The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

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

Who cares for nutrition Nutrition

information
information at a restaurant? conscious
behaviors
Food-related lifestyles and their
association to nutrition 1625

information conscious behaviors Received 3 September 2015

Revised 2 March 2016
Accepted 3 March 2016
Jinkyung Choi
Department of Foodservice Management,
Woosong University, Daejeon, South Korea

Abstract
Purpose – People have become more health conscious about the food they eat on any occasion.
As healthy dietary information has been released to the public in order to correspond with active public
adaptation, more consumers have become aware of and are showing interest in new information
related to health. The purpose of this paper is to utilize food-related lifestyle (FRL) instruments to
explain nutrition information-conscious behaviors.
Design/methodology/approach – This study used a cross-sectional survey design. A questionnaire
was developed based on previous studies. A factor analysis and a cluster analysis were conducted to
segment nutrition information-conscious behaviors of consumers. Participants were 200 and the
survey was administered to citizens in South Korea. Exploratory factor analysis, cluster analysis,
analysis of variance, Duncan’s multiple comparison tests, and χ2 test were used.
Findings – Nine factors were identified and four clusters were established. These clusters were
named: “personal value concern group,” “enthusiastic group,” “moderation group,” and “unconcerned
group.” Each segment was significantly different in body satisfaction and nutrition information-
conscious behaviors. Nutrients such as dietary fibers, sodium, and trans fat were considered differently
by the four segments.
Originality/value – Using an FRL instrument in relation to nutrition information-conscious behavior,
interesting conclusions were drawn. Results of this study suggested that each segment has its
characteristics in relation to nutrition information-conscious behaviors. Also it can be concluded that it
is time for individuals to take responsibility for their own health problems.
Keywords Restaurants, Information, Nutrition, Behaviours
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
More than a third of adults are obese in the Republic of Korea (Korea Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, 2010), which is a similar proportion to the USA (Ogden
et al., 2014). As the rate of obesity has increased, it has been identified as a big concern
in society, since obesity is linked to numerous health issues. One major cause of obesity
can be explained as lack of physical activity and the imbalance between intake and
energy consumption (McArdle et al., 2001). In addition, obese people have a higher
chance of developing physical illnesses that may lead to financial burdens (Hyde, 2008).
The social and economic cost related to obesity was estimated at $179,230,000,000 in
the Republic of Korea (Kwak et al., 2010). The medical costs for obese people were British Food Journal
$1,429 higher than for non-obese people in the USA (Finkelstein et al., 2009). Obesity Vol. 118 No. 7, 2016
pp. 1625-1640
creates many other problematic issues besides its associated health economic issues. © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0007-070X
Many problems occur as the obesity rate increases, and efforts to determine the factors DOI 10.1108/BFJ-09-2015-0303
BFJ that influence obesity have also increased. Previous studies have claimed that factors
118,7 affecting the dietary environment include personal influences, social influences, the
personal ability to adopt these influences (Glanz and Bishops, 2010), and family and
social factors (Story et al., 2002). In addition, lack of sleep can cause obesity (Patel and
Hu, 2008). It has been shown that the environment and lifestyle affect weight gain
(Anderson et al., 2003; Henry, 2004; Zapka et al., 2009). According to a previous study,
1626 obese people attached lower levels of importance to health, novelty, organic products,
and freshness compared to non-obese people (Pérez-Cueto et al., 2010). To prevent
obesity, healthy eating behaviors have been studied in relation to psychographics
(Boslaugh et al., 2005; Glanz et al., 1998; Byrd-Bredbenner and Abbot, 2008) and these
showed that lifestyle can be a significant influence in food choice.
Lifestyle is defined as “an intervening system of cognitive structures that link
situation-specific product perceptions to increasingly abstract cognitive categories
and finally to personal values” (Scholderer et al., 2004, p. 198). In other words,
lifestyle refers to “patterns of behavior or consumption, reflecting people’s choice
how to spend their time and money as well as their interests and beliefs” (Goetzke
and Spiller, 2014, p. 512). Lifestyle can be measured by its definitions or by the
differing perspectives of researchers. Researchers have developed a food-related
lifestyle (FRL) model that includes value concepts (Brunsø and Grunert, 1995) and
“value” is defined as “a desirable and fundamental standard which guides people’s
actions” ( Jun et al., 2014, p. 85). Value in food can be seen in various forms, since
food is an essential element of daily settings of individuals that differs from one to
another. One of the various forms can be the nutrition information of the food, which
can be easily found on food products and at restaurants in accordance with legal
requirements. Although many studies have investigated FRL in association with
food behavior, studies of FRL in relation to nutritional information-conscious
behaviors are scarce.
The purpose of the present study is threefold. First, this study investigated
consumer segmentation using FRL in relation to nutritional information-conscious
behaviors when dining out at restaurants. As interest in consuming healthy food
increases, body satisfaction might be another area that can lead to a healthy life in
association with FRL. Hence, this study aims to determine consumer segmentations in
association with body satisfaction. Finally, this study looks for consumer segmentation
with nutrient consciousness in association with FRL.

Literature review
Brunsø and Grunert (1995) developed an FRL survey instrument to discover
consumers’ lifestyles in the areas of methods of shopping, cooking methods, quality
aspects, consumption situations, and purchasing motives. The developed instrument
was used to examine its validity across different cultures (Scholderer et al., 2004;
O’Sullivan et al., 2005), obesity in different countries (Pérez-Cueto et al., 2010),
and relationships between values and FRL (Scholderer et al., 2004). Besides the
23 dimensions of FRL defined by Brunsø and Grunert (1995), six types of consumer
were defined, as the adventurous consumer, the careless consumer, the conservative
consumer, the rational consumer, the snacking consumer, and the uninvolved
consumer (Buckley et al., 2005). In addition, specialty food purchasing behaviors were
segmented using FRL (Wycherley et al., 2008) and obesity was related to some
dimensions of FRL (Pérez-Cueto et al., 2010). For example, obese people sought more
self-fulfillment in their food when planning their meals (Pérez-Cueto et al., 2010).
In other words, obese people often seek enjoyment in their food and in its quality Nutrition
aspects. Furthermore, relationships between lifestyle behaviors and weight were information
investigated, and the results showed that diet and physical activity behaviors were
important factors of obesity (Zapka et al., 2009).
conscious
A healthy diet has been presented in many different forms. It is known that behaviors
healthy eating behaviors are associated with high intakes of dietary fiber (Lang and
Jebb, 2003; Steffen et al., 2003) and low-energy density diets (Schröder et al., 2008). 1627
Such food with specific ingredients can be noted for its nutritional information.
Hence, examining the nutritional information is important when selecting
healthy food. Previous studies have measured consumers’ responses to the foods’
healthiness using nutritional information and when consumers select more healthy
food (Cranage et al., 2004; Droms, 2006; Yoon and George, 2012). According to a
study of food decision influences for mothers of young children, four clusters were
found (Byrd-Bredbenner and Abbot, 2008): happy, healthy, food-involved
mothers; working and convenience-driven mothers; free of food price, taste, and
advertising-effects mothers; and stressed and emotional-eating mothers. Another
study segmented their audience to compare demographic, health status, and
psychosocial strategies to promote physical activities (Boslaugh et al., 2005). The
study found that when psychosocial and health status factors were combined with
demographic variables, more homogeneous subgroups were produced (Boslaugh et
al., 2005). Moreover, multi attribute utility theory was used to examine food
consumption in accordance with health lifestyle (Glanz et al., 1998). Seven clusters
were found and named: physical fantastic, active attractives, tense but trying,
decent dolittles, passive healthy, hard-living hedonists, and non-interested nihilists
(Glanz et al., 1998).
Goetzke and Spiller (2014) studied if a lifestyle incorporating the wellness
concept affected functional food purchases using Miller’s (2005) notion that wellness is
linked to beauty in general and a beautiful body. Six dimensions of lifestyle
(sport and fitness, spiritual balance and harmony, beauty and appearance, ritualized
relaxation activities, health care and disease prevention, and stress management) were
explained in the models with functional food and organic food as dependent variables
(Goetzke and Spiller, 2014). They found that fitness had a significant influence on organic
food-buying behaviors, but not for functional food (Goetzke and Spiller, 2014).
Obesity is certainly a big problem for both individuals and society in general.
However, whether an individual feels that they themselves are obese is a subjective
matter that affects their healthy eating behaviors that can be termed “body satisfaction.”
Recent studies have shown that body dissatisfaction was not only associated with
depression and stress ( Johnson and Wardle, 2005), but also eating disorders (Vartanian
et al., 2014). Body dissatisfaction was affected by interpersonal and intrapersonal
resources and influenced eating behaviors (Vartanian et al., 2014), and could lead to both
physical and mental impairment (Muenning et al., 2008). Adversely, it implies that FRL
could be related to one’s subjective fitness, and the subjective acknowledgment could aid
the prevention of worsening conditions. Therefore, it is important to explore consumers’
FRL in relation to their subjective physical status and nutritional information-conscious
behaviors to prevent obesity and lead a healthy lifestyle.
However, previous studies have not examined consumers’ FRL in relation to behaviors
concerning nutritional information when eating out at restaurants. It is unknown what
dimension of FRL is related to nutritional information-conscious behaviors at a
restaurant, and which nutrients most concern consumers remains unknown.
BFJ Methods
118,7 Study population and design
This study used a cross-sectional survey design. Data were collected from citizens in
the Republic of Korea between July and August 2013. People in the Republic of Korea
consider appearance one of the most important factors of social success. In addition,
they believe that eating and medicine are rooted in the same principle, essentially that
1628 consuming good food can replace a visit to a doctor and medicine. Therefore, if eating
healthily at a restaurant is related to an individual’s lifestyle, the results of the study
would bring another step to FRL research.
Field workers approached individuals and explained the purpose of the survey;
questionnaires were handed to participants upon agreement to complete the
survey, and questionnaires were self-administered. In total, 250 questionnaires were
distributed and 198 returned. After screening the validity of the data for use for the
study, 152 were entered for data analysis.

Instrument and variables

The questionnaire was developed based on the previous studies. Items measuring FRL
were derived from previous studies (Perez-Cueto et al., 2010; Brunsø and Grunert, 1995;
Scholderer et al., 2004; Wycherley et al., 2008). In total, 28 questions were used to
determine the FRL segments of the participants in the results of discussions with the
experts in these subjects, and a pre-test. Body satisfaction items were derived and
modified from the previous study (Goetzke and Spiller, 2014). Items measuring
nutritional information-conscious behaviors were developed based on the previous
study (Cranage et al., 2004; Yoon and George 2012). The items used in this study were
depicted in Table I. In total, 12 nutritional factors were used to measure nutrient
consciousness: total calories, calories from fat, cholesterol, dietary fiber, protein,
saturated fat, sodium, sugar, total fat, trans fat, calcium, and vitamins. Questions were
asked on a five-point Likert scale from “strongly agree” (5) to “strongly disagree” (1).

Data analyses
All analyses were performed using SPSS Win (ver 20.0, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).
Demographic characteristics were analyzed using descriptive analysis. To investigate
the study purposes, data analyses were carried out in three steps. First, exploratory
factor analysis was run to reduce the 28 items to suitable dimensions. The maximum
likelihood method in combination with the varimax rotation and Kaiser normalization
was used. Second, a cluster analysis based on Ward’s method was conducted to
determine the best number of clusters. Finally, to establish consumer segmentation
based on this study’s purposes, analysis of variance (ANOVA), Duncan’s multiple
comparison test, and χ2 were used to see whether any differences existed among the
identified segments across body satisfaction, nutritional information-conscious
behaviors, nutrients, and demographic characteristics.

Results
Demographic profiles
Results of the descriptive analysis of the participants’ demographic characteristics:
more than half of the participants were female (61.2 percent), meaning that 36.8 percent
were male. Most of the respondents were 20-29-year old (44.7 percent) and single
(52.6 percent). Approximately 36.8 percent of respondents had a bachelor’s degree,
while approximately 15.8 percent had only a high school diploma. The highest portion
Items Factor loading
Nutrition
information
Information of product conscious
Q1: to me product information
is of high importance. I behaviors
need to know what the
product contains 0.752
Q2: I compare labels to select 1629
the most nutritious food 0.782
Q3: I compare product
information labels to decide
which brand to buy 0.723
Importance of price
Q4: I always check prices, even
on small items 0.649
Q5: I notice when products I
buy regularly change in
price 0.611
Q6: I look for ads in the
newspaper for special
specials and plan to take
advantage of them when I
go shopping 0.768
Q7: before I go shopping for
food, I make a list of
everything I need 0.602
Importance of value
Q12: I always try to get the best
quality for the best price 0.528
Q13: I compare prices between
product variants in order
to get the best value for
money 0.576
Q14: it is important for me to
know that I get quality for
all my money 0.761
Q15: I find the taste of food
products important 0.752
Preference of natural food
Q9: I prefer to buy natural
products (products without
preservatives) 0.751
Q10: to me the naturalness of
the food that I buy is an
important quality 0.851
Q11: I try to avoid food
products with additives 0.641
Eating out as socializing
Table I.
Q23: going out for dinner is a
The statement form
regular part of our eating habits 0.750
food-related lifestyle
tool used and results
(continued ) of factor analysis
BFJ Items Factor loading
118,7
Q24: we often get together with
friends to enjoy an easy-
to-cook, casual dinner 0.627
Q25: I enjoy going to
restaurants with my
1630 family and friends 0.836
Planned purchase
Q8: I only purchase food items
previously planned 0.798
Q16: I like to try out new recipes 0.568
Q17: I look for ways to prepare
unusual meals 0.640
Q18: recipes and articles on
food from other culinary
traditions make me
experiment in the kitchen 0.478
Prefer comfort food
Q26: I dislike everything that
might change my eating
habits 0.691
Q27: I only buy and eat foods
which are familiar to me 0.755
Q28: a familiar dish gives me a
sense of security 0.782
Frequent eating behavior
Q21: I eat before I get hungry,
which means that I am
never hungry at meal
times 0.758
Q22: I eat whenever I feel the
slightest bit hungry 0.791
Family involvement
Q19: the kids or other members
of the family always help
in the kitchen 0.835
Q20: my family helps with other
mealtime chores, such as
setting the table and doing
the dishes 0.833
Cronbach’s α 0.807 0.694 0.679 0.731 0.654 0.719 0.644 0.589 0.731
Eigenvalue 2.673 2.596 2.291 2.228 2.184 2.115 1.864 1.842 1.789
Percent of total variance 9.546 9.271 8.182 7.956 7.800 7.554 6.656 6.580 6.388
Cumulative percent of total
Table I. variance 9.546 18.818 27.000 34.956 42.756 50.310 56.966 63.546 69.934

of respondents (34.2 percent) had an annual household income range of 25,000-49,999

(1,000 won), followed by 50,000-74,999 (30.4 percent). Almost half of respondents
(45.4 percent) ate out at a frequency of once or twice a week, and 34.9 percent ate out
three-four times per week. The majority of the respondents had monthly eating out
expenditures of 200-299 1,000 won (32.9 percent), and the second-most common was Nutrition
100-199 1,000 won (30.3 percent). information
conscious
Determination of FRL factors
The dimensionality of the 28 FRL items from the survey was analyzed using behaviors
exploratory factor analysis. Table I shows the results of the factor analysis for nine
factors: information concern; importance of price; importance of nutritional value; 1631
preference of natural food; eating out as socializing; planned purchasing; seeking
comfort food; frequent eating behavior; and family involvement. Approximately
70 percent of the variance was extracted using these nine factors. To measure internal
consistency estimates of reliability, Cronbach’s α was run on each of the factors and
showed firm reliability. In addition, body satisfaction (Cronbach’s α ¼ 0.814) and
nutritional information-conscious behaviors (Cronbach’s α ¼ 0.763) were accepted.

Cluster analysis for market segmentation of consumers

A cluster analysis of the nine FRL factor scores identified four consumer segments.
Using one-way ANOVA for the four-cluster solution, significances were found across
eight factors excluding factor 8, frequency of eating out (F ¼ 0.945, p ¼ 0.421), which
showed low scores throughout all FRLs. All other factors showed significances (factor
1: information concerns (F ¼ 39.733, p o 0.001), factor 2: importance of price
(F ¼ 26.634, p o 0.001), factor 3: seeking nutritional values (F ¼ 5.279, p o 0.01),
factor 4: preference for natural food (F ¼ 10.147, p o 0.001), factor 5: eating out as
socializing (F ¼ 23.541, p o 0.001), factor 6: planned purchase (F ¼ 36.038, p o 0.001),
factor 7: seeking comfort food (F ¼ 6.281, p o 0.001), and factor 9: family involvement
(F ¼ 12.337, p o 0.001). In addition, to determine differences across the clusters,
Duncan’s multiple comparison test was conducted at p o 0.05. Table II shows the

Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4

Cluster 1(n ¼ 29) (n ¼ 46) (n ¼ 31) (n ¼ 41)
Food-related Personal value Enthusiastic Moderation Unconcerned
lifestyles concern group group group group F-value

Information of
product 3.414 (0.149)a 4.362 (0.068)b 3.881 (0.117)c 2.853 (0.118)d 39.733***
a
Importance of price 3.828 (0.114) 3.983 (0.108)a 3.677 (0.108)a 2.750 (0.116)b 26.634***
Importance of
value 4.103 (0.092)a 4.076 (0.064)a 3.887 (0.127)a 3.555 (0.151)b 5.279**
Preference of
natural food 3.506 (0.130)a 3.580 (0.130)a 3.830 (0.100)a 2.911 (0.119)b 10.147***
Eating out as
socializing 4.023 (0.121)a 3.471 (0.120)b 2.710 (0.088)c 3.122 (0.073)d 23.541***
Planned purchase 3.181 (0.118)a 3.413 (0.088)a 3.250 (0.088)a 2.177 (0.100)b 36.038***
a
Prefer comfort food 3.736 (0.097) 3.123 (0.100)b 3.387 (0.137)b 3.162 (0.094)b 6.281***
Frequent eating
behavior 2.776 (0.248)a 2.870 (0.127)a 2.710 (0.108)a 2.537 (0.140)a 0.945
Family Table II.
involvement 3.207 (0.133)a 3.620 (0.122)b 3.016 (0.153)a 2.524 (0.148)c 12.337*** Results of cluster
Notes: The numbers in the table indicate means with standard error in parentheses; means for same analysis for
food-related lifestyles with same subscripts are not significantly different. a, b, c, dSignificantly different consumers’
at p o0.05 level; **p o0.01; ***p o0.001 food-related lifestyles
BFJ results of a cluster analysis and labels for each consumer segment according to the
118,7 mean score differences in the lifestyle factors.
To find the differences in nutrient consciousness behaviors, ANOVA was used to
compare the mean scores of specific nutrient consciousness, body satisfaction, and
nutrition information-conscious behaviors. Duncan’s multiple comparisons test was
also run to find differences among the clusters (see Table III). Significant differences in
1632 consumers’ nutrient consciousness were found for dietary fiber (F ¼ 3.731, p o 0.05),
sugar (F ¼ 2.862, p o 0.05), and trans fat (F ¼ 3.684, p o 0.05). Most nutrient
consciousness did not show significant differences across clusters; however, all
nutrients were of some concern for the respondents, since the total mean values ranged
as low as 2.90 and as high as 4.09 in the five-point Likert scale. Two constructs, body
satisfaction and nutrition information-conscious behaviors, were also compared across
four segmentations. Body satisfaction was significantly different (mean ¼ 2.89,
p o 0.001) for all four segmentations. Nutrition information-conscious behavior also
showed significant differences between the four segments (mean ¼ 2.87, p o 0.001).

Cluster 1: personal value concern

Cluster 1 accounted for 19.7 percent of the sample, and cluster 1 was significantly
distinguished from the other clusters for several lifestyle categories. For example, the
FRLs in cluster 1 were significantly different from the FRLs in cluster 4, except for
frequent eating behavior. Compared to cluster 2, the product information, eating out as
socializing, preference for comfort food, and family involvement were distinguished. It
shows high mean values for importance of value (mean ¼ 4.103), eating out as
socializing (mean ¼ 4.023), and preference for comfort food (mean ¼ 3.736). No lowest
values were found in cluster 1.

Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4

Nutrients/body (n ¼ 29) (n ¼ 46) (n ¼ 31) (n ¼ 41)
satisfaction/ Personal value Enthusiastic Moderation Unconcerned
NICB concern group group group group Total F-value

Total calories 3.66 (0.264)a 4.02 (0.160)a 3.58 (0.211)a 3.80 (0.172)a 3.80 (0.097) 1.042
Calories from fat 3.45 (0.236)a 3.96 (0.149)a 3.61 (0.195)a 3.63 (0.184)a 3.69 (0.093) 1.381
Cholesterol 4.03 (0.168)a 4.07 (0.118)a 3.84 (0.192)a 3.56 (0.191)a 3.87 (0.084) 2.116
Dietary fiber 2.66 (0.200)a 3.37 (0.195)b 3.32 (0.182)b 2.73 (0.188)a 3.04 (0.100) 3.731*
Protein 2.83 (0.205)a 3.26 (0.188)a 3.13 (0.206)a 2.95 (0.148)a 3.06 (0.093) 1.060
a
Saturated fat 3.83 (0.205) 3.96 (0.142)b 3.48 (0.212)a,b 3.37 (0.200)a,b 3.67 (0.095) 2.434
Sodium 4.34 (0.181)a 4.09 (0.152)a,b 3.84 (0.208)a,b 3.78 (0.173)b 4.00 (0.089) 1.919
Sugar 3.45 (0.225)a,b 3.80 (0.154)a,b 3.71 (0.208)b 3.12 (2.73)a 3.52 (0.097) 2.862*
Total fat 4.17 (0.165)a 4.17 (0.118)a 4.00 (0.202)a,b 3.63 (0.181)b 3.99 (0.084) 2.585
Trans fat 4.24 (0.190)a 4.41 (0.106)a 3.94 (0.212)a,b 3.73 (0.182)b 4.09 (0.086) 3.684*
Table III. Calcium 2.76 (0.214)a 3.30 (0.191)a 2.73 (0.201)a 2.97 (0.171)a 2.97 (0.098) 2.105
a
Results of cluster Vitamins 2.62 (0.219) 3.17 (0.195)a 3.13 (0.221)a 2.63 (0.174)a 2.90 (0.102) 2.296
analysis for Body
consumers’ satisfaction 2.67 (0.141)a 3.77 (0.098)b 2.47 (0.133)a 2.39 (0.136)a 2.89 (0.079) 30.485***
consciousness of NICBd 2.22 (0.109)a 2.75 (0.126)b 3.52 (0.136)c 2.96 (0.115)b 2.87 (0.071) 15.368***
nutrients, body Notes: NICB, Nutrition information-consciousness behavior. The numbers in the table indicate means with
satisfaction, standard error in parentheses; means for same dependent variables with same subscripts are not
and NCIB significantly different. a, b, c, dSignificantly different at po0.05 level; *po0.05; ***po0.001
Cluster 2: enthusiastic group Nutrition
Cluster 2 contains 31.3 percent of the sample; it has a significant difference among the information
clusters for product information seeking lifestyle (mean ¼ 4.362) and enjoyment of
eating out as socializing (mean ¼ 3.471). It shows the highest mean value for several
conscious
factors such as importance of price (mean ¼ 3.828), importance of value seeking behaviors
lifestyle (mean ¼ 3.983), planned purchase (mean ¼ 3.413), and family involvement
(mean ¼ 3.620). It has the second highest mean value for importance of value 1633
(mean ¼ 4.076), and eating out to socialize (mean ¼ 3.471). In addition, this cluster has
the lowest mean value for comfort food seeking lifestyle (mean ¼ 3.123).

Cluster 3: moderation group

Cluster 3 accounted for 21.1 percent of the sample and was significantly distinguished
from other clusters such as information concern (mean ¼ 3.881, po0.001), and eating out
as socializing (mean ¼ 3.471). It has the highest mean value for preference of natural food
(mean ¼ 3.830). Cluster 3 has similar values to clusters 1 and 2 for importance of price,
importance of value, preference of natural food, and planned purchases; however, it has
significant differences with cluster 1 for product information, comfort food seeking, and
family involvement. In addition, it shows significant differences with cluster 4 for
information concern, importance of price, importance of value, preference for natural
food, eating out as socializing, planned purchases, and family involvement.

Cluster 4: unconcerned group

Cluster 4 accounted for 27.9 percent of the sample; this cluster showed significant
differences for both information concern (mean ¼ 2.853), and eating out as socializing
(mean ¼ 3.122). It was significantly different from the other clusters for importance of
price (mean ¼ 2.750), importance of nutritional value (mean ¼ 3.555), preference of
natural food (mean ¼ 2.911), planned purchases (mean ¼ 2.177), seeking comfort food
(mean ¼ 3.162), and family involvement (mean ¼ 2.524) using Duncan’s multiple
comparison test at p o 0.05. This cluster showed the lowest means for product
information, importance of price, importance of value, preference for natural food,
planned purchases, frequent eating behavior, and family involvement. Therefore,
it seems that cluster 4 is not particularly concerned about the factors of FRLs.

Nutrient concerns
Regarding nutrient concerns, dietary fiber was of least concern (mean ¼ 2.66) in cluster 1.
Concerns about most nutrients were higher for cluster 1 than other clusters, except
for sodium in cluster 2. Medium concerns for nutrients were found in cluster
3 compared to the other clusters. Cholesterol, saturated fat, sodium, sugar, total fat,
trans fat were of least concern in cluster 4.

Body satisfaction
In body satisfaction, cluster 2 had the highest mean body satisfaction (mean ¼ 3.77),
which was significantly different from cluster 1 (mean ¼ 2.67), cluster 3 (mean ¼ 2.47),
and cluster 4 (mean ¼ 2.39) at p o 0.05.

Nutrition information-consciousness behavior

NICB was highest for cluster 3 (mean ¼ 3.52) followed by cluster 4 (mean ¼ 2.96),
cluster 2 (mean ¼ 2.75), and the lowest value was in cluster 1 (mean ¼ 2.22).
BFJ Therefore, each cluster was named after its characteristics. Cluster 1 was named
118,7 “personal value concern group,” cluster 2 “enthusiastic group,” cluster 3 “moderation
group,” and cluster 4 was named the “unconcerned group.” All patterns showed that the
four clusters were labeled properly delivering the definition of each cluster in this study.

Characteristics of four segments with demographics

1634 To apply the distinguished characteristics of the four segments to consumers’
socio-demographic profiles, χ2 was run across the four groups (see Table IV). The only
demographic characteristic that showed a significant difference across the four groups
was education ( χ2 ¼ 26.572, p o 0.05). Approximately 75.9 percent of the “personal
value concerned group” had an education level less than a bachelor’s degree, which was
56.5 percent for the “enthusiastic group,” 38.7 percent for the “moderation group,” and
55.0 percent for the “unconcerned group.” It seems that more educated consumers lean
toward moderated FRLs, while less-educated consumers seek their own preferences in
the food-related aspects of their lifestyles. No significant differences were shown for
other demographic characteristics across the four groups.

Discussion and conclusions

This study used a FRL instrument to segment consumers based on their lifestyles in
association with body satisfaction, nutrition information-conscious behaviors, and
nutrient consciousness to identify a target market for nutrition information-reading
consumers at a restaurant in South Korea. The results of this study identified four
segmentations, which are the “personal value concern group,” the “enthusiastic group,”
the “moderation group,” and the “unconcerned group.” A number of studies have
examined a FRL instruments to explain individuals’ behaviors to keep themselves
healthy (Schröder et al., 2008; Pérez-Cueto et al., 2010; Wycherley et al., 2008). Although
previous studies have revealed significant findings for academic fields, they did not relate
FRL instruments to nutritional information-conscious behaviors when selecting food at
restaurants. The results of this study showed interesting findings that can broaden the
scope of FRL and nutrition information-conscious behaviors.
The results of this study showed the “moderation group” had stronger nutrition
information-conscious behaviors than the other segments. Individuals with moderated
FRL would look for nutritional information at a restaurant and have moderated their
views on each nutrient. In other words, individuals in the “moderation group” would
not lean toward specific ingredients when reading nutrition information, but consider
all ingredients as elements of their food. The “moderation group” had more educated
members compared to the other groups. Therefore, individuals’ nutritional knowledge
could affect consumers’ food choice procedures (Moorman, 1990; Misra, 2007; Josiam
and Foster, 2009). To meet the demands of this group of consumers, restaurants should
provide nutrition information and nutritionally healthy food, since they are well
educated and are knowledgeable about healthfulness.
Interestingly, body satisfaction was shown as being highest in the “enthusiastic
group.” This segment showed the highest mean for all ingredient consciousness levels,
except for sodium. However, the “enthusiastic group” did not place much importance
on nutrition information-conscious behavior at restaurants. They were highly
conscious of all nutrients and FRL, but their high consciousness was not connected to
nutrition information-reading behavior at restaurants, unlike a previous study, which
showed that a healthy lifestyle was strongly related to food choices (Glanz et al., 1998).
 Cluster 2 Cluster 3
Nutrition
Cluster 1 (n ¼ 29) (n ¼ 46) (n ¼ 31) Cluster 4 (n ¼ 41) information
Food-related Value concern Enthusiastic Moderation Unconcerned conscious
lifestyles group group group group χ2
behaviors
Gender (n ¼ 146)
Male 7 (24.1) 15 (32.6) 17 (54.8) 17 (42.5) 6.975
Female 22 (75.9) 31 (67.4) 14 (45.2) 23 (57.5) 1635
Total 29 (100) 46 (100) 31 (100) 40 (100)
Age (n ¼ 146)
20-29-year old 14 (48.4) 24 (52.2) 14 (45.2) 16 (40.0) 9.116
30-39-year old 4 (13.8) 11 (23.9) 7 (22.6) 12 (30.0)
40-49-year old 9 (31.0) 8 (17.4) 6 (19.4) 7 (17.5)
50-59-year old 2 (6.9) 2 (4.3) 4 (12.9) 5 (12.5)
60-year old and
above 0 (0.0) 1 ( 2.2) 0 ( 0.0) 0 ( 0.0)
Total 29 (100) 46 (100) 31 (100) 40 (100)
Marital status (n ¼ 142)
Married 13 (44.8) 20 (44.6) 16 (51.6) 15 (38.8) 2.646
Single 16 (55.2) 25 (55.4) 15 (48.4) 24 (61.2)
Total 29 (100) 45 (100) 31 (100) 39 (100)
Education (n ¼ 146)
High school 26.572*
diploma 4 (13.8) 6 (13.0) 4 (12.9) 9 (22.5)
Some college 10 (34.5) 15 (32.6) 8 (25.8) 5 (12.5)
Associate’s degree 8 (27.6) 5 (10.9) 0 ( 0.0) 4 (10.0)
Bachelor’s degree 5 (17.2) 17 (37.0) 14 (45.2) 19 (17.5)
Graduate courses 0 (0.0) 2 (4.3) 2 (6.5) 0 (0.0)
Graduate degree 2 (6.9) 1 (2.2) 3 (9.7) 3 (7.5)
Total 29 (100) 46 (100) 31 (100) 40 (100)
Annual household income (1,000 won)a (n ¼ 146)
Less than 25,000 1 (3.4) 11 (23.9) 5 (17.2) 5 (12.5) 16.322
25,000-49,999 10 (34.5) 17 (37.0) 8 (27.6) 15 (37.5)
50,000-74,999 14 (48.3) 11 (23.9) 8 (27.6) 13 (32.5)
75,000-89,999 2 ( 6.9) 5 (10.9) 3 (10.3) 6 (15.0)
90,000 or above 2 (6.9) 2 (4.3) 5 (17.2) 1 (2.5)
Total 29 (100) 46 (100) 29 (100) 40 (100)
Frequency of eating out in a week (n ¼ 146)
None 0 (0.0) 4 (8.7) 3 (9.7) 4 (10.0) 12.976
1-2 times 11 (37.9) 22 (47.8) 18 (58.1) 18 (45.0)
3-4 times 14 (48.3) 18 (39.1) 8 (25.8) 11 (27.5)
5-6 times 2 (6.9) 2 (4.3) 1 (3.2) 5 (12.5)
More than 7 times 2 (6.9) 0 (0.0) 1 (3.2) 2 (5.0)
Total 29 (100) 46 (100) 31 (100) 40 (100)
Monthly expenditure on eating out (1,000 won)a (n ¼ 146)
Less than 100 4 (13.8) 9 (19.6) 5 (16.1) 6 (15.0) 12.198
100-199 6 (20.7) 15 (32.6) 11 (35.5) 14 (35.0) Table IV.
200-299 8 (27.6) 18 (39.1) 10 (32.3) 13 (32.5) Results of cluster
300-399 8 (27.6) 4 (8.7) 3 (9.7) 5 (12.5) analysis for
400 or above 3 (10.3) 0 (0.0) 2 (6.5) 2 (5.0) consumers’
Total 29 (100) 46 (100) 31 (100) 40 (100) demographic
Notes: a1,000 won is about US$0.94. *po 0.05 characteristic
BFJ This result in this study implies that this group tends to highly regard family
118,7 involvement, frequently eating out, eating out as socializing, and the importance of value.
Placing high importance on product information and price are also distinguishing
characteristics of this group; however, these are limited to purchasing food products in
retail stores and not applied to ordering food items at a restaurant. There might be a gap
between retail stores and restaurants when it comes to purchasing food items, because
1636 purchasing food at a restaurant can be influenced by other factors such as the
environment, service, music, or the purpose of the visit (Barta, 2008; Choi and Zhao, 2010;
Mikkelsen, 2011). Therefore, restaurants that utilize an appealing atmosphere and
services for consumers would consider consumers’ FRL less compared to restaurants
that offer meals in a daily setting. Consumers who look for environments for social events
would less consider nutritionally healthy food compared to meals at home.
The “personal value concern group” was not interested in either nutrition
information-conscious behavior or most nutrients. This group placed importance
on value and comfort food that can secure their preferences or eating habits. This
group consists of less-educated individuals compared to the other segments. Value
in food can be perceived differently by various individual lifestyles (Wycherley
et al., 2008). It seems that members in the “personal value concern group” are
certainly sincere in their lifestyle; however, their sincerity did not connect to
nutrition information-conscious behaviors. It might be why they did not recognize
how the value of such behaviors might relate to them. The most important elements
of food can be taste for this group; taste was the most important and the bottom line
for consumers when they evaluated food choices (Glanz et al., 1998). Restaurants
offer tasty food besides nutritionally healthy food, since there is always one
segment of consumers who will look for what they like rather than what is healthy.
A good mix of tasty food for those unconcerned about nutrition and nutritionally
healthy food should be on a menu to cater for the different characteristics of
consumer segments.
The “unconcerned group” showed no interest in body satisfaction, but showed
similar interest for nutrition information-conscious behavior to the “enthusiastic
group.” This group did not seem to care about FRL and nutrients; however, their
nutrition information-conscious behavior was not as low compared to the other
segments. This “unconcerned group” could potentially be encouraged to seek nutrition
information-conscious behaviors; they might not be ready for certain aspects of
nutrient consciousness, since they might not know each nutrient’s effects. This group is
undecided as to what FRL steps they should take to lead a healthy life and showed
unconcerned behaviors. This result was similar to the “passively healthy” group’s
tendency not to do unhealthy behaviors and to do exercise, but was unconcerned with
what they ate (Glanz et al., 1998). For this group, restaurants could try to offer
specialties both in regular recipes and with healthier ingredients, so they could then
decide either of these choices.
Interestingly, eating out frequently was not shown to have any significance among
the four segments. Food items served at restaurants were criticized for leading to
obesity; however, this study found that eating out has no influence on FRL market
segment. It was known that strong tendencies to prefer snacks vs meals were found
among obese people (Popkin, 2006). Hence, it can be concluded that it is time to stress
an individual’s responsibility for their own health problems, including obesity, rather
than forcing the responsibility on to restaurants. Another interesting finding of this
study was the significant body satisfaction differences among the four segments. An
individual’s opinion of their body image or body fitness can be a good indicator for Nutrition
their FRL and nutrition information-conscious behavior at a restaurant. If consumers information
satisfy their body and eat out for socializing at a restaurant with a good atmosphere,
they would not consider nutrition information at the restaurant or nutritionally healthy
conscious
food. The results of this study offer that consumers’ FRL affects their food choices, but behaviors
restaurants should be ready for all different kinds of consumers with the types of food
that they like. It could be tasty, nutritionally healthy, or something else that consumers 1637
deem important. Although variety is important for restaurants, nutritional information
is well received by consumers and restaurants should prepare for consumers seeking
nutritionally healthy food.
Using an FRL instrument to determine nutrition information-conscious behavior
allows drawing interesting conclusions; however, the limitations of this study should
be noted for future studies. First, this study used a convenient sample of Korean
consumers, thus the results cannot be generalized to all other countries. In addition, the
sample size was small even though it was sufficient to conduct such methods when
analyzing the data (Hatcher, 1994). For future studies, a bigger sample size should be
used for generalization of the result so that it can be adopted in FRL health behavior
studies more broadly. Second, as mentioned earlier, nutrition knowledge levels should
be measured along with the study. Furthermore, educational intervention can be a good
way of investigating the importance of knowledge when it comes to reading nutrition
information when ordering food at a restaurant. In addition to education intervention
and the knowledge levels, future studies should investigate the self-efficacy of reading
or understanding food items’ nutritional information. Third, body satisfaction used in
this study was merely based on subjective opinion on a five-point Likert scale.
Body mass index should be measured to narrow the gap between personal opinions
and the subjectivity of body fitness in relation to FRL.
Lastly, this study asked for intention about nutrition information-reading
behavior when ordering food at a restaurant. Hence, future studies should measure
such behaviors in actual settings to obtain accurate phenomena in healthy
eating behaviors.

References
Anderson, D.A., Shapiro, J.R. and Lundgren, J.D. (2003), “The freshman year of college as a
critical period for weight gain: an initial evaluation”, Eating Behaviors, Vol. 4 No. 4,
pp. 363-367.
Barta, A. (2008), “Foreign tourists’ motivation and information source influencing their
preference for eating out at ethnic restaurants in Bangkok”, International Journal of
Hospitality & Tourism Administration, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Boslaugh, S.E., Kreuter, M.W., Nicholson, R.A. and Naleid, K. (2005), “Comparing demographic,
health status and psychosocial strategies of audience segmentation to promote physical
activity”, Health Education Research, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 430-438.
Brunsø, K. and Grunert, K.G. (1995), “Development and testing of a cross-culturally valid
instrument: food-related lifestyle”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 22 No. 1,
pp. 475-480.
Buckley, M., Cowan, C., McCarthy, M. and O’Sullivan, C. (2005), “The convenience consumer
and food-related lifestyles in Great Britain”, Journal of Food Product Marketing, Vol. 11
No. 3, pp. 3-25.
BFJ Byrd-Bredbenner, J. and Abbot, M. (2008), “Psychographic segmentation of mothers of young
children using a cluster analysis of food decision influencers”, Nutrition Research, Vol. 28
118,7 No. 9, pp. 506-516.
Choi, J. and Zhao, J. (2010), “Factors influencing restaurant selection in South Florida”, Journal of
Foodservice Business Research, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 237-251.
Cranage, D.A., Conklin, M.T. and Lambert, C.U. (2004), “Effect of nutrition information in
1638 perceptions of food quality, consumption behavior and purchase intentions”, Journal of
Foodservice Business Research, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 43-61.
Droms, C. (2006), “When I go to eat I want to enjoy myself: an investigation into consumers’
use of nutrition information”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 33 No. 1,
pp. 282-283.
Finkelstein, E.A., Trogdon, J.G., Cohen, J.W. and Dietz, W. (2009), “Annual medical spending
attributable to obesity: payer-and service-specific estimates”, Health Affairs, Vol. 28 No. 5,
pp. 822-831.
Glanz, K. and Bishop, D.B. (2010), “The role of behavioral science theory in development and
implementation of public health intervention”, Annual Review of Public Health, Vol. 31
No. 1, pp. 399-418.
Glanz, K., Basil, M., Maibach, E., Goldberg, J. and Snyder, D. (1998), “Why Americans eat what
they do: taste, nutrition, cost, convenience, and weight control concerns as influences on
food consumption”, Journal of the American Dietetic Association, Vol. 98 No. 10,
pp. 1118-1126.
Goetzke, B.I. and Spiller, A. (2014), “Health-improving lifestyles of organic and functional food
consumers”, British Food Journal, Vol. 116 No. 3, pp. 510-526.
Hatcher, L. (1994), A Step-by-Step Approach to Suing the SAS® System for Tactor Analysis and
Structural Equation Modeling, SAS Institute, Inc., Cary.
Henry, F.J. (2004), “The obesity epidemic-a major threat to Caribbean development: the case for
public policies”, Cajanus, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 13-21.
Hyde, R. (2008), “Europe battles with obesity”, Lancet, Vol. 371 No. 9631, pp. 2160-2161.
Johnson, F. and Wardle, J. (2005), “Dietary restraint, body dissatisfaction, and psychological
distress: a prospective analysis”, Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol. 114 No. 1,
pp. 119-125.
Josiam, B. and Foster, C. (2009), “Nutritional information on restaurant menus: who cares and
why restaurateurs should bother”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 876-891.
Jun, J., Kang, J. and Arendt, S. (2014), “The effects of health value on healthful food
selection intention at restaurants: considering the role of attitudes toward taste and
healthfulness of healthful foods”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 42,
pp. 85-91.
Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2010), “Korea National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey (KNHANES V-1)”, Korea Health Statistics, Ministry of Health and
Welfare, Seoul.
Kwak, N., Kim, E. and Kim, H. (2010), “Current status and improvements of obesity related
legislation”, Korean Journal of Nutrition, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 413-423.
Lang, R. and Jebb, S.A. (2003), “Who consumes whole grains, and how much?”, Proceeding of
Nutrition Society, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 123-127.
McArdle, W.D., Kaith, F.I. and Katch, V.L. (2001), Exercise Physiology: Nutrition, Energy, and
Human Performance, 5th ed., Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, PA.
Mikkelsen, B.E. (2011), “Images of foodscapes: introduction to foodscapes studies and their Nutrition
application in the study of healthy eating out-of-home environments”, Perspectives in Public
Health, Vol. 131 No. 5, pp. 209-216.
information
Miller, J. (2005), “Wellness: the history and development of a concept, with particular attention to
conscious
tis American roots”, Spektrum Freizeit, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 84-102. behaviors
Misra, R. (2007), “Knowledge, attitudes, and label use among college students”, Journal of the
American Dietetic Association, Vol. 107 No. 12, pp. 2130-2134. 1639
Moorman, C. (1990), “The effect of stimulus consumer characteristics on the utilization of
nutrition information”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 362-374.
Muenning, P., Jia, H., Lee, R. and Lubetkin, E. (2008), “I think therefore I am: perceived ideal weight
as a determinant of health”, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 98 No. 3, pp. 501-506.
O’Sullivan, C., Scholderer, J. and Cowan, C. (2005), “Measurement equivalence of the food related
lifestyle instrument (FRL) in Ireland and Great Britain”, Food Quality and Preference,
Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 1-12.
Ogden, C.L., Carroll, M.D., Kit, B.K. and Flegal, M.F. (2014), “Prevalence of childhood and adult
obesity in the United States, 2011-2012”, The Journal of the American Medical Association,
Vol. 311 No. 8, pp. 806-814.
Patel, S.R. and Hu, F.B. (2008), “Short sleep duration and weight gain: a systematic review”,
Obesity, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 643-653.
Pérez-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 five
European countries”, Appetite, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 156-162.
Popkin, B.M. (2006), “Global nutrition dymanics: the world is shifting rapidly toward a diet linked with
noncommunicable diseases”, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 84 No. 2, pp. 289-298.
Scholderer, J., Brunsø, K., Bredahl, L. and Grunert, K.G. (2004), “Cross-cultural validity of the food-
related lifestyles instrument (FRL) within Western Europe”, Appetite, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 197-211.
Schröder, H., Covas, M., Elosua, R., Mora, J. and Marrugat, J. (2008), “Diet quality and lifestyle
associated with free selected low-energy density diets in a representative Spanish
population”, European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 62 No. 10, pp. 1194-1200.
Steffen, L.M., Jacobs, D.R. Jr, Stevens, J., Shahar, E., Carithers, T. and Folsom, A.R. (2003),
“Associations of whole-grain, refined-grain, and fruit and vegetable consumption with
risks of all-cause mortality and incident coronary artery disease and ischemic stroke: the
Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study”, American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition, Vol. 78 No. 3, pp. 383-390.
Story, M., Neumark-Sztainer, D. and French, S. (2002), “Individual and environmental influences
and adolescent eating behaviors”, Journal of American Diet Association, Vol. 102 No. 3,
pp. 40-51.
Vartanian, L.R., Smyth, J.M., Zawadzki, M.J., Heron, K.E. and Coleman, S.R.M. (2014), “Early
adversity, personal resources, body dissatisfaction, and disordered eating”, International
Journal of Eating Disorders, Vol. 47 No. 6, pp. 620-629.
Wycherley, A., McCarthy, M. and Cowan, C. (2008), “Specialty food orientation of food related
lifestyle (FRL) segments in Great Britain”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 19 No. 5,
pp. 498-510.
Yoon, H.J. and George, T. (2012), “Nutritional information disclosure on the menu: focusing on the
roles of menu context, nutritional knowledge and motivation”, International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 1187-1194.
Zapka, J.M., Lemon, S.C., Magner, R.P. and Hale, J. (2009), “Lifestyle behaviors and
weight among hospital-based nurses”, Journal of Nursing Management, Vol. 17 No. 7,
pp. 853-860.
BFJ Further reading
118,7 Anderson, W.T. and Golden, L.L. (1984), “Life style and psychographics; a critical review and
recommendation”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 405-411.
Knutson, K.L. and Cauter, E.V. (2008), “Associations between sleep loss and increased risk of
obesity and diabetes”, Annual New York Academy of Science, Vol. 1129 No. 1, pp. 287-304.

1640
Corresponding author
Jinkyung Choi can be contacted at: choi3728@wsu.ac.kr

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.