboda and Morschett, 2001)

➢ Exploring the relation between food waste consumption and food waste

- Positive impact: buying fewer ingredients and consuming them directly

(Stancu et al.,

2015; Buckley et al., 2005; Brunner, 2010)

- Negative impact: higher purchase frequency of convenience food – higher food

waste levels

(Mallinson et al. , 2016; WRAP 2007)

Pr

evio

us

resear

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

For respondents with high biospheric values, a stronger effect between the point-of-purchase intervention and food waste reduction was expected, whereas people high

The conceptual model gives an overview of the influence of an individual’s values on the effect of the portion size control intervention on food waste reduction in the

People with autonomous health motivation were found to perceive convenient food products as lower quality than non-convenient food products, while no difference in

Regarding consumers’ cooking skills and experienced time pressure in relation to food waste, only some effects on avoidable waste were present.. However, the overall model of this

Thus, research shows that the egoistic value orientation is negatively related to stronger extrinsic types of motivation (de Groot & Steg, 2010), and thus it

Furthermore, it shows there is a significant, positive, moderating effect from nutrition knowledge (β =115.965, p=.000), meaning that the higher the participants’ nutrition

It is suggested that the same reasons causing households to opt for convenience products are also responsible for an increased amount of household food waste such as time

emphasizing the moral meaning of food might play a central role; (3) To limit excessively indulgent eating behaviors, educating consumers to appreciate the health meaning