CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 105Food Waste Reduction and SustainabilityOrganic Food and AgricultureConsumer Packaging Perceptions and Trends

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 58 of the 59 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The effect of food shape abnormality on purchase intentions in China

Loebnitz, Natascha, Grunert, Klaus G.·2015·Food Quality and Preference
DOI 10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.08.005
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The assumption that consumers prefer cosmetically perfect fruits and vegetables contributes to global food waste, because food retailers refuse to offer abnormally shaped food. This study empirically examines how food shape abnormality affects purchase intentions and how two individual difference variables, environmental concern and social trust, might moderate the food shape abnormality–purchase intention relationship for consumers in China. A representative sample of 212 Chinese consumers indicated their purchase intentions for two fruits and two vegetables with varying levels of food shape abnormality (normal, moderately abnormal, and extremely abnormal). The results demonstrate that food shape influences purchase intentions; consumers are more likely to purchase normally shaped fruits and vegetables than moderately or extremely abnormally shaped food. However, environmental concern and social trust also drive purchase intentions, such that participants with high levels of environmental concern express higher purchase intentions toward abnormally shaped food. Social trust alone is not sufficient to prompt the purchase of abnormal food, but consumers with high social trust and high environmental concern are more likely to purchase. Thus, increasing environmental concern, particularly among consumers with low social trust, might encourage more people to purchase abnormally shaped fruits and vegetables.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.08.005

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Hongyan, 2003, Bamboo sprouts after the rain: The history of university student environmental associations in China, China Environment Series, 6, 55
  2. Misztal, 1996, Vol. 1
  3. Thorson, 1995, Consumer response to four categories of “green” television commercials, Advances in Consumer Research, 22, 243-243

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 105

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Loebnitz, N., & Grunert, K. G.
Affiliations
Aarhus University (DK)
Corresponding author
Loebnitz, Natascha
ORCID
Venue
Food Quality and Preference
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-03
Volume
40
Pages
24-30
ISSN
0950-3293 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.08.005
OpenAlex
W2036988413
Cited by
103
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4
FWCI
3.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
Food Quality and Preference (publishedVersion)
Funders
European Commission (238084)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food Waste Reduction and Sustainability
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Organic Food and Agriculture
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Consumer Packaging Perceptions and Trends
Keywords
purchase intention, cosmetic defects, food waste, fruits and vegetables, environmental concern, social trust, consumer behavior, moderating effect, Chinese consumers

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review