Clemson University TigerPrints

All Theses Theses

5-2013 THE EFFECT OF PACKAGING MATERIAL PROPERTIES ON CONSUMER QUALITY PERCEPTION IN QUICK- SERVICE RESTAURANTS Emily Thackston Clemson University, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_theses Part of the Engineering Science and Materials Commons

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

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 authorized administrator of TigerPrints. For more information, please contact [email protected].

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

ABSTRACT

The majority of menu items available in quick-service restaurants (QSR) are consumed directly from a 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 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 packaging styles and materials selected for testing included: a 14-pt paperboard , an expanded polystyrene (EPS) clamshell, an F-flute (micro-flute) corrugated clamshell, and a 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

ii 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.

iii 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.

iv TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TITLE ...... 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

v 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

vi LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Descriptors used on the Food Action Rating Scale (FACT) ...... 34

2 Pilot study ...... 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

vii 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 information displayed beside food items ...... 23

4 Quiznos "Eat Toasty, Be Green" campaign included all biodegradable food packaging ...... 25

5 in the fast ...... 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

viii 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 ...... 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

ix List of Figures (Continued)

Figure Page

34 Chart displaying how often each container was selected in each of the conditions ...... 105

x 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 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.

1 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 (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

2 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.

3 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, 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 .

4 Krishna and Morrin (2008) determined that the material properties of a cup could modify the perceived quality of the 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 of potato chips opened was directly linked to the perceived taste of its content; the difficult- to-open 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).

5 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.

6 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.

7 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

8 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

9 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

10 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 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 is assessable and therefore confirmable consumers still have

11 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 , 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):

•

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

• Paper and paperboards

• Plastics

12 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, , recyclables, and over-packaging impact food

13 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.

14 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 or plastic including rigid polystyrene (PS), expanded polystyrene (EPS), (PP), terephthalate (PET), and polylactic acid (PLA)

(Dorn, 2013). Several examples of common single-use foodservice packaging products can be seen in Figure 2.

15 Figure 2. Examples of single-use foodservice packaging

Regulations in QSRs

Single-use foodservice packaging is necessary in quick-service restaurants to support , 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

16 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

17 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…

18 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 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 on it, such as a logo or special

design

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

heating instructions

3. What will you do with the packaged item?

a. Store it in a hot display

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.

20

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

21 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 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.

22

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

Environmental Concerns

In the fast food industry packaging sustainability is currently a highly debated topic. According to the 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

23 • 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 composition study

24

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

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 practices should be employed (Aarnio &

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

25 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)

26 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,

27 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.

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

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

28 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

29 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)

30 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

31 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.

32 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

33 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.

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.

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

34 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 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

35 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

36 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.

37 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, , 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.

38 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

39 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 . 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 containers were presented to

40 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- 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

41 shape can encourage food product potency perceptions, which may impact product evaluations.

42 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

43 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).

44

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

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.

45 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 ,

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

46 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), , 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

47 Figure 10. CU-café floor plan and table layout

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

48 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 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.

49 Table 2 Pilot study containers

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.

50

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

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.

51 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.

52 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 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 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

53 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

54 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

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

review.

(a) (b)

Figure12. Pie charts of survey Section 2 results. Respondents (c) 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?

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

56 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)

57 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)

58 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.

Table 3

OOpen-Endedpen-ended survey Question questions Response from pilot study Categories

Please briefly describe Please explain why you characteristics that are preferred this package. important to you in fast food packaging.

Eco Friendly/ Recyclable Protects product

Presentation Environmentally Friendly Clean/Neat Does not leak Keeps food warm Easy to eat from Color Keeps food warm Protection Presentation High Qualty/ Premium Natural

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:

59 “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 , 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

60 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.

61 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

62 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.

63 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, , 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

64 “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

65 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.

Table 4

OpenOpen-Ended-ended survey questionQuestion from Response full scale study

Categories

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

Easy to Open Protects Product

Contains Grease Keeps Product Warm Environmentally Friendly Portable

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.

66

(a) (d)

(e) (b)

Figure 15. Pie charts of survey (c) 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?

67 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 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

68 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.

Figure 16 . Four containers selected for full scale study

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.

69 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

70 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

71 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

72 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

73 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.

74 Section 3 instructed participants to consider all four containers and to ranking the sample containers based willingness to buy.

Figure 18. Sensory booth set-up inside the testing environment

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

75 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 -hoc analysis with a Bonferroni adjustment was applied to determine where the group differences lie with paired

76 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.

77 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

7 Condition a a a a Burger 6 a a a a Chicken Error Bars: +/- 1 SE 5

4

3 5.75 5.78 5.93 5.84 Mean Rating 5.29 5.31 5.35 5.29

2

1

0 Paperboard F-flute EPS Paper wrap Container Figure 19. Mean ratings for sensory attribute Flavor

78 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”.

79 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

7 Condition a a a Burger 6 a a a a a Chicken Error Bars: +/- 1 SE 5

4

3 5.95 5.78 5.75 5.58 Mean Rating 5.38 5.16 5.31 5.15

2

1

0 Paperboard F-flute EPS Paper wrap Container Figure 20. Mean ratings for sensory attribute Texture

80 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”.

7 Condition a a a Burger 6 a a a a a Chicken Error Bars: +/- 1 SE 5

4

3 5.89 5.65 5.80 5.67 Mean Rating 5.38 5.24 5.31 5.11

2

1

0 Paperboard F-flute EPS Paper wrap Container Figure 21. Mean ratings for sensory attribute Overall Liking

81 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

82 in each respective condition, with the “Chicken” condition product having slightly higher “Overall Liking” ratings than the “Burger”.

7 Condition a a a a a a a Burger 6 a Chicken Error Bars: +/- 1 SE 5

4

3 5.87 6.04 5.71 5.85 5.65 5.78

Mean Rating 5.51 5.31 2

1

0 Paperboard F-flute EPS Paper wrap Container Figure 22. Mean ratings for sensory attribute Acceptance

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

83 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

84 7 a a a Condition a a a Burger 6 Chicken Error Bars: +/- 1 SE

5

4 b b

6.29 6.27 6.29 3 5.91 5.64 5.82 Mean Rating

2 3.31 3.27

1

0 Paperboard F-flute EPS Paper wrap Container Figure 23. Mean ratings for functionality attribute “Protects Product”

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

85 < .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-

86 7 a Condition a a a Burger 6 b b Chicken Error Bars: +/- 1 SE

5 c c

4

6.18 6.22 3 5.85 5.89 Mean Rating 5.31 5.27

4.22 2 3.93

1

0 Paperboard F-flute EPS Paper wrap Container Figure 24. Mean ratings for functionality attribute “Easy to Open”

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

87 (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”

7 Condition c a a a a c Burger 6 Chicken b b Error Bars: +/- 1 SE

5

4

6.53 6.29 6.36 3 6.07 6.11

Mean Rating 5.55 4.89 5.00

2

1

0 Paperboard F-flute EPS Paper wrap Container Figure 25. Mean ratings for functionality attribute “Contains Product”

88 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).

89 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

7 a Condition a a a Burger 6 Chicken b b Error Bars: +/- 1 SE

5 c c 4

3 6.13 5.73 5.91 5.85 Mean Rating 5.20 4.93

2 3.89 3.62

1

0 Paperboard F-flute EPS Paper wrap Container Figure 26. Mean ratings for functionality attribute “Keeps Product Warm”

90 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

91 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

7 Condition a a a a a a Burger 6 b Chicken Error Bars: +/- 1 SE b 5

4

3 6.18 6.18 5.58 Mean Rating 5.47 5.47 5.16 5.36 4.62 2

1

0 Paperboard F-flute EPS Paper wrap Container Figure 27. Mean ratings for functionality attribute “Easy to Carry”

92 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

93 perspective they should look into an F-flute or EPS container but avoid a

Paperboard container.

Credence Attributes

7 Condition b Burger 6 b Chicken Error Bars: +/- 1 SE a a a 5 a

4 c c 3

Mean Rating 5.51 5.24

4.55 4.38 4.55 2 4.02 3.18 2.49 1

0 Paperboard F-flute EPS Paper wrap Container

Figure 28. Mean ratings for credence attribute Natural

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),

94 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

95 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),

7 Condition Burger 6 b b Chicken Error Bars: +/- 1 SE a a a 5 a

4 c 3 c Mean Rating 5.20 5.09 4.47 4.56 4.56 2 4.18

2.44 2.55 1

0 Paperboard F-flute EPS Paper wrap Container Figure 29. Mean ratings for credence attribute Environmentally Friendly

96 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

97 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,

98 7 Condition Burger

6 a a Chicken a a Error Bars: +/- 1 SE

5 b b

4 c c

3 Mean Rating 5.11 4.82 4.80 4.98 4.22 2 4.11

3.00 3.13

1

0 Paperboard F-flute EPS Paper wrap Container Figure 30. Mean ratings for credence attribute Modern

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

99 fast food packaging that is considered modern from a consumer perspective they should look into an F-flute or Paperboard container.

7 Condition c Burger 6 c a Chicken a a a Error Bars: +/- 1 SE

5

b 4 b

3

Mean Rating 5.56 5.29 5.11 4.80 4.95 4.82 2 3.24 3.00

1

0 Paperboard F-flute EPS Paper wrap Container

Figure 31. Mean ratings for credence attribute Neat

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

100 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.

101 7 Condition Burger

6 Chicken b b Error Bars: +/- 1 SE a a 5 a a

4 c c

3 Mean Rating 5.02 4.93 4.44 4.49 2 3.96 4.02 2.96 2.96 1

0 Paperboard F-flute EPS Paper wrap Container Figure 32. Mean ratings for credence attribute Premium

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

102 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.

103 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).

30%

25%

20%

15% 29.1% Percent 23.6% 24.5% 10% 19.1%

5%

3.6% 0% Paperboard E-flute EPS Paper wrap None Material Figure 33. Chart displaying percentages for how

often each container was selected.

104 Table 5 Preference Selection 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 6 Preference Chi-square

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.

Prefer 1 0.91% Paperboard E-flute 11 EPS 10.00% Paper wrap None Chicken 14 12.73% 15 13.64% 14 12.73%

Condition 3 2.73% 10 9.09%

Burger 13 11.82% 17 15.45% 12 10.91%

0 5 10 15 20 Count Figure 34. Chart displaying how often each container was selected in each of the conditions

105 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.

Table 7 Table 8 Burger Preference Selection Burger Chi-Square

Burger Preference Test Statistics Observed N Expected N Residual Burger Pref Paperboard 12 13.0 -1.0 Chi-Square 2.000a F-flute 17 13.0 4.0 df 3 EPS 13 13.0 .0 Asymp. Sig. .572 Paperwrap 10 13.0 -3.0 a. 0 cells (0.0%) have Total 52 expected frequencies less than 5. The minimum expected cell frequency is 13.0.

Table 9 Table 10 Chicken Preference Selection Chicken Chi-Square

Chicken Preference Test Statistics Observed N Expected N Residual Chicken Pref Paperboard 14 13.5 .5 Chi-Square .667a F-flute 15 13.5 1.5 df 3 EPS 14 13.5 .5 Asymp. Sig. .881 Paper wrap 11 13.5 -2.5 a. 0 cells (0.0%) have Total 54 expected frequencies less than 5. The minimum expected cell frequency is 13.5.

106 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.

Table 11 Rank Borda Count

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 12 Rank Mean Rating

Mean Rating Rank

Paperboard !"#$% ! F-Flute !"!% & EPS !"'(% # Paper wrap !"() '

107 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.

108 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.

109 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.

110

APPENDICES

111 Appendix A

Background Research and Information

Table A1. Retail audit summary 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 Greaseproof/ wax coated paper

Krystal Box Paperboard

112 Table A2. Detailed Material Information From Pilot Study

Day Material ID number Specs Image Additional Info Day 1

Styrofoam. Secure . High-insulation 5" (2.88" x 5.13" x 5.38") Medium keeps food hot/cold for transporting and Sandwich Foam Hinged Lid Carryout storing. (DCC 85HT1, DCC 85HT2 and EPS Clamshell 170 Containers Dart DCC 50HT1 - Case of DCC 205HT1 containers feature 500 Performer™ perforated hinge, allowing the containerʼs lid to be easily

This 5" x 5" x 3" clear hinged lid is a perfect way to send desserts, pastries, salads, and specialty sandwiches 5" x 5" x 3" Clear Hinged Lid Plastic Conta home with your customers! It provides a Clear Clamshell 236 iner 500/CS. OPS construction. (5.25" x solid seal to maintain product freshness 5.625" x 2.75") and reduce leaks, while its crystal clear construction promotes excellent product visibility. Sold 500 per case.

Bagasse is made from sugar cane fiber 6" Bagasse Hamburger Clamshell IFN waste left after juice extraction. 100% Bio Clamshell 430 Green 29-2001 - Case of 500 (6" x 6" x decomposable and biodegradable. 3.4") Microwave and freezer safe.

Day 2

14pt International Paper Paperboard 14 pt Clamshell White 852 Oil and grease resistant applied. Everest Folio (5.75" x 5.75" x 3")

Outside printed with Epson Stylus Pro 14pt International Paper Paperboard 14 pt Clamshell Red 305 7900, color is Pantone 485. Oil and grease Everest Folio (5.75" x 5.75" x 3") resistant coating applied.

16pt MeadWestvaco Custom Kote 14 pt Clamshell Kraft 709 Oil and grease resistant coating applied. Paperboard (5.75" x 5.75" x 3")

Day 3

Pop-up sheets have added for improved performance and greater DeliWrap Wax unprinted food safe sheet economy. 100% microwaveable. 500 Paper Wraps 654 Oil and grease resistant (15" x 15") sheets per pack; 12 packs per case (6,000 sheets). 6 x 10 Eco-Pac Natural Interfolded Dry

Reynolds foil sheets are precut and perfect Reynolds Wrapper Pre Cut Pop-up Foil for cooking, grilling, eating on the go. Case Foil Wraps 321 Sheets (14"x10.25") includes 24 – 25-ct. boxes of 14x10¼" Reynolds® Wrappers™ pop-up foil sheets.

Pratt Industries E-Flute Corrugated Board E-flute Clamshell 752 Clay coated on one side. (5.75" x 5.75" x 3")

113 Table A3. Detailed Material Information From Full Scale Study

Material/container ID number Specs Image Description

Dart 60HT1 white foam 1 compartment container with a perforated hinged lid that can be removed cleanly. Preferred by Dart 60HT1 6" x 6" x 3" White Foam EPS Clamshell 180 diners as an easy way to share carryout Hinged Lid Container 500/CS meals and reduce clutter while dining. Insulated to maintain food's proper serving temperature.

Recyclable and compostable, White interior Southern Champion Tray 0705 Solid and exterior, 1 pc. Clamshell construction. Bleached Sulfate Paperboard White 14 pt Paperboard Top locks in place when closed. Sturdy 602 Hamburger Clamshell Food Container, 4- Clamshell White packaging made from premium 3/8" Length x 4-3/8" Width x 3-3/8" Height paperboard. Made in the USA from (Case of 500) renewable resources

Pop-up sheets have added wet strength for improved performance and greater DeliWrap Wax unprinted food safe sheet economy. 100% microwaveable. 500 Paper Wraps 532 Oil and grease resistant (15" x 15") sheets per pack; 12 packs per case (6,000 sheets). 6 x 10 Eco-Pac Natural Interfolded Dry Wax Paper

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. Hamburger Corrugated Clamshell Take- F-flute Clamshell 983 For a secure closure, a handy locking Out Box 400/CS - 4" x 4" x 3" 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.

114 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

115

Appendix B

Pilot Study Results

Figure B1. Mean ratings of materials for attribute Appealing

Appealing!

6! 5.5! 5! 4.5! 4! ! 3.5! 3! 2.5! MeanRating 2! 1.5! 1! 0.5! 0! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! EPS E-flute Foil Wrap Bagasse Paper Wrap Clear (OPS)

White Paperboard Kraft Paperboard Orange Paperboard

116

Figure B2. Mean ratings of materials for attribute Neat

Neat! 6! 5.5! 5! 4.5! 4! ! 3.5! 3! 2.5! MeanRating 2! 1.5! 1! 0.5! 0! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! EPS E-flute Foil Wrap Bagasse Paper Wrap Clear (OPS) White Paperboard Kraft Paperboard Orange Paperboard

Figure B3. Mean ratings of materials for attribute Messy

Messy!

6! 5.5! 5! 4.5!

4! ! 3.5! 3! 2.5! MeanRating 2! 1.5! 1! 0.5!

0! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! EPS E-flute Foil Wrap Bagasse Paper Wrap Clear (OPS)

White Paperboard Kraft Paperboard Orange Paperboard

117

Figure B4. Mean ratings of materials for attribute High Quality

High Quality!

6!

5.5! 5!

4.5!

4! ! 3.5! 3! 2.5! MeanRating 2! 1.5! 1! 0.5!

0! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! EPS E-flute Foil Wrap Bagasse Paper Wrap Clear (OPS)

White Paperboard Kraft Paperboard Orange Paperboard

Figure B5. Mean ratings of materials for attribute Tasty

Tasty!

6! 5.5! 5! 4.5!

4! ! 3.5! 3! 2.5! MeanRating 2! 1.5! 1! 0.5!

0! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! EPS E-flute Foil Wrap Bagasse Paper Wrap Clear (OPS)

White Paperboard Kraft Paperboard Orange Paperboard

118

Figure B6. Mean ratings of materials for attribute Attractive

Attractive! 6! 5.5! 5! 4.5!

4!

! 3.5! 3! 2.5! MeanRating 2! 1.5! 1! 0.5!

0! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! EPS E-flute Foil Wrap Bagasse Paper Wrap Clear (OPS)

White Paperboard Kraft Paperboard Orange Paperboard

Figure B7. Mean ratings of materials for attribute Fresh

Fresh!

6! 5.5! 5! 4.5!

4! ! 3.5! 3! 2.5! MeanRating 2! 1.5! 1! 0.5!

0! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! EPS E-flute Foil Wrap Bagasse Paper Wrap Clear (OPS)

White Paperboard Kraft Paperboard Orange Paperboard

119

Figure B8. Mean ratings of materials for attribute Re-purchasable

Repurchasable! 6! 5.5! 5! 4.5!

4!

! 3.5! 3! 2.5! MeanRating 2! 1.5! 1! 0.5! 0! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! EPS E-flute Foil Wrap Bagasse Paper Wrap Clear (OPS)

White Paperboard Kraft Paperboard Orange Paperboard

Figure B9. Mean ratings of materials for attribute Appealing

Premium!

6! 5.5! 5! 4.5!

4! ! 3.5! 3! 2.5! MeanRating 2! 1.5! 1! 0.5!

0! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! EPS E-flute Foil Wrap Bagasse Paper Wrap Clear (OPS)

White Paperboard Kraft Paperboard Orange Paperboard

120

Appendix C

Pilot Study Data and Statistical Analysis

C1. Demographic Data

Age Range Ethnicity 18-20 8.45% American Indian or Alaskan Native 1.41% 21-29 30.99% Asian / Pacific Islander 5.63% 30-39 29.58% Black or African American 7.04% 40-49 12.68% Hispanic American 4.23% 50-59 16.90% White / Caucasian 81.69% 60+ 1.41%

Marital Status Gender Married 38.03% Male 53.52% Widowed 0.00% Female 46.48% Divorced 9.86% Other 0.00% Separated 0.00% Never Married 52.11%

Average Household Income $0-$24,999 14.08% Number of People in Household $25,000-$49,999 2.82% 1 21.13% $50,000-$74,999 9.86% 2 45.07% $75,000-$99,999 16.90% 3 19.72% $100,000-$124,999 18.31% 4 7.04% $125,000-$149,999 9.86% 5 5.63% $150,000-$174,999 9.86% 6 1.41% $175,000-$199,999 9.86% $200,000 and up 8.45%

Education Level 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%

121

C2. Fast Food Preferences

How often do you eat fast food?

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%

For which meal do you most often eat fast food?

Breakfast 7.04% Lunch 67.61% Dinner 23.94% As a snack in between meals 1.41%

Where do you normally eat fast food?

In Car 40.85% Inside the restaurant 19.72% At home 21.13% At work 18.31%

122

C3. Day 1

Appeal (Clear/OPS, Bagasse, EPS) GET FILE='/Users/ekthackston/Desktop/cucafe_day1.sav'. Within-Subjects Factors DATASET NAME DataSet3 WINDOW=FRONT. Measure: Appealing GLM appealing1 appealing2 appealing3 Material Dependent Variable /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial 1 appealing1 /MEASURE=Appealing 2 appealing2 /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) 3 appealing3 /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) ! /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE Descriptive Statistics /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) Mean Std. Deviation N /WSDESIGN=Material. Clear (OPS) 3.5455 1.65406 22 General Linear Model Bagasse 3.6818 1.46015 22 [DataSet3] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/cucafe_day1.sav EPS 4.3636 1.52894 22 ! Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Appealing Within Subjects Mauchly's W Approx. Chi- df Sig. Epsilonb Effect Square Greenhouse- Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound Geisser 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 df Mean Square F Sig. Squares Sphericity Assumed 8.455 2 4.227 17.386 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 8.455 1.835 4.607 17.386 .000 Material Huynh-Feldt 8.455 2.000 4.227 17.386 .000 Lower-bound 8.455 1.000 8.455 17.386 .000 Sphericity Assumed 10.212 42 .243 Greenhouse-Geisser 10.212 38.535 .265 Error(Material) 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 b b (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference (I- Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval for Difference J) Lower Bound Upper Bound 2 -.136 .136 .986 -.491 .218 1 * 3 -.818 .169 .000 -1.259 -.377 1 .136 .136 .986 -.218 .491 2 * 3 -.682 .138 .000 -1.040 -.323 1 .818* .169 .000 .377 1.259 3 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. !

123 Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Neat Material Dependent Variable 1 neat1 Neat (Clear/OPS, Bagasse, EPS) 2 neat2 GLM neat1 neat2 neat3 3 neat3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=Neat ! /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE Descriptive Statistics /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) Mean Std. Deviation N /WSDESIGN=Material. Clear (OPS) 4.1818 1.33225 22 General Linear Model Bagasse 4.9545 1.25270 22 [DataSet3] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/cucafe_day1.sav EPS 5.1818 .90692 22

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Neat! Within Subjects Mauchly's W Approx. Chi- df Sig. Epsilonb Effect Square Greenhouse- Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound Geisser 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. !Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Neat Source Type III Sum of df Mean Square F Sig. Squares Sphericity Assumed 12.091 2 6.045 38.613 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 12.091 1.910 6.329 38.613 .000 Material Huynh-Feldt 12.091 2.000 6.045 38.613 .000 Lower-bound 12.091 1.000 12.091 38.613 .000 Sphericity Assumed 6.576 42 .157 Greenhouse-Geisser 6.576 40.118 .164 Error(Material) 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 !

Pairwise Comparisons Measure: Neat (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference (I- Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb J) Lower Bound Upper Bound 2 -.773* .113 .000 -1.066 -.480 1 3 -1.000* .132 .000 -1.342 -.658 1 .773* .113 .000 .480 1.066 2 3 -.227 .113 .170 -.520 .066 1 1.000* .132 .000 .658 1.342 3 2 .227 .113 .170 -.066 .520 Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni. !

124

Messy (Clear/OPS, Bagasse, EPS) Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Messy GLM messy1 messy2 messy3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial Material Dependent Variable /MEASURE=Messy 1 messy1 /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) 2 messy2 /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) 3 messy3 /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE Descriptive Statistics ! /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) Mean Std. Deviation N /WSDESIGN=Material. Clear (OPS) 2.9091 1.44450 22 General Linear Model Bagasse 2.1818 1.18065 22 EPS 2.6364 1.29267 22 [DataSet3] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/cucafe_day1.sav

Mauchly's !Test of Sphericitya Measure: Messy Within Subjects Mauchly's W Approx. Chi- df Sig. Epsilonb Effect Square Greenhouse- Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound Geisser 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 df Mean Square F Sig. Squares Sphericity Assumed 5.939 2 2.970 23.124 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 5.939 1.912 3.106 23.124 .000 Material Huynh-Feldt 5.939 2.000 2.970 23.124 .000 Lower-bound 5.939 1.000 5.939 23.124 .000 Sphericity Assumed 5.394 42 .128 Greenhouse-Geisser 5.394 40.155 .134 Error(Material) 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- Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb J) Lower Bound Upper Bound 2 .727* .117 .000 .422 1.033 1 3 .273* .097 .032 .020 .526 1 -.727* .117 .000 -1.033 -.422 2 * 3 -.455 .109 .001 -.737 -.172 1 -.273* .097 .032 -.526 -.020 3 2 .455* .109 .001 .172 .737 Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni. !

125 Within-Subjects Factors Measure: RePurchase ! Material Dependent Variable Re-purchasable (Clear/OPS, Bagasse, EPS) 1 repurchasable1 GLM repurchasable1 repurchasable2 repurchasable3 2 repurchasable2 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial 3 repurchasable3 /MEASURE=RePurchase ! /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE Descriptive Statistics /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) Mean Std. Deviation N /WSDESIGN=Material. Clear (OPS) 3.6818 1.75625 22 General Linear Model Bagasse 4.1364 1.45718 22 [DataSet3] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/cucafe_day1.sav EPS 4.6818 1.32328 22

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: RePurchase Within Subjects Mauchly's W Approx. Chi- df Sig. Epsilonb Effect Square Greenhouse- Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound Geisser 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.

!

Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: RePurchase Source Type III Sum of df Mean Square F Sig. Squares Sphericity Assumed 11.030 2 5.515 12.656 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 11.030 1.416 7.790 12.656 .000 Material Huynh-Feldt 11.030 1.489 7.410 12.656 .000 Lower-bound 11.030 1.000 11.030 12.656 .002 Sphericity Assumed 18.303 42 .436 Greenhouse-Geisser 18.303 29.737 .616 Error(Material) 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 3Pairwise Comparisons 4.682 .282 4.095 5.269 Measure: RePurchase !(I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference (I- Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb J) Lower Bound Upper Bound 2 -.455* .157 .026 -.864 -.045 1 3 -1.000* .255 .002 -1.663 -.337 1 .455* .157 .026 .045 .864 2 * 3 -.545 .171 .013 -.989 -.102 * 1 1.000 .255 .002 .337 1.663 3 2 .545* .171 .013 .102 .989 Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni. !

126

Within-Subjects Factors Measure: HighQuality Material Dependent Variable High Quality (Clear/OPS, Bagasse, EPS) 1 highquality1 GLM highquality1 highquality2 highquality4 2 highquality2 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial 3 highquality4 /MEASURE=HighQuality ! /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE Descriptive Statistics /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) Mean Std. Deviation N /WSDESIGN=Material. Clear (OPS) 2.6818 1.58524 22 General Linear Model Bagasse 2.9091 1.34196 22 [DataSet3] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/cucafe_day1.sav EPS 3.5455 1.29935 22

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: HighQuality! Within Subjects Mauchly's W Approx. Chi- df Sig. Epsilonb Effect Square Greenhouse- Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound Geisser 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 df Mean Square F Sig. Squares Sphericity Assumed 8.818 2 4.409 14.797 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 8.818 1.590 5.546 14.797 .000 Material Huynh-Feldt 8.818 1.699 5.190 14.797 .000 Lower-bound 8.818 1.000 8.818 14.797 .001 Sphericity Assumed 12.515 42 .298 Greenhouse-Geisser 12.515 33.390 .375 Error(Material) 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 ! Pairwise Comparisons Measure: HighQuality (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference (I- Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb J) Lower Bound Upper Bound 2 -.227 .130 .288 -.567 .112 1 3 -.864* .201 .001 -1.385 -.342 1 .227 .130 .288 -.112 .567 2 * 3 -.636 .155 .002 -1.039 -.233 1 .864* .201 .001 .342 1.385 3 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. !

127 Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Tasty Material Dependent Variable Tasty (Clear/OPS, Bagasse, EPS) 1 tasty1 GLM tasty1 tasty2 tasty3 2 tasty2 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial 3 tasty3 /MEASURE=Tasty ! /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE Descriptive Statistics /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) Mean Std. Deviation N /WSDESIGN=Material. Clear (OPS) 3.7273 1.69542 22 General Linear Model Bagasse 3.7727 1.50971 22 [DataSet3] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/cucafe_day1.sav EPS 4.5455 1.22386 22

a Mauchly's Test of Sphericity Measure: Tasty! Within Subjects Mauchly's W Approx. Chi- df Sig. Epsilonb Effect Square Greenhouse- Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound Geisser 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 df Mean Square F Sig. Squares Sphericity Assumed 9.303 2 4.652 18.263 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 9.303 1.886 4.932 18.263 .000 Material Huynh-Feldt 9.303 2.000 4.652 18.263 .000 Lower-bound 9.303 1.000 9.303 18.263 .000 Sphericity Assumed 10.697 42 .255 Greenhouse-Geisser 10.697 39.608 .270 Error(Material) 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- Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb J) Lower Bound Upper Bound 2 -.045 .139 1.000 -.408 .317 1 3 -.818* .169 .000 -1.259 -.377 1 .045 .139 1.000 -.317 .408 2 * 3 -.773 .146 .000 -1.153 -.393 1 .818* .169 .000 .377 1.259 3 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. !

128 Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Attractive Material Dependent Variable Attractive (Clear/OPS, Bagasse, EPS) 1 attractive1 GLM attractive1 attractive2 attractive3 2 attractive2 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial 3 attractive3 /MEASURE=Attractive ! /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE Descriptive Statistics /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) Mean Std. Deviation N /WSDESIGN=Material. Clear (OPS) 3.5000 1.56601 22 General Linear Model Bagasse 3.4091 1.59341 22 [DataSet3] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/cucafe_day1.sav EPS 4.0455 1.52682 22

Mauchly's Test! of Sphericitya Measure: Attractive Within Subjects Mauchly's W Approx. Chi- df Sig. Epsilonb Effect Square Greenhouse- Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound Geisser 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 df Mean Square F Sig. Squares Sphericity Assumed 5.212 2 2.606 3.555 .037 Greenhouse-Geisser 5.212 1.206 4.320 3.555 .064 Material Huynh-Feldt 5.212 1.240 4.204 3.555 .063 Lower-bound 5.212 1.000 5.212 3.555 .073 Sphericity Assumed 30.788 42 .733 Greenhouse-Geisser 30.788 25.335 1.215 Error(Material) 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- Std. Error Sig.a 95% Confidence Interval for Differencea J) Lower Bound Upper Bound 2 .091 .112 1.000 -.201 .383 1 3 -.545 .307 .269 -1.343 .252 1 -.091 .112 1.000 -.383 .201 2 3 -.636 .305 .149 -1.431 .158 1 .545 .307 .269 -.252 1.343 3 2 .636 .305 .149 -.158 1.431 Based on estimated marginal means a. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni. !

129 Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Fresh Material Dependent Variable Fresh (Clear/OPS, Bagasse, EPS) 1 fresh1 GLM fresh1 fresh2 fresh3 2 fresh2 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial 3 fresh3 /MEASURE=Fresh ! /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE Descriptive Statistics /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) Mean Std. Deviation N /WSDESIGN=Material. Clear (OPS) 2.9545 1.52682 22 General Linear Model Bagasse 3.5909 1.56324 22 [DataSet3] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/cucafe_day1.sav EPS 4.0455 1.55769 22

Mauchly's! Test of Sphericitya Measure: Fresh Within Subjects Mauchly's W Approx. Chi- df Sig. Epsilonb Effect Square Greenhouse- Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound Geisser 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 df Mean Square F Sig. Squares Sphericity Assumed 13.212 2 6.606 7.278 .002 Greenhouse-Geisser 13.212 1.522 8.682 7.278 .005 Material Huynh-Feldt 13.212 1.616 8.176 7.278 .004 Lower-bound 13.212 1.000 13.212 7.278 .013 Sphericity Assumed 38.121 42 .908 Greenhouse-Geisser 38.121 31.956 1.193 Error(Material) 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

!Pairwise Comparisons Measure: Fresh (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference (I- Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb J) Lower Bound Upper Bound 2 -.636* .214 .022 -1.192 -.081 1 3 -1.091* .354 .017 -2.011 -.171 1 .636* .214 .022 .081 1.192 2 3 -.455 .277 .347 -1.175 .266 1 1.091* .354 .017 .171 2.011 3 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. !

130 Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Premium Material Dependent Variable Premium (Clear/OPS, Bagasse, EPS) 1 premium1 GLM premium1 premium2 premium3 2 premium2 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial 3 premium3 /MEASURE=Premium ! /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE Descriptive Statistics /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) Mean Std. Deviation N /WSDESIGN=Material. Clear (OPS) 3.0000 1.54303 22 Bagasse 2.8636 1.28343 22 General Linear Model EPS 3.3182 1.35879 22 [DataSet3] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/cucafe_day1.sav

a Mauchly's Test of Sphericity Measure: Premium! Within Subjects Mauchly's W Approx. Chi- df Sig. Epsilonb Effect Square Greenhouse- Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound Geisser 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 df Mean Square F Sig. Squares Sphericity Assumed 2.394 2 1.197 2.130 .132 Greenhouse-Geisser 2.394 1.475 1.623 2.130 .147 Material Huynh-Feldt 2.394 1.560 1.535 2.130 .144 Lower-bound 2.394 1.000 2.394 2.130 .159 Sphericity Assumed 23.606 42 .562 Greenhouse-Geisser 23.606 30.975 .762 Error(Material) 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- Std. Error Sig.a 95% Confidence Interval for Differencea J) Lower Bound Upper Bound 2 .136 .151 1.000 -.257 .530 1 3 -.318 .274 .777 -1.032 .395 1 -.136 .151 1.000 -.530 .257 2 3 -.455 .235 .199 -1.065 .156 1 .318 .274 .777 -.395 1.032 3 2 .455 .235 .199 -.156 1.065 Based on estimated marginal means a. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni. !

131 Within-Subjects Factors Measure: WTP Material Dependent Variable Price (Clear/OPS, Bagasse, EPS) 1 price1 GLM price1 price2 price3 2 price2 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial 3 price3 /MEASURE=WTP ! /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE Descriptive Statistics /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) Mean Std. Deviation N /WSDESIGN=Material. Clear (OPS) 1.6818 .64633 22 General Linear Model Bagasse 1.7727 .61193 22 EPS 2.0000 .75593 22 [DataSet3] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/cucafe_day1.sav

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: WTP! Within Subjects Mauchly's W Approx. Chi- df Sig. Epsilonb Effect Square Greenhouse- Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound Geisser 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 df Mean Square F Sig. Squares Sphericity Assumed 1.182 2 .591 5.151 .010 Greenhouse-Geisser 1.182 1.429 .827 5.151 .020 Material Huynh-Feldt 1.182 1.504 .786 5.151 .018 Lower-bound 1.182 1.000 1.182 5.151 .034 Sphericity Assumed 4.818 42 .115 Greenhouse-Geisser 4.818 30.010 .161 Error(Material) 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- Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb J) Lower Bound Upper Bound 2 -.091 .063 .486 -.254 .072 1 3 -.318* .121 .047 -.633 -.003 1 .091 .063 .486 -.072 .254 2 3 -.227 .113 .170 -.520 .066 1 .318* .121 .047 .003 .633 3 2 .227 .113 .170 -.066 .520 Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni. !

132

Within-Subjects Factors C4. Day 2 Measure: Appealing Material Dependent Variable appealing1 Appeal (White Paperboard, Orange Paperboard, Kraft Paperboard) 1 GET 2 appealing2 FILE='/Users/ekthackston/Downloads/cucafe_day2.sav'. 3 appealing3 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 Descriptive Statistics /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) Mean Std. Deviation N /WSDESIGN=Material. White Paperboard 3.4815 1.62600 27 Orange Paperboard 3.6296 1.39085 27 General Linear Model Kraft Paperboard 3.2222 1.47631 27 [DataSet4] /Users/ekthackston/Downloads/cucafe_day2.sav ! Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Appealing b Within Subjects Mauchly's W Approx. Chi- df Sig. Epsilon Effect Square Greenhouse- Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound Geisser 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 df Mean Square F Sig. Squares Sphericity Assumed 2.296 2 1.148 1.047 .358 Greenhouse-Geisser 2.296 1.965 1.169 1.047 .357 Material Huynh-Feldt 2.296 2.000 1.148 1.047 .358 Lower-bound 2.296 1.000 2.296 1.047 .316 Sphericity Assumed 57.037 52 1.097 Greenhouse-Geisser 57.037 51.084 1.117 Error(Material) Huynh-Feldt 57.037 52.000 1.097 Lower-bound 57.037 26.000 2.194 ! Neat (White Paperboard, Orange Paperboard, Kraft Paperboard) GLM neat1 neat2 neat3 Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Neat /WSFACTOR=Material! 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=Neat Material Dependent Variable /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) 1 neat1 /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) 2 neat2 /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE 3 neat3 Descriptive Statistics /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) ! Mean Std. Deviation N /WSDESIGN=Material. White Paperboard 4.2963 1.51441 27 General Linear Model Orange Paperboard 4.5556 1.18754 27 [DataSet4] /Users/ekthackston/Downloads/cucafe_day2.sav Kraft Paperboard 4.1852 1.49453 27

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Neat Within Subjects Mauchly's W Approx. Chi- df Sig. Epsilonb Effect Square Greenhouse- Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound Geisser 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. ! 133 !

Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Neat Source Type III Sum of df Mean Square F Sig. Squares Sphericity Assumed 1.951 2 .975 1.151 .324 Greenhouse-Geisser 1.951 1.766 1.104 1.151 .320 Material Huynh-Feldt 1.951 1.885 1.035 1.151 .322 Lower-bound 1.951 1.000 1.951 1.151 .293 Sphericity Assumed 44.049 52 .847 Greenhouse-Geisser 44.049 45.922 .959 Error(Material) Huynh-Feldt 44.049 49.019 .899 Lower-bound 44.049 26.000 1.694 !

Messy (White Paperboard, Orange Paperboard, Kraft Paperboard) GLM messy1 messy2 messy3 Within-Subjects Factors /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial Measure: Messy /MEASURE=Messy Material Dependent Variable /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) 1 messy1 /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) 2 messy2 3 messy3 /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE Descriptive Statistics /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) Mean! Std. Deviation N /WSDESIGN=Material. White Paperboard 3.0741 1.49167 27 General Linear Model Orange Paperboard 2.9259 1.35663 27 [DataSet4] /Users/ekthackston/Downloads/cucafe_day2.sav Kraft Paperboard 2.7037 1.40917 27

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Messy Within Subjects Mauchly's W Approx. Chi- df Sig. Epsilonb Effect Square Greenhouse- Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound Geisser 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 df Mean Square F Sig. Squares Sphericity Assumed 1.877 2 .938 1.028 .365 Greenhouse-Geisser 1.877 1.959 .958 1.028 .364 Material Huynh-Feldt 1.877 2.000 .938 1.028 .365 Lower-bound 1.877 1.000 1.877 1.028 .320 Sphericity Assumed 47.457 52 .913 Greenhouse-Geisser 47.457 50.930 .932 Error(Material) Huynh-Feldt 47.457 52.000 .913 Lower-bound 47.457 26.000 1.825 !

! Re-purchasable (White Paperboard, Orange Paperboard, Kraft Paperboard) GLM repurchasable1 repurchasable2 repurchasable3 Within-Subjects Factors /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial Measure: RePurchase /MEASURE=RePurchase Material Dependent Variable /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) 1 repurchasable1 /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) 2 repurchasable2 3 repurchasable3 /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE 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

134 /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet4] /Users/ekthackston/Downloads/cucafe_day2.sav

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: RePurchase Within Subjects Mauchly's W Approx. Chi- df Sig. Epsilonb EffectTests of Within-Subjects Effects Square Greenhouse- Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound Measure: RePurchase Geisser MaterialSource .970 .750Type III Sum2 of .687 df .971Mean Square 1.000 F Sig..500 a. Design: Intercept Squares Within Subjects Design: MaterialSphericity Assumed 1.556 2 .778 1.273 .289 b. May be used to adjust theGreenhouse degrees of- Geisserfreedom for the averaged tests1.556 of significance.1.943 Corrected tests are displayed.801 in the1.273 Tests of .288 WithinMaterial-Subjects Effects table. Huynh-Feldt 1.556 2.000 .778 1.273 .289 ! Lower-bound 1.556 1.000 1.556 1.273 .270 Sphericity Assumed 31.778 52 .611 Greenhouse-Geisser 31.778 50.508 .629 Error(Material) Huynh-Feldt 31.778 52.000 .611 Lower-bound 31.778 26.000 1.222 !

High Quality (White! Paperboard, Orange Paperboard, Kraft Paperboard) GLM highquality1 highquality2 highquality4 Within-Subjects Factors /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial Measure: HighQuality /MEASURE=HighQuality Material Dependent Variable /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) 1 highquality1 /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) 2 highquality2 3 highquality4 /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) Descriptive Statistics ! /WSDESIGN=Material. Mean Std. Deviation N General Linear Model White Paperboard 2.8148 1.44214 27 [DataSet4] /Users/ekthackston/Downloads/cucafe_day2.sav Orange Paperboard 3.0370 1.48016 27 Kraft Paperboard 2.2963 1.17063 27

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: HighQuality Within Subjects Mauchly's W Approx. Chi- df Sig. Epsilonb Effect Square Greenhouse- Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound Geisser 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 df Mean Square F Sig. Squares Sphericity Assumed 7.802 2 3.901 4.590 .015 Greenhouse-Geisser 7.802 1.978 3.944 4.590 .015 Material Huynh-Feldt 7.802 2.000 3.901 4.590 .015 Lower-bound 7.802 1.000 7.802 4.590 .042 Sphericity Assumed 44.198 52 .850 Greenhouse-Geisser 44.198 51.437 .859 Error(Material) Huynh-Feldt 44.198 52.000 .850 Lower-bound 44.198 26.000 1.700 !

135 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- Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb J) Lower Bound Upper Bound 2 -.222 .247 1.000 -.853 .409 1 3 .519 .263 .180 -.156 1.193 1 .222 .247 1.000 -.409 .853 2 * 3 .741 .242 .015 .121 1.361 1 -.519 .263 .180 -1.193 .156 3 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. !

Tasty (White Paperboard, Orange Paperboard, Kraft Paperboard ) GLM tasty1 tasty2 tasty3 Within-Subjects Factors /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial Measure: Tasty /MEASURE=Tasty Material Dependent Variable /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) 1 tasty1 /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) 2 tasty2 /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE 3 tasty3 /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) Descriptive Statistics /WSDESIGN=Material. ! Mean Std. Deviation N General Linear Model White Paperboard 3.4074 1.57527 27 [DataSet4] /Users/ekthackston/Downloads/cucafe_day2.sav Orange Paperboard 3.5926 1.42125 27 Kraft Paperboard 3.1111 1.71718 27 ! Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Tasty Within Subjects Mauchly's W Approx. Chi- df Sig. Epsilonb Effect Square Greenhouse- Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound Geisser 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 df Mean Square F Sig. Squares Sphericity Assumed 3.185 2 1.593 1.720 .189 Greenhouse-Geisser 3.185 1.884 1.691 1.720 .191 Material Huynh-Feldt 3.185 2.000 1.593 1.720 .189 Lower-bound 3.185 1.000 3.185 1.720 .201 Sphericity Assumed 48.148 52 .926 Greenhouse-Geisser 48.148 48.986 .983 Error(Material) Huynh-Feldt 48.148 52.000 .926 Lower-bound 48.148 26.000 1.852 !

Within-Subjects Factors Attractive (White Paperboard, Orange Paperboard, Kraft Paperboard) Measure: Attractive GLM attractive1 attractive2 attractive3 Material Dependent Variable /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial 1 attractive1 2 attractive2 attractive3 3

! 136 /MEASURE=Attractive /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material)! COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE Descriptive Statistics /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) Mean Std. Deviation N /WSDESIGN=Material. White Paperboard 3.2593 1.37540 27 General Linear Model Orange Paperboard 3.3704 1.41824 27 [DataSet4] /Users/ekthackston/Downloads/cucafe_day2.sav Kraft Paperboard 2.8889 1.42325 27

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Attractive Within Subjects Mauchly's W Approx. Chi- df Sig. Epsilonb Effect Square Greenhouse- Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound Geisser 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.

!Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Attractive Source Type III Sum of df Mean Square F Sig. Squares Sphericity Assumed 3.432 2 1.716 1.541 .224 Greenhouse-Geisser 3.432 1.801 1.906 1.541 .226 Material Huynh-Feldt 3.432 1.927 1.781 1.541 .225 Lower-bound 3.432 1.000 3.432 1.541 .226 Sphericity Assumed 57.901 52 1.113 Greenhouse-Geisser 57.901 46.822 1.237 Error(Material) Huynh-Feldt 57.901 50.092 1.156 Lower-bound 57.901 26.000 2.227 !

Fresh (White Paperboard, Orange Paperboard, Kraft Paperboard) GLM fresh1 fresh2 fresh3 Within-Subjects Factors /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial Measure: Fresh /MEASURE=Fresh Material Dependent Variable /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) 1 fresh1 /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) 2 fresh2 /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE 3 fresh3 /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) Descriptive Statistics ! /WSDESIGN=Material. Mean Std. Deviation N General Linear Model White Paperboard 2.8148 1.30198 27 [DataSet4] /Users/ekthackston/Downloads/cucafe_day2.sav Orange Paperboard 3.0370 1.28547 27 Kraft Paperboard 2.1481 1.35032 27 Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Fresh! Within Subjects Mauchly's W Approx. Chi- df Sig. Epsilonb Effect Square Greenhouse- Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound Geisser 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 df Mean Square F Sig. Squares Sphericity Assumed 11.556 2 5.778 6.377 .003 Greenhouse-Geisser 11.556 1.966 5.877 6.377 .004 Material Huynh-Feldt 11.556 2.000 5.778 6.377 .003 Lower-bound 11.556 1.000 11.556 6.377 .018 Sphericity Assumed 47.111 52 .906 Greenhouse-Geisser 47.111 51.122 .922 Error(Material) Huynh-Feldt 47.111 52.000 .906 Lower-bound 47.111 26.000 1.812 ! 137

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 !Pairwise Comparisons Measure: Fresh (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference (I- Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb J) Lower Bound Upper Bound 2 -.222 .258 1.000 -.882 .438 1 3 .667* .245 .034 .041 1.293 1 .222 .258 1.000 -.438 .882 2 * 3 .889 .274 .010 .188 1.590 1 -.667* .245 .034 -1.293 -.041 3 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. !

Premium (White Paperboard, Orange Paperboard, Kraft Paperboard) GLM premium1 premium2 premium3 Within-Subjects Factors /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial Measure: Premium /MEASURE=Premium Material Dependent Variable /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) 1 premium1 /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) 2 premium2 /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE 3 premium3 /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) /WSDESIGN=Material. ! General Linear Model Descriptive Statistics [DataSet4] /Users/ekthackston/Downloads/cucafe_day2.sav 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 Mauchly's W Approx. Chi- df Sig. Epsilonb Effect Square Greenhouse- Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound Geisser 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 df Mean Square F Sig. Squares Sphericity Assumed 6.025 2 3.012 4.054 .023 Greenhouse-Geisser 6.025 1.641 3.671 4.054 .031 Material Huynh-Feldt 6.025 1.737 3.468 4.054 .029 Lower-bound 6.025 1.000 6.025 4.054 .055 Sphericity Assumed 38.642 52 .743 Greenhouse-Geisser 38.642 42.674 .906 Error(Material) 138 Huynh-Feldt 38.642 45.166 .856 Lower-bound 38.642 26.000 1.486 ! 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- Std. Error Sig.a 95% Confidence Interval for Differencea J) Lower Bound Upper Bound 2 -.296 .191 .399 -.785 .193 1 3 .370 .221 .317 -.195 .936 1 .296 .191 .399 -.193 .785 2 3 .667 .282 .078 -.056 1.389 1 -.370 .221 .317 -.936 .195 3 2 -.667 .282 .078 -1.389 .056 Based on estimated marginal means a. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni. ! Within-Subjects Factors Measure: WTP

Price (White Paperboard, Orange Paperboard, Kraft Paperboard) Material Dependent Variable GLM price1 price2 price3 1 price1 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial 2 price2 /MEASURE=WTP 3 price3 /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) ! Descriptive Statistics /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE Mean Std. Deviation N /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) How much would you be 1.4815 .64273 27 /WSDESIGN=Material. willing to pay for this burger? How much would you be 1.6296 .68770 27 General Linear Mode willing to pay for this burger? [DataSet4] /Users/ekthackston/Downloads/cucafe_day2.sav How much would you be 1.4074 .57239 27 willing to pay for this burger? Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: WTP Within Subjects Mauchly's W Approx. Chi- df Sig. Epsilonb Effect Square Greenhouse- Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound Geisser 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 df Mean Square F Sig. Squares Sphericity Assumed .691 2 .346 2.459 .095 Greenhouse-Geisser .691 1.650 .419 2.459 .107 Material Huynh-Feldt .691 1.747 .396 2.459 .103 Lower-bound .691 1.000 .691 2.459 .129 Sphericity Assumed 7.309 52 .141 Greenhouse-Geisser 7.309 42.892 .170 Error(Material) Huynh-Feldt 7.309 45.424 .161 Lower-bound 7.309 26.000 .281 ! Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Appealing C5. Day 3 Material Dependent Variable 1 appealing1 2 appealing2 3 appealing3 !

139 Appeal (Foil Wrap, Paper Wrap, E-flute) GLM appealing1 appealing2 appealing3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial /MEASURE=Appealing Descriptive Statistics /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) Mean Std. Deviation N /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI)Foil Wrap 3.0000 1.51186 22 /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE Paper Wrap 2.9545 1.36198 22 /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) E-Flute 4.4545 1.43849 22 /WSDESIGN=Material. General Linear Model [DataSet1] /Users/ekthackston/Documents/cucafe_day3.sav!

a Mauchly's Test of Sphericity Measure: Appealing Within Subjects Mauchly's W Approx. Chi- df Sig. Epsilonb Effect Square Greenhouse- Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound Geisser 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 df Mean Square F Sig. Squares Sphericity Assumed 32.030 2 16.015 12.311 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 32.030 1.841 17.398 12.311 .000 Material Huynh-Feldt 32.030 2.000 16.015 12.311 .000 Lower-bound 32.030 1.000 32.030 12.311 .002 Sphericity Assumed 54.636 42 1.301 Greenhouse-Geisser 54.636 38.662 1.413 Error(Material) 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 Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for (I-J) Differenceb Lower Bound Upper Bound 2 .045 .290 1.000 -.710 .801 1 3 -1.455* .376 .003 -2.434 -.475 1 -.045 .290 1.000 -.801 .710 2 3 -1.500* .359 .001 -2.434 -.566 1 1.455* .376 .003 .475 2.434 3 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. !

140

!

Within-Subjects Factors Neat (Foil Wrap, Paper Wrap, E-flute) Measure: Neat GLM neat1 neat2 neat3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial Material Dependent Variable /MEASURE=Neat 1 neat1 /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) 2 neat2 /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) 3 neat3 /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE Descriptive Statistics ! /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) Mean Std. Deviation N /WSDESIGN=Material. Foil Wrap 3.2273 1.82396 22 General Linear Model Paper Wrap 3.4091 1.56324 22 [DataSet1] /Users/ekthackston/Documents/cucafe_day3.sav E-Flute 5.2273 1.06600 22

a Mauchly's Test of Sphericity Measure: Neat b Within Subjects Mauchly's W Approx. Chi- df Sig. Epsilon Effect Square Greenhouse- Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound Geisser 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 df Mean Square F Sig. Squares Sphericity Assumed 53.818 2 26.909 12.260 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 53.818 1.940 27.739 12.260 .000 Material Huynh-Feldt 53.818 2.000 26.909 12.260 .000 Lower-bound 53.818 1.000 53.818 12.260 .002 Sphericity Assumed 92.182 42 2.195 Greenhouse-Geisser 92.182 40.743 2.263 Error(Material) 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- Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb J) Lower Bound Upper Bound 2 -.182 .435 1.000 -1.312 .949 1 3 -2.000* .483 .001 -3.258 -.742 1 .182 .435 1.000 -.949 1.312 2 * 3 -1.818 .419 .001 -2.909 -.727 1 2.000* .483 .001 .742 3.258 3 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. !

141

Messy (Foil Wrap, Paper Wrap, E-flute) Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Messy GLM messy1 messy2 messy3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial Material Dependent Variable /MEASURE=Messy 1 messy1 /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) 2 messy2 /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) 3 messy3 /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE Descriptive Statistics ! /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) Mean Std. Deviation N /WSDESIGN=Material. Foil Wrap 3.7727 1.79767 22 Paper Wrap 4.1818 1.59273 22 General Linear Model E-Flute 2.9091 1.10880 22 [DataSet1] /Users/ekthackston/Documents/cucafe_day3.sav

a Mauchly's Test! of Sphericity Measure: Messy Within Subjects Mauchly's W Approx. Chi- df Sig. Epsilonb Effect Square Greenhouse- Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound Geisser 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 df Mean Square F Sig. Squares Sphericity Assumed 18.576 2 9.288 4.567 .016 Greenhouse-Geisser 18.576 1.589 11.693 4.567 .024 Material Huynh-Feldt 18.576 1.697 10.943 4.567 .022 Lower-bound 18.576 1.000 18.576 4.567 .045 Sphericity Assumed 85.424 42 2.034 Greenhouse-Geisser 85.424 33.361 2.561 Error(Material) 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 !

142 Pairwise Comparisons Measure: Messy (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference (I- Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb J) Lower Bound Upper Bound 2 -.409 .320 .645 -1.242 .423 1 3 .864 .515 .325 -.476 2.204 1 .409 .320 .645 -.423 1.242 2 * 3 1.273 .432 .023 .148 2.397 1 -.864 .515 .325 -2.204 .476 3 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. !

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 Descriptive Statistics /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) Mean Std. Deviation N /WSDESIGN=Material. Foil Wrap 3.3182 1.67293 22 General Linear Model Paper Wrap 3.0909 1.19160 22 [DataSet1] /Users/ekthackston/Documents/cucafe_day3.sav E-Flute 4.9091 1.37699 22

Mauchly's Test of Sphericity! a Measure: RePurchase Within Subjects Mauchly's W Approx. Chi- df Sig. Epsilonb Effect Square Greenhouse- Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound Geisser 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 df Mean Square F Sig. Squares Sphericity Assumed 43.182 2 21.591 14.284 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 43.182 1.777 24.303 14.284 .000 Material Huynh-Feldt 43.182 1.929 22.380 14.284 .000 Lower-bound 43.182 1.000 43.182 14.284 .001 Sphericity Assumed 63.485 42 1.512 Greenhouse-Geisser 63.485 37.313 1.701 Error(Material) 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 Within-Subjects3.619 Factors 3 4.909 .294 4.299 Measure: RePurchase5.520 ! Material Dependent Variable 1 repurchasable1 2 repurchasable2 Pairwise Comparisons 3 repurchasable3 Measure: RePurchase (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference (I- Std. Error Sig.b ! 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb J) Lower Bound Upper Bound 2 .227 .322 1.000 -.610 1.065 1 3 -1.591* .430 .004 -2.709 -.473 1 -.227 .322 1.000 -1.065 .610 2 * 3 -1.818 .352 .000 -2.734 -.902 1 1.591* .430 .004 .473 2.709 3 143 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. !

Within-Subjects Factors High Quality (Foil Wrap, Paper Wrap, E-flute) Measure: HighQuality GLM highquality1 highquality2 highquality4 Material Dependent Variable /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial 1 highquality1 /MEASURE=HighQuality 2 highquality2 /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) 3 highquality4 /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE ! /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N /WSDESIGN=Material. Foil Wrap 2.4545 1.26217 22 General Linear Model Paper Wrap 2.7273 .98473 22 [DataSet1] /Users/ekthackston/Documents/cucafe_day3.sav E-Flute 4.6818 1.28680 22

Mauchly's Test !of Sphericitya Measure: HighQuality Within Subjects Mauchly's W Approx. Chi- df Sig. Epsilonb Effect Square Greenhouse- Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound Geisser 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 df Mean Square F Sig. Squares Sphericity Assumed 64.939 2 32.470 26.708 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 64.939 1.720 37.757 26.708 .000 Material Huynh-Feldt 64.939 1.859 34.935 26.708 .000 Lower-bound 64.939 1.000 64.939 26.708 .000 Sphericity Assumed 51.061 42 1.216 Greenhouse-Geisser 51.061 36.119 1.414 Error(Material) 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- Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb J) Lower Bound Upper Bound 2 -.273 .273 .986 -.982 .437 1 3 -2.227* .389 .000 -3.239 -1.216 1 .273 .273 .986 -.437 .982 2 * 3 -1.955 .326 .000 -2.801 -1.108 1 2.227* .389 .000 1.216 3.239 3 2 1.955* .326 .000 1.108 2.801 Based on estimated marginal means 144 *. The mean difference is significant at the b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni. !

Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Tasty Tasty (Foil Wrap, Paper Wrap, E-flute) Material Dependent Variable GLM tasty1 tasty2 tasty3 1 tasty1 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial 2 tasty2 /MEASURE=Tasty 3 tasty3 /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) Descriptive Statistics ! /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE Mean Std. Deviation N Foil Wrap 3.4545 1.73829 22 /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) Paper Wrap 3.0909 1.23091 22 /WSDESIGN=Material. E-Flute 4.2727 1.31590 22 General Linear Model [DataSet1] /Users/ekthackston/Documents/cucafe_day3.sav ! Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Tasty Within Subjects Mauchly's W Approx. Chi- df Sig. Epsilonb Effect Square Greenhouse- Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound Geisser 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 df Mean Square F Sig. Squares Sphericity Assumed 16.121 2 8.061 5.654 .007 Greenhouse-Geisser 16.121 1.821 8.852 5.654 .009 Material Huynh-Feldt 16.121 1.985 8.122 5.654 .007 Lower-bound 16.121 1.000 16.121 5.654 .027 Sphericity Assumed 59.879 42 1.426 Greenhouse-Geisser 59.879 38.245 1.566 Error(Material) 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- Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb J) Lower Bound Upper Bound 2 .364 .312 .772 -.449 1.176 1 3 -.818 .409 .176 -1.882 .246 1 -.364 .312 .772 -1.176 .449 2 * 3 -1.182 .352 .009 -2.098 -.266 1 .818 .409 .176 -.246 1.882 3 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. !

145

Within-Subjects Factors Attractive (Foil Wrap, Paper Wrap, E-flute) Measure: Attractive GLM attractive1 attractive2 attractive3 Material Dependent Variable /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial 1 attractive1 /MEASURE=Attractive 2 attractive2 /METHOD=SSTYPE(3)! 3 attractive3 /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE Descriptive Statistics ! /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) Mean Std. Deviation N /WSDESIGN=Material. Foil Wrap 2.7727 1.50971 22 General Linear Model Paper Wrap 2.6818 1.17053 22 E-Flute 4.6364 1.46533 22 [DataSet1] /Users/ekthackston/Documents/cucafe_day3.sav

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Attractive Within Subjects Mauchly's W Approx. Chi- df Sig. Epsilonb Effect Square Greenhouse- Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound Geisser 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 df Mean Square F Sig. Squares Sphericity Assumed 53.545 2 26.773 16.426 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 53.545 1.805 29.669 16.426 .000 Material Huynh-Feldt 53.545 1.964 27.260 16.426 .000 Lower-bound 53.545 1.000 53.545 16.426 .001 Sphericity Assumed 68.455 42 1.630 Greenhouse-Geisser 68.455 37.900 1.806 Error(Material) 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- Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb J) Lower Bound Upper Bound 2 .091 .341 1.000 -.797 .979 1 3 -1.864* .443 .001 -3.016 -.712 1 -.091 .341 1.000 -.979 .797 2 * 3 -1.955 .363 .000 -2.899 -1.010 1 1.864* .443 .001 .712 3.016 3 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. ! 146

Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Fresh Fresh (Foil Wrap, Paper Wrap, E-flute) Material Dependent Variable GLM fresh1 fresh2 fresh3 1 fresh1 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial 2 fresh2 /MEASURE=Fresh 3 fresh3 /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) Descriptive Statistics ! /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE Mean Std. Deviation N /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) Foil Wrap 2.9091 1.94958 22 /WSDESIGN=Material. Paper Wrap 2.7727 1.26986 22 General Linear Model E-Flute 4.3182 1.17053 22 [DataSet1] /Users/ekthackston/Documents/cucafe_day3.sav

!

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Fresh Within Subjects Mauchly's W Approx. Chi- df Sig. Epsilonb Effect Square Greenhouse- Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound Geisser 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 df Mean Square F Sig. Squares Sphericity Assumed 32.212 2 16.106 7.765 .001 Greenhouse-Geisser 32.212 1.508 21.360 7.765 .004 Material Huynh-Feldt 32.212 1.600 20.139 7.765 .003 Lower-bound 32.212 1.000 32.212 7.765 .011 Sphericity Assumed 87.121 42 2.074 Greenhouse-Geisser 87.121 31.669 2.751 Error(Material) 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- Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb J) Lower Bound Upper Bound 2 .136 .462 1.000 -1.065 1.338 1 3 -1.409* .517 .038 -2.753 -.065 1 -.136 .462 1.000 -1.338 1.065 2 * 3 -1.545 .292 .000 -2.306 -.785 1 1.409* .517 .038 .065 2.753 3 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. !

147

Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Premium Material Dependent Variable Premium (Foil Wrap, Paper Wrap, E-flute) 1 premium1 GLM premium1 premium2 premium3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial 2 premium2 3 premium3 /MEASURE=Premium /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) ! /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE Descriptive Statistics /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) Mean Std. Deviation N /WSDESIGN=Material. Foil Wrap 2.4545 1.40500 22 General Linear Model Paper Wrap 2.5000 .96362 22 [DataSet1] /Users/ekthackston/Documents/cucafe_day3.sav E-Flute 4.6818 1.49241 22

!

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Premium Within Subjects Mauchly's W Approx. Chi- df Sig. Epsilonb Effect Square Greenhouse- Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound Geisser 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 df Mean Square F Sig. Squares Sphericity Assumed 71.303 2 35.652 26.724 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 71.303 1.541 46.266 26.724 .000 Material Huynh-Feldt 71.303 1.640 43.487 26.724 .000 Lower-bound 71.303 1.000 71.303 26.724 .000 Sphericity Assumed 56.030 42 1.334 Greenhouse-Geisser 56.030 32.364 1.731 Error(Material) Huynh-Feldt 56.030 34.433 1.627 Lower-bound 56.030 21.000 2.668 ! 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 ! Pairwise Comparisons Measure: Premium (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference (I- Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb J) Lower Bound Upper Bound 2 -.045 .250 1.000 -.697 .606 1 3 -2.227* .421 .000 -3.322 -1.132 1 .045 .250 1.000 -.606 .697 2 * 3 -2.182 .352 .000 -3.098 -1.266 1 2.227* .421 .000 1.132 3.322 3 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. ! 148

Within-Subjects Factors Measure: WTP Price (Foil Wrap, Paper Wrap, E-flute) Material Dependent Variable GLM price1 price2 price3 /WSFACTOR=Material 3 Polynomial 1 price1 /MEASURE=WTP 2 price2 /METHOD=SSTYPE(3) 3 price3 /EMMEANS=TABLES(Material) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) ! /PRINT=DESCRIPTIVE Descriptive Statistics /CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05) Mean Std. Deviation N /WSDESIGN=Material. Foil Wrap 1.5909 .50324 22 General Linear Model Paper Wrap 1.5000 .51177 22 [DataSet1] /Users/ekthackston/Documents/cucafe_day3.sav E-Flute 2.2273 .61193 22

!

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: WTP Within Subjects Mauchly's W Approx. Chi- df Sig. Epsilonb Effect Square Greenhouse- Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound Geisser 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 df Mean Square F Sig. Squares Sphericity Assumed 6.909 2 3.455 14.870 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 6.909 1.989 3.474 14.870 .000 Material Huynh-Feldt 6.909 2.000 3.455 14.870 .000 Lower-bound 6.909 1.000 6.909 14.870 .001 Sphericity Assumed 9.758 42 .232 Greenhouse-Geisser 9.758 41.762 .234 Error(Material) 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- Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb J) Lower Bound Upper Bound 2 .091 .146 1.000 -.288 .470 1 3 -.636* .140 .001 -1.001 -.271 1 -.091 .146 1.000 -.470 .288 2 * 3 -.727 .150 .000 -1.117 -.338 1 .636* .140 .001 .271 1.001 3 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. !

149

Appendix D

Full Scale Study Data and Statistical Analysis

D1. Demographic Data Summary

Age Range Ethnicity 18-20 47.20% American Indian or Alaskan Native 0.00% 21-29 46.40% Asian / Pacific Islander 5.45% 30-39 1.80% Black or African American 10.91% 40-49 1.80% Hispanic American 1.82% 50-59 2.70% White / Caucasian 81.82%

Gender Marital Status Male 65.50% Married 6.36% Female 33.60% Widowed 0.00% Other 0.91% Divorced 2.73% Separated 0.00% Never Married 90.91% Average Household Income $0-$24,999 31.82% $25,000-$49,999 17.27% Number of People in Household $50,000-$74,999 7.27% 1 13.00% $75,000-$99,999 10.91% 2 56.00% $100,000-$124,999 10.91% 3 11.00% $125,000-$149,999 6.36% 4 7.00% $150,000-$174,999 0.91% 5 9.00% $175,000-$199,999 1.82% 6 4.00% $200,000 and up 12.73%

150 Education Level 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%

D2. Fast Food Preference Data Summary

How often do you eat fast food?

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%

For which meal do you most often eat fast food?

Breakfast 3.64% Lunch 56.36% Dinner 34.55% As a snack in between meals 5.45%

Where do you normally eat fast food?

In Car 27.27% Inside the restaurant 29.09% At home 33.64% At work 10.00%

Do you normally walk inside the restaurant or use the drive-thru?

Walk Inisde 52.73% Drive-thru 47.27%

151 On average how much do you spend at fast food restaurants per visit?

<$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%

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 Between-Subjects Factors Material Dependent Variable Value N 1 sample602_flavor 1.00 Burger 55 2 sample983_flavor Condition 3 sample180_flavor 2.00 Chicken 55 4 sample532_flavor

Descriptive Statistics Condition Mean Std. Deviation N Burger 5.2909 1.34264 55 sample602_flavor Chicken 5.7455 1.32243 55 Total 5.5182 1.34595 110 Burger 5.3091 1.24533 55 sample983_flavor Chicken 5.7818 1.19708 55 Total 5.5455 1.23879 110 sample180_flavor Burger 5.3455 1.17407 55

152 Chicken 5.9273 1.08619 55 Total 5.6364 1.16310 110 Burger 5.2909 1.13321 55 sample532_flavor Chicken 5.8364 1.06742 55 Total 5.5636 1.12948 110

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Flavor Within Subjects Mauchly's W Approx. Chi- df Sig. Epsilonb Effect Square Greenhouse- Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound Geisser 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 df Mean Square F Sig. Squares Sphericity Assumed .843 3 .281 .322 .810 Greenhouse-Geisser .843 2.819 .299 .322 .797 Material Huynh-Feldt .843 2.930 .288 .322 .805 Lower-bound .843 1.000 .843 .322 .572 Sphericity Assumed .298 3 .099 .114 .952 Greenhouse-Geisser .298 2.819 .106 .114 .945 Material * Condition Huynh-Feldt .298 2.930 .102 .114 .949 Lower-bound .298 1.000 .298 .114 .737 Sphericity Assumed 283.109 324 .874 Greenhouse-Geisser 283.109 304.501 .930 Error(Material) 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

153 [DataSet2] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/THESIS:GRADUATION/Graphs_tables/wendys_sensory_anova.sav

Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Texture Between-Subjects Factors Material Dependent Variable Value Label N 1.00 Burger 55 1 sample602_texture Condition 2 sample983_texture 2.00 Chicken 55 3 sample180_texture 4 sample532_texture

Descriptive Statistics Condition Mean Std. Deviation N Burger 5.1636 1.30190 55 sample602_texture Chicken 5.9455 .91121 55 Total 5.5545 1.18543 110 Burger 5.3818 1.26916 55 sample983_texture Chicken 5.9455 1.00771 55 Total 5.6636 1.17526 110 Burger 5.3818 1.28367 55 sample180_texture Chicken 5.7455 1.22048 55 Total 5.5636 1.26002 110 Burger 5.1455 1.33913 55 sample532_texture Chicken 5.5818 1.43618 55 Total 5.3636 1.39939 110

154

Between-Subjects Factors Value Label N 1.00 Burger 55 Condition 2.00 Chicken 55 Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Texture Within Subjects Mauchly's W Approx. Chi- df Sig. Epsilonb Effect Square Greenhouse- Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound Geisser 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 df Mean Square F Sig. Squares Sphericity Assumed 5.182 3 1.727 1.782 .150 Greenhouse-Geisser 5.182 2.784 1.861 1.782 .155 Material Huynh-Feldt 5.182 2.892 1.792 1.782 .153 Lower-bound 5.182 1.000 5.182 1.782 .185 Sphericity Assumed 2.773 3 .924 .954 .415 Greenhouse-Geisser 2.773 2.784 .996 .954 .410 Material * Condition Huynh-Feldt 2.773 2.892 .959 .954 .413 Lower-bound 2.773 1.000 2.773 .954 .331 Sphericity Assumed 314.045 324 .969 Greenhouse-Geisser 314.045 300.667 1.044 Error(Material) 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

155 Chicken 5.6545 1.26518 55 Total 5.4455 1.29633 110 Burger 5.3091 1.26011 55 sample983_overall Chicken 5.8000 1.00738 55 Total 5.5545 1.16198 110 Burger 5.3818 1.14651 55 sample180_overall Chicken 5.8909 1.11675 55 Total 5.6364 1.15518 110 Burger 5.1091 1.14944 55 sample532_overall Chicken 5.6727 1.20269 55 Total 5.3909 1.20470 110

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Overall Within Subjects Mauchly's W Approx. Chi- df Sig. Epsilonb Effect Square Greenhouse- Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound Geisser 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 df Mean Square F Sig. Squares Sphericity Assumed 3.989 3 1.330 1.486 .218 Greenhouse-Geisser 3.989 2.791 1.429 1.486 .221 Material Huynh-Feldt 3.989 2.899 1.376 1.486 .220 Lower-bound 3.989 1.000 3.989 1.486 .226 Sphericity Assumed .298 3 .099 .111 .954 Greenhouse-Geisser .298 2.791 .107 .111 .945 Material * Condition Huynh-Feldt .298 2.899 .103 .111 .950 Lower-bound .298 1.000 .298 .111 .740 Sphericity Assumed 289.964 324 .895 Greenhouse-Geisser 289.964 301.461 .962 Error(Material) 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

156 Value Label N Within-Subjects Factors 1.00 Burger 55 Condition Measure: Acceptability 2.00 Chicken 55 Material Dependent Variable sample602_how_often_would_ 1 you_eat_this_product sample983_how_often_would_ 2 you_eat_this_product sample180_how_often_would_ 3 you_eat_this_product sample532_how_often_would_ 4 you_eat_this_product

Descriptive Statistics Condition Mean Std. Deviation N sample602_how_often_w Burger 5.509 1.5501 55 ould_you_eat_this_produc Chicken 5.873 1.4789 55 t Total 5.691 1.5190 110 sample983_how_often_w Burger 5.7091 1.74984 55 ould_you_eat_this_produc Chicken 5.8545 1.26810 55 t Total 5.7818 1.52280 110 sample180_how_often_w Burger 5.6545 1.51802 55 ould_you_eat_this_produc Chicken 6.0364 1.30474 55 t Total 5.8455 1.42189 110 sample532_how_often_w Burger 5.3091 1.43853 55 ould_you_eat_this_produc Chicken 5.7818 1.54789 55 t Total 5.5455 1.50617 110

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Acceptability Within Subjects Mauchly's W Approx. Chi- df Sig. Epsilonb Effect Square Greenhouse- Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound Geisser 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 df Mean Square F Sig. Squares Sphericity Assumed 5.589 3 1.863 1.638 .181 Greenhouse-Geisser 5.589 2.841 1.967 1.638 .183 Material Huynh-Feldt 5.589 2.952 1.893 1.638 .181 Lower-bound 5.589 1.000 5.589 1.638 .203 Sphericity Assumed 1.589 3 .530 .466 .707 Greenhouse-Geisser 1.589 2.841 .559 .466 .696 Material * Condition Huynh-Feldt 1.589 2.952 .538 .466 .703 Lower-bound 1.589 1.000 1.589 .466 .497 Sphericity Assumed 368.573 324 1.138 Greenhouse-Geisser 368.573 306.798 1.201 Error(Material) Huynh-Feldt 368.573 318.867 1.156 Lower-bound 368.573 108.000 3.413 D4. Functionality Attributes

157 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 Between-Subjects Factors 1 sample602_protects Value Label N 2 sample983_protects 1.00 Burger 55 Condition 3 sample180_protects 2.00 Chicken 55 4 sample532_protects

Descriptive Statistics Condition Mean Std. Deviation N Burger 5.6364 1.39262 55 Protects product Chicken 5.9091 1.20605 55 Total 5.7727 1.30390 110 Burger 6.2909 .80904 55 Protects product Chicken 6.2727 .98985 55 Total 6.2818 .89987 110 Burger 5.8182 1.07309 55 Protects product Chicken 6.2909 .78582 55 Total 6.0545 .96580 110 Burger 3.3091 1.66525 55 Protects product Chicken 3.2727 1.75810 55 Total 3.2909 1.70453 110

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: ProtectsProduct Within Subjects Mauchly's W Approx. Chi- df Sig. Epsilonb Effect Square Greenhouse- Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound Geisser 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.

158 Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: ProtectsProduct Source Type III Sum of df Mean Square F Sig. Squares Sphericity Assumed 636.155 3 212.052 147.946 .000 Greenhouse- 636.155 2.263 281.119 147.946 .000 Material Geisser Huynh-Feldt 636.155 2.335 272.414 147.946 .000 Lower-bound 636.155 1.000 636.155 147.946 .000 Sphericity Assumed 4.955 3 1.652 1.152 .328 Greenhouse- 4.955 2.263 2.189 1.152 .322 Material * Condition Geisser Huynh-Feldt 4.955 2.335 2.122 1.152 .323 Lower-bound 4.955 1.000 4.955 1.152 .285 Sphericity Assumed 464.391 324 1.433 Greenhouse- 464.391 244.397 1.900 Error(Material) Geisser 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 Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for (I-J) Differenceb Lower Bound Upper Bound 2 -.509* .131 .001 -.861 -.158 1 3 -.282 .132 .211 -.637 .073 4 2.482* .200 .000 1.946 3.018 1 .509* .131 .001 .158 .861 2 3 .227 .113 .285 -.077 .532 4 2.991* .185 .000 2.493 3.488 1 .282 .132 .211 -.073 .637 3 2 -.227 .113 .285 -.532 .077 4 2.764* .187 .000 2.261 3.266 1 -2.482* .200 .000 -3.018 -1.946 4 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)

159 /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 Between-Subjects Factors Variable Value Label N 1 sample602_open 1.00 Burger 55 2 sample983_open Condition 2.00 Chicken 55 3 sample180_open 4 sample532_open

Descriptive Statistics Condition Mean Std. Deviation N Burger 3.9273 2.01710 55 Easy to open Chicken 4.2182 2.02476 55 Total 4.0727 2.01694 110 Burger 5.3091 1.42560 55 Easy to open Chicken 5.2727 1.78942 55 Total 5.2909 1.61043 110 Burger 5.8545 1.23855 55 Easy to open Chicken 6.1818 1.00168 55 Total 6.0182 1.13317 110 Burger 5.8909 1.36995 55 Easy to open Chicken 6.2182 1.06616 55 Total 6.0545 1.23286 110

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: EasyOpen Within Subjects Mauchly's W Approx. Chi- df Sig. Epsilonb Effect Square Greenhouse- Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound Geisser 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. Sphericity Assumed 283.518 3 94.506 44.222 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 283.518 2.431 116.645 44.222 .000 Material Huynh-Feldt 283.518 2.514 112.791 44.222 .000 Lower-bound 283.518 1.000 283.518 44.222 .000

160 Sphericity Assumed 2.573 3 .858 .401 .752 Greenhouse-Geisser 2.573 2.431 1.058 .401 .710 Material * Condition Huynh-Feldt 2.573 2.514 1.023 .401 .717 Lower-bound 2.573 1.000 2.573 .401 .528 Sphericity Assumed 692.409 324 2.137 Greenhouse-Geisser 692.409 262.505 2.638 Error(Material) 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 Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for (I-J) Differenceb Lower Bound Upper Bound 2 -1.218* .198 .000 -1.750 -.686 1 3 -1.945* .227 .000 -2.554 -1.337 4 -1.982* .233 .000 -2.609 -1.355 1 1.218* .198 .000 .686 1.750 2 3 -.727* .175 .000 -1.197 -.258 4 -.764* .193 .001 -1.283 -.244 1 1.945* .227 .000 1.337 2.554 3 2 .727* .175 .000 .258 1.197 4 -.036 .143 1.000 -.420 .347 1 1.982* .233 .000 1.355 2.609 4 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

161 3 sample180_contains 4 sample532_contains

Descriptive Statistics Condition Mean Std. Deviation N Burger 5.5455 1.53741 55 Contains product Chicken 6.0727 1.16832 55 Total 5.8091 1.38468 110 Burger 6.2909 .80904 55 Contains product Chicken 6.5273 .71633 55 Total 6.4091 .76979 110 Burger 6.1091 .89593 55 Contains product Chicken 6.3636 .82470 55 Total 6.2364 .86658 110 Burger 4.8909 1.62928 55 Contains product Chicken 5.0000 1.56347 55 Total 4.9455 1.59032 110

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: ContainsProduct Within Subjects Mauchly's W Approx. Chi- df Sig. Epsilonb Effect Square Greenhouse- Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound Geisser 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 df Mean Square F Sig. Squares Sphericity Assumed 140.991 3 46.997 42.303 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 140.991 2.139 65.903 42.303 .000 Material Huynh-Feldt 140.991 2.204 63.966 42.303 .000 Lower-bound 140.991 1.000 140.991 42.303 .000 Sphericity Assumed 2.555 3 .852 .766 .514 Greenhouse-Geisser 2.555 2.139 1.194 .766 .474 Material * Condition Huynh-Feldt 2.555 2.204 1.159 .766 .477 Lower-bound 2.555 1.000 2.555 .766 .383 Sphericity Assumed 359.955 324 1.111 Greenhouse-Geisser 359.955 231.053 1.558 Error(Material) 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

162

Pairwise Comparisons Measure: ContainsProduct (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for (I-J) Differenceb Lower Bound Upper Bound 2 -.600* .118 .000 -.918 -.282 1 3 -.427* .126 .006 -.766 -.088 4 .864* .185 .000 .367 1.361 1 .600* .118 .000 .282 .918 2 3 .173 .081 .210 -.045 .390 4 1.464* .159 .000 1.036 1.891 1 .427* .126 .006 .088 .766 3 2 -.173 .081 .210 -.390 .045 4 1.291* .159 .000 .864 1.718 1 -.864* .185 .000 -1.361 -.367 4 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 Between-Subjects Factors Material Dependent Variable Value Label N 1 sample602_warm 1.00 Burger 55 2 sample983_warm Condition 2.00 Chicken 55 3 sample180_warm 4 sample532_warm

Descriptive Statistics Condition Mean Std. Deviation N Burger 4.9273 1.59692 55 Keeps product warm Chicken 5.2000 1.33888 55 Total 5.0636 1.47317 110 Burger 5.7273 1.25395 55 Keeps product warm Chicken 5.9091 1.05887 55 Total 5.8182 1.15879 110 Burger 5.8545 .93131 55 Keeps product warm Chicken 6.1273 .94388 55 Total 5.9909 .94331 110

163 Burger 3.8909 1.67412 55 Keeps product warm Chicken 3.6182 1.70501 55 Total 3.7545 1.68744 110

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: KeepsWarm Within Subjects Mauchly's W Approx. Chi- df Sig. Epsilonb Effect Square Greenhouse- Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound Geisser 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 df Mean Square F Sig. Squares Sphericity Assumed 341.898 3 113.966 78.693 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 341.898 2.499 136.832 78.693 .000 Material Huynh-Feldt 341.898 2.586 132.198 78.693 .000 Lower-bound 341.898 1.000 341.898 78.693 .000 Sphericity Assumed 5.625 3 1.875 1.295 .276 Greenhouse-Geisser 5.625 2.499 2.251 1.295 .277 Material * Condition Huynh-Feldt 5.625 2.586 2.175 1.295 .277 Lower-bound 5.625 1.000 5.625 1.295 .258 Sphericity Assumed 469.227 324 1.448 Greenhouse-Geisser 469.227 269.857 1.739 Error(Material) 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 Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for (I-J) Differenceb Lower Bound Upper Bound 2 -.755* .133 .000 -1.112 -.397 1 3 -.927* .156 .000 -1.345 -.509 4 1.309* .186 .000 .809 1.809 1 .755* .133 .000 .397 1.112 2 3 -.173 .119 .906 -.494 .148 4 2.064* .181 .000 1.577 2.550

164 1 .927* .156 .000 .509 1.345 3 2 .173 .119 .906 -.148 .494 4 2.236* .186 .000 1.737 2.735 1 -1.309* .186 .000 -1.809 -.809 4 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 Between-Subjects Factors 2 sample983_carry Value Label N 3 sample180_carry 1.00 Burger 55 Condition 4 sample532_carry 2.00 Chicken 55

Descriptive Statistics Condition Mean Std. Deviation N Burger 4.6182 1.77942 55 Easy to carry Chicken 5.1636 1.48777 55 Total 4.8909 1.65538 110 Burger 5.5818 1.48687 55 Easy to carry Chicken 6.1818 1.00168 55 Total 5.8818 1.29736 110 Burger 5.4727 1.31733 55 Easy to carry Chicken 6.1818 .79561 55 Total 5.8273 1.14025 110 Burger 5.4727 1.51357 55 Easy to carry Chicken 5.3636 1.60282 55 Total 5.4182 1.55264 110

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: EasyCarry Within Subjects Mauchly's W Approx. Chi- df Sig. Epsilonb Effect Square Greenhouse- Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound Geisser 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

165 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 df Mean Square F Sig. Squares Sphericity Assumed 69.355 3 23.118 14.436 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 69.355 2.577 26.913 14.436 .000 Material Huynh-Feldt 69.355 2.670 25.977 14.436 .000 Lower-bound 69.355 1.000 69.355 14.436 .000 Sphericity Assumed 11.291 3 3.764 2.350 .072 Greenhouse-Geisser 11.291 2.577 4.381 2.350 .082 Material * Condition Huynh-Feldt 11.291 2.670 4.229 2.350 .080 Lower-bound 11.291 1.000 11.291 2.350 .128 Sphericity Assumed 518.855 324 1.601 Greenhouse-Geisser 518.855 278.313 1.864 Error(Material) 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 Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for (I-J) Differenceb Lower Bound Upper Bound 2 -.991* .149 .000 -1.391 -.591 1 3 -.936* .156 .000 -1.355 -.518 4 -.527 .204 .066 -1.075 .021 1 .991* .149 .000 .591 1.391 2 3 .055 .134 1.000 -.306 .415 4 .464 .189 .094 -.044 .971 1 .936* .156 .000 .518 1.355 3 2 -.055 .134 1.000 -.415 .306 4 .409 .182 .160 -.080 .899 1 .527 .204 .066 -.021 1.075 4 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.

166 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 Between-Subjects Factors Material Dependent Variable 1 s602_nat Value Label N 1.00 Burger 55 2 s983_nat Condition 3 s180_nat 2.00 Chicken 55 4 s532_nat

Descriptive Statistics Condition Mean Std. Deviation N Burger 4.5455 1.52532 55 s602_nat Chicken 4.3818 1.34013 55 Total 4.4636 1.43148 110 Burger 5.5091 1.24533 55 s983_nat Chicken 5.2364 1.37388 55 Total 5.3727 1.31232 110 Burger 2.6909 1.83457 55 s180_nat Chicken 3.1818 1.67874 55 Total 2.9364 1.76758 110 Burger 4.0182 1.75848 55 s532_nat Chicken 4.5455 1.42489 55 Total 4.2818 1.61491 110

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Natural Within Subjects Mauchly's W Approx. Chi- df Sig. Epsilonb Effect Square Greenhouse- Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound Geisser 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 df Mean Square F Sig. Squares Sphericity Assumed 333.527 3 111.176 56.482 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 333.527 2.582 129.186 56.482 .000 Material Huynh-Feldt 333.527 2.675 124.683 56.482 .000 Lower-bound 333.527 1.000 333.527 56.482 .000 Sphericity Assumed 14.727 3 4.909 2.494 .060 Material * Condition Greenhouse-Geisser 14.727 2.582 5.704 2.494 .069

167 Huynh-Feldt 14.727 2.675 5.506 2.494 .067 Lower-bound 14.727 1.000 14.727 2.494 .117 Sphericity Assumed 637.745 324 1.968 Greenhouse-Geisser 637.745 278.830 2.287 Error(Material) 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 Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for (I-J) Differenceb Lower Bound Upper Bound 2 -.909* .143 .000 -1.293 -.525 1 3 1.527* .196 .000 1.001 2.054 4 .182 .172 1.000 -.282 .645 1 .909* .143 .000 .525 1.293 2 3 2.436* .225 .000 1.832 3.041 4 1.091* .190 .000 .580 1.602 1 -1.527* .196 .000 -2.054 -1.001 3 2 -2.436* .225 .000 -3.041 -1.832 4 -1.345* .199 .000 -1.879 -.812 1 -.182 .172 1.000 -.645 .282 4 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

168 Between-Subjects Factors Value Label N 1.00 Burger 55 Condition 2.00 Chicken 55

Descriptive Statistics Condition Mean Std. Deviation N Burger 4.4727 1.54985 55 s602_env Chicken 4.5636 1.44995 55 Total 4.5182 1.49453 110 Burger 5.2000 1.35264 55 s983_env Chicken 5.0909 1.51868 55 Total 5.1455 1.43250 110 Burger 2.5273 1.83439 55 s180_env Chicken 2.6727 1.54026 55 Total 2.6000 1.68751 110 Burger 4.1818 1.76479 55 s532_env Chicken 4.5636 1.37118 55 Total 4.3727 1.58467 110

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: EcoFriendly Within Subjects Mauchly's W Approx. Chi- df Sig. Epsilonb Effect Square Greenhouse- Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound Geisser 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 df Mean Square F Sig. Squares Sphericity Assumed 393.609 3 131.203 70.494 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 393.609 2.613 150.651 70.494 .000 Material Huynh-Feldt 393.609 2.708 145.345 70.494 .000 Lower-bound 393.609 1.000 393.609 70.494 .000 Sphericity Assumed 3.364 3 1.121 .602 .614 Greenhouse-Geisser 3.364 2.613 1.287 .602 .591 Material * Condition Huynh-Feldt 3.364 2.708 1.242 .602 .597 Lower-bound 3.364 1.000 3.364 .602 .439 Sphericity Assumed 603.027 324 1.861 Greenhouse-Geisser 603.027 282.174 2.137 Error(Material) 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

169 Measure: EcoFriendly (I) Material (J) Material Mean Difference Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for (I-J) Differenceb Lower Bound Upper Bound 2 -.627* .142 .000 -1.008 -.246 1 3 1.918* .194 .000 1.396 2.440 4 .145 .163 1.000 -.292 .583 1 .627* .142 .000 .246 1.008 2 3 2.545* .209 .000 1.983 3.107 4 .773* .172 .000 .310 1.236 1 -1.918* .194 .000 -2.440 -1.396 3 2 -2.545* .209 .000 -3.107 -1.983 4 -1.773* .213 .000 -2.345 -1.201 1 -.145 .163 1.000 -.583 .292 4 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

Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Modern Material Dependent Variable Between-Subjects Factors 1 s602_mod Value Label N 2 s983_mod 1.00 Burger 55 Condition 3 s180_mod 2.00 Chicken 55 4 s532_mod

Descriptive Statistics Condition Mean Std. Deviation N Burger 4.8182 1.56455 55 s602_mod Chicken 4.8000 1.54440 55 Total 4.8091 1.54739 110 Burger 5.1091 1.34264 55 s983_mod Chicken 4.9818 1.64981 55 Total 5.0455 1.49854 110 Burger 4.1091 1.79168 55 s180_mod Chicken 4.2182 1.75004 55 Total 4.1636 1.76369 110 Burger 3.0000 1.76383 55 s532_mod Chicken 3.1273 1.50376 55 Total 3.0636 1.63268 110

170

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Modern Within Subjects Mauchly's W Approx. Chi- df Sig. Epsilonb Effect Square Greenhouse- Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound Geisser 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 df Mean Square F Sig. Squares Sphericity Assumed 259.443 3 86.481 38.801 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 259.443 2.772 93.591 38.801 .000 Material Huynh-Feldt 259.443 2.879 90.121 38.801 .000 Lower-bound 259.443 1.000 259.443 38.801 .000 Sphericity Assumed 1.170 3 .390 .175 .913 Greenhouse-Geisser 1.170 2.772 .422 .175 .901 Material * Condition Huynh-Feldt 1.170 2.879 .407 .175 .907 Lower-bound 1.170 1.000 1.170 .175 .676 Sphericity Assumed 722.136 324 2.229 Greenhouse-Geisser 722.136 299.388 2.412 Error(Material) 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 Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for (I-J) Differenceb Lower Bound Upper Bound 2 -.236 .170 1.000 -.693 .221 1 3 .645* .219 .024 .056 1.235 4 1.745* .200 .000 1.207 2.284 1 .236 .170 1.000 -.221 .693 2 3 .882* .214 .000 .308 1.456 4 1.982* .208 .000 1.424 2.540 1 -.645* .219 .024 -1.235 -.056 3 2 -.882* .214 .000 -1.456 -.308

171 4 1.100* .193 .000 .580 1.620 1 -1.745* .200 .000 -2.284 -1.207 4 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 Between-Subjects Factors 1 s602_neat Value Label N 2 s983_neat 1.00 Burger 55 Condition 3 s180_neat 2.00 Chicken 55 4 s532_neat

Descriptive Statistics Condition Mean Std. Deviation N Burger 4.8000 1.50800 55 s602_neat Chicken 4.9455 1.71506 55 Total 4.8727 1.60909 110 Burger 5.5636 1.18265 55 s983_neat Chicken 5.2909 1.47413 55 Total 5.4273 1.33725 110 Burger 4.8182 1.49184 55 s180_neat Chicken 5.1091 1.51135 55 Total 4.9636 1.50185 110 Burger 3.2364 1.67734 55 s532_neat Chicken 3.0000 1.56347 55 Total 3.1182 1.61831 110

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Neat Within Subjects Mauchly's W Approx. Chi- df Sig. Epsilonb Effect Square Greenhouse- Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound Geisser 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.

172 Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: Neat Source Type III Sum of df Mean Square F Sig. Squares Sphericity Assumed 339.536 3 113.179 55.560 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 339.536 2.755 123.255 55.560 .000 Material Huynh-Feldt 339.536 2.860 118.710 55.560 .000 Lower-bound 339.536 1.000 339.536 55.560 .000 Sphericity Assumed 6.455 3 2.152 1.056 .368 Greenhouse-Geisser 6.455 2.755 2.343 1.056 .364 Material * Condition Huynh-Feldt 6.455 2.860 2.257 1.056 .366 Lower-bound 6.455 1.000 6.455 1.056 .306 Sphericity Assumed 660.009 324 2.037 Greenhouse-Geisser 660.009 297.514 2.218 Error(Material) 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 Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for (I-J) Differenceb Lower Bound Upper Bound 2 -.555* .176 .012 -1.027 -.083 1 3 -.091 .187 1.000 -.593 .411 4 1.755* .216 .000 1.175 2.334 1 .555* .176 .012 .083 1.027 2 3 .464* .157 .024 .040 .887 4 2.309* .210 .000 1.745 2.873 1 .091 .187 1.000 -.411 .593 3 2 -.464* .157 .024 -.887 -.040 4 1.845* .203 .000 1.300 2.391 1 -1.755* .216 .000 -2.334 -1.175 4 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.

173 General Linear Model [DataSet2] /Users/ekthackston/Desktop/THESIS: GRADUATION/Graphs_tables/quality_all_anova.sav

Within-Subjects Factors Measure: Premium Between-Subjects Factors Material Dependent Variable Value Label N 1 s602_prem 1.00 Burger 55 2 s983_prem Condition 2.00 Chicken 55 3 s180_prem 4 s532_prem

Descriptive Statistics Condition Mean Std. Deviation N Burger 4.4364 1.60743 55 s602_prem Chicken 4.4909 1.52598 55 Total 4.4636 1.56027 110 Burger 5.0182 1.66100 55 s983_prem Chicken 4.9273 1.56175 55 Total 4.9727 1.60538 110 Burger 3.9636 1.52708 55 s180_prem Chicken 4.0182 1.63855 55 Total 3.9909 1.57675 110 Burger 2.9636 1.77392 55 s532_prem Chicken 2.9636 1.65511 55 Total 2.9636 1.70766 110

Mauchly's Test of Sphericitya Measure: Premium Within Subjects Mauchly's W Approx. Chi- df Sig. Epsilonb Effect Square Greenhouse- Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound Geisser 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 df Mean Square F Sig. Squares Sphericity Assumed 241.680 3 80.560 34.291 .000 Greenhouse-Geisser 241.680 2.743 88.103 34.291 .000 Material Huynh-Feldt 241.680 2.848 84.866 34.291 .000 Lower-bound 241.680 1.000 241.680 34.291 .000 Sphericity Assumed .389 3 .130 .055 .983 Greenhouse-Geisser .389 2.743 .142 .055 .977 Material * Condition Huynh-Feldt .389 2.848 .136 .055 .980 Lower-bound .389 1.000 .389 .055 .815 Sphericity Assumed 761.182 324 2.349 Error(Material) Greenhouse-Geisser 761.182 296.261 2.569

174 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 Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for (I-J) Differenceb Lower Bound Upper Bound 2 -.509* .177 .029 -.984 -.034 1 3 .473 .204 .133 -.075 1.020 4 1.500* .221 .000 .905 2.095 1 .509* .177 .029 .034 .984 2 3 .982* .204 .000 .433 1.531 4 2.009* .233 .000 1.383 2.635 1 -.473 .204 .133 -1.020 .075 3 2 -.982* .204 .000 -1.531 -.433 4 1.027* .197 .000 .499 1.555 1 -1.500* .221 .000 -2.095 -.905 4 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.

175 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!

176 CUcafe Survey !

!"#$%&'(&#)*+,&#,-&#,-*&&./+0+,#('12%ൗ&*#5&%6) !

7"#$%&'(&#+3/+8',&#,-&#&9,&3,#,6#)-+8-#:64#'0*&*#/+('0*&&#)+,-#,-&#;6%%6)+30# ',,*+54,&(<2-*'(&(#*&0'*/+30#,-+(#('12%&" 0.+#/.$! "#$%&'()! "(+'/#()! "(+'/#()! "#$%&'()! *+,-'$.. 1'$..!&%$! 1'$.. *+,-'$.. *+,-'$.. 1'$.. 1'$.. *+,-'$.. 122.-(+&'        0.-#        3.,,)       

4+5.!,%6.#/+&'!7!8%9(:!        29$;/-,.!-'-+&

<+'/!=9-(+#)        >-,#)        1##$-;#+?.       

@$.,/        A$.6+96       

="#>6)#148-#)64%/#:64#5&#)+%%+30#,6#2':#;6*#,-+(#('12%&?  BCDCCEBFDCC!

 BFDCCEBGDCC!

 BGDCCEBHDCC!

 BHDCCEBIDCC!

 BIDCCEBJCDCC! !

!

177 CUcafe Survey !

!"#$%&'(&#)*+,&#,-&#,-*&&./+0+,#('12%ൗ&*#5&%6) !

7"#$%&'(&#+3/+8',&#,-&#&9,&3,#,6#)-+8-#:64#'0*&*#/+('0*&&#)+,-#,-&#;6%%6)+30# ',,*+54,&(<2-*'(&(#*&0'*/+30#,-+(#('12%&" 0.+#/.$! "#$%&'()! "(+'/#()! "(+'/#()! "#$%&'()! *+,-'$.. 1'$..!&%$! 1'$.. *+,-'$.. *+,-'$.. 1'$.. 1'$.. *+,-'$.. 122.-(+&'        0.-#        3.,,)       

4+5.!,%6.#/+&'!7!8%9(:!        29$;/-,.!-'-+&

<+'/!=9-(+#)        >-,#)        1##$-;#+?.       

@$.,/        A$.6+96       

="#>6)#148-#)64%/#:64#5&#)+%%+30#,6#2':#;6*#,-+(#('12%&?  BCDCCEBFDCC!

 BFDCCEBGDCC!

 BGDCCEBHDCC!

 BHDCCEBIDCC!

 BIDCCEBJCDCC! !

!

178 CUcafe Survey !

!"#$%&'(&#)*+,&#,-&#,-*&&./+0+,#('12%ൗ&*#5&%6) !

7"#$%&'(&#+3/+8',&#,-&#&9,&3,#,6#)-+8-#:64#'0*&*#/+('0*&&#)+,-#,-&#;6%%6)+30# ',,*+54,&(<2-*'(&(#*&0'*/+30#,-+(#('12%&" 0.+#/.$! "#$%&'()! "(+'/#()! "(+'/#()! "#$%&'()! *+,-'$.. 1'$..!&%$! 1'$.. *+,-'$.. *+,-'$.. 1'$.. 1'$.. *+,-'$.. 122.-(+&'        0.-#        3.,,)       

4+5.!,%6.#/+&'!7!8%9(:!        29$;/-,.!-'-+&

<+'/!=9-(+#)        >-,#)        1##$-;#+?.       

@$.,/        A$.6+96       

="#>6)#148-#)64%/#:64#5&#)+%%+30#,6#2':#;6*#,-+(#('12%&?  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!

179 CUcafe Survey !!"#$%&#'()*(#+,-.#/%#0%1#+%23#%43,5#,-3#4-23#4%%/6  ,-./01/23!

 45678!

 9:66.-!

 ;2!/!26/70!:6!<.3=..6!>./?2!

 @38.-!AB?./2.!2B.7:1CD! !

!7"#8(,&,#/%#0%1#5%&+-..0#,-3#4-23#4%%/#-43,�%1#91&*(-2,#)36  E6!7/-!

 E62:F.!38.!-.23/5-/63!

 ;3!8G>.!

 ;3!HG-0!

 @38.-!AB?./2.!2B.7:1CD! !

!

!:"#;)/#0%1#5%3)*,#-#/)23)5*3#/)44,&,5*,#)5#3(,#*%53-)5,&<9-*=->)5>#4%&#,-*(#2-+9.,6  I.2!

 JG!

 JG3!25-.!

!?"#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# " # $ % & ' ( ) * "+          

180 CUcafe Survey !!"#$%&#'()#*+,-&.#/0123#(%#$4%,2156$7&%,215.#$7&%,215#859,15#(%#$01:315#;1-,<&.#$:,15.# ;1-,<&#=1>1,,15#(%#(-+&%#?12,4,2#,:0159&%.#(%#:(7&#(-+&%#%12&@  >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!

!A"#=(>#715'#B&(B0)%%&5-0'#0,<&#,5#'()%#+():&+(09@ !

!C"#=(>#715'#2+,09%&5#1D&#EF#(%#'()5D&%#0,<&#,5#'()%#+():&+(09@ !

!G"#*+1-#,:#-+&#+,D+&:-#0&<&0#(4#:2+((0#'()#+1<(7B0&-&9#(%#-+&#+,D+&:-#9&D%&&#'()#+1<&# %&2&,<&9@  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$(07+!$+:)++!

!H"#$%&#'()#5(>#71%%,&9.#>,9(>&9.#9,<(%2&9.#:&B1%1-&9.#(%#5&<&%#71%%,&9@  P0))4+$!

 >4$%F+$!

 O4*%)3+$!

 '+50)07+$!

 D+*+)!B0))4+$!

"#$!%&!'()*+,-!./+01+!20#$!,%()!3/456%0)$!7%!72+!5+)1%#!6+24#$!72+!3%(#7+)-! 820#9!,%(!&%)!50)74345074#:!4#!72+!;<30&+!'()*+,=!

181 Survey E2. Full scale study CU-café full questionnaire

>%/,&0*3#8*,*(34'

! !/,-3&4-.%/,6#72*(,*#8*(9

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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& ! ! 7(3-.4.1(/-#:&0;*3

W6&@3/#4/&/$,/+&'()+&2#+,-1-2#$,&$)0?/+&-$&,"/&?(T&?/3(86 & ! ! <*4-.%/#=

!"#$%#&$'%(#)&*+#&,-#%*./'%&0#"/(&*+#'&+.*&1#2*&$*&*+#&0/**/3&/4&*+#&5$6#&*/&7/'*.'-#&*+#& %-)8#9:&

X6&I(8&(*,/$&9(&'()&/#,&*#4,&*((9Y

 H30(4,&9#-3'6&

 S(,&/5/+'&9#'>&?),&0(+/&,"#$&($1/&#&8//%6&

 H&*/8&,-0/4&#&0($,">&#,&0(4,6&

 G#+/3'&(+&$/5/+6&

182

! !"#$%&'()(*+&'$%',"-.

!"#$%&#'()*(#+,-.#/%#0%1#+%23#%43,5#,-3#4-23#4%%/6

 ?&,-<4-23#

 @15*(#

 A)55,&#

 B2#-#25-*<#)5#C,3',,5#+,-.2#

 D3(,&#E:.,-2,#2:,*)40F# #

7"#8(,&,#/%#0%1#5%&+-..0#,-3#4-23#4%%/6

 G5#*-&#

 G52)/,#3(,#&,23-1&-53#

 B3#(%+,#

 B3#8%&<#

 D3(,&#E:.,-2,#2:,*)40F# #

9"#8(,5#:1&*(-2)5;#4-23#4%%/#/%#0%1#5%&+-..0#'-.<#)52)/,#3(,#&,23-1&-53#% ,#3(,#/&)=,>3(&16

 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

 KLM"NN#

 LM"NN>L7"NN#

 L7"NN>LH"NN#

 LH"NN>LO"NN#

 LO"NNP#

J"#8()*(#%4#3(,#4%..%')5;#4,-31&,2#)2#)3#+%23#)+:%&3-53#3%#0%1#)5#-#4-23#4%%/#&,23-1&-536

 Q1-.)30#4%%/#

 $&),5/.0#2,&=)*,#

 R.,-5#&,23-1&-53#

 $-23#2,&=)*,#

# !

183

! !(2/34.&?& !@A$BC&DE?!

!"#$%%&$'()*(&+(),&-.*/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: D.2-./0!E01,! D.2-./0! H0.3*01!I./0! I./0! I./0!E01,! D.2-./0!G-.B*3-, I./0!G-.B*3-, F()* F%+01530-, H%1!D.2-./0 F%+01530-, F()*       

;#!$%&!'()*!+%!,%(!-./0!%1!+.2-./0!3*0!<0=3(10!%7!3*.2!)*.)/08!25'9-0: D.2-./0!E01,! D.2-./0! H0.3*01!I./0! I./0! I./0!E01,! D.2-./0!G-.B*3-, I./0!G-.B*3-, F()* F%+01530-, H%1!D.2-./0 F%+01530-, F()*       

>?#!@6015--A!)%82.+01.8B!4-56%1!58+!<0=3(10A!*%&!'()*!+%!,%(!-./0!%1!+.2-./0!3*.2!)*.)/08!25'9-0: D.2-./0!E01,! D.2-./0! H0.3*01!I./0! I./0! I./0!E01,! D.2-./0!G-.B*3-, I./0!G-.B*3-, F()* F%+01530-, H%1!D.2-./0 F%+01530-, F()*       

>>#!C-0520!.8+.)530!*%&!%7308!,%(!&%(-+!%1!&%(-+!8%3!053!3*.2!91%+()3# J!&%(-+!053! J!&%(-+!053! J!+%!8%3! J!&%(-+!053! J!&%(-+!053!3*.2!%8-,!.7! 3*.2!.7! J!-./0!3*.2! J!&%(-+! -./0!.3!K(3! J!&%(-+! J!&%(-+!053! 3*.2!7%%+! 3*.2!%8-,!.7!3*010!&010! 565.-5K-0! 58+!&%(-+! *51+-,!0601! &%(-+!053! 710L(083-,! 3*.2!601,! 0601,! J!&010! 8%!%3*01! K(3!&%(-+! 053!.3!8%&! 053!3*.2 .3!%8! 053!3*.2 %7308 %99%13(8.3,! 7%1)0+!3% 7%%+! 8%3!B%!%(3! 58+!3*08 %))52.%8 J!*5+ )*%.)02 %7!',!&5,          !

184

!"#$% ! !(2/34.&?& !@A$BC&DEF&

!"#$%%&$'()*(&+(),&-.*/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> H362345&I5$1& H362345& L537/5$&M345& M345& M345&I5$1& H362345&K23E/721 M345&K23E/721 J-./ J*05$97521 L*$&H362345 J*05$97521 J-./       

!?(&)*+&,-./&0*&1*-&2345&*$&0362345&7/5&@5A7-$5&*;&7/36&./3.45<&69,=25> H362345&I5$1& H362345& L537/5$&M345& M345& M345&I5$1& H362345&K23E/721 M345&K23E/721 J-./ J*05$97521 L*$&H362345 J*05$97521 J-./       

!B(&C:5$922D&.*<6305$3 H362345&I5$1& H362345& L537/5$&M345& M345& M345&I5$1& H362345&K23E/721 M345&K23E/721 J-./ J*05$97521 L*$&H362345 J*05$97521 J-./       

!F(&G25965&3<03.975&/*+&*;75<&1*-&+*-20&*$&+*-20&<*7&597&7/36&=$*0-.7( N&+*-20&597& N&+*-20&597& N&0*&<*7& N&+*-20&597& N&+*-20&597&7/36&*<21&3;& 7/36&3;& N&2345&7/36& N&+*-20& 2345&37&#-7& N&+*-20& N&+*-20&597& 7/36&;**0& 7/36&*<21&3;&7/5$5&+5$5& 9:9329#25& 9<0&+*-20& /9$021&5:5$& +*-20&597& ;$5O-5<721& 7/36&:5$1& 5:5$1& N&+5$5& <*&*7/5$& #-7&+*-20& 597&37&<*+& 597&7/36 37&*<& 597&7/36 *;75< *==*$7-<371& ;*$.50&7* ;**0& <*7&E*&*-7& 9<0&7/5< *..963*< N&/90 ./*3.56 *;&,1&+91          !

185

! !(2/34.&?& !@A$BC&DEF!

!"#$%%&$'()*(&+(),&-.*/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; E/3./01!F12-! E/3./01! I1/4+12!J/01! J/01! J/01!F12-! E/3./01!H./B+4.- J/01!H./B+4.- G)*+ G&,12641.- I&2!E/3./01 G&,12641.- G)*+       

"<$!%&'!()*+!,&!-&)!./01!&2!,/3./01!4+1!=1>4)21!&8!4+/3!*+/*019!36(:.1; E/3./01!F12-! E/3./01! I1/4+12!J/01! J/01! J/01!F12-! E/3./01!H./B+4.- J/01!H./B+4.- G)*+ G&,12641.- I&2!E/3./01 G&,12641.- G)*+       

"[email protected]!*&93/,12/9B!5.67&2!69,!=1>4)21A!+&'!()*+!,&!-&)!./01!&2!,/3./01!4+/3!*+/*019!36(:.1; E/3./01!F12-! E/3./01! I1/4+12!J/01! J/01! J/01!F12-! E/3./01!H./B+4.- J/01!H./B+4.- G)*+ G&,12641.- I&2!E/3./01 G&,12641.- G)*+       

"C$!D.1631!/9,/*641!+&'!&8419!-&)!'&).,!&2!'&).,!9&4!164!4+/3!:2&,)*4$ K!'&).,!164! K!'&).,!164! K!,&!9&4! K!'&).,!164! K!'&).,!164!4+/3!&9.-!/8! 4+/3!/8! K!./01!4+/3! K!'&).,! ./01!/4!L)4! K!'&).,! K!'&).,!164! 4+/3!8&&,! 4+/3!&9.-!/8!4+121!'121! 676/.6L.1! 69,!'&).,! +62,.-!1712! '&).,!164! 821M)194.-! 4+/3!712-! 1712-! K!'121! 9&!&4+12! L)4!'&).,! 164!/4!9&'! 164!4+/3 /4!&9! 164!4+/3 &8419 &::&24)9/4-! 8&2*1,!4& 8&&,! 9&4!B&!&)4! 69,!4+19 &**63/&9 K!+6, *+&/*13 &8!(-!'6-          !

186

! !(2/34.&?& !@A$BC&DE?!

!"#$%%&$'()*(&+(),&-.*/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; D/3./01!E12-! D/3./01! H1/4+12!I/01! I/01! I/01!E12-! D/3./01!G./A+4.- I/01!G./A+4.- F)*+ F&,12641.- H&2!D/3./01 F&,12641.- F)*+       

"<$!%&'!()*+!,&!-&)!./01!&2!,/3./01!4+1!=1>4)21!&8!4+/3!*+/*019!36(:.1; D/3./01!E12-! D/3./01! H1/4+12!I/01! I/01! I/01!E12-! D/3./01!G./A+4.- I/01!G./A+4.- F)*+ F&,12641.- H&2!D/3./01 F&,12641.- F)*+       

""$!?7126..@!*&93/,12/9A!5.67&2!69,!=1>4)21@!+&'!()*+!,&!-&)!./01!&2!,/3./01!4+/3!*+/*019!36(:.1; D/3./01!E12-! D/3./01! H1/4+12!I/01! I/01! I/01!E12-! D/3./01!G./A+4.- I/01!G./A+4.- F)*+ F&,12641.- H&2!D/3./01 F&,12641.- F)*+       

"B$!C.1631!/9,/*641!+&'!&8419!-&)!'&).,!&2!'&).,!9&4!164!4+/3!:2&,)*4$ J!'&).,!164! J!'&).,!164! J!,&!9&4! J!'&).,!164! J!'&).,!164!4+/3!&9.-!/8! 4+/3!/8! J!./01!4+/3! J!'&).,! ./01!/4!K)4! J!'&).,! J!'&).,!164! 4+/3!8&&,! 4+/3!&9.-!/8!4+121!'121! 676/.6K.1! 69,!'&).,! +62,.-!1712! '&).,!164! 821L)194.-! 4+/3!712-! 1712-! J!'121! 9&!&4+12! K)4!'&).,! 164!/4!9&'! 164!4+/3 /4!&9! 164!4+/3 &8419 &::&24)9/4-! 8&2*1,!4& 8&&,! 9&4!A&!&)4! 69,!4+19 &**63/&9 J!+6, *+&/*13 &8!(-!'6-          !

187

! !"#$%&'()

!"#$%#&'()%*+#,&$""&-(.,&'/*'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

 DE"!

 FGH!

 AGE!

 :H"!

 I(,.8!%!*()7/,J-!23((4.!+,'!(&!-3.4.!

":$!;<.1+778!1+-.!-3.!4+=07.4!>'!3(*!*5775,?!'()!*()7/!>.!-(!1.0)123+4.!-3.=!@AB=(4-!*5775,?!-(!#B 7.+4-!*5775,?C$

 DE"

 FGH

 AGE

 :H" !

! !"#$%&'(DE(F3'#$%&',+%$2(&6(7&'$,%'"58*,#9,4%'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 I.5-3.1! K-1(,?7'! K75?3-7'! K75?3-7'! K-1(,?7'! L54+?1.. M?1..!I(1! M?1.. L54+?1.. L54+?1.. M?1.. M?1.. L54+?1.. N+4'!-(!(0.,       

O(,-+5,4!01(/)2-        P1(-.2-4!01(/)2-       

Q..04!01(/)2-!*+1=        N+4'!-(!2+11'       

188

! !-./012'34'562./012780/9'1:';12/702-<=$7.>7?02?'@;12/026-AB

!"#$!"#$%&'()* 42/'32($ &'()*+,-$ &,/+3',-$ &,/+3',-$ &'()*+,-$ ./01+(22 5+(22$4)($ 5+(22 ./01+(22 ./01+(22 5+(22 5+(22 ./01+(22 610-$')$71((-       

8)*'1/*0$9():;7'        <()'27'0$9():;7'       

610-$')$)92*       

=2290$9():;7'$>1(?       

!%#$!"#$%&'+), 42/'32($ &'()*+,-$ &,/+3',-$ &,/+3',-$ &'()*+,-$ ./01+(22 5+(22$4)($ 5+(22 ./01+(22 ./01+(22 5+(22 5+(22 ./01+(22 <()'27'0$9():;7'       

610-$')$)92*       

610-$')$71((-       

8)*'1/*0$9():;7'        =2290$9():;7'$>1(?       

!@#$!"#$%&'C*D 42/'32($ &'()*+,-$ &,/+3',-$ &,/+3',-$ &'()*+,-$ ./01+(22 5+(22$4)($ 5+(22 ./01+(22 ./01+(22 5+(22 5+(22 ./01+(22 610-$')$)92*        8)*'1/*0$9():;7'       

610-$')$71((-        =2290$9():;7'$>1(?        <()'27'0$9():;7'        !

189 ! ;#*+'.(&GH&I1$"'+'#%&.4&5.(+$'(#36!$*7$2'(2

!"#$%#&'()'*$+#&+,#&#-+#(+&+.&/,'*,&0.1&$23##&.3&)'%$23##&/'+,&+,#&4.""./'(2&!"#$%&%'(&3#2$3)'(2& +,#&5.(+$'(#36!$*7$2'(2&4.3&#$*,&%$89"#:!

"#$!;<=!>?&@AB 530(43)! '()*+,-.! '-0,4(-.! '-0,4(-.! '()*+,-.! /012,)33 6,)33!5*)! 6,)33 /012,)33 /012,)33 6,)33 6,)33 /012,)33 7*83)+       

9)3:0;:        <+=0)*+:3+(2--.!        >)03+8-. 52(;)2-       

532(       

"%$!;<=!>?&CDE 530(43)! '()*+,-.! '-0,4(-.! '-0,4(-.! '()*+,-.! /012,)33 6,)33!5*)! 6,)33 /012,)33 /012,)33 6,)33 6,)33 /012,)33 7*83)+        <+=0)*+:3+(2--.!        >)03+8-. 52(;)2-        9)3:0;:       

532(       

"&$!;<=!>?&FDA 530(43)! '()*+,-.! '-0,4(-.! '-0,4(-.! '()*+,-.! /012,)33 6,)33!5*)! 6,)33 /012,)33 /012,)33 6,)33 6,)33 /012,)33 52(;)2-        9)3:0;:       

<+=0)*+:3+(2--.!        >)03+8-.

532(        7*83)+       

190 ! ;#*+'.(&<=$&>1$"'+'#%&.4&5.(+$'(#36!$*7$2'(2&?5.(+'(1#)@A

!"#$%#&'()'*$+#&+,#&#-+#(+&+.&/,'*,&0.1&$23##&.3&)'%$23##&/'+,&+,#&4.""./'(2&!"#$%&%'(&3#2$3)'(2& +,#&5.(+$'(#36!$*7$2'(2&4.3&#$*,&%$89"#:!

""#!;BC!DE&

20/%        2/%:&/*       

! ;#*+'.(&H=&I$%+&I..)&!$*7$2'(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! @ K " < H I L M N @A          

"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# 

 ! !

191 ! !"#$%&'()*(+",&-./01%#2

!"#$%#&$'%(#)&*+#&,-#%*./'%&0#"/(&*+#'&+.*&1#2*&$*&*+#&0/**/3&/4&*+#&5$6#&*/&7/'*.'-#&*+#& %-)8#9:!

"#$!%&'(&!()*+,-./!0+1-2!'3(145+6!/-4.!),+7

 A#!-.!/-43,+.!

 A8BC?!

 CABC9!

 "?B"9!

 >?B>9!

 D?BD9!

 E?!-.!-15+.!

"8$!%&)*!'6!/-4.!,+35+.7

 F+<)1+!

 G)1+!

 H*&+.!

"9$!%&)*!'6!/-4.!)::.-;'<)*+!)=+.),+!&-46+&-15!'3(-<+7

 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:!

>?$!@-2!<)3/!:+-:1+!(4..+3*1/!1'=+!'3!/-4.!&-46+&-157 !

>A$!@-2!<)3/!(&'15.+3!),+!A#!-.!/-43,+.!1'=+!'3!/-4.!&-46+&-157 !

192 !"#$%&'($)*$(&+$&),&+*($-+.+-$/0$*1&//-$2/3$&'.+$1/45-+(+6$/7$(&+$&),&+*($6+,7++$2/3$&'.+$7+1+).+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'(+$6+,7++$

!9#$%&)1&$7'1+:+(&;)1)(2$<+*($6+*17)<+*$2/38$=>-+'*+$1&//*+$/;-2$/;+#?

 @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'*)';$

!!#$@7+$2/3$;/A$4'77)+6B$A)6/A+6B$6)./71+6B$*+5'7'(+6B$/7$;+.+7$4'77)+68

 O'77)+6$

 %)6/A+6$

 H)./71+6$

 I+5'7'(+6$

 M+.+7$4'77)+6$ !

! !"#$%&$'()*+,

-./"0$,%($&%)$1/)23431/23"56

193 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).

194 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.

195 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 , 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.

196 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

197 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.

198 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 Food Safety and Inspection Service. (2011). Food Safety Information : 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.

199