Imagine you are in a fast-food restaurant where a lady tells you that she had heard there was a gene for liking or hati

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food Quality and Preference

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodqual

The effects of actor-partner’s meal production focus on satisfaction with food related life in cohabiting couples

Berta Schnettlera,b,c,d,⁎, Edgardo Miranda-Zapatad, Ligia Orellanac,d, Tino Bech-Larsene,⁎, Klaus G. Grunerte

a Universidad de La Frontera, Facultad de Ciencias Agropecuarias y Forestales, Temuco, Chile b Visiting Professor and Researcher at the Universidad Católica de Santiago de Guayaquil, Guayaquil, Ecuador c Universidad de La Frontera, Scientific and Technological Bioresource Nucleus (BIOREN-UFRO), Temuco, Chile d Universidad de La Frontera, Núcleo Científico y Tecnológico en Ciencias Sociales, Centro de Excelencia en Psicología Económica y del Consumo, Temuco, Chile e Aarhus University, MAPP Centre, Aarhus, Denmark

A R T I C L E I N F O

Keywords: Satisfaction with food-related life Meal preparation Dyadic analysis Different-sex couples

A B S T R A C T

This paper reports the estimation of an Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (APIM), examining how meal preparation focus – measured by taste, context, and thrift–affect actor’s and partner’s satisfaction with food- related life (SWFRL) in cohabiting couples. Questionnaires were administered to 187 different-sex couples in Denmark. Both members of the couple reported their degree of agreement with a set of statements regarding meal production focus and the SWFRL scale. Using the APIM and structural equation modeling, we found that the woman’s SWFRL was positively associated with her own focus on taste in meal production (actor effect), as wells as by her partner’s focus on taste (partner effect). Women’s SWFRL was also positively associated with their own focus on physical context in meal production, and negatively by their partner’s focus on physical context. The man’s SWFRL only was positively associated with his own focus on physical context (actor effect) and by his partner’s focus on thrift in meal production (partner effect). These results suggest that meal-preparation focus relationships between members of a couple, through by both actor and partner effects, can effectively contribute to increase both their satisfaction with food-related life, and their well-being.

1. Introduction

An individual consumer’s satisfaction with food-related life (SWFRL) depends on a multitude of factors including food product quality and consumers’ focus on economic, gastronomic and contextual aspects of meal production (Hansen, Videbæk, & Bech-Larsen, 2019; Schnettler et al., 2015, 2016). The literature increasingly recognizes that consumer satisfaction and value in food marketing is co-produced (Heide & Olsen, 2011), meaning that value creation is a combination of quality food products and consumer’s meal production efforts. Food producers should also realize that the co-production of meals with consumers is a social phenomenon, that is, that most meals are made and/or consumed together with and/or in the presence of others, such as friends or family. Eating behaviors cannot be explained by individual determinants alone, as these behaviors often occur in a social context, where one person’s behavior is associated with behavior changes in another person (Radtke et al., 2019).

A shared environment can lead to similar eating patterns (Mötteli, Siegrist, & Keller, 2017). Research has found that individuals who share the same environment and experiences can influence each other’s eating habits, as it has been reported among members of the same fa- mily (Holsten, Deatrick, Kumanyika, Pinto-Martin, & Compher, 2012; Schnettler et al., 2017). There is little knowledge, however, of how the different determinants of SWFRL can influence this interdependence. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to examine how some of these determinants, and in particular such related to the meal preparation focus influence the SWFRL of individuals’ and their partners’ in dif- ferent-sex couples.

To understand interdependence in a dyad –two individuals in a relationship–, Kenny, Kashy, and Cook (2006) developed the Actor- Partner Interdependence Model (APIM) (Garcia, Kenny, & Ledermann, 2015). In the APIM, one variable outcome is predicted not only by the individuals’ own characteristics or behaviors (actor effect), but those of their partners’ as well (partner effect) (Kenny et al., 2006; van Eldik, de

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.103949 Received 24 January 2020; Received in revised form 20 March 2020; Accepted 29 March 2020

⁎ Corresponding authors at: Facultad de Ciencias Agropecuarias y Forestales, Universidad de La Frontera, PO Box 54-D, Temuco, Chile (B. Schnettler). MAPP Centre, Aarhus University, Fuglesangs Allé 4, DK-8210 Aarhus V, Denmark (Tino Bech-Larsen).

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (B. Schnettler), [email protected] (T. Bech-Larsen).

Food Quality and Preference 84 (2020) 103949

Available online 31 March 2020 0950-3293/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

T

Haan, Arends, Belsky, & Prinzie, 2019). The APIM has been used to investigate complex dynamics in family members and other close re- lationships (Cook & Kenny, 2005), such as cohabiting couples. An ex- ample of the basic model for actor-partner effect is illustrated in Fig. 1.

Examining the couple as a single unit of analysis, the APIM has been mainly used to study negative actor and partner effects in the interface between work and family (e.g., Xin, Chen, Kwan, Chiu, & Yim, 2018) and also between mental health and different types of satisfaction (e.g., Maroufizadeh, Hosseini, Foroushani, Omani-Samani, & Amini, 2018). While some of these studies have focused solely on unidirectional partner effect (e.g. husbands to wives), others have studied bidirec- tional partner effects (e.g. from husbands to wives and from wives to husbands) (Westman & Bakker, 2008). The bidirectional partner effect is especially relevant for different-sex partners in the same household, considered distinguishable dyads as they have different roles and tasks in the relationship (Côté, Gagnon-Girouard, Sabourin, & Bégin, 2018; Matias et al., 2017).

Research on eating behaviors in different-sex couples shows that partners can influence how their spouses regulate their own eating behaviors. Côté et al. (2018) found that individual emotion regulation plays an important role in the association between mood and food in- take, but also that the emotion regulation exerted by the individual’s partner is associated with food intake. Moreover, there can be asym- metric partner effects, meaning that one member of the couple influ- ences the other, but this influence is not mutual (Liu & Cheung, 2015). The literature reports that women are more influenced by their partner than men, suggesting that this is due to women being socialized to be more sensitive to relationships than their male counterparts (van Vleet, Helgeson, Korytkowski, Seltman, & Hausmann, 2018). Notwith- standing, men’s behaviors, particularly their eating habits, have also been found to be influenced by their female partners (Cornelius, Desrosiers, & Kershaw, 2016).

Actor and partner effects regarding the transmission of positive experiences have received considerably less attention than those studies focusing on negative experiences Rodríguez-Muñoz, Sanz-Vergel, Demerouti, & Bakker, 2014; Steiner &Krings 2016). However, there is increasing evidence showing that actor and partner effects also exist in the transmission of positive experiences, such as life satisfaction (Demerouti, Bakker, & Schaufeli, 2005) and happiness (Rodríguez- Muñoz et al., 2014). In terms of satisfaction with food-related life, there is evidence among cohabiting different-sex couples that this satisfaction is interdependent (Schnettler et al., 2020).

This interdependence can be explained by the possibility for com- mensality and participative meal preparation in dual-headed house- holds, which provides an arena where mutual care and companionship can be brandished and appreciated (Fischler, 2011). Furthermore, members of a couple in the same household depend on one another because they share social norms, implicit cues that establish the ac- cepted behaviors and common values surrounding eating habits and food choices in their shared environment (Mötteli et al., 2017). How- ever, Schnettler et al. (2020) reported asymmetrical effects in these relationships when examining satisfaction with life and with food-

related life. These researchers found that a man’s satisfaction with food- related life was positively associated with his own overall life sa- tisfaction (actor effect), as well as with his partner’s overall satisfaction with life (partner effect); while the woman’s satisfaction with food-re- lated life was positively associated with her own life satisfaction (actor effect), but not with her partner’s.

Food-related life in dual-headed households can also involve mul- tiple sources of potential conflict. Household disputes often originate in economic issues, such as food budget management, and in issues related to meal preparation, such as norms for partaking in cooking and for the tidiness and functionality of the kitchen (Bove, Sobal, & Rauschenbach, 2003; Nielsen & Holm, 2016). Food-related household disputes may also arise because men tend to differ from women in taste preferences, types and volumes of foods; for instance, men tend to consume more meat (Rozin, Hormes, Faith, & Wansink, 2012) than women, and both groups can have different perceptions of gender roles in relation to food preparation tasks. Thus, although many countries have seen a devel- opment towards gender equality in relation to food-related household work, reports show that women still spend more hours in the kitchen than men (Holm, Ekström, Hach, & Bøker Lund, 2015).

In consumption-related household surveys, sampling procedures mostly disregard incongruences between household members by fo- cusing on the individual. Important data can be missed when the survey involves issues where preferences regarding food preparation and consumption are likely to differ among household members (Grønhøj & Ölander, 2007; Seebauer, Fleiß, & Schweighart, 2017). To address this gap, the present study explored multiple factors that may influence the satisfaction with food-related life in both members of a different-sex couple. Using the APIM approach, we tested whether actors’ focus on the taste, physical context of meal preparation (e.g. the tidiness of the kitchen), and thrift (e.g. food budget) has a positive influence on the food-related life satisfaction of actors and partners alike. As the litera- ture suggests that these influences may be gendered and asymmetric in different-sex couples, the analyses are divided accordingly. Thus, the hypotheses illustrated in Fig. 2 and listed below are tested.

H1: A woman’s focus on taste in meal preparation is positively as- sociated with her food-related life satisfaction (actor effect). H2: A woman’s focus on taste in meal preparation is positively as- sociated with her partner’s food-related life satisfaction (partner effect). H3: A woman’s focus on the physical context of meal preparation is positively associated with her food-related life satisfaction (actor effect). H4: A woman’s focus on the physical context of meal preparation is positively associated with her partner’s food-related life satisfaction (partner effect). H5: A woman’s focus on thrift in meal preparation is positively as- sociated with her food-related life satisfaction (actor effect). H6: A woman’s focus on thrift in meal preparation is positively as- sociated with her partner’s food-related life satisfaction (partner effect).

Fig. 1. Basic actor-partner inter- dependence model of focus on taste and satisfaction with food-related life. Am: actor effect of men’s focus on taste on his own satisfaction with food-related life; Aw: actor effect of women’s focus on taste on her own satisfaction with food-related life; Pwm: partner effect of men’s focus on taste on women’s satisfaction with food- related life; Pmw: partner effect of wo- men’s focus on taste on men’s satisfaction with food-related life; Ew and Em: re- sidual errors on satisfaction for men and women, respectively.

B. Schnettler, et al. Food Quality and Preference 84 (2020) 103949

2

H7: A man’s focus on taste in meal preparation is positively asso- ciated with his food-related life satisfaction (actor effect). H8: A man’s focus on taste in meal preparation is positively asso- ciated with his partner’s food-related life satisfaction (partner ef- fect). H9: A man’s focus on the physical context of meal preparation is positively associated with his food-related life satisfaction (actor effect). H10: A man’s focus on the physical context of meal preparation is positively associated with his partner’s food-related life satisfaction (partner effect). H11: A man’s focus on thrift in meal preparation is positively as- sociated with his food-related life satisfaction (actor effect). H12: A man’s focus on thrift in meal preparation is positively as- sociated with his partner’s food-related life satisfaction (partner ef- fect).

2. Method

2.1. Sample and procedure

Two samples were used in this study. Sample 1 comprised 1375 adult (+18 years old) Danish food consumers. These participants re- sponded to an online survey conducted in the autumn of 2018 (Userneeds, 2020). Only respondents who stated responsibility for meal preparation responded to this survey, and within this population, data were quota-sampled regarding gender, age, and education level (Table 1) to represent the general Danish consumer population. Apart from data applied in other publications (e.g., Hansen et al., 2019),

participants in Sample 1 reported data relating to their SWFRL, and to their focus on the taste, physical context, and thrift of meal preparation. Sample 1 was thus used for the psychometric analysis of above mea- sures of focus.

Sample 2 was used to conduct the APIM analysis. This sample in- cluded participants from Sample 1 and their partners. This second sample was composed of 374 respondents making up 187 dyads, that is, respondents to the first questionnaire and their corresponding partner. Of the 1375 respondents in sample 1, 964 represented a household with a cohabiting different-sex couple where both had responsibility for meal production, regardless of the legal status of their relationship, and these participants were asked to recruit their partner to also answer the questionnaire, two weeks later. To prevent bias, participants who re- sponded to the first questionnaire were asked beforehand not to discuss the contents of the questionnaire with their partner. Due to this

Fig. 2. Conceptual model for the actor-partner interdependence model of the effect of Meal Production Focus on Satisfaction with Food-related Life (SWFRL) in couples. Ew and Em: residual errors on SWLS for the woman and man, respectively.

Table 1 Socio-demographic characteristics (%) of the samples.

Characteristic Sample 1 (n = 1375)

Sample 2 (Partner) (n = 374)

Gender (Female) Age (Years)

51.0 50.0

18–35 33.3 19.8 36–50 31.7 39.8 50+ 35.0 39.4 Education (highest level achieved) Elementary 24.0 22.0 High school/intermediate 48.7 32.8 College/University 32.3 45.2

B. Schnettler, et al. Food Quality and Preference 84 (2020) 103949

3

sampling procedure, there were differences in the socio-demographic characteristics of the two samples (Table 1). However, the over- representation of middle-aged individuals in sample 2, compared to sample 1, correspond to the fact that more young and old people live in single person households (Danmarks Statistik, 2016).

2.2. Instruments

As part of a larger survey on food quality perceptions (Hansen et al., 2019), both members of the respondent couple were asked to respond to measures of meal production focus and Satisfaction with food-related life. For both these measures, participants were asked to indicate their degree of agreement with the statements listed below using a 7-point Likert scale (1: completely disagree; 7: completely agree).

‐ Meal Production Focus measures. This is a set of nine statements, some of which have been used in previous studies (e.g., Hansen et al., 2019) while others are new items that have not been psychome- trically tested previously. These statements cover three aspects of meal production: Taste (Items: 1. When I'm cooking, it's first and foremost the taste that's important, 2. I distinguish between the different taste nuances in a course, 3. Eating for me is a matter of touching, tasting, smelling and seeing. All the senses are included. It is truly an exciting experience); Physical context (Items: 4. My kitchen is always clean and tidy, 5. There is sufficient table space in my kitchen, 6. I have a nice kitchen where I feel comfortable), and Thrift (Items: 7. I'm good at managing the food budget, 8. I utilize my raw materials well, almost nothing goes to waste, 9. I do everything I can to avoid throwing food out).

Thrift in meal production relates to the purchase of food, but also to a sensible use of ingredients and leftovers. Whereas such behaviors have been related to environmental as well as to economic concerns (Bech-Larsen; Kulikovskaja & Ascheman-Witzel, 2019), Visschers, Wickli, and Siegrist (2016) found that consumers’ avoidance of food waste is driven mainly by motives related to economic concerns and thrift.

‐ Satisfaction with Food-related Life (SWFRL). This scale was proposed by Grunert, Dean, Raats, Nielsen, and Lumbers (2007), and it con- sists of five items: 1. Food and meals are positive elements, 2. I am generally pleased with my food, 3. My life in relation to food and meals is close to ideal, 4. With regard to food, the conditions of my life are ex- cellent, 5. Food and meals give me satisfaction in daily life. Participants read the following introductory phrase (following Grunert et al., 2007) before responding the five items: “Please think of all the things you do and experience in relation to food and meals (e.g., planning meals, shopping, preparing meals, eating meals) and then, using the 1–7 scale below, indicate your agreement with each item.” The SWFRL scale has demonstrated good internal consistency in previous studies with adults in different European (Grunert et al., 2007), Latin American (Schnettler et al., 2015, 2017, 2020) and Asian (Liu & Grunert, 2020) countries.

2.3. Statistical analyses

Descriptive analyses were conducted using SPSS v.23. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), structural equation model (SEM) and the actor- partner interdependence model (APIM) using structural equation model (SEM) were conducted using MPlus 7.11. Parameters of the measure- ment models and structural models were estimated using the Robust Maximum Likelihood (MLR) given that the Likert scale has more than five points (Raykov, 2012).

To evaluate the psychometric properties of the three measures for meal production focus, two models were estimated and compared ac- cording to their fit indices: A three correlated factors model, and a one-

dimensional model. The Omega coefficient was used to examine the reliability as internal consistency of the factors (McDonald, 1970). The average variance extracted (AVE) measured the proportion of variance extracted by a latent factor, compared to the total variance of that factor, including the variances of the measurement error of the factor items. When the AVE is less than 0.50, the variance due to measurement error is greater than the variance due to the construct (Lévy, Martín, & Román, 2006). The AVE values of each factor were compared with the squared interconstruct correlations with other factors to stablish dis- criminant validity (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2014). Convergent validity was found by inspecting the standardized factor loadings of each factor (ideally > 0.5) as well as their significance (Lévy et al., 2006).

To test the hypotheses, the APIM with distinguishable dyads was assessed using SEM (Kenny et al., 2006). The APIM utilizes the dyadic interaction as the unit of analysis (Kenny et al., 2006) so that three measures for meal production focus of each partner (independent variables) were viewed as potentially associated with both partner’s satisfaction with food-related life (dependent variables). In the APIM framework, each dyad member is considered to be an actor as well as a partner in the analysis (Kenny et al., 2006). The effect on satisfaction with food-related life of one member of the dyad is termed “actor ef- fects” when it relates to their own meal production focus measures, and “partner effects” when it relates to the measures of the other member of the dyad. The APIM controls for the extent to which one partner’s meal production focus measures is affected by the other partner’s measures, and vice versa, through a correlation between independent variables of each member of the dyad (i.e., the man’s and woman’s three meal production focus measures). The APIM also includes correlations be- tween the residuals errors of the dependent variables of each member of the dyad, which controls for other sources of interdependence between partners (Kenny et al., 2006).

We used the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) and the comparative fit index (CFI) to determine the model fit of the data. Both the TLI and CFI in- dicated a good fit with a value above 0.95, while 0.90 was considered a cut-off point for establishing an acceptable fit. In addition, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was considered. The RMSEA is a poorness-of-fit measurement. A good fit is found when the value of the RMSEA is lower than 0.06, whereas an acceptable fit cor- responds to a value lower than 0.08 (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Marsh, Hau, & Grayson, 2005).

Finally, using the Model Constraint command of Mplus, we de- termined statistical significance of pairwise comparison of relationships (path coefficients) of the variables focus on taste, focus on physical context, and focus on thrift of each member of the dyad on their own SWFRL and on their partner’s SWFRL. In total, we conducted six pair- wise comparisons.

3. Results

3.1. Psychometric properties of the meal production focus measures

The fit indices of two models were tested for sample 1 (n = 1375). The one-dimensional model had bad fit to the data (CFI = 0.697, TLI = 0.597, RMSEA = 0.143), whereas the three factors model had and acceptable fit to the data (CFI = 0.939, TLI = 0.908, RMSEA = 0.068).

Confirmatory factor analysis of the three factors model indicated that all standardized factor loadings were statistically significant (Table 2); thus, it was concluded there was convergent validity. Table 3 shows reliabilities of the three factors of meal production focus mea- sures (Omega coefficients close or above 0.7). Moreover, the three factors also satisfied the AVE values (close or above to 0.5). As evidence of discriminant validity, all AVE estimates are greater than the corre- sponding interconstruct squared correlation estimates (above the di- agonal) (Table 3). The difference between fit indices of three factors

B. Schnettler, et al. Food Quality and Preference 84 (2020) 103949

4

model and the one-dimensional model point in the same direction (Bagozzi, 1980), as the 95% confidence limit to the correlations among factors which do not have the value 1 in the range. Therefore, the discriminant validity of factors is supported.

3.2. APIM results

The model that assessed the APIM association between both mem- bers of a couple’s meal production focus measures and their satisfaction with food-related life had fit indices that showed a sufficient fit with the data (CFI = 0.921; TLI = 0.906; RMSEA = 0.090). The explained variance by the model was 76.9% in women and 41.6% in men.

Significant correlations (covariances) were found for both members of the couple for the factors taste (r = 0.600, p = 0.000), physical context (r = 0.601, p = 0.000), and thrift (r = 0.465, p = 0.000). While the SWFRL of women and men was significantly correlated (r = 0.286, p = 0.000), the residual error was not statistically sig- nificant (r = −0.011, p = 0.94).

Inspection of all item loadings indicated no issues with the mea- surement model. The significant results from the estimation of the APIM model are shown in Fig. 3. In the case of women, path coefficient in- dicated that a woman’s focus on taste in meal production was positively associated with her own level of satisfaction with food-related life (γ = 0.312, p = 0.028), thus supporting the H1. On the contrary, path coefficients indicated that woman’s focus on taste in meal production was not significantly associated with her partner’s level of satisfaction with food-related life (γ = 0.231, p = 0.086), and thus not supporting H2.

The path coefficient indicate that a woman’s focus on the physical context of meal preparation was positively associated with their own level of satisfaction with food-related life (γ = 0.600, p = 0.006), thus supporting the H3. On the contrary, path coefficients indicate that fe- male’s focus on the physical context was not significantly associated with her partner’s level of satisfaction with food-related life (γ = −0.325, p = 0.083), not supporting H4.

Path coefficients indicate that a women’s focus on thrift in meal

preparation was not significantly associated with their own level of satisfaction with food-related life (γ = −0.044, p = 0.794), thus not supporting H5. Path coefficients indicate that woman’s focus on thrift in meal preparation was positively associated with her partner’s level of satisfaction with food-related life (γ = 0.371, p = 0.019), supporting H6.

The path coefficient indicate that a man’s focus on taste in meal production was not significantly associated with his own level of sa- tisfaction with food-related life (γ = 0.320, p = 0.067). Considering the relative small sample size, and that the p-value is approaching the chosen significance level, a clean rejection of H7 is deemed premature.

Interestingly, man’s focus on taste in meal production was positively associated with his partner’s level of satisfaction with food-related life (γ = 0.687, p = 0.000), and thus supporting H8.

The path coefficient indicates that a man’s focus on the physical context of meal preparation was positively associated with his own level of satisfaction with food-related life (γ = 0.512, p = 0.003), thus supporting the H9. On the contrary, path coefficients indicate that man’s focus on the physical context was negatively associated with his partner’s level of satisfaction with food-related life (γ = −0.530, p = 0.009), not supporting H10.

Path coefficients indicate that a man’s focus on thrift in meal pre- paration was not significantly associated with his own level of sa- tisfaction with food-related life (γ = −0.280, p = 0.125), neither with this partner’s food-related life satisfaction (γ = −0.205, p = 0.332). Therefore, both H11 and H12 were not supported.

Regarding gender differences in actor and partner effects, the effect of women’s focus on physical context on their own SWFRL was sig- nificantly higher than the effect of men’s focus on physical context on women’s SWFRL (p < 0.01). The effect of men’s focus on physical context on their own SWFRL was significantly higher than the effect of women’s focus on physical context on men’s SWFRL (p < 0.05). The effect of women’s focus on thrift on men’s SWFRL was significantly higher than the effect of men’s focus on thrift on their SWFRL (p < 0.05). No other significant differences were found by gender.

4. Discussion

Given that food-related life occurs in a social context, the results of this study show the relevance of examining the interdependence be- tween partners in the study of food-related behaviors and perceptions. This study contributes to understanding how the meal preparation focus of men and women in different-sex couples influence their own (actor effect) and their partner’s (partner effect) satisfaction with food related life (SWFRL). Using the APIM approach, our findings show, as it was hypothesized, that the woman’s SWFRL was positively associated with her own focuses on taste and physical context in meal production …

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food Quality and Preference

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodqual

The associations between genetics, salt taste perception and salt intake in young adults

Leta Pilica,⁎, Nicole Jane Lubasinskia, Melis Berka, Delia Warda, Catherine Anna-Marie Grahamb, Viviane Da Silva Anastacioa, Alexandra Kinga, Yiannis Mavrommatisa

a Faculty of Sport, Health and Applied Science, St Mary’s University Twickenham, UK b Oxford Brookes Centre for Nutrition and Health, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Department of Sport, Health and Social Work, Oxford Brookes University, Oxfordshire, UK

A R T I C L E I N F O

Keywords: Genetics Preference Salt intake SCNN1B Taste TRPV1

A B S T R A C T

<

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.