Consum Behav When Eating Out

British Food JournalConsumers' behaviors when eating out: Does eating out change consumers' intention to eat healthily?Jinkyung Choi Jinlin Zhao

Article information:To cite this document:Jinkyung Choi Jinlin Zhao , (2014),"Consumers' behaviors when eating out", British Food Journal, Vol. 116 Iss 3 pp. 494 -509Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-06-2012-0136

Downloaded on: 30 March 2015, At: 00:07 (PT)References: this document contains references to 55 other documents.To copy this document: [email protected] fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1372 times since 2014*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Daniel Carvalho de Rezende, Matheus Alberto Rodrigues Silva, (2013),"Eating-out and experiential consumption:a typology of experience providers", British Food Journal, Vol. 116 Iss 1 pp. 91-103 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-02-2012-0027Katherine Anderson, Miranda Mirosa, (2014),"Revealing barriers to healthier fast food consumption choices", British FoodJournal, Vol. 116 Iss 5 pp. 821-831 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-11-2012-0269Justin Paul, Jyoti Rana, (2012),"Consumer behavior and purchase intention for organic food", Journal of ConsumerMarketing, Vol. 29 Iss 6 pp. 412-422 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363761211259223

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 458072 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors serviceinformation about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Pleasevisit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio ofmore than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of onlineproducts and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on PublicationEthics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by B

CU B

UCU

REST

I At 0

0:07

30

Mar

ch 2

015

(PT)

Consumers behaviors wheneating out

Does eating out change consumers intention toeat healthily?

Jinkyung ChoiDepartment of Foodservice Management, Woosong University, Daejeon,

South Korea, and

Jinlin ZhaoChaplin School of Hospitality and Tourism Management,Florida International University, Miami, Florida, USA

Abstract

Purpose The present study aimed to discover whether there are any differences among people inhealthy eating and nutrition consciousness when they eat out at restaurants. Also, the study aimed todetermine what relationship exists between consumers lifestyle and their behavioral intention to eathealthily when dining out. In addition, the study investigated the relationships between restaurantattributes and consumers intention to eat healthily when dining out.

Design/methodology/approach This study posits that restaurant attributes have an impact onconsumers intention to order healthy meals at a restaurant. Questionnaires were distributed andcollected over a two-month period in south Florida. Respondents were asked to indicate on a five-pointscale their considerations when selecting a restaurant and particular ingredients in the food whendining out. The study analyzed the data using one-way ANOVA and Games-Howell test in order tofind that considerations about nutritional components when choosing a meal at a restaurant. Also,multiple regression was run to determine the relationship between lifestyle and restaurant attributesand intention to order healthy food at a restaurant.

Findings Most of the respondents (76.5 percent) were concerned about their weight; however, only26.7 percent of the respondents were actually on a diet. Of the respondents 33 percent knew aboutMyPyramid (USDA), which is an updated version of the Food Pyramid (USDA). Based on the results ofone-way ANOVA and Games-Howell test, the study found that considerations about nutritionalcomponents when choosing a meal at a restaurant differed according to consumers knowledge ofhealth issues, weight concerns, gender, age, and marital status. Also, the results of multiple regressionsuggested that lifestyle, offering variety of healthy food, and services were significant predictors ofconsumers intention to order healthy food at a restaurant, whereas other attributes of restaurantswere not significant predictors for the ordering of healthy food.

Originality/value This study has contributed unique and extended conclusions from previousstudies and has given consumers a better understanding about particular nutritional components inorder for them to take advantage of the recent trend in more healthy foods being available atrestaurants. The results of this study revealed that restaurants marketing strategies for healthy foodneed to target consumers whose lifestyle promotes a healthy life in terms of regular exercise, dietaryplans, or eating food considering the FoodPyramid, rather than target consumers whose lifestyle isless healthy. However, the results of this study also suggest that the offering of healthy food and goodservices do have effect on consumers consideration to order healthy food.

Keywords Health, Food, Ingredients, Lifestyle, Restaurant, Dining out

Paper type Research paper

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0007-070X.htm

BFJ116,3

494

Received 1 June 2012Revised 20 September 201224 November 2012Accepted 27 November 2012

British Food JournalVol. 116 No. 3, 2014pp. 494-509q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0007-070XDOI 10.1108/BFJ-06-2012-0136

Dow

nloa

ded

by B

CU B

UCU

REST

I At 0

0:07

30

Mar

ch 2

015

(PT)

IntroductionMore consumers have recently become aware of healthy food and its relation to theirphysical health in America. A survey found that 35 percent of the populationnationwide carefully plans their meals to be nutritious, which is up from 32 percent in2001 (Ruggless, 2003). Individuals with nutrition consciousness will choose carefullywhich particular ingredients they want to avoid. In the study conducted by Eckel et al.(2009), the majority of respondents (62 percent) were concerned with both the amountand the type of fat they consume. Many consumers are now trying to eat healthy foodnot only at home, but also at restaurants (Cobe, 2006; Yuksel and Yuksel, 2002). Inaddition, Bhuyans study (2011) hypothesized that if an individual is concerned withnutrition, then such a person is less likely to eat out frequently, supporting the findingsfrom Binkleys study (2006). Consumers are trying to keep a healthy lifestyle evenwhen they are away from their daily routine. However, eating healthily at restaurantsmight not be the same as when individuals eat at home. It has been shown thatconsumers eating habits at home were much healthier than their food choices inrestaurants ( Jones, 2010). It is well-known that both the increase in the number ofmeals eaten in restaurants and the decrease in the number of meals eaten at home hasbeen linked to higher levels of obesity (Chouinard et al., 2010).

Then, the question arises: What causes consumers to eat less healthily atrestaurants or vice versa? Diners often disregard the nutritional value of food atrestaurants since they feel that they do not dine out very often. Consumers havedifferent degrees of needs and desires when deciding where to dine out and what to eat.These differences cause consumers to select restaurants/food in different ways.Bhuyans study (2011) showed that ones lifestyle did, in fact, influence ones behaviorwhen eating out. The idea that peoples lifestyle and work life do influence their healthwas introduced as a part of the WHO Ottawa charter on health promotion in 1986(Mikkelsen, 2011). In other words, the environment around an individual and food canaffect someones food behavior. According to the notion of foodscape, foodenvironments can influence consumers food choices and food behavior to supporthealthier eating (Mikkelsen, 2011).

Therefore, the present study aimed to discover whether the environment of therestaurant impacts consumers intention to eat healthily when dining out. In otherwords, the study investigated the relationships between restaurant attributes andconsumers intention to eat healthily when dining out and determined whatrelationship exists between consumers lifestyle related to health conscious behaviorand their behavioral intention to eat healthily when dining out. In addition, the studyinvestigated if there are any differences among people in healthy eating and nutritionconsciousness when they eat out at restaurants.

Factors influencing healthy eating behaviors at restaurantsHealth behavior can be explained as a complex system of health conscious behaviorssuch as exercise, psychic health, hygiene, avoidance of harmful recreational drugs, andconscious dietary choices (Szakaly et al., 2012). This behavior can also be described ashealthy habitual behaviors brought by needs and motivation in relation to health(Baum et al., 1997). Raine (2005) claimed that healthy eating models utilizing Theory ofPlanned Behavior, Social Cognitive Theory, and the Transtheoretical model predictingindividual dietary intake needed more explanation. According to Mikkelsen (2011),

Behaviors wheneating out

495

Dow

nloa

ded

by B

CU B

UCU

REST

I At 0

0:07

30

Mar

ch 2

015

(PT)

food and meals in our environment are embedded in complex physical, social, andcultural contexts, which suggests that interactions with people, spaces, and food allinfluence consumers eating behavior. The social ecological framework shows that thedietary environment considers all the influences of contextual factors includingpersonal influences, social influences, and the ability of the individual to adapt to theseinfluences (Glanz and Bishop, 2010). Some researchers have pointed out that a varietyof family and social factors influence adolescents eating behaviors; that eatingbehavior was conceptualized as a function of the social and physical environments(Story et al., 2002). Adema (2009) said that foodscape implicates the multipleinformative historic and contemporary personal, social, political, cultural, andeconomic forces that inform how people think about and use (or eschew) food invarious spaces they inhabit. In agreement with the notion of foodscape, Sobal andWansink (2007) suggested that a micro view of foodscape could cover domestic levelswhich include kitchen, table, plate, and food. Glanz et al. (2005) categorized foodenvironments into four elements: community, consumer, organization, andinformation. The elements of consumer can be explained as elements affectingconsumers, which include availability of healthy options, price, etc. (Glanz et al., 2005).Foodscape also includes all the places and context that food is being consumed(Johansson et al., 2009), and acts of eating including service (Winson, 2004). Therefore,it could be hypothesized that behaviors at restaurants could be affected bysurroundings such as taste, service, cleanliness, ambience, variety of healthy foodoptions in menus, price, and portion.

Taste is one of the most used attributes to measure consumer preference in selectinga food/restaurant. Previous research has shown that the most important factordetermining whether a consumer will return to a restaurant was the taste/quality of thefood (Soriano, 2003; Sulek and Hensley, 2004). The sensory aspect of food was the mostimportant criterion in food choice decisions (Steptoe and Pollard, 1995), and also forselecting organic food (Torjusen et al., 2001). The importance of taste did not differbetween obese and non-obese respondents in European countries (Perez-Cueto et al.,2010). Jones (2010) found that taste was the most important consideration whendeciding healthy food choices. In addition, taste was more important to thoseconsumers whose food choices did not involve the food itself compared with thosewhose choices were made from their rational thoughts about food in a food choicesegmentation study (Szakaly et al., 2012).

Concerning dining out, people are constantly looking for comfort as well as qualityand an enjoyable environment (Cullen, 2004; Kivela et al., 2000; Soriano, 2003; Sulekand Hensley, 2004). However, Soriano (2003) claimed that offering good food andquality service were not enough to attract consumers and that restaurants shouldprovide meals with good value in a favorable ambience. Previous studies (Alonso andONeill, 2010; Barta, 2008; Cullen, 2004) showed that attractive decor and atmospherealso influenced consumers restaurant choices. Alonso and ONeill (2010) found that therestaurant environment affected consumers choice of restaurant including comfortand cleanliness, which also influenced consumers perception of food safety atrestaurants.

Restaurant patrons remember cleanliness issues longer and were more likely toavoid a dirty restaurant in the future (Wakefield and Blodgett, 1996). A studyconducted by Knight et al. (2007) found that people who perceived that a restaurant

BFJ116,3

496

Dow

nloa

ded

by B

CU B

UCU

REST

I At 0

0:07

30

Mar

ch 2

015

(PT)

was not at all committed to food safety were less likely to choose the restaurant wheneating out. Along with this result, Henson et al. (2006) found that cleanliness was themost important determinant for consumers when considering restaurant food safety.Also, Kivela et al. (2000) and Cullen (2004) found that cleanliness of the restaurant wasa significant factor for consumers when deciding where to dine out.

Bowen and Morris (1995) said that the menu is an effective tool for increasingrevenue for the restaurant. In the study conducted by Sparks et al. (2003), almost 55percent of the respondents said that eating healthy food was very important. Also,about half of the respondents (51 percent) indicated that they ordered the healthiermenu items at least some of the time when dining at restaurants (Eckel et al., 2009).Several commercial food service providers have been offering healthy menu items toattract consumers who are health conscious (Cox, 2005). Kahn and Wansink (2004)reported that various types of candy just by its color led people to subsequently eatmore candy because they expected to enjoy it more. With the same notion, peoplemight select or try healthy food if there are various healthy foods offered on the menusat restaurants. In addition, providing healthy foods positively influenced consumersfrequency of dining out (Bhuyan, 2011). Therefore it is important to offer a variety ofhealthy meals to attract consumers who are looking for different types of healthy mealsand so to satisfy their need for nutrition and new experiences.

Consumers decide what to eat and how much to eat in accordance with their feelings(Jansen et al., 2008; Just et al., 2007). In other words, feelings or mood play a critical rolewhen people decide what to eat and how much to eat at restaurants (Steptoe andPollard, 1995). Eating out at restaurants, consumers buy not just a product but also aservice, which influence their behaviors. Therefore, consumers irrational behaviorscan be explained by their feelings about the products and services at restaurants(Bhuyan, 2011). Bhuyans study (2011) showed that good service impacted consumersfrequency of eating out, and service excellence was one of the significant predictionsfor consumers to return to the restaurant (Kivela et al., 2000). A study found thatEuropean consumers showed more emotional attachment to food when seekingself-fulfillment in food (Perez-Cueto et al., 2010). In addition, non-obese respondents,more than obese respondents, considered social relationships as being an importantpurchasing motive. Furthermore, service at a restaurant influenced consumersintention to order healthy food, supporting previous studies that showed thatinterpersonal issues such as service did have a positive effect on healthy eating(Baranowski et al., 1999; Davison and Birch, 2001; Payette and Shatenstein, 2005). Notonly family but also social encounters can affect eating behaviors (Polivy and Herman,2005; Payette and Shatenstein, 2005).

Service cannot be evaluated before it is experienced, but price can represent foodand service before consumers experience them. Price might not be an absolutepredictor for the quality of the food and service; however, it can be a good indicator toconsumers who have not previously dined at the restaurant. Pedraja and Yague (2001)found that consumers search for information on a restaurant especially if there areprice differences among restaurants. Previous research examining healthy food choicebehaviors found that choices were often weighed by the cost of the healthy food(Epstein et al., 2007; Epstein et al., 2006; Chouinard et al., 2010). This might be thereason that the issue of eating healthy food is considered sometimes only after essentialhuman needs have been met. Energy dense food (high fat and sugar but low in fruit


497

Dow

nloa

ded

by B

CU B

UCU

REST

I At 0

0:07

30

Mar

ch 2

015

(PT)

and vegetables) is cheaper than healthy food in Europe (Darmon et al., 2004). Recenttrends in organic food shows that organic food costs more than non-organic products.In a study asking about willingness to pay a premim for organic products, about 27percent of the respondents answered that they would not consume organic productsbecause of the high price (Diaz et al., 2012). Obese respondents rated price as animportant element when choosing healthy food compared to non-obese respondents ofEuropean countries (Perez-Cueto et al., 2010). Furthermore, women were less influencedby price when they had dietary restraints than when they had no dietary restraints(Steptoe and Pollard, 1995). Hence, price can be one of the important restaurantattributes for consumers regarding their food behaviors at restaurants.

In addition, portion size has been a driving force in attracting consumers torestaurants, and it has been used as a marketing tool. A large portion size attractsconsumers and it has led to restaurant success in the past. According to a studyconducted by Cullen (2004), the portion size of the food is a more important attribute tothe young age group since this group is likely to consume food based on priceconsiderations. Small portion size was one of the health issue attributes influencingrestaurant selection by travelers (Gregoire et al., 1995). It has been argued that smallerportion sizes might not be enough for sustenance although small portion sizesencourage consumers to select healthier choices at restaurants ( Jones, 2010). A group ofmothers in particular expressed their belief that small portion sizes were not largeenough and caused the need for a snack to dispel hunger ( Jones, 2010). However,increases in the portion sizes of food caused an increase in body weight due to thehigher calories than smaller portions (Young and Nestle, 2002). Larger portions mightencourage consumers to finish the food presented to them while smaller portions mightcause them to eat healthily at restaurants. For example, larger portion sizes encourageconsumers to eat more calories and to underestimate those calories (Wansink andChandon, 2006). For this reason, this study hypothesized that portion size is viewed asan attribute of the health issue influencing consumers to eat healthily at restaurants.

In a restaurant setting, it is possible that the attributes of the restaurant might havean impact on consumers choice of food or restaurant regardless of their routinelifestyle of staying healthy (Mikkelsen, 2011; Sobal and Wansink, 2007). Therefore,based on reviews of previous studies, this study hypothesized as follows:

H1. The attributes of a restaurant affect consumers intention to eat healthily at arestaurant.

H2. Consumers intention to eat healthily when dining out at a restaurant isaffected by their lifestyle related to health behaviors.

H3. Consumers consideration of certain ingredients when dining out at arestaurant differs by their level of concern with healthy eating.

MethodsQuestionnaireThe role of attitudinal research in determining food choice behavior is unclear becausepeople may be unaware of how much influence a particular factor has on theirbehavior. The present study used level of concern about certain nutrients such assugar, sodium, MSG, and transfats to measure intention to eat healthily at restaurants.These nutrients were utilized to avoid possible contradictions when salad was asked

BFJ116,3

498

Dow

nloa

ded

by B

CU B

UCU

REST

I At 0

0:07

30

Mar

ch 2

015

(PT)

about as a healthy dish at a restaurant. A plate of salad can be either healthy orunhealthy based on the amount of salad dressing or the particular ingredients in thesalad. Therefore, this study specifically asked about level of concern about particularnutrients in the ordering of food at a restaurant. In order to measure the effect ofconsumers lifestyles related to health behavior on eating healthily at restaurants,questions were asked about peoples involvement in a healthy lifestyle. The questionsasked if they had regular workouts, dietary plans, including taking dietarysupplements, and meals based on the FoodPyramid. In addition, the authors gearedthree questions towards issues of healthy eating: being on a diet, consideration ofpersonal weight, and consuming food with awareness of MyPyramid. Then theyincorporated questions regarding the demographics of the restaurant patrons.

According to the notion of foodscape, environments around food can influenceeating behaviors (Mikkelsen, 2011; Sobal and Wansink, 2007); hence, restaurantattributes were selected in order to predict what influenced consumers healthy eatingbehavior when dining at a restaurant. A questionnaire was developed based on athorough review of the previous studies (Barta, 2008; Bhuyan, 2011; Cullen, 2004;Hearty et al., 2007; Mikkelsen, 2011; Sobal and Wansink, 2007). Seven items wereselected to investigate if these attributes of restaurants had any effect on elicitingconsumers healthy eating behavior when ordering food at a restaurant. Questionsabout restaurant selection criteria included taste, service, cleanliness, ambience,variety of healthy meals, price, and portion. All questions were measured on afive-point Likert scale rating from 1 (not important) to 5 (very important). Thequestionnaires were reviewed by ten randomly selected students and three facultymembers at the university to develop content validity.

Samples and data analysisThe questionnaires were distributed to full-service restaurants in South Florida andcollected in person by five field workers over a two-month period. The reason for thechoice of full-service restaurants for this study was that such restaurants provide awide range of food from burgers to steaks as well as vegetarian options. In addition,Bhuyan (2011) noted that full-service restaurants provide food in a sophisticatedatmosphere; however, no such quality is expected by consumers in limited food servicerestaurants. Therefore, this study chose full-service restaurants for the investigation ofthe impacts of restaurant environments on consumers food behavior. If this researchhad been done in Europe, a preponderance of younger, single, and better educateddiners than the national average would have been expected since they would reflect theacknowledged lifestyle and disposable income trends. Respondents were informed thattheir participation was voluntary and the results would be kept anonymous. Of the 396questionnaires distributed, 307 were collected, and 286 were used in the regressionanalyses after a data screening process.

Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS 20.0 and Microsoft Office Excel 2007.In order to assess consumers concerns about the ingredients in a meal when dining out,descriptive statistics, including frequency distribution as well as mean and standarddeviation, were used. To detect any differences in degree of concern about the ingredientsin the food between the groups who cared about health issues and those who cared littleabout health issues, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used. In order to measure therelationships among health behaviors and perception of the attributes of the restaurant,


499

Dow

nloa

ded

by B

CU B

UCU

REST

I At 0

0:07

30

Mar

ch 2

015

(PT)

multiple regressions were used. Health behavior was measured in four areas (dietaryschedule, food pyramid, exercise, and dietary supplements: Cronbachs alpha 0.77)based on a five-point Likert scale (1: not concerned, 5: extremely concerned). Intention toorder healthy food was measured by consciousness of ingredients (sugar, sodium, MSG,transfats, carbohydrates, calories: Cronbachs alpha 0.88).

ResultsDescription of the sampleThe largest percentage of respondents (approximately 35.9 percent) was in the agegroup, 30 to 39 years old (12.2 percent in the general population in Florida), followed bythe age group, 20 to 29 years old (27.1 percent; 12.8 percent in the general population inFlorida). About 63 percent of the respondents were aged between 20 to 39 years old.Considering that the population in Florida has a median age of 40.3 years old, therespondents in this study represented a younger population than the general populationin Florida. Married respondents made up 42.5 percent of the total respondents.Responding to the question asking for the highest level of education of the respondent,approximately one third (33.1 percent) of the respondents answered that they wereuniversity graduates who had completed 4 years after high school graduation at auniversity and had received a bachelors degree. This figure is about twice as high as inthe general population (16.8 percent) of Florida. Approximately 18.8 percent were highschool graduates (30.3 percent in the general population in Florida), 25.6 percent werecollege graduates (8.5 percent in the general population in Florida) who had completedtwo years of college after high school graduation and obtained an associates degree, and22.5 percent had completed graduate school (9.1 percent in the general population inFlorida), meaning that they had pursued a further degree in academia or a professionaldegree after obtaining a bachelors degree. Slightly more than a third (38.3 percent) of theparticipants earned more than $90,000 in annual family income, while about 50.5 percentof the respondents earned an income of less than $70,000. These demographiccharacteristics represented a higher level of education and a younger population than thegeneral population in Florida. Most of the respondents (76.5 percent) were concernedabout their weight; however, only 26.7 percent of the respondents were actually on a diet.This indicated that many people cared about their health on a daily basis, whether theywere on a diet or not. About 33 percent of the respondents knew about MyPyramid. Themajority of respondents were concerned about their health regardless of whether theyactually followed any dietary practices to attain and maintain good health.

Relationships among consumers healthy lifestyle, attributes of the restaurant, andconsideration of ordering healthy foodLifestyle and seven attributes of the restaurant were all regressed concerning theordering of healthy food. The model was significant, and significant effects of therestaurant attributes were found: service (Beta 0.16, t 2.21) and offering a varietyof healthy foods (Beta 0.13, t 2.59). The model accounted for 40 percent of thevariance in intentions. Table I shows that lifestyle, service, and offering a variety ofhealthy food options were significant predictors in eating healthily at a restaurant(F(12, 286) 28.84, p, 0.001, R 2 0.42; see Table II). Also, the greater the variety ofhealthy food options at a restaurant and the better the service, the more likely theindividual would be to pay attention to eating healthily when ordering food at a

BFJ116,3

500

Dow

nloa

ded

by B

CU B

UCU

REST

I At 0

0:07

30

Mar

ch 2

015

(PT)

restaurant. Therefore, hypothesis 1, which assumed that the attributes of a restaurantdo affect consumers intention to eat healthily at a restaurant, was partially supported.In order to find a relationship between consumers lifestyle and intention to orderhealthy food at restaurants, hierarchical regression analysis was used. The model wassignificant and accounted for 37 percent of the variance in intentions. Significanteffects were found between intention to eat healthily and lifestyle (Beta 0.67,t 13.0; see Table II). The results suggested that the higher an individualsengagement with a healthy lifestyle, the higher the intention to eat healthily atrestaurants. Hence, hypothesis 2, which assumed that consumers intention to eathealthily when dining out at a restaurant would be affected by their health consciouslifestyle, was supported.

Characteristics Frequency number Valid percentage

Gender (n 305)Female 150 50.8Male 155 49.2

Age (n 295)Under 20 years old 15 5.120-29 80 27.130-39 106 35.940-49 50 16.950 years old and above 44 14.9

Education level (n 293)High school 55 18.8College 75 25.6University 97 33.1Graduate school 66 22.5

Marital status (n 301)Single 171 56.8Married 128 42.5Others 2 0.7

Annual income (n 287)Under $30,000 36 12.5$30,000-50,000 61 21.3$50,001-70,000 48 16.7$70,001-90,000 32 11.1Over $90,000 110 38.3

Concerned about own weight (n 307)Yes 235 76.5No 72 23.5

Being on a diet (n 307)Yes 82 26.7No 225 73.3

Awareness of MyPyramid (n 306)Yes 101 33No 205 67

Table I.Demographic

composition of therespondents who

participated in a surveyto gauge considerations

of certain ingredientswhen dining at a

restaurant


501

Dow

nloa

ded

by B

CU B

UCU

REST

I At 0

0:07

30

Mar

ch 2

015

(PT)

Consciousness of ingredientsThe present study asked the respondents three binary questions: if they were on a diet, ifthey considered personal weight, and if they knew about MyPyramid. In addition, therespondents were rated on their degree of consideration of each ingredient on a five-pointLikert scale: sugar, sodium, MSG, transfats, carbohydrates, and calories. The results ofthe study showed that the respondents who were on a diet considered sugar (F(1,305) 14.01, p , 0.001), sodium(F(1, 304) 12.21, p , 0.01), MSG (F(1, 303) 5.62,p , 0:05), transfats (F(1, 302) 8.12, p , 0.01, carbohydrates(F(1, 305) 22.03,p , 0:001) and calories (F(1, 305) 24.81, p , 0.001) when they dined out atrestaurants. Their results were significantly different from those of the group who werenot on a diet. In addition, the respondents who considered personal weight showed greatdifferences in taking into account the following ingredients: sugar (F(1, 305) 18.01,p , 0:001), sodium (F(1, 304) 10.87, p , 0.01), MSG (F(1, 303) 14.55, p , 0.001),transfats (F(1, 302) 24.19, p, 0.001, carbohydrates (F(1, 305) 25.65, p, 0.001), andcalories (F(1, 305) 36.47, p , 0.001). The respondents who knew MyPyramidsignificantly considered sugar (F(1, 304) 8.09, p , 0.01), sodium (F(1, 303) 5.71,p , 0:05), transfats (F(1, 301) 5.22, p , 0.05, and carbohydrates (F(1, 304) 4.09,p , 0:05) compared to those who were not aware of MyPyramid. Therefore, H3,consumers consideration of certain ingredients when dining out at a restaurant differingby their level of concern with healthy eating, was supported (see Table III).

Table IV shows that significances were found in gender, age, and marital status.Females and males were significantly different in consciousness of calories (F(1,303) 5.139, p , 0.05) when dining at a restaurant. Those under 20 years old andbetween 20-39 years old were significantly less conscious of MSG than those over 40years old; however, people aged between 20-39 years old showed a similarconsciousness of MSG to those more than 50 years old (see Table IV). Educational levelshowed significance between university and graduate school in determining calorieswhen ordering food at restaurants. However, marital status and annual income did notshow any significance in consciousness of ingredients in the ordering of food at arestaurant.

Predictor B SE t R R 2 F

Step 1:Constant 1.28 0.17 7.43Life style 0.65 0.05 0.61 13.00 * * 0.61 0.37 174.37 * *

Step 2:Constant 0.21 0.53 0.40Life style 0.57 0.06 0.54 10.30 * *

Taste 20.01 0.10 20.00 -0.08Service 0.16 0.07 0.14 2.21 *

Cleanliness 0.06 0.08 0.04 0.76Ambience 20.09 0.06 20.07 21.34Offering variety of healthy food 0.13 0.05 0.14 2.59 *

Price 0.06 0.05 0.06 1.20Portion 0.00 0.05 0.00 20.01 0.64 0.40 24.80 * *

Note: *p , 0.05; * *p , 0.001

Table II.Hierarchical regressionanalysis: variablespredicting healthy foodordering behaviors(unstandardized andstandardized coefficients)

BFJ116,3

502

Dow

nloa

ded

by B

CU B

UCU

REST

I At 0

0:07

30

Mar

ch 2

015

(PT)

Hea

lth

yea

tin

gis

sues

Bei

ng

ona

die

tN

otb

ein

gon

ad

iet

Con

sid

erp

erso

nal

wei

gh

t

Not

con

sid

erp

erso

nal

wei

gh

tA

war

enes

sof

My

Py

ram

id

Not

awar

eof

My

Py

ram

id

Ing

red

ien

tsM

ean

SD

Mea

nS

DM

ean

SD

Mea

nS

DM

ean

SD

Mea

nS

D

Su

gar

3.59

1.15

**

*2.

901.

333.

871.

05*

**

3.27

1.25

3.71

1.14

**

3.29

1.25

Sod

ium

3.40

1.21

**

2.83

1.44

3.68

1.18

**

3.11

1.30

3.51

1.24

*3.

141.

30M

SG

3.59

1.19

*2.

941.

433.

721.

28*

**

3.33

1.26

3.49

1.28

3.41

1.28

Tra

ns

fat

3.94

1.07

**

3.17

1.42

4.09

1.06

**

*3.

651.

243.

991.

15*

3.66

1.22

Car

boh

yd

rate

s3.

591.

15*

**

2.78

1.31

3.93

1.06

**

*3.

201.

243.

601.

23*

3.30

1.22

Cal

orie

s3.

721.

06*

**

2.81

1.33

4.05

0.98

**

*3.

311.

203.

661.

133.

431.

22

Notes

:* p,

0.05

;*

* p,

0.01

;*

** p,

0.00

1

Table III.Mean standard deviation(SD) of considerations ofingredients when dining

at a restaurant regardinghealthy eating issues of

the respondents usingANOVA


503

Dow

nloa

ded

by B

CU B

UCU

REST

I At 0

0:07

30

Mar

ch 2

015

(PT)

Su

gar

Sod

ium

MS

GT

ran

sfa

tC

arb

ohy

dra

tes

Cal

orie

sD

epen

den

tv

aria

ble

sM

ean

SD

Mea

nS

DM

ean

SD

Mea

nS

DM

ean

SD

Mea

nS

D

Gender

*

Fem

ale

3.47

1.20

3.20

1.27

3.43

1.28

3.79

1.21

3.51

1.23

3.67

1.16

a

Mal

e3.

401.

263.

341.

313.

431.

283.

751.

203.

301.

223.

361.

20b

Age

*

Un

der

20y

ears

old

2.73

1.28

2.47

1.46

2.47

1.13

c3.

271.

622.

731.

393.

601.

1820

-29

3.34

1.23

3.12

1.25

3.23

1.30

ce3.

671.

313.

421.

283.

521.

3030

-39

3.47

1.17

3.18

1.25

3.33

1.28

ce3.

711.

143.

341.

193.

421.

1940

-49

3.54

1.34

3.64

1.31

3.94

1.25

d4.

081.

033.

441.

203.

561.

1550

yea

rsol

dan

dab

ove

3.40

1.23

3.40

1.33

3.73

1.15

de

3.86

1.21

3.64

1.26

3.55

1.13

Education

level

Hig

hsc

hoo

l3.

151.

283.

041.

413.

131.

353.

541.

453.

181.

323.

421.

29C

olle

ge

3.47

1.33

3.37

1.32

3.57

1.24

3.76

1.20

3.56

1.21

3.69

1.20

Un

iver

sity

3.37

1.18

3.25

1.28

3.66

1.27

3.82

1.11

3.30

1.28

3.27

1.23

f

Gra

du

ate

sch

ool

3.59

1.11

3.30

1.17

3.20

1.24

3.83

1.17

3.56

1.05

3.74

0.92

g

Maritalstatus

*

Sin

gle

3.34

1.21

3.19

1.28

3.38

1.28

3.69

1.23

3.27

1.19

3.47

1.23

Mar

ried

3.53

1.24

3.34

1.30

3.51

1.28

3.87

1.17

3.59

1.26

3.57

1.13

Annualincome

Un

der

$30,

000

3.03

1.28

2.97

1.40

3.00

1.39

3.43

1.36

3.06

1.39

3.31

1.47

$30,

000-

50,0

003.

381.

133.

281.

163.

521.

273.

691.

163.

461.

073.

561.

15$5

0,00

1-70

,000

3.44

1.30

3.35

1.20

3.46

1.27

3.85

1.11

3.31

1.26

3.40

1.13

$70,

001-

90,0

003.

251.

392.

971.

503.

581.

353.

691.

403.

281.

303.

221.

31O

ver

$90,

000

3.55

1.18

3.33

1.31

3.58

1.25

3.89

1.14

3.55

1.22

3.68

1.08

Notes

:* M

ean

sfo

rsa

me

dep

end

ent

var

iab

lew

ith

sam

esu

per

scri

pt

are

not

sig

nifi

can

tly

dif

fere

nt

bas

edon

the

Gam

es-H

owel

lte

st(p,

0.05

)

Table IV.Demographiccompositions of therespondents and theirconsiderations of certainingredients when diningout at a restaurant usingANOVA

BFJ116,3

504

Dow

nloa

ded

by B

CU B

UCU

REST

I At 0

0:07

30

Mar

ch 2

015

(PT)

Conclusions and discussionThe primary purpose of this study was to investigate if consumers intention to orderhealthy food would be affected by their lifestyle and the attributes of a restaurant.Furthermore, the study sought to find out if there were any differences inconsciousness about particular ingredients at a restaurant among different healthconsciousness groups (being on a diet or not, awareness of MyPyramid, andconsideration of personal weight or not). In order to measure the effect of healthyeating issues on intention to eat healthily, this study compared three binary healthyeating issues for consciousness of particular ingredients. The results showed thatindividuals who were on a diet, took personal weight into consideration, and wereaware of MyPyramid were significantly conscious of certain ingredients such as sugar,sodium, MSG, transfats, carbohydrates, and calories. The results showed that onesnutritional knowledge and psychological state influenced ones awareness ofingredients that might not be good for ones health. Interestingly, age affected MSGconsciousness, but it had no effect on other ingredients. Regarding the calorie issue,females were more concerned than males when selecting food at restaurants.

The findings also indicated that the lifestyle of consumers did play a distinct role intheir consideration of healthy foods at a restaurant. In addition, service and healthyfood options at a restaurant had a positive effect on intention to order healthy food.Consistent with a previous study (Bhuyan, 2011; Hearty et al., 2007), lifestyle didpredict consumers intention to eat healthily. Although other attributes of restaurantsdid not have any significant effect on consumers intention to eat healthily at arestaurant, the results of this study suggest the following: Consumers lifestyle has apositive effect on the decision to eat healthily at a restaurant, the service of therestaurant has a positive effect on intention to eat healthily at a restaurant, and theavailability of healthy food has a positive effect on intention to eat healthily at arestaurant.

The present study makes a contribution to food service businesses bydemonstrating that restaurant managers should know who the consumers orpotential consumers are at their establishments. Consumers interests in eatinghealthily require that restaurants be prepared for what consumers want to eat whenthey visit restaurants. Restaurants should know what their role for consumers toencourage them to make healthier choices under the registration pressure and thepublic blame for obesity. The results of this study revealed that restaurants marketingstrategies for healthy food need to target consumers whose lifestyle promotes a healthylife in terms of regular exercise, dietary plans, or eating food considering theFoodPyramid, rather than target consumers whose lifestyle is less healthy. However,the results of this study also suggest that the offering of healthy food does have aneffect on consumers consideration to order healthy food. This result supported theprevious studies which suggested that nutritional information was an importantelement for consumers when purchasing food at retail stores (Burton et al., 2009;Pieniak et al., 2011) and restaurants (Cranage et al., 2004; Yoon and George, 2012).Therefore, future studies should investigate consumers perceptions of healthy mealsso that a variety of healthy meals will become available on restaurant menus.

Service had a positive impact on consumers intention to eat healthily at arestaurant. This can be explained by the fact that the more highly consumers evaluatedthe service at a restaurant, the more likely they were to order healthy food. For


505

Dow

nloa

ded

by B

CU B

UCU

REST

I At 0

0:07

30

Mar

ch 2

015

(PT)

example, consumers might ask the wait staff about food related health issues.However, if consumers perceived that the restaurants service was not good enough,then they might not even ask about the particular ingredients in the food. Building onthe findings from previous studies, service from the wait staff could be considered asocial encounter at a restaurant. As the previous studies showed, interpersonal issuescan have both a positive effect and a negative effect (Baranowski et al., 1999; Davisonand Birch, 2001; Polivy and Herman, 2005) on eating behaviors, so effort fromrestaurant managers to train their employees to consumers expectations would have apositive effect on consumers behavior. Well received service could affect consumershealthy eating behaviors. In order to investigate the relationships between the serviceat a restaurant and healthy eating behavior, broader attributes to measure perceivedlevel of service are needed for future studies. The present study borrowed severalrestaurant selection attributes from previous studies; however, the results of this studyshowed that only a few restaurant attributes were predictors of the ordering of healthyfood. This study asked only a few questions related to consumers lifestyle to measurethe effect of lifestyle on the ordering of healthy food at a restaurant. Therefore, it isnecessary to involve other possible factors relating to peoples lifestyles, includingreasons for eating out, in a future study to gain a better understanding of consumersintention to order healthy meals when dining at a restaurant. In addition, it isnecessary to test the relationships among attitudes to particular foods and theself-perception of dietary patterns with actual dietary behaviors when dining out at arestaurant. Not only attitude towards food but also purpose for eating out should beinvestigated. Hence, future studies should focus on purpose for eating out in decision toeat healthy food along with effects of restaurant attributes and perception of food.

References

Adema, P. (2009), Garlic Capital of the World: Gilroy, Garlic, and the Making of a FestiveFoodscape, University Press of Missisippi, Jackson, MS.

Alonso, A.D. and ONeill, M.A. (2010), Consumers ideal eating out experience as it refers torestaurant style: a case study, Journal of Retail & Leisure Property, Vol. 9 No. 4,pp. 263-276.

Baranowski, T., Cullen, K.W. and Baranowski, J. (1999), Correlates of dietary intake: advancingdietary intervention, Annual Review of Nutrition, Vol. 19, pp. 17-40.

Barta, A. (2008), Foreign tourists motivation and information source influencing theirpreference for eating out at ethnic restaurants in Bangkok, International Journal ofHospitality and Tourism Administration, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 1-17.

Baum, A., Krantz, D.S. and Gatchel, R.J. (1997), An Introduction to Health Psychology,McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Bhuyan, S. (2011), Do consumers attitudes and preferences determine their FAFH behavior?An application of the Theory of Planned Behavior, Agribusiness, Vol. 27 No. 2,pp. 205-220.

Binkley, J.K. (2006), The effect of demographic differences between meals at fast food and tableservice restaurants, Review of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 750-763.

Bowen, J.T. and Morris, A.T. (1995), Menu design: can menus sell, International Journal ofContemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 4-9.

BFJ116,3

506

Dow

nloa

ded

by B

CU B

UCU

REST

I At 0

0:07

30

Mar

ch 2

015

(PT)

Burton, S., Howlett, E. and Tangari, A.H. (2009), Food for thought: how will the nutritionlabeling of quick service restaurant menu items influence consumers product evaluations,purchase intentions, and choices?, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 83 No. 3, pp. 258-273.

Chouinard, H.D., Davis, D., LaFrance, J. and Perloff, J. (2010), Fat taxes: big money for smallchange, Forum for Health Economics and Policy, Vol. 10 No. 2, available at: www.degruyter.com/view/j/fhep

Cobe, P. (2006), The healthy pantry, Restaurant Business, Vol. 105 No. 3, p. 61.

Cox, B. (2005), Restaurants may find it beneficial to alert customers about trans fat, KnightRidder Tribune Business News, available at: ProQuest ABI/Inform Global database.

Cranage, D.A., Conklin, M.T. and Lambert, C.U. (2004), Effect of nutrition information inperceptions of food quality, consumption behavior and purchase intentions, Journal ofFoodservice Business Research, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 43-61.

Cullen, F. (2004), Factors influencing restaurant selection in Dublin, Journal of FoodserviceBusiness Research, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 53-84.

Darmon, N., Briend, A. and Drewnowski, A. (2004), Energy-dense diets are associated withlower diet costs: a community study of French adults, Public Health Nutrition, Vol. 7 No. 1,pp. 21-27.

Davison, K.K. and Birch, L.L. (2001), Childhood overweight: a contextual model andrecommendations for future research, Obesity Review, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 159-171.

Diaz, F.J.M., Pleite, F.M., Paz, J.M.M. and Garcia, P.G. (2012), Consumer knowledge,consumption, and willingness to pay for organic tomatoes, British Food Journal, Vol. 114No. 2, pp. 318-334.

Eckel, R.H., Kris-etherton, P., Lichtenstein, A.H., Wylie-Rosett, J., Groom, A., Stitzel, K.F. andYin-piazza, S. (2009), Americans awareness, knowledge, and behaviors regarding fats:2006-2007, Journal of American Dietetic Association, Vol. 109 No. 2, pp. 288-296.

Epstein, L.H., Dearing, K.K., Paluch, R.A., Roemmich, J.N. and Cho, D. (2007), Price and maternalobesity influence purchasing of low-and high-energy-dense foods, American Journal ofClinical Nutrition, Vol. 86 No. 4, p. 914.

Epstein, L.H., Handley, E.A., Dearing, K.K., Cho, D.D., Roemmich, J.N. and Paluch, R.A. (2006),Purchases of food in youth, Psychological Science, Vol. 17 No. 1, p. 82.

Glanz, K. and Bishop, D.B. (2010), The role of behavioral science theory in development andimplementation of public health intervention, Annual Review of Public Health, Vol. 31No. 1, pp. 399-418.

Glanz, K., Sallis, J., Saelens, B. and Frank, L. (2005), Healthy nutrition environments: conceptsand measures, American Journal of Health Promotion, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 330-333.

Gregoire, M.B., Shanklin, C.W., Greathouse, K. and Tripp, C. (1995), Factors influencingrestaurant selection by travelers who stop at visitor information centers, Journal ofTraveland Tourism Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 41-50.

Hearty, A.P., McCarthy, S.N., Kearney, J.M. and Gibney, M.J. (2007), Relationship betweenattitudes towards healthy eating and dietary behaviour, lifestyle and demographic factorsin a representative sample of Irish adults, Appetite, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 1-11.

Henson, S., Majowicz, S., Masakure, O., Sockett, P., Jones, A., Hart, R., Carr, D. and Knowles, L.(2006), Consumer assessment of the safety of restaurants: the role of inspection noticesand other information cues, Journal of Food Safety, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 275-301.

Jansen, A., Havermans, R., Nederkoorn, C. and roef, A. (2008), Jolly fat or sad fat? Subtypingnon-eating discordered overweight and obesity along an affect dimension, Appetite,Vol. 51, pp. 635-640.


507

Dow

nloa

ded

by B

CU B

UCU

REST

I At 0

0:07

30

Mar

ch 2

015

(PT)

Johansson, B., Makela, J., Roos, G., Hillen, S., Hansen, G.L., Jensen, T.M. and Huotilainen, A.(2009), Nordic childrens foodscapes: images and reflections, Food, Culture and Society:An International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 25-51.

Jones, C.S. (2010), Encouraging healthy eating at restaurants: themes uncovered through focusgroup research, Services Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 334-347.

Just, D.R., Mancino, L. and Wansink, B. (2007), Could behavioral economics help improve dietquality for nutrition assistance program participants?, US Department of AgricultureEconomic Research Service, Washington, DC, Research report ERR-43.

Kahn, B.E. and Wansink, B. (2004), The influence of assortment structure on perceived varietyand consumption quantities, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 519-533.

Kivela, J., Inbakaran, R. and Reece, J. (2000), Consumer research in the restaurant environmentpart 3: analysis, findings and conclusions, International Journal of ContemporaryHospitality Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 13-30.

Knight, A.J., Worosz, M.R. and Todd, E.C.D. (2007), Serving food safety: consumer perception offood safety at restaurants, International Journal of Contemporary HospitalityManagement, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 476-484.

Mikkelsen, B.E. (2011), Images of foodscapes: introduction to foodscapes studies and theirapplication in the study of healthy eating out-of-home environments, Perspectives inPublic Health, Vol. 131 No. 5, pp. 209-216.

Payette, H. and Shatenstein, B. (2005), Determinants of healthy eating in community-dwellingelderly people, Canadian Journal of Public Health, Vol. 96 No. 3, pp. 27-31, supplement.

Pedraja, M. and Yague, J. (2001), What information do customers use when choosing arestaurant?, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 13 No. 6,pp. 316-318.

Perez-Cueto, F.J.A., Verbeke, W., Barcellos, M.D., Kehagia, O., Chryssochoidis, G., Scholderer, J.and Grunert, K.G. (2010), Food-related lifestyles and their association to obesity in fiveEuropean countries, Appetite, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 156-162.

Pieniak, Z., Koiodziejczyk, M., Kowrygo, B. and Verbeke, W. (2011), Consumption patterns andlabelling of fish and fishery products in Poland after the EU accession, Food Control,Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 843-850.

Polivy, J. and Herman, C.P. (2005), Mental health and eating behaviors: a bi-directional relation,Canadian Journal of Public Health, Vol. 96 No. 3, pp. S43-S46.

Raine, K.D. (2005), Determinants of healthy eating in Canada: an overview and synthesis,Canadian Journal of Public Health, Vol. 96 No. 3, pp. 8-14.

Ruggless, R. (2003), Nutritional sea change leads Americans to chart weight loss course,Nations Restaurant News, October 27.

Sobal, J. and Wansink, B. (2007), Kitchenscapes, tablescapes, platescapes, and foodscapes,Environment and Behavior, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 124-142.

Soriano, D. (2003), Customers expectations factors in restaurants: the situation in Spain,The International Journal of Quality and Reliability, Vol. 19 Nos 8/9, pp. 1055-1068.

Sparks, B., Bowen, J. and Klag, S. (2003), Restaurants and the tourist market, InternationalJournal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 6-13.

Steptoe, A. and Pollard, T.M. (1995), Development of a measure of the motives underlying theselection of food: the food choice questionnaire, Appetite, Vol. 25, pp. 267-284.

Story, M., Neumark-Sztainer, D. and French, S. (2002), Individual and environmental influenceson adolescent eating behaviors, Journal of American Diet Association, Vol. 2, pp. 40-51.

BFJ116,3

508

Dow

nloa

ded

by B

CU B

UCU

REST

I At 0

0:07

30

Mar

ch 2

015

(PT)

Sulek, M.J. and Hensley, L.R. (2004), The relative importance of food, atmosphere, and fairnessof wait, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 235-247.

Szakaly, Z., Szente, V., Kover, G., Polereczki, Z. and Szigeti, O. (2012), The influence of lifestyleon health behavior and preference for functional foods, Appetite, Vol. 58, pp. 406-413.

Torjusen, H., Lieblein, G., Wandel, M. and Francis, C.A. (2001), Food system orientation andquality perception among consumers and producers of organic food in Hedmark County,Norway, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 207-216.

Wakefield, K.L. and Blodgett, J.G. (1996), The effect of the servicescape on consumersbehavioral intentions in leisure service settings, Journal of Service Marketing, Vol. 10No. 6, pp. 45-61.

Wansink, B. and Chandon, P. (2006), Meal size, not body size, explains errors in estimating thecalorie content of meals, Annual International Medecine, Vol. 145, pp. 326-332.

Winson, A. (2004), Bringing political economy into the debate on the obesity epidemic,Agriculture and Human Values, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 299-312.

Yoon, H.J. and George, T. (2012), Nutritional information disclosure on the menu: focusing onthe roles of menu context, nutritional knowledge and motivation, International Journal ofHospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 1187-1194.

Young, L.R. and Nestle, M. (2002), The contribution of increasing portion sizes to the obesityepidemic, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 92 No. 2, pp. 246-249.

Yuksel, A. and Yuksel, F. (2002), Measurement of tourist satisfaction with restaurant services:a segment-based approach, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 52-68.

Further reading

Camerer, C.F. and Loewenstein, G. (2004), Behavioral economics: past, present and future,in Camerer, C.F., Loewenstein, G. and Rabin, M. (Eds), Advances in Behavioral Economics,Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, pp. 3-52.

Corresponding authorJinkyung Choi can be contacted at: [email protected]


509

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Dow

nloa

ded

by B

CU B

UCU

REST

I At 0

0:07

30

Mar

ch 2

015

(PT)

Documents

Consum Behav When Eating Out