Small is beautiful: The role of anticipated food waste in consumers’ avoidance of large packages

Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres

Small is beautiful: The role of anticipated food waste in consumers’ avoidance of large packages Olivia Petita, Renaud Lunardob, Bradley Rickardb,c,

⁎

a

Kedge Business School, Domaine de Luminy, rue Antoine Bourdelle, 13009 Marseille, France Kedge Business School, 680 cours de la Libération, 33405 Talence, France c Charles H. Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, United States b

A R T I C LE I N FO

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Package size Food waste Promotions

Larger food packages are often preferred by consumers because they are associated with a decrease in per unit costs and therefore may lead to monetary savings. In this research, we show through a series of studies that consumers’ preferences for larger packages may diminish when they anticipate the potential food waste associated with such packages. Specifically, Study 1 highlights the mediating role of anticipated food waste on consumers’ purchase intentions across small and large package sizes. In Study 2, we show that this mediating effect is observed only for non-perishable products. Study 3 investigates the role of information, and shows that when consumers are primed with information about the consequences of food waste, their preference for larger packages decreases even though such packages are associated with a price promotion. In Study 4, we examine the influence of packaging format, and find that anticipated food waste decreases when large packs are sold as individual units. We also provide a discussion of the practical implications of our results for consumers, food retailers, and policy makers.

Consumers often prefer to purchase food in large packages. This preference is due to the association that consumers make between larger packages and promotions (Chandon, Wansink, & Laurent, 2000; Chen, Marmorstein, Tsiros, & Rao, 2012; Wansink, 1996); larger packages are seen as a better deal than smaller packages as consumers have grown to expect quantity discounts for the larger versions (Carlson, Weathers, & Swain, 2016; Haws & Winterich, 2013). This preference also impacts food consumption; total consumption is found to increase when large packages are purchased (Chandon & Wansink, 2007). One consequence of the larger package size, due to promotional pricing, may be food waste. The rationale for this proposition lies in that promotions for large packages allow consumers to purchase more food for a smaller unit price, and food waste is largely due to the fact that consumers buy too much food compared to what they consume (Block et al., 2016; Wilson, Rickard, Saputo, & Shuay-Tsyr, 2017). In this context, the goal of our research is to examine whether consumers may exhibit lower purchase intentions and preferences for larger package sizes when they consider their anticipated food waste. We first analyze the effects of package size (large versus small) on the anticipation to waste and the mediating role of this latter variable on subsequent intentions (Study 1). Then, we examine the role of perishability

⁎

as a boundary condition for the effects of package size on anticipated food waste and intentions (Study 2). Next we assess whether information about food waste influences preferences for larger packages; here we maintain price promotions for the larger packages such that they are offered at lower per unit costs to consumers (Study 3). Lastly, we investigate whether the format (single unit package vs. several units within a package) affect the anticipation to waste food, and we consider the role that food marketers may have in efforts to reduce food waste (Study 4). Collectively, these studies and the results that they yield provide three unique contributions to the growing literature on consumer behavior and food waste. First, we focus on consumer decisions regarding food waste at the point of purchase (anticipated food waste) whereas much of the work that examines food waste focuses on decisions made in the household (Beretta, Stoessel, Baier, & Hellweg, 2013). This is pertinent as there is evidence that a significant amount of food waste is due to poor meal planning and excessive food purchases. Second, our work provides a deeper analysis on the linkages between food packaging and food waste; large bodies of work focus on food packaging and food waste as separate issues, but very little work looks at the intersection of food packaging details, purchase decisions, and food waste. Third, we offer empirical evidence on the effects of some key package

Corresponding author at: Charles H. Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, United States. E-mail address: [email protected] (B. Rickard).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.10.003 Received 25 January 2018; Received in revised form 13 November 2018; Accepted 1 October 2019 0148-2963/ © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Olivia Petit, Renaud Lunardo and Bradley Rickard, Journal of Business Research, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.10.003

Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

O. Petit, et al.

much food they have at home and the amount of time it will take to consume previously purchased food (Chandon & Wansink, 2006). This underestimation leads them to over-purchase food that will thus be wasted (Block et al., 2016; Stefan, van Herpen, Tudoran, & Lähteenmäki, 2013). Moreover, consumers are four times more sensitive to price changes than size changes (Ҫakir & Balagtas, 2014) and they underestimate the increase in the amount of food that is associated with an increase in package size (Chandon & Ordabayeva, 2009). Therefore, consumers may choose a large package because it presents a financial gain, but do not take into account the fact that buying this package will cause them to increase their food waste. Given what precedes, consumers may thus be more likely to waste food from such large (versus small) packages. However, consumers have shown the capacity to anticipate food waste according to the package size (Wilson et al., 2017). Following ideas from grounded cognition theory (Barsalou, 2008), seeing a product can trigger spontaneous perceptual re-enactments of previous experiences. Previous work highlights that consumers can spontaneously simulate their food consumption by seeing food portions (Larson, Redden, & Elder, 2014; Marchiori, Waroquier, & Klein, 2001; Petit, Velasco, & Spence, 2018; Petit, Velasco, Woods, Cheok, & Spence, 2017). Therefore, consumers might also spontaneously simulate their food waste when exposed to different package sizes based on their previous experiences (Barsalou, 2008). Hence, we propose:

size considerations that is ideally suited to offer guidance and useful information for industry stakeholders and policy makers interested in mitigating food waste. The next section provides a review of the literature on package size, sales promotion and food waste, followed by our core hypotheses. Then, we present four studies that examine anticipated food waste and purchase intentions as responses to package size and format, food perishability, and information. We conclude with some suggestions for further study and for reducing food waste with implications for consumers, food manufacturers, retailers, and policy makers. 1. Consumers’ reactions to package size and associated promotions 1.1. Package size and preference for large packages People often rely on visual cues to evaluate packages and purchases (Giese, Malkewitz, Orth, & Henderson, 2014; Kumar & Noble, 2016; Orth & Malkewitz, 2012). One such cue of importance is package size (Van Rompay & Veltkamp, 2014); consumers perceive larger packages as better deals and expect quantity discounts for the larger versions (Carlson et al., 2016; Haws & Winterich, 2013). For instance, Carlson et al. (2016) found that in the case of a product enlargement (i.e., more product, but without mention of any change in price) associated with a small price increase, consumers evaluate the increase in size positively. Haws and Winterich (2013) also highlighted that consumers consider purchasing a larger size as an opportunity to achieve a financial value goal, leading to a purchase of a larger size. Thus, the trend of consumers to prefer bonus packs seems to be broadening to a more general preference for larger packages, leading people to buy products in larger quantities. This preference may be due to the association that consumers make between larger packages and promotions (Wansink, 1996). Regarding promotions, consumers tend to prefer sale promotions to regular offerings, and monetary savings are generally considered to be the main benefit motivating people to respond to these promotions (Blattberg & Neslin, 1993). In addition, promotions also allow consumers to buy higher quality products, reduce search costs (Inman, McAlister, & Hoyer, 1990; Raghubir, 1998; Wansink, Kent, & Hoch, 1998), while providing entertainment, exploration, and value expression (Chandon et al., 2000; Kahn & Louie, 1990; Lichtenstein, Netemeyer, & Burton, 1990; Mittal, 1994). All promotions are nevertheless not appreciated in the same way by consumers (d’Astrous & Jacob, 2002; Diamond & Sanyal, 1990). Although both price discount (e.g., a 33% price reduction) and a bonus pack (e.g., 50% more quantity for the same price) offer monetary savings, people tend to prefer a bonus pack to a price discount (Chen et al., 2012; Mishra & Mishra, 2011; Ong, Nin Ho, & Tripp, 1997). This preference can be explained by the fact that a bonus pack is associated with a gain (positive framing), while the price discount suggests a reduced loss (negative framing; see Diamond & Sanyal, 1990 for additional details). Moreover, consumers often neglect the original pre-discount price, and tend to compare directly a price discount to the economically equivalent bonus pack quantity (Chen et al., 2012). Overall, there is a general preference for bonus packs over price discounts, except for specific luxury products (Diamond, 1992; Hardesty & Bearden, 2003; Mishra & Mishra, 2011).

H1: Larger packages lead to higher anticipated food waste than smaller packages. Prior research has shown that when people are able to imagine consuming a large quantity of food it helps consumers regulate their eating behavior (Cornil & Chandon, 2016; Petit et al., 2017; Petit et al., 2018). This process can be considered as an embodied self-regulation (Petit et al., 2016). Since consumers regulate their food consumption when they imagine eating a large portion, it can also be assumed that they are able to regulate their buying behavior by anticipating their food waste when seeing a large package (Petit et al., 2017; Petit et al., 2018). If so, anticipated waste may explain why large food packages may be associated with lower purchase intentions. It should also be noted that by anticipating food waste, consumers may realize that some promotions are not necessarily relevant to them. For instance, even if the per unit price in a large package is lower than the per unit price in a smaller package, depending on the quantity wasted, the per unit cost of the consumed quantity from the larger package may be higher. Moreover, even if a promotion would remain a good deal (despite the wasted food), some consumers can develop an aversion to waste if they consider their prior monetary investments as wasted (Arkes, 1996), or merely by distaste for unused utility (Bolton & Alba, 2012). Those consumers that developed an aversion to food waste may even prefer to purchase less at a higher per unit price (Bolton & Alba, 2012). Considering this aversion to food waste when examining the effect of package size on anticipation to waste, consumers may exhibit greater purchase intentions for smaller package sizes. Hence, we propose: H2: Anticipated food waste negatively mediates the effect of package size on purchase intentions. Next we describe Studies 1A and 1B which test H1 and H2 with two food products, and allow us to establish the basic effect of package size on anticipated food waste and intentions.

1.2. Package size and food waste Sale promotions represent an important cause of food waste. Among the different types of sales promotions, bonus packs generate an immediate increase in sales volume (Blattberg & Neslin, 1993) and encourage stockpiling and consumption (Ailawadi & Neslin, 1998; Chandon & Wansink, 2002). Indeed, consumers have poor planning abilities (Kahneman & Tversky, 1977), and tend to underestimate how

2. Study 1a: Package size & anticipation to waste for apple sauce This study aims to assess whether package size (small versus large) affects anticipated food waste and consequently purchase intentions (H1 and H2). Here we designed a survey to collect data on consumers’ 2

Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

O. Petit, et al.

4. Study 1b: Package size & anticipation to waste for chocolate pudding

anticipation to waste apple sauce in Study 1A; we replicated the exercise with a chocolate cream dessert product (chocolate pudding) in Study 1B.

4.1. Participants, design and procedure 2.1. Participants, design and procedure

In order to replicate the results beyond the specific product used in Study 1A, Study 1B followed a similar procedure, but here we used a chocolate pudding product. One hundred participants (53% female, MAge = 34.04, SD = 1.16) were exposed online by a panelist to a fictitious package of either 4 (small package condition) or 16 (large package condition) cups of chocolate pudding with an expiration date, as in Study 1A, in 6 days. Again, to avoid any brand familiarity bias, the decision was made to use a fictitious brand, Cremo. The questions used to elicit measures of brand familiarity, anticipated food waste, purchase intentions, and household size were the same as those used in Study 1A.

Ninety-six participants (50.5% female, MAge = 31.42, SD = 10.65) were recruited online by a panelist and asked to evaluate a package of apple sauce in one of two package size conditions: a small package (4 cups) or a large package (16 cups) in a between-subject experimental design. The expiration date of the package was described in a short introduction as being 6 days away. The two packages were professionally designed to look like those commonly found in a retail location. In order to avoid any bias regarding attitudes toward the brand of the package, the brand for the two packages was similar and fictitious (i.e., Red Tree). After subjects were exposed to one of the two packages they were first asked to rate their purchase intentions to inhibit response bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003); here we used a 4-item scale based on White, MacDonnell, and Ellard (2012), where α = 0.83. Then, they rated their anticipation to waste some part of the apple sauce using a single item (“To what extent do you anticipate you will waste some apple sauce from this pack?”: 1 = “To a poor extent,” and 7 = “To a great extent”). Also, we asked subjects about their familiarity with the fictitious brand used in the survey (“How familiar are you with the brand Red Tree?”: 1 = “Not at all,” and 7 = “Very much”). Further, because the preference for larger packages could be influenced by the size of the household (Bell & Lattin, 1998), subjects were asked to report the number of people in their household that they considered when making purchase decisions about apple sauce; we included this response for household size as a covariate in our analysis. Finally, since there may be a relationship between package size and general sentiment towards the product (Larson et al., 2014; Petit et al., 2017), we asked subjects to respond to a 2-item measure about their level of disgust (“Disgusted,” “Revulsed”; α = 0.91); their response was included to test if this variable could serve as an alternative mechanism for the effect of package size on purchase intention.

4.2. Results As in Study 1A, participants did not exhibit any differences in brand familiarity (t = -0.65, p > 0.10) across conditions of package size. The pattern of results in Study 1B was similar to those in Study 1A, with anticipated food waste being higher for larger (M = 3.42) versus smaller (M = 2.42, p < 0.05, t = -2.21, p < 0.05) packages. Also, a mediating effect of anticipated food waste in the relationship between package size and purchase intentions was found (95% CI = −0.22; −0.004). Similar to Study 1A, household size had a positive effect on purchase intentions (β = 0.40, p < 0.001) but not on anticipated food waste (β = 0.05, p > 0.10). Further, disgust was ruled out as an alternative mediator (95% CI = −0.06; 0.17). Together, these results replicate those found in Study 1A and bring further support to H1 and H2.

4.3. Discussion By replicating the results from Study 1A to another food product in Study 1B, we provide evidence that larger packages lead to more anticipated food waste. We also highlight that there is a mediating role of anticipated food waste, which explains why larger packages lead to lower purchase intentions. However, one may argue that the food products used in studies 1A and 1B were relatively perishable since they were presented with expiration dates and this may have impacted the anticipation of food waste (Tsiros & Heilman, 2005). Subjects may expect to waste more from larger packages of perishable products as opposed to non-perishable products. A consequence is that when people anticipate wasting some food from a given package, they may also prefer non-perishable (versus perishable) products to avoid wasting the food. Therefore we propose:

3. Results and discussion Our manipulation checks confirmed that familiarity with the brand (t = −0.55, p > 0.10) did not differ across package size conditions. Turning to our hypotheses and supporting H1, results from an independent samples t-test revealed a positive effect of package size on anticipated food waste (MSmall = 2.77, MLarge = 3.98, t = −2.91, p < 0.01). Then, the hypothesized role of anticipated food waste was tested using the Process macro procedure (with 5000 bootstrap samples). Specifically, the manipulation of package size was included as the independent variable, anticipated food waste as the mediating variable, and purchase intentions as the dependent variable; household size was included as a covariate. Supporting H2, our results revealed a significant indirect effect of package size on purchase intentions through the mediating effect of anticipated food waste (95% CI = −0.25; −0.03). Precisely, larger packages lead to an increase in anticipated food waste (β = 0.60, p < 0.01), resulting in a decrease in purchase intentions (β = −0.16, p < 0.01). Household size had no effect on anticipated food waste (β = 0.124, p > 0.10) but, as expected, positively affected purchase intentions (β = 0.23, p < 0.05). To rule out disgust as a potential alternative mechanism explaining the effect of package size on intentions, a similar analysis conducted with disgust as the mediator was performed, but the results were not significant (95% CI = −0.07; 0.01). Table 1 summarizes the results from Study 1A. Overall, Study 1A indicates that anticipated food waste increases with package size and acts as a mediating variable explaining purchase intentions.

H3a: Product perishability moderates the effects that larger (versus smaller) packages have on anticipated food waste such that the positive effect of package size is stronger for perishable (versus nonperishable) products. H3b: Product perishability moderates the effects of anticipated food waste on purchase intentions, such that the more people anticipate food waste, the more they exhibit purchase intentions for non-perishable (versus perishable) products. Next we introduce Study 2 that aims to provide additional support for H1 and H2, as well as to investigate the moderating effect of product perishability on anticipated food waste and purchase intentions as outlined in H3a and H3b.

3

Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

O. Petit, et al.

Table 1 Descriptive statistics, regressions coefficients, and confidence intervals for studies 1A-B. Descriptive statistics (Means, SDs): Overall and across condition of package size Study 1A

AFW PI Disgust

Study 1B

Overall

Small

Large

Overall

Small

Large

3.31 (2.11) 3.57 (1.19) 2.22 (1.36)

2.77 (1.89) 3.63 (1.09) 2.14 (1.34)

3.98 (2.17) 3.45 (1.24) 2.38 (1.36)

3.01 (2.26) 3.48 (1.32) 2.60 (1.59)

2.42 (2.06) 3.54 (1.38) 2.75 (1.54)

3.42 (2.40) 3.43 (1.27) 2.46 (1.64)

Regression coefficients from the mediation analysis Study 1A β Size → AFW AFW → PI Size → PI Size → AFW → PI Household → Intentions

**

0.58 −0.18** 0.03 −0.11* 0.23*

Study 1B 95% CI

β

95% CI

[0.16; 0.99] [−0.29; −0.07] [−0.19; 0.26] [−0.24; −0.03] [0.04; 0.41]

0.49* −0.16** 0.00 −0.08* 0.41***

[0.04; 0.94] [−0.27; −0.05] [−0.26; 0.25] [−0.22; −0.01] [0.18; 0.64]

Note: AFW = Anticipated Food Waste; PI = Purchase Intentions. **: p < 0.01; *: p < 0.05. The CIs are the bias-corrected bootstrap 95% confidence intervals.

5. Study 2: The role of perishability on anticipated food waste and purchase intentions

5.2. Results The results from our manipulation checks showed that participants in the larger package condition found the package to be large (M = 5.58) compared to those in the smaller package condition (M = 2.33, t = −17.31, p < 0.001). Furthermore, participants in the milk condition reported greater perception of perishability (M = 6.49) than those in the water condition (M = 3.02, t = −14.25, p < 0.001). Similar to what was found in Study 1, results from a two-way ANOVA test revealed a positive effect of package size on anticipated food waste (MLarge = 2.57, MSmall = 1.74, F(1, 187) = 7.44, p < 0.01). However, our results showed no effect for product perishability (p > 0.10) nor of its interaction with package size (p > 0.10); this finding indicates that perishability does not moderate the effect of package size on anticipated food waste. Among the covariates, perception of a good deal (β = 0.274, p < 0.001) had a positive effect on anticipated food waste, while general preferences for the product had a negative effect on anticipated food waste (β = −0.361, p < 0.001). Household size and concern about food waste were not found to be statistically significant (p > 0.10). We conducted a moderated mediation analysis to examine if product perishability moderates the indirect effect of package size on purchase intentions. Interestingly, a significant moderated mediation was observed (95% CI = −0.424; −0.023). Specifically, no mediating effect of anticipated food waste was observed in the non-perishable product condition (95% CI = −0.005; 0.248), while a negative mediating effect was found in the perishable product condition (95% CI = −0.219; −0.0003) which replicates the results from Study 1 (Table 2). This moderated-mediation is due to the moderating effect of product perishability on the relationship between anticipated food waste and purchase intentions (β = −0.65, p < 0.001; Fig. 1). Specifically, while anticipated food waste decreases purchase intentions of perishable products, it strongly increases such intentions for non-perishable products, thereby supporting H3b. In other words, when people anticipate they will waste food, they tend to prefer non-perishable products like bottled water.

5.1. Participants, design and procedure We recruited 188 U.S. panelists (46% male, MAge = 36.53, S.D. = 10.13) that participated in a 2 (package size: large versus small) × 2 (product perishability: low versus high) between-subjects experiment. The subjects were exposed to either a perishable (milk) or a non-perishable (water) product, either in a small (8 oz) or a large (1 gallon) size. To investigate if anticipated food waste could compensate for the positive effect of promotions associated with larger packages, the price for the larger package was $1.99 while the price for the small package was $0.99. As in Study 1, the packages were professionally designed, and the brand for the four packages was fictitious (i.e., Pacific). After having been exposed to one package, respondents were asked to complete the same measures that we used in Study 1 and Study 2. To control for the effects of the price promotion for the large size, we measured subjects’ perception of offer value using three questions each on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree) adapted from Alford and Biswas (2002). The three questions included: 1. “This product is an excellent buy for the money”, 2. “At this price this product is very good value for the money”, and 3. “This product represents an extremely fair price”; α = 0.98). Further, because the degree to which we care about food waste may affect both anticipated food waste and its impact on purchase intention (Principato, Secondi, & Pratesi, 2015), we also measured subjects’ concern for food waste (“Regarding food waste in general, you would say that this is: unimportant to you / very important to you). To control for any general preferences for milk and bottled water, we also added a survey question to measure their tastes (“In general, to what extent do you like water/milk?”). These three variables served as covariates in the analyses, in addition to the variable measuring household size. Finally, measures of package size (In terms of package size, I find this product to be: Small/Large) and product perishability (To what extent do you perceive water/milk to be a perishable product? Not at all/Very much) were included in the survey as manipulation checks.

4

Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

O. Petit, et al.

Table 2 Descriptive statistics, indirect effects, and confidence intervals for Study 2. Descriptive statistics (Means and SDs) Small

AFW PI Effects of control variables Household CFW POV Attitude/product

Large

Nonperishable

Perishable

Nonperishable

Perishable

1.53 (1.31) 3.20 (1.61)

1.98 (1.74) 3.52 (1.35)

2.00 (1.63) 3.39 (1.69)

3.15 (2.13) 4.13 (1.57)

DV = AFW

DV = PI

−0.00 −0.13 0.27*** −0.36***

0.08 −0.02 0.68*** 0.11*

Indirect effects (IEs) from the moderated-mediation analysis Conditional indirect effects

Size × perishability →AFW →PI

Index of moderated mediation

Non-perishable

Perishable

IE

95% CI

IE

95% CI

β

95% CI

−0.15*

[−0.42; −0.02]

0.07

[−0.005; 0.248]

−0.07*

[−0.219; −0.001]

Note: AFW = Anticipated Food Waste; PI = Purchase Intentions; CFW = Concern for Food Waste; POV = Perception of Offer Value. *** : p < 0.001; **: p < 0.01; *: p < 0.05. The CIs are the bias-corrected bootstrap 95% confidence intervals. The index of moderated mediation is the test of moderated (or conditional) mediation (Hayes, 2015). The IEs are the beta coefficients for the indirect effects.

food consumption (Ailawadi & Neslin, 1998; Bezawada & Pauwels, 2013), and potentially lead to more food waste (Block et al., 2016). Hence, in Study 3 we explore how the nature of the promotion (price promotion versus bonus packs) affects the relationship between package size and anticipated food waste. In Study 3 we also test how information about the negative implications of food waste influences consumers’ purchasing behavior in the presence of different types of promotion. Here we prime half of our subject pool with information, where priming refers to “the fact that recently and frequently activated ideas come to mind more easily than ideas that have not been activated” (Fiske & Taylor, 1984, p. 231). Hence, priming people with information about the negative social implications of food waste (Arkes, 1996; Bolton & Alba, 2012) may make

5.3. Discussion Study 2 replicates the positive effect of package size on anticipated food waste and sheds new light on the role of perishability on this relationship. Our results show that the negative mediating effect of anticipated food waste is observed only for perishable products, because such an anticipation leads people to exhibit greater purchase intentions for non-perishable products. In Study 2 we adopted a price promotion for the larger sized products, but we did not alter the price promotion across treatments and did not directly study the role of price promotions. Price promotions, and especially bonus packs, have been found to be particularly attractive for consumers (Chen et al., 2012; Ong et al., 1997). They increase

Fig. 1. Study 2: Purchase intentions as a function of anticipated food waste and product perishability. 5

Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

O. Petit, et al.

Product B) where both products were priced at $3.99. Participants were asked to indicate which one they would prefer to purchase (on a 7-point scale from 1: “Definitely Product A” and 7:”Definitely Product B”). Respondents also completed the same measures of perception of offer value (α = 0.89) and concern for food waste as in Study 2.

them be more aware of the negative consequences of food waste and affect their choices. If priming consumers with information about food waste changes behavior, it could prove to be an effective tool for food retailers, food manufacturers and policy makers interested in curbing food waste. Therefore we propose: H4: Priming consumers with information about food waste leads people to exhibit lower preferences for large packages.

6.2. Results We conducted a one-way ANOVA and found additional support showing that larger package sizes led to an increase in the anticipated level of food waste; results also showed that anticipated food waste was higher in the non-promotional (M = 3.46) and promotional (M = 3.57) large package conditions than in the small package condition (M = 2.37, F(2, 308) = 9.70, p < 0.001). A similar ANOVA that aggregated the non-promotional and promotional large package conditions revealed the same pattern (MSmall = 2.37, MLarge = 3.50, F = 18.40, p < 0.001). Overall, these results bring further support to H1. Of note, in these two analyses, concern for waste exerted a significant negative effect (β = -0.19, p < 0.05), while the perception of offer value had no statistically significant effect on anticipated food waste (p > 0.10). A manipulation check indicated that priming respondents with information about food waste did not alter their mood (t = 0.640, p > 0.10). Our general results described here did not change after we removed the covariates (on the concern for waste and the perception of offer value) from the analyses. A subsequent analysis was conducted to investigate the mediating effect of anticipated food waste. In order to compare the effect of anticipated food waste and the attractiveness of the promotion with each other, these two variables were simultaneously included as mediators. Also, only the small package size and the large promotional packages were included as the independent variables. Choice between the small and large packages was the dependent variable. Bringing further support for H2, our results revealed a significant indirect effect of the package size on choice (95% CI = −0.282; −0.055), indicating that large promotional packages lead to more anticipated food waste (β = 0.56, p < 0.001) and consequently a decrease in the preference for the promotional large package (β = −0.25, p < 0.001). A different pattern was found for the perception of a good deal, which did not mediate the effect of package size on preference for promotional large packages (95% CI = −0.109; 0.044). Concern for food waste had a negative effect on anticipated food waste (β = −20, p = 0.06) and on the preference for large packages (β = −19, p = 0.06). Next we turn our attention to the effect of priming on the choices made between the small package and the promotional large package. An ANOVA was performed and included the measure of choice between the small and the promotional large package as the dependent variable. Results revealed that respondents being primed with information about the negative consequences of food waste exhibited lower preferences for the large promotional package than for the small package (M = 5.62) as compared to respondents that were not primed with food waste (M = 6.25, F(1, 309) = 7.73, p < 0.01). This result supports H3. Neither concern for food waste nor perception of offer value had an effect on purchase intention. To see if the anticipation of food waste could explain the effects of priming on choice, a mediation analysis was performed. Here the priming condition served as the independent variable, anticipated food waste as the mediator, and the choice between the small package and the promotional large package as the dependent variable. Results revealed a significant indirect effect of priming on choice (95% CI = −0.38; −0.04), whereby being primed with information about the negative consequences of food waste leads to more anticipation of food waste (β = 0.77, p < 0.05) and consequently a decrease in the preference for the promotional large package (β = −0.20, p < 0.05). As we found earlier, the concern for food waste decreased the anticipation of food waste. Neither this variable nor perception of offer value had an effect on purchase intentions for the large package. Table 3

Studies 1 and 2 have closely assessed the mediating effect of anticipated food waste on purchase intentions. In Study 3 we test H4 and examine whether priming consumers with information about food waste will influence their preference for large packages. 6. Study 3: Food waste priming and consumers’ preferences for bonus packs 6.1. Participants, design and procedure We recruited a sample (N = 310, MAge = 32.90, SD = 10.76) online to participate in a 2 (priming: food waste vs. control) × 3 (a 8 cup package vs. a large promotion package of 8 cups + 8 cups for free vs. a 16 cup package) between-subjects experiment. Subjects were first asked to read a paragraph that manipulated the information used to prime subjects about the social consequences of food waste. In both the food waste priming condition and in the control condition, the paragraph emphasized the notion of food availability (“According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the growth of global agriculture’s productive potential has so far been more than sufficient to exceed population growth, resulting in an increase in average per capita food availability”). In the food waste priming condition, the paragraph provided statistics describing the quantity of food waste in the United States and globally (“However, Americans throw away an estimated 25% of the food they bring home, which represents more than 20 lb of food per person every month. More broadly, 1/3 of the overall food supply in the world is wasted. This 1.3 billion tons of food would be enough to feed 4 times all the hungry in the world.”). In the control condition, no such mention of food waste was made and the focus was put on how beneficial such food availability can be for undernourished people in developing countries (“This growth in food availability in conjunction with improved access to food helped reduce the percentage of chronically undernourished people in developing countries.”). Participants were randomly presented with a small package (8 cups), a large package that included a bonus pack promotion (8 + 8 cups), or a large package with no bonus pack promotion (16 cups); in each case the product was yogurt from a fictitious brand (Berlinea) with an expiration date 6 days away. The price for the small package (8 cups) was $3.99 and the price for the large package (16 cups) without the bonus pack was $4.99. To manipulate the presence of a promotion associated with a large package, we introduced the large package with the bonus pack (8 + 8 cups) at $3.99. Having the same price for the small package and the promotional large package thus enabled us to examine whether people prefer a small package over a promotional large one due to their recognition that they anticipate to waste less food, even though there was a clear cost savings with the promotional large package. Being primed with information about food waste could affect the overall mood for a subject, so participants were asked to describe their overall mood (from “miserable” to “delighted”; from “negative” to “positive”; α = 0.86) and we used this as a control variable in our analysis. Participants rated their purchase intentions (α = 0.88), and their anticipated food waste using the same measures that we used in the previous studies. All subjects were presented with two pictures side by side; one was the small package of yogurt (presented as Product A) and the other being the promotional large package (presented as 6

Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

O. Petit, et al.

Table 3 Descriptive statistics, regressions coefficients, and confidence intervals for Study 3. Descriptive statistics (Means, SDs): overall and across condition of package size Small

AFW PI

Large

Promo. Large

Control

Waste

Control

Waste

Control

Waste

2.12 (1.60) 3.70 (1.22)

2.63 (2.18) 3.76 (1.15)

3.13 (2.28) 3.93 (1.26)

3.76 (2.20) 3.75 (1.38)

3.08 (2.23) 3.66 (1.07)

3.98 (2.25) 3.66 (1.24)

β

95% CI

Prime → AFW AFW → Pref. Prime → Pref. Prime → AFW → Pref.

0.77* −0.20** −0.45* −0.16*

[0.18; 1.37] [−0.32; −07] [−1.00; −0.08] [−0.38; −0.04]

Effects of control variables CFW → AFW POV → AFW CFW → Pref. POV → Pref.

−0.22* −0.02 −0.16 −0.05

[−0.44; [−0.22; [−0.36; [−0.23.

Regression coefficients from the mediation analyses Mediation: Size → AFW → Pref.

Mediation: Waste Prime → AFW → Pref. β

95% CI

Size → AFW AFW → Pref. Size → Pref. Size → AFW → Pref. POV → AFW → Pref.

0.56*** −0.25*** −0.07 −0.14* −0.02

[0.27; 0.85] [−0.38; −0.11] [−0.23; 0.06] [−0.28; −0.05] [−0.10; 0.04]

Effects of control variables CFW → AFW CFW → Pref.

−0.20 0.19

[−0.41; 0.01] [−0.39; 0.01]

−0.00] 0.18] 0.03] 0.13]

Note: AFW = Anticipated Food Waste; PI = Purchase Intentions; Pref. = Preferences for large packages; CFW = Concern for Food Waste; POV = Perception of Offer Value. ***: p < 0.001; **: p < 0.01; *: p < 0.05. The CIs are the bias-corrected bootstrap 95% confidence intervals.

in a partitioned package with 8 or 16 cups of the product depending on the size condition. Previous research shows that partitioning an aggregate quantity of food into smaller units reduces consumption (Cheema & Soman, 2008). A potential explanation for this mechanism is related to the boundaries that partitions create and how these boundaries act of cues that we use to control our consumption (Cutright, 2012). Hence, the purpose of this study is to investigate how partitions in food products, or the portions that partitions create, serve as cues for consumers to estimate food quantities, and ultimately how partitions may influence anticipated food waste. Consumers are not able to easily estimate the quantity of food inside a non-partitioned package (Chandon, 2013), especially when it comes to estimating large quantities of food (Chandon & Wansink, 2007; Chandon, 2013), and boundaries from the partitions may help consumers estimate more accurately the quantity of food in large packages and thus the potential waste that such packages could prompt. Therefore, our fifth hypothesis is:

presents the descriptive statistics for Study 3 and summarizes the results. 6.3. Discussion Study 3 finds additional support showing the positive relationship between package size and anticipated food waste, as well as the mediating role of anticipated food waste. Findings from Study 3 also yield new insights about how the nature of the promotion associated with larger package sizes affects food waste. Our results show that it is the anticipation of wasting food – and not the attractiveness of the promotion – that explains variance in preferences for large packages. Study 3 also examines the effect of priming subjects with information about the negative consequences of food waste, and the results suggest that when people are primed with such information about food waste, their preferences for larger packages decrease even if the large package is associated with promotion. This result highlights the opportunity for policy makers to find effective communication strategies to help mitigate food waste to develop regulations on the language used to promote bonus packs among food manufacturers and food retailers. Study 3 has shown that external information could play a key role in the joint efforts along the supply chain to reduce food waste. Changes in communication efforts and product messaging might also occur directly on food packaging. An extension to these ideas about communication strategies is the effect that alternative packaging formats might have anticipated food waste levels. Humans can be primed most directly with information that explains the consequences of food waste, but food packaging materials also have the capacity to provide information to (or prime) consumers. In the next study we examine the effect that alternative food packaging materials might have on anticipated food waste levels. We expect that some packaging materials might enable consumers to better understand their likely food consumption patterns and therefore decrease their anticipated food waste.

H5: Food package size and format (partitioned versus non-partitioned) interact to affect anticipated food waste. Specifically, when partitioned, large food packages may lead to more anticipated food waste. On the contrary, when non-partitioned, no differences in anticipated food waste may be observed across conditions of small and large packages. Since partitions can serve as cues to estimate quantities, we suggest that partitions may help consumers feel in control of their consumption. This feeling of control by a consumer is expected to be stronger when the package is small; in the case of large packages, partitions may make salient the real quantity of food and this may overwhelm some consumers and decrease their feeling of being in control. For small package sizes with partitions, consumers may feel a greater sense of control, and being more in control of their consumption may prompt consumers to anticipate less food waste. Therefore we propose:

7. Study 4: Partitioning packaging formats and food waste

H6: Package size moderates the indirect effect of package format on anticipation to waste through the mediating role of perceived

Study 4 examines the role of the package format on the anticipation of food waste. In the preceding studies, the food product was presented 7

Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

O. Petit, et al.

significant interaction effect between package format and package size was found (F(1, 261) = 5.70, p < 0.05; see Fig. 2). More specifically, similar to previous studies, we found a statistically significant increase in anticipated food waste in the large partitioned package treatment (M = 3.35) compared to the small partitioned package treatment (M = 2.33, t = −3.24, p < 0.001). As expected, we did not find a statistical difference in anticipated food waste between the small and large non-partitioned packages (t = 0.247, p > 0.10). Overall, our results support H5. In order to study the effects of package size on anticipated food waste and purchase intentions, a mediation analysis similar to that in studies 1 and 2 was conducted (Process, Model 4, 5000 bootstraps) using the aggregated non-partitioned and partitioned package conditions. Results revealed the same pattern of results as those observed in studies 1 and 2, with a significant indirect effect of package size on purchase intentions through the mediating effect of anticipated food waste (95% = −0.147; −0.001). This result brings additional support for H3. Next we examine perceptions of control as the mechanism explaining the anticipation to waste food as a function of package type and size using a moderated mediation analysis (Process, model 8, 5000 bootstraps; Hayes, 2015). In this specification, package format served as the independent variable, perceived control was the mediator, anticipated food waste was the dependent variable, and package size was the moderating variable. As expected, results revealed a significant index of moderated mediation (95% CI = −0.396; −0.002; see Fig. 3), indicating that package size moderates the indirect effect of package format on anticipated food waste through the mediating effect of perceived control. Precisely, we find that in the small package condition perceived control mediates the effects of partitions on anticipation of food waste (95% CI = 0.018; 0.388), while such an effect is not observed in the large package size condition (% CI = −0.047; 0.192; Table 4). More specifically, in the small package size condition, partitions are linked to a higher perception of control (β = −0.80, t = −3.88, p < 0.01), and feeling in control leads to a decrease in the anticipation of food waste (β = −0.31, t = −2.46, p < 0.05). These findings yield support for H6.

control. 7.1. Participants, design and procedure In this study we recruited 263 subjects (52.90% Female, MAge = 32.36, S.D. = 11.47) that participated in a study which had a 2 (small vs. large package) × 2 (partitioned vs. non-partitioned package) between subjects design. Participants were randomly assigned to a treatment where they were shown either a small or large package of yogurt with either a partitioned or plain package. To manipulate the package format, the yogurt was presented as small cups in the partitioned treatments and in a single tub in the non-partitioned treatments. In the partitioned format condition, the package was presented with 4 cups of 100 g of yogurt in the small package condition, and with 12 cups (still of 100 g) in the large package condition. In order to avoid any confounding effects, the same quantities were retained in the nonpartitioned format condition, with the small package containing a 400 g tub (the equivalent of the 4 cups of 100 g each) and the large package contained a 1.2 kg tub (the equivalent of 12 cups of 100 g each). As in previous studies, a fictitious brand was used – here, Naturfruix – to avoid any bias associated with a familiar brand. Subjects were asked the same questions used in the earlier studies to measure purchase intentions (α = 0.85) and anticipated food waste (M = 2.79, S.D. = 1.90). They also completed a 3-item question to measure their level of perceived control (α = 0.92) adapted from Cutright, Bettman, and Fitzsimons (2013). Items were 1/“This package of yogurt enables me to easily control my consumption,” 2/“Seeing this package, I feel I could easily control how much I consume from this yogurt,” and 3/ “This package makes me feel in control of the quantity of yogurt that I consume” (seven-point scales, 1 = “definitely disagree,” and 7 = “definitely agree”). 7.2. Results To re-examine the relationship between package size and anticipated food waste, and to test the effects of the package format on perceptions of control and food waste, a two-way ANOVA was conducted. The package size condition and the format condition served as the fixed variables and anticipated food waste was set as the dependent variable. Results showed that anticipated food waste was higher in the large package condition (MLarge = 3.05, MSmall = 2.56, F(1, 261) = 4.09, p < 0.05); this result follows those observed in studies 1 and 2 and brings further support for H1. Also, and as predicted, a

7.3. Discussion The results from Study 4 provide additional support for the effect of package size on the anticipation of food waste. Importantly, the results also highlight new insights on the effect of package formatting on

Fig. 2. Study 4: Anticipated food waste as a function of package size and format. 8

Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

O. Petit, et al.

Fig. 3. Study 4: The moderating role of package size in the indirect effect of package type on anticipated food waste through perceived control.

of hypotheses proposing that larger packages may be less preferred because package size can influence anticipated food waste. Our findings show that even in the presence of promotions associated with larger packages, consumers exhibit a decrease in purchase intentions for larger packages of perishable products due to their anticipation of food waste from such packages. In addition, we have provided evidence that the food package format (partitioned versus not) also plays a role in the complex relationship between package size on anticipated food waste. Next we summarize some of the conceptual, managerial and societal implications of our results.

Table 4 Descriptive Statistics, Indirect Effects, and Confidence Intervals for Study 4. Descriptive statistics (Means and SDs) Small

AFW PI

Large

Non-partitioned

Partitioned

Non-partitioned

Partitioned

2.81 (1.90) 3.72 (1.38)

2.33 (1.75) 4.24 (1.38)

2.72 (1.97) 3.40 (1.29)

3.35 (1.89) 3.79 (1.50)

8.1. Conceptual implications for consumer behavior

Indirect effects (IEs) from the moderated-mediation analysis

Our findings shed new light on how consumers react to package size, information, and package format. First, in line with Arkes (1996) and Bolton and Alba (2012), our results suggest that consumers reduce their purchase intentions for large package sizes and may not be greatly influenced by promotional offers if they have a strong aversion to food waste. The results from Study 3 seem to suggest that consumers’ distaste for unused utility is higher than the economic loss of falling short or not having enough food (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979). Study 3 also indicates that this distaste towards food waste can begin to be corrected by priming individuals with information about the negative social implications of food waste. Second, we have shown that presenting the same quantity of food in several portions (vs. one single container) increases food waste evaluation. As consumers tend to underestimate the caloric content of large packages (Chandon & Wansink, 2007; Rolls, Morris, & Roe, 2002), splitting a package into several small units can help consumers better assess the quantity of the product (Marchiori et al., 2001; Wansink, Payne, & Shimizu, 2011). Our results indicate that a similar phenomenon holds for the effect of partitioning on the anticipation to waste food for small package sizes only. A potential explanation for this effect may lie in visual imagery. Petit et al. (2017) demonstrated that having a mental representation for the consumption of a food portion reduces the portion size effect and helped individuals better evaluate the amount of food they wanted to eat. Similarly, by dividing the package into several small portions, the participants might have been more able to visualize their potential food waste. Future research might pursue this line of work further and look to better understand the role of mental imagery on anticipated food waste. Third, our research indicates that when small packages are partitioned, such partitions lead consumers to feel more in control of their

Conditional indirect effects

Package type × Size→ PC→ AFW

Index of moderated mediation

Small

Large

IE

95% CI

IE

95% CI

β

95% CI

−0.13*

[−396; −0.002]

0.16*

[0.018; 0.388]

0.03

[−0.047; 0.192]

Note: AFW = Anticipated Food Waste; PI = Purchase Intentions; PC: Perceived Control. **: p < 0.01; *: p < 0.05. The CIs are the bias-corrected bootstrap 95% confidence intervals. The index of moderated mediation is the test of moderated (or conditional) mediation (Hayes, 2015). The IEs are the beta coefficients for the indirect effects.

anticipated food waste. Consistent with prior literature on partitions and control, our results indicate that partitioned packages, as opposed to plain non-partitioned packages, help consumers better assess the quantity of food in a package and this improved awareness of the quantity may lead them to anticipate food waste more accurately. The results also indicate that in the case of small packages, such partitions can help consumers feel more in control of their consumption, leading them to anticipate less food waste.

8. General discussion Our research set out to study the relationship between package size and anticipated food waste at the point of purchase. We outline a series 9

Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

O. Petit, et al.

anticipation to waste food differently, and then offer innovative packaging materials for selected products in an effort to help these consumer segments waste less food. It is possible that these new packaging campaigns could be part of a food manufacturer’s sustainability plan if they could be linked to a decrease in food waste.

food consumption and anticipate less waste. Such a result may be explained by the role that partitioning plays in increasing recall accuracy (Cheema & Soman, 2008). Specifically, in the context of small packages, partitions may help consumer estimate accurately food quantities, making them feel more in control of their food consumption and more able to appraise the quantity of food that they anticipate to waste. Interestingly, this role of perceived control as an outcome of partitions was observed only in the context of small packages, making package size a boundary condition for the effects of partitions on perceived control.

8.3. Limitations and further research One limitation of our work is that it examined anticipated food waste using survey data rather than field-level data measuring actual quantities of food waste. Further work that was able to measure the exact amount of food that is wasted for given package sizes and formats may provide evidence that would be more convincing for policy makers and food manufacturers making decisions about adopting new packaging to prevent food waste. Also, because we only used two package sizes for selected products in our research, our results may not generalize to a wider range of package sizes or for package sizes in other food product categories. We decided to focus our research on this simple distinction between a small and a large package size as a first step, however, we understand that such a dichotomy may not represent the entire variety of package sizes that exist in the marketplace. Further research should explore, for specific product categories, the more nuanced effects between product sizing and food waste such that policy makers, food manufacturers, and food retailers have more complete information before they consider innovations and regulations on the design of food packages. Finally, further research should examine how some actions taken to prevent food waste may have unintended consequences; for example, adoption of small packages or packages with additional partitions may lead to less food waste but it may also lead to greater packaging waste. Future studies might also investigate whether a labeling system on the package (e.g., a graphical design to suggest individual portions) would have the same effect on the anticipation of food waste as partitioned packaging. Overall, research is needed to better understand the tradeoffs between food waste and packaging waste as well as the relative environmental implications from strategies that aim to reduce one or both types of waste.

8.2. Implications for food marketers and policy makers Advocacy groups have suggested that larger package sizes, bonus packs, and pack promotions are leading culprits in the creation of food waste by consumers (Aschemann-Witzel, de Hooge, Amani, BechLarsen, & Oostindjer, 2015; WRAP, 2014). Food waste is the quintessential environmental problem, as it encompasses environmental costs related to excess resources that are used to produce food that is not consumed as well as additional costs that are required to manage the waste from food that is thrown away (Halloran, Clement, Kornum, Bucatariu, & Magid, 2014). Hence, any research that would lead to a better understanding of the conditions that prevent food waste would also lead to an increase in sustainable food consumption and to greater food well-being (Block et al., 2011, p. 6). To this regard, our findings have several implications, both from a policy perspective and for food marketers. For policy makers, the results from Study 3 show that consumers may reduce purchases of larger packages and reduce their associated food waste if they are presented with information describing the negative externalities of food waste. This result indicates that there may be missing information among consumers and, since information is considered a public good, there is an argument that a public policy that provides the needed information will improve the well-being of society. The specific type of information needed in this situation requires further investigation, yet our results suggest that consumers will respond to priming messages. In practical terms, the government could fund and lead an informational campaign (via television, print media, and social media outlets) to better inform the public about the (environmental, social/distributional, and economic) problems associated with food waste. Food manufacturers could also become involved in this initiative by trying new labels with alternative messages that attempt to mitigate food waste. In Study 4 we found that consumers reduced purchases of the promotional pack when we manipulated the package size. This is another case where public policy could be developed to help correct a cognitive bias among consumers; here consumers may not realize the magnitude of the quantity in a large pack when it is not presented in a typical package size. Our results show that when the larger package is shown in a normal or standard package size, consumers are more likely to predict their anticipated waste level and are less likely to purchase the large package size. One real-world policy proposal could be to mandate food manufacturers to use similar package sizes when offering promotional packaging. This policy would not prevent food manufacturers from offering promotional or bonus packs, but it would limit the differences in package designs that they use for promotional and non-promotional packs. For food marketers, our results yield new insights on why consumers’ anticipation to waste food might be a reason why they sometimes avoid large packages, even if such packages are associated with promotions. Our results show that people anticipate more food waste from large packages, and that they will prefer smaller packages when they are primed with information about the social consequences of food waste, even if the purchase of a small package can prevent them from obtaining a good deal. Food marketers may be able to use our findings to further segment their consumer base into groups that consider their

Acknowledgments The project was supported by Agricultural and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grant no.2016-67023-24817 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), and through Hatch project NYC-121864; Multistate S1067. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) or the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). References Ailawadi, K. L., & Neslin, S. A. (1998). The effect of promotion on consumption: Buying more and consuming it faster. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(3), 390–398. Alford, B. L., & Biswas, A. (2002). The effects of discount level, price consciousness and sale proneness on consumers’ price perception and behavioral intention. Journal of Business Research, 55, 775–783. Arkes, H. R. (1996). The psychology of waste. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 9(3), 213–224. Aschemann-Witzel, J., de Hooge, I., Amani, P., Bech-Larsen, T., & Oostindjer, M. (2015). Consumer-related food waste: Causes and potential for action. Sustainability, 7, 6457–6477. Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645. Bell, D. R., & Lattin, J. M. (1998). Shopping behavior and consumer preference for store price format: Why large basket shoppers prefer EDLP. Marketing Science, 16(1), 66–88. Beretta, C., Stoessel, F., Baier, U., & Hellweg, S. (2013). Quantifying food losses and the potential for reduction in Switzerland. Waste Management, 33, 764–773. Bezawada, R., & Pauwels, K. (2013). What is special about marketing organic products? How organic assortment, price, and promotions drive retailer performance. Journal of Marketing, 77(January), 31–51.

10

Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

O. Petit, et al.

Larson, J., Redden, J. P., & Elder, R. (2014). Satiation from sensory simulation: Evaluating foods decreases enjoyment of similar foods. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(2), 188–194. Lichtenstein, D. R., Netemeyer, R. G., & Burton, S. (1990). Distinguishing coupon proneness from value consciousness: An acquisition-transaction utility theory perspective. Journal of Marketing, 54(3), 54–67. Marchiori, D., Waroquier, L., & Klein, O. (2001). Smaller food item sizes of snack foods influence reduced portions and caloric intake in young adults. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 111(5), 727–731. Mishra, A., & Mishra, H. (2011). The influence of price discount versus bonus pack on the preference for virtue and vice foods. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(3), 196–206. Mittal, B. (1994). An integrated framework for relating diverse consumer characteristics to supermarket coupon redemption. Journal of Marketing Research, 31(4), 533–544. Ong, B. S., Nin Ho, F., & Tripp, C. (1997). Consumer perceptions of bonus packs: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 14(2), 102–112. Orth, U. R., & Malkewitz, K. (2012). The accuracy of design-based judgments: A constructivist approach. Journal of Retailing, 88(3), 421–436. Petit, O., Basso, F., Merunka, D., Spence, C., Cheok, A. D., & Oullier, O. (2016). Pleasure and the control of food intake: An embodied cognition approach to consumer selfregulation. Psychology & Marketing, 33(8), 608–619. Petit, O., Velasco, C., & Spence, C. (2018). Are large portions always bad? Using the Delboeuf illusion on food packaging to nudge consumer behavior. Marketing Letters, 29(4), 435–449. Petit, O., Velasco, C., Woods, A., Cheok, A. D., & Spence, C. (2017). Changing the influence of portion size on consumer behavior via imagined consumption. Journal of Business Research, 75, 240–248. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. Principato, L., Secondi, L., & Pratesi, C. A. (2015). Reducing food waste: An investigation on the behaviour of Italian youths. British Food Journal, 117, 731–748. Raghubir, P. (1998). Coupon value: A signal for price? Journal of Marketing Research, 35(3), 316–324. Rolls, B. J., Morris, E. L., & Roe, L. S. (2002). Portion size of food affects energy intake in normal-weight and overweight men and women. The American journal of clinical nutrition, 76(6), 1207–1213. Stefan, V., van Herpen, E., Tudoran, A. A., & Lähteenmäki, L. (2013). Avoiding food waste by Romanian consumers: The importance of planning and shopping routines. Food Quality and Preference, 28(1), 375–381. Tsiros, M., & Heilman, C. M. (2005). The effect of expiration dates and perceived risk on purchasing behavior in grocery store perishable categories. Journal of Marketing, 69(2), 114–129. Van Rompay, T. J. L., & Veltkamp, M. (2014). Product packaging metaphors: Effects of ambiguity and explanatory information on consumer appreciation and brand perception. Psychology & Marketing, 31, 404–415. Wansink, B. (1996). Can package size accelerate usage volume. Journal of Marketing, 60, 1–14. Wansink, B., Kent, R. J., & Hoch, S. J. (1998). An anchoring and adjustment model of purchase quantity decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(1), 71–81. Wansink, B., Payne, C. R., & Shimizu, M. (2011). The 100-calorie semi-solution: Subpackaging most reduces intake among the heaviest. Obesity, 19(5), 1098–1100. White, K., MacDonnell, R., & Ellard, J. H. (2012). Belief in a just world: Consumer intentions and behaviors toward ethical products. Journal of Marketing, 76(1), 103–118. Wilson, N. L., Rickard, B., Saputo, R., & Shuay-Tsyr, H. (2017). Food waste: The role of date labels, package size, and product category. Food Quality and Preference, 55, 35–44. WRAP. (2014). Household food and drink waste: A product focus, project code: CFP204. Retrieved from http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Product-focused %20report%20v5_3.pdf. Ҫakir, M., & Balagtas, J. V. (2014). Consumer responses to package downsizing: Evidence from the Chicago ice cream market. Journal of Retailing, 90(1), 1–12.

Blattberg, R. C., & Neslin, S. A. (1993). Sales promotion models. Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science, 5, 553–609. Block, L. G., Grier, S., Childers, T., Davis, B., Ebert, J., Kumanyika, S., ... van Ginkel Bieshaar, M. (2011). From nutrients to nurturance: A conceptual introduction to food well-being. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 30(1), 5–13. Block, L. G., Keller, P. A., Vallen, B., Williamson, S., Birau, M. M., Grinstein, A., ... Heintz Tangari, A. (2016). The squander sequence: Understanding food waste at each stage of the consumer decision-making process. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 35(2), 292–304. Bolton, L. E., & Alba, J. W. (2012). When less is more: Consumer aversion to unused utility. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(3), 369–383. Carlson, J. P., Weathers, D., & Swain, S. C. (2016). Consumer responses to bonus pack and product enlargement claims. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 24(1), 59–71. Chandon, P. (2013). How package design and packaged-based marketing claims lead to overeating. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 35(1), 7–31. Chandon, P., & Ordabayeva, N. (2009). Supersize in one dimension, downsize in three dimensions: Effects of spatial dimensionality on size perceptions and preferences. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(6), 739–753. Chandon, P., & Wansink, B. (2002). When are stockpiled products consumed faster? A convenience–salience framework of postpurchase consumption incidence and quantity. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(3), 321–335. Chandon, P., & Wansink, B. (2006). How biased household inventory estimates distort shopping and storage decisions. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 118–135. Chandon, P., & Wansink, B. (2007). Is obesity caused by calorie underestimation? A psychophysical model of meal size estimation. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(1), 84–99. Chandon, P., Wansink, B., & Laurent, G. (2000). A benefit congruency framework of sales promotion effectiveness. Journal of Marketing, 64(4), 65–81. Cheema, A., & Soman, D. (2008). The effect of partitions on controlling consumption. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(6), 665–675. Chen, H., Marmorstein, H., Tsiros, M., & Rao, A. R. (2012). When more is less: The impact of base value neglect on consumer preferences for bonus packs over price discounts. Journal of Marketing, 76(4), 64–77. Cornil, Y., & Chandon, P. (2016). Pleasure as a substitute for size: How multisensory imagery can make people happier with smaller food portions. Journal of Marketing Research, 53(5), 847–864. Cutright, Keisha M. (2012). The beauty of boundaries: When and why we seek structure in consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(5), 775–790. Cutright, K., Bettman, J. R., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2013). Putting brands in their place: How a lack of control keeps brands contained. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(June), 365–377. d’Astrous, A., & Jacob, I. (2002). Understanding consumer reactions to premium-based promotional offers. European Journal of Marketing, 36(11/12), 1270–1286. Diamond, W. D. (1992). Just what is a ‘dollar’s worth’? Consumer reactions to price discounts vs. extra product promotions. Journal of Retailing, 68(3), 254–270. Diamond, W. D., & Sanyal, A. (1990). The effect of framing on the choice of supermarket coupons. In M. E. Goldberg, G. Gorn, & R. W. Pollay (Eds.). Advances in consumer research (pp. 488–493). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1984). Social recognition. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Giese, J. L., Malkewitz, K., Orth, U. R., & Henderson, P. W. (2014). Advancing the aesthetic middle principle: Trade-offs in design attractiveness and strength. Journal of Business Research, 67, 1154–1161. Halloran, A., Clement, J., Kornum, N., Bucatariu, C., & Magid, J. (2014). Addressing food waste reduction in Denmark. Food Policy, 49, 294–301. Hardesty, D. M., & Bearden, W. O. (2003). Consumer evaluations of different promotion types and price presentations: The moderating role of promotional benefit level. Journal of Retailing, 79(1), 17–25. Haws, K. L., & Winterich, K. P. (2013). When value trumps health in a supersized world. Journal of Marketing, 77(3), 48–64. Hayes, A. F. (2015). An index and test of linear moderated mediation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 50(1), 1–22. Inman, J. J., McAlister, L., & Hoyer, W. D. (1990). Promotion signal: Proxy for a price cut? Journal of Consumer Research, 17(1), 74–81. Kahn, B. E., & Louie, T. A. (1990). Effects of retraction of price promotions on brand choice behavior for variety-seeking and last-purchase-loyal consumers. Journal of Marketing Research, 27(3), 279–289. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1977). Intuitive prediction: Biases and corrective procedures. TIMS Studies in Management Science, 12(June), 313–327. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291. Kumar, M., & Noble, C. H. (2016). Beyond form and function: Why do consumers value product design? Journal of Business Research, 69, 613–620.

Olivia Petit is an assistant professor of marketing at KEDGE Business School in Marseille, France. Her research program focuses on sensory and digital marketing, food behavior, and consumer neuroscience. Renaud Lunardo is an associate professor of marketing at KEDGE Business School in Bordeaux. Renaud’s research examines topics in consumer economics, business administration, and behavioral economics. Bradley Rickard is an associate professor in the School of Applied Economics and Management at Cornell University and an affiliate professor at KEDGE Business School in Bordeaux. His research studies topics at the intersection of food marketing and food policy.

11