Understanding Consumers’ Food Disposal Behaviour
The influence of ‘best before’ expiration dates, packaging and the mediating role
of taste perception
By
ALYANNE BOON
University of Groningen
Faculty of Economics and Business
1
Understanding Consumers’ Food Disposal Behaviour
The influence of ‘best before’ expiration dates, packaging and the mediating role of taste perception
ABSTRACT
Food waste is becoming a major problem in developed countries. Consumers are accountable for most of the waste with more than 40% of total waste. Marketing research can contribute to the problem of food waste by broadening the marketing view through investigating the disposal process. This research investigates the influence of 1) the ‘best before’ expiration date and 2) opened or closed packaging on 3) consumers’ taste perception and how this taste perception mediates the effect of 4) food disposal behaviour. Our field experiment of 342 participants shows that taste perception influences food disposal behaviour negatively. However, taste perception is not found to be influenced by ‘best before’ expiration dates. Opened food packaging is found to be a negative influencer of taste perception compared to closed food packaging and therefore is a new found factor which is a contributor to food disposal behaviour. These findings provide researchers some first guidance for future research in getting a better understanding about consumers’ food disposal behaviour.
Keywords: food disposal behaviour, ‘best before’ expiration date, food labels, opened or closed packaging, taste perception, shelf life.
2 TABLE OF CONTENT
1. INTRODUCTION ... 3
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ... 5
2.1 Food disposal behaviour: conceptual model ... 5
2.2 Taste perception ... 7
2.3 Product characteristics and taste perception ... 8
2.4 Expiration date ... 8
2.5 Opened or closed packaging ... 11
3. METHODOLOGY ... 12 3.1 Study design ... 12 3.2 Procedure ... 14 3.3 Measurement ... 18 3.4 Analyses ... 19 4. RESULTS ... 21 4.1 Sample size ... 21
4.2 Description of the data ... 22
4.2.1 Conditions ... 22
4.2.2 Taste perception and age ... 22
4.2.3 Disposal behaviour ... 22
4.2.4 Gender ... 23
4.2.5 Age ... 23
4.3 Control variables ... 24
4.4 Hypotheses testing ... 24
4.4.1 H1: Taste perception and food disposal behaviour ... 24
4.4.2 H2, H3 & H4: Packaging, expiration date and taste perception... 25
4.4.3 Mediation of taste perception ... 27
4.4.4 Hypotheses without filtering manipulation check ... 28
5. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION ... 30
5.1 Conclusion ... 30
5.2 Discussion ... 31
5.3 Scientific implications ... 32
5.4 Practical implications ... 32
5.5 Limitations and future research ... 33
3 1. INTRODUCTION
Food waste is becoming a major problem in developed countries. According to FAO (2013) one third of all foods produced for consumers are wasted. In Europe, every year, 90 million tonnes of food end up as waste (European Commission 2014). Food is disposed throughout the whole food chain, but consumers are accountable for most of the waste with more than 40% of total waste (European Parliament 2012). One of the reasons for this large amount of food waste under consumers is the confusion about the ‘best before’ and ‘use by’ shelf lifes (European Commission 2014). The European Union acknowledges the negative effects of food waste for the economy and environment and therefore declared 2014 as the year against food waste (European Commission 2014). In 2020, food waste of the European Union needs to be halved (European Commission 2013). A start has been made, in May 2014, the Dutch secretary of economic affairs, Dijksma, and her Swedish colleague proposed to the European Commission to abolish the ‘best before’ date on products which hardly go bad after the expiration date (Rijksoverheid, 2014). According to Dijksma and her colleague 15% of food is wasted due to a lack of knowledge about the meaning of the ‘best before’ date. They state that more guidance is needed to inform consumers about the meaning of the ‘best before’ label to prevent food waste.
Marketing research can contribute to the problem of food waste by broadening the marketing view through investigating the disposal process (Cappellini, 2009). Disposal is the end stage of the consumption chain and therefore has not received special attention in marketing literature so far (Cappellini 2009). According to Munro (1995) and Cappellini (2009), disposal is an important stage in the consumption chain whereas the chain is a continuous cycle, meaning that food disposal influences pre and post consumption behaviour. As Cappellini (2009) states:
‘little is known about the role of food disposal and their implications in consumer relations’.
Thus, empirical research is needed to get a better understanding about this topic. This research investigates the influence of 1) the ‘best before’ expiration date and 2) opened or closed packaging on 3) consumers’ taste perception and how this taste perception mediates the effect of 4) food disposal behaviour.
4 2012). The relation between the ‘best before’ expiration date and food disposal is becoming more important in society and academic research in order to prevent avoidable food waste (Van Boxtael et al., 2014). Consumers’ understanding of the meaning of food labels, such as shelf life, is important in this. Products with a ‘best before’ shelf life do not cause immediate health risks after the ‘best before’ date expires, which means that they can still be consumed for a longer time period (Van Boxtael et al., 2014). Williams et al. (2012) found that the ‘best before’ shelf life has a big impact on food waste. Shelf life labels have the power to influence consumers’ taste perceptions and thereby can influence consumers’ actual taste experience (Lotz et al. 2013). Based on these findings, this research investigates if the ‘best before’ expiration date (further on also mentioned as expiration date) influences consumers’ taste perception and food disposal behaviour.
Furthermore, opened or closed packaging is expected to influence consumers’ taste perception. No research has been done so far on the influence of opened or closed packaging on consumers’ taste perception. Research on other topics, like the re-evaluation of mealtime leftovers (Cappellini & Parsons, 2013) and research about packaging (Williams et al., 2012) argue that consumers’ knowledge about food safety, taste and packaging size influences disposal behaviour and might influence consumers’ taste perception. This could first of all imply that opened products are less tasty and safe to use. Secondly, because of large packaging, opened products are difficult to empty before they go bad, which is expected to increase food disposal behaviour.
Summarizing, our research helps to fill the gap in the literature by investigating the influence of the expiration date of opened or closed packaging on consumers’ taste perception, which leads to food disposal behaviour. In this context our problem statement is:
How does the ‘best before’ expiration date on food of opened or closed food packaging influence consumers’ taste perception, which ultimately leads to food disposal behaviour?
Our research questions are:
1. How does the expiration date on food influence consumers’ taste perception? 2. How does opened or closed food packaging influence consumers’ taste perception? 3. How does opened or closed food packaging moderate the effect of the expiration date
on food on consumers’ taste perception?
5
5. To what extent does taste perception mediate the effect of the expiration date on food and the packaging of food on consumers’ food disposal behaviour?
This research contributes to the literature by studying the disposal stage of consumer decision making processes. We contribute to academic research by better understanding the influence of expiration dates of opened or closed packaging on consumers’ taste perception and how this ultimately influences food disposal behaviour. We contribute to public policy makers by investigating how expiration dates and packaging influence consumers’ food disposal behaviour which might give insight for new approaches to these product characteristics.
Our field experiment resulted in a sample of 342 participants. We find that taste perception negatively influences food disposal behaviour. A lower taste perception leads to a higher probability of food disposal behaviour. The expiration date does not have a significant effect on taste perception in our sample. Packaging does significantly influence taste perception, where opened packaging leads to a lower taste perception compared to closed packaging. Packaging does not enhance the effect of expiration dates on taste perception. Taste perception does not mediate the effect of expiration dates and packaging on food disposal behaviour. Finally, differences in age and gender do not influence disposal behaviour.
The remainder of this paper starts with a review about the literature in chapter 2 with the conceptual model and hypotheses. The chosen methodology with the study design and procedure are explained in chapter 3. Followed by the results of the experiment, in chapter 4. Leading to the conclusion and the discussion in chapter 5.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Food disposal behaviour: conceptual model
6 When food products cannot receive new value and are classified as dirty, they will be disposed of by throwing them away (Cappellini & Parsons, 2013). When these disposed products are still suitable for consumption they become avoidable waste, meaning that the environmental impact of the production of the wasted products could have been avoided (Koivupuro et al. 2012; Williams et al., 2012). Most of this avoidable food waste occurs at the consumption stage of the chain, mainly by households (Koivupuro et al. 2012). Even though consumers are responsible for most of the food waste, they do not waste food without feeling emotions. The disposal of food is often a difficult process and makes consumers anxious (Evans, 2012). Notwithstanding their anxiety, an explanation for the high amounts of food waste comes from consumers who buy too much food to consume and therefore the excess food ends up as waste (Evans, 2012). This due to all kinds of occurrences in everyday life, e.g. time, taste and family relations (Evans, 2011; 2012).
To find out how consumer behaviour influences food disposal, extensive empirical research is needed to get a better understanding. This research takes a step in this by investigating how different product characteristics influence consumers’ taste perception which influences food disposal behaviour. The conceptual model of our research is displayed in figure 1. This model assumes that taste perception negatively influences consumers’ food disposal behaviour and mediates the effect of the expiration date and packaging on food disposal behaviour. Expiration dates are expected to negatively influence taste perception. We assume that opened or closed packaging has a direct effect on consumers’ taste perception and opened or closed packaging moderates the effect of the expiration date on consumers’ taste perception. The variables are clarified in the subsequent sections.
7 2.2 Taste perception
Humans have the need to understand occurrences that happen in everyday life (Mizerski et al., 1979). They do this by trying to explain the causes that underlie certain events (Mizerski et al., 1979). This is also known as attribution theory, based on research of Heider (2013). Attribution is ‘linking an event with its underlying conditions’ (Heider, 2013). This theory encompasses the search for, and use of, information which enables people to draw causal conclusions (Mizerski et al., 1979). Relating this theory to our study might mean that different expiration dates and opened or closed packaging are attributes which cause a certain taste perception. Furthermore, consumers might attribute taste perception to be the cause for food disposal behaviour.
Lotz et al. (2013) and Shiv et al. (2005) argue that in some cases consumers perceive what they want to perceive because of top-down processes in the brain. These top-down processes help consumers to create expectations based on previous experience, memory and other product related information (Shiv et al., 2005; Dijksterhuis et al., 2014). This could mean that taste expectations arise, where after the expected taste influences consumers’ actual taste (Wansink et al., 2000). Another option is that consumers search for tastes that match their expectations (Lotz et al., 2013). Meaning that taste expectations and actual taste perception often match. This process is often automatic and unconscious which enables us to classify it as a low effort process via the peripheral decision making route (Hoyer et al., 2013). Low effort decisions are the most used decision making processes by consumers and follow the order of thinking, behaving and feeling (Hoyer et al., 2013). The consumer starts with thinking, which encompasses prior beliefs and expectations. These beliefs and expectations might influence taste perception and cause consumers to eat, or not even taste a product, the behavioural outcome (Shiv et al., 2005). Finally, consumers create feelings towards the product, they evaluate the product and form an opinion about it (Hoyer et al., 2013). When the opinion is formed that the taste of the product is bad, this might mean that the food product does not meet consumers’ requirements anymore and is classified as dirty based on the definition of Douglas (1984). This might mean that the product will be disposed of and ends up as waste.
Concluding, the attribution theory and top down processes are expected to have an influence on consumers’ taste perception which affects the decision making process of food disposal behaviour. Based on the attribution theory we expect that a low taste perception is attributed as a cause for consumers to dispose of food. We expect that bad taste expectations and a bad consequent actual taste experience based on top down processes determines if consumers dispose of a product. Hypothesizing:
8 2.3 Product characteristics and taste perception
Consumers create expectations towards a product by evaluating the extrinsic cues of a product (Carrillo et al., 2012; Lee et al., 2013; Lotz et al., 2013; Ng et al., 2013). Taste perception might arise from these different extrinsic cues, e.g. labels, packaging and price, which are assessed by consumers before they acquire or use a product (Ng et al. 2013). The extrinsic product characteristics not only influence consumers’ taste perceptions, but also influence the actual taste experience (Lotz et al. 2013). This is a halo effect, where one product characteristic influences or biases the perception of the other product characteristics (Lee et al. 2013). The halo effect is a human process which mainly occurs as an automatic and unconscious heuristic (Lee et al. 2013). The health halo effect is mentioned as an example in the research of Lee et al. (2013), where health claims on food products are found to affect consumers’ beliefs about the healthiness of a product and are found to decrease consumers’ search for additional information.
Product labels are part of these extrinsic cues of a product, which influence consumers’ perceptions about a product (Carillo et al., 2012; Lee et al., 2013; Lotz et al., 2013). Consumers have prior beliefs, which lead to expectations, which subsequently lead to subjective and behavioural outcomes, known as the placebo effect (the belief of receiving a treatment and noticing the benefits, while this treatment is in fact not given) (Shiv et al., 2005). This effect also occurs for labels on food products, where expectations and beliefs about a product label influence consumers’ taste perception, known as expectancy theory (Lotz et al., 2013). Lotz et al. (2013) found that this theory holds when consumers expect and belief that a product with a fair trade label tastes better. The halo effect, placebo effect and expectancy theory might also influence taste perception based on different product characteristics. This study focusses on the product characteristics expiration date and opened or closed packaging which are further clarified in the following sections.
2.4 Expiration date
Van Boxtael et al. (2014) studied consumers’ attitude towards shelf life labels1. Shelf life labels
are seen as one of the causes for avoidable food waste. Labels on food transfer information
9 from manufacturer to the consumer which helps to access quality, safety and nutritional value. But not all consumers understand, or use, the information of food labels (Capps, 1992; Hall & Osses, 2013). Shelf life is one of the labels which has to be used on pre-packed foods in the European Union. The shelf life is one of the most important labels consumers evaluate when they are buying or using food (Hall & Osses, 2013). Shelf life can be seen as the time a product can be consumed based on sensorial, safety and nutritional aspects. Shelf life consists of two different labels; the first is the ‘use by’ date, implying the products safety is not guaranteed after the ‘use by’ date has expired. The second label is the ‘best before’ label which implies that the appearance and nutritional value of the product may change after the date has expired. Thus, the ‘use by’ label prevents health risks where the ‘best before’ label is a manufacturer’s indicator of the desired quality of the product which means these products can still be consumed after the expiration date.
Van Boxtael et al. (2014) find in their survey that 30.4% of the participants do not know the difference between the two shelf life labels. Furthermore, they find that 82.5% of the consumers use their vision or smelling to determine if products at home are still edible, this combined with the use of shelf life (67.5%) and tasting the product (50.4%). Respondents assess the shelf life of food products at home differently depending on the food category, leading to differences in the consumption of products with expired shelf lifes (Evans, 2011; Van Boxtael et al., 2014). As an example, from the participants, 61% stated they drink canned drinks after the ‘best before’ date.
10 products are still edible after an expired shelf life, when stored under the right conditions (Tromp et al., 2012; Van Boxtael et al., 2014). When consumers follow the expiration date, this results in the disposal of products, at both retailers and consumers, which are still perfectly safe to use.
Research about the ‘best before’ date is thus needed to understand how this influences taste perception and disposal behaviour. Previous research has been done on the influence of food labels on taste perception. The study of Lotz et al. (2013) finds that fair trade labelled products taste better than products without such a label. This is because fair trade labels create positive ethical perceptions which are transferred to the product and thereby result in better taste perceptions. Negative associations with a product characteristic can influence the actual taste experience as well (Liem et al., 2012). Liem et al. (2012) investigate what a reduced salt label does with expected and actual taste perceptions of soup. In their study, taste perception depends on a negative or positive feeling consumers have with a reduced salt label. Consumers who find taste very important see health labels as negative influencers of taste, which influences their buying behaviour. Thus, consumers evaluate product labels which leads to expectations about the taste of the product, which influences the actual perceived taste. Prior research investigated this influence based on labels such as organic, fair trade, nutritional or health labels (Carrillo et al., 2012; Liem et al. 2012; Lee et al., 2013; Lotz et al., 2013). Our research stretches this by investigating how other product characteristics (expiration date and opened or closed packaging) influences consumers’ taste perception and disposal behaviour.
Consumers’ understanding of the meaning of food labels, such as shelf life, is important in diminishing unneeded food disposal. Research of Van Boxtael et al. (2014) and Hall & Osses (2013) show that many consumers do not understand food labels or do not use them. The shelf life label is one of the most important labels used by consumers (Hall & Osses, 2013). Therefore it is interesting to investigate how the ‘best before’ label is used by consumers and how this influences consumers’ taste perception. The ‘best before’ label is an extrinsic product characteristic, which influences consumers’ taste perceptions and actual taste experience (Lotz et al. 2013). Thus, we expect that a product with an expired expiration date influences consumers’ expectations about taste negatively. These negative expectations are transferred to the actual taste experience and thereby influence consumers’ actual taste perception negatively. This negative effect occurs for products with an expired expiration date, products with a valid expiration date are not expected to influence taste perception negatively. Hypothesizing:
H2: An expired ‘best before’ date negatively influences consumers’ taste perception, compared
11 2.5 Opened or closed packaging
No research has been done so far on the influence of opened or closed food packaging on consumers’ taste perception. Research on other topics, like the re-evaluation of mealtime leftovers (Cappellini & Parsons, 2013), shows that people need to gain knowledge about the time period for which food leftovers are still safe and tasty to eat. Unsafe food consumption can lead to food poisoning, which mainly happens due to food practises at home (Parra et al. 2014). This could imply that opened products are perceived as being less tasty and safe to use than closed products, which could increase disposal behaviour of opened products.
Other research, about packaging (Williams et al., 2012), argues that reasons for wasting food comes mainly from packages which are too large and therefore hard to finish. This could imply that because of large packaging, products do not get finished and stay in the fridge until they go bad, which leads to food disposal. Therefore, consumers could become more hesitant to consume opened products, because they could have been kept in the fridge for too long after opening, which could influence the quality and taste of the product negatively. Once a consumer encounters an opened packaging of a product which has gone bad, this experience, memory and other product related information might cause the consumer to create negative expectations towards an opened packaging of this product (Dijksterhuis et al., 2014).
Thus, based on Dijksterhuis et al. (2014) we assume that opened packaging influences consumers’ taste perception negatively because consumers have expectations about the product based on memory, previous experiences and other product related information. Previous research found that product labels influence consumers’ taste perception of the product (Carillo et al., 2012; Lee et al., 2013; Lotz et al., 2013). We assume that opened or closed packaging also influences consumers’ perception of a product. Furthermore, consumers need sufficient knowledge to understand when food is edible or not (Cappellini & Parsons, 2013). This implies that consumers without enough food knowledge find it hard to judge when an opened product is still edible. Therefore we investigate how consumers judge opened packages with different expiration dates. We expect that opened packaging influences taste perception negatively. Hypothesizing:
H3: Opened packaging negatively influences consumers’ taste perception, compared to closed
12 Furthermore, we expect that opened or closed packaging moderates the effect of the expiration date on taste perception. Opened or closed packaging can be seen as a product characteristic which influences or biases the perception of other product characteristics (such as the expiration date) and thereby influences consumers’ actual taste experience (Lee et al. 2013). Opened packaging is assumed to reinforce the negative effect of an expired ‘best before’ date. Thus, we expect that opened packaging enhances the negative effect of expiration dates on taste perception. Therefore we hypothesize:
H4: Opened packaging enhances the effect of the expiration date on taste perception.
Finally, we study whether taste perception mediates the effect of the expiration date and packaging on food disposal behaviour. Based on the attribution theory we expect that expiration dates and packaging function as attributes of consumers’ taste perception and taste perception functions as attribute for disposal behaviour. When consumers’ taste perception is negatively influenced by an expired expiration date and/or opened packaging, we expect that this lower taste perception leads to food disposal behaviour.
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Study design
In order to answer our research questions, experimental research is done to predict causal relationships (Aronson et al. 1998). This is done in a field experiment because of the more realistic setting compared to a lab experiment (Aronson et al. 1998). A factorial 2 (expired versus unexpired ‘best before’ date) by 2 (opened versus closed packaging) between participants design is set up, shown in table 1. Adult participants are randomly assigned to a condition, which gives them an equal chance of participating in one of the four conditions (Aronson et al. 1998). Participants try a product from one of the conditions and are asked how they perceive the taste of a product with an expired or unexpired ‘best before’ date, with opened or closed packaging. To be able to measure how this influences consumers’ taste perception, the same product, unexpired orange juice, is offered in all the four conditions.
Closed packaging
(full)
Opened packaging
(half full)
13
(three months before expiration date)
‘Best before’ date expired
(7 days after expiration date)
Condition 3 Condition 4
TABLE 1: Study design: 2 by 2 within participants
Orange juice. Orange juice is the object of this study because these juices are the most popular juice variant in developed countries (Ross-Chumillas et al., 2007). This because of the high vitamin C content, which is an important vitamin for the human body (Ross-Chumillas et al., 2007). Furthermore, orange juice contains anti-oxidants which help to reduce the risk against multiple diseases (Polydera et al., 2004). The shelf life of orange juice is mainly determined on the loss of vitamin C, taste and colour (Ross-Chumillas et al., 2007). The way in which orange juice is stored and exposure to oxygen are the main contributors to the deterioration of these aspects (Ross-Chumillas et al., 2007). Pasteurized orange juice can be stored in ambient temperatures (until 45 degrees) for 14 weeks before the flavour, colour, smell and nutritional value of the juice starts to deteriorate (Kaanane et al., 1988). The advice of the Dutch centre for Food (Voedingscentrum, 2014) is to keep an unopened and uncooled package of orange juice from concentrate for no longer than three months. Orange juice carries a ‘best before’ label in the Netherlands and therefore no immediate health risks occur after the shelf life date expires. An open product can be used for three to four more days, when stored cool in the refrigerator (Voedingscentrum, 2014). The popularity of the juice and the storage conditions at ambient temperatures, make orange juice from concentrate suitable for our study. We use Appelsientje orange juice which is a popular A-brand of orange juice in the Netherlands, containing 100% juice, see figure 2.
14 3.2 Procedure
A pre-test is done with eight respondents before the execution of the real experiment, see appendix 2. The pre-test is done to find out whether the experiment worked out as planned by checking if the experiment is understandable for participants and if the questionnaire is constructed correctly. Furthermore, a qualitative method is used for the participants of the pre-test by asking them after how many days, weeks or months they decide to dispose orange juice with an expired expiration date. The average amount of days mentioned at the pre-test was 7 days, so this amount of days is used to set the expired expiration date for the real experiment. The adjustments of the pre-test were incorporated in the study design and then the real experiment was executed.
To execute the real experiment, a stand was built at a fair on a Dutch national holiday (Koningsdag) in the city centre of the capital of the province of Groningen in the Netherlands, see appendix 4 for photos of the experimental set up. A sign was placed in front of the stand which stated: ‘Koningsdag 26-04-2014, Taste some free orange juice’. The date was mentioned on the sign to help participants remember which day it was so they could later on better determine if a product had an expired expiration date or not. The same procedure was used in all four conditions of the experiment. The real meaning of the study was disguised to diminish the chance that participants altered their responses because they found out the hypotheses of the study (Aronson et al. 1998). This was done by only telling participants that they could try orange juice for a tasting test and by not explaining to them our intention to measure their disposal behaviour. Six researchers were present to guide participants through the experiment. They were instructed beforehand, via email, about the objective of the study and the procedure. At the day of the experiment they did a trial round with the main researcher to practise the experiment in real life. During the experiment they all received an instruction paper as support, see appendix 1, instructions for the researcher.
16 FIGURE 3: Bottles of juice of the four conditions
Condition 1 Condition 2 Condition 3 Condition 4
Every condition presented multiple bottles of the same condition which were refilled after every tasting, this to be able to offer all the participants in the closed condition a full and closed bottle of juice and in the opened condition a half full and opened bottle. One of the researchers was assigned to fill the bottles behind the stand and replaced the bottle with a full and sealed one after someone opened a bottle in the closed condition. We used plastic bottles with a screw cap, this screw cap was sealed so a closed bottle was perceived as new and unopened because participants had to open the bottle themselves by removing the seal, see figure 4. We used a new screw cap for every participant in one of the two closed conditions. The opened bottles, which were half full, were refilled behind the stand by a researcher to make sure that the bottles had the same content for all participants. The screw caps were placed next to the bottles in the opened conditions.
FIGURE 4: sealed screw cap
17 make the label more realistic. Only focussing on the best before label could have led to suspicion and could hint participants that we were not only investigating taste perception but expiration dates as well.
FIGURE 5: Labels of the orange juice
Label condition 1 and 2 Label condition 3 and 4
Tasting. Participants were asked to take a cup (100 ml) and fill the cup with juice. In this way participants needed to pour the juice into the cup by themselves, this ensured them that the juice was really coming from this opened or closed and sealed bottle. Furthermore, participants got a better chance to read the label on the bottle with the expiration date when they were holding the bottle in their hands. After filling the cup, participants were asked the following question: ‘Would you please taste this orange juice? And if you want to, you can
drink all of the juice that is in your cup’. This question was asked so participants knew that the
tasting did not involve drinking all of the juice at once and the second question gave them the freedom to drink all of the juice or not, depending on their choice. Even though this question was asked, some participants drank all the juice at once instead of first tasting it. Overall, most participants tasted the juice, then received the questionnaire and drank the remaining juice while filling in the questions. A garbage bin and multiple garbage bags were placed in front and beside the stand so participants could easily throw their cup away if they wanted.
18 Questionnaire. After the tasting, the bottle of juice was turned around or removed from the table to make sure that participants could not see the label on the bottle anymore. The participants received a questionnaire, after they tasted the juice, with questions about the taste of the juice and the control variables age and gender of the participants, see appendix 1 for the questionnaire. We also included a manipulation check at the final part of the experiment which asked which expiration date the product of the participants’ condition carried and if the packaging was opened and half full or closed and full. This check ensured that the manipulation worked out as planned and the participants were aware of the characteristics of the product they were tasting. After answering these questions, participants were thanked for their participation and were handed a debriefing about the purpose of the experiment, see appendix 3.
3.3 Measurement
To measure the variables, we used observations and a questionnaire, see appendix 1 for the questionnaire. The disposal behaviour was observed, the other variables were measured.
Food disposal behaviour. The observations were done by the researchers. They observed what participants did with the juice. If participants did or did not taste the juice this was marked on the questionnaire with tasting juice, 0= no and 1= yes. Food disposal behaviour was marked on the questionnaire as food disposal behaviour 0= no, 1=yes.
19 together 96% of the variance. They all explain more than 5% of the variance separately which is our cut off point. Reliability analysis on the four variables measuring taste shows that Cronbach’s Alpha is ,786, which is higher than the critical value of ,6 (Cortina, 1993). Thus, the four variables can be combined into one factor. But, when only using the variables appetizing, flavourful and tasted good, Cronbach’s Alpha increases to ,910 which is a big increase. Therefore, together with our results from the factor analysis, we decide to use the three factors (appetizing, flavourful and tasted good) in a new construct. We do this by adding the outcomes of these three variables and dividing them by three to get the average taste perception of the three variables.
Manipulation check. A manipulation check was included in the questionnaire with questions about which label the product of the condition carried (0= unexpired ‘best before’ date, 1= expired ‘best before’ date) and the packaging (0= closed and full, 1= opened and half full). Table 2 shows the percentages per variable for which the manipulation check worked out as planned. For both variables, in 96,95% of the cases the manipulation of the expiration date and packaging was understood by the participants. Sections 3.4 and 4.1 explain the procedure used for these participants who did not understand the manipulation.
Variable Manipulation check succeeded:
Expiration date 96,95%
Packaging 96,95%
TABLE 2: Manipulation check
Control variables. Finally, the demographics age (in years) and gender (0= male, 1= female) were asked to the participant.
3.4 Analyses
20 did not understand the manipulation check. This is done to find out if differences occur between the two sample sizes.
Hypothesis Independent variables Dependent variables Test
H1 Taste perception
(7-point Likert scale)
Disposal behaviour (0= no, 1= yes)
Binary logistic regression
H2, H3 & H4 Expiration date (Expired 0=no, 1= yes) and packaging (Opened 0=no, 1= yes)
Taste perception (7-point Likert scale)
Two-way ANOVA & pairwise comparison
Mediation Expiration date (Expired 0=no, 1= yes) and packaging (Opened 0=no, 1= yes) Mediator: taste perception (7-point Likert scale) DV: Disposal behaviour (0= no, 1= yes)
Binary logistic regression & Linear regression
Control variable Gender (0=male, 1=female)
Disposal behaviour (0= no, 1= yes)
Chi-square
Control variable Age (in years) Disposal behaviour (0= no, 1= yes)
Binary logistic regression
TABLE 3: Statistical tests
The regression equations for the regression analyses are shown in table 4.
H1 logit(DB) = natural log(odds) = ln (p/ (1-p)) = αi + β1 * TP1 + i
Mediation (1) logit(DB) = natural log(odds) = ln (p/ (1-p)) = αi + β1 * ED1 + β2 * P2 + i Mediation (2) TPi = αi + β1 * ED1 + β2 * P2 + i
Mediation (3) logit(DB) = natural log(odds) = ln (p/ (1-p)) = αi + β1 * TP1 + i
Mediation (4) logit(DB) = natural log(odds) = ln (p/ (1-p)) = αi + β1 * ED1 + β2 * P2 + β3 * TP3 + i Age logit(Y) = natural log(odds) = ln (p/ (1-p)) = αi + β1 * A1 + i
TABLE 4: Regression equations
α = constant TP = taste perception
β = beta ED = expiration date
DB = disposal behaviour P = packaging
21 4. RESULTS
4.1 Sample size
The experiment resulted in 406 people who participated. Thirteen participants did not complete the questionnaire and were removed from the sample, leading to a sample of 393 participants. In total, the manipulation check did not work for 23 participants (5,8%). These participants, who did not understand the manipulation, decrease experimental power and create noise (Oppenheimer et al., 2009). Eliminating them from the sample increases statistical power but might bias results (Oppenheimer et al., 2009). Because we have a large sample we initially exclude these 23 participants from the sample to increase statistical power in further analyses. To check if eliminating these participants biases the results, we execute the same analyses again without eliminating these participants to check if the outcomes remain the same, see section 4.4.4.
Furthermore, 28 participants (7,6%) of the sample did not participate in the experiment because they did not want to try the juice and thus did not pour juice in a cup. These participants were only asked to answer the manipulation check to find out if they understood the condition of the experiment. These participants were subject of an expired condition, where the expired and opened condition resulted in 25% of the participants who did not want to taste the juice, and in the expired, closed condition 6,5% did not want to taste the juice, see figure 6. These participants were excluded from the sample so our results in further analyses are not influenced by participants who did not try the juice. This results in a sample total of 342 participants which are used to test our control variables and hypotheses.
FIGURE 6: Participants who taste the juice per condition
100,00% 100,00% 93,50% 75,00% 6,50% 25,00% 0,00% 20,00% 40,00% 60,00% 80,00% 100,00% 1. unexpired / closed 2. unexpired / opened
3. expired / closed 4. expired / opened
Percentage of participants who taste the juice
per condition N=370
22 4.2 Description of the data
4.2.1 Conditions
Table 5 shows the distribution of the participants within the four conditions. The table shows that there are unequal sample sizes, this because less participants were willing to taste the expired / opened packaging.
Overall N 1.Unexpired / closed 2.Unexpired / opened 3.Expired / closed 4.Expired / opened Total 342 92 96 87 67 Percentage 100% 26,9% 28,1% 25,4% 19,6%
TABLE 5: Sample size
4.2.2 Taste perception and age
Table 6 shows a description of the data with the mean, standard deviation and the minimum and maximum of the dependent variable taste perception and the control variable age. The mean taste perception is 4,85, based on a 7-point Likert scale. The mean age is 33,31 years.
Taste percept ion2 Age N 342 342 Mean 4,85 33,31 Std. Deviation 1,20 13,74 minimum 1,33 18 maximum 7 82
TABLE 6: Description of taste perception and age
4.2.3 Disposal behaviour
Figure 7 shows the percentage of participants who disposed the juice after tasting the juice. This percentage is the highest in the expired / opened condition (7,5%), followed by the expired / closed (5,7%), unexpired / opened (5,20%) and finally the unexpired / closed (2,2%). Looking at the total sample the disposal accounts for 5% of the participants.
23 FIGURE 7: Disposal behaviour per condition
4.2.4 Gender
The sample consists of more females (56%) than males (44%). In all the conditions more females participated, especially in the first condition, see table 7. The overrepresentation of females in food research is not uncommon and is present in more research (Van Boxtael et al., 2014).
Gender Overall 1.Unexpired /
closed 2.Unexpired / opened 3.Expired / closed 4.Expired / opened Male 43,6% 34,8% 47,9% 43,7% 49,3% female 56,4% 65,2% 52,1% 56,3% 50,7% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
TABLE 7: Gender per condition
4.2.5 Age
We analysed if age of the participants differs per condition, so we performed a One-way ANOVA with age per condition. The One-way ANOVA was significant at a 10% confidence level F(3,338)= 2,360, p= ,071, p<,1. The age of the participants differs per condition. The mean age of participants in the first condition is the highest with 36,02 years and the lowest in the fourth condition with 30,49 years. The mean age of the second condition is 32,30 years and in the third condition 33,74 years. Because the effect is marginally significant we do not expect this to influence the further analyses, thus we do not take this difference into account in the analyses of our hypotheses. Table 8 shows the complete age distribution per condition.
97,80% 94,80% 94,30% 92,50% 2,20% 5,20% 5,70% 7,50% 0,00% 20,00% 40,00% 60,00% 80,00% 100,00% 1. unexpired / closed 2. unexpired / opened
3. expired / closed 4. expired / opened
Percentage of disposal behaviour per condition
N=342
24 Age in years Overall 1.Unexpired / closed 2.Unexpired / opened 3.Expired / closed 4.Expired / opened N 342 92 96 87 67 Mean 33,31 36,02 32,30 33,74 30,49 Mode 23 23 21 20 22 Median 27 32 25,5 29 27 Minimum 18 18 19 18 18 Maximum 82 77 82 75 70
TABLE 8: Age per condition
4.3 Control variables
To analyse if gender and age influence the dependent variable of food disposal behaviour, we performed a cross table with Chi-square for gender. Age is tested on the dependent variable using binary logistic regression, table 9. The results of the tests show that age and gender do not influence food disposal behaviour and therefore these variables are not used in further analyses.
Variables Statistics Conclusion Gender (0= male, 1= female)
and food disposal behaviour (0= no, 1= yes)
Chi-square: not significant
There is no difference between males and females on disposal behaviour.
Age (in years) and food disposal behaviour (0= no, 1= yes)
Binary logistic regression: not significant
Age does not influence disposal behaviour.
TABLE 9: Control variables gender and age
4.4 Hypotheses testing
4.4.1 H1: Taste perception and food disposal behaviour
25 odds by a factor of ,701. A complementary ANOVA analysis did not show results at a different confidence level. Coefficients (Exp B) P-value Constant ,269 ,143 Taste perception ,701 ,072 Chi-square 3,187 ,074 Cox & Snell R2 ,009
Nagelkerke R2 ,028
N 342
TABLE 10: Regression results disposal behaviour
To answer our hypothesis: Consumers’ taste perception negatively influences food disposal behaviour. Consumers who have a lower taste perception have a higher probability to engage in food disposal behaviour. We can adopt our first hypothesis at a 10% confidence level.
4.4.2 H2, H3 & H4: Packaging, expiration date and taste perception
To analyse the influence of expiration dates and packaging characteristics on taste perception, we performed a Two-way ANOVA and a pairwise comparison. The effect of expiration date is not significant, an expired best before date does not significantly affect taste perception (M = 4,8485), compared to an unexpired best before date (M = 4,8582), F(1,338) = ,079, p = ,779 (p> ,05). The effect of packaging is significant. Opened packaging leads to a lower taste perception (M = 4,7117), compared to closed packaging (M = 4,9831), F(1,338) = 4,697, p = ,031 (p < ,05). The interaction effect is not significant, F(1,338) = ,659, p = ,417, P> ,05. Packaging does not enhance the effect of expiration date on taste perception.
26 The Two-way ANOVA in figure 8 shows that taste perception is highest for closed packaging with an expired ‘best before’ date (M = 5,0192). Thereafter follows closed packaging with an expired ‘best before’ date (M= 4,9493). An unexpired ‘best before’ date with opened packaging leads to an average taste perception of M= 4,7708. Finally, an expired ‘best before’ date with opened packaging leads to the lowest taste perception (M= 4,6269).
FIGURE 8: Interaction effect expiration date and packaging on taste perception
Concluding, closed packaging leads to a higher average taste perception than opened packaging. Expiration dates do not affect taste perception significantly and there is no significant interaction effect between expiration dates and packaging.
H2. This leads to an answer to our second hypothesis: An expired ‘best before’ date does not have a significant negative influence on consumers’ taste perception, compared to an unexpired ‘best before’ date. Thus, we cannot adopt our second hypothesis.
H3. Furthermore, this result leads to an answer to our third hypothesis: opened packaging does significantly influence consumers’ taste perception negatively, compared to closed packaging. We adopt our third hypothesis at a 5% confidence level.
H4. Finally, this leads to an answer to our fourth hypothesis: opened packaging does not enhance the effect of the expiration date on taste perception. We cannot adopt our fourth hypothesis. 4,7708 4,6269 4,9493 5,0192 4,4 4,5 4,6 4,7 4,8 4,9 5 5,1
not expired 'best before' date expired 'best before' date
Expiration date and packaging on taste
perception
27 4.4.3 Mediation of taste perception
To find out if taste perception mediates the effect of the expiration date and packaging on consumer’ food disposal behaviour, the following four effects are analysed and need to be significant (Baron & Kenny, 1986):
1. Expiration date and packaging on disposal behaviour 2. Expiration date and packaging on taste perception 3. Taste perception on disposal behaviour
4. Expiration date, packaging and taste perception on disposal behaviour
1. To analyse if expiration dates and packaging influence food disposal behaviour, we performed a binary logistic regression with expiration dates and packaging on food disposal behaviour (0=no or 1=yes), table 11, columns number 1. The omnibus test was not significant, Cox & Snell R2 = ,007, Nagelkerke R2 = ,022, Chi Square(2) = 2,449, p = ,294, (p >,05). Expiration dates and packaging do not influence disposal behaviour. This is not significant for expiration dates (Exp B= ,534 p=,217) and packaging (Exp B=,593, p=,303), so this is not predictive.
2. To analyse if expiration dates and packaging influences taste perception, we performed a multiple regression analysis with expiration dates and packaging regressed on taste perception, see table 11, columns number 2. The regression analysis was not significant, R2 = ,013, F(2,339) =2,193, p = ,113 (p>,05). The expiration date (Standardized B= -,013, p= ,817) does not influence taste perception. Packaging is significant (Standardized B= -,113. p= ,037, P<,05) and does influence taste perception. No multicollinearity arises, VIF = 1,006 which is lower than 4 (Malhotra, 2010).
3. To analyse if taste perception influences food disposal behaviour, we performed a binary logistic regression with taste perception on food disposal behaviour (0=no or 1=yes), see hypothesis 1 and table 11, columns number 3. The omnibus test was significant at a 10% confidence level. Higher taste with one unit does result in a lower probability of disposal behaviour in the log odds by a factor of ,701.
28 p=,096, P<,1). Higher taste perception with one unit does result in a lower probability of disposal behaviour in the log odds by a factor of ,719.
Coefficients & P-value 1. Exp B 1. P-value 2.Stand ardized Beta 2. P-value 3. Exp B 3. P-value 4. Exp B 4. P-value Constant 34,848 ,000 4,998 ,000 ,269 ,143 ,141 ,061 Taste perception ,701 ,072 ,719 ,096 Expiration date ,534 ,217 -,013 ,817 1,843 ,230 Packaging ,593 ,303 -,113 ,037 1,506 ,427 Chi-square 2,449 ,294 3,187 ,074 5,184 ,159
Cox & Snell R2 ,007 ,009 ,015
Nagelkerke R2 ,022 ,028 ,046
R2 ,013
Adjusted R2 ,007
N 342 342 342 342
TABLE 11: Regression results mediation of taste perception
Concluding, the first two effects are not significant. Expiration dates and packaging do not influence food disposal behaviour and the expiration date does not influence taste perception. The third effect is significant, taste perception influences food disposal behaviour. Higher taste perception results in a higher probability of no food disposal behaviour. The fourth effect is not significant either, expiration dates, packaging and taste perception do not influence food disposal behaviour. Because not all four effects are significant, no mediation exists. Thus, in contrast with our expectations, taste perception does not mediate the effect of the expiration date and packaging on consumers’ food disposal behaviour.
4.4.4 Hypotheses without filtering manipulation check
In the previous analyses the participants who did not understand the manipulation were excluded from the sample. To see if our results differ by including those participants, we execute the same analyses for our sample with participants who did not understand the manipulation, where N=362. Only marginal changes in the results were found between the two sample sizes.
29 test was significant at a 10% confidence level, which is in line with the sample of 342 participants.
H2, H3 & H4. To analyse the influence of expiration dates and packaging characteristics on taste perception for the sample of 362 participants, we executed a Two-way ANOVA. In line with our sample of 342 participants, expiration date is not significant, packaging is significant and the interaction effect is not significant. In this sample the non-expired closed condition is perceived to have the highest taste compared to the non-expired closed condition in the sample of 342 participants, see figure 9. The pairwise comparison post hoc test shows no differences with the sample of 342 participants. Expiration date is not significant and packaging is significant, meaning that closed packaging leads to a higher average taste perception than opened packaging.
FIGURE 9 Expiration dates and packaging on taste perception
Mediation of taste perception. To find out if taste perception mediates the effect of the expiration date and packaging on consumer’ food disposal behaviour the four effects of Baron & Kenny (1986) are analysed. No different effects were found in this sample of 362 participants, compared to the sample of 342 participants. No mediation occurs because not all four effects are significant: expiration dates and packaging do not influence disposal behaviour and the expiration date does not influence taste perception. Significant effects are found for packaging which influences taste perception negatively and taste perception negatively influences disposal behaviour. 4,7683 4,5915 4,9601 4,9184 4,4 4,6 4,8 5
not expired 'best before' date expired 'best before' date
Expiration date and packaging on
taste perception (N=362)
30 5. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION
5.1 Conclusion
One third of consumer food products are wasted (FAO, 2013). For Europe, this means 90 million tonnes of food ends up as waste every year (European Commission 2014). This mainly because of consumers who are accountable for 40% of the total amount of food waste (European Parliament 2012). The European Union has the goal to halve food waste before 2020. To reach this goal a better understanding is needed about consumer behaviour regarding food disposal, therefore this research was set up. We investigated the influence of ‘best before’ expiration dates and opened or closed packaging on consumers’ taste perception and how this taste perception mediates the effect of food disposal behaviour. Based on our research we can answer our hypotheses and problem statement: How does the ‘best before’ expiration date on food of
opened or closed food packaging influence consumers’ taste perception, which ultimately leads to food disposal behaviour?
1. Consumers’ taste perception negatively influences food disposal behaviour. Consumers who have a lower taste perception have a higher probability to engage in food disposal behaviour. We adopt our first hypothesis at a 10% confidence level.
2. An expired ‘best before’ date does not have a significant negative influence on consumers’ taste perception, compared to an unexpired ‘best before’ date. Thus, we do not adopt our second hypothesis.
3. Opened packaging does significantly influence consumers’ taste perception negatively compared to closed packaging, at a 5% confidence level. We adopt our third hypothesis. 4. Expiration dates do not affect taste perception significantly and opened packaging does not enhance the effect of the expiration date on taste perception. We do not adopt our fourth hypothesis.
5. Taste perception does not mediate the effect of the expiration date and packaging on consumers’ food disposal behaviour because not all four effects of Baron & Kenny (1986) are significant. There is no influence of expiration dates and packaging on food disposal behaviour and the expiration date does not influence taste perception. Taste perception influences food disposal behaviour. Finally, expiration dates, packaging and taste perception do not influence food disposal behaviour.
31 Table 12 summarizes the main findings of our study.
Hypothesis Result Conclusion H1 Confirmed at a 10%
confidence level.
Consumers’ taste perception negatively influences food disposal behaviour.
H2 Not confirmed. An expired ‘best before’ date does not have a significant negative influence on consumers’ taste perception, compared to an unexpired ‘best before’ date.
H3 Confirmed at a 5%
confidence level.
Opened packaging influences consumers’ taste perception negatively, compared to closed packaging.
H4 Not confirmed. Opened packaging does not enhance the effect of the expiration date on taste perception.
Mediation Not confirmed. Taste perception does not mediate the effect of the expiration date and packaging on consumers’ food disposal behaviour.
Age and gender
Not confirmed. Differences in age and gender do not influence disposal behaviour.
TABLE 12: Conclusion hypotheses and control variables
5.2 Discussion
We find that taste perception negatively influences food disposal behaviour. A lower taste perception leads to a higher probability of food disposal behaviour. This is in line with the attribution theory of Heider (2013) which explains that humans try to find attributes (e.g. low taste perception) to be the cause of an event (e.g. food disposal behaviour). Lotz et al. (2013) find that taste expectations and the consequent actual taste experience are based on top down processes, this might explain the emergence of consumers’ taste perception, where after a low taste perception results in food disposal behaviour.
32 by the fact that packages are too large and hard to finish before they go bad (Williams et al., 2012). Once a consumer encounters an opened packaging of a product which has gone bad, this experience, memory and other product related information might cause the consumer to create negative expectations towards an opened packaging of this product (Dijksterhuis et al., 2014). This halo effect (Lee et al., 2013), where one product characteristic influences or biases the perception of the other product characteristics, can be the cause for a lower taste perception for opened packaging.
Finally, we find that taste perception does not mediate the effect of expiration dates and packaging on food disposal behaviour. This in contrast with the attribution theory of Heider (2013), where expiration dates and packaging could have functioned as attributes for consumers’ taste perception and subsequently taste perception could have functioned as attribute for food disposal behaviour.
5.3 Scientific implications
Our research aimed at contributing to the literature by investigating the disposal process of the consumption chain. A topic which is not yet integrated in marketing research but plays an important role in the cycle of the consumption chain according to Munro (1995) and Cappellini (2009). To understand what makes people dispose of food products, we investigated how the ‘best before’ product label and packaging influences consumers’ taste perception and food disposal behaviour. We first of all found that taste perception influences food disposal behaviour negatively. This finding can be used in further research to investigate how important this role of taste perception is on food disposal behaviour. Expiration dates did not seem to have an impact on taste perception, which means that focussing on expiration dates as an influencer of taste perception and food disposal behaviour is not comprehensive and other factors need to be taken into account as well. Our study shows that not a product label influences taste perception, but another extrinsic cue; opened or closed packaging, plays a vital role in the emergence of consumers’ taste perception. This influence could be a new topic of interest for future research.
5.4 Practical implications
33 (Rijksoverheid, 2014). In light of the growing awareness of politicians and the general public about the growing problem of food waste we executed our experiment. Our experiment shows that taste perception is a factor which influences food disposal behaviour negatively. Public policy makers can take this influence into account in further investigating food disposal behaviour. Furthermore, taste perception is not influenced by ‘best before’ expiration dates, meaning that public policy makers should not only focus on changing policy regarding ‘best before’ dates to diminish food disposal. On the other hand, opened food packaging is found to be a negative influencer of taste perception and therefore is a new found factor which is a contributor to food disposal behaviour. In practise, public policy makers can help to reduce food waste, based on packaging, by mentioning on the packaging for how many days an opened package is still usable under different storage conditions. This label might influence consumers’ taste perception and might help consumers to determine the edibility of a product better, which means that less food is thrown away. On some perishable products this is already done, but this could be broadened by mentioning this for non-perishable food products as well.
5.5 Limitations and future research
Our research faced some limitations which might explain the insignificance of some of our hypotheses. First of all, our sample showed little variance in the dependent variable of food disposal behaviour. This made it more difficult to find significant results. This low variance might come from the 100 ml of juice we used in the cups of our experiment. This amount might not have been enough, so people where more inclined to drink all of the juice in the cup. We found that when people tried the juice, 95% drank all of the juice. Content of the test product might have been a confound in our analyses. Maybe when offering a bigger cup or even a bottle with juice, more people might have disposed of the juice. So future research can use another format to measure food disposal behaviour. Furthermore, the expired expiration date was set at 7 days, based on a pre-test. Maybe this amount of days was too long, because 6,5% of the expired / closed condition and 25% of the expired / opened condition did not want to try the juice and therefore did not participate in the study.
34 Thirdly, the expired product is perceived to have a higher taste than the unexpired product in our sample of 342 participants, which is an unexpected finding. This might be because expectancy theory, as mentioned in the study of Lotz et al. (2013), only applies when consumers really expect and belief that a product with a fair trade label tastes better. If consumers do rate the taste of a fair trade product higher while they do not belief that fair trade products taste better, this theory does not apply. This could have been the case in our experiment, where the participants did not belief or expect that the taste of the expired product was worse. Meaning, that taste perception was not influenced by the expiration date based on expectancy theory. Thus, consumers’ do not necessarily perceive what they want to perceive. In contrast, our sample of 362 participants shows that the unexpired condition has a higher taste perception than the expired condition. Concluding, we can say that our sample faces some limitations on this variable. Further research is needed on different product categories to understand the role of expiration dates on consumers’ taste perception.
Finally, future research can be done on the immediate effect of expiration dates on food disposal behaviour. Of the participants in our total sample of 393 participants, 7,6% did not want to try the juice and did not participate in the experiment. The question is why these participants did not want to try the juice? Maybe because of the expired expiration date, namely 25% of the participants in the expired / opened condition did not try the juice and 6,5% in the expired / closed condition. This in contrast with the unexpired conditions, where all participants tried the juice. Another question arises about what these participants would have done with such an expired packaging at home? Do they throw the product away or do people prevent that their food products at home pass the ‘best before’ date? There might be an immediate link between the expiration date and food disposal behaviour. This could be an interesting topic for future research.
35 REFERENCES
Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Brewer, M. B. 1998. Experimentation in social psychology. The handbook of social psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. 1986. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal
of personality and social psychology, 51(6): 1173.
Blumberg, B., Cooper, D. R., Schindler, P. S. 2008. Business research methods, New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
Cappellini, B. 2009. The sacrifice of re-use: the travels of leftovers and family relations.
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 8: 365-375.
Cappellini, B & Parsons, E. 2013. Practising thrift at dinnertime: mealtime leftovers, sacrifice and family membership. The Sociological Review, 60(S2): 121-134.
Capps, O. 1992. Consumer response to changes in food labelling: discussion. American
Journal Of Agricultural Economics, 74: 1215-1217.
Carrillo, E., Varela, P. & Fiszman, S. 2012. Packaging information as a modulator of consumers’ perception of enriched and reduced-calorie biscuits in tasting and non-tasting tests. Food Quality and Preference, 25: 105-115.
Cortina, J. M. 1993. What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of applied psychology, 78(1): 98.
Dijksterhuis, G., Boucon, C., & Le Berre, E. 2014. Increasing saltiness perception through perceptual constancy created by expectation. Food Quality and Preference, 34: 24-28. Douglas, M. 1984. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concept of Pollution and Taboo.
Routledge: London.
European Commission. 2014. Stop food waste.
http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/sustainability/index_en.htm. February 8 2014.
European Parliament. 2012. Parliament calls for urgent measure to halve food wastage in the EU. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news
room/content/20120118IPR35648/html/Parliament-calls-for-urgent-measures-to-halve-food-wastage-in-the-EU February 8 2014.
European Commission. 2013. Waste: a resource to recycle, reuse and recover raw materials. http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/topics/ 2112-waste-2-2014.html#tab1 February 8 2014.
36 everyday food waste practices in some English households. Critical Public Health, 21(4): 429-440.
Evans, D. 2012. Beyond the Throwaway Society: Ordinary Domestic Practise and a Sociological Approach to Household Food Waste. Sociology, 46(1): 41-56.
FAO. 2013. Food wastage footprint – impacts on natural resources.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3347e/i3347e.pdf. February 8 2014.
Gregson, N., Metcalfe, A. & Crewe, L. 2006. Moving things along: the conduits and practices of divestment in consumption. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 32: 187–200.
Hall, C. & Osses, F. 2013. A review to inform understanding of the use of food safety messages on food labels. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 37: 422-432. Heider, F. 2013. The psychology of interpersonal relations. Psychology Press.
Hoyer, W.D., MacInnis, A.J. & Pieters, R. 2013. Consumer Behavior. (6th ed.). South Western: Cengage Learning.
Jolliffe, I. 2005. Principal component analysis. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Kaanane, A., Kane, D. & Labuza, T. P. 1988. Time and temperature effect on stability of Moroccan processed orange juice during storage. Journal of Food Science, 53(5): 1470-1473.
Koivupuro, H., Hartikainen, H., Silvennoinen, K., Katajajuuri, J., Heilintalo, N., Reinikainen, A. & Jalkanen, L. 2012. Influence of socio-demographical, behaviour and attitudinal factors on the amount of avoidable food waste generated in Finnish households.
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 36: 183-191.
Lee, W. J., Shimuzu, M., Kniffin, K. M. & Wansink, B. 2013. You taste what you see: Do organic labels bias taste perceptions? Food Quality and Preference, 29: 33-39. Lelieveld, M. C., Hillemans, J. 2012. SPSS Guide How-to, Tips, Tricks & Statistical
Techniques. Groningen: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
Liem, D. G., Toraman Aydin, N. & Zandstra, E. H. 2012. Effects of health labels on expected and actual taste perception of soup. Food Quality and Preference, 25: 192-197. Lotz, S., Christandl, F. & Fetchenhauer, D. 2013. What is fair is good: Evidence of
consumers’ taste for fairness. Food Quality and Preference, 30: 139-144.
Malhotra, N. K. 2010. Marketing research. An applied orientation. New Jersey: Pearson education.
