Clemson UniversityTigerPrints

All Theses Theses

5-2013

THE EFFECT OF PACKAGING MATERIALPROPERTIES ON CONSUMER FOODQUALITY PERCEPTION IN QUICK-SERVICE RESTAURANTSEmily ThackstonClemson University, ethacks@clemson.edu

Follow this and additional works at: https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_theses

Part of the Engineering Science and Materials Commons

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses at TigerPrints. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Theses by an authorizedadministrator of TigerPrints. For more information, please contact kokeefe@clemson.edu.

Recommended CitationThackston, Emily, "THE EFFECT OF PACKAGING MATERIAL PROPERTIES ON CONSUMER FOOD QUALITYPERCEPTION IN QUICK-SERVICE RESTAURANTS" (2013). All Theses. 1673.https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_theses/1673

THE EFFECT OF PACKAGING MATERIAL PROPERTIES ON CONSUMER FOOD QUALITY PERCEPTION IN QUICK-SERVICE RESTAURANTS

A Thesis Presented to

the Graduate School of Clemson University

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Science Packaging Science

by Emily Kate Thackston

May 2013

Accepted by: Dr. R. Andrew Hurley, Committee Chair

Dr. Charles E. Tonkin Dr. Kay D. Cooksey

ii

ABSTRACT

The majority of menu items available in quick-service restaurants (QSR)

are consumed directly from a container or package. The main reasons

consumers choose to eat fast food are because it is convenient, prepared

quickly, a good value, and inexpensive. Therefore, the packaging becomes an

integral part of the food product and from a consumer perspective must be

consistent with their expectations and motives for choosing to eat fast food. Prior

research has directly linked characteristics of consumer food packaging

experience to their perception of its contents. The purpose of this research is to

determine if consumer quality perception of food products in quick-service

restaurants varies depending on the material properties of the packaging in which

the food product is presented. All materials were tested in a realistic QSR

environment. The commonly used foodservice packaging styles and materials

selected for testing included: a 14-pt paperboard clamshell, an expanded

polystyrene (EPS) clamshell, an F-flute (micro-flute) corrugated clamshell, and a

paper wrap. Sensory, functionality, and credence attributes were evaluated by

participants. Preference and ranking response data was also collected. A self-

administered computerized questionnaire, which was developed from the

literature review, was used to measure participant response.

Findings from the research indicate that while the sensory attribute ratings

did not differ significantly, respondents had significant preference for certain

iii

materials based on functionality and credence attributes, and perceived certain

materials as more suitable for certain food products. Understanding what

attributes are important to consumers in foodservice packaging enables the

foodservice packaging providers and companies in the QSR industry to

manipulate those attributes which are most beneficial for enhancing consumers

perceived quality, while also improving consumers overall experience.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Andrew Hurley, and the members of my

thesis committee, Dr. Chip Tonkin and Dr. Kay Cooksey, for their guidance and

support throughout this project.

Thank you to Joe Turner, Kelly Durham, and all employees of First Sun

Management Corporation. This project would not have been possible without

your generous support and encouragement.

A special thank you to the current and past graduate students who have always

been supportive and assisted me with my research: Rachel Randall, Daniel

Hutcherson, Erin Snyder, Andrew Ouzts, Josh Galvarino, Joanna Fischer, Toni

Gomes, Andy Pham, Wilson Sansbury, Julianne Holmes, Nathan Bailey, and

Gabrielle Conlon.

I would like to thank Harris A. Smith, Sonoco, Esko, and all other industry

members of the Sonoco Institute of Packaging Design and Graphics for their

support and donations.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TITLE PAGE ....................................................................................................... i ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................... ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..................................................................................... iv LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................. vii LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................... viii CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 1 Quick-Service Restaurant Industry ............................................... 1 Foodservice Packaging ................................................................ 2 Consumer Experience .................................................................. 3 Prior Research .............................................................................. 4 Research in QSR Context ............................................................ 5 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ............................................................... 7 The Quick-Service Restaurant Industry ........................................ 7 Food Packaging .......................................................................... 10 Single-Use Foodservice Packaging ............................................ 15 The Quick-Service Restaurant Industry Today ........................... 21 Consumer-Oriented Food Quality ............................................... 27 Quality in the Foodservice Industry ............................................ 29 Sensory Evaluation ..................................................................... 31 The Effect of Food Packaging on Contents ................................ 37 III. PILOT STUDY ................................................................................. 43 Methods and Materials ............................................................... 43 Results, Discussion, & Application ............................................. 55

vi

Table of Contents (Continued)

Page

IV. MATERIALS AND METHODS ......................................................... 64 Objectives ................................................................................... 64 Location ...................................................................................... 64 Participants ................................................................................. 65 Experimental Design .................................................................. 68 V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ......................................................... 78

Sensory Attributes ...................................................................... 78 Functionality Attributes ............................................................... 84 Credence Attributes .................................................................... 94 Preference and Ranking ........................................................... 104 VI. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................. 108 VII. RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................. 110 APPENDICES ................................................................................................ 111 A: Background Research and Information ......................................... 112 B: Pilot Study Results ......................................................................... 116 C: Pilot Study Data and Statistical Analysis ....................................... 121 D: Full Scale Study Data and Statistical Analysis ............................... 150 E: Surveys and Questionnaires .......................................................... 175 REFERENCES ............................................................................................... 193

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page 1 Descriptors used on the Food Action Rating Scale (FACT) ............ 34 2 Pilot study containers ....................................................................... 50 3 Open-ended survey questions from pilot study ................................ 59 4 Open-ended survey question from full scale study .......................... 66 5 Preference Selection ...................................................................... 105 6 Preference Chi-square ................................................................... 105 7 Burger Preference Selection .......................................................... 106 8 Burger Chi-square .......................................................................... 106 9 Chicken Preference Selection ........................................................ 106 10 Chicken Chi-square ....................................................................... 106 11 Rank Borda Count ......................................................................... 107 12 Rank Mean Rating ......................................................................... 107

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page 1 An assembly line of workers in a quick-service restaurant ................ 8 2 Examples of single-use foodservice packaging ............................... 16 3 QSR menu with nutrition information displayed beside food items ................................................................................... 23 4 Quiznos "Eat Toasty, Be Green" campaign included all biodegradable food packaging ................................................... 25 5 Packaging waste in the fast food industry ........................................ 26 6 Three stage model of perceived quality ........................................... 28 7 Model of food quality factors in different contexts ............................ 30 8 CU-café staged restaurant environment used for pilot study ........... 45 9 Black tray used to present containers. ............................................. 47 10 CU-café floor plan and table layout .................................................. 48 11 McDonaldʼs single cheeseburger, food product used for pilot study ................................................................................... 51 12 Pie charts of survey Section 2 results .............................................. 56 13 Chart of participant responses indicating how much they would pay for each sample .......................................................................... 57 14 Pie chart of survey Section 3 survey results .................................... 58 15 Pie chart of survey Section 1 survey results .................................... 67 16 Four containers selected for full scale study .................................... 69

ix

List of Figures (Continued) Figure Page 17 The food product used for testing Wendyʼs Homestyle Chicken Sandwich and Single 1/4 lb. Hamburger .................................... 70 18 Sensory booth set-up inside the testing environment ...................... 75 19 Mean ratings for sensory attribute Flavor ........................................ 78 20 Mean ratings for sensory attribute Texture ...................................... 80 21 Mean ratings for sensory attribute Overall Liking ............................. 81 22 Mean ratings for sensory attribute Acceptance ................................ 83 23 Mean ratings for functionality attribute “Protects Product” ............... 85 24 Mean ratings for functionality attribute “Easy to Open” .................... 87 25 Mean ratings for functionality attribute “Contains Product” .............. 88 26 Mean ratings for functionality attribute “Keeps Product Warm” ......................................................................................... 90 27 Mean ratings for functionality attribute “Easy to Carry” .................... 92 28 Mean ratings for credence attribute Natural ..................................... 94 29 Mean ratings for credence attribute Environmentally Friendly ....................................................................................... 96 30 Mean ratings for credence attribute Modern .................................... 99 31 Mean ratings for credence attribute Neat ....................................... 100 32 Mean ratings for credence attribute Premium ................................ 102 33 Chart displaying percentages for how often each container was selected .................................................................................... 104

x

List of Figures (Continued) Figure Page 34 Chart displaying how often each container was selected in each of the conditions ........................................................................... 105

1

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Quick-Service Restaurant Industry

The quick-service or fast food restaurant industry in the United States

currently includes over 200,000 restaurant locations with a combined annual

revenue of approximately $191 billion (Marketline Industry Profile, 2011). These

quick-service restaurants (QSRs) are characterized by providing full meals

quickly, at an affordable price, and with no table service. According to consumers

the main reasons they choose to eat fast food are because it is convenient,

prepared quickly, a good value, and inexpensive (Technomic Consumer Trend

Report, 2009). From a consumer perspective, the packaging used by QSRs must

be consistent with these expectations and positively impact the overall product

experience.

In general, in the food packaging, industry there is a strong movement

towards improving consumer convenience; increasingly foods are available in

packages from which they can be directly consumed. QSRs offer a wide variety

of foods on their menu and nearly all of the menu items are eaten “on-the-go”,

meaning they do not require the use of cutlery and can be eaten with hands.

Consequently, the majority of food products in QSRs are consumed directly from

a container or package. In the QSR, industry this type of packaging is known as

single-use or disposable foodservice packaging.

2

Foodservice Packaging

Packaging on products is primarily used to protect and preserve, however

it can also provide a valuable marketing tools to the producer (Meyers & Lubliner,

1998). Food product packaging can be a factor in consumer decision-making,

because it enables consumers to make assumptions about how the product

tastes. In some cases in addition to shaping taste expectations, the packaging

can even affect subsequent product experiences (Cardello, 1994; Schifferstein,

Kole, & Mojet, 1999). The packaging chosen for food products often

communicates a message to consumers, which makes choosing an appropriate

packaging material critical for companies in the QSR industry.

Materials commonly used to package fast food products include: paper,

paperboard, plastic, foil, and cardboard (Foodservice Packaging Institute, 2007).

Consumers tend to prefer certain materials with products, partially because they

are perceived to be appropriate for the distinct product (Raudenbush, Meyer,

Eppich, Corley, & Petterson, 2002). In addition to material the packaging

containers often vary in regard to size, shape, and appearance. Sandwich

category products available at QSRs primarily use a clamshell package, two

hinged halves of a shell that can be opened and closed by the consumer, or a

wrap style package, which is a flat sheet that is folded around the food product

after it is prepared (http://www.businessdictionary.com/). Understanding the

qualities conveyed to consumers by various styles of packaging could ultimately

3

be used in the new product development process and to help improve consumers

overall experience in QSRs.

Consumer Experience

Consumers overall experience in the QSR setting is defined by many

factors. The perception of food quality is considered the main component of the

experience, because it is necessary to satisfy the needs and expectations of the

consumer (Peri, 2006). Packaging is an example of an extrinsic component of

food quality. The containers in which foods are packaged and consumed from

can influence the perception of their related sensory qualities and even the

overall consumption experience (Piqueras-Fiszman, Harrar, & Spence, 2012).

Measuring consumer food quality perception is a complex task and often varies

depending on setting or context.

Quality is considered multidimensional in nature, meaning it cannot be

measured using one dimension, but must be evaluated using many dimensions

(Meiselman 2001). Many techniques exist to measure quality perception,

however most view quality as a product attribute and approach it from a single

dimension. In order to fully understand how packaging used in QSRs can

influence food quality perception a combination of sensory testing and product

evaluation techniques is necessary.

4

Prior Research

Food packaging characteristics such as shape, color, and material are

useful to convey a message to the consumer; however, they are not directly

related to the taste of the food product. The prior research presented in the

review of literature suggests that consumers use symbolic information

represented by these packaging characteristics (shape, color and material) to

draw assumptions about the packages contents. Research has shown this

concept holds true even when the product attributes being evaluated are

completely unrelated to packaging appearance. The process consumers use to

draw assumptions about packaging contents is not considered a deliberate

process, but rather an innate process. Consumers draw on understood notions in

which impressions derived from one source, such as packaging attributes, form

expectations for subsequent product impressions such as product taste (Huber &

McCann, 1982; Pinson, 1986; Becker, Van Rompay, Schifferstein, & Galetzka

2011).

The current body of research concerning the effects food packaging has

on the perception of its contents primarily involves retail food, meaning all food,

other than restaurant food, that is purchased by consumers and consumed

elsewhere (http://smallbusiness.chron.com/). Brown (1958) demonstrated how

the sound and feel of different wrapper materials impact perception of bread

freshness, the most intense product freshness being perceived with cellophane.

5

Krishna and Morrin (2008) determined that the material properties of a cup could

modify the perceived quality of the water consumed from it. Schifferstein (2009)

established that drink sweetness and liking could be impacted by cup material.

McDaniel and Baker (1977) discovered that the ease with which a bag of potato

chips opened was directly linked to the perceived taste of its content; the difficult-

to-open bags were viewed to contain better quality chips. Becker, van Rompay,

Schifferstein, and Galetzka (2011) directly linked characteristics of consumers

packaging experience to the perception of its contents.

Research In QSR Context

In an environment such as a restaurant or other food service outlet, a

variety of environmental factors may have a greater impact on the consumerʼs

perception of food quality than the inherent traits of the food (Pierson, Reeve, &

Creed, 1995). This research methodology combines several existing quality

perception models as well as past marketing research involving product

perception. Using this type of multidisciplinary approach takes the product, the

consumer, and the situation into consideration, and in the end provides a better

prediction of quality (Meiselman, 2001). By examining the food products using

intrinsic and extrinsic quality cues combined with experience and credence

quality attributes the consumers quality perception of a product is more

thoroughly represented (Oude Ophuis & van Trijp, 1995).

6

As it is formulated the goal of this research is to determine how a food

container can effect the consumers quality perception of its contents in quick-

service restaurants. This is done by analyzing how different containers are

identified based on certain attributes and by evaluating the effect of each

container has on the experience of consuming a food product. A pilot study was

completed prior to the experiment to determine the attributes used to define the

experience and credence qualities. All data was collected using a computerized

self-administered survey instrument, which was developed from the present body

of literature related to this topic.

7

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The Quick-Service Restaurant Industry

In the last several decades, food consumption habits in the United States

have noticeably shifted, Americans now consume a greater percentage of their

total calories outside the home (Guthrie, Lin, & Frazao, 2002). The source of this

shift can be linked to numerous social changes; Americans now work longer

hours and an increasing amount of women work outside the home (Levenstein,

2003). For meals consumed outside the home Americans have turned to the

restaurant industry.

The restaurant industry consists of two main divisions: full-service

restaurants and quick-service restaurants (QSR), also known as fast food

restaurants. The most common type of fast food restaurant is a franchised chain.

Fast food restaurants are commonly associated with the restaurant industry,

because they use a similar food selling and consumption model. However, the

food production methods used in fast food more closely resemble the food

industry.

Fast food restaurants offer a limited number of items on their menu, which

are created from a defined list of raw materials much like the food industry.

These fast food menus normally include a combination of hamburgers, chicken,

sandwiches, pizza, Mexican dishes, breakfast foods, and snack or side items.

8

Menu items in fast food restaurants are created in store using an assembly line

procedure and are then sold to consumers in highly standardized single-use

packaging (Aarnio & Hämäläinen, 2008). In the QSR industry this type of

packaging is commonly called single-use or disposable foodservice packaging.

Figure 1 shows a typical assembly line in a QSR. The fast food industry uses the

food industryʼs efficient food production and packaging techniques to offer

consumers food products in a restaurant setting that are convenient, quick, and

inexpensive.

Figure 1. An assembly line of workers in a quick-service restaurant

9

History

The Quick-service restaurant industry has grown and expanded at an

incredible rate over the past century. Many people perceive fast food as a

modern concept, however it dates back to the early 1900s. The first QSR chain in

the United States, White Castle, was founded in Kansas in 1921. After WWII the

rise of the automobile industry lead to the development of many drive-in fast food

restaurants (Levenstein, 2003). In the 1940s-1950s many large chains were

founded including KFC, McDonaldʼs, Sonic, and Burger King. The 1960s brought

about a growth period in the fast food industry and several important chains were

founded including Wendyʼs and Subway.

Quick-Service restaurants in the United States were founded on the

principle of standardization; all restaurants visually looked the same, had the

same menus, and used the same operating procedures. In the 1990s many fast

food chains began franchising and expanding to international locations. Countries

outside of the United States often view fast food as an American concept and

some countries took time to adjust to the new style of restaurant (Smith, 2006).

Over the past century the fast food industry has been recognized for itʼs

aggressive advertising, novel food products, and stable expansion. In order to

stay relevant chains have constantly introduce new products and features such

as the drive-thru window, the value menu, and the kidsʼ meal. This innovative

10

forward thinking has contributed to the fast food industry becoming the powerful

multi-billion dollar industry it is today.

Food Packaging

Food packaging is the container in which the food product is packed to

ensure safe transfer to consumers (Robertson, 2006). The food packaging

container can be in direct contact or indirect contact with food product. Food

packaging holds, protects, preserves, and identifies the food product in addition

to facilitating handling and commercialization. There are three types of

packaging: primary packaging which is in direct contact with the product or

contents, secondary packaging which contains one or more primary packages

and serves to protect and identify the primary, and tertiary packaging also known

as transport packaging which offers protection for the primary and secondary

packaging while being transported. Each packaging layer contributes to the

overall process of product delivery from manufacturer to consumer (Capsule,

2008).

Packaging has become an integral part of food products (Ahmed, Ahmed,

& Salman, 2005). The basic functions of food packaging are to protect and

preserve the food product, make it easier to carry, display the product or

graphical representations of the product, and communicate a message to

consumers (Meyers & Lubliner, 1998). The marketing function of communicating

11

a message to the consumer has become increasingly important. Food packaging

is now considered an important component of the marketing process in the food

industry. McCarthy & Perreault developed the “marketing mix” or 4 ʻPsʼ of

marketing: price, product, promotion, and place (1996). Packaging affects all

segments of the marketing mix; packaging displays the price or indicates a price

range, it contains the product, provides messages about product attributes to

consumers, and can also present promotions (Meyers & Lubliner, 1998).

Food Safety

Consumer food products are used by a typical consumer three or more

times per day, which is more than any other product class. Consumers have a

right to assume that the food products they purchase and consume will be high

quality and safe. In addition to food processing technology, one reason the U.S.

food supply is so safe is because of advancements in food packaging (Marsh &

Bugusu, 2007). Effective food packaging ensures that products remain safe after

the food processing procedure is complete.

Packaging enables food products to then be transported from stores or

restaurants to various locations with no compromise in food quality. Peri (2006)

suggests that many of the legal requirements for safety and service are ʻʻimplicit

requirementsʼʼ because consumers expect them to exist. He goes on to say that

though food safety is assessable and therefore confirmable consumers still have

12

doubts about food safety within certain product categories. Hazard analysis and

critical control point (HACCP) is a federal food production, storage, and

distribution monitoring system for identification and control of associated health

hazards (http://www.businessdictionary.com/). Many states currently require

approved HACCP plans for restaurants.

Materials

Food packaging uses many different types of materials. Often several

materials are combined to create food packaging; this method normally exploits

each of the materialʼs functional or aesthetic characteristics (Marsh & Bugusu,

2007). How these two materials are combined helps to determine things like shelf

life, product protection, and the packages insulation properties. Finding the ideal

material or combination of materials helps to maintain product quality and

freshness during storage, distribution, and consumption (Fellows & Axtell, 2002).

Materials commonly used in food packaging include but are not limited to

the following (Marsh & Bugusu, 2007):

• Glass

• Metals (aluminum, foils, laminates, tinplate, and tin-free steel)

• Paper and paperboards

• Plastics

13

There are several Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations

pertaining to the manufacturing of food packaging materials. In the FDA Federal

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) Chapter IV: Sec. 409, Sec. 348- Food

Additives the FDA requires that food packaging manufacturers notify FDA 120 d

prior to marketing a food contact substance (FCS) for a new use. The FDA

defines an FCS as “any substance intended for use as a component of materials

used in manufacturing, packing, packaging, transporting or holding of food if the

use is not intended to have a technical effect in such food”. These regulations are

put in place to protect consumers and ensure all packaged food products are

safe for consumption (Food and Drug Administration, 2006).

Trends in Food Packaging

The food package is the product delivery system for consumers, and the

package comes of great use in selling the product (Richmond, 2004). According

to Market Publishers report titled Food and Beverage Packaging Trends in the

U.S.: Consumer Viewpoints and Marketer Opportunities, “Packaging has

increasingly moved beyond basic functionality into value-added features that amp

up convenience, product quality and freshness, and eco-friendliness (2012).” The

report continues to discuss how consumer packaging trends such as quality,

convenience, sustainability, recyclables, and over-packaging impact food

14

packaging perception and why manufacturers and retailers should focus on these

trends to increase consumer satisfaction.

Over the past several decades food packaging has developed from itʼs

basic requirements to corresponding with consumer priorities (Market Publishers,

2012). Ideally, a food package protects the food product from damage and keeps

the product safe to consume for a certain amount of time. In addition to these

basic functions food packaging must also be in line with consumer trends

including: being visually appealing, environmentally friendly, portable, and

convenient (Euromonitor, 2004). It is very difficult to meet all the criteria to create

an ideal food package and manufacturers are rarely able to achieve this feat.

Manufacturers and companies who have managed to align themselves with

emerging consumer trends have benefited significantly (Market Publishers,

2012).

Food products are ultimately created for the consumer, their attitudes and

opinions play a key role in creating food packaging. The factors driving growth in

the food packaging market including, convenience, functionality and indulgence,

are consumer centered (Euromonitor, 2004). To remain competitive in the

dynamic packaged food environment, manufacturers and retailers must

understand what matters most to consumers and which packaging innovations

can deliver benefits that actually impact consumer buying practices.

15

Food packaging holds an important place in the supply chain connecting

the food product to the consumer. Ahmed, Ahmed, & Salman (2005) explain how

packaging has become an integral part of all food products developed today. A

food productʼs packaging may be a driver of consumer decision making, because

it allows consumers to draw inferences about the product taste (Becker, Van

Rompay, Schifferstein, & Galetzka, 2011). This makes choosing the correct

packaging for food products increasingly important for brands.

Single-Use Foodservice Packaging

In the QSR industry the packaging used for food products is commonly

referred to single-use or disposable foodservice packaging. This type of

packaging has been around since 1904, when the paper plate was developed to

hold cakes in bakeries. In the 1960s McDonaldʼs began using single-use

foodservice products and since they have become a standard in the quick-

service restaurant industry. The majority of the single-use foodservice products

currently used are either made of paper including paper, paperboard, and molded

pulp or plastic including rigid polystyrene (PS), expanded polystyrene (EPS),

polypropylene (PP), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), and polylactic acid (PLA)

(Dorn, 2013). Several examples of common single-use foodservice packaging

products can be seen in Figure 2.

16

Regulations in QSRs

Single-use foodservice packaging is necessary in quick-service

restaurants to support sanitation, portability, and to help with costs associated

with reusable items. According to many health officials the benefits of single-use

foodservice packaging far outweigh any perceived environmental impact

(Foodservice Packaging Institute, 2007). By being used only once, this type of

packaging considerably reduces food contamination and the spread of

sicknesses. Single-use foodservice packaging is helpful in preventing the spread

of many foodborne illnesses. In the United States food borne illnesses from

bacteria and viruses cause approximately 48 million illnesses, 325,000

hospitalizations, and 3,000 deaths each year (USDA Food Safety and Inspection

Service, 2011).

The Food and Drug Administrationʼs Food Code highlights the sanitary

and health advantages of single-use foodservice packaging. In the FDA Food

Figure 2. Examples of single-use foodservice packaging

17

Code 2009, Chapter 4 - Equipment, Utensils, and Linens subparts 4-102 and 4-

502 there are several sections pertaining to single-use foodservice packaging in

a QSR environment:

Single-Service and Single-Use 4-102.11 Characteristics.

Materials that are used to make single-service and single-use articles:

• (A) May not:

1. (1) Allow the migration of deleterious substances, or

2. (2) Impart colors, odors, or tastes to food; and

• (B) Shall be:

1. (1) Safe, and

2. (2) Clean.

4-502.12 Single-Service and Single-Use Articles, Required Use.

• A food establishment without facilities specified under Parts 4-6 and 4-

7 for cleaning and sanitizing kitchenware and tableware shall provide

only single-use kitchenware, single-service articles, and single-use

articles for use by food employees and single-service articles for use

by consumers.

The FDA also has regulations for where single-use products are to be

stored and how they are to be handled by workers in the restaurants. Consumers

18

often take the high level of food safety in the United States for granted and do not

understand the significance of the food and packaging technologies used today.

Benefits of Single-Use Foodservice Packaging

According to a report by the National Restaurant Association, Americans

spend nearly fifty percent of their food budget in restaurants. Single-use

foodservice packaging in QSRs has become an incredibly important part of the

modern fast-paced life. With less time for meal preparation at home, more people

are relying on the restaurant industry for meals. Single-use packaging allows

foodservice establishments to package meals in a sensible, safe and cost-

effective fashion, while providing customers an efficient and convenient way to

transport meals. The Foodservice Packaging Instituteʼs report on the benefits of

single-use packaging published in 2007 highlighted four advantages including:

sanitation, cost, worker safety, and convenience.

Features and Functions

The Foodservice Packaging Institute created the following list of questions

concerning features and functions of the packaging to help companies in the fast

food industry choose proper packaging for their food products (2007):

1. Whatʼs going in or on the packaging?

The item(s) require(s) that the packaging…

19

a. Keeps hot items hot

b. Keeps cold items cold

c. Keeps frozen items frozen

d. Needs to be heated, re-heated or cooked in a microwave or

oven

e. Doesnʼt absorb grease/juice

f. Is leak resistant

g. Has a light or heavy weight/strength

2. What should the packaging look like? It…

a. Is a certain color

b. Is a certain shape

c. Is a certain size, i.e. single portion versus multi-serving

d. Has different compartments

e. Has a base and lid hinged together

f. Has a base and lid in two pieces

g. Has different dome or lid options for the same base

h. Needs to part of a family of packaging options

i. Is film-sealable or tamper-resistant

j. Has graphics or printing on it, such as a logo or special

design

20

k. Has an area for labels, such as nutritional information or

heating instructions

3. What will you do with the packaged item?

a. Store it in a hot display case

b. Store it in a cold display case

c. Store it in a freezer case

d. Place it under a heat lamp or in a microwave or oven to

warm or cook it

e. Lid it

f. Stack it

g. Use with automated equipment

4. What will your customer do with the packaged item?

a. Heat or re-heat it in the microwave or oven

b. Freeze it

c. Open or close it several times

d. Cut and/or eat the items out of the packaging

e. Travel some distance before consuming the food/beverage

f. Use it to present foods

While the list presented by the Foodservice Packaging Institute is through

consumer perception of packaging and how this affects food quality judgments is

not taken into account.

21

The Quick-Service Restaurant Industry Today

While it continues to expand, the current fast food industry has

experienced a significant slowdown in growth due to a poor economy and

changing consumer preferences (Anthony, 2008; Samadi, 2010). The same basic

operating principle of standardization is still applied in the fast food industry,

however the food products offered are constantly changing and adapting to

consumer demands in the marketplace. There are seven main segments of the

QSR industry that have developed including: Burger, Sandwich, Snack, Mexican,

Pizza/pasta, Chicken, and Asian/Seafood (http://www.qsrmagazine.com/reports).

In all segments within any fast food chains franchise interior design, exterior

design, employee uniforms, and the visual appearance of the menu boards is

fairly consistent. The food packaging also tends to be similar in terms of material

and container style. As new food products are added to QSR menus and existing

products are altered, the need to understand consumer perception of these

products increases.

Controversial Issues

There are currently several controversial issues in the fast food industry,

which directly relate to the packaging, including the marketing techniques used,

and the food product nutrition. Marketing techniques aimed at children have been

22

called into question by several organizations. In their report, “Evaluating Fast

Food Nutrition and Marketing to Youth”, Harris, Scwartz, and Brownell reported

“fast food restaurants spend billions of dollars in marketing every year to increase

the number of times that customers visit their restaurants, encourage visits for

new eating occasions, and purchases of specific menu items (rarely the healthy

options), and create lifelong, loyal customers (2010).”

The health risks of fast food have also been brought to light, making

customers question their eating habits, and forcing fast food restaurants to create

healthier alternatives. Consumption of fast food has been linked to several

negative health complications, most commonly unhealthy diet that leads to an

increased risk for obesity (Saelens, Glanz, & Sallis, 2007). Solutions to the health

concerns that have been raised in fast food restaurants include smaller overall

portions, product nutrition information displayed on menu, and limiting the

amount of food that can be purchased per visit. Figure 3 shows a QSR menu

displaying nutrition information for food items and images of packaging for each

food item. All of these issues directly affect the packaging used in QSRs and

require that it be changed and optimized frequently in accordance with any

issues.

23

Environmental Concerns

In the fast food industry packaging sustainability is currently a highly

debated topic. According to the Sustainable Packaging Coalition sustainable

packaging (http://www.sustainablepackaging.org/):

• Is beneficial, safe & healthy for individuals and communities throughout

its life cycle

• Meets market criteria for both performance and cost

• Is sourced, manufactured, transported, and recycled using renewable

energy

• Optimizes the use of renewable or recycled source materials

Figure 3. QSR menu with nutrition information displayed beside food items

24

• Is manufactured using clean production technologies and best

practices

• Is made from materials healthy throughout the life cycle

• Is physically designed to optimize materials and energy

• Is effectively recovered and utilized in biological and/or industrial

closed loop cycles

The disposable, single-use packaging products used are an unfortunate

necessity in the QSR industry due to hygiene and convenience issues. Today,

there are a number of more sustainable packaging options available including

reusable alternatives, products with recycled content, and biodegradable choices

(Dorn, 2013).

Many reports emphasize the importance of the restaurant industry using

sustainable packaging materials. However, the cost associated with many of the

environment friendly materials is much higher than the materials currently being

used. Several fast food chains have attempted to implement sustainable

materials in packaging for a select number of menu items (Dogwood Alliance

Roadmap, 2010). An example of sustainable fast food packaging can be seen in

Figure 4. According to the Environmental Protection Agency in 2009, foodservice

packaging (paper and plastic material) discarded in the U.S. municipal solid

waste stream accounted 1.3 percent (by weight) of all U.S. municipal solid waste

(http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/). A litter composition study

25

conducted in 2009, by the Foodservice Packaging Institute, found that fast food

packaging makes up 5.3 percent of the entire U.S. litter stream.

Studies suggest that the theoretical recovery rate of packaging waste in

the fast food industry is around 93 percent, while the actual recovery rate is only

29 percent of the total amount of packaging each year; In order to improve this

recovery rate new waste management practices should be employed (Aarnio &

Hämäläinen, 2008). The Foodservice Packaging Institute suggests that the

biggest obstacles to recycling foodservice packaging items involve public health

concerns and excessive cost (2007). Foodservice packaging that has been used

is considered contaminated and much of it is unfit for recycling procedures, until it

has been cleaned and separated.

Figure 4. Quiznosʼ "Eat Toasty, Be Green" campaign included sustainable packaging materials

26

Approximately 75 percent of packaging used at a typical fast food

restaurant is taken “to-go” and ends up in homes, workplaces, and public

locations, scattering the used packaging, which makes the recycling process

much more challenging. Despite the difficult recovery and recycling process for

foodservice packaging, recycled materials are increasingly being used in

foodservice packaging (Dorn, 2013). Finding a balance between consumer

expectations for sustainability while also achieving profit goals continues to be a

challenge in the fast food industry. Consumer quality perception of materials

used in packaging has become increasingly important as new sustainable

materials are explored. Figure 5 shows the waste generation cycle in the fast

food industry (T. Aarnio & A. Hamalainen, 2008).

Figure 5. Packaging waste generation in the fast food industry (T. Aarnio & A. Hamalainen 2008)

27

Consumer-Oriented Food Quality

Food quality is a complex concept, over the years many definitions of

food quality have been proposed, deciding which definition to use varies

depending on the type of research (Meiselman, 2001). Peri (2006) proposed that

food quality is a set of consumer requirements such as safety, commodity,

nutritional, and sensory. Cardello (1995) stated, “Food quality is a psychological

construct. It is both perceptually based and evaluative. To be valid, food quality

must be judged by consumers of the product.”

Consumer-oriented food quality is considered a psychological concept,

founded on consumer perceptions and measured using a perceived quality

approach, similar to the technique used in market and consumer behavior

research (Grebitus, 2008). Consumer quality perception is formed from

conscious and unconscious evaluation of observed quality cues, which are

connected to relevant quality attributes. Context, experience, and situational

variables must also be taken into consideration, as they vary among consumers

(Cardello, 1995). A quality cue is defined as “any informational stimulus, which is,

according to the consumer, related to the products quality, and can be

ascertained by him/her via the senses before purchase” (Grebitus, 2008).

Steenkamp (1989) developed a model of the quality perception process

based on quality cues. Steenkampʼs model can be viewed in Figure 6. The model

contains two distinct categories of quality cues, extrinsic and intrinsic (Olson,

28

1972). Intrinsic quality cues express the physical composition of the product for

example, flavor, color, and texture. Intrinsic quality attributes are consumed as

the food product is consumed (Zeithaml, 1988). Extrinsic quality cues such as

price, store, and brand name refer to the product but are not physically part of the

product. An extrinsic quality cue can be altered and will not directly affect the

food product.

Intrinsic and extrinsic quality cues are then used to form assessments of

quality attributes (Steenkamp, 1989). Experience and credence quality attributes

are the two typical categories of quality attributes. Experience quality attributes

Figure 6. Three stage model of perceived quality (Steenkamp, 1989)

29

are directly experienced when the product is consumed including sensory

characteristics including freshness, texture, and convenience. While credence

quality attributes, such as healthiness, naturalness, and neatness, cannot be

directly experienced. Oude Ophuis & van Trijp (1995) proposed that credence

quality attributes are highly abstract in nature and cannot truly be experienced.

Consumers overall quality perception evaluation proposed to be based on

impressions of the product with regard to the quality attributes (Oude Ophuis &

Van Trijp, 1995).

Product experience is defined as “a change in core affect that is attributed

to human-product interaction (Desmet & Hekkert, 2007).” The relationship

between quality perception (before consumption) and quality experience (after

consumption) is generally considered a method to understand product

satisfaction, and consequently the likelihood of a consumer repurchasing the

product (Mittal & Kamakura, 2001).

Quality in the Foodservice Industry

Current methods used to assess the consumers perceived quality of food

products tend to focus solely on the food, by strictly using sensory measurement

techniques these methods do not consider other contributing factors. In a

detailed context such as a restaurant or foodservice outlet it is important to

consider many elements outside of the intrinsic food properties that may have a

30

greater influence on the consumer perception of food quality (Pierson, Reeve, &

Creed, 1995). Figure 7 presents a model developed by Pierson, Reeve, & Creed,

(1995) illustrating the factors taken into consideration by consumers when

evaluating quality in different contexts including raw and manufactured food

products.

Figure 7. Model of food quality factors in different contexts (Pierson, Reeve, & Creed, 1995)

31

Meiselman (2002) suggested that there are at least four main concurrent

contextual effects that may alter the perception of food products during

consumption including: “the product functions as a meal component, social

inderation during food consumption, the environment in which food is selected

and consumed, and food choice freedom.” Each of these effects should be taken

into account in research involving food product consumption.

Sensory Evaluation

Sensory evaluation is defined as “A scientific discipline used to evoke,

measure, analyze and interpret those responses to products that are perceived

by the senses of sight, smell, touch, taste and hearing (Stone & Sidel, 1993).” In

food sensory evaluation the respondent groups are called panels. These panels

taste specific food samples under controlled conditions and evaluate the samples

in different ways depending on the particular type of sensory test being used.

Participants in sensory evaluation panels can be classified as consumers,

panelists, or experts. Lawless & Heymann (1998) defined an Expert as “an

individual acknowledged or self-ordained to act as a judge of sensory attributes,

defects, or overall product quality based on experience and/or training. Generally

not used in sensory evaluation tests”. They defined a Panelist as “generally, a

participant in a sensory evaluation.” While Lawless & Heymann do not directly

32

define consumer participants they mention that consumer evaluation can be

useful for many purposes (1998).

There are three common classes of sensory evaluation tests, each class

(Lawless & Heymann, 2010; Gengler, 2009):

1. Discrimination tests (difference tests) are designed to determine whether

there is a difference between products. Samples size should be 30+ or 15

with a replicate.

2. Descriptive tests are intended to determine the extent of difference in

specific sensory characteristics. Samples size should be 8 -12, with a

replicate.

3. Affective tests (acceptance/preference tests) are used to determine how

well the products are liked or which products are preferred. Sample size

should be from 30-100+.

Analytical vs. Hedonic

The three common types of sensory tests are categorized as either

analytical or hedonic. Discrimination and descriptive sensory tests are identified

as analytical because they are used to detect product differences or

characteristics. When a test is classified as analytical, participant sensory

sharpness is critical. Participants in analytical tests are generally expected to be

more sensitive to variances in food products than average consumers.

33

Affective tests are classified as hedonic tests, which are used to explore

consumer preference or liking of a product. In general hedonic tests are

subjective and do not require participants to possess a high level of sensory

acuteness. However, the industry is becoming more formal and quantitative when

it comes to hedonic style testing (Stone & Sidel, 2004).

Measuring Product Acceptance

Affective tests are a common type of sensory evaluation used to measure

consumer response to and acceptance of products. These tests can be used for

a variety of reasons, which include: product improvement, new product

development, support of product advertising claims, and product market

evaluation (Gengler, 2009). Depending on the purpose of the research being

conducted affective tests can be qualitative or quantitative. The sample of

respondents used must be representative of the target market population of

consumers who will purchase the product. The group of respondents can consist

of trained or untrained testers. However, for most affective tests since overall

acceptance is being measured an untrained panel is appropriate. ʻʻ...as with any

untrained panel, beyond the overall acceptance judgment there is no assurance

that the responses are reliable or valid” (Stone & Sidel, 1993).

Several methods have been proposed to measure food product

acceptance. The most common measured used is a scale of liking, such as the

34

9-point hedonic scale, varying from dislike extremely to like extremely (Peryam

and Pilgrim 1957). Schutz (1965) developed the Food Action Rating Scale

(FACT) for measuring overall food acceptance. The FACT scale has been used

to effectively test food products as well as market-research product tests,

descriptors used for the scale can be seen in Table 1.

Researchers must be comprehensive when developing a questionnaire or

survey to evaluate food product acceptance because this can ultimately effect

they quality of the data collected. “There is a complicated relationship among the

survey question as it appears in the questionnaire, the rules the correspondent is

Table 1 Descriptors used on the Food Action Rating Scale (FACT) (Schutz, 1965)

I would eat this food every opportunity I had.I would eat this very often.I would frequently eat this.I like this and would eat it now and then.I would eat this if available but would not go out of my way.I do not like it but would eat it on occasion.I would hardly ever eat this.I would eat this only if there were no other food choices.I would eat this only if I were forced to.

35

trained to follow, the cognitive processing of the participants…and the quality of

the resulting data” (Schaeffer & Presser, 2003).

Sensory Evaluation in Marketing Research

Marketing research is defined as “the link with the consumer, providing

information that assists companies to carry out marketing to monitor that

marketplace” (Meiselman, 1994). Carpenter, Lyon, & Hasdell (2000) proposed

that preference and acceptability sensory tests, which measure product liking or

acceptance, lie on the fringe between sensory analysis and consumer research

or marketing research. In many organizations sensory evaluation provides valid

and reliable information about the perceived sensory properties of products to the

marketing department, which they in turn use to modify products. The growing

relationship between sensory evaluation and market research has been

established and plays an important role in food product development.

Many food scientists and researchers support the idea of a

multidisciplinary approach to developing new food products. Meiselman (1994)

conveys his desires for a new science of human eating behavior founded on the

strengths of sensory research, market research, and food choice research.

Due to shifting consumer trends a greater demand for value added food

products has developed, food companies are increasing product research and

new product development to meet this need. One key element of research done

36

to understand consumer trends is the setting or context of an experiment.

Meiselman (2001) suggests that “actual judgment of quality takes place at the

eating. Therefore, more studies of quality should take place where the food is

consumed… context should be considered more in studies of food acceptance

and food habits as well.”

Jaeger (2006) in her article titled, “Non-Sensory Factors in Sensory

Science Research” suggests three principles consumer food product research

should be based on to properly evaluate the relationship:

1. Multi-method and interdisciplinary approaches are needed to

research peoples relationships with food

2. Using tools and techniques that are tailored to food- related

research

3. Not taking account of context threatens the validity of food-related

research.

Food quality should not be regarded as simply a sensory experience

(Pierson, Reeve, & Creed, 1995; Meiselman, 1994). Kramer and Twigg (1970)

present a wide range of factors that impact the food industry, and explain how

these factors vary between individuals. In the foodservice context, quick-service

restaurant offers a specific service to consumers and research is necessary in

37

food quality improvement areas. Food product packaging is just one factor that

should be taken into account in order to understand consumer behavior and

perception of food products in the quick-service setting.

The Effect of Food Packaging on Contents

Properties

Food packaging properties include its shape, color, material, weight, and

size. Each of these packaging properties can communicate different ideas to

consumers. While the packaging properties are not directly linked to the taste of

the food product they can represent a certain attribute or characteristic to

consumers. The attribute expressed can then cause the consumer to draw

assumptions or have expectations about the content of the package simply from

viewing itʼs packaging.

According to several past studies consumers draw on understood notions

in which impressions derived from one source, such as food packaging attributes,

can form expectations for subsequent product impressions, such as food product

taste (Huber & McCann, 1982; Pinson, 1986; Becker, Rompay, & Schifferstein,

2011). This body of research suggests that if the effect certain food packaging

properties have on their contents can be understood from research then

packaging can be created that better meets consumerʼs needs and preferences.

38

Prior Research

Food packaging conveys favorable or unfavorable implied meaning about

the product it contains (Ampuero & Vila, 2006). Consumers envision aspects of

how a product is going to look, taste, feel, smell, and sound as they are viewing

the package or a graphic on the packaging without ever seeing the food product

(Underwood, 2001). Becker, van Rompay, Schifferstein, and Galetzka (2011)

were able to directly link characteristics of consumers packaging experience to

the perception of its contents. Prior research done in this area has predominantly

focused on retail food product packaging, tableware, cutlery, bottles, and cups

involving properties such as color, shape, size, and material.

Cutlery and Tableware

Cutlery and tableware products are made from many different types of

materials and come in various shapes, sizes, and colors. Laughlin, Conreen,

Witchel, & Miodownik (2011) investigated if spoons made of different metals had

distinctively different taste. They tested seven different metal materials including:

gold silver, zinc, copper, tin, chrome and stainless steel. Participants wore

blindfolds making them unable to see any visual difference between the spoons.

Physically all of the spoons used had identical size, shape and weight. The

metric measured was metallic taste sensation given off by the spoons. Results

revealed that spoons plated with different metals had a noticeably different taste.

39

The spoons composed of gold and chrome were evaluated as least metallic,

bitter, and strong tasting of all the spoons. The zinc and copper spoons were

evaluated as having the most metallic, bitter, and strongest taste overall.

Piqueras-Fiszman, Laughlin, Miodownik, & Spence (2012) examined the

transfer of taste from metal spoons further by evaluating food consumed from the

spoons. Each spoon was had been plated with one of four different metals: gold,

copper, zinc, or stainless steel. Visual appearance was hidden from consumers

with a blindfold and physical size, shape, and weight of all four spoons was

identical. Participants in the study had to evaluate sweet, sour, bitter, salty, or

plain cream samples. Similar to the Laughlin, Conreen, Witchel, & Miodownik

(2011) findings, the results showed that zinc and copper spoons increased each

creamʼs dominant taste rating, and gave a somewhat metallic and bitter taste to

the food. Another study done in 2012 by Piqueras-Fiszman & Spence determined

that food was assessed as significantly more pleasant, and rated higher quality,

when sampled from a heavier metallic spoon rather than a plastic spoon, which

looked metallic. The weight and material properties of the spoons varied in this

study, meaning the contributions of each factor to the overall perception of the

food eaten from them could not be separated.

A study involving tableware by Harrar, Piqueras-Fiszman, and Spence

(2011) evaluated the effect bowl color has on its contents. Participants sampled

sweet or salty popcorn from the four different color bowls (white, blue, green, and

40

red). The results showed that participants rated salty popcorn as tasting sweeter

when taken from a blue or red bowl. When tasted from the blue bowl the sweet

popcorn was rated as tasting saltier.

Cups

A large amount if research has been conducted on the perceived effects of

serving beverages in various types of cups. Raudenbush & Meyer (2002) found

that certain materials are perceived by consumers to be more appropriate for

consuming specific beverages. In this study three beverages: orange juice, hot

chocolate, and beer were served in three types of containers a glass, a cup, and

a bottle. Response data collected indicated that the three beverages were rated

as more pleasant overall when consumed from containers commonly used for

that beverage. A study done by Krishna and Morrin (2008) found that the material

properties of a cup could modify the perceived quality of the beverage consumed

from it. Their results suggested that touching a flimsy cup decreased the

perceived quality of the water served in the cup for some participants and when

those participants were not able to touch or hold the cup the perceived quality of

the water samples was rated higher.

Schifferstein (2009) found that respondentsʼ ratings of various attributes of

beverages including tea and soft drinks varied depending on the type of cup

used. A combination of durable and disposable cup containers were presented to

41

each participant containing either tea or a soft drink. The containers were then

rated based on sensory, experience, and suitability attributes. Particularly the

results showed that beverage sensory ratings varied depending on the container

material and that certain materials are understood to be more appropriate for

specific beverages, which is consistent with the findings of Raudenbush & Meyer

(2002).

Retail Food Product Packaging

A retail food product is defined as all food, other than restaurant food, that

is purchased by consumers and consumed elsewhere (http://smallbusiness.chr

on.com/). Several types of retail food product packaging have been studied in

past research. McDaniel and Baker (1977) determined that the ease with which a

bag of potato chips can be opened can be directly associated with the perceived

taste of its content. Wax-coated paper bags and polyvinyl bags were used as

materials and filled with potato chips. The more difficult-to-open bags, made of

polyvinyl, were perceived to contain better quality chips.

A study done by Becker, Rompay, Schifferstein & Galetzka (2011)

discovered that packaging color and shape in terms of angular or rounded yogurt

containers had an effect on the overall product evaluation. The yogurt packaging

presented varied in shape: angular versus rounded and also in color saturation:

low versus high saturation. The results suggested packaging color and packaging

42

shape can encourage food product potency perceptions, which may impact

product evaluations.

43

CHAPTER THREE

PILOT STUDY

The pilot study or “pre-study” was the first step in developing the

experiment. This chapter reviews the value of pilot studies, the methods used,

and the goals of this particular pilot study. The findings from the pilot study and

their application in the current research are then discussed.

Definition and Value of a Pilot Study

A pilot study is a small-scale version or a trial run of a major study. The

pilot study comes after the literature review when the researcher has developed

clear research questions, procedures, and methods. The researcherʼs goal is to

research instruments, techniques and methods, to see how well they will work in

practice and if necessary, the study can then still be adapted and modified

according to the findings (www.aqr.org.uk/glossary) The pilot study for the current

research was designed as a pre-testing tool for the questionnaire and to test the

general feasibility of the study.

Methods and Materials

Objectives

This pilot study was conducted to determine if changing only the food

container could have an effect on quality attribute ratings of food products in a

44

quick-service restaurant environment. The food containers used were each

different while the food products (a burger) presented inside the containers were

identical. A custom paper-and pencil survey questionnaire was administered to

participants to rate the food and container. The survey was designed from the

literature review and used to collect participant responses.

Location

The pilot study took place during Pack Expo 2012 at the McCormick

Center in Chicago, Illinois. A 5,800 sq-ft exhibit called “The Packaging Test

Track” was designed and fabricated by graduate students from the University.

“The Packaging Test Track” had five distinct areas designed to run various types

of packaging design and consumer research. The five areas were staged as

small shops called: CU-Shop, CU-Mart, CU-Cafe, CU-Auto, and CU-Office. CU-

Cafe was used for this pilot study to test consumer perception of different types

of single-use foodservice containers packaging.

The interior of CU-Café was staged as a restaurant environment. The front

and entrance to CU-Café can be seen in Figure 8 and floor plan is available in

Figure 10. This mock restaurant environment was designed to mimic a realistic

restaurant environment where consumers would actually be making similar

quality judgments as suggested by Meiselman (2001).

45

Participants

Participants in the pilot study were attendees at Pack Expo 2012. The

study took place over three days and there were a total of 90 participants who

completed the survey, 30 participants each day. However, only 71 of the

participants had usable data including, thirty-eight male respondents (53.53%)

and thirty-three female respondents (46.48%). Participant age ranged from 18-

60+ years, with 60.56% of participants in the 21-39 age range. Education level of

participants varied, 5.63% of participants had a high school degree or equivalent

while 47.89% of participants had a bachelor degree and 25.35% had a graduate

degree.

Figure 8. CU-café the staged restaurant environment used for testing

46

All participants were randomly selected and recruited verbally, no

incentive was initially offered. There were three groups in the experiment the

group assigned to each participant was based on the day they participated.

Participants were instructed that they were volunteers and could choose to not

participate at anytime during the study. Upon completing the survey participants

were given a free koozie drink insulator. All demographic data collected for the

pilot study is available in Appendix C.

Experimental Design

In order to narrow the scope the “Burger” segment of the fast food industry

was selected for the study. Nine distinct types of containers used in the “Burger”

segment were selected as stimuli. To determine which containers to use an audit

of the packaging currently used in the fast food industry was performed and

combined with expert reports from the literature review. Restaurant packaging

included in this audit were the Top 16 Burger quick-service restaurants from QSR

Magazines 2011 Special Report: The QSR 50. The Top 16 restaurants included:

McDonaldʼs, Wendyʼs, Burger King, Sonic Drive-Inn, Jack In The Box, Dairy

Queen, Hardeeʼs, Carlʼs Jr, Whataburger, Five Guys Burgers & Fries, Steak ʻn

Shake, Culverʼs, Checkers/Rallyʼs, White Castle, In-N-Out Burger, and Krystal

(http://www.qsrmagazine.com/reports/2011-qsr-50). A detailed version of data

gathered in the retail audit is available in Appendix A. Reports from the literature

47

review including, The Foodservice Instituteʼs 2010-2012 Market Research Study

on Foodservice Packaging Products and Single-Use Foodservice Packaging: A

Tutorial, were also taken into account when selecting the container styles and

materials.

The most commonly used containers and materials according to the audit

and reports were included in the study to make results as applicable to the

current fast food industry as possible. Container styles selected were the

clamshells and wrap. Materials included were: paperboard, polystyrene (oriented

and expanded), bagasse, paper, and foil. A total of 9 containers/stimuli were

incorporated.

The containers had no added graphics or branding to prevent any bias or

brand preferences. Inside the testing environment, CU-Cafe, three tables were

set-up as observation booths. A researcher was seated behind the counter

throughout the experiment incase participants had any questions or problems.

Figure 9. Black tray used to present containers

48

The containers were each presented on a single black foodservice tray

and placed in the middle of the observation booth. The food tray can be seen in

Figure 9. Each container was identified using a blind code, which in this case was

a randomly generated three-digit number. Three of the nine containers were

tested each day, the containers tested included:

• Day 1

o 170- Expanded polystyrene (EPS) clamshell

o 236- Oriented polystyrene (OPS) clamshell

Figure 10. CU-café floor plan and table layout

49

o 430- Bagasse clamshell

• Day 2

o 852- White paperboard clamshell

o 305- Orange paperboard clamshell

o 709- Kraft paperboard clamshell

• Day 3

o 321- Foil wrap

o 654- Paper wrap

o 752- E-flute corrugated clamshell

Appendix A contains a table with more detailed information on the

containers, materials, and their properties. The orange paperboard container was

included to test the assumption that participants would be partial to a container

with added color or graphics when compared to the white paperboard. The

bagasse clamshell was included to represent many new environmentally friendly

packaging options that are increasingly available. The bagasse containers are

composed of sugar cane fiber waste left after juice extraction, and are 100%

decomposable and biodegradable. Table 2 below shows images of each

container and the corresponding day it was tested. All clamshell containers were

approximately the same size. The Paper wrap and Foil wrap were similar in

thickness, and also in size when flat.

50

Each container held a burger inside, but was presented closed on the tray

to participants. For the pilot study a McDonaldʼs Single Cheeseburger was used

inside the containers, see Figure 11. All containers held identical burgers with the

same bun, toppings, condiments, etc. All containers and burgers were replaced

with new/unused products each hour between participants to ensure the stimuli

remained visually consistent across all participants.

The order the samples were evaluated in was balanced across

respondents, so each sample was evaluated (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th) as equally as

possible using a balanced Latin square design. The study ran 480 minutes each

day (9:00am to 5:00pm); the three containers each day were rotated

approximately every 80 minutes to maintain the balance.

Table 2 Pilot study containers

51

Survey

To collect data from participants a paper-and-pencil style questionnaire

was used. The survey was created and printed from a web-based service

provided by Survey Monkey Inc. (www.surveymonkey.com). The questionnaire

was developed from the literature review and pre-tested (Presser, Couper, &

Lessler, 2004) prior to the pilot study. The outcome of this pretesting process was

the development of a self-administered paper-and-pencil questionnaire. During

the pre-testing certain language used in the questionnaire was identified to be

unclear and confusing, including the phrase “quick-service restaurant”, which was

changed to “fast-food restaurant” and the term “packaging”, which was changed

to “container”. Several respondents indicated they were unsure of how well the

term “packaging” applied to the paper and foils wraps.

Figure 11. McDonaldʼs single cheeseburger, food product used for pilot study

52

The survey contained four main sections. The full pilot study survey

questionnaire is available to view in Appendix E. The first section consisted of

questions about the visual appearance of the burger in each container.

Participants were asked to rate on a 7-point Likert-scale the extent to which they

agreed or disagreed with a set of attributes. After viewing and interacting with

each sample in its container the participant rated based on the following

attributes: appealing, neat, messy, purchasable, high quality, tasty, attractive,

fresh, and premium. Participants were also asked how much they would be

willing to pay for each burger (Miller & Hofstetter, 2011).

The second section contained general fast food preference and habits

questions used to develop a profile of the sample population and compare it to

past research in the fast food industry. The third section of the survey asked

participants if they noticed a distinct difference in the burger packaging and they

were asked to rate which container they preferred then explain why in an open-

ended format question. Participants were asked to rate on a scale of one to ten

the importance of packaging in fast food and then describe the characteristics

that are most important to them in fast food packaging. The fourth and final

section of the survey involved basic demographic questions, which help to better

understand and characterize the sample population.

53

Experimental Procedure

Participants were verbally recruited from the Pack Expo 2012 attendees.

Prior to entering CU-cafe each participant was pre-screened to ensure they had

no food allergies and were asked if they consented to being observed for the

experiment. Participants were allowed into the testing environment one at a time,

each participant took around fifteen minutes on average to complete the study.

Participant was then escorted to the study area and given a self-response survey

packet to complete. The researcher then instructed the participant to read over

the following instructions printed at the front of the survey:

• There are three observation booths set up around the store.

• Please visit each booth to complete survey pages 1-3.

• After you have completed pages 1-3 please feel free to take a seat at the

front of the room to complete the remainder of the survey.

• DO NOT consume the food.

• Feel free to open, touch, and interact with the food as you normally would.

• If you have any questions please ask the attendant behind the counter.

If the participant had no questions they began the study. The participant

then proceeded to view and answer survey questions about each sample. They

walked to all three booths to view the containers and answer the corresponding

54

survey questions. When finished the participant handed their survey to the

researcher. After completing the survey participants were verbally asked for any

feedback they had regarding the format of the questions and/or the study

procedure. This feedback was taken into account for the full scale research

study. Participants were then given a koozie or tote bag as reward for their

participation.

Statistical Analysis

A within stages mixed model design, where quantitative and qualitative

approaches are mixed within one or more of the stages of research, was used for

this study (Johnson & Onwuegbuzi, 2004). Due to the exploratory nature and

desired outcome of the pilot study much of the data collected was qualitative,

involving open-ended questions. The analysis was performed to find the

patterns/common themes, which emerged around specific items. Response

categories were designed from the most common words or phrases that

appeared in participant answers. All responses were assigned an appropriate

category, which was represented by a key words/phrases found.

The quantitative data collected including attributes ratings were analyzed

using a repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). Repeated measures

ANOVAs were conducted for each attribute to determine whether there were

statistically significant differences in the mean rating of the attribute based on the

55

container presented. The ratings were treated as the source of variance. The

data for each attribute was assessed for normal distribution using a boxplot and

the Shapiro-Wilk test. The assumption of sphericity was also assessed using

Mauchly's Test of Sphericity. If sphericity was violated the Greenhouse-Geisser

correction was applied.

All statistical analysis information and tables for pilot study data are

located in Appendix C. Due to the fact that participants each day saw only three

of the nine stimuli, each day has separate ANOVA tables for each attribute.

Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS 20.0.0 (2011, PASW Statistics,

Chicago, IL).

Results, Discussion, & Application

Results from the pilot study, are presented and discussed in this section,

and then their application to the full scale study is reviewed. Overall the 71

participants included in the analysis indicated that they considered fast food

packaging importance as 6.61 out of 10. Of the 71 participants 83.10% claimed

they ate fast food at least a few times a month. When asked about fast food

consumption habits the most common meal eaten was “Lunch” (67.61%) and the

most common location was “In Car” (40.85%).

Figure 12 presents results from all respondent data collected regarding

fast food consumption habits. The sample of participants used in the pilot study

56

had a very similar profile to current fast food market research from the literature

review.

Participants rated the food containers they viewed based on nine

attributes including: appealing, neat, messy, purchasable, high quality, tasty,

attractive, fresh, and premium. A 7-pt Likert-scale (1-Strongly Disagree to 7-

Strongly Agree) was used to rate all attributes. Appendix B contains charts

(a) (b)

(c)

Figure12. Pie charts of survey Section 2 results. Respondents were asked (a) How often do

you eat fast food? (b) Where do you normally eat fast food after you purchase it? (c) For which

meal for you most often eat fast food?

57

representing each attribute and displaying the mean ratings for each of the 9

containers in relation to the attributes, significance is shown using error bars.

After viewing and rating the samples based on the presented attributes

each participant was asked to select how much they would pay for each sample

from the price ranges presented, results are shown below in Figure13 classified

by container.

Figure 13. Chart of participant responses indicating how much they would pay for each sample (when selecting from four ranges: $0.00-$2.00, $2.00-

$4.00, $4.00-$6.00, $6.00-$8.00)

58

Each participant was asked if they noticed a distinct difference in the

containers each sample was presented in and if so, which package they

preferred. All participants included in the analysis answered yes to noticing a

distinct difference in containers. These results are presented below in Figure 14.

Since the sample size on Day 2 was not equal to Day 1 & Day 3 the preference

data has been weighted accordingly. Materials that were tested on the same day

are located adjacent to each other in groups of three on the chart in Figure 14.

Figure 14. Pie chart of Section 3 survey results. Respondents were asked, which package/container did you prefer? (Day 1: Clear (OPS), Bagasse, EPS; Day 2: White Paperboard, Orange Paperboard, Kraft Paperboard; Day 3: Foil Wrap, Paper Wrap, E-flute)

59

Participants were asked two open-ended questions in the survey. The

questions are listed in Table 3 along with the most common response categories.

When responding to the open-ended questions in the survey more than half of

the participants mentioned the importance of environmentally friendly packaging

that protects the product, and presents the product in an attractive way. The main

issues raised with current fast food packaging included grease leaking or

toppings.

The open-ended question data collected from participants was used in

development of the survey for the full scale study. The following comment from a

respondent illustrates these themes:

Open-Ended Question Response Categories

Please explain why you preferred this package.

Please briefly describe characteristics that are important to you in fast

food packaging.

Eco Friendly/ Recyclable Protects productPresentation Environmentally FriendlyClean/Neat Does not leakKeeps food warm Easy to eat fromColor Keeps food warmProtection PresentationHigh Qualty/ Premium Natural

Table 3 Open-ended survey questions from pilot study

60

“I look for environmentally friendly packaging, it must support and contain

food. The food should be kept warm and it should be easy to clean up. I

like the sturdiness of boxes, they seem to protect the food. I try to avoid

Styrofoam because it is not microwave-friendly and it takes the longest to

decompose in waste facilities.”

Discussion

The results from the pilot study suggested several interesting concepts,

which were then taken into account when designing the full scale study. In the

quantitative analysis of the attributes the paper and foil wraps, which are

commonly used and inexpensive compared to other alternatives, were rated

significantly lower than the E-flute clamshell for all attributes. While significance

between the paper and foil wraps and materials tested on day 1 and 2 cannot be

directly determined, due to separate samples, the mean ratings were

suggestively lower than other materials. Though the foil wrap was selected

slightly more than the paper wrap the two materials received nearly identical

ratings for each attribute, suggesting consumers perceive the wraps as

comparable. The foil and paper wrap ratings for “messy” were significantly higher

than all other materials and for “neat” they were significantly lower, indicating that

consumers do not perceive these packages as an alternative

61

Environmentally friendly packaging characteristics were mentioned as very

important for open-ended response questions. However, the environmentally

friendly packaging materials presented, including the paperboard and bagasse

clamshells, received low mean ratings based on the extrinsic attributes appeal,

high quality, attractive, and premium. This suggests that while consumers value

packaging which is considered environmentally friendly, they do not perceive it to

be aesthetically pleasing.

The three containers tested on day 2, the white paperboard clamshell,

orange paperboard clamshell, and Kraft paperboard clamshell, had similar mean

ratings on many attributes. Several respondents indicated that the orange

paperboard clamshell was more attractive and a higher quality because of the

added color. This information was taken into account in the full scale study, as no

color or graphics were present on the stimuli.

The E-flute container had the highest overall mean ratings for nearly all

attributes presented, however the EPS container was rated similarly in several

categories and higher based on the attribute “tasty”. Many respondents indicated

they preferred these materials due to their insulation and containment properties.

This suggests that the consumer perception of food quality in QSRs could be

influenced based on how well a package retains heat and keeps the product

inside protected.

62

Application to Full Scale Study

Several key findings presented in the pilot study results were applied to

the full scale study. The characteristics participants indicated were most

important in fast food packaging were included and categorized as functionality

or credence attributes for the full scale study. The materials used were cut to four

from the nine used in the pilot which helped narrow the scope of the study and

find more meaningful results. Suggestions regarding the study techniques and

survey instrument were collected verbally from participants and applied to the full

scale study as well. Overall, the pilot study helped refine proper attributes and

procedures for the full scale study.

Limitations

The major limitation of this study involved the presentation of stimuli in that

each participant was only able to see three of the nine total stimuli. This limitation

was present because of time and space constraints in the testing environment.

Creating these three groups of stimuli, one for each day, limited the statistical

analysis between all of the stimuli. However, the due to the fact that all three

sample groups came from the same population certain conclusions can be drawn

from the data.

Due to restrictions at testing location participants were not allowed to

actually consume any food products. This restricted the range of the survey, as

63

we were not able to collect any type of sensory responses from participants. The

area of the exhibit where the testing environment was located had a lot of

background noise and inconsistent lighting conditions, which could have been a

factor in participant ratings of the containers. In general a more controlled

environment may have been beneficial, for the pilot study.

64

CHAPTER FOUR

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Objectives

The purpose of this research is to determine if consumer quality

perception of food products in quick-service restaurants varies depending on the

material properties of the packaging in which the food product is presented.

Location

The entire study took place in the Wendyʼs restaurant located on Clemson

University campus. The employees and management of the Wendyʼs restaurant

were briefed regarding the testing procedure and assisted the researchers where

possible. An isolated area in the back of the store was chosen as the testing

environment. The area was blocked off and supervised by researchers to prevent

any distractions for participants. Two sensory booths were setup around pre-

existing tables in the area. The booth contained several items including: a laptop

computer (to administer the survey), a bottle of water, a note pad and pen,

napkins, cutlery, and condiments. Lighting in and around each booth was

consistent, and the background noise level was fairly stable throughout the

testing

This realistic environment is ideal when testing packaging and also food

products. According to Meyers & Lubliner (1998) realistic test markets are the

65

“most ideal method of confirming the effectiveness of a new package design

program...”. Sensory research involving food acceptance according to Meiselman

(1992, 1993, 1994, 2001) should take place where the food is consumed, since it

is in that environment that consumers form their judgment of quality.

Participants

Participants in the full scale study were students and employees of

Clemson University. The study took place over two days and there were a total of

110 participants who completed the survey. The participants consisted of

including, 72 male respondents (65.50%) and 37 female respondents (34.55%)

and 1 other respondent (0.91%). Participant ages ranged from 18-59 years, with

93.9% in the 18-29 age range. Education level of participants varied, 12.73% of

participants had a high school degree or equivalent, 66.36% of participants had

some college but no degree and 14.55% had a bachelor degree.

Participants rated the importance of packaging fast food as a 6.73 on

average, which was slightly higher than the pilot study average. Participants were

also asked an open-ended question regarding packaging characteristics in fast

food. The responses were similar to those of the pilot study. The most common

answer categories are presented in Table 4.

All participants were randomly selected and recruited verbally, no

incentive was initially offered. There were two conditions in the experiment the

66

condition assigned to each participant was based on the day they participated.

Participants were instructed that they were volunteers and could choose to not

participate at anytime during the study. All demographic data collected for the full

scale study is available in Appendix D.

In addition to the basic demographic data collected, participants were

asked a series of fast food preferences and habits questions in Section 1 of the

survey. This data was compared to the current research regarding the fast food

target market in order to confirm the sample population. Figure 15 contains pie

charts of the results from Section 1 of the questionnaire.

Open-Ended Question Response Categories

Please briefly describe characteristics that are important to you in fast food

packaging.

Easy to OpenProtects ProductContains GreaseKeeps Product WarmEnvironmentally FriendlyPortable

Table 4 Open-ended survey question from full scale study

67

Figure 15. Pie charts of survey Section 2 results. Respondents were asked (a) How often do you eat fast food? (b) Where do you normally eat fast food after you purchase it? (c)

How much do you spend on average? (d) For which meal for you most often eat fast food? (e) Do you normally walk inside or used a drive-

thru to purchase fast food?

(a) (d)

(b)

(c)

(e)

68

Experimental Design

Participants sampled four food products each and rated each products

packaging according to a set list of attributes. The design used for this

experiment was a monadic sequential scheme meaning each respondent was be

asked to evaluate multiple or all stimuli in a rotated fashion, one after the other.

Respondents were evenly distributed across all stimuli as a starting point, so they

had an identical chance of seeing each of the stimuli first (http://www.sensory

society.org/).

Each participant was required to complete the computerized self-

administered survey in order to receive their participation incentive, a coupon for

a free food product and their remaining samples. The order in which each

participant saw each survey section stayed consistent, however the questions

within each section were randomized using the randomization tool in Survey

Monkey.

Results from the literature review, pilot study, and retail audit were used to

determine the four distinct types of containers tested in this study. The F-flute

container and Paper wrap were included because they had interesting results

from the pilot study and are commonly used in the QSR industry. The paperboard

clamshell, which was determined to be the industry standard container in the

literature review and retail audit was included, as well as the EPS clamshell. The

containers had no added graphics or branding to prevent any bias as was

69

observed in the pilot study when a solid color clamshell was tested. All materials

were white in color as well due to the observed preference towards colorful

containers suggested in the pilot study. Images of containers used as stimuli can

be seen in Figure 16.

The containers used were almost identical in shape, except for the paper

wrap, which was not a clamshell structure. All containers used were food-safe

and had similar grease resistance properties. The clamshell structures all had

approximately the same size, between 3 to 3.375 inches in height, between 4.5

to 5 inches width, and between 4.5 to 5 inches in length. The weight of all three

clamshells was also approximately the same. Each container/ sample was

identified using randomly generated three-digit number, known as a blind code.

Figure 16. Four containers selected for full scale study

70

Appendix A contains more detailed information regarding the containers used

and their materials.

All four of the containers were tested containing two different food

products, a burger and chicken sandwich. In the Burger condition participants

received containers containing a Single 1/4 lb. Hamburger. In the Chicken

condition participants received containers containing a Homestyle Chicken

Sandwich. The Single 1/4 lb. Hamburger and Homestyle Chicken Sandwich both

weigh approximately 250 grams and are approximately 4” x 4” x 2.75” in size.

(http://www.wendys.com/). In both conditions, participants filled out an identical

computer administered questionnaire with items that reflected what they

experienced while interacting with or while eating from the container. The food

products used as stimuli can be seen in Figure 17. The only topping included on

the food products were lettuce and tomato, this was held consist across both

conditions.

Figure 17. The food product used for testing Wendyʼs Homestyle Chicken

Sandwich and Single 1/4 lb. Hamburger

71

The average lag time between the food product cooking, being put into the

container, and presented to the participant was around 30 seconds. All food

products were cooked or “dropped” separately to ensure freshness and to

maintain a constant serving temperature. The researcher presented to food to

participants directly in an isolated testing area so they had no interaction with

restaurant employees, this was an attempt to control for the service factor in

restaurant environments.

Survey

The instrument used to collect data from participants was a survey

questionnaire administered on a laptop computer at each booth. The survey was

created and administered using a web-based service provided by Survey Monkey

Inc. (www.surveymonkey.com). The survey was developed from the literature

review, pre-tested in the pilot study, and adjusted according to the findings. The

survey was organized into 7 major sections, which included:

1. Fast food preferences and habits

2. Sensory acceptance evaluation

3. Willingness to pay/re-purchase intent

4. Functionality attributes

5. Perceived attributes

72

6. Fast food packaging

7. Demographic profile

The complete survey used for the full scale study is available to view in

Appendix E. The first section of the survey consisted of general fast food

preference and habits questions regarding consumption time, location, and

frequency. Section 2 of the survey contained sensory questions regarding flavor,

texture, and overall liking of the product, which are experience attributes. The

goal was to finding overall preference or liking for a product. Acceptance testing

was used to determine how much each sample was liked based on a 7-point

hedonic scale for a set of attributes including: overall liking, flavor, and texture

(where 7=like extremely and 1=dislike extremely). The FACT (food action rating

scale) developed by Schutz (1965) was used to measure overall acceptance.

The FACT scale is a highly recommended tool used by the food scientists to

estimate overall food acceptance.

The acceptance testing and FACT were appropriate for this because they

do not require trained panelists. Section 3 of the survey measured the

participants willingness to pay by asking which sample would you choose to

purchase if these were the only options available (A “none” choice option was

included). Participants were also asked to rank the samples by how willing they

would be to repurchase them (1-most willing to 4-least willing). Section 4 of the

73

survey asked about the functionality attributes of the container for each sample.

Participants were asked to rate on a 7-point Likert scale the extent to which they

agreed or disagreed with each of the following descriptions in regard to the

functionality of each container: easy to carry, contains product, keeps product

warm, easy to open, and protects product.

Section 5 of the survey inquired about the perceived attributes of the

container for each sample, which are considered credence qualities due to their

abstract nature. Participants were asked to rate on a 7-point Likert scale the

extent to which they agreed or disagreed with each of the following attributes in

regard to the physical qualities of each container: natural, environmentally

friendly, modern, neat, and premium. Section 6 asked questions about the

importance of packaging in fast food and presented an open-ended question

about what characteristics are most important for the packaging. Section 7 was

the final section of the survey and included basic demographic questions.

Experimental Procedure

All research was conducted in accordance with procedures approved by

IRB2013-062: Fast Food Packaging Evaluation. Prior to beginning the

experiment participants were screened to ensure no food allergies existed. Each

participant was reminded that his or her participation was voluntary. Participants

74

sign in and were given a participant number. They were then escorted to an open

booth and given basic instructions.

The sensory booth can be seen in Figure 18, the booth contained a laptop

computer to complete the survey on, a bottle of water, several napkins, hand

wipes, silverware, and a container of condiments. The researcher then instructed

each participant to read the instructions on the screen and proceed if they had no

questions. After finishing section 1 the survey informed participants to alert the

researcher to bring the first randomly assigned sample in their condition.

Presentation of samples was balanced between participants using a Williams

design latin square to account for first order carryover effects (Williams, 1949).

The latin square table design for experiment can be seen in Appendix A.

Participants were presented with one sample container at a time.

Containers held either a Single ¼ lb. Hamburger or a Homestyle Chicken

Sandwich, presented in Figure 17. For each sample participants filled out an

identical set of survey questions. After completing the set of survey questions for

each sample, they received the next sample, but the previous sample remained

on the table. The survey instructions guided participants to Section 3 after all four

samples had been evaluated and the corresponding survey questions completed.

At this point in the survey the ongoing interaction between the participant and

researcher ceased, unless participant had a question regarding the survey.

75

Section 3 instructed participants to consider all four containers and to ranking the

sample containers based willingness to buy.

Section 4 and section 5 asked questions regarding the containers/

packaging directly rather than the sample. Functional qualities as well as

perceived physical qualities of each container were ranked. Section 6 asked

participants about the importance of packaging for fast food and an open-ended

which requested participants name the most important characteristic in fast food

packaging. The final section, Section 7, of the survey asked basic demographic

Figure 18. Sensory booth set-up inside the testing environment

76

questions. The survey then instructed participants to alert researcher they had

completed the study. The researcher then gave the participant their coupon for a

free food item and thanked them for their participation. The booth area was then

cleared of any trash, cleaned, and set up for the next participant. If requested,

after collecting their response data, each participant was fully debriefed as to the

nature and purpose of the experiment.

Statistical Analysis

In order to determine whether the material of the containers exerted a

significant effect on the perceived quality attributes measured, a repeated

measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on each set of data

considering the attributes as dependent variables. The container material

(Paperboard, E-flute, EPS, Paper wrap) was considered a fixed source of

variation, the independent variable.

Prior to running the repeated measures ANOVA data was assessed by a

boxplot and Shapiro-Wilk test to make sure there were no outliers and that the

data was normally distributed for each group. The assumption of sphericity was

also evaluated prior to running the ANOVA, using Mauchly's Test of Sphericity. If

the assumption of sphericity was violated then a Greenhouse-Geisser correction

was applied. If any significance was found a post-hoc analysis with a Bonferroni

adjustment was applied to determine where the group differences lie with paired

77

comparisons were completed using t-tests All repeated measures ANOVA tables

as well as the results from the pre and post tests are available in Appendix D.

78

CHAPTER FIVE

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The goal of this research was to determine if consumer quality perception

of food products in quick-service restaurants varies depending on the material

properties of the packaging in which the food product is presented. Quality

perception in this study is assessed using 14 predetermined attributes, which

were divided into three categories including: sensory, functionality, and credence.

Participants were also asked to indicate their preference and rank the containers

depending on how willing they would be to repurchase the sample. Means ratings

on bar charts with different letters are significantly different (Bonferonni, p<.05).

Sensory Attributes

ContainerPaper wrapEPSF-flutePaperboard

5.845.935.785.755.295.355.315.29M

ean

Rat

ing

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

ChickenBurger

Condition

Error Bars: +/- 1 SE

Figure 19. Mean ratings for sensory attribute Flavor

a a

a a a

a a

a

79

The mean ratings based on the sensory attribute “Flavor” can be seen in

Figure 19 (Means with different letters are significantly different [Bonferonni.

p<.05]) A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to determine whether there

were statistically significant differences in the mean ratings based on attribute

“Flavor”, with the four material “Flavor” ratings as a source of variance and also

the material “Flavor” ratings within conditions (material*condition) as a source of

variance. There were no outliers and the data was normally distributed for each

group, as assessed by boxplot and Shapiro-Wilk test (p < .05), respectively. The

assumption of sphericity was not violated, as assessed by Mauchly's Test of

Sphericity, χ2(2) 9.857, p = .079. The material interaction did not lead to any

statistically significant changes in “Flavor” ratings for the food product, F(3,324) =

.322, p = .810. The material*condition interaction did not lead to any statistically

significant changes in “Flavor” ratings for the food product, F(3,324) = .114, p =

.952. While no significance was observed between containers based on the

“Flavor” attribute the results show an interesting trend in respect to the

conditions. The “Burger” condition over all materials had an average mean rating

range of 5.29-5.35 and the “Chicken” condition had a slightly higher average

mean rating range of 5.75-5.93. This suggests a high level of “Flavor”

consistency between the food products in each respective condition, with the

“Chicken” condition product having slightly higher “Flavor” ratings than the

“Burger”.

80

The mean ratings based on the sensory attribute “Texture” can be seen in

Figure 20. A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to determine whether

there were statistically significant differences in the mean ratings based on

attribute “Texture”, with the four material “Texture” ratings as a source of variance

and also the material “Texture” ratings within conditions (material*condition) as a

source of variance. There were no outliers and the data was normally distributed

for each group, as assessed by boxplot and Shapiro-Wilk test (p < .05),

respectively. The assumption of sphericity was violated, as assessed by

Mauchly's Test of Sphericity, χ2(2) 14.020, p = .015. Therefore, a Greenhouse-

Geisser correction was applied (ε = 0.928). The material interaction did not lead

to any statistically significant changes in texture ratings for the food product,

F(2.784,300.667) = 1.782, p = .155. The material*condition interaction did not

ContainerPaper wrapEPSF-flutePaperboard

Mea

n R

atin

g

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

5.585.755.785.95

5.155.385.315.16

ChickenBurger

Condition

Error Bars: +/- 1 SE

Figure 20. Mean ratings for sensory attribute Texture

a

a a

a a

a a

a

81

lead to any statistically significant changes in texture ratings for the food product,

F(2.784,300.667) = .954, p = .410.

While no significance was observed between containers based on the

“Texture” attribute the results show a similar trend as the “Flavor” attribute with

respect to the conditions. The “Burger” condition over all materials had an

average mean rating range of 5.15-5.38 and the “Chicken” condition had a

slightly higher average mean rating range of 5.58-5.95. This suggests a high

level of “Texture” consistency between the food products in each respective

condition, with the “Chicken” condition product having slightly higher “Texture”

ratings than the “Burger”.

Container

Paper wrapEPSF-flutePaperboard

Mea

n R

atin

g

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

5.675.895.805.655.115.385.315.24

ChickenBurger

Condition

Error Bars: +/- 1 SE

Figure 21. Mean ratings for sensory attribute Overall Liking

a a

a a

a a

a a

82

The mean ratings based on the sensory attribute “Overall Liking” can be

seen in Figure 21(Means with different letters are significantly different

(Bonferonni, p<.05). A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to determine

whether there were statistically significant differences in the mean ratings based

on attribute “Overall Liking”, with the four material “Overall Liking” ratings as a

source of variance and also the material “Overall Liking” ratings within conditions

(material*condition) as a source of variance. There were no outliers and the data

was normally distributed for each group, as assessed by boxplot and Shapiro-

Wilk test (p < .05), respectively. The assumption of sphericity was violated, as

assessed by Mauchly's Test of Sphericity, χ2(2) 12.885, p = .024. Therefore, a

Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied (ε = 0.966). The material interaction

did not lead to any statistically significant changes in “Overall Liking” ratings for

the food product, F(2.791,301.461) = 1.486, p = .221. The material*condition

interaction did not lead to any statistically significant changes in overall ratings for

the food product, F(2.791,301.461) = .111, p = .945.

While no significance was observed between containers based on the

“Overall Liking” attribute the results show a similar trend as the “Flavor” and

“Texture” attributes with respect to the conditions. The “Burger” condition over all

materials had an average mean rating range of 5.11-5.38 and the “Chicken”

condition had a slightly higher average mean rating range of 5.65-5.89. This

suggests a high level of “Overall Liking” consistency between the food products

83

in each respective condition, with the “Chicken” condition product having slightly

higher “Overall Liking” ratings than the “Burger”.

The mean ratings based on the sensory attribute “Acceptance” can be

seen in Figure 22. It should be noted that the “Acceptance” attribute was not

evaluated using a standard Likert scale, the Food Action Rating Scale (FACT)

was used (Schutz, 1965). A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to

determine whether there were statistically significant differences in the mean

ratings based on attribute “Acceptance” with the four material “Acceptance”

ratings as a source of variance and also the material “Acceptance” ratings within

conditions (material*condition) as a source of variance. There were no outliers

and the data was normally distributed for each group, as assessed by boxplot

ContainerPaper wrapEPSF-flutePaperboard

Mea

n R

atin

g7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

5.786.045.855.875.31

5.655.715.51

ChickenBurger

Condition

Error Bars: +/- 1 SE

Figure 22. Mean ratings for sensory attribute Acceptance

a a a a a

a a a

84

and Shapiro-Wilk test (p < .05), respectively. The assumption of sphericity was

not violated, as assessed by Mauchly's Test of Sphericity, χ2(2) 10.350, p = .066.

The material interaction did not lead to any statistically significant changes in

“Acceptance” ratings for the food product, F(3, 324) = 1.638, p = .181. The

material*condition interaction did not lead to any statistically significant changes

in “Acceptance” ratings for the food product, F(3, 324) = .466, p = .707.

While no significance was observed between containers based on the

“Acceptance” attribute the results show a similar trend as the “Flavor”, “Texture”,

and “Overall Liking” attributes with respect to the conditions. The “Burger”

condition over all materials had an average mean rating range of 5.31-5.71 and

the “Chicken” condition had a slightly higher average mean rating range of 5.38-

6.04. This suggests a high level of “Acceptance” consistency between the food

products in each respective condition, with the “Chicken” condition product

having slightly higher “Acceptance” ratings than the “Burger”.

Functionality Attributes

The mean ratings based on the functionality attribute “Protects Product”

can be seen in Figure 23. A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to

determine whether there were statistically significant differences in the mean

ratings based on attribute “Protects Product” with the four material “Protects

Product” ratings as a source of variance and also the material “Protects

85

Product” ratings within conditions (material*condition) as a source of variance.

There were no outliers and the data was normally distributed for each group, as

assessed by boxplot and Shapiro-Wilk test (p < .05), respectively. The

assumption of sphericity was violated, as assessed by Mauchly's Test of

Sphericity, χ2(2) 49.523, p < .05. Therefore, a Greenhouse-Geisser correction

was applied (ε = 0.754). The material interaction elicited statistically significant

changes in “Protects Product” ratings for the samples, F(2.263, 244.397) =

147.946, p < .05. The material*condition interaction did not lead to any

statistically significant changes in “Protects Product” for the samples, F(2.263,

244.397) = 1.152, p = .322. Post-hoc analysis with a Bonferroni adjustment

revealed that “Protects Product” rating was statistically significantly different

between the Paperboard and Paper Wrap (M = 2.482, 95% CI [1.946 to 3.018], p

Figure 23. Mean ratings for functionality attribute “Protects Product”

ContainerPaper wrapEPSF-flutePaperboard

Mea

n R

atin

g

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

3.27

6.296.275.91

3.31

5.826.29

5.64

ChickenBurger

Condition

Error Bars: +/- 1 SE

b b

a a

a a a a

86

< .05), F-flute and Paper Wrap (M = 2.991, 95% CI [2.493 to 3.488], p < .05),

EPS and Paper Wrap (M = 2.764, 95% CI [2.261 to 3.266], p < .05), but not

between the Paperboard and EPS (M = .282, 95% CI [.637 to .073], p =.211),

Paperboard and F-flute (M = 0.509, 95% CI [.861 to .158], p = .001) or the F-flute

and EPS (M = .277, 95% CI [.077 to .532], p =.285).

The significance observed between containers based on the “Protects

Product” attribute show that the Paper Wrap is perceived by consumers to

protect the product it contains significantly less than all other containers tested.

The Paperboard, F-flute, and EPS containers all have high mean ratings of

“Protects Product” with the “F-flute Burger” and “EPS Chicken” having the highest

mean rating of 6.29. These results suggest that when companies are looking for

fast food packaging to protect the food product from a consumer perspective a

Paper wrap should avoided and other alternatives such as the Paperboard, F-

flute, and EPS containers should be researched further.

The mean ratings based on the functionality attribute “Easy to Open” can

be seen in Figure 24. A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to determine

whether there were statistically significant differences in the mean ratings based

on attribute “Easy to Open” with the four material “Easy to Open” ratings as a

source of variance and also the material “Easy to Open” ratings within conditions

(material*condition) as a source of variance. There were no outliers and the data

was normally distributed for each group, as assessed by boxplot and Shapiro-

87

Wilk test (p < .05), respectively. The assumption of sphericity was violated, as

assessed by Mauchly's Test of Sphericity, χ2(2) 38.277, p < .05. Therefore, a

Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied (ε = 0.810). The material interaction

elicited statistically significant changes in “Easy to Open” ratings for the samples,

F(2.431, 262.505) = 147.946, p < .05. The material*condition interaction did not

lead to any statistically significant changes in “Easy to Open” for the samples,

F(2.431,262.505) = .401, p =.710. Post-hoc analysis with a Bonferroni

adjustment revealed that “Easy to Open” rating was statistically significantly

different between Paperboard and F-flute (M = 1.218, 95% CI [.686 to .1750], p <

.05), Paperboard and EPS (M = 1.945, 95% CI [1.337 to 2.554], p < .05)

Paperboard and Paper wrap (M = 1.982, 95% CI [1.355 to 2.609], p < .05), F-

flute and EPS (M = .727, 95% CI [.258 to 1.197], p < .05), F-flute and Paper wrap

ContainerPaper wrapEPSF-flutePaperboard

Mea

n R

atin

g

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

6.226.18

5.27

4.22

5.895.855.31

3.93

ChickenBurger

Condition

Error Bars: +/- 1 SE

Figure 24. Mean ratings for functionality attribute “Easy to Open”

a a a a b b

c c

88

(M = .764, 95% CI [.244 to 1.283], p <.05), but not between the Paper Wrap and

EPS (M = .036, 95% CI [.347 to .420], p =1).

The significance observed between containers based on the “Easy to

Open” attribute show that the Paperboard container was perceived by

participants to be significantly more difficult to open than all other containers

tested. The Paper wrap and EPS containers had the highest mean ratings for the

“Easy to Open” attribute, there was not significant difference between them but

they were rated significantly easier to open than the F-flute container. These

results suggest that when companies are looking for fast food packaging that is

considered easy to open from a consumer perspective the Paper wrap and EPS

containers should be researched further

The mean ratings based on the functionality attribute “Contains Product”

ContainerPaper wrapEPSF-flutePaperboard

Mea

n R

atin

g

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

5.00

6.366.536.07

4.89

6.116.29

5.55

ChickenBurger

Condition

Error Bars: +/- 1 SE

Figure 25. Mean ratings for functionality attribute “Contains Product”

b b

a a a a c c

89

can be seen in Figure 25. A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to

determine whether there were statistically significant differences in the mean

ratings based on attribute “Contains Product” with the four material “Contains

Product” ratings as a source of variance and also the material “Contains Product”

ratings within conditions (material*condition) as a source of variance. There were

no outliers and the data was normally distributed for each group, as assessed by

boxplot and Shapiro-Wilk test (p < .05), respectively. The assumption of

sphericity was violated, as assessed by Mauchly's Test of Sphericity, χ2(2)

75.857, p < .05. Therefore, a Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied (ε =

0.713). The material interaction elicited statistically significant changes in

“Contains Product” ratings for the samples, F(2.139, 231.053) = 42.303, p < .05.

The material*condition interaction did not lead to any statistically significant

changes in “Contains Product” for the samples, F(2.139, 231.053) = .766, p

=.474. Post-hoc analysis with a Bonferroni adjustment revealed that “Contains

Product” rating was statistically significantly different between Paperboard and F-

flute (M = .600, 95% CI [.282 to .918], p < .05), Paperboard and EPS (M = .427,

95% CI [.088 to .766], p < .05) Paperboard and Paper Wrap (M = .864, 95% CI

[.367 to 1.361], p < .05), F-flute and Paper wrap (M = 1.464, 95% CI 1.036 to

1.891], p < .05), EPS and Paper wrap (M = 1.291, 95% CI [.864 to 1.718], p

<.05), but not between the F-Flute and EPS (M = .173, 95% CI [-.045 to .390], p

=.210).

90

The significance observed between containers based on the “Contains

Product” attribute show that the F-flute and EPS containers were perceived by

participants to be significantly better than the Paperboard or Paper wrap at

containing the food product. The Paper wrap had the lowest mean ratings for the

“Contains Product” attribute, significantly lower than all other materials tested.

These results suggest that when companies are looking for fast food packaging

that contains the product well from a consumer perspective they should look into

an F-flute or EPS container but avoid a paper wrap.

The mean ratings based on the functionality attribute “Keeps Product

Warm” can be seen in Figure 26. A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted

to determine whether there were statistically significant differences in the mean

ratings based on attribute “Keeps Product Warm” with the four material “Keeps

ContainerPaper wrapEPSF-flutePaperboard

Mea

n R

atin

g

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

3.62

6.135.91

5.20

3.89

5.855.73

4.93

ChickenBurger

Condition

Error Bars: +/- 1 SE

Figure 26. Mean ratings for functionality attribute “Keeps Product Warm”

a a a a

b b

c c

91

Product Warm” ratings as a source of variance and also the material “Keeps

Product Warm” ratings within conditions (material*condition) as a source of

variance. There were no outliers and the data was normally distributed for each

group, as assessed by boxplot and Shapiro-Wilk test (p < .05), respectively. The

assumption of sphericity was violated, as assessed by Mauchly's Test of

Sphericity, χ2(2) 75.857, p < .05. Therefore, a Greenhouse-Geisser correction

was applied (ε = 0.833). The material interaction elicited statistically significant

changes in “Keeps Product Warm” ratings for the samples, F(2.499, 269.857) =

78.693, p < .05. The material*condition interaction did not lead to any statistically

significant changes in “keeps product warm” for the samples, F(2.499, 269.857) =

1.295, p =.277. Post-hoc analysis with a Bonferroni adjustment revealed that

“Keeps Product Warm” rating was statistically significantly different between

Paperboard and F-flute (M = .755, 95% CI [.397 to 1.112], p < .05), Paperboard

and EPS (M = .927, 95% CI [.509 to 1.345], p < .05) Paperboard and Paper Wrap

(M = 1.309, 95% CI [.809 to 1.809], p < .05), F-flute and Paper (M = 2.064, 95%

CI [1.577 to 2.550], p < .05), EPS and Paper wrap (M = 2.236,, 95% CI [1.737 to

2.735], p <.05), but not between the F-Flute and EPS (M = .173, 95% CI [.148 to

.494], p =.906).

The significance observed between containers based on the “Keeps

Product Warm” attribute show that the F-flute and EPS containers were

perceived by participants to be significantly better than the Paperboard or Paper

92

wrap at insulating and keeping the food product warm. The Paper wrap had the

lowest mean ratings for the “Keeps Product Warm” attribute, significantly lower

than all other materials tested. These results suggest that when companies are

looking for fast food packaging which that keeps the food product warm from a

consumer perspective they should look into an F-flute or EPS container but avoid

a paper wrap container.

The mean ratings based on the functionality attribute “Easy to Carry” can

be seen in Figure 27. A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to determine

whether there were statistically significant differences in the mean ratings based

on attribute “Easy to Carry” with the four material “Easy to Carry” ratings as a

source of variance and also the material “Easy to Carry” ratings within conditions

(material*condition) as a source of variance. There were no outliers and the data

ContainerPaper wrapEPSF-flutePaperboard

Mea

n R

atin

g

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

5.36

6.186.18

5.165.475.475.58

4.62

ChickenBurger

Condition

Error Bars: +/- 1 SE

Figure 27. Mean ratings for functionality attribute “Easy to Carry”

a a a

a a

a b

b

93

was normally distributed for each group, as assessed by boxplot and Shapiro-

Wilk test (p < .05), respectively. The assumption of sphericity was violated, as

assessed by Mauchly's Test of Sphericity, χ2(2) 25.165, p < .05. Therefore, a

Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied (ε = 0.859). The material interaction

elicited statistically significant changes in “Easy to Carry” ratings for the samples,

F(2.577, 278.313) = 14.436, p < .05. The material*condition interaction did not

lead to any statistically significant changes in “Easy to Carry” for the samples,

F(2.577, 278.313) = 2.350, p =.082. Post-hoc analysis with a Bonferroni

adjustment revealed that “easy to carry” rating was statistically significantly

different between the Paperboard and F-flute materials (M = .991, 95% CI [.591

to 1.391], p < .05), Paperboard and EPS materials (M = .936, 95% CI [.518 to

1.355], p < .05), but not between the, F-Flute and EPS (M = .055, 95% CI [-.306

to .415], p =1), F-Flute and Paper wrap (M = .464, 95% CI [-.044 to .971],

p=.094), EPS and Paper wrap (M = .409, 95% CI [-.080 to .899], p =.160) .

The significance observed between containers based on the “Easy to

Carry” attribute show that the F-flute and EPS containers were perceived by

participants to be significantly better than the Paperboard container when it

comes to portability. The Paperboard container had the lowest mean ratings for

the “Easy to Carry” attribute, but was not rated significantly lower than the paper

wrap. These results suggest that when companies are looking for fast food

packaging that is considered portable and easy to carry from a consumer

94

perspective they should look into an F-flute or EPS container but avoid a

Paperboard container.

Credence Attributes

The mean ratings based on the credence attribute “Natural” can be seen

in Figure 28. A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to determine whether

there were statistically significant differences in the mean ratings based on

attribute “Natural” with the four material “Natural” ratings as a source of variance

and also the material “Natural” ratings within conditions (material*condition) as a

source of variance. There were no outliers and the data was normally distributed

for each group, as assessed by boxplot and Shapiro-Wilk test (p < .05),

ContainerPaper wrapEPSF-flutePaperboard

Mea

n R

atin

g

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

4.55

3.18

5.24

4.384.02

2.49

5.51

4.55

ChickenBurger

Condition

Error Bars: +/- 1 SE

Figure 28. Mean ratings for credence attribute Natural

a a a a

b b

c c

95

respectively. The assumption of sphericity was violated, as assessed by

Mauchly's Test of Sphericity, χ2(2) 28.441, p < .05. Therefore, a Greenhouse-

Geisser correction was applied (ε = 0.861). The material interaction elicited

statistically significant changes in “Natural” ratings for the samples, F(2.582,

278.830) = 56.482, p < .05. The material*condition interaction did not lead to any

statistically significant changes in “natural” for the samples, F(2.582, 278.830) =

2.494, p =.062. Post-hoc analysis with a Bonferroni adjustment revealed that

“Natural” rating was statistically significantly different between the Paperboard

and F-flute (M = .909, 95% CI [.525 to 1.293], p < .05), Paperboard and EPS (M

= .1.527, 95% CI [1.001 to 2.054], p < .05), F-flute and EPS (M = 2.436, 95% CI

[1.832 to 3.041], p < .05), F-flute and Paper wrap (M = 1.091, 95% CI [.580 to

1.602], p < .05), EPS and Paper wrap (M = 1.345, 95% CI [.812 to 1.879], p <

.05), but not between the Paperboard and Paper wrap (M = .182, 95% CI [-2.82

to .645], p=1). T

The significance observed between containers based on the “Natural”

attribute show that the F-flute container was perceived by participants to be

significantly more natural that all other containers. The EPS container had the

lowest mean ratings for the “Natural” attribute, and was rated significantly less

natural than all other containers presented, meaning participants perceived it to

be the least natural container. The Paper wrap and Paperboard containers had

similar mean “Natural” ratings and were not significantly different. These results

96

suggest that when companies are looking for fast food packaging considered

natural from a consumer perspective they should look into an F-flute but avoid

EPS containers.

The mean ratings based on the credence attribute “Environmentally

Friendly” can be seen in Figure 29. A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted

to determine whether there were statistically significant differences in the mean

ratings based on attribute “Environmentally Friendly” with the four material

“Environmentally Friendly” ratings as a source of variance and also the material

“Environmentally Friendly” ratings within conditions (material*condition) as a

source of variance. There were no outliers and the data was normally distributed

for each group, as assessed by boxplot and Shapiro-Wilk test (p < .05),

ContainerPaper wrapEPSF-flutePaperboard

Mea

n R

atin

g

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

4.56

2.55

5.094.56

4.18

2.44

5.20

4.47

ChickenBurger

Condition

Error Bars: +/- 1 SE

Figure 29. Mean ratings for credence attribute Environmentally Friendly

a a

a a b b

c c

97

respectively. The assumption of sphericity was violated, as assessed by

Mauchly's Test of Sphericity, χ2(2) 24.434, p < .05. Therefore, a Greenhouse-

Geisser correction was applied (ε = 0.871). The material interaction elicited

statistically significant changes in “Environmentally Friendly” ratings for the

samples, F(2.613, 282.174) = 70.494, p < .05. The material*condition interaction

did not lead to any statistically significant changes in “Environmentally Friendly”

for the samples, F(2.613, 282.174) = .602, p =.591. Post-hoc analysis with a

Bonferroni adjustment revealed that “Environmentally Friendly” rating was

statistically significantly different between the Paperboard and F-flute (M = .627,

95% CI [.246 to 1.008], p < .05), Paperboard and EPS (M = 1.918, 95% CI [1.396

to 2.440], p < .05), F-flute and EPS (M = 2.545, 95% CI [1.983 to 3.107], p < .05),

F-flute and Paper wrap (M = .773, 95% CI [.310 to 1.236], p < .05), EPS and

Paper wrap (M = 1.773, 95% CI [1.201 to 2.345], p < .05), but not between the

Paperboard and Paper wrap (M = .145, 95% CI [-2.82 to .583], p=1).

The significance observed between containers based on the

“Environmentally Friendly” attribute show that the F-flute container was perceived

by participants to be significantly more environmentally friendly than all other

containers. The EPS container had the lowest mean ratings for the

“Environmentally Friendly” attribute, and was rated significantly less

environmentally friendly than all other containers presented, meaning participants

perceived it to be the least environmentally friendly container. The Paper wrap

98

and Paperboard containers had similar mean “Environmentally Friendly” ratings

and were not significantly different. These results suggest that when companies

are looking for fast food packaging considered environmentally friendly from a

consumer perspective they should look into an F-flute but avoid EPS containers.

The mean ratings based on the credence attribute “Modern” can be seen

in Figure 30. A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to determine whether

there were statistically significant differences in the mean ratings based on

attribute “Modern” with the four material “Modern” ratings as a source of variance

and also the material “Modern” ratings within conditions (material*condition) as a

source of variance. There were no outliers and the data was normally distributed

for each group, as assessed by boxplot and Shapiro-Wilk test (p < .05),

respectively. The assumption of sphericity was violated, as assessed by

Mauchly's Test of Sphericity, χ2(2) 12.978, p < .05. Therefore, a Greenhouse-

Geisser correction was applied (ε = 0.924). The material interaction elicited

statistically significant changes in “Modern” ratings for the samples, F(2.772,

299.388) = 38.801, p < .05. The material*condition interaction did not lead to any

statistically significant changes in “Modern” for the samples, F(2.772, 299.388) =

.175, p =.901. Post-hoc analysis with a Bonferroni adjustment revealed that

“Modern” rating was statistically significantly different between the Paperboard

and EPS (M = .645, 95% CI [.056 to 1.235], p < .05), Paperboard and Paper

wrap (M = 1.745, 95% CI [1.207 to 2.284], p <.05), F-flute and EPS (M = .882,

99

95% CI [.308 to 1.456], p < .05), F-flute and Paper wrap (M = 1.982, 95% CI

[1.424 to 2.540], p < .05), EPS and Paper wrap (M = 1.100, 95% CI [.580 to

1.620], p < .05), but not between the Paperboard and F-flute (M = .236, 95% CI [-

.693 to .221], p =1).

The significance observed between containers based on the “Modern”

attribute show that the Paperboard and F-flute containers were perceived by

participants to be significantly more modern than the EPS or Paper wrap. The

Paper wrap had the lowest mean ratings for the “Modern” attribute, and was

rated significantly less modern than all other containers presented, meaning

participants perceived it to be the least modern container. The F-Flute and

Paperboard containers had similar mean “Modern” ratings and were not

significantly different. These results suggest that when companies are looking for

ContainerPaper wrapEPSF-flutePaperboard

Mea

n R

atin

g

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

3.13

4.22

4.984.80

3.00

4.11

5.114.82

ChickenBurger

Condition

Error Bars: +/- 1 SE

Figure 30. Mean ratings for credence attribute Modern

a a a a

b b

c c

100

fast food packaging that is considered modern from a consumer perspective they

should look into an F-flute or Paperboard container.

The mean ratings based on the credence attribute “Neat” can be seen in

Figure 31. A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to determine whether

there were statistically significant differences in the mean ratings based on

attribute “Neat” with the four material “Neat” ratings as a source of variance and

also the material “Neat” ratings within conditions (material*condition) as a source

of variance. There were no outliers and the data was normally distributed for

each group, as assessed by boxplot and Shapiro-Wilk test (p < .05), respectively.

The assumption of sphericity was violated, as assessed by Mauchly's Test of

Sphericity, χ2(2) 14.805, p < .05. Therefore, a Greenhouse-Geisser correction

ContainerPaper wrapEPSF-flutePaperboard

Mea

n R

atin

g7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

3.00

5.115.294.95

3.24

4.82

5.56

4.80

ChickenBurger

Condition

Error Bars: +/- 1 SE

Figure 31. Mean ratings for credence attribute Neat

a a a a

b b

c c

101

was applied (ε = 0.918). The material interaction elicited statistically significant

changes in “Neat” ratings for the samples, F(2.755, 297.514) = 55.560, p < .05.

The material*condition interaction did not lead to any statistically significant

changes in “Neat” for the samples, F(2.755, 297.514) = 1.056, p =.364. Post-hoc

analysis with a Bonferroni adjustment revealed that “Neat” rating was statistically

significantly different between the Paperboard and F-flute (M = .555, 95% CI

[.083 to 1.027], p =.012), Paperboard and Paper wrap (M = 1.755, 95% CI [1.175

to 2.334], p <.05), F-flute and EPS (M = .464, 95% CI [.040 to .887], p < .05), F-

flute and Paper wrap (M = 2.309, 95% CI [1.745 to 2.873], p < .05), EPS and

Paper wrap (M = 1.845, 95% CI [1.300 to 2.391], p < .05), but not between the

Paperboard and EPS (M = .091, 95% CI [.411 to .593], p =1).

The significance observed between containers based on the “Neat”

attribute show that the F-flute container was perceived by participants to be

significantly neater than any of the other containers. The Paper wrap had the

lowest mean ratings for the “Neat” attribute, and was rated significantly less neat

than all other containers presented, meaning participants perceived it to be the

least neat container. The Paperboard and EPS containers had similar mean

“Neat” ratings and were not significantly different. These results suggest that

when companies are looking for fast food packaging that is considered neat from

a consumer perspective they should look into an F-flute container and should

avoid a Paper wrap.

102

The mean ratings based on the credence attribute “Premium” can be seen

in Figure 32. A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to determine whether

there were statistically significant differences in the mean ratings based on

attribute ““Premium” with the four material “Premium” ratings as a source of

variance and also the material “Premium” ratings within conditions

(material*condition) as a source of variance. There were no outliers and the data

was normally distributed for each group, as assessed by boxplot and Shapiro-

Wilk test (p < .05), respectively. The assumption of sphericity was violated, as

assessed by Mauchly's Test of Sphericity, χ2(2) 14.117, p < .05. Therefore, a

Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied (ε = 0.914). The material interaction

elicited statistically significant changes in “Premium” ratings for the samples, lead

ContainerPaper wrapEPSF-flutePaperboard

Mea

n R

atin

g

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

2.96

4.02

4.934.49

2.96

3.96

5.024.44

ChickenBurger

Condition

Error Bars: +/- 1 SE

Figure 32. Mean ratings for credence attribute Premium

a a a a

c c

b b

103

to any statistically significant changes in “Premium” for the samples, F(2.743,

296.261) = .055, p =.977. Post-hoc analysis with a Bonferroni adjustment

revealed that “Premium” rating was statistically significantly different between the

Paperboard and F-flute (M = .509, 95% CI [.034 to .984], p < .05), Paperboard

and Paper wrap (M = 1.500, 95% CI [.905 to 2.095], p <.05), F-flute and EPS (M=

.982, 95% CI [.040 to 1.531], p < .05), F-flute and Paper wrap (M = 2.009, 95%

CI [1.383 to 2.635], p < .05), EPS and Paper wrap (M = 1.027, 95% CI [.499 to

1.555], p < .05) but not between the Paperboard and EPS (M = .473, 95% CI [-

.075 to 1.020], p =.133).

The significance observed between containers based on the “Premium”

attribute show that the F-flute container was perceived by participants to be

significantly more premium than all other containers. The Paper wrap had the

lowest mean ratings for the “Premium” attribute, and was rated significantly less

premium than all other containers presented, meaning participants perceived it to

be the least premium container. The Paperboard and EPS containers had similar

mean “Premium” ratings and were not significantly different. These results

suggest that when companies are looking for fast food packaging that is

considered premium from a consumer perspective they should look into an F-

flute container and should avoid a Paper wrap.

104

Preference and Ranking

The preference data for how often each container was selected can be

seen in Figure 33. A chi-square goodness-of-fit test was done for participants

who selected a preference (N=106), the “None” preference was not included.

Table 5 shows the observed and expected values and Table 6 lists the test

statistic, which is not statistically significant: χ2(2) = 2.302, p =.512. From this we

can conclude that there is no statistically significant difference in the preference

of container material between participants existed. The F-flute container was

selected most frequently (N=26), the Paper wrap was selected least frequently

(N=21).

MaterialNonePaper wrapEPSE-flutePaperboard

Perc

ent

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

3.6%

19.1%24.5%

29.1%

23.6%

Figure 33. Chart displaying percentages for how often each container was selected.

105

Con

ditio

n

Chicken

Burger

Count20151050

10.91%

32.73%

1110.00%

109.09%

1412.73%

1311.82%

1513.64%

1715.45%

1412.73%

1210.91%

NonePaper wrapEPSE-flutePaperboard

Prefer

Figure 34. Chart displaying how often each container was selected in each of the conditions

Preference Observed N Expected N Residual Paperboard 26 26.5 -.5 F-flute 32 26.5 5.5 EPS 27 26.5 .5 Paperwrap 21 26.5 -5.5 Total 106

Table 5 Preference Selection

Test Statistics Preference Chi-Square 2.302a df 3 Asymp. Sig. .512 a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected frequencies less than 5. The minimum expected cell frequency is 26.5.

Table 6 Preference Chi-square

106

Preference data for how often each container was selected in each

condition can be seen in Figure 34. A chi-square goodness-of-fit test was done

for participants in each condition who selected a preference (Burger N=52;

Chicken N= 54), the “None” preference was not included. Table 7 shows the

Burger condition observed and expected values and Table 8 lists the test

statistic, which is not statistically significant: χ2(2) = 2.00, p =.572. Table 9 shows

the Chicken condition observed and expected values and Table 10 lists the test

statistic, which is not statistically significant: χ2(2) = .667, p =.881.

Test Statistics Burger Pref Chi-Square 2.000a df 3 Asymp. Sig. .572 a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected frequencies less than 5. The minimum expected cell frequency is 13.0.

Table 8 Burger Chi-Square Burger Preference

Observed N Expected N Residual Paperboard 12 13.0 -1.0 F-flute 17 13.0 4.0 EPS 13 13.0 .0 Paperwrap 10 13.0 -3.0 Total 52

Table 7 Burger Preference Selection

Test Statistics Chicken Pref Chi-Square .667a df 3 Asymp. Sig. .881 a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected frequencies less than 5. The minimum expected cell frequency is 13.5.

Table 10 Chicken Chi-Square Chicken Preference

Observed N Expected N Residual Paperboard 14 13.5 .5 F-flute 15 13.5 1.5 EPS 14 13.5 .5 Paper wrap 11 13.5 -2.5 Total 54

Table 9 Chicken Preference Selection

107

The preference data showed no significant preference overall or in each

condition for the containers. The F-flute container was selected the most and the

Paper wrap was selected the least overall as well as in each condition (Burger

and Chicken). While these results are not significant it they do indicate a possible

difference in preference between the F-flute and Paper wrap. The ranking data

collected is presented below in Table 11 as a Borda count table and by the mean

ratings in Table 12. Both ranking methods produced the same rank outcome. The

F-flute container was ranked as most willing to re-purchase followed by the

Paperboard container, then the EPS container, and finally the Paper wrap. Re-

purchase intent is an important factor in QSRs, this type of ranking data where

participants compare all stimuli is useful to understand consumer preference.

Mean Rating Rank

Paperboard !"#$% !F-Flute !"!% &EPS !"'(% #Paper wrap !"() '

Table 12 Rank Mean Rating

1 2 3 4 Total Rank

Paperboard 120 81 62 21 284 2

F-Flute 132 99 52 17 300 1

EPS 104 90 54 26 274 3

Paper wrap 80 57 50 45 232 4

Table 11 Rank Borda Count

108

CHAPTER SIX

CONCLUSIONS

Fast food has become a major component of the American diet, and the

increase in fast-food use in the United States is likely to continue (Paeratakul &

Ferdinand, 2003). The purpose of this research was to determine if consumer

quality perception of food products in quick-service restaurants varied depending

on the material properties of the packaging in which the food product was

presented.

By testing in a realistic QSR environment and using common foodservice

packaging styles and materials, the research was extremely relevant to the

current fast food industry. Nearly all of the participants in the full scale and pilot

study were part of the target market age range for the fast food industry. Based

on the sensory attribute mean ratings it can be concluded that sensory food

quality perception does not vary depending on packaging material. However,

from the significance found between the participant ratings for certain materials

based on functionality and credence attributes it can be concluded that materials

are perceived differently and can impact the overall consumer perception.

Participant preference and ranking data revealed interesting trends and

distinctions between materials and showed which materials were considered

appropriate for each condition.

109

New food products are constantly added to the menu in QSRs, it is

important for restaurants to pay attention to consumer trends and work to

understand consumer needs. Quick-service restaurants in particular present a

challenge because of constantly changing consumer trends and unique nature of

the product and packaging interaction. This research has only started to touch on

the many components of the overall consumer experience in the restaurant

industry. While no significance was found between the four materials based on

the sensory attribute ratings, the packaging materials were perceived fairly

different based on the functionality and credence attributes. Research into

packaging characteristics consumers consider important could help the

foodservice industry be more in touch and deliver a more thoroughly developed

foor product. In order to improve consumers perceived quality, attributes that are

most important to consumers much be thoroughly understood and then in turn

used to alter and test new food products and their packaging.

110

CHAPTER SEVEN

RECOMMENDATIONS

The goal of this study was to explore the variance between sensory,

functionality, and credence attribute ratings depending on packaging material the

food product was presented in. There are a number of properties including

package color, shape, size, branding, and weight, which should be included in

future research since the material is only part of the food presentation to

consumers. Future studies could also take price into consideration, since the

majority of sustainable packaging options are more expensive to implement. The

pilot study results suggested participants considered sustainability an important

characteristic of fast food packaging, however the sustainable options presented

did not receive high ratings for the extrinsic attributes such as appeal and

attractiveness. It would be interesting to see if the ratings for these attributes

could be manipulated using graphics and branding applied to the packaging.

If foodservice packaging suppliers and QSR companies had an

understanding of attributes required by consumers in QSR packaging the results

could then be applied and used to develop new packaging along with food

products. Additional packaging materials should be tested and compared as well,

especially due to the ever-changing consumer trends present in the QSR industry

and continuous advances in food packaging materials. This experiment could

also be adapted to apply in other restaurant segments and food service outlets.

111

APPENDICES

112

Appendix A

Background Research and Information

Sandwich Package Style Material

McDonaldʼs Clamshell Paperboard

Wendyʼs Clamshell/ Paper wrap/ Half box Paperboard, Greaseproof/ wax coated paper

Burger King Clamshell/ Paper wrap Paperboard

Sonic Drive-Inn Paper/foil bag Greaseproof/ wax coated paper foil laminate

Jack In The Box Paper wrap/ half box Paperboard

Dairy Queen Paper wrap Greaseproof/ wax coated paper

Hardeeʼs Paper wrap Greaseproof/ wax coated paper

Carlʼs Jr Paper wrap Greaseproof/ wax coated paper

Whataburger Paper wrap Greaseproof/ wax coated paper

Five Guys Burgers & Fries Foil Wrap Aluminum foil sheet

Steak ʻn Shake Paper wrap Greaseproof/ wax coated paper

Culverʼs Paper wrap/ clamshell Paperboard

Checkers/Rallyʼs Paper wrap Greaseproof/ wax coated paper

White Castle Box Paperboard

In-N-Out Burger Paper bag Greaseproof/ wax coated paper

Krystal Box Paperboard

Table A1. Retail audit summary

113

Table A2. Detailed Material Information From Pilot Study

Day Material ID number Specs Image Additional Info

Day 1

EPS Clamshell 1705" (2.88" x 5.13" x 5.38") Medium Sandwich Foam Hinged Lid Carryout Containers Dart DCC 50HT1 - Case of 500

Styrofoam. Secure closure. High-insulation keeps food hot/cold for transporting and storing. (DCC 85HT1, DCC 85HT2 and DCC 205HT1 containers feature Performer™ perforated hinge, allowing the containerʼs lid to be easily

Clear Clamshell 2365" x 5" x 3" Clear Hinged Lid Plastic Container 500/CS. OPS construction. (5.25" x 5.625" x 2.75")

This 5" x 5" x 3" clear hinged lid plastic container is a perfect way to send desserts, pastries, salads, and specialty sandwiches home with your customers! It provides a solid seal to maintain product freshness and reduce leaks, while its crystal clear construction promotes excellent product visibility. Sold 500 per case.

Bio Clamshell 4306" Bagasse Hamburger Clamshell IFN Green 29-2001 - Case of 500 (6" x 6" x 3.4")

Bagasse is made from sugar cane fiber waste left after juice extraction. 100% decomposable and biodegradable. Microwave and freezer safe.

Day 2

14 pt Clamshell White 852 14pt International Paper Paperboard Everest Folio (5.75" x 5.75" x 3") Oil and grease resistant coating applied.

14 pt Clamshell Red 305 14pt International Paper Paperboard Everest Folio (5.75" x 5.75" x 3")

Outside printed with Epson Stylus Pro 7900, color is Pantone 485. Oil and grease resistant coating applied.

14 pt Clamshell Kraft 709 16pt MeadWestvaco Custom Kote Paperboard (5.75" x 5.75" x 3") Oil and grease resistant coating applied.

Day 3

Paper Wraps 654 DeliWrap Wax unprinted food safe sheet Oil and grease resistant (15" x 15")

Pop-up sheets have added wet strength for improved performance and greater economy. 100% microwaveable. 500 sheets per pack; 12 packs per case (6,000 sheets). 6 x 10 Eco-Pac Natural Interfolded Dry Wax Paper

Foil Wraps 321 Reynolds Wrapper Pre Cut Pop-up Foil Sheets (14"x10.25")

Reynolds foil sheets are precut and perfect for cooking, grilling, eating on the go. Case includes 24 – 25-ct. boxes of 14x10¼" Reynolds® Wrappers™ pop-up foil sheets. 

E-flute Clamshell 752 Pratt Industries E-Flute Corrugated Board (5.75" x 5.75" x 3") Clay coated on one side.

114

Table A3. Detailed Material Information From Full Scale Study

Material/container ID number Specs Image Description

EPS Clamshell 180 Dart 60HT1 6" x 6" x 3" White Foam Hinged Lid Container 500/CS

Dart 60HT1 white foam 1 compartment container with a perforated hinged lid that can be removed cleanly. Preferred by diners as an easy way to share carryout meals and reduce clutter while dining. Insulated to maintain food's proper serving temperature. 

14 pt Paperboard Clamshell White 602

Southern Champion Tray 0705 Solid Bleached Sulfate Paperboard White Hamburger Clamshell Food Container, 4-3/8" Length x 4-3/8" Width x 3-3/8" Height (Case of 500)

Recyclable and compostable, White interior and exterior, 1 pc. Clamshell construction. Top locks in place when closed. Sturdy packaging made from premium paperboard. Made in the USA from renewable resources

Paper Wraps 532 DeliWrap Wax unprinted food safe sheet Oil and grease resistant (15" x 15")

Pop-up sheets have added wet strength for improved performance and greater economy. 100% microwaveable. 500 sheets per pack; 12 packs per case (6,000 sheets). 6 x 10 Eco-Pac Natural Interfolded Dry Wax Paper

F-flute Clamshell 983 Hamburger Corrugated Clamshell Take-Out Box 400/CS - 4" x 4" x 3"

This 4" x 4" x 3" white corrugated clamshell take-out container is designed specifically for your mouth-watering burger creations! Micro-flute insulation preserves your food temperature and appearance by eliminating condensation within each box. For a secure closure, a handy locking feature will keep your burger safe and sound until its final destination. Each corrugated clamshell take-out features an attractive white exterior and a kraft interior. Measures 4"L x 4"W x 3"D. Sold 400 per case.

115

Table A4. Full Scale Study Latin Square Experimental Design

1 Paperboard F-Flute Paper wrap EPS

2 F-Flute EPS Paperboard Paper wrap

3 EPS Paper wrap F-Flute Paperboard

4 Paper wrap Paperboard EPS F-Flute

116

Appendix B

Pilot Study Results

Figure B1. Mean ratings of materials for attribute Appealing

0!

0.5!

1!

1.5!

2!

2.5!

3!

3.5!

4!

4.5!

5!

5.5!

6!

Foil Wrap

!

Paper

Wrap!

E-flute!

White P

aperb

oard!

Orange

Paperb

oard!

Kraft P

aperb

oard!

EPS!

Bagas

se!

Clear (O

PS)!

Mea

n R

atin

g!

Appealing!

117

Figure B2. Mean ratings of materials for attribute Neat

Figure B3. Mean ratings of materials for attribute Messy

0!

0.5!

1!

1.5!

2!

2.5!

3!

3.5!

4!

4.5!

5!

5.5!

6!

Foil Wrap

!

Paper

Wrap!

E-flute!

White P

aperb

oard!

Orange

Paperb

oard!

Kraft P

aperb

oard!

EPS!

Bagas

se!

Clear (O

PS)!

Mea

n R

atin

g!

Neat!

0!

0.5!

1!

1.5!

2!

2.5!

3!

3.5!

4!

4.5!

5!

5.5!

6!

Foil Wrap

!

Paper

Wrap!

E-flute!

White P

aperb

oard!

Orange

Paperb

oard!

Kraft P

aperb

oard!

EPS!

Bagas

se!

Clear (O

PS)!

Mea

n R

atin

g!

Messy!

118

Figure B4. Mean ratings of materials for attribute High Quality

Figure B5. Mean ratings of materials for attribute Tasty

0!

0.5!

1!

1.5!

2!

2.5!

3!

3.5!

4!

4.5!

5!

5.5!

6!

Foil Wrap

!

Paper

Wrap!

E-flute!

White P

aperb

oard!

Orange

Paperb

oard!

Kraft P

aperb

oard!

EPS!

Bagas

se!

Clear (O

PS)!

Mea

n R

atin

g!

High Quality!

0!

0.5!

1!

1.5!

2!

2.5!

3!

3.5!

4!

4.5!

5!

5.5!

6!

Foil Wrap

!

Paper

Wrap!

E-flute!

White P

aperb

oard!

Orange

Paperb

oard!

Kraft P

aperb

oard!

EPS!

Bagas

se!

Clear (O

PS)!

Mea

n R

atin

g!

Tasty!

119

Figure B6. Mean ratings of materials for attribute Attractive

Figure B7. Mean ratings of materials for attribute Fresh

0!

0.5!

1!

1.5!

2!

2.5!

3!

3.5!

4!

4.5!

5!

5.5!

6!

Foil Wrap

!

Paper

Wrap!

E-flute!

White P

aperb

oard!

Orange

Paperb

oard!

Kraft P

aperb

oard!

EPS!

Bagas

se!

Clear (O

PS)!

Mea

n R

atin

g!Attractive!

0!

0.5!

1!

1.5!

2!

2.5!

3!

3.5!

4!

4.5!

5!

5.5!

6!

Foil Wrap

!

Paper

Wrap!

E-flute!

White P

aperb

oard!

Orange

Paperb

oard!

Kraft P

aperb

oard!

EPS!

Bagas

se!

Clear (O

PS)!

Mea

n R

atin

g!

Fresh!

120

Figure B8. Mean ratings of materials for attribute Re-purchasable

Figure B9. Mean ratings of materials for attribute Appealing

0!

0.5!

1!

1.5!

2!

2.5!

3!

3.5!

4!

4.5!

5!

5.5!

6!

Foil Wrap

!

Paper

Wrap!

E-flute!

White P

aperb

oard!

Orange

Paperb

oard!

Kraft P

aperb

oard!

EPS!

Bagas

se!

Clear (O

PS)!

Mea

n R

atin

g!Repurchasable!

0!

0.5!

1!

1.5!

2!

2.5!

3!

3.5!

4!

4.5!

5!

5.5!

6!

Foil Wrap

!

Paper

Wrap!

E-flute!

White P

aperb

oard!

Orange

Paperb

oard!

Kraft P

aperb

oard!

EPS!

Bagas

se!

Clear (O

PS)!

Mea

n R

atin

g!

Premium!

121

Appendix C

Pilot Study Data and Statistical Analysis

C1. Demographic Data

American Indian or Alaskan Native 1.41%Asian / Pacific Islander 5.63%Black or African American 7.04%Hispanic American 4.23%White / Caucasian 81.69%

Married 38.03%Widowed 0.00%Divorced 9.86%Separated 0.00%Never Married 52.11%

1 21.13%2 45.07%3 19.72%4 7.04%5 5.63%6 1.41%

Number of People in Household

Marital Status

Ethnicity

18-20 8.45%21-29 30.99%30-39 29.58%40-49 12.68%50-59 16.90%60+ 1.41%

Male 53.52%Female 46.48%Other 0.00%

$0-$24,999 14.08%$25,000-$49,999 2.82%$50,000-$74,999 9.86%$75,000-$99,999 16.90%$100,000-$124,999 18.31%$125,000-$149,999 9.86%$150,000-$174,999 9.86%$175,000-$199,999 9.86%$200,000 and up 8.45%

Less than High School Degree 0.00%High school degree or equivalent 5.63%Some College No Degree 19.72%Associate Degree 1.41%Bachelor Degree 47.89%Graduate Degree 25.35%

Age Range

Education Level

Average Household Income

Gender

122

C2. Fast Food Preferences

Almost Daily 4.23%Not everyday but more than once a week 36.62%A few times a month, at most 42.25%Rarely or never 16.90%

Breakfast 7.04%Lunch 67.61%Dinner 23.94%As a snack in between meals 1.41%

In Car 40.85%Inside the restaurant 19.72%At home 21.13%At work 18.31%

How often do you eat fast food?

For which meal do you most often eat fast food?

Where do you normally eat fast food?

123

C3. Day 1 Appeal (Clear/OPS, Bagasse, EPS) GET FILE='/Users/ekthackston/Desktop/cucafe_day1.sav'. DATASET NAME DataSet3 WINDOW=FRONT. GLM appealing1 appealing2 appealing3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=Appealing /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet3] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/cucafe_day1.sav

Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Appealing Material Dependent Variable 1 appealing1 2 appealing2 3 appealing3

!

!

Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Clear (OPS) 3.5455 1.65406 22 Bagasse 3.6818 1.46015 22 EPS 4.3636 1.52894 22

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Appealing Within Subjects Effect

Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square

df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-

Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound

Material .910 1.885 2 .390 .917 1.000 .500 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.

!Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Appealing Source Type III Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Material

Sphericity Assumed 8.455 2 4.227 17.386 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 8.455 1.835 4.607 17.386 .000 Huynh-Feldt 8.455 2.000 4.227 17.386 .000 Lower-bound 8.455 1.000 8.455 17.386 .000

Error(Material)

Sphericity Assumed 10.212 42 .243 Greenhouse-Geisser 10.212 38.535 .265 Huynh-Feldt 10.212 42.000 .243 Lower-bound 10.212 21.000 .486

!Estimates Measure: Appealing Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 3.545 .353 2.812 4.279 2 3.682 .311 3.034 4.329 3 4.364 .326 3.686 5.042

!Pairwise Comparisons Measure: Appealing (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference (I-

J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb

Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 2 -.136 .136 .986 -.491 .218 3 -.818* .169 .000 -1.259 -.377

2 1 .136 .136 .986 -.218 .491 3 -.682* .138 .000 -1.040 -.323

3 1 .818* .169 .000 .377 1.259 2 .682* .138 .000 .323 1.040

Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.

!

124

Neat (Clear/OPS, Bagasse, EPS) GLM neat1 neat2 neat3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=Neat /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet3] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/cucafe_day1.sav

Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Neat Source Type III Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Material

Sphericity Assumed 12.091 2 6.045 38.613 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 12.091 1.910 6.329 38.613 .000 Huynh-Feldt 12.091 2.000 6.045 38.613 .000 Lower-bound 12.091 1.000 12.091 38.613 .000

Error(Material)

Sphericity Assumed 6.576 42 .157 Greenhouse-Geisser 6.576 40.118 .164 Huynh-Feldt 6.576 42.000 .157 Lower-bound 6.576 21.000 .313

! Estimates Measure: Neat Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 4.182 .284 3.591 4.773 2 4.955 .267 4.399 5.510 3 5.182 .193 4.780 5.584

!

Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Neat Material Dependent Variable 1 neat1 2 neat2 3 neat3

!

!

Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Clear (OPS) 4.1818 1.33225 22 Bagasse 4.9545 1.25270 22 EPS 5.1818 .90692 22

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Neat Within Subjects Effect

Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square

df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-

Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound

Material .953 .961 2 .618 .955 1.000 .500 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.

!

Pairwise Comparisons Measure: Neat (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference (I-

J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb

Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 2 -.773* .113 .000 -1.066 -.480 3 -1.000* .132 .000 -1.342 -.658

2 1 .773* .113 .000 .480 1.066 3 -.227 .113 .170 -.520 .066

3 1 1.000* .132 .000 .658 1.342 2 .227 .113 .170 -.066 .520

Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.

!

125

Messy (Clear/OPS, Bagasse, EPS) GLM messy1 messy2 messy3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=Messy /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet3] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/cucafe_day1.sav

Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Messy Material Dependent Variable 1 messy1 2 messy2 3 messy3

!

!

Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Clear (OPS) 2.9091 1.44450 22 Bagasse 2.1818 1.18065 22 EPS 2.6364 1.29267 22

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Messy Within Subjects Effect

Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square

df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-

Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound

Material .954 .941 2 .625 .956 1.000 .500 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.

!Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Messy Source Type III Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Material

Sphericity Assumed 5.939 2 2.970 23.124 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 5.939 1.912 3.106 23.124 .000 Huynh-Feldt 5.939 2.000 2.970 23.124 .000 Lower-bound 5.939 1.000 5.939 23.124 .000

Error(Material)

Sphericity Assumed 5.394 42 .128 Greenhouse-Geisser 5.394 40.155 .134 Huynh-Feldt 5.394 42.000 .128 Lower-bound 5.394 21.000 .257

!Estimates Measure: Messy Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 2.909 .308 2.269 3.550 2 2.182 .252 1.658 2.705 3 2.636 .276 2.063 3.210

!Pairwise Comparisons Measure: Messy (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference (I-

J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb

Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 2 .727* .117 .000 .422 1.033 3 .273* .097 .032 .020 .526

2 1 -.727* .117 .000 -1.033 -.422 3 -.455* .109 .001 -.737 -.172

3 1 -.273* .097 .032 -.526 -.020 2 .455* .109 .001 .172 .737

Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.

!

126

Re-purchasable (Clear/OPS, Bagasse, EPS) GLM repurchasable1 repurchasable2 repurchasable3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=RePurchase /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet3] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/cucafe_day1.sav

!

Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Clear (OPS) 3.6818 1.75625 22 Bagasse 4.1364 1.45718 22 EPS 4.6818 1.32328 22

Within-Subjects Factors Measure: RePurchase Material Dependent Variable 1 repurchasable1 2 repurchasable2 3 repurchasable3

!

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: RePurchase Within Subjects Effect

Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square

df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-

Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound

Material .588 10.634 2 .005 .708 .744 .500 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.

!

Pairwise Comparisons Measure: RePurchase (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference (I-

J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb

Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 2 -.455* .157 .026 -.864 -.045 3 -1.000* .255 .002 -1.663 -.337

2 1 .455* .157 .026 .045 .864 3 -.545* .171 .013 -.989 -.102

3 1 1.000* .255 .002 .337 1.663 2 .545* .171 .013 .102 .989

Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.

!

Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: RePurchase Source Type III Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Material

Sphericity Assumed 11.030 2 5.515 12.656 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 11.030 1.416 7.790 12.656 .000 Huynh-Feldt 11.030 1.489 7.410 12.656 .000 Lower-bound 11.030 1.000 11.030 12.656 .002

Error(Material)

Sphericity Assumed 18.303 42 .436 Greenhouse-Geisser 18.303 29.737 .616 Huynh-Feldt 18.303 31.261 .585 Lower-bound 18.303 21.000 .872

!Estimates Measure: RePurchase Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 3.682 .374 2.903 4.460 2 4.136 .311 3.490 4.782 3 4.682 .282 4.095 5.269

!

127

High Quality (Clear/OPS, Bagasse, EPS) GLM highquality1 highquality2 highquality4 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=HighQuality /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet3] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/cucafe_day1.sav

Pairwise Comparisons Measure: HighQuality (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference (I-

J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb

Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 2 -.227 .130 .288 -.567 .112 3 -.864* .201 .001 -1.385 -.342

2 1 .227 .130 .288 -.112 .567 3 -.636* .155 .002 -1.039 -.233

3 1 .864* .201 .001 .342 1.385 2 .636* .155 .002 .233 1.039

Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.

!

Within-Subjects Factors Measure: HighQuality Material Dependent Variable 1 highquality1 2 highquality2 3 highquality4

!

!

Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Clear (OPS) 2.6818 1.58524 22 Bagasse 2.9091 1.34196 22 EPS 3.5455 1.29935 22

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: HighQuality Within Subjects Effect

Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square

df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-

Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound

Material .742 5.964 2 .051 .795 .850 .500 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.

!Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: HighQuality Source Type III Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Material

Sphericity Assumed 8.818 2 4.409 14.797 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 8.818 1.590 5.546 14.797 .000 Huynh-Feldt 8.818 1.699 5.190 14.797 .000 Lower-bound 8.818 1.000 8.818 14.797 .001

Error(Material)

Sphericity Assumed 12.515 42 .298 Greenhouse-Geisser 12.515 33.390 .375 Huynh-Feldt 12.515 35.682 .351 Lower-bound 12.515 21.000 .596

!Estimates Measure: HighQuality Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 2.682 .338 1.979 3.385 2 2.909 .286 2.314 3.504 3 3.545 .277 2.969 4.122

!

128

Tasty (Clear/OPS, Bagasse, EPS) GLM tasty1 tasty2 tasty3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=Tasty /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet3] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/cucafe_day1.sav

Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Tasty Material Dependent Variable 1 tasty1 2 tasty2 3 tasty3

!

!

Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Clear (OPS) 3.7273 1.69542 22 Bagasse 3.7727 1.50971 22 EPS 4.5455 1.22386 22

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Tasty Within Subjects Effect

Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square

df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-

Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound

Material .940 1.246 2 .536 .943 1.000 .500 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.

!Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Tasty Source Type III Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Material

Sphericity Assumed 9.303 2 4.652 18.263 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 9.303 1.886 4.932 18.263 .000 Huynh-Feldt 9.303 2.000 4.652 18.263 .000 Lower-bound 9.303 1.000 9.303 18.263 .000

Error(Material)

Sphericity Assumed 10.697 42 .255 Greenhouse-Geisser 10.697 39.608 .270 Huynh-Feldt 10.697 42.000 .255 Lower-bound 10.697 21.000 .509

!Estimates Measure: Tasty Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 3.727 .361 2.976 4.479 2 3.773 .322 3.103 4.442 3 4.545 .261 4.003 5.088

!Pairwise Comparisons Measure: Tasty (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference (I-

J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb

Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 2 -.045 .139 1.000 -.408 .317 3 -.818* .169 .000 -1.259 -.377

2 1 .045 .139 1.000 -.317 .408 3 -.773* .146 .000 -1.153 -.393

3 1 .818* .169 .000 .377 1.259 2 .773* .146 .000 .393 1.153

Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.

!

129

Attractive (Clear/OPS, Bagasse, EPS) GLM attractive1 attractive2 attractive3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=Attractive /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet3] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/cucafe_day1.sav

Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Attractive Material Dependent Variable 1 attractive1 2 attractive2 3 attractive3

!

!

Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Clear (OPS) 3.5000 1.56601 22 Bagasse 3.4091 1.59341 22 EPS 4.0455 1.52682 22

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Attractive Within Subjects Effect

Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square

df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-

Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound

Material .342 21.448 2 .000 .603 .620 .500 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.

!Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Attractive Source Type III Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Material

Sphericity Assumed 5.212 2 2.606 3.555 .037 Greenhouse-Geisser 5.212 1.206 4.320 3.555 .064 Huynh-Feldt 5.212 1.240 4.204 3.555 .063 Lower-bound 5.212 1.000 5.212 3.555 .073

Error(Material)

Sphericity Assumed 30.788 42 .733 Greenhouse-Geisser 30.788 25.335 1.215 Huynh-Feldt 30.788 26.037 1.182 Lower-bound 30.788 21.000 1.466

!Estimates Measure: Attractive Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 3.500 .334 2.806 4.194 2 3.409 .340 2.703 4.116 3 4.045 .326 3.369 4.722

!Pairwise Comparisons Measure: Attractive (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference (I-

J) Std. Error Sig.a 95% Confidence Interval for Differencea

Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 2 .091 .112 1.000 -.201 .383 3 -.545 .307 .269 -1.343 .252

2 1 -.091 .112 1.000 -.383 .201 3 -.636 .305 .149 -1.431 .158

3 1 .545 .307 .269 -.252 1.343 2 .636 .305 .149 -.158 1.431

Based on estimated marginal means a. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.

!

130

Fresh (Clear/OPS, Bagasse, EPS) GLM fresh1 fresh2 fresh3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=Fresh /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet3] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/cucafe_day1.sav

Pairwise Comparisons Measure: Fresh (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference (I-

J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb

Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 2 -.636* .214 .022 -1.192 -.081 3 -1.091* .354 .017 -2.011 -.171

2 1 .636* .214 .022 .081 1.192 3 -.455 .277 .347 -1.175 .266

3 1 1.091* .354 .017 .171 2.011 2 .455 .277 .347 -.266 1.175

Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.

!

Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Fresh Material Dependent Variable 1 fresh1 2 fresh2 3 fresh3

!

!

Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Clear (OPS) 2.9545 1.52682 22 Bagasse 3.5909 1.56324 22 EPS 4.0455 1.55769 22

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Fresh Within Subjects Effect

Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square

df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-

Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound

Material .686 7.546 2 .023 .761 .808 .500 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.

!Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Fresh Source Type III Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Material

Sphericity Assumed 13.212 2 6.606 7.278 .002 Greenhouse-Geisser 13.212 1.522 8.682 7.278 .005 Huynh-Feldt 13.212 1.616 8.176 7.278 .004 Lower-bound 13.212 1.000 13.212 7.278 .013

Error(Material)

Sphericity Assumed 38.121 42 .908 Greenhouse-Geisser 38.121 31.956 1.193 Huynh-Feldt 38.121 33.937 1.123 Lower-bound 38.121 21.000 1.815

!Estimates Measure: Fresh Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 2.955 .326 2.278 3.631 2 3.591 .333 2.898 4.284 3 4.045 .332 3.355 4.736

!

131

Premium (Clear/OPS, Bagasse, EPS) GLM premium1 premium2 premium3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=Premium /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet3] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/cucafe_day1.sav

Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Premium Material Dependent Variable 1 premium1 2 premium2 3 premium3

!

!

Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Clear (OPS) 3.0000 1.54303 22 Bagasse 2.8636 1.28343 22 EPS 3.3182 1.35879 22

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Premium Within Subjects Effect

Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square

df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-

Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound

Material .644 8.799 2 .012 .738 .780 .500 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.

!Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Premium Source Type III Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Material

Sphericity Assumed 2.394 2 1.197 2.130 .132 Greenhouse-Geisser 2.394 1.475 1.623 2.130 .147 Huynh-Feldt 2.394 1.560 1.535 2.130 .144 Lower-bound 2.394 1.000 2.394 2.130 .159

Error(Material)

Sphericity Assumed 23.606 42 .562 Greenhouse-Geisser 23.606 30.975 .762 Huynh-Feldt 23.606 32.751 .721 Lower-bound 23.606 21.000 1.124

!Estimates Measure: Premium Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 3.000 .329 2.316 3.684 2 2.864 .274 2.295 3.433 3 3.318 .290 2.716 3.921

!Pairwise Comparisons Measure: Premium (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference (I-

J) Std. Error Sig.a 95% Confidence Interval for Differencea

Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 2 .136 .151 1.000 -.257 .530 3 -.318 .274 .777 -1.032 .395

2 1 -.136 .151 1.000 -.530 .257 3 -.455 .235 .199 -1.065 .156

3 1 .318 .274 .777 -.395 1.032 2 .455 .235 .199 -.156 1.065

Based on estimated marginal means a. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.

!

132

Price (Clear/OPS, Bagasse, EPS) GLM price1 price2 price3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=WTP /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet3] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/cucafe_day1.sav

Within-Subjects Factors Measure: WTP Material Dependent Variable 1 price1 2 price2 3 price3

!

!

Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Clear (OPS) 1.6818 .64633 22 Bagasse 1.7727 .61193 22 EPS 2.0000 .75593 22

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: WTP Within Subjects Effect

Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square

df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-

Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound

Material .600 10.201 2 .006 .715 .752 .500 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.

!Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: WTP Source Type III Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Material

Sphericity Assumed 1.182 2 .591 5.151 .010 Greenhouse-Geisser 1.182 1.429 .827 5.151 .020 Huynh-Feldt 1.182 1.504 .786 5.151 .018 Lower-bound 1.182 1.000 1.182 5.151 .034

Error(Material)

Sphericity Assumed 4.818 42 .115 Greenhouse-Geisser 4.818 30.010 .161 Huynh-Feldt 4.818 31.588 .153 Lower-bound 4.818 21.000 .229

!Estimates Measure: WTP Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 1.682 .138 1.395 1.968 2 1.773 .130 1.501 2.044 3 2.000 .161 1.665 2.335

!Pairwise Comparisons Measure: WTP (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference (I-

J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb

Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 2 -.091 .063 .486 -.254 .072 3 -.318* .121 .047 -.633 -.003

2 1 .091 .063 .486 -.072 .254 3 -.227 .113 .170 -.520 .066

3 1 .318* .121 .047 .003 .633 2 .227 .113 .170 -.066 .520

Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.

!

133

C4. Day 2

Appeal (White Paperboard, Orange Paperboard, Kraft Paperboard) GET FILE='/Users/ekthackston/Downloads/cucafe_day2.sav'. DATASET NAME DataSet4 WINDOW=FRONT. DATASET ACTIVATE DataSet4. SAVE OUTFILE='/Users/ekthackston/Downloads/cucafe_day2.sav' /COMPRESSED. GLM appealing1 appealing2 appealing3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=Appealing /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet4] /Users/ekthackston/Downloads/cucafe_day2.sav

Neat (White Paperboard, Orange Paperboard, Kraft Paperboard) GLM neat1 neat2 neat3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=Neat /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet4] /Users/ekthackston/Downloads/cucafe_day2.sav

Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Appealing Material Dependent Variable

1 appealing1

2 appealing2 3 appealing3

!

!

Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N White Paperboard 3.4815 1.62600 27 Orange Paperboard 3.6296 1.39085 27 Kraft Paperboard 3.2222 1.47631 27

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Appealing Within Subjects Effect

Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square

df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-

Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound

Material .982 .453 2 .798 .982 1.000 .500 a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.

!Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Appealing Source Type III Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Material

Sphericity Assumed 2.296 2 1.148 1.047 .358 Greenhouse-Geisser 2.296 1.965 1.169 1.047 .357 Huynh-Feldt 2.296 2.000 1.148 1.047 .358 Lower-bound 2.296 1.000 2.296 1.047 .316

Error(Material)

Sphericity Assumed 57.037 52 1.097 Greenhouse-Geisser 57.037 51.084 1.117 Huynh-Feldt 57.037 52.000 1.097 Lower-bound 57.037 26.000 2.194

!

!

Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N White Paperboard 4.2963 1.51441 27 Orange Paperboard 4.5556 1.18754 27 Kraft Paperboard 4.1852 1.49453 27

Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Neat Material Dependent Variable 1 neat1 2 neat2 3 neat3

!

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Neat Within Subjects Effect

Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square

df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-

Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound

Material .868 3.549 2 .170 .883 .943 .500 a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.

!

134

Messy (White Paperboard, Orange Paperboard, Kraft Paperboard) GLM messy1 messy2 messy3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=Messy /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet4] /Users/ekthackston/Downloads/cucafe_day2.sav Re-purchasable (White Paperboard, Orange Paperboard, Kraft Paperboard) GLM repurchasable1 repurchasable2 repurchasable3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=RePurchase /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE

Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Neat Source Type III Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Material

Sphericity Assumed 1.951 2 .975 1.151 .324 Greenhouse-Geisser 1.951 1.766 1.104 1.151 .320 Huynh-Feldt 1.951 1.885 1.035 1.151 .322 Lower-bound 1.951 1.000 1.951 1.151 .293

Error(Material)

Sphericity Assumed 44.049 52 .847 Greenhouse-Geisser 44.049 45.922 .959 Huynh-Feldt 44.049 49.019 .899 Lower-bound 44.049 26.000 1.694

!

!

Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N White Paperboard 3.0741 1.49167 27 Orange Paperboard 2.9259 1.35663 27 Kraft Paperboard 2.7037 1.40917 27

Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Messy Material Dependent Variable 1 messy1 2 messy2 3 messy3

!

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Messy Within Subjects Effect

Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square

df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-

Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound

Material .979 .531 2 .767 .979 1.000 .500 a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.

!Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Messy Source Type III Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Material

Sphericity Assumed 1.877 2 .938 1.028 .365 Greenhouse-Geisser 1.877 1.959 .958 1.028 .364 Huynh-Feldt 1.877 2.000 .938 1.028 .365 Lower-bound 1.877 1.000 1.877 1.028 .320

Error(Material)

Sphericity Assumed 47.457 52 .913 Greenhouse-Geisser 47.457 50.930 .932 Huynh-Feldt 47.457 52.000 .913 Lower-bound 47.457 26.000 1.825

!

!

Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N White Paperboard 2.8148 1.44214 27 Orange Paperboard 3.0370 1.48016 27 Kraft Paperboard 2.2963 1.17063 27

Within-Subjects Factors Measure: RePurchase Material Dependent Variable 1 repurchasable1 2 repurchasable2 3 repurchasable3

!

135

/CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet4] /Users/ekthackston/Downloads/cucafe_day2.sav

High Quality (White Paperboard, Orange Paperboard, Kraft Paperboard) GLM highquality1 highquality2 highquality4 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=HighQuality /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet4] /Users/ekthackston/Downloads/cucafe_day2.sav

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: RePurchase Within Subjects Effect

Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square

df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-

Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound

Material .970 .750 2 .687 .971 1.000 .500 a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.

!

Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: RePurchase Source Type III Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Material

Sphericity Assumed 1.556 2 .778 1.273 .289 Greenhouse-Geisser 1.556 1.943 .801 1.273 .288 Huynh-Feldt 1.556 2.000 .778 1.273 .289 Lower-bound 1.556 1.000 1.556 1.273 .270

Error(Material)

Sphericity Assumed 31.778 52 .611 Greenhouse-Geisser 31.778 50.508 .629 Huynh-Feldt 31.778 52.000 .611 Lower-bound 31.778 26.000 1.222

!

Within-Subjects Factors Measure: HighQuality Material Dependent Variable 1 highquality1 2 highquality2 3 highquality4

!

!

Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N White Paperboard 2.8148 1.44214 27 Orange Paperboard 3.0370 1.48016 27 Kraft Paperboard 2.2963 1.17063 27

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: HighQuality Within Subjects Effect

Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square

df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-

Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound

Material .989 .275 2 .872 .989 1.000 .500 a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.

!Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: HighQuality Source Type III Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Material

Sphericity Assumed 7.802 2 3.901 4.590 .015 Greenhouse-Geisser 7.802 1.978 3.944 4.590 .015 Huynh-Feldt 7.802 2.000 3.901 4.590 .015 Lower-bound 7.802 1.000 7.802 4.590 .042

Error(Material)

Sphericity Assumed 44.198 52 .850 Greenhouse-Geisser 44.198 51.437 .859 Huynh-Feldt 44.198 52.000 .850 Lower-bound 44.198 26.000 1.700

!

136

Tasty (White Paperboard, Orange Paperboard, Kraft Paperboard) GLM tasty1 tasty2 tasty3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=Tasty /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet4] /Users/ekthackston/Downloads/cucafe_day2.sav

Attractive (White Paperboard, Orange Paperboard, Kraft Paperboard) GLM attractive1 attractive2 attractive3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial

Estimates Measure: HighQuality Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 2.815 .278 2.244 3.385 2 3.037 .285 2.452 3.623 3 2.296 .225 1.833 2.759

!Pairwise Comparisons Measure: HighQuality (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference (I-

J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb

Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 2 -.222 .247 1.000 -.853 .409 3 .519 .263 .180 -.156 1.193

2 1 .222 .247 1.000 -.409 .853 3 .741* .242 .015 .121 1.361

3 1 -.519 .263 .180 -1.193 .156 2 -.741* .242 .015 -1.361 -.121

Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.

!

Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Tasty Material Dependent Variable 1 tasty1 2 tasty2 3 tasty3

!

!

Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N White Paperboard 3.4074 1.57527 27 Orange Paperboard 3.5926 1.42125 27 Kraft Paperboard 3.1111 1.71718 27

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Tasty Within Subjects Effect

Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square

df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-

Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound

Material .938 1.588 2 .452 .942 1.000 .500 a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.

!Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Tasty Source Type III Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Material

Sphericity Assumed 3.185 2 1.593 1.720 .189 Greenhouse-Geisser 3.185 1.884 1.691 1.720 .191 Huynh-Feldt 3.185 2.000 1.593 1.720 .189 Lower-bound 3.185 1.000 3.185 1.720 .201

Error(Material)

Sphericity Assumed 48.148 52 .926 Greenhouse-Geisser 48.148 48.986 .983 Huynh-Feldt 48.148 52.000 .926 Lower-bound 48.148 26.000 1.852

!Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Attractive Material Dependent Variable 1 attractive1 2 attractive2

3 attractive3

!

137

/MEASURE=Attractive /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet4] /Users/ekthackston/Downloads/cucafe_day2.sav

Fresh (White Paperboard, Orange Paperboard, Kraft Paperboard) GLM fresh1 fresh2 fresh3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=Fresh /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet4] /Users/ekthackston/Downloads/cucafe_day2.sav

Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Attractive Source Type III Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Material

Sphericity Assumed 3.432 2 1.716 1.541 .224 Greenhouse-Geisser 3.432 1.801 1.906 1.541 .226 Huynh-Feldt 3.432 1.927 1.781 1.541 .225 Lower-bound 3.432 1.000 3.432 1.541 .226

Error(Material)

Sphericity Assumed 57.901 52 1.113 Greenhouse-Geisser 57.901 46.822 1.237 Huynh-Feldt 57.901 50.092 1.156 Lower-bound 57.901 26.000 2.227

!

!Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N White Paperboard 3.2593 1.37540 27 Orange Paperboard 3.3704 1.41824 27 Kraft Paperboard 2.8889 1.42325 27

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Attractive Within Subjects Effect

Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square

df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-

Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound

Material .889 2.930 2 .231 .900 .963 .500 a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.

!

Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Fresh Material Dependent Variable 1 fresh1 2 fresh2 3 fresh3

!

!

Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N White Paperboard 2.8148 1.30198 27 Orange Paperboard 3.0370 1.28547 27 Kraft Paperboard 2.1481 1.35032 27

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Fresh Within Subjects Effect

Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square

df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-

Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound

Material .983 .433 2 .805 .983 1.000 .500 a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.

!Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Fresh Source Type III Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Material

Sphericity Assumed 11.556 2 5.778 6.377 .003 Greenhouse-Geisser 11.556 1.966 5.877 6.377 .004 Huynh-Feldt 11.556 2.000 5.778 6.377 .003 Lower-bound 11.556 1.000 11.556 6.377 .018

Error(Material)

Sphericity Assumed 47.111 52 .906 Greenhouse-Geisser 47.111 51.122 .922 Huynh-Feldt 47.111 52.000 .906 Lower-bound 47.111 26.000 1.812

!

138

Premium (White Paperboard, Orange Paperboard, Kraft Paperboard) GLM premium1 premium2 premium3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=Premium /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet4] /Users/ekthackston/Downloads/cucafe_day2.sav

Pairwise Comparisons Measure: Fresh (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference (I-

J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb

Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 2 -.222 .258 1.000 -.882 .438 3 .667* .245 .034 .041 1.293

2 1 .222 .258 1.000 -.438 .882 3 .889* .274 .010 .188 1.590

3 1 -.667* .245 .034 -1.293 -.041 2 -.889* .274 .010 -1.590 -.188

Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.

!

Estimates Measure: Fresh Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 2.815 .251 2.300 3.330 2 3.037 .247 2.529 3.546 3 2.148 .260 1.614 2.682

!

Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Premium Material Dependent Variable 1 premium1 2 premium2 3 premium3

!

!

Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N White Paperboard 2.6667 1.27098 27 Orange Paperboard 2.9630 1.31505 27 Kraft Paperboard 2.2963 1.03086 27

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Premium Within Subjects Effect

Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square

df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-

Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound

Material .781 6.165 2 .046 .821 .869 .500 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.

!Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Premium Source Type III Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Material

Sphericity Assumed 6.025 2 3.012 4.054 .023 Greenhouse-Geisser 6.025 1.641 3.671 4.054 .031 Huynh-Feldt 6.025 1.737 3.468 4.054 .029 Lower-bound 6.025 1.000 6.025 4.054 .055

Error(Material)

Sphericity Assumed 38.642 52 .743 Greenhouse-Geisser 38.642 42.674 .906 Huynh-Feldt 38.642 45.166 .856 Lower-bound 38.642 26.000 1.486

!

139

Price (White Paperboard, Orange Paperboard, Kraft Paperboard) GLM price1 price2 price3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=WTP /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Mode [DataSet4] /Users/ekthackston/Downloads/cucafe_day2.sav C5. Day 3

Estimates Measure: Premium Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 2.667 .245 2.164 3.169 2 2.963 .253 2.443 3.483 3 2.296 .198 1.889 2.704

!Pairwise Comparisons Measure: Premium (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference (I-

J) Std. Error Sig.a 95% Confidence Interval for Differencea

Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 2 -.296 .191 .399 -.785 .193 3 .370 .221 .317 -.195 .936

2 1 .296 .191 .399 -.193 .785 3 .667 .282 .078 -.056 1.389

3 1 -.370 .221 .317 -.936 .195 2 -.667 .282 .078 -1.389 .056

Based on estimated marginal means a. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.

!Within-Subjects Factors Measure: WTP Material Dependent Variable 1 price1 2 price2 3 price3

!

!

Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N How much would you be willing to pay for this burger? 1.4815 .64273 27

How much would you be willing to pay for this burger? 1.6296 .68770 27 How much would you be willing to pay for this burger? 1.4074 .57239 27

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: WTP Within Subjects Effect

Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square

df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-

Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound

Material .788 5.967 2 .051 .825 .874 .500 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.

!Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: WTP Source Type III Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Material

Sphericity Assumed .691 2 .346 2.459 .095 Greenhouse-Geisser .691 1.650 .419 2.459 .107 Huynh-Feldt .691 1.747 .396 2.459 .103 Lower-bound .691 1.000 .691 2.459 .129

Error(Material)

Sphericity Assumed 7.309 52 .141 Greenhouse-Geisser 7.309 42.892 .170 Huynh-Feldt 7.309 45.424 .161 Lower-bound 7.309 26.000 .281

!Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Appealing Material Dependent Variable 1 appealing1 2 appealing2 3 appealing3

!

140

Appeal (Foil Wrap, Paper Wrap, E-flute) GLM appealing1 appealing2 appealing3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=Appealing /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet1] /Users/ekthackston/Documents/cucafe_day3.sav

!

Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Foil Wrap 3.0000 1.51186 22 Paper Wrap 2.9545 1.36198 22 E-Flute 4.4545 1.43849 22

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Appealing Within Subjects Effect

Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square

df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-

Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound

Material .914 1.806 2 .405 .921 1.000 .500 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table. !Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Appealing Source Type III Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Material

Sphericity Assumed 32.030 2 16.015 12.311 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 32.030 1.841 17.398 12.311 .000 Huynh-Feldt 32.030 2.000 16.015 12.311 .000 Lower-bound 32.030 1.000 32.030 12.311 .002

Error(Material)

Sphericity Assumed 54.636 42 1.301 Greenhouse-Geisser 54.636 38.662 1.413 Huynh-Feldt 54.636 42.000 1.301 Lower-bound 54.636 21.000 2.602

!Estimates Measure: Appealing Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 3.000 .322 2.330 3.670 2 2.955 .290 2.351 3.558 3 4.455 .307 3.817 5.092 !Pairwise Comparisons Measure: Appealing (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference

(I-J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for

Differenceb Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 2 .045 .290 1.000 -.710 .801 3 -1.455* .376 .003 -2.434 -.475

2 1 -.045 .290 1.000 -.801 .710 3 -1.500* .359 .001 -2.434 -.566

3 1 1.455* .376 .003 .475 2.434 2 1.500* .359 .001 .566 2.434

Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni. !

141

Neat (Foil Wrap, Paper Wrap, E-flute) GLM neat1 neat2 neat3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=Neat /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet1] /Users/ekthackston/Documents/cucafe_day3.sav

!

Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Foil Wrap 3.2273 1.82396 22 Paper Wrap 3.4091 1.56324 22 E-Flute 5.2273 1.06600 22

Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Neat Material Dependent Variable 1 neat1 2 neat2 3 neat3

!

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Neat Within Subjects Effect

Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square

df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-

Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound

Material .969 .627 2 .731 .970 1.000 .500 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.

!Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Neat Source Type III Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Material

Sphericity Assumed 53.818 2 26.909 12.260 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 53.818 1.940 27.739 12.260 .000 Huynh-Feldt 53.818 2.000 26.909 12.260 .000 Lower-bound 53.818 1.000 53.818 12.260 .002

Error(Material)

Sphericity Assumed 92.182 42 2.195 Greenhouse-Geisser 92.182 40.743 2.263 Huynh-Feldt 92.182 42.000 2.195 Lower-bound 92.182 21.000 4.390

!Estimates Measure: Neat Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 3.227 .389 2.419 4.036 2 3.409 .333 2.716 4.102 3 5.227 .227 4.755 5.700

!Pairwise Comparisons Measure: Neat (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference (I-

J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb

Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 2 -.182 .435 1.000 -1.312 .949 3 -2.000* .483 .001 -3.258 -.742

2 1 .182 .435 1.000 -.949 1.312 3 -1.818* .419 .001 -2.909 -.727

3 1 2.000* .483 .001 .742 3.258 2 1.818* .419 .001 .727 2.909

Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.

!

142

Messy (Foil Wrap, Paper Wrap, E-flute) GLM messy1 messy2 messy3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=Messy /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet1] /Users/ekthackston/Documents/cucafe_day3.sav

Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Messy Material Dependent Variable 1 messy1 2 messy2 3 messy3

!

!

Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Foil Wrap 3.7727 1.79767 22 Paper Wrap 4.1818 1.59273 22 E-Flute 2.9091 1.10880 22

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Messy Within Subjects Effect

Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square

df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-

Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound

Material .741 5.993 2 .050 .794 .849 .500 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.

!Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Messy Source Type III Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Material

Sphericity Assumed 18.576 2 9.288 4.567 .016 Greenhouse-Geisser 18.576 1.589 11.693 4.567 .024 Huynh-Feldt 18.576 1.697 10.943 4.567 .022 Lower-bound 18.576 1.000 18.576 4.567 .045

Error(Material)

Sphericity Assumed 85.424 42 2.034 Greenhouse-Geisser 85.424 33.361 2.561 Huynh-Feldt 85.424 35.647 2.396 Lower-bound 85.424 21.000 4.068

!Estimates Measure: Messy Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 3.773 .383 2.976 4.570 2 4.182 .340 3.476 4.888 3 2.909 .236 2.417 3.401

!

143

Re-purchasable (Foil Wrap, Paper Wrap, E-flute) GLM repurchasable1 repurchasable2 repurchasable3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=RePurchase /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet1] /Users/ekthackston/Documents/cucafe_day3.sav

Pairwise Comparisons Measure: Messy (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference (I-

J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb

Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 2 -.409 .320 .645 -1.242 .423 3 .864 .515 .325 -.476 2.204

2 1 .409 .320 .645 -.423 1.242 3 1.273* .432 .023 .148 2.397

3 1 -.864 .515 .325 -2.204 .476 2 -1.273* .432 .023 -2.397 -.148

Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.

!

Within-Subjects Factors Measure: RePurchase Material Dependent Variable 1 repurchasable1 2 repurchasable2 3 repurchasable3

!

!

Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Foil Wrap 3.3182 1.67293 22 Paper Wrap 3.0909 1.19160 22 E-Flute 4.9091 1.37699 22

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: RePurchase Within Subjects Effect

Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square

df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-

Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound

Material .874 2.684 2 .261 .888 .965 .500 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.

!Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: RePurchase Source Type III Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Material

Sphericity Assumed 43.182 2 21.591 14.284 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 43.182 1.777 24.303 14.284 .000 Huynh-Feldt 43.182 1.929 22.380 14.284 .000 Lower-bound 43.182 1.000 43.182 14.284 .001

Error(Material)

Sphericity Assumed 63.485 42 1.512 Greenhouse-Geisser 63.485 37.313 1.701 Huynh-Feldt 63.485 40.519 1.567 Lower-bound 63.485 21.000 3.023

!Estimates Measure: RePurchase Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 3.318 .357 2.576 4.060 2 3.091 .254 2.563 3.619 3 4.909 .294 4.299 5.520

!Pairwise Comparisons Measure: RePurchase (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference (I-

J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb

Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 2 .227 .322 1.000 -.610 1.065 3 -1.591* .430 .004 -2.709 -.473

2 1 -.227 .322 1.000 -1.065 .610 3 -1.818* .352 .000 -2.734 -.902

3 1 1.591* .430 .004 .473 2.709 2 1.818* .352 .000 .902 2.734

Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.

!

144

High Quality (Foil Wrap, Paper Wrap, E-flute) GLM highquality1 highquality2 highquality4 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=HighQuality /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet1] /Users/ekthackston/Documents/cucafe_day3.sav

Within-Subjects Factors Measure: HighQuality Material Dependent Variable 1 highquality1 2 highquality2 3 highquality4

!

!

Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Foil Wrap 2.4545 1.26217 22 Paper Wrap 2.7273 .98473 22 E-Flute 4.6818 1.28680 22

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: HighQuality Within Subjects Effect

Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square

df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-

Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound

Material .837 3.554 2 .169 .860 .929 .500 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.

!Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: HighQuality Source Type III Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Material

Sphericity Assumed 64.939 2 32.470 26.708 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 64.939 1.720 37.757 26.708 .000 Huynh-Feldt 64.939 1.859 34.935 26.708 .000 Lower-bound 64.939 1.000 64.939 26.708 .000

Error(Material)

Sphericity Assumed 51.061 42 1.216 Greenhouse-Geisser 51.061 36.119 1.414 Huynh-Feldt 51.061 39.036 1.308 Lower-bound 51.061 21.000 2.431

!Estimates Measure: HighQuality Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 2.455 .269 1.895 3.014 2 2.727 .210 2.291 3.164 3 4.682 .274 4.111 5.252

!Pairwise Comparisons Measure: HighQuality (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference (I-

J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb

Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 2 -.273 .273 .986 -.982 .437 3 -2.227* .389 .000 -3.239 -1.216

2 1 .273 .273 .986 -.437 .982 3 -1.955* .326 .000 -2.801 -1.108

3 1 2.227* .389 .000 1.216 3.239 2 1.955* .326 .000 1.108 2.801

Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.

!

145

Tasty (Foil Wrap, Paper Wrap, E-flute) GLM tasty1 tasty2 tasty3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=Tasty /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet1] /Users/ekthackston/Documents/cucafe_day3.sav

Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Tasty Material Dependent Variable 1 tasty1 2 tasty2 3 tasty3

!

!

Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Foil Wrap 3.4545 1.73829 22 Paper Wrap 3.0909 1.23091 22 E-Flute 4.2727 1.31590 22

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Tasty Within Subjects Effect

Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square

df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-

Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound

Material .902 2.067 2 .356 .911 .992 .500 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.

!Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Tasty Source Type III Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Material

Sphericity Assumed 16.121 2 8.061 5.654 .007 Greenhouse-Geisser 16.121 1.821 8.852 5.654 .009 Huynh-Feldt 16.121 1.985 8.122 5.654 .007 Lower-bound 16.121 1.000 16.121 5.654 .027

Error(Material)

Sphericity Assumed 59.879 42 1.426 Greenhouse-Geisser 59.879 38.245 1.566 Huynh-Feldt 59.879 41.681 1.437 Lower-bound 59.879 21.000 2.851

!Estimates Measure: Tasty Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 3.455 .371 2.684 4.225 2 3.091 .262 2.545 3.637 3 4.273 .281 3.689 4.856

!Pairwise Comparisons Measure: Tasty (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference (I-

J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb

Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 2 .364 .312 .772 -.449 1.176 3 -.818 .409 .176 -1.882 .246

2 1 -.364 .312 .772 -1.176 .449 3 -1.182* .352 .009 -2.098 -.266

3 1 .818 .409 .176 -.246 1.882 2 1.182* .352 .009 .266 2.098

Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.

!

146

Attractive (Foil Wrap, Paper Wrap, E-flute) GLM attractive1 attractive2 attractive3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=Attractive /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet1] /Users/ekthackston/Documents/cucafe_day3.sav

Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Attractive Material Dependent Variable 1 attractive1 2 attractive2 3 attractive3

!!Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Foil Wrap 2.7727 1.50971 22 Paper Wrap 2.6818 1.17053 22 E-Flute 4.6364 1.46533 22

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Attractive Within Subjects Effect

Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square

df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-

Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound

Material .892 2.290 2 .318 .902 .982 .500 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.

!Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Attractive Source Type III Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Material

Sphericity Assumed 53.545 2 26.773 16.426 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 53.545 1.805 29.669 16.426 .000 Huynh-Feldt 53.545 1.964 27.260 16.426 .000 Lower-bound 53.545 1.000 53.545 16.426 .001

Error(Material)

Sphericity Assumed 68.455 42 1.630 Greenhouse-Geisser 68.455 37.900 1.806 Huynh-Feldt 68.455 41.249 1.660 Lower-bound 68.455 21.000 3.260

!Estimates Measure: Attractive Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 2.773 .322 2.103 3.442 2 2.682 .250 2.163 3.201 3 4.636 .312 3.987 5.286

!Pairwise Comparisons Measure: Attractive (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference (I-

J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb

Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 2 .091 .341 1.000 -.797 .979 3 -1.864* .443 .001 -3.016 -.712

2 1 -.091 .341 1.000 -.979 .797 3 -1.955* .363 .000 -2.899 -1.010

3 1 1.864* .443 .001 .712 3.016 2 1.955* .363 .000 1.010 2.899

Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.

!

147

Fresh (Foil Wrap, Paper Wrap, E-flute) GLM fresh1 fresh2 fresh3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=Fresh /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet1] /Users/ekthackston/Documents/cucafe_day3.sav

Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Fresh Material Dependent Variable 1 fresh1 2 fresh2 3 fresh3

!

!

Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Foil Wrap 2.9091 1.94958 22 Paper Wrap 2.7727 1.26986 22 E-Flute 4.3182 1.17053 22

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Fresh Within Subjects Effect

Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square

df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-

Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound

Material .674 7.897 2 .019 .754 .800 .500 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.

!Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Fresh Source Type III Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Material

Sphericity Assumed 32.212 2 16.106 7.765 .001 Greenhouse-Geisser 32.212 1.508 21.360 7.765 .004 Huynh-Feldt 32.212 1.600 20.139 7.765 .003 Lower-bound 32.212 1.000 32.212 7.765 .011

Error(Material)

Sphericity Assumed 87.121 42 2.074 Greenhouse-Geisser 87.121 31.669 2.751 Huynh-Feldt 87.121 33.590 2.594 Lower-bound 87.121 21.000 4.149

!Estimates Measure: Fresh Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 2.909 .416 2.045 3.773 2 2.773 .271 2.210 3.336 3 4.318 .250 3.799 4.837

!Pairwise Comparisons Measure: Fresh (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference (I-

J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb

Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 2 .136 .462 1.000 -1.065 1.338 3 -1.409* .517 .038 -2.753 -.065

2 1 -.136 .462 1.000 -1.338 1.065 3 -1.545* .292 .000 -2.306 -.785

3 1 1.409* .517 .038 .065 2.753 2 1.545* .292 .000 .785 2.306

Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.

!

148

Premium (Foil Wrap, Paper Wrap, E-flute) GLM premium1 premium2 premium3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=Premium /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet1] /Users/ekthackston/Documents/cucafe_day3.sav

Estimates Measure: Premium Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 2.455 .300 1.832 3.077 2 2.500 .205 2.073 2.927 3 4.682 .318 4.020 5.344

!

Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Premium Material Dependent Variable 1 premium1 2 premium2 3 premium3

!

!

Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Foil Wrap 2.4545 1.40500 22 Paper Wrap 2.5000 .96362 22 E-Flute 4.6818 1.49241 22

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Premium Within Subjects Effect

Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square

df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-

Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound

Material .702 7.069 2 .029 .771 .820 .500 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.

!Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Premium Source Type III Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Material

Sphericity Assumed 71.303 2 35.652 26.724 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 71.303 1.541 46.266 26.724 .000 Huynh-Feldt 71.303 1.640 43.487 26.724 .000 Lower-bound 71.303 1.000 71.303 26.724 .000

Error(Material)

Sphericity Assumed 56.030 42 1.334 Greenhouse-Geisser 56.030 32.364 1.731 Huynh-Feldt 56.030 34.433 1.627 Lower-bound 56.030 21.000 2.668

!

Pairwise Comparisons Measure: Premium (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference (I-

J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb

Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 2 -.045 .250 1.000 -.697 .606 3 -2.227* .421 .000 -3.322 -1.132

2 1 .045 .250 1.000 -.606 .697 3 -2.182* .352 .000 -3.098 -1.266

3 1 2.227* .421 .000 1.132 3.322 2 2.182* .352 .000 1.266 3.098

Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.

!

149

Price (Foil Wrap, Paper Wrap, E-flute) GLM price1 price2 price3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=WTP /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet1] /Users/ekthackston/Documents/cucafe_day3.sav

Within-Subjects Factors Measure: WTP Material Dependent Variable 1 price1 2 price2 3 price3

!

!

Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Foil Wrap 1.5909 .50324 22 Paper Wrap 1.5000 .51177 22 E-Flute 2.2273 .61193 22

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: WTP Within Subjects Effect

Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square

df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-

Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound

Material .994 .115 2 .944 .994 1.000 .500 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.

!Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: WTP Source Type III Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Material

Sphericity Assumed 6.909 2 3.455 14.870 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 6.909 1.989 3.474 14.870 .000 Huynh-Feldt 6.909 2.000 3.455 14.870 .000 Lower-bound 6.909 1.000 6.909 14.870 .001

Error(Material)

Sphericity Assumed 9.758 42 .232 Greenhouse-Geisser 9.758 41.762 .234 Huynh-Feldt 9.758 42.000 .232 Lower-bound 9.758 21.000 .465

!Estimates Measure: WTP Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 1.591 .107 1.368 1.814 2 1.500 .109 1.273 1.727 3 2.227 .130 1.956 2.499

!Pairwise Comparisons Measure: WTP (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference (I-

J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb

Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 2 .091 .146 1.000 -.288 .470 3 -.636* .140 .001 -1.001 -.271

2 1 -.091 .146 1.000 -.470 .288 3 -.727* .150 .000 -1.117 -.338

3 1 .636* .140 .001 .271 1.001 2 .727* .150 .000 .338 1.117

Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.

!

150

Appendix D

Full Scale Study Data and Statistical Analysis

D1. Demographic Data Summary

18-20 47.20%21-29 46.40%30-39 1.80%40-49 1.80%50-59 2.70%

Male 65.50%Female 33.60%Other 0.91%

$0-$24,999 31.82%$25,000-$49,999 17.27%$50,000-$74,999 7.27%$75,000-$99,999 10.91%$100,000-$124,999 10.91%$125,000-$149,999 6.36%$150,000-$174,999 0.91%$175,000-$199,999 1.82%$200,000 and up 12.73%

Less than High School Degree 0.00%High school degree or equivalent 12.73%Some College No Degree 66.36%Associate Degree 1.82%Bachelor Degree 14.55%Graduate Degree 4.55%

Age Range

Education Level

Average Household Income

Gender

American Indian or Alaskan Native 0.00%Asian / Pacific Islander 5.45%Black or African American 10.91%Hispanic American 1.82%White / Caucasian 81.82%

Married 6.36%Widowed 0.00%Divorced 2.73%Separated 0.00%Never Married 90.91%

1 13.00%2 56.00%3 11.00%4 7.00%5 9.00%6 4.00%

Number of People in Household

Marital Status

Ethnicity

151

D2. Fast Food Preference Data Summary

Almost Daily 9.09%Not everyday but more than once a week 50.00%A few times a month, at most 37.27%Rarely or never 3.64%

Breakfast 3.64%Lunch 56.36%Dinner 34.55%As a snack in between meals 5.45%

In Car 27.27%Inside the restaurant 29.09%At home 33.64%At work 10.00%

Walk Inisde 52.73%Drive-thru 47.27%

<$2.00 0.91%$2.00-$4.00 17.27%$4.00-$6.00 49.09%$6.00-$8.00 30.00%$8.00+ 2.73%

On average how much do you spend at fast food restaurants per visit?

How often do you eat fast food?

For which meal do you most often eat fast food?

Where do you normally eat fast food?

Do you normally walk inside the restaurant or use the drive-thru?

152

D3. Sensory Attributes

Flavor GET FILE='/Users/ekthackston/Desktop/THESIS: GRADUATION/Graphs_tables/Wendys_all_sensory_3.sav'. DATASET NAME DataSet2 WINDOW=FRONT. SAVE OUTFILE='/Users/ekthackston/Desktop/THESIS: GRADUATION/Graphs_tables/wendys_sensory_anova.sav' /COMPRESSED. GLM sample602_flavor sample983_flavor sample180_flavor sample532_flavor BY Condition /WSFACTOR=Material 4 Polynomial /MEASURE=Flavor /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Condition) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Condition*Material) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material /DESIGN=Condition. General Linear Model [DataSet2] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/THESIS:GRADUATION/Graphs_tables/wendys_sensory_anova.sav Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Flavor Material Dependent Variable 1 sample602_flavor 2 sample983_flavor 3 sample180_flavor 4 sample532_flavor

Descriptive Statistics

Condition Mean Std. Deviation N

sample602_flavor Burger 5.2909 1.34264 55 Chicken 5.7455 1.32243 55 Total 5.5182 1.34595 110

sample983_flavor Burger 5.3091 1.24533 55 Chicken 5.7818 1.19708 55 Total 5.5455 1.23879 110

sample180_flavor Burger 5.3455 1.17407 55

Between-Subjects Factors Value Label N

Condition 1.00 Burger 55 2.00 Chicken 55

153

Chicken 5.9273 1.08619 55 Total 5.6364 1.16310 110

sample532_flavor Burger 5.2909 1.13321 55 Chicken 5.8364 1.06742 55 Total 5.5636 1.12948 110

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Flavor Within Subjects Effect

Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square

df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-

Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound

Material .912 9.857 5 .079 .940 .977 .333 a. Design: Intercept + Condition Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.

Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Flavor Source Type III Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Material

Sphericity Assumed .843 3 .281 .322 .810 Greenhouse-Geisser .843 2.819 .299 .322 .797 Huynh-Feldt .843 2.930 .288 .322 .805 Lower-bound .843 1.000 .843 .322 .572

Material * Condition

Sphericity Assumed .298 3 .099 .114 .952 Greenhouse-Geisser .298 2.819 .106 .114 .945 Huynh-Feldt .298 2.930 .102 .114 .949 Lower-bound .298 1.000 .298 .114 .737

Error(Material)

Sphericity Assumed 283.109 324 .874 Greenhouse-Geisser 283.109 304.501 .930 Huynh-Feldt 283.109 316.400 .895 Lower-bound 283.109 108.000 2.621

Estimates Measure: Flavor Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 5.518 .127 5.266 5.770 2 5.545 .116 5.315 5.776 3 5.636 .108 5.423 5.850 4 5.564 .105 5.356 5.772

Texture GLM sample602_texture sample983_texture sample180_texture sample532_texture BY Condition /WSFACTOR=Material 4 Polynomial /MEASURE=Texture /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Condition) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Condition*Material) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material /DESIGN=Condition. General Linear Model

154

[DataSet2] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/THESIS:GRADUATION/Graphs_tables/wendys_sensory_anova.sav

Descriptive Statistics

Condition Mean Std. Deviation N

sample602_texture Burger 5.1636 1.30190 55 Chicken 5.9455 .91121 55 Total 5.5545 1.18543 110

sample983_texture Burger 5.3818 1.26916 55 Chicken 5.9455 1.00771 55 Total 5.6636 1.17526 110

sample180_texture Burger 5.3818 1.28367 55 Chicken 5.7455 1.22048 55 Total 5.5636 1.26002 110

sample532_texture Burger 5.1455 1.33913 55 Chicken 5.5818 1.43618 55 Total 5.3636 1.39939 110

Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Texture Material Dependent Variable 1 sample602_texture 2 sample983_texture 3 sample180_texture 4 sample532_texture

Between-Subjects Factors Value Label N

Condition 1.00 Burger 55 2.00 Chicken 55

Between-Subjects Factors

155

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Texture Within Subjects Effect

Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square

df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-

Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound

Material .877 14.020 5 .015 .928 .964 .333 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept + Condition Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.

Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Texture Source Type III Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Material

Sphericity Assumed 5.182 3 1.727 1.782 .150 Greenhouse-Geisser 5.182 2.784 1.861 1.782 .155 Huynh-Feldt 5.182 2.892 1.792 1.782 .153 Lower-bound 5.182 1.000 5.182 1.782 .185

Material * Condition

Sphericity Assumed 2.773 3 .924 .954 .415 Greenhouse-Geisser 2.773 2.784 .996 .954 .410 Huynh-Feldt 2.773 2.892 .959 .954 .413 Lower-bound 2.773 1.000 2.773 .954 .331

Error(Material)

Sphericity Assumed 314.045 324 .969 Greenhouse-Geisser 314.045 300.667 1.044 Huynh-Feldt 314.045 312.285 1.006 Lower-bound 314.045 108.000 2.908

GLM sample602_overall sample983_overall sample180_overall sample532_overall BY Condition /WSFACTOR=Material 4 Polynomial /MEASURE=Overall /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Condition) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Condition*Material) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material /DESIGN=Condition. General Linear Model [DataSet2] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/THESIS:GRADUATION/Graphs_tables/wendys_sensory_anova.sav Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Overall Material Dependent Variable 1 sample602_overall 2 sample983_overall 3 sample180_overall 4 sample532_overall

Descriptive Statistics

Condition Mean Std. Deviation N sample602_overall Burger 5.2364 1.30474 55

Value Label N

Condition 1.00 Burger 55 2.00 Chicken 55

156

Chicken 5.6545 1.26518 55 Total 5.4455 1.29633 110

sample983_overall Burger 5.3091 1.26011 55 Chicken 5.8000 1.00738 55 Total 5.5545 1.16198 110

sample180_overall Burger 5.3818 1.14651 55 Chicken 5.8909 1.11675 55 Total 5.6364 1.15518 110

sample532_overall Burger 5.1091 1.14944 55 Chicken 5.6727 1.20269 55 Total 5.3909 1.20470 110

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Overall Within Subjects Effect

Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square

df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-

Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound

Material .886 12.885 5 .024 .930 .966 .333 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept + Condition Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.

Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Overall Source Type III Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Material

Sphericity Assumed 3.989 3 1.330 1.486 .218 Greenhouse-Geisser 3.989 2.791 1.429 1.486 .221 Huynh-Feldt 3.989 2.899 1.376 1.486 .220 Lower-bound 3.989 1.000 3.989 1.486 .226

Material * Condition

Sphericity Assumed .298 3 .099 .111 .954 Greenhouse-Geisser .298 2.791 .107 .111 .945 Huynh-Feldt .298 2.899 .103 .111 .950 Lower-bound .298 1.000 .298 .111 .740

Error(Material)

Sphericity Assumed 289.964 324 .895 Greenhouse-Geisser 289.964 301.461 .962 Huynh-Feldt 289.964 313.137 .926 Lower-bound 289.964 108.000 2.685

Acceptance GLM sample602_how_often_would_you_eat_this_product sample983_how_often_would_you_eat_this_product sample180_how_often_would_you_eat_this_product sample532_how_often_would_you_eat_this_product BY Condition /WSFACTOR=Material 4 Polynomial /MEASURE=Acceptability /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Condition) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Condition*Material) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material /DESIGN=Condition. General Linear Model [DataSet2] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/THESIS: GRADUATION/Graphs_tables/wendys_sensory_anova.sav

Between-Subjects Factors

157

Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Acceptability Material Dependent Variable

1 sample602_how_often_would_you_eat_this_product

2 sample983_how_often_would_you_eat_this_product

3 sample180_how_often_would_you_eat_this_product

4 sample532_how_often_would_you_eat_this_product

Descriptive Statistics

Condition Mean Std. Deviation N sample602_how_often_would_you_eat_this_product

Burger 5.509 1.5501 55 Chicken 5.873 1.4789 55 Total 5.691 1.5190 110

sample983_how_often_would_you_eat_this_product

Burger 5.7091 1.74984 55 Chicken 5.8545 1.26810 55 Total 5.7818 1.52280 110

sample180_how_often_would_you_eat_this_product

Burger 5.6545 1.51802 55 Chicken 6.0364 1.30474 55 Total 5.8455 1.42189 110

sample532_how_often_would_you_eat_this_product

Burger 5.3091 1.43853 55 Chicken 5.7818 1.54789 55 Total 5.5455 1.50617 110

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Acceptability Within Subjects Effect

Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square

df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-

Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound

Material .908 10.350 5 .066 .947 .984 .333 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept + Condition Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.

Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Acceptability Source Type III Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Material

Sphericity Assumed 5.589 3 1.863 1.638 .181 Greenhouse-Geisser 5.589 2.841 1.967 1.638 .183 Huynh-Feldt 5.589 2.952 1.893 1.638 .181 Lower-bound 5.589 1.000 5.589 1.638 .203

Material * Condition

Sphericity Assumed 1.589 3 .530 .466 .707 Greenhouse-Geisser 1.589 2.841 .559 .466 .696 Huynh-Feldt 1.589 2.952 .538 .466 .703 Lower-bound 1.589 1.000 1.589 .466 .497

Error(Material)

Sphericity Assumed 368.573 324 1.138 Greenhouse-Geisser 368.573 306.798 1.201 Huynh-Feldt 368.573 318.867 1.156 Lower-bound 368.573 108.000 3.413

D4. Functionality Attributes

Value Label N

Condition 1.00 Burger 55 2.00 Chicken 55

158

Protects Product GET FILE='/Users/ekthackston/Desktop/THESIS: GRADUATION/Graphs_tables/Wendys_all_functionality.sav'. DATASET NAME DataSet1 WINDOW=FRONT. SAVE OUTFILE='/Users/ekthackston/Desktop/THESIS: '+ 'GRADUATION/Graphs_tables/Wendys_all_functionality_anova.sav' /COMPRESSED. DATASET ACTIVATE DataSet1. SAVE OUTFILE='/Users/ekthackston/Desktop/THESIS: '+ 'GRADUATION/Graphs_tables/Wendys_all_functionality_anova.sav' /COMPRESSED. GLM sample602_protects sample983_protects sample180_protects sample532_protects BY Condition /WSFACTOR=Material 4 Polynomial /MEASURE=ProtectsProduct /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Condition) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Condition*Material) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material /DESIGN=Condition. General Linear Model [DataSet1] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/THESIS: GRADUATION/Graphs_tables/Wendys_all_functionality_anova.sav Within-Subjects Factors Measure: ProtectsProduct Material Dependent Variable 1 sample602_protects 2 sample983_protects 3 sample180_protects 4 sample532_protects

Descriptive Statistics

Condition Mean Std. Deviation N

Protects product Burger 5.6364 1.39262 55 Chicken 5.9091 1.20605 55 Total 5.7727 1.30390 110

Protects product Burger 6.2909 .80904 55 Chicken 6.2727 .98985 55 Total 6.2818 .89987 110

Protects product Burger 5.8182 1.07309 55 Chicken 6.2909 .78582 55 Total 6.0545 .96580 110

Protects product Burger 3.3091 1.66525 55 Chicken 3.2727 1.75810 55 Total 3.2909 1.70453 110

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: ProtectsProduct Within Subjects Effect

Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square

df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-

Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound

Material .629 49.523 5 .000 .754 .778 .333 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept + Condition Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.

Between-Subjects Factors Value Label N

Condition 1.00 Burger 55 2.00 Chicken 55

159

Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: ProtectsProduct Source Type III Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Material

Sphericity Assumed 636.155 3 212.052 147.946 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 636.155 2.263 281.119 147.946 .000

Huynh-Feldt 636.155 2.335 272.414 147.946 .000 Lower-bound 636.155 1.000 636.155 147.946 .000

Material * Condition

Sphericity Assumed 4.955 3 1.652 1.152 .328 Greenhouse-Geisser 4.955 2.263 2.189 1.152 .322

Huynh-Feldt 4.955 2.335 2.122 1.152 .323 Lower-bound 4.955 1.000 4.955 1.152 .285

Error(Material)

Sphericity Assumed 464.391 324 1.433 Greenhouse-Geisser 464.391 244.397 1.900

Huynh-Feldt 464.391 252.207 1.841 Lower-bound 464.391 108.000 4.300

Estimates Measure: ProtectsProduct Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 5.773 .124 5.527 6.019 2 6.282 .086 6.111 6.453 3 6.055 .090 5.877 6.232 4 3.291 .163 2.967 3.615

Pairwise Comparisons Measure: ProtectsProduct (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference

(I-J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for

Differenceb Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 2 -.509* .131 .001 -.861 -.158 3 -.282 .132 .211 -.637 .073 4 2.482* .200 .000 1.946 3.018

2 1 .509* .131 .001 .158 .861 3 .227 .113 .285 -.077 .532 4 2.991* .185 .000 2.493 3.488

3 1 .282 .132 .211 -.073 .637 2 -.227 .113 .285 -.532 .077 4 2.764* .187 .000 2.261 3.266

4 1 -2.482* .200 .000 -3.018 -1.946 2 -2.991* .185 .000 -3.488 -2.493 3 -2.764* .187 .000 -3.266 -2.261

Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.

Easy to Open GLM sample602_open sample983_open sample180_open sample532_open BY Condition /WSFACTOR=Material 4 Polynomial /MEASURE=EasyOpen /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Condition) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI)

160

/EMMEANS=TABLES(Condition*Material) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material /DESIGN=Condition. General Linear Model [DataSet1] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/THESIS: GRADUATION/Graphs_tables/Wendys_all_functionality_anova.sav Within-Subjects Factors Measure: EasyOpen Material Dependent

Variable 1 sample602_open 2 sample983_open 3 sample180_open 4 sample532_open

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: EasyOpen Within Subjects Effect

Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square

df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-

Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound

Material .699 38.277 5 .000 .810 .838 .333 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept + Condition Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.

Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: EasyOpen Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Material

Sphericity Assumed 283.518 3 94.506 44.222 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 283.518 2.431 116.645 44.222 .000 Huynh-Feldt 283.518 2.514 112.791 44.222 .000 Lower-bound 283.518 1.000 283.518 44.222 .000

Between-Subjects Factors Value Label N

Condition 1.00 Burger 55 2.00 Chicken 55

Descriptive Statistics

Condition Mean Std. Deviation N

Easy to open Burger 3.9273 2.01710 55 Chicken 4.2182 2.02476 55 Total 4.0727 2.01694 110

Easy to open Burger 5.3091 1.42560 55 Chicken 5.2727 1.78942 55 Total 5.2909 1.61043 110

Easy to open Burger 5.8545 1.23855 55 Chicken 6.1818 1.00168 55 Total 6.0182 1.13317 110

Easy to open Burger 5.8909 1.36995 55 Chicken 6.2182 1.06616 55 Total 6.0545 1.23286 110

161

Material * Condition

Sphericity Assumed 2.573 3 .858 .401 .752 Greenhouse-Geisser 2.573 2.431 1.058 .401 .710 Huynh-Feldt 2.573 2.514 1.023 .401 .717 Lower-bound 2.573 1.000 2.573 .401 .528

Error(Material)

Sphericity Assumed 692.409 324 2.137 Greenhouse-Geisser 692.409 262.505 2.638 Huynh-Feldt 692.409 271.476 2.551 Lower-bound 692.409 108.000 6.411

Estimates Measure: EasyOpen Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 4.073 .193 3.691 4.455 2 5.291 .154 4.985 5.597 3 6.018 .107 5.805 6.231 4 6.055 .117 5.823 6.287

Pairwise Comparisons Measure: EasyOpen (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference

(I-J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for

Differenceb Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 2 -1.218* .198 .000 -1.750 -.686 3 -1.945* .227 .000 -2.554 -1.337 4 -1.982* .233 .000 -2.609 -1.355

2 1 1.218* .198 .000 .686 1.750 3 -.727* .175 .000 -1.197 -.258 4 -.764* .193 .001 -1.283 -.244

3 1 1.945* .227 .000 1.337 2.554 2 .727* .175 .000 .258 1.197 4 -.036 .143 1.000 -.420 .347

4 1 1.982* .233 .000 1.355 2.609 2 .764* .193 .001 .244 1.283 3 .036 .143 1.000 -.347 .420

Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.

Contains Product GLM sample602_contains sample983_contains sample180_contains sample532_contains BY Condition /WSFACTOR=Material 4 Polynomial /MEASURE=ContainsProduct /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Condition) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Condition*Material) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material /DESIGN=Condition. General Linear Model [DataSet1] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/THESIS: GRADUATION/Graphs_tables/Wendys_all_functionality_anova.sav Within-Subjects Factors Measure: ContainsProduct Material Dependent Variable 1 sample602_contains 2 sample983_contains

162

3 sample180_contains 4 sample532_contains

Descriptive Statistics

Condition Mean Std. Deviation N

Contains product Burger 5.5455 1.53741 55 Chicken 6.0727 1.16832 55 Total 5.8091 1.38468 110

Contains product Burger 6.2909 .80904 55 Chicken 6.5273 .71633 55 Total 6.4091 .76979 110

Contains product Burger 6.1091 .89593 55 Chicken 6.3636 .82470 55 Total 6.2364 .86658 110

Contains product Burger 4.8909 1.62928 55 Chicken 5.0000 1.56347 55 Total 4.9455 1.59032 110

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: ContainsProduct Within Subjects Effect

Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square

df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-

Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound

Material .491 75.857 5 .000 .713 .735 .333 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept + Condition Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.

Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: ContainsProduct Source Type III Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Material

Sphericity Assumed 140.991 3 46.997 42.303 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 140.991 2.139 65.903 42.303 .000 Huynh-Feldt 140.991 2.204 63.966 42.303 .000 Lower-bound 140.991 1.000 140.991 42.303 .000

Material * Condition

Sphericity Assumed 2.555 3 .852 .766 .514 Greenhouse-Geisser 2.555 2.139 1.194 .766 .474 Huynh-Feldt 2.555 2.204 1.159 .766 .477 Lower-bound 2.555 1.000 2.555 .766 .383

Error(Material)

Sphericity Assumed 359.955 324 1.111 Greenhouse-Geisser 359.955 231.053 1.558 Huynh-Feldt 359.955 238.047 1.512 Lower-bound 359.955 108.000 3.333

Estimates Measure: ContainsProduct Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 5.809 .130 5.551 6.067 2 6.409 .073 6.265 6.553 3 6.236 .082 6.074 6.399 4 4.945 .152 4.644 5.247

163

Pairwise Comparisons Measure: ContainsProduct (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference

(I-J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for

Differenceb Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 2 -.600* .118 .000 -.918 -.282 3 -.427* .126 .006 -.766 -.088 4 .864* .185 .000 .367 1.361

2 1 .600* .118 .000 .282 .918 3 .173 .081 .210 -.045 .390 4 1.464* .159 .000 1.036 1.891

3 1 .427* .126 .006 .088 .766 2 -.173 .081 .210 -.390 .045 4 1.291* .159 .000 .864 1.718

4 1 -.864* .185 .000 -1.361 -.367 2 -1.464* .159 .000 -1.891 -1.036 3 -1.291* .159 .000 -1.718 -.864

Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.

Keeps Product Warm GLM sample602_warm sample983_warm sample180_warm sample532_warm BY Condition /WSFACTOR=Material 4 Polynomial /MEASURE=KeepsWarm /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Condition) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Condition*Material) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material /DESIGN=Condition. General Linear Model [DataSet1] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/THESIS: GRADUATION/Graphs_tables/Wendys_all_functionality_anova Within-Subjects Factors Measure: KeepsWarm Material Dependent Variable 1 sample602_warm 2 sample983_warm 3 sample180_warm 4 sample532_warm

Descriptive Statistics

Condition Mean Std. Deviation N

Keeps product warm Burger 4.9273 1.59692 55 Chicken 5.2000 1.33888 55 Total 5.0636 1.47317 110

Keeps product warm Burger 5.7273 1.25395 55 Chicken 5.9091 1.05887 55 Total 5.8182 1.15879 110

Keeps product warm Burger 5.8545 .93131 55 Chicken 6.1273 .94388 55 Total 5.9909 .94331 110

Between-Subjects Factors Value Label N

Condition 1.00 Burger 55 2.00 Chicken 55

164

Keeps product warm Burger 3.8909 1.67412 55 Chicken 3.6182 1.70501 55 Total 3.7545 1.68744 110

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: KeepsWarm Within Subjects Effect

Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square

df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-

Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound

Material .720 35.126 5 .000 .833 .862 .333 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept + Condition Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.

Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: KeepsWarm Source Type III Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Material

Sphericity Assumed 341.898 3 113.966 78.693 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 341.898 2.499 136.832 78.693 .000 Huynh-Feldt 341.898 2.586 132.198 78.693 .000 Lower-bound 341.898 1.000 341.898 78.693 .000

Material * Condition

Sphericity Assumed 5.625 3 1.875 1.295 .276 Greenhouse-Geisser 5.625 2.499 2.251 1.295 .277 Huynh-Feldt 5.625 2.586 2.175 1.295 .277 Lower-bound 5.625 1.000 5.625 1.295 .258

Error(Material)

Sphericity Assumed 469.227 324 1.448 Greenhouse-Geisser 469.227 269.857 1.739 Huynh-Feldt 469.227 279.316 1.680 Lower-bound 469.227 108.000 4.345

Estimates Measure: KeepsWarm Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 5.064 .140 4.785 5.342 2 5.818 .111 5.599 6.038 3 5.991 .089 5.814 6.168 4 3.755 .161 3.435 4.074

Pairwise Comparisons Measure: KeepsWarm (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference

(I-J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for

Differenceb Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 2 -.755* .133 .000 -1.112 -.397 3 -.927* .156 .000 -1.345 -.509 4 1.309* .186 .000 .809 1.809

2 1 .755* .133 .000 .397 1.112 3 -.173 .119 .906 -.494 .148 4 2.064* .181 .000 1.577 2.550

165

3 1 .927* .156 .000 .509 1.345 2 .173 .119 .906 -.148 .494 4 2.236* .186 .000 1.737 2.735

4 1 -1.309* .186 .000 -1.809 -.809 2 -2.064* .181 .000 -2.550 -1.577 3 -2.236* .186 .000 -2.735 -1.737

Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.

Easy to Carry GLM sample602_carry sample983_carry sample180_carry sample532_carry BY Condition /WSFACTOR=Material 4 Polynomial /MEASURE=EasyCarry /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Condition) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Condition*Material) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material /DESIGN=Condition. General Linear Model [DataSet1] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/THESIS: GRADUATION/Graphs_tables/Wendys_all_functionality_anova.sav Within-Subjects Factors Measure: EasyCarry Material Dependent Variable 1 sample602_carry 2 sample983_carry 3 sample180_carry 4 sample532_carry

Descriptive Statistics

Condition Mean Std. Deviation N

Easy to carry Burger 4.6182 1.77942 55 Chicken 5.1636 1.48777 55 Total 4.8909 1.65538 110

Easy to carry Burger 5.5818 1.48687 55 Chicken 6.1818 1.00168 55 Total 5.8818 1.29736 110

Easy to carry Burger 5.4727 1.31733 55 Chicken 6.1818 .79561 55 Total 5.8273 1.14025 110

Easy to carry Burger 5.4727 1.51357 55 Chicken 5.3636 1.60282 55 Total 5.4182 1.55264 110

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: EasyCarry Within Subjects Effect

Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square

df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-

Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound

Material .790 25.165 5 .000 .859 .890 .333 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept + Condition Within Subjects Design: Material

Between-Subjects Factors Value Label N

Condition 1.00 Burger 55 2.00 Chicken 55

166

b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.

Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: EasyCarry Source Type III Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Material

Sphericity Assumed 69.355 3 23.118 14.436 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 69.355 2.577 26.913 14.436 .000 Huynh-Feldt 69.355 2.670 25.977 14.436 .000 Lower-bound 69.355 1.000 69.355 14.436 .000

Material * Condition

Sphericity Assumed 11.291 3 3.764 2.350 .072 Greenhouse-Geisser 11.291 2.577 4.381 2.350 .082 Huynh-Feldt 11.291 2.670 4.229 2.350 .080 Lower-bound 11.291 1.000 11.291 2.350 .128

Error(Material)

Sphericity Assumed 518.855 324 1.601 Greenhouse-Geisser 518.855 278.313 1.864 Huynh-Feldt 518.855 288.347 1.799 Lower-bound 518.855 108.000 4.804

Estimates Measure: EasyCarry Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 4.891 .156 4.581 5.201 2 5.882 .121 5.642 6.121 3 5.827 .104 5.622 6.033 4 5.418 .149 5.124 5.713

Pairwise Comparisons Measure: EasyCarry (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference

(I-J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for

Differenceb Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 2 -.991* .149 .000 -1.391 -.591 3 -.936* .156 .000 -1.355 -.518 4 -.527 .204 .066 -1.075 .021

2 1 .991* .149 .000 .591 1.391 3 .055 .134 1.000 -.306 .415 4 .464 .189 .094 -.044 .971

3 1 .936* .156 .000 .518 1.355 2 -.055 .134 1.000 -.415 .306 4 .409 .182 .160 -.080 .899

4 1 .527 .204 .066 -.021 1.075 2 -.464 .189 .094 -.971 .044 3 -.409 .182 .160 -.899 .080

Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni. D5. Credence Attributes

Natural GET FILE='/Users/ekthackston/Desktop/THESIS: GRADUATION/Graphs_tables/Wendys_all_qualities.sav'. DATASET NAME DataSet2 WINDOW=FRONT. SAVE OUTFILE='/Users/ekthackston/Desktop/THESIS: GRADUATION/Graphs_tables/quality_all_anova.sav' /COMPRESSED. DATASET ACTIVATE DataSet2. SAVE OUTFILE='/Users/ekthackston/Desktop/THESIS: GRADUATION/Graphs_tables/quality_all_anova.sav' /COMPRESSED.

167

GLM s602_nat s983_nat s180_nat s532_nat BY Condition /WSFACTOR=Material 4 Polynomial /MEASURE=Natural /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Condition) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Condition*Material) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material /DESIGN=Condition. General Linear Model [DataSet2] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/THESIS: GRADUATION/Graphs_tables/quality_all_anova.sav Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Natural Material Dependent Variable 1 s602_nat 2 s983_nat 3 s180_nat 4 s532_nat

Descriptive Statistics

Condition Mean Std. Deviation N

s602_nat Burger 4.5455 1.52532 55 Chicken 4.3818 1.34013 55 Total 4.4636 1.43148 110

s983_nat Burger 5.5091 1.24533 55 Chicken 5.2364 1.37388 55 Total 5.3727 1.31232 110

s180_nat Burger 2.6909 1.83457 55 Chicken 3.1818 1.67874 55 Total 2.9364 1.76758 110

s532_nat Burger 4.0182 1.75848 55 Chicken 4.5455 1.42489 55 Total 4.2818 1.61491 110

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Natural Within Subjects Effect

Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square

df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-

Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound

Material .766 28.441 5 .000 .861 .892 .333 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept + Condition Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.

Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Natural Source Type III Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Material

Sphericity Assumed 333.527 3 111.176 56.482 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 333.527 2.582 129.186 56.482 .000 Huynh-Feldt 333.527 2.675 124.683 56.482 .000 Lower-bound 333.527 1.000 333.527 56.482 .000

Material * Condition Sphericity Assumed 14.727 3 4.909 2.494 .060 Greenhouse-Geisser 14.727 2.582 5.704 2.494 .069

Between-Subjects Factors Value Label N

Condition 1.00 Burger 55 2.00 Chicken 55

168

Huynh-Feldt 14.727 2.675 5.506 2.494 .067 Lower-bound 14.727 1.000 14.727 2.494 .117

Error(Material)

Sphericity Assumed 637.745 324 1.968 Greenhouse-Geisser 637.745 278.830 2.287 Huynh-Feldt 637.745 288.899 2.208 Lower-bound 637.745 108.000 5.905

Estimates Measure: Natural Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 4.464 .137 4.192 4.735 2 5.373 .125 5.125 5.621 3 2.936 .168 2.604 3.269 4 4.282 .153 3.979 4.584

Pairwise Comparisons Measure: Natural (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference

(I-J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for

Differenceb Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 2 -.909* .143 .000 -1.293 -.525 3 1.527* .196 .000 1.001 2.054 4 .182 .172 1.000 -.282 .645

2 1 .909* .143 .000 .525 1.293 3 2.436* .225 .000 1.832 3.041 4 1.091* .190 .000 .580 1.602

3 1 -1.527* .196 .000 -2.054 -1.001 2 -2.436* .225 .000 -3.041 -1.832 4 -1.345* .199 .000 -1.879 -.812

4 1 -.182 .172 1.000 -.645 .282 2 -1.091* .190 .000 -1.602 -.580 3 1.345* .199 .000 .812 1.879

Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.

Environmentally Friendly GLM s602_env s983_env s180_env s532_env BY Condition /WSFACTOR=Material 4 Polynomial /MEASURE=EcoFriendly /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Condition) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Condition*Material) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material /DESIGN=Condition. General Linear Model [DataSet2] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/THESIS: GRADUATION/Graphs_tables/quality_all_anova.sav Within-Subjects Factors Measure: EcoFriendly Material Dependent Variable 1 s602_env 2 s983_env 3 s180_env 4 s532_env

169

Descriptive Statistics

Condition Mean Std. Deviation N

s602_env Burger 4.4727 1.54985 55 Chicken 4.5636 1.44995 55 Total 4.5182 1.49453 110

s983_env Burger 5.2000 1.35264 55 Chicken 5.0909 1.51868 55 Total 5.1455 1.43250 110

s180_env Burger 2.5273 1.83439 55 Chicken 2.6727 1.54026 55 Total 2.6000 1.68751 110

s532_env Burger 4.1818 1.76479 55 Chicken 4.5636 1.37118 55 Total 4.3727 1.58467 110

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: EcoFriendly Within Subjects Effect

Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square

df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-

Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound

Material .795 24.434 5 .000 .871 .903 .333 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept + Condition Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.

Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: EcoFriendly Source Type III Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Material

Sphericity Assumed 393.609 3 131.203 70.494 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 393.609 2.613 150.651 70.494 .000 Huynh-Feldt 393.609 2.708 145.345 70.494 .000 Lower-bound 393.609 1.000 393.609 70.494 .000

Material * Condition

Sphericity Assumed 3.364 3 1.121 .602 .614 Greenhouse-Geisser 3.364 2.613 1.287 .602 .591 Huynh-Feldt 3.364 2.708 1.242 .602 .597 Lower-bound 3.364 1.000 3.364 .602 .439

Error(Material)

Sphericity Assumed 603.027 324 1.861 Greenhouse-Geisser 603.027 282.174 2.137 Huynh-Feldt 603.027 292.475 2.062 Lower-bound 603.027 108.000 5.584

Estimates Measure: EcoFriendly Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 4.518 .143 4.235 4.802 2 5.145 .137 4.874 5.417 3 2.600 .161 2.280 2.920 4 4.373 .151 4.074 4.671

Pairwise Comparisons

Between-Subjects Factors Value Label N

Condition 1.00 Burger 55 2.00 Chicken 55

170

Measure: EcoFriendly (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference

(I-J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for

Differenceb Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 2 -.627* .142 .000 -1.008 -.246 3 1.918* .194 .000 1.396 2.440 4 .145 .163 1.000 -.292 .583

2 1 .627* .142 .000 .246 1.008 3 2.545* .209 .000 1.983 3.107 4 .773* .172 .000 .310 1.236

3 1 -1.918* .194 .000 -2.440 -1.396 2 -2.545* .209 .000 -3.107 -1.983 4 -1.773* .213 .000 -2.345 -1.201

4 1 -.145 .163 1.000 -.583 .292 2 -.773* .172 .000 -1.236 -.310 3 1.773* .213 .000 1.201 2.345

Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.

Modern GLM s602_mod s983_mod s180_mod s532_mod BY Condition /WSFACTOR=Material 4 Polynomial /MEASURE=Modern /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Condition) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Condition*Material) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material /DESIGN=Condition. General Linear Model [DataSet2] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/THESIS: GRADUATION/Graphs_tables/quality_all_anova.sav

Descriptive Statistics

Condition Mean Std. Deviation N

s602_mod Burger 4.8182 1.56455 55 Chicken 4.8000 1.54440 55 Total 4.8091 1.54739 110

s983_mod Burger 5.1091 1.34264 55 Chicken 4.9818 1.64981 55 Total 5.0455 1.49854 110

s180_mod Burger 4.1091 1.79168 55 Chicken 4.2182 1.75004 55 Total 4.1636 1.76369 110

s532_mod Burger 3.0000 1.76383 55 Chicken 3.1273 1.50376 55 Total 3.0636 1.63268 110

Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Modern Material Dependent Variable 1 s602_mod 2 s983_mod 3 s180_mod 4 s532_mod

Between-Subjects Factors Value Label N

Condition 1.00 Burger 55 2.00 Chicken 55

171

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Modern Within Subjects Effect

Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square

df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-

Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound

Material .886 12.978 5 .024 .924 .960 .333 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept + Condition Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.

Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Modern Source Type III Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Material

Sphericity Assumed 259.443 3 86.481 38.801 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 259.443 2.772 93.591 38.801 .000 Huynh-Feldt 259.443 2.879 90.121 38.801 .000 Lower-bound 259.443 1.000 259.443 38.801 .000

Material * Condition

Sphericity Assumed 1.170 3 .390 .175 .913 Greenhouse-Geisser 1.170 2.772 .422 .175 .901 Huynh-Feldt 1.170 2.879 .407 .175 .907 Lower-bound 1.170 1.000 1.170 .175 .676

Error(Material)

Sphericity Assumed 722.136 324 2.229 Greenhouse-Geisser 722.136 299.388 2.412 Huynh-Feldt 722.136 310.912 2.323 Lower-bound 722.136 108.000 6.686

Estimates Measure: Modern Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 4.809 .148 4.515 5.103 2 5.045 .143 4.761 5.330 3 4.164 .169 3.829 4.498 4 3.064 .156 2.754 3.373

Pairwise Comparisons Measure: Modern (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference

(I-J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for

Differenceb Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 2 -.236 .170 1.000 -.693 .221 3 .645* .219 .024 .056 1.235 4 1.745* .200 .000 1.207 2.284

2 1 .236 .170 1.000 -.221 .693 3 .882* .214 .000 .308 1.456 4 1.982* .208 .000 1.424 2.540

3 1 -.645* .219 .024 -1.235 -.056 2 -.882* .214 .000 -1.456 -.308

172

4 1.100* .193 .000 .580 1.620

4 1 -1.745* .200 .000 -2.284 -1.207 2 -1.982* .208 .000 -2.540 -1.424 3 -1.100* .193 .000 -1.620 -.580

Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.

Neat GLM s602_neat s983_neat s180_neat s532_neat BY Condition /WSFACTOR=Material 4 Polynomial /MEASURE=Neat /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Condition) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Condition*Material) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material /DESIGN=Condition. General Linear Model [DataSet2] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/THESIS: GRADUATION/Graphs_tables/quality_all_anova.sav Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Neat Material Dependent Variable 1 s602_neat 2 s983_neat 3 s180_neat 4 s532_neat

Descriptive Statistics

Condition Mean Std. Deviation N

s602_neat Burger 4.8000 1.50800 55 Chicken 4.9455 1.71506 55 Total 4.8727 1.60909 110

s983_neat Burger 5.5636 1.18265 55 Chicken 5.2909 1.47413 55 Total 5.4273 1.33725 110

s180_neat Burger 4.8182 1.49184 55 Chicken 5.1091 1.51135 55 Total 4.9636 1.50185 110

s532_neat Burger 3.2364 1.67734 55 Chicken 3.0000 1.56347 55 Total 3.1182 1.61831 110

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Neat Within Subjects Effect

Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square

df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-

Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound

Material .870 14.805 5 .011 .918 .953 .333 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept + Condition Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.

Between-Subjects Factors Value Label N

Condition 1.00 Burger 55 2.00 Chicken 55

173

Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Neat Source Type III Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Material

Sphericity Assumed 339.536 3 113.179 55.560 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 339.536 2.755 123.255 55.560 .000 Huynh-Feldt 339.536 2.860 118.710 55.560 .000 Lower-bound 339.536 1.000 339.536 55.560 .000

Material * Condition

Sphericity Assumed 6.455 3 2.152 1.056 .368 Greenhouse-Geisser 6.455 2.755 2.343 1.056 .364 Huynh-Feldt 6.455 2.860 2.257 1.056 .366 Lower-bound 6.455 1.000 6.455 1.056 .306

Error(Material)

Sphericity Assumed 660.009 324 2.037 Greenhouse-Geisser 660.009 297.514 2.218 Huynh-Feldt 660.009 308.902 2.137 Lower-bound 660.009 108.000 6.111

Estimates Measure: Neat Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 4.873 .154 4.568 5.178 2 5.427 .127 5.175 5.680 3 4.964 .143 4.680 5.247 4 3.118 .155 2.812 3.425

Pairwise Comparisons Measure: Neat (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference

(I-J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for

Differenceb Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 2 -.555* .176 .012 -1.027 -.083 3 -.091 .187 1.000 -.593 .411 4 1.755* .216 .000 1.175 2.334

2 1 .555* .176 .012 .083 1.027 3 .464* .157 .024 .040 .887 4 2.309* .210 .000 1.745 2.873

3 1 .091 .187 1.000 -.411 .593 2 -.464* .157 .024 -.887 -.040 4 1.845* .203 .000 1.300 2.391

4 1 -1.755* .216 .000 -2.334 -1.175 2 -2.309* .210 .000 -2.873 -1.745 3 -1.845* .203 .000 -2.391 -1.300

Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.

Premium GLM s602_prem s983_prem s180_prem s532_prem BY Condition /WSFACTOR=Material 4 Polynomial /MEASURE=Premium /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Condition) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Condition*Material) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material /DESIGN=Condition.

174

General Linear Model [DataSet2] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/THESIS: GRADUATION/Graphs_tables/quality_all_anova.sav Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Premium Material Dependent Variable 1 s602_prem 2 s983_prem 3 s180_prem 4 s532_prem

Descriptive Statistics

Condition Mean Std. Deviation N

s602_prem Burger 4.4364 1.60743 55 Chicken 4.4909 1.52598 55 Total 4.4636 1.56027 110

s983_prem Burger 5.0182 1.66100 55 Chicken 4.9273 1.56175 55 Total 4.9727 1.60538 110

s180_prem Burger 3.9636 1.52708 55 Chicken 4.0182 1.63855 55 Total 3.9909 1.57675 110

s532_prem Burger 2.9636 1.77392 55 Chicken 2.9636 1.65511 55 Total 2.9636 1.70766 110

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Premium Within Subjects Effect

Mauchly's W Approx. Chi-Square

df Sig. Epsilonb Greenhouse-

Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound

Material .876 14.117 5 .015 .914 .949 .333 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. Design: Intercept + Condition Within Subjects Design: Material b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.

Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Premium Source Type III Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Material

Sphericity Assumed 241.680 3 80.560 34.291 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 241.680 2.743 88.103 34.291 .000 Huynh-Feldt 241.680 2.848 84.866 34.291 .000 Lower-bound 241.680 1.000 241.680 34.291 .000

Material * Condition

Sphericity Assumed .389 3 .130 .055 .983 Greenhouse-Geisser .389 2.743 .142 .055 .977 Huynh-Feldt .389 2.848 .136 .055 .980 Lower-bound .389 1.000 .389 .055 .815

Error(Material) Sphericity Assumed 761.182 324 2.349 Greenhouse-Geisser 761.182 296.261 2.569

Between-Subjects Factors Value Label N

Condition 1.00 Burger 55 2.00 Chicken 55

175

Huynh-Feldt 761.182 307.559 2.475 Lower-bound 761.182 108.000 7.048

Estimates Measure: Premium Material Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 4.464 .149 4.167 4.760 2 4.973 .154 4.668 5.277 3 3.991 .151 3.692 4.290 4 2.964 .164 2.639 3.288

Pairwise Comparisons Measure: Premium (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference

(I-J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for

Differenceb Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 2 -.509* .177 .029 -.984 -.034 3 .473 .204 .133 -.075 1.020 4 1.500* .221 .000 .905 2.095

2 1 .509* .177 .029 .034 .984 3 .982* .204 .000 .433 1.531 4 2.009* .233 .000 1.383 2.635

3 1 -.473 .204 .133 -1.020 .075 2 -.982* .204 .000 -1.531 -.433 4 1.027* .197 .000 .499 1.555

4 1 -1.500* .221 .000 -2.095 -.905 2 -2.009* .233 .000 -2.635 -1.383 3 -1.027* .197 .000 -1.555 -.499

Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.

176

Appendix E

Surveys and Questionnaires

Survey E1. Pilot study CU-café full questionnaire

Welcome to CUcafe! Please read the instructions below carefully before you begin.

Instructions:

1. There are three observation booths set up around the store. 2. Please visit each booth to complete survey pages 1-3.3. After you have completed these pages please feel free to take a seat at the front of the room to complete the remainder of the survey.

DO NOT consume the food.

Feel free to open, touch, and interact with the food as you normally would. If you have any questions please ask the attendant behind the counter.

Thank you for your participation!

177

CUcafe SurveyCUcafe SurveyCUcafe SurveyCUcafe Survey

!"#$%&'(&#)*+,&#,-&#,-*&&./+0+,#('12%&#3415&*#5&%6)!

7"#$%&'(&#+3/+8',&#,-&#&9,&3,#,6#)-+8-#:64#'0*&&#6*#/+('0*&&#)+,-#,-&#;6%%6)+30#',,*+54,&(<2-*'(&(#*&0'*/+30#,-+(#('12%&"

="#>6)#148-#)64%/#:64#5&#)+%%+30#,6#2':#;6*#,-+(#('12%&?

!

!

"#$%&'()!*+,-'$..

*+,-'$.."(+'/#()!*+,-'$..

0.+#/.$!1'$..!&%$!*+,-'$..

"(+'/#()!1'$..

1'$.."#$%&'()!1'$..

122.-(+&'

0.-#

3.,,)

4+5.!,%6.#/+&'!7!8%9(:!29$;/-,.!-'-+&

<+'/!=9-(+#)

>-,#)

1##$-;#+?.

@$.,/

A$.6+96

!

BCDCCEBFDCC!

BFDCCEBGDCC!

BGDCCEBHDCC!

BHDCCEBIDCC!

BIDCCEBJCDCC!

178

CUcafe SurveyCUcafe SurveyCUcafe SurveyCUcafe Survey

!"#$%&'(&#)*+,&#,-&#,-*&&./+0+,#('12%&#3415&*#5&%6)!

7"#$%&'(&#+3/+8',&#,-&#&9,&3,#,6#)-+8-#:64#'0*&&#6*#/+('0*&&#)+,-#,-&#;6%%6)+30#',,*+54,&(<2-*'(&(#*&0'*/+30#,-+(#('12%&"

="#>6)#148-#)64%/#:64#5&#)+%%+30#,6#2':#;6*#,-+(#('12%&?

!

!

"#$%&'()!*+,-'$..

*+,-'$.."(+'/#()!*+,-'$..

0.+#/.$!1'$..!&%$!*+,-'$..

"(+'/#()!1'$..

1'$.."#$%&'()!1'$..

122.-(+&'

0.-#

3.,,)

4+5.!,%6.#/+&'!7!8%9(:!29$;/-,.!-'-+&

<+'/!=9-(+#)

>-,#)

1##$-;#+?.

@$.,/

A$.6+96

!

BCDCCEBFDCC!

BFDCCEBGDCC!

BGDCCEBHDCC!

BHDCCEBIDCC!

BIDCCEBJCDCC!

179

CUcafe SurveyCUcafe SurveyCUcafe SurveyCUcafe Survey

!"#$%&'(&#)*+,&#,-&#,-*&&./+0+,#('12%&#3415&*#5&%6)!

7"#$%&'(&#+3/+8',&#,-&#&9,&3,#,6#)-+8-#:64#'0*&&#6*#/+('0*&&#)+,-#,-&#;6%%6)+30#',,*+54,&(<2-*'(&(#*&0'*/+30#,-+(#('12%&"

="#>6)#148-#)64%/#:64#5&#)+%%+30#,6#2':#;6*#,-+(#('12%&?

!

!

"#$%&'()!*+,-'$..

*+,-'$.."(+'/#()!*+,-'$..

0.+#/.$!1'$..!&%$!*+,-'$..

"(+'/#()!1'$..

1'$.."#$%&'()!1'$..

122.-(+&'

0.-#

3.,,)

4+5.!,%6.#/+&'!7!8%9(:!29$;/-,.!-'-+&

<+'/!=9-(+#)

>-,#)

1##$-;#+?.

@$.,/

A$.6+96

!

BCDCCEBFDCC!

BFDCCEBGDCC!

BGDCCEBHDCC!

BHDCCEBIDCC!

BIDCCEBJCDCC!

A(.-,.!#-5.!-!,.-#!-#!#/.!K$%&#!#-L(.!#%!;%62(.#.!#/.!$.,#!%K!#/.!,9$?.)D!

@A"#>6)#6;,&3#/6#:64#&',#;'(,#;66/?

1(6%,#!:-+()D!

0%#!.?.$)!:-)M!L9#!6%$.!#/-&!%&;.!-!8..5D!

1!K.8!#+6.,!-!6%&#/M!-#!6%,#D!

N-$.()!%$!&.?.$D!

180

CUcafe SurveyCUcafe SurveyCUcafe SurveyCUcafe Survey!!"#$%&#'()*(#+,-.#/%#0%1#+%23#%43,5#,-3#4-23#4%%/6

!7"#8(,&,#/%#0%1#5%&+-..0#,-3#4-23#4%%/#-43,&#0%1#91&*(-2,#)36

!:"#;)/#0%1#5%3)*,#-#/)23)5*3#/)44,&,5*,#)5#3(,#*%53-)5,&<9-*=->)5>#4%&#,-*(#2-+9.,6

!?"#8()*(#*%53-)5,&<9-*=->,#/)/#0%1#9&,4,&6

!@"#A.,-2,#,B9.-)5#'(0#0%1#9&,4,&&,/#3()2#9-*=->,#)5#3(,#C%B#C,.%'"

!

!D"#E5#-#2*-.,#%4#!#3%#!FG#')3(#!F#C,)5>#+%23#)+9%&3-53G#(%'#)+9%&3-53#)2#9-*=->)5>#)5#4-23#4%%/6#

!

" # $ % & ' ( ) * "+

,-./01/23!

45678!

9:66.-!

;2!/!26/70!:6!<.3=..6!>./?2!

@38.-!AB?./2.!2B.7:1CD!

!

E6!7/-!

E62:F.!38.!-.23/5-/63!

;3!8G>.!

;3!HG-0!

@38.-!AB?./2.!2B.7:1CD!

!

I.2!

JG!

JG3!25-.!

)&#!

$+&!

(+*!

181

CUcafe SurveyCUcafe SurveyCUcafe SurveyCUcafe Survey!!"#$%&#'()#*+,-&.#/0123#(%#$4%,2156$7&%,215.#$7&%,215#859,15#(%#$01:315#;1-,<&.#$:,15.#;1-,<&#=1>1,,15#(%#(-+&%#?12,4,2#,:0159&%.#(%#:(7&#(-+&%#%12&@

!A"#=(>#715'#B&(B0&#2)%%&5-0'#0,<&#,5#'()%#+():&+(09@!

!C"#=(>#715'#2+,09%&5#1D&#EF#(%#'()5D&%#0,<&#,5#'()%#+():&+(09@!

!G"#*+1-#,:#-+&#+,D+&:-#0&<&0#(4#:2+((0#'()#+1<&#2(7B0&-&9#(%#-+&#+,D+&:-#9&D%&&#'()#+1<&#%&2&,<&9@

!H"#$%&#'()#5(>#71%%,&9.#>,9(>&9.#9,<(%2&9.#:&B1%1-&9.#(%#5&<&%#71%%,&9@

"#$!%&!'()*+,-!./+01+!20#$!,%()!3/456%0)$!7%!72+!5+)1%#!6+24#$!72+!3%(#7+)-!820#9!,%(!&%)!50)74345074#:!4#!72+!;<30&+!'()*+,=!

>247+!

?/039!%)!@&)430#A@B+)430#!

@B+)430#!C#$40#!%)!@/0190#!D074*+!

@140#!

D074*+!E0F0440#!%)!%72+)!.034&43!C1/0#$+)!

G)%B!B(/745/+!)03+1!

H72+)!I5/+01+!15+34&,J!

K+11!720#!24:2!132%%/!$+:)++!

E4:2!132%%/!$+:)++!%)!+L(4*0/+#7!I+-:-M!N"OJ!

'%B+!3%//+:+!6(7!#%!$+:)++!

@11%3407+!$+:)++!

?032+/%)!$+:)++!

N)0$(07+!$+:)++!

P0))4+$!

>4$%F+$!

O4*%)3+$!

'+50)07+$!

D+*+)!B0))4+$!

182

Survey E2. Full scale study CU-café full questionnaire

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

R3-1%&,"/&S/T,&?),,($&,(&1($,-$)/&,(&,"/&$/T,&2#./6&R3-1%&,"/&@+/5-()4&?),,($&,(&+/,)+$&,(&,"/&2+/5-()4&2#./6&R3-1%&,"/&UT-,&,"/&V)+5/'&U#+3'&?),,($&,(&/T-,&,"/&4)+5/'6&R3-1%&,"/&V)?0-,&?),,($&,(&4)?0-,&'()+&4)+5/'6&

!"#$%&#'()*#+&*,-.%/,#(-#(/$#-.0*#12*(,*#(2*3-#-'*#3*,*(34'*35&&&@3/#4/&13-1%&S/T,&,(&1($,-$)/6&

!!/,-3&4-.%/,6#72*(,*#8*(9

!

W6&@3/#4/&/$,/+&'()+&2#+,-1-2#$,&$)0?/+&-$&,"/&?(T&?/3(86&

!7(3-.4.1(/-#:&0;*3

!

!"#$%#&$'%(#)&*+#&,-#%*./'%&0#"/(&*+#'&+.*&1#2*&$*&*+#&0/**/3&/4&*+#&5$6#&*/&7/'*.'-#&*+#&%-)8#9:&

X6&I(8&(*,/$&9(&'()&/#,&*#4,&*((9Y

!<*4-.%/#=

H30(4,&9#-3'6&

S(,&/5/+'&9#'>&?),&0(+/&,"#$&($1/&#&8//%6&

H&*/8&,-0/4&#&0($,">&#,&0(4,6&

G#+/3'&(+&$/5/+6&

>%/,&0*3#8*,*(34'

183

!"#$%&#'()*(#+,-.#/%#0%1#+%23#%43,5#,-3#4-23#4%%/6

7"#8(,&,#/%#0%1#5%&+-..0#,-3#4-23#4%%/6

9"#8(,5#:1&*(-2)5;#4-23#4%%/#/%#0%1#5%&+-..0#'-.<#)52)/,#3(,#&,23-1&-53#%&#12,#3(,#/&)=,>3(&16

!!"#$%&'()(*+&'$%',"-.

?&,-<4-23#

@15*(#

A)55,&#

B2#-#25-*<#)5#C,3',,5#+,-.2#

D3(,&#E:.,-2,#2:,*)40F#

#

G5#*-&#

G52)/,#3(,#&,23-1&-53#

B3#(%+,#

B3#8%&<#

D3(,&#E:.,-2,#2:,*)40F#

#

8-.<#)52)/,#

A&)=,>3(&1#

D3(,&#E:.,-2,#2:,*)40F#

#

H"#D5#-=,&-;,I#(%'#+1*(#/%#0%1#2:,5/#-3#4-23#4%%/#&,23-1&-532#:,&#=)2)36

J"#8()*(#%4#3(,#4%..%')5;#4,-31&,2#)2#)3#+%23#)+:%&3-53#3%#0%1#)5#-#4-23#4%%/#&,23-1&-536

!

KLM"NN#

LM"NN>L7"NN#

L7"NN>LH"NN#

LH"NN>LO"NN#

LO"NNP#

Q1-.)30#4%%/#

$&),5/.0#2,&=)*,#

R.,-5#&,23-1&-53#

$-23#2,&=)*,#

#

184

!"#$%%&$'()*(&+(),&-.*/012/34.*&5('46!

!"#$%#&$"#'(&()#&'#%#$'*)#'&()$(&+,-&$'#&'#$.+&/,'&0$12"#&3456&&

7/(#'&()#&'#%#$'*)#'&)$%&2"$*#.&()#&/,,.&%$12"#&$(&+,-'&($8"#&+,-&1$+&*,9(:9-#&(,&()#&;-#%(:,9%&8#",<6!

$'()*(&/)7(&)&,03.7&48&6)/(0&9(840(&/)*/3.:&/;(&2;327(.&*)<='(>!

"#!$%&!'()*!+%!,%(!-./0!%1!+.2-./0!3*0!4-56%1!%7!3*.2!)*.)/08!25'9-0:

;#!$%&!'()*!+%!,%(!-./0!%1!+.2-./0!3*0!<0=3(10!%7!3*.2!)*.)/08!25'9-0:

>?#!@6015--A!)%82.+01.8B!4-56%1!58+!<0=3(10A!*%&!'()*!+%!,%(!-./0!%1!+.2-./0!3*.2!)*.)/08!25'9-0:

>>#!C-0520!.8+.)530!*%&!%7308!,%(!&%(-+!%1!&%(-+!8%3!053!3*.2!91%+()3#

!!(2/34.&?&!@A$BC&DE?!

D.2-./0!E01,!F()*

D.2-./0!F%+01530-,

D.2-./0!G-.B*3-,H0.3*01!I./0!H%1!D.2-./0

I./0!G-.B*3-,I./0!

F%+01530-,I./0!E01,!F()*

D.2-./0!E01,!F()*

D.2-./0!F%+01530-,

D.2-./0!G-.B*3-,H0.3*01!I./0!H%1!D.2-./0

I./0!G-.B*3-,I./0!

F%+01530-,I./0!E01,!F()*

D.2-./0!E01,!F()*

D.2-./0!F%+01530-,

D.2-./0!G-.B*3-,H0.3*01!I./0!H%1!D.2-./0

I./0!G-.B*3-,I./0!

F%+01530-,I./0!E01,!F()*

J!&%(-+!053!3*.2!%8-,!.7!J!&010!7%1)0+!3%

J!&%(-+!053!3*.2!%8-,!.7!3*010!&010!8%!%3*01!7%%+!)*%.)02

J!&%(-+!*51+-,!0601!053!3*.2

J!+%!8%3!-./0!.3!K(3!&%(-+!053!.3!%8!

%))52.%8

J!&%(-+!053!3*.2!.7!565.-5K-0!K(3!&%(-+!8%3!B%!%(3!%7!',!&5,

J!-./0!3*.2!58+!&%(-+!053!.3!8%&!58+!3*08

J!&%(-+!710L(083-,!053!3*.2

J!&%(-+!053!3*.2!601,!%7308

J!&%(-+!053!3*.2!7%%+!0601,!

%99%13(8.3,!J!*5+

!

185

!"#$%

!"#$%%&$'()*(&+(),&-.*/012/34.*&5('46&

!"#$%#&$"#'(&()#&'#%#$'*)#'&()$(&+,-&$'#&'#$.+&/,'&0$12"#&3456&&&7/(#'&()#&'#%#$'*)#'&)$%&2"$*#.&()#&/,,.&%$12"#&$(&+,-'&($8"#&+,-&1$+&*,9(:9-#&(,&()#&;-#%(:,9%&8#",<6&

$'()*(&/)7(&)&,03.7&48&6)/(0&9(840(&/)*/3.:&/;(&2;327(.&*)<='(>&

!'(&)*+&,-./&0*&1*-&2345&*$&0362345&7/5&829:*$&*;&7/36&./3.45<&69,=25>

!?(&)*+&,-./&0*&1*-&2345&*$&0362345&7/5&@5A7-$5&*;&7/36&./3.45<&69,=25>

!B(&C:5$922D&.*<6305$3<E&829:*$&9<0&@5A7-$5D&/*+&,-./&0*&1*-&2345&*$&0362345&7/36&./3.45<&69,=25>

!F(&G25965&3<03.975&/*+&*;75<&1*-&+*-20&*$&+*-20&<*7&597&7/36&=$*0-.7(

!!(2/34.&?&!@A$BC&DEF&

H362345&I5$1&J-./

H362345&J*05$97521

H362345&K23E/721L537/5$&M345&L*$&H362345

M345&K23E/721M345&

J*05$97521M345&I5$1&J-./

H362345&I5$1&J-./

H362345&J*05$97521

H362345&K23E/721L537/5$&M345&L*$&H362345

M345&K23E/721M345&

J*05$97521M345&I5$1&J-./

H362345&I5$1&J-./

H362345&J*05$97521

H362345&K23E/721L537/5$&M345&L*$&H362345

M345&K23E/721M345&

J*05$97521M345&I5$1&J-./

N&+*-20&597&7/36&*<21&3;&N&+5$5&;*$.50&7*

N&+*-20&597&7/36&*<21&3;&7/5$5&+5$5&<*&*7/5$&;**0&./*3.56

N&+*-20&/9$021&5:5$&597&7/36

N&0*&<*7&2345&37&#-7&+*-20&597&37&*<&

*..963*<

N&+*-20&597&7/36&3;&9:9329#25&#-7&+*-20&<*7&E*&*-7&*;&,1&+91

N&2345&7/36&9<0&+*-20&597&37&<*+&9<0&7/5<

N&+*-20&;$5O-5<721&597&7/36

N&+*-20&597&7/36&:5$1&*;75<

N&+*-20&597&7/36&;**0&5:5$1&

*==*$7-<371&N&/90

!

186

!"#$%%&$'()*(&+(),&-.*/012/34.*&5('46!

!"#$%#&$"#'(&()#&'#%#$'*)#'&()$(&+,-&$'#&'#$.+&/,'&0$12"#&3456&&&7/(#'&()#&'#%#$'*)#'&)$%&2"$*#.&()#&/,,.&%$12"#&$(&+,-'&($8"#&+,-&1$+&*,9(:9-#&(,&()#&;-#%(:,9%&8#",<6!

$'()*(&/)7(&)&,03.7&48&6)/(0&9(840(&/)*/3.:&/;(&2;327(.&*)<='(>!

"#$!%&'!()*+!,&!-&)!./01!&2!,/3./01!4+1!5.67&2!&8!4+/3!*+/*019!36(:.1;

"<$!%&'!()*+!,&!-&)!./01!&2!,/3./01!4+1!=1>4)21!&8!4+/3!*+/*019!36(:.1;

"?$!@7126..A!*&93/,12/9B!5.67&2!69,!=1>4)21A!+&'!()*+!,&!-&)!./01!&2!,/3./01!4+/3!*+/*019!36(:.1;

"C$!D.1631!/9,/*641!+&'!&8419!-&)!'&).,!&2!'&).,!9&4!164!4+/3!:2&,)*4$

!!(2/34.&?&!@A$BC&DEF!

E/3./01!F12-!G)*+

E/3./01!G&,12641.-

E/3./01!H./B+4.-I1/4+12!J/01!I&2!E/3./01

J/01!H./B+4.-J/01!

G&,12641.-J/01!F12-!G)*+

E/3./01!F12-!G)*+

E/3./01!G&,12641.-

E/3./01!H./B+4.-I1/4+12!J/01!I&2!E/3./01

J/01!H./B+4.-J/01!

G&,12641.-J/01!F12-!G)*+

E/3./01!F12-!G)*+

E/3./01!G&,12641.-

E/3./01!H./B+4.-I1/4+12!J/01!I&2!E/3./01

J/01!H./B+4.-J/01!

G&,12641.-J/01!F12-!G)*+

K!'&).,!164!4+/3!&9.-!/8!K!'121!8&2*1,!4&

K!'&).,!164!4+/3!&9.-!/8!4+121!'121!9&!&4+12!8&&,!*+&/*13

K!'&).,!+62,.-!1712!164!4+/3

K!,&!9&4!./01!/4!L)4!'&).,!164!/4!&9!

&**63/&9

K!'&).,!164!4+/3!/8!676/.6L.1!L)4!'&).,!9&4!B&!&)4!&8!(-!'6-

K!./01!4+/3!69,!'&).,!164!/4!9&'!69,!4+19

K!'&).,!821M)194.-!164!4+/3

K!'&).,!164!4+/3!712-!&8419

K!'&).,!164!4+/3!8&&,!1712-!

&::&24)9/4-!K!+6,

!

187

!"#$%%&$'()*(&+(),&-.*/012/34.*&5('46!

!"#$%#&$"#'(&()#&'#%#$'*)#'&()$(&+,-&$'#&'#$.+&/,'&0$12"#&3456&&&7/(#'&()#&'#%#$'*)#'&)$%&2"$*#.&()#&/,,.&%$12"#&$(&+,-'&($8"#&+,-&1$+&*,9(:9-#&(,&()#&;-#%(:,9%&8#",<6!

$'()*(&/)7(&)&,03.7&48&6)/(0&9(840(&/)*/3.:&/;(&2;327(.&*)<='(>!

"#$!%&'!()*+!,&!-&)!./01!&2!,/3./01!4+1!5.67&2!&8!4+/3!*+/*019!36(:.1;

"<$!%&'!()*+!,&!-&)!./01!&2!,/3./01!4+1!=1>4)21!&8!4+/3!*+/*019!36(:.1;

""$!?7126..@!*&93/,12/9A!5.67&2!69,!=1>4)21@!+&'!()*+!,&!-&)!./01!&2!,/3./01!4+/3!*+/*019!36(:.1;

"B$!C.1631!/9,/*641!+&'!&8419!-&)!'&).,!&2!'&).,!9&4!164!4+/3!:2&,)*4$

!!(2/34.&?&!@A$BC&DE?!

D/3./01!E12-!F)*+

D/3./01!F&,12641.-

D/3./01!G./A+4.-H1/4+12!I/01!H&2!D/3./01

I/01!G./A+4.-I/01!

F&,12641.-I/01!E12-!F)*+

D/3./01!E12-!F)*+

D/3./01!F&,12641.-

D/3./01!G./A+4.-H1/4+12!I/01!H&2!D/3./01

I/01!G./A+4.-I/01!

F&,12641.-I/01!E12-!F)*+

D/3./01!E12-!F)*+

D/3./01!F&,12641.-

D/3./01!G./A+4.-H1/4+12!I/01!H&2!D/3./01

I/01!G./A+4.-I/01!

F&,12641.-I/01!E12-!F)*+

J!'&).,!164!4+/3!&9.-!/8!J!'121!8&2*1,!4&

J!'&).,!164!4+/3!&9.-!/8!4+121!'121!9&!&4+12!8&&,!*+&/*13

J!'&).,!+62,.-!1712!164!4+/3

J!,&!9&4!./01!/4!K)4!'&).,!164!/4!&9!

&**63/&9

J!'&).,!164!4+/3!/8!676/.6K.1!K)4!'&).,!9&4!A&!&)4!&8!(-!'6-

J!./01!4+/3!69,!'&).,!164!/4!9&'!69,!4+19

J!'&).,!821L)194.-!164!4+/3

J!'&).,!164!4+/3!712-!&8419

J!'&).,!164!4+/3!8&&,!1712-!

&::&24)9/4-!J!+6,

!

188

!"#$%#&'()%*+#,&$""&-(.,&'/*'0#)&%$12"#%&3/#)&$)%3#,*)4&5/#&6.#%5*()%&7#"(38!

"#$!%&!'()!*+,-./!-(!0)123+4.!+!23526.,!4+,/*523!-(!.+-!+,/!-3.4.!*.1.!'()1!(,7'!(0-5(,48!*3523!*()7/!'()!23((4.9

":$!;<.1+778!1+-.!-3.!4+=07.4!>'!3(*!*5775,?!'()!*()7/!>.!-(!1.0)123+4.!-3.=!@AB=(4-!*5775,?!-(!#B7.+4-!*5775,?C$

!!"#$%&'()

DE"

FGH

AGE

:H"

!

DE"!

FGH!

AGE!

:H"!

I(,.8!%!*()7/,J-!23((4.!+,'!(&!-3.4.!

*+",-"(%'.%#,$"($/"("0$"'$($&(1/%#/(2&3(,45""(&5(.%-,45""(1%$/($/"(6&++&1%'4(9.)'5*()$"*5:&;55,*7.5#%(5"4,5.%'4($/"(7&'$,%'"58*,#9,4%'4(6&5(",#/(-,:;+"<!

"D$!!=>*?@(ABC

!!"#$%&'(DE(F3'#$%&',+%$2(&6(7&'$,%'"58*,#9,4%'4

K-1(,?7'!L54+?1..

L54+?1..K75?3-7'!L54+?1..

I.5-3.1!M?1..!I(1!L54+?1..

K75?3-7'!M?1..

M?1..K-1(,?7'!M?1..

N+4'!-(!(0.,

O(,-+5,4!01(/)2-

P1(-.2-4!01(/)2-

Q..04!01(/)2-!*+1=

N+4'!-(!2+11'

189

!"#$!"#$%&'()*

!%#$!"#$%&'+),

!!-./012'34'562./012780/9'1:';12/702-<=$7.>7?02?'@;12/026-AB

&'()*+,-$./01+(22

./01+(22&,/+3',-$./01+(22

42/'32($5+(22$4)($./01+(22

&,/+3',-$5+(22

5+(22&'()*+,-$5+(22

610-$')$71((-

8)*'1/*0$9():;7'

<()'27'0$9():;7'

610-$')$)92*

=2290$9():;7'$>1(?

&'()*+,-$./01+(22

./01+(22&,/+3',-$./01+(22

42/'32($5+(22$4)($./01+(22

&,/+3',-$5+(22

5+(22&'()*+,-$5+(22

<()'27'0$9():;7'

610-$')$)92*

610-$')$71((-

8)*'1/*0$9():;7'

=2290$9():;7'$>1(?

!@#$!"#$%&'C*D

&'()*+,-$./01+(22

./01+(22&,/+3',-$./01+(22

42/'32($5+(22$4)($./01+(22

&,/+3',-$5+(22

5+(22&'()*+,-$5+(22

610-$')$)92*

8)*'1/*0$9():;7'

610-$')$71((-

=2290$9():;7'$>1(?

<()'27'0$9():;7'

!

190

!"#$%#&'()'*$+#&+,#&#-+#(+&+.&/,'*,&0.1&$23##&.3&)'%$23##&/'+,&+,#&4.""./'(2&!"#$%&%'(&3#2$3)'(2&+,#&5.(+$'(#36!$*7$2'(2&4.3&#$*,&%$89"#:!

"#$!;<=!>?&@AB

"%$!;<=!>?&CDE

"&$!;<=!>?&FDA

!;#*+'.(&GH&I1$"'+'#%&.4&5.(+$'(#36!$*7$2'(2

'()*+,-.!/012,)33

/012,)33'-0,4(-.!/012,)33

530(43)!6,)33!5*)!/012,)33

'-0,4(-.!6,)33

6,)33'()*+,-.!6,)33

7*83)+

9)3:0;:

<+=0)*+:3+(2--.!>)03+8-.

52(;)2-

532(

'()*+,-.!/012,)33

/012,)33'-0,4(-.!/012,)33

530(43)!6,)33!5*)!/012,)33

'-0,4(-.!6,)33

6,)33'()*+,-.!6,)33

7*83)+

<+=0)*+:3+(2--.!>)03+8-.

52(;)2-

9)3:0;:

532(

'()*+,-.!/012,)33

/012,)33'-0,4(-.!/012,)33

530(43)!6,)33!5*)!/012,)33

'-0,4(-.!6,)33

6,)33'()*+,-.!6,)33

52(;)2-

9)3:0;:

<+=0)*+:3+(2--.!>)03+8-.

532(

7*83)+

191

!"#$%#&'()'*$+#&+,#&#-+#(+&+.&/,'*,&0.1&$23##&.3&)'%$23##&/'+,&+,#&4.""./'(2&!"#$%&%'(&3#2$3)'(2&+,#&5.(+$'(#36!$*7$2'(2&4.3&#$*,&%$89"#:!

!;#*+'.(&<=$&>1$"'+'#%&.4&5.(+$'(#36!$*7$2'(2&?5.(+'(1#)@A

""#!;BC!DE&<FG

$%&'()*+!,-./)&00

,-./)&00$*-)1%*+!,-./)&00

20-%10&!3)&00!2'&!,-./)&00

$*-)1%*+!3)&00

3)&00$%&'()*+!3)&00

4(5-&'(60(%/**+!7&-0(8*+

9&06-:6

;'80&(

20/%

2/%:&/*

)$'#('*#+(,'-*&.'*/"'(&%0+(*1'$0,*&.'+*.%&*2'3&*#&*&.'*10&&04*05*&.'*6#7'*&0*80+&%+"'*&.'*("-9':;!

"<#!=(!/!.>/*0!'?!@!%'!@AB!C-%1!@A!D0-()!6'.%!-6E'&%/(%B!1'C!-6E'&%/(%!-.!E/>F/)-()!-(!?/.%!?''8G!

"H#!9*0/.0!D&-0?*+!80.>&-D0!>1/&/>%0&-.%->.!%1/%!/&0!-6E'&%/(%!%'!+':!-(!?/.%!?''8!E/>F/)-()#

!

"I#!9*0/.0!E*/>0!/(+!/88-%-'(/*!>'660(%.!/D':%!?/.%!?''8!E/>F/)-()!-(!%10!D'J!D0*'C#

!

!;#*+'.(&H=&I$%+&I..)&!$*7$2'(2

@ K " < H I L M N @A

!

192

!"#$%#&$'%(#)&*+#&,-#%*./'%&0#"/(&*+#'&+.*&1#2*&$*&*+#&0/**/3&/4&*+#&5$6#&*/&7/'*.'-#&*+#&%-)8#9:!

"#$!%&'(&!()*+,-./!0+1-2!'3(145+6!/-4.!),+7

"8$!%&)*!'6!/-4.!,+35+.7

"9$!%&)*!'6!/-4.!)::.-;'<)*+!)=+.),+!&-46+&-15!'3(-<+7

>?$!@-2!<)3/!:+-:1+!(4..+3*1/!1'=+!'3!/-4.!&-46+&-157!

>A$!@-2!<)3/!(&'15.+3!),+!A#!-.!/-43,+.!1'=+!'3!/-4.!&-46+&-157!

!!"#$%&'()*(+",&-./01%#2

A#!-.!/-43,+.!

A8BC?!

CABC9!

"?B"9!

>?B>9!

D?BD9!

E?!-.!-15+.!

F+<)1+!

G)1+!

H*&+.!

I?BIC>J999!

ICDJ???BI>9J999!

ID?J???BI#>J999!

I#DJ???BI99J999!

IA??J???BIAC>J999!

IACDJ???BIA>9J999!

IAD?J???BIA#>J999!

IA#DJ???BIA99J999!

IC??J???!)35!4:!

193

!"#$%&'($)*$(&+$&),&+*($-+.+-$/0$*1&//-$2/3$&'.+$1/45-+(+6$/7$(&+$&),&+*($6+,7++$2/3$&'.+$7+1+).+68

!9#$%&)1&$7'1+:+(&;)1)(2$<+*($6+*17)<+*$2/38$=>-+'*+$1&//*+$/;-2$/;+#?

!!#$@7+$2/3$;/A$4'77)+6B$A)6/A+6B$6)./71+6B$*+5'7'(+6B$/7$;+.+7$4'77)+68

!

C+**$(&';$&),&$*1&//-$6+,7++$

D),&$*1&//-$6+,7++$/7$+E3).'-+;($=+#,#B$FGH?$

I/4+$1/--+,+$<3($;/$6+,7++$

@**/1)'(+$6+,7++$

J'1&+-/7$6+,7++$

F7'63'(+$6+,7++$

@4+7)1';$K;6)';$/7$@-'*L';$M'().+$

@*)';$:$>'1)0)1$K*-';6+7$

J-'1L$/7$@07)1';$@4+7)1';$

D)*5';)1$@4+7)1';$

%&)(+$:$N'31'*)';$

O'77)+6$

%)6/A+6$

H)./71+6$

I+5'7'(+6$

M+.+7$4'77)+6$

!!"#$%&$'()*+,

-./"0$,%($&%)$1/)23431/23"56

194

REFERENCES

Aarnio, T., & Hämäläinen, A. (2008). Challenges in packaging waste management in the fast food industry. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 52(4), 612–621. Doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2007.08.002

Ahmed, A., Ahmed, N., & Salman, A. (2005). Critical issues in packaged food business. British Food Journal, 107(10), 760–780. Doi:10.1108/00070700510623531

Ampuero, O., & Vila, N. (2006). Consumer perceptions of product packaging. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23(2), 100–112. Doi:10.1108/07363760610655032

Anthony, P. (2008). Encyclopedia of Global Industries, 1–16.

Becker, L., Van Rompay, T. J. L., Schifferstein, H. N. J., & Galetzka, M. (2011). Tough package, strong taste: The influence of packaging design on taste impressions and product evaluations. Food Quality and Preference, 22(1), 17–23. Doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.06.007

Brown, R. L. (1958). Wrapper influence on the perception of freshness in bread. Journal of Applied Psychology, 42(4), 257–260. Doi:10.1037/h0046879

Capsule. (2008). Design matters: packaging 01 : an essential primer for today's competitive market. Beverly, Mass: Rockport Publishers.

Cardello, A. V. (1994). Measurement of Food Preferences. (H. J. H. Macfie & D. M. H. Thomson, Eds.). Boston, MA: Springer US. Doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-2171-6

Cardello, Armand V. (1995). Food quality: Relativity, context and consumer expectations. Food Quality and Preference, 6(3), 163–170. Doi:10.1016/0950-3293(94)00039-X

Carpenter, R. P., Lyon, D. H., & Hasdell, T. A. (2000). Guidelines for sensory analysis in food product development and quality control. Aspen Pub.

Design Matters, Packaging 01: An Essential Primer for Todayʼs Competitive Market. (2008). (p. 191). Rockport Publishers.

Desmet, P., & Hekkert, P. (2007). Framework of product experience. International Journal of Design, 1(1).

195

Dogwood Alliance. (2008). 2008 Fast Food Industry Packaging Report.

Dorn, B. (2013). Picking Up Foodservice Packaging, (March), 31–34.

Euromonitor (2004), “Global packaged food: from added value to availability”, Euromonitor,16 June, available at: www.euromonitor.com/article.asp?Id=3259

FDA Food Code (2009), available at: http://www.fda.gov/Food/guidancereg ulation/retailfoodprotection/foodcode/ucm188064.htm

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), available at: http://www.fda.gov/Regulatory Information/Legislation/federalfooddrugandcosmeticactfdcact/default.htm

Fellows, P., & Axtell, B. (2002). Packaging materials. Appropriate food packaging: materials and methods for small businesses. Essex, UK: ITDG Publishing. P, 25-77.

Foodservice & Packaging Institute, I. (2007). Single-use foodservice packaging: a tutorial.

Gengler, I. (1940). When People Are The Instrument: Sensory Evaluation Methods, 27(4), 9–13.

Grebitus, C. (2008). Food Quality from the Consumerʼs Perspective: An Empirical Analysis of Perceived Pork Quality (p. 263). Cuvillier Verlag.

Guthrie, J. F., Lin, B.-H., & Frazao, E. (2002). Role of food prepared away from home in the American diet, 1977-78 versus 1994-96: changes and consequences. Journal of nutrition education and behavior, 34(3), 140–50.

Huber, J., & mccann, J. (1982). The impact of inferential beliefs on product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research.

Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26. Doi:10.3102/0013189X033007014

Kramer, A. D., & Twigg, B. A. (1970). Fundamentals of quality control for the food industry. The Avi.

196

Krishna, A., & Morrin, M. (2008). Does touch affect taste? The perceptual transfer of product container haptic cues. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(6), 807–818.

Laughlin, Z., Conreen, M., Witchel, H. J., & Miodownik, M. (2011). The use of standard electrode potentials to predict the taste of solid metals. Food Quality and Preference, 22(7), 628–637. Doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.03.012

Lawless, H. T., & Heymann, H. (2010). Sensory evaluation of food: principles and practices (Vol. 5999). Springer.

Levenstein, Harvey A. Paradox of plenty : a social history of eating in modern America. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2003. Print.

Marketline Industry Profile. (2011). Fast Food in the United States, (February), 1–33.

Marketpublishers Report Database. (2012). Food and Beverage Packaging Trends in the U.S.: Consumer Viewpoints and Marketer Opportunities, June, 1, 2012.

Marsh, K., & Bugusu, B. (2007). Food packaging--roles, materials, and environmental issues. Journal of food science, 72(3), R39–55. Doi:10.1111/j.1750-3841.2007.00301.x

Mcdaniel, C., & Baker, R. (1977). Convenience food packaging and the perception of product quality. The Journal of Marketing, 41(4), 57–58.

Meiselman, H.L. (1992). Methodology and theory in human eating research. Appetite 19:49–55.

Meiselman. H.L. (1993). Critical evaluation of sensory techniques. Food Quality and Preference 4:33–40.

Meiselman, H.L. (1994). Bridging the gap between sensory evaluation and market research. Trends in Food Science and Technology 5:396–8.

Meiselman, H. (2001). Criteria of food quality in different contexts. Food Service Technology, 67–84.

Meyers, H., & Lubliner, M. J. (1998). The Marketerʼs Guide To Successful Package Design (p. 272). Mcgraw-Hill.

197

Miller, K., & Hofstetter, R. (2011). How Should Consumers ʼ Willingness to Pay Be Measured? An Empirical Comparison of State-of-the-Art Approaches. Journal of Marketing …, XLVIII(February), 172–184.

Mittal, V., & Kamakura, W. (2001). Satisfaction, Repurchase Intent, and Repurchase Behavior: Investigating the Moderating Effect of Customer Characteristic. Journal of marketing research, 38(1), 131–142.

Olson, J. C. (1972). Cue utilization in the quality perception process: a cognitive model andan empirical test. , etd collection for purdue university 1 – 207.

Ophuis, P. O., & Trijp, H. Van. (1995). Perceived Quality: A Market Driven and Consumer Oriented Approach. Food quality and Preference, 3293(94).

Paeratakul, S., Ferdinand, D. P., Champagne, C. M., Ryan, D. H., & Bray, G. A. (2003). Fast-food consumption among US adults and children: dietary and nutrient intake profile. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 103(10), 1332.

Peri, C. (2006). The universe of food quality. Food Quality and Preference, 17(1-2), 3–8. Doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2005.03.002

Perreault, W. & McCarthy, E. (1996). Basic marketing: a global-managerial approach. Chicago: Irwin.

Pierson, B., Reeve, W., & Creed, P. (1995). “The Quality Experience” in the Food Service Industry. Food quality and preference, 6, 209–213.

Pinson, C. (1986). An implicit product theory approach to consumersʼ inferential judgments about products. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 3(1), 19–38. Doi:10.1016/0167-8116(86)90040-6

Presser, S., Couper, M., & Lessler, J. (2004). Methods for Testing and Evaluating Survey Questions. Public opinion quarterly. Doi:10.1093/poq

Raudenbush, B., & Meyer, B. (2002). Ratings of pleasantness and intensity for beverages served in containers congruent and incongruent with expectancy. Perceptual and motor skills, (1963), 671–674.

Robertson, G. L. (1990). Good and Bad Packaging: Who Decides? International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 20(8), 37–40. Doi:10.1108/09600039010005575

198

Saelens, B. E., Glanz, K., Sallis, J. F., & Frank, L. D. (2007). Nutrition Environment Measures Study in restaurants (NEMS-R): development and evaluation. American journal of preventive medicine, 32(4), 273–81. Doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2006.12.022

Samadi, N. (2010). On the fast track: Restaurants expand their menus and global operations to boost demand Fast Food Restaurants in the US About this Industry, (December), 1–38.

Schaeffer, N. C., & Presser, S. (2003). The Science of Asking Questions. Annual Review of Sociology, 29(1), 65–88. Doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.29.110702.1 10112

Schifferstein, H. N. J. (2009). The drinking experience: Cup or content? Food Quality and Preference, 20(3), 268–276. Doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2008.11.003

Schifferstein, H. N., Kole, A. P., & Mojet, J. (1999). Asymmetry in the disconfirmation of expectations for natural yogurt. Appetite, 32(3), 307–29. Doi:10.1006/appe.1998.0208

Schutz, H. G. (1965). Food Action Rating Scale for Measuring Food Acceptance. Journal of Food Science, 30(2), 365–374. Doi:10.1111/j.1365-2621.1965.tb00316.x

Schwartz, M. B., Ph, D., Brownell, K. D., & Cheyne, A. (2010). Evaluating Fast Food Nutrition and Marketing to Youth.

Sidel, J. L., & Stone, H. (1993). The role of sensory evaluation in the food industry. Food Quality and Preference, 4(1-2), 65–73. Doi:10.1016/0950-3293(93)90314-V

Smith, A. F. (2006). Encyclopedia of junk food and fast food. Greenwood Publishing Group.

Spence, C., Harrar, V., & Piqueras-Fiszman, B. (2012). Assessing the impact of the tableware and other contextual variables on multisensory flavour perception. Flavour, 1(1), 7. Doi:10.1186/2044-7248-1-7

Steenkamp, J. B. E. M. (1989). Product quality: an investigation into the concept and how it is perceived by consumers.

Stone, H., & Sidel, J. L. (2004). Sensory Evaluation Practices (Google ebook) (p. 408). Academic Press.

199

Technomic. (2009). The Status and Future of Fast Foods: Consumer Trend Report.

Underwood, R. (2001). Packaging communication: attentional effects of product imagery. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 10(7), 403–422.

United States Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service. (2011). Food Safety Information Foodborne Illness: What Consumers Need to Know, 1–4.

Williams, E. J. (1949): Experimental designs balanced for the estimation of residual effects of treatments. Australian Journal of Scientific Research, Ser. A 2, 149-168.

Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2-22.