Influences of packaging attributes on consumer purchase decisions for fresh produce

Appetite

Volumn 59, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 270-280

  Koutsimanis, Georgios ^a   Getter, Kristin ^b   Behe, Bridget ^b   Harte, Janice ^b   Almenar, Eva ^a  

^a Michigan State University   (United States)

^b MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Consumer purchase decisions; Fresh produce; Packaging attributes

Indexed keywords

BIOMATERIAL;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CONSUMER; CONTAINER; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; FOOD INDUSTRY; FOOD INTAKE; FOOD PACKAGING; HUMAN; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PACKAGING MATERIAL; PROSPECTIVE PRICING; PURCHASING; QUESTIONNAIRE; SHELF LIFE; SWEET CHERRY;

ADULT; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; CONSUMER SATISFACTION; FEMALE; FOOD PACKAGING; FOOD STORAGE; FRUIT; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PRUNUS; QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 84861985858     PISSN: 01956663     EISSN: 10958304     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2012.05.012     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Alique R., Martinez M.A., Alonso J. Influence of the modified atmosphere packaging on shelf life and quality of Navalinda sweet cherry. European Food Research and Technology 2003, 217(5):416-420.
2. Almenar E., Samsudin H., Auras R., Harte B., Rubino M. Postharvest shelf life extension of blueberries using a biodegradable package. Food Chemistry 2008, 110(1):120-127.
3. Ampuero O., Vila N. Consumer perceptions of product packaging. Journal of Consumer Marketing 2006, 23(2):100-112.
4. Behe B.K. Conjoint analysis reveals consumers prefer long, thin asparagus spears. HortScience 2006, 41(5):1259-1262.
5. Bottani E., Montanari R., Vignali G., Guerra L. A survey on packaging materials and technologies for commercial food products. International Journal of Food Engineering 2011, 7(1):12. www.bepress.com/ijfe/vol7/iss1/art12 Accessed 08/2011. 10.2202/1556-3758.1687.
6. Conte A., Scrocco C., Lecee L., Mastromatteo M., Del Nobile M.A. Ready-to-eat sweet cherries. Study on different packaging systems. Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 2009, 10(4):564-571.
7. Draskovic N. Packaging convenience. Consumer packaging feature or marketing tool?. International Journal of Management Cases 2010, 12(2):267-274.
8. Environmental Protection Agency. Methodology for estimating municipal solid waste recycling benefits. (2007). Accessed on 07.2011. http://www.epa.gov/wastes/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/06benefits.pdf.
9. Euromonitor International, Strategy Briefing Changing face of the household. Global trends and forecasts to 2015 2006, Euromonitor International Inc, Chicago, IL, USA.
10. Frank C.A., Nelson R.G., Simonne E.H., Behe B.K., Simonne A.H. Consumer preferences for color, price, and vitamin C content of bell peppers. HortScience 2001, 36(4):795-800.
11. Fuller G.W. New food product development in the food service industry. New food product development. From concept to marketplace 1994, 179-199. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
12. Green P.E., Helsen K. Cross-validation assessment of alternatives to individual-level conjoint analysis. A case study. Journal of Marketing Research 1989, 26(3):346-350.
13. Hair J.F., Anderson R.E., Tatham R.L., Black W.C. Multivariate data analysis 1998, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. 5th ed.
14. Internet World Stats. United States of America, Internet Usage and Broadband Usage Report. (2010). Accessed on 08.2011. http://www.internetworldstats.com/am/us.htm.
15. Joo M., Lewandowski N., Auras R., Harte J., Almenar E. Comparative shelf life study of blackberry fruit in bio-based and petroleum-based containers under retail storage conditions. Food Chemistry 2011, 126(4):1734-1740.
16. Kamphuis C.B.M., Giskes K., De Bruijn G.-J., Wendel-Vos W., Brug J., Van Lenthe F.J. Environmental determinants of fruit and vegetable consumption among adults. A systematic review. The British Journal of Nutrition 2006, 96(4):620-635.
17. Lin B.H., Smith T.A., Huang C.L. Organic premiums of US fresh produce. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 2008, 23(3):208-216.
18. Mahalik N.P., Nambiar A.N. Trends in food packaging and manufacturing systems and technology. Trends in Food Science and Technology 2010, 21(3):117-128.
19. Michigan State University Human Research Protection Program. (2010). Accessed 08.2011. http://www.humanresearch.msu.edu.
20. Murray J.M., Delahunty C.M. Mapping consumer preference for the sensory and packaging attributes of Cheddar cheese. Food Quality and Preference 2000, 11(5):419-435.
21. Nishida C., Uauy R., Kumanyika S., Shetty P. The Joint WHO/FAO expert consultation on diet, nutrition and the prevention of chronic diseases. Process, product and policy implications. Public Health Nutrition 2004, 7(1):245-250. 10.1079/PHN2003592.
22. NIST/SEMATECH e-Handbook of Statistical Methods. (2006). Accessed 08.2011. http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/.
23. Peters-Texeira A., Badrie N. Consumers' perception of food packaging in Trinidad, West Indies and its related impact on food choices. International Journal of Consumer Studies 2005, 29(6):508-514.
24. Pollard J., Kirk S.F.L., Cade J.E. Factors affecting food choice in relation to fruit and vegetable intake. A review. Nutrition Research Reviews 2002, 15(2):373-387.
25. Ragaert P., Verbeke W., Devlieghere F., Devevere J. Consumer perception and choice of minimally processed vegetable and packaged fruit. Food Quality and Preference 2004, 15(3):259-270.
26. Raymond, E. Survey reveals generation gaps on sustainability attitudes. (2009). Packaging Digest, 46, 4. Accessed on 08.2011. http://www.packagingdigest.com/article/345569-Survey_reveals_generation_gaps_on_sustainability_attitudes_php.
27. Roderick, J. Thomson Reuters intellectual property report reveals new trends in food packaging industry. (2011) Accessed on 07.2011. http://www.thomsonreuthers.com/content/press_room/legal/426522.
28. Rokka J., Uusitalo L. Preference for green packaging in consumer product choices - Do consumers care?. International Journal of Consumer Studies 2008, 32(5):516-525.
29. SAS Institute Inc. SAS user's guide. Statistics 1987, SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC, USA. 5th ed.
30. Senauer B., Asp E., Kinsey J. Food trends and the changing consumer 1991, Eagan Press, St. Paul. 1st ed.
31. Siegrist M., Cousin M.-E., Kastenholz H., Wick A. Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging. The influence of affect and trust. Appetite 2007, 49:459-466.
32. Simonne A.H., Behe B.K., Marshall M.M. Consumers prefer low-priced and high lycopene-content fresh-market tomatoes. HortTechnology 2006, 16(4):674-681.
33. Siracusa V., Rocculi P., Romani S., Rosa M.D. Biodegradable polymers for food packaging. A review. Trends in Food Science and Technology 2008, 19(12):634-643.
34. SPSS Inc. (1997). SPSS Conjoint 8.0. SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL.
35. SPSS Inc. (1998). SPSS Base 8.0 for Windows user's guide. SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL.
36. Thogersen J. A cognitive dissonance interpretation of consistencies and inconsistencies in environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2004, 24(1):93-103.
37. Tsiliyannis C.A. Parametric analysis of environmental performance of reused/recycled packaging. Environmental Science and Technology 2005, 39(24):9770-9777.
38. Underwood, R.L., Klein, N.M., & Burke, R.R. Packaging communication. Attentional effects of product imagery. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 10 (7): 403-422. (2001). Accessed 08.2011. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=857772&show=abstract.
39. US Census Bureau. Current Population Survey. Age and Sex Composition. (2010a). Accessed on 03.2012. http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf.
40. US Census Bureau. Current Population Survey. (2010b). Accessed on 08.2011. http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/.
41. US Census Bureau. Current Population Survey. Annual Social and Economic Supplement 2010. (2010c) Accessed on 08.2011. http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/2010/tables.html.
42. USDA. Report of the DGAC on the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, Part D, Section 2: Nutrient Adequacy. (2010). Accessed on 08.2011. http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/DietaryGuidelines/2010/DGAC/Report/D-2-NutrientAdequacy.pdf.
43. USDA, Foreign Agriculture Service, Stone fruits: World Markets and Trade. Cherry and Peach/Nectarine: 2011/12 Forecast Overview. (2011). Accessed on 03.2012. http://www.fas.usda.gov/htp/2011StoneFruit.pdf.
44. Wright K.B. Researching Internet-based populations. Advantages and disadvantages of online survey research, online questionnaire authoring software packages, and web survey services. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 2005, 10(3):1-2.
45. Yiridoe E.K., Bonti-Ankomah S., Martin R.C. Comparison of consumer perceptions and preference toward organic versus conventionally produced foods. A review and update of the literature. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 2005, 20(4):193-205.
46. Zeithaml V.A. Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value. A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing 1988, 52(3):2-22.